Should Bush Pull His Head Out Of His Backside? - Take 2

[JeffreyWKramer]

What do you think?

[Jack Zodiac]

Ah, Samurai... you're a fuckin' pistol.

Nice poll, Kramer.

[Solaris]

On top of what they've already been through, why would you want to scare the poor gerbils to death by being confronted with Bush's colon and his face at the same time?

Wait---what about US? We get that, too!

Does that mean we're gerbils?

[Lester C.]

I think the president is moral to a fault. Based on his religious beliefs and moral convictions he's making the wrong decisions for the right reasons. He's the antithesis of Bill Clinton who made the right decisions for the wrong reasons. In other words I think Bush is Land Mallori.

Regarding the poll I believe that all of us have the capacity to change for better or worse, in an instant, so I voted for the first option.

[Linkara]

*Shrugs* I seem to be in a growing minority here, but I think he tends to make both good decisions and bad decisions, both for right and wrong reasons, so I just wonder why you hate freedom. ^_~

[Suzanne]

I think Bush gets off on having his head shoved in his ass. That's the only way to make sense of his presidency.

[Cam63]

He's a bad president. End of story.

[Francis]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/us.iraq/index.html) seems to be saying that he's starting to pull it out.

Sources inside and outside the White House told CNN that discussions are taking place about what the alternative U.S. policy in Iraq would be if the troop increase does not work as planned.

Quite how it got far enough up his backside that they are only now starting to talk about alternatives if the surge doesn't work is beyond me. But it's a start. (As is saying that the military should be in charge - more than 650,000 Iraqi deaths too late...)

[Alan Lynch]

Removing one's head from one's ass would be quite difficult I imagine. The way ears are, there's going to be more resistance on the reverse trip I reckon.

Sorry, what was the question? I just had the worst dream.

[Solaris]

If he did, wouldn't it create a monumental Black Hole that would suck the life right out of the Universe?

:D

[Samurai]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/us.iraq/index.html) seems to be saying that he's starting to pull it out.



Quite how it got far enough up his backside that they are only now starting to talk about alternatives if the surge doesn't work is beyond me. But it's a start. (As is saying that the military should be in charge - more than 650,000 Iraqi deaths too late...)

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Francis]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Check your methodologies. Iraq body count only checks those deaths that are reported and confirmed - meaning that by the very nature of the site, it is going to be a serious underestimate (and more of one when things are disintegrating).

Believe it or not, not all deaths make it into the news.

And speaking as a professional statistician, I'd be interested in seeing your objections to the Lancet study.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And speaking as a professional statistician, I'd be interested in seeing your objections to the Lancet study.

His objections pretty much amount to "Bush's people don't agree" and "I choose to believe this other guy instead, because he has the same partisan disregard for facts as me."

[Paul McEnery]

He'd have to pull it out of Karl Rove's first.

Har!

[Paul McEnery]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Stop talking shit, Samurai.

You know this is a fucking lie. You've been told this is a fucking lie. It's been demonstrated that this is a fucking lie. And yet you keep repeating the fucking lie.

EDIT:

Oh for Christ's sake. Okay, once more into the breach.

The Lancet figures are not for casualties directly attributable to the war, but rather for all deaths owing to the war, whether direct casualties or not. As such, they are actually an underestimate, and have in any case been long surpassed.

[the4thpip]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Isn't laughing out loud at a death toll, no matter if you agree with its accuracie or not, something that only the evilest of evil motherfuckers do?

[Magneto_X]

*Shrugs* I seem to be in a growing minority here, but I think he tends to make both good decisions and bad decisions, both for right and wrong reasons, so I just wonder why you hate freedom. ^_~

What good decisions has he made?

[TCJohnson]

What good decisions has he made?

Much as I hate Bush, he has given a lot of aid to fighting disease in Africa. Not as much as promised, but still more than other presidents.

Gotta give credit where it is do.

[the4thpip]

Much as I hate Bush, he has given a lot of aid to fighting disease in Africa. Not as much as promised, but still more than other presidents.

Gotta give credit where it is do.

That money has often been tied to his ideological agenda and may have done more bad than good in many instances. In Uganda, for example, successful HIV prevention programs that dealt with real life issues like prostitution and teenage sexuality have bit by bit been replaced by lethal, counter-productive abstinence only programs because that is what they can get Bush's money for.

Don't believe the hype. Just this week, Bush's own former surgeorn general spoke about the madness of those abstinence only schemes.

[Samurai]

Check your methodologies. Iraq body count only checks those deaths that are reported and confirmed - meaning that by the very nature of the site, it is going to be a serious underestimate (and more of one when things are disintegrating).

Believe it or not, not all deaths make it into the news.

And speaking as a professional statistician, I'd be interested in seeing your objections to the Lancet study.

Do a search for the threads that sprang up when it first came out. The Lancet studies, both of them, were thoroughly debunked, and proven to be pretty much worthless. There was far too much said to repeat all of it now (And don't listen to McEnery & Kramer, they're BSing as usual. The poor methodology of the study was easily refuted, but that goes against their world view, so they ignore it and cling to only those things that confirm their existing biases. Just like they claim Bush does.)

Read further:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6565
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=54
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/201087.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-liberal-death-count-claims-770.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2004/11/lancet-survey-on-post-war-fatalities.html
http://www.ydr.com/op-ed/ci_5939770

[Solaris]

Much as I hate Bush, he has given a lot of aid to fighting disease in Africa. Not as much as promised, but still more than other presidents.

Gotta give credit where it is do.


Hahahahaha!

I am sorry, I'm not poking fun at you... I'm just bitterly incensed over the "aid" Bush has sent the African way...

Basically, the big push in his "anti-AIDS" campaign was to do their best to discredit the use of condoms, promote ignorance and fear about the disease, and preach an "abstinence only" line to the Africans. There's been studies (don't look to me for them; I've read their synopsis, but I'm not the person who posted them) that show the Bush "campaign against AIDS" in Africa has actually *increased* many people's chances of contracting the disease, because of the ignorance and hopelessness his campaign created in the natives.

[Cam63]

I'm exaggerating, but if Dubbya was a bartender, he'd fuck up selling beer to an Australian.

[Solaris]

I'm exaggerating, but if Dubbya was a bartender, he'd fuck up selling beer to an Australian.

That's because he's never happy serving something up until he's pissed in it.

ba-dum-bum! ching!

Damn... this is fun.

[TheLazy]

If he has his head up his ass then why hasn't he gone blind already?:D

[Linkara]

What good decisions has he made?

Honestly? I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, but I agree with the decision for military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admittedly, it turns out our intelligence was wrong on Iraq and they didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the USA's invasion, but we sure as hell knew he had a history of doing it and I sure as hell believe he was planning on doing it again. He'd been developing and using chemical weapons for years despite United Nations sanctions telling him to knock it off and he'd been oppressing his people and was guilty of a hell of a lot more crimes when he attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait. In the case of the Iran War, we made mistakes by backing him, but that just to me seemed like one more justification for ending him - cleaning up our mistakes.

Now, the mistake with this was that he tried to sell the WoMD argument as the basis for the invasion when it should've been clear from the beginning this was a humanitarian effort to stop a brutal dictator and give the people back the rights that had been taken from them. Another mistake was underestimating the number of forces necessary for this sort of effort. You need a 20-to-1 ratio to utterly defeat a defending army like the one we were facing, and it was shown in the attack on Baghdad why that worked, but we needed a hell of a lot more troops than what we started with. And I think we've had victories along the way - free elections in Iraq, the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein (done by the Iraqis, although his execution was handled poorly), and I think for the most part things are better now and they will continue to get better unless we do something remarkably, universally stupid, which can happen in a military situation like this. We've had plenty of stupid people along the way, but I remain optimistic about things and I don't think our President is half as bad as people always like to bitch about him being.

[Citizen V]

I think Bush gets off on having his head shoved in his ass. That's the only way to make sense of his presidency.

That`s a signature quote right there.:cool:
Bush is going to go down in history as the dumbest President ever.People are already talking about this,he`s too damn stubborn to admit this is all a waste.

[Solaris]

Why is it, when people talk about Bush being dumb, all the ever mention is Iraq?

What about Katrina? Federal funding for religious charities? The "Abstinence War on AIDS" in Africa? Appointments of Bush mouthpieces to positions like Attorney General and Surgeon General? Lies to the Media (and the public)? His push for erosion of citizens' rights, after 9/11, via the Patriot Act and Homeland Security? How early in his first presidency, Bush's proactive campaign planning session with Catholic Bishops, inadvertantly broadcast to a pressroom full of reporters BY BUSH when he hit the wrong toggle on his desk... where they all heard him saying to the Bishops he would put federal weight and moneys behind their platform of pro-life, federal funding for churches, etc.? Bush's statements in his *first* election campaign about how "Wicca" is not a religion, and that he would do his best to get it ousted from military recognition? Declaring "Jesus Day" as a state holiday, when he was Gov. of Texas?

THIS is what irks me about people's reaction to Bush: HE'S HAD A TRACK RECORD FOR STUPIDITY, CLOSED-MINDENESS, BIGOTRY, LYING, AND A DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED EROSION OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IN FAVOR OF HIS OWN BELIEFS, FROM BEFORE HE EVER BECAME PRESIDENT, AND ALL THROUGH BOTH TERMS. Yet it seems like Iraq is the only thing people ever point to as an example of his gross negligence, ignorance, and deliberate changing of our laws and practices.

People even seem to forget that it wasn't Iraq that first started waking people up to the Bush debacle... it was the complete unprepardness of FEMA, and the snail pace of federal response, that first woke people up... because of his stupid policies and his stupid selection of an Arabian horsebreeder with no prior emergency disaster work to chair FEMA that led to the disaster.

