Good morning.
- Carbon sponges. The APS and climate noted here.
- Considering the armour of God and actual armour.
- Guns and jihad.
- The AP and scare quotes.
- Lampooning some Palin critics. More from another source here.
- Zoom.
- Peak … gold?
- Muslims abused in the military? Apparently not.
- More than a little strange.
- Somebody not getting military strategy. Waiting to get it all “just right” is almost always wrong, recall Mr McClellan.
- Not stupid, stupid raised a non-trivial exponential degree.
- Considering a coming trial … continued here.
- Mr Obama’s self portrait viewed from the right.
- Patriarch Pavle has fallen asleep in the Lord.
- While I’m not a fan of Ms Rand … the logical fallacies come fast and furious in this piece.
- Chair and space.
Lampooning some Palin critics.
Why is assigning ten fact checkers to a book silly? Considering the book was just released a team effort is kind of required to get a review to press quickly.
More to the point, NRO seems to consider her claim of ‘frugality’ to be the most important error the checkers found. The first error cited in the story seems like a much bigger whopper:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BUU1580&show_article=1
Now just try to imagine what the right would do if, say, Al Gore announced ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ was a horrible military policy and then blamed Bush Sr. for implementing it? Or if, say, Hillary Clinton asserted NAFTA was bad and Reagan was at fault for signing it?
Then again if these things ever happened at least they could claim it happened so long ago they forgot the details. Here we aren’t even a full year since McCain and Palin were asserting that it was unpatriotic to not suppor the bailout.
Considering a coming trial … continued here.
I don’t usually follow links to the Chicagoboyz since they censor their comments, but I indulged myself slightly here and stopped reading after the first point:
Not for nothing but what ‘objective proof’ do we have that any criminal on trial asserts he isn’t who he is accused of being? Except for some very famous criminals like OJ Simpson, it’s not like ‘everyone knows’ Joe Blow is in fact Joe Blow.
On top of this, I would be very, very shocked if the administration decided to put Khalid on trial without any admissable evidence. AS for a fair jury? Well why not? The question the jury has to decide is whether or not Khalid was involved in the 9/11 attack. If he wasn’t then a not guilty verdict isn’t an endorsement of 9/11. I don’t see why a fair trial was possible for Tim McVeigh but Republicans like to assume their fellow citizens are so deranged and crazy that they cannot hold a fair trial for anyone else.
I know Obama Derangement Syndrome has swept the right faster than H1N1 but some of the post 9/11 meme’s are really overdue to be broken. The first is that saying ’9/11 changed everything’ is some type of magic incantation that voids all laws and traditions from roughly the Magna Carter up through today. The second is that a war on terrorism elevates Al Qaeda into something more than what it is, namely a gang of criminals.
The Constitution allows Congress to create courts inferior to the S.C. For example there are special courts that deal with maritine issues, tax issues, military issues. A special terrorism court may be worth establishing at some point but for Rudy to assert that NYC cannot see the trial of the most notable crime of the century against it is just cowardice.
While I’m not a fan of Ms Rand … the logical fallacies come fast and furious in this piece.
While strong I’m not sure the piece is logically fallacious. For example:
Let’s recall the hero of The Fountainhead blows up a building because the builder stole his design. He gives the usual Ayn Rand 30 page lecture at his trial and the jury finds him not guilty. Ok its fiction but still hard to see something like that being accepted IRL. Add in what we know about Ayn Rand’s personal life, esp. the cult of personality that she cultivated around her along with the almost Stalinist jockeying for influence and approval her group exercised….sociopathic is a pretty good term to deploy isn’t it?
Boonton,
On Ms Rand,
1. sociopath defined as such because she writes books containing “rapes and murders” of innocents whom are seen to deserve it and because she “developed a cult of personality”. If you look at the linked list of characteristics … you’ll find little match with the points raised about Mr Rand. Oops.
2. “or legions of socially retarded acolytes” … poison the well some?
3. “Objectivists similarly seek validation from philosophy departments for their adolescent selfishness and malignant narcissism. ” Well, fallacy is that? Anybody who follows Obj. is an adolescent and a narcissist.
4. “Objectivism and creationism are two sides of one coin, ” … this claim is supported how? By what reasoning? Ah, both are mocked in academia … therefore they are linked logically?
We call Hitler and Stalin and Mao sociopaths because they killed millions. Ms Rand may have fictionally killed many but that does not make her a sociopath. And if you want to complain about a “cult of personality” you’d be indicting half of Hollywood and the current resident of the White House.
Look if this is what passes for logic, reason, and a discussion of ideas from the point of view of the left, your past complaints of a lack of the level of intellectual discourse on the right implies you might be better served looking to your own house first.
A sociopath need not kill millions (or anyone for that matter). http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html has some clinical definitions and while Ms. Rand doesn’t meet all of them she seems to meet quite a few, esp. the ones related to causing carnage in other people’s lives with no remorse or regret and rationalizing that their victims deserved what they got.
4. “Objectivism and creationism are two sides of one coin, ” … this claim is supported how? By what reasoning? Ah, both are mocked in academia … therefore they are linked logically?
Linked as in deserving of mockery.
3. “Objectivists similarly seek validation from philosophy departments for their adolescent selfishness and malignant narcissism. ” Well, fallacy is that? Anybody who follows Obj. is an adolescent and a narcissist.
Actually that is not what that quote means anymore than “communists killed millions” means that any and every person who is a communist also killed millions. It means that a mass of people who are objectivists seek academic validation for their selfishness and narcissism. It doesn’t follow that every objectivist so seeks validation nor necessarily suffers from selfishness and narcissm. I do think, however, that objectivism is a pretty good philosophy for those seeking to validate selfishness and narcisssm. To date I can’t think of any great piece of genius done by a follower of objectivism…even though objectivism places so much importance on individual greatness.
And if you want to complain about a “cult of personality” you’d be indicting half of Hollywood and the current resident of the White House.
You clearly don’t know much about Ms. Rand’s biography. Her followers took up smoking because she declared smoking an expression of individualism. People were thrown into great turmoil upon being expelled from her ‘circle’ for trivial errors in articulating her ‘philosophy’. It is a great irony of Rand’s life that she built a philosophy around individualism but built a cult centered on stamping out any individualism that was not her own. She was all in all on sick puppy.
But since Mark brought up killing millions of innocent people like Hitler or Stalin:
Who is Leonard Peikoff?
Following the dissolution of NBI in 1968, Peikoff continued to give private courses on a variety of topics to large Objectivist audiences. His lecture courses include: The Art of Thinking, Eight Great Plays, A Philosophy of Education, The History of Philosophy (in two “volumes” of lectures), Moral Virtue, Induction in Physics and Philosophy, An Introduction to Logic, Understanding Objectivism, and The Principles of Objective Communication[6].
Rand held that Peikoff understood her philosophy better than anyone else[citation needed], and made Peikoff the legal heir to her estate. Peikoff has claimed to be her intellectual heir.
Granted Rand can’t be expected to control her #1 man from beyond the Grave but considering the amount of work she expended in making sure her followers did not deviate from her philosophy in any way should we not consider the possibility that the reason she cited Peikoff as her heir is because he does best embody Rand’s philosophy and individualism?
Before you answer consider that Rand had direct influence on Peikoff and choose him personally as her intellectual heir, which is something you can’t say for the relationship between Marx and Stalin or Mao.
Boonton,
Oh, you mean like when Mr Biden got a bucketful of facts wrong in the VP debate and the Press decided to ignore that?
On Mr Love’s two posts, he lists about 12 objections, you pick one. I can’t imagine why you’ve omitted the “chain of evidence” one? Will the US Marines be required to collect evidence and Mirandize their captives on the battlefield?
Hmm, it would actually be nice if that were the case. Alas, reality intervenes. There are non-criminal ethnic and religious aspects to Wahabbism and al-Qaeda.
Hmm, while not genius the Black Arrow was a enjoyable read, if a bit predictable. Objectivism is a sub-group of modern Libertarianism, which itself is quite a small pocket. Besides, for how many artists performance or static do you know the political beliefs? This weekend my wife and I went to the CSO to hear Bruckner’s 9th. That performance was an example of genius? Can you state that none of the performers were sympathetic to Objectivism?
