Pangloss

Well put.

Or we can drop a bomb that hits its target and saves hundreds of busses, thousands of children, their parents and grandparents, whom the terrorists would otherwise kill just because beating their heads on the wall doesn't get them what they want. I thought you wanted to go after "root causes", John? Doesn't that mean helping the terrorists understand what it means to get along, and how not always getting your way can sometimes be a good thing?

The real cost? You mean $4/barrel instead of $70? What, isn't that the real cost?

Oh yeah, and Frank Rich isn't "using this" at all! Rofl.... At least somebody's reading Frank Rich. Poor guy got stuck behind a pay-only firewall at the New York Times. (chuckle)

All acts of war are terroristic? So, setting aside civiliam bombings for the moment, are you saying that the allies were wrong to go to war in WW2? Not attacking, just asking for clarification. I disagree with your position if the answer to my question is "no" (and I opposed the war in Iraq, btw), but I respect your opinion on it.

I don't know it this is an accurate observation or not, but it sounds to me like this is the way black kids verbally abuse one another, in much the same way that white kids accuse ostracize each other for being "too intelligent".

Well it's part of the politics of Florida, which seems to have international interest since the 2000 election, and because it pertains to another discussion we had recently. It's also "science politics", relating to the scientific issue of an aging society and its political repurcussions. I would encourage people to post more threads related to local political issue which the poster believes have larger repurcussions, or scientific ones. I don't think we discuss enough politics on this board, nor does this board have sufficient breadth. We tend to beat around the same tired old discussions time and again. One of my goals is to widen the discussion here.

Heh, that's interesting, I didn't know that about Farrakhan.

I actually agree with him on both this subject and his views on the Iraq war. I just think he goes way too far in drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence, and acting on them to the detriment of the country in his personal diplomatic efforts. If I were a president, I'd be more comfortable sending Jesse Jackson on a mission that Jimmy Carter. But he has a right to his opinion I guess. And I have a right to disregard it.

Well put.

Nicely done.

Thanks.

Insulting your opponent isn't really the best approach to fertilizing a good debate. As I pointed out in another thread yesterday, this has already come up -- they want to make the cervical cancer vaccine mandatory.

I don't have a problem with mandatory vaccination of communicable diseases. I do have a problem with mandatory gets applied for reasons that have to do with long-term healthcare costs. Cheap insurance premiums is not a guaranteed constitutional right, and should not become one, lest we all end up policing each other for every donut or French Fry we see someone eat.

Overreaction. We lose how many people to smoking every day? And do what about it? My guess is these vaccines will also be MANDATORY. On and on and on it goes, backing our way into socialism.

You're right, that's exactly why I find it funny. So what? The difference between you and me, Zyncod, appears to be that I can laugh at both myself and the things that I believe in, when they're amusing. Tell me a joke about a libertarian and I'll be the first one rolling on the floor. That doesn't seem to be the case with you. But hey, it's a free country. Laugh at what you like. I don't have a problem with people not finding it funny. I had no objection to, for example, YT's question. It's you saying that I was "in total agreement with the scorched earth philosophy of the Republicans, no matter how much you deny it" that I objected to. If you don't find something funny, then you don't find it funny. (shrug) If you chose not to explore why it's not funny, and instead put up a front about offensiveness, that's really your problem, not mine.

It's not just the MSM in that case, though. The religious right has definitely become more energized and active entirely on its own, and has come to dominate Republican politics. It's not a false representation by the media -- it's a solid reality. The MSM is pumping the case a bit to sell papers, but it's still a real phenom. Both extremes have become incredibly energized. IIRC, John Kerry received more votes in 2004 than all but two people in all of American voting history -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It seems pretty clear that the religious right is a potent force.

It's an interesting point. There is a significant Republican base that has no basis in religion whatsoever. It just hasn't been as prominent in recent years, either in MSM reportage or in reality.

Zyncod you just accused Al Franken of being "one of the more worthless human beings walking around on the planet". You wouldn't hear me say something like that -- I think he's one of the funniest comedians working politics since Mark Russell. I also think he's a radical demogogue, but I don't think his value as a human being is any lower than yours or mine. You should just admit that the reason you didn't find it funny is because you sympathize with Greenpeace and perceived this humor as an attack. This statement from your post is particularly revealing, I think: Since I never said anything about Republicans in this thread (you labelled me clear out of the blue), really the question is not whether you found this amusing, but whether you're so nailed-down in your ideology that any humor anybody finds with any aspect of it is perceived by you as an attack.

Well that's a fair point about changing times. A lot of people have, for example, made the point that the post-Reagan Republican party is vastly different from the Nixon-era Republican party (Nixon having created the EPA, ended Vietnam, etc). One thing that the Miers nomination has suggested to me is that "the base" is a more powerful influence than I had previously calculated. The West Wing is also contributing to my understanding of the value of "the base". I tend to say things like "well who else are they going to vote for", but in fact they do have plenty of sway with their candidates.

I never said *anywhere* in this thread that I thought it was funny that part of a reef was destroyed. That is a mean-spirited, ugly distortion of what I've said. I have a problem with this post, and view it as a personal attack and a straw man argument, both of which are violations of your user agreement. If you said it to anybody else, I would have issued you a warning. This is the kind of attack and smear, by the way, that contributes to polarization and breakdowns in communication. I think that by now I've posted enough of my personal thoughts and positions so that people here understand something about my position. I say this not because I think Zyncod's post suggests that this is not the case -- I know his post is not indicative of the community -- but to point out that this is the kind of thing that some people are willing to do. This is the kind of thing we HAVE to fight. As I pointed out above, Jon Stewart and Al Franken (probably two heros of yours, Zyncod) LIVE in this territory, making jokes about the far right all the time that are exactly like this in every way. I laugh at both sides. If you can't do the same, that should tell you something about yourself, not about me.

This has come up again in connection with cervical cancer. The drug companies are pushing for making the vaccinations mandatory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9873260/ I have a problem with that. If the argument is "because it's cheaper for society over the long run" (i.e. caring for cancer patients down the road), then we might as well stomp on everything. Why allow smoking? Fatty foods? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet? Arguably ALL freedoms impinge upon someone else at some point or degree.

I don't understand. Aren't judges sometimes removed from "regular" criminal cases as well? Reasons could be personal involvement in the case, inappropriate contact with prosecution or defense, and even demonstrated predisposition shown in public statements or what not. Surely this is not an uncommon occurence. I do agree that we have a problem in this country of the quality of legal defense being higher based on the amount of money available for the lawyers. But I don't think that's really at issue here. A first-year law student could have made this particular argument.

Makes sense to me. One thing I meant to add to the judge's credit is that while he didn't recuse himself, he did ask his boss-judge to make the final decision. That's usually seen as a "class act", as I understand it, and says something good about the judge (i.e. he's eager to do his job, but willing to accept third-party judgement of making sure that things are "above suspicion"). It doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't have been biased in the DeLay case, but that kind of resolution helps to guarantee that we DON'T end up with a system where cronyism and ideology determine cases.

Long-time readers here will know that I'm not a fan of Tom DeLay, or of House Republicans in general. Frankly I think they personify much of what's wrong in Washington these days. But fair is fair, and today's objections bothered me. In a nutshell, people are annoyed that the judge in the Tom DeLay case was removed. He had donated five grand to MoveOn.org, and there are allegations of statements he's made in the past about Tom DeLay of a pretty bias-indicative nature ("Do you oppose Tom DeLay?" "In every possible way" was one quote I heard on the radio today). Also I have to apply my "reversal rule" here -- would it be objectionable (to the same people who are crying foul today) if the reverse were the case? Would they favor leaving him on the case if the judge had donated $5,000 to Focus on the Family or was a neo-con? Consider also that the judge's replacement will be made without any input from either the prosecutor or the defense. They can object to the choice, of course, but the point is that DeLay isn't "selecting his judge" the way some would have you believe. The process is as fair as it can be. Thoughts? Here's a story on it: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110105delay_wr,0,209555.story?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews