Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
At 07:24 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, you wrote: reducing the actual number of non defense federal employees (for the 1st time since 1912) Of course, a large part of the increase in non-defense federal employees came from the nationalization of the air screeners industry, which is hardly a Bush proposal. Fah!! You call the wholly unneeded cavity searches that we are now undergoing a GOOD thing? I'm utterly bamboolzed as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my comments.I think that the TSA is woefully misguided in most things that they do, and in the particular context of the TSA swelling the ranks of fellow employees, you can hardly blame Bush for that one - that was an idea with its origins in the Democratic Party immediately following 9/11. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
At 02:07 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, Dr. Brin wrote: For example, that Bill Clinton's record was not just weirdly better - by classic CONSERVATIVE values - but diametrically opposite to George Bush's when it comes to: Your list would be far more persuasive if you had some outside definition of classic conservative values, rather than just your say-so. Instead, it seems like you are defining classic conservatism as political positions favored by David Brin, which is wholly unconvincing. [reducing] deficit spending paying off the national debt Of course, Bill Clinton's record on these things is only possible thanks to the efforts of Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm.If Bill Clinton's actual policies had been enacted over Republican opposition, this would not be the case. In other words, the above are as much Republican achievments of the 90's as they are Democratic achievments of the 90's. promoting small business Not sure what you are referring to here, or why government promotion of small business is classic conservatism? investing in research and conservation to reduce dependence on foreign oil This is classic conservatism, how? Actually, President Bush has proposed substantial increases in research on fuel cell technology. increasing (rather than demolishing) military readiness This is curious, since during the Kosovo War, I believe that the US military came within a few weeks of running out of cruise missiles.Bill Clinton's defense cuts (which made a great deal of your first two points possible as well), did not exactly leave the US military in the high state of readiness you portray it. reducing the actual number of non defense federal employees (for the 1st time since 1912) Of course, a large part of the increase in non-defense federal employees came from the nationalization of the air screeners industry, which is hardly a Bush proposal. reducing the number of words in federal law (the 1st time ever) Do you have a cite for that? winning foreign wars based upon competence, quickness and overwhelming power, with an exit strategy and smooth transfer of responsibility to allies This is classic conservatism, how? Based on what? And in any case, the transfer of responsibility to the allies has been occuring under Bush, not Clinton. avoiding unilateralism in favor of promoting overseas friendships and alliances that increase our influence in ways other than force This is classic conservatism, how?Is this what Barry Goldwater ran on in '64? appointment of moderate constructionalists to judicial positions based on recommendations by bipartisan panels of distinuished jurists and not based upon political connections or radical beliefs This is classic conservatism how? And in any case, aren't several of Bush's currently filibuster nominees recipients of highly qualified ratings from the liberal American Bar Association? But the significant point here is that these are all good old fashioned conservative positions that Barry Goldwater and Eisenhower would have had no trouble with. Now throw in moderate consensus matters like separating of church state etc... Out of curiosity, when did Eisenhower become a conservative?I don't think that he was exactly a devotee of the likes of Bill Buckley back in the day JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 10:11 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: However, I could find similar copies of the bill. This exception suffers from several flaws. It is limited to situations where the woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness or injury. This language excludes some life-threatening situations by enumerating others. Which such life-threatening situations are not covered by physical disorder, illness or injury? But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? Because this is a matter between a woman and her doctor? Aren't you forgetting someone?Let's rephrase your question for another era in American history: Why do you want to get the government involved in a person's disposition of his own private property? Slavery, after all, was explicitly protected by the Constitution (unlike abortion), and we had Supreme Court rulings affirming that slaves were property.So, why would you want to get the government involved in a person's disposition of his own property? If you are willing to believe that a slave is property, that logic makes perfect sense.Just as if you are willing to believe to children are property until they exit the bodies of their mothers, and therfore can be disposed of by the mother as she sees fit, then your logic probably makes sense to you. The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as sacred is a very important concept in our religion. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 10:30 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. and also wrote: At 10:22 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, you wrote: On 5/17/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. I disagree here. I think that would be illegal under Roe v. Wade which is more sophisticated than you think. You are again playing fast and loose with the facts by only referring to Roe vs. Wade, and neglecting Doe vs. Bolton, Casey vs. PP of PA, and Stenberg vs. Carhart. The pro-choice side, I have amply demonstrated, doesn't want any lines drawn - as we still have not had anyone able to take my challenge of identifying a *single* restriction on abortion supported by that side. Am I defining abortion as murder? Killing viable infants unless a finding has been made that the women's life is endangered is murder, it is not abortion. You said, life and not health. So, you agree that Stenberg vs. Carhart legalized murder in the United States? You are wrong and this is another false argument. The decision could not be made on the mental health of the mother but actual endangerment of the mother. It would also have to be an affirmative decision that the baby is endangering her life and it has come down to one or another. Not true. Stenberg vs. Carhart requires an exception for *health*, not *life*, including mental health. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Appeals to Emotion
At 10:44 AM 5/18/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: Dan, you seem to be of the sense that almost any excuse can be developed for a late-term abortion; it appears that Gary is of the opinion that this is not a correct interpretation of current abortion legislation. Clarigication: Gary is of the opinion that this is not a correct interpretation of current abortion jurisprudence. Thanks to the activist liberals on the Supreme Court, very little in regards to abortion is governed by legislation. As I cited in my previous message, he is playing fast and loose with the facts by only citing a single SCOTUS abortion case, when in fact the abortion jurisprudence is based upon several cases - including the case Doe vs. Bolton, which was decided concurrently with Roe vs. Wade. We also, of course, have the simple *facts* of the last 30+ years - in that no State has succeed in prohibiting third-trimester abortions. John -- you seem to be objecting to the possibility of a fetus being aborted near or at its due date; yet you seem to have overlooked the stats posted by Gary, which suggest that late-term abortions comprise one in every 25,000 current abortion procedures (0.004%, which is four in one hundred thousand, 4:100,000). That extreme rarity suggests to *me* that those procedures are genuinely undertaken in medical necessity, I disagree. Moreover, if the child in such a circumstance has a right to life, then giving legal sanction to even one such violation is one too many. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 09:47 PM 5/18/2005 EDT, Bob wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes human. The question is what human actually means. If the answer is homo sapiens its actually a rather easy question. Cleaver answer. It also has the advantage of being true. But the problem with all of this back and forth about when an embryo becomes a human or however you want call is that it attempts to assign an essential quality (human or not) to a process that is incremental. There is nothing essential about the process of a fetus becoming a human. It is a gradual incremental process that does not stop a birth but continues throughout life. As a scientist, I am sure that you agree that the unborn child is, in fact, homo sapiens. So, what you are really saying is that there are some humans who do not enjoy the protection of human rights. So, why are you so quick to defend an American legal system that extends the protection of human rights at the moment a child leaves the womb of his or her mother, with the intent of the mother? Or do you have other criteria for cases in which human rights should not be extended to certain humans? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:11 AM 5/19/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. This is a false statement. I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, and I do not believe that you can find a single Church document supporting that position. Indeed, the above statement is borderline offensive, as sacred is a very important concept in our religion. I believe you will find it in the canon of Monty Python. Can't believe nobody pointed that out yet. I didn't say so the first time because I figured 15 other people would. I am aware of where it is from. I am also pointing out that not only is it borderline offensive, but it is absolutely false. Unfortunately, even some Brin-L'ers have heard the dumb joke repeated so often that they have started believing it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and so on
At 04:45 PM 5/18/2005 -0500, you wrote: .and will be after I finish my analysis of economic data that will be rejected by JDG a priori. :-) No Dan, I won't reject it a priori. I will just predict your a priori that your conclusion will somehow manage to be Republican economic policies - bad; Democratic economic policies - good. ;-) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 12:31 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, Gary wrote: Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother? [snip] According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did not ban late term abortion. It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) Not true. From the law the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;: May I just point to in the case of a head-first presentation or do you to read the about six hundred pages of the legal decisions on this case? It seems to me that the law covered both potential types of delivery. A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to this. Why wasn't this the bill? As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion. And then it describes another procedure. I don't see how, the definition is very broad: `(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; ' The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence this was not so. Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? Well, at one point you argued to me that the procedure was not used often - only 0.004% of the time. Now you are arguing to me that it is often used for the medical health of the mother. That strikes me as inconsistent on your part, and I am wondering which is it. How about this - tell us under what conditions and at what stage of development would you permit abortion? Like Dan, I only support an abortion under similar legal circumstances to which the taking of a life would ordinarily be permitted. Direct and imminent threat to the life of the mother. My position on abortion stems directly from the simple truism that we all have a right to life. There are a range of religious and social lines that have been drawn. The Catholic Church official position is before insemination This is not the Catholic Church's position. The Church's theology on abortion and on contraception have a great number of differences between them. Suffice to say your characterization appears to say the Catholic Church's official position is to permit an abortion before insemination, which of course makes no sense. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:26 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I even made the question multiple choice! To use the language I used about war... there are plenty of liberals who have a moral presumption against abortion. There are plenty of liberals who know that it is a terrible and sad thing. There are plenty who are doing a great deal to make abortion rare. I believe those things. They are part of having a consistent ethic of life. Fine then, Nick, then answer the challenge!Name one type of abortion that Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to defend from restriction! Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -partial-birth/dilation and extraction abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability outside the womb should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited If you cannot come up with one, then I think that you owe Dan M. an apology for your completely over-the-top reaction to his statement that The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Either the standard liberal Democratic position has been to defend all abortions against restriction, or else it has been to support at least one restriction on abortion. By rights, Dan M. and I are giving you a gift by defining the standard liberal Democratic position in such extremist, absolutist, terms. To disprove this thesis, you need only provide one, single, example - so how about it?If this proposition is such extremist, strawman, hogwash, surely the one, measely example you need to demonstrate it as such is readily available to you, is it not? Now, hobgoblins, that's the conservatives' cue to tell me I'm living in a fantasy land if I think that abortion can be made rare. Pink unicorns and all that. What utter mularkey Nick. Or to use your language: Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the conservative position, nor much of anybody in within the conservative movement. What do you think that I and so many other pro-lifers are working for if not to make abortion rare???The central motivating ideal of pro-life conservatives is precisely that abortion can made rare! At 07:16 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced position here? No. Nice cheap-shot taken by stripping all of the relevant quotations out of your reply.Shall we review the parts you conveniently snipped? If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. Your message appears to make a fine distinction between defending all abortions vs. defending abortion. If that isn't nunaced - something along the lines of it depends what the meaning of 'is' is - then you have a very peculiar definition of nuanced. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:52 PM 5/17/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother? ALL Democrats IndependentsRepublicans Favor 57 53 56 65 Oppose 38 42 39 31 Don't know 5 5 5 4 Well down the page here: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Which makes it all the more extraordinary that a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senatevoted against the above law. both the House and Senatevoted against the above law. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm ?congress=108session=1vote=00051 http://womensissues.about.com/od/ partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth.htm And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the liberal Democrat variety. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 08:26 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: Fine then, Nick, then answer the challenge!Name one type of abortion that Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to defend from restriction! I named *all* types. You're still failing to make a distinction between defending abortion and defending the legality of abortion. But Nick, I don't think you have provided any evidence that your characterization of liberal Democratic views on abortion is more accurate than Dan M.'s. For example, if the standard liberal Democratic position is *not* to, as Dan M. put it, to defend all abortions - then surely these liberal Democrats believe that some abortions should not occur. And if they believe that some abortions should not occur, one would expect them to support restrictions on these abortions that should not occur. Yet, do you have any evidence of this? At this point, I am going to presume that you have conceded that the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose all of the restrictions I identified, as you have repeatedly declined to identify one for which the standard liberal Democratic position is to support that restriction - even though such identification would constitute proof of your original argument. So, Nick, if the standard liberal Democratic position is as you described, and not as Dan M. describe, then: -why is there standard opposition to mandatory waiting periods? -why is there standard opposition to letting doctors and hospitals refuse to provide abortions based on their own conscience? -why is there standard opposition to having minors notify a parent, guardian, or judge? -why is there standard opposition to a prohibition on partial birth/dilation and extraction abortions? -why is there standard opposition to a prohibition on abortions after the fetus is viable outside the womb? -why is there standard opposition to a prohibition on gender-selection abortions? If there is no explanation for the above, then Dan M.'s description of the standard liberal Democratic position would seem far, far, more accurate than whatever you seem to be arguing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 08:25 PM 5/17/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the liberal Democrat variety. But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. You're pulling a bait-and-switch, Doug.The poll question was for the bill passed by Congress over Democratic opposition. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 10:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted pregnancies. John, Before I respond to your other points, the above is clearly some kind of typo. I don't want to put words in your mouth - so would you care to make the correction you intend? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 08:46 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. Yes, such an abortion would be totally legal. And so just to be clear, the baby would be three days overdue, labor would be induced, and the skull of the baby would be punctured just before it emerges from the mother. This is legal in any case in which the woman claims that *not* doing this would endanger her mental health. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscapeToday
At 11:03 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: Abortion will never be rare until there are no unwanted pregnancies. John, Before I respond to your other points, the above is clearly some kind of typo. I don't want to put words in your mouth - so would you care to make the correction you intend? No, that's what I meant to say. Where's the typo? It's late here but I don't think I'm *that* tired. Another way of saying it is: As long as there are unwanted pregnancies there will be abortions. It's connecting rare to no. To me it would be at least plausible to say, Abortion will never be rare until unwanted pregnancies are rare. To me it seems completely implausible to say that Abortion can't be made rare until there are *no* unwanted pregnancies. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:00 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it in large part to the issue of moral values. This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the vote of the moral values voters. For the record, I didn't say that the reason for Democrats having these discussions was right - just identifying the elements of Conventional Wisdom that cause Democrats to have these discussions, and not Republicans Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. Again, not saying its right or wrong - but again identifying the CW. And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a pro-life Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. pro-choice Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only pro-life speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time But I did notice that you didn't have a sharp rebuttal for the above. At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also snipped. The bill passed by Congress contained an exception that the procedure may be used to save the life of the mother. In particular, it provides an exception for a partial-birth abortion necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c1085WUrim:: Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant women? As noted above, the law provided that government does *not* get involved in such decisions. But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 06:44 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. I have never heard that position offered**. Roe v. Wade doesn't support that position. Democratic platforms which I have read don't support that position. That position was established through Doe vs. Bolton, which was decided at the same time as Roe vs. Wide, and reinforced in Casey vs. PA and Stenberg v. Carhart. In particular, these cases specify that any restriction on abortion must contain a broad-based exception for the health of the mother. Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. I checked the Democratic Platforms from 1992 through 2004. Most of them included language to the effect that abortions should not be made more difficult to get. No platform included language saying that certain types or kinds of abortions should be restricted or regulated, let alone prohibited. This seems consistent with the proposition that Democrats support the legality of all abortions. This is especially true given that no restriction on abortion has ever garnered the support of a majority of Democrats in either house of Congress. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:19 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Garu wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -partial-birth/dilation and extraction abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. Yes, there do exist a handfull of pro-life Democrats, particularly at the State and Local level.The above restrictions, however, have never been supported by a majority of Democrats in either house of Congress. But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of argument in a slightly different context Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior? Conservative Republicans clearly do not always feel that way. When was the last time conservative Republicans proposed a new regulation for a behavior that primarily occurs in the bedroom? Perhaps we could use the same test you have proposed by examining past party platforms? You have correctly made an analogy. By using the word always, I merely need to find one example in which conservative Republicans have not felt that the government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior to disprove your thesis.In this case, conservative Republicans do not feel that the government belong in a bedroom regulating masturbation. We're still waiting for that one mere example needed to disprove Dan's thesis. Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a woman and her doctor on sexual matters? Can you point me to positions where these are not consistently supported by conservative Republicans? I can think of no example in which conservative Republicans have proposed a law that states that the government knows more than a doctor and a woman regarding sex.So, not only is it not consistently supported, there is no single example of it being supported. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The AmericanPolitical Landscape Today)
