Walsingham

Listen, i think we're talking on two divergent lines here, chaps. 1) UHC, a la the British or continental systems. You pay tax, and a slice of that goes to protecting your body against germs and accident in the same way that a slice goes to protecting the same body against criminals and foreigners. 2) The system of government administered healthcare which I'm beginning to grasp is what's actually on the table in the US. I'm going to play to the crowd by acknowledging my discomfort with point two. I suspect that the system as it stands will be immensely complicated and completely fail to address the needs of the people, because it's a filthy public private partnership lash-up. Which means you're expecting semi-conscious civil servants to outwit the insurance industry in regulating how they insure people. This is like trying have a biting contest with an ant colony. Yeah, your jaws are huge, but they've got hundreds of them. I am going to go further in pandering to the crowd and suggest that this is because Obama hasn't got any bloody balls. It's all very well talking about forging a consensus, but if there's one thing I've learned it's to know when you're going to have to annoy someone just get on and do it. The insurance industry and their paid goons aren't going to like anything which diverts this enormous feast they've been having. As Aram says, send in teams of young men armed with billy clubs and angry wolverines. Get it over with. For the love of all that's holy either do it right or don't bother. It's like circumcision; there's no compromise solution here. However, I'm now going to lose all the goodwill I may have stirred up by pointing out that painting UHC as communism is equally bloody silly. We've all had a damn good laugh at Lord of the Flies' recent insistence that communism is great because the proof is in the pudding. Communist countries suck. In the same vein I point at UHC and demand to know when I can expect to have to swear allegiance to the proletariat? I haven't been on Army premises in a few months but the last time I checked it was the ****ing queen's picture on the wall. Moreover we've had UHC for something like 80 years.

As a premature baby, kept alive only through the good grace of the NHS, AND debonair orc about town, I'm living proof this assertion is false.

Far as I know the EU army's a paper construction. You only have to look at our colelague's commitment to supporting action in Afghanistan to see how bloody useless we'd be as a political entity.

posit A: The concept of extremist violence is just one part of the acts of violence, but it is the precursor to violence just as building a bomb is the precursor to exploding it posit B: Identifying and prosecuting any precursor is fraught with dangers. If you had been following any of the counter-terror trials in the last few years you would know that. The defendants ALWAYS claimed that the components and activity had other purposes, scientific research or theatre for example. How exactly does that differ in your view from someone who says they write hate for satirical effect? posit C: Unless one aims to disrupt the precusors of violence we can only hope to mitigate the effects of violence, and 'freedom' can't bring back the dead or crippled Now I fully accept you may have a different metric for your decision, but the way I add up the costs and benefits, having seen first hand the results of ethnic cleansing and racism, is that a few comedians can make 'knock knock' jokes instead.

Okay, explain to me how that relates to the discussion we're having, because you have managed to lose me. Seriously, I don't think we're arguing the same thing. You are trying to establish a connection between "targeting illegitimate weapon sales is perfectly fair" and "therefore targeting illegitimate ideas should be too, since they are a necessary component in hate-induced violence". I'm saying that that is a sophism, as there are no illegitimate ideas. Only wrong ideas. The a difference between the two is deeper than semantics - it rules out any state interdiction. Unless being wrong is a crime? Being wrong (in the context of the collective state) is the definition of crime, surely? And while I have no option but to accept that intellectually there are no illegitimate ideas, wanting to force - for example - all coloured people into death camps is something I'm comfortable defining as illegitimate. Call me reactionary and take away my monocle. You are grasping at straws, and you know it. You don't eliminate the oxygen in the air everywhere to prevent fire and explosions. You do so in certain, very specific circumstances. Just like you don't allow political displays in a certain few cases (such as the military). You are arguing against propaganda (a certain rationale) across the board... the equivalent of banning oxygen. What I want to know is what is your threshold for "targeting propaganda"? Be as specific as you can, please. And tell me how'd we go about dealing with it, as well. Strictly speaking, yes, if you took away oxygen completely you wouldn't have any fire. That's a win. But I'm not arguing for the total elimination of all ideas. I'm arguing for the removal of ideas oriented on a specific goal - inducing hate. This strikes me as no more absurd as removing arms from people fire them in the direction of people.

He's so dreamy with his dreams of totalitarian justice... *moist*

Actually, I read recently the the Royal Navy flies the skull and crossbones every time it returns from patrol with a 'win'.

Says the man most likely to be locked up... if he ever left the comforting embrace of his armoured duvet fortress. @GD: Just because Obama wants something to be more extreme than you do doesn't mean you have to go that far. Take the system as far as you want and then exert the checks and balances. You're setting up your own straw man*! Case in point. In the UK a regular police force was opposed because it was suggested that the Crown wanted to use the police to establish a dictatorship. Opponents argued that such a force would naturally appeal to a dictatorial monarch. Logic FAIL. *I think that's what it's called. I learned the term on these fora.

Had a dream this morning, and was so boggled I decided to turn it into a cartoon. Cartoon at the Red Meat Construction Site Sorry about it being a bit wordy. But the cartoon engine won't scale things properly.

How do you "target" rationales, hmm? Weapons, you can ban, jail those who sell them, whatever. It's pretty simple. Ideas, on the other hand are a much more difficult component to root out, and it's extremely easy to go overboard. Propaganda is often based on outright falsehood, but not always. The difference between hateful propaganda and inflammatory political discourse is a matter of pov, in many cases. And who are going to appoint to tell which pov is the right one? Or do we rely on "consensus"? Bah. Really? And I would argue that to a degree the NRA have a point. Billions of arms are in use worlwide or in storage that are never used unlawfully. It takes a criminal to use it unlawfully. Why should lawful users be denied their right to fire their arms in any way that doesn't result in actual harm? Not really. Very sensitive systems, or sources of extremely potent fuel are often kept in neutral atmospheres like nitrogen.

They would probably pull in wondering where the new British Pub was! Eeeexcelleent. All is proceeding as I have forseen it.

Just because I walk to my door doesn't mean I'm on the road to Damascus, mate. Seriously, you talk as if national healthcare means you have to learn the internationale and wear a boiler suit. It clearly doesn't.

Just because you're free to offend people doesn't mean that you should. If they wish to do honour to the men who fought in a specific tone, surely a statue would be a subtler way to do it? Hopefully as grist to the mill: how would people feel if the 'sons of loyalty' decided to fly a whopping 160 ft Union Jack in Boston?

I just realised that spider is holding sowrds when it has much bigger swords for legs. WHAT'S the matter, bug face? Not enough swords? Compensating for something?! He should have gone for a violin and bow.

A clever way of putting it. Without propaganda, there can be no hate-induced violence. However, propaganda itself is not violence (and therefore cannot be considered part) - and the jump from one to another is neither automatic nor trivial. It is, in fact, the circumstances that allow for propaganda to be widespread and believable, coupled with ignorance, that lead to violence. For a similarly equivocating effect I could just as easily say that air is as much a part of an arsonist's arsenal as gas. I see it like that old standby, the fire safety triangle. You need fuel AND oxygen AND heat. If any one bit is missing then no fire. It's no good fuel saying 'it's not my fault since there wouldn't be a problem if THAT guy, oxygen hadn't gotten involved'. In this case since we're looking at it, I'd suggest the extremist triangle consists of rationale (supplied by propaganda), weapons, and um... donkeys (this may need some work). Targeting weapons is accepted intervention. Why not rationale? Or donkeys?

it would only cost a third less because the actual cost is pushed off on the private. once the whole system is nationalized, the true costs will be realized. this is such an extremely weak argument that frankly, i'm surprised anyone would make it. since when is abrogating one person's rights to favor another through the use of force moral? yeah, there's a moral argument to be made, but the position you've taken here is not moral in any sense that i know of. taks 1. What do you mean by 'pushed off on the private'? It's not clear. Please explain; I like suprises. 2. You mean their right to suffer illness? I say again, because I never get tired of saying so: I've lived almost my whole life under the NHS. I had my life saved three times by NHS doctors when I was a kid and we couldn't possibly have afforded the treatment. I now have enough money to use private and I don't because I choose public, at the same time as enjoying a wide choice of private care and private health insurance.

So you fly around in a space ship that is represented as a bunch of lines and trade commodities at various planets and space stations? Basically, yes. Except the spaceship is my curveball logic, and the commodities are your face.

Exercise. Go for a walk.

My godfather, who was a foreign correspondent for the BBC and went to several warzones in the 1950s, used to remark upon a lack of foundations in post-war reporters. It was a lot harder for editors, sponsors and suspects to intimidate reporters who'd been up against the wehrmacht or the Japanese under arms. I'm not criticising the reporter here, but the institution of journalism, which often seems to lack what can only be described as the necessary in the trousers.

Couple of thoughts: - For a writer, getting 30 days in hookie is as good a career boost as any - It seems a little harsh BUT it's not as if no-one knew about the law - hateful propaganda is as much a part of extremist violence as ground glass or hydrogen peroxide

That's what all LoF topics devolve into because its exactly what he's getting at. He didn't bring this up to talk about humanity etc... its about how the evil imperialists suck yada yada. Hell, he can't even talk about forum avatars or celebrities or whatever without it somehow being tied to his agenda about the US/western society in general sucking. Precisely.

I decided last week that I'm frankly an elitist. A paternal elitist, but elistist.

I don't actually know what the Uks record is on this sort of thing, but I do know that the atmosphere seems very different from the US Forces. The default setting for US Forces seems to be 'sod you' to everyone else. This is, I would argue, blindly damaging to the reputation and effectiveness of those forces. Of course I accept I'm biased. I'm also jealous since the UK emphasis seems to be to hang peopel out to dry at the first hint of trouble.

Gentlemen, please. LoF has been quite clear on the matter. He doesn't recognise an inevitable connection between totalitarian rule and communism. He therefore doesn't recognise the inevitable abuse of power, laziness, and mismanagement which arises from (totalitarian) communism. It is senseless to pursue it further.

Probably worth its own thread, tbh.