Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Our tactics in Iraq caused *more* dead kids than what, Ty? Than sanctions? Are you out of your mind?

Our tactics have caused more civilian casualties than other tactics -- like those used by the British -- would have. I understand and sympathize with the impetus for force protection, but I don't see how we can defeat the insurgency when (for example) we're dropping bombs on suspected safe houses in Fallujah.

I don't really see much point in arguing about the body count of the sanctions. First, Hussein was doing his best to make it look worse to win international sympathy. Second, every course of action has costs and benefits -- we can't intervene in Darfur right now because our military is tied down in Iraq, right -- and I think we all agree that the ultimate end served by our foreign policy is not humanitarian, not that those goals aren't worthy.

I'll look for your posts about the civilian casualties since the war started.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hey, Hello, where do you stand on the pill? How about the morning after pill? Since we're outing absurd positions, I figure why not open the floodgates and let all the idiocy out.

Puhleeze, I've never said its not a matter of us each deciding when murder begins. Your crocodile tears for others don't weight my crocodile tears for others. I'm not a woman? You ain't a fetus.

To answer your question though, I personally don't have any problem all the way through morning after pills. But murder is when society says it is, not when a court says its okay for us to say when it is. So I'll take the position where the people in my state do.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
True, but you could regulate the insurers more.

At the risk of sounding libertarian, market-based solutions usually function better, which is to say, better to structure the market to give better incentives before the fact, rather than relying on government regulation to police compliance ex post.

I would not be for the government directly providing it. Just look at the VA system if you need more of an explanation for why.

That's why I said "directly or indirectly." But why make people pay? Let them sign up with basic coverage with whomever, and the government can pay the provider. You'll get better coverage than you would with vouchers, and you can still preserve consumer choice.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It certainly is a happy Wednesday. With all the momentum Kerry has gained from the debates, W will have to make a spectacular showing tonight in order to prevent his defeat.

This debate is crucial for both of them. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
This debate is crucial for both of them. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Bush did better once he got rid of the earpiece. I predict another draw.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Our tactics have caused more civilian casualties than other tactics -- like those used by the British -- would have.

The narrow topic was the number of child casualties caused by the sanctions versus the number of child casualties caused by our forces in Iraq. It was not the number of child casualties caused by utilizing Tactic A during the Iraq invasion/occupation versus utilizing Tactic B during the Iraq invasion/occupation.

Hussein was doing his best to make it look worse to win international sympathy.

Bush Lied. Now Unicef Lied. And Mass Graves Lied.

and I think we all agree that the ultimate end served by our foreign policy is not humanitarian

You have it backward. The ultimate end would be humanitarian. (At least for starving children that is) even if the impetus for our actions was non-humanitarian.

I'll look for your posts about the civilian casualties since the war started.

And I'll look for evidence you knew or cared from such time as the sanctions started, as opposed to when the politics started.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think it has to do with immediacy. If I arrange for the care of a newborn baby, and then leave town, the baby doesn't die, and I probably don't get charged with a crime. But, because it's the mom who is pregnant and gives birth, it's the mom who has that opportunity, at the moment of birth, to deliver and walk away, leaving kidlet to die. I imagine if dad was in charge of the baby, and then left it in an alley to die, dad would be charged, too. It's just that the greater opportunity for that kind of thing lies with the mom.

Which is easier to prosecute? Who's going to get convicted first?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush did better once he got rid of the earpiece. I predict another draw.

It was an Ipod. He was listening to the Dixie Chicks to get himself stoked.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
3. No, its not. The entire unraveling of the social fabric in this country at the hands of government has been a gigantic step backwards. Murders: up. Jail population: up. Government expenditures: up. Abortions: up. Teenage birthrate: up. Thank God for activist judges and the silver-spoon cheering section.

Giant step backward? You really are glum about the world, aren't you?

Murder: According to a Justice Department report called Homocide Trends in the US, homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960's. I'm not sure if they included 9/11 in their numbers.




