JayB

Always have been. I've also always thought that these considerations should factor into our analysis of whether or not supporting a particular regime was beneficial or detrimental to the cause of democracy in a particular setting. If our interest is in supporting formal exercises in mass political participation, irrespective of what whether the vote will result in an expansion or contraction of particular rights and liberties - then we should uncritically endorse the outcome of every election. By the same measure, we shouldn't care whether or not the process is conducted within an institutional framework that can preserve the same rights or liberties. If our interest is in supporting the expansion and/or maintenance of a particular set of rights or liberties, and we've concluded that our support of democratic exercises rests on its status as a means to secure these ends - then "supporting democracy" becomes more complicated. If the vote is taking place within a framework in which the unchecked will of the masses can completely overturn existing protections for the rights and liberties that we value, and establish a state that's more repressive than the "non-democratic" regime that preceded it - would supporting either the process or the outcome necessarily be consistent with supporting "democracy?"

Just out of curiosity, have you read "The Federalist Papers"? If you haven't, it'd definitely be worthwhile. If that's not likely, it'd be worth reading through No. 10, linked below. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm Might also be worth considering what transpired during the democratic experiment that occurred between 1789 and 1805 in France.

I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? what are you talking about? the process of voting? isn't that paramount to what "regime" takes power? (i.e. they don't if they aren't voted in). if you aren't voted in then it doesn't really matter what the regimes agenda is. *edit* lol, i now understand you were actually talking about Hamas, not the US pres. elections. Well, I wasn't speaking to the legitimacy of their election. I was talking more about that idea of engaging in a dialogs with our enemies. This was something that Obama said he would do, or so I thought. I would definitely include Hamas in the "enemy of the US" group, and didn't know that there was the condition that they had to be recognized as a country by the US and Isreal before any negotiations could take place (not that they might be fruitful anyway). What I'm wondering is: -What makes a regime "democratic" in your eyes? Is the act of holding elections sufficient, or is there something more to it? -Is the democracy primarily valuable as an exercise in mass-rule, or as a means of establishing a set of institutional protections for a particular set of rights and liberties? For me personally, the "democratic process" is valuable when it occurs in an institutional framework that establishes mass participation as a mechanism for preserving individual rights and liberties; not for limiting, revoking, or destroying them under the auspices of a popular vote. -

I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections? what are you talking about? the process of voting? isn't that paramount to what "regime" takes power? (i.e. they don't if they aren't voted in). if you aren't voted in then it doesn't really matter what the regimes agenda is. *edit* lol, i now understand you were actually talking about Hamas, not the US pres. elections. Well, I wasn't speaking to the legitimacy of their election. I was talking more about that idea of engaging in a dialogs with our enemies. This was something that Obama said he would do, or so I thought. I would definitely include Hamas in the "enemy of the US" group, and didn't know that there was the condition that they had to be recognized as a country by the US and Isreal before any negotiations could take place (not that they might be fruitful anyway). There may not be a disconnect between Obama's rhetoric and his statements on this issue unless you interpret his remarks as a committment to unconditionally engage in dialogue with every organization - government or otherwise - that has a grievance with the US. If he's rejecting the "engage in unconditional dialogs with every group that has a grievance and base your policies on uncritical acceptance of their statements concerning their intentions resulting from the said dialog" model, there's still plenty of room to navigate between his handling of Hamas and the model advanced by Jimmy Carter.

I guess I don't have the same question ( I could care less about how Obama lines up with Carter). But I does make me wonder how honest Obama has been in his campaign speak (well he is a politician, so he must not be honest, right). I thought he was campaigning with the "Speak to our enemies" platform, and I thought Hamas was in power because of a democratic process? His statements in this case don't line up. Is the process of voting all that matters, or do the nature of the regime voted into office and the institutional framework it subsequently establishes for governing the country and exercising power over the population who cast the votes factor into the analysis of regimes that come into power via popular elections?

The real question is...when is someone going to take note of Obama's obvious biases on this issue and take him to account for espousing ideas that are contrary to those put forth by Jimmy Carter...

Yes, you can find someone offering up an opinion for or against anything, and we all have our biases that influence our stances on a particular issue. This doesn't mean that all opinions on all sides of an issue are based on facts that are equally sound, logic that is equally compelling, or arguments that are equally valid. If you want to discredit someone's argument on account of the biases that they hold, you have to demonstrate that the said biases have lead them to distort the facts, or embrace unsound logic, put forward flawed arguments on behalf of whatever cause they're attempting to advance, or against whatever cause they're trying to undermine.

Et tu, Obama? "Carter-Hamas talks 'bad idea,' says Obama 1 hour ago WASHINGTON (AFP) — White House hopeful Barack Obama Tuesday slammed last week's meeting between former US president Jimmy Carter and the exiled leader of Hamas militants as "a bad idea." "As I said before I think it was a bad idea for president Carter to meet with Hamas without having recognized Israel or denounced terrorism or acknowledged previous agreements given that they are not heads of state," he told a Pittsburgh press conference. "To sit down with them, I think it gave them a legitimacy that was unnecessary." But he told journalists that the stalled peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be relaunched. "I think it is very important for the United States to actively engage in helping bringing about negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis," he said. Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas "has indicated his willingness to make every effort to sit down with" Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert," Obama said. "I think that's where our energy should go. If we strengthen Abbas, if we are clear in improving the day to day lives of Palestinians then I think that will do more than anything to encourage Hamas to renounce violence rather than simply sitting down with them." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkeSfu7WNaOscxS6jZ8QSQhH98Pg

Seems a little early to be concerned with such things at this point, and I think that GB is correct that the number of people who own motorized vehicles that would haul them to the mountains to travel to trailheads is vanishingly low. Having said that, if we're talking about roads that haven't been purposely decommissioned as part of an active plan to manage or expand habitat that'd be one thing. If they were intended for, and would otherwise be actively used by cars if not for lack of funds, that places them in a different category as far as I'm concerned. I've always used bicycles or walked the extra distance before simply because I didn't own a motorcycle, but I'd have no compunction whatsoever about using a motorcycle or something like it in the future. How would using a motorcycle on an otherwise active road that's been rendered impassible by a washout be any different than using a sled on a road that's been rendered impassible by snowfall? Have you delivered this lecture to the folks that use sleds on forest service roads (where it's legal to do so)in the winter on TAY and other forums? How about the folks that use them to hit-up Strobach, etc on this site? I personally think that your sensibilities have become a touch too refined if the thought of encountering a motorcycle on a temporarily-out-of-commission road would ruin your entire experience. I've occasionally found myself lugging a pack up roads on foot, on a bike, or on skis - getting passed by someone one a motorcycle, ATV, or sled. When this has happened, my first instinct has been to smile and wave a thumb while they pass, instead of pouting and extending another digit after they've passed. Every so often they've stopped to chat, some have even handed me a beer - but most have just waved and passed on by. When they've go on their way, after about a minute there's no trace of them. No sound, no fumes, no dust. The fact that that any of the above were present for a minute or two has never negatively affected the sublime experience of...walking along the road to the trailhead...one bit. Thankfully they're your sensibilities and not mine. Hopefully they won't be the legislature's either.

"Fair!? Who's the nihilist here?"

