I get that conservatives are understandably tired of the trite attack that "if you support the war you should enlist" (or variations on that theme). It's perfectly valid to be in favor of something without directly participating; as corky said elsewhere, one can support the mission of the police despite not being a cop. I also appreciate Wagster's point that by "chickenhawk standards" liberals who truly believe the war is disastrous have a duty to actively oppose it. Finally, I agree that the chickenhawk slur escalates tensions between conservatives and liberals and makes rational discussion more difficult.
Having said all that, I think there is some merit to the chickenhawk criticism, IF NOT THE USE OF THE ACTUAL TERM ITSELF, WHICH LIKE I ALREADY SAID AND NOTED REPEATEDLY IN COMMENTS IS CLEARLY DETRIMENTAL TO DISCUSSION. Specifically, I believe those who have experienced war themselves are better able to weigh the costs and benefits of military action. I believe that years of training and firsthand experience confers an expertise that ought to be acknowledged. I would (preemptively) agree that a deep understanding of military strategy and international politics doesn't comes standard with service in the armed forces, that civilian control of the military is desirable, and that a poll of the military would show majority support for remaining in Iraq. However, the lack of military experience among those who led us into Iraq (some of whom actively avoided serving in Vietnam) is troubling to me, as is their apparent choice to ignore the advice of many generals (this last appears to be improving recently). This holds also for those conservatives who pontificate about the will to win and the importance of victory while cheerleading from the sidelines.
It is not that I think Bush ought to lead the troops into battle, or that Jonah Goldberg should trade in his keyboard for a rifle -- neither strike me as particularly useful soldiers, to be honest. Rather, I object to the naive certainty with which they present their uninformed opinions as definitive, and I object to their self-righteous rhetoric about the cost of a war they'll never personally bear. When pundits wrap themselves in the flag and bang the drum for others to go to war, they shoulder some responsibility for the outcome of that war. When our political leaders push the nation into a war while lacking the experience to evaluate the costs and disregarding advice from those qualified to analyze the outcome, the result is far more grave. I agree with Lieutenant General Newbold: My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results.
The chickenhawk criticism, then, has no merit when applied to what the target should be doing, but it is certainly valid to point out the lack of military experience of those who would send others to fight in the context of evaluating the ability of the "chickenhawk" to accurately understand the costs and consequences of war. To return to our initial analogy, if I were to demand that police confront a dangerous gang with insufficient force and inadequate weapons and armor, it is not valid to suggest I must be a cop myself but it is valid to suggest my lack of experience with police tactics colors my judgment. An obvious way to defuse the criticism is to enlist (or become a cop); another possibility is to look to military professionals (or police chiefs) for advice. Characterizing those who point out shortcomings in policy traceable to inexperience as being against achieving the goal is counterproductive.
I will go further, and controversially suggest that this is part of a wider issue I have with many of the conservatives I've had the pleasure of interacting with online. In matters ranging from science to journalism to military strategy to education policy, I see a disturbing tendency to devalue the experience and training of experts in the field, to view professional evaluations as equivalent to armchair opinions. Whether it is questioning the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, or labeling as "biased" the reporting of journalists with decades of experience, or ignoring the warnings of the many experts who foresaw difficulties with the post-Saddam phase of the Iraq war, or disregarding the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of teachers in favor of untested quick-fix approaches to improving education, there is a consistent pattern of minimalizing expertise. In some ways this is refreshing: the willingness to challenge the status quo led to excellent work analyzing the documents in Rathergate, for example. In other ways it is disturbing: when unsourced and often uninformed opinions are treated as equivalent in importance to exhaustively researched expert conclusions, the community consensus on that topic cannot be trusted. Of course liberals do this sort of thing too (most notably when it comes to economics) but in my opinion not nearly to the same degree as do conservatives. I'd hypothesize that this is because expertise is often associated with intellectualism (I would say rather that expertise arises from a mix of schooling and experience) and (stereotyping broadly) intellectuals are more often perceived as liberal and hence distrusted by conservatives.
To summarize, I submit that there is an aspect of validity to the chickenhawk argument where it points out a lack of experience that calls into question the understanding of war. This certainly doesn't mean that everyone who supports the war must enlist (although that is one possible counter to the chickenhawk argument), or that only those who served should be permitted input into policy, but it does mean that not everyone's opinion is equal, just as with many other topics.
P.S. I DON'T CONDONE USING THE TERM CHICKENHAWK AND I DON'T THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE COWARDS OR HYPOCRITES FOR NOT ENLISTING AND I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY FOR ANY OFFENSE THIS DIARY MAY HAVE CAUSED
I think you mistated the premise behind the chickenhawk meme
(#51187)IMO, it is summed up in this question:
If you want to claim that winning the GWOT is necessary to keep the country safe then why aren't you willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to achieve that objective?
In my mind that is a valid question. As I said earlier if the GWOT was that important then college age Repbulcians would be willing to pay a high price for it. The fact that many of them do not pay that price is a very good indication of how much they truly value the GWOT.
IOW, if you don't want to join the service then don't, but please stop pretending the stakes in the GWOT are so high.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
Why is your way the only way?
(#51249)Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If people believe (as I, along with millions of others, certainly do) that the GWOT is essential to prevent a repeat of 9/11, they have an absolute right to support it, without the obligations you're trying to impose. If they like, they can make sacrifices at various levels, from supporting the government's expenditure of blood and treasure on the GWOT, to cutting back on oil consumption to reduce the poer and funds of enemies such as Saudi Arabia, to enlisting. If they chose to. Your attempt to require the latter as a condition of the former is totally insignificant to them, and certainly to me.
And they also have a perfect right to denounce efforts by the Democrats fo ingnore the risks, which might constitute anything from claiming that the lack of another attack on the homeland is a coincidence, to Harry Reid's brag that "We killed the Patriot Act!' to the ultimate in sophism, banning the use of the term "GWOT."itself. Who in their right mind would trust politicians who believe a problem can be solved by banning references to it?
What you're essentially claiming is that there's a test that must be passed before an opinion, and support for the administraion's actions, are valid. OK, here's back at you: in order for someone to express valid opposition to the war, they must prove they've made a significant sacrifice themselves: quit their jobs to join Cindy Sheehan's coterie of sycophants, donated lots of money to Reid's reelection coffers, volunteered to work for a candidate aiming to unseat John McCain in thenext Senate election, or something else life-changing. Otherwise, they have no right to express an opinion against the war; in fact, by doing so while doing nothing concrete in support of their position, they are "traitors." In fact, they should stop "pretending" that the GWOT isn't working.
Or better yet, they must force their children to do these things, whether those kids agree on the principles involved or not. This is entirely consistent with the ridiculous challenge that "if you support the war so much, why don't you send your own kids to fight it?" (You haven't claimed that above, but it goes with the territory.)
Your words suggest that you think means-testing will somehow encourage intelligent discourse among citizens on this subject. If so, under your logic it would be hypocritical to state a position until you've met that test yourself.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentThere are many ways Grasshopper
(#51257)As I stated below the value of something is equal to what someone is willing to pay for it. I think it is telling that those who claim to value the GWOT so much, like the college Repubs in maynard's diary, are not willing to sacrifice for it, like the college Repubs in maynard's diary. To me, that indicates that such people do not actually think the GWOT is that important but only use it as a political cudgel with which to beat on their political opponents, or such people do believe the GWOT is that important but are too cowardly to join up and fight it. I generally don't like zero sum arguments but I think one is merited in this case.
As I also stated below, the chickenhawk meme is overused. I don't expect a man with a wife, children and a mortgage to drop everything in order to go and fight the GWOT, but I do expect healthy 21 year olds without such responsibilities to sign up and fight if they want to claim that the GWOT is the most important battle facing our country for generations to come. If they don't choose to enlist then that choice tells me a lot about how much they truly value the GWOT.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentSimply more of the same name-calling.
(#51263)or such people do believe the GWOT is that important but are too cowardly to join up and fight it.
What's the substantive difference between your "coward" meme and the "traitor" meme? I sure don't see it.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentO.K.
(#51304)If you think I am just calling people names then I don't see why you are getting so riled up about it.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentPerhaps he is because you seem to believe some
(#51308)name calling is okay in your view while yet other name calling is unacceptable and undeserved
Sounds sort of double standardish, I think...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentNot riled, just saying it's content-free.
(#51307)-o-0-o-
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentContent-free?
(#51372)I thought I explained clearly what I consider to be a chickenhawk. Yet, you never addressed my argument you just referred to it as name calling. For someone who seems to be so concerned about being dismissive you seem to do it when it suits you.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentOK, change "content-free" to "repetitive".
(#51386)You responded to my point by claiming I was "riled up". Wrong, but so what?
And I don't think the chickenhawk meme is dismissive as much as it is an admission that the name-caller doesn't have anything substantive to say in response to the call-ee's arguments.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWhat point?
(#51391)You derided my "name calling" by calling me a name caller.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentAnd you derided me for deriding your name-calling.
(#51396)Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentQuit that! ! ! Dopple... :) NT
(#51309)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentOne is a character flaw,
(#51273)and the other is an accusation of vicious intent?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentAnd you accuse me of parsing?
(#51299)Both are vicious insults. Would it change things to call people who refuse to support the government cowards instead of traitors?
I don't get why this seems so hard for some to figure out. The chickenhawk meme is based on cheap, moronic but still vicious name-calling, an obvious effort to dismiss someone who disagrees with the person dishing out the insult. So is the traitor meme; both are substance-free. Someone vouching for its validity really is saying they have nothing but ad hom to present in response to the "chickenhawk's" position on the war.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWho is the highest ranking Democrat
(#51344)spreading the chicken-hawk meme?
Call for Karl Rove to resign because of the traitor meme and I'll cut you some slack. Otherwise? No.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentYou tell me - I don't pay anywhere near the attention to them
(#51387)that you presumably do.
Whether you "cut me slack" is insignificant AFAIC (I've already bribed the Bulgarian Olympics judge). I have all the slack I need. Just make your own arguments and see how they fare.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentIn order:
(#51334)1) Of course it would change things; conservatives have been calling people who oppose their views traitors since before FDR, but "coward" would represent a major extension of the lexicon.
2) It's cheap, but it's not moronic, and it's not vicious. The question of, "Why is it vital that someone else and not you go risk their lives in a war of choice?" is a reasonable one.
3) Of course I have plenty of other, more logical, arguments in response to the Yellow Elephants. I just particularly enjoy this one, probably due to my class consciousness. Basically, I cheerfully loathe and disdain those entitled little scumbags -- and I appreciate an opportunity to show them for the hollow, sad, weak, and unworthy worms they are.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentPM, I agree with at least half of what you've said,
(#51384)particularly this:
The question of, "Why is it vital that someone else and not you go risk their lives in a war of choice?" is a reasonable one.
I also feel a lot like you say you do in your third point, which I'll get to in a moment.
On your first point, calling people cowards because they don't put their money (personal lifestyles) where their mouths are applies equally to those who claim the country is on a path towards wreck and ruin because of Bush and his cohorts (see most of the comments below), but won't make the slightest personal sacrifice to do anything about it.
I generally agree with your third point, at least emotionally. Meaning here that I don't buy the automatic invalidity of an ad hominem argument; I think it's legitimate to question the motives of someone who claims to passionately support a given position, but is himself acting in contradiction to that position. IOW, hypocrisy.
Deriding someone who acts that way is, to me, a valid point that erodes the legitimacy of their positions. But there's real irony at work here WRT my occasional shots at one of my favorite pinatas, Al Gore. When I (and others here, of course) pointed out Gore's complete hypocrisy in demanding serious sacrifices by hoi polloi to reduce energy consumption, while being a major energy hog himself, a number of his fans here (including you, IIRC) accused me of class envy.
The same view can be applied to Hollywood has-beens like Ed Asner and what's-his-name from MASH - people who've made $$ by exploiting God-given looks and limited small-screen talents to get publicity by loudly espousing extreme positions they have made no sacrifices for. (I explicitly except intellectual property/content creators like screenwriters from this general point. %^> And that includes anyone who brought us one of the greatest shows ever to grace TV, Twin Peaks.)
Too bad your comment ended in name-calling, but I acknowledge that that can be very cathartic, and fun to listen to if there's some sharp-edged humor involved.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentNah, I didn't bother with the class envy.
(#51405)I thought the charge was unfair, due to his home's status as both home and place of business, but that was the beginning and end of my argument.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentMoreover
(#51464)Al Gore is a wealthy man, a former Vice President and a prominent activist. Even if he moved his offices and business interests to some commercial building and bought a smaller home, he still has privacy and security concerns that would prevent him from owning anything close to an "average" house in Tennessee.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentExcept That a hollow, sad, weak, and unworthy worm....
(#51343)...is the head of our National Government now.
Be that as it may, I saw parts of the Dem YouTube debates tonight and I was fairly impressed by everyone...Pretty Cool.
Though I do wish that Richardson would stop sweating so. Dodd, Hillary, Obama and even Edwards were pretty good on the question of...Women should Enroll for the Draft and, as Hillary posited, There should be a National Service Academy like West Point.