Abortion: According to the CDC, who has been monitoring legal abortions since 1969, the number of abortions in the US has been declining, and this is not accounting for changes in the population size. In a November 2003, MMWR article interpreting the data from 2000 the CDC reported that "From 1990 through 1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. In 1998 and 1999, the number of abortions continued to decrease when comparing the same 48 reporting areas. In 2000, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly."

Incarceration: The rate has increased significantly since 1980, but it appears that it is leveling off.



Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

ETA on the government expenditures: I'm still looking at deficit and surplus numbers, but preliminarily it looks like federal outlays as a percent of GDP have been falling considerably since 1990.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The narrow topic was the number of child casualties caused by the sanctions versus the number of child casualties caused by our forces in Iraq. It was not the number of child casualties caused by utilizing Tactic A during the Iraq invasion/occupation versus utilizing Tactic B during the Iraq invasion/occupation.

That may have been your topic, but that's not what I was talking about. The original topic was the success of containment in dealing with the threat posed by Hussein to us (i.e., WMD), not the threat he posed to his own people, but you have dropped that one like a hot rock.

You have it backward. The ultimate end would be humanitarian. (At least for starving children that is) even if the impetus for our actions was non-humanitarian.

I'm not opposed to acting out of humanitarian concerns, but I think the ultimate end of our foreign policy should be national security. I usually have this discussion with bleeding-heart lefties, so it's something of a shock to hear this sort of earnestness from the right.

And I'll look for evidence you knew or cared from such time as the sanctions started, as opposed to when the politics started.

Does anyone disagree that Hussein was a bad man? No. The world is full of them. Robert Mugabe, for example, has been starving his own people for years. Unfortunately, there are real limits to our ability to effect social change in other parts of the world. The question is rarely, how bad are things, but, what can we do about them?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unfortunately, there are real limits to our ability to effect social change in other parts of the world. The question is rarely, how bad are things, but, what can we do about them?

I'm sort of convinced that the only real limit on our ability is the one imposed by our will, or lack of will.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wow. PBS is doing a Bush/Rove/Hughes hatchet job right now. And they're using my money to do it.

So much for my sympathy for Kerry with the new documentary.

Well, about 20% of it is your money. But I take your general point.

What was it? Charlie Rose went nuclear?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush did better once he got rid of the earpiece. I predict another draw.

I don't get this theory. Given that the CIA has been Bush's lapdog already (or Cheney's), couldn't they find a slightly less obvious receiver-pack? Or am I just believing too much of what I see on TV and the movies--I mean, telephones that fit in your pocket don't exist, do they?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, about 20% of it is your money. But I take your general point.

What was it? Charlie Rose went nuclear?

Frontline.

Followed by Nightline, which was a one-hour blow-out against drug companies, and the presidents they buy.

Man, I hope they play that Kerry docu five times before the election. As long as there's no shame one way, let's make it even.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Puhleeze, I've never said its not a matter of us each deciding when murder begins. Your crocodile tears for others don't weight my crocodile tears for others. I'm not a woman? You ain't a fetus.

To answer your question though, I personally don't have any problem all the way through morning after pills. But murder is when society says it is, not when a court says its okay for us to say when it is. So I'll take the position where the people in my state do.

Hello

I'd say those tears weigh about the same, so in a wash, you err on the side of leaving the options open - choice.

As to your second paragraph, sounds pretty arbitrary.

And you really don't want to know what society thinks about freedom of choice, because it will upset you. Right now, the polls are dominated by a vehement minority who actually gives a shit because they're fighting an uphill battle. Women will be quiet now while abortion is legal, but if it becomes an issue for the states and is thrown up to votes, you'll see women come out in droves for the pro-choice side. If the pro-lifers get the battle they're looking for, they're going to get killed. They're underestimating a much more sizable, but quiet opponent.

You know... I might be tempted to agree with you. Lets flip Roe and lets have it all be decided by statewaide referendum. But what will the pro-lifers do when they lose? Will they promise not to seek an amendment to the constitution or throw their own reverse version of "Roe" at the Court? I doubt that.