This thread is a place for careful, clear, respectful discussions of difficult topics. It is not a place for having two-fisted no-holds-barred discussions.
MBers should be able to express their opinions without attacking others personally, and be able to listen to people who disagree with them without feeling personally attacked.
Easier said than done, of course. But MuseBlog is a good place to practice trying.
Continued from version 2009.2.
The current topic on from Hot Topics 2009.2 was the situation in Iran. Piggy said that the unrest was now about broader issues than the recent election but that the opposition would fail without help. (He didn’t specify what kind of help or who, if anybody, could or should offer it.) Zallie said the United States shouldn’t intervene militarily, and Enceladus cited two historical examples of U.S. military intervention — Vietnam and North Korea — as “epic fails.”
Enceladus, are you talking about the Korean war in the early 1950s? I wouldn’t call it a failure. South Korea is here today and is a lot better off than North Korea is.
Nor is American intervention abroad necessarily doomed. The First Gulf War (1990-1991), the bombing of Libya in 1986, and the U.S.-led NATO intervention after the breakup of Yugoslavia all achieved at least some of their goals.
Now, back to Iran — or whatever else you want to discuss.
We’re still on the border between North & South Korea. We actually still have troops in South Korea. Do you call a more than 50 year war a success?
We wouldn’t have to have 37,000 troops on the border if N. Korea didn’t have over one million on the other side.
Gleep, I just realized I accidentally referred to the Shah of Iran instead of the Ayatollah. Note to self: do not discuss international politics before noon. Large mistakes may occur.
Wow, you have these kinds of threads on the MuseBlog? PIggy said you got kind of heated… what kinds of hot topics do you talk about?
Pretty much any sensitive/political/random topic that comes up. Sensitive people should probably stay away from the thread (actually, I’m not sure if I’ve ever posted in it, I mostly just read what goes on) because feelings can get hurt. However, many lively debates and discussions go on here.
Yeah, remember Donaldo? Well, he’s not here anymore…
Actually, I’m too new to have ever seen him post, but I’ve heard what happened to him. That’s what I meant when I said “Sensitive people should probably stay away from the thread because feelings can (and, as you pointed out, do) get hurt.”
No, like the GAPA’s pointed out, he left entirely of his own accord-he wasn’t forced to, because, say, he did something inappropriate on this thread.
He isn’t? I thought he just left, not banned or whatever!
That’s correct. He left entirely of his own accord, as he has done before.
Hold on- Donaldo left again? Last I saw he left after felling as though he was being attacked but eventually returned.
Last sighted on Hot Topics 2009.2 on May 17. He didn’t return for his birthday in June.
The idea behind the thread is to find ways of approaching topics so that the discussions do not get overheated. MBers should be able to express their opinions without attacking others personally, and be able to listen to people who disagree with them without feeling personally attacked. In practice, however, it doesn’t always work out that way — no matter how careful you are.
So to be absolutely clear: this thread is not a place for having two-fisted no-holds-barred discussions. There are no threads like that on MuseBlog. It’s a place for careful, clear, respectful discussions of difficult topics.
Hot Topics is much hotter by reputation than by reality. Over the years, the vast majority of participants have indeed handled themselves with civility, even in disagreement. However, it’s also true that sometimes when a particular viewpoint is in the minority, those who espouse it feel under attack by the sheer weight of the numbers — another reason to take extra care to be courteous.
Yes, we just have to assume that the death threats aren’t meant seriously.
Just kidding. If everyone starts just slashing-and-burning, the GAPAs step in, and they either argue themselves or make everyone else stop arguing.
Arguing is fine — in the sense of presenting evidence in support of your view. Brawling is not.
Hi! I’m a new Museblogger. Anyway, I think that maybe the U.S. shouldn’t intervene militarily, but there should be pressure from the international community so that the votes are recounted or something, because people are dying. And a country with this many rebellious people doesn’t do well, even if there is a military crackdown on the protesters (trust me–I took AP World History last year).
Here is the President’s statement on Iran (copies from white house website)
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
I don’t feel I can properly communicate anything right now, so here are some eyewitness reports posted on BBC’s website (and NYTimes)
I was part of the protest in Valiasr Square. When we got there, there were riot police and plain clothes guards shooting at people, I could see that people had been shot and were on the ground. There were also water cannons. We decided to head towards Azadi Square, and there were guards on motorbikes and attacking people with batons.
There were thousands of people out on the streets the police were using tear gas – the whole experience was terrifying. Towhid (Unity) Square looked like a battle ground.
There were lots of female protestors – I saw a guard attack one women and then she went back up to him and grabbed him by the collar and said ‘why are you doing this? Are you not an Iranian?’ – he was totally disarmed and didn’t know what to do but her actions stopped him.
There were no ambulances around – people were helping each other – helping the wounded – taking them to safety away from further attacks.
There has been a video circulating that I have not been able to watch, but have read descriptions of.
Basij shots to death a young woman in Tehran’s Saturday June 20th protests At 19:05 June 20th Place: Karekar Ave., at the corner crossing Khosravi St. and Salehi st. A young woman who was standing aside with her father watching the protests was shot by a basij member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house. He had clear shot at the girl and could not miss her. However, he aimed straight her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than 2 minutes. The protests were going on about 1 kilometers away in the main street and some of the protesting crowd were running from tear gass used among them, towards Salehi St. The film is shot by my friend who was standing beside me. Please let the world know.
Someone who knows farsi on said website wrote that here family was saying “it’s okay it’s okay” and “hold on” to her as she lay in the street dying
Don’t turn a blind eye to this…
So what can be done? Military intervention is no option for the US, any direct action from a Western country will probably worsen the situation. Civilians can do things like run proxies and protest, but will that change the situation over there?
It’s all so close. Too close to see.
Rebellious people are quite a force to be reckoned with (think the Visigoths), but it depends on how willing the government is to eliminate rebellion. Thanks to the Internet, that is virtually impossible, because the information is accessible to people almost everywhere. I know that a lot of communications systems have been shut down there, but still.
There’s only one country that would be able to do that-unfortunately, Iraq is in shambles, a testament to U.S. intervention. Iraq would be able to balance Iran.
No, guys, this is nothing like Iraq. Iraq had a brutal dictator, yes, and NATO forces went in to overthrow him. Seems like Iran, right? Wrong. In Iran, the Iranian people have started things. They are the ones who have taken action first, and they won’t succeed without help. Remember that American Revolution? Was that unjust? No. Did colonists succeed without help? No–one of our biggest allies against the king were the French. America would still be part of Britain without foreign aid. Iran is the first big revolution of the twenty-first century. They are trying to overthrow a leader much worse than King George II. Why are we standing idle while efforts for freedom and basic human rights are being countered by bloodshed? America is hypocritical and a false protector of humanity. So we “demand” Iran to stop. If they don’t what’s the punishment? We “lose respect” for them or something. Iran doesn’t give a flying cake about respect in the international community. Sanctions? What good would those do? I mean, they’ve been working so well in other situations.
Someone has to help these revolutionaries. Not UN troops–their commanders are too wishy-washy to actually get anything done. It has to be NATO, or, if our allies abandon the cause, the US alone.
I can’t remember the whole story, but a video of an Iranian woman being killed has spread about the Internet. It hasn’t been confirmed, but she’s known as “Neda”. I can’t remember the exact quote, but it went something like this: “She died with her eyes open. Please don’t keep yours shut.”
I meant that before, if either of them got too powerful, they would start fighting each other. Kind of like India and Pakistan.
I don’t know much on the subject, so I’m probably going to be wrong about anything I say… Can the U.S. umm, take another war? Well, not a war…. Would it be a war? I don’t know…. If we can do it easily, then I think we should do it… I guess… I’m not very sure about myself politics lately…
1. I don’t think anyone said Iran was just like Iraq, Cromwell was hypothesizing that if Iraq was stable it could safely stabilize Iran (which I doubt, seeing as how they did fight the 8 year Iran–Iraq War).
OH. Cromwell is Brutus.
Yes, Mutually Assured Destruction (best acronym!) is a deterrent to war. It has been so far, at least.
2. Are you saying that NATO should invade? How would that help the Iranian people? It seems to me that an invasion would lend weight to the current regime’s declarations that this civil trouble is a product of British imperialism, removing credibility that the protesters currently have with the rest of the people of Iran (who are called Iranians, btw. Some non-MuseBloggers can’t seem to get that right.)
No no no… I don’t know… Never mind. Who knows why I said that… Shouldn’t you being saying something to Piggy? Isn’t that what he’s suggesting? I’m just going to watch this now, because I don’t know much about Iran; I just heard about it about a week ago, and I haven’t looked into it. Just forget my post. And anyway, is that what Piggy is saying? To take physical action? I haven’t looked at the rest of the thread yet, I am sure that it is explained. Sorry for saying something that I haven’t thought through!
SFTDP
Read Piggy’s below post. I understand now, but I can’t make up my mind about what to think…
So, what are the demonstrators demonstrating for at this point? Are they saying “Down with the mullahs! We want a non-religious democracy like Turkey’s”? Or are they saying “Down with Ahmadinejad! We want another election!” Clearly it’s “down with X” and “we want Y,” but it’s important to know what X and Y are.
Also, how widespread are the riots and demonstrations? Are they all over the country, or just in Tehran? Regional differences of opinion could play a big role in deciding how this all turns out.
Finally, are the demonstrators asking foreign armies to come to their assistance? How reasonable is it to assume that they want them?
Ahmadinejad is hiring people from Palestine, and other surrounding countries to act as police, because the real police wouldn’t shoot at people they know.
Please substantiate that with fact, or it shall be declared rumor!
One of my dad’s friends, who is Persian, but with relatives in Iran, told him that.
Alas, I must take on the duty: “This fact is henceforth declared rumor.”
Umm… I just explained it above you. It’s also on some news websites.
Yeah, people don’t all know each other in Iran, so I don’t see why that would be true.
Most police are assigned to areas near where they live, so they don’t have a long commute. They know some of the people near them. Would YOU kill your neighbor?
First, if he was evil in my opinion, yes. They have strong nationalism and religion there. Second, you can’t know that many people. And third, it would be easier to have a longer commute than to hire other people.
Most people would not kill a neighbor. That said, horrific things can happen under extreme pressure.
I think the last thing Ahmadinejad wants is police easily shooting people, because it’s not far to civil war from there.
I don’t think they’re anti-religious. And did the Democrats want foreign armies to come to their aid in 2000? I realize that that’s a pretty bad metaphor, but the point is, I don’t think they’re traitors or rebels.
I don’t think anyone wanted foreign military intervention after the 2000 election. That would have been supremely unhelpful.
10) I think it was the city people who wanted Mousavi, but the country people wanted Ahmadinejad. The riots are in the cities.
Sort of like the midwest being Republican, and the coast/ cities being Democrats!
Unfair! We are not Republican! We never were and never will be! I know one republican in my grade! I like in the mid-midwest (Iowa!)
From what I can tell, they just want fair elections. Ahmadinejad is pretty popular, and I haven’t heard any anger towards Khamenei. What we want to see, from a Western perspective, is good (populist/Mousavi) rising up, united against bad (Ahmadinejad/theocracy). And then winning, bringing freedom to all.
That’s not going to happen, because it’s not that simple. As Robert has said here.
Piggy, I know what you’re trying to say but this is not th same as the American Revolution.
Iran does not have a friendly history with outside forces, particularly Britain and the US. Who have in the past intervened for what was perceieved as their own benefit.
Both Britain and the US were involved in the removal of Mohammed Mosaddeq after he nationalized Iran’s oil reserves, thus taking the control of oil away from Britain. The US orchestrated the installation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who later signed an agreement that gave the US a share of the profits of Iran’s oil.
The Shah was ousted in the Iranian evolution of 1979. This all occurred in the larger from of the Cold War of course but my point is that whatever their intentions, intervention will not now, nor will it likely ever again be perceived kindly due to Iran’s history with said countries. Foreign intervention illegitimizes their efforts. The Iranian government is already placing blame on the BBC and VOA (Voice of America) for broadcasting news on the fallout. Propaganda being spread against the protesters describes the movement as engineered by the West.
Since I am fully inarticulate right now, here’s what Fareed Zakaria has to say about that!
N: But shouldn’t the U.S. be more vocal in support for the Iranian protesters?
Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush’s cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush’s concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush’s basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.
Robert– I have read of protests in Shiraz, Tabriz and Isfahan. A poster on another site said her relatives in Shiraz are going about normal business, and that people are too scared to go out except at night time.
I agree with Vendaval, this is about fair elections.
You bring up a few interesting points. As for the American Revolution point, of course Iran does not have a friendly history with outside forces. This is not an applicable point. The only relations one country can have with another is through the country’s military or government. This is about the people of Iran, not the military.
Will intervention be viewed kindly? Probably not. But what do I care? I want Iran to be a free country, free from a dictatorial theocracy. Foreign intervention can only illegitimize efforts through the Iranian media and propaganda. If the regime is left in place, yes, any foreign efforts will be seen as illegitimate. That’s why we have to free Iran–so the Iranians can finally have the freedom to see an unfiltered picture of their country, and see that the foreign assistance was necessary and helpful. If we succeed in freeing Iran and the Iranian people still don’t like us, so be it–that would not mean that our operations had failed.
This isn’t about making the US look good. If that is our country’s basis for decisions, I do not want to live in this country. America has been for a long time a protector of human rights around the world, whether it “looks good” to other nations or not. Even America’s allied countries don’t like America. That’s just a fact of life. But America has so much capacity to help this world, I would be deeply offended if it stood idle while people are murdered for exercising their rights as human beings.
Furthermore, I don’t think you can compare Iran to the USSR. The USSR was bent on basically spreading its empire worldwide, until the entire planet was socialist. Iran hates Israel and the West, yes, but its conflict at this time is against its own people, which is entirely unlike the situation in 1989 in Eastern Europe.
Communist. Not socialist. Socialism is a compromise, with government OPTIONS, not complete and total control.
USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And socialism means complete government control of the market. But that fact does not concern this discussion.
Then what was the European Socialist Bill? They aren’t communists. Also, if the government has complete control, then it isn’t a market. It’s:
Enceladus, this does not concern this discussion. I will not respond again.
This is Hot Topics, not The Iran Thread.
No, that’s still a market.
The socialism/communism issue is a matter of semantics. Socialism is commonly accepted to be a market heavily controlled by the government. Communism is commonly accepted as complete dictatorial control. Neither definition is true to the original meaning of the label.
You’re all right!
Originally, communism was meant to get rid of government, where everyone shares everything, and does what they are good at. And then they all skip off into the sunset…. wait, wrong story.
It’s like the English Civil War in that both sides are fighting for something not too appealing, but one option is better, May I point out one of the main people in that war? Anyway, it’s not important enough now to intervene. The protesters don’t want us there.
Even if you could prove that the protesters don’t want us there, it would be the just thing to do. There is a slim chance that they will succeed without foreign help, but most likely the revolution will be repressed without us, which is why we have to help.
What likelihood is there that it will survive and be good in the long term if we intervene? I would argue none.
But, if the protesters don’t want our aid, it would be unjust of ourselves to force it upon them. We can’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) help people/a country who don’t want our help.
Believe me, I am tearing myself up inside for my overall irrelevancy and pathetic inability to do anything about this. But this isn’t our fight
It is an applicable point. Due to the history of unsavory relations, any intervention would only further factionalize the country. This is not about us, it is about the Iranians. I think your heart is in the right place, but it is extremely naive to believe that we can go in and “free” a country without forever undermining the legitimacy of subsequent governments. Where does it end? What kind of message does it send, when another country consistently intervenes when things are not going according to their plan for your country? Doesn’t that imply that said country will continue to watch and intervene, thus undermine your own supposed government as second in command to the outside country? I’ll say it again, it won’t be taken the right way. Even if intentions are good, it is just 21st century imperialism in the eyes of a country previously conned by the UK and the US. The media will pounce on it as you say, and that’s not something to dismiss. This is about popular opinion, and throwing the US in there isn’t going to help.
I think the problem you’re having is that when I say “this is for them to decide” you think that they can’t possibly win, that it’s hopeless unless we help them. I don’t believe that. Did you know 60% of the Iranian population is under 30? The frustration these people are showing is a long burning thing and cannot be quelled now. I don’t know what will happen but I believe in them. Out of respect for them we must pull back and let them do this, let them voice the anger and hope…not us.
Yes to everything. I agree with you and also with Rebecca in post 17.
Word.
9.3- No, not invade. Send in troops to assist and protect the protesters. An invasion implies the troops are entering a country in order to overtake and rule that country. We want the Iranians to be able to freely rule themselves. Wait, you’re saying that you want Iraq and Iran to go to have MAD? That has never been and will never be a deterrent to war, except against a worldwide nuclear war amongst the superpowers.
People, please don’t liken the Iranian government and the Iranian people to Democrats and Republicans. That is horrifically incorrect and insults both examples. You’re lessening the revolution in Iran to a presidential race, and you’re saying that politics are akin to oppressive regimes and bloodshed. Stop.
10- Well, I think the protests have gone far past the point of just disputing an election. I think people are finally fed up with theocracy and want to see free democracy in their country. As for how widespread the protests are, it’s near impossible to tell. We know that they’re happening in numerous cities across the country, but, due to Iran’s “policy” about foreign journalists, that is, arrest them on sight, we can’t tell how much farther they go. I don’t think there have been any reports of countryside protests, but that could very well be because word hasn’t been able to get out, whether through government interference or simple lack of internet.
13- Saying that Ahmadinejad is popular is highly misleading. He controls the media–of course he’s going to be reported as popular. We have absolutely no way of telling how popular he, the Ayatollah, or Mousavi is simply because the Iranian government is warping the media, both in-country and foreign. Iran has always been difficult to see into, but the government’s recent actions, regarding both the protests and the elections in general, have increased these difficulties tenfold.
Sorry about the comparison. I was just kidding.
Theocracy and Democracy can be together. Look just to the west and south of Iran and you will see a fully functioning theocratic democracy. The Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with it.
And no, it would not be MAD at all. It would be Mutually Assured Distraction. Neither would be able to accomplish anything. I wasn’t saying that they should have nuclear weapons.
I was saying that in rural areas, like Republicans, Ahmadinehad is popular, and in urban areas, like Democrats, Mousavi is popular. I was simply saying that their situation is similar, not the groups’ politics.
No. Those are gross generalizations, and I take offense at them. Let’s just find another metaphor, ‘kay?
You can ignore some parts of a metaphor. Fast moderating. Thanks, GAPAs.
They both are mainly true. Look at a political map. Look at the red and blue states. Sense a connection between location and politics? It’s similar in Iran. I wasn’t insulting the Republicans, I wasn’t saying they WERE Ahmedinejad, I was saying their LOCATION was similar.
I think it’s an applicable metaphor. Many, many elections have a candidate who polls well in urban areas, with another who draws a lot of support from rural areas. That seems to be the case in this current Iranian election, and was also the case in our 2008 election. Enceladus was drawing a parallel based on those facts, not the politics of the parties themselves.
What I really don’t understand is how you manage to be offended by that.
We might not mean to invade and stay, but if Iranian forces try to keep us out what could you call it? Liberation?
Also who’s to say that the protesters are the ones we should go aid and protect? We shouldn’t declare them right and correct. If anything stability should be achieved by outside forces.
I don’t want Iran and Iraq to have MAD, Cromwell does. I was just remarking that his point is valid in some sense because MAD has worked. In Cromwell’s scenario the two countries may have nuclear weapons. MAD has obviously not worked in the past between these two countries because there was an 8 year war, but I’m sure nobody wants that to happen again. Actually, MAD doesn’t apply to this situation because if it is likened to the US and the USSR, the USSR did collapse in civil turmoil.
Saying that the “people are finally fed up with theocracy” I find incorrect on two levels: that they want to separate religion and government, and that such a separation would be beneficial. Theocracy was all the rage worldwide until about 200 years ago. It worked then, and in many ways government and religion compliment eachother.
Ahmadinejad is popular, to some degree. He was initially elected, and external polls, while very inaccurate, did show him as being favored by about half the population.
No. It would make it so that they wouldn’t get nuclear weapons. War between them is good. I did not compare it to the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. I compared it to India and Pakistan because although they have nuclear weapons, which is not good, they still manage to fight each other.
They do want to separate them. I do agree that they don’t have to.
Enceladus, please just drop it. I’ve already told you that I find it very offensive, even if you don’t, and continuing to use it would mean that you are purposely offending me, that is, flaming. Just drop it and move on, please.
Vendaval- As a matter of fact, liberation is exactly what I would call it. And why wouldn’t we “declare” them right? It’s called taking a stand. America does this each and every day.
Okay, I don’t think the MAD point really applies to this situation much, so let’s all just drop that one.
Wait, you’re actually arguing against me, a devout Catholic and papist, about theocracy? It is a terrible idea, restricts human rights, and, in the end, does more harm than good. Religion and government are two separate things, and should always remain that way. Both religion and government are worthless if forced upon people.
So you say Ahmadinejad had, according to admittedly inaccuare external polls, about half the population. Perhaps he had, say, 49% of the actual vote? Seems possible. Besides, the president really doesn’t hold any power to speak of. It’s the Ayatollah who does, and he wasn’t elected, was he?
Look at Israel. Theocracy can work. It can’t work for the US-we’re a melting pot. Iran is not. And Ahmedinejad rules with the power of the Ayotollah pretty much at his disposal.
“And why wouldn’t we “declare†them right? It’s called taking a stand. America does this each and every day.”
It’s not our responsibility to oversee the elections, or to declare any party victorious. This is not our election, and while we should verbally support the principles of democracy and human rights, I fail to see why it’s our duty to “liberate” Iran.
Theocracy.. “is a terrible idea, restricts human rights, and, in the end, does more harm than good.”
Theocracy doesn’t have a monopoly on restricting human rights. Any type of government can (and has) restricted human rights on some level. Can you elaborate on how theocracy restricts human rights and does “more harm than good?”
Maybe I’m missing something here, but I don’t see any way that Enceladus has been offensive. As far as I can tell he was basically trying to make the point that political views may differ according to where one lives, as often happens between urban and rural populations. He then tried to clarify his statement because he probably felt his intention was misunderstood.
Please, everyone, start with the assumption no one here is intentionally offending anyone else. It’s much easier to misunderstand someone’s point than it is to make one’s point clear in the first place, so cut each other a little slack.
I agree 100%.
Okay. Let’s clear up the metaphor thing.
Metaphor Manual.
Exact Metaphor-Everything is exactly the same in the two things being compared.
Shifted Metaphor-Exact except changed to account for some specific factor.
Partial Metaphor-Ignore the irrelevant bits in this one-it’s only talking about some parts of each thing.
Extended Metaphor-Don’t ask and don’t use.
Example of extended metaphor-Going through drug rehab is like going through a jungle because it’s hard and you never know what’s next. You will also sometimes have to burn some grass.
Extended metaphor- cringe metaphor. One terrible example:
Jon and Kate had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had never met.
One can draw analogies, however. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to point out that political views can differ with geography, and that examples can be seen in both the United States and Iran. That statement in no way identifies American political parties with those of Iran; it just says that both countries exemplify the same general phenomenon.
(In the United States, by the way, I think it would be interesting to draw a map of population density, county by county, and compare it with political preference.)
Yes. Partial Metaphor.
Robert, here are some maps like that. I think they’re really interesting, although a bit outdated by now. I haven’t seen any for ’08 yet.
w w w.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
Also please remember that anyone who holds a minority viewpoint within a group may feel under attack even when there is no intent. It’s human nature to feel frustrated and/or assaulted when it seems like everyone disagrees with you. I’m sure most of you have been there at one time or another, so remember how it feels. Just something to keep in mind if you think someone overreacts to a point you’ve made. Respond in kindness not in kind.
Agreed. I know it’s tempting to play it safe and open up only when you’re sure people already agree with you. That’s very common out in the so-called Real World, where it makes things much duller than they need to be and deprives everyone of a good intellectual workout. So by all means, everybody, please keep talking. (That may be a dangerous thing to say to MBers, as I suspect your parents would agree.)
Be sure to actually read the comment before you post!
It is better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Erg, I give up. I can’t argue with half a dozen people at once. *grumble*
Everyone on this thread except for the GAPAs has disagreed with me, too. I know you’ll come back. What’s the use. So pointless…
We tend not to agree or disagree with anyone, but we do like to raise questions and sometimes step in as referees when a rhetorical or logical foul has been committed.
You don’t have to. You’ll make yourself crazy if you try to respond to every point. The stakes in a single conversation are not worth that, considering that no one here has the power to change the situation in Iran one way or another at the moment. It doesn’t hurt to step away and let yourself breathe easily for awhile.
Piggy, you seem to have this sort of reaction a lot. Don’t feel like you have to respond all at once. Take your time; no one is out to get you. I think we’ve all been in the minority at some point on a Hot Topics thread.
“We’ve all been in the minority at some point on a Hot Topics thread.” True, but I’ve never not been in the minority, usually a minority of one. I know I don’t have to respond to every point at once, but when I’m bombarded by eighteen questions at once, it’s just too overwhelming.
Gah, I just feel like I should be able to do something for these people. *scurries away*
Look, Piggy, you have been in a majority. Look at the last Hot Topics. Also, I’m a minority and you’re a majority in the “theocracy is bad in the modern world” thing.
You’re for theocracy, because I’m pretty sure Piggy’s against theocracy.
(19.2) Zallie: Thanks! Very interesting: look at all the blue spires and red valleys.
A lot of the parties’ platforms fall into place if you look at them from the perspective of population density. Public services: if you’re in a city or densely populated suburb, ambulances and police cars can reach you more quickly, and public transportation is more likely to be a useful way of getting around. If you’re in a less densely populated area, you have to be more self-reliant, and you really need a car (or in some places a pickup truck) to go anywhere at all. So you’re less likely to favor public services and the taxes needed to pay for them. Gun control: out in the country, you can shoot at bottles or cans with little danger of hurting anyone else. In town, any stray gunshot is much more likely to hit someone, and recreational shooting is almost unknown. And so on…
(22.3.1) Piggy: Nobody has to respond to anything here. If you like, you can say what you think, let others say what they think, and leave it at that. Or you can selectively respond to some points but not others — whatever works for you.
As far as we Administrators are concerned, nobody, not even a minority of one, should have to worry about feeling outnumbered here. It isn’t a football game, with the defensive line rushing the quarterback. It’s a discussion — a place to share information and compare points of view. On the whole, I think it succeeds admirably.
</gapa_sermonette>
Aw Piggy, don’t feel bullied! I think we’re all just very concerned (this is such an insipid word to use) about the whole thing… Like Rebecca said, there’s nothing we can really do, so it leads to a very frustrated kind of conversation.
I never mean to attack you personally, I think we’re all just extremely opinionated individuals. Stubborn to the core!
Bit of an update:
“Iran’s Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.
The council’s Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei — a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.
“Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate — the incident has happened in only 50 cities,” Kadkhodaei said.”
oh really, only 50 cities. Still, for this to be admitted is pretty significant, and all the more so that it’s done so on state television, which has to my understanding shied away from broadcasting anything to that effect until now.
LONDON, England (CNN) — A survey of Iran’s election results raises “serious questions†about the victory President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is said to have won and uncovers irregularities in the official results, a British think-tank said Sunday.
Official statistics obtained from Iran’s Ministry of the Interior show the votes cast exceeded the number of eligible voters in two provinces, said Chatham House, a London-based institute that analyzes international affairs.
Claims that incumbent President Ahmadinejad, a conservative, swept the board in rural provinces also flies in the face of previous results, said Chatham House, which conducted the survey with the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
Release of the survey results comes on the heels of violent demonstrations that followed Iran’s disputed June 12 presidential election.
Anti-government demonstrators have protested the results in street rallies and marches, defying warnings from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not to engage in such action.
Iran’s foreign minister Sunday disputed allegations of ballot irregularities.
I read an article today that pointed out how much more important women are becoming in the protests. There are many women in the protests (who could forget Neda). Mousavi was a supporter of women’s rights, and even his wife capaigned for him, which was unusual. In contrast to the last revolution, where there were mostly men in the crowd, one sees more women marching along the streets today. Some are even defying the laws by wearing more revealing clothing and showing their hair.
Yet another blow to the government.
I noticed that too. I wonder what the reason is?
So…How ’bout that North Korea? Crazy? Belligerent? Absolutely right because America is evil? What do you think?
America isn’t evil!
Well, a lot of people don’t like America.
I wasn’t saying that!
I’m sorry for assuming that you were assuming…
I for one think it’s great that the Iranian citizens are finally protesting against their corrupt, theocratic and dictatorial government. Unfortunately, violence will play a strong role in the process. I’ve seen a clip of a young woman being shot at point blank range by a Basij thug, while her father screamed her name. Let’s hope that they manage to keep a reign on things and not let it degenerate beyond recovery.
As for US intervention, absolutely not. If anything, the UN should impose itself as keepers of the peace, but American Imperialism is not going to work.
Hello, FrigidSymphony. Welcome back to Hot Topics.
Hello. It’s a tentative approach to some serious discussions. We’ll see how it goes.
Welcome back! Yes I agree that intervention is not a viable option. About North Korea, I was asking if other people thought that North Korea was right because they thought that America is evil.
Absolutes are always inaccurate. The US isn’t entirely good or evil, obviously. Regardless, one nation being wrong about a certain issue doesn’t necessarily mean that the opposing nation is right about it.
*doesn’t think America is evil*
North Korea… I don’t know what to think. Slightly crazy in any case. I wonder where this will go.
Iran:
I agree with FS that American imperialism is a no-no. You make a lot of enemies that way, and not that many friends.
North Korea: I’m not sure what they are thinking right now, maybe they want to feel empowered, maybe they want to take over the world, maybe they want to just try out one of their cool missiles that they have and it is just for non-violent purposes, or maybe they just want to scare the crap out of everyone.
I’m not sure World Peace is possible. You guys?
They’res always gonna be a disagreement and countries will always fight….I’m just not sure its possible. It’s a nice goal and all, but..*shrug*
Unless, of course, ðere are no countries, and one single world force, controlling ðe whole world. I þink I would like ðat.
Enc, I think you’re having a little too much fun with those Special Characters.
Ðer’re not special. Ðey are used in Iceland quite regularly. If I could, I’d get a keyboard wiþ ðese on it, so I could use ðem regularly. Also, I’d love it if ðere could be keys wiþ characters for “ch”. I really hate þings like “th” and “ch”.
Yes, runes are fun. Thank you, back on topic?
RE North Korea: Don’t you think it’s possible that it’s because the leader is a power hungry dictator who has to compensate for relatively small Asian genitalia by firing big missiles? He even named one of them “dong”. Thank you, captain obvious. Kim Jong Il is mad, basically, and dangerous. It’s a power play, an ego game, and it could have nasty consequences. When even Russia, which is brimming with corruption, tells N. Korea to quit it with the big boy games, you know something’s serious.
I wonder if Kim Jong Il is dying. Perhaps he wants to go out with all guns blazing, so to speak. He’s not exactly young, is he? So maybe he wants to make his point before he expires. N. Korea is poor and they have lots of enemies. If he made enough countries mad (Japan and China, especially because he was firing missiles near them) then they could take him out. Maybe it’s just like a little kid who knows that he isn’t going to get what he wants, but throws a big tantrum and makes as big of a mess possible. I don’t know what he wants, but maybe to be remembered and to go out with a bang. In Ancient Greece, it was terrible to be forgotten after you died. Maybe he has the same kind of mentality.
(Sorry about all the metaphors.)
You’ve inspired me; I’m going to start using those more regularly. Did you know that “Ye” came from Þe? Try Alt 0222, 0254, 208, or 0240.
And I wonder, have you tried out the interrobang‽
I definitely think world peace is possible. I also think that everyone on the planet will have to be dead first. :eyeroll:
Kaiser
vanillabean: We know that Kim has had health problems, most recently a stroke. His naming his son as his successor could well indicate that he doesn’t expect to be around much longer.
from a psycological point of view it makes a lot of sense. Kim Jong II knows that with outside influences being what they are, the likelyhood of North Korean communisum dying when he does is more likely.
Also, I heard that he thought he was a god, but knew he was mortal, so the “out with a bang” theory makes sense.
This is off-topic, and I’ve never really been a Hot Topic-er, but I’d sort of just like to share this thought I had the other day.
All my life (I’m 14 years old) I’ve been the future of America. All my thoughts have sort of been in the future tense. (I’m going to do this, and I’m going to do that…) My whole generation, which I call the Computer Generation, has been the future of America. When we grew up, we were going to do this, and that.
But in the last month or so, that’s all changed for me. I don’t feel like the future of America anymore. I feel like the present. Like “I’m doing this, and doing that”. I know that it’s people much, much older than us who get elected to the government, but I still feel like the country is sort of ours. (Don’t misinterpret this to mean that I think I know what to do with it. It’s much too big and confusing for me.)
This is going with my recent inner musings on the theme of outdatedness. I can sort of understand why people don’t want to get old, now. The idea of being outdated, that your present has passed, is a sad thought. I’m seeing my parents in a different light than I have before… not that I think that they’re outdated, which is a very insulting thing to think about your parents, but that somehow their present is passing on to me.
I don’t know. I keep thinking about the ’60s, and my History teacher who was there when they burned down the National Bank near UCSB and had to walk through tear gas on the way to her midterm exams. It seems like her present passed during then, which is a great time to have a present pass. It seems like the years of high school and college are your present, and you sing “We Shall Overcome” at the repressive older generation, and then you age some more and get a job and settle down, and then the younger generation starts singing “We Shall Overcome” at you.
I don’t know.
36: It’s called “maturing”. You’ll get used to it, eventually. I find a healthy dose of cynicism and apathy helps.
Well, Khomeini’s pretty much lost all credibility now…
Here’s a good hot topic to debate, as the Iran situation has pretty much lost steam.
Virginity – why does it have such social importance attached to it, and why is it a stigma causing factor in many situations? Is this right?
The Abrahamic religions permeate our society incredibly vastly (too much, some might well say), and all three claim that sex is to be avoided.
They’ve been around so long that they’ve polluted the rest of society, and these irrational beliefs have come to be seen as a normal part of our way of life.
*expects snippage*
But why single out virginity as a value? Is the interesting question. We don’t need to turn this into another God: Hot or Not debate, stick to the socio-cultural value of virginity and sexuality.
Because sex means a lot. That’s one of the reasons our society is so great-because we see sex-and therefore virginity-as sacred.
Yes, because objectifying women in underwear adverts is a great homage to sacred sex. Sex is such a taboo subject that gross ignorance abounds, including on medical finesses that lead to teen pregnancies.
The problem is that sex is natural bodily function subject to several subjective interpretations. It can be a simple pastime, a stress reliever, or a game; or it can be the height of intimacy and emotional connection between two or more loving people.
We’ve made it more than that, but now that’s changing. Maybe the change in our perception of sex will, in turn, change our society. Maybe it already has.
There was the sex revolution. But then AIDS happened.
I think virginity is prized (among females, anyway) because of the ancient values: polygamy in men, monogamy in women. You can see this throughout a lot of ancient cultures. (switches to speaking of humans in biological terms, like animals) Since humans move in packs (also called tribes or clans), the pack leader often has the most mates. Instinct leads all species to reproduce as much as possible, in order to continue the species. While humans have no need of this, being very common already, instinct has not changed. Since a pack leader or alpha male is often the strongest or most fit of the pack, he may have his pick of the females, making him better able to spread his genes. In the evolutionary view, spreading your own genes is a good thing, so the alpha male is able to have many mates.
However, pregnancy is a bigger inconvenience for females than it is for males. While pregnant or nursing, it is hard for females to hunt. And, driven by evolutionary instinct, in a basic human pack without complex civilization, females are pregnant or nursing often. This is why males are traditionally the hunters, and females the gatherers.
Since the pack leader has many mates, chances are that a large portion of the females of the pack will be his mates. The male obviously prefers that the female be only his mate, as if she becomes pregnant with another male’s child then the child will be carrying the other male’s genes and not his, making it harder for him to spread his genes. Pack law usually dictates that you do not want to make the pack leader mad, as he may beat you up. So culture has evolved so that men are polygamous, and women monogamous. You can see this in medieval Middle Eastern harems, the old medieval droit du signeur (which I’ve probably spelled wrong), and the original Mormon faith, which practiced polygamy.
Even in today’s culture, where polygamy is heavily discouraged, the old ways of thinking are passed down. Virginity is encouraged in women before marriage for two reasons: firstly, because pregnancy is an inconvenience and evolutionary instinct does not account for protection, and secondly, the very old way of thinking, which is that women should only have sex with one man in order not to get the pack leader mad.
Though why there’s a stigma around sex I just realized I haven’t explained. And I don’t know the answer. Heh.
Why should the alpha male care if his new concubine is a virgin if not for sexual reasons? It’s not like virgins have any superior childbearing capacity. At most, it makes conception more awkward. I don’t think the biological explanation is such a sound one… As far as I know, virginity hasn’t really played any major role in defining sexual partners. It’s a unique feature among humans.
http:/ /news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8125547.stm
US soldiers leaving Iraq’s cities
US troops will remain on stand-by to help Iraqi forces
US troops are withdrawing to base in Iraq, six years after the invasion, handing control of cities and towns to Iraq’s new security forces.
Tuesday has been declared National Sovereignty Day, a public holiday, and the capital Baghdad threw a giant party on Monday evening.
US-led combat operations are due to end by September 2010, with all troops gone from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Iraqi troops are on the alert for insurgent attacks during the handover.
Despite the pullback from cities and towns, due to be completed on Tuesday, US troops will still be embedded with Iraqi forces.
BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says that while the pullback is significant, the actual withdrawal of US combat troops next year will pose a greater challenge.
For that to go well is in the hands of Iraq’s political leaders and their ability to tackle the country’s many outstanding problems and tensions, he says.
Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election next January.
‘Now is the time’
Iraqi soldiers paraded through Baghdad’s streets on Monday in vehicles decorated with flowers and Iraqi flags, while patriotic songs were played through loudspeakers at checkpoints.
US commanders have said security and stability is improving, despite a spate of recent attacks, and that Iraqi forces are now ready to take over security operations.
The US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, said there would be no major reduction in forces until next year but the pull-back was a “milestone”.
“Yes, we think Iraq is ready and Iraq thinks Iraq is ready,” he said.
“We have spent a lot of time working very closely with Iraqi security services… and I think there is an understanding that now it is the time.”
Mr Hill stressed that there would still be “a lot of US combat capabilities in Iraq for months to come”.
“After June 30, with US combat forces out of cities and villages, localities, we’ll still be in Iraq,” he said.
“We will still have a very robust number of US troops in Iraq and, in fact, those troops will not begin to withdraw from Iraq until probably several months from now.”
Okay, so Palin’s gone. I would normally say that’s a good thing because I disagreed with every single thing that came out of her mouth but I think there’s something else going on. You don’t just leave. I’m guessing that “something else” isn’t good. Thoughts?
Re: Virginity- Um… Yeah, I don’t really get why it’s a virtue, but I see why it’s important to some people. Me, for example. Each to his own, I guess. If you don’t care about your virginity, great. If you do, still great. As long as it’s safe, emotionally and physically.
48- Could you tell me what you disagreed with? A lot of people called her a psycho, but I never found anything that wrong about her… But I may not be totally informed, so please explain.
(I’m trying not to sound opinionated, but I just want to know…)
My god. Sarah Palin. Where to start.
