The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 18

BDBopper

03-13-2009, 05:29 AM

While I don't think most everyone else will care I still wanted to post anyway. So you can feel free to skip ahead.

On Wednesday, after much thought, I decided to form a political organization. I was sort of tired of watching the GOP re-organize and talk about all these people they want to reach out to. The disabled were never discussed. I want to change the story. The effort started with the establishment of the "Can-Do Conservatives of America" group on Facebook. My goals are to have an active and fully-functional website, to have chapters in each of the 50 states, and to eventually have an annual convention. We currently have 26 members, including Georgia state Insurance Commissioner (and 2010 candidate for Governor), John Oxendine, South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, and former Speaker of the Florida House (and probable 2010 US Senate candidate) Marco Rubio!

scaeagles

03-13-2009, 06:08 AM

I don't have a facebook, but I'd join if I did. Hope it is successful.

Betty

03-13-2009, 06:35 AM

How Pot Will Save Us All! (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html?xid=rss-topstories)

BDBopper

03-13-2009, 07:14 AM

I don't have a facebook, but I'd join if I did. Hope it is successful.

Thank you! When I get the website up I'll make sure you know about it.

JWBear

03-13-2009, 11:02 AM

How Pot Will Save Us All! (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1884956,00.html?xid=rss-topstories)

That will make some people here very happy.

Ghoulish Delight

03-13-2009, 11:07 AM

It's a retarded premise under which to legalize it, but if that's what it takes, who am I to argue?

Ghoulish Delight

03-13-2009, 11:42 AM

John Stewart pins Cramer down (http://gawker.com/5169222/stewart-cant-land-knockout-punch-on-meek-cramer)

Stewart backs Cramer into a corner and Cramer's got nothing.

The blogger on the page with the videos seems to think Stewart should have been meaner. I for one think he did a perfect job.

innerSpaceman

03-13-2009, 11:47 AM

It's a retarded premise under which to legalize it, but if that's what it takes, who am I to argue?
Especially since all my blackmarket sources have dried up. I'm too old for this. I just want to buy it at the store, preferably at the check-out stand near the chewing gum and batteries.

Ghoulish Delight

03-13-2009, 11:47 AM

Especially since all my blackmarket sources have dried up. I'm too old for this. I just want to buy it at the store, preferably at the check-out stand near the chewing gum and batteries.
You could always spring for a prescription.

innerSpaceman

03-13-2009, 11:49 AM

I'd have to fake an illness ... and that would be ... dishonest.

Ghoulish Delight

03-13-2009, 11:53 AM

You'd have to fake being stressed?

Andrew

03-13-2009, 12:00 PM

I'd have to fake an illness ... and that would be ... dishonest.
I know of people who get medical marijuana recommendations for back pain, stress, anxiety... no faking involved.

Betty

03-13-2009, 02:11 PM

Yeah - but it's waaaaay expensive to go that route.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-13-2009, 04:42 PM

Moonliner

03-16-2009, 10:02 AM

President Obama is scheduled to appear on the Jay Leno Show (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/16/obama-heading-los-angeles-leno-appearance/) this week.

President Obama is heading back to the late-night circuit, with an appearance on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" set for this week.

Though the president is taking time this week for a little levity, he's now in the midst of a new campaign to convince Congress and American taxpayers to support his $3.6 trillion proposed budget for the next fiscal year.

Candidate Obama made several appearances on the show and I have no problem with that but somehow having the President of the United States of America appear on a late night talk show is disturbing.

I remember Clinton was on playing the Sax but I think that was doing a campaign.

Somehow it bothers me that he's doing this as president.

Alex

03-16-2009, 10:33 AM

So long as he is making himself available to more serious journalists then I don't really have a problem with it. If it is just an attempt to marginalize press more likely to ask him tough questions, then I do.

Another message board discussed this recently (Presidents on non-news TV, particularly late night) and all we could come with were:

Gerald Ford appeared in on the April 17, 1976 episode of Saturday Night Live, which was hosted by his press secretary.

Gore was on Letterman during his "Reinventing Government" campaign (I remember him wearing goggles and smashing something on Dave's desk). Bu

Nancy Reagan appeared in an episode of Diff'rent Strokes as part of her "Just Say No" campaign.

George W. Bush appeared in an episode of Deal or No Deal last year in support of an Iraq War veteran playing the game.

JWBear

03-16-2009, 12:15 PM

Don't forget Nixon appeared on Laugh-In...

Alex

03-16-2009, 12:19 PM

Yes, but that was before (September 1968) he was president, while still campaigning. Humphrey declined a similar invitation and joked that it cost him the election.

innerSpaceman

03-16-2009, 01:58 PM

I doubt Obama's doing it to avoid hard question, but rather to find a more mainstream route to tout his budget to the public. It's meeting with stance Congressional opposition, and I applaud him for taking any steps to push it through.

Though I admit, this strikes me as pretty undignified.

Not Afraid

03-16-2009, 02:06 PM

I love that he's breaking "rules".

BarTopDancer

03-16-2009, 02:09 PM

Didn't Bush Sr. appear on SNL during the Dana Carvey days?

Ghoulish Delight

03-16-2009, 02:17 PM

That was '94, after he'd left office.

wendybeth

03-16-2009, 02:21 PM

I think the fact that Leno is retiring might have something to do with it as well. I don't have a problem at all with any President going on TV shows- I know it's common practice with leaders elsewhere in the world, and I don't see how it diminishes the office in any way. I think we've already established that he and his wife are fairly normal people (Gasp! Didn't he appear without a jacket in the Oval office?) and what better way to connect with the public than on the Tonight Show? I never watch it, but I'll be sure to tune in to this one.

Alex

03-16-2009, 02:53 PM

Yes, he did appear on SNL but it was in 1994 after he was no longer president.

ETA: Whoops didn't realize I was looking at old version of page.

Alex

03-16-2009, 02:56 PM

Not even Obama is enough to make me watch The Tonight Show (I don't know that Conan is enough).

But so long as he is just doing a mildly amusing interview then I'm generally ok with it. If he performs in a skit then I'll find it undignified (not for the man but for the office).

innerSpaceman

03-16-2009, 05:16 PM

Yeah, I won't be watching The Tonight Show, but I entered a lottery to be in the live audience at a short-noticed Obama Town Hall meeting somewhere in Los Angeles this coming Thursday, and I'm excited at the prospect of being selected. That would be teh awEsoMe.

€uroMeinke

03-16-2009, 09:18 PM

He's coming to one of our offices on Thursday, but not mine

JWBear

03-17-2009, 10:48 AM

Snowflake

03-17-2009, 10:55 AM

Not Afraid

03-17-2009, 11:13 AM

I'm glad that the stuffy "Presidential dignity" is gone. Let's have some FUN!

Alex

03-17-2009, 11:15 AM

I find I am unable to care enough to even begin the process of scoping out how I might begin to go about starting the process of forming an opinion.

Strangler Lewis

03-17-2009, 12:45 PM

Michelle Obama ordered the White House fountains dyed green (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjTyWHE0vALgApNCVrzENU_Yre9wD96VQA3G0)in honor of St Patrick's Day. There are a lot of differing opinions out in the blogosphere. What is yours - fun and festive touch, or tacky and beneath Presidential dignity?

Overreaction #1: The money spent on that nonsense would have been better spent on the troops.

Overreaction #2: What part of the Establishment Clause do these people not understand?

Honest reaction #1: Much as I am against the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower being lit up in any color other than white, I am against the dyeing of public fountain water.

Moonliner

03-17-2009, 01:18 PM

She has kids. Kids like green stuff.

wendybeth

03-17-2009, 02:03 PM

She has kids. Kids like green stuff.

What he said.

BarTopDancer

03-17-2009, 02:09 PM

She has kids. Kids like green stuff.

What he said.

What they said.

Besides, how much is a few containers of food coloring?

Alex

03-17-2009, 02:15 PM

When acquired through proper acquisition procedures for the federal government:

$2,463,109.02

wendybeth

03-17-2009, 02:16 PM

JWBear

03-17-2009, 02:44 PM

You know, people are just going to have to adjust to having an unpretentious family in the White House. They are a young family, with small children, and they're keeping it real. I admire the hell out of them for that. Bush Jr. was just another example of turd polishing, and it didn't work. The Obamas could easily put on airs and pull it off- they are attractive, highly educated and articulate, but they have the good sense to try and keep a semblance of normalcy in a crazy situation, and their family will be all the better for it. I think the country will as well.

What she said!

