Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[pineappleheadindc]

Philosopher Sam Harris - who's always an interesting and thought-provoking read - has been called an "Islamaphobe" from those on my side of the political spectrum. It's based on articles and statements he's made on the topic of Islam.

His latest column tries to defend his positions be explaining their origins more. It's worth the read and will spur you to think.

Among the many Sam Harris assertions:

...the political correctness of the Left has made it taboo to even notice the menace of political Islam, leaving only right-wing fanatics to do the job. Such fanatics are, as I thought I made clear, the wrong people to do this, being nearly as bad as jihadists themselves.

I hope you'll read. Then discuss.


Edited to add the link: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... troversy2/

[dobrojim]

Best I can tell, Harris is more a religi-phobe than specifically an islamaphobe.

I've read a couple of his books including the End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.

Provocative stuff.

He reportedly gets a ton of 'hate'-mail from people of faith irrespective of which
faith they are part of.

He's had some issues with Francis Collins, Dir of NIH.

[popper]

Philosopher Sam Harris - who's always an interesting and thought-provoking read - has been called an "Islamaphobe" from those on my side of the political spectrum. It's based on articles and statements he's made on the topic of Islam.

His latest column tries to defend his positions be explaining their origins more. It's worth the read and will spur you to think.

Among the many Sam Harris assertions:

...the political correctness of the Left has made it taboo to even notice the menace of political Islam, leaving only right-wing fanatics to do the job. Such fanatics are, as I thought I made clear, the wrong people to do this, being nearly as bad as jihadists themselves.

I hope you'll read. Then discuss.


Edited to add the link: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... troversy2/

Interesting read. Political Correctness, IMO, is a technique promulgated by the left to eliminate dialectic. If true dialectic were to take place then the left's agenda would be threatened. Luckily for the left, their almost total control of public education, 90% of university professorships. and the MSM render the masses intellectually incapable of engaging in rational discourse (participant's on this thread are respectfully excluded from my general conclusions as I have had many great and illuminating discussions here).

The comment I related to most in Harris' response was --- "Multiply this kind of malicious treatment a thousandfold, and you will understand why many writers, scientists, and public intellectuals who agree with me about Islam and about the failure of the Left have decided that it is simply too much trouble to make the case in public."

I concur with the above. It gets to a point where one simply wears out and instead moves money and assets offshore to insulate as best one can from the coming conflagration.

[Severn Hoos]

The current issue is same-sex marriage, and I don't see anything in the constitution that would justify preventing it.

I know I can't win this argument, but I'll give it a try anyway.

I don't think the issue is what the Constitution "prevents" or "forbids" or "bans" or whatever. I think the issue is what the State (at both the national/federal and individual state level) is required to recognize. And for this, I think the polygamy question is at least relevant.

What I mean is - if the Constitution (or any given law currently being proposed or considered) actually "prevented" or "banned" same-sex marriage, it would require the state to step in and break up ceremonies, force couples out of their homes, etc. DOMA and related laws do no such thing, and do not prohibit anyone from doing anything. What DOMA does is say that each state may decide what it chooses to recognize as a marriage, and is not bound to recognize what another state recognizes. The relevant text:

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'

And then, on the Federal level, it does define - for Federal purposes only - marriage as existing between one man and one woman.

But, you say, doesn't it prohibit some couples from gaining the benefits associated with the recognition of marriage, such as tax benefits, adoption, power of attorney, etc. Yes, this is true. And the government does this all the time, every time it decides to intervene into personal interactions and also decides what it will and will not recognize as legitimate.

Let me offer a somewhat facetious example. Suppose I become enamored with Native American culture. I might get into native art, learn the dances, soak up the history. I might even identify so strongly that I convince myself that I really am a Native American and tell others accordingly.

Should the government stop me from introducing myself as a Cherokee to everyone I meet? No, of course not.

But is the government required to acknowledge me as a Cherokee? If I claim it, can I apply to college or for a Federal job under the category of Native American? Can I open a casino? Could I run for Senate from Massachusetts? (Oh, just had to go there, didn't you?!?!)

Point is, if the government has a compelling reason to define who should be the beneficiaries of its own largess, then it would stand to reason that it can apply whatever relevant criteria would apply. My utter lack of Native American heritage (I can get a sunburn from a 100-watt bulb) means that they can say they do not recognize my claim to official status as a Native American for federal purposes, even as they allow me to go on telling tall tales to all my friends and neighbors.

Or, alternatively, the government could get out of the largess business - from quotas to marriage to preferences and so on.

For right now, I'm not arguing for or against SSM. I am saying that the issue at hand is simply whether the government (federal and state) is free to set its own definitions or is required to recognize whatever an individual citizen claims for himself. And there may be a whole set of unintended consequences out there after the decision comes down.

[nate33]

I second SevernHoos' assertion that he can get a sunburn from a light bulb.

I also second his assertion that government makes "unfair" distinctions on who gets what benefits all the time. If they can decide that a rich person should be taxed a higher rate than a poor person, surely they can decide that the marriage tax benefits can be applicable to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples.

[popper]

"Look my son at how little wisdom the world is ruled"

"There is nothing new under the sun"

Of course there is no reason to look to the founding law and its amendments to establish legal from illegal. Better to define the law of the land as an ever-changing kaleidoscope of interest group demands fulfilled only through a living (and therefore meaningless) constitution. The country is, through a defect in public education, incapable of rational outcomes and discourse and therefore will suffer a horrible fate because of it.

[popper]

My son has an opportunity to go to one of the military academies if he so chooses. He is leaning in that direction now as his lineage has done for 100 plus years. I don't have the heart to tell him that the left has won and risking life and limb for the principals they hold is a risk I would not take today. It breaks my heart to write this.

[Severn Hoos]

I second SevernHoos' assertion that he can get a sunburn from a light bulb.

Trust me, my brother nate speaks from shared experience. And it's even more likely for me now that the hair covering is gone.....

[Zonkerbl]

"Look my son at how little wisdom the world is ruled"

"There is nothing new under the sun"

Of course there is no reason to look to the founding law and its amendments to establish legal from illegal. Better to define the law of the land as an ever-changing kaleidoscope of interest group demands fulfilled only through a living (and therefore meaningless) constitution. The country is, through a defect in public education, incapable of rational outcomes and discourse and therefore will suffer a horrible fate because of it.

Popper, I agree that the rule of law requires the Constitution to be considered a platonic truth that does not change. But the Constitution is not written with mathematical symbols. It is not precise. There are lots of situations where it's just plain not obvious what the Constitutionality of something is. So a lot of times courts are asked to make an arbitrary judgment, and they do because they have to. They try to use logic, and when that fails, they just apply common sense.

Now, we can decide our previous interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was not considered unlawful to have separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. If the Constitution is vague on a certain point, and the courts have traditionally interpreted it one of many possible ways, there is absolutely nothing wrong with clarifying what we think it means, in a different way.

The world is a dynamic place, and things change. New situations arise that we haven't encountered before. We can refer to the Constitution, but if it doesn't provide good guidance, we're forced to interpret it the best we can. And the tool we use to do it, in the end, is common sense. And common sense changes with the times.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it is so versatile that we can still, amazingly, apply it to situations today that would not exist in the wildest dreams of the founding fathers. But that doesn't mean that the Constitution represents some immutable, ironclad truth -- if it did, it would have failed us a long time ago. Representing the absolute truth that prevailed in the 18th century, it would have long since ceased to be relevant or useful. It would have died. The amazing longevity of our living Constitution is a result of its beautiful vagueness. It is specific enough to be useful, and yet flexible enough to be applicable across unimaginably variable situations.

