quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
AH...that's it! But still, wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot easier if everyone was able to speak one universal language? Every other country in the world has a National Language, why don't we? It's so simple and makes almost too much sense.

---

Wouldn't it be easier if the whole world spoke the same language, and for that matter used the same measuring system?

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
pyrO and bugger have totally degenerated the discussion to personal attacks and name calling. That's ok kids, If you recall, I have no space in my life for people like you. I'll move on and leave your little clique alone.

This isn't a debate board it's a discussion board.

I was poking holes in generally accepted republican positions, stating my general distrust and dislike for certain methods and beliefs I've seen them use/have. I never directly attacked any one republican, excluding George W.

It's kind of too bad, I was enjoying the turn this thread was taking toward a real discussion, before the personal attacks started.

bugger, you're worse than skizzik & checkmate, you haven't made a single intelligent point, you only attack people, not just me.

pyrO, this isn't a debate forum, it's a discussion forum, not everything needs to be confronted just for the sake of arguing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? You'ld probably make a good one.

bugger, pyrO - When you make lists and lists of people and all the mistakes, character flaws, errors or whatever - that you think they have or have made just because they don't agree with you, and your list of "whith it's" is just you, then maybe you're the problem, not everyone else.

AlmasterMD, sorry I'm not going to hear any more of your ideas.

Cheers.

Garry

---

Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen. I was more than patient with your inability to have a debate and answer a plain and simple question.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

__________________
"I intend to Live forever, so far so good"

"I wish my first word was 'quote', so when I die I could say 'un-quote'."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myy:
Is it just my monitor, or is this page screwed??

---

ch3ckm4t3's link wasn't done properly, so it's messing up the page.

Back on topic - as far a national language goes, English is the unofficial language and unless you want to live in an isolated community, you generally have to be English-speaking, at least conversationally. No matter what standard we try to apply as a country, there's always going to be issues with communication by virtue of the fact that we have so many immigrants (legal or otherwise) and by the fact that the country is so large and diverse that we have dialects, even if it's not as pronounced as the Mandarin/Cantonese divide, for example.

Every now and then, the topic still gets brought up what we Americans who speak perfectly fine and acceptable English call certain things (soda? soft drink? pop? Coke?) that can vary regionally, different pronunciations (a "warshing machine" in certain areas, or adding "buttah and peppa" on your meal), not to mention the long list of slang - I've lived in NorCal and SoCal and had to explain the two most common regional differences:

1) "hella" - a NorCal descriptive to emphasize something, e.g. "Cryptic Command is a hella expensive card, but there's no substitute for it."

2) "THE" {highway/freeway name} vs. {highway/freeway name} - do you take THE 405, or do you take 405 to get to your home? Is there an accident on Bayshore or on THE Bayshore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. Corporal punishment is all about instilling fear into someone. There is no "correct use" for it, and it certainly will not teach anyone respect. And yeah, children respond better to it than verbal correction, wouldn't you be more scared if your parent was gonna hit you than if they were going to just talk at you?

---

And I wasn't saying the CP is the proper way to punish your daughter for her not doing homework. Clearly physical punishment isn't going to help your daughter in the long term to make her motivated to do schoolwork. Yakusoku's post was very well thought out, and a good start in helping your daughter's studies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
AFAIC corporal punishment teaches your child that if you can't get someone to do what you want, you hit them.
I don't care if it "works" from the perspective that the child changes their behavior because they don't want to be physically abused. Pointing a gun at you might get you to change whatever behavior I want changed, but that doesn't mean I'm not creating more problems.

If my house is infested with mice, one sure fire way to get rid of them is to burn it to the ground. Problem solved, and clearly it's what I should do because it works right?

The APA is against it and that's good enough for me. I'd rather listen to an expert on human behavior than "homespun wisdom." Because homespun wisdom frequently isn't.

I don't hit children.

---

First off, there is a world of difference between CP and physical abuse. Spanking a child to where the skin stings for a few seconds in CP, any punishment resulting in pain for longer than this, bruising, bleeding or broken bones is obviously physical abuse and can lead to physical and mental trauma to a child. CP should always be followed with verbal correctment, explaining to the child the correct behavior and why it is so. Proper punishment shouldn't leave the child fearing the parent not to do something wrong again, they should instead remember why what they did was wrong, and do the right thing. IMHO, CP should only be used in the most extreme cases of child misbehavior.

