Retribution

[quote name='MistressRoxie'][color=#9933ff]Gas in my part of New Jersey is about... $3.81 for regular. Gas in NJ is a bit less than the surrounding states because if I'm not mistaken, we actually have a major refinery in our state, which lowers the price a tad.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]At least you have someone pump your gas for you! The rest of us have to do it the old-fashioned way. :p I just filled up my car, where prices (for regular) are $3.91 in the DC Metropolitan Area. I consider myself lucky, though... my car's relatively fuel-efficient and only requires ~$25 for a full tank. Waiving the gas tax is simply ridiculous -- it would save the average American around $30 per month. Sorry, but this amounts to political pandering when a vast number of economists chalk it up to "useless". There is reason to believe that Big Oil will raise the price to compensate for the drop, thus putting us back where we started. And at what cost? Without that gas tax money, roads and bridges might fall into disrepair, and the government might have to get MORE loans to pay for these projects. And everyone knows the faltering American economy cannot afford any more loans, debt, or uphill struggle at this moment. If you're willing to consider a "gas holiday," it is you who is a political lamb at the slaughter. And yes, we are addicted to oil. The entire reason the prices are rising is that the Saudis have us by our balls, and Big Oil is capitalizing on that. If we could become more fuel efficient, more public transportation centralized, and look for alternative energy America in the long term would benefit greatly. Certainly, many of our products are made from oil, but it is undeniable that the gas market for cars is a massive swath of that.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]So really, their system is probably not terribly efficient or effective. And at least in a democracy, there is some incentive to streamline procedures - this is because public officials must deliver outcomes to voters, otherwise their careers are at risk. This is obviously not the case in China. Anyway I really can't say what the biggest problem in America is right now, because I don't live there. I can only give you an outsider's perspective (which may or may not be relevant, depending on the subject).[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Well, I'm admittedly no expert on the PCR's governmental structure. The thing is in much of American bureaucracy (take government agencies, such as Dept of Labor, Dept of State, CIA etc) there is no electoral process to get hired, it's a regular application process. As a result, the workers within these structures are isolated from the public will and furthermore have no incentive to perform at peak efficiency. Essentially, a healthy democracy does not necessitate a limber bureaucracy... and it's difficult to streamline it anyway. I think the bureaucracy, as a node in a system of overlapping centers of political power (with an eye towards check and balance), is designed to slow things down. And I think an outsider's opinion on America is not only valid, but extremely beneficial to the overall conversation. It's this general mute on international opinion that has America acting alone much of the time.[/font]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]The United States greatest problem is the fact that its methodology of approaching and fixing problems is purposefully careful, slow, and somewhat democratic. The bureaucracy that bloats out each level you go up (municipal, state, national) is unfathomable. The dim response to Katrina (especially when compared to the effort the PRC is making in wake of the Sichuan earthquake) is a good example of bureaucracy in motion, especially when placed under poor leadership. The kicker for that is that, well, trimming bureaucracy or streamlining the decision making or leadership process in the United States could possibly be best served by curtailing aspects that are democratic. That is not an ideal most Americans would outwardly support and I would imagine most are content with believing that switching out the dominant party at local, state, and national levels of governance is somehow an ideal solution.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I more or less agree with this analysis, with my only disagreement being the fact that there's no streamlining that can feasibly be done if we're working within the Constitution, etc. I think the problem of bureaucratic sluggishness is built into our government. Essentially, the slow speed of deliberation and action is a check against the passions of the moment that might not be prudent in the long-term. So if the problem is systemic (throughout all levels of governance), it'd be difficult if not impossible to fix if working within the pre-existing systems of conventionality we've grown comfortable with in the past hundred years. You bring up PRC's response to their natural disaster, which is valid. The Chinese government has responded swiftly (and at least superficially compassionate, if not genuinely) and probably due to the centralization of government they have over there. Much less 'democratization' over there. But of course, the government's exaggerated centrality is also responsible for the shoddy schools to begin with (although you could counter in bringing up the engineering of the levies in New Orleans). Sorry that I rambled (and maybe failed to present a coherent/relevant point), I just kind of wanted to say that. Cheers![/font]

[font=Arial]To be honest, the worst issue in America is the worsening [b]housing crisis[/b] that threatens to undo years of economic progress. Because of this subprime loan crisis, people's houses are being foreclosed, and this is at its core a causal agent for many other American economic woes being felt by a great swath of the country. Sometimes I think a lot of people simply don't understand the magnitude or seriousness of this housing crunch, and thus pick issues like "abortion" or "gay marriage" as a crisis afflicting the US. Yes, Iraq is bad. Yes, our foreign policy is abysmal. But I would argue that the worst issue that "we have in the US today" (as the OP put it) is without a doubt the housing crisis.[/font]

[quote name='8bit'][FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"][center][img]http://images.sodahead.com/images/polls/0/0/0/0/0/2/5/4/4/polls_jagerbomb_answer_4_medium.jpeg[/img][/center][/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial][url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=4JMOh-cul6M][b]Jäger Bombs Jäger Bombs F**kin Jäger Bombs[/b][/url] I f**kin shower in that sh**[/font]

[quote name='Shy'][size=1]My Great-Grandmother was born on Leap Day, and she was technically younger than I was when she passed away. Calendars are so weird. -Shy[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Yeah, my Grandmother was born on Leap Day and loves to tell everyone she's 22.[/font]

[quote name='8bit'][FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"]I'm also a casual smoker of [b][color=green]Mary Jane[/color][/b]. But I'm sure none of you care, haha.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Glad to know I'm not totally alone. :p I'm not really sure why anyone would want to read my post, but I'll do it for vanity's sake. My name's Alexander, and I'm interested in [post] modern art, philosophy, religion, photography, travel, and night-life (read: partying). I go to Columbia University and have since fallen in love with New York City. I'd like to think of myself as generally well-rounded in terms of knowledge and experiences, and while I'm more inclined to the humanities, I'm decently apt at math/science. I love debating, and conflict in general. This translated into brief jaunts into martial arts (Jiujitsu, Shotokan, Tae Kwon Do) but I lack the intense commitment necessary to actually getting good. I've always liked photography as well. I suppose it's in my blood -- both my grandfather and my mother were photographers, and I first picked up the camera when I was very young. I've recently invested in a Nikon D40 (and if you're intensely bored, my photos can be found [url=http://flickr.com/photos/xandrious/][b]here[/b][/url]). I guess I've more or less been interested in the visual arts for a while. As many here know, I did graphic design for a while (but found the medium unsatisfying and dry, so I quit). I really respect career artists, art appreciators, and more modern art. Dada and PoMo are my faves, if there are any fellow art appreciators out there. I have great interest in American politics, and am an Obama supporter. I'm also majoring in political science... I was Christian for a while, but converted at about 16 after being discontent with a lack of proof or tangibility that is generally associated (and typified by) the nature of "God". Instead, I'd consider myself a humanist. As juvenile as it seems, I really want a girlfriend. I feel like having an emotional partner would really make me happier and do a lot to further my growth as a person. Perhaps I'm romanticizing the concept, perhaps I would be miserable with a girlfriend, but the single life has become stale. The hook-up culture of college, while entertaining and exhilarating for a time, has simply fallen on its face. I'd much prefer spending time with a girl I care about on a weekend night than getting trashed at a party. But, incidentally, that's what I do most weekends. Hookah and parties absorb most of my weekend time. In any event, it's a pleasure to see the 'person' behind the 'username' of all you. Cheers![/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Let me guess, you?re now saying that discrimination is actually legal?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]No, the fact that affirmative action has never been [i]necessary[/i]. And the fact that the mention of affirmative action is a [i]total non sequitur[/i] and irrelevant mention when discussing gay marriage and life partnership clauses. Honestly, it was a snarky interjection, commenting on both the nature of affirmative action and gay marriage, and I'll be damned if I give him a free pass on it. [QUOTE]And what point was Morpheus supposedly bringing up? None really, other than to state a fallacy in the first place, unless the argument is that nothing should [I]ever[/I] be done to address any form of discrimination, in which case the point just might be valid.[/QUOTE] Feel free to write Morpheus off entirely, but his question concerning the alleged 'necessity' of affirmative action [i]was valid[/i]. [QUOTE]You know, perhaps if people would address the issue instead of looking like little children saying stupid things that make no sense to begin with someone wouldn?t need to point out that they are derailing things with semantic nonsense. Or as the Internet term I've heard, would quit trolling in the first place. It makes the one trolling look foolish and the one defending said troll look even more foolish.[/QUOTE] To be frank, I'm not sure when you got the go-ahead to pontificate on the nature of online forum, and I'm offended that you're prepared to call me (and rather, not my argument) foolish. My intention was never to troll, and if confronting the logic of one's argument (and rhetorical fallacies) constitutes trolling, perhaps this entire thread should stop now. I'm not looking to spark unnecessary controversy, and I'm not arbitrarily trying to start a fight. I apologize if you view my posting as such. [QUOTE]If you're going to sail in and say [U]since when was something even needed[/U], how about explaining [I]why[/I] you think something isn't needed. Instead of nitpicking like a bunch of silly kids and thinking that it somehow makes you look smart.[/QUOTE] I can certainly explain why AA is not necessary, but that would further derail the thread. I can kindly discuss this with all parties interested via PM, however. Or, if you really want me to, I can also post it here.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]By contrast, racial discrimination is [B]il[/B]legal, and yet Affirmative Action is still necessary.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I hope you understand this statement is hilariously fallacious. [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Wizard's First Rule, bucko: people are stupid.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Totally fails to even halfway address the point Morpheus brought up. [QUOTE][Font=Arial]And [I]please[/I] don't try to derail this thread into pointless semantic blather.[/FONT][/QUOTE] But it's cool if you do it, right, that makes sense. In any event, I'm glad to hear that California Supreme Court is at least exerting pressure onto the greater Supreme Court by allowing gay marriage. However I have serious doubts as to how long it will be before the conservatives strike this down... and due to lifetime membership on the Supreme Court, I doubt things will actually change for quite a while. The entire movement to impress upon others "traditional moral values" for the "greater good" seems to be a very Neo-con thing. It's the same system of thinking that justifies imperialistic foreign policy, imho.[/font]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']I know it may seem a bit cheap, but I'm going to skip most of this one too. There's just too much to talk about. Suffice it to say, God's interaction doesn't need to be taken in terms of producing certain [I]effects[/I] (in a miraculous manner or otherwise). Perhaps - I'm just throwing this out as a thought - we might understand the "interaction" of God (creation, revelation, incarnation etc.) in the way proposed by 1 John 4:16 ("God is charity"), that is, as [I]charity[/I]. And this, in turn, would shed some light on John 13:34 - humans, perhaps, can never be closer to God than when they are charitable. Even if one's knowledge and predictions fail (1 Cor. 13), in this case it matters not a bit so long as one keeps to one's charity.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Well, some translations don't say charity, but rather [i]love[/i]. I find it more poetic, but this aside... Out of curiosity, do you propose a God that is essentially the sum of (or borne out of) action? You say that God is "charity," or whatever we want to insert here, so it leads me to assume you mean God is a sort of strange gestalt composite entity. I personally have no qualms with this, but it would not be God in the strict/traditional sense, but more an all-pervading philosophy.[/font]

