One thing you quickly realize with regard to human rights is that *everyone* is in violation. You have to prioritize. But then you're open to accusations of hypocrisy because your priorities aren't perfect. I'm sure China would love to point out all the transgressions of Europe and the US, but that should not distract attention from what we perceive as *worse* problems in China. This reminds one of the Bush supporters that find stupid things that Democrats have done and attempt to use them to mask worse things that Republicans have done. Once the really nasty political censorship has been dealt with, maybe Amnesty will have the luxury of concentrating on lightweight issues like excessively broad definitions of hate speech.
I have a feeling that they won't be defending anyone's "right" to post death threats online. Hypocritical or not, that's actually a good thing. They ought to be going after those who censor political speech on a large scale.
On behalf of hard-working, non-billionaire, non-fake Republicans everywhere....
Don't take offense. The people you've mentioned cannot be properly described as modern Republicans. I've heard them called "classical conservatives", "true conservatives", "RINOs", and even "liberals", but never Republicans.
No, this is why a gigantic military/police force is a bad idea. Even if you arm civilians, you aren't going to be able to compete with the arms the government has stockpiled. Additionally, the government has much better access to all sorts of propaganda techniques. (Iraqis might not be easily swayed, but the American people have shown an alarming vulnerability in this regard.) The only real option is to make sure it doesn't get to the point where armed conflict against a heavily-armed government is necessary. Limit the military budget, don't expand police powers, eliminate the death penalty, and let the government know that they are not *rulers* but *servants*.
So you're claiming that the entire article is wrong, and that it's just coincidence that the Montreal Protocol has been working better than expected? And as evidence, you make some irrelevant references to volcanos? If it's okay with you, I'll go ahead and stick with the scientific explanation.
Even if Terrorism can be considered an "inconsequential threat" by the standards used by its opponents, I am quite interested in hearing why Patriot should be considered a "consequential threat" by the same standard.
This point doesn't even make logical sense. Why would anyone support legislating new threats, no matter how inconsequential? When congress passes a law with no clear benefits that threatens civil liberties, of course people are going to be opposed to it. The onus is on its supporters to prove that it's necessary, not on its opponents to prove that it's some kind of large-scale threat to the lives of all citizens.
The post you're responding to is actually making that very point. The Bush Administration has released information against the interests of the country in order to engage in dirty politics. Now, by attempting to override the first amendment, they want to guarantee that it's illegal for anyone to blow the whistle on their schemes. In other words, the only protected speech is the president's own. There is indeed a lack of balance in this scenario.
I don't see what your comparison with Sen. Durbin adds to the discussion beyond a cheap shot at Democrats. Are you claiming that Plamegate, the domestic wiretapping scandal, the secret phone monitoring scandal, and now this denial of first-amendment rights are all instances of similar "incompetence" and not a systematic circumvention of the constitution?
About the best you can say is, "Shame on you, Yahoo!, for letting it be you." But, if you're going to do that, you better shame all of us for buying Chinese products. We're just as complicit.
Exactly right. Conversely, if you're going to allow Yahoo to participate in human rights abuses then you'll also have to allow the Chinese government to do it. They're just as complicit, after all.
If you decide to take a stand against human right abuse then you'll have to stand againt Yahoo, the Chinese-purchasing consumer, and the government of China as well. They all participate in the process.
"The Bush regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against its highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in America yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech."
Nothing you have said actually disputes any part of this statement. Therefore, I accused you of playing "petty politics" by attempting to illogically deflect the criticism. You may not believe that you are biased in this regard, but every "libertarian" (if that is really what you are) has a vested interest in *not* singling out Bush as a single disasterous president. You want us to accept that Bush, Kerry, etc. are all exactly the same.
The lesser of (at least) two evils is a property of Democracy. If you truly believe that the guy you're voting for is the best candidate, then by all means vote for him/her. But I would appreciate it if you would judge Bush by the same standard that you judge everyone else by, and not pretend that he's no worse than his predecessors. You might find that you have more credibility that way.
Do you mean extrajudicial execution, as in put these people up against a wall and shot them without trial? Or do you refer to civilian casualties during time of war?
Probably neither. Usually, the 10,000 number refers to a count (now outdated) of violent civilian deaths that happened under the occupying regime. So while it's not an official self-conscious killing, it is a natural consequence of the choices of the rulers; hence the "execution" exaggeration. I should also point out that this number generally does NOT include wartime casualties.
You have to give him credit for trying. Without a real coup, you can't just march into the White House and announce that you're starting a dictatorship. It takes time, extreme nationalism, an "enemy" that we're always at war with, and the gradual erosion of rights in the name of security and patriotism. Bush and Mubarak aren't in the same position, but you might consider them of a common mind.
Anyone who believes that copyright legislation is more serious than the prospect of a police state is living in a fantasy land. Anyone who makes excuses for their 'pet' president on a sketchy historical basis is not only committing a logical fallacy but also playing petty politics. It's hypocritical for people who savagely criticized Clinton to give Bush a free pass for measureably worse behavior.
So save your invectives. Most of the people you're arguing with didn't like Clinton much either, but can at least recognize the lesser of two evils.
It seems obvious to me that the parallel exists in the intentions, the rhetoric, and the lack of real concern for human rights. Situations can be analogous without being identical, your "barf" notwithstanding.
Bush's policies have stopped genocide there... for now.
Did anyone catch this? It's always BUSH's policies when something marginally good happens anywhere, for any reason. If anything bad happens, it's always because of the UN or the evil media (that should be replaced by government-controlled media to "go over the heads" of the American people, as Bush so frankly put it).
It's really amazing to see the angry neocons act as though Bush is a god deserving of everyone's endless affection. They even believe that Saddam planned 9/11 and that the hijackers were Iraqi. But what really shocks me is the sheer uniformity of the neocons. Everyone thinks exactly the same way. No one dares question the prevailing groupthink. While there are many different ways to disagree with Bush, there seems to be only one way to worship him.
That means no other news source has even 11% of Americans trusting it.
You can't conclude that from this article. It says that no other news source is trusted most by over 11% of those surveyed. There is no measure of distrust presented.
Nearly every newspaper posts corrections, and has been doing so for as long as I can remember. It's fun to laugh at some of the mistakes they make, but I doubt that anyone would migrate to a different news medium because of it (though maybe to a different newspaper).
How many liberals would jump to the defense of a major news network before even a word of criticism is uttered? Almost none. Yet you have to defend one and attack all liberals at the same time, even though the article has nothing to do with liberalism and has not mentioned any flaws of Fox News.
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
If the Constitution is some perfect, eternal and incorruptible ruleset like a physical law, then why does it have so many amendments?
If it's just a piece of paper that can be ignored at will, then why have people gone through the considerable trouble of amending it so many times? Why can't you change the laws in the constitution without changing the document itself?
To make this argument even more explicit, suppose that I enumerate a few existing laws on a piece of paper. What makes the constitution more than my paper is that the piece of paper reflects the laws, but the laws reflect the constitution.
Look, in the 1970s how many people complained about Christmas displays?
Are you referring to the "War on Christmas"? That little gem is the product of a few pundits with too much time on their hands and not enough real news to talk about. I wouldn't think much of it; most people don't give a damn what kind of holiday decorations Target chooses to have.
They're not gay, they leave an "alternative" lifestyle.
Who says that homosexuals aren't gay? And of course they lead an alternative lifestyle - that's what homosexuality is all about!
He's not an illegal alien, he's an "undocumented immigrant worker".
Truly the War on Synonyms has just begun.
He's not a pedophile, he's "mentally ill".
Again, I don't know anyone who objects to the term "pedophile" when describing pedophiles.
Universities have become a haven for teaching this line of thinking as to not offend anyone.
Not likely. Researchers have to compete in a very real market when trying to publish papers. There is a standard of quality that not everyone agrees with, but it is nonetheless a standard.
I suspect that what you're complaining about is more apparent in the corporate world, where the clients are always right (even when they are wrong), and in the realm of religion. After all, offending God is considered the ultimate no-no in most mainstream religions. People are taught to pussyfoot around God's wrath by tithing and taking political views similar to those of their preacher. Is that not political correctness taken to the absurd extreme?
They just can't win, can they? If they allow wiretapping you accuse them of being corrupt. If they oppose wiretapping you acuse them of being unfair.
It sounds like you have an axe to grind with higher education. Tell me, is it because of the academic elites? Is it because they don't take Intelligent Design seriously? Or did your political leaders simply command you to think this way?
a) The media can say whatever they want because ultimately we educate ourselves.
b) Jon Stewart is hurting us by forcing us to be educated by him.
Hence the contradiction. If Jon Stewart can possibly hurt the country then you must admit that the media *does* play a role in our education, which invalidates the first point.
By the way, I happen to agree with Stewart. Consumers have every right to demand better behavior from the media, just as we have every right to demand better service from our utility companies.
And by the way, why are you portraying the War on Drugs as a conservative issue?
Because it's a conservative issue. You just concluded a tirade about how true liberalism is basically impossible and unheard of in American politics, then you accuse Democrats of being conservative. Welcome to my whole point. Most Democrats really do have some conservative positions. That's democracy. But, only the most deluded among you would suggest that Democrats are as radically conservative as Republicans.
I will now address the aforementioned tirade.
Governments are not as efficient as a free market enterprise.
An advantage of a democratically elected government is not its swift and brutal efficiency. The government is intentionally inefficient to allow careful scrutiny of its actions in the form of, for example, checks and balances.
One way to address this is to do as your friends in congress are trying to do and attempt to eliminate the sources of scrutiny to create a deadly and efficient government. This is unacceptable for obvious reasons. Another way is to give private companies control over our dearest infrastructure. This idea is flawed because these companies (without regulation) would be free to exploit us. (You can't buy new roads every year from different companies and expect to save money.)
Same with our schools.
Corporation-controlled education is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing you quickly realize with regard to human rights is that *everyone* is in violation. You have to prioritize. But then you're open to accusations of hypocrisy because your priorities aren't perfect. I'm sure China would love to point out all the transgressions of Europe and the US, but that should not distract attention from what we perceive as *worse* problems in China. This reminds one of the Bush supporters that find stupid things that Democrats have done and attempt to use them to mask worse things that Republicans have done. Once the really nasty political censorship has been dealt with, maybe Amnesty will have the luxury of concentrating on lightweight issues like excessively broad definitions of hate speech.
I have a feeling that they won't be defending anyone's "right" to post death threats online. Hypocritical or not, that's actually a good thing. They ought to be going after those who censor political speech on a large scale.
On behalf of hard-working, non-billionaire, non-fake Republicans everywhere....
Don't take offense. The people you've mentioned cannot be properly described as modern Republicans. I've heard them called "classical conservatives", "true conservatives", "RINOs", and even "liberals", but never Republicans.
No, this is why a gigantic military/police force is a bad idea. Even if you arm civilians, you aren't going to be able to compete with the arms the government has stockpiled. Additionally, the government has much better access to all sorts of propaganda techniques. (Iraqis might not be easily swayed, but the American people have shown an alarming vulnerability in this regard.) The only real option is to make sure it doesn't get to the point where armed conflict against a heavily-armed government is necessary. Limit the military budget, don't expand police powers, eliminate the death penalty, and let the government know that they are not *rulers* but *servants*.
From TFA:
Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.
I guess your theory is wrong.
So you're claiming that the entire article is wrong, and that it's just coincidence that the Montreal Protocol has been working better than expected? And as evidence, you make some irrelevant references to volcanos? If it's okay with you, I'll go ahead and stick with the scientific explanation.
Even if Terrorism can be considered an "inconsequential threat" by the standards used by its opponents, I am quite interested in hearing why Patriot should be considered a "consequential threat" by the same standard.
This point doesn't even make logical sense. Why would anyone support legislating new threats, no matter how inconsequential? When congress passes a law with no clear benefits that threatens civil liberties, of course people are going to be opposed to it. The onus is on its supporters to prove that it's necessary, not on its opponents to prove that it's some kind of large-scale threat to the lives of all citizens.
The post you're responding to is actually making that very point. The Bush Administration has released information against the interests of the country in order to engage in dirty politics. Now, by attempting to override the first amendment, they want to guarantee that it's illegal for anyone to blow the whistle on their schemes. In other words, the only protected speech is the president's own. There is indeed a lack of balance in this scenario.
I don't see what your comparison with Sen. Durbin adds to the discussion beyond a cheap shot at Democrats. Are you claiming that Plamegate, the domestic wiretapping scandal, the secret phone monitoring scandal, and now this denial of first-amendment rights are all instances of similar "incompetence" and not a systematic circumvention of the constitution?
About the best you can say is, "Shame on you, Yahoo!, for letting it be you." But, if you're going to do that, you better shame all of us for buying Chinese products. We're just as complicit.
Exactly right. Conversely, if you're going to allow Yahoo to participate in human rights abuses then you'll also have to allow the Chinese government to do it. They're just as complicit, after all.
If you decide to take a stand against human right abuse then you'll have to stand againt Yahoo, the Chinese-purchasing consumer, and the government of China as well. They all participate in the process.
Well, read it again:
"The Bush regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against its highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in America yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech."
Nothing you have said actually disputes any part of this statement. Therefore, I accused you of playing "petty politics" by attempting to illogically deflect the criticism. You may not believe that you are biased in this regard, but every "libertarian" (if that is really what you are) has a vested interest in *not* singling out Bush as a single disasterous president. You want us to accept that Bush, Kerry, etc. are all exactly the same.
The lesser of (at least) two evils is a property of Democracy. If you truly believe that the guy you're voting for is the best candidate, then by all means vote for him/her. But I would appreciate it if you would judge Bush by the same standard that you judge everyone else by, and not pretend that he's no worse than his predecessors. You might find that you have more credibility that way.
Do you mean extrajudicial execution, as in put these people up against a wall and shot them without trial? Or do you refer to civilian casualties during time of war?
Probably neither. Usually, the 10,000 number refers to a count (now outdated) of violent civilian deaths that happened under the occupying regime. So while it's not an official self-conscious killing, it is a natural consequence of the choices of the rulers; hence the "execution" exaggeration. I should also point out that this number generally does NOT include wartime casualties.
Bush can't hold a candle to Mubarak
You have to give him credit for trying. Without a real coup, you can't just march into the White House and announce that you're starting a dictatorship. It takes time, extreme nationalism, an "enemy" that we're always at war with, and the gradual erosion of rights in the name of security and patriotism. Bush and Mubarak aren't in the same position, but you might consider them of a common mind.
Anyone who believes that copyright legislation is more serious than the prospect of a police state is living in a fantasy land. Anyone who makes excuses for their 'pet' president on a sketchy historical basis is not only committing a logical fallacy but also playing petty politics. It's hypocritical for people who savagely criticized Clinton to give Bush a free pass for measureably worse behavior.
So save your invectives. Most of the people you're arguing with didn't like Clinton much either, but can at least recognize the lesser of two evils.
It seems obvious to me that the parallel exists in the intentions, the rhetoric, and the lack of real concern for human rights. Situations can be analogous without being identical, your "barf" notwithstanding.
Bush's policies have stopped genocide there... for now.
Did anyone catch this? It's always BUSH's policies when something marginally good happens anywhere, for any reason. If anything bad happens, it's always because of the UN or the evil media (that should be replaced by government-controlled media to "go over the heads" of the American people, as Bush so frankly put it).
It's really amazing to see the angry neocons act as though Bush is a god deserving of everyone's endless affection. They even believe that Saddam planned 9/11 and that the hijackers were Iraqi. But what really shocks me is the sheer uniformity of the neocons. Everyone thinks exactly the same way. No one dares question the prevailing groupthink. While there are many different ways to disagree with Bush, there seems to be only one way to worship him.
That means no other news source has even 11% of Americans trusting it.
You can't conclude that from this article. It says that no other news source is trusted most by over 11% of those surveyed. There is no measure of distrust presented.
Nearly every newspaper posts corrections, and has been doing so for as long as I can remember. It's fun to laugh at some of the mistakes they make, but I doubt that anyone would migrate to a different news medium because of it (though maybe to a different newspaper).
How many liberals would jump to the defense of a major news network before even a word of criticism is uttered? Almost none. Yet you have to defend one and attack all liberals at the same time, even though the article has nothing to do with liberalism and has not mentioned any flaws of Fox News.
You may not realize it, but you are reinforcing certain stereotypes regarding blind loyalty and subservience among conservatives.
If the Constitution is some perfect, eternal and incorruptible ruleset like a physical law, then why does it have so many amendments?
If it's just a piece of paper that can be ignored at will, then why have people gone through the considerable trouble of amending it so many times? Why can't you change the laws in the constitution without changing the document itself?
To make this argument even more explicit, suppose that I enumerate a few existing laws on a piece of paper. What makes the constitution more than my paper is that the piece of paper reflects the laws, but the laws reflect the constitution.
Look, in the 1970s how many people complained about Christmas displays?
Are you referring to the "War on Christmas"? That little gem is the product of a few pundits with too much time on their hands and not enough real news to talk about. I wouldn't think much of it; most people don't give a damn what kind of holiday decorations Target chooses to have.
They're not gay, they leave an "alternative" lifestyle.
Who says that homosexuals aren't gay? And of course they lead an alternative lifestyle - that's what homosexuality is all about!
He's not an illegal alien, he's an "undocumented immigrant worker".
Truly the War on Synonyms has just begun.
He's not a pedophile, he's "mentally ill".
Again, I don't know anyone who objects to the term "pedophile" when describing pedophiles.
Universities have become a haven for teaching this line of thinking as to not offend anyone.
Not likely. Researchers have to compete in a very real market when trying to publish papers. There is a standard of quality that not everyone agrees with, but it is nonetheless a standard.
I suspect that what you're complaining about is more apparent in the corporate world, where the clients are always right (even when they are wrong), and in the realm of religion. After all, offending God is considered the ultimate no-no in most mainstream religions. People are taught to pussyfoot around God's wrath by tithing and taking political views similar to those of their preacher. Is that not political correctness taken to the absurd extreme?
They just can't win, can they? If they allow wiretapping you accuse them of being corrupt. If they oppose wiretapping you acuse them of being unfair.
It sounds like you have an axe to grind with higher education. Tell me, is it because of the academic elites? Is it because they don't take Intelligent Design seriously? Or did your political leaders simply command you to think this way?
Yes, you libertarians always use cold hard logic and never get the least bit emotional.
a) The media can say whatever they want because ultimately we educate ourselves.
b) Jon Stewart is hurting us by forcing us to be educated by him.
Hence the contradiction. If Jon Stewart can possibly hurt the country then you must admit that the media *does* play a role in our education, which invalidates the first point.
By the way, I happen to agree with Stewart. Consumers have every right to demand better behavior from the media, just as we have every right to demand better service from our utility companies.
And by the way, why are you portraying the War on Drugs as a conservative issue?
Because it's a conservative issue. You just concluded a tirade about how true liberalism is basically impossible and unheard of in American politics, then you accuse Democrats of being conservative. Welcome to my whole point. Most Democrats really do have some conservative positions. That's democracy. But, only the most deluded among you would suggest that Democrats are as radically conservative as Republicans.
I will now address the aforementioned tirade.
Governments are not as efficient as a free market enterprise.
An advantage of a democratically elected government is not its swift and brutal efficiency. The government is intentionally inefficient to allow careful scrutiny of its actions in the form of, for example, checks and balances.
One way to address this is to do as your friends in congress are trying to do and attempt to eliminate the sources of scrutiny to create a deadly and efficient government. This is unacceptable for obvious reasons. Another way is to give private companies control over our dearest infrastructure. This idea is flawed because these companies (without regulation) would be free to exploit us. (You can't buy new roads every year from different companies and expect to save money.)
Same with our schools.
Corporation-controlled education is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.
Point taken. But even so, they're the best we've got at the moment.