1201. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #128007 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 9:24 pm

"Or scotty will fart."
-That slayed me especially after all the Trek babble.

1202. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127998 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Holy Shit,
What a bizarre thread.

1203. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127969 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 8:17 pm

What is believe? Sweet Evil Jesus.
Talking to people like this can be so infuriating.
Emotional truth? I just can not even think like this, and it is hard to entertain people in conversation who do. Its even worse because she seems like a nice person (who sadly finds Karen Armstrong worth quoting). I was reminded of what Dan Dennett said in the Four Horsemen video about academic theologians. "Its a tiny minority, that study obscure, eye-glazing stuff."

Dawkins is very very good in this though, and his poise was very nice to hear.

1204. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127959 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Richard said:
Since I devoted pages 340 to 344 of The God Delusion to developing this very argument, it is mildly irritating to hear it attributed to Christopher Hitchens. Much as I admire his book, it was published after mine!
Richard

I've also heard you mention this very thing years ago. I can't remember where, but I do remember the phrase.

1205. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127955 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Al-rawandi,
have you given anythought to the statement you made about the British starting the Falklands War? Since they specifically did not start it I thought you might maybe modify your stance on the evil Brits and that particular conflict.

1206. Map reveals extent of human damage to oceans

Comment #127542 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 11:44 am

Now, all that dark orange is good right?

1207. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127539 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 11:39 am

Okay, back-ground on the Falkland conflict from wikipedia.

The war was triggered by the occupation of South Georgia by Argentina on 19 March 1982 followed by the occupation of the Falklands, and ended when Argentina surrendered on 14 June 1982. War was not actually declared by either side. The initial invasion was considered by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by Britain as an invasion of a British overseas territory, and the most recent invasion of British territory by a foreign power.

In the period leading up to the war, Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the military junta that had been governing the country since 1976.[2] The Argentine military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, sought to maintain power by diverting public attention playing off long-standing feelings of the Argentines towards the islands,[3] although they never thought that the United Kingdom would respond militarily.[4] The ongoing tension between the two countries over the islands increased on 19 March when a group of hired Argentinian scrap metal merchants raised their flag at South Georgia, an act that would later be seen as the first offensive action in the war. The Argentine Military Junta, suspecting that the UK would reinforce its South Atlantic Forces,[5] ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands to be brought forward to 2 April.

Word of the invasion first reached Britain via ham radio.[6] Britain was initially taken by surprise by the Argentine attack on the South Atlantic islands, despite repeated warnings by Royal Navy captain Nicholas Barker and others. Barker believed that the intention expressed in Defence Secretary John Nott's 1981 review to withdraw his ship HMS Endurance, Britain's only naval presence in the South Atlantic, sent a signal to the Argentinians that Britain was unwilling, and would soon be unable, to defend her territories and subjects in the Falklands.[7][8] Britain launched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force, and retake the islands by amphibious assault. After combat resulting in 258 British and 649 Argentine deaths, the British eventually prevailed and the islands remained under British control. However, as of 2007 [9] and as it has since the 19th century, Argentina shows no sign of relinquishing its claim. Indeed, the claim remains in the Argentine constitution after its reformation in 1994.[10]

The political effects of the war were strong in both countries. A wave of patriotic sentiment swept through both: the Argentine loss prompted even larger protests against the military government, which hastened its downfall; in the United Kingdom, the government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was bolstered. It helped Thatcher's government to victory in the 1983 general election, which prior to the war was seen as by no means certain. The war has played an important role in the culture of both countries, and has been the subject of several books, films, and songs. However, it is not seen as a truly major event of either military or 20th century history because of the low number of casualties on both sides and the small size and limited economic importance of the disputed areas. The cultural and political weight of the conflict has had less effect on the British public than on that of Argentina, where the war is still a topic of discussion.[11]

So, Al was the UK in the wrong?

1208. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127535 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 11:35 am

I'm not familiar with the Falkland Islands conflict, but if the Argentinians did indeed invade British soil then I think Britain was obligated to respond with force. No pussy-footing around. No being a great soppy bed-wetter. No negotiations, just, "Get the fuck off our penguin ladden islands you twits." The talking can come afterwards or not. But once invaded, I think you just have to knuckle-the-fuck-up.

1209. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127494 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 10:45 am

I would be a warrior for Odin.
He commissions the making of cool hammers.
And everyone needs a cool hammer that can call lightning, create storms. What does Christ do for his warriors? Not much. But Odin, damnit, he could really be helpful to US military. I'm going to go see if I can get his people to talk to some folks in the pentagon.

1210. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127487 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 10:40 am

I ship off to basic in April. This will be annoying to say the least.

1211. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #127481 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 10:36 am

DasSquid,
I think you may have mis-read me.
and your Comment....the worst that Christianity(Catholocism et al) gets, (at least to my knowledge) is they do their best to stop condom usage in AIDS ridden Africa and things of the such.

Makes no sense to me. At least most people walk into scientology willingly and have more access to information than the ignorant villagers often "aided" by Christie missionaries. The catholic church is the home of all kinds of stupid doctrine that causes tons of misery. And let us not forget all that "no child's behind left" business. NOt doctrine but certainly vile.