[quote name='Shy'][size=1]I agree that the race is over, but this election hasn't been so cut and dry either. Although the pundits have been quick to point out that Hillary can't mathematically win, Obama can't either. At last count the delegates are 1697 for Clinton, and 1869 for Obama. This isn't an enormous difference, so I understand why she has to drag this out all the way until the convention. Plus, if Michigan and Florida were to have been counted the delegate counts would be even tighter. Anyway, I've always felt like Obama will have difficulties in a general election. I think he is a very competent candidate, but I prefer Clinton for her stance on the few issues where they actually disagree. It will be interesting to see who he selects as a running mate. I'm hoping for Bill Richardson because (heaven forbid) he is the most qualified guy for the job. -Shy[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Granted, if Michigan and Florida were counted it would be a very tight race. But the race as-is is more or less concluded. The NYT [url=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegatecalculator/index.html][b]delegate calculator[/b][/url] (

[quote name='Shy']How is 'Blacks are voting as a singular bloc for Obama' any better an argument than 'The whites like Hillary'?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Honestly I see the whole "Obama can't appeal to white voters" as a farce. He won the majority of the midwest, which to my knowledge is more or less totally absent of black voters. The map can be found [url=http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html][b]here[/b][/url]. [QUOTE]Whites are the largest voting group in America and Republican candidates get elected almost exclusively by Whites. Even if every Black person in America registered and voted Democrat it would still impact only a handful of states. Candidates will need all of the Black and youth support they can get, but in most states 'record turnout' for youth and Black voters is basically anything over 10% of the population. That isn't enough to turn over the enormous White voting blocks that have dominated American politics for 200 years.[/QUOTE] I mean, to say nothing of the fact that Obama has consistently been cutting into swaths of the electorate that generally vote Republican or Independent. I simply don't believe that Clinton can make a valid argument for the General Election when she's barely holding on against a black candidate (and thus has the benefit of any unvoiced racial tensions). Obama's simply been winning more, and has had the wide appeal to court superdelegates at an exponential rate. [QUOTE]Obama's wins in southern 'lily white' states can be attributed to his popularity among African-Americans. However, in those same states the majority of voters are registered Republicans, so who cares? -Shy[/QUOTE] Not all his 'lily white' states are in the south -- he's actually won more states and by larger margins in the midwest than his victories in the south. I mean Hillary definitely gave him a run for his money, and she can take this to the convention if she wants, but this race is mathematically over.[/font]

[font=Arial]Just an interesting read: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html][i][b]Seeds of Destruction[/b], New York Times[/i][/url][quote name='Shy'][size=1]That's not correct. The Clinton argument is that Hillary's main voting block (white middle-class voters) are probably going to be the ones who will decide the general election. Whereas Obama has won more overall votes, he has done so in states that are [i]already[/i] guaranteed Democratic states. Hillary's wins are in contested states that could very well decide the election -- this is a key difference here. The fact of the matter is that blacks and youth vote almost exclusively liberal. While his popularity among those groups is commendable, it's not going to impact the election. -Shy[/size][/QUOTE] I'm honestly not sure how you can say this in good conscience -- not only has Obama won "lily-white" states in the past, he continues to do well even without the white vote. In fact, he leads McCain in the General Election, according to the Rasmussen Report for 5/11. Simply because he's not pulling in the majority of the white vote does not bode poorly -- blacks are voting as a singular bloc for him, with the youth turning out in record numbers far in his favor. Feel free to write them off, but they're what got him this far.[/font]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']1. If you believe in God, why do [i]you[/i] believe?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I don't. [QUOTE]2. Why do you think [i]others[/i] believe in God?[/QUOTE] Well, it's kind of judgmental for me to make sweeping generalizations when everyone's reason is different. To me, I would assume people feel like a higher power assigns a greater meaning to their life. Some probably see it as the entire reason to good -- to escape divine judgment. Some simply feel it's comforting to have something waiting for them in the cold abyss that is death. [QUOTE]3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What?s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?[/QUOTE] I absolutely accept evolutionary theory, and I think those who don't should truly and honestly look into it. I think faith can be reconciled with science, and a lot of times it's quite easy to do so. Personally I don't see the massive conflict. [QUOTE]4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to [i]not[/i] believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples? faith.[/QUOTE] The presence of extreme suffering in the world. The lack of actual evidence -- all the divine intervention happened thousands of years ago, and there's no more of it. Strange, no? The Bible has a great number of contradictions as well. But when you step back and examine the human race as simply another animal, just as insignificant as an ant in the scope of the universe, it is truly humbling. I don't think many people understand the vastness of the universe, how the Earth isn't even a grain of sand on a beach, how small, finite, and fragile we are. When you truly understand that, I think you'd have trouble thinking you are God's "highest creation," so special and individual. [QUOTE]5. Do you think there is such thing as ?reasonable faith?? Or, do you think they are in conflict?[/QUOTE] Absolutely there can be "reasonable faith". However I think it requires a great deal of depersonalization of the entity we consider to be "God". In the end, everyone will know that we simply don't have all the answers, and that there leaves a great amount of room for supernatural explanations. But the most powerful faiths I have seen have not been the blind, but the reasoned. Those who can appreciate the grand order of existence, the complexities of it, and simply marvel at its greatness. [QUOTE]I?m interested in your replies?[/QUOTE] Likewise, champ.[/font]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']WHO I ask you WHOhas had anything good to say about the middle class? I'm going to go with....John Mcain? Only candidate to acknowledge anyone other than just the upper and lower classes.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Both Clinton and Obama have said good things about the middle class, so you might suffer from selective hearing. That aside, Wright's comments [i]did indeed[/i] have a large degree of truth to them. I'm not saying that everything he said was right, but I am saying that I'm slightly disappointed that everyone was willing to write him off (no pun intended, ha) as crazy and anti-American. Sure, take into account all bits of information of candidates. It makes sense. It's logical. I guess the entire mess disturbs me because Clinton is willing to say Obama can no longer bring in the white vote. Her entire pitch for the Presidency has gone from being "I can stand up to attacks" to "I have a delegate lead" to "I have the superdelegate lead" to "C'mon people, I'm white!" I wish Obama all the best in the conclusion of the Democratic primary and (hopefully) the General Election.[/font]

[font=Arial]Although I really should be studying for my midterms, I'll give a quick post. [quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']It does my heart good to see two candidates battle it out, throwing almost exact view (though worded very different) to the table. Clinton says "I WILL pull the troops out when I get into office" Obama Says, "This war will end once I enter office" It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see they're fighting over the same thing. Sort've like the "hey look at that rock" "That's no rock its a pebble".[/QUOTE] This is why I find it hilarious when people say the Democratic party is experiencing a schism when ideologically we're more or less on the same page. So they're presenting [essentially] the same argument? A great deal of the Republicans tried to do the same, simply emphasizing different aspects of their careers that made them more qualified. None of them significantly broke party line either. The real race begins after the Democratic nomination. [QUOTE]That's just one example...oh and it doesn't help the fact that they're both racists in their own rights. Obama talks bad about the white middle class. So Clinton, being the more tactfull one, says "Obama is driving away the white voters, but he still has the african american voters" Boy oh Boy.[/QUOTE] I think it's incorrect to say Clinton and Obama are racists. Obama never singled out the white middle class, he said that rural citizens "cling to guns and religion." I wouldn't say that's racism so much as poor diction. To me, it doesn't strike me as Obama looking down on people, but lacking finesse in the delivery. It's not an easy point to make. Of course, no one can speak for Obama, but I will at least try to explore what he meant. Essentially, Obama was speaking about the willingness to vote based off pandering from demagogues, pandering that created fear and thus a desire to "stick with what is known". When politicians exploit this very real xenophobia, it does indeed cause voters to "cling" to what is familiar, to what they see as defining a debate. People will vote simply off abortion or gay marriage, when in reality the critical issues of America are nowhere near those polarizing debates. So to call it a racist remark, especially when [i]Obama himself is half-white[/i] is simply ridiculous. [QUOTE]White man, Boring, doesn't want much to change. (Has the balls to admit we are doing good in Iraq to a room full of democrates.).[/QUOTE] I guess I don't really see how this is admirable (aside from being able to stick to ones beliefs). Representing the establishment in every sense is not necessarily positive, and voting based off simply that archetype doesn't make much sense.[/font]

[quote name='indifference'] It doesn't not equate to subconscious "criminalization of black men" There have been studies done that show the psychology behind the escalation of force used in police cases like this. It goes along the lines of rage over someone refusing to acknowledge the law when ordered to. And that was shown to go across all races/gender/etc.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Right, but there have also beens studies showing that most people are more likely to shoot if it is a resisting black man versus a resisting white man. Of course this doesn't explicitly show this was a biased incident, but I would argue that it is a factor. [QUOTE]Racism can be a factor but not always, and it's short sighted to assume that such must be the case when we are not mind readers and don't know with any certainty what the officers were thinking.No one is saying it's not real, they're saying it's stupid to assume it's the [I]only[/I] factor that would generate a response like this.[/QUOTE] I didn't assume it was the only factor. If race had been the only reason for shooting, I guarantee you the proceedings would have been very simple. However, I do urge you to consider bias to be a potential (and very real) explanation of events. I'm simply not prepared to abandon subconscious bias as "short sighted." The cops fired a total of 50 shots at an unarmed man. One cop (incidentally the white one) fired 31 of the 50 shots -- he shot 16 times, then had to reload, and then continued to fire 15 more. I'm going to go out on a limb and call this more than a shooting of passion or fear for his own life, but one involving conscious decision-making. Of course we will never know, you're right, we're not mind readers. But certainly do not summarily dismiss the potential for bias as "short sighted."[/font]

[font=Arial]The racism of an action doesn't necessarily need to be explicit. The act of shooting someone 31 times in and of itself need not be racist, you are right. However the subconscious criminalization of black men, and the moral abandon that accompanies the action [i]while not explicitly racist, is still racist.[/i] I understand this distinction is semantic, but I would argue it's still very real. By assuming that a black male has a gun (insofar as he is simply black and thus "dangerous"), and proceeding to shoot him 50 times, the cops did stoop to a very biased choice of response. I mean, let's not let the two black cops go either -- they too are just as capable of mentally criminalizing black males.[/font]

[font=Arial]Let's not fool ourselves by saying the Bell case is devoid of racial assumptions. No, racism [i]is not gone[/i] and [i]almost everyone harbors biases[/i], consciously or subconsciously. And no, this is not me accusing everyone of being racist. There have been numerous psychological studies showing that people more frequently associate black people with violent acts and consider them to be more likely to be armed. People whose conscious thoughts tell them that black people are not inherently dangerous -- these are the people that also were more likely to associate a black man reaching into his pocket and pulling out a gun rather than a key. Go look the studies up yourself, I'm not making it up. Furthermore, the most brutal cop (in the respect that he fired 31 shots out of 50) was white (but as Nerdsy says, this does not vindicate the two black cops). He fired ~16 shots [i]then reloaded[/i] and kept going. So to say this was a "gut reaction" or "split second decision" is in my opinion erroneous. He wanted to play cowboy, and now a father is dead. Disgusting.[/font]

[font=Arial]I personally say finish high school and go to college. If you're not truly passionate about joining the military, I think you'd regret the massive commitment, intense work, and great effort that would go into the training/service. Getting a GED and going into the military seems to me the worst of all options, since you are not passionate about joining anymore, and a GED simply doesn't go as far as a diploma in a great portion of the workforce. Going to college affords you the most and (imho) best options in life. But at the end of the day, go with your head, not your heart. The heart is a fickle thing for a teenager, and it's what impelled you to join the military in the first place. Best of luck resolving things.[/font]

[quote name='visualkei']Alright, just to be a bit knowledgeable, I have some questions about tipping when you order food. I tip when I know I'm expected to, or when I get good service and I'm not expected to, but I'm still unsure in certain situations what I'm expected to tip, and whether I have to or not. This thread isn't about what a big spender you are, but just to help some of us know when we're supposed to add a little more, of if we've been tipping way too much. Or if there are certain times when it's rude to tip. So, just for my "fyi" tell me a little about tipping expectations where you're from. I know that in the states you're expected to tip between 15-20% of the bill when eating in a restaurant. I've been told that in Vietnam, sometimes tipping is considered being boastful. How about in a bar, if you only order one drink, like a 2 dollar beer, do you tip? What about tipping for mixed drinks? When you order pizza? Delivered foods?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]For delivery there's generally a tip. My experience has been 15% is what they expect... but you can always tip more (and I'm sure they'd be glad to have it). Restaurants, also a tip. Bars, depends on how much you've spent -- if it's only one or two drinks, don't bother. If you've been harassing the bartender all night, or if you're buying a pitcher of beer, leave a tip of a few bucks. Tipping in other countries gets complicated. Some places it's absolutely not done, other times it's optional.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I think you are overestimating this idea of soldiers killing civilians [i]deliberately[/i]. Although I accept that civilian casualties are high as a result of the conflict. I just do take issue with the former statement, because it's very easy to say... and in many cases it casts a negative shadow where there need not be one.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I think that this is essentially the debate in a nutshell. I won't bother blowing more hot air around. ;) [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]Having a healthy dose of skepticism without falling prey to a completely misinformed cynicism is probably healthy. And from some of the things you've said in your post, I actually think you walk that line pretty well. :catgirl: I also think you've shown that people can debate without getting personal. Thank you for that - it's a good lesson to some other members. ;)[/font][/QUOTE] Always a pleasure. [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I think your confusing audience interest with a deliberate intent to keep people in the dark. Yes we want to know about what's going on, but on a personal level, it's those stories about our loved ones off somewhere that interest us the most. As heartless as that sounds, other than to know they died and that steps need to be taken to reduce civilian causalities, people are more interested in hearing about their own. I'm sure it's the same in on the other side, the focus is on their own people not ours.[/QUOTE] There is no maliciousness in the news selectively reporting stories from Iraq, that's a fact of the press. Rather, I think their selective reporting is indicative of an overt American bias -- no, you really don't find frequent stories on Americans killing Iraqi civilians intentionally. I would assert that they're usually stories of collateral damage or accident, not of direct intent to murder (or at least that they're construed as such). Generally war crimes are only reported on when the reporter was a firsthand witness of the act, which is exceedingly rare. Meh.[/font]

