14 Important Science Questions

by Joy

…for the Candidates to answer

Thought Provoker is a little ruffled that there's a non-science specific thread on the front page [Lying to Advance a Cause], so I thought I'd post something genuinely scientifical that some here might be interested in.

This is, right on time following the political minutiae of hammering platform planks into a sturdy stage and getting nomination formalities out of the way, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama's Answers to the Top 14 Science Questions as winnowed by ScienceDebate2008 and leading science organizations from more than 3400 questions submitted by more than 38,000 scientists, engineers and other concerned Americans.

When the formalities of the RNC in St. Paul next week are over, John McCain has said he will submit his answers to these same questions. These cover things like innovation, climate change, energy, education, national security, pandemics and biosecurity, genetics research, stem cells, ocean health, water, space, scientific integrity, research and health.

Obama's got some fine science advisors and the party's got a whole science wing, and they've done a great job with these questions. I'm sure Obama read and signed off on each policy statement. Observations and comments welcome…

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm and is filed under Culture Wars, History, Just For Fun, Science, The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/14-important-science-questions/trackback/

192 Responses to “14 Important Science Questions”

Thought Provoker Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Thank You Joy,

The ironic part of the backstage interplay, other listeners may not be aware of, is that our two political and religious outlooks are very similar.

I just got back from the county fair this evening. We go every year and I use the visit to take the political pulse of local politics by visiting the Democratic and Republican headquarters. This year I was pleasently suprised, almost shocked, at the transformation compared to last year. To look at things today our normally Red county is very Blue. The old Hillary supporters are embracing the unity message (many had "Hillary supporter for Obama" buttons). The Obama '08 buttons and stickers proudly worn vastly outnumbered the few McCain stickers I saw thoughout the fair. While it is still possible the republican faithful will turn out and vote the party line, but I suspect if they do they will be holding their collective noses in the process.

But that is pure politics. The topic of this thread is supposed to be more tilted towards science, science funding and science education.

Let me quote the following from that great link you provided. One of the questions posed to both Obama and McCain was…

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

Obama's answer is…

Scientific and technological information is of growing importance to a range of issues. I believe such information must be expert and uncolored by ideology.

I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America’s citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I have already established an impressive team of science advisors, including several Nobel Laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my administration.

In addition I will:

• Appoint individuals with strong science and technology backgrounds and unquestioned reputations for integrity and objectivity to the growing number of senior management positions where decisions must incorporate science and technology advice. These positions will be filled promptly with ethical, highly qualified individuals on a non-partisan basis;

• Establish the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will lead an interagency effort on best-in-class technologies, sharing of best practices, and safeguarding of our networks;

• Strengthen the role of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) by appointing experts who are charged to provide independent advice on critical issues of science and technology. The PCAST will once again be advisory to the president; and

• Restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision- making by issuing an Executive Order establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and not distorted by the ideological biases of political appointees. I will strengthen protection for “whistle blowers” who report abuses of these processes.

This is a positive, definative proposal. Sure it is a politician making the proposal but it is a good one. Especially compared to candidate Bush in 2000. He promised to kill the Kyoto treaty and institute Faith Based initiatives and "common sense" to the judicial system and science research. People paying attention knew what biased "common sense" Bush was talking about.

I will be interested to see McCain's version and how other TT contributers respond.

Comment by Thought Provoker — August 30, 2008 @ 11:42 pm

Joy Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
TP:

I will be interested to see McCain's version and how other TT contributers respond.

Hi, TP. I'm not at all confident that McCain CAN answer these questions satisfactorily, given his newfound loyalty to the Neocons and his very odd Veep choice. But I hope he will do as he has promised, which should give voters a completely clear, unequivocal and stark contrast between the science policy platforms.

But here's a guy who just learned about cell phones in the last few months and can't start a computer (much less "do a google"). I'm pretty sure that as we head into the second decade of the 21st century we're going to need leadership that has at least a passing grasp of technology and where it's taking us. He seems sometimes to have never really gotten out of that bamboo cage in 'Nam, is 'stuck' back in the 1960s. He could make up for this with excellent science advisors and such, but if he maintains the same head-in-the-sand policies of Bush-II by politicizing science and ignoring consensus scientific opinion, we're likely to find ourselves relegated to the Third World by the time the coming economic depression is over.

We need sound energy policy NOW, not 40 or 50 years from now (nukes, "drill, drill, drill" same old same). We need renewables developed, we need to invest billions in remaking the grid. Which is a 2-point failure away from total meltdown and wastes 30% or more of our generating capacity right out of the starting gate.

We need to convert the hundreds of CCC/Corps of Engineers lakes dammed back in the '30s to address the dust bowl into local/county sources of hydroelectric power. Whatever environmental damage was done with those was done 80 years ago – might as well put 'em to work.

We need big hydrothermal out west to power the west. We need to decentralize suburbs, rural communities and homesteads, get them off the grid and self-sufficient so big generation capacity can go to big cities and industry. We need to stop destroying the Appalachians with Mountaintop Removal coal mining, make those creeps actually install the scrubbers they grandfathered OUT 40 years ago (we DO have the technology) and we need alternative transportation fuels.

We simply cannot afford more of the same old same. This is as much a moral issue as anything else, given the "forever wars" McCain wants to carry forward – blood for oil. If we don't need it and don't buy it, they can go back to riding camels an fighting amongst themselves for petty fiefdoms. If they ever want to join the real world, we'll consider it.

So much needs doing. We can't go back to the '50s, we have to move on. That takes some real leadership and youthful (yes, I can say that) vigor. Put our own people back to work, develop our own energy and scientific resources, salvage whatever 'greatness' this nation has earned that hasn't already been squandered by Frat-Boy and Darth Cheney.

IMO. §;o)

Comment by Joy — August 31, 2008 @ 11:55 am

Thought Provoker Says:
August 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hi Joy,

Very nice and well written comment. However, I think your ending would have been better as…

IMHO. §;o)

Comment by Thought Provoker — August 31, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Strange, I didn’t see anything about the creation/evolution or ID /evolution controversy when I read through the above list. It is especially ironic because apparently Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in the public schools. Look at the following:

http://www.thelangreport.com/r...

Is this true? Does Palin really want creationism taught in the public schools? How far did she get with this agenda in Alaska?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 6, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Is this true? Does Palin really want creationism taught in the public schools? How far did she get with this agenda in Alaska?

from here

quote:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

end qoute:

She’s obviously a Fundamentalist religious zealot with a secret plan to force our precious little ones to handle snakes and scientists to sign a flat earth pledge in the blood of baby Iraqis.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 7, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

Joy Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
John A. Designer:

Is this true? Does Palin really want creationism taught in the public schools? How far did she get with this agenda in Alaska?

She's retreated from that a bit. Maybe the McCain campaign will allow her to be interviewed by the press at some point, and her present positions can be established.

AFAICT from the positions she articulated in the past, she appears to be a token stereotype of the religious right "base" – the wannabe theocrats. An appeal to the dominionist fringe with an unfortunate abundance of skeletons in her closet.

Obama did respond to questions about science education in particular and general education overall, in the ScienceDebate08 link. I thought they were pretty good. I expect McCain's answers will be general and positive, not confrontational on teaching creationism or ID. Palin will get with the program. That's what her tutors are drumming into her in that "undisclosed location" right now. §;o)

Comment by Joy — September 7, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Hey Joy,

she appears to be a token stereotype of the religious right "base" – the wannabe theocrats. An appeal to the dominionist fringe with an unfortunate abundance of skeletons in her closet.

Sounds like my kind of folks, forgiven sinners with an opinion

Seriously with all this talk about giving our kids more information about evolution and actually having a discussion about science it’s obvious this woman must be stopped. She’s scary.

Palin will get with the program.

I hope so,

If she is not reigned soon in at some point she might even sugest we are endowed by our "Creator" with rights. egad

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 7, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Joy wrote:

She's retreated from that a bit. Maybe the McCain campaign will allow her to be interviewed by the press at some point, and her present positions can be established.

USA Today published this last Friday Sept 5, 2008 in an editorial entitled “Convention afterthoughts:”

First impressions are often lasting impressions, even if they’re incomplete. Take, for example, Sarah Palin’s view on teaching evolution and creationism in public schools.

Many news stories and editorials, including on this page, summarized her position based on a comment she made in a 2006 debate, when she was running for governor of Alaska: “ I am a proponent of teaching both.”

End of story? Not exactly.

The same week, she clarified her stance, saying that creationism shouldn’t be mandated as part of the Alaska curriculum, but that there shouldn’t be any prohibition on discussing it if it comes up in class.

Palin, whose father was once a public school science teacher, got it right the second time, finding the sensible middle ground in a polarizing national debate.

Evolution, the foundation modern biology and backed by overwhelming scientific evidence, belongs in the school curriculum. Creationism (sometimes repackaged as “intelligent design”) is a matter of that can’t be tested, and therefore shouldn’t be taught as science. The long-running evolution-creationism debate, however, historical fact that deserves to be aired in classrooms in Alaska or elsewhere.

Palin’s views on church-state issues merit further scrutiny, and she’s likely to come under pressure from the religious right to revert to her “teach both” stance. But for now, her approach is one others should emulate.

It sounds to me like USA Today is grudgingly admitting that their initial reporting was somewhat one sided. However, shouldn’t professional journalists get all the facts right before they publish their story?

And why all the concern about the “religious right” but absolutely none about the “religious left?” From what I have been able to observe certain liberal denominations like the “United Church of Christ” violate church-state separation all the time and the news media gives them a complete pass. Why is that?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 7, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

Pez Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Hi John,
http://www.christian.org.uk/ne...

It’s important to remember that what appears in the newspapers is not an objective summary of the significant things that happened yesterday but an ideological selection based on the prejudices, agendas and assumptions of a relatively small group of people.

“Their ideology could be loosely defined as ‘progress will one day meet our needs.’ So as with other forms of thought that deviate from that ideological view, evangelical Christianity is either dismissed out of hand or reported in a manner that serves to reinforce the ideology!

===

However, shouldn’t professional journalists get all the facts right before they publish their story?

It shouldn't have been so hard in this case, since both the initial answer and its clarifying interview come from the same source. To find the one and not the other is difficult if not inexcusable.

Comment by Pez — September 7, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Joy wrote:

AFAICT from the positions she articulated in the past, she appears to be a token stereotype of the religious right "base" – the wannabe theocrats. An appeal to the dominionist fringe with an unfortunate abundance of skeletons in her closet.

Based on some of the news programs that I have been watching recently, it is hard for me to describe Palin as “wannabe theocrat.” For example, Greta Van Susteren tonight (9/9/08) interviewed Palin’s present pastor (Wasilla Bible Church) and former pastor (Assemblies of God) (BTW she left the Assemblies of God for some reason in 2002.) If anything her present church which, is a non-denominational community church, can be described as apolitical. The pastor said (I’m paraphrasing) that people are encouraged to check their political beliefs at the door. The church is a place that people of many different political beliefs should feel welcome. It is hard to start any kind of theocracy with an attitude like that.

What kind of creationist is she? If you look at the web site for the Assemblies of God you’ll see that they take a very literalistic (YEC) position with Genesis.
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/...

Does this mean that Palin is YEC in her personal beliefs? I haven’t been able to find any information one way or the other. She left the Assemblies of God for some reason. Was it because of doctrinal differences? So far no one seems to know the answer to that question. Perhaps Palin prefers to keep her religious beliefs private. (Good luck!)

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 9, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

Joy Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
John A. D.:

Does this mean that Palin is YEC in her personal beliefs? I haven’t been able to find any information one way or the other. She left the Assemblies of God for some reason.

I don't know, since John McCain is keeping his running-mate away from the press if they won't stick to the script. She has a scripted interview scheduled, so we'll get to hear what the script says about her church-state understandings soon. Remedial Civics 101.

2002 was the year her hubby left the AKIP (Alaskan Independence Party – secessionists) because she went into "mainstream" (for Alaska) politics. But she spoke at AKIP's 2000 and 2004 conventions, sent a video address this year… they're still friends. At some point a person with a triple-digit IQ would realize that if Alaska seceded from the union they couldn't get more than $10,000 per person in DC handouts and pork every year. She's a fast learner.

Hope keeping her religious beliefs private works better than abstinence-only sex education worked for her teenage daughter.

Comment by Joy — September 10, 2008 @ 9:52 am

interested bystander Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Joy it would seem that you are no fan of Sarah Palin/Republican ticket, which is completely fine. I would hope that everyone would examine the candidates well before they vote in November.
I hate the political season for the way it heats up so many discussions needlessly. I normally find your viewpoints refreshing but the comment about Palins daughter’s lack of sex education or “abstinence only” education is unsubstantiated.
Only the girl and her partner know the facts on that. I know a young woman who used plan B after a condom broke and still became pregnant. She is Catholic and chose to have the baby at that point. Was that a failure of the sex education in her state? You do not really know the circumstances so why would you speculate on that to take a cheap shot at her mom.

Comment by interested bystander — September 10, 2008 @ 11:41 am

Joy Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
interested bystander:

Joy it would seem that you are no fan of Sarah Palin/Republican ticket, which is completely fine. I would hope that everyone would examine the candidates well before they vote in November.

No, I'm no fan of the Republican way of doing The People's business. Nor am I enchanted by your basic tabloid welfare queens as Great American Heroes, just a matter of taste. And I'm surely no fan of the apocalyptic rapturite crowd's anxious desire to bring about the end of the world. But considering what the current Republican admin has done to the economy, we'll be way too poor to do much sand-kicking in the near future anyway. Figure I'll go into manufacturing mini-Conestoga goat/donkey powered pop-ups for the millions of families who will be homeless before the end of the year. Heck, just another $4,965,000 a year and I'll be officially Middle Class!

Of course that's pointy, satirical snark. Political idiocy has always triggered that in me, and merely judging from the screaming headlines at the checkout counter, this year's politics is even more idiotic than usual. Unfortunately, about half the people who vote are reliably dumb enough to vote against their own self-interest. The Great Dumbing of America (primarily accomplished via hypno-Boob-Tube) has worked beyond anybody's dreams.

She is Catholic and chose to have the baby at that point. Was that a failure of the sex education in her state? You do not really know the circumstances so why would you speculate on that to take a cheap shot at her mom.

For all I know Palin's 17-year old got pregnant so she could get the hell outta there. It's been known to happen, wish her the best. The hypocrisy is just kinda drippy on this (it was her MOTHER – not me – who announced her pregnancy to the world, after all), given Palin's announced position in favor of abstinence-only. Good for a satirical chuckle, if nothing else. Politics should always be served with an ample accompaniment of salt on the side.

In the meantime, we have the Obama campaign's answers to these 14 important science policy questions. Have you read through them? Have any comments about them? I'll be very interested in the McCain campaign's promised responses to the same questions. Should provide some clear platform contrasts to be discussed.

Comment by Joy — September 10, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

Rock Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The first VP-MILF?!

Kinda of a fundie-wacko though, isn’t she?

It might be interesting to see how this plays out. You’ve got Obama’s “God Damn America” guru on one side (definite appeal to the rive gauche) and the Neoconcompoops “Manifest Destiny-American Messianism” on the other. (Biden is obviously too bland to have any interesting beliefs, religious or otherwise—What is he, some sort of Unitarian-Universalist?)

Watched this last night on TV. (Confirms my opinion that TV is made by morons for morons. Obviously not an "intelligent design.")

http://www.democracynow.org/20...

http://www.talk2action.org/
http://www.talk2action.org/?op...

Comment by Rock — September 10, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

Joy Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Rock:

(Biden is obviously too bland to have any interesting beliefs, religious or otherwise—What is he, some sort of Unitarian-Universalist?)

Catholic, last I heard.

Watched this last night on TV. (Confirms my opinion that TV is made by morons for morons. Obviously not an "intelligent design.")

Television is made by Mormons? I just KNEW Mittens would weasel his way onto that ticket somehow… oh. Morons. Yeah. We stopped paying for the privilege of having our brains erased back when the kids were little. Do watch occasional movies from FlickVideo.

Comment by Joy — September 10, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

interested bystander Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Quoting Joy.

“In the meantime, we have the Obama campaign's answers to these 14 important science policy questions. Have you read through them? Have any comments about them? I'll be very interested in the McCain campaign's promised responses to the same questions. Should provide some clear platform contrasts to be discussed.”

Yes, it would be good to talk about Obama’s answers since McCain has not yet given his. I did read them and then today read them again. I am just an ordinary citizen and can only give my own humble thoughts in response. Obama answers well and includes many details. I commend him for being the first to respond also. I like his “Can Do” attitude about solving problems and his idealism about a better nation. He seems very likeable and knowledgeable, all plusses.

It is just that he seems to be promising the moon and it may be trite to say, but I am not hearing his plans for paying for it all. Increasing funding for basic research is mentioned throughout, that is great. That should make many scientists happy. The words “create” “increase” and “expand” are used many times in his answers. Increase research grants, expand access to higher education, increase NSF fellowships, broadband internet connections for all, create a technology transfer program, increase Fed investment in clean energy R & D by 150 B over 10 years, develop a smart grid, increase building efficiency, increase fuel economy, add an office of STEM Ed in Dept of Ed, add a comprehensive “zero to five” program, give a $4,000 Amer. Opportunity tax credit, launch a shared security partnership with other countries for 5B, invest 10 B in electronic health info systems, also expand state and local programs, a bioshield initiative, supports increased Gov funding for all forms of stem cell research, develop strong program of ocean management, expanded research at NASA, NOAA, NSF, USGS, establish natl. plan for water in high growth regions, establish a civilian space program, re-establish the Natl. Aeronautics & Space Council, expand health care coverage and more and more.

I would no doubt support some of that, BUT think we need to be realistic and prioritize a bit. I favor programs that have been tried on a smaller scale and have a good track record before implementing them on the whole country. I think the governors and mayors of our nation should be listened to about things that are working and what is not working. One size does not fit all states and I dislike government mandates. I am hesitant about adding more layers to our present government and growing it ever larger.

I really do like that Obama has ideas and apparently the energy to match them. I do want good changes to come. I am tired of the costs of war. I am as yet undecided about my vote but I am not a fan of big government either. I kind of wish he had picked a few things to zero in on instead of seeming to want to change everything all at once.

Comment by interested bystander — September 10, 2008 @ 5:53 pm

Joy Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
interested bystander:

I really do like that Obama has ideas and apparently the energy to match them. I do want good changes to come. I am tired of the costs of war. I am as yet undecided about my vote but I am not a fan of big government either. I kind of wish he had picked a few things to zero in on instead of seeming to want to change everything all at once.

The broad scope of the questions can be blamed entirely on the ScienceDebate08 consortium of scientific narcissists (they all think their issues are more important than anybody else's). They wanted to cover all the bases, though I think there was enough overlap to have whittled the list to 8 or 10 questions.

Many things can – and will – change when we are no longer borrowing $10 billion a month from China to occupy Iraq. And while Obama's big vision is inspiring, reality dictates that many items on the wish list will have to wait for more urgent concerns to be dealt with.

Though he's right about the R&D investments and I hope this plank gets in on the ground floor. If we invest in doing the research and development and ease the burdens of shifting sources, there will be a lot of 'good' technical, engineering and scientific jobs created here that can't be shipped to India. If we do invest in our energy future, we will also have to subsidize reconstructing the grid. A lot of jobs will be created there, too, over a decade and a half at least. When the right stimulus is applied in the right places, and the system starts investing in itself (because there's wealth to be generated), and workers are making enough to live without fear that a single illness or accident will wipe them out, it's entirely possible that we'd have a functioning economy and a vibrant society instead of a bottomless pit of gloom and doom.

There will always be things that will irk me about what goes on in DC, no matter who's in charge. But I vote every chance I get, which earns me b*tching rights. §;o)

Comment by Joy — September 10, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

Rock Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Catholic?! RUKM?! What exactly is the Popes’ position on democracy? Near as I can tell, they have been pretty much against democracy. LOL You want a man, a “heartbeat away” from the presidency, to be religiously opposed to democracy?!

Teaching creationism in schools seems a bit a trivial to me. Do the candidates you are voting for actually believe in democracy?!

Comment by Rock — September 10, 2008 @ 8:26 pm

Doug Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Catholic?! RUKM?! What exactly is the Popes’ position on democracy? Near as I can tell, they have been pretty much against democracy. LOL You want a man, a “heartbeat away” from the presidency, to be religiously opposed to democracy?!

Huh?
You go from asking what the Pope's position on democracy is, to venturing your own guess, to then declaring they are indeed opposed to democracy.

What exactly are you viewing that leads you to believe they are against democracy?

Comment by Doug — September 10, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
John McCain is keeping his running-mate away from the press if they won't stick to the script.

Yea, she was nominated 6 days ago and hasn’t set down for an in-depth interview with a hostile media it’s obvious she is hiding. At least Obama gave an interview to Fox and it only took him 19 months to agree to it.

She has a scripted interview scheduled

Good point. That ABC news is in the pocket of the greedy, baby killing, war for oil, snake handeling republicans.

while Obama's big vision is inspiring, reality dictates that many items on the wish list will have to wait for more urgent concerns to be dealt with.

Yea like the 900,000 he wanted to spend on the “Go Girl Go” sports initiative and the million dollars for the hospital where his wife works.

there will be a lot of 'good' technical, engineering and scientific jobs created here that can't be shipped to India

Amen let's make sure the money we forcibly take from our rich folks is spent here instead of on some foreigner in a poor country who happens to do the job for less and might use it to save his villige from starving instead of on a Wii or Ipod.

There will always be things that will irk me about what goes on in DC, no matter who's in charge

Me to but wouldn’t it be great to finally rid ourselves of all that God and country talk and preaching about self sufficiency and get back to what really counts.

Money in (special interests) scientist’s pockets in exchange for votes

That was fun I'll now take my tongue back out of my cheek.

Have a good day and I still love you Joy.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
interested bystander wrote:

I hate the political season for the way it heats up so many discussions needlessly.

Rock wrote:

The first VP-MILF?!
Kinda of a fundie-wacko though, isn’t she?

(Kids if you don’t know what MILF means, ask your mom… No, on second thought you’d better ask your dad.)

I was the one who brought up Palin but now I regret I did. I did so mainly because I was curious. I was not in anyway trying to be mean spirited. If nothing else, at least for the present, Sarah Palin is a phenomena. A flash in the pan phenomena? We’ll have to see.

As an independent I usually don’t start thinking about politics till Sept. This year my interest has been piqued, like I just said above, by my curiosity.

Just a word, to the Obama supporters on this thread. Your hatred of Bush; your hatred of republicans; your hatred of Palin? (How can you hate someone you know nothing about?)

Is hatred a rational argument? Do you think your hatred will convince an independent voters like me to vote for your guy? Is that your only argument?

Personally, I hate no one. My point is the world doesn’t need any more hatred. If that is what your side represents then I guess that it is not my side.

One final word of advice. If hatred is your only argument then you might as well stick a fork in your candidate right now, because he’s done.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 10, 2008 @ 11:58 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
John A.D.:

Just a word, to the Obama supporters on this thread. Your hatred of Bush; your hatred of republicans; your hatred of Palin? (How can you hate someone you know nothing about?)

And…

Personally, I hate no one. My point is the world doesn’t need any more hatred. If that is what your side represents then I guess that it is not my side.

Hmmm… It's semi-interesting how someone who claims to personally hate no one, would without a single by-your-leave accuse others of hatred. It's still amazing to me how well that projection trick works when the subject is politics, though it would never fly in the real world. Today is the Seventh Year marker. It was not hatred and division sown that day along with body parts and rubble. On that day, we were all Americans.

Too bad it didn't last.

Hint: If you truly believe the world doesn't need any more hatred, you might want to consider not using your own voice to sow hatred. Just a thought…

fmm:

Have a good day and I still love you Joy.

Oddly enough, that somehow doesn't negate one bit of the venom in your post. The fact remains that Obama has provided his team's policy answers to the SD08 questions. No one has to like those responses, but they are right there for anyone to read and consider. THAT is what this thread is about.

It's not my fault or SD08's fault that the McCain campaign hasn't bothered to answer any of them yet. I'm sure they'll get around to it at some point after they've finally vetted their Veep candidate and gotten her ethics issues with the AK legislature quietly taken care of.

So… are there any positions in Obama's responses that you'd like to examine or discuss?

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 11:37 am

Pez Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Joy makes a high minded attempt to chastise those ignoring the point of her thread and get back on track after having her go at the domionists, McCain's bamboo cage, his odd choice for VP, likening Cheney to Vader, and satirizing Palin's daughter.
Love and science only here.

Comment by Pez — September 11, 2008 @ 12:08 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Pez:

…after having her go at the domionists, McCain's bamboo cage, his odd choice for VP, likening Cheney to Vader, and satirizing Palin's daughter.