(And as for the greening of the fountains... I think it's kinda cool. I also like seeing anti-Obama people's heads explode over something so trivial.)

innerSpaceman

03-17-2009, 03:20 PM

If I get to see him Thursday, should I submit a question about undoing DOMA or about green fountain holidays?

Moonliner

03-17-2009, 03:25 PM

If I get to see him Thursday, should I submit a question about undoing DOMA or about green fountain holidays?

Area 51. Definitely.

Ghoulish Delight

03-17-2009, 03:28 PM

Ask him about the dog.

Strangler Lewis

03-17-2009, 03:29 PM

You know, people are just going to have to adjust to having an unpretentious family in the White House. They are a young family, with small children, and they're keeping it real. I admire the hell out of them for that. Bush Jr. was just another example of turd polishing, and it didn't work. The Obamas could easily put on airs and pull it off- they are attractive, highly educated and articulate, but they have the good sense to try and keep a semblance of normalcy in a crazy situation, and their family will be all the better for it. I think the country will as well.

Well, trivial as it is, I'm going to have to disagree with this rationale. I think the fountains can be defended as a harmless gesture for the public's enjoyment. However, if Bush or Cheney had spent public money on green fountains for the private amusement of the small children in their family, I doubt it would have played as well here.

Ghoulish Delight

03-17-2009, 03:31 PM

I'm starting to regret not trying to get in to see Obama tomorrow. He'll be 5 minutes away from my office.

Hopefully I'll at least get a peak at the motorcade.

JWBear

03-17-2009, 03:50 PM

Strangler Lewis

03-17-2009, 04:31 PM

In fact, the Obamas missed out on a great opportunity for bipartisan reconciliation in service of the public fisc. For Saint Patrick's Day, they could have just invited Cheney over, posed with him by the White House fountains and then asked him to open a vein.

Not Afraid

03-17-2009, 04:42 PM

Ask him about the dog.

The as yet non-existent dog. They sure picked an odd breed to try to find in rescue.

Moonliner

03-17-2009, 04:50 PM

I'm starting to regret not trying to get in to see Obama tomorrow. He'll be 5 minutes away from my office.

Hopefully I'll at least get a peak at the motorcade.

You'll know when he's coming. Just watch for the copters.

wendybeth

03-17-2009, 05:25 PM

Well, trivial as it is, I'm going to have to disagree with this rationale. I think the fountains can be defended as a harmless gesture for the public's enjoyment. However, if Bush or Cheney had spent public money on green fountains for the private amusement of the small children in their family, I doubt it would have played as well here.

Quite honestly, I can say with all confidence that I would not have been upset at the Bush's or Cheney's doing such a thing- it is NOT expensive to run colors through a fountain, and it's not just for their own enjoyment as they really don't hang out around the fountains on a regular basis. Our town runs colors regularly in the downtown fountains and no one that I'm aware of has ever made a stink about it.

Ghoulish Delight

03-17-2009, 09:07 PM

You'll know when he's coming. Just watch for the copters.
I can peek out an office window and see the freeway he'll be coming down.

Not Afraid

03-17-2009, 09:18 PM

Ghoulish Delight

03-17-2009, 09:27 PM

? Last I saw he was supposed to land in LB at 3.

Moonliner

03-17-2009, 09:29 PM

He's flying into LB at about 11. There's a good chance I will see Air Force One.

It landed in El Toro when Clinton (?) flew into OC for Nixon's (?) funeral. It flew REALLY low over the Art Center and gave us all quite a scare - and a thrill.

Stalker!

Not Afraid

03-17-2009, 09:37 PM

I'll probably be there around 3 as well. Tomorrow is the day I make several grand circle tours of Long Beach.

JWBear

03-17-2009, 10:39 PM

I'm furloughing tomorrow! Maybe we'll take a drive over to LB Airport....

Morrigoon

03-17-2009, 10:53 PM

Moonliner

03-18-2009, 06:28 AM

innerSpaceman

03-18-2009, 03:34 PM

Well it looks as if i've lost the Obama Lotto.

Pfft, that's the last time I'll vote for him.

.

BarTopDancer

03-18-2009, 03:38 PM

I don't know Air Force One's policy but flights from all the other airports in the area a delayed due to heavy fog.

My dad sent me an email about 3 that AF1 was flying in over HB. He sent one about 20 minutes later that 6 Marine helicopters were flying over on the way to the Fairgrounds.

innerSpaceman

03-18-2009, 03:57 PM

Plus he's staying over in Century City tonight, and frelling up my commute home today and in tomorrow.