The story of Lisa McPherson is absolutely horrific. But on the whole minimal compared with the mass atrocities of sub-saharan Africa. What is scary about scientology is that it aspires to the heights of influence of such august bodies as the Church of Cathol. So it is a dangerous force, crafty and villainous, but not quite wielding the power of the Empire. Though it may have found its Darth Vader in Tommy Cruise.

1212. Sharia fiasco

Comment #127114 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 12:45 am

Alrawandi,
I guess I think the moderates are a huge part of the problem too. Having several palestinian friends most of whom consider themselsves muslim, and moderate, I think I can speak with some authority on what the moderates think. Some of them anyway. They constantly cause problems, because while they are not completely the wooly headed morons of the fundamentalist, they do believe some of their fairy tales. And how do we generally treat such nice and kind people when they start talkign about their sky-daddy? we just nod and turn our brains off for that part of the conversation. We can't say any thing kind during such an exchange.

The problem is that when we criticize the Jihadis, or other fundamentalists sects in Islam invariably we step on some shared landmine of faith that sits in the doctrines of both moderate and fanatical. They unite on the issue and our criticism is marred by the fact that we have gone after nice caring people. (Add to this already bad situation the fact that even among moderate Muslims it is hard to get widespread critique of terrorist tactics. It happens to be sure but not often enough.)

So I don't mind saying that moderates are a huge part of the problem. They give faith that special pass. It doesn't have to work for itself. I don't pretend to be an Islamic scholar or anything, but this seems to be a pattern among the religious-especially in the three Monotheisms.

1213. Good people doing evil things

Comment #127085 by MaxD on February 15, 2008 at 12:11 am

Ah, Hugh,
I can always count on you to over simplify. Way to go. And always attempting to impugn the moral character of someone you disagree with. Are you a Scientologist or something?

1214. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #127079 by MaxD on February 14, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I'm not sure how this observation will be recieved. But, uh..why do the putative martyrs want 72 virgins? In heaven. I've never heard that maximizing reproductive success is a big deal in any instantiation of heaven.
Sex with virgins as most of us will remember having at least been a virgin and likely having had sex with at least one other person in such a state isn't all its cracked up to be. Fun, and nice to get out of the way sure, but....do you want to relive that 72 times?
Not me.
So if there is a heaven and 72 sex partners are going to be doled out I don't want virgins (and on the off chance that you can earn this reward with out taking your own life along with tons others). No. I would like 72 women who know what the hell they are doing. This is eternity after all. And it should be fun.
I wonder if I could get Jenna Jameson to join me on my cloud......

1215. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #127076 by MaxD on February 14, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Al-rawandi,
There was indeed a bit of flip on the part of Bush 1 on the Kuwait issue. And from what I have read, it seems as if Bush 41 would have been cool with some limited aquisition of Kuwait. But when Saddam wanted more than just a peice of the cake I guess that was more than could be happily tolerated.

Again, you continue to bring up the obvious issue of the US culpability in bringing Saddam to power, and then helping him maintain said power. I think you will know and note that the situation is and was more complex and involved more than just the US and Iraq. Clearly if the region didn't have huge reserves of oil we would have a much lesser interest in the region (as humanitarian work in Mogadishu would later prove). It is an aspect of statecraft that is distrubing. i think the US has done this well (by this I mean it has been good at furthing its own national security interest goals) but perhaps a bit short-sightedly and certainly not ethically.

I am certainly not arguing that the US wears the white hat. Of course it goes with out saying that we shouldn't have put him in power. We shouldn't have utilzed the sanctions or rather they should have been on luxury items, and other goodies that would have hurt Hussein.

But more than that when he used the sarin against the Kurds we should have just toppled his ass then. Or in 1991. I understand that you won't like that idea, but Saddam was the problem that the US put into motion, and I think the clash between the two countries nearly unavoidable as the situation was.

However, I am with you on the run up to the war and its obfuscations, exaggerations and lies. It hurts the endeavor of the military and breaks the confidence of the people in the conditions of its use.

I do not think though that the war was "for" profit. I think that is just the by product of the fact that the US uses its own contractors. I honestly think it was "for" what Rumsefeld suggested it be for. Namely something easy and tractable to point to for reporters. I think this conspiracy of every war being about money making ventures is your inner-berkley coming out.
(just giving you a hard time. I went to Earlham College, which is a small liberal arts college, orignally founded by quakers.)

I'm less sure that we should just pull out now though. I don't want america to be there for the next 100 years of McCain's prognostication, but I think Hillary's 60 days is too short.

1216. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #127072 by MaxD on February 14, 2008 at 10:32 pm

I'm coming into this post late so, but Keith mentioned Moroccans being responsible for great deal of thievery in some particular area of Barcelona.
I've noticed some of you being a bit queasy about saying, the "The Moroccans did x." Some one said are you sure it was because they were Moroccan (not something Keith said)?
Isn't this something we just ought to get over. Here in the states you can say something about some particular area inner city Chicago say, about the demographics of crack cocaine and even if your stats are factually true but malign a mionority group you will be accused of some form of racism. This tendency to euphamise (sp?) around a troubling trend results in communities not looking at reality squarely and worse yet forgetting that there is a problem to begin with.
What is the old chinese proberb? The first step to wisdom is calling things by their right name.

