Pangloss

I think I need to correct something from the first post of this thread: I don't believe the pilots have been fired. Pilots do not load munitions onto military aircraft. They're actually not qualified to do it -- they wouldn't know what to look for (most munitions look more or less alike from the outside -- that's by design, and these advanced cruise missiles look exactly like the same model without nuclear warheads). From the article: I can definitely understand why someone might think that that means that the pilots were relieved of duty, but I believe the article is actually referring to ground crews. Plus the squadron commander, of course, who is most certainly a pilot, but he's also in charge of the ground crews. But if someone hears otherwise (that the pilots specifically have been relieved) please reply accordingly -- I'd be interested in hearing it. I don't mean this as a criticism of the OP, by the way -- I follow aviation matters, just as a hobby, so it's a significant distinction to me. The far more important question, of course, is why this happened and what can be done to stop it from happening again.

Cherish classes like that. Nothing is more interesting than a professor who's off the reservation. I once took a class on "US History Since 1865" at Georgia Tech which was taught by a guest professor from one of the nearby black universities. He spent the first half of the class talking about slavery (yes, in a class about US history SINCE 1865!), and the second half of the class talking about the civil rights movement! Nothing about two world wars, Vietnam, the technological or industrial revolutions, etc etc etc. But it was a great class! Really prime stuff. This guy'd actually LIVED it, and was more than happy to share. Turned out to be one of the best courses I ever took. Second place would have to go to a course I took on the physics of space and time taught by the famous David Finkelstein. He wasn't just off the reservation -- I think they gave him his own little bit of the space-time continuum to commute from. But holy cow -- every lecture was like the best episode of Nova you've ever seen. Funny thing is, those are about the only two courses I even remember taking at that vaunted institution.

Some amusing and interesting replies in this thread. I'd say that's one good reason right there to think that western civilization may still be alive and kicking. Just to expand this a bit, I think some people have responded to this on a level of "well it's no more danger than they face at summer camp". A medical team was standing by, for example, and some of these parents might not have seen a distinction. But I think it's very revealing to look at the difference between this and summer camp. Summer camp isn't just supervised, it's organized, adult-lead activity. This Kid Nation thing wasn't even supervised -- the adults were under specific orders to do nothing unless someone actually got hurt. Put another way, would you send your kid to a summer camp that told you it was going to stand there and watch while your child poured a bottle of bleach down its throat, and only THEN do something about it?

An interesting point. I would add that this interest in government involvement also varies a bit from subject to subject. Ask a liberal how much government involvement there should be on the subject of marijuana use, for example. Then ask a conservative the same question. It's hard to be ideologically partisan without being a hypocrit at some level.

I've been following this "Kid Nation" controversy for a while now, trying to form an opinion. Or rather trying to find a reason not to believe that the end of western civilization has arrived. As you may know, CBS put together this thing as a reality show featuring children who were basically at a run-amok summer camp without adult supervision. A kind of real-life Lord of the Flies scenario. For money -- a $5,000 stipend, with a chance to win more. Children as young as EIGHT were allowed to participate. And the parents willingly signed their children up for this. The same sort of parents who would probably bring a lawsuit if the nearby public school were to serve ground beef on its day of expiration willingly signed contracts guaranteeing their children a chance to compete in a contractually-stated "dangerous environment" where the child might actually DIE. What the heck were these parents thinking? Interesting blog feature on this: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/09/how-cbs-should-.html

"From a social perspective", huh? Don't you just love it when the catalog tells you right up front that you'll be dealing with bias in the classroom?

Misunderstandings happen, thanks for clarifying that. You and bascule are both touching on something that in my view does lead in the right direction -- holding Israel accountable for its position and stopping it from continuing to use what I would call "two wrongs" reasoning in its ongoing conflict with Palestinians (not always, mind you, but it seems to happen all too often). I think we've gone a long way towards answering the OP's question.

As I indicated earlier in this thread, I asked a specific question on that very point. Geoguy speculated on the exact same point that you just raised, and I responded by saying that's fine, but would you also cut off arms sales? I believe that answers your question above. As for the "reasonable argument", I provided that as well: The simple fact of the need for air superiority in any modern conflict, coupled with Israel's dependence on US aircraft, which, as I indicated, fly or not fly based absolutely on the supply of spare parts, is a reasonable and well-reasoned argument for why it would not stand on its own. This is just one example, but it has yet to be rebutted. By anybody. On a discussion board reputedly populated by people who believe in logic and deductive reasoning. Instead all I get is podium-pounding avoidance like the above. YOU may "just call it trade", but there's plenty of precedent for our ENEMIES calling it SUPPORT. And while you and I may not give a rat's patootie what the enemy thinks, the question was what excuses will our enemies use. I don't know if this was in response to me or if you were just widening to include your own opinion (which is cool), but just to be clear, I haven't made an argument that they do deserve our unconditional support.

Well as I understand it that's what we've been doing. The problem lies in what happens when the Israelis fail to meet their obligations. It ends up being a toothless requirement, and that means the Israelis know it's toothless to begin with, so they can ignore it. Not saying it's a bad idea to attach strings -- absolutely we should keep doing that. But I think something more is required, and I'm not really sure what that would be. I don't think anybody else is either, and therein lies the rub. One thing is for certain -- our divisiveness doesn't help here. The Israelis know full well how our two political halves work, and are more than willing to benefit from that whenever they can. Many countries do this, in many different ways.

I'm working on a PhD in information systems and information security. I'm thinking about pursuing an MBA after that. I want to find out if it's true that achieving an MBA causes actual decay in brain matter, similar to the effect of long-term use of LSD, affecting primarily the areas of basic cause-and-effect reasoning and simple mathematics (e.g. accounting).

Ok, I apologize for posting a false dichotomy. Had I realized it at the time, I wouldn't have posted it. Frankly I still think you're copping out. I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel could "stand on its own". But hey you could be right. Aliens could land from Mars on the day after we cut Israel off, too, and Arabs and Israelis could unite in defending the Earth from them. Or hey, maybe they have money trees there. And ammunition trees, and laser-guided munitions trees, and F-16 RADAR trees, and .....

I realize this isn't an original thought, but I've been wondering if there's something to the notion that the main reason for spiraling healthcare costs is that a kind of feedback loop has developed between legislators, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical interests, and insurers. Each "solution" ratchets up the cost a bit higher. A capitalist might blame that on legislation ("don't even think about socialized medicine -- look how bad it is already!") and a socialist might blame that on greed ("don't even think about avoiding socialized medicine -- look how bad it is already!"), but really what may have developed is something in between the two -- a kind of happy place where all parties get richer except the people stuck in the middle.

In order to be a "false dichotomy", it has to actually be false. It hasn't been demonstrated yet that if we withdraw support Israel won't necessarily die. You copped out and ignored the reply. Mind you, it doesn't even require proof, it merely requires any sort of reasonably demonstrative position to the contrary -- surely there are other possibilities? If you can't argue something like that, then it's not a logical fallacy. It is, until demonstrated otherwise, a reasonable opinion. Geoguy posted a promising counter-argument, but it was rebutted. He chose to ignore that reply, therefore the pointer in this little array remains solidly fixed on "No US military sales = Israel dies". I'm still waiting for a valid counter-argument. And I'm not going anywhere. Please feel free to take your time. When someone has demonstrated it to be a false dichotomy, I recommend you observe what I do about that. I think you'll find it instructional. It's called "apologizing", and it's what sincere people do. Hint, hint. I'm glad you feel that way, because while I haven't committed any logical fallacies (yet), you've committed several in recent threads, and I've yet to see you apologize for them or commit to end them.

Pardon me, I thought you were talking about bascule's link. I understand you now, thanks.