He.Is.Dead.To.Me.

Ghoulish Delight

03-18-2009, 04:09 PM

I kinda had a hunch earlier today that he wouldn't be in a motorcade. 1) The extent of road closures around the fairgrounds was one block in either direction, for only an hour before AF1 touched down. 2) I drove around the entire area at lunch. Other than 2 large sheriff's command buses in the fair parkinglot, there was absolutely no ground activity. Not a single cop car on the street. Not what I'd expect for prepping a major street for a motorcade.

I was in a meeting when the choppers came by. :( But on the off chance I was wrong, and the choppers were the diversion, I headed to the nearest overpass anyway. Hell, it was pretty unlikely that even if they were driving that they'd get off at the most obvious exit, but at least it was high ground, so I'd see it coming. But, as is now obvious, nowhere to be seen.

Kinda exciting anyway.

Alex

03-18-2009, 05:57 PM

I don't know how much it has changed but I've seen two presidential motorcades (Clinton around 1994 and Reagain around 1985) and both times it was suprising how little official presence there was on the main roads until right before, during, and after he drove by.

Ghoulish Delight

03-18-2009, 06:28 PM

Moonliner

03-18-2009, 06:54 PM

frelling up my commute home today and in tomorrow.

I feel your pain. The Pres, VP, Congress, Foreign self important dillweeds, we have more motorcades running around here than you have sunny days.

Not Afraid

03-18-2009, 07:15 PM

I was near the LB Airport right before 3, so I drove there, parked, and joined about 40 others on an embankment on Spring street, right at the tunnel where the runway crosses the street. I was not far from and on equal level with the runway.

Air Force One arrice just after 3 pm. I shot some really horrible video which I will upload (somewhere?) tonight. The plane was pretty darned closed to me.

Afterwards, I stayed put thinking that I might see the motorcade. I was chatting with some folks who, it turns out, have 2 dogs and live in my area and need a pet sitter (always marketing). As we were hanging out, 5 giant marine helicopters rose from the airport tarmac and took off in single file going South. The middle copter was quite a bit larger than the others, so I assumed Obama was in that one. (I took bad video of this as well.)

I carried on about my business and was at a client's house getting updated cayote information when three of the helecopters few back over Long Beach heading North. This was about 5:00 (or there abouts). (No video, but pictures were taken.) When i got home, I heard another rumbling and saw the 3 copters flying overhead going South, presumably back to the Long Beach Airport. (This was before 6:30 and I didn't have my camera).

As far as I know, Air Force One is still at the LB Airport. I wonder when he is leaving and if it will be from there? I can catch the action on the departure.

Alex

03-18-2009, 08:15 PM

Even at the destination point?

Clinton wasn't at the destination point when I saw him but Reagan was.

No obvious security or interference more than a block away and we were all allowed to stand across the street.

Tom

03-19-2009, 10:42 AM

George Bush said that he plans to write a book about the toughest decisions he had to make while in office.

"I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened," Bush said.

I'm not making this up.

Ghoulish Delight

03-19-2009, 10:45 AM

Hey, I give him credit. "Authoritarian" is probably the more accurate word.

Strangler Lewis

03-19-2009, 12:40 PM

And that voice would be Cheney's.

bewitched

03-19-2009, 02:17 PM

[off topic] SL, your avatar is creepin' me out![/off topic]

alphabassettgrrl

03-20-2009, 10:19 PM

I love that the Obamas are trying to be normal. I like that they want to do something fun and silly like dying the fountains green. I hope I would approve had Bush and Co done it. It's a small thing, and really doesn't do much overall, but is kind of cute.

Not Afraid

03-20-2009, 10:22 PM

I love that they are planting a vegetable garden.

alphabassettgrrl

03-20-2009, 11:17 PM

How cool! Now, if they just call it a veggie garden, instead of giving it some "name"...

Strangler Lewis

03-21-2009, 08:37 AM

[off topic] SL, your avatar is creepin' me out![/off topic]

Says the girl with the avatar whose eyeballs float up slightly in the socket, a classic sign of mental illness.

My avatar was also funnier.

scaeagles

03-23-2009, 06:36 AM

OK....AIG.

