Lobowolf

I think that the inference from the other forum thread is that if you were proven guilty, you'd be thought (by some) to be the scum of the earth. I haven't written anything (or seen anything from Mike) that suggests that the "scum of the earth" determination comes before the determination of guilt.

Don't we all

I appreciate that, and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify it. Similarly, I certainly don't mean to condemn you for your beliefs, either; merely to express (and attempt to explain) my own profound disagreement. It doesn't follow, to me, that one who believes himself morally superior to anyone must also believe that he has the right to control the actions of anyone else. In my experience, I find it's been a bit the reverse; as a group, the moral relativists I know tend to favor more control over others than the moral absolutists. Because while they tend not to hold to any sort of moral heirarchy (or profess to), they also believe that "moral-ish" decisions can and should be based on what's best for society as a whole. For example, I know people who absolutely believe that in general, people who don't go around hurling racial epithets at everyone who is of less-preferred-race=X are morally superior to people who do. But most of them believe that those who do, while they may be "scum of the earth" types, have a right to do it, and CERTAINLY have a right to think it. On the other hand, the moral relativists I know are much more comfortable with hate speech legislation, hate crime legislation, etc., and (for the good of society), believe that they have the (and here I'll quote you word-for-word for a while)" right to control the thinking of those who" are in that group. Maybe they wouldn't call them "inferior" (or maybe they would), but they certainly do believe that they can and should attempt to control their actions and their beliefs. I'm more of the mind-set of Larry Elder, who said, "If a person calls me a **** while hitting me over the head with a brick, the operative word isn't ****, it's brick." Great quotation from A Few Good Men, but rather inapposite...Santiago wasn't "Code Red"ded because of any perceived moral inferiority. Of course, I *do* think that in extreme cases (McVeigh, Garrido) we do have the right to control their destinies (incarceration), but not for their own good; for everyone else's. I hope we'd agree on that point.

You draw some interesting conclusions. I pretty sure I wasn't implying that McVeigh should have been shot when he was 2, and I'm pretty sure that most of the people I know who agree that he was the scum of the earth wouldn't say that. Maybe that you're inferring it is more about you. As for the quote I pulled, well, yeah. I would posit to you that whatever my flaws, I AM morally superior to the guy who intentionally killed a couple of hundred innocent people. I don't know I'm a better person than my next door neighbor, or any random person on the BBF, but I'm fairly comfortable asserting my (moral) superority as against McVeigh. The "had our lives gone differently" argument doesn't persuade me. I could construct a hypothetical world in which you kidnap and rape an 11 year old girl, and keep her prisoner for 18 years. But we don't live in that world. We live in this one. And in this one, even without knowing you personally, I'm pretty sure that you're better than Phillip Garrido. These beliefs don't particularly feel strike me as going out on a limb.

People say this, but I'm not sure what the evidence is. European governments take a much more active role in the economy, and they're doing okay. The US government runs Medicare and Social Security (both very popular). State governments in the US are in charge of our education system (we have some great public universities; our pre-college educational system may not be great, but the other countries with better systems are also run by the government). Government intervention arguably ended the great depression. It seems weird that folks think it's okay for our government to take huge amounts of tax money out of our pockets in order to help poor citizens of foreign countries, or help treat diseases in foreign countries (or for that matter, to kill citizens of foreign countries). Yet any attempt to spend money to help poor or sick people in the US is "socialism." It's really embarrassing the number of homeless, mentally ill people wandering the streets of our major cities. This does not happen in major European cities. I'm not sure about your two examples. Is Social Security really that popular as an institution? People don't want it screwed with after they've paid into it for years for years, i.e. they want to make sure they reap whatever rewards they feel they've earned as contributors, but I don't know that it's all that popular. It's just all they've got, so they want to make sure they get it, after facing decades of deductions. I agree with you about universities, but I think it's a poor analog for health insurance- not everyone goes to the university, but we're talking about health coverage for everyone. Moreover, the people who DO go to universities pay a lot of money. Not in comparison to the percentage of the tab the state picks up, but it's still a lot of money, and there's opporunity cost in lost income while attending. These factors defray the cost a fair amount, and also mitigate the demand on the public system. In contrast, the public pre-college system, as you say, is not so great...and that's the one that's a better analog for health care - everyone goes, and it doesn't cost anything. I don't think it's weird about the tax money to help the poor citizens of foreign countries vs. ours (though I'm sure there's also a huge number of people who don't think it's ok, too, but that's a separate issue). With respect to foreign countries (or at least those markedly worse off than ours), we're adding resources into the system. That's a net plus regardless of government inefficiency. In the domestic context, we're getting our funds from our own citizens, paying a bunch of government salaries and administrative costs, and giving benefits to our own citizens. Maybe that can be done to create a net plus, but it's not the same thing, and it strikes me as more of an uphill battle. If I give you $100 to help your next door neighbors, and you keep $20 for your trouble and distribute the rest, that's a net plus to your neighbors. If they give you $100 to work out the best way to help them, and you keep $20, maybe you can do better for them with $80 than they could do for themselves with $100, but it's not clear, and it's not the same thing as the first instance.

And by making him inferior, you make yourself superior. I don't view it that way. I'm not better than Timothy McVeigh and I think that neither are you - had our lives gone differently, it may well have been either one of us on the gallows. Interesting.

I don't know that this* is true. I would say, though, that it's the same type of thinking that assumes that's something morally wrong with, say, Adolf Hitler other than something you'd "agree to disagree" about. I don't think I decided for anyone else that it's morally reprehensible to kill someone based on his or her race or religion. I just think it's an inherent truth of which I am aware. Saying that it was "decided" makes it sound more arbitrary than I believe it to be. In any case, though, I particularly disagree that the belief, and the voicing of that belief, "controls" anyone, or even attempts to. *"this" = "same type of thinking that believes that the correct ends justifies any form of means." While we're at it, though, I would posit that Timothy McVeigh, among others, is (was) the scum of the earth. Gimme a +1, Mike.

