And Fonda was already working at getting soldiers to desert before 1970.
Kerry was an officer in VVAW, which was a radical anti-war organization. He provided false testimony before the senate, testimony which significantly aided the enemy, and which was used against our POWs. Many of the most famous, false sound-bites about the Vietnam War are from that speech. Kerry was such a phoney that he didn't even write the speech (although he pretended that it was spontaneous).It was written by one of Robert Kennedy's former speechwriters (Kerry was connected to the Kennedy's when younger).
That speech, hyped by the press, led Americans to believe that US Soldiers routinely (even gleefully) engaged in atrocities as a matter of course. It implied that every Vietnam Vet was a basket case because of the horrible things they had done.
It was based on the infamous Winter Soldier "Investigation" - which was funded by Jane Fonda. In that "investigation," many "veterans" testified to having witnessed or committed atrocities. Subsequent investigations showed that many testifying had never been to Vietnam and others could not possibly have seen the atrocities they witnessed. Congress caused two investigations to be undertaken to investigate the claims and to prosecute those who committed the atrocities, but with immunity given to those at the Winter Soldier Investigation. Not a single confirmed atrocity resulted. Kerry was a fraud then and is a fraud now. Just as Benedit Arnold was a war hero who turned on his country, so is John Kerry.
In the "Operation Dewey Canyon" demonstration, Kerry "returned his medals to the government" by throwing them on the Capitol steps. When someone years later noticed them proudly displayed in his office (he became proud of his service when it became politically advantageous to do so), he admitted that he had thrown someone else's medals! Also in that demonstration, veterans set up encampments on the mall and slept there. Kerry was one of the organizers, but while the others slept on the mall, he slept in a luxurious Georgetown apartment.
BTW, the reason Fonda was not tried for treason was not because war was not declared. It was because the political will to do so was lacking. Ultimately that lack of will lost the war.
Just as almost all of us who went to Vietnam would love to have Jane Fonda executed, we are not exactly fond of John Kerry's betrayal of American troops who were still in the field after he returned from his own short tour.
There are plenty of non-left leaning scientists. Nice theory, though. It's right up there with the one going around schools of Philosophy that the reason there aren't many conservatives in the Liberal Arts is that a conservatives are dumb.
Naturally, the left leaning scientists join the left leaning organizations. Duh.
I find it amusing that the example you choose happens to be one where the answer is, in fact, not known.
You could have picked a whole lot of issues where science provides a solid truth. Instead you picked anthropogenic global warming, which is still a matter of dispute among specialists (most agree with the theory but there are large gaps in information, low quality data, and an inadequately long time series).
Had you picked something else - say that inheritance is via DNA - you would at least have an example that every responsible scientist agrees with.
Furthermore, the assertions against the administration are not scientific assertions, but rather social assertions. That they are made by scientists does not make them scientific.
For example, did the UCS report go through independent peer review?
Finally, the UCS is not an "independent" organization. It is an organization with a long history of supporting the side of a debate held by the left. In other words, it is a political organization, with a political agenda, that a number of scientists agree with. In 1984 UCS openly supported Walter Mondale, with a 15 city tour of their members. It is part of the group that persecuted Bjorn Lomborg.
The idea that because scientific work involves discovering facts of nature, scientists are arbiters of truth, is laughable. Scientists are usually very narrow specialists, with deep knowledge in one area. Within that area, if it is worthy of research, there are almost always disagreements, until definitive experiments are done and replicated (try doing that with anthropogenic global warming, by the way).
Furthermore scientists are human. They have biases. They have agendas. They have blindspots.
By the way, did the UCS complain when the Clinton administration was suppressing research that did not support Al Gore's environmental agenda? I know people who had to be very careful what they said in public, and knew they would not get funded submitting research proposals likely to produce uncertainty about global warming forecasts.
When the government pays for science, the science will be subject to political steering.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... I think my reply vanished.
Anyway, I have moved it to here, a more suitable forum.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
By implication, you object to our freeing those people. Please explain why?
Under my logic, vigilantes provide a valuable neighborhood service when there is no police force, and the world (in spite of the pious blather of the UN) does not have a police force.
Consider... during the leadup to the Iraq war, the French intervened twice in Africa. Nobody attacked them for being vigilantes.
The freeing of Kosovo, which was done almost entirely with US military, was not a UN approved operation, but Europe didn't mind that operation. In fact, they begged us to come in and help. Again, nobody called us (or NATO) vigilantes.
There is clearly a double standard at work. When the US takes actions to defend itself, it is a vigilante and evil. But if it takes action to defend European interests, it is just fine. And the French, who have a brutal history of colonialism (which the US does not) catches nary a word of criticism for twice unilaterally intervening in Africa, while at the same time condemning the US's actions in Iraq.
Of course, since France the second largest supplier of weapons to Iraq in the period 1973-1900. USSR provided 57%, France 13%, China 12%, USA 1%. So don't give me your uninformed tripe about how the US armed those countries. In fact, the USSR was the greatest arms supplier to Arab dictatorship. Source is here.
And now you say our stance towards Israel is racism? How pathetic. When the US was far more racist, Jews were discriminated against (just like they are now starting again to be attacked in "sophisticated" Europe). The US did not support Israel until after the 1967 war, when it became clear that Israel was a useful ally to counterbalance the USSR's attempts to control the Persian Gulf through Arab allies.
But in one sense you are right. We do tend to favor people who believe in and practice democracy over those who believe in and practice dictatorship and murder.
Finally, the canard about Iraq and oil is so silly as to be hardly worth refutation. But I'll give you a few arguments anyway... Iraq has less than 1/3 the oil production of Saudi Arabia, about the same production as Venezuela. The total value of oil produced by Iraq in several years doesn't come close to paying our expenses in that war. If we wanted to wage war for oil, why not take Venezuela instead... it has an unpopular government and is much closer to us.
You say we changed our motivations on the Iraq war after we failed to find WMD's - thus implying a dishonesty about our intent. That Iraq had WMD's was assumed by almost everyone in the world, including Iraqi generals who we captured who stated that units adjoining theirs were armed with the weapons. Furthermore, anyone attacking the WMD thesis has to explain why Saddam tolerated 12 years of sanctions when they could have been easily ended by opening up Iraq to serious inspection, rather than blocking inspectors at every chance. Finally, we never claimed that WMD was the only reason to attack Iraq - there were many other reasons, but the critical ones were that Iraq had ties to many terrorist groups, had a history of misjudgement that had cost 1,000,000 lives (and hence represented a danger of providing WMD's to terrorists who would use them against the US), was a despotic regime, the demise of which could be hoped to put strong pressure on other despots - especially those supporting terrorists. But finally, the real issue, so easily glossed over by the nit pickers, is that the modern convergence of the technology of WMD's and suicidal terrorists with a stated aim of destroying the West represents a truly severe and deadly threat to the civilized world - one which Europe seems to imagine can be dealt with by placing ones head in the sand and ones rear in the air. For more facts, check out this, this,
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I also want to comment on your attack on the United States, which for some reason you view as a bully. We didn't take a wildly unexpected blow - we were subject to a savage and inexcusable attack by a band of radical religious cult members.
If we had "gone a little crazy and overcompensated," like you suggest, Afghanistan would be carpeted with radioactive glass! Instead, we have freed 50 million people in the process of defending ourselves. We must be a pretty bad bully to spend all this money freeing people oppressed far more than the Palestinians. And we took our "collateral damage" already. Except it was intended damage. When we talk of collateral damage, it isn't glib. It means we are aware of the unintentional side effects of our efforts and we try to minimize it. There has never been so much ordinance expended with so few civilian casualties as in Iraq and Afghanistan. That you should attack us for that, after the unprovoked killing of three thousand of our people is absurd. What were we supposed to do? Ask the UN to stop Bin Laden? Not invade Afghanistan, and let them continue to train fanatics and work on brewing up even deadlier weapons?
9-11 woke America up to something that has been clear to many of us since before that event: there are many in the world who, for religious reasons, would destroy us. Furthermore, their religion (as twisted by some of the leaders) allows them to use suicidal tactics, making them especially hard to defend against. In addition, technology is making it easier and easier to create weapons of mass murder.
In that venue, we had to make a choice. Try to talk evil people out of attacking us, or use other means. We chose to use many means, including demonstrations of force and the removal of two evil regimes. We may chose to remove more regimes, if it is necessary. And few will cry for the people we remove, because they are nasty and evil people.
It is easy to sit on the sidelines and call us a bully. But believe me, if we had gone just a little bit crazy, the destruction would have been vastly worse. What sort of bully spends vast resources preparing to care for the enemy after he is defeated? What sort of bully expends blood and money to create freedom for the people of enemy countries?
I am always amazed when the US and Israel become the primary targets for criticism, while genuine horrible despots hold sway. And then we are attacked for removing them. What sort of twisted logic says that we are wrong for removing a Saddam Hussein? Is it the same logic that allows Europeans to feel free to trade with that butcher?
The world would be a better place if people payed a little more attention to the real evil in it rather than attacking one of the few countries that is actually willing to fight that evil.
And as far as international law goes, both our war against Iraq and our war against Afghanistan were legitimate. But frankly, if they weren't, I would be condemning the law, not the US. Self defense is a fundamental property of a nation - the primary justification for giving up some of your rights to your government. And that is what we are engaged in. You may criticize our choices, but to condemn them as "a little crazy" is simply going to far. And as you criticize us, don't forget to take a look at history. Wars in the past have been vastly more brutal than what we have done recently.
Wars taking place today that we are not involved in are equally brutal. Who is your moral favorite in Chechnya? The vicious Chechnyan terrorists or the vicious Russian armed forces? When you compare just that war to the Israel/Palestine issue, Iraq or Afghanistan you can see just how hyperbolic your attacks have become.
Or go back to World War II - consider a "just war" by almost everyone. In that war, the allies firebombed cities, targetting civilians. We had vicious propaganda in all of our media, dehumanizing our opponents. We used nuclear weapons on two cities. And at the conclusion of that war, over 1,000,000,000 humans were quickly pulled into the tyranny of Stalinism and Maoism, where over 100,000,000 of them were slaughtered - while the predecessors of those who attack us today looked the other way and were even then spending their time condemning the United States.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
I have never said that the Israel-Palestine conflict is one sided in its morality. My first post noted that some of the actions of Israel have not been right.
However, if morality has any place at all in the world (and it should), then the tactics of intentionally murdering noncombatants has to be very far to the immoral side. I don't know what Americans would do in a situation similar to that of the Palestinians, but I do know what the Israelis did, and it was to wage war without terrorism (during the war for independence). In that desperate battle, where they were not only fighting for their land but also for their very existence (if they lost, they could expect to have been slaughtered out of hand, and no other country would take them as refugees), they condemned the Stern Gang's act of terrorism and successfully restrained their forces. I think that says something very good about their leaders and their morality. I would like to believe that Americans would behave in the same manner.
Furthermore, the Israeli's have tried to end the Palestinian "problem" by returning the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control. They did this because they do not want to be occupiers and because they knew the costs would be high. Unfortunately, whatever steps the Israelis have taken, the Palestinian leadership (Yassir Arafat in particular) has raised the ante. Nothing is enough. By their behavior, the Palestinian leadership has shown no interest in peace, but rather a willingness to slaughter their own people and Israeli's (while Yassir Arafat's family lives in luxury in paris) in order to achieve their ultimate goal: conquest of the state of Israel.
Hence to me, Israel is the besieged state. It is surrounded by hostile states which arm terrorists and encourage them. Its people are, by stint of their ethnicity, not even allowed to live or travel in much of the world. That the United States should help the only truly free state in the region protect itself against those who would crush it and kill its people is a good thing, but it is also a recent thing. Israel was founded as a socialist country and the first nation to recognize it was the USSR. The US has served mainly to restrain Israel, in the wars of 1967 (where the Israeli's attacked a US ship), 1973 and 1991 (where Israel was attacked by one of the aggressive nearby states - Iraq - for no valid reason). Israel was attacked by much larger countries in 1947, 1967 and 1973 and almost lost two of those wars. When Israelis state that they have security concerns about the Golan Heights and the West Bank, it is not just an excuse! Had the Arab states not attacked Israel in 1967, the Palestinians today would be citizens of Jordan, as they were prior to 1967. There has never been a nation of Palestine, and they are led by an Egyptian who was also a KGB asset during the cold war! One wonders what "Palestine" they think is theirs?
To the extent that Palestinians are victims, it is by the choice of their leadership and "friends" like Saddam and the Iranians, who ruthlessly use them. It is by their approval of the tactics of barbarism. They did not gain any friends in the US when they celebrated the 9-11 attacks, but that is typical of Palestine - they almost always choose self destructive tactics. I am amazed at Israeli restraint in the face of such brutality. When Hamas has a huge, armed demonstration, I am amazed that Israel doesn't attack them. The demonstrators are armed and are sworn enemies of Israel. And yet these anti-Israel and anti-US demonstrations happen constantly, under the watchful eyes of the Israelis, without attacks. Can you imagine any existing Arab or Iranian leader who would allow his own citizens, much less citizens of an enemy polity allowing this? They would be shot down in the street!
So I have no problem viewing Israel to be operating at a much higher level of morality than the Palestinian authorities/gangs/groups.
I certainly would like to see the Palestinians live in freedom. They would be only the second Arab state
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
It's really simple. Intentionally or carelessly killing noncombatants is wrong. Killing combatants when one is in a war is legitimate. So is capturing them and holding them for the duration of the war.
Obviously when I refer to the Palestinians, I do not mean that every single Palestinian is evil. I have, however, studied a far amount of the history of Israel, and I read Israeli papers (both right and left) and have a pretty good idea of how they think.
They are a people, like most civilized folks, who want to be left alone. It's really that simple. Most people are like this.
But the Palestinian groups, which have significant support, want to throw the Israeli's out. They exhort their children to grow up to be murderers. They have a culture of violence, similar to that found under Saddam and the Nazis. Their leaders have thrown away numerous opportunities for peace because they will accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel, and they are perfectly happy to murder children to do it.
One of the saddest things is the failure of the European elite to understand the fundamental difference between the evil of terrorism and the morality of self defense.
Obviously, the Israeli's are dissatisfied with their tactics so far. They have tried targetted killings, interdictions and checkpoints, peace negotiations (and don't feed me Chomsky, he makes his living lying about the west), and all have failed. So they are now working on separation. They are building a barrier to keep Palestinians in their own territory and out of Israels. Then they can cease the occupation, cease the targetted killings, and let the Palestinians do as they wish.
As far as fighting occupations... there have been many revolutions where the targetted killing of civilians has not been needed. This includes the American revolution and the American civil war. Furthermore, even if it were the only possible tactic, that does not make it moral or right. It it is better to suffer occupation than to target children! By your logic, occupation justifies any tactic that will be successful.
I won't bother to debate Vietnam with you. I am sure Chomsky has filled you full of nonsense about that war. As one who served in that war, and watched what happened here in the US, I know how badly distorted the history is.
Please explain to my why targeting children is a valid tactic of war. It seems clear that it is a crime against humanity. If crimes against humanity are justified in your twisted moral system, then you don't have a moral system, just a way of rationalizing whatever you like, and that is pathetic.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Hey, you missed something. Palistine is not under ethnic cleansing. They have consistently used non-peaceful means, attacking people not even involved in the conflict (in airline hijacking in the '70s),but the Israelis have not tried to drive them from their land (ethnic cleansing). You probably also don't realize that about one fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs with full voting rights and representatives in the Knesset.
I think the settlements are bad policy, but they are not ethnic cleansing. If the Israeli's wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine (the way the term is properly used), they would be using terror to kill civilians to drive the Palestinians out. Instead, they have tried, at great cost in the lives of innocents, to live *with* the Palestinians.
If you had read about the founding of Israel, you would realize that they always had the intent of living with the Palestinians. You would know that most Palestinian "refugees" from the time were folks who left at the request of the Arab countries. This request was made so that when the Arab armies triumphed and killed all the Jews (their stated intent), the Palestinians would be caught in the middle. You would know that the Palestinian people have been used as pawns by Arab dictators who supported the cause in order to distract their own people from their own despotism. So maybe you should read some history.
And then if you read a little more history, you would realize that the West Bank was captured in 1967 after Israel *was attacked from there for the second time.* It was taken as an act of self defense, consistent with the laws of war.
And if you followed the history more, you would understand that it is the Palestinians (and their supporters) who have been the consistent indicators of violence, not the Israelis. You would realize that for almost all Israelis, the West Bank is something they would prefer to do without. You would realize that the Israelis elected a "peace" government which allowed the Palestinians to be armed (something you don't do to those you are ethnically cleansing), allowed Arafat (an Egyptian, not a Palestinian) to return to the West Bank, and in general did everything in their power to create a peaceful, democratic state. The Palestinians responded to this with murder of innocents. It was only after a lot of this that the current "security" government of Sharon was elected.
If your moral code allows the intentional killing and mutilation of civilans, then it is pretty pathetic. If you cannot see the care that has been taken by the US and Israeli in various conflicts to minimize civilian casualties, and recognize the moral difference between that and intentionally targetting noncombatants, then you are pretty pathetic. And if you don't recognize the right of a nation to use military force against those who attack it (the targetted killings of Palestinian terrorists), then you don't understand the laws of war. By your logic, the US would have had to capture and try Yamamoto in World War II, rather than killing him by assassination.
The peaceful methods were tried in Palestine. Several times. If you study Israeli politics, you would realize that they have a strong "peace" movement, which controlled the government until the Palestinians killed too many of their children! It is the Palestinians, not the Israelis who need to learn the lesson about violence.
And they are now learning. Israel, in an act of self defense that is quite the opposite of "ethnic cleansing", is building a wall to separate itself from a people who have proven to violent to live with. In the process, it has made the decision to remove most of the settlements. It is the Jews who are being ethnically cleansed. If you really understood the term, you would know that after the founding of Israel and the defeat of the Arab armies (with no help from the US, BTW), Jews were forcibly expelled from almost all Muslim countries in the middle east, while Arabs were not expelled from Israel. THAT is the ethnic cleansing.