It was only after a large chunk of the American public got bitten directly on the ass by his stupidty (with Katrina) that finally, FINALLY, people dropped the "if you're FOR Bush you're a Patriot; if you're AGAINST Bush, you're a Traitor" line of idiocy, and started taking an actual look at the efficacy and policies of his administration... and only THEN started paying credence to the "Traitors" who were questioning the Iraq campaign.

Humph.

And what REALLY irks me is that *some* people saw the way the wind was blowing in Bush's mind and actions, way back in his first presidential campaign.. and not only did the majority not listen, but they've even forgotten that they were ever warned ahead of time about the kind of president, and presidency, they were voting into being.

Grrrrrrr.

And yes, that is my freakin' "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" for the century, folks, to the American nation at large.

[Sabrinaset]

THIS is what irks me about people's reaction to Bush: HE'S HAD A TRACK RECORD FOR ... BIGOTRY...

I'm a little unclear what his track record for bigotry is.

[Samurai]

I'm a little unclear what his track record for bigotry is.

He appointed conservative people of all races and both sexes, with far more diversity than Clinton or other previous Presidents. He is therefore, clearly a bigot. :rolleyes:

[Solaris]

He appointed conservative people of all races and both sexes, with far more diversity than Clinton or other previous Presidents. He is therefore, clearly a bigot. :rolleyes:

Were they also of non-traditional religions (especially the ones he's targeted as "not real religions"), and of diverse gender/sexual orientation?

Geez, it's pretty damn easy to find a conservative woman, or a conservative black/hispanic/etc. nowadays... Bigotry isn't limited only to racial issues, or male vs. female, you know.

Given his repeated vocal statements that this is "A Christian Country," his support for stances against GBLT people, his biased dispersement of federal funds to Christian charities for their "social programs"---which I might add, has never before happened in the history of this country, and yes, it was biased---I know of several well-established Pagan charities with social programs who couldn't get a toe in the door for that program... you don't think he's a bigot?

Sorry---hiring minorities and women doesn't wash, in asserting that he's *not* bigoted. Further, there are more minorities and women active in fields that are appropriate for said appointments now than ever before. I mean, it was much harder for Nixon to find minority and female prospects in the appropriate fields for appointments than it was for Bush. Citing the "he hired more than ever before" is like saying "In the past fifty years, the Petroleum Industry has hired more Arabs than any other American industry in history"... without mentioning, of course, that Oil happened to have been discovered in the Arabic countries around, oh, fifty or so years ago.

:rolleyes: back atcha.

[Samurai]

Why is it, when people talk about Bush being dumb, all the ever mention is Iraq?

What about Katrina? Federal funding for religious charities? The "Abstinence War on AIDS" in Africa? Appointments of Bush mouthpieces to positions like Attorney General and Surgeon General? Lies to the Media (and the public)? His push for erosion of citizens' rights, after 9/11, via the Patriot Act and Homeland Security? How early in his first presidency, Bush's proactive campaign planning session with Catholic Bishops, inadvertantly broadcast to a pressroom full of reporters BY BUSH when he hit the wrong toggle on his desk... where they all heard him saying to the Bishops he would put federal weight and moneys behind their platform of pro-life, federal funding for churches, etc.? Bush's statements in his *first* election campaign about how "Wicca" is not a religion, and that he would do his best to get it ousted from military recognition? Declaring "Jesus Day" as a state holiday, when he was Gov. of Texas?


FEMA is not the first responders to a crisis, the state and local authorities are. The idiots running LA and New Orleans screwed that one up at least as much as FEMA. But the Bush appointee (Brown) was lousy, and was deservedly replaced.

I agree that religious charities should receive the same rights and funding as any other, so long as the funds are not used to proselytize. It would be wrong to discriminate against them for their religion.

Promoting abstinence is a good thing, and should be done in combination with other efforts, not instead of them.

Every President appoints people who agree with him to top positions. What President would appoint someone he is diametrically opposed to and disagrees with?

What lies to the media and public? There have been mistakes, not lies. Please keep that straight.

The Patriot Act had bi-partisan support and included many necessary and common sense reforms, such as sharing information between agencies. It is not an "attack on civil rights".

Gee, a President telling supporters he agrees with them and will try to promote the common beliefs? Never would I believe such a thing could happen!

Wicca has now been recognized and the symbols included on soldiers tombstones approved, under Bush's tenure. http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uswi&c=military&id=11743

I've heard of far stupider and more worthless state holidays than "Jesus Day"...

[Sabrinaset]

Given his repeated vocal statements that this is "A Christian Country," his support for stances against GBLT people, his biased dispersement of federal funds to Christian charities for their "social programs"---which I might add, has never before happened in the history of this country, and yes, it was biased---I know of several well-established Pagan charities with social programs who couldn't get a toe in the door for that program... you don't think he's a bigot?

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.

[Nick Soapdish]

Honestly? I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, but I agree with the decision for military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admittedly, it turns out our intelligence was wrong on Iraq and they didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the USA's invasion, but we sure as hell knew he had a history of doing it and I sure as hell believe he was planning on doing it again. He'd been developing and using chemical weapons for years despite United Nations sanctions telling him to knock it off and he'd been oppressing his people and was guilty of a hell of a lot more crimes when he attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait. In the case of the Iran War, we made mistakes by backing him, but that just to me seemed like one more justification for ending him - cleaning up our mistakes.

Now, the mistake with this was that he tried to sell the WoMD argument as the basis for the invasion when it should've been clear from the beginning this was a humanitarian effort to stop a brutal dictator and give the people back the rights that had been taken from them. Another mistake was underestimating the number of forces necessary for this sort of effort. You need a 20-to-1 ratio to utterly defeat a defending army like the one we were facing, and it was shown in the attack on Baghdad why that worked, but we needed a hell of a lot more troops than what we started with. And I think we've had victories along the way - free elections in Iraq, the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein (done by the Iraqis, although his execution was handled poorly), and I think for the most part things are better now and they will continue to get better unless we do something remarkably, universally stupid, which can happen in a military situation like this. We've had plenty of stupid people along the way, but I remain optimistic about things and I don't think our President is half as bad as people always like to bitch about him being.

So you're saying that we should've invaded Iraq, but we just needed to come up with lots more soldiers than we did?

Should we have drafted them?

Personally, part of why I think Iraq was such a screw-up is that it screwed up the one good decision that he did make - invading Afghanistan. We hadn't finished the job there and now the Taliban has regained control over a large portion of the country.

Unfortunately, Iraqis don't seem to share your optimism since large numbers seem to think that they were better off under Saddam. (I've seen varying polls and I'm too lazy at the moment to look them up.)

We had several things going against us in Iraq and we've done almost everything humanly possible to ensure that they go worse.

In my opinion, democracy depends upon a stable middle class. Most of the people in the country have to be generally happy with their situation or have confidence that they can get there under the current regime. But in Iraq, unemployment is around 60%. That's a lot of people that are desperate for change now.

It's also a nation that doesn't have much of a tradition of democracy so there's nothing to fall back on.

Then when we invaded, we disbanded the army (leaving lots of armed and unhappy citizens) and forbade anybody that had been in the Ba'ath party from serving in the government (which is pretty much the entire government). So what's left isn't especially experienced at the job.

Furthermore, the rebuilding contracts have been generally doled out in big chunks to multinational corporations that Iraqi firms can't compete with. So they are less involved in rebuilding their country.

BTW, Iran invaded Iraq.

I don't have a problem with the idea of stopping brutal dictators, but the US turns a blind eye to dozens of others so I don't really buy it as our reason for going in.

Back in '92, it might not have been as bad of an idea. Bush encouraged the Iraqis to rise up and they did. But we didn't go in so Saddam killed the home-grown resistance movement which I believe should be heart of any revolution.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.




Bush isn't a racist - that's one flaw nobody can honestly accuse the Bushes of having - but he is definitely a bigot. Really, how is bigotry based in religious ideology any different than bigotry based on nationalism or racial ideology? Answer: It's not.

Sorry, but no. Bigotry based in religious doctrine is just a different stripe of bigotry.

[Nick Soapdish]

FEMA is not the first responders to a crisis, the state and local authorities are. The idiots running LA and New Orleans screwed that one up at least as much as FEMA. But the Bush appointee (Brown) was lousy, and was deservedly replaced.


"You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie."

It took FEMA a long time to get off its duff and do anything once the state and city had called for health.


I agree that religious charities should receive the same rights and funding as any other, so long as the funds are not used to proselytize. It would be wrong to discriminate against them for their religion.


So is it ok to funding from the federal government to discriminate in hiring practices if that's part of their religion?

And they do proselytize. At least the ones that I've volunteered at (which haven't been many).

As far as I was concerned, I was fine with it. They can preach to people as long as they want because it was their money.

Was.

I know that the last place I volunteered at was getting some public funding because of Katrina.


Promoting abstinence is a good thing, and should be done in combination with other efforts, not instead of them.


And that is exactly the complaint about the abstinence-only promotions.


Every President appoints people who agree with him to top positions. What President would appoint someone he is diametrically opposed to and disagrees with?


It's a good argument for not having a religious nut in the office.

It's one thing for it to be your personal beliefs. But to instruct a surgeon general to go against the scientific knowledge is completely different.


What lies to the media and public? There have been mistakes, not lies. Please keep that straight.


Colin Powell had already admitted that he knew that the information in his report to the UN was flawed.

I'm not sure if refusing to believe evidence that contradicts what you believe and only reporting the other evidence counts as actually lying though.


The Patriot Act had bi-partisan support and included many necessary and common sense reforms, such as sharing information between agencies. It is not an "attack on civil rights".


Bi-partisan support doesn't absolve Bush. It just means that the Democrats were also at fault.

It did include many needed and necessary reforms. It also includes attacks on what has traditionally been considered our right to privacy.


Wicca has now been recognized and the symbols included on soldiers tombstones approved, under Bush's tenure. http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uswi&c=military&id=11743


Skipped over the part about the three lawsuits, eh?

