Pangloss

I didn't make a claim, I expressed an opinion about general tendencies in American politics. If you don't think that opinion is valid then you'll have to do better than "um, no". Yup, and this Muslim community center has a mosque in it, and will promote a Muslim message to the local community, just as the Y promotes a Christian message. Which should be fine, IMO, but these people apparently have a problem with that. You're welcome to continue to point out that hypocrisy, but ignoring the religious angle is probably not the best approach. Jackson, you don't get to choose which hypocrisies your opponents point out. That'd be like Bush saying "well yes I said that I don't believe in nation-building, but when I decided to invade Iraq my decision wasn't based on the concept of nation-building." Of COURSE it wasn't based on the concept of nation-building -- when does one country invade another just to "build a nation"? Duh! So the contradiction is there nontheless -- he stated opposition to the concept, then he used the concept himself. The fact that it later became a nation-building exercise out of necessity (instead of intent) doesn't mean that no nation-building has taken place. Here we have the ideological right supporting the usurpation of property rights by the government. The contradiction is clear (though I certainly agree it doesn't apply to all conservatives). Best you can do is continue to explain why you think they're superceded in this case. Here's the problem with generalizing -- I get to hold you to those generalizations. You're condemning an entire religion based on the acts of some of its more extreme followers, while letting other religions that have the same sort of extreme followers off the hook. So now you can back it up: Please provide examples of the entire Islamic faith attempting to overthrow the US government, destroy our economic structure, humiliate our women and children, and any (not even 100, any will do) more "items". It doesn't seem to be turning out that way -- you haven't been able to construct a valid refutation of the points I've raised. But I still support their right to object and their right to have the concerns that they have, and I support a less provocative, more constructive approach than the one that the Mosque/Islamic Center's supporters have chosen. 9/11 was not orchestrated by the Islamic equivalent of the Pope. Osama bin Laden does not represent the world's 1.3 billion Muslims in any way, shape or form. You mean like virtually every cathedral in Central and South America?!

That would have been a nice gesture, but as I understand the problem of the NYC real estate market it would have been a massive economic failure, sending a completely different message. But the new building is supposed to be taller than the previous structures at the symbolic height of 1776 feet with spire, versus the old apparent height of 1,368 feet, or 1,727 feet to the top of the antenna that was atop one of the old buildings. Um, yes. Nice try, though? (Seriously, that's it?) And a mosque, according to your own source. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm

Of course. But your argument isn't with me, it's with conservative libertarians, who don't acknowledge that point. You said that no conservative "is worried about private property rights in this case". "No" is an absolute -- you spoke for all conservatives -- and therefore required a response. I'm not arguing against their right to object, I'm arguing against their objection. Which, as you just said, is my right to do. And I noticed that you didn't acknowledge that the 1st Amendment is a direct refutation to your statement that the Islamic religion and culture are not compatible with the Constitution. Darned inconvenient at times, that Constitution. That argument would carry more weight if opponents agreed to call it an Islamic center instead of a mosque. Not that the name change wasn't an example of spin by its supporters, but if the argument is against culture rather than religion, then opponents need to drop the arguments that are directly aimed at the Islamic religion, such as the history argument (e.g. "for thousands of years Muslims have put monuments at the sights of their victories", etc). And if that doesn't represent your view then perhaps you should re-think your earlier attempt to speak for all conservatives. Sure, and if you want to talk about how hypocritical progressive liberals have been on this issue I'm happy to go there with you. They sure seem to love supporting religious freedom when it's NOT christians, don't they? Any other time it's whoa nellie, somebody stop the crazies! But that's neither here nor there. As I said, I'm not arguing against their right to object, I'm arguing against their objection.

Which makes them hypocrites if they believe private property rights to be an absolute. Right, which has been arbitrarily determined to include two blocks away and not four blocks away. Like I said, there are some deeply ingrained (albeit not very logical) beliefs amongst conservatives on this issue. Sure there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_amendment 100% consistent. ------------- Aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddd right on queue, the Obama Administration issued a "clarification" today. A comment which will almost surely generate more criticism from the far left. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/14/AR2010081401796.html?wprss=rss_print

Sure, you seemed to be asking whether it's fair for the United States to regulate immigration (at all). To answer the question, I pointed out that every other country does it (not direct evidence, but it certainly suggests that others have found it to be a reasonable thing to do), and that we allow more of them than anybody else (suggesting that we're more fair than anyone else, if by fair you mean allowing more people in).

