NorthSideSox72

Perhaps we are not that afar apart on many aspects of this issue. We do appear to be at odds regarding direct federal funding, however, so let’s dive into that… You cite some of the specific artistic contributions to our country that were made partially possible by NEA funding, such as the Vietnam War Memorial, and the Steppenwolf Theatre Company. These pillars of deep expression have undoubtedly enriched the lives of thousands if not millions, and their presence tugs at our heart-strings. I would make no argument that as an equation in a vacuum, sources ignored, the ROI on the cost of those projects wasn’t worthwhile. My disagreement with you is in the source of the funding. Put simply, I do not believe the word “welfare”, which you used as the legal node of attachment for funding of the arts, can be stretched that far. Let’s take a look at what welfare is defined as… From Wikipedia: • In social policy, social welfare refers to the range of services intended to meet people's needs. This is the use of the term in the idea of the welfare state. • In the United States, welfare (financial aid) refers more specifically to money paid by the government to those who are in need of financial assistance. Even more focused is the definition in the Encarta encyclopedia, which has a specific, targeted definition addressing “work to improve welfare” (aka promotion of welfare): 2. work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory There are differing ways to define welfare, but every source I checked that had a definition in relation to legal or governmental terminology specified something like the above. I can certainly see how things like roads, mass transit and possibly health care can fall under these umbrellas. But how is it that something that is so obviously not a need can find a place there? Here is my question for you: How do you make the bridge between the legally accepted definition of government promotion of welfare, and the funding of the arts?

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:29 AM) I guess the terrorists can rationalize their behavior any way they choose. That doesn't make it right though. I guess SBMI can rationalize that Islam is a violent religion any way he chooses. That doesn't make it right though.

I just read an article today in the Trib that talked about Bush's appearences, and how they are now starting to allow some questions to be asked that aren't pre-determined. Mind you, the audiences are still all pre-screened and invite-only for these things still. But the questions are now not all "plants". Small step for man.

Very nice post, Jim. Well done. I think our bracket kicks the other brackets' asses. Group A all the way!

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) My point is...one one be EXTREMELY hard-pressed to find anything in the Old or New Testaments that can even be remotely interpreted that non-believers should perish. Not so for the Koran. I have read much of the bible (though admitedly it was long ago), and some of the Quran. I see no more calls for violence in one than the other. I think that people who dilute themselves into thinking the Quran somehow endorses killing all non-Islams are simply looking for an easy way out - "all Islam is evil" is easier to fathom than the complexity that is reality. It's intellectual laziness. And its sad that it might be used to precipitate violence.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:31 PM) Ford is closing 14 plants and getting rid of 30,000 workers to try to cut capacity by 1 million vehicles per year. The interesting thing is that their biggest expense that puts them at a competitve disadvantage with the imports is their health care costs. They estimate that health care adds about $1500 to the cost of each car that they sell. Combined with the cuts Ford made earlier in 2000, they will have cut their workforce from about 150,000 to around 75,000-80,000 employees when all is said and done. Ford has consistenly allowed themselves to be bullied by unions. I doubt Walmart would allow that to happen (unless their management takes a U-turn). Ford has also made an endless series of marketing blunders over the last 10 years. They did this to themselves - no one made them pay their line workers 130k a year. With Walmart and that ridiculous law in MD, that's different. They are being bullied by the government, which is wrong. Ford has been bullied by the unions, which is as much Ford's fault as anyone elses.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:31 PM) Ford is closing 14 plants and getting rid of 30,000 workers to try to cut capacity by 1 million vehicles per year. The interesting thing is that their biggest expense that puts them at a competitve disadvantage with the imports is their health care costs. They estimate that health care adds about $1500 to the cost of each car that they sell. Combined with the cuts Ford made earlier in 2000, they will have cut their workforce from about 150,000 to around 75,000-80,000 employees when all is said and done. Ford has consistenly allowed themselves to be bullied by unions. I doubt Walmart would allow that to happen (unless their management takes a U-turn). Ford has also made an endless series of marketing blunders over the last 10 years. They did this to themselves - no one made them pay their line workers 130k a year. With Walmart and that ridiculous law in MD, that's different. They are being bullied by the government, which is wrong. Ford has been bullied by the unions, which is as much Ford's fault as anyone elses.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Ummm...Muslims slaughtering Christians in Bethlehem, Muslims slaughtering the Sudanese, Bosnia vs Serbia, US v AlQueda, Muslims v Israel, etc., Indeed. But your point is still missing in action. How do you characterize Islam as being somehow responsible for the majority of wars in the last 10 years, which is manifestly untrue? And as I stated, if you want to use this as your method of comparison, then complete the equation. Islam has been involved in wars, as have Christians, Jews, even Buddhists. Are they all warmongering religions? Or is it that perhaps some people like to use religion as an excuse or a theme? It certainly does make it easy for some people to small-mindedly categorize a few hundred million people as evil.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) There is a HUGE difference...if you were to go back over past 10 years, and look at all of the world's wars, armed conflicts, etc., during that period, how many did NOT involve Muslims??? Hm. That would be most of them. Examples? How about all those conflicts in central Africa, over money, resources and land? Dozens of them, resulting in the deaths of millions (no exaggeration). Civil conflicts in Columbia and Bolivia? the Koreas? China and Nepal? India and it's Naxalite population? States in the Caucasus like Armenia and Azerbaijan? And besides, I thought the current Iraq war was supposedly not about Islam. And conflicts like the one in the Kashmir are less and less about religion, and more about land, security and power. Frankly, there isn't a major religion that hasn't been involved in major conflicts in the last few decades, if you want to call being used as a symbol being "involved".

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) Oh come on now, leave Lieberman alone, he's a good guy. haha this won't happen but wouldn't it be crazy if Lieberman was the Democratic nominee and McCain was the Republican nominee. I for one would be thrilled. Seriously.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) You would have been. I was just waiting for it.... ...and got impatient?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) The Koran is like the Bible. It can be intrepretted to justify or condemn damn near anything. It all depends on who's reading it. Precisely. I'm glad someone else made that comparison. I was afraid I'd be vilified if I suggested that.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:05 PM) Weblog Can Infidels be Innocents? August 7, 2005 1. This is not the Koran. This is the opinion of a few whack-jobs who, by the article's own words, are not nearly the higher-ups in Islam that they claim to be. 2. If you read the Q&A, even from the whack jobs, they don't sound too interested in killing "innocents". 3. The information flowing out of organizations that are recon=gnized as real islamic experts, as seen in some recent news stories, specify that the only "infidels" are those at war with Islam (that's not the same as saying not IN Islam). I'm sorry, but if you want to use a handful of self-appointed faux-leaders as your representation of Islam, then I'm going to start using the KKK as my guide for the conduct of Christians. Instead, I'd rather choose fairness and some perspective on reality.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) the Koran as all about eliminating the "infidels". That statement is just not even in the vicinty of the truth.

I spent fifteen years of my life playing music. I played trombone and piano, in jazz clubs and concert halls. If you were to look around my home, you would see not only a broad music collection, but also a wide variety of art, including some original pieces from artists around the globe. It is my strong personal feeling that a life without some exposure to the arts is a life wasted. I also believe it is not the place of the federal government to fund those arts. The purpose of the federal government, in general terms, is described succinctly in the preamble of the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” Simply put, the arts, and entertainment of any kind, simply have no place in the demands put on the federal government by the Constitution. Further, as is made clear by the 10th Amendment, those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government fall to the states and the people. Certainly, the terms of not only the preamble but the entire document leave some flexibility. For example, the term ‘welfare’ has been taken by some to include health care, public transportation and other public needs. But which need discussed in the Constitution provides for the cultural enrichment of the people? The federal government’s role is to provide the protections necessary to facilitate a safe, stable and free society, where our culture can flourish. It is not its role to fund those pursuits. The fact that the legislative and executive branches of our federal government have been unable to find some semblance of financial restraint in the use of our tax dollars only makes the funding of the arts more irresponsible. As for state and local government funding, there are two different answers to the question. In the case of state government, quite simply, it falls to the constitution and laws of the state in question. If a state’s constitution and/or following laws provide for such funding, then the questions is answered. Local government, I would suggest, is a whole different ballgame. As most of us would agree, what the citizens want from our city and county governments includes implementation of basic services, but also the economic development of communities. The local wheels require the grease that is cash, and that cash comes from increasing the tax base, often by way of bringing in new businesses and residents. Funding a community band concert season, or a special tax district for entertainment-related business, could make a community more desirable to prospective residents. But ultimately, at the local level, such funding should be dictated by the will of its tax-paying residents.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 09:04 PM) OK, waitasec, I'm missing something. Have we been told which side were supposed to take, pro or con, in this first question. I see the question thread but no indication of which direction I am supposed to argue. I was wondering the same thing. Could be a really boring debate if you and I are on the same side of the table.

Happy birthday, sir. May you share many more years of thoughful insight.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 06:49 PM) Sorry, I didn't think you wanted in. Maybe you two can debate each other in your own in an exhibition bracket.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:30 PM) Any questions? Since the threads are already out there, has the 24 hours started?

With all the talk here about media bias, I still haven't seen anyone respond to the fact that the case against the Clintons is laughably weak. I mean, please, read the news article posted in here multiple times by myself and Balta. 10 years and this guy doesn't have one shred of evidence, of wrong-doing OR the supposed cover-up? Come on.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 01:51 PM) Seriously, when is the Democratic party going to learn that a northeastern Liberal is going to lose every single time out? Despite her current residence, Hilary is not really a northeastern liberal. First, if you look at her voting record, she doesn't fit the profile at all. Second, in case we all forgot, she grew up in the CHICAGO area. Went to Maine East (or one of the other Maine schools).

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 11:40 PM) Your comparison of these fanatics with "all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world" is comical and absurd. Tell me how many Catholics have used airplanes as missiles. GMFAB I find nothing absurd at all in the comparison. Point stands: there are catholic a**holes, and muslim fanatics. Choosing a strategy that tries to solve the problem by making an entire religion evil is childish and dangerous. Methods of destruction are irrelevant. The fair, right and American thing to do is to punish the GUILTY, not everyone in the same RELIGION as the guilty.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 07:41 PM) Like I said a couple weeks ago, its either going to be at 10,000 or 12,000 quick. With Crude prices going crazy, it looks like it may well be 10. Actually, I believe you said that if it broke 11k, it would go above 12k fast, but that if it resisted short of 11k, it would sink fast to 10k. In any case, 11k does seem to be a pretty big trigger for people. It will be hard to break past it and stay there with oil prices this high.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 09:39 AM) Last call for debaters. So far I have: I'd like get at least two more debaters. NorthSideSouth72 FlaSoxxJim Sox4lifeinPA Wong&Owens Rex Kickass mreye NorthSideSouth?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) NSS72, just to be clear, I'm on the same side of the big picture issue. From what I can find (and I'm not a lawyer, so...), the Comitatus Act does allow exceptions -- for national emergency or war. It specifically prohibits the use of the military for "enforcement". But using military resources inside the US against enemy combatants, during wartime, seems permissable. If nothing else, Wikipedia claims that "Under 18 USC 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect US military preparedness." So some vague argument about al Qaeda trying to acquire nukes might be sufficient. And, more importantly, it doesn't address the question I raised first -- have the Army, AF, Navy, or Marines been involved in the wiretapping? I don't believe the act says anything about Justice or the intelligence agencies. OK, then regarding Comitatus specifically... I doubt specific military branches would be held-to for legal purposes, since Comitatus was (i think, correct me if not) written before the AF existed, and you'd want to leave flexibility. And I think since he's been doing it for five years, that the phrase "emergency" is no longer applicable. There is no invading force. There is no riot. I just don't see how surveillance of citizens can fall under emergent military force. And the idea of the Act is, as far as I can tell, to prevent the military from being used against US citizens. Seems to me Bush is trying to have his cake and eat it too - calls it military action so he can keep POWs, but doesn't call it military when he wants surveillance.