Look, you’re falling into the same trap as the piece I cited. This is a logical fallacy. If Plato was a serial killer the Republic and the Socratic dialogs would still be important because of their ideas. Complaining about Ms Rand’s personal particulars, like noting she was a Jew for example, is irrelevant. Just as the fact that Nietzsche went insane or Rousseau was despicable.
Look one could try to make the argument that the statist/quasi-socialist leanings of the left are symptomatic of personal moral weakness (class/guilt) and a personal spineless desire to have moral and ethical decisions made for them by the state. Of course that is not to imply than any in the current discussion are anything like that … just that “It doesn’t follow that every Democrat so seeks refuge nor necessarily suffers from moral decrepitude and spinelessness.” To make this argument is to commit a logical fallacy.
This is bad argumentation. You do not, and should not, argue against Objectivism by stacking personal accusations against the founder nor ascribing moral weakness or faults to those who follow the same unless you wish be called out for using flawed arguments.
Oh, you mean like when Mr Biden got a bucketful of facts wrong in the VP debate and the Press decided to ignore that?
I recall several examples of the right making a big deal about getting facts wrong. One was Biden citing FDR’s ‘fireside chats’ as happening on tv instead of radio. Another was Obama talking about Japan’s surrender in WWII where he said the Emperor signed the documents on the aircraft carrier, in reality it was the Prime Minister. Getting facts wrong is easy and common, it matters only when *relevant* facts are wrong. For example, the precise formalities of Japan’s surrender wasn’t relevant to the point Obama was making. Fair enough the facts were wrong but you’re never going to win lots of points for being a nitpicker.
Now if you want to argue that it isn’t relevant for Ms. Palin to be aware of major policies that she was advocating less than a year ago….well feel free.
On Mr Love’s two posts, he lists about 12 objections, you pick one. I can’t imagine why you’ve omitted the “chain of evidence” one? Will the US Marines be required to collect evidence and Mirandize their captives on the battlefield?
1. What do Marines do with evidence they discover now on the battlefield? If they discover a laptop in an Al Qaeda camp dothey wipe the hard drive and install Grand Theft Auto on it?
2. Mirandizing is not actually required. All mirandizing does for law enforcement is provide them cover to use incriminating statements made after the suspect has been arrested against him. Even then it only applies to interrogation. Say, for example, you are arrested and put into a holding cell. You talk about a murder you committed in the past to a cellmate. He turns out to be an informant. You cannot exclude his testimony on the grounds that you weren’t mirandized.
Hmm, it would actually be nice if that were the case. Alas, reality intervenes. There are non-criminal ethnic and religious aspects to Wahabbism and al-Qaeda.
Actually organized crime is a pretty apt model for Al Qaeda. Look to the extended examples of the Mafia in Italy and the Narco gangs in Latin America. They engage in kidnappings, assassinations and even sometimes engage in direct pitched battles with the military….yet they are not a military force. While the military is properly used in the fight against them and Al Qaeda, the efforts to over hype Al Qaeda as some type of national army actually does them a service by yielding the ‘meta-narrative’ to them.
Hmm, while not genius the Black Arrow was a enjoyable read, if a bit predictable. Objectivism is a sub-group of modern Libertarianism, which itself is quite a small pocket. Besides, for how many artists performance or static do you know the political beliefs?
But Objectivism isn’t a ‘political belief’. It is an all emcompassing philosophy that claims direct and unambigous connection to the underlying truth of reality. Yes it touches politics but only touches because politics is a subset of reality. It has just as much to assert in regards to theology, asethics, and even sexual conduct. I’ll note that communism in the 40′s and 50′s likewise made such sweeping claims extending itself even into the world of art, poetry and so on.
Look, you’re falling into the same trap as the piece I cited. This is a logical fallacy. If Plato was a serial killer the Republic and the Socratic dialogs would still be important because of their ideas. Complaining about Ms Rand’s personal particulars, like noting she was a Jew for example, is irrelevant. Just as the fact that Nietzsche went insane or Rousseau was despicable.
We aren’t talking about a work of fiction. (Although keep in mind Rand expressly used her fiction to present role models for those living with and against her philosophy). The example I cited here is of the man who Rand asserted was her intellectual heir and who had the clearest and best understanding of her philosophy blithly advocates the slaughter of millions of innocent people without even batting an eye to moral implications of that.