Assuming I read your post right (your question seems to be asking about overall immigration policy, not the Arizona law in particular, but if I'm wrong please correct me), if it's not justified then it will have to be changed for every other country as well, because every other country controls its borders and regulates who can enter and why. And, by the way, the United States allows more legal immigrants each year than every other country in the world -- combined. Those two factors would seem (to me, at least) to point to a simple answer to your question of "yes".

Great post, Sisyphus. And that was interesting, catching up on the thread just now and watching you take a short trip from lashing anger to recognition that anger won't accomplish much here. That's where I went with this as well, from initial anger over FNC's trumpeting and my conservative friends' dogmatic reactions, to seeking some sort of tolerance middle-ground. (Though I have another bit I can "toss out there" while we're planning ParanoiA's next encounter with his conservative friends (grin): Ask them how they justify this objection with their staunch believe in preventing government interference the rights of private property owners!) Getting back to the point, in particular my bold bit from the OP, I've talked to enough *moderate* conservatives on this issue to know that they're *well aware* of the arguments on this issue, and *still* think it's provocative, mean-spirited, and possibly part of some sort of general effort to produce more Islamic fundamentalists within the US. This perception is deeply ingrained and won't be changed overnight. And it won't be changed via direct provocation.

I'm not sure what's more interesting here, the story about the mosque or the story about how it's become a national focus. Fox News has been running this issue up the flagpole for weeks, if not months, and with their popularity amongst conservatives it's hard to say that the issue has been purely a NYC local one. On the other hand, when the President of the United States comments on an issue it does tend to bring addition focus to the story. So I guess question #1 here is: Is Politico right? And if so, is this another example of the Obama administration responding/reacting to stories that are being driven by Fox News Channel? It seems that way to me, and I think it's a mistake for him to do that, especially if the reaction he continues to put forth is so decidedly left of center. Challenging opposition is great, but finding common ground is better, especially if he wants to win back moderate swing-voters. I guess question #2 is: Is building the mosque a good idea? My opinion is that it's not a good idea, but that it has to be allowed. As Jon Stewart pointed out the other night, there's another mosque in the neighborhood so it's not exactly a new thing. The only problem with it is that it's unnecessarily provocative. There's been an undercurrent of anger and lashing-out in some parts of the American Islamic community in recent years and I think they're making a mistake in pushing that element to the forefront. IMO the concerns people are expressing about Islam are misplaced and indicative of American misunderstandings about that religion. But the sensitivity is understandable, just as it's understandable for followers of Islam to be upset about their treatment since 9/11. The challenge is to find common ground, not a new battlefront. What do you think?

I can't find the video now but I believe Jon Stewart recently blasted conservatives saying that they were obsessing over around 7,000 children. But a new Pew study out this week says that actually 1 out of 12, or about 8% of the children born here each year, have parents who are in the country illegally. That's about 340,000 children. Not a small number at all. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/?hpt=T2 The 14th Amendment guarantees their citizenship. But a recent groundswell of support has appeared amongst some Republican politicians to push for changing this with a new amendment that would overwrite that specific portion of the 14th amendment. My opinion is that it's a distraction from the main issue, which is passing comprehensive immigration reform. The logical common ground on that issue is clear -- make the border reasonably secure and provide a path to citizenship for those already here -- and supported by a majority of Americans in most polls, but it can never quite get done because of extremists exerting pressure on politicians (or so it seems to me). (On the plus side, the House did pass a new bill providing 1500 more border agents this week.) If the border were reasonably secure then anchor babies would be a rarity instead of such a huge number, and the issue would be moot. What do you all think?

Dak, just to bookend this, I don't think there's a single thing that could be found in those documents that could change public opinion about the already-stated timetable for withdrawal, and I'm opposed to leaking information that undermines intelligence operations and puts people at risk over a stated political agenda. In my opinion that's not just a slippery slope, it's sliding a long way down it and inviting the Other Guys to do the same (and raise the ante further) when they get back into power. But I respect your opinion on it, and just to find some common ground, I agree that secrecy frequently goes too far, and I have no problem with people using this data now that it's out there to analyze what's happened and look for fault.

Sounds right. In terms of the tax cuts, for the GOP that's a wagon with no horse. There's no reliable evidence for positive economic impact, and although I completely agree that out-of-control entitlement spending is the real problem, our bills are already overdue. Pay them, then cut spending, then cut taxes. I'll read the rest of his article as soon as I can.

