Pangloss

The extent of people's ability to be lazy knows no boundaries

Mateusz if you want to PM me a link I'll check it out for you and let you know if it's ok.

What's funny is that you are obviously aware that you've lost your footing in this thread, and I posit that you're now trying to reassert your power in a way which brings nothing to the debate. Let's try to remain focused on the actual points under discussion instead of summoning "Mr. Stompy," shall we? You can posit all you want, but I have not issued any infractions in this thread (I'm also not the one who moved it out of Politics for a while). My only comments to the other moderators from this discussion have been regarding your rudeness towards other members (such as the comment above). You're the one who uses derogation and defamation as argument, not I. If you find your infraction record growing as a result, you have only yourself to blame. But I agree with you: None of that has anything to do with the relative merits of our discussion. No, I've stayed on point and discussed only the issue at hand. The reason for the breakdown in communication is your inability to accept that other points of view will be allowed on this forum. You have a compelling need to either frame those opinions as invalid/untruthful, or demonize them and victimize their adherents, and you're frustrated because I will not allow you to get away with that -- I respond to it, pointing it out, showing how it is intolerant and immoral and against the purpose of this forum. You feel that this forum should be intolerant of opposing view points; that sometimes opinions are so egregious that they must be attacked (you've said so yourself). I feel differently -- I believe in openness and freedom of expression and welcoming other points of view. THAT is the source of our disagreements. That is a matter of judgment and opinion. You have yours, and another has been expressed on the matter. This is another example of slandering an opposing viewpoint. You accuse it of not being based in reality, of not being serious, and of not being logical. You don't know that, and can't prove it, and I've demonstrated by example and sourced material that another outcome is possible and (in my opinion) more likely. Certainly. And I addressed that directly and showed how another direction is possible and (in my opinion) more likely. "The troops" includes Pentagon personnel, high brass, and the president, and morale is created from the top down. That's how it works. Therefore the argument for that explanation for these inclusions is a valid one. So you have your opinion about it, and I have mine. Both are valid, both are honest, both are "based in reality". And neither one is "bullshit".

Part of the problem here is that nobody else wants them either. Saudi Arabia's "retraining" program is an international joke, so we'd end up sending them some place like Pakistan. I'm sure it also hasn't escaped the White House's attention that timing is important here. The President has to get re-elected, and if one of those detainees participated in another 9/11 it would be the ultimate, grand-scale Willie Horton scenario. So for now the safety issue trumps the letter of the law, I'm afraid.

That's a logical enough demarcation, and I found myself nodding with it. It may be a different picture in a few years, but there's no sense begging trouble. It's actually a foregone conclusion that if Republicans regain control of congress and Obama's approval ratings drop below 50% there will be impeachment hearings. That's what our tit-for-tat politics have produced. But I didn't mean to derail. I'll just say that seeing Obama's speech yesterday (the one in front of the constitution) gave me a lot of food for thought (he is SO good at that, isn't he?). In particular the phrase about how there are going to be detainees who fall into different categories and some of them may end up needing to be permanently detained, and that they would seek a properly legal framework to detain them. It's honest and forthright, and there's a lot of integrity in that. I think in the end I will just have to keep an open mind and wait and see how this goes. It feels like a weak response, and it's the kind of response from the citizenry that got us into trouble with the Bush administration, but in the end we trust these people to do the right thing, and judge them after the fact. What else can we do?

Unless it's a low-flying 747 with the presidential seal on the side.

Do you support impeachment of this president?

Mod Note: More infractions for rude behavior have been issued in this thread. line[/hr] Your position requires a great deal of interpretation, and you've been shown examples and given supporting evidence, most specifically in post #58, in which I pointed out that your broad, unilateral interpretation is clearly not what happens, since after all that would stop the president from ever using the word "god" in a speech. I went on to point out the conditions of the Lemon Test and the Endorsement Test, showing that in both cases the specific requirements of those tests cannot be clearly applied in this case without significant interpretation. Could go your way. Might not. Who knows? Again, we lack context that the Supreme Court would perhaps have in passing such judgment. And so this is a matter of opinion, not fact. You're welcome to restate your opinion, but if you continue to (a) declare it to be factual or more valid than other opinions, or (b) declare other people's opinions to be invalid, then you will find another response from me. When you can make a statement without those two things, then you will have the last word, at least so far as I'm concerned.

