[hrothgar]

jogs, on 2017-January-14, 08:42, said:

So are you lefties willing to defend Sharia Law?

This is a complicated topic that requires a far more nuanced discussion than an idiot like yourself is capable of. However, against my better judgement I will try to lay out my thought processes.

To start with, I am a firm believe that when secular laws and religious laws are in conflict, secular law should be absolute.
I would most certainly apply this to elements of Sharia law (traditional Hudud penalties being the most prominent example)

With this said and done, I have equally firm beliefs that

1. The Supreme Court should not have granted exceptions to American Indians to ingest peyote during religion ceremonies
2. Religious sacraments such as marriage should have no legal standing.
3. Churches should be subject to taxation
4. No more "Conscience clauses"

This takes us to a much more interesting question: In areas in which religious law and secular law do not come into conflict, should groups of individuals be allowed to voluntarily constrain their behavior as to conform with the dictates of their religion?

I'm going to list a few practical examples:

1. Should Jews be able to certify different types of food as being kosher?
2. Should muslim's be permitted to apply principals from Islamic banking?
3. Should Mormons be permitted to tithe 10% of their income?
4. Should a civil divorce mandate issuing a get?
5. Should muslim women be permitted to wear a burkha? Should orthodox jewish women be allowed to wear wigs?
6. If two individuals are having a conflict should they be permitted to go to arbitration rather than pursuing a civil suit? What if the arbitration is performed by a religious official applying elements from some religious law.

Personally, I don't believe that there are any bright dividing lines here.

I am guessing that most people would have no problem with items 1-3, oppose 4, and be torn on 5.
I know that many people's decision on six would depend on whether this a religious official were involved and if that official were a Christian or a Jew.

Personally, I find #5 the most interesting case and I really don't know how to skin this particular cat.

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-January-13, 21:35, said:

So, if I am a retiree living in a small cabin outside of town, how does the taxes I pay to support education benefit me?

And do I have any choice in the matter? Does the government coerce me to pay the taxes to support education whether I agree with their benefit analysis or not?

The "How does this benefit me" can have two rather different faces.

One is philosophical, and you seem to be supporting this. Here I I think the answer is simple. You don't need philosophy to make this choice. You speak of how your past career has benefited society. But if everything is to be judged on "How does this benefit me?" then the benefit of your actions to the public is irrelevant. Selling cocaine might land you in prison, but selling cigarettes won't, so go to it. Suppress evidence of the harm load the cigs up with extra stuff to make the habit more addictive, no problem as long as it benefits you. As soon as we accept "How does this benefit me" as the sole criterion, life gets very simple. It's not possible to argue against this, it is simply a choice that anyone can make. Maybe I am naive, but I think that most people reject this choice. Not all.

An alternative is the view that many people spend lot of time watching out for themselves, and they also think others will, and even should. I agree with this. I agree that people do, because I observe it, and I agree that people should because I think that the person best situated to know what I want is me. But I think this is different from the first view. For one thing, it is not, at its root, based on philosophy. It's just simple observation. Not being particularly philosophical is a great plus. It leaves more options. I see myself as very lucky to have been born into the time and place that I was, and I hope some of this good fortune can be passed on to future generations. This does not come from a study of Plato. Education is surely a prerequisite for a successful life. . So I favor a national effort to improve education. Yes, I favor government action. I recognize it costs money. I favor taxing people to pay for it. And yes, this means I favor coercing people to pay taxes to pay for it. I think many people are comfortable with my views here, and we can build on that.

I think that a good educational system for the nation is still of benefit to me, even at my moderately advanced age of 78. But leaving aside direct benefit to me, I would be very pleased to see an improved educational system simply because I think it would be good for the young people and good for the nation's future, long after "What's in it for me?" is applicable to me. If some hermit has no interest in this, fine, he can be outvoted. But if the majority accept it as a worthy goal, then there is hope.

Dostoevsky said "If there is no God -then everything is permitted." Indeed this is so, but it cuts both ways. I can choose "What's in it for me?" or I can choose "How can we make this a better world?". And either view can be taken in suitable moderation. There is no God to force the choice (I firmly believe that this is the case) but it does not follow that we must make all choices based on narrowly defined self-interest.We can, but we don't have to.

[mike777]

BIG NEWS!

NBC news and CNN both reported that Trump is not and will not be a legitimate President. Wow what a bombshell!

I kept waiting for the news reporters to say this was fake news or just a joke but I never saw them say that. This was a reported as real news flash/alert. I was surprised I did not see them report that this news was false.

It will be interesting if our army will follow his orders and those of his cabinet. It will be interesting if world leaders in Russian and China/Iran etc treat him as illegitimate.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2017-January-14, 11:59, said:

BIG NEWS!

NBC news and CNN both reported that Trump is not and will not be a legitimate President. Wow what a bombshell!

Are you referring to the interview with John Lewis?

If so, you might want to differentiate between

1. The official policy position of NBC and CNN
2. A statement that some who was interviewed in NBC and CNN made

(You are capable of understanding that these are two very different things, right?)

[kenberg]

There are times, and they are becoming more frequent, when i feel I am totally out of touch with the world. Becky walks with a group of women (exercise, not a protest) and one of them has been a long time Trump supporter. Last week she announced that she was having some second thoughts. No one asked to hear the second thoughts. But then anther woman spoke up, saying that she also voted for Trump (this was previously unknown) and she also was upset with him . She did not like his comments about Meryl Streep.

Some of this is looking like one of those tv shows where the plot is the same every week. In this version:

X says something unpleasant about Trump
Trump tweets an unpleasant response about X.
A zillion or so X fans go nuts.

Maybe we could call it Tweet She Wrote.

[Aberlour10]

There are aspects in this tragicomedy I had really to laugh loud about.

US intelligence services accuse Russia Today network to take influence on US elections,,,

OK, but what about all those us financed broadcasts that bomb Russia with the propaganda since decades, spending billions on it till nowdays.

compared to these uncounted propaganda experts are RT people absolute beginners,,

really funny.

ps I cant remember Mr Putin had ever complained about it.

[Aberlour10]

double

[kenberg]

Aberlour10, on 2017-January-14, 18:44, said:

There are aspects in this tragicomedy I had really to laugh loud about.

US intelligence services accuse Russia Today network to take influence on US elections,,,

OK, but what about all those us financed broadcasts that bomb Russia with the propaganda since decades, spending billions on it till nowdays.

compared to these uncounted propaganda experts are RT people absolute beginners,,

really funny.

ps I cant remember Mr Putin had ever complained about it.

Whether we are speaking of a marriage. or international relations, or any of a myriad of things in between, I am not fond of this "Oh, but look what you did" argument. I favor efforts to keep foreign governments from hacking into the computer systems of our political parties. Actually I favor a number of other cyber-security actions as well.

We are of course also responsible for our own security. It is not practical to all become cyber wizards, but it is reasonable to expect that major figures in a campaign not put silly things into an email. In the other direction, we all say stupid things sometimes, or we phrase it badly, or whatever. So in judging people we should try to put stupid remarks into a larger picture of the person as a whole.

We are also responsible for our own decisions in the voting booth. If someone (see earlier post) is really re-thinking her Trump vote after Trump said Meryl Streep is an over-rated actress we have problems that cyber-security can't fix.

Trump won. As of Friday, it will be President Trump. Hacking should be addressed, but the election is over.

[Aberlour10]

kenberg, on 2017-January-15, 10:10, said:

Whether we are speaking of a marriage. or international relations, or any of a myriad of things in between, I am not fond of this "Oh, but look what you did" argument. I favor efforts to keep foreign governments from hacking into the computer systems of our political parties. Actually I favor a number of other cyber-security actions as well.

I see., but we can't blind out these "what you did" facts in the discussion. NSA hacks all under the sun they are able to, friends and enemies, Chancellor Merkel mobile phone for example, etc etc

Do exist NSA dossiers about politicans from west and east resulting to these hackings?. For sure. That is their job.

Would US goverment use it ( open or covered ) if that would be in interest of the USA. For sure.

[y66]

Eric Cantor: What the Obama Presidency Looked Like to the Opposition

Quote

He started with an outstretched hand. Then that changed.

Quote

News outlets, along with the Democrats, labeled us the “Party of No.” But that didn’t reflect the reality. Our goal was to offer a viable alternative to every major piece of legislation the Democratic majority put forward. We wondered if the president would embrace our efforts to bridge the policy divide, and if he did, what that might mean for Republicans in Washington.

This guy lives in a different reality than I do but clearly not so different from the one many of our fellow posters inhabit. In his world, scorched earth opposition aimed at ensuring the presidency would fail = good faith effort to find common ground, the consequences for a country reeling from the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression be damned.

F**k this guy and the horse he rode in on and everyone who rides with him and all of their horses!

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2017-January-15, 12:56, said:

Eric Cantor: What the Obama Presidency Looked Like to the Opposition



This guy lives in a different reality than I do but clearly not so different from the one many of our fellow posters inhabit. In his world, scorched earth opposition aimed at ensuring the presidency would fail = good faith effort to find common ground, the consequences for a country reeling from the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression be damned.

F**k this guy and the horse he rode in on and everyone who rides with him and all of their horses!

Robert Kuttner wrote this:

Quote

It is an illusion to believe that if Democrats respect norms of comity, Trump will somehow reciprocate. He will just see it as more weakness, to be rolled over.

