TomAiello

You previously said that you disagreed with international law that sets minimum standards for legal actions. It appears you might be trying to have it both ways. How so? There are plenty of national and state laws that don't rely on international law. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's my understanding that the Chrysler dealerships are all run on a cash and carry basis--they have to pay Chrysler up front for the vehicles. That means that it's impossible for them to drag down Chrysler's bottom line. I think that Toyota uses a different system, so they have different incentives to manage their dealerships. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Dealergate Has anyone read up on this? Any thoughts? I'm not sure what to think. I do find it absurd that profitable dealerships are being forced to close. I thought the idea was to maximize profits, but that doesn't seem to be what closing profitable enterprises would do. I tend to think this is just a case of general government incompetence, rather than actual malice. But I'll admit that the statistical analysis here has made me scratch my head and start to wonder if there isn't some malice in the choices the government has made as to which dealerships to close. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's just it, why not charge $500 (or $1000) instead of $5 (or less)? I bet they'd have to reclaim the trailers and actually store them if they were to charge any real money for them. Honestly, I had thought of the trailers as a sunk cost of the FEMA response. I'm in favor of the government doing less in almost all cases (including this one). But I also think they probably ought to just give the things away if some private party has a use for them. That's a lot more efficient than hauling them off to a storage yard somewhere. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I am responding to the bolded portion of your post. If you had not meant that as your central point, for people to respond to, then why did you bold it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You stated that a preference for boys over girls was "the problem." Now you're saying that's a simple statement of fact? I disagree. I think that describing a cultural value as a "problem" is a judgement, on your part, as to the "rightness" of that cultural value. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are there basic standards that you think should apply, or only those that fall within the criminal realm (e.g. violence). I'm not trying to set up a strawman, I'm curious. Only those actions that fall within the criminal realm. Child rearing is so fundamental to the human condition that I believe it is worthy of more respect for privacy than almost any other decision(s)--not less. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It may matter if you are a parent of boy(s) or girl(s), also. I'm a parent of two girls, and although it hasn't changed my views on abortion, it may solidify them when I consider that the only people in my immediate family likely to be faced with such a choice ever again are my daughters. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's why I said (in more than one place), things like "I can't say I agree." I'm not saying that the document doesn't exist, or that other people don't agree with it. I'm saying that _I_ disagree. And in that case, yes, saying that it is so does make it true, because I am stating my personal disagreement. Surely. And then we could initiate an endless debate one what exactly is "good" for children, and who, exactly, gets to decide. I'd prefer to avoid that whole mess by simply letting each family decide for themselves what is good for their own children. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Your statement has a massive cultural bias. You are imposing your own cultural values (that boys and girls are equally desirable), which I happen to share, on a whole nation of people who do not share them, by stereotyping their cultural values as "the problem." Are you so certain of your own rightness that you would impose your value set on billions of people who do not share it? So certain that you would force me to support that imposition? I rather suspect you are, and further, I think that such conviction of our rightness has led to American cultural imperialism--whereby we militarily occupy foreign nations and justify ourselves by saying that bringing them in line with our value set is somehow "good" or "right." People (yes, even those heathens over there) have a right to determine their own way of life and cultural values, even should they live by a set of values we do not share. It is the grand folly of 20th (and 21st) century America that we do not respect that right. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The problem with that is that you'd have to get the state involved with removing the zygotes and nurturing them in an artificial environment. Which would open up another huge mess. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm pro choice on everything. Taxes, wars, children--I think that people ought to choose for themselves, and not be forced to do things by others, no matter how many, and how well organized into governments. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You also have court decisions and medical procedures going the other way. The easiest two examples are the one Rush gave (additional charges for injuring or killing a fetus) and the fact that virtually every emergency room in the nation considers a pregnant woman to be two patients. Just stating your opinion (which is pretty congruent to my own, incidentally) doesn't make it so. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow. I can't say I agree. That document has endless references to "state parties" and their provision of care for children. I'm not a fan of all the discussion of how the state should be the one looking out for children, mostly because I have yet to see state actors show competence in anything, and I damn well don't want them to decide what care my children do or do not need. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You see, here's the problem, both in SC and in US politics generally. Everyone assumes that there are only two sides. Let's call them "Rush" and "Nancy". Along with that assumption comes other assumptions: that if you're not a Rush, you're a Nancy. That if you like anything Rush does, you must hate Nancy, and all her works (and vice versa). Unfortunately, the real world isn't that simple, and all the plain old folks in the middle are just watching the two fringes pushing back and forth. The world has more than just Rushes and Nancy's in it. A lot more. In fact, although the Rush's and Nancy's tend to make the most noise, and try to fool people into thinking they are the only two people who's opinions matter (in fact, they help each other push this notion by trying to lump anyone who disagrees with them on any issue into the other camp on all issues), there are a lot of people who don't like either of them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Simply declaring something to be true does not make it so. Your statement is a good encapsulation of the terms of the debate, but that hardly concludes the debate itself. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

To be fair, I still see people calling George W. Bush "shrub" in this forum, and it's been a lot longer for him--plus "Bush" is a heck of a lot easier to spell than "Obama". -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What about 1000 gallons? Seriously, I'm curious where you'd draw the line. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

They want the UK to occupy and rule most of the middle east? Or, are we looking back further? Ottoman rulership may be hard to find at this point... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Is it high enough to jump? Want to borrow a BASE rig? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What is "non-violent abuse"? Do you have some theory that sterilization would reduce their recidivism rates? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Check this out. I did it more than twice--I think about 5 times--before I automated it. I figure it's likely to come in handy over the next 8 years. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Strictly speaking, you don't need a parachute either--do you happen to have one of those? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A "right" is, by definition, something you are free to do that requires nothing from another person. Unfortunately, loving parents are not a right, because it requires action on the part of another (the parent). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm pro choice. That's actually one of the reasons I think Roe is bad law. I believe that the right to be free of government intrusion in reproductive decisions could quite easily be found in the 9th Amendment. I am disappointed that the court went through the mental gymnastics they did to create a weaker right founded in the 1st and 14th amendments. "Privacy" is not an afterthought found in the "penumbra" of other, more important rights. The right to be let alone is, to misquote some dead white guy, the right most prized by civilized man. To find it only as an afterthought created by other rights is, in my opinion, both a travesty and an error. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com