Cool, I thought this was the guy.

A very interesting project. South Africa comes to mind. Instead of sweeping everything under the rug, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Instead of retaliation, or "looking forward not back"--reconciliation. If you don't acknowledge--you can't forgive--and you can't move forward.

Forgiveness what a novel idea.

I like that he spends the bulk of his message explaining the never-remarked-upon things that religious and non-religious people have in common. Nobody on the Internet seems to think these help build your side's case or cause the other person to finally see it your way. I think this is the only thing that will ever help anyone see things your way. Kudos.

I also agree that arguments over the actual existence of God are trivial on their own. However, lots of people in power make decisions based on what they think God wants even when it seems contrary to what would be best for everyone. This is where non-believers get irate and try to talk religious people out of their views. To their surprise, initially, it doesn't work, so they label them "the enemy", get labelled as such themselves, and thus ends any hope of a happy reconciliation.

Maybe there can never be a complete reconciliation without everyone leaving religion, or everyone converting to the exact same variety of religion, but if both sides focus on good things that we have in common, at least we can create something better than polarized extremism.

Never!
With Glen, rational thinking and objectivity went out a long time ago. He's a fucking idiot and no amount of reconciliation or spin will bring back his birth-given dignity.


>> ^v1k1n6:

Fools, you guys hear what you want from this clip. Clearly what he is talk about is not literal "shoot them in the head" but but rather a call for a particular party to distance themselves from extremist peoples actions. I hate Glenn Beck but I also have a brain. A 20 second clip is not enough to base a whole argument on left/right and "no better then" flames at the bottom of a video. I thought the sift was smarter then youtubbers, but I guess not.
Be objective.

Not everything is about you Netrunner. The statement talking about balancing government's role as a "threat of violence" versus versus the need to remove a government that stops respecting freedom was a fair one. I was waxing prolix on leftist tyranny creep - I.E. the process of using government to implement leftist social philosophy. I used your comment to show how our government has stopped 'respecting freedom' via tyranny creep. I never recall even mentioning your name. Where did I call you facist? You could only infer that secondarily if you felt that the leftist interpretation of 'social justice' actually should be forced on the people via government edict, and you were mad that I identified such a philosophy as tyranny.

Regardless, I don't see any refutation my position - only protestations that the argument was made. Leftist political philosophy is inherently tyrannical in nature. Modern U.S. governance is drifting more and more leftist every year whether under the GOP or Democrats, and the end result is less freedom and more tyranny. The recent congress is a great example. The American people rejected Obamacare in all its forms... Obama's plan, the House bill, the Senate revisions... All rejected. What did government do? They used tyranny. They rammed the bill through via an unconstitutional, arguably illegal budget reconciliation Tyranny. That's how the left works. When Democracy fails to allow them to get their way, they use force.

I think I will say for the record now that I support the building of the mosque legally. However, I don't think it will "build bridges" or anything wholly positive as intended, and thusly think it is ill-advised. I fully support building most anything you want on private property, I also support peoples right to not like what people are building and request that it be moved. The legality is clear, everything else is pretty tattered to me. I would appreciate anyone's comments on why, with all certainty, building this mosque will bring the community closer to reconciliation.

Go far enough back and we all have the same ancestors. After that, there were a bunch of people and some of them preyed on others. At the same time, there were any number of disasters and windfalls, any amount of luck, good and bad, death, disease, theft, charity, feuds and reconciliations, new ideas and paradigms; all of which affected the society in which we find ourselves and the advantages our parents could pass onto us, what our grandparents could pass on to our parents, our great-grandparents to our grandparents and on. Historical inequality exists, racially driven and, crucially, otherwise, but all of it completely beyond our control so it may as well have been random. Do we consider every bounce of the die in its course, or do we just say it came up six?

Say a millionaire discovered he would have been twice as rich if only his maid's ancestors hadn't ripped his family off 500 years ago, does the maid write him a cheque? History may make for amusing speculation, but it's not a serious study and can never be applied to anything meaningful. For example, I like the idea that black and white were getting along fine until the 1600s when some scheming rich folk invented racism.

>> ^peggedbea:

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).
But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

In Arizona Obama is saying that those laws violate the supremacy clause of that US Constitution.

Which most courts and lawyers agree is a complete BS position. Even his own people have said that what Arizona is doing violate NO LAW, but the best argument they can come up with is the equivalent of saying, "If the Federal government chooses NOT to enforce a law, then the States have no authority to enforce it either..." The only way the Federal challenge will pass is in a stacked puppet court.

