While I concur that Whittle can write, he always seemed a little too chummy with the neocons with regard to foreign policy - and you can't have a limited government if you want to be the world's cop, or think you can spread liberty through invasion.
"War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen circumstances that no human wisdom can calculate the end; it has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes."
Thomas Paine
Oh, for $GOD's sake. The whole bleeping enchilada is on the line, and the first thing anyone has to say is to pick an nit, and lodge a protest of insufficient ideological purity?
--==|==---
Lemme be super clear here: either we all find a common ground basis to advance our mutual liberty and prosperity where it counts: in our homes and on our streets, or we can kiss all this goodbye, and wind up as a fascinating footnote of the apogee of a civilization.
Folks need to start asking themselves whether their actions contribute towards, and detract from, that goal.
No, we're not going to get everything we want. No, our exact preferred vision, whatever it might be, isn't going to happen. But we either build a framework within which we are all free to pursue our own preferences as they pertain to ourselves, or that framework will be defined for us, and it will NOT be made for our benefit.
We either take such actions, now, today, here, that takes the ball one quanta, one jot more towards the direction of freedom, or our enemies will gladly push the ball back towards the other end of the field.
Bill Whittle has a great gift, and is uniquely positioned with those abilities to contribute to that goal. I, for one, encourage him to recognize that unique position and to deploy those gifts it for all of their considerable value.
You should know that war has long since been eclipsed as the primary driver of government abuse in modern societies. The welfare state has done far more damage to America than any war we have ever fought, and the same is true to an even greater degree in Europe.
In other words, priorities!
And I would dearly love to see Bill Whittle sharpen his pen to a deadly point, right about now.
Kevin: An inspired concept. Kudos to you for coming up with it, and for having the clout, as it were, to propose the idea to Bill. Take your laurel, sir; you've earned it.
Geek: Frank N. Stein's comment was necessary, and was properly the first comment, but only for the purpose of clearing the decks for action. You've cleared them nicely.
Bill: If you're reading, you have just enough time for Common Sense, Again to be in everyone's hand on July 4th. It is necessary, and likely you're the only one who can write it.
Just a suggestion, but if you agree with me and this post, email Bill directly and tell him so. I doubt he reads TSM. Oh, and by all means, spread the idea around!
Well gee, I didn't mean to tinkle on anyone's parade. And I'm not looking for ideological purity, although it would be nice for people to "check their premises" before holding incompatible beliefs (in Whittle's case, limited government combined with military welfare around the world).
The country has been on the express train to increasing statism since before any of us were born, and that's because most people want it. Or rather they want the "benefits" from an intrusive government. Oh they wouldn't if they thought about what it entailed, but we aren't talking about thinkers here, this is about voters. Let's just say public education has done its job well.
If Whittle does write Common Sense II: Electric Boogaloo, do you think it would "wake up" anyone who doesn't already see where the train is going? Last year this blog had a link on the left endorsing McCain. How bad will it need to get before voting for "lesser evils" is no longer an option? Would Common Sense II have changed Kevin's mind last year?
Last year this blog had a link on the left endorsing McCain.
So "F^*k It! McCain '08 - The Least Repulsive Democrat Running" is now an endorsement?
I guess I should have voted for Ron Paul in protest? And that would have resulted in . . . what exactly? Obama would still be president. I tried "protest voting" once. We got Clinton.
Would McCain be spending the money that Obama is? Would McCain be strong-arming GM, Chrysler, and the banks? Somehow I doubt it, though I admit I could be wrong.
If Whittle does write Common Sense II: Electric Boogaloo, do you think it would "wake up" anyone who doesn't already see where the train is going?
In a word, YES! A lot of people are just now beginning to wake up, and they need a scorecard.
YES you should have voted for Ron Paul. YES McCain would be doing pretty much the same thing.
Frank's point is that a lot of people who want liberty in this country SOLD OUT for more war, by voting for Bush and his NeoCon friends. Frank's point is that if you really do want liberty, you must eschew the pro-war foreign policy, because those are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE.
Its like saying I want to buy a Ferrari but I also only want to work at Walmart as a greeter.
Frank's point is that a lot of people who want liberty in this country SOLD OUT for more war, by voting for Bush and his NeoCon friends.
I'm sick and fucking tired of the "neocon" crap.
Let me make this plain: I supported the invasion of Iraq. I still do.
If you want to know why (though I sincerely doubt you care) I recommend you read Steven Den Beste's Strategic Overview which best expresses the logic and reasoning behind it.
I am convinced, personally, that the invasion of Iraq was part and parcel of the election of Bush in 2000, and all 9/11 did with regard to that was to move the timetable up.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, but his foreign policy positions are insane.
"If you want to know why (though I sincerely doubt you care) I recommend you read Steven Den Beste's Strategic Overview which best expresses the logic and reasoning behind it."
Ok. Read it.
"Goal of Stage 2: we had to conquer one of the big antagonistic Arab nations and take control of it."
Well someone here certainly has an insane foreign policy position. I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to figure out who.
If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, he'd probably still be on the CIA payroll*, keeping that other "crazed madman" in Iran in check (who, by the way, has yet to nuke Israel. Which, by the way, isn't part of the United States).
* - Foreign policy didn't begin on 9/11...it's usually modern liberals who can be accused of "history began yesterday"ism.
I'm with you, Kevin. Global military engagement is not incompatible with small government.
Pro-war foreign policy? In America? I don't think we've had that since Span-Am. What we have is a foreign policy that recognizes that somebody is going to be the 900-pound gorilla in this room, and it might as well be someone benign. In fact, limited government is the only government I would want playing world policeman.
Bill Whittle is the right man to write CS:II. (Knowing his production rate, though, I'm not so sure July 4 is a practical timetable... Whittle's essays are cathedrals, and cathedrals take time.)
always seemed a little too chummy with the neocons with regard to foreign policy - and you can't have a limited government if you want to be the world's cop, or think you can spread liberty through invasion.
How else do you spread liberty? Invasion and warfare are historically the only ways it actually, you know works.
it would be nice for people to "check their premises" before holding incompatible beliefs (in Whittle's case, limited government combined with military welfare around the world).
The two aren't incompatible. They're estranged in some ways, but not incompatible, especially factoring in history. The military system created and sustained in and since World War Two has almost no real connection with the growth of government since FDR.
If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, he'd probably still be on the CIA payroll
He wasn't. He was, however, on the French and German dole - repaid later by the oil smuggled out under the US blockade.
* Foreign policy didn't begin on 9/11...it's usually modern liberals who can be accused of "history began yesterday"ism.
No, it didn't. But it did catalyze the issue. Had we gone into Afghanistan with a major invasion, we'd have been unable to also blockade Iraq. And while I'd love for us to tell the UN to take a hike, at the moment, we're working within it's framework, and that would have been a Japan-walking-out-of-the-League moment in shattering any UN facade of effectiveness.
Roughly 1/2 of the US military logistics was tied up with Iraq - and either we could move them or...
Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that we *were* attacked by a group headquartered far from the US, yet the distance didn't bother them in the slightest. Without a robust, large military, there's no viable measure of retaliation or response. Meaning that we'd be opened up for even more attacks.
keeping that other "crazed madman" in Iran in check (who, by the way, has yet to nuke Israel.
Not for lack of trying. I suspect you won't have the decency to apologize if tomorrow Israel *is* nuked. You'll, in my estimation, just continue with the insinuations.
Which, by the way, isn't part of the United States).
Waiting until you're the last one standing to start to think about taking on enemies (while tossing allies to them in supplication) also has historical implications. Lots of them. Almost none of them positive.
It is probably just a remarkable coincidence, but about three montha ago I tried to figure out what to do next. I too, like all of you, sit amazed watching what is happening. And so I had an idea for my third book (I am just wrapping up SEEING THE UNSEEN), and I came up with a term I liked so much that I went out and bought the .com and .org to THE COMMON SENSE RESISTANCE.
Now I'm starting to settle into to these video segments, and I told my Insect Overlords that I wanted to do a series of video segments called THE COMMON SENSE RESISTANCE, but that for those only, I needed to retain the video rights because I plan on doing them as a series of video essays, so that I could put out a DVD and book simultaneously. There is a lot I can do with imagery and music and mood, and the fact is, the people we need to reach the most are the ones least likely to read the book. But they do watch internet videos, if they are sharp and interesting enough.
All of this is well underway. I am working this week on a new Afterburner which will be a Star Trek parody examining why you DON'T want an intellectual running things. But after that, in about two weeks, I'll have the first installment of the Common Sense resistance, called THE TRAGEDY OF THE UNCONSTRAINED VISION.
What I want to accomplish is to set out the foundational philosophical underpinnings of the entire idea of conservatism, and I'm starting with Thomas Sowell's incredible work, A CONFLICT OF VISIONS.
So we are on the same page, and I hope to have the first of it in a few weeks. We need it, and much more than that, too. We are in real trouble here. But optimism and hope will prevail if anything can prevail, and that is what we Americans have that no one else does: a fundamental belief in the rightness of what we are doing. (The Star Trek parody will address that as well.)
I'll conclude by saying how grateful I am for your very kind words, and only I know exactly how fully I fall short of them. But it surpasses my ability to describe how uplifting and motivational your words are. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I hope I can contribute something soon to be worthy of them.
I do not have the vision that Bill has. My "vision" extended to a 21st century pamphlet I could wave, but I never dreamed of, not just A video, but a SERIES of videos.
Bill is correct. People who WON'T read WILL watch.
With all due respect to Cindi, discussing Iraq and how that fits into the "Common Sense" culture you dream about IS on topic. Since he was mentioned in this post,
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin said this in the early part of 1775. He also said, "There was never a good war or a bad peace." So, Kevin, you can't have it both ways. And while I agree with you regarding Dr. Paul's insane ideas on the topic of international relations, if you are for "common sense" you should NOT be in support of anything the Patriot Act, invading Iraq and all that comes with it.The world that many of you fear has been here the last eight years and most of you have cheered it on. You have supported neo conservatism by allowing our citizens, as well as citizens from abroad, to be rounded up, without trials nor representation, and sent to prison. Why? Because they were Muslim.
In fact,"your" Franklin "your" Jefferson, "your" Adams, "your" Madison, "your" Washington and "your" Paine have nothing in common with modern day conservatism and I suspect that most if not all of them, if they were alive today, would be vilified by most right wing bloggers. Why, Franklin's quote from above would have elicited calls of treason and cowardice.
In a draft of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote, "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." How do you think that idea plays with "The Base." Jefferson, btw, was a devotee of the Muslim faith and his copy of the Koran was used in Keith Ellison's swearing in ceremony.
John Adams said "There is something very unnatural and odious in a government a thousand leagues off. A whole government of our own choice, managed by persons whom we love, revere, and can confide in, has charms in it for which men will fight." Indeed, government can work if the right people are in it. He also said, "Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it." There is whole lot of the superstition and dogmatism coming from the right these days.
James Madison said, ""If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." No shit.
George Washington said, "Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country." According to writings on this blog as well as the right wing in its current form, serving your country means being a socialist. Or is it fascist? I can never keep track. Any time the talk of common good comes up, screeding flames of death burst forth from the right. He also said, in a letter to Madame Lafayette, "Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last." Imagine if he had said that today. The f word? Suffering Jehosaphats! What ever would the response from the right be?
And, finally, Thomas Paine, on whom this post was based, said in Common Sense, "It is of the utmost danger to society to make it [religion] a party in political disputes. Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America." Paine would not even be a candidate for janitor in the GOP in its current form.
He also said (quoted here many times), "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
We furnish the means by which we suffer indeed. If I were an alien who landed on this planet and the only information I had on America was the writings here, I would assume the end was near. Thankfully, it is not. Individual freedom and liberty aren't going anywhere, folks. Perhaps your definition of it is and let's be realistic...that's the real problem here, isn't it? It's not the you are afraid of losing your liberty. You are afraid of being wrong. So, you can try to submit the belief that you are aligned with the founding fathers ideologically but every time you do, I am going to be there to call you on your bullshit. And, as a postscript to this very long comment, history has already proved that you are wrong.
In the 1930s and 40s, we came closer to a socialist state then we ever did. And what was the result? We defeated the greatest army this world had ever seen..."strong arming" GM btw. We built a strong economy and had more regulation than we do today. We had a 91 percent tax rate on the top one percent and built the national highway system because of it. This allowed our economy to expand even further and, in a hilarious bit of irony, allowed some of you to go on to very successful careers in engineering.
Happy for you ideologically but perhaps sad for future engineers and innovators, those days are gone and will never come back. Our country has moved too far away from allowing any sort of government institution (NASA for example) that kind of power. Look at the hysteria over the government's temporary involvement in the banking industry and Detroit recently. As Alan Greenspan and many others said in the CNBC documentary "House of Cards" (shown to me by last in line recently and fully torpedoing any last shred of an idea that blames government for our current issues), the corporation and free market rule the day and will forever. Gordon Gecko would be proud and all of you, rather than gathering pitch forks and torches, should be happy.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." No shit."
Bullcrap, Markadelphia. True Tyranny and Oppression does not get voted out of office.
Need I remind Mark that the legal groundwork for knocking off Saddam and company was NOT laid in the run up to the 2003 invasion, like everyone thinks it was, but is in fact a legal consequence stipulated in the cease fire from the 2001 Gulf War (that Iraw signed and violated immediately thereafter)?
We had the legal right to invade for 12 years, but chose not to for political considerations. I know this because in my 2 deployments during the Southern/Northern watch era in 1996 and again in 1999, we were dropping ordnance on a sometimes daily basis, when Iraqi SAM sites would illuminate Coalition fighters (a cease fire violation on every occurance).
So, spare me your legal mental gymnastics, Mark, and kindly leave the discussion to the adults.
"Jefferson, btw, was a devotee of the Muslim faith and his copy of the Koran was used in Keith Ellison's swearing in ceremony."
A devotee? Did you pull that one out of your big book of random facts with no sources? I imagine the Barbary Pirates might have a slightly different take on how "devoted" He was.
"We built a strong economy and had more regulation than we do today."
Hafta call BS again, Markadelphia:
HUD est 1965
EPA est 1970
OSHA est 1970
MSHA est 1970
DEA est 1973
TSA est 2001
That's just 6 new government agencies created in their entirety since the 40s.
Every law and regulation passed equals a loss of a liberty. Laws are being passed in this administration at a dizzying rate. Not that the Republicans are blameless either - I am no Bush cheerleader. Most of the agencies above were created during Republican administrations. So yes, individual liberty is actually going somewhere - into the history books.
Whoo boy. Mark's been saving up the crazeee for us.
Jefferson, btw, was a devotee of the Muslim faith
No, he wasn't. You don't know what "devotee" means, either. (Not a shock.)
you should NOT be in support of anything the Patriot Act
Most of us weren't.
invading Iraq and all that comes with it.
You don't have a clue about what you're blathering.
The world that many of you fear has been here the last eight years and most of you have cheered it on.
No, it hasn't. Bush made many choices that ended up in court - and he lost. He abided by the rule of law.
Obama's not allowing that to slow him down so far. (Even aside from the issue of the Birth Certificate, you've got _at the minimum_ Hillary being specifically not allowed to take a Cabinet post, and Kennedy specifically not allowed to be knighted. And that was before he started taking over Chrysler and GM.)
I suspect that most if not all of them, if they were alive today, would be vilified by most right wing bloggers
They created a nation where the government answered to the people. They sure as hell aren't going to be lauded by the left. Their insistence was that government was conceptually flawed but required, and to make it as far away from what you idolize.
Individual freedom and liberty aren't going anywhere, folks.
We keep asking you for proof. (And the definition of "verbatim". And what exactly, did you tell your student that you've claimed to have caught "critical thinking". And what defines "good capitalism?"....)
It's not the you are afraid of losing your liberty. You are afraid of being wrong.
No, it's the loss of liberty. Yeah, that's pretty much what drives most of us around here. And it's really funny that the most obvious commenter who's never willing to admit he's wrong - on anything - and has fled dozens of discussions when he's pinned to the wall - thinks he can lecture us on being wrong gracefully. Not to mention when he slips up he talks about "common good" and "smart leaders" being able to tell us what to do... without being able to reconcile that with what it means for individual liberty.
So, you can try to submit the belief that you are aligned with the founding fathers ideologically but every time you do, I am going to be there to call you on your bullshit.
Verbatim, I presume.
In the 1930s and 40s, we came closer to a socialist state then we ever did. And what was the result? We defeated the greatest army this world had ever seen.
Hah. That's hilarious. (I've already refuted you twice on this.)
We built a strong economy and had more regulation than we do today.
No, we didn't. That's just something you made up.
We had a 91 percent tax rate on the top one percent and built the national highway system because of it.
And a what percent on the rest?
Our country has moved too far away from allowing any sort of government institution (NASA for example) that kind of power.
And we can add NASA to what you don't know anything about.
Look at the hysteria over the government's temporary involvement in the banking industry and Detroit recently.
"Temporary" would imply that there's an ending - which there isn't yet, and there's no obvious date set for it to end.
So you're presuming it's temporary, and (as usual) not even entertaining the reality of what's going on.
As we're correct more and more times about our predictions as to what Obama was going to do in office, you're really getting flustered, aren't you? What's the matter, can't admit you were incredibly wrong?
Oh Lord!! Things are quieting down nicely and Markadelphia has to show up.
Yes, the Patriot Act is problematic, so is RICO and its many misapplications. Government which is smaller and doing what is in the Constitution (which pointedly included DEFENSE) is what we need to push.
I am glad to see that Bill W has checked in and I agree with the other commenter's praise of his work.
I am impressed that he is looking at video as the medium - great news for the ADD folks in the room (that would be me).
Thanks for bringing it up Kevin.
I think that a solid statement of conservative principles is much needed.
Let's not quibble about what we are not or do not agree upon, but rather focus on the large areas where we do agree. The rest will sort out over time.
Right now the Big Obama Tent is on fire and the risks to all are great.
"So, spare me your legal mental gymnastics, Mark, and kindly leave the discussion to the adults."
The adults, thankfully, are now in charge.
My chief problem with Iraq is poor strategy. If you were there in 1996 and 1999, then you know that he was not the threat that the Bush administration made him out to be. As Gen. Zinni has often said, to say that Saddam was a serious threat was the same thing as a slap in the face to all the service people (you) who protected the watch zone.
As we have seen in the last month, the real threat was always Afghanistan spilling into Pakistan which is exactly what has happened. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution (co-author of President Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy) said that "Pakistan has more terrorists per square mile than any other place on earth and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing than any place on earth." So, Mark, you will have to excuse me if I call bullshit on Iraq. And complete horse manure on anyone that says that Bush et al protected this country for 8 years. They had a child like vision of the Middle East, were way out of their depth, completely incompetent, and succeeded only at lining the coffers of oil and defense industry with taxpayer money. And they weren't smart enough to tackle the real problem all along...Pakistan.
While we are on the subject of Bush administration shenanigans, I know there are plenty of torture lovers here. What did Thomas Paine say about torture? (from First Principles of Government, 1795)
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.
Oh, and I forgot that I had a special one for Ed (re: gay marriage)that I forgot to include above.
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."
Thomas Jefferson 1779
So, help me out on this one, Kevin. You say above that you voted for the lesser of two evils with McCain/Palin. And yet both of them, especially Sarah Palin, is against equal rights to the liberty of marriage for gay people. Sorry, dude, but that's a crock of shit. What would Tom say?
Id guess i should add, that personally i didn't support the invasion of iraq, or the patriot act, but that if we lived in a free and librocentric society, i would love to debate why and how we shouldn't do things, and wouldn't stop you from doing them yourselves. (though i think a simple rule of law would still preclude the patriot act.) My biggest problem isn't what is done, or why, but how very little it has to do with the will of the people, in any way, how decisions are made with my life, every day, without so much as consulting me, and in return, those same decisionmakers ask for my utmost obedience and subservience.
Liberty doesnt stop bad ideas, but it prevents someone else's bad ideas from ruining YOUR day.
But really, I just came into the comment section here to share an answer to the question about where we find the great leaders we need today, to parallel the greatness we, rightfully, should emulate from the past. Ive wondered that a few times myself, and i found a pretty good answer on the internet almost a year ago, in a comment left on a blog (WRSA, maybe) by a "Phelps." He said:
The new Washington is doing the same thing the old Washington was doing -- running his business after an honorable but otherwise undistinguished military stint.
The new Jefferson is doing the same as the old Jefferson -- running a business, and taking up an epistolary hobby, only writing a blog this time.
The new Adams is doing the same as the old Adams -- pursuing a law career, with some part of it dealing with issues of state and freedom.
The new Hancock is doing the same thing as the old Hancock -- smuggling contraband (then, molasses for drugs, now probably the drugs themselves) and evading taxes and laundering money.
