"Is there a tolerable level of violence? No. But sometimes intolerable things must be done."

Well stated.

I did not mean to imply in my earlier post that killing was tolerable or something I desire. Though I'll rejoice in the freedom that war has purchased for me, I will never be glad that people had to die. War is evil, and I hope to never be a willing participant.

Regardless, it is her duty to represent her consituents. And that was my point.

I disagree. That's why we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. We are electing people who represent our standards and viewpoints to make an educated decision for us based on their knowlege and experience.

I applaud Senator Feinstein for making that decision as she is far more informed than the average Californian (I used to be one).

Furthermore, (and I'm probably the only one on this board) I think Bush and his administration are doing an excellent job given their limitations, and I doubt Gore/Leiberman could do much better.

Lastly (and here's where I probably piss everyone off), I think it's awfully pretentious and ignorant for any of us to pretend that we can make informed decisions on how to handle foreign policy (barring the possibility that there are any high-ranking government officials or intelligence community members on this board).

But that's just my opinion...and everyone knows that opinions are like @$$holes....everyone has one and noone particularly cares to hear more about mine.

If you read her quote carefully, you will see that it says if she voted as per the wishes of the people who called her office. That is not of course a scientific poll. I would bet a scientifi poll would reveal much the same as the rest of the country.

Even if it was, she is not bound to vote as per the wishes of her constituents. Right or wrong we have a representative government. I remember the flag burning laws in the late 80s. I live in a very conservative District. My Congressman was hounded to vote for the flag burning ban. Calls and letters were 100 to 1 for the ban. He felt like it was a violation of free speech and voted against it.

I believe that that's exactly some of the reason that many 2nd and 3rd world nations are pissed at us -- because we have to be the top dog, and we'll keep every one else down to do it.

Look, everyone wants the brass ring. A poor guy in a 3rd world country is willing to overlook a leader who violates human rights, rules with an iron fist, and kills anyone in his way, provided the regime puts food on their table. The thing is, countries who have acheived a certain level of prosperity and might have, generally, done so the right way, or at least in a way that is more right than what Iraq has done. This past history of doing things the right way, and only resorting to war when necessary,

In the specific case of America, we're in a position to set an example for the rest of the world. Half of it is that we've chosen to take that position, and half of it is that we've had no choice, and been thrust into that position, with other countries such as our UK brethren watching, cheering and saying "go get 'em!" I'm not saying our allies love everything we do, but there have been times when someone needed to do something and the U.S., being the superpower, did it. Have there been screwups? Hell yeah. Should we have stayed out of a certain number of the things we've gotten our hands in? Maybe. But overall, I think good decisions have been made, and most of our involvements in foreign affairs have had a positive influence, and left behind countries that are better off than before we got there.

I think that history, and our current status as the flagship of modern democracy, affords us the right to say, or at least recommend, who gets to have what in terms of weapons. The part I am not on board with at all is Bush's "we'll do it even if nobody joins us" attitude. I believe that the U.S. needs to not just lead by example, but also make sure that allies and even adversaries understand why we're doing something, and need to be encouraged to go with us. With Iraq, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we should be there, but certainly, Saddam Hussein should not have these things.

Now, Bitt, mind sharing your solution to the global nuclear crisis? Or the situation with Iraq?

When will you guys just get it? The Islamic fundamentalists just don't like secular westerners

I'd like to ask if this is really "fundamentalism". I'm in a class on Islam at the moment, and from what I understand, what Bin Laden is doing is not exactly showing basic Muslim beliefs. Hell, jihad doesn't mean holy war, yet either he or the press keeps using it that way.

All I know is, Jesus, Muhammad, et all would be pissed at all of us these days.

I disagree. That's why we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. We are electing people who represent our standards and viewpoints to make an educated decision for us based on their knowlege and experience.

Well stated. Unfortunately, the masses are sometimes ill-equipped to make decisions based on nothing more than emotional response. The other thing that bothers me is that people have a tendency to judge politicians for making decision they would NOT have made, even though as a civilian, there is simply no way they could possibly know all the facts and be able to weigh the consequences. Being in the position of working for the government, I have, on several occasions, had my mind changed when I was concerned about an (apparently) ill-advised decision, talked to the representative, and been told a few more tidbits of crucial information that the public simply cannot be privy to for various reasons. (Think privacy and secrecy laws).

