Pangloss

Well it wouldn't be the first time I've gotten an analogy backwards, but it's really beside the point. The Union wasn't in the right just because it lost fewer people, was it? Didn't that have a little more to do with a little something called slavery? Were the British right to try and keep the American colonies just because they had fewer casualties (I don't recall if they did)? Is the only reason why Americans are often judged to be in the wrong regarding Vietnam the fact that more Vietnamese were killed than Americans? Really? Vietnamese sovereignty has nothing to do with it? Does it make any sense at all to make an argument along those lines?

In fact public opinion was a mandatory requirement for the passage of every amendment to the constitution (including the first ten). Not by law, but by practical reality. Not one of those amendments would have passed -- including prohibition AND its ultimate repeal -- without the overwhelming majority of Americans being firmly convinced that it was absolutely necessary. And again, my only point here is, metaphorically speaking, that we should be careful what we wish for, lest we get it and experience unintended consequences. I understand that such an investigation and even a conviction could take place without the walls coming a-tumblin' down. I'm just saying that in my opinion, based on my personal study of politics and history, this is an overriding concern. You're more than welcome to feel otherwise.

Do we have any information (NOT from Amnesty International) about why they don't use that type of alternative?

Right, but I'm still not clear what alternatives exist for their weapons that don't use the stuff. Someone mentioned earlier an alternative to smoke grenades. Perhaps alternatives exist for all the items in their inventory. Perhaps not. Do you know? And if you don't know, aren't you rushing to judgment? Straw man. I gave them no such free reign. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The Union lost more men in the American Civil War than the Confederacy. Does that put the Union in the wrong in that conflict? The Allies lost far more armed men and civilians in the Second World War than the Axis. Does that make the Allies in the wrong in that conflict? Proportionality goes to a measurement of magnitude, not a measurement of responsibility. Using it to assess blame is one of the most illogical (and, tragically, most common) arguments in modern international politics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Smoke pots are great when you have access to the stage and the roadies haven't noticed yet that the clock has struck 4:20. Delivering tactically useful smoke into a crowd of militants half a mile away and of variable location sounds like another matter to me.

Well sure, hate all you want, it's a free country. But I guess I'm still not clear on what it is that I'm supposed to get so hot and bothered about.

I think you've misunderstood me. I responded to Mokele's direct statement that your earlier-posted cartoons were themselves a direct disparagement of minorities. I'm not making any assumptions here -- I'm the one asking the question, remember? I see no ethnic stereotyping in the above. Perhaps you could point it out to me. I don't understand this one (above), so I can't say whether it's racist or not. I'll give it some more thought. I've linked your third and fourth ones below, but they're not showing up for me at the moment. Maybe they'll appear when I post this, and if so I'll take a look at them and add my reaction. (Edit: They're still coming up blank, unfortunately. I'll check back later.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well you said "disparaging minorities", which sounds like an accusation of "racism" to me, but I guess if you want to focus on hatred and bigotry that's fine with me. I still don't see any evidence of what you're accusing him off. And my answer to your final question is a clear and unequivocal "yes". Why wouldn't I? Just because I don't like hearing it? I can summarize my feelings on that subject with a single image:

As opposed to what? Bear in mind that "nothing" is not an appropriate answer here. War itself is not a war crime, much as Amnesty International would like for it to be so.

Of course it can. And it's happened before.

