The Demonization of the Opposition

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 20:50
VIEWED: 35830
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:43 AM

Okay. These thoughts have been rolling around in my head for a while but I’ve never put them down in print. I’ve been inspired by reading message boards over the past many years and seeing the level of discourse on the topic of politics quickly degenerate into a pissing match. This community (fireflyfans) oftentimes rises above that. But I’m painting with a broad brush here, so allow me a little leeway. And a quick note for context since there are Browncoats all over the world: I’m restricting my remarks to the United States.

I might be naïve, but I firmly believe that one of the strengths of our political system is the self correcting mechanism of having two dominant political parties staking out the extremes. [Ignoring for the moment the question of how well our two major parties stake out those extremes or whether or not more than two viable nationwide parties would be more desirable]. The population as a whole seems to fall in the middle of these parties. One party may be ascendant, but this should not last forever. When our country is running smoothly, it is equivalent to a critically damped system: any deviation from equilibrium produces a return to equilibrium. I may not agree with the party in power, but I trust that they are as patriotic as I am, love this country as much as I do, and won’t do any long term damage while they are in power. And eventually, when they move the country in a direction too far towards their side of the spectrum, the moderates will swing the balance of power back in the other direction. So while I may not agree with the tactics they are using I trust that their strategy is consistent with mine.

But I’ve seen more and more rhetoric demonizing those who are from a different party. I get the feeling that people think it would be the end of the world if the other political party gained power. Those who support the other party are traitors. They should all be shot or, at the very least, forced to leave the country. I’ve seen these statements made with higher frequency over the past few years. It seems that people have turned politics into a sporting event where the only thing that matters is for their team to win the championship. There is no trust that the other side want what is best for this country but may have a different way of going about it. Maybe this has always been present and I’m only now beginning to notice. Maybe this is a new phenomenon. It’s only been over the past decade that I’ve really started to pay attention to politics and form my own opinions. One thing I am convinced of: it is unhealthy for this country to have one party dominating all aspects of government for an extended period of time.

So this is something in the nature of a plea. When political discussions arise, let’s do it with class. We may be on the bottom of the pile when it comes to influence. The only thing we may be able to do is vote – but that’s a pretty powerful weapon. Let’s trust that the person whose view point we disagree with has the best possible motives. Let’s talk, rather than yell. And if I’ve resorted to name calling in any of these threads, I apologize.

But here comes the cynic… Am I convinced that those elected on the federal level have the best interests of the country at heart? Am I convinced that most politicians haven’t sold out to special interest groups? Am I convinced that it’s a good thing that only people with huge stockpiles of campaign cash can get elected? Well, those are all topics open for debate. But on the “normal person” level, which is the category I think we all fall into, I’m willing to stand behind my belief that we’re all really after the same thing, we just have different ways of going about it.

And apologies in advance for the rambling nature of all of this .

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

PURPLEBELLY

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:44 AM

"America has a one party system," asserted the late African leader Julius Nyerere. "With your usual exuberance, you have two of them," he said

CAPTAINHARBATKIN

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I might be naïve, but I firmly believe that one of the strengths of our political system is the self correcting mechanism of having two dominant political parties staking out the extremes.

Uhh, they stake out THE MIDDLE. They TALK about the extremes, but at election time they BOTH move to the center in a ploy to steal support from the other. This is the major WEAKNESS of our system; the net result is that we are ALWAYS moving in the same direction, just at greater or lesser speed. This leaves the fundamentally dissatisfied with no alternative.

And each party demonizes the other, to empasize the virtually non-existent differences.

I'd be happier with a proportional representation system, frankly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Politicians: they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their
clothing - and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RUE

Friday, July 2, 2004 1:43 AM

An analysis I heard many years ago:

There is no Constitutional requirement for two, and only two, major parties in the US. The US has a two-party system, not to mention lots of pre-election rhetoric followed by a dearth of post-election follow-through, and an incompetent electorate, b/c it elects a king who can't be removed for four years. (Not only is the electorate sharply divided, it is, strangely, cynical and not very likely to vote.)

Other countries where the government can be voted-out of office at any time have parties that are less likely to make promises they can't/won't keep, and more likely to depend on coalitions to rule. That makes third, fourth (and beyond )parties more valuable, allowing for representation across the spectrum. It also keeps voters interested and makes for sharp memories, unlike in the US where the collective memory (and thus accountability expected of the politicos) seems to last about 6 weeks.

It made sense to me. I haven't found a better explanation for the dysfunctional US two-party system.

THELION

Friday, July 2, 2004 6:46 AM

If you're looking for the two extremes, you're looking in the wrong places--as mentioned above, both Republican and Democrat run somewhere toward the conservative side of the middle, perhaps Democrats less so than Republicans. There is a two party system in place mostly because the democratic system that is used in the United States makes it too hard to go against the grain, and the abuse of the media by both parties just makes things worse. It's clear that most politicians ignored the advice given in their college English courses on logical fallacies, and they tend to boil things down to black and white when the only color that exists is grey.
I know a lot of people are going to argue with me on this, but it's my belief that the democratic system used in the US is not sufficient for a society of our size, diversity (of both culture and opinion), or technological advancement, and it also seems more and more that our country's leaders are unqualified for their jobs, no matter how educated they are. I certainly wouldn't take my $3000 laptop to my lawyer if I needed it repaired, no matter how good of a lawyer he is. Why would we have an MBA making decisions involving scientific advancement? It don't seem right, is all.

DRAKON

Friday, July 2, 2004 11:10 AM

We have a two party system for a number of reasons. First all, as memetic entities, if any third party starts stealing too many votes away from one of the two dominant ones, those in the dominant party start thinking "Hey maybe these guys have a point. Maybe we should adopt some of their platforms." And thereby regain lost votes, and undercut any potential third party.

Second, in a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one.

Life or death, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery is the same. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other. And lets face it, this is what life is all about. Life and happiness and how to increase both.

Demonization, I hate to say I see primarily coming from the minority party. Not exclusively, but primarily. And I have to admit that makes me all the more glad they are the minority party. Because what that does to me is indicate a lack of logical argument. If you cannot argue logically, or even civilly, then I see that as a big indicator that your ideas are not consistent with reality nor will function as you expect. At best, that you do not understand your arguments sufficiently to explain them, defend them and have to use less rational and more emotional means of winning.

Take one meme that is out there. Bush = Hitler. There is a major bug with this statement in that such is considered an insult. People who insult dictators usually end up disappeared, dead, tortured, or worse. If the statement were true, such people who say it, would find themselves in a world of hurt, and quickly. Yet they don't. Therefore the statement is untrue, and provable by the fact that people actually say it.

There are many facets of our democratic process that upon further study, I find brillant. I know many want to change it, and lets be frank, almost all of them are out of power because they could not convince enough voters of the rightness of their ideas. The electoral college system especially is a brillant idea, born of comprimise, that ensures the voices of the farmers, the miners, and ranchers, get listened to almost as much as that of the urban office worker. Without it, the election would be decided by New York, California, and Texas, while the rest of the nation can go suck eggs.

The lack of minority party representation is not a bug, its a feature. With the first cross the post kind of elections we have, minority parties don't stand much of a chance. But then, does anyone ever consider that possibly the reason they are minority parties is that so few people disagree with them? Perhaps just maybe the people know better than so called self appointed elites, about what is best for this country and themselves.

What you have with our system is a reduced signal to noise ratio. Minority parties do not have much pull here. While in other countries, such minority parties can decide whether the government is viable, whether its minority positions (again, aren't they a minority for a reason?) get enacted and whether the government gets dissolved or not.

I know some people do not like the thought of not being listened to. Who does. But I think our system shows more faith in the electorate than many others. Our system, especially in Presidental elections, ensure that the candidates have to appeal to a broader base than only urban elites, or rural folk. It ensures that the people who create the food, mine the metals for the factories, cut the lumber, get a say in how this nation is run. Considering that city life would be impossible without the rural contribution, I don't see this as a problem.

If you are in a minority or third party, perhaps you are in a minority not because you are not being heard, but because you have been heard and folks have simply rejected your positions and politics. Perhaps its simply a matter of being wrong. Its not that they

SPLIBERTARIAN

Friday, July 2, 2004 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
We have a two party system for a number of reasons. First all, as memetic entities, if any third party starts stealing too many votes away from one of the two dominant ones, those in the dominant party start thinking "Hey maybe these guys have a point. Maybe we should adopt some of their platforms." And thereby regain lost votes, and undercut any potential third party.

I agree that this is exactly how the system works today - it is how so many socialist and communist ideals have become mainstream today. However, this is also exactly what leads to the demonization politics Soupcatcher laments in the original post.

The two major parties have no underlying philosophical purpose other than victory. They scoop up random issues and special interests in the hopes of cobbling together a successful plurality. The purpose is to further themselves, not their ideas, because their ideas are constantly changing. Demonization is an inevitability when the only consistent distinction between the two parties is 'us vs. them'.

I would prefer a system where, if parties exist at all, they exist solely to further specific issues and ideals. Instead of building a coalition within a party, a coalition would have to be built between parties. Once the issues and ideals the parties are formed around are realized, the party would simply fade into obsolescence. In this type of system, people would be fighting for a shared belief, rather than against a shared perceived enemy.

Quote:
Second, in a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one.

Binary choices are a construct. By presenting an issue in an either/or manner, any other equally legitimate possibilities have already been discounted. That does not mean they do not exist, simply that they have been ignored in order to further the presenter's needs.

For instance, "Should taxes go up or down?" presupposes that taxation is legitimate in the first place. It also presupposes that people have a right to property in the first place that a portion of it may be taken by the state.

Even if, as within our society, the vast majority do share presuppositions of any of the given examples of binary choices, the binary nature of the choices are only relevant if the range of choices themselves line up consistently and predictably on opposite sides. That is to say, those who believe that taxes should go down must also only think that guns should not be banned and that abortion should be illegal.

The fact that this is not necessarily the case, at least on an individual level, illuminates the prism of the liberal-conservative axis through which issues are so typically viewed.

If these issues are viewed along a different axis, for example a libertarian-authoritarian axis, the line up is decidedly different, and the necessarily "binary" nature of the issues, as well as that of the two party system as a whole, is apparent as an illusion.

Quote:

If you are in a minority or third party, perhaps you are in a minority not because you are not being heard, but because you have been heard and folks have simply rejected your positions and politics. Perhaps its simply a matter of being wrong.

Yes, and perhaps this little TV show I like so much got cancelled because it sucked.

Within the paradigm of the two party system, I don't think you can lump the minority party (better described as the 'opposition') with dismissively described "third" parties. The two major parties are different sides of the same coin and have indeed both had a chance to be heard.

The same cannot possibly be said for "third" parties, who get ignored by the press, excluded from debates with major party participants, and legislated into obscurity by both of the parties in power via prohi

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, July 3, 2004 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:
... it is how so many socialist and communist ideals have become mainstream today.
...

I'm from the outside looking in, but, what?!?

Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we've got now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOL

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

ITSALLSHINY

Saturday, July 3, 2004 2:28 AM

Your points are well made and I too am proud that this board maintains civility better than any other board I've seen.

I want to interject a few observations on the subject. I'll also take this opportunity to soap my own box, thank you very much.

First of all, it seems to me that many people use hyperbole in an effort to point out the seriousness of the subject, whether it be politics or who left the dirty towel on the floor. It doesn't work very well as an arguing stance, but it is a very common tactic nonetheless.

Demonizing the opposition is just another example of this. By definition, anyone who takes any strong stance must care deeply about it. However, the problem with hyperbole is that facts and rationality tend to fly out the window in it's presence and the only thing that's left is strong emotions. But sometimes the facts themselves are almost too horrible to contemplate, even without the hyperbole.

Here's one such debate and my take on it:

On the one hand, we've got a group in power who are taking away a lot of the little freedoms we've grown up with -- like the right to privacy -- and they are using tactics that set our hackles up, like torture, denying due process, etc. to our enemies and even to some of our citizens -- and they are trying to put our highest law enforcement agency, the FBI under the aegis of the CIA, an organization that openly bragged in front of the Senate hearings (9/11) about operating with impunity against the laws of other countries. (How ironic and scary is that?) All of the above are facts. So, what's next? Are they gonna accuse me of terrorist ties, take away my bank account, hold me incommunicado and deny me habeus corpus, send me to another country to be tortured until I 'confess'? Yup, it's scary, and it would be way too easy to demonize them by saying they are using the situation to grab power. Someone on the opposite side might devalue such fears by saying that what they are doing is a small price to pay for 'the greater good'.

The fellows in the White House say they are doing all this to protect us from a potential terrorist attack like the ones we endured on 9/11. That was a terrible day and none of us ever want to see a repeat. We wonder, "Will some terrorist plant a dirty nuke in my office building tomorrow unless I support these guys in office? Am I going to say goodbye to my loved one in the morning and hear about his death from a terrorist attack in the afternoon unless they torture those guys until they spills all the beans?" Very scary. And no matter how many 'terrorist' plots are foiled, there is no way to know if there isn't another one we haven't uncovered yet. So shouldn't we take every measure at our disposal, even if it means giving up some rights, or using torture or the services of nations who use torture, if there is even the smallest chance that another plot will be foiled? Again it would be easy to demonize anyone who is too 'squeamish' to countenance such measures, if it is believe that personal safety depends on it. But someone in opposition to this stance would say that torture very rarely elicits useful factual information and such tactics may very well incite more terrorist attacks. They also might say that once our rights are taken away, it will be very difficult to get them back, and we fought hard for them in the first place. Our rights are what make us the civilized nation that we are, and they protect us from the very abuses that we condemn in other nations. And WE DON'T TORTURE PEOPLE!

Having said all that, I'll leave a fact to 'chew' on: Every evil human act makes it easier to act more evilly the next time and every humane act makes it easier to act more humanely the next time, both as a human and as a nation. So what are we doing to these people who are our enemies, and what are we doing to ourselves? Are we making it easier to dehumanize, humiliate, and torture other people as standard operating procedure? Will taking such a road make us 'safer' when other countries see us as willing to dehumanize,

RUE

Saturday, July 3, 2004 2:41 AM

Wow!

Well, it's going to be yet another full weekend and no time for the board - but this discussion gratified, impressed and informed me.

Thank you all for this refreshing exchange.

Rue

DRAKON

Saturday, July 3, 2004 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:
The two major parties have no underlying philosophical purpose other than victory. They scoop up random issues and special interests in the hopes of cobbling together a successful plurality. The purpose is to further themselves, not their ideas, because their ideas are constantly changing. Demonization is an inevitability when the only consistent distinction between the two parties is 'us vs. them'.

This is partly true, but I think you miss the point. The 'scooping' up you are talking about is far from random. There is a method to their madness. Yes they desire to further themselves. But again, in order to do that, they have to have something there to offer the voters, a conhesive philosophy that the voters will think will work.

Their ideas change as a response to the new situations we find ourselves in, and new concepts and ideas embraced by the public. Because we live in the real world instead of some idealized version we create inside our skulls. This demonization, (which I argue is almost exclusively one sided) is not a result of the two party system, nor even the binary nature of most of the choices we find ourselves confronting. It is due to the inability of the minority party to make a case for itself.

Think about it for a second. Look at the word we are using here. Demonized. Demons are terribly dangerous and destructive forces. We use the term to denote actions that characterize one party as destructive, evil, generally bad for life and happiness of human beings. It denotes power and ability to change things.

If they had no power, there would be no complaint. We might call it "pixieizing" the opposition.

{We avoided the term "bunnification" with respect to Anya's memory] So one has to ask how they got such power in a democratic society. By appealing to the voters. They appeal to the voters by agreeing with their concepts, their perceptions of reality and how reality "should" be, (however that populace as a whole defines "should" what standard they reference it to) You think anyone can do that by simply cobbling together a bunch of random platitudes?

Your nick indicates that you are a libertarian. And it is evident that you are very certain of your philosophy and policies. If you can explain them in a simple and logical fashion, AND if you are right, you should have no problem convincing folks of the rightness of your beliefs. But you find it difficult and so you denigrate the two major parties as being nothing but "us versus them". You see no difference between the two, and frankly that is inconsistent with my own experiences and perceptions.

Because you are trying to make a case that is inconsistent with what I see with my own two eyes, your ability to sway me is extremely difficult. And that is why you feel the need to denigrate the other two. You are frustrated and feel nobody is listening. When the fact is, we've heard it, and have rejected it.

Quote:
I would prefer a system where, if parties exist at all, they exist solely to further specific issues and ideals. Instead of building a coalition within a party, a coalition would have to be built between parties. Once the issues and ideals the parties are formed around are realized, the party would simply fade into obsolescence. In this type of system, people would be fighting for a shared belief, rather than against a shared perceived enemy.

And I would prefer to be the king of Londidium and wear a shiny hat. But it ain't going to happen. The reason being, is that people are free to associate and form whatever political parties they want, for whatever reason they want. The only way to enforce such a system would be to use force.

The other problem is you talk about ideals but that has nothing to do with reality. Reality does not care what you think it is. It is what it is. Reality governs the consequences of your actions, and what you want, intend, mean, all that mental effort is irrelevant to those consequences. You want to advance an ideal,

DRAKON

Saturday, July 3, 2004 1:41 PM

Good post. I think this may be another factor involved in the demonization. Fear. We live in scary times, in some respects far worse than the Cold war. At least then we knew who was the enemy, and we also knew that they were not suicidal nut jobs. They could be detered.

Everyone is familiar with the Ben Franklin quote. But it misses something important. Sometimes it is necessary to give up some freedom in order to not get killed. We give up the freedom to fire our guns indiscriminantly, but we all benefit by not getting shot by a stray bullet. All in all, it is a cost benefit analysis, just like everything else in life.

You ask the rhetorical question about whether it is going to be worth destroying the nation in order to save our lives. But you miss a couple of things. First off, the prison abuse scandal is just that, a scandal that is being dealt with. The soldiers involved are being court marshalled, and this was all being handled by the military courts long before we ever heard about it, or saw one picture. Rummy's famous torture memo outlined exactly what methods could be used, and they are almost all rather minor, like giving prisoners MREs instead of the regular cooked meals. Yes, handing an unlawful enemy combatant the same meals we feed our troops in the field is one of the "torture" methods approved.

Will such torture breed more enemies? I don't know that it is relavant. What we want is for them to not try to kill us. They don't have to love us, they can go ahead and hate our guts. But if they try to kill us, they have to know that it ain't a good idea.

The torture issue keeps coming up, and yet no word is mentioned about the kind of enemy we face. These are people who slaughter innocent civilians and cut their heads off for recruiting films. That is the nature of terrorism. I would find your remarks more credible if I thought for one moment that they might be directed at the enemy.

Nothing that we have done can compare to the horrors suffered by the Iraqis under Saddam. The rape rooms, the industrial plastics shredders. When we find someone abusing prisoners, we put them on trial, like has been done. Saddam promoted his torturers, paid them well for their 'service'.

They hide in mosques and shoot at our soldiers. We avoid firing back because those are holy sights to those same terrorists. They turn their mosques and sacred graveyards into armed camps, and we are demonized for breaking down a wall to stop morter attacks on our soldiers.

What are we doing? We've spent several billion dollars rebuilding Iraq, fixing up not just the bomb damage we caused in removing Saddam, but repairing decades of neglect by Saddam. We gave the country back to its people, and letting them try their former dictator for his crimes. Now if you cannot be proud of a nation that does that, I don't know what else to say.

You can try to maintain your freedoms while they are trying to kill you, but it doesn't work in the real world of suicide bombers and hijackers that crash their planes into buildings. You are gonna have to submit to that airport screening, have you luggage gone through. The potential for disaster, for death and destruction is simply too high to allow you to just hop a flight like we did in the old days. Again, cost benefit analysis. Dead people ain't free to do anything.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

ITSALLSHINY

Saturday, July 3, 2004 6:45 PM

This is terrific -- we're rehashing here most of the issues. I was only able to address a few of your positions, but we can't do everything all at once, can we?

I've heard over and over again that what they do is so much worse than what our military did, and that's true, but that's just missing the point. It doesn't sit well with me when I hear anyone using such comparisons as justification for acts of evil, because then we're just talking about degrees of difference. To reiterate, it has been pretty clearly shown that we learn by doing, and that doing evil makes it a whole lot easier to do greater evil the next time. (See "Roots of Evil, Origins of Genecide and Group Violence by Irvin Staub.) Whether or not it was the worst evil ever committed on the face of the earth or not, the acts carried out in the Abu Ghraib prison were evil -- the prisoners were humiliated, dehumanized, and by the internationally-accepted definition of torture, they were tortured. Any position that makes what they did semi alright is in itself evil, because it whitewashes it. I am ashamed when I hear the argument, "But they did a whole lot worse than we did!" Sounds like a 13 year old boy trying to justify punching out his little brother for stealing his bike. We have more moral maturity than that, don't we? One evil doesn't justify another, does it?

As for the memo you referred to, it's about getting around the strictures against torture. An act doesn't need to be justified ahead of time unless the intention is to carry out the act. So, you tell my why such a memo was written in the first place? Before you answer, please refer to the Newsweek article from June 8 reprinted in it's entirety below.

In the Abu Ghraib prison we see where such intentions logically lead, as "harsh methods" were carried out. The only difference between Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (or the many secret detention facilities for that matter) is that we actually heard about it in pretty graphic detail. The CIA operatives who were directing interrogations at Abu Ghraib were directed there by Rumsfeld from Guantanamo because, in his opinion, the interrogations at Abu Ghraib weren't producing results fast enough. It doesn't take much intelligence or imagination to connect A (the memo outlining intention and pre-justification for torture) with B (the acts committed in Abu Ghraib prison) in this case, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that what went on there was torture. This is hardly a case of feeding prisoners MRE's!

As for "It's just a case of bad apples at the prison," please be aware the White House General Council, Gonzales wrote back in 2002, "One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." Why concern yourself with the possibility of war crimes prosecution unless you are planning on commiting acts that could reasonably be construed as war crimes? (See Newsweek online article, dated May 19, entitled: "Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings. Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so.") Again, connecting A to B is simply child's play here, and it would take an act of willful blindness not to see it.

Here's a longish quote from the Gonzales memo to the President, dated January 25, 2002: (By the way, most legal experts are appalled at the legal advice given to the President by Gonzales in this memo.)

"[Denying the right of protection under the Geneva convention to al Qaeda and the Taliban,] substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).
"That statute, enacted in 1996, prohibits the commission of a 'war crime' by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. 'War crime' for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach of GPW or any violation of common Article 3 thereof (such as 'out

HKCAVALIER

Monday, July 5, 2004 8:23 PM

Wow, Drakon, I can't believe some of the things you've posted here! I'm really surprised that no one has given you much of an argument yet. I guess it falls to me then.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
...in a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one.

Life or death, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery is the same. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other. And lets face it, this is what life is all about. Life and happiness and how to increase both.

You act as if these things you say are universally acknowledged and self-evident. I know a lot of philosophers and biologists who will be glad to know that the mysteries of Life and Death have been plumbed.

Happiness and misery are mutually exclusive? So there are no happy moments in prisons and no miserable moments when you're in love? One doesn't have to take the bitter with the sweet? Anybody ever let you in on the whole "shades of gray" concept? Choices are only binary when you make them binary.

You say the question is "Should taxes go up or down?" but is that the real choice? Seems to me the far more relevant question is, whose taxes go up or down? But that's not a choice we're given. Basically, the question has been reduced to "do we lower the taxes of the rich or not?" (Put a couple hundred rich people in a room and see what they agree to do.

) Even if the poor actually got a tax break (through the tireless efforts of the Poor People's Lobby, naturally), in the end, and with all the social programs that get slashed to make all these tax breaks possible, the poor in this country will always get the short end of the stick. The last two Republican administrations have merely replaced "tax and spend" with "don't tax and spend anyway."

How 'bout abortion: legal in all cases? legal after the second trimester? legal in cases of rape or incest? legal for minors as well as adults? legal without parental consent?

Should guns be banned? How many people think there should be an absolute, across-the-board ban on guns? Not even Ralph Nader takes that position. As far as I've seen it's always been about what kinds of guns will be legal, to whom, and how accessible will they be. Why do you want to simplify these issues out of existence, Drakon?

If your sympathies lie with the current administration, I can see how you might consider these issues to be binary, because that faction wants to lower taxes continually as we spend in excess of 3 billion dollars a month on the war; they want abortion to be made illegal in as many cases as they can get away with; and they want guns to be legalized in as many cases as they can get away with.

But these extremist views do not define reality, Drakon.

Quote:
Demonization, I hate to say I see primarily coming from the minority party. Not exclusively, but primarily. And I have to admit that makes me all the more glad they are the minority party.

First of all, you'll remember that a majority of voters actually voted for the other guy! Bush does not represent a majority in that respect. But, of course, we don't have a pure democracy in this country. It's a little more complicated than that, as you know.

Quote:
Take one meme that is out there. Bush = Hitler.

That's a cheap, cheap shot, Drakon. For every "Bush = Hitler" you show me I've got a "Liberals = Communists" and an "All liberals hate America and support terrorism" to boot. Over in another thread (Surreal World Event Discussions) I can even show you a fellow who compares Al Gore to Hitler! It was Bush himself, who said, "If you're not for us, you're against us." What do you think that means, Drakon?

Also, that Hitler comparison comes from the radical fringe, while the idea that q

RUE

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 7:34 PM

Sorry to bump this up with an aside but:

Quote:
Politicians: they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their
clothing - and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

reminds me of an old joke (those who remember it know just how old it is)

A berserker leader is exhorting his mob: How many time do I have to remind you - it's rape, pillage and THEN burn ?

RUE

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 2:45 AM

I still think the US system is an unintended consequence of the Constitution, which results in an unaccountable two-party system.

If I rummaged around enough, I could find several mathematical analyses showing a 'winner take all' vote results in the least representative outcome. Drakon's position that it's all binary and it should be all binary and that is the best system, is, well, not backed-up by anything except personal opinion. (Yet at the same time Drakon thinks the Electoral College, which specifically subverts a binary function, is real genius ...)

In addition there's a lack of ongoing accountability. So it's not a critically damped system - there's too much lag-time in the feedback. That makes for all sorts of election promises being made that will never be kept. And during a reign (term in office), things get done that probably wouldn't fly in a parliamentary system.

Both factors create a potential for an out-of-control system.

I think the framers tried to avoid these limitations by having a three-branch government. However, should one party take control of three branches at once, there is no limit left.

Because of an unintentional devolvement to a two-party system, an 'us vs them' mentality does take over. B/c the 'winning side' gets so much power, there is a severe struggle to win. People vote against as much as for. And demonization starts.

I agree that parties pick up advocacy groups solely with the intent of winning, but I also agree that each party does offer something to that group. It's just that people are schizophrenic. How else can you explain comfort with a party that embraces mutually exclusive positions: supporting Christian values, personal arms, war, and the death penalty, and opposing stem cell research and choice? (Or as I've heard, the Party where 'Life is Sacred until it's born'.)

An aside to specifically address another of Drakon's points: I was angered to repeatedly read that the minority does the demonizing. It was Bush who said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html. Exsqueeze me ???!! Is that not demonizing par excellence?

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 5:30 AM

Quote:
In addition there's a lack of ongoing accountability. So it's not a critically damped system - there's too much lag-time in the feedback. That makes for all sorts of election promises being made that will never be kept. And during a reign (term in office), things get done that probably wouldn't fly in a parliamentary system.

That's a really good point, Rue. I realized after reading the responses to my initial post that I should have been more clear that I was using the ideal of a two party system, rather than the current incarnation we have, to set up the demonization argument (that it is in the best interest of our country to think of those on the other side of the aisle as opponents instead of enemies because power may shift back one day; that it seems a lot of political discourse these days falls into the enemy category, rather than the opponent).

I've been holding off a few days on responding to Drakon's long post because there was just so much there. Fortunately, HKCavalier and Rue addressed many of the points that I would have. My main disagreement with Drakon is that I just don't buy his statement that demonization comes from the minority party. I could give you examples from many different sides, some currently in power some not. The cause of the demonization is not simply the absence of power and feelings of futility. One factor seems to be the belief that those who vote differently than you are morally wrong. Binary thinking could be a contributor to that. Another is just a general lack of respect.

To kind of go off on a tangent: I don't have to like someone to work with them effectively. I do need to respect that they are competent, have the same overall goals that I do, and the motivation to work to achieve those goals. Whether or not I would do the work the way that person does is immaterial. The only thing that matters is if the job gets done.

So how to bring that back to politics? I'm not sure. How do you convince people that attacking those who would do things differently, but have the same overall abstract goals as you do, is not a good thing?

I'm only talking about things on the level of the citizen, who I am convinced share the same abstract goals that I do: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, equality, opportunity, etc. It's only in the way we would achieve those goals that there are differences.

Am I convinced that most career politicians share those abstract goals? Well, that's for another thread.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ItsAllShiny:
This is terrific -- we're rehashing here most of the issues. I was only able to address a few of your positions, but we can't do everything all at once, can we?

Completely understand. Time is short and I would assume you have an actual life, apart from the net.

Quote:

I've heard over and over again that what they do is so much worse than what our military did, and that's true, but that's just missing the point. It doesn't sit well with me when I hear anyone using such comparisons as justification for acts of evil,

It is not a justification. There are several problems as noted with the coverage of the war, and we are only getting part of the story. And that is the point.

Which is most upsetting to you personally, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which as noted was discovered, investigated, and at present being prosecuted by the military? Or beheading of civilians as an act of policy by the enemy? To me it is a mark of the differences that excesses committed by our troops, get ratted out and punished, by our troops. Yes, the enemy does far worse, AND is exempt from critism or condemnation. That is the real problem for a lot of folks, both in and out of the military.

There appears to be a willingness to see all US troops as baby killing marauding thugs, and ignore the fact that when the military discovers such incidents, it corrects them and punishes those guilty of them. Whereas the other side, its "their way" or "their culture" or "its really our fault in the first place". They get a pass for doing far worse. And that is the problem.

Quote:
Any position that makes what they did semi alright is in itself evil, because it whitewashes it.

Again I look at it from a cost benefit analysis. Does whatever was done to those prisoners, did it result in them giving up information that would save the lives of our troops, or Iraqi civilians? You might fear what it will turn you into, and may want to compare it to some abstract intellectual standard, but sadly, we don't always have that luxury.

[There is an exception. In the report, one prisoner was raping another one. As punishment, he was taken out, stripped naked, and photographed with the word "Rapist" mispelled scrawled on his body. This is one of the examples of torture given. Sometimes such humiliation is required in order to keep one prisoner from raping another prisoner.]

You have to decide how much your life is worth, and how far you will go to protect and defend it. Now a lot of folks put a very high price on their own life. And will do whatever it takes to stay alive. Even if that means dressing up Arab men in women's panties to get them to talk.

Quote:
"One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." Why concern yourself with the possibility of war crimes prosecution unless you are planning on commiting acts that could reasonably be construed as war crimes?

You also have the worry, due to the inability of the government to come out with an open declaration of war with terrorist suspects clogging the judicial system. Not so much a concern as to the US carrying out war crimes, (Which again feeds into that whole "the military is just a bunch of kill crazy thugs" stereotype) but with terrorist attempting to use our freedoms and rights against us. Just like they used our hospititality and general welcoming nature to come over here and train as aircraft pilots.

Also in this day and age, lets face it, war is considered a crime by somebody. And to a large extent they have a good point. War sucks. People die, things get blown up and destroyed. And there are a lot of nations and ideologies that see even reacting in self defense as a crime. Someone tries to kill you, trying to kill them right back is considered a crime to many. So the fact that the White House got some legal concouncil before the war, and

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wow, Drakon, I can't believe some of the things you've posted here! I'm really surprised that no one has given you much of an argument yet. I guess it falls to me then.

Are you surprised that I actually wrote it, or that I hold different beliefs from your own?

You can give it a try. If my ideas and opinions offend you so much, you are perfectly free to ignore them. But if you are going to argue, you have to present an actual argument. A connected series of statements to establish a proposition. Certain rhetorical approaches simply don't work. And that is just life.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
...in a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one.

Life or death, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery is the same. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other. And lets face it, this is what life is all about. Life and happiness and how to increase both.

You act as if these things you say are universally acknowledged and self-evident. I know a lot of philosophers and biologists who will be glad to know that the mysteries of Life and Death have been plumbed.

I am sure that they will be much enlightened by the fact that if you are dead, you are not alive. And if you are alive, you ain't dead. Somehow I think most people recognize this instinctively, without being told by me, you or anyone else.

Quote:
Happiness and misery are mutually exclusive? So there are no happy moments in prisons and no miserable moments when you're in love? One doesn't have to take the bitter with the sweet? Anybody ever let you in on the whole "shades of gray" concept? Choices are only binary when you make them binary.

First off, tone. You need to work on that. You are coming off smarmy which I doubt is your intention.

Second, while I am very familiar with the concept of "shades of grey" I don't see it as generally as useful concept as some would like it to be. You are either alive or dead. You are either happy (overal and in general) or even the little upsets and disputes wreck even the happiness you feel in prison. That is my experience. If yours differ, you need to point that out.

Too often "shades of grey" is palmed off for an excuse to inaction. Unfortunately, even inaction is an action that has consequences. Those consequences are either benefitical or detrimental to you, and/or others. Usually an action will have many consequences, some good and some bad. But generally speaking, you can compare the bad with the good, and get some measure if overall the good is worth the bad.

So while I am familiar with the concept, I don't see it as being that useful, nor even that applicable. And I expand on my comments about happiness later on. Happiness is separate from life and death. (You can live regardless of whether you are happy with your life or not) and is subjective. That creates its own challenges.

Quote:
You say the question is "Should taxes go up or down?" but is that the real choice? Seems to me the far more relevant question is, whose taxes go up or down?

Even admitting that the 'real question" is whose taxes, its still the same basic question here. Should they go up, or down. You are simply narrowing it to one subset or another.

Which gets into the question of why taxes exist in the first place. I agree with those who say the sole purpose of taxes is to fund the federal government. Period. That the government should not be in the business of wealth redistribution, or social engineering. Which, lets face it, is what you are talking about when you start discussing limitations on the question of who gets taxed how much.

Now, you want a completely fair system, the only way to do that is really with a poll tax. But politically a

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I still think the US system is an unintended consequence of the Constitution, which results in an unaccountable two-party system.

I would disagree with this strongly, in that both parties are trying to capture votes. Without the votes, they are out of power. And it does not matter how many parties you have, a lot of the major issues do boil down to binary choices.

In the recent governor's recall election in California, there were some 130 odd candidates. Yet with the exception of a very small few, most of these candidates had no hope of appealing to enough voters to actually win. And a lot of voters realized that, and did not want to 'waste their vote' on someone who would just lose anyway. So in the end, despite 130+ candidates on the ballot, it boiled down to a two party race anyway.

Quote:
If I rummaged around enough, I could find several mathematical analyses showing a 'winner take all' vote results in the least representative outcome. Drakon's position that it's all binary and it should be all binary and that is the best system, is, well, not backed-up by anything except personal opinion. (Yet at the same time Drakon thinks the Electoral College, which specifically subverts a binary function, is real genius ...)

When you get around to actually doing the analysis, let me know. Until then this is an unfounded and irrelavant comment. As for the electoral college, yes, I do see the brillance in it. I see that straight democracy is too often "3 guys voting to pee in the corn flakes of the other 2 guys." And that is not a system that I want, nor should you.

[As I point out in another post on this thread, we're all minorities of one. We have just as much risk of being one of the two guys with corn flakes they can't eat as the other 3 doing the voting]

Right now, our higher population densities are consentrated in a very few states. California, New York, Texas. If you are from any of the other states, the last thing you want is Congress voting to pee in your cornflakes. Nor do you want a President of the entire United States selected by just those high populace states, especially considering the economic interdependence between city and rural dwellers.

Quote:
I think the framers tried to avoid these limitations by having a three-branch government. However, should one party take control of three branches at once, there is no limit left.

But this ignores just how that single party CAN gain control over all three branches. And that is at the ballot box. The only way any party is going to get a majority in either house of Congress is if people elect them to that office. Its on a more individual basis, but the concept is the same.

And you don't get votes without appealing to the voters. It really is that simple. You don't get power unless the voters approve of you, and your policies.

Quote:
It's just that people are schizophrenic. How else can you explain comfort with a party that embraces mutually exclusive positions: supporting Christian values, personal arms, war, and the death penalty, and opposing stem cell research and choice? (Or as I've heard, the Party where 'Life is Sacred until it's born'.)

Ever ask someone to explain it to you? Opposition to abortion and stem cell research are kind of linked. And while there is a general agreement that life is sacred, there is also seen that some folks are dangerous. They kill people. And either you protect and defend yourself against them, by whatever means works, or you die.