When you complain about settlements, you are complaining that Jews should not be allowed to live in a Palestinian country - even if they buy the land (which they did for many settlements). THAT is racism. Driving them out is ethnic cleansing.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Intentions do indeed count. And the US can attack dual use infrastructure, and did in Iraq. But did you see the extreme care that the US went to in Iraq to avoid killing civilians? That is what the law of war calls for.
If the US administration intentionally targeted civilians, that would be against the law of war. Would you care to cite a single example of this in the last 30 years?
Terrorism has a specific meaning, and you can wiggle and squirm all you want, but it won't justify the use of bombs that intentionally target non-combatants (civilians). I really don't care what the Palestinians would "rather" do - the fact is that their tactics are evil, the specific intent of many of their attacks is to terrorize Israeli civilians by killing innocents in a random manner. THAT is terrorist, it is against the laws of civilization, and any thinking person would condemn it.
The asymmetry of power does not change the evil of the Palestinians. The rightness of their cause (which is a whole other debate) does not change things.
By their intentional killing of innocent humans for the sole purpose of terrism, they should be condemned by all humans who have a shred of compassion.
You note that I do not condemn their attacks on Israeli soldiers. While doing so out of uniform is a violation of the laws of war (and punishable by summary execution under those laws), it doesn't have the same level of moral culpability of going into peoples' houses and shooting their children, detonating a car bomb in front of a house of worship to maximize the killing of families, setting off a bomb in a university cafeteria to kill the young, etc, etc.
By your logic, 9-11 is an acceptable tactic. After all, the Islamist didn't have an atomic bomb to take out New York. In fact, by your logic, any aggrieved party can kill any civilian he wants if he thinks it will help. By your logic, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were right to take out the federal building, in retaliation for the actions of the U.S. government at Waco.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
If you were to look at the history of the Palestinians with any degree of objectivity, you wouldn't make such statements. Israel didn't even control the West Bank until it was attacked from there in 1967. Israelis simply have no desire to be occupiers. And the Palestinians have plenty of land, which, if they would behave in a civilized manner, they could rule. They are not being denied a place to live or a place to grow crops.
Israel has two movements that confuse the issue. One is a religious minority that believe that Israel has a right to control the west bank. These people are a problem because Israel's system of democracy tends to amplify the power of splinter groups.
The other movement, of which Sharon is a member, believes that without the ability to rapidly interdict transportation in the west bank, Israel is in great danger.
If you view the latter in terms of Israeli history, you come to the conclusion that they have very good reasons for their concern.
The Palestinians are angry because they have been continually used as proxies by Arabs (and Iranians) with evil intent. On top of that, they are lead by a brutal and thieving group of thugs (just like most Arab countries) who constantly do things to make the fate of the Palestinians worse.
While you may not consider the motivations of those who use violence to be important, be assured that it is extremely important. It causes the Israeli's to be far less deadly to Palestinians than they are capable of. It caused the US to go to great lengths to avoid excess civilian casualties in Iraq. Where before has there been a war with so much firepower on both sides with so few civilian casualties?
But let's go ahead and equate the two. In that case, the next time the Palestinians blow up some Israeli children, perhaps the Israeli's should bomb a bunch of schools in Gaza. Do you really want to cede moral equivalence? Because that would be equivalent.
I would accept an argument that the bombing of German and Japanese cities was terrorism, but the idea that there is any moral equality between the Israeli and the Palestinian governments is absurd. One is democratically elected and is primarily focused on protecting its people. The other is a dictatorship which is primarily focused on destroying Israel, and is perfectly happy to do so by intentionally killing Issraeli AND Palestinian innocents.
I wonder what land you would give the Palestinians that they don't already have? Would you accept the borders originally set by the League of Nations Mandate? Would you throw the Jews into the sea? You say they have no land, but that is patently false!
The Israeli's are neither blameless or perfect, but they are a damned sight more moral in their dealing with the Palestinian issue than the Palestinians (who continue to say among themselves that they will drive the Jews out of Israel).
I don't need to know why terrorists are angry, because it doesn't matter. The only thing important about terrorists is the need to exterminate them. They do not belong in the family of man, no matter what their cause. I don't care if they are fighting for a cause I believe in or a cause I detest... they are subhuman and should be destroyed.
I think the literature professors are smarter. They picked a field where you can make up all sorts of crap and get paid for it. Furthermore, nobody can prove them wrong.
Re:Most things not politically correct.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, they wouldn't. Terrorism is defined by the type and intent of actions - namely, the targetting of civilians with the intent of causing fear.
Freedom fighters fight against government agents - typically soldiers and police - not ordinary citizens.
Thus the IRA, Al Qaeda and Tim McVeigh and friend were all terrorists.
And of course, you would bring up the worst example of mis-thinking on this subject: Israel vs. Palestine. Whatever wrongs Israel has committted, they are dwarfed by the terrorist atrocities committed by the Palestinians. If Israel were terrorist, it wouldn't have sent soldiers into the Jenin "camp" - it would have just bombed it. Instead soldiers were sent in (and many died) in order to prevent civilian casualties. If Israel had the same morality as the Palestinians, there wouldn't be any Palestinians west of the Jordan river! For you to call Israel's policies "ethnic cleansing" is to display either your abysmal ignorance or your willingness to freely lie.
Those who become terrorists are without moral qualms. It is not just one more tactic - it is evil and despicable. Israeli children have been intentionally targetted by Palestinian terrorists, who explode bombs coated with rat poison (warfarin). The reverse has not happened.
Israel has finally started what only makes sense: separation from the violent people of Palestine. After 50 years of trying to live in peace, being answered by hatred, bombings and war, they have decided to protect themselves by building a barrier between themselves and the people who have sworn to destroy them. During the "Oslo process," the Palestinian leaders used their new found freedoms to indoctrinate their own children with hatred, and to send their children to kill Israeli children. Europe, sitting on its moral house of cards, always condemned the Israeli's, of course.
I think Israel has been very restrained. I think if Americans were subject to the same level of violence as the Israelis have been, the Palestinians would have been completely crushed or sent someplace else by now. And it would have been the right thing to do.
If you look at Israel's history, there was a small amount of terrorism waged in their name (by the Irgun and the Stern Gang). But instead of applauding those incidents, Israeli authorities did their best to stop them - even while they were fighting for their lives against massive Arab armies. That is the action of a moral organization. On the other hand, most of the Arab world constantly condemns Israel, while at the same time doing nothing to help the descendants of Palestinian refugees (who fled at the request of those governments so they wouldn't be killed when the Arabs killed all the Jews during the founding war of Israel). 55 years after the creation of Israel, Palestinians are still be kept in refugee camps rather than allowed to assimilate. At the same time, about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, who have full voting rights and representation in the Knesset. But after the founding of Israel, most Arab countries drove out all Jewish residents. THAT's the ethnic cleansing that's really been happening.
If you find yourself justifying terrorism, then you are one sick puppy. You are justifying the murder of innocent people because of your anger.
Never confuse terrorism with resistance. The two are infinitely different. And any killing should be a last resort - even that of soldiers of a repressive and illegitimate regime (like Saddam's).
Re:The Manufacturing of Consent
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Chomsky... the man who thinks outside the box so much that he is utterly predictable.
His theories are simply well written applications of Marxism, mixed with a lot of hate-America sentiments.
I don't know why anyone takes him seriously, given how wrong he has been about so many things.
But then, a lot of people thought communism was great too, until they saw what it really did, at which point they either shut up or said something lame like "nobody ever did it right."
He also totally misstated the history about Galileo. The reason Galileo was persecuted and Copernicus wasn't had to do with local politics. The Church had already accepted that the earth rotated around the sun.
But it makes such a great story.
One fashion today is that religion, in the West, is something you can ALWAYS say negative things about, feel smug about it, and probably get moderated up for saying so.
Without rehashing it, there is a vast amount of evidence for macro-evolution and has been even before the advent of molecular biology. The fossil record is full of intermediate species. The genetic record likewise shows the impact of evolution quite clearly, from conserved non-coding DNA to obvious features such as mitochondria.
The same groups that doubt macro-evolution used to deny macro-evolution, until that position became impossible to sustain.
The insights offered by macro-evolution are used every day by working molecular biologists in their quest for information, and the finding of informatino predicted by macro-evolution produces a continuing series of evidence of its existence.
In the old days, anti-evolutionists claimed all sorts of nonsense about the geological record to sustain a 7000 year old earth myth. Today they still claim all sorts of nonsense to support such unscientific hypotheses as "intelligent design."
But with few exceptions, this approach is driven by religion, resulting in a quest for "proof" instead of a quest for information.
As far as statistical analyses giving huge odds, these are based on a large number of assumptions, and hence are guesses like the Drake equation, not solid numbers.
They usuallty assume that a particular feature could not gradually evolve, and thus a very large number of mutations would have to occur simultaneously. But some cases of this have already been explained (evolution of eyes is a common one).
Most anti-evolutionists also assume that evolution proceeds through the accumulation of mutations, while gene mixing (through sex, bacterial conjugation, virus infection and other means) is far more powerful. Furthermore, mutations need not be single nucleotide changes (SNPs) but rather mis-splicing of DNA where a huge coding section moves, resulting in a dramatic change.