To stay on topic of this conversation...all Dems felt that there should be greater National Service of one form or another by everybody.
Nice, I can get behind that.
I didn't like Edwards calling out the female pilot that flew over Baghdad...too Bush/Clinton like.
Winners:
1. Hillary...Surprisingly, I'd vote for her now.
2. Dodd
3. Obama
4. Richardson
5. Edwards
6. Biden
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentHollow, sad, weak and unworthy
(#51345)Do you refer to Fred Thompson, or Rudy G, or Mitt Romney? I couldn't tell.
Related, I saw a report that Newt Gingrich announced he is tanned, ready and rested were the GOP to decide that their other candidates were all weenies.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentWell, Bill, We All Talk Politics Here...But Maybe Seldom...
(#51349)...go actually to the source.
You know, I write and say this or that, (ie I don't like Hillary) without sometimes updating myself sufficiently.
I have thought, and maybe even have written, that I'm disappointed by the entire Dem slate of candidates...hence some interest in Bloomberg.
But actually watching them tonight, I thought they were pretty good...almost all of them...except for Gavel.
Though I still have an interest in Bloomberg.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentFor all my frustrations,
(#51406)the Dems really do have a very impressive set of folks running for President. And boy howdy do we have a big tent.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentPerhaps
(#51375)the interest in Bloomberg is more of a yearning for someone or some thing that will break the current duopoly? I could sympathize or even agree, in more normal times. But these are not normal times and there are more pressing needs that demand our attention. That would be consigning Bushism and the current iteration of Republicanism to the dustbin of history as job #1.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentI don't care to have my house
(#51261)visited by fire. Does this mean I should join the fire Department and that if I do not, I don't really care if my house catches fire?
By your logic, your payment of taxes that support a war with which you do not agree indicate that you disagree with it -- but not that much.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentThere's a moral principle there.
(#51264)My adherence to the Social Contract requires me to pay taxes, whether or not I agree with a particular action or program. A decision not to do so represents a decision to leave the Social Contract, which is a huge, huge deal.
Also, I don't have a choice on whether or not to be a firefighter; I'm patently less qualified than the many folks who would beat me out of a place in the school, so there's no way for me to join up.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentRe; Your first paragraph, okay, I can accept that even
(#51296)though I'm not at all sure it negates the principle. I suppose it depends on how much one opposes the war -- which was my point. However, I'll give you that one...
On the second paragraph, based on my view of that video, I suspect the kids shown would also have a qualification problem -- and not just for firefighting.
Yet that does not mean they or you should not support firefighters...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentI'm too old and oput of shape to make a good soldier
(#51266)so does your firefighter logic apply if I support the war but don't enlist?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentAny kids, nephews, nieces, god children you can send?
(#51279)The quintessential element of chicken hawkery, I think, is supporting war without any willingness to take on any serious personal sacrifice for that support. They aren't willing to go and fight. They aren't willing to try and encourage their sons and daughters to consider joining up. They aren't even willing to give up their tax cuts to pay for it.
Consider our decider-in-chief. Has there ever been such a protracted war where the President didn't send their eligible sons off to fight? Given our more gender-neutral military and the large numbers of brave women sweating their butts off in Iraq, why aren't the Bush twins in uniform?
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentHow many of your nephews, nieces, god children can you send
(#51298)to support Peacekeeper Teams or to other NGOs in Iraq to aid the people of Iraq? you're opposed to the war; what are you really doing about it?
Uh, yeah -- I think if you'll check, WW II will count as the only protracted war where the Prez did send relatives. That's sort of a function of many synergies hitting at the same time. Or not.
On the Bush twins, probably for the same reason you aren't there; they don't want to. Same applies for a lot of people. It's a volunteer military and it is not for everyone. Not to mention the fact that you don't know what their opinion on the war really is...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentI know Lincoln's kid served...
(#51332)...though I don't know about WWI, Korea, or Vietnam.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentYes and no...
(#51346)Robert Lincoln set out the War at Harvard (1860-64), started law school in 1864, quit and his daddy got him a job on Grant's Staff as a Captain in early 1865. He saw no combat.
Wilson had three daughters, none served. Truman had one daughter, she did not serve. McKinley had two duaghters, they didn't serve.
Johnson had two daughters, one married a Marine so Johnson did have a son in law who served in his war, two tours -- but Chuck Robb was a Marine before he met and married Lynda Johnson. Neither daqughter served.
Washington, Madison and Polk had no Children.
So FDR is it...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentI think Johnson half-counts.
(#51403)Thanks for the info.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI agree with that on many levels... NT
(#51404)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentWhat the h--- is this "send" business?
(#51295)First it was "enlist of you really support the war." Then "how can you support the war when you won't send your own son there to fight?" Now it's "send any blood relative who's of age."
Someone old enough to be a soldier is an adult by definition. Does your world view seriously include anyone ordering another adult to enlist in the military to make a point, either in order to prove something to you or for any other conceivable reason? Ridiculous.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentMy use of the word send was somewhat...
(#51455)...tongue in cheek. And I hope you don't think that I was accusing you personally. If so, I apologize.
Obviously, young men and women of military age are adults and must make the decision to enlist on their own. Still, as any parent knows, that's not the whole story.
I'm pretty sure that none of the neocon kids in that video got much encouragement to consider joining the fight in Iraq from their neocon parents. It's pretty unlikely that they invited a local recruiter over for dinner so that he could convince their son or daughter how much they're needed in the military.
Like I said, it's about waging war without personal sacrifice.
Just as an aside, proper chicken hawkery requires more than simply supporting the war. It means stressing the extreme importance of the conflict, congratulating yourself and people like you as brave or steadfast for being in favor of fighting, conflating flapping your lips or typing on your keyboard with actually participating in the conflict and denigrating those who disagree with the war as traitors or cowards or loser-defeatists and blaming lack of support for the fight with "lack of will" or "not having the belly for it".
I deny that calling someone a chicken hawk is a slur. It's an insult, but it's occasionally well deserved.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentNothing taken personally, C., so no appology needed
(#51499)but your sensitivity is appreciated.
A slur is an insult in my book. But you're right that this is wrong:
congratulating yourself and people like you as brave or steadfast for being in favor of fighting
and so is this:
denigrating those who disagree with the war as traitors or cowards or loser-defeatists
I guess we just have different names for it, but that type of conduct is reprehensible, and the opposite of intelligent discourse. Any civilian (not a vet) who has had significant contact with soldiers who have done tours in Iraq knows that equating oneself to them is a ridiculous farce. Saying you are like them because you support them is total BS.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentOne more thing
(#51519)Way back when this war started, I think there was a reasonable argument to be made that joining up wasn't really necessary. We had a professional, capable military. They could handle the job and they didn't need any more recruits.
I think it's obvious that this is no longer true. The active military is being worn out. Many who want to leave are being stop-lossed. Soldiers in the National Guard and the reserves are doing multiple, year-long tours. Thousands in the IRR are being recalled or being bullied into re-upping. The Army is even sending soldiers with serious mental or physical problems back into the combat zone.
At this point, more troops are seriously needed if we're going to continue this war much longer. If you are a war-supporter, believe the fight is critical to our nation's survival and that it's one we must win and you could join up, I think you need to explain why you won't.
I don't think "I don't want to" is a reasonable excuse. Not at this stage of the game. There are plenty of soldiers in Iraq who don't want to be there, especially the Guard and Reserve guys whose families are experiencing serious economic hardships while they're deployed for a year or more at a clip.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentThey don't take all comers
(#51666)I've tried to reenlist three time and been rejected by recruiters for two DUI's I had in college. When the military remains that picky I'm not convinced they are overly desperate for new recruits.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentTwo DUIs
(#51675)That's a waivable offense. See here. There must have been other factors that led to their decision not to take you.
The Army has been falling short of their recruitment goals. They've been lowering standards, taking more people with felonies and lower IQs. Recruiters are under enormous pressure to find more bodies. They've been acting inappropriately and some have been disciplined for it.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentEvertything is waivable
(#51677)if they are desperate enough. But they are not that desperate, because this healthy 35 year old former infantryman was told by recruiters not to even bother with starting the paper work because my DUIs would kill my chances when it was reviewed further up. So while technically I can try to join back up inasmuch as there are mechanisms in place that will allow it, the recruiters told me not to bother because it would eventually prove to be a waste of everyone's time involved. And apart from the DUIs I have had no other legal troubles since being honorably discharged, and the only medical problem I had was a hernia operation- that's it. So apart from my age there are no other factors that could play into it.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentIt's age, more than anything
(#51688)If you were 25, they'd be more than happy to do the work to get you a waiver. At 35, prior service or no, they're not going to take you unless there are no other negative factors or you've got some badly needed skill. Maybe you could try brushing up on your Arabic.
Not everything is waivable. There are still a bunch of things that they won't waive.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentI also think
(#51693)there is this weird institutional hang up on guys who left. Had I tried anytime while I was in the IRR I'm sure I'd been accepted no problem, but my IRR ended in 1998 and after that point it is as if I crossed some sort of Rubicon.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentActivation from IRR is pretty easy
(#51708)Once that ends, you need to go through AIT and maybe even basic again.
Thing is, just because the Army didn't want you back, it doesn't mean that they're not desperate for recruits. It just means they're not that desperate. At least not yet.
Relevant to this discussion, I poked around some military/recruiting forums to see what was up. They are taking some old geezers back into the service. A few people mentioned that they were in their mid to late 40's, with prior service, and got back in. It seems that weight is a big issue these days. We Americans are too damn fat and even a lot of young guys are being rejected because of their weight.
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentWeight is not an issue for me
(#51724)while I'm not an olympic athlete I’m in decent shape. And if the Army is still rejecting fat kids then I’m even less sold on how desperate they are. Sure, they are scrambling to make their quota even after lessening their restrictions on who to recruit, but that does not mean the fewer restrictions opened up the Army to wide swaths of the population. As I said before they are not taking all comers.
And just for the record, it was the Marines I asked about rejoining and not the Army.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentSpecialties are the key to breaking the age and waiver
(#51715)barriers. They want young, fresh HS Grads for grunts; for the harder to fill specialties; Avionics repairmen, linguists, interrogators, A&E mechanics, SF, carpenters, surveyors, trained heavy equipment operators and such, they want the experience and will waive most problems.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentHmm...
(#51462)If that is true, then why is this not true:
I would say that too is an insult but is occasionally well deserved.
Who gets, on either side, to make the determination on whether either appellation is 'deserved?'
Just askin'...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentThe simple
(#51510)answer as usual on these occasions is that one insult begot the other.
So who cast the 1st stone?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentI don't think you answered either question. NT
(#51533)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentMy 2c
(#51540)http://theforvm.org/diary/brendanm98/in-defense-of-the-chickenhawk-aspersion#comment-51129
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentInflation has arrived. Uh, I saw that when you first posted it
(#51543)and while it is really neat and rude -- er, erudite -- quite; and wordy as well, it also doesn't answer either question.
Shall we put you down as unable to answer?
Or just unwilling?
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentI wouldn't call that an insult
(#51472)I'd call it a lie. It's simply untrue that those of us who oppose the war are either traitors or cowards. However, it may be true that some of us "don't have the belly" for continuing the war. I myself have very little stomach for sending young Americans off to die for no reason.
But, if your false equivalence makes sense to you, who am I to argue?
Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- reply
parentI would suggest that if there is any false equivalence
(#51484)involved in this conversation it is in your mind. I merely asked two distinct questions -- neither of which which you attempted to answer but instead elected to take personally when no personal attack was said, implied or meant.
So I'd ask you to relook at the questions and I'm truly curious as to the answers.
Your response above even engenders two more questions. In addition to why the two quotes are not equally true in some cases, as I said; and the determination of who gets to make the 'deserved' appellation you contend is sometimes correct; who gets to make the determination as to whether young Americans are getting sent off to die -- and whether any sending is in fact for "no reason?"
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentYes and no.
(#51260)It's not like our fighting men and women do not themselves have families whom they are leaving behind, especially our reservists, who really did not sign up for these sorts of extended tours.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentAgree on the Guard and Reserve to an extent. The contract was
(#51262)available for them to read and it is quite clear. However, I do agree that based on historic norms and therefor expectations, they're placed in a hurt.
Don't agree at all on the active guys and gals. Contract is also clear and they knew what they were getting into, it goes with the territory
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentMy favorite Chickenhawk: Ted 'whack-em an' stack-em' Nugent
(#51181)Who evaded Vietnam military duty by doing this:
Good diary, Brendan. And remember, "chickenhawk" is not an aspersion, it's a quality.
Also, don't let certain people buffalo you with their old rewarmed republican operative talking points re: the 'chicken-hawk slur' meme. Glenn Greenwald zeroed in on it and put it to bed a year ago.
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
Has it occurred to those people so offended by Ted Nugent
(#51209)that he might be pimping them?