Of course the "stomping" he is doing involves challenging the laws in court, which seems like a "legitimate" way of going about it. If the supreme court disagrees then so be it.

Yes - the Federal government suing a state that is trying to enforce FEDERAL law is perfectly normal...

I know I've seen you criticize others for name-calling as being intellectually lazy.

This is true - when referring to forum members. Public figures get no such free pass from me. I generally try to avoid eggregiousness in the practice, but Obama's behavior is such that there really is no 'nice' way to describe it. He isn't just being quaintly, politely offbeat. He is deliberately governing against the will of the people, and lying through his teeth about how he justifies it.

If conservatives put someone sane up there then I might vote for them, but at this point it isn't looking too likely.

It'd be nice. Won't hold my breath. The GOP doesn't want a real fiscal conservative in charge any more than the Democrats do.

On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act [...] CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Those are old numbers. Here are the current ones (May 2010)...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf

In short - the $143 billion (over 10 years) was reduced by 115 billion. So even according to the CBO (and their estimates are questionable at best) the 'deficit reduction' will only be 28 billion over 10 years. 2.8 billion a year. And we're supposed to be exicted about this paltry figure that we bought with personal freedom?

That evil Obama stealing conservative ideas again. He still hasn't learned that it's only constitutional when Republicans do it.

The origins of this are not 'conservative' so please, no falsehood. This was a 'compromise' from a GOP funded group. It is not a conservative approach. Government mandates are not conservative. They are decidedly liberal and leftist - no matter where they originate from.

AZ's new anti-Mexican law

It isn't anti-Mexican. It is "pro-enforcement" of laws that are already perfectly legal, and indeed are the FEDERAL norm. 28 other states are currently in the process of producing identical laws, or very similar ones. I hope they do. I hope every state passes laws that REQUIRE all persons who are stopped by the police - for ANY REASON - to produce valid documents that prove citizenship. And if the person can't prove citizenship - throw them in jail until they can provide that evidence. And if they can't come up with the evidence, then out of the country they go. I have no problem with that. It isn't racist. It isn't 'anti Mexican'. It is pro-enforcement. Boo-freaking-hoo. The only people who would be afraid of such a simple, common sense approach are illegals - and they deserve no consideration no matter what country they originated from.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
1. The CBO has reported that HCR is going to cost hundreds of billions more than projected.
2. [...] the HCR will only reduce the deficit by only 100 billion dollars in a 10 years.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

"On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act [...] CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. "


3. This of course assumes the program doesn't GREATLY run over costs

Certainly a possibility, but we'll see. If it overruns its costs then it might break even, but that's still a better scenario than the wars and upper-income tax cuts which increase the deficit no matter what happens. Why aren't conservatives worried about those costs?


4. We didn't need HCR to strip human freedom from citizens to reduce the deficit.

That evil Obama stealing conservative ideas again. He still hasn't learned that it's only constitutional when Republicans do it.

The only option is to leave. Now.

COIN in Afhganistan and "The Surge" in Iraq have been utter failures.

In Iraq, "The Surge" is not why there's been a decrease in the amount of violence. We can start with Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire that happened before Petraeus' little surge ever happened. Armed Shiite militias pushed out almost all (unarmed) Sunni's from Baghdad, Patreus built huge blastwalls between ethnically opposing neighborhoods, complete with a maze of checkpoints to keep out "insurgents", and made most markets pedestrian only - to keep car & truck bombs from blowing the fuck out of innocent citizens.

There was no "political reconciliation". Unless that means dividing the citizens, arming the shiite militias, and kicking the Sunni's to the curb.

Baghdad has gone from 50/50 split of Sunni/Shia, to a horrible 15% Sunni.

Over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. The vast majority have lost ownership of their homes and can never return.

We have 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan to fight 50-100 members of the Taliban. The Pashtuns want US and NATO forces the fuck out of their country right now, and are not afraid of either the Tajiks or the Hazarahs.

We are not, nor have we ever been in that country to end "safe havens" for terrorists. If so, Tora Bora would've been the last day our soldiers were there. Which was in fucking 2001.


Also, remember those "mineral treasures" we recently found (years and years ago) there? Yeah, that's never had anything to do with Bush's invasion mindset.

Two ancient people, or one divided by history and faith, at once both right and both wrong.

I concur with all of you as to the apparent hopelessness of reconciliation.

