Pangloss

I'm not sure that staying there can accomplish the goal of making sure they practice it the way we want. What we appear to be heading towards is a situation in which we help them establish the kind of democracy that Iran has. Let me put it this way: If the situation becomes one in which the US forces are only allowed to attack Sunni insurgents, then what will the US actually be doing at that point, politically speaking?

Well I think one of the reasons why threads like this perpetuate is because people feel justified in making statements like "white guilt is valid". This is a good debate.

Sure, they want us to stay. That was their reason, too, up until recently, when the government decided to stop trying to kill Al'Sadr and instead ally itself with him and start ordering American troops to back off from the Shi'a militia forces that he controls. Now their reason is that our presence is helping them to establish the Second Shi'a State, vassal to Iran. Is that what we're there for?

Is it just me, or does the situation in Iraq suddenly look a lot more grim this week? American politicians right now are debating whether to send more troops or begin to schedule a distant withdrawl timetable. But I'm getting a vibe here that that decision is about to be made for us. I could be wrong, of course. It's not just the escalation in sectarian violence that has me thinking this. The fulcrum, if you ask me, is the Iraqi government ordering us not to intercede on behalf of Sunnis. After which they promptly swoop with a death squad in faster than you can say "pogrom". Watch to see if the "more troops" option comes off the table this week. If it does I wouldn't be surprised if the reason turns out to be a behind-the-scenes "thanks but no thanks" phone call from Baghdad to Washington. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I posted against the measure on the first page of this thread. I see it as two wrongs making a right. I respect the other side, though, and certainly empathize with the sentiment. It is a little surprising that so few people are taking that view, I agree.

Well if we did it wouldn't be the first time. But I guess the more important question will be whether the REST of the world is willing to do something about a nuclear armed country, or if they'll just sit back and throw mud, and then castigate the US when it does something.

Wow. More statistics showing the profit margins of pharmas in "lofty territory". Imagine that.

Interesting. On my part that comes movies about the Old West -- The Searchers, Shane, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, etc etc etc. But of course much (if not all) that happened in early America was imported from elsewhere; mainly Europe. So that wouldn't surprise me if it was true. I'm holding off from the larger discussion for a moment to give others a chance to speak up, but I appreciate the clarification.

Cute.

Uh huh. I hear there was a typo in thread #30972, post #26539. If you hurry you can post a correction.

Whoa nellie -- please define "equality". Because there's a whole lot of inequality that I consider to be not only healthy in our society, but downright necessary.

Just to clarify (although I think you understood me), I wasn't trying to say that the North eliminated slavery due to intelligence, I was trying to say that their economic success was due to intelligence. I don't mean that in a relative sense, either, I'm just complimenting those who made intelligent in that environment. It's an interesting point about the economic situation, and I'd like to read more about it. I consider myself pretty familiar with the war period, but not as much with the pre-war economic environment, other than the superficial situation that all the history books cover in passing before launching right into Fort Sumter. (Suggestions for further reading are always appreciated in this forum, by the way.) Fair enough. The last thing I want to do is put words in anyone's mouth. I don't think your post implies racism; I'm ok with your post on that basis. In fact I think you also have a valid point. But I also disagree with your conclusion -- I don't think it's necessarily the case that it's "slowing the progression of society", and I don't "abhor the blending of cultures in our society". In short, I respect the concern, but I don't share the fear.

I thought it was curious that it was in English as well. But since it's just text and voice-over it was certainly easy enough to re-do it in English. Perhaps they did it for a competition or something. It was great stuff, thanks for passing it along.

So? My statement was that that this is "lofty territory", so this statistic is irrelevent for two reasons. It doesn't show us a percentage of the total companies, and more importantly, it isn't restricted to companies with revenues >~$10 billion (which would include all of the top ten pharmas). When you enter that information into the screener, the result is a whopping 45 companies. That's 2.5% of the total you posted, or 12% of the total listed companies with revenues greater than $10 billion. As I said, lofty territory.

Well that'll raise a few hackles. I can think of a few things wrong with that argument just off the top of my head. I don't think the North's success can be pawned off as "greed and transcendentalist mentality". Clearly it's more like "intelligent and motivated self-interest". And the South was hardly immune to greed. I think you also oversimplify the motives and intentions of modern African-Americans, and saying that if it wasn't for slavery they wouldn't be here today is an awful lot like saying they should be grateful for having been slaves. That kind of apologism doesn't carry well because, as you say, slavery was wrong. And it simply isn't necessary to make that kind of argument in order to also make the point that affirmative action and reparations are detrimental and unjustified.

Indeed, thanks for passing along the technical bit, Dak, and the UK perspective. It does sound like there are a lot of differences between how that's handled over there versus over here. I think part of the problem may lie in the fact that this issue has been tossed to the back burner in recent years. There was a sharp decline in DUI-related fatalities for a couple of decades, and Americans may have come to view the issue as "solved". But of course it wasn't, and as a result these kinds of accidents are on the rise again. Another aspect of the problem lies in our reliance on the automobile as a mode of transportation. In most of the country that can often be the ONLY viable means of transportation between work and home. Obviously that's not true everywhere, of course. One aspect of this that kinda surprises me is the psychological angle of skirting the interlock. If something like this were to happen to me I would *embrace* the opportunity to prove myself sober and responsible again. I'd want that sucker installed in my car as fast as humanly possible. Sure, there's embarassment involved, but I'd see that as part of the price I'd have to pay for my MONUMENTAL failure to take responsibility for my actions. The point being that I think we're seeing a psychological aspect of the problem displayed in these numbers. People don't want to admit they made a mistake, try to hide that error from people, and prefer to pretend like it never happened. Which of course is exactly why it happens all over again.

Yeah I've never been comfortable with the "go do a search, dummy" thing either -- I think we're pretty good about that here. You see that all the time on discussion boards and the commonality seems to rise in proportion to the amount of traffic. One example of this that I have to deal with on a regular basis is the AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com), which is one of the largest home theater boards. If you ask just about ANY question, you are immediately pummeled with half a dozen "go search you dummy" replies before you can blink. It's very unwelcoming, because it means that unless you're a regular, EXTREMELY current and frequent visitor (so you know exactly what people have been talking about deep inside existing threads), you can't post anything on any subject at any time. And in my view the search feature in vBulletin actually requires some skill and experience to use effectively, and its results page has ALWAYS been very confusing. It can be very daunting and over-informative (not to mention counter-intuitive) until you understand what it's trying to do. It's great that it's in common use, so people can apply that skill on other boards (the AVS Forum I mentioned above uses the same software). But if they don't have that skill/experience then they may actually have a very hard time finding information. Another common happening with vBulletin is that people will run a search, find nothing, and then post a message, only to be met with "Search Scorn", either because the information is there and they just missed it, or it's not there and the Search Nazis are skimming and shooting from the hip. There's nothing wrong with telling people that we have threads on that subject already extant, though, you just have to be polite about it. Also there's nothing wrong with passing by a thread and hoping that someone with a little more time and/or patience will respond to it. It doesn't make you unfriendly, IMO.

You blow into it and it measures your blood alcohol level. If it's below the threshold, it releases the ignition. I'm not sure how it actually detects blood alcohol level, but perhaps someone here can explain that part of it.

Right, but basically what they're saying is that they aren't registering cars. They're saying they don't have one, and then using one that's registered in someone else's name (say, a spouse) to do their daily commutes, etc. What would have to happen to fix that would probably be creating a criminal penalty for aiding a convicted drunk driver in this manner. But that would be another example of a restriction that the ACLU would object to, because these things are expensive and obtrusive, and the person who would have to install it hasn't necessarily done anything wrong (yet). For example, let's say the drunk loses his job because of the DUI conviction and his car was totaled in the accident that resulted in his conviction. He has to get to work somehow and he can't afford a car at the moment. I'm not trying to generate sympathy for drunk drivers, mind you, I'm just pointing out the inherent problems with this kind of approach. I think people are hearing what MADD is saying and thinking that it's a solution. It's not a panacea -- I think it has to be part of a larger strategy.

This story has been making the rounds the last couple days since MADD launched its new initiative. Basically they're pushing for legislation that would force all first-time DUI offenders to install ignition interlocks on their cars. The story has gotten a lot of play, but with very little counterpoint. For example, the ACLU would presumably oppose this measure, which would set left against left in an interesting political correctness showdown. I haven't seen any discussion on that point. Mostly reporters are just rebroadcasting MADD press releases. The idea does have a lot of appeal, but this interesting article from the AP wire today shows that this is perhaps not such a black-and-white solution after all. http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/52551.html To summarize, New Mexico has been doing this for some time, but they've noticed that only roughly half of the offenders actually install the units. While that sounds like it would be something easily enforced, what's happening is that the offenders are lying to judges, saying things like "I don't own a car" or "I was just borrowing a friend's car", etc. I suspect that this is one of those ideas that sounds great on paper, but in reality, as one person in the above article says, it has to be combined with other efforts, as part of a larger strategy. I'm sure MADD sees it the same way. Incidentally, did you know that the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a... father?

Hahaha... nice catch.

The Iraqi police seem to get one of the worst deals on the planet right now. The best job in town for an Iraqi in terms of a regular paycheck and legal disposition, and yet slammed from both sides by rampant violence AND rampant corruption. It's quite a story, and I hope to read more about what's happening with those folks at some future point in time. Yeah the US forces just re-did Baghdad, to little effect. Regarding participation, if memory serves they weren't allowed to provide security during the first election, but did so during subsequent elections. That's the national force, however, not local militia units, which would have, of course, only allowed members of their religion to vote.

Sure we did. I'm sure every single insurgent had a purple finger. They maybe zealots, but they aren't stupid. Actually it's not "negotiation" that we need at all. They're really not the "negotiating" type, after all. What we need to do is play politics such that we end up working towards similar purposes, or basically cause them to drive themselves out of existence. THAT's how the Great Game is played, when it's played right. To paraphrase one of my favorite movies, negoatiation is for losers, just like military intervention. First place is the fate of the free world. Second place is a set of steak knives. Freedom is for closers.

Two wrong turns don't get you to your destination. They just get you more lost.

I'd have to disagree with that -- I've seen little in the way of new ideas or more than simple disagreement with the president. He followed the party line very closely and none of what you list there is unique or even particularly promising or even realistic. What I think is happening with Obama is that he has such a broad base of appeal that everyone finds something to like. What's interesting to me is that nobody is talking about Obama's ideological position, which is quite far to the left. He trots out phrases like "we can send a man to the moon but we can't feed everyone here" which are generally a sign of demogoguery and/or incomprehension of technical subjects. But those concerns aside, I find him compelling as well. In fact, just because I'm opposed to soclialization doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider voting for him based on other factors, up to and including my impressions of him as a person.