tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6390447361444145944..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Unscientific America -- Denying Science at Our PerilDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger146125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49446072460985595022012-03-27T12:56:25.673-07:002012-03-27T12:56:25.673-07:00Antiquated Tory said...
" Was going to wr...Antiquated Tory said...<br /><br />" Was going to write something but Damien Sullivan at 3:15 pm pretty much said it all.<br /> I'd emphasize that a lot of ev psych reads like post facto rationalizations of the status quo. And the depth of racial pseudoscience (and misinterpretation of Darwin in defense thereof) in the later 19th and 20th centuries was pretty extreme, so the sensitivity to that sort of thing is pretty understandable. Especially given people like Rushton (U Western Ontario), who appear to be trying to bring it back, and who scream "political correctness" whenever someone points out how crap their work is. (Rushton had a paper in the late 80s on race/promiscuity/AIDS prevalence that had my Anth department up in arms. Just to be sure it wasn't our typical liberal-left Anth bias, I ran it past someone in Physics. Who was appalled for other and far more substantive reasons.)<br /> Well, I guess I wrote a lot anyway."<br /><br />I'd also point out that the right doesn't seem to come up with actual, you know - science on these issues. 'The Bell Curve' is the best that they have, and Rushton counts as a serious thinker on their side.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37248537612516788422012-03-14T05:56:56.186-07:002012-03-14T05:56:56.186-07:00rewinn:
I'm with George Washington and agains...rewinn:<br /><i><br />I'm with George Washington and against the sadists and the cowards. Who wouldn't be?<br /></i><br /><br />The Republican base, apparently. More's the pity.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24685924886551142572012-03-13T14:05:09.811-07:002012-03-13T14:05:09.811-07:00@RandyB
"...the Bush administration originall...@RandyB<br /><i>"...the Bush administration originally determined that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply at all. Then in 2006, the Supreme Court overruled them in a close decision.<br /><br />But they didn't say the entire Conventions apply. They said it was Common Article 3, which doesn't even have POWs..."</i><br /><br />It is not surprising that criminals deny that law applies to them.<br /><br />I won't repeat what Ian, John, David and others have said, better than I, except to endorse what others have written: the rule is no application of pain to prisoners (...except the absolute minimum necessary for security...) is constitutional, legal, moral or useful, if for no better reason than that the part of me that remains conservative understands very well that we can't trust Government to beat only the people who deserve it.<br /><br />I'm with George Washington and against the sadists and the cowards. Who wouldn't be?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76926869601393137472012-03-13T10:54:44.675-07:002012-03-13T10:54:44.675-07:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28739417771715312192012-03-13T10:54:00.787-07:002012-03-13T10:54:00.787-07:00Ian, thanks. Officially, I am a product of a scie...Ian, thanks. Officially, I am a product of a scientific education and philosophy that avows the sacred statement: "I might be wrong." Unofficially, I am an opinionated doofus who is saved from passionate dogmatism NOT by the sacred statement... but by the stunningly scatterbrained and contrary nature of his opinions!<br /><br />As for the LED that approaches efficiencies greater than 100%...note that this asymtote is approached at ever-lower power rates. Way down at the bottom you start entering the quantum realm. Demons reside down there!<br /><br /><b><br />Re guantanamo procedures</b> - I reiterate. In this primitive human phase of civilization, we need two things.<br /><br /> (1) for our society and culture to succeed in its zero-sum conflicts vs others <br /><br />and<br /> (2) for our society to *deserve* to succeed, by becoming ever better a role model and prototype for a truly grownup and worthy human civilization.<br /><br />The latter suggests that we have gone completely insane to allow assholes to talk us into panicking and allowing an official policy condoning torture. It has made us more evil. Little better than the bad guys. Period. Stop trying to rationalize it. That is simply the fact.<br /><br />But #1 still holds. And for that we have traditionally deputized our secret services to occasionally engage in James Bond type stuff, at the fringes of visibility. Dealing with the extraction of excruciatingly vital information when nothing else will do. <br /><br /> Yes we all knew this was going on and it was hypocritical to glorify #2 while allowing #1. But hypocrisy is one of the tools that have always helped (ironically) to move humanity forward. The hypocricy of the slave-owning Founders led to the vastly better hypocrisy of the racist but aboloitionist Abraham Lincoln, which led to ML King.<br /><br />The point is that the James Bond type stuff was always kept to a minimum necessary by the need to stay secret, to maintain that hypocritical fig leaf while we stayed - overall - the Good Guys and moved forward.<br /><br />Bush & co instead made it national policy. And for what? Were we under existential threat? Bullshit Our parents endured worse damage than 9/11 EVERY MONTH during WWII sometimes in a week or even a day. For THAT we had to go waving our arms, screeching and sending several trillion dollars and the blood of our kids spilling into Asian sands? <br /><br />And our reputation. Our status as the Good Guys.<br /><br />I repeat, the CIA types utterly utterly despised Bush for doing all this. So did the Military officer corps. That faux cowboy and his gang of crooks did absolutely everything wrong. Absolutely everything they did either deliberately or stupidly harmed us...<br /><br />... so why, Randy, do you still pick and choose items from their list of horrible mistakes to defend?<br /><br />Here's the crux. It was something W wanted and defended.<br /><br />Do the opposite. You can't go wrong.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39345387068491128022012-03-13T10:13:59.377-07:002012-03-13T10:13:59.377-07:00RandyB said...
