Pangloss

Okay, but in what way is not charging them as an adult equivalent to telling them that they're not responsible for their behavior? What is it specifically about the juvenile justice system that you find problematic in this regard?

Well that's cool, but just to be clear I'm not attempting to dodge responsibility for my vote. In retrospect it was a bad choice. But I'm questioning whether, given my personal preferences on the issues in 1999/2000 and the input that was available, I could have been able to determine that it was a bad choice at the time. Nice slur on my character, thanks a lot. But you've missed my point completely, which is that based on unbiased, NON-spun sources in 2000 I had no objective reasons not to vote against Bush in 2000 that had any relationship with what subsequently happened. There was no particular reason to think that he would react to 9/11 the way that he did, suspending key civil rights and taking us to war against a third party and ignoring key evidence telling him he was wrong about WMDs. It's easy for left-partisans to sit back and say "vote Democrat and you'd never have had this problem". They can just cast slurs like the above around and say "see, we told you so", when in fact they did nothing of the kind. What they did was tell us that voting for Democrats was the answer to all of our problems. That told us nothing of value. Nothing.

So... you're not willing to just agree to disagree on this, then? You actually want me to respond on the issue of whether my argument is relevant?

I didn't think I was voting for an immature child at the time. The reason I didn't think so is because any evidence to that effect was obscured by the rampant partisanship that forced open-minded people like myself to view such evidence with a massive grain of salt. The fact that, oh I don't know how about Michael Moore, turned out to be correct is just pot luck and I wasn't about to believe what he said at face value at the time. That's one of the reasons we have to clean up this partisanship and put it behind us.

He's just saying the same thing I was saying. You want the problem tackled "head on", and we want it done over the long term through education. If you want to agree to disagree, then let's move on.

So who's playing this, now that it's out? I started on it last night, having been delayed by Call of Duty: World at War (another interesting title). I'm only a couple chapters in but it seems like a great game. I guess my only complaint is that it gets a bit familiar pretty quickly. Kinda like Assassin's Creed did.

I was talking about judicial restraint. I said we shouldn't be legislating from the bench (which is judicial activism, the counterpart of restraint, falling under the same general subject), and you replied that you considered the activism argument "stupid" because their case does not have a "meritorious argument". But judicial restraint has nothing to do with whether the issue under consideration is meritorious -- in fact it is often applied even when it is crystal clear that judicial action is warranted. The judiciary prefers to allow lawmakers the power and flexibility they need to make proper laws, only intervening when absolutely necessary. This is a good thing. So you see it as righting an obvious wrong, and they see it as "legislating from the bench." That's politics for you. I think we should focus on education instead of orders and demands. We should accept California's decision, watch public acceptance continue to grow, and by ignoring the offer of battle, eventually win the war. But hey, that's just my two bits on it.

I agree, and kudos to congressional Democrats for rejecting their nonsense this week and requiring the makers to produce a logical plan and projection for this bailout. I think this is just more evidence that the entire first and second tiers of management and the board of directors of any firm that accepts bailout money should be immediately terminated regardless of past performance. I know that sort of thing would take a few good people with it now and then, but they can be hired back by interim management on the basis of merit. The more I think about that idea, the more I like it.

Yes, I was talking about an amendment to the US constitution. No, those are broad definitions and this would be a specific one, so it wouldn't be open to interpretation. No matter how contrary it is to the concept behind the above, there would be nothing the Supreme Court could do about it. Is it likely? It doesn't appear so, but my point was that with virtually every national politician opposed to gay marriage, pushing harder doesn't sound like a good idea. Judicial restraint is not a stupid argument, and it works in your favor as often as it does to your detriment. I wonder if you realize you're riding a popular bandwagon just like the people you're railing about. You just rejected my hearts-and-minds argument in favor of legally forcing other people to do things your way. Right or wrong, do you really think that's the best way to win this fight? That's what gets the left in trouble with the right more than anything else, this notion that if you just fix all the laws the way they're supposed to be, and make that the new status quo, the right will relax and, over time, come around to proper way of thinking. That's a stupid argument. And it's one that has consistently failed, not only unsuccessful in winning over any hearts and minds, but single-handedly giving voice and footing to the very thing it hoped to stamp out, in the form of conservative talk radio, Fox News, etc. There are now 23.5 months until the mid-term election. Do you think it would be better to use them to continue the gradual progress that has already been made on this issue (as reflected in poll after poll), or do you think it would be better to swing for the fences and hope to knock one out of the park, knowing that the fence is a good 600 feet away and the pitcher just put his hand to his mouth while the umpire was looking the other way?

