You want the Logitech MX 310. It's totally symmetrical. 6 buttons, scroll wheel, optical. I use it on a Mac with USB overdrive, works fine, good for gaming.
The left-side button takes a *little* practice to get right -- you have to sort of cock your hand sideways a little to get at it easily -- but it's like anything else, you get used to it.
Actually, I really did do something about it. I typed up a short, polite note and inserted it in the book at my library. It just described the controversy surrounding the book, advised readers that they should be aware that many of the book's claims had apparently been manufactured, and suggested places to go for more information.
Well, some libraries probably carry materials some would consider pornographic. They also carry materials relating to communism, homosexuality, other religions, etc. Great, but... in that case, it makes all these claims about "censorship" look pretty silly, which was my point to begin with. I mean, if libraries *aren't* censoring things, why all the fuss?
As far as thinking aids go: Perhaps you need to turn yours up? Note definition #3.
I am curious about an apparent contradiction in your post.
You say you would fight any attempt to keep "Sex" out of a public library. Yet you seem to condone the fact the libraries *do* keep Hustler out. The distinction you seem to make is that Sex is a book, while Hustler is a periodical.
But that distinction makes no sense at all. We are talking about the free exchange of ideas via the printed word (or pictures, in this case). In fact, Hustler does run articles, some of which espouse political ideas, so as far as I can tell, it should have *more* of a claim to library space than "Sex." And as for periodicals in general, can you seriously make the claim that newspapers are less important to a society than books? What about scholarly journals -- where do they fit in?
It seems to me that, to be consistent, you have two choices:
1. Argue that libraries should not be able to exclude anything at all, at least not on basis of content.
2. Argue that local library boards are justified in considering a wide range of factors -- like community standards -- when deciding what to stock and what not to stock, and that this does not constitute "censorship," since you can still go down to the bookstore or fire up the ol' web browser and buy pretty much whatever you want.
Finally, you have a very perceptive ending to your post. You write:
BEGIN QUOTE And finally, it would be nice if this particular list had the following info: 1. Was the book actually banned? All it says is they were all "challenged" which means "somebody tried to ban it" to me. 2. WHY was the book challenged in the first place END QUOTE
Well, there's a reason the list doesn't include those answers: You might find them (or some of them, at least) *reasonable*, thus calling into question the entire exercise.
Why on earth would I give anyone the now-discredited 'Arming America' or 'Go Ask Alice'? If anything, your list simply makes the point that books are "challenged" for all kinds of reasons not limited to disapproval of content.
All these people who scream 'censorship': I'd have a lot more respect for them if they would lead a campaign to get their local libraries to stock "Hustler" on the shelves next to "Car & Driver" and "Good Housekeeping." I'm serious -- at least they'd be consistent in principle.
OK, this made me powerfully curious. Everyone knows Jews and Arabs are both Semites, and genetically quite similar. So what could have possibly made the journal first accept, then disavow, a paper that had conclusions that were already widely accepted?
The answers to both questions came from reading the article to which you linked. First, the article was published not because it revealed Jews and Arabs are genetically similar -- as I noted, everybody already knew that. It was published because it contained new research exploring a narrow question relating to "genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East. "
So why was it then disavowed? Because, as far as one can tell from the Guardian article, it drew conclusions in a politically inflammatory tone not appropriate for a scientific journal.
[I'm a journalist, and while we're on the topic, let me point out a part of the Guardian article that is definitely not journalism. The Guardian says: "In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited. "
Look, I'm not a Jew, but even I know that "Jewishness" is a complex mixture not only of ethinicity, but also religion and culture. So whose "claims" are we talking about? And on what basis are they made? The article doesn't say.]
So the article wasn't "banned" because of its content; it was disavowed because of its tone. To help illustrate, imagine if a KKK member had submitted a scientifically enlightening but ranting screed against blacks. Yes, this would be a more extreme case, but the point is that the article would be rejected for the same reason: not for the scholarship, but for the politically inflammatory tone.
Now, whether the journal editors were too sensitive to the particular tone of that article, that is an arguable matter. My only point is that this does not represent a serious case of censorship as one usually understands the term.
Aslan (the pathetically transparent allegorical version of Jesus)
Huh? Pathetically transparent? Do you even know what you're talking about?
Do you mean "It sucked because it was so easy to figure out Aslan was a sort of metaphor for Jesus"? Do you mean: "C.S. Lewis was trying to hide the fact that Aslan represented Jesus, and failed miserably"? I don't get it. You may have been able to figure out the metaphor, and you may have done so easily. So? What exactly is "pathetic" about that?
In that case there is no controversy. None of these books are banned, in the sense that the government has said "You may not own or distribute these works." It's just some libraries and whatnot making decisions about what and what not to carry, same as they do all the time.
Thanks for your gracious reply. I'll just add a few notes, and leave it at that.
1. I think MY sole point -- that the allegations do not entirely stem from some unseen papers Challabi claims to hold -- holds up pretty much entirely. I have been following this story somewhat, and as I said, the Wall Street Journal has been doing some pretty good investigative work on it. I'm sorry I can't provide a link, as I read the WSJ in hard copy, and most of their articles require an online subscription.
2. I am a journalist. Not trying to be snotty here, just letting you know, so you understand that I have a pretty good idea about how stories are generated. Granted, I've never worked at the NYT (or any big city newspaper, for that matter), but I just wanted you to know I'm no stranger to the process.
3. I don't know much about Challabi, beyond the fact that there seems to be a strong difference of opinion on him. One thing in his favor, though, is something so obvious that I wonder if a lot of people aren't overlooking it: he is a democrat. To us western liberal democrats this is taken for granted to the extent that I wonder if we ever pause to give him credit for it. I don't know anywhere near enough about him to be comfortable defending him, but I do know he's no Saddam Hussein, and in that part of the world, that's worth something.
4. I actually like your concluding paragraph. I would like to note, though, that it's a long way from all the BUSH LIED!!! crap that's dominated much of the political discourse on the left over the last 1-2 years (and in which Hersh is up to his big ears). One can legitimately hate Bush for his policies, or believe he's horribly bungled things, or showed bad judgement in invading, or whatever. But clearly, at the time the case for war was there, and he made what he believed was the difficult decision to do what needed to be done.
