Samuel Weiss's page

Samuel, I know you tend to get wordy and sometimes abrasive when playing devil's advocate. I often appreciate your point of view, and this thread is no exception.

I believe what you want to get across in the simplest terms is the following: the world's climate is always changing hotter/colder, etc. and humans have not been studying climate long enough to learn enough of its quirks to justify taxes/green laws/hysteria over it.

As for myself, I keep my perspective tempered with the information that when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the average surface temperature of the shallow oceans was in the low 80's; that's the estimation by some climatologists, anyway.

There is a bit more, some of which I touched on in my previous post. To wit:

1. There are obviously effects of humans on the environment. There is a big "D'UH" for that.
2. What those effects are cannot be precisely defined yet. Many effects can be, but the full scope is far from delineated just yet.
3. What the natural effects are is equally imprecise. As a subset of that appeals to "knowing" the full scope of history are, simply, absurd, and deserve no real recognition of legitimacy.
4. Even more, the full synergistic effects of everything we know and do not know of 2 and 3 are far from even casually understood, never mind thoroughly understood. (Let's face it, if we really knew that much we would have weather control machines.)
5. Taken together, indeed any prescription right now approaches Malthusian chicken-littling. This is especially true if we apply the "lie down with pseudo-science dogs, get up with fear-mongering fleas" standard, and immediately indict and dismiss anyone and everyone involved with Al "By 'Invoncenient Truth' I really meant 'Convenient Misrepresentation', but you will get my Nobel back when your pry it from stiff, living hands" Gore. Harsh, but that is a standard others are insisting on.

And indeed, I keep that last estimation in mind as well.
Using the quick and dirty Wikireference:
Arctic Ocean]
"Climate has varied significantly in the past; as recently as 55 million years ago, during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum the region reached an average annual temperature of 10-20 °C (50-68 °F);[11] the surface waters of the northernmost[12] Arctic ocean warmed, seasonally at least, enough to support tropical lifeforms[13] requiring surface temperatures of over 22 °C (72 °F).[14]"
Or, going all BSG:
"This has all happened before; this will all happen again."

Whether it relates to a global increase in temperatures or not, would you consider it significant that the North West Passage is apparently opening up to shipping for the first time in decades?

significant =/= statistically significant =/= proof of anthropogenic influence

Or, more universally:

correlation =/= causation

And to focus on why I dissent with the prescription:

How do you know that the change in ice cover was caused by increased CO2 emissions, and not increased runoff of industrialization in arctic waters, or some other effect?

Or, more generally:

It is undeniable that there are changes caused by people. Clearing forests for fields, dredging a harbor, putting up a building, all clearly, and without any dispute, cause a local change.
Further, it is equally undeniable that some of these changes have a long term effect on the underlying ecosystem, and indeed some of those effects are catastrophic. Paving the L.A. river anyone?
Even if we accept the worst possible assertions of these affects, how exactly are we to correct it?

We know, with a very strong general consensus, that New Orleans is destroying the Mississippi Delta, and that the only way to restore it is to give up on rebuilding New Orleans the way it is. We must let the river choose its own course, as it did for centuries before the city was built, and which we can actually prove, even if it means leaving the city high and dry as a result.
Do you think the political will exists for that?

We know, with a very strong general consensus, that the St. Lawrence Seaway is destroying the Great Lakes ecosystem by allowed stowaway species to invade the lakes. Despite all the attempts to cleanse the lakes, the only way to really be sure is to close the canals forever.
Again, do you think the political will exists for that?

Then consider:
The Aswan High Damn is destroying the Nile Delta, as well as degrading the Eastern Mediterranean.
Even worse for the Eastern Mediterranean are invasive species from the Red Sea coming in through the Suze Canal.
Do you think there is even snowball's chance in . . . the Egyptian desert of either of those being shut down?

The Chinese dam projects have already results in the extinction of Chinese river dolphins, they are degrading the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers beyond that, and the artificial lakes caused may well be the primary cause of the increased earthquakes in China.
While these issues have been raised repeatedly, how likely do you think the Chinese are to end these projects?

So let us assume the hypothesis of climate change.
Let us assume the theory of anthopogenic effect.
Let us even assume a statistical relevance for just a moment.
How much is it even possible to address any more?
Will de-industrializing the West and shipping all of those factories to Third World Nations change the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted?
How will the loss of economic potential, and thus R&D dollars, in the West negatively affect research into alternative energy sources?

Or, leaving the hypotheses as hypotheses, is there really no room to treat the preliminary predictions of catastrophic or just merely detrimental anthropogenic climate change as just another variant Malthusian prediction, and not leap to radical economic transfer and implosion, but perhaps give other scientific fields and general social progress a bit of time to resolve pending issues as they develop?

I'm intrigued; dissent as to which part:

1) That there is a statistically significant upward trend in averaged global temperatures in the data for the previous century

2) That the above is due to mankinds actions

3) That given the above two statements, my suggestion is prudent

On 1, the rest following naturally.

I do not believe the upward trend is statistically significant based on all of the available factors, and certain flaws revealed in the data gathering methods.
As such, that pre-empts whether any trend exists that has been caused by the actions of mankind.
And thus the need to take action becomes superfluous. We would be "fixing" a non-problem.
Further, and more significant, I do not believe the proposed methods would significantly effect the elements actions by mankind has actually caused. (Just because the trend is not human caused, or the humand induced effects are not statistically significant, does not mean they do not exist.)

Na-uh! You got pwned. See you said that you'd do something else but not be a pirate. Well if there was any other options, then why is it that every single Somali is a pirate? If there was any other options then some Somalis would choose them even if they were stupid choices, because some people are dumb. Since all Somalis are pirates that proves there are no other choices. So there you big dumb head, take that!

Yeah, imagine that, not all Somalis are pirates.

I mean, imagine that a Somali government rep would be on CNN asking for the arms embargo to be lifted so the Somali government can defeat all the Islamist rebels and pirates. Odd he chose that to focus on rather than just asking for money for schools, or environmental clean up, or foreign ships to secure fishing grounds.
What could I have been thinking!

Oh, and for what its worth, I don't think Sam noticed you eviscerated him. :P

That is because he eviscerated himself, not me.

But I do not expect you noticed that.

The name change is more to do with the misunderstanding of the word 'global' by the press to mean 'everywhere' rather than 'averaged over the globe'.

Anthropogenic climate change is the alteration of local climates (warming, cooling, more violent storms, etc.) due to the effect of mankind upon the global climate. The globally and chronologically averaged effect we are seeing is a warming, which is changing large scale weather patterns and making local weather patterns more unpredictable.

The best hypothesis that we have for the cause of the warming is the increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by our technological progress. Yes, it is still an order of magnitude less that that emitted naturally, but that additional 10% can cause a change of state in the global climate.

Prudence dictates that we do what we can to reduce the effects that we have on the environment - at the very least until we better understand what they are.

Now THAT is a rational, scientifically "compliant" statement, with an appended social recommendation.

While I dissent, I acknowledge the presentation.

In before the lock!

That suggests certain people are actively posting to cause locks.

And then people wonder why certain topics should be excluded.

Please...stop...I can't laugh anymore...

Case in point from a master of the ad hominem and gratuitous insult.

I don't necessarily agree with your statement that they benefit the same from group 1 as group 3.

That is why I provided the expanded groups to cover such customers.

Those four groups simply do not provide sufficient breakdown and coverage.

Sam, use ad hominem attacks? Never! (That's sarcastic, by the way. I like Sam, but he does tend to go a bit overboard when it comes to accusing people who disagree with him of being stupid, deluded, or flat-out liars).

As opposed to the number of people who call me stupid, deluded, or a flat-out liar?

If you do not like such rhetoric, do not employ it.

Sam is actually a FOX propaganda droid, programmed to misread, misinterpret, to twist, obfuscate, denigrate and crush critical thought.

He has become so extreme in his rebuttals that it is a joke. I no longer reply to his posts.

I am not the one who runs around demanding other people shut up because they do not agree with me.

That makes crushing critical thought a defining element of your agenda.
Your inability to frame rational rebuttals merely demonstrates the bankruptcy of the ideas you attempt to assert.

cappadocius wrote:

Samuel Weiss wrote:

That is quite different from "universally".
It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".

zombieneighbors wrote:

Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality.

Well, to be fair, *I* did. In my defense, I've been trapped in these arguments before, and folks like Sam are insistent that unless everyone agrees on something, then, if even one wingnut disagrees, that subject is open for debate and the jury is still out.

And he isn't alone, it is the very tactic used by marshell institute use to try and 'rally support' to fight the 'Water mellon threat.' It doesn't help that journalists by into the balance tactic and present a controversy where there isn't one. It is the identical tactic that both Creationism and the tabbacco companies use and used.

And that is what is "universally accepted" as "complete and utter nonsense".

He acknowledges using the term improperly, but then you both attempt to blame me for his deliberate misrepresentation for ideological purposes.

At no point and in no way did I insist on, request, or demand univeral agreement.
I noted there was disagreement.
Only Cappadocious, with your support, have asserted the view that a majority consensus not only creates absolute, irrefutable, scientific fact, but that it excludes all dissent as the province of "wignuts" or "ignorant turds".

The hypothesis of prions contradicted the "central dogma of molecular biology" for years.
Then came reverse transcription.
Now prions really are "universally accepted" as existing, although specific sub-theories continue to exist.

Note the difference.

Samual is wrong when he claims that we would have to create an entire globe and run the experiements on it. We don't have to. We can run repeatable experiments on individual elements and do the maths.

And the value when claiming a global effect remains highly questionable.

The same issues came up when nuclear winter was all the rage. Then it started coming out that the models assumed things like the entire earth was covered with super-combustible and soot producing forests, or the models used only slim sections of atmosphere directly over cities, and all the other little factors that have led to that particular bit of fearmongering being dumped in the waste bin.
As for repeating experiments, we are talking about trends asserted as developing only over the last 30 years, and including factors such as sunspots and increasing industrialization of countries like China. You cannot run an experiment without controls, and there is no way you can control on a global scale for such things. That means all you have for such projections are computer models, and a hope that you have accounted for everything in the last run.

And this differs from you.... how?

Because I make no pretense to scientific supremacy.

Incidentally, there have been no "experiments" of a repeatable nature that back up natural selection as a hypothesis, since species formation tends not to happen too much while people are watching. But the evidence (and consensus) points in its general direction, both in terms of observations arising from other disciplines such as genetics and palaeontology. Of course, lots of the religious nay-sayers take that as evidence that it isn't true, but they simply don't understand how science actually works.

Fair enough - just goes to show the ignorance of creationists. I last looked at this about 20 years ago at school, so I'm obviouly out of date.

How does it show their ignorance when it was you who were incorrect and out of date?

A demonstration of how this differs from me.

In fairness, you argument didn't need dealing with.

. . .

The original statement is valid because climate scientists are a legitimate authority on the subject of climate change.

Except that is not the point I was making.

And that is why you failed to rebut it.

Firstly, straw man argument. I have never made a claim of universality. Just a staggering majority, though not as staggering at the consensus with regards to evolution.

Firstly, strawman rebuttal.

The statement I was rebutting was a claim of universality.
Since you do not support that, your attempted refutation of me is obviously misplaced.

It is the fact that scientific theory is able to change and adapt that makes it worthwhile. Having come to understand that the Net out come of green house gases may be something other simple warming is itself evidence that the consensus is being shifted.

Yes, but that further ignores that the statement I was rebutting asserted that it was "not amenable" to being challenged.

Again, if you accept that such is not scientific, your challenge of my response is misplaced.

Also, the introduction of Anthropogenic into the name is a sign of how far the consensus has moved toward human influence being a major factor.

If it were "anthropogenic global warming", you would have a point.

"Anthropogenic climate change" must, of a necessity, include anthropogenic global cooling.
Without that being included and accounted for, the name change becomes highly suspect.

I'll concede that, in the long run, due British naval superiority, that Britain, Canada and Australia would have eventually won out, but I do think the two year estimate may be a bit generous. Russia was out of the fight after October of '17, remember, so all was pretty much quiet on the EASTERN front. And Germany held out 25 years later for about a year after it was effectively over under much more strenuous conditions with their generals under much more stressful conditions. And quite a few of their best military minds were executed for "treason" in the second war as well.

I think when the Germans were forced back into their own territory, the tenaciousness of the defender would have replaced the bravado of the invader. And I'm sure that, despite watching the Commonwealth change tactics, the French would have still been conducting the same moronic charges into machine guns they seemed to enjoy so much.

I think the two key factors are the blockade and persisting in moronic charges.

Germany was going to lose because of the blockade. A comparison to WW II is not precisely accurate as the Germans in WW I simply were not up to withstanding that degree of privation because of a loss of food imports. They would not have lost militarily, they would have lost politically.
Conversely, if the allies, particularly the French who already had to suppress one mutiny, had persisted in those frontal assaults, it is possible the French could have slaughtered themselves into submission before the British dumped Haig and salvaged enough of their army to starve the Germans into submission. "Obviously" (that is, "subjectively analyzing it 90 years later"), the British Empire could not have sustained the war alone in France, particularly not with the Italians slaughtering themselves into submission at the same time, and the south Balkan front going nowhere fast.

Of course in some ways such an analysis thoroughly undervalues the importance of American non-neutrality before then. Not just escorting convoys, but also putting pressure on Germany to restrict submarine warfare for so long, contributed significantly to the staying power of the U.K. up to that point, allowing them to be in France and prevent an outright German victory during the French mutinies.
It is that non-neutrality that also contains the key to American relevance during W.W. II. Without lend-lease, the U.K. and Soviet Union never would have survived for the U.S. to carry out Torch and Overlord.

Don't forget about the oil embargo.

That is part of the sanctions.

It was what made the Japanese need the Netherlands East Indies, thus precipitating the chain of events.

One, Liberty University is accredited. Two, do these people have degrees in anything remotely resembling a subject that could be applied to anthropogenic climate change?

You seem confused.

Just because a quorom, or even all, scientists in a particular field agree on a particular hypothesis or theory, it in no way constitutes part of the proof of the hypothesis or places the theory above being questioned.
That is what is being asserted for "anthropogenic climate change", and by your standard that makes it junk science.

However, you can look at records of . . .

No, you demanded reproducible experiments.

Until you produce additional earths to test these theories, or retract that requirement, looking at records is insufficient to meet your requested requirement.
Now you are pulling a bait and switch to try and secure a double standard of proof. That parallels with the demands made by the supporters of ID are . . . striking.

The overwhelming weight of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic climate change and against intelligent design. Denial of both of these facts is denying that the Titanic is sinking as the icy water laps around one's ankles.

The weight of evidence was supposed to be overwhelming in favor of global warming, but now it has been downgraded to anthropogenic climate change.

One might reasonably begin to be more than a bit skeptical of continuing claims to "absolute" anything from the scientists making such claims.

That's how science works. Evidence is discovered, experiments are conducted, terms are revised for accuracy. It does not work by going "nuh unh"

How exactly do you conduct an experiment when you cannot have any controls or multiple tests?

Global Warming is still a thing, as average global temperatures are increasing; however, by referring ONLY to "global warming" in these discussion, it ignores the larger and potentially more dangerous effect.

Then why did scientists ignore those larger and potentially more dangerous effects for so long by just harping on global warming?

Folks who aren't well-versed in climate science can dismiss the whole effect with a simple "It was super cold this winter, and so global warming is a myth." - the entire concept anthropogenic climate change encompasses global warming, but also explains why there're more hurricanes now than ever before, the acidification of the oceans, and possibly the fungal plagues causing both amphibian and bee populations worldwide to plummet.

More hurricanes that ever before?

Do please produce your evidence for the number of hurricans in 1420. In 1066. In 476. In 88 B.C. In 340,738 B.C.
When you can possibly produce such with absolute accuracy and certainty then you will have a reasonable claim. Until then you are working exclusively on projections, and the data is not universally accepted by all climatologists, despite assertions otherwise.

It is the best explanation for the evidence we've got, and rather than stomping their feet and saying "No way!", I'd like to see those folks who dissent do some research to prove all that mountain of evidence on the other side is wrong. As a matter of fact, there are some folks who are doing research and they've got some interesting preliminary findings on the subject. But in no way has anyone "slam dunked" the case against it.

No, it is the best explanation that you like.

But please, do tell, just how much research you have done on the subject to be able to assert this so conclusively. Are you in fact a climatologist that has been studying this for 30 years? Have you examined all of the opposing research, and performed tests to refute it all? Or are you just relying on reports and assertions by others, and demanding everyone accept the same conclusions you have accepted?

Let's not forget that before the US entered WWII, we were in the great depression. Without an absolute self need, it may have been to much to expect the US to risk the lives of its youngest and healthest workers for another country, even our allies. Also if we were so impartial, why did the Japanese feel like they had to attack us? Why go slap the hornet's nest?

Mostly a three step progression:

1. U.S. sanctions over the invasion of China led to;
2. A fear of U.S. intervention over a full annexation of the Netherlands East Indies, and resulting war with the U.K. because of their treaty obligations and strategic needs, meaning a need to;
3. Neutralize the Phillipines so it could not be used as a base.

Had the U.S. never imposed sanctions, or not controlled the Phillipines (giving it independence or selling it to Japan or never annexing it from Spain in the first place), it is quite conceivable the Japanese would have ignored the U.S. when they moved on the N.E.I. and U.K.

Whoa.... them be fighting words!!

Wait...there is more of NY beyond NYC?... there is Longisland... NYC... ummmmmm then Canada... nop... nothing beyond NYC..;-)

Never ever compare NYC the NJ.... never ever... ;-)

By the way... I am from Longisland

Upstate is howling wildnerness.

It obviously causes warped perceptions to confuse NYC with the toxic wastes of Jersey.

Cappadocius, you have just become my personal hero. *hugs*

Because he failed to refute a criticque of an improper statement you made?

Let me rephrase my point. A meta-studies of all available research have shown a consistant consensus for more than 30 years.

That is quite different from "universally".

It also fails to account for the consistent revisions of that consensus to the point that it is now "anthropogenic climate change" as opposed to "global warming".

If there was any such thing as a scientist with a specialization in intelligent design, I'd be happy to compare and contrast. I might as well compare and contrast with a unicorn.

See, real scientists actually publish reproducible research in refereed journals.

There are very much people with degrees from accredited universities who declare they have a specialization in intelligent design, whether you are aware of them or approve their claims or not.

As for reproducible results, I am not aware of any control earths that have been used to prove anthropogenic climate change over a hundred year span. Do they have unicorns?

It is a demonstratable concensus amongst the scientists with a specialisation in climate science.

Which remains something other than the definition of "universal".

Which does not constitute a refutation of its pre-emptive denial of being disproven.

Compare and contrast:
"Intelligent design is a demonstrable consensus amongst the scientists with a specialization in ID science, and is thus universally accepted, and not amenable to some wag asking why if it is intelligent design we have vestigial organs."

Oh, and by the way, shut up about "global warming"

The term among scientists and people who actually listen to scientists is "anthropogenic climate change" - which is demonstrable, universally accepted, and isn't amenable to some wag asking why if it's global warming we're getting six inches of snow in April.

Well technically, since people do dispute it, it is not in fact universally accepted.

And taking as a given that a hypothesis can be "amenable", that demonstrates a pre-emptive decision to reject any dissent, no matter the evidence presented.

So how many years in a row does the planet have to get colder before people admit that its not warming anymore?

This is not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question.

The problem is global warming, excuse me, "human caused climate change" advocates have made it clear that the answer to that question is "Until we come up with another alarmist theory to justify dismantling the Western economic machine and empowering the Third World in pursuit of our political agendas."

One year of lesser temperature increase or ten years of temperature decrease, they have pre-emptively declared it a "variation" in a field that is "not yet fully explained".

Maybe the sun is helping us by counteracting global warming? [/snark]

Dissenters have been saying that for years, but the global warmers continue to deny it.

The article has several links to that "dispute".

And did you catch his entourage calling Elie Wiesel a "zionazi" at the conference?

There is also no excuse for cheering the death of a human being forced into a situation where they believe they have no other choice than the use of violence.

Being forced?

Someone held a gun to their head, and ordered them to do it under pain of death? Or threatened their families in the same way?

I didn't excuse anything. Nor do I have sympathy for the pirates. You actually don't understand things you read - or worse you just try and twist them around to seem righteous.

There is no excuse for using violence to get what you want regardless of how little you have.

And you see no contradiction in that?

There is no excuse but they were forced.
Twisting words to seem righteous indeed.

Boredom, hunger and fear for pirates' hostages

Some hostages have told of mock executions in which pirates, angered that ransom negotiations weren't going well, lined up their captives and fired weapons close to their heads.

"Seafarers from the Philippines account for 105 of the prisoners, not surprising for a poor Southeast Asian country that supplies about 30 percent of the world's 1.2 million merchant sailors."

So poor Somalis become pirates, but poor Filipinos become merchant sailors.

"Despite the risk, men like Adler will keep crewing ships, even to danger zones, because the pay is good. And some know no other work."

As contrasted to Somali pirates who will "heroically" continue to engage in piracy because the pay is good.

""You put a piece of fish or meat on the end and that was it, kind of like Robinson Crusoe," Adler said with a laugh. "Those waters are very rich in fish, and in about two weeks of fishing we caught more than 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of fish.""

Those horribly overfished and poisoned waters.

To come on to Paizo's website and make broad statements about foreign affairs and belittle others comments only shows how clueless some people truly are.

Gee, isn't that what Nick is doing?

Indeed, isn't that what you just did?

Samuel Weiss wrote:

No, but the lack of intellectual integrity is almost always proven by framing an argument with such an accusation against an opponent.

So when did you stop beating your wife?

Exactly.

Or:

I am waiting for you to stop beating yours and set a proper example for me to follow.

Dude, I've been at work for the last 14 hours. Why would you assume that my lack of a reply means I'm stonewalling you. That's a very defensive reaction. Relax.

Anyways, your response to my question was flaccid:

Or pehaps I assume that you want to be confrontational. Starting with descriptions like "flaccid" certainly suggests that.

Nice rhetoric. How exactly would do that? What specifically would you do? Especially while you are starving to death and dying from exposure to radiated toxic waste? Your response above is a lot of empty words and lofty rhetoric without even the shred of effort of trying to put yourself in the shoes of these desperate people.

My answer to your question is this: I have no idea. I don't imagine I would be capable of making very good decisions when I can't feed myself or my family.

Talk about a flaccid response!

You do not know, but I cannot confidently assert I would do otherwise?
Well, since you want to frame the discussion on that level . . .

That's my point. It's not as simple as "Choose the Right Choice, Bad Pirate Man."

This is a very complicated situation that you feel the need to oversimplify into - "I'd do the right thing if I were them." But you don't even know what you would do specifically, and you can't even begin to imagine the terrible circumstances you'd forced to do it under.

No Nick, with a reply like that your point is to harangue anyone who does not leap to join you in expressing the same degree of sympathy as you embrace.