Well, first of all, she’s grossly incompetent. Her “career” as governor of Alaska is a testament to that. She’s also a moron, and is entirely lacking the intellectual (or even cognitive) abilities that you would expect a political leader to have. Watch her interview with Charlie Gibson, it’ll make you wince. Gibson certainly couldn’t believe his ears. She was citing Alaska’s proximity to Russia as the principal reason for diplomatic experience. The interview, and the one with Katie Couric, revealed her for being nothing more than a bimbo, a puppet for the Republican party to filter their hateful messages through a MILF.
Then we have her personal opinions. She opposes same-sex marriages, legal abortions (because it’s much more ethical for girls to take care of it themselves with a coat hanger in a back alley), is against stem-cell research (remember that stem cells are taken from blastocysts, which contain circa 100 cells. By comparison, a fly’s brain contains 100’000 cells), and wants to teach creationism in school alongside evolution.
I could go on and cite instances of her personal life as examples of gross hypocrisy and bitchiness, but I’ll stop here for now.
Actually, in the Charles Gibson interview, it wasn’t her who said anything about her experience in diplomatic experience… It was John McCain, which is a whole other issue, but right now, we’re talking about Palin.
) say how “retarded” she is; then, I ask them why, and they frown as if it’s completely undebatable. It’s really because they have no idea, and their parents simply tell them… That’s why I like you, you actually have a nice, factual argument on hand.
Her personal opinions should not be used to show how incompetent she is for the job, well, in a way… I mean that those arguments don’t necessarily make her a moron. I don’t know if that’s what you were saying, or if you were strictly stating her opinions that you disagree with.
Could you explain about her “career,” because I really want to know all sides of the argument. My dad is a republican, so I don’t get too much of that…
And simply tell me that I’m wrong, because I usually am. I’m not arguing,(well, perhaps I am) but I find myself very angered when people (not you, people at my school)(WHICH IS OVER!
The issues I have with Sarah Palin are….
1. just about Elias’s entire arguement
2. she fits a sexist stereotype
3 she’s against the ERA
4. my cousins live in Wasila, are conservative republicans, and even they don’t like (which isn’t a reason I don’t like her, it’s just a tid bit)
5 she is against sex ed (which my cousins kind of needed, but oh well, too late now)
6. i have seen no evidence of her productivly thinking for herself. She just said most of what McCain did, with a twist, likely placed by the speech writers. This is added to by her interviews (“what news magazines do you read?” “I don’t know. ALL of them”)
(by the way, hi guys, it’s good to be back. when did the new hot topics thread open?)
All of them? I doubt she reads Muse. I doubt (no offense ot Republicans) she’d even get the humor.
Question: Are you trying to imply that she wouldn’t get the humor because she’s a Republican? Because, if so, that’s completely absurd. Plenty of Republicans get Muse, and understand the humor.
If, on the other hand, you merely mean to imply she’s stupid, then, alright, that’s your opinion, even if I don’t entirely agree.
I’m saying she won’t get the humor because she, not Republicans, is
stupida mindless idiot. I have Republican friends that aren’t stupid. Therefore, I cannot rationally say “All Republicans are stupid.”That’s what i figured you were probably saying, but I thought I’d make sure…. =P
Your cousins live in Wasilla? I wonder if I know them, I know quite a few people from there……*is a mad stalker*
I completely agree with you 101%.
You are definitely right about how her personal opinions should, under no circumstances, reveal that she’s not “right” for the job. Honestly, I don’t care about someone’s personal life (In most cases, that is…) if they can do their job well in a safe, honest, and productive way that helps other people and is best for the country. If that’s what Palin can do, than who cares about her “personal” life!!
I was really angry during the Presidential Campaign when so many ugly rumors were going around about her. I completely stopped watching the news because I found them so biased towards Obama. (living in the Eastern side of the U.S. probably has something to do with this, but still, it did make me angry…) I mean, seriously, anyone with half a brain could tell that many (if not most) of them weren’t true. People write ugly stuff about a person, post it online, and all of a sudden everyone believes it. It’s disgusting.
I know, I know, I haven’t really given any substantial proof to the fact that Palin is a good person, and I’m not necessarily saying that everything she’s ever done or acted is good, but I do have a few things to give her credit for. I mean, I don’t believe she’s wonderful-amazing-great but then again, like I said before, she’s not terrible or evil-evil-evil either.
One thing in her favor is that she’s not afraid to stick up for what she believes in as a person, and not as a party. For example, a while back she wasn’t even afraid to challenge her own party in the issue with drilling! I was really happy when she did that, because it definitely sent out a message (to me, at least.) that said “I don’t care if my party’s wrong, I’m going to follow my heart. You’ve got to give at least a little credit to someone who can do something like that.
Fred Phelps isn’t afraid to stand up for what he beleives in, but that dosn’t stop him from being a total idiot. You can be determined all you want, but if you’re determined for all the wrong reasons I still don’t want you in power. I want what’s best for the country and it’s people, not what a couple of ignorant, closed minded people want to keep them happy.
Still, there’s something dirty going on about her resignation.
i heard she was resigning to take a seat in nat. republican politics, but I could be mistaken
it’s not her personal life I disagree with, it’s her opinons. I don’t care about them now(she’s not that influential) , but during the campaign you must remember that she could have, in an unhappy sequnce of events, become president if McCain was elected and something happened to him. Then her opinons would greatly affect the laws of this country, which we all have to live under.
Nobody is really quite sure of the reasoning behind her resignation. There was a lot of speculation right after speech on July 3rd, I remember we were listening to the radio hosts/news peoples dissection of it as we were driving out to go camping in the mountains.
One theory follows Beavo’s: Something scandalous happened, and was about to make it’s way to the surface, so she resigned to try and prevent that.
Another is that she quit so that she could get her hand into National politics. Of course, most everyone is in agreement that if this is the reason, she’s screwed herself over, because resigning labelled her as a quitter, and nobody would want to elect a quitter.
The reason she gave in her resignation speech, as I recall, was that she felt that resigning was what was best for the state of Alaska. She didn’t want to be one of those “lame duck governors” (her words, or at least I think that’s how she described them) who remained in office, even when they were no longer able to get anything done, draining the state of its money while they went on trips and enjoyed themselves. Thus, according to her, she resigned so that somebody would be in office who could actually make things happen (Sean Parnell, who had been her Lt. Gov)
No, in the Gibson interview it was just her, and she couldn’t give an intelligent answer to anything.
They’re more than her personal opinions, they’re her opinions and positions on social policy. Apart from her entirely immoral beliefs, she’s so inexperienced and reveals herself to be completely incapable of thinking for herself during interviews that it’s obvious that she lacks the competence and intelligence to work in a fast food joint, let alone be given the second most powerful political position in the world. Seriously, that she was even considered as a candidate just shows how messed up US politics is.
Soccer Starr: Media, biased in favour of Obama? Are you insane? “He’s a muslim!” “He’s a socialist! No, a communist!” Palin deserved all the bashing she got. This woman is not fit at ALL for a presidential career. I’d like to link an article from Newsweek about elitism in the US.
w w w.newsweek .com/id/160080
“GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?”
I’m sorry… I really don’t like arguing, but this is the transcript. She may have said it specifically in other interviews(that I am not aware of yet), but she does not say it in the Gibson interview.
Oh ok, I thought you meant McCain was IN the interview. As such, Palin didn’t deny it, reinforced it, and repeated it on other occasions. You know why? Because she can’t think for herself. It was some Republican strategist who came up with the best credentials he could for Palin. And they still weren’t enough.
Yes… I don’t really know how I feel about her. I now a lot of things make her look stupid, but… I don’t know.
*hops off thread*
Ok….I don’t know why I’m even bothering posting here, I don’t particularly feel like getting drawn into an argument. Perhaps, as an Alaskan, I feel the necessity to defend her.
1. Yes, Palin made some very poor decisions while she was governor. However, that doesn’t mean every decision she ever made while governor was a bad one. Not to mention, every person, politician or otherwise, although politicians especially make bad decisions at some point during their career. If we were to hold this against them for eternity, we would never get a politician elected to anything. Would you like us to hold any poor decisions you have made against you for the rest of your life?
2. I agree that she comes across as a total moron in her interviews–they make me wince, as well. However, I don’t think that you can judge her intelligence based upon how she sounds in interviews. They are two different things. It’s possible to be an intelligent person, but not do well in a forum such as an interview, because you get nervous and flustered and trip over your words and end up saying something imbecilic. I’ve been there. I always manage to come across like a complete idiot in interviews, but I am not an unintelligent person.
3. Despite being more of a Republican, or, well, I suppose I’m a mixture (Socially liberal, economically conservative), I disagree with her on most of those points. I support same-sex marriage, have mixed feelings on the matter of abortions, I think stem-cell research could be very beneficial, and I think creationism is…..well, let’s not go to the latter point, i don’t feel like offending anybody right this moment. However, although you (and I) personally disagree with those beliefs, that does not by definition mean she was a bad governor or is a bad politician, which you seem to be implying. In fact, many of those are Republican ideals that you would find most/many Republican politicians would support. Does that mean every Republican with the same/similar viewpoints on those issues is “grossly incompetent”?
4. “Bitchiness.” Really. I have yet to meet a single person who is not, at least at some time, a complete and total bitch. I myself can be a complete bitch at times (my parents would certainly testify to that). Calling a woman a bitch just seems to be peoples fallback when the dislike someone and can’t come up with any real reasons.
I realize much of this probably doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I’m not really in the mood to care much right now.
and as long as you don’t contract an STD
A simple condom will take care of that.
So I was listening to the radio this morning, and apparently a guy got evicted from Yankee Stadium for getting up to go to the bathroom during “god bless America”. he suied the yankees and won, but since the New York police evicted him NY city had to pay his legal fees and 1,000 dollars damages. I think the court ruling was right, because we have freedoms in this country, and if you don’t want to listen to “God Bless America” you don’t have to. not doing so does not disrespect your country.
thoughts? I know we had a discussion earlier about the pledge of alliegence, and this might be similar, but then again, it might not.
Institutionalized patriotism is bad. Forcing people to cite things like the pledge of allegiance is like what the Nazis did with their kids.
But, unlike the Nazis, the problem was corrected.
)
(without a war
Excuse me? “Without a war”? The US has gone to war for much less than hurt patriotic zest.
One thing related to that is an amendment outlawing flag burning. They tried to / did create it. I believe it is unconstitutional. After all, if you buy it, you can break it. If I bought I giant poster of John McCain, I could burn it. Same with a poster of Obama. Or Palin. Or George Washington. Why should it be different with the American Flag?
It isn’t, and if it is, then it shouldn’t be, in which case someone will make it be that way.
-A
That is rather extreme, and what if the poor guy really had to go? There would be a lot of hooplah anyway if he peed in his pants and made a mess. I mean, one has to accept that not everyone likes America. Some people would rather live somewhere else for various reasons.
I think that, though there are times when just about everyone is less than proud of there country for one reason or another, more people have issues with the song than with the US
I mean, it’s called “God Bless America” which means some are probably fired up just by the title.
I believe the song itself is beautiful, but I’m not sure it should be played at baseball games. Wouldn’t the National Anthem be more appropiate?
any thoughts?
Hasn’t “God Bless America” for all intents and purposes become something like the national anthem?
Eh, I just find it ironic that a country that throughout history keeps proclaiming itself the supreme incarnation of liberty, freedom, etc keeps behaving in such a blatantly fascistic manner.
Oui oui. Bravo. Encore.
-A
Singing songs that say blandly nice things about your country makes it fascistic? They’ve really lowered the bar for fascism since the 1930s.
Not the song in itself, but persecuting someone who doesn’t wish to participate is fascistic. It’s absurd nationalism. While obviously not as bad as Mussolini or Hitler, it should still not be part of any post-enlightenment society.
Slightly unrelated, but I disapprove of our National Anthem.
Why? 1. It’s hard for the average American to sing. It requires a two octave range and has some tricky leaps.
2. It was originally a drinking song. I mean, come on, can’t we do better than a pirated tune?
3. Those must have been some very operatic drunks.
4. Glorifies war.
I still think that we should have “America the beautiful” as our anthem, or perhaps “This land is your land”…
(I don’t like God Bless America either – both the tune and the sentiment set my teeth on edge.)
It certainly is hard for many people to sing. Some of us like drinking songs and pirates, however. As for glorifying war, I think it’s more accurate to say that it celebrates the survival of the country at a time when it was under attack and its continued existence was in doubt — hardly the same thing.
John Ashcroft did his own diabetes-inducing ode to expansionism, “Where The Eagle Soars” or something similarly sickening.
As national anthems go, I quite enjoy Jean Sibelius’ “Finlandia” piece. And of course “La Marseillaise” is quite simply epic.
The Marseillaise is certainly stirring, but it’s no song for people who dislike lyrics that glorify war:
“Drive on sacred patriotism
Support our avenging arms
Liberty, cherished liberty
Join the struggle with your defenders
Under our flags, let victory
Hurry to your manly tone
So that in death your enemies
See your triumph and our glory!”
It sounds like a Manowar song.
Then of course there’s this little comedic gem:
“Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
It’s length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It remove 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Northern fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in world.
We invented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstan’s prostitutes cleanest in the region.
Except of course for Turkmenistan’s.”
Please say that’s not the real anthem. *hopes*
It probably isn’t, but it’s the kind of anthem a place like Kazakhstan deserves.
One big problem with “The Star-Spangled Banner” is that its 18th-century sentence structure is so complicated that most people nowadays can’t understand what it’s saying. Somebody ought to translate it into modern English. The first verse would go something like this:
Sun’s coming up. Can anybody see the flag?
We saw it when the sun went down last night.
Then there was a big battle, but the flag kept flying all night.
Hey, is that flag still up there?
I love it!
This should, in full, definitely go on the parodies thread.
-A
I would have to disagree with you that it glorifies war. If you look at the other verses than the one that is usually sung, you see that war is looked at as “havoc” and filled with “desolation”. Look at the third verse as well:
“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
I may be wrong, but the way I interpret this verse is that, since “no refuge could save” the nation, war was the only option and that “a home and a country should leave us no more” of “the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion.”
Modern English translation:
What about those big-talking guys
Who tried to reconquer us
And take our country away?
We killed them.
All those mercenaries and still-oppressed subjects of the King [those are the hirelings and slaves, I think, Piggy]
Either ran away from us or died.
Meanwhile, the flag’s still flying.
(Hm, this is fun. Instructive, too. Maybe I should create a thread for English-to-English translations.)
Yes! That thread could be very en–instructive, yes.
Well it’s hardly just the singing that’s the problem.
-A
Yeah. It became the unofficial nat. anthem in the 60’s or something.
I don’t know, we separate church and state, but alot of our songs and our pledge makes references to god, and we attack people for being unpatriotic if they do’nt participate in them.
BINGO. The religiosity in America needs to be toned down big time. You wonder how many of those “patriotic” bigots actually know what their precious founding fathers thought about religion.
It is rather difficult because our country was formed on religious principles…
I think the world could do with a whole lot less religion. Christianity especially, being the largest, et cetera. Honestly, give me a single major problem that hasn’t been caused by someone’s religious beliefs or beliefs influenced by religion.
-A
Was the United States really formed on religious principles? Which principles, and by whom? If you’re talking about the Pilgrims, I don’t think they had much influence on the Constitution.
Well, firstly, the entire idea was because of religion. But good point.
Secondly, everyone, sadly enough, is influenced by religious principles. An unrelated example is the way we constantly say ‘oh my god’. That shows the influence… *rambles*
I’m not really in my right mind right now.
And apparently I’m also feeling suspicious and paranoid and blaming things on people. Nevermind.
-A
Excuse me? The entire idea was because of religion? The principles embedded in the American Democratic system are direct offspring of the Enlightenment thinkers, who were among the most vehement atheists in all of philosophy.
And a dialectical habit does not indicate the spread of an ideology. I say “f***k” all the time, it doesn’t mean I believe in Frigg, Norse goddess of femininity and origin of that particular term.
Hold up. Think for a second. Why are we here? Who came here that resulted in America? I’m not saying it’s the only reason that we specifically are here – I’m half directly Italian immigrant – but certainly it was a major factor in this.
And that’s one theory. One thing I found interesting in the Etymonline article:
Anyway, I was talking about the influence that religion has had on us. You certainly can’t disprove that the statement ‘oh my god’ stemmed from religion. I mean, it’s not even remotely corrupted.
-A
Don’t keep us in suspense. Who did come here that resulted in America?
Again, if you’re talking about the Pilgrims, half the passengers on the Mayflower weren’t Puritans at all. The earlier settlements in Virginia, mainly Jamestown, weren’t religiously motivated; they were business ventures. My Coontz ancestors probably came here from Germany in the 1720s or so (maybe earlier; we’ve lost track) to get away from wars. Other ancestors of mine came here to make money, mostly by farming (though one of them founded the first beer brewery in Alaska).
And then, of course, there were all those people who came here in chains…
Absolutely not. The founding fathers were largely secularists, who loathed organized religion and recognized the importance of keeping Church and State separate. The myth that America was founded on religious principles is one of the most harmful pieces of incorrect common knowledge.
Really? I read somewhere that every president has been Christian. Although Thomas Jefferson may have been a deist.
(Deist = God created the universe, then got bored and left. He doesn’t affect us anymore.)
I think most or all American presidents have been officially affiliated with one Christian denomination or another, but some weren’t particularly observant. (Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan come to mind.)
Elias, however, was talking about the people who founded the country.
In fact, before he got into politics, Lincoln wrote a treatise criticizing Christianity and arguing that the Bible was NOT the revelation of god, and that Jesus was not the son of god. Furthermore, after his assassination, his former law partner said he was “an avowed and open infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism… He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard.”
That’s not quite deism, but I’ll let it rest.
What is true is that every president has claimed to be Christian, as a non-Christian would never get elected. As for the fathers…
John Adams:
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out: This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”
From the treaty of Tripoly, ratified unanimously in the Senate and signed by Adams into law, 1797: “The United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
“In the formation of the American government… it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven.” (Never say never: “I trust God speaks through me.” – George W Bush)
Benjamin Franklin:
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
“The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious… One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man… perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind… a mere contrivance for the clergy to filch wealth and power to themselves.”
James Madison:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’ ”
George Washington:
“The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”
NOT Christian, not by a long shot. They knew what was best for the country.
PS: Sorry for the quote mining, but it is an effective way to make the point.
So wait, you call their affiliation because they knew they would not get elected otherwise a separation of church and state?
Je ne comprends pas.
-A
Wat?
What more recent presidents claim to believe may not always be what they do believe. Fact of the matter is that it would be political suicide for a candidate to announce disbelief in god.
Ergo my belief that there most certainly is not a separation of church and state. If the church is so entwined in our system that it’s political suicide not to affiliate with it… Good gods. We really are screwed.
-A
Cherry-picked quotations taken out of context always put me on my guard. It’s possible that at least some of those statements, in context, would support your position just as strongly — but there’s no way to tell. Pique readers’ curiosity, yes; spur further reading and research, yes; settle an argument, no.
Most of those quotes would be difficult to interpret otherwise. Furthermore, Jefferson even wrote his own Bible, removing all the references to Jesus’ divinity, miracles, and anything God-related, to try and create a valid moral guide. How’s that for heathenry?
In some cases, at least, their meaning is certainly not obvious. For example, in the 1797 treaty with the Pasha of Tripoli, the United States was allying itself with a Muslim country against pirates. The whole article states:
As for Jefferson, he may not have thought much of Christianity as a religion, but he admired it as a philosophy. When he edited the miracles out of the gospels, he explained what he was doing as follows:
The last sentence (my emphasis), taken out of context, could easily make Jefferson sound like a devout Christian in the 21st-century sense — and that would be misleading, too. Context is important.
yup. Not to mention how many people ignore the “all men [read-all people] are created equal” segment of the constitution.