And whoever hyperventilated on your link about him assaulting an anti-fur protester was overreacting - it's not like he skinned and mounted the protester, after all.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentMy 2c
(#51129)While I'm all for promoting Marquis of Queensberry rules in the arena of political discussion, particularly at this site. Being mindful of the way this Administration has deployed questionable rhetorical tactics, repeated uncritically by the likes of the College Republicans, that have clearly worked to preserve the minimum support necessary to maintain our misguided occupation of Iraq and its pre-eminent status in all things WOT, at this stage I am inclined to turn that weapon around and go with what works in respect to certain target audiences as opposed to a broad brush. And as the video shows the chickenhawk meme does seem to have the desired effect in confounding the facile arguments and dampening the enthusiasm of said youthful defenders of this Administrations at its worst.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
F--k it
(#51123)Diary fixed. Really appreciate those who somehow managed to find something useful to discuss here prior to these essential corrections.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
See the guy below, I agree... NT
(#51135)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentUh oh. Here comes trouble.
(#51138)Remember what happens when those two perfectly machined hemispheres of U-235 are foreced into, er, intimate contact by perfectly timed high explosives in a chamber evacuated by your diaphragm pump? Wellll . . . .
Well, I forgot my point. Sorry. Back to Sat morning cartoons (Sesame Street's been Tivo-ed JIC).
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentCartoons? I Aways Prefer Cartoons to Trouble....
(#51139)...nothing to see here, move along folks, down here at the end of the midway is the Shark Tank...Munching on Lawyers....
No that's a fun exhibit.
http://theforvm.org/diary/brendanm98/in-defense-of-the-chickenhawk-aspersion#comment-51127
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentPlease don't. And don't concede your position.
(#51133)You obviously put a lot of work and thought into this diary, And it obviously resulted in thought-provoking discussions, even with many of the people that resented the perceived name-calling. And IMO there's nothing wrong with a provocative diary title intended to prompt discussion - I do it all the time. If the NYT does it with its headlines, why can't we?
So don't give up, and don't be discouraged from doing this again.
Discalimer: This is my personal view, and is not intended to reflect the other moderators' drinking habits or personal hygiene.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentThanks tomsyl and KW (nt)
(#51517).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentPosting rules and fear awakening Harley preclude me
(#51136)from any comment on your discalimer*. Pity, drinking habits and personal hygiene in combination are to die for targets...
Sigh.
Good post, BTW.
* Used to have one, had to give it to Goodwill, it didn't alime my discs at all well. :)
P.S.
That pump is going to have to go to them as well, I'm afraid. that er-r-r, object, is totally clogging up the works...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentWe'll always need
(#51145)at least one drunken slob as a moderator. I did my best last term, tomsyl is an able successor.
BTW, I can see why tomsyl confused this with this, especially considering where the "reciprocating motion" occurs.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentHoly crap. If this continues,
(#51157)one of you gets one of these high-tech devices, while the loser gets a walk-on in Grey's Anatomy.
Can we quit while we're ahead? Or are we so far behind that it's already too late?
Time to bend the crank on my solar-powered ACME Adjustable Yardarm (Pat. Pend), which aautomatically moves so that the sun is always over it. Ken, the plans from Popular Mechanics are in the mail.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentGood man, thanks for the plans. I can use them to get
(#51163)around this Southern Baptist with whom I'm domiciled. Already got her not going to church and having a drink or two, the AAY (Pat.Pend) should be all I need to tip the balance. May be able to get her dancing on the tables before too long...
I already am endowed, passed on to me by my dear departed father, one of those devices or something similar, he said, blushingly, so I guess I get the walk on part. Think Peter O'Toole in My Favorite Year...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentSolution: drink at church.
(#51210)That way the whole family can participate.
My older brother told me that Episcopalians drink like fish - something to do with that "groves and fishes" stuff in the Bible. (Of course, he also told me that Holy Rollers smoked huge spliffs during their services - that didn't pan out either.)
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWait
(#51162)so your head is all eccentric? Finally, a point of agreement.
Quitting while you're ahead is for pvssies. I say push it to the limits, or until we're shut down by the hosting company.
BTW, be careful about that yardarm. You may find this of interest.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentIt's been awhile since I was called a head.
(#51211)Can't say there are any '70's memories there to be brought back, though, for the usual reason. Now I find that electricity is a natural high, long as your life is well-grounded. Hmmm, will add that to the Tom Eagleton bio I'm writing in my spare time.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentExactly. On all counts. With the caveat that what we do not
(#51147)need is an excessively drunken slob as a Moderator, thus my continuing cry; "If numerated I will not ran; if elecivated, I will nor swerve!"
Thank you for the diagrams. You'd really think a guy who says he like to dig into things would know the difference...
I'd also include a Lawyer joke but Traveller beat me to it. :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentYou may not know this, Ken, but that quote comes directly
(#51159)from Tom Eagleton. And it's "If electrocuted, I will not serve." JFTR.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentYou sure? I thought it was
(#51165)if electromotive I will be served. Then again, at my age the memory goes as does the memory of what one wanted to remember. Or why...
I say I'm dyslexic, my wife says I'm drunk, I don't know who to believe. Anyway, I have it now. If Electrolux is served I'll sell my Dyson.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentPosting rules
(#51151)don't ever imply that I'm a moderately drunken slob, I've been working at it for over 30 years now. There are few things that I take pride in, but that's one of them.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentMy apologies. My vision was blurred by the distance.
(#51166)Or something. Blurred, anyway.
As Tomsyl always says, "We all have our bearings crossed." Or words to that effect
(I still can't figure out how the boy did that to the pump...)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentA fantasy premise, brendan
(#51115)The "chickenhawk argument" has nothing to do with pointing out the "lack of experience that calls into question the understanding of war." Those who wish to do so are able to do so without using the epithet in the first place. The term has everything to do with dismissing and derogating and belittling the opinions of an increasingly large group of people who have never faced combat, all because they have opinions that strongly differ with many on the hardline Left.
I came of age in a time and place where the military was looked down upon. By the time my opinons changed about military service, my life had taken a certain path and there was too much inertia to change course. In the absense of that experience, I've drawn on history, general principles and philosophy, the experiences of others who've been there, and knowledge of human nature to arrive at the conclusions that I do.
I'm sure those on the anti-war Left draw on similar resources in coming to their opinions, or maybe not. But that you've come to different conclusions than me does not give you the rationale to insult, and that's exactly what you do when you toss around slurs like "chickenhawk". The term is just as valid as my calling the anti-war side a bunch of anti-American terrorist-enabling bastards. In other words, it's not. For purposes of comity and for upholding the spirit of the posting rules, I would prefer that such language not be used by either side.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
Charles
(#51119)When have I ever thrown around the term chickenhawk? Am I on the anti-war left? Is this diary in any way treading close to violating the posting rules? Come now.
The diary examines the argument* that is implied by the term or (more often, I think) the argument that precipitates an offended rebuke from a conservative to not "engage in chickenhawking" regardless of whether the liberal used the literal term. The essay concludes that one aspect of the argument is invalid (that war supporters must go serve to be pro-war) and one aspect is IMHO valid (that those lacking military experience are less capable of weighing the costs of war). I've said repeatedly in comments and the essay that I think the actual term "chickenhawk" is harmful to discussion, and the essay only condones select aspects of the argument underlying use of the term. If you don't like the title, read through the subthread starting with Jordan's comment below.
*obviously I don't agree with your conveniently narrow definition of the argument underlying the term, or I wouldn't have written the essay. I mean, "nothing" to do? "Everything" to do? You're so confident that you can determine the intent of every liberal who has used either the term or been accused of using the argument? I'm not so confident myself, so I examine both of the logical components, and totally dismiss the validity of one.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentWell
(#51140)Prior to your changing it, the title spoke for itself, and I appreciate the edit. I don't have an objection to your argument re the weight of opinions between those who served and those who did not. My objection is confined to the term itself. It's simply too loaded. There's no way that the word can be taken by the pro-war side as benevolent or even neutral, and I've never heard an anti-war fella use the term without dismissal or derogation. That may sound absolute or "narrow", but that's my experience with it.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentQuelle Horreur, I Probably have to Agree With Bird Dog On This
(#51142)Chickenhawk is a derogatory term, hurtful and mean to be so.
But so what? This is not unlike other terms that came out of our own Civil War, Scallywag or Carpetbagger...they were meant to be insulting....and yet, they were perfectly and accurately descriptive.
No big.
Carry on.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentHeh. 'Zactly; "Sticks and stones..."
(#51148)After Baby Killer, it's all been sorta mild... :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentLet's talk about the "Repubs don't get global warming" meme
(#50962)which is easily demonstrated as being complete BS. There is no "overwhelming consensus"; even scientists sympathetic to the cause have pointed out the gross exaggeration in the party line as preached by Al Gore.
I'm sure you would agree that before you can accuse others of ignorance on a particular subject, you need to understand it yourself. AGW is not a simple subject, and understanding the rudiments requires some fairly detailed study over a significant period of time; I know of at least one Republican who's at least attempted to do this. It also requires that you ignore almost everything covered in the press, which largely serves up predigested pap written by people who clearly lack any comprehension of the underlying science.
Off the top of my head, here is a small sampling of what you need to understand if you want to form a legitimate opinion on the causes, effects and potential remediation of AGW:
-The selective data and statistical flaws in Michael Mann's research on which his hockey puck graph is based. His work was largely responsible for the IPCC's pronouncements that started this entire controversy. You might also look at how Mann's predictions subsequently have been treated by various scientific bodies, including the IPCC itself.)
-The inherent flaws in the General Circulation Model when it comes to predicting future weather. (A rudimentary understanding of finite element analysis is helpful in understanding why computer models based on atmospheric cells that are one kilometer cubes aren't useful when it comes to the long-, or even short-term effects of atmospheric carbon emissions.) This will help you understand why many experts have debunked Gore's predictions regarding global change due to carbon emissions. Of course, you have to reaad his book to find out what those predictions actually are. You've read his book, I presume.)
-What the Kyoto Accord actually provides. You need to know enough about what the underlying documents say to assess the impact of exempting China (which just passed the US in carbon emissions) and India. Also, the economic impact of compliance needs to be assessed at some level, which can be done by, e.g. studying the history of Canada's attempts to comply. Researching whether the chief finger-pointers in Europe have themselves complied with their Kyoto obligations certainly is relevant, too, as is some familiarity with the economic incentives that made the Montreal Accord so successful in reducing chloroflourocarbon emissions.
-The net effect of proposed CAFE increases on carbon emissions. (All this really requires is knowledge of the fraction of total corbon emissions represented by automobiles, factored by the net reduction effected by each MPG by which CAFE is increased.)
-The "dust to dust" total environmental impact of hybrid cars, which is particularly affected by the size and chemisty of the batteries they contain. This will allow you to compare the cradle to grave impact of a Prius to, say, a Hummer H2.)
I could go on, but I've bored even myself. With appropriate immodest, I've studied this stuff on and off for years, and I have no doubt that I would kick Al Gore's a- er, posterior in a debate on the underlying science of AGW. (Of course, he would trounce me on the political and PR elements. But that's not what his book's about, is it?)
So to come full circle, when an expert speaks out, I want to know what his/her opinion is based on so that I can independently evaluate how it fits into that of others, and to what extent it is based on theory/guesswork versus actual data. That's the polar opposite of what you accuse Republicans of doing.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
Overwhelming consensus.
(#51015)I just cannot agree that there is not a consensus; there is not a single climatological paper published in the past seven years which holds that anthropogenic global warming is not currently taking place.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentWe've been through this before, you're incorrect, and I've given
(#51063)cites to show why that's so. I'll do it again if I have to, but that would be against my principles (sloth and ennui).
The problem is that you're probably reading articles that tell you what scientific papers say and don't say; some of us here are trying to read the actual papers themselves. I'm betting that you read something that said "no paper's been published proving there's no AGW" or somesuch, and you believed it. Have you actually tried to look for the supposedly nonexistent papers to see what you can find?
You seem to see this as a black-or-white issue, but it's not. I doubt any self-respecting scientist is going to state categorically that there's no possibility of a correlation between increased greenhouse gases and an upward trend in global temperatures in the last century. Two independent upward-trending events have been observed; but linking those data is hypothetical, theoretical a wild-a$$ed guess, or whatever you want to call it. It is not a "fact" that there is a link between the two observations.
Maybe we differ on what the meaning of "is" is. You've given every indication that you believe it's been conclusively established that AGW "is currently taking place". That's the way the press and Gore (The "AG" in AGW, of course) put it; of course, they're wrong. Even the IPCC itself is not claiming that AGW is a fact; if you look at the summary chart (Table SPM-1) buried in their 2007 report, you'll find that the IPCC rates various forms of climate change in terms of human causation as probabilities or possibilities, ranging from "more likely than not" to "likely". There's obviously a world of difference between saying something is true and saying that it is likely to be true, or more likely than not to be true. So dogmatic certainty on this subject should be checked at the door.
Once you acknowledge that we're dealing with inherently uncertain predictions, you'll have no problem accepting that there are plenty of theories, studies and papers that provide other likely causes of GW. Meaning that AGW is not an accepted fact, regardless of what you might read in the press.