If you are wondering what to write your Member of Congress, start with that.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-15, 20:46, said:

Robert Kuttner wrote this:

Apparently my Representative does not need any stoking up:

https://newrepublic....rited-democrats

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-January-13, 17:22, said:

If I as a parent wish to spend my excess disposable income to enhance the quality of my child's education, should I be permitted to do so? And if so, then my child would receive a better education than that provided by the state, and would violate your condition above. The other children would not be entitled to an equal level of education that I provide my child.

Now, if you asserting that the level of education provided by the state should be equal for all children, then the political reality is that that level would be a minimum. That would be so because politically aware parents would want to preserve as much money/resources as possible to giver their own children an advantage. I know I certainly would.

Also there are some other difficulties in providing an equal level of education to all children. How can we assure that the quality of teaching is the same? That external factors are the same (blizzards shutting down schools, etc.)?

Is this meant as an answer to my questions? I would tend to read your answers as No and Yes although it is difficult to interpret through all the smoke. Funny that you accused another poster of evasion a few posts later.

We are talking here about state education. If parents wish to supplement their children's education, such as through private tutors, then I can see nothing against that. I do see arguments against private schooling but am not personally against that either. But having the goal of each child receiving an equal chance at education according to their merit and not their parents' wallet strikes me as fairly fundamental to a fair and advanced economy. The level of such an education does not need to be low as has already been mentioned in the discussion about Finland. If it is your belief that a child from a poor family does not deserve a decent education then I fear we have no common ground for any reasonable discussion.

[y66]

That Jamie Raskin story kenberg posted made my day.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2017-January-16, 07:46, said:

That Jamie Raskin story kenberg posted made my day.

I thought you might enjoy it. It's a local result, but it has interesting features..
Wikipedia has a map of the district he represents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_8th_congressional_district
You might suspect politics was involved in drawing the boundaries! Winning the primary meant, practically speaking, winning the election.
As the story notes, the primary was the most expensive in the nation. Raskin was by no means the biggest spender.
There were several strong candidates in the primary.

Becky and I spent some time looking over the possibilities. Almost certainly on any measurement of political leanings, Raskin would emerge as more liberal than I am. But I became convinced that he was smart, energetic, and, in the large, oriented as I am. So he was my choice. Becky's too, I think. I imagine he will be in for a lot of frustration. I expect he will cope.

[olegru]

https://youtu.be/dYCgeVcW5pk

[mike777]

Bit surprised Trump has not been impeached yet. With so many mass demonstrations planned for Friday and so many boycotting the big party, it just shows what a disaster Trump has been so far as President. At the very least it seems all the background trial stuff can be done by now even if they dont start the trial until next week.

With so many accusations I see on CNN and NBC news broadcasts about Trump its about time Congress acted and investigates. It sounds like his cabinet is full of racists and crooks per CNN and NBC news. Add in his kids and Trump himself it cant be that hard to convict him.

[Zelandakh]

You are being ironic, right Mike? Congress only "acts and investigates" when the President is of a different political party. Once Trump is President, a Democratic Congress might try it but for now the World is stuck with him.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-17, 16:43, said:

You are being ironic, right Mike? Congress only "acts and investigates" when the President is of a different political party. Once Trump is President, a Democratic Congress might try it but for now the World is stuck with him.

I don't know. I'd hardly label Trump as a Republican. I wouldn't be surprised to see him impeached by the Republicans in an attempt to get a true believer into the office.

[y66]

From Jonathan Alter's Jan 17 story about Joe Biden's regrets:

Quote

Joe Biden’s personal compartment on the modified Boeing 757 that serves as Air Force Two had the feel of a motel manager’s office equipped with state-of-the-art communications gear. The room held a little black couch with a pullout bed he had slept on more times than he could count over the last eight years, during which he logged more than a million miles aloft. We were en route back to Wilmington, Del., from Cartagena, Colombia, in early December, and Biden was sitting in a black leather seat with a binder in his lap.

It contained the speech he had given at the Democratic National Convention in July. He told me he had been rereading it. He began reciting aloud: “If you live in neighborhoods like the one Jill and I grew up in, if you worry about your job and getting decent pay. ...” His voice accelerated. “If you worry about your children’s education, if you’re taking care of an elderly parent, there’s only one person in this race who. ...” He looked up at me and sighed. “I wish to hell I’d just kept saying the exact same thing.”

Biden was afflicted with regret. He was sorry that, on the campaign trail, he had spoken so often about Donald Trump’s unfitness for office and not enough about what Hillary Clinton would do for the middle class. He was sorry he didn’t push harder inside the White House for a middle-class tax cut. And he was still torn over his decision not to run for president, a race that he said would have been “brutal” but that he also believed he could have won.