My goodness, Pez. I've said nothing untrue or even controversial here. Nor have I projected any hatred on any individual here or in the current campaign for Prez-VP. The reaction has been so seriously out of kilter that it strikes me kinda funny. If y'all can't even handle the idea that other people might disagree with your political picks, how the heck do you plan to rule a nation/world where half or more of the human population disagrees with your political picks?

Regardless, let me go ahead and have a REAL "go" at these subjects, since I indeed do have opinions on them…

1. No, I don't like dominionists. They are 100% authoritarian, anti-democratic, theocratic wannabe mind-tyrants. Their thirst for absolute power does not trump the US Constitution, and will never trump it on my watch. Because if they ever do manage to get their way, this will no longer be the United States of America. It will be something else entirely.

2. John McCain believes that having spent 5 years as a POW 40 years ago is automatic qualification for the Presidency of the US. Yet he is not the first, last or only American to have passed time in an enemy prison undergoing "enhanced interrogation techniques" (US policy no longer considers any of it to be torture, you know). If having been imprisoned is automatic qualification to be CiC, surely we'd have seen many prisoners applying for the job. It's not like the US doesn't imprison more of its citizenry in its various ongoing 'forever-wars' than any other nation on earth, after all.

3. Palin is, IMO, an odd choice for VP. There are literally dozens of accomplished Republican public servants who also happen to be women who could actually have wooed the die-hard PUMAs McCain was aiming for. And who are not under current investigation for abuse of power, and who don't have a 5-month old 'special needs' child at home who needs his mother more than John McCain does. But whatever. If she floats your boat, by all means vote that ticket. It's a 2-party system still.

4. "Darth Cheney" is a humorous nick for the guy who actually runs the country from some "undisclosed location." It's not the worst nick I've encountered, but it does color what he's done to the country (and the notion of "open government," and the separation of powers, and the Constitutional rights of citizens) during his 7+ years in the bunker. Heck, it's not even the worst nick I've seen attached to actual Presidents by rank and file members of the usual opposition party.

5. No one has to "satirize" Palin's daughter. Palin made it an issue all on her own, then whined because the press reported her press release. THAT is satire. Teenage shotgun weddings are not some happy solution to real life problems. They just introduce more problems. It looks to me – as a woman, a mother and a grandmother – like Palin's family could use more "family time" from her, not more absence.

My opinions, which you don't have to agree with because you're as entitled to opinions as I am. You'll have this is a 'free' country, I wouldn't have it any other way. Now… what do you think about Obama's response to question #8?

QUESTION 8: Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

ANSWER, Barack Obama:

Stem cell research holds the promise of improving our lives in at least three ways—by substituting normal cells for damaged cells to treat diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, heart failure and other disorders; by providing scientists with safe and convenient models of disease for drug development; and by helping to understand fundamental aspects of normal development and cell dysfunction.

For these reasons, I strongly support expanding research on stem cells. I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations. As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

I recognize that some people object to government support of research that requires cells to be harvested from human embryos. However, hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in the U.S. in in-vitro fertilization clinics will not be used for reproductive purposes, and will eventually be destroyed. I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

I am also aware that there have been suggestions that human stem cells of various types, derived from sources other than embryos, make the use of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. I don’t agree. While adult stem cells, such as those harvested from blood or bone marrow, are already used for treatment of some diseases, they do not have the versatility of embryonic stem cells and cannot replace them. Recent discoveries indicate that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells; these are exciting findings that might in the future lead to an alternate source of highly versatile stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells remain the “gold standard,” and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future.

Rather than restrict the funding of such research, I favor responsible oversight of it, in accord with recent reports from the National Research Council. Recommendations from the NRC reports are already being followed by institutions that conduct human embryonic stem cell research with funds from a variety of sources. An expanded, federally-supported stem cell research program will encourage talented U.S. scientists to engage in this important new field, will allow more effective oversight, and will signal to other countries our commitment to compete in this exciting area of medical research.

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

Pez Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Hi Joy:
First, I don't have a pick and I don't have a vote. I am the (not quite) unbiased observer here and the responses have been decidedly on-kilter by my view.
You certainly are entitled to your opinions. And it is disingenuous to air them and to continue to air them and then act as though they are not to be the topic of this thread.
I'll briefly respond to a couple of your points but only once:
1) You don't like dominionists. I don't like terrorists. Is smearing Palin's selection as an appeal to dominionists in any way defended by your dislike of dominionists? Anymore than smearing Obama as an appeal to terrorism is justified by a distaste for Osama?
5) Palin didn't make her daughter the issue any more than Obama made his pastor and his real estate dealings the issue. Or Bush made his drinking or military service an issue, or Clinton his various peccadillos. She only made her daughter an issue by virtue of her being a person with a life who then entered the public arena. The fact that she revealed her daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy 2 seconds before her opponents did doesn't change the nature of the beast.

As for stem cells:
You quote Obama:

I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

No he won't.
Leave aside the ethics of researching on human embryos in the first place, he hasn't the power to make this assurance.

I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

Who has the right to freely donate them for that purpose?

I am also aware that there have been suggestions that human stem cells of various types, derived from sources other than embryos, make the use of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. I don’t agree. While adult stem cells, such as those harvested from blood or bone marrow, are already used for treatment of some diseases, they do not have the versatility of embryonic stem cells and cannot replace them. Recent discoveries indicate that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells; these are exciting findings that might in the future lead to an alternate source of highly versatile stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells remain the “gold standard,” and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future.

In what way are they the "gold standard"?
What diseases have been cured with embryonic stem cells? What break-throughs?
I don't follow this issue closely at all, but everything I've read shows that all the promise has come from research into "adult" stem cells.

On a related note, how about Obama's answer to the scientific question regarding human reproduction: "when does life begin"?
When he speaks for himself, and his interview is unscripted, he says the scientific question is a theological question above his pay grade.
Do scientists really wonder? Is science unclear on the issue?

Comment by Pez — September 11, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Obama: I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose.

Pez: Who has the right to freely donate them for that purpose?

Do you think that fertility clinics, which produce and destroy multiple embryos, are immoral?

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

Pez Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
HI Zach,
Just taking my moral pulse, I presume?
Let's take your first.
Is a woman who creates and destroys children immoral?

More importantly, since we are talking about the collective opinion of Obama and his advisors on the scientific questions let's ask science.
Can science tell us whether or not it is moral to destroy individual human beings?
Can a crack team of political advisors?

Comment by Pez — September 11, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Zachriel: Do you think that fertility clinics, which produce and destroy multiple embryos, are immoral?

Pez: Just taking my moral pulse, I presume?

It was a simple question that is directly pertinent to the issue. Embryonic stem cells are taken from discarded embryos created by in vitro fertilization. You didn't bother to answer the question.

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

Pez Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
But I did, by implication.
Innocent human beings should not be destroyed without sufficient cause – enhanced fertility is not one of them in my opinion, although others have the right to be honestly mistaken on this issue and are not evil for being wrong.
What does science say an embryo is?
What does Obama?
What is your position on destroying innocent human beings?

Comment by Pez — September 11, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Pez: Innocent human beings should not be destroyed without sufficient cause – enhanced fertility is not one of them in my opinion, although others have the right to be honestly mistaken on this issue and are not evil for being wrong.

Fertility clinics and abortion both destroy embryos. The former is never necessary, but the latter is sometimes necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.

Let me return to some of your earlier questions.

Obama: I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

Pez: No he won't. Leave aside the ethics of researching on human embryos in the first place, he hasn't the power to make this assurance.

The U.S. President has a great deal of influence on medical research through executive orders, such as Bush's 2001 order limiting embryonic stem cell research, and his veto of a strongly supported law meant to remove those restrictions.

Pez: Is a woman who creates and destroys children immoral?

Humans generally give high moral value to human life. But women conceive knowing that many embryos will spontaneously abort. It's goes with the territory. Or in modern technological society, a woman might abort knowing that the fetus is terminal or to save her own life or health.

Pez: Can science tell us whether or not it is moral to destroy individual human beings?

No.

Pez: Can a crack team of political advisors?

You seem to be confusing morality and ethics.

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 3:25 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Pez:

First, I don't have a pick and I don't have a vote. I am the (not quite) unbiased observer here and the responses have been decidedly on-kilter by my view.

Then everything is copascetic for you. Glad to hear it.

You certainly are entitled to your opinions. And it is disingenuous to air them and to continue to air them and then act as though they are not to be the topic of this thread.

Given that only one candidate has enough science advisors to answer the questions months after they were submitted sort of guaranteed that the issues of science policy would end up one-sided at this point in time. Maybe McCain will get around to submitting his answers eventually.

I'll briefly respond to a couple of your points but only once:

Cool.

1) You don't like dominionists. I don't like terrorists. Is smearing Palin's selection as an appeal to dominionists in any way defended by your dislike of dominionists? Anymore than smearing Obama as an appeal to terrorism is justified by a distaste for Osama?

Why do you infer that a dislike for dominionists equates to a love of terrorists? That's a mighty corkscrew you're wielding there, my friend. I was born and raised military, married military, and have two fine sons in the current conflicts. There are two trifolds on the mantle, a Navy Cross, two Purple Hearts and two sets of Dolphins in the hardware display, and a Regis Neptunis from the USS Indianapolis (1936) on my wall. I have sworn to protect and defend the US Constitution on more than one occasion, and I take that responsibility rather seriously. "…from all enemies foreign and domestic." It's never a bad idea to keep up with those people and groups foreign and domestic whose stated goals are the destruction of the US Constitution. Included in that list are the kind of radical secessionist 'militias' that spawned domestic enemies like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

At least, it's not a bad idea from where I sit. YMMV.

That said, I think the Palin pick is odd because she has basically no experience or credentials to hold national executive office. Of course, no one really does have the experience to *be* President until they get there. But I would prefer someone who hadn't built her political reputation on abuse of power, nasty family feuds, secessionist politics, banning books, hiring Abramoff flunkies to corner the market on DC pork, etc., etc. Just a preference that will inform my choice at the polls. Fact of the matter is that the Palin pick was made by CNP, not by John McCain. Because she appeals to the dominionist 'base'. McCain's a smarter politician than that, he just doesn't get a choice in this, his last chance.

Oh… and if Bush/Cheney ever reinstate the Bin Laden task force they disbanded when they were "no longer interested" in his whereabouts – or if their troops do happen to capture him before January 20 – I'm sure we'll hear all about it. In the meantime, they "don't spend much time thinking about him." [GWBush]

She only made her daughter an issue by virtue of her being a person with a life who then entered the public arena. The fact that she revealed her daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy 2 seconds before her opponents did doesn't change the nature of the beast.

Oh, come on! The National Enquirer isn't any political party's media tool. And it was the Enquirer that threatened to out Palin's daughter, given that just about everybody in Alaska already knew about this kid's um… rebellious tendencies. BTW, Palin's own excuse for outing her daughter was so the press would stop asking about all those rumors circulating in Alaska that the 5-month old is really her grandson. As a mother, that one really sticks in my craw. I mean, a simple birth certificate would have established motherhood perfectly well without directly involving her daughter, and if Palin didn't already have a copy (unlikely), she could have gotten one in a day. She *is* the governor, after all. Pretty low-life in my estimation, again YMMV.

Meanwhile, Obama strongly denounced speculations about the daughter. Maybe that detail escaped your notice.

No he won't.

The executive has no power to issue CFRs or empanel oversight committees in executive agencies? Wow. That's a new one. You might want to inform the current executive and his puppetmaster about that. They've been issuing and abrogating CFRs right and left for years!

Who has the right to freely donate them for that purpose?

I'd suspect the individuals to which those embryos "belong." Usually the woman for whom they were created so she could be mass-impregnated again and again in hopes of having one or seven babies nature couldn't give her. In some cases, the woman who donated the egg might have something to say about it. Probably not the sperm donor, since sperm is so cheap.

You know, the basic organ/tissue recipient and/or donor.

In what way are they the "gold standard"?
What diseases have been cured with embryonic stem cells? What break-throughs?

Heck if I know, I don't do research on embryonic stem cells. These could be legitimate points of issue in the debates about science policy if McCain ever gets around to offering his for general consumption. Hang on to those questions, I hope you get the chance to ask it (and have it answered).

Do scientists really wonder? Is science unclear on the issue?

I don't know, that's another great question to ask. The law (before or after R v. W) doesn't consider 'scientific' criteria, it considers development and viability. As medical science has pushed the viability threshold ever farther back in the gestation period, perhaps it is time for science, medicine and law to get together and work out their definitions. The horrendous thought of a baby being aborted (and killed) for being "inconvenient" at a point in gestation when actually available medical intervention could save that baby for parents who really want it is something our society should definitely take a closer, more ethical look at.

But despite my highly restrictive personal views on abortion, I still don't believe old guys in DC have any business deciding who comes to or from any woman's body. A hard look at medical ethics wouldn't hurt at this point in time all around, now that we've actually allowed anonymous accountants to take over life-or-death medical decisions, instead of respecting doctors and patients to make their own decisions within the legal and professional bounds on the fiduciary privacy of their relationship.

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
But I would prefer someone who hadn't built her political reputation on abuse of power, nasty family feuds, secessionist politics, banning books,

The book banning charge is becoming an embarrassment for internetistas supplying lists of the banned books. The lists circulating on the internet are bogus and include books published after the "library incident" took place.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Bradford: The book banning charge is becoming an embarrassment for internetistas supplying lists of the banned books. The lists circulating on the internet are bogus and include books published after the "library incident" took place.

The list is bogus (books that have been subject to attempted bannings elsewhere), but she apparently asked how to ban books, and then fired the librarian who refused to cooperate (relenting after a public outcry).

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
It's hard to get reliable info on the US presidential and VP candidates over here in godless Euroland, but I have it on good authority that Palin had an extramarital affair, with a moose or possibly with McCain, who by the way left his disabled wife for a rich heiress and snitched on his fellow POWs. Is that correct? I also heard that B. Hussein Obama is in fact Osama Bin Laden, sans beard. I mean, has anybody ever seen Obama and Osama at the same time? I rest my case.

Comment by Raevmo — September 11, 2008 @ 4:06 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
The list is bogus (books that have been subject to attempted bannings elsewhere),

Of course books have been bannned elsewhere. The very linkage of the elsewheres with the Alaska incident is an attempt to prejudice the reader.

but she apparently asked how to ban books,

Not a bad idea to know how procedures operate. There are legitimate reasons to bann books. The best way to do so is not purchasing them. Can you think of any books that might not be fit for a five year old Zachriel?

and then fired the librarian who refused to cooperate (relenting after a public outcry).

Cooperate with what? Delineating procedural steps? What books were suggested to be banned?

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Raevmo:

…I also heard that B. Hussein Obama is in fact Osama Bin Laden, sans beard. I mean, has anybody ever seen Obama and Osama at the same time? I rest my case.

Your usual insightful commentary.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Zachriel: but she apparently asked how to ban books,

Bradford: Not a bad idea to know how procedures operate. There are legitimate reasons to bann books.

I didn't know the United States had procedures for banning books. Is that run by the fire department.

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 4:26 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Again on good authority, I heard that Palin encourages shooting atheists from airplanes. I would have thought such a rare species in Alaska deserves some protection.

Comment by Raevmo — September 11, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Pez,

Out of curiosity. If you had to choose between saving a box with a hundred frozen embryos or one adult person from a burning building, what would you do?

Comment by Raevmo — September 11, 2008 @ 5:28 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Joy

Sorry if I came across as venomous it wasn’t my intention it must be a matter of perception.

I did not even mention Rev Wright or Black Liberation Theology because I believe to try to scare folks about someone because of what church they attend is venomous.

Oh well to each his own.

No one has to like those responses, but they are right there for anyone to read and consider. THAT is what this thread is about.

Here is the deal.

I can’t for the life of me understand why a President should be concerned about such a thing. I thought the politicizing of science was supposed to be a bad thing.

If I were running for such an office I would refuse to pander to such a request and point out that “Science” needs to learn to stand or fall on the merits and not on government policy.

Zach:

The U.S. President has a great deal of influence on medical research through executive orders, such as Bush's 2001 order limiting embryonic stem cell research, and his veto of a strongly supported law meant to remove those restrictions.

Bush didn’t limit embryonic stem cell research. He limited federal public funding of stem cell research. The fact that you confuse the two actions is very telling.

It seems like to you government support is necessary for science to happen. This explains why you spend so much time on this site and why you are so afraid of the speculations of us fundamentalists.

It's simply because we are the majority and in the end will control the public funding.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 11, 2008 @ 6:17 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Bradford:

Cooperate with what? Delineating procedural steps? What books were suggested to be banned?

Anchorage Daily News has the story. This "list" stuff is a Rovian distraction. It was just a "loyalty test," according to Palin. S.O.P.

Zach:

I didn't know the United States had procedures for banning books.

There's fairly specific classes of material subject to censorship on the public library level, based on the size of the library and the public it serves. The policies were drafted with the help of Constitutional lawyers (of which, btw, Barack Obama is one) and are quite broad. Professional librarians have, through organizational and association referendums, come down on the pro-First Amendment side in terms of overt censorship and secret surveillance of patrons.

School libraries are a whole other beastie. School boards exercise quite a bit of censorship here, and it's generally passed Constitutional muster because the patrons are minors.

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
fifth monarchy man: I can’t for the life of me understand why a President should be concerned about such a thing.

Reading through the questions, you are suggesting that the government should not be responsible in any degree for long-range planning on energy independence, the health of the planet, national security, pandemics, disease, space exploration, and integrity in science.

fifth monarchy man: I thought the politicizing of science was supposed to be a bad thing.

Politicizing science refers to manipulating scientific results to fit a political agenda. So, science might determine that humans are warming the planet, and might even provide some idea as to what the consequences of that might be; but it is a political decision as to what to do about it, to balance the costs against the benefits. Politicizing the science would be directing scientists to suppress evidence of global warming in order to avoid the difficult political decisions altogether.

fifth monarchy man: Bush didn’t limit embryonic stem cell research. He limited federal public funding of stem cell research. The fact that you confuse the two actions is very telling.

That you don't understand the importance of government funding for science, especially for large projects, is very telling. Business is not capable of sustaining such efforts over very long periods of time. Limiting funding does limit research.

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 6:40 pm

chunkdz Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Let's see, I'm a liberal Hollywood screenwriter, but I just happen to be interested in promoting a BALANCED debate about SCIENCE among BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum. Who should I call to support me in my crusade for a FAIR, BALANCED, and NON-PARTISAN debate?

Hmmm…. There's that guy who wrote "The Republican War On Science".

And the guy who wrote that anti-ID book about the Dover trial.

And how about that guy who spoke at the Beyond Belief atheist conference. He was great.

Then there's this liberal congressional staffer I know. She'll be a big help.

Oh. And I guess we'll need a Republican so that we don't appear BIASED. Does anybody happen to know any socially ultra-liberal republican ex-governors? What's that? You just happen to know of one? Oh Wonderful!!

Comment by chunkdz — September 11, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Joy: Anchorage Daily News has the story. This "list" stuff is a Rovian distraction. It was just a "loyalty test," according to Palin. S.O.P.

Indeed. From the link:

Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.

It looks as if the motive had nothing to do with book banning unless the police chief, the public works director, the finance director and the museum director also had oversight over separate departmental libraries.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Bradford Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
fifth monarchy man: Bush didn’t limit embryonic stem cell research. He limited federal public funding of stem cell research. The fact that you confuse the two actions is very telling.

Zachriel: That you don't understand the importance of government funding for science, especially for large projects, is very telling. Business is not capable of sustaining such efforts over very long periods of time. Limiting funding does limit research.

I suspect fmm has a good understanding that government funding ought to be explored with all available options and all relevant objections considered.

It has been known for about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins.

This shows that in tissues of the body, adult stem cells possess a much greater potential for differentiation than previously assumed. This knowledge must be brought into the public consciousness with all possible emphasis. If stem cell research were really only meant for therapeutic uses, which it most obviously should be, adult stem cells would promise a very productive research field–and beyond that, a possibility, without moral objection, to discover fundamentals of the dynamics of tissue differentiation.

Comment by Bradford — September 11, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
chunkdz:

Oh. And I guess we'll need a Republican so that we don't appear BIASED. Does anybody happen to know any socially ultra-liberal republican ex-governors? What's that? You just happen to know of one? Oh Wonderful!!

Well, maybe we should just get those questions right out here in the open so we all know what we're talking about…

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?

3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?

6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?

10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

I've said the scope of some of these questions overlap enough (judging by the Obama camp's responses) to have been merged for a total of 8-10 questions. But given these 14, why do you think it's a waste of time for the candidate to respond? What's wrong with the questions?

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
…oh. And…

11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 8:12 pm

chunkdz Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Joy,

…why do you think it's a waste of time for the candidate to respond?

I never said it would be a waste of time.

What's wrong with the questions?

I have nothing against asking questions either.

But I do know that assembling a team of ideologically like minded individuals from the far end of the spectrum is not usually the first step towards critical thinking. I also know that these questions are about policy, ethics, and spending – not science.

Science may help with water shortages, stopping pandemics, and fishery depletion. Science education may also be one casualty of a failed education system. But what do you really expect to learn from this quiz, Joy? Does Barack possess the secret of cheap desalinization technology? Does McCain know whether Parkinson's can be treated with embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells? Does either candidate really possess the power to stop the ice age from thawing out, or to eliminate the internal combustion engine?

Answer? No. But who cares. These questions aren't about who has the answers. They're not even about science, per se. They're about funding various programs from education to healthcare to defense. Same old crap dressed up like a science quiz.

Instead of asking what's wrong with the questions, you should just ask why the questioners couldn't just look at the candidates websites and figure out for themselves where they stand on global warming, education, defense, and healthcare – rather than forming a liberal think tank to try and frame these questions all "sciency".

I've said the scope of some of these questions overlap enough (judging by the Obama camp's responses) to have been merged for a total of 8-10 questions.

I think they can almost all be expressed by a single question.

"Dear candidate: Me and a half dozen of my biased, partisan, politically motivated friends want to know if you are going to spend tons of money on the things that we want. So what's it gonna be?"

Comment by chunkdz — September 11, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Embryonic stem cells have important advantages for research and for possible medical uses. NIH on Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells:

Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

However, there are also advantages to adult stem cells.

A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system.

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 9:39 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
chunkdz: Let's see, I'm a liberal Hollywood screenwriter, but I just happen to be interested in promoting a BALANCED debate about SCIENCE among BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum.

Scientific debates don't occur in a political context, but among peers. The application of science to policy occurs in the political context.

Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
chunkdz

No. But who cares. These questions aren't about who has the answers. They're not even about science, per se. They're about funding various programs from education to healthcare to defense. Same old crap dressed up like a science quiz.

Bingo, every interest group puts out these quizzes it’s all about money for votes and it’s what’s wrong with this country. Real Science doesn’t need the government.

Zach.

That you don't understand the importance of government funding for science, especially for large projects, is very telling. Business is not capable of sustaining such efforts over very long periods of time. Limiting funding does limit research.

Unlike government Business demands results. If you want to research things that have no real prospect of producing results why not get together a bunch of likeminded friends and pay for it your self?

If you want to beg me for funding that’s fine just don’t call it science call it what it is, politics.

Scientific debates don't occur in a political context, but among peers. The application of science to policy occurs in the political context.

That's fine just don't mistake the political application of science for science.

It’s politics pure and simple. When you mix the two like has been done here it only brings science down. If you do such a thing don’t be surprised if folks you don’t agree with end up calling the shots. That’s what happens in politics.

That’s all I’m saying.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 11, 2008 @ 10:37 pm

Joy Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
chunkdz:

"Dear candidate: Me and a half dozen of my biased, partisan, politically motivated friends want to know if you are going to spend tons of money on the things that we want. So what's it gonna be?"

Well, I did mention that the questioners didn't do a very good job of whittling the questions down to manageable, Fox-sized sound bytes. Nor did Obama's lengthy, detail-oriented responses lend themselves in any way toward Fox-sized sound bytes. Since Fox-sized sound bytes are pretty much all the general public can be expected to hold in short-term memory for more than 12 hours, Obama's responses may suffer short-term memory loss. It's the price you pay…

But I don't see any biased, partisan questions here. I see issues with scientific import and input. Do you not see them?

We can indeed decide not to fund scientific research with public money. Have in fact done that in the past. If there's enough money to be made, private and foundation funds are usually available. But before y'all make any of 'em illegal to fund, I'd sure like to see the list of reasons first. So I can lodge my objections properly and have them heard.

Our society wouldn't be as competitive as it is if we abandoned scientific research and technological innovation. I surely don't want to see us fall too far behind in those attributes. Is it really all about a Bronze Age "culture war?" Have we come no farther than that?

Comment by Joy — September 11, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

Pez Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hi Joy,
I guess I'm a liar because since I must answer Raevmo and Zach I can't help but respond to a couple of your subsequent points.

Of this:

1) You don't like dominionists. I don't like terrorists. Is smearing Palin's selection as an appeal to dominionists in any way defended by your dislike of dominionists? Anymore than smearing Obama as an appeal to terrorism is justified by a distaste for Osama?

You said:

Why do you infer that a dislike for dominionists equates to a love of terrorists? That's a mighty corkscrew you're wielding there, my friend

This reading is very off-kilter. I was not implying that an anti-dominionist (aren't we all?) was a pro-terrorist. I was saying that your defence of the slur would be paralleled by my saying Obama was a token appeal to terrorists and then defendign the slur by telling you why I disliked terrorists.

That said, I think the Palin pick is odd because she has basically no experience or credentials to hold national executive office

She at least has executive experience and is applying for the job of VP, not Pres., like junior senator Obama whose qualifications are voting "present" and writing biographies … and answering science questions.

Oh, come on! The National Enquirer isn't any political party's media tool. And it was the Enquirer that threatened to out Palin's daughter, given that just about everybody in Alaska already knew about this kid's um… rebellious tendencies.

Oh come on. You say this as though the story would have died and never been picked up by anyone else just because/if NE ran it first. You admit yourself that the rumours were already circulating among Alaska's press.

Meanwhile, Obama strongly denounced speculations about the daughter. Maybe that detail escaped your notice.

Why do you presume that this irrelevancy escaped my notice? Are you so used to arguing with Swamp Things that you have to make such presumptions about everybody who questions you on any subject? Your reading here really is atrocious – sorry.

The executive has no power to issue CFRs or empanel oversight committees in executive agencies? Wow. That's a new one. You might want to inform the current executive and his puppetmaster about that. They've been issuing and abrogating CFRs right and left for years!

Yep, government committees are going to ensure ethical behaviour on this planet in our lifetime. If Obama himself is not going to check every lab 24-7 he can't assure anything of the sort. He can only make election promises.

I'd suspect the individuals to which those embryos "belong." Usually the woman for whom they were created so she could be mass-impregnated again and again in hopes of having one or seven babies nature couldn't give her. In some cases, the woman who donated the egg might have something to say about it. Probably not the sperm donor, since sperm is so cheap.

You know, the basic organ/tissue recipient and/or donor.

Embryos aren't organs or tissues of the donor's body. Human beings do not "belong" to anybody; they have guardians and care-givers who do not donate them as they wish or dispose of them like tumours and cultures.

Heck if I know, I don't do research on embryonic stem cells. These could be legitimate points of issue in the debates about science policy if McCain ever gets around to offering his for general consumption. Hang on to those questions, I hope you get the chance to ask it (and have it answered).

When I'm interested enough to look for the answers (which I already suspect) I'm surely not going to either senator for them.

As medical science has pushed the viability threshold ever farther back in the gestation period, perhaps it is time for science, medicine and law to get together and work out their definitions. The horrendous thought of a baby being aborted (and killed) for being "inconvenient" at a point in gestation when actually available medical intervention could save that baby for parents who really want it is something our society should definitely take a closer, more ethical look at.

Science doesn't need to consult law or medicine for a scientific definition. Law can define personhood however legislators choose and medicine can tell us about the embryo's so-called "viability", but science tells us if it is a human being or not.
And your science candidate supports their abortion at any stage, letting them die on the floor when they survive abortion and letting anyone old enough to make one cross state lines without parental consent to abort it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I will end my part here as I see no point in going to war with a frequent ally and this exchange demonstrates the futility of that.
Carry on.
===

Hi Raevmo,

Out of curiosity. If you had to choose between saving a box with a hundred frozen embryos or one adult person from a burning building, what would you do?

'd save the adult. So what?

Who would you save, your mother or an Asian? Your father or your children? What does that say about their humanness or the right to dispose of them?

===
Hi Zach,

Fertility clinics and abortion both destroy embryos. The former is never necessary, but the latter is sometimes necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.

That's right. So we are agreed.

The U.S. President has a great deal of influence on medical research through executive orders, such as Bush's 2001 order limiting embryonic stem cell research, and his veto of a strongly supported law meant to remove those restrictions.

As to Joy above. Are we now contending that government agencies are bastions of ethical behaviour and that we can take a President's assurances to the bank?
I wish we had government agencies looking at our food supply and spending our tax dollars, then wouldn't things be swell?

Humans generally give high moral value to human life. But women conceive knowing that many embryos will spontaneously abort. It's goes with the territory. Or in modern technological society, a woman might abort knowing that the fetus is terminal or to save her own life or health.

So if there is sufficient cause we can morally take a human life. That's what I said. We agree again.

You seem to be confusing morality and ethics.

I might be. But then, irrelevant as the distinction is, I see no difference. If you like you can re-ask the question and use the synonym "ethics" in the place of "morals" and the answer is still "no".

Comment by Pez — September 11, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

chunkdz Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Joy,

But I don't see any biased, partisan questions here. I see issues with scientific import and input. Do you not see them?

Sure. I see the same topics that you'll be seeing in every debate or townhall meeting past and future. They can be framed around how they impact science, how they impact environmental conservation, how they impact religious freedom, how they impact fiscal policy, or morality, or whatever happens to be your particular power niche or special interest.

The fact that this particular special interest group wants to frame the questions around their particular special interest isn't new or interesting.
I don't expect the answers to be particularly interesting either. I expect that they will promise that they have the right agenda to fix the schools, the oceans, the water table, the energy crunch, the war on terror, Parkinson's disease, etc., no matter how the question is framed.

Just for fun, imagine the late Ken Lay getting together with his corporate cronies and forming "Money Debate 2008". They'd ask 14 similar questions, but instead of focusing on science, they'd focus on monetary policy:

Our economy is lagging behind the rest of the world – what do you intend to do to spur innovation?

How does global warming affect the economy? What economic measures do you propose?

What fiscal policies will you institute to solve the energy crunch?

How much money should we spend on schools to make them competitive? Will you institute a voucher system, etc?

Etc. Etc. Ad nauseam.

Same questions. Same answers. Different agenda.

It's all about who gets the money. I don't begrudge the Science Debate people wanting to get their share. But neither do I think they are interested in a reasoned debate. They proved this when they loaded their steering comittee with like-minded partisan groupthinking politically-biased
mouthpieces.

Comment by chunkdz — September 12, 2008 @ 12:15 am

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
fifth monarchy man: Real Science doesn’t need the government.

I'm rather surprised by that position.

* The expeditions of Columbus
* Lewis and Clark
* Voyage of the Beagle
* Hubble Space Telescope
* Robotic exploration of the Solar System
* Fundamental medical research
* Large Hadron Collider
* Environmental science

None of these would be funded without governments. That's because the payoff, if any, can be generations in the future. Let's consider environmental science.

One of the original purposes of government was the distribution of water rights, otherwise, people upstream would take all the water, or sell it for whatever they could get. And people upstream could dump whatever they didn't need into the water supply. There is no economic incentive for those upstream to be non-polluting. In ancient Egypt, the central government enforced land and water rights through state-of-the art surveying techniques and hydraulic engineering.

In modern terms, that means businesses and communities dumping not only raw sewage, but chemicals, into the water supply, dangerous pollutants into the atmosphere, or excess CO2. There is no intrinsic economic incentive to not pollute, or to preserve natural resources, such as water, forests, game or fisheries. Rather, the response requires coordinated action. In a democratic society, that means the response is political. And this means having a scientific understanding of how the global ecosystem reacts to human activities. The science is not political, but the policy is.

Whether you like it or not, governments are responsible for directing research dollars. That means the President's position is important.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 9:42 am

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Pez: Law can define personhood

Yes, and the tradition for centuries is that babies are born into the world. That's when they're named (and Christened in Christian culture). According to the U.S. Constitution, citizenship is conferred at birth. But most people give increasing value and love as a baby matures in the womb.

Pez: And your science candidate supports their abortion at any stage, letting them die on the floor when they survive abortion …

You should know enough that that is a misrepresentation of Obama's actual position.

Pez: Are we now contending that government agencies are bastions of ethical behaviour and that we can take a President's assurances to the bank?

No, but your point concerned whether the President had the "power to make this assurance." No one reads that to say he can dictate policy, but your comment suggested he had no power on this issue. That was incorrect.

Pez: I wish we had government agencies looking at our food supply and spending our tax dollars, then wouldn't things be swell.

All modern governments inspect food. The alternative would be dire. I understand the U.S. government has not funded sufficient inspections. Perhaps that is what you are alluding to.

Pez: Can science tell us whether or not it is ~~moral~~ ethical to destroy individual human beings?

No.

Pez: Can a crack team of political advisors?

Possibly. The justification for killing requires a balance of valuations. For instance, the decision to go to war involves a decision to kill. A war might be justified as self-defense. Or to stop a genocide. Laws on when capital punishment is appropriate are also decided politically.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 10:08 am

Joy Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Pez:

She at least has executive experience and is applying for the job of VP, not Pres., like junior senator Obama whose qualifications are voting "present" and writing biographies … and answering science questions.

I actually agree that candidates will promise anything to get elected. The nature of the political beast. That's why I consider it important to actually know something about what they've done in the past. It's obvious that the personalities and policies of governance at the top do have effects on the echelons below. Cases in point: Department of the Interior, where Anything Goes, Apparently. The McCain campaign is already earning its claim to fame with a Blizzard of Lies.

There's nothing quite so much of a parody of itself as general elections in this country. Just when you think you've seen/heard it all, they come up with another whopper. One of my favorites is the Federalist attack on Thomas Jefferson during the campaign of 1800 -

"Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia Mulatto father"

Almost as good as Davy Crocket accusing Martin Van Buren in 1836 of wearing women's underwear!

Comment by Joy — September 12, 2008 @ 11:13 am

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Hi Zach,

Pez: And your science candidate supports their abortion at any stage, letting them die on the floor when they survive abortion …

You should know enough that that is a misrepresentation of Obama's actual position.

How can we ever know enough to know his exact position?
http://illinoisreview.typepad....
We can know enough to know his actions:
http://www.jillstanek.com/arch...

Pez: Are we now contending that government agencies are bastions of ethical behaviour and that we can take a President's assurances to the bank?

No, but your point concerned whether the President had the "power to make this assurance." No one reads that to say he can dictate policy, but your comment suggested he had no power on this issue. That was incorrect.

My point was that Obama said he would assure that stem cell research would be done ethically. He can't assure us of that.
But you were right to note that I was incorrect …. he said "ensure".

As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001 through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight.

And again, he cannot make this certain.

Pez: I wish we had government agencies looking at our food supply and spending our tax dollars, then wouldn't things be swell.

All modern governments inspect food. The alternative would be dire. I understand the U.S. government has not funded sufficient inspections. Perhaps that is what you are alluding to.

They do indeed. And people die and get sick everyday from tainted food, even with government oversight and committees galore. Promises are easy to make and ethics and rigour are difficult to ensure.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
From a linked NY Times article:

Take the case of the Bridge to Nowhere, which supposedly gives Ms. Palin credentials as a reformer. Well, when campaigning for governor, Ms. Palin didn’t say “no thanks” — she was all for the bridge, even though it had already become a national scandal, insisting that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

The wasteful spending is enacted by members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Three of the four candidates running are members of the US Senate. How do senators manage to get a pass on waste they authorized in the first place?

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Pez: How can we ever know enough to know his exact position?

Certainly not by misrepresenting someone's position.

Pez: And again, he cannot make this certain.

And only someone not trying to fairly interpret his comments would suggest he was claiming magical, absolute or even mere dictatorial powers.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Bradford: From a linked NY Times article:

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

The wasteful spending is enacted by members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Three of the four candidates running are members of the US Senate. How do senators manage to get a pass on waste they authorized in the first place?

That has nothing to do with the veracity of Palin's "Thanks, but no thanks" story.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 1:27 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Watch the two videos on this link and shudder:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Comment by Raevmo — September 12, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Hi Zach,

Pez: How can we ever know enough to know his exact position?

Certainly not by misrepresenting someone's position.

Twice the charge. How about the evidence?
Does Obama support abortion at all stages of pregnancy? Yes.
Does he support letting babies who survive abortion die? Yes.
Was the misrepresentation that I said that he supports their dying on the floor?
I cop. I think the proper term is "shelving", whether or not it is the practice.

Pez: And again, he cannot make this certain.

And only someone not trying to fairly interpret his comments would suggest he was claiming magical, absolute or even mere dictatorial powers.

He can't do what he claimed.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Veracity?
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

According to many Americans, the Bush Doctrine could be defined in many different ways[24] as there is no known, official, "Bush Doctrine" as per the White House, the Republican party, or as announced or endorsed by the Bush Presidency. Speculation suggests that the title "Bush Doctrine" has primarily been assigned by those who politically disagree with the government actions as executed during the Bush Presidency with respect to the Iraq War. With reference to the Wikipedia definition of Doctrine, many Americans would define Bush's ideology of "spreading democracy around the world".

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs – he tried to trip her up by misquoting/misrepresenting her previous statements.

Any wonder she needed a week to prepare to face this kind of "objective" journalism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/po...

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 2:22 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Zachriel: Certainly not by misrepresenting someone's position.

Pez: Twice the charge. How about the evidence?

Your own cite shows how manipulative the claim is. During the debate, Obama suggested a reasonable compromise was possible that would meet constitutional muster, protect abortion rights, and answer the concerns addressed by the bill; but that is clearly not the intention of many who see all abortion as morally indefensible.

Pez: Does Obama support abortion at all stages of pregnancy?

Obama: On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Pez: Does he support letting babies who survive abortion die?

Not every fertilized egg is a citizen. Nearly half of all pregnancies are miscarried before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. What happens to those babies?

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
My own cite shows exactly what Obama did. He voted and campaigned against an act, following Planned Parenthood strategy and later said he would have supported it – but he didn't.
We can't know his policies by his words, but by his actions. He votes against partial birth abortion bans and against Born Alive.

Not every fertilized egg is a citizen. Nearly half of all pregnancies are miscarried before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. What happens to those babies?

What does natural death have to do with premeditated destruction?
Can we kill every 90 year old because many of them will be dead in the next year anyway?

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Off-topic

Pez: Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs – he tried to trip her up by misquoting/misrepresenting her previous statements.

The term "Bush Doctrine" has been used by Bush, Cheney, White House press secretaries, think tanks, etc.

Cheney: That came to be known as the Bush doctrine. What it basically meant was that the United States was going to go on offense; no longer would we wait to be attacked, but we would go on offense and go after the terrorists wherever we found them, wherever they were planning, wherever they were training, getting ready to carry out further operations against the United States; and, as the President indicated, we would also hold accountable those states that sponsored terror.

And as the evidence of who was supporting terror is often secret and incomplete, it means there are few restraints on the military actions of the U.S. government. And we know where unaccountable power leads.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Pez: We can't know his policies by his words, but by his actions. He votes against partial birth abortion bans and against Born Alive.

And there are valid reasons he did so. You might try arguing against his actual position, rather than the made-up one.

Zachriel: Not every fertilized egg is a citizen. Nearly half of all pregnancies are miscarried before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. What happens to those babies?

Pez: What does natural death have to do with premeditated destruction?

You might try answering the question to see where it leads. Unknowingly flushing a child down the toilet is still a crime of negligence. The line between zygote and citizen is not as clear as you try to make it.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

Joy Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Funny. I'd have parsed the "Bush Doctrine" in its contrast to, say, the "Powell Doctrine" of if you're going to war, do it right the first time. As opposed to doing it on the cheap with too few troops and no battle or occupation plans to speak of. But I could also entertain it as "spreading democracy around the world by means of pre-emptive war against sovereign nations that haven't threatened us, thereby reducing the population of said sovereign nations by a million or more." Works either way.

Comment by Joy — September 12, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Works a lot of ways. No wonder a person would ask for clarification when asked their opinion on it.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Hi Zach,

Pez: We can't know his policies by his words, but by his actions. He votes against partial birth abortion bans and against Born Alive.

And there are valid reasons he did so. You might try arguing against his actual position, rather than the made-up one.

His actual position is that he is courting Planned Parenthood and voting as they strategize. His legitimate reasons are that he sees any ruling in favour of the fetus to be an erosion of RvW and will have none of it. Transporting minors across state lines to avoid consent regulation, partial birth abortion, exposure, the FCA … he supports all of these for the fear that they will cut into the desires of his demographic. The very clause he says made the federal law palatable was in the state law he rejected.

You might try answering the question to see where it leads. Unknowingly flushing a child down the toilet is still a crime of negligence. The line between zygote and citizen is not as clear as you try to make it.

Boy, you really like it spelled out for you, don't you?
Your inciteful question:
" What happens to those babies?"
They die natural deaths and are not killed in premeditated acts or "donated" for destruction and research. I made no line between zygote and "citizen" – you are the one trying to fudge the issue with the term citizen. I talked about human beings.
Foreigners aren't citizens either – so I guess with a fuzzy line there we can kill and research on them as well?
Really, these little supposed ethical dilemmas are transparent and are irrelevant to the issue.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Off-topic

Pez: Works a lot of ways. No wonder a person would ask for clarification when asked their opinion on it.

The Bush Doctrine is the idea that preventive wars by the United States based on secret intelligence are justifiable (but preventive wars by other countries are still war crimes).

Pez: Works a lot of ways.

Spin. The Bush Doctrine has been a topic of debate since the American invasion of Iraq among those interested in foreign policy and the historical roots of the debacle. I seriously doubt she has thought much about the justifications for war.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Pez: His legitimate reasons are that he sees any ruling in favour of the fetus to be an erosion of RvW and will have none of it.

Roe v. Wade allows restrictions on abortions. So no problem there.

Pez: They die natural deaths and are not killed in premeditated acts or "donated" for destruction and research.

They're often born alive, Pez. Just as alive as those created by in vitro fertilization. So, according to your previous comments, they are deserving of legal protection.

Pez: Really, these little supposed ethical dilemmas are transparent and are irrelevant to the issue.

The issue I raised was your misrepresentation of Obama's position. He is willing to accept reasonable restrictions on third trimester abortions with exceptions for the life and health of the woman. And he believes the best solution is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Roe v. Wade allows restrictions on abortions. So no problem there.

Tell that to Obama.

They're often born alive, Pez. Just as alive as those created by in vitro fertilization. So, according to your previous comments, they are deserving of legal protection.

Legal protection has nothing to do with a comparison of applying heroic and non-existent medical procedures
v. willfully ending a life. People die of cancer, too, and sometimes we can't save them because we don't have the technology or it is feasible – that's not the same as shooting them.

And he believes the best solution is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

He says this as a public platitude but he votes to protect every instance of abortion and will, as a first order of business, sign into law the feds ability to wipe out every restriction passed by any state.
Oh, but I was going to say – define "health of the mother" as per Obama, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion debate, wouldn't you please?

See you in a few hours, I have work now.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Bradford: From a linked NY Times article:

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

The wasteful spending is enacted by members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Three of the four candidates running are members of the US Senate. How do senators manage to get a pass on waste they authorized in the first place?

Zachriel: That has nothing to do with the veracity of Palin's "Thanks, but no thanks" story.

First, the final words were thanks or no thanks? Second, if the authorization was wasteful and those criticizing her voted for wasteful spending then their votes are relevant to their qualifications to be president. This is not a one dimensional race whose sole focus is on Palin. At least not to those whose minds are open to making judgements based on a broad spectrum of issues.

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Zachriel, parse this:

Oh, and when she finally did decide to cancel the project, she didn’t righteously reject a handout from Washington: she accepted the handout, but spent it on something else. You see, long before she decided to cancel the bridge, Congress had told Alaska that it could keep the federal money originally earmarked for that project and use it elsewhere.

Congress includes Obama and Biden. Why are congresionally mandated funds considered handouts if put to good use? The bridge was considered waste. The alternative not waste. Do you think research funding are handouts Zachriel?

So the whole story of Ms. Palin’s alleged heroic stand against wasteful spending is fiction.

Channeling wasteful bridge spending to an alternative use authorized by Obama and Biden is not interpreted as standing against waste according to this NY Times god. Does this sound like objective journalism to you?

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Bradford: First, the final words were thanks or no thanks?

The phrase "Thanks, but no thanks", doesn't mean someone said yes, then changed their mind. It means thank you for the offer, but I do not accept the offer.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Bradford: First, the final words were thanks or no thanks?

Zachriel: The phrase "Thanks, but no thanks", doesn't mean someone said yes, then changed their mind. It means thank you for the offer, but I do not accept the offer.

The offer being the bridge to nowhere. Where is it shown that the alternative useage is wasteful and if the alternative useage is wasteful how do Obama and Biden not accept responsibility for the offer?

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Zachriel: And he believes the best solution is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Pez: He says this as a public platitude …

You honestly don't believe that Obama and women's group in his coalition support education and availability of birth control? Or that they want unwanted pregnancies?

Pez: … but he votes to protect every instance of abortion and will, as a first order of business, sign into law the feds ability to wipe out every restriction passed by any state.

Based on his fundamental philosophical and political views, I am certain he will support reasonable restrictions.

Pez: define "health of the mother" as per Obama, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion debate, wouldn't you please?

Obama: I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Bradford: Why are congresionally mandated funds considered handouts if put to good use? The bridge was considered waste. The alternative not waste. Do you think research funding are handouts Zachriel?

Earmarks are an inherently wasteful means of allocating spending. Spending should be included as normal appropriations so there is some accountability. In science, the NSF and other agencies evaluate proposals based on scientific merit.

But that's not the issue. Palin's not arguing it was a good use of federal funds. She's arguing she turned down the money.

Bradford: Channeling wasteful bridge spending to an alternative use authorized by Obama and Biden is not interpreted as standing against waste according to this NY Times god.

Huh? She strongly supported the earmark for the purpose of building the bridge. That's several hundred million dollars for a town of a few thousand for a state rolling in petrol-dollars. And now she bases her campaign on turning down the money.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Zachriel: But that's not the issue. Palin's not arguing it was a good use of federal funds. She's arguing she turned down the money.

She argued she turned down the money for the bridge.

Bradford: Channeling wasteful bridge spending to an alternative use authorized by Obama and Biden is not interpreted as standing against waste according to this NY Times god.

Huh? She strongly supported the earmark for the purpose of building the bridge. That's several hundred million dollars for a town of a few thousand for a state rolling in petrol-dollars. And now she bases her campaign on turning down the money.

Was the money used to build the bridge?

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Bradford: She argued she turned down the money for the bridge.

In fact, she fought for the funding, as she has for many other earmarks.

Bradford: Was the money used to build the bridge?

Congress turned down the money. The bridge was not built.

And to bring this back on topic, a significant amount of money is spent on science through earmarks. And while many such projects may be sensible, the system is inherently wasteful and intended to support incumbency.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Bradford: She argued she turned down the money for the bridge.

Zachriel: In fact, she fought for the funding, as she has for many other earmarks.

There is not a governor in the United States who does not accept earmarks and not a senator who does not seek pork for his state. That includes the three senators running for high office. Palin's speech could have included mention of the pressure applied to cancel the funding and the fact that most of the pressure came from outside Alaska. But she, like her male counterparts, is a politician. When it comes to complete disclosure I find reversal of positions on energy policy, in response to rising gas prices and subsequent voter unhappiness, much more troubling and a more substantive concern but that matter is better pursued in the open thread.

Bradford: Was the money used to build the bridge?

Congress turned down the money. The bridge was not built.

And to bring this back on topic, a significant amount of money is spent on science through earmarks. And while many such projects may be sensible, the system is inherently wasteful and intended to support incumbency.

Wow! We agree on something.

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Whether earmarks are good or bad, isn't the important point that Palin blatantly lied about her support for the "bridge to nowhere"? Doesn't that count for anything anymore, or is all forgiven as long as you profess to believe in the correct god? American politics and its amazing dishonesty is fascinating in a perverse kind of way, but the stupidity of the people is really awesome.

Comment by Raevmo — September 12, 2008 @ 6:16 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Raevmo:

Whether earmarks are good or bad, isn't the important point that Palin blatantly lied about her support for the "bridge to nowhere"?

"Thanks but no thanks" is not a blatent lie. If it were classified as a lie then Obama would have much more serious lies to answer for about his relationship with Bill Ayers and past statements made with respect to that. This pristine selectivity about lying is hypocritical.

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Bradford,

As I expected you are making my point for me. You be a good Christian now and vote for the man who left his disabled wife.

Comment by Raevmo — September 12, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

Bradford Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
You be a good Christian now and vote for the man who left his disabled wife.

You mean instead of the one whose candidacy for the state senate was launched at a party hosted by unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers who was described as just a neighbor? Thanks but no thanks.

Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Zach,

I'm rather surprised by that position.
* The expeditions of Columbus
* Lewis and Clark
* Voyage of the Beagle
* Hubble Space Telescope
* Robotic exploration of the Solar System
* Fundamental medical research
* Large Hadron Collider
* Environmental science
None of these would be funded without governments.

Do you honestly believe that no one would have discovered America or explored the west with out government funding? Or that no chartable foundation is interested in fundamental medical research. No wonder you so scared of ID.

