Pangloss

So you don't think that something like this will lead to, for example, "homo-sexual education" in the classrooms, where students are shown exactly how gay people "do it", and given pamphlets showing them how they can "choose the option that best works for them"?

Doesn't that pretty much indicate the true source of your judgement in this issue? The fact that you would never have voted for George Bush under any circumstances (since you didn't list any), is an obvious indicator that you were predisposed to judge anything that he did during his administration in a certain manner. I have. It's almost exactly like the way conservatives treated Bill Clinton. Imagine that. You'd think liberals would have learned a lesson from the impeachment. Instead they launched the ABB bandwagon and leapt head-first into the same sort of nonsense. The problem isn't that people have issues with the Bush administration, Phil. The problem is when their issues are actually just thinly disguised categorical hatred of the Bush administration that is ideological and partisan in nature, not logical and reasoned. First thing you've said that makes sense to me. Thanks for passing that along.

Yes, which is why I left it out of my question -- that point doesn't seem to directly correlate, so I asked a different question. We're backing up a step from creationism in the classroom, and looking at the larger issue of the teaching of comparative religion in high school, for example.

Is it? Not all blacks agree on this point, you know. I might not have been clear, but I'm not talking about Bible teachings, I'm talking about the history of religion in western civilization, and what contributions it may or may not have had on it. For example, the influence of Christianity on the American "founding fathers" and how they debated the relevent issues of the time, how they wrote their important documents, and so forth. There's nothing "mythological" about that, and yet as we've discussed here in the past, often the purpose of creationists injecting this sort of thing into the curriculum is to open the door for further religious exploration, such as the teaching of creationism itself.

Wow. Posts like the above really make me cringe. Not because I'm an American, but because that kind of unsupported, ill-grounded "experience" is so prevalent in the world today. I didn't agree with the president about Iraq, and I thought we should have signed Kyoto, but not because I harbor any illusions about either. I thought they were bad tactical/realpolitik moves because of opinions like the above. - The idea that everything was hunkey-dorey under Clinton, it's just that evil Bush guy that screwed everything up; everything that's wrong with the world today is his fault... somehow... - The idea that ridiculing Bush because of his speech patterns constitutes a valid and logical debate - Bush represents everything hated about Americans (Democrats can't possibly represent those hated positions! Ever!) It just boggles the mind sometimes how people can associate themselves with logic and reason and science and still take illogical, poorly-reasons, politically correct positions like that, never challenge them, never seek to question them, and just run right along with whatever the herd happens to be doing today. Moo. Nothing about you personally, Phil, it's the trends I'm questioning here, not the messenger specifically. For all I know you were being sarcastic or overly brief in your post. (shrug)

Some background can be found here. Essentially, California is considering a bill that would put more information in textbooks about specific contributions of gay people in history. Here's a question: How is this different from creationists asking for religious history to be taught as part of the non-optional curriculum? - Both are arguably aimed at a specific social engineering goal - Both involve highly stylized and politically-motivated re-writings of history So what exactly is the difference? Why would one be legitimate, and not the other?

I don't mean to deride you personally, but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust it. Or perhaps more to the point, I don't trust the government to implement it or the politicians not to exploit it. And even if it worked as you say, it doesn't stop the problem of politicians promising wealths of riches to the underpriviledged without them having to work. In fairness, though, I don't really understand your proposal fully, and I really don't know anything about your current system, so maybe I'm just lacking the proper perspective here.

I'm curious how I'd be received these days, looking like the typical American as I do (much as ecoli described!). I visited Europe at a young age, and really enjoyed the experience. I'd love to go back, but I wonder if I would be assaulted/chastised/etc. I'm sure that's mostly irrational on my part, though. I've met some nice folks here, and also my parents have been over to Britain recently, and we had a British guest here at the house at Christmas two years ago. (She was opposed to the Iraq war so she and I had some interesting conversations on the subject, but it was all amicable enough in the end.)

Just another form of welfare. What's the point? All you're doing is elevating the level of "what we pay people who don't work", whatever you happen to want to call it this week. What you ought to focus on instead is pointing out that while helping people get out of poverty is a good thing, it's not the onus of society to enable you to keep up with the Joneses.

In that case, I'll move this thread to where it belongs.

ROFL! Best setup and payoff I've seen in a forum all week. (grin)

That's a nice quote, thanks. Reminds me of James Burke's fascinating denouement at the end of "Connections".

I know I've quoted this before, but it never ceases to amaze me the insight of this man, and this one speech in particular: That's an excerpt from Eisenhower's farewell speech, given January 17, 1961 -- forty-five years ago. He goes on to say that "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow", and that in a world "ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect". It's a heck of a speech. But getting back to the point, I think Ike answered some of the very questions posed in this thread. Do we need a "standing army" (or in today's terms, "a massive defense budget")? You bet we do. Has the budget spiraled out of control the way Ike warned us it might, in part due to the influence of the military-industrial complex? I believe the answer to that question is also "yes".