1217. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #127066 by MaxD on February 14, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Annabanna, Ian
I am not sure the "they were abused, and locked ina cycle argument will hold up."
The argument was used for a long time regarding domestic violence, and alcoholism to name just two major domestic problems. The thinking then was well this was the example they were shown so....they are just doing what they learned.
However twins studies and adoption studies seem to suggest this explanation was a bit of question begging.
In the case of child abuse, kids raised in abusive homes, but that were not related to the abuser did not grow up to be abusers. The reverse was also true, kids biologically related to abusers but raised in more or less normal homes tended to be abusive. This pattern holds with alcoholism too. I suspect the pedophiliac will have similar expression of the trait.
I don't know where that leaves treatment of such people. Probably much more serious psychological intervention, drugs and techniques to manage the stressors and stimuli the "set them off."

1218. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125733 by MaxD on February 12, 2008 at 12:16 am

I named my dog after the city because I knew it was named for the great man and it also happens to be a heeler.
Happy Darwin Day!

1219. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #125732 by MaxD on February 12, 2008 at 12:05 am

Scientology isn't more absurd than any other religion, it just maximizes the litigiousness, and mind control and misery. It has a lot of money, and lawyers and some really evil policies.

1220. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125730 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Thanks Goldy

1221. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125710 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 10:40 pm

I think several of you have hit the nail upon its very head.
I go to this coffee place here and what I notice is that people really love this "I'm battlingingdemonsmylifeisliketheexorcistspriritwar" bullshit. I don't know how many conversations I've overheard in which people discuss this.
Here is a clip from a woman who is a God-Warrior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaKP4WfG3F4

1222. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125708 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Steve you said Muslims have been in the UK for centuries.
Care to give a figure on that.

I myself am fine with the idea that muslims may want to arbitrate matters within their religious communities. They can debate endlessly how to best serve Allah and his prophet. They can have long conversations, deep into the night about how hard they should hit "their" women for being uppity, or failing to make a good dinner. They can continue bringing uneducated, women over (so long as they are willign to pay for some course that instructs these lucky gals on what their rights are in their new country, and gives them appropriate numbers etc).
However I do balk at the idea that such arrangements should be legally binding. Considering the enormous pressure Islamic communities bring to bear on members I rather like, that is more seriously favor the idea that they should have arbitrate serious legal matters in the light of common law. More of that "collision with modernity" business.

So out with Sharia. Out with halacha. And out with whatever the christian, or buddhist, or Hindu equivalent would be.

1223. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125596 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Here is a link with the Reverend, or Dr. Or archbishop fellow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0f_vvPUXAU

1224. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125594 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Hugh,
The Archbishop brought up Sharia, and said some aspects of it will be unavoidable additions to British Jurisprudence. So why we should drop the issue of Sharia is quite beyond me.

Multi-culturalism in its strange post-modernist, western hating form is part of the problem. You clearly have a problem with that formulation too.

But how you can find anything worthwhile in the good Dr. Rowan's words is a mystery.
Rowan Williams said:
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.

"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

What is interesting is that the law already does take this banal observation into account. You can practice your faith, or observe customs from your culture. That is a nice freedom. But if you come to live in a western democracy you are just going to have to get used to that bit about one law for everybody. Knock off the special pleading and if you think you can get the support enact some legislation.

Rowan also said:
"What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

No we certainly don't want people being exposed to ideas like equality among men and women, or notions of honour punishment challenged by things like law or philosophy.

Hugh,
Aren't these religious minorities protected enough by the law that we don't need to further insularize them? I'd like to see you address any of the points other posters have made about the illusion of choice for women (not mention their inferiority to men under Sharia of Beth Din).

1225. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125451 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 11:48 am

Brav-fucking-o. Wonderful article.
Steve,

Did you say Jedi?
When I was kid I always wanted to be a Jedi...but I've come to think they are a little weird in the application of Justice, and man they tend to lie. Yoda and Obi-Wan built Luke's life on a thin tissue of obfuscation and half truth. Leia's too. And didn't yoda seem just a bit power hungry himself in the prequels?
Alas, I've lost my faith in their creed.

1226. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125448 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 11:46 am

Allow me to agree with Steve Zara who said,
Bonzai...

Just wanted to say... I back everything you have written.

1227. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125442 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 11:19 am

As it turns out I think the kind, and sweet voiceed Rowan Williams did indeed suggest that the Sharia courts should probably handle financial issues and marriage issues. And if that doesn't encompass divorce proceedings, and inheritance well then what the fuck does it cover? Moreover when the sharia embracing community has some interaction with the non sharia embracing community and litigation is called for, what then?

I couldn't care less if demand for things like the Beth Din, or Sharia is high. Demand doesn't equal valid or just. Demand for sex with women under 16 is also high among certain segments of the population that doesn't mean we automatically say well, since demand is so high it should be okay for this group.