Many so-called patriots use what I consider to be selective patriotism to further their religous ideals, which really annoys me because it goes against what our country is supposed to be about.
That’s what happens when church and state get mixed together, and the result is a mess.
New topic anyone? The last comment was made on July 9th. What does everyone think about Obama’s recent trip to Ghana and the Vatican, and the G-8 summit? What do you think will come of it?
I read that the G8 is considering throwing out Italy. Good thing too, maybe they’ll learn something.
54- That’s actually the Declaration.
55.1- Why exactly would they do that? I mean, obviously Berlusconi’s not fit to hold his position, but would that justify removing a country? I haven’t heard about this, so I’m probably way off the mark.
Because they can’t organize themselves, the parliamentary sessions degenerate into brawls, the country’s economy is horrible, and the government goes through scandal after scandal. Right now it’s Berlusconi’s paying women from his tv channels to “entertain” politicians.
*grins* Sounds like Italy.
-A
56- Oops, you’re very right.
At last I checked, the G8 was for the top 8 economical superpowers in the world. If Italy is no longer one of them, than Italy possibly has to be thrown out. The more worrying question, in my mind, is who will replace Italy?
SFTDP—What I meant was “who would replace Italy, in the event it is thrown out”
Getting rid of Italy in itself will be a step up. Naples still has garbage filling the streets. And they call themselves civilized…
and yet…. For many years they’re econemy has been alright— They make supercars, coffee, art and jewlery (at last check- I bet I’m missing a ton) I think if their econemy is worse than it used to be, that reflects the world econemy paired with how many commodities Italy exports.
Their economy is horrible and always has been. They lose so much to corruption it’s ridiculous, and the government is too busy creating tv shows to keep the voters happy to actually deal with sorting out taxes, getting rid of the mafia, and fixing up the place.
well, compared to some countries (a few of which are in Africa) (*cough*likeSudan*cough*) their economy isn’t that bad (if it always were awful, they wouldn’t be in the G-8 in the first place)
I was unaware of such corruption-I guess I don’t track Italy that much.
I also wasn’t aware there still is a Mafia in Italy. It isn’t something I’ve heard much about in the news lately, and Italy isn’t walled or communist, so I assume that if there were any large explosions or murders connected with the Italian mafia, that it might have made it to the news here in America where 80%+ of our news is only domestic anyway, which annoys the….(switches to Complaints and Rants)
Yes, but Italy is part of the European Union and is supposed to be an advanced country on par with Germany or Britain. It certainly has all the potential of being one. That it ends up on the same level as a post-communist eastern European country is obscene.
And the mafia is still active, yes. The Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta is quite feared, and the Sicilian mafia just last year blew up a garage in Basel (Switzerland) that belonged to a Sicilian who refused to pay protection money.
you make good points…..
But, if whoever decides these things decides Italy is no longer G-8 material,
A) how does one go about eliminating Italy and
B) who the hell would take their place (this is the G-8, not the G-7)?
and really, who decides these things, anyway?
Why, the rest of the G8. And it wouldn’t be hard to find a successor, just find the next economic power after Italy that doesn’t have a reprehensible government.
umm, if the G-8 is making the call, and Italy is still a part of the G-8, wouldn’t the rest of the G-8 have to include Italy in it’s disscussions, hence minimizing the possibility of eliminating Italy?
I was just thinking that. Also, doesn’t that make for a kind of self-perpetuating G8?
-A
If the G7 wants to throw Italy out, there’s not much Italy can do.
So you think it wouldn’t stay the G8? It would change?
-A
If there are eight countries, it’s called the G8. If you’ve got 20 countries, it’s called the G20. If it’s 7, G7. It’s a club, and if you want to be part of it you have to perform to certain standards.
So it’s not a limited number fitting a criteria, it’s just a number fitting criteria? I was thinking more a top eight sort of standard.
-A
I just told myself that perhaps I should post the comment I was about to post on the Hot Topics thread… Then realised that I was on the Hot Topics thread…
-A
This is a reply to 59.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3 (I couldnt get the reply button to work)
That’s what I thought to. I thought that the G8 was esstablished after the great depression as an alliance of the top 8 economic superpowers. Not the top 9, not the top 10, the top 8. This may have been because none of the other superpowers would sign on, or it might not.
By the way, every country in the G8 is in the G20, so why is there even a G8? they are all represented already.
Italy?? I had no idea Italy was a G8.
According to Wikipedia, the G8 is a forum of the governments of eight nations in the European Union, plus America. It also says that the G6 is the 6 most populous countries within the EU. 61- The G8 was formed in France in 1975. I think.
Has anyone else seen this new pseudo-program the White House started yesterday? Of course, the White House and liberals won’t make anything of it, but I find it terrifying. To quote the White House website:
“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” Does anyone else find it worrisome that the White House is having citizens turn in other citizens for exercising freedom of speech? Yes, I realize that some of these rumors must be widely inaccurate, but citizens aren’t guaranteed the freedom of true and inoffensive speech. Yes, I know what a lot of you are thinking. They just want to keep track of the misinformation so they can clarify things. But I’d like those people to imagine if Bush had instituted this policy. The nation would be in an uproar. People would be screaming about infringement on various rights. They’d be saying how wiretapping was bad, but this was even far worse. But under Obama, it goes without notice.
Welcome to America, where King George II meets Big Brother.
Umm… I wouldn’t say that’s Big Brother. This is simply dispelling myths about healthcare reform, and helping to increase public knowledge. It isn’t asking to turn people in, but it’s simply saying that if you get misinformation, we’ll help to correct you. Misinterpretation. And freedom of speech is mot spreading misinformation. If I was an employee of a company, and made ads for perks that we didn’t have, would I be in trouble? Of course.
And, with Bush, his minions were performing torture. It’s a completely different situation. I’m not saying what you described is not bad under Obama, but I think that you committed a Straw Man. They aren’t asking you to turn them in to the government, they’re simply helping dispell misinformation. They aren’t going to prosecute them. They’re only going to help the recipient of the false information. You can’t trace to who a person is through email.
False advertisement, or fraud, is something separate from freedom of speech. If I want to spread a false rumor about Obama, I have every right to do so. And with Bush I was not at all referring to torture. I was referring to wiretapping. And you most certainly can trace an email back to the source. Well, not you personally, but you know what I mean. Furthermore, we have no knowledge as to what the White House is going to do with the information they’re collecting. Sure, I’m going to be painted as a crazy conspiracy theorist who sees Elvis alive everywhere, but it’s entirely possible that this new system is the Obama administration’s form of wiretapping, but, instead of looking for terrorists, it looks for potential attacks on the fortress known as Obama’s PR. But perhaps the intent is simply to inform the public about misinformation. Frankly, I distrust Obama much more than I do my intuition, opinions, and conclusions. Thanks to Obama, I can’t trust my government anymore–well, moreso than in the past. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Just because you personally fear Obama doesn’t mean that there is tyranny. Obama does fear the people. Look at how he’s doing lots of popular programs, such as Cash For Clunkers. He wants to keep his ratings up, and therefore he fears the people.
Zallie: Correct. the Bush administration made many blatant, outright lies to the people. Such as when they claimed there were WMDs in Iraq, when multiple security agencies said there weren’t any.
Perhaps, more people support Obama and therefore trust his administration to use this information and system for good.
Say what you like, the Bush administration did have a reputation for not being entirely truthful with the American people, which naturally led to distrust.
*facepalm* There used to be a third “I” after George, I swear. It was in there when I typed it. Sorta.
I am forcibly reminded of Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoinix. She asks the students to inform her if anyone was telling “lies” about Voldemort returning. The White House (Umbridge) is asking citizens (students) to turn in other citizens (students) for exercising freedom of speech (telling lies/spreading rumors.)
Rumors that travel though “casual conversation?” I like to think that when I’m discussing with my friends about the health-care plan, I should be able to relay what I heard, and discuss the likelyhood of whether or not it is true, without worrying that it will be reported to the White House.
Lies are not freedom of speech. If I said “I’m going to murder everyone on MuseBlog” And didn’t mean it, I’d still be thrown into jail. And, they’re not asking for the person. They’re asking for the info to be corrected, so they can help disspell myths.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that for me.
63.1.1.1- I’m glad he instituted Cash for Clunkers. In a small way he began to realize that the way to fix the economy was by giving people money, not taking it away. But the government isn’t listening to the people very well anymore. From Rasmussen Reports:
So why is Congress still feverishly trying to pass these bills?
63.2- Yes, it’s obvious the American people as a whole trust Obama more than they did Bush. But that could change as well. From Politico:
The theme of falling levels of trust are just as evident in the Republican Party, the Federal Government, and just about everything else. You say that the Bush administration had a reputation for lying. I would have to agree with you on that. We should never had gone into Iraq. However, from my point of view, I would have to say that the Obama administration hasn’t been much more truthful than Bush. His policies have rarely matched his promises. Talk to me again in eight, nine years–that’s when we’ll be able to judge the two more fairly.
Piggy has a point there… I do like Obama (but then again, I like ketchup with rice – who am I to judge?
), but I think people are jumping to conclusions… from what I hear (I was five when 9/11 happened, and 8 when Bush was re-elected), Bush was quite liked in his first term of office.
“Say what you like, the Bush administration did have a reputation for not being entirely truthful with the American people, which naturally led to distrust.”
). At the time, they proclaimed him a national hero – strong in the face of terror. Only later did he get the reputation of being dishonest and such.
I don’t think this is what the American people thought in 9/11 (but, then again, I’ve only heard this – I was, as I have stated, five years old at the time and, naively, had no idea planes could run into buildings
NB: I have received all of my information about Bush from Time and Government class. Please don’t criticize me too harshly on it. These are just my two cents.
This looks awfully long in the comment box, but I just hit ‘preview’ and it now looks awfully short.
I wasn’t referring specifically to 9/11. Especially in the second term, it became apparent that the Bush administration had not been entirely truthful to the American people on a number of levels, not just the War on Terror.
“Not entirely truthful” is probably the understatement of the century.
Quite. This is the family-friendly version.
And how would this be, exactly?
Going to war over a blatant lie is a bit more than “not entirely truthful”. It’s flat-out evil and intentionally deceptive.
And you know that the public is right…. because….
Almost 100% of Chinese, after the communist revolution, were athiests. Does that mean none of us should believe in god?
Well, ketchup and rice is almost the same principal as spaghetti and tomato sauce, isn’t it?
Grain and tomatoes?
This might or might not be an interesting topic: the value and purpose of education. What is it? Are schools now educating people well? What is education really? I know it isn’t one of the heatedly debated topics in the news, but it could be interesting. The last post was made on the 6th, and I live in constant fear of threads stagnating, so…reply if you want.
Ketchup and rice!? *shudders* Are you kidding me? No Way! Schools…..let’s just say that I’m glad I’m homeschooled.
In my opinion, elementary schools should be teaching the basics. You know, Math, Science, History, reading, and writing. Sadly, most elementary school science teachers don’t know squat about their subject, and the majority of kids feel that education is unimportant anyway.
RE flag@gov whatever:
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. The email address exists to report misinformation regarding the health care reform, usually from Republican sources, circulating the media so that it can be corrected in public statements from the White House. No one cares about you. It’s the bullcrap being spread that he wants to combat. Which is necessary, with the GOP being about as dishonest as it has ever been.
As for American cynicism and distrust, that started way before Bush. Watergate was what triggered it.
I’d be interested to know what you people feel about Obama’s proposed health care reform. Many Americans seem to have an irrational fear (helped on by the media and the GOP) of socialized health care. What are your opinions?
I think socialized health care is great. As long as the health care reform plan is economically sound and will not become a huge drain on our federal budget, I’m all for it.
Agree. France’s model works pretty well, I’ve heard.
I’ve heard that not only does France’s model work pretty well, but countries with socialized health care like Canada and England actually often have less time to wait for a doctor than the USA. I know that in polls, people with socialized health care are much happier with it than Americans.
The thing that really annoys me about some rumors being spread, though, is the assumption that public health care will in any way change the health care that someone with health care already has. It will not. It seems to me like that rumor was deliberately made to make people think Obama is taking away their freedoms. It’s just not true. And some people who do know the truth are against it anyway, because they don’t want to pay taxes for others’ health care. To me, that just seems sort of selfish.
No offense to anyone if I’ve got their reasons wrong, of course. I’d be glad to hear a different motivation for not wanting socialized health care.
Personally, I detest the idea. (A Republican? Gee, how’d y’guess?) Socialized health care has not worked in France, England or Canada, and the wait is more often than not longer.
For the plan to be economically viable, and ‘not become a huge drain on our federal budget,’ those who might get treatment now won’t get it with this plan. If the government controls health care, and it wants to control the budget, health care gets rationed. One of the best things about America is that few things require rationing. And medicine would not be my first choice, if I had to put something in the hands of the government. Yeah, I feel bad that some people don’t have insurance. I’d give them charity. As a matter of fact, I do! But the support should come from individual generosity and charities, not from the government trying to make things equal. In order to make everything equal, especially on a limited budget, you need to take away from some people.
Judging people by how many ‘quality years of life’ they have left is ridiculous. I’m all for treating the worst injured in the ER first, as that is just common sense, but to arbitrarily decide who should live and who should die? Who be fire and who by water, and who by pulling the plug? Who died and made you God?
Go ahead. Flag me.
(Oh, and before somebody says that I don’t know what I’m saying, I am fairly well-informed on the subject.)
If you are referring to the so called “death panels”, there’s no such thing.
Here’s a transcript form a video posted on the White House about just that
Quesitoner: My name is Demi Apostle (phonetic), and I live in Kingston, New Hampshire. My question is, end of life care for seniors, I’m 73 years old. I still work. I take care of my grandchildren. I raised a grandchild. But God forbid I needed a pacemaker a couple years or maybe even this year. Would it be deemed economically unfeasible because I’m 73? I’m an active 73. And the only people who should be deciding my end of life counseling are my children, my doctor, and myself, not some unknown panel in Washington. That whole theory and that whole thing with health care is so horrendous that it’s worse than anything I’ve seen in other countries.
Linda Douglass : Well, Demi, no panel in Washington is going to make decisions about your treatment. You are absolutely right. The treatment decisions for you should be made by you and your family and your doctor. That’s one of the primary goals of health insurance reform, to make sure that we remove the obstacles that currently exist between patients and doctors, complicated insurance rules and complicated regulations and paperwork and a payment system that is inefficient, makes it sometimes difficult for the doctor to spend the kind of time with you that he wants to. So we’re talking about removing the obstacles and making it possible for you to make the best treatment decisions for yourself.
And you’re covered under Medicare. Health insurance reform would actually strengthen Medicare. Nothing would change in your coverage except that you’d get some more benefits. For example, for seniors who are paying exorbitant drug prices under some of the provisions of the existing law, there would be a big, big reduction in what you’re paying for prescription drugs. You’d also get free charge preventive care to encourage you to go to the doctor and get a checkup. You get more access to primary care doctors as a senior under Medicare. So health insurance reform is really going to strengthen Medicare to make sure that it’s going to be there for you and it’s going to improve the quality of care for seniors. So Demi, I hope that answered your question. And if you have any more questions, please come to whitehouse.gov. We’ve got a whole series of questions and answers on the website, and we hope they’ll be helpful to you.
Ah, but there are some key phrases slipped in there. And what does it matter that it’s from the White House? The White House has just as much of an agenda as any other group. Key phrase number one: “no panel in Washington”. This may be true, but she did not claim that there would be no panels anywhere. Phrase number two: “the treatment decisions for you should be made by you and your family and your doctor”. Should, not will. Phrase number three: “health insurance reform would actually strengthen Medicare”. How is cutting the budget for Medicare going to strengthen the program? America is going to be suddenly burdened by fifty million new medical insurance holders, while keeping the same (or smaller) amount of money and number of doctors. It’s a prescription for collapse, if I may use a cheesy metaphor. Obama’s plan is basically to divert quite a bit of funding from Medicare to the new public option, which is more or less akin to scooping water up from the deep end of a swimming pool and tossing it into the shallow end. A, it’s a lot of wasted effort, and B, quite a bit of water is going to splash out of the bucket and fall to the ground. Boy, sure seems more efficient to me.
Nitpick, Nitpick, I sense I nitpick (sorry for nitpicking).
Response to #1: Where else would there be a panel that’s run be the government? And, the healthcare bill is like a private insurance company, except run by the government, and doesn’t care about making a profit off of saving your life.
I don’t know, I’ve had really excellent experiences with health care in the UK! My mum gets terrible migraine headaches and a GP in the UK was able to get her meds in a matter of hours, as opposed to the weeks it would have taken in the US. Also, a migraine prescription in the US would drastically interfere with her ability to get insurance, whereas in the UK, it wasn’t a problem at all.
In order to make everything equal, especially on a limited budget, you need to take away from some people.
I don’t think the government is going to take away anything from any one. There will still be options to opt out of government health care, am I correct? (Assuming you already have healthcare) The new plan will probably not affect you all that much. Why would you want to stop a plan that will provide insurance for millions (?) of other Americans? You are fortunate, and probably wealthy enough to be able to afford health care, but doesn’t everyone have that right? Why would you want to prevent others from getting the same level of care?
(I actually would support ‘taking away from some people’ if it meant everyone had access to free (or low-cost), effective healthcare, but I guess that’s another argument.)
No one’s going to “flag” you for disagreeing, that’s not what it’s there for.
And socialized healthcare works fine in France, Britain, and the rest of Europe. Any resident of any country will tell you so. What you’re criticizing about socialized healthcare is simply not true. Do you have any real arguments other than regurgitating what the GOP mouthpieces spoon-feed you?
I’m not taking sides here, I just wanted to point out that in the current situation, medical decisions are made by “you and your family and your doctor†AND your insurer. The insurer may limit your choices in a multitude of ways, both subtle and significant, and can even place caps on how many patients a doctor can see. These restrictions are not always visible to the patients until something major or unusual comes along.
Rebecca is right. A lot of the proposed reform is to help people who lose out on care bcause of insurance companies, I believe
Piggy — I was providing a reputable source for my information.
I have more to say to crazyquotescollector, actually
The public option is an option.
“As I’ve said from the beginning, under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”
“Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what’s called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeat – it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.”
^quoth the President
It’s not just “some people” who are uninsured. Here are some statistics from Gallup!
Texas- 26.9%
New Mexico – 25.6%
Mississippi- 24%
Louisiana – 22.4%
Nevada- 22.2%
Oklahoma- 22.2%
California – 21.0%
Wyoming – 20.7%
Florida- 20.7%
Georgia 20.7%
“These results are based on more than 178,000 interviews conducted from January-June 2009 as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. In each daily survey of 1,000 Americans aged 18 and older, Gallup asks respondents whether they have health insurance. Based on these data, Gallup previously reported an increase in the number of uninsured adults nationwide from 14.8% in 2008 to 16.2% in 2009. Now, Gallup’s examination of state-level data reveals that so far in 2009, the percentage of uninsured adults in every state has either increased or remained statistically unchanged from 2008. The greatest increases in the percentage of uninsured have been in Nebraska, New Mexico, and Utah.”
I know we’re all leery of polls but I’m just trying to make a point.
And, Mass. is nearly 0% uninsured. Due to the universal healthcare. *Mass. pride*
If I may provide a quote from a government official, Rep. John Boehner, about Obama’s promises about this health care reform stuff, as he lays it out better than I could:
“A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan makes clear it breaks a number of President Obama’s promises. Here are just a few examples:
Pages 116-128; Sections 221-225 – The House Democrats’ bill establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to nonpartisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage. Moving these Americans from their current plan into a government-run plan violates the President’s oft-stated promise that “if you like your current coverage, you can keep it.†Both the Associated Press and ABC News have already debunked this pledge, noting that White House officials have acknowledged the President’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken “literally.â€
Pages 331-333; Section 1161 – President Obama has said repeatedly that nobody is talking about cutting Medicare when it comes to health care reform. But the fact is that nearly 11 million seniors who choose Medicare Advantage plans, will lose that coverage as a result of the $160 billion in cuts in the House Democrats’ bill. Moreover, an independent analysis of the House Democrats’ bill shows the legislation makes a total of $361.9 billion in Medicare cuts. That means fewer choices and lower health care quality for our nation’s seniors.