CP may be "homespun wisdom" but it has worked for hundreds of years before the APA said otherwise. If you're among those who believe that it should be outlawed, the same as those who seek to ban guns, because of the people that use them improperly, then I guess I can't reach you. I believe that we shouldn't all be punished for the poor judgment of the few.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
Also keep in mind Bugger is in High School. I'm really the savant of these boards

---

Wait, what?
I've mentioned my age on the thread before. If that qualifies you as a savant that you figured it out (when I told you no less), I'd refrain from contacting the psychinc agency recruit hotline just yet. Or did you mean some other word, and typed savant in instead?

Anyway on topic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Wouldn't it be easier if the whole world spoke the same language, and for that matter used the same measuring system?

---

Measuring system I can agree with. There's no cultural significance or distinct superiority in our measuring system's being different than the rest of the world. I mean, we even use SI measurements in architecture and scientific fields- why not go the whole nine yards? Most thermometers provide both fahrenheit and celsius, grams and pounds, liters and gallons- it seems a lot more efficient to simply drop the foot-fluid ounce-pound measuring system we have and simply use the international standard.

Languages on the other hand- there's the (somewhat poetic) risk of homogenization that faces. Furthermore, mandating an international language (like Esperanto, for example) only improves efficiency in communication if there are no other languages taught inherently. If it's simply layered on, people will continue speaking english, mandarin, spanish, japanese, etc and it will simply be thrown on the metaphorical heap of languages one can learn. All attempts made towards easing communication become utterly redundant. And yaku makes an excellent point- the deaf still use sign language and the blind braille. Even if all spoken languages were standardized, they would speak differently and barriers would persist.

Take as an example what happens when first-generation immigrants come to america. Often they do not learn english if they have not already, and they pass on their inherited language to their children, who learn english as well. By keeping such languages as actually spoken and used ones, culture is preserved. As another example, look at romantic Latin. It's a dead language, and the only people who learn it do so to translate texts. I took it in school and we didn't even learn to speak it- only write and translate.

And as far as internationally spoken languages go: I would argue we already have a de facto international language- English. English is the business language and the entertainment language the world over. Most nations in Europe teach English as a mandatory/primary language, in fact (much as some public and private schools here do with Spanish). Overlaying something like Esperanto is generally useless in that regard: we communicate just fine already. And again, there's always employment as translators.

Switching subjects:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
I would like to continue the discussion on corporal punishment that started in PFS 306.

Corporal punishment can be used as an effective means of punishment without causing long-term effects on a child, if used in the proper context and with other supporting parenting techniques. As other members of MOTL have shown, yes they have been spanked as a child and are not mentally defective or extraordinarily violent. That means that corporal punishment can be used to a positive effect.

---

Whoa, not so fast there. Simply because it does not fit the dramatized nightmare scenarios of a psychopathic child does not mean corporal punishment is an overall boon. Careful with your statements.

quote:

---

This not always necessarily the case, but it is usually because of improper use by the parents: the use of CP in an unfit emotional state, or using it excessively or at improper times, such as in public or when the child is not old enough to recognize that their behavior is incorrect.

---

Then what is proper use? Who will mandate such a restriction? There exists no such standardization of alternative forms of punishment. Corporal punishment, much as responsibility punishment, differs in efficacy from child to child.

AFA not being old enough to know their behaviour is incorrect: Spank a kid and he'll know whatever he did is incorrect. :/

quote:

---

And I wasn't saying the CP is the proper way to punish your daughter for her not doing homework. Clearly physical punishment isn't going to help your daughter in the long term to make her motivated to do schoolwork. Yakusoku's post was very well thought out, and a good start in helping your daughter's studies.

---

Okay. Before going further I want to clear something up so that nobody who is or will join into this debate has any miscommunications about your stance or anyone else's:
From what I understand, you are NOT saying that corporal punishment is strictly better than other forms, or that it is the best way to raise a child- rather you simply are objecting to its demonization. Am I right in this assesment?
Also, if such is not the case, would it be erroneous for me to assume you're playing devil's advocate?

quote:

---

First off, there is a world of difference between CP and physical abuse. Spanking a child to where the skin stings for a few seconds in CP, any punishment resulting in pain for longer than this, bruising, bleeding or broken bones is obviously physical abuse and can lead to physical and mental trauma to a child. CP should always be followed with verbal correctment, explaining to the child the correct behavior and why it is so.