[Reverend Smooth]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them. Still counts as bigotry. Just because a book says it's ok to be a bigot doesn't mean it's cool. :3

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.Hasn't stopped him from doing things that are political dynamite.

[Tages]

LOL, don't tell me you're getting your figures from that ridiculously biased and inaccurate Lancet study? The real figure is far, far lower, about 1/10 that number. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

And there's no reason to believe that any flaws in the Lancet study's methodology necessarily means that its estimates are too high. You could just as easily say that it means they're too low.

But you've never addressed that, have you?

I'm sure glad that roughly two hundred times the number of people who died from the 9-11 attacks have been killed to protect us from those Weapons of Mass Destruction (that didn't exist) and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda (which also didn't exist).

[Samurai]

And there's no reason to believe that any flaws in the Lancet study's methodology necessarily means that its estimates are too high. You could just as easily say that it means they're too low.

But you've never addressed that, have you?

I'm sure glad that roughly two hundred times the number of people who died from the 9-11 attacks have been killed to protect us from those Weapons of Mass Destruction (that didn't exist) and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda (which also didn't exist).

The entire study is garbage. The margin of error was ridiculously high. They were only 95% certain that they were somewhere within 500,000 of the correct number! Maybe you don't know statistics, but that's crazy. Think of it this way... you are asked to count some pennies in a jar. Each time you get a different number. You do it 100 times, and you find that 95 of those times your total came to somewhere between 155 and 1,155 (scattered within that range). 5 times your count went either higher or lower than even those extremely wide boundaries. That is a range where the bottom number is just 1/9 the top number. You know how most studies talk about a margin of error of 3 or 4 points? That's a margin of error of 500 points! Simply picking the number in the middle of such a horribly inaccurate study is still worthless. Add to that the political bias of some of the researchers, the fact they almost never got any confirmation of stated deaths such as death certificates, they used an extremely small number of samples, they took no census data on the interviewees (commonly done in studies like this), they either lied or were way off on their base figures for life expectancy and mortality under Saddam's rule (by at least 50% if you use UN statistics), and it all adds up to a completely worthless piece of junk that has absolutely no scientific value at all. Anyone who is still quoting it is either ignorant of real scientific methods or blindly partisan. These studies have been thoroughly debunked.

[Francis]

Do a search for the threads that sprang up when it first came out. The Lancet studies, both of them, were thoroughly debunked, and proven to be pretty much worthless. There was far too much said to repeat all of it now (And don't listen to McEnery & Kramer, they're BSing as usual. The poor methodology of the study was easily refuted, but that goes against their world view, so they ignore it and cling to only those things that confirm their existing biases. Just like they claim Bush does.)

Read further:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=6565
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=54
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/201087.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-liberal-death-count-claims-770.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2004/11/lancet-survey-on-post-war-fatalities.html
http://www.ydr.com/op-ed/ci_5939770

Do you even read what you post - or do you simply look for titles that agree with your biasses? If you had actually read your links or cared enough to know about what you were posting, you would have realised that over half of your links were talking about the 100,000 estimated by the first survey - and therefore weren't even dealing with the correct survey. (And how did I guess that your first post would be Kaplan demonstrating his statistical illiteracy?)

Of those of your links that were actually talking about the right survey (i.e. not very many of them), there were three criticisms that are even worth taking the time to answer.

The first is that the sample size is small - valid but overhyped and the small sample size is the reason that the margins of error are so large (which has been dealt with). You hae the claim that a primary school survey wouldn't use so few clusters - which is irrelevant for two reasons, the first being that a primary school is much easier to survey than Iraq and the second being that this is dealt with by the confidence interval (and never mind that cluster surveys of rare events lead to underestimates...)

The second is that it doesn't match up with the Iraq Body Count figures. Duh! Check the methodology of the Iraq body count. Only if a death makes it into the press is it counted there. Therefore the Iraq Body Count produces a serious underestimate (although how serious is unknown). In short, that objection is plain stupid.

The third is that the pre-war death figures for Iraq were very low. Iraq has an extremely young population (the previous generation were wiped out by a mixture of Saddam attacking Iran and sanctions destroying the elderly). But if we assume the criticism to be entirely valid and accept the figures from the critics (based on very outdated information - although the Lancet's is based on their own), that only cuts the excess mortality figure down to around 400,000. This is, however, the only objection that isn't simply risible.

Oh, and there's the argument that the Iraquis were lying to the survey teams - despite the double checking demonstrating that the majority of deaths had death certificiates. And the argument that because the total deaths in a day was estimated at 700, the headlines of deaths at individual events of a couple of dozen must be off (if you believe there's only ever one bomb at a time, I've got a bridge in brooklyn for you to buy). And a few other pieces of crap.

[Samurai]

Do you even read what you post - or do you simply look for titles that agree with your biasses? If you had actually read your links or cared enough to know about what you were posting, you would have realised that over half of your links were talking about the 100,000 estimated by the first survey - and therefore weren't even dealing with the correct survey. (And how did I guess that your first post would be Kaplan demonstrating his statistical illiteracy?)

Of those of your links that were actually talking about the right survey (i.e. not very many of them), there were three criticisms that are even worth taking the time to answer.

The first is that the sample size is small - valid but overhyped and the small sample size is the reason that the margins of error are so large (which has been dealt with). You hae the claim that a primary school survey wouldn't use so few clusters - which is irrelevant for two reasons, the first being that a primary school is much easier to survey than Iraq and the second being that this is dealt with by the confidence interval (and never mind that cluster surveys of rare events lead to underestimates...)

The second is that it doesn't match up with the Iraq Body Count figures. Duh! Check the methodology of the Iraq body count. Only if a death makes it into the press is it counted there. Therefore the Iraq Body Count produces a serious underestimate (although how serious is unknown). In short, that objection is plain stupid.

The third is that the pre-war death figures for Iraq were very low. Iraq has an extremely young population (the previous generation were wiped out by a mixture of Saddam attacking Iran and sanctions destroying the elderly). But if we assume the criticism to be entirely valid and accept the figures from the critics (based on very outdated information - although the Lancet's is based on their own), that only cuts the excess mortality figure down to around 400,000. This is, however, the only objection that isn't simply risible.

Oh, and there's the argument that the Iraquis were lying to the survey teams - despite the double checking demonstrating that the majority of deaths had death certificiates. And the argument that because the total deaths in a day was estimated at 700, the headlines of deaths at individual events of a couple of dozen must be off (if you believe there's only ever one bomb at a time, I've got a bridge in brooklyn for you to buy). And a few other pieces of crap.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

They specifically said they did not ask for death certificates because it would give the impression that they didn't believe the interviewee. Where do they say they saw the certificates "in the majority of cases"? (Especially since the researchers were not even the ones collecting the data...) But if we say that they saw them in "the majority" of cases, let's say 60%, and the other 40% had no evidence to support their claim, they should not have been counted. So knock another 300,000 off the number. Combined with the faulty base, you now have a figure of 100,000 in the 2nd survey. Given that they included all deaths from any reason, not just violent means, I could possibly see that as the proper median. That's at least closer to the realm of reality.

Of course, it's still trying to blame the invasion for every single excess death in Iraq, when it's the terrorists who are blowing up civilians with car bombs.

[Francis]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

They specifically said they did not ask for death certificates because it would give the impression that they didn't believe the interviewee. Where do they say they saw the certificates "in the majority of cases"? (Especially since the researchers were not even the ones collecting the data...) But if we say that they saw them in "the majority" of cases, let's say 60%, and the other 40% had no evidence to support their claim, they should not have been counted. So knock another 300,000 off the number. Combined with the faulty base, you now have a figure of 100,000 in the 2nd survey. Given that they included all deaths from any reason, not just violent means, I could possibly see that as the proper median. That's at least closer to the realm of reality.

Of course, it's still trying to blame the invasion for every single excess death in Iraq, when it's the terrorists who are blowing up civilians with car bombs.
You have not even slightly shown that the statistics are debunked. What you have done is posted a few links to a range of people, most of whom are statistically illiterate and called that a debunking. And if that was the best they could do, then the survey was probably pretty good. The methodology was only flawed because resources were limited. They did not ask the interviewees for certificates - they asked the morgues (and got more than 80%).

And the invasion is responsible for the upsurge in terrorism - once you remove the power, the running water, and the stability of course there is going to be violence.

[Paul McEnery]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

And if pigs could fly, we'd all have to wear hats.

The study wasn't debunked. It's completely solid. The methods weren't flawed, they're standard.

And you're still completely fucking lying about this.

[EdContradictory]

I'm just amazed both Bush's and Samurai's heads fit up there at the same time.

[the4thpip]

And if pigs could fly, we'd all have to wear hats.

The study wasn't debunked. It's completely solid. The methods weren't flawed, they're standard.

And you're still completely fucking lying about this.

He's also still "laughing out loud" at countless brown people dying.

Next time Lester posts that Samurai is really "a decent guy" who just disagrees with our politics, it's Man-Faye pics to his PM box.

[Brian M.]

I use to be with Bush pretty much on every subject. But he does have his head up his ass. He has refused to listen to folks on this illegal immigration problem we have. That bill that was just proposed was just a sham it's not even funny. It almost makes me wonder if those who were behind it every read the damn thing. The president is far from a conservative these days. We elected him to be a conservative. What's he done besides lower taxes? The only postive thing to come out of his presidency is a stronger economy. Afghanistan was a good idea, Iraq...was a good idea but it was executed with as much tack and skillfulness as a blind cripple running the 100yard dash. Smaller government? HAHAHAHA Smaller government spending? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If he wants a legacy, get those tax cuts permanent and secure the damn boarder. We don't need new laws for immigration, we just need the old ones to be enforced. You appropriated money for a 700 mile fence and we've built 13 miles. You want a legacy George? Secure the F!@#ing boarder. 85% of Congress and the American people agree we need to do that, so do it. Secure the boarder then come at us w/ a plan for the 12-20 million illegals. They aren't going anywhere, we know that. The American people would be a lot more open about things and willing to listen if you secured the boarder. So come on George, pull your head out of the sand and do something.

[Nick Soapdish]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. I said BOTH surveys (done by the same people using the same flawed methods) have been debunked, and I showed that. If it was no good in their 1st survey, it wasn't any better in the second.

They specifically said they did not ask for death certificates because it would give the impression that they didn't believe the interviewee. Where do they say they saw the certificates "in the majority of cases"? (Especially since the researchers were not even the ones collecting the data...) But if we say that they saw them in "the majority" of cases, let's say 60%, and the other 40% had no evidence to support their claim, they should not have been counted. So knock another 300,000 off the number. Combined with the faulty base, you now have a figure of 100,000 in the 2nd survey. Given that they included all deaths from any reason, not just violent means, I could possibly see that as the proper median. That's at least closer to the realm of reality.

Of course, it's still trying to blame the invasion for every single excess death in Iraq, when it's the terrorists who are blowing up civilians with car bombs.

The terrorists are there because we are.

Car bombs weren't a daily occurrence under Saddam. He was an evil, repressive fuck, but he did manage to keep the borders fairly secure and al-Qaeda from getting any roots (except for in the Kurdish part).

We junked the functioning security force that was there.

We gave outright approval for punishment of Saddam's followers, predominantly Sunni which they took as tacit approval of reprisals, particularly since we didn't do much to stop them and our own tactics.

And we're an attractive target to terrorists. Isn't that what we keep saying? "Fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." And most of the terrorists have come from abroad. The insurgents are a different story although many of them also have a fairly specific grudge against the US.

So yeah, the deaths by terrorism are a direct result of our invasion.

If you have a gripe with the whole field of statistics, that's your own business.

[Nick Soapdish]

I use to be with Bush pretty much on every subject. But he does have his head up his ass. He has refused to listen to folks on this illegal immigration problem we have. That bill that was just proposed was just a sham it's not even funny. It almost makes me wonder if those who were behind it every read the damn thing. The president is far from a conservative these days. We elected him to be a conservative. What's he done besides lower taxes? The only postive thing to come out of his presidency is a stronger economy. Afghanistan was a good idea, Iraq...was a good idea but it was executed with as much tack and skillfulness as a blind cripple running the 100yard dash. Smaller government? HAHAHAHA Smaller government spending? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If he wants a legacy, get those tax cuts permanent and secure the damn boarder. We don't need new laws for immigration, we just need the old ones to be enforced. You appropriated money for a 700 mile fence and we've built 13 miles. You want a legacy George? Secure the F!@#ing boarder. 85% of Congress and the American people agree we need to do that, so do it. Secure the boarder then come at us w/ a plan for the 12-20 million illegals. They aren't going anywhere, we know that. The American people would be a lot more open about things and willing to listen if you secured the boarder. So come on George, pull your head out of the sand and do something.

He's a Christian Conservative and a neo-conservative. It's just that those are a long ways from what the traditional conservative position is on a few issues.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

I think this is a poll that's about four years too late. The truly scary part? "The Past Is Prolouge".

JP

[Solaris]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.

But if the separation of Church and State is to be respected, then ALL religious run social programs should have equal status, in terms of receiving funding from the government. Bush's reasons for violating the principle and creating the program in the first place was along the lines of "often they are more efficient, or reach people the non-religion-run programs don't." He never said "only Christian programs need apply," or "only Christian programs can truly help people with social programs." He also never said "only those religious programs which the majority public *approves of* will be granted funding." Why wouldn't he say that? Well, DUH---because it clearly violates all the excuses he gave on how this funding would NOT be "partisian funding to religious charities, and therefore doesn't violate Church and State separation."

Bottom line is, he not only violated the principle, he applied the violation in such a way that IMO legally could be found to be "government support of a particular religion," because the funding has been granted to Christian charities, but refused to non-Christian charities like Pagan charities---and without their applications even being looked at or considered.

Which of course blows out of the water his *other* excuse: that only those which do not require religious participation by the recipients would be considered for funding." Ha.

(And FYI: the Pagan charities don't WANT to require religious participation on the part of the recipients... in fact, for most groups, it would be a violation of their principles. Pagan groups are NOT evangelical... and with most, you have to work and meet some requirements before you can even get *in*. :D)

[Reverend Smooth]

You want a legacy George? Secure the F!@#ing boarder. 85% of Congress and the American people agree we need to do that, so do it.That's not a particularly christlike thing to do. You're supposed to feed, clothe and shelter those with nothing, not build fences to keep them out just becaue it's too inconvenient to do your christian duty.

[Solaris]

Well, I don't think that him putting his personal religious beliefs into his stances really qualifies him as a bigot. I think that's really straining the definition of the word past the breaking point, and I think whatever else his flaws are, bigotry isn't among them.

I'm also thinking that funding pagan charities would be political dynamite even if Bill Clinton was still President.


There's a difference between "stating your personal opinion," "stating the stance (which is bigoted at the very least, and contrary to our laws and the spirit thereof at the worst) as the officeholder of the United States President," and "creating federal programs to funnel moneys to religions."

The first makes him a bigot. (A religious and homophobic bigot, btw.) The second makes him a questionable president, and the third makes him a major rights setback and deliberately malevolent president.

He's done all three... so what's your point?


And Sab, you know I love you---but I loathe Bush, have done so from before Day 1... and I won't sugarcoat my opinions on him for anyone.

:)

[Solaris]

That's not a particularly christlike thing to do. You're supposed to feed, clothe and shelter those with nothing, not build fences to keep them out just becaue it's too inconvenient to do your christian duty.

Aaaannnnndd.... do we hear a volunteer to help MAN and GUARD that 700 mile fence? (Speaking of Brian here Rev, not you.) :D

I can see it now:

They build the fence. People bitch because "there are insufficient guards manning the fence to keep the illegals out." So they supply sufficient guards... and the folks like Brian start bitching about how much money is being "wasted at the border," because it costs money to keep the guards there.

Brian, quit dodging around the bush (or Bush, heh!) and admit it: What you'd REALLY like to see is a border filled with landmines, razor-wire trenches, and a "motion-activated system" that lasers anyone who attempts to cross.

Far less cost and trouble than keeping soldiers down there, and it'd eliminate your "illegal alien" problem quite neatly, no?"

Aside from, of course, the local residents getting sick because of all the dead rotting bodies polluting their local air and water... but hey: that's what they get for living so close to the border, anyway, right? No skin off your nose. They should choose to live somewhere else, right? If they choose to live there, then they gets what they picks, eh?

Until, of course the outbreaks of cholera and other diseases that began with those dead rotting bodies, and were then communicated to the local population, then finally manage to make their way up to your local area, as the disease spreads.

Then, when the diseases are "suddenly" knocking on your own door, THEN it becomes a "national crisis," and something that you really do have to worry about.

Right?

[Brian M.]

Aaaannnnndd.... do we hear a volunteer to help MAN and GUARD that 700 mile fence? (Speaking of Brian here Rev, not you.) :D

I can see it now:

They build the fence. People bitch because "there are insufficient guards manning the fence to keep the illegals out." So they supply sufficient guards... and the folks like Brian start bitching about how much money is being "wasted at the border," because it costs money to keep the guards there.

Brian, quit dodging around the bush (or Bush, heh!) and admit it: What you'd REALLY like to see is a border filled with landmines, razor-wire trenches, and a "motion-activated system" that lasers anyone who attempts to cross.

Far less cost and trouble than keeping soldiers down there, and it'd eliminate your "illegal alien" problem quite neatly, no?"

Aside from, of course, the local residents getting sick because of all the dead rotting bodies polluting their local air and water... but hey: that's what they get for living so close to the border, anyway, right? No skin off your nose. They should choose to live somewhere else, right? If they choose to live there, then they gets what they picks, eh?

Until, of course the outbreaks of cholera and other diseases that began with those dead rotting bodies, and were then communicated to the local population, then finally manage to make their way up to your local area, as the disease spreads.

Then, when the diseases are "suddenly" knocking on your own door, THEN it becomes a "national crisis," and something that you really do have to worry about.

Right?


You know what I would like, the nation's laws to be upheld. But hey I'm glad you know what I would bitch about. I want the fence built, I want the boarder, both of them, protected. We're a soverign nation, protect our boarders. There is nothing racist or bigotted about it.

But hey, I love how you use hypotheticals to poke a hole in what I'm trying to say.

[Brian M.]

That's not a particularly christlike thing to do. You're supposed to feed, clothe and shelter those with nothing, not build fences to keep them out just becaue it's too inconvenient to do your christian duty.

No, your president of these United States, your suppose to protect your boarders. There are legal ways to come into this country, boarder hoping isn't. I don't want him to rule like Jesus would, b/c I don't want Jesus to be running my boarders either. I want the National Guard there. I bet if we started protecting our boarders the amount of drugs coming into this country would be cut in half. In a time when we're talking about national security it's amazing that these boarders remain as open as they do. It's a travesty.

[EdContradictory]

The president is far from a conservative these days.
Don't even.

He's your guy.

Don't even pretend otherwise.

[Brian M.]

Don't even.

He's your guy.

Don't even pretend otherwise.

He is. He is not a conservative. He's a republican, these days, there is a huge difference between those too. Republican does not equal Conservative views.

[Nick Soapdish]

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to recognize that. Either that or they just don't exist. Republican hasn't been the same as conservative since almost immediately after the Repubs took power in Congress.

Same goes for liberals and Democrats except I think they diverged a few years earlier.

[Brian M.]

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to recognize that. Either that or they just don't exist.

Same goes for liberals and Democrats.

The problem is that we've seen what happens when Conservatives disagree w/ Republicans. The recent boarder bill shows they'll just look at us and tell us we're uninformed or call us racist.

In all honesty I'm tired of both parties. Bush is a problem but Congress is as much to blame for the shit going on in this country. Seems to be that Congress wants to do everything to stay in power instead of everything it takes to better this country.

[Nick Soapdish]

No, your president of these United States, your suppose to protect your boarders. There are legal ways to come into this country, boarder hoping isn't. I don't want him to rule like Jesus would, b/c I don't want Jesus to be running my boarders either. I want the National Guard there. I bet if we started protecting our boarders the amount of drugs coming into this country would be cut in half. In a time when we're talking about national security it's amazing that these boarders remain as open as they do. It's a travesty.

BTW, it's borders.

Boarders are the people that pay rent for that extra bedroom over the garage.

The problem is that it's a damn big border. Both of them. We'd need a lot more National Guard and we'd have to stop screwing around and sending them abroad if we were to do anything.

Personally, I'm still more concerned about the ports and you would think that would be an easier problem. At least there, you know where the stuff is coming in.

[Nick Soapdish]

The problem is that we've seen what happens when Conservatives disagree w/ Republicans. The recent boarder bill shows they'll just look at us and tell us we're uninformed or call us racist.

In all honesty I'm tired of both parties. Bush is a problem but Congress is as much to blame for the shit going on in this country. Seems to be that Congress wants to do everything to stay in power instead of everything it takes to better this country.

Well, the Democrats haven't had a lot of time to fix the mess.

Not that I expect them to be able to since it's pretty hard to force an agenda over a President without a pretty strong majority, but they're still just beginning to fail.

[Brian M.]

BTW, it's borders.

Boarders are the people that pay rent for that extra bedroom over the garage.

The problem is that it's a damn big border. Both of them. We'd need a lot more National Guard and we'd have to stop screwing around and sending them abroad if we were to do anything.

Personally, I'm still more concerned about the ports and you would think that would be an easier problem. At least there, you know where the stuff is coming in.

Sorry, spelling right now isn't my strong point. I've been staring at financial graphs for the past 6 hours...unless it's numbers I got nothing. I agree with you on the Ports part too. The fact that we've not had something radioactive snuck in through there is amazing.

Well, the Democrats haven't had a lot of time to fix the mess.

Not that I expect them to be able to since it's pretty hard to force an agenda over a President without a pretty strong majority, but they're still just beginning to fail.

Oh yea I'm not blaming the Democrat Congress solely, I don't expect them to be anymore effective then the Republican Congress. Personally the idea of term limits for Congress would be wonderful...course that would have be introduced by Congress and who in their right mind is gonna fire themselves...

[Solaris]

No, your president of these United States, your suppose to protect your boarders. There are legal ways to come into this country, boarder hoping isn't. I don't want him to rule like Jesus would, b/c I don't want Jesus to be running my boarders either. I want the National Guard there. I bet if we started protecting our boarders the amount of drugs coming into this country would be cut in half. In a time when we're talking about national security it's amazing that these boarders remain as open as they do. It's a travesty.


Yeah... those Illegal Immigrant Zombies are a Holy Terror---especially the baby ones. Nothing worse than a Baby Immigrant Zombie Monster. They're the worst about bringing drugs over into our impeccable and immaculate nation.

:rolleyes:

Brian, nothing is ever truly solved by seeing the issue in stark black and white. As for my "hypothesis," I was merely carrying your apparent attitude to it's logical (but extreme) conclusion.

Yes, illegal immigrants are a problem. No, we're not handling the situation well. Yes, some of them are criminals (and I note you cited drug runners---when the worst problem, IMO, is the sexual predators that the US keeps catching and "deporting"---who then come right back---rather than sticking their asses in jail till hell freezes over). SOME of them are decent people, who work their asses off... and the only reason they're illegal is because our bureaucracy on immigrating legally is so fucked up it takes them forever to get processed, if they get processed at all.

You know what I think would work? A merit-based system. If you want to come into this country, fine. If after a year's residence you show that you're working hard at some job, and in some way are self-sufficient, then you can stay. If you are sitting on your ass collecting public aid, and have neither an able-bodied person who's officially supporting you, or a job, you get deported. And if you get convicted of a felony, you go to fuckin JAIL... NOT deported.

In all the brou-ha-ha about illegal aliens, it's the "deport the criminals" part of the US policy that burns me the most... because they don't get put into jail in their home country: they come right back to walk our streets. There was one case of a 12 yr old girl who got raped, who was confronted by her rapist a couple of months later. It seems the govt. deported the guy, and he came right back across the border.

Good goin', US govt. :rolleyes: :mad:

Brian: many of the folks who cross the border do so out of desperation, or out of hope that they will be able to work hard for a new life here, versus the infitessimal chances they had at home. TBH, that's GREAT! Let's make 'em citizens, subject to taxes, etc., and let them take their place in our economy as contributors.

Make it merit based: keep the good apples and let 'em live here---they work their asses off. Kick out the bad apples (the gang-type and "I want only the dole, and won't ever leave it) types... and put the rotten ones (every population has rotten ones) in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Instead, we have this fuckedup system that runs on quotas, and jargon, and red tape. Jeez, a lot of these folks are a gold mine for the US: they work hard, pool their resources, are willing to live on less than what the average American considers "an adequate lifestyle"... and for many, are willing to take jobs that a lot of stupid lazy Americans turn their noses up at. THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ARE WILLING TO WORK... LET THEM.

Maybe it'd wake up the lazy Americans among us, to see these hard-working folks ending up surpassing them, because they *will* work so hard.

[Brian M.]

Yeah... those Illegal Immigrant Zombies are a Holy Terror---especially the baby ones. Nothing worse than a Baby Immigrant Zombie Monster. They're the worst about bringing drugs over into our impeccable and immaculate nation.

:rolleyes:

Brian, nothing is ever truly solved by seeing the issue in stark black and white. As for my "hypothesis," I was merely carrying your apparent attitude to it's logical (but extreme) conclusion.

Yes, illegal immigrants are a problem. No, we're not handling the situation well. Yes, some of them are criminals (and I note you cited drug runners---when the worst problem, IMO, is the sexual predators that the US keeps catching and "deporting"---who then come right back---rather than sticking their asses in jail till hell freezes over). SOME of them are decent people, who work their asses off... and the only reason they're illegal is because our bureaucracy on immigrating legally is so fucked up it takes them forever to get processed, if they get processed at all.

You know what I think would work? A merit-based system. If you want to come into this country, fine. If after a year's residence you show that you're working hard at some job, and in some way are self-sufficient, then you can stay. If you are sitting on your ass collecting public aid, and have neither an able-bodied person who's officially supporting you, or a job, you get deported. And if you get convicted of a felony, you go to fuckin JAIL... NOT deported.

In all the brou-ha-ha about illegal aliens, it's the "deport the criminals" part of the US policy that burns me the most... because they don't get put into jail in their home country: they come right back to walk our streets. There was one case of a 12 yr old girl who got raped, who was confronted by her rapist a couple of months later. It seems the govt. deported the guy, and he came right back across the border.

Good goin', US govt. :rolleyes: :mad:

Brian: many of the folks who cross the border do so out of desperation, or out of hope that they will be able to work hard for a new life here, versus the infitessimal chances they had at home. TBH, that's GREAT! Let's make 'em citizens, subject to taxes, etc., and let them take their place in our economy as contributors.

Make it merit based: keep the good apples and let 'em live here---they work their asses off. Kick out the bad apples (the gang-type and "I want only the dole, and won't ever leave it) types... and put the rotten ones (every population has rotten ones) in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Instead, we have this fuckedup system that runs on quotas, and jargon, and red tape. Jeez, a lot of these folks are a gold mine for the US: they work hard, pool their resources, are willing to live on less than what the average American considers "an adequate lifestyle"... and for many, are willing to take jobs that a lot of stupid lazy Americans turn their noses up at. THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ARE WILLING TO WORK... LET THEM.

Maybe it'd wake up the lazy Americans among us, to see these hard-working folks ending up surpassing them, because they *will* work so hard.


I agree with what your saying. Believe it or not. I'm not one of those conservatives who are shouting at the top of the street to send every single one of them home. That's ridiculous and would tie up law enforcement for many years to come.

What I want is to first just secure the border. Cut off the traffic. Then when we're sure that is taken care of then address the folks here. Hard working honest illegal immigrants, stay. But if you have committed any kind of crime, gone. I know why they come here, it's that American Dream that many of us here seem to have forgotten about. Those folks I want, b/c they represent what this country was founded on.

I think if you secure the border, the problem of deporting criminals and them coming right back over will stop. All these cases we hear about an illegal criminal drunk driving and killing someone, the 12 yr old girl example you gave are huge failures for our government. Each time it happens it's a smack in the nuts to the laws we've established here.

I know it's a complicated issue, but when 85-90% of the folks in this country agree we have to secure the borders I dont' see why we don't do that first. Then address the issue of those who are here.

[Reverend Smooth]

The only thing that'd possibly be workable fence-wise is some kind of solid concrete reinforced stuff; you can take apart the steel sheet and rebar crap in minutes if you're determined enough.

Problem is, that'd fuck up a lot of wildlife and national parkland, not to mention be an exhaustive drain on resources.

[Solaris]

Maybe because "securing the borders" will get a lot of innocents killed, ultimately? I think that's where it would lead to.

I'd rather see the immigration system fixed *first*---so that the hardworking people don't *have* to "jump the border." Let's start bringing them in legally, and in a decently timely fashion, and let 'em know it's being done.

THEN, once you get those folks out of the loop, work on securing the border... because it's much more likely that anyone trying to cross illegally has criminal intent, rather than simply being a desperate person wanting a place where their hard work will actually get them somewhere.

[Brian M.]