Note a sociopath does not simply mean someone who supports a policy that results in innocent deaths. A person can, for example, argue that Hiroshima was justified and not be a sociopath. A sociopath will argue for the deaths of innocents the way a home builder will argue for a type of gutter or attic insulation….
This is bad argumentation. You do not, and should not, argue against Objectivism by stacking personal accusations against the founder nor ascribing moral weakness or faults to those who follow the same unless you wish be called out for using flawed arguments.
Granted, but philosophy does extend into the personal at some points. The author seems to be saying that most objectivists are socially inept and failures who have used the philosophy to vindicate themselves as special, enlightened entities who are victimized by society’s lack of respect for their individual greatness. A logical attack on such a philosophy is to point out that not only are its believers typically not great, they are actually quite below average.
In this way we can judge a philosophy partially by the company it keeps (even company that ends up disagreeing). Plato and Socrates spawned a very fruitful group of philosophers whose ideas are still discussed today. Rand’s group of followers, quite frankly, appear to be socially deficient freaks. Since her philosophy was supposedly about living up to individual potential and embracing the great work that produced, I think its fair to ask why the greatest chap Rand’s salon seems to have produced directly is Alan Greenspan?
Mr Obama’s self portrait viewed from the right.
Mark:
I’m glad you posted that because it’ll let us discuss your use of the right’s talking points. (If you doubt this is a talking point, see Krauthammer.)
Now to me, this is clearly a fabricated issue. If he said he was the first Hawaiian president, it would mean that he’s the first president from Hawaii. Nobody would complain that hey, other presidents before him had visited Hawaii. Similarly, saying he’s the first Pacific president would mean that he’s the first president from the Pacific. That’s just basic idiomatic English. Perhaps if you were a non-native speaker, you might think that he was overlooking presidents who had spent considerable time in the Pacific as adults, but the meaning should be obvious to the average American.
This, then, appears to be a wholly manufactured issue. The right is taking a perfectly reasonable statement of Obama’s and trying to make it fit a message. And what’s that message? That Obama is narcissistic. (Again, see Krauthammer, who laughingly refers to Obama as “Baby Jesus.”)
But what’s the real reason Obama said what he said? Isn’t it obvious that he was just seeking common ground with the Japanese? I mean, duh. When he was in Africa, he played up his Kenyan heritage. When George Bush spoke with Hispanics, he played up his Latino family. That’s just what politicians do to create a connection.
So here’s my question: do you really believe this stuff or are you just passing it along to do your part to “fight for the cause?” Or maybe just to rile up us liberals?
Because if you really believe it, you’re being played by the right’s propaganda team.
Still skeptical?
Tell me you would have interpreted Obama’s statement about being the first Pacific president as the slightest bit narcissistic or even wrong if you hadn’t heard or read somebody else do it first. Come on. There’s no way in hell.
It’s 100% manufactured. And you’re passing it along like a good little member of the team.
Boonton,
On Mr Biden’s “facts”. You’re memory of the particulars of his factual errors is interesting. You only remember the trivial ones. Whether or not mistaking which article of the Constitutions was which, the kicker was when he offered, ““When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”” So it only matters when the facts are “relevant?” Mr Biden was lauded for his foreign policy expertise. If this is what passes for foreign policy knowledge on the left, it’s no wonder you keep praising Mr Obama’s foreign policy moves. You live on a different planet with a different timeline.
If you think the Marines treat the battlefield like a crime scene, you are mistaken.
That’s not what I did. I pointed out that unlike Casa Nostra there is a religious/national/ethnic component that separates them. Al Qaeda at the bottom line is not about money.
You’re picking nits. You don’t know the philosophical roots or tenets of the performers of genius you see before you. That was my point and you’re ignoring it to claim, without proof or a way of establishing any credibility, that Objectivists and mediocrity are linked. I’ve seen Objectivism touted on three blogs, In the Agora, Positive Liberty, and Tim Sandefur’s blog. These are not bad or mediocre blogs. In fact, I’m still looking for ones on the left that compare favourably. The latter, if I recall, is in fact very much sympathetic with Objectivism … and is a successful lawyer. So the question might be turned around, if Objectivism is so bad, why does it lead to better blogging especially as compared to modern progressivism?