You're right, we started from global warming. And the AGU position is the consensus, but it is still controversial - there are skeptics in the field and they are not all cranks.
As far as projecting a century out... it depends on what factors you are taking into account. From a geological climate perspective, it is a long time, and yet some paleoclimatic evidence indicates extremely rapid change, possibly due to chaos.
The problem with that I have with the projection, and that my research climatologist friends have, is the calibration of the model. Because of the time scales normally involved in climate, models need to be able to forecast the past (since we can't wait till the future to test them). And the past is a matter of significant debate. So I would wonder how confident you can be in your position. I don't care if 1000 model makers have the same beliefs, if those are not well calibrated and sustained by the paleoclimatologists. As far as models based on known physics... as I said before, and you didn't object, models have to be parameterized for many reasons, and the validity of those parameters are a matter for debate. Furthermore, parameterization itself is subject to sampling bias. So if a whole bunch of experts like the current samples, are they right and scientific, or just invoking their best instincts. The difference is very significant. So as far as science goes, this is the only area where I would question what you are diong.
As far as scientists stating their opinion, I have no problem with scientists stating their own opinion, if their particular expertise is stated and the uncertainties are also stated. Too often, we see crap like statements signed by thousands of scientists, 99% of whom know nothing about the field. Or we see political rewrites of uncertainty (such as the summaries of IPCC reports which are all the press ever reports) which make the science seem far more certain than it really is.
As far as further research, I am strongly in favor of putting money into climatology, as the risk is there and needs to be understood.
Re: Kyoto, I am strongly against that on the grounds of the scientific evidence used in favor of it - the IPCC extrapolations. If one is to make policy, one should be honest about it, and Kyoto is a fraud in the sense that it achieves nothing of significance.
Well, thanks for the ad hominem. It always adds so much to the discussion.
I try not to choose my science to fit my politics, and have publicly criticized other conservatives (such as Rush Limbaugh) for doing exactly that. Nature is what it is, and cares little for your or my political views.
Science, however, is a human endeavor, and is highly bureaucratic, leaving it vulnerable to politics and feeling and human foibles, as Crichton demonstrated. Furthermore, it is extremely specialized, causing too many of its practitioners to develop tunnel vision. And finally, some scientists (such as the now deceased Carl Sagan or Linus Pauling) assume that their preemminence in one field gives them a standing in other fields. There are few to whom that applies (Physicist Richard Feynman being one). The saving grace of science is that over time, it reaches good conclusions. But during the intermediate time, it often is substantially wrong, normally contentious, factional, and prone to political and financial bias. Climate prediction science is a long ways from being settled. Major changes are still happening. And furthermore, models are especially vulnerable because of the uncertainties of testing them.
As far as Kyoto goes, there are some simple ways to show that it is bad policy, using the assumptions from the IPCC itself.
As far as the climate of 2100, I am surprised at your assertion that you can make the assertions you do about forecasting it. The reason is that so many of the factors that go into computing it keep changing it. As you well know, simply simulating the basic physics is far from adequate, because you don't have the temporal or spatial resolution in the model to do it accurately enough to have any meaning at all. Thus you need to use coarser gained modelling and parameterize your model to account for fine scale effects or other functions that you choose not to model. Which leads to the question of how you validate your parameters, which leads to my skepticism. Anyone with a knowledge of physics and programming, and access to enough computing power can produce a model of any physical process. Making a model that is meaningful, testable and ultimately tested is much harder. Do you claim to have such a model?
As I have said, I am not a researcher in this field. I have friends who are, including one who started as a modeler and has since focused more on paleoclimatology, which significantly increased his skepticism about the validity of climatic models. Paleoclimatology is critical to validating any model, and I rely on his word as to the quality of paleoclimatic data (not to mention the periodic significant discoveries that case doubt on various older paleoclimate data). Furthermore, as the son of an award winning scientist (in the environmental sciences field) and member of the National Academy), I do have some idea of what goes on in those areas, including the rigidity of belief held by defenders of no longer accurate theories.
As far as straw man. I didn't not mean to argue a straw man. Quite the contrary, I meant to show that one can draw the wrong conclusions from the fact that consensus in science agrees with some well proven results, the same point that Crichton himself makes. I don't assign consensus the totally useless role that Chrichton does, but consensus is certainly not a *scientific* principle.
As far as hockey-stick terminology. I don't know where I picked it up - whether from Science magazine or some political magazine, both of which I read. But it is a nice visual description of a real controversy in paleoclimatology.
I have no bone to pick with scientists, as long as they don't misrepresent the implications of their results. In the area of anthropogenic global warming, there has been significant fear (if not practice) regarding grant assignments in the field, to the point where I know people who will not use their own names when criticizing climate policy. This is not the sign of health in a scientific field.
You certainly implied such argument. Otherwise, why did you bring F=ma into the discussion?
If you really think the other arguments are rhetorical and do not deal with science, you seem to be a bit confused about science, even if you claim to be a practitioner of such.
Do cloud physics affect anthropogenic global warming, or not? If so, do you have adequate models predict cloud physics under supposed future conditions or not? If the science is so good, why is there argument about the hockey-stick graph? If the science is so good, why does the solar irradiance evidence come as a surprise? How well do you understand the CO2 cycle? How well can you model thermohaline circulation in the ocean? What is the relative importance of soot emissions vs. CO2? How do you test your models? Did we or didn't we have a "mini ice-age" a few hundred years ago? And most importantly, what are the trends in technology, sociology and politics that are likely to be powerful inputs into the next 100 years of the earth's atmospheric contents?
You don the mantle of science and assert that anthropogenic global warming is a near certainty. But you do so without solid evidence. You assert a consensus of an organization composed mostly of non-climate scientists, even in the face of evidence (not to mention philosophy) that consensus is not an adequate way of measuring the accuracy of scientific claims.
I would agree that it is likely that anthropogenic CO2 probably has some effect, and that effect would be towards warming. But to extrapolate much beyond that, say to the political realm such as the Kyoto protocol, leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of politics.
If you have no "scientific" argument on Kyoto, then fine. If you claim that today's science can tell us much about the climate in 2100, then you are wrong.
I accept it based on his track record and my personal familiarity with his level of genius. That's a bit different than just his reputation, which itself is exceedingly impressive.
Oh, also the "science" of global warming prediction involves some degree of science, but hardly any degree of scientific confidence of correctness. There are too many variables (the most important involve water vapor and clouds) which affect earth's albedo and which are sufficiently hard to predict that the science is no different from magic... we might as well roll old bones to predict that actual effect.
Another serious problem with the whole thing is the fundamental assumption that we should not cause warming. That is a theological argument to some extent. Further, one should do a cost benefit analysis to see whether our efforts should go into adapting to warming rather than trying to prevent it with silly treaties which have massive economic effects and virtual no climate effects.
Climate researchers whom I know in the United States have definitely felt the pressure.
Furthermore, the logic you display is fallacious:
1) F = ma
2) F=ma is a consesnsus opinion
3) Therefore, consensus opinion is an appropriate way to do science.
Furthermore, the underlying physics of all sorts of things are well understood. For example, the underlying physics of molecular biology is well understood. Does that mean we can predict the behavior of a human being?
There is a big stretch between simple physics like radiative energy balance and the extremely complex systems which determine climate, which are not at all well understood. For example, radiative energy balance is dramatically affected by cloud physics, and clouds (which are themselves sensitive to temperature changes and many other effects) may either increase or decrease net energy flows depending on droplet size, which are pretty tough to predict. Add this to the many other variables, and you realize that global warming predictions(anthropogenic OR OTHERWISE) are not science, but rather guesses.
Again, consensus does not equal science. Furthermore, I would point out that my father is a senior researcher and member of AGU (and NRC and others). He doesn't know any more about global warming than I do (less, in fact). Furthermore, scientific organizations are subject to the same sociological issues as other organizations, and in fact, as organizations, tend to produce consensus results rather than scientific results.
Since this discussion will lead to the inevitable global warming flap, this paper offers a good viewpoint on the issue (although I disagree with his assertion that SETI is a religion - it isn't - it's an experiment).
A few quotes:
Regarding Sagan's claims of nuclear winter:
Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about,"
In my book, if Feynam said it, it was almost certianly true. I used to go to his lectures at Hughes Malibu Research Center and it was an amazing experience....and...
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
At many times, the Russians have felt that they could win a nuclear war against the US.
And as far as what good is it? The population after a nuclear attack is especially vulnerable (reduced resistance due to stress or radiation sickness, medical facilities overflowed, lots of movement to spread the disease).
The Russians could simply have a vast supply of vaccine ready to distribute.
As far as how you dispense the agent, you use a different RV.
There is no doubt that the USSR had a vast bioweapons program. Many outsiders have now seen the remnants of it, so we are not just relying on Alibek's views. The British had a defector who kept quiet for years about it who had the same story.
And remember, the USSR was not the most rational or efficient organization. The fact that it *could* make these warheads may have been enough to cause them to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
And Fonda was already working at getting soldiers to desert before 1970.
