Grand political roundup

[BaconForTheSoul]

This doesn't even take into account the countless students that graduate with no knowledge of anything.

Now, that part is something I'd never dispute.

Blah blah we've been here only few hundred thousand years and we've only been dominant for 10,000.  If the Earth's life were a day then we humans would be 10 seconds.  In that 10 seconds we've taken over like no species ever has before. 

Who the fuck said anything about the universe?  Humans are most likely trash compared to the greater species in the universe just like every other species on Earth is trash compared to us.  Also, he time frame that matters is now.  Looking back 2 billion years and seeing who mattered then means just as much as comparing America now to America 200 years ago.  You honestly think I believe the present matters more because I live in it?

Not you specifically. But present circumstances heavily influence many peoples' perception of past and future because it's all they've known. The Earth functionally is the universe to us, which was basically the point. I find it interesting to look at how people can or can't incorporate vast scales into their view of reality. Apparently others do not. Regardless, it was the total self-involvement that I was marvelling at and you've only contributed to that impression. "Every other species on Earth is trash compared to us." What a dreary way to look at the world. You don't need to tell me a lot of people share that attitude. I know, and I pity them for it.

And really, I'm having a hard time believing much of anything matters to you. Though you didn't directly answer the primary question of my post--

Are you just a nihilist, or what?

--I no longer think you have to. I'm not really seeing much more than a cynic who relishes mocking others for their mistakes and provides nothing to help rectify them beyond bile.

This topic is pointless now.  Most of the stuff coming out is opinion, and the facts just get ignored by the side that chooses to ignore them.

Yeah, because personal opinion never gets factored into political discussion. Actually, I think the thread's had a pretty lively and civil back and forth until now. It's no fault of mine if you can't deal with others not viewing the world as a worthless shithole.

You're right about one thing.  I am hugely cynical these days because all I see is failure over and over and it's taking it's toll on me.  Society itself is messed up in America, and people just ignore it.  99% of the population gets by simply by ignoring everything that's wrong and believing that all is well.  Sadly, I'm part of the 1%.  Mocking the others is all I can do because they can't be helped... people who think nothing is wrong don't think anything needs fixing.

Call it a bleak outlook on life if you want, but it's the most realistic one for the time being.

[NotMiki]

A. You must wear seat belts because it protects you!!!
B. Smoke all you want though because we get lotsa money from cig companies!!!

You know, there are states where seatbelt laws are considered unnecessary nanny laws, and there are states where smoking is banned in just about every place it can be.  Those states tend to be different states.  I see your point about arbitrariness, but I'm willing to bet that the states with seatbelt laws are also the states with smoking restrictions.

You may call it arbitrary, but what those laws balance are the freedom of the individual and the safety of society.  No law that falls on the scale between those two things is ever truly arbitrary.

[Sierra]

Call it a bleak outlook on life if you want, but it's the most realistic one for the time being.

Pretty much figured that's how you'd classify yourself in the end, yeah. Ah well. I'm just gonna let this drop and conclude that you're Harry Dean Stanton in Repo Man. (Watch Repo Man).

[Idun]

As I said before, I just can't buy accept people whose only argument is that it's their body and they can do what they want.

You don't have to.


Super, I thought she fired a librarian over wanting to censor some books from the shelves and later reinstated her because of the community's response? Edit* At least that's the rumor. But looking at major news sites it appears that she had the idea of doing such (banning some books for language/content), but I don't see any that claims she finalized the deal by firing. Either way, anyone who thinks books should be banned is obviously  .. . . . . [insert uninintelligble banter]

[superaielman]

A. You must wear seat belts because it protects you!!!
B. Smoke all you want though because we get lotsa money from cig companies!!!

You know, there are states where seatbelt laws are considered unnecessary nanny laws, and there are states where smoking is banned in just about every place it can be.  Those states tend to be different states.  I see your point about arbitrariness, but I'm willing to bet that the states with seatbelt laws are also the states with smoking restrictions.

You may call it arbitrary, but what those laws balance are the freedom of the individual and the safety of society.  No law that falls on the scale between those two things is ever truly arbitrary.

The difference there is that smoking doesn't just effect the user. If you don't wear a seatbelt, it's your funeral. That said I think antismoking bans have gotten idiotic. Seriously, you can't smoke in your own car on company policy at some hospitals now, and that's stupid. If someone wants to sit outside and away from me and smoke, whatever. As long as it's not causing direct harm to anyone besides the smokers it should not be banned.