In other words, I happen to believe that our system works exceedingly well, regardless of our personal feelings.

Unfortunately, the masses are sometimes ill-equipped to make decisions based on nothing more than emotional response.

Yeah, the old saying that Democracy is the theory that the People know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Here's a better take on it. Transcribed from Will Durst's album (referring to the tax rebate check we got a year ago):

Don't get me wrong, man. That 300 bucks last August... That rebate check came in handy. I live here in town, I paid off two parking tickets with it.

But we had this windfall, we could have done anything with it. We could have paid for every hot lunch program in America through the year 2054. We could have put a downpayment on prescription drugs, which they talked about last November and now we haven't heard Word One of. We could have done a lot.

"Oh no, no, you can't do that. Uh-uh. No." "Why?" "Well, the American people want tax cuts."

Duh. The American people also want drive through nickel beer night.

The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people would chew off their own foot if Oprah told them there was liquid gold in their ankle veins. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free.

So yeah, the idea that sometimes the government has to do unpopular things (within reason) is not a problem with me.

So yeah, the idea that sometimes the government has to do unpopular things (within reason) is not a problem with me.

Good point. If we do end up going into Iraq (I hope we don't), then maybe it will be for some reason that the government is withholding - some form of irrefutable evidence that Saddam is going to do something terrible unless we act. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing.

A good example is the Serial sniper (isn't that what started this thread?). The news media was at one point (and still is to a certain extent) hindering the investigation by following investigators looking for clues - disclosing their locations; broadcasting clues that the police did not want to go public; among other things. Basically, these guys (law enforcement) need to do their jobs, and there are certain things they do not want the public to know. Unfortunately, the media is thirsty for any little bit of news so they can include it in their already dry and repetitive coverage.

I suppose it isn't an exact example - but it sort of ties in with what was being discussed. I became irritated when, folliwing the Oklahoma City bombing, they were not only saying how easy it was to make the bomb, but actually showing how to do it on TV. Now, I know, yes, someone who really wanted to do it could use the internet, libraries, etc etc. But just putting stuff up like that on TV opens the door for some lunatic to actually try what they saw on 60 minutes. Same for the sniper, who is most likely also watching the coverage, if he is smart, can use information the media is blabbering out (if they are not careful) to his advantage.

I'm replying to a bunch of comments in one post, and I think none of them from you, BleachLPB, so don't freak out.

I think it's awfully pretentious and ignorant for any of us to pretend that we can make informed decisions on how to handle foreign policy

I think it's ignorant to think that GWB can make informed decisions on anything.

she is not bound to vote as per the wishes of her constituents

Just as members of the electoral college are not required to vote as per the wishes of their consituents, as seen in Florida a while back.

I think that history, and our current status as the flagship of modern democracy, affords us the right to say, or at least recommend, who gets to have what in terms of weapons. The part I am not on board with at all is Bush's "we'll do it even if nobody joins us" attitude.

This goes back to my problem with making non-illegal things illegal in order to prevent the illegal things. As such, I'm not really sure about all of this. There's certainly a large portion of devil's advocacy in my statements, but they're still, I think, valid points that at least need to be considered by more people.

mind sharing your solution to the global nuclear crisis? Or the situation with Iraq?

The only solution I can come up with for the nuclear crisis is to have sent Oppenheimer back in time to prevent himself from creating the bomb. Obviously, though, someone else would have come up with it, and they could have been more evil than the US. You cannot unknow knowledge.

The situation with Iraq? What situation with Iraq? As far as I can tell, it's been fabricated from nothing. Did you think about Iraq at all three years ago? No? What's changed since then? An unrelated group of Muslims attacked us? I've yet to see any evidence at all that ties Iraq to that. Hell, I could have come up with the plan to fly planes into buildings, if I knew many zealots. Folks were always talking about the immense amounts of planning required to have pulled that off. I'll admit that booking flights is not the easiest thing in the world to do, but it's hardly rocket science. So what would they have needed Iraq for? Not to mention that Iraq isn't an Islamic state, which is largely what al Qaeda is pushing for.

I'd like to ask if this is really "fundamentalism".

Of course not, it's just that that word has come to mean religious extremism of late in reference to Christianity, and they've expanded that to Islam as well. Some people have posited that one of the ways that the Taliban controlled their populace was that the populace was largely illiterate, and all of their understanding of the Qu'ran was from being told by their clerics (I forget now what Islamic clerics are called -- sorry), with no way to verify it.

Hell, jihad doesn't mean holy war

Well, it does and it doesn't. There are three or four jihads. All but one of them are internal struggles with one's self. The last actually is war with the infidels, but it's generally considered to be the least important. I don't know if modern thinking is what made that determination or not (I'm hardly an Islamic scholar, much less a scholar of historical Islam), but that's what I've read.

I have, on several occasions, had my mind changed when I was concerned about an (apparently) ill-advised decision, talked to the representative, and been told a few more tidbits of crucial information that the public simply cannot be privy to for various reasons. (Think privacy and secrecy laws).

I'm calling bullshit on that one. There are very few things that the public should not be privy to. In fact, the only ones I can think of are when there is an imminent attack and ``loose lips'' might ``sink ships''. But that doesn't apply here, since GWB has been poking Iraq for months now. It's not like a sneak attack is really a possibility now.

he tax rebate check we got a year ago

Which we then had to pay back in taxes the next year. The tax instructions claimed it was just a loan or some other bullshit.

there are certain things they do not want the public to know

Like what? I understand that you want to withhold one or two pieces of evidence so that you can verify who's a kook and who's real, but that's easily enough done by changing the wording of the letter or something similar. The media is not hindering the investigation. (Other than generally being in the way, I'm sure.) I mean, do you think that the sniper thinks that people are not looking for him? I cannot come up with much that should be restricted, at least in this case in particular. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the public's prurient interests aren't disgusting, but the idea that they shouldn't be allowed to know, is, well, fascist.

Being a Californian and a Democrat, I have to say I hate Feinstein. She had consistently undermined freeedom, is a big-business money whore, and is just plain mean. Don't judge all Democrats by her; according to the ACLU she leans more to the right of many Republicans.

Can you tell I despise her? I actually voted Republican last time she was up for re-election, a first time ever for me, just because nothing can be worse than her. Well, maybe my Congressman David Dreier, a man to the right of Hitler. Sigh.

I cannot come up with much that should be restricted, at least in this case in particular.

The idea with most criminal investigations is that the less the public knows about the crime scenes, the more likely a suspect will give him or herself away by knowing something about the crime scene that the public doesn't. This apparently does happen in real life, not just in detective stories, although I guess it happens less the smarter the criminal is.

Peter

why can't other nations have nukes? (paraphrased)

Like ynot said, nukes will probably keep the peace. But do you really want to let a nation like Iraq get nukes? That would be like giving a known felon a sawed off shotgun. Saddam has expressed his hatred for America before, and I wouldn't be surprised that if and when he had nukes he'd pass one off to a terrorist group. Superpowers have a lot to lose by inciting a nuclear war - 3rd world countries and terrorist organizations don't.

All I know is that the killing in Manassas was accross town from me. I used to rent an apartment a half mile away, I used to go to that station at least twice a week for gas and or smokes.... A guy I work with lives in falls church and another lives in Fredricksburg.... It's hitting way to close to home for me... We all actually hide behind things when we get gas it's frickin rediculous.

On a more comic note... I was listening to the radio the other day and heard the police cheif talking Charles Moose (I think thats his first name) any way... he sounds just like "the ladies man"..."so as soon as I finish dis press conference could any eligable ladies please meet me by the taco stand"

Interestingly, I heard yesterday that 40% of sniper shootings are never solved. Now two things suprised me about the statistic. One is I have never even heard of other sniper shootings (excepting Charles Whitman - The Texas Tower Sniper - and they damn sure caught him) much less that they would have enough cases to run statistics on. Two is that without continued shootings and a subsequent mistake by the shooter, it may never be solved. The irony of that second item should not be lost on anyone.

If anyone is interested, I can post some things that do not add up on the "sniper" and his choice of caliber and technique. I'll look for a link to an AP story of last week that has some similar information.

Like what?

Interested...

Like ynot said, nukes will probably keep the peace.

"How can we have peace without preparing for war?" from the Simpsons, Season 1 Episode 2 "Bart the Genius"

well..... there have certainly been alot of hot feeling in this discussion. And its just too much i want to say and comment on all thats been written.... so screw it.... Lets change the subject..;)
These questions arent meant as critisism at anybody or any ideology, take it for what it is. A question.

I´ve been thinking. How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US. What is it (some) of you guys hate about it. As I see it, its just as good (or bad) ideology as kapitalism is. Both are working towards the same goals (I hope)
Communism is built on a strong state, The government pays and controlls everything. They aim at getting as efficient as possible. In this way you get the same treatment and sallory as your neighbour. Everything is paid for by taxmoney(hospitals/schools, and so on). Nobody ends up a homeless or without proper healthcare.
In capitalism, you are more free to distribute your own money. Less taxes, and the money is increased by reinvestment. Everything is paid for by commercial enterprises (who are run by your own invested money).

Both ideologys aim at the same goal. Provide health and wellbeing for its practitioners. So how can one hate someone just because "they" are doing it differently?

And my other question.... Isnt it so that a political leftwing believe in a strong government. And a rightwing believe at a weak government.
A leftextremist is a "commy". And a rightextremist believs in Anarchy. Then how come the nazis are considered right extremists. They belive in an extremely powerfull government and effiency is what is wanted. (Erasing other races as they consider "lower" and cannot contribute enogh to their state.)
Shouldnt nazis be called leftextremists? Or am i missing a big point here??

Do not think that I belong to any of these ideologys, as I am in the center as possible. Humans rights is the only way. Its good to commercialise but with government controll and guideline.

How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US.

Because, as an economic system, it's the opposite of what our US capitalist ideology strives for. And our government and media have, for many years, done a good job of feeding us with the propoganda that their system was a threat to ours. I assume because they want to encourage the capitalist ideology.

There are, however, many places in the US that support communist thinking if not the specific communist system of another coutry. Small groups such as communes and co-ops operate as little "cells" of pseudo-communism floating in a capitalist sea.

How have the communism gotten such a bad reputation over in the US

Decades of propaganda. It's as simple as that. US news medias showing the "evils" of what the USSR did, and always made sure to associate communism with it, thus it became a bad thing in the minds of US citizens. The exact same thing probably was going on in the USSR, showing all the poverty of the US and associating it with capitalism.

Ultimately, corruption ruins each idealogy. In communism corruption is on a widespread scale since *anybody* who works for the government is in a relatively powerful position (when compared to non-government workers), but the amounts paid per corrupt act are probably not huge. The 50 whatevers to the housing attendant to jump you up the housing list, the 50 to the local cops to avoid being arrested on completely fabricated charges etc.
In capitalism, the corruption is far less widely spread, as government is smaller and less powerful, and business is bigger and more powerful. The damage is just as great - laws being passed to help big business in return for a campaign donation that help the big corporations but rip off the public - eg DCMA, the 'Mickey Mouse' Act of 1976, etc. And let's not forget the carefully woven webs of decit that have brought down Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Tyco etc, robbing people of their jobs and pensions, while the CEOs get very rich. I cannot believe that those scandals could be perpetuated without some wheels being greased along the way.

Before I attempt answer the question of Capitalism Vs. Communism, let me first say that I do not propose to be an authority on either subject. I'll agree with your stipulation that both have noble goals, but unfortunately their methods are not equally successful. Actually I think that if communism were able to exist in a pure state without human corruption, it would easily beat capitalism, for pure capitalism would be cruel an unmerciful. This is why I think that capitalism must have some limits (which it has in the US) to be successful.

As far as the problems inherent in Communism, Communism relies on the state being uncorrupt, as well as the individual producing the goods. The state must be able to evaluate the needs of the common man and distribute goods accordingly. The individual must be willing to produce all that he or she can for the good of others, an act that unfortunately contradicts human nature of selfishness. Instead you'll have people competing for the servicing of their needs, not their production. Production ends up lower because people are unmotivated (“it doesn't benefit me") , and society as a whole suffers. Note that if people could overcome this selfishness, then I think communism might actually work. I have observed with some humor when watching Star Trek: TNG recently that this is exactly the system that Rodenberry foresees in the future (no money, everyone works for the common good).

The brilliance of Capitalism, however, is that it utilizes human selfishness to benefit society. People must compete to produce the most, because that will cause them to gain the most. The evil inherent in this is that in a pure statue you have economic Darwinism, where the less-able-to-produce are treated as if they have no value and are cast aside. A very real ill effect of this in the US is that educators are paid WAY below the amount they benefit society because they are not valued like they should be.

Still, I believe that Capitalism will always end up the victor until humans overcome their natural selfishness.

Edit: Also, this is only the economics. The Atheism of Communism is a deal killer for me.

I think it's ignorant to think that GWB can make informed decisions on anything.

Not as ignorant as making a sweeping staement like that.

Not as ignorant as making a sweeping staement like that.

GWB:: "Hon, what's good?"
Waitress: "Waaaal, folks really like our Steak-and-eggs Super Combo"
GWB: "Well, OK, Hon. Gimme the Steak-and-eggs Super Combo!"

I gotta hand it to you. You're right.

Right vs. Left vs. Communism vs. Fascism, etc.

The main problem with all of this is that there are multiple axes all compressed into one by popular understanding. But there's no real connection between leftism and communism, or rightism and fascism. Let me try to define each of these terms.

Right == The desire to keep the status quo
Left == The desire for change
Fascism == The idea that rights are bestowed by the state
Communism == The idea that all property is owned by the people

So, in fact, Fascism is not the opposite of Communism. The opposite of Fascism would be, I don't know, Anarchism, maybe. The opposite of Communism is Capitolism, more or less.

The connection between the Left and Communism comes from the fact that most Communist states became that way due to the desire for change from the previous state (Tsarist Russia, Batista's Cuba, etc.) and the relationship between western, perhaps particularly American, liberals and their fascination with Communism in the early twentieth century.

I'm not really sure about the connection between the Right and Fascism, but that probably has to do with my lack of knowledge of early twentieth-century Germany, Spain, Italy, and Japan. Perhaps the Fascist governments grew out of an apparent desire for more government control, but that's pure speculation.

In reality, there's no reason why you couldn't have a Fascist Communist government. It'd be one that believed that the state's assets were owned by the people, but whose people had no inherent rights. In fact, that would seem to be a pretty good description of most Eastern European Communist states.

Well, he's run every business he's ever been associated with into the ground, other than the Texas Rangers, and that would have required concerted effort. I certainly don't believe that anyone competent could manage that track record.

Duh, use a bow and arrow with a string tied to the back end of the arrow so you can retrieve it...

The Atheism of Communism is a deal killer for me.

In which direction? Soviet suppression of religion was IMO a Bad Thing, not because it cut down on organised religion in the Soviet Union but because it was such an ineffective way of cutting down on organised religion. People who thought they were God's Chosen Ones tended to revel in the kind of self-righteousness that state suppression fostered. A much more effective way of combatting superstition is to have an open society with a religious free market, in which everyone can see that their One's Chosen God is a fashion choice and not a fact of nature.

Peter

My intent was not to bring religion into the discussion, merely to identify one major issue I have with communism. Still, I suppose now I have to respond to your assertion that the US approach to faith better lets us see that organized religions are really only fashionable superstitions.

My personal belief, as unpopular as it may be, is that Christianity is the only one true religion, so therefore I cannot agree that it is a fashionable superstition. But just because I believe so strongly in Christianity, that doesn’t mean I think you can force people to believe it. I much prefer the "freedom of religion " approach in the US rather than trying to declare the nation as Christian. I have not simply adopted the faith of my parents (neither of which where evangelical Christians) so I am glad that I live in a country where individuals are encouraged to seek out the truth for themselves. And of course I wouldn’t want to live in a place where belief in God was illegal (even though as you pointed out, persecution does tend to bolster a person’s cause).

I missed this further up the thread. I'd just like to point out that communism and atheism, and religion in general, are not related. Marxist/Leninist societies that are based partially on the economic concept of communism usually include atheism as an important tenet, and, of course, Marx stated that ``religion is the opiate of the masses''. But he was hardly the originator of communism -- he just ``popularized'' it with the publication of Das Kapital.

In fact, the earliest reference to a communist society I can think of is Jesus' society. Of course, Paul bastardized all of that, but that's a different story.