"That was the real problem wit...RandyB said...<br />"That was the real problem with this entire exercise. Everybody says they oppose torture but they're less willing to say how they feel about rough interrogation that isn't torture. I still haven't seen anyone say they'd support or oppose the slap in the face, and I've asked it often enough."<br /><br />OK, I'll bite: I oppose anyone inflicting physical violence on a prisoner beyond what is necessary for safe detention. Any level. Ever. Full stop.<br /><br />There. Now you can stop saying you've never heard that from anyone.<br /><br />Torture apologists always seem to forget that those tortured may not have been guilty of anything. What special knowledge are you privy to that convinces you that torture was the right thing to do? <br /><br />You seem to be going to great lengths to convince yourself that the US did not torture people. But we did. It's not OK because it was us doing it. It's always wrong.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35426937023516925012012-03-13T09:28:59.220-07:002012-03-13T09:28:59.220-07:00More on Keystone money:
http://insideclimatenews.o...More on Keystone money:<br />http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111004/koch-brothers-koch-industries-flint-hills-financial-interest-canada-energy-board-keystone-xl-pipeline?page=showJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43155230235740196992012-03-13T05:19:46.324-07:002012-03-13T05:19:46.324-07:00BTW, David, I shoulf have thanked you for your var...BTW, David, I shoulf have thanked you for your various gracious concession regarding Pashtunistan.<br /><br />On a different forum this is my signature:<br /><br />A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday.- Alexander PopeIanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33155314934991486682012-03-13T04:21:58.350-07:002012-03-13T04:21:58.350-07:00Okay: another science story which I'd love to ...Okay: another science story which I'd love to have the collective thoguhts of the Contrary Brin brain trust on:<br /><br />"MIT physicists have managed to build a light-emitting diode that has an electrical efficiency of more than 100 percent. You may ask, "Wouldn't that mean it breaks the first law of thermodynamics?" The answer, happily, is no.<br /><br />The LED produces 69 picowatts of light using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above "unity efficiency" -- putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.<br /><br />However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent electrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.<br /><br />In slightly more detail, the researchers chose an LED with a small band gap, and applied smaller and smaller voltages. Every time the voltage was halved, the electrical power was reduced by a factor of four, but the light power emitted only dropped by a factor of two. The extra energy came instead from lattice vibrations."<br /><br />http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds<br /><br />So why is this not a real world version of the Maxwell's Demon thought experiment?<br /><br />Possibilities;<br /><br />1. Experimental error<br /><br />2. Unintentional or intentional misrepesentation of the results by journalsits<br /><br />3. The energy stored in the lattice vibrations is a finite quantity that can't, as the Wired article seems to imply, be replenished from ambient heat energy.<br /><br />4. We have proof of concept for something that, if scaleable respresents the biggest technological advance since the steam energy.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42196402094861833992012-03-13T04:12:53.776-07:002012-03-13T04:12:53.776-07:00"Tony Fisk said...