Yes. But like I said before, if the people want it enough to make a constitutional amendment to enforce it, no court in the land can do anything about that. The amendment could later be rejected, but that also would be an act of the people. Like I said, we need to focus on hearts and minds, not legislating from the bench. People don't like getting pushed around. The heart of what Severian is saying above is just as valid as what you're saying.

Nuanced for face-saving reasons only, in my opinion.

Would you like to have a friendly wager over whether Obama will pardon Bush?

Um. On second thought, I'm quite wrong. Pardon me.

Let's get off this definitions issue, please. Yes, we have a representative government, it's reasonable in modern context to call it a "democracy", and that is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Alleged crimes. Quote all the "truth" you like; pardons are in the Constitution for a reason. Whether Bush would agree or not, we have due process and a right to a fair trial. Whether or not he's "held accountable for his crimes" is actually significantly less important than the danger of a political (i.e. corrupt) prosecution. Take a look at how the Roman Republic came to an end some time. Retributive prosecutions were a major cause for the loss of consular ability to lead their country. By the end nobody could be consul without automatic prosecution the very next year. (Sound familiar in any way?) Pelosi understands this, and so does Obama.

Am I wrong, though? From that same article:

I wouldn't plan on that. Nor would it be a good idea. As much as the left hates Gerald Ford, the Nixon pardon was the best thing he did while in office. The country cannot afford retributive prosecution of former leaders (and that's not what the laws are for anyway).

"Roger & Me" is also Moore's rawest and most compelling work. I'm guessing he's in favor of the bailout? That's ironic, albeit not very surprising. Bailouts are very appealing to many on the far left, which pretty much lives in belief that money grows on trees and jobs are a right rather than a privilege/opportunity. It's an area where they differ radically with many of their new fellow Big Tent dwellers, though.

I didn't mean that to be curt, I meant it to be non-committal. I don't think you're wrong in your analysis at all, and I've no idea how this will go.

Fine, ban it and see what happens. All I'm saying is that if you ask the question "hey, what's the worst that could happen?", you may not like the answer.

It's a tougher call at this level because now we're talking about taking away the people's right to choose how they wish to be governed. We need to win people's hearts and minds on this issue, not browbeat them into submission. Most people are still opposed to gay marriage. Perhaps we should just live with the fact that some states are going to be opposed to the idea for a while longer, and settle for the fact that other states will allow it. Progress is progress. Push too hard and you could see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that the US Supreme Court could do nothing about. Remember, most Democrats are also opposed to the idea. That doesn't mean an amendment is likely, but I think it's a valid concern. But there's the Progressive Way rearing its head again, ready to stimulate the far right back into action, eh? Push, push, push, never say die, our way or the highway. How far away is that mid-term election again?

I think it was discarded, and what we see today are various degrees of compromise -- there's no pure socialism anywhere either, just as there's no pure capitalism. This is perhaps a matter of definitions, but the point is that unilateral ideologies are a thing of the past, in my opinion. I don't think we ever will be. Whether that's an intelligent rejection or simply a matter of not being tolerant of the humanitarian shortfall, I guess that's a matter for opinion too.

Obama is opposed to gay marriage as well. Like all politicians with national constituencies he supports civil unions instead. Even if you see that as a ruse to get elected, it says a lot about where the people stand on the issue.

What changes do you believe WILL take place during the next four years? Note that I'm not asking you what you believe should happen, I'm asking you what you believe WILL happen. Taking into consideration political realities, economic and social realities, both at home and abroad, what do you think Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress will actually accomplish? I'll start off with my own predictions: - Assault weapons ban - Ending "don't ask don't tell" (75% of Americans now support the idea of gays in the military, versus 45% in 1993) (this requires congressional approval, btw) - An end to the ban on embryonic stem cell research - Closing of Guantanamo Bay - Some sort of sweeping health care reform that reduces or eliminates the number of people who have no coverage - Some sort of sweeping immigration reform involving greater security and a path to citizenship for those already here illegally - Some sort of sweeping fix for the current financial aid crisis in education And I hope some sort of progress on balancing the budget. Some things I do NOT think will happen: - Gay marriage - Legalization of marijuana - An end to affirmative action - Complete withdrawal from Iraq before 2011 What do you all think?

I vaguely remember agreeing at the time that the AWB was flawed. I think it's going to happen, though. Almost a sure thing, IMO.