Really, this whole Constitution worship is ridiculous. If it was so perfect, we would never need to legislate. It results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law as applied in a representative democracy.

[sfam]

My son has an opportunity to go to one of the military academies if he so chooses. He is leaning in that direction now as his lineage has done for 100 plus years. I don't have the heart to tell him that the left has won and risking life and limb for the principals they hold is a risk I would not take today. It breaks my heart to write this.

Wow. If I understand you correctly, this sounds like an extreme overboard position. The military is about the most non-partisan organization I've been a part of. More to the point, the principles that the left holds regarding the military are just not that different. At all. For over 50 years, both parties sustained the cold war, believing that containment was the right approach. Obama has very responsibly drawn down both Iraq and now Afghanistan. Obama even left Gates in charge of the military to ensure a smooth transition (I was working in DoD at the time, there was barely a change at all). The difference regarding the military is one party is interested in large coalitions prior to engagement, and the other goes in without building a coalition. More simply, in terms of risking life and limb, the left is far less likely to get into wars without merit. This has been a staple of the neocons recently (George Bush Sr.'s administration doesn't apply here, as he was about as responsible POTUS as we've ever had regarding the military). Additionally, both North Korea and Pakistan became nuclear powers in the Bush administration, so its fairly hypocritical for the right to be up in arms about Iran's forays here. And unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration has kept the US safe from terrorist attacks.

Whether you are Democratic or Republican leaning, you should be very proud if your son takes this career choice.

EDIT: To be clear, the goal of the military is to provide for the national defense. While politics certainly enters into this, from the soldier's perspective, it really doesn't once the mission has been set. The rest of the discussions in society rarely enter in here. If they do (such as gays in the military, or integration, for instance), its done after a long time (20 years in the case of gays in the military) of thinking through the issue and building concensus.

[Zonkerbl]

Philosopher Sam Harris - who's always an interesting and thought-provoking read - has been called an "Islamaphobe" from those on my side of the political spectrum. It's based on articles and statements he's made on the topic of Islam.

His latest column tries to defend his positions be explaining their origins more. It's worth the read and will spur you to think.

Among the many Sam Harris assertions:

...the political correctness of the Left has made it taboo to even notice the menace of political Islam, leaving only right-wing fanatics to do the job. Such fanatics are, as I thought I made clear, the wrong people to do this, being nearly as bad as jihadists themselves.

I hope you'll read. Then discuss.


Edited to add the link: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... troversy2/

Interesting read. Political Correctness, IMO, is a technique promulgated by the left to eliminate dialectic. If true dialectic were to take place then the left's agenda would be threatened. Luckily for the left, their almost total control of public education, 90% of university professorships. and the MSM render the masses intellectually incapable of engaging in rational discourse (participant's on this thread are respectfully excluded from my general conclusions as I have had many great and illuminating discussions here).

The comment I related to most in Harris' response was --- "Multiply this kind of malicious treatment a thousandfold, and you will understand why many writers, scientists, and public intellectuals who agree with me about Islam and about the failure of the Left have decided that it is simply too much trouble to make the case in public."

I concur with the above. It gets to a point where one simply wears out and instead moves money and assets offshore to insulate as best one can from the coming conflagration.

"Unfortunately, in the case of Islam, the bad acts of the worst individuals—the jihadists, the murderers of apostates, and the men who treat their wives and daughters like chattel—are the best examples of the doctrine in practice. "

Gotta pick a nit here. You know, the Old Testament has some crazy a$$ nuttiness in it. You could argue that a crazy extremist whack job who stones people for wearing the wrong clothes would be considered the best examples of the Jewish doctrine in practice.

I haven't read the Koran and I have no idea what Harris is talking about. What I have done is talk to Muslims, and they tell me the most central, important tenets of Islam are about peace. All people who follow Abrahamic faiths have to ignore the crazy stuff in Leviticus -- and it is part of "The Bible" with a capital B for all three of them. Harris makes a case that what he is doing (in my mind, possibly misrepresenting, deliberately, the central tenets of a religion that has done a tremendous amount of good throughout the world) is not racism but simply questioning a set of hypotheses set forth by the logical arguments in the Koran. Fine, you're not a racist -- you're just a jerk, whom no one should listen to or believe.