The new Franklin is blogging and publishing columns, the new Sam Adams is getting pressured by the local authorities about how to run his bar, and the new Paul Revere is reading this comment, and reminding himself to buy some more ammunition this weekend, just in case.
Like the one who's in the hot seat lying about what she did/didn't know about the CIA's methods?
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."
If I'm not mistaken, the context of this quote had to do with the establishment of a particular Christian church as the state church in Virginia viz. supporting it with tax dollars or compelling people to tithe. Which any freedom-loving Christian should be against.
And isn't Obama against gay marriage? What about that?
[Prediction: Mark will say that great people can sometimes be wrong, and Obama (who is a great man) just happens to be wrong on this one issue. But Obama's smart, so he'll eventually see the light. Or he's so busy cleaning up Bush's messes that this is a back-burner issue for now.]
What did Thomas Paine say about torture?
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty..."
He's talking about punishment. We use "torture" to extract information to prevent thousands of innocent people from being killed. Surely, even you can see the difference? What am I saying. Forget it.
Like the ones who don't believe they have to pay taxes, or the ones who can't remember to pay taxes, or the ones who can't compute the taxes they owe, or ...
"And isn't Obama against gay marriage? What about that?"
Yes, and I disagree with him. Nice prediction, btw but I disagree with him a number of issues (Pakistan, legalizing marijuana, BlackRock) and might be disagreeing with him (have strong reservations) on Hamas, Iran, the bailout but those issues haven't played out fully yet.
And Kevin S., I never said I was against gay marriage. I support it. What I did say was that if you want a solution to the gay marriage issue, take the word marriage out and make anyone who wants to be a "legal partner." Essentially, GLBTs in this country should focus on the equal rights aspect first. Work on the civil side and then get married in a gay friendly church. The fact is that gay marriage is years away, given the fact that a large segment of this country still views gay people as criminals, so I am seeking the most politically expedient option available.
"We use "torture" to extract information to prevent thousands of innocent people from being killed. "
Absolute and complete bullshit. Perhaps the greatest lie of the Bush administration next to WMDs. Have you listened to the testimonies of those who say it did NOTHING? Have you spent any time, as I have, looking into how we actually get good intelligence and what is involved in that? Have you talked to interrogators who have been doing this since WWII and heard what they had to say? Please get your head out of the fantasy of 24. That's not reality.
R. Franz, good comments. Very astute!
"I'd vote for Whittle/Baker."
I would consider that as well if only for them to see, once they got into office, how terribly misguided they are on a few issues...experience and knowledge being power and all:)
Mark, I'm not going to patronize your blog. Please to be giving me the gist of your Pelosi rebuttal here.
And, yeah, what about all those adult tax cheats Obama keeps trying to appoint?
And what about Obama the adult laughing at Wanda Sykes' puerile 9/11 jokes?
...given the fact that a large segment of this country still views gay people as criminals...
News to me. What crime have they allegedly committed, according to this large segment of the country?
I disagree with him a number of issues...
You seem awfully willing to be magnanimous in your disagreement with Obama, but not so with Republicans. Why?
As for torture, you characteristically missed the point. In the context of the Paine quote you trotted out, it's immaterial whether it's a reliable method of extracting information. The motive is the point. Are you asserting that the U.S. government uses waterboarding, etc. strictly for punishment? If so, to what end?
Sarah, the whole Pelosi thing is just another example of how bankrupt the right is on just about everything. Rather than admit they were wrong in doing what they did (see: end of the world as we know it), they choose, once again, the attack and distract route. And shirk personal responsibility AGAIN!
Suppose Pelosi did know what was going on in 2002. So what? She was told after the fact by the people who were driving the policy. And what could she have done? If she spoke up, she would've been labeled a traitor. She already is being labeled that by the right who are vilifying her for saying the CIA lied. Didn't Bush say the same thing during his tenure? No one said boo then. Given the CIA's "stellar" history with truth telling, I find her statement to at least be possibly true.
That being said, I do think that the Democrats are just as much to blame (complicity after the fact) for the crimes of the Bush Administration. In fact, I think they knew they could play it to their political advantage in 2008 by basically doing nothing in the previous two years. So, is she at fault? Sure, but not as much as the Republicans and the "liberal" media are making her out to be.
"what about all those adult tax cheats Obama keeps trying to appoint?"
Well, they are at fault as well. Ready to admit the crimes that were committed on the right yet? I'll be waiting...
"What crime have they allegedly committed, according to this large segment of the country?"
That's good news that you think this way. Ed will provide the answer to this one.
"Are you asserting that the U.S. government uses waterboarding, etc. strictly for punishment? If so, to what end?"
Yes. And other forms of torture as well. If you don't believe me, what do you call Abu Gharib? Gitmo? The secret prisons? The photos we will never see? If it were to extract information only, why were they waterboarded multiple times after admitting what they knew?
As far their motives for doing so, I would say you can start with the bizarre sadism that seems to be common trait with some on the right these days. Odd, when you consider that they supposedly have Christian values and bemoan the "barbarians" who don't. And why does punishment like this typically occur? It's usually a combination of fear, paranoia, and ignorance...three traits which also sum up the mindset of the people who drove and supported these policies. I can tell you for certain that it wasn't done for the safety of this nation. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having the serious problems we have in Pakistan right now.
"And Kevin S., I never said I was against gay marriage."
You missed my point completely. I never accused you of opposing gay marriage. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of you excoriating Palin and McCain for opposing it yet ignoring the fact that Obama holds the EXACT SAME opinion. At least be consistent. Just asking for a little intellectual honesty. Don't give Obama a pass for the exact same positions just because he's a democrat.
It occured to me that Bill's vids would be a might bit like Ronald Reagan's radio speeches.
I recommend that the he do two types. Short to the point pieces like Reagan's radio sorts and longer more in depth (heh like Reagan's convention speeches?). We need to reach people who need to learn to question what they have learned enough to bother to learn what Conservatism is all about.
Suppose Pelosi did know what was going on in 2002. So what?
So... She certainly wasn't vocal then about it. When it was her job to if she felt it was wrong. She certainly was vocal on all sorts of other things she disagreed with Bush about.
It's like this, Mark. If you're going to hold her up as a paragon of honor and integrity, you've got to figure out why she was quiet until after Bush's re-election and her ascension to power - and really only vocal in the last year of the Bush Presidency. She was in a position to stop what she now says she was never told about.
Until it turns out she was told, and she was all for it then. It was popular. We were at war.
She was told after the fact by the people who were driving the policy.
No, even as she admits now, she was briefed before the capture of many "high value" terrorists.
And what could she have done?
Voted "no". Said it was wrong. Held hearings.
If she spoke up, she would've been labeled a traitor.
Not any more than she is now.
She already is being labeled that by the right who are vilifying her for saying the CIA lied.
I want some proof or you to shaddup. People are laughing about this - because she sure as hell was TOUTING the CIA when it would hurt Bush. I haven't seen anybody call her a "traitor" for saying the CIA lied. So, let's see some proof, not just Mark-Verbatim-Projection here.
The CIA opposed Bush, and did so in IMO, illegal and immoral ways. Pelosi was gleefully happy to assist - that's what people are laughing about now, when she runs afoul of them, that woah, wait a minute they're lying to me!, but, wait, Nancy, you thought they were the paragons of intelligence gathering?
Didn't Bush say the same thing during his tenure? No one said boo then. Given the CIA's "stellar" history with truth telling, I find her statement to at least be possibly true.
What else do you find possibly (or more) true?
* That we all listen and take notes from Rush Limbaugh.
* The meaning of "Verbatim"
* That Obama wasn't going to be in any way shape or form move the economy towards central planning, and his taking over of Chrysler and the banking industry is NOTHING LIKE A TAKEOVER
* That you teach critical thinking
* That pointing to spoken words is more important than historical practice
* That Only, if we try HARD ENOUGH, we can MAKE IT WORK!
"Don't give Obama a pass for the exact same positions just because he's a democrat."
He doesn't get a pass. He's wrong. In fact, being a minority and knowing what its like to be treated like 3/5ths of a person, he should be ashamed of himself.
But remember opposing gay marriage is not a core principle of the Democratic party as it is with the Republicans. At least Obama favors all other forms of unions and the Republicans don't. There is a difference between his opposition and the right's opposition.
As to your comments, DJ, I have no problem admitting fault or even criminal activity on the left side of the aisle. There's plenty of it and, in fact, more of it on their side if you take the totality of US History into account. It's only in the last few decades that the GOP has seen fit to try to outdo them. You can try to spin and wiggle your way out of admitting what they did but it's all there...plain to see.
Rob, yes, by all means...find a modern day Reagan. Good luck getting the GOP in its current form to support him. Reagan supported progressive taxes, earned income tax credits, open talks with enemies with no pre-conditions, and signed letters of agreement with the UN (see: foreign devils!) in regards to torture. If that's your idea of a return to conservatism, great! I'm on board.
"I haven't seen anybody call her a "traitor" for saying the CIA lied."
"To have the person third in line to be president say that the CIA misleads us all the time is so utterly irresponsible and such an attack on the men and women who are risking their lives ... that she disqualifies herself for being speaker of the House."
Here's a more thorough thrashing of Pelosi from the man who, unlike John Edwards, gets a free pass from the "liberal" media as he fucked around on his wife while she had cancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOwhYLIyYhg
Try not to throw up as he gives his view on how to "defend" this country.
"As to your comments, DJ, I have no problem admitting fault or even criminal activity on the left side of the aisle."
How magnanimous of you. My comments are, and have long been, that you cannot admit YOUR OWN ERRORS. You demonstrate it almost daily.
"There's plenty of it and, in fact, more of it on their side if you take the totality of US History into account. It's only in the last few decades that the GOP has seen fit to try to outdo them."
And more, they have lost, big time, by trying to emulate their opponents. Goddamn, teacher boy, WE have been telling YOU that for a long time.
You keep trying and trying to paint us with the broad brush of being Conservatives and/or (especially) being Republicans. You do so in order to paint us with the attributes you ascribe to those groups. You seem unable to understand, despite being told repeatedly for two goddamned years, that those of us who comment regularly here are, with rare exceptions, NEITHER.
In general, most of us here don't like either party, but at the moment, we find the Dimocrats to be MUCH more dangerous to our liberty. Right now, the problem is the Dimocrats, but the solution is NOT the Republicans. As my brother is prone to say, All You Can Do Is All You Can Do, and the subject of this post by Kevin stands a good chance of increasing what we can do.
Is Obama at fault for appointing lying-weasel, tax-evading scumbags? He either knew what kind of people they were and tried to appoint them anyway, or he didn't do his homework. Either way, it's not very adult.
And what about Obama laughing at Wanda Sykes' over-the-line jokes about 9/11? Would you consider that adult behavior?
(Thanks to Unix for explaining the Pelosi stuff.)
Ready to admit the crimes that were committed on the right yet?
Am I ready to admit that the GOP is corrupt, wayward, and has bought into the fallacy that big government is good? Already have. But this has exactly what to do with the subject at hand, Mark? Every time you get cornered on something, you offer this vague reference to the crimes of the right. But YOUR guys are in office now. We defended Bush and the GOP for the last eight years. It's YOUR turn.
That's good news that you think this way. Ed will provide the answer to this one.
How about you provide the answer to this one, since you're the one who leveled the accusation?
If you don't believe me, what do you call Abu Gharib? Gitmo? The secret prisons?
Where the bad guys who want to kill Americans are.
A few dirtbags at Abu Ghraib put panties on a guy's head and stack up a pile of naked guys, and this constitutes torture to you. It's creepy and unbecoming of the U.S. military, yes. Waterboarding? Extreme, yes. But to refer to frat-boy hazing as "torture" and "sadistic" is an insult to the people who have genuinely suffered torture at the hands of real sadists. People like Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, who got their heads sawn off with a knife. People like the guys Saddam had stuffed into plastic shredders feet-first so they could scream in agony right up until they died.
This is what I don't get. Every one of those prisoners would happily slit your throat and cut you into a hundred pieces. These are the types who behead little school girls and bomb hospitals and rope mentally-challenged women into blowing themselves up. Even if our guys were waterboarding these human vermin purely for kicks and giggles, I can't fathom why you and others want to defend them.
The photos we will never see?
You mean, the ones Obama won't release?
I can tell you for certain that it wasn't done for the safety of this nation.
No attacks on American soil in almost seven years personally makes me feel safer. I'm certain that's not for nothing.
Anyway, yeah. What DJ said. I'm for limited government, restrained spending, and accountability. That, unfortunately, describes neither party at this time.
. I'm for limited government, restrained spending, and accountability. That, unfortunately, describes neither party at this time.
Which if Mark would stop trying to "know us" and pay attention describes me as well.
And no, it doesn't mean I'm happy with the Republican party.
But given my choices, there are libertarians and small-government sorts in the Republican camp.
They're closer to my ideals, and far closer to what the Constitution lays out what the government is supposed to be doing (and more specifically, not doing.
Mark, you keep trying to paint us as mirrors of you, unable to admit error, and unable to stop defending Republicans in office .
Did you even notice Kevin's McCain's bumper stickers? I'm not defending Newt or his infidelity. I will note he's not ignored it, nor disclaimed it. But your froth fails. Now, how about all the other things you've missed to try and trap us with a failed logic?
It's very interesting that you'll ignore your verbatim "definition" until now. Learned what it is, yet? Ready to admit you were flat-ass wrong before?
Ready to admit that Laura Ingraham uses the term "useful idiots" as is written on here VERBATIM?
"Am I ready to admit that the GOP is corrupt, wayward, and has bought into the fallacy that big government is good?"
Ah, yes. Republicans are only bad when they...act like liberals. But when they, in classic Nixonian fashion, place themselves above the law on a whole host of issues (torture, wiretaps, intelligence, US attorneys) then its ok, right?
"No attacks on American soil in almost seven years personally makes me feel safer. I'm certain that's not for nothing."
Well, let's see. We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Pakistan is now filled with Al Qaeda and the Taliban thanks to Bush not caring about bin Laden anymore. Oh, and they have nukes there, don't they?
This says a lot...
"This is what I don't get. Every one of those prisoners would happily slit your throat and cut you into a hundred pieces. These are the types who behead little school girls and bomb hospitals and rope mentally-challenged women into blowing themselves up. Even if our guys were waterboarding these human vermin purely for kicks and giggles, I can't fathom why you and others want to defend them."
Because we are better than them, aren't we? Because we can get more information...better information...from NOT torturing them. In fact, we have. The fact that we are even having this debate is ludicrous.
Our country has faced far greater enemies than these people and we won. You want to continue to play into their hands and become a recruiting tool, fine. I want to win so I am going to continue to support people who don't have a ten year old's view of the world.
Ready to admit that Laura Ingraham uses the term "useful idiots" as is written on here VERBATIM?
Uh, Mark? The term "useful idiots" predates the birth of Laura Ingraham. It's been attributed to Lenin, though no one's been able to find the exact quote to my knowledge, but it's been around for a LONG time. The point being that it's in common use. And since it is used to describe people on the LEFT side of the aisle, it's hardly surprising that people on the RIGHT side of the aisle are the ones using it.
Now, find an example here at TSM where we "quote Rush Limbaugh verbatim" (except, of course, when I do it with quotation marks and attribution.)
Ready to admit that Laura Ingraham uses the term "useful idiots" as is written on here VERBATIM?
I don't know Laura Ingraham, and I have no idea what she uses or misuses. It's irrelevant to the fact that "useful idiot" is a term that has a meaning and a history - one you wish to ignore and instead take as an insult, as you live up to the definition.
So I can't really admit anything with Ingraham, and I've got no idea why you feel you've trapped me somewhere.
But it's easy to point out you've trapped yourself. Anytime you try to use the word "Classic" or compare to Nixon.
But when they, in classic Nixonian fashion, place themselves above the law on a whole host of issues (torture, wiretaps, intelligence, US attorneys) then its ok, right?
Who's placed themselves above the law? You don't even know what you're blathering about, it's sad.
Nothing you're saying there is a case where anybody placed themselves above the law. The addition of the US Attorney firing is particularly laughable. Considering they serve at the pleasure of the President.
As to the rest, we've seen your style of argument, and it's not worth even bothering pointing out how ridicolous your stance is. Much as you doubled down on "verbatim", and insisted that Communism was "neither better nor worse" than capitalism.
Because we can get more information...better information...from NOT torturing them.
Neither you nor I know that. One of us understands that.
But we can note that when Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, et al were briefed on the techniques and the information being uncovered, they did not object.
That's rather telling as to what happened behind the doors when those classified briefings occurred.
In fact, we have. The fact that we are even having this debate is ludicrous.
Yes, it is. But we're used to it with you.
But see, I've got a lot of faith in people, and I don't think we've got people "torturing" them - no matter how much they'd deserve it - for fun. When some people used prisoners as gags, we threw they asses in jail posthaste, slapped the commanding General out of her spot ("Because she's a woman!" people whined). Within 36 hours of the IG discovering it. You didn't hear about it until their courts martial commenced. But Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton were briefed months before they appeared and started talking about their "disgust" when the defense attorneys leaked photos because the Army Prosecutor refused to make a deal with his client.)
If there was a better way serving them tea and crumpets, I think we'd be using it.
You just have no comprehension of the world outside of your pampered existence.
Our country has faced far greater enemies than these people and we won.
Who? From a standpoint of ideology, we haven't. We've never faced anybody with the ideology of this enemy, Mark.
I want to win
Just like you want "good capitalism", and "critical thinking" and to be a respected thinker.
It takes more than saying it, it takes understanding what's happening, and the ability to analyse it - and most importantly, the ability to admit when you're wrong. Verbatim.
Mark, if you were serious about learning, you'd read VDH. I disagree with a lot of his conclusions in his books. (Especially _Carnage and Culture_.) But I'm better for having read him.
But it is quite astounding that the mainstream liberal media — NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, etc. — has simply offered no substantive criticism of Obama's flips on renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Iraq, or — given their past fury over the Bush deficits — the Obama plan to run up more red ink in a year than Bush did in eight. [Much less the specter of the Office of the President directing industry, relining up creditors in opposition to the law, forcing corporations to "take" money and thereby report to him...]
Bush was constantly criticized[Here's a list for you to research if you disagree:] by mainstream conservatives for his comprehensive immigration proposals, for deficit spending, for failure to veto any bills in the first term, for No Child Left Behind, for the prescription drug benefit, for the Harriet Miers nomination, for the first pullback from Fallujah, for appointments like Scott McClellan and "Brownie," etc.
...
Quite scary, all this chest-thumping about tough journalistic integrity of 2001-8 suddenly devolving into, "Hey everyone, we can reassure you that the Emperor really does have clothes on."
Unix, I think he got that from Frost/Nixon. In the movie, Nixon is confronted with his part in a "whole host of issues" e.g. "wiretaps, intelligence, US attorneys," and responds along the lines of, "When the President does it, it's not illegal!" Ergo, Republicans place themselves above the law.
Nixon, of course, defines the Republican party to someone like Mark. It's the only thing they've really got on us besides, sorta, Iran-Contra, but that's not as sexy. Nevermind that Nixon ended the Vietnam War (you'd think he'd get some gratitude for that). Yes, he was corrupt, but what did he do when he realized he was dead to rights? He resigned, under pressure from his own party, which refused to tolerate corruption in its ranks. What did Clinton do when the jig was up? He attempted verbal gymnastics to weasel out of it, and the Democrats rallied around their weasel.
Well, let's see. We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Pakistan is now filled with Al Qaeda and the Taliban thanks to Bush not caring about bin Laden anymore. Oh, and they have nukes there, don't they?
And that's all thanks to... torture?
Because we are better than them, aren't we?
Oh, I just knew you were going to say that. Seriously, that's your defense of people who saw the heads off little girls? Who would sooner kill you than tie their own shoes? Mark, there are an infinite number of horrible things going on in the world, and only a finite number that any one of us is capable of really caring about. Out of all those things, you picked defending murderous enemies from extreme interrogation techniques. You know, if Americans were skinning these people alive and boiling them in oil, I might be with you on this, but because a bunch of rats who murder in cold blood are being waterboarded, I just don't give a flying you-know-what.
Because we can get more information...better information...from NOT torturing them. In fact, we have.
I don't buy it. My husband is former special forces, trained in interrogation techniques -- subjected to these same techniques -- and they DO work. I'm going to take his word over yours any day. And also this bit of rationale: It makes no sense to use the limited number of expensive, highly-trained operatives at our disposal just to torture a bunch of nobodies for no reason at all. It makes NO SENSE. We must be getting something worthwhile out of these techniques, or we wouldn't bother.
Let's to be turning back to old topics now. You said the adults were now in charge, so I want to know your considered opinion on the following:
Is Obama at fault for appointing lying-weasel, tax-evading scumbags?
