Free Republic

The author of this post either misunderstands or mischaracterizes Scheuer's arguments. I have read both of Scheuer's books. His point is simple: take Al Qaeda at it's word. When they say they will attack and kill, they will.

He does not argue that America's foreign policy is an affront against Islam. Rather, he argues that most Muslims actually believe that we are attacking Islam, even though he thinks that they are wrong.

With respect, I disagree with some of what you said. Since your response was somewhat lengthy, I will do my best to address everything at issue here.

Malthus' basic principle was both incorrect and illogical. Succinctly stated, his idea was that an unregulated population grows at an exponential rate (i.e., 2,4,8,16) whereas the food supply grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e., 1,2,3,4). Thus, an inevitable catastrophe occurs when there are more persons that food to sustain them. I do not think that this can be defended on any level.

Recent research and empirical evidence show Malthus' predictions to be flawed. For example, the population has continued to grow, yet the prices of resources and foods relative to wages has decreased, indicating the supply of food (and resources) has grown relative to population size. This paradox can be easily resolved because Malthus made two assumptions which are, to one degree or another, flawed.

First, it is widely acknowledged that population growth is almost never exponential, but instead influenced by so many factors that no simple mathematical model can describe it. Demography since Malthus's time show that population growth rates flatten and then invert as a function of economic prosperity. Malthus lived in the time when England went through a geometric growth before birth rates flattened, and he failed to study the large populations in Asia which existed over multiple millennia where such flattening of birth rates has been evident.

Second, the growth of food production has never been restricted to the rudimentary processes Malthus described. Never. Twentieth-century researchers have provided thorough documentation of the process of agricultural intensification (pioneered by economist Ester Boserup) by which production is raised in response to population increases and market demands. Production has also been expanded greatly by societal and technological advances in agriculture. As such, the food supply has outgrown population and is expected to continue doing so. Even though this growth has been based heavily on a finite resource, petrochemicals, and may yet prove unsustainable, the market economy is responsible for great increases in productivity, and is internally sustainable.

Also, Malthus clearly underestimated the power of the human capacity to increase the means of human subsistence on Earth. For example, Malthus did not fully understand the additional leeway built into the agricultural system - diets composed of different kinds of foods can have a wide range of different land-use efficiencies.

You referenced this last part in passing, and seemed to imply that his lack of foreknowledge about increasing technology somehow justifies this gaping hole in his long dismissed theory. This proves my point. His very foundations were flawed. Ignoring somewhat basic economic principles in his research (i.e., subjective individualism; uncertainty of the future; impossibility of quantification of human action; etc.) is no small potatoes. Malthus thought that he had a crystal ball, and was willing to hinge his economic opus on it. He was wrong. It seems to me impossible to defend a premise that is unquestionably flawed by justifying the flaws.

As for the politics causing starvation, I agree for the most part, although the physical landscape in places like Africa play a large role as well.

But, then you get to then fun stuff when you again mention the flawed principles of Malthusian Economics. If, you are standing for the strictly theoretical principle that "we" will eventually run out of nonrenewable natural resources, then I agree. I think it's fair to say that that is undisputed (by anyone really). But, if you extend this to depletion to relate in any way to the population, as you seem to do, I, and every PhD Economist that I know, reject your analysis.

You even seem to advocate "zero-population growth," or at minimum you give it a favorable review. This is an old bird with a new walk. This is one of the latest Malthusian fads. Zero-population growth is the idea that every married couple should try and have only two kids; theoretically to replace themselves in the human race. Thus, no growth. Since this is Malthus all over again, this idea is defeated by the same arguments laid out above (and the MANY not listed).

If your problem is with depleting "resources," then contemplate the notion that the best way to get more trees is to cut down trees. We then use them, plant more, and we have twice as much as we originally began with.

If your notion is with a depleting food supply, then your problem is with the data. Facts are stubborn. The fact here is that the US has the least amount of Farmers in our history, and yet some of the largest food surpluses in our history.

This false economic theory is generally attributed (originally) to Thomas Malthus and is often referred to as Malthusian Economics. His predecessors predicted global apocalypse in the 1970s, due to overpopulation and resource depletion. I'd be curious to hear him explain why the U.S. food supply has tremendous surpluses while the number of farmers has sharply decreasing since the 1950s.

Consider the following excerpts from an article entitled "The Malthusian Trap," from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (the premiere center for the Austrian School of economics). I highly recommend this as a short and informative article on a subject that is more pervasive in liberal thought than most people know (even many liberals who espouse these ideas don't fully understand them). This article may be found at: http://www.mises.org/story/1675

"Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage. Based on this sophisticated doctrine, believers go around telling people that we should desist from further folly, for the impending threat of doom is ever looming. And government, of course, is our only hope. Another silly use of this method is finding out that the population of Italy is decreasing, hence, they project that after a while there will be no Italians left."