I don't even want to address the morality or lack thereof of bonuses or whatever. However, if I am to understand this correctly, these bonuses that are causing this outrage were written into the the bailout bill.

If that is indeed the case, why then the outrage at the AIG people for the bonuses? Shouldn't the outrage be at those who wrote, voted for, and signed the bill?

And in terms of outrage, this (http://www.newsweek.com/id/190363) kind of reeks of kickbacks to me.....

There was plenty of outrage on Capitol Hill last week over the executive bonuses paid out by AIG after getting federal bailout money. But another money trail could make voters just as angry: the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Alex

03-23-2009, 07:58 AM

Well, the "bonuses"* weren't written into the bill, just a provision barring bonuses was changed to say "except for those already contractually agreed to."

I doubt that many (if any) of the people behind that provision were aware that AIG had already taken what had been merit/performance bonuses and turned them into guaranteed payments (for reasons that may very well have made some sense at the time but still ended up being a really wrong decision). That is, I don't doubt that there was awareness of existing required "bonuses" I just doubt many people know how utterly stupid the bonuses were.

The UAW contracts for the auto bailouts are held up as an example of the government saying contracts are ignorable but in that case the bailout was made contingent on the car companies extracting concessions from the employees. If that had been the case up front with the AIG (or general finance bailouts) I wouldn't have a problem with that, though I suspect that the government wouldn't have been able to achieve its aims at the time (regardless of whether you agree with them or not) because the healthier institutions would have refused the money completely, marking the less healthy large institutions for death -- which is exactly what the government was trying to avoid by ensuring that all of the large institutions took money whether they really needed it or not. (Another difference is that in the auto industry failures employee compensation is seen as a large contributing factor to the financial problems, which -- as obscene as salaries and bonuses may be -- is not the case in the finance sector.)

I do think that giving money and then trying to change the rules after the fact is not a good precedent.

And there are already grumblings that this might bite them in the ass on the new proposal for dealing with the bad loans. They're trying to encourage hedge funds to invest in them, taking on big risk for possible huge rewards if the markets recover. But why would they take that risk if, should they pay out beyond their wildest dreams public outrage that they're getting so rich just because of public assistance means they might face a 90% tax (or something like it) on the returns?

That said, the 90% tax is super stupid on many fronts. In full disclosure, I have received a bonus this year from a company that would fall under the new tax. I would get to keep my bonus, but a receptionist here probably would not because her husband is a reasonably successful divorce attorney. One would assume our money would be equally dirty (though we both work exclusively in very profitable business lines) but apparently hers is dirtier since she married better than me (though makes much less than me).

* I put the quotes around "bonuses" because I think that word is a huge cause of the outrage. But these were not really bonuses in the sense that most people think of the word. They weren't salary, but they were guaranteed. So they're bonuses in the sense they were compensation beyond base salary but not in the sense of being completely discretionary on the part of the employer.

Drince88

03-23-2009, 09:20 AM

I do think that giving money and then trying to change the rules after the fact is not a good precedent.
Just had to give you a big 'you said it, brother' to that line.

Ghoulish Delight

03-23-2009, 04:30 PM

Some employees have volunteered to return their bonuses.

story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29843465/).

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2009, 08:30 AM

But I will agree that unless they were of some deeply personal meaning, that a gift of DVDs (man I hope they were region free or of the appropriate region)
Oh dear. (http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/20/dvd-region-code-blocks-british-prime-minister-from-enjoying-obam/)

Alex

03-24-2009, 08:53 AM

Yeah, I heard that on last week's Wait Wait.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2009, 08:54 AM

I podcast it, so I'm a week+ behind.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2009, 01:49 PM

Keep meaning to post this (3894's post regarding the Special Olympics reminded me finally).

We watched Obama's Leno appearance a couple days later and saw the Special Olympics comment for ourselves.

What he did not say was that his terrible bowling score was comparable to the Special Olympics. What he did say was that Jay Leno's jokingly condescending, "No, no, that's really gooood," was like the Special Olympics.

Whether this is better, worse, or equally offensive is another question. But if you do plan on being offended, be sure it's for an accurate reason.

Drince88

03-25-2009, 07:18 AM

The City of New Orleans has some pretty inept people in 'high' office. One of the 'best' is the director of sanitation, Veronica White. She just had her computer siezed by the feds, gave out all the city council emails to a lawyer (under FIOA) without going through the city lawyers (as is policy) but the mayor isn't going to discipline her because she ddn't break any laws. She has an ongoing feud with the Parish Council, too.

She just wrote a book "How To Maximize FEMA Funding After a Natural Disaster (http://www.amazon.com/Maximize-Funding-After-Natural-Disaster/dp/0982339208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237989117&sr=1-1)". $35 for an 80 page paperback. She definitely has a following given some of the reviews, just not a following that most people would like to have.

I just wish there was some way to work this into my Mardi Gras costume next year...

SacTown Chronic

03-25-2009, 09:27 AM

Oh I don't know about inept. Is there a more corrupt and profitable political machine in this country outside of Chicago than New Orleans? Those guys down there wrote the book on how to bribe a politician.

wendybeth

03-30-2009, 12:55 AM

Well, looks like GM is gonna have to go it alone: Obama denies bailout to automakers (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-funds-automakers-sets-restructure-deadline/).

Had a few interesting conversations this week- one was with someone who was up in arms over the possibility of regulating the SEC and other entities. They thought it tragically socialistic, but at the same time blamed Clinton and Carter for the mess we're in right now. I asked how they were responsible, and of course they weren't entirely sure but knew (coughRushcough) that they were at fault. When I explained that their fault lay in their role in dismantling regulatory rules from bygone eras, the person was so confused I actually felt sorry for her. It's really hard to blame C&C for deregulation and cheerlead for the same. Another conversation arose when a co-worker was reading the paper and saw that certain banks might be partially nationalised....."Socialism! Rush was right!"...(sigh). I pointed out that just last week she was decrying AIG for it's actions with bailout money, and that this was merely a way to let the taxpayers become shareholders, with the option of paying off the taxpayers whenever the companies were doing better. Not only that, but the 'shareholders' could actually put stipulations on those funds, whereas before no real directives were applied or enforcable. She admitted that maybe that wasn't such a horrible thing.

scaeagles

03-30-2009, 04:56 AM

Just because Rush may say it doesn't mean it isn't true. From the Investor's Business Daily (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949) -

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

It was economic hardball.

"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

And they meant it.

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That's how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

scaeagles

04-07-2009, 06:49 AM

I'm not understanding a couple things here. Why is Obama slapping allies in the face?

First he insults the Brits and Gordon Brown by not having the traditional joint press conference, and then refuses the offer of British diplomats to hang on to the bust of Winston Churchill in the oval office for another four years. Some might say those things aren't a big deal, and that's certainly up for debate.

However, the offer offer 50K in emergency aid to Italy after the quake....50K? It would have been better to give NOTHING. That was insulting. Beyond insulting.

Ghoulish Delight

04-07-2009, 06:55 AM

Regarding the Brits, as I mentioned before, Obama is only "insulting them" in comparison to Bush and Blair taking turns going down on each other. I think Obama is sending the message that the era of, "You support us in one effort, therefore we're going to bend over for you," is over.

As for Italy, dunno. According to this short blurb (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.15148f36e80f2222604c174cd120fa1 9.381&show_article=1), the US offered to send rescue teams as well but Italy declined. So perhaps $50K is all they asked for.

Alex

04-07-2009, 07:54 AM

Is anybody actually in a position to care in England taking offense or is it simply the right-wing press in England taking offense on their behalf?

As for the second, I know we've had a similar conversation before in the last few years but damned if I can find it. Just wanted to watch and see how much points of view change because now it is Obama instead of Bush.

But Italy probably rejected greater assistance out of fear that if they took a significant amount of money that the American public would grow outraged when they saw how much Italians were spending on Christmas parties this year and then try to tax their incomes back to zero.

scaeagles

04-07-2009, 08:55 AM

I think that Brown and the British diplomats probably aren't interested in discussing or elevating it to any sort of incident. I doubt if they would ever say if they were....it's all conjecture by the press, similar to what it might be in any circumstance. But like I specifically said above about that, it is certainly debatable how insulting it is if at all.

The Italian thing....I have recollections, and honestly I haven't looked, about discussions of foreign aid and to where/whom it is given. For example, I think it is insane that we just pledged whatever it was - 800 million or a billion or something like that - to rebuilding Palestinian controlled areas when there is the likelihood that portions of that money will simply be used to purchase munitions for suicide bombings or rocket launches into Israel (this is the case regardless of which President has done this, whether Clinton or Bush or now Obama, with Hillary making this promise on her somewhat recent middle east trip). However, any ally that has been with us in Iraq? 50K of disaster relief. I suppose as GD said that might be all they asked for, but I doubt that. 50K is nothing. I don't think we asked for disaster relief after 9/11 or Katrina, but Italy sent 3 million to us after each. It is a symbolic gesture, and 50K symbolizes a slap. Donating nothing, I believe, would be preferable.

