Pangloss

But your statement was: Which I agreed with, and then pointed out that that statement does not apply to Greeneace. It still doesn't. They're not "trying to show that global warming is real", John, they're trying to *convince you* that global warming is real, whether it is in fact real or not. There is a huge difference. ---- Some people find it amusing, others do not. But whether it's amusing or not is based on whether it is amusing that a special interest group is so focused on spinning its agenda that it ends up damaging the very thing it's trying to convince everyone should not be damaged. That's ironic, and irony is amusing.

I think irony is all the more delicious when it's delivered with a heavy background of hypocrisy. It's my bread and butter. Sorry if it offended anyone.

Actually we've already had a pro-life Democratic presidential candidate. He won 3.5 million votes and five states in the primaries in 1984, and 6.9 million votes and 11 primaries in 1988. (See if you can guess who it was before you click this link.) Is it really THAT much of a stretch to envision one reaching the final ballot? That's the funny thing about "big tent" politics (and the American two-party system). Just when you think you know exactly what a "Democrat" or a "Republican" is, they bonk you on the head and remind you that there are a LOT of issues before us, and every individual's take on each individual issue is different.

Sure, but Greenpeace is not in the business of objectively evaluating the environment.

Good times: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17104337-28793,00.html The funniest part is right at the end of the story. Not only do they have to pay a fine for damaging the reef, but they didn't find any evidence of damage to the reef due to global warming! BWahahashdAHAHsdahafda!!!11one!

I thought you might find this interesting for a couple of reasons. "The West Wing" is an American television show, which comes on the NBC network on Sunday nights. It's several seasons into its run. Martin Sheen plays a Democratic president, and I've always found the show interesting because of the way it attempts to portray the job and the office as realistically as possible. They discuss real politics, real political choices, real ethics and morality, and they look at real consequences. Just to give a brief example of this, the president is a "liberal Democrat", but he's often forced to act in "conservative" ways, such as with situations requiring military action, social compromises, and so forth. Often the show conceeds intelligent points of view and valid reasoning from the right side of the aisle, treating those opinions and solutions with respect and fairness, even though the "current president" is a Democrat. OK, so getting to the point: Next week they're going to do the show LIVE. The reason why they're doing it live, however, requires a bit of explanation, which will bring me to why I mention it here. Over the past season and the current season, about 50% of the storyline of the show has been about who will succeed President Bartlet as the next POTUS. Last season they went through the primaries, and now they're coming up to the election. The two candidates are played by Jimmy Smits (the Democrat) and Alan Alda (the Republican). Now what you would THINK would be the case, following standard Hollywood trends and the fact that the show has always been about a Democrat, is that the Republican would be portrayed as a sinister, evil type, as has happened in so many movies in recent years, right? And the Democrat would be a picture of perfection, attacked mercilessly by those evil Republicans, and so forth. Ah, but you'd be wrong. In fact the whole campaign has turned into a fascinating study in role reversal. And the writers have left us with no stereotype-based clues as to who will win! It's quite fascinating. Just to give an example, on the subject of abortion, the Republican is pro-choice, and the Democrat is pro-life! Impossible, you say? Not at all! The Democrat is a latino, from a catholic family. And the Republican is a moderate, standing on a pro-choice voting record. Such examples exist in our current society already, and it's not hard at all to see how this very situation could arise. So in case you haven't guessed, next week's live broadcast will be a *debate* between the two candidates. Pretty clever, eh? They're supposedly going to run the episode exactly like a real presidential debate, except that both candidates have insisted on a "no rules" debate (so in a sense it won't be like a real presidential debate at all). And the show itself really will be live, so the actors could flub their lines and so forth -- just like politicians often do. It should be quite fascinating, and an interesting study in politics. Check it out if you can. It's Sunday night on NBC at 8pm Eastern time. (Those of you living outside the US will have to check your schedules, or perhaps wait for the DVD.)

This thread is the product of an opinion/rant, not an objective political observation. Just to give an example of how much wild and fantasaical spin there is in the original article Bud was quoting: Uh, one's a businessman and the other's a bureaucrat? That's an example of them being similar? Riiight. By that reasoning Ted Kennedy and Alan Greenspan are two peas in a pod! I don't have a problem with the basic analysis of Ahmadinejad's political position, though. I also don't have a problem with the general comparison of religious-versus-secular politics (comparing Iran to the US). But notice how he stops short of doing an actual comparison of Iranian versus American politics. The author knows full well, of course, that they are night and day. So in fact the purpose of this article is to scare people. That's it. There's no real useful analysis here at all. How ironic that I should read it on Halloween! (Thanks for the perfect punchline, Bud!)

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that Palestine and Egypt spoke out against that position.

Fascinating set of posts above. You guys always come up with the most interesting angles. An excellent discussion.

Valid points. I admit I'm looking at this more as a "hypothetical" than a "real".

Some well-thought-out posts there, Lazer. Don't agree with everything you said there, but I thought it was an interesting read. Let me just briefly respond to your response to me. Well, Hitler certainly didn't announce his intentions to annex the Sudetenland, but his rhetoric before he did so was certainly similar to the kind of rhetoric we're getting out of Iran regarding Israel. That was my main point in comparing the two, really. I don't mena to put words in your mouth, because you haven't actually said this (so please straighten me out if this isn't what you meant), but why would it be okay to say that we should have stopped Germany before WW2, but it's not okay to stop Iran before they get the bomb? Aren't the two situations roughly and reasonably analogous? I'm not really taking major issue with you, by the way. I'm enjoying the discussion. I feel like I have to say that, feeling somewhat responsible for raising the Nazi thread-killing spectre, for which I hope I will be forgiven. One thing I will say is that Iran lacks Iraq's recent history of foreign invasion. It's not a huge asset but it could be an important one when the issue comes up for serious debate (if it ever does). Yah, true enough. I conceed the point.

Iran says it intends to acquire nuclear weapons. They've said many times that while their present effort (they claim) is aimed at power generation (which of course is pointless, since they export 4 million barrels of oil per day), they also consider it well within their sovereign rights to acquire nuclear weapons. That's diplomacy-speak for 'we're going to build them as soon as we possibly can'. As for the issue of whether they have the right to build them, one can say the same thing about Nazi Germany. Of course they have the right. The question is whether we're going to allow it.

Israel's demand that Iran be actually removed from the UN was intereresting. I can't remember that happening before on such a formal diplomatic level. It does underscore the point that the world thought it had pretty much moved past such positions, and it thought wrong. Virtually every nation in the UN has condemned Iran's president's statement, which is a positive sign. Not so positive is the virtually certain knowledge that Iran will continue to do as it pleases. It becomes clear now that Iran (a) intends to acquire nuclear weapons, and (b) believes it has a moral imperative to destroy Israel. This appears to be their position regardless of any other factors, such as its own imminent destruction should it pursue that imperative. Doesn't that effectively sign the nation of Iran's death warrant? Doesn't that demand immediate world military action against Iran? And if not, why not?

But if we think it's okay to say that blacks can play ball better, then why is it not okay to suggest that blacks are mentally inferior/superior? Since we're talking about genetics in both cases, what's the difference? Why is it okay to suggest one form of genetic superiority, but suggesting another form of genetic superiority raises six kinds of holy hell?

One quick-and-dirty way to figure out if something is politically correct is to flip it around and see if the reverse raises your hackles. For example, it doesn't seem to be much of a racial bias to suggest that black people are more physically capable. But if one were to say that white people are mentally superior, all hell will break loose. And yet, from a genetic point of view, what is the difference between the two suggestions (assuming a lack of evidence for either position)?

I'm going to nod at the far right for this one. I have mixed feelings about it. I didn't want Miers to become a Justice (I don't feel that she's qualified), but I hate seeing Bush kowtow to the far right. Watch the next appointment carefully. It'll tell us a lot about why Miers withdrew.

It seems to me that it's possible that black atheletes might be so successful right now because they've encouraged that avenue of advancement within their social culture. It also occurs to me that the whole argument may be inaccurate, and a typical example of the MSM straw man approach to reporting. E.G. "Joe Smith went professional this week -- this new profusion of black atheletes stuns many coaches and observers..." etc etc etc. Not enough people challenge the premises of MSM reporting these days, IMO.

Just don't tell anybody about our oil!

Gonna move this to Politics.

Actually I have to take part of that back. Wal-Mart will indeed by affected by an increase in mimimum wage. That's the secondary effect that ripples through the workforce whenever there are any increases in minimum wage. People making 8-9 bucks an hour demand increases commensurate with the increased minimum, otherwise what have they worked so hard for? Small businesses are hurt the hardest, and of course Wal-Mart is all about killing those. The whole business of minimum wage is a joke anyway. The far left won't be happy until everyone is doled out a "living wage", whether they've earned it or not, because in their view jobs are a right, not a privilege. As if money grows on trees. At any rate, I'm rambling, but I think the talking points on this issue are already pretty familiar.

Interesting points. I think the perspective that I had on it in posting this was just the "toss your hands up in the air and shake your head in wonder" perspective. On the larger issue of peace in the middle east, I think this serves as a reminder that you can only take "understand root causes" arguments so far. Ultimately these people can beat each other's brains out for all I care. As an American, I don't consider it my duty to tell people how to run their world. I consider it my duty to be a good citizen in my own country, and thereby perhaps, over time, provide an example which others can emulate, expand, or ignore, as they choose. Interesting posts, LazerFazer; thanks for jumping in.

Sadly there's enough hypocrisy to go around. Democrats were all about complaining about the cost of the Ken Starr investigation, but they're kinda quiet about Fitzgerald's expense report, huh? (chuckle) Interesting point about the Hutchison angle. Sure looks hypocritical to me.

I'm a little confused as to why Truthout (sic) is running a story that doesn't demonlize a Republican! After all, they know all about deflecting the search for truth. But serially, thanks Martin, that was an interesting story.

I'm glad to see that the left isn't going to be fooled by this rather brazen attempt on Wal-Mart's part to win back a little support from that side of the aisle. Now if I could just get you guys to go on step farther and realize that the problem here isn't Wal-Mart, it's the concept of minimum wage.