I will be happy to repeat the argument in spite of the fact that you've chosen to insult me again. JohnB argued that the messages on these cover sheets might have constituted nothing more indoctrinal and/or endorsing than the "In God We Trust" on the currency. I pointed out that we lack context to decide what their purpose was. You responded with an argument that indoctrination and endorsement is forbidden under the Constitution. That does not address the point JohnB and I were making. It therefore fails to refute it.

I saw something about this the other day -- thanks for starting a thread on it, Bascule. It appears to be a significant political trend that will be interesting to follow over the next few years. I have a somewhat academic interest in these things that's independent from my political views, and at that level I just think it's interesting to follow these trends and try to derive meaning and prognostication from them. In terms of what it means, I think these upheavals are generally healthy for the parties to go through from time to time. The Dems have gone through several of their own as well, and of course the GOP has been through a couple of monstrous ones, during my lifetime. They have a profound realignment affect on party policies and politics, bringing them generally more in line with what people actually want, which is usually a good thing.

Good for them -- it's not Israel's place to decide who gets to investigate happenings in Gaza. I agree with your point about the HRC as well. If I were President Obama I would ask them to make Baghdad their very next stop.

ABC's Nightline ran a piece tonight about children in the Congo who are accused of witchcraft. I thought at first that this would be an example of exasperated parents not knowing how to deal with immaturity, but no -- these parents cast their children out into the street because they have been lead to believe that their children are the reason why the family is stricken with poverty! Egad! One woman in the story calmly explains to the reporter how her two beautiful (albeit horrendously malnourished) young boys have been stealing their sister's blood at night and flying around town. Then dear old daddy explains that this is why he cannot find work. No, really. The solution? Take the kids to see the local christian (non-aligned) priest, who casts hot wax on their belly and rips out the evil spirits. Then the parents walk away leaving the children behind to make their own way on the street. Apparently the actual Catholic church is trying to assist in education and child rescue, but the government is doing nothing. It's an awful, awful story, and should not be watched in the presence of very young children. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7613395&page=1

They don't fail to support your position. Your position fails to refute the argument.

I said evidence presented in the thread, not evidence presented in the thread by him. And once again you resort to derogatory remarks because you can't stand the fact that anybody would have the gall to actually debate with you. Tell me to pull my head out of my ass again, and you and I are going to have a whole different kind of conversation.

The Slightly Less Conservatives? How about the "Mostly Harmless" party, with a nod to Douglas Adams?

Nope. It was accurate, representative of the actual discussion, and reflected supporting evidence previously offered in the thread. Which is permitted under the constitution. Whether it is also an example of harassment is a judgment call which would have to be proven in court. You feel it is, great, I respect your opinion on this. Others disagree. Way it goes.

Well that's amusing rhetoric, but why do you feel we're safer if they are left where they are? Do you feel that the 90 miles between Cuba and Florida provides some sort of protective barrier (surely I don't need to address that one, do I?), or is it that you feel Guantanamo Bay is somehow more secure than a Federal Supermax prison?

Like I said, both sides have their points. It's not exactly NIMBY in the usual sense -- these are dangerous people and there will be a significant cost and danger in housing them. Are Bascule and Phi for All in greater danger because Richard Reid is in Colorado SuperMax? It's a reasonable argument to make. But they have to go somewhere. If we've already determined that they can't remain at Guantanamo Bay, where do we put them?

Here's an article that has a lengthy list of major changes included in the bill: http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/managingyourmoney/archives/2009/05/what_the_credit.html

Infraction issued.

This is becoming an interesting political fight between Democratic rivals. The Harry Reid faction is pursuing a NIMBY strategy, wanting no more terrorists in US prisons. The Diane Feinstein (and Obama) faction thinks that's a safe approach (it's already used for some of the convicted ones like the shoe bomber), and that we should proceed with closure. Obama stood right in front of the actual Constitution today to rebuke the Senate's 90-6 rebuke of him yesterday, delivering a speech from within in the National Archives -- a very symbolic move. Both sides seem to have their points, but Harry Reid's argument seems to me to be the weaker of the two. Surely something needs to be done to move forward and get this stuff resolved, and to just say "not in the US" doesn't help anything. The situation is what it is, and it has to be dealt with. My two bits anyway.

Allow me. First a brief aside: I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. It looks like you're saying that you work for the government and that you'd be fire, but then you talk about the government as a different entity so I guess you're saying you work for a private entity. But there's no law that I know of governing the expression of religious views as part of a private businesses' correspondence. I thought the question here was regarding a law that ONLY applies to the government? Are you talking about workplace harassment, perhaps? The expression of religion in a workplace might constitute harassment, under the right conditions, but it wouldn't automatically be so. Plenty of businesses have religious themes as part of their normal workplace environment. So I guess I don't really understand what you're saying here. Maybe you could clarify it for me. Wow, nicely put. And I agreed with Gutz's post and your follow-up as well. I raised that other point that you mentioned in re Popul Vuh in an earlier post but it didn't get taken up. I think it's right on the mark, though. Now to bascule's question. It's a bit more than that, actually. People employed by the government can express their religious views even within the context of their actions as an agency of government. This is protected, except when it is used to promote a religion or it intersects with other restrictions such as harassment. (More on this after the next quote from you below.) I've always been somewhat amused by the phase "we don't have prayer in public schools". That's not true at all -- students can pray all they want. So can the teachers. It's when the teachers try to lead the students in prayer that the wall is broken. If these cover sheets are wrong, then somebody had better tell President Obama to stop mentioning god in any of his speeches ever again. To quote Robert N. Bellah, "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension." (I found that in the Wikipedia here, and it lists an external source, but reader beware.) Not really. Stereologist wrote about a specific point with regard to expression, and you answered him with a point about how the state cannot establish/promote/endorse religion. The problem is this: Determining whether or not something constitutes promotion or endorsement of religion is not clear cut at all. What is clear is this: These documents don't do any of the specific things listed in your quotes. They don't establish a religion. They don't represent laws. They don't instruct or force people to go to church, etc etc etc. There's simply nothing listed in any of your quotes that is directly, by definition, contradicted by these actions. So the issue is one of judgment (i.e. opinion), which is whether or not these documents constitute unfair influence in that direction. That is, of course, why the Supreme Court has the so-called "Lemon Test", which it uses to rule in such cases (as recently as 2000) along three criteria (any of which can cause a ruling against the expression): 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. This of course is used to rule on legislation, but if it were applied here then it's not at ALL clear that this would cause a negative ruling for the perpetrators of the Cover Sheets from Hell. It might indeed be ruled to violate one of these tests, but it's not automatic at all. Not factual. Rather: A matter of opinion. There is also Sandra Day O'Connor's so-called "Endorsement Test", which says that the government is guilty of endorsing a religion if it creates a perception of doing so in a reasonable person's mind. That's not ANY reasonable person, mind you, but the theoretically objective "reasonable person" used in court tests (you can read more about that here). Note this interesting quote from O'Connor on that subject: Did the government in this case intend to endorse religion in these statements? We don't know, and a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation has been offered that is, as far as any of us knows, of equal value at the very least. As I have been saying from the beginning, without context, we cannot decide. That, again, renders this issue a matter of opinion. Not fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21cards.html?ref=global-home Apparently a last-minute provision regarding gun control was inserted by a Republican allowing people to carry firearms in public parks if they are already licensed to carry them. I don't know the whole story on that issue but it might only represent a minor change in real practice. At any rate, even before that happened it seems that a lot of Republicans had gotten on board, and in the end more supported than opposed -- a marked change from earlier bills. I wonder if this represents real bipartisanship. Some details on what the measure means for credit card holders: Sounds like a good thing to me. Some of those practices are pretty outrageous. I do think card holders are responsible for their bad behavior but they're also being taken advantage-of, and that needs to stop.

You've said your piece. If you wish to discuss the matter further you're welcome to send me a PM (or reply to the one I sent you earlier attempting to discuss this with you privately). Thanks.