Maybe because "securing the borders" will get a lot of innocents killed, ultimately? I think that's where it would lead to.

I'd rather see the immigration system fixed *first*---so that the hardworking people don't *have* to "jump the border." Let's start bringing them in legally, and in a decently timely fashion, and let 'em know it's being done.

THEN, once you get those folks out of the loop, work on securing the border... because it's much more likely that anyone trying to cross illegally has criminal intent, rather than simply being a desperate person wanting a place where their hard work will actually get them somewhere.

Thing is though once you start legalizing folks w/o a secure border your gonna get a mad rush into this country, it won't stop. I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. I also don't see how building a fence or securing the border (I know their are other ways to secure it w/o building a fence) will lead to loss of innocent lives.

[Brian M.]

The only thing that'd possibly be workable fence-wise is some kind of solid concrete reinforced stuff; you can take apart the steel sheet and rebar crap in minutes if you're determined enough.

Problem is, that'd fuck up a lot of wildlife and national parkland, not to mention be an exhaustive drain on resources.


I gotta find the report, but we're exhausting a lot of money and resources taking care of the illegals we have here. I think the cost of securing the border w/ a fence/technology/patrols is worth it in the long run.

[Reverend Smooth]

I gotta find the report, but we're exhausting a lot of money and resources taking care of the illegals we have here. And they're offsetting that-- but legalising the good ones would solve a lot of problems.

[Nick Soapdish]

They're also contributing a lot to our economy, such as the aforementioned labor force for jobs that Americans don't want. And they do get taxed for their wages, but can't often claim benefits because of their status.

[Nick Soapdish]

Thing is though once you start legalizing folks w/o a secure border your gonna get a mad rush into this country, it won't stop. I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. I also don't see how building a fence or securing the border (I know their are other ways to secure it w/o building a fence) will lead to loss of innocent lives.

Haven't read the news stories about illegals trying to bypass the border patrol by going through more difficult areas and dying of exposure? Or the problems coyotes that smuggle them in?

Or do they not count as innocent?

[Paul McEnery]

The problem is that we've seen what happens when Conservatives disagree w/ Republicans. The recent boarder bill shows they'll just look at us and tell us we're uninformed or call us racist.

In all honesty I'm tired of both parties. Bush is a problem but Congress is as much to blame for the shit going on in this country. Seems to be that Congress wants to do everything to stay in power instead of everything it takes to better this country.

Oh wait, I think I see the problem

When you say "conservative", you mean "fascist".

[Reverend Smooth]

Oh wait, I think I see the problem

When you say "conservative", you mean "fascist".

Goldwater Conservatives are in short supply, nowadays.

[Cam63]

I'm just amazed both Bush's and Samurai's heads fit up there at the same time.

Bionic sphincter.

[Magneto_X]

Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to recognize that. Either that or they just don't exist. Republican hasn't been the same as conservative since almost immediately after the Repubs took power in Congress.

Same goes for liberals and Democrats except I think they diverged a few years earlier.

Liberals recognise it far more then Conservatives do.

In fact the liberal & progressive wings *hate the DLC wing of the party with a firey passion.

[Tages]

The entire study is garbage. The margin of error was ridiculously high. They were only 95% certain that they were somewhere within 500,000 of the correct number! Maybe you don't know statistics, but that's crazy. Think of it this way... you are asked to count some pennies in a jar. Each time you get a different number. You do it 100 times, and you find that 95 of those times your total came to somewhere between 155 and 1,155 (scattered within that range). 5 times your count went either higher or lower than even those extremely wide boundaries. That is a range where the bottom number is just 1/9 the top number. You know how most studies talk about a margin of error of 3 or 4 points? That's a margin of error of 500 points! Simply picking the number in the middle of such a horribly inaccurate study is still worthless. Add to that the political bias of some of the researchers, the fact they almost never got any confirmation of stated deaths such as death certificates, they used an extremely small number of samples, they took no census data on the interviewees (commonly done in studies like this), they either lied or were way off on their base figures for life expectancy and mortality under Saddam's rule (by at least 50% if you use UN statistics), and it all adds up to a completely worthless piece of junk that has absolutely no scientific value at all. Anyone who is still quoting it is either ignorant of real scientific methods or blindly partisan. These studies have been thoroughly debunked.

Oh, Jesus.

I'm not even going to discuss this with you. Ian, among others, already demonstrated on Comm that the overwhelming majority of statisticians who have looked at the report support its methodology (and amongst the few who don't, the majority of criticism is that its estimates are too low), and that none of the right-wing caterwauling comes from anyone with any expertise at all. You're just regurgitating standard blogosphere bilge.

I don't know why you feel you need to constantly lie about this.

[Cam63]

It's not a lie if Sam believes in it.

[Magneto_X]

Yeah... those Illegal Immigrant Zombies are a Holy Terror---especially the baby ones. Nothing worse than a Baby Immigrant Zombie Monster. They're the worst about bringing drugs over into our impeccable and immaculate nation.

:rolleyes:

Brian, nothing is ever truly solved by seeing the issue in stark black and white. As for my "hypothesis," I was merely carrying your apparent attitude to it's logical (but extreme) conclusion.

Yes, illegal immigrants are a problem. No, we're not handling the situation well. Yes, some of them are criminals (and I note you cited drug runners---when the worst problem, IMO, is the sexual predators that the US keeps catching and "deporting"---who then come right back---rather than sticking their asses in jail till hell freezes over). SOME of them are decent people, who work their asses off... and the only reason they're illegal is because our bureaucracy on immigrating legally is so fucked up it takes them forever to get processed, if they get processed at all.

You know what I think would work? A merit-based system. If you want to come into this country, fine. If after a year's residence you show that you're working hard at some job, and in some way are self-sufficient, then you can stay. If you are sitting on your ass collecting public aid, and have neither an able-bodied person who's officially supporting you, or a job, you get deported. And if you get convicted of a felony, you go to fuckin JAIL... NOT deported.

In all the brou-ha-ha about illegal aliens, it's the "deport the criminals" part of the US policy that burns me the most... because they don't get put into jail in their home country: they come right back to walk our streets. There was one case of a 12 yr old girl who got raped, who was confronted by her rapist a couple of months later. It seems the govt. deported the guy, and he came right back across the border.

Good goin', US govt. :rolleyes: :mad:

Brian: many of the folks who cross the border do so out of desperation, or out of hope that they will be able to work hard for a new life here, versus the infitessimal chances they had at home. TBH, that's GREAT! Let's make 'em citizens, subject to taxes, etc., and let them take their place in our economy as contributors.

Make it merit based: keep the good apples and let 'em live here---they work their asses off. Kick out the bad apples (the gang-type and "I want only the dole, and won't ever leave it) types... and put the rotten ones (every population has rotten ones) in jail where they can't hurt anyone.

Instead, we have this fuckedup system that runs on quotas, and jargon, and red tape. Jeez, a lot of these folks are a gold mine for the US: they work hard, pool their resources, are willing to live on less than what the average American considers "an adequate lifestyle"... and for many, are willing to take jobs that a lot of stupid lazy Americans turn their noses up at. THEY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE, AND ARE WILLING TO WORK... LET THEM.

Maybe it'd wake up the lazy Americans among us, to see these hard-working folks ending up surpassing them, because they *will* work so hard.

I agree with you Solaris.

[Magneto_X]

The only thing that'd possibly be workable fence-wise is some kind of solid concrete reinforced stuff; you can take apart the steel sheet and rebar crap in minutes if you're determined enough.

Problem is, that'd fuck up a lot of wildlife and national parkland, not to mention be an exhaustive drain on resources.

That's why it needs to be given a massive budget.

Spend millions of dollars on a wall like that (not a flimsy fence anyone with shears can cut through), get thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to guard it (possibly with military for assistance), get them the best weaponry and equipment to spot and defend themselves (as a last resort) against illegals.

Give the Border Patrol working with local law enforcements (especially from the border towns) and Fed agencies so the Feds/cops have some leads to go on to track any who get through.

The only problem is this would cut into the nation's budget which is the biggest dept in America's history. OTOH, what's a few million or trillion added to the dept? It's not like it'll make it any worse.

[Magneto_X]

They're also contributing a lot to our economy, such as the aforementioned labor force for jobs that Americans don't want. And they do get taxed for their wages, but can't often claim benefits because of their status.

You know why Americans don't want those jobs? Because they're not willing to work below minimum wage. If those businesses were paying decent wages in the first place the illegals wouldn't be in such demand.

[Magneto_X]

Haven't read the news stories about illegals trying to bypass the border patrol by going through more difficult areas and dying of exposure? Or the problems coyotes that smuggle them in?

Or do they not count as innocent?

They're not entirely innocent. They're still breaking the law.

Not that it means their deaths aren't something that should occur.

They also know the risks associated by crossing the border into deserts, coyotes etc.

No-one's *making* them cross, they're doing it of their own free will. (Children are excluded for this. They sure won't know what the dangers are.)

[Reverend Smooth]

OTOH, what's a few million or trillion added to the dept? It's not like it'll make it any worse.
If that's the case, nationalise healthcare, you'll save more lives. :)

The impact to wildlife would be bad, which is why I wouldn't advocate a fence at all. But if one was gonna build one, the way that israel did it would probably be the way to go, I've seen the ones that were being test-built by the gov't dismantled within minutes.

[Solaris]

Thing is though once you start legalizing folks w/o a secure border your gonna get a mad rush into this country, it won't stop. I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-illegal immigrant. I also don't see how building a fence or securing the border (I know their are other ways to secure it w/o building a fence) will lead to loss of innocent lives.


Because truly desperate people are willing to gamble... even with their lives. And at some point that means a really desperate person (or family, or group) will attempt to defy whatever armed guards are there, and rush like lemmings past them... and someone is going to get shot. If we're lucky, it'll be one person; but it's much more likely that it'll be a blood-bath that's turned into a media circus, as in the aftermath it's revealed that the "border forcers" were merely families who had no hope where they were, and when the media finds the children's injured or dead bodies among the victims.

