I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

Condemning brutality—and, by extension, a seemingly endless list of military interventions motivated by a warped sense of self-interest—hardly constitutes "rooting against" one's own country. To me, the ones doing the greater harm are those who fail to criticize the aspects of the United States' foreign policy that have been, and remain, undeniably disastrous.>> ^ShakaUVM:

Disgusting how many people on this page are rooting against their own country ...

>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.

When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.

However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.

Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.

>> ^lantern53:

How do you stop greed?
Isn't self-interest the same thing?
I don't think people are thinking through the logical outcomes.
Gov't can only keep you from becoming rich. It can't keep you from becoming poor.
Do you really want the gov't to determine your paycheck?


No, greed and self-interest are not the same. One could have said forty years ago, "How do you stop hate?" and yet here we are, things have steadily improved, for different ethnic and religious groups.

The rest of your post is rather idiotic. The wealth distribution in Sweden is far better than in the U.S. so apparently through effective legislation the government can help the poor. It's not about giving money away, but providing services for middle and lower income people that they'd ordinarily have to pay for, medicine, daycare etc.

Lastly, it's not about the government changing anyone's paycheque, except in that the minimum wage should be raised. It's about fairer taxation and removing the moneyed interests from politics so that real people can again have a voice in the political dialogue.

How do you stop greed?

Isn't self-interest the same thing?

I don't think people are thinking through the logical outcomes.

Gov't can only keep you from becoming rich. It can't keep you from becoming poor.

Do you really want the gov't to determine your paycheck?

Polite my ass, it's enlightened self-interest. Jaywalking in Seatown is a blood sport.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

They complain about Wallstreet greed---but isn't mainstreet evil too? (@NetRunner and @dystopianfuturetoday) The 99% must change first, me thinks... (P.s., I will still respond to the other thread--hopefully tonight. This comment was just a musing of mine.)


The 1% wrecked the entire world with their greed, economically and physically. The 1% have all the power. This guy ultimately works for one of them (because we all do), and is trying to make a living under a system of incentives that they created.

If he wants to eat, he needs money. If he needs money, he needs to work. If he wants to work, he has to do what someone else tells him to do. If he tries to just go get the food without first getting money, men with guns will come to toss him in jail. (You know, liberty freeberty)

In this case, they probably give him bonus incentives that are designed to marry his self-interest to the 1%'s objectives as profiteers. They probably pay out a bonus for keeping insurance payouts below a certain target, which pits his self-interest against his ethical duty to be fair and honest with home owners.

The fact that the net result of such a bonus is that it results in some less than ethical dealings that boost the company's bottom line is a feature, not a bug. Best of all, the 1% have plausible deniability if someone does get caught. After all, they didn't tell him to behave in an unethical manner.

So that's why the 1% needs to change first.

If you're open to some skepticism about liberty capitalism, then a more subtle observation I'd make is that there sure seem to be a ton of situations in our society where doing the wrong thing brings you a reward, but doing the right thing usually loses you money. Seems worth re-examining how we do things to see if maybe we can't make it just a little easier for people to do the right thing.

So, these statistics are from the IRS and isn't internet hearsay. Medicare makes the percentages paid by top earners go up. So do property taxes. (Sales tax and state taxation is another discussion and doesn't involve the Federal government. In any case there's no way to enforce a progressive sales tax. So if this is unfair, then the only thing to do is eliminate it altogether. But that is a state-by-state decision.) Medicare along with Medicaid and some other mandatory taxes account for 33% of Federal expenses/budget, while social Security for 21% (even thoug Social Security is a separate Trust Fund).

Social security is capped for various reasons and it doesn't have anything to do with current tax debates or legislative proposals. Social security tax is about 15%, half of which is paid by the employer. Social Security is in theory a separate budget from the rest of the federal budget. And for 2011, the total tax is reduced with the employee paying only 4.2% of it and the employer paying 6.2%.
Medicare, as mentioned, is not capped at any income. On a million dollar income you pay about $14,500. On a 45K income you pay about $652.

Unemployment taxes are paid fully by employers not employees.

The complaint that the bottom 80% pay 13% is misleading because the bottom 50% (half the population) pay between only 0-3%.

Top 10% (not top 20%) - pay 70%
Bottom 50% - pay 3%
Everyone else - 27%

But it gets a bit more complicated because about 47% of households pay 0% income tax, a majority in the bottom 40% of earners.

Top 10% earners have to pay more (70%) for the roads, government salaries, wars, national parks, Airforce One, NPR, corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and most other government services (the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of it) but when buying goods (with or without sales tax), like coffee or an iPhone or pumping gas or a movie ticket, it does cost top earners a smaller percentage of their income.

Some other "taxes" are, in effect, flat taxation like business license, car registration, bridge toll, sanitation and flood control, parking meters, etc.

Fairness in this is a matter of opinion (and self-interest). I'm not an accountant so I can't really go into all the various loopholes in our tax code.

And I'm talking mostly about taxation at the Federal level of which income tax accounts for about half. Like I said, sales tax is a state matter and so are fees like parking meters etc. Taxation at the state level seems to draw less controversy because Democratic states will "happily" pay more and Republican states will "happily" pay less and you can select a state to live in at just the right taxation for you.

And as we all know on the Sift, you have that statists on one side who think more taxation is better because the government is here to help and anti-statists on the other who think "that government is best wich governs least" (or not at all). And also the hybrids like Lyndon Johnson, Larry King, Jon Stewart, and others, including most corporatists.