If that means killing the person who is trying to kill you, oh well, sucks to be him. He won't kill anyone ever again. And it is his actions that condemn him, not his simple unrequested presense in the womb of a woman who doesn't want it. I see a world of difference here. Again, its that context thing that keeps biting folks on the rump.

Quote:
I was angered to repeatedly read that the minority does the demonizing. It was Bush who said "Either you are with us, or you are with the terr

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DRAKON

Thursday, July 8, 2004 10:52 AM

I wanted to expand on my comments abotu binary choices. I see several different sets, and some of the posts here have been very helpful in illustrating them.

I used the example of taxes, should they be raised or lowered. One poster countered that he questioned whether they should even exist at all. And offered as a proposal to do away with taxes. And I started to argue that I don't see such as a viable option, for reasons you have probably already read, and if not, are irrelavant to this post.

Because what did not occur to me at the time, was that my opponent in that particular discussion had not proven whether there were not binary issues. But had simply provided a different set of binary options. Do we get rid of taxes, or not?

Again, another binary choice. Any time a proposal is made, the options are to accept, or reject that proposal. After that is settled, we can get down to details about what modifications, alterations or changes are needed in the original proposal, or if the thing should be tossed out altogether. But still with each change, or even tossing out, it comes down to a binary choice. Do we incorporate this change or not? Do we toss it out or not?

Another poster asked about "taking the bitter with the sweet" and I kind of blew past it at the time. (I am a slow typist, and long winded when I do type, if that makes any sense, and there is a time factor involved.) What I failed to bring up effectively is that yes, there is bitter and there is sweet. BUT, I take the view that you add the pluses, subtract the minuses and then look at what you got overall. Do things come out in your favor, or not? So again it reduces back to a binary choice.

Some consequences I don't like, but sometimes that is simply the cost of doing the things you want to do done. Sometimes its worth it, sometimes, not so much.

Also, something that Republicans painfully learned in 92, is that if you have two candidates that are almost, but not quite, advocating principles and positions you agree with, you have to vote for the candidate with the greater appeal to the rest of the population. Otherwise, you end up splitting your votes between those two candidates, and allowing the guy you least wanted in office to win.

Some of us voted for Perot, and we all ended with Clinton. Some voters in 2000 voted for Nader, and we all ended up with Bush. So sometimes you have to settle for half a loaf, because going for the full loaf means not getting anything at all.

Also, some appear to see things on a more absolute scale than I do. To me, the central question regarding any policy proposal is "Will this make things better, or worse?" We can quibble about definitions of better and worse, and in some respects there is a large element of subjectivity going on. (I.e dependent on a specific individual.) So again, I weigh the benefits, against the risk and detrimental results and make my choice accordingly. But in the end, it comes down to a binary choice. "Is this better, or worse" than we had before.

To a large extent, most policies issues come down that way. You compare the likely consequences of a proposal to what you have, and are likely to have, as a result of the policies that are in place now. Will this change be better, or worse. Even if the new policy is not perfect, even if it does things you might not like, you still have to look at whether the benefits outweigh the detriments compared to what is in place now.

Rarely is it a question of whether this or that policy is perfect, acheives some idealized standard of perfection, or 1000 percent efficiency, without no costs nor detrimental consequences. It is usually a comparison between what you have now, and what you are likely to get as a result of the change.

I think I understand where all this "grey area" stuff comes in. Like I said before, it seems more an excuse to inaction rather than a helpful or useful concept. In my experiences, with enough thought, you can boil down most questions of politics into binary or at the very least, a small number of options and ch

HONEY

Thursday, July 8, 2004 3:43 PM

You've asked which is most upsetting, and my answer is that I'm upset by both equally. The problem with making comparisons of degree is that we're demonizes the enemy, making him less than human, and therefore easier to commit acts against him that we wouldn't ever countenance otherwise -- that's the point.

Yes, I know that is what the enemy is doing to our people, too -- demonizing us and making us less than human in their own eyes so that they can commit acts of attrocity against us, like beheading our soldiers and dragging the bodies of our soldiers through the streets. It sickens me. I want us not to become them. This is not just "abstract intellectual standard" -- when we start acting like thugs, we become thugs.

Torture produces very little usable intelligence -- ask the guys at Gitmo who know. What it produces is baseless witch-hunts. If you're torturing a guy, he'll say anything to stop the torture. If the torture is bad enough, he'll sell out his own grandmother. I'm not convinced that even a single life has been saved by torturing dubious information from the prisoners. Can you give me the name of a single person who's life has been saved?

Please watch out for using hyperbole -- it weakens your argument and it's just plain silly. No one sees all US troups as "baby killing marauding thugs." In fact, I've never heard of a single soldier called a "baby killing marauding thug," much less all of them.

Causing a person to believe his genitals will be ripped off by a vicious dog attack or hooding him, putting him up on a box with hands outstretched and attaching electrical wires, making him believe that if he drops his hands or fall of the box he will be electricuted, or beating them, in several cases, to death -- these are the acts of torture I'm talking about. You can't say that this is not torture, no matter how much you would like us to believe they only made them dress in women's panties.

Your argument re: not punishing the guilty is a straw-man argument. No one is saying that the guilty should not be punished, certainly not me. I'm just saying don't torture people and act in accordance with the rules of war. These rules protect our people. By breaking these laws, we are alienating every civilized country (those who would otherwise be our allies) and encouraging our enemies to act with impunity as well.

You've stated that you are concerned with suspected terrorists clogging the judicial system if we allow them protection under our rights. We're mixing apples and oranges here, but I'm glad you brought it up anyway. In Iraq and in Gitmo, the issue is the treatment of prisoners and the question is whether or not they are covered by the Geneva convention. In the United States, the question is whether or not persons arrested are entitled to Habeus Corpus and the due process of law. Although these are very different, they are related issues. I'll address them separately.

RE: the Geneva convention: Article 5 states, "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." What 'competent tribunal' has determined that these detainees do not fall under such protection? Until such a tribunal meets and determines that these people should not be protected, any acts committed against them in contradiction of the Geneva Convention may very well be war crimes that may be legitimately tried by the international courts.

I'll get to the issue of the Geneva convention in a moment. First, the issue of due process of law in the US. I'm personally more afraid of our rights being taken away from us in the name of protection, than I am of being inconvenienced by clogged courts. Please do a little research on what happened in Argentina after WWII. There were terrorist attacks. The government started restricting rights

SPLIBERTARIAN

Thursday, July 8, 2004 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
...

I used the example of taxes, should they be raised or lowered. One poster countered that he questioned whether they should even exist at all. And offered as a proposal to do away with taxes. And I started to argue that I don't see such as a viable option, for reasons you have probably already read, and if not, are irrelavant to this post.

Because what did not occur to me at the time, was that my opponent in that particular discussion had not proven whether there were not binary issues. But had simply provided a different set of binary options. Do we get rid of taxes, or not?

Ok, you're getting a little closer to what the point I was apparently unsuccessful at making clear was, but still not quite there.

This thread had been focused on generalities of partisan politics, not about debating specific policy issues. I was not attempting to make any argument about whether taxes are legitimate or not. I was not addressing whether I felt taxes were necessary or not. I doubt anyone cares what I think about taxes in the context of this discussion.

I was merely trying to point out how the binary nature of the question leaves out other, equally legitimate and debatable points of view. I included not only the idea that taxes are not legitimate in the first place, but also the very different point of view that there is no such thing as personal property and that everything is under control of the state. These are not either/or questions, they contrast with each other as well as the 'some taxation' point of view.

My hope was to illustrate how the question itself had already determined that those other points of view were not legitimate. There is immense power in framing the questions that are to be debated. We've all seen the power of that in biased political surveys where the questions themselves are skewed to a particular answer.

Yes, issues are most frequently presented to us as binary choices, but it is important to keep in mind that many of the options have been artificially eliminated before the question is asked - as a way to maintain power.

There is a common piece of parenting advice for raising toddlers. When getting a toddler dressed in the morning it is recommended that a parent offer the child a choice between two acceptable options (presenting a binary choice), rather than simply asking them what shirt (of all the shirts they own) they wish to wear. This way, the toddler feels like they are in control of what they are wearing, while in reality the parent has maintained control over the child's outfit.

In light of the original topic of this thread, the binary choice created by the two major parties contributes to the demonization between them, because as the public notices, "Hey, why not the green shirt?" the major parties are forced to ratchet up the rhetoric in order to keep voters from jumping ship completely. They say, "Forget that we don't address issues that are important to you - look at the evil monster that will be in control if you vote your conscience!!!!" (And just look at the venom aimed toward Ralph Nader.)

The argument that the two party system is an inevitability because most issues are binary issues also loses its relevance when you realize that there is often no connection between the different issues that the two major parties use to define themselves. In fact, there are many issues that the two parties agree on, and therefore do not even bring up.

Quote:

Also, some appear to see things on a more absolute scale than I do. To me, the central question regarding any policy proposal is "Will this make things better, or worse?" We can quibble about definitions of better and worse, and in some respects there is a large element of subjectivity going on. (I.e dependent on a specific individual.) So again, I weigh the benefits, against the risk and detrimental results and make my choice accordingly. But in the end, it comes down to a binary choice. "Is this better, or worse" than we had before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

RUE

Friday, July 9, 2004 3:16 AM

basic definitions

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20voting%20systems
%20topics

voting

http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm

instant runoff

http://www.fairvote.org/factshts/irv.htm

other voting schema

http://accuratedemocracy.com/

There's much information for anyone who cares to read.

DRAKON

Friday, July 9, 2004 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by splibertarian:
Ok, you're getting a little closer to what the point I was apparently unsuccessful at making clear was, but still not quite there.

...

I was merely trying to point out how the binary nature of the question leaves out other, equally legitimate and debatable points of view. I included not only the idea that taxes are not legitimate in the first place, but also the very different point of view that there is no such thing as personal property and that everything is under control of the state. These are not either/or questions, they contrast with each other as well as the 'some taxation' point of view.

I do see where you are coming from. I disagree strongly still. At best, you can say that it boils down to a small number of potentialities, as far as policies and ideological positions go, but that does not mean its an open ended argument, so full of "shades of grey" that folks are paralysed into inaction. Nor does it mean we continue the argument till the end of time.
Its not that a lot of opposing views are rendered invalid or "illegitimate" by any existing power structure. What is occuring is, as I was trying unsuccessfully to point out, people hear these proposals and reject them already. The minority ideologies have been heard, and simply turned down by the majority of voters. That is why they are minority positions. They ain't got the people to support them.

Its not because the system is rigged against them, nor voters are toddlers, or sheeple. People are pretty smart, and usually don't need marching orders from any existing power structure. Its not because even though those proposals would work, they are rejected as "not being invented here" type of thing. A lot of folks do think about these issues, and reach conclusions about them. Even folks in both of the major parties look for new ideas and such to bolster their own ability to weld power.

Part of the problem is that folks have no responsibility to justify their rejection of a political policy. You may never know why they rejected you. For some of the more militant, angry, and fanatical groups, the problem is even worse, in that folks may not even feel safe discussing their reasons for rejection. If they think you are nuts, they simply won't listen nor tell you why they won't listen to you.

You want to blame this on the two major powers. But not long ago, the Libertarian party ran a candidate that was blue. He had been taken, what a lot of folks percieve as a quack medical cure, and because of that, his skin turned blue. Folks laughed, some even tried to listen to what he said. But his action conformed to a perception of a crazy person, one disconnected from reality at the outset, and that made it extremely difficult to take him and his policies seriously.

Now you can chalk this up to an irrational bias all you like, but how do you deal with it? Do you blame the stupid voters for their prejudice? Or do you find a different spokesman, a different means of making your arguments?

It is nice to think that we are right and everyone else is stupid, ignorant, bigoted, or what have you. To refuse to see failure as our fault, and blame some external source. Imagine conspiracies against your views and your party. But it does not garner support, nor does it fix the problem. In fact, it can actually make things worse.

You think you are right. Well, so do a lot of other folks. You cannot coerce them into siding with you, especially in a democracy, and especially with secret ballots. That means you have to rely on persuasion. If you don't do a good job of persuading people, you have to look internally to fix it. Looking externally, at things that, even if true, you cannot change, is useless.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Friday, July 9, 2004 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
You've asked which is most upsetting, and my answer is that I'm upset by both equally. The problem with making comparisons of degree is that we're demonizes the enemy, making him less than human, and therefore easier to commit acts against him that we wouldn't ever countenance otherwise -- that's the point.

Exactly. But you have to ask yourself how much of this is our doing, and how much of this is the enemies doing? If you are cutting the heads off of folks, parading mutliated corpses around town and the like, I would argue that you are making demonizing yourself. You are demonstrating the risks and threat you pose to others. And that is the real issue.

We don't attack friends, nor innocents. We don't go to war without cause, or reason. I say this as human beings in general, rather than Americans specifically. I am sure that Saddam had his own reasons for invading Iran during the 80's and Kuwait during the 90's. He saw them as threats, or at the very least, having something he wanted.

You don't want us to become thugs, and yet you seem to gloss over the very simple and higly relavant fact that before any of us knew one thing about the prison abuse scandals, the military had already taken care of it. The personel invovled were transfered away, and many of them were being processed through the court marshall system, before the pictures became public. Thugs don't do that. And has been pointed out by a few Iraqi bloggers, such "torture" was a day in the park under Saddam, and such perpetrators would have been promoted, rather than prosecuted. So I don't think that danger is all that real.

As for the "baby killing" comment, sadly I have heard just such verbage come from one of our local "peace" demostrators. I know it does not reflect the views of the majority of the anti-war crowd, or at least their spoken rhetoric. (What goes in the mind, well, I ain't a mind reader.) But it is a meme that is out there, and it damaging to those same 'peace' protestor's position.

And again, you have to look at exactly who these prisoners were. They have been described as "High Value Targets", in other words upper eschalon members of Saddam's government and the present insurgency. These are not innocent folks you are worried so much about.

As for breaking the rules of war, you have a point in that adherence does minimize the risk and threat to our people, as well as innocents. However, if one side refuses to follow them, and uses those rules to kill you, you are still dead. You can complain about it being unfair, but if it works, and you are dead, there is not a lot you can do about it.

I am all for the Geneva convention. But I also realize that sticking to it can actually hurt us, get our troops killed if the enemy refuses to follow it. Launching mortar attacks from protected sites like mosques, hiding behind civilians while you snipe at our troops, these are clear violations of exactly those rules of warfare. So I would be far more comfortable if your rage were more directed at them, than us.

And as I pointed out before, if one side refuses to follow the convention, the convention itself become null and void for BOTH parties. The first one to launch an attack from a mosque is guilty of a war crime. The destruction of that mosque, (or just one section of an exterior wall to the grounds of said mosque) to stop that attack is NOT a war crime as defined by that very convention. Even though it may be a protected site, it loses it protection the second armed forces start using it for military purposes.

Quote:
I'm personally more afraid of our rights being taken away from us in the name of protection, than I am of being inconvenienced by clogged courts.

As well you should be, and its not that I consider this a baseless concern. But if the rules keep you from protecting and defending yourself, if you have to waste resources to help those who want to kill you get away so they can do it again, then the rules don't work.

Your trying to make a legal argumen

BARNSTORMER

Friday, July 9, 2004 3:09 PM

Drakon,

Well said. Well said indeed.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Friday, July 9, 2004 4:44 PM

Drakon, I think that your viewpoint is restricted by "either/ or" thinking. For example, you pose the choice:

Quote:
But if the rules keep you from protecting and defending yourself

forcing the discussion into an "either/or" mode (you can have only protection OR freedom but not both) without exploring the vast middle ground. And while it's true that I can mentally construct situations where that would be the case, I don't think it reflects ground-truth. Furthermore, if I were to take your position to it's extreme (sacrificing any liberty for total security) it would quickly devolve into an Orwellian nightmare. What I think it really comes down to is how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for how much security.

Oddly, I think my discussion problems with you and others (Jasonzz, Finn, Wulfhawk, Drakon) is that while you all think that you're realists, in fact you're idealists (in the philosophical sense). You use words like "life" "liberty", "freedom" and "capitalism" as if they pointed to some ideal thing that is only imperfectly reflected in the "real" world. In other words the definition becomes the thing, and the actuality isn't real. But definitions (except mathematical ones) always have fuzzy edges and gray areas. To point out what I mean, please try to define for me what you mean by "LIFE".

SIGNYM

Friday, July 9, 2004 7:28 PM

Hoping for a reply. I know it seems arcane, but I hope y'all humor me because I think this is THE reason why we can never seem to reach a conclusion!

RUE

Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:29 AM

SignyM,

Your insight is brilliant. I'm still considering that nobody (Drakon et al) is so consistently evasive unless it is purposeful. But maybe you are right and the more charitable, and meaningful, explanation is there is such a pervasive blind-spot in their thinking they CAN'T get the obvious. Even when it's put plain in front of them ...

In any case, while a 'same to you !' reply to this post wouldn't surprise me, I don't think you will get any reply to yours. Which is too bad, b/c as little as I fathom your interest in dissecting issues with them, you seem like an honest person who sincerely means the invitation.
Aside from that, I think you posed a basic and important question.

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:51 AM

Yes, I sincerely mean the invitation. I had what sure seemed to me like a flash of insight! But, maybe I'm wrong! I'd sure be happy to find out!

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:27 AM

Quote:
In light of the original topic of this thread, the binary choice created by the two major parties contributes to the demonization between them, because as the public notices, "Hey, why not the green shirt?" the major parties are forced to ratchet up the rhetoric in order to keep voters from jumping ship completely. They say, "Forget that we don't address issues that are important to you - look at the evil monster that will be in control if you vote your conscience!!!!" (And just look at the venom aimed toward Ralph Nader.)
splibertarian

This explanation for the abundance of vilification from both sides resonates with my experience. It's much more logical than just saying that those in the minority are attacking because they feel powerless. I'm not sure how you'd categorize the fallacy. It's probably a combination of red herring, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and maybe some more that I've missed since it's been so long since I took that particular math class. But it is a smoke screen designed to obscure something.

There were a couple of other things I wanted to address that came up in the course of this thread.

Thanks for posting those links Rue, especially the basic definitions. It reminded me of just how little political theory I learned in many years of private high school/liberal arts college/research I university education. Although, as an engineer, I guess I am just expected to design things and not think about implications

.

