Presidential Address

[Lance]

If one can't think of any feasible alternatives, how does one know if the policy is bad or not?

Let's say I were to decide that, in order to prevent sexually explicit posting on IRU, I would lock all forums and prevent all new posts. I think it would be clear that is a bad idea, even without an alternative.

[Мастер]

If one can't think of any feasible alternatives, how does one know if the policy is bad or not?

Let's say I were to decide that, in order to prevent sexually explicit posting on IRU, I would lock all forums and prevent all new posts. I think it would be clear that is a bad idea, even without an alternative.

Do you not have to believe at a minimum that some better alternative exists, even if you don't know all the details, to know that the one described above is a bad idea?

[Lance]

I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

[Мастер]

I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

Would you call locking down the forum and prohibiting all posting a bad idea, even if no feasible alternative existed? I wouldn't, if it truly were the only choice.

I would tend to look at these things as a matter of persuasiveness. If someone says, "El Bush really boobed on this one, here is a specific alternative, analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each, showing that his policy is definitely worse than the one I propose," well, that's the most convincing case. If someone says, "I don't have a specific plan in mind, but something along the lines of this, that, and the other thing would probably work better," I'd put that lower on the hierarchy. If someone says, "This is a really dumb idea, and I can't think of any alternative, but I just know one must exist," well, sure, that person has the right to say this, but is s/he going to win any converts this way?

To address some of the analogies made in this thread, if I am to conclude that the actors in some show I am watching are bad actors, I must at least have some idea that better acting is possible, even if I can't act myself. If I taste some meat loaf and decide it is bad meat loaf, I must have some idea of what meat loaf ought to taste like, and that better meat loaf is possible, even if I can't cook it myself.

I rather feel the same way about the immigration issue. I will only call the Bush proposal a bad one if I can convince myself that a better alternative is possible. So let me be the first person (unless I missed something) to come up with an alternative: do nothing. Better or worse than the Bush proposal? Why?

[Lance]

Would you call locking down the forum and prohibiting all posting a bad idea, even if no feasible alternative existed? I wouldn't, if it truly were the only choice.

But then it would cease to exist as a forum. I do not need to know if a better solution is possible to know that is a bad one.

If I taste some meat loaf and decide it is bad meat loaf, I must have some idea of what meat loaf ought to taste like, and that better meat loaf is possible, even if I can't cook it myself.

No, you do not need to know what meat loaf ought to taste like. You might simply not like meat loaf.

[Dragon Star]

Hey KOS, mind of I borrow your brain next time I try to win an argument?

That was pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, condensed into a few paragraphs that actually made sense...damn, only took me 4 pages or so to figure out I couldn't even do it.

[Мастер]

But then it would cease to exist as a forum. I do not need to know if a better solution is possible to know that is a bad one.

Well, perhaps we are using the word "bad" differently then; if, for example, we have a terminally ill patient who cannot be saved by any means at our disposal, we might feel that this is a bad situation. But I would not say that our treatment of that patient is bad, simply because the person eventually will die. If we were really in a situation where the continued existence of the forum were to be impossible, how would taking it down be a bad idea? How can that which is necessary be a bad idea?

If I taste some meat loaf and decide it is bad meat loaf, I must have some idea of what meat loaf ought to taste like, and that better meat loaf is possible, even if I can't cook it myself.

No, you do not need to know what meat loaf ought to taste like. You might simply not like meat loaf.

Well, as it happens, that is the case, but I would not say the chef has done a bad job then, unless we call into question the decision to cook meatloaf instead of some other dish. And I would submit that, WRT to immigration policy, the question is not so much one of whether the meat loaf is good or bad, but of whether we should have meat loaf or some other dish :P

[Мастер]

Hey KOS, mind of I borrow your brain next time I try to win an argument?

Flattery will get you everywhere :P

That was pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, condensed into a few paragraphs that actually made sense...damn, only took me 4 pages or so to figure out I couldn't even do it.

Sorry to have been out at an inconvenient time for you :P

[Gullible Jones]

Wait, what the fuck is going on here? How'd we get from Bush being incompetent to "sexually explicit posting" and locking down the entire board?

[Lance]

met·a·phor
'me-t&-"for also -f&r
noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear -- more at BEAR
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE

[umop ap!sdn]

If I taste some meat loaf and decide it is bad meat loaf, I must have some idea of what meat loaf ought to taste like, and that better meat loaf is possible, even if I can't cook it myself.

To apply this analogy, I think the policy ought to at least be self consistent (making exceptions all the time tasted bad), and should not put illegals through a big unnecessary runaround only to send them back to their country of origin (policies can exist which do not do this). ;)

And I would submit that, WRT to immigration policy, the question is not so much one of whether the meat loaf is good or bad, but of whether we should have meat loaf or some other dish

I'm afraid I don't follow.

[Мастер]

To apply this analogy, I think the policy ought to at least be self consistent (making exceptions all the time tasted bad), and should not put illegals through a big unnecessary runaround only to send them back to their country of origin (policies can exist which do not do this). ;)

So here we have some specification of an alternative!

And I would submit that, WRT to immigration policy, the question is not so much one of whether the meat loaf is good or bad, but of whether we should have meat loaf or some other dish

I'm afraid I don't follow.

The conflict is, for the most part, not whether a goal is realized by the most efficient means or not, but what the goal ought to be...

[The Beer Slayer]

met·a·phor
'me-t&-"for also -f&r
noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French metaphore, from Latin metaphora, from Greek, from metapherein to transfer, from meta- + pherein to bear -- more at BEAR
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE

I think your example was more like an analogy than a metaphor.

[Doe, John]

Why isn't Bush a bad president? How about . . . he inheirited an economy headed for a recession, a situation which was exacerbated by the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers and during his presidency the economy has turned around and is chugging along quite nicely.

<*hunkering down in flame proof bunker anticipating onslaught of Bush Haters*>

[Enzo]

And let's be true to the meatloaf. I said you don't have to be a chef to know the meatloaf tastes bad. It says nothing of whether the chef did a bad job, only that it tastes bad to you. You may not know how to make a meatloaf you'd like, but you know you don't like this one. That is all it takes. You don't need to keep your taste a secret even if everyone else loves the stuff.

For example, my mom used to use crushed corn flakes or wheaties instead of bread crumbs. I liked that. Tapioca? mmmmm maybe not so much.

And on top, ketchup is acceptable, but chocolate syrup is a bad idea. Dish soap is even worse.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Government leaders like to take credit if (and only if) the economy is doing well.
But in the real world their (individual) effect on the economy doesn't come close
to what it is made out to be.

[Lonewulf]

Government leaders like to take credit if (and only if) the economy is doing well.
But in the real world their (individual) effect on the economy doesn't come close
to what it is made out to be.

Very true. Economy is more decided by businesses, enterpreneurs, new trends, foreign relations, tariffs (and lack thereof), etc.

The President has very very little control. Leading economists have even stated such -- that the President can make a dimple, but that's about it.

I might add that Bush was the one that decided to cut taxes, twice, and then run head first into a war... two things that I don't think should go together. As a result, funding into education has been slashed. Now, considering this is a skeptic's forum, I would expect the majority of us to want funding for education...

[Мастер]

Government leaders like to take credit if (and only if) the economy is doing well.

And hte public likes to give it to them :wink:

I might add that Bush was the one that decided to cut taxes, twice,

Well, really four times.

and then run head first into a war... two things that I don't think should go together. As a result, funding into education has been slashed.

I believe the Department of Education budget has increased every year that Bush has been president.

[Philip]

I won't be on for a while, so sorry if this looks like a hit-and-run post. It isn't but it will be a while before I can get back to any responses.

British Sunday Times report on Mexican border wall

Bad idea guys, what happened to the Land Of The Free? In Europe (especially Belfast, where I grew up) we have had to deal with terrorism for decades. At the start, we believed as you do now - more security, less civil liberties. This created more fear (always a 'good thing' for a government, as more laws can be passed as 'protection'), more injustice (therefore more hiding places for terrorists) and generally a worse place to be. In the UK, we stepped back a bit, won a lot of ground. Unfortunately our version of the Glorious Leader doesn't understand history too well, so we are stepping back. The terrorists who carried out 9/11 entered the US legally, not over an undefended border. The terrorists who carried out 7/7 were British nationals. Your attackers came as guests, ours grew up here. What is there to be done about these sorts of attacks? Fences? Deportation? Where does the line get drawn? Why not show just how good democracy can be, and beat them that way?

Some things I think Bush got right, in a way.
Invading Iraq had two main good points. One was getting rid of Saddam, because he was a genocidal maniac. He wasn't any threat to us, but he was still a nasty bastard. He had no NBC weapons, his economy was wrecked, no threat. And we KNEW he had no NBC capability. The 'WMD' line was purely political, a good soundbite for the media to get the ball rolling.
The second reason, I believe, is better. Terrorists vs civilians (New York, London, wherever); terrorists win. Terrorists vs soldiers; soldiers win. And it's better to be fighting on someone elses terrain when you do have to fight.
There is a third, scurrilous, reason - 'He was mean to my daddy'.

Some things I think he got wrong.
No 2nd phase plans for Iraq - Oops. What did you/we think was going to happen? Dictators don't generally leave strong, capable subordinates alive, as it's bad for their position. Havoc was on the cards, and it was never planned for.
The ports fiasco - do you have any idea the damage that has done to America's reputation around the world? How much do you think your allies will listen to your demands for free trade etc since you blocked port sales from one foreign company (British) to another (Dubai). Both are allies, who have repeatedly backed America's stance in world politics.
The Great Southern Wall. America is a land of immigrants, and they are doing the work that no-one else wants to. For pay a lot less than any of you ae willing to accept. Why? Because they believe in the American Dream - or have you killed that?

In America, you have been lucky. You have had peace on your land for almost 150 years, you have the worlds biggest economy, and one of the best constitutions - the absolute equality of all men is one of the best beliefs there is. Don't throw it away.

Anyway, rant over. If you feel particularly strongly about anything I've said, feel free to PM me, or just post thunderous denunciations here.

[Lance]

I won't be on for a while...

Days? Months?

[Bandit]

No "thunderous denounciations" here Phillip, just some disagreement with a couple things. :wink:

British Sunday Times report on Mexican border wall

Bad idea guys, what happened to the Land Of The Free? In Europe (especially Belfast, where I grew up) we have had to deal with terrorism for decades. At the start, we believed as you do now - more security, less civil liberties. This created more fear (always a 'good thing' for a government, as more laws can be passed as 'protection'), more injustice (therefore more hiding places for terrorists) and generally a worse place to be. In the UK, we stepped back a bit, won a lot of ground. Unfortunately our version of the Glorious Leader doesn't understand history too well, so we are stepping back. The terrorists who carried out 9/11 entered the US legally, not over an undefended border. The terrorists who carried out 7/7 were British nationals. Your attackers came as guests, ours grew up here. What is there to be done about these sorts of attacks? Fences? Deportation? Where does the line get drawn? Why not show just how good democracy can be, and beat them that way?

What, by allowing sworn enemies to take advantage of two very porous borders? That's not showcasing democracy, that's just "asking for it." Our enemies won't give us a bye for stupidity. No method is foolproof as your two examples show but there's no excuse not to monitor/control who enters our country.. especially now.

Some things I think Bush got right, in a way.
Invading Iraq had two main good points. One was getting rid of Saddam, because he was a genocidal maniac. He wasn't any threat to us, but he was still a nasty bastard. He had no NBC weapons, his economy was wrecked, no threat. And we KNEW he had no NBC capability. The 'WMD' line was purely political, a good soundbite for the media to get the ball rolling.
The second reason, I believe, is better. Terrorists vs civilians (New York, London, wherever); terrorists win. Terrorists vs soldiers; soldiers win. And it's better to be fighting on someone elses terrain when you do have to fight.
There is a third, scurrilous, reason - 'He was mean to my daddy'.

I think the Iraq war was the single biggest mistake this administration has made .. even worse than using the "Northern Alliance" as proxy soldiers in the early days of the Afghan campaign. While the world is better off without the likes of Saddam Hussein, the war was unnecessary and diverted resources from combating the real threat. Let's also not forget our brave men and women who have lost their lives in this folly.

Iraq posed no military threat to us and there was no ties between Saddam and OBL or his lackeys. The WMD fiasco speaks for itself. I personally think many in the Bush Administration believed Iraq did possess some chemical or biological munitions but IMO that in itself is not a reason for war. Do you realize how prevalent "WMDs" in one form or another are? Chemical weapons especially. Hell, mix two of the wrong bathroom cleaners together and you have one!

Some things I think he got wrong.
No 2nd phase plans for Iraq - Oops. What did you/we think was going to happen? Dictators don't generally leave strong, capable subordinates alive, as it's bad for their position. Havoc was on the cards, and it was never planned for.
The ports fiasco - do you have any idea the damage that has done to America's reputation around the world? How much do you think your allies will listen to your demands for free trade etc since you blocked port sales from one foreign company (British) to another (Dubai). Both are allies, who have repeatedly backed America's stance in world politics.
The Great Southern Wall. America is a land of immigrants, and they are doing the work that no-one else wants to. For pay a lot less than any of you ae willing to accept. Why? Because they believe in the American Dream - or have you killed that?