If Harris thinks Christianity is somehow fundamentally less violent than Islam, he is a fricking idiot, deliberately ignoring LITERALLY CENTURIES of Church-sponsored murder and mayhem WORLDWIDE. Just shut the hell up. Moron.

[popper]

"Look my son at how little wisdom the world is ruled"

"There is nothing new under the sun"

Of course there is no reason to look to the founding law and its amendments to establish legal from illegal. Better to define the law of the land as an ever-changing kaleidoscope of interest group demands fulfilled only through a living (and therefore meaningless) constitution. The country is, through a defect in public education, incapable of rational outcomes and discourse and therefore will suffer a horrible fate because of it.

Popper, I agree that the rule of law requires the Constitution to be considered a platonic truth that does not change. But the Constitution is not written with mathematical symbols. It is not precise. There are lots of situations where it's just plain not obvious what the Constitutionality of something is. So a lot of times courts are asked to make an arbitrary judgment, and they do because they have to. They try to use logic, and when that fails, they just apply common sense.

Now, we can decide our previous interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was not considered unlawful to have separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. If the Constitution is vague on a certain point, and the courts have traditionally interpreted it one of many possible ways, there is absolutely nothing wrong with clarifying what we think it means, in a different way.

The world is a dynamic place, and things change. New situations arise that we haven't encountered before. We can refer to the Constitution, but if it doesn't provide good guidance, we're forced to interpret it the best we can. And the tool we use to do it, in the end, is common sense. And common sense changes with the times.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it is so versatile that we can still, amazingly, apply it to situations today that would not exist in the wildest dreams of the founding fathers. But that doesn't mean that the Constitution represents some immutable, ironclad truth -- if it did, it would have failed us a long time ago. Representing the absolute truth that prevailed in the 18th century, it would have long since ceased to be relevant or useful. It would have died. The amazing longevity of our living Constitution is a result of its beautiful vagueness. It is specific enough to be useful, and yet flexible enough to be applicable across unimaginably variable situations.

Really, this whole Constitution worship is ridiculous. If it was so perfect, we would never need to legislate. It results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law as applied in a representative democracy.

As usual you make some good points Zonk. You are quite a bit more amenable to an open (what you refer to as changing attitudes, common sense) interpretation than I am. I believe you would agree that as time passes and attitudes evolve then the original meaning of the constitution can/will be breached without virtue of the mechanism embedded within it to seek the approval of citizens (through the amendment process). It is a strategy of the left to appoint justices that will legislate those policies they desire rather than seek change through the amendment process. As a result, the founding law is becoming malleable and perverse in a way that surrenders individual and state rights in order to grow the power of almighty govt. and those elected to administer it.

I'll provide two examples. Nothing in the constitution allows congress to appropriate money for their favorite charities. Yet, most govt. spending now does exactly that. They appropriate whatever they want to whomever they want: green energy projects, food stamps, medicare, university research, etc. If a constitutional amendment were introduced making it legal for congress to spend unlimited amounts on whatever their favorite charity is I doubt it would pass. But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

The handful of left appointed Supremes decided that they would decide who is, and who is not, a person worthy of constitutional protection. The majority opinion is a bizarre thing to behold. With that authority, they can now determine that the old and sick are not persons, or that you and I are not persons for whatever reason. Had that authority been sought through an amendment there is no way the states would have approved it.

I could go on and on but I hope I've made my point.



Asw

[sfam]

I've visited more than 20 countries in the last few years, most of them developing countries in nature. My trips have included far Asia, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, East and West Africa, Central and South America. In visiting all these places, I'm come away with the strong notion that the things that divide Americans are so much smaller than that which unites us. Yet, most people living here see the US as an insanely divided place.