What about Obama laughing at Wanda Sykes' over-the-line jokes about 9/11? Would you consider that adult behavior?
And since Ed declined to answer your question for you...
What crime have gays allegedly committed, according to a large segment of the country?
Well, let's see. We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Pakistan is now filled with Al Qaeda and the Taliban thanks to Bush not caring about bin Laden anymore. Oh, and they have nukes there, don't they?
And that's all thanks to... torture?
I thought about this and realized I didn't address your point, Mark, so lemme try again.
Not sure what's pressing about the anthrax attacks, since we haven't suffered any more of them. As for the rest of it, you're implying that our interrogation techniques fail to make us safe unless they prevent every bad thing from ever happening, which is impossible. If 10 bad things are in the works and we manage to extract information that helps prevent 7 of those, that's a success.
So, now that bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban are Obama's problems, what's he going to do about them?
Now that Sarah's repointed this stupid comment out, it twigged a light on.
We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks.
Nor have we found D. B. Cooper.
While I'd prefer we'd have found the responsible party(ies), it's also very possible that we have.
Have you considered that? The lack of going concern is because we know/caught/dealt with the people doing it?
But even aside from that, after the initial flurry - there have been no more attacks. You make it sound like we're getting anthrax sent all over the mail and people being exposed daily. But we're not.
It's very easy to commit a crime - once - with a hit-and-run. Especially as time passes, it's harder and harder to find the evidence.
In the meantime, we could, instead, discuss how Obama has personally (and against the rules of bankruptcy law) restructured Chrysler, and compare that to your loud and repeated assertions that it was our paranoia that he was going to expect to rule and behave in a manner socialistic or fascistic. But you don't want to go there for some reason.
Here was a president who was NOT a conservative. A crook? Yes. A Conservative? No.
Wage and Price Controls
EPA
OSHA
etc...
Sorry to disapoint you Markadelphia, I am to the right of Ronald Reagan. He is the beginning of good. He accepted some crap from Congress, which I would have fought.
"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other."
- Ronald Reagan
Smaller, less intrusive, less expensive Federal Government. Yep! That is what I want.
And while Reagan said he wanted smaller, less intrusive, less expensive Federal Government, he accomplished its opposite. Oh, he slowed the rate of growth a bit, but that's all.
The fundamental victory of our statist opponents is the widespread acceptance of the current baseline scope and magnitude of government.
This will be the case for as long as political fortunes rise or fall based on questions such as whether or not to give the chaparral that has grown right up to the back porch a light trim and a polish job or not.
The correct answer, of course, is root the chaparral out of the yard entirely, and beat it back few hundred yards to boot, but folks who don't already understand that won't until the wildfires come, and perhaps not even then.
It becomes more and more interesting as people wake up to the idea that the current breathtaking level of government criminality simply isn't possible when the baseline is reduced to correct, constitutionally approved levels.
Until then, we're going to see entire industries dedicated solely to exploiting the perverse and capricious market our government sets up and runs with our tax dollars, without respect to providing any other value.
The basic premise they offer is "I have your money. Kiss my ass, *hard*, if you want any of it back."
And while Reagan said he wanted smaller, less intrusive, less expensive Federal Government, he accomplished its opposite.
TAKE THAT BACK!
That's it Kevin, TAKE IT BACK!
Don't you know that we VERBATIM (I think) repeat what our LEADERS BLINDLY TELL US? How many times has Mark told you that we march in lockstep with them!
My sarcasm being done there, let me point out something that everybody but Mark misses.
We didn't lionize McCain. Or Bush. Or Bush. Or Reagan. Or Nixon. We might have supported them at the time, but at no point did we throw our weight behind them wholeheartedly as Mark and the left have done to Obama. (And were doing to Hillary until he cut her off at the pass.)
I can remember "conservatives" castigating Reagan. I can remember "conservatives" fleeing Bush in droves when he broke the "Read My Lips". Dole wasn't considered transcendental, nor McCain, who most people called a "RINO" or in the words of an erudite host "The least offensive Democrat running."
But the left must idolize their leaders. The only one recently that really failed that test was Kerry. He didn't even inspire the left, but he managed to wrangle the nomination and even the press couldn't put him over the top. (But they damn sure tried.)
But they easily could with Obama, who had no problem promising everything to anybody - and people, just like Mark here, lapped it up. Even when there was no way in hell someone with any sense could have argued a point, they argued it.
Even after Obama's administration has almost totally taken over Chrysler, and is on the way to taking over GM, rewarding the UAW at the expense of the people who had loaned money, Mark still screams that he's just ushering in "Good Capitalism" and there's no relation at ALL to fascism/socialism.
Because Mark's ego can't allow Obama to fail. At anything. So he MUST support him at all costs. Common sense be damned.
Whereas we spent 8 years contending with a Bush administration we weren't ecstatic about, and fighting the good fight against it. We could give kudos where they were due - but when they were due, not just because we'd lose face and ego if we didn't.
"Now, find an example here at TSM where we "quote Rush Limbaugh verbatim""
What I find to be interesting about all of this is...I will listen to Rush and then the next day, EVERY one of my conservative friends comes at me with all of his talking points from the previous day. Rush said that Barack Obama was the next Jimmy Carter (so did Laura Ingraham btw) and then commenters here said it the next day. Rush said the Barack Obama was a socialist. Then it was talked about on here. The next week Rush said he was a fascist. Then it was talked about on here. My point, Kevin, was not primarily directed at you. Nor was it directed at Bilgeman and even a few others who can actually think critically. It seemed, at the time, and in some cases still does that some of you all read from the same page.
Now, if I am NOT a critical thinker as has been purported here by some, then why do I make my students take opposing points from their own views and prove them right? Why do I make my students read Clarence Carson as well as Howard Zinn? Why do I read Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Cliff May, the National Review, and listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? Why do I read this blog? Because I want to hear what they have to offer and think about it. Can any of you say the same thing for liberal equivalents such as Kruggman, Dowd, Olberman, Scultz or my blog?
Thus far, all I have heard from many here is that the list above are a bunch of "liars." So you are going to have to excuse me if I call complete BULLSHIT on who is the critical thinker and who is not. Until you spend some time reading and listening to these people, then you are not, in fact, critically thinking about anything at all and participating in a giant echo chamber experiment.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." --Thomas Paine
Critical thinking isn't just the exercise of reading an opposing viewpoint, but successfully parsing it and understanding it, and applying logic and fact to see if the argument needs to be revised or scrapped.
I dunno about others here, but I've never listened to Rush. I form my opinions based on what I read in the news, which comes from multiple sources.
There are a couple of leftist blogs I occasionally read (Deltoid, Huffington Post) to see what the other side is up to, but mostly I can get that bias from the mainstream news. As for your blog, I visited a couple of times, but found it rather less informative than full of agitated rants and "look how stupid my conservative friends are."
Uh, no. The crimes I mentioned are all ones that the Bush administration committed. It's not surprising to me that they did considering that two of Nixon's brightest pupils were Cheney and Rumsfeld. And this is what I mean by Richard Nixon defining modern day conservatism. His style of politics (don't just beat them, attack and destroy them personally while feeding the fear of the "silent majority") has carried clear into the year 2009. I'm hoping that we have finally seen the end of it but there are plenty of people that still want to be willfully ignorant and seem to feed on the political porn of fear.
"Seriously, that's your defense of people..."
Again, Sarah, playing right into the hand of the hirabis. I have experienced this extremism first hand in my life. To this day, I am still biased and prejudiced...dare I say it?...racist when it comes to Muslims and Arabs. And yet, I want to win more than wrongfully proceed based on blind rage...and there is a lot of rage in that paragraph of yours. They win when we say the things like you said above because then they can galvanize the Islamic world against us. It is a right wing lie to say that they "laugh" at us and think we are weak when we treat them so nicely. In reality, they shit themselves at the thought of trying to make a devil where there is none.
"I'm going to take his word over yours any day"
Good. Ask him what the army field manual says on interrogation techniques. Ask him what they did in WWII with the Germans and the Japanese--the latter of which were just as psychotic as Muslim extremists. Don't take my word for it. Ask Bob Baer. Ask Jack Rice. Ask Ali Soufan. Find some more experts that don't agree with you and see what they say. You could ask my grandfather what he did with the Japanese in WWII if he were still alive. If you like I will tell you what he told me about torture. Then tell me if you think it worked or if you were just riffing off of rage.
"What crime have gays allegedly committed, according to a large segment of the country?"
According to many on the right, gays are criminals because they break biblical law. Gays used to be arrested for....just being gay. Again, though, don't take my word for it. Ask some conservatives if they think gays should be locked up for their perversions. A couple of years back, I asked 10. 7 said they should be and this is in blue Minnesota. Imagine what the answer might be in Utah, Pennsylvania, or Alabama.
"Is Obama at fault for appointing lying-weasel, tax-evading scumbags? "
Yes. And so is his vetting team. It was a mistake and he (gasp!) admitted it unlike the other side who never fucking does.
"What about Obama laughing at Wanda Sykes' over-the-line jokes about 9/11? Would you consider that adult behavior?"
I haven't see the video but I will watch it now. My comments regarding adult behavior stem from having suffered through 8 years of "thinking with guts" of George Bush. His administration had a child like understanding of the Middle East (not my words but those of Lt Col Benjamin Busch, US Marines)
"So, now that bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban are Obama's problems, what's he going to do about them?"
Currently, he is pursuing a strategy that is similar to President Bush's strategy which is let the Pakistanis deal with it. I completely disagree. I am heartened by extra troops and some other...inside info I have about Pakistan from my special forces step bro but generally it's been more of the same as Bush. If you ever did follow my blog, you would know that I took strong issue with him on this over the last couple of weeks. I realize he is working on the economy but there will be a worse attack than 9-11 if we don't get more aggressive there. And it will be both Bush and Obama's fault.
Markadelphia finally offers an explanation as to why he believes himself to be a critical thinker, and we aren't. This is illuminating.
He asserts that a key and mandatory element of critical thought is to be found in giving an alternative viewpoint a fair hearing, of engaging the exercise of proving correct opposite points of view, of entertaining the opposite. This is a sentiment he's expressed before, and thus shows some consistency in the matter. In fact, those who do not demonstrate such to his satisfaction can be safely, in his view, dismissed as to their capacity for critical thought.
Consideration of alternatives is only a part of the discipline of critical thought.
To us, critical thought is primarily the rigorous application of critical faculties to any particular line of thought.
Some lines of thought pass the test, some are indeterminate, and others fail. The results are durable, unless new facts or circumstances are presented for consideration and these are valid reasons to perform a re-evaluation.
Somewhere along the line, having used those skills to refute and eliminate certain lines of reasoning, we no longer feel obliged to entertain them when encountered for the bazillionth fraudulent time. We recognize the same warmed over tripe presented as shiny, original and new.
Critical thought isn't about making up reasons why a line of reasoning *might* be right; it's about determining if it still stands after the best, most intellectually rigorous means to prove it wrong has been applied.
In general, you can't really "prove" a thing to be right, but you can certainly prove a thing to be wrong. As a practical matter, the truths we accept are conditionally accepted with the slight caveat that if they are conclusively demonstrated to be wrong at some future time, intellectual integrity tells us that we're obliged to abandon them.
A is A, and Obi Wan lied. Darth Vader did not betray and kill Luke's father, and the only point of view from which that was truth to cling to was one divorced from (fictional) reality.
Uh, no. The crimes I mentioned are all ones that the Bush administration committed.
Uh, no. The "crimes" are either obviously not criminal, or at best have yet to be arraigned and anyone indicted. They're political talking points that people such as you use without any consideration for what it would mean.
So as of right now, there's no crime committed from a legal standpoint, and the changes and odds of that changing are almost nil. What was that about "attack and destroy them personally while feeding the fear"?
I'm hoping that we have finally seen the end of it but there are plenty of people that still want to be willfully ignorant
geekWithA.45 : It's hard science vs the debate club!
I remember those fights in high school, the hurled insults, the scatological remarks, yo momma throw downs, the debate clubs display of their dizzying intellect.
Then the hard science geeks built some siege equipment and engines of war, cried havoc, let slip the dogs of war, and laid waste.
And then we knew what was best in life: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
It's not simply taking another person's point of view. By looking at things from another perspective, one can engage in hyper deductive reasoning. I don't simply ask my students the whos and whats...I want to know how and why...get to the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy where serious analysis, application, and evaluation are involved where problems can truly be solved.
And, pardon me, but I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists." You can't be a scientist and suffer so seriously from confirmation bias.
But let's put your science to a test...simple questions.....
Is the theory that climate change is man made valid? If so, why? If not, why not?
Which of these theories is a valid scientific theory...evolution or intelligent design? Why or why not?
Is a stem cell life? Why or why not? Is a zygote life? Why or why not? Is an embryo life? Why or why not?
Is the theory that climate change is man made valid?
I'll take a stab at that one real quick:
WHICH theory?
The one that says that the carbon-dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels has increased the level of that gas in our atmosphere, and that the increase contributes to the "greenhouse effect" causing greater retention of heat from solar radiation? Yes. That one's valid.
The one that says that the increase in carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels is definitely leading to a "tipping point" beyond which there is no return and OMG ALL LIFE ON EARTH WILL END IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING!!!! IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS? That one, not so much.
The first one can be tested by experiment and verified. The second one is based on theories that can't be tested in real-world conditions (only in computer simulations of limited variables which only - loosely - approximate reality and cannot take into account unknowns, and which, when run backwards, don't reflect actual history. It's that "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" problem that brought us Chaos Theory, you know.)
Is industrialization responsible for some - some - increase in global temperature? Undoubtedly. How much? The data is not conclusive, no matter how much people insist it must be. Certainly not enough to be predicting what the global average temperature will be in 100 years, or even ten.
Any "higher analysis" which violates the principles of "lower analysis" is a technique which has no foundation. In other words, it is nothing more than a fantasy castle built in the air.
For instance, higher mathematics can only exist because of the foundation provided by basic math. Any "higher math" which violates basic mathematic principles such as addition or multiplication is just a fantasy with numbers. Anyone who tried to promote such a fundamentally broken math theory would find the real mathematicians handing them back their calculators in thousands of carefully numbered and sorted geometric shapes bearing no resemblance to the original.
Likewise, any "reasoning" which violates fundamental and easily understood rules of logic is equally fallacious, no matter how fancy the reasoning appears. (I gotta say this, anyone who can make denial of reality sound plausible must be really, really smart; in the way that a liar has to be really smart to keep track of his lies. Denying the truth is hard. It's far easier to remember the truth.)
Your reasoning has consistently used well known and simple to understand logical fallacies. And even when pointed out, you often turn right around and use the exact same logical fallacy all over again! Your mental masturbation may feel good to you, but whatever it is, it is not "higher analysis" because it is built on a non-existent foundation.
That's why we're not impressed. To those of us used to working with actual logic tested in real world conditions, your spun sugar castles floating in mid-air don't impress us one bit, because we can see exactly what they are: a vacuous fantasy about to have a fatal collision with reality.
"I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists.""
Ahhh, that's just too precious! Like Marky could begin to understand anybona fides given. They simply wouldn't signify anything.
I'd like to see him try to prove there aren't hard scientists in Baker's Irregulars. No, scratch that, it would be amusing, granted, but turn out like all his efforts to 'prove' something: an affront on logic, common sense and human decency.
"The one that says that the carbon-dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels has increased the level of that gas in our atmosphere, and that the increase contributes to the "greenhouse effect" causing greater retention of heat from solar radiation? Yes. That one's valid."
It might be valid but it may not even be relevant. See this post at Gateway Pundit:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/offshore-technology-conference-climate.html
Notice Carl Langner's info - "Satellite readings have shown no temperature change in last 20 years. Instrumental bouys in oceans are showing a cooling trend. Two fundamental facts on manmade global warming. The first serious question about AGW has to do with ice core data. In 1999 scientists determined that the CO2 increase follows the increase in temp on the earth. So when the oceans warm they give off CO2. As the earth cools the CO2 decreases. CO2 is therefore a by-product. Records from balloons show no warming."
And this one regarding the details of the ocean buoys backing up no warming:
With 70% of the Earth covered in water and that being a pretty large generator of CO2 and man has not abated in CO2 production much, it is looking like the solar activity is the primary factor in global warming/cooling periods.
"To say something like this to a bunch of engineers?"
Compare it to anything that has been said about education and I bet I still come out as more polite. And, sorry Ed, you can't be a hard scientist and have the belief system that some here have.
Kevin, great answer. And the sign of a hard scientist, no doubt. Remember, while I do think you lead with your beliefs, you are one of a few here I consider to be a critical thinker.
I don't know if you have given the IPCC report a gander but it is pretty thought provoking. And has plenty of hard science. Still, you're right. It is only 90 percent valid which means it could be wrong. Those are the facts.
"Your reasoning has consistently used well known and simple to understand logical fallacies."
Ah...no, Ed. I sure as heck might be wrong about what I say but logical fallacies? Nope. The logical fallacy of appeal to fear is the cornerstone of the right wing these days. Fix that issue and then you can speak to me about logical fallacies without sounding like a hypocrite.
"an affront on logic, common sense and human decency."
Wow. And you guys call the left arrogant. Russell, by all means, please continue to BELIEVE that your ideology is based on these three things. While you are doing that, say goodbye to Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, and South Dakota in 2010. Proverbs 16:18, dude (with a special dedication to ED who is about to have his "vacuous fantasy" meet reality.)
This lets Mark shed all of the questions he's been skipping, because he's just been nailed to the wall by his own words, so he tries to throw a smokescreen and try and divert onto us.
But I see I'm too late.
Mark: you still haven't dealt with your biases and fallacies.
To sneer at us while ignoring your promises and wheedling as to Obama's likely path compared to his first quarter in office is blatantly dishonest.
To cite "Crimes" that in fact are at best arguable, and in most cases are either obviously not crimes - or if they are, would apply to the Clinton and Obama administrations as well - is laughable.
You "explained" how you teach critical thinking, and then realized when geekwitha.45 jumped on that - that you'd messed up. You gave us data. We can compare that to other data (in this case, the procedures for critical thinking), and not amazing to us, that finds you lacking and incorrect. So you have to flail and try and divert attention from you and your failure.
Logical Fallacies? Go google "markadelphia and primary source". Find all the times you tried to use "primary source" - wait, let me correct myself - misuse "primary source" to discredit/refute one of us. Usually your "primary source" is easily refuted themselves (quite often by their other comments), but yet you refuse to recognize me with that authority in the areas where I am what you call a "primary source".
You've said that we must defer to Obama because he taught ConLaw (but without any understanding of how Law School instructors are selected, without citing any reason, publications, or outside authority. Yet we can demonstrate by easily quoting the Constitution that he is wrong. That's a logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority".
Your logical fallacies based on your belief that you understand "conservatives", much less that all of us here are lockstep conservatives are legion - especially since you miss all the points of agreement we have in common.
So guys, don't let Mark off the hook because he cut and pasted some questions that he can't answer.
Mark: Whether you realize it or not, you did undermine your claims that you teach "critical thinking", instead demonstrating again that you're a Cargo Cultist, who doesn't understand how it works, but mimics the behavior.
I want to win more than wrongfully proceed based on blind rage...and there is a lot of rage in that paragraph of yours.
Mark, you are wrong, and I suspect you are projecting. There is no rage on this end. There is revulsion, but mostly it is a coldly calculated opinion based on fact and my own conviction that murder, terrorism, and so forth, are evil, and that evil deserves no quarter. I have Muslim acquaintances I am very fond of, and I speak to Muslim groups about science and faith. My problem is with cold-blooded murderers and shit-disturbers of ANY religious or political stripe. Trust me, if a militant wing of Lutheran extremists starts bombing schools and hospitals, I'll be the first one to pick up my rifle and hunt them down. My only concern is separating these scum from civilized society, and if we have to use "enhanced" methods to extract information to prevent more innocent people from being harmed, then I'm all for it.
It is a right wing lie to say that they "laugh" at us and think we are weak when we treat them so nicely.
This is the attitude that's going to get us wiped off the face of the earth, or enslaved for eternity. The guy sitting in Gitmo who would happily bomb schools and hospitals is not going to be persuaded by niceness.
Look at Israel. The more passive the Israelis become, the more Hamas and Hezbollah step up the violence. If niceness worked, all the concessions over land and prisoners should have mollifed these people to some extent. But they haven't. All this appeasement has just emboldened terror groups and strengthened their determination to wipe Israel off the map.
If you like I will tell you what he told me about torture.
I'm willing to bet there's a world of difference between waterboarding, sleep-deprivation, barking dogs, and loud music, and the kinds of things that went on in prison camps during WWII.
Gays used to be arrested for....just being gay.
This is ludicrous. If you mean they were arrested because of anti-sodomy laws or public indecency laws, then that's something else.
Ask some conservatives if they think gays should be locked up for their perversions. A couple of years back, I asked 10. 7 said they should be and this is in blue Minnesota. Imagine what the answer might be in Utah, Pennsylvania, or Alabama.
Yeah, just imagine. Or Texas, even.
Mark, you need to define "perversions" very carefully. If you mean, should gays be arrested for screwing in public parks and littering the grounds with used condoms, then I would agree -- but I think heterosexuals who do that should also be arrested. If you mean, should they be arrested for having consensual relations in their own private homes, then no.
I seriously, seriously, doubt that 70% of any random sample of people in this country thinks gays should be arrested for being gay. If 70% of the people in your scientific poll said that gays should be locked up for the crime of being gay, then why aren't they pushing for such laws? Seventy percent is a huge margin. It's hard to believe that a 30% minority could successfully fight that. Again, your assertions don't jibe with reality.
Most conservatives I personally know, including myself, have a live and let live attitude about sex. We may object to the homosexual lifestyle, but whatever you do in private is your business, as long as it doesn't involve children. What many of us vehemently object to is the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle, the insistence that it be celebrated, and being coerced into violating our religious convictions for the sake of political correctness.
And, pardon me, but I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists." You can't be a scientist and suffer so seriously from confirmation bias.
Set ourselves up? I think my employer would be surprised to discover that I'm not a hard scientist.
Mark, you're obviously willing to concede at least some of Obama's errors and transgressions, but as I said before, you're still awfully charitable towards him, whereas you're absolutely scathing in your criticism of Bush's mistakes. I'd like you to explain something, because I don't have a good handle on this. What do you see as the fundamental, concrete differences between Obama and Bush?
I'd like you to explain something, because I don't have a good handle on this. What do you see as the fundamental, concrete differences between Obama and Bush?
Shhhhh!! I think I heard the faint sound of a head exploding in the far distance . . .
"And, pardon me, but I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists." You can't be a scientist and suffer so seriously from confirmation bias."
I find it more amusing that you set yourself up as an "educator".
Is the theory that climate change is man made valid? If so, why? If not, why not?
That man changes his environment, including climate, to some degree is beyond argument.
That man can utterly ruin large (meaning up to average nation-sized) areas for decades or generations is also beyond question.
Is mankind venting organic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an astonishing rate? Yes.
Does it necessarily follow that such action will "ruin the planet", as the current Speaker and former Vice President of the US claim? No, it does not. If 'the science' isn't 'settled' on evolution, relativity, plate tectonics or even gravity, you can be sure it isn't 'settled' on human induced climate change.
The fact that a political faction has declared it 'settled', moved hard to censor any further debate and rushed whatever it could muster of the scientific community to loudly support it while calling for immediate and sweeping changes based on that assumption.... all this tells us a few things:
1) It loudly announces that 'climate change' as a political concept is a fiction, it has no real relation to the facts of the actual theory.
2) It strongly suggests that the current facts of the evolving theory make a hash of the political aims that have sprung therefrom, and that the beneficiaries of those political aims are scrambling to keep us from finding that out until it's too late.
Which of these theories is a valid scientific theory...evolution or intelligent design? Why or why not?
Evolution is a valid scientific theory, intelligent design is a valid philosophical theory. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and ipods. Like comparing bullpup assault rifles to bulldog puppies.
Why? Because whether the universe was designed by an intelligence or not is a question that cannot be satisfied under the scientific method. Regardless of what the truth of the question is, the scientific method won't and cannot tell you one way or another. On the other hand, whether mutation and natural selection operate over time to differentiate varieties and then species apparently can be satisfied by such methods.
In short, theologians can have perfectly valid points, but that doesn't make them scientists.
However, the fact that they are not scientists doesn't invalidate their points either.
Is a stem cell life? Why or why not? Is a zygote life? Why or why not? Is an embryo life? Why or why not?
I don't know enough about stem cells to say one way or another. The other two? Absolutely they are life. So is a virus. What's your point?
Is a baby that has survived an abortion life? The guy you seem to think is the answer to all your hopes and dreams says it's not. Or rather, says the question is 'above his paygrade'. I guess that means he doesn't care whether it's alive or not. But my guesses aside, what is certain and provable is that he voted to treat such babies as nonliving.
Good. And I am happy to be wrong. You are probably right...I might be projecting. I still have much rage inside of me regarding 9-11 and plenty of bias. At the same time, though, I know that EIT's don't work. You can add Matthew Alexander to the list of experience interrogators from above.
"This is the attitude that's going to get us wiped off the face of the earth, or enslaved for eternity. The guy sitting in Gitmo who would happily bomb schools and hospitals is not going to be persuaded by niceness."
Which guy? Are just saying you trust the government that EVERYONE down there is as you describe? It is a fact that some of the people down there are not hirabis but folks who get ratted out for dough in inter tribal vendettas and fighting.
Please understand that I am not advocating laying down of arms. We need to apply force when it is absolutely necessary...as it is right now in Pakistan...as it is for Israel to do what they did in Gaza. I think they should have gone further, actually. Force may have to applied in Saudi Arabia someday and I would support that. Iran as well. But I also want to win and you do that with proven techniques and torture is NOT one of them.
Real time intelligence is always the best method. In fact, a terror plot was just foiled in New York today. How? The FBI had an informant with them for a year. No one was tortured and they were stopped before they blew up synagogues and acquired stinger missiles. This is what we need right now across the globe. We need to understand their culture more in order to defeat them. We can start by not using the word "jihad" anymore. That's just fucking stupid.
"All this appeasement has just emboldened terror groups and strengthened their determination to wipe Israel off the map."
Israel is a much different case then us. You can't lump all of us together on one side and all of them on the other. We soooo lose that way. I do agree that Israel could've been more aggressive in Gaza. Yet, now you have Hamas saying they will recognize Israel as a state...first time ever...so maybe it was the right amount of force. And Netanyahu is going to talk with Assad now as well.
"What many of us vehemently object to is the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle, the insistence that it be celebrated, and being coerced into violating our religious convictions for the sake of political correctness."
Ok...wow. You are going to need to explain that one. Are you saying that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt?
"you're absolutely scathing in your criticism of Bush's mistakes."
Well, he was an incompetent leader. It's hard for me to say who was worse...him, Johnson, Wilson, or Nixon. Probably Nixon or Johnson...Bush was not smart enough to be as evil as people make him out to be. That was Cheney.
But your comment has got me thinking....things I liked about George Bush....he was the first president in history to say that Palestine should be a state. I don't know if I agree with him but I admire him for being brave enough to say that. He remained committed to the space program, specifically Mars. NCLB, for all its flaws, has produced some excellent aggregate data that can be used help solve our issues in education. High stakes testing, at the end of the day, is a good thing because lazy ass teachers should be held accountable. Now, if we can just get social studies to be high stakes...:)
"What do you see as the fundamental, concrete differences between Obama and Bush?"
I have written so much already. Let me think a little while on this one but I will start off by saying that President Obama is open to new ideas and admitting his mistakes. President Bush was absolutely not. It was his way or the highway.
"But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – including calls to put off tax hikes during the recession. “He rejected that out of hand and said we couldn’t have any hard and fast rules like that,” Cantor said."
Yay! President Teleprompter's message: his way or the highway!
According to many on the right, gays are criminals because they break biblical law. Gays used to be arrested for....just being gay. Again, though, don't take my word for it.
Name names. I note the use of the phrase "used to".
I'm sure there were rich and powerful people on the right a generation ago who publicly supported the idea of gays being criminals under US law. Today? I'm sure you can find plenty of trailer trash rednecks, of all shapes, sizes, colors and political parties, who think so. Ask Marion Barry. Among the movers and shakers? I can't think of any.
But I can think of several who think it should be a crime to disagree with any tiniest part of the GLBT political agenda. Perez Hilton comes to mind.
Are you saying that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt?
The way I look at it, the answer to that question is not the point. The point is that many powerful political groups seem to think even holding the opinion that they should not should be a crime.
Yet most of those same groups think that vandalizing or destroying a place and threatening or injuring people because of how they voted on Prop. 8 is not worthy of comment at all.
It seems strange to me that you worry more about the ignorant rednecks thinking being gay should be a thought crime or tried as blasphemy (albeit only on one side of the political spectrum) than you do about the movers and shakers doing precisely the same thing in the opposite direction.
I'm surprised no one else has commented on this yet:
"I will listen to Rush and then the next day, EVERY one of my conservative friends comes at me with all of his talking points from the previous day. Rush said that Barack Obama was the next Jimmy Carter (so did Laura Ingraham btw) and then commenters here said it the next day. Rush said the Barack Obama was a socialist. Then it was talked about on here. The next week Rush said he was a fascist. Then it was talked about on here. My point, Kevin, was not primarily directed at you. Nor was it directed at Bilgeman and even a few others who can actually think critically. It seemed, at the time, and in some cases still does that some of you all read from the same page."
Correspondence is not necessarily causation. There's more to say on this, but I don't have time right now.
Ok...wow. You are going to need to explain that one. Are you saying that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt?
Nice try, Mark. Even you are not that obtuse. I was alluding to the forced indoctrination of children in schools, churches, daycares, whatever, to accept and celebrate the gay lifestyle.
However, since you asked... No, I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt unless they can provide a married mom and dad situation -- there are gay men and women who are in conventional marriages with children, and I don't have a problem with that. I also don't think single or unmarried shack-up heteros should be allowed to adopt. This is all for entirely pragmatic reasons: Children do best, by far, in stable nuclear family type situations with a committed mom (woman) and dad (man).
NCLB, for all its flaws, has produced some excellent aggregate data that can be used help solve our issues in education.
Interesting. I work in higher education (i.e. an ocean of liberalism), and NCLB has been one of the most risible Bush issues in my department since its inception.
President Obama is open to new ideas and admitting his mistakes. President Bush was absolutely not. It was his way or the highway.
That ought to get the comments to about 200 or so. :-)
"the forced indoctrination of children in schools, churches, daycares, whatever, to accept and celebrate the gay lifestyle."
Again...wow. Forced? OK, that sounds like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,and Sean Hannity (with a slash of Michelle Bachmann thrown in for flavor) all rolled into one. In this particular case "forced" really means "aw...shucks...I don't get to be homophobe anymore." Being in education, I'm sure you realize that homosexual bias in schools has become an enormous problem. This bias invariably leads to bullying and a whole host of other problems.
"Children do best, by far, in stable nuclear family type situations with a committed mom (woman) and dad (man)."
I agree with you on the two parent thing but what does it matter if they are of the same sex? There are plenty of same sex parents here who do just fine. Sarah, sorry...but you are rapidly losing your street cred for standing for freedom and liberty. You want the right to bear arms. That's cool. You want less or no tax. Also cool. You want a streamlined government. Great. You want business to be left alone of regulation. Awesome. In short, you want government out of people's lives...unless sex comes into play and then it's time for the rectal probe.
And thus the conundrum of the right is laid bare. You can't have it both ways. I guess you aren't a classic liberal because, while I am confidant that you personally don't interfere in people's lives, you do vote for those that would outlaw gay marriage and prevent citizens from having certain rights. How can someone who is a denier of individual rights (Rand) stand for personal liberty with a straight face?
>>you do vote for those that would outlaw gay marriage and prevent citizens from having certain rights. How can someone who is a denier of individual rights (Rand) stand for personal liberty with a straight face?
What it really lays bare is your methodology and ability to reason.
You can't have it [a false choice I've created] both ways.
You've created a strawman. Classic fallacy.
I guess you aren't a classic liberal because, while I am confidant that you personally don't interfere in people's lives, you do vote for those that would [interfere and regulate and outlaw people's rights] and prevent citizens from having certain rights.
Who did you vote for?
Additionally, define what "rights" you're saying and what "citizens" are prevented from having them?
So How can someone who is a denier of individual rights (Rand) stand for personal liberty with a straight face?
Because you, just as you proved you don't know what "critical thinking" really is, just proved you don't know what a individual right is.
An individual right incurs no obligation on anyone else.
There is no "right" to marriage, but even if there was, gays are fully allowed to exercise the franchise.
You don't know what a right is, just as you don't know what critical thinking is. You haven't caught anyone in a "trap".
Besides which, not all of us agree on what you thought you'd "proven" with "conservative thought". How about ask the question how many of us would be fine with government having no role in "marriage" at all?
....
Even for all of that, it does not excuse the fact that Mark is furiously trying to cover what even he realizes is a massive error.
He was on the path of discussing - and defining - what "critical thinking" is, and how he "teaches" it.
Don't let him realize he's screwed up and hide it under a flurry of misdirection. Let's go back to what is "Critical thinking". (And Mark, if you'll learn how to, there will be a lot less "Pot and Kettle" moments for you.
Again...wow. Forced? OK, that sounds like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,and Sean Hannity (with a slash of Michelle Bachmann thrown in for flavor) all rolled into one.
So? I don't listen to any of those people (and don't even know who Michelle Bachmann is), but isn't it quite possible that I apparently sound like them, because we arrive at the same conclusions based on the same arguments and evidence? That we're all more or less on the same side, because we think similarly?
And, yes, forced. Children in schools are captive audiences. If their parents don't want them indoctrinated by certain ideas, then their only recourse is to pull them from that school. Churches can be threatened with revocation of their tax status. But certain groups want to take it much further, and criminalize anything anti-gay. If the U.S. goes the way of Canada or Sweden, it will be a criminal offense to refuse to associate or do business with gays, and to express any anti-gay opinion whatsoever.
In this particular case "forced" really means "aw...shucks...I don't get to be homophobe anymore."
Why shouldn't someone have the freedom to be a "homophobe"? Besides, the term "homophobe" is deliberately misleading. It implies an irrational fear, and while that no doubt applies to some people, it doesn't to the majority who object to the gay lifestyle on principled grounds.
Being in education, I'm sure you realize that homosexual bias in schools has become an enormous problem. This bias invariably leads to bullying and a whole host of other problems.
I work at two universities. One is very large, and in my entire eight years there I have never once heard of a gay student being harrassed. The other is a Christian-affiliated university, where the problem is that it's not a problem at all. My teaching assistant is gay and a member of the GLBT group on campus. They were discussing why the group has been so inactive, and they concluded it was because there were no pressing issues on this campus, no problems to be confronted, and everybody was happy. Their only problem was maintaining their relevancy as a group, because they had defined themselves, not as positive and proactive, but as negative and reactive -- and there is nothing to react to.
If you're saying anti-homosexuality is a problem in your (extremely blue) state and at the high school level, then that's interesting, isn't it, because education is, by a vast margin, controlled by liberals. It's a failure on your part to inculcate an atmosphere of tolerance.
I agree with you on the two parent thing but what does it matter if they are of the same sex? There are plenty of same sex parents here who do just fine.
The same people who think it's OK to stick children into any situation will cry bloody murder if someone adopts a pet and is unwilling to accomodate its needs. The fact is, children need the influence of both a woman and a man. Each one of them brings to the table something unique and necessary that the other can't provide. A gay man is still a man, and a gay woman is still a woman. In order for a child to be healthy and well-adjusted, he needs both influences, and this is a billion times more important than anyone's hurt feelings on the issue.
Sarah, sorry...but you are rapidly losing your street cred for standing for freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty aren't synonymous with "anything goes." I believe in rule of law, and the law protects those who are especially vulnerable and unable to make decisions in their own interest.
...unless sex comes into play and then it's time for the rectal probe.
No, it's your side that makes a big issue out of sex. You haven't absorbed anything I've said. I don't care what anyone does in private. I only care when people make the entire world their bedroom, interfere with someone else's right to express an opinion and make choices about their own lives, and when it comes to the welfare of children. What happens between consenting adults in private doesn't concern me. What don't you understand about that?
"To say something like this to a bunch of engineers?"
Compare it to anything that has been said about education and I bet I still come out as more polite.
Not being an educator or an engineer, I have no dog in this fight. But it does occur to me that there could be a reason for what you're seeing here...
If you think engineers deserve the same amount of contempt and disrespect teachers get pretty much as a matter of routine, that's easily solved by producing just a couple of things:
1. Where is the engineering field's equivalent of William Ayers, Ward Churchill and the like?
2. Where is the engineering field's equivalent of the education field's lionizing and impassioned defense of such people?
If one of the highly respected senior fellows of your profession seriously contemplated the deliberate murder of 25 million innocents for the sake of his political agenda, and the entire world knows it, and he is still highly respected in spite of that...
...well really, under what circumstances would you expect your profession to rate anything other than contempt? Turn on those mad critical thinking skillz and come up with an answer for that one.
Methinks that the box running the Marky script has had a segfault, the core got dumped and tech support is going to get around to rebooting the box Real Soon Now.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/05/open-letter-to-bill-whittle.html (119 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
While I concur that Whittle can write, he always seemed a little too chummy with the neocons with regard to foreign policy - and you can't have a limited government if you want to be the world's cop, or think you can spread liberty through invasion.
"War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen circumstances that no human wisdom can calculate the end; it has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes."
Thomas Paine
Oh, for $GOD's sake. The whole bleeping enchilada is on the line, and the first thing anyone has to say is to pick an nit, and lodge a protest of insufficient ideological purity?
--==|==---
Lemme be super clear here: either we all find a common ground basis to advance our mutual liberty and prosperity where it counts: in our homes and on our streets, or we can kiss all this goodbye, and wind up as a fascinating footnote of the apogee of a civilization.
Folks need to start asking themselves whether their actions contribute towards, and detract from, that goal.
No, we're not going to get everything we want. No, our exact preferred vision, whatever it might be, isn't going to happen. But we either build a framework within which we are all free to pursue our own preferences as they pertain to ourselves, or that framework will be defined for us, and it will NOT be made for our benefit.
We either take such actions, now, today, here, that takes the ball one quanta, one jot more towards the direction of freedom, or our enemies will gladly push the ball back towards the other end of the field.
Bill Whittle has a great gift, and is uniquely positioned with those abilities to contribute to that goal. I, for one, encourage him to recognize that unique position and to deploy those gifts it for all of their considerable value.
Frank,
You should know that war has long since been eclipsed as the primary driver of government abuse in modern societies. The welfare state has done far more damage to America than any war we have ever fought, and the same is true to an even greater degree in Europe.
In other words, priorities!
And I would dearly love to see Bill Whittle sharpen his pen to a deadly point, right about now.
Well said, geek.
Some people would rather stick to their finely-tuned vision all the way to hell than fight for something imperfect.
And, great idea, Kevin.
HEAR, HEAR!
Kevin: An inspired concept. Kudos to you for coming up with it, and for having the clout, as it were, to propose the idea to Bill. Take your laurel, sir; you've earned it.
Geek: Frank N. Stein's comment was necessary, and was properly the first comment, but only for the purpose of clearing the decks for action. You've cleared them nicely.
Bill: If you're reading, you have just enough time for Common Sense, Again to be in everyone's hand on July 4th. It is necessary, and likely you're the only one who can write it.
Just a suggestion, but if you agree with me and this post, email Bill directly and tell him so. I doubt he reads TSM. Oh, and by all means, spread the idea around!
"I doubt he reads TSM."
Oh, ye of little faith. I'm not a betting person, but I'd bet he does.
Well gee, I didn't mean to tinkle on anyone's parade. And I'm not looking for ideological purity, although it would be nice for people to "check their premises" before holding incompatible beliefs (in Whittle's case, limited government combined with military welfare around the world).
The country has been on the express train to increasing statism since before any of us were born, and that's because most people want it. Or rather they want the "benefits" from an intrusive government. Oh they wouldn't if they thought about what it entailed, but we aren't talking about thinkers here, this is about voters. Let's just say public education has done its job well.
If Whittle does write Common Sense II: Electric Boogaloo, do you think it would "wake up" anyone who doesn't already see where the train is going? Last year this blog had a link on the left endorsing McCain. How bad will it need to get before voting for "lesser evils" is no longer an option? Would Common Sense II have changed Kevin's mind last year?
Last year this blog had a link on the left endorsing McCain.
So "F^*k It! McCain '08 - The Least Repulsive Democrat Running" is now an endorsement?
I guess I should have voted for Ron Paul in protest? And that would have resulted in . . . what exactly? Obama would still be president. I tried "protest voting" once. We got Clinton.
Would McCain be spending the money that Obama is? Would McCain be strong-arming GM, Chrysler, and the banks? Somehow I doubt it, though I admit I could be wrong.
If Whittle does write Common Sense II: Electric Boogaloo, do you think it would "wake up" anyone who doesn't already see where the train is going?
In a word, YES! A lot of people are just now beginning to wake up, and they need a scorecard.
YES you should have voted for Ron Paul. YES McCain would be doing pretty much the same thing.
Frank's point is that a lot of people who want liberty in this country SOLD OUT for more war, by voting for Bush and his NeoCon friends. Frank's point is that if you really do want liberty, you must eschew the pro-war foreign policy, because those are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE.
Its like saying I want to buy a Ferrari but I also only want to work at Walmart as a greeter.
Frank's point is that a lot of people who want liberty in this country SOLD OUT for more war, by voting for Bush and his NeoCon friends.
I'm sick and fucking tired of the "neocon" crap.
Let me make this plain: I supported the invasion of Iraq. I still do.
If you want to know why (though I sincerely doubt you care) I recommend you read Steven Den Beste's Strategic Overview which best expresses the logic and reasoning behind it.
I am convinced, personally, that the invasion of Iraq was part and parcel of the election of Bush in 2000, and all 9/11 did with regard to that was to move the timetable up.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, but his foreign policy positions are insane.
Bill quoted you on the cover page of Silent America and you believe he doesn't read your stuff??
One of the few times I believe you're wrong....
.....nevertheless, I emailed Bill with a link to your letter, and a "seconded".
We need you, as well, Kevin.
Thanks.
"If you want to know why (though I sincerely doubt you care) I recommend you read Steven Den Beste's Strategic Overview which best expresses the logic and reasoning behind it."
Ok. Read it.
"Goal of Stage 2: we had to conquer one of the big antagonistic Arab nations and take control of it."
Well someone here certainly has an insane foreign policy position. I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to figure out who.
If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, he'd probably still be on the CIA payroll*, keeping that other "crazed madman" in Iran in check (who, by the way, has yet to nuke Israel. Which, by the way, isn't part of the United States).
* - Foreign policy didn't begin on 9/11...it's usually modern liberals who can be accused of "history began yesterday"ism.
Frank, how 'bout checking that same ole argument about Iraq at the door and commenting ON TOPIC, eh?
Bill Whittle; Thomas Paine/Common Sense; ya know, the topic?
I'm with you, Kevin. Global military engagement is not incompatible with small government.
Pro-war foreign policy? In America? I don't think we've had that since Span-Am. What we have is a foreign policy that recognizes that somebody is going to be the 900-pound gorilla in this room, and it might as well be someone benign. In fact, limited government is the only government I would want playing world policeman.
Bill Whittle is the right man to write CS:II. (Knowing his production rate, though, I'm not so sure July 4 is a practical timetable... Whittle's essays are cathedrals, and cathedrals take time.)
I'm going to have to agree with Frank here, if not for the same reasons.
While I respect Bill Whittle's flair for words, I simply can't get past the man's hair - too perfect, too imperious.
Now if he were to get a reasonable, rational "do" like Dr. Paul's I could give him my full support.
I mean as long as the knives are out we might as well fight over really important, meaningful crap.
I'm sure the Marxist's will wait for us to finish.
guy:
That ought to leave a mark.
Unfortunate that it won't.
But thanks!
always seemed a little too chummy with the neocons with regard to foreign policy - and you can't have a limited government if you want to be the world's cop, or think you can spread liberty through invasion.
How else do you spread liberty? Invasion and warfare are historically the only ways it actually, you know works.
it would be nice for people to "check their premises" before holding incompatible beliefs (in Whittle's case, limited government combined with military welfare around the world).
The two aren't incompatible. They're estranged in some ways, but not incompatible, especially factoring in history. The military system created and sustained in and since World War Two has almost no real connection with the growth of government since FDR.
If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, he'd probably still be on the CIA payroll
He wasn't. He was, however, on the French and German dole - repaid later by the oil smuggled out under the US blockade.
* Foreign policy didn't begin on 9/11...it's usually modern liberals who can be accused of "history began yesterday"ism.
No, it didn't. But it did catalyze the issue. Had we gone into Afghanistan with a major invasion, we'd have been unable to also blockade Iraq. And while I'd love for us to tell the UN to take a hike, at the moment, we're working within it's framework, and that would have been a Japan-walking-out-of-the-League moment in shattering any UN facade of effectiveness.
Roughly 1/2 of the US military logistics was tied up with Iraq - and either we could move them or...
Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that we *were* attacked by a group headquartered far from the US, yet the distance didn't bother them in the slightest. Without a robust, large military, there's no viable measure of retaliation or response. Meaning that we'd be opened up for even more attacks.
keeping that other "crazed madman" in Iran in check (who, by the way, has yet to nuke Israel.
Not for lack of trying. I suspect you won't have the decency to apologize if tomorrow Israel *is* nuked. You'll, in my estimation, just continue with the insinuations.
Which, by the way, isn't part of the United States).
Waiting until you're the last one standing to start to think about taking on enemies (while tossing allies to them in supplication) also has historical implications. Lots of them. Almost none of them positive.
Hi Kevin, and the rest of you fine people.
It is probably just a remarkable coincidence, but about three montha ago I tried to figure out what to do next. I too, like all of you, sit amazed watching what is happening. And so I had an idea for my third book (I am just wrapping up SEEING THE UNSEEN), and I came up with a term I liked so much that I went out and bought the .com and .org to THE COMMON SENSE RESISTANCE.
Now I'm starting to settle into to these video segments, and I told my Insect Overlords that I wanted to do a series of video segments called THE COMMON SENSE RESISTANCE, but that for those only, I needed to retain the video rights because I plan on doing them as a series of video essays, so that I could put out a DVD and book simultaneously. There is a lot I can do with imagery and music and mood, and the fact is, the people we need to reach the most are the ones least likely to read the book. But they do watch internet videos, if they are sharp and interesting enough.
All of this is well underway. I am working this week on a new Afterburner which will be a Star Trek parody examining why you DON'T want an intellectual running things. But after that, in about two weeks, I'll have the first installment of the Common Sense resistance, called THE TRAGEDY OF THE UNCONSTRAINED VISION.
What I want to accomplish is to set out the foundational philosophical underpinnings of the entire idea of conservatism, and I'm starting with Thomas Sowell's incredible work, A CONFLICT OF VISIONS.
So we are on the same page, and I hope to have the first of it in a few weeks. We need it, and much more than that, too. We are in real trouble here. But optimism and hope will prevail if anything can prevail, and that is what we Americans have that no one else does: a fundamental belief in the rightness of what we are doing. (The Star Trek parody will address that as well.)
I'll conclude by saying how grateful I am for your very kind words, and only I know exactly how fully I fall short of them. But it surpasses my ability to describe how uplifting and motivational your words are. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, and I hope I can contribute something soon to be worthy of them.
Best regards,
Bill Whittle
OK, I'm dumbstruck.
See, he knows 'bout ya, Kevin.
And I, too, am awestruck.
I do not have the vision that Bill has. My "vision" extended to a 21st century pamphlet I could wave, but I never dreamed of, not just A video, but a SERIES of videos.
Bill is correct. People who WON'T read WILL watch.
Damn, but do I feel better.
In the immortal words of Tam.
Squweeeee!!!
That's fantastic!
Palin/Whittle 2012???
I look forward to seeing the videos, I truly enjoyed the last one..."hunt them down with dogs", indeed.
Thanks, Bill!
...and thank you, Kevin!
With all due respect to Cindi, discussing Iraq and how that fits into the "Common Sense" culture you dream about IS on topic. Since he was mentioned in this post,
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin said this in the early part of 1775. He also said, "There was never a good war or a bad peace." So, Kevin, you can't have it both ways. And while I agree with you regarding Dr. Paul's insane ideas on the topic of international relations, if you are for "common sense" you should NOT be in support of anything the Patriot Act, invading Iraq and all that comes with it.The world that many of you fear has been here the last eight years and most of you have cheered it on. You have supported neo conservatism by allowing our citizens, as well as citizens from abroad, to be rounded up, without trials nor representation, and sent to prison. Why? Because they were Muslim.
In fact,"your" Franklin "your" Jefferson, "your" Adams, "your" Madison, "your" Washington and "your" Paine have nothing in common with modern day conservatism and I suspect that most if not all of them, if they were alive today, would be vilified by most right wing bloggers. Why, Franklin's quote from above would have elicited calls of treason and cowardice.
In a draft of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote, "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." How do you think that idea plays with "The Base." Jefferson, btw, was a devotee of the Muslim faith and his copy of the Koran was used in Keith Ellison's swearing in ceremony.
John Adams said "There is something very unnatural and odious in a government a thousand leagues off. A whole government of our own choice, managed by persons whom we love, revere, and can confide in, has charms in it for which men will fight." Indeed, government can work if the right people are in it. He also said, "Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it." There is whole lot of the superstition and dogmatism coming from the right these days.
James Madison said, ""If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." No shit.
George Washington said, "Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country." According to writings on this blog as well as the right wing in its current form, serving your country means being a socialist. Or is it fascist? I can never keep track. Any time the talk of common good comes up, screeding flames of death burst forth from the right. He also said, in a letter to Madame Lafayette, "Democratical States must always feel before they can see: it is this that makes their Governments slow, but the people will be right at last." Imagine if he had said that today. The f word? Suffering Jehosaphats! What ever would the response from the right be?
And, finally, Thomas Paine, on whom this post was based, said in Common Sense, "It is of the utmost danger to society to make it [religion] a party in political disputes. Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America." Paine would not even be a candidate for janitor in the GOP in its current form.
He also said (quoted here many times), "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
We furnish the means by which we suffer indeed. If I were an alien who landed on this planet and the only information I had on America was the writings here, I would assume the end was near. Thankfully, it is not. Individual freedom and liberty aren't going anywhere, folks. Perhaps your definition of it is and let's be realistic...that's the real problem here, isn't it? It's not the you are afraid of losing your liberty. You are afraid of being wrong. So, you can try to submit the belief that you are aligned with the founding fathers ideologically but every time you do, I am going to be there to call you on your bullshit. And, as a postscript to this very long comment, history has already proved that you are wrong.
In the 1930s and 40s, we came closer to a socialist state then we ever did. And what was the result? We defeated the greatest army this world had ever seen..."strong arming" GM btw. We built a strong economy and had more regulation than we do today. We had a 91 percent tax rate on the top one percent and built the national highway system because of it. This allowed our economy to expand even further and, in a hilarious bit of irony, allowed some of you to go on to very successful careers in engineering.
Happy for you ideologically but perhaps sad for future engineers and innovators, those days are gone and will never come back. Our country has moved too far away from allowing any sort of government institution (NASA for example) that kind of power. Look at the hysteria over the government's temporary involvement in the banking industry and Detroit recently. As Alan Greenspan and many others said in the CNBC documentary "House of Cards" (shown to me by last in line recently and fully torpedoing any last shred of an idea that blames government for our current issues), the corporation and free market rule the day and will forever. Gordon Gecko would be proud and all of you, rather than gathering pitch forks and torches, should be happy.
ooops...
you should not be in support of anything the Patriot Act OFFERS NOR invading Iraq and all that comes with it.
And I really thought I proof read....:)
"You are afraid of being wrong."
You aren't afraid of being hypocritical, are you, teacher boy?
"... I am going to be there to call you on your bullshit."
And I'm going to be here to call you on yours.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." No shit."
Bullcrap, Markadelphia. True Tyranny and Oppression does not get voted out of office.
Need I remind Mark that the legal groundwork for knocking off Saddam and company was NOT laid in the run up to the 2003 invasion, like everyone thinks it was, but is in fact a legal consequence stipulated in the cease fire from the 2001 Gulf War (that Iraw signed and violated immediately thereafter)?
We had the legal right to invade for 12 years, but chose not to for political considerations. I know this because in my 2 deployments during the Southern/Northern watch era in 1996 and again in 1999, we were dropping ordnance on a sometimes daily basis, when Iraqi SAM sites would illuminate Coalition fighters (a cease fire violation on every occurance).
So, spare me your legal mental gymnastics, Mark, and kindly leave the discussion to the adults.
"Jefferson, btw, was a devotee of the Muslim faith and his copy of the Koran was used in Keith Ellison's swearing in ceremony."
A devotee? Did you pull that one out of your big book of random facts with no sources? I imagine the Barbary Pirates might have a slightly different take on how "devoted" He was.
"We built a strong economy and had more regulation than we do today."
Hafta call BS again, Markadelphia:
HUD est 1965
EPA est 1970
OSHA est 1970
MSHA est 1970
DEA est 1973
TSA est 2001
That's just 6 new government agencies created in their entirety since the 40s.
Every law and regulation passed equals a loss of a liberty. Laws are being passed in this administration at a dizzying rate. Not that the Republicans are blameless either - I am no Bush cheerleader. Most of the agencies above were created during Republican administrations. So yes, individual liberty is actually going somewhere - into the history books.
Whoo boy. Mark's been saving up the crazeee for us.
Jefferson, btw, was a devotee of the Muslim faith
No, he wasn't. You don't know what "devotee" means, either. (Not a shock.)
you should NOT be in support of anything the Patriot Act
Most of us weren't.
invading Iraq and all that comes with it.
You don't have a clue about what you're blathering.
The world that many of you fear has been here the last eight years and most of you have cheered it on.
No, it hasn't. Bush made many choices that ended up in court - and he lost. He abided by the rule of law.
Obama's not allowing that to slow him down so far. (Even aside from the issue of the Birth Certificate, you've got _at the minimum_ Hillary being specifically not allowed to take a Cabinet post, and Kennedy specifically not allowed to be knighted. And that was before he started taking over Chrysler and GM.)
I suspect that most if not all of them, if they were alive today, would be vilified by most right wing bloggers
They created a nation where the government answered to the people. They sure as hell aren't going to be lauded by the left. Their insistence was that government was conceptually flawed but required, and to make it as far away from what you idolize.
Individual freedom and liberty aren't going anywhere, folks.
We keep asking you for proof. (And the definition of "verbatim". And what exactly, did you tell your student that you've claimed to have caught "critical thinking". And what defines "good capitalism?"....)
It's not the you are afraid of losing your liberty. You are afraid of being wrong.
No, it's the loss of liberty. Yeah, that's pretty much what drives most of us around here. And it's really funny that the most obvious commenter who's never willing to admit he's wrong - on anything - and has fled dozens of discussions when he's pinned to the wall - thinks he can lecture us on being wrong gracefully. Not to mention when he slips up he talks about "common good" and "smart leaders" being able to tell us what to do... without being able to reconcile that with what it means for individual liberty.
So, you can try to submit the belief that you are aligned with the founding fathers ideologically but every time you do, I am going to be there to call you on your bullshit.
Verbatim, I presume.
In the 1930s and 40s, we came closer to a socialist state then we ever did. And what was the result? We defeated the greatest army this world had ever seen.
Hah. That's hilarious. (I've already refuted you twice on this.)
We built a strong economy and had more regulation than we do today.
No, we didn't. That's just something you made up.
We had a 91 percent tax rate on the top one percent and built the national highway system because of it.
And a what percent on the rest?
Our country has moved too far away from allowing any sort of government institution (NASA for example) that kind of power.
And we can add NASA to what you don't know anything about.
Look at the hysteria over the government's temporary involvement in the banking industry and Detroit recently.
"Temporary" would imply that there's an ending - which there isn't yet, and there's no obvious date set for it to end.
So you're presuming it's temporary, and (as usual) not even entertaining the reality of what's going on.
As we're correct more and more times about our predictions as to what Obama was going to do in office, you're really getting flustered, aren't you? What's the matter, can't admit you were incredibly wrong?
Oh Lord!! Things are quieting down nicely and Markadelphia has to show up.
Yes, the Patriot Act is problematic, so is RICO and its many misapplications. Government which is smaller and doing what is in the Constitution (which pointedly included DEFENSE) is what we need to push.
I am glad to see that Bill W has checked in and I agree with the other commenter's praise of his work.
I am impressed that he is looking at video as the medium - great news for the ADD folks in the room (that would be me).
Thanks for bringing it up Kevin.
I think that a solid statement of conservative principles is much needed.
Let's not quibble about what we are not or do not agree upon, but rather focus on the large areas where we do agree. The rest will sort out over time.
Right now the Big Obama Tent is on fire and the risks to all are great.
"So, spare me your legal mental gymnastics, Mark, and kindly leave the discussion to the adults."
The adults, thankfully, are now in charge.
My chief problem with Iraq is poor strategy. If you were there in 1996 and 1999, then you know that he was not the threat that the Bush administration made him out to be. As Gen. Zinni has often said, to say that Saddam was a serious threat was the same thing as a slap in the face to all the service people (you) who protected the watch zone.
As we have seen in the last month, the real threat was always Afghanistan spilling into Pakistan which is exactly what has happened. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution (co-author of President Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy) said that "Pakistan has more terrorists per square mile than any other place on earth and it has a nuclear weapons program that is growing than any place on earth." So, Mark, you will have to excuse me if I call bullshit on Iraq. And complete horse manure on anyone that says that Bush et al protected this country for 8 years. They had a child like vision of the Middle East, were way out of their depth, completely incompetent, and succeeded only at lining the coffers of oil and defense industry with taxpayer money. And they weren't smart enough to tackle the real problem all along...Pakistan.
While we are on the subject of Bush administration shenanigans, I know there are plenty of torture lovers here. What did Thomas Paine say about torture? (from First Principles of Government, 1795)
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.
Oh, and I forgot that I had a special one for Ed (re: gay marriage)that I forgot to include above.
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."
Thomas Jefferson 1779
So, help me out on this one, Kevin. You say above that you voted for the lesser of two evils with McCain/Palin. And yet both of them, especially Sarah Palin, is against equal rights to the liberty of marriage for gay people. Sorry, dude, but that's a crock of shit. What would Tom say?
Um, Markadelphia... your guy came out against gay marriage too. Did you forget that?
Kevin:
Shhh. That's the sort of fact that'll chase him off for a week.
Wait.
Hey, Mark, Didn't you know that Obama and Carrie Prejean have the same opinion on gay marriage?!!!!
M,
Your comments are like Hamas rockets - random and do little damage but make a lot of noise.
Jeez, that is awful.
I find this both amusing and relevant. Perhaps a few people (at least a few who were polled) are waking up. A bit. Maybe.
Forget about Palin... I'd vote for Whittle/Baker.
I could be convinced to vote for Whittle/Palin, on the general ballot.
Wow, what a comment thread.
Id guess i should add, that personally i didn't support the invasion of iraq, or the patriot act, but that if we lived in a free and librocentric society, i would love to debate why and how we shouldn't do things, and wouldn't stop you from doing them yourselves. (though i think a simple rule of law would still preclude the patriot act.) My biggest problem isn't what is done, or why, but how very little it has to do with the will of the people, in any way, how decisions are made with my life, every day, without so much as consulting me, and in return, those same decisionmakers ask for my utmost obedience and subservience.
Liberty doesnt stop bad ideas, but it prevents someone else's bad ideas from ruining YOUR day.
But really, I just came into the comment section here to share an answer to the question about where we find the great leaders we need today, to parallel the greatness we, rightfully, should emulate from the past. Ive wondered that a few times myself, and i found a pretty good answer on the internet almost a year ago, in a comment left on a blog (WRSA, maybe) by a "Phelps." He said:
The new Washington is doing the same thing the old Washington was doing -- running his business after an honorable but otherwise undistinguished military stint.
The new Jefferson is doing the same as the old Jefferson -- running a business, and taking up an epistolary hobby, only writing a blog this time.
The new Adams is doing the same as the old Adams -- pursuing a law career, with some part of it dealing with issues of state and freedom.
The new Hancock is doing the same thing as the old Hancock -- smuggling contraband (then, molasses for drugs, now probably the drugs themselves) and evading taxes and laundering money.
The new Franklin is blogging and publishing columns, the new Sam Adams is getting pressured by the local authorities about how to run his bar, and the new Paul Revere is reading this comment, and reminding himself to buy some more ammunition this weekend, just in case.
Cheers.
The adults, thankfully, are now in charge.
Like the one who's in the hot seat lying about what she did/didn't know about the CIA's methods?
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."
If I'm not mistaken, the context of this quote had to do with the establishment of a particular Christian church as the state church in Virginia viz. supporting it with tax dollars or compelling people to tithe. Which any freedom-loving Christian should be against.
And isn't Obama against gay marriage? What about that?
[Prediction: Mark will say that great people can sometimes be wrong, and Obama (who is a great man) just happens to be wrong on this one issue. But Obama's smart, so he'll eventually see the light. Or he's so busy cleaning up Bush's messes that this is a back-burner issue for now.]
What did Thomas Paine say about torture?
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty..."
He's talking about punishment. We use "torture" to extract information to prevent thousands of innocent people from being killed. Surely, even you can see the difference? What am I saying. Forget it.
"The adults, thankfully, are now in charge."
Like the ones who don't believe they have to pay taxes, or the ones who can't remember to pay taxes, or the ones who can't compute the taxes they owe, or ...