Of course things might have move along a little slower if research had to justify its existence to willing investors instead of simply taking folk’s nest eggs by political means.

But don’t pretend such wealth confiscation is a scientific issue. Its pure politics those who want government funding must convince the powers that be that their pet project is more important than all the other worthy uses of other folks money.

In ancient Egypt, the central government enforced land and water rights through state-of-the art surveying techniques and hydraulic engineering.

And they also confiscated people’s hard earned wealth to build pyramids and tombs for the Pharaoh. That’s how politics works. Your point is?

There is no intrinsic economic incentive to not pollute, or to preserve natural resources, such as water, forests, game or fisheries. Rather, the response requires coordinated action. In a democratic society, that means the response is political.

Exactly my point it’s political not scientific.
To claim that some one is antiscience simply because he does not agree with your politics is at best ignorant and at worst deliberately dishonest.

The science is not political, but the policy is.

I agree so let’s not mix the two. Agreed ?

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 12, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Zachriel: I'm rather surprised by that position.

* The expeditions of Columbus
* Lewis and Clark
* Voyage of the Beagle
* Hubble Space Telescope
* Robotic exploration of the Solar System
* Fundamental medical research
* Large Hadron Collider
* Environmental science

None of these would be funded without governments.

fifth monarchy man: Do you honestly believe that no one would have discovered America or explored the west with out government funding? Or that no chartable foundation is interested in fundamental medical research. No wonder you so scared of ID.

Of course things might have move along a little slower if research had to justify its existence to willing investors instead of simply taking folk’s nest eggs by political means.

You answered your own objection.

I just wanted to clarify your position for our readers. There will be very few who don't believe that a free people can't coordinate on big projects through their democratic institutions, or that those societies which are capable of big projects don't have a significant and continuing advantage over those that can't.

fifth monarchy man: To claim that some one is antiscience simply because he does not agree with your politics is at best ignorant and at worst deliberately dishonest.

I didn't say you were anti-science. I do think your statement that "Real Science doesn’t need the government" is not reasonable, is ideological not practical, and will be rejected by most.

Zachriel: The science is not political, but the policy is.

fifth monarchy man: I agree so let’s not mix the two. Agreed ?

The findings of science should be kept free from government and political interference. But it is the proper role of government to direct resources and to harness the findings of science to further its aims.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 10:46 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Hi Zach,

And while many such projects may be sensible, the system is inherently wasteful and intended to support incumbency.

Almost makes you wish the government had some kind of oversight committee to ensure there was no waste, huh?

Based on his fundamental philosophical and political views, I am certain he will support reasonable restrictions.

He never has when he's had a chance so your confidence in a liar is probably misplaced. His fundamental views are, in the words of his ex-pastor – to "do what politicians do". That is, get elected and say whatever is necessary to achieve this end.

You honestly don't believe that Obama and women's group in his coalition support education and availability of birth control? Or that they want unwanted pregnancies?

They support sex, contraception and abortion. Obama supports Planned Parenthood and "women's" groups so that they will support his political career – he has official endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He gets 100% passing grades from the pro-choice lobby for his voting record and he votes according to their strategies.
He's even succumbed to their demands that he move abortion to the fore in this election – against his attempts to bill himself as the non-partisan candidate, which included evading the issue as much as possible.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crun...

Zach quotes Obama (from his interview in a Christian magazine, wasn't it?)

Obama: I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

That's what he says.
Until he clarifies.:

Sen. Barack Obama clarified his position today on mental-health exceptions to late-term abortions, saying he supports such exceptions and that comments he made during a recent magazine interview shouldn't be interpreted as opposing them.
…
According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign's senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.

"Mental distress is not an illness." Douglass said. "He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness."

That makes sense and conforms to the senator's co-sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act legislation which, among other things, would codify a mental-health exception to late-term abortion prohibitions.

The problem for the senator was when he appeared to be making a clear demarcation between physical and mental health in his magazine interview by saying:

Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term…

He clearly needed to add one more thought to that statement. He did it today.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/n...

Keep your eyes open in the coming months as he further attacks McCain's position (allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and for pregnancies that threaten the mother's life) and expect, with one-time NARAL president for his " campaign to expand its appeal to women on issues of abortion rights. "http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13103.html
===

Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review says that, for a constitutional law professor, Obama appears to know very little about the finer points of the Supreme Court's 1973 landmark abortion decisions.

"At best, he is being highly misleading," Ponnuru says.

"To review: Roe said that states could prohibit late-term abortions so long as they made an exception for the health of the mother. The Supreme Court handed down Doe v. Bolton on the same day as Roe. Both opinions were written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who said that they were to be 'read together,'" Ponnuru explains.

In Doe, Blackmun wrote that health should be viewed "in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age…."

"As a result of Roe and Doe, abortion has been effectively legalized at any stage of pregnancy," Ponnuru adds.

He points out that, in a speech last year, Obama said,"I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional law."

"That makes it harder to believe that his misdescription of abortion law over the last week was innocent," Ponnuru said.

"Based both on his co-sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act and his comments on Roe v. Wade, Obama is committed to legal abortion at any stage of pregnancy for essentially any reason, and he wants it subsidized by taxpayers too," Ponnuru concludes.

"Is he the most pro-abortion nominee ever? He at least ties."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat402...

If his pre-clarification statement is to mean anything, beyond his pandering, then it would prompt action.
http://theologica.blogspot.com...

What action does Obama take?
When he had a chance to vote for legislation that made exceptions when the life of the mother was in danger :

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

On partial birth abortions where is his insistence that the woman be in serous physical danger?

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

===
re: Obama's positions being determined by his concernt hat R v.W will be undercut:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade…. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie.

http://illinoisreview.typepad....

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Hmm, too many links?
Hi Zach,

And while many such projects may be sensible, the system is inherently wasteful and intended to support incumbency.

Almost makes you wish the government had some kind of oversight committee to ensure there was no waste, huh?

Based on his fundamental philosophical and political views, I am certain he will support reasonable restrictions.

He never has when he's had a chance so your confidence in a liar is probably misplaced. His fundamental views are, in the words of his ex-pastor – to "do what politicians do". That is, get elected and say whatever is necessary to achieve this end.

You honestly don't believe that Obama and women's group in his coalition support education and availability of birth control? Or that they want unwanted pregnancies?

They support sex, contraception and abortion. Obama supports Planned Parenthood and "women's" groups so that they will support his political career – he has official endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. He gets 100% passing grades from the pro-choice lobby for his voting record and he votes according to their strategies.
He's even succumbed to their demands that he move abortion to the fore in this election – against his attempts to bill himself as the non-partisan candidate, which included evading the issue as much as possible.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crun...

Zach quotes Obama (from his interview in a Christian magazine, wasn't it?)

Obama: I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

That's what he says.
Until he clarifies.:

Sen. Barack Obama clarified his position today on mental-health exceptions to late-term abortions, saying he supports such exceptions and that comments he made during a recent magazine interview shouldn't be interpreted as opposing them.
…
According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign's senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.

"Mental distress is not an illness." Douglass said. "He absolutely believes and has always said there has to be a health exception for serious physical and mental illness."

That makes sense and conforms to the senator's co-sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act legislation which, among other things, would codify a mental-health exception to late-term abortion prohibitions.

The problem for the senator was when he appeared to be making a clear demarcation between physical and mental health in his magazine interview by saying:

Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term…

He clearly needed to add one more thought to that statement. He did it today.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/n...

Keep your eyes open in the coming months as he further attacks McCain's position (allow abortion in cases of rape, incest and for pregnancies that threaten the mother's life) and expect, with one-time NARAL president for his " campaign to expand its appeal to women on issues of abortion rights. "http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13103.html

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review says that, for a constitutional law professor, Obama appears to know very little about the finer points of the Supreme Court's 1973 landmark abortion decisions.

"At best, he is being highly misleading," Ponnuru says.

"To review: Roe said that states could prohibit late-term abortions so long as they made an exception for the health of the mother. The Supreme Court handed down Doe v. Bolton on the same day as Roe. Both opinions were written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who said that they were to be 'read together,'" Ponnuru explains.

In Doe, Blackmun wrote that health should be viewed "in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age…."

"As a result of Roe and Doe, abortion has been effectively legalized at any stage of pregnancy," Ponnuru adds.

He points out that, in a speech last year, Obama said,"I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional law."

"That makes it harder to believe that his misdescription of abortion law over the last week was innocent," Ponnuru said.

"Based both on his co-sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act and his comments on Roe v. Wade, Obama is committed to legal abortion at any stage of pregnancy for essentially any reason, and he wants it subsidized by taxpayers too," Ponnuru concludes.

"Is he the most pro-abortion nominee ever? He at least ties."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat402...

If his pre-clarification statement is to mean anything, beyond his pandering, then it would prompt action.
http://theologica.blogspot.com...

What action does Obama take?
When he had a chance to vote for legislation that made exceptions when the life of the mother was in danger :

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

On partial birth abortions where is his insistence that the woman be in serous physical danger?

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

===
re: Obama's positions being determined by his concernt hat R v.W will be undercut:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade…. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie.

http://illinoisreview.typepad....

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review says that, for a constitutional law professor, Obama appears to know very little about the finer points of the Supreme Court's 1973 landmark abortion decisions.

"At best, he is being highly misleading," Ponnuru says.

"To review: Roe said that states could prohibit late-term abortions so long as they made an exception for the health of the mother. The Supreme Court handed down Doe v. Bolton on the same day as Roe. Both opinions were written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who said that they were to be 'read together,'" Ponnuru explains.

In Doe, Blackmun wrote that health should be viewed "in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age…."

"As a result of Roe and Doe, abortion has been effectively legalized at any stage of pregnancy," Ponnuru adds.

He points out that, in a speech last year, Obama said,"I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional law."

"That makes it harder to believe that his misdescription of abortion law over the last week was innocent," Ponnuru said.

"Based both on his co-sponsorship of the Freedom of Choice Act and his comments on Roe v. Wade, Obama is committed to legal abortion at any stage of pregnancy for essentially any reason, and he wants it subsidized by taxpayers too," Ponnuru concludes.

"Is he the most pro-abortion nominee ever? He at least ties."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat402...

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
If his pre-clarification statement is to mean anything, beyond his pandering, then it would prompt action.
http://theologica.blogspot.com...

What action does Obama take?
When he had a chance to vote for legislation that made exceptions when the life of the mother was in danger :

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.147-148 Oct 30, 2007

On partial birth abortions where is his insistence that the woman be in serous physical danger?

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
re: Obama's positions being determined by his concernt hat R v.W will be undercut:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade…. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie.

http://illinoisreview.typepad....

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hi mods.
Do not rescue my comments from the filter.
I have partitioned it an posted it in chunks.
Thanks.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Apparently Obama would appoint judges who would ensure no new restrictions (i.e., his reference to mental illness) for 35 years, although I haven't sought out the primary source on this one.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat430...

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 11:11 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Pez: Almost makes you wish the government had some kind of oversight committee to ensure there was no waste, huh?

Yes. Congress is a type of committee. Then only half the money is wasted rather than nearly all of it.

Pez: Sen. Barack Obama clarified his position today on mental-health exceptions to late-term abortions, saying he supports such exceptions and that comments he made during a recent magazine interview shouldn't be interpreted as opposing them.

You apparently don't think that a woman who suffers from severe mental illness, such as psychosis due to pregnancy, should be able to get an abortion. You also indicated that fertility clinics are immoral. I understand your position, that you will not change it, and that you will continue to demonize and misrepresent the views of pro-choice politicians who attempt to defend abortion rights.

Frankly, through your uncompromising and compassionless position, you make a convincing case for unrestricted abortion rights.

Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

Pez Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Hi Zach,

Yes. Congress is a type of committee. Then only half the money is wasted rather than nearly all of it.

I hope Obama's assurance can do better than 50%. I hope others have a higher standard as well.

You apparently don't think that a woman who suffers from severe mental illness, such as psychosis due to pregnancy, should be able to get an abortion.

Is that apparent? It should actually be apparent that I am discussing Obama's lies, pandering and obfuscation in order to curry votes and not my personal feelings. While your need to take my pulse and assess my mental state is touching it is unnecessary.

It is nice though that you admit by your change of tack here that your quoting of Obama in response to my question was a misrepresentation of his position – forcing you now to admit that "mother's health" includes "mental health" in addition to "serious physical issue" – a conclusion which you had tried to avoid before. It was kind of strange that Obama thought a clergyman might weigh in on the mother's serious physical issues when determining whether or not she should have a partial birth abortion, wasn't it? More a matter for doctors, I would have thought.

You also indicated that fertility clinics are immoral.

But what did I actually say? What was my stated position?

I understand your position, that you will not change it,

I already changed it. Just a few years ago I had no problem with abortion on demand as well as for the eugenic reasons so strongly advocated in todays' media. I am quite able to change my mind.

and that you will continue to demonize and misrepresent the views of pro-choice politicians who attempt to defend abortion rights.

Ooh, demonize. It really must be election season.
But why do you call it demonizing? Is it bad to be one of the most abortion friendly senators and to receive a 100% scorecard from the abortion lobby?

I have not misrepresented Obama in the least and have fully backed my claims about him and what he supports against this charge multiple times now.
I would expect an honest debater to stop making it. Then again, I'm watching a lot of election coverage here at home as well, so I do know how it works.

Frankly, through your uncompromising and compassionless position, you make a convincing case for unrestricted abortion rights.

Ah yes, the oh so clever appeal to murdering your opposition. I almost missed it – not.
Fortunately, you are as accurate in your assessment of my compassion and ability to compromise as you are about my representations of Obama and his 100% scorecard. Where I won't compromise is with your charge that I am misrepresenting Obama or with your attempts to bluff your way to supporting it.

And speaking of the im/morality of fertility clinics, what did I say about sufficient cause again …hmmm?
Oh yes:

So if there is sufficient cause we can morally take a human life. That's what I said. We agree again.

Comment by Pez — September 13, 2008 @ 12:38 am

Raevmo Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Bradford:

You mean instead of the one whose candidacy for the state senate was launched at a party hosted by unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers who was described as just a neighbor? Thanks but no thanks.

Bill Ayers fire bombed more innocent women and children than John McCain?

Bob Herbert's take on Palin's "readiness":

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...

Pez, did you make up that quote from the Wikipedia page on the Bush Doctrine? It's not there (anymore?)

Comment by Raevmo — September 13, 2008 @ 5:45 am

Zachriel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Pez: It is nice though that you admit by your change of tack here that your quoting of Obama in response to my question was a misrepresentation of his position – forcing you now to admit that "mother's health" includes "mental health" in addition to "serious physical issue" – a conclusion which you had tried to avoid before.

Obama is correct to clarify his view when he either misstates or isn't precise. That's what he is supposed to do. The courts have held that medical exceptions must be allowed for abortion, and that would certainly include mental illness.

Of course, we're still forced to guess at your position. Many people think that allowing any exceptions leads to a slippery slope and that would mean de facto abortion on demand. That's a reasonable argument that might be addressed.

Perhaps that is your fear. But it's hard to know.

Pez: It was kind of strange that Obama thought a clergyman might weigh in on the mother's serious physical issues when determining whether or not she should have a partial birth abortion, wasn't it?

Which indicates more your misunderstanding of his position than something "strange". If it's the woman's choice, then of course a woman might seek advice. And if she does, she may find that abortion is not the only option, and that there may be support in her community.

Pez: More a matter for doctors, I would have thought.

Doctors provide medical options. They are not always the best choice for spiritual or family advice. Family and church are the natural support groups for most women. Sometimes a professional counselor might help.

Zachriel: You also indicated that fertility clinics are immoral.

Pez: But what did I actually say? What was my stated position?

You said, "Innocent human beings should not be destroyed without sufficient cause – enhanced fertility is not one of them in my opinion, although others have the right to be honestly mistaken on this issue and are not evil for being wrong." You only said this after I asked twice, so if your position is still not clear, you might look to yourself.

Your statement would indicate you think that fertility clinics that make and destroy embryos for optional reproduction are committing immoral acts. Just as a woman who has an abortion might be "honestly mistaken on this issue and are not evil for being wrong". If you meant otherwise, that is certainly the impression you left. If you meant otherwise, you might try to make your position clear so that we don't have to guess about it.

What is "sufficient cause" for an abortion or otherwise destroying an embryo? And who should decide in individual cases? Many people think it should normally be the woman's decision to make that determination, and not the State's.

Zachriel: Frankly, through your uncompromising and compassionless position, you make a convincing case for unrestricted abortion rights.

Pez: Ah yes, the oh so clever appeal to murdering your opposition. I almost missed it – not.

I meant it directly. If those who reject reasonable compromise have sufficient political influence, and they use their political clout to distort any reasonable compromise into a political wedge to be used against those who support abortion rights, it means many will support abortion rights without restriction even if that means allowing whatever abuses that position might entail. And that's been the case with virtually every proposed restriction. Fortunately, not everyone rejects reasonable compromise.

Assuming you are against abortion rights, but I wouldn't venture to guess.

Pez: I have not misrepresented Obama in the least …

Of course you have. I find his position reasonably consistent. I can see why he would object to wedge-laws, while still believing reasonable compromise is possible.

Pez: … and have fully backed my claims about him and what he supports against this charge multiple times now.

Repeatedly linking to Jill Stanek's misrepresentations is not evidence. Those against abortion rights use the legislative process for creating political wedges—not as a reasonable attempt at compromise. Obama has consistently voted against such bills.

Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2008 @ 9:31 am

Zachriel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:13 am
And to segue back to topic. Abortion is ancient. Birth and other reproductive issues have often been decided by women and their midwives in private. Modern medical abortion has brought this traditional practice into the open.

But medical abortion is only the very tip of the iceberg. New biological technologies are imminent and will render the abortion issue rather quaint by comparison. It doesn't bode well that so many people are still mired in simplistic views.

Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2008 @ 10:13 am

Bradford Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Raevmo:

Bob Herbert's take on Palin's "readiness":

Herbie's list of Obama's qualifications:

Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2008 @ 10:23 am

Bradford Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Pez, did you make up that quote from the Wikipedia page on the Bush Doctrine? It's not there (anymore?)

An unreliable source. Too easy to edit out displeasing info.

Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2008 @ 10:25 am

Zachriel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Raevmo: Whether earmarks are good or bad, isn't the important point that Palin blatantly lied about her support for the "bridge to nowhere"?

Bradford: "Thanks but no thanks" is not a blatent lie.

It was deliberately deceptive. And it wasn't just something she stumbled on as an aside and hoped it would not be questioned, but something they trumpeted from the ramparts hoping to convince people of its truth by cynically trading on their reputation. But she has finally 'clarified' her remarks. Just like the bridge to nowhere, she changed her position only when the old position became laughable.

Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2008 @ 10:28 am

Pez Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Ha!
Thanks Raevmo, it is gone!
You guys are masters of "way back" and archives, right? I'm sure you can find it.
I'll quote this part to show the ambiguity now.
Maybe it will also violate their policies and disappear.

The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves, the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats, the doctrine of preemptive war, and the president's second-term "freedom agenda".[1]
The first usage of the term may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense well before September 11th.[2][3]
Later the phrase came to describe the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[4] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[5][6][7] This represented a continuation of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy of roll-back, as opposed to the older Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine; and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine. The "Bush Doctrine" was never enacted into law.
The main elements of one Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[8] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine,[9][10][11] and was updated in 2006.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Check out this Google for "Bush Doctrine Wikipedia Archive"

News results for bush doctrine wikipedia archive

ABC News
So, looks like it was Charlie Gibson's gaffe on Bush doctrine, not … – 1 hour ago
"I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term" way back in 2001. …
Los Angeles Times – 911 related articles »
Daily Kos: Wikipedia Edit-War over 'Bush Doctrine'
Wikipedia Edit-War over 'Bush Doctrine'. by rwilly777. Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:54:07 PM PDT. Chris Beam over at Trailhead documents the furious editing by …
http://www.dailykos.com/story/... – 33k – 12 hours ago – Cached – Similar pages
MemeStreams | Bush Doctrine Wikipedia Edit War
12 Sep 2008 … This morning, I pulled that Wikipedia article up again, and lo and behold, the Bush Doctrine had a completely new definition: …
http://www.memestreams.net/use... – 22k – 18 hours ago – Cached – Similar pages
Similar questions with find information Bush doctrine Wikipedia
Askville's similar question page contains questions and answers referencing find,information,Bush,doctrine,Wikipedia.
askville.amazon.com/SimilarQuestions.do?req=find+information+Bush+ doctrine+Wikipedia – 87k – 21 hours ago – Cached – Similar pages

From one of the links on the Wiki edit war …

Jere7my takes matters into his own hands and deletes the entire "controversy" section, calling it "a blatant attempt to muddy the waters after the Palin interview." As of posting time, all Palin references have been scrubbed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
I bet that's the part you thought I wrote all by my lonesome.

Hey Zach, no time to read your comments now – later.

Love the Wiki!

Comment by Pez — September 13, 2008 @ 10:39 am

Pez Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Hey Raevmo,
I'm in moderation for an awful comment holding a handful of links. I wasn't thinking.

Of course the Wiki has changed.
Google "Bush Doctrine Wikipedia Archive", or anything else, I bet, and find out all about it.
Maybe someone else wants to detail it a bit, I'm out of time right now.

Comment by Pez — September 13, 2008 @ 10:42 am

Zachriel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Pez (quoting somebody): According to many Americans, the Bush Doctrine could be defined in many different ways as there is no known, official, "Bush Doctrine" as per the White House, the Republican party, or as announced or endorsed by the Bush Presidency.

As I pointed out above, the "Bush Doctrine" has been promulgated by Bush, Cheney and the Whitehouse.

Cheney: That came to be known as the Bush doctrine. What it basically meant was that the United States was going to go on offense; no longer would we wait to be attacked, but we would go on offense and go after the terrorists wherever we found them, wherever they were planning, wherever they were training, getting ready to carry out further operations against the United States; and, as the President indicated, we would also hold accountable those states that sponsored terror.

A concise description would be Bush's speech of June 2002 rejecting the existing Cold War doctrines and advocating preemptive action, including war.

And as the evidence of who was supporting terror is often secret and incomplete, it means there are few restraints on the military actions of the U.S. government. And we know where unaccountable power leads.

Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2008 @ 10:51 am

Bradford Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Zachriel:

And as the evidence of who was supporting terror is often secret and incomplete, it means there are few restraints on the military actions of the U.S. government.

Zach, do you realy expect countermeasures to be made public? Secrecy is an essential component of any military plan. That's Military Tactics 101.

Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2008 @ 11:05 am

Joy Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Zach:

And to segue back to topic. Abortion is ancient. Birth and other reproductive issues have often been decided by women and their midwives in private. Modern medical abortion has brought this traditional practice into the open.

I usually avoid the topic like the plague, because it's fraught with such ambiguity and passion on both sides. But it is indeed a fact that women have been controlling their fertility ever since the 'medicine women' worked to learn about the properties of herbs, roots, barks and berries for healing and health maintenance.

At some point in early human history it was noted that in lean mast years bears (and other critters) would consume certain plants so that cubs conceived would not be born during the winter – leading to the likely starvation death of both mother and cub(s). The mobile lifestyle and dietary inconsistencies of life in tribal society led to necessary limits on the size of the tribe. As described in the time of the Patriarchs in the Bible, when the clan gets too big, it must fission and take to different regions for sustenance. And because life was so iffy even for babies who were born, some ancient societies didn't bother to name the child for months after birth because so many died during the first weeks. In several societies, the custom was to bestow the naming 100 days after birth.

Abortion has always been available to women of means – centuries before birth control pills or Roe v Wade – and they've long made use of it even when it was the only reliable means of birth control. Surely no one here believes there's some actual biological reason rich people don't have as many children as poor people, since that's patently ridiculous.

I can readily understand people's strong disapproval of abortion. The same disapproval for birth control and sterilization is more difficult to understand, but I accept that it exists. My opinion is that people who have these strong feelings should definitely not practice birth control, sterilization or abortion. For women, it's their body and they can have all the babies they want (or don't want), right up until it kills them. The men who want to control who comes to or from the bodies of ALL women can rant and rave, but they've no right to impose their wishes on other free and fully enfranchised citizens of a pluralistic society. That's reality.

Life decisions belong to the individual. Medical decisions belong to the individual and his/her medical provider. That relationship should not be trumped by accountants, government or complete strangers.

Government and medical oversight can (and should) restrict late term abortion because viability is a real consideration. A majority of babies in this country are currently born by C-section – mostly for the convenience of doctors. "Partial birth" abortion is never necessary for the life of the mother, and it's a gruesome procedure. It is reserved to situations where the fetus is already dead or has no chance of survival. But it could be removed in the "normal" C-section way without damaging the woman's ability to have children in the future. I personally know women who have had 3 or more children by C-section, and women who have had babies normally after a previous C-section delivery. It doesn't even leave much of a scar these days.

Fact: doctors don't believe as a group that vaginal birth is "better" than a convenient C-section birth. They statistically prefer C-section for all births, premature, complicated or normal at term. Therefore the argument about late term partial birth is a pig in a poke (with or without lipstick), a distraction. Government can legitimately take it off the table of "abortion on demand" and it won't affect any real people. Should something like that become absolutely necessary to save the mother in an extreme situation (though I can't think of one that couldn't be handled by C-section) – and the baby is already dead – the medical necessity must trump the restriction. That's the law. This isn't "choice" or "convenience," it's saving the woman's life (or removing a dead fetus).

Heck, if a woman goes all the way to viability before deciding she doesn't want the baby, the law can insist that the baby be saved, rights at viability. Then maybe some of those women who go to fertility clinics to be impregnated with more babies than they can carry will consider adoption.

Restrictions on abortion are legitimate at both ends. If a doctor can't set a minor's broken leg without parental permission, he shouldn't be performing invasive medical procedures without parental permission either. Or, in the case of some sad situations (incest-rape), the intervention of a guardian ad litem. Late term can be restricted on the basis of viability or potential viability, the rights of the child taking precedence over the mood or desire of the woman who got that far along before 'changing her mind'. Always with the medical necessity option if necessary, and again the rights of the viable fetus considered.

Now, we could go back to ancient human customs and grant a level of emancipation to citizens at the age of 12 or 13 (sexual maturity). Putting them in charge of reproductive decisions for themselves when they become capable of reproduction even if they're still living at home, going to mandatory school and can't vote yet. There are quite a lot of things we could do legally and socially. But removing completely from half the human population the right to make their own reproductive decisions is NOT reasonable, NOT desirable, and NOT necessary.

Religious objectors can make their own decisions for their own bodies. They do NOT have a right to make such decisions for me or mine. Even they can learn to accept that if they have to. And yes, they have to.

Comment by Joy — September 13, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Joy:

I usually avoid the topic like the plague, because it's fraught with such ambiguity and passion on both sides.

Sort of like slavery in the ninetenth century.

I really wish things like this were not discussed here. It makes it much harder to discuss science but since it has been brought up I feel obligated to at least say somthing in support of those with out any voise.

But it is indeed a fact that women have been controlling their fertility ever since the 'medicine women' worked to learn about the properties of herbs, roots, barks and berries for healing and health maintenance.

If fact it has been going on since the first baby was exposed because it was inconvient to it's parents.

because such a practice is ancient does not make it right.

But removing completely from half the human population the right to make their own reproductive decisions is NOT reasonable, NOT desirable, and NOT necessary.

Denying the right to life from a whole class of people because they are inconvenient is equally NOT reasonable, NOT desirable, and NOT necessary.

If the twentieth century has taught us anything it has taught us that.

Religious objectors can make their own decisions for their own bodies. They do NOT have a right to make such decisions for me or mine. .

This is the same argument that supporters of the slave trade made to those noisy bible thumping abolitionists. I'm sorry you feel that way but it will not make folks like me be quiet when there are innocent lives at stake.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 13, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

Joy Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
fmm:

Denying the right to life from a whole class of people because they are inconvenient is equally NOT reasonable, NOT desirable, and NOT necessary.

You never had the power to dictate such things. THAT is my point. Women have always managed their fertility. It's only among the poor (and in some instances, the heritable aristocracy – royal brood mares) that access (or actual decisions to have as many as humanly possible) becomes an issue.

They're not "people" until they're born and duly certified, in a legal sense. And viability counts on that reckoning. Men invented this patriarchal, "women are chattel" control deal after they'd already lost the war over real control of women's bodies and sexuality. You can't go back to the Good Ol' Days because there never were any. That's just a fact.

Now, I'm anti-abortion in my little world. I've never had to even think about an abortion for myself, and wouldn't have had one if I did face such a choice. I argued – successfully! – for the lives of my first grandsons and ended up raising one of 'em. Happily and gratefully. I've adopted three children and fostered many more. Despite getting myself sterilized – thankfully! – at the ripe old age of 23 (on purpose), I love kids and there's always room for one more.

So I've met women who shouldn't be mothers but keep on having babies anyway. I've known children who suffered their whole childhood unloved and unwanted. I've known babies whose bones have been broken and skin has been scarred by pure evil in human form. I've seen families so dysfunctional that graduating 6th grade is "all anybody needs." And I've worked inside (guardian ad litem) and outside the "system" to intervene when I could.

There are no simple answers here. There will always be a range of views. So I think it's important to consider the rights of the actual living humans involved, and not reach blindly for some blanket piece of pious posturing on such a present, personal issue. Everybody doesn't believe what you believe. You can't force-feed or mind-control everyone. Honest.

Comment by Joy — September 13, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Palin is Bush in a dress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...

Hilarious example of cronyism:

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one of her qualifications for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Comment by Raevmo — September 13, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,

You wrote…

If fact it has been going on since the first baby was exposed because it was inconvient to it's parents.

because such a practice is ancient does not make it right

This gets back to the ethical/moral disconnect of situations like Spartans throwing babies off cliffs.

To them it would have been an unethical dereliction of duty to their society
to allow deformed babies to live. Their actions were ethical, but were they moral?

To Joy's privacy argument you wrote…

This is the same argument that supporters of the slave trade made to those noisy bible thumping abolitionists.

The ancient practice of abortion, infanticide and slavery is mostly a problem for those who believe in the existence of a single, universal, absolute moral code.

Yes, I see this as NOMA. I don't know the Truth.

However, I understand that you hold a position different than mine on this. I respect that you reject NOMA and hold there is an absolute moral code.

To make the discussion more complete, let’s throw on to the pile the modern practice of state-sponsored murder.

Whether it is executing its own citizens, attempting the assassination of dictators or starting a pre-emptive war, would these also be clear violations of your absolute moral code, FMM?

Every time I see a "pro-life" bumper sticker I wonder if the car's occupant is also prolife when it comes to capital punishment.

Since I don't know the Truth, I think the best we can do is be consistent. It seems hypocritical to me that some people will in one breath demand that a zygote be allowed to enter our world regardless of the harm this could cause, while in the next breath demand walls be erected to protect our world from being invaded by illegal aliens.

To me, a true "pro life" political position would encourage a minimum standard of living for all (including health care), establish a place for "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and demand our government refrain from engaging in pre-emptive wars and/or directly killing individuals.

Or is the "pro life" position unconcerned with pro-death activities that occur after the birth they forced to occur?

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 13, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Joy

I really don’t want to get into this discussion I’d much prefer to discuss things like this finding and its frontloading implications please understand I’m only responding because aborted infants can’t speak for themselves

It's only among the poor (and in some instances, the heritable aristocracy – royal brood mares) that access (or actual decisions to have as many as humanly possible) becomes an issue.

This is not an argument for abortion it’s an argument against special privileges for the upper class and on that we agree.

Just because the rich always seem to get away with flouting morality is no reason to deny it exists

They're not "people" until they're born and duly certified, in a legal sense. And viability counts on that reckoning.

That Depends on who is doing the certifying. Slaveholders claimed that slaves were not duly “certified”, Nazis clamed that Jews were not duly “certified.”

The founding fathers on the other hand claimed that the certifying was done by the Creator. Amazingly they did so despite the fact that they were blind to their own failure to live up to this standard. I stand with them.

So I've met women who shouldn't be mothers but keep on having babies anyway. I've known children who suffered their whole childhood unloved and unwanted. I've known babies whose bones have been broken and skin has been scarred by pure evil in human form. I've seen families so dysfunctional that graduating 6th grade is "all anybody needs." And I've worked inside (guardian ad litem) and outside the "system" to intervene when I could.

Defenders of the Slavetrade held out the horrid condition of blacks in Africa as a justification for slavery. They were right that things were bad there and that many slaves were treated better than the poor whites in America.

None of that justified taking away the inalienable rights of others .

Everybody doesn't believe what you believe. You can't force-feed or mind-control everyone. Honest.

I agree but I can try to persuade folks. It worked for the early Christians and infanticide and it worked for the abolitionists and the folks who fought against segregation. I’d be letting them down if I did not at least try

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 13, 2008 @ 7:00 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
TP

To them it would have been an unethical dereliction of duty to their society
to allow deformed babies to live. Their actions were ethical, but were they moral?

This argument is based on the contention that Spartans did not know that their actions were wrong. Contrary to what you believe, I believe they knew it was wrong to take an innocent life despite what they claimed.

If you can’t prove what you claim it’s only your opinion and opinions are like belly buttons we all have one.

The ancient practice of abortion, infanticide and slavery is mostly a problem for those who believe in the existence of a single, universal, absolute moral code.

It’s not a problem for me I’m a Christian therefore I believe that mankind has been rebelling against the moral law and justifying itself since the beginning. Abortion, infanticide and slavery are what you’d expect from self-centered rebels.

Let’s take your counterexamples one at a time

Whether it is executing its own citizens,

I could not vote to authorize an execution because of possibility of being wrong but I recognize the government’s prerogative to punish lawbreakers as it sees fit. That is as long as it does not violate its charter in the process. After all it’s only murder when we take an innocent life with out due cause.

attempting the assassination of dictators

Again I could not participate in such an act but can see where it might be justified as a way to save innocent life as in the case of Hitler in 1942.

or starting a pre-emptive war,

Depends on what you mean by preemptive. For instance if we saw a nuclear bomb in North Korea being activated I think we would be justified in taking it out.

Every time I see a "pro-life" bumper sticker I wonder if the car's occupant is also prolife when it comes to capital punishment.

I not sure why this would be a concern everyone believes that the government can deney rights to someone after due process of law. Just because I believe in the right to liberty can I not believe in prisons for criminals?

To me, a true "pro life" political position would encourage a minimum standard of living for all (including health care), establish a place for "huddled masses yearning to breathe free”

This is an odd position. Just because I believe that there is a right to life must I also believe there is a right to a minimum wage and government sponsored healthcare? Where is that in the constitution?

I do however believe that it is my responsibility to help the poor as best I can because of the whole “Law of Christ” thing but I’m not sure I should advocate taking others' property to do it.

and demand our government refrain from engaging in pre-emptive wars and/or directly killing individuals.

I respect that opinion. In fact many Christians share it. They are mostly from the Anabaptist tradition a close cousin to my own that I have much affinity for.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 13, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,

You wrote…

If you can’t prove what you claim it’s only your opinion…

I don't know the Truth, do you?

Why do you believe Spartans "knew it was wrong to take an innocent life despite what they claimed" even if you can't prove it?

While I probably know your answer, it's generally better to have the words come from you instead of me.

Note, I am not claiming the Spartans were acting either Right or Wrong, only ethically.

I recognize the government’s prerogative to punish lawbreakers as it sees fit. That is as long as it does not violate its charter in the process. After all it’s only murder when we take an innocent life with out due cause.

In Sparta, it was against the "law" for a male child to be a less-than-perfect soldier punishable by death. This law was enforced starting at birth. It did not violate Sparta's charter since it was Sparta's charter. Therefore, it wasn't murder because it was based on "due cause" by your definitions.

I suggest your presumptions about "innocent life" are tailored by modern thinking. Is a homosexual innocent? How about a pedophile?

For a discussion more germane to abortion…

Do you believe a woman who doesn't want to bear children can be considered innocent?

Some people believe it is wrong for any woman to take any action that prevents life from being created inside her.

What makes your particular opinion on when life begins the correct one?

Joy gave the non-religious answer. Life begins when it is "duly certified" and accepted as such by the state. This gets us to the point of how the right to life is connected to things like minimum standards of living and not executing citizens.

Your questioning me on "Where is that in the constitution?" bordered on amusing. You are the one suggesting the existence of an absolute, moral code, not me. Why do you try to hide behind man's law to answer these straight-forward questions?

Consistency. If the state accepts the duty of deciding when and how life is created then it would be inconsistent and unethical for that state to ignore its duty by allowing this life to end through neglect and/or carelessness.

I presume you feel a father has a duty to raise and feed the children he has accepted as his own. Why doesn't the state have the same obligations?

Would you accept that a father could change his mind and reject a child he had previously accepted and kill it? If not, why do you accept that the state can do what a father and mother cannot? Might makes right?

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 13, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

Pez Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Hi Zach,

Pez (quoting somebody): According to many Americans, the Bush Doctrine could be defined in many different ways as there is no known, official, "Bush Doctrine" as per the White House, the Republican party, or as announced or endorsed by the Bush Presidency.

Somebody? You and everyone here knows I quoted Wikipedia. Just more of the same from you, sadly enough.

You left a link to a Google page of other links purporting to answer my WIKIPEDIA quote.

Perhaps it's meant to answer the current (as of this morning, anyway) Wikipedia cite I left:

The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines,"
…
Later the phrase came to describe the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[4] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war
…
The "Bush Doctrine" was never enacted into law. The main elements of b>one Bush Doctrine/b> were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, …

Against this Zach said there is a concise definition, as though Palin should have known just what that was when Gibson queried her on it. But to that later.
Zach says that Bush, Cheney, or the Whitehouse define the doctrine. But do they do so in such a way that we can say "this doctrine actually exists and it is this …" or so that Palin would not be absolutely in the right to ask Gibson what he means when he asks "what do you think of the Bush doctrine?". Or hat she might give an answer that doesn't accord with his presumed definition? Of course not, but let's have a look-see anyway, at your offering.
How many links do I have to check before I find the Whitehouse using the term? The first two don't. On the third they quote an NBC headline that used it. 0-3 thus far. In the fourth the term is used by a reporter interviewing the President:
"Thank you, sir. Perhaps the clearest, strongest message you have ever sent from any podium has been what you like to call the Bush doctrine — that is to say, if you feed a terrorist, if you clothe a terrorist, if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist. " Was Gibson asking about this? Nope, he was asking about preemptive strikes. Good thing Palin asked because this isn't the doctrine as Gibson and Zach define it.
In the fifth it is used and defined by Cheney: "The Bush doctrine makes clear that states supporting terrorists or providing sanctuary for terrorists will be deemed just as guilty as the terrorists themselves of the acts they commit. If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."
Nothing there about preemptive strikes.
The sixth repeats this quote.
In the seventh a reporter uses the term several times in a question period – attempting to find out just what it means and how it applies. Maybe it's not as clear as all that.
Finally, in the eighth, Bush himself answers a question and refers to the doctrine:
"Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror. And that includes working with our friends and allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure, to convince — to convince those that think they can traffick in terror that they're going to face a mighty coalition. And sometimes we use military force and sometimes we won't."
Many things here Palin might have had an opinion on before assuming with Gibson that he was only interested in preemptive strikes – which are not even specified here.
In the last one on that page we have the VP again:
"So we have to build a strategy that has a robust and aggressive offense as a part of it. A good part of that was based upon the President's perception and his determination — it's come to be known as the Bush doctrine — that we were going to change the way we think about states that sponsor terror.
Prior to 9/11, most of the world was willing to look the other way when we found terrorists states, states or governments that allowed terrorists to operate from their territory. They might go after the terrorists, but there was no consequence, no penalty paid by the state that sponsored the terror, or that provided safe harbor or sanctuary for the terrorist. That day is past.
The President annunciated what's come to be known as the Bush doctrine, and henceforth, we will hold states that sponsor terror or provide bases for terrorists accountable and responsible for any attacks launched by those terrorists. So not only are we going after terror-sponsoring states, we've also worked aggressively to take down the financial networks that support them, to take away their logistical support, which oftentimes is found buried in otherwise legitimate organizations, non-governmental and charitable organizations. We've mounted a major effort with respect to our intelligence services and the intelligence services of other nations."
Charlie Gibson defined it as the American right to strike targets militarily that they think will strike them first. Bush says the doctrine can include cutting off sources of capital, use diplomatic pressure, sometimes use military and sometimes not.
It makes sense that Palin would want to know what it was about the doctrine, a broad description of how the US intends to view terrorists and the countries that harbour them, that Gibson was asking about.
In Zach's "concise definition" the term is not even used.
It does say though:

We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.)
…
We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries, using every tool of finance, intelligence and law enforcement. Along with our friends and allies, we must oppose proliferation and confront regimes that sponsor terror, as each case requires. Some nations need military training to fight terror, and we'll provide it. Other nations oppose terror, but tolerate the hatred that leads to terror — and that must change. (Applause.) We will send diplomats where they are needed, and we will send you, our soldiers, where you're needed. (Applause.)
All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. (Applause.) We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world.
Because the war on terror will require resolve and patience, it will also require firm moral purpose. In this way our struggle is similar to the Cold War. Now, as then, our enemies are totalitarians, holding a creed of power with no place for human dignity. Now, as then, they seek to impose a joyless conformity, to control every life and all of life.
America confronted imperial communism in many different ways — diplomatic, economic, and military. Yet moral clarity was essential to our victory in the Cold War. When leaders like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan refused to gloss over the brutality of tyrants, they gave hope to prisoners and dissidents and exiles, and rallied free nations to a great cause.
Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. (Applause.) Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. (Applause.) Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong. (Applause.) Brutality against women is always and everywhere wrong. (Applause.) There can be no neutrality between justice and cruelty, between the innocent and the guilty. We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. (Applause.) By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it. (Applause.)
As we defend the peace, we also have an historic opportunity to preserve the peace. We have our best chance since the rise of the nation state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war. The history of the last century, in particular, was dominated by a series of destructive national rivalries that left battlefields and graveyards across the Earth. Germany fought France, the Axis fought the Allies, and then the East fought the West, in proxy wars and tense standoffs, against a backdrop of nuclear Armageddon.
Competition between great nations is inevitable, but armed conflict in our world is not. More and more, civilized nations find ourselves on the same side — united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos. America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge — (applause) — thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.
Today the great powers are also increasingly united by common values, instead of divided by conflicting ideologies. The United States, Japan and our Pacific friends, and now all of Europe, share a deep commitment to human freedom, embodied in strong alliances such as NATO. And the tide of liberty is rising in many other nations.
Generations of West Point officers planned and practiced for battles with Soviet Russia. I've just returned from a new Russia, now a country reaching toward democracy, and our partner in the war against terror. (Applause.) Even in China, leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only lasting source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only true source of national greatness. (Applause.)
When the great powers share common values, we are better able to confront serious regional conflicts together, better able to cooperate in preventing the spread of violence or economic chaos. In the past, great power rivals took sides in difficult regional problems, making divisions deeper and more complicated. Today, from the Middle East to South Asia, we are gathering broad international coalitions to increase the pressure for peace. We must build strong and great power relations when times are good; to help manage crisis when times are bad. America needs partners to preserve the peace, and we will work with every nation that shares this noble goal. (Applause.)
And finally, America stands for more than the absence of war. We have a great opportunity to extend a just peace, by replacing poverty, repression, and resentment around the world with hope of a better day. Through most of history, poverty was persistent, inescapable, and almost universal. In the last few decades, we've seen nations from Chile to South Korea build modern economies and freer societies, lifting millions of people out of despair and want. And there's no mystery to this achievement.
The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance. America cannot impose this vision — yet we can support and reward governments that make the right choices for their own people. In our development aid, in our diplomatic efforts, in our international broadcasting, and in our educational assistance, the United States will promote moderation and tolerance and human rights. And we will defend the peace that makes all progress possible.
When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women, there is no clash of civilizations. The requirements of freedom apply fully to Africa and Latin America and the entire Islamic world. The peoples of the Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation. And their governments should listen to their hopes. (Applause.)
A truly strong nation will permit legal avenues of dissent for all groups that pursue their aspirations without violence. An advancing nation will pursue economic reform, to unleash the great entrepreneurial energy of its people. A thriving nation will respect the rights of women, because no society can prosper while denying opportunity to half its citizens. Mothers and fathers and children across the Islamic world, and all the world, share the same fears and aspirations. In poverty, they struggle. In tyranny, they suffer. And as we saw in Afghanistan, in liberation they celebrate. (Applause.)
…
We will work for a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.
The bicentennial class of West Point now enters this drama. With all in the United States Army, you will stand between your fellow citizens and grave danger. You will help establish a peace that allows millions around the world to live in liberty and to grow in prosperity.
…
On behalf of the nation, I congratulate each one of you for the commission you've earned and for the credit you bring to the United States of America. May God bless you all. (Applause.)

Lots of levels in this "concise definition" of the doctrine, which Zach and Gibson have distilled down to "rejecting the existing Cold War doctrines and advocating preemptive action, including war." So Palin could have commented on the use of diplomacy, the training of foreigners, the desire for peace, cooperation between nations, the end of wars, the essentialness of freedom, the immorality of cruelty and murder, legal dissent, the promotion of moderation and tolerance, common rights of mean and women, protection of American citizens from grave danger, etc. etc.
Like I said, it doesn't seem like such a silly thing for her to ask Gibson in what way he meant "the Bush Doctrine" when he asked.

Comment by Pez — September 13, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
TP

Why do you believe Spartans "knew it was wrong to take an innocent life despite what they claimed" even if you can't prove it?

A simple thought experiment.
Would a Spartan warrior feel slighted if he were to be killed for the good of the community? If the answer is yes then he knew it was wrong to do the same to his children.

This law was enforced starting at birth. It did not violate Sparta's charter since it was Sparta's charter. Therefore, it wasn't murder because it was based on "due cause" by your definitions.

Wait a minute I said the state had a right to punish criminals as they saw fit. Laws deal with what you do not who you are. It is not a crime to exist.

That’s what the right to life means. This is basic stuff

Is a homosexual innocent? How about a pedophile?

Yes in the eyes of the law until they commit a crime.

Do you believe a woman who doesn't want to bear children can be considered innocent?

Yes in the eyes of the law until she commits a crime

Some people believe it is wrong for any woman to take any action that prevents life from being created inside her.

Some folks believe it’s wrong for any women to choose to have more than one child. Your point is?

What makes your particular opinion on when life begins the correct one?

Science duh.
If you disagree with the scientific consensus I would think it would be up to you to defend yourself. not me.

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a zygote is not alive?

You are the one suggesting the existence of an absolute, moral code, not me. Why do you try to hide behind man's law to answer these straight-forward questions?

Because it’s not necessary to prove there is absolute, moral code to prove that our founding documents recognize a right to life. the existence of the moral law is a philosophical question. The right to life is a legal one.

it would be inconsistent and unethical for that state to ignore its duty by allowing this life to end through neglect and/or carelessness.

I agree. That’s why we have laws against involuntary manslaughter. but it's an open question what constituts neglect or carelessness.

I presume you feel a father has a duty to raise and feed the children he has accepted as his own.

Yes it’st’s part of the inferred contract that is a family

Why doesn't the state have the same obligations?

Because the charter that our state is based on never makes such a promise.

Would you accept that a father could change his mind and reject a child he had previously accepted and kill it?

The state has a conditional monopoly on the use of lethal force. That’s what makes the state a state and not a club. To say otherwise is to advocate anarchy.

However a private citizen does not have an obligation to honor a contract even if it is an implied one if the other party breaks it.

It’s called divorce and disowning and it happens all the time in this country

If not, why do you accept that the state can do what a father and mother cannot? Might makes right?

Technically the state can’t do what a father and mother cannot.

When a criminal commits a crime he violates the contract between him and the state and therefore the state has no obligation to honor the contract anymore.

Come on TP this is basic civics.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 13, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Pez: Somebody? You and everyone here knows I quoted Wikipedia.

Anyone can add material to Wikipedia. The comment didn't survive the editing process.

Pez: Against this Zach said there is a concise definition …

I quoted Cheney directly *defining* the Bush Doctrine. (There are many other instances of the term being used by the Whitehouse.)

Cheney: That came to be known as the Bush doctrine. What it basically meant was that the United States was going to go on offense; no longer would we wait to be attacked, but we would go on offense and go after the terrorists wherever we found them, wherever they were planning, wherever they were training, getting ready to carry out further operations against the United States; and, as the President indicated, we would also hold accountable those states that sponsored terror.

Pez: as though Palin should have known just what that was when Gibson queried her on it.

Not "just what that was". She hadn't a clue on one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush presidency, one that impacts nearly every facet of international relations.

Pez: Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs

That is a false statement which you should correct.

Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
fifth monarchy man: Would a Spartan warrior feel slighted if he were to be killed for the good of the community?

Ή τάν ή επί τάς

fifth monarchy man: Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a zygote is not alive?

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim that a sperm is not alive?

Comment by Zachriel — September 13, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

Pez Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Zach returns to Obama, the science candidate who thinks that the scientific question "when does life begin" is a theological question.

Obama is correct to clarify his view when he either misstates or isn't precise. That's what he is supposed to do. The courts have held that medical exceptions must be allowed for abortion, and that would certainly include mental illness.

