JayB

As far as the boy-scout thing goes, there's a big difference between what the people in charge articulate as policy, and what actually happens in practice at the troop level. I was an atheist boy scout, and no one associated with my troop would have made an issue of this had it even come up. It never did, because religion just wasn't part of the picture. I suspect that this would have been the case even if I chose to press the issue with the adults that ran the troop. Had I made it a point to engage in theatrics, and made it a point to force the issue at the regional level or higher, maybe it would have been different. I think that this is a key issue. The Boy Scouts are a private organization with a particular set of principles that they advocate and attempt to reinforce or instill in the boys that choose to join their organization. They have a set of principles that they make no secret of - you choose to join them or not. The extent to which you actually abide by or internalize them is entirely up to you. When I was growing up, there seemed to be a broad assumption that when you joined such a group, it was up to you to make whatever compromises or concessions necessary to you to persist in the group. Now it seems like there's a broad expectation that the converse is true, and that private groups should make an infinite number of compromises or concessions in their principles in order to accomodate the practices, beliefs, or identities of individual members, who seem to crave this kind of institutional validation. At least in the case of special groups that have received validation as formal victim-groups. If there were laws in place which specifically prevented the formation of any youth-groups for boys other than the Boy Scouts, or if membership in the Boy Scouts was compulsory, then I'd be more sympathetic to these complaints. As things stand, there's absolutely nothing preventing anyone from creating an outdoor oriented groups for gay children, or athiests, or any other group of youths with convictions or identities that fall outside those that the Scouts are willing to accept or promote. Having said all of that - I have no problem with the argument that if the Scouts are taking public money, then they have they have to play by the public's rules, and should not receive any special treatment, subsidization, etc that would not be available to any other group of private citizens.

For me it's timid people that can't bring themselves to pass when it's clearly safe for them to do so. Just as annoying on a bike as it is in a car. Whether I'm in a car or on a bike, I pull over so they'll pass as soon as I can. They move down the road unimpeded, I no longer have someone on my ass. Win-win.

This sort of argument presumes that you have to believe in the supernatural myths that underly a particular holiday in order to enjoy the cultural traditions that the myths gave rise to. I don't believe in any of the various supernatural phenomena originally associated with halloween/all-saints-day, but I celebrate Halloween, etc.

Seems like a good opportunity to draw some attention to this guy. The Christopher Hitchens of the 19th Century. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

I'd say all athiests are pretty much in agreement when it comes to the supernatural phenomena that religion concerns itself with, but it's no surprise that this does not translate into anything resembling unanimity on political issues that are completely unrelated to such questions, or at best only tangentially related to them.

I've run into quite a few people who find theological justification for their left-of-center beliefs in whatever religion they belong to, and organizations that do the same. What has upset people on the left over the past twenty years doesn't seem to be that there are religious groups or people with overtly political agendas, but rather that the religious people and groups who share their convictions have been substantially less effective at translating their religiously inspired political convictions into concrete political gains than people with who they disagree on most political issues. Edited to acknowledge Exhibit A two posts above.

Glad to hear that you are on the road to recovery, and I wish you well in your efforts to retain that perspective. Seems to get more difficult as time passes for most people who, despite the epiphany, still have to work for a living, pay bills, drive in traffic, etc.

Constructing a self-serving fantasy caricature of primitive cultures in order to more effectively critique one's own might have been defensible in Rousseau's day, but that time has long since passed.

greCg3uMHSE

If I gave you a dollar for everyone that understands the significance of Conrad Black and Bre-X in that statement, you'd have almost enough for a big mack. Brayshaw, and Murray are likely contenders, but that's about it.

Somewhere with lots of granite and little or no lightning....

I suppose depending on your tastes, Enumclaw might offer at least one diversion not available at Whistler...

Yeah - Whistler pretty much crushes anything in NA in just about every category in my mind, but I can ski my legs to failure on killer terrain at Crystal for less money than I'd spend doing the same thing at Whistler, so for when the currency's at parity, Crystal's where I'd go if I lived locally. If you are flying in from somewhere else and staying for a few days, there's also no contest in terms of lodging, apres, etc.

Value-wise, Crystal at $58 doleros and 2H closer beats Whistler at Loonie-Dolero parity.

Drug enforcement officials are seeing a spike in a lucrative cottage industry: indoor marijuana crops. This year's National Drug Threat Assessment, released by the Justice Department in October, says "vigorous outdoor cannabis eradication efforts have caused many marijuana producers, particularly Caucasian groups, to relocate indoors." The "grow houses," as they're called, can be found in neighborhoods around the country, but they're becoming especially common in the Pacific Northwest — particularly in the suburbs of Seattle. Local police and federal investigators have raided at least 50 houses in the past two years alone. Authorities say they're just starting to get a handle on how widespread the practice is becoming... The marijuana is grown in the middle of some very respectable Seattle suburbs, such as Renton. DEA special agent Clark Leininger has spent many long hours on stakeouts in quiet cul de sacs outside split-level homes that might sell for more than $400,000. He says he often has good evidence that a house is stuffed with pot plants, but he holds off making arrests, so he can find the larger network. "Most of these people who are orchestrating these operations have multiple houses. Some investigators say the minimum is three, some say five. The largest number that I've run into is 12," Leininger says, referring to a case he investigated right there in Renton. Leininger says the growers prefer to own their houses, because it eliminates the risk of a nosy landlord. And he says growers — or their intermediaries — have little trouble getting the loans to buy the houses they need. He said the man who bought 12 houses was a typical case. "Many of the loans were zero-down, no-document loans," he says. "He did not have any employment, and if I remember correctly, he was able to purchase about $6 million worth of property — and he didn't have a job."" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16628918

Well put. Rare point of agreement duly noted.

Wow man. What a great adventure. Thanks so much for sharing it online.

Wait - I thought that they couldn't voice any objections because this was a *briefing*? Judging by the commentary issuing forth from the Democrats, this has always been a black and white issue, so by their own estimation this should have been a no brainer. The fact that it wasn't means that they are either incapable of making simple judgments regarding something that they've characterized as transparently evil and injurious to the national interest, or they are craven opportunists who are hoping to avoid responsibility for the decisions that they made. I vote for the latter of the two.

They were in a briefing not a hearing. The difference is substantial - at a briefing you listen. At a hearing you ask. They were clearly bound, gagged, and couldn't so much as blink to communicate their sentiments during the briefing: "Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

It's not about them stopping it, it's a matter of them having the integrity required to either defend the decisions that they made *not* to oppose waterboarding, or to castigate themselves for their failure to do so. I'd respect either much more than pretending that they aren't responsible for their decisions after they turned out to be unpopular with their base.

Yes. Final version: "In summary. Waterboarding - categorically immoral? No. Would the national interest be better served by outlawing it? Yes. Does it make any difference whether were talking about a few CIA operatives and a few individuals or hundreds of untrained national guardsmen and thousands of individuals? Not to me."

Uh, they weren't allowed to have the Prisoners lawyers speak, the Republicans blocked it. Oh, and the only member giving praise to Gitmo was the respected and influential representative FROM GUAM http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/30/at_hearing_guantanamo_wins_praise_and_criticism/ This is farce. You standby and cheer as the Democrats were systematically pushed out of the legislative process in the house, then blame them because they weren't a strong opposition party What the hell does this have to do with a Congressman evaluating the use of waterboarding by CIA operatives? Per your second point - it's not as though they had to have a quorum before speaking their mind. This wasn't a spending bill where they had to pick their battles and count their votes. They were in a closed hearing, where all they had to do was open their mouths. They didn't - so those present, which include Pelosi - are in absolutely in no position to claim the moral high ground after the fact.

I think that waterboarding or using comparable methods that involve pain, suffering, or fear on people who are known to be involved in terrorist networks that are intent on slaughtering as many civilians as the means available to them will allow them to is far less morally troubling than - say - ordering an airstrike on a building containing known terrorists who may have killed hundreds of people, which also contains people who are completely innocent of any such offense. I think that there are cases where you can make a moral argument for both in certain circumstances. I also think that you can make moral argument for executing people who have been proven guilty of certain offenses beyond any doubt whatsoever. However, I can't approve of the death penalty in practice for a number of practical reasons. I think that the practical reasons to outlaw torture/harsh interrogation as a matter of national policy are sufficient to outweigh any practical benefit that such practices may have, even in cases where I think it would be morally justifiable. I would like to get all of the various nations that have a stake in fighting terrorism to specify precisely which techniques are permissible for interrogating terrorists - and put a mechanism in place that insures that they have to live with the limitations that they espouse under all circumstances. In summary. Waterboarding - categorically immoral? No. Would the national interest be better served by outlawing it? Yes. Does it make any difference whether were talking about a few CIA operatives and a few individuals or hundreds of untrained national guardsmen and thousands of individuals? Not to me.

-B. Obama does betrayal of core values count as "moral" in your book? I've actually said before, that I think that the strategic damage done by Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Waterboarding - etc outweighs any tactical benefits that we could expect to obtain from the intelligence gained therein. Had the democrats involved in these hearings said the same thing at these hearings when they had the chance, there'd be no story.

This is ludicrous. You don't think a perception can change morally when you learn more information? You don't think it's moral to bite your tongue until such point as you have the means to effect a change? But isn't that what you were espousing of the Olympia protesters? Once the democrats have a hand in things, all is subtlety and nuance. We're talking about the morality of waterboarding here, not whether or not someone with a brain-dead spouse can be excused for seeking affection outside of marriage. The notion that there are nuances that would make waterboarding a categorical evil that's fatally undermined our system of government and moral standing in the world in 2005, but a regrettable necessity rife with tradeoffs and nuance in 2002 just doesn't fly. The only material aspect of the situation that changed is the extent to which it can be manipulated for political advantage. Is it moral to bite your tongue until you are in a position to effect change? Craven and opportunistic - yes. Moral - are you kidding? They were in a setting where they were at complete liberty to candidly put forth their misgivings, reservations, etc - in complete confidence, in an environment where the potential for adverse practical or political consequences was nonexistent - and they didn't. One can safely conclude that they had none, until such time as the practice became public, at which time they chose to feign shock and dismay instead of explaining why it was that they - at a minimum - voiced no objections to the policy when they given detailed briefings on the practices at 2002. With regards to the Olympia protesters, to steal a quote from elsewhere, "That's not right. It's not even wrong...."