I am not chomping on that bait - you are not that naive - and I know it. :) I guess I am though. I agree with Lobowolf's statement. I am, too...I wasn't being facetious. But don't tell Winston; I kinda appreciate his faith in me.

To the extent that "getting reelected" is inconsistent with "doing what's best for the country," that's more of an indictment of the voters than the politicians.

I hadn't, but I went back and read it; thanks for the reminder that it was up there.

If I had to guess, I suspect that the testing is done, and probably at the prison's prompting, but less often (quite likely significantly less so) than is optimal. If you could, say, find all cases by testing, and cure all cases if you find them within a year, then you'd be fine with an annual test. But I'd bet the most likely scenario would be that prisoner's get their annual test every, say, 3 years.

I don't think your overriding principle resolves the issue. The Rule of Law seems to be that it's discretionary. Most are granted, but that implies that some are not, even for people who meet the criteria. So failing to grant compassionate release in a given case wouldn't appear to violate the rule of law in Scotland (though it may violate a tradition; I didn't find anything to suggest whether "most are granted" means 51% or 75% or 99%). But it doesn't seem as if anti-release comments have to do with expecting Scotland to violate their system, but rather to exercise their discretion differently while still operating within their system.

Setting aside the wrongful conviction argument and assuming that he's guilty, I don't think that leaving in prison until he dies (or executing him, for that matter) would be sinking to his level, and we'd still be 'better' than him in that 1) He was given a trial, and 2) The person punished as a result was guilty of a horrific crime, as opposed to the innocent people arbitrarily killed by him. There's a wide continuum, and in this case, I don't think a release is unreasonable (though I wouldn't do it, if it were solely up to me), but almost regardless of what is done with him, there's no danger of anyone doing the deciding being at his level. As a general point, I think it's flawed rationale to compare, apples to apples, anything done as societal punishment of criminal guilt to something done to an innocent person. For instance, let's say we have a guy convicted of kidnapping...maybe he held a young woman against her will for 6 months. No rape, no murder, just took her off the street and locked her up in his basement. Should we not send him to prison? Is it "sinking to his level" to confine him involuntarily? That's exactly what he did. Are we no better than him if we give him a 6-month jail sentence?

lol Really?! All 60 million or so Americans who were McCain voters were either ignorant or unprincipled? I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, and I didn't think much of him as a candidate, but this strikes me as over the top. Doesn't it depend on which issues or principles are most important to a given voter? I seem to recall some lovely cross tabs analyzing Political identification Geographical identification "Opinion" on any one of a variety of subjects Is Obama a Muslim? Was Obama born in the US? Were the US and Africa ever part of the same continent? I'm not claiming that every individual who voted Republican is ignorant or unprincipled. I am willing to state that the Republican rump is profoundly factually challenged. Moreover, they seem downright proud of this... Just as a for instance, I don't think it's unprincipled or ignorant to be a litmus test abortion voter (and there are many on both sides). If you think abortion is more important than the war, or the economy, or health care reform, that's not "unprincipled" (although it's a principle I'd certainly disagree with). And if you're pro-life (I am not), and you think that McCain is going to appoint Supreme Court Justices more aligned with your beliefs, you're probably right.

Do they even make penalty doubles anymore?

What about he possibility that your opponents, who have had to guess at a high level, are going down in 6♣? Going for 800 when you were about to get +100 costs 19 IMPs if teammates had their par of +500. Oh, THAT.

lol Really?! All 60 million or so Americans who were McCain voters were either ignorant or unprincipled? I mean, I didn't vote for the guy, and I didn't think much of him as a candidate, but this strikes me as over the top. Doesn't it depend on which issues or principles are most important to a given voter?

I can't! But I am sure some of the ones who play 2♣ is "forcing" in this auction will come up with a hand. So will the ones who play it non-forcing... Since 2♣ isn't non-forcing, it's less than the 19 or so points that would be required for a jump-shift. Since 2♠ was weak, it's a hand that could conceivably make game opposite a low-ranging 1NT(F) response (i.e. up to 9 or so - so not a minimum opener). Then fill in the blanks with the distribution suggested by the sequence. The 5=1=3=4 17-count suggested by effervesce seems ideal and typical.

I actually thought that the implication was that the WP was complicit (which strikes me as more likely; they've been around the block enough to be aware of the significance of the timing).

"whenever possible" is pretty much always. I agree that it's not a coincidence, and I agree that they have an agenda (although the investigation does refresh the sell-by date on the newsworthiness). Strongly disagree. It refocuses attention on things the previous administration did wrong in light of an economy that's still struggling (which isn't to suggest at all that anything wrong with the economy is Obama's fault, but the party and the president in power catch the brunt of it when the economy is bad), and in light of the bumps in the road the healthcare reform may be hitting. And to the extent that there's negative fallout, it's not Obama's doing, it's Holder's. Actually, I did on this one. Of course, I realize that any efforts I make to play Devil's Advocate are completely superfluous; I've been assured that the forum here is essentially moderate and represents a societal cross-section. It's a cross-section where 11 1/2 times as many people supported Obama vs. McCain in my BBF poll, vs. the, what, 7% more who supported him at the polls, but why quibble?

Struck me as a bit coincidental that "Look to the future" ended up with this backward-looking investigation right when Obamacare started to glitch.

They won a Spingold. And a Reisinger, though that's not at IMP scoring.

+1

I'd definitely expect a passed-hand 2♥ advance to have spade tolerance. 2♠

While the questions (rhetorical points) you raise have validity, I don't think you raise all of the relevant questions.