And thanks, Signym, for your analysis of Drakon's argument. It really does go back to the ends versus means debate. To borrow an often-used phrased, I sincerely believe that certain ends preclude certain means. (the Malcolm X - by any means necessary* - versus the Gandhi - nonviolent resistance). I'll ignore for the moment a lot of the assumptions that have led to us being in Iraq (that Saddam would provide al Queda with WMD to use against our country) and use the current party line - that we are liberating the citizens of Iraq from a tyrannical dictator and instituting a democracy to serve as an example and help stabilize the region (I'll also ignore for the moment whether or not this should be our job as a country). IF this is indeed why we are there, then I don't believe we can accomplish this by setting aside international law. If the goal is to establish democracy then you cannot do this by using undemocratic methods.

This is the same reason why we should not be limiting our freedoms to combat terrorists. The message this sends is that we don't trust our system enough to continue to use it in a time of threat. That we pay lip service to freedom, but when push comes to shove that freedom really just gets in the way. Sure it would be easier to control this country if the police and various agencies had more power, but it wouldn't be the same country.

Now I'll just zig in a completely different direction

. How viable an option is torture anyway? I keep going back to the inquisition. According to all the confessions, there sure were a lot of witches in Europe. Eventually, people will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop hurting them. So any information you obtain using torture has to be suspect. If you know enough to know that someone is telling the truth then you probably know enough to not even have to torture them in the first place.

So that's enough rambling for now...

* In all fairness, the Malcolm X quote is usually presented completely without context. The speech that this comes from is titled "The Ballot or the Bullet" and is a very interesting read.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

PURPLEBELLY

Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
So any information you obtain using torture has to be suspect.

Torture will extract the information the torturer expects, true. That is why those who analyse information extracted by torture must exclude that information from their analysis. In turn, those who arrange torture to be used must ensure that a sufficient number of innocent people are tortured so that the information expected by the torturers can be statistically identified.

I'm not being judgemental here. Just saying that the torturing of innocent people is not an unavoidable by-product but a deliberate intention.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, July 10, 2004 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
I'm not being judgemental here. Just saying that the torturing of innocent people is not an unavoidable biproduct but a deliberate intention.

My first thought in reading this was, "At least they're using solid experimental design." My second thought was, "I feel dirty."

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

DRAKON

Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Furthermore, if I were to take your position to it's extreme (sacrificing any liberty for total security) it would quickly devolve into an Orwellian nightmare. What I think it really comes down to is how much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for how much security.

You are right, that this is a danger. I recognize that. But we end up looking at each proposal individually, seeing how they affect security and freedom and deciding whether we draw the line here, or over there. Whether we impliment it, will it work, or not?

You do have a tough time convincing me otherwise, because I find it an effective means of living. Boiling problems down to as small as possible components, boiling issues and questions down to their fundamentals. You can bring up a lot of these issues, and I can defend my position on most of them. I spent far too much time on mid watches and owl shift.

By saying that "Well its all grey" I don't see that as being better. I see it as worse. It paralyses, it prevents decisions and actions. The world still rolls along and sometimes if you don't decide, don't move, it runs right over you.

Quote:
Oddly, I think my discussion problems with you and others (Jasonzz, Finn, Wulfhawk, Drakon) is that while you all think that you're realists, in fact you're idealists (in the philosophical sense). You use words like "life" "liberty", "freedom" and "capitalism" as if they pointed to some ideal thing that is only imperfectly reflected in the "real" world. In other words the definition becomes the thing, and the actuality isn't real. But definitions (except mathematical ones) always have fuzzy edges and gray areas. To point out what I mean, please try to define for me what you mean by "LIFE".

Grin, we can have an interesting discussion about the interplay between the ideal and the real someday. Maybe in another thread. You may be right, that I might be an idealist. But I do think it is a set of ideals that are based on the real world, how real people function in it. And on what actually works.

Idealism has led to the concept of communism being a workable model for politics and economics. Reality is much different, totalitarian control of the economy of a large population is simply impossible, and inefficient. Which is why it naturally leads to Stalins and Hitler and Pol Pots and whoever else comes down the line, asking for total and arbitrary power in order to "do it right". That is also why it leads to bigotry, anti-Semitism or anti-whoever the scapegoat is. Since the system fails, since the system cannot work (information problem) the guys in charge would lose their phoney baloney jobs unless they were able to convince the populace that the fault is not in their theories, but because of the machinations of some other.

As for defining Life, this is an example of such interplay. I am sticking with the pure biological stuff when I talk about that. Granted there may be cases where it might be a bit murky. Those cases are fortunately rare. You are either alive, or dead. You may be asleep, you may even be in a coma, kept alive by machines. But you still have a functioning brain, as determinable externally, usually, by EEGs. Your heart is beating, your brain working, you are moving around, talking, posting stuff. That is signs of life. If any dead people can do those kinds of things, please speak up.

The key point here is that Life, unlike Happiness, is objectively verifiable. Your heart stops, your brain stops. You are dead. Last I heard, you have about 6 minutes before the impact of death becomes irreversable. Having no recollections of being dead, I can't say conclusively.

Happiness is a bit trickier. This is more subjective, not only in the sense that such cannot be observed or determined without assistance from the subject, but also it is an internal thing. Where are you happy? Inside your skull. That happiness may be the result of external (to your skull) activities, but since I ain't a mind reader, I am stuck with aski

DRAKON

Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, I sincerely mean the invitation. I had what sure seemed to me like a flash of insight! But, maybe I'm wrong! I'd sure be happy to find out!

Time is an issue, as are other life's necessities. Just because I don't respond immediately, that does not mean a thing. I do have a life, such as it is.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And thanks, Signym, for your analysis of Drakon's argument. It really does go back to the ends versus means debate.

Why do you do, well, anything? Why do we think and breathe and live and all the stuff that we do? We do it to achieve a particular purpose or goal. When it is dark, we hit the switch. Because we want the light to come on. We don't flush the toilet and expect it to have the same effect.

This is what I think you are missing. You don't get to pick the consequences of your actions. Reality does that for you. You pick your actions based on your mental model of reality. If that model is accurate, you should get what you expect to get. If your model is flawed however....

Quote:
If the goal is to establish democracy then you cannot do this by using undemocratic methods.

Funny, I don't think Washington, or Jefferson would have agreed with you. This nation was founded in revolution, and I don't think you can call that democratic. There was a lot of support for the British at the time, but their opinions were overridden. Whether that was by a majority, or simply an elect few, that is more an issue for historians. The fact remains we did not vote the British out, we kicked them out, by force.

In an idealist world, that would be great. But we live in the world we live in, and have to deal with folks who don't give a damn about international law, UN resolutions, the Geneva Convention, or anything of the like.

And when you really think about it, how is a law enforced? It is not done by the agreement of the criminal. Heck if the criminal agreed with the law, he would not be breaking it would he? You have to use force, coercive force, whether he, or really anyone else, agrees.

And besides which, what you are saying cannot happen, is happening in Iraq, even as we speak.

Quote:
This is the same reason why we should not be limiting our freedoms to combat terrorists. The message this sends is that we don't trust our system enough to continue to use it in a time of threat. That we pay lip service to freedom, but when push comes to shove that freedom really just gets in the way. Sure it would be easier to control this country if the police and various agencies had more power, but it wouldn't be the same country.

If freedom means the freedom to get blowed up, well, I'll pass.

Look, people are free. You don't have to agree with me, or even listen to me. You don't have to respond. I can't make you think one way or another. Nor can I even determine objectively whether you do or not. I would have to accept your word on it. Its part of that not being a mind reader thingy again.

But there are some actions that we decide that maybe its not such a good idea to do, in general. Murder, robbery, rape, talking during movies, and we have systems and institutions that, by their very nature, deny folks the freedom to do just that. Some are taboos, and punishable by public disaproval. Some are laws, and can include removal from this plane of existence. We allow these restrictions on our personal liberty, because without it, we ain't got any at all.

You appear to see freedom as an end unto itself. I see life and happiness as the end all of it all. What I do, what I say, what I think, what I decide, how I act, all of these are supposed to make me live longer and healthier. So far its been working. I am happier with less rules. But if the choice is getting through the airport line slower, or getting blowed up, well I have to go for the former over the latter. Freedom, even happiness don't mean a thing if you are dead.

As long as I am alive, I can get back, fight back for my freedoms, and the other things that will be condusive to a long and happy life. But if I am dead, well, that is it, game over.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:40 AM

Hello Drakon, I'm on the "sleepless" shift! to discuss further the difference between "realism" and "idealism", you said...

Quote:
"Boiling problems down to as small as possible components, boiling issues and questions down to their fundamentals...

...Life, this is an example of such interplay. I am sticking with the pure biological stuff when I talk about that. Granted there may be cases where it might be a bit murky. Those cases are fortunately rare. You are either alive, or dead. You may be asleep, you may even be in a coma, kept alive by machines. But you still have a functioning brain, as determinable externally, usually, by EEGs. Your heart is beating, your brain working, you are moving around, talking, posting stuff. That is signs of life. If any dead people can do those kinds of things, please speak up.

So boiling things down, your fundamental definition of an alive human is a "functioning brain" determined by EEG. How functional does the brain have to be? And, can you determine if someone is dead without an EEG?

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 10, 2004 11:53 AM

Soupcatcher, I'm glad you liked my post. But, soemwhere along the line I falied to make the leap that went from "idealism" to "ends versus means".

I have a couple of thoughts, neither may be reflecting the connection that you made. This first is

a) The "ends" are definitional absolutes (like "freedom") that are unaffected by, and justify, any "means".

b) Taking that one step backwards, even applying the concept of "ends" and "means" in their ideal sense allows us to separate the processes... a separation that may not be justified in real life.

Is either one what you're talking about??

SIGNYM

Saturday, July 10, 2004 12:30 PM

Quote:
You have to use force, coercive force, whether he, or really anyone else, agrees.

(Wince) Hmmm.. care to rephrase that?

Quote:
Look, people are free

Define "people". Define "free".

WICKD

Saturday, July 10, 2004 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Demonization, I hate to say I see primarily coming from the minority party. Not exclusively, but primarily. And I have to admit that makes me all the more glad they are the minority party. Because what that does to me is indicate a lack of logical argument. If you cannot argue logically, or even civilly, then I see that as a big indicator that your ideas are not consistent with reality nor will function as you expect. At best, that you do not understand your arguments sufficiently to explain them, defend them and have to use less rational and more emotional means of winning.
[END QUOTE]

With all due respect, there is plenty of demonization from both sides. If you don't see much demonization coming from the right, you have either never seen Fox News or don't recognize demonization that is "friendly fire."

Michael Moore (a demonizer himself) is currently getting demonized. Richard Clarke was demonized when his book was published. John Edwards was being demonized by the Bush campaign within hours of his selection being announced. Demonization of the Clintons has been a going on for more than a decade.

Are the liberals without sin here? Absolutely not. Demonization has been a cottage industry in politics for over two decades now, and it isn't going to get better until folks on both sides of the aisle tell their own to calm the tone of the debate.

Wick D

No matter where you go; there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HONEY

Saturday, July 10, 2004 8:55 PM

Please don't mistake a strong position for "rage." I feel no rage regarding these issues, only strong concern.

I should have stuck with the word "dehumanizing" in my posts. In saying they make demons of themselves by their own acts, you are missing my point. Many people would agree with the statement, "So what if we look on one perp as less than human -- after all a wild dog needs to be put down." When I feel outrage, I feel the same way. But the problem with this stance is that we humans are great generalists. We don't just look on one perp as less than human -- we generalize to looking down on "them" as less than human. We do it, and our enemy does it.

When "they" can look on "us" as less than human, it lets "them" commit atrocities with ease -- like dragging our soldiers' mutilated corpses through the streets. Unfortunately, the same applies to us as another group of flawed human beings fully capable of the same atrocious acts if the conditions are right for it. Look at what happened at the My Lai massacre in Vietnam if you don't believe me. That massacre was commited by good old American boys -- not monsters. I'm saying, "Let's not go there again ourselves." If we treat our enemies humanely, our allies trust us and our enemies have a damn hard time justifying their acts. If we don't, the reverse is true.

You say we don't go to war without cause, but we did. We went to war unprovoked in the belief that that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. These allegations have proved to be based solely on false intelligence. Nearly the entire world warned us what would happen if we went into Iraq and they have been proven right -- the entire region of the world is more destabilized now due to our ill-conceived and ill-timed efforts and we are continuing to lose credibility in the eyes of the world -- that makes it a much more dangerous place for us. The question now is how do we fix it.

You say I've glossed over the fact that the military had already "taken care of it'" before we even knew of the prison abuse scandal. That is a lie and I resent it. As it hasn't even come up in our discussions before now, how could I possibly have glossed it over? What I've repeated here are the conditions that I and many others believe set the stage for such abuses, specifically, the administration's efforts to deny Geneva convention protection to the detainees in Guantanamo, the discussions and resulting belief that they could get around war crimes prosecution in regards to the treatment of those prisoners, the statement by Rumsfeld that we weren't getting intelligence fast enough from the prisoners in Iraq and the subsequent sending of CIA interrogators from Gitmo -- all these things (I've repeatedly repeated) contributed to an atmosphere in which some thought it was o.k. to torture prisoners.

Let me be clear -- I'm glad that the military took care of it because it lets me know that the general atmosphere of "anything goes" that was engendered by the administration isn't endemic in the military. But I'm also glad we were told about it because I'm convinced that open protest does more to prevent further abuses than secretly taking care of it can.

You've pointed out that the prisoners were "High Value Targets" and not innocents. I'm not sure why you think this is an important distinction. It doesn't counter the validity of what I've said about how we dehumanize others, or what the effects are when that happens.

I'm glad we agree that the Geneva convention rules protect our troops. However, your statement that sticking to it can hurt us if our enemy doesn't follow the rules is only true if our military is incredibly stupid -- which it is not. Our enemy can disobey the rules, kill us, and face war crimes prosecution later. Or he can follow the rules, kill us, and avoid war crimes prosecution. It is only those who feel above the law and justified in committing acts of atrocity who fail to see the advantage of following the rules of war. You've gi

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oddly, I think my discussion problems with you and others (Jasonzz, Finn, Wulfhawk, Drakon) is that while you all think that you're realists, in fact you're idealists (in the philosophical sense). You use words like "life" "liberty", "freedom" and "capitalism" as if they pointed to some ideal thing that is only imperfectly reflected in the "real" world. In other words the definition becomes the thing, and the actuality isn't real. But definitions (except mathematical ones) always have fuzzy edges and gray areas. To point out what I mean, please try to define for me what you mean by "LIFE".

Thank you, SignyM. I tried to make a similar point earlier but I wasn't nearly as successful or as eloquent.

Drakon, rereading my previous post I will admit that in several instances I misunderstood you. I jumped to conclusions; saw what I thought was implied in your remarks and argued against that, which I think confused you. I'm sorry. It's not surprising to me, therefore, that you have misunderstood some of what I had to say as well.

Seriously, Drakon, for instance, I didn't mean to call anyone names with the term "extremist." I simply meant it literally. A total ban on abortion, across the board legalization of firearms, and a hard-line commitment to only lowering taxes, in my view, are definitively "extreme," as in "there ain't nothing beyond that." See what I mean? There's nothing more anti-abortion than a total ban. The most condemning thing I intended in using the word "extremist" for was to imply that the temporary political imbalance created by the neocons and their extreme views did not define reality. That reality was probably somewhere closer to the middle.

But getting back to your sense of "realism" and the subject of this thread. The most difficult aspect of your opinions for me to deal with is not that they are at variance with my own (though they surely are), but more importantly, that your basic assumptions about the reality of our situation, indeed assumptions about reality itself, are so at odds with mine that I wonder if meaningful discussion is even possible.

You talk a lot about being bombed or killed or our enemies taking over America. I think this is a real fear of yours. You're afraid of dying, and you're willing to put up with an awful lot of abridgements of your rights if it means that your life is spared. That's your profit and loss assessment.

I'd feel exactly the same if my life were as threatened as you feel yours is. But, I'm not afraid of dying. I feel no more or less afraid of dying since 9/11 than I did before. And I don't believe that America is in any real danger from terrorists. America will not be defeated this way. Yes, terrorist may strike at any time, but that has always been true and it cannot be stopped - where there's a will, there's a way. Thankfully, like serial murder and death cults, there are not a lot of people in the world who are really up for it.

In your reality, the "War on Terror" is necessary to safeguard your life and country. You seem to believe that there's a chance that a group of Islamic terrorist could somehow take over the United States. You imply that if we don't let Bush wage this war however he sees fit, they will conquer us.

For me, the attack on the WTC was a criminal act, not an act of war. There is no nation or dictator or ideology responsible for that crime. No attack on any nation or dictator or ideology will be effective against terrorism. The criminals are responsible for the crime. In my reality, the "War on Terror" is just rhetoric, not unlike the "War on Drugs." It's just talk.

You can't wage war on drugs because the drug culture is a spontaneous outgrowth of the larger culture. Get rid of one drug, another will appear. As long as there are people willing to do drugs, there will be people willing to profit from it.

Terrorism is similarly culturally based. Destroy Al Quaida and another torrorist organization will take its place. Terrorism is a sp

SIGNYM

Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:19 PM

HK Cavalier- Glad you liked the post. It's not "as if" we're speaking different languages- we ARE speaking different languages! Drakon's word usage implies some immutable pure concept with crystalline edges. I remember thinking exactly the same way, until someone challenged me to define "cup"... what IS the difference between cup, bowl, mug, and glass?

Drakon-

I'm not being a nitpicker when I ask for your definitions of "life", "people", and "freedom". Here is a real-life example: "People in my country don't do laundry."

So when you say "people are free" - HOWEVER you define freedom- I don't think you mean everyone. Saddam is in jail, as are many others. Are they people? What you mean is that SOME people are free. Or maybe you mean that detainees aren't people? I don't know- you tell me.

And then there is that word "freedom". Do you mean "without constraint"? Constrained by what? The law? Fear? Poverty? Gravity?

So you see, unless you explain to me what you mean when you say "people", "life", "free", I really DON'T know what you mean!

Drakon, Soupcatcher- I think the question is not whether the ends justify the means, it's whether the ends justify ANY AND ALL means. Drakon's ends- freedom, security, liberty, whatever- are still undefined. Until I know what the ends are, I won't know whether the means are justified, or even likely to be effective.

HONEY

Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:25 PM

To SignyM:

I think you are right in your assessment. Polarization involves splitting issues into black vs. white (as defined both by extremes and ideals). I prefer more concrete facts, myself, rather than rhetoric.

Wash: "Oh my God! Who's flying this thing!?! Oh, right -- that would be me..."

HONEY

Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM,

Your insight is brilliant. I'm still considering that nobody (Drakon et al) is so consistently evasive unless it is purposeful. But maybe you are right and the more charitable, and meaningful, explanation is there is such a pervasive blind-spot in their thinking they CAN'T get the obvious. Even when it's put plain in front of them ...

