The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

If only this were true! Let Europe and South Korea and everyone else pay for their own national defense, and welcome the red chinese bases that will replace ours.

Fair point, bb. Asking permission to shoot someone, rather than preventing the intrusion. Mind you, she could have been scared out of her mind and desperate to make her one shot count. That said, if you're intruding and someone fires a 'warning shot', you'd still run like the wind.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

The TEA Party is just fed up with corrupt government and the only way to fight back is to go back to the original intent of the founders and that to to just plainly follow the constitution. How can that be wrong?

There is so many unconstitutional policies on and everyone knows it.

The report on the government officials practicing insider trading just came out and it indicated a 98%+ corruption of elected leaders. How sad. Only 2 republicans were singled out as having not participated in this actions, and that was Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. These 2 don't have a chance of winning the party nomination because they are deemed too radical or such. Are they? Or have we drifted astray? I would gather there would be a Democrat or 2 also that have clean sheets and they should run against Obama.

We don't need more of the same. We need change. Obama did not bring change. The wars did not end. Gitmo still stands. The Patriot Act is even more intrusive. TSA - need I say more? Spending is totally out of control. Our credit rating took a hit because we yet again raised out debt ceiling. Have we not learned anything from what is going on on Greece and Europe?

We have to wake up and vote for officials who are loyal to the ideals of the Constitution and not to themselves. We the people also need to stop asking for a handout just because its "free". nothing is free only freedom and we are loosing it at a very fast rate.

Stop voting just to beat the other guy. I feel that Gingridge can wipe the floor in an Obama debate but he will never get my vote.
For purely principle sake I would have to Vote for Paul or Bauchmann. Sure I disagree on some things but they would preform their elected duties following the constitution. Isn't that what the a are supposed to do? Don't they take an oath on the Bible to uphold the constitution?

@Fletch

It often refers to someone who is belligerent, unreasonable, rudely intrusive or aggressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch/insult

I consider myself a reasonable person. I've never slapped anyone I've disagreed with.

I guess this is that less-intrusive "small government" I keep hearing about.

The fact that this debate has reached this point shows how badly off the US is. How hard is it to understand that a society's well-being is a function of the well-being of each of its members? As @HugeJerk rightly suggests, if you want an example of small government, look at Somalia (and much of central Africa). Talk about a land of the free, everyone fending for themselves, no intrusive regulations, and only money talks, yay! Meanwhile, people in Northern Europe are happy, healthy and well-educated... but they pay high taxes,the horror!!

Badly organised government and social services are not justification enough for little to no government and social services.

I liked how the credits on some older English shows went horizontally across the bottom of the screen, less intrusive and still gets the job done.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.

When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.

Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.
Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.
It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.
Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.
It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.

Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.

It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.

Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.

It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

We should all wear helmets all the time. We should pass laws that if we do something that might cause ourselves harm we will pay fines to the government. We should have laws that keep us safe from everything.
If we start now and outlaw just a few things a year , pretty soon we will all be safe.
All joking aside... I really hate intrusive fucking pussies.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS MRS. KRAVITZ.

It's not a strawman argument, it's a fact; no argument needed. And I didn't say that all whites or even a majority are racists. I do think that most Americans of any color are apathetic, and would rather watch (and catch on phone video) a person suffering distress, than help. Apathy is all you need, not outright hostility, but today there is plenty of both.

Sure, you and I can make the distinction between reasonable public and private services. But what about these state politicians who are passing birther bills (various states), trying to privatize their health care systems (LA), and trying to nullify federal laws they don't like (various states). Not to mention the tea-idiots in Washington. I don't trust these fools to get those nuances, and I thank god every day that the federalists won out way-back-when. Because as much as some of these people say the federal government is too big and intrusive, they don't care if at the state/local level, things are run by fiat.

Since they don't get nuance, I get very nervous when on one hand, some politicians want everything privatized, then others say that private entities can serve who they want. A nice one-two punch.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
Even in 2011 you can walk into a restaurant or public establishment and not get served due to race.
With the number of racist kooks that have come out of the woodwork since Obama's election, it's not hard to believe that given the opportunity, a segregationist belt could emerge in this country again.
I think many libertarians don't care about that because, since it is a white majority country and most libertarians are white, they won't have to live with the negative consequences of a libertarian policy that removed anti-segregationist regulation. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
I liked those ideas, but I still don't think I would be confortable living in his ideal america. I'd be sitting in the back of greyhound, and using separate bathrooms at Walmart.

That's ridiculous. No way. Segregation would never happen again. Never. Even if you repealed every law in the land.


I'm talking about segregation in terms of public services and places, not refusal of private services. Think more Rosa Parks and the segregated school systems from the 50s and 60s. I think the majority of people believe that segregation is bad, so you won't see it among most private companies.
So, it is hard to believe that a "segregationist belt" would emerge if given the opportunity. And it's a copout to say that the majority of people in any party are white, because the US population is so. Means nothing and it's a straw man argument. I could say that the majority of Democrats are white, but that's just statistical numbers.
Also, just because you're white doesn't make you a racist.

>> ^MayaBaba:

Transportation Security Administration officers are working on the edge where bad people are and bad things happen. They are doing a job I for one would not wish to do, they are doing the job well!
Do I want to know about every actual terrorist or nutter, (it's not always political) they capture?
No I wouldn't. I’d rather they dealt with it secretly, and no big press release is made.
What do you think they should do when they discover a device on a passenger?
1) Tell them to go away and not do it again?
2) Take the device off them and then 2 above?
3) Expose the device to the adjacent crowd and try to embarrass the fool?
4) Say "Hands up you under arrest"?
5) Wrestle them to the ground and hope?
6) Place a handgun against their temple and pull the trigger?
I know which of those I would want to happen, but you can sleep easy because I’m not in charge; dedicated people from the TSA are in charge and make no mistake about it, thats the front line they are guarding!


Educate thineself young fool.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-other-states-form-caucus-to-oppose-tsa-intrusions

Written by Sen. Sam Slom, R-Hawaii

"For years, a growing number of people and organizations have raised red flags about the operations of the TSA, its costs and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, of ever identifying a single terrorist or crime, while inconveniencing and traumatizing hundreds of citizens. Now TSA will be unionized."

>> ^Yogi:

Just pointing out...this attack on Libya was actually timed to the minute when the news programs turned on for the night. They also had all their crews ready for it in the region, had to fly there and get stuff ready before hand. It was the first attack scheduled for prime time...kinda like Monday Night Football.


I have to agree to disagree, with a bit of what @BoneRemake said. It's a ridiculous notion this time around as we weren't specifically the "spark" that lit the fire. But, on the other hand as in Reagan's case it's almost true. Same with Desert Storm and VERY true for our current intrusion into Iraq. Kosovo and the current Libya are much more of an international effort; Desert Storm was as well.

two posts in and Godwin'd already? Wow.

I completely support them refusing to serve, but the anchor had it right, they're just the minions doing their job. Punish the policymakers instead please. Stop voting for elected officials who support this type of intrusion.