Pangloss

I'd like us to give some more thought to when and where these labels would be applied, and more importantly when (specifically) they would be expected.

But Bascule! Leonardo di Caprio was on Oprah recently along with an activist from an environmental group, and they said it was true!

That's not a totally unpopular view over here, for what it's worth. IMO it's also a perfectly valid point of view, even if I don't share it. I just feel obliged to point out that you still have guys taking bombs onto airplanes, as was the case with the shoe bomber. Granted the marshals didn't catch that guy (none on the plane I guess), but it seems to justify the action.

I'm following this with great interest, and I also appreciate the submission/suggestion. I've got a couple of thoughts that might supplement this from a logistical point of view, but I'm going to hold off commenting for a bit.

I agree that's the problem we face here in the US. Basically our situation at the moment is that the Senate is largely under the thumb of special interest groups. Bear in mind that those groups are on the left as well as the right, but at the moment we're talking about the energy lobby. The Senate has to ratify all treaties. There's just nothing we can do about that -- it's in big black letters in the Constitution. Has nothing to do with Bush, really (but I got no real problem with general criticism of Bush on this subject) -- the Senate will not ratify Kyoto. We're better of focusing on the re-elections of House Republicans in 2006, IMO. They control appropriations.

Moved to Pseudoscience. I'm not interested in seeing these 9/11 conspiracy theads on the politics board anymore unless they are backed with objective evidence AND carry a relevent and non-ideological political perspective or argument.

I was just wondering if you guys are using Firefox 1.5, and what you think of it so far. I've heard it's buggy so I've been a little hesitant to upgrade from 1.4 that I'm using now. Is it worth it or should I hold out a bit and wait for some patches?

Oh ok, I see what you mean. I can see how a taser might still be useful, though, depending on the situation. But I guess you'd also have to weigh it against the added burden of carrying both a taser and a gun. (Love the hat on Marvin, btw.)

Well that "shoe bomber" guys (forget the name offhand) announced that he had a bomb, and he passed through security as well. And he actually had one. You can certainly bet that that information was part of the training the marshals got. He was running from a smaller number of people (mostly empty airplane) to a larger number of people (busy concourse), in total panic mode. (shrug) This is where I start to agree with you, and that was where I went with the Menezes case. I have a concern about it and I worry that we're getting a little trigger happy. There's no question that it's a bad thing that a bomb go off in a crowd, but (and this is a tough "but") -- I'm not sure it's worse that a bomb go off than for one person to be shot by authorities in error. I think the taser thing is a really good question, and I still haven't heard a good refutation to that point yet. Lance might have a point about the taser possibly setting off the bomb, but I'd need to hear some more science and maybe see some experimentation results on that. However, the myth about gunshots blowing out windows in pressurized airplanes was experimentally debunked on an episode of Discovery's Channel's "Mythbusters" last year. I believe it's listed as "busted" in the Wikipedia.

I've wondered about the taser thing as well, but I've not seen a good answer on it. I'm keeping my eyes open for some info on that.

Just to keep this rolling, I wanted to mention that I've read the comments here and I think they're excellent. Please keep them coming. I'm going to let this run a few more days before I post my thoughts and tell you where I'd like to go with the discussion next. I actually misspoke in the first post. I meant to say ANY new rules in the first paragraph, but I actually said THE new rules. Sorry for any confusion about that. Any new rules are discussed amongst leadership first, and that process actually started before my post, but I don't actually have any specific rules to pass along for you at the moment. I could get into the kinds of rules I'm considering recommending but I want to give you guys a couple more days to mull it over and discuss. Thanks.

Ali's got a few days away from the board to think about what he's said here. Not my place to talk about other members's disciplinary actions, but suffice it to say that this was not a surprise. Sorry I didn't see the name-calling earlier in the day but I was out for a while. Even without the name calling this thread is very much not in the spirit of where I want to see us go. I knew this would be the case, and specifically left it up just to make that point and spur the discussion in the other thread (about the future of the Politics board).

