Pangloss

Brown won the race tonight, apparently. Independent voters were the tale of the tape. This quote from the Wall Street Journal seems particularly important: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704561004575013411330904680.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-LEADNewsCollection And that's the conservative Wall Street Journal talking. --------- I agree with every bit of that except for the last sentence. But you haven't answered my question: Do you believe Republicans should, as I put it above, tango -- that they should accept their minority role and get the best adjustments to progressive legislation that they can? Or do you believe they should immediately, and in every possible way, obstruct all policies from the government while it is controlled by Democrats? If you say the former, then you are criticizing current Republican behavior. If you say the latter, then you are saying that you feel that partisanship is a good policy and a reasonable way to run a government. Which is it?

Yah, how could you not feel awkward, right? Maybe it would be good if they offered "working excursions", where you could go work on the relief effort for a couple of days before you reboard your ship and sail off to the next port.

A minority party simply cannot act as absolute obstructionists AND claim that they've been excluded from government. That's like screaming for deregulation and then screaming about lack of regulation. Or screaming for more spending and then screaming about overspending. It's exactly this kind of violation of common sense that has Americans so outraged at both parties right now. I don't want to belabor the point and I recognize that this is a matter of opinion, and I also agree with your implication that it's a grey area ("for the most part"). But since there are no official functions of government that Republicans have been shut out of, I really have to question the value and relevance of this position. I think it's more the kind of thing that talk radio leverages, rather than a pertinent and significant happening. It's not appropriate for the minority party to behave as Republicans have. There model for behavior shouldn't be "well this is how Democrats behaved" -- who thinks like that?! How can that possibly be considered a productive and logical way to run a government? That's not how you run government, that's how you get power back. And the American people are simply no longer transparent to this fact. They don't care which party is doing it, they simply want it to stop. And I've got dozens of conservative friends, consistent Republican voters, who agree with me on this point -- it's only the hardcore progressive-bashers who feel otherwise. Only. This is not how Republicans behaved when they were the minority party for decades prior to the 1992 change, and often during those times they DID have an influence on the outcomes of decisions, such as with the Civil Rights acts in the early 1960s, which were opposed mainly by Southern Democrats, and could not have passed without Republican support. As for the amendments, they have to be analyzed individually. Many of them were obstructionist in nature, but if some were voted down in retaliation I would not be surprised. I'm not, by a long shot, claiming that Democrats are saints in this matter. What I'm saying is that it takes two to tango. Now let me ask you a question, jackson33, straight up: Do you believe Republicans should, as I put it above, tango -- that they should accept their minority role and get the best adjustments to progressive legislation that they can? Or do you believe they should immediately, and in every possible way, obstruct all policies from the government while it is controlled by Democrats? If you say the former, then you are criticizing current Republican behavior. If you say the latter, then you are saying that you feel that partisanship is a good policy and a reasonable way to run a government. Which is it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't think that's correct, by the way. I haven't seen a lot about polling data recently and it would be good to see some hard numbers. This is something that I think probably fluctuates a lot, since the questions tap into such a gray area of perception. (Edit: See next section below for some numbers I found.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI found a couple of recent articles on this: This article cites a Gallup poll from last year saying that 49% were in favor of the bills, with 46% opposed. Basically a toss-up. http://www.freep.com/article/20100117/NEWS07/1170634/1318/ This CNN poll from last week suggests that most people don't feel strongly either way. It also says that 61% favor the House bill over the Senate bill (given that choice). The House bill contains the public option; the Senate bill does not. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/14/health.care.poll/

Haiti doesn't have a lot going for it, but it does have tourism, of a sort. Cruise ships stop at isolated pockets of Haiti that are separated from the rest of the country in order to avoid any security concerns. I've been told by friends who've done these trips that visitors do not even enter the country in the sense of passport processing and so forth, and excursions are very limited. A few news articles, mostly local here in South Florida (but some have been picked up by the wire services today), are asking the question of whether this is appropriate right now. Royal Caribbean, which operates one of these isolated pocket resorts, has apparently decided to continue, at least for the time being, citing the 500 Haitians it employs and the $55 million it recently invested in the area, as well as the millions that tourists spend when they go there. They're also delivering aid with their ships, but I don't know to what extent that goes. Our school took up a collection and it's supposed to go out as part of a shipment on another Royal Carib ship next week, and given the reported problems at the airport it's not hard to see the advantages there. The resort shown in the image above is only 90 miles from Port au Prince. I think it makes sense to continue, but if I were at RC (and I do have friends who work there), I'd be very leery about making a profit off Haiti during the recovery, no matter how bad the company's current economic situation may be. What do you all think?

In my opinion you're both wrong -- Republicans have not been excluded from the process, nor would that be an appropriate thing for the government to do.

On Tuesday Massachusetts is holding a special election to replace Ted Kennedy's spot in the Senate, and it's starting to look like something almost unthinkable is going to happen -- Kennedy's replacement may be a Republican. Scott Brown is either tied or leading in most polls over the Democrat candidate Martha Coakley. The election has national interest because if Brown wins Democrats will lose their 60-seat majority. Many were already predicting the loss of that mark in November, but that would have left them with a whole year of legislative possibilities and opportunities to win back waning supporters. (Democrats will retain the majority, and will likely retain it in November as well.) Although considered a moderate conservative, Brown is opposed to the current Democrat bills for health care reform. He's far from the social right, focused mainly on fiscal reform. But even so, this turn of events in what Neal Boortz often refers to as "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" is a political bombshell. What I think this means is that people no longer care about Democrats or Republicans -- maybe we're finally turning the corner on the two-party monopoly. I haven't heard the "throw the rascals out" rallying cry in a while, but that does seem to be the overriding mentality -- politicians are being given very little time to do what they said they were going to do, and they'd better figure out how to work together, ignore the ideologues and partisans, and bring a little common sense back to governance, or we'll put someone in there who can. Here are some interesting quotes from the New York Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/us/politics/18massachusetts.html Here's an interesting op/ed piece from earlier in the week, from the Boston Globe, comparing the situation with the Leno-O'Brien late-night wars and talking about how there's no such thing as candidate entitlement in American politics: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/16/in_public_battles_entitlement_buys_nothing/ Also, a link to the Wikipedia article on the race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010 What do you all think?

As you say, the salient issue is harm. But it'll be an interesting issue to follow as a political observer, because it throws some common special interest alliances into disarray. Legalization is ostensibly a progressive issue, but the "no harm" position presents a challenge to the progressive concept of interdependence and connectedness. It's also an issue that, as with video game violence, some Democrats have latched on to as something that helps them appeal to moderate and conservative "family values" voters. In short, the opposition won't just be from the right. Well I can't really argue that a long-term legal and legislative battle over legalization would out-expense the current cost of the War on Drugs at all levels. You're probably right.

D'oh, I'd completely forgotten about that. Thanks. And the legalization of pot would give that position a huge boost. Unfortunately I think that even if by some miracle a policy of non-regulation were instated, the very first pregnant woman popping a thalidomide would end it overnight. And no, it wouldn't be her fault, because she's a single working mother of three! But joking aside, I don't think they'd be wrong -- safety regulations are one of the few things we can point to as a universal success in modern democracies. But the reality of legalization is that a clear legal distinction will NOT be drawn, and we're in for many years of costly litigation and legislation. I don't think that's worth it just to keep a few stoners happy. Still, if a good piece of legislation were put up, it could work.

I read the other posts above but I still don't understand your point in bringing up the second paragraph above. People already accept medical exceptions; the question here is harm in casual use. Not trying to give you a hard time here; just not clear on your point. At any rate, I agree that multiple general studies indicating low harm may (eventually) be sufficient explanation for general public understanding and acceptance, but the question I was really trying to get at was about the acceptability of specific intoxication effects. Tobacco and alcohol are substantially different in their effects, and there is a clear demarcation between their effects and the effect of marijuana. This will open an obvious door to the question of which effects are okay, and which ones are not. That question should be answered before legalization occurs. Just to pursue this a bit further, legal distinctions could be drawn regarding duration and degree of control-loss. Numbers could be drawn up regarding alcohol as a kind of baseline for comparison, and other drugs rated against that figure, then a legal line drawn. If that's not done, then it raises a very obvious question: Why are any substances controlled?

Yes, ultimately Google needs China more than China needs Google. Perhaps Google is playing for something that's beneath the public radar.

It's not a slippery slope of "rape and murder" that this calls into question, but rather the concept of government safety regulation. In order for this to be successful over the long haul, the law will have to be very clear and very specific as to why this substance should not be controlled, and it will have to do so on a scientific basis. Why is this drug clearly different from other recreational drugs, and why do some of those still need to be controlled, but others do not? The line needs to be very clear and very consistent. Draw a clear line and the FDA will continue to be able to regulate and mandate safe drugs. Draw a fuzzy one and it's back to thalidomide and asbestos. That having been said, if they can do that clearly and it gets held up by the courts, fine, I'll live with it. If nothing else at least California will stop taking money out of this Floridian's wallet to pay for for social services it can't afford, I didn't get a say in, and I have no access to.

(bonks self) I just realized that I neglected to mention that this individual was a white South African. (lol)

My statistics professor made an interesting point in a class over the weekend, which was that he had a student once who was from South Africa who had emigrated to America and insisted on calling himself an "African American". Setting aside the suspiciously antagonistic nature of that position, it's hard not to agree that racial labels get kinda silly sometimes. I think I'm supposed to be a "non-hispanic caucasian" these days, but I'm sure there's an agency in Washington with a budget bigger than NASA's that I can call to find out for sure.

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with this point.

I think that's a fine piece of spin doctoring, portraying Reid's comment as nothing more than an accurate observation. Reid disagrees with you, and apologized for the remark. As to what would have happened to Trent Lott had he only pointed out that Obama is only half-black and lacks a ghetto accent unless he feels like faking one, I think it's pretty obvious that exactly the same result would have occurred. And had Reid said what Lott said, the same excuses would have been produced. And I gave evidence with the Barbara Lee quote, in which she openly states that what matters is, to paraphrase MLK, not the content of the character but the politics of the party. Of course that's just one person, but she was speaking as a member of Congress and the Congressional Black Caucus, which will do absolutely nothing to distance itself from her opinion. Not because she's right, but because they don't have to answer any questions about it. Here's an ironic quote: Nancy Pelosi said during the Lott scandal, "He can apologize all he wants. It doesn't remove the sentiment that escaped his mouth that day." Same spit, different result.

This week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat) was able to keep his job after a report surfaced that he made some insensitive remarks about Obama during the 2008 campaign, calling Obama "a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'" Reid apologized, and Democrats piled on to say it was okay. (source) But that's not what happened to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (a Republican) after he made comments about former segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond, saying "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." The press was cited as the primary factor in his removal from power. (source) Is this a double standard? I think this quote from an Associated Press article about this is very revealing: Yes, she's actually saying that Reid's believable because he's a Democrat, and Lott is not believable because he's a Republican, and that this is because Republicans vote against the poor and minorities. IMO, guilt by association -- the dark side of political correctness. What do you think?

I agree completely.

trudeity has been suspended for a week due to rules violations.

I'm afraid that opposition to amnesty does not tell you whether an opponent is also against legal immigration. There is a logical, well-defined argument against general amnesty, and a clear demarcation between and amnesty and immigration. The general public, thanks to countless movies and TV shows, has a thorough understanding of the fact that this country was built and populated by immigrants. I'm not saying it's a non-issue, I'm saying that you're overstating the case, and I'm also saying that some people (not necessarily you) who overstate this case do so in order to make the opposition look like a stupid hate group in order to marginalize their legitimate concerns.

Calling someone a nazi because YOU were too busy to read the rules is a real class act.

Welcome! Please post a message in our introductions thread. We also have a Speculations section (be sure and read the rules). Thanks. Introductions thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6215 Speculations subforum: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=59

You mean like the commonly held belief that all liberals are opposed to gun ownership? But okay, let's take a look at your supposition that a vast right-wing conspiracy is taking place. The conservative mainstream is collectively lying, and that the reality is that they actually don't want any immigration whatsoever. I presume the motivation that you're seeing for this deception is that they wish to avoid being accused of of bigotry/racism/hatred-of-immigrants, or something similar? Certainly that can be a strong motivation. I can understand if that's how you feel, but even if it's true, so what? Why isn't it sufficient to offer opposition on the thing they SAY they're opposed to? Why is it also necessary to put words in your opponents mouths, and crude labels on their chests? What do we gain by demonization? You accuse them of irrationality. That may be. But even if it is, and you've offered no evidence that it is, it does not seem to me that your accusation is any more rational, or that attacking them on this basis is anything more than two wrongs trying to make a right.

Then you should have no trouble finding a public policy statement to that effect from a mainstream conservative organization or the national Republican party. One that does not frame the issue as "immigration reform", "upholding the law", or any other phrase that does not explicitly challenge the continuance of legal immigration. I don't disagree that some conservatives are opposed to all immigration, just as some liberals desire open borders without limits. But the mainstream conservative position, and the position of the Republican party, is that legal immigration is a normal and desirable function of the country. In fact, unless I am very much mistaken, even Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and your buddy Glenn Beck support legal immigration. I don't think even Lou Dobbs is opposed to legal immigration.

One of the things I hate about the 24-hour cable networks is the fact that their constant need to prattle on generates a never-ending stream of verbal typos from whomever happens to be on the air. QFT (and nicely put). And I don't think it would be any different if we'd elected Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Biden or Lieberman. This country's just not capable of looking at this problem objectively yet.

I added the bold above to clarify what I believe was your point. I agree that if Podesta & Co's proposal were accompanied by increased border security then you have at least addressed the common-sense objection (i.e. illegal immigration could be prevented from increasing). Congress tried to tackle that problem two years ago and failed miserably because the obvious compromise (increase security, add amnesty) could not be accepted by extremists in either party. Nor is there any sign of something like that becoming possible in the near future. And THAT'S because haters keep running around calling each other things like "teabaggers". There is no widespread opposition to immigration in America. The conservative complaint is about illegal immigration. And every time you make that "mistake" here, I'm going to point it out. I think you may have missed bascule's point -- the progressive position is that they create economic growth. But I would want to see the evidence. If there's conclusive, objective, non-ideological evidence to support increasing the legal immigration rate, I would support such measures. But an ideological paper from a progressive think tank? Not so much.