Put it this way:

There is an immediacy to such an event that no removed analysis can truly describe or predict. It's a lot like being on the street when a mob forms around you: you have no idea what's going to happen, and you're terrified at the level of blind action that's happening all around you, as people allow their emotions to utterly control their actions. So when the police show up, and they're trying to deal with this "mob" that's acting crazy and in a fashion that people normally won't do... there's a good chance that some scared cop will open fire with a real gun, and real bullets. Once the shooting starts... there's no going back, and you never know if other panicked cops (or protestors with hidden guns) will continue the shooting or not. It's only afterwards that calmer heads come in and look at what really happened, and count up the cost.

In other words, desperate/emotionally-charged groups of people often don't behave in a normal fashion... and when they don't, those charged with stopping them are faced with group split-second decisions of how to handle it. Often there's fear and panic among the Law Enforcement, even IF they've gotten training in these kinds of situations... and sometimes all it takes is one scared young (or ignorant, or both) cop to start a hailstorm of bullets. Once it starts... you're screwed.

So... yes, I can see how trying to bottle up the border when there are still desperate familes trying to cross, could turn into a major cluster-fuck. Especially if there are babies and children in the body count afterwards.

[Magneto_X]

If that's the case, nationalise healthcare, you'll save more lives. :)

Great idea. Might as well.

The impact to wildlife would be bad, which is why I wouldn't advocate a fence at all. But if one was gonna build one, the way that israel did it would probably be the way to go, I've seen the ones that were being test-built by the gov't dismantled within minutes.

The wildlife thing sucks, but it's unavoidable to deal with a problem like this without doing it 100%.

Since no wall is indestructable they should add building companies to constantly repair the damage --- leaving holes alone is *not* something that should be ignored.

[Brian M.]

Haven't read the news stories about illegals trying to bypass the border patrol by going through more difficult areas and dying of exposure? Or the problems coyotes that smuggle them in?

Or do they not count as innocent?

No I've heard it, but when you make it harder for the coyotes to be successful you'll cut back on the business they get. Look we have a problem on our side of the border, but if Mexico had a better economy and took better care of their people, this problem would not be what it is.

Oh wait, I think I see the problem

When you say "conservative", you mean "fascist".

I was wondering when I'd get called a fascists. Thanks.

Nationalize Healthcare = Good
Government Controlled Healthcare = Bad

[Brian M.]

The wildlife thing sucks, but it's unavoidable to deal with a problem like this without doing it 100%.

Since no wall is indestructable they should add building companies to constantly repair the damage --- leaving holes alone is *not* something that should be ignored.

Contract out the work to construction companies to make the fence.

[Magneto_X]

Contract out the work to construction companies to make the fence.

No, the government always uses the cheapest business with those. Go with the best or most competent who will get the job done well.

[Brian M.]

No, the government always uses the cheapest business with those. Go with the best or most competent who will get the job done well.

I'm waiting for an illegal immigrant joke w/ that one.

But yea, that's what I was kinda hinting at w/ the contract it out statement.

[Paul McEnery]

I was wondering when I'd get called a fascists. Thanks.


If the shoe fits.

I'm always fascinated by the way people who advocate racist policies get upset when people call them racist.

[Samurai]

But if the separation of Church and State is to be respected, then ALL religious run social programs should have equal status, in terms of receiving funding from the government. Bush's reasons for violating the principle and creating the program in the first place was along the lines of "often they are more efficient, or reach people the non-religion-run programs don't." He never said "only Christian programs need apply," or "only Christian programs can truly help people with social programs." He also never said "only those religious programs which the majority public *approves of* will be granted funding." Why wouldn't he say that? Well, DUH---because it clearly violates all the excuses he gave on how this funding would NOT be "partisian funding to religious charities, and therefore doesn't violate Church and State separation."

Bottom line is, he not only violated the principle, he applied the violation in such a way that IMO legally could be found to be "government support of a particular religion," because the funding has been granted to Christian charities, but refused to non-Christian charities like Pagan charities---and without their applications even being looked at or considered.

Which of course blows out of the water his *other* excuse: that only those which do not require religious participation by the recipients would be considered for funding." Ha.

(And FYI: the Pagan charities don't WANT to require religious participation on the part of the recipients... in fact, for most groups, it would be a violation of their principles. Pagan groups are NOT evangelical... and with most, you have to work and meet some requirements before you can even get *in*. :D)

Where is your evidence of the bolded part above? Because it is clearly against the law that Bush passed, which guarantees no discrimination...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html

(c) No organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs;

(d) All organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under social services programs should be prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential bene-ficiaries of the social services programs on the basis of religion or religious belief. Accordingly, organizations, in providing services supported in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance, and in their outreach activities related to such services, should not be allowed to discriminate against current or prospective program beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice;

(e) The Federal Government must implement Federal programs in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, organizations that engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization, must offer those services separately in time or location from any programs or services supported with direct Federal financial assistance, and participation in any such inherently religious activities must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the social service program supported with such Federal financial assistance; and

(f) Consistent with the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the Constitution, faith-based organizations should be eligible to compete for Federal financial assistance used to support social service programs and to participate fully in the social service programs supported with Federal financial assistance without impairing their independence, autonomy, expression, or religious character. Accordingly, a faith-based organization that applies for or participates in a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain its independence and may continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs, provided that it does not use direct Federal financial assistance to support any inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization. Among other things, faith-based organizations that receive Federal financial assistance may use their facilities to provide social services supported with Federal financial assistance, without removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from these facilities. In addition, a faith-based organization that applies for or participates in a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain religious terms in its organization's name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other chartering or governing documents.

So, if you really have evidence that the law is being violated, you should report it, because I agree completely with all of the above requirements and restrictions.

[Samurai]

If the shoe fits.

I'm always fascinated by the way people who advocate racist policies get upset when people call them racist.

Yeah, protecting our borders, something every country in the world does, is SOOOOO racist and fascist... :rolleyes:

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, protecting our borders, something every country in the world does, is SOOOOO racist and fascist... :rolleyes:

Look, I'm really sick to death of this shit, so let's lay it out properly.

The economy of the United States completely depends on the migrant labour we get from Mexico, and has for a hundred years. The workers have been treated like shit for the entire time, and grossly underpaid, which is the entire point, isn't it. Next best thing to slave labour.

So when you people complain about migrant labour, you're talking completely out of your arses. And you're being racist against the people YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

But go ahead and pretend this is an issue of principle.

Because you wouldn't just kick the hell out of non-white people because some fascist on the internet told you do, would you.

I'm sure not.

[Solaris]

Where is your evidence of the bolded part above? Because it is clearly against the law that Bush passed, which guarantees no discrimination...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html



So, if you really have evidence that the law is being violated, you should report it, because I agree completely with all of the above requirements and restrictions.


*sigh* Sam, you always ask for quotes from articles I've read months ago... and have a tough time locating again. I'm not Rick (d), you know!

In the meantime, here's an article you might find of interest:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8773

Article title: Supreme Court Accepts Case Dealing With Taxpayer Challenge To Bush 'Faith-Based' Office
Friday, December 1, 2006


Here's another interesting article:

How a 'fourth tier' religious law school infiltrated the US Government
The hiring of 150 graduates of a poorly regarded faith-based law school has raised questions about the influence of faith on the American political process, says a New York trial lawyerJames D Zirin
The influence of religious faith on the American political process cannot be underestimated. According to a Newsweek poll conducted in March, 73 per cent of Evangelical Protestants said that they believed that God created men and women in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In recent debates, four of the ten Republican candidates for President took the position that they do not subscribe to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, preferring the biblical creation narrative that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that many people are beginning to wonder whether America is on a downward slope towards its own form of Sharia, where secular matters are governed by religious law, especially when an increasing number of legal posts are being filled by students from one poorly regarded faith-based law school. Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia, has roughly 500 students and is ranked at the rock bottom as a “fourth tier” law school in an authoritative survey published by U.S. News & World Report.

One of its prominent graduates is Monica Goodling, a lawyer with scant prosecutorial experience, who resigned under fire last April after a five-year stint as a top aide to Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General. She wrote her besieged boss a letter: “May God bless you richly,” she said, “as you continue your service to America.” Goodling received her legal and religious training at Regent, which was established by Pat Robertson, the televangelist, himself a Yale Law School graduate, in 1986 to provide “Christian leadership to change the world”.

Up until 2001, it was exceedingly rare for Regent graduates to take governmental positions; since it took office, the Bush Administration has hired 150 Regent graduates and with most of these lawyers are employed by the Department of Justice. In a recent Regent newsletter, a 2004 graduate provided a revealing snapshot of how the Church-State divide may have been crossed. Describing his interview for a position with the Civil Rights Division, the student was asked which Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he found most objectionable. He cited Lawrence v Kansas, the gay civil rights case in which the Justices decided to invalidate the Kansas sodomy statute. The interviewer readily agreed, and said he found the decision “maddening”. Thereupon, the correct-thinking Regent alumnus received an appointment to the housing section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the only job offer he received on graduation.

To the dismay of her alma mater, Goodling took the Fifth Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating her role in firing eight federal prosecutors. One third-year student criticized the decision: “You should not be in a situation where you have to plead the Fifth,” as though there would be something immoral about invoking a constitutional right. Goodling, who was granted Congressional immunity, later testified that she may have gone “too far” in the course of her official duties and inadvertently “crossed the line” by asking “political” questions of applicants for non-political jobs in the Department of Justice. It was at Goodling’s insistence that one of the coveted “jobs” - United States Attorney for Arkansas - went to Timothy Griffin, a close political aide to Karl Rove in the White House. Griffin resigned the post after it appeared that he could not survive the scrutiny of Senate confirmation hearings.