Can we at least agree that AGW theories are useless unless they're predictive? Assuming that's the case, please read this and tell me what you think. The footnotes reference articles of interest as well.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI've given you my citation.
(#51077)It is:
Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" Science, 3 December 2004, 306(5702), p. 1686.
link.
"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
This is a survey of the scientific literature, published in a peer-reviewed journal. The unanimity is total.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentThat's your story and you're sticking with it, I guess.
(#51103)Your three year old link is an editorial, not a peer-reviewed paper. The author is a historian and an advocate*, not a scientist. There is very little more to the article than what you quoted above. It is apparent that all the author did was read the abstracts from a bunch of papers spit out by a database when she ran a word string. Even the "data" she presents is virtually meaningless. If you disagree, please answer these questions: What criteria was used to decide that a particular paper "implicitly accepted the consensus view"? What percentage of the papers "explicitly endoresed the consensus view"? How can one determine that a paper "takes no oposition on current anthropogenic climate change" without reading its text?
Her article misstates and exaggerates the position of the IPCC (and of course misses the very significant retrenchments and the limits placed on it's endorsement of Michael Mann's views that are laid out in the '07 report - see my comments above, or better yet, read the report.)
You say "the unanimity is total". Well, unanimity usually is. But that means a single contrary example collapses your argument completely. Well, here's a very recent one I bet you haven't seen - it's very interesting. Here's a mainstream paper directly challenging the accuracy of Mann's analyses, which of course formed the basis of the original IPCC statements that the earth is warming in concert with increased CO2 emissions. (Both the IPCC and the NAS have subsequently and neatly edited Mann's prognostications to sidestep embarrassing difficulties in accounting for the Medieval Warm Period and Little ice Age.) Here's one you may be able to track down if you have access at UH to the pay site. Here's a very detailed study of recent data supporting a solar/cosmic ray flux hypothesis as at least a partial cause of global warming.
Aw, heck, just go here and read the footnotes - there are only fifty-seven of them.
Can we put this one to bed now and focus on science instead of reading Oreskes' book report?
*Did you Google her name to find out her credentials and read anything else whe might have written to test whether she's a neutral observer?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentA Curious Question for Tomsyl re....Well, The Destruction of....
(#51083)...the coral and aquatic life around Hawaii?
I was shocked in December to see so much dead coral and lack of abundant coral fish in Keauhou bay as well as Captain Cook and Pu`Uhonua o Honaunau National Park.
I would think that maybe it was just a winter storm or, maybe because I have been away for a long time, and so all changes looked magnified.
But, when I brought up my impressions to people on Maui as well as Oahu, they all bemoaned this developing trend.
Now maybe this is just an over population of the Islands question with resultant run-off and not due to AGW...but I have seen reports of the same off the Gulf Coast blamed on AGW.
If this even isn't a AGW issue...it does still seem that our Environment is on the skids.
I'm thinking that maybe you are seeing the trees but not the forest.
Maybe.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentIt may well be due to oceanic acidification of our waters
(#51093)which is pretty well established as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2. It's being intensively studied by some of the top scientists here - Here is a brief introduction to the subject.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentMeanwhile In Hawaii, No Professional Courtesy.....
(#51127)I just like feel good stories...and so post all of it.
Well, maybe not exactly Feel Good....
***********
HONOLULU, Hawaii (AP) -- All the way back to shore after an 8-foot tiger shark chomped into his left leg, Harvey Miller thought he might die.
"I just remember saying, 'Oh God, not like this, no way,"' Miller said Friday, a day after the fish attacked him off Oahu's Bellows Beach.
The animal went after the 36-year-old attorney from Toledo, Ohio, in clear blue waters in an area not known for shark attacks. The last such incident in that area happened almost 50 years ago, the state's Shark Task Force said.
The father of four was snorkeling and looking for turtles about 150 yards from shore when he noticed that some fish near him looked spooked.
Then he saw a large shark's flat snout and felt the animal spin him around.
Speaking to reporters at The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, where he was taken after the attack, Miller said he punched the shark twice right below its dorsal fin, scaring it away.
Then Miller started screaming and yelling for help and headed for shore. VideoWatch Miller describe how he escaped from shark »
A day later, he was sitting in a hospital wheelchair, tired and nauseous from the pain medicine but grateful for his doctor's estimate that he should be walking in a few months and, if all goes well, playing basketball with his teenage son in six months to a year.
"I'm happy -- one, to be alive and two, that I don't anticipate ... losing the leg," he said.
Miller said a stranger helped save him by wading into the ocean to answer his cries for help.
"He's my hero. I would not have made it out of the water without his assistance. I owe my life to that man," Miller said.
Dr. Patrick Murray said the shark came down on Miller's leg and knee with "tremendous" force.
"It went right to the bone, into the bone, broke some of the bone, and into the knee joint and then removed a fairly large portion of his leg up by the knee," Murray said.
Miller has two wounds on the side and back of his left knee, one 3 to 4 inches long and the other about a foot long.
Murray spent two hours operating on Miller's leg on Thursday. He said the Ohio man would need additional surgery to repair nerve damage.
Randy Honebrink, Shark Task Force spokesman, said the shark was likely looking for food when it came upon Miller. Two partially eaten dead turtles later washed ashore in the same area, showing signs of shark bites, he said.
"The only way a shark can tell if something is a potential food source is by biting it," Honebrink said.
He said the attack was the first known shark incident in a coastal stretch from Makapuu to Kaneohe Bay since 1958.
Miller said his 11-day vacation in Hawaii with his wife Lisa and his in-laws turned about "180 degrees" from what he had planned. But he said he still loves the ocean.
"It's their environment. We're visitors to it," he said. "All we can do is try not to look like food."
- reply
parentHar. Double har on the "professional courtesy" bit (geddit?)
(#51143)-o-0-o-
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentPM
(#51082)I coulda sworn you wrote something several months ago that anyone not paying attention to post '04 developments could be forgiven for thinkin there was no consensus re: climate change, because only recently had international bodies of climatologists weighed in.
Now you cite an '04 paper that re: global warming consensus.
Was I wrong?
- reply
parentIt wasn't a layperson's paper.
(#51141)It was a scientific paper which was not widely reported; I wouldn't expect anyone to have heard of it under any circumstances.
I would expect a person who was paying attention to the issue to hear about the international bodies giving out various releases after '04, since those were a lot more directed toward laypersons.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIt's not a "scientific paper" - see my comments above and below.
(#51144)-o-0-o-
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentdidn't read it
(#51070)but I looked at the paper by two 2nd rate business school authors
also looked at the crappy credentials of the crappy interdisciplanry journal w. a bunch of nobodys on the editorail board that the paper's published in.
1 in 1000 or less that it's a genuinely good critique of climatology.
not sayin there aren't some out there, but this prbably ain't it.
... i know you're not in academia so you might not know the art of figuring out what probably has standards and what doesn't.
just thought i'd let you in on how it works.
if you're not an expert in climatology, it's not a great idea to consult New Zealand Monash University business school profs to figure out global warming.
- reply
parentI have no Idea what your comment means, catchy
(#51131)It's queued as a response to my comment no. 51063, in which case it makes no sense. The only citation in that comment is to table SPM-1 in the IPCC's '07 report. Are you saying that report was written by two 2nd rate NZ business school authors? If not, why the complete tangent?
Your snide,condescending "you're clueless because you're not in academia" statement perfectly illustrates how many of those who advocate immediate (if not sooner) measures to combat something that's not been scientifically proven treat those who point out flaws in their methods. It's short for "I lnow what I'm talking about, and you don't, so shut up." When you point out how the Scientific Method's been violated by their aapproach to the social and economic issues raised, they go off on a tangent and say "you don't know enough to have a valid opinion." Thanks for the cartoonish illustration of my point.
The "standsrds" you say I don't understand presumably include peer review, and a certain level of intellectual rigor in the paper or article being reviewed. And by your "1 in a 1000" comment I assume you're relying on the cite to the AAAS editorial by Naomi Oreskes that PM is fond of citing. MIt's probably my ignorance of academia, but I have the following questions for you about that paper:
-Was it peer-reviewed?
-where is tha data on which the author's conclusions are based?
-What criteria did the author use to sort the data? Are they subjective or objective?
-How does the author justify relying on abstracts to make conclusions about what the bodies of papers do or don't contain? Put another way, do academicians (here, a historian) believe tha abstracts reference everypoint made or discussed in the papers they abstract from?
-Has the author revealed any uncertainties in her data or methodology?
-Can the reader independently evaluate the validity of the conclusion reached, or is that impossible because the underlying data and methodology aren't revealed and the conclusion is subjective?
-And what about Naomi?
I'm apprehensive about how you'll grade this, teacher, but I promise to read all your corrections that are in red.
I've been lucky enough to speak in depth to some of the foremost scientists in the world on atmospheric CO2 measurements and trends (the data on this that virtually everyone relies on comes from Mauna Kea), and on the chemistry of oceanic acidification and its likely consequences to aquatic life (including the coral reefs Traveller asked about). None of them have shown the condescension you do, though they obviously know I'm nneither a climatologist nor in academia. And none of them have expressed the dogmatic certainty that you and others seem to have about an absolute link between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature trends. They deal in science and probabilities, not social engineering. Please consider their example.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parenthi tomsyl
(#51155)that post was written late at night while a little toasted. Yur cite made me cranky.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fbJE4OfLh_cJ:www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf+bast+and+taylor+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
I'm actually not sure why you cited the paper. Couldn't make that out even from rereading your comment. Should've asked vs. jumped the gun. Probably would've at a different time.
but the cite is to two business school authors (one from NZ) in a terrible journal.
The 1 in 1000 remark wasn't a reference to anything -- it's just my (now also sober) estimation, w/out reviewing the science, that such a paper is likely to contain a useful critique of the forecasting methods of climatologists.
....
You've got 'bast taylor 2007' google searched in your link.
That's a reference to a paper published by the Heartland Institute, a 'free market' think tank funded in part by Exxon and w. a GM executives sitting on its board.
I usually don't comment on global warming here, other than to tell Timmy and sometimes Ken that they ought to show a little more humility, since I'm not competent to argue the science as you are.
But I do get cranky if the citations aren't above board.
===
Btw, I'm not dogmatic on GW. I defer to climatologists as I understand their claims -- a strong majority hold that CO2 emissions are likely a significant cause of GW.
I'm aware of a few high profile and respectable dissidents, e.g. at MIT.
But I'll note that following your links around lead me to the useful info. that the IPCC was not some gerrymandered group of scientists hand-picked to push a particular policy. They represent the scientific climatology community:
Surprisingly, the survey shows roughly
three of four climate scientists (72.7
percent) believe “the IPCC reports
accurately reflect the consensus of thought
within the scientific community.” However,
nearly one in five (19.8 percent) disagree.
Good enough for me.
===
Finally, I was a bit condescending/cranky I admit but also serious that people outside of academia aren't likely to know how to spot a 6th rate journal from a 1st rate one.
when's the last time you looked at the editorial board of a journal, could get a sense at a glance of the reputation of the relevant departments, etc.?
i have to do it all the time.
- reply
parentOK, peace, catchy (tries to make The Sign, sprains fingure)
(#51164)The cite was a throwaway which I asked PM to read and give me his thoughts on. Now I have yours, too.
I thought it made some good points, and appreciated its link to forecastingprinciples.com, which I'm still exploring. As to the particulars of the article itself, the second author is from Wharton, it says it's being published in Energy & Environment, which I've looked at before, and AFAIK global warming affects NZ as much as the rest of the world. Just saying.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentPeace.
(#51168)That's the answer to the question:
What do you get when you cross a neocon with a lemming?
Ba dum bum.
===========
Energy & Environment is very probably a bad journal. cross disciplinary, nobodys from 3rd rate depts on the editorial board, not even obviously relevant training.
Just sayin. I can spot these a mile away.
... an author from an obscure NZ university is also a bad sign. As is that both are employed in their respective business schools rather than in scientifically relevant fields. Plus they're citing think-tank publications. Plus...
I think i've said my peace.
- reply
parentSo what are your thoughts on my comment no. 51103,
(#51250)which critiques PM's lone cite in support of the so-called "unanimity" argument? Do you agree that the three questions I posed are legitimate from an academic standpoint? If so, can you answer any of them by reading the "scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal" PM seemingly bases his whole case on?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentIn case it matters,
(#51254)Here is a listing of the groups which have responded at one point or another with concurring statements regarding the anthropogenic nature of climate change.
The statement:
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"
The concurrences (copy/pasted):
* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
* 1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
* 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
* 1.5 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
* 1.6 American Meteorological Society
* 1.7 American Geophysical Union
* 1.8 American Institute of Physics
* 1.9 American Astronomical Society
* 1.10 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
* 1.11 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.12 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.13 Geological Society of America
* 1.14 American Chemical Society
* 1.15 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Followed by noncommittal:
* 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
...and dissenting:
* 3.1 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
There really is a scientific consensus on the issue. The only organization which openly disagrees has a direct monetary interest.