5. Finally, as far as the oil-for food thing goes, the investigation is still ongoing. So hopefully at some point we'll get some actual answers.
Hmm, well, I guess I could say a lot about your comment, starting with the basically ad hominem nature of your argument. Rather than get into all that, however, I would just like to ask you a question: What do you think of this New York Times article?:
YOU WROTE Re: nuclear arms. I think we were pretty sure that Saddam did not have any nuclear capability before the invasion. There were many people (UN inspectors, middle eastern diplomats, and even CIA people) who thought so too. If you watch the movie "Uncovered" you can hear them (BTW, "Uncovered" is a PBS style documentary - I think you owe it to yourself to see it - it's $10 bucks on Amazon). MY COMMENT Some were pretty sure he didn't. Others were pretty sure he did. The point is that the U.N. resolutions required him to dismantle any and all existing programs, and let U.N. inspectors verify that to the outside world's satisfaction, or face "serious consequences" (understood by everyone to be diplo-speak for war). No one claims he ever even came close to doing this.
I WROTE The U.S. wasn't afraid of an Iraqi attack on the U.S. mainland. What we were afraid of was that he would provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. He was also an aggressive and destabilizing force in an area the U.S. considers vital to its interests YOU WROTE This is not how the administration presented the case to the people. I can show you videos of Bush, Cheney and Ms. Rice talking about taking action before "the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud". MY COMMENT You're not listening -- or, as I should say, only choosing to hear what you want to hear. Nothing in what you just wrote contradicts what I wrote. The administration chose to act BEFORE Saddam had the chance to give, in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group bent on killing Americans. Good.
I WROTE As noted above, for example, he disastrously misjudged the Americans. The Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait were also colossal and irrational blunders. YOU WROTE Actually, when meeting with the US ambassadors prior to invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was not given a clear signal that US would react to the invasion as it did (see interview with Joe Wilson in "Uncovered"). MY COMMENT I understand there is some contention about this, though Joe Wilson certainly would not be my choice of credible spokesman. Nevertheless, it is peripheral and doesn't affect my main point at all. (In response to a poster who asked where the logic was, I simply pointed out that Saddam did not always act in what WE would consider logical, rational ways, or exercise what we would consider sound judgement).
YOU WROTE In any case, even if (!!!) Saddam had several nuclear weapons. Why would he give the strongest card to Islamic terrorists? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Saddam's secular regime was hated by the radical Islamic terrorists as much as they hated the US. Given a strong enough weapon Al Qaida would kill Saddam too. MY COMMENT Your main theory here -- that religious terrorists never would have collaborated with the relatively secular Saddam -- is completely contradicted by the facts.
a) Saddam had a long history of sponsoring terrorists, some religious and some not. (Some Islamic terrorists aren't as religious as OBL but still hate the U.S., you know.)
b) I can point out many, many historical examples of two parties who would normally be mortal enemies working together against a common foe (the Chinese communists and nationalists vs. Japan, to cite just a single example).
c) The 9/11 commission noted many contacts and exploratory meetings between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda. Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has noted many more. There is as of yet no evidence they collaborated on the *9/11* attacks, but this supposed hatred of each other certainly didn't get in the way of cooperating on *some* things.
1. Look, first I just want to say if you hate the Bush administration, that's fine. If you think they've made some terrible decisions, or bungled things horribly, that's fine too. OK? Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But those opinions should be grounded in fact and common sense.
2. And you have heard by now that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, right?
It is the administration's critics, not the administration itself, who are hung up on the specific relationship between Iraq and 9/11. You are certainly right that at this point, no evidence has come to light directly linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. However, here's what we do know: a) The Hussein regime had a long, rich history of sponsoring many different terrorist groups; b) There were extensive contacts between the regime and Al-Qaeda, and c) the Iraqi regime would not seriously attempt to account for a lot of WMDs it previously admitted to having. The point of the Iraq war was not to get revenge for 9/11 -- it was to forestall future 9/11-type attacks by eliminating the possibility of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists. The administration itself pointed out that 9/11 didn't bring new evidence to light -- what it did was cause them to look at the existing evidence in a new light.
3. The administration whipped up our nation into a furor
Strange. I wasn't in a "furor." Were you? I hear this all the time, but where were all these Americans in a "furor?" I didn't know any.
4. All [the administration's] blustering and "intelligence" turned out to be a load of crap.
Surely, after all this time and debate, you are aware that you can go out on the Internet and find a long list of quotes about the danger of Iraq's WMDs from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Democratic senators and congressmen, French and German leaders, etc. Were they all "full of crap?" too? Remember: Prewar, the issue was never whether or not Iraq had WMDs -- the issue was what to *do* about it.
4. And even before we're done with Iraq we're talking about invading Syria if they don't comply with our demands, where's the evidence that Syria is so damned guilty?
Again, Syria might not have had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. But also again, Syria is one of the two remaining regimes (along with Iran) most involved in state-supported terrorism. Now, given all that, I don't think you have much to fear. Our hands are full to the extent that I just don't see an invasion of Syria in the near or medium term. But it would be consistent with Bush's position that if you give aid and shelter to terrorists, you are essentially a terrorist yourself, and will be treated accordingly.
5. It's sad when you can justify the invasion of another country against all advice from most of the international community like that. Oh, we know now that we invaded that they don't have nukes, 'sall good!
OK, I'm going to try to make something clear here. France, Germany and Russia (to whom I assume you are referring when you say "most of the international community") opposed the Iraq invasion for the same reason they make all their foreign policy decisions: because it was in their own respective interests to do so. On one side of the ledger, those three countries were, by pure coincidence I'm sure, the three countries with the most at state financially (the oil contract the French company TotalFinaElf had with the Saddam regime was the largest single contract for anything, anywhere, in history). On the other side of the ledger, those states had less to lose from the status quo: Islamic terrorists who obtained WMDs from Iraq would be far less likely to use them against Paris, Berlin or Moscow than against Washington D.C. The idea that some sort of hign-minded moral or principle was at stake, as far as they were concerned, is ludicrous. I mean, for Pete's sake, for half a century France has had one of the most famously self-centered foreign policies of any country in the world. And su
Good questions, and for the most part, they have good answers.