Working backwards...
"Like the one who's in the hot seat lying about what she did/didn't know about the CIA's methods?"
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2009/05/liberal-media-watch.html
"And isn't Obama against gay marriage? What about that?"
Yes, and I disagree with him. Nice prediction, btw but I disagree with him a number of issues (Pakistan, legalizing marijuana, BlackRock) and might be disagreeing with him (have strong reservations) on Hamas, Iran, the bailout but those issues haven't played out fully yet.
And Kevin S., I never said I was against gay marriage. I support it. What I did say was that if you want a solution to the gay marriage issue, take the word marriage out and make anyone who wants to be a "legal partner." Essentially, GLBTs in this country should focus on the equal rights aspect first. Work on the civil side and then get married in a gay friendly church. The fact is that gay marriage is years away, given the fact that a large segment of this country still views gay people as criminals, so I am seeking the most politically expedient option available.
"We use "torture" to extract information to prevent thousands of innocent people from being killed. "
Absolute and complete bullshit. Perhaps the greatest lie of the Bush administration next to WMDs. Have you listened to the testimonies of those who say it did NOTHING? Have you spent any time, as I have, looking into how we actually get good intelligence and what is involved in that? Have you talked to interrogators who have been doing this since WWII and heard what they had to say? Please get your head out of the fantasy of 24. That's not reality.
R. Franz, good comments. Very astute!
"I'd vote for Whittle/Baker."
I would consider that as well if only for them to see, once they got into office, how terribly misguided they are on a few issues...experience and knowledge being power and all:)
Mark, I'm not going to patronize your blog. Please to be giving me the gist of your Pelosi rebuttal here.
And, yeah, what about all those adult tax cheats Obama keeps trying to appoint?
And what about Obama the adult laughing at Wanda Sykes' puerile 9/11 jokes?
...given the fact that a large segment of this country still views gay people as criminals...
News to me. What crime have they allegedly committed, according to this large segment of the country?
I disagree with him a number of issues...
You seem awfully willing to be magnanimous in your disagreement with Obama, but not so with Republicans. Why?
As for torture, you characteristically missed the point. In the context of the Paine quote you trotted out, it's immaterial whether it's a reliable method of extracting information. The motive is the point. Are you asserting that the U.S. government uses waterboarding, etc. strictly for punishment? If so, to what end?
"Are you asserting that the U.S. government uses waterboarding, etc. strictly for punishment? If so, to what end?"
B'cause he can't agree that you're right. Gotta be consistent, y'see.
Sarah, the whole Pelosi thing is just another example of how bankrupt the right is on just about everything. Rather than admit they were wrong in doing what they did (see: end of the world as we know it), they choose, once again, the attack and distract route. And shirk personal responsibility AGAIN!
Suppose Pelosi did know what was going on in 2002. So what? She was told after the fact by the people who were driving the policy. And what could she have done? If she spoke up, she would've been labeled a traitor. She already is being labeled that by the right who are vilifying her for saying the CIA lied. Didn't Bush say the same thing during his tenure? No one said boo then. Given the CIA's "stellar" history with truth telling, I find her statement to at least be possibly true.
That being said, I do think that the Democrats are just as much to blame (complicity after the fact) for the crimes of the Bush Administration. In fact, I think they knew they could play it to their political advantage in 2008 by basically doing nothing in the previous two years. So, is she at fault? Sure, but not as much as the Republicans and the "liberal" media are making her out to be.
"what about all those adult tax cheats Obama keeps trying to appoint?"
Well, they are at fault as well. Ready to admit the crimes that were committed on the right yet? I'll be waiting...
"What crime have they allegedly committed, according to this large segment of the country?"
That's good news that you think this way. Ed will provide the answer to this one.
"Are you asserting that the U.S. government uses waterboarding, etc. strictly for punishment? If so, to what end?"
Yes. And other forms of torture as well. If you don't believe me, what do you call Abu Gharib? Gitmo? The secret prisons? The photos we will never see? If it were to extract information only, why were they waterboarded multiple times after admitting what they knew?
As far their motives for doing so, I would say you can start with the bizarre sadism that seems to be common trait with some on the right these days. Odd, when you consider that they supposedly have Christian values and bemoan the "barbarians" who don't. And why does punishment like this typically occur? It's usually a combination of fear, paranoia, and ignorance...three traits which also sum up the mindset of the people who drove and supported these policies. I can tell you for certain that it wasn't done for the safety of this nation. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having the serious problems we have in Pakistan right now.
"And Kevin S., I never said I was against gay marriage."
You missed my point completely. I never accused you of opposing gay marriage. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of you excoriating Palin and McCain for opposing it yet ignoring the fact that Obama holds the EXACT SAME opinion. At least be consistent. Just asking for a little intellectual honesty. Don't give Obama a pass for the exact same positions just because he's a democrat.
"Just asking for a little intellectual honesty. Don't give Obama a pass for the exact same positions just because he's a democrat."
C'mon, Kevin S. Hypocrisy and hyperbole is his standard fare. Thus we find the corker of the day:
"Sarah, the whole Pelosi thing is just another example of how bankrupt the right is on just about everything." (emphasis added)
So, don't take him seriously. He isn't bright enough to see (or to care) that he fouls his own nest.
Back to the main thread for a moment.
It occured to me that Bill's vids would be a might bit like Ronald Reagan's radio speeches.
I recommend that the he do two types. Short to the point pieces like Reagan's radio sorts and longer more in depth (heh like Reagan's convention speeches?). We need to reach people who need to learn to question what they have learned enough to bother to learn what Conservatism is all about.
Thomas Paine
Ronald Reagan
Bill Whittle
Works for me.
Suppose Pelosi did know what was going on in 2002. So what?
So... She certainly wasn't vocal then about it. When it was her job to if she felt it was wrong. She certainly was vocal on all sorts of other things she disagreed with Bush about.
It's like this, Mark. If you're going to hold her up as a paragon of honor and integrity, you've got to figure out why she was quiet until after Bush's re-election and her ascension to power - and really only vocal in the last year of the Bush Presidency. She was in a position to stop what she now says she was never told about.
Until it turns out she was told, and she was all for it then. It was popular. We were at war.
She was told after the fact by the people who were driving the policy.
No, even as she admits now, she was briefed before the capture of many "high value" terrorists.
And what could she have done?
Voted "no". Said it was wrong. Held hearings.
If she spoke up, she would've been labeled a traitor.
Not any more than she is now.
She already is being labeled that by the right who are vilifying her for saying the CIA lied.
I want some proof or you to shaddup. People are laughing about this - because she sure as hell was TOUTING the CIA when it would hurt Bush. I haven't seen anybody call her a "traitor" for saying the CIA lied. So, let's see some proof, not just Mark-Verbatim-Projection here.
The CIA opposed Bush, and did so in IMO, illegal and immoral ways. Pelosi was gleefully happy to assist - that's what people are laughing about now, when she runs afoul of them, that woah, wait a minute they're lying to me!, but, wait, Nancy, you thought they were the paragons of intelligence gathering?
Didn't Bush say the same thing during his tenure? No one said boo then. Given the CIA's "stellar" history with truth telling, I find her statement to at least be possibly true.
What else do you find possibly (or more) true?
* That we all listen and take notes from Rush Limbaugh.
* The meaning of "Verbatim"
* That Obama wasn't going to be in any way shape or form move the economy towards central planning, and his taking over of Chrysler and the banking industry is NOTHING LIKE A TAKEOVER
* That you teach critical thinking
* That pointing to spoken words is more important than historical practice
* That Only, if we try HARD ENOUGH, we can MAKE IT WORK!
"Don't give Obama a pass for the exact same positions just because he's a democrat."
He doesn't get a pass. He's wrong. In fact, being a minority and knowing what its like to be treated like 3/5ths of a person, he should be ashamed of himself.
But remember opposing gay marriage is not a core principle of the Democratic party as it is with the Republicans. At least Obama favors all other forms of unions and the Republicans don't. There is a difference between his opposition and the right's opposition.
As to your comments, DJ, I have no problem admitting fault or even criminal activity on the left side of the aisle. There's plenty of it and, in fact, more of it on their side if you take the totality of US History into account. It's only in the last few decades that the GOP has seen fit to try to outdo them. You can try to spin and wiggle your way out of admitting what they did but it's all there...plain to see.
Rob, yes, by all means...find a modern day Reagan. Good luck getting the GOP in its current form to support him. Reagan supported progressive taxes, earned income tax credits, open talks with enemies with no pre-conditions, and signed letters of agreement with the UN (see: foreign devils!) in regards to torture. If that's your idea of a return to conservatism, great! I'm on board.
"I haven't seen anybody call her a "traitor" for saying the CIA lied."
Well, let's start with verbatim.
http://conservativexpress.blogspot.com/2009/05/sean-hannity-mike-huckabee-and-newt.html
Newt, heard on Joe Scarborough.
"To have the person third in line to be president say that the CIA misleads us all the time is so utterly irresponsible and such an attack on the men and women who are risking their lives ... that she disqualifies herself for being speaker of the House."
Here's a more thorough thrashing of Pelosi from the man who, unlike John Edwards, gets a free pass from the "liberal" media as he fucked around on his wife while she had cancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOwhYLIyYhg
Try not to throw up as he gives his view on how to "defend" this country.
"As to your comments, DJ, I have no problem admitting fault or even criminal activity on the left side of the aisle."
How magnanimous of you. My comments are, and have long been, that you cannot admit YOUR OWN ERRORS. You demonstrate it almost daily.
"There's plenty of it and, in fact, more of it on their side if you take the totality of US History into account. It's only in the last few decades that the GOP has seen fit to try to outdo them."
And more, they have lost, big time, by trying to emulate their opponents. Goddamn, teacher boy, WE have been telling YOU that for a long time.
You keep trying and trying to paint us with the broad brush of being Conservatives and/or (especially) being Republicans. You do so in order to paint us with the attributes you ascribe to those groups. You seem unable to understand, despite being told repeatedly for two goddamned years, that those of us who comment regularly here are, with rare exceptions, NEITHER.
In general, most of us here don't like either party, but at the moment, we find the Dimocrats to be MUCH more dangerous to our liberty. Right now, the problem is the Dimocrats, but the solution is NOT the Republicans. As my brother is prone to say, All You Can Do Is All You Can Do, and the subject of this post by Kevin stands a good chance of increasing what we can do.
Well, [the tax cheats] are at fault as well.
Is Obama at fault for appointing lying-weasel, tax-evading scumbags? He either knew what kind of people they were and tried to appoint them anyway, or he didn't do his homework. Either way, it's not very adult.
And what about Obama laughing at Wanda Sykes' over-the-line jokes about 9/11? Would you consider that adult behavior?
(Thanks to Unix for explaining the Pelosi stuff.)
Ready to admit the crimes that were committed on the right yet?
Am I ready to admit that the GOP is corrupt, wayward, and has bought into the fallacy that big government is good? Already have. But this has exactly what to do with the subject at hand, Mark? Every time you get cornered on something, you offer this vague reference to the crimes of the right. But YOUR guys are in office now. We defended Bush and the GOP for the last eight years. It's YOUR turn.
That's good news that you think this way. Ed will provide the answer to this one.
How about you provide the answer to this one, since you're the one who leveled the accusation?
If you don't believe me, what do you call Abu Gharib? Gitmo? The secret prisons?
Where the bad guys who want to kill Americans are.
A few dirtbags at Abu Ghraib put panties on a guy's head and stack up a pile of naked guys, and this constitutes torture to you. It's creepy and unbecoming of the U.S. military, yes. Waterboarding? Extreme, yes. But to refer to frat-boy hazing as "torture" and "sadistic" is an insult to the people who have genuinely suffered torture at the hands of real sadists. People like Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, who got their heads sawn off with a knife. People like the guys Saddam had stuffed into plastic shredders feet-first so they could scream in agony right up until they died.
This is what I don't get. Every one of those prisoners would happily slit your throat and cut you into a hundred pieces. These are the types who behead little school girls and bomb hospitals and rope mentally-challenged women into blowing themselves up. Even if our guys were waterboarding these human vermin purely for kicks and giggles, I can't fathom why you and others want to defend them.
The photos we will never see?
You mean, the ones Obama won't release?
I can tell you for certain that it wasn't done for the safety of this nation.
No attacks on American soil in almost seven years personally makes me feel safer. I'm certain that's not for nothing.
Anyway, yeah. What DJ said. I'm for limited government, restrained spending, and accountability. That, unfortunately, describes neither party at this time.
. I'm for limited government, restrained spending, and accountability. That, unfortunately, describes neither party at this time.
Which if Mark would stop trying to "know us" and pay attention describes me as well.
And no, it doesn't mean I'm happy with the Republican party.
But given my choices, there are libertarians and small-government sorts in the Republican camp.
They're closer to my ideals, and far closer to what the Constitution lays out what the government is supposed to be doing (and more specifically, not doing.
Mark, you keep trying to paint us as mirrors of you, unable to admit error, and unable to stop defending Republicans in office .
Did you even notice Kevin's McCain's bumper stickers? I'm not defending Newt or his infidelity. I will note he's not ignored it, nor disclaimed it. But your froth fails. Now, how about all the other things you've missed to try and trap us with a failed logic?
It's very interesting that you'll ignore your verbatim "definition" until now. Learned what it is, yet? Ready to admit you were flat-ass wrong before?
"Ready to admit you were flat-ass wrong before?"
Ready to admit that Laura Ingraham uses the term "useful idiots" as is written on here VERBATIM?
"Am I ready to admit that the GOP is corrupt, wayward, and has bought into the fallacy that big government is good?"
Ah, yes. Republicans are only bad when they...act like liberals. But when they, in classic Nixonian fashion, place themselves above the law on a whole host of issues (torture, wiretaps, intelligence, US attorneys) then its ok, right?
"No attacks on American soil in almost seven years personally makes me feel safer. I'm certain that's not for nothing."
Well, let's see. We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Pakistan is now filled with Al Qaeda and the Taliban thanks to Bush not caring about bin Laden anymore. Oh, and they have nukes there, don't they?
This says a lot...
"This is what I don't get. Every one of those prisoners would happily slit your throat and cut you into a hundred pieces. These are the types who behead little school girls and bomb hospitals and rope mentally-challenged women into blowing themselves up. Even if our guys were waterboarding these human vermin purely for kicks and giggles, I can't fathom why you and others want to defend them."
Because we are better than them, aren't we? Because we can get more information...better information...from NOT torturing them. In fact, we have. The fact that we are even having this debate is ludicrous.
Our country has faced far greater enemies than these people and we won. You want to continue to play into their hands and become a recruiting tool, fine. I want to win so I am going to continue to support people who don't have a ten year old's view of the world.
"That's good news that you think this way. Ed will provide the answer to this one."
Why should I answer for you? I can't read your mind any more than you can read mine.
Ready to admit that Laura Ingraham uses the term "useful idiots" as is written on here VERBATIM?
Uh, Mark? The term "useful idiots" predates the birth of Laura Ingraham. It's been attributed to Lenin, though no one's been able to find the exact quote to my knowledge, but it's been around for a LONG time. The point being that it's in common use. And since it is used to describe people on the LEFT side of the aisle, it's hardly surprising that people on the RIGHT side of the aisle are the ones using it.
Now, find an example here at TSM where we "quote Rush Limbaugh verbatim" (except, of course, when I do it with quotation marks and attribution.)
Ready to admit that Laura Ingraham uses the term "useful idiots" as is written on here VERBATIM?
I don't know Laura Ingraham, and I have no idea what she uses or misuses. It's irrelevant to the fact that "useful idiot" is a term that has a meaning and a history - one you wish to ignore and instead take as an insult, as you live up to the definition.
So I can't really admit anything with Ingraham, and I've got no idea why you feel you've trapped me somewhere.
But it's easy to point out you've trapped yourself. Anytime you try to use the word "Classic" or compare to Nixon.
But when they, in classic Nixonian fashion, place themselves above the law on a whole host of issues (torture, wiretaps, intelligence, US attorneys) then its ok, right?
Who's placed themselves above the law? You don't even know what you're blathering about, it's sad.
Nothing you're saying there is a case where anybody placed themselves above the law. The addition of the US Attorney firing is particularly laughable. Considering they serve at the pleasure of the President.
As to the rest, we've seen your style of argument, and it's not worth even bothering pointing out how ridicolous your stance is. Much as you doubled down on "verbatim", and insisted that Communism was "neither better nor worse" than capitalism.
Because we can get more information...better information...from NOT torturing them.
Neither you nor I know that. One of us understands that.
But we can note that when Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, et al were briefed on the techniques and the information being uncovered, they did not object.
That's rather telling as to what happened behind the doors when those classified briefings occurred.
In fact, we have. The fact that we are even having this debate is ludicrous.
Yes, it is. But we're used to it with you.
But see, I've got a lot of faith in people, and I don't think we've got people "torturing" them - no matter how much they'd deserve it - for fun. When some people used prisoners as gags, we threw they asses in jail posthaste, slapped the commanding General out of her spot ("Because she's a woman!" people whined). Within 36 hours of the IG discovering it. You didn't hear about it until their courts martial commenced. But Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton were briefed months before they appeared and started talking about their "disgust" when the defense attorneys leaked photos because the Army Prosecutor refused to make a deal with his client.)
If there was a better way serving them tea and crumpets, I think we'd be using it.
You just have no comprehension of the world outside of your pampered existence.
Our country has faced far greater enemies than these people and we won.
Who? From a standpoint of ideology, we haven't. We've never faced anybody with the ideology of this enemy, Mark.
I want to win
Just like you want "good capitalism", and "critical thinking" and to be a respected thinker.
It takes more than saying it, it takes understanding what's happening, and the ability to analyse it - and most importantly, the ability to admit when you're wrong. Verbatim.
And then you've got VDH weighing in.
Mark, if you were serious about learning, you'd read VDH. I disagree with a lot of his conclusions in his books. (Especially _Carnage and Culture_.) But I'm better for having read him.
Ministers of Truth.
But it is quite astounding that the mainstream liberal media — NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, etc. — has simply offered no substantive criticism of Obama's flips on renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Iraq, or — given their past fury over the Bush deficits — the Obama plan to run up more red ink in a year than Bush did in eight.
[Much less the specter of the Office of the President directing industry, relining up creditors in opposition to the law, forcing corporations to "take" money and thereby report to him...]
Bush was constantly criticized [Here's a list for you to research if you disagree:] by mainstream conservatives for his comprehensive immigration proposals, for deficit spending, for failure to veto any bills in the first term, for No Child Left Behind, for the prescription drug benefit, for the Harriet Miers nomination, for the first pullback from Fallujah, for appointments like Scott McClellan and "Brownie," etc.
...
Quite scary, all this chest-thumping about tough journalistic integrity of 2001-8 suddenly devolving into, "Hey everyone, we can reassure you that the Emperor really does have clothes on."
>>"The adults, thankfully, are now in charge. "
{Splutter}
M'delphia owes me a keyboard and monitor.
Who's placed themselves above the law?
Unix, I think he got that from Frost/Nixon. In the movie, Nixon is confronted with his part in a "whole host of issues" e.g. "wiretaps, intelligence, US attorneys," and responds along the lines of, "When the President does it, it's not illegal!" Ergo, Republicans place themselves above the law.
Nixon, of course, defines the Republican party to someone like Mark. It's the only thing they've really got on us besides, sorta, Iran-Contra, but that's not as sexy. Nevermind that Nixon ended the Vietnam War (you'd think he'd get some gratitude for that). Yes, he was corrupt, but what did he do when he realized he was dead to rights? He resigned, under pressure from his own party, which refused to tolerate corruption in its ranks. What did Clinton do when the jig was up? He attempted verbal gymnastics to weasel out of it, and the Democrats rallied around their weasel.
Well, let's see. We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Pakistan is now filled with Al Qaeda and the Taliban thanks to Bush not caring about bin Laden anymore. Oh, and they have nukes there, don't they?
And that's all thanks to... torture?
Because we are better than them, aren't we?
Oh, I just knew you were going to say that. Seriously, that's your defense of people who saw the heads off little girls? Who would sooner kill you than tie their own shoes? Mark, there are an infinite number of horrible things going on in the world, and only a finite number that any one of us is capable of really caring about. Out of all those things, you picked defending murderous enemies from extreme interrogation techniques. You know, if Americans were skinning these people alive and boiling them in oil, I might be with you on this, but because a bunch of rats who murder in cold blood are being waterboarded, I just don't give a flying you-know-what.
Because we can get more information...better information...from NOT torturing them. In fact, we have.
