3571
3DHS / Re: Exxon Mobil Posts $10.49B Profit
« on: October 27, 2006, 01:18:41 AM »
Big Oil is a very few companies in collusion to fix prices.
And your evidence for this is...?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And your evidence for this is...?
3572
3DHS / Re: There never was a good casino or a bad casino bankruptcy
« on: October 27, 2006, 01:17:16 AM »
I hate casinos, they have brought huge grief and hardship to a member of my family and I would bgurn evry damned one of the goddamn things to the ground if I could get away with it.
I'm sorry to hear that a member of your family has had trouble with casinos. That still hardly seems like grounds to shut them all down. The government has brought grief and hardship to a lot of people, and I don't see you talking about burning it to the ground. (Though these days, maybe it's just as well you didn't mention it.)
I am not opposed to gambling. I am opposed to the casino industry. When I say the "games" are rigged, that is exactly what I mean: the slots are rigged to keep a huge amount more than they pay out. Instead of Bingo, they have Keno, which is a form of the game that favors the casinos. If I play poker with my buddies and we all bet a total of $100, the total amount among us after we are through playing is still $100. THAT is an unrigged game. The casino games are rigged, because the casinos keeps a lot more than is won by players.
I am pretty sure that you are mistaken about what constitutes a rigged game. Casinos exist, like all other business, to make money. And that they offer games where the odds always favor the house is something everyone knows going in. It's not like this is a big secret. Your objection to the casinos is kinda like complaining that the grocery store charges more money for the groceries the store sells than the store itself pays for the groceries. You're not cheated if you buy groceries at that store, and no one made you shop there. The games at casinos are not rigged and no one is forced to go in and play. Of course the casinos keep alot more than is won by players. They could never remain in business if they didn't. Like the grocery store needs to make money to remain in business, so does the casino. The casinos have operating expenses just like any other business, and a need to show a profit at the end of the day just like any other business. To claim that the casinos are defrauding people by making more money than they pay out is like saying your local grocery store is cheating you by making more money than it spends.
Whatever 'fun' morons have trying to 'beat the house' is not a fraction of the amount of harm these f*cking thieves do to them. I am against casinos for the same reason I am against larceny, burglary and felonious assault.
That is a stupid comparison. Playing games in a casino is entirely voluntary. No one is assaulted and forced to go in to play. Though it is interesting you will so readily compare casinos to larceny, burglary and felonious assault, but taxation, which is far closer to larceny and burglary and felonious assault than any casino, you support to the point of ridiculing those who oppose it. Huh. Go figure. Anyway, I should also add that not everyone going into a casino to play games is there to beat the house. Many people simply go to enjoy playing the games. It is entertainment to them, not unlike a night out for dinner and movie or a night at a bar. It's not everyone's idea of enjoyment, but it doesn't have to be.
I am all for people who like to gamble playing games with one another. But casinos suck and should be banned everywhere forever amen
You're okay with gambling, you just want to dictate to folks how and where they get to do it. How conservative of you.
3573
3DHS / Re: "I would like to be a good guy and a good gambler."
« on: October 27, 2006, 12:40:48 AM »
I was brought up in an anti-gambling family. It isn't fun to me.
So don't gamble. Don't like a show on television, then don't watch it. Don't like some singer/musician's product, don't buy it. Don't like bars, then don't go to them. That you don't enjoy something is not a good reason to want to ban it.
I've seen the people I know are poor lining up at gas stations and buying lotto ticket after lotto ticket.
Now, another gambling vote is coming up. Horrible for poor people. They're tying it to education---again. People will be suckers---again.
That has little to do with casinos. I'm also opposed to state run gambling... oops, sorry... opposed to state run gaming (insert eye roll expressing annoyance here). But it is one of the least offensive things governments do because at least buying lottery tickets is still voluntary.
You want to gamble? Have a poker game with friends. Or bet on the outcome of a football game, with friends.
I know you mean well, but who are you to tell other people how and when and where they should gamble?
3574
3DHS / An Ova Donor on the Mess in Missouri
« on: October 26, 2006, 03:42:29 PM »
Kerry Howley, about a year ago, sold some of her ova. The only reason I know this is because she spoke about it in a good article, "Ova for Sale", on the issue of a market for human eggs. Anyway, here is what she had to say about the anti-stem cell research commercial featuring Jim Caviezel, Patricia Heaton and some baseball player guy.
I think that is a very good question.
I don't pitch for the Cardinals or play Ray Romano's wife on TV, and I haven't even seen Passion of the Christ, so I really have no business commenting on the Missouri cloning kerfuffle. But I did just sell some eggs, so I'm going to go ahead and take issue with Patricia Heaton's Handmaid's Tale-esque take on egg retrieval:
I don't recall being seduced into doing anything (though that sounds kind of fun), but I guess it's those "low-income" ladies who lose all autonomy at the sight of easy cash. It's helpful to remember that this is the same routine procedure tens of thousands of women go through every year in fertility clinics. (Most will have their own eggs reimplanted.) It takes twenty minutes. You can offer up some ova in the morning and go to work in the afternoon. As for dangerous, all procedures involving general anaesthesia present a degree of risk, but no one has ever dropped dead from an egg harvest. And painful? I guess it would be pretty damn painful if they forgot to put you under. Hands Off Our Ovaries, praised to high heaven by National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez here, is calling for a moratorium on egg extraction for research purposes "because losing even one woman's life is too high a price to pay." (You could say the same about permitting women to leave their kitchens -- it's dangerous out there.) But if egg retrieval is so perilous and coercive -- if the procedure is the problem -- it makes no sense to ban extraction specifically for scientific purposes. Are they opposed to the harvest or the research? |
I think that is a very good question.
3575
3DHS / Re: "I would like to be a good guy and a good gambler."
« on: October 26, 2006, 12:30:52 PM »
Casino gambling sucks and ruins lives.
It contributes nothing, and is ess fun than masturbation.
Casinos should be banned everywhere.
You're comparing gambling to masturbation. Wow. How "intellectual". Anyway, I'm glad to see you are honest about your desire to impose your will on everyone else. Most folks try to pussyfoot around with nonsense about children or protecting society from materialism or some such. Not you. You've decided casinos are no fun and bad for people, and therefore no one else should ever be allowed the possibility of choosing or deciding for themselves if they might have some fun at a casino. Your idea would be right at home with the "religious right". Congratulations.
(For those following along at home, that was sarcasm.)
3576
3DHS / A Different Perspective on Voting
« on: October 26, 2006, 11:09:38 AM »The Voting Ritual
by Butler Shaffer
| What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies. |
~ Benjamin R. Tucker
November 7th – like any other date in history – has born witness to birth dates and events with both positive and negative connotations. On the affirmative side, it is the birthday of Albert Camus and Konrad Lorenz. On the other side of the ledger, it is also the birthday of Heinrich Himmler, the date of FDR’s election to a fourth term as president, and the date on which Anne Hutchinson was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “heretic.â€
This November 7th will also be the date of the forty-second anniversary of my non-participation in the voting process. I can assert that I have been “clean†from the politicoholic addiction for over four decades. I have no intentions of ever again sneaking into an enclosed booth – that serves the same purpose of hiding one’s embarrassing habits as those found in an adult bookstore – to conspire with a multitude of others to despoil you of your liberties or property.
I shall, of course, continue to be asked by some of my colleagues and students why I am not wearing one of those little stickers – reminiscent of bird-droppings – that reads “I voted.†Mark Foley will have to endure far less opprobrium for his actions than do those of us for whom it has become known that we are, as a matter of principle, opposed to the practice of voting. “Are you apathetic?â€, or “did you just forget to register?â€, or “are you making a protest against the quality of candidates?â€, is the usual litany of responses I get to my non-voting stance. “Apathy is not something I care about one way or the other,†I reply, as my inquisitor heads off fearful of contemplating the unthinkable: that someone may be philosophically opposed to the democratic process!
As others go forth to participate in this silliest of all rituals – designed to convince members of the boobeoisie that they are really running the political zoo – I shall be engaged in more productive pursuits, such as picking the lint out of my navel.