You're not being asked to. We already made an informed, democratic decision whether to continue. Mistaken civilian casualties (when such were already known to exist) hasn't change this, and would not have, under any realistic political environment in this country. The documents have had no impact on government policy nor public perception, nor will they. That's the thing that really bugs people like Julian Assange -- the fact that people aren't as stupid as he thinks they must be. We made an intelligent decision with eyes open and nothing about that has changed. The ONLY reasons public sentiment has turned against the war is longevity and expense. It's been a long time since 9/11, soldier deaths have affected people we know (affecting stamina), and the economy sucks. Pretty much anything the government supports is going to get a low approval rating today. But even if he'd found another Mai Lai Massacre, it wouldn't have made any difference, for reasons that I doubt Julian Assange will ever understand. The American people simply aren't as prone to that kind of simplistic reasoning (like saying that an event like the Mai Lai Massacre is a valid reason for departing a conflict) as the world's True Believers would like for them to be. Not from the left OR the right. Julian Assange didn't give me that choice, and I'm not giving it to you either. In this hypothetical, Rush Limbaugh says you're uninformed, and he's decided that you need to know this information and that's that. You're out of luck, because Rush Limbaugh says so. I said that the intelligence operations don't have a political agenda, and are tasked with objectively reporting truth to those in charge. You responded (in post #83, right at the end) by saying: Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding? There's a paragraph change in there as well; sometimes such things can be unclear.

Yeah not a real fast runner, I'm guessing. (Not that I'm one to talk.)

Julian Assange's stated motivation was ending the war in Afghanistan, so objective reliability is not applicable to either he or Limbaugh.

On Tuesday "The Hill" (a newspaper that reports on political events in Washington) posted an interview with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who took the opportunity to blast what he called the "professional left". http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left Gibbs took a tremendous amount of flak over this, but it's the truth. The situation is no different from what we saw under George W. Bush, with the right wing upset because of bipartisan efforts even though moderates were abandoning the GOP in droves because they thought he was too far to the right. IMO it's centrists win elections. Not partisans. The best THEY can do is pout at home and cause the opposition to win. What do you all think? Couple articles looking at the reaction today and Gibbs' response: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013389-503544.html http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-Lypz8M2ebUXWtYScVGX3btdy9wD9HHNJF80 http://abcnews.go.com/WN/white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-back-harsh/story?id=11378661

Because of his stated ideological motivation I would actually call him the WORST choice to make this call. But okay, why do you feel he's more qualified to release classified documents to the public than, say, Rush Limbaugh? I agree that those are the choices. I challenge the premise -- that documents need to be released. Note that not one single case of malfeasance is alleged here -- the accusation is IDEOLOGICAL -- that it's bad policy. In short, he's refusing to accept the decision of society (made through a valid election and appropriate representative actions), and taking matters into his own hands. This is why I made the comparison with terrorism earlier in the thread, though in hindsight I agree that he may not have INTENDED there to be human consequences. But it's still taking policy into his own hands. That doesn't strike me as a sound, rational course of action that should be pursued on a regular basis. They did. They assigned it secret status, restricted its access to personnel who were required by law not to reveal it to the public, and someone broke the law and did it anyway. Not because of fraud or illegality or other malfeasance, but because they disagreed with this policy. Why? Because the war in Afghanistan is unpopular? Great, so now I'll ask you again: What happens when someone objects to abortion, or the new health care plan, or illegal immigration, and decides to act on that belief by releasing secret documents that put people's lives in jeopardy? Would you still support that action then? Please provide evidence that our intelligence organizations are spinning the facts about Afghanistan and not showing the truth to the White House. (Or re-read what I wrote.)

I'm no expert here (so it's not like I'd release any documents, because, you know, I'm not qualified), but all they'd know in that case is that the names were fake; it wouldn't tell them what the real names were, right?

But how is Julian Assange qualified to make that determination? His stated motivation is opposition to the war in Afghanistan. How is that different from someone who's motivation is that they don't like socialized medicine? Or illegal immigration? Or abortion? Doesn't it make more logical sense to say "do not touch" and "applies to everyone, period"? How does this guy -- this guy in particular -- become qualified to look at classified documents and decide which ones are dangerous and which ones are safe? And here's something I keep wondering: What if the information he released tied in with other information that was already out there that he simply wasn't aware of? For example, what if the documents he released called informants "Number 37", "Number 38" and so forth. But another document, released earlier that he either forgot about or wasn't aware of, listed all the numbers and linked them to names and addresses? That's the sort of thing that secret organizations do, and they're also designed to keep track of that sort of thing and prevent accidental releases of information. They don't always succeed, but they're designed to do the job, and more importantly, they don't have a stated political agenda. They're objective, at least in so far as they are designed. But it doesn't even matter because we know there are names in there. He can't know one way or another that those people are safe, so he blew it, and he blew it big time. -------------------- Apparently I'm not the only one who feels Assange went too far. International human rights organizations are now piling on, urging Assange to censor the documents that have already been released. (I guess they don't think Al Qaeda knows how to copy and paste.) http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100811wikileaks_urged_to_censor_leaked_files/

I've only heard little bits and pieces so I was hoping some of our UK friends could fill us in. Here's a brief example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129112347 One thing I haven't heard yet is what the Liberal Democrats think, since as I understand it Conservatives can't hold power without their cooperation. (Or am I behind the times on this?)