I don't buy it. My husband is former special forces, trained in interrogation techniques -- subjected to these same techniques -- and they DO work. I'm going to take his word over yours any day. And also this bit of rationale: It makes no sense to use the limited number of expensive, highly-trained operatives at our disposal just to torture a bunch of nobodies for no reason at all. It makes NO SENSE. We must be getting something worthwhile out of these techniques, or we wouldn't bother.
Let's to be turning back to old topics now. You said the adults were now in charge, so I want to know your considered opinion on the following:
Is Obama at fault for appointing lying-weasel, tax-evading scumbags?
What about Obama laughing at Wanda Sykes' over-the-line jokes about 9/11? Would you consider that adult behavior?
And since Ed declined to answer your question for you...
What crime have gays allegedly committed, according to a large segment of the country?
Well, let's see. We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Pakistan is now filled with Al Qaeda and the Taliban thanks to Bush not caring about bin Laden anymore. Oh, and they have nukes there, don't they?
And that's all thanks to... torture?
I thought about this and realized I didn't address your point, Mark, so lemme try again.
Not sure what's pressing about the anthrax attacks, since we haven't suffered any more of them. As for the rest of it, you're implying that our interrogation techniques fail to make us safe unless they prevent every bad thing from ever happening, which is impossible. If 10 bad things are in the works and we manage to extract information that helps prevent 7 of those, that's a success.
So, now that bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban are Obama's problems, what's he going to do about them?
Now that Sarah's repointed this stupid comment out, it twigged a light on.
We still haven't found out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks.
Nor have we found D. B. Cooper.
While I'd prefer we'd have found the responsible party(ies), it's also very possible that we have.
Have you considered that? The lack of going concern is because we know/caught/dealt with the people doing it?
But even aside from that, after the initial flurry - there have been no more attacks. You make it sound like we're getting anthrax sent all over the mail and people being exposed daily. But we're not.
It's very easy to commit a crime - once - with a hit-and-run. Especially as time passes, it's harder and harder to find the evidence.
In the meantime, we could, instead, discuss how Obama has personally (and against the rules of bankruptcy law) restructured Chrysler, and compare that to your loud and repeated assertions that it was our paranoia that he was going to expect to rule and behave in a manner socialistic or fascistic. But you don't want to go there for some reason.
Nixon?!? Nixon?!?
Here was a president who was NOT a conservative. A crook? Yes. A Conservative? No.
Wage and Price Controls
EPA
OSHA
etc...
Sorry to disapoint you Markadelphia, I am to the right of Ronald Reagan. He is the beginning of good. He accepted some crap from Congress, which I would have fought.
"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other."
- Ronald Reagan
Smaller, less intrusive, less expensive Federal Government. Yep! That is what I want.
And while Reagan said he wanted smaller, less intrusive, less expensive Federal Government, he accomplished its opposite. Oh, he slowed the rate of growth a bit, but that's all.
The fundamental victory of our statist opponents is the widespread acceptance of the current baseline scope and magnitude of government.
This will be the case for as long as political fortunes rise or fall based on questions such as whether or not to give the chaparral that has grown right up to the back porch a light trim and a polish job or not.
The correct answer, of course, is root the chaparral out of the yard entirely, and beat it back few hundred yards to boot, but folks who don't already understand that won't until the wildfires come, and perhaps not even then.
It becomes more and more interesting as people wake up to the idea that the current breathtaking level of government criminality simply isn't possible when the baseline is reduced to correct, constitutionally approved levels.
Until then, we're going to see entire industries dedicated solely to exploiting the perverse and capricious market our government sets up and runs with our tax dollars, without respect to providing any other value.
The basic premise they offer is "I have your money. Kiss my ass, *hard*, if you want any of it back."
And while Reagan said he wanted smaller, less intrusive, less expensive Federal Government, he accomplished its opposite.
TAKE THAT BACK!
That's it Kevin, TAKE IT BACK!
Don't you know that we VERBATIM (I think) repeat what our LEADERS BLINDLY TELL US? How many times has Mark told you that we march in lockstep with them!
How dare you not defend EVERYTHING Reagan did!
My sarcasm being done there, let me point out something that everybody but Mark misses.
We didn't lionize McCain. Or Bush. Or Bush. Or Reagan. Or Nixon. We might have supported them at the time, but at no point did we throw our weight behind them wholeheartedly as Mark and the left have done to Obama. (And were doing to Hillary until he cut her off at the pass.)
I can remember "conservatives" castigating Reagan. I can remember "conservatives" fleeing Bush in droves when he broke the "Read My Lips". Dole wasn't considered transcendental, nor McCain, who most people called a "RINO" or in the words of an erudite host "The least offensive Democrat running."
But the left must idolize their leaders. The only one recently that really failed that test was Kerry. He didn't even inspire the left, but he managed to wrangle the nomination and even the press couldn't put him over the top. (But they damn sure tried.)
But they easily could with Obama, who had no problem promising everything to anybody - and people, just like Mark here, lapped it up. Even when there was no way in hell someone with any sense could have argued a point, they argued it.
Even after Obama's administration has almost totally taken over Chrysler, and is on the way to taking over GM, rewarding the UAW at the expense of the people who had loaned money, Mark still screams that he's just ushering in "Good Capitalism" and there's no relation at ALL to fascism/socialism.
Because Mark's ego can't allow Obama to fail. At anything. So he MUST support him at all costs. Common sense be damned.
Whereas we spent 8 years contending with a Bush administration we weren't ecstatic about, and fighting the good fight against it. We could give kudos where they were due - but when they were due, not just because we'd lose face and ego if we didn't.
"Now, find an example here at TSM where we "quote Rush Limbaugh verbatim""
What I find to be interesting about all of this is...I will listen to Rush and then the next day, EVERY one of my conservative friends comes at me with all of his talking points from the previous day. Rush said that Barack Obama was the next Jimmy Carter (so did Laura Ingraham btw) and then commenters here said it the next day. Rush said the Barack Obama was a socialist. Then it was talked about on here. The next week Rush said he was a fascist. Then it was talked about on here. My point, Kevin, was not primarily directed at you. Nor was it directed at Bilgeman and even a few others who can actually think critically. It seemed, at the time, and in some cases still does that some of you all read from the same page.
Now, if I am NOT a critical thinker as has been purported here by some, then why do I make my students take opposing points from their own views and prove them right? Why do I make my students read Clarence Carson as well as Howard Zinn? Why do I read Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Cliff May, the National Review, and listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? Why do I read this blog? Because I want to hear what they have to offer and think about it. Can any of you say the same thing for liberal equivalents such as Kruggman, Dowd, Olberman, Scultz or my blog?
Thus far, all I have heard from many here is that the list above are a bunch of "liars." So you are going to have to excuse me if I call complete BULLSHIT on who is the critical thinker and who is not. Until you spend some time reading and listening to these people, then you are not, in fact, critically thinking about anything at all and participating in a giant echo chamber experiment.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." --Thomas Paine
Whittle has my vote!
Thus far, all I have heard from many here is that the list above are a bunch of "liars."
Funny thing, when that happens? People demonstrate and prove why.
You'd think a teacher of "Critical Thinking" would understand that.
But then, when you used "verbatim", and when pressed, misdefined it, you couldn't admit your error.
Now, if I am NOT a critical thinker as has been purported here by some,
So what did you tell your student with the textbook question?
Oops, didn't notice the typo.
Now, if I am NOT a critical thinker as has been purported here by some,
should read :
I am NOT a critical thinker as has been proven by many, including my own comments, repeatedly over the past two years and counting,
There, I fixed it, free of charge.
Mark,
Critical thinking isn't just the exercise of reading an opposing viewpoint, but successfully parsing it and understanding it, and applying logic and fact to see if the argument needs to be revised or scrapped.
I dunno about others here, but I've never listened to Rush. I form my opinions based on what I read in the news, which comes from multiple sources.
There are a couple of leftist blogs I occasionally read (Deltoid, Huffington Post) to see what the other side is up to, but mostly I can get that bias from the mainstream news. As for your blog, I visited a couple of times, but found it rather less informative than full of agitated rants and "look how stupid my conservative friends are."
"I think he got that from Frost/Nixon. "
Uh, no. The crimes I mentioned are all ones that the Bush administration committed. It's not surprising to me that they did considering that two of Nixon's brightest pupils were Cheney and Rumsfeld. And this is what I mean by Richard Nixon defining modern day conservatism. His style of politics (don't just beat them, attack and destroy them personally while feeding the fear of the "silent majority") has carried clear into the year 2009. I'm hoping that we have finally seen the end of it but there are plenty of people that still want to be willfully ignorant and seem to feed on the political porn of fear.
"Seriously, that's your defense of people..."
Again, Sarah, playing right into the hand of the hirabis. I have experienced this extremism first hand in my life. To this day, I am still biased and prejudiced...dare I say it?...racist when it comes to Muslims and Arabs. And yet, I want to win more than wrongfully proceed based on blind rage...and there is a lot of rage in that paragraph of yours. They win when we say the things like you said above because then they can galvanize the Islamic world against us. It is a right wing lie to say that they "laugh" at us and think we are weak when we treat them so nicely. In reality, they shit themselves at the thought of trying to make a devil where there is none.
"I'm going to take his word over yours any day"
Good. Ask him what the army field manual says on interrogation techniques. Ask him what they did in WWII with the Germans and the Japanese--the latter of which were just as psychotic as Muslim extremists. Don't take my word for it. Ask Bob Baer. Ask Jack Rice. Ask Ali Soufan. Find some more experts that don't agree with you and see what they say. You could ask my grandfather what he did with the Japanese in WWII if he were still alive. If you like I will tell you what he told me about torture. Then tell me if you think it worked or if you were just riffing off of rage.
"What crime have gays allegedly committed, according to a large segment of the country?"
According to many on the right, gays are criminals because they break biblical law. Gays used to be arrested for....just being gay. Again, though, don't take my word for it. Ask some conservatives if they think gays should be locked up for their perversions. A couple of years back, I asked 10. 7 said they should be and this is in blue Minnesota. Imagine what the answer might be in Utah, Pennsylvania, or Alabama.
"Is Obama at fault for appointing lying-weasel, tax-evading scumbags? "
Yes. And so is his vetting team. It was a mistake and he (gasp!) admitted it unlike the other side who never fucking does.
"What about Obama laughing at Wanda Sykes' over-the-line jokes about 9/11? Would you consider that adult behavior?"
I haven't see the video but I will watch it now. My comments regarding adult behavior stem from having suffered through 8 years of "thinking with guts" of George Bush. His administration had a child like understanding of the Middle East (not my words but those of Lt Col Benjamin Busch, US Marines)
"So, now that bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban are Obama's problems, what's he going to do about them?"
Currently, he is pursuing a strategy that is similar to President Bush's strategy which is let the Pakistanis deal with it. I completely disagree. I am heartened by extra troops and some other...inside info I have about Pakistan from my special forces step bro but generally it's been more of the same as Bush. If you ever did follow my blog, you would know that I took strong issue with him on this over the last couple of weeks. I realize he is working on the economy but there will be a worse attack than 9-11 if we don't get more aggressive there. And it will be both Bush and Obama's fault.
Markadelphia finally offers an explanation as to why he believes himself to be a critical thinker, and we aren't. This is illuminating.
He asserts that a key and mandatory element of critical thought is to be found in giving an alternative viewpoint a fair hearing, of engaging the exercise of proving correct opposite points of view, of entertaining the opposite. This is a sentiment he's expressed before, and thus shows some consistency in the matter. In fact, those who do not demonstrate such to his satisfaction can be safely, in his view, dismissed as to their capacity for critical thought.
Consideration of alternatives is only a part of the discipline of critical thought.
To us, critical thought is primarily the rigorous application of critical faculties to any particular line of thought.
Some lines of thought pass the test, some are indeterminate, and others fail. The results are durable, unless new facts or circumstances are presented for consideration and these are valid reasons to perform a re-evaluation.
Somewhere along the line, having used those skills to refute and eliminate certain lines of reasoning, we no longer feel obliged to entertain them when encountered for the bazillionth fraudulent time. We recognize the same warmed over tripe presented as shiny, original and new.
Critical thought isn't about making up reasons why a line of reasoning *might* be right; it's about determining if it still stands after the best, most intellectually rigorous means to prove it wrong has been applied.
In general, you can't really "prove" a thing to be right, but you can certainly prove a thing to be wrong. As a practical matter, the truths we accept are conditionally accepted with the slight caveat that if they are conclusively demonstrated to be wrong at some future time, intellectual integrity tells us that we're obliged to abandon them.
A is A, and Obi Wan lied. Darth Vader did not betray and kill Luke's father, and the only point of view from which that was truth to cling to was one divorced from (fictional) reality.
.
Uh, no. The crimes I mentioned are all ones that the Bush administration committed.
Uh, no. The "crimes" are either obviously not criminal, or at best have yet to be arraigned and anyone indicted. They're political talking points that people such as you use without any consideration for what it would mean.
So as of right now, there's no crime committed from a legal standpoint, and the changes and odds of that changing are almost nil. What was that about "attack and destroy them personally while feeding the fear"?
I'm hoping that we have finally seen the end of it but there are plenty of people that still want to be willfully ignorant
...
Project much?
geekWithA.45 : It's hard science vs the debate club!
I remember those fights in high school, the hurled insults, the scatological remarks, yo momma throw downs, the debate clubs display of their dizzying intellect.
Then the hard science geeks built some siege equipment and engines of war, cried havoc, let slip the dogs of war, and laid waste.
And then we knew what was best in life: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
My god, I love you guys!
This has to be the best entertainment on the 'net!
If only the stakes weren't so high . . .
It's not simply taking another person's point of view. By looking at things from another perspective, one can engage in hyper deductive reasoning. I don't simply ask my students the whos and whats...I want to know how and why...get to the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy where serious analysis, application, and evaluation are involved where problems can truly be solved.
And, pardon me, but I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists." You can't be a scientist and suffer so seriously from confirmation bias.
But let's put your science to a test...simple questions.....
Is the theory that climate change is man made valid? If so, why? If not, why not?
Which of these theories is a valid scientific theory...evolution or intelligent design? Why or why not?
Is a stem cell life? Why or why not? Is a zygote life? Why or why not? Is an embryo life? Why or why not?
This ought to be good.
Oops...should be hypothetical-deductive reasoning....I can't type!
Lemme guess… "hypothetical-deductive reasoning" = asking the "right" questions (with a bit of mind reading thrown in for good measure).
"I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists.""
You must have a death wish today, buddy. To say something like this to a bunch of engineers?
Just… wow…
If anyone needs me to hold their coats, I'm willing. I've just got to get this update (programming, you know, pure applied logic) delivered tonight.
Is the theory that climate change is man made valid?
I'll take a stab at that one real quick:
WHICH theory?
The one that says that the carbon-dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels has increased the level of that gas in our atmosphere, and that the increase contributes to the "greenhouse effect" causing greater retention of heat from solar radiation? Yes. That one's valid.
The one that says that the increase in carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels is definitely leading to a "tipping point" beyond which there is no return and OMG ALL LIFE ON EARTH WILL END IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING!!!! IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS? That one, not so much.
The first one can be tested by experiment and verified. The second one is based on theories that can't be tested in real-world conditions (only in computer simulations of limited variables which only - loosely - approximate reality and cannot take into account unknowns, and which, when run backwards, don't reflect actual history. It's that "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" problem that brought us Chaos Theory, you know.)
Is industrialization responsible for some - some - increase in global temperature? Undoubtedly. How much? The data is not conclusive, no matter how much people insist it must be. Certainly not enough to be predicting what the global average temperature will be in 100 years, or even ten.
Any "higher analysis" which violates the principles of "lower analysis" is a technique which has no foundation. In other words, it is nothing more than a fantasy castle built in the air.
For instance, higher mathematics can only exist because of the foundation provided by basic math. Any "higher math" which violates basic mathematic principles such as addition or multiplication is just a fantasy with numbers. Anyone who tried to promote such a fundamentally broken math theory would find the real mathematicians handing them back their calculators in thousands of carefully numbered and sorted geometric shapes bearing no resemblance to the original.
Likewise, any "reasoning" which violates fundamental and easily understood rules of logic is equally fallacious, no matter how fancy the reasoning appears. (I gotta say this, anyone who can make denial of reality sound plausible must be really, really smart; in the way that a liar has to be really smart to keep track of his lies. Denying the truth is hard. It's far easier to remember the truth.)
Your reasoning has consistently used well known and simple to understand logical fallacies. And even when pointed out, you often turn right around and use the exact same logical fallacy all over again! Your mental masturbation may feel good to you, but whatever it is, it is not "higher analysis" because it is built on a non-existent foundation.
That's why we're not impressed. To those of us used to working with actual logic tested in real world conditions, your spun sugar castles floating in mid-air don't impress us one bit, because we can see exactly what they are: a vacuous fantasy about to have a fatal collision with reality.
"I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists.""
Ahhh, that's just too precious! Like Marky could begin to understand any bona fides given. They simply wouldn't signify anything.
I'd like to see him try to prove there aren't hard scientists in Baker's Irregulars. No, scratch that, it would be amusing, granted, but turn out like all his efforts to 'prove' something: an affront on logic, common sense and human decency.
"The one that says that the carbon-dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels has increased the level of that gas in our atmosphere, and that the increase contributes to the "greenhouse effect" causing greater retention of heat from solar radiation? Yes. That one's valid."
It might be valid but it may not even be relevant. See this post at Gateway Pundit:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/offshore-technology-conference-climate.html
Notice Carl Langner's info - "Satellite readings have shown no temperature change in last 20 years. Instrumental bouys in oceans are showing a cooling trend. Two fundamental facts on manmade global warming. The first serious question about AGW has to do with ice core data. In 1999 scientists determined that the CO2 increase follows the increase in temp on the earth. So when the oceans warm they give off CO2. As the earth cools the CO2 decreases. CO2 is therefore a by-product. Records from balloons show no warming."
And this one regarding the details of the ocean buoys backing up no warming:
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=8c21e2dd-1945-43be-b04d-217c415f5a6b
With 70% of the Earth covered in water and that being a pretty large generator of CO2 and man has not abated in CO2 production much, it is looking like the solar activity is the primary factor in global warming/cooling periods.
"To say something like this to a bunch of engineers?"
Compare it to anything that has been said about education and I bet I still come out as more polite. And, sorry Ed, you can't be a hard scientist and have the belief system that some here have.
Kevin, great answer. And the sign of a hard scientist, no doubt. Remember, while I do think you lead with your beliefs, you are one of a few here I consider to be a critical thinker.
I don't know if you have given the IPCC report a gander but it is pretty thought provoking. And has plenty of hard science. Still, you're right. It is only 90 percent valid which means it could be wrong. Those are the facts.
"Your reasoning has consistently used well known and simple to understand logical fallacies."
Ah...no, Ed. I sure as heck might be wrong about what I say but logical fallacies? Nope. The logical fallacy of appeal to fear is the cornerstone of the right wing these days. Fix that issue and then you can speak to me about logical fallacies without sounding like a hypocrite.
"an affront on logic, common sense and human decency."
Wow. And you guys call the left arrogant. Russell, by all means, please continue to BELIEVE that your ideology is based on these three things. While you are doing that, say goodbye to Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, and South Dakota in 2010. Proverbs 16:18, dude (with a special dedication to ED who is about to have his "vacuous fantasy" meet reality.)
Proverbs 16:18:
Pride comes before destruction,
and an arrogant spirit before a fall.
Remember guys, this is coming from the person who considers his own interpretation to carry more weight than the actual words printed on the page.
"The logical fallacy of appeal to fear is the cornerstone of the right wing these days."
Yea, darn those right wingers and their global warming hysteria/fear mongering! [/sarcasm]
"The logical fallacy of appeal to fear is the cornerstone of the right wing these days."
Of course, I'm not really surprised to noticed that this claim is an ad hominem fallacy. After all, it's just par for the course.
BTW… is it still considered paranoia if they really are out to get you?
No, it's considered healthy fear.
I was going to say, don't fall for it again.
This lets Mark shed all of the questions he's been skipping, because he's just been nailed to the wall by his own words, so he tries to throw a smokescreen and try and divert onto us.
But I see I'm too late.
Mark: you still haven't dealt with your biases and fallacies.
To sneer at us while ignoring your promises and wheedling as to Obama's likely path compared to his first quarter in office is blatantly dishonest.
To cite "Crimes" that in fact are at best arguable, and in most cases are either obviously not crimes - or if they are, would apply to the Clinton and Obama administrations as well - is laughable.
You "explained" how you teach critical thinking, and then realized when geekwitha.45 jumped on that - that you'd messed up. You gave us data. We can compare that to other data (in this case, the procedures for critical thinking), and not amazing to us, that finds you lacking and incorrect. So you have to flail and try and divert attention from you and your failure.
