home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 11:34:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For those of you who have more to say....

(Note to new commenters, please read the comments policy. Name-calling, profanity and personal attacks on other commenters isn't allowed. Nor is reprinting the full text of news articles. Links must be in html format or they skew the site. Instructions are in the comment box.)

< American Muslims Urged to Answer Critics | Advance Copy of Senate Dems' Press Release on Katrina >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    Squeaky, yes, asterisks are allowed but name calling is not.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    Government Computer News The August 29th issue of Government Computer News (the day Katrina hit) was devoted to the Department of Homeland Security. The cover story, titled Double Duty, recounted the agency's struggle with "dueling, sometimes conflicting tasks" of dealing with security and citizens services such as disaster-relief. Highlights from this fascinating 20-page piece include: - Michael Chertoff's plan to reorganize the agency by October 2005: "The reorganization itself is a tacit admission that DHS as it is presently constituted has not achieved its goals of aligning federal resources most effectively to confront terror and provide services." - Communication: "there were things that happened from the get-go that people forget. One was that the [DHS] IT budget was reduced by more than $300 million in the first year" DHS Chief Technology Officer Lee Holcomb. As well, under the department's goal to create a system to share information among government agencies and the private sector, GCN gave the agency a grade of Not Achieved, stating, "DHS' information-sharing capabilities have been limited to a circumscribed "circle-of-trust" that excludes companies and the public." - Again, under the agency's goal to "Improve public safety and public health communications", GCN states that not much has been achieved: "The poster child technology problem of the terrorism response field - incompatible first-responder radios - remains years from resolution" - Under the DHS, FEMA's agenda was changed from disaster recovery to emergency preparedness. One of Chertoff's initial actions was proposing that FEMA be returned to it's original mission. The article also includes a comprehensive analysis of DHS IT projects (far too detailed to discuss here) including Emerge2, the FBI's troubled Case Management System, Rescue 21 (upgrade of the National Distress System), and the Integrated Wireless Network.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    Thanks for the reminder. I am sympathetic to and understand your reasoning for not allowing profanity here even though the rule does raise my hackles a bit. Abbreviated substitutes for profanity seem to be condoned though. Is it true that f*** ing a$$es, for example, does not either trip off censor software in the conservative community, or imperil your relationship with your server?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    I gave a donation to the Salvation Army for the human victims of Katrina--then I saw all the animal companions that were left behind, and I made a donation to help them too. Don't forget those four legged folks that are also suffering.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    TL-Got it. Thanks for the clarification, and sorry, I think I may have slipped a few times. I will take your rule to heart in my future comments.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    Never seen this policy enforced before... does it include things like
    Little Green F*ks, racists all, have spread FILTH for years...It's all lies all the time with the 'grad student' troll.
    - 9/4/2005 "Paul in LA" or
    Lighten up, douche bag.
    - 8/6/05 "Ernesto Del Mundo" Or does the policy not apply for namecalling directed at conservatives (aka Rethugs, Nazis, Racists) and/or christians (commonly referred to here as "Christofascists")? I'm asking a genuine question here. If the policy has merely been neglected until now then I applaud the change, otherwise it rises to new heights of hypocrisy.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    The policy is strictly enforced against both sides. But I can't read every comment and people need to let me know by e-mail if I've missed one. The two you just referenced are both going to be deleted.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    Grad- Speaking of "heights of hypocrisy'' Ed Meese would be proud of you for keeping it clean here. I believe that there is a distinction between name calling and naming a thing that is. For instance calling a person who claims to be christian but believes forcing others (not christians) to adhere to their beliefs or be executed as was recently exemplified by Pat Robertson should be called "Christofascists". If you do not get it by that example we could continue to discuss the various distinctions between naming and name calling.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    Squeaky - as I understand it the profanity policy is to enable TL to be 'safe for work'. The others are for civility. I agree there can be a fine line in name calling and labeling. grad - soccerdad, a frequent and long time liberal commenter, was just banned for name calling. The policy is as constant as one person (the owner) can make it. Personally, I hope you are offended by this policy and refuse to ever visit again.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    Fair 'nuff Ms. Merritt. I applaud the policy. Sailor - sorry dude, as a conservative I prefer to eschew that stuff in favor of reasoned argument, so I'm not likely to get offended by this rule.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    What if soccerdad says he's sorry? I miss him.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    grad-since when have you engaged in "reasoned argument"?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    May we take a moment for a group puke? Barbara Bush: “So Many Of The People In The Arena... Were Underprivileged Anyway, So This Is Working Very Well For Them”...

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    I hope this helps lift a few spirits. I went down to the shelter to offer aid and the RC volunteer said that Perez had given them all debit cards and sent them in buses out shopping. They were closing this particular shelter (a local HS) because they had already found homes for all of them. California has room. Send more here. Thank You David Perez

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    Che, thanks for the uplift. Guitar, I know you saw the full quote: "What I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them." The fu**ing apple didn't fall so far from that ... uhh ... tree.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    My personal take; Hey, we rescued you from Africa, what the hell is your problem!?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    BTW, grad, what exactly have you matriculated from ... or to?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    - transferred from the Dershowitz-Rehnquist thread - PW - this may surprise you, but there are actually reasonable people who think genocide is ok. During the '30s many ordinary Germans knew that genocide was ongoing, but they tolerated it on the basis that Jews were somehow 'subhuman'. During the 19th century in the southern US blacks and native Americans were considered 'subhuman', and so whites who murdered them were often not prosecuted. This was supported by many ordinary Americans. Today (just one example), there are Israelis who believe that it's ok to slaughter Palestinians because they are 'subhuman'. I have met and debated members of the first and third categories - they are often reasonable people with wrong ideas. The fact is that during a genocide, the victims are always considered inferior and their slaughter is justified on this basis. People during a genocide claim that the issue is one of 'choice' (e.g. Germany claimed that it was their 'choice' to 'cleanse' their population if they saw fit, and no other country had the right to interfere). Abortion IS a genocide. It is the murder of unwanted children prior to birth. It is genocide on the basis of age and 'desirability', a societal classification. Yes, there are nuances as to when the unborn are definitively human, but once it is admitted that they are at some point human (generally undisputed at for at least the last months of pregnancy) then the debate shifts to whether the child should be protected by law or allowed to be killed with impunity. GAP is not a trivial comparison to something shocking in order to garner attention. It makes a legitimate comparison between once-popular genocides and the currently-popular genocide. You may not agree with me concerning abortion, but hopefully you now see the reasonable basis for the comparison. Also, speaking as one who has participated in GAP on campus (standing in front of a photo politely answering questions, not 'screaming' or illegally blocking traffic, things I have never seen in a decade of pro-life activism), I can assure you that reasonable debate with our opponents is possible and even frequent (although I have also faced abuse and vandalism, and in one case violence from some of our opponents). Nice people sometimes do support horrible things. Our challenge is to confront them with that horror.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    gs-this is an unhuman comment, I can see why you were aborted from the Rehnquist thread, and why you worry about the "the whim" of any who are humane.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    “this may surprise you, but there are actually reasonable people who think genocide is ok.”
    No, reasonable people do no think genocide is OK.
    “During the 19th century in the southern US blacks and native Americans were considered 'subhuman', and so whites who murdered them were often not prosecuted.”
    Those folks were mistaken; I think we would all like to believe that if we lived then we would have the insight and courage to fight the prevailing prejudice of the time.
    “I have met and debated members of the first and third categories - they are often reasonable people with wrong ideas.”
    You might say that reasonable folks are those that can effectively reason, fair enough. When I say reasonable I’m also talking about the quality a person's judgment. Folks who promote genocide are extreme and in my estimation lack sound judgment.
    “Abortion IS a genocide.”
    It is ironic that you would use such a liberal definition of genocide following such a strict one for who is reasonable. Genocide is the systematic destruction of an entire ethnic or social group. Abortion is not systematic, or by design limited to a given ethnic or social group. I suppose you might want to define a social group that includes fetuses. But what’s the motivation for trying to redefine or broaden the definition of genocide? As I said before; to lend credibility to one side of a contentious issue through association with something most everyone agrees on.
    “I can assure you that reasonable debate with our opponents is possible and even frequent”
    Fine, but I have had the misfortune to work in a building directly adjacent to a GAP demonstration. When I go to work, or leave for my lunch or dinner, I don’t want to see extremely large pictures of the aftermath of surgeries (or lynching for that matter). But for GAP there is no good faith debate about when a fetus is a person. A picture of an eight-week-old embryo dismantled on a quarter next to one of the lynching of a black man is hardly a good faith debate. It is a rhetorical slight of hand, it is dishonest, and I find it disgusting.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    Obviously those who supported past genocides were mistaken and exhibited poor judgement, but would you really call the majority of southern 19th century Americans or 1930's Germans 'unreasonable'?
    I think we would all like to believe that if we lived then we would have the insight and courage to fight the prevailing prejudice of the time.
    I'd like to think that too, but judging from our record today I think the opposite would be true. The majority of people tend to assume that if it's socially acceptable, it can't be that horrible. (you make that assumption yourself despite historical examples to the contrary)
    It is ironic that you would use such a liberal definition of genocide following such a strict one for who is reasonable.
    Actually my definition of 'reasonable' is broader than yours, since I include ordinary people who have terribly wrong ideas. My definition of genocide is exactly the same as yours (and Websters). If you admit that the unborn are children (which I suspect you do at least for the last months of pregnancy) then abortion is the extermination of unwanted unborn children (a social group). That's genocide by our common definition. At least 950 such late-term abortions occur in the US each year. If, like me, you believe all unborn are children then the number is 1.29 million in the US each year. Either way it's genocide.
    I don’t want to see extremely large pictures of the aftermath of surgeries ...it is dishonest, and I find it disgusting.
    It is disgusting, and you may not want to see it, but that doesn't make it an unfair comparison. It is not dishonest: it meets the definition of genocide as argued above. The Germans only came to see the horror of their genocide when they were shown pictures of the mass graves - until then they avoided the debate as an infringement on 'national choice'. Our situation is eerily similar. Most people don't like this suggestion, but unless someone makes it how will we ever see the misdeeds of our time? Ask yourself: why do you hate these displays so much? Would you really be so disgusted by a picture of an appendectomy? Or is it perhaps the fact that the body parts you see look remarkably like pieces of a baby? To Squeaky: are all posts with which you disagree 'inhuman', or merely those posted by diabolical characters like myself? Defend your accusation.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    gs-you are the only inhuman one that comes to mind here, and in order to be diabolical you would need to have some brains, so I hardly agree with your own characterization of yourself. Why is it that 90+% of the people who want to take away a woman's right to control her own body are men? Ever notice that the genocidal fantasies you have likened women to are men as well. Are you forgetting the torture, death wreaked on the world during the Crusades and Inquisition? Since women who choose to abort their fetuses are like genocidal murderers I guess your plan would be to tie them up on a crucifix, force them to bear a child, then start the appropriate inquisition and torture to make her confess so she can be saved before you put her to her death for her crime. Isn't that a good plan for a genocidal maniac? Oh, and let's see... what to do with the child? You can put it in a christian cult monastery for brainwash in order to develop your Crusader Zombie Army. They can rid the world of all those evil heathen fetus murderers. You and your sexist troops should spend your time protecting fully developed humans in need, instead of those unborn. Any task that would require real kindness and compassion is sadly, not part of your programed existence. It is inhuman to use women as mere incubators for your hoped for super race of christofascist crusaders. Likening women who choose to terminate their pregnancy to genocidal maniac, mass murderers and lynch-mobs, is fortunately not reasonable to most people. Thank God you are not running things, you would be worse than any fascist I can imagine, absolutely inhuman.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Squeaky,
    gs-you are the only inhuman one that comes to mind here, and in order to be diabolical you would need to have some brains
    Yes, I'm one of those remarkable individuals capable of faking brain activity without actually having any.
    Why is it that 90+% of the people who want to take away a woman's right to control her own body are men?
    Actually that's false. The majority of abortion supporters are men. See this CBS poll for reference.
    I guess your plan would be to tie them up on a crucifix...
    As someone who regularly donates to organizations like Project Rachel that help women recover from abortions and the attendant trauma, I resent this series of accusations. Women and children are the victims here. Women need to be offered support during the pregnancy and then help with either child-rearing or adoption as they prefer. Having them kill the child so the father won't have to pay child support is not a solution (except for the father...why do you think the majority of abortion supporters are men?) The rest of your post doesn't bear answering, since (1) you don't know my gender, (2) I don't advocate capital punishment, (3) I do spend significant time and money helping women (pre and post abortion) in need, as well as their unborn children (pre abortion as well as those who occasionally survive), and (4) The issue is whether abortion is genocide. Note well, women who have had abortions are not 'genocidal maniacs' (your words). They are victims, having been told that an abortion is no more significant than a tooth removal. They deserve our support, as do women who are faced with an unexpected pregnancy. We can do a lot better than slaughtering their children.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    wow, soccerdad was banned? Can someone link me to the thread?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    “The majority of people tend to assume that if it's socially acceptable, it can't be that horrible. (you make that assumption yourself despite historical examples to the contrary)”
    I didn’t make that assumption. I often find what I consider acceptable or unacceptable at odds with the norm.
    “Actually my definition of 'reasonable' is broader than yours, since I include ordinary people who have terribly wrong ideas.”
    Fine; I assumed you called these folks reasonable, as they were capable of reason. So, it’s not entirely clear what you think reasonable means; although I don’t think it really matters.
    “If you admit that the unborn are children … then abortion is the extermination of unwanted unborn children (a social group). … It is not dishonest: it meets the definition of genocide as argued above.”
    You see, there’s your problem. I don’t think the eight-week-old embryo that GAP would display next to a picture of a lynching is a child; I was being careful when I referred to it as the aftermath of a surgery. But we never get there; GAP pulls the rhetorical slight of hand by displaying tissue waste from a surgery next to a lynching, you know, to insinuate that if you have a problem with lynching you should have a problem with the abortion. Or equally, if you don’t have a problem with the abortion, you don’t have one with the lynching. That’s what makes me uncomfortable and angry, not the pictures of bloody tissue; that just makes me sick. And no, don’t care that the features are remarkably well formed. That doesn’t convey humanity any more than those infants born anencephalic; a living tissue culture. But why confuse the issue? If abortion is clearly wrong and can be argued on its own merits, why make the issue more complex by trying to draw the parallels? Simple; abortion is nuanced (as you have admitted) where genocide is not. GAP tries to exploit the parallels to remove the ambiguity and complexity from the abortion debate.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    You see, there’s your problem. I don’t think the eight-week-old embryo that GAP would display next to a picture of a lynching is a child
    Leaving aside the fact that this position is itself problematic, you have dodged the core of the argument. At least 950 late-term abortions occur, quite legally, in the US every year. You agree these are children, yes? Therefore this bears comparison to genocide. You may disagree on exactly when the unborn becomes a child, but this doesn't address the argument since late-term abortions are unrestricted in 14 states. GAP usually shows at least one photo of a the dismembered body of a 21+ week old aborted baby. You might disagree with the other cases, but that merely changes the number of agreed-upon dead. Since there are at least 950 killings, each year, of unborn children (and I think we both agree these late-term unborn are definitely children), how is this not genocide?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    gs-You are so full of sh*t. Your fake humanity about the suffering women who get abortions is disingenuous at best. If the Mass murderers are the doctors who perform abortions then the women who get them are like assassins, by your logic. You are like a nazi in that you think you are superior and getting some big word from god. Think again you are an embarrassment to the human race and inhumane. It is more convenient for you to empathize with a fantasy child (unborn) than a woman who needs to terminate her pregnancy. Hypocrite of the worst kind, disgusting.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    A simple question: How many of those 950 late-term abortions are to protect the health -- or life -- of the pregnant woman? Also, for example, I know a woman who had an abortion in the fourth (or fifth) month of her pregnancy, because tests had shown that her fetus had such a big hole in its heart, it would die soon after birth. Well?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Squeaky - apparently it is ok for you to compare me to a Nazi, but not ok for me to compare abortion to genocide. I see. (as a side note, you're also breaking site policy by name-calling...although I suspect this is easily tolerated for someone arguing your side of this debate) Web - Since there is no law or record concerning the reason for late-term abortions in those 14 states, the question is irrelevant (and unanswerable). Those children can be killed for any reason or no reason at all. They can be killed, as one case I know of, because their birth will interfere with a vacation to Hawaii. They have no legal rights. This is the hallmark of genocide. Concerning the 'going to die anyway argument', I have a friend whose 5-year-old child was diagnosed with leukemia and given 6 months to live. Should they just kill him right away? Clearly no. Therefore why treat a younger child any differently?

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    gs-Your enmity against all women is indefensible. They are the assassins or the ones who hire the assassins in your genocide analogy. You would rather have them be your holy vessels, and if they collude in your onholy murder than what, hoist them up un the cross and make them pay. Your christian hypocracy stinks, window dressing to hide a tremendous hostility. It is tha sort of thing I have seen with some PETA activists. they also have contempt for humans while caring for those you will not talks back to them. Before you go on thinking you are special at TL, I said that you were like a Nazi which is quite different from calling you a Nazi.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    “Leaving aside the fact that this position is itself problematic, you have dodged the core of the argument.”
    No, that is the core of the argument. Any position is problematic and deserves a thorough debate. GAP tries avoid this by drawing credibility for their side of a nuanced and contentious issue by comparison with something clearly wrong. We know GAP doesn’t exist to highlight the atrocities of genocide, but rather to make the comparison. Every sign in their display makes some comparison; abortion and genocide, abortion and animal cruelty, abortion and euthanasia, abortion and youth violence. It’s transparent.
    “GAP usually shows at least one photo of a the dismembered body of a 21+ week old aborted baby.”
    But the vast majority of the signs show embryos and fetuses less than a dozen weeks old; one clearly making the point that they view all stages of development, even a newly fertilized egg, as a living person. Why obfuscate the issue with these extraneous comparisons if the point will stand on its own? You know, this is the same reason I avoided all the war protests in my town, or the protests when President Bush made his appearance here. I would invariably be associating myself with a mass of people protesting ‘globalization’ and ‘corporatism’, or even crap as irrelevant as genetically modified foods or waning unions. I would be surprised if GAP converted more folks than they alienated.

    Re: Monday Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:28 PM EST
    PW, (1) If, as I believe, all the unborn are human beings then all GAP comparison posters are legitimate. Since that belief is not unreasonable (note: by this I mean that it may still be incorrect, but reasonable people like myself can and do hold it), the comparison is also not unreasonable. You should try talking to some of the GAP people next time you pass by and see for yourself if they're wild-eyed crazies or ordinary people. (2) Even assuming some unborn are not human beings, late-term babies certainly are and therefore late-term abortions are still genocide...so the comparison is correct in at least some cases (and not unreasonable in the rest). You're a smart guy and you've refused to address point (2), so I suspect we agree on it (although I'm surprised and disappointed that you didn't honestly admit this). So for my part I'll leave the debate here.

    Monday Open Thread | 32 comments (32 topical)