Pages 167-179; Section 401 – President Obama repeatedly promised not to raise taxes on those who make less than $200,000 (singles) or $250,000 (married couples). The tax on Americans without government-approved health insurance in the House Democrats’ bill directly violates that promise.”
There’s also a bunch about various tax hikes, but that’s on a tangent from the topic at hand. But in the end, a basic fact about democracy is being ignored: the people are supposed to control the government officials. Right now, the majority of Americans do not want these health care bills passed. They believe tax increases will hurt the economy while tax cuts will help. They believe America is on the wrong track and that its best days are behind it. A paltry 14% (Rasmussen Reports, as are the rest of these facts) rate Congress as “Good” or better. They believe the economy’s getting worse. They believe government spending will go up. In the end, the politicians should be obeying what the people tell them to do, whether these politicians agree or not. That’s what democracy is. The people have, according to the polls, anyway, shown themselves to be overwhelmingly against these various reforms. So why aren’t their views being represented by their representatives? I just don’t get it.
I looked up the Lewin group
“Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.
More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied UnitedHealth and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the “reasonable and customary” doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care. ”
man I just watched this thing on frontline about this…Solving the problems with economy is inexorably tied to solving problems in the healthcare. Here’s something Peter Orszag has to say about it (he’s the director of the Office of Management and Budget at the White House wooo )
“I think what’s very clear, the single most important thing we can do on our long-term entitlement problem is to reduce the rate of growth of health care costs. Everything else is almost a footnote.
So, in particular, let’s just look at the numbers. If health care costs grow at the same rate over the next four decades as they did over the past four decades, Medicare and Medicaid — those are the two federal health insurance programs — go from 5 percent of the economy today to 20 percent of the economy by 2050. That’s basically the entire size of the federal government under normal conditions. That 15-percent-of-GDP increase can be compared to roughly a 1.5-percent-of-GDP increase in Social Security and roughly no increase in the rest of the budget.
So if you’re looking at where the money is, it’s in health care. We need to bend the curve on long-term health care costs. And this budget is the most aggressive budget that I have ever seen in terms of moving toward a more efficient health care system. ”
At least some of the cuts to Medicare will be elimination of unnecessary spending and not actual care:
“As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient. But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Obama says payments are unwarranted subsidies.”
-new york times
But it is a valid concern. The best thing I can find to explain it is also from th new york times
“Rising costs are driving up insurance premiums and forcing employers to cut back on coverage or demand that employees shoulder a higher share of premiums. Lack of affordable coverage has forced many workers to join the ranks of the uninsured. States and the federal government are struggling to meet the increasing costs of public health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. And the problems have worsened with the recent economic downturn.
To slow the growth of health spending, the Democrats would squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare by reducing payments to hospitals and many other health care providers. Many want to move Medicare away from a fee-for-service model that bases payments on the quantity of services, rather than quality of care. Greater use of health information technology, better management of chronic diseases and more attention to preventive care could also lead to savings in the long run, the Democrats say.”
okay I know, tl;dr but I just really don’t think this is as bad as you think! I’m not saying it’s God’s gift to humanity either but it’s something better than what we have now which needs some kind of overhaul and I won’t budge on that. Our best days aren’t behind us, I don’t believe that at all.
my first quote is from the washington post, forgot to put it in
I saw in a planetarium video at the Cal. Academy of Sciences that they had discovered a star with a planet, twice as large as earth, orbiting in the middle of the habitable zone. What do you think? Vulcan?
70- Actually, it’s not the majority. It’s the loud, angry minority that doesn’t know what’s for it’s own good. Obama is not pushing to elimanate private health care, it’s just that he’s making a government version, for people who can’t afford healthcare. And, most Republicans are against the government option. Therefore, John Boehner is most likely to be a biased source. And, Axa is right. The public option is an option. Not a requirement. It can help, but it’s not required. Like MuseBlog. I’m sure it will help me to adjust to eighth grade and high school, but I could survive without it.
We’ll have to wait and see. (And listen with radio telescopes)
Oh good. If the planet is habitable, then MuseBloggers can claim it for their own and it will be awesome.
What do you mean, you could survive without MuseBlog?
Well, if one is satisfied with (or is forced to settle for) mere survival…
What I mean is I could make it through a year of school without MuseBlog, but I’d probably become depressed ish like I did in 6th grade.
Luna- (48.1.1.1.1.1.1) I think in saying that she wouldn’t get the humor, he is implying that she’s stupid, and isn’t trying to imply that republicans are stupid. I think that by saying “no offense to republicans” he’s trying to make it clear that his opinion of Sarah Palin does not reflect his opinion of republicans as a whole. Or he’s trying to keep them from jumping on him (I’m not saying they would) for calling their VP Nominee stupid. Sorry if this doesn’t make sense.
Sorry if this is off topic, but what really annoys me is that most people in my school (in MA) are blindly Democratic. We had a mock election, and almost every single vote went for Obama. I seriously doubt most of the people actually knew his politics. And then this republican kid joined our school, and everyone was jumping all over him for supporting McCain and George Bush. He admitted that George Bush hadn’t done a very good job, but he argued that he had done better than everyone in our class was saying. People just kept on repeating the same argument over and over, and it got so frustrating! Have other people had this experience?
Ah. I see now that the topic is health care…
Yes, and now that I’ve gone to a class on how to argue, and what makes an argument, I’m going to slam my head against the wall (or desk) whenever that happens.
If Sarah Palin was a blind Democrat, (there aren’t many, in major politics) I’d make as much fun of her as if she was a Republican.
Blind voters of any party deserve to be mocked. However, the Republican party isn’t actively trying to keep its constituents in ignorance.
They don’t deserve to be mocked, they deserve to be shown the truth. All mocking would do is to improve one’s self-esteem and inflate one’s ego.
Some people are beyond help, although I do agree with you for some occasions. I definitely did not use the term “mocking” in an absolutist or exclusive way. Have anything on topic to say, instead of trying to find fault in all of my posts?
What does everybody think about Obama’s speech to kids today? Good, and those saying he’s trying to turn kids in to socialists are crazy? Doesn’t matter? The people who object are right because Obama is an evil commie?
I think Obama’s right, and the people objecting are just looking for an excuse to attack Obama.
I read it last night…..I thought the first two paragraphs, especially, were incredibly condescending and patronizing, like he was talking to everyone like they were 2 years old. And there were a ton of sentence fragments–whoever wrote the speech clearly neglected their schooling. You would think, in a speech about education, he could have gotten someone well-educated to write it.
And “God bless you all”? Hello, separation of church and state, please. You represent the state, keep the church out of it……
I think you’re being unnecessarily anal about it. It doesn’t really matter how good his speech was (I’m guessing that he was addressing various age groups?) as long as his message was actually positive. In addition, I think you gravely overestimate the average listening capacity, attention span, and intelligence of the American Student.
Although I am annoyed at the constant god-bothering as well.
I listened to it in school and thought it was very good.
72.2.2- Awwww. *hugs*
74- People who generally respond to other people’s comments in a negative or mocking way should keep their mouths shut or be awarded a free stay in Supermax.
75- I had to laugh very hard when I read that, since, well, we’ve got a lot of socialists here. And we’ve got commies (but not very many). And we’re all still alive (and we have better healthcare). According to most teen austrians, America is was out there on patriotism anyway. I think that Obama is doing a good job so far. And arguments can be repeated, even if they’re good ones.
The general American public seems to have almost no idea what Socialism or even Communism actually is. It would be funny, if it weren’t so destructive.
Are you Austrian? I’m practically your neighbour… Schweizer hier!
Hallo! *is austrian* How did you end up on Museblog/reading Muse?
American grandparents.
I think the point Obama was trying to make was that kids should work hard and stay in school. It is no different from what other presidents have said, or even what parents tell their children. I would love to hear him give a speech about how children should try to exercise and eat healthy food. Goodness, he’s really going communist now, isn’t he? *is sarcastic*
Of course, what people don’t seem to remember is that Ronald Reagan made a similar speech when he was president, and the majority of the kids that heard his speech then grew up and voted for Obama in the last election.
I don’t think that a presidential speech is going to affect most kids. What I think does affect them and what their political views are what they get from their parents.
Was Reagan the guy who tried to cut down on spending for vegetables and fruits in school lunches because ketchup counted as tomatoes?
Yeah. Nice guy to have talk to your kids.
I think so…He ended up developing Alzheimer’s, so such acts can probably be attributed to the fact that his brain was going down the tubes.
There’s a lesson there, kids. Don’t vote for the old guy. XD
Actually, it was President Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, and the motivation was a bit more subtle than short-changing children to save money. Federal regulations required schools to serve two vegetables, but everyone knew that kids were throwing a lot of veggies away uneaten. (Boiled green beans? Canned succotash? Can you blame them?) So Stockman suggested that, instead of spending money on food that was just going into the trash, schools might be able to comply with the law by counting things that kids would eat, like ketchup. It was a bad idea and evaporated as soon as it got into the newspapers, but it had nothing to do with Alzheimer’s disease.
Cecil Adams recounted the whole story five years ago in his “Straight Dope” column (with illustrations by our Q&A column’s beloved cartoonist, Slug Signorino):
www . straightdope . com/columns/read/2517/did-the-reagan-era-usda-really-classify-ketchup-as-a-vegetable
[YouTube “Hannity Get’s (sic) Schooled by Fran Drescher”]
Jesus, this is why our country is so messed up. Until Fox news is allowed to spew this bull with no one challenging them, things will remain obscenely wrong. His 70% figure is completely wrong. Is this the level of debate in the American media??
Has anyone seen the trailer for the new BBC movie about Darwin? It’s about him losing his faith after the death of his daughter and his struggle to write his book.
Now, the hot topic portion of this is… The film was unable to find distribution anywhere in the US.
aha! I read about that. Some comments I’ve read lead me to believe it will eventually be picked up for distribution…I mean Antichrist which is supposed to be the ~edgiest~ movie from Cannes has been picked up so why not this? Seriously? Did you read the “only 39% of Americans accept evolution” or whatever the wording was? Cause I don’t think that’s accurate, there are crazies but I don’t think they are that numerous.
I’m kind of disgusted it’s even and issue though.
The 39% figure comes from Gallup, I’d tend to believe it’s accurate.
Okay I misspoke, I checked the gallup website and it says 39% “believe” in the theory of evolution, 25% don’t and 36% have no opinion either way (???) with the remaining 1% giving no answer
I take issue with the way that was phrased since 1) most people don;t understand the meaning of theory in this case and 2) it’s not a freakin religious doctrine! how can you believe in a theory?
I just want to think that people aren’t totally ridiculous but they usually are
People, “believing” is broader than just religion. From the American Heritage Dictionary: “To accept as true or real.” I, for instance, accept gravity as true or real. Therefore I believe in gravity.
Sheesh.
I think it was phrased with obvious religious overtones.
Accept or reject would make more sense to me.
I’m guessing that’s because people are scared of getting attacked by Creationists or something.
Maybe it’s not a good movie. Or maybe it would make a good BBC mini-series but not a commercial release. American cinema chains are happy to show controversial films if they think they’ll make money.
(By the way, I hear that the funding for this one came from Mel Gibson.)
Not a good movie? Are you kidding me? It’s Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly. And freaking Toby Jones is playing Huxley.
I’m hoping that once enough controversy is provoked, someone will eventually release it in the hope of profiting, but right now I’m just shocked that the religious right has so much power.
Sigh… That’s sorta the way it works in America. The loudest complainers get the most attention, no matter the size of th group.
So. ACORN. That’s a pretty big deal. Who honestly believes we should keep giving tax money to this group?
From wiki:
“ACORN’s priorities have included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, and other social justice issues. ACORN pursues these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation.[3] ACORN comprises a number of legally distinct non-profit entities including a nationwide umbrella organization established as a 501(c)(4) that performs lobbying; various local organizations established as 501(c)(3) nonpartisan charities; and the ACORN Housing Corporation. These entities champion liberal and labor-oriented causes.”
Seems like a decent organization. Almost reminds me of Europe.
Yes, and ACORN’s priorities have also recently been exposed to include illegal immigrant smuggling and child prostitution. Not to mention voting fraud.
Source? Wiki says:
RE: “child prostitution”
On September 9, 2009, conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe released a hidden-camera video in which they posed as a prostitute and a pimp in order to elicit a response from ACORN. In the edited video, two employees in ACORN’s Baltimore office appear to offer unethical advice to the two regarding home loans, tax evasion, and disguising the identities of underaged sex workers trafficked from El Salvador. The two subjects were fired by ACORN after the video’s release. Similar videos followed, filmed in Washington, D.C., Brooklyn (New York), San Diego, and San Bernardino, California.[41][57]
An ACORN board member called the first video “false”, “defamatory”, an attempt at “gotcha journalism”, and a violation of Maryland wiretap laws, saying that undercover teams had failed in similar attempts in at least five local offices in different states and demanding the unedited original video.[58][59][60] ACORN stated that it is planning to sue the filmmakers, Breitbart.com which posted the videos, and Fox News, which repeatedly aired the footage.[61][62] Scott Levenson, ACORN’s spokesman, accused O’Keefe of dubbing the audio to fake the videos.[63] Tresa Kaelke, one of the ACORN organizers interviewed, claimed that she did not take the two actors seriously, and made a variety of other absurd or joking statements in response to what she took as a gag.[64][65][66]
Following the release of the Washington, D.C. and New York videos, the Senate passed amendments to pending bills to exclude ACORN from Housing and Urban Development and Interior Department funding.[67][68][69] The House of Representatives subsequently voted an amendment that denies all federal funds to the group.[70] New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced an investigation to ensure that state grants given to ACORN were properly spent on tax-preparation and loan-counseling services.[71] Concurrently, New York City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn suspended all ACORN grants sponsored by City Council members as Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes conducted an investigation.[72] On September 16th, 2009, ACORN announced that they were suspending advising new clients and beginning an internal review process, stating that the conduct was “the indefensible action of a handful of our employees”.[73]
RE: “voting fraud”
ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election over allegations of conflict of interest and voter registration fraud. During the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary ACORN’s national political action committee, ACORN Votes, endorsed Barack Obama. Obama, with several other attorneys, had served as local counsel for ACORN in a 1995 voting rights lawsuit joined by the Justice Department and the League of Women Voters.[51][52] Obama’s campaign hired an ACORN affiliate for $800,000 to conduct a get-out-the-vote effort during that primary,[53][54] but did not retain ACORN for the general presidential election.[53][54]
Throughout the election season, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN’s submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread vote fraud. In October 2008, the campaign for Republican presidential candidate John McCain released a Web-based advertisement claiming ACORN was responsible for “massive voter fraud”, a point that Sen. McCain repeated in the final presidential debate. Factcheck.org called this claim “breathtakingly inaccurate”.[55] The ads also claimed that home loan programs ACORN promoted were partly responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Newsweek and Factcheck.org also found these claims to be exaggerated and inaccurate.[56]
You know what I smell? A deliberately misinformative, partisan obsessed, deceitful, cheating, Republican, hysteria-inducing, fear mongering campaign rat. Look at who’s making those accusations. Fox News and John McCain. NOT trustworthy, at all.
Oh, yes, but Wikipedia is so much more accurate.
Look, Fridgey, even Obama wants an investigation. So he must also be “NOT trustworthy, at all,” right?
In Wikipedia’s argument (which I can’t call yours, as it isn’t), it mentions “‘gotcha journalism'”. That’s precisely correct. They’re participating in illegal activities, so they got ’em, so to speak. And the lady’s argument that she was just playing along or whatever sounds to me like an argument a seven-year old would make. “Well, uh, I knew that the whole time. No, I did, I was just playing along.” Completely and utterly bogus.
Amazingly enough, Fridgey, people are entirely capable of finding illegal activities of other people, no matter what “party” they are. Unless you’re saying that Democratic ideology says that child prostitution is fine?
Whatever the case may be, everything is biased. Your facts, my facts, Obama’s facts, Wikipedia’s facts. There’s no escaping that. So I, personally, wish people (not solely you) could come up with an actual argument other than “You’re biased.”
No, McCain and Fox aren’t “NOT trustworthy” because they want an investigation of this particular case, but because they are generally lying bastards.
What I think is going on here is that Republican propagandists and promoters are trying to shut down an organization that promotes liberal and social policies, which are, while entirely necessary, uncomfortable for the Republicans. And no, Democratic ideology does NOT say that child prostitution is fine. Stick to the facts without slimy insinuations.
As far as Wikipedia goes, it in itself is not a valid source, but it does provide sources at the bottom of the page. It just takes a little more research.
My argument was not “you’re biased”. My argument was that you’re blindly parroting Republican accusations which are both wildly exaggerated and disgustingly partisan.
Hm. “Stick to the facts without slimy insinuations.” But outright callling of other people “generally lying bastards” is fine? Look, if you can prove MSNBC or CNN or the NY Times or Obama or whoever you look to for information never lie, and that McCain or Fox or Boehner lie most of the time, you might have an argument. As it stands, all I’ve seen you do is say that my case is based on lies, rumors, false accusations, and slimy slandering. I could just as easily take on that same philosophy about discussion and call you or your facts those as well, but frankly I don’t find that to be useful.
I really don’t see what’s so difficult to understand: ACORN employees have been documented giving advice about child prostitution, sex slavery, smuggling illegal immigrants, and how not to get caught. No matter who filmed this, it seems as though some sort of an investigation may be wise. If the people who put out these tapes did fabricate them or whatever, there’ll be no harm done to your precious ACORN. If they turn out to be true, we’ll have nabbed some people for faciliating some rather serious crimes. I still can’t see what objection you could possibly have to that.
If I may, I am not blindly parroting Republican accusations. I could easily say that you were blindly parroting liberal accusations, but I don’t believe you are. I have drawn information from a variety of resources and formed my own views on the topic. If they happen to coincide with another person or group’s views, what of it? Your views do that as well.
Really, I wish we could keep the ad hominems to a minimum.
Fox News and the McCain group have a long history of lying. Keith Olbermann has to waste most of his air time just counteracting the misinformation spread by O’Reilly and Beck, to name a couple.
And no, I don’t look to MSNBC or CNN or the NYTimes for my info, nor would I consider them always trustworthy. You are right, though, they are generally more honest than Fox (if you’re interested I get my news through the Guardian Weekly, the BBC, and The American Progress Report). I said that your case was highly suspicious, given the sources of the accusations, who have been known to make false and/or exaggerated accusations against this very type of left-wing organization.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t investigate. If there’s the possibility of catching pedophiles, by all means. What I’m worried about (naturally, given the precedents) is that Republicans will try to bring the entire organization down using this single incident as an excuse. By the way, that was not your initial argument. You started off by saying we shouldn’t give tax money to this group (which is bs, since there is no evidence that the organization itself is engaging in these activities- only these few members have been implicated). You went to repeat inaccurate accusations about voting fraud (for which you obviously didn’t research, it took me two clicks to find a source providing the distinction between voting fraud, which is bad, and voting registration fraud, which happens all the time and is a minor bureaucratic inconvenience) as well as statements that made it seem like the entire ACORN group was up to its neck in child prostitution and immigrant smuggling.
This is where it’s useful to set out the facts of the case, as one understands them. Who did what to whom, and where and when did it happen? (“How” and “why” are trickier.) After all the back and forth here, many MBers probably still have only a hazy idea of what the two of you are talking about. If you state clearly and unemotionally what you do agree on, then everyone will have an easier time seeing what the fuss is about — and maybe at least some “hot topics” would seem less hot.
(80.1.1.1.1 and related) I think if Piggy and Elias worked at it a little, they could agree on many facts in this (or any) case. Interpreting the facts is another matter. That’s where bias really comes into play.
Wikipedia-This isn’t exactly topic related, but I’ve noticed that the approach to it varies from nation to nation. My american great-aunt (a former principal) explained that Wikipedia was not an acceptable source at our school. Here, our german teacher told us to look up some geezer in wikipedia for our presentation. And in french wikipedia, very many articles on cites have the people-are-fighting-over-this warning on them… Different cultural approaches, I guess
Ack, I meant her school.
When I was in school, teachers always told us never to use encyclopedias. My impression was they considered such things as catering to student laziness. But I think it would be far more sensible (and fairly simple) to teach people to use reference materials properly, rather than simply ban their use.
No school, in any country, past a middle school level, should allow Wikipedia to be used as a valid source.
Wikipedia isn’t always right because it is updated by anybody who wants to. Thats why you can’t believe everything you read on the internet. Unless of course, It is on a muse based website, such as this.
Wikipedia gets fact checked as often as possible, and any empirical statements without sources (listed at the bottom) get deleted.
Don’t believe everything you read here, either. Or anywhere. No one is (or can be) correct 100% of the time. It’s important to develop skills for evaluating any source material, even one that is generally trustworthy.
Wikipedia also has the advantage that you can look up the history of changes and discussion. But it has the limitations of any such general source. For deeper understanding, or for writing research papers, it shouldn’t be more than a starting point.
It is a good place to get started — with emphasis on the word “started.” When I have to write about something I know absolutely nothing about, Wikipedia is usually my first stop for getting myself oriented. It’s never the last stop, though.
Wikipedia isn’t where I would do extensive research, but it usually has books and movies that are being planned, and so I can find out about these things. I find it very useful in the general sense.
I didn’t know they checked for fact. Thanks for telling me this. You still can’t believe a lot of things on the internet. When I do research I usely don’t go to the internet. I go to the library and look at encyclopedia and read other books or magizines.
The internet can be a great tool, but not a source. Project Gutenberg offers free ebooks of non-copyrighted material (today, for example, I downloaded Ulysses by James Joyce, Darwin’s Origin of Species, Alice In Wonderland, Bertrand Russell’s “On The Theory And Practice Of Bolshevism”), JSTOR offers a massive catalogue of academic essays and research, and newspapers usually have free online versions of some part of their content.
About the ACORN argument: I don’t think they should be shut down, since they have proven themselves capable of doing a lot of very good things. I do think that any ACORN people who have committed crimes should be removed from their positions. And if it turns out that the entire organization is corrupt, then find an entirely new staff/management for it. That way, the infrastructure will still be there, and the new management will be able to use it for good.
Unfortunately, I have no idea if this opinion is at all practical.
Was my comment on Roman Polanski snipped or did my crappy internet connection fail to deliver? If the latter be the case, let me restate:
Who thinks he should be extradited?
Oh, Obama won the Nobel Peace prize. Thoughts?
Eh. I think there are other people who could have been more deserving, but I don’t mind.
I was surprised but…I’m not sure. He wasn’t the first person to come to mind, and I can think of other people that probably would’ve been better, but I guess it’s ok.
I was surprised. Do leaders of countries often win the Nobel Peace Prize?
I don’t think so. Only two United States presidents, up until now, have ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and those would be President Theodore Roosevelt in1906 and President Woodrow Wilson in 1919.
To be honest, I really thought it was too early in his presidency to determine whether he deserved the Peace Prize, but that’s just me. He’s really only begun to act. And he said himself that he doesn’t feel he deserves to be “in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.” But it’s good that he’s giving the money to charity At least that speaks to his character.
Did he get it because of the nineteenth amendment thing?
Ahem. Sorry. Suffrage is buzzing around in my head. And I can’t get a list of dates from around 1915-1920 to stop pecking on the inside of my skull.
-A
Well, Woodrow Wilson assisted in forming this thing called the League of Nations which was created also by the Treaty of Versailles in Paris, so he got nominated and I think he won mostly because of that, but the 19th amendment probably also had a great share in why he won, and those are two really awesome things!
And I know what you mean, American History class is really buging me right around now.
I don’t think anyone expected this, certainly not Obama. Considering that he was nominated for the prize less than two weeks after his inauguration, I don’t see what he did that specifically and greatly advanced peace in the world. I think there are numerous people who would’ve been more deserving of the award than he.
It’s rather ironic that this was announced the day after plans to send up to 60,000 more troops to Afghanistan came out.
Huh, well, I think it was less of a “Obama opened a dialog with the middle east” thing and more of a “Obama isn’t Bush!” thing.
Bear in mind that the Nobel Peace Prize is usually awarded to someone in the process of doing good, or with the strong potential of promoting peace. Kissinger got it, ffs. Seen in that light, it makes much more sense to give it to Obama. Plus hopefully it’ll give him the balls to tell the Republicans to shut up and push his healthcare plan through.
This is all I want. I really just want this to get done.
Bill Maher had a point when he said that Obama should take a page out of Bush’s book. When Bush wanted to do something, he did, and devil take the consequences. And the opposition. And the voters. And the law. Obama’s far too polite to these people, it’s like seeing RIchard Dawkins go against Bill O’Reilly.
Yeah Bill’s been saying that on almost every show recently. I really agree with what he says about not starting with a compromise. This is too important.
Did you see Dawkins on the show the other day? What a great panel!
Personally, I admire his attitude vis a vis the republicans. The slander, e.t.c. coming from that side is very low, but he just stays cool and doesn’t sink to that level. It’s not about courage. If he goes for an all-out war with the republicans, it’ll just cause more difficulties.
87.4- But he’s trying. He’s changing things. McCain would’ve just kept going (more or less) the same way as Bush, maybe started another war to make things go better. He also greatly ameliorated diplomatic relationships with Europe. (‘Course, I’m always hoping for a good american/european relationship. duh.) If you weren’t american, could you believe in McCain? No. But you can believe in Obama. Even the Swedes can.
Sure, I agree Obama’s “trying” to bring about peace, diplomacy, whatever. But so are a ton of other people. It seems to me an offensively blatant stab at President Bush–they’re not actually saying that Obama’s done extraordinary things for peace, but rather that they see Bush as having done extraordinary things against peace, and Obama just happened to be an easy person to contrast against that. But overall, I think the Peace Prize doesn’t have a hell of a lot of value, to be honest. I mean, why did Yasser Arafat get it?
In the end, I’m not mad that Obama got it. I just think that the committee should reward the prize to people who have done tangible and extraordinary things and are continuing to do so, which I don’t believe Obama had done two weeks into his presidency. That’s my opinion, take it or leave it.
Um. I’d say it definitely is a stab against Bush (one of the reasons I like it). I’d have done it myself if I had the choice. Bush was, quite frankly, a diplomatic disaster, and this is a great way to say it. Europeans like America (and most Americans I met liked Europe or were to afraid to say the contrary to my face). Vienna (for example) is all about the past, and America lives in the present (metaphorically speaking). But everyone who could afford missing school/work was out in the streets screaming “Lynch Bush!” when he visited Vienna. His politics were to offensive, to arrogant. No-one is almighty, and the long war and various crises made him quite unpopular. And what about America itself? Honestly, even Austria’s figured out a healthcare system that works (and politics here are pathetic *self-snipped rant*).
About Americans liking Europe:
My town is mostly has mostly Democrats. When I people where they’d go if Palin was elected, 60% said Europe, 40% said Austrailia. Personally, I’d go to Mars.
Re: Healthcare: Lucky. My family gets health insurance from my Mom’s job, but it’s taken out of her pay.
Re: Bush visiting Vienna: Wow. That’s a stronger reaction than I’d expected. But, I’m really actually glad he didn’t get assasinated. Why? Because Cheney’d be president. *shudder*
Though it may be a stab against Bush, I doubt that’s a valid reason for Obama to have won. And if it is one of the main reasons why he won, then I consider that to be really sad. The Nobel Peace prize is supposed to be won because an extremely influential person who makes the most amends between nations, not to take a cheap shot at someone who didn’t.
Did anyone read my post? Geez. It’s like you want to complain. -.-”
Because you never complain. </sarcasm>
I only complain when it’s valid. Or fun.
Heehee. It’s always fun.
Not when it isn’t validated
If you can’t validate it, you just don’t want it enough.
Bookgirl- Well, yes, that’s fun, except when they decide to tell on you. Of course, then you get to complain! It just gets better! Woo!
If you can justify a complaint then it’s fine- but unjustified complaints are just kind of annoying… I speak from experience… *ahem*
But the most fun is to vent your aggressions by grabbing whining people and shaking them until their teeth rattle…(meant ironically)
Okay, here’s the ethical dilemma of the day, provided by my mom’s friend’s local high school:
At the last football game, a junior boy (I don’t know his name, so I’ll call him Jacob) was caught drinking a beer. This, of course, is against the law and school rules. The general punishment at this school is that he is forbidden from extra-curricular activities such as dances, clubs, and sports. Jacob happens to be star of the water polo team. Ordinarily this would make no difference, as rules are rules, but Jacob happens to be very nearly guaranteed a water polo scholarship to UCLA. If he is kicked off the water polo team, the chance of the scholarship drops significantly. The consequences for his actions, therefore, are much greater than they would be if he was an ordinary player. An ordinary student would simply have punishment for the rest of the year, but this may affect his entire life. However, if they don’t give him the same consequences as others, they will be treating him differently and lowering his consequences just because he’s a good athlete, which isn’t fair.
Should the punishment be changed?
No. He’s probably smart enough to know that his drinking a beer is against the law, and that if he’s kicked off the team, he won’t get a scholarship. He drank anyway. Ergo, he should be punished. Just the same as if a smart kid was kicked out of higher math for drinking. The punishment should be the same, no matter what.
But the idea is that if he is kicked off the team, the punishment is larger than it would be if he wasn’t good at sports. If he wasn’t good at sports, it would have a smaller impact. This makes it seem like they’re treating him worse than others, which isn’t fair.
(Personally, I’m just confused about this, but my family and I had a long discussion about this at breakfast, so I’m just trying to share all of our thoughts.)
I tend to agree with this. I think losing a scholarship to a top school is much worse than not being able to go to Homecoming or whatever. I assume he’s already being fined or something for breaking federal law since he’s probably 16/17? Of course I would also understand if he gets taken off the team, but I dunno, it seems more like he should be put on probation rather than kicked off. Of course that also opens up loop holes and your school probably has a “zero tolerance” policy of some sort. I don’t think one mistake should define his whole life, which is what could happen. But he did still break the rules…ugh
I hope you’ll tell us what happens. I can see both sides of this.
I think it should define his whole life. If he’s stupid enough to do it, he deserves it.
He doesn’t go to my school, actually- I heard about all of this from my mom, who heard it from her running partner, who heard it from her daughter, who goes to that school. No idea what will happen.
But he should have known the risks and the consequences, therefore he brought it upon himself.
From a legal perspective, screw ‘im. He broke the law, and should pay.
From an ethical perspective, ain’t nothing wrong with drinking beer. And he seems like a good guy otherwise. So let him go.
Communism (the pure kind) god bad or horrible. Please read up on Marxist communism before you post. I don’t want misinformed people to ruin a discussion.
Marxist Communism: Would work in a world where people weren’t people. Where people didn’t want anything except what they needed. Where people are all Thervada Buddhists.
But communism is essentaly the belife that everyone gets a equal share of every person deserves to have the same oppertunitys and workload. But you need smart people to make it work.
Yes, it’s the idea that everyone is stricken down to the same impoverished level. In theory a utopia, but in practice utterly impossible and disastrous.
I wouldn’t call it the idea that everyone is stricken down to the same impoverished level. In practice that is certainly what it may become, but the idea is an entirely positive one. If humanity as a species didn’t have the inherent tendency toward corruption that we seem to have, it would work well and people would be happy.
It works in small communities, like convents or monasteries. There, everyone divides work and they don’t have that many personal possessions, if any. But in that situation, you’re dealing with people who have agreed to that kind of life. If you try to force it onto other people, forget it.
Yeah, it works quite well in small areas, but even if everybody agrees to it (and that’s almost impossible – that’s just human nature), once it’s a large group things tend to get out of control.
so you need a small community of smart people to make it work? Marx thought that communism would lead to a world where robots did the work and humans relaxed. There are about 5 gizillion ways that it can go rong, so it is very hard to carry out.
The basic tenet of communism is “from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs”.
Not so bad, huh?
Sounds good. But who determines my needs, who says what my abilities are? Communities just don’t work that way; with five people, two are working, two are at least pretending and maybe doing a bit of work and the other does absolutely nothing. But this way the person who does nothing gets the same pay/reward/whatever as those who are working really hard. Basically, it just doesn’t work. Why do you do your best? Because you want credit or at least recognition. At work, because you either love it or want a pay raise. If everyone is selfless; fine. Otherwise it doesn’t work. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
Of course, you can’t say that it’s all because people are corrupt; some people are “good” and some people are “bad” and some just are.
NEW YORK TIMES:
“IT’S A FORK, IT’S A SPOON, IT’S A….. WEAPON? SCHOOL SUSPENDS BOY, 6”
Sporks are the next weapon, people. BEWARE!
A spork which likely could do as much damage as a fist or pointy stick picked up from the ground. Possibly less. And why on earth would any of those things be used, anyway? In the hands of a dangerous person, anything can be a weapon (obviously “anything” does not mean, say, a feather), and a knife in the hands of a law abiding citizen can be used to make dinner, and won’t necessarily be used to stab a classmate.
Did that make sense? Bedtime.
This is a concern. someone who used to be my troop did shank someone at school with a spork in the lunchroom. he’s still in 6th grade due to his long suspension, normally he would be in 8th grade.
Let’s hope the terrorists don’t get their hands on any of those.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that in the WRONG hands (like in what The Man For Aeiou said), it could be dangerous. But it still seems like the school overreacted a bit.
I could understand why sporks could be considered weapons. I have a titanium spork. That one poor guy will never have depth perception again….
A suspension seems ridiculously over-the-top. After all, it’s kindergarten or first grade–there’s no way the kid meant any harm. Confiscate it and tell him his parents have to come pick it up for him to get it back, and explain to him why he’s not allowed to bring it to school. What is suspending the boy going to do besides hurt and bewilder him?
Some kid at my school brought in a fake knife with a spring inside the handle so when you press it, the blade goes inside. He got in a lot of trouble and blamed it on my friend who asked if she could see it because she wanted to see how it worked. He got suspended for one day.
But that is really stupid suspending a poor little 6-year-old for being in posession of a spork. Sometimes, people are way too careful.
It’s paranoia, abetted and fed by the media and the previous government.
CORRECTION: It was a fork on one side, a fork on the other, and a knife came out like a swiss army knife. I suppose that it could be used as a weapon, but the boy should’ve just been told that school is not the correct place to use it! He’s SIX!
Did you hear about Obama abolishing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? What do you think about it?
Wait, he did it finally? really?
It’s not gone yet but soon!
“President Obama received a warm welcome at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner tonight, where he promised to sign hate crimes legislation — which just passed the House — into law and repeal both Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, although he didn’t outline a specific timeline.”
also just to define DADT:
“Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because “it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.””
which is of course bogus and discriminatory! it never made sense and never will!
Since when does discrimination aid unit cohesion?
It’s really not too different from disallowing african-americans from serving in the military during the civil war.
All right, people. ENOUGH WITH THE SAME EXACT MESSAGES. (Seriously. Look at your posts.)
Thanks for all the sympathy. Lemon juicers.
Fine. The main factor in my “depression�
Everyone has a very, very, special talent. EVERYONE.
That talent is to make my accomplishments, dreams, hopes, and goals feel unadequate, unattainable, and suckish and crappy. When I say, “My band is going to Disneyland for a festival!†someone else tells me, “My choir’s going to Rome to sing for the Pope!†etc. etc. WITH EVERYTHING I DO. SERIOUSLY. And everytime I feel minorly good at, someone accidentally turns up and squarshes it flat. BAM, blood and guts everywhere. They’re totally better at it.
Second of all, you guys don’t know how bad my acne is. PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACNE DON’T GET INTO THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS. I have no other talents (what they are, anyway) except singing, acting, and comedy. I have small talents that help me in daily life, but will not get me any jobs. If the finacial state stays as it is, I’ll be living in a cardboard box when I’m 23.
About cutting: Thanks for telling me not to do it, but it will take much more than that. I have cut myself, on purpose, 22 1/2 times. The half is for a time when I was putting the knife away (I use a swiss army knife, mostly on my upper legs, shoulders, and ankles: wrists are too obvious), and it slipped and cut my ring finger. Needless to say, I enjoyed it. About 5% of the cutting is to build up pain resistance, but only 5%. The other 95% is for relief, and more reality. If you guys have a problem with it, too bad. I’ll decide when I’m well enough to stop.
I’m also having a bit of friendship trouble. Yeah, I know that some of you have never had that many friends, but I’m a really social person. I’ve had large tastes of friendship, and it’s in my genes to need people. I’m not that great at letting go, and I don’t easily forgive. So it’s a real problem for me if my core teacher sticks me right next to Leafy for a whole flipping quarter, surrounded by her new friends. Oh GOD. She rubs them in my FACE. They think I’m crazy, strange, and a bad student. A few of my friends seem inclined to go SIT AT HER TABLE at lunch. *headwall*
So all these things add up and you have my present situation. Don’t try to downplay it, saying “it’s not that bad†because it is. I’m not sure that “it’ll be okayâ€.
But I’ll try to put on a bright and chipper mask here, so not to depress you. I’ll probably lurk more, so don’t be scared if I don’t turn up for a few days. I’m just not in the mood.
[NOTE: This comment was originally part of a discussion on the Random Thread, but we’ve moved it to Hot Topics for reasons that should be apparent. –Admin.]
Acne does go away, get some acne cream, wash your face, etc. It will help.
That’s all I’m going to say right now.
Dear Zinc,
I’ll try to keep this brief and not juice too many lemons, because I wouldn’t want to upset you any further. I only want to help in whatever way is possible, I swear.
I’m sure you’re good at lots of things, like you said, everyone has some kind of talent. You should use what you have to your advantage. You want to be better than everyone else at something, then practice it as much as you can. Find your niche, and be happy there. And if people compare their lives to yours sometimes, they’re probably just trying to keep the conversation going. I doubt any of your friends want to be malicious towards you.
For acne, I recommend Proactiv. It actually works. I had quite a bit of acne in 7th grade, started using it in 8th, and bam. Pimples gone in two days or less. It’s great. And the financial state should pick up pretty soon, I hope. That’s what the stimulus package is supposed to do, I’m sure.
Third, how does causing yourself pain relieve you? I’ve never understood. Instead, when I’m stressed out of my mind and angry at everyone (which happens at least once a month), I shut myself in my room, turn off all my lights and listen to classical music. This is when creative inspiration comes fastest. I know you like music, so you should try it.
And lastly, friends. When I hate someone, I ignore them. That’s how I keep my mind off them. All the backstabbing girls, especially Leafy, who try to get you down in school? IGNORE them. I know I sound like a broken record, but it works. Then, they get jealous and come running back to you because they realize that Leafy’s not as nice, or creative, or funny as you. Get yourself some good new friends, because I know you’re a very likable person, even though it may not seem that way to you right now.
I’m not going to tell you that it’s “not that bad”. That wouldn’t help at all, because obviously it’s not true. Take a few days off, try to relax, and take some time to yourself. Then come back when you’re ready. I’ll always be here for you. Your blog friends are a bunch of people who won’t ditch you. We’re not going away.
I hope you feel much better soon, Zinc!
~Aggie
P.S. Have some choklit.
I don’t have any special talents, either really. Mom says I have a talent for writing. Big deal. Everyone can write. You’ve seen how many books there are out there. Other than that… Okay, so I don’t look terrible. I can… Um… Read for hours on end without getting bored. I’m not athletic, and I’ve yet to find anything active that I really love. See what I mean?
