bleeding heart

No kidding. As the number of people holding the most wealth shrinks, while their wealth increases....and then the top-down class warriors screech louder and louder about how this tiny percentage is being increasingly victimized....yes, the entitlement metality is pretty obvious indeed.

Me too. In fact, I'll up the ante, and assume that many posters here have been or are acquainted with many small business owners over the years, on a personal level. I know this applies to me, and I'm not personally a business owner. And that most of them make somewhere between $0 and $150 000 a year.

They're not. They're demanding to be included in the existing realm. This analogy would only work if heterosexuals no longer had use of the word. But they do. they're perfectly free, as always, to get married. And again: why do think anyone "owns" a word?

Sure, don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way opposed to upgrading prisons. They're buildings; they eventually need to be rebuilt. Period. But yes, the Conservative's ideas on crime are silly and retrograde, at least for the most part.

I agree. The "hope and change" thing really was a farce, as the Republicans were charging (though some people forget that the McCain/Palin "Maverick" campaign theme was fundamentally the same platitudinous attempt. No fundamental difference in emotive strategy). There are institutional factors that rule the day. An administration can make some changes--good or bad--in the margins, with the use of terrific will. But that's about it.

Oh yeah, I get that. But this reaches to new levels of lunacy. "We're going to build more prisons to house those criminals whose crimes are never reported and so are never arrested." A sparkling new prison system filled with the ghosts of ideological dreams. A pretty expensive do-nothing fantasy.

And of course the very notion of such a law is preposterous on its face, anywhere that abortion is not illegal. It makes a homicide charge dependent on a woman's choice (on what she claims was her choice, in fact), which makes it impossibly arbitrary. And not what is meant by "freedom of choice," at all.

Ok, that's interesting, thanks.

Took it like a man? Then that goes for an awful lot of convicted folks, does it not?

Sigh. I didn't think it would need to be spelled out: More prisons have exactly zero effect on unreported crime. Because you can't convict someone for a crime that is never reported. Why does the hyper-obvious even need to be explained???

People who support private prisons have little interest in issues of crime and justice. Because that's not what privatized prisons are about.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt the "poor little Chick-Fil-A's" defenders. Time to find a new boogeyman, I guess.

What's the issue with too much height, now that you bring it up? Does it have something to do with balance/equilibrium?

I appreciate what appears to be a sincere argument on the part of the author's article; but the indisputable fact remains that there is nothing about the figures cited that suggest it is the new gold standard. Arguments from both sides, by reputable authors using conventional approaches to study, have come up with contradictory results. Over and over and over. This is why the debate still rages on, after decades. It's certainly not some argument between "hug-a-thug" ideological liberals versus hard-nosed, practical conservatives. On the contrary, heated ideological exchanges aside, both camps have often made use of strong, non-partisan studies and arguments to bolster their respective views. (Incidentally, US crime officials have written an open letter to Harper about abandoning his "tough on drugs" policy...they claim it's an utter failure, in fact counterproductive...and they should know!) So since the facts, as we know them, seem so plainly contradictory, I advocate what I would call a "conservative" approach: do not make radical changes to the incarceration system, until we have this figured out. So...the liberals are being "conservative"...and the conservatives are being....radical. (I"m talking small "l" liberals, and both small and big "c"/"C" conservatives.

So...the Cnservatives want to build new prisons because they're concerned about the well-being of the inmates? What has stopped them from making these feelings public, then? I thought they wanted to build more prisons to house all the people who are never caught because of the high rate of unreported crime. (If that sounds contradictory, it is...but I'm not the one making the claimns, and then offering the lunatic prescriptions for these claims.)

First of all, intelligence briefings are often based on incompetence...that's not my assessment, that's what our political leaders imply every time a terrible msitake is made; that was the Bush administration's excuse for the catastrophe called "the Iraq War." So...either our political Masters are lying to us about military intelligence--which proves my point--or else military intelligence is fequently incompetent--which also proves my point. They got into the Iraq War based on lies. They got into the Vietnam War based on lies. Virtually their entire terror-ridden Latin American interventionist policies in the 1980's was based on a pack of lies. So, yes, they are aware they can get away with quite a bit. What helps them is that members of the press, the public, and the intelligentsia are quite eager to lick their boots and talk about their pretty, shiny motives. Like I said, they've gotten away with mass murder, illegal invasions, and helping out state terrorists and smaller terrorist groups. With total impunity. But you keep talking about military ROE's, which aren't my point: soldiers are under far stricter legal guidelines than a country's actual political/military policy.....under which they are virtually no rules, at least none that are routinely followed. Weak countries get punished for misdeeds; strong countries do what they will. They do what they like. I've cited numerous examples, with millions dead. What more evidence do we need? All deaths aren't "unfortunate mistakes." I wish I could see it that way. The onus is not on the private citizen to prove his government is behaving badly (though fortunately we do have many citizens doing just that...generally despised and ridiculed, which I guess is the price you pay for criticizing Power). No, the onus is on the Powerful, on the authorities, to justify their behaviour. And when the issue is violence, the bar should be set very high. Anytime they cannot rationally justify their uise of power...that use of power is illegitimate. That's a fundamental democratic principle. I understand the need for secrecy...but this is abused, too, continually. Governments love secrecy, understandably. Hell, since the wikileaks scandal broke, authorties have been unable to name one single breach of secrecy that has caused any deaths of our soldiers, diplomats, or allies. This alone suggests they are misusing their "secrecy" rights and responsibilities. Who is "our"? They might have geostrategic interests that do not clearly align with those of the generral public. Except for collusion in terrorism and mass murder, and except for illegal invasions. Except for "anti-terrorism" polciies that increase terrorism, therefore making them partially culpable. Sure, individual soldiers will get nailed for what they do wrong...but these are very minor crimes compared to what the Big Boys do. And they are never held to account. I know, Army Guy, and I regret implying otherwise. That's out of line, and I apologize. Yes, and I don't shy from these cold facts. In a democratic country, we're at least partially responsible for what is done in our name. Sometimes the country heads in the right direction, sometimes it's hard to tell...but sometimes it's pretty obviously wrong. There was no good reason to arm the Indonesian Generals as they slaughtered the people of East Timor. No good justification; no Soviets or Chinese communists in sight, and the Indonesian President was as bad as Saddam Hussein. If one of our enemies had done what we did, we would rightly call them out on it, denounce them, maybe even impose sanctions. Certainly we owe the survivors huge reparations, in my opinion, though of course that's unthinkable. But we had economic interests in pleasing Indonesia, and political interests in backing US plans. It ain't right. I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

No, not a problem. It's good when posters can be civil enough to avoid going around uselessly on some little point...on which they don't even really disagree!

I think this is too harsh...in great part because it oversimplifies. I wouldn't be so complacent, personally, about condemning such a broad swath of human beings.

Those who believe it should be legal, and those who oppose it, both are working explicitly and absolutely from moral positions. Ron Paul's libertarianism is itself a moral position, predicated on the moral good of individual liberty. I don't see how you can atomize matters in such a way. Again: political beleifs have reasons behind them. I'm only askiung what they could conceivably be, as divorced from religious belief. When you said that "people are allowed to have political opinions," this was a response to me. I was only pointing out that what opinions people are "allowed" to have is not any kind of issue for me. Your later remarks suggest to me that I misread you, however. Sure, I get that. But I don't see how it isn't a religious issue too, only because I see no areligious objections to it.

Yeah, and in fact, part of the genius of Christianity and other faiths is this sort of self-reflexivity--unfortunately misread or at least under-applied--in which the faithful are warned that they can be fooled by their own faith into committing evil.

I never faintly hinted at what opinions anyone should be "allowed" to have. That's not even a debate. Christ, we're back yet again to Sarah Palin intimating that hostility to her opinions is repressing her "freedom of speech." (This is the kind of assessment made by those who have no concept of what "freedom of speech" is.) But if it a political opinion, what is the reasoning behind it? From a religious perspective, a person can toss around some Biblical quotes, express their belief that God Himself has made it clear, and so that's the genesis of their opposition. But "politically," what is the reasoning? Even the most wrongheaded and odious political beliefs have reasons, whatever their worth. A thinking person doesn't support or excoriate the welfare state...just because. The White Nationalists, jaw-droppingly ridiculous as they are, can tell you exactly why races need to be separated by national/geographical boundaries. Socialists and Randians can argue at length, and with genuine philosophical knowledge, about their respective visions for political economy. So what's the "political" objection to same-sex marriage, besides "it's our word"?

I'm inclined to echo cybercoma more or less exactly. I agree that politicians are way out of bounds in trying to deny the company. But we're not talking about "having a political belief" translates into persecuting anyone; it's when one uses that "political" [sic...actually, religious] belief to interfere with equal rights....that's the issue. And how is it a "political" belief, exactly? Hell, the religious objections are more legtimiate than "political" ones; and that's setting the bar pretty low.

Here? No one, to my knowledge...though Betsy's opinion has yet to be sought out on the matter.

Yep. Or: "Why can't our Christian children bully the gays? Sooo unfair."

I don't think that was the point at all. And if I can speak for Tim, he of course recognizes the importance of consultative positions for scientists, in any matter in which scientific observation and knowledge are crucial to the (political) decisions that are to be made. I think there are two issues at cross-purposes here: there's the Harper Government's perceived hostility to science which clashes with their politics (which I do believe is an actual problem, btw); but there is also a more general issue--nothing specifically to do with the Harper government, but with any Government--which states that scientists do not make political decisions, but rather serve as consultants towards proper political decisions, where applicable. The latter would likely be Timg's stance, if I read him correctly.