I very strongly agree with your first two points. After beating the Iraqi military and toppling the Hussein regime it's been all downhill. What bothers me is how no one in the administration looked beyond the initial military phase. No one! I think some in Washington actually thought the Iraqis would kiss our feet indefinitely.

I agree with you re:the ports fiasco as well. The US support for Israel makes it a risky proposition for any Arab country to have good ties with ours and this is how those that are brave or foolish enough to be our friends are treated?

Regarding the "Great Southern Wall" - I'd prefer fencing. A "wall" sends the wrong message. We should welcome immigrants, but not make it easy for those who have other motives for entering this country. Right now it's too easy to sneak in and not enough is being done to stop it.

[Philip]

Lance - days, not weeks. I'm on a course, and web access will be limited to breaks. Pretty much normal, if you look at my posting patterns.

Bandit - I accept your reasons for the wall/fence, I just don't agree with them. How are you expecting to keep people from climbing/tunneling over it? What level of force are you willing to use to prevent this? Do you want to see headlines such as 'Family massacred by Border Guards'?
I notice you mention 'two very porous borders', are you intending to fence off Canada as well? And seriously, is your government? Or is this proposed wall a sop to the republican party?
Re Iraq: I agree that some in the Administration may have believed there were NBC weapons in Iraq. I don't believe that these people necessarily had, or listened to, the best intelligence about the situation, as the CIA/MI6 responses to the inquiries have said. Fixing the intelligence to the political desire is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Both your and my governments were guilty of this.
And yes, it is easy to make poison gases. What is not so easy is the ability to deliver them. Anyway, they are inefficient as battlefield weapons. From WW1 onwards, they have proved difficult to control, and against modern well equipped armies are only useful to slow down their operations. US and British NBC kits (I believe you call yours 'MOPPS' kits?) are essentially proof against anything that could be used against them. And how was Saddam supposed to get them to the point of release? Ballistic launchers (SCUDs) travel too fast to enable much dispersal before the launcher impacts, explosives (other bombs/missiles/rockets) destroy most of the chemicals through heat and pressure, and spray tanks on aircraft wouldn't get past the Coalition air defence.

[Мастер]

Or is this proposed wall a sop to the republican party?

That's certainly my impression.

[Bandit]

...Bandit - I accept your reasons for the wall/fence, I just don't agree with them.

I can live with that. :wink:

How are you expecting to keep people from climbing/tunneling over it?

You anticipate that and erect them in such a way that neither option is feasible. Take a page from maximun security prison barriers.

What level of force are you willing to use to prevent this?

I'd use the most minimum force practical but would make sure the barrier wasn't breached.

Do you want to see headlines such as 'Family massacred by Border Guards'?

Oh please! Does this "family" that sees tiered fencing and guards have to have a death wish? If we are to get serious about preventing people from sneaking into this country, we stop them from doing so. End of story.. or do we tell some future after-the-fact terrorism investigation that the bad guys were intercepted at the border "but just wouldn't listen!"

I notice you mention 'two very porous borders', are you intending to fence off Canada as well? And seriously, is your government? Or is this proposed wall a sop to the republican party?

I can't speak for the Republicans, and I doubt our government will do it, but if we are to get serious about protecting our borders that would have to include the Canadian one as well.

Re Iraq: I agree that some in the Administration may have believed there were NBC weapons in Iraq. I don't believe that these people necessarily had, or listened to, the best intelligence about the situation, as the CIA/MI6 responses to the inquiries have said. Fixing the intelligence to the political desire is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Both your and my governments were guilty of this.

Agreed.

And yes, it is easy to make poison gases. What is not so easy is the ability to deliver them. Anyway, they are inefficient as battlefield weapons. From WW1 onwards, they have proved difficult to control, and against modern well equipped armies are only useful to slow down their operations. US and British NBC kits (I believe you call yours 'MOPPS' kits?) are essentially proof against anything that could be used against them. And how was Saddam supposed to get them to the point of release? Ballistic launchers (SCUDs) travel too fast to enable much dispersal before the launcher impacts, explosives (other bombs/missiles/rockets) destroy most of the chemicals through heat and pressure, and spray tanks on aircraft wouldn't get past the Coalition air defence.

I never thought the Iraqi WMD issue was war-worthy to begin with.