At 09:51 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Not you, Nick. Most Americans don't think God has an opinion on marginal tax rates, and most of those who do don't share yours. When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. In fairness Nick, what Gautam wrote is also my assessment of your positions. You seem to couch an awful lot of your political viewpoints in Christian terms. And I don't see much difference in couching positions on abortion or homosexuality in religious terms vs. couching positions on marginal tax rates or foreign policy in religious terms. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today)
At 07:52 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%). But the Pew Center seems to have arbitrarily assigned conservative Democrats to the left-leaning bloc, and further arbitrarily decided to come up with three groups for each of left, center, and right. For example, 80% of the Upbeats voted for Bush, but that group gets assigned to the center, rather than the right. If you correct for this and move conservative Democrats to the center and move Upbeats to the right, you reach much different conclusions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Etiquette Guidelines
In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -partial-birth/dilation and extraction abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited As long as we are dealing with extremist strawman hogwash here, I am sure that you'll have no problem identifying which of these restrictions is consistently supported by liberal Democrats - especially since I've given you a list of examples to get you started. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it in large part to the issue of moral values. Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a pro-life Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. pro-choice Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only pro-life speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Haven't you just made Dan's point?Liberal Democrats wouldn't even restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 03:29 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is viable. Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. Actually, Dan, Warren has a very valid point.Your definition would exclude several types of organisms from being biologically independent. Moreover, what you really mean is capable of being biologically separate. I don't think that the word independent really applies to newbies - even without considering the role of incubators, respirators, and IV's in the process. Moreover the entity is not actually separate until birth, what you really mean is being capable of separation. At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:02 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:19 -0400, JDG wrote At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Certainly if we change the question at hand to Have liberal Democrats supported legal restrictions on abortions, then your points would be relevant. However, we were discussing whether defend all abortions is a standard liberal Democratic position or not. If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:09 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. Well, Nick, here's my problem. Dan wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. And you responded very, very, forcefully with: Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Yet. you have now conceded that liberal Democrats defend all abortions from any legalized restriction - while at the same time holding that this is dramatically different from 'defending abortion.' Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced position here? I would also point out that the statement you agreed with used the phrase defend all abortions, which is the same phrasing Dan M. used in his original remark, and which you may perceive as being different from defneding abortion which you objected to in your most recent clarification. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:14 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote: I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Nick We already have. Kellogg-Briand, 1928. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. It was signed by, among other states, Germany, Japan, and Italy. I'd also point out that if we want to extend the analogy, that if something is considered to be undesiribale, but should still be available as a legal resort, then one generally supports restrictions on it. We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I even made the question multiple choice! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes human. The question is what human actually means. If the answer is homo sapiens its actually a rather easy question. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% And Nick Arnett wrote: Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Shirley, you can't be serious? The Pew numbers show that left-leaning or left-leaning/centrist/ unaffiliated is the mainstream, don't they? First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed that 17% was the mainstream. Secondly, it appears that the Pew Report rather arbitrarily grouped things into threes. If one considers Conservative Democrats to be part of the Moderate/Centrist bloc, the analysis changes quite dramatically. How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? I'm sure that much of it has to do prioritizing key issues. For example, many people would never vote for a pro-segregation candidate or a pro-baby-killing candidate, regardless of the candidates' views on other issues. On the other hand, I know that if an election were held in 2002, I would probably have voted for a pro-choice pro-Iraq-war candidate over a pro-life anti-Iraq-war candidate. So, in that sense, I would have voted for a candidate with whom I very fundamentally disagreed. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 03:26 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is good, but their intervention has been illegal and unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ do both. raises eyebrows Do you really live in such a black-and-white, either/or world? Who are you to tell me I shouldn't go ahead and act if I can't get agreement because somebody(s) being weaselly, when I see clearly that action is needed? Because you have apepared to argue on this list that the US should not have launched Gulf War II in part because it did not have international consensus behind us. They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. According to you. I did my best to stay on the right side of policy and law, but do you think that ANY physician practicing hasn't had to twist, finesse, or outright slip the system in order to get at least one of their patients needed care? But you appear to be lambasting the Bush Administration for doing precisely that! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day
At 01:13 PM 5/13/2005 -0700, Deborah wrote: I had no idea -- but must admit that I was disappointed by the recent unimpressive voting turnout by women. War, even necessary war, is antithetical to what we are taught as girls. Are you suggesting that there are inherent differences among the sexes? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:34 PM 5/12/2005 -0700,Nick Arnett wrote: Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Whose ranking? I said one of the top 5, because I think that it would be difficult to place Saddam Hussein's Iraq lower than 5 among the worst regimes on Earth. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that the DPRK or Zimbabwe is/are worse. After that, Iraq is in a mix with places like Turkmenistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, Togo, and Sudan.I think you'd be straining to place all of those as worse than Iraq, though, so Top 5 is about right. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 03:43 PM 5/12/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first- term/documents/1147.cfm In the elision represented above by [a] was the name of H. L. Hunt, the father of Ray Hunt, who was the finance chairman of the RNC Victory 2000 Committee, appointed by G. W. Bush. Their number may have been negligible in 1954 and they may have appeared to be stupid to the President, but they now are in power and believe that Jesus is telling them how to rule the world. *That* is a lesson that the Democrats had better learn and remember. Did you just accuse Christian politicians of proposing to abolish Social Security, unemployment benefits, labor laws, and farm programs??? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A dependable safety net (was Re: Social Security)
At 07:58 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: In a plan that creates a shortfall by moving money into private accounts, progressive indexing means that the the most needy of the needy will be hurt less than everyone else. If we were actually solving the problems of hunger, health care and education, then perhaps it would make sense to move our investment in Social Security, which is an investment in today's needy people, to private markets that might benefit future needy people if the investments perform well. But we're not; poverty, hunger and illiteracy are rising. First, that shortfall is only relevant if it causes the US to default on Social Security promises - which I think that you and I would both agree is extremely unlikely. Secondly, Social Security has no investments, so that's a bit of a non sequitur. Thirdly, Social Security it is inaccurate to describe Social Security as merely an investment in today's needy people. After all, Bill Gates is going to get a Social Security check. Moreover, Social Security provides some *increased* benefits based on having worked longer, or worked for higher wages, which I would expect to be inversely correlated to need. Lastly, your position as described above would lead to the logical conclusion that one should not save so long as there are needy people - that that money would be better spend on charity than on savings. I don't see anything wrong with using our common wealth and our government to provide assurance that there will be a dependable safety net. The question is not: Should there be a government safety net' The question is: Should the government construct policies such that as few people as possible need the safety net. Isn't that the very purpose of government -- to band together for the common good? What greater measure of the common good is there than the willingness to sacrifice for the neediest? That is one proposed measure - I believe by Galbraith. Another would be the Pareto Criterion - any policy which makes no one in the society worse off. Another would be the Pragmatic Criterion - the policy that does the most good for the most people. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, you wrote: Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Shirley, you can't be serious? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Pensions