"It is true that if the American continent had never been populated many millions of miles of square forest would remain intact. But so what? Which are more important, people or trees? For if a flourishing conservation lobby in 1600 had insisted that the existing wilderness would remain intact, the American continent would not have had room for more than a handful of fur trappers. If man had not been allowed to use these forests, then these resources would have been truly wasted, because they could not be used. What good are resources if man is barred from using them to achieve his ends?

Then there is the common argument that at any time a natural resource is used, any time a tree is chopped down, we are depriving future generations of its use. And yet this argument proves far too much. For if we are to be prohibited from felling a tree because some future generation is deprived of doing so, then this future generation, when it becomes "present," also cannot use the tree for fear of its future generations, and so on to prove that the resource can never be used by man at all—surely a profoundly "anti-human" thesis, since man in general is kept in subservience to a resource which he can never use."

This is too good to be true! This woman is pure evil.

Perhaps he would be happy to know that here in Virginia we have a sweet little rule called an "open carry law." This means that ANYONE (who is over 21 and not a felon) may carry a pistol on their person, as long as it is not concealed. But those "lunatics" like my wife and I prefer a concealed carry permit.

I have personally heard President Bush say "War Eagle." He also could have said this (again) in the TWO times that he has spoken at Auburn in the past 4 years. Plus, he would never be a Bama fan - remember, he had no problem getting into college. Furthermore, he would never go to a school that passed a asinine SPEECH CODE designed to restrict "any behavior that demeans or reduces an individual based on group affiliation or personal traits, or which promotes hate or discrimination." Everything is warm in fuzzy up in T-town now isn't it? War Eagle!

I think your frustration is misdirected. You write as if every single article which has ever appeared on DRUDGE is of the utmost importance. Sometimes there are funny, serious, and even asinine articles. Exposing the lunacy of this shill for the liberal agenda does far more good than harm. Do you really think that DRUDGE, let alone the average reader, believes anything which that writer espouses? I would rather 14,178,297 people see just how ludicrous that article is, and you're worked up that they are seeing it at all. I think you are giving the average reader far too little credit.

Perhaps I'm missing something here but DRUDGE has "said" nothing. His sight merely links to articles in which those authors "say" something. And, from time to time, DRUDGE will post articles that he doesn't necessarily agree with so that visitors to his website will be informed on a variety of issues. In fact, the only reason that you and I can formally disagree with those who are criticizing Condi, is because we discovered the article on the DrudgeReport. I simply don't understand your logic.

Just for the record, the large majority of the verdict is punitive damages; not economic loss, mental anguish, etc.

Definitely Hitlary

I have done a public records search and found the address of Julia Cook's father, which is where she was living at the time of the shooting (I have heard no mention of her mother?).

If anyone would like this address, please FreepMail me and I will be glad to give it to you. I will be sending them a letter and some money to help with the medical bills. Although the recent news is encouraging, Mrs. Cook still needs a great deal of prayer, as does her family and her unborn son, Calvin.

I have done a public records search and found the address of Julia Cook's father, which is where she was living at the time of the shooting (I have heard no mention of her mother?).

If anyone would like this address, please FreepMail me and I will be glad to give it to you. I will be sending them a letter and some money to help with the medical bills. Although the recent news is encouraging, Mrs. Cook still needs a great deal of prayer, as does her family and her unborn son, Calvin.

I have done a public records search and found the address of Julia Cook's father, which is where she was living at the time of the shooting (I have heard no mention of her mother?).

If anyone would like this address, please FreepMail me and I will be glad to give it to you. I will be sending them a letter and some money to help with the medical bills. Although the recent news is encouraging, Mrs. Cook still needs a great deal of prayer, as does her family and her unborn son, Calvin.

I think we are missing each other completely here. Unfortunately I am very short on time, but will try quickly to address your statement.

First off, I in no way insinuated that there were no federal laws that prevented private murder. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite. My post must be read in context with the post to which I was continually referring. Also, I was merely having fun with whoever that was; as I was under the impression that no one visits these threads after they go off of the main page unless pinged (perhaps I am wrong...I am quasi new). In any event, in response to X's statement, which implied that only the government may take a life, I asserted that there were instances where this was not true. However, I did not imply that this was true in all cases. Simply put, my point countered his in stating that there was no strict bright line rule preventing private citizens from taking human life.

