>> ^artician:

However someone put it to me once that made me look at the entire clash between slave-holders and anti-slavery-abolitionists differently.



I understand the reasoning behind it from the slaveowners point of view, but the crux of the matter boils down to one sentence in your post.


>> ^artician:

Ignore the human rights aspect for the sake of this example (horrible, but necessary to understand it from their perspective).



For the sake of an intellectual exercise, that is totally valid. But this wasn't some hypothetical situation. A whole bunch of people were actually enslaved, so ultimately the human rights aspect trumps the economic, social and political aspects. IMHO, the human rights aspect almost always does.
Some things are just worth going to war for.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Sorry, I must be hearing things, because I'm pretty sure I just heard him advocate the "purchase of slaves freedom". Are you fucking kidding me?
I'm sorry, there's no room for debate, practicality, states fucking rights or anything else on this. If someone owns slaves, you go to that person and you inform them that "their" slaves are no longer slaves. If they object, you shoot them in the fucking head. In fact, I'd go further. You then calculate how much the person owes the former slaves for the work they would have done, and you seize those assets to compensate the former slaves.


From our modern perspective and (genuinely) more civilized understanding of human rights, I totally agree with your statement. That is my perspective on the topic as well. However someone put it to me once that made me look at the entire clash between slave-holders and anti-slavery-abolitionists differently.

In that day, slaves were valued as property. Now, I'm paraphrasing poorly here, but the way it was described to me was that the total value of slaves in the south at that time was more than any other property, product or monetary value altogether. Inflated for today's markets it was on the scale of billions of dollars directly tied to the industry and economy of the south.

Now, as reluctant as we probably all are to do this, put yourself in the shoes of someone from the south at that time, accepting that slaves were basically the commodity of the highest value in the region. "Commodity-X", for analogy's sake. Ignore the human rights aspect for the sake of this example (horrible, but necessary to understand it from their perspective). Your states entire economic backbone relied on Commodity-X. Through it, economy and incomes were stable, prosperity was extremely high, and life was good all around for the majority of citizens.


Now imagine if the federal government came to your state and told you:
"We've decided that Commodity-X is 'wrong', therefore we are going to eliminate and ban all traces of Commodity-X from every person and property in this region."

Essentially imagine the government taking 80% of your personal property based on their own criteria without compensation of any kind. You would go nuts! You might storm the capital, or maybe even be angry enough to join a movement of militant resistance against that kind of theft.

So when I take that perspective into account, I can understand why Paul would make a comment like "purchase of slaves freedom", because it would essentially be compensation of the billions and billions of dollars lost to a quarter of the United States citizens.



Another, equally valid parallel that might be even easier to understand would be looking at today's resistance by the Oil industry to relinquishing their addiction to that commodity. Once again, the economy of a massive part of the world is affected, and those which rely on it for their lively hood are being asked to relinquish with no real compensation. Granted there are a number of inconsistencies between the two that I won't go into, but the similarities are such that it's very comparable, sans human rights issues.

It's an apt analog for understanding why those affected would be so butt-hurt over the whole ordeal.

^Clash of Kings, baby!

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

When the church interferes with science, especially in the historical examples where they wielded a lot of power, I consider religion and science to be clashing, instead of coexisting happily. I see your point in making the distinction between church and religion - but when the church interferes in the name of religion I can't consider religion and science to be "coexisting peacefully." Just my 2c

ed: meant to make this a video reply, whoops! oh well.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^carneval:

I love NDT, but I don't agree with his statement that science and religion have been happily coexisting for centuries...
What about (for example) heliocentricity? The church was not too happy with that originally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
That article indicates that there were, at some points, synergistic effects between the church and scientific establishment; I think happy coexistence is a major exaggeration, though.


Don't confuse, "the church" with the whole of all religious people. One church for one sect of one religion does not the majority of religious minded people make, which was the whole point

Many of the great thinkers, like Newton and Georg Cantor were not the only influential religious people either, the list is huge. I think there has been times where a person has been singled out, like Galileo, but even he was left to his own devices till he got a little more preachy with his ideas; he was a very blunt man

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf - It's called news - if specific elements of what he says are untrue then feel free to disprove them - all you've done is used his involvement in a 9/11 movement as your 'proof' which is circumstantial at best. Marbles didn't make the video, he posted it, this site is called "Videosift" - a place where, you know, video's can be sifted. If you disagree with the message then attack the facts not the guy who added to the value of the site with an informative video. Unlike journalists where you seem to get your news from, Tarpley has (apparently) visited the country and talked to the people, there would be very few journalists that could give his perspective if this is true.
PS Was wondering when I'd see you next bcglorf, I missed you.

Al Jazeera has multiple journalists in Syria, all of whom are well agreed that the protests all started peacefully and were met with deadly force from the regime. The Arab league, who's member nations each have embassies in Syria with multiple diplomats living in the country, are also well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads. The Syrian refugees that fled to Turkey are all well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads.
The ONLY source that in any way corroborates Tarpley's story here is Assad's own media. I do believe that in itself calls into question Tarpley's veracity. When his sole evidence is basically his own word, trust him, I think it worth noting his past record of trustworthiness.
As for contributing, I don't consider propaganda bought and paid for by the Syrian regime a positive contribution to the plight of the Syrian people.



You do realise that people willing to spend 10 seconds on a Google search can verify whether your statements are true or not right?

Back in April alone:
(links available from http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html)

The Al-Alam News Network reports that Saudi/CIA snipers are on rooftops firing at both protesters and Syrian forces

CNN reported that an unknown armed group had been firing on both protesters and Syrian forces alike (they go on to presume that it was Syrian forces that apparently opened fire on themselves which I find odd).

China's XinhuaNet reported that armed gangs had clashed with protesters and Syrian forces, killing members of both sides.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported equipment from these armed forces had been recovered, there were non-Syrian SMS cards and other tools to spread fake repression of protesters.

Ynet also reported a similar story, finding fake bottles of blood and other items - they reported that "the phones and cameras were carried by members of an armed criminal group that attacked a military location in Rakhem al-Hirak area in Daraa countryside"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059951,00.html

The assistant US secretary of state for human rights and labor (Michael Posner) in an AFP report said that the US had budgeted $50 million in the past 2 years to help 'activists' evade authoritarian Governments.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/us-trains-activists-to-evade-security.html

In terms of who the actual gunmen are, there is only circumstantial evidence from what I've seen - some of it is discussed here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html

There appears to be links with a group called Gen-next, and there is a precedent to this type of interference with local uprising - that link talks about armed units killing both Thai military and protesters alike in 2010.

And more information on them (with working vids of the Thai attacks) here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/color-revolutions-mystery-gunmen.html

Anyway, it's the same old story with you, your comments are abrasive towards those opposed to your abhorrent ideology and your 'facts' are verifiably untrue. It's a shame because you seem more intelligent than some of the other trolls so you have potential to improve, you simply decide not to.

The real story is that these gunmen are a mystery to almost everyone, they appear to be showing up frequently, they appear to be corporate backed, they don't appear to be part of the local armed forces because they routinely attack them. Making a bold statement about their intentions seems difficult due to the circumstantial evidence against them, however the fact that they are operating in multiple countries and the US is pouring millions of dollars into these kinds of efforts (and has done over and over again in the past) indicates that it is likely not of Syrian origin.

@SDGundamX

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are absolutely FOR teaching children about religion. The operative word, as you yourself seem to understand (as you use it in your argument) is "about". Compare:

"Son, there is an all-powerful man in space that will torture you forever if you don't do what his book says, and reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people believe... None of their supernatural claims are supported by evidence, btw."

See the difference?

As for studies, I don't know if there are any (I would personally love to see the correlation of strong religious beliefs and the propensity to adhere to conspiracy theories for example), but one need no studies to understand that believing in the supernatural truth claims of religion demands a divorce from rational and evidence-based knowledge.

What does religious belief bring to the table then? Don't say morals/ethics: half of what they teach is horrible, and the other half have no basis in the religious beliefs, but can be explained scientifically. You may say religion is a vehicule for moral teachings, but it's an outdated and superfluous one at best, a counterproductive one at worst. Most of the times it boils down to waiving a supernatural stick and carrot (as all good tyrants do) instead of having people learn to think for themselves.