[Grefter]

Or they could, you know make them illegal and get over it and stop skimming that sweet sweet tax check from it.  If you wanted to eliminate the hypocrisy of a broken system that is.  Which the people in power most certainly do not and those are the only people we can vote for either way.

[metroid composite]

On an on track note, I just read about Palin and the buzz surrounding her having rape victims pay for their rape kits, when offices should offer all capabilities necessary to help solving the case. Also, she bans books.

This lady is wacko. If McCain died, at least we'd all be able to see Russia~

The book ban thing is not true, at least the version floating around the net.

Warning: Malkin. I orginially saw this story in a Leonard Pitts column today, lemme go dig up that link.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/689470.html

Pitts has a couple of good stories about this.

I wouldn't listen to articles that provide an explicit list of books she would ban.  From what I've read it sounds like she casually mentioned banning books and the librarian freaked, so she backed off:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html

According to the Frontiersman newspaper, Wasilla’s library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, said that Palin asked her outright if she "could live with censorship of library books.” Palin later dismissed the conversation as a “rhetorical” exercise.

This is actually pretty typical of a lot of the crazy quotes you hear from Palin--for instance when running for govenor:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

However, I recall reading that she quickly clarified that she wasn't making abortion an election issue in the race for governor.


Dunno, I guess what I'm saying is that there probably is a Librarian in Wasilla who thinks Palin wants to ban her books based on a misconstrued conversation.  However Palin also seems to know when to back down from an issue (which is good for any politician).  In fact, thinking on it I'd rather have a politician who speaks whatever's on their mind and then backtracks on their gafs than the "I'm going to make sure nothing I say can ever be used against me" politician.

[NotMiki]

Antismoking bans for private businesses shouldn't exist.  This is one case where capitalism can create its own balance (if there are bars that allow smoking, there will be bars that prohibit it based on demand, etc).  Seatbelt laws are fine for the most part, since in practice you almost always need to be doing something else wrong to get busted for them.  They'd be better if that were more explicitly a part of how the law operated, but oh well.

Gref, is it hypocritical to disapprove of something but still allow it with a penalty attached?  Seems to me that rules that limit but don't prevent certain activities (hunting, for example) serve a useful purpose.

EDIT: the librarian thing, the conversation wasn't misconstrued: the librarian was asked whether it would be feasible to ban certain books.  The librarian blanched, and the topic didn't come up again.  Later on, the librarian was canned, and public pressure forced Palin to reinstate her.  As for the connection between firing the librarian and banning books, this is the reason the librarian believed she had been fired at the time, and Palin had previously mentioned (before she was mayor) to other people in the town that she wanted specific books banned.

Remember, this is a town of 5,000 where Palin was the first mayor to run as a member of a party; politicization and political hires, whether you agree with them or not, were not something the town had witnessed before.  What I take away from this isn't that Palin supports banning books, though that is probably true, but that her managerial style is based on political loyalty, cronyism, if you will.  She has to date appointed 3 classmates and her high school gym teacher to government positions.  That she has and would make appointments the same way George W. does scares the hell out of me.

[Grefter]

It is hypocritical to have huge campaigns against something that is harmful to people while raking in a ton of cash off of the harmful product.

Wouldn't know how much of a tidy profit the government makes off of hunting over in the states though, it isn't a huge thing over here.

[superaielman]

Or they could, you know make them illegal and get over it and stop skimming that sweet sweet tax check from it.  If you wanted to eliminate the hypocrisy of a broken system that is.  Which the people in power most certainly do not and those are the only people we can vote for either way.

Making them illegal would be about thew worst possible solution . Even ignoring the economical impact of it, you'd create about a hundred million addicts who'd do anything to get a smoke and a giant black market and all the problems with it overnight. I hate cigs and would love to see them wiped off the face of the earth, but it's not possible.  I don't think it's especially hypocritical considering the medical costs of smoking.

And Hunting's a useful thing in the states for the same reason that the Australian government encourages people to shoot Kangaroos. It does help keep the deer population in check somewhat. It's a moneymaker for the state governments, but..

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/licensefees.asp

It's not the giant cash flow that smoking is as you can see. They keep the prices within some shouting distance of reasonable since Hunting does have benefits.

Antismoking bans for private businesses shouldn't exist.  This is one case where capitalism can create its own balance (if there are bars that allow smoking, there will be bars that prohibit it based on demand, etc).  Seatbelt laws are fine for the most part, since in practice you almost always need to be doing something else wrong to get busted for them.  They'd be better if that were more explicitly a part of how the law operated, but oh well.

