TheRPGSite

Ok, this is the name of the game: I will have a discussion panel with three people of my choosing based on who volunteers for the job on this thread.

After that, we start the fun in another thread, wherein I get to pick the topics of discussion (from current events and political topics, not RPGs) and the panelists and I discuss it.

So, any volunteers?

RPGPundit

I'm tempted - but You and I already argued about politics back when you were on the SJG forums.

 Been there , done that (You forgot to send me the T-shirt)


I LIKe Gaming threads better anyway.

 Sorry.


- Ed C.

Sure. What the heck. I'm game.

Interested, but not particularly knowledgeable... at least in terms of current events. I'll be reading, anyway.

Ooo! Ooo! Pick me! Pick me!

What are the rules for the discussion going to be?

Can we nominate?  I nominate John Morrow.

I'd volunteer, but I'm getting enough political discussion on the Political Pulpit of CotI.

I may drop in to heckle, though - if that's allowed. Or just send info and news articles via PM to the speaker of my choice.

Or jeff...

Quote from: droogWhat are the rules for the discussion going to be?

Its a mostly free-for-all with me as Moderator.  That means I pick the topics, and I get first and last word before moving on to the next topic.

Again, RPGs will not be on the discussion list.

As for the panelists, I'm hoping for a variety of guys on different points of the political spectrum. Hopefully at least one utterly batshit ultra-conservative, and one really femmy wus-liberal.

RPGPundit

I'm in -- and although I wouldn't describe myself as "pro-George" I'm (I think) way, way closer to that than most folks I read on the Internet.

I'm a patriotic, but not nationalistic American and a registered Republican. One of my parents is an immigrant to America and I'm married to a foreign national.

Cheers,
-E.

I just ask that you guys resond in complete posts, rather than snippet-response-snippet.  I find it very hard to read.

Old Geezer is a bigger communist then I am, probably, but (and I don't want to speak for him too much) likely doesn't have any interest in internet political debates. I'm a vocal feminist liberal, but my reading and debating are both rusty and probably wouldn't do myself a credit.

I have to say I was tempted to nominate myself though. I guess that's ego.

Can I nominate myself to provide a European social democratic perspective? (I'm a card-carrying member of the British Liberal Democrats, to give you some idea of where I'm coming from).

Quote from: WarthurCan I nominate myself to provide a European social democratic perspective? (I'm a card-carrying member of the British Liberal Democrats, to give you some idea of where I'm coming from).

They issue cards?

Hell I never got a "Republican card" for voting Republican Or a "Libertarian" card when I vote that way.

 I must be missing something.
 Do you guys get T-shirts as well?


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThey issue cards?

Hell I never got a "Republican card" for voting Republican Or a "Libertarian" card when I vote that way.

 I must be missing something.

Political parties in Britain (and, I find, most of the world) don't work the same way they do in the States.

Specifically, you never have to declare your voting intentions or party affiliation when you register to vote in this country: that's a private matter. If you want to take part in the internal processes of a political parties (like choosing which MP is going to lead the party in the House of Commons, which we're doing in the Lib Dems at the moment) then you have to sign up and pay membership fees. Often you get a membership card with that as well as regular newsletters and so forth.

I'm mostly libertarian, but I do support the war in Iraq. Also, I was apparently just to the right of Hitler, at least according to most people in Tangency. Does that count?

Quote from: WerekoalaI'm mostly libertarian, but I do support the war in Iraq. Also, I was apparently just to the right of Hitler, at least according to most people in Tangency. Does that count?

Did we ALL wind up on rpgsite????


- Ed C.

I could pull off defending the position of a batshit reactionary conservative (sans christian charismatic fundamentalism), but I don´t see the point?

What exactly would that point be?

Quote from: KoltarDid we ALL wind up on rpgsite????

I think you mean "Did BOTH of us end up on rpgsite????"

Quote from: KoltarDid we ALL wind up on rpgsite????

Your mistake was that you didn't learn to ignore Tangency, which is why you are banned and I'm not.  In 2004, I provided a lively defense of the Swift Boat Vets' charges against Kerry (often based on Kerry's own words and records) but I wouldn't try something like that today.

Quote from: John MorrowYour mistake was that you didn't learn to ignore Tangency, which is why you are banned and I'm not.  In 2004, I provided a lively defense of the Swift Boat Vets' charges against Kerry (often based on Kerry's own words and records) but I wouldn't try something like that today.

It can be done; it must be done carefully. Basically, you have to assume that the strictest possible interpretation of the rules will be applied to you and anyone else can get away with pretty much anything.

I consider speaking my mind in Tangency a kind of sparring practice for debates that matter.

Cheers,
-E.

Edited to add: And now I'm off to speak my mind in the Patriotism thread on Tangency.

Quote from: -E.It can be done; it must be done carefully. Basically, you have to assume that the strictest possible interpretation of the rules will be applied to you and anyone else can get away with pretty much anything.

I've done it, but it's a hassle and it's become harder over time.  It's just not worth it.  I'm just don't think there are enough people whose minds might be changed left there.

Quote from: -E.I consider speaking my mind in Tangency a kind of sparring practice for debates that matter.

One can get such practice in plenty of places without having to worry about getting permabanned.

Quote from: John MorrowI've done it, but it's a hassle and it's become harder over time.  It's just not worth it.  I'm just don't think there are enough people whose minds might be changed left there.

One can get such practice in plenty of places without having to worry about getting permabanned.

I agree with all of this; I do it because it interests me and because there are some people there who I respect even as I disagree w/ their opinions. I can get that *here* without threat, of course -- which is one of the reasons I have a high opinion of this site -- but I still post on RPG.net from time to time.

Also: I'm not expecting to change *anyone*'s mind. I'm testing my own thoughts and articulations (and in some cases my pre-conceptions).

Cheers,
-E.

OK..now I've come to my senses...

Pundit - WTF?

I mean, we've all pretty much agreed that something like Tangency is just cancer waiting to happen to a site.  We've avoided popularity contests.

Now you want to have people draw lines along political boundaries?


Man....


OK - I'll be the ill-informed right leaning libertarian.

Quote from: James J SkachOK..now I've come to my senses...

Pundit - WTF?

I mean, we've all pretty much agreed that something like Tangency is just cancer waiting to happen to a site.  We've avoided popularity contests.

Now you want to have people draw lines along political boundaries?


Man....


OK - I'll be the ill-informed right leaning libertarian.

To me, the thing that sucks about tangency is not political discussions, which actually dont' get to exist in Tangency, because anything worth discussing is bannable material there.

Instead, what sucks ass about Tangency (besides the aforementioned censorship) is the idiotic personal chitchat about "keetoms" and "pikers" and ridiculous stories from obviously pathological liars who are frequent posters there, and other inanities like that.

RPGPundit

So are there still openings for the panel?  'Cause I loves me some political discussions.  I frequently watch Bill Maher, and I'm always talking politics with friends (one even works in the senate).  I'm more or less on the medium of the road side of things, so I don't know if I'd be controversial enough, though.

Quote from: WarthurCan I nominate myself to provide a European social democratic perspective? (I'm a card-carrying member of the British Liberal Democrats, to give you some idea of where I'm coming from).

an actual Euro style social democrat might actualyl get me to read such a thread, instead of rolling my eyes and wandering away.

The American party system, and it's respective parties, suck.

I'm wary of such a panel. Keep the focus on gaming, dammit.

This is hilarious. People are complaining that a discussion in the off-topic forum might be - gasp! - off-topic?

Seriously, folks, if you're so keen on "keeping the focus on gaming" you should be lobbying for the off-topic forum to be closed; that's the only way you can guarantee keeping theRPGsite all-gaming all the time.

Quote from: WarthurThis is hilarious. People are complaining that a discussion in the off-topic forum might be - gasp! - off-topic?

Seriously, folks, if you're so keen on "keeping the focus on gaming" you should be lobbying for the off-topic forum to be closed; that's the only way you can guarantee keeping theRPGsite all-gaming all the time.

Exactly. I'd rather that the off-topic forum was kept focused on things like politics, movies, comics, and other such things, than to turn into a moron-forum full of "keetoms and pie".

RPGPundit

Ok, my first guest stars for the panel will be:

Warthur
jgants
Werekoala

The panel begins tomorrow though, because today I have gaming in an hour or so...

RPGPundit

I voted for Doug Henning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Henning), and would continue to do so if he were still with us. :)

I think a lot of people (and a LOT of Americans) treat politics like they do Football (or Hockey, or whatever) -- they "support their team" and don't really consider which jackass is going to do the least damage if they get into office.  This leads to the parties (correctly) thinking they could put ANYONE forward as their candidate and people would go along with it.

Hillary Clinton?  Rudy Giulliani?  Are you freakin kidding me?

I take it the panel threads are on a Pistols-style lockdown where it's panelists only?

Also, I'm with Werekoala in that the quote-reply-quote method makes a post almost unreadable to me.

Quote from: StuartHillary Clinton?  Rudy Giulliani?  Are you freakin kidding me?

It doesn't help that the press doesn't probe very deeply, doesn't really explore the candidates position on issues very deeply (a competent press wouldn't have given Hillary any peace on her White House papers or the Spitzer license play waffling or Giulliani any peace on Kerik, for example).  You can't reduce a complex issue down to a 2 minute sound bite in any meaningful way.  So what were're often left with is image, spin, and caricatures of issues that can fit into a 2 minute sound bite or debate response.

Quote from: WarthurPolitical parties in Britain (and, I find, most of the world) don't work the same way they do in the States.

Specifically, you never have to declare your voting intentions or party affiliation when you register to vote in this country: that's a private matter. If you want to take part in the internal processes of a political parties (like choosing which MP is going to lead the party in the House of Commons, which we're doing in the Lib Dems at the moment) then you have to sign up and pay membership fees. Often you get a membership card with that as well as regular newsletters and so forth.

You don't have to declare your voting intentions or paty affiliations when you register to vote in this country, either.  In many states, you do have to state your party affiliations to vote in the primary elections for a particular party.  Even that's not true in all states (one of the wild cards in New Hampshire, for example, is that independents can vote in either party's primary) and not all states even have primaries (Iowa, for example, has caucuses).  Not sure why you think American have to declare their voting intentions or party affiliations when they register to vote because that's simply not true.

Quote from: John MorrowYou don't have to declare your voting intentions or paty affiliations when you register to vote in this country, either.  In many states, you do have to state your party affiliations to vote in the primary elections for a particular party.

True, I was aware of that; however, the fact remains that you have a choice of either a) publicly declaring your affiliation when you register to vote - enabling all sorts of boundary-shifting shenanigans on the part of politicians - or b) not, and not being able to vote in the relevant primary in most (but not all) states. I feel that it's much better to separate the process of joining a political party (or declaring a vague affiliation to one) and registering to vote.

QuoteEven that's not true in all states (one of the wild cards in New Hampshire, for example, is that independents can vote in either party's primary) and not all states even have primaries (Iowa, for example, has caucuses).  Not sure why you think American have to declare their voting intentions or party affiliations when they register to vote because that's simply not true.

OK, it's more accurate to say you're not made to declare your affiliation, but you are certainly asked to do so, in a manner which I personally find uncomfortable.

Quote from: WarthurTrue, I was aware of that; however, the fact remains that you have a choice of either a) publicly declaring your affiliation when you register to vote - enabling all sorts of boundary-shifting shenanigans on the part of politicians - or b) not, and not being able to vote in the relevant primary in most (but not all) states. I feel that it's much better to separate the process of joining a political party (or declaring a vague affiliation to one) and registering to vote.

Why?  In practice, you can vote for whomever you want and change your party affiliation by (in some states) following the appropriate paperwork before the election or (in some other states) simply by changing it the day of the vote.  Is party membership secret in Europe?  Is secret party membership really a good thing?

Quote from: WarthurOK, it's more accurate to say you're not made to declare your affiliation, but you are certainly asked to do so, in a manner which I personally find uncomfortable.

Can you join multiple parties?  Is your membership and contribution to those parties kept secret and hidden from public examination?

Quote from: PeteAlso, I'm with Werekoala in that the quote-reply-quote method makes a post almost unreadable to me.

Except I wasn't the one who said that. :)

I'm excited - I get to talk politics, and not only not have to watch what I say, but be actively encouraged to speak my mind.

Yipee!

Quote from: WerekoalaExcept I wasn't the one who said that. :)

I'm excited - I get to talk politics, and not only not have to watch what I say, but be actively encouraged to speak my mind.

Yipee!

Whoops!  walkerp, wrote what I was referring to.  My mistake!  Good thing I'm not on any panel or anything like that ;)


(In addition to too many Jameses, there's too many w's here...)

Quote from: John MorrowWhy?  In practice, you can vote for whomever you want and change your party affiliation by (in some states) following the appropriate paperwork before the election or (in some other states) simply by changing it the day of the vote.  Is party membership secret in Europe?

In general it's not a matter of public record, as far as I'm aware.

QuoteIs secret party membership really a good thing?

Yes, because it prevents meddling with electoral boundaries for party political purposes.

QuoteCan you join multiple parties?  Is your membership and contribution to those parties kept secret and hidden from public examination?

In theory you could try joining multiple parties. In practice, you wouldn't get very far, politically speaking, because as soon as you get even a slightly high profile in one party folks in the other parties you've joined will cough loudly and point out what you've done. I honestly am not aware of any a case where this sort of thing has been a problem.

You've got to bear in mind that in Europe we don't have nationwide primaries in the same way that you do in the United States. You don't have the situation where a large proportion of the population chooses party leaders and candidates, as in the states - generally, people only join parties if they are actually keen on being an activist for the party, or support them with regular donations.

Quote from: John MorrowIt doesn't help that the press doesn't probe very deeply, doesn't really explore the candidates position on issues very deeply (a competent press wouldn't have given Hillary any peace on her White House papers or the Spitzer license play waffling or Giulliani any peace on Kerik, for example).  You can't reduce a complex issue down to a 2 minute sound bite in any meaningful way.  So what were're often left with is image, spin, and caricatures of issues that can fit into a 2 minute sound bite or debate response.

I was watching "Good Night and Good Luck" yesterday.  It is amazing how prescient Edward R. Murrow was about the long term effects of the dumbing down of the news - and that was 50 years ago.

did you say dumbing down:

I've never voted, except for Pop Idol

Quote from: PeteI take it the panel threads are on a Pistols-style lockdown where it's panelists only?

Yes, but like those threads, people are welcome to run a parallel "commentary" thread.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowI've done it, but it's a hassle and it's become harder over time.  It's just not worth it.  I'm just don't think there are enough people whose minds might be changed left there.



One can get such practice in plenty of places without having to worry about getting permabanned.

I agree that it isn't worth it over there.  I got into one debate in Tangency and the sheer stupidity and regurgitation of talking points (and accusations of being a sock puppet) I got in response was enough to put me off Tangency forever.  I actually like a lot of liberals and respect their views but the ones over there just seem to want to hear a hallelujah chorus (or the atheist equivalent) for every inane argument they can come up with.
I think a debate would work better here given the no holds barred approach but for the sake of my blood pressure I'll just observe (you know we conservative/libertarians are all fat and have high blood pressure).

Quote from: WarthurOK, it's more accurate to say you're not made to declare your affiliation, but you are certainly asked to do so, in a manner which I personally find uncomfortable.

I just registered to vote in Illinois. I was never asked nor was it presented as an option. Same in Minnesota. I think you are mischaracterizing this.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI just registered to vote in Illinois. I was never asked nor was it presented as an option. Same in Minnesota. I think you are mischaracterizing this.

Bill

Also...its different from state to state. Some states let anyone vote in the prinaries, other states restrict it so that just democrats are allowed to vote in Democrat Primaries and republicans only vote in the Republican primaries.

Ohio is the second kind. I wish it was the other way around - that way I could vote in BOTH primaries and get more of a say in what my final choice will be next year.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarAlso...its different from state to state. Some states let anyomne vote in the prinaries, other states restrict it so that just democrats are allowed to vote in Democrat Primaries and republicans only vote in the Republican primaries.

Ohio is the second kind. I wish it was the other way around - that way I could vote in BOPTH primaries and get more of a say in what my final choice will be next year.


- Ed C.

Agreed but that is a far cry from demanding a party affiliation when registering. I can even understand the "want to vote in our primary, you need to be with our party" line. I understand it, I just do not agree with it.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAgreed but that is a far cry from demanding a party affiliation when registering. I can even understand the "want to vote in our primary, you need to be with our party" line. I understand it, I just do not agree with it.

What I think I find confusing about the issue is that the US parties, as far as I can tell, don't let you just write in, send a subscription fee, and get a nice little "Democrat" or "Republican" card and put you on their mailing list, and administrate the primaries that way. I can see how it might have been necessary in the early days of the US, but with communications technology at the level it is now it's surely no longer necessary to combine registration and signing up for the primaries (in some states) these days.

Well, there are a ton of ways that current technology could help the voting system in the US.

The problem is, most people want to make the leap from that to abolishing the Electoral College, etc. and make it a flat out nation-wide election.

Which, IMHO, is a mistake.

But, as I've said either elsewhere in this thread or another here, the obstacles raised to third (or fourth, or fifth) party candidates are too great in the US.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, there are a ton of ways that current technology could help the voting system in the US.

The problem is, most people want to make the leap from that to abolishing the Electoral College, etc. and make it a flat out nation-wide election.

Which, IMHO, is a mistake.

Why would this necessarily be a bad thing? The President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections? It makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

Quote from: WarthurWhy would this necessarily be a bad thing? The President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections? It makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

Because it's one of the many little intricate balances that was set up. It was a way to try to balance the larger states interests versus the smaller states - and that attempt at balance is still required.

Otherwise, you'd have California, Florida, Ohio, New York determine elections.  Now it is true that they have a lot of influence as things stand now, but it's not quite as direct if you go to a completely national election.

In effect, you can have a president who loses the popular vote, but wins.  And it's meant to be that way. That's not a flaw, it's a feature.

How do I put this...in order to have states remain important, it's necessary to keep power there.  This is another facet of that process. The US was envisioned as a collection of states, not as a single nation.  This was done on purpose, to restrain the power of a central governmental authority.

For all of you who would prefer the US was not so powerful, you should always be pushing for states rights. A strong US Federal Government is your problem. If the government was a shell corporation for 50 states, it would be a lot less likely to extend power around the world.

Quote from: James J SkachHow do I put this...in order to have states remain important, it's necessary to keep power there.  This is another facet of that process. The US was envisioned as a collection of states, not as a single nation.  This was done on purpose, to restrain the power of a central governmental authority.

But in practice I'm not aware in any case where the states have butted heads with the federal government and won. Not over slavery in the 1800s, not over civil rights in the 1960s, not over any issue. The way to have strong states is to give strong powers to the states and take powers away from the federal government, not to make the states briefly influential during the presidential election, but only in a weird way which is optimised for the way the states were whenever the electoral college seats were last distributed. (In particular, a second-term president doesn't have to give a solid gold shit what the states think about anything.)

Also, if the balance of power shifted away from the federal government and towards the states, surely the states with the highest populations and largest economies - New York, California, all the guys you cited in your post - would be even more powerful, not less? The less able the federal government is to step in between the states, the greater capacity for large states to exploit smaller ones.

I'm happy to discuss it further, I'm just worried about taking this thread completely in that direction.

Quote from: WarthurBut in practice I'm not aware in any case where the states have butted heads with the federal government and won. Not over slavery in the 1800s, not over civil rights in the 1960s, not over any issue. The way to have strong states is to give strong powers to the states and take powers away from the federal government, not to make the states briefly influential during the presidential election, but only in a weird way which is optimised for the way the states were whenever the electoral college seats were last distributed. (In particular, a second-term president doesn't have to give a solid gold shit what the states think about anything.)

Those are a few cases where the state power was usurped by the constitution.  That is, no matter how much someone like me might scream State Rights from the top of the building, it has to mean state rights in the confines of the constitution. There is no arguing, and I do not mean to be, that states rights are somehow stronger than in, say, 1850. But the fact that they are not is no reason to give up one of the last vestiges of state power - it would be surrender.

I'm not sure I understand your point about second term presidents or electoral college distribution.

Quote from: WarthurAlso, if the balance of power shifted away from the federal government and towards the states, surely the states with the highest populations and largest economies - New York, California, all the guys you cited in your post - would be even more powerful, not less? The less able the federal government is to step in between the states, the greater capacity for large states to exploit smaller ones.

Powerful in what way?  Would they have, by default, larger economies? Sure.  But the less power the federal government has, in general, the less power someone in, say, California has over me in Illinois. I'm sure the feeling is mutual in California. I'm not sure how a large state can "exploit" a smaller one if the federal government is not able to compel the small state to do anything the voters do not wish to do.

The problem is that now the feds have so much power the influence of those states we mention can impact the smaller states because they use the federal government to apply the desires of, say, New York, on Idaho.

This way, in the end, lies madness.

Quote from: WarthurWhy would this necessarily be a bad thing? The President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections? It makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

The main reason is a practical one: imagine what would happen if you had a situation similar to the 2000 vote but with no electoral college, just a direct election, and one candidate wins by 10000 votes or less.

Suddenly, you're doing a recount and checking hanging chads throughout the entire fucking country.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimjackI actually like a lot of liberals and respect their views but the ones over there just seem to want to hear a hallelujah chorus (or the atheist equivalent) for every inane argument they can come up with.

There are liberals that I respect and, more broadly, there are plenty of people with whom I disagree on various things and respect.  What I don't respect are people who believe that the know what they are talking about and then fold like a lawn chair when asked to produce some real evidence or proof because they've never actually looked at any of the facts of the issue themselves.  

For example, everyone is so certain that John Kerry was unfairly "Swiftboated" in 2004 but it's painfully clear that none of the people who claim that have actually read the book against Kerry (which raises quite a few issues that most people ignored), looked at the broader evidence (including Kerry's own congressional testimony and the records he released), or seemed to care that Kerry wouldn't sign a blanket release for all of his records (the ones he released were, oddly enough, signed by John Lehman, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy).  I had a lengthy debate with people on Tangency about that in 2004 and it was clear that nobody really cared about looking at the fact themselves.

Quote from: GrimjackI think a debate would work better here given the no holds barred approach but for the sake of my blood pressure I'll just observe (you know we conservative/libertarians are all fat and have high blood pressure).

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to find the truth is to read the partisan right-wing press and the partisan left-wing press and see what they say and say about each other and then make up your mind.  Sadly, it's pretty clear that both sides care more about ideology than truth and are willing to play fast and free with facts and logic when it suits their purposes.  Usually, the other side calls them on it when they do.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe main reason is a practical one: imagine what would happen if you had a situation similar to the 2000 vote but with no electoral college, just a direct election, and one candidate wins by 10000 votes or less.

Suddenly, you're doing a recount and checking hanging chads throughout the entire fucking country.

Correct.  Wouldn't that be fun?

Quote from: WarthurWhy would this necessarily be a bad thing?

It's a very bad thing because it makes it so that only population density matters and shifts the balance of power from rural to urban.  You may not consider that a bad thing.  I do, and I live in the most densely populated state in the US.

Quote from: WarthurThe President is the head of the executive branch of the nationwide, Federal government. Why should the state system play a role in the federal elections, any more than the federal system is allowed to affect state elections?

Do you understand what a "federal system" is?  The name of the country is "The United States of America".  Why does Scotland have its own Parliament?  Because the country is named "The United Kingdom".  

Of course if you follow this argument all the way down, all you need is one big central government and you could argue that nobody has any need for any more local government.  Why have cities and towns and any sort of internal border when you can run it all from the country's capital, right?

Quote from: WarthurIt makes perfect sense to me to elect state governments and state representatives to Congress on a state-by-state basis and elect the president on a nationwide state-independent basis.

The biggest mistake was when they made the Senate directly elected instead of what the Founding Fathers intended, which was for senators to be elected by the state legislatures.  The next biggest mistake was letting FDR twist the arms of the Supreme Court to allow the Federal Government to do blatantly unconstitutional things.  Basically, the progressives of the early 20th Century broke the American government (they also changed the Constitution to make income taxes legal) because they didn't understand the purpose of Federalism and the balance of powers.

Quote from: WarthurBut in practice I'm not aware in any case where the states have butted heads with the federal government and won.

It happened quite a bit before FDR broke the Supreme Court and made it one of the most powerful ways to implement policy and shred the Constitution.  That's why people now vote for President based on who they expect them to nominate the the Supreme Court, why Justices refuse to retire until a president that they agree with ideologically is in office, and why nominations are such a circus.  The Supreme Court is only that important because it's being used to shift the constitution and the law undemocratically in a way that was never intended.

Quote from: WarthurNot over slavery in the 1800s, not over civil rights in the 1960s, not over any issue.

Even if that were true, and it's not entirely true, that's like the offensive advice that got Tex Antoine fired as a weatherman from WABC in 1976, "With rape so predominant in the news lately, it is well to remember the words of Confucius: 'If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.'"

Quote from: WarthurThe way to have strong states is to give strong powers to the states and take powers away from the federal government, not to make the states briefly influential during the presidential election, but only in a weird way which is optimised for the way the states were whenever the electoral college seats were last distributed. (In particular, a second-term president doesn't have to give a solid gold shit what the states think about anything.)

Well, it was originally a package deal until the way senators were elected was changed by constitutional amendment and the balance of powers was shifted by FDR using less savory methods.

Quote from: WarthurAlso, if the balance of power shifted away from the federal government and towards the states, surely the states with the highest populations and largest economies - New York, California, all the guys you cited in your post - would be even more powerful, not less? The less able the federal government is to step in between the states, the greater capacity for large states to exploit smaller ones.

That's what the Senate is for and why it was supposed to be elected by the state legislatures rather than the people directly.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's a very bad thing because it makes it so that only population density matters and shifts the balance of power from rural to urban.  You may not consider that a bad thing.  I do, and I live in the most densely populated state in the US.

Why, exactly, should 100 people in the countryside be able to have a disproportionate say over 1000 people in the city?

QuoteDo you understand what a "federal system" is?  The name of the country is "The United States of America".  Why does Scotland have its own Parliament?  Because the country is named "The United Kingdom".

Actually, the Scottish Parliament is a very recent innovation which is already causing headaches.

QuoteOf course if you follow this argument all the way down, all you need is one big central government and you could argue that nobody has any need for any more local government.  Why have cities and towns and any sort of internal border when you can run it all from the country's capital, right?

Not at all. The federal government is the national government. The state governments are the state governments. Some powers are exercised by the states on their own behalf, some are exercised by the federal government on behalf of the entire nation. The distribution of these powers are controlled by the constitution. State borders matter when it comes to state powers, but mean nothing to the federal government; why should they matter when it comes to federal elections?

Quote from: WarthurWhy, exactly, should 100 people in the countryside be able to have a disproportionate say over 1000 people in the city?

Why indeed? The difference in the population of ridings in Alberta is as high as 40 per cent, with the low-population ridings all the rural part of the province and the high-population ridings all in the cities. I'd like to hear some justification for why rural citizens should have 1.4 times the political influence of urban citizens.

Please remember, this is balanced out in other ways, at least in the US system.

I'd have to go and check, but it has something to do with how the Electoral College works in relation to Congress, etc.

It's really a quite complex little balancing act, which is why I am always loathe to change it without a thorough overhaul of the entire system, which would require amendments to the Constitution, which, in turn would open up a Constitutional Amendment process, which, in turn would allow anyone to put anything up for amendment consideration...and nobody wants that right now.

Quote from: WarthurWhy, exactly, should 100 people in the countryside be able to have a disproportionate say over 1000 people in the city?

The short answer is because it seems to work better that way, so long as the imbalance is not too great.

Quote from: WarthurActually, the Scottish Parliament is a very recent innovation which is already causing headaches.

Why does it exist, then?

Quote from: WarthurNot at all. The federal government is the national government. The state governments are the state governments. Some powers are exercised by the states on their own behalf, some are exercised by the federal government on behalf of the entire nation. The distribution of these powers are controlled by the constitution. State borders matter when it comes to state powers, but mean nothing to the federal government; why should they matter when it comes to federal elections?

Because, state and local borders matter for local issues, which go up to the top level.  Remember, you are talking to someone who thinks that the direct popular election of Senators was a bad idea.  I like having two legislative bodies that represent two different slices of the country.

Quote from: HaffrungWhy indeed? The difference in the population of ridings in Alberta is as high as 40 per cent, with the low-population ridings all the rural part of the province and the high-population ridings all in the cities. I'd like to hear some justification for why rural citizens should have 1.4 times the political influence of urban citizens.

Why is direct democracy a bad idea?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy does it exist, then?

Because Labour wanted to win the Scottish vote, so they promised a referendum on devolution, which duly voted for a Scottish Parliament. It was fine up until about a year ago, when Labour lost control of the Scottish Parliament; now we're getting a taste of what having the Scottish Parliament and the national Parliament being controlled by different parties is like. (Clue: bad for the union.)

Quote from: WarthurBecause Labour wanted to win the Scottish vote, so they promised a referendum on devolution, which duly voted for a Scottish Parliament. It was fine up until about a year ago, when Labour lost control of the Scottish Parliament; now we're getting a taste of what having the Scottish Parliament and the national Parliament being controlled by different parties is like. (Clue: bad for the union.)

That's the funny thing about democracy.  It doesn't always go the way you want it to. And it's silly when people assume it will always go their way.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy is direct democracy a bad idea?

Direct democracy is not the same things as one person, one vote.

If it's okay to give some citizens greater voting power because they live in a rural community, then why not give some citizens greater influence at the polls because they are older, or because they earn more money? What's so special about living in the countryside that it warrants this unique distortion of democracy?

I'll tell you what it is; it's easier to bribe rural voters than urban voters. You can lock up a small, homogenous town with a new fire hall, a re-paved highway, or agricultural subsidies much easier than you can a diverse and densely populated city. And once you have those voters bought with pork, you turn around and give them disproportionally greater say in choosing the next government so they can return the favour and keep the pork coming.

I know in Canada (and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the U.S.) there is a significant disparity between the urban and the rural tax base. Urbanization continues apace, and rural communities continue to decline demographically and economically. Politicians have found it useful to take the money generated by cities, use it to bribe rural voters, and then ignore the changing demographs and continue to give the rural voters a political clout that their numbers no longer warrant - a clout that the rural voters often use to drive policies that are against the interests of the people who pay the bills; the urban voters.

It's funny that in all the calls for electoral reform in Canada, you don't hear much about the disproportionate clout that rural citizens wield over urban citizens. I think that's due to a fair number of urban voters who still have attachments to their rural homelands, and who feel a bit of guilt about abandoning the dying communities that their parents grew up in. Hopefullly, that sentiment will die out over time.

[cross-posted from Political Panel thread]

Quote from: WerekoalaI would assume that one of the two parties involved in a tapped call would have to be a known or suspected terrorist, by the usual means of determining that someone is a suspect. How that determination is usually made, I'm not sure, but there must be a procedure.

Yeah, ask Maher Arar about those procedures. Playing on the same soccer team as a guy who has links to radical groups in Syria will get you a one-way ticket to Damascus and months of beatings and torture. But hey, the guy's name is Maher Arara, he's swarthy and he has a beard. And he's a muslim. So it's best to err on the side of caution.

It's easy to handwave away the qualifications for 'suspected terrorist' when you don't meet the racial and religious profile. Easy to trust the government when you know you won't be mistakenly added to the list.

Imagine if playing on the same baseball team as a guy who was once in the Ohio militia was enough to get you rounded up, thrown in a prison cell without counsel, and tortured. Imagine if guys named Kevin and Jim were being put on CIA suspect lists and having their phone conversations taped. I think you'd see a little more outcry about abuse of government authority.

Quote from: Haffrung[cross-posted from Political Panel thread]
Yeah, ask Maher Arar about those procedures. Playing on the same soccer team as a guy who has links to radical groups in Syria will get you a one-way ticket to Damascus and months of beatings and torture. But hey, the guy's name is Maher Arara, he's swarthy and he has a beard. And he's a muslim. So it's best to err on the side of caution.

Yeah - damn Canadians! Make sure you got the right guy before you detain him and hand him over to the US.

Pish - some people. :rolleyes:

Quote from: HaffrungDirect democracy is not the same things as one person, one vote.

Correct.  But they share some of the same liabilities with respect to the balance of power.

Quote from: HaffrungIf it's okay to give some citizens greater voting power because they live in a rural community, then why not give some citizens greater influence at the polls because they are older, or because they earn more money?  What's so special about living in the countryside that it warrants this unique distortion of democracy?

The disparate influence on the basis of age and money already happens in the United States because a higher percentage of older people vote and wealthier people donate money to politicians.

As for what's special about living in the countryside, it has to do with the fact that government policies affect the use of the land upon which they live.  People who live in rural areas occupy more land than those who live in cities.

To illustrate the issue, some Western regions of the United States are sparsely populated.  Large cities have a garbage disposal problem.  With a strong central government, no recognition of state boundaries, and representation based solely on population, it becomes easy for New York City to "volunteer" rural Pennsylvania to become a garbage dump.  Or Maine to host nuclear power plants.  Or to force Florida to accept off-shore drilling just a few miles off its coast.

Giving rural voters a stronger voice basically gives the land a vote.

Quote from: HaffrungI'll tell you what it is; it's easier to bribe rural voters than urban voters. You can lock up a small, homogenous town with a new fire hall, a re-paved highway, or agricultural subsidies much easier than you can a diverse and densely populated city. And once you have those voters bought with pork, you turn around and give them disproportionally greater say in choosing the next government so they can return the favour and keep the pork coming.

Are you kidding?  Have you ever seen urban machine politics in action?  Have you looked at the voting patterns in your supposedly "diverse" cities?  You are talking to someone who lives in the most densely populated state in the United States.  

Yes, rural voters get bribed by pork but so do Urban voters.  Yes, rural voters get a disproportionate share of money but the reasons for that are complicated and range from the fact that rural infrastructure is more expensive to build and maintain to the fact that people in rural areas tend to be poorer than those in urban areas and thus qualify for benefits directed to the poor.  Military bases are located in rural areas because they want them and urban areas don't (San Francisco didn't even want a decommissioned battleship).  Are there problems with the system?  Sure.  But they also have to do with committees, seniority, and insufficient churn of senators which, again, is partially a result of changing the way senators were elected early in the 20th Century.

Quote from: HaffrungI know in Canada (and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the U.S.) there is a significant disparity between the urban and the rural tax base. Urbanization continues apace, and rural communities continue to decline demographically and economically. Politicians have found it useful to take the money generated by cities, use it to bribe rural voters, and then ignore the changing demographs and continue to give the rural voters a political clout that their numbers no longer warrant - a clout that the rural voters often use to drive policies that are against the interests of the people who pay the bills; the urban voters.

Then why do the urban voters (in the United States, anyway) keep voting for politicians who want to raise taxes, increase Federal spending, and have the government pay for more?  Why are the urban voters voting against their own best interests instead of solving their problems locally with state and local taxes?  Isn't this an argument for solving problems locally and not using the central government to redistribute wealth?  

Quote from: HaffrungIt's funny that in all the calls for electoral reform in Canada, you don't hear much about the disproportionate clout that rural citizens wield over urban citizens. I think that's due to a fair number of urban voters who still have attachments to their rural homelands, and who feel a bit of guilt about abandoning the dying communities that their parents grew up in. Hopefullly, that sentiment will die out over time.

And then what?  What happens to the rural areas and what happens to the urban areas?

Quote from: HaffrungImagine if playing on the same baseball team as a guy who was once in the Ohio militia was enough to get you rounded up, thrown in a prison cell without counsel, and tortured. Imagine if guys named Kevin and Jim were being put on CIA suspect lists and having their phone conversations taped. I think you'd see a little more outcry about abuse of government authority.

I think that most Americans wouldn't have a problem with phone tapping guys named Kevin and Jim if they hung out with guys in a militia and the goal was to stop another Oklahoma City bomb from going off.  In fact, the government has done a lot of investigation and even harassment of people with names like Kevin and Jim in various militia and fringe religious groups.  And while Ruby Ridge is a rallying cry for many militia groups and people on the far-right, it's not a source of major outrage for most Americans.

And other people with names like Kevin and Jim do get swept up in bombing investigations.  Look up the name "Richard Jewell", for example.

Yes, I know the idea that all white Americans are racists who only care about what happens to other white people and have no broader sense of justice or fairness fits a certain left-wing narrative of how the world works but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.  The reason why people of Middle Eastern descent or who are overtly Muslim are being harassed is because people of Middle Eastern descent or who are Muslim were the perpetrators of 9/11 and plenty of other terrorists attacks (including a soldier attacking other soldiers during the preparation for the invasion of Iraq).  If people named Kevin and Jim were flying passenger planes into office towers and fragging their fellow soldiers to hurt America, I have little doubt that they'd be getting more scrutiny and doubt the American public would disapprove.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that most Americans wouldn't have a problem with phone tapping guys named Kevin and Jim if they hung out with guys in a militia and the goal was to stop another Oklahoma City bomb from going off.  In fact, the government has done a lot of investigation and even harassment of people with names like Kevin and Jim in various militia and fringe religious groups.  And while Ruby Ridge is a rallying cry for many militia groups and people on the far-right, it's not a source of major outrage for most Americans.

And other people with names like Kevin and Jim do get swept up in bombing investigations.  Look up the name "Richard Jewell", for example.

Yes, I know the idea that all white Americans are racists who only care about what happens to other white people and have no broader sense of justice or fairness fits a certain left-wing narrative of how the world works but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.  The reason why people of Middle Eastern descent or who are overtly Muslim are being harassed is because people of Middle Eastern descent or who are Muslim were the perpetrators of 9/11 and plenty of other terrorists attacks (including a soldier attacking other soldiers during the preparation for the invasion of Iraq).  If people named Kevin and Jim were flying passenger planes into office towers and fragging their fellow soldiers to hurt America, I have little doubt that they'd be getting more scrutiny and doubt the American public would disapprove.

I have to agree with John on this one. The problem isn't with racism; Americans are just generally ok with people losing civil liberties if it means their own personal security is supposedly improved.  I don't think people would be more upset if it was guys named Jim and Bob; the only things that could get them more upset is that it becomes clearer and clearer that people IN GENERAL who have nothing to do with terrorism are being targetted, and that specifically people involved in anti-war movements or other movements that are opposed to the current government are targetted.

Likewise, I don't think that racial profiling is a bad thing as such. Obviously, the young male muslim guy is MORE likely to be a terrorist by virtue of pure statistics than the 70 year old white grandmother or the 5 year old chinese boy, and should expect to be subject to more scrutiny than the latter two in high-security areas. To suggest that instead out of some misplaced sense of fairness we need to treat all three equally is just stupid.
The key is we should also protect the rights of the young male muslim guy in general and make sure that if he's NOT a terrorist, he (or the white male anti-war protester, or anyone else) isn't mistreated by the government under the cover of "the war on terror".

RPGPundit

But this is small potatoes compared to the UK, where you literally have police cameras on virtually every street. Is this really something we want in society? Do the Europeans have any right to look down on the "Loss of liberties" in the US when they engage in this kind of blatant violations of privacy? Is this sort of shit really necessary to create a peaceful society? Does it really help in any meaningful way to prevent either crime or terrorism?

Just a quick reply from an English gent on this. No, we do not 'literally have police cameras on virtually every street'. However, in the UK, you are aledgedly nearer to a CCTV camera than anywhere else in the world (although, i appear to be at least 15 minutes from the closest one). We are the most monitered country on the planet (i believe). The real sad thing about this is that it's got fuck all to do with terrorism and everything to do with alcohol fueled crime. We've had a problem for a while now and it's gotten very bad within the last 5 years or so. Go into town for a drink and you're entering another world these days. I live in a small market town (maybe 30,000 inhabitants spread over a good few square miles), and even here, unless you're in company, don't walk about after pub closing time. We had a murder here last week and the number of violent crimes is unrecognisable from even 10 years ago. We have a big problem with drinking in this country and the multitude of close circuit tv cameras are largely due to the huge increase in crime due to alcohol consumption. Couple that with the inevitable reductions on police spending and the officers to cope with the increase in this crime and the cameras are the result. Sad, but true.

Identity cards are another kettle of fish, however. But considering that the home office has just 'lost' the details of 25 million peoples' child benifit details, including adresses, bank account details etc, hopefully, that'll die a death pretty quickly as people lose faith in this sort of 'big brother' monitoring ...

Chicago has been on a tear, lately. My understanding is that they are building quite the battery of camera - particularly on the mass transit lines.

And seen, this very evening on the way to pick up the car from the shop, a village information sign that bragged "Red Light Camera's Coming Soon!"

Quote from: James J SkachChicago has been on a tear, lately. My understanding is that they are building quite the battery of camera - particularly on the mass transit lines.

And seen, this very evening on the way to pick up the car from the shop, a village information sign that bragged "Red Light Camera's Coming Soon!"

Chicago has got batshit insane in all kinds of areas.  Look at the fois gras issue.  Or the opposition to "big box" stores.  Etc.

Quote from: walkerpI think you mean "Did BOTH of us end up on rpgsite????"

Whadda mean both? Or is it just the guys you're talkin' about? :keke:

And this would be fun. I'm not the best at debate, but I know my Right-wing talking points! :D

Quote from: WerekoalaYeah - damn Canadians! Make sure you got the right guy before you detain him and hand him over to the US.

Pish - some people. :rolleyes:

He was detained by Americans during a routine stopover in an American airport. The Americans refused to let him contact the Canadian embassy, and instead deported him to Syria, and handed him over to Assad's intelligence agencies. If anyone but a branch of the American government had done it, we would refer to this as "kidnapping".

It was faulty Canadian intelligence information that led to his arrest, if I'm remembering correctly, leading to some high-level resignations I think. Unless I'm confusing him with another guy - there are so many to keep track of these days!

Quote from: WerekoalaIt was faulty Canadian intelligence information that led to his arrest, if I'm remembering correctly, leading to some high-level resignations I think.

True, and some high-level folks in the RCMP and CSIS were reprimanded or forced to resign.

Funny, though, that the American authorities who actually shipped Arar to Syria, where they knew he would be tortured, have not been forced to resign.

He was sent to Syria because he had dual Canadian/Syrian citizenship, and the faulty information from the Canadians indicated that his citizenship in Canada had been revoked.

Quote from: HaffrungFunny, though, that the American authorities who actually shipped Arar to Syria, where they knew he would be tortured, have not been forced to resign.

Why aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Well, you know, they can't help it, being poor backward brown people and all. The outrage is clearly saved for the white folk in the West who should clearly Know Better.

Quote from: WerekoalaWell, you know, they can't help it, being poor backward brown people and all. The outrage is clearly saved for the white folk in the West who should clearly Know Better.

I don't know if you saw it when I posted a link to it earlier (or when it was originally published), but you should really read the article Can There Be a Decent Left? by Michael Walzer (http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=598), which talks, in part, about why the left can only blame America for bad things.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf anyone but a branch of the American government had done it, we would refer to this as "kidnapping".

If anyone but a branch of the American government locked people in a prison, we'd call it kidnapping, too.  Does that mean that we should let everyone out of jail?  Governments get to do things that citizens can't.  That's the way it is everywhere.

Quote from: shewolfAnd this would be fun. I'm not the best at debate, but I know my Right-wing talking points! :D

You need to dig below the talking points and understand the arguments that support them, otherwise you'll sound like Sean Hannity.  :p

In particular, I recommend reading just about anything by Thomas Sowell (but, in particular, Race and Culture, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and A Conflict of Visions).  Another fun and easy source of information are books written by former leftists like Harry Stein's How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace) or Tammy Bruce's The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.  Former socialist Joshua Muravchik's book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism is also pretty nifty and was turned into a 3 hour documentary by PBS (of all places) that you can order on DVD (good luck finding a PBS channel that's actually showing it).

If you want something a little more bite-sized, there is always the Wall Street Journal editorial page (some of which can be found at http://www.opinionjournal.com/), http://www.townhall.com/, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ (they publish lots of conservative columnists), http://www.nationalreview.com/, http://www.weeklystandard.com/, http://www.spectator.org/, http://www.reason.com/ (libertarian rather than conservative), and http://www.spectator.co.uk/.  You can also find a ton of policy-specific papers at various right-wing think-tanks, including http://www.heritage.org/, http://www.aei.org/, and http://www.cato.org/.

ADDED:  I should point out that the final step here is to do some of your own research and try to validate some of the fact yourself.  Partisans on both sides have a tendency to spin, omit, and lie to make their side of the argument sound stronger, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally.  Some skepticism of any partisan source, left or right, is often warranted.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Because nobody on this board is defending Syria.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't know if you saw it when I posted a link to it earlier (or when it was originally published), but you should really read the article Can There Be a Decent Left? by Michael Walzer (http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=598), which talks, in part, about why the left can only blame America for bad things.

This is one of the disconnects between traditional and rational world views. Traditionalists believe you should express your values just for the sake of expressing them - to let people know what you feel is right and wrong. Rationalists believe that to express views about something you cannot effect is useless.

Nothing anyone says on this board - or anywhere else on the internet - will affect the actions of al Queda, or the Iranian government, or Syria. But as members of democratic states, where free expression of ideas can shape public discourse and so have real effects on governance, we can criticize our own governments and hope to to have some effect, however small.

So if a liberal routinely criticizes the United States and never utters any criticism of North Korea, it's not because he necessarily feels the U.S. is the source of all ills in the world and North Korea is blameless. Rather, it means he feels he can have some small effect on the bad behaviour of the U.S., while criticism of North Korea is utterly hopeless and thus a waste of time.

Quote from: HaffrungThis is one of the disconnects between traditional and rational world views. Traditionalists believe you should express your values just for the sake of expressing them - to let people know what you feel is right and wrong. Rationalists believe that to express views about something you cannot effect is useless.

Nothing anyone says on this board - or anywhere else on the internet - will affect the actions of al Queda, or the Iranian government, or Syria. But as members of democratic states, where free expression of ideas can shape public discourse and so have real effects on governance, we can criticize our own governments and hope to to have some effect, however small.

So if a liberal routinely criticizes the United States and never utters any criticism of North Korea, it's not because he necessarily feels the U.S. is the source of all ills in the world and North Korea is blameless. Rather, it means he feels he can have some small effect on the bad behaviour of the U.S., while criticism of North Korea is utterly hopeless and thus a waste of time.

Wow.  That's one I've never heard before...ever...really...

I do like the insinuation that equates being liberal with being rational. It's cute.

Quote from: James J SkachWow.  That's one I've never heard before...ever...really...

I do like the insinuation that equates being liberal with being rational. It's cute.

Yes, Liberals are quite eager to tell you how they live in the "reality-based" community.

I wish *I* could get drugs like that...

Quote from: HaffrungThis is one of the disconnects between traditional and rational world views. Traditionalists believe you should express your values just for the sake of expressing them - to let people know what you feel is right and wrong. Rationalists believe that to express views about something you cannot effect is useless.

It's not useless.  It lets people understand you understand the full scope and context of the issues and it helps them understand the full scope and context of your opinions.

Quote from: HaffrungNothing anyone says on this board - or anywhere else on the internet - will affect the actions of al Queda, or the Iranian government, or Syria. But as members of democratic states, where free expression of ideas can shape public discourse and so have real effects on governance, we can criticize our own governments and hope to to have some effect, however small.

Actually, yes what people say in the United States does affect the actions of al Qaeda, other terrorist groups, and other entities hostile to the United States.  Because when they see their actions generating criticism of the United States and not of themselves and their friends, it encourages them and makes them think they are winning hearts and minds.  Perhaps you don't criticize Syria or al Qaeda because you feel you are powerless to effect them, but the criticism of the United States combined with an absence of criticism of Syria or al Qaeda looks, at best, like an extreme lack of perspective and, at worst, like you think the United States is worse than Syria or al Qaeda.  To al Qaeda, it looks like they are winning the hearts and minds of the Western left.

Quote from: HaffrungSo if a liberal routinely criticizes the United States and never utters any criticism of North Korea, it's not because he necessarily feels the U.S. is the source of all ills in the world and North Korea is blameless. Rather, it means he feels he can have some small effect on the bad behaviour of the U.S., while criticism of North Korea is utterly hopeless and thus a waste of time.

But it looks and sounds like they have no criticism of North Korea and feel that the United States it he source of all the ills in the world.  After all, how is one supposed to tell the difference between silence as the result of approval and silence as the result of feeling that criticism will be useless?  If you really want people to understand how you feel, you need to state it rather than assuming that they'll understand it.  And the reluctance that many seem to have on the left, even when asked point blank, to criticize a country like North Korea only feeds the impression that the left really is giving countries like North Korea a pass and blaming only the United States.

Further, the acknowledgment that a North Korea or Syria is a part of the problem, perhaps a significant part of the problem, plays a large roll is assessing the responsibility that the United States has for these problems.

In the case in question, perhaps one can find fault for the United States for sending a man back to a country where there was a good chance that they'd be tortured but the United States did not, in fact, torture the man.  Syria did.  And the United States did not gather the intelligence that led to the deportation of the man to Syria.  Canada did.  So why is the United States being held uniquely responsible for the situation and the sole guilty party.  Double standard?  It sure looks like it.

To be even more specific, if you acknowledge that the ruler of North Korea is an unreasonable nut who has been kidnapping people for years and is letting millions of people starve to death in his country rather that open things up, it sounds far less surprising that US efforts at diplomacy with North Korea have gone so badly and looks far less like it's the fault of the US.

Quote from: HaffrungBecause nobody on this board is defending Syria.

No.  They are blaming the United States and not Syria when it was Syria, not the United States that tortured a man who was from Syria, not the United States.

If a woman has too much to drink at a party, passes out, and winds up being raped, do you blame the woman because she drank too much and put herself in a position to be raped or do you blame the rapist who actually perpetrated the crime?  And if you hear someone finding fault only in the behavior of the woman but never mentioning the behavior of the rapist, does that sound like an even-handed critique or blaming the woman and making excuses for the rapist to you?

Its more like if a woman who you know is being beaten by her boyfriend passes by your front lawn, and you grab her, stuff her into a car against her will, and take her not to the shelter she's staying in, but to said abusive boyfriend, hogtied.

I'd say you can blame the boyfriend for beating her within an inch of her life, sure. But you can also spare lots of blame for the fuckhead that kidnapped her and drove her back to the asshole's house and handed her over as a present.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIf anyone but a branch of the American government locked people in a prison, we'd call it kidnapping, too.  Does that mean that we should let everyone out of jail?  Governments get to do things that citizens can't.  That's the way it is everywhere.

Morrow, you must spend a lot of time fishing, because all you ever seem to have are red herrings. The American government unjustly grabbed Arar on a layover at an airport and deported him to Syria, where he was tortured, and they did knowing that he would be. That's a morally shitty thing to do, and all the tortuous sophistry in the world won't exonerate the people who did it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMorrow, you must spend a lot of time fishing, because all you ever seem to have are red herrings. The American government unjustly grabbed Arar on a layover at an airport and deported him to Syria, where he was tortured, and they did knowing that he would be. That's a morally shitty thing to do, and all the tortuous sophistry in the world won't exonerate the people who did it.

Calling something a red herring doesn't make it so.  

It's sophistry comparing the behavior of a government with the behavior of an individual, which is what your original comment did.  If what I said is a red herring, then you introduced it into the debate.  If you want to charge the American government with unjustly grabbing Arar on his layover, then just do that and focus on the facts.  But, somehow, I suspect things won't look so awful if you do that.

Arar was a Syrian National who was detained based on information provided by the RCMP (ADDED: based on secret documents leaked to the press, they apparently thought he was a trained member of an Al Qaeda terrorist cell).  He had retained his Syrian citizenship.  Canadian officials (incorrectly) told the United States that he was no longer a resident of Canada.  So they deported him, under US immigration laws, to a country which he was originally from and was still a citizen of.  And given that version of the internal RCMP investigation that was given to the public was censored and there was evidence that members of the RCMP still considered Arar "a person of great interest", even after Canada decided to try to get him from Syria, and the US keeps them on their watch list because of "his personal associations and travel history".  There are claims that an informant places him in Afghanistan in the early 1990, which he denies, and neither you nor I have access to the full range of intelligence reports upon which the RCMP or the US government were and are making their decisions.  All of this information comes from the Wikipedia article on him.

He was a citizen of Syria.  Apparently Canada didn't want him back at the time.  The RCMP was quite possibly telling the US that he was a trained member of al Qaeda.  Where was he supposed to be sent?  Disneyland?  Out of curiosity, does Mr. Arar still retain his dual citizenship with Syria and, if so, why?

Is it horrible that he was tortured?  Sure.  But maybe if people spent more time getting the UN to apply pressure to countries that actually torture people routinely to stop torturing people instead of complaining about the much milder stuff that the United States does, maybe there wouldn't be so much torture.  Instead, the UN would rather pass resolutions against the US and Israel and give Syria a pass.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts more like if a woman who you know is being beaten by her boyfriend passes by your front lawn, and you grab her, stuff her into a car against her will, and take her not to the shelter she's staying in, but to said abusive boyfriend, hogtied.

Don't forget the part where you call the shelter and they tell you that she's very dangerous and they don't want her back and that her official residence is still the boyfriend's house.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy aren't we seeing more outrage in this thread directed toward Syria?  You know.  The country that actually tortured him.

Torturing people is wrong. Collaborating with people to let them torture someone is just as wrong. Collaborating with people to let them torture someone whilst at the same time claiming that you support human rights and a free and fair judicial system is being ragingly hypocritical about it, and hypocrisy makes people really angry.

Quote from: WarthurTorturing people is wrong. Collaborating with people to let them torture someone is just as wrong. Collaborating with people to let them torture someone whilst at the same time claiming that you support human rights and a free and fair judicial system is being ragingly hypocritical about it, and hypocrisy makes people really angry.

Canada was telling the United States that he was associated with terrorists, they didn't want him, and he was still a Syrian citizen.  What should the US have done with him?  If he didn't want to go back to Syria, why did he maintain his Syrian citizenship?

Quote from: One Horse TownWe are the most monitered country on the planet (i believe). The real sad thing about this is that it's got fuck all to do with terrorism and everything to do with alcohol fueled crime. We've had a problem for a while now and it's gotten very bad within the last 5 years or so. Go into town for a drink and you're entering another world these days.
...But considering that the home office has just 'lost' the details of 25 million peoples' child benifit details, including adresses, bank account details etc, hopefully, that'll die a death pretty quickly as people lose faith in this sort of 'big brother' monitoring ...

The photographer of this Youtube clip seems to be taking proactive measures in response to the encroaching UK culture:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas

However, it looks like he's more concerned with the police than with the local youths...

Quote from: John MorrowYou need to dig below the talking points and understand the arguments that support them, otherwise you'll sound like Sean Hannity.  :p

Hey, I like Sean HAnnity!

Seriously, I do have most of those books. I especially liked How I accidentally joined the vast right-wing conspiracy.

I do research some things, but I honestly don't have the time. 3 kids, all under 10. I happen to have a little time right now as I'm still sick from double pnemonia.

It's just a lot easier to use NBC for one side, and 6 hours of talk radio for the other. (Rush and Sean)

In a good debate, I'd be used to mop the floor. But I still enjoy it.

Quote from: shewolfHey, I like Sean HAnnity!

Well, I think Sean Hannity is a nice guy, but I've heard his opponents have him for lunch when they knock him off of his talking points and simple arguments.  That really doesn't help when it happens.

Quote from: shewolfSeriously, I do have most of those books. I especially liked How I accidentally joined the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Yeah, I liked it too, which is why I mentioned it.  It's interesting the role that having a child played in his "conversion".

Quote from: shewolfI do research some things, but I honestly don't have the time. 3 kids, all under 10. I happen to have a little time right now as I'm still sick from double pnemonia.

Oh, I understand, which is why I gave you the links at various levels of depth (it's easier to read an article or column than a long position paper or a book).

Quote from: shewolfIt's just a lot easier to use NBC for one side, and 6 hours of talk radio for the other. (Rush and Sean)

Yes, though MSNBC will give even more biased reporting, if you can stomach Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (after their hatchet job on the Swift Boat Vets, I can't).  I've listened to both Rush and Sean and they have their moment but Rush spends too much time talking about himself and Sean can be a bit shallow, in my opinion.  I much prefer Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin is good on Constitutional and legal stuff, though a bit grouchy in general.

Quote from: shewolfIn a good debate, I'd be used to mop the floor. But I still enjoy it.

It's much more fun to do the mopping than to be the mop. ;)

Quote from: John MorrowYeah, I liked it too, which is why I mentioned it.  It's interesting the role that having a child played in his "conversion".

Yeah, I'm much less liberal, and I wasn't exactly part of the DNC before kids :p

Quote from: John MorrowYes, though MSNBC will give even more biased reporting, if you can stomach Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (after their hatchet job on the Swift Boat Vets, I can't).  I've listened to both Rush and Sean and they have their moment but Rush spends too much time talking about himself and Sean can be a bit shallow, in my opinion.  I much prefer Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin is good on Constitutional and legal stuff, though a bit grouchy in general.

No dish or cable :( Plus, Mathews makes me scream bloody murder at the TV. Scares the pets. I've seen him very early a few Sunday mornings while nursing the baby....curdled his breakfast :(

Quote from: John MorrowIt's much more fun to do the mopping than to be the mop. ;)

It is, but I know I'm no where near as smart as some people. I've read some of the threads here and had to stop when I git tired of using google to figure out what was said :(

Plus, I'm bad for wanting short posts - I'm not a great typist, so I condense things way too much.

I just don't think fast enough. Don't have to when all I do is wash dishes and wipe ass all day. *shrug*