Which WMDs are we talking about?
To answer this, all you had to do was check out the link I provided:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/art ic les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp
There are other possible explanations. Like that Iraq had bad accounting methods. Maybe they didn't want account, because they didn't know themselves. Maybe Saddam upped the estimates to appear tougher.
Sure. Maybe maybe maybe. But after 10 years of dickering around, we got Sept. 11, and we just weren't in the mood to dicker around anymore.
under the pressure from the U.S. they re-addmitted the inspectors.
Technically, yes, this is what happened. In actuality, what happened was Saddam stalled and evaded and confounded up until the *very last minute,* when he came to the belated realization that he had disastrously misjudged the resolve of the current American administration, and the mood among Americans post-9/11. By then it was far too little and far too late.
And it is certainly clear by now that Iraq had no nuclear capabilities.
Again, sure. But we're talking about the situation *before* the U.S. invaded. We only know about the nuclear situation in hindsight, and here's the kicker: WE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT NOW IF WE HADN'T INVADED TO BEGIN WITH.
Why would Saddam want to attack the U.S.? What possible advantage would that give him? Saddam was a nasty dictator, but he is not stupid. He was heading a secular regime in the middle of Islamic fundamentalists who hated him. What's the logic?
These are all great questions, and a lot has been written and speculated about them. I can't go into all that now, but just a couple quick notes:
1. The U.S. wasn't afraid of an Iraqi attack on the U.S. mainland. What we were afraid of was that he would provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. He was also an aggressive and destabilizing force in an area the U.S. considers vital to its interests.
2. You note that Saddam was not stupid, and ask what the logic was. But things aren't as cut and dried as that. Saddam was certainly clever and ruthless, but also showed plenty of irrationality and, at times, astonishingly bad judgement. As noted above, for example, he disastrously misjudged the Americans. The Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait were also colossal and irrational blunders.
This is actually a fair point. Many -- perhaps even most -- of those advocating abortion rights don't have anything to personally gain. But those who actually have or have had abortions certainly DO have something to gain -- that is, after all, why they have abortions in the first place.
In contrast, it's hard to see what abortion foes have to gain, especially since they are fighting for restrictions that would legally apply to them just as much as anyone.
So my point was in how these latter people get caricatured. The only sinister motive their opposition can think of to tar them with is "They want to control women's bodies," which sounds good at first but is cartoonishly ludicrous when you actually think about it. I mean, really, who actually thinks like that? If you're a woman, and you want to do anything you want to your own body, hey, knock yourself out. 99.99999999999999 percent of abortion opponents are against it not because they have any desire whatsoever to "control women's bodies," because because they oppose the deliberate killing of any innocent people. But the pro-abortion movement will never admit that obvious fact, because it makes their opponents sound like decent and compassionate people.
That opensecrets site is weird. I mean, look at the arbitrary dollar categories. And on the VERY SAME WEBSITE, you find this:
Small donors are far more important to the political parties -- particularly the Republicans... Republicans drew 60 percent from small donors; Democrats drew just a third of their money from low-dollar donors.
Overall, two-thirds of the small donations went to the GOP, including both candidates and party committees.
"As for your charges that the was some great corruption scandal in the UN oil-for-food program, note that these charges are based on documents held by Ahmed Chalabi (who is wanted by both Jordan and the Iraqi provisional government for various kinds of fraud). Chalabi has refused to show these documents to any outsiders, including the press. They're about as reliable as the pictures of mobile bioweapons labs shown to the UN."
This is just wrong. The Wall Street Journal has done extensive investigative work on this, as has free-lance journalist Claudia Rosette, and the New York Times, after some waffling, seems to be picking up the ball, having just run a pretty extensive article about it.
I'm sorry, but your analysis of the historical situation is completely wrong.
1. We know Iraq had WMDs because Iraq told us so.
2. After the Gulf War, the UN demanded that Saddam account for his weapons. No one -- not Hans Blix, not David Kay, not the U.N., no one -- claims he even came close to doing this. Instead he spent his time on a convoluted program of evading and confounding inspectors, which has been extensively described in such works as Ken Pollack's "The Threatening Storm."
3. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS NOT ON THE U.S. -- OR ANYONE ELSE -- TO PROVE SADDAM HAD WMDs. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON *SADDAM* TO ACCOUNT FOR THE WEAPONS HE HIMSELF PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED HE HAD.
For more fact-based info see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public /artic les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp http://globalsecurit y.org/wmd/world/iraq/
and this from the 3/10/03 New Republic:
The day before the president's address, the world received what should have been the final word on that process in the form of a report by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. Blix's verdict is positively devastating. Iraq, he writes, "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Blix produces a litany of noncooperation: Iraq has failed to provide a full accounting of its weapons, as demanded; it has denied private interviews with its scientists; it has hidden crucial documents in private homes; and it has whipped up demonstrators to harass the inspectors with slanderous charges. (Some, hilariously, have described this report as "mixed." By this standard, Saddam's record of aggression is also mixed--we must consider the lengthy list of countries he has not invaded.) All these actions unquestionably fulfill the definition of a material breach agreed to under Resolution 1441.
Good point-by-point. But some of your points themselves aren't so good.
1. Almost every country has WMDs right now.
That's right. But curiously, we're less interested in whether the UK has them than we are in whether an aggressive Islamofascist dicatorship with a long history of sponsoring terrorism does. In the years immediately following 9/11, why do you think that is?
2. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
The CNN article you cite is literally HILARIOUS if you've ever read Ken Pollacks "The Threatening Storm," which goes into great detail about the Saddam regime's extensive efforts to evade and confound the weapons inspectors. Understanding the CNN article depends on understanding the CONTEXT, which it doesn't provide. Sure, Saddam was destroying weapons on the eve of the war -- everyone knows that. He started doing that frantically at the last minute, when it became apparent he had disastrously misjudged the American's seriousness in holding him accountable to all the previous UN resolutions. By then it was far, far too late.
3. The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition?
Over a year? OVER A YEAR? It's people like you, ironically, who convince me that invading was probably a mistake. Western Civilization no longer has the stomach for this kind of stuff, the kind of hard slog that could take years or decades. Truly, our success contains within it the seeds of its own downfall. We are a soft fruit, ripe for the picking by hardened people willing to fight and make sacrifices.