Kerry was an officer in VVAW, which was a radical anti-war organization. He provided false testimony before the senate, testimony which significantly aided the enemy, and which was used against our POWs. Many of the most famous, false sound-bites about the Vietnam War are from that speech. Kerry was such a phoney that he didn't even write the speech (although he pretended that it was spontaneous).It was written by one of Robert Kennedy's former speechwriters (Kerry was connected to the Kennedy's when younger).
That speech, hyped by the press, led Americans to believe that US Soldiers routinely (even gleefully) engaged in atrocities as a matter of course. It implied that every Vietnam Vet was a basket case because of the horrible things they had done.
It was based on the infamous Winter Soldier "Investigation" - which was funded by Jane Fonda. In that "investigation," many "veterans" testified to having witnessed or committed atrocities. Subsequent investigations showed that many testifying had never been to Vietnam and others could not possibly have seen the atrocities they witnessed. Congress caused two investigations to be undertaken to investigate the claims and to prosecute those who committed the atrocities, but with immunity given to those at the Winter Soldier Investigation. Not a single confirmed atrocity resulted. Kerry was a fraud then and is a fraud now. Just as Benedit Arnold was a war hero who turned on his country, so is John Kerry.
In the "Operation Dewey Canyon" demonstration, Kerry "returned his medals to the government" by throwing them on the Capitol steps. When someone years later noticed them proudly displayed in his office (he became proud of his service when it became politically advantageous to do so), he admitted that he had thrown someone else's medals! Also in that demonstration, veterans set up encampments on the mall and slept there. Kerry was one of the organizers, but while the others slept on the mall, he slept in a luxurious Georgetown apartment.
BTW, the reason Fonda was not tried for treason was not because war was not declared. It was because the political will to do so was lacking. Ultimately that lack of will lost the war.
Just as almost all of us who went to Vietnam would love to have Jane Fonda executed, we are not exactly fond of John Kerry's betrayal of American troops who were still in the field after he returned from his own short tour.
There are plenty of non-left leaning scientists. Nice theory, though. It's right up there with the one going around schools of Philosophy that the reason there aren't many conservatives in the Liberal Arts is that a conservatives are dumb.
Naturally, the left leaning scientists join the left leaning organizations. Duh.
I find it amusing that the example you choose happens to be one where the answer is, in fact, not known.
You could have picked a whole lot of issues where science provides a solid truth. Instead you picked anthropogenic global warming, which is still a matter of dispute among specialists (most agree with the theory but there are large gaps in information, low quality data, and an inadequately long time series).
Had you picked something else - say that inheritance is via DNA - you would at least have an example that every responsible scientist agrees with.
Furthermore, the assertions against the administration are not scientific assertions, but rather social assertions. That they are made by scientists does not make them scientific.
For example, did the UCS report go through independent peer review?
Finally, the UCS is not an "independent" organization. It is an organization with a long history of supporting the side of a debate held by the left. In other words, it is a political organization, with a political agenda, that a number of scientists agree with. In 1984 UCS openly supported Walter Mondale, with a 15 city tour of their members. It is part of the group that persecuted Bjorn Lomborg.
The idea that because scientific work involves discovering facts of nature, scientists are arbiters of truth, is laughable. Scientists are usually very narrow specialists, with deep knowledge in one area. Within that area, if it is worthy of research, there are almost always disagreements, until definitive experiments are done and replicated (try doing that with anthropogenic global warming, by the way).
Furthermore scientists are human. They have biases. They have agendas. They have blindspots.
By the way, did the UCS complain when the Clinton administration was suppressing research that did not support Al Gore's environmental agenda? I know people who had to be very careful what they said in public, and knew they would not get funded submitting research proposals likely to produce uncertainty about global warming forecasts.
When the government pays for science, the science will be subject to political steering.
Hmmm... I think my reply vanished.
Anyway, I have moved it to here, a more suitable forum.
By implication, you object to our freeing those people. Please explain why?
Under my logic, vigilantes provide a valuable neighborhood service when there is no police force, and the world (in spite of the pious blather of the UN) does not have a police force.
Consider... during the leadup to the Iraq war, the French intervened twice in Africa. Nobody attacked them for being vigilantes.
The freeing of Kosovo, which was done almost entirely with US military, was not a UN approved operation, but Europe didn't mind that operation. In fact, they begged us to come in and help. Again, nobody called us (or NATO) vigilantes.
There is clearly a double standard at work. When the US takes actions to defend itself, it is a vigilante and evil. But if it takes action to defend European interests, it is just fine. And the French, who have a brutal history of colonialism (which the US does not) catches nary a word of criticism for twice unilaterally intervening in Africa, while at the same time condemning the US's actions in Iraq.
Of course, since France the second largest supplier of weapons to Iraq in the period 1973-1900. USSR provided 57%, France 13%, China 12%, USA 1%. So don't give me your uninformed tripe about how the US armed those countries. In fact, the USSR was the greatest arms supplier to Arab dictatorship. Source is here.
And now you say our stance towards Israel is racism? How pathetic. When the US was far more racist, Jews were discriminated against (just like they are now starting again to be attacked in "sophisticated" Europe). The US did not support Israel until after the 1967 war, when it became clear that Israel was a useful ally to counterbalance the USSR's attempts to control the Persian Gulf through Arab allies.
But in one sense you are right. We do tend to favor people who believe in and practice democracy over those who believe in and practice dictatorship and murder.
Finally, the canard about Iraq and oil is so silly as to be hardly worth refutation. But I'll give you a few arguments anyway... Iraq has less than 1/3 the oil production of Saudi Arabia, about the same production as Venezuela. The total value of oil produced by Iraq in several years doesn't come close to paying our expenses in that war. If we wanted to wage war for oil, why not take Venezuela instead... it has an unpopular government and is much closer to us.
You say we changed our motivations on the Iraq war after we failed to find WMD's - thus implying a dishonesty about our intent. That Iraq had WMD's was assumed by almost everyone in the world, including Iraqi generals who we captured who stated that units adjoining theirs were armed with the weapons. Furthermore, anyone attacking the WMD thesis has to explain why Saddam tolerated 12 years of sanctions when they could have been easily ended by opening up Iraq to serious inspection, rather than blocking inspectors at every chance. Finally, we never claimed that WMD was the only reason to attack Iraq - there were many other reasons, but the critical ones were that Iraq had ties to many terrorist groups, had a history of misjudgement that had cost 1,000,000 lives (and hence represented a danger of providing WMD's to terrorists who would use them against the US), was a despotic regime, the demise of which could be hoped to put strong pressure on other despots - especially those supporting terrorists. But finally, the real issue, so easily glossed over by the nit pickers, is that the modern convergence of the technology of WMD's and suicidal terrorists with a stated aim of destroying the West represents a truly severe and deadly threat to the civilized world - one which Europe seems to imagine can be dealt with by placing ones head in the sand and ones rear in the air. For more facts, check out this, this,
I also want to comment on your attack on the United States, which for some reason you view as a bully. We didn't take a wildly unexpected blow - we were subject to a savage and inexcusable attack by a band of radical religious cult members.
If we had "gone a little crazy and overcompensated," like you suggest, Afghanistan would be carpeted with radioactive glass! Instead, we have freed 50 million people in the process of defending ourselves. We must be a pretty bad bully to spend all this money freeing people oppressed far more than the Palestinians. And we took our "collateral damage" already. Except it was intended damage. When we talk of collateral damage, it isn't glib. It means we are aware of the unintentional side effects of our efforts and we try to minimize it. There has never been so much ordinance expended with so few civilian casualties as in Iraq and Afghanistan. That you should attack us for that, after the unprovoked killing of three thousand of our people is absurd. What were we supposed to do? Ask the UN to stop Bin Laden? Not invade Afghanistan, and let them continue to train fanatics and work on brewing up even deadlier weapons?
9-11 woke America up to something that has been clear to many of us since before that event: there are many in the world who, for religious reasons, would destroy us. Furthermore, their religion (as twisted by some of the leaders) allows them to use suicidal tactics, making them especially hard to defend against. In addition, technology is making it easier and easier to create weapons of mass murder.
In that venue, we had to make a choice. Try to talk evil people out of attacking us, or use other means. We chose to use many means, including demonstrations of force and the removal of two evil regimes. We may chose to remove more regimes, if it is necessary. And few will cry for the people we remove, because they are nasty and evil people.
It is easy to sit on the sidelines and call us a bully. But believe me, if we had gone just a little bit crazy, the destruction would have been vastly worse. What sort of bully spends vast resources preparing to care for the enemy after he is defeated? What sort of bully expends blood and money to create freedom for the people of enemy countries?
I am always amazed when the US and Israel become the primary targets for criticism, while genuine horrible despots hold sway. And then we are attacked for removing them. What sort of twisted logic says that we are wrong for removing a Saddam Hussein? Is it the same logic that allows Europeans to feel free to trade with that butcher?
The world would be a better place if people payed a little more attention to the real evil in it rather than attacking one of the few countries that is actually willing to fight that evil.
