Pangloss

The ubiquity of information that Sayo mentions above is one protection, but what constitutes a "crime"? What validates an investigation? What creates "probable cause"? How easily can the system be abused by errant or malicious employees? These are also interesting issues. One of the suggestions Brin makes is that all of the cameras should be publically available all of the time, the idea being that total transparency is preferable to not knowing who is watching you, or when or why. While that scenario may seem abhorrent on the surface, consider how abhorrent it may seem following the revelation of abuse of the present system by, say, sexual predators unknowingly employed by a traffic control system. Or perhaps a political leader who oversteps his or her authority in their zeal to capture sexual predators.

A brief excerpt from Brin's book:

Hostility at the individual level? That's the first I've heard of that, and I know a few people who've been to China recently. Not saying you're wrong, it's just the first I've heard of it. I'm a little surprised, and I'd be interested in hearing more about that. The recent outrage over Japanese textbooks would seem to fit your suggested pattern.

Just to spark the discussion a bit (stopping short of adding my opinion for the moment), an excellent book that deals with this subject is David Brin's "The Transparent Society". This is something he discusses at great length, and he makes the issue a lot more two-sided than some privacy advocates make it out to be. He even points out that there sesem to be two kinds of privacy advocates. One of the questions we need to be asking here is whether transparency can be stopped at all. It's almost like James Burke's point at the end of Connections, where he talks about how "going back to a simpler time" is no longer an option. We can ignore the issue, but that doesn't make it go away. If we pay attention to it, however, we can have some modicum of control over who gets to 'wach the watchers', so to speak. I think our friends in England on this board may have some more direct experience and insight on this issue, by the way.

I heard another statistic the other day that surprised me: There are more people learning to speak English in China than there are people in the entire United States. This is a good companion statistic to go along with the one that's becoming well known about how their middle class is as big as the entire pop of the US. Today they're building toys and electronics, but it's not hard to see the writing on the wall. They're already launching flights to orbit and planning a trip to the moon. How long before they have stealth fighters and bombers? They've already been caught stealing stealth technology.

Well good luck sliding into that tiny little margin between Al Franken and the New York Times that lets you call it "conservative". Just a friendly ribbing; to each his own and all that. At any rate, I certainly agree with some of your post, and have no problem with the federal government helping out with the levee system. My personal opinion, in fact, is that New Orleans should be rebuilt with my tax dollars. This is America, and we don't give up on one of our own. As irked as I am by beatniks complaining about not getting enough help, I'm even more irked by insurance fraud, price gouging and the federal government cutting FEMA's budget at the same time that the Red Cross is having to take out massive loans just to cover Hurricane Wilma et al.

Murtha proposed a complete withdrawl within six months. As stated in the article I posted, bascule. I even quoted it in the first post. There's no need to link another article saying exactly the same thing. The use of the word "immediate" was just to distinguish his position from Murtha's. How else would you have me put it on a short subject line? I can't just remove the word "immediate" because Nelson doesn't oppose withdrawl (for that matter neither does Bush). Post something more relevent please.

Speaking of which, PBS Frontline did a show on the Katrina aftermath this past week. They were relatively even-handed (for PBS), but I did catch a few instances of rather obvious bias. The general tone of the show was "local bad, federal good", in keeping with liberal political correctness. And some positions and interviews were misrepresented during the show, even from one scene to the next. For example, a national guard general said that he would again position troops in Jackson Barracks, and then his boss was told that his underling general had said that "he would do exactly the same thing" (which is not what he said at all) and asked to comment. I think there's a valid point to be made that the federal government can and should set guidelines for emergency preparedness, much as it regulates highway construction or beef processing, etc. I don't have a problem with that on a general level. I also don't have a problem with many of the specific criticisms against the Bush administration's handling of FEMA -- clearly it's prospered under Democratic administrations and floundered under Republican ones. But here are some of the things I do have a problem with: - Yeah interoperability is needed, but it's ridiculous to require (that Frontline directly made and extensively supported) the federal government to enforce the purchasing of specific systems from specific manufacturers. What about local systems that are already partially up and running, and have clear and less expensive paths to interoperability with other manufacturers? What about product improvement and cost reduction through competition? What about corruption and special-interest-group lobbying in Washington? - The general ignorance of how many states have managed to create superior emergency management systems without federal interference. (Look at Florida in 2005, withstanding far more total storm energy than Louisiana and Mississippi combined and yet virtually intact, and up and running within a few days of each storm.)

Bill Nelson is an extremely popular Democratic Senator from Florida, and is considered a shoe-in for re-election next fall. Any flack he might have received from liberals over this is likely to ring hollow, considering that his Republican opponent is likely to be Katherine "Hanging Chads" Harris. (chuckle) Yet... for some reason... I don't think this story will get the same amount of attention that the Murtha story got. Gee, I wonder why! http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-fnelsonnov24,0,618949.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

Thanks for setting that up, Cosine. I think you should give us some examples (or perhaps analogies? (grin)) of how you feel that analogies can be used in error, how to spot them, and what we can do about them.

It's not a strawman, it's an accurate summary of this discussion. What about General Fulford? He said there was little chance of diversion, but "little" is not the same thing as "none", so doesn't that feed directly into my point that it's exaggeration and not outright lying that we're talking about here?

Interesting points. I agree with Bascule, and it's interesting to see his clear objectivity on that, since he works in the field and is hardly a Bush supporter in other areas -- that says a lot about the way that issue is handled. I get really annoyed sometimes when I see Hollywood stars telling us how thoughtless and evil we are. I agree that we can improve the ecology, and we shouldn't make excuses for not cleaning up the air, etc, but that doesn't mean we should go crazy and trash our economy dealing with a large-scale problem that ultimately may not even exist.

Those are some valid points, IMM, and I wish you'd posted that way the first time, but I appreciate the refocus on the issues. The only thing I would take issue with above is this: "you've said over and over again that all the evacuees are refusing to get jobs at your expense". I think what I've said clearly here is that SOME evacuees are taking advantage of the system. I think most of them have already departed the rescue/aid system, which tells us a great deal about both the quality of the people of New Orleans (in a good way), and the fact that the people who are left behind are either unwilling or incapable, which I admit can, in SOME cases, be for valid reasons. As I said in the very first post: Getting to your points, I agree that some of your links are valid counter-arguments to some of my points. What I take out of that is that my criticism may be, to some extent, too severe and simplistic. But in some cases, it may be damn well spot on.

Please inform me of the context you're replying to, and I'll be happy to do that. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused on my part. Bascule, what I believe or not believe is not at issue, and I don't believe I have accused anyone of lying. I'm not the one making definitive statements. I'm the one keeping an open mind. Person A: Soandso lied. Person B: Well he might have. What's your proof? Person A: It says so here in these articles. Person B: But these articles are refuted by these other articles. Person A: Those articles are wrong, and the first ones are right. You're just a parrot for Soandso, who is a liar. Person B: Um, okay.... Guess which of us is which?

You need to learn how to make fresh water? I think investing in solar/wind home power supplimentation is not just a good idea for preparing for armageddon scenarios. It can also help you save money, as well as deal with day-to-day outages and issues. It's a good thing when we don't become too reliant on technology. But here's a thought: What is the difference between a religious fanatic predicting that Jesus is coming so you'd better get ready, and a far left extremist predicting that we are about to run out of oil, so you'd better get ready?

You need to learn how to make water?

He makes a damning case against Wilson, and while I agree that his motivation is partisan, you have to prove that he's wrong before you can go and make factual statements like you've been doing. Returning to your quote:

I don't agree that analogies are attempts to find isomorphisms. I agree that that CAN happen, but the implication that they're always a logical fallacy is not fair. They can also be a valid tool for giving an example for one's position, without necessarily suggesting that the comparison is direct and perfect. (I'm interested in discussing that further, but we might want a separate thread for it. I think others might be interested in that discussion as well, if you don't mind starting it.) I have myself questioned whether I am putting too fine a point on this issue. It's not my intent to split hairs, but to try to find those elusive root causes. I'm suggesting that the problem is deeper and less fully appreciated than the Michael Moore's and Al Franken's would have us believe. Rather than answer your question directly (which I feel I've already done, though I apologize if I've not been able to do so satisfactorily, and promise to elaborate further, as opportunity, and my limited intelligence, permit), let me instead elaborate further on what I feel is the problem. We're really good at swinging the pendulum back and forth. Some of the demands coming out of mainstream Democrats' mouths right now strike me as not a means to and end of Iraq, but rather a means to an end of George Bush. It's not enough to show that we made a mistake, they must insist that we were lied to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's not important that we might have been lied to. What I'm saying is that we've beaten ourselves senseless over this issue, and sufficient proof has not surfaced to satisfy any independent source or investigation. So isn't it time to turn our attention to a larger issue? And if we don't, aren't we just going to keep repeating this same mistake, over and over and over again? How has the Bush presidency been any less pointlessly contentious than the Clinton administration? Hasn't it been even MORE so? In my view this has made us a weaker nation, less united, less powerful, less able to steer itself into the 21st century.

I reject the premise of the first post of the thread. But it is amusing.

But hey, if he'd just say a few bad things about George Bush, he could at least snag himself a Nobel.

All of this is fascinating because it's really Sharon himself that made Likud what it is/was. We're talking about a war hero -- the man who saved Israel from the evil arabs. The alleged mastermind of the massacre of captured Palestinian soldiers. One of the biggest supporters of the West Bank settlements. The Man Who Promised That Gaza Would Always Be Safe For Jews. But of course we're also talking about the man who single-handedly ignited the intefada. I've often wondered if that weighed on his conscience in some way.

The larger group that's trying to get out of the situation, or the smaller group that's not bothering, and/or prefers to sit around on its duff and consume handouts.

TE, I don't have a problem with the argument that justice should not be about revenge or retaliation. I think that's what you're saying there, and I think that's fine. What is it about the current nature of this issue, as it's being debated in society today, that strikes you as being an example of this? Are you concerned about Jessica's Laws, for example? Maybe I just missed this in your post before, but if you could be specific and succinct it's always appreciated.

I thought you posted something in support of Tiger's Eye's comments on the atomic bomb' date=' but looking back at the thread I don't see it now. Sorry for the confusion. I wonder if I just shorted neurons and confused you with Tiger's Eye completely. If so I apologize for that error instead. I thought he had a nice post there as well, but no that's not what I'm saying. There is both a technical and a moral difference. The job of the administration is to pursue agendas based on what they perceive the people elected them to do. When they put forth their plan, they have to, and we need them to, explain to us what the salient points are, especially if they may not be immediately obvious. Explaining to us, for example, why we may need to pay higher taxes -- what it is that we're going to get out of that -- so that we don't simply look at it, say "like hell" and vote against it. (That's a simplistic example that really applies more to local politics, where we actually do vote on tax increases, but the same basic idea applies at the highest levels.) That doesn't mean we want them to lie. It means we want them to tell us what it is that they think is important, and why. Sure, we also want the basic facts, and we want them clearly laid out. But we also want the President's opinion. What does he think we should do? Why does he think we should do it? Why is that more important than this other thing over here? What I believe happened with Iraq is that they got carried away while going through that process. Understand, this is a big part of the job, so it's not like we're talking about anything unusual here. Where I fault them is that they should have known better. When it became clear that the American people were not going to support a "solo" war in Iraq on terrorism grounds, and they couldn't get the support from the UN/"world opinion", they should have stopped. They chose not to, and at that point they changed their message, and crossed a very narrow but very important line. And we let them do it. We're not calling them on the carpet for it, even now. The complaint today is that they lied to us about the existince of WMDs. Apparently we're not capable of considering that we were simply oversold a package of goods, and fell for it. We went to the auto dealer to buy Ford Explorer, and came home in a Ferrari, and now the wife is standing in the doorway with the kids demanding to know what the hell we think we're doing. And all we can do is stare at the ground and mumble something about the color red.