Hamas charter: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm "KNOWING THE MOVEMENT The Ideological Aspects Article One The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes. The Link between Hamas and the Association of Muslim Brothers Article Two The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life. Structure and Essence Article Three The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Muslims who are devoted to Allah and worship Him verily [as it is written]: 'I have created Man and Devil for the purpose of their worship" [of Allah]. Those Muslims are cognizant of their duty towards themselves, their families and country and they have been relying on Allah for all that. They have raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors'] desecration, filth and evil. "Nay, but we hurl the true against the false; and it does break its head and lo! it vanishes" Sura 21 (the Prophets), verse 18. Article Four The Movement welcomes all Muslims who share its beliefs and thinking, commit themselves to its course of action, keep its secrets and aspire to join its ranks in order to carry out their duty. Allah will reward them. Dimensions of Time and Space of the Hamas Article Five As the Movement adopts Islam as its way of life, its time dimension extends back as far as the birth of the Islamic Message and of the Righteous Ancestor. Its ultimate goal is Islam, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution. Its spacial dimension extends wherever on earth there are Muslims, who adopt Islam as their way of life; thus, it penetrates to the deepest reaches of the land and to the highest spheres of Heavens. "Seest you not how Allah coins a similitude: a goodly saying, as a goodly tree, its root set firm, its branches reaching into heaven: Giving its fruit at every season by permission of its Lord? Allah coins the similitudes for mankind in order that they may reflect." Sura 14 (Abraham), verses 24-25. Peculiarity and Independence Article Six The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights(11). In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail. Allah had inspired the Muslim poet, Muhammed Iqbal(12), when he said: When the Faith wanes, there is no security There is no this-worldliness for those who have no faith Those who wish to live their life without religion Have made annihilation the equivalent of life. The Universality of Hamas Article Seven By virtue of the distribution of Muslims, who pursue the cause of the Hamas, all over the globe, and strive for its victory, for the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad, the Movement is a universal one. It is apt to be that due to the clarity of its thinking, the nobility of its purpose and the loftiness of its objectives. It is in this light that the Movement has to be regarded, evaluated and acknowledged. Whoever denigrates its worth, or avoids supporting it, or is so blind as to dismiss its role, is challenging Fate itself. Whoever closes his eyes from seeing the facts, whether intentionally or not, will wake up to find himself overtaken by events, and will find no excuses to justify his position. Priority is reserved to the early comers. Oppressing those who are closest to you, is more of an agony to the soul than the impact of an Indian sword. "And unto thee have we revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which has come unto thee. For each we have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which he has given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto Allah, you will all return. He will then inform you of that wherein you differ." Sura V (the Table), verse 48. Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam(13) and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948(14) War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968(15) and thereafter. But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18). The Slogan of the Hamas Article Eight Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quzan its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief. PART II OBJECTIVES Hamas finds itself at a period of time when Islam has waned away from the reality of life. For this reason, the checks and balances have been upset, concepts have become confused, and values have been transformed; evil has prevailed, oppression and obscurity have reigned; cowards have turned tigers, homelands have been usurped, people have been uprooted and are wandering all over the globe. The state of truth has disappeared and was replaced by the state of evil. Nothing has remained in its right place, for when Islam is removed from the scene, everything changes. These are the motives. As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state. Thus, people and things will revert to their true place. Allah is the one whose held we see, "...And if Allah had not repelled some men by others the earth would have been corrupted. But Allah is the Lord of kindness to [His] creatures." Sura II (The Cow), verse 251. Article Ten The Islamic Resistance Movement, while breaking its own path, will do its utmost to constitute at the same time a support to the weak, a defense to all the oppressed. It will spare no effort to implement the truth and abolish evil, in speech and in fact, both here and in any other location where it can reach out and exert influence. PART III STRATEGIES AND METHODS The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf(19) Article Eleven The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day or Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari'a(20), and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab(21). for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control(22) of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators. Lo! This is certain truth. Therefore 0 Muhammed, praise the name of thy Lord, the Tremendous." Sura LVI (the Event), Verse 95.23 Hamas in Palestine: Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism(24) Article Twelve Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty(25) binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven.....etc"

I'm at a loss as to why we sent such a small diplomatic delegation for these important talks. At a minimum Carter should have been accompanied by Jim McDermott and Sean Penn. You guys can't possibly be this stone stupid. Carter's visit was approved by the State Department and undoubtedly sanctioned by the White House for its valuable information gathering purposes. Why would the White House not want to know what Hamas's plans, agenda, and interests are? "Defying Israel, Carter Meets Hamas Leader By ROBERT F. WORTH Published: April 19, 2008 DOHA, Qatar — Defying opposition from the Bush administration and Israel, former President Jimmy Carter met for several hours Friday night in Syria with the exiled leader of Hamas, the militant Islamist group, to discuss efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Carter also met earlier in the day with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, as part of a Middle East peace tour that also includes visits to Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The meeting with the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, took place under tight security in Damascus, the Syrian capital, and was closed to reporters. But it was said to have included talks about the fate of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants in 2006. State Department officials had advised Mr. Carter not to meet with leaders of Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel and the European Union, responsible for kidnappings and for suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis. Several members of Congress made similar appeals." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/world/middleeast/19carter.html so there are a number of high level israelis who purportedly supported the meetings, since conversation and negotiation seems to be the only way to bring back the israeli war prisoner (imagine that!). If Hamas announced that it was prepared to accept the existence of Israel, and permanently renounce their stated ambition to exterminate Israel, they'd probably find rather more Israelis interested in dialogue...

Seems like you could apply the same argument to concubinin'...

Prole must be in exultant. An expansion of state power to eliminate a manifestation of consumerist vulgarity.

I'm at a loss as to why we sent such a small diplomatic delegation for these important talks. At a minimum Carter should have been accompanied by Jim McDermott and Sean Penn. You guys can't possibly be this stone stupid. Carter's visit was approved by the State Department and undoubtedly sanctioned by the White House for its valuable information gathering purposes. Why would the White House not want to know what Hamas's plans, agenda, and interests are? "Defying Israel, Carter Meets Hamas Leader By ROBERT F. WORTH Published: April 19, 2008 DOHA, Qatar — Defying opposition from the Bush administration and Israel, former President Jimmy Carter met for several hours Friday night in Syria with the exiled leader of Hamas, the militant Islamist group, to discuss efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Carter also met earlier in the day with Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, as part of a Middle East peace tour that also includes visits to Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The meeting with the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, took place under tight security in Damascus, the Syrian capital, and was closed to reporters. But it was said to have included talks about the fate of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants in 2006. State Department officials had advised Mr. Carter not to meet with leaders of Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel and the European Union, responsible for kidnappings and for suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis. Several members of Congress made similar appeals." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/world/middleeast/19carter.html

i think YOU should lose your passport. it's you and your ilk that are destroying this country, as evidenced by the last 8 years. Some rare deviations from the Buddhist-seance-tone in the last couple of posts...

Speaking of "Six babies on the way - with six women A music producer told a US court he has six children on the way - all with different women. Ricky Lackey was asked by a judge how many children he had during sentencing on an attempted theft charge. Lackey, 25, of Cincinnati, told Hamilton County Judge Melba Marsh: "None, but I have six on the way." "Are you marrying a woman with six children?" asked the confused judge. "No, I be concubining," he replied, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Prosecutors said Lackey is the expectant father of six children with six different women. The women all are expected to deliver in August, September and October. Lackey's lawyer, Stephen Wenke, stopped his client from saying more." It's official. Current status quo - play it safe and stick to concubinin.... Not sure this one passed the Snopes test, but...

I've seen them on Craigs list for $250-$500, and if someone you are heading out with has a bumper-hitch, you can get a dealy that looks sort of like a narrow version of those hitch-mounted-cooler-platform thingies to carry them with. Some friends and I have been talking about scoring one for shuttle duty on backroads during kayaking trips. Not sure if someone of your stature could get by with one of these, but if there's no practical way to transport a sit-on-top scooter, you might consider one of these deals. http://urbanscooters.com/cgi-bin/urbanscooters/XG-505.html 33mph top speed, 75MPG, 300lb capacity (probably rated for flat ground, not a steep-ass logging road), and 20 mile range (might have to carry a small gas-can on the trip). $409 brand-new.

Kinda reminds me of the whole Margaret Mead "Coming of Age in Samoa" thing. Find a primitive culture that ostensibly serves as a model/proxy for whatever Utopia that you'd like to construct and your particular notion of the good society gets instant cred.... I do think that we can learn useful things about our origins and nature from studying primates, but you've got to be careful with the prescriptive descriptive thing...

I'm just trying to get an idea of what the substance of the conversation would be. Seems to me that having conversations in the absence of a central set of common objectives that you are both interested and committed to achieving is not likely to be terribly fruitful. As long as Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel, and the US is opposed to their doing so - it seems like there's very little in the way of common goals that provide a basis for a constructive dialogue. There are plenty of examples where foes find a basis for cooperation compelling enough to cooperate. I'm not personally convinced that Hamas any constructive political end in mind that we or any other civilized society would have any end in furthering. But hey - I could be wrong. The children are the hope of the future... b0U2ce-LmA4

your bias is showing. Indeed. If the realities brought into existence by forty years of history needn't be acknowledged, and if facts on the ground needn't be addressed or incorporated into the dialogue, I see little reason to stop there. How about basing the negotiations on the pre-condition that we restore the borders to their pre-1948 boundaries. Hell, why stop there, why not make the starting point a return to the boundaries that predated the Balfour Declaration...

Another good article on the Bonobos... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker?currentPage=all

"You paint the moon green, and then we'll talk..."

The tendency of Democracies to hedge their bets and adapt to new information as it becomes available seems to work better than empowering the state to go all in on the next 5 Year Plan, Great Leap Forward, etc... Not perfect, but works better than the alternative most of the time.

Which concessions - exactly - and how realistic do you think they are? A retreat to the '67 borders, unrestricted right of return for refugees, etc just aren't going to happen. I'm not opposed to a dialogue with unsavory groups if the goal is something more substantial than...dialogue. The fact that the current path isn't likely to lead anywhere doesn't mean that all alternative paths are equally likely to be constructive or worthwhile. I'd prefer to see a series of moves that eliminates Hamas's capacity to blame the conditions on Gaza on other parties, so that the residents there understand what a suicidal medieval death-cult can actually deliver in terms of day-to-day life. One step along those lines might be to exert pressure on Egypt to fully open their borders, port facilities, etc to their "brothers" in Palestine - instead of maintaining a heavily fortified border. Force at least on state in the region to walk the talk with respect to their "brothers" in Palestine...