---

Yes, providing it with the proper context and explanation is important, but at some level it's still hitting your child as punishment. I don't know yet where to stand on the slightly-hysterical notion that ALL corporal punishment is child abuse, but you have to at least concede that point that no matter what you are still striking a child as punishment. The psychological ramifications are up for debate, but that's still the bottom line.

quote:

---

CP may be "homespun wisdom" but it has worked for hundreds of years before the APA said otherwise.

---

That in no way suggests or implies that it is a good thing. Slavery? Polygamy? They may be extreme examples, but simply because something was acceptable or practiced with great frequency in past ages does not mean it is valid or to be encouraged now. This is an invalid rebuttal.

quote:

---

If you're among those who believe that it should be outlawed, the same as those who seek to ban guns, because of the people that use them improperly, then I guess I can't reach you. I believe that we shouldn't all be punished for the poor judgment of the few.

---

What the hell does corporal punishment have to do with gun control???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Switching subjects:
Whoa, not so fast there. Simply because it does not fit the dramatized nightmare scenarios of a psychopathic child does not mean corporal punishment is an overall boon. Careful with your statements.

Then what is proper use? Who will mandate such a restriction? There exists no such standardization of alternative forms of punishment. Corporal punishment, much as responsibility punishment, differs in efficacy from child to child.

AFA not being old enough to know their behaviour is incorrect: Spank a kid and he'll know whatever he did is incorrect. :/

Okay. Before going further I want to clear something up so that nobody who is or will join into this debate has any miscommunications about your stance or anyone else's:
From what I understand, you are NOT saying that corporal punishment is strictly better than other forms, or that it is the best way to raise a child- rather you simply are objecting to its demonization. Am I right in this assesment?
Also, if such is not the case, would it be erroneous for me to assume you're playing devil's advocate?

---

It is up to the parent to determine what is best for their children. You are right, I am not saying that CP is better than other forms of punishment. I am objecting to its demonization by PD. Thank you for pointing this out for clarification. I'm not really playing devil's advocate - I'm not a parent myself yet, and I don't believe that I would personally use CP except for extreme circumstances.

quote:

---

Yes, providing it with the proper context and explanation is important, but at some level it's still hitting your child as punishment. I don't know yet where to stand on the slightly-hysterical notion that ALL corporal punishment is child abuse, but you have to at least concede that point that no matter what you are still striking a child as punishment. The psychological ramifications are up for debate, but that's still the bottom line.

That in no way suggests or implies that it is a good thing. Slavery? Polygamy? They may be extreme examples, but simply because something was acceptable or practiced with great frequency in past ages does not mean it is valid or to be encouraged now. This is an invalid rebuttal.

What the hell does corporal punishment have to do with gun control???

---

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
Education needs to be revamped completely and the masses need compassion and an understanding that we cannot stifle diversity. If we do, so ends our evolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
If a truly terrible group ends up in power, they'll only last a year anyway. I'll still take random selection every year over systematic selection of power-hungry nepotists every 4.

---

Your profile says you live in Massachusetts. The eastern seaboard is generally well-educated and at least somewhat rational and intelligent. Take a trip across the country. Just going a few hours west from where I live (Philadelphia) can take you into places where you'd be shocked at what you run in to. This isn't meant to be a jab at rural areas - there are definitely some intelligent people out there and some stupid people on the coasts. However, there IS a disparity, mostly because there is more higher education on the coasts than in middle America. That being said, I'd be truly frightened at a random sample of people running the country. At least I know Bush was capable of rational thought. You can't say that for some people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
You consider our current state "running pretty smoothly?" What about the fact that the government is broke? How about the rampant Clinton-Bush nepotism/borderline ruling families? How are we going to pay for Social Security? It's all about the budget, and we're not able to pay our current debts, let alone the ridiculously large numbers that we're going to owe within a generation.

