« Michael Moore | Main | Christopher Hitchens »

Links With Your Coffee - Monday




in regards to the kidnapping story, i wanted to comment because I go to a law school and have taken US Immigration law, and am thus familiar with what the Bush Admin is asserting. The Bush Admin argument stems from a lower court decision (I dont remember for sure, but I think it was appealed and ruled in favor of the prosecution by the appellate court), this decision was based on an incident that occured in Mexico. What happend basically was that Us government agents working in conjunction with the Mexican undercover police kidnapped a drug cartel kingpin and brought him to the US. The kingpin argued that he was kidnapped and thus that his detention in the Us was illegal. The Us court ruled that how he was brought into the country was irrelevant, that the US had authority to try him and that because he was now under Us jurisdiction the courts of the US had authority to prosecute him. Thee mexicans understandably did not complain since for them the whole point was to get the kingpin tried in a Us court for crimes he committed in the US then to try to have a trial in Mexico where he could potentially escape justice.

What seems to be happening is the Bush Admin is expanding on this decision to make the argument that they have total authority...that is not what the case really said, but it can be inferred, so Bush is not basing this on a fantasy. Our courts can and do make a lot of bad decisions.

Funny enough I saw the debate between Dennett and D'oucheouza before you linked it up. It was the worst and most tediously revolting thing I've ever seen. Aside from D'oucheouza's regurgitation of the same ol' tired out bullshit (you know the drill people: 20th century crimes committed by atheists, Pascal's Hucksterism, etc.) Dennett tired the life out of the debate. Dennett first starts giving a lecture without getting to the meat of the argument and then when faced with D'oucheouza's various bullshit he doesn't even know where to begin. Dennett is an intelligent man but a poor debater. D'oucheouza on the other hand is just a poor everything (in part 4 he called South Korea a continent; I don't make this shit up). I was actually expecting a more sophisticated exchange given Dennett's presence but was completely disillusioned.

Time for the Mormons to do some fancy dancing...

Dillehay notes that the current study excludes Native Americans from the United States and eastern Brazil. ... "Even if Native Americans share a lot of ancestry from a single origin, there still could be contributions from other groups," says Schroeder.

Mormons created this dance a long time ago - it's called the limited geography model...

Very interesting though and thanks for the link!

Dennett and Dinesh don't even really respond to each other's arguments. It's as if they aren't even debating each other, but merely answering their own skewed ideas of what they think the other is asking.

Typical atheist/believer bullshit arguments that go nowhere...

I think people here are too critical of D'Souza and too sympathetic to Dennett to fairly judge this exchange anyway.

You would need people that don't have a stake in one view or the other, which would almost impossible to find - maybe some Chinese could provide some decent criticism of the debate...

I hope other countries take the same course of action and start kidnapping the American corporate scoundrels who extort, pillage and plunder from their countries as we're doing to the Brits who've wronged us. I'd love to see a few Fortune 500 CEO's shipped off to Third World prisons for the crap they've done. Unless this is another case of "we can do it but you can't" that seems to define our immature foreign policies.

"They're coming to take me away".

Guys will like the girls' long legs and short skirts.

@the mormon story:

Do you mean this dance? that happened just a couple weeks ago?

From the article:

It's a matter of some controversy, then, that LDS officials have now changed the text of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, softening the assertion made when the Introduction was first included, in 1981, that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new text says only that the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

And the dance continues with the scholars of the mormons, the funniest is this one:

"The change does not mean that the Lamanites are definitely not the 'principal' ancestors of the American Indians -- they could still be," Bigelow said. "After all, you could interpret the word 'principal' in several different ways, such as 'most spiritually significant,' or 'largest number of ancestors,' or 'biggest proportion of DNA.'

I'm not entirely sure what 'spiritually significant' means... anyone care to take a guess?

OK. Kidnap. Just don't regulate big business (they're only looking out for what's best).

[quote]I'm not entirely sure what 'spiritually significant' means... anyone care to take a guess?[/quote]

Doing a google search most of what I could find was regurgitated post of a listing of 100 movies. A few links also involved ancestral grounds of aboriginal groups which they considered "spiritually significant".

Still can't figure that one out, is it something like a form of nostalgia or something? Has no specific relevance to people outside of the group but for some leaves a warm fuzzy feeling? I duno.

Wow, Dinesh is an absolute lunatic. I'm sorry, but the more I hear him speak the more rediculous he sounds. Why is he yelling like he's in the middle of a freeway?

Dennett is a horrible debater. There are sooooooo many points he could have called Dinesh on, but didn't, it's inexcuseable.

"I'm not entirely sure what 'spiritually significant' means... anyone care to take a guess?"

Abraham is considered to be the most spiritually significant ancestor of modern day semetic peoples; David was among the most spiritually significant ancestors of Jesus.

I have 16 great-great grandparents. One or two of them made decisions (e.g. coming to America) that makes them more significant to me than the others. Most American people call themselves Danish, Swiss, German, etc., based on their name, without any knowledge of the total composition of their DNA. The names of nationalities and ethnic groups which we commonly use do not match up very well with DNA studies about where the people came from. That makes some ancestors more culturally important than others.

There has been for quite long time evidence that most of the native American peoples probably came from Siberia originally. But there are some anthropologists who argue that other people could have come in other ways, though none of these anthropologists claim to have evidence specifically supporting the Mormon account.

I would just like to point out that Dinesh D'Souza is another affiliate of that institute which has strongly influenced American politics and the media these past few decades, and especially so these past 7 years:

The American Enterprise Institute


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives