New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1476 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 11:02:32
That's right, every German and Japanese soldier we captured in WWII was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers according to this intepretation.
Nah.
Soldiers of nation states at war have a clear legal status. If the nation state system established at Westphalia starts to unravel, we lawyers have work to do. Fair enough.
al Qaeda does create new problems in the context of the Geneva Convention versus the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Problems we are plenty powerful enough to address in an open and transparent manner.
#1477 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 10:27:11
I would place the politcal theory earlier... the Declaration of Independance. While not a governing document per se, but taken in context with the Bill of Rights and the enite Constution, the fundamental inalienable right would be the individual right to defy the dictates of the State when it no longer represents the consent of the governed. First Amendment are mearly a means to that end-determining if it does represent the consent of the populace.
You don't need a gun to defy the State.
I think I said that. 
As evidence, note that at Gettysburg, Lincoln talked about fourscore and seven, which counts out to 1776 not 1787.
Lincoln was too astute to do that by accident.
The Constitution of 1787 created NO rights, it merely seeks to better preserve the pre-existing inalienable rights discovered (not created) by Jefferson.
By saying the Gitmo detainees have no rights, the Right blasphemes the original source of American legitimacy.
#1478 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 10:17:05
Sure we have to trust that when they do something it's in the interests of us all, but at the same time they need to know there will be consequences if that is abused. We already have the two greatest checks and balances we could hope for in that regard in the form of the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.
I agree with this as political theory, if we read the Second Amendment as being intended to give citizens genuine power to resist governmental domination. (But as a practical matter, few citizens could acquire the firepower or skills needed to resist a modern SWAT team, so I choose the alternate route of not owning any gun at all.)
And, since the Constitution was enacted to better protect the inalienable (pre-existing) rights asserted by Jefferson on July 4, 1776 these rights do not arise from the document itself (as asserted by Scalia, et. al.) but arise from a place beyond humanity and therefore are the birthright of every human on the planet, and eventually off the planet.
= = =
PS - - This second point is why I go ballistic when Ashcroft says the scum at Gitmo ain't got no rights! By saying that, he is undermining the legitimate foundation of MY rights.
Edited By BWhite on 1107361345
#1479 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 10:04:04
As for gun control, I say "Uncle" as have most Democrats.
Frankly, encryption technologies are more important, today. And more in keeping with the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Once real shooting starts, our modern information age society would already be FUBAR-ed.
I'll let you have your rifle if we put the DMCA and strong crypto restrictions in the circular file.
= = =
But that would undermine American hegemony, no?
Edited By BWhite on 1107361418
#1480 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 09:48:23
Scapegoats are the Right's source of energy.
"McCarthyism" is inevitable because the Left and Right use each other as scapegoats.
You are not yet ready for the grey shirt.
As far as the organized political parties go, absolutely true.
Neither the Right ™ nor the Left ™ truly want Roe v Wade overturned because that would interfere with fundraising. :;):
= = =
The question is can we Americans have a genuine dialouge on the real questions - - such as "does society have the right to enact policies which shape the bell curve that describes income and wealth distribution."
IMHO, the current Right is actively seeking a "U" curve using laws and federal policy to concentrate 99.5% of the wealth in the hands of the top 0.5%.
A Marxian diagnosis to be sure however as we have discussed before I most forcefully reject a purely Marxian solution, as I believe that ending mercantilism (where the hand of Washington washes the hand of corporate donors) will go a long way towards correcting this problem.
= = =
PS - - The War on Terror ™ while genuine and serious is also being used by the Right ™ as a ploy and smokecreen to distract the American people from an unprecedented stripping of their basic rights and a government sanctioned reverse-Robin Hood transfer of wealth from the middle class to the upper uber-elites.
= = =
PPS - Bashing the new elites (rock musicians and lousy quarterbacks being paid millions per year) is another great smokescreen for hiding the billions flowing into the coffers of the uber-elites.
Edited By BWhite on 1107359750
#1481 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 09:10:34
David Brock nailed it, IMHO:
Newt [Gingrich] understood that conservatism thrives only when it has an enemy, and in the Cold War's wake, Newt declared war again, this time on the domestic enemy, the Democratic Party and the "corrupt liberal welfare state" it supported. Newt's analogy of American liberalism to world Communism made it possible for us to continue to divide the world into white hats and black hats, to channel our fears in a new direction. No longer would the Democrats simply be opposed; they would be destroyed.
Take away their scapegoats:
Muslims, the United Nations, liberals, gays, SpongeBob, and they are powerless.
Scapegoats are the Right's source of energy.
Therefore McCarthyism is inevitable.
= = =
And this why the old sci-fi plot of inventing a fake alien invasion fleet is so appealing. Lets hate some "Other" out there and if the "Other" is fiction, so much the better.
Edited By BWhite on 1107357571
#1482 Re: Not So Free Chat » McCarthyism - ...will it rise again? » 2005-02-02 09:07:04
Retinal scan database. Yup, that would solve everything.
Oh yeah, and every citizen gets a wi-fi chip sewn into their shoulder. That would be good for Intel and AMD, no?
= = =
By the way, the police already can gain access to the tollway authority records for those prepaid wi-fi tollway boxes and track where you drive. Go the next step and require Detroit to embed wi-fi chips in every automobile.
Then, we will be safe!
#1483 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Super Sail to Mars - Boiling paint with microwaves » 2005-02-01 21:51:10
Problems with it:
-You need a giant super powerd microwave beam generator on Earth
-It only goes one way, away from Earth
-Crackpots are always fond of claiming "one month to Mars!" for their pet theory... one month to Mars with how much payload?
Orbit a nuclear reactor. Attach a microwave generator.
By the way, Landis and Benford are not usually deemed crackpots - - at least not the cold fusion flavor.
= = =
One way? Who cares? Its a great way to deliver cargo.
Edited By BWhite on 1107316326
#1485 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-02-01 12:04:21
Bill, you're too funny!
Personally, I'd prefer if we used the UN for our own purposes. They all come to New York, we let 'em think they're in charge while planting suggestions on what to do and pitting the troublesome members against each other and if they get too out of line we stop paying our substantial share of it.
This is of course, exactly what we do. :laugh:
Except Bush plays that game poorly.
He'd rather re-write Casablanca to cast John Wayne or Gary Cooper (strong man faces down evil) rather than Humphrey Bogart.
Moral nuance? Nah, can't have any of that!
#1486 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-02-01 11:56:30
Again, this post is not about what the UN deserves - - its more about whether this yet another bridge too far.
We don't have to smash it, just stop carrying on like the UN is the bastion for all that is good and just in the world.
Personally, I'd prefer if we used the UN for our own purposes. They all come to New York, we let 'em think they're in charge while planting suggestions on what to do and pitting the troublesome members against each other and if they get too out of line we stop paying our substantial share of it.
Not a bad plan. :;):
Public bashing of the UN undermines our ability to accomplish it, however. Remember that a good diplomat can say "Go to Hell!" and the listener thanks him for his concern and constructive suggestions.
An essay I posted earlier suggests that "the world" may now be undertaking a policy of containment directed against US power analogous to what we directed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If that is true, it is in our interest to minimize and not inflame "us vs them" sentiments.
Unless we believe we hold "Risk cards" sufficient to "run the table" and impose global hegemony.
= = =
The UN is corrupt, you say? Well, d'oh!
Gambling, in Casablanca? I'm shocked. Shocked! :;):
Edited By BWhite on 1107280940
#1487 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-02-01 11:29:02
Do we need any more reminders that the UN is useless as an agent of any sort of international law or moral authority? Can we please stop pretending that this socialists and dictators club is a valid entity to determine when to act, or as is most often the case when not to? What does it take?
Heh!
This of course has been the true Bush agenda all along.
But, whether or not dumping the UN is a good idea, do we (the US) have the firepower to accomplish that objective. IMHO, this can too readily morph into the USA (with Australian and divided UK support) versus the entire world.
Kinda like re-fighting WW2 except Russia and China are on Germany's side this time (and Japan is neutral).
Again, this post is not about what the UN deserves - - its more about whether this yet another bridge too far.
Edited By BWhite on 1107279036
#1488 Re: Not So Free Chat » Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not? » 2005-01-31 13:55:02
Significant emigration is the only source of sufficient demand to spur the development of truly low cost Earth to LEO launchers.
IMHO, as always. . .
#1489 Re: Not So Free Chat » Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not? » 2005-01-31 11:30:06
Falcon V?
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … t=0]Russia still leads the world, by far.
Falcon V may be less expensive than Delta IV but can it undercut the Soyuz 2 lifted Kliper.
And this:
Russia's engine manufacturers consider the development of nuclear rocket engines as one of the promising areas of their work. Interest in them has re-emerged due to plans to send a manned expedition to Mars. The project will most likely involve international cooperation, as was seen during the development, construction and servicing of the International Space Station. The contribution of Russian scientists to sending a manned expedition to Mars may be significant in all aspects, including in the development of nuclear propulsion systems.
If any of those nasty anti-nuke folks show up, Putin will just "lock 'em up!"
Edited By BWhite on 1107192768
#1490 Re: Not So Free Chat » I love Michigan! - Quit smoking or get fired! » 2005-01-31 11:24:21
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … 86850]Link
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight.
A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.
The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.
One way to lower health insurance costs. :;):
If we stopped smoking and overeating, etc. . .