@RandyB responded to ..."Tony Fisk said...<br /><br /> @RandyB responded to my query about where the money goes in Keystone:<br /> On the income from Keystone, it goes to the companies, workers, and states in the form of taxes.<br /><br /> It's part of our GDP and infrastructure."<br /><br />Actually, there's a much simpler answer: Canada.<br /><br />Or maybe George H W Bush was correct when he said America coul end its dependence on foreign oil by buying more oil from Canada and Mexico.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739671401151990700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36170436008003674852012-03-13T03:58:01.685-07:002012-03-13T03:58:01.685-07:00http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00pbgrk/The_...http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00pbgrk/The_Strand_12_03_2012/<br /><br />A story.bJumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6936892096851926822012-03-13T02:47:35.162-07:002012-03-13T02:47:35.162-07:00I was just reading through the UN Convention again...I was just reading through the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (As you do.) Couple of things struck me.<br /><br />The Convention, or part one at least, is one of the clearest written treaties I've seen. And that the only complexity is the clear effort they went to to try and prevent states using sleazy definition games to get around the ban on torture. Torture isn't just defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" in article one, it then adds article 16 to add other "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", and the says that all parts of the convention still apply even if you substitute other terms for torture, precisely to prevent states creating arbitrary definitions that they can pretend they aren't violating.<br /><br />Similarly, article two's "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" , could have been written now, with the justifications for torture that were spun by Bush apologists. No no, it's post-9/11, old rules don't apply, we're in danger, terrorism is different from other wars. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever.<br /><br />But mainly, a bunch of people sat down and tried to imagine all the ways the world's monsters would try to get around the law, to try to justify torture, to create exceptions, to exploit loopholes, and the framers of the Convention tried to craft the broadest language they could to say "There are no exceptions. Ever."<br /><br />And so when you're sitting there, trying to come up with some sleazy word-play to get around the ban on torture, or some legal fiction, or create some method that only feels like torture and somehow that means it isn't torture, how does it feel that the framers of the Convention were thinking of you.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74013655284379849282012-03-13T01:49:09.547-07:002012-03-13T01:49:09.547-07:00RandyB,
So "Roughed up" isn't "...RandyB,<br />So "Roughed up" isn't "Harsh" and anyway "Harsh" isn't "Severe". And the CIA has a special technique of "roughing up" prisoners which feels "severe", but by the CIA's lawyers' definition isn't.<br /><br />I remember making a comment... somewhere... about business, that if you have structured your company to avoid responsibility, you knew you were doing something wrong, even if you hadn't actually done it yet. To me, these games with definitions, and methods that make people feel like they are being severely injured or drowned but do so by manipulation of perception rather than causing the actual physical injury or death, just prove that the perpetrators are not only doing something wrong, they (and you) know it.<br /><br /><i>"How about waterboarding? Again, the details. Is one splash severe? (Are you kidding?) How about ten? How about fifty? What if they're spaced out over several days?"</i><br /><br />You keep trying for force the discussion back to trying to make us accept some arbitrary definition of torture, or harsh or severe treatment, or whatever language you want to use. And people are going along with it, to varying degrees, to discuss specifics, giving you the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />But I think we deserve a little quid pro... I've asked you several times if you think a "single slap to the face" would make you betray your family and friends to your bitterest enemy? If not, then it's not what is being done to prisoners. And pretending it is what we're discussing is just being dishonest with, and disrespectful to, the group.<br /><br />And instead of answering, you just created yet another distorted non-example. "One splash". Are <i>you</i> kidding?Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84024282512117662972012-03-13T01:45:43.025-07:002012-03-13T01:45:43.025-07:0017th of 34th is the middle of the pack - what'...17th of 34th is the middle of the pack - what's wrong with that? <br /><br />I mean, there might be, if the pack is really mediocre, but if the pack is generally doing excellently on the scientific education front, it might be something to be proud of! <br /><br /><i>Someone</i> has to be in the middle, regardless of how educated everyone is. <br /><br /><br />- arcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14664235486645796052012-03-12T19:11:12.151-07:002012-03-12T19:11:12.151-07:00@RandyB responded to my query about where the mone...@RandyB responded to my query about where the money goes in Keystone:<br /><i>On the income from Keystone, it goes to the companies, workers, and states in the form of taxes.<br /><br />It's part of our GDP and infrastructure.</i><br /><br />Just so. LarryHart responded to most of this. I will only add that there <a href="http://350orbust.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/the-myth-of-keystone-jobs-must-give-way-to-the-real-opportunity-of-jobs-for-canadians-and-americans/" rel="nofollow">isn't much in the way of ongoing work involved</a> either.<br /><br /><i>"Upon closer examination, Keystone XL and Northern Gateway Pipeline are hardly the jobs juggernaut their proponents portray them to be. An executive from TransCanada, builder of the KXL pipeline, admits that permanent jobs in the U.S. would number in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands claimed by supporters. Temporary construction jobs, lasting less than two years, would number between 2,500 and 4,650, according to a study from Cornell University."</i><br /><br />Thus is the profit privatised. Here's an oil execs son <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/media/2012-02-23/oil-executive-sons-powerful-testimony-enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-joint-revi" rel="nofollow">testifying</a> about how the debt incurred by such projects is socialised.<br /><br /><i>"...One such day on the refinery stood out in particular. It was a hot, sunny and humid day, after monsoon rainfall my entire time there – I think it was most likely the Prince Rupert weather following me overseas – and on that day a hand full of managers thought it would be fun to take me out to the Jetty, where they loaded and unloaded the super tankers. Situated a lengthy route away from the refinery itself, we drove down to towards the coastline.<br /><br />On our way there, we drove past many different villages. Each one looking extremely impoverished. I learned later that this was not always the case. There was a time in this region where fishing, farming and the local economy truly flourished. But once the refinery project was approved, among other projects in the region, they built a pipeline directly through 9 different villages. Over a period of time, there was pipeline breakage which contaminated an underground aquifer, and spoiled the wells and water supply of the majority of the surrounding villages. As industry expanded, and land bought and sold, men were forced into cheap labour at the refineries, after lifetimes of sustainable farming and fishing – now dependent on one or two companies for employment. Women, children and elders went starving after losing access to fresh water, with no accountability for cleanup – just left to fend for themselves. I ask, what would be the case here in our region? Do you see any potential similarities?<br /><br />...<br /><br />I asked one of the managers, Jitesh was his name, why the ship stopped so far out. He told me that because of the size of the ship<br /><br />...<br /><br />I asked him why, and he said "even though we have docking stations here, it is for the smaller vessels that are used for domestic purposes. But these larger vessels that come from the Middle East can run aground easily."<br /><br />This, in open seas, I thought.<br /><br />...<br /><br />A few moments pass as we all stood, just watching.<br /><br />Out of the silence, Jitesh says to me "Do you see what we are doing here Mr. Lee?"<br /><br />I asked "What's that Jitesh?"<br /><br />He replied, with an unexpected, sobering tone: "We are destroying future generations for now, and forever."<br /><br />And in this kind of slow motion life moment, I felt this kind of tingling feeling on the top of my head– and with sweat dripping down from the inside of my hard hat onto my face, the sun beaming into my eyes – I squint over at 6 men slowing nodding their heads in silent agreement.<br /><br />It was such a profound statement, and in that moment, there was silence.<br />"</i>Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53368641723686927852012-03-12T19:02:34.203-07:002012-03-12T19:02:34.203-07:00Rewinn,
On your quote from the 4th Geneva Convent...Rewinn,<br /><br />On your quote from the 4th Geneva Convention commentaries:<br /><br /><i>"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law"</i><br /><br />If you'll remember, the Bush administration originally determined that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply at all. Then in 2006, the Supreme Court overruled them in a close decision.<br /><br />But they didn't say the entire Conventions apply. They said it was Common Article 3, which doesn't even have POWs. Your quote still doesn't apply.<br /><br />But even if the balance of the Conventions did apply, you were saying that they're either POWs or criminals, which is still not true. You're missing Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which covers detainees who are not POWs.<br /><br />I will concede one thing: They do want prisoners to be treated humanely. (The U.S. could reject that, but it could to wait until we need to.)<br /><br /><br /><i>"As to the rest, if you prefer to use the word "felony assault and battery" instead of "torture" that's fine with me. It's still unconstitutional under our 8th Amendment; our government simply lacks the power to order it."</i><br /><br />There's room for doubt that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/12/us-usa-torture-scalia-idUSN1226195720080212?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true" rel="nofollow">the Eighth Amendment would even restrict torture interrogation</a>.<br /><br />Plus, the Civil War's Lieber Code was written long after the Bill of Rights. It forbids torture but it <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp#art16" rel="nofollow">specifies for revenge or confessions</a>.<br /><br />It's not technically felony assault and battery but I'm not going to bicker with you over that. You can call it what you like. I had said, <i>"You're free to oppose harsh interrogation, too."</i><br /><br />Why don't you just say that you oppose any harsh interrogation, and that all prisoners should receive the same treatment that POWs are entitled to?<br /><br />That was the real problem with this entire exercise. Everybody says they oppose torture but they're less willing to say how they feel about rough interrogation that isn't torture. I still haven't seen anyone say they'd support or oppose the slap in the face, and I've asked it often enough.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38727711794606512232012-03-12T18:58:22.365-07:002012-03-12T18:58:22.365-07:00Larry,
"The company selling the oil would be...Larry,<br /><br /><i>"The company selling the oil would be Canadian. And the refined gasoline made from the oil would be exported (to keep prices high) rather than to increase US supply (which would keep prices low).</i><br /><br /><i>"The COSTS (environmental dangers) would be part of our infrastructure, but the benefits, not so much."</i><br /><br />I basically agree with you that all the costs are importants consideration, but disagree on your characterization. I'm unsure of the conclusion, and very wary that President Obama is making a non-political calculation. (And yes, I know you could rightfully say the same thing about a conservative.)<br /><br />They're exporting it because that's where they'd make the most money. This makes the market more efficient, which does make us all better off. That's not to say we're sufficiently better off that it's worth the environmental risk but I suspect that we are.<br /><br />Besides, there's something distasteful about leaving all the environmental risks to the third world, which is really what's happening.RandyBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38869903461398572352012-03-12T09:28:25.269-07:002012-03-12T09:28:25.269-07:00There are a few "Scale of the universe" ...There are a few "Scale of the universe" animations on the web, ranging from OK to downright awful. The one posted today on "Astromony Picture of the Day" is by far the best one I have ever seen. It is well worth the time to take a look. Very humbling!<br /><br />http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120312.htmlHyperionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15628320817910309384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13249900419299347422012-03-12T09:22:55.335-07:002012-03-12T09:22:55.335-07:00rewinn:
Name and shame (or, for you dignified peo...rewinn:<br /><i><br />Name and shame (or, for you dignified people, "transparency").<br /></i><br /><br />I like it. But I'm pretty sure the current Supreme Court would find such a thing to be a violation of Senator Snort's constitutional right to free speech.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82220267104480182712012-03-12T08:17:07.625-07:002012-03-12T08:17:07.625-07:00@David Brin said...
"re filibusters:
The ...@David Brin said...<br /><i>"re filibusters:<br /> The dems are partly at fault. They should end the polite aspects to filibusters. Make the goppers actually stand and talk in order to keep it up."</i><br /><br />Your proposal is too modest.<br /><br />To be effective (AND in a non-partisan way) against the filibuster and its equally obstructive sibling the "Senate hold", there should be some sort of visually-enhanced scoreboard of nominations and bills being held up, by whom and why, e.g.<i><br />"The vote on the nomination of Judge Boring to the 99th Circuit Court. <br />Status: on hold. <br />Reason: Senator Snort has issued a hold.<br />Argument for allowing a vote: The 99th Circuit has so many vacancies that cases are delayed two years. Judge Boring has a flawless record. <br />Argument for putting a hold on the vote: Senator Snort does not like the current Administration's policy on Cuba."</i><br /><br />Name and shame (or, for you dignified people, "transparency").rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50222241994718697912012-03-12T08:10:43.782-07:002012-03-12T08:10:43.782-07:00Kevin Kelley interviews George Dyson
http://www.wi...Kevin Kelley interviews George Dyson<br />http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/02/ff_dysonqa/all/1<br />Subject being Dyson's upcoming book "Turing's Cathedral"<br />"thrope eselawn", coulda' been heard after a keg party.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83949439367028529462012-03-12T08:06:44.261-07:002012-03-12T08:06:44.261-07:00@RandyB wrote :
