Jump to content

Mplssoxfan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,545

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Mplssoxfan

    Civil rights theoretical quiz

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:44 PM)
    So I am curious exactly how far people are willing to sacrfice in order to protect the rights of others? This is obviously a purely hypothetical thing, but I am curious about how other people on here would react to specific situations. If anyone else has some good ones, feel free to add them.

     

    Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect? I would understand. I might not be very happy at first, but I understand limitations of interrogations.

     

    In the same situtation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur? This is pretty vague, as is the first question. Where is this imaginary person being held? Near a battlefield? Cook County Jail? What charge is s/he being held under? If someone has been arrested for a visa issue, they should have representation.

     

    If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen? I was told once by a lawyer that everyone has a right to council, regardless of their degree of culpability. If I were a defense attorney and was asked to take the case, I would not dismiss it out of hand. Ultimately, I probably wouldn't take it, though. There are things in this world more important than money.

     

    Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely discusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography? Child Porn is illegal and has been held to be by every jurisdiction in the land, so I wouldn't be defending anyone involved with that. Once we start carving out too many exceptions to the First Amendment, it becomes cheapened, though.

     

    Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others? I don't have any, but I'd be leery letting kids see or be exposed to certain things at certain ages. Common sense, I think, not to let 10-year-olds read Playboy or see Pulp Fiction.

     

    If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certianty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member? I'm not a military expert, but I would guess that the threshold is pretty high. I don't seriously think that any President throws a cruise missile at a target with 25% certain intel. Any civilians around Osama Bin Laden are utter fools for being there or allowing themselves to get into that situation. Again, I'd be angry, but I would understand.

     

    High School Parents Trying to Ban Book

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    Tex, it's tough for me to tell what it is you're trying to get at here. If a parent wants to take their concerns to the School Board, that is fine. I would hope the School Board had the good sense to allow the teacher to teach.

     

    Are you advocating that a School Board should accede to the wishes of anyone with an axe to grind? If a history or lit teacher wanted to present Uncle Tom's Cabin and someone objected to that, should it not be used? Should Of Mice and Men be thrown out? Where do you propose we draw the line?

     

    Should every teacher in a school system submit their lesson plans to the electorate every year to be voted on yea or nay? Or to the School Board?

    High School Parents Trying to Ban Book

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    If you want a challenging class, you must have challenging material. I took a class in High School that featured Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I wonder how these parents would have dealt with that? I'm actually fairly certain that not many High School teachers would even try to teach that book.

     

    One thing is almost a certainty in this mess: more kids are going to read these books than would have before. I'm sure that's not the outcome that these parents want, but it's going to happen.

    High School Parents Trying to Ban Book

    in The Filibuster

    Posted

    QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 10:14 PM)
    Is there any books that you would deem unsuitable for that age level? At what age should parents stop being parents and just turn their kids over to teachers to raise?

    It was a voluntary elective. If the parents don't like the books, withdraw the kids from the class. If the parents want to ban the books from the class, and therefore deprive the other students the opportunity to read those books, that's not their prerogative.

    For Dems only.

    in The Filibuster

    Posted · Edited by Mplssoxfan

    QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2007 -> 09:59 AM)
    No real answer?

     

    Serious question here.

     

    The US captures someone who they know has information regarding an imment terror attack on US soil. They have no idea who, what, or where. What is the most effective way to get the information from him? I always here about what doesn't work, but what actually does work? What is the US government missing?

    I'm not an expert in this field, hardly, and I don't have any links for what I'm about to write, since I've read it all over a long time frame, so take it FWIW.

     

    Interrogators like to say that everyone has needs, doesn't matter who you are, or where you come from, we all have psychological needs. What a skilled interrogator does is identify his subject's needs and exploit them. This is why they use tricks like leaving a light on (or off) for extended periods of time. When the lighting returns to a more acceptable cycle, the interrogator plays off that "favor" and speaks to the subject some more. The subject identifies the interrogator as someone he can trust, and the relationship can and will often bear fruit.

     

    This approach may not work as quickly as some of you might like, but it does work. Torture? Well, torture was used by totalitarian regimes to extract confessions. Usually, the confession was already written by agents of the regime and the person being tortured had but to sign it, but that is what torture has been used for historically. Well, that and sadism.

     

    Many of our professional military interrogators are displeased at the tactics used by CIA and portrayed on "24". In fact (sorry, no link, but I'll try to dig one up), military intelligence honchos had a meeting with the producer of "24" to try to educate him on tactics and to try to get him to stop the ridiculous way torture is used in the series. One of their arguments was that they had to put in another layer in their instruction curriculum to teact the "24" syndrome out of their students.

     

    That's at least an attempt at a real answer, I reckon.

     

    Here's a link to the "24" thing. It's a pretty interesting read.

    Catch-All Anything Thread

    in SLaM

    Posted

    QUOTE(knightni @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 05:58 PM)
    Then, you need to find new pastrami.

     

    From Wikipedia:

     

    The raw meat is salted (through immersion in a thick brine), then partly dried and seasoned with various herbs and spices (such as garlic, black pepper, marjoram, basil, allspice, cloves), and smoked. In the United Kingdom and the United States, beef is used and the meat is steamed after smoking, before serving.

     

    Clearly, you need to heed the advice of knightini, and find better pastrami.

     

    Official College Football Thread

    in A and J's Olde Tyme Sports Pub

    Posted · Edited by Mplssoxfan

    QUOTE(dasox24 @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 12:00 AM)
    Yeah, he had a bad 42 minutes, but that last 6 showed me a lot about his make-up/character. He's not the kind of player that is going to fold under pressure. As for his interceptions, they really don't bother me if he is always going to give his team a chance to win. i.e. Brett Favre...

    No offense, but that wasn't a high school game.

     

    Let's try a bad (unproductive) 54 minutes and a good 6 minutes. And I liked his production even though it cost me money.

    Official College Football Thread

    in A and J's Olde Tyme Sports Pub

    Posted

    Didn't see anything on this earlier, so here goes.

     

    The Big East is apologizing to Louisville for allowing a touchdown on a fair catch called by the UConn punt returner that was run back for a TD.

     

    Two observations...

     

    First, the officials in this game should never be allowed to officiate another FBS game. Failing that the Back Judge and Replay Official should be told to go work Class 1A games in Vermont. Seriously, WTF? How can everyone on the field miss that? That's got to be reversible, doesn't it?

     

     

    Second, if that UConn returner is back to receive a kick for the rest of his career, he would be well advised not to call for a fair catch, especially in a blowout. If I'm on punt team, and I see this idiot wave his hane, I'm looking at a spot about seven yards behind the cheater and trying to separate his legs from his torso. I know I'll be ejected, but at least I'll have sent a little message.

     

×
×
  • Create New...