The only "original" thing religious belief brings is supernatural truth claims, which are at best meaningless speculation ("God gives life meaning", whatever that means), at worst irrational and dangerous ("the AntiChrist will rise when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, bringing the end of the world").

No one is arguing against meditation or introspection btw. If you feel like talking to imaginary friends in order to do so, fine. Just don't force vulnerable kids to believe your imaginary friends actually exist.

As for Bahai being an example of a harmless religion, pick again. Sure, their doctrine is a little more "peace and love" than most of its monotheistic brothers, but homosexuality/"adultery" are still forbidden, and you're still taught to believe in and pray to an invisible sky-daddy, with all the irrational logical fallacies that go with it, and their inevitable clash with science and critical thinking.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

>> ^shagen454:

Never forget the way America works. Tea Party protests were covered all over the media, the media never spoke of their tinges with racism and homophobia among many other things including being a sell out corporatist movement. They glorified those FOX fried fanatics.
They ignored the OWS movement from day one because they are not interested in investing in this movement because this movement is a direct threat to them. They made them look like idiotic, homeless, hippy bums. Shame on you.

To amplify this point, Nate Silver did some statistical analysis on this very topic, and found that the data backs up what you're saying.

Basically the OWS people only started getting headlines when they got pepper sprayed and arrested.

One year back in elementary school, I had to do a project on a "notable person." I had to take out books, write a biography, and even learn how to draw a realistic portrait of the person I chose, as well as justifying why I chose them and what impact they made in the world. After all the research was done, we had to dress up as our person and even act as them at a "notable's night" later on. I borrowed plaid shirts and even glued a 'proper' fake beard to my face so I could better resemble my childhood hero, Jim Henson.

I remember one day my father came home with a photocopied article from a magazine from 'Life Magazine.' The cover photo was a image of Kermit sitting in Henson's director's chair. The article written shortly after his untimely death. I had been devastated by the news.

Indeed, Kevin Clash has lived one of my childhood dreams, and made thousands millions of kids happy in the process with his *quality work.

@chilaxe, ahh, so your issue is that you don't like the bigotry of the Tea Party being put front and center.

That's cool, but it's not an inaccuracy. Inaccuracy is saying Santorum was avoiding condemning all Muslims when he said "our civilization is antithetical to the Jihadist civilization".

What civilization is the "Jihadist" civilization? Is it not the same as the Muslim civilization? If he meant to say it's just a band of extremists operating outside the mainstream, why frame it as some clash of civilizations?

Paul understood the subtext, and pushed back on it.

Yes, the overall exchange was ostensibly about the general platform for the demonization of Muslims -- they hate us for our freedom and all that -- but people who listened to their undergraduate professors' encouragement to read skeptically and deconstruct media instead of accepting it without question saw that underlying theme, and wanted to try to highlight and expose it.

That's why I don't see your complaint about the title as a question of factual accuracy, so much as a disagreement with me over what the lede is. You'd prefer this particular lede be buried.

You're right about there being a timing problem with the title's current call/answer format. How about "Ron Paul Booed by Tea Party for Defending Muslims"?

He's right that it's so disgusting that he can't read it to you. Did you see the typeface used for "Hey Queer Boys"? Clashes with the entire tone of the pamphlet.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

jealous. Oh and just to add fuel to @shuac 's raging jealousy, we have all of the 1st edition 1st printings signed in mint condition.
>> ^shuac:
While working as an intern at ABC Sports, Peter Jennings approached me at the commissary and asked whether a particular bagel (in a pile of bagels) was egg. I said, "I'm not sure." Whoo, someone pinch me. That same week in NYC, I rode in an elevator with Brian Setzer at the Mayflower hotel.
But my real 15 min was when Ben Fong-Torres, longtime editor of Rolling Stone, called me on the phone and asked me about the song I'd written about him. That was exciting.



Jealous? No, I was merely sharing my story like the others. And I'm a Kindle guy so I have no particular affinity for physical books nor do I collect autographs. I'm quite enjoying GRRM though: currently reading Clash of Kings.