It means that Rush wants the Methods Obama is using to fail because he believes that making the US more socialist is bad thing and NOT in the public good. Both men want what's best for america, they just disagree as to what that is. I've said this over and over and those responding to my comments refuse to read those lines.
I also never said which man I believe to have a better grasp on what the common good is. Your second paragraph states fairly clearly that you believe Obama's idea is correct (or at least that Rush is wrong), and that's fine. Just stop insisting that your opinion is the only valid one. I try to avoid debating peoples opinions, b/c opinions are like religion, being a fan of a sports team. Nothing I can say will change some ones opinion, I can only give them my point of view and let them change their own mind (which happens next to never).
If you care to read it, I outlined my view on what the ideal mix of Capitalism, Socialism and the role of regulation is in one of my other posts. Just remember it's opinion
as to the definition of Liberal in the US. I didn't define the term and never said that any other countries define Liberal the same way we do. The point I was trying to make is that there are probably more than 2 definitions of Liberal. Besides, if words like Fag, and phrases like "knock up" can have such wildly different meaning in the US and the UK, it is perfectly acceptable for an ambiguous term like Liberal to have different meanings as well.
I never even mentioned capitalism and I acknowledged the room for debate as to limited Socialism. In fact, I never expressed an opinion as to whether I agree with Rush or his perception of Obama.
As to what has worked, well I believe that the best mix is regulated capitalism with a splash of socialism. I think that the current economic problems we are experiencing was because we relaxed regulations too much, and that the social security problem coming down the pipe is due to too much socialism (or at least, poorly implemented). However, I never expressed any of these opinions b/c that was not relevant to the point I was making, or the discussion I was having.
P.S. the 100% income tax example you gave strikes me as being a fairly precise summarization of Communism and why it doesn't work, and Communism != Socialism AFAIK.
I stopped watching the West Wing after I came to the conclusion that they were never going to portray a Republican as anything other than the villain (except of course when the Republican was doing what the President wanted.)
The show became a love note to the liberal elite to make them feel better about loosing 2 presidential elections in a row. I love shows about politics, but they have to at least try to be something other than the Democratic equivalent of Conservative Talk radio. If they can't, then they should admit they are a mouthpiece so as to avoid confusion.
Both Obama and Rush want the common good. They just both have different Ideas as to what that is and what are the best means to achieve it. Your insistence that somehow Obama wants what is best for American and somehow Rush doesn't because he doesn't agree with Obama's view is circular logic and very much ideological idiocy.
Rush has some very valid ideas and points, as does Obama. Neither one of them has cornered the market on the "Truth" about what exactly is best for America. Right now Obama has the power to exercise his ideas, and Rush has the power to vocally oppose those decision that he perceives to be the result of faulty judgment. I fail to see how that makes Rush the bad guy.
By the way:
I don't know what your definition of Liberalism is, but I do know that in politics, terms like Liberal and Conservative have different meanings depending on the country. It's most likely not a US v the rest of the world kind of thing. Personally I believe that words like Progressive, Conservative, Liberal, etc. are confusing and are counter productive since very few people fit any word entirely on every issue, and in many instances the stereotypical stance of Liberals or Conservatives is contradictory to their stance on another point.
I Never said that the only security fear is external to the US. I did only give examples of foreign concerns because I think they are more relevant to the discussion. I know that there are people that want to kill the president (regardless of who he is).
Hell, my wife is a teacher and it has become obvious to her that one of her students has someone in his life that is a huge bigot, because in the weeks leading up the inauguration he intentionally used the word "Assassination" instead of "Inauguration" any chance he could. Based on her conversations with him about it, she came to the conclusion that he's simply parroting something he's hearing at home, by someone who wouldn't shed a tear for Obama if something were to happen to him.
However, the Secret service exists to protect the body of the President, they've done a pretty good job over the years, and I feel confident in their ability to protect this one as well. Consequently, I'm more worried about outside attacks to acquire sensitive information than I am about the hacking of his PDA by a more domestic person(s) with the goal of assassination.
Your own post give the reason he wants Obama to fail, and it's because of the very reasons I gave
Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.
by placing emphasis on this portion of your transcript it becomes apparent that, while Rush says he wants Obama to fail, it's becuase of Policy decisions he's expected to make, and he wants those policy decisions to fail b/c he believes they are bad for America.
I watched an interview with Rush on Fox last night, and he doesn't want Obama to fail. He believes (correctly or not) that Obama is a socialist and is going to try and shape America into a socialist nation. Rush is correct that full-fledged Socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and his concern is that this move will be ruinous for America.
Now, you can debate the accuracy of the claim that Obama is a Socialist, the efficacy of limited Socialism (Canada and many european countries), and in the end whether Rush's fears were warranted, but this insistence that bombastic personalities like Rush and O'Reily actually want the president, and by extension the US, to fail is useless demagoguery. No American truly wants America to fail (with the possible exception of Chomsky, he scares me).
The sooner people start to realize that the opposition party is just as patriotic, just with a different opinion on the best way to proceed, the sooner we can "Move beyond Politics" as most of Obama's supporters claim he has.
Your equivocation at the the bottom in parenthesis is why I believe that Israel's response is proportionate.
Hamas is targeting (and I use the word target loosely since they are doing little more than pointing the RPG in the direction of Israel) civilians regardless of proximity to military targets. Israel is targeting civilian buildings only when they believe Hamas members to be present inside. (I realize they've mistakenly shelled buildings containing only civilians, it's war and regrettable as it is mistakes happen.)
It's not Israel's fault that Hamas refuses to admit (or doesn't care) that they are out gunned and will pay a much higher price than Israel in every confrontation. And by "they" I mean all Palestinians, not just Hamas members.
Expect to see this kind of thing for at least the next 100 days. The press likes to make a big deal about this 100 day honeymoon period. They cut the president some slack, and spend their time on other things.
Over the last 8 years, nothing has given the media more joy than kicking Bush around. I watched MSNBC last night for an hour and every discussion of Obama quickly turned into a burning in effigy of Bush, instead of a commentary on what I wanted to here about. "What is Obama doing, or planning to do during his administration!" I already know what Bush did, and what I think about his actions. I Don't care what Obama's appointies think of them, only what they plan on doing now that they have the power.
Obama may claim to be above politics, and there is even evidence that he is trying. However, the media and those I've seen on TV who are members of the new Obama administration are not even pretending.
the need for security does not stem from fear of those that elected him, but from fear of foreign interests getting their hands on sensitive information. I could care less if China, Al-Queda, Russia, etc. get their hands on his emails from his wife. I do care if any of them were to get their hands on sensitive information like internal comments about on-going negotiations on pending legislate, trade agreements, or human rights issues.
Firstly, you are being pedantic. Most Americans will admit that they feel safer. I was using the "we" in the sense of the majority. there is no statement of feeling, opinion or perception that one can make about all americans simultaneously. Obviously, not EVERYone feels safer. You can put your attitude away.
I feel pretty safe in stating that many people that would help starving children locally probably would not pick up a gun and start shooting at people. Those that are willing to shoot at people, and risk get shot at as well, probably aren't too worried about a little travel.
Attacks on US military targets didn't soak up AQ's resources because they didn't have anyone actively trying to capture or kill them in between their attacks. It's a lot harder to plan and carry out those kinds of actions when the US military is trying to find you and kill you, than when your targets are only acting defensively.
You may have been aware of what Bush was doing and disapproved, but that places you firmly in the minority. I was aware, and wouldn't have approved at other times, but knew that eventually those powers grabbed by the Bush administration would be revoked. I believe that your complaints in the last couple of paragraphs are valid, but I don't believe that it would have been possible to do everything that they felt they needed to do as quickly as they felt they needed to. IIRC, most of the power grabbing took place during the 1st term when 9/11, the dumb ass sneaker bomber, the DC sniper, etc. was still happening (yes I realize that those all aren't related, but I'm pretty sure they were all happening around the same time).
People have the luxury of being moral. Governments who's civilians are under threat of hostile military action do not.
Israel does not want to be wasting it's money and reputation firing rockets and bullets into Palestinian territory. Nor does it want the blood of all the non-combatants and their own military personnel on their hands. Unfortunately, certain groups within Palestine insist on provoking them, and those who would accept peace with Israel do nothing to stop it.
I think it says alot about members of Hamas, that they care less about their people than Israel does (as evidenced by repeated unilateral withdrawls by Israel). It takes only one side to start a battle, but it takes both sides to stop one.
I said we feel safer. I'm not sure that we actually are. However, I do believe that Iraq has taken the majority of Al Queda's attention. I know that I can only really do so many things in a given day. It's far more immediately gratifying to take care of the easy (close) things than to try and work on the larger picture items. (I'm paying the price for that now as a grad student who's thesis deadline is fast approaching)
I don't deny that they still want to make US civilians pay, but they'll settle for making our military personnel pay. It may not have a larger return on investment in the long term, but the investment is much easier to make in the short term.
Also, I don't know where Khobar Towers is, but I'm guessing it's not in the US, so while it may have made a name for AQ it didn't scare Americans at home. That was the reason why 9/11 was world changing for most Americans, the attacks hit home. We expect our military personnel to be attacked and occasionally die, even when we aren't officially at war. It's the death of hundreds of civilians that created the environment of fear, which in turn gave Bush a mandate to make us feel safer by any means necessary in the short term.
Many may hate the man now, but he did exactly what we wanted him to do at the time. It's just that, now we aren't as scared and it's easier to vilify him, than to admit that any losses of personal freedom were our own fault.
By keeping his involvement with the destruction of the colonies a secret, he's basically accepting responsibility for his actions. Yet his character never accepts responsibility for his actions!
Admitting to everyone around him his role is the definition of taking responsibility for his actions. By hiding it, he's attempting to deny his involvement. He doesn't try to "spin" the info, b/c there is no positive spin on "I let the cylons into our system, and that is why they were able to destroy 99% of the human population without us being able to put up a fight"
I won't argue that some of the characterizations are weird, but the example you gave was ludicrous.
We need to remember what the Bush Administration has done to the rights of this country.
I believe that any president would have done alot of what Bush did in his situation, and I doubt that Obama will do much to relinquish the executive powers that Bush siezed. It's the nature of the beast, the executive and legislative branches have been battling for supremecy since the beginning, and during times of war the executive branch wins. During long term prosperity and peace, the legislative branch tends to win.
We need to remember what the "war on terror" did for us and to us.
No attacks since 2001 is a pretty good record (whether you believe that Iraq was important before hand, you have to admit that it has taken al Queda's focus off of the citizens within the US and turned it to the military in a foreign country. Sucks for those in Iraq, but good for the citizens of the US that aren't in the military, at least in the short term)
We need to seriously examine how we allowed this kind of thing to happen less it goes to the next level during the next time around.
It's simple, We were scared and Bush did anything he could to make us feel safe. Not all of it was effective, or even within the normal powers of the presidency, but overall we all feel safer than we did 7 years ago.
I'm fairly sure that dilemma refers to the large-scale perception that Israel is occupying "Palestine". Which has a kernel of truth, as Israel indeed militarily occupies the West Bank, and this is quite immoral.
AFAIK, Israel invaded Palestine becuase Palestine was about to invade Israel. Pre-emptive invasion of a hostile neighbor, is not the same as invasion of a peacful neighbor that won't do what you want (The reason we went to war with Iraq the first time, to liberate Kuwait).
However, I do agree with the point your Sig is making. Why should Israel stop bombing Hamas? If Hamas doesn't care that Palestinians are dying because it keeps provoking Israel, why should their enemy? I understand that Israel doesn't want to drive more Palestinians to support Hamas. Then again, If you support those that are the original cause of your suffering as a response to your suffering, you deserve what you get in my opinion.
I agree that teaching lessons with guns, rarely actually teaches the right lesson, but what else is Israel to do? They've tried negotiating cease fires, bilateral and unilateral withdrawl of military personel, relaxing boarders, etc. AFAIK, every attempt has led to an increase in volence against Israel in the long run, and a return to the status quo.
Practically speaking (ie not lawyer speak) the license for the Mac OS is attached to the hardware at manufacturing, because the license is useless without the hardware. When I bought an old G4 the license was automatically transfered to me, even though the machine didn't have a HD or any installer disks. Whether Apple actually states that anywhere in a legally defensible document doesn't really matter since it is impossible to purchase new Apple hardware without getting a license at the same time, and Apple is not in the habit of suing it's own customers (those who've purchased their hardware) for violation of licensing terms.
I've commented on this in the past ad nauseam. Apple sells upgrades (even though they don't specify this clearly on the box) becuase their license prohibits the installation of the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware. Consequently, any licensed-approved use of the Mac OS installer disks are, by design, either upgrades or restores to factory settings.
I don't plan to argue the validity of EULA's, or any other point of potential legal contention with anyone here because I'm not a lawyer, and most likely neither are you. As things stand right now, Apple has a reasonable expectation of the validity of their EULA, and as a result they have no need to specify that their software is really an "upgrade". Besides, if their EULA is not valid, then specifying that the software is an upgrade would be an exercise in futility since they would do the specifying in the EULA!
I don't mean to be insulting, but being able to assemble a list of respected scientists that don't agree proves that there isn't a consensus. That there exists a long list of respected scientists who are essentially being ignored is evidence (although not proof) that politics is getting in the way. Without politics being involved, these respected scientists would be give lip service at the very least by their peers. Instead, they are simply ignored which is not good science, but a very effective political maneuver if you can get enough people to go along with you in ignoring the dissenters.
The fact that there are scientists within the appropriate communities questioning the CO2 as the major motivator of global climate change would appear to indicate that there is no consensus, never mind one that is decades old. There is another post attached to this topic that contains quotes of highly respected scientists within the relevant fields expressing doubt, criticism, and in some cases ridicule on this topic. That doesn't make me right, but it does remove the possibility of a consensus from the discussion.
I don't believe that CO2 is innocent. I believe that the role of CO2 has been overstated. If I put on my tinfoil hat I can give you several potential reasons for the overstating of CO2's importance: 1. Making global climate change our fault scares funding agencies into forking over a lot of cash to try and find solutions to the problem. 2. The UN has a love/hate relationship with industrialized western nations (they provide the bulk of the funding, but they are also the minority of it's members). Since CO2 emissions come predominantly from western nations, this enables the blame to be placed on those nations. The western nations would need to sacrifice their current energy infrastructures to mediate these problems, give the 2nd and 3rd world member nations a chance to catch up.
I don't actually believe that either of these are primary motivating factors, but I do believe they both play a role in the overstatement of CO2's role.
I've never stated that I'm against improving efficiency, finding alternatives to fossil fuels, minimizing consumption, or that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses. Just because CO2 can absorb energy, doesn't mean it's impact is large enough to be the main culprit in Global Climate Change. I do believe it is a factor.
However, I don't believe enough evidence has been mustered to justify the kind of extreme measures that have been proposed. Want to minimize automobile emissions? Great! Want to find alternatives to the burning of finite and polluting fuels like oil and coal? Great! Want to increase our use of renewable energy sources like wind, wave, geothermal, etc.? Excellent. Want to push technology that isn't ready based on a religious like belief in models that have been shown to have incredibly low predictive ability? NO! Wait until the models improve to the point where they are right even 60% of the time. Throw some more money at those researchers that are actually improving the validity of the models.
This is what I see is happening in the US. It's not that we shouldn't be pushing to reduce CO2, or that we shouldn't be using these models (as has been unnecessarily pointed out repeatedly, they are the best we've ever had). It's that we are pushing too hard, because we are treating these models as though they are better than they currently are.
I would also suggest the if you see and issue with 20,000 scientists and professionals on one side of an issue and a dozen or so on the payroll of major oil companies on the other, that you do the rational thing, and look for who has reason to be honest and who doesn't.
Starting a reply by trying to imply I am either on the payroll of interested parties, or unable to notice if the sources I read are, means you're not even willing to consider the possibility that I have a point worth considering. This is a nonstarter for any discussion.
There are virtually no serious scientists in the fields
There is a post in this discussion that contained quotes of 15 or so, highly respected scientists within the very fields you are outlining that falsify the statement you are making.
Scientists have recently discovered that thermal records of earths surface temperature propagate slowly down into the earth crust
This is not a direct measurement of global atmospheric temperature. It is a direct measurement of global soil temp, and is used as an indirect measure of global atmospheric temperature. The global atmospheric temp is not the only thing influencing the temp of the earths crust (vulcanism and radioactivity come to mind), so those other influences need to be accurately accounted for in any calculation attempting to yield historical data for the global atmospheric temperature.
Why would anybody dream of taunting fate with the likely result costing the lives of untold millions.
Consider the possibility that our obsessive focus on CO2 has caused us to miss a more important controller of GCC. IMO, failing to even consider other possibilities is a greater tempting of fate than touting CO2 as the only major controller of GCC that we can influence and declaring the debate over.
My post acknowledged that there exists evidence that CO2 can increase the temperature in a global system (your venus example as well as experimental evidence). However, Evidence is not Proof.
You need lots of falsifiable predictions to be found accurate before the evidence adds up to the level of proof. I'm saying that the GW proponents have a lot of evidence that GW is happening. They also have evidence (less so IMO) that CO2 may be the culprit. However, the amount of evidence they've brought together doesn't meet the burden of proof necessary for the kind of radical restructuring of our energy economy that is being pushed.
I have no problem with the idea that I'm wrong, but I insist on a larger quantity of reliable data before I'll be convinced and when people saying things like "The debate is over!!" it means they aren't looking for any more evidence.
Note that the IPCC only accepts as fact things that have unanimous support amoung thousands of member scientists.
If you truly believe this, then you've never had to deal with a bureaucrat. The UN is full of them, and while many of them truly believe they are doing what is right, most of them are not scientists. They are most likely Poli. Sci. or Rhetoric majors and ill equipped to see when a person with scientific credentials is pulling the wool over their eyes.
Even if my skepticism is misplaced, and GW is real and happening (something I am more than willing to consider). I'm still not convinced that something as complex as global climate can be controlled so completely by the concentration of a single gas in the atmosphere. I don't believe that CO2 is as all-important as it's made out to be (I'm not saying it's not important).
I think that those pushing CO2 are guilty of damn near criminal negligence. They've gotten to the point where they've identified a suspect and decided to forgo collecting any more evidence that might point the blame in a different direction. that is not science that is politics, something that bureaucracies excel at.
Slashdot Mirror
What does "failing" mean in this context,
It means that Rush wants the Methods Obama is using to fail because he believes that making the US more socialist is bad thing and NOT in the public good. Both men want what's best for america, they just disagree as to what that is. I've said this over and over and those responding to my comments refuse to read those lines.
I also never said which man I believe to have a better grasp on what the common good is. Your second paragraph states fairly clearly that you believe Obama's idea is correct (or at least that Rush is wrong), and that's fine. Just stop insisting that your opinion is the only valid one. I try to avoid debating peoples opinions, b/c opinions are like religion, being a fan of a sports team. Nothing I can say will change some ones opinion, I can only give them my point of view and let them change their own mind (which happens next to never).
If you care to read it, I outlined my view on what the ideal mix of Capitalism, Socialism and the role of regulation is in one of my other posts. Just remember it's opinion
as to the definition of Liberal in the US. I didn't define the term and never said that any other countries define Liberal the same way we do. The point I was trying to make is that there are probably more than 2 definitions of Liberal. Besides, if words like Fag, and phrases like "knock up" can have such wildly different meaning in the US and the UK, it is perfectly acceptable for an ambiguous term like Liberal to have different meanings as well.
Put the capitalism straw man down and step away.
I never even mentioned capitalism and I acknowledged the room for debate as to limited Socialism. In fact, I never expressed an opinion as to whether I agree with Rush or his perception of Obama.
As to what has worked, well I believe that the best mix is regulated capitalism with a splash of socialism. I think that the current economic problems we are experiencing was because we relaxed regulations too much, and that the social security problem coming down the pipe is due to too much socialism (or at least, poorly implemented). However, I never expressed any of these opinions b/c that was not relevant to the point I was making, or the discussion I was having.
P.S. the 100% income tax example you gave strikes me as being a fairly precise summarization of Communism and why it doesn't work, and Communism != Socialism AFAIK.
I stopped watching the West Wing after I came to the conclusion that they were never going to portray a Republican as anything other than the villain (except of course when the Republican was doing what the President wanted.)
The show became a love note to the liberal elite to make them feel better about loosing 2 presidential elections in a row. I love shows about politics, but they have to at least try to be something other than the Democratic equivalent of Conservative Talk radio. If they can't, then they should admit they are a mouthpiece so as to avoid confusion.
Both Obama and Rush want the common good. They just both have different Ideas as to what that is and what are the best means to achieve it. Your insistence that somehow Obama wants what is best for American and somehow Rush doesn't because he doesn't agree with Obama's view is circular logic and very much ideological idiocy.
Rush has some very valid ideas and points, as does Obama. Neither one of them has cornered the market on the "Truth" about what exactly is best for America. Right now Obama has the power to exercise his ideas, and Rush has the power to vocally oppose those decision that he perceives to be the result of faulty judgment. I fail to see how that makes Rush the bad guy.
By the way: I don't know what your definition of Liberalism is, but I do know that in politics, terms like Liberal and Conservative have different meanings depending on the country. It's most likely not a US v the rest of the world kind of thing. Personally I believe that words like Progressive, Conservative, Liberal, etc. are confusing and are counter productive since very few people fit any word entirely on every issue, and in many instances the stereotypical stance of Liberals or Conservatives is contradictory to their stance on another point.
I Never said that the only security fear is external to the US. I did only give examples of foreign concerns because I think they are more relevant to the discussion. I know that there are people that want to kill the president (regardless of who he is).
Hell, my wife is a teacher and it has become obvious to her that one of her students has someone in his life that is a huge bigot, because in the weeks leading up the inauguration he intentionally used the word "Assassination" instead of "Inauguration" any chance he could. Based on her conversations with him about it, she came to the conclusion that he's simply parroting something he's hearing at home, by someone who wouldn't shed a tear for Obama if something were to happen to him.
However, the Secret service exists to protect the body of the President, they've done a pretty good job over the years, and I feel confident in their ability to protect this one as well. Consequently, I'm more worried about outside attacks to acquire sensitive information than I am about the hacking of his PDA by a more domestic person(s) with the goal of assassination.
Whooosh!!
Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things.
by placing emphasis on this portion of your transcript it becomes apparent that, while Rush says he wants Obama to fail, it's becuase of Policy decisions he's expected to make, and he wants those policy decisions to fail b/c he believes they are bad for America.
Context is everything
Oh, can you find it in your hart to forgive my typo you pedantic a$$.
I watched an interview with Rush on Fox last night, and he doesn't want Obama to fail. He believes (correctly or not) that Obama is a socialist and is going to try and shape America into a socialist nation. Rush is correct that full-fledged Socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and his concern is that this move will be ruinous for America.
Now, you can debate the accuracy of the claim that Obama is a Socialist, the efficacy of limited Socialism (Canada and many european countries), and in the end whether Rush's fears were warranted, but this insistence that bombastic personalities like Rush and O'Reily actually want the president, and by extension the US, to fail is useless demagoguery. No American truly wants America to fail (with the possible exception of Chomsky, he scares me).
The sooner people start to realize that the opposition party is just as patriotic, just with a different opinion on the best way to proceed, the sooner we can "Move beyond Politics" as most of Obama's supporters claim he has.
Your equivocation at the the bottom in parenthesis is why I believe that Israel's response is proportionate.
Hamas is targeting (and I use the word target loosely since they are doing little more than pointing the RPG in the direction of Israel) civilians regardless of proximity to military targets. Israel is targeting civilian buildings only when they believe Hamas members to be present inside. (I realize they've mistakenly shelled buildings containing only civilians, it's war and regrettable as it is mistakes happen.)
It's not Israel's fault that Hamas refuses to admit (or doesn't care) that they are out gunned and will pay a much higher price than Israel in every confrontation. And by "they" I mean all Palestinians, not just Hamas members.
Expect to see this kind of thing for at least the next 100 days. The press likes to make a big deal about this 100 day honeymoon period. They cut the president some slack, and spend their time on other things.
Over the last 8 years, nothing has given the media more joy than kicking Bush around. I watched MSNBC last night for an hour and every discussion of Obama quickly turned into a burning in effigy of Bush, instead of a commentary on what I wanted to here about. "What is Obama doing, or planning to do during his administration!" I already know what Bush did, and what I think about his actions. I Don't care what Obama's appointies think of them, only what they plan on doing now that they have the power.
Obama may claim to be above politics, and there is even evidence that he is trying. However, the media and those I've seen on TV who are members of the new Obama administration are not even pretending.
the need for security does not stem from fear of those that elected him, but from fear of foreign interests getting their hands on sensitive information. I could care less if China, Al-Queda, Russia, etc. get their hands on his emails from his wife. I do care if any of them were to get their hands on sensitive information like internal comments about on-going negotiations on pending legislate, trade agreements, or human rights issues.
Firstly, you are being pedantic. Most Americans will admit that they feel safer. I was using the "we" in the sense of the majority. there is no statement of feeling, opinion or perception that one can make about all americans simultaneously. Obviously, not EVERYone feels safer. You can put your attitude away.
I feel pretty safe in stating that many people that would help starving children locally probably would not pick up a gun and start shooting at people. Those that are willing to shoot at people, and risk get shot at as well, probably aren't too worried about a little travel.
Attacks on US military targets didn't soak up AQ's resources because they didn't have anyone actively trying to capture or kill them in between their attacks. It's a lot harder to plan and carry out those kinds of actions when the US military is trying to find you and kill you, than when your targets are only acting defensively.
You may have been aware of what Bush was doing and disapproved, but that places you firmly in the minority. I was aware, and wouldn't have approved at other times, but knew that eventually those powers grabbed by the Bush administration would be revoked. I believe that your complaints in the last couple of paragraphs are valid, but I don't believe that it would have been possible to do everything that they felt they needed to do as quickly as they felt they needed to. IIRC, most of the power grabbing took place during the 1st term when 9/11, the dumb ass sneaker bomber, the DC sniper, etc. was still happening (yes I realize that those all aren't related, but I'm pretty sure they were all happening around the same time).
People have the luxury of being moral. Governments who's civilians are under threat of hostile military action do not.
Israel does not want to be wasting it's money and reputation firing rockets and bullets into Palestinian territory. Nor does it want the blood of all the non-combatants and their own military personnel on their hands. Unfortunately, certain groups within Palestine insist on provoking them, and those who would accept peace with Israel do nothing to stop it.
I think it says alot about members of Hamas, that they care less about their people than Israel does (as evidenced by repeated unilateral withdrawls by Israel). It takes only one side to start a battle, but it takes both sides to stop one.
I said we feel safer. I'm not sure that we actually are. However, I do believe that Iraq has taken the majority of Al Queda's attention. I know that I can only really do so many things in a given day. It's far more immediately gratifying to take care of the easy (close) things than to try and work on the larger picture items. (I'm paying the price for that now as a grad student who's thesis deadline is fast approaching)
I don't deny that they still want to make US civilians pay, but they'll settle for making our military personnel pay. It may not have a larger return on investment in the long term, but the investment is much easier to make in the short term.
Also, I don't know where Khobar Towers is, but I'm guessing it's not in the US, so while it may have made a name for AQ it didn't scare Americans at home. That was the reason why 9/11 was world changing for most Americans, the attacks hit home. We expect our military personnel to be attacked and occasionally die, even when we aren't officially at war. It's the death of hundreds of civilians that created the environment of fear, which in turn gave Bush a mandate to make us feel safer by any means necessary in the short term.
Many may hate the man now, but he did exactly what we wanted him to do at the time. It's just that, now we aren't as scared and it's easier to vilify him, than to admit that any losses of personal freedom were our own fault.
By keeping his involvement with the destruction of the colonies a secret, he's basically accepting responsibility for his actions. Yet his character never accepts responsibility for his actions!
Admitting to everyone around him his role is the definition of taking responsibility for his actions. By hiding it, he's attempting to deny his involvement. He doesn't try to "spin" the info, b/c there is no positive spin on "I let the cylons into our system, and that is why they were able to destroy 99% of the human population without us being able to put up a fight"
I won't argue that some of the characterizations are weird, but the example you gave was ludicrous.
We need to remember what the Bush Administration has done to the rights of this country.
I believe that any president would have done alot of what Bush did in his situation, and I doubt that Obama will do much to relinquish the executive powers that Bush siezed. It's the nature of the beast, the executive and legislative branches have been battling for supremecy since the beginning, and during times of war the executive branch wins. During long term prosperity and peace, the legislative branch tends to win.
We need to remember what the "war on terror" did for us and to us.
No attacks since 2001 is a pretty good record (whether you believe that Iraq was important before hand, you have to admit that it has taken al Queda's focus off of the citizens within the US and turned it to the military in a foreign country. Sucks for those in Iraq, but good for the citizens of the US that aren't in the military, at least in the short term)
We need to seriously examine how we allowed this kind of thing to happen less it goes to the next level during the next time around.
It's simple, We were scared and Bush did anything he could to make us feel safe. Not all of it was effective, or even within the normal powers of the presidency, but overall we all feel safer than we did 7 years ago.
I'm fairly sure that dilemma refers to the large-scale perception that Israel is occupying "Palestine". Which has a kernel of truth, as Israel indeed militarily occupies the West Bank, and this is quite immoral.
AFAIK, Israel invaded Palestine becuase Palestine was about to invade Israel. Pre-emptive invasion of a hostile neighbor, is not the same as invasion of a peacful neighbor that won't do what you want (The reason we went to war with Iraq the first time, to liberate Kuwait).
However, I do agree with the point your Sig is making. Why should Israel stop bombing Hamas? If Hamas doesn't care that Palestinians are dying because it keeps provoking Israel, why should their enemy? I understand that Israel doesn't want to drive more Palestinians to support Hamas. Then again, If you support those that are the original cause of your suffering as a response to your suffering, you deserve what you get in my opinion.
I agree that teaching lessons with guns, rarely actually teaches the right lesson, but what else is Israel to do? They've tried negotiating cease fires, bilateral and unilateral withdrawl of military personel, relaxing boarders, etc. AFAIK, every attempt has led to an increase in volence against Israel in the long run, and a return to the status quo.
Practically speaking (ie not lawyer speak) the license for the Mac OS is attached to the hardware at manufacturing, because the license is useless without the hardware. When I bought an old G4 the license was automatically transfered to me, even though the machine didn't have a HD or any installer disks. Whether Apple actually states that anywhere in a legally defensible document doesn't really matter since it is impossible to purchase new Apple hardware without getting a license at the same time, and Apple is not in the habit of suing it's own customers (those who've purchased their hardware) for violation of licensing terms.
I've commented on this in the past ad nauseam. Apple sells upgrades (even though they don't specify this clearly on the box) becuase their license prohibits the installation of the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware. Consequently, any licensed-approved use of the Mac OS installer disks are, by design, either upgrades or restores to factory settings.
I don't plan to argue the validity of EULA's, or any other point of potential legal contention with anyone here because I'm not a lawyer, and most likely neither are you. As things stand right now, Apple has a reasonable expectation of the validity of their EULA, and as a result they have no need to specify that their software is really an "upgrade". Besides, if their EULA is not valid, then specifying that the software is an upgrade would be an exercise in futility since they would do the specifying in the EULA!
I don't mean to be insulting, but being able to assemble a list of respected scientists that don't agree proves that there isn't a consensus. That there exists a long list of respected scientists who are essentially being ignored is evidence (although not proof) that politics is getting in the way. Without politics being involved, these respected scientists would be give lip service at the very least by their peers. Instead, they are simply ignored which is not good science, but a very effective political maneuver if you can get enough people to go along with you in ignoring the dissenters.
decades-old scientific consensus.
The fact that there are scientists within the appropriate communities questioning the CO2 as the major motivator of global climate change would appear to indicate that there is no consensus, never mind one that is decades old. There is another post attached to this topic that contains quotes of highly respected scientists within the relevant fields expressing doubt, criticism, and in some cases ridicule on this topic. That doesn't make me right, but it does remove the possibility of a consensus from the discussion.
I don't believe that CO2 is innocent. I believe that the role of CO2 has been overstated. If I put on my tinfoil hat I can give you several potential reasons for the overstating of CO2's importance:
1. Making global climate change our fault scares funding agencies into forking over a lot of cash to try and find solutions to the problem.
2. The UN has a love/hate relationship with industrialized western nations (they provide the bulk of the funding, but they are also the minority of it's members). Since CO2 emissions come predominantly from western nations, this enables the blame to be placed on those nations. The western nations would need to sacrifice their current energy infrastructures to mediate these problems, give the 2nd and 3rd world member nations a chance to catch up.
I don't actually believe that either of these are primary motivating factors, but I do believe they both play a role in the overstatement of CO2's role.
I've never stated that I'm against improving efficiency, finding alternatives to fossil fuels, minimizing consumption, or that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses. Just because CO2 can absorb energy, doesn't mean it's impact is large enough to be the main culprit in Global Climate Change. I do believe it is a factor.
However, I don't believe enough evidence has been mustered to justify the kind of extreme measures that have been proposed.
Want to minimize automobile emissions? Great!
Want to find alternatives to the burning of finite and polluting fuels like oil and coal? Great!
Want to increase our use of renewable energy sources like wind, wave, geothermal, etc.? Excellent.
Want to push technology that isn't ready based on a religious like belief in models that have been shown to have incredibly low predictive ability? NO! Wait until the models improve to the point where they are right even 60% of the time. Throw some more money at those researchers that are actually improving the validity of the models.
This is what I see is happening in the US. It's not that we shouldn't be pushing to reduce CO2, or that we shouldn't be using these models (as has been unnecessarily pointed out repeatedly, they are the best we've ever had). It's that we are pushing too hard, because we are treating these models as though they are better than they currently are.
I would also suggest the if you see and issue with 20,000 scientists and professionals on one side of an issue and a dozen or so on the payroll of major oil companies on the other, that you do the rational thing, and look for who has reason to be honest and who doesn't.
Starting a reply by trying to imply I am either on the payroll of interested parties, or unable to notice if the sources I read are, means you're not even willing to consider the possibility that I have a point worth considering. This is a nonstarter for any discussion.
There are virtually no serious scientists in the fields
There is a post in this discussion that contained quotes of 15 or so, highly respected scientists within the very fields you are outlining that falsify the statement you are making.
Scientists have recently discovered that thermal records of earths surface temperature propagate slowly down into the earth crust
This is not a direct measurement of global atmospheric temperature. It is a direct measurement of global soil temp, and is used as an indirect measure of global atmospheric temperature. The global atmospheric temp is not the only thing influencing the temp of the earths crust (vulcanism and radioactivity come to mind), so those other influences need to be accurately accounted for in any calculation attempting to yield historical data for the global atmospheric temperature.
Why would anybody dream of taunting fate with the likely result costing the lives of untold millions.
Consider the possibility that our obsessive focus on CO2 has caused us to miss a more important controller of GCC. IMO, failing to even consider other possibilities is a greater tempting of fate than touting CO2 as the only major controller of GCC that we can influence and declaring the debate over.
My post acknowledged that there exists evidence that CO2 can increase the temperature in a global system (your venus example as well as experimental evidence). However, Evidence is not Proof.
You need lots of falsifiable predictions to be found accurate before the evidence adds up to the level of proof. I'm saying that the GW proponents have a lot of evidence that GW is happening. They also have evidence (less so IMO) that CO2 may be the culprit. However, the amount of evidence they've brought together doesn't meet the burden of proof necessary for the kind of radical restructuring of our energy economy that is being pushed.
I have no problem with the idea that I'm wrong, but I insist on a larger quantity of reliable data before I'll be convinced and when people saying things like "The debate is over!!" it means they aren't looking for any more evidence.
Note that the IPCC only accepts as fact things that have unanimous support amoung thousands of member scientists.
If you truly believe this, then you've never had to deal with a bureaucrat. The UN is full of them, and while many of them truly believe they are doing what is right, most of them are not scientists. They are most likely Poli. Sci. or Rhetoric majors and ill equipped to see when a person with scientific credentials is pulling the wool over their eyes.
Even if my skepticism is misplaced, and GW is real and happening (something I am more than willing to consider). I'm still not convinced that something as complex as global climate can be controlled so completely by the concentration of a single gas in the atmosphere. I don't believe that CO2 is as all-important as it's made out to be (I'm not saying it's not important).
I think that those pushing CO2 are guilty of damn near criminal negligence. They've gotten to the point where they've identified a suspect and decided to forgo collecting any more evidence that might point the blame in a different direction. that is not science that is politics, something that bureaucracies excel at.