I disagree with the statement that if you don't believe in god you're forced to think for yourself. I see people on this forum every day who will post in one thread about the wisdom of specific scientific investigations, and then five minutes later post in another thread that Bush was absolutely responsible for 9/11, or that aliens landed in Roswell in 1947, or that multinational corporations have destroyed the world (we just don't realize it yet). I've also met plenty of perfectly sane, intelligent people who also happen to have utter and irrevocable faith in god. The point being that avoidance of religion is no guarantee of either intelligence or insight.

CDarwin, can you clarify what you're suggesting, please? How does the CIA enter into this?

That's an inaccurate description of events, but since you've answered my question (below) I'll happily help you out of your little Iraq by moving forward. Of course it's mutually supporting. Convenient, isn't it? Do we even need to ask Andrew Card whether he can corroborate Gonzales's testimony that Ashcroft was lucid and attentive? Please, I've got a big red bridge over San Francisco Bay if you're interested. I'll even get you 3.5% with no closing costs! And pay no attention to the falling concrete. The answer to your question is that you should trust neither Comey/Mueller nor Gonzales. But you have elected to trust one party over the other (Comey/Mueller). In my opinion that is a mistake. I'm not making two wrongs a right, and I'm not even disrespecting your opinion. I'm simply pointing out that you're cherry-picking facts that are attractive to you because of ideological predisposition, and that in fact you lack sufficient evidence for anything LIKE "trust". That's it.

It wasn't a question, it was a statement, and it was an accurate one, not a logical fallacy. And my suggestion to you is that if you don't like logical fallacies, then help me continue to set precedent here by joining me in not using them.

The attorney general has always been the president's "sock puppet". Why is it that Republican attorney generals (attorneys general?) are "sock puppets", but Democratic ones aren't? One of them was the president's BROTHER, for pete's sake. Janet Reno was arguably one of the most obbious sock puppets in the entire history of that office. (Socks puppet?)

Relax, I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating a counterpoint. There's no need to lash out. It's pretty obvious that if your airplanes don't have spare parts, they simply aren't going to fly for very long. IMO this is a valid refutation of your statement that Israel does not need the US for survival. I welcome any response to that point you may have.

Nice work in this thread, SkepticLance.

I can rebut that in five words: "Airplanes fly on spare parts."

Bascule, stop dodging and don't change the subject. You owe me an answer to my question about Mueller's follow-up interview with Ashcroft (while he was still sick!), and you're not getting squat from me until you answer it. As for Comey, I didn't say he was wrong, I said I have no reason to take his word on faith. You're assuming he's correct, accepting his story, questioning nothing, and you're doing it in spite of the fact that this man is a Republican appointee and therefore your sworn enemy, so you're doing it not because he's trustworthy but because he's telling you something you want to hear. If he were saying something you didn't want to hear you'd be ignoring him or casting aspersions on his credibility. That makes your comment spin-doctoring, not fact-finding. As to whether there is reason to doubt, how about the fact that Comey stated that Ashcroft, who was supposedly so ill he couldn't make decisions, in fact actually did make a decision -- DENYING Card and Ashcroft's request! That's by his own statement that you've already accepted. And then he was MORE than happy to let Mueller interview him as well! I don't think you're interested in getting at the truth here at all, I think you want to support the facts that support your predetermination, and pretend the rest don't exist. That may cut it at DemocraticUnderground.com, but it doesn't cut it here. I have a higher expectation here, and so should you. Actually FISA might have given then the warrant anyway. Well, that was James Bamford's speculation, if memory serves. The phrase "blanket warrants" kept coming up when this was in the news earlier. I'm sure opinions vary on this, but it does raise an interesting question, which is whether we would ever have heard about wiretapping Americans making overseas calls if FISA had approved such warrants. My personal opinion is that tapping calls to suspect countries would be consistent with other monitoring methods. But I think it's high time we Americans got off our duffs and had a discussion about what's okay and what's not okay, instead of sitting back, doing nothing, and then acting all surprised when someone takes the decision out of our hands.

Cop-out.

One of those things the late night talk show hosts live for.