[quote name='James']Also, killing civilians deliberately is [i]different[/i] from dehumanizing the enemy. It's one thing to make your enemy look like a batch of numbers (which I'm sure doesn't work out that way in the field anyway). It's another thing for a commander to say "go and attack this village full of innocent people".[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This is true, but it is a well known fact that psychological distancing from and dehumanization of the enemy are heavily tied to the perpetration of war crimes. A batch of numbers, probably not. Subhuman? Less deserving of life? Savage and primitive? Don't think this doesn't happen in the armed forces, you'd be fooling yourself. [QUOTE]What it doesn't explain is what those deaths represent - for example, what were the circumstances of that 31%? Presumably, if you took that figure and broke it down further, you'd find that the vast majority related to combat deaths (i.e. the deaths of those who were fighting against armed forces). It is impossible to make a valid judgement on the basis of a fairly arbitary set of numbers. The 24% by "others" and the rest by "unknown" are also equally ambiguous figures. I notice that the only group named is the coalition.[/QUOTE] The numbers of the other two groups are inconsequential if we are discussing coalition deaths exacted on civilians. Of course, this is a tricky business considering you can call a civilian who was shot an "enemy combatant". The lack of uniformed resistance allows this. However, I will also admit that the coin has two sides -- often we kill enemy combatants who are then listed as civilian deaths. The conflict does not lend itself well to 'traditional' body count. It should also be noted that the majority of Iraqi deaths will not be reported to officials for the record. [QUOTE]Actually there is disproportionately high coverage of American atrocities. There's been disproportionately [i]low[/i] coverage of American/coalition successes. This is especially true with the international media (being that I'm not American, I can't speak for the local-only stations of course). But even for the local stations, there's absolutely no question that the mainstream media loves negative stories. And I mean that in general - not just war-related. When you learn about journalism in University (or any media studies really), you regularly see examples of sensational coverage by news outlets. We're always hearing about the shooting, the robbery, the swearing grandmother, etc etc... Often these stories are pushed forward in place of potentially more important news. So it's quite a well-documented aspect of news coverage, especially given that much news coverage globally is now leaning towards a more entertainment-centric angle.[/QUOTE] Largely true, but you are simply wrong about American media reporting American atrocities. Certainly, there are many American failures and shortcomings published (overwhelmingly so, actually), with the press generally highlighting body counts (on both sides), but there is generally no blame explicitly placed on the head of the armed forces. American media focuses with a fine lens upon American deaths -- every single casualty or prisoner of war is generally accounted for, with the POWs receiving a great amount of media coverage (see: [url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5DE1E39F931A35757C0A9659C8B63][b]Jessica Lynch[/b][/url] for case in point). However, outlets such as the New York Times or Washington Post do not generally carry stories on American soldiers killing civilians intentionally. You will hear things here and there (see: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/world/middleeast/08blackwater.html?scp=20&sq=Blackwater&st=nyt][b]Blackwater shootings[/b][/url]), but very rarely are there reports of Americans destroying the lives of civilians (intentionally or not). It's perceived to be un-American and despicable stateside, so it's not really done, save for the most flagrant violations of human rights (Abu Ghraib, but again, I don't believe this was the "one bad apple" either). Perhaps my opinions are overstated, but I approach an agency that dehumanizes its opposition with great caution and skepticism. By lowering the value placed on life, combined with general frustration at one's situation in a conflict, you are bound to have numerous war crimes. You're right, it's not the majority of people in the armed forces, but there is systemic encouragement to dehumanize -- it simply makes it easier for them to do their job. I fear there are many tragedies that result from this questionable practice of making the opposition seem subhuman.[/font]

[quote name='James']This kind of contradicts your latter statement to some extent, I think.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I wouldn't say so. The first paragraph was essentially saying that there are a vast number of cases (recorded and unrecorded by Western media) wherein soldiers kill civilians intentionally. This stems from the military's processes of training, which I believe dehumanize the enemy to a large extent. The second paragraph said that despite the fact I believe many soldiers do commit these crimes, there are also a massive number of good soldiers out there. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. There is tension in this division, however I think it's a logical distinction to make. There are many terrible people in the military, but there are also many good ones as well. [QUOTE]It is important to make a distinction between the deliberate killing of civilians and situations where civilians become casualties of a conflict in general - of course the end result is the same and is horrific, but it's unreasonable to suggest that deliberate attacks on civilians are systemic when they are clearly not. So it really depends whether you are talking about deliberate killing (i.e. murder) or accidental death.[/QUOTE] Accidental death is not what I'm talking about; I speak of intentional murder. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QolkuDjm8fM][b]This video[/b][/url] played a significant role in making me question what I thought about the armed forces, and I highly recommend it for everyone. No, it's not graphic at all, just very sad. [QUOTE]I think it's true that soldiers go through unimaginable horrors during war - horrors that most of us could never fathom in our wildest nightmares. As such, we [i]know[/i] that some soldiers have highly adverse reactions (and can commit serious crimes). I believe that this aspect is often ignored and shouldn't be.[/QUOTE] Certainly -- soldiers with PTSD should not be ignored or laughed at. It's a very serious thing. Conversely, however, this does not give them free license to grenade a family or shoot a child. [QUOTE]Unfortunately I think that the media plays a large role in distorting things - not so much in terms of not telling the truth, but in terms of misrepresenting a vast organisation. If you think about the sheer number of soldiers involved in any given conflict and then compare that to the amount of [i]actual[/i] deliberate crimes or legal violations, you'll find that the ratio is pretty small.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure about that. Unfortunately, there is no way to know exactly how many war crimes have been committed, but I would say that the number is higher than you'd think. There have been 601,027 violent deaths during the Iraq War, according to the Johns Hopkins Lancet (31% by Coalition, 24% by others, 46% unknown). That's disgustingly high. I understand war kills, but I can't help but feel that when in doubt, our soldiers were told to shoot first, ask questions later. [QUOTE]Unlike some, I don't believe that this is a "left wing conspiracy", though. Instead, I think it's par for the course with the news media in general - I mean, even with domestic news, so much that gets reported is negative or scandalous. We never hear good stories about politicians for example - the same is true with celebrities. It's often about sensationalism and negative news.[/QUOTE] Certainly, Americans hear all about our soldier's casualties and how progress is not being made, but there is [i]almost no media coverage of American atrocities committed[/i], so I'm not sure you can say "the media preys on negativity" in this regard. [QUOTE]As some of Sandy's comments have evidenced, it's probably not a good idea to make sweeping generalisations - especially if they aren't terribly well-reasoned.[/QUOTE] If this is to insinuate that my comments aren't well-reasoned, I'm offended James. Simply because I feel war crimes have been committed does not mean I'm on logically weak ground.[/font]

[font=Arial]While Sandy's intial comments were a bit overstated (in my opinion), I think there is some truth to them. Let's not fool ourselves here. The armed forces kill civilians during wartime -- both intentionally and unintentionally. To say otherwise would be a ridiculous denial of recorded fact. I know the US Army has carpet bombed residential areas, shot all on sight, taken no prisoners more than just once (to say nothing of the situation in Iraq). The incidents that make it to the news with a soldier killing a family are not isolated or "bad apples" -- a lot of the time, they are indicative of a systemic devaluation of human life that might be intrinsic to the armed forces. On the other hand, I'm absolutely unwilling to say the armed forces are all cold-blooded murders and rapists who have zero regard for human life. There are countless good men and women doing what they believe to be the moral thing. I respect this greatly. I know that without our volunteer army, I wouldn't be able to enjoy my rights, my nation couldn't be protected. I express the sincerest gratitude for this service.[/font]