The media priesthood has already begun the chant: if there is something wrong with the political system, we need to go to the polls to fix the problem. One of the media stalwarts has his own solution: “go to the polls and vote out every incumbent.†Don’t dare consider, of course, that there may be something fundamentally dysfunctional about the system itself. If drinking a quart of Scotch each day has given you cirrhosis of the liver, don’t bother with changing your habits, just change to another brand of Scotch!
We need to remind ourselves of Albert Einstein’s admonition: “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.†Trying to reform the political process makes no more sense than trying to reform the carnivorous appetites of jungle beasts. If it is your desire to put an end to the violent, destructive, corrupt, and dysfunctional nature of government, stop wasting your time by focusing on the current management of the system. Rather than dutifully going to the polls to select from a narrow list of options provided you by political interests that you neither know nor control, you might want to inquire into who is providing the cast of characters – and writing the script – for a performance you are expected not only to attend, but to cheer.
To create a system which, by definition, enjoys a legal monopoly on the use of force, and then allow that system to become the judge of its own authority, is an error of such enormity that one can only wonder why grown men and women would be surprised to discover such powers being “abused.†Creating the system is the abuse. Directing our criticism to members of the present cast while overlooking the backers of the play – who have substitute performers waiting in the wings – exceeds the bounds of innocence. It is like placing a bowlful of candy in front of a number of small children, and expecting the candy not to be touched in your absence.
The media guru who advocates voting out all incumbents has doubtless picked up on a widespread mood of despair within the American public. From my conversations with students and co-workers, numerous e-mails I receive, as well as seeing television interviews of people, I sense an attitude that has been expressed to me in so many words: “I know what you say is true, but what can we do about it?†There is no expectation that another candidate or political party can remedy the problems such people see. Knowing that there is nothing within the “system†that can produce a reversal of what politics has become, they have given up.
It is easy to understand this sense of frustration on the part of people who may be on the verge of discovering that politics – not the candidates – is the problem to be overcome. They have endured decades of “throw the rascals out!†that only provided them another gang of rascals to evict from office in the next election. The fraudulent Ronald Reagan – with his promise to “get the government off your backs!†– generated massive increases in the size, power, and expense of the state. Newt Gingrich’s “contract with America†quickly revealed itself as but another “contract on America,†and so has the sleight-of-hand show continued up to today. One need only listen to the unfocused gurgling of “Make-No-Waves†Nancy Pelosi – the Democratic Party’s current leading figurine – to discover how irrelevant the outcome of this election portends for the rest of us.
As the Republican Party – with its control over the White House and Congress – reveals its deceitful, corrupt, and destructive foundations, turning to the Democratic Party as an alternative is now seen by most Americans as utterly futile. Increasing millions of people now see the two-party system for what it has always been: two choices of rule offered by a political establishment that doesn’t care one bit which gang prevails at the polls. This is why recent elections have come down to such inane non-issues as Willie Horton’s parole, the pledge of allegiance, John Kerry’s war record, and – presumably – the content of Mark Foley’s e-mails.
The media continues to prattle about the big “revolution†that will take place this November 7th. In order to encourage our participation in this biennial charade, we are being told that the American people have had enough of the duplicity; special-interest corruption; lying; and engorged appetites for police-state surveillance, secret trials, and torture. These same Americans will march to the polls, we are further advised, to vote the Republicans out of power and replace them with Democrats.
But when a Tweedledum Republican is opposed on the ballot by a Tweedledummer Democrat, even a handful of the Faux-News faithful may recognize the fungible nature of the various Republocrats. I have, in recent years, discovered only one member of Congress who is an exception to this, namely, Ron Paul from Texas. It is instructive that Paul – a philosophically principled Republican – has long been vigorously opposed by both the Republican and Democratic chieftains, a phenomenon that ought to be a tip-off to the identity of the real interests in any election.
I suspect that, like myself, those who have lost their innocence about politics will also be staying home on November 7th. After years of playing the carnival shell-game and losing their egg-money to clever sharpies, many Americans have finally experienced the working definition of “insanity,†namely, “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.â€
But that ever-dwindling minority of Americans who do continue to vote will express their faith in and commitment to the system that is destroying both themselves and their children. They will stagger into voting booths, cast their ballots, and have their Pavlovian conditioning reinforced with the reward of an “I voted†sticker with which to let others know of their devotion to the faith.