That's right. and, as I said, if we go by his words and actions we can find out what his views really are. It's just that he isn't honest about them. In fact, wasn't it you – yes, truly it was – who, when asked to define "mother's health" was mislead by Obama and quoted him saying "serious physical issues"? But you yourself note that the court allows for mental illness as an additional exception. So you knew this wasn't professor of law Obama's real position. And, in fact, Obama and you both know that the court does not limit the exceptions to "serious physical issues" or "mental illness".
So, amid your many, many, many and continuing cries of my misrepresenting Obama and displaying my ignorance it seems you were the ignorant one, isn't that so?
I will graciously presume it is and that you are just trying to hide this fact out of embarrassment for your having been so uninformed while chastising me. I'm just that swell.

Of course, we're still forced to guess at your position

No, you are forced to do no such thing (yours is still a free country?)
You have at least a couple of choices:
1) You can read and comprehend
2) You can discuss the issues without obsessing over my personal mental state and without posing sophomoric ethical thought experiments.

Perhaps that is your fear. But it's hard to know.

You worry as well about my fears? I fear lingering illness and fruit cake.

Which indicates more your misunderstanding of his position than something "strange". If it's the woman's choice, then of course a woman might seek advice.

No, the demonstration is against your understanding, not mine. Obama was discussing late term partial birth abortions. For which, according to the position we were facing before you admitted the truth, purportedly required the exception of "serious physical issues". If I go to a hospital with a serious physical issue I do not consult a clergyman about how to deal with it. The clergy can be of great help emotionally, but does not have a vote regarding the necessity of a life-saving medical procedure.
Now, you've admitted and agreed with Obama (at least his second pretense) that mental illness is also sufficient as an exception. Again, this is not for the clergy to determine and rule upon but a medical/psychiatric professional. Funny, he doesn't even mention such an assessment, given this additional exception (unspoken when addressing a Christian constituency).

They are not always the best choice for spiritual or family advice. Family and church are the natural support groups for most women. Sometimes a professional counselor might help.

Again, spiritual advice has nothing to do with it – the woman is in serious physical danger. She may ask for prayer, but there is no reason to consult the clergy on the medical efforts required to save her life.

You said, "Innocent human beings should not be destroyed without sufficient cause – enhanced fertility is not one of them in my opinion, although others have the right to be honestly mistaken on this issue and are not evil for being wrong." You only said this after I asked twice, so if your position is still not clear, you might look to yourself.

Yeah, you sure pried that spoon-feeding out of me, didn't you? "If my position isn't clear"? My position is as clear as can be. In fact, reading on we see that for all your postured confusion you already know my position.

If you meant otherwise, you might try to make your position clear so that we don't have to guess about it.

You don't have to guess about it, you can read and or learn to discuss the issues.
Oh, but since you are so obsessed let me tell you again. We can morally kill innocent people with sufficient cause. Yeah, I know you saw that, because you refer to it below.
Enhanced fertility is not such a cause (you know that as well), therefore, it is objectively, morally, wrong. The people who perform such procedures can have the best of intentions and can think they are doing nothing but good but they are still morally wrong. This does not make them bad people, but they are mistaken.
But you aren't happy with what you can obviously glean from my comments. You want me to demonize people. You want a label, because, well, the world is so much neater with labels. But we all do morally wrong things, so it does no good just to say " this person does wrong, so he is immoral". What's much better, by my standards at least, is to discuss issues and actions.

What is "sufficient cause" for an abortion or otherwise destroying an embryo? And who should decide in individual cases? Many people think it should normally be the woman's decision to make that determination, and not the State's.

Yes, wouldn't they, though? And if they are wrong that whatever a woman determines necessarily merits sufficiency then they are wrong and people should try to reason with them and educate them. And – watch for my blasphemy – the woman too can be wrong in her assessment of that sufficiency.
See that? You did read it and you did know how to come to the appropriate conclusion. You just wanted the label. Sorry to disappoint. Maybe you can pry it out of me later … perhaps a story about an over-crowded life boat would do the trick?

Zachriel: Frankly, through your uncompromising and compassionless position, you make a convincing case for unrestricted abortion rights.
Pez: Ah yes, the oh so clever appeal to murdering your opposition. I almost missed it – not.
Zach:I meant it directly.

Uh huh.

Fortunately, not everyone rejects reasonable compromise.
Assuming you are against abortion rights, but I wouldn't venture to guess.

Good don't guess. Stick to the issues.

Pez: I have not misrepresented Obama in the least …
Zach: Of course you have. I find his position reasonably consistent. I can see why he would object to wedge-laws, while still believing reasonable compromise is possible.

Ah, of course. Zach finds Obama's position reasonably consistent so, of course, I have misrepresented him.
Amazing measuring stick, that. But you're right – Obama's position is very consistent – just not his spoken one when stumping. And just not the one you stated when misrepresenting him.
The facts are the facts and you just need to learn to deal with them. He not only supports late-term abortion, and partial birth abortion and opposes Born Alive, but he acts in accordance with those – that is his position. And yes, it is consistent, 100%, according to NARAL.

Pez: … and have fully backed my claims about him and what he supports against this charge multiple times now.
Zach: Repeatedly linking to Jill Stanek's misrepresentations is not evidence. Those against abortion rights use the legislative process for creating political wedges—not as a reasonable attempt at compromise. Obama has consistently voted against such bills.Oh, I see. So I am misrepresenting Obama's position because my source is and she is misrepresenting him because of wedges and unreasonableness. So why hasn't Obama written and tried to pass into law his philosophical and political positions without these alleged poison-pill wedges? Because he wants no changes to unlimited abortion at all stages of pregnancy.
You say I repeatedly quoted Stanek. How many of my links cited her? Did you miss where Obama said he would use as a litmus test for judicial appointments the upholding of Roe and Doe, and that this amounts to abortion in any term and is not restricted to serious physical issues, nor even to "mental illness"? This doesn't require anybody else's representation of Obama. I don't think you did. But you represent as though you did.

Broad definition of health
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" broadly:
“
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
”
This determination that abortion will be available all the way up until birth, for a wide variety of reasons, has proven to be controversial – "at least as controversial as its holding respecting the period prior to viability."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
So, to reiterate, Obama is lying. He does not hold that "mother's health" is limited to 'serious physical issues", even if coupled with "mental illness". Neither is it a matter for the clergy, but for her doctor. But no mention, of course, of that doctor being a mental health professional.
Apparently any physician can make the assessment.

Comment by Pez — September 13, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

Pez Says:
September 13th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi Zach,

Anyone can add material to Wikipedia. The comment didn't survive the editing process.

So you admit it was from Wikipedia. Good.
It seemed to have survived well enough until Wiki this issue came up.

Against this Zach said there is a concise definition …

I quoted Cheney directly *defining* the Bush Doctrine. (There are many other instances of the term being used by the Whitehouse.)

You said Bush's speech was the concise definition.
Which part of Cheney's statements constitute the "direct" definition when scholars think there might be seven of them, according to Wiki … today?

Cheney: That came to be known as the Bush doctrine. What it basically meant was that the United States was going to go on offense; no longer would we wait to be attacked, but we would go on offense and go after the terrorists wherever we found them, wherever they were planning, wherever they were training, getting ready to carry out further operations against the United States; and, as the President indicated, we would also hold accountable those states that sponsored terror.

Where's the definition here that says that the Bush doctrine says the US starts a preemptive war? You and Gibson said that was the definition. Why do you get to decide what the definition is and why is it ridiculous that Palin expect Gibson's clarification?

Not "just what that was". She hadn't a clue on one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush presidency, one that impacts nearly every facet of international relations.

She didn't? She knew obviously enough that, when answering to her own interpretation, the policy was to defend America.

Gibson:Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
Palin:In what respect, Charlie?
G: The Bush, well, what do you interpret it to be?
P:His worldview?
G:No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated Sept. 2002, before the Iraq war.
I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation.

Sounds like she knew what Bush had enunciated in 2002. You read his "concise" definition?

When he nailed down what he thinks the doctrine means, what you think it means, and what Cheney does not say in your latest version of the "direct" definition, she answered consistent with Bush's position.

Pez: Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs

Zach:That is a false statement which you should correct.

No it's not. Your reading and moralizing are as weak as ever.
Did Gibson portray the Bush doctrine as something that actually exists?
Yep.
Was he trying to trick Palin?
I think so. That was certainly his pattern in the interview.
Was she tricked?
No. She made him clarify what he was asking and she answered it.

Are you concerned that I do not admit that the Bush doctrine is something that exists? According to scholars it is several somethings, it is a term used by journalists to describe several foreign policy principles. It is ridiculous to ask "what do you think of it" in a televised interview during a campaign and expect that that question means anything concise enough or represents any one thing concisely enough to be answered without pause and clarification.

Thanks for your advice on my moral duty, however. You are a very good watchdog, just a tad presumptuous.

Comment by Pez — September 13, 2008 @ 11:47 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Here's one Wiki won't erase.

Is there a Bush doctrine?
Nope.
Did Gibson try to trick Palin?
Yep.
Was she reasonable to ask for his clarification?
Yep.
Etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

…
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
…
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Here's another …. ominously like my own thoughts above. Maybe I wrote this, too?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 1:05 am

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 1:25 am
More? Why not?

After a brief exchange, Gibson explained that he was referring to the idea — enshrined in a September 2002 White House strategy document — that the United States may act militarily to counter a perceived threat emerging in another country. But that is just one version of a purported Bush doctrine advanced over the past eight years.

Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term "freedom agenda"; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about — the doctrine of preemptive war.

"If you were given a quiz, you might guess that one, because it's one that many people associate with the Bush doctrine," said Feaver, now a Duke University professor. "But in fact it's not the only one."

Outside foreign policy experts offered different reads on the question. Richard C. Holbrooke, who served key posts in both the Clinton and Carter administrations, said he saw the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine. (The White House staff member who helped draft the 2002 document, Stephen E. Biegun, now serves as Palin's foreign policy adviser.)

The strategy document itself articulates the principle as follows: "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

But one of the drafters of that document demurred at investing the statement with too much weight. "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine," said Philip D. Zelikow, who later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, said he thought there was no "single piece of paper" that represents the Bush doctrine, but said several ideas collectively make up the doctrine, including the endorsement of preventive war and the idea that there is such a thing as a "war on terror."

"There are many elements to the Bush doctrine," he said.

In an interview, Bush press secretary Dana Perino said that "the Bush doctrine is commonly used to describe key elements of the president's overall strategy for dealing with threats from terrorists." She laid out three elements:

"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. . . . We will confront grave threats before they fully materialize and will fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home. . . . We will counter the hateful ideology of the terrorist by promoting the hopeful alternative of human freedom."

Bush, she added, "is comfortable with the way I just described it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 1:25 am

Thought Provoker Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,

Interesting responses, thanks.

You wrote…

A simple thought experiment.
Would a Spartan warrior feel slighted if he were to be killed for the good of the community?

We are talking about Spartans here, right?

A simple thought experiment. Imagine a Spartan warrior being told by his mother as he goes to battle that he is to come back carrying his shield or on it. His own mother is teaching him that being killed for the good of the community is acceptable and noble. What is acceptable and "right" for him is acceptable and "right" for his newborn son too. It is his duty to be killed.

Wait a minute I said the state had a right to punish criminals as they saw fit. Laws deal with what you do not who you are. It is not a crime to exist.

You are letting your modern thinking influence you. Being born a Helot in Sparta was a crime punishable by death. It was a matter of convienence that the Spartans delayed adminstering punishment while the criminal Helots worked the fields to feed them. Helots weren't property. They were enemies of the state and, therefore, criminals.

I suggest just because something is illegal it doesn’t make it immoral. The subject was about the taking "innocent life" in a moral context. If lack of breaking any man-made laws is what determines “innocent life” then there is no such thing, especially in modern times. It is practically impossible to not have broken a law somewhere along the line.

I suggest you mixing morality with law and ethics with inconsistent results.

Historically, many states have made unsanctioned births a crime. What is fundamentally different between a state executing homosexuals for doing what is natural for them and killing illegally born babies?

That’s what the right to life means. This is basic stuff.

Hmmm, I thought a "right to life" suggested an inalienable right that the state can not legally abridge. At least that is what the simple words would imply.

Did I ever tell you the story about my argument with a college discussion procter when she opined how wonderful it was that founding fathers decided to follow Locke's philosophy to the letter? It wasn't difficult to show that it was more a Hobbes practical reality than Locke's pipe dream.

An inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sure sounds good until you try to explain to the Southern colonies this means no slavery. It would also mean the government would be powerless to execute anyone, including spies.

Nope, Hobbs' practicality won the day.

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a zygote is not alive?

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a single human cell is not alive? (or, as Zach suggested, a sperm).

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a monkey is not alive?

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a cow is not alive?

Nice try at equivocation FMM.

Things are simple when you embrace NOMA. Philosophically the "life" that has an inalienable right to exist is not something that can be determined scientifically.

If you disagree with the scientific consensus I would think it would be up to you to defend yourself. not me.

I suggest the burden of proof is very much on to those who claim they know the single, ultimate Truth of Right and Wrong for us all.

Do you have scientific evidence for the existence of in inalienable right to life? What and who has this right? Does it apply to all conscious beings including monkeys?

Are unbelievers allowed to be killed?

How about enemies of the state and criminals?

The state has a conditional monopoly on the use of lethal force. That’s what makes the state a state and not a club. To say otherwise is to advocate anarchy.

It is interesting how you are segmenting the legal and scientific from the philosophical. It is almost like you embrace NOMA. Have you changed your mind on this?

The use of lethal force in the United States is advertised to be conditioned on the recognition of an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a citizen, I am vocal in holding my government to these conditions. There is no excuse for our continuation of the barbaric practice of executions or allowing the poor to our country to suffer and die through neglect. Such unethical actions tell our citizens, and the world, that we do not respect life. It encourages rationalization and desensitivity when we cause suffering and deaths of "illegal aliens" and other enemies of the state.

When a criminal commits a crime he violates the contract between him and the state and therefore the state has no obligation to honor the contract anymore.

Come on TP this is basic civics.

Yes it is. So is the historical precedent of governments gaining power by manipulating the dogmatic faith and patriotism of the masses and making criminals of all who would call them on it.

One nation, under God, trusting in God that tortures and kills innocent people in their own country during a preemptive and unnecessary war we started.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 14, 2008 @ 2:19 am

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Give it up Pez,

Palin had clearly never heard of the Bush Doctrine, no matter how many versions there are. That was obvious from her answer "His world view?" when asked what she thought it was.

She also mentioned Russia being visible from some Alaskan island as a foreign policy qualification. Well, I can see an oil refinery from my window. I guess that makes me an energy expert.

Please keep insisting she is ready to lead your country if you like. Says more about you than Palin.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 6:29 am

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 9:44 am
{Big Snip}

Pez: Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs

Zachriel: That is a false statement which you should correct.

Pez: No it's not.

There's really little point addressing any of your other comments or according them any credibility as long as you continue to persist in this. The clear implication of your statement is that the Bush Doctrine does not exist. That is simply false. That the Bush Doctrine is multifaceted is not a valid response. So was the Cold War Doctrine. (It's called the Long Telegram for a reason.)

Cheney: That came to be known as the Bush doctrine. What it basically meant was …

Bush: Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 9:44 am

fifth monarchy man Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Hey TP

His own mother is teaching him that being killed for the good of the community is acceptable and noble.

Actually she is teaching him that bravery and self sacrifice in battle is acceptable and noble.

This is besides the point in the south mothers taught that owning slaves was acceptable and noble that’s what rebels do to try and justify themselves. It did not change the fact that folks knew that owning other folks was wrong.

You are letting your modern thinking influence you. Being born a Helot in Sparta was a crime punishable by death.

No

I’m letting the founding fathers influence me. They said that we have an inalienable right to life do you agree or not?

I suggest just because something is illegal it doesn’t make it immoral.

I completely agree. Your point is?

The subject was about the taking "innocent life" in a moral context.

No it was not. You would like it to be but we are talking about the states right to take life this is a legal constitutional question.

We could argue about whether the state has a right to take any life “morally” speaking and as I said before I would agree you make a good point. But everyone agrees that the state has no right to take an innocent life legally speaking.

If lack of breaking any man-made laws is what determines “innocent life” then there is no such thing, especially in modern times. It is practically impossible to not have broken a law somewhere along the line.

Yes but then we would run right smack dab into the right to have the punishment fit the crime and not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

Historically, many states have made unsanctioned births a crime. What is fundamentally different between a state executing homosexuals for doing what is natural for them and killing illegally born babies?

Again so what? In this country it is against our charter to do so. That should settle the question.

It’s like we are having two arguments I know you don’t believe there is a moral law but that does not change the fact that in this country you have a right to life.

Nope, Hobbs' practicality won the day

.

In practice yes that’s the beauty of our founding documents they are better then the men who wrote them.

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a single human cell is not alive? (or, as Zach suggested, a sperm).

No but I don’t know of anyone who would argue such a cell was human life do you?

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a monkey is not alive?

No but I don’t know of anyone who would argue such a thing was human life do you?

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a cow is not alive?

No but I don’t know of anyone who would argue such a thing was human life do you?

Nice try at equivocation FMM.

No equivocation just science

I suggest the burden of proof is very much on to those who claim they know the single, ultimate Truth of Right and Wrong for us all.

Once again I'm not dealing with Philosophy just constitutional law

There is no excuse for our continuation of the barbaric practice of executions or allowing the poor to our country to suffer and die through neglect. Such unethical actions tell our citizens, and the world, that we do not respect life.

Again I agree. Your point is? Just because we are not perfect is no excuse to deny rights to our unborn children

So is the historical precedent of governments gaining power by manipulating the dogmatic faith and patriotism of the masses and making criminals of all who would call them on it.

So now we are having yet another argument about the political direction of the country.

I thought this was about abortion
It might be good to focus

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 14, 2008 @ 9:46 am

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am
fifth monarchy man: This is besides the point in the south mothers taught that owning slaves was acceptable and noble that’s what rebels do to try and justify themselves. It did not change the fact that folks knew that owning other folks was wrong.

Some folks. Not all folks. Where did you get that idea?

fifth monarchy man: I thought this was about abortion

No. It's about science and the political process.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 10:14 am

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:36 am
fifth monarchy man: This argument is based on the contention that Spartans did not know that their actions were wrong. Contrary to what you believe, I believe they knew it was wrong to take an innocent life despite what they claimed.

A simplistic view of right and wrong does not capture the decision involved for the Spartans.

Spartans certainly placed a high value on children. But they balanced that against what they conceived as the necessities of living in a dangerous world. They were a highly militarized society that kept a very large number of restless slaves. There was no room for error. Each Spartan was expected to sacrifice—even their life—for the good of the State.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 10:36 am

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hi Raevmo,
Plainly you are wrong.
Read Zach's concise definition of the Bush Doctrine. Freedom, peace, unity, cooperation, a new order .,, this is most akin to a worldview.
When Gibson threw out the vague term as though she could provide a concise answer she responded just as broadly. When I first saw the clip, without knowing what was to come next or what the kerfuffle was, I thought she was being a little ironic with Gibson's silly question.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 11:02 am

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Hi Zach,
You don't have to address anything if you don't want to. This thread will be none the worse for the loss of your quips.
The Bush Doctrine does not exist in the sense I was describing or in the sense that Gibson posed the question to Palin. That is obvious. There is no thing to which she could refer in answer to his question "what's your opinion of the Bush doctrine?"
Should she have responded, using your concise definition and as per its 'worldview' applications, that she thought cruelty was immoral? That freedom is good for women as well as for men? That people shold be able to protest?
It's not only multi-facetted, but it refers to several different and unique things, none of which has been "concisely" defined. It is a vague concept attached to a variety of statements, principles and philosophies, and it could refer to any of them or none of them, depending upon the questioner's point of view. It is not some existing thing to which you can point and say "what do you think of that?"
I stand by my statement and the point it makes.

But one of the drafters of that document demurred at investing the statement with too much weight. "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine," said Philip D. Zelikow, who later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve."

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 11:16 am

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Hi Zach,
Speaking of credibility. I'll make you a deal. I'll reconsider the wording of my offending statement.
You, in turn, after having posted repeatedly about Palin's veracity and my alleged misrepresentations, admit that Obama lied about his position on Born Alive and cop to the fact that you obviously misrepresented him when you defined "mother's health".
Do that, salvage a thread of your own credibility, and then we'll talk about mine.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 11:35 am

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Pez: You don't have to address anything if you don't want to.

You claimed that the Bush Doctrine does not exist. I quoted Bush referring to the Bush Doctrine, and Cheney defining it. You need to retract your previous claim.

Zelikow: Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve.

Now, that's funny. If you want to argue that the Bush "Doctrine" (note the Zelikowian scare-quotes) is not coherent, that's fine. We know that's not what Palin was thinking. But you need to correct your previous misstatement first.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 11:46 am

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Pez: Speaking of credibility. I'll make you a deal. I'll reconsider the wording of my offending statement.

So your integrity depends on my actions.

Pez: … and cop to the fact that you obviously misrepresented him when you defined "mother's health".

Please be specific. If you are referring to this, I accurately quoted Obama.

Obama: I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

I was a bit surprised by his comment, but that's what he said. I would have thought he would defer to the medical community, and that would certainly include mental health professionals. As you yourself pointed out, Obama subsequently clarified his statement. I have not disputed that and said that's what he is supposed to do.

Pez: admit that Obama lied about his position on Born Alive

The previous version of Born Alive had already been struck down as unconstitutional, just as Obama had told the Judiciary Committee it would be. There is no legislative purpose in passing unconstitutional legislation, only a political purpose. The law could also have undermined existing Illinois laws on abortion. A law was eventually passed that provided the desired protection, but the bill explicitly stated it would have no effect on existing abortion law.

If you want to warn everyone that Obama is pro-abortion rights and would cast a critical eye on anti-abortion legislation, that's fine.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,

Getting to the point (the mixture of science, politics and philosophy)…

You wrote…

It’s like we are having two arguments I know you don’t believe there is a moral law but that does not change the fact that in this country you have a right to life.

To my…
"I suggest the burden of proof is very much on to those who claim they know the single, ultimate Truth of Right and Wrong for us all."

You responded with…

Once again I'm not dealing with Philosophy just constitutional law

and

Just because we are not perfect is no excuse to deny rights to our unborn children

This approaches trying to have your cake and eat it too (or are you starting to embrace NOMA now?). Science can't detect the existence of rights for unborn children. It can't even show a reason to make a distinction between the rights of humans versus animals other than humans are the ones writing the laws.

Someday it will be possible to create a living animal from a single human cell through cloning. Will such an animal have a legal right to life?

Separating the "right to life" question into three NOMA components (scientific, philosophical and legal)…

Scientifically: a single human cell has DNA markers that can be used to differentiate it from non-human. Work is being done to understand how the simple cells in Zygotes and Stem Cells have the ability to become the various cells of the human body. Progress is being made to understand how common cells can be reverted back to stem cells. None of this implies any inalienable rights. Science doesn't have the toolset to deal with that question.

Philosophically: The determination of rights is mainly a philosophical and/or religious issue. This is where concepts of "inalienable rights" and moral codes like "thou shalt not kill" are established. Ironically, it also appear that a key philosophical tenet is that we don't know the Truth and probably never will. But that doesn't stop us from engaging in dueling metaphysics or prevent mind tyrants from trying to force their version of Truth on others.

Legally: The legal system has the nearly impossible task of trying to bring about order from disorder. To do so, it has to establish artificial truths it calls laws. Laws are only loosely connected to philosophic or scientific truths. At one time it was legal to own slaves. Another time it was illegal to drink alcohol. Laws are man-made opinions and as such are often used by those trying to force their philosophical truths on others.

FMM, according to the current laws of the land, first trimester abortions are legal as are executions. All laws inherently violate the equal protection rights of its citizens. Murders are not treated the same as church goers.

And before you go spastic over how it is the action, not the person, that is illegal, I am fully aware this is the common view. However, if you get into the nitty and gritty of Supreme Court decisions the justices themselves talk about balancing equal protection against interests of the state claims.

For example, this was a key discussion point in the case where Texas arrested two homosexuals engaging in consensual sex in the privacy of their bedroom.

The basic legal issues are the same as having an abortion or doctor-assisted suicide. Texas claimed that was in the interest of the state to make homosexual acts illegal. If you can suspend your moral bias, doctor-assisted suicide is the same thing. Unemotionally, arguing that it is in the interest of the state to force a person to live would be similar having mandated public speeches by all citizens.

I agree that abortion is a trickier issue. However, I suggest if the state was truly interested in protecting the "right to life" there are a lot of ways this could be accomplished more effectively without trampling as hard on the privacy and equal protection rights.

In short, it is clear to me that pushing the rights of Zygotes is much more an act of enforced morality than a true legal, interest of the state, concern.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 14, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

Joy Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
fmm:

Do you know of anyone who would seriously claim a zygote is not alive?

Surely you recognize that by this definition a cancerous tumor is alive, as indeed all the cells domestic and foreign (there are more bacterial cells in humans than human cells) are just as alive. And extrapolating from this 'scientific' definition, that zygote qualifies along with all the bacterial colonies as parasitical. And it remains parasite until and unless it exists separately from the organism it draws its sustenance from.

'Scientifically' then, allowing for consideration of certain 'human rights' at a certain level of development (mid-second trimester) or at 50%+ viability, is recognition of something that isn't 'scientific' about human reproduction. Which I believe is a good thing, given some out in the 'scientific' world want to drop those sensibilities and consider dependent infants to be parasites (can be killed at will).

The state would wisely refrain from inserting itself in the personal life situations of women who may find themselves pregnant, per decisions to have or not have, right up to the point where the fetus does independently command certain rights of consideration. The SCOTUS recognized this explicitly in Roe v. Wade by their assertion of the woman's right to privacy in that situation. IOW, until the unborn baby's rights equal or supersede the rights of the woman to her own physical integrity, the state has no business inserting itself.

And yes, part of that Constitutional consideration (the woman's rights) is the issue of religious views like yours that consider the moment of conception to be the moment when the possible future human's right to be born outweighs the woman's right to say 'No'. A great many people disagree with that view, for religious and/or secular civil reasons. The court cannot impose your absolute religious morality on either the law that applies to everyone, or everyone the law applies to.

So even if you were to succeed in overturning Roe via legal technicalities (you'd have to have a good case), it's unlikely more than a handful of states would change their laws. Which then begs yet another test at the SCOTUS level on the 14th amendment (as well as the 1st). This is just reality. If the state tries to regulate all the way to conception, do women become guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the zygote fails to implant? If it implants outside the womb and has to be removed to save the woman's life? If she suffers miscarriage at any point? If the baby is born dead? If they are incapable of having children? Is it mass murder when they get 8 or 10 embryos from a fertility clinic knowing they'll probably miscarry all but one of them? How will they be punished?

The whole thing becomes hopelessly bogged in the clear inability to create effective laws that could grant full rights to fertilized eggs while abrogating the rights of the mother. That standard is too clearly religiously motivated, it violates the citizen-state contract blatantly on the woman's end, and science could just as easily justify declaring malignant tumors or gut microbes full citizens with full rights.

Won't work even if you could violate the Constitution ten ways to sideways and get this view turned into law. Abortion (and birth control, since that's obviously the next target) will still be available, and women will still avail themselves of the means to control their own fertility. Just as they always have. That's just a fact. You can't impose your moral ideals or obedience to them on anyone who isn't you. All you could hope for is the power to punish women for controlling their own fertility. And that's simply not a 'noble' enough goal for the government to get involved in or to stage a revolution over.

I agree but I can try to persuade folks. It worked for the early Christians and infanticide and it worked for the abolitionists and the folks who fought against segregation. I’d be letting them down if I did not at least try

And you've got the right to try. That's all any of us can do. I'm just telling you what's real, and reminding you of the limitations on imposing your religious views on the nation under color of law. The US is not chartered to be a theocracy. If it became a theocracy at the price of its Constitution and the rights recognized therein, it would no longer be the US.

Comment by Joy — September 14, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Pez:

Plainly you are wrong.
Read Zach's concise definition of the Bush Doctrine. Freedom, peace, unity, cooperation, a new order .,, this is most akin to a worldview.

From her exchange with Charlie, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Palin had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine". You expecting us to believe otherwise is beyond the pale.

Even though the exact meaning of the phrase can be debated, the essence is that the USA reserves the right to attack a country even if that country poses no imminent danger to the USA. Some "world view." The BD was debated explicitly during the primaries, where McCain endorsed it ("I agree with the doctrine"), after having been asked his opinion by none other than Charlie Gibson. Apparently Palin was unaware of this. And of the numerous other occasions where the DB was explicitly discussed. But who cares about the facts when you already know The Truth.

I thought she was being a little ironic with Gibson's silly question.

Really? I guess you have a lot in common with Sarah Palin.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
From her exchange with Charlie, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Palin had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine". You expecting us to believe otherwise is beyond the pale.

Like I said before the tactic is to label one either as stupid or evil. I could ask all four candidates about teaching in public schools. If I threw in a phrase well known to us- irreducible complexity- none would know the meaning and all would stumble. If I hand picked the candidate only that candidate would be embarrassed. What is overlooked is Palin's spot on response about preemptive strikes against imminent terrorist threats. All nations have that policy. Isreal has very successfully utilized it. Interestingly, many critics were mistaken about the doctrine too. It matters not. Good decisions matter.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Bradford:

I could ask all four candidates about teaching in public schools. If I threw in a phrase well known to us- irreducible complexity- none would know the meaning and all would stumble.

So you are saying irreducible complexity and teaching in public schools are as closely related as the Bush Doctrine and US foreign policy? That's amazing. Karl Rove could learn a trick or two from you.

What is overlooked is Palin's spot on response about preemptive strikes against imminent terrorist threats. All nations have that policy.

If all nations have that policy, what's so spot on about Palin's response? Palin advocated ridding the world of Islamic extremism and terrorists who are "hellbent on destroying our nation". Who would disagree with that? It's a standard talking point designed to instill fear.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Raevmo: So you are saying irreducible complexity and teaching in public schools are as closely related as the Bush Doctrine and US foreign policy?

You haven't heard of Dover PA? Behe's concept came up during the trial.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Bradford:

You haven't heard of Dover PA? Behe's concept came up during the trial.

If you really think that the importance of IC to teaching in public schools is on a par with the importance of *the* cornerstone of the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, then God help you.
But of course you are not serious. You are simply obfuscating in order to save face.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hi Zachriel,

Pez: Speaking of credibility. I'll make you a deal. I'll reconsider the wording of my offending statement.

So your integrity depends on my actions.

Not in the least, my credibility is fine and I admitted by that statement and prevous restatements that my phrase could use some rewording, though not a retraction. It is fine, and it is accurate, but it could be better said.
Your self-righteous proclamations, charges and demands, on the other hand, put an onus upon your to salvage your tattered credibility before you cast stones. But you can't bring yourself to do this.

Now, that's funny. If you want to argue that the Bush "Doctrine" (note the Zelikowian scare-quotes) is not coherent, that's fine. We know that's not what Palin was thinking. But you need to correct your previous misstatement first.

There was no mis-statement; just a challenge to the competence of your reading. It has long been cleared up but you have so little to grasp in this thread by which to save face that you can't own up. Speaking of reading, you should look up the word "coherence" before you laugh yourself too silly. Try it this way:

Zelikow: Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater integration of diverse elements to the administration's policies than they deserve.

===

Pez: … and cop to the fact that you obviously misrepresented him when you defined "mother's health".

Zach: Please be specific. If you are referring to this, I accurately quoted Obama

Obama: I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

Yes, I was referring to that one time where I specifically asked you to define "mother's health" and then you immediately answered using your Obama quote – sorry I was so vague but luckily you caught on.
Yes, you did accurately quote him (I accurately quoted his detractors, and you said I was misrepresenting him because his detractors misrepresented him). But you accurately quoted a lie that misrepresented his position when he was talking to a Christian constituency.
You quoted this lie as defining "mother's health" as per Planned Parenthood, Obama and the abortion debate.
You misrepresented all three. I think you knew you were misrepresenting all three.

Pez: define "health of the mother" as per Obama, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion debate, wouldn't you please?

Obama: I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

This is not the definition that Obama, PP, pro-choice advocates or the courts use and it is not Obama's position. He clarified a little the next day that, indicated the falsity of this statement, by reference to mental illness. That is yet another misrepresentation because he is committed to Roe and Doe, and their protection, and as such mental their is no requirement of any kind of diagnosis of mental illness.

A law was eventually passed that provided the desired protection, but the bill explicitly stated it would have no effect on existing abortion law.

On Born Alive he lied about why he voted against it. The clause he pointed to existed in the legislation he rejected.

==
Hi Raevmo,

From her exchange with Charlie, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Palin had never heard of the "Bush Doctrine". You expecting us to believe otherwise is beyond the pale.

I'm glad we've got you to set the standard for what is rational or not, as we have Zach to set the standard for what is properly representative of Obama's position.

But who cares about the facts when you already know The Truth.

Yes, facts are tedious things, aren't they? Like when Palin accurately characterized the intent behind the "doctrine" before Gibson jumped in to challenge her with his understanding (incorrect) of the "official" meaning. When he did so, clarifying what he refused to do when asked, she articulated her support – as many a previous US President and VP would have before her. You've heard that the US unilaterally struck at countries and leaders who had not attacked it long before Bush was President? And under Democratic Presidents? No? Too bad you haven't more in common with Palin.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
ps to Zach,

If you want to warn everyone that Obama is pro-abortion rights and would cast a critical eye on anti-abortion legislation, that's fine.

Thanks for your permission. I'll stick to what I said in the first place.
He supports abortion at any stage and supports letting abortion survivors die without care.

If I want to say that, and back it up with facts as I have, then that's fine too.

pps.
Oh, and a link to Obama's claims on Born Alive.
http://constitutionallyright.c...

ppps.
Here's another example of my sloppy writing:

This is not the definition that Obama, PP, pro-choice advocates or the courts use and it is not Obama's position. He clarified a little the next day that, indicated the falsity of this statement, by reference to mental illness. That is yet another misrepresentation because he is committed to Roe and Doe, and their protection, and as such mental their is no requirement of any kind of diagnosis of mental illness.

Let me amend it.

This is not the definition that Obama, PP, pro-choice advocates or the courts use and it is not Obama's position. He clarified a little the next day and indicated the falsity of this statement by his additional reference to mental illness. That is yet another misrepresentation because he is committed to Roe and Doe, and their protection, and as such there is no requirement of any kind of diagnosis of mental illness.

Sorry for the terrible editing previously.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
If you really think that the importance of IC to teaching in public schools is on a par with the importance of *the* cornerstone of the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, then God help you.

You're missing the point. Alluding to a central element of intelligent design in a question is a good way to sneak in the stupid label that critics are so fond of. The other side is either stupid or evil. That's the Dawkins template we see repeated over and over.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 5:51 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
From Wikipedia:

The Bush Doctrine is a term used to describe the foreign policy doctrine of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It may be viewed as a set of several related foreign policy principles, including stress on ending terrorism, spreading democracy,[1] increased unilateralism in foreign policy[1] and an expanded view of American national security interests. Foreign policy experts argue over the meaning of the term "Bush Doctrine," and some scholars have suggested that there is no one unified theory underlying Bush's foreign policy. Jacob Weisberg identifies six successive "Bush Doctrines" in his book The Bush Tragedy,[2] while former Bush staffer Peter D. Feaver has counted seven.[3] Other foreign policy experts have taken the term to mean Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent.

In other words the doctrine is so imprecise, ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations that it can mean whatever you wish it to mean.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Pez,

I understand you don't like to admit that Palin is quite ignorant about US foreign policy and ill-prepared to be president. Indeed, as far as Palin is concerned, US domestic policy is foreign policy, given her support of the Alaskan secessionists. Loyalty to the correct (most fundamentalist) party is apparently more important to you than the facts. Facts like the earth being 4.5 billions of years old.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Bradford:

You're missing the point. Alluding to a central element of intelligent design in a question is a good way to sneak in the stupid label that critics are so fond of. The other side is either stupid or evil. That's the Dawkins template we see repeated over and over.

What a ridiculous argument. Just because Richard Dawkins calls some people stupid (in an entirely different context), it's suddenly forbidden to question a VP candidate's knowledge?

In other words the doctrine is so imprecise, ambiguous and subject to differing interpretations that it can mean whatever you wish it to mean.

Please. The point is that she had never heard of the doctrine, no matter what its content. That shows she is ignorant. Why didn't she just say during the interview, "well, Charlie, there are many interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, such as…, which one do you want me to respond to?" She didn't because she is ignorant.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 6:55 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Hi Raevmo,
Deep analysis, I'm impressed.
Too bad loyalty to the correct (most fundamentalist) party is apparently more important to you than the facts. Facts like when life begins and the simple historicity of events like the Bay of Pigs or Clinton's missile strikes in Africa and Afghanistan.

But you know, keep defending science.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Why didn't she just say during the interview, "well, Charlie, there are many interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, such as…, which one do you want me to respond to?"

That's basically what she did.

Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
Palin: “In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.

Glad to see you're coming around and acknowledge that this is satisfactory.

Of course, all of her responses were satisfactory by Gibson's actual beliefs if not his "gotcha" moment.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2...

ABC News’ Charles Gibson, who is being credited with stumping Sarah Palin on the definition of the “Bush Doctrine,” has himself defined the nebulous phrase in a variety of ways, including one that mirrored Palin’s disputed explanation.

Gibson and his colleagues have been all over the map in defining the Bush Doctrine over the last seven years. In 2001, Gibson himself defined it as “a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.”

But when Palin tried to give a similar definition on Thursday, Gibson corrected her.

“I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation,” Palin said in her first interview since being nominated as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate.

…

Much has been made of the fact that Palin had to ask for clarification when Gibson inquired: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

“In what respect, Charlie?” the Alaska governor said.

“The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?” Gibson challenged.

“His world view?” Palin queried.

“No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war,” Gibson said.

That’s when Palin talked of ridding the world of “Islamic extremism,” prompting Gibson to define the Bush Doctrine instead as preemption.

The term “Bush Doctrine” was first coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer three months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and has undergone profound changes as the war against terror has evolved.

“There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine,” Krauthammer noted in a forthcoming column. “In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”

Richard Starr, managing editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed.

“Gibson should of course have said in the first place what he understood the Bush Doctrine to be–and specified that he was asking a question about preemption,” Starr observed. “Palin was well within bounds to have asked him to be more specific. Because, as it happens, the doctrine has no universally acknowledged single meaning.”

Starr pointed out that other ABC journalists, including George Stephanolous, George Will and the late Peter Jennings, have defined the Bush Doctrine on the air in a variety of ways.

Ben Smith of the Politico said the Bush Doctrine exchange was “not a great moment” for Palin. But he conceded that critics are unfairly “pouncing on Sarah Palin’s apparent unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine as last night’s gaffe.”

“This isn’t an easy question,” Smith noted. “Commentators have offered a range of meanings for the phrase, from the principle that countries that harbor terrorists are responsible for their actions to broader statements about the spread of freedom.”

Starr added: “Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists–all of these things and more have been described as the ‘Bush Doctrine.’ It was a bit of a sham on Gibson’s part to have pretended that there’s such a thing as ‘the’ Bush Doctrine, much less that it was enunciated in September 2002.”

Bill Sammon is Washington Deputy Managing Editor for FOX News.

My, aren't I prescient?
Maybe I wrote this one too?

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Please. The point is that she had never heard of the doctrine, no matter what its content. That shows she is ignorant. Why didn't she just say during the interview, "well, Charlie, there are many interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, such as…, which one do you want me to respond to?" She didn't because she is ignorant.

The point is she was familiar with all aspects of Bush's foreign policy but was unfamiliar with an ambigous multi-interpretive tag attached to it by his critics. This quote is a classic display of intellectual hostility- "Bush's doctrine of preventive war, first articulated in 2002, which holds that the United States government should depose foreign regimes that represent a threat to the security of the United States, even if such threats are not immediate and no attack is imminent."

Other than Iraq what foreign regimes have been disposed of? Gibson? Raevmo? None? Yet there are many which are hostile and do not pose a threat. Sounds like a one-dimensional "doctrine" if I ever heard of one. Not worthy of the name.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Pez:

Too bad loyalty to the correct (most fundamentalist) party is apparently more important to you than the facts. Facts like when life begins and the simple historicity of events like the Bay of Pigs or Clinton's missile strikes in Africa and Afghanistan.

You still don't get it, do you? I criticized Palin for her lack of knowledge, not for the content of the Bush Doctrine.

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Bradford:

Other than Iraq what foreign regimes have been disposed of? Gibson? Raevmo? None? Yet there are many which are hostile and do not pose a threat. Sounds like a one-dimensional "doctrine" if I ever heard of one. Not worthy of the name.

Oh, it's just Iraq, what's the big deal? No other countries invaded, dude. Well, it's just that hundreds of thousand of lives have been snuffed out and millions had to leave their country, that's all. Not worthy. Have you really sunk this low, Bradford?

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I get it. You criticized her because you are loyal to your fellow ideologues rather than to facts. Whereas you plucked a fact out of … someplace … to stereotypically charge against me I selected facts that you have plainly ignored to promote your ideology. This in defence of your passion – which ain't science.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Hundreds of thousands? Is that a fact?
Have you tallied abortion deaths in the same period?

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 7:35 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Pez: I admitted by that statement and prevous restatements that my phrase could use some rewording, though not a retraction.

Sorry, I must have missed it. But you seemed to reiterate it, not correct it.

Pez 9/12: Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs

This is your rewording.

Pez 9/14: Is there a Bush doctrine? Nope.

Cheney: That came to be known as the Bush doctrine. What it basically meant was …

Bush: Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

RogerRabbitt Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Wow! Abortion and Sarah Palin all in one thread. You folks are playing with dynamite.

Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 14, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Pez:

I get it. You criticized her because you are loyal to your fellow ideologues rather than to facts. Whereas you plucked a fact out of … someplace … to stereotypically charge against me I selected facts that you have plainly ignored to promote your ideology. This in defence of your passion – which ain't science.

You pretend to know better than I do what my passions are. Have we met before?

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 7:47 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Oh, it's just Iraq, what's the big deal? No other countries invaded, dude. Well, it's just that hundreds of thousand of lives have been snuffed out and millions had to leave their country, that's all. Not worthy. Have you really sunk this low, Bradford?

You're deliberately playing dumb. If the Bush doctrine states that the U.S. will take down hostile regimes not threatening the U.S. and those who use the phrase point to Iraq and nowhere else then why not call it the Iraq doctrine or the Saddam Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is an inflated device which apparently even Bush did not take seriously.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 7:48 pm

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
RR:

Wow! Abortion and Sarah Palin all in one thread. You folks are playing with dynamite.

I think Raevmo fantasizes about Palin. Imagine her without the specs…

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
You did miss it, Zach.
As I said, your reading is very weak.

Are you concerned that I do not admit that the Bush doctrine is something that exists? According to scholars it is several somethings, it is a term used by journalists to describe several foreign policy principles. It is ridiculous to ask "what do you think of it" in a televised interview during a campaign and expect that that question means anything concise enough or represents any one thing concisely enough to be answered without pause and clarification.

Thanks for your advice on my moral duty, however. You are a very good watchdog, just a tad presumptuous.

And notice how different that quote you just supplied of mine looks when you do it right:

Is there a Bush doctrine? Nope.

Especially in context with the supporting evidence:

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

When you get better at comprehension you might be in a better position to tell people what statements are false and when they are misrepresenting somebody.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Aw look, Raevmo makes things personal and then is surprised when things get personal.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Pez:

Hundreds of thousands? Is that a fact?
Have you tallied abortion deaths in the same period?

Is it not a fact? Estimates range up to a million. What is the relevance of abortion deaths? Would there have been more abortion deaths without the invasion of Iraq? Is that your grizzly calculation? Is live after birth without value? Do you realize that infant mortality in Iraq was among the lowest in the world before the invasion, but is now among the highest?

Comment by Raevmo — September 14, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hey Zach,
Since you used your Bush and Cheney quotes as though to counter my statement that there is not a Bush doctrine, why do they not say the same thing? Why do they not concisely define as you and Gibson did (this time around, for Gibson)?

===

Raevmo,
I thought you were using the death tally to demonstrate that Iraq is, in fact a big deal. You know, use big numbers to promote your ideological position.
But when you chose to comment on the abortion issue you didn't cite any big numbers to show that it was a big deal. Rather, you quizzed me with the classic burnign building scenario. Nearly as many Americans (gotcha Zach, they aren't citizens) die daily as have died in Iraq. War deaths per annum are eclipsed by abortions. Not a big deal?

But, before you misconstrue, I agree with Palin on this as well. War is hell. I hate war and want War, including this war, to end.

But speaking of your quiz, you never did answer my question. Who would you save, your mother or an Asian? Your father or your children? What does that say about their humanness or the right to dispose of them?
===

Hundreds of thousands? I don't know if that's a fact or not, I'm not there and haven't done the tally. You've seen sources that cite up to a million, I've seen them at 600,000 and at tens of thousands. Who do you ask and how do we figure? How do you and I access the facts on this one?

One fact is the scientific answer to when does life begin, which Obama thinks is a theological question. That's the one I brought up, in light of this science thread devoted to his excellent answers.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Pez: Since you used your Bush and Cheney quotes as though to counter my statement that there is not a Bush doctrine, why do they not say the same thing?

"As though"?

Bush uses the term "Bush Doctrine". I'm not sure how much more plain it can be.

You should have clarified your statement days ago instead of defending it; that is, assuming your goal is to communicate ideas and perhaps to persuade. There's nothing wrong with clarifying a statment. It's what you're supposed to do.

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 9:07 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I should have clarified my statement days ago, according to my moral conscience, Zachriel.
Let's see about that. The issue came up Friday afternoon.
I made the perfectly valid and defensible comment Friday at 2:22.
Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 2:22 pm

Zach informed me that Bush, Cheney and the Whitehouse have used the term. I never denied that. I said it was not a thing that actually exists.

Immediately, half an hour after the first comment, the issue was clarified.

Pez Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Works a lot of ways. No wonder a person would ask for clarification when asked their opinion on it.

Comment by Pez — September 12, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

As in the "clarification" that Zach has accepted (which I wrote last night) I said the same thing. The so-called Bush doctrine is represented a lot of ways and Palin was right to ask for clarification.

Zach then defined it himself as the preventive war principle (he agrees with Gibson but not crrent use) and called this clarification of mine "spin".
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

That's it for Friday. Which was two days ago. Zach says I should have clarified "days ago" and I did. The term works a lot of ways and Palin was justified asking for more information. Zach called this clarification of mine "spin", meaning he recognized it as intended and didn't agree with it.

The next day the Wiki page was changed and we began discussing the point in earnest.
Again, the point was clarified in my first response on the Wiki edit war.
I highlighted the fact that there are many versions of what have been or could be called the Bush doctrine.
As I said at that time, I had work to do and could not respond during the day.

Zach continued to press the idea that Bush and Cheney had used the term.
So, when I returned I responded immediately and as it turns out, and let's presume the point was as contentious as Zach makes out, and not yet clarified throughout Friday (the day it came p) then I had definitely clarified it yesterday in this first response of the evening:.

Zach says that Bush, Cheney, or the Whitehouse define the doctrine. But do they do so in such a way that we can say "this doctrine actually exists and it is this …" or so that Palin would not be absolutely in the right to ask Gibson what he means when he asks "what do you think of the Bush doctrine?". Or that she might give an answer that doesn't accord with his presumed definition? Of course not, but let's have a look-see anyway, at your offering.
…
Charlie Gibson defined it as the American right to strike targets militarily that they think will strike them first. Bush says the doctrine can include cutting off sources of capital, use diplomatic pressure, sometimes use military and sometimes not.
It makes sense that Palin would want to know what it was about the doctrine, a broad description of how the US intends to view terrorists and the countries that harbour them, that Gibson was asking about.
…
Like I said, it doesn't seem like such a silly thing for her to ask Gibson in what way he meant "the Bush Doctrine" when he asked.

So the issue was clarified right there. The point never was about whether or not the term was in use, but whether or not it was a clearly defined something that Palin should have been expected to have been able to answer without Gibson's being more specific.
Note that Zach accepts that this clarification is sufficient when I reiterated it as here:

Are you concerned that I do not admit that the Bush doctrine is something that exists? According to scholars it is several somethings, it is a term used by journalists to describe several foreign policy principles. It is ridiculous to ask "what do you think of it" in a televised interview during a campaign and expect that that question means anything concise enough or represents any one thing concisely enough to be answered without pause and clarification.

Thanks for your advice on my moral duty, however. You are a very good watchdog, just a tad presumptuous.

All of these points were made yesterday, if not on Friday. The doctrine is not one thing but several things, according to scholars, Zach's cites, Gibson and according to my first (contested but backed up by subsequent sources) Wiki cite.
From the first mention, to the Saturday mention above, to the accepted clarification, the point was that there is no one Bush Doctrine which submits to Gibson's silly question.

And, funny enough, the clarification that Zach now accepts was issued last night as well, immediately following his first demand that it was a false statement that needed correction (which followed my long comment which says all of things Zach now accepts as clarification). So I was supposed to clarify days ago what I said two days ago, and which was clarified many ways, and now, to Zach's acceptance yesterday. And yet it is Zach who keeps fighting about it after all the clarifications and even now that he admits that it was clarified to his satisfaction.

Nope. If clarification was needed it was supplied to any but the worst of readers long ago. Just more Zach-ness.

Funny, even when Obama got his own position wrong he was allowed a day to clarify.
Speaking of Obama, Zach, …
Now that we see that I made no false statement, and even if your reading is too poor for you to have been able to suss it out there were several explanations of my point, at least one of which you accept, where is your admission that you misrepresented Obama's position on "mother's health"?

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Pez: Zach informed me that Bush, Cheney and the Whitehouse have used the term. I never denied that. I said it was not a thing that actually exists.

So Bush is talking about a non-existence Bush Doctrine, and Cheney is providing a basic meaning of a non-existence Bush Doctrine.

Pez: All of these points were made yesterday, if not on Friday.

Any so-called clarification you might have provided on Friday or Saturday seems to have been inoperative on Sunday.

Pez 9/14 Sunday: Is there a Bush doctrine? Nope.

The Bush Doctrine may be multifaceted. It may have changed over time. A question may need clarification. But to state it doesn't exist is just not a defensible position (except as irony).

Comment by Zachriel — September 14, 2008 @ 10:21 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Hi Zach,

Pez: Since you used your Bush and Cheney quotes as though to counter my statement that there is not a Bush doctrine, why do they not say the same thing?(italics returned as to the original)

Zach:
"As though"?

Bush uses the term "Bush Doctrine". I'm not sure how much more plain it can be.

Yes, "as though". The point is not that Bush never used the phrase (as here, picking it up directly from the reporter and feeding it back to him). The point is that it does not exist as this official thing "concisely" defined so as to need no clarification when Gibson tried to trick Palin with it. It can mean lots of things. 4 or 6 or 7 things. And here Bush does not define it as you and Gibson say it is necessarily defined and is to be presumed to mean.
Bush:

Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror. And that includes working with our friends and allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure, to convince — to convince those that think they can traffick in terror that they're going to face a mighty coalition. And sometimes we use military force and sometimes we won't.

Sometimes he will use military force. That doesn't mean a preemptive war. Military force can be exactly what Clinton did in the 90s in his response to terror attacks.

And so you put up Cheney's quote. I guess to show me that Cheney used the term as well. I think you said he gave the direct definition here. But he doesn't explicitly define it as a preemptive war policy either. He defines it as meaning:

henceforth, anybody — anybody — who supported terrorists or provided safe harbor or sanctuary for terrorists would be deemed as guilty of their acts as the terrorists, themselves. (Applause.) That came to be known as the Bush doctrine.

Beyond this description of it he told us what it "basically meant":

What it basically meant was that the United States was going to go on offense; no longer would we wait to be attacked, but we would go on offense and go after the terrorists wherever we found them, wherever they were planning, wherever they were training, getting ready to carry out further operations against the United States; and, as the President indicated, we would also hold accountable those states that sponsored terror. (Applause.)

You can certainly read preemptive war in here, among other principles, such as financial moves, diplomatic pressure, etc., but it certainly isn't included as a definition.

So here you've got two different definitions, neither of which says what you and Gibson succinctly boil it down to, and neither of which covers the first "concise" description you referred me to, http://telicthoughts.com/14-im...

So, as is obvious, as has been fully demonstrated by my sources, and as is demonstrated by your very own go-to links, the Bush Doctrine does not exist, is not one thing, cannot be concisely defined, etc..
Therefore, Gibson's question was disingenuous and Palin was exactly right to ask for clarification and cannot be faulted for answering to one aspect of the so-called doctrine when Gibson had a different one (and not the current one) in mind. Especially when he refused, as a supposedly objective journalist, to explain what it was he was asking.

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 10:33 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Hi Zach,

Any so-called clarification you might have provided on Friday or Saturday seems to have been inoperative on Sunday.

Only seems to you.

Pez 9/14 Sunday: Is there a Bush doctrine? Nope.

The Bush Doctrine may be multifaceted. It may have changed over time. A question may need clarification. But to state it doesn't exist is just not a defensible position (except as irony).

Oops. You've forgotten the italics there again. You know what they're for, right? No problem. I can put them back in for you, and you've already seen it twice the right way, including here:
http://telicthoughts.com/14-im...

Ah, good. The question needs clarification. Just as I said in each and every follow-up to the original point, which point you went back and dug out on its own a day and a half later and demanded I retract, as I said as well in the point you accepted as the clarification (well after the fact, of course).

But to state it doesn't exist is just not a defensible position (except as irony).

My statement on the subject is entirely defensible and has been entirely defended. There are certain policies, and these policies have come to be known as the Bush doctrine to some, including Cheney. There are other policies also known as the Bush doctrine. There is a Bush doctrine defined by you and Gibson as the right to preemptive war. There is the concise description that was Bush's West Point speech which was not the least bit concise and covered such a range as to look like a view of the world. So, since you are insistent on burying yourself further in trying to find one feather for your cap in this thread, what is that something that exists that is the Bush doctrine, such that asking Palin to answer "what do you think of it?" is not a disingenuous question?

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 10:47 pm

Pez Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Oh yes, and on your misrepresenting Obama?

Comment by Pez — September 14, 2008 @ 10:54 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Pez 9/14 Sunday: Is there a Bush doctrine? Nope.

A doctrine is a military principle or set of strategies. Yes, there is a Bush Doctrine. Just like there was a Cold War Doctrine. You're obfuscating. Continuing to insist upon a private use of language makes it not only difficult to understand your argument, but your words become so much gibberish.

{Big Snip}

Good luck with that.

Comment by Zachriel — September 15, 2008 @ 8:00 am

Bradford Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am
A doctrine is a military principle or set of strategies. Yes, there is a Bush Doctrine. Just like there was a Cold War Doctrine.

Yes. But it's meaning is subject to diverse interpretations and when asked where this hobgoblin has been actually applied we are told Iraq…Iraq…Iraq… If you are looking for broader applications save yourself the time and effort.

Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2008 @ 8:43 am

Zachriel Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Bradford: But it's meaning is subject to diverse interpretations and when asked where this hobgoblin has been actually applied we are told Iraq…Iraq…Iraq… If you are looking for broader applications save yourself the time and effort.

If it has only been applied in a single instance, then the Bush Doctrine wouldn't be that hard to define. However, it was originally promulgated to justify the war in Afghanistan. We start with the basics of international law, that nations have the right to self-defense.

The Bush Doctrine includes several facets:

1) Nations that knowingly harbor or give aid to terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists.
2) Because terrorists conspire in secret, the United States can preventively attack harboring nations based on intelligence even before terrorist threats have materialized. (This is as opposed to preemptive attack where there is a clear threat.)
3) Replacing harboring governments with democratic governments will ensure these nations will no longer harbor terrorists.
4) Unilateral action can be taken if an international consensus is not possible.

The Bush Doctrine is an attempt to close a loophole exploited by terrorists that leaves the international system unable to respond. There are several problems with the Bush Doctrine (see below), which is why it has varied somewhat depending on the circumstance, but unilateral military action based on secret intelligence is certainly one aspect of the Doctrine.

Now, let's look at the Gibson interview:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

Despite the fact that the Bush Doctrine as preventive attack is a major topic of foreign policy controversy and a significant departure from previous concepts of self-defense, this can still be seen as a reasonable request for clarification.

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.

That's just silly. She could have started a discourse on the Bush Doctrine, the relationship between the right of self-defense and the perceived need to attack *before* threats materialize.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Mistakes have been made. Political boilerplate that doesn't really address any aspect of the Bush Doctrine.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

Not very enlightening. Palin's answers are extemporaneous, and mostly boilerplate devised to avoid saying something stupid. However, from context, it certainly doesn't seem like the unique aspects of the Bush Doctrine are something she has thought deeply about. Maybe that's because it's ancient history, a mistake everyone would rather forget.

–
1) This is a reasonable premise. The Taliban harbored al Qaeda, a criminal enterprise. The United States was justified under international law to respond in self-defense. Of note, NATO comprises a significant component of the Afghan operation.
2) The problem with this tenet is that there is no accountability, as can be seen in Iraq. There were no WMD, no link to the 9-11 attacks, and a war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions of refugees. Any tinhorn dictator can claim (and have) secret intelligence and national security to justify war or oppression. The Bush Doctrine attempts to close a loophole, but opens an even bigger one.
3) This is not necessarily the case. It's the rule of law that tends to stifle criminal terrorism, not democracy. Democratic societies are only as stable as their institutions, and people can easily self-justify radical theories of armed conflict. The underlying political issues need to be resolved before stable institutions can take hold.
4) Unilateral action can always be justified by self-defense. The problem is that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to war. And when these reasons are secret and turn out to be false, then the decent respect of the acting nation can be irretrievably damaged, and the very cause of the rule of law is weakened.

Comment by Zachriel — September 15, 2008 @ 10:42 am

Bradford Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

Zachriel: Not very enlightening. Palin's answers are extemporaneous, and mostly boilerplate devised to avoid saying something stupid. However, from context, it certainly doesn't seem like the unique aspects of the Bush Doctrine are something she has thought deeply about. Maybe that's because it's ancient history, a mistake everyone would rather forget.

What is not very enlightening is the question and the issue behind it. Gibson wants to know if Palin agrees that "we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." In response to this bland question Palin cites the president's constitutional charge to defend the USA. Sounds good to me. An obvious question merits an obvious answer. You do agree that we have the right to strike those intending to attack us do you not Zachriel?

Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bradford: You do agree that we have the right to strike those intending to attack us do you not Zachriel?

Every nation has the right to self-defense. But that is not the issue raised by the Bush Doctrine. The question is whether a nation can attack another nation even *before* a threat has materialized, and if so, when is it appropriate.

(I'm not sure what all this has to do with the thread topic.)

Comment by Zachriel — September 15, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

Bradford Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Zachriel: Every nation has the right to self-defense. But that is not the issue raised by the Bush Doctrine.

Of course it is. Your quote of Gibson:

The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

If we had the capacity to strike Japanese carriers having the bombers destined for Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41 we should have launched a preemptive strike. We should do the same today if attacks are imminent.

The question is whether a nation can attack another nation even *before* a threat has materialized, and if so, when is it appropriate.

You're spinning the question. Preemptive does not presuppose that the threat has yet to materialize. The contrary is suggested. Would you have us wait to be bombed or otherwise victimized?

Comment by Bradford — September 15, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

Pez Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hi Zach,

A doctrine is a military principle or set of strategies.

Ha! Yes, nice strategy. Three days in go to the dictionary of your choice, select one definition – the last one listed – and offer it so as to somehow frame the discussion in your favour. Ignore all of the evidence on the table, the hundreds of sources you can go to demonstrating that there is policy after policy, non-military ones at that, included in one version or another of what has been called the Bush Doctrine … and charge me with obfuscation. Nice work if you can get it.

OK, Zach, let's even pretend that you are right and then wonder amongst ourselves what on earth this is supposed to mean and how it's supposed to help you salvage even a modicum of your dignity. So, it's necessarily a military doctrine, is it? Then is it the right to preemptive war against nations seen as a threat, as you and Gibson would claim? Or is the right to militarily attack strategic targets, without going to war, as Clinton did? Or is it limited only to use of force against not nations seen as a threat, but nations harbouring terrorists – Bush certainly focused on terrorists, as opposed to threatening nations, in one of your latest definitive descriptions, even though it's not the one you agree with.
So what have you saved here?
Even after you try to trim the argument down to something that you can deal with you've got nothing.
There still isn't just one, or any clearly, concisely defined Bush Doctrine that justifies Gibson's question.
Your new definition ignores everything said about the use of diplomacy, cutting off cash flow, etc.
And it does nothing to pull the question out from under Palin.

If doctrine means military principle, then her answers are just fine, before and after Gibson's scurrilous correction – just as they were before your argument by dictionary. The only thing you can question is her asking if he meant "worldview", but of course, if doctrine means "military" then she meant, "worldview as it pertains to military action".

So let me go back up and see what you're attempting to do with your transcript quoting.

….

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

Zach: Despite the fact that the Bush Doctrine as preventive attack is a major topic of foreign policy controversy and a significant departure from previous concepts of self-defense, this can still be seen as a reasonable request for clarification.

Yay! Well done Zach.
It's not only possibly reasonable, it is down right required, but you are showing some positive signs.

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?

Zach: That's just silly. She could have started a discourse on the Bush Doctrine, the relationship between the right of self-defense and the perceived need to attack *before* threats materialize.

Yep, your only option. Or she could have done what she did – expose Gibson's ridiculously broad question for what it was – part of an interrogation, not an interview, meant to embarrass her rather than discuss.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Zach:.
Mistakes have been made. Political boilerplate that doesn't really address any aspect of the Bush Doctrine.

1) Wow, a politician giving boiler-plate answers and sticking to her own message. What is the world coming to?
2) She doesn't really address any aspect of which Bush Doctrine?
Your favourite Bush quote:

Under the Bush doctrine I said we'd use all resources, all available resources to fight off terror. And that includes working with our friends and allies to cut off money, to use diplomatic pressure, to convince — to convince those that think they can traffick in terror that they're going to face a mighty coalition. And sometimes we use military force and sometimes we won't.

That's exactly what she said. Bush's "doctrine" is that he is fighting off terrorists – that's the goal, that's its point – and he will utilize many tools.
Palin addressed this main aspect succinctly when she said he wanted to rid the world of terrorists. Her only possible mistake here is the possible political incorrectness of specifying, as per our current experience, who these terrorists are.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

Zach: Not very enlightening. Palin's answers are extemporaneous, and mostly boilerplate devised to avoid saying something stupid. However, from context, it certainly doesn't seem like the unique aspects of the Bush Doctrine are something she has thought deeply about. Maybe that's because it's ancient history, a mistake everyone would rather forget.

So your complaint is that she is not very enlightening? For this you have wasted three days on this issue? But you're probably right, she has probably never thought about whether or not America has the right to send cruise missiles into sovereign nations to pinpoint targets, or try to hit a particular person in that sovereign nation, or amass troops on Iraq's borders over and over again to force compliance with UN declarations, or go into Afghanistan after the Taliban, or invade Iraq. She's the only American over the age of 30 who hasn't considered these actions.

What are your final 4 points for? Are you running for office? It's a decent discourse, I'll give you that, but rather beside the point.
[edit: I see you acknowledge that yourself in your next reply to Bradford]
[edit: material removed regarding my opinion of Gibson's interview on the whole]

Comment by Pez — September 15, 2008 @ 1:13 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Bradford: If we had the capacity to strike Japanese carriers having the bombers destined for Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41 we should have launched a preemptive strike.

Of course. The basic doctrine of self-defense long pre-dates Bush and the Bush Doctrine.

Bradford: Preemptive does not presuppose that the threat has yet to materialize.

That's why it is sometimes given the distinguishing term preventive attack. For instance, Iraq was attacked not for any specific plan or capability, but for some presumed future plan and capability. This is directly contrary to international understandings of just war, and hence constitutes a significant departure.

Pez: Three days in go to the dictionary of your choice, select one definition – the last one listed – and offer it so as to somehow frame the discussion in your favour.

It's an appropriate definition. If you prefer, "a body of principles" or "a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations". The point is that a doctrine may not consist of a bumper sticker slogan, but may be multi-faceted.

Sorry, I didn't bother to read past your first complete sentence.

Comment by Zachriel — September 15, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

Pez Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Hi Zach,

It's an appropriate definition. If you prefer, "a body of principles" or "a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations". The point is that a doctrine may not consist of a bumper sticker slogan, but may be multi-faceted.

The point is a good one, your redefining notwithstanding.
The point makes Palin's response a good one, Gibson's question a bad one, and my comments accurate. Thanks.

Sorry, I didn't bother to read past your first complete sentence.

No problem. I expect that this sustained blow to your credibility has been hard. I wonder if you'll exercise more care in your personal attacks in the future?

On your credibility, any decision yet about whether or not you're going to own up to your misrepresenting Obama (Planned Parenthood and the abortion debate in general)? Or is your silence your answer?

Comment by Pez — September 15, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Pez: Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs – he tried to trip her up by misquoting/misrepresenting her previous statements.

Pez, you had suggested the Bush Doctrine did not exist. I pointed out that Bush, Cheney and the Whitehouse have used the term. In reply, you posted hundreds of words about Gibson and Palin, and even pasted out entire copywritten essays by a newspaper columnist.

The meaning of terminology is the shared ground for any reasonable discussion. My point wasn't about Palin. It wasn't about the validity of the Bush Doctrine. It was addressed to the specific point that there exists an informal set of foreign affairs policies called the Bush Doctrine. I think you agree, but it's hard to tell because your answer is inconsistent on this point.

Pez: The point makes Palin's response a good one, Gibson's question a bad one, and my comments accurate.

How can your comments be accurate when you had claimed that the Bush Doctrine did not exist, even though Bush himself uses the terminology? This is the inconsistency that renders all your other words so much gibberish.

Here is the reasonable conversation I had expected.

P: The Bush Doctrine does not exist. Z: Bush, Cheney and the Whitehouse have used the term in accord with their major policy statements. P: Okay, you're right. But, returning to Palin, asking for clarification makes sense because the Bush Doctrine is informal and multifaceted. Z: Okay. We can address that issue.

I thought that if I plowed through all your verbiage, I might find a clarification, and sometimes it seems to you *did* clarify your stance. BUT THEN, you just NOW said that your comments were "accurate".

Comment by Zachriel — September 16, 2008 @ 8:32 am

Pez Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Hi Zach,
Persistent little feller, aren't you? You'd think I was JoeG and you were stalking me with a nested hierarchy or something.

Here's the reasonable conversation I expected – and undertook.
Challenge: Palin is ignorant. She didn't know what the Bush doctrine is.
Reply: Wiki (bad quote found during edit war)

According to many Americans, the Bush Doctrine could be defined in many different ways[24] as there is no known, official, "Bush Doctrine" as per the White House, the Republican party, or as announced or endorsed by the Bush Presidency…. With reference to the Wikipedia definition of Doctrine, many Americans would define Bush's ideology of "spreading democracy around the world".

Me:

Not only did Gibson portray the "Bush Doctrine" as something that actually exists – a trick that didn't work on Palin but sells well on the interwebs – he tried to trip her up by misquoting/misrepresenting her previous statements.

Any wonder she needed a week to prepare to face this kind of "objective" journalism?
http://www.latimes.com/news/po…

…
It can be taken lots of ways. This interview did not demonstrate her ignorance.
…
Zach has a page with Bush and Cheney using the term. They do not define it in the same way or such that this interview demonstrates her ignorance.
…
Here are lots of other people, some of them political pundits, who say it is not defined in any such way as to make the question clear and to demonstrate her ignorance.
…
Here's what I meant for those who think that repeating over and over again that Bush has used the term is answering my point: Neither Bush nor anybody else has ever defined it as any one thing, there is not a single Bush doctrine, it does not exist as one concise thing that Palin could rightly address as per his question. This opinion is backed up by scores of pundits.

Any reasonable person can see what the point is and can dispute, if they want, and as you finally have, Palin's stand. They cannot pretend she was demonstrating ignorance merely because she didn't have one concise response to Gibson's broad and vague question.

If you were confused by the original phrase, which is totally accurate, then your confusion was alleviated by my very next and every subsequent response.
But you don't want to communicate. You want to play a semantic game of gotcha and discredit rather than discover.

Unfortunately for you, the only one discredited through this ridiculous charade where you opened by charging me with ignorance and dishonesty and have continued throughout, is you.
You answered the wrong question, and then harped on it throughout and slandered my honesty. Four days later you are still trying. You cannot fashion a semblance of credibility with your incessant repetition because the facts are before us and are available to all.
As is your presenting Obama's lie as truth, your hypocritical defence of his lying against your hypocritical attacks on my and Palin's veracity, and your failure to acknowledge your obvious misrepresentation.
Bad on you all 'round.

ps.
This is not evidenced by the facts:

I thought that if I plowed through all your verbiage, I might find a clarification, and sometimes it seems to you *did* clarify your stance. BUT THEN, you just NOW said that your comments were "accurate".

There was no ploughing to be done. It was clarified from my first response. You knew this and called it "spin". It was clarified in my response to your Bush/Cheney references, just before you demanded I retract it.
It was clarified immediately after your demand.
When I showed you that statement of clarification again the next day you admitted it was just such a clarification. As I later showed, it was the same as what preceded it.
But all along and in between you kept quoting Bush, "he said it, he said it"
and kept misrepresenting my words out of context and then even tried to define your problem away.
You sought no clarification. You sought to demean.
And you have – but you were your own victim.

Comment by Pez — September 16, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

Raevmo Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Q: What's the difference between Pez and a pitbull?

A:

If you wish to believe or pretend to believe that the interview cannot be reasonably interpreted as Palin being ignorant of the phrase "Bush doctrine", that's all fine and dandy. Let's all make up our own minds about it and give it a rest.

Comment by Raevmo — September 16, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Pez: Here's the reasonable conversation I expected – and undertook.
Challenge: Palin is ignorant. She didn't know what the Bush doctrine is.
Reply: Wiki (bad quote found during edit war)

And to support your case, you made a misstatement, which I pointed out to you. You say you have clarified it. That's great. But now you reaffirm the misstatement. You can't say you have corrected a remark, and then affirm the original remark.

There is an informal and multifaceted foreign affairs policy called the Bush Doctrine that can be and has been discussed and analyzed (including by Bush). And that fact is pertinent to the Palin interview. She acted as if she had never heard of the term before. I really have no idea why you find this so difficult.

Comment by Zachriel — September 16, 2008 @ 1:18 pm

Pez Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Hi Zach,

You can't say you have corrected a remark, and then affirm the original remark.

Another problem in your reading. Clarification is not correcting. It is, you know, clarifying. The original was not wrong, it was merely open to misinterpretation by the pseudo-pedants among us.

There is an informal and multifaceted foreign affairs policy called the Bush Doctrine that can be and has been discussed and analyzed (including by Bush).

There is a term the "Bush doctrine".
This term exists.
It is applied to a variety of policies, principles and even an overarching ideology. This set, as you've said here and before, is informal. It is unofficial, uncodified and fluid.
Therefore, there is no one doctrine, per se, to which the term the "Bush doctrine" refers. Nobody can ask honestly without clarifying "what do you think of the Bush doctrine?" because the term does not reference a specific, cohesive doctrine.

She acted as if she had never heard of the term before.

No she didn't.
You interpret her actions in this way, but as we've seen throughout this thread, your interpretations are not equivalent to fact.

I really have no idea why you find this so difficult.

Because you are wrong. That's not difficult at all to see.

===
Hi Raevmo,

Q: What's the difference between Pez and a pitbull?

A pitbull's attackers know when they've bled out.

If you wish to believe or pretend to believe that the interview cannot be reasonably interpreted as Palin being ignorant of the phrase "Bush doctrine", that's all fine and dandy.

Ah, but it can be so interpreted and I would not deny this. But reasonable people can also be presented facts and arguments by which to change their incorrect interpretations.

Let's all make up our own minds about it and give it a rest.

So rest. I know there are a variety of threads requiring your attentive shudderings.

Comment by Pez — September 16, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Pez: There is a term the "Bush doctrine".

I suppose that's progress, of a sort.

Comment by Zachriel — September 16, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

Pez Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Yeah, because my opening link to the wiki article "Bush Doctrine" was a clear denial of that fact.

Comment by Pez — September 16, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

Bradford Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Many are ignorant about the Bush Doctrine. Charles Gibson included.

Comment by Bradford — September 16, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

Zachriel Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Pez: There is a term the "Bush doctrine".

Zachriel: I suppose that's progress, of a sort.

Pez: Yeah, because my opening link to the wiki article "Bush Doctrine" was a clear denial of that fact.

Um, you seemingly just denied your own declarative using a transient wiki-edit for evidence.

Bradford: Many are ignorant about the Bush Doctrine.

{boisterous laughter and thunderous applause}

Comment by Zachriel — September 18, 2008 @ 7:49 am

Pez Says:
September 26th, 2008 at 1:32 am
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

Source Of Multipotent Stem Cells With Broad Regenerative Potential identified
ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2008) — In a promising finding for the field of regenerative medicine, stem cell researchers at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC have identified a source of adult stem cells found on the walls of blood vessels with the unlimited potential to differentiate into human tissues such as bone, cartilage and muscle.
…
Dr. Péault said. "The encouraging aspect of this source is that blood vessels are the one structure that all tissues in the human body have in common. These cells can be extracted easily and painlessly from convenient sources such as fat tissue, dental pulp, umbilical cord and placental tissue, then grown in culture to large numbers and, possibly, re-injected into the patient to heal a broken bone, a failing joint or an injured muscle."
In their laboratory in the John G. Rangos Sr. Research Center, researchers were able to identify pericytes in all human tissues they analyzed, including muscle, fat, pancreas, placenta and many other samples. Through purification in the lab, these pericytes could then be coaxed into becoming whatever type of tissue the scientists desired. For instance, the researchers took pericytes from the pancreas and then reinjected them into an injured muscle. The cells immediately began regenerating muscle tissue.

Comment by Pez — September 26, 2008 @ 1:32 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

14 Important Science Questions

192 Responses to “14 Important Science Questions”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books