The ‘only things you’re good at’ are acting-type things, and you have a problem with that ’cause you have acne? How much of a problem is that? Acne clears up. Have you ever seen an adult with bad acne? I haven’t. So you can’t get too much of a job now. Does that matter? You don’t need to. But if you’re good at those things, you can make a living off of them, when you need to.
People are going to have better lives then you. There are going to be people out there that will go more places, have more things, do more. I’d say don’t let it bother you, but it will bother you some, apparently, so I’ll say, ‘just try to accept it’ instead. Or something. I’m not the best at advice.
I suppose making up with Leafy isn’t an option? Forgive me, I don’t know most of the details. Or any of them, really. I can’t give much advice there, since I’ve lost touch with several people, but if I saw them again, there’s no reason we wouldn’t be friends. So I wouldn’t be help even if I knew more details.
I won’t say it’ll be okay, since it doesn’t look like you want it, but you’ll live through it. Better times are somewhere ahead, for everyone. Somewhere out there. Hang on until then, and you’ll be fine.
I just wanted to point out that not everyone can write, so don’t put yourself down. Seriously, read some of the junk that gets posted on the web. It’ll make you feel better. Trust me. And there are never enough books, and authors who write good stories and write them well are hardly a dime a dozen.
Zinc- All I can say is – well, there’s an awful lot I could say, but most of it isn’t nice. Start over. Bzzzzzzzt.
Now, I understand you’re in a not-so-wonderful spot right now. HOWEVER. Destroying yourself ain’t helpin’ nothin’. I have, most unfortunately, inherited bad skin, and sensitive skin to boot. Meaning that much of the medicine out there is not good for me. Acne is a part of life. You’ll outgrow it.
Comedy is a gift, a tremendous gift. So few people can be really funny. I can be funny on paper, but not like my brother (or you, I’m sure) can be funny during his routines. Hey, he also has bad acne! Deal with it. If you actually want to do something, you need to get a grip, grow a backbone, and hop to it.
Teenagers’ social lives are always messed up. Everyone always thinks that there’s greener grass somewhere. You are not alone. Quite acting like you are. FIND BETTER FRIENDS. Ones who desert you weren’t worth it in the first place.
I’m not being horrible for the sake of it, but you have such a case of ‘misunderstood, angsty teenager’ it’s not funny. I won’t say anything about the cutting, because I won’t change your mind. Just realize that if you hurt yourself to prevent others from hurting you, they win, and you lose. You like losing? It sure don’t sound like it.
Oh, man, I don’t like being nasty, but sometimes people need to be shouted at. Now, I might have misjudged things because I only have writing to go on, and if so I’m sorry, but it seemed like it was necessary.
Don’t drink, either. Or do anything else addicting. The temporary relief you get from things like cutting, alcohol, etc. is TEMPORARY, and false. Treat the real problem, not the symptoms.
In addition, I know a performer at a nearby theatre who has a bright red rash all over his face and that hasn’t stopped him doing what he wants to do. It’s really more the talent that counts, because makeup can disguise acne but not bad acting. Might I point out that you can get into the singing business not by being pretty but by being a good singer.
True. And acne goes away. But even ugly (or not-beautiful) people can make it big. Take Rascal Flatts, for example….
I’d also say the JoBros, but some might argue…
Acne goes away.
God, the only thing that needs to happen here is for Zinc to pull herself together. Worried about acne? For chrissakes.
I was going to comment, but then I realized it’s just “it’s not that bad” in another way.
Your situation does, however, sound like a more extreme version of what I went through in 6th grade. I became partly depressed, as none of my friends had the same lunch as I did. So, I just coped with it.
I really recommend seeing your school’s guidance counselor. They’re hired because they’re nice, and will keep things confidential. They will help. I promise.
Not to under-ride your point, or anything, (because it’s completely valid) but my school guidance counselor is one of the meanest, scariest people on the planet. Seriously, I have no idea why she was hired. She’s awful. (Although apparently she was nice to my brother in speech, so that may have something to do with it?)
My response to this, sympathy cut out as per your request:
a) It’s not true that everyone has a special talent. I don’t. I don’t have a passion or a superamazing talent. It sounds to me like you already know what it is that you really like to do, and that’s a pretty special thing. It puts you ahead of a lot of people. My dad didn’t have a stand-out amazing talent for anything. He was good at music and liked composing, but there were people who were better. He ended up going to law school instead of becoming a musician, and now he’s a law teacher. Why? He still doesn’t really know. But he makes a good salary and we live a comfortable life. I live in a largeish house with multiple computers and can afford to go on vacation–far from living in a cardboard box.
b) Acne clears up. It does. It may be bad now, but it will go away eventually. It’s possible to get treatment for it in the mean time. But even if you don’t, it won’t last forever, and it won’t ruin your chances of having a career in acting as an adult.
c) Cutting: “If you guys have a problem with it, too bad.” Well, we only have a problem with it because we don’t like to see you hurting, Zinc. I’m going to stop talking about this point here because I’ll start to spiral back into saying the kind of comments that you apparently don’t want to hear.
d) Alcohol: FS suggested this as an alternative. Don’t do it. It hurts your brain and liver and, although it might offer temporary relief, is not a solution to any of the problems. Don’t drink.
e) Imagine cutting her into pieces with a laser cannon or something. Actually, you could/should go talk to your teacher about it. Explain that it’s a bad work environment for you, give en a rough sketch of what happened between you and Leafy, and ask her to please change your seat.
f) You aren’t sure that “it will be okay.” It might not be for a while. Your situation does suck. But… and I posted this on the quotations thread…
“And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?â€
Acne: Are you seeing a dermatologist? They can give you stronger medications than what you would find in the pharmacy. Trust me, dermatologists know what they’re doing.
I’m getting a vibe here that you don’t want to go to a psychiatrist/psychologist. They are very good at what they do and have actually STUDIED the brain and why people do what they do and why you get relief out of cutting. I would give you more advice, but I’m not a professional and don’t plan on being a psychiatrist for more than ten years.
(99) Zinc, we understand that you’re not in a good place right now, but that doesn’t give you leave to lash out at the people who were trying to be supportive in the only way available to them. They didn’t cause your pain. They don’t have the power to stop it. They don’t deserve to be slapped in the face merely for doing what real friends do when they see someone they care about is hurting: trying to express their concern, giving you the only advice there really is to give. It’s not an easy task to find the right words — because there are no right words; it’s not an easy task to find original and profound words — because this situation is unfortunately all too common.
No one has asked you to pretend to be bright and chipper. We are asking only that you be polite.
Zinc, get a goddamm hold on yourself. Other teenagers need to climb through bloodshed and semi-starvation to even get their hands on a bloody book.
You have acne problems? Go to a dermatologist and get treated. There are chemicals and stuff you can take.
Worried about future job possibilities? Start studying economy. Just because you’re not “talented” at it doesn’t mean you can’t do a good job with it.
Don’t measure your accomplishments by those of others. Using other people to project your achievements is a surefire way to shoot yourself down, because there’s ALWAYS going to be someone better than you.
Oh and try replacing cutting with alcohol. I get a huge relief out of it, and I’m not the most psychologically stable person either. Just seems like a less medically way of going about it.
you do know she’s under 21? (and in america).
Not that I don’t agree with you here, as I don’t think alcohol is any better of a solution than cutting, but….Since when has being under 21 in America stopped most people from drinking alcohol, if they so desired?
Touché.
Even if we ignored the legal issues (and we don’t), the MuseBlog administrators wouldn’t recommend anything that might derail the development of a rapidly growing brain.
Agreed. There’s definitely a reason WHY it’s banned for minors. It could also lead to a lifelong thing, and we don’t want to get into that.
While cutting = bad, alcohol = worse, and illegal to boot.
If it’s banned for minors, why is it not banned for adults as well? Could you explain why you think alcohol is worse than cutting?
What I said in comment 114.1.1.1.1.1.1 applies here, too. The GAPAs declare this topic, and their patience, exhausted. Move on, please.
REGARDING COMMUNISM
I have one more thing to say. Marx is incredibly complex and deep, and you cannot issue a respectable judgement without understanding his writings, not to mention Trotskyism and Leninism. Since this is impossible without years of university studying, no one should be making such broad general sweeping statements like I’m hearing. If you’re curious, check out Bertrand Russell’s “Practice And Theory Of Bolshevism”. You can find all 188 pages for free as an ebook on the Gutenberg Project.
102- Of course. We need to go to a university and studying these things before we can venture our opinions. We’re (mostly) 11-18 year olds give us a break. What concerns me about communism is if I join the KPÖ or not. People, the ideas are nice, but it just doesn’t work. Basta.
Zinc- Look, the way I see it, you’ve got two best choices, depending on how bad it is;
1) You pull yourself together and overcome on your own (that includes not cutting yourself anymore!). I think that enough advice has been given on that subject. Just ignore FS. Getting sick in another way isn’t an answer.
2) You go get psychobabble. Talk to a counselor, psychologist, teacher. You can tell them why you didn’t want to come. If you can’t help yourself they can. You can’t just keep going the way you are right now. You can sink deeper into depression (if you do nothing) or you can get out. If you can’t make it by yourself, well, then that’s why psychologists exist. That’s not something to be ashamed of.
Excuse me, apart from the half-ironic mentioning of alcohol (really, what else can you say to someone who cuts themselves as a way of relief? I understand it, but there’s nothing much I can say) my advice was all sound. And I resent the implication that habitual drinking qualifies as a malady.
Anyway, I never said you couldn’t or shouldn’t venture an opinion. I just said to avoid generalizations, especially given that Communism is one of the most complex economic systems out there, as exemplified by the old adage “if you think you understand Marx, then you don’t understand Marx”.
Even Marx disavowed “Marxism” as it was popularly (mis)interpreted.
Well, that depends on how much your drinking, doesn’t it? If your habitual drinking is that of an alcoholic–then yeah, you’ve definitely got a problem. Alcoholism, as with any addiction, is a sickness.
is it possible to drink “regularly” and not have a “malady” and not be an alcoholic? Sure. There’s nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation, but it can and does in many cases, turn into something much more sinister.
Of course it can. Anything can. Alcohol is widely consumed at regular intervals by the vast majority of people without resulting in alcoholism. Stop portraying it as something so evil, you sound like Tipper Gore going on about heavy metal.
I’m not trying to portray alcohol itself as something evil. Like I said (or implied, at least) I’ve nothing against alcohol consumption, as long as you’re intelligent about it. I was merely pointing out that habitual drinking, depending upon the circumstances/amount consumed/etc, is not necessarily harmless.
Of course. Neither is it necessarily harmful. Neither is it a 50/50 situation.
Alcohol doesn’t always help, also. For me, it just makes me feel worse, and one of my brother’s friends drowned himself while drunk and depressed.
Did I say it always helped? I just think that getting pissed is preferable to cutting yourself, no?
Not if getting pissed also makes the person feel worse instead of better, which could lead to things worse than cutting. If getting pissed always equaled not cutting, it’d be a different story, but it doesn’t always equal that.
Right, because the momentary depression you might feel while pissed remains when you sober up.
Come on, it’s like you’re trying to give alcohol worse connotations than it actually deserves. Get off your moral high-horse.
No one is on a moral high horse; they are merely pointing out some of the drawbacks of using alcohol as a problem solver. Alcohol does carry with it assorted risks of physical damage if one drinks to a state of inebriation, especially on a regular basis. This is particularly true for young persons and females. That’s not a moral judgment, it is a biological one.
But it is being presented in an imbalanced perspective. I object to the implication that the negative side effects occur on too frequent a basis to have any benefits from alcohol.
Nearly every person here has been at pains to say they have nothing against drinking alcohol per se, they were only questioning the wisdom of using it in excess or to treat depression and other emotional problems. That doesn’t strike me as unbalanced. All the research I’ve read would substantially agree with the main points that have been made.
There are a lot of things you can/should say to someone cutting themselves, and a suggestion of further pain, illness, and aftereffects (not to mention danger) is NOT one of them.
For chrissakes, alcohol does NOT equate to “further pain, illness and aftereffects”. Do you drink? No? Then stop issuing such judgements. Alcohol can and does in fact take the edge off of a lot of sharp points in life. Not saying it should be used as a method to deal with everything, but jesus, you’re acting as if it were meths or something.
I’ve drunk, occasionally, and yes, it can take the edge off of some sharp points, but it also can replace them with a duller, more pervasive hurt. Also, the next morning generally sucks.
If it shouldn’t be used as a method to deal with everything, why are you suggesting it as a coping mechanism?
I’m suggesting it as a stress or pain relief for the occasional bouts of suckiness as a preferable option than cutting.
I object to the idea that alcohol should be used as ‘pain relief.’ Stress relief, I can understand, because who doesn’t want a drink or two at the end of a busy week? But I think if you’re using alcohol as pain relief, or drinking because you’re sad, that’s perhaps both a problem in and of itself, and indicative of a larger problem. It’s just not healthy to drink in the face of serious (or moderate?) emotional problems. It doesn’t fix the problem, and it’s using alcohol as a crutch to get through a bad situation.
Sure, I’m not saying you should if you can get by without it. But it’s better than cutting.
Hey, I’ll issue judgments where I want to issue judgments!
And it does often lead to illness and aftereffects- If it’s not too much of a bother I shall believe science and not someone who could (hypothetically) be drunk as he writes this.
Yes, look up the exact medical effects of alcohol.
Oh and you’d know when I post drunk.
Sorry, meant to add:
Why does the fact that I drink make me less believable? Is the implication that anyone who drinks is less reliable?
Yes, it is.
And alcohol destroys your liver and as my science teacher put it “causes irreversible damage to your brain.” Irreversible!!!!
I don’t know… how old are you? If you’re over, say, 21, then I shall be able to see when you post drunk.
I’m 18, but with my living in an enlightened country, you might have the honour of experiencing my drunk philosophizing anyway.
Anyway, I drink responsibly. I.e. I stay in the pub, don’t drive, walk home, don’t put myself in any sort of position of responsibility.
Furthermore, I’m entirely aware that it destroys my liver. How does that make me less reliable? Oh, and the damage to the brain cells is negligible.
You’re 18? Really? I was 90% sure that you were 19.
I turn 19 in January.
SFTDP: It’s not that anyone who drinks is unreliable, it’s that they are not reliable when they are drunk. Or at least they may not be.
Oh and Zinc, if you do go to a psychologist and they start pulling out Jung and Freud, then run hard and run fast. Pseudo-science never helped anybody.
Wait, that makes it sound like there is non-pseudo-science in psychology.
Ever heard of neuro-psychology? And besides, Freud and Jung are NOT the last word in psychology.
103.2.1.1- I must agree with you. But Zinc, I don’t recommend running. If you go to a psycoanalyst (and I have, it’s not so bad) don’t just run because they spout words you don’t want to hear. Sometimes they’re right. And that’s only the diagnosis/possibilities bit. Listen to the treatment possibilities- often those can be as simple (and according to what I’ve read, effective) as telling yourself how much everyone else loves you or eating chocolate (which has anitdepressant qualities, but don’t overdo it). I suppose I may not be the right one to tell you this, as my psycoanalyst diagnosed me with everything from schizophrenia to autism before she realized I just have synesthesia. But you might not be able to do this alone, and it’s fine to recognize that other people can help you.
Food for thought:
Two bits on news today. The Taliban in Pakistan are creating chaos with multiple attacks on various institutions. Their objective, on the surface at any rate, is to establish an Islamic state. Seems to me there is at least a small (perhaps *very* small) chance they might succeed.
Separately the USA have signed up a 5 billion dollar ‘aid’ deal with the Pakistani government in good part designed to ensure the above does not happen.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
What do you think will happen if the Taliban win?
A) Kashmir will be bombed
or
B)Nothing. MAD does work, India will wipe out Pakistan if p NW i. US only NW ever.
The Taliban thinks the west is the Devil and must die. If they get nukes, don’t you think that might be a cause for worry?
Well, I’m very glad we agree on something.
Zinc:(I already posted on the Random Thread a while ago, but I’m posting here too.)
Sorry this is late but anyway I’m going to make this straight to the point, and that’s that I can’t say I know what you’re going through or how you feel. Because I don’t. At all. All I can say is that no matter how bad a situation you’re in, chocolate still helps (Even if it’s just a little bit of help!) and that latching onto somebody will also be a good aid. Even if it’s not someone you’re age, (It doesn’t even have to be a parent!) just latch onto somebody. Because two people is better than one. And remember that we are doing the best we can to help you and we’ll always be here for you. I’m sorry if this doesn’t help at all, just a little of my love.
Love, soccer starr
Hm, let me introduce new food for thought. This is also the public forum topic for October.
When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize poverty reduction over environmental protection.
Have at it.
OMG NO WAI TEH PINGWINS R TOTALLY BETR THEN TH HOOMANS WE HAZ TO SAIV DEMS FURST
That was totally not sarcasm.
Ahem. Well, duh!
I’ve been saying similar things for years. No one listens to me.
I’m curious as to why they chose to put those two items in opposition. Don’t poor people suffer disproportionately from environmental hazards?
Furthermore, isn’t alleviating poverty a necessity for fixing environmental problems on a global scale anyway?
What you’re saying is all valid, but what the con side says is that climate change will reverse all poverty efforts. Another contention is that money/food toward poverty reduction is pocketed by corrupt governments. Yet another contention is that the environment is worldwide, whereas poverty is a regional thing.
(107, all) This discussion would benefit from some examples. What sorts of environmental problems exist? How could solving some of them hurt poor people? How could helping poor people make some of the problems worse?
I can think of some cases of conflict:
For local environmental issues, at least, the trade-offs can be real.
Though, in turn, that polluted river may be creating health problems that exacerbate the poverty situation.
Yeah, polluted rivers was a topic nobody mentioned, because both sides could swing it to their favor.
108.1–Like in China, there are villages that take apart electronics. The methods to do that are dangerous and they lead to a lot of filth going into the rivers. In turn, that leads to a sicklier workforce who have no money to move/go to a doctor, and it’s kind of a vicious circle. There, I would say to help the people get a different, better kind of work that is less harmful to the environment.
On the other hand, if global warming worsens droughts in Africa, then the environmental issue must take priority, because it is from it that the poverty, malnutrition, and disease stems.
On the whole, though, I would have to say that environmental issues must take slight priority because we can survive without banks but we can’t live without food. If the weather gets messed up, crops get messed up, and then there’s famine and disaster.
In some countries in Africa some kids spend their days removing the insulated wires from thrown-away electronics, then burning away the rubber and selling the scrap metal! I nearly cried when I read that- a lot of them die before age thirty!
*sniffs*
So anyway that’s another example of how both environmental damage and peoples’ poverty and health could have been fixed just with another job- all that rubber smoke pollutes, the rubber ash gets into their lungs and causes them to die early deaths, and they are barely paid anything.
108, 109 etc. – Kind of like the Three Gorges Dam project, also in China (near and dear to my heart!) It’s supposed to be able to bring fresh water to more poor people in drought areas, as well as generate more hydro-electricity, but a bunch of people living in the area near the river had to be relocated in case a reservoir was created by damming up the river. The poor who are being relocated are already near water, but are being forced to relocate to somewhere unfamiliar and maybe not as useful to them as the land where they lived before – like maybe they aren’t used to farming the new land and won’t be able to generate as much food, or something. However, the whole project is supposed to bring more water to other poor people, separate from the ones they are relocating. And this whole project is supposed to help the environment by using different sources of power to generate China’s electricity. So it’s kind of opposite, in a way, in that though this whole thing is supposed to be trying to help the environment and global warming, poor people near the 長江 are not amused.
Wait. I just read that and it doesn’t seem to be really related – or is it? I’m not sure, but if it isn’t, then I just had to say it. Sorry.