---

I definitely agree that there are major issues that must be addressed. Minimally, however, our government is functional, our problems are fixable, and our daily lives are not in shambles. This can not be said of many other nations. Yes, we have issues, but not the "Revolt now - ANYTHING is preferable to what we're currently dealing with" kind of issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
I don't think selfishness is always bad. Economics demands it. Perfect selfishness is the same as perfect altruism, in much the same way that perfect capitalism is the same as perfect socialism. Sadly, nothing is perfect. Oh and as for your point about people being able to be selfish and yet benefit society: check out this article. We are not rational, that's for sure. We are not capable of not minding seeing others live well.

---

I don't think selfishness is always bad either, and I don't think I ever said that. My point was simply that just because selfishness is acceptable doesn't mean it's the only option.
The article you presented was an interesting read. However, I do think the case presented differs slightly from standard issues in that the people had a personal vendetta against those with large salaries. The president would presumably not have anything against the American people on the same level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Remember how Obama vowed to end "Don't ask, don't tell?" Remember how many gay activists cheered his defense of gay rights? I don't know the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that a fair number of the voters who voted for him support gay rights.

Tyranny by the majority is, by definition, a feature of democracy. Sadly, American Democracy is not just tyranny by the majority, but worse, it's tyranny by the elected few. All of which is eliminated in pure anarchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Gosh, I wonder how we ever managed to communicate as a nation these last 200-odd years without a national language.
No, sorry. Try again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
This was probably a poor allegory; I was simply stating that creating laws making it illegal for parents to spank their children because of abusive parents is equivalent to taking everyone's guns away because of gun violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
The difference is that guns are tools used by people. CP, on the other hand, is an act, not a tool. Banning it is similar to outlawing murder or assault, not gun control. The question is simply whether it's damaging enough to qualify as violent. Were there any studies done on this topic?

---

There was a study I read on apa.org's website that PD had provided a link to. What I got out of it mostly was that there were too many variables involved to determine whether CP has a negative effect on all children, and that they had difficulty drawing the line between CP and physical abuse in their studies, which I found odd because it seems like a pretty bold line to me.

"Baumrind et al. suggest that those parents whose emotional make-up may cause them to cross the line between appropriate corporal punishment and physical abuse should be counseled not to use corporal punishment as a technique to discipline their children. But, that other parents could use mild to moderate corporal punishment effectively. "The fact that some parents punish excessively and unwisely is not an argument, however, for counseling all parents not to punish at all."

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
No, you try again. National languages have nothing to do with what people speak on a day-to-day basis - you can still talk with your friends in any manner you want. They deal with government papers and other such litigation, which is currently printed in multiple languages in certain areas thanks to high minority populations. This costs lots of money. I'm not especially concerned with the issue, but there are valid monetary arguments for a national language.

---

That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a nationalized language is not something of dire importance- the government has been communicating just fine. That's why I said we as a nation. Not we, individually. Internal affairs are conducted just like casual communications- in our history, with a minimum of difficulty. I know of no historical situation where the lack of a standardized national language proved a severe impediment to our government, but maybe there is one and I've simply never heard of it.

AFA as pamphlets go- There may be a monetary drain there, yes, but is it significant enough to warrant an overhaul of the system? I guess it's a matter of opinion.

Gotta go, sorry this was kind of short.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

Obviously that's an unfair statement. Still... Maybe this is a good thing, though: closing Guantanamo is just a publicity stunt that doesn't affect the dozens of other such prisons that the US administers the world over. It's not enough just to close Guantanamo: they must all be closed.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Sigh. I guess America really enjoys torturing innocent people.

---

Seriously? THAT's the conclusion you get from that? I didn't realize that it's so unreasonable to expect Obama to have an acceptable plan in place for how to deal with the people currently detained there before they would fund the closure. That's not putting the cart before the horse or anything to throw money at the problem without a strategy in place for how the process will work. Nope, it's definitely a love of torture guiding that vote. Totally.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Seriously? THAT's the conclusion you get from that? I didn't realize that it's so unreasonable to expect Obama to have an acceptable plan in place for how to deal with the people currently detained there before they would fund the closure. That's not putting the cart before the horse or anything to throw money at the problem without a strategy in place for how the process will work. Nope, it's definitely a love of torture guiding that vote. Totally.

---

Did you even read my next sentence? It read:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

Obviously that's an unfair statement.