But on most core issues, we are uniquely American.

- We all really believe in freedom of speech. Nobody is afraid of retaliation for calling Obama the worst names imaginable, for instance

- Notions of fairness are firmly ingrained in our make up. So much so that we actually naturally form "Queues" for virtually everything from lines at McDonalds to basic traffic hassles, ticket counters, giveaways, even food distribution in crisis situations! This is pretty much non-existent in most of the world. I have never had it happen in the US where I was in a line for a grocery store, moved 3 feet to get some gum or something, only to turn around and see that the person behind me has swiped my place in line. This is fairly normal in Eastern Europe, for instance. Fairness pervades everything we do, including the belief that "of course" advancement in businesses or any where else should be based on a meritocracy. We are often outraged when this is not the case. Corruption is seen as an abberation to be punished, not a fact of life, as is the case in most developing countries.

- We believe a single individual should be empowered to make major change in society, be it by starting a business like Apple, advocating a cause, or starting a movement. Nobody here believes we need to ask permission from Government to do this (in "real" socialist countries like France, they absolutely ask permission before doing things that might impact on Government's responsibilities - I have stories on this if interested).

- Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness is an ingrained notion. Everyone believes they should have their own person castle, however big or small it is. We respect that. We also don't hate rich people because they are rich - unless we think they got it unfairly.

- Nobody asks who our father was in job interviews. This is fairly normal in more homogenious societies. This is why folks like the Roma (gypsies) are so discriminated against in Europe even though most look just like the surrounding populace. Meaning we generally judge the individual based on their own accomplishments. Civil Rights movements have leveraged this notion to bring us all closer to the beliefs of equality we all aspire to. That most people really do want everyone treated equal is in itself fairly impressive. Many countries with multiple ethinicities really don't have that belief. They are often more interested in settling old scores. In many other cases, the higher group expects to stay there - look at how the Mayans are treated in Mexico for a close example of this.

- We believe in Suburbs as a grand melting pot of cultures, and generally form community life fairly easily with people we don't know, even if they are from different backgrounds. Take a look at any youth soccer field on Saturday this Spring, and you will see people of all races and backgrounds having their kids participating in bumble-bee soccer games. Same with after school programs, community fairs, July 4th fireworks and all the rest. Immigrants come to this country and somehow "figure it out" how to act, and generally fit in.

- We all take as a given basic security issues. We all believe that civilians should be in charge of the military. Except in some inner cities, most of us trust the police department, and really do believe that firefighters will do everything possible to save our house if it catches on fire. We even listen to mall security guards, who quite honestly, have no real power whatsoever, other than that which we give them.

I could go on, but you get the idea. On most really big issues that form the basis our society, we are all in complete agreement. Most people seem to forget this.

[pineappleheadindc]

I'm going to name names. Just in the last few posts, Jim, popper, Nate, kevin, Sev, Zonk, and sfam demonstrate why this thread can make for some of the more compelling reading that I may come across over a given day. Kudos gents.

[sfam]

As usual you make some good points Zonk. You are quite a bit more amenable to an open (what you refer to as changing attitudes, common sense) interpretation than I am. I believe you would agree that as time passes and attitudes evolve then the original meaning of the constitution can/will be breached without virtue of the mechanism embedded within it to seek the approval of citizens (through the amendment process). It is a strategy of the left to appoint justices that will legislate those policies they desire rather than seek change through the amendment process. As a result, the founding law is becoming malleable and perverse in a way that surrenders individual and state rights in order to grow the power of almighty govt. and those elected to administer it.

I'll provide two examples. Nothing in the constitution allows congress to appropriate money for their favorite charities. Yet, most govt. spending now does exactly that. They appropriate whatever they want to whomever they want: green energy projects, food stamps, medicare, university research, etc. If a constitutional amendment were introduced making it legal for congress to spend unlimited amounts on whatever their favorite charity is I doubt it would pass. But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

The handful of left appointed Supremes decided that they would decide who is, and who is not, a person worthy of constitutional protection. The majority opinion is a bizarre thing to behold. With that authority, they can now determine that the old and sick are not persons, or that you and I are not persons for whatever reason. Had that authority been sought through an amendment there is no way the states would have approved it.

I could go on and on but I hope I've made my point.



Asw

How is it that you look at government spending for "their favorite charities" as a left issue? Like, there is no basis for that view. The Bridge to Nowhere was not sponsored by a Democrat. Nor was the Star Wars program. Massive military spending programs that are long since irrelevant are supported by both parties. Extreme Pork barrel spending traditionally has been enacted by people who have been in congress a long time, regardless of party. What evidence do you have that liberal judges advocate this type of thing more than conservative judges?

[pineappleheadindc]

How about this as a prediction. Please be gentle with your laughter at me. Here goes:

The gun debate is over, the pro-gun side just doesn't know it yet. My prediction, albeit it will be maybe a decade or more, is informed by the change in attitudes over gay marriage.

Like gay marriage, the more individuals meet up with individual gays in their families and close circle, the more attitudes change.

Likewise, I hypothesize that enough of the population will one day be individually affected by gun violence that they will move the political needle to strict gun laws. That includes using the "dangerous or unusual [weapon]" loophole Scalia wrote into the Heller decision, to limit even common types of guns.

Surviving family members and friends will eventually drive political change on the subject of guns. Just as family members and friends of gays have helped drive acceptance of gay marriage.

[sfam]

How about this as a prediction. Please be gentle with your laughter at me. Here goes:

The gun debate is over, the pro-gun side just doesn't know it yet. My prediction, albeit it will be maybe a decade or more, is informed by the change in attitudes over gay marriage.

Like gay marriage, the more individuals meet up with individual gays in their families and close circle, the more attitudes change.

Likewise, I hypothesize that enough of the population will one day be individually affected by gun violence that they will move the political needle to strict gun laws. That includes using the "dangerous or unusual [weapon]" loophole Scalia wrote into the Heller decision, to limit even common types of guns.

Surviving family members and friends will eventually drive political change on the subject of guns. Just as family members and friends of gays have helped drive acceptance of gay marriage.

I just don't see that. Unless the Supreme Court weighs in on this, I see this as a state by state issue for the foreseeable future. I really do hope they can at least get the background checks thing done. You may be right, but I'd guess the time to make the change will be longer than this. Considering we all thought gun control was well on its way to being addressed in the 80s with the Brady Bill, it appears to me that the opposition is pretty solid.

[popper]

As usual you make some good points Zonk. You are quite a bit more amenable to an open (what you refer to as changing attitudes, common sense) interpretation than I am. I believe you would agree that as time passes and attitudes evolve then the original meaning of the constitution can/will be breached without virtue of the mechanism embedded within it to seek the approval of citizens (through the amendment process). It is a strategy of the left to appoint justices that will legislate those policies they desire rather than seek change through the amendment process. As a result, the founding law is becoming malleable and perverse in a way that surrenders individual and state rights in order to grow the power of almighty govt. and those elected to administer it.

I'll provide two examples. Nothing in the constitution allows congress to appropriate money for their favorite charities. Yet, most govt. spending now does exactly that. They appropriate whatever they want to whomever they want: green energy projects, food stamps, medicare, university research, etc. If a constitutional amendment were introduced making it legal for congress to spend unlimited amounts on whatever their favorite charity is I doubt it would pass. But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

The handful of left appointed Supremes decided that they would decide who is, and who is not, a person worthy of constitutional protection. The majority opinion is a bizarre thing to behold. With that authority, they can now determine that the old and sick are not persons, or that you and I are not persons for whatever reason. Had that authority been sought through an amendment there is no way the states would have approved it.