"The Clinton administration s...@RandyB wrote :<br /><i>"The Clinton administration supported it [rendition]. According to Richard Clarke, Al Gore said about rendition: "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"</i><br /><br />@RandyB doesn't seem to understand what rendition is. Rendition is the handing-over of a prisoner in your custody to another nation. As I stated, it is uncontroversial when handled constitutionally; it's the EXTRAJUDICIAL aspect that is both illegal and unconstitutional.<br /><br />@RandyB is confusing it with kidnapping persons disfavored by a nation (...when we do it, it's because they are evil; when the Soviets do it, it's because they've good.) As @Dr.Brin pointed out upthread, occasionally a nation will order its people to do things that are illegal. That's regrettable but nations are not going to stop it. What can't be done in such cases is ignore the illegality. <br />But once we have kidnapped a bad guy, he is either a criminal or a POW, and in neither case does the Executive have the constitutional power to rendition him to another nation except subject to judicial oversight.<br /><br />That soi-disant "conservatives" should grant such royal power to the President would amaze me and Barry Goldwater.<br /> <br /><i>"People often forget (or act like they forget) the Al Gore from before his global warming days when his wife was the leader of the music police, and his political ties to the Reverend Fred Phelps. (Yes, that Fred Phelps.)</i>"<br /><br />The complete irrelevancy of this remark underscores the error of @RandyB's position on law, torture or rendition.<br /><br />Let's look at an actual authority on the subject:<br /><br />The rest of @RandyB's legalistic quibblings founder on their own complexity. Law is expressed in natural language, and as such, there is <b>always</b> a contrary argument to <b>every</b> proposition. The existence of such a contrary argument means nothing, and its use by criminals doesn't mean the criminals are innocent.<br /><br />Let us look instead to a neutral authority:<br /><br /><i>"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law"</i><br /><br />This, from the official <a href="http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument" rel="nofollow">Commentary to Article 4, Paragraph 4, Fourth Geneva Convention"</a> is by a disinterested party, and therefore worth more than the pleadings of States seeking to torture its enemies.<br /><br />As to the rest, if you prefer to use the word "felony assault and battery" instead of "torture" that's fine with me. It's still unconstitutional under our 8th Amendment; our government simply lacks the power to order it.<br /><br />It's still criminal sadism: the infliction of pain for the purpose of giving pleasure to the civilians who ordered it. Sometimes the sadism is outright pleasure (...as when George W Bush joked about a prisoner begging for her life...) other times its pleasure of the financial sort (...as when Dick Cheney ordered the waterboarding of prisoners in order to get them to say things to justify his invasion of Iraq. Not all sadists do it for sexual pleasure.)<br /><br />It's still repulsive to patriots; see the words of George Washington above.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25891898888113463632012-03-12T07:16:15.651-07:002012-03-12T07:16:15.651-07:00Finally, a new chapter of Harry Potter and the Met...Finally, a new chapter of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is up!<br /><br /><a href="www.hpmor.com" rel="nofollow">hpmor.com</a><br /><br />Oh, and chuckle at this pastiche of the Last Supper<br /><br /><a href="http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/biggerlastsuppercolorflattened.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/biggerlastsuppercolorflattened.jpg</a>sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39543281838283754062012-03-12T06:40:16.464-07:002012-03-12T06:40:16.464-07:00RandyB:
On the income from Keystone, it goes to t...RandyB:<br /><i><br />On the income from Keystone, it goes to the companies, workers, and states in the form of taxes.<br /><br />It's part of our GDP and infrastructure<br /></i><br /><br />As Uhura said to Sulu, "Sorry, neither."<br /><br />The company selling the oil would be Canadian. And the refined gasoline made from the oil would be exported (to keep prices high) rather than to increase US supply (which would keep prices low).<br /><br />The COSTS (environmental dangers) would be part of our infrastructure, but the benefits, not so much.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48872740809524248792012-03-12T06:36:22.440-07:002012-03-12T06:36:22.440-07:00infanttyrone:
Even as recently as 2000, candidate...infanttyrone:<br /><i><br />Even as recently as 2000, candidate Bush ran on a platform of "no nation-building".<br /><br />Yes, and Obama promised to close Gitmo and do other wonderful things.<br /></i><br /><br />Sure, but my point wasn't that a candidate didn't keep his promises. My point was that it wasn't too long ago that "no nation building" was considered a good selling point for a Republican candidate.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.com