Here is a survey of the National Association of Climate Professionals, a professional accrediting organization. We see agreement but not consensus in America:
"82 percent of professionals report they think global warming is a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect."
but
"59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
Weirdly, though,
"76 percent believe it important to include tighter controls of greenhouse gases such as carbon and methane in future U.S. environmental regulations."
...which is to say that apparently, about 17% of NREP members surveyed don't think global warming is in large part anthropogenic, but that we should spend time and energy controlling the inputs which would cause it if it were.
Anyways, I still feel strongly that there is a scientific consensus around the issue -- that the vast majority of people in the business who are holding their own opinions and not their bosses' believe that anthropogenic global warming is extant. At that point, I don't feel particularly qualified to go hunting for or evaluate dissenting papers. The one you linked to is even a fairly startling paper, claiming that the 11-year cycle is incorrect and that they've found what amounts to the cause for the sunspot cycle. If they're right, that's outstanding, but that's some pretty new science, not something I'd hang my hat on.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentYou must have thought it matters or you wouldn't have posted
(#51265)your "unanimity" claim in the first place, which generally is raised to cut off debate on the subject. As you said, "we see agreement but not consensus" on the subject here, where the great majority of the research is being done.
I posted the solar/cosmic ray article because it was new and interesting, not because I believe in it. I don't, but I can't say why with any precision because I don't fully understand the article.
I believe there very likely is a direct correlation between human-generated atmospheric CO2 and a net upward trend in global temperatures (and potentially, the erosion of our reefs). I believe enough in that correlation to think something very serious ought to be done about it, so I am doing what I can to reduce my own energy consumption and that at my office. I'll strongly support nationwide measures if they're reasonably likely to affect global CO2 levels, and if their likely economic impact is disclosed. And I'll continue to criticize dead ends and special-interest boondoggles like ethanol, carbon credits, the oil and car industries' support of hybrids versus low-sulfur diesel, and whatever other whim strikes me.
I'll also continue to respond appropriately to people who claim I have no right to speak out on the subject, that the conclusions are foregone, that I'm ascientific, that extremists like Gore and RFKJr are mainstream and shouldn't be contradicted (let alone laughed at, which I do a lot), etc.
And then I'll take a much-deserved nap.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentInteresting Post, Tonsyl....
(#51268)....in the AGW debate you are one of the few people on, "that," side that I can read.
You've gone out of your way to study the subject and you're not sure. Hey, I'm not either.
I would tend to think that this means that neither or us is nuts on the subject. And yet, the question is important and so passions do run high.
I'll leave out my typical apocalyptic mankind is doomed flourishing finish to this post....lol
Stay Good,
Traveller
- reply
parentA Noteful Thought....(maybe for Catchy & Tomsyl)
(#51137)...this AGW this is becoming a hot button, passionate issue.
Over at my travel place, there is a member that is a Hydrologist and actually is now under contract for the USGS working on temp measurement sites...
We are friends, but on this....and today he has a new piece up ridiculing Al Gore...I can't even read this guy anymore and I cringe when I see his name posted to something.
I just pass on.
I tend to think that AGW is real...but I also tend to think that the argument is really a stalking horse for all the Environmental damage being done by mankind.
So I'm glad that the argument is out there....but the real question, imo, is wither Mankind?
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentI like your gentle pre-emptive touch, Trav.
(#51158)Has it been a month yet?
I think this is your 1 month mod anniversary or so...
Congrats!!
you guys are doin great.
- reply
parentThanks Catchy....The Emotional Toll On Being Banned.....!!!!!!
(#51167)....I probably shouldn't tell this story, but yesterday I got Banned from Rantburg.
I haven't written there for over a year, but there I was yesterday typing up some useless documents and wanted a bit of diversion...
So I began to defend Obama on his Genocide comments, in a light and fluffy way, I thought. Me I'm cool...but boy did it get heated.
I think I drove everyone to distraction with my Reasonableness.
And then, poof....I was blocked, mid-conversation.
At first you're just kind of in shock.
Me? Me banned? And a question...Me a Troll?!?
What the Hell....and then you pace the floor a little in consternation.
This is an unhappy process internally.
I even thought of going to another computer with a different IP address and get in...not a final word...just a fond and gentle goodby and why I was leaving the conversation.
But you know, you begin to realize that you are, as a person, way too emotionally invested in this.
Which is why banned people have trouble returning.
It is for the best.
But, interestingly, a distinctly difficult emotional experience for me...it was, as Yoda might phrase it.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentI had exactly the same experience at dKos,
(#51251)though they were more subtle about it: intstead of banning me, they turned off my ability to comment. Very subtle.
The only effect it had on me was to open a bottle of California sparkling wine. Too bad there was no one to share it with, and you know how quickly that stuff goes flat . . .
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentwell i do member that you're wont
(#51169)to try and have reasonable discussions re: genocide while people are gettin banned.
Remember chattin w. sparks on the old site?
Also, always rememebr:
If you don't get banned from at least a few sites, you're just not havin any fun on the internet.
- reply
parentI Wonder How Sparks Is? I Think I'll Send This Out, With....
(#51170)...a little note to Micky, Blaise, and K...to let them know that I understand.
Which is maybe why I wrote the above, (grin and smile....human motivations are soooooo complex)
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentI send
(#51172)K and Jackson Mead (spc67) an email every couple months. No nibbles yet.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentIt Sould Maybe Be Noted That Rantburg is Far To The Right...
(#51175)...Red State or Captain's Quarters...from which I have also been banned.
CQ I understand, because I was very, very pissed and very abusive...Ah, yes, memories.... lol...
Out of Here,
Traveller
- reply
parentgood man
(#51173)maybe I should switch to something more constructive/positive.
I've been sending out regular hate mail to Larry Kudlow and Doug Feith.
- reply
parentI'll make you a deal
(#51174)you send me the two or three addresses you want me to send kind, friendly email to and I'll send you the several hundred names I want to send hate mail to.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentor we could switch it up
(#51176)I'll write some encouraging e-mails to spc + K, this month and you can vent some serious spew in Kudlow's + Feith's direction.
tip: try composing your rant bright + early to get the day started right.
- reply
parentgood luck w. that
(#51171)would like to see Micky return; love to see K. return. Both creative thinkers who've spent lots of time outside the US.
sparks don't really care about.
BlaiseP I do care -- still miffed, plus it probably wouldn't work: the guy was constantly generating a cycle of drama. (Reminded me of some ex g-friends.)
... an ego too big for our refined boutique...
- reply
parentWith respect to your question, my Grandmother's answer
(#51149)was to hell in a handbasket -- but then, she was Irish and rowdy...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentAnd another, broader point I've harped on before -
(#51146)who can even catalogue the trouble and anguish caused to this country by our dependence on Mideast (and now, Mexican and Venezuelan) oil? It's dominated foreign policy since before WWII*, makes us consort with viscious Saudi kleptocrats who use our money to attack us, spawned monstrosities like Exxon and Shell and made us use force of arms to pretect their interests, and cassued nothing but trouble, even without regard to environmental damage.
We have to vastly reduce our appetite for oil - otherwise we're giving the next generation little more than a troubled time-bomb of a country. The goal of energy independence is worth more of an emotional and monetary committment than the Apollo missions by any measure, but economic forces apparently prevent investment of nore than a trickle of our immense treasury in that goal.
So I'm all in favor of anything that forces the country to cut back on its oil gluttony. But I don't appreciate being treated like a mushroom on global warming, or worse, an ignoramus per se because of my political leanings.
Alright, off my soapbox. How's your day so far? Sorry for finishing off that five liter bag of Gallo "Ernesto Scumbaggi Reserve" Merlot/Concord blend last night after you passed out - a good time was had by all.
*You know about the part our oil embargo played in prompting the war with Japan, but I just heard a detailed conspiracy theory about how it triggered Viet Nam, too, that will be interesting to explore even if it's farfetched.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI Have Archived Your 1st Three Paragraphs...I'm Doing Good....
(#51150)...nice writing by you.
Be that as it may, I've sent some money off to my brother, even though he is a big time lawyer living in a big time house with a big time car...while I am living on the corner or 4th and Main in a cardboard box with a shopping cart for transportation.
But having done that, I felt it necessary to send an equal amount off to my sister, who really could use the money.
Alas, I have another sister that I am not speaking too...and I should send some off to her also...but I don't want to start the conversation up with her again. Hummmmmm.
One of the nice things about getting old is that you might as well give away what you've got.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentYour reference to cardboard boxes and shopping carts
(#51154)gave me an irresistable urge to post this. My son thinks it's one of the funniest things he's ever read.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentYou Son is Soooooo Right, That Is Funny....But What Prompted...
(#51161)...my generosity, considering my general tightwad nature is that...I was afraid.
A client, who is a car dealer, had me sit in a Mercedes CLX convertible on Wednesday...he was almost giving it away to me...and it scared the crap out of me. I was ready to look for my checkbook....
But you know, am I really that kind of Guy? A good, card carrying Revolutionary Communist like me...I mean, talk about corruption of the Soul!
Part of my self image and charm is that I live like, and seem to be as poor as a church mouse.
I couldn't give that up.
Hummmmmm
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentI've seen several but Idon't care enough about the argument
(#51034)to google em.
Question though; how many of those papers were published by actual climatologists as opposed to other sciences (not to mention how many of them were put together by a crowd of government bureaucrats...)?
Here are two real Climatologists; LINK, LINK.
You can also Google up Fred Singer, Benny Peiser, Hans Von Storch and Jan Veizer.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentYou linked to an Intelligent Design blog.
(#51038)The author of the blog is known lying sack William Dembski. I need to wash out my brain with bleach.
That said, I believe that there's a climatologist who disagrees with the scientific consensus; I certainly hope there is, as that's how things are supposed to work. That doesn't change the fact that his approach does not apparently currently pass peer review for inclusion in scientific journals.
And Mr. Spencer may be capable of superb compartmentalization, but this statement: "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism." isn't precisely confidence-inducing.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentBoy, do you get wrapped around the dressing instead of the
(#51059)salad...
I gave you two links, one citing the nominal Dean of all climatologists and another who's highly regarded. I also gave you the names of several non-climatologist scientists who dispute the "peer review" stuff that is rampant.
If you wish to get wrapped around the axle over Darwin, intelligent design or any thing else that doesn't have a thing to do with climate change, that's fine; I'll stick to the topic.
To point out that I don't know anyone who disagrees with -- and to my knowledge no one here has -- disputed climate change, so we can take that as a given. The issues thus are, IMO, (1) how much is man induced and how much is cyclical and /or from other sources; (2) what should we do about it. The jury is still out on those two items -- and, my point was and is, the climatologists, the lead in the basic science involved, are not in agreement on that by a long shot.
Edited at 01:04 EST on 21 Jul to correct seven typos, a record even for me.
Then again at 01:10 to get the other two I missed. Sigh...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentWith all due respect,
(#51079)I'm not a climatologist. My main capacity to filter information centers around filtering out liars, cranks, and persons who aren't doing science. Dembski is both, and Intelligent Design is not science -- anyone who claims otherwise is profoundly deluded.
That said, a single prominent dissenter, even a spectacularly prominent one, does not break a consensus.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentOkay. Medium over message, Understand.
(#51087)Howsomeever, what if the consensus is wrong... :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentThanks for responding to the broader point
(#50985)As Hank mentioned elsewhere, you seem to be somewhat fixated on Al Gore. He's not an expert in the field; to the extent that he has credibility, it is because he quotes those experts. He doesn't have a PhD backed by decades of research and hundreds of articles in top-tier journals. What about the scientists who do? How many of them contest AGW?
Further, the points of disagreement among the experts are often minute and unrelated to the broad conclusion, as your own examples indicate. Mann's hockey stick graph is appropriately criticized for aspects of his data analysis, but the broad conclusion that the Earth is warming is not in dispute -- except perhaps on Redstate. AMR modeling is still state-of-the-art -- naturally it has limitations, mostly related to what we put into the model. We still don't have a great handle on natural carbon sinks and how their capacity evolves with changing climate. The rest of your points are related to remediation, and here I've never claimed there isn't room for significant disagreement. We have to incorporate a logical cost/benefit analysis, but this needs to accurately take into account the cost of doing nothing.
It's to your credit that you've invested so much time in examining AGW, I'll certainly take it as an example to try to emulate, but even you aren't going to get anything published in a climate journal anytime soon, and yet you're comfortable questioning scientists with decades of experience. Like I said in the diary, I think that's refreshing in some ways, and it's great when people sit down and look for themselves at an issue... but at the end of the day, it seems to me that conservatives are more keen on a do-it-yourself approach while liberals prefer to place a healthy respect in the conclusions of experts.*
It's perfectly consistent with the respective philosophies -- conservatives value self-reliance, liberals intellectualism, whatever other stereotypes you want to toss in here -- and whether you think it's the right or wrong way to approach things probably depends on your ideology. Of course a mix of both approaches is optimal. I'd say you aren't disputing my conclusion but rather questioning my assessment of the value of trusting experts, which of course can only be debated so far before we agree to disagree and use different approaches.