Bleh, that one's coming up subscriber for me now. WSJ is pretty annoying about that stuff, sorry about that. The for-profit thing was a sidebar anyway. The main article in the OP is still available without subscribing. I agree with the point about investing in employees -- that's always seemed like a shortcoming to me as well. I've worked for employers who did that, and employers who didn't, and it seemed like the former category did better over the long run. It seems to run hand-in-hand with the bit about promoting from within. (I also get pretty tired of MBAs who think they know everything. But that's another story.)

Thanks, try this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100806-711721.html

The term "for-profit institution" covers a lot of ground, including virtually all trade schools that teach specific skill sets, such as cooking, mechanical service (auto, airplane repair, etc), electronics service, contractor's schools, and so forth. Many of these types of institutions also qualify for Federal financial aid, and have in recent years and in many examples been conglomerated and consolidated into large corporations (example). My reasoning behind lumping them together with for-profit institutions that offer bachelor's degrees (i.e. they focus on general education and attempt to conform to standards for communication and broad knowledge) is that they are lumped together by the Department of Education as a sector and attacked for its practices. This is not without merit, however, and precedes the Obama administration. We saw an example of that here last week with a local Kaplan campus whose parent company shut down enrollment after unethical recruiting practices were uncovered (including citing regional SACS accreditation ("jus' like Harvard") when they really had national ACICS accreditation, and coaching students through entrance exams). But Bush precedent and logical concerns notwithstanding, there is a strong perception (shown in dropping stock values) that the Obama administration will more-vigorously pursue for-profits. This article supports the notion that while a reasonable prosecution of violators makes sense, an ideological attack is probably not a good idea. Not only does the for-profit sector employ a great many people directly, it also generates employees for critical jobs that are currently going unfilled (though not, of course, when those employees got coached in their exams!). (That wasn't intended to be the main point of my OP, but I'm happy to discuss it further. Really what I was looking for here is discussion about appropriate training and qualifications and whether that's holding back the economic recovery. The media seems more focused on corporate hoarding and unemployment compensation, but I think this article indicates a larger, and more interesting, story.)

Fascinating piece in today's Wall Street Journal, and no, it's not a claim that unemployed Americans are sitting high on the hog with unemployment compensation and refusing to look for work. Some conservatives won't like this article because it shows that the people are disconnected from the demands of businesses. Some liberals, like Paul Krugman, an "economist" who's busy today blasting Republicans, because it doesn't support the narrative about evil corporations hoarding cash. Check out this chart, based on statistics from the US Department of Labor: This quote is fascinating: So what's broken? Well there appear to be two stories here: Qualifications and allure. Education and training appears to be a problem for filling many jobs. Gee, good thing the Obama administration is going after for-profit institutions, which is the only sector of education that trains these kinds of employees. Good luck getting Microsoft or Cisco certification, or training for a contractor's license, at a state university. In other cases the jobs just aren't attractive enough to draw applicants. The employer may not be able to raise wages because of international competition, and the job just has no allure. What do you all think? Here's a link to the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895004575395491314812452.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Why wouldn't he?

Sure, but the example I gave earlier was that a right-winger might object to the way the economy is being run -- hardly a trivial example. Better than letting the pawnage increase unchecked. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It's been widely reported that there are names in the documents. The only thing we don't know yet is whether those individuals are in danger, safe, already dead, etc. But obviously if we don't know then Julian Assange doesn't know either, so he obviously either he considered the release of these documents to be more important than protecting their identities, or he simply made a mistake. A mistake is not acceptable because this is not his job, and in fact he's specifically barred from this job (by every single country in the world) because of the danger that he might make exactly this sort of mistake. (sigh) Come on, Jackson, you thought the administration was dysfunctional before it even took office. You'd think he was playing too much golf if he even looked at a club, and you'd think he was ill-advised if aliens from Alpha Centauri landed and handed him a copy of Encyclopedia Galactica. Be fair, man.