JA,
But that’s not how an Asian audience would try to read it. “Pacific” President would be taken by them to imply the Asian community, e.g., those countries in the pan-Asian games. Hawaii is, I think, more Americanized than Asian culturally. It’s not a fault of non-English, non-idiomatic English. An Aussie would read it wrong. It’s a fault of locale. An Asian (or Pacific) native is going to hear that differently than a East Coast American. To be honest, when I hear stuff like that (noting your other examples) from a speaker it tends to put me off and makes me treat a speaker more not less antagonistically, i.e., they demonstrate how they are more than willing to bend the truth to fit the circumstance makes me less likely to treat whatever else they have to say at face value.
That being said, I didn’t link it because I’m “touting it” or because I think it’s defensible. I linked it because it was a topical and expressed In this case, I linked it as a case in point of how the right pushes interpretation to support their negative Obama.
My opinions are primarily expressed via my essays.
So it only matters when the facts are “relevant?” Mr Biden was lauded for his foreign policy expertise. If this is what passes for foreign policy knowledge on the left, it’s no wonder you keep praising Mr Obama’s foreign policy moves. You live on a different planet with a different timeline.
Granted my job defending Democratic foreign policy knowledge is easier given that Palin spent her time manning the anti-aircraft guns whenever Putin ‘reared his head’ over Alaska.
But speaking of Palin, why again is it unimportant that she is depicting one of the most largest economic policies of the Bush administration and one her campaign vigerously supported to the point of implying dissenters were unpatriotic as something from Obama’s administration that she opposed?
If you think the Marines treat the battlefield like a crime scene, you are mistaken
Not sure why you would say that since nothing I wrote would imply that in the slightest.
I pointed out that unlike Casa Nostra there is a religious/national/ethnic component that separates them. Al Qaeda at the bottom line is not about money.
So what?
You’re picking nits. You don’t know the philosophical roots or tenets of the performers of genius you see before you. That was my point and you’re ignoring it to claim, without proof or a way of establishing any credibility, that Objectivists and mediocrity are linked.
When people feel they must start smoking in order to comply with the demands of a philosophy we have something more than just a ‘political belief’. You are right, I don’t know the philosophical roots of most artists, writers and performers I enjoy. Nonetheless, we know that Rand’s immediate circle seems to have cultivated mediocrity above all.
So the question might be turned around, if Objectivism is so bad, why does it lead to better blogging especially as compared to modern progressivism?
There are good artists who were either sympathetic to Marxism or outright communists. Will you ask the same ‘turned around’ question in regards to that?
But that’s not how an Asian audience would try to read it. “Pacific” President would be taken by them to imply the Asian community, e.g., those countries in the pan-Asian games. Hawaii is, I think, more Americanized than Asian culturally. It’s not a fault of non-English, non-idiomatic English. An Aussie would read it wrong. It’s a fault of locale.
I think an Asian audience would read it the way a non-right wing dingbat audience would read it. Pacific means in the Pacific Ocean. Last I checked, Hawaii was as was non-Asian cultures like New Zeleand and Australia. And for the record Hawaii does have large Asian community and Asian influence on their culture.
i.e., they demonstrate how they are more than willing to bend the truth to fit the circumstance makes me less likely to treat whatever else they have to say at face value.
Well yea except here you are the one touting those who would bend the truth…or at least linking to them.
Hmmmm
Obama’s self-description is not only irrelevant, it is inaccurate. Several presidents lived for years in California. Other presidents have spent meaningful time living in “Pacific” areas outside the continental U.S.
Now let’s just pretend that Obama was born in Chicago but spent his adult years in Hawaii……and just for the fun of it let’s imagine Reagan was born in California.
In this imaginary universe, say Obama gives the same speech but introduces himself as the first Pacific President on the grounds of his extensive time in the Pacific. Does anyone believe in that world our blogger is not screaming “NO NO NO he was born in Chicago and Reagan was born on the Pacific! He’s not the first Pacific President spending time there has nothing to do with it!”?
Boonton,
Is this the imaginary universe in which Hizbollah was kicked out of Lebanon by US and French forces?
In an imaginary universe in which Mr Obama spends his adult years in Hawaii, is a universe in which he does not become President.
Oh, I’ll stop.
