Seriously Mike, I think the TP are as crazy as catfish and as a general rule I'd vote for a painted monkey before I voted for a republican but I'd like to echo Jaybird and ask if you could please up your game a bit and put some thought and class into your commenting?
It's not just concern for the level of discourse here (though it is also that and I prise it). I don't mind it when conservatives do it, they're only hurting themselves. But when you do it you're hurting me.
Isn't that, in essence, a consequentialist position Burt? I mean it's awful, sure, and a given voter should weigh their options and positions before making that step but I see allowing anonymous signing as a cure that is worse than the disease.
We're not talking about political donations Density, we're talking about petition/initiaitive signing which involves (to a small degree) a given signer literally laying their hands on the wheels of the country/state/municipality's governance. Any assumption of privacy flies out the window at that point.
It is certainly possible that the left understates the role of personal responsability in this but surely you would agree the right merely mirrors the failure in overstating the same? Certainly the left has, however reluctantly, addressed this failing in many ways. All over the first world (in some cases frog marched by the right, in others not) the left has taken steps to rationalize and limit safety nets. I mean we're not living in the seventies any more.
Ward I understand the value of privacy.. prize it in many ways. But in this context I just don't feel it is pertinent. We're talking about governance. There should be very little privacy or secrecy in governance.
On a personal note having pondered it over, Gorigas, I disagree with you on one more thing specific to homosexuality. Privacy was definitely not to the movements benefit nor to the benefit of our kind. Privacy was where we went to disappear, privacy was the closet, it was where we went to die. Gay right has only advanced in the country when people have been willing to set privacy aside, voluntarily (as the signers of the petition do). Our collective welfare has only advanced when we were out, sympathetically trying to be conciliatory to our families, friends and peers but unapologetic about the truth of what we are.
Im sympathetic to the sentiment Gorigas but I just feel the facts involved in the petition itself are being glossed over. The act of signing a petition to launch a refferenda is equivalent to standing up in the town hall and requesting the same. There is no expectation of privacy on any level, the self announcement, the self identification is volontary and built into the premise of the voter initiative process.
The very idea of the government saying "Five hundred anonymous people have indicated they wish to present an initiaitive saying such and such" makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
I hear the money was flown in with stealth helicopters too and Bush Minor was re-elected by purple crossdressing vote counting machines in upstate Ohio.
I fail to see the similarity at all beyond the fact that both are the same pieces of information.
-Doctors info: Presumably stolen or collected under false pretenses. Private information on the individual. Disclosed without permission. Used in the past for acts of violence including violence leading to loss of life.
-Petition signers info: Submitted volontarily under clear pretenses. Private information on the individual. Disclosed implicitly by the owner of the information when signing the petition (the act of signing the petition is implicit permission for this information to be made public record for verification purposes), so far no violence has occured at all as a consequence of the information being made public despite great hue and cry that it would be.
Perhaps you could elaborate or point our what Im' missing?
For me mMore information is better as a general rule Ward. Politics is a slow reacting field, I have no doubt people will start not giving a damn about the trivial crap as the generations roll on.
Cynical alternative opinion: were it not for the extraordinary outside interest in this particular conflict the Israeli's probably would have run the Palestinians out of most of the former mandate back during one of their wars and what little they hadn't seized would have vanished into Jordan and Egypt.
Israel is a modern western country Bob. If they were ever to stoop to that kind of strategy for "defeating their enemy" then they would have truly lost their war with the savages around them and become everything they hated about their old oppressors. Having ceased to be a modern western country and being a small isolated economy entirely dependant on the modern west for support (which would end when they went mad) they would whither and sink into the social morass of their neighbors.
It could certainly work though I doubt the US would be willing to put their soldiers in harms way like that. I agree 100% that Israel in the grand scheme of things benefits by separation even without any quid pro quo. Their possession of the territories is slowly killing them. Some people argue that the Arabs and Palestinians are so recaltrant on peace primarily because they can see that in the very long view they're winning with things as they are. I continue to hold out hope that the Israeli center and the left is going to recover their bearings and force their country to take their medicine and extricate themselves from that predicament.
I generally agree with you Chris on most of your analysis. I disagree, though, on the idea of this interim Palestinian quasi-state. I don’t think it goes far enough. Personally I favor the idea of simply withdrawing unilaterally.
The issue of course is that the Israelis are in a catch 22. Withdrawal from the west bank will be fractious and painful (and letting their right wing nutbars put down more roots doesn’t help). A lot of subsidies built into the government structure will need to be rooted out (imagine the US Agricultural subsidies but worse). A lot of Israelis will need to be pretty much evicted with the spectacle of soldiers pretty much dragging women and children kicking and screaming out of their houses. Were the Palestinians anything approaching civilized and were the settlers anything approaching sane; Israel could simply leave them there under Palestinian rule but we all know that would simply result in an internal war and a slaughter that no Israeli government would be able to sit by and watch.
So the Israeli government that withdraws will have to do some painful expensive unpopular stuff. The only way in their parliamentary system that they can do this is if they are getting something in return. If the PM can say “Yes it’s horrible and painful but they’re right wing settlers and in exchange for removing them we don’t have to worry about our busses and pizza parlors getting bombed or our kindergartens rocketed.” Then the country will be willing to do it. But if they’re doing it and getting nothing but abuse in return the government will fall and the process will stop. That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.
The Israeli idealist peace camp was pretty much killed by Palestinian rejectionism, failure and violence that made it look like the “peacenicks” were willing to trade Jewish lives for Palestinian freedom. They were succeeded by the more pragmatic get the hell out team who were knocked out by the Palestinian rockets attacked which led to the Gazan invasion. I’m hopeful that with Bibi clowning around like a Hebrew George W. Bush that the left and maybe even far left camps will shortly revive and resume the unpleasant process of extricating themselves from the West Bank. The one thing you can say about these settlements; in theory you can always drag the people out and give them away.
I'm surprised at your surprise myself. The only kind of ex-gay you would tolerate; one who doesn't project their personal experience onto the gay population and use it as a cudgel against gays who do not share their religious beliefs is exceedingly rare (or is by nature quiet and thus invisible). Your average gay person would have little to no objection to a person who is ex-gay. Their issue would be with the person who declares to the world that they are EX-GAY (Prayse Jaysussss!!!!) and all that the other gays should be too!
Monogamy isn't necessarily involved; as our heterosexual brethren have very aptly demonstrated. That a man who’s attracted to a blond and marries her can then routinely goes out to nail a man for instance is not a basis for forbidding heterosexuals from marriage. I see no reason why a man who marries another man and then routinely goes out to nail a woman would be an argument against homosexual marriage.
I'm with Matthew, I don't see how being attracted to both sexes inevitable leads to a requirement for plural marriage. Many straight men are attracted to Angelina Jolie. Is this an argument for plural marriage so that Angelina Jolie can be forced to marry all the men attracted to her? No, (setting aside of course what Angelina Jolie might think on the matter) because there are many other women to whom men are attracted to, maybe to lesser degrees, who they can marry. Homosexual people can marry no one that they would be inclined to marry at the moment.
On “Jaybird Bait”
Seriously Mike, I think the TP are as crazy as catfish and as a general rule I'd vote for a painted monkey before I voted for a republican but I'd like to echo Jaybird and ask if you could please up your game a bit and put some thought and class into your commenting?
It's not just concern for the level of discourse here (though it is also that and I prise it). I don't mind it when conservatives do it, they're only hurting themselves. But when you do it you're hurting me.
On “Census II : Map Graph!”
Minneapolis Minnesota.
On “If You Don’t Want To Be Chilled Stay Out Of The Freezer”
Isn't that, in essence, a consequentialist position Burt? I mean it's awful, sure, and a given voter should weigh their options and positions before making that step but I see allowing anonymous signing as a cure that is worse than the disease.
"
I'm not saying there's no downside, just that it's the lesser of the two downsides.
"
We're not talking about political donations Density, we're talking about petition/initiaitive signing which involves (to a small degree) a given signer literally laying their hands on the wheels of the country/state/municipality's governance. Any assumption of privacy flies out the window at that point.
"
Insisting on transparency is a call to accountability, a vaccine against corruption and a prod towards careful deliberation.
As for the theoretical consequences of someone donating the dynamic would presumably be the same with republicans so I don't see the significance.
On “Social Forces and Vulgar Libertarianism”
It is certainly possible that the left understates the role of personal responsability in this but surely you would agree the right merely mirrors the failure in overstating the same? Certainly the left has, however reluctantly, addressed this failing in many ways. All over the first world (in some cases frog marched by the right, in others not) the left has taken steps to rationalize and limit safety nets. I mean we're not living in the seventies any more.
"
+1
On “If You Don’t Want To Be Chilled Stay Out Of The Freezer”
Perhaps Will, you'd know better than I, but even so I'd say that its use is being perverted when it's acquired and used as a form of protest.
"
Ward I understand the value of privacy.. prize it in many ways. But in this context I just don't feel it is pertinent. We're talking about governance. There should be very little privacy or secrecy in governance.
On a personal note having pondered it over, Gorigas, I disagree with you on one more thing specific to homosexuality. Privacy was definitely not to the movements benefit nor to the benefit of our kind. Privacy was where we went to disappear, privacy was the closet, it was where we went to die. Gay right has only advanced in the country when people have been willing to set privacy aside, voluntarily (as the signers of the petition do). Our collective welfare has only advanced when we were out, sympathetically trying to be conciliatory to our families, friends and peers but unapologetic about the truth of what we are.
"
Im sympathetic to the sentiment Gorigas but I just feel the facts involved in the petition itself are being glossed over. The act of signing a petition to launch a refferenda is equivalent to standing up in the town hall and requesting the same. There is no expectation of privacy on any level, the self announcement, the self identification is volontary and built into the premise of the voter initiative process.
The very idea of the government saying "Five hundred anonymous people have indicated they wish to present an initiaitive saying such and such" makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
"
I hear the money was flown in with stealth helicopters too and Bush Minor was re-elected by purple crossdressing vote counting machines in upstate Ohio.
"
I fail to see the similarity at all beyond the fact that both are the same pieces of information.
-Doctors info: Presumably stolen or collected under false pretenses. Private information on the individual. Disclosed without permission. Used in the past for acts of violence including violence leading to loss of life.
-Petition signers info: Submitted volontarily under clear pretenses. Private information on the individual. Disclosed implicitly by the owner of the information when signing the petition (the act of signing the petition is implicit permission for this information to be made public record for verification purposes), so far no violence has occured at all as a consequence of the information being made public despite great hue and cry that it would be.
Perhaps you could elaborate or point our what Im' missing?
"
For me mMore information is better as a general rule Ward. Politics is a slow reacting field, I have no doubt people will start not giving a damn about the trivial crap as the generations roll on.
On “The Dead Dragon and the Living Dragon”
I have one... I keep forgetting to use it I think..
On “There is No Plan B for Mideast Peace (and Why We Need One)”
Cynical alternative opinion: were it not for the extraordinary outside interest in this particular conflict the Israeli's probably would have run the Palestinians out of most of the former mandate back during one of their wars and what little they hadn't seized would have vanished into Jordan and Egypt.
"
Israel is a modern western country Bob. If they were ever to stoop to that kind of strategy for "defeating their enemy" then they would have truly lost their war with the savages around them and become everything they hated about their old oppressors. Having ceased to be a modern western country and being a small isolated economy entirely dependant on the modern west for support (which would end when they went mad) they would whither and sink into the social morass of their neighbors.
"
It could certainly work though I doubt the US would be willing to put their soldiers in harms way like that. I agree 100% that Israel in the grand scheme of things benefits by separation even without any quid pro quo. Their possession of the territories is slowly killing them. Some people argue that the Arabs and Palestinians are so recaltrant on peace primarily because they can see that in the very long view they're winning with things as they are. I continue to hold out hope that the Israeli center and the left is going to recover their bearings and force their country to take their medicine and extricate themselves from that predicament.
On “Truth Without Falsification”
Wouldn't it be called a furry?
On “There is No Plan B for Mideast Peace (and Why We Need One)”
I generally agree with you Chris on most of your analysis. I disagree, though, on the idea of this interim Palestinian quasi-state. I don’t think it goes far enough. Personally I favor the idea of simply withdrawing unilaterally.
The issue of course is that the Israelis are in a catch 22. Withdrawal from the west bank will be fractious and painful (and letting their right wing nutbars put down more roots doesn’t help). A lot of subsidies built into the government structure will need to be rooted out (imagine the US Agricultural subsidies but worse). A lot of Israelis will need to be pretty much evicted with the spectacle of soldiers pretty much dragging women and children kicking and screaming out of their houses. Were the Palestinians anything approaching civilized and were the settlers anything approaching sane; Israel could simply leave them there under Palestinian rule but we all know that would simply result in an internal war and a slaughter that no Israeli government would be able to sit by and watch.
So the Israeli government that withdraws will have to do some painful expensive unpopular stuff. The only way in their parliamentary system that they can do this is if they are getting something in return. If the PM can say “Yes it’s horrible and painful but they’re right wing settlers and in exchange for removing them we don’t have to worry about our busses and pizza parlors getting bombed or our kindergartens rocketed.” Then the country will be willing to do it. But if they’re doing it and getting nothing but abuse in return the government will fall and the process will stop. That brings us to our catch 22. In order to withdraw and give the Pals a country the Israeli’s need to make a deal with that country but they can’t make a deal with the country until it exists and they can’t make it exist unless they can make a deal with it.
The Israeli idealist peace camp was pretty much killed by Palestinian rejectionism, failure and violence that made it look like the “peacenicks” were willing to trade Jewish lives for Palestinian freedom. They were succeeded by the more pragmatic get the hell out team who were knocked out by the Palestinian rockets attacked which led to the Gazan invasion. I’m hopeful that with Bibi clowning around like a Hebrew George W. Bush that the left and maybe even far left camps will shortly revive and resume the unpleasant process of extricating themselves from the West Bank. The one thing you can say about these settlements; in theory you can always drag the people out and give them away.
On “Truth Without Falsification”
I'm surprised at your surprise myself. The only kind of ex-gay you would tolerate; one who doesn't project their personal experience onto the gay population and use it as a cudgel against gays who do not share their religious beliefs is exceedingly rare (or is by nature quiet and thus invisible). Your average gay person would have little to no objection to a person who is ex-gay. Their issue would be with the person who declares to the world that they are EX-GAY (Prayse Jaysussss!!!!) and all that the other gays should be too!
"
Monogamy isn't necessarily involved; as our heterosexual brethren have very aptly demonstrated. That a man who’s attracted to a blond and marries her can then routinely goes out to nail a man for instance is not a basis for forbidding heterosexuals from marriage. I see no reason why a man who marries another man and then routinely goes out to nail a woman would be an argument against homosexual marriage.
"
I'm with Matthew, I don't see how being attracted to both sexes inevitable leads to a requirement for plural marriage. Many straight men are attracted to Angelina Jolie. Is this an argument for plural marriage so that Angelina Jolie can be forced to marry all the men attracted to her? No, (setting aside of course what Angelina Jolie might think on the matter) because there are many other women to whom men are attracted to, maybe to lesser degrees, who they can marry. Homosexual people can marry no one that they would be inclined to marry at the moment.
On “The Befuddling Wilson”
Mild liberal, never thought Wilson was worth a damn. Very surprising to discover that I liked him.
On “Walmart is not the culprit, it is the symptom”
No arguement there.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.