I think this business of aquiesing to the goofy demands of religious folk really has to end. If you want to wear the hijab fine. If you don't want to drink wine fine. If you think being gay is wrong absolutely fine. But I think that is the extent to which respect for a religious stance should extend.

1228. Good people doing evil things

Comment #125431 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 10:59 am

My major problem with the article is that it hasn't really explained the Kenya question. I was trying to get a Quaker friend to tell me what the differences between the two groups were (he works there, or did until very recently) and all I could get out of him was they have different languages and its all very complicated. I'd say more but it was analysis that was more interested in being apologetic rather than really explaining what was motivating Kenyans.

1229. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #125421 by MaxD on February 11, 2008 at 10:44 am

I want to believe that my damaging determinism argument drove ScooterNYC to the mat in the way a good throw earns a Judo player the all important ippon.

1230. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125036 by MaxD on February 10, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Goldy,
You make some good points. But I am still in favor of lambasting these ideas for the idiocy they are. This is after all the year 2008, and I think we ought to just hammer all this sillyness.

I agree immigration is a good thing on the whole, and there is often a mix of things going on in the way of assimilation and absorption. However I think we as a people have every right to say listen enough of this backwards bullshit (and while it may look like I am one Islam's demonizers I am not). If moderate Muslims will not speak up -many do of coure- then whose fault is it that the whole of Britain's islamic community gets marginalized.

It is again the problem of respecting the moderates that gets us into so much trouble. And not just respecting the moderates of Islam but all this sky-daddy stuff. Moderates Muslims need to get themselves heard and join in the critique as Dennett so recently observed. That would help give their communities more breathing room. Maybe they might say, you know what this hijab thing makes no sense here. Or that black halloween costume some of the Muslim women have to wear.

Is this business of refusing to take part in the culture (not follwoing medical procedures, isolating communities, wanting Animal Farm banned from schools) unique to Islam. No. Christians pull this kind of crap here in the states regularly.
Goldy, when you said..

I still maintain there is a strong emotive element in the media that puts the spotlight firmly on Islam which is, to me, personally, totally in contrast to RW's views.
-I can't tell if you are defending RW with this point. Why do you think the media puts the spotlight on Islam?

It's not helping - us aboriginals are becoming exasperated by the demands made (and how much those demands reflect the demands of that minority is, to me, a moot point)
-It seems like much of our approach stands or falls on this point. Either the minority community is homoegeneous in its acceptance of the demands of the Imams or it is isn't. Wouldn't that be an important part of the strategy against these special demands.

and the Pakistani Muslims (they appear to be the more vociferous - maybe along with Bangladeshis - others don't appear to be so stringent in their demands) becoming more defensive and, dare I say, more ghettoised for what they apparently believe.

-Could you unpack this a bit more.

I say slam this special religious pleading every where it occurs. And if people want to continue believing it well whose fault is the marginalization at that point?

1231. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125011 by MaxD on February 10, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Steve said:
Being British and being Muslim aren't somehow eclusive.

This is certainly true. But I have to wonder if there comes a point when the degree to which groups of people want the rules so altered that they cease qualifying as being a part of their adopted culture and simply being apart. This business at the end of the Condell piece about the banning of pig related stories (not the first time such a bit of nonsense has been attempted or suggested) is a case in point. When a group rejects the basics of their adopted country's values and wants them changed to fit their needs I just have to say when and where will it end? And at what point do the needy folk in question stop actually wanting to "be" british and just wanting to turn Britain into another Muslim landmass.

I am also in agreement with you about the legal means business. Debate, lobbying, education completely. But I do wonder what part of being british is listening to Saudi funded blithering imams. Here in the states Mexicans come over our border and work and live in a place that doesn't suck. But for the most part they are jazzed by the "american dream" (a corny phrase) don't want to alter the country, want to contribute and be part of the country. Though this is starting to change

Japanese-americans came and while holding on to much of their cultures actually assimilated. They didn't demand the US adopt days honouring the Emperor. Or the language. I think that is showing a serious desire to "be" a citizen of the united states.

I am sure that many muslims do the same thing. But the other business. And those that would propose policies that almost garauntee insularity aren't in any significant way attempting to "be" british.

I suspect though we are on the same side in this. I would certainly not want to demonize populations on limited data. But don't a significant number of popular mosques in britain carry radical material? Don't the leaders in islamic communities always have trouble condemning death sentences for students who peruse info on the internet, or have trouble coming clean about the penalty for apostacy. No I don't think our critiques these ideas need to be all that subtle. Nor should our critiques (our at least they needn't always be) of the purveyors of such non-sense be subtle or polite.

I'm still not sure how the indigenous comment is off the mark. You guys were the population that was actually there. Originating from there as it were. I think that does grant your country's values precedent on these issues. I admit it is unsubtle though. And maybe just the tiniest bit incendiary.

1232. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124982 by MaxD on February 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Steve said:
Which is why I have a problem with Condell making the distinction between "Islamic Culture" and "the indigenous culture".