And as far as international law goes, both our war against Iraq and our war against Afghanistan were legitimate. But frankly, if they weren't, I would be condemning the law, not the US. Self defense is a fundamental property of a nation - the primary justification for giving up some of your rights to your government. And that is what we are engaged in. You may criticize our choices, but to condemn them as "a little crazy" is simply going to far. And as you criticize us, don't forget to take a look at history. Wars in the past have been vastly more brutal than what we have done recently.
Wars taking place today that we are not involved in are equally brutal. Who is your moral favorite in Chechnya? The vicious Chechnyan terrorists or the vicious Russian armed forces? When you compare just that war to the Israel/Palestine issue, Iraq or Afghanistan you can see just how hyperbolic your attacks have become.
Or go back to World War II - consider a "just war" by almost everyone. In that war, the allies firebombed cities, targetting civilians. We had vicious propaganda in all of our media, dehumanizing our opponents. We used nuclear weapons on two cities. And at the conclusion of that war, over 1,000,000,000 humans were quickly pulled into the tyranny of Stalinism and Maoism, where over 100,000,000 of them were slaughtered - while the predecessors of those who attack us today looked the other way and were even then spending their time condemning the United States.
I have never said that the Israel-Palestine conflict is one sided in its morality. My first post noted that some of the actions of Israel have not been right.
However, if morality has any place at all in the world (and it should), then the tactics of intentionally murdering noncombatants has to be very far to the immoral side. I don't know what Americans would do in a situation similar to that of the Palestinians, but I do know what the Israelis did, and it was to wage war without terrorism (during the war for independence). In that desperate battle, where they were not only fighting for their land but also for their very existence (if they lost, they could expect to have been slaughtered out of hand, and no other country would take them as refugees), they condemned the Stern Gang's act of terrorism and successfully restrained their forces. I think that says something very good about their leaders and their morality. I would like to believe that Americans would behave in the same manner.
Furthermore, the Israeli's have tried to end the Palestinian "problem" by returning the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control. They did this because they do not want to be occupiers and because they knew the costs would be high. Unfortunately, whatever steps the Israelis have taken, the Palestinian leadership (Yassir Arafat in particular) has raised the ante. Nothing is enough. By their behavior, the Palestinian leadership has shown no interest in peace, but rather a willingness to slaughter their own people and Israeli's (while Yassir Arafat's family lives in luxury in paris) in order to achieve their ultimate goal: conquest of the state of Israel.
Hence to me, Israel is the besieged state. It is surrounded by hostile states which arm terrorists and encourage them. Its people are, by stint of their ethnicity, not even allowed to live or travel in much of the world. That the United States should help the only truly free state in the region protect itself against those who would crush it and kill its people is a good thing, but it is also a recent thing. Israel was founded as a socialist country and the first nation to recognize it was the USSR. The US has served mainly to restrain Israel, in the wars of 1967 (where the Israeli's attacked a US ship), 1973 and 1991 (where Israel was attacked by one of the aggressive nearby states - Iraq - for no valid reason). Israel was attacked by much larger countries in 1947, 1967 and 1973 and almost lost two of those wars. When Israelis state that they have security concerns about the Golan Heights and the West Bank, it is not just an excuse! Had the Arab states not attacked Israel in 1967, the Palestinians today would be citizens of Jordan, as they were prior to 1967. There has never been a nation of Palestine, and they are led by an Egyptian who was also a KGB asset during the cold war! One wonders what "Palestine" they think is theirs?
To the extent that Palestinians are victims, it is by the choice of their leadership and "friends" like Saddam and the Iranians, who ruthlessly use them. It is by their approval of the tactics of barbarism. They did not gain any friends in the US when they celebrated the 9-11 attacks, but that is typical of Palestine - they almost always choose self destructive tactics. I am amazed at Israeli restraint in the face of such brutality. When Hamas has a huge, armed demonstration, I am amazed that Israel doesn't attack them. The demonstrators are armed and are sworn enemies of Israel. And yet these anti-Israel and anti-US demonstrations happen constantly, under the watchful eyes of the Israelis, without attacks. Can you imagine any existing Arab or Iranian leader who would allow his own citizens, much less citizens of an enemy polity allowing this? They would be shot down in the street!
So I have no problem viewing Israel to be operating at a much higher level of morality than the Palestinian authorities/gangs/groups.
I certainly would like to see the Palestinians live in freedom. They would be only the second Arab state
It's really simple. Intentionally or carelessly killing noncombatants is wrong. Killing combatants when one is in a war is legitimate. So is capturing them and holding them for the duration of the war.
Obviously when I refer to the Palestinians, I do not mean that every single Palestinian is evil. I have, however, studied a far amount of the history of Israel, and I read Israeli papers (both right and left) and have a pretty good idea of how they think.
They are a people, like most civilized folks, who want to be left alone. It's really that simple. Most people are like this.
But the Palestinian groups, which have significant support, want to throw the Israeli's out. They exhort their children to grow up to be murderers. They have a culture of violence, similar to that found under Saddam and the Nazis. Their leaders have thrown away numerous opportunities for peace because they will accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel, and they are perfectly happy to murder children to do it.
One of the saddest things is the failure of the European elite to understand the fundamental difference between the evil of terrorism and the morality of self defense.
Obviously, the Israeli's are dissatisfied with their tactics so far. They have tried targetted killings, interdictions and checkpoints, peace negotiations (and don't feed me Chomsky, he makes his living lying about the west), and all have failed. So they are now working on separation. They are building a barrier to keep Palestinians in their own territory and out of Israels. Then they can cease the occupation, cease the targetted killings, and let the Palestinians do as they wish.
As far as fighting occupations... there have been many revolutions where the targetted killing of civilians has not been needed. This includes the American revolution and the American civil war. Furthermore, even if it were the only possible tactic, that does not make it moral or right. It it is better to suffer occupation than to target children! By your logic, occupation justifies any tactic that will be successful.
I won't bother to debate Vietnam with you. I am sure Chomsky has filled you full of nonsense about that war. As one who served in that war, and watched what happened here in the US, I know how badly distorted the history is.
Please explain to my why targeting children is a valid tactic of war. It seems clear that it is a crime against humanity. If crimes against humanity are justified in your twisted moral system, then you don't have a moral system, just a way of rationalizing whatever you like, and that is pathetic.
Hey, you missed something. Palistine is not under ethnic cleansing. They have consistently used non-peaceful means, attacking people not even involved in the conflict (in airline hijacking in the '70s),but the Israelis have not tried to drive them from their land (ethnic cleansing). You probably also don't realize that about one fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs with full voting rights and representatives in the Knesset.
I think the settlements are bad policy, but they are not ethnic cleansing. If the Israeli's wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine (the way the term is properly used), they would be using terror to kill civilians to drive the Palestinians out. Instead, they have tried, at great cost in the lives of innocents, to live *with* the Palestinians.
If you had read about the founding of Israel, you would realize that they always had the intent of living with the Palestinians. You would know that most Palestinian "refugees" from the time were folks who left at the request of the Arab countries. This request was made so that when the Arab armies triumphed and killed all the Jews (their stated intent), the Palestinians would be caught in the middle. You would know that the Palestinian people have been used as pawns by Arab dictators who supported the cause in order to distract their own people from their own despotism. So maybe you should read some history.
And then if you read a little more history, you would realize that the West Bank was captured in 1967 after Israel *was attacked from there for the second time.* It was taken as an act of self defense, consistent with the laws of war.
And if you followed the history more, you would understand that it is the Palestinians (and their supporters) who have been the consistent indicators of violence, not the Israelis. You would realize that for almost all Israelis, the West Bank is something they would prefer to do without. You would realize that the Israelis elected a "peace" government which allowed the Palestinians to be armed (something you don't do to those you are ethnically cleansing), allowed Arafat (an Egyptian, not a Palestinian) to return to the West Bank, and in general did everything in their power to create a peaceful, democratic state. The Palestinians responded to this with murder of innocents. It was only after a lot of this that the current "security" government of Sharon was elected.
If your moral code allows the intentional killing and mutilation of civilans, then it is pretty pathetic. If you cannot see the care that has been taken by the US and Israeli in various conflicts to minimize civilian casualties, and recognize the moral difference between that and intentionally targetting noncombatants, then you are pretty pathetic. And if you don't recognize the right of a nation to use military force against those who attack it (the targetted killings of Palestinian terrorists), then you don't understand the laws of war. By your logic, the US would have had to capture and try Yamamoto in World War II, rather than killing him by assassination.
The peaceful methods were tried in Palestine. Several times. If you study Israeli politics, you would realize that they have a strong "peace" movement, which controlled the government until the Palestinians killed too many of their children! It is the Palestinians, not the Israelis who need to learn the lesson about violence.
And they are now learning. Israel, in an act of self defense that is quite the opposite of "ethnic cleansing", is building a wall to separate itself from a people who have proven to violent to live with. In the process, it has made the decision to remove most of the settlements. It is the Jews who are being ethnically cleansed. If you really understood the term, you would know that after the founding of Israel and the defeat of the Arab armies (with no help from the US, BTW), Jews were forcibly expelled from almost all Muslim countries in the middle east, while Arabs were not expelled from Israel. THAT is the ethnic cleansing.
When you complain about settlements, you are complaining that Jews should not be allowed to live in a Palestinian country - even if they buy the land (which they did for many settlements). THAT is racism. Driving them out is ethnic cleansing.