Banning smoking in buildings is purely a measure to protect the people who work at the bars and I'm fine with that. You can always smoke outside. Just of course things are taken too far in that regard.  And I'd repel Seatbelt laws/helmet laws for adults personally. If you want to be a dumbass, that's your own thing. I don't think the government has the right to fine you for it though. Hitting you with a ticky-tack fine for it if you're pulled over.. augh.

[Dark Holy Elf]

And I'd repel Seatbelt laws/helmet laws for adults personally. If you want to be a dumbass, that's your own thing.

The problem is, if you're a dumbass, you end up with a huge hospital bill that is footed in part by the state and in part by insurance companies (read: the other clients of said insurance companies). I'm fine with having laws against dumbassery when it needlessly endangers the person, because other people end up paying for the stupidity anyway. Of course, the question becomes where to draw the line - what things are so stupid as to be worth banning - but in the case of seatbelts and bicycle helmets the research has shown their effects are tremendous, and there's really no reason to use them besides not being used to them. And anyone can get used to them.

I'm aware this could be extended to ban smoking, but you already covered why that wouldn't work.

[Grefter]

Which brings me full circle to my argument for legalising most drugs and have the government regulate them, people sign waivers for their use and so on and so forth, but I think I made that argument enough times over the period of my stay in the states that most people have heard it.

[metroid composite]

Chapin, dude, you need to remember your developmental Psych.  The human mind is -never- completely developped outside of the incredibly minor part of the population that are amazing human beings like Ghandi (fuck what is the name of that theory of development.... Maslowe keeps coming to mind, but it isn't his Heirarchy of needs, I think it is a slightly related aside that you tend to learn around the same time but is from one of his peers).  18-25 range is the times about where people have consolidated the needs of laws and why you follow them.  It is actually one of the things society got fairly right.

I believe you're referring to Kohlberg's theory of moral development.

80% of people never get beyond stage 4 (upholding the laws of society)
Around 20% of people get to stage 5 (tapping into a lot of the popular theory behind times when laws are right and laws are wrong)
Around 2% of people get to stage 6 (formalize their own code of morality from basic principles)

(With stage 1 being "fear of punishment", stage 2 being "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and stage 3 being "submit to peer pressure/friends")

That said, you can be a perfectly functioning member of society at Stage 1--in fact IIRC there were some very intelligent scientists who Kohlberg recorded at Stage 1 or 2.  You shouldn't be on an ethics committee or Jury in such a case, but one thing the model emphasizes is that there's nothing inherently better about the higher stages, it just happens to be a sequence that most people go through.

[metroid composite]

In election related news, McCain calls for a campaign suspension, pulling all ads, wants to cancel presidential debates, etc (his reasoning being the state of the US economy):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

[Grefter]

That was the one.  Kohlberg is a freaking champ.  Self Actualization is pretty much the ultimate goal of all my studies.

And yeah, you can function at any level and you have your numbers right, but there is an average rate of development and the vast majority of people do reach stage 4 at least and they on average reach it in the 18-25 region. 

While there is nothing inherently better about the higher stages, you do need to have reached them to be able to make a well calculated informed decision for yourself.  Fear of authority does nothing for you when you are considering abortion, it relies entirely upon existing law to make your choice for you.

The point stands that you can't extrapolate principles to say that children should be able to have full rights to themselves in some kind of ultra libertarian stand ever for any kind of argument if you are going to be a student of Psychology.

[NotMiki]

In election related news, McCain calls for a campaign suspension, pulling all ads, wants to cancel presidential debates, etc (his reasoning being the state of the US economy):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Quite a risky stunt.  It has potential, 'candidate sets aside politicking for the good of America,' but Obama's retort, essentially "The debate is still on.  Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time." also hits the right notes.

[Dunefar]

That's a fascinating gambit for McCaine to take. I'm not sure if it's a winner or even a good idea, but it takes guts to make that sort of gamble.

[superaielman]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGUwMmE0OGY1MDViNDIwMDcyMTY5ZWVlZjViYTVjNWE=#more

As always, the UN's complete lack of credibility on anything related to Israel is breathtaking.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Uh yeah, stopped reading that one after one paragraph. Try again with an article that is at least pretending to be unbiased.

[Cotigo]

I agree with Elfboy.  Anyone who honestly thinks that Ahmadinejad is calling for another holocaust isn't listening to a word he's fucking saying and shouldn't be writing articles on the matter.  As far as I read it, he's calling for Israel to no longer occupy lands that are Palestinian.  Regardless of whether or not you agree, or what you think of Ahmadinejad, that's hardly calling for another holocaust. 