Couple interesting polls out, showing mixed results for the new administration. In general his approval rating remains very high, as is perhaps to be expected given the short time frame, but he's clearly having difficulty conveying certain aspects of "change". Republicans are being hammered over the issue of who's compromising and who is not. This is not surprising, though, and actually more or less part of the Republican game plan at the moment -- taking an obvious hit now, while they're already down, in exchange for a potential payoff down the road if Obama's economic plan fails. One interesting thing that's come up is a sharp contrast between the results of the Rasmussen poll and the ABC poll over the same issue. Interesting! The blurb above from The Weekly Standard goes on to show why this might be -- apparently the poll questions were very different. The ABC poll asked whether respondents support the government assisting homeowners in avoiding foreclosure, whereas the Rasmussen poll asked whether the government should subsidize financially troubled homeowners. Some might view that as slanted polling banging off uneducated proles, but I actually look at it the opposite way -- people are smarter than pollsters give them credit for, and are actually trying to express a deeper understanding of the problem than the poll allows them to do. Put another way, respondents are sympathetic with struggling homeowners and willing to help them to SOME degree, but are upset with the large degree being undertaken by the government and the vast amount of money it's going to cost them over the long run, when 90% of them have done nothing wrong. But either way it does seem to point to the fact that these are major changes. On the other hand, they're not permanent ideological shifts, they're temporary economic measures, and these poll suggest that Obama will only lose support if the program fails, not before. No buyer's remorse just yet -- it has to fail first. Seems fair enough to me, though it certainly won't appease the ideologues -- if anything making them even more unhappy, since they think people should do what they say regardless of outcomes. What do you all think? http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162651.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/two_polls_on_obamas_mortgage_p.asp

I didn't say it was the right thing to do, I said that's the way it is. While the mob can't exactly drag him out and string him up, it CAN pass an amendment to the Constitution overriding any law or constitutional guarantee this country has EVER had. That's the danger of demagoguery, but it's also symbolic of the fact that power in this country ultimately resides with the people. Which is why you want good people going into government, and why you don't want those people to be afraid that there's a demagogue (like Congressional Democrats screaming for a Bush "investigation") waiting around the corner of every unpopular decision.

I have no problem with any of those cartoons from iNow's post. I see no sign of racial disparagement in any of them. Do you?

I disagree -- the court of public opinion is always the ultimate arbiter, right or wrong, in a democracy, since that's ultimately where the power lies. Just ask John McCain.

Wow dude, are you serious? There's a reason the "9/11 truthers" are chastised for using those kinds of arguments. Can we stick with evidence and reason, please, instead of delving into speculation and conspiracy theory? Please? It's not up to us to find "evidence that contradicts your guess". If you want something to be established as fact for the purposes of action to be taken, then the burden of proof is on you to support your guess. And you know it. How can you even say something like that, here, of all places? Nothing wrong with this opinion, and I agree that this relationships should always be subject to inspection and review. More power to you. As I said, I don't think that case has been made. It is, as you put it above, a "guess". A guess is not enough for me to form an opinion on, especially in the light of Amnesty Internationals predisposition to rush to judgment on issues such as this. Of course. Their bias isn't pro-palestinian, it's peace-at-all-costs. It's the usual far-left catch-22 of "we love freedom except when we have to pay for it by giving up peace".

Why is it a dichotomy at all? We can't do both? Pointing out a distinction is different from forcing a choice.

Do you want to investigate wrongdoing, or do you want to string up the bad guys from the nearest low-hanging branch? Those are two different things.

It's even more interesting when you consider how powerful the Republican party is in state politics. Our national representation (which has a lot of representation from Democrats) somewhat belies the state picture, which is rather solidly Republican. They've been in control of the state legislatures (which of course the governor has to deal with) for many years now. But the budget situation has really knocked things out of whack. Republicans in legislature were everyone's darlings for the last four or five year when we were running surpluses, but now of course it's a different story. We're something like $5 billion in the red, and we're near the top of the list in foreclosures, have skyrocketing unemployment, and the whole tourist industry is in trouble. I don't like the fact that the states are getting bailed out by the federal government with printed money that isn't backed by income (who does?). But if that's what's going to be done then it needs to get done and I don't appreciate the party casting aspersions on Crist when it's not his fault we're in a recession. I'd trade the lot of 'em for another Charlie Crist in a heartbeat. I don't mean to dwell on Florida politics, btw, I just think it's an interesting example of some politicking that is probably taking place along similar lines in a lot of states right now.

Do you want to put a stop to it, or do you want it declared a war crime? Those are two different things, each with its own accompanying political can of worms. Both are interesting questions to consider, IMO. Is there any evidence of this?

In what way? Not sure what you mean here.