---

While love of torture may not have guided that vote, fear stemming from the recent Republican media blitz clearly seems to have had an effect. While it's acceptable to wait for a plan, it's NOT acceptable to keep innocent and tortured civilians in their tormentors' hands while waiting for yet more paperwork to go through. At the very least, restore most of their rights. At the very least, provide for a relatively comfortable lifestyle while they wait. Do not continue holding them hostage. Don't persist in your illegal activity. If I'm growing marijuana that I claim is for medical purposes but the authorities have me under investigation, they put a stop to all growing until everything has been sorted out.

Similarly, you shouldn't force these people to wait even longer before they can leave their cells freely, or before they are granted a minimum of human and legal rights.

It looks to me like denying the funds to close the facility--rather than, for example, postponing, or granting some/all conditionally--is a more significant step towards obstructing the process entirely, than it is a step in the direction of reasonable relocation.

If you can't bring adequate charges against them, then they must be released. They may go wherever they wish, and you may even have a responsibility to facilitate their re-integration in their chosen locale. The details can be worked out later, but restoring their rights and providing for a modicum of comfort cannot. Strict dates must be set for the prison's closing, because it cannot be put off indefinitely. Denying these funds creates very real problems for the proposed date, and a date really should be made concrete.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

Did you even read my next sentence? It read:

While love of torture may not have guided that vote, fear stemming from the recent Republican media blitz clearly seems to have had an effect. While it's acceptable to wait for a plan, it's NOT acceptable to keep innocent and tortured civilians in their tormentors' hands while waiting for yet more paperwork to go through. At the very least, restore most of their rights. At the very least, provide for a relatively comfortable lifestyle while they wait. Do not continue holding them hostage. Don't persist in your illegal activity. If I'm growing marijuana that I claim is for medical purposes but the authorities have me under investigation, they put a stop to all growing until everything has been sorted out.

Similarly, you shouldn't force these people to wait even longer before they can leave their cells freely, or before they are granted a minimum of human and legal rights.

It looks to me like denying the funds to close the facility--rather than, for example, postponing, or granting some/all conditionally--is a more significant step towards obstructing the process entirely, than it is a step in the direction of reasonable relocation.

If you can't bring adequate charges against them, then they must be released. They may go wherever they wish, and you may even have a responsibility to facilitate their re-integration in their chosen locale. The details can be worked out later, but restoring their rights and providing for a modicum of comfort cannot. Strict dates must be set for the prison's closing, because it cannot be put off indefinitely. Denying these funds creates very real problems for the proposed date, and a date really should be made concrete.

---

Whether you qualify that it's unfair or not, you still said it, despite the fact that it's patently ridiculous and insulting. Namecalling and inflammatory statements don't make people really want to rush to aid your cause.

If you want to put your own spin on things, fine, but it takes a pretty cynical and pessimistic person to make the assumptions you have that this is all being done primarily to prevent things from happening. In an ideal world, it's great to just let them all loose in the land of rainbows and unicorns and everyone can hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where you can't just open the doors and let these people go free. There is a process that must occur and whether or not it's the perfect situation, it takes time and effort to make sure it's done in an appropriate manner. I'm not saying it's fair, just that it's the way things are. Blame bureaucracy.

No matter how much you want it to be true, saying that the details can be worked out later is a recipe for disaster. How big of an idiot would you be if you just wrote out a big check to a contractor to repair damage to your home before he inspects the home and determines what actually needs to be done and develops plans? Even if the home obviously needs to be fixed immediately to be livable, you still simply don't do that. It's just not the right way to do something. Proper planning prevents poor performance and all.

The rest of your issues regarding restoration of rights and all is completely off of the subject of funding to close Gitmo and just distracts from the matters at hand. None of that has any relation of the closing of Guantanamo Bay and that process. They're two completely different issues. You can release all of the prisoners tomorrow without closing the facility (although admittedly that would be pretty senseless) or you can close the facility immediately and send them all to other prisons, which still doesn't address your secondary complaints. It's likely most efficient to coordinate the two to happen simultaneously, but one doesn't necessarily hinge on the other.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Whether you qualify that it's unfair or not, you still said it, despite the fact that it's patently ridiculous and insulting. Namecalling and inflammatory statements don't make people really want to rush to aid your cause.

---

Sure, fair enough. I expressed my disappointment in a manner that was inflammatory and that I openly acknowledged was unfair. I'll re-concede that, and we can move on.

Of course, kidnapping and torturing people the world over likewise does not make me want to rush to the defence of your political system, and it definitely makes me hesitant to assume that the senate has only lovey-dovey good intentions.

quote:

---

If you want to put your own spin on things, fine, but it takes a pretty cynical and pessimistic person to make the assumptions you have that this is all being done primarily to prevent things from happening.

---

Really? I don't think it takes all that much pessimism and cynicism. Just look at the "real world". Look at the outrageous human rights violations that occurred under the previous regime. Look at the recent media campaign to justify those atrocities. Now look at Obama's recent decision NOT to release photos of detainee abuse, a move that clearly violates his own electoral standpoint. Look at the recent policy reversal with regard to military commissions. Am I really wrong to be suspicious of the motivations behind the funding denial?

Regardless, this decision clearly affects the timeline that the President initially set out for the prison's closing, making it a rather optimistic date. And surely a concrete deadline is something that is necessary to maintain credibility. No?

80 million is small potatoes for you, especially considering the billions that were recently handed out string-free. This in itself is certainly not a good argument for repeating that move on a smaller scale, but it indicates to me that the Senate's priorities are a little wonky. Today, the Senate also allowed a further $91-billion for Iraq and Afghanistan; is the plan for that money truly any more detailed?

quote:

---

In an ideal world, it's great to just let them all loose in the land of rainbows and unicorns and everyone can hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Unfortunately, we live in the real world where you can't just open the doors and let these people go free. There is a process that must occur and whether or not it's the perfect situation, it takes time and effort to make sure it's done in an appropriate manner.

---

In the "real world", there's also supposed to be a process in place for incarcerating them, yet it was never followed in any respect whatsoever. I fail to see the difficulty with deciding where they'll be held while their current jail is closed: the answers should be crystal clear. Expedite the legal processes that have been on hold, and that will deal with most of them. Those deemed guilty can be transferred to just about anywhere you decide. What's the difficulty? The "process" you speak of has been denied them for years, and has recently been delayed a number of times. Since it can be halted so easily, why not fast-track it? Or, at the very least, set very clear dates for its progression, and ensure the proper treatment of the accused.

quote:

---

No matter how much you want it to be true, saying that the details can be worked out later is a recipe for disaster. How big of an idiot would you be if you just wrote out a big check to a contractor to repair damage to your home before he inspects the home and determines what actually needs to be done and develops plans? Even if the home obviously needs to be fixed immediately to be livable, you still simply don't do that. It's just not the right way to do something. Proper planning prevents poor performance and all.

---

That's not at all what I was suggesting. What I was saying is that the question of which countries will accept these people as citizens, whether they should receive reparations, and that sort of stuff can wait until they are determined to be guilty or innocent. Likewise, the question of which jails should house the guilty need not be answered immediately: it can be left to the presiding judge, should these people be deemed guilty at all. What can't wait is the start of their trials in a fair atmosphere.

The existence of Guantanamo Bay itself is pretty much irrelevant, since these people can be held in waiting at Bagram or any other detention centre that the US administers. I guess that what I am trying to say is that I just don't see why so much fuss is attached to Guantanamo Bay itself; the US has all kinds of places where it can stash what's there, so long as these transfers are well documented. What's so special about Guantanamo that it can't be closed? Why is it relevant that the prisoners currently live in Guantanamo rather than Bagram? Their rights should apply regardless of where they are held captive, and the process can continue from wherever that is, can it not?

quote:

---

The rest of your issues regarding restoration of rights and all is completely off of the subject of funding to close Gitmo and just distracts from the matters at hand. None of that has any relation of the closing of Guantanamo Bay and that process. They're two completely different issues. You can release all of the prisoners tomorrow without closing the facility (although admittedly that would be pretty senseless) or you can close the facility immediately and send them all to other prisons, which still doesn't address your secondary complaints. It's likely most efficient to coordinate the two to happen simultaneously, but one doesn't necessarily hinge on the other.

---

With respect, I disagree about their rights being peripheral. If they are granted rights, then why does their holding ground matter at all? And if the holding ground really is irrelevant, then there seems to be much less sense in blocking the funds required to shut it down. Do you see what I'm getting at? The reason given for blocking the funds is that the question of the prisoners is up in the air; but that applies regardless of whether or not they're at Guantanamo. It applies to those in Bagram as well.