In any case, while a 'same to you !' reply to this post wouldn't surprise me, I don't think you will get any reply to yours. Which is too bad, b/c as little as I fathom your interest in dissecting issues with them, you seem like an honest person who sincerely means the invitation.
Aside from that, I think you posed a basic and important question.

Aren't you being just a litte uncharitable here? Or are you just all paranoid and crotchety from space dementia?

Wash: 'Oh my God! Who's flying this thing?!? Oh, right -- that would be me..."

HONEY

Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Terrorism is similarly culturally based. Destroy Al Quaida and another torrorist organization will take its place. Terrorism is a spontaneous reaction to political hopelessness. As long as there are enemies who are unassailable through any other means, some few will resort to terrorism.

Wow! A voice of reason in a political arena -- I am impressed, gratified and heartened.

"Oh, my God! Who's flying this thing?!? Oh, right -- that would be me..."

DRAKON

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WickD:
Michael Moore (a demonizer himself) is currently getting demonized. Richard Clarke was demonized when his book was published. John Edwards was being demonized by the Bush campaign within hours of his selection being announced. Demonization of the Clintons has been a going on for more than a decade.

I see a big difference in substance between these examples and what the left is doing to the President. Do you call any negative comment demonization? I don't.

We can go back to the classic Bush=Hitler comment propogated by some on the left, over the objections of some here, who see it (rightly) as a minority view that reflects badly on the left as a whole. Besides being a self refuting comment, it is a rather vague attempt at saying that Bush is evil, without identifying exactly what evil is, or providing any evidence to support the declaration.

What is being said about Moore is that he is factually inaccurate, sloppy, and internally contradicting himself with his various claims. It has been said he hates America, and from many of his public comments, I can see how many folks would see those statements by him as implying a hatred of this country. You don't call people you love stupid and ignorant. Even if you are sure they won't hear it.

The problem as I see it is there IS no debate. The left is even inconsistent with itself, and this is something that is the most infuriating to me. I keep reading their stuff about how they are for the liberation of the little guy. Yet they would appear to keep Saddam in power, or see Iraq decend into civil war, rather than have that country and its people liberated, and set up a functioning democracy.

[That is the way it looks. I know some will be offended by that comment but look guys, I am just telling you what I see here. Follow your own 'arguments' out. If it was wrong to go into Iraq and remove Saddam in power, that is functionally saying the same thing that Saddam should still be ruling and terrorizing Iraq.]

What we get from the left are charges, claims, but nothing in the way of evidence or even the attempt at proof. They do not argue well, or really much at all. Politically, this is pretty damaging for them.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SOUPCATCHER

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:42 AM

Oops. I let things get sort of back-logged. This is going to be scattered and dis-jointed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym
Soupcatcher, I'm glad you liked my post. But, soemwhere along the line I falied to make the leap that went from "idealism" to "ends versus means".

I have a couple of thoughts, neither may be reflecting the connection that you made. This first is

a) The "ends" are definitional absolutes (like "freedom") that are unaffected by, and justify, any "means".

Yeah. The connection isn’t as solid to me now, in retrospect. But your first thought is basically where I was going by jumping to the ends versus means. You have phrased it nicely by calling the ends definitional absolutes to an idealist. I almost equate an idealist with a zealot in that they both refuse to acknowledge context and process and are all about the product. I am probably attaching a negative value to the term idealist that isn’t included in the strict definition.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
Funny, I don't think Washington, or Jefferson would have agreed with you. This nation was founded in revolution, and I don't think you can call that democratic. There was a lot of support for the British at the time, but their opinions were overridden. Whether that was by a majority, or simply an elect few, that is more an issue for historians. The fact remains we did not vote the British out, we kicked them out, by force.

You raise a good point that the founding of our country was achieved through means that would be illegal under our laws today. But, I don’t buy that what is happening in Iraq is similar at all to our Revolution. A revolution is different from a liberation (or invasion, depending on your point of view). In the Iraq case, we were an outside agent coming in to the country to remove the government and aid in the creation of a new one. So one of the assumptions is that our system works, and works so well that we want them to use it, and we feel that their country would be better off if they switched to our system of government. But it’s a poor sales job to go about changing over their country to be more like ours by putting their people through things that would be illegal back here.

Basically, where I’m going with this is that I don’t believe the original purpose in invading Iraq was to establish democracy (the current claim of the administration). I do believe that our goal was to remove Hussein from power. And that’s it. There was no thought beyond that. And it doesn’t have anything to do with 9/11. And all I’m trying to show is that if we were really serious about establishing democracy in Iraq we should probably be going about things a bit differently.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon
If freedom means the freedom to get blowed up, well, I'll pass.
…
But if the choice is getting through the airport line slower, or getting blowed up, well I have to go for the former over the latter.

You are very good at picking examples. If all that was happening was longer lines at the airport, of course I wouldn’t be objecting. Flying is a choice and by choosing to fly I also accept whatever hoops I have to jump through. If I don’t want to jump through the hoops, I should just drive or take the train. But what has happened in this country since 9/11 is that now law enforcement agencies can enter your home while you are at work and search and they never have to notify you (they still need a search warrant, but the magic words “enemy combatant” are a blank check), your library records can be pulled and they never have to notify you, you can be held without counsel, you can be held without being charged. That’s a bit different to me than longer lines at the airport. Patriot Act II, which has not been passed yet and hopefully never will, will allow the removal of citizenship.

I was going to write why I disagree with you on the nature of the threat from terrorist attacks, but HKCavalier did a great job, so I’ll just include the quote.

DRAKON

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
We don't just look on one perp as less than human -- we generalize to looking down on "them" as less than human. We do it, and our enemy does it.

What makes a person "less than human" in your mind? To me, its the willingness to slaughter other folks, just because they are different, without regard as to whether they are a threat or not. Its feeding folks into plastics shredders feet first, because they disagree with your politics, or perhaps have verbally insulted you. Or cutting a man's head off, simply for being a Jew. You want to talk about Abu Ghraib, and yet the very victims of that "atrocity" are guilty of far, far worse.

That is why it is so hard for me to give a damn. That and the fact that the military has already started dealing with it, long before you ever heard about it.

You want to compare this to My Lai, and look, that is a farcical comparison. People were machine gunned, murdered in large numbers at My Lai. Not had their genitals laughed at. Not hooked up to fake electrocution devises and had the crap scared out of them. Actually murdered. If Abu Ghraib is this war's My Lai, then I would hope even you would see it as a marked improvement. And if you can't, if you see it "just as bad", well, I am at a loss for words.

Quote:
If we treat our enemies humanely, our allies trust us and our enemies have a damn hard time justifying their acts. If we don't, the reverse is true.

Well, while you are concentrating on Abu Ghraib, most American soldiers are rebuilding water treatment plants, schools, hospitals, repairing oil pipelines. Cleaning up after the war, rebuilding the country after the war, and 30 years of Saddam's neglect. You ignore the context and scope, and wonder why I have a hard time taking any of it seriously.

Quote:
You say we don't go to war without cause, but we did. We went to war unprovoked in the belief that that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

This touches on something I find the most maddening of all. WMDs were only one reason for the war. And for all those legal scolars out there, there is also the matter of the 17 UN resolutions Saddam was in violation of. There were his ties to groups like Ansar al Islam, Abu Nidal, and others including Al Qaeda.

And here is the thing that gets me more than anything. Saddam was murdering, raping, and robbing his own people. You keep wanting to tell me this is a bad thing. And I would agree wholehearted. But you don't seem to care about that. You guys are supposed to care more about that than we do. Yet you seem perfectly happy to let Saddam go on with all that, fill the mass graves, bribe the UN, get rich off the blood of the Iraqi people.

There were multiple reasons for going after Saddam. Even if he had nothing to do with any of this, he was still unfinished business from the first Gulf War. We still had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, to protect it from Saddam's greed.

[One thing that is never touched on, but not surprisingly, is that Usama's first demand was we remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. But they were there because of Saddam, because of the "no fly zones". By removing Saddam, that removes the reason for our troops to be there, and in essence we give Usama what he wants. Just not quite the way he wanted it.]

There were several reasons that the administration could not go into at the time, although others had brought them up. "Swamp draining" referred to dealing with the "root causes" issues. Not the "everything the US did bad," meme which is again, pretty weak compared to other nations. But the fact that dictatorial regimes need terrorism to focus their people's anger outward, instead of the source of their real problems, the regime itself.

And there is "flypaper" meaning by having the US in Iraq, it attracts terrorists there. Or you think Zarqawi is just vacationing in Iraq. Read his stuff, his statements. They know that democracy and freedom is their death knell. And I would pr

DRAKON

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, Drakon, for instance, I didn't mean to call anyone names with the term "extremist." I simply meant it literally. A total ban on abortion, across the board legalization of firearms, and a hard-line commitment to only lowering taxes, in my view, are definitively "extreme," as in "there ain't nothing beyond that." See what I mean? There's nothing more anti-abortion than a total ban. The most condemning thing I intended in using the word "extremist" for was to imply that the temporary political imbalance created by the neocons and their extreme views did not define reality. That reality was probably somewhere closer to the middle.

I am not so sure. As in the abortion case, you are talking about killing something. It ain't a frog, it ain't a tumor, it will be a baby at some point. When that is, I don't know and neither do you. So I don't see any "middle ground" there, and that it is far better to err on the side of caution than not.

Gun bans, you have the right to life. Unless that means you have chosen to protect and defend your life intruds on the rights of others, simple ownership is not a problem. Use, we can talk about, but ownership. Again, where is the middle ground?

Quote:
You talk a lot about being bombed or killed or our enemies taking over America. I think this is a real fear of yours. You're afraid of dying, and you're willing to put up with an awful lot of abridgements of your rights if it means that your life is spared. That's your profit and loss assessment.

You really need to read this over and think about how it looks to someone like me. The tone comes across as condecending, and that is rather insulting.

Look, maybe we see people differently. I see what we got going here, in terms of rights, freedoms and the like as a pretty good and workable system. There is a lot of objective stuff I see as proving that point. (Per capita GDP, economics, etc.) I'd like to keep that going. And bin Ladan himself says he wants to destroy that.

Now I look at what "rights" we are losing, and I don't see much. I see a lot of overblown rhetoric bandied about, especially by those on the left, which simply does not match what the statutes say.

Quote:
And I don't believe that America is in any real danger from terrorists. America will not be defeated this way. Yes, terrorist may strike at any time, but that has always been true and it cannot be stopped - where there's a will, there's a way. Thankfully, like serial murder and death cults, there are not a lot of people in the world who are really up for it.

Well, I hope you pardon if that is not our reading of the situation we find ourselves in, and at least TRY to defeat terrorism. Try to stop them before they are able to cause too much damage.

And throw in WMDs into the equation, you get the Fermi plague. As technology advances, it becomes easier and easier for fewer and fewer people to kill more and more people.

Quote:
In your reality, the "War on Terror" is necessary to safeguard your life and country. You seem to believe that there's a chance that a group of Islamic terrorist could somehow take over the United States. You imply that if we don't let Bush wage this war however he sees fit, they will conquer us.

In my reality? Sorry, but there is only one reality that we are discussing here. Trying to imply that I am delusional is not an effective argumentative tactic.

Its not a matter of conquest per se, at least not in what you seem to mean by the term. But so weakend militarily, and economically weakened, we have to bow to someone else's demands, regardless of whether they are in our best interest or not.

Quote:
For me, the attack on the WTC was a criminal act, not an act of war. There is no nation or dictator or ideology responsible for that crime. No attack on any nation or dictator or ideology will be effective against terrorism. The criminals are responsible for the crime. In my reality, the "War on Terror" is just rhetoric, n

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DRAKON

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you see, unless you explain to me what you mean when you say "people", "life", "free", I really DON'T know what you mean!

I am at a point, after dealing with exactly this kind of thing, to be a bit tired of these games. I have written rather extensively here, on these subjects, in English, which I would assume is your native language as well.

Yes you are being nitpicky. You are trying to show something about edges which is irrelevant. If you ain't near the edges, whether they are crystal or not, is irrelevant. And since you have already accused me of evasion, really what is the point in even asking?

You are trying to tell me that this shades of grey thinking is somehow superior to being able to reduce them to black and white. And yet this is a perfect example of why your concept fails. You can't tell the difference between a cup and a bowl, and you want to tell me your way of dealing with reality is superior?

Quote:
Drakon, Soupcatcher- I think the question is not whether the ends justify the means, it's whether the ends justify ANY AND ALL means. Drakon's ends- freedom, security, liberty, whatever- are still undefined. Until I know what the ends are, I won't know whether the means are justified, or even likely to be effective.

And youi probably never will. Lets cut the garbage. You don't know what freedom means, what a person is, whether you are alive or not, you are a perfect illustration of the problem with "shades of grey" You get bogged down in nitpicking, whether you claim that is not your thing or not, is irrelevant. You make it impossible to communicate with you, and when I give up on your games, I am being "evasive".

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

TOMSMEAGOL

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:05 PM

Drakon--

It doesn't bother me that you have a different set of political beliefs from mine. It doesn't bother me that you view the world in terms of black and white. It doesn't bother me that you feel the war in Iraq is both just and necessary. A lot of people think that way and I'm not going to say you or they are wrong--difference of opinion is one of the greatest aspects of a democratic society.

What bothers me is that you feel the need to belittle and demean EVERY single point that someone else makes if you don't agree with it. I've read many posts that use perfectly valid debate techniques which you've dismissed as being invalid arguments. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean their argument is invalid, Drakon.

And going back to one of your original statements, the minority party ALWAYS demonizes the majority party, whether that means democrats attacking republicans (which is what we currently have) or republicans attacking democrats (the Clinton era and Carter era are two recent examples). If you want historical examples, look at the Lincoln era or the Roosevelt (FDR) era. It is unfortunate that this occurs, but it is unavoidable--after all, each party wants to appear better to the voters than the other, and it's always easier to criticize from the outside than the inside.

In closing, I want to share a quote which I find very relevant today. You may be surprised by the author:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Teddy Roosevelt, from the "Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

HONEY

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:23 PM

Drakon,

You have split this into black and white, as if there are only "good guys" and "bad guys" in your world. Furthermore, your posts indicate that you believe that since they are "the bad guys," by definition we must be "the good guys" -- and as such are incapable of doing bad ourselves.

You are arguing against my points as if I ascribe to that same immature 'philosophy' and your stance boils down to a belief that I am taking the side of the "bad guys." This greatly misrepresents what I've said. By taking this stance, you have missed entirely everything that I've tried to convey to you.

I attempted to bring this conversation with you to a slightly more intelligent level, but I've obviously failed. Since apparently we're down to beating a dead horse, I won't be discussing this with you any further.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:56 PM

My, you ARE in a pissy mood today, aren't you?

Drakon, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking- "Well, everybody KNOWS what we mean when we say !"

There are two things about your posts that are seriously flawed:

a) You use emotive, abstract words in different contexts without explaining what you mean. When I ask you to explain or define the basis, the core, the absolute fundamentals or your viewpoint, enshrined in YOUR WORDS, you can't be bothered. It's "nitpicking".

I'll point out an example further down of your uses of the words "free" and "freedom" and show you why I don't undersdtand what you mean.

b) You CONSISTENTLY use the word "we" in place of "I". There's a lot of interesting psychological things I could say about that, but I'm not going to. Suffice it to say that you really should excise that word out of your postings unless you really have a specific "we" in mind. You're certainly not representing me- so who is this "we", kemosabe?

-------------------------------
Drakon's uses and implications of the words "free" and "freedom"

The reason being, is that people are free to associate and form whatever political parties they want.
= unconstrained by law or fear?

You don't mind having a strong military to protect and defend your rights and freedoms
= rights granted by law? (e.g privacy?)

Sometimes it is necessary to give up some freedom in order to not get killed.
= privacy? due process?

We give up the freedom to fire our guns indiscriminantly, but we all benefit by not getting shot by a stray bullet
= unconstrained by law or fear

You can try to maintain your freedoms while they are trying to kill you, but it doesn't work in the real world of suicide bombers and hijackers
= privacy? due process? religious rights?

Dead people ain't freeto do anything
= capable of (yes, I know, this was a rhetorical flourish)

but with terrorist attempting to use our freedoms and rights against us...
= privacy laws? due process? religous tolerance?

you are perfectly free to ignore them
=unconstrained by law or force?

OJ got off scott free
= unimprisoned, without due consequence

looking at each proposal individually, seeing how they affect security and freedom
= privacy? due process? ownership rights? freedom of expression? religious rights?

If freedom means the freedom to get blowed up
false choice

Look, people are free
= uncontrained? unimprisoned? have the right of privacy, due process, religious tolerance, right to vote....?

deny folks the freedom to do just that (rape, murder, talking in movies)
= uncontrained choice?

You appear to see freedom as an end unto itself. I see life and happiness as the end all of it all
= prosperity?

I am happier with less rules
= less rules?

They know that democracy and freedom is their death knell
= democracy?

you would be one of the first to complain if one of these terrorists were set free
= unimprisoned

what we got going here, in terms of rights, freedoms and the like as a pretty good and workable system
=???

----------------------

You appear to several definitions of FREEDOM.

a) not in prison
b) without constraint by law, lawless
c) without constraint by force or fear
c) rights granted by law (eg.privacy,due process)
d) democracy
e) capability
f) prosperity

So, when you say "People [in Iraq] are free" what do you mean? "People" in Iraq are certainly still in prison. "Due process" wasn't recognized by the USA occupation (see Abu Ghraib). Iraqis have not yet had a chance to vote for their government, are fearful of rampant lawlessness, and suffer from intolerable unemployment rate. They have an interim consitution, but over 100 edicts from the CPA (which, among other things, limits taxation on foreign companies and allows 100% ownership of previously nationalized resources- such as oil and water).

What I would say is that the

HJERMSTED

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:19 PM

I think the U.S. should seriously explore the idea of Majority Preferential Voting.

In that scheme, when voting for an executive position (ie, President, Governor, Mayor, etc), the voter chooses their candidates in order of preference.

For example, in 2000 my ballot would have looked like this:

1. Ralph Nader
2. Al Gore
3. Donald Duck
4. etc.

After the first tally of votes, if no candidate had achieved more than 50% of the vote, all ballots where the number one slot was filled in with a non-major candidate (let's say all those who received less than 5% of the vote) would have line one scratched and line two would become the vote from that ballot. You keep doing this, moving down the list as necessary until you have a candidate with a clear majority. This method is also referred to as the Automatic Run-off Ballot or something like that.