At 10:29 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: And what happens if the company goes bankrupt? The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a company asset. The problem was not that the pension obligations went to other creditors (the employees were creditors after all). It was that the company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions. Wow, how surprising. It really all always comes back to bashing Republicans with you, doesn't it? First, we are talking about companies in bankruptcy.I find it very difficult to believe that everything would be hunky-dory if the company had just made even *more* payments in the past. Second, many of these funds are invested heavily in the company's own stock - perhaps not in the case of United - but it does exist, and this practice should be discontinued. Third, if the pension plan is based upon providing defined benefits, then these benefits are based upon the continued survival of the company. Again, if the company goes under, that is a huge risk for the employee. If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's tax cuts, Paying for tax cuts is a non-sequitur. It's all income transfer. No, it is not a transfer. It is the forgoing of income. What happened in reality is that taxes went from slightly progressive to virtually flat above, roughly, a 40k family income. This is another matter entirely from your original proposition that tax cuts must be paid.And why are you definiing progressivity here only in terms of payments and not in terms of payments and benefits, if that is the definition that you want to use? Social Security is also fully funded this year, so that is a non-sequitur as well. So, you are saying that Reagan lied to me, but it's no big deal? Surprise, surprise, it all comes back to bashing Republicans for you. What does Reagan have to do with anything here? Did Reagan make some sort of unique statement about Social Security that Democrats did not? Did the *data* cause you to just pull Reagan's name out of the dark here? And when did I say that anything is no big deal?Your comment is so snippy its hard to pick out exactly what the substance is here, but I am not aware of having ever said that much of anything in regards to Social Security is no big deal. Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive. You're playing word games. No. I just like to look at data. I would be very surprised to learn that you used *data* to define the concepts of progressive and regressive.Perhaps you have a source for this? A poor person making minimum wage is paying a 15.3% tax rate. A CEO making $22 million this year is paying a 0.06% tax rate. That's regressive under anybody's definition of economics. How much does the CEO as a fraction of what he pays? How much does the poor person get? I am presuming that the word get is missing after CEO. At any rate, what the CEO or the poor person gets does not factor into the definitions of progressive and regressive with which I am familiar. Otherwise, one could pass tax cuts for the rich and call them progressive! And heck, using your logic we could raise taxes on welfare recipients and call it progressive too - after all, they're *getting* more than rich people, are they not? You can see how this logic is a recipe for absurdity.It also does not change the fact that the tax burden for making government pension payments to retirees falls vastly disproporitionately on the working poor. And oh yeah, that CEO earning $22 million is going to get a taxpayer-funded check when he retires. And, if he didn't, the poor person would have gotten nothing. Look at how we look to cut Medicaid but expand Medicare. Programs that only favor the poor are on the bottom of the priority list. Mularkey.The CEO is making $22 million in a single year, and he is going to support Social Security because the government is going to write him a check for a couple thousand dollars a month when he retires You are surely kidding me. And if he didn't get this check, we would have *no* government program to support poor retirees??? So, by your logic, I can presume that you favored the Bush tax cuts, as cutting taxes for the rich surely builds support among the rich for helping the poor - without which we'd be leaving our grandparents to eat dog food JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 10:43 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. I'm thinking data are. We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data into what we already know is true. So, proposing absurd tests, like comparing economic growth during the Great Depression to economic growth during World War II is fitting theory to data??? To me it smacks of doing precisely the opposite, pigeon-holing the data to support what you already know to be true. That's the danger of baiting of people with proposed tests of validity when you already know the results of those tests - we can reasonably assume that you would not be proposing those tests if they directly contradicted your positions. The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years when they answer this. If most people thought the country was going in the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider things a lot better. I disagree. If the results of the survey had not supported my proposition, would it have been reasonable to assume that things are worse in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein?Or reasonable to assume that things are worse in Iraq than at some intermediate point in the past?I would think the latter. In fact, I think that is exactly what we see in comparing the poll following the formation of the new Iraqi government with the poll during the assault on Fallujah. Thus, even though the data arguably supports my position, I don't think that it is valid. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 09:09 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. I don't think it has to do with honesty in the everyday sense of the word. I'm at a loss to come up with a *measurable* way of showing that things are better in Iraq today than before we invaded. Come on Nick!I can't *believe* that I have to help you out with this. Either you are being dishonest about your ability to come up with one measurable thing, or you are woefully unable to see other points of view. Well, let me help you out: -number of political prisoners -number of people subjected to torture (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib) -number of people able to practice their religion freely -number of people able to petition their government for redresss of grievances -number of people who cast free ballots in the last election -number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing And I am sure you can come up with more. Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Pensions
To a rough approximation there are two fundamental aspects of economic security: income and savings. When a worker relies upon an employer's pension plan, that worker is essentially putting his or her savings nest egg in the same basket as his or her income egg, and handing the basket into the competent (or incompetent as the case may be) hands of his or hers managers.Pardon my bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very least, stupidly risky. (Although considering another significant aspect of our retirement system involves taxing the poor to write checks for the rich, employer pension plans may look almost sane by comparison. But I digress) To answer Bob's question, I don't think that the question is how can Congress make employer's pension plans illegal. No American worker should be duped into entrusting nearly his or her entire economic security - both income and savings - into the hands of the managers of a single corporation. Such a strategy is simply too risky, and given that the government is the ultimate insurer against catastrophic risk, that is simply an unfair risk for workers to be imposing upon the community. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
Dan M. wrote: Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results. :-) I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent of baiting?Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of Iraq. Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago. But, a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of Iraq is are things going in the right direction? I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor - though I don't know for sure.) The right direction question is inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that question would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the past week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Pensions
At 09:51 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Pardon my bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very least, stupidly risky. You know, back when I started working, it wasn't. And what happens if the company goes bankrupt? If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's tax cuts, Paying for tax cuts is a non-sequitur. Social Security is also fully funded this year, so that is a non-sequitur as well. Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive. You're playing word games. A poor person making minimum wage is paying a 15.3% tax rate. A CEO making $22 million this year is paying a 0.06% tax rate. That's regressive under anybody's definition of economics. And oh yeah, that CEO earning $22 million is going to get a taxpayer-funded check when he retires. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 04:43 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to either-or choices doesn't feed hungry people. The choice is between taking direct action to help people now, or taking indirect action that *might* work, or *might* buy the killers enough time to finish the job before anyone stops them. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 11:27 PM 5/11/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Are you of the opinion that American Foreign Policy is always led by selfless morality, or are there times when they too stoop to the level of the scummy French or the sneaky, dirty Germans, and do things where the self interest of the USA outweighs the moral thing to do? I would say that American Foreign Policy is almost always led by America's self-interest, and that there are only a few rare instances of American Foreign Policy being typified by selfless morality. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:56 AM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Does anybody have a measure by which life is better in Iraq today than it was before we invaded? Not only does anybody have such a measure, but I can state the precise person who does. You do. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 05:16 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Enlighten me, please. I've been thinking about this one a fair bit today. If it's not clear, I did mean quantitative measures, not qualitative things like Saddam is under arrest. I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. After all, you've spent a lot of time talking about honesty in the presentation of arguments, so I'll let you take this opportunity to be honest about the arguments of others. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. Oh, please. I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like to know if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up with it right now. You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before. If I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as to why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to any of that. Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. JDG - Its not difficult at all, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 12:05 PM 5/11/2005 +1000, you wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment to other people - people who have an interest in acting in an immoral fashion. All of the arguments you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact. We have many, many examples of different ways in which the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking have showed that moral concerns have little or no claim on their stated beliefs. Gautam, why is it that only other countries have self-interested agendas? Is it possible that now and then, America does too? I think it is, and that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second opinion. I don't know that Gautam has ever denied this. Indeed, he has explicitly made arguments referring to this - such as when he previously suggested that the War in Iraq was an instance in which America's self-interest and the selfless morally right thing coincided. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 03:26 PM 5/10/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The political cycle is thus irregular. Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Would you then, be happy with a comparison from 1920 to 1952? the number of recessions slightly favor the Republicans over that time. I think that you are responding to the point rather than the big picture. Honestly, I don't find any analyses of the type you are proposing to be at all particularly interesting. Indeed, I personally think that it is fundamentally unsound. In the above case, I was simply using a particular example to demonstrate this unsoundness. Addressing the single point, however, does not change the fundamental unsoundness. I've debated with myself as to whether or not you would take the above analysis seriously, or if you are just yanking my chain by being intentionally absurd. I'm going to presume that you are being serious, and so if I make a fool of myself by arguing against intentional absurdity then so be it. Maybe I should try to enumerate my objections in no particular order: 1) the analysis relies upon inherently small sample sizes. The revised analysis you propose would have a sample size of a single political cycle 2) economic growth is much more strongly determined by exogenous factors than the Party in the Presidency 3) the analysis makes no reference to actual policies, but instead only refers to arbitrary Party labels 4) the economic growth in one year is correlated to the economic growth in the previous year Moreover, even if economic growth were completely independent of the Party in the Presidency, if voters perceived the two to be correlated, this could create a de facto correlation. For example, a President who happened to be up for re-election in times of economic growth would be more likely to be re-elected Also, I can do a rigorous stochastic analysis of the year to year, two year to two year correlations, (and others you suggest) in order to see if your idea that one year's growth is strongly correlated to the previous years is valid. But, I don't want to take the time to do it, if you know you will dismiss results that contradict your viewpoint out of hand I'm very open to whatever data you care to submit. I'll admit that since the analsyis is being on %change, I might be surprised, and you might conclude that they data series is independent. Again, however, I think that you would be missing the big picture in your zeal to respond to the individual points. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 03:10 PM 5/6/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2005 23:58:34 -0400, JDG wrote By all the usual statistical tests, this model is very robust.And yet, every four years that same model is spectacularly wrong.And so, after each Presidential election the model is tweaked to account for the latest observation - all to no avail. Every four years the model's future predictions are invariably wrong. Then it is an excellent predictor, isn't it? If it were not, then it would be right half the time. ;-) Cute. Just in case I wasn't clear, though, the model predicts the two-party popular vote percentage, not the binary outcome. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 10:25 AM 5/6/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: So, to return to the original point, the data says that 8 out of 9 recession have occurred under Republican Presidencies. Do you believe that this is inherently significant? If you look at the policies that were undertaken by Democrats and Republicans, then I would expect recessions to be more likely, longer and worse when Republican economic techniques are used. Which policies and techniques are these?By what mechanism do these policies and techniques translate into recessions? One would expect a cycle to have periodicity that one doesn't really see here. Why would one expect the business cycle to have periodicity? But, when one asks the one obvious question about Republican vs. Democratic economic policy, one can use the statistics that are valid for asking 1 question, Not when the data set is so obviously flawed. If one reasonably expects that recessions are more-or-less exogenous, that is if on reasonably agrees that recessions are inavoidable in the long run, then one would expect them to be distributed independently of the Party in power. The fact that eight out of nine recessions happened to occur on one side of the ledger makes the eventual results a fait acompli - and in particular makes the growth extrapolations utterly meaningless. You earlier asserted that you would expect recessions to be milder under Democratic Presidencies - and yet, surely you would agree that there is no data to support this conjecture? Another important flaw is that economic growth for a given year is not an independent variable. It is serially correlated to the previous year's economic growth.Again, returning to your earlier assertion that you would expect recessions to be milder and expansions more robust under Democratic Presidencies - that suggests that what you are really looking at here is cycles. In which case, since World War II, we've only experienced three full political cycles - swings from Democrats to Republicans and backs (i.e. from the beginning of on Democratic Administration to the beginning of the first Democratic Administration following a Republican one.) Thus, I don't think that there is anywheres near enough data to run the type of analysis you are desiring. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 10:16 AM 5/5/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: His hypothesis is ... the political party with the Presidency would probably be somewhere just above sunspot activity ... Clearly, it is wrong. I think it is clearly nothing of the sort. The very premise of the analysis is too badly flawed to be at all usefull. And again, I note that there is no theoretical model to support the proposed conclusions. Put another way, Dan is right when he suggests that the economic policy of an administration is meaningful. I don't think that I disagreed that the economic policy of a Presidency is meaningful. Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The political cycle is thus irregular. Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your analysis is deeply flawed. On the other hand, if you believe that recessions are inevitable in the long run, then some sort of corrective is needed for the analysis. If so, what limits the economy? Economic growth is determined in part by population. I presume that you really mean per capita economic growth, which is primarily determined by the savings rate and productivity. For purposes of the current discussion, you can approximate long run per capita economic growth as the growth in productivity. In the long run, it is difficult to imagine how growth rates under Democratic Presidencies could outstrip productivity growth. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 10:24 PM 5/5/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your analysis is deeply flawed. This is one area where we differ. I believe that data come first, theory comes second. In Economics, the prevalence of spurious correlations makes that a dangerous paradigm.I won't say that no serious Economists follow that paradigm, but data mining is broadly looked upon with skepticism in Economics. One reason for this is that Economics relies heavily upon time-series data, and any two non-stationary time series will tend towards correlation over time. To give an example from another case of mixing Economics and Presidential Politics, there is a Economics professor - I believe at Yale - out there, who on a bit of lark constructed an Economic model that predicts the outcome of the two-way US Presidential race based upon economic factors. By all the usual statistical tests, this model is very robust.And yet, every four years that same model is spectacularly wrong.And so, after each Presidential election the model is tweaked to account for the latest observation - all to no avail. Every four years the model's future predictions are invariably wrong. So, to return to the original point, the data says that 8 out of 9 recession have occurred under Republican Presidencies. Do you believe that this is inherently significant? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:33 PM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. If that's true, then why did you single out Republicans for criticism? Moreover, if increased anti-poverty spending does not prevent poverty from increasing, why is increased anti-poverty spending so important to you? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures 25 million children) -- cut dramatically. I'm curious as to what your source is for this. Running some quick figures on government non-veterans, non-Medicare health spending, which I think would be a pretty good proxy for the sort of things you seem concerned about, I have the following increases in real spending: Bush 90 - 15% 91 - 19% 92 - 23% Bush/Clinton 93 - 9% Clinton 94 - 5% 95 - 6% 96 - 1% 97 - 2% 98 - 5% 99 - 6% 00 - 7% Clinton/Bush 01 - 9% Bush 02 - 12% 03 - 10% 04 - 7% 05 - 5% (est.) If you want to talk in terms of percentage of GDP: Bush 90 - 1.01% 91 - 1.20% 92 - 1.43% Bush/Clinton 93 - 1.51% Clinton 94 - 1.54% 95 - 1.58% 96 - 1.55% 97 - 1.51% 98 - 1.52% 99 - 1.55% 00 - 1.59% Clinton/Bush 01 - 1.71% Bush 02 - 1.89% 03 - 2.03% 04 - 2.08% 05 - 2.11% (est.) Either way, it seems to me like the Republican record looks pretty good if you want to measure such thing in terms of spending. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 11:24 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? Nick said that the president's proposed changes would decrease benefits. You say that Nick says that there should be no cuts for anyone, ever. The quotation above from Nick was given a separate paragraph at the end of a long laundary list of criticisms of Republicans.It was clear to me from the context and the plain meaning of his words that he considered proposing benefit cuts to Social Security to be an utterly damning indictment. I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though I believe you misstate the situation. *One* party is continuing its 70-year history of opposing Social Security (the first Republican attacks on the program -- that it was socialist -- began within a year of its inception). *Another* party points out that the sideshow of privatization and the framing device of ownership don't even start to address the 27% shortfall that SS will begin to have in roughly half a century. But we're not talking about the privitization part of the plan here. We're talking about the proposed benefit cuts, which *do* address the problem by any measure, and which Nick portrayed as a damning indictment of Republicans.On the other hand, Democrats have proposed, well, *nothing* to keep Social Security solvent for our grandchildren. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:59 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: It eventually becomes common knowledge that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask other nations to be allowed to take action. Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC? - They did so to move casual listeners to believe that the likes of Sen. Kerry would enslave our nation to others. Enslavement?Now who's playing word games? JDG - So much for the moral high ground, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Reducing benefits to the neediest while snip Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week cut preserved benefits for the neediest, and reduced benefits for the highest income earners. It looks like you are playing word games again. As for privitization, I support it because I believe that if many Americans who earn enough to save enough themselves for their retirement do so, then they won't *need* Social Security when they retire. This reduces dependency on the public dole, and reduces the shocks to the federal budget from generational shifts.In particular, if benefit cuts are needed to make Social Security solvent in the long run, then providing younger people the opportunity to earn high returns by investing for retirement based on a cut in the SS taxes. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:24 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures 25 million children) -- cut dramatically. I'm curious as to what your source is for this. All you have to do it look at today's news about the budget before Congress. Go to Google News and search on Medicaid and budget. And of course there is much more beyond current news. And even if these proposed, nobinding (yet) cuts were to take effect, how would the Republicans' overall record on social services spending compare to that, of say, Bill Clinton's? Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 08:33 AM 5/2/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: A while back, Dan figured out the rate of measured economic growth in each US political administration, excluding the first two years. * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the growth rate that Republican administrations achieved historically? Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as well as they did. * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the growth rate that Democratic administrations achieved historically? Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as well as they did. * And for comparison, what is the actual current GDP and median per capta US income? I'm not sure why you would find such an analysis to be at all interesting. You are basically proposing running a model where GDP is a function of the Party in the Presidency. I think that most economists would consider economic growth to be a function of a large number of variables, and the political party with the Presidency would probably be somewhere just above sunspot activity on that list. Nevermind the fact that generalizing the economic policies of Nixon and George W. Bush and the policies of LBJ and Bill Clinton is painting with an awfully broad brush JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. Either the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must pass a global test before pre-empting. No, it's not. I am shocked that you would deny this. If the above is not a contradiction, then the best you can say for it is that it is irrelevant. There are two possibilities: 1) Kerry's first clause - the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to preemption. 