Pangloss

I'm disappointed in the way discussions on this subject always devolve into absolutes and extremes. Isn't it just possible that sometimes it makes sense to use that kind of force, and other times it does not? Isn't the great revelation of western democracy the way we can work together to achieve gradual improvement toward a common goal, instead of endlessly tearing our hair out and demanding that things be the way we require them to be? What do you think is easier, Zyncod: Convincing the entire world to lay down its arms and all get along together happily ever after, or coming up with some restrictions to the use of force that are generally acceptable to most parties, and some gradually better-defined guidelines as to when they might be applied in certain specific cases?

And thus, were you a diplomat, you would always fail in any international diplomatic foreign policy endeavor. Always. And there is not one diplomat in the United Nations who doesn't understand this from the hair on their head to the tips of their toes.

Some interesting points raised. I don't share gcol's opinion at all. My main concern is much like the concern I had about the invasion of Iraq. The justification is perfectly reasonable. I'm questioning the decision itself on the level of overall strategy. Was this really a good idea? Regardless of the reasoning and justification, once again we've made a unilateral decision to take lives based on faulty information with the certain knowledge of negative diplomatic consequences. These things carry a price. It would be nice to know that we've actually purchased something useful.

Some background here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm A number of things bother me about this incident. (Or if I may borrow a phrase from Senate Democrats last week: "I find these things puzzling.") - Statements by locals that they observed the UAV hovering around the area for several days before the attack (so much for the element of surprise) - Statements by State Department officials to ABC News that even if they had killed Zwahiri then it would largely be only a "symbolic blow" in the war on terror - Lack of permission from Pakistan - The deaths of innocent people, including women and children - Yet more antagonism of local population for questionable (if any) actual gain (Just as an amusing-if-it-wasn't-so-serious side note, when the Pakistanis decided to complain about the incident, they didn't have to go very far. A US delegation happened to be present in the country. The head of the delegation? Senator John Kerry. So Kerry shows up for a high level discussion with the foreign minister and ends up getting an earful about a US attack on their sovereign territory. I don't mean to suggest that Bush planned it that way, but it would certainly be a fine way to rub salt in your former opponent's political wounds!)

Let's keep this discussion on an even keel, please. Personal attacks and disparagements will not be tolerated.

That's an excellent observation, doG, but don't underestimate China's diplomatic skill and real-world political approach. They were showing signs this week of being willing to not only increase pressure on Iran but to consider even more serious approaches. China may find that it has more to gain by approving military action against Iran than by standing in its way. They hold a very powerful position, and they're well aware of it. But yes, there's no question they'll be keeping an keen eye on their oil supply.

The above was to patcalhoun, btw. I must have cross-posted with Jim. Took me a while to swallow all that crow.

<ponder> Ok, I guess you're right. I'm afraid I must admit that my position seems weak here. The ABA testimony was about Alito and not the larger issue of political influence in the courts. And even setting aside your scientific study, there is a substantial body of work supporting your position. In the end, it's not so much the suggestion that the Supreme Court is conservative that bothers me, but the implication that justice is therefore (automatically) trod upon. Liberals want it to be liberal, conservatives want it to be conservative, and somehow in the process of fighting tooth and nail over that we seem to forget that what matters is that it be capable of rendering verdicts that are fair. We know for a fact that justices are capable of "crossing" those boundaries. So if the court is 60% to one side or the other, so what? If the court is affected by politics, then isn't it likely that it's always been that way? And yet, here we are, safe and sound. It's like global warming, in a way. Even if we acknowledge that there is a validity to the warming data, this does not address the issue of whether humans are responsible -- we may simply be seeing a larger trend. By the same token, even if we acknowledge that there is a validity to the claim that the Supreme Court is "conservative", there's no reason to think that this is a danger to society -- we may simply be seeing a larger trend. But you were not claiming otherwise and I don't mean to lump you into that boat. I'm simply saying that in my zeal to point out that bias doesn't mean injustice, I seem to have reached beyond that to make the less supportable claim that no bias exists at all.

I don't have a problem with digression and subject changes. I'm simply pointing out that it was not my intent. If you want to continue, I may spin this off into a separate thread just for the sake of clarity. But are those divisions are made more along political lines, or legal ones? You don't know, you're merely stating your opinion. And there is a perfectly logical, well-established counterpoint to your position. After all, just to give one example, every day we hear about Democratic appointees voting like "conservatives" and Republican appointees voting like "liberals". Isn't it just possible that they're not voting with an eye on politics at all? And if it's possible, then isn't the onus on you to prove that that is not the case, if you want your position to be accepted as something more than "a mindless exchange of idle opinion"? Well it's funny you mention that, because the bipartisan American Bar Association did essentially that very thing in deciding whether or not to support the Alito nomination. They interviewed hundreds of Republicans AND Democrats, thousands of case files, and came to the conclusion that he was not a politically ideological judge. So obviously it's not only possible, it actually happens. Identifiable in your opinion. Others disagree. So here's your choice: You can fan the flames of partisanship by insisting that any decision that a judge makes on a case that you happen to disagree with constitutes the statement of a political position, in the desperate hope that your side will win the war you're trying to instigate, or you can recognize the fact that some people (even if you can't count yourself amongst their number) are actually capable of making objective decisions.

Semantics aside, I think it's clear that the elected side of American politics has become more divisive and less compromise-oriented in recent years. However, it was a mere exhortation on my part; a statement of opinion, and it was not my intention to open a separate line of debate on that subject. My guess is that it might be an interesting discussion, but would, in the end, amount to merely one opinion against another (i.e. I acknowledge that you have a valid point). But I don't think it's really germain to the discussion at hand. I offset one opinion with another; let's move on.