It's NOT a complex system. What it IS is a far more democratic system than the winner-take-all electoral college method. Majority Preferential Voting elects leaders that more accurately reflect the actual (not supposed) desires of the people. It also allows people to vote for their third party choices without fear and/or intimidation from the main two parties.

I believe I read that New Zealand actually elects their leader this way (any Kiwi Browncoats out there who can verify this?).

If we citizens truly wish to allow third parties to influence our Congressional bodies, we need to look into a Proportional Representation system which is a bit more complex. In a Prop. Rep. system, districts vote for parties not candidates. The parties are rewarded seats proportional to their election results (get 5% or more of the vote... receive 5% or more of the seats in congress or the state house, etc.). The parties then hold conventions and decide who to send, a process the average citizen can also participate in if they stay involved with their party after election day. When in effect, a multi-party congressional body would need to form coalitions and share ideas to pass legislation.

Since I'm ranting... (sorry!)... I'll also add that I think it's loooooong overdue that we have Binding National Referendums in the U.S. I, for one, would have LOVED to vote "No!" on NAFTA before our short-sighted politicians signed our nation up for that.

I would limit national referendums so as to NOT include the ability for the citizenry to take away existing or theoretical constitutional guarantees (as Bush & Co. are now trying to with the derisive defense of marriage amendment). However, if we citizens so chose to give ourselves MORE freedom (short of legalizing violence) I am not opposed to that. I would love to see guaranteed universal healthcare put up for referendum in my lifetime. The U.S. is so far behind the rest of the industrialized world on that score that it is embarassing.

Finally:
* We need to minimize the influence/importance of the Electoral College if not outright abolish it.
* We need to make legislative "riders" illegal. Too many sinister changes are making their way into law via such riders.

The tools for building a better U.S. are out there... the test run / experimental phases of such changes were conducted (thankfully, some would say) by braver nations than ours... and the successes are on record along with the pitfalls.

Trying nothing new here in the "envy of the world" (yeah, right!) is, I'm afraid no longer an option.

Okay, I'm done rambling.

Stay gold! Keep Flying!

mattro

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:08 AM

SigynM: Well having to deal with pseudo intellectuals like yourself for too long, its bound to put folks in a pissy mood as you describe it. I have written at length, even in this tread, enough that seems to me would make that meaning clear to anyone who is an English speaker, and has half a brain. Or who is not playing some BS word game and really trying to understand what I am saying. I answered your questions for a while, until it just simply got too ridiculous any more.

You don't know the meaning of life. Not in any philosophic context, but the meaning of the bloody word "life". Now tell me again this is any kind of honest attempt on your part to understand what is said. And I leave it up to you to convince me that this is not some silly little game you are playing.

As for your psychological comments about my use of the word "we", I doubt very much that you are alone in your views, just as I am not alone in mine. I represent a side in this debate. Just as you represent a side. So thanks for you "concern", but again, I figured that it was something too simple to dwell on, and that someone so intelligent as yourself, would understand it all too quickly.

Yes I lost my temper. The stupidity pretending to be wisdom on display by your side is maddening. The arrogance that can not even tell the difference between a cup and a bowl, or who sees everything as shades of grey, and attempts to pass this off as somehow useful, it is bothersome.

I can be bothered if I even suspected you were listening. But you weren't. You just want to play silly little games, trying to show off that superior intellect of yours. It didn't work and I called you on it. Forcefully, and probably impolitely, but that is life.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Drakon,

You have split this into black and white, as if there are only "good guys" and "bad guys" in your world. Furthermore, your posts indicate that you believe that since they are "the bad guys," by definition we must be "the good guys" -- and as such are incapable of doing bad ourselves.

Sigh... This is a perfect example of why I was in a "pissy mood" this morning.

Yes, i have broken it down to bad guys and good guys. Call me daft but I think killing 3,000 people by crashing airlines into skyscrapers is a bad thing. To me that is a very black and white issue. Why more folks cannot grasp that, I have no clue. It has nothing to do with who is what, or even what we are capable of. It does have to do with what we do with that capability.

Have their been bad things that happen? Yes, its war. Bad things happen in war. But I look at all the charges, accusations, ankle biting trivia, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no moral equivalence here. Feeding someone feet first into a plastics shredder is a bad thing to do to another person, generally speaking. Hooking up electrodes to a body and threatening to pull the switch, may not be good, but is still far better than the first example. Court marshalling the folks who ran Abu Ghraib still makes us better than those who ran the prison before. And ignoring all of the good that came about from removing Saddam, some of it still unfolding as we speak, to consentrate on what will be little more than a minor footnote, I don't see as a useful exercise.

Quote:
You are arguing against my points as if I ascribe to that same immature 'philosophy' and your stance boils down to a belief that I am taking the side of the "bad guys." This greatly misrepresents what I've said. By taking this stance, you have missed entirely everything that I've tried to convey to you.

Well there seems to be a lot of that going about. Yes, I do see you as siding with the bad guys. I don't think that is your intentions, but it matters not. I doubt you even realize it. Actions have consequences and we don't get to pick and choose them. If those consequences end up bad, well, again, what you intended is irrelevant. And in this case, in this war, those consequences can be very bad indeed.

You worry about the rights of terrorist who want to kill us and don't mind dying in the process. Like a flock of lawyers is going to scare them out of committing their next atrocity. You seem oblivious to the fact that habeus corpus can negatively impact our ability to garner intelligence.

Home front morale, especially in a democracy is important as well. Democracies can vote, decide collectively whether to continue, or give up. As Vietnam proved, one can win militarily on the battlefield and have all those lives and resources wasted, if the public gives up on the war before the enemy does. The political left, not the North Vietnamese won that war, by convincing enough Americans to give up on South East Asia. And the words 'boat people' came into our lexicon.

When the French took over, there was no fleeing. And when the Japanese invaded during WW2, the Vietnamese did not run. But when the North finally invaded south Vietnam, and the US refused to lift a finger to help, that is when the vietnamese people started fleeing.

Only this time it isn't some far off Oriental country. Its here at home that we are fighting for. Our lives, our freedoms, our ability to have these discussions no matter how heated they may be.

Earlier the term baby killers was brought up, and you said nobody was doing that. And after I read your words, I read a story out of Seattle about a veteran wearing their medals during a 4th of July parade and getting exactly those terms and those remarks directed at him. I don't think you knew of it at the time, but still it is happening again.

You apparently fail to see how this constant harping on Abu Ghraib impacts all this. And I am at a loss to explain it any better than I have already.

I do quibble with

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TomSmeagol:
What bothers me is that you feel the need to belittle and demean EVERY single point that someone else makes if you don't agree with it. I've read many posts that use perfectly valid debate techniques which you've dismissed as being invalid arguments. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean their argument is invalid, Drakon.

Sigh.

I actually feel I have been more than patient here. And I see what I have done is arguing against their points, rather than 'belittling' them. Granted my last few posts have been a bit "pissy" but frankly I feel justified somewhat, considering the stuff that has been spewed my way.

Chalk it up to fatigue if you like. Trying to explain things to some people, who instead want to play word games, can be tiring.

Quote:
And going back to one of your original statements, the minority party ALWAYS demonizes the majority party, whether that means democrats attacking republicans (which is what we currently have) or republicans attacking democrats (the Clinton era and Carter era are two recent examples).

Funny, this was one of my original points. But I also think there is a reason why the minority party is the minority party, and that is they are not effectively convincing the American populace. I have read what they write, what they put out. And I can see why they are having difficulty, but it is apparent to me that many of them simply don't care.

Critisism is one thing, and can be a good thing. But that is not what we are getting here. We are not getting an honest debate, we are getting word games, charges, innuendo, ad hominum attacks. Even presenting a logical, if forceful, argument does not get the argument addressed, it gets the argument dismissed as 'belittling' (as just one example).

In Farenheit 911, one of the charges Moore makes is that the present administration smuggled out bin Ladan's relatives right after 9-11. Even putting aside factual errors concerning timing, or that Richard Clarke, no Bush lover, has claimed responsibility for those flights, there is a big problem with that charge.

I got a little brother. And when we were growing up, sometimes he would do something and I would get in trouble because of it. "Why didn't you stop him?" my mom would yell. And I am sure other sibling have had similar experiences.

But then my brother never killed 3,000 people in a single day.

With emotions the way they were shortly after 9-11, it is reasonable to assume that after the death and destruction of that day, some rather angry folks might not have been too discriminating as to which bin Ladan they lynched. And so, it seems prudent to get his relatives out of harms way as soon as possible. Yet this is taken as an example of something bad, something that should not have been done.

I don't know what Moore or his supporters would recommend, consentration camps and torturing them for information seems out. Allowing them to be lynched by an angry mob does not appeal to me either, and I doubt it would to most folks. So I am left with the fact that Moore is charging the Bush administration with preventing the lynching of folks whose only tie to 9-11 was an accident of birth. And this is supposedly a bad thing.

This is the kind of stuff I am dealing with here. It makes no sense. And before we dismiss Moore as someone who does not speak for the DNC, it should be noted that Congress shut down, so the Democrats in congress could go to Moore's film, that the chairman of the DNC embraces Moore and is quoted as "believing" Moores charges.

This cannot work out well for the Democrats. If the general perception of the Democratic party is that it is unpatriotic, it won't get elected. People are basically self interested, and are not going to vote people in power who give the impression that they do not like the electorate, think the populace is stupid, or would give any other nation a veto on our right to defend ourselves.

And that is probably the real danger involved. While I may be a Repub

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:55 AM

If someone tells you to go get the "cup", you're not likely to pick up a ladle, a pot, or a spoon. But what if there are Japanese teacups, coffee cups, and glasses all in one cupboard? Would you know what the other person was referring to? Probably not.

So what about words that are abstract- like "freedom"?? How can we have a conversation when we can't discuss what those words mean?

You've used the words "free" and "freedom" many times in different ways. You use it, you talk around it, you give examples (security, prison, tyranny) of its opposite or refer to what it produces (prosperity) but you've never defined it. I don't think you can. I think you're challenged by the very thought. I think you use words... like "we" and "people" and "life" AND "cup" ... unconsciously, presuming a consensus that doesn't exist.

I used the word "life" simply as an example, like the word "cup". I KNOW the meaning of "life" (BTW, I meant "life" not "human life"). I also know that there are examples where the definition breaks down. (What about viruses? What about prions? What about mycoplasma?) Recognizing that definitions have limits doesn't mean wiping out all distinctions. (There's that either/or thinking again!) It simply recognizes that the universe doesn't conveniently fit itself into our neat little mental boxes.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:14 AM

umm.. define the word "spewed" and explain if, and how, it pertains to me.

heh heh heh

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

DRAKON

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So what about words that are abstract- like "freedom"?? How can we have a conversation when we can't discuss what those words mean?

I really wish you would drop the act. If you don't know what a word means, pick up a dictionary.

But you see, I doubt your sincerity here and that is your real problem. Since we are talking about simple words, common every day words that I doubt you have not heard, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what I mean. You are playing a game here, and I have called you on it.

Considering my rather long winded response, and your position on "shades of grey" thinking, (or rather the lack of thinking brought about by employing this concept), I see this for what it is, an attempt to prove your point by acting like you are confused by the meaning of simple english words.

And I believe I made this clear. But I do thank you in one respect, for proving the flaws in exactly that manner of thinking. You are stuck, confused by simple words, unable to move forward, or make any kind of decision, or come to any resolution. Whether you believe I can or not, well, considering you confusion over such simple words, it is unimportant to me, and becomes less so the more you continue with this game of yours.

And since in politics, the welding of political power requires making decisions, you are proving better than I can just why folks who think like you should never be elected to office. Indecision is effectively a decision, with its own consequences, but one is less able to figure out beforehand what those consequences are. So much for your vaunted "shades of grey."

Perhaps this is what passes for clever in your circles, pretending to be an idiot. Fortunately, I don't travel in such circles. It just doesn't work with me, and I have no desire to play. You will have to inflict this on others instead.

I understand quite well the differences between the map and the territory, and that mental constructs such as memes, ideas and concepts are just that, maps, not the territory they describe. But the purpose of a map is to aid you to get where you want to go. A blank piece of paper is useless as a map, especially if it is all grey. You've illustrated that perfectly, and are bogged down in the meaning of the individual words, pretending to be the fool, and refusing to even make the attempt to address the issues at hand.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:42 AM

I'm not sure how we got here from there. But here's my summation of the responses to my original question. Drakon has proposed that members of the political party not in power demonize members of the political party in power because they feel helplessness and frustration. SPLibertarian has proposed that demonization is more a smoke screen put out by both sides to accentuate false differences and mask the similarities. (I hope that I have summed this up accurately). I tend to lean more towards SPLibertarian's explanation simply because I feel Drakon has only captured a portion of the demonization. For Drakon's explanation to be correct, we should have only seen demonization coming from the Republicans during the Clinton administration and demonization coming from the Democracts during the Bush administration. But from my perspective I have seen no real change in who is doing the demonizing. Liberal and neo-con are both used as swear words. People on all sides are throwing out the label "traitor" (which, in my mind, is a sure sign of demonization). Hell, this thread is headed in that general direction.

So that's what I've gleaned from this discussion in regards to the original question. Two answers is better than one, but not as good as three . Thanks all.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:51 PM

But you see Drakon, I can and do make decisions, and my decisions are usually pretty damn good. My colleagues- who are themselves quite astute and politically aware, who come from all over the world and have done everthing from invading Iraq to having been jailed in Ethiopia as a student revolutionary - respect my views because I've predicted things that they didn't see.

We DON'T use words like "freedom" in our discussions. It means too many different things to different cultures and viewpoints. If you had simply said "We'll have to give up some privacy to fight terrorism" then we could have discussed what kinds of privacies and how much and whether it was likely to work.

Words create "things". In cultures where the counting system is "one- two- three- many" a hundred and a billion are the same "thing". Words are important. If you don't define them they'll define you.

Semantics aside, let's look at your logic.

Quote:
With emotions the way they were shortly after 9-11, it is reasonable to assume that after the death and destruction of that day, some rather angry folks might not have been too discriminating as to which bin Ladan they lynched. And so, it seems prudent to get his relatives out of harms way as soon as possible. Yet this is taken as an example of something bad, something that should not have been done.

Are you telling us that it would have been impossible for the Bush administration to hold 1200 people in protective custody??? If the administration is truly that incompetent, how do you suppose they can protect us from terrorists? You pose false "either-or" choices, Drakon. You live in a very little, urgent world full of extreme -and mostly irrelevant - choices and it's going to drive you crazy if you're not careful.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:38 PM

OK< so now that I have a wee bit more time, I'm going to lay something in your head that should keep you awake at night.

Because of my DOD project I'm in touch with the coordinator of our highly populated county's anti-terrorism hazmat units. FYI they (and we) are seriously - very seriously- gearing up for the run-up to elections. One of the things that hasn't been banged out yet is the political reponse to a terror attack just before or during elections. What would George W do? Declare martial law? Invalidate the elections? Go with a 10% turnout?

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:55 AM

Well, so far no answer from Drakon.

WHAAAAAAHHH!!!

RUE

Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:12 AM

SignyM:
I get to this board for an hour or two maybe once every 10 days, on average. I really, and I mean really, don't have much time for postings from Drakon et al. So I am puzzled by, but admire, the fact that you seem to take these things at face value.

I just recently read Drakon's newest posts and I did get a sort-of frantic, manic underlying mindset. Either 'THIS' OR ALL HELL'S GONNA BREAK LOOSE ! Patriot Act or DOOM! Invade Iraq or FACE DEATH ! And sometimes it was in nearly these words. I hope Drakon doesn't take offense, but it seems uncomfortable.

HONEY

Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:49 AM

Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

Just sayin'. Look into it.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:51 AM

Sometimes Drakon doesn't come back for a day or two. I really really want to talk to that guy.

I mean, I'm trying my darndest to have a decent discussion- I'm really being fair and honest about my questions and Drakon just thinks I'm playing games!

RUE

Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:56 AM

Drakon:

"One side says at conception. The other side, well, I am not really sure."

I don't think the question here is where is the beginning of 'life'. An egg is 'alive' and a sperm is 'alive'. It is the old 'life generates life concept.' I think you are trying to get at where does a human individual come into existance.

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html
"The first 3 weeks are the most hazardous periods in your life. Roughly one third to one half of all fertilized zygotes never make it beyond this point."

Sometimes a placenta forms and an incipient fetus just - doesn't happen. I don't think you would consider a placenta a person, but in your scheme, while a single-celled fertilized egg is fully human, a later placenta is not. That is a self-contradictory definition.

On the other hand you said "You are either alive, or dead. You ... still have a functioning brain, as determinable externally .."

Why not apply the same definition (functioning brain) to 'human' life at both ends?

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

Just sayin'. Look into it.

Your last post, Honey, gets at the heart of what I find fascinating about this thread and Drakon's contribution. To me his argument is really the embodiment of demonization, which is to say polarization, which is to say thinking always in terms of black and white. I'm thinking that Drakon's argument is really a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalism is characterized by very strict definitions that the fundamentalist doesn't think are strict at all because, to him, that's just the way things are. Fundamentalists have a very mystified idea of all those words that Signy wants him to define. They mean what they mean, everybody knows that--everybody who isn't dumb, or mental, or playing word games.

When Soupcatcher started this thread I was really excited about the discussion, 'cause I'd been thinking a lot about that very issue. I gave myself a few days to think about what I had to offer, but by that time the dualism debate had already taken hold.

One of the things I wanted to discuss on the topic of demonization was the issue of projection. We tend to demonize others and condemn them for precisely the qualities we dislike and fear in ourselves. We say, "It's not my problem, it's THEM, THEM, THEM!" Captain Ahab says, "It's that darn whale, he ruined my life!"

So I was thinking: What is it that liberals are busy disowning about themselves and projecting onto conservatives? And what do the conservatives deny in themselves and blame the liberals for?

What came to mind were hate and naivete. The lefties are nothing if not kind and gentle and compassionate, aren't they? And if you call a conservative naive, he'll just laugh and blow smoke in your face, right?

After 9/11 the left really pushed their own agressive rage way way down, and projected it on the right. I think that fueled a lot of the whole, "We deserved it" rhetoric that was flying around before a lot of the families in New York even knew if their loved ones were still alive. It was spooky. So I think a lot of formerly left leaning folk out there kinda moved away from the left. They felt their rage and owned it instead of burrying it and a lot of them supported the "War on Terror" because it spoke to them.