And of course my perceptions are going to be different about Obama rather than Bush, just as it is with every politically minded posted here.

Ghoulish Delight

04-07-2009, 08:57 AM

I suppose as GD said that might be all they asked for, but I doubt that. 50K is nothing. I don't think we asked for disaster relief after 9/11 or Katrina, but Italy sent 3 million to us after each.
Most of the $3 million was not in cash, but in rescue teams and equipment (fully equipped helicopters), which is exactly what Obama offered and Italy declined.

ETA: Thinking about the Churchill bust - if Obama had accepted a bust of a foreign leader (even a dead one) to be displayed in the White House, the cons would have been ALL over him for showing weakness, threatening US sovereignty by acknowledging a foreign power's leader in that fashion.

Andrew

04-07-2009, 09:19 AM

ETA: Thinking about the Churchill bust - if Obama had accepted a bust of a foreign leader (even a dead one) to be displayed in the White House, the cons would have been ALL over him for showing weakness, threatening US sovereignty by acknowledging a foreign power's leader in that fashion.
It's simpler than that. ${ANY_OBAMA_ACTION} will be immediately interpreted in the worst possible light, no matter what it is. Visiting foreign countries and assuring them that the Bush-era "we rule and you drool" policies are over = weakness. Addressing them in their own languages = pandering, if not outright treason. These are the same people who won't get off the birth certificate thing.

As long as they're an ineffective irrelevant minority I plan to simply ignore them.

scaeagles

04-07-2009, 09:20 AM

Perhaps. It's all about perception and what you expect of a leader and whether you trust that leader and want that leader's agenda to be successful. It's called politics and spin. It's going to be spun in a certain way and the spin you listen to is largely based on where you fall in the political spectrum. I completely acknowledge that, but many don't.

As far as what I've found (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9282598/), Italy donated supplies after Katrina. This has a complete list of foreign aid after Katrina.

Italy: generators, water pumps and purifiers, tents, supplies

scaeagles

04-07-2009, 09:22 AM

It's simpler than that. ${ANY_OBAMA_ACTION} will be immediately interpreted in the worst possible light, no matter what it is. Visiting foreign countries and assuring them that the Bush-era "we rule and you drool" policies are over = weakness. Addressing them in their own languages = pandering, if not outright treason. These are the same people who won't get off the birth certificate thing.

As long as they're an ineffective irrelevant minority I plan to simply ignore them.

And this is somehow different than the left portraying ${ANY_BUSH_ACTION} in the same way? Of course it is identical.

Believe me, I don't post everything that Obama does that bothers me. It would take far too long and no one would want to hear it. However, I found what I regard as insults to our allies as worthy of discussion.

Ghoulish Delight

04-07-2009, 09:27 AM

According to Wikipedia -

Italy offered to send two Hercules C130 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules) cargo aircraft fitted with emergency aids, including 300 Adult camp beds, 300 blankets, 600 sheets, 1 suction pump, 6 lifecrafts, 11.200 chlorine tablets, 5 units of large first aid kits, baby food formula pumps, tents and power generators. Italy also offered to send some experts of the Protezione Civile to help coordinating relief efforts in the damaged area.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#cite_n ote-eu-7)

That's what I get for taking my info from a conservative blog, it seems Italy didn't even actually SEND the choppers.

Where did you get the $3 million?

Strangler Lewis

04-07-2009, 09:32 AM

Italy sent us old parts from some cannibalized Fiats, and we're supposed to send them how much?

One can also look at that list of Katrina donations and wonder how much of it reflected genuine humanitarianism/international cooperation and how much of the big donations were given to allow the countries to say that they had helped the United States when it was refusing to help its own people.

scaeagles

04-07-2009, 10:03 AM

Where did you get the $3 million?

An excellent question, and one to which I feel I must withdraw my statement....I heard that specific number on a local radio show I listen to (no, not Rush or Hannity, but local), and I cannot find a specific number to go along with the lists of stuff I got off the MSNBC link. I have no idea who valued it or how.

Alex

04-07-2009, 10:06 AM

Hell, Obama is giving Chrysler to the Italians, how much do they want from us?!

To be fair, though, for a significant portion of the membership here, three months ago the operating principal was "${ANY_BUSH_ACTION} will be immediately interpreted in the worst possible light, no matter what it is." And a lot of the time it was as pointlessly kneejerk (in my opinion of course) as what I'm seeing for Obama. Of course, there was more history to back it up but that doesn't make it any more valid.

JWBear

04-07-2009, 10:10 AM

And this is somehow different than the left portraying ${ANY_BUSH_ACTION} in the same way? Of course it is identical.

Believe me, I don't post everything that Obama does that bothers me. It would take far too long and no one would want to hear it. However, I found what I regard as insults to our allies as worthy of discussion.

Except we didn't need to make up things in order to paint Bush in the worst possible light. He gave us a steady supply of genuine outrages to work with.

Alex

04-07-2009, 10:15 AM

More seriously than my previous replies, it seems sensible to me that the amount would be relatively small.

1. Italy is not some third world country sent into complete collapse by this. This is further demonstrated by them saying they don't need our "boots on the ground" assistance.

2. Italy is already part of a larger economic support structure that, to the extent that Italy needs assistance should be the first and primary responder. That is, the European Union.

3. The announced money is from the Italy embassy's budget. This sounds like something that could be done with a very minimal amount of bureaucracy and could put the money into immediate circulation where it is needed. As per the reasons above, any true need for U.S. assistance is likely to be immediate while everybody is getting ramped up then the internal and EU support response should kick in.

4. I have no doubt if Italy says "we need more!!" that more will be forthcoming. Also, I have no doubt that private charitable giving will almost certainly be quite charitable (and which, certain political groups in the United States are often quite justifiably proud of and frequently say is the appropriate channel for assistance rather than federal dollars).

scaeagles

04-07-2009, 10:43 AM

Yeah, that's reasonable, Alex.

And JW, outrage is in the eye of the beholder. I also don't make up the things that Obama does that angers me, I just don't post them.

Disneyphile

04-07-2009, 10:56 AM

It's fun. My dad blames Obama for our economy.

Yet, before he was sworn in, my dad blamed Clinton for the present economy, stating that it's always the former president's mess.

I try to point that out to him whenever he blames Obama now, and he'll rebutt with, "You don't see the big picture. You don't understand what's going on, but I do." :rolleyes:

Gemini Cricket

04-15-2009, 01:24 PM

Weak tea. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/million-tea-bag-protest-i_n_187243.html)
The Tea Parties here in Washington DC are off to a roaring start, right? Not really. Right now, the Tea Parties are contending with a number of terrible struggles, which this report from Fox News documents...

Ghoulish Delight

04-15-2009, 01:38 PM

Hmm, kinda hurts the allusion to the Boston Tea Party if they're thwarted by some permit issues.

Alex

04-15-2009, 02:55 PM

And also if they don't do it in some equivalent of "red face"* so that the coppers will blame it on savage minorities.

If you're going to do it, go all out! Turn it into a "Pimps 'n' Hos" costume party or something.

* Yes, I know that only a few of the people at the Boston Tea Party actually disguised themselves as Indians. But live the legend, says I!

BDBopper

04-16-2009, 11:09 AM

Just for the record folks I am a "right-wing extremist rabble rouser" and proud of it. It that's a crime than you can throw me in jail, shoot me, or whatever you feel like. Give me Liberty or give me death!

mousepod

04-16-2009, 11:13 AM

BDBopper - please don't buy into the Rush nonsense. The extremist threats from the left and right are serious. This particular warning about the right isn't about you.

Strangler Lewis

04-16-2009, 11:23 AM

I think we should let these places secede if they want. Of course, we'd have to invade them in short order to quell the human rights abuses that would inevitably follow when they set up their own freedom-loving Christian governments.

On a slightly more serious note, whatever your political viewpoint is, if you start slinging words around like revolutionary, rebel, patriot, etc., you lose me right away because I will immediately conclude that your cause isn't about policy; it's about you and your perception of yourself.

scaeagles

04-16-2009, 12:12 PM

The extremist threats from the left and right are serious. This particular warning about the right isn't about you.

I would regard extremist threats from everywhere as serