Pangloss

True and fair enough. And we're sending one to the national scene: Charlie Crist, who's giving up a sure-fire re-election to take a shot at Mel Martinez's seat. I think you'll see that as a step in the right direction, particularly given Martinez's background (he's the last of the three senators who cast the infamous secret Terri Schiavo vote with 97 senators not even aware it was taking place).

JohnB, I'm somewhat hesitant to argue these points, because I know that (a) your points are not entirely unfair, and certainly not unfounded, and (b) I know you well enough to know that this isn't an example of blind anti-Americanism. But I do think these points have counterpoints worthy of merit, so let me try to address them, from a position of respect for what you're saying (i.e. I understand why people feel that way, and don't entirely disagree with it). This is occasionally true, but I don't think it is the general rule. We sell our best combat aircraft right now, for example, and plan to sell out main next-generation fighter across the board (the F-35). We won't be selling the F-22, but then we're only making a small number of them, for a very short shelf life, and there is no international interest in the product (for the exact same reason -- it's too expensive). One big reason why a lot of hardware doesn't end up in foreign hands is cost. A B-2 Stealth Bomber costs a billion dollars per unit. The same amount of money can operate one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier group for a single year. I don't know if it's ever come up whether to sell items like that to other countries, and if it did it might indeed spark a debate over security, but given what we do sell I don't think you can use these examples as evidence that we don't support our allies. And the same availability applies to less expensive items. Your troops operate our main battle tank, fire our main combat rifle, use our best radar technology, and your troops find each other using our satellite positioning system (which is actually open to the entire world, free of charge). Even our operational missile defense system is sold overseas. Is there some specific piece of "first line" hardware that we're not willing to sell that people actually want to buy? The flip side of that coin is that with most countries (Australia being a definite exception) the problem isn't an unwillingness to serve under US command, but an unwillingness to serve at all. The Rwanda situation is a typical example -- nobody is willing to step up to the plate, but everyone is willing to find fault with US foreign policy (no doubt advancing their own careers in the process -- I wonder sometimes if foreign diplomats ever get any blowback of any kind for blaming Americans). IMO more countries should follow Australia's lead (which I would characterize as intelligent and thoughtful, but not bullied or reactionary, engagement), and it's also worth noting that because of that engagement Australia's criticisms carry more weight with many Americans. (I think maybe I got sidetracked a bit here and dodged your question a bit, but I addressed it more directly two quotes below.) I'm afraid you've completely lost me here. What is a "chocolate soldier"? Is it like a mercenary? Sorry if I'm being dense here, I just don't think I've ever heard the term. I think if you were to ask the people who are actually involved in these things they would tell you something different. Bear in mind that a lot of cross-training takes place -- that's a sign of respect going in BOTH directions. Ask a Seal what they think of the SAS some time and I seriously doubt you'd hear anger, anomosity and "arrogance" come out of their mouths. I don't know, John, you could be right, but I've seen no evidence of this kind of sentiment and so I have no reason to think that that respect doesn't extend to top brass and tactical planning types. But like I said, I understand where you're coming from. I think it helps to hear things like this because (a) it's what people are actually feeling, so it needs to be addressed, and (b) criticism that's right needs to be recognized and applied. We get a lot of good criticism, but we're not always very good at learning from it.

I agree with this: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13

I have to say I'm surprised to see you, Mokele and bascule apparently agreeing with something that I had been under the general impression was more in the nature of a conservative talk radio rallying cry than a logical point of discussion. You guys seem to have accepted the premise that terrorism is a different level of offense than crime. Mokele's point makes little sense to me because it seems to me that if I allow a terrorist to make that "greater impact" then the terrorist has accomplished his goal. Why reward him or her in that fashion? It seems to me that I make an even greater statement about what I think of their principles if I simply treat them as a common criminal. This is just my opinion, of course, but wouldn't it make more sense to stop separating criminals by motive? Many people are opposed to hate crime legislation and capital punishment for the same reason. Isn't crime supposed to be about justice for the victim? How am I in greater need of justice if my attacker maims me because I'm a minority instead of because I was standing in the way of the exit? It also feels like you're rubbing your hands together and saying "Okay, we hated this when conservatives were deciding who the terrorists were, but now we're in charge!" Maybe that's an erroneous impression on my part, but I have to question whether using a different ideology to select what constitutes a "terrorist" is actually an improvement.

President Obama said today he plans to introduce a health care plan that is both affordable and easy to use. The insurance industry promptly responded that it plans to fight the plan using congressmen that are both affordable and easy to use. - Conan O'Brien

My dog loves beef. She also likes to bark at cows. My wife is convinced that she's telling them that she plans to eat them later. I find it most beneficial to domestic harmony not to challenge this belief.

Er, wouldn't that solution be just as bad as what actually happened?

I have two problems with that. #1: All countries act in their own interests, and there is no universal moral position defining this standard. It usually (though admittedly not always) comes down to historical analysis and deciding that somebody screwed up only after the fact. #2: In the case of Iraq the community of nations complained that the US DIDN'T leave that tinpot dictator in place. So we're damned when we do, and damned when we don't. It's a double standard. Not that there's anything wrong with global citizens deciding when they agree or disagree with US actions -- more power to 'em. But when the statement is made that "nobody trusts us", that has to be challenged as unfair, in my view.

Oh I see. But why are there different laws for terrorist acts?

Who presented a slippery slope argument? I try to catch those (when they're fallacies) but maybe I missed it. (For that matter, I also have a long-standing beef with opinion bias in thread-reading (i.e. only reading and replying to posts one disagrees with), but I still succumb to it myself on occasion.)

Does defining an act as "terrorism" serve a useful purpose?

I paused for a day to consider this more fully, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm stepping on you for expressing your opinion, but I feel obliged to respond to some degree. I hope you respect where I'm coming from with this -- I understand why you're angry with Republicans, but I think you go too far with it and don't recognize how badly we all need them to recover. Florida Republicans have kept my state financially solvent through eight hurricanes and numerous other crises. It was under GOP stewardship that Florida resolved an insurance crisis, a budget crisis, an environmental crisis, a regulation safety crisis (new housing codes following Andrew that would have greatly helped Mississippi and Louisiana deal with Katrina), and a constitutional amendment crisis. Every increase in state spending has to be justified by a corresponding increase in revenue, and we even took it to the level of including cost statements with every constitutional amendment that makes it to the ballot, and discovered that even voters are less likely to vote for sweeping expenditures if they see what they will cost. I won't say that it's been a perfect ride, mind you. The 2000 election haunts Florida Republicans, as does the spectre of Terri Shiavo. But in both cases there was tremendous blowback that you never see talked about on the national level. I don't think the local GOP will make *either* of those mistakes again any time soon (though I've been wrong before). So I think Republicans CAN do a sound job, especially when they focus on the fiscal side and leave the social conservatives to whine to their ministers. Why they did such an awful job at the national level during roughly the same period of time is beyond me, even in retrospect. But they surely did blow it. Badly. The concern I have is that anybody would think that Congressional Democrats will be any better. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't want a balanced budget, and I predict that they will do everything in their power to stop PAYGO from being reimplemented (while attempting to blame that on Republicans). Congress doesn't want PAYGO because it will stop them from making the one-time discretionary expenditures of the Economic Recovery Act a permanent part of the budget. Barrack Obama is all alone up there, the one and only person in Washington who actually wants sound fiscal policy. And in order to support that we need to SUPPORT Republicans who are now willing, however hypocritically, to stand against profligate spending. They will become a ready pool of available votes to draw from when Democrats drag their heels on Obama-proposed spending cuts next year. But not if we keep wailing on them because of the Bush years. Gotta wise up, man. I feel where you're coming from with this, I really do. But it takes two to tango, and we badly need to dance.

Don't forget the most ironic part: It was the GOP that allowed PAYGO to lapse. They couldn't have passed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 without doing so.

President Obama called today for a renewal or re-enactment of PAYGO, which was a government law effective mostly during the Clinton administration. I think this is a VERY good idea and directly addresses concerns about ongoing profligate spending now that certain precedents have been set by the various massive bailout and relief programs. The article I've linked below erroneously states that it requires that all spending be balanced with savings elsewhere -- actually the way it worked was that you could decrease cost elsewhere OR attach a corresponding (same value) revenue increase from some source. The point being "neutral" impact on the budget (no deficit increase). It's important to note that this only impacts "direct" spending, or the non-entitlement side of the budget. That's about one-third of the total budget, but it's where all the vast spending increases have come from. (It's not where the biggest increases are GOING to shortly be coming from, now that the baby boomers are retiring and asking for their Social Security and medical benefits, but that just makes this even more important.) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/

I might be more willing to trust them if it wasn't for the fact that they've already shown themselves to be untrustworthy with some of these very determinations (Guantanamo Detainees). There have just been too many cases of erroneous, ill-considered detentions. I have no way to know that those remaining are there for valid reasons. I will say that the fact that Obama's people think they are there for good reason lends credibility to that claim. I respect your opinion on it, but just to try and give you some kind of answer, I think it's that he's done exactly the same thing that you've done -- interpret the word "war". You think it should be broadly interpreted to mean that, for example, people should be detainable if elected officials deem it appropriate, regardless of the law. He feels it should be narrowly interpreted and that since none has been legally declared, extralegal actions should be curtailed (though he seems to be having trouble following through with that promise). You're certainly right to point out, by the way, that this closing Guantanamo is about politics. But that's a two-way street. The GOP would be more than happy to be handed another Willie Horton on a silver platter.

I see no reason to return his pejorative with further pejorative, iNow. It's undignified. How do you know? How do you know every person in there merits being kept there? How do you know there aren't more men like this one, who was set free after a judge determined there was insufficient evidence to support his detention? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/08/Ex-Gitmo-detainee-sure-he-was-tortured/UPI-98551244481783/ It wasn't dishonestly or baiting. You made a statement that the legal basis was wartime footing, and I pointed out that we're not at war on a legal basis. You made an error. I corrected it. Nothing more to it than that. That doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. It does underscore the point, however, that your pejorative comments about "confusion", "dishonesty" and "baiting" won't be tolerated. You have to explain the basis by which the determination is made that the event took place on a "battlefield". When you make a factual statement here, you're required to back it up or reveal it to be simple opinion. When you fail to back it up but insist it to be factual, we handle it in the manner you've seen here -- responses that undermine your point and expose your error, followed by infraction notices if necessary due to repetition. Welcome to SFN Politics. But it sounds like you've stepped back to merely expressing your opinion (albeit in a derogatory fashion), so I'll move on. But if you need any more clarification in this area, please don't hesitate to ask. That's not how we work here, and you agreed to abide by this community's standard when you signed up. Please review the following document, and pay particular attention to Section 2, Part 4: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=65&a=14 You should also refer to the etiquette guide, paying particular attention to Section 2: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8730 Thanks.

On the contrary, Mokele, I believe several members, myself included, advocate their release. But that's beside the point of my question. Actually you did more than that, suggesting that people who disagree are "confused", and made a factual statement that you couldn't support, which is what prompted my reply. That having been addressed, I consider the matter closed. We take factual statements seriously around here.

I wondered if maybe JohnB's therapist was legitimate but was just using certain catchy phrases like "alternative medicine" to drum up business. If so it's a bit disheartening, but I guess understandable, and certainly doesn't bother me as much as if he were using crackpot methods and calling them legitimate medicine. "You need homeopathy!" "What's homeopathy?" "I don't know, but Cindy says it's good for you! She knows these things -- she's had botox, you know."

What war are you referring to?

Stickying this thread for future reference, since we get this question a lot.

Scrith also stops 40% of neutrinos, if memory serves. An amusing side-note that later turns out to be a plot-point in one of the sequels, I believe. I actually asked Larry Niven, at a SF convention in 1984, whether he originally planned for _____ (don't want to spoil it for Reaper) to be the creators of the ringworld. He made a sarcastic remark about writers and readers knowing their respective places, as I recall (basically he didn't want to say). Oh well. I think the thing I loved most about it was the distorted sense of scale that Louis Wu keeps fretting over. Lots of fun. In the 2004 novel (the fourth sequel) he gets a bit into the problems of moving the Ringworld, which is an imaginative bit. That book turned out to be pretty decent, after the disappointing "Ringworld Throne" sequel from 1996.

I disagree. The primary objection is not to the location of the facility, but to the method by which its inmates came to be there. You're using a side discussion about logistics and facilities to make an ideological statement about security. This would be an example of the subject-widening I warned you about earlier; a typical ploy of conservative talk radio, and a logical fallacy. In my opinion this country should not be in the business of imprisoning people who can't be legally convicted of wrongdoing. You feel differently? More power to you.

Well first I'd want to know why the majority opinion should be applied in such "opportunistic moments", and how you would go about determining when such moments have arisen. Then we'd have to address issues such as poll question determination, accuracy, who gets to ask the questions, and what oversight they would have. And perhaps most important of all, you'd have to explain to me why, if you're going to all the trouble of actually creating a true democracy, that it would be such a terrible idea to let people have a real vote.

I wanted to get back to this point: I don't believe that to be the case. Can you show any evidence that it is? We're all familiar with the problems of the Mexican border, but bear in mind that that's not "tolerance" -- when they're caught they are returned to Mexico. The same is true here in South Florida, and one of the most tragic human dramas I've ever seen takes place on a weekly basis right here on our beautiful beaches. Boats full of people wash ashore regularly, and if they manage to make it past the Coast Guard and onto the beach they can sometimes get away from authorities and disappear into the population. But more often than not they are caught and returned to their native country, so they spent days adrift at sea for nothing. That's assuming they don't die in the process, which is an all-too-common fate. Where this differs is in the case of Cubans. If they're caught at sea they're returned to Cuba (yes, US Coast Guard ships dock in Cuba on a regular basis to return these people). But if they make it ashore they're allowed to stay, thanks to Clinton's "wet foot dry foot" policy. This strange policy has lead to all sorts of unintended consequences, including a constant outcry from the Haitian community demanding the same exception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_foot_dry_foot But aside from that exception, and in answer to your question, I'm aware of no general policy of tolerance for illegals from specific countries or parts of the world. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Okay. Here are two pages describing UN Resolution 1761, passed in 1962, neither of which appears to confirm your statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1761 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1761 It's just the Wikipedia and Wikisource, but the second link contains the actual text of the resolution. And again, you're the one who made the statement, so you are expected to provide a source. Personally I think you're probably correct, but I'm making a point here as a moderator. It's not laziness, elas, it's how we roll here, beach bums though we may be. (I know I am!)