What would you have prefered he say? Even here in the states there does seem some insularity among our muslim communities. And this seems an even worse case in Britain. It doesn't matter to me that the Brits so outnumber the Muslims. It doesn't negate the idea that there was some semblance of a culture there that insular muslim communities seem reticent to join. They are in many ways like Jehovah's witlesses, and Mormons only their rules and laws are far more poisonous.

A friend of mine, who bounces all over the world doing conflict resolution lived there in London and had the following horror story to tell. There was I guess a high profile honour killing that took place a couple of years ago and my friend was shocked by that kind of thing happening in Britain. Afghanistan sure. Saudi arabia sure.
She asked her friend a doctor and british muslim what he thought of all that.
"If it were my daughter, it would be sad but I would have to do the same thing." From a doctor. And while this is an anecdote it at least points to the fact Islam is still resisting its collision with modernity. I guess you do have to have the discussion but you ought to make it damn hard to get religious non-sense legislated. At least here we do have a fairly strongly worded proscription against the stuff (and you still see how much it hurts our discourse).
It is simple. Its a choice between secularism or insularity and I think you might try a little more forceful locution in the defense of such notions.

Also I think it is time to give up any phrase that begins with, well there is all that past british imperialism to think about it. It is a silly thing to say. It isn't an issue of imposing British culture, or western philosophical tradition on foreign soils and more importantly foreign people. It is simply stating what will be accepted on British soil and on anyone wanting to be called british.

1233. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124963 by MaxD on February 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm

ScooterNYC,
I'm a little confused by the ability of a determinist to hold anyone responsible for anything. A determinist would be something of a monster to impose such a harsh system on people who in the end cannot really be held responsible.

Even if you are a Dennet, or Dawkins style of determinist (of which I am) it seems that people's choices will be limited by a great many circumstances that they have no control over, access to education, opportunity etc. I'm not sure you realize how damaging determinism is to your case the soft form hurts your case and the hard form kills it.

1234. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124955 by MaxD on February 10, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Scooter,
Your comments about healthcare, and responsiblity for other peoples children are remarkably hilarious. It is funny that you constantly attack people for having no numbers to back up their statements, yet you constantly dodge direct challenges to your own views. More than that you assert these libertarian strategies would work with that same absence of evidence.

I suppose you are right that no one has a "right" to healthcare. Or to education. But if you are going to say those kinds of things, there is nothing but arbitrariness in your statements anyway. No one has a right to freedom then either. No one has any "right" to any thing at all. There is at least no reason why they should.

I don't mind paying for some kid's education, or suplamenting their income with food stamps, or contributing to college funds. Invariably I will pay for these kids and people one way or another. Either they will enter an emergency room catastrophically ill and my tax dollars will cover that cost, or many of them will end up in the judicial system where I will most certainly pay for them.

The market isn't magic and simply giving people complete freedom cannot be the same thing as giving them complete responsiblity. I can let a bull loose in the street, completely free. But I can't really hold it terribly responsible for its actions because I've created an artificial situation, and assumed a number of things about the bull's intellect, education and understanding.

I'm for freedom too. I daresay everyone in here is. However the playing field isn't equal and that actually can set people back, or hinder them completely.

I think our country is pretty good at the debate. What services account for the in-equities, what services don't we need? i think we should continue to look at the situation on the ground, keep gathering the data, and from there continue the discussion. What we should catagorically avoid is the certainties espoused by people on either extreme.

1235. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124506 by MaxD on February 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Babrock,
Becoming clear isn't any thinglike psychology concepts. It has a lot to do with removing bad thetans which are alien ghosts or something.
When you sign on with their Sea Org you sign on for oh...roughly a trillion years. That is not me making things up, one billion years.
This is deeply silly, and dangerous stuff.
I find it funny that they call it auditing, since they steal so much money from people.

1236. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124227 by MaxD on February 8, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Copernic,
Dawkins made a rather strong case for avoiding the term fittest in The Extended Phenotype in that it can so readily be misunderstood in any number of, well five, technical ways.

What does it meant to say fittest? The fittest what?

1237. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124222 by MaxD on February 8, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Just watched the debate.
My goodness Rabbi Boteach is a completely cluelesss moron. I didn't think anyone could so catastrophically mis-understand evolution but I was wrong.
I can't believe he said Stephen J Gould didn't "believe in evolution."

1238. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124196 by MaxD on February 8, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Putting an end to the sanctions is really why I think the war, invasion, intervention (what pithy phrase would use Hugh?) or what ever you want o call it is one of the best justifications of the war.
I think Keith and Steve make a good point on that, and not coincidentally the point I've tried to make several times.

I think Saddam had exhuasted his options and his brinksmanship really put him, along with all his other whacky antics in a bad light.

Hugh Caldwell said......
Murderous support. Murderous lunatics. Terribly polite requests from a murderous idiot. Favored the destruction of iraq...makes you morally unfit to be in the same room as Galloway.
I find it interesting that this man of high character could go praise the operations that killed Casey Sheehan, and then go try to buddy up to his mother. When I think of the character of such a man I have to say I am deeply moved by such actions. I will leave it to your good offices to decide exactly how.
Hugh, why do you keep suggesting that people in here wanted to destroy iraq?
Who wants to destroy Iraq?