* As I said in the diary, I don't think this is always the case, and I'm quite convinced that conservatives are much more scientific about economics than are liberals.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentSpeaking as a liberal economist,
(#51040)I dispute your footnote. With great vigor.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentGood!
(#51042)Noted. I was mostly going off dKos populist rants that were heavy on anecdote and appeal to emotion and short on facts, logical predictions, or reputable sources.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentRead bondad.
(#51046)Or Angry Bear, or Brad DeLong.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI've read bonddad
(#51049)who himself mentioned that "the Democrats have a really annoying anti-business bias that I disagree with. Business does not equal Satan." I think his stuff is mostly on point, to the degree that I'm capable of objectively evaluating it. Thanks for the other tips!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentbonddad is good, but he's not an economist. Delong...
(#51047)OTOH is the REAL THING. And I read his blog regularly. I like both, but I definitely defer to Delong.
- reply
parentRegarding the infallibillity of experts,
(#51029)you said
even you aren't going to get anything published in a climate journal anytime soon, and yet you're comfortable questioning scientists with decades of experience.
True, of course - I couldn't even get published in National Lampoon. But in response, I'll say again that the "overwhelming consensus" on AGW doesn't exist; even Here's some background.
It's the mainstream press and AGW advocates who have a fixation on Gore, not me. They've uncritically allowed him to elevate himself to the position of chief climate guru without any examination of the statements he makes in his book and on the talk circuit. In all my discussions with environmentalists (whose work I generally support, sometimes with contributions), I've only encountered one person who has actually read An Inconvenient Truth, and he wasn't prepared to discuss the underlying science or lack of same.
I dabble in scientific and engineering study in my spare time because those subjects are inherently fascinating, and because I hate being dependent on principles and machinery whose workings I don't understand. (This goes for electronic fuel injection as much as it does for climate modeling.) I don't think of that as being independent, just curious/nosy. And it doesn't mean I actually know anything significant.
Good catch on puck versus stick, BTW; I was curious to see if anyone would notice. I guess it wasn't really that funny.
*I assume you'd agree that an eminent MIT meteorologist qualifies as an expert on this subject, even if he's not part of the "overwhelming consensus."
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentYou should consider making this a separate diary
(#51048)since I imagine a lot of people would be interested in discussing global warming -- not a new topic, of course, but always interesting to revisit. From my non-expert view, the lack of consensus appears to be primarily over magnitude of effects or degree of certainty (NYT link doesn't seem to work, btw).
Interesting that you mention Lindzen -- I just started reading an article in the MIT Technology Review they send to try to entice donations about "Planning for a Climage-Changed World." Some quotes from MIT scientists, apparently they have a Center for Global Change Science, but I haven't noticed Lindzen. No doubt because his perspective is being repressed =) Anyway, the article has some stuff about how they're embedding regional models inside the global ones to more accurately predict local changes. Still wading through it, and I only glanced at your acidification link (seen some of it before, but mostly forgot it tbh). I don't know anything about Lindzen, all I get googling is AEI, WSJ, or Cato refs, as well as this piece; what's his recent publication record like?
Anyway, lots to chew on, and I'm more than willing to meet halfway when it comes to solutions...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI'll meet you more than halfway, brendan:
(#51064)I'm absolutely convinced that drastically reducing our use of hydrocarbons is essential if we're going to give the next generation a chance to enjoy the things we grew up with. That puts me squarely in the energy and conservation camp and inevitably makes me a carbon reductophile. I just hate to be told what to do, particularly by others (and especially those in the media) who aren't doing what they're preaching, and are trying to feed me BS in the process.
I have a poor grasp of a lot of the physics involved in climate science but at least an average understanding of statistics and computer modeling; I can see many instances in the literature where someone has taken a suitably reserved, qualified scientific position, only to have it distorted, possible negative outcomes exaggerated, qualified estimates or predictions morphed into supposed certainties, and so forth.
I'm not a particular fan of Linzen, and can't tell you what, if anything, he's been up to lately. Some of the popular stuff he's written, though, makes him sound irascible and as certain that there is no AGW as the environmentalists are of their own position. I can't agree with him on that; it's the flip side of the same coin in a discipline where the only certainties are probabilities. Wait, what did I just say? Time to quit.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI agree. I work in a University lab. Global warming is real.
(#51050)tomysl: do post this comment as a diary. There is a good deal of evidence to oppose this position, and I'd gladly add to that. Note that I am not a physicist or a climatologist, but I work among academics and could point to abstracts worth reading.
I think the whole CO2 'causing the majority of short term climate change' issue is resolved.
- reply
parentAllow me to intrude.
(#50995)but even you aren't going to get anything published in a climate journal anytime soon, and yet you're comfortable questioning scientists with decades of experience
I won't speak for "Conservatives". I don't think I qualify, and I'm not going to put words in the mouths of the actual conservatives on this site. My own world-view, however, assumes that everybody has tons of overlapping interests. Personal, familial, professional, ideological, organizational, etc. Where you stand depends on where you sit. And that doesn't even begin to cover cognitive biases. Tetlock tells me that experts stink while Mackay points out that crowds are full of fools. The heuristics on who should be believed are not clear to me. So I fall back on the only calculator whose biases are fully disclosed to me and with whom I am in full agreement: moi.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentNice links
(#51002)Still, you must have formed your biases and initial opinions somehow... from experts? Crowds? You must re-evaluate occasionally; what precipitates those shifts?
Curious minds want to know!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentIf I might intrude...
(#50994)Might I suggest that conservatives were for the most part once liberal and just got a little less trusting as they aged. Generally conservatives are no more into do-it-yourself than are liberals; they are just less likely to accept a communitarian solution because they've discovered that most such don't work well because of the foibles of human nature. Most importantly, having been misled by some so-called experts, conservatives are just extremely wary of them.
Recall my comment on Generals. There are 300 plus of them in the Army. They resemble any collection of 300 souls of similar better than average intellectual capacity with advanced degrees (and virtually all Generals have at least one, most have two, some more). That is, the same number of charlatans and fakes, good guys and bad guys, crooks and liars, sterling honest and straight arrow types will appear. They are all as conscious of peer pressure as any egoists and can lapse into group think. Experts are not infallible (See Iraq, Combat Operations in, 2003-2007).
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentI used to be into do-it-yourself beer when I was younger.
(#51066)Now I'm not (meaning I finally could sell my stomach pump on eBay). And I don't let so-called experts tell me what beer to drink (except the beerish experts here [aka Hoplites], of course, who've earned their Red Stripes).
So that must prove something. What do I win?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWhy, a Case
(#51071)of course LINK
I'm sending it as a drop ship Media Mail package, it may take a while, the Island to Island boat eez slow, Mon... :)
Er, did your stomach pump have a diaphragm stuck in it? I just bought one on e-bay a few weeks ago and it didn't work right so I had to delve into it and...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentWhat the hee kind of question is that?!
(#51089)There's several ways it could be interpreted, and not a one of them's good. There are young, impressionable liberals reading this, ya old reprobate, so stop talking about your own special version of Spin The Bottle. Now wash your mouth out five times with sheep dip and go stand/slump/collapse in the corner. No more beer for you until you pour it on your Cap'n Crunch tomorrow morning. Sheesh.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI beg you pardon, Sir. I was merely inquiring if your pump
(#51095)was a rotary or a diaphragm model. Whatever could you mean?
And I eat Circle K with Red Berries anyway. So there.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentGood point
(#51001)on the relative ages (again, this is an explanation rather than a contradiction) -- I hadn't considered that.
I understand your point on the Generals but I simply must insist that their experience makes their conclusions (disagreements and all!) more valuable than are mine. I don't think you really disagree, but we're maybe sort of talking past each other here and so I wanted to seize another opportunity to reemphasize the point. Lots of lousy doctors out there, but like I mentioned earlier I still gotta respect their expertise when I hurt myself.
Come to think about it, I wonder how many older conservatives here distrust doctors =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI think we are talking past each other on that. Sure, the
(#51008)Generals, collectively, are an excellent source of military advice -- singly, they tend to have agendas (not all but most) -- the problem is that Goldwater-Nichols was a really bad bill in some respects and one thing it did was remove the Joint Chiefs, collectively, from the Presidential Advisory role. Big mistake.
That left Myers, an Air Force guy with no ground combat knowledge, much less expereince as the military adviser to the Sec Def and the President. On voice. Not expert in the field at question. Dumb.
Thus my comment the Generals aren't infallible. Most of 'em are good smart and honest guys -- but they're all somewhat specialized.
Sanchez for example was a tanker -- and he was resp0nsible for fighting an infantry war and didn't have a clue how to do it. Generals used to be called Generals because they were generalists; they knew it all and could do it all. Those days are long gone; wars too complex now. they're all spaecilaized and can mess up badly whne out of their element.
Same is true on Climate change. A lot of bright, fast climbing young scientists are greatly concerned about it. The interesting thing is that the old, well respected in the field, actual climatologists as opposed to allied field folks are the one opposing the rush to judgment...
I don't distrust Doctors but I'm wary of them. :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentEverybody makes mistakes
(#51000)the questions is, when you're starting to look into an area in which you have no personal knowledge, who should you pay attention to, people who have spent a lot of effort studying the issue or people who have a "gut feel" about it? You may draw different conclusions after studying a subject, but to dismiss people who have studied an issue for emotional (or any other) reason doesn't seem like a good way to figure out what's going on. Just saying "experts aren't always right" isn't that same as saying they're usually wrong, they aren't.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentI agree with that. I didn't say rejection of expert opinion was
(#51006)de riguer, merely that conservatives are wary of them.
On the climate issue, I'll simply point out that there are in fact acknowledged and respected 'experts' on both sides not only on the question of anthropomorphism as an affector but on the cyclic nature and other aspects. In other words, the consensus required is not there at this time.
I suspect that's why given the "Gore Effect" and record cold and snow in the this southern hemisphere winter we have morphed from Global Warming to Climate Change as the term du jour...
I do, however, certainly agree that ""experts aren't always right" isn't that same as saying they're usually wrong, they aren't." is correct and would simply point out that's not what I said in the first place.
Nor did I recommend, suggest or imply dismissal of experts; I simply said be wary -- because some experts come equipped not only with great knowledge -- but a great agenda as well.
That's the point
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentBeer.
(#50996)You are clearly one of my sock-puppets. :^)
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentDone! P.S. About that box of Tide I sent you... :) NT
(#50999)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentGeeze, That's Good, brendanm98, Can I Quote You on This? NT
(#50989)Traveller
- reply
parentYou're too kind, but
(#50990)I suggest waiting until tomsyl rips it to shreds to decide if you still want some of the pieces =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentSo in other words, if you removed the "chickenhawk" slur
(#50886)altogether, and just concentrated on showing that GOP leaders shun & devalue informed opinion and can't tell good advice from bad, you'd have a solid argument. I think that's all anyone's asking for. Embarrassing naive college kids and treating them as a symbol of overall conservative thinking is nothing but a cheap shot. Make a strong case that GOP leaders can't tell good ideas from bad, and their foreign policy is ill-conceived disaster waiting to happen, and you're getting somewhere.
So let's drop the chickenhawk thing. Let's not call anyone a coward or a traitor. We Democrats believe many of the mistakes in Iraq are direct results of Republican thinking & ways of doing business, politicizing every decision rather than relying on expertise, experience, & wisdom. Let's take the high road and hold them accountable for the mistakes that matter, not for the dumb college kids and loudmouth bloggers in their ranks. We've got those too.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
Exactly
(#50897)I definitely disagree with the idea that "many of the mistakes in Iraq are direct results of Republican thinking & ways of doing business, politicizing every decision rather than relying on expertise, experience, & wisdom", but at least it is a sensible opinion that could be discussed.
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentSo feel free
(#50900)to discuss it =)
That was sort of the plan here.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI'm at work. I can't start a diary right now.
(#50904)...and this diary isn't appropriate to having that discussion.
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentSorry to hear that
(#50906)If you wish to elaborate as to why this diary precludes said discussion, I'd be interested, but no worries if you're busy.
Hopefully I can at least help to gradually draw you out of lurking =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentBecause I've discussed the "chickenhawk" thing enough
(#50919)and that is what this diary is about ;)
In fact, the only good thing about this topic is that it has drawn me out of lurking!
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentI was kind of hoping
(#50925)that this was a somewhat different take on the typical chickenhawk argument, and in particular I wanted to explore the second-to-last paragraph more deeply, but I guess that's obscured by the way I structured the discussion... or else maybe people would rather fight about the "are too/am not" aspects of the slur than discuss the underlying arguments.
Whatever... looking forward to seeing more of you as your work permits.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentThe thing is, we discuss this stuff all the time,
(#50947)probably 75% of discussion here is disputing foreign policy, the thinking behind it, the personalities involved, the idiocies resulting therefrom....
