Pangloss

That narrow view is not supported by Congress or the politics of the situation in Washington. You're forgetting that the general word from Congress is "we support what you're doing, we just don't like the WAY you're doing it". What will likely happen is that the dozen or so detainees who are presently scheduled for military tribunals will instead receive court cases under special conditions determined by an agreement between the executive and legislative branches. If the administration perceives that that went well (i.e. a reasonable number of convictions were obtained, and no key secrets were revealed that they didn't want revealed), then the other 200 or so detains will receive similar treatment. There's popular opinion, and then there's governmental action. Never make the mistake of assuming that one leads directly to the other in all cases.

One of the surprising aspects of smoking bans has been the increase in patronage at bars and restaurants that previously allowed smoking. It seems that the ban has shown owners an aspect of their business that they did not previous realize. But that doesn't make it right. If we find (just for the sake of argument) that no health problems are caused by second-hand smoke inhalation, then it should not be banned from businesses like restaurants and bars. People should lose all their rights just because they become business owners, and it's ridiculous how far we've gone in that direction in this country. Today it's secondhand smoke. Tomorrow it'll be trans fat. Then it'll be all meat. After that it'll be whatever politically correct thing happens to be en vogue. We're DICTATING what business owners can or cannot sell to OTHER people! We might as well be forcing people to go to CHURCH on Sunday! What's the difference? If the patrons don't like it, they can go somewhere else. That's called FREEDOM. Another thing that always irks me about the left's support for smoking bans is that the left also ostensibly supports drug decriminalization. Why is it okay to ban smoking but allow the use of mind-altering drugs? The hypocrisy of this is outrageous.

Well perhaps, but it also raises the issue of putting things into perspective. Part of the reason we're okay with seat belt laws is that we accept the necessity of driving (i.e. we'd be safer if we never drove at all, but we accept some degree of risk because we have to get around). But a lot of times when these statistical studies get released to the public no perspective is offered, we're just told, flat-out, that popularThing_X causes cancer_Y. It's not necessarily the fault of scientists, it's also the media, but you can't exonerate scientists either since they make more of a name for themselves the bigger the issue is. And I say "perhaps" because I'm not convinced that statistical analysis is the same thing as "science". I'm not saying that epidemeology isn't a valid field of study, or that it hasn't contributed to improving health in the world, I'm just saying that you have to balance statistics with cause-and-effect investigation, regardless of how difficult it happens to be, before you can call it science. I'm not even saying that you should never ban something just because you can't acquire "science" on that basis -- may there are times when you have to err on the side of caution. But that should be the EXCEPTION, and today it seems like the NORM. As to whether or not any of this reasoning applies to secondhand smoke and the surgeon general's latest report, I've promised to read more before commenting further.

The Ottomans didn't create Iraq, the British did. Incidentally, they were very much aware of the oil resources of the region at the time. They made a trade with the French (nobody else in the LoN was interested), and the British got that region, which they turned into Iraq. The development and protection of French and British oil resources in the first half of the 20th century is one of the reasons there's such a history of conflict there. The Americans are relative latecomers to the game. After all, Eisenhower sided with Nasser, against the British and French, over the Suez Canal fight and that was only a few years after we were all fighting side by side. Ah, the good old days, when EVERYONE hated the French.... ;-)

At least he learned English!

But will the left remember this if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, or will Alito et al suddenly become the tool of Jerry Falwell again?

An excellent point.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/ Wait... I thought this was supposed to be an ultra-conservative court, packed with Bushie's friends?! What the heck is going on here?!

Hahaha! Good one.

Producers of the new Superman movie removed the phrase "... and the American way" from Superman's motto. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/06/superman_the_am.html Guess that's Hollywood for ya. But there's also an economic aspect, in the sense that this movie will be sold in overseas markets. Bah, some things just aren't right.

Hehe, yeah it's nice to see a little (mostly) agreement on an issue. (grin) I can understand why people are opposed to flag burning. It's an emotional issue. I think we can all empathize with people's emotional positions on this, right? Perhaps it's another example of how people too-frequently respond to political issues more with hearts than with minds.

I'm at a loss to think why anyone would not understand that the founding fathers made MANY compromises to freedom for the sake of security. They're written directly into the Constitution. As to the NSA programs, Senate Republicans are only "disatisfied" because of the President's low approval ratings. NEITHER Republicans NOR Democrats in EITHER house of Congress predominently favor eliminating the program. I tell you what, a LOT more people need to read works like Brin's "The Transparent Society". Security is not a black and white issue, and the way the special interest groups are driving this issue in absolute terms is just appalling. What's hurting us is not the government or the liberals and their desires, but the fact that so few people are thinking through these issues and driving the direction of where we're going with this stuff.

Well I don't think either gulf war was about oil, so I guess I don't have to worry about this. (shrug)

Sure, but the purpose of the Biden plan isn't political separatism, but temporary social distancing for the purpose of long-term unification.

Actually we talked about this recently and the "three state" plan suggested by Senator Biden takes that into consideration. The sticking point is just getting all three parties to agree, but it's actually a "win" for all three parties. The method is to have all of the oil pooled into a single, state-run resource. The "win" for the Shiites is that the southern oil fields, while largest, are completely undeveloped. A lot of money will have to be spent there in order to develop those resources. (Interestingly, the United Nations is requiring that the oil industry in Iraq be unified under a single corporate entity before international investment in the country can take place (i.e. those sanctions are lifted).) The Kurds win because they have an "oil future" once their oil is used up. (Kinda silly, IMO -- that's the oldest oil resource in the entire middle east region and one of the oldest oil sites in the entire world, and it still shows no signs of slowing, but at least it appeases any Peak Oil fearniks amongst the Kurds.) And of course the Sunnis win because they have no oil, so they get to participate in both systems. As to why the Kurds and Shiites would want to include the Sunnis in this plan at all, they'd do that because we tell them to. And they "win" because we provide international investment. Everybody wins.

Okay, I appreciate all the replies on this (and their tone). You've given me a lot of reading material and obviously I should read all this stuff before I comment further. You've given me a lot to think about as well. These are, of course, the very reasons why I post here. Thanks guys.

What arguments? You haven't made any, you just stated that it's the case, end of story. I didn't say you were wrong in questioning the cost of the war, or even in stating that it's unsustainable. You've not provided any evidence that it is, so what you're wrong about is in stating factually that the war is unsustainable. You're more than welcome to your opinion. Mine differs. Welcome to Square One. As I said originally, good luck with that approach. Doesn't seem to have accomplished much, has it?

Nevermore, maybe you should focus on substantive replies instead of cheap shots.

Good question -- it does seem to point out the way politicians respond to polls. I can't quote any polls off the top of my head, but if memory serves, the vast majority of Americans support banning flag burning. Whether they support an amendment to stop it is another question (same deal with gay marriage) -- Americans typically show a lot of reluctance to amend the constitution. But politicians also know that they take a beating when they don't act on issues that are popular, and this is a popular issue with one (and only one) course of action available to them. So they act on it.

Also, do you understand the concern that I have about the larger issue here? Am I completely wrong in wondering why a complete re-analysis of existing data by people with an admitted agenda holding massive press conferences and sounding tremendous alarm bells is substituting for actual science in the form of NEW data and NEW studies? It just seems to me that we may be, once again, taking away the rights of human beings, on the basis of simple statistical correlations, merely because the right that those particular human beings are enjoying is antithetical to the ideology of the scientists (and their money men) doing the investigating. We would all agree that that, if it were true, is a bad thing, right?

Ken, I appreciate the effort you put into your post. Certainly the least I can do is try to keep an open mind about this and take a hard look at the new analysis that's being presented here. I am willing to look at the evidence and the report, and I support your criticism of the concerns that I raised. That seems logical enough to me. I can't imagine parents taking that kind of risk with their children. But as I mentioned above, the main thrust of this report seems to be aimed at casual and brief contacts with second-hand smoke. Walking past a smoker outside a building. Catching a whiff from three tables away in a restaurant. That sort of thing. Are we really saying that second-hand smoke is as dangerous as asbestos?! Is that actually backed-up by this data? Really?!

Fascinating example of politics in action. The US Senate defeated a no-flag-burning amendment tonight by a single vote. A similar amendment has already passed the House, enjoys the support of the President, and every single state's legislature (which, if I remember correctly, is where the final votes on amendments takes place) has written to Congress asking for the amendment, so this has to be viewed as a close decision. There's a fairly comprehensive story here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2126480 One of the more interesting aspects of this story is that it was supported by a number of Democrats, including liberal icon Dianne Feinstein. Also of interest is the fact that three Republicans opposed the amendment, including Bennet of Utah, Chafee of Rhode Island (one of the "Gang of 14" that stopped the use of the "nuclear option" in regard to filibustering Presidential judicial nominees), and McConnel of Kentucky. The full vote result may be found here. (All six of the other Republican "Gang of 14" members voted for the amendment, as did, if my count is right, three "Gang of 14" Democrats.) Interestingly, Hillary Clinton voted against the amendment. I say this is interesting because she recently introduced a bill of her own which would -- drum roll please -- outlaw flag burning! Clinton was accused of pandering to the right, since the Supreme Court has already ruled against that kind of law (hence the requirement to pass an amendment), and this vote on her part (an opportunity to show that she really does favor banning flag burning) would seem to support that accusation.