You allege that the US never agrees to extradite. Can you provide a cite for this? Can you provide any evidence that the US is not complying with the procedures set forth in extradition treaties we have signed (your original claim)?
As to your (absurd) claim that people in China enjoy religious and political freedom, I bring it up because I believe most readers of this site know that such a claim is absurd, and will keep such claims in mind when evaluating your other claims.
Which is well and good, but several lawsuits have tried to make this claim (that gun owners have a legal responsibility to call for their products to be used legally), and all have (quite rightly) been struck down.
So there is indeed not a legal requirement.
This is completely independent of my original statement, which was that the purposes guns are manufactured for are, in fact, legal.
OK, so if the government states that certain opinions are not legal, and anyone who states those opinions is to be punished, that doesn't strike you as a violation of free speech?
Really?
The ECJ has ruled that the EU is entitled to fire staff members who publicly criticise its policies.
I'd suggest that you go back and actually read the article I posted. The ECJ could have taken this tack, and I would not have objected -- of course you have a right to decide not to pay someone to criticize you. But that's not what the court ruled -- the court ruled, as the article clearly states, that the citizens of the EU have a `human right' not to hear their government disparaged. That is an unacceptable abridgement of the right to free speech, and is part of why I say that Europe is indeed less free than the US.
Incidentally, I do read (or at least regularly skim online) the Independent and the Times, as well as the Telegraph (where that article originates), and the Spectator. I will freely admit that I can't stomach the Guardian, so it's not on my list.:-)
We've already been over your (absurd) claim that their is religious freedom in China. There is not, as I suspect the vast majority of readers of this thread know. I was reacting, rather to your absurd defense of religious persecution in China by responding (more or less) `oh, that's okay, that's not religious persecution at all, but political persecution, so what's wrong?'.
Both religious and political persecution are wrong, and both exist in China.
Re:Can We Callanmge the SEC and FAASB?
on
Data Quality Act
·
· Score: 1
I'd sugest you read more about the American Indians. The Indians of the eastern parts of North America lived by a form of agriculture consisting of `slash and burn a clearing, farm that clearing until it's nutrient resources are adopted, move, repeat', which was tremendously destructive per capita -- indeed this same practice, as practiced by subsistence farmers in South America today is one of the leading destroyers of the Rain Forest.
Meanwhile, the plains indians, who only arrived on the great plains in 1810 or so, after a brutal and genocidal war against the previous tribes to live there, were already by the time we encountered them in the 1830's and 1840's embarked on a method of hunting Buffalo by slaughtering many more than were needed (out of a belief that any from a given herd who escaped would warn other herds), which would have resulted in extinction for the buffalo only a few decades later than we accomplished the same.
Of course, since the population of the area was much lower, due to low lifespan and frequent wars, the total effect was not as great. Given a larger population and more technology, it would have been -- the `ecological indian' is a myth.
Far from breaching the will of the ECHR, these fines are mandated by the ECHR, under the guise of a `human right' for minorities not to be offended by hearing statements which the state rules to be anti-minority. For a similar case, see
here.
Even more worrying, the ECHR has recently ruled that Europeans also have a `human right' not to hear criticism of government, and thus member states and EU insititutions may act against those who criticize EU actions and policies -- see
this article from the Telegraph for more.
And what are the fabulous benefits you assure us that the Dutch get in return for their `free' speech being placed at the whim of the government? Prostitutes and Euthanasia. No thanks, I think I'll pass...
Which is all very well, but the act doesn't say anything like what you claimed in your previous post. Maybe you should go back and read it again?
Care to back this statement up with some facts?
I've already posted an article, which looks at income, consumption, and other measures for Sweden and the US. How 'bout you post any reason to believe that these figures are not indicative of a lower standard of living?
I meant to imply that providing the opinion of a special-interest LOBBY group as some sort of definitive proof of something was disingenuous.
If you have any evidence that their figures (which are taken from the Swedish government's own reports) are inaccurate, say so. Otherwise this is just FUD.
Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan itself was against international law.
Care to back this claim up with a cite?
The USA did not meet Security Council guidelines for "self-defense" when it started dropping bombs.
Leaving aside the fact that the security council did, in fact, rule that US action in Afghanistan was justified, what makes you think that an organization whose Human Rights committee includes Syria, China, and the Sudan is any sort of sane judge of international law?
`International law' does not mean `the UN'. It is a body of precedent going back much farther.
The use of cluster bombs and daisy cutters which kill indiscriminantly over large areas? That's a violation of international law.
Nonsense. There is no precedent for claiming that dropping such weapons on enemy combatants is any sort of international law violation. And we have gone far out of our way, including putting American soldiers in harm's way on the ground designating targets, to avoud dropping any weapons on non-combatants. Even the Taliban never bothered to claim otherwise.
The prisoners at camp X-ray were held in violation of international law. The USA invented a new word to classify them "unlawful combatants" for the specific purpose of skirting the geneva convention
This is a direct misreading of the Geneva convention. The Geneva convention is a carrot and a stick. It states that if a nation follows the requirements of the convention, including only using uniformed combatants, having a clear hierarchy of ranks, and not attacking civilians, then their combatants are entitled to certain protections. The Taliban and al Qaeda did not meet these requirements, and thus under the Geneva convention their combatants can legally be summarily executed. We chose to detain them instead.
The US has made threats to attack signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with nuclear weapons
Cite? I haven't seen us do this. I have seen us leave open the option of a response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack by others.
The term "defend" is defined. And the actions to take to "preempt" are also defined.
Cite? I would argue that International Law has a longstanding precedent of preemptive self defense. See the article `Preempting Terrorism' in the January 28 issue of The Weekly Standard (it's in the premium content section of their website, but any library should have a copy) for a review of the International Law in this area.
No, it is not. For political reasons, several opportunities to arrest Osama Bin Laden and/or other senior Al-Qaeda members were deliberately passed up.
So we could have taken Bin Laden, alone. The camps in Afghanistan would still have been running, the cells in the US would still have been plotting, the state sponsors of terrorism would still have been sending money. How would this have prevented future attacks?
That can't happen now that we've burried Afghanistan under its own rubble..
What are you talking about? How is Afghanistan being free, for a change, having food aid get through instead of being seizeb by the Taliban, and receiving copious international support anything at all like being buried under rubble?
I am suggesting that RIGHT and WRONG could and SHOULD dictate America's foreign policy. I am suggesting that this country's foreign policy is currently NOT being guided by the principles of right and wrong. It is guided by the principle of "American interests" which actually means "Money".
Where do you get this? What was our financial incentive in Afghanistan? In Kosovo? In Bosnia? In Somalia? Sure doesn't look like any of these were financially motivated to me...
an environment which has suffered great injustices at the hands of the US.
Likewise, where do you get this? This isn't why Mr. Bin Laden says he hates us -- he's complaining about `Jews and Crusaders' and speaking of the `tragedy of Andalusia', meaning the reconquest of Spain in 1492. Do you really think a madman who is still whining about something which occurred 510 years ago is going to change his mind because of something we do now? Nor is it clear what injustices you mean -- from my count, most of our recent military actions, including Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, and Kuwait have been initiated to defend Muslims.
America recently dropped out of one of the most significant international environmental treaties, as it was not in the short-term financial interests of American industry to abide by that treaty, and the current US president appears to jump to industry's tune more than the last few did (not intended as a slur particularly on the US - we have the same problem in the UK at present, with the prime minister bending over for any industry special interest group that brings enough cash lubrication to the proceedings).
The problem with this analysis is that the US dropped out of Kyoto not out of a lack of concern over emissions, but because the structure of the Kyoto treaty was inherently unfair, and would have crippling long and short term effects on the US economy. The basic problem with the treaty is this: because it arbitrarily picks `1990 emissions levels' as its emissions target, the EU gets a free ride by claiming credit for all of the horribly polluting East German factories which went off line after 1991, while the US is required to roll back a decade of tremendous economic growth. In addition, nations like China, which are responsible for a sizable percentage of the world's emissions, would not be curtailed at all by the treaty.
The fact that the US chose not to sign the treaty does not change the fact that amount of pollution produced by the US has been dropping steadily for decades.
The richest fifth of the world's population, including the U.S., consumes 86 percent of all goods and services and produces 53 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions...
So if rich nations consume 86% of goods and services, but produce only 53% of emissions,doesn't this confirm exactly what I said -- namely, that rich nations use more efficient technologies and thus pollute less per quantity of goods consumed? And doesn't this indeed confirm that the best thing that could happen for the environment is for more nations to adopt economic systems which would allow them to grow prosperous and migrate to more efficient technologies too?
So doesn't it seem that after starting with a thunderous `Wrong!', you've just said the same thing I had said?
Sure, you say that now. Have kids, try to fit them in a 1000-sq-ft house. Start worrying about whether your kids would survive a crash in your tiny little car. Start noticing how much more trash you generate when you have kids and a little more money.
Or at least that's what all of the groups who hope to be tapped to be that `enlightened authority' keep telling us.
The problem with this argument is that in fact rich developed countries are already polluting less and less each year. Now if only the less developed nations would adopt economic systems which would allow them to grow into rich, developed nations, the problem would just go away...
Which is fine, except that East Germany was also an emissions disaster, and these emissions all went away when the factories of East Germany were turned off.
The physical pollution left over from East German `industry' has nothing to do with the Kyoto treaty at all, as the treaty is all about emissions levels.
Also, to address your parting jab, `changing cars every three years' is about the best thing people could do for emissions levels, as each generation of cars is more emissions-friendly than the last, and has been for some time...
Re:Can We Callanmge the SEC and FAASB?
on
Data Quality Act
·
· Score: 1
No I didn't, I asserted the existence of a cleaner technology doesn't mean everyone uses it for efficiency's sake.
Sure, but I don't think I made any assertions about why people are buying Hondas -- I only pointed out that people are making (and buying) SULEVs just fine without government intervention, and that as manufacturers address some of the reasons people aren't buying Hondas, instead of calling for laws to make people buy them, the market will reward them for doing so.
it appears that manufacturing had been evolving toward cleaner more efficient techologies long before [the 60's]
That's an assertion without support at all.
Are you really suggesting that as the economy moved from coal-burning to oil-burning, and from coal-fired mills to electrical grids, this had a negative effect?
What about El Salvador? A neighboring totalitarian regime (Nicaragua) sponsored geurilla attacks on civilians and government personell in El Salvador. We helped fund their defense against these attacks. What's your complaint?
what about chile, overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a military dictatorship, death squads, 1,000's of dissapearing civillians, does the name Augusto Pinochet mean anything to you?
The problem with this analysis is that with the end of the Cold War, we now know that the truth was perhaps as disapointing, if rather less sinister -- the truth is that the CIA was as surprised by the coup in Chile as anyone else was.
And let's talk about Pinochet, shall we? I'll freely acknowledge that the 995 who died under Pinochet's regime (that's the number claimed by the groups actually researching the matter) should not have died, but let's look at the history, in order: Salvador Allende, elected in a very tight election amid accusations of fraud had suspended the nations constitution, cancelled all future elections, and called in troops from Cuba to maintain his grip on power. Pinochet led a military coup which deposed Allende, defeated the Cuban and local geurilla movements, and then called free elections. In these elections, Pinochet was defeated, and he surrendered power peacefully. Why is it Pinochet, and not Allende, who is considered anti-democracy?
Um, what's your point? That My Lai was wrong? I'd certainly suggest that everyone agrees on that, as illustrated by the fact that those responsible were tried and convicted. This is hardly an indictment of the whole war, however, any more than such an incident in the Second World War (and I know of none) would have made that war wrong.
I don't need to. The law is what it is. And my point is still a valid counter-point to your criticism of British law.
OK, then, can you provide any cite to back up your claim that the law permits this? Any? Until you do, this claim is not a counter-point to anything at all...
Both you and the article have trouble distinguishing between wealth and the standard of living.
On the contrary, by any reasonable standard the Swedes have a lower standard of living -- and keep in mind that the article compares pre-tax salaries, so the actual picture, after the Swedes pay their absurdly high tax rate, is even more stark. Also, for the record, calling a position `right-wing' doesn't discredit it in any way -- if you have an actual argument to make, make it.
And the current approach to the "terrorist problem" preempts future attacks how, exactly
Well, we can start with the fact that a number of attacks have been prevented since September 11, 2001, move on to the fact that the infrastructure which made those attacks possible has been largely dismantled, and finish up with the fact that we have sent a clear message that nations cannot expect to sponsor terrorism against us without facing repercussions. Looks like A+ work to me -- full credit.
How would I suggest we respond? Well, for one thing I suggest that our response not fly in the face of International law.
Can you provide any grounding for your claim that the current solution `flies in the face of International law.'? Remember that International law fully recognizes the rights of states not only to defend themselves against attacks, but to preempt attacks which are being prepared.
I suggest that America should seek out those responsible, try them as war criminals and punish them in a manner consistent with International law. (Note: that would effectively prevent those same people from attacking the US again.)
Two problems with this approach: first off, this is exactly the approach we tried after the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole, and it was worse then ineffective. Not only did it not bring those responsible for these attacks to justice, but it demonstrated to our enemies that we did not have the will to defend ourselves, making the attacks of September 11 possible.
Secondly, this approach does nothing about the nations which sponsored attacks on us, and does nothing to preempt future attacks by different operatives in the same organization -- attacks, remember, which with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, could be much more deadly than the attacks of September 11.
I suggest that while America seeks justice against those who attacked it, it also make changes to its own foreign policy
Are you really suggesting that we should be making our foreign policy decisions based not on what we see as being right or wrong but on what will appease madmen like Mr. Bin Laden? Really?
And finally, to return to the original question (:-) ), I'm curious on what grounds you argue that the standard of living is lower in the US than elsewhere? Also, I'm curious what nations you consider to have protections for the rights of the individual which even approach those in the US?
Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion with me.
Likewise.
Re:Can We Callanmge the SEC and FAASB?
on
Data Quality Act
·
· Score: 1
The problem I see is that you assert these things, but don't explain why we should agree with you.
You assert that Honda only builds SULEVs because of environmental regulations without explaining why other manufacturers are not similarly forced to produce SULEVs. I would argue that Honda is making SULEVs because they believe that this is a sales point which will draw some classes of consumers to buy their cars, and that this is a perfect example of the market at work.
Likewise, you assert that the 60s was a nadir for the environment in this country, so that you can credit the environmental policies which followed Nixon's creation of the EPA for the improvements since then, but in fact it appears that manufacturing had been evolving toward cleaner more efficient techologies long before that -- that things were bad in the 60s does not mean that they weren't getting better, and it certainly doesn't mean that things haven't gotten much better since then.
I would posit that the vast majority of readers of this site recognize that your claims here are simply outrageous. Whether you are lying or repeating lies told by others is left as an exercise for the reader.
As for `mix[ing] up political activism with religious activism', just what is your point? Are we supposed to say `Oh. Well if they are being tortured and jailed for their political views, not their religious views, it's ok then!' ? Really?
With due respect, you haven't read much about extradition law, have you?
Of course there is judicial review before someone is extradited. Of course the courts in the extraditing nation review the case and decide if it is strong enough (in their view) to warrant extradition. All of this is specified in great detail in the relevant treaties, which are carefully followed.
Anything else would be open to abuses, which is why US law (unlike EU law) does not permit extradition without judicial review. Sure seems reasonable to me -- would you want to be picked up and shipped off to trial in some foreign nation without a chance to fight extradition in court?
That is correct. It is, however, signatory to a number of EU-originated treaties, some of which are quite scary (such as the so-called `anti-tax-evasion' stuff).
Actually, Gary Webb saw his career `torn to shreds' for writing a series of pieces claiming this without providing any credible evidence. See, newspapers have this thing against reporters who use their name and circulation to print conspiracy theories without backing up their claims with evidence...
I think it likely that at least some innocents have been executed in this country in the last century, but we may differ on this point.
Yup. I'd certainly have to see some evidence before agreeing with this one. It certainly seems to me that our system goes out of its way to avoid this happening (witness the number of people whose sentences are commuted or even whose convictions are reversed, and keep in mind that the vast majority of these are based on legal technicalities, not on any change in the evidence in the case)
My personal belief is that the wrongful execution of even one is unjustifiable, and if any possibility of this exists, then the death penalty cannot be justified.
Well, there's always some risk, just as there's always some risk of someone spending life in jail unjustly (hardly less of a punishment), but as I said, we clearly go out of our way to make that risk vanishingly small -- part of the reason that not one innocent has ever been shown to have been executed. Remember that you have to weigh against this that the average inmate sentenced to `life' in the US is out within two decades, and that escapes do happen. The lives of innocents killed by those who were guilty and should have been kept off the street have to be considered as well...
As for treaties with the Indians, I'm not going to deny that we've done some pretty nasty things in the past, or even that there are still abuses. As with many remnants of the pre-statehood old West (the BLM comes immediately to mind, as I'm sure the freepers could tell you:-) ), there is a lot of government bureaucracy there which is desperately looking for an excuse to exist and should go away. But this is hardly an indictment of the whole system, and, as the articles you point to show, is being attacked by the courts.
Yes, that was his point, and I pointed out clear abuses in the countries named which would not be possible here, and which I would argue are indicative of a worse approach to individual freedom resulting in a significantly less free nation in each case. We're not a utopia either, but we do have protections in place which these nations do not.
As for the Netherlands, OK, I'll grant your argument, and provide a different example. How about the fact that several prominent Dutch politicians have been fined by the government for suggesting that the country's immigration rate should be slowed down?
Surely a country where the government can arbitrarily declare political positions to be `racist' (in this case in the absence of any actual racism, of course), and punish those who hold such positions cannot be said to enjoy free speech in the same way that the US does, no?
Slashdot Mirror
You allege that the US never agrees to extradite. Can you provide a cite for this? Can you provide any evidence that the US is not complying with the procedures set forth in extradition treaties we have signed (your original claim)?
As to your (absurd) claim that people in China enjoy religious and political freedom, I bring it up because I believe most readers of this site know that such a claim is absurd, and will keep such claims in mind when evaluating your other claims.
So there is indeed not a legal requirement.
This is completely independent of my original statement, which was that the purposes guns are manufactured for are, in fact, legal.
By the way, while I was writing my other reply, /. posted another fine example of the type of thing I'm talking about...
OK, so if the government states that certain opinions are not legal, and anyone who states those opinions is to be punished, that doesn't strike you as a violation of free speech?
Really?
The ECJ has ruled that the EU is entitled to fire staff members who publicly criticise its policies.I'd suggest that you go back and actually read the article I posted. The ECJ could have taken this tack, and I would not have objected -- of course you have a right to decide not to pay someone to criticize you. But that's not what the court ruled -- the court ruled, as the article clearly states, that the citizens of the EU have a `human right' not to hear their government disparaged. That is an unacceptable abridgement of the right to free speech, and is part of why I say that Europe is indeed less free than the US.
Incidentally, I do read (or at least regularly skim online) the Independent and the Times, as well as the Telegraph (where that article originates), and the Spectator. I will freely admit that I can't stomach the Guardian, so it's not on my list. :-)
I'm not talking about REVIEWING.
Of course you are. You objected to an American judge reviewing the case presented by the government of Germany and declining to extradite.
Or are you okay with `review', but only if the judge is not given a decision as to whether to extradite? Does this logic come from the same place as your claims that China has no political or religious persecution?
Both religious and political persecution are wrong, and both exist in China.
I'd sugest you read more about the American Indians. The Indians of the eastern parts of North America lived by a form of agriculture consisting of `slash and burn a clearing, farm that clearing until it's nutrient resources are adopted, move, repeat', which was tremendously destructive per capita -- indeed this same practice, as practiced by subsistence farmers in South America today is one of the leading destroyers of the Rain Forest.
Meanwhile, the plains indians, who only arrived on the great plains in 1810 or so, after a brutal and genocidal war against the previous tribes to live there, were already by the time we encountered them in the 1830's and 1840's embarked on a method of hunting Buffalo by slaughtering many more than were needed (out of a belief that any from a given herd who escaped would warn other herds), which would have resulted in extinction for the buffalo only a few decades later than we accomplished the same.
Of course, since the population of the area was much lower, due to low lifespan and frequent wars, the total effect was not as great. Given a larger population and more technology, it would have been -- the `ecological indian' is a myth.
Far from breaching the will of the ECHR, these fines are mandated by the ECHR, under the guise of a `human right' for minorities not to be offended by hearing statements which the state rules to be anti-minority. For a similar case, see here.
Even more worrying, the ECHR has recently ruled that Europeans also have a `human right' not to hear criticism of government, and thus member states and EU insititutions may act against those who criticize EU actions and policies -- see this article from the Telegraph for more.
And what are the fabulous benefits you assure us that the Dutch get in return for their `free' speech being placed at the whim of the government? Prostitutes and Euthanasia. No thanks, I think I'll pass...
Read anything at all by Mr. Yourdon, and wade through pages and pages about how the Japanese are going to eat our lunch.
How's that workin' out for ya?
That's the full text of the USA PATRIOT act.
Which is all very well, but the act doesn't say anything like what you claimed in your previous post. Maybe you should go back and read it again?
Care to back this statement up with some facts?
I've already posted an article, which looks at income, consumption, and other measures for Sweden and the US. How 'bout you post any reason to believe that these figures are not indicative of a lower standard of living?
I meant to imply that providing the opinion of a special-interest LOBBY group as some sort of definitive proof of something was disingenuous.
If you have any evidence that their figures (which are taken from the Swedish government's own reports) are inaccurate, say so. Otherwise this is just FUD.
Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan itself was against international law.
Care to back this claim up with a cite?
The USA did not meet Security Council guidelines for "self-defense" when it started dropping bombs.
Leaving aside the fact that the security council did, in fact, rule that US action in Afghanistan was justified, what makes you think that an organization whose Human Rights committee includes Syria, China, and the Sudan is any sort of sane judge of international law?
`International law' does not mean `the UN'. It is a body of precedent going back much farther.
The use of cluster bombs and daisy cutters which kill indiscriminantly over large areas? That's a violation of international law.
Nonsense. There is no precedent for claiming that dropping such weapons on enemy combatants is any sort of international law violation. And we have gone far out of our way, including putting American soldiers in harm's way on the ground designating targets, to avoud dropping any weapons on non-combatants. Even the Taliban never bothered to claim otherwise.
The prisoners at camp X-ray were held in violation of international law. The USA invented a new word to classify them "unlawful combatants" for the specific purpose of skirting the geneva convention
This is a direct misreading of the Geneva convention. The Geneva convention is a carrot and a stick. It states that if a nation follows the requirements of the convention, including only using uniformed combatants, having a clear hierarchy of ranks, and not attacking civilians, then their combatants are entitled to certain protections. The Taliban and al Qaeda did not meet these requirements, and thus under the Geneva convention their combatants can legally be summarily executed. We chose to detain them instead.
The US has made threats to attack signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with nuclear weapons
Cite? I haven't seen us do this. I have seen us leave open the option of a response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack by others.
The term "defend" is defined. And the actions to take to "preempt" are also defined.
Cite? I would argue that International Law has a longstanding precedent of preemptive self defense. See the article `Preempting Terrorism' in the January 28 issue of The Weekly Standard (it's in the premium content section of their website, but any library should have a copy) for a review of the International Law in this area.
No, it is not. For political reasons, several opportunities to arrest Osama Bin Laden and/or other senior Al-Qaeda members were deliberately passed up.
So we could have taken Bin Laden, alone. The camps in Afghanistan would still have been running, the cells in the US would still have been plotting, the state sponsors of terrorism would still have been sending money. How would this have prevented future attacks?
That can't happen now that we've burried Afghanistan under its own rubble..
What are you talking about? How is Afghanistan being free, for a change, having food aid get through instead of being seizeb by the Taliban, and receiving copious international support anything at all like being buried under rubble?
I am suggesting that RIGHT and WRONG could and SHOULD dictate America's foreign policy. I am suggesting that this country's foreign policy is currently NOT being guided by the principles of right and wrong. It is guided by the principle of "American interests" which actually means "Money".
Where do you get this? What was our financial incentive in Afghanistan? In Kosovo? In Bosnia? In Somalia? Sure doesn't look like any of these were financially motivated to me...
an environment which has suffered great injustices at the hands of the US.
Likewise, where do you get this? This isn't why Mr. Bin Laden says he hates us -- he's complaining about `Jews and Crusaders' and speaking of the `tragedy of Andalusia', meaning the reconquest of Spain in 1492. Do you really think a madman who is still whining about something which occurred 510 years ago is going to change his mind because of something we do now? Nor is it clear what injustices you mean -- from my count, most of our recent military actions, including Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, and Kuwait have been initiated to defend Muslims.
America recently dropped out of one of the most significant international environmental treaties, as it was not in the short-term financial interests of American industry to abide by that treaty, and the current US president appears to jump to industry's tune more than the last few did (not intended as a slur particularly on the US - we have the same problem in the UK at present, with the prime minister bending over for any industry special interest group that brings enough cash lubrication to the proceedings).
The problem with this analysis is that the US dropped out of Kyoto not out of a lack of concern over emissions, but because the structure of the Kyoto treaty was inherently unfair, and would have crippling long and short term effects on the US economy. The basic problem with the treaty is this: because it arbitrarily picks `1990 emissions levels' as its emissions target, the EU gets a free ride by claiming credit for all of the horribly polluting East German factories which went off line after 1991, while the US is required to roll back a decade of tremendous economic growth. In addition, nations like China, which are responsible for a sizable percentage of the world's emissions, would not be curtailed at all by the treaty.
The fact that the US chose not to sign the treaty does not change the fact that amount of pollution produced by the US has been dropping steadily for decades.
The richest fifth of the world's population, including the U.S., consumes 86 percent of all goods and services and produces 53 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions ...
So if rich nations consume 86% of goods and services, but produce only 53% of emissions,doesn't this confirm exactly what I said -- namely, that rich nations use more efficient technologies and thus pollute less per quantity of goods consumed? And doesn't this indeed confirm that the best thing that could happen for the environment is for more nations to adopt economic systems which would allow them to grow prosperous and migrate to more efficient technologies too?
So doesn't it seem that after starting with a thunderous `Wrong!', you've just said the same thing I had said?
Sure, you say that now. Have kids, try to fit them in a 1000-sq-ft house. Start worrying about whether your kids would survive a crash in your tiny little car. Start noticing how much more trash you generate when you have kids and a little more money.
Then we'll talk...
Or at least that's what all of the groups who hope to be tapped to be that `enlightened authority' keep telling us.
The problem with this argument is that in fact rich developed countries are already polluting less and less each year. Now if only the less developed nations would adopt economic systems which would allow them to grow into rich, developed nations, the problem would just go away...
Which is fine, except that East Germany was also an emissions disaster, and these emissions all went away when the factories of East Germany were turned off.
The physical pollution left over from East German `industry' has nothing to do with the Kyoto treaty at all, as the treaty is all about emissions levels.
Also, to address your parting jab, `changing cars every three years' is about the best thing people could do for emissions levels, as each generation of cars is more emissions-friendly than the last, and has been for some time...
No I didn't, I asserted the existence of a cleaner technology doesn't mean everyone uses it for efficiency's sake.
Sure, but I don't think I made any assertions about why people are buying Hondas -- I only pointed out that people are making (and buying) SULEVs just fine without government intervention, and that as manufacturers address some of the reasons people aren't buying Hondas, instead of calling for laws to make people buy them, the market will reward them for doing so.
it appears that manufacturing had been evolving toward cleaner more efficient techologies long before [the 60's]That's an assertion without support at all.
Are you really suggesting that as the economy moved from coal-burning to oil-burning, and from coal-fired mills to electrical grids, this had a negative effect?
what about el savador?
What about El Salvador? A neighboring totalitarian regime (Nicaragua) sponsored geurilla attacks on civilians and government personell in El Salvador. We helped fund their defense against these attacks. What's your complaint?
what about chile, overthrowing a democratically elected government and replacing it with a military dictatorship, death squads, 1,000's of dissapearing civillians, does the name Augusto Pinochet mean anything to you?The problem with this analysis is that with the end of the Cold War, we now know that the truth was perhaps as disapointing, if rather less sinister -- the truth is that the CIA was as surprised by the coup in Chile as anyone else was.
And let's talk about Pinochet, shall we? I'll freely acknowledge that the 995 who died under Pinochet's regime (that's the number claimed by the groups actually researching the matter) should not have died, but let's look at the history, in order: Salvador Allende, elected in a very tight election amid accusations of fraud had suspended the nations constitution, cancelled all future elections, and called in troops from Cuba to maintain his grip on power. Pinochet led a military coup which deposed Allende, defeated the Cuban and local geurilla movements, and then called free elections. In these elections, Pinochet was defeated, and he surrendered power peacefully. Why is it Pinochet, and not Allende, who is considered anti-democracy?
Um, what's your point? That My Lai was wrong? I'd certainly suggest that everyone agrees on that, as illustrated by the fact that those responsible were tried and convicted. This is hardly an indictment of the whole war, however, any more than such an incident in the Second World War (and I know of none) would have made that war wrong.
I don't need to. The law is what it is. And my point is still a valid counter-point to your criticism of British law.
OK, then, can you provide any cite to back up your claim that the law permits this? Any? Until you do, this claim is not a counter-point to anything at all...
Both you and the article have trouble distinguishing between wealth and the standard of living.
On the contrary, by any reasonable standard the Swedes have a lower standard of living -- and keep in mind that the article compares pre-tax salaries, so the actual picture, after the Swedes pay their absurdly high tax rate, is even more stark. Also, for the record, calling a position `right-wing' doesn't discredit it in any way -- if you have an actual argument to make, make it.
And the current approach to the "terrorist problem" preempts future attacks how, exactly
Well, we can start with the fact that a number of attacks have been prevented since September 11, 2001, move on to the fact that the infrastructure which made those attacks possible has been largely dismantled, and finish up with the fact that we have sent a clear message that nations cannot expect to sponsor terrorism against us without facing repercussions. Looks like A+ work to me -- full credit.
How would I suggest we respond? Well, for one thing I suggest that our response not fly in the face of International law.
Can you provide any grounding for your claim that the current solution `flies in the face of International law.'? Remember that International law fully recognizes the rights of states not only to defend themselves against attacks, but to preempt attacks which are being prepared.
I suggest that America should seek out those responsible, try them as war criminals and punish them in a manner consistent with International law. (Note: that would effectively prevent those same people from attacking the US again.)
Two problems with this approach: first off, this is exactly the approach we tried after the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole, and it was worse then ineffective. Not only did it not bring those responsible for these attacks to justice, but it demonstrated to our enemies that we did not have the will to defend ourselves, making the attacks of September 11 possible.
Secondly, this approach does nothing about the nations which sponsored attacks on us, and does nothing to preempt future attacks by different operatives in the same organization -- attacks, remember, which with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, could be much more deadly than the attacks of September 11.
I suggest that while America seeks justice against those who attacked it, it also make changes to its own foreign policy
Are you really suggesting that we should be making our foreign policy decisions based not on what we see as being right or wrong but on what will appease madmen like Mr. Bin Laden? Really?
And finally, to return to the original question ( :-) ), I'm curious on what grounds you argue that the standard of living is lower in the US than elsewhere? Also, I'm curious what nations you consider to have protections for the rights of the individual which even approach those in the US?
Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion with me.
Likewise.
The problem I see is that you assert these things, but don't explain why we should agree with you.
You assert that Honda only builds SULEVs because of environmental regulations without explaining why other manufacturers are not similarly forced to produce SULEVs. I would argue that Honda is making SULEVs because they believe that this is a sales point which will draw some classes of consumers to buy their cars, and that this is a perfect example of the market at work.
Likewise, you assert that the 60s was a nadir for the environment in this country, so that you can credit the environmental policies which followed Nixon's creation of the EPA for the improvements since then, but in fact it appears that manufacturing had been evolving toward cleaner more efficient techologies long before that -- that things were bad in the 60s does not mean that they weren't getting better, and it certainly doesn't mean that things haven't gotten much better since then.
I would posit that the vast majority of readers of this site recognize that your claims here are simply outrageous. Whether you are lying or repeating lies told by others is left as an exercise for the reader.
As for `mix[ing] up political activism with religious activism', just what is your point? Are we supposed to say `Oh. Well if they are being tortured and jailed for their political views, not their religious views, it's ok then!' ? Really?
With due respect, you haven't read much about extradition law, have you?
Of course there is judicial review before someone is extradited. Of course the courts in the extraditing nation review the case and decide if it is strong enough (in their view) to warrant extradition. All of this is specified in great detail in the relevant treaties, which are carefully followed.
Anything else would be open to abuses, which is why US law (unlike EU law) does not permit extradition without judicial review. Sure seems reasonable to me -- would you want to be picked up and shipped off to trial in some foreign nation without a chance to fight extradition in court?
That is correct. It is, however, signatory to a number of EU-originated treaties, some of which are quite scary (such as the so-called `anti-tax-evasion' stuff).
Actually, Gary Webb saw his career `torn to shreds' for writing a series of pieces claiming this without providing any credible evidence. See, newspapers have this thing against reporters who use their name and circulation to print conspiracy theories without backing up their claims with evidence...
I think it likely that at least some innocents have been executed in this country in the last century, but we may differ on this point.
Yup. I'd certainly have to see some evidence before agreeing with this one. It certainly seems to me that our system goes out of its way to avoid this happening (witness the number of people whose sentences are commuted or even whose convictions are reversed, and keep in mind that the vast majority of these are based on legal technicalities, not on any change in the evidence in the case)
My personal belief is that the wrongful execution of even one is unjustifiable, and if any possibility of this exists, then the death penalty cannot be justified.
Well, there's always some risk, just as there's always some risk of someone spending life in jail unjustly (hardly less of a punishment), but as I said, we clearly go out of our way to make that risk vanishingly small -- part of the reason that not one innocent has ever been shown to have been executed. Remember that you have to weigh against this that the average inmate sentenced to `life' in the US is out within two decades, and that escapes do happen. The lives of innocents killed by those who were guilty and should have been kept off the street have to be considered as well...
As for treaties with the Indians, I'm not going to deny that we've done some pretty nasty things in the past, or even that there are still abuses. As with many remnants of the pre-statehood old West (the BLM comes immediately to mind, as I'm sure the freepers could tell you :-) ), there is a lot of government bureaucracy there which is desperately looking for an excuse to exist and should go away. But this is hardly an indictment of the whole system, and, as the articles you point to show, is being attacked by the courts.
Yes, that was his point, and I pointed out clear abuses in the countries named which would not be possible here, and which I would argue are indicative of a worse approach to individual freedom resulting in a significantly less free nation in each case. We're not a utopia either, but we do have protections in place which these nations do not.
As for the Netherlands, OK, I'll grant your argument, and provide a different example. How about the fact that several prominent Dutch politicians have been fined by the government for suggesting that the country's immigration rate should be slowed down?
Surely a country where the government can arbitrarily declare political positions to be `racist' (in this case in the absence of any actual racism, of course), and punish those who hold such positions cannot be said to enjoy free speech in the same way that the US does, no?