In my opinion, that's a straw man. Certainly the courts have made mistakes, but those are not proof of failure of the justice system. I don't know if I could call the judicial branch "more rational", but clearly its operating parameters and indebted constituency dictate a different set of goals and ambitions. So long as we understand what those are, and what their failures and successes mean, then we can evaluate on that basis. And we should evaluate on that basis, not the basis we use to evaluate members of the executive and/or legislative branches. A perfect example of this may be seen in today's testimony by members of the American Bar Association, which can hardly be construed as a friend to the Bush presidency. Certainly Democrats/liberals abound in that body, and yet they give Alito their highest recommendation, with a unanimous verdict. Imagine that. There's no question in my mind that Bush is perfectly capable of nominating an ideologue, and I think it's arguable that we saw that in Harriet Miers. But anybody who believes that that is conclusively the case with Alito is showing their own ideological stripes, not his.

Practically reading my mind, today the "EU3" (Britain, Germany and France) called for greater international pressure against Iran. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4c23e6c4-8399-11da-9017-0000779e2340.html This isn't about George Bush, in any way, shape or form. And efforts to paint this issue with the "ABB" brush will continue to fail.

I feel that that is a motivating factor behind the drive for a higher minimum wage for many of its adherents. If you disagree, more power to you. The logical opposing position would not be that McDonalds employees should be bound as serfs, but that they should simply be disallowed to seek other opportunities, educate themselves, move to other parts of the country, and so forth. But in the end, it's actually your side of the argument that wants to "legally bind McDonalds employees as serfs". After all, if you begin to dictate what a company can charge its employees, and continue to insist that that amount isn't high enough, you in essence make it impossible for those employees to ever merit a pay increase. Again so again we logically return to my point, which is that this argument is about big-picture ideologies, not helping the little guy.

Which actually is anything BUT "runaway" or "conservative", but rather is likely the last bastion of objective, independent authority in a country rampant with ideological demogoguery and a complete and utter absence of common political sense.

Ding ding ding. The true nature of the suggestion to raise the minimum wage rears its ugly head. It's not about finding that "living wage" at all. It's about destroying evil corporations and giving everyone two beemers and a boat.

Oh yes, it's always George Bush's fault. So conveniently evil, those American Republicans. Iran exports something like four million barrels of oil per day. The idea that they NEED nuclear power is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is the idea that the fight to stop Iran from producing nuclear power is being lead by the United States. It's actually being lead by EUROPEAN powers. And it's China and Russian who will stop diplomacy from working, by using their veto power to stop the Security Council from enforcing any diplomatic efforts through sanctions/boycots/etc.

Thanks to Phi, the nominator for this award recipient, for writing this: "... our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID [intelligent Design] as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." With that ruling, Judge John E. Jones declared that the Dover Area School Board had violated the US Constitution by requiring students to hear a statement about ID before taking biology classes that included the theory of evolution. "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," Judge Jones said. His ruling was very controversial in that he didn't just rule on a conflict between church and state, but rather expansively put the final nail in ID's coffin by ruling that it was not science at all, and made this decision, "in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us." So despite a moderate to conservative Republican background (he was co-Chairman of Governor-elect Tom Ridge’s transition team in 1994, before Ridge became a member of the Bush cabinet), Judge Jones stood up and made a decision that won him no favors from those who appointed him. This broad ruling will no doubt protect science curriculums for years to come, insuring future generations of scientists a public education free from those with religious agendas. For this we award Judge John E. Jones our very first SFN Person of the Year Award for 2005.

Just curious you all think the impact the loss of Ariel Sharon will be on the peace process.

Interesting post, Bascule. That's part of why I mentioned earlier that it strikes me as "lazy" to just jump into socialized medicine. The UK has, what, 60 million people? The US has about 300 million? China has, what, a billion? Is it really logical that all three countries should use exactly the same system of health care? Shouldn't there be different approaches and different ideas here and there? I dunno, it's just something I wonder about.

Yup.

Agreed. Nice post.

Well they can, and often do, for more or less the same reason that residents of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans do. But that's a subject for another discussion, perhaps. More power to you. I have a different view. But hey, that's what makes it interesting. As I've often said here, I think there are far worse things in the world than people who honestly wish good will on their fellow man. Ayn Rand's rolling in her grave, but that's her problem, not mine. I guess my point to you is/was that pehaps you should consider the possibility that people who don't agree with you on welfare aren't the worst thing in the world either. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, I'm just following up on my suggestion that perhaps you could find that they do have some valid points/concerns rather than dismissing them all as ideological and without merit. I think this is an excellent argument that you make here: All valid points. Well that's just it, I don't think that's what happens at all. Whenever new treatments come out, we instantly assume them to be necessary and required for all citizens, immediately upon being deemed safe. Regardless of the cost. It's almost as if "cost" is, in itself, a dirty word. As if people who consider "cost" are dangerous, contrary people who should be ignored, or denigrated as ideologues who don't have any valid arguments worth considering. Isn't it more likely that those people who consider "cost" are in fact some of the very same people who made that procedure or treatment available in the first place? So... shouldn't we listen to what they have to say? Oh! I understand -- you don't think we get any say over our health now, and should not have any say over our health in the future. I gotcha. Well okay, if that's your opinion, like I said, more power to you. I don't share it, though, and I doubt many Americans do either. I'm going to boil the rest of your post down to this essential line: It's not a question of whether I think the government would be less fair than that. It's a question of whether I think it's a good idea to give the government that power. I happen to think that it is, but I also happen to think that it's something that needs to be carefully measured and weighed, in light of the wisdom of the founding fathers (who would keel over to the man if presented with this idea, if they hadn't already keeled over at the idea of how we're going to pay for it). We don't live in the same world they did, but we'd be pretty foolish to ignore the kinds of concerns they had. Don't you think?