If the demand was explicitly for the fair treatment and immediate trial of detainees, before funds wer allocated, then I'd be fine with it. But that does not seem to be the explicit aim here. Rather, this looks a lot more (to me) like an opportunity to say: "Oh whoops. We still have hundreds of prisoners held illegally worldwide? We can't do anything about it because our deadline was scrapped by the Senate. We need to try again. (And again and again.)"

You see, my problem is with the lack of clear deadlines. One seemed to have been set by Obama: it seemed like closing Guantanamo in a year meant that the prisoners would have to be dealt with. If Guantanamo will no longer be closed within the year, however, then all of a sudden that makes the release of the prisoners that much further away--indefinitely far away.

Maybe I've contradicted myself, and that's fair enough. Maybe the Senate truly is working for the interests of rainbows and unicorns everywhere, and hasn't at all bowed to recent Republican pressure. If that's the case, however, then I'd like to see some very clear timelines and plans being made, rather than harmful arguments about the harm that full disclosure might engender. I want the administration to be very clear about its policy from the get-go, and I don't want to see funding issues used as a political smokescreen (as with the photos and military tribunals, although funds weren't the screen there, but rather "harm to troops"). Right now, from what I read in that article, I have little faith in the fact that this will not be used as a smokescreen, as a means of saying "we tried, but it wasn't our fault that we failed".

That is all.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

Today, the Senate also allowed a further $91-billion for Iraq and Afghanistan; is the plan for that money truly any more detailed?

---

Actually? Yes, yes it is.
I have to leave for home within the next 5 minutes or so so I can't go into it fully now but I'll be sure to respond in greater detail once I've made it home.

quote:

---

I guess that what I am trying to say is that I just don't see why so much fuss is attached to Guantanamo Bay itself; the US has all kinds of places where it can stash what's there, so long as these transfers are well documented. What's so special about Guantanamo that it can't be closed? Why is it relevant that the prisoners currently live in Guantanamo rather than Bagram? Their rights should apply regardless of where they are held captive, and the process can continue from wherever that is, can it not?

---

Again I don't have much time to go into detail just yet, but the answer to your question is yeah, it is more important. I'll explain myself fully when I have the time; expect the followup post to come between an hour and an hour and a half from now.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

Today, the Senate also allowed a further $91-billion for Iraq and Afghanistan; is the plan for that money truly any more detailed?

---

Allow me to amend my previous statement: it *should* be. Without going into too much detail into the Obama plan (as frankly I'm kind of tired right now :/), I can and will say that the money is being distributed for a large variety of things in afghanistan- if there's one quality to respect in his current approach, it's the willingness to attack all sides of the problem. Provided this new spending increase is in line with the rest of his plans, I'd expect to see most of the following being included in that package (aside from requesite troop supplies):
-Shoring up the current government
-Instituting liscensing and alternative livelihood strategies for the opium problem
-other incidentals
And honestly, most of the non-strictly military spending will go towards the PRTs' construction efforts- that seems to be the bulk of his strategy.

quote:

---

I guess that what I am trying to say is that I just don't see why so much fuss is attached to Guantanamo Bay itself; the US has all kinds of places where it can stash what's there, so long as these transfers are well documented. What's so special about Guantanamo that it can't be closed? Why is it relevant that the prisoners currently live in Guantanamo rather than Bagram? Their rights should apply regardless of where they are held captive, and the process can continue from wherever that is, can it not?

---

I agree, in strictly moral terms it's almost an irrelevant move, but strategically it's HUGE. Contrary to what many of the more hive-minded and dogmatic conservatives will believe (check and skiz, feel free to interject at any moment), it's tactically genious. As you probably imagine (since you seem well-versed on topics in general), and as history has demonstrated, fighting insurgencies using 'conventional' tactics is ineffectual, wasteful, and largely unsuccessful. At some level, like it or not, we have to engage in a war of PR. And while some hawkish republicans (such as the ones dictating the foreign policies of the last eight years) who like to overcompensate in their foreign views will crap out bricks hearing me say that, it's the unavoidable truth. We have to, at some level, engage in a war of ideology against the Taliban. Everything we do that is known in Afghanistan that could be twisted by their propaganda directly helps the terrorists. When we detain and abuse people without due process of law, their ranks swell. When we demonstrate a flagrant disregard for any sort of strategy at all dealing with post-invasion Iraq, the minds of their nation turn a little closer to the Taliban. So while you're right, it does not really help the situation, it does oodles for our PR. Closing Guantanmo Bay is not only the morally correct decision, it's also the militarily correct decision. The Taliban has already suffered a tremendous ideological blow with our election of Obama; this is another heavy strike.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Wouldn't it be easier if the whole world spoke the same language, and for that matter used the same measuring system?

---

Probably impossible to concieve one "World" language in which every human being can communicate with....however Istrongly agree with you and the metric system. For years America has had it ass backwards, and I really wish(for convience sake just like a national language) we push to get rid of the current system and eventually convert to metric.

BTW 90-6 Closing GTB got shot down like a paper airplane attacking a Battleship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BoltBait:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

---

What Mr. Gordon neglected to mention is that the private sector doesn't necessarily do any better: take the reconstruction of Iraq as a case in point. They were so busy making record profits by subcontracting to contractors who subcontracted to contractors who subcontracted to contractors who subcontracted to contractors (literally: we're talking 4 subcontractors) that they completely forgot to actually do the work they were supposed to do. This wasn't just an aberration, but the established (and approved!) norm. Indeed, the history of right-wing Friedmanite economics shows us that pure, unadulterated capitalism really is the worst economic system, despite all the others. For reference, I'm thinking of the free-market experiments in Iraq, South America (notably Chile and Argentina), Poland, Russia, and Latvia in the last 25 years or so.

Mr. Gordon should also try to take more recent examples that could be hailed as representative of "government running business". Reaching back 92 years for "government's track record" really isn't what I'd call providing an accurate picture. In any case, it would be just as easy for the other side to point to all kinds of disasters (including our recent catastrophes) to show that "private business can't run private business". Either way, I don't think that the argument can really be allowed to go through.

If we're going to judge the Obama administration, let's do it according to their proposed plans, rather than plans that failed over 92 years ago.

Lastly, Mr. Gordon neglects to mention a very important issue: the goals of private corporations and of the government are generally quite different. Insurance companies can easily make a killing on healthcare because it doesn't matter how many are trampled underfoot; the government, on the other hand, has a duty to care for just those people, and so its costs rise.

Frankly, I don't think that was at all a fair and balanced article. To be fair, it would have to look at contemporary examples, and to do so it would probably have to focus on just a few, and take them from elsewhere in the world. It should look at what has worked as well as what hasn't, and it shouldn't be judging your new administration without first explicitly examining its plans. I too can just as easily say "whoaz, Corporationz is badz, since GM, Chrysler, AIG, and dozens of bankz worldwide have collapsed/are collapsing". That doesn't make it true, or a good argument.

That article is full of fallacious reasoning and unwarranted assumptions, and it's short enough that I'm willing to go line-by-line come morning, if you'd like. If not, then I hope that what I've written above suffices. There are ways to make a case against the government stepping into the corporate fray, but Mr. Gordon does not seem to have stumbled onto them in this article.

EDIT: Missed a "contractor" in the "subcontractor" chain.
EDIT 2: The point I want to make can be made quite simply: the corporate sector and the government have different priorities. The corporate sector looks for profits, and the government is supposed to provide services; in the quest for profit, the corporate sector essentially cuts services. That explains the higher cost of government services, and the profits of the corporate sector. But high profits don't mean that it's more efficient. Again, look at the reconstruction of Iraq: epic corporate FAIL (for services)--but HUGE financial bonanza.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

I'm quite disappointed by the lack of a definite timetable and the confirmation (again, that is) that

quote:

---

military commissions “are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war,” Mr. Obama said. And in an echo of the justification used by Mr. Bush, he defended them on the basis that “they allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.”

---

Bollocks, I say. Holding people indefinitely without charge is simply unacceptable, no matter how difficult the situation. The fact that someone else created the mess doesn't absolve us from our duty to clean it up--and leaving the carpet stains there for all to see does not count as cleaning up. It really does look like this issue is going to be made to fade away over time, and that's really quite sad.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

5/28/09, James Carville vs. Karl Rove, interviewed live by Charlie Rose. I am THERE.