I could go on and on but I hope I've made my point.



Asw

How is it that you look at government spending for "their favorite charities" as a left issue? Like, there is no basis for that view. The Bridge to Nowhere was not sponsored by a Democrat. Nor was the Star Wars program. Massive military spending programs that are long since irrelevant are supported by both parties. Extreme Pork barrel spending traditionally has been enacted by people who have been in congress a long time, regardless of party. What evidence do you have that liberal judges advocate this type of thing more than conservative judges?

Enjoyed your earlier posts sfam - had computer issues so couldn't respond - no disrespect intended.

Regarding evidence of the strategy of the left to legislate from the bench -- I think it generally began under FDR when his policies were ruled unconstitutional so he threatened to pack the court - it worked, and enough capitulated to breach the constitution. Ever since, the left has appointed only those justices they believe will continue the breach. It's all academic now as precedent is set and all the favorite charities will continue to bleed us dry. And yes, there are a number of R's that are now happy to use power for their own favorite charities (bridge to nowhere).

[sfam]

Enjoyed your earlier posts sfam - had computer issues so couldn't respond - no disrespect intended.

Regarding evidence of the strategy of the left to legislate from the bench -- I think it generally began under FDR when his policies were ruled unconstitutional so he threatened to pack the court - it worked, and enough capitulated to breach the constitution. Ever since, the left has appointed only those justices they believe will continue the breach. It's all academic now as precedent is set and all the favorite charities will continue to bleed us dry. And yes, there are a number of R's that are now happy to use power for their own favorite charities (bridge to nowhere).

I don't get the breach of the constitution logic. Philosophically the difference appears to be those who view the views of the framers as immutable, whereas others view the Constitution as a living document that should be interpreted appropriately as society changes. Which ever side you come down on, I don't see this as a breach of the constitution. This is a difference of opinion. But regarding the specific issue of government expenditures, society is just not the same as it was in the 1800s. We're dramatically larger, dramatically more interconnected, dramatically more diverse, and are living in a hugely interconnected world. The role of government should change over time.

But again, the corruption in the system is generally done by those with lots more power - meaning those in charge of appropriations committees and the like. Term limits, which I would support even though they may have a number of negative side effects, would clearly help this issue. This would of course be yet another change to the Constitution...

[pineappleheadindc]

"Unfortunately, in the case of Islam, the bad acts of the worst individuals—the jihadists, the murderers of apostates, and the men who treat their wives and daughters like chattel—are the best examples of the doctrine in practice. "

Gotta pick a nit here. You know, the Old Testament has some crazy a$$ nuttiness in it. You could argue that a crazy extremist whack job who stones people for wearing the wrong clothes would be considered the best examples of the Jewish doctrine in practice.

I haven't read the Koran and I have no idea what Harris is talking about. What I have done is talk to Muslims, and they tell me the most central, important tenets of Islam are about peace. All people who follow Abrahamic faiths have to ignore the crazy stuff in Leviticus -- and it is part of "The Bible" with a capital B for all three of them. Harris makes a case that what he is doing (in my mind, possibly misrepresenting, deliberately, the central tenets of a religion that has done a tremendous amount of good throughout the world) is not racism but simply questioning a set of hypotheses set forth by the logical arguments in the Koran. Fine, you're not a racist -- you're just a jerk, whom no one should listen to or believe.

If Harris thinks Christianity is somehow fundamentally less violent than Islam, he is a fricking idiot, deliberately ignoring LITERALLY CENTURIES of Church-sponsored murder and mayhem WORLDWIDE. Just shut the hell up. Moron.

lol - just how exactly you feel, Zonker? Don't make us guess.

As you could guess, I don't share all of Sam Harris' views. But I find his opinions to be interesting and thought-provoking, which is why I read him regularly.

But I read YOUR stuff on this thread because I find you compelling and interesting as well. So take that for what it is worth.

Pine