And, honestly?  Anti-Zionism or Anti-Israelism is NOT ANTI-SEMITISM.  Holy crap I can't believe how many people boil things down to that stupid conclusion.  There are several valid politcal reasons for being against Israel.  You might as well say the Afghanistan Conflict was a war on Islam because Afghanistan was an Islamic country.  It's not the same thing, of course, but you get my point. 

And if you don't, the point is: Your article fails, hard, Super.

As for "The UN lacks any crediblah blah Israel..." Seriously?  That's retarded.  Not allowing Ahmadinejad to speak is far, far worse than letting his voice get out and be scrutinized.  And after scrutiny, it turns out that maybe he's not just spouting hate speech and might have a fucking point?

---

I obviously didn't get through the whole article (fail2hard), but... exactly what did that have to do with the elections, anyway?  Maybe I'll skim through it later when I feel less... intellectually offended. 

[Taishyr]

Zenthor, just as a clarification on one point, I'm not sure this topic has been more than tangentially related to the election that often as of late. It's kinda become the political... ...discussion place, to use what remnants of my politically correct-based education still remain.

[Grefter]

In response to Super's article  http://exiledonline.com/tyolka-thursdays-totalitarian-babe-academy/

But yeah mostly just agreeing with Zenny on that topic.  That whole topic is just all kinds of fucked.

As for McCain's call?  Well you could read it as a ballsy maverick kind of move that he is apparently got some kind of popularity for.  Reads fucking stupid to me if you take it as that.  I mean, yeah you should be dealing with that crap, as a fucking Senator it is part of both candidates jobs.  They are both going to be doing that (I liked hearing on the news that President Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama along with another blah blah blah would have a meeting to discuss the issue... you know there was going to be a fucking senate session about the issue.  Fail news), because it is their fucking job.  Makes him look like he is hyperfocussed with ADD.

Alternately it reads as an incredibly weaselly calculated move to try and look like a big damned Hero while getting out of having to answer direct questions like "Why do you lie? Your campaign is blatantly corrupt to a ridiculous level" and fancy things like having that debate that he has been dodging all campaign.  Now he has a chance to say "Oh hey I am up for it here and now BUT LOOK THE ECONOMY.  IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US.  Better not have a debate now kthx." While getting to play his "Check me out I am totally a Maverick, you never know what I am going to do next" card to which the answer appears to be "Yes we know what you are going to do.  You are going to evade the issue at hand".

[Hunter Sopko]

BUT LOOK THE ECONOMY.  IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US.

As if Cheney needed another excuse to shoot the economy in the face

[metroid composite]

Wow super; at least when I forward a blatantly biased article someone showed me, I generally include a disclaimer saying "this article seems kinda biased, but I found it an interesting read anyway".

I obviously didn't get through the whole article (fail2hard), but... exactly what did that have to do with the elections, anyway?  Maybe I'll skim through it later when I feel less... intellectually offended. 

I forced myself through the article; I didn't see anything to do with the election or...anything else in this topic.

Zenthor, just as a clarification on one point, I'm not sure this topic has been more than tangentially related to the election that often as of late. It's kinda become the political... ...discussion place, to use what remnants of my politically correct-based education still remain.

Yeah, but it's operating as an organic conversation.  i.e.

Election issues -> Abortion and its place as an election issue -> How much should government restrict people -> 18 as an age of responsibility -> Kohlberg's theory of Moral Development and its relevance to age 18

In theory the point of the "Discussion" forum (instead of "General Chat") is that we keep topics from drifting too far off topic, but you're going to get some drift.  Elections in particular are prone to this, since you're going to talk about what laws are good laws as a reasoning for voting for a politician...which in turn means you're going to talk about Sociology, Psychology, and Economics as a reason for explaining why a law is good.  This is the nature of election discussions, and if you're following the topic closely you can trace back how 90% of the posts in this topic are relevant to the election.

However, this doesn't mean that a random political, sociological, psychological, or economic article will have any relevance to an election debate.  In fact, there's a decent chance it won't, unless the post author provides a clear connection (for instance, if I had linked to Kohlberg's theory of moral development at the start of this topic, I would have been horribly off-topic and would have deserved a chewing out).

[Luther Lansfeld]

I don't think there's any problem with someone posting an off-topic article as long as it's in the same general ballpark (not that i think off-topicness is an issue one way or another, frankly). You guys can discuss the bias or non-bias of the article if you choose, but posting something relating to foreign policy tangentially belongs more in a political topic than -anywhere else-, that's for sure.