If you feel incapable of making a moral judgement because you feel you cannot make a moral decision over a situation you are not actually expreiencing, that is you. Some of us do not feel so limited, and are capable of going beyond and recognizing that morality is not subject to redefition by exigency, but something that must be more than that for the concept of law to have any meaning. If all it takes is an appeal to inconvenience, however great or minor, then there is no way a society can create any structure to recognize any rights, and so make any transgression of them a crime. With such a construct there can be no property rights.
"I have less than you. Therefore I make take from you and you may not judge me because you do have more than me."
No. I reject that, as does every basic code of morality and law we have to draw upon to define our culture. You are not doing anything to empower people by excusing any action on the basis of being lacking, but instead casually condemning them by the "soft bigotry of low expectations".

Oh, and, btw: Pretend-Patriot is my term for ANYONE who thinks we should stop challenging ourselves and our country. The thing that makes America great is its capacity for change. The forefathers included an Elastic Clause in our Constitution and appointed a Supreme Court to interpret it through the ages, just to ensure that we engage in a constant revolution - not of guns, but of ideas and the potential of humanity. I for one, as a patriot, and a true American, have every intention of living up to their example and doing my best to ensure that America isn't a dead idea or a moldy piece of parchment, but a thriving beacon - one that has light the world for hundreds of years and will only continue to do so if we fan the flames of freedom, compassion, humanity and justice.

Such a revolution does not include an abdication of the essential rights of person and property that you are casually throwing away with your excessive sympathy for the pirates. When you abdicate passing judgement on them you surrender the guarantees of protection of property in the Constitution.

There is no freedom without security, no justice without judgement.
Without those compassion and humanity are mere buzzwords, full of sound and fury and signifying less than nothing.

I'm willing to sacrifice my complacency and creature-comforts to do it if needs be. I'm willing to always question our policies and our actions in the world - not to be a critic of this great nation for criticism's sake, but rather to ensure America never falls short of the ideals set out before us.

For starting by accusing me of "Nice rhetoric" you certainly rely on such yourself.

Questioning entails no surrender of creature-comforts, nor does criticism. If you truly intended to surrender that and your complacency you would be in Somalia, working to rebuild the country, and show the pirates a better way. Of course you might be killed for not following sharia, or just for not being a Somali, but that might be a bit too much commitment for the cause, eh?

Anyone who cheers the death of a few 17 year old, uneducated, half-starved, desperate pirates is not bolstering up the legacy of Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, FDR, and all the named and nameless great men and women who bled for the freedoms and ideals we maintain, but rather dropping it in the mud - and that my friend, I blithely label "pretend-patriotism."

And anyone who excuses people who take a father hostage, threaten him with death over several days, and demand a reward at the conclusion, is trampling those legacies in the mud, and throwing them in the cesspit afterwards.

And that my friend, I do not blithely label as anything but the disservice to the principles of Western law and democracy that it is.

I think we have found the left wing Ann Coulter.

You say that as though she (Garafolo) has not been acting like that for years.

Sorry for my part in derailing your joke it was funny the way they kept refering to "un-cool".... so who is it cool to hate now?

People who get upset about "teabagging" jokes, and the people said jokes are made about.

She's actually been a good governor for her state. The fact she makes libs irate is just a bonus. ;)

And that she is genuinely hot, not merely skanky like Coulter.

I'll have to check that one out, haven't actually delved into a lot of Adam Smith's writings (I know, but only so many hours in the day). Thanks for the tip Sam.

Heh. True. And "translating" late 18th century English to modern English is a chore.

Of course you really only need to read the last third or so of The Wealth of Nations, where he sets out his general recommendations, plus do a quick scan of his section blurbs to get the critical points of the rest of it. (Pages on pages of spreadsheets analyzing the changes in the price of corn over several centuries is certainly nice to prove you are not talking out of your nethers, but "tedious" barely begins to describe it.)
However, for a rather simple and direct explanation of why to choose being a decent fellow, which to me serves as a truly apt supplement to Nietzsche exhorting us to create a new morality, I thoroughly recommend The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

One might also take note of the exchange of responses with the French after Obama recommended the accession of Turkey to the EU.
The French said, paraphrasing, "This is a European decision, and we will decide this based on our best interests."
Obama replied, again paraphrasing, "Yes it is, but friends give friends advice on such things."
The French response, yet another paraphrase, "Pike that screed, and sod off berk." Err, "Once again, this is a European decision and it will be made by Europeans. We need no advice from you on the matter."

Can you feel the love and mutual respect?
Apparently the advice of friends is something that Europe gives to America, and Obama crams up America's . . . dignity.

This is what I thought, too, Sam. On a second reading, though, I'm unclear what the city actually said. It seems they (local government) said two separate things. First--there's an issue with the test. Second, they answered a question--yes, the results of the last test would have allowed no promotions of minorities. Am I reading too much in to the article?