1239. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123885 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 9:03 pm

I like that.

I don't have a position on Iraq. All I started out saying was that there were good arguments for, if not "drop-kicking (though you must admit Jackie Chan makes it look mighty cool)," severe punative actions. As I said, I waffle on Iraq. I am deeply disturbed by the admin's tactics and obfuscations to get the US to get into the Iraq situation.

I suppose my only issure with your frame work is the allowing of saddam to go and be in exile. Maybe the Iraqis would have earned some expectation of the justice of a trial. However diplomacy might be better served by exile.

I think one reason the US has never really made much of the fact that they indeed created the Saddam problem flows from the same desire to preserve the national honor that Nixon always seemed so worried about. At least I hope that is what it was. Because while I think that is an immature motivation it is at least preferable to callous hypocrisy. I also have to wonder if this could unfold in the more or less neat way you've laid out.
Its certainly the best case for containment with consequences that I've yet seen. I think by the point Clinton and Bushes arrived the situation for a variety of reasons was quite complex and would have benefited from a kind of house cleaning that said, this guy was huge disaster and the fault of US foreign policy, we now seek to redress this issue. That would have made much that came later have more crediblity.

1240. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123877 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 8:07 pm

I do think Diacanu is right on the money. There is already growing tension between Muslim and non Muslim communities and this privilaging of one group with a special set of laws that, what did eye-brows say, "Don't make people question their allegience" is a sure way to further ignite a nasty feature of our psychology. Namely our tendency to assign people to ingroup and out group. Taking the ah well there is no way this will affect me attitude is wrong because at its core the proposal of Rowan so corrupting of solidarity.
If Sharia is what you want I say go to someplace where Sharia is. It will affect you as these communities try to force more of their "values" into the culture upon whose tolerance and largess they benefit. Many people who want Sharia want it for more than just its benign injunctions. I think the former peacnik Cat Stevens has even suggested that sharia for local british muslims could include stoning. My point is that it won't stop where you want it to if you let it in.

1241. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123868 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Rowan Williams has taken a step off into the deep end of the fucking pool. Say it were feasable to adopt some aspects of Sharia it would never be enough for the faithful. No. No. No.
My british brothers and sisters it is really time you made your politicians pitch their politically correct mindset, and their deeply appeasing natures and actually say, enough with the barbarism. Allowing one set of laws for one group and another the rest will in no way create climates of understanding. What it will lead to is abuses galor, and civil tension.

1242. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123865 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Al Rawandi said:
Now as for your claims. All of the events you listed all post date the visit by April Gillespie to Baghdad, where she made it perfectly clear that the US had no interest in Arab-Arab conflict. Do you think Saddam may have acted differently if he knew the US would intervene?

First off the time line wasn't my claim it is a verifiable record of what happened.

I would simply posit that any administration is not as united a front as you think it is, that is to say that the left hand doesn't always know that the right hand is doing. Look at the dreadful way the current admin treated Colin Powell. He thought he actually knew what was going on and then he'd get his legs clipped right out from under him. Or look at the bullshit the Bush admin put Scott McClellen through. While it made great fun for John Stewart it demonstrates how blind-sided people who may think they are on board can be. Though to your specific question about whether Saddam would have acted had he known the US would engage him? I have know idea. We will likely never know.

But let me just offer this suggestion. Many nations despised US involvement in the region, how popular would we have been, how many diplomatic ends might have been lost if we swaggered around and said listen if Saddam enters Kuwait we will drop kick his ass into the stone age. My guess is that we would not have done much good with this approach and seemed very much the arrogant Americans we are always assumed to be. We have been making similar prostrations on the Taiwan/China front. For all I know we are actually serious there. Perhaps April Gillespie thought we were serious too. Maybe we were. I don't pretend to know what back room maneuverings were going on, or who was pressuring who to do what.

Could you show me where the US said explicitedly they would deny baby food to the iraqis? And show me where in the records it says Iraq was pulling out of an area it had just annexed?

A fairly simple explanation for the large number of US forces on the ground could be the prosaic...we have them, and can afford to send them. Furthermore US Army is an odd thing and thanks to Vietnam it rarely ever likes to commit to a conflict with anything less than ten times what it needs. I would venture to say that very few countries, Russia and China, could field forces as large as the US.

I like your suggestions, though 5 probably leaves as big a mess as what we have now, or just puts another tyrant in place because the infrastructure for such tyranny is well in place.
And bits of seven were done. Broadcasts were sent, leaflets dropped. We are going to do this, surrender and you will be okay.

Pushing at that open door on the sanctions though, I've said I've come to think they were wrong, morally and strategically. The former being the more important.

1243. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123656 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Al-rawandi,
Allow me to publicaly apologize for the line you think went too far.
I really do have trouble telling sometimes if who oppose this care more when you percieve the deaths to be caused by US actions vs Saddamist, sectarian actions).

I considered the matter clarified. Hopefully we can return to the conversation.