>> ^Ariane:

>> ^Trancecoach:
The Top 1% also pays nearly 40% of the Federal Income Tax
>> ^ghark:
Some interesting facts about the top 1%:
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Take Home 24 Percent Of National Income
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Own Half Of The Country’s Stocks, Bonds, And Mutual Funds
The Top 1 Percent Of Americans Have Only 5 Percent Of The Nation’s Personal Debt
The Top 1 Percent Are Taking In More Of The Nation’s Income Than At Any Other Time Since The 1920s
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five
-wealthiest-one-percent/


Umm, no.
"The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800."
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_thin
gs_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
Sales taxes and other flat taxes are even more unfair. We low income people pretty much spend all the money we make and as a result pay (in my state) 8% of my income in sales taxes, while the top 1% only spend a small fraction of their wealth on items likely to collect sales tax, so I would not be surprised if the average top 1% pays even 1% on sales tax.
The top 20% earn 93% of the wealth, yet only pay 70% of the taxes, leaving the other 13% to the bottom 80% who only earn 7% of the wealth. THAT is what needs to be corrected.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

Narcissistic personality disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme preoccupation with themselves.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The causes of this disorder are unknown. An overly sensitive personality and parenting problems may affect the development of this disorder.

Symptoms

A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals

Have excessive feelings of self-importance

Exaggerate achievements and talents

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

Need constant attention and admiration

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy

Have obsessive self-interest

Pursue mainly selfish goals

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

~For Packo
declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention

For which I believe Bush, Cheney and their entire entourage should be brought up on war crimes charges over. Cheney shouldn't even get a trial, he's written a bloody book staunchly defending his use of torture which should be enough to skip the conviction and get straight on to sentencing.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who"

I was responding to your declaration that it's not really war. I believe whether we call it a war or not is more than just semantics. The jihadists like Al-Qaida have been calling it war for their part since long before 9/11 finally made it a mutual declaration.

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems
I'm not saying it's their responsibility so much as recognizing that there are instances where western self interest happens to coincide with solving problems. It's vitally important difference.

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

I agree with your sentiments on extremism and the environment in the Middle East being the key. I must ask though if a Middle East with Afghanistan still ruled by the Taliban and Iraq still ruled by Saddam really make a better environment for putting an end to extremism. I see the evidence being very strongly against it. Additionally, I don't see any way of improving Saddam era Iraq's environment without the use force. I don't think those are terribly radical and unfathomable statements, yet it seems most here seem not only content to reject it without evidence, but in the face any evidence and without any need for a defense either.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding..

I still prefer it to Bush's stubborn insistence to explain everything to the public as though they were children. I believe Awlaki's past and present actions were expected to stand somewhat one their own, without really needing anyone to hold people's hand and explain to them what it meant to write books promoting Jihad in America and mentorship of a man that went on to kill for that very cause. I also believe they again don't feel they'll have much luck explaining why capturing an Al-Qaida operative in Yemen was going to be difficult for anyone that didn't already grasp that on their own.

I've already agreed up thread that the precedent is worrisome, but so is the alternative. I could have respected if Obama had come out and instead of announcing Awlaki's death had announced that he had the opportunity to assassinate him, and chose not to as a matter of ethics. I doubt however that his presidency could have survived such a moral move. He'd last until Awlaki's next attack before the Reps and Dems wanting his place would have people running him out of office for failing to protect the nation.

My real problem and raging here is at those content to convict and condemn Obama, but insistent that Awlaki be deemed innocent until the absolute highest bar of proof be satisfied.

My real problem and raging is those raving as though bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and backing the Khmer Rouge in those ashes is morally equivalent to the removal of Saddam's regime in Iraq and the holding of free elections there.

As though those indignities weren't enough, those same claimants then want to believe that they are the ones truly studying and seeing the shades of gray involved in these matters.

It's more than should be tolerated by any thinking person that cares enough to take these things seriously.

If you people would get off your reactionary, self-righteous high horses for a second you would realize he is one of the good guys, relatively speaking. A bit dramatic perhaps, sure.

The subtle, if somewhat awkward manner in which he phrased his position is where you're getting hung up, methinks.

"Personally? It doesn't matter - I'm a trader. I don't really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that."

"Personally?" - Perhaps better read as "Honestly?" instead. He's leading with a qualifier because he knows what he says next is not likely to be corroborated by his peers in the mainstream press- precisely because it would generate the type of reaction seen in this very thread. Where others would "massage" their message to make the profession seem more noble, he doesn't. Its honestly quite baffling to me that there's even a perception problem stemming from the relevant parties acting in their own self-interest. (As an aside, I'm quite aware of the rampant corruption that occurs - indeed, often when that very spirit of self-interest collapses into blind greed. My statements only consider those who are above board.)

Also, don't interpret "Personally?" in a literal sense that he "truly doesn't care about that kind of stuff" in his own, personal moral fiber. In order to illustrate his point, he's speaking from the point of view of "every trader." That certainly includes him, but doesn't speak to his individual conscience. "Not caring" whether the market rebounds doesn't mean he feels no sorrow for those who've lost everything, he means it has no bearing on his bottom line because every trader with a functioning brain hedges their bets. Present company seems to find that idea morally repugnant, but to not do it would outright crazy. In addition, there's no moral implication anyway - the market's gonna do what it does whether there's systemic hedging or not.

I could break down the rest about how you should all calm down over the "dreaming of another recession" comment or the fact traders literally couldn't be the ones to fix things if they tried, but I think y'all get the idea.
He then goes on to give people what sounds to me like sound advice in taking advantage of a down market, and goes so far as to suggest that Goldman Sachs has more influence over the world economy than the governments themselves - which is, of course, completely true. (BTW, I'll take 2:1 that he's found dead from auto-erotic asphyxiation by Halloween.)

tl;dr version: Don't hate the Player. Hate the game.