Intentions do indeed count. And the US can attack dual use infrastructure, and did in Iraq. But did you see the extreme care that the US went to in Iraq to avoid killing civilians? That is what the law of war calls for.
If the US administration intentionally targeted civilians, that would be against the law of war. Would you care to cite a single example of this in the last 30 years?
Terrorism has a specific meaning, and you can wiggle and squirm all you want, but it won't justify the use of bombs that intentionally target non-combatants (civilians). I really don't care what the Palestinians would "rather" do - the fact is that their tactics are evil, the specific intent of many of their attacks is to terrorize Israeli civilians by killing innocents in a random manner. THAT is terrorist, it is against the laws of civilization, and any thinking person would condemn it.
The asymmetry of power does not change the evil of the Palestinians. The rightness of their cause (which is a whole other debate) does not change things.
By their intentional killing of innocent humans for the sole purpose of terrism, they should be condemned by all humans who have a shred of compassion.
You note that I do not condemn their attacks on Israeli soldiers. While doing so out of uniform is a violation of the laws of war (and punishable by summary execution under those laws), it doesn't have the same level of moral culpability of going into peoples' houses and shooting their children, detonating a car bomb in front of a house of worship to maximize the killing of families, setting off a bomb in a university cafeteria to kill the young, etc, etc.
By your logic, 9-11 is an acceptable tactic. After all, the Islamist didn't have an atomic bomb to take out New York. In fact, by your logic, any aggrieved party can kill any civilian he wants if he thinks it will help. By your logic, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were right to take out the federal building, in retaliation for the actions of the U.S. government at Waco.
If you were to look at the history of the Palestinians with any degree of objectivity, you wouldn't make such statements. Israel didn't even control the West Bank until it was attacked from there in 1967. Israelis simply have no desire to be occupiers. And the Palestinians have plenty of land, which, if they would behave in a civilized manner, they could rule. They are not being denied a place to live or a place to grow crops.
Israel has two movements that confuse the issue. One is a religious minority that believe that Israel has a right to control the west bank. These people are a problem because Israel's system of democracy tends to amplify the power of splinter groups.
The other movement, of which Sharon is a member, believes that without the ability to rapidly interdict transportation in the west bank, Israel is in great danger.
If you view the latter in terms of Israeli history, you come to the conclusion that they have very good reasons for their concern.
The Palestinians are angry because they have been continually used as proxies by Arabs (and Iranians) with evil intent. On top of that, they are lead by a brutal and thieving group of thugs (just like most Arab countries) who constantly do things to make the fate of the Palestinians worse.
While you may not consider the motivations of those who use violence to be important, be assured that it is extremely important. It causes the Israeli's to be far less deadly to Palestinians than they are capable of. It caused the US to go to great lengths to avoid excess civilian casualties in Iraq. Where before has there been a war with so much firepower on both sides with so few civilian casualties?
But let's go ahead and equate the two. In that case, the next time the Palestinians blow up some Israeli children, perhaps the Israeli's should bomb a bunch of schools in Gaza. Do you really want to cede moral equivalence? Because that would be equivalent.
I would accept an argument that the bombing of German and Japanese cities was terrorism, but the idea that there is any moral equality between the Israeli and the Palestinian governments is absurd. One is democratically elected and is primarily focused on protecting its people. The other is a dictatorship which is primarily focused on destroying Israel, and is perfectly happy to do so by intentionally killing Issraeli AND Palestinian innocents.
I wonder what land you would give the Palestinians that they don't already have? Would you accept the borders originally set by the League of Nations Mandate? Would you throw the Jews into the sea? You say they have no land, but that is patently false!
The Israeli's are neither blameless or perfect, but they are a damned sight more moral in their dealing with the Palestinian issue than the Palestinians (who continue to say among themselves that they will drive the Jews out of Israel).
I don't need to know why terrorists are angry, because it doesn't matter. The only thing important about terrorists is the need to exterminate them. They do not belong in the family of man, no matter what their cause. I don't care if they are fighting for a cause I believe in or a cause I detest... they are subhuman and should be destroyed.
I think the literature professors are smarter. They picked a field where you can make up all sorts of crap and get paid for it. Furthermore, nobody can prove them wrong.
No, they wouldn't. Terrorism is defined by the type and intent of actions - namely, the targetting of civilians with the intent of causing fear.
Freedom fighters fight against government agents - typically soldiers and police - not ordinary citizens.
Thus the IRA, Al Qaeda and Tim McVeigh and friend were all terrorists.
And of course, you would bring up the worst example of mis-thinking on this subject: Israel vs. Palestine. Whatever wrongs Israel has committted, they are dwarfed by the terrorist atrocities committed by the Palestinians. If Israel were terrorist, it wouldn't have sent soldiers into the Jenin "camp" - it would have just bombed it. Instead soldiers were sent in (and many died) in order to prevent civilian casualties. If Israel had the same morality as the Palestinians, there wouldn't be any Palestinians west of the Jordan river! For you to call Israel's policies "ethnic cleansing" is to display either your abysmal ignorance or your willingness to freely lie.
Those who become terrorists are without moral qualms. It is not just one more tactic - it is evil and despicable. Israeli children have been intentionally targetted by Palestinian terrorists, who explode bombs coated with rat poison (warfarin). The reverse has not happened.
Israel has finally started what only makes sense: separation from the violent people of Palestine. After 50 years of trying to live in peace, being answered by hatred, bombings and war, they have decided to protect themselves by building a barrier between themselves and the people who have sworn to destroy them. During the "Oslo process," the Palestinian leaders used their new found freedoms to indoctrinate their own children with hatred, and to send their children to kill Israeli children. Europe, sitting on its moral house of cards, always condemned the Israeli's, of course.
I think Israel has been very restrained. I think if Americans were subject to the same level of violence as the Israelis have been, the Palestinians would have been completely crushed or sent someplace else by now. And it would have been the right thing to do.
If you look at Israel's history, there was a small amount of terrorism waged in their name (by the Irgun and the Stern Gang). But instead of applauding those incidents, Israeli authorities did their best to stop them - even while they were fighting for their lives against massive Arab armies. That is the action of a moral organization. On the other hand, most of the Arab world constantly condemns Israel, while at the same time doing nothing to help the descendants of Palestinian refugees (who fled at the request of those governments so they wouldn't be killed when the Arabs killed all the Jews during the founding war of Israel). 55 years after the creation of Israel, Palestinians are still be kept in refugee camps rather than allowed to assimilate. At the same time, about 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, who have full voting rights and representation in the Knesset. But after the founding of Israel, most Arab countries drove out all Jewish residents. THAT's the ethnic cleansing that's really been happening.
If you find yourself justifying terrorism, then you are one sick puppy. You are justifying the murder of innocent people because of your anger.
Never confuse terrorism with resistance. The two are infinitely different. And any killing should be a last resort - even that of soldiers of a repressive and illegitimate regime (like Saddam's).
Chomsky... the man who thinks outside the box so much that he is utterly predictable.
His theories are simply well written applications of Marxism, mixed with a lot of hate-America sentiments.
I don't know why anyone takes him seriously, given how wrong he has been about so many things.
But then, a lot of people thought communism was great too, until they saw what it really did, at which point they either shut up or said something lame like "nobody ever did it right."
He also totally misstated the history about Galileo. The reason Galileo was persecuted and Copernicus wasn't had to do with local politics. The Church had already accepted that the earth rotated around the sun.
But it makes such a great story.
One fashion today is that religion, in the West, is something you can ALWAYS say negative things about, feel smug about it, and probably get moderated up for saying so.
Without rehashing it, there is a vast amount of evidence for macro-evolution and has been even before the advent of molecular biology. The fossil record is full of intermediate species. The genetic record likewise shows the impact of evolution quite clearly, from conserved non-coding DNA to obvious features such as mitochondria.
The same groups that doubt macro-evolution used to deny macro-evolution, until that position became impossible to sustain.
The insights offered by macro-evolution are used every day by working molecular biologists in their quest for information, and the finding of informatino predicted by macro-evolution produces a continuing series of evidence of its existence.
In the old days, anti-evolutionists claimed all sorts of nonsense about the geological record to sustain a 7000 year old earth myth. Today they still claim all sorts of nonsense to support such unscientific hypotheses as "intelligent design."
But with few exceptions, this approach is driven by religion, resulting in a quest for "proof" instead of a quest for information.
As far as statistical analyses giving huge odds, these are based on a large number of assumptions, and hence are guesses like the Drake equation, not solid numbers.
They usuallty assume that a particular feature could not gradually evolve, and thus a very large number of mutations would have to occur simultaneously. But some cases of this have already been explained (evolution of eyes is a common one).
Most anti-evolutionists also assume that evolution proceeds through the accumulation of mutations, while gene mixing (through sex, bacterial conjugation, virus infection and other means) is far more powerful. Furthermore, mutations need not be single nucleotide changes (SNPs) but rather mis-splicing of DNA where a huge coding section moves, resulting in a dramatic change.
You're right, we started from global warming. And the AGU position is the consensus, but it is still controversial - there are skeptics in the field and they are not all cranks.