Over a *year*. Jeesh. If this was 1776, you would have been writing about what a disastrous decision it was to break from England, and what idiots Jefferson, Madison and Franklin were to drag us into such a quagmire. You'll never admit that to yourself, but it's true.
4. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers?
a. I'm curious: perhaps you could use your research skills and let us know whether there are more independent newspapers in Iraq now, or more before we invaded?
b. Newspapers weren't banned.
c. ONE newspaper (Al-Sadre's) was shut down -- for two months.
d. The actual, non-delusionary reality is that newspapers in Iraq are thriving, and free to say anything they want, with TWO exceptions: One, they cannot advocate violence, and two, they cannot agitate for the return of the old regime. This is the most lenient media policy for an occupied country IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.
So I guess the moral is, it's great to go point-by-point, as long as the points themselves have to make sense.
In case you hadn't noticed, we were at open WAR with Japan. We had also never agreed to disarm. We had also... well... I'm trying to stretch your analogy to make it fit, but it's almost impossible. How exactly is the grandparent poster a dumbass?
Really? Interesting. This is from The Feb. 10, 2003, issue of The New Republic:
BEGIN QUOTE The day before the president's address, the world received what should have been the final word on that process in the form of a report by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Blix's verdict is positively devastating. Iraq, he writes, "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Blix produces a litany of noncooperation: Iraq has failed to provide a full accounting of its weapons, as demanded; it has denied private interviews with its scientists; it has hidden crucial documents in private homes; and it has whipped up demonstrators to harass the inspectors with slanderous charges... All these actions unquestionably fulfill the definition of a material breach agreed to under Resolution 1441.
END QUOTE
Now, just to refresh your memory, here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX. * That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas. * That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax. * That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads. * That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. * That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons. * That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents. * That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.
Read more here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/artic les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp
The issue before the invasion of Iraq wasn't whether Iraq HAD WMDs; it was what to DO about it.
Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX. * That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas. * That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax. * That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads. * That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. * That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons. * That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents. * That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.
Read more here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/artic les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp
This isn't rocket science. For those of you with ADD or memory problems, the issue before the invasion of Iraq wasn't whether Iraq HAD WMDs; it was what to DO about it.
OK. I appreciate your attempt to give this matter some reasonable, balanced thought. Seriously, I'm not just saying that, I do. But some of the ways you have framed this issue are so shallow as to be cartoonish.
"How can you have a party that believes that parents should have the right to choose what school their children go to but that they're not bright not moral enough to choose whether or not to keep their child?"
These two issues are simply, well, two different issues. Do I believe people should be able to choose what school their child attends? Sure. Do I believe people should be able to choose when, where and with whom to have sex? Of course. Do I believe people should be able to kill other people they find inconvenient? No. How "bright" or "moral" the people are has nothing to do with either of these things.
Is this a "binary" decision? Sure. But if you told me you believe it's wrong to massacre Jews just because someone finds them inconvenient, I wouldn't say "You know, you're problem is you're treating it as a binary issue. You're either for it or against it; you can't be ambivalent or vote to control the amount of something."
"Pragmatic decisions like keeping abortion legal,"
Sure, abortion is (or can be, anyway) pragmatic. Absolutely. It would also be pragmatic to round up all the crippled, the insane, the sick and the social malcontents and humanely and painlessly exterminate them. So obviously, how pragmatic the solution may or may not be is not the issue we are dealing with.
"but dumping money into support and pro-child advertising campaigns to reassure scared young mothers that they don't have to kill their child, are seen as wishy washy liberalism -- even if such programs are met with greater success -- because they do not accept the artifical polarity forced onto the issue by idealistic conservatives."
You overlook a few obvious problems here. For starters, it's one thing for a private person or group opposed to abortion to "dump money" into an advertising campaign -- many groups already do this. A conservative would see such an effort as noble and compassionate -- not "wishy washy liberalism" as you put it. But the law is another thing. It is entirely appropriate to believe that it should not be *legal* for anyone to kill what you believe is an innocent human life, and to lobby the government to protect those lives.
What amazes ME is how the ani-abortion folks get caricatured as evil religous zealots. But of the two sides, they are clearly the ones who are more fighting on principle, with less to personally gain. I might fight to protect the life of an unborn innocent, but I'd also fight to protect YOUR life if someone suggested we could really solve a lot of problems by exterminating all liberals, or Pennsylvanian VW drivers, or whatever.
I'm not trying to criticize you here, but I think I should post a correction: your post is only really meaningful if one does two things:
1. Count only governmental aid. The U.S. is different from most other Western countries in that we are not a centralized, government-controlled society (although admittedly we become more so every year). The percentage of private vs. government aid is much higher for the U.S. that it is for most other countries.
2. Ignore perhaps the most colossal subsidy of all: Defense. For 50 years, the only thing preventing the Red Army from pouring through the Fulda Gap and into Western Europe, or the North Koreans from smashing through the DMZ into South Korea, was the U.S. military. Same situation vis-a-vis China and Taiwan. Freed from the colossal burden of defense spending, those countries used their resources instead to develop stable polities, healthy economies and the freedom to bitch about the U.S. everytime something goes wrong.
Well, I agree with most of what you said. I just don't agree that it all means we are turning away from science.
For example, I oppose the idea of destroying human embryos in the name of science. You might not agree with this, but it doesn't make me anti-science -- if someone proposed killing jews, blacks, or SlashDot readers in the name of science, I would oppose that too, even if there were possibly huge advancements to be made.
Also, despite a few events you note, the whole creationism-in-schools thing isn't exactly sweeping the country. The instances you note are notable precisely because they are anomalies.
But like I said, I agree with most of what you wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
You want the Logitech MX 310. It's totally symmetrical. 6 buttons, scroll wheel, optical. I use it on a Mac with USB overdrive, works fine, good for gaming.
The left-side button takes a *little* practice to get right -- you have to sort of cock your hand sideways a little to get at it easily -- but it's like anything else, you get used to it.