Furthermore, I am not sure that your notion regarding my reference to the 14th Amendment is accurate. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Specifically, with reference to your argument, I said that the Constitution clearly states that NO citizen/person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. That we both agree on. So, if NO taking of life may fall short of this standard, then all legal taking of life must, at least minimally, meet said standard. The Courts have stated, implicitly and explicitly, in cases regarding this issue that due process has occurred in a situation where the government grants the citizenry the right to take a life (in CERTAIN situations of course).

Therefore, although this taking of life is directly linked to an individual citizen, as opposed "the government," this individual is acting under the authority granted to them by the government, and it is in that way which due process may be satisfied. It could be said that Due Process may not even be be brought up in these cases because, as you stated, this is an individual acting, and not the government. But then you must rationalize how the taking of a life evaded this right. How would you do that?

The Courts, however, have seen it differently and have reasoned that when the government grants an individual the right to take a life, in certain circumstances, that a due process argument would not hold up. In other words, since the government granted the power, and in consideration of the circumstances that would be present in these limited provisions, that due process is satisfied.

If due process is a right granted to each individual citizen, then how may a government allowance of the taking f a life, not amount to the government indirectly pulling the trigger? The answer is that it does amount exactly that. Any law may be brought to court under a violation of the due process clause, and it makes no difference whether the law refers to police officers or to individual citizens. Whether the act itself is brought under the due process clause, or simply the law is brought the court would be an interesting discussion, but one that is not necessary in this case. If either were brought, your argument would fail, as it does. What you must understand is that in order for your argument to be sound, then the making and enforcing of law must not be an exclusive governmental function: a statement that I am quite sure that you are not prepared to make.

I am willing to concede that this is a gray issue. However, the Courts have come down decisively in favor of my argument. The only problem that the Courts struggle with is what to define as an exclusive governmental action. In this case, that action is law making and that is one action which has never been in question.

You must see the full circle to understand my point. While no Justice would cite the 14th Amendment to defend his/her point on this issue, as far as I am aware at least, this is, and in fact MUST, be part of their rationale; part of their reasoning in coming to this conclusion.

For your argument to be correct the due process clause must either not apply to this law/types of laws (do we even need to go there?) or, it must apply, but in the limited sense which is applicable to ONLY laws granting power/authority to governmental actors (I am pretty sure you don't want to say that either).

Short of that I cannot find any possible way that your argument is sound. Either way, the reality is that the Courts have come down decisively on my side.

Let me know your thoughts. I enjoy engaging in discussion with you, and hope you do as well. I appreciate your respectful rebuttal to which I here respond.

Just as I apparently did not get at the heart of what Eastbound was saying, I think you may have missed my point as well. I was simply arguing from a neutral standpoint, and doing so quickly: I was late for a meeting. If I am not sure what position someone takes on such a sensitive subject, then it would be uncouth to come at them without "testing the waters." It was my intention to draw Eastbound into a series of pings in which I could engage in an intellectual exchange with them, if he/she was pro-choice.

Now, on to you... It is my position that reasonable people may disagree with whether or not a fertilized egg is a human. It is also my position that this is, in fact, a human: something I believe quite passionately.

First off, you must realize that currently abortion is not the taking of a life; an action which is forbidden by state and federal statutes. This is what I was attempting to address. The argument hinges on whether or not this can be proved to be a child, and the burden of proof rests on the potential child, or society on its behalf, to prove its existence. The odd part is that almost no litigation up to this point had attacked the proof of life point. However, this is where you will see the first round of litigation focus in the coming year. So we are currently not "dealing with a situation in which private individuals are taking a life," with respect to the legal standard of life.

So if I am debating a pro choice advocate, and I bring talk of the Constitution into the conversation (implying that I will attempt to make more than just a emotional argument), then I don't have a (legal) leg to stand on, save pointing out the logical flaws and intellectual dishonesty of the Roe court (everything since Roe has simply upheld Roe).

Additionally, you noted that the Constitution does not require the states to forbid murder. Well, when speaking of a criminal act, I would hardly recommend referring to the U.S. Constitution; a document which outlines government structure, grants government power, and recognizes the rights of the individual. But, as odd as the notion of discussing criminal act in the same breath as was used to reference the Constitution may be, I find two instances in which the Constitution does "require states to forbid murder."

In the first instance, the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 is pretty void of ambiguity in requiring that all states be bound by the U.S. Constitution, treaties made under the authority of the U.S. and, notably, Federal Law. As noted earlier, there are federal criminal statutes that forbid the taking of a life and, thus, no matter what a state claims to uphold as law (i.e. not forbidding murder), the state does forbid murder: it does not have a choice in the matter.

Secondly, the infamous Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that no one may be stripped of their rights to life, liberty, or property without due process. I think it is fair to say that murder is not due process; procedural or substantive.