Logical Fallacies? Go google "markadelphia and primary source". Find all the times you tried to use "primary source" - wait, let me correct myself - misuse "primary source" to discredit/refute one of us. Usually your "primary source" is easily refuted themselves (quite often by their other comments), but yet you refuse to recognize me with that authority in the areas where I am what you call a "primary source".
You've said that we must defer to Obama because he taught ConLaw (but without any understanding of how Law School instructors are selected, without citing any reason, publications, or outside authority. Yet we can demonstrate by easily quoting the Constitution that he is wrong. That's a logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority".
Your logical fallacies based on your belief that you understand "conservatives", much less that all of us here are lockstep conservatives are legion - especially since you miss all the points of agreement we have in common.
So guys, don't let Mark off the hook because he cut and pasted some questions that he can't answer.
Mark: Whether you realize it or not, you did undermine your claims that you teach "critical thinking", instead demonstrating again that you're a Cargo Cultist, who doesn't understand how it works, but mimics the behavior.
"Lemme guess… "hypothetical-deductive reasoning" = asking the "right" questions (with a bit of mind reading thrown in for good measure)."
Ed, it's asking questions until the answer just pops into your head 'cause it's obvious, by golly.
"M'delphia owes me a keyboard and monitor."
Get in line and wait your turn.
I want to win more than wrongfully proceed based on blind rage...and there is a lot of rage in that paragraph of yours.
Mark, you are wrong, and I suspect you are projecting. There is no rage on this end. There is revulsion, but mostly it is a coldly calculated opinion based on fact and my own conviction that murder, terrorism, and so forth, are evil, and that evil deserves no quarter. I have Muslim acquaintances I am very fond of, and I speak to Muslim groups about science and faith. My problem is with cold-blooded murderers and shit-disturbers of ANY religious or political stripe. Trust me, if a militant wing of Lutheran extremists starts bombing schools and hospitals, I'll be the first one to pick up my rifle and hunt them down. My only concern is separating these scum from civilized society, and if we have to use "enhanced" methods to extract information to prevent more innocent people from being harmed, then I'm all for it.
It is a right wing lie to say that they "laugh" at us and think we are weak when we treat them so nicely.
This is the attitude that's going to get us wiped off the face of the earth, or enslaved for eternity. The guy sitting in Gitmo who would happily bomb schools and hospitals is not going to be persuaded by niceness.
Look at Israel. The more passive the Israelis become, the more Hamas and Hezbollah step up the violence. If niceness worked, all the concessions over land and prisoners should have mollifed these people to some extent. But they haven't. All this appeasement has just emboldened terror groups and strengthened their determination to wipe Israel off the map.
If you like I will tell you what he told me about torture.
I'm willing to bet there's a world of difference between waterboarding, sleep-deprivation, barking dogs, and loud music, and the kinds of things that went on in prison camps during WWII.
Gays used to be arrested for....just being gay.
This is ludicrous. If you mean they were arrested because of anti-sodomy laws or public indecency laws, then that's something else.
Ask some conservatives if they think gays should be locked up for their perversions. A couple of years back, I asked 10. 7 said they should be and this is in blue Minnesota. Imagine what the answer might be in Utah, Pennsylvania, or Alabama.
Yeah, just imagine. Or Texas, even.
Mark, you need to define "perversions" very carefully. If you mean, should gays be arrested for screwing in public parks and littering the grounds with used condoms, then I would agree -- but I think heterosexuals who do that should also be arrested. If you mean, should they be arrested for having consensual relations in their own private homes, then no.
I seriously, seriously, doubt that 70% of any random sample of people in this country thinks gays should be arrested for being gay. If 70% of the people in your scientific poll said that gays should be locked up for the crime of being gay, then why aren't they pushing for such laws? Seventy percent is a huge margin. It's hard to believe that a 30% minority could successfully fight that. Again, your assertions don't jibe with reality.
Most conservatives I personally know, including myself, have a live and let live attitude about sex. We may object to the homosexual lifestyle, but whatever you do in private is your business, as long as it doesn't involve children. What many of us vehemently object to is the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle, the insistence that it be celebrated, and being coerced into violating our religious convictions for the sake of political correctness.
And, pardon me, but I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists." You can't be a scientist and suffer so seriously from confirmation bias.
Set ourselves up? I think my employer would be surprised to discover that I'm not a hard scientist.
Mark, you're obviously willing to concede at least some of Obama's errors and transgressions, but as I said before, you're still awfully charitable towards him, whereas you're absolutely scathing in your criticism of Bush's mistakes. I'd like you to explain something, because I don't have a good handle on this. What do you see as the fundamental, concrete differences between Obama and Bush?
I'd like you to explain something, because I don't have a good handle on this. What do you see as the fundamental, concrete differences between Obama and Bush?
Shhhhh!! I think I heard the faint sound of a head exploding in the far distance . . .
"And, pardon me, but I have to laugh that you have set yourselves up as "hard scientists." You can't be a scientist and suffer so seriously from confirmation bias."
I find it more amusing that you set yourself up as an "educator".
Sarah: Easy, one has a "D" and the other a "R" in front of their name.
"I find it more amusing that you set yourself up as an "educator"."
I find it even more amusing that he still tries to pass himself off as a "critical thinker".
Easy, one has a "D" and the other a "R" in front of their name.
I'm hoping it's something less arbitrary. Either way, should be instructive, if he decides to answer the question honestly.
"if he decides to answer the question honestly."
**snort**
Time to clean the screen again.
(100!!!!! What do I win?)
Is the theory that climate change is man made valid? If so, why? If not, why not?
That man changes his environment, including climate, to some degree is beyond argument.
That man can utterly ruin large (meaning up to average nation-sized) areas for decades or generations is also beyond question.
Is mankind venting organic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an astonishing rate? Yes.
Does it necessarily follow that such action will "ruin the planet", as the current Speaker and former Vice President of the US claim? No, it does not. If 'the science' isn't 'settled' on evolution, relativity, plate tectonics or even gravity, you can be sure it isn't 'settled' on human induced climate change.
The fact that a political faction has declared it 'settled', moved hard to censor any further debate and rushed whatever it could muster of the scientific community to loudly support it while calling for immediate and sweeping changes based on that assumption.... all this tells us a few things:
1) It loudly announces that 'climate change' as a political concept is a fiction, it has no real relation to the facts of the actual theory.
2) It strongly suggests that the current facts of the evolving theory make a hash of the political aims that have sprung therefrom, and that the beneficiaries of those political aims are scrambling to keep us from finding that out until it's too late.
Which of these theories is a valid scientific theory...evolution or intelligent design? Why or why not?
Evolution is a valid scientific theory, intelligent design is a valid philosophical theory. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and ipods. Like comparing bullpup assault rifles to bulldog puppies.
Why? Because whether the universe was designed by an intelligence or not is a question that cannot be satisfied under the scientific method. Regardless of what the truth of the question is, the scientific method won't and cannot tell you one way or another. On the other hand, whether mutation and natural selection operate over time to differentiate varieties and then species apparently can be satisfied by such methods.
In short, theologians can have perfectly valid points, but that doesn't make them scientists.
However, the fact that they are not scientists doesn't invalidate their points either.
Is a stem cell life? Why or why not? Is a zygote life? Why or why not? Is an embryo life? Why or why not?
I don't know enough about stem cells to say one way or another. The other two? Absolutely they are life. So is a virus. What's your point?
Is a baby that has survived an abortion life? The guy you seem to think is the answer to all your hopes and dreams says it's not. Or rather, says the question is 'above his paygrade'. I guess that means he doesn't care whether it's alive or not. But my guesses aside, what is certain and provable is that he voted to treat such babies as nonliving.
"Mark, you are wrong"
Good. And I am happy to be wrong. You are probably right...I might be projecting. I still have much rage inside of me regarding 9-11 and plenty of bias. At the same time, though, I know that EIT's don't work. You can add Matthew Alexander to the list of experience interrogators from above.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1863053,00.html
Read it if you want the full picture.
"This is the attitude that's going to get us wiped off the face of the earth, or enslaved for eternity. The guy sitting in Gitmo who would happily bomb schools and hospitals is not going to be persuaded by niceness."
Which guy? Are just saying you trust the government that EVERYONE down there is as you describe? It is a fact that some of the people down there are not hirabis but folks who get ratted out for dough in inter tribal vendettas and fighting.
Please understand that I am not advocating laying down of arms. We need to apply force when it is absolutely necessary...as it is right now in Pakistan...as it is for Israel to do what they did in Gaza. I think they should have gone further, actually. Force may have to applied in Saudi Arabia someday and I would support that. Iran as well. But I also want to win and you do that with proven techniques and torture is NOT one of them.
Real time intelligence is always the best method. In fact, a terror plot was just foiled in New York today. How? The FBI had an informant with them for a year. No one was tortured and they were stopped before they blew up synagogues and acquired stinger missiles. This is what we need right now across the globe. We need to understand their culture more in order to defeat them. We can start by not using the word "jihad" anymore. That's just fucking stupid.
"All this appeasement has just emboldened terror groups and strengthened their determination to wipe Israel off the map."
Israel is a much different case then us. You can't lump all of us together on one side and all of them on the other. We soooo lose that way. I do agree that Israel could've been more aggressive in Gaza. Yet, now you have Hamas saying they will recognize Israel as a state...first time ever...so maybe it was the right amount of force. And Netanyahu is going to talk with Assad now as well.
"What many of us vehemently object to is the indoctrination of children into the gay lifestyle, the insistence that it be celebrated, and being coerced into violating our religious convictions for the sake of political correctness."
Ok...wow. You are going to need to explain that one. Are you saying that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt?
"you're absolutely scathing in your criticism of Bush's mistakes."
Well, he was an incompetent leader. It's hard for me to say who was worse...him, Johnson, Wilson, or Nixon. Probably Nixon or Johnson...Bush was not smart enough to be as evil as people make him out to be. That was Cheney.
But your comment has got me thinking....things I liked about George Bush....he was the first president in history to say that Palestine should be a state. I don't know if I agree with him but I admire him for being brave enough to say that. He remained committed to the space program, specifically Mars. NCLB, for all its flaws, has produced some excellent aggregate data that can be used help solve our issues in education. High stakes testing, at the end of the day, is a good thing because lazy ass teachers should be held accountable. Now, if we can just get social studies to be high stakes...:)
"What do you see as the fundamental, concrete differences between Obama and Bush?"
I have written so much already. Let me think a little while on this one but I will start off by saying that President Obama is open to new ideas and admitting his mistakes. President Bush was absolutely not. It was his way or the highway.
"President Obama is open to new ideas and admitting his mistakes. President Bush was absolutely not. It was his way or the highway."
So, what color is the sky in your world?
"I won."
—Barak Obama, January 23, 2009
Oh, look. There's more to the quote:
"I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."
"But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – including calls to put off tax hikes during the recession. “He rejected that out of hand and said we couldn’t have any hard and fast rules like that,” Cantor said."
Yay! President Teleprompter's message: his way or the highway!
According to many on the right, gays are criminals because they break biblical law. Gays used to be arrested for....just being gay. Again, though, don't take my word for it.
Name names. I note the use of the phrase "used to".
I'm sure there were rich and powerful people on the right a generation ago who publicly supported the idea of gays being criminals under US law. Today? I'm sure you can find plenty of trailer trash rednecks, of all shapes, sizes, colors and political parties, who think so. Ask Marion Barry. Among the movers and shakers? I can't think of any.
But I can think of several who think it should be a crime to disagree with any tiniest part of the GLBT political agenda. Perez Hilton comes to mind.
Are you saying that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt?
The way I look at it, the answer to that question is not the point. The point is that many powerful political groups seem to think even holding the opinion that they should not should be a crime.
Yet most of those same groups think that vandalizing or destroying a place and threatening or injuring people because of how they voted on Prop. 8 is not worthy of comment at all.
It seems strange to me that you worry more about the ignorant rednecks thinking being gay should be a thought crime or tried as blasphemy (albeit only on one side of the political spectrum) than you do about the movers and shakers doing precisely the same thing in the opposite direction.
I'm surprised no one else has commented on this yet:
"I will listen to Rush and then the next day, EVERY one of my conservative friends comes at me with all of his talking points from the previous day. Rush said that Barack Obama was the next Jimmy Carter (so did Laura Ingraham btw) and then commenters here said it the next day. Rush said the Barack Obama was a socialist. Then it was talked about on here. The next week Rush said he was a fascist. Then it was talked about on here. My point, Kevin, was not primarily directed at you. Nor was it directed at Bilgeman and even a few others who can actually think critically. It seemed, at the time, and in some cases still does that some of you all read from the same page."
Correspondence is not necessarily causation. There's more to say on this, but I don't have time right now.
Ed:
Because he's trying to change the subject away from being wrong, and confuse and obfuscate.
Ok...wow. You are going to need to explain that one. Are you saying that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt?
Nice try, Mark. Even you are not that obtuse. I was alluding to the forced indoctrination of children in schools, churches, daycares, whatever, to accept and celebrate the gay lifestyle.
However, since you asked... No, I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt unless they can provide a married mom and dad situation -- there are gay men and women who are in conventional marriages with children, and I don't have a problem with that. I also don't think single or unmarried shack-up heteros should be allowed to adopt. This is all for entirely pragmatic reasons: Children do best, by far, in stable nuclear family type situations with a committed mom (woman) and dad (man).
NCLB, for all its flaws, has produced some excellent aggregate data that can be used help solve our issues in education.
Interesting. I work in higher education (i.e. an ocean of liberalism), and NCLB has been one of the most risible Bush issues in my department since its inception.
President Obama is open to new ideas and admitting his mistakes. President Bush was absolutely not. It was his way or the highway.
That ought to get the comments to about 200 or so. :-)
"President Obama is open to new ideas and admitting his mistakes."
Ol' Doofus can read his mind, y'see.
"the forced indoctrination of children in schools, churches, daycares, whatever, to accept and celebrate the gay lifestyle."
Again...wow. Forced? OK, that sounds like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,and Sean Hannity (with a slash of Michelle Bachmann thrown in for flavor) all rolled into one. In this particular case "forced" really means "aw...shucks...I don't get to be homophobe anymore." Being in education, I'm sure you realize that homosexual bias in schools has become an enormous problem. This bias invariably leads to bullying and a whole host of other problems.
"Children do best, by far, in stable nuclear family type situations with a committed mom (woman) and dad (man)."
I agree with you on the two parent thing but what does it matter if they are of the same sex? There are plenty of same sex parents here who do just fine. Sarah, sorry...but you are rapidly losing your street cred for standing for freedom and liberty. You want the right to bear arms. That's cool. You want less or no tax. Also cool. You want a streamlined government. Great. You want business to be left alone of regulation. Awesome. In short, you want government out of people's lives...unless sex comes into play and then it's time for the rectal probe.
And thus the conundrum of the right is laid bare. You can't have it both ways. I guess you aren't a classic liberal because, while I am confidant that you personally don't interfere in people's lives, you do vote for those that would outlaw gay marriage and prevent citizens from having certain rights. How can someone who is a denier of individual rights (Rand) stand for personal liberty with a straight face?
>>you do vote for those that would outlaw gay marriage and prevent citizens from having certain rights. How can someone who is a denier of individual rights (Rand) stand for personal liberty with a straight face?
Pot, meet kettle.
Dunno how you said *that* with a straight face.
Geek: beat me to it.
And thus the conundrum of the right is laid bare.
What it really lays bare is your methodology and ability to reason.
You can't have it [a false choice I've created] both ways.
You've created a strawman. Classic fallacy.
I guess you aren't a classic liberal because, while I am confidant that you personally don't interfere in people's lives, you do vote for those that would [interfere and regulate and outlaw people's rights] and prevent citizens from having certain rights.
Who did you vote for?
Additionally, define what "rights" you're saying and what "citizens" are prevented from having them?
So How can someone who is a denier of individual rights (Rand) stand for personal liberty with a straight face?
Because you, just as you proved you don't know what "critical thinking" really is, just proved you don't know what a individual right is.
An individual right incurs no obligation on anyone else.
There is no "right" to marriage, but even if there was, gays are fully allowed to exercise the franchise.
You don't know what a right is, just as you don't know what critical thinking is. You haven't caught anyone in a "trap".
Besides which, not all of us agree on what you thought you'd "proven" with "conservative thought". How about ask the question how many of us would be fine with government having no role in "marriage" at all?
....
Even for all of that, it does not excuse the fact that Mark is furiously trying to cover what even he realizes is a massive error.
He was on the path of discussing - and defining - what "critical thinking" is, and how he "teaches" it.
Don't let him realize he's screwed up and hide it under a flurry of misdirection. Let's go back to what is "Critical thinking". (And Mark, if you'll learn how to, there will be a lot less "Pot and Kettle" moments for you.
Again...wow. Forced? OK, that sounds like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,and Sean Hannity (with a slash of Michelle Bachmann thrown in for flavor) all rolled into one.
So? I don't listen to any of those people (and don't even know who Michelle Bachmann is), but isn't it quite possible that I apparently sound like them, because we arrive at the same conclusions based on the same arguments and evidence? That we're all more or less on the same side, because we think similarly?
And, yes, forced. Children in schools are captive audiences. If their parents don't want them indoctrinated by certain ideas, then their only recourse is to pull them from that school. Churches can be threatened with revocation of their tax status. But certain groups want to take it much further, and criminalize anything anti-gay. If the U.S. goes the way of Canada or Sweden, it will be a criminal offense to refuse to associate or do business with gays, and to express any anti-gay opinion whatsoever.
In this particular case "forced" really means "aw...shucks...I don't get to be homophobe anymore."
Why shouldn't someone have the freedom to be a "homophobe"? Besides, the term "homophobe" is deliberately misleading. It implies an irrational fear, and while that no doubt applies to some people, it doesn't to the majority who object to the gay lifestyle on principled grounds.
Being in education, I'm sure you realize that homosexual bias in schools has become an enormous problem. This bias invariably leads to bullying and a whole host of other problems.
I work at two universities. One is very large, and in my entire eight years there I have never once heard of a gay student being harrassed. The other is a Christian-affiliated university, where the problem is that it's not a problem at all. My teaching assistant is gay and a member of the GLBT group on campus. They were discussing why the group has been so inactive, and they concluded it was because there were no pressing issues on this campus, no problems to be confronted, and everybody was happy. Their only problem was maintaining their relevancy as a group, because they had defined themselves, not as positive and proactive, but as negative and reactive -- and there is nothing to react to.
If you're saying anti-homosexuality is a problem in your (extremely blue) state and at the high school level, then that's interesting, isn't it, because education is, by a vast margin, controlled by liberals. It's a failure on your part to inculcate an atmosphere of tolerance.
I agree with you on the two parent thing but what does it matter if they are of the same sex? There are plenty of same sex parents here who do just fine.
The same people who think it's OK to stick children into any situation will cry bloody murder if someone adopts a pet and is unwilling to accomodate its needs. The fact is, children need the influence of both a woman and a man. Each one of them brings to the table something unique and necessary that the other can't provide. A gay man is still a man, and a gay woman is still a woman. In order for a child to be healthy and well-adjusted, he needs both influences, and this is a billion times more important than anyone's hurt feelings on the issue.
Sarah, sorry...but you are rapidly losing your street cred for standing for freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty aren't synonymous with "anything goes." I believe in rule of law, and the law protects those who are especially vulnerable and unable to make decisions in their own interest.
...unless sex comes into play and then it's time for the rectal probe.
No, it's your side that makes a big issue out of sex. You haven't absorbed anything I've said. I don't care what anyone does in private. I only care when people make the entire world their bedroom, interfere with someone else's right to express an opinion and make choices about their own lives, and when it comes to the welfare of children. What happens between consenting adults in private doesn't concern me. What don't you understand about that?
What don't you understand about that?
Now that's gonna take the thread to 200 comments, easy.
"To say something like this to a bunch of engineers?"
Compare it to anything that has been said about education and I bet I still come out as more polite.
Not being an educator or an engineer, I have no dog in this fight. But it does occur to me that there could be a reason for what you're seeing here...
If you think engineers deserve the same amount of contempt and disrespect teachers get pretty much as a matter of routine, that's easily solved by producing just a couple of things:
1. Where is the engineering field's equivalent of William Ayers, Ward Churchill and the like?
2. Where is the engineering field's equivalent of the education field's lionizing and impassioned defense of such people?
If one of the highly respected senior fellows of your profession seriously contemplated the deliberate murder of 25 million innocents for the sake of his political agenda, and the entire world knows it, and he is still highly respected in spite of that...
...well really, under what circumstances would you expect your profession to rate anything other than contempt? Turn on those mad critical thinking skillz and come up with an answer for that one.
Methinks that the box running the Marky script has had a segfault, the core got dumped and tech support is going to get around to rebooting the box Real Soon Now.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>