- Alaska Jack
Actually, I really did do something about it. I typed up a short, polite note and inserted it in the book at my library. It just described the controversy surrounding the book, advised readers that they should be aware that many of the book's claims had apparently been manufactured, and suggested places to go for more information.
- Alaska Jack
Well, some libraries probably carry materials some would consider pornographic. They also carry materials relating to communism, homosexuality, other religions, etc. Great, but ... in that case, it makes all these claims about "censorship" look pretty silly, which was my point to begin with. I mean, if libraries *aren't* censoring things, why all the fuss?
As far as thinking aids go: Perhaps you need to turn yours up? Note definition #3.
- Alaska Jack
I am curious about an apparent contradiction in your post.
You say you would fight any attempt to keep "Sex" out of a public library. Yet you seem to condone the fact the libraries *do* keep Hustler out. The distinction you seem to make is that Sex is a book, while Hustler is a periodical.
But that distinction makes no sense at all. We are talking about the free exchange of ideas via the printed word (or pictures, in this case). In fact, Hustler does run articles, some of which espouse political ideas, so as far as I can tell, it should have *more* of a claim to library space than "Sex." And as for periodicals in general, can you seriously make the claim that newspapers are less important to a society than books? What about scholarly journals -- where do they fit in?
It seems to me that, to be consistent, you have two choices:
1. Argue that libraries should not be able to exclude anything at all, at least not on basis of content.
2. Argue that local library boards are justified in considering a wide range of factors -- like community standards -- when deciding what to stock and what not to stock, and that this does not constitute "censorship," since you can still go down to the bookstore or fire up the ol' web browser and buy pretty much whatever you want.
Finally, you have a very perceptive ending to your post. You write:
BEGIN QUOTE
And finally, it would be nice if this particular list had the following info:
1. Was the book actually banned? All it says is they were all "challenged" which means "somebody tried to ban it" to me.
2. WHY was the book challenged in the first place
END QUOTE
Well, there's a reason the list doesn't include those answers: You might find them (or some of them, at least) *reasonable*, thus calling into question the entire exercise.
- Alaska Jack
Why on earth would I give anyone the now-discredited 'Arming America' or 'Go Ask Alice'? If anything, your list simply makes the point that books are "challenged" for all kinds of reasons not limited to disapproval of content.
All these people who scream 'censorship': I'd have a lot more respect for them if they would lead a campaign to get their local libraries to stock "Hustler" on the shelves next to "Car & Driver" and "Good Housekeeping." I'm serious -- at least they'd be consistent in principle.
- Alaska Jack
OK, this made me powerfully curious. Everyone knows Jews and Arabs are both Semites, and genetically quite similar. So what could have possibly made the journal first accept, then disavow, a paper that had conclusions that were already widely accepted?
The answers to both questions came from reading the article to which you linked. First, the article was published not because it revealed Jews and Arabs are genetically similar -- as I noted, everybody already knew that. It was published because it contained new research exploring a narrow question relating to "genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East. "
So why was it then disavowed? Because, as far as one can tell from the Guardian article, it drew conclusions in a politically inflammatory tone not appropriate for a scientific journal.
[I'm a journalist, and while we're on the topic, let me point out a part of the Guardian article that is definitely not journalism. The Guardian says: "In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited. "
Look, I'm not a Jew, but even I know that "Jewishness" is a complex mixture not only of ethinicity, but also religion and culture. So whose "claims" are we talking about? And on what basis are they made? The article doesn't say.]
So the article wasn't "banned" because of its content; it was disavowed because of its tone. To help illustrate, imagine if a KKK member had submitted a scientifically enlightening but ranting screed against blacks. Yes, this would be a more extreme case, but the point is that the article would be rejected for the same reason: not for the scholarship, but for the politically inflammatory tone.
Now, whether the journal editors were too sensitive to the particular tone of that article, that is an arguable matter. My only point is that this does not represent a serious case of censorship as one usually understands the term.
- Alaska Jack
Aslan (the pathetically transparent allegorical version of Jesus)
Huh? Pathetically transparent? Do you even know what you're talking about?
Do you mean "It sucked because it was so easy to figure out Aslan was a sort of metaphor for Jesus"? Do you mean: "C.S. Lewis was trying to hide the fact that Aslan represented Jesus, and failed miserably"? I don't get it. You may have been able to figure out the metaphor, and you may have done so easily. So? What exactly is "pathetic" about that?
- Alaska Jack
In that case there is no controversy. None of these books are banned, in the sense that the government has said "You may not own or distribute these works." It's just some libraries and whatnot making decisions about what and what not to carry, same as they do all the time.
- Alaska Jack
Thanks for your gracious reply. I'll just add a few notes, and leave it at that.
1. I think MY sole point -- that the allegations do not entirely stem from some unseen papers Challabi claims to hold -- holds up pretty much entirely. I have been following this story somewhat, and as I said, the Wall Street Journal has been doing some pretty good investigative work on it. I'm sorry I can't provide a link, as I read the WSJ in hard copy, and most of their articles require an online subscription.
2. I am a journalist. Not trying to be snotty here, just letting you know, so you understand that I have a pretty good idea about how stories are generated. Granted, I've never worked at the NYT (or any big city newspaper, for that matter), but I just wanted you to know I'm no stranger to the process.
3. I don't know much about Challabi, beyond the fact that there seems to be a strong difference of opinion on him. One thing in his favor, though, is something so obvious that I wonder if a lot of people aren't overlooking it: he is a democrat. To us western liberal democrats this is taken for granted to the extent that I wonder if we ever pause to give him credit for it. I don't know anywhere near enough about him to be comfortable defending him, but I do know he's no Saddam Hussein, and in that part of the world, that's worth something.
4. I actually like your concluding paragraph. I would like to note, though, that it's a long way from all the BUSH LIED!!! crap that's dominated much of the political discourse on the left over the last 1-2 years (and in which Hersh is up to his big ears). One can legitimately hate Bush for his policies, or believe he's horribly bungled things, or showed bad judgement in invading, or whatever. But clearly, at the time the case for war was there, and he made what he believed was the difficult decision to do what needed to be done.
5. Finally, as far as the oil-for food thing goes, the investigation is still ongoing. So hopefully at some point we'll get some actual answers.
- Alaska Jack
Hmm, well, I guess I could say a lot about your comment, starting with the basically ad hominem nature of your argument. Rather than get into all that, however, I would just like to ask you a question: What do you think of this New York Times article?:
"Under Eye of U.N., Billions for Hussein in Oil-for-Food Plan"
Seriously, this isn't a rhetorical question -- I really want to know.
- Alaska Jack
No ... they don't call me "Alaska Jack" for nothing... ; ^ ]
Love to visit someday though!
- AJ
YOU WROTE
Re: nuclear arms. I think we were pretty sure that Saddam did not have any nuclear capability before the invasion. There were many people (UN inspectors, middle eastern diplomats, and even CIA people) who thought so too. If you watch the movie "Uncovered" you can hear them (BTW, "Uncovered" is a PBS style documentary - I think you owe it to yourself to see it - it's $10 bucks on Amazon).
MY COMMENT
Some were pretty sure he didn't. Others were pretty sure he did. The point is that the U.N. resolutions required him to dismantle any and all existing programs, and let U.N. inspectors verify that to the outside world's satisfaction, or face "serious consequences" (understood by everyone to be diplo-speak for war). No one claims he ever even came close to doing this.
I WROTE
The U.S. wasn't afraid of an Iraqi attack on the U.S. mainland. What we were afraid of was that he would provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. He was also an aggressive and destabilizing force in an area the U.S. considers vital to its interests
YOU WROTE
This is not how the administration presented the case to the people. I can show you videos of Bush, Cheney and Ms. Rice talking about taking action before "the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud".
MY COMMENT
You're not listening -- or, as I should say, only choosing to hear what you want to hear. Nothing in what you just wrote contradicts what I wrote. The administration chose to act BEFORE Saddam had the chance to give, in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group bent on killing Americans. Good.
I WROTE
As noted above, for example, he disastrously misjudged the Americans. The Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait were also colossal and irrational blunders.
YOU WROTE
Actually, when meeting with the US ambassadors prior to invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was not given a clear signal that US would react to the invasion as it did (see interview with Joe Wilson in "Uncovered").
MY COMMENT
I understand there is some contention about this, though Joe Wilson certainly would not be my choice of credible spokesman. Nevertheless, it is peripheral and doesn't affect my main point at all. (In response to a poster who asked where the logic was, I simply pointed out that Saddam did not always act in what WE would consider logical, rational ways, or exercise what we would consider sound judgement).
YOU WROTE
In any case, even if (!!!) Saddam had several nuclear weapons. Why would he give the strongest card to Islamic terrorists? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Saddam's secular regime was hated by the radical Islamic terrorists as much as they hated the US. Given a strong enough weapon Al Qaida would kill Saddam too.
MY COMMENT
Your main theory here -- that religious terrorists never would have collaborated with the relatively secular Saddam -- is completely contradicted by the facts.
a) Saddam had a long history of sponsoring terrorists, some religious and some not. (Some Islamic terrorists aren't as religious as OBL but still hate the U.S., you know.)
b) I can point out many, many historical examples of two parties who would normally be mortal enemies working together against a common foe (the Chinese communists and nationalists vs. Japan, to cite just a single example).
c) The 9/11 commission noted many contacts and exploratory meetings between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda. Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has noted many more. There is as of yet no evidence they collaborated on the *9/11* attacks, but this supposed hatred of each other certainly didn't get in the way of cooperating on *some* things.
1. Look, first I just want to say if you hate the Bush administration, that's fine. If you think they've made some terrible decisions, or bungled things horribly, that's fine too. OK? Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But those opinions should be grounded in fact and common sense.
2. And you have heard by now that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, right?
It is the administration's critics, not the administration itself, who are hung up on the specific relationship between Iraq and 9/11. You are certainly right that at this point, no evidence has come to light directly linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. However, here's what we do know: a) The Hussein regime had a long, rich history of sponsoring many different terrorist groups; b) There were extensive contacts between the regime and Al-Qaeda, and c) the Iraqi regime would not seriously attempt to account for a lot of WMDs it previously admitted to having. The point of the Iraq war was not to get revenge for 9/11 -- it was to forestall future 9/11-type attacks by eliminating the possibility of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists. The administration itself pointed out that 9/11 didn't bring new evidence to light -- what it did was cause them to look at the existing evidence in a new light.
3. The administration whipped up our nation into a furor
Strange. I wasn't in a "furor." Were you? I hear this all the time, but where were all these Americans in a "furor?" I didn't know any.
4. All [the administration's] blustering and "intelligence" turned out to be a load of crap.
Surely, after all this time and debate, you are aware that you can go out on the Internet and find a long list of quotes about the danger of Iraq's WMDs from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Democratic senators and congressmen, French and German leaders, etc. Were they all "full of crap?" too? Remember: Prewar, the issue was never whether or not Iraq had WMDs -- the issue was what to *do* about it.
4. And even before we're done with Iraq we're talking about invading Syria if they don't comply with our demands, where's the evidence that Syria is so damned guilty?
Again, Syria might not have had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. But also again, Syria is one of the two remaining regimes (along with Iran) most involved in state-supported terrorism. Now, given all that, I don't think you have much to fear. Our hands are full to the extent that I just don't see an invasion of Syria in the near or medium term. But it would be consistent with Bush's position that if you give aid and shelter to terrorists, you are essentially a terrorist yourself, and will be treated accordingly.
5. It's sad when you can justify the invasion of another country against all advice from most of the international community like that. Oh, we know now that we invaded that they don't have nukes, 'sall good!
OK, I'm going to try to make something clear here. France, Germany and Russia (to whom I assume you are referring when you say "most of the international community") opposed the Iraq invasion for the same reason they make all their foreign policy decisions: because it was in their own respective interests to do so. On one side of the ledger, those three countries were, by pure coincidence I'm sure, the three countries with the most at state financially (the oil contract the French company TotalFinaElf had with the Saddam regime was the largest single contract for anything, anywhere, in history). On the other side of the ledger, those states had less to lose from the status quo: Islamic terrorists who obtained WMDs from Iraq would be far less likely to use them against Paris, Berlin or Moscow than against Washington D.C. The idea that some sort of hign-minded moral or principle was at stake, as far as they were concerned, is ludicrous. I mean, for Pete's sake, for half a century France has had one of the most famously self-centered foreign policies of any country in the world. And su
Good questions, and for the most part, they have good answers.