Uhm, what the heck are you talking about? Are you ascribing statements made by Ms Fey to Ms Palin? Why would you do that. Oh, are you “bending the truth” to make a point. You should consider politics as a career option.
You are the one making the claim that Democratic errors are on inconsequential matters and the GOP makes substantial ones. I haven’t read the book, but it could be you (or the AP coterie) are confusing TARP with the stimulus.
You seemed to feel that capture of POWs and their processing is equivalent to criminal processing and swapping one for the other is unproblematic.
No. I’m not the one asserting that the quality of art is tightly connected to validity of the ideas of a philosophy. You are. So, you claim Objectivism is bad and one proof is there are no good Objectivist artists. But Communists have produced some good art … therefore ?? What? All I’ve said is that there is no evidence for or against the existence of great Objectivist art, because by and large we don’t actually know the philosophy/politics of our artists.
Well, I certainly won’t counter an unsupported assertion.
Well, are Hawaiians at the pan-Asian games?
Is this the imaginary universe in which Hizbollah was kicked out of Lebanon by US and French forces?
Lebanon was two decades ago and was Biden was not making the calls there. Support for the bailout was not even a year ago.
More importantly, Palin isn’t being stupid here. She is telling a lie. She knows the bailouts are a rallying cry for the Tea Parties and she wants to hop aboard. She also knows the leaders of the GOP, which these days are people like Beck and Rush, will not hold her accountable for trying to rewrite history…and she knows that people like you and NRO will focus on trivia rather than address these issues directly.
Palin exists in a world of spin where truth is manufactured to specs as needed.
In contrast your Biden gaffe was not in a supposedly edited book but made in the middle of a debate and appears to have confused two different historical incidents. The first was the kicking out of Syria from Lebanon. While Syria != Hezbollah they are sponsors of Hezbollah. The US and Europe did pressure Syria to get out after Syria was linked to the assassination of a popular anti-Hezbollah politician. The second was several thousand NATO troops that went into Lebanon in 2006 but that was not to kick Syria out but to help the transition and included French and Italian but not US troops.
This is not an example of stupidity but intelligence. When you’ve read and followed lots of things it is easy to get them jumbled up in your mind. Public speaking is especially fraught with errors like this as one attempts to put forth stories that support some more abstract idea (say power vacuums leading to chaos). Of course these days where not only is everything transcripted within minutes but also bloggers hang on with one keyboard on their blog and another on Google to be the first to spot an error its quite easy to spot lots of errors.
Now be honest, how do you explain the Palin ‘error’ versus the Biden ‘error’? Are you going to really tell us in the hearts of all the Palin apologists like you it’s just a trivial error to ‘forget’ a massive policy you supported a year ago? That this is really equal to or lesser than mangling the chronology and facts of one of the lesser Middle Eastern conflicts while speaking on the fly in a debate where the questions are not provided ahead of time?
You seemed to feel that capture of POWs and their processing is equivalent to criminal processing and swapping one for the other is unproblematic.
You seem to be confused, POWs is a term for captured troops in a war. POWs cannot be tried or punished for conducting a war as they are under the command of their officers (with some exceptions for crimes against humanity)
No. I’m not the one asserting that the quality of art is tightly connected to validity of the ideas of a philosophy. You are. So, you claim Objectivism is bad and one proof is there are no good Objectivist artists.
Except that Objectivism claims to not only cover politics but art as well. Have you forgotten that a whole theory of aesthetics is part of Rand’s work? In contrast while some communist regimes asserted various artistic styles were pro or anti communist, it’s a lot easier to segregate communism as a sociological/economic theory.
Well, I certainly won’t counter an unsupported assertion.
Well her heir appears to be quite unimpressive. Alan Greenspan is more so but his work as Fed chairman does not seem greatly influenced by objectivism. You are free to show me anything impressive about her other toadies.
Well, are Hawaiians at the pan-Asian games?
I don’t know. I’d imagine not. Tell me again how that makes Hawaii non-Pacific?
In an imaginary universe in which Mr Obama spends his adult years in Hawaii, is a universe in which he does not become President.
This logical fallacy is sometimes called fighting the hypothetical. The purpose of the hypothetical is not to see if a Hawaiian politican could be elected President. The purpose of the hypothetical is to ask if your pundit is consistent in his assertions or if they are simply opportunistic. I doubt you could honestly assert they are not the latter.