That land will be fought over until it glows in the dark. And, perhaps then still.

This video, cogent, relevant, and timely. Thank you.

But when people dig their heels into an agenda of their opinions the room for reconciliation is mute. >> ^geo321:

I am disappointed all around. I'm going to miss Choggie if that is that. He's a unique sifter that I appreciate. I wish he'd apologize to BT.

Oh, and also, she has the grace enough to understand where the anger came from:

"Almost 18 years ago, I tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on an episode of "Saturday Night Live." Many people did not understand the protest -- the next week, the show's guest host, actor Joe Pesci, commented that, had he been there, "I would have gave her such a smack." I knew my action would cause trouble, but I wanted to force a conversation where there was a need for one; that is part of being an artist. All I regretted was that people assumed I didn't believe in God. That's not the case at all. I'm Catholic by birth and culture and would be the first at the church door if the Vatican offered sincere reconciliation."

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^marinara:
I'm actually glad to hear the penalty is not for poor families. but that's the first i've heard of it, and remember the bill hasn't passed the senate yet as of today.
all we have now is the old senate version.

Actually, the reconciliation bill passed the Senate and the House already. Looks like Obama hasn't signed it yet, but everything's been voted on and passed.


Yeah, supposedly he'll sign it on Tuesday. I'm completely unclear on why he delayed, but I suppose it doesn't matter.

>> ^marinara:

I'm actually glad to hear the penalty is not for poor families. but that's the first i've heard of it, and remember the bill hasn't passed the senate yet as of today.
all we have now is the old senate version.


Actually, the reconciliation bill passed the Senate and the House already. Looks like Obama hasn't signed it yet, but everything's been voted on and passed.

I gotta say, I have a real love/hate relationship with the way liberals refuse to unify.

Psychologic is right. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson deserve the credit for what became the final demise of the public option. They're the ones who committed to joining a Republican filibuster of the Senate bill until it was stripped.

It's true that if there had been even one Republican who came out in favor of it, it would've been passed (probably only 61-39, but it'd pass), but that's a fantasy universe where good policy ideas on the left attract votes from the Republican side of the aisle.

I'm not sure that Obama being more engaged about the public option would've gotten it through. Maybe if we had some way of making Obama angry, and getting him to turn into The Rock Obama, he could have played hardball with Democrats, and threatened them with primary challengers, stripping them of chairmanships, etc. Ultimately though, I'm not convinced he really had any stick to wield against either Nelson or Lieberman. There's no other Democrat who could hold onto a Senate seat in Nebraska other than Nelson, and Lieberman seems to have simply been looking for an excuse to join the Republican party ever since the netroots successfully helped Ned Lamont beat him in the Democratic primary in 2006.

I'm honestly not sure there are 51 votes for it in the Senate. That campaign to get signatories to a letter for passing the public option under reconciliation petered out around 40 or so Democrats, and that was counting a lot of people who didn't actually sign the letter, just people who made approving noises about the idea. That makes me think that whether or not there are 51 Democrats who wanted the public option, there weren't 51 willing to try to use reconciliation to pass it.

It's my opinion, as a really, really avid follower of all this, that we just didn't have the votes for the public option.

I'm shocked and pissed about that, and I definitely think the nearly 20 Dems who were only for the public option when it was subject to the filibuster need to be ran through the wringer, but we go into these things with the Democrats we have, not the ones we wish we had. I'm all for a Congress entirely composed of Graysons, Weiners, Sherrod Browns, with a couple Sanders and Kuciniches, but we're a long way from that now.

I think this bill was the best deal we could have gotten in the 111th Congress.

It does not implement any level of government price setting (i.e. its 0% socialist). However, it does collect taxes from the rich, and uses the money to buy insurance for the poor.

It puts lots of new restrictions on insurance companies to make sure their profits come from serving their customers well, not from denying them care. Same for doctors and hospitals, it will make an attempt to change their incentives towards being based on patient outcomes, and not number & size of procedures done.

It does not, and will not solve every health care problem in the country, but it's going to vastly improve the state of our health care system, and provide care to a huge number of people who didn't have access to it, or who couldn't afford it until now.

It's not perfect, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

I think the main effect this bill will have is that we'll keep reforming our health care system as we go. The public option isn't dead, it just didn't get baked in from the start. We can keep pushing for it, and working to elect people who will fight for it, and working to defeat people who helped kill it...like Joe Lieberman.