I'm not 100% sure myself, Jim, but I haven't yet seen a really good reason not to do it. I definitely understand the sentiment -- it sure sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it? Maybe in a funny sort of way that's it's true appeal -- it's different. (That's when we Americans are at our best, after all, when we're kicking our neurons around and trying new ideas.) The section that comes out on the short end of the stick here is the Sunnis, but they would like the plan because 20% is more than 0%. The real beauty of the plan is that once you put it into place you pull the rug out from under the groups that want to increase the sectarian violence. As I said before this plan, on its own, does nothing about the Al Qaeda types. But a stable, peaceful Iraq, with no Americans in it and chock full of people who wish Al Qaeda were dead, is absolutely the best way to take care of them. Most of the Iraqi people identify themselves as Iraqis. If we emphasize that these are "states" (in the American sense, like Florida or Texas or New York), or "sub-states" if you will, and not "nations", and continue to emphasize the importance of a national "Iraqi" identity (and the pride that deservedly goes with it), then I think that's a point that everyone can understand and get behind. I don't want to make too much out of it, but this plan is the first real glimmer of hope I've seen on this subject in a very long time. It's caused me to think again about what I used to call my "Iraqi Dream" -- the idea that some day American parents will be able to take their children to visit the birthplace of western civilization, in a host country that welcomes them, with no fear of violence or even reproachment. I think that would mean more to me than seeing man walk on Mars.

I've read much of his second book, Anti-Americanism. I thought he had a point, but it was ultimately flawed by the kind of over-generalization that typifies most socio-political opinion books these days. So obvious was the message that I eventually grew tired of the volume and tossed it on a stack of books that I keep by the bed for use when I need to make sure I can get up early the next morning. But as I say, it seemed to me that he had a point. I think all human beings "latch onto" dramatic excuses sometimes, because they're convenient and easy and they can toss them back and forth as if to explain everything. Whether it's the good/evil of socialism, or the good/evil of fundamentalist christianity, or the good/evil of "those darned Americans", doesn't really matter. If you latch onto a specific instance of a problem, and fail to target the root causes or the flaws that lead that "evil" group to the problem in the first place, then you really haven't solved anything, and you're more than likely going to see it again. Anyway, getting back to the specific point of Revel's first book, I wonder how he might take a different outlook today in light of what's happened to China over the years since he wrote that.

How about a 50% increase in six years?

I've been predicting this for a couple of years, and it's finally happened -- the first proposal of a defense budget over $500 billion. This one, for $517 billion, was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, and may not end up in this form, but generally speaking they only get bigger between now and signing. http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060508-103116-1016r Believe it or not, I actually caught wind of this in an email from one of my senators, bragging about all the hard work he's doing up there in Washington.

It's a good language, and the competition between C# and Java is very good for the industry and even the science of programming, IMO. But I agree with encipher above, and this is a problem that sorta plagues the industry at the moment. If your goal is to learn how to program managed-code apps for mainly database/client-server environments, that's the way to go -- absolutely 100% of that work is done that way today. But if you're a computer science major trying to really learn how things actually work, you should delve into a deeper and more "manual" (aka "unmanaged") environment. (It's a shame that Microsoft hasn't put out a free version of the Visual Studio IDE for C# -- they're only doing VB and ASP in "Express" versions. I think they're making a huge mistake there in terms of capturing mind share.)

It's an interesting point. Maybe the psychology of their situation is relevent. One person gets hit by secrtarian violence and 18 other people are affected by it and become scared. They fall back on more traditional modes of thinking. Perhaps a few years of separation may lead them to a return to thinking of themselves as "Iraqis" over their religious affiliation. They already seem to have a strong national identity, perhaps this will give that sense a firm enough footing to allow actual joint governance.

True, but they're not gratuitous attacks, they're substantive. You and I may disagree with his points, but they're not necessarily partisan. They could be ideological, but if he backs up his position, as I heard him do this afternoon, then it's more relevent. (This is what I loathe most about the modern media -- I wouldn't mind so much if 100% of the media was left of Michael Moore, what gets me is that I don't have enough TIME to hear their full arguments and support for those arguments. I'm forced to read between the lines and make assumptions and guesses that often don't match reality. It's incredibly frustrating.) Anyway, I don't want to get too far off the subject. I think the general idea is that the entire oil revenue would be pooled and then shared according to general population percentage. The Sunnis would, therefore, get about 20% of the total pot, which is a lot more than they would get if they allow the country to fully segment (i.e. nothing), and they ought to understand that can't possibly hope to accomplish national leadership again with their size anyway, so insurgency is ultimately pointless and this gives them an option to get out of that trap. What's in it for the Shiites is a little less savory, but it would mean sharing in current revenue from the northern (Kurdish) regions, which full, insurgency-derived division would cut off, and that means a chance to rebuild and develop NOW rather than having to wait for the possibility of future investment (the south/shiite land is the bigger oil field, but it's completely undeveloped). It's worth noting that, if I'm not mistaken, the current UN agreement states that international oil investment cannot take place until the country's oil system is unified under a common corporate structure (yeah, the US actually agreed to a nationalized oil system). (I'm talking off the top of my head here, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) For the Kurds it means having to split something they'd currently be getting 100% of. But it means having a future oil field and a better society down the road. It's a win-win-win.