What I keep hearing very loudly and often from the right is that liberals "LIVE IN A FANTASY WORLD!!!" But at the same time, and to a larger and larger degree it seems, the right live in the imagination of their President. If Bush says it, it must be true. Period. I don't hear a lot of rightwing skepticism about the right. Even Denise Miller, snarkiest man on Planet Earth, doesn't have a mean thing to say about George! But without skepticism we lose our ability to discern truth from illusion and are likely to swallow anything our trusted source hands us.

So we get liberals who are full of rage and painfully naive conservatives. Hijinks ensue...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:52 AM

I don't know about BPD. "But everybody KNOWS what we mean by...!" and "Just because I can't argue as well as you doesn't mean I'm wrong!" were my favorite phrases.

My views were heartfelt (still are) and thought out but unconscious because nobody had challenged them. I was missing insight by lack of contrast. And when someone reduces what you thought were irreducible assumptions, the basis of your entire outlook, well, it's just a very uncomfortable place to be!

That's why I really want to talk to Drakon. He (I presume "he") has obviously thought for a long time about a lot of things, and believes and feels deeply. But he's also too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing.

PURPLEBELLY

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
He (I presume "he")

No. Really? How can that be?

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:07 AM

heh heh heh

Well, either you're sleepless in Seattle or in a very different part of the world!

But I've had people trying to figure out my gender before and many have guessed wrong, so in MY mind it's always an open question until somebody declares, shows a pic, and attaches biometric data including gene sequencing! And even then I'm not sure!!!

So, where ARE you?

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm not sure how we got here from there. But here's my summation of the responses to my original question. Drakon has proposed that members of the political party not in power demonize members of the political party in power because they feel helplessness and frustration. SPLibertarian has proposed that demonization is more a smoke screen put out by both sides to accentuate false differences and mask the similarities. (I hope that I have summed this up accurately). I tend to lean more towards SPLibertarian's explanation simply because I feel Drakon has only captured a portion of the demonization. For Drakon's explanation to be correct, we should have only seen demonization coming from the Republicans during the Clinton administration and demonization coming from the Democracts during the Bush administration. But from my perspective I have seen no real change in who is doing the demonizing. Liberal and neo-con are both used as swear words. People on all sides are throwing out the label "traitor" (which, in my mind, is a sure sign of demonization). Hell, this thread is headed in that general direction.

I see a difference in hte demonization. And since you brought up the word traitor...

I have seen this applied two ways toward the minority party. The first way is consistent with the definition in the Constitution, aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. Some folks see what the left is doing as trying to weaken us, inhibit our effectiveness in fighting against the terrorists and jihadis, get us to give up, appease, or in some other way, simply not fight those who would kill us. If someone is trying to kill you, and you don't stop them, they win and you are dead.

Its like the old saying goes, For evil to prevail, all good people have to do is nothing. Or the riddle of steel from the Conan movies, Steel is nothing compared to the hand that welds it. If the hand refuses to weld it, the weapon ain't going to do a bit of good.

Intentions, motiviations, perceptions, none of that mental stuff matters. Its what consequences of the actions generate that counts, that makes it treason, even if the person does not intend it to be.

The other way its been used is by looking at liberal rhetoric over, well, its history. We see stuff about how the little guys, the proletariat, and peasants should rule their own destinies and not be under the thumb of some aristocracy (whether its a spiritual, military, or hereditary aristocracy is largely irrelevant.) The general idea that is there should be no aristocracy who has too much power over the rest of the populace.

Back in 1998, Congress passed, and Clinton signed a resolution that made regime change in Iraq the offical policy of the US government. At that time, Saddam had tossed out the UN weapons inspectors, and shot at US planes attempting to enforce the no fly zones. After the first Gulf war, the Shi'ia and the Kurds attempted to get rid of Saddam, but failed and were slaughtered en mass. The mass graves that have been uncovered are a testiment to that effort.

The fact that liberals and the left cannot support Bush's reasons for this latest effort in Iraq is hardly surprising. But the fact they can find NO reason, even reasons with what we are told are their own principles, that is far more disturbing. It gives the appearance that todays liberals are not for the liberation of the Iraqi people. It gives the appearance that liberals have betrayed their principles, committed treason against themselves and their own ideal.

Again the reasons for their disapproval is not that important. (The change from 1998 to now is curious, but also irrelevant) The effect of their policies would be to leave Saddam in power. With the economic sanctions weakening, with Saddam turning the UN Oil for Food program into an Oil for Palaces and Weapons program, (with the aid of bribed UN officals) it is easy to see where that would leave the state of the world, and the Iraqi people. With Saddams ties to various terrorist organ

CAPNHARBATKIN

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:21 AM

Sorry for jumping in so late here.

I've just spent 2 hours reading and considering this thread and I have a real problem with Drakon stating things over and over and over again as facts with no offered proof.

I can't believe no one has called him on any of the dozens of unsupported assertions he's made. I'll just take two around the prison scandal as a start...

Drakon's Assertion:
"Second, again we are talking about bad guys, folks who have gassed Kurds, killed both civilian Iraqis and US troops, terrorists and thugs. "

My offered evidence that this is not true:

" Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian."
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html)

"Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-our-view_x.
htm

Drakon's Assertion:
"...this was all being handled by the military courts long before we ever heard about it, or saw one picture"

My offered evidence that this is not true:

"Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media"

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php

(BTW: Gotta love that as a source!)

"Secretary Rumsfeld has clung so blindly to his own vision that even after the media began to publicize the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, he said last week that he had not yet read an official Army report on the Abu Ghraib abuses --- a report that had been completed in March."
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gbase/Gyrosite/Content?oid=oid%3A260
5

Drakon, you said in one of your posts that someone argued poorly. Where's your proof for your many, many assertions?

I love the topic and love some of the posts and I'm rationalizing that the lack of evidence means we're discussing philosophical issues but someone has to call you one your blantant BS.

I can't ready any more of this thread... I'm going to bed.

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just recently read Drakon's newest posts and I did get a sort-of frantic, manic underlying mindset. Either 'THIS' OR ALL HELL'S GONNA BREAK LOOSE ! Patriot Act or DOOM! Invade Iraq or FACE DEATH ! And sometimes it was in nearly these words. I hope Drakon doesn't take offense, but it seems uncomfortable.

The fact that it is unpleasant does not mean it is not an inaccurate perception of the reality we face.

All Hell did break loose on 9-11. And either we fight back, or things could get a LOT worse.

As for the Patriot act, having read it, I don't see anything in it that is much of a problem. The cops still need a warrent to do anything, such as "sneak and peak" searches, and the like. There is nothing in there that has not been a power of the government before, for organized crime cases and the like. The fact that these same tools are now applied to terrorist investigations, I don't see as a problem.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

CAPNHARBATKIN

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:26 AM

oh... almost forgot one more thing:

Quote:

Drakon:
Lets face facts. If we wanted to, we could end any problem with the Middle east in about an hour. We have the power to simply glass the entire area, kill every living thing from Morocco to the Indian border. We can, but we ain't done it yet. And I hope it never comes to that. But i do see situations where it might.

If that's your solution to END a problem, then I don't think any of us need to patronize you anymore with pseudo-intellectual discourse.

Now, how's about we get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

Just sayin'. Look into it.

Thanks for your "concern" but you have nothing to worry about. As far as maturity, if you an examples of what maturity is, I'll pass. Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me.

And accusing those who disagree with you of some sort of pyschological problem, to dismiss their views and their voice, well that does not strike me as too mature either. I think the term is "projection"

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
oh... almost forgot one more thing:

Quote:

Drakon:
Lets face facts. If we wanted to, we could end any problem with the Middle east in about an hour. We have the power to simply glass the entire area, kill every living thing from Morocco to the Indian border. We can, but we ain't done it yet. And I hope it never comes to that. But i do see situations where it might.

If that's your solution to END a problem, then I don't think any of us need to patronize you anymore with pseudo-intellectual discourse.

I think you misunderstand. It is within the capabilities of the US to do just that. What is lacking is the political will. I can see circumstances creating that will in the American public. Of us simply giving up on the Arab population, deciding that those who say that democracy and Islam are incompatible, (like al-Zarqiwi tells us) and since they pose a continuing danger to ourselves and our loved ones, we do what is necessary.

For something like 200 years, Carthage kept attacking Rome, invading the Roman Empire, and generally being a pain in the butt. Rome got fed up with it, and destroyed the city, killed or enslaved its population and dispersed the survivors throughout the empire. And salted the earth, so the city could never ever be rebuilt. It may have been brutal and repulsive and well I am sure you can come up with all sorts of negative descriptions. But one inarguable fact is that Carthage was never a problem again.

I don't want it to come to that. And I doubt you or anyone else does either. That is why the middle east is going to have to change. And soon too. Combine suicidal terrorist tactics with WMDs and you have a major problem. A few people can wreck death and destruction on a large population, on scales undreamed of in human history.

If the situation gets desperate enough, if the governments that use terrorism to deflect their population's anger away from their home grown problems don't change, it may create the will needed to commit such a horrible act. That is one reason why Iraq must succeed.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

PURPLEBELLY

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, where ARE you?

UK, border with France.
I'm here at lot lately because my Usenet feed's got slow, that's my story anywho.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/poetry/outloud/cope.shtml

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
To me his argument is really the embodiment of demonization, which is to say polarization, which is to say thinking always in terms of black and white. I'm thinking that Drakon's argument is really a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalism is characterized by very strict definitions that the fundamentalist doesn't think are strict at all because, to him, that's just the way things are. Fundamentalists have a very mystified idea of all those words that Signy wants him to define. They mean what they mean, everybody knows that--everybody who isn't dumb, or mental, or playing word games.

Being a fundamentalist would imply religion at some point wouldn't it? Not being religious, nor even Christian, I don't think it fits.

As far as words go, well, I do recognize they are symbolic representations of things. I do know the difference between rocks and the word "rocks". If I use a term in a non-standard fashion, I will define it. When I use them in the standard fashion, and get this "well what does the word 'life' mean?" stuff, well, thinking through all the possibilities, I have come to the conclusion that this was just some game that Signy was playing. He appears intelligent and an English speaker. So far I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise.

I don't see demonization as a product of polarization. There can be good faith disagreement as toward goals and means. Just because you have different ideas does not make you evil. At least that is my view. I see that some do not share that view.

Maybe we are talking different things here. I see demonization as ascribing immoral intentions and/or actions to the other party. Demons are evil. Demons destroy, make people miserable, and kill them. They make things worse. We assign values like "good" and "evil" to actions and intentions, sometimes based on some code of behavior. I prefer the consequentialist approach, the morality of the action is in its effects. It has fewer problems than other methods I have seen.

Quote:
What came to mind were hate and naivete. The lefties are nothing if not kind and gentle and compassionate, aren't they? And if you call a conservative naive, he'll just laugh and blow smoke in your face, right?

I don't think this is right. First off, there is an anti-intellectualism backlash that is growing amongst conservatives. We see that the liberals have taken over the colleges and universities. We get the impression that a lot of what they are producing as deep insight, is useless, ineffective. We see so called smart people hung up with definitions of simple words, wanting to argue them, instead of dealing with the real world problems. It is as if they have forgotten that the purpose of all this mental gymnastics is to aid folks in their daily lives, their constant interaction with the real, physical world. Conservatives prefer a more "common sense" approach.

As for the left, as opposed to liberal, that is a different story. It comes out of Marx's flawed economics, and how he thought the world should be run. Also a confusion he had, (which I think for its time is understandable. You have to remember that Marx did his writing at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when a lot of folks were leaving the farms and heading to factory jobs in the city.) of the new cultural structures that were emerging. He saw them as too much like the old system.

Marx saw the rising burgeious as essentially indistinguishable from the old style bi-polar class structure. He saw them as the new aristocracy, and the proletariat as the same as the peasant class of old. He saw capitalims as maintaining the same class structure as before, with folks who owned the land (and soemtimes the people) ruling, while the peasants toiled on.

Anyway, this is an abbreviated version, this is already too long by far. Essentially Marx did not think the class structure would last, or work for long. And he imagined a world where "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," workers par

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's why I really want to talk to Drakon. He (I presume "he") has obviously thought for a long time about a lot of things, and believes and feels deeply. But he's also too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing.

I am a he, last time I checked. And I have spent a lot of time on owl shift, and before that, midwatches in the Navy, where it is dull and boring (and thank goodness. Excitement means you are being shot at, or shooting. And with 16 nuclear missiles, you really don't want to do much shooting)

Why think about these things? Sooner or later you have to come to a conclusion, decide this is how the world works, and try it out. If you are wrong, you can see that, from the consequences of your actions. If they ain't what you expected, then you have a bug in your model, and you can fix it, based on new sensory data. And go on from there. If things work out, that is a pretty good indication you were right.

I see thinking as, well, the one thing humans have going for them. The way a lion has his strenght, or a cheeta his speed. Its a tool to help us survive as individuals and as a species. Off line simulation is far safer than doing things in the real world.

But, it can work against you. You get hung up in word games, or indecision for any reason, your jammed. The 'verse keeps rolling and you become unable to respond, to act. Usually this results in the 'verse running over the top of you, which ain't a lot of fun.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
Sorry for jumping in so late here.

I've just spent 2 hours reading and considering this thread and I have a real problem with Drakon stating things over and over and over again as facts with no offered proof.

I can't believe no one has called him on any of the dozens of unsupported assertions he's made. I'll just take two around the prison scandal as a start...

Drakon's Assertion:
"Second, again we are talking about bad guys, folks who have gassed Kurds, killed both civilian Iraqis and US troops, terrorists and thugs. "

My offered evidence that this is not true:

" Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian."
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html)

"Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-our-view_x.
htm

Thanks Capn, I know that a lot of what Drakon asserts as fact is bs, but as you've seen, his posts are soooooo very long and each one contains soooooo many outrageious details that it's hard to pick any one out. And URL's are not my strong suit.

So I've tried to approach the discussion in terms of principles. Besides, in my experience, discrediting someone's post and offering proof really just causes the discussion to go off in a "my sources can beat up your sources" kind of direction, you know?

So anyway, Drakon has said repeatedly that the liberal opposition to war with Iraq is inconsistant with the liberal sympathy for "the little guy." That a "true" liberal would support ouster of Saddam. Well, I hate to say it, but I think the reality of our situation is a little more complicated than Drakon would like.

Be advised: I'm gonna use a really wonkey, Oprafied analogy to make my point.

Okay. Say you live in an apartment house and right across the way lives a woman who's boyfriend beats her. You've seen the police over there more than once but you can tell that the woman refuses to press charges, so the boyfriend is never arrested. When the cops leave, he beats her all the more for calling the cops.

So you decide to be a hero. You go over there yourself and beat the living crap out of the boyfriend and tell him that if he ever comes back you'll kill him.

So right off the bat things start to get crazy. First off, this woman doesn't even thank you! I mean, you put your life on the line for her (okay, not really, you're a black belt in karate and the guy was drunk, but still!) You could see the look of relief on her face when you first came in and pulled her brutal boyfriend off of her, but she turns around and starts screaming at you to stop hurting her boyfriend and she jumps on you and starts smacking you around the head. Then, when you rebuild her coffee table which he broke and put in a new window that he punched out, she just glares at you, like you're some kind of invading army!

So you leave her alone to sort out her new life now that you've ousted her evil boyfriend.

Then what happens? First of all, her very oldfashioned family start coming by to berate her about not having a man. Her whole community rises up against her for being some kind of faithless wife. And before you know it, she's shacked up with a new abusive boyfriend. Now is this boyfriend worse than the old one, or better? Who knows?

What you do know, is that you were a short-sighted jackass to think you could barge into her life and change it without taking into account the long term issues and cultural sources of her problem.

This is why many of us could predict exactly what is going on in Iraq today, when the administration couldn't. And this is how a nice liberal person, with some knowledge of human

HONEY

Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:57 PM

HKCavalier wrote:
"So I was thinking: What is it that liberals are busy disowning about themselves and projecting onto conservatives? And what do the conservatives deny in themselves and blame the liberals for?"

Pathology is pathology, no matter what the political slant. No one party-leaning has a greater claim to it than the other. Not saying "all liberals" or "all conservatives" are pathological! Just some...

HONEY

Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:15 PM

Drakon wrote:
"Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me. "

You can't honestly believe that. I've stopped the discussion with you because you continue to mischaracterize my position -- as you have just done again. It's like banging my head against a wall -- it's only "mature" to figure out it ain't doing any good to discuss this with you and then quit doing it.

If anyone out there would like to discuss the actual facts and would like to figure out ways to salvage the situation so that we can reclaim the title of "good guys" honestly, please feel free to engage me in this thread or any other. Drakon, I am formally inviting you to not participate, due to your track record with me.

TOMSMEAGOL

Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:08 PM

I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Drakon--

Believe it or not, I'm going to start this post by defending you...

Quote:
Quote:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

And accusing those who disagree with you of some sort of pyschological problem, to dismiss their views and their voice, well that does not strike me as too mature either.

I agree. That was a very cheap shot and totally invalidated the original poster's criticism of you.

However, you also said in your reply...

Quote:
Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me.

Gee, Drakon, isn't that basically what you've been doing this entire time? That's a bit hypocritical of you, I'm afraid.

Quote:
For something like 200 years, Carthage kept attacking Rome, invading the Roman Empire, and generally being a pain in the butt. Rome got fed up with it, and destroyed the city, killed or enslaved its population and dispersed the survivors throughout the empire. And salted the earth, so the city could never ever be rebuilt. It may have been brutal and repulsive and well I am sure you can come up with all sorts of negative descriptions. But one inarguable fact is that Carthage was never a problem again.

That's true. Carthage wasn't a problem again. But does that make it right? If your brother constantly picks fights with you, destroys your belongings, and heaps non-stop verbal abuse upon you, does that mean you're justified to kill him so he won't do it anymore?

Quote:
I don't want it to come to that. And I doubt you or anyone else does either. That is why the middle east is going to have to change. And soon too. Combine suicidal terrorist tactics with WMDs and you have a major problem. A few people can wreck death and destruction on a large population, on scales undreamed of in human history.

I'm glad you don't want it to come to that. And I agree, WMD in the hands of terrorists is not a good thing.

Quote:
If the situation gets desperate enough, if the governments that use terrorism to deflect their population's anger away from their home grown problems don't change, it may create the will needed to commit such a horrible act. That is one reason why Iraq must succeed.

I disagree. I don't think we would ever devolve to mass genocide. If we did, we would be no different than Nazi Germany. And I agree that Iraq needs to succeed. I think we probably have very different definitions of success, but I agree that it would be wrong for us to allow it to fall into a state of chaos.