The infiltration by mediocre graduates of a poorly rated faith-based law school into key positions in the Department of Justice is just plain scary. The New Republic website, referring to the Goodling affair, observed with uncharacteristic understatement: “That a recent graduate of one of the worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the [Department of Justice].”

The collision course between fundamentalist religious values and the operation of the Justice Department was set in 2002 when the much-maligned John Ashcroft served as the Bush Administration’s first Attorney-General. Ashcroft was criticised for bridging the divide between Church and State by “inviting” his subordinates to attend daily morning prayer devotionals in his office. It was Ashcroft who had to backpedal from a statement he made in a press interview that: “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” A clever turn of phrase, perhaps, but not when you are the Attorney-General of the United States. Small wonder that, after his resignation in February 2005, Ashcroft decided to teach a law school course on “Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and National Security” — at Regent Law School.

In 1952, the Supreme Court - in approving a New York “released time” school programme that permitted student absences from state-supported schools for off-premises religious observance and instruction - stated that Americans “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”, but that there “cannot be the slightest doubt that . . . Church and State should be separated”. Justice Black, dissenting from the result, emphasised the history of constitutional separation between Church and State: “It was precisely because 18th-century Americans were a religious people divided into many fighting sects that we were given the constitutional mandate to keep Church and State completely separate. Colonial history had already shown that, here as elsewhere, zealous sectarians entrusted with governmental power to further their causes would sometimes torture, maim and kill those they branded ‘heretics’, ‘atheists’ or ‘agnostics’.” In other words: meritocracy, yes; theocracy, no.

It is uncomfortable to see something so personal as religion worn on anyone’s sleeve. The issue is really whether faith is an unwelcome intruder in political discourse and governmental business or whether there must be some legitimate place for an intersection between the tenets of faith and the ethical ideals of justice and humanity that are instinct in the United States Constitution.

Let’s face it, America is a faith-based country. Although seldom sung, there endures the closing verse of the fourth stanza of the National Anthem:

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

James D. Zirin is a trial lawyer in New York

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2033067.ece

[Solaris]

Okay, here's something, Sam:

Democrats inspect faith-based initiative
2 call for probe to determine use of taxes
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | December 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Two leading Democrats on the House International Relations Committee said they want to investigate President Bush's faith-based initiative to determine whether taxpayer funds are being used to reward Bush's Christian conservative supporters and whether the faith-based groups are using the funds to help gain converts.

In addition, Democrats on the panel said they could be in a strong position to try to overturn a measure that requires one-third of AIDS prevention money overseas to be spent on "abstinence-until-marriage" programs.

The $1 billion abstinence measure was passed by the Republican-led Congress and signed by Bush, but many Democrats have complained that the money could be better spent on other measures such as condoms. Many of the religious groups receiving funds under Bush's faith-based initiative have received money as a result of the abstinence-until-marriage program.

Representative Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said last week that she wants the committee to follow up on an October report by the Globe that the Bush administration has given 98.3 percent of the faith-based foreign-aid money to Christian groups and to examine whether faith-based groups are using taxpayer funds to help their proselytizing efforts.

The review could be overseen by Representative William D. Delahunt, the Quincy Democrat who is in line to chair the International Relations subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Delahunt last week said he agreed that the program should be examined.

The Globe reported that Bush has doubled the percentage of US foreign aid dollars going to faith-based groups and that the president systematically eliminated or weakened rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state. As a result, some faith-based providers attempted to recruit members immediately before or after providing government services, and others favored Christians over Muslims.

The Globe also reported on cases in which secular groups said they were denied funding because they emphasized the distribution of condoms or worked with prostitutes in an effort to stop the spread of the AIDS virus.

"When you look at what has been exposed and revealed, I think we have a factual basis to move forward with this," Lee, a member of the International Relations Committee, said in an interview.

Calling for a review of whether the faith-based initiative has violated the separation of church and state, she said wanted to examine whether "people are being required to participate in faith-based prayer service. Are people being steadily convinced or subtly pressured to participate in organized religions activities in terms of the funding?"

Bush was unable to win congressional approval for the faith-based program even with Republicans in control of Congress, so he used executive orders to implement the program. The International Relations Committee, which oversees foreign programs, has been chaired by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who strongly supported the faith-based initiative.

Now, with Democrats preparing to take over the chairmanship, party members who had questioned the faith-based program and the abstinence policy are preparing to use their majority power to review the administration's effort. "It certainly demands some sort of review," Delahunt said.

He said, for example, that if US-funded Christian groups work in Muslim-dominated countries, the effort could be "perceived to be proselytization and it can generate a harsh negative reaction that implicates and impacts in a negative way on America's image in the world and have significant consequence to our foreign policy goals."

Delahunt said that the recent trip by the pope to Turkey, which prompted protests, provides the latest evidence that non-Muslim faith-based organizations tread a difficult line if they want to operate in a Muslim nation.

"One only has to pick up today's newspaper and note the visit of Pope Benedict to Turkey to understand that there can be an unfortunate reaction to initiatives that implicate proselytizing," Delahunt said.

Democrats said they also want to repeal a Bush-backed measure that required US groups receiving faith-based funds to have a policy opposing prostitution. Some groups have said the pledge impedes their work with prostitutes who spread AIDS, and two federal judges have ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional; the Bush administration has appealed the rulings.

Lee, meanwhile, is the prime sponsor of a bill that would remove the Bush-backed requirement that one-third of the money spent by the US government on AIDS prevention overseas go for "abstinence until marriage" programs. The measure has garnered 85 cosponsors and Lee said she is "cautiously optimistic" that she can gain enough backers to pass the bill.

A report issued earlier this year by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that the effort to steer money to abstinence has taken funds away from other anti-AIDS programs.

The GAO said that devising a system around spending mandates for abstinence had created a program that is "ambiguous and confusing."

"We will take a close look at the impact of these ideological restrictions on the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS programs abroad," Representative Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who will chair the committee in January, said in a statement to the Globe.

Lantos expressed concern that contractors who favor distribution of condoms and work with prostitutes have lost out to groups who agree to preach abstinence before marriage as an AIDS prevention measure. He said he would investigate reports about "contractors who have been harassed for providing comprehensive prevention services and denied federal government funding on the basis of their AIDS education programs."

"Our global HIV/AIDS policy should be about saving lives," Lantos said. "It is inconsistent with this goal to place ideologically driven restrictions on the implementation of efforts to prevent spreading the virus."

In addition to the review by the House International Relations Committee, an investigation might also be conducted by the House Government Reform Committee.

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the likely chairman, has been a vocal critic of the way the Bush administration awarded an abstinence-based contract to a group that a government review panel found "not suitable for funding." Waxman has said that the Bush administration's decision to award the $10 million contract to the group "raises questions of political cronyism."

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/04/democrats_inspect_faith_based_initiative/?p1=email_to_a_friend


I bolded the above, because it highlights the objections I've voiced earlier over the African AIDS program.

I'll try to go back further in the archives as I can, Sam, to find the articles you wanted to see. (They have no real search engine... sigh.)

Oh, btw---yes, Arlington Nat. Cemetary FINALLY approved the pentagram as a religious symbol permissable for veterans' headstones... after more than SEVEN YEARS of fighting for it, on family and friends' parts. The first headstone to be decorated as such (which has been blank for over two years, as this lady lay beside her husband, who's tombstone displayes a cross) was finally dedicated this July 4, 2007. What's really funny is that Wicca has been classified as a religion for many years by the military... but the Board that runs Arlington refused, all that time, to allow Wiccan and Pagan fallen soldiers buried at Arlington to have the pentagram displayed on their tombstones.

Ironic, eh?

[Solaris]

Okay, the stories have expired from what I can find so far, but here's one of the story's opening blurb:

Souder Says That Under 'Charitable Choice' Or The Bush Administration, Wiccans Need Not Apply

Author: Jeremy Leaming Source: First Amendment Center, Freedom Forum (4/10/00)

Title: HOUSE PASSES BILL WITH CHARITABLE CHOICE PROVISION

On April 7 the House added a "charitable choice" provision to the Homeownership and Economic Development Act of 2000. Charitable choice allows religious institutions to compete on the same level as other nonprofit organizations for federal funds.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who introduced the charitable-choice amendment, argued on the House floor that the Department of Housing and Urban Development already allowed religious institutions to use federal funds to provide social services and that his amendment would simply codify the practice.

Reps. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, and Barney Frank, D-Mass., rose to question the constitutionality of Souder's charitable-choice provision.

Edwards asked Souder whether Wiccans could be eligible for charitable-choice funds.

Souder, seemingly looking past November's presidential election results, said, "It is unlikely under President Bush that the witches would get funding."


Now, this story is from 2000... which, while it's nothing to show that later Pagans did or did not receive funding (as much as I can find so far, they did NOT)... it DOES quite clearly indicate the "Christian-slanted" or even "Christian-Only" climate Bush promoted, when he set up his provision.

[Solaris]

And, oh ye who hates Clinton... here's a goodie from that same year, 2000:

Clinton Proclaims January 16, 2000 'Religious Freedom Day'



Title: THE WHITE HOUSE

THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press Secretary

January 14, 2000

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY, 2000:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

On January 16, 1786, the Virginia legislature enacted a law whose impact is still felt around the world today. Authored by Thomas Jefferson and introduced by James Madison, this act affirmed religious freedom as one of the "natural rights of mankind" and pledged that none would "suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs."

Recognizing the fundamental importance of this right to human dignity, our founders modeled the First Amendment to our Constitution on the Virginia statute and made religious freedom and tolerance core values of our democracy. More than a century and a half later, Eleanor Roosevelt, as the Chairperson of the U.N.'s Commission on Human Rights, worked to extend that vision to peoples around the world through her contributions to the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Americans draw great s