On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:19:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/02/09 13:50, Tim Cook wrote:
>> public teat, and prevent us from our God-given constitutional right to
>> bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the fact that we haven't
>> had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a very long time,
>> certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those illegal
> 
> 	The right to bear arms is meant for both internal and external
> purposes. It's not just about foreign invasions.

The right to bear arms also is specifically with regard to "a well-
regulated militia".  My read of the 2nd amendment is not that it allows 
homeowners to own guns for self-defense, but that it is limited 
specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".

The text reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free 
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed."

I do recognize that my interpretation differs from that of the US Supreme 
Court, but hey, there's nothing that says I have to agree with the 
court's decisions.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>
> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,

	That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.

> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.

	It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. In 
a case or two (perhaps unrelated to Iraq), he had to overrule some of 
his staff in order to be a bit "saner". Rumsfeld, for example, did not 
want federal agencies involved in Katrina. Bush finally overruled.

> Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing.

	Perhaps, but "right" is a very slippery term. From a certain 
perspective, destroying a country to get a strategic advantage in the 
reason is the right thing to do. Or so I keep being told.

> I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him
> credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased)
> information, he would have made more intelligent choices. He was still
> biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot
> better.

	Less biased information?

	The intelligence information he received was mostly correct. The CIA 
warned him that the connections were quite tenuous. They even made him 
remove the Niger link from his speech (or that of someone in his 
cabinet). It was common practice to have a speech vetted by the CIA. 
When Colin Powell finally gave that speech, he did so without the CIA's 
knowledge.


-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 14:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
> background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
> some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
> and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
> Bush's connections would land him with these people too.

	The "unholy" alliance with the Saudis goes back decades. It's silly to 
put it on Clinton or Bush's lap.

	And yes, I really do think they should shut down Sandia National Labs.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 14:30, Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are the ones where
>> he's doing the same thing as Bush.
>
> What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have
> the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed?
> Never mind the fact that Bush is the reason we're in the Middle East to
> begin with...

	So...what policy are you talking about?

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:19:44 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
>> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite
>> the cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the
>> system itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the
>> average life span being something like 37th in the world.
> 
> 1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.

True, but studies have shown that it's not the best in the world.  And 
yes, it does depend on whose ranking you look at and what the criteria 
are.  If the criteria is "makes the most money for shareholders", damned 
straight, we've got the best system in the world. ;)

> 2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place
> the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts
> it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.

I think I mixed the numbers up, I was afraid I might do that.  The WHO is 
who was cited in the numbers I heard.

> 3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care
> don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work
> hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who
> don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being
> the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is
> not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

Yes, agreed - and I appreciate that you don't agree with that view.  I 
agree that heath care is and should be a human right.  The needs of 
society for a healthy population outweigh the needs for profits or other 
motivating factors.

> 4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near
> the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers,
> etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care
> because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows
> that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other
> common serious ailments.

Sure, one can cherry pick parts of the system and say "that's good" and 
"that's not good", but the point is to evaluate the *system* not 
individual components of the system.

> 	I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's
> particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care
> want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a
> model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system
> of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit
> insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.

I haven't looked at the plan in great detail, but the vibe I get from 
what I hear about it is that it's not a replacement for the current 
system, but an addition to it.  Those who oppose it say it's a bad idea 
because "government run programs don't work efficiently" - like the 
military or the post office don't work well at all.  (But wait, they 
do. ;-))

But those same people then say that it would supplant the current system 
because of competition.  But wait, if the current system is good and 
competition is good, then adding an option run by a supposed inefficient 
government agency shouldn't be a threat to the existing system, should 
it?  The opponents need to decide, either the government can run it 
effectively and competitively (thus undermining shareholder value in the 
current scheme), or the government is incompetent and can't run an 
effective program that's any better that what we currently have - in 
which case, it's not a threat.  It can't be a threat and not a threat at 
the same time.

> 	I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that 
just
> because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There
> are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed.
> It's a long article, but you should read:

True, and while I support the plan based on what I've heard about it, I 
don't believe it's a magic bullet that'll solve all of our problems.  But 
it's a step in the right direction.

Part of the reason it won't be a magic bullet to solve all of our 
problems is that the legislative process requires compromises be made.  
Some compromises will be good for the plan overall, and some will be bad 
for the plan overall.

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?
currentPage=all
> 
> 	It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases 
it
> can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_
> to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work
> that well.

Sure, but the current insurance-based system also doesn't work that well, 
can be abused, etc, etc, etc.  The same arguments that are used against a 
single-payer system apply to the system we have now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have 
> the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed? 

No, I mean like the "let's continue to detain these people indefinitely even 
tho they've already had a trial and been found to be innocent and 
non-dangerous."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".

Definition of militia:

2) the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military 
service

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:53:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".
> 
> Definition of militia:
> 
> 2) the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for
> military service

That definition came around circa 1890, according to the OED.

A more telling definition is one that was in common usage when the bill 
of rights was created in 1789:

3. b. [...] a branch or department of the establishment maintained for 
purposes of war.

Or perhaps an earlier definition:

1. a. A system of military discipline, organization, and tactics; manner 
of conducting warfare; the arts of war.

In 1776, Adam Smith wrote:

"It [the state] may..oblige either all the citizens of the military age, 
or a certain number of them to join in some measure the trade of a 
soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry 
on. Its military force is (then) said to consist in a militia."

While not a definition per se, the connotation here is that a militia is 
a military force made up of citizens who are part-time members of the 
military.

How many actual gun owners are members of, say, the national guard?  Less 
than 100% I'd wager.

Then there's the "well-regulated" part of that phrase in the bill of 
rights.  Someone who goes to the local gun shop and purchases a S&W .38 
handgun to go target shooting on the weekends (or for self defense) isn't 
part of a "well-regulated militia".  They're an individual citizen 
purchasing a handgun for personal reasons.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
>> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
>> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>>
>> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,
> 
>     That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.

Not necessarily; I assume that, whatever reasons he had, they were 
colored by his desire to find a reason to invade.

>> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
>> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.
> 
>     It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. 

<snip>

>     Less biased information?
> 
>     The intelligence information he received was mostly correct.

I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of 
the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the 
higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush 
himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).

According to them, you just did *not* give a report that contradicted 
what the cabinet wanted to hear.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, 
>> and lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably 
>> even vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
>>
> 
> You sure about that one?
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire

Quite an appropriate link for a thread that started about conspiracy 
theories ;)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message