I suppose we really could lower health care costs without spending billions and trillions of dollars.
[Wild discussion encouraged]
#1491 Re: Not So Free Chat » Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not? » 2005-01-31 11:14:52
Why settle on a piece of cake when you could have it all?
Right now, I am working on the details of sending methane from Mars to Luna.
=IF= there is no readily available lunar ice; and
=IF= Mars has methane clathrates, as Oliver Morton thinks possible
Marsian methane would be very useful when combusted with lunar oxygen. (Luna lacks hydrogen and carbon. Burning methane - - CH4 - - produces H20 + CO2 + energy)
As Rick Tumlinson said: "Moon-Mars" is one word, not two.
Besides, if the Dutch aution is the case, VSE isn't important other than to increase technology base and reduce risk to allow some other group to take the reigns.
Ah, but that is the question. Does the VSE do that?
Unless CEV costs less to LEO than Soyuz or Clipper it's a sidetrack, not the main line.
Edited By BWhite on 1107191821
#1492 Re: Not So Free Chat » Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not? » 2005-01-31 10:28:30
Sure, one failure doesn't negate the possibility of success. Mars is more hospitable given our present capabilities than any of the other options, yet that doesn't mandate that it be first. But it seems sensible in the context of becoming spacefaring.
You might be right, but your concerns might prove to be much ado about nothing.
Are there any better "first locations" than Mars? Where?
Mars would be a steppingstone to giant O'Neillian habitats maybe even Niven's ringworlds or Dyson spheres.
= = =
Humanity is not united on these questions (and many other questions!)
Therefore, I see it rather like a Dutch-style auction.
As technology improves, the "cost" and "risk" of settling Mars will decline over time until one day some group goes ahead and tries it. Maybe they thrive and maybe they fail.
Then someone else tries. The question is "when" and people need not agree. I strongly oppose spanking, but not to the point that its criminalized in every context.
The "mothering" instinct is strong. Few women will agree to bear children on Mars unless they believe they can offer their children a worthwhile life. I propose that "society" defer to that judgment, with all of us retaining the right to fully and freely offer our opinions.
= = =
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/312/1]New article on the question of whether we truly can have a coherent space program until we face the "two planet" question. Or the "spacefaring" question if you prefer O'Neillian floating habs.
The VSE's call to "explore" is marvelously ambiguous on this point, allowing the Administration to show different faces to different people.
LOL! Imagine that!
But clark is right, this does fit in Scott Beach's spanking thread at least to some degree.
#1493 Re: Not So Free Chat » Corporal Punishment on Mars - Should it be Permitted or Not? » 2005-01-30 22:41:58
clark's question deserves a thread of its own, for it is an excellent question.
Should humanity become spacefaring, using my working definition that "spacefaring" is defined as a species being able to safely and routinely bear children at multiple celestial locations.
(If ever asked to write a dictionary definition of spacefaring, I would probably focus on the ability of a woman to bear children (safely and routinely) on a celestial location other than the planet of her own birth. Okay, its mammal-centric, but its only a draft!)
= = =
Frankly, I could fashion a colorable argument either way. Raising children on Mars would be a nightmare.
That said, I am firmly convinced that Mars easily is the second safest place to raise children, after the Earth. How distant a second? Good question, but far, far ahead of any possible third choice.
= = =
On January 1, 2004, William Langeweische wrote a column for Atlantic Monthly. He grasped this exact point perfectly, IMHO.
Every honest and legitimate debate we have about space policy will eventually come back to this question:
Should humanity become a two planet species?
In the long run, that answer affects EVERYTHING ELSE we choose to do in space.
= = =
And yes, I agree that raising children on Mars might constitute child abuse. But it might also be a better life than what is suffered by children in Rio de Janiero, today.
I also believe families on Mars will be very close and parents and children will spend far more time together than is common in 21st century America.
= = =
But, clark, who in the end gets to decide - - can the majority deny a minority the right to go to Mars and attempt to raise children?
Edited By BWhite on 1107146577
#1494 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here. » 2005-01-30 22:27:20
But I agree that an all-government funded HLLV is not the way to go. I don't have a problem with an SDV as long as NASA finds some way to get private funding for it.
Private funding needs a viable business model.
No profit? No private funding.
Got any ideas? ???
#1495 Re: Not So Free Chat » A book I intend to read - And its free! » 2005-01-27 22:40:38
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html]It Can't Happen Here
One review:
In 1935, Sinclair Lewis penned the cautionary tale, It Can’t Happen Here, chronicling the fictional rise of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, who becomes President against the protests of Franklin D. Roosevelt and America’s saner citizens.
A charismatic Senator who claims to champion the common man, Windrip is in the pocket of big business (i.e. Corpos), is favored by religious extremists, and though he talks of freedom and prosperity for all, he eventually becomes the ultimate crony capitalist. Boosted by Hearst newspapers (the FOX News of its day), he neuters both Congress and the Supreme Court, before stripping people of their liberties and installing a fascist dictatorship.
More to come as I start reading. . .
#1496 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-01-27 11:35:44
I am leaving the building. . .
Real life will predominate probably until Monday. Carry on without me.
:band:
#1497 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-01-27 11:26:24
Cindy, what's with this preoccupation with proof?
If Poland's President says he was "misled" that is bad for us whether or not it's true.
If Canadians are screaming "http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050124204930592]We are being bullied!" the US has a failure of diplomacy on its hands whether or not Bush actually bullied anyone.
We are losing the global PsyOps war, big time.
Yet the neo-cons think our JDAMS and B-2s and F-15s are more than enough to offset that growing defeat.
Middle finger diplomacy. Its great for raising support amongst Texan voters but bad for the nation.
When a significant percentage of Canadians think we are bullies, it's time to get a makeover - - whether deserved or not.
#1498 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-01-27 10:57:10
Suppose you are riding on a bus, and you sincerely believe the driver is racing for a cliff, and when you speak up everyone else says "shut up!" and "trust the driver!"
then,
Is it fair to say you want to go off the cliff? ???
By the way, Michael Lind is a former neo-con "conservative"
*Of course not. And I'm not suggesting nor implying everyone shut up and trust the driver. I'm no great giver of trust when it comes to people in power, either.
However, your analogy could be used in reference to the media. Including media sources you trust. Right?
Cindy, lets forget about media and focus on facts. Who is helping us in Iraq? With men and money?
Australia has 920 soldiers committed. 920!
If the Iraq war was such a good idea why do so few other nations agree?
= = =
Look at the global alliances being formed. Which nations are we closer to than we were in 2000?
Britain goes along with lifting the arms embargo on China.
China and India make historic breakthroughs in diplomacy.
Russia will fly Soyuz from Kouru! Imagine that in 1982. France and the Soviet Union do a deal!
Galileo simply is designed to counter US domination of space-war assets. The UK, EU, China and India are all partners. In the first true "space war" it will be the US versus everyone else!
None of these facts need to be spun.
= = =
Back to Lind's quote:
Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.
Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.
We even are bullying Canada!
D'oh!
Edited By BWhite on 1106846376
#1499 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-01-27 10:45:48
Cobra says the enemy is "fundi" Islamicists.
Fair enough, I agree. So why did we push 5 million Sunni-Baath into the arms of bin Laden's recruiters?
Let's all forget this word “insurgency”. It's one of the most misleading words of all. Insurgency assumes that we had gone to Iraq and won the war and a group of disgruntled people began to operate against us and we then had to do counter-action against them. That would be an insurgency. We are fighting the people we started the war against. We are fighting the Ba'athists plus nationalists. We are fighting the very people that started -- they only choose to fight in different time spans than we want them to, in different places. We took Baghdad easily. It wasn't because be won. We took Baghdad because they pulled back and let us take it and decided to fight a war that had been pre-planned that they're very actively fighting.
In Iraq, we are fighting the remnants of Saddam's army. And there are lots of remnants, with weapons stockpiled everywhere.
= = =
Do the Iraqi people support us? Okay, let's ignore polling and media and ask this question.
How well do the Iraqis FIGHT for us? No polls or reporters needed.
If the Iraqi government can mobilize a motivated army filled with Iraqi recruits, then we can say the government has the support of the people.
If they cannot mobilize a motivated army, then public support of the government is weak.
#1500 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous » 2005-01-27 10:26:43
P.S.: Does Mr. Michael Lind of the Financial Times -WANT- America to fail (in an overall, generalized sense)? I think one of the major troubles in all this is masochistic groveling. America has done wrong at times and has made mistakes (who hasn't?), but it's imperative that we try to sort out what's a genuinely justified reaction on our part in response to aggression inflicted by others versus what unpleasant consequences we might face from our own actions. It seems to me most people aren't willing to sit calmly down, take a deep breath and differentiate between the two. There's just too much knee-jerk reactionary stuff going on, all around. :-\ America is neither entirely good nor entirely evil.
Good and evil are less important to me than the reckless imprudence of this Administration.
= = =
Suppose you are riding on a bus, and you sincerely believe the driver is racing for a cliff, and when you speak up everyone else says "shut up!" and "trust the driver!"
then,
Is it fair to say you want to go off the cliff? ???
By the way, Michael Lind is a former neo-con "conservative"
Another conservative, a member of the Reagan administration believes our current leadership is "cult like" in their refusal to face reality. Link to follow.
Edited By BWhite on 1106843298