Oh of course, that does make sense -- when people are making more money, tax collection goes up, and vice-versa, right alongside GDP. Thanks.

I appreciate the reply. Yes, I think Amnesty International is often wrong. That's interesting about the alternatives to smoke grenades. I'd like to see more information about the realistic alternatives to various munitions in modern urban combat. Surely if reasonably effective, safer alternatives exist, then they should be used. I don't think that the above makes the case about war crimes at all. But you did say "potentially" and I don't really have a problem with that.

Now that's interesting. I thought taxes were based on MY income? Does that come from the language that states what the tax level should be? Do you know where that language comes from, by any chance? I'd be interested in hearing more about it. You're right, that would be appropriate, although it was clearly also used for the effect I described.

I haven't seen any evidence that they used it for the chemical effect on humans, rather than as an incidental part of their normal weaponry, e.g. smoke grenades. Do they even make smoke grenades that don't use white phosphorus? (What would you make such a thing with, and wouldn't that thing be just as bad for humans to come in contact with?) How is it "potentially a war crime" if it's a secondary effect as part of existing, established weaponry, and not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention even though it's been in use since the 1920s?

Well since you ask I feel obliged to reply, but I feel like a party pooper in just repeating my refrain of "have fun storming the castle". Like I said, you can certainly toot this horn all day long, I just don't think it will go very far in the end. But I've been wrong before, and I really have no problem at all with your reasoning. In further answer to your inquiry, no, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached. In my opinion it was a pointless, partisan waste of time and money (though it certainly doesn't seem like so much in terms of post-bailout dollars, does it?). I also don't think such things are necessary. Neither man's crimes have gone unnoticed or unaddressed, so it's not as if they got away with anything. I would have advised Republicans not to impeach Clinton because even if it had resulted in a conviction and a removal from office it would not have resolved a single thing and would have created a further rift standing in the way of future bipartisanship (as it was, even without the conviction). And that's exactly how Obama is being advised today. He believes in change. This is not change, it's more of the same. The thing of it is, ultimately what rules this country is not the Constitution or the rule of law. It's actually the willingness and ability of individual men and women who are willing to stand up for what's right and ignore negative and distracting influences that stand in the way. Bush failed -- he's already been judged. So to slap Bush around some more and then pat ourselves on the back and call it a day would be a violation of their trust -- an undermining of the men and women we need to have in government. What we need to be doing is figuring out what went wrong and then work hard to prevent it from ever happening again, not punishing people the crowd point at just because they may have conveniently broken a law or two along the way. ("He's out of office? Somebody get a rope!") That's why I harp about recrimination and precedent. iNow calls it a slippery slope argument, and I recognize that he's not wrong, but then so is any argument about precedent, and yet precedent is the very centerpiece of the American justice system. In this case, in my opinion, we need to break the cycle of recrimination against the previous administration before it sets in. We need to make sure that the extremists never have that kind of voice, no matter how popular the opinion may be, because once we cross that threshold there won't BE any more well-intentioned men and women going into government to "do the right thing". And then there won't be anyone willing to stand up before the crowd and tell it something it doesn't want to hear. But will that happen just because we prosecute George W. Bush? I admit it may not. If there's one thing this country is good at, it's going well beyond the brink of potential disaster and yet somehow managing to find a solution anyway.

I am about one thousand percent more engaged than the average American, and I didn't know it was in there until a reporter reported on it. And nobody else here knew about it either. How do I know to "look it up in the bill" if the bill is directly stated to be about something else entirely in the first place? I don't think that taking advantage of a massive spending bill to sneak in a little of this or that just because they know it'd be a huge fight when the real budget comes around is detrimental and certainly in opposition with at least the concept of transparency. Direct opposition. And I think that's not the kind of "change" we were promised. I'm not really interested in swapping out one form of trickery for another.

So does that mean that you feel that the exposure of the NSF funding to a reporter was a bad thing? That I should have known that funding was there and stated my objection before it was headlined? Because if the answer to that question is "yes", then you're saying that one type of transparency is good, but another type of transparency is bad, because it threatens a specific type of spending that you happen to approve of.