2) Kerry's second clause - the right of the US to preemption is limited in some way - perhaps by the need to pass a global test. Kerry's second clause presume that there exists at least some case in which failure to pass a global test limits the US's right and ability to preempt. If no such case exists, that is if every time the US would want to engage in preemption that it would pass the global test, then Kerry's talk of a global test is irrelevant. He is willing to act without UN approval, but only when he has an overwhelming case that it becomes clear that a member of the Security Council is acting as an obstructionist. I would guess that Kerry would say that Clinton's actions in the Balkans fit this. Yes, Kerry is willing to act without UN approval, but only when it passes some kind of global test.That's just a fudge for other areas of international approval. And why is it just one member of the Security Council being an obstructionist? Does it apply if two are doing so? Three? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:21 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: It eventually becomes common knowledge that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask other nations to be allowed to take action. Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC? There may have been, but that was not what was under discussion -- it was the skillful manipulation of language by the administration. Uh no, Dave. If the answer to the above question is yes, then the permission slip metaphor is *not* manipulatlive language, it is a direct response to an opposing point of view. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: quote 2 Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. end quote 2 snip The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that denouncing when other countries don't approve. ^ O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word approve imply, well, approval?And isn't that far more akin to getting permission than to serious consideration? So, I think David might have been more accurate referring to Cheney dissing seriously considering the opinions of others than saying Bush had. I honestly don't see how approval gets translated into this. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: quote 2 Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. end quote 2 snip The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that denouncing when other countries don't approve. ^ O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word approve imply, well, approval?And isn't that far more akin to getting permission than to serious consideration? But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was serious consideration. It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. Precisely the opposite Dan.For one, John Kerry never articulated a consistent policy regarding the Iraq War. He went from opposing Gulf War I, to voting for the authorization of the use of force in Gulf War II (which he later sent was meant simply to threaten force, not to actually use it), to voting against fully funding the troops once they were over there, to who knows what position he takes on the war today. John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list, however, very often made statements that conflated serious consideration with approval. For example, they would set the bar so high for serious consideration that the only practical outcome of this would be approval. Take also for example, the below quote of John Kerry: I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. I remember others, but trying to follow Kerry's public pronouncements on Iraq is enough to make anyone dizzy. Suffice to say, your interpretation requires that Dick Cheney did not believe that John Kerry was one of the many Iraq War opponents who believed that explicit UNSC reauthorization should be a prerequisite before launching Gulf War II.I think that Dick Cheney, like many others, very legitimately believed that John Kerry did, in fact, hold that position - to the extent that he can be described as having had one. JDG P.S. and here's a quote that Dave Land should enjoy: I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Iraq is a unique situation because it is a war of choice against a country that posed no direct threat to the US. You are pretty amazing Dan. I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. - John Kerry JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with You got cut off here. How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. Either the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must pass a global test before pre-empting. Given that Kerry was running for office, I think it is reasonable to assume that the first part of the above quote was merely a disclaimer to try and make his real position as palatable as possible - namely that Kerry, as President, would require some level of international approval before pre-empting. Again, Kerry would retain the right to pre-empt in any case, but that he would not actually do so if he did not pass some sort of global test. The practical effect of that would be to require UN approval *de facto*, if not explicitly *de jure* in a Kerry Presidency. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Social Security Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers. How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune? So, you believe that there should be no cuts in benefits for anyone on Social Security, ever? I, for one, thought that you might at least give credit where credit is due that at least *one* Party is *trying* to solve our Social Security problem. I guess that was too much to hope for though JDG - Why bother when we can let our grandchildren pay, Maru? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Metaphors we live by (was permission slips)
At 07:06 AM 4/30/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Permission slip, has meaning that is independent of the sentence in which it was used. Call me crazy here, but isn't that independent meaning one of, oh I don't know, getting permission? JDG - Serious Consultation Getting Permission, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Through the Looking Glass
At 01:52 PM 4/28/2005 -0500, John Horn wrote: In recent weeks it has become clear that President Bush has floated a trial baloon regarding lifting the current cap on income subject to Social Security tax. Right now, income over $100,000 is exempt from the 12.5% Social Security tax. I believe that when asked about it, President Bush said something to the effect of everything is on the table. Which is, of course, a long, long, LONG way off from saying that Bush is proposing to raise this cap. Either that or he is proposing to invade Iran as well by saying all options are on the table there. That's how politics works, John. If I recall the conversation correctly, this really doesn't answer anything. Or address the point I was making. I know politics works by saying a lot of different things that you don't necessarily mean. That was sorta my point. Actually, I think that it is just the opposite. It is the tried-and-true means of raising an unpopular, but necessary idea, to see if it will walk, or to see if it will be skewered. It looked like a fairly obvious trial balloon. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem rather alone in taking the Social Security problem seriously - whereas the Democrats *still* have yet to show that they have *any* ideas. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion. Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific allegation here, right? It should be against the law to abort a fetus, but it's okay to let increasing numbers of children live in poverty? IncreasingO.k., child poverty is up since 2000-2001, but it is remains down significantly from the levels of, oh, Bill Clinton's Presidency. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: North Korea's Nuclear Diplomacy Gets Hotter
At 09:06 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Pyongyang says its pursuit of nuclear weapons is defensive to cope with U.S. reckless moves for military aggression, but analysts dismiss the claim because if North Korea had no weapons, the United States would have no reason to attack it. Somebody needs to alert these analysts to the fact that we did attack a country that was without nuclear weapons (or any other WMDs) and no active program to build them. Was this some sort of satire that went right by me? They just missed the word programs.If the DPRK had no nuclear weapons programs, the US would have no reason to attack it. Or do you think that if Iraq had cooperated with the UNSC resolutions that the US would have attacked it anyways?Or do you believe that even if the DPRK opened itself up to verifiable nuclear weapons inspections that the US would be likely to attack it? And if you don't believe any of these things, what exactly is the satire again? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:07 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ... same old song and dance I didn't come up with the permission slip metaphor, but hear this: I. Understand. The. Difference. Great!Perhaps you could help me explain it to Nick, then? Do you believe that: substantial snippage Thank you for your answers. They weren't questions. They were talking points with question marks. So, is do you believe not a question?If I wanted to determine what you believe, on this issue, how would you recommend that I go about it? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US
, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever. This is ex post facto reasoning. The question, however, is knowing affirmatively that Iraq at one time had large stockpiles of anthrax, and knowing that at that point in time that Iraq was not providing an affirmative account of those stockpiles, did this consitute a threat? 8) -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs. This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? 9) -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s. This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? 10) -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same. Again, this ducks the question as to whether or not Iraq constituted a threat. So, to summarize, Dave Land argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United States.I asked 11 questions regarding whether Iraq did indeed actually pose a threat. Your answers, so far appear to be: 1) No - Iraq was not going to attack its neighbors 2) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 3) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 4) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 5a) Presumablky Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat 5b) No Answer - on whether funding terrorists constitutes a threat 6) No - there was no chance of sanctions being lifted 7) No Answer - based on information available at the time 8) No Answer - based on information available at the time 9) No Answer - based on information available at the time 10) No Answer - on whether the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon from the DPRK constitute a threat Thanks again. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:14 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: IncreasingO.k., child poverty is up since 2000-2001, but it is remains down significantly from the levels of, oh, Bill Clinton's Presidency. Clinton was president in 2000. And in 1996.Good enough to be re-elected in that year if I do recall too JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US
At 08:47 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A. than it does to attack Iraq, O.k., its not clear from this message.Do you believe that the US should have pursued a war against Saudi Arabia after 9/11? a country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever and that, due to international sanctions, the U.S. military presence enforcing no fly zones over most of the country, and invasive WMD inspections, posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else. This is not exactly true. On 9/11/01 there were no WMD inspections occuring in Iraq, and indeed, none had occurred for years. I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?If so, what was that connection? The connection was that Bush said there was a connection. O.k., so you seem to be saying that following 9/11, the rest of the world would have believed George Bush that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and thus would have ceased pushing for an end of sanctions on Iraq? 7) No Answer - based on information available at the time 8) No Answer - based on information available at the time 9) No Answer - based on information available at the time 10) No Answer - on whether the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon from the DPRK constitute a threat Inspection teams + U.S. pressence + sanctions = No threat. Given that Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN inspsection teams, that US troops were only along the Southern Border of Iraq, and what we now know about how UN sanctions operated on Iraq, particularly the Oil-for-Food program, do you believe that these sanctions would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from selling chemical and biological weapons on the black market to the highest bidder? Also, do you believe that the above would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from purchasing a full-assembled nuclear weapon from the DPRK over the long run? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 09:11 AM 4/29/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. and JDG also wrote: No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US and the UN - and I never said that it was. I see absolute contradiction here. Seriously considering the opinion of other nations is not like asking for a permission slip. Nick, You only see absolute contradiction here because you keep deleting the parts where I point out that the UN Security Council is not just a debating society for the serious consideration of other nations' opinions, but also passes resolutions, which some say should be required to authorize US military actions. Saying that the US should only act if it has explicit UN Security Council approval is like asking for a permission slip. That is what Bush was arguing against. Bush was *not* arguing against seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Indeed, using a child/permission slip as a metaphor for seriously considering the opinions of other nations just wouldn't make any sense. A much more logical explanation is that the child/permission slip is a metaphor for insisting upon UN Security Council approval of US actions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 07:27 AM 4/28/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:25:51 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to- adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. And you're saying this in *defense* of Bush and Cheney? You've just said that the metaphor is nonsensical in relationship to the United States and the United Nations. Bush and Cheney used it to describe that relationship! So, which is it? Using the metaphor in this context is nonsensical or not? No, Nick, the metaphor is not nonsensical in relationship to the US and the UN - and I never said that it was. I am personally flabbergasted that you cannot yet connect the dots, but let me try again. The Bush Administration has never had a problem with seriously considering the opinions of other nations before acting. As such, the Bush Administration has never used a metaphor to make seriously considering the opinions of other nations appear repulsive, as Dave Land suggested. The Bush Administration does have a problem, however, with the widespread idea that the US should only engage in certain actions with the approval of the United Nations. In particularly, the Bush Administration has strongly disagreed with those people who suggested that a specific reauthorization from the United Nations should have been a necessary prerequisite for the US to have attacked Iraq in Gulf War II. The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for seriously considering the opinion of other nations. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
At 07:33 PM 4/28/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:51:38 -0400, JDG wrote On the other hand, it would be nonsensical to use that metaphor for seriously considering the opinion of other nations. True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that context, since it was about an issue that called for serious consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. I can only conclude that you are now being deliberately dishonest. I explained what he used the metaphor for. You choose to keep pulling a bait and switch. The Bush Administration has never had a problem with seriously considering the opinions of other nations before acting. As such, the Bush Administration has never used a metaphor to make seriously considering the opinions of other nations appear repulsive, as Dave Land suggested. The Bush Administration does have a problem, however, with the widespread idea that the US should only engage in certain actions with the approval of the United Nations. In particularly, the Bush Administration has strongly disagreed with those people who suggested that a specific reauthorization from the United Nations should have been a necessary prerequisite for the US to have attacked Iraq in Gulf War II. The Bush Administration used the child/permission slip analogy to make this *latter* viewpoint, that the US must gain the *permission* of the UN Security Council before activing, appear repulsive and appear to be reducing our great nation to childishness. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:48 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? Well sure, but unilateral sanctions are far, far, less effective than multilateral sanctions - particularly if you are interested in denying a country any access whatsoever to particular technologies and systems. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:32 AM 4/27/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Yes, I am saying that the child/permission slip line is a metaphor for the US seeking the consent of the UNSC on foreign policy positions. So, who is the parent and who is the child? Isn't it obvious? In the child/permission slip analogy, the United States would be the child asking for permission from the UN. On the other hand, seriously considering the opinion of another is typically an adult-to-adult relationship.It would be rather nonsensical to use a child/permission slip metaphor to argue against an adult-to-adult dynamic of seriously considering the opinions of others. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:23 PM 4/25/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. As such, I guess that we don't have any common ground to stand on on this issue. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Dan, It looks like you are missing the point too. Dave's original point was as follows: The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* To use Dave's formulation (which I don't entirely agree with, but I'm making a point) - The President's use of the phrase permission slip in the State of the Union address was carefully chosen to call up visions... intended to be so repulsive to suggest that the US must get the *permission* of other nations (particularly, China, Russia, and France) before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.Dave very cleverly, however, substitted seriously consider the opinions for getting permission in order to score cheap political points. Seriously consider the opinions sounds fairly unobjectionable, getting the permission of China, Russia, and France before acting sounds much more objectionable to a lot of people - and that is what Bush was railing against - the very significant block of people who argued that the US should not launch Gulf War II without the approval of China, Russia, France, and the other members of the UN Security Council. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted If sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted, how did we manage to start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in place were in danger of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger from Iraq from *becoming* immiment. I am pretty sure that this is not true. What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. The UN Security Council did so. During the late 90's and early '00s there was a *serious* movement led by France, China, and Russia in the UNSC to lift sanctions.This led up to Colin Powell proposing smarter sanctions at the UNSC in 2001. Moreover, I believe that these sanctions required periodic renewal.. if in fact periodic renewal was required, then France, China, or Russia could have vetoed the extension of the sanctions. At any rate, even if periodic renewal was not required, France, China, or Russia were more than free to unilaterally decide to abrogate the sanctions, and could use their veto on the UNSC to avoid any consequences for this.You may recall an incident in the early part of this century when China was caught violating the sanctions by selling anti-aircraft equipment to Iraq. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an country that has a large amount of US military presence Large amount? Talked to any military people about this? We are and have been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying to do there. Intitution tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many troops return with PTSD. We are spread very, very thin over there. None of which at all contradicts the term large amount. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Thanks, Dan. Spot on. But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign.You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents? Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? Moreover, what the President actually said was, America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. We're talking about removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Thank you for your answers. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:12 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* That's the point! Bush was saying that if the United States sought other nations' participation in the decision to go to war, we would be acting like a child, submitting to other authorities, disallowed to think for ourselves. We can't do that because we're a grown-up country, not a child. International relations cannot be modeled as a set of parents and children, so Bush and Cheney's use of the metaphor was wrong. But it was politically clever because the truth in the metaphor makes the whole statement seem true. Advertisers do this all the time -- say something true that is irrelevant... and say it again and again. The falsehood isn't *in* the metaphor, the falsehood *is* the metaphor because it implies that serious consideration of other nations' wishes would reduce us to the status of a child... which is baloney. It was not reasonable to reduce the whole question of how we cooperate with our *brother and sister* nations to asking permission, since that is a context of submission, not negotiation. There you go again, conflating serious consideration with asking permission. As best as I can tell Nick, yours and Dave's arguments requires the non-existence of people arguing that UNSC re-authorization was a *prerequisite* for Gulf War II. In fact, as you well know, there were a *great*many*people* making this argument. Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist upon conflating asking permission with serious consideration? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. Congress? Really? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:57 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist upon conflating asking permission with serious consideration? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that the metaphor a child asking for a permission slip from an adult is apropos to the United States seeking consent of the United Nations? Yes, I am saying that the child/permission slip line is a metaphor for the US seeking the consent of the UNSC on foreign policy positions.I am saying that it is *not* a metaphor for undertaking serious consideration of other countries' viewpoints. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
At 03:57 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. Absolutely and utterly wrong, Dave. You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting The problem, Dave, is that many people in general, and you and Nick in specific, use the phrase serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting while actually meaning agreement from other nations before acting.President Bush chose to analogy to emphasis that he is *not* opposed to *a)* so long as *a)* does not mean *b)*.Indeed, the analogy emphasizes that if *a)* truly does not mean *b)*, then there must exist at least some set of cases in which the US will act _after *a)*, but _without_ *b)*. That's the real reasoning behind the analogy, not the caricature you represented. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global do-gooder with trouble at home
At 07:13 AM 4/25/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: We could choose to be in a position to stop all kinds of mass death. How much of it do we choose to be responsible for? How much are we willing to give up in order to maximize life? And speaking of codependency... as we focus increasingly on other nations' problems, more and more people in our homeland are living in poverty, social programs are being cut all over the place. I'm not arguing for isolationism; we are part of an international family of nations. But when we focus so much on being global do-gooders that we no longer can take care of our own, we crossed over into a sort of international codependency, haven't we? A series of questions: Do you believe that the poor will always be with us? Do you believe that ending poverty is simply a matter of spending enough money? If yes, do you believe that our society currently has enough money to spend in order to do so? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:03 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote: To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives Do we care about births, or do we care about lives? I presume you care about the former We could continue to try to find an invisible line or we could concentrate on the value of every human life, Unless I am wrong, you are opposed to the above, are you not? including the millions of infants and children who die every year due to lack of access to prenatal, perinatal and early childhood care. How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who believes the above. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
DPRK Alternate History Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful changeL3
Dan, You asked what I would have done, had I been in Bill Clinton's shoes I think that my first criticism of Clinton's greatest failure would not be his broad strategic decision to negotiate and cut and deal. Similar to your central criticism of George W. Bush in regards to Iraq, my first criticism would be in the *execution* of the broad strategic decision.I am not convinced that it is a given that any negotiation and deal-making with the DPRK beginng in 1994 or so would result in their taking our bribes and then building nuclear weapons with us completely unawares. Certainly, part of the execution would have been his lack of leadership in overhauling the US Intelligence System in the post-Cold War environment, even as failures of US intelligence began to mount. I don't have the information Bill Clinton did to fullly evaluate all the options in the DPRK, so he may well have chosen the best strategic option. He may have even executed it to the best that any US President would have been able (which I find less plausible.) Suffice to say, now that the DPRK has nuclear bombs, I feel Much, Much, Better that one of the DPRK's wealthiest and most-proactive potential customers is safely off the market. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The US and the DPRK Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 09:01 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. The US is the most powerful country in the world. Given how incredibly bad it is for us that the DPRK has nuclear weapons, if we had any ability to prevent the DPRK from acquiring those weapons, shouldn't we do so? Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. Do children ordinarily invade their neighbors, starve millions of people, torture thousands of others, and engage in terrorism?If not, what's the point of the analogy here? Not to let our children play with nuclear weapons? there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. I'm all ears.In fact, I am sure that Condi would be very, very, interested as well. At 10:57 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and clear. So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with Dan Wrote:, but consider this my reply: Well, I responded anyways, because your message did raise some questions for me that might help clarify our difference in positions. The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase there are simply no good options. I worry when I hear language like that. It triggers the desperate times call for desperate measures meme, in which people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or badness of options, and start just killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out. That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the least bad options that are left. I think you missed my point about there are simply no good options. It was meant to imply the same conclusion as you do - we should try and find the least bad options that are left. My dismal attitude was intended to reflect the fact that even the least bad option that is left is still incredibly, incredibly, bad for us not let God sort it out. What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what community employed the US as its police force? I would counter: does the DPRK need to be violating a law for the US to try to stop the DPRK from getting nuclear weapons in your view? You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global entities to whom the US would subject itself. Since the US has formall commitments to defend both the ROK and Japan, and as the US considers the ROK and Japan to be close friends, the US certainly does care, and this would put us in quite a pickle. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Why do we not consider ourselves responsible for the starvation of millions of N. Korean citizens? Are we making plans to do something about that? For the record, the US has only nominal trade embargos on the DPRK, and is one of the larger donators of humanitarian aid to the DPRK. Starvation in the DPRK is largely a function of how much humanitarian aid the government of the DPRK refuses in a given year. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. As such, I guess that we don't have any common ground to stand on on this issue. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 10:13 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: JDG wrote At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself. Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt question can be weak (or strong for that matter) And why isn't the US invading North Korea? I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid question. Well, ordinarily, a rhetorical quesiton is one so pointed that it conveys a line of argumentation without requiring an answer. When a rhetorical question is trivially simple to dismiss, as yours way, it probably fails in conveying any meaningful line of argumentation. Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea? It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons. And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare. Pray. Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good options. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Opportunity Cost Re: Brin: Bush on Oil Tax Breaks
At 12:36 PM 4/22/2005 +, Bob Chassell wrote: (That is, roughly speaking, the opportunity cost of the US occupation of Iraq. This uses the term opportunity cost as I understood it many decades ago, not as John D. Giorgis defined it recently. O.k., what is your definition of opportunity cost again? And how did it differ from mine? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member of Congress). Have you ever owned slaves?Just wondering. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 12:09 AM 4/10/2005 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? On the other hands, he was extremely open-minded on such subjects as multiculturalism, ecumenism, and reaching out to other faiths. His Theology of the Body in many respects overhauled Church teaching on sexuality - while still reaching the conclusion that contraception is intrinsically immoral. Thus, given the context of his views on birth control I can only conclude that he was open-minded on the subject, but simply reached a different conclusion than you or I would have. On the matter of priestly celibacy, I think that he was almost inherently open-minded, as the Church teaching on that issue is hardly even close to definitive (unlike the argument that you could make in regards to the ordination of women - although I would probably still disagree with you on that point.)You may have a stronger argument on the case of gay marriage, although this issue has only been seriously debated so recently that I think that it is simply too hard to judge given the context. Without serious debate within the Church on gay marriage, it would be virtually impossible for someone who open-mindedly concluded opposition to gay marriage to demonstrate that open-mindedness in his position. In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. So, would you say that you are/were closed-minded on school vouchers and liberating Iraq? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
At 03:01 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:25:36 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!! Besides being wrong here about the number, the actual amount going to SS is not enough (even if it really were saved) to provide people with the retirement most people would like. That is rather the point of a lot of the threads here. I understand that and have been supportive of many of the reforms you and others have mentioned. John's statement made it sound as if people receiving SS are living completely off of the largess of the working public when, in fact, they have at least paid _some_ of their dues. Only to the extent that paying taxes can be described as paying dues. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
At 02:56 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:07:58 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:19 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, Doug wrote: You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that restores the benefits? If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee you they'll get throw out on their collective ear. They don't even have the balls to make some of the minor changes we've been talking about. It was a theoretical exercise to illustrate a concept, Doug. But you see, part of your argument is that because the money isn't hidden away in a vault somwhere, it doesn't exist when in fact a super majority of the people in this country are of the opinion that it better damned well exist. Actually, that's part of my point. The people don't believe that a set amount of *contributions* exist, they believe that a set amount of *benefits* exist.That is, regardless of how much money the government claims to be in the Trust Fund, the future liabailities of the government are based upon expected payments nor expected assets in the Trust Fund. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
At 03:26 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: If people want private accounts there are plenty of ways for them to do that without Uncle Sam's help. I think our difference is that I would like to see an increase in personal responsibility for retirement. For example, it is essentially a given that most people do expect (or at least should expect) to reach an age where they wish to have engage in consumption while not working for income. What, however, is the optimal amount of savings for retirement? After all, every dollar saved for retirement is a dollar of foregone consumption today. For sake of argument, lets presume that savings are turned into an annuity upon retirment, thus the question is - what is the optimal-sized annuity upon retirement? And that's an important point, retirement should be planned-for today by choosing to forego a certain amount of consumption and investing that capital to build a stockpile for funding one's retirement annuity.The current system of just hoping that future generations will vote for the government to make payments to you in your retirement seems like a substantially inferior system. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