Which WMDs are we talking about?
To answer this, all you had to do was check out the link I provided:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/art ic les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp
There are other possible explanations. Like that Iraq had bad accounting methods. Maybe they didn't want account, because they didn't know themselves. Maybe Saddam upped the estimates to appear tougher.
Sure. Maybe maybe maybe. But after 10 years of dickering around, we got Sept. 11, and we just weren't in the mood to dicker around anymore.
under the pressure from the U.S. they re-addmitted the inspectors.
Technically, yes, this is what happened. In actuality, what happened was Saddam stalled and evaded and confounded up until the *very last minute,* when he came to the belated realization that he had disastrously misjudged the resolve of the current American administration, and the mood among Americans post-9/11. By then it was far too little and far too late.
And it is certainly clear by now that Iraq had no nuclear capabilities.
Again, sure. But we're talking about the situation *before* the U.S. invaded. We only know about the nuclear situation in hindsight, and here's the kicker: WE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT NOW IF WE HADN'T INVADED TO BEGIN WITH.
Why would Saddam want to attack the U.S.? What possible advantage would that give him? Saddam was a nasty dictator, but he is not stupid. He was heading a secular regime in the middle of Islamic fundamentalists who hated him. What's the logic?
These are all great questions, and a lot has been written and speculated about them. I can't go into all that now, but just a couple quick notes:
1. The U.S. wasn't afraid of an Iraqi attack on the U.S. mainland. What we were afraid of was that he would provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. He was also an aggressive and destabilizing force in an area the U.S. considers vital to its interests.
2. You note that Saddam was not stupid, and ask what the logic was. But things aren't as cut and dried as that. Saddam was certainly clever and ruthless, but also showed plenty of irrationality and, at times, astonishingly bad judgement. As noted above, for example, he disastrously misjudged the Americans. The Iran/Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait were also colossal and irrational blunders.
- Alaska Jack
This is actually a fair point. Many -- perhaps even most -- of those advocating abortion rights don't have anything to personally gain. But those who actually have or have had abortions certainly DO have something to gain -- that is, after all, why they have abortions in the first place.
In contrast, it's hard to see what abortion foes have to gain, especially since they are fighting for restrictions that would legally apply to them just as much as anyone.
So my point was in how these latter people get caricatured. The only sinister motive their opposition can think of to tar them with is "They want to control women's bodies," which sounds good at first but is cartoonishly ludicrous when you actually think about it. I mean, really, who actually thinks like that? If you're a woman, and you want to do anything you want to your own body, hey, knock yourself out. 99.99999999999999 percent of abortion opponents are against it not because they have any desire whatsoever to "control women's bodies," because because they oppose the deliberate killing of any innocent people. But the pro-abortion movement will never admit that obvious fact, because it makes their opponents sound like decent and compassionate people.
- Alaska Jack
That opensecrets site is weird. I mean, look at the arbitrary dollar categories. And on the VERY SAME WEBSITE, you find this:
... Republicans drew 60 percent from small donors; Democrats drew just a third of their money from low-dollar donors.
e rview/donations.ihtml
Small donors are far more important to the political parties -- particularly the Republicans
Overall, two-thirds of the small donations went to the GOP, including both candidates and party committees.
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/ov
"As for your charges that the was some great corruption scandal in the UN oil-for-food program, note that these charges are based on documents held by Ahmed Chalabi (who is wanted by both Jordan and the Iraqi provisional government for various kinds of fraud). Chalabi has refused to show these documents to any outsiders, including the press. They're about as reliable as the pictures of mobile bioweapons labs shown to the UN."
This is just wrong. The Wall Street Journal has done extensive investigative work on this, as has free-lance journalist Claudia Rosette, and the
New York Times, after some waffling, seems to be picking up the ball, having just run a pretty extensive article about it.
I'm sorry, but your analysis of the historical situation is completely wrong.
c /artic les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.aspt y.org/wmd/world/iraq/
1. We know Iraq had WMDs because Iraq told us so.
2. After the Gulf War, the UN demanded that Saddam account for his weapons. No one -- not Hans Blix, not David Kay, not the U.N., no one -- claims he even came close to doing this. Instead he spent his time on a convoluted program of evading and confounding inspectors, which has been extensively described in such works as Ken Pollack's "The Threatening Storm."
3. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS NOT ON THE U.S. -- OR ANYONE ELSE -- TO PROVE SADDAM HAD WMDs. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON *SADDAM* TO ACCOUNT FOR THE WEAPONS HE HIMSELF PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED HE HAD.
For more fact-based info see:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/publi
http://globalsecuri
and this from the 3/10/03 New Republic:
The day before the president's address, the world received what should have been the final word on that process in the form of a report by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. Blix's verdict is positively devastating. Iraq, he writes, "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Blix produces a litany of noncooperation: Iraq has failed to provide a full accounting of its weapons, as demanded; it has denied private interviews with its scientists; it has hidden crucial documents in private homes; and it has whipped up demonstrators to harass the inspectors with slanderous charges. (Some, hilariously, have described this report as "mixed." By this standard, Saddam's record of aggression is also mixed--we must consider the lengthy list of countries he has not invaded.) All these actions unquestionably fulfill the definition of a material breach agreed to under Resolution 1441.
Good point-by-point. But some of your points themselves aren't so good.
1. Almost every country has WMDs right now.
That's right. But curiously, we're less interested in whether the UK has them than we are in whether an aggressive Islamofascist dicatorship with a long history of sponsoring terrorism does. In the years immediately following 9/11, why do you think that is?
2. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
The CNN article you cite is literally HILARIOUS if you've ever read Ken Pollacks "The Threatening Storm," which goes into great detail about the Saddam regime's extensive efforts to evade and confound the weapons inspectors. Understanding the CNN article depends on understanding the CONTEXT, which it doesn't provide. Sure, Saddam was destroying weapons on the eve of the war -- everyone knows that. He started doing that frantically at the last minute, when it became apparent he had disastrously misjudged the American's seriousness in holding him accountable to all the previous UN resolutions. By then it was far, far too late.
3. The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition?
Over a year? OVER A YEAR? It's people like you, ironically, who convince me that invading was probably a mistake. Western Civilization no longer has the stomach for this kind of stuff, the kind of hard slog that could take years or decades. Truly, our success contains within it the seeds of its own downfall. We are a soft fruit, ripe for the picking by hardened people willing to fight and make sacrifices.
Over a *year*. Jeesh. If this was 1776, you would have been writing about what a disastrous decision it was to break from England, and what idiots Jefferson, Madison and Franklin were to drag us into such a quagmire. You'll never admit that to yourself, but it's true.
4. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers?
a. I'm curious: perhaps you could use your research skills and let us know whether there are more independent newspapers in Iraq now, or more before we invaded?
b. Newspapers weren't banned.
c. ONE newspaper (Al-Sadre's) was shut down -- for two months.
d. The actual, non-delusionary reality is that newspapers in Iraq are thriving, and free to say anything they want, with TWO exceptions: One, they cannot advocate violence, and two, they cannot agitate for the return of the old regime. This is the most lenient media policy for an occupied country IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.
So I guess the moral is, it's great to go point-by-point, as long as the points themselves have to make sense.
WOW! Talk about dumbass!
... well ... I'm trying to stretch your analogy to make it fit, but it's almost impossible. How exactly is the grandparent poster a dumbass?
In case you hadn't noticed, we were at open WAR with Japan. We had also never agreed to disarm. We had also
- Alaska Jack
Really? Interesting. This is from The Feb. 10, 2003, issue of The New Republic:
... All these actions unquestionably fulfill the definition of a material breach agreed to under Resolution 1441.
c les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp
BEGIN QUOTE
The day before the president's address, the world received what should have been the final word on that process in the form of a report by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Blix's verdict is positively devastating. Iraq, he writes, "appears not to have come to genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it." Blix produces a litany of noncooperation: Iraq has failed to provide a full accounting of its weapons, as demanded; it has denied private interviews with its scientists; it has hidden crucial documents in private homes; and it has whipped up demonstrators to harass the inspectors with slanderous charges
END QUOTE
Now, just to refresh your memory, here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.
* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.
Read more here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/arti
The issue before the invasion of Iraq wasn't whether Iraq HAD WMDs; it was what to DO about it.
- Alaska Jack
Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:
c les/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp
* That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.
* That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.
* That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.
* That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.
* That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
* That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.
* That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.
* That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).
Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.
Read more here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/arti
This isn't rocket science. For those of you with ADD or memory problems, the issue before the invasion of Iraq wasn't whether Iraq HAD WMDs; it was what to DO about it.
- Alaska Jack
OK. I appreciate your attempt to give this matter some reasonable, balanced thought. Seriously, I'm not just saying that, I do. But some of the ways you have framed this issue are so shallow as to be cartoonish.
"How can you have a party that believes that parents should have the right to choose what school their children go to but that they're not bright not moral enough to choose whether or not to keep their child?"
These two issues are simply, well, two different issues. Do I believe people should be able to choose what school their child attends? Sure. Do I believe people should be able to choose when, where and with whom to have sex? Of course. Do I believe people should be able to kill other people they find inconvenient? No. How "bright" or "moral" the people are has nothing to do with either of these things.
Is this a "binary" decision? Sure. But if you told me you believe it's wrong to massacre Jews just because someone finds them inconvenient, I wouldn't say "You know, you're problem is you're treating it as a binary issue. You're either for it or against it; you can't be ambivalent or vote to control the amount of something."
"Pragmatic decisions like keeping abortion legal,"
Sure, abortion is (or can be, anyway) pragmatic. Absolutely. It would also be pragmatic to round up all the crippled, the insane, the sick and the social malcontents and humanely and painlessly exterminate them. So obviously, how pragmatic the solution may or may not be is not the issue we are dealing with.
"but dumping money into support and pro-child advertising campaigns to reassure scared young mothers that they don't have to kill their child, are seen as wishy washy liberalism -- even if such programs are met with greater success -- because they do not accept the artifical polarity forced onto the issue by idealistic conservatives."
You overlook a few obvious problems here. For starters, it's one thing for a private person or group opposed to abortion to "dump money" into an advertising campaign -- many groups already do this. A conservative would see such an effort as noble and compassionate -- not "wishy washy liberalism" as you put it. But the law is another thing. It is entirely appropriate to believe that it should not be *legal* for anyone to kill what you believe is an innocent human life, and to lobby the government to protect those lives.
What amazes ME is how the ani-abortion folks get caricatured as evil religous zealots. But of the two sides, they are clearly the ones who are more fighting on principle, with less to personally gain. I might fight to protect the life of an unborn innocent, but I'd also fight to protect YOUR life if someone suggested we could really solve a lot of problems by exterminating all liberals, or Pennsylvanian VW drivers, or whatever.
- Alaska Jack
I'm not trying to criticize you here, but I think I should post a correction: your post is only really meaningful if one does two things:
1. Count only governmental aid. The U.S. is different from most other Western countries in that we are not a centralized, government-controlled society (although admittedly we become more so every year). The percentage of private vs. government aid is much higher for the U.S. that it is for most other countries.
2. Ignore perhaps the most colossal subsidy of all: Defense. For 50 years, the only thing preventing the Red Army from pouring through the Fulda Gap and into Western Europe, or the North Koreans from smashing through the DMZ into South Korea, was the U.S. military. Same situation vis-a-vis China and Taiwan. Freed from the colossal burden of defense spending, those countries used their resources instead to develop stable polities, healthy economies and the freedom to bitch about the U.S. everytime something goes wrong.
- Alaska Jack
Well, I agree with most of what you said. I just don't agree that it all means we are turning away from science.
For example, I oppose the idea of destroying human embryos in the name of science. You might not agree with this, but it doesn't make me anti-science -- if someone proposed killing jews, blacks, or SlashDot readers in the name of science, I would oppose that too, even if there were possibly huge advancements to be made.
Also, despite a few events you note, the whole creationism-in-schools thing isn't exactly sweeping the country. The instances you note are notable precisely because they are anomalies.
But like I said, I agree with most of what you wrote.
- Alaska Jack