Quote:
First off, there is an anti-intellectualism backlash that is growing amongst conservatives. We see that the liberals have taken over the colleges and universities. We get the impression that a lot of what they are producing as deep insight, is useless, ineffective. We see so called smart people hung up with definitions of simple words, wanting to argue them, instead of dealing with the real world problems. It is as if they have forgotten that the purpose of all this mental gymnastics is to aid folks in their daily lives, their constant interaction with the real, physical world. Conservatives prefer a more "common sense" approach.

Anyway, That is a brief (no really) thumbnail of how some on our side see things. We see modern day lefties as confusing the political and cultural structures here in America as identical to the ones that have existed in Europe. Which leads them to think that American conservatives are trying to conserve the same things as European ones had in the past. Instead of a completely different paradigm. That misunderstanding also contributes to the demonization from the left. Which gives rise to the old saw about how liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are stupid.

I am not so sure. There are some (Hitchens comes to mind) on the left who

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:34 PM

Drakon, you spent far too much time with 16 nuclear warheads, thinking about horrible things with no reasonable feedback for your musings. I hope to God you still AREN'T babysitting those warheads 'cause friend, you need a change.

It's not the panic that in your posts that troubles me, or the fact that you blatantly mistake the facts. Everyone gets frightened (staring into the void too long will do that) and everyone makes mistakes. It's the "hamster on a hamster wheel" quality of your posts- you reiterate the same concerns over and over, impervious to either facts or logic. I can show you, point for point, where you're wrong and you'll turn around within two posts and reassert the same thing.

Am I concerned with the same things you are? YES, I AM. You're not the only one who thinks about security. I think about it a LOT. I was NOT AT ALL surprised by 9-11 because for the previous five years I'd breathed a sight of relief each year and think "Well, we ducked another one." I actually warned fellow bbxers about biowarfare just two weeks before the anthrax letters- a warning that got me followed by the FBI for a couple of days, seeing as how I am also a scientist. I would not be surprised about a radiological or chemical release in the upcoming months. (But I hope that doesn't happen! O'wise I'll be disappeared by Homeland Security!)

But I also realize that at the technical/ security end there's only so much the USA can do, unless we want to turn ourselves into a clone of Stalinist Russia. Even Israel can't deal 100% with the "Palestinian problem". I think it was the Shin Bet that stated the only ones who can stop Palestinian suicide bombings are the Palestinians themselves. The answer is not JUST more and better security because every security measure has a counter-measure.

Nobody here is arguing that we should just kick back and let terrorism continue. But what we need are EFFECTIVE tools against terrorism.

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TomSmeagol:
That's true. Carthage wasn't a problem again. But does that make it right? If your brother constantly picks fights with you, destroys your belongings, and heaps non-stop verbal abuse upon you, does that mean you're justified to kill him so he won't do it anymore?

I really hate saying this, but right or wrong ain't got nothing to do with it. It is a fact of nature, you put almost any life form in a desperate enough situation, they will fight back to the best of their ability, with anything and everything they got.

Look, I don't want that to happen any more than anyone else. But I can foresee it coming to that, if things get bad enough. That is one reason why success in Iraq is so important. It will prevent that kind of genocide. It will prove Zarqiwi wrong, that Islam and democracy are not incompatable, that their culture can be made less of a threat to us, without destroying it utterly.

What will it take to get there? I wish I could say. If someone told me 4 years ago that some folks would commit suicide by crashing planes into a skyscraper, killing thousands, I would have thought you were crazy, that nobody was that stupid or insane. I'd like to think I am wrong here, that no matter what happens, what atrocity is visited upon us, that it will never come to that. But again, I am not so confident as before. I have had that frightening sentiment expressed to me a number of times already.

Quote:
I disagree. I don't think we would ever devolve to mass genocide. If we did, we would be no different than Nazi Germany. And I agree that Iraq needs to succeed. I think we probably have very different definitions of success, but I agree that it would be wrong for us to allow it to fall into a state of chaos.

There would be one big difference. We would be alive, while Nazi Germany is still dead. And it would be justified as a matter of necessity. Everyone would hang their head, and cry about it. But in the end, it will be chalked up to, "well they shouldn't have started it."

Quote:
How are your statements above not in themselves demonization? You accuse the left of spouting hurtful and stereotypical rehtoric, yet you yourself use it as a "valid" argument.

In this piece, I was attempting only to describe what I see as a common perseption amongst conservatives. I was trying very hard not to make a judgement call here, but only describe the perception. That is the way a lot of us see things. And that perception is what you have to fight against, if you want to change it.

Now whether that perception matches reality, that is another topic for discussion. It was a bit simplified, and still rather long winded, but I think it is a more or less acurate picture how the political left and liberals are seen by conservatives in general.

Quote:
Contradict yourself much? How can you say first that it is OK to criticize the president (albeit if it's relevant and constructive) and yet later claim that it is wrong to ever criticize the president publically? And by the way, regardless of whether you think you're contradicting yourself or not, I happen to strongly disagree that the president is not open to criticism, even in a time of war. If the president does something that I feel is inappropriate or incorrect, I have the right as a citizen to disagree with him, even in a public place. If the framers of the constitution hadn't felt the same, they wouldn't have felt the need to include the first amendment.

Yes, you have every right to say whatever you want. That ain't the issue. Do you want to change things? Do you want to help? Do you want them to listen to you, or do you want to get blown off for any number of reasons?

You are not going to change anyone's mind against their will. You have to be persuasive. You have to give them the impression that you are not a moonbat, that you are not implicitly working for their destruction.

So whether it is your right or not, is immaterial. Some things work, some don't. And ain't no law going to ch

DRAKON

Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
(But I hope that doesn't happen! O'wise I'll be disappeared by Homeland Security!)

Grin, and I am the paranoid one.

You are having difficulty convincing me, partly because I've read Usama statements, and those of Zarqiwi, and others on the other side. You can do the same. They are on the web these days. Those guys want us dead, or in submission to their ideals of how life should be. Ideals that, well, I don't think I would survive long under. Probably most folks around here would not.

And I would strongly disagree that you have ever laid out any kind of point by point rebuttal. I have gotten plenty of snide comments, whining, and word games. But not really a whole lot in the way of argument, or logic.

Quote:
But I also realize that at the technical/ security end there's only so much the USA can do, unless we want to turn ourselves into a clone of Stalinist Russia. Even Israel can't deal 100% with the "Palestinian problem". I think it was the Shin Bet that stated the only ones who can stop Palestinian suicide bombings are the Palestinians themselves. The answer is not JUST more and better security because every security measure has a counter-measure.

There is one that does not have a counter measure. I have outlined it earlier. It is a horrible one, and one that I think you and I can agree we would not want to see happen.

You are right, they have to change. Israel's wall has proven pretty effective, but even a 90% percent drop in suicide attacks is not 100%. Now how do you bring about that change?

Quote:

Nobody here is arguing that we should just kick back and let terrorism continue. But what we need are EFFECTIVE tools against terrorism.

I agree completely. We already have one, but like I and others have said, we don't want to use it. We need more.

Which again is the reason why Iraq has to succeed as a democratic and free nation.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SIGNYM

Friday, July 16, 2004 1:51 AM

Ok, let's take a few points, starting at the most recent and moving backwards.

Quote:
I really hate saying this, but right or wrong ain't got nothing to do with it. It is a fact of nature, you put almost any life form in a desperate enough situation, they will fight back to the best of their ability, with anything and everything they got.... If someone told me 4 years ago that some folks would commit suicide by crashing planes into a skyscraper, killing thousands, I would have thought you were crazy, that nobody was that stupid or insane.

Two major points here. First of all, if you're as realistic as you say, didn't the WTC/ Embassy/ Cole bombings kind of clue you in to the fact that people out there really really hate us? Did you think that a 3000 mile ocean was going to stop them? I know about Sharia law, I was against "the mujahadeen" in Afghanistan when they were presented by the media as wonderful friends and fierce freedom fighters. I think most of the people in this thread are a damn sight smarter than you think. YES, people hate us. I AGREE, they will stop at nothing. NO, we wouldn't want to live their kind of life. So stop pointing and gibbering- WE KNOW ALREADY!

The other point-
"It is a fact of nature, you put almost any life form in a desperate enough situation, they will fight back to the best of their ability, with anything and everything they got."

So, I guess this means that terrorists are desperately fighting back with everything they got? No... wait... that's not supposed to apply to them... it only applies to us because we're the good guys.

The point is that you use one yardstick to measure "us" and another to measure "them".

Quote:
In this piece, I was attempting only to describe what I see as a common perseption amongst conservatives. I was trying very hard not to make a judgement call here, but only describe the perception. That is the way a lot of us (conservatives) see things. And that perception is what you have to fight against, if you want to change it...Do you want to change things? Do you want to help? Do you want them to listen to you, or do you want to get blown off for any number of reasons?

You assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Abrams, Bolton, and Rice share your views, that they give a crap about what either of us think, and that they will continue to be in power. Absent any that, why in hell would I even be worried about "helping" them?

RUE

Friday, July 16, 2004 2:01 AM

Summary of one topic

DRAKON (asserts binary nature of choices - offers limited examples)
In a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one. Life or death are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery ditto. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other.

SPLIBERTARIAN (disputes binary nature of choices, proposes existance of other choices )
Binary choices are a construct. By presenting an issue in an either/or manner, any other equally legitimate possibilities have already been discounted.

DRAKON (reasserts binary claim for life and death)
While life and death are binary choices, no matter how you want to deconstruct it, happiness is more of a spectrum.

HKCAVALIER (proposes mixed systems where several options/facets may exist simultaneously)
Happiness and misery are mutually exclusive? One doesn't have to take the bitter with the sweet? Is it taxes up or down or whose taxes go up or down? abortion: legal in all cases? legal after the second trimester? legal in cases of rape or incest? legal for minors as well as adults? legal without parental consent? an absolute, across-the-board ban on guns?

DRAKON (reasserts binary position, generalizes from personal)
You are either alive or dead. You are either happy [or not] Is overall the good worth the bad? That is my experience. I see them as simple. I do not see (a grey scale) as reflecting reality.

(dismisses and mischaracterizes the question)
Even admitting that the 'real question" is whose taxes, its still the same basic question here. Should they go up, or down

DRAKON (recites previous examples)
Taxes raised or lowered, overall it reduces back to a binary choice
(mischaracterizes the debate)
my opponent had not proven whether there were **not** binary issues but a different set of binary options

SPLIBERTARIAN (reiterates multiple choices)
binary question leaves out equally legitimate points [and] options have been artificially eliminated
the answers are often "worse" and "more worse", which leads me to look outside of the binary system

SIGNYM (characterizes either/or thinking, provides examples of alternatives)
Drakon, I think that your viewpoint is restricted by "either/ or" thinking. "But if the rules keep you from protecting and defending yourself" forcing the discussion into an "either/or" mode (you can have only protection OR freedom but not both)

DRAKON (defends binary as pragmatic and a way of divining 'fundamentals')
because I find it an effective means of living. Boiling problems down to as small as possible components, boiling issues and questions down to their fundamentals .....

And so on. Drakon, we are not internet-deaf. Shouting (more or less) the same thing over and over at us isn't going to help. We hear you. We are willing to discuss topics. But you seem to have nothing else beyond reasserting the same assertions, and offering the same tired examples. And also, mischaracterizing what other people say, 'demonizing' the opposition etc.

Part of the reason why you don't recognize grey is b/c you fudge it into the way you frame your either/or proposals. You 'weight' the choices. You select the balance point. And you select the time frame. In one case you will set the choice as 'any possible chance', in another case not. Your balance point changes between utility to further your own happiness to 'us winning', and other places in a vast territory. And you select between short-term goals, mid-term goals and long-term goals at whim.

Your 'binary process' in not binary (or digital), it's analogue. Only the conversion takes place so automatically in your head, you don't know it.

DRAKON

Friday, July 16, 2004 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Abrams, Bolton, and Rice share your views, that they give a crap about what either of us think, and that they will continue to be in power. Absent any that, why in hell would I even be worried about "helping" them?

This illustrates one of the big problems with the whole demonization thing. Whether you like it or not, they got the job now. And there is a pretty good chance they will end up with that job for the next four years. Recent polls indicate its still about a 50 50 split in the country, right now. You may end up stuck with them.

And if you approach your political opposition with this kind of attitude, no they won't care what you think. Whats more, you run the very real risk of shrinking your side's support, as people look at your views, and your manner of discussing them, and write them off. Is that what you want? You don't get the votes, you are going to be stuck with them. You keep up this demonization, folks will think your not quite right in the head, and that will not only discredit you, but your views and your political side. Then you won't get the votes.

And since they have the job, it comes back to which side you want to win. Not in November but in the war. You can help them do their job, and I think the answer is obvious why you would want to. That is if you are really concerned about the war.

You've tried to blow off my concerns as paranoia and fear earlier. There is still two craters in Manhatten that demostrate the rationality of my concern. So that does not work too well.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Friday, July 16, 2004 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Summary of one topic

DRAKON (asserts binary nature of choices - offers limited examples)
In a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one. Life or death are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery ditto. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other.

That is a pretty good summation. Its like the color of my car, which is green. Being green automatically excludes it from being red, blue, or any other color.

Quote:

Part of the reason why you don't recognize grey is b/c you fudge it into the way you frame your either/or proposals. You 'weight' the choices. You select the balance point. And you select the time frame. In one case you will set the choice as 'any possible chance', in another case not. Your balance point changes between utility to further your own happiness to 'us winning', and other places in a vast territory. And you select between short-term goals, mid-term goals and long-term goals at whim.

I don't think that is what I have done. I don't think I have mischaracterized anyone here, just called them as I see them. You missed a good chunk on the lack of utility inherent in this "shades of grey" thinking, which is the real problem. It locks up the decision loop. It prevents actions and ensures that you end up with unexpected consequences.

I know I am repeating myself, but since you did not bring this up in your summation, I thought it important to reinterate it again.

At some point, you have to have to choose, and in fact, even if you don't choose, that still has consequences just like the choices you do make. Getting stuck in this "shades of grey" thinking does not look like a good idea, does not look like an effective way of dealing with life's issues, big or small.

Besides which, it is the actions that have consequences. All the mental stuff (which is the cause of which action you take) is nice, it hopefully gets you where you want to go. But in the real world it don't mean a thing. If you flip the light switch, whether your intention or desire was to turn on the lights, does not matter. The lights come on.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SIGNYM

Friday, July 16, 2004 1:22 PM

Drakon, I have time for ONE comment right now:

Show me a single post where I blew you off as paranoid. Quote right here, or I start deducting credibility points.

FAW! I hate people who lie!

SIGNYM

Friday, July 16, 2004 2:59 PM

I'm going to add one thing to that post. Just so you realize that this isn't an open-ended challenge, I expect to see that post by Sunday noon Zulu time. Without that post, by your own black and white extreme way of looking at things, you either lied or you're incompetent to judge reality.

I'll get to those other points later today.

RUE

Friday, July 16, 2004 3:08 PM

You missed a good chunk on the lack of utility inherent in this "shades of grey" thinking, which is the real problem.

If I tried to control a system that way it would be unstable. There's a reason for things like potentiometers (and even their 'digital' equivalents.)

Proportional is a valid concept in 'the real world'.

In any case, I HAVE discussed various topics in great detail. But you just blow by that. (When DOES a human individual come into existance, Drakon?) So I'm back to my original assessment of you. This is not an 'oops' kind of thing, you deliberately disable honest discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, you and I have nothing to discuss.

SIGNYM

Friday, July 16, 2004 4:35 PM

WELL DANG, RUE! You bring up a good point and I'm kicking myself for not having seen it! After all, my SO is an electronics engineer who designs control and measurement systems for research, and you'd think that by now I would have proportional controllers and power supplies firmly fixed in my brain!

SIGNYM

Friday, July 16, 2004 7:35 PM

Ok, so continuing...

Quote:
This illustrates one of the big problems with the whole demonization thing. Whether you like it or not, they got the job now. And there is a pretty good chance they will end up with that job for the next four years. Recent polls indicate its still about a 50 50 split in the country, right now. You may end up stuck with them.

And if you approach your political opposition with this kind of attitude, no they won't care what you think. Whats more, you run the very real risk of shrinking your side's support, as people look at your views, and your manner of discussing them, and write them off. Is that what you want? You don't get the votes, you are going to be stuck with them. You keep up this demonization, folks will think your not quite right in the head, and that will not only discredit you, but your views and your political side. Then you won't get the votes.

I'm going to take this conversation sideways. ASSUMING that all of YOUR assumptions are true- that Cheney et al want to make the world safe for Americans, that they give a fig about what you or I think, that "establishing democracy" in Iraq is an essential part of the plan ... How would you judge their effort so far? What should they have done differently, if anything? What would you tell them to do in the future? What would be your milestone or milestones? Would the first UN-observed election be OK, or would you be looking for evidence of a stable, self-sustaining democracy? The growth of a middle class?

--------------------

Not sharing your assumptions, your faith and trust in Cheney et al is the same as "demonization"??? Only a person who's wobbly in their faith would pull that kind of rhetorical horsesh*t. You can do better than that! Provide me with some evidence that Cheney et al are really on the side of the angels. PLEASE don't do it by pointing to Osama/Zarqawi and saying "It's either Cheney or DOOM!!!"

DRAKON

Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:45 AM

Since you and Rue, have already written off my ideas and opinions, what is the point of continuing?

So far, Iraqis are free of Saddam. That is a big plus. The costs of this war, I have to admit are far less than I expected, and despite operational constraints, and the constant ankle biting from some quarters, pretty good. Not excellent, nor perfect. Far better and quicker than reconstruction in Japan and Germany after WW2.

Al Sadr's uprising is gone, Iraqis are now producing more electricity than they did prior to the war, and are on their way to establishing a democracy. Yes there are still terrorist attacks, kidnappings and problems. But compared to the sucesses, pretty good.

Now, as for your point about "rhetorical horsesh*t". I am calling them as you present them to me. You might argue that you are doing the same. You don't think they care one whit about any of us, me, you, the Iraqis, or anything. You should explain how you come to this conclusion. Mind reading? You will have to explain how this is not demonization to me. Hopefully you can do it in a more civilized, less bullying tone.

Since you are employing the methods you are using in this debate, it is hard for me to take you seriously.. And your lack of civility, make me think that you are the one who is in an insecure position, as far as judging reality. If you had actual arguments, or logic, you could produce it. And leave the invective aside. But instead you demand, and threaten to write me off if you don't get what you want. When your very posts prove you have already done so.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE