This debate has happened more often than I think anyone would like or approve. Still, all sides have yet to waver or give. At one point we were able to force Scott to concede that a) the world is getting warmer and b) humans have some sort of effect on climate, no matter how marginal. That's it.
The following discussion takes place over a day and deals mainly with what young Americans are thinking about in this, now fully accelerated, election year -- religion, race, foreign relations and quantum mechanics. All grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors have been preserved as those writing rapidly at their jobs as analysts and compliance officers and producers and architects marked in their email passion.
From: Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2008 7:41 PM
To: Scott; Sean; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Bloomberg
Can we talk about the possibility of Michael Bloomberg entering the presidential race? Would the fact that he is Jewish (though, I don't believe, very religious) have an effect on the Muslim world? If it does, should we care?
I think he has the business acumen to win over conservatives and the social beliefs to win over liberals. Frankly, I think people are sick of having two fucking choices (oh, wait, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and Steve Forbes) and there is no way Bloomberg could lose. I think I'd vote for him.
From: Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:34 AM
To: Jordan; Sean; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
I like Bloomberg as well for his fiscal responsibilities; decreasing government spending; social policies and most importantly because he is secular. Do I think that some people in the world would look unfavorably on Americans because of the religion he holds? Yes. Would that factor into my vote? No. I vote for people based on their ideals and what they perceive to be the Right Way and the Wrong Way to do things. I do not vote for people based on what other people would perceive that persons value to be. I'll accept a dual on this issue if anyone would be so inclined.
As an example there are pundits who say that if Obama is elected, his shear "Appearance" will quell international hatred towards Americans for some people, particularly those of radical, ethnical nature. If you would vote for Obama for this reason you are giving your vote to someone else, you are not voting for him based on his ideals or his outlook of the world, rather, how other people perceive him.
I'll be here tomorrow morning at Dawn if anyone cares to respond....
But in terms of Bloomy, he banned Transfats and he increased the tax for cigarettes...not the role of the government...so I am skeptical; but besides Ron Paul he is the closest candidate worthy of receiving my vote...which I have not used since I helped vote in GW in 2000...whoops!
From: Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:11 AM
To: Scott; Sean; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
I agree on your strong points for Bloomberg -- as far as I know anyway. I don't think, as we've talked about with Hillary (and the possible Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastic succession), that one should totally disregard international popular opinion. I think that a candidate's foreign policy -- that Hillary would not talk to Iran and Obama would, for example -- is extremely important in the shrinking world. I'm not saying everyone is going to love the U.S. But when everyone starts hating, that's when lives are lost and money is wasted.
All else being equal, if Candidate A is loved by the rest of the world and Candidate B is hated by the rest of the world, I think it makes sense to vote for A.
Shear Dual at Dawn it is.
jw from la
From: Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:03 PM
To: Jordan; Sean; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
So in response to your statement, "All else being equal, if Candidate A is loved by the rest of the world and Candidate B is hated by the rest of the world, I think it makes sense to vote for A."
The fact is, voting on what a group of people thinks is an impossibility because a group of people doesn't think. An individual thinks, and has reasons for voting a certain way. Those reasons are what's important, not what the end opinion is of a majority of individuals.
Anyway I think we already discussed this issue and I believe I already won.
Moving on....
Foreign policy is easy. Freedom cannot be forced. Communism has to be forced. If you choose freedom you have only one option, to lead by example and work with other people who also believe in freedom and are equally willing to work with you.
I've also decided that I no longer believe in countries, in fact, I think that I have even transcended Ayn Rand on this issue. She believed that the US should not deal with communist countries, I believe individuals can deal with whomever they please and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.
I have to work.
Also, feel free to write me in this November.
From: Sean
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:22 PM
To: Scott; Jordan; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
But foreign policy is the only topic that truly matters and affects us directly. Everything else is just window dressing. Domestic policy, abortion, social issues etc, those are STATE issues the president does not have a whole lot do with. I base my vote on foreign policy alone, and more than ever right now. I like Mrs. Clinton right now with regards to foreign policy. She is the only one with true experience, and if you watch her in debates, she is razor sharp with her responses while Obama stumbles. They asked Obama and her about invading tribal areas in Pakistan, Obama "yes, i would", Hilary said, "i would not do anything with out working with the Pakistan govt" We need someone who thinks on that level as the current administration certainly does not take what a foreign govt thinks about what we do into account. "CHANGE" and "HOPE" are nothing more than Beatles song quotes unless there is some substance behind them.
I loved Scotts "i no longer believe in countries" that was awesome.
From: Justin
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:58 PM
To: Sean; Scott; Jordan; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
I have to say...Scott, Relating Freedom and Communism is absurd. They are separate entities. There are very open communist style economics that have worked at small scales. All people are free to participate in the collective or not. Freedom is an idea which should be left in Quantum Mechanics. Seriously. You cannot even begin to negotiate the realm that the word Freedom entails.
From: Josh
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:28 PM
To: Sean; Scott; Jordan; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
All I know is I pay more to fill up my SUV, soldiers are dying and I am currently searching for Canadian flag patches to stitch to my luggage when Marisa and I travel abroad for our Honeymoon. At least two of these issues have to deal with foreign policy…I think.
I agree with Jordan when he states "All else being equal, if Candidate A is loved by the rest of the world and Candidate B is hated by the rest of the world, I think it makes sense to vote for A" here is why:
I give a shit what others think about me. Always have.
From: Sean
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:34 PM
To: Josh; Scott; Jordan; Eric; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Yeah, getting dirty looks in foreign countries is never fun Scott, come on. I am not saying a president alone can change that, but I think if we start treating the rest of the world better, peoples impressions (or GROUPTHINK) about the US will change over time.
From: Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Sean; Scott; Jordan; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
The question is do you hold the person who judges your value based on the sole fact that you are American to be intelligent? Tell me how that is any different than a person judging the value of another person based on their race? There are 750 million Americans with 750 million Different values. It is absurd to judge a person based on the country that they claim.
Reacting to ignorant people allows their ignorant views to exist. Why do you find it necessary to categorize people into groups? What is the purpose? I don't look at Brits and assign any value to them based on the fact that there Brits just as I don't assign any value to people based on the color of their skin.
Josh I am not saying you need to wear an America Flag (I would suggest not wearing any flags to support my view of no countries), but to me it is defeatist to let yourself be judged as a collective "American". You are an individual with your own set of values. Of course you want to be liked by people; so do I. But I want to be liked based on my values.
From: Eric
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:50 PM
To: Sean; Scott; Jordan; Eric; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Not sure what you mean by "judging Brits". As in debate skills? (quite good). Or a dance competition? (so so). Or worth as humans? (cannot determine).
Can't one make certain assumptions about an individual (and even a group of them) based his/her environment/culture/upbringing? If you lined up 200 people who appeared to be of Asian decent and 200 who appeared to be of African decent (using random sampling and a typical western physical description of each), couldn't you with 90+% certainty identify the ones who would be more proficient at eating a bowl of rice with chopsticks?
Are there not others in the world who might have just as much or more perspective on the United States’ past, present, and future than our own citizens? Isn't not listening to them just as limiting as hearing them all as one?
From: Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Scott; Eric; Sean; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Justin, great point on that Freedom and Communism are incomparable. Keeps the legitimacy to this discussion.
Eric, great point on chop sticks. I pick the Asians. I think the more we know about a person (i.e. what ethnicity she is, where she was born, what language she speaks, what clubs she belongs to), the more we can tell about her. Our groups define us as much as we define our groups. Otherwise we'd be like that jackass in "Into the Wild" and run to nowhere only to die a meaningless death and be found be moose hunters a week later.
Sean, I like your point about foreign policy. I think it's huge. Although, I have to admit that I will take those other issues into consideration when voting.
Scott, there are 300 million Americans. And I think if you are degrading a Brit because he's a Brit, probably not good. If you are assuming he's got an accent, likes fish and chips, drinks Bass, loves football, never brushes his teeth, has high tea with the Queen and is marching through the New England wilderness right now wearing a “red coat,” then I think that's cool. (Kidding, but hopefully you get my point.)
Josh, I'll help you look for Canadian patches this weekend. And I'll teach you the Minnesotan accent. You'll be fine.
From: Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:12 PM
To: Eric; Sean; Scott; Jordan; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
That was a good effort Eric. But here's your error:
If we were voting on someone for their chopstick proficiencies I would pick an Asian person, I admit. But this election is not a gameshow. Chopstick proficiency is slightly different then whether or not to legalize abortion or bomb a country. People hate Americans because (for example) Bush bombed Iraq, they don't hate Americans because Bush can't eat with chopsticks.
Josh didn't bomb Iraq, Bush did. You can't look at a person and determine their views on abortion, gay marriage, the economy, foreign policy; that's what we vote on. To do so would be ignorant. You cannot, however hard you try, listen to a group of people with "one voice." Although that sounds romantic....not possible.
Wils, I just broke your chopsticks!
Jordan and Justin, I meant to replace communism with force, or what ever the Quatum Mechanics hold to be the opposite of freedom; and are you serious that the notion of Freedom should be left to that field; that I should not, as a student of life, inquire about freedom? Telling a person that they should not inquire about Freedom sounds like something Stalin would say....hmmm.
And Sean, not to reference game shows again but you are going to pick Hillary because of how she answered a question on bombing Pakistan at a debate? In reality, all of those candidates would ask a room full of advisors at all levels and understand all the scenarios before a decision is made. (By the way she would not do that well on Jeopardy, especially in regards to Pakistan, she royally messed up facts about the country during the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination).
From: Eric
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Scott; Sean; Jordan; Josh; Justin; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Isn't the human mind forced to make generalizations? If we didn't, we would not exist. And not for some esoteric, philosophical reason, but because we would have all been eaten by f'ing cheetahs by now. Instead, we learned that cheetah = bad, run. So we live on. If it is ok to make generalizations about certain species (Fish swim. Elephants are big.), why draw the line for different subspecies of humans?
True that Josh didn't bomb Iraq. Bush gave that order, first in 2003. Then the majority of Americans re-elected the dude in 2004. Assuming for one second that that was his only executive order prior to re-election, couldn't one assume then that the majority of Americans supported the bombing? Isn't it just statistics? If a foreigner were to say, "Americans support the bombing of Iraqis," that might be an unfair generalization. But if she were say, "More American voters support that aggression than not" you can't really argue with her, can you?
Sorry to harp on this, but I'm just not with you on this one.
From: Justin
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Eric; Scott; Sean; Jordan; Josh; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Great job Eric, I think you are touching on a great point... HOWEVER, the REAL point you were making (or at least that I am), is that humans are a complex mesh of biological information. Our brains have a certain level of self awareness, yet we are often governed by our bodies rapid automatic reactions (those things that occur with women, rage, etc.). It is our brains’ abilities to reason that allows a careful negotiation of this meshwork.
We need generalizations and we need rational awareness, we need automatic biological actions and carefully premeditated actions.
miss you eric.
From: Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Justin; Eric; Sean; Jordan; Josh; Sara; Jeff
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
The critical element however is when. When to rely on your automatic responses and when to utilize your premeditated actions.
Clearly when dealing with cheetahs unexpectedly you would hope that your biological make up would react automatically based on a generalization about cheetahs. But we can only rely on that for a split second, once you are in motion and running the opposite way is when your premeditated actions and reasoning skills need to kick in to survive; where should I run to? A tree? no Cheetah's can climb trees. Should I even be running, cheetah's can run faster then I can. Is my only hope to fight it, and so forth.
In short I think it is appropriate to use generalizations in matters of survival and perhaps only when dealing with beings with lower cognitive skills. But when dealing with humans (who are otherwise not crazy and dangerous, like a gun toting lunatic) I think it is inappropriate to use generalizations on any level; whether it is classifying an American as someone who likes dropping bombs or deducing that an Asian person is proficient at eating with Chopsticks. If I were to go up to an Asian person and say, "hey you probably eat well with chopsticks," that is just straight offensive.
That's what I'm getting at. There is an intelligent way (the use of premeditated reasoning) and an unintelligent way (generalized automatic processing) to deal and communicate with people. Giving an American dirty looks because he is American is NOT an intelligent way of dealing with people. While I think such ignorant people have the capability to change, based on their action of giving a dirty look on such criteria alone, to me, is no more intelligent then a cheetah running after you to eat you.
From: Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:40 PM
To: Scott; Justin; Eric; Sean; Jordan; Josh; Sara
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Holy moly... What are you doing on a daily basis at that bank??
From: Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:42 PM
To: Jeff; Justin; Eric; Sean; Jordan; Josh; Sara
Subject: Re: Bloomberg
Spreading the truth…