As far as projecting a century out... it depends on what factors you are taking into account. From a geological climate perspective, it is a long time, and yet some paleoclimatic evidence indicates extremely rapid change, possibly due to chaos.
The problem with that I have with the projection, and that my research climatologist friends have, is the calibration of the model. Because of the time scales normally involved in climate, models need to be able to forecast the past (since we can't wait till the future to test them). And the past is a matter of significant debate. So I would wonder how confident you can be in your position. I don't care if 1000 model makers have the same beliefs, if those are not well calibrated and sustained by the paleoclimatologists. As far as models based on known physics... as I said before, and you didn't object, models have to be parameterized for many reasons, and the validity of those parameters are a matter for debate. Furthermore, parameterization itself is subject to sampling bias. So if a whole bunch of experts like the current samples, are they right and scientific, or just invoking their best instincts. The difference is very significant. So as far as science goes, this is the only area where I would question what you are diong.
As far as scientists stating their opinion, I have no problem with scientists stating their own opinion, if their particular expertise is stated and the uncertainties are also stated. Too often, we see crap like statements signed by thousands of scientists, 99% of whom know nothing about the field. Or we see political rewrites of uncertainty (such as the summaries of IPCC reports which are all the press ever reports) which make the science seem far more certain than it really is.
As far as further research, I am strongly in favor of putting money into climatology, as the risk is there and needs to be understood.
Re: Kyoto, I am strongly against that on the grounds of the scientific evidence used in favor of it - the IPCC extrapolations. If one is to make policy, one should be honest about it, and Kyoto is a fraud in the sense that it achieves nothing of significance.
Well, thanks for the ad hominem. It always adds so much to the discussion.
I try not to choose my science to fit my politics, and have publicly criticized other conservatives (such as Rush Limbaugh) for doing exactly that. Nature is what it is, and cares little for your or my political views.
Science, however, is a human endeavor, and is highly bureaucratic, leaving it vulnerable to politics and feeling and human foibles, as Crichton demonstrated. Furthermore, it is extremely specialized, causing too many of its practitioners to develop tunnel vision. And finally, some scientists (such as the now deceased Carl Sagan or Linus Pauling) assume that their preemminence in one field gives them a standing in other fields. There are few to whom that applies (Physicist Richard Feynman being one). The saving grace of science is that over time, it reaches good conclusions. But during the intermediate time, it often is substantially wrong, normally contentious, factional, and prone to political and financial bias. Climate prediction science is a long ways from being settled. Major changes are still happening. And furthermore, models are especially vulnerable because of the uncertainties of testing them.
As far as Kyoto goes, there are some simple ways to show that it is bad policy, using the assumptions from the IPCC itself.
As far as the climate of 2100, I am surprised at your assertion that you can make the assertions you do about forecasting it. The reason is that so many of the factors that go into computing it keep changing it. As you well know, simply simulating the basic physics is far from adequate, because you don't have the temporal or spatial resolution in the model to do it accurately enough to have any meaning at all. Thus you need to use coarser gained modelling and parameterize your model to account for fine scale effects or other functions that you choose not to model. Which leads to the question of how you validate your parameters, which leads to my skepticism. Anyone with a knowledge of physics and programming, and access to enough computing power can produce a model of any physical process. Making a model that is meaningful, testable and ultimately tested is much harder. Do you claim to have such a model?
As I have said, I am not a researcher in this field. I have friends who are, including one who started as a modeler and has since focused more on paleoclimatology, which significantly increased his skepticism about the validity of climatic models. Paleoclimatology is critical to validating any model, and I rely on his word as to the quality of paleoclimatic data (not to mention the periodic significant discoveries that case doubt on various older paleoclimate data). Furthermore, as the son of an award winning scientist (in the environmental sciences field) and member of the National Academy), I do have some idea of what goes on in those areas, including the rigidity of belief held by defenders of no longer accurate theories.
As far as straw man. I didn't not mean to argue a straw man. Quite the contrary, I meant to show that one can draw the wrong conclusions from the fact that consensus in science agrees with some well proven results, the same point that Crichton himself makes. I don't assign consensus the totally useless role that Chrichton does, but consensus is certainly not a *scientific* principle.
As far as hockey-stick terminology. I don't know where I picked it up - whether from Science magazine or some political magazine, both of which I read. But it is a nice visual description of a real controversy in paleoclimatology.
I have no bone to pick with scientists, as long as they don't misrepresent the implications of their results. In the area of anthropogenic global warming, there has been significant fear (if not practice) regarding grant assignments in the field, to the point where I know people who will not use their own names when criticizing climate policy. This is not the sign of health in a scientific field.
But the strongest a
You certainly implied such argument. Otherwise, why did you bring F=ma into the discussion?
If you really think the other arguments are rhetorical and do not deal with science, you seem to be a bit confused about science, even if you claim to be a practitioner of such.
Do cloud physics affect anthropogenic global warming, or not? If so, do you have adequate models predict cloud physics under supposed future conditions or not? If the science is so good, why is there argument about the hockey-stick graph? If the science is so good, why does the solar irradiance evidence come as a surprise? How well do you understand the CO2 cycle? How well can you model thermohaline circulation in the ocean? What is the relative importance of soot emissions vs. CO2? How do you test your models? Did we or didn't we have a "mini ice-age" a few hundred years ago? And most importantly, what are the trends in technology, sociology and politics that are likely to be powerful inputs into the next 100 years of the earth's atmospheric contents?
You don the mantle of science and assert that anthropogenic global warming is a near certainty. But you do so without solid evidence. You assert a consensus of an organization composed mostly of non-climate scientists, even in the face of evidence (not to mention philosophy) that consensus is not an adequate way of measuring the accuracy of scientific claims.
I would agree that it is likely that anthropogenic CO2 probably has some effect, and that effect would be towards warming. But to extrapolate much beyond that, say to the political realm such as the Kyoto protocol, leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of politics.
If you have no "scientific" argument on Kyoto, then fine. If you claim that today's science can tell us much about the climate in 2100, then you are wrong.
I accept it based on his track record and my personal familiarity with his level of genius. That's a bit different than just his reputation, which itself is exceedingly impressive.
Yes, I have argued before [see section "In 1910 They Thought They Knew the Future, Too!" that forecasting that far in advance is absurd.
Oh, also the "science" of global warming prediction involves some degree of science, but hardly any degree of scientific confidence of correctness. There are too many variables (the most important involve water vapor and clouds) which affect earth's albedo and which are sufficiently hard to predict that the science is no different from magic... we might as well roll old bones to predict that actual effect.
Another serious problem with the whole thing is the fundamental assumption that we should not cause warming. That is a theological argument to some extent. Further, one should do a cost benefit analysis to see whether our efforts should go into adapting to warming rather than trying to prevent it with silly treaties which have massive economic effects and virtual no climate effects.
Climate researchers whom I know in the United States have definitely felt the pressure.
Furthermore, the logic you display is fallacious:
1) F = ma
2) F=ma is a consesnsus opinion
3) Therefore, consensus opinion is an appropriate way to do science.
Furthermore, the underlying physics of all sorts of things are well understood. For example, the underlying physics of molecular biology is well understood. Does that mean we can predict the behavior of a human being?
There is a big stretch between simple physics like radiative energy balance and the extremely complex systems which determine climate, which are not at all well understood. For example, radiative energy balance is dramatically affected by cloud physics, and clouds (which are themselves sensitive to temperature changes and many other effects) may either increase or decrease net energy flows depending on droplet size, which are pretty tough to predict. Add this to the many other variables, and you realize that global warming predictions(anthropogenic OR OTHERWISE) are not science, but rather guesses.
Again, consensus does not equal science. Furthermore, I would point out that my father is a senior researcher and member of AGU (and NRC and others). He doesn't know any more about global warming than I do (less, in fact). Furthermore, scientific organizations are subject to the same sociological issues as other organizations, and in fact, as organizations, tend to produce consensus results rather than scientific results.
The Nobel Prize winning physicist, who was characteristically blunt (and almost always right on any subject).
Seriously... this is the title of the Caltech Michelen Lecture, 1/17/2003 by Michael Crichton.
...and...
Since this discussion will lead to the inevitable global warming flap, this paper offers a good viewpoint on the issue (although I disagree with his assertion that SETI is a religion - it isn't - it's an experiment).
A few quotes:
Regarding Sagan's claims of nuclear winter:
Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about,"
In my book, if Feynam said it, it was almost certianly true. I used to go to his lectures at Hughes Malibu Research Center and it was an amazing experience.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
At many times, the Russians have felt that they could win a nuclear war against the US.
And as far as what good is it? The population after a nuclear attack is especially vulnerable (reduced resistance due to stress or radiation sickness, medical facilities overflowed, lots of movement to spread the disease).
The Russians could simply have a vast supply of vaccine ready to distribute.
As far as how you dispense the agent, you use a different RV.
There is no doubt that the USSR had a vast bioweapons program. Many outsiders have now seen the remnants of it, so we are not just relying on Alibek's views. The British had a defector who kept quiet for years about it who had the same story.
And remember, the USSR was not the most rational or efficient organization. The fact that it *could* make these warheads may have been enough to cause them to do it.