Finally, I would/could argue that the Constitution does "forbid states to forbid abortion." If you take the view that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which is simultaneously the truth and also untrue, and the Roe Court held that abortion was a Constitutional right, and all of the relevant litigation following Roe upheld Roe, then there IS currently a Constitutional right to abortion. If there is a Constitutional right, then the states can no more infringe on this right then they may your right to free speech or peaceful assembly. Consider what happened when the Ban on Partial Birth Abortion was signed into law. The ink wasn't even dry on the document before 3 federal courts had ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. So, as long as Roe is still good law, as it is currently, then there is a right in existence that may not be infringed on.

And, just to have fun with you - do you really believe that there is no instance where a citizen may take a human life? What about self defense? If someone were to rob my house, they would be leaking rather quickly from several noticeable holes, and the responding police officer would give me a high five as his friends carried the perpetrator out in a bag. The reason: here there was due process. I didn't have to go to a judge and ask to shoot the guy (why would I need to?), I had every right in the world to personally end that life. Here, this guy was not deprived of any rights that he possessed and currently, neither is a potential child. Furthermore, why is the government NOT taking the lives in either of these situations when it grants citizens the ability to end them?

Listen, I despise abortion. For me, I know as Christian, or even as a person, that abortion is the taking of an innocent life. But the debate is much larger than that, and, unfortunately, if I am going to discuss this in an intellectual forum, then more is required that simply stating my belief. I personally believe that abortion is unconstitutional, but I recognize that my belief has nothing to do with the reality of what is, in fact, constitutional or unconstitutional. The REALITY is that abortion is constitutional, but the FACT is that no reasonable person can find this right anywhere in there. Unfortunately, the two may coexist at the same time. This is why I was attempting to draw Eastbound into a discussion; especially since he referenced Scripture in his analysis of human existence.

Respectfully, you point out the argument, but come to no conclusion. There is also considerable evidence that points in the other direction, notably, that a fertilized egg instantaneously has the complete genetic makeup of a fully formed human being. From the moment of conception, this genetic makeup will never change.

So I point out the other argument - whether or not the deprivation of the ability to become fully formed to the age of viability is the same as taking a life.

Reasonable people can disagree on this. But the point is that there is evidence both ways. If you do not believe that this is a child, then you MUST believe it is property; you have no choice. So society has entered a debate in which one side of the argument has cast doubt on whether or not a fertilized egg through the second trimester is, in fact, a human. And the present state is that we cannot know (as society accepts the argument).

So WHY then if we may not know, and the evidence points in either direction is the benefit of the doubt not given to the potential life. We have essentially said, "well we just can't know... sooo I guess we should just do it." These people grant a potential fresh life less rights then they grant a person who stole their car: a presumption of innocence until shown otherwise.

PS- Scripture speaks multiple times of the Lord knitting someone in their mother's womb (Job 31:15, 139:13)

Here is what I found. It seems that this all stemmed from an interview on ABC where he clearly stated that he would not oppose civil unions.

In re Matt Daniels (author of the Federal Marriage Amendment): "He's the guy who wrote the Federal Marriage Amendment, which opposes gay marriages. After successfully blocking a more radical version of the amendment that would have outlawed gay civil unions--and risked alienating moderate voters--Daniels' Alliance for Marriage won Bush's support with language that simply defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
Source: Time Magazine, Nov.15 2004

"Even President Bush endorsed civil unions, "if that's what the states want to do," in an October interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," disagreeing with his own party's platform."
Source: Grand Forks Herald, November 10, 2004

"Even Mr. Bush, toward the end of the campaign, said: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do."
Source: The Record, November 10, 2004

"Even President Bush, obviously concerned about the moderate middle, came out in support of civil unions in the final days."
Source: The Boston Globe, November 9, 2004

"In a gesture of moderation aimed at the same voters, Bush told ABC-TV he supported civil unions for homosexual couples 'if that's what a state chooses to do.'"
Source: Associated Press, October 26, 2004

"Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President George W. Bush's tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people -- laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples. "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC television. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions."
Source: Associated Press, October 26, 2004

No...they got it right, REMEMBER! November 10th is the day that will forever be set aside for the democrats to vote. Since there are so many people now who would like to opportunity to vote, there has been a separate day set aside just for democrats. This will give all of the polling locations time to sanitize the area after all of those fat, greedy, Christian conservative voters come through the lines

It's unfortunate when you resort to paying someone to listen to your liberal partisan drivel. But hey, Bush is good for jobs; especially Floridian psychologists. But, don't be too hard on them- you would have to pay someone too if 3,911,825, or 52%, of your neighbors turned a deaf ear to your "emotional trauma."

I think I've got about fifteen free this Thursday afternoon after lunch. I'll schedule that time to be surprised.