Who agrees with the political philosophy of Locke and The Declaration of Independence?
Cromwell: Like to summarize it for those who have not yet studied it in school?
Or for those who vaguely remember hearing the name in history last semester, but forgot everything they may have learned the moment the final was over…..
I would suggest reading the Declaration of Independence.
“Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.â€
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.â€
“Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, when the rule prescribes not, and not to be subject to the inconstant, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.â€
Look some more quotes up and you’ll see his philosophy.
So I haven’t been on here in a while, which is why I would have responded to everyone sooner but I didn’t. Sorry.
Zinc- With the way things are going today, pretty much everyone feels like you do at some point. Cutting isn’t a healthy habit to get into but it’s not the biggest of deals. Neither is drinking, but again, it’s not going to kill you if you’re responsible about it. School counsolers are probably not the best idea, and with everybody’s financial issues a psychologist may be out of the question.
What do you enjoy doing? I’ve found when people get in a rut in their life, especially as a teenager, there’s something they’re doing wrong. Look at your life. What are you doing you don’t want to be? What do you enjoy that you should do more of? Is your style of clothing getting boring? Are you obsessing over grades? Did you always want to play guitar but never got around to taking lessons? I was in a similar rut at about the age you are, two years ago. I was unhappy with everything and everyone, I had the worst acne you’ve ever seen, I had no friends, I was the kid nobody liked and plus, I was uncomfortable with myself.
Gradually, I found better friends who made me realize that I shouldn’t be ashamed of who I was, I came out of my little hole of depression and explored the world. I changed my style, I dropped things I didn’t like and I picked up things I did. I got more friends the more “myself” I was. I’m not saying that clinical depression is solvable simply by changing things in your life. You won’t be happy all the time, and sometimes it’ll just hit you how awful the world is and you’ll want to go back to self-mutilation. But hopefully by then you’ll have an outlet, or someone to talk to, or something to occupy your mind with that brings you out of that.
I do not reccomend escape. Cutting is an escape. Alcohol (usually) is an escape. They’re used as a way to forget about everything, and eventually, when you sober up/put away the knife, the world is still the same way it was. This is why I reccomend changing things. I really get aggrivated with people who sit around complaining about how bad everything is when they aren’t willing to at least try to change it. No, you can’t change so much, but there’s a lot you can change that’ll make you a lot happier.
I really don’t consider drinking a viable option by yourself. At parties, it certainly helps, but I really don’t think that drinking alone should be done.
How old are you, 13? You have no idea. There are few pleasures in life greater than sitting down with a really nice scotch, maybe Glennmorangie, or a 12 year old Jameson. Add a good book to the mix and voilà : heaven on earth.
I was talking about something like liquor and not doing anything else, just brooding over your problems. Yes, I am thirteen, although some people seem to think I’m older.
What’s wrong with brooding over your problems with a beer or even something heavier, like the aforementioned whiskey? You seem to think that alcohol will automatically mess you up. This is to be expected from someone who is not experiencing a lifestyle that includes alcohol. Anyone who drinks will tell you that it’s simply a habit like any other- smoking, listening to music, jogging, etc. Like anything else done to excess, it’s harmful, but to ascribe some sort of inherent negativity to it is silly.
I won’t say alcohol is automatically harmful, but it’s not completely neutral, either. It is a mind- and mood-altering substance, after all — that’s a large measure of its appeal for many people — and its effects can be suddenly unpredictable. Even in relatively small amounts, alcohol affects thinking, coordination, impulse control, and other functions. How much of an effect occurs will vary for individuals and situations, even for the same individual at another time. Aside from physical consequences, it can lead to some unfortunate decisions. Do you follow the Darwin awards? Have you noticed how many qualifiers were under the influence at the time? It’s simple common sense to be informed and to be cautious, just as one would be in learning to drive a vehicle, or to go hang-gliding, or to pursue any other activity that has potentially hazardous consequences.
You are not balancing the conversation by minimizing the risks, especially to developing brains. Arguments tend to focus on dramatic effects: drunkenness or the extreme symptoms of alcoholism. But there is quite a lot of research out there about the small, cumulative effects over time — even short-term and even for moderate drinkers, particularly females. Some of the early advocates for drinking wine every day have backpedaled when it comes to women, since a glass a day raised the risk for various cancers. For example, in light of a study published early this year “researchers estimated that about 5 percent of all cancers diagnosed in women each year in the United States are the result of low to moderate alcohol consumption” (quoted from an article in the Washington Post, my emphasis.)
Additionally, for some people with genetic predispositions to alcoholism, the risk is especially great. Even very minor alcohol consumption can cause severe problems for them. This is especially true for those who are not yet fully adults (as measured by brain development not chronological age). And check your logic: the process of habituation may be similar, but that certainly does not mean that the habits themselves are equivalent (and habits can be very difficult to break, so they’re not automatically harmless either). To equate listening to music with smoking is plain silly and unworthy of someone who prides himself on his debating skills. I’m surprised to hear you making the kind of arguments in defense of drinking alcohol that you would shred if someone else put them forward in defense of religious belief.
Oh no, the facts are the facts, no arguing there. And I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be aware of the physiological and psychological effects of it, that’s true for everything. But what upsets me is the apparent judgemental attitude towards drinking; I sense a hostility in the expressions. It’s not so much a medical debate as an ethical one. I’m not defending alcoholism (which would be impossible), and I should have phrased my previous post differently. There is no inherent ethical negativity to drinking alcohol.
A quick note regarding music as a potentially harmful habit: A friend of mine is suffering severely due to a case of tinnitus that he got from a concert. Of course, he knew the risks, and tried to protect himself with earplugs, but **** happens and he got it anyway. He says it’s hell on earth, and there are often cases of people attempting suicide because of tinnitus or becoming deeply depressed. Music listening, taken to an excess, is dangerous.
Furthermore I resent the implication that I am arguing illogically because the issue touches me personally- I am perfectly happy to admit that alcohol is medically unhealthy. I am perfectly happy to admit the same about smoking. I am perfectly happy to admit that my brain cells suffered from the LSD I took last week, although medically LSD is non-toxic and non-addictive. However, there are many different levels on which medically harmful substances can provide extremely interesting and even productive dimensions to life.
Enough, Elias. This blog is designed for minors. If a liquor company posted advertisements here extolling the joys of drinking, both the company and we would be in trouble. That’s essentially what you are doing and the position you are putting us in. You’ve made your points. Now move on, please.
I’m not extolling the joys of drinking, although I apologize if the blog is compromised in any way by this being discussed on here. I find it hard to believe that that would be the case, though. Regardless, my points are clear.
That’s your choice. Other people choose to drink less or not at all. Please respect that.
I’m sick of being told to shut up and respect things I don’t agree with. Why can’t we debate things? What’s the point otherwise? You may think it’s open-minded and politically correct to respect any and all views, but it’s the exact opposite. No one will ever learn, and no one will ever grow, unless they have the opportunity to challenge other people’s opinions and to have their own challenged as well.
Respect is not a matter of agreeing with things. It is a matter of being able to treat each other civilly despite differences. That is what this thread is for. I welcome discussion and debate and like hearing other points of views. I do not think that the discussion of drinking is particularly productive at this site given that most people here are underage. If you care to discuss drinking habits, this is not the place to do so.
As far as decisions made by people who are of age to do so, I respect others’ decisions until they begin to harm themselves or others at which point it becomes an entirely different issue.
Has anybody here told you to shut up? If so, I haven’t seen it.
As for honing other people’s intellects by relentlessly attacking their beliefs — well, that’s one way to go about it. Having survived college and graduate school, we GAPAs are familiar with the technique, and we could apply it on MuseBlog if we wanted to. But we don’t. It’s not what we’re trying to do here. Even if we considered that approach a good idea, to force it on people much younger and less prepared than we are would make them uncomfortable and would make us look like bullies. After all, having strong arms is a noble goal, too, but we don’t feel the need to arm-wrestle every 12-year-old we meet to strengthen their biceps. It wouldn’t be much fun for anybody, and it probably wouldn’t work.
If you really feel a calling to foster the development of younger people’s intellects, I think you should look for other ways to go about it. If what you’re really interested in is winning arguments, however, you should find another place to do it. Winning and losing aren’t what MuseBlog is about.
“Shut up” was hyperbole.
It’s not a question of relentlessly attacking beliefs, at all. It’s a question of actually being open to hearing differing opinions and listening to the arguments before passing judgement. My ego is sufficiently big that I don’t need winning arguments on MuseBlog to pamper it. Arguing is only productive if both parties are willing to at least hear out their opponent, anyway, which is what the main point is. Furthermore, the fact that all the 12 year olds here read Muse and took it upon themselves to sign onto the blog should indicate a curiosity among them that would welcome challenging positions. That was definitely why I started getting Muse- I was curious. About anything. I welcome differing viewpoints and the opportunity to exam my own positions again. I provide the opportunity for everyone else to do so as well. My posts are easily enough ignored.
About your posts being easily ignored…
I find them hard to ignore. Even though I usually don’t agree with them, you do use logic in interesting ways, but that’s probably because I enjoy logic, and feel like killing people who make logical fallacies.
Who told you to shut up?
There is an enormous difference between respecting someone else’s views and agreeing with them. Respecting means accepting that person and their views without denouncing them; agreeing by definition consists of your views being the same. Nobody asked you to make your views congruent with theirs.
I never said they did. But I don’t have to respect views I found reprehensible, in fact, it is my moral duty to denounce them.
What happened to my posts? What was wrong with them?
We thought they deserved more attention than we were able to give them right away, so we let them cool off until we had finished most of our real-world chores for the day.
I haven’t been on here in ages.
*reads posts*
Hmmm.
I propose a change of subject.
If you really want a change of subject and not waste everyone’s time by having them read your pointless post, you could actually propose a subject.
Woah. Nice comment; friendly too.
Oh, yes, because shadowfire’s post was so long it wasted countless hours of your precious time. Seriously, cromwell, chill. The post in question was so short that (unless you’re a very slow reader) it would have taken less time to read than your reply took to type.
Not to mention, nobody forced you to read ens post.
It’s true that my post took longer to type than it took to read Shadowfire’s post, but I’m sick and tired of reading posts that have no place here. How did en’s post contribute at all to the discussion. I’ll tell you. It didn’t. Maybe if I point that out, people won’t waste my time and theirs with posts like that.
And I’m sick and tired of people jumping down other peoples’ throats for no good reason. Maybe ens post didn’t contribute, but yours contributed even less–and shadowfire’s post, at least, was polite.
Could we all just try not to pick a fight over every little comment someone makes? We’ve all made at least one off-topic/out-of-place/just plain pointless post somewhere on the ‘blog. Let it slide. We’re all Musers here. (Yes, the dreaded phrase.)
Colds and/or flu seems to be adding to the crankiness in this particular instance. Everybody, go drink some fluids and try to relax. At any rate, let’s give this conversation a rest.
I’m not sure that everybody understands the purpose of Hot Topics threads. We started them in the first place as places to discuss sensitive subjects that arose naturally in the course of discussions on the blog.
MBers’ odd reluctance to let any thread go silent (even temporarily) gives the impression that there always has to be a hot topic. There doesn’t. Probably most of the time there won’t be. But when there is a hot topic, this is a place to discuss it with gloves on so that nobody gets maimed and anyone who wants to avoid the spectacle can easily do so.
Okay. Maybe it wasn’t necessary for me to say that. But then again, maybe I did have a suggestion and now don’t want to share it.
It seems we don’t actually need a hot topic to generate a debate.
Fine, go ahead and sulk. You clearly never had a suggestion anyway. “Maybe” you had a suggestion. Right.
See my comment above (116.1.3.1.1). And Robert’s comment 117. Civility applies to off-topic remarks as well. I realize you’re not feeling well today, but that is not an excuse to be rude. Communication on the blog is through the printed word, you are therefore able to edit before you post.
What are people’s opinions on the “Balloon Boy” in Fort Collins, CO? I think it was kind of ridiculous on the family’s part.
I agree, wholeheartedly. And I feel bad for that kid, however, I understood the situation a bit more when I watched the episode of Wife Swap in which their family was featured. It makes more sense to me that this wasn’t a publicity stunt, but that the parents are just bad parents.
As anyone who watched Wife Swap every once in a while knows, two families switch wives for two weeks to try and better the lives of each family. Balloon Boy’s family has a father who makes reckless inventions as a pastime, and does nothing when his children play with objects and devices that could endanger them. When the new wife tried to impose rules for the children’s safety limiting the inventions of the father and trying to keep the kids away from them, Balloon Boy, of all the children (and I think he was four or five at the time) cussed her out with a few choice swears, a few strong choice swears and the father did nothing to stop it. Then, they just continued on their merry way. It’s one thing to have a creative atmosphere that introduces design and inventing, which is awesome in any home. But it’s entirely something else when the children are endangered by the reckless inventions. It’s probably not my place to say so, but I think they were asking for trouble. They may be calling it a publicity stunt just to cover up the fact that two young boys were left unsupervised and one let the family balloon go for a spin by accident and then hid in the attic because he was scared.
At any rate, the whole thing is getting a lot more attention than it deserves.
Yes, it was rather ridiculous. How would sending their son up in a balloon get them on reality TV?
Yup, I agree. I feel especially bad for the poor boy who was basically forced into the whole mess, all for the sake of the parents who wanted more attention in the media.
Forced into the mess for the sake of parents who wanted more attention in the media??? He ran away to the attic, for pity’s sake!
Although admittedly the parents looked overjoyed to be on TV.
Oh, no, it turns out the whole thing was a hoax created by the parents to get publicity because they wanted a new reality show.
I know almost nothing of the situation and intend to keep it that way. Really, why is the biggest story of the week some kid who wasn’t in a weather balloon while, for instance, the death toll from the huge bombing just outside the Green Zone in Baghdad continues to rise and is now somewhere around 160? But some kid and his weird parents are more important than that?
Because they’re white Americans.
Actually, they’re not white.
I think that they might have some Asian background, but I’m not sure so don’t take my word for it.
wife is Asian. Boys are hapa.
Yes, even here in Singapore they stopped footage of the thousand-plus Indonesian earthquake victims to talk about one little boy who didn’t die and wasn’t even remotely injured!
I think the thing is, there was a whole state in turmoil (they shut down all flights at DIA, which is the next closest thing to quarantining Colorado’s air space), and it turned out that this little kid was forced into the whole thing by a bunch of attention-seeking parents. And before we knew that (at the time he had just been found in the attic), the whole thing looked suspiciously like it could be a huge hoax.
Guys, this is a place for respectful debate. Could we keep it civil?
EES, Why doesn’t Switzerland join the EU? Is it neutrality, the Swiss just don’t like the rest of Europe, to much power would be lost, what?
I think it’s a combination of those factors (except maybe the don’t-like-other-Europeans part
). What does Switzlerland stand to gain from the EU? Nothing much. The Swiss can defend themselves and the country is already quite rich.
Yes, pretty much. Not to mention joining the EU would increase bilateral agreements (by proxy) resulting in a much higher level of immigration from poorer countries, and the job situation here is already undergoing a bit of a crisis. At the moment we have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by joining the EU.
This thread is saying fizzle, too. Humbug! Off to religion. Are all the people who usually argue out for a week or so?
I’m here, but there aren’t any juicy topics right now.
I’m also here.
What about the passing of the health care reform bill in the House of Representatives? I’m glad it passed, but there are some parts of it that bother me. The Stupak amendment, in particular.
The Stupak amendment was the only reason it passed.
Yes, the Stupak amendment annoys me too. If it’s not removed from the bill by the time it goes to the Senate, I think it should go through, but be fixed later.
Er, sorry, but, what is the Stupak amendment? And who thought up the name?
A representative named Bart Stupak came up with it. It would not allow women to buy insurance coverage including abortion, if they received government subsidies and bought insurance in a public exchange. it irritates me greatly.
Close, but not quite. It does not allow federal funding to be used for insurance plans that cover abortion. Women can still buy plans that cover it, but the government can’t fund those plans. At least that’s how I understood the amendment. In any case, there’s still a lot of arguing to be done before a final bill can be agreed upon.
True, but this makes abortion coverage much harder to get. it’s another way to try and limit women’s access to abortion.
On the other point, you’re right. We’re still a long way from anything final.
Okay. We have to do an essay for English about a controversial topic. We got to pick options out of a bowl. These were mine.
Ten Commandments (in courthouses)
Traffic and security cameras-Invasion of privacy?
Are CEO’s paid too much?
Global Warming
I, of course, chose Global Warming so I could obnoxiously deny it with some simple arguments.
And then my english teacher said we could change to any other topic. Any topic. So, being me, I chose legalization of marijuana. I’m pro. What about you guys?
I had to do something like that last year. I ended up with “are Muslim women oppressed?” and argued that as long as they are not being forced to stay in the house, wear uncomfortable things that they don’t want to wear, and have chosen their religion, a hijab is not discriminative.
how many of them are born into a family and society such that they don’t have a choice? If they choose it is one thing, it is another if it is expected of them and following along beats the consequences of not doing so.
The Muslim religious texts, both in the Koran and the Hadith, attribute a value to the woman equal to that of half of a man. Sexism is deeply ingrained into Islam, as it is in almost all religions, it’s just that Islam manifests this in a much more visible way.
No need to denounce other peoples’ beliefs. Religions like Islam also give people a strong sense of safety and community. Since when are “most religions” sexist?
There is no good reason to outlaw marijuana, and banning it is a violation of human rights.
In my opinion, banning marijuana is no more a violation of human rights than outlawing suicide. Of course, I fully expect you to find some arcane reason that people should be allowed to kill themselves. Marijuana is dangerous, unhealthy, debt-inducing, and mentally damaging.
Of course suicide should be legal. The right to die if you want to. It’s your body. Do with it what you want, but don’t hurt others on purpose.
I don’t condone suicide, In fact I hate the concept, but if some one feels thats the best thing for them, Who am I to stop them?
Global Warming, a controversial topic? Yes, but not one that stands up to much debate. If you want to be obnoxious, there’s a time and place, but truly writing a persuasive piece is independent of subject matter. Therefore, I’d choose chocolate vs. vanilla.
Vendaval, you lost an L!
Ahi!i You’re right!
Must’ve dropped off in my long time away from here, but I see it’s back now.
22.3.1- Well, Piggy, you’re a Republican amongst a throng of Liberals, like (metaphor time
) a base in a cauldron of acid. You can only expect for there to be some fizz.
Personally, though, I like independents. Bases and acids burn holes in my flesh, and they’re both controlled by special interest groups and lobbyists…
The funny thing is that the democrats are have centrist policies, and what is considered “liberal” by American standards is considered “common sense” everywhere else in the world. For example, right-wing parties in Europe are shocked at the extremism of the Republican party, and left-wing parties in Europe laugh at the wimpy pseudo-liberalism of the Democrats.
We’re a sad bunch, all in all.
I’m actually not a Republican, which will be a surprise to a lot of people. I agree with a lot of what they believe, but not everything; and I don’t like the way they’re running the party (see: special interest groups and lobbyists). So I’m basically independent.
There’s an important difference between Liberal & Conservative, Democrat & Republican. e.g., Democrats are controlled by special interests, Liberals are not.
“Independent” is annoying to me because it’s so very not helpful; can you identify yourself on a chart? I’ve found it to be much more helpful. For example, I’m in the libertarian lower left quadrant. (Political Compass dotorg is what I’m using.)
125.1- Well, America has never really followed European “common sense,” has it?
And despite it all, the U.S. definitely still has the most representative government (which is pretty sad).
“Common sense” isn’t culturally subjective.
And no, as far as representative gov’ts go I’d have to give Switzerland first place. Direct democracy, every single referendum is voted on directly by every single citizen personally. And every single citizen can submit their own referendum, if they get a thousand signatures.
Something tells me you live in Switzerland.
Every citizen, even Kids?
if so +1 to switzerland.