It appears we've had a case similar to the Menezes case in Britain. I've been following this for a couple of days (it actually took place here in South Florida). In a nutshell, apparently a passenger who was mentally ill was flying back to his home in the Orlando area after travelling to Ecuador on some sort of religious mission. He hadn't taken his medication (for reasons unknown), and became anxious while the plane was boarding, after he and his wife had reached their seats (apparently flight stress for the mentally ill is becoming a recognized concern, which is interesting). Anyway, he got up and ran through the boarding passengers to the front of the plane and got off. Two sky marshalls followed him out and demanded that he stop and lies down. He didn't comply, they shot him, and he died. According to initial reports, passengers said that he was saying that he had a bomb. However, now that the dust has settled, there aren't any passengers actually coming forward saying that they heard that. Apparently the initial reports came from authorities, who said that passengers said he had a bomb. Now such passengers cannot apparently be found. For some that won't matter -- he was reaching into some sort of bag that he was clutching to his chest and certainly acting desperate. I also think it will eventually come out that some passengers heard "bomb" and others did not, and that's good enough for me. These details separates the case from Menezes, who never said a word, he just ran. I'm a little annoyed at some of the statements that the police should have listened to his wife, who was apparently running along behind him screaming "he's bipolar and hasn't taken his drugs!" That's not the sort of thing they can really pay attention to in a situation like that. Who is this woman? How does she know what his condition is? How do we know she is correct? These are not questions that can be answered on a split second's notice. Normally you might give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but if he's shouting "I've got a bomb!" and desperately reaching into a bag, that's pretty much a solution with only one answer. I know the man's family is distraught, but I think it says a lot about our society that they immediately attack the authorities. I mean the man's wife was standing right there and saw what the guy did. She knew his history. Maybe she's feeling guilty (she claims it was her fault he didn't have his drugs) and doesn't want to admit her own responsibility, I don't know. But I think it's a shame. Background: http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/09/ap2381208.html

Oh god! The guilt! The horror! I can't take it anymore!!! I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING AMERICAN! PLEASE FORGIVE ME! I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS THINKING WHEN I LET MYSELF BE BORN HERE!!!!! <<rubs hands raw under the faucet>> Unclean! Unclean! UNCLEAN!!!!!

It's a question of fairness. China is conspicuously not susceptible to persuasion by example.

I think it would be even more foolish to sign it now. The biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses is China, which is exempt from Kyoto, as is India which is growing rapidly as well. I guess we kinda lucked out here, in a way. Clinton would certainly have sent it to the senate for ratification if they hadn't listened to their lobbyist pocket-liners and passed a unanimous motion to oppose it. Go figure -- something to be grateful to the corporations for! How come the left doesn't cheer that one, eh? ;-)

I'm still a SciAm subscriber, but their turn towards political correctness over the last couple of years has gotten a little annoying. They've taken up a somewhat virulently pro global warming stance, and frequently editorialize against the Bush administration. Not that the Bush administration doesn't deserve criticism, but I don't read SciAm for political opinion. I read it for objective, scientific reasoning.

Well put, bascule. FWIW, I do watch TV (when I have time), but I totally agree that it's important not to let it color your perceptions.

There isn't -- tech is tech. The point was that we're not leading the way in some areas as we used to, sometimes due to moral or ethical considerations that are not entirely shared by other nations. Genetic research would be an example of this. Many of the key recent breakthroughs have come from Korea or other nations instead of the US, because of restrictions on NSF grants WRT stem-cell research, etc. That's not to say that all moral and ethical applications to research are bad. But that is another discussion.

Are we talking about news or entertainment programs? Either way is cool, I just want to be clear.

For what it's worth, I don't particularly agree with you, but I think it's interesting the way you've put it and I respect your opinion on it. I think bascule put it well above when he said that he agreed with your sentiment. Obviously if something is going to hurt people, we ought not to be doing that. But I think you will find that there's actually considerable disagreement in the scientific community over global warming. It's not just a conservative cause, or a politicized thing -- it's a logical position. In fact I think that's an excellent example of how we sometimes let ourselves be talked into positions, one way or the other, because of reactions to political positions. We need to be really careful about making decisions on that basis, because it's incredibly dangerous. Ironically, some of the very same people who sometimes warn us about repeating the mistakes of history (phrenology, anyone?) are repeating them when it comes to global warming. I've seen articles in places like Scientific American and Skeptic using terms like "global warming deniers". What a politicized phrase THAT is! As if any dissention at all makes one a "denier" and likens one to Holocaust deniers! Of course you didn't say that, Silkworm, and please don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out where making decisions for political reasons can lead. You've got some great points there, and like many moderates I'm supportive of increasing pollution and emmission standards. But there are also lines I'm really not willing to cross right now just because Leonardo and Oprah tell me it's so.

But in fact virtually none of what you've said in the last two posts is true. Sharon was not a straw man. My comments were not "stupid". My tone was civil. The other respondants in this thread have not been "patronizing". You've been here, what, five minutes, and you think you can determine that I've attacked you and need to be attacked back? Uh uh, you don't get to do that. So since you're uninterested in recognizing other points of view, unable to conceed other valid points when they're made, and have already stated that what you do is "play to win", regardless of the consequences to the quality of the discussion, you leave me with a choice of either allowing you to run roughshod over my perfectly valid opinion and just close my mouth and let you be the last man standing, or I can pop your little victory balloon and work instead towards the kind of debate I'm interested in fostering here. So long as I'm a moderator here, I choose the latter. The discussion is over, you're issued a warning, and if you keep that style up you'll be locked out of the politics board. It's nothing personal, and I'm sorry if you take it that way (which I would attribute to you spending too much time in places like DemocraticUnderground.com and not enough time amongst professionals and scientists and engineers), but we're going to have congenial debate here if I have something to say about it.

One thing that occurs to me is that if we're going to enact curtails on freedom of speach in order to protect minors, wouldn't this sort of thing qualify? Personally I don't see much harm in THIS example, but what if Santa were painted black? Or replaced with a lifelike nude female caricature? Would it then be subject to censorship under the auspices of protecting children?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-127boundsanta,0,6076874.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines Neighbors leery after Miami Beach resident hangs a bound and blindfolded Santa News partner NBC 6 Posted December 7 2005, 10:30 AM EST MIAMI BEACH -- In one South Florida community, a man's holiday decorations are causing holiday fear for local children instead of creating holiday cheer, news partner NBC 6 reported Wednesday. Residents called police and complained to the city that a house near West 50th Street and Fifth Avenue had a life-sized, blindfolded Santa Claus doll hanging on a tree with its hands tied and its mouth gagged. Some residents were furious and said their naughty neighbor put jolly old St. Nick in a position that is not too merry. But even police officers couldn't save a Santa who was bound, gagged and hanging for the holidays. The owner of the house says it's freedom of speech. But his neighbors think it's the start of a creepy Christmas. "It's not healthy. I mean, if somebody has something against Santa Claus or something, maybe express it in some other way," resident Lori Vega said. Parents are afraid the decoration will cause a nightmare before Christmas for their children. "I'm not sure what his reasoning is, but a lot of little kids are upset by it," one parent said. The owner was not at the house, but NBC 6's Tom Llamas found him at his primary residence off Lincoln Road. The man said the Santa Claus was an artistic expression. Some residents say the damage is already done. "He might be the Grinch. He might be friendly with the Grinch," resident Joanie Stein said. Stein, who has lived on the block for years, said the dangling Santa sickens him. "It's a beautiful neighborhood and I think it's just weird. I've never seen anything like this here." The homeowner told NBC 6 the hanged Santa Claus would be down sometime Wednesday.