Boonton,
Yes, they aren’t POWs, they are imprisoned illegal combatants, in a war in which the only opponent are illegal combatants. What is your point on pointing out my error. Oh, yes, you’re ducking the question about Marines vs police procedures. Now that we’ve re-established who we’re talking about (as if it was in doubt) you can return to the original question.
That logical fallacy was an attempt at humor.
Uhm, that’s were I started. My claim was that many in his audience normally equate Pacific with Asian.
Who was Rousseau’s heir? How about Nietzsche? How long are you going to push for the validity of using this particular logical fallacy?
Uhm, that’s were I started. My claim was that many in his audience normally equate Pacific with Asian.
That would be as much an error as equating Muslim with Arab (Iranians and Indonesians are heavily Muslim but not Arab) or equating Africans with black (Africa has whites).
I’m not sure why Chinese would equate Pacific with Asian. Certainly they understand Australia exists. I also wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t consider Indonesia to be the same racial stock as Chinese… I also don’t think they thought Obama was claiming Chinese or Asian blood somewhere in his family tree (interestingly, I heard on Monday that Obama’s other half-brother from his father’s side left Africa years ago and ended up in China and is married to a Chinese woman….he’s tried to avoid the attention of being Obama’s half-brother but is now writing a book…or has one already)
Oh, yes, you’re ducking the question about Marines vs police procedures.
Illegal combatants under the geneva convention must either be charged with a crime or released. They are not POWs unless they are fighting under the rules of war. I’m not sure what you are trying to say about ‘police procedures’, are you saying that the gov’t should be deciding upon punishments for people without evidence?
On a entirely different note, I’d like to make some recommendations to you:
1. Battlestar Galactica – When you start the series let me suggest viewing the opening two hour movie but *before* starting the series, view also the movie for Caprica which is the opening for the prequel series that syfy is launching in 2010. I’d be curious to know your reaction to the franchise after viewing it in that order.
2. Animal Spirits by George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller. Kind of dry economics but very readable.
3. I’ve started the Prince of Nothing series by R Scott Bakker which I found by viewing Brad de Long’s Amazon suggestions.
Boonton,
That’s an outsider’s perspective. I think on the other hand it’s more like equating Middle Easterners with Muslim, which I think many Middle Easterners (who are not Israeli or Christian) in fact do.
Yes, the Chinese are aware Australia “exists.” They also equate the Aussies as Asian/Pacific. It’s just my impression from what little TV I watched when I was in Cebu (Philippines) and Hong Kong while travelling for business a few years back (I spent about 4 months all told total over there).
Charged? Where? Crime? An illegal combatant is an ontological crime, i.e., being one is a crime in and of itself.
That’s what I’m asking you. What standard of evidence do you want Marines to maintain while under fire?
Marines are under fire from Kahlid? If so they should fire back and kill him. Then I would suggest an investigation into how such an odd thing could happen under such intense confinement.
More seriously, evidence can get destroyed under fire. Evidence also gets destroyed in simple arrests (the perp tosses a baggie out of the car into the woods before pulling over, baggie cannot be located etc.). When the firing is done and people are being held prisoner something must be done with them. An investigation is under taken to figure out who and what these people are and available evidence is called upon. I’m not sure what it is you exactly want to do? Simply assume secret gov’t agents will simply make secret decisions regarding humans in their custody and those decisions will simply be assumed correct because the details will be kept hidden from you?
And punishment still is a different issue than your ‘ontological crime’. It doesn’t necessarily follow that a not guilty verdict means the guy walks free. It seems if he is still a combatant then technically he can be held on that (how long I don’t know). The punishment for something like 9/11, though, is not confinement but death. At least it would seem to be given that Tim McVeigh was executed for a similiar type of crime.
Boonton,
I’m curious. What do you see as the competing concerns regarding detention and treatment of illegal combatants?
I’m not sure what you mean. Detention is simply that. A person is detained. Punishment requires a hearing, evaluation of evidence, a finding of guilt and a setting of punishment.
Conservatives seem to have confused the issue into thinking that justification to detain someone equals a blank check to punish. They are two different things.