So it's a huge & ongoing area of discussion. "Chickenhawk" just happens to crystallize one aspect of the issue in a single, divisive, juvenile, incredibly irritating manner. In other words, it's a meme worthy of Karl Rove. :)
If we want to start a new diary, it should be something like "Republican Philosophy Quote Unquote" and it should focus on some issue or event that crystalizes the topic in the same way without making real discussion impossible.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentI'm going to confess to a measure of irritation
(#50968)that you keep repeating how "divisive, juvenile, incredibly irritating" these chickenhawk discussions are as if that's what my diary is about, as if what I wrote (over three hours, with several edits) makes "real discussion impossible."
Probably stupid of me to react in such fashion, but there it is.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentWell, aren't they?
(#50983)You raise a number of valid points in your diary, but none of those points is in any way a "defense" of the chickenhawk label. You point out correctly that the Bush admin in particular has made a solid tradition out of ignoring & suppressing expert opinion in any number of fields. I think this is true! We should talk about it! Just not under the banner of defending the "chickenhawk" idea. It's a slur. Like all slurs, it picks up something that is arguably true, then uses that to make a sweeping generalization of inferiority. Calling the GOP the chickenhawk party is an indirect way of calling every conservative on this site a moron, a hypocrite, and a coward. Not a great way to begin a discussion. Arguing "*some* conservatives are morons, hypocrites, and cowards so there's a grain of truth to the slander" as you are may be well intentioned but it just isn't helping.
So for the record I'm not calling you or your diary juvenile. I appreciate what you're doing. I just think your points would carry a lot more weight if you dropped the "chickenhawk" baggage; It's just slowing you down.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentBut that's not what I'm doing
(#50992)Arguing "*some* conservatives are morons, hypocrites, and cowards so there's a grain of truth to the slander" as you are may be well intentioned but it just isn't helping.
Not at all my point. I argue that some aspects of the argument underlying the use of the "chickenhawk" criticism *are valid* -- that expertise should matter with military strategy just as it should with science or medicine.
Clearly "the banner of defending the chickenhawk" slur is dragging in a lot of baggage ("morons, hypocrites, and cowards," oh my!), and I guess that's to be expected -- I was hoping to be able to examine those aspects of the criticism that I view as valid as well as to discard those we agree are invalid in a dispassionate (perhaps provocative?) sort of fashion, but maybe that was naive.
Hopefully these repeated clarifications will convince those who don't see anything worth discussing here to at least take another look. If not, well, I look forward to you and corky writing up that diary...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentMy next diary entry:
(#51018)"Blacks are Violent. Jews are Greedy"
Not entirely accurate, but gives us a place to discuss some aspects which *are valid*.
Man, I'm threatening to write a lot of diaries and the weekend is here so I have no excuse! :)
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentOh please
(#51028)Do share what horrible stereotype I've slandered conservatives as a group with in the essay. Go ahead and read past the title this time.
For bonus points, compare and contrast political ideology with ethnic background.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentYou aren't slandering anyone
(#51062)And neither am I. I'm just saying that there is some truth to it so it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Just like a blanket term of cowardice for people, such as myself, isn't slanderous because there may be some truth to it.
Okay, okay. All sarcasm aside, I think you are going about this argument completely wrong. If you want to have an argument that many young, non-serving, citizens of the US do not know what the costs of the war are or that our leaders aren't listening to the "experts" and doing there own thing, then do so...just under a different banner.
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentThat's the only point I'm making.
(#51072)Only you put it better. I hope the point gets across this time.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentTen minutes after your first post here
(#51105)I said "perhaps the title was poorly chosen" -- not sure "I hope the point gets across this time" is really fair. Whatever.
It's not like I've been shy to clarify if anyone had questions or asked whether I was saying X, Y, or Z.
I note that more than a few conservatives managed to find something worth discussing here despite my "hook" of disecting the chickenhawk argument. Sorry that was a total turnoff for you two, I'll keep it in mind next time. Like I said, looking forward to the discussion in your more neutrally framed diary.
By the way, this is the longest piece on the recent diaries list except for Bird Dog's interesting cross-post from Redstate on Cole. There's a bit more too it than just the title, no? I don't know how useful it is to just declare "there's nothing here to discuss" -- I mean, there are a lot of interesting exchanges in comments here, people somehow managed to get past these glaring defects in my communication style.
Finally, it's a bit surreal to be characterized as insensitive to conservatives -- I help run a whole freaking site devoted to bipartisan debate. My last post here (edit: next to last, forgot the one on critical thinking) was aimed at convincing liberals we need to stay in Iraq (as you argue yourself, Jordan). I like to think I've had mutually rewarding discussions with most of the regular conservatives here (maybe not the lurkers). I've defending Timmy's posts from upset liberals repeatedly, for heaven's sakes =)
Anyway, thanks for the feedback on the framing, as I said it's noted and I'll keep it in mind. Looking forward to discussing actual content instead of meta with both of you in the future.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentIt's just this subthread, Brendan.
(#51106)I didn't jump in on the others for lack of time, not interest. This isn't a "tear down the diary" thread, just a discussion of whether calling it a defense of chickenhawkism helps or hurts your argument -- I wouldn't call it meta since it's the diary title and the question of whether "chickenhawk" can be defended or not...but it is just one small issue. I think we both agree it probably hurts your argument, but we also agree you raise other very interesting points which other people took up seriously. So let's consider the topic of this subthread resolved. And I look forward to tearing Ram Charger-sized holes in Republican foreign policy thinking with you. :)
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentAgreed
(#51107)Well, except that last sentence...
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentAll I am saying
(#51003)(is give peace a chance) is finding valid points in an obvious slur gets you little to nowhere. In fact it's more likely counterproductive. Yes, they are valid points. But what's the good of valid points if your opponent is predisposed to ignore the entire argument?
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentWell, perhaps the title was poorly chosen
(#50889)As I said to Ken I think the actual term "chickenhawk" is rhetorical poison -- it's the underlying argument I find interesting, and in some narrow respects valid.
Then again, much of the knee-jerk reaction to "chickenhawking" centers on the perceived argument rather than use of the literal term, at least in my admittedly limited personal experience. So I think it's useful to spell out what aspects of the implied criticism might have merit, and to acknowledge those aspects that clearly do not.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentA thought
(#50883)It appears those conservatives responding here mostly have military experience, and hence would have their opinions treated with greater regard under my proposal here -- in the same way that a doctor is probably more qualified to discuss health care, or a scientist to evaluate global warming.
Which I suppose makes their resistance to my humble suggestion all the more principled, but doesn't it also provide support for my contention that conservatives in general are more likely to devalue expertise? Even their own!
I know, I know, we go too far down this road and we have BlaiseP ranting about how nobody else is entitled to question him, or on a national level we get ordinary citizens frozen out from participation in decision-making and forced to just agree with the experts. Of course it's a balance, and I'm painting with a broad brush and drawing sweeping conclusions; all the usual disclaimers certainly apply. Still, I'm curious if your own experience supports this alleged conservative distrust of expertise -- agree? Disagree? Find it irrelevant? Just wondering...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How about we agree that
(#50880)while there are such things as chickenhawks and traitors, supporting the war does not make one a chickenhawk, nor does opposing it make one a traitor. Regardless of military service.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Stop that!
(#50926)No logic!
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentOk then.
(#50929)I second SNK's propostion. Let's break for lunch and drinks....
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentGreat idea
(#50943)Think I'll walk down to Chipotle for a burrito and a Corona.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentLunch? Lunch. You want to ruin a perfectly good
(#50937)buzz with lunch??? :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentha
(#50945)that made me laugh
- reply
parentOk.
(#50872)I served. Ergo, my opinion's better than yours on the subject and I'm in favor of the war. Now shut up. And tell that windbag Moore to clam up, too. Fat bastard would be lucky to manage 30 points on the PT test, much less serve as anything besides a pontoon.....
(No, Brendan, I don't really want you to shut up. But your argument here does strike me as more than a bit silly, particularly as the war remains most popular with those segments of the population most likely to have served or who are actually serving.)
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
Also
(#50887)I won't insist on this, since I certainly do express that experience in general ought to be appropriately respected, but just to nit-pick I think there is a difference between being uninformed and trying to get others to go to war and being uninformed and not trying to get others to go to war: it is certainly valid to point out the lack of military experience of those who would send others to fight in the context of evaluating the ability of the "chickenhawk" to accurately understand the costs and consequences of war.
Like I said I won't insist on this distinction in the context of the broader argument, but I did want to note it anyway.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentThis bit I'll disagree with strongly.
(#50895)Lack of experience may or may not invalidate one's opinion. I we accept that it does invalidate one's opinion, then it does so whether said opinion is a positive or negative one. A quack doctor is a quack whether he operates on you when you have a cold or tells you to go home and take an aspirin to take care of that pesky tumor.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentFunny and well-chosen example
(#50913)but I'm going to continue with the nit-picking and insist that "invalidate" is much too strong a paraphrase of what I said in the diary. So pfffft! to you ;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentDisagree
(#50893)Not sending our forces to war at need can have dire consequences as well, as the experience between the world wars proved. I'm not willing to grant a favored POV to the Chamberlains and Lindberghs of this or any generation, who self-righteously sound off for "peace" or "minding our own business" as a monster with world-(or region)-wide ambitions gains power unmolested by those who could end the threat.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentCertainly it can,
(#50901)but how one evaluates the relative merits of pro/anti-war stances with respect to Iraq is impossible to disentangle from how serious one perceives the threat from that region to be (IMO it has certainly grown, at any rate), so I don't think we can make progress here. As I said I won't press the point.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI think you'd do a fine job
(#50881)of managing the war compared to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. I bet you'd take advice from people with more experience than you too.
You'll note I acknowledged the support for the war among the military, but I'm sure you'll also concede that there was widespread disagreement within the military all the way up to the General level with our initial strategy in Iraq. Which, I'm sure you'll also agree, was insufficient to address the predictable insurgency/terrorism.
Finally, I'm sure you read my stunningly brilliant diary on why we're doing better in Iraq and need to see it through (for which I took some heat on SC), so yes, you don't want me to shut up, my lack of military experience notwithstanding =p
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI can raise two obvious objections:
(#50888)A) As Ken is at pains to note, Generals are as prone to being incorrect or buying into group-think as anybody else. Note that had Lincoln followed McClellan's advice, he'd have wrapped things up and started negotiations in 1864. And McClellan was actually a very capable organizer. He just couldn't fight.
B) Unfortunately for us all, no field of human endeavor is wholly isolated from any other. Rummy had plenty of faults, but there were (and remain, alas) good reasons for the U.S. to try to fight wars while minimizing the labor component. Generals, being experts in one field, can be expected to studiously ignore the demands placed on the system as a whole by other factors.
And you can consider my earlier comment to be directed at the rhetorical "you". :^)
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentOf course
(#50892)Similarly, doctors make mistakes and scientists blunder all the time. Doesn't mean I'm gonna trust Jim down at the bar over Dr. Murphy when it comes to what's wrong with my back (nothing, thanks for asking).
I think Rumsfeld had some excellent ideas, most notably about junking obsolete cold-war cash-cow projects. Still, I blame his approach, endorsed and to some extent shaped by Bush, for much of the difficulties we currently face in Iraq. YMMV.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentMacArthur. . .
(#50891). . .in the days after Inchon and before the Chinese invasion of North Korea certainly comes to mind as having a less than useful mindset, too. A more cautious approach that acknowledged the danger posed by the Chinese might have saved millions from decades of Communist slavery that continues to this day.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentPolitical economics
(#50856)The value of something is equal to what someone is willing to pay for it.
Many conservatives have tried to explain that the war in Iraq and the GWOT are the most important battles we, as a nation, are going to face in a generation or two. It is hard to reconcile that stance with the idea that those making that argument have better things to do than actually fighting in the most important battle evah!! In my mind that is either hypocrisy or polemicist rhetoric or both.
I think the Chickenhawk argument is overused but in the case of college age uber-war supporters it is very apt. If you aren't willing to make the same sacrifice that people just like you are making in order to fight the biggest battle since the Lord of the Rings then you really are a coward and a hypocrite.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
my take
(#50850)You make some good points above but there is another aspect to the chickenhawk meme that is legitimate. My beef is with those who equate war opposition to treason and cowardice. It strikes me as extremely shallow to believe that just saying one is against the war is enough to merit such an ungenerous reading of motives. If people with this kind of attitude believe it is so crucial to support the war, so important they are willing to believe fellow Americans are traitors just for opposition, then they need to put their money where there mouth is and do something besides write nasty blog posts. If able bodied, enlisting is the best way to show their support. To do otherwise shows a disconnect between the importance of the war effort and their hate for other Americans for opposing the war. Thus, they are colossal hypocrites and chickenhawks.
Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
Having put my money where my mouth is
(#50855)am I then justified in calling those who are against the war traitors and cowards?
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentNope, you'd be "shallow"
(#51053)as I mentioned. You'd also be wrong, to boot. But not a hypocrite and not a chickenhawk.
Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- reply
parentHowever
(#51665)calling someone a chickenhawk is not a shallow ungenerous reading of motives?
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentYou can slap their asses and call them Sally if you want...
(#50858)...but that doesn't make it true.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentIf It's All Right with Sulla
(#50864)I'd prefer that he called me a traitor. Thanks.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentMe too,
(#50928)I am so not into that a$s slapping bit... :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentJust trying to figure out the convoluted attempts
(#50865)to justify this slur, because if certain slurs can be slung around by certain posters around here I figure I might as well get in on the action. But first I need to figure out who can call who what.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentFair Enuf
(#50866)I'm just trying to avoid the Sally/ass combo. :)
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentAs opposed to . . . what??
(#50873)%^>
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentHeh- nt
(#50868)"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentSame goes for
(#50861)anyone you call colossal hypocrites and chickenhawks, just sayin.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentMy only comment on all that is that you have a
(#50817)right to that opinion and most of the people in the Armed forces truly believe that you do have that right and also believe that, in at least some small way, they're trying to insure you keep that right.
Some of them may use the 'chickenhawk' term but I've never heard it and since I'm long retired I've asked still serving guys if they've heard it used. Most said no. A few said Joe Private may mumble it when he's hot, tired, hungry, scared or just hacked off but it's pretty rare and virtually unheard of among the NCOs and Officers.
FWIW
The K Codes explained HERE.
Which opinion?
(#50823)I expressed a few in there =)
I don't care about the term itself, which is now poisoned beyond repair (my title notwithstanding), it's the idea of giving credit to experience that I think is valid.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentAll of them with respect to my first paragraph above,
(#50827)the second addressed just the Chicken Hawk bit.
I do not disagree with giving credit to experience but will point out that Generals and Admirals are not infallible (see Meyers R., Sanchez R., Franks T., Clark W., Newbold G., et.al.) and the guy who listens to those kinds of folks but ultimately has the responsibility to decide is an elected politician, who more often than not during our history, has had no military experience and that is subject to be the case in the future.
The system is not perfect but it essentially works. Civilian control of the military in a democratic society is, IMO, a must and most all folks serving agree.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentTop three Presidents
(#50834)according to historian rankings (slightly different ordering) are Lincoln, Washington, and FDR (source). More recent surveys place Reagan and JFK high on the list. They all had military experience of some sort, and all were involved in leading the US in war (cold or otherwise). I'm a reasonably big fan of Clinton, but I think his greatest mistakes were Somalia and Rwanda -- would the five Presidents mentioned above have handled those situations better? I would have voted for Powell had he ran way back when; of the Republicans in 2008 my top choice is McCain. Maybe that's just me.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentWell far be it from me to quibble with historians but I'd
(#50837)say that, all things considered, I'd rate Washington and Lincoln and then FDR as great -- but they had great circumstances thrust upon them and handled it well.
Lincoln's minimal experience in the Blackhawk war was nonconsequential and he had to play musical Generals until he finally got the right one. FDR's only 'military' experience was as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in WW I and he didn't do the greatest job at that. He bobbled a few in WW II but by and large he did well.
Reagan was a movie maker in uniform; he had no combat experience at all. The historians and I can disagree about JFK who is the only named aside from Washington with any real military experience. Jackson, Grant, Garfield and Hayes all had considerable military experience but had no real tests in their lackluster Presidencies - short, in the case of Garfield. Eisenhower had more than any of them and was, essentially a good if not great President. Still ,the majority have had little or no military experience and that will continue to be true; the political elite -- both parties -- do not nowadays allow their kids to go in the service.
That list of mediocre Generals I gave above? Add Powell C. to the list -- he, Wesley Clark and Tommy Franks were all part of the power structure in the Army that refused to allow any doctrine updates or training on counterinsurgency. As I said, Generals are not infallible...
I'm not too concerned with who gets elected in 2008. Democrat or Republican, makes little difference. Presidents don't have nearly as much clout as many believe, the bureaucracy -- and Congress -- can and will just wait them out. Congress controls the purse and the golden Rule applies; he who has the Gold, rules.
McCain's tricky and bears watching -- but then, anyone who runs for that office can and should have that said of them. :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentWhile I'm happy to agree that more
(#50840)attention should have been paid to counterinsurgency training if we were bound and determined to get involved in messy wars, I rather think the problems in Iraq arose from Rumsfeld's obsession with a fast/light/high-tech strategy that knocked over the Iraqi army but proved predictably unable to stabilize the country afterwards. While Powell's notion of overwhelming force was based on avoiding long wars and disavowed nation building, I wonder whether that approach might not have prevented the insurgency/AQI terrorism from getting off the ground and hence proven oddly effective at establishing order, if not necessarily democracy, in a post-Saddam Iraq. Although a President Powell probably wouldn't have invaded at that juncture anyway.
Well, it's just a thought, and I realize there are other views, and naturally my personal lack of military experience makes my opinion less informed =)
I'm certainly aware of McCain's failings, but IMHO compared to the rest of the lackluster Republican crop he's the best choice. I imagine you can't fault his position on Iraq at any rate...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentThe problem in Iraq has so many authors that it looks
(#50936)like a term paper in a Boarding School. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld / DoD, the JCS, CentCom, the Army, The Marines, The Air Force -- all erred. None terribly badly but the synergistic effect was not good. Only the Navy comes out reasonably clean.
I do not believe that Rumsfeld's initial guidance from Bush included stabilizing the country after Saddam was gone (whether it should have or not is another and complex issue). Obviously, I don't know that to be true but based on what I do know it seems logical. My perception is also that guidance was changed to 'stay and hold' in early May for some reason and a lot of people got caught flat footed by that. There is no question that major errors by the Army due to lack of counterinsurgency doctrine and training, not to mention a similar lack in post conflict stabilization caused many subsequent problems.
There can be little question that Bremer was a disaster unto himself; his disbanding of the Army and Police (on his own, which he says, or at the behest of others isn't totally clear) were major contributors to the insurgency.
Neither version of what you say Rumsfeld or Powell wanted would have precluded AQ entry. They expected us to go into Afghanistan and Iraq was a shock to them but they are far more flexible and adaptive than is the big most excessively bureaucratic US so they very quickly and flexibly diverted into Iraq. That, I think was anticipated; what was not anticipated was the Iraqi insurgency and that was due to Intelligence shortfalls and the aforementioned Army and Bremer foulups which enhanced the damage and the recruiting potential of AQ.
Barnett at your link and Tomsyl below are, IMO, correct on the Powell Doctrine -- actually, the Weinberger Doctrine that Powell stole. It was a flawed and dumb idea developed by the Army leadership to avoid getting stuck in another Viet Nam. You can see where that got us...
As I said, Generals are not infallible, far from it. They also have a strong vested interest; they truly believe they are the Stewards of the Army; it is their god given mission to protect the institution at all costs -- to include avoiding war if at all possible and to get out as quickly as we can if avoidance is not possible.
McCain's just the most overt in support of staying in Iraq. Others on both sides sort of feel the same way but just are more devious in what they say. A few are 'Out Now!' types at this time; what they'll say if they get elected and get all the classified briefings is not known but based on watching a lot of Presidential elections, most of them change their 'national security' positions after they get those briefings...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentCan't water down
(#50951)the original sin by spreading the blame for the subsequent incompetence Ken.
Bush, Cheney and many of their supporters will never cop to that original sin, and so here we sit mired in denial and marking time until the current leadership steps into the sunset.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentNot trying to water down anything. As you know but
(#50960)conveniently forget when you want to post one of your idle lambasting snippets, I've always said that the responsibility belonged to Bush for the decision to commit, no question and that I have no use for Cheney and his hired hands whatsoever.
OTOH, credit where credit is due. If Bush committing us to Iraq was a crime in your eyes and Cheney is a should be indicted co-conspirator, surely you're not going to forgive those who compounded the felony? Fitzgerald would not.
Thus "we" aren't sitting anywhere, you are mired in the denial that what you say here makes a spot of difference in the world. Enjoy.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentThe "Powell Doctrine" is based on political, not military
(#50843)concerns. IMO, of course.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentDon't know that....
(#50882).....there's a clear difference there. Clausewitz, etc. As much as I dislike Lefty anti-war carping, the fact of the matter is that you go to war with the army and the nation that you have. Ergo, your strategy has to maximize the chance of getting what you want within the constraints those two things place on you, whatever they may be.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentExactly right, but the Powell Doctrine goes further
(#50885)and essentially says you never fight a war unless you're not absolutely certain you can win, win quickly, and then retire to an unassailable position (aboard a carrier, for instance.) I certainly agree with that from the standpoint of the lives of our soldiers; I just don't think it can be applied in every instance, and that it's always possible to avoid wars that can't be won quickly.
Also, as Powell revealed more of himself, he's shown he is a politician as much as he is/was a soldier So I began to question whether his policy is truly for the soldiers, or to help a politician he worked for avoid unpopular opinions. (The two aren't necessarily the same in terms of results.) Also, it allows the enemy du jour to predict our response to any attack on our forces, bases, civilians and so forth.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentExactly right. I'm gonna go get a refill and tip it to you. NT
(#50930)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentMy perspective is simple...
(#50806)...it's been four years now, with no end in sight. It's time to either go, have gone, or say folks should come home, if you're in the demographic which is capable of going.
In particular, the employ of classist "Oh, that's for other people," or "my role here is more important" statements is the sort of thing which pushes me beyond reason.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Really? Why?
(#50890)I'm presuming that you don't clean the bathroom stalls at your office/campus, drive your own semi truck to deliver your own fruits and veggies, go on your own police patrols or do your own high-rise steel work. You're perfectly willing to let other people take risks and do unpleasant yet important jobs you can't or won't (mostly won't, I'll assume you're quite capable) in exchange for cash. What makes this particular job different?
I think this is mere hyperbole on your part. You don't like this war and you have an ingrained (if false) belief that you don't believe in violence, so you've created a false category to shoehorn the things you don't like into.
Compartmentalization ain't just for submarines.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentThat doesn't make a lot of sense.
(#50908)I only have eight hours in a day, so I couldn't do all of those things, anyways. What I do is contribute in my fashion to the running of the economy on the assumption that other folks are doing the same. Further, my statement that my contribution has value is fundamentally credible; no one sensible ever claims that college courses shouldn't be taught.
War supporters' claims that their contributions to the war effort as members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are more vital than those of a combat infantryman are beyond absurd. That's the difference -- I can reasonably say, "I'm doing my part to keep running something which should be running." The Yellow Elephants aren't.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentSure they are....
(#50918)...as long as they're paying their taxes, anyway. Unless payment-in-kind (in this case, under arms) is privileged in some way, then some dude forking over a million in taxes is having a much greater impact than either you or I would actually toting an M-16 or driving an M-2. Probably the same for somebody forking over a great deal less than a million, I don't imagine I'm as good a shot as I was at 20.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentAnd people who don't pay taxes
(#50944)shouldn't get any say at all...perhaps they shouldn't even be able to vote!
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentI could get behind that
(#50946)you should have to give a little to get a little.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentEven if that happened
(#51014)You know the Dem's would push through the "Minimum Income Tax Payment Law" which made all citizens, regardless of income, made to pay $0.01 minimum in taxes.
Plus, it's way too "poll taxish" for my taste.
Let's just have a flat tax and be done with it. That way everyone has a vested interest in keeping taxes low...but that's the subject of another diary.
It is better to get what you want than it is to be right. -me
- reply
parentThat's the kind of reach...
(#50931)...only Mr. Fantastic should be able to manage.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentFirst Spidey, now the FF.
(#50934)Next thing you know, people are gonna start talking about tax-clawbacks and such.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentToo many movies...
(#50952)...about too many things I loved as a kid.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentAin't being an adult fun??? :) NT
(#50961)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentIf you want to go, simply cut the funding
(#50820)and when we go back, you'll be first in line.
““I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”” –H
- reply
parentWhen we go back
(#50829)If we go back, at least we can go back with a properly thought out plan and without having lost much in the way of initiative in the meantime.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentIf we go back,
(#50844)there will be a reason beyond Bush's Wang and a media capable of caring.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentWish it were that simple... NT
(#50838)The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentIt is that simple
(#50953)Pull back, regroup and RE-THINK!
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
- reply
parentSurely you jest? The US apparently stopped doing that in
(#50965)about 1960 or so. If you believe that future Administrations are going to be an order of magnitude better than this one, again, you're forgetting your history.
I'll also point out that had G.H.W. Bush not passed the buck and had he gone on to Baghdad in 1991, it would have been far, far easier and better then than it was this time (and this time was wrong only in planning and timing, it would've happened sooner or later) and this time will prove easier than the next time, that's a given.
If you or anyone else thinks the US Army wants to stay in Iraq, you're badly deluded. They, from top to bottom, want out of there so bad it hurts, they know far better than most how much harm is being done to equipment and funding there, how much it adversely affects recruiting -- however, they also know that it is better and easier now than it will be if we have to go back. That's why they're very reluctantly saying stay...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parent