1244. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123653 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Al-rawandi
I actually do get it.
I reply that you do care and simply suggest your motivations and justifications were mystifying me, essentially acknowledging my mistaken perspective and formulation. I was simply using rhetoric to try to get you to clarify. However I'm still a fabricator.
If this weren't the classy place it is, a hearty fuck you might be in order. But I don't do that kind of thing, nor do I say snitty things like, "our exchange is at an end. Revolting!"

However let me point out the Desert storm was not the soley a US led affair. You seem to think the US masterminded all this.

Here are sometimeline data do try to keep up with the UN's presense in this.

1990 Hussein invades Kuwait on August 2. President Bush freezes Iraqi and Kuwatti assets. The United Nations calls on Hussien to withdraw.
Aug 6,1990 Economic sanctions are authorized.
Aug 7, 1990 Secretery of Defense Cheny visits Suadi Arabia. The 82nd Airborne and several fighter squadrons are dispatched.
Aug 8. 1990 Iraq annexes Kuwait
Aug 9, 1990 The UN declare's Iraq's annexation invailid
Aug 12, 1990 The USA announces intrediction program of Irai shipping.
Aug 22, 1990 President Bush authorizes call up of reserves.
Aug 25, 1990 Military interdiction authorized by the UN
Sep 14, 1990 Iraqi forces storm a number of diplomatic missions in Kuwait City.
Nov 8, 1990 Bush orders aditional deployments to give "offensive option" to US forces.
Nov 20, 1990 45 Democrats file suit in Washington to have President Bush first seek Congressional approval of military operations. (eventually thrown out)
Nov 22, 1990 President Bush visits the troops for Thanksgiving.
Nov 29, 1990 UN Security Council authorizes force if Iraq doesnt withdraw from Kuwait by midnight EST Janu. 15.
Jan 15, 1991 The deadline set by the UN Resolution 678 for Iraq to withdraw.
So clearly a complete fabrication by the US. Utterly transparent that.

The UN authorized the sanctions. No doubt this is because of the all powerful US.
Military Interdiction Authorized by the UN?
Please though continue telling everyone that this is soley the fault, repsonsiblity of the US/British colonialists.

Do please stop telling me how much the US can be blamed for the ascendance of Saddam by the way. It is borish and in no way precludes the US from participating in the correction of said obvious, atrocious mistake. I haven't defended the use of the tyrants by the US, I think it absolutely wrong, and hypocritcal. It is a non-point.

When does intevention require the use of force? When diplomacy fails what options do you propose? Sticking your head in the sand and hoping that it all works out.

I am quite open to the idea that the Iraq war was the wrong thing to do. But your characterization of the sanctions, as if what the US wanted to kill babies, is so positively one sided as to call your analysis of it into suspicion.
"If you deny a country baby food your intentions are pretty obvious." Only upon a facile analysis is anything in this region "pretty obvious."

But go ahead and call me a fabricator and do continue to not address my question of what you think the options were.

Note: I too am against lies and fabrications and was not trying to characterize every facet of your stance by saying you were against intervention. I think you are twisting my usage of intervention just a tad. Moreover I am trying to figure out what you think might have worked better. A question you seem to be avoiding.
You said:
didn't say I was against intervention, I said I was against invasion, I was against lies, corpotocracy, death, and more lies. You are now simply making things up (unless you can quote me saying that I was against any intervention).

So, no more fabrications.

I am not simply making things up. It was in fact an honest confusion of how you and were defining intervention. I think the charge of corptocracy while certainly a factor in the ridiculous cronyism that teems with this admin is just not the sole reason why the US went to war. Do the rich benefit? They always seem too don't they? I just happen to think there were vastly more reasons for what the US did than to make the Bushies more money. I could be convinced of this but I would need a great deal more than I have yet been given.

I also think the situation on the ground there is in the god I hate to say it, "mistakes were made" variety. Certainly mistakes of leadership.

Using your knowledge of the region you might explain to me what options the communtiy had other than sanctions, or military interventions.

1245. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123546 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 10:28 am

Hugh,
Why are you always threatening legal action on behalf of folks like Galloway and Zureikat?

If Galloway has such a strong case against the critiques of his character and questionable dealings why hasn't who sued Christopher Hitchens libel and slander?

That tendency of yours is kinda weird.

1246. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123533 by MaxD on February 7, 2008 at 10:14 am

Al-rawandi,
Disgusing? Morally handi-capped? That is a bit rich.

Perhaps I should have said it appears you care as much....with emphasis on the appears.

I was just noticing that Hugh and yourself focus much more on the complicated actions of the US while not focusing on the major culprit of the Iraq atrocities post 91.

Shortly after the debacles of the helicopter straffing we got on enforcing the no fly-zones. I am not yet a military fellow but there are often complicated rules of engagement that have to be followed for fear of further igniting conflict or going beyond the mandates of the UN in the case of the 91 war. (One of my friends witnessed a woman being stoned to death in Afghanistan. She was seen talking to a man. He was under orders not to do anything about it all. This is bothersome because it seems in many ways as if this kind of mindset is something we should be more actively combating over there. Giving more active protection to womens rights activists etc. But perhaps there comes a time where a country must work these things out for themselves and not have such values imposed on them.)

Al-rawandi said:
Why do you assume I don't care about the Marsh Arabs. Who was it that left them unprotected from helicopter gunships? Saddam sent those gunships, but we could have restricted that by putting a one paragraph in the peace agreement in 1991. But that was left out, we could have enforced it with little loss of life. But instead, sanctions. I don't get it, why wouldn't we make the small effort to actually help the people as opposed to collectively starving them.

Now you can't have it both ways Al. Its the American's fault because they failed to stop the helicopters with their F-14s, and then it the fault of Americans when they do intervene. I mean, who sent the fucking helicopters Al? Well the sovereign nation of iraq. So which is it? Intervention or sideline? We did very shortly there after begin enforcing the no-fly zone? Do you support that intervention on the sovereignty of Iraq? Clearly it was another state imposing its will on Iraq. Lets hear you on this point Hugh, or Al?
Again which is it?

I agree with you that the sanctions were bad. But allowing the regime the freedom to make a mess of the region was also an unacceptable outcome. Now it could be that I am morally handicapped but I doubt it. I just don't understand the desire to constantly play down the actions of someone whose vileness borders on comic book super villainry. This is like trying to excuse the actions of an OJ Simpson while blaming the police for not doing more to stop him and showing little sympathy for his victims.

Of course you care about the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds. It is just not easy to tell from the constant rush to blame the US/British for the actions of Saddam.

1247. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123293 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 9:52 pm

I need to get into a debate with one of these nice god-botherers, but with a fat fifth of Jameson as my prize!

1248. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123291 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Yes it was a NASTY business. I know this. I packed and sent food to Iraq.

I just framed what I thought was very elegant riposte Al-rawandi but lost it when I hit submit.
This you will no doubt suspect was deeply annoying. So I will just have to ask a few questions and make points of more brevity.

While the sanctions were NASTY, a point I've already conceded, or said myself, I think you draw from it the immoral conclusion. In any case you have yet to propose another option that satisfies the international community post gulf war 1.

On whose back is the containment strategy set? Clearly it needn't have been on anyone's back had Saddam simply capitulated to the demands of the international community. Had Iraq not committed a crime in 1991 and perhaps demonstrated that he and his regime needed direct oversite? If you cannot see this then we are perhaps facing an issue on which we find no common ground.

Trying to let the sanctions work was I think the immoral decision. It left the Iraqis to wallow in twin miseries. One was the obvious deterioration of the quality of their lives, and the other of course was the Saddam Hussein regime itself. You guys shower sympathy on the average iraqi whose suffering you prefer to lay at the feet of the US. My question is it that you are laying it there? Doesn't Saddam and his regime bear the largest share of culpablity on this issue? If he gave a shit about his people, which I am sure we all agree he did not, he could have capitulated. However his non-capitulation could not be tolerated. And too much contact with the larger world would have simply seen him trying to grow his military apparatus again, and aquire WMD. This demonstrated that he no desire to cooperate with UN resolutions.

The immoral action, it could be argued, was in letting him stay in power at the expense of his people. There were arguments for going ahead with toppling him at the time, but this would have been going against the UN mandate for the 91 war.

Was that action moral? The suffering of the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds is unimportant to you as it was Saddam doing the killing and not the evil US. I don't understand the weighting. Nor does it seem to matter much that until very recently the voices of dissedents, and other Baathest and Saddam critics held no power to foment change and could expect an extremely short life.

Hugh has suggested that the ensuing carnage is a direct result of the US/Brittish actions. This possible but the roots of it go back to the conception and creation of Iraq. I would suggest to you that this carnage may have been in the works for a very long time indeed. Saddam held in check with his iron fist, terror campaigns, and mass murder at his slightest whim. Now long held hatreds that never had a chance to be combated by education, discourse, and an open society are loose.
My question to you all is what precisely was the alternative?

1249. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123225 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Thanks Hugh!
I'm silly.
Its strange all the critique of Galloway and of course its just dirty villains with nary a leg to stand on.

All Galloway did was shout in that debate, as if volume equalled substance. And Hitchens thought the popinjay comment was funny, and accepted the charge. More than this Hitchens responded to points with much more than just bluster. I bet he worked on the drink soaked popinjay line for weeks.
It occurs to me though....
I just wrote piece on UFOologists and appears that you treat dissenting evidence, and opinion in much the same way they do. Or like the 9/11 truthers.

That is to say it is never ever credible. Its all cover-ups, and "them" out to get the rightesous little guy who managed to siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil for food program in the case of the upstanding and courageous galloway.

In anycase, since you're willing to look past the evidence of an independent inquiry as an attack by Galloway's personal den of vipers, and any evidence brought on this board against him I gues you can be excused from the adult table.

1250. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123212 by MaxD on February 6, 2008 at 3:53 pm

"I can now add to the ontological proofs the Labrador or Retriever Theory."

That was priceless. Again, I must say Professor Jackson is an entirely pleasant fellow. He was trounced of course. Hitch was just on his game.