But as the decision making of those who do vote will continue to reflect the same confusion and unprincipled base that always accompanies trips to the polls, I suspect that the results will show no substantial change in the current makeup of Congress; that the Republicans will continue to be in control of all aspects of the federal state. The GOP may even gain seats.
For the same reason that Major League Baseball is benefited by the World Series whether the Cardinals or the Tigers win it, the political establishment is served by the outcome of the elections it runs, no matter who the candidate is. We recognize and accept baseball as a game and, since we are generally not required to support it, there is no problem with it. But we have been too well-conditioned in the political mindset to be willing to look at this system and see it for the vicious and involuntary game that it has always been; a game over which we delude ourselves into believing we control with our ballots. After all, as Emma Goldman reminded us, “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.â€
October 24, 2006
Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
SOURCE: LewRockwell.com
3577
3DHS / "I would like to be a good guy and a good gambler."
« on: October 26, 2006, 10:44:48 AM »
Excerpted from "The GOP's Bad Bet: The online gambling ban could put the Democrats in the winner's circle" by Radley Balko:
Whole article at Reason Online.
| In the wee hours of the last night of the last session of Congress, Majority Leader Bill Frist attached a ban on Internet gambling to a port security bill. It was a dubious maneuver, which not only prevented any real floor debate over the ban, but also attached an intrusive, unnecessary, big government measure to a bill that addressed important national security concerns. This meant that any senator who held the position that what Americans do with their own money in their own homes on their own time is none of the government's business couldn't vote against the gambling ban, lest they risk being smacked about the head with the "soft on national security" cudgel. If Frist's move was underhanded, it was also wholly appropriate, given the way the GOP has handled this issue. The debate—to the extent that there has actually been one—has been marred by misdirection, red herrings, and a certain obliviousness among the bill's supporters to, well, reality. [...] Poker professionals—three of whom came to D.C. earlier this year to speak against the ban—argue that the game isn't really gambling at all. At the very least, it's not a particularly addictive form of wagering. Of course, some (like me) would argue that the nature of poker is beside the broader point: preventing people from playing games of chance simply isn't a legitimate function of the federal government. At the very least, there are surely items on the DOJ's agenda that ought to be of higher priority—fighting terrorism, for example. Reps. Leach and Goodlatte, along with Sens. Frist and John Kyl, frequently used the words "untaxed" and "unregulated" when describing the estimated $12 billion Americans wager each year online. But they're "untaxed" and "unregulated" because Congress made online gambling illegal in the first place, pushing gaming sites offshore. In fact, the major gaming sites are begging to be both taxed and regulated. They'd much rather set up shop in the U.S., pay U.S. taxes, and be subject to U.S. laws and regulations. They'd rather carry the seal of legitimacy that comes with being recognized and incorporated on U.S. soil. Were online gambling legalized and regulated, we'd likely see trusted names like Harrah's, Bally, and MGM get into the business. [...] Some say the GOP pushed this ban to light a fire under family values voters. Others say their intent was more nefarious—to protect established gambling interests from online competitors. There may be some truth in both of those explanations, though I think the main motivation for the bill was simply the moral aversion to gambling held by its chief sponsors—Goodlatte, Kyl, and Leach — and a desire to impose that moral rectitude on the rest of the country. What does seem clear is that none of the people behind this bill were interested in thoughtful debate, any serious consideration of the bill's implications or consequences, or the principle of a limited, "leave us alone" federal government. Polls show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to a federal ban on Internet gambling. Industry experts estimate that some 15-20 million Americans wager online each year. The overwhelming majority do so responsibly. This largely apolitical group could well get politically motivated the first time they try to log on, and are told their small-stakes poker game has now been outlawed by the Republican leadership in Congress. If this was a political move, there's a pretty good chance it'll backfire, and cost the GOP more votes than it wins them. |
Whole article at Reason Online.
3578
3DHS / Re: Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 24, 2006, 04:44:33 AM »
When I take your comments in context, I don't know how anyone can come away from your explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal.
Well, as I said, you need your impression meter rebooted, because you're consistently taking them out of context. I should be getting used to it by now
Taking them out of context? Where? I've quoted you extensively. Quoted entire posts. I've even kept your quote of my comments where necessary so that I specifically do not take your comments out of context. I fail to see how I've taken any your comments out of context.
Over what line? The line of basic human rights, or the line of if they did it for fun then I'll condemn it? What line are we talking about?
The one that abuses prisoners just for the hell of it vs those supposed "abuses" when prisoners taken off the battlefield are being interrogated. When harm becomes physical damage or dismemberment or made to perform sex acts. THOSE are over the line. The use of mental and even physical strain, when interrogating prisoners taken off the battlefield is NOT over the line
How about the part where they had batons shoved up their asses?
OVER
How about the part where they were made to crawl on the floor while naked?
OVER, if the guards are just doing it for fun
How about the part where prisoners sustained injury or even died as a result of the abuse?
OVER
Hey, look, you've said certain things are "over the line". How nice. It really doesn't change what you said initially in your "clarification" but at least now we have some basis for your claims of having "consistently criticized abuses". I'll get back to this later, but here's a clue: I have not read all of your posts, and even if I had, I would not have a complete catalog of all your statements in my head.
How does that correlate to having underwear on one's head?
When that's one of the references being made equating our abuses to that of what the Terrorists do. As if we're doing the same to each other. The other neat trick here is that when the Terrorists go "over the line" they all high five each other. When our soldiers do it, they're to be properly condemned & prosecuted
You got a quote for that? I'd like to see this supposed equating of underwear on heads to beheadings. Anyway, the point of the question was how do the more serious abuses compare to the abuses you listed in your initial response to me in this thread.
Do I see how it's being presented yet? Yes. I see that you're talking about loud music and sleep deprivation when the abuses were much greater
And have you also noted how those abuses that go beyond "loud music" are being consistently condemned yet??
One question mark is sufficient. Anyway, no, I'm not seeing the consistant condemnations yet. Okay, you said they were over the line. When do I see you call them disgusting and abhorant? When I do see you condemning the equating of the abuses to college frat pranks? In this thread, I've seen none of that so far. You chimed in not to agree with me in this, but to contradict me, to "clarify" that "perspective" meant being made to listen to loud music is not the same as being set on fire. A comparison which I never made, and which I don't recall having seen anyone else make.
just minimizing and dismissing as if such were nothing more or nothing worse than loud music and underwear on heads
See what I mean. Completely ignoring the condemnations I personally have made for such over the top abuses, while you keep placating the notion that the only "abuses" I've referenced or focused on was the underwear & loud music. Personally Prince, I think I've had enough of this misrepresenting of yours I can take for the evening.
Ignoring the condemnations you personally have made? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me look in the catalog of "Condemnations Personally Made by Sirs"... oops, wait, no, that doesn't actually exist. And so far in this thread, you've called them "over the line". Wow. Real strong condemnation there. Geez. Why didn't I think of that? Anyway, if you'd bother to look back at the conversation, you might see why I'm criticizing you for not mentioning the more serious abuses. It's because you didn't mention them. In your "clarification" post you mentioned only prisoners being made to wear underwear on their heads, being made to listen to loud music, and being deprived of sleep. Now if you want to show me where someone actually said being made to have underwear on one's head is the same as beheading, I'll be happy to join you in declaring that person to be overreacting. In the meantime, that you did not mention anything more serious sure looks to me like you were minimizing the abuses. The idea that somehow the folks who were comparing the abuse there to the actions of terrorists were only concerned with a little loud music or sleep deprivation, well, you have got to be kidding me. And for the record, I'm not comparing the two. My anger in this matter has nothing to do with whatever standards the terrorists have, and everything to do with the standards I expected us to have.
I know of no reason to not insist that the calls to put the Abu Ghraib abuse into perspective were attempts to minimize the abuse. Every instance of that I can recall was about how the abuses were nothing worse that one might see in a frat house, or that to discuss it is to tarnish the good name of the military, or that caring what happened there was caring about the rights of mass murders (as if that were some sort excuse to abuse people), or some such. All of it intended to say that it's really just a minor thing, and not worth getting upset over. I do not agree, and that someone would consider minimizing the abuse is appalling to me. I realize to some people that pigeonholes me into the same category as those who want America to fail, who care more about terrorists than our own troops, but I refuse to apologize for my outrage. I do believe this abuse is something the majority of our troops would never do. But that doesn't lessen my anger. And frankly, I'm disgusted that some people want to try to tell me that I should not be so angry about it because we're not as bad as the terrorists, or that we need to put America ahead of our concerns about rights. We're supposed to be better than that.
Perhaps I'll jump back to any responses of yours tomorrow, when I can again remind myself that you're one of the good guys
Pooh yi.
3579
3DHS / Re: Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 24, 2006, 12:39:42 AM »
How about the part where I've said that "perpsective" is in no way referencing being "no big deal"?
And then you proceeded to talk about it as if the abuse was merely making prisoners listen to loud music and wearing underwear on their heads. When I take your comments in context, I don't know how anyone can come away from your explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal.
How about the part where I've consistently criticized abuses that go over the line, and need prosecuting.
Over what line? The line of basic human rights, or the line of if they did it for fun then I'll condemn it? What line are we talking about?
How about the part that making one wear underpants on their head is nothing in relation to having one's head cut off?
How about the part where they had batons shoved up their asses? How about the part where they were made to crawl on the floor while naked? How about the part where prisoners sustained injury or even died as a result of the abuse? How does that correlate to having underwear on one's head?
Your "impression" meter needs a major overhaul, Prince
Oh, I dunno. I think you're doing a good job of indicating how accurate it is.
In what way are you not minimizing the abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib?
Presenting perspective when trying to debate those who claim such abuses at Abu Graib are akin to "abuses" at the hands of terrorists is focused on dismantling the notion of how analogus they're supposed to be. Do you see how it's being presented yet? It's not defending U.S. abuses, it's condeming the notion that abuses are equal in stature.
Do I see how it's being presented yet? Yes. I see that you're talking about loud music and sleep deprivation when the abuses were much greater. I see that you're saying being forced to wear underwear on one's head is nothing compared to a beheading as if that were the worst of the abuses when we both know it is not even remotely close to the worst. It's not defending U.S. abuses, it's just minimizing them so that complaints about them seem trivial. Yes, I see exactly how it's being presented.
The abuse included prisoners forced to strip and have sex, prisoners raped and sodomized
Do you see anyone supporting that?
No, just minimizing and dismissing as if such were nothing more or nothing worse than loud music and underwear on heads.
Did you notice that such acts have been criticized,
Yes. And I noticed that such acts have been compared to college frat pranks and glossed over as if they were just a little sleep deprivation.
and those creating those acts are to be prosecuted?
Yes, and since you brought the subject up, I'll say something about it. Some people, not you but some people, think bothering with this sort of thing undermines the "war effort". If anyone encounters someone like that, I recommend leaving the immediate area and to keep one's children away from such people.
And if the snarling dogs and "threat" (was it an actual threat or faked threat) of electrocution was simply being done to abuse prisoners for fun, that's to be condemned as well.
That sort of comment is the kind that makes me wonder where your "line" is.
Do you see that's still no where near being beheaded or burned alive??
Do you see that it is nowhere near being made to listen to loud music? I don't care one iota whether it is near being beheaded or being burned alive. I care that it is serious and grotesque abuse that should not be tolerated under any circumstances. And I see that you're still trying to minimize it.
3580
3DHS / Re: Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 23, 2006, 03:18:31 PM »
A captured enemy combatant is a POW. Regardless of citizenship. It's the definition.
My understanding was that we were not treating terror suspects as prisoners of war because they were not members of a uniformed army. Thus are they "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war".
3581
3DHS / Re: Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 23, 2006, 03:09:57 PM »
I'm compelled to add clarity to this concept being proposed by Prince.
You did, just not in the way you intended, imo.
The "perspective" was in no way implying "no biggie" It was specific in countering the arguements being posed that what was happening in Abu Graib was somehow equal to what was occuring to those taken by terrorists. That being made to wear underwear on one's head was analogus to being beheaded. That being made to listen to loud music and be deprived of some sleep was analogus to being burned alive. THAT was the concept of "perspective" that was being referenced, vs this concept that any Abu Graib abuses were "no real biggie"
I don't know how anyone can come away from that explanation without an impression that you think the Abu Ghraib abuses were no big deal. What abuses do you list? Being made to wear underwear on one's head, being forced to listen to loud music, and sleep deprivation. And you compare it all being beheaded and being burned alive. In what way are you not minimizing the abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib? Sure, it doesn't sound so bad the way you talk about it, but the problem is the abuse was not just some minor inconvenience like lack of sleep or loud music. The abuse included prisoners under threat of attack by snarling dogs, prisoners forced to strip and have sex, prisoners raped and sodomized, and at least one prisoner was forced to stand on a small box, had wires attached to him, and was told if he fell off the box he would be electrocuted. This is inexcusable behavior whether or not you compare it to beheading or anything else terrorists or other countries have done. But you minimize it, speaking of it as if it's just underwear on the head or some loud music. I suppose I should thank you for proving my point, but I'm appalled just the same.
3582
3DHS / Re: What is your major?
« on: October 22, 2006, 04:18:24 PM »
Sick, sick, but not surprising. An extension of academic freedom, I suppose.
Would you mind elaborating on that comment?
3583
3DHS / Re: Is this fair?
« on: October 22, 2006, 01:17:30 PM »
I don't see why it wouldn't be "fair". This is American politics after all. A better question might be, "Is this silly?" People on monkey bars and a guy getting hit with a stick, these are among the images in the commercial that are supposed to make us afraid. Is this really the best the Republican Party could do? If I were advising the DNC, I'd tell them to take the same images and video footage, and turn it around to use against the Republicans. If I were advising the Libertarian Party, I'd advise them to use the same images and video footage, and end with the message, "This is the what happens after decades of Democrat and Republican foreign policy. Isn't it time for a change?
3584
3DHS / Re: Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 22, 2006, 12:58:57 PM »
Can you tell me who has actually said that the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Garaib is "no big deal"?
Right off the top of my head, I recall Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talking heads comparing the Abu Ghraib abuse to a college frat prank. And I also recall some conservative opinion column writers, along with some conservatives at 3DHS, explaining that we needed to put the abuse into "perspective", that compared to things other countries have done and compared to the actions of terrorists, it really wasn't that bad. Maybe you missed that conversation, but I remember being appalled that people were trying to minimize the abuse. (I did not comment on the Abu Ghraib abuse when the story first broke because it made me genuinely angry that American troops would be involved in such a thing, and I felt whatever rant I might have produced would not be a good contribution to the discussion.)
And the sad thing is, the minimization is still going on. Look, here is you doing it:
When has anything nice been the norm for Captured Americans?As I said before, how bad the rest of the world treats military prisoners does not matter because we, America, the United States, we are supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be above that because we're supposed to care about human rights. No one is ask you to condemn all of America for the actions of a few, but there is no excuse for justifying the kind of prisoner abuse that went on at Abu Ghraib. And no, the "but they're worse" excuse is not valid no matter how many times it is repeated.
In the Revolutionary War Captured Americans were rotting alive on prison barges .
In the Civil War Prison Camp conditions were uniformly awfull with a few outstandingly awfull camps like Andersonville.
In WWII Allied Prisoners of Japan were worked to death , starved , beaten , beheaded etc.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
3585
3DHS / Re: Violation of the Constitution
« on: October 22, 2006, 05:10:47 AM »
When the same things happen to our troops is when we won't be OK with it.
I don't think you can hold the US to shame by comparison to the advradge of the world in this subject.
Probably not. But Lanya's comment is probably correct. If some of our troops were being treated the way prisoners at Abu Ghraib were treated, most of the folks who have been saying the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was no big deal would be making a big deal out of the way our troops were being abused. And frankly, it doesn't matter how bad the rest of the world treats military prisoners. We are supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be the guys who care about human rights and set the higher example for the rest of the world. And we leave that behind to point fingers and say "at least we're not as bad as they are".