I think this is a great example of why we have to move past sweeping generalizations and partisan decision-making. Joseph Biden is no friend to the administration, but he's no cut-and-run guy either, and he often defends the administration's choices on foreign and domestic policy, stops short of blaming Bush for current events and developments, and focuses on things that actually matter, rather than trying to convince us that the sky is falling and the world is going to heck just because we elected George Bush to office. Senator Biden wrote a piece about a week ago for the New York Times in which he proposed a three-region split in Iraq in which oil revenues would be shared between the three region-groups but each region would have local governing authority. The new Iraqi constitution already permits this, and the Kurds have already more or less done it, and the Sunnis and Shiites are more or less approaching the same thing, but the oil revenue is going to be a sticking point because the the Sunnis would be geographically stuck without the north/south oil fields. If that happens then sectarian violence would likely continue and/or get worse. Biden's editorial can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Biden was a guest on a local political show today and spoke at great length about the issue, much longer than his editorial or the amount of time he normally gets from the Sunday talk shows or other mainstream media interviews. I admit I'm often in disagreement with Biden, and I also see some stuff in the NYT editorial that could be viewed as anti-Bush. But just because something gives the appearance of being partisan DOESN'T mean that it's WRONG. We can't be so determined to avoid even the appearance of partisanship that we bypass good ideas just because they come from sources we've dismissed as partisan. We have to look harder, dig deeper, and find those realities that, while sometimes distasteful, may actually allow us to achieve our goals. A few points that I believe Biden has right: 1) If we don't come up with some kind of sensible, workable plan, then events will dictate their own course, and it probably won't be one that we like. 2) Another reason why we need a sensible plan is because we can't just slap some sort of shaky government in place, call it "Mission Accomplished", and bring the troops home. That's every bit as bad as "cut and run". In the long run, we'd just be back over there in a few years taking care of the mess we left behind. 3) In his South Florida interview (today), Biden mentions the Articles of Confederation as another example, like Bosnia, of when a country was originally established in a divided manner and ultimately turned out just fine. I can understand why he left that example out of his NYT piece! That was hardly an example of success -- we almost lost the country over the problems inherent in that structure. But it did give the country a chance to learn and grow together over time, and there may be a valid comparison with Iraq there. 4) While this plan doesn't address the insurgency per se, that issue can be more readily addressed by a stable, non-sectarian Iraq. 5) Solving this problem will go a long way towards improving our foreign relations on just about every front, even including Latin America.

One of the things that's so clever about Colbert is that so many of his viewers are utterly convinced that he's either one of two things: 1) A liberal secretly lampooning conservatives. 2) A conservative masking as a liberal who's secretly lampooning conservatives. IMO the reality is probably more along the lines of Jon Stewart -- a moderate, maybe slightly-left guy, who really enjoys his job as a comedian and doesn't really take this stuff too seriously, because he knows, as most political comedians know, that their humorous examples are too superficial to actually stand the test of reason. Whatever the case, it works for me. I think his show is a riot.

This post isn't a reflection on Apeofman's posts -- I understand where he's coming from and respect his opinion on it, and he's already agreed with me that some extremists are hypocritical in their criticism. And I've made this point before, I just thought this example kinda underscores what I was saying earlier. The comedy animated show South Park did a raucus send-up of the hypocrisy of Native American tribes owning gambling casinos earlier this season. The plot had the tribe deciding that it needed to have a much larger highway leading to their casino, so they bought up all the land in the town of South Park and kicked everyone out so they could tear it all down and build the highway. At that point the residents rose up and cried foul, blockading the bulldozers and so forth. You can kinda guess how the plot went from there (the funniest part being when the townspeople pooled their money and gambled it in the casino in order to reach the amount needed to buy back their land, WON it, and then decided to "let it ride"!). The role reversal was the main point of the plot, of course. The point of all this nonsense being that politically-correct cliches, even when accurate, can be very misleading. Cliches are easy. Truth is harder. This is why I worry about people saying that we should NEVER even CONSIDER going to war with Iran. That kind of blanket absolutism can only accomplish one thing: War with Iran! (I strongly identify with the "South Park Conservatives" movement, by the way. Don't agree with all their positions, but I think Matt Stone's (the co-creator of South Park) quote says it best: "I hate conservatives, but I REALLY f***ing hate liberals!")

Thanks Ecoli. That's an interesting angle, thanks for passing it along.