Between the article and other reports on the matter (I picked this up a few days ago), what the city did is say the results of the test indicate no blacks would be promoted, therefore the test is flawed and all the results will be thrown out.

Naturally the city now denies that as part of their response to the lawsuit. They have to, otherwise it would be a default judgement against them.

The possibility that you have humanity is not proven by the accusation that you lack humanity.

No, but the lack of intellectual integrity is almost always proven by framing an argument with such an accusation against an opponent.

The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.

Indeed.

And so you have answered your question.

You have a premise here Sam, that you don't mention.

That while the ICU is a terrorist group, Ethiopia is not.

And of course it really depends on what you mean by terrorism. If by definition any violence done by Ethiopia is not terrorism, than of course you are correct.

A lot of what you dispute here Sam, is based on your own premises which I don't share. Because of that, we aren't going to agree.

So you are asserting that Ethiopia is either or both a terrorist group and that their actions during their mission to aid the Somali government were terrorist acts.

While you may, as an individual, certainly assert such a thing, without any similar assertion from any legitimate (that is, a recognized government, a recognized trans-governmental body such as the UN or AU, or an NGO that is not otherwise listed as a terrorist organization), the validity of such an assertion is not merely questionable or highly suspect, but pretty much completely illegitimate.

You can claim I am confused, but all we have is your assertion by fiat that I am confused.

I provided several links to explain where I am coming from.

Ethiopia invading Somalia is not a stabilizing event, it is a destabilizing event. I state this based on what I have read and the results of that act. You can assert otherwise, and you can continue to share your opinion on why I am wrong, but I disagree.

Did I miss these in the text?

Otherwise I saw links about dumping and fishing, but none about Ethiopia invading as opposed to intervening that cites a legitimate source as noted above. A random excessively biased and partisan blogger certainly does nothing to prove it was an invasion as opposed to an government requested intervention.

Incorrect facts or politically incorrect facts?

What am I basing my statements on? By what I read. Such as this mention by Daniel Luban.

Cause and effect. I am not alone in pointing out this connection.

Unfortunately for your case, as I noted above, the accusations of a random partisan blogger do not constitute proof by a long shot.

Do you have a citation of a U.N. resolution calling it an invasion?
How about an investigation by the ICC?
Or even a random indictment from an over-reaching Spanish court?

Guilt by blogger rant is a long way from legitimate evidence.

That certainly is a nicer way of putting it. But it is the same thing, only using different words.

No, it is not the same thing, any more than murder is manslaughter is self-defense.

Words like that have specific meaning, particularly in law and international relations.

Why would the "legitimate" government need assistance? If the "legitimate" government was backed by the people, why would it need a foreign power to come help it?

Because sometimes a government has been weakened by other factors to the point that an insurgency may threaten it with destruction, even if the insurgency does not enjoy a popular mandate, and even if the government is unable to muster popular support.

Do I even need to answer these questions?

Yes, you do.

In fact, what makes a government "legitimate"? We probably don't share that premise either.

Probably not.

But stating such a difference, or even the existence of such a difference, equally does not lend legitimacy to your definition by default.

Actually it is. There are plenty of contradictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Conflict broke out again in early 2006 between an alliance of Mogadishu warlords known as the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (or "ARPCT") and a militia loyal to the Islamic Courts Union (or "I.C.U."), seeking to institute Sharia law in Somalia. Social law changes, such as the forbidding of chewing khat,[29] were part of moves by the ICU to change behaviours and impose strict social morals. It was widely reported that soccer playing was being banned, as well as viewing of broadcasts of soccer games,[30] but there were also reports of the ICU itself denying any such bans.

There is no contradiction there.

And apparently you missed the part of that article that makes it clear that Ethiopia did not invade, but intervened at the request of the legitimate government.

A rhetorical question, since that doesn't describe me.

You characterized the ICU as a government that was stabilizing Somalia.

You characterized the intervention of Ethiopia at the request of the TNG as an invasion.
You characterized the invasion as coming when the ICU was stabilizing the government as opposed to when they were merely destabilizing the existing legitimate government.

How would you describe those things?

Actually my conclusion is similar, so we do agree on some things, the states in Africa should break up. Although I say don't promote it, leave Africans alone to do it as they see fit.

No matter how many people die along the way?

Such as when the West copped on intervening during the Rwanda Genocide?
Such as how the West continues to cop out during the Darfur Genocide?
Such as not doing anything now while Somalia continues to descend into chaos, except to prevent pirates from attacking ships, even if it includes violence?

I am not saying don't hold them responsible for their actual actions though. Just stop interfering.

But my viewpoint is purely theoretical. Obama has made it clear he will continue to meddle in just about any country in the world he chooses.

Actually, quite a few more people than just Obama advocate "meddling", so you have quite a task promoting a position of non-intervention given what is actually happening.

But apparently White House staff being delusional is still uber-cool.

Putting weight on written tests for desk jobs does make sense as that is a big part of what those people do.

Putting weight on written tests for field jobs is a problem, as that does not represent the type of work examined, regardless of actual skills people perform differently in written tests and unfortunately that performance correlates with education which correlates with economic class and ethnicity.

Oral tests do have a bias too, and they should be used mainly when they are representative...eg. people in team leader positions should perform well in oral tests.
Unfortunately multiple choice written test is fast, cheap and easy method of ranking people and that's why they are so popular...

Which could be valid except . . .

The city had no issues with the test until a particular set of results indicatied no personnel of a specific race would not be promoted.
Further, regardless of any other indicators of a specific failure in the test, that was used to both determine that the test was flawed, and to deny promotion to everyone who took the test.

That most of all is what makes the city's decision discriminatory. It was not that they found the test was flawed for everyone, but that they found the test was flawed because it did not return a desired ratio of successful scores based solely on race.
On that basis, you could look to the number of people of a specific race in a sport like basketball and determine that the test (scouting and tryouts) are a priori flawed and racially biased because it does not return a number of successes (contracts offered) proportional to the racial distribution of the country as a whole.

LOL. I originally read Nietzsche just to learn what all the fuss was about and I was pleasantly surprised at his writings.

As it happens, me too. :)

One of philosopy's greatest shames. While I do not agree with his premises on many things, his writings are very thought-provoking.

Indeed. I temper them with Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and the principles of government structure laid out in the Federalist, and I think the combination makes a very excellent whole.

The fact that he has been forever coopted by the Nazis is just one of the countless crimes that can be laid at that ideology's doorstep. We still suffer from the legacy of that syphillitic failed painter more than seventy years later.

And what is worse is that it has to be said.

But I expect we could fill up a server with such complaints, so . . .

Yog-Sothoth

'Nuff Said.

More like John Carpenter, Kurt Russel, and Keith David.

Or maybe it is all a plot by Guillermo del Toro to get studio backing.

Cosmic horror!!!

One aspect that muddies the water in this regard is that the U.S. played a major role in insuring the continuing destabilization of Somolia in recent years.

Somalia was well under way to being 'unified' by the Islamic Courts Union (hereafter ICU). A group that is pretty abhorrent to modern western sensibilities (Hardline fundamentalist Islamists) but one capable of appealing to all Somali's irrespective of regionalism.

Somalia was well under way to being stabilized by the Transitional Federal Government when a group of warlords allied with the ICU and began a new round of civil war.

Whether all Somali's would back the imposition of their extremist Sharia is far from accepted.
It should also be noted that the ICU advocated war with Ethiopia for the purpose of conquering the Ogaden region.

This convergence of interests led America to back an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (with training, equipment and air strikes) that quickly shattered the military power of the ICU.

Ethiopia sent troops at the invitation of the TFG, the leigitimate government of Somalia. They were later joined by African Union troops from Uganda, Burundi, and Kenya.

Following the defeat of the ICU other groups took their place, but an agreement between the TFG and another group has led to the current situation, which looks to be installing an Islamist government.

Note the key differences:
1. Another government was stabilizing Somalia when the ICU began a rebellion that destroyed the unity that had been built.
2. Ethiopia did not invade, but was invited to help fight the ICU rebels.

That kind of across the board attempts at policy are what always keep me on my toes.

And what leads some of us to oppose universal health care even when accused of a lack of humanity for not wanting everyone to be covered.

This was from march 25 2009, I didn't see where it said a final decision was reached, have there been developments since?

I did not see any references. As an appeal case, it could take some time.

The key element is a State claiming a right to overrule doctor's in Medicaid cases, along with the direct statement that the government run Medicaid program is rationed.

Nietzsche actually warned against a growing tide of nihilism in Western culture as its underpinning in religion eroded. He warned that we needed to create a mindset in humanity that could face the universe without a Father Figure Deity to hold our hand. This was his 'Ubermench' or 'Superman' concept, not the Aryan gobbledygook his Nazi sister tacked on when she was busy licking Hitler's ass.

He believed in the power of mankind to forge its own destiny devoid of deific props, so no, nihilism wasn't his real focus.

You know this.

I know this.
Perhaps we should start a thread to keep count?
:-P

Was that ... evocative ... description really necessary?

If you have to ask, you don't want to know.

Indeed.

Just as most people buy into the pretense that Nietzsche was a nihilist, they are also completely unaware that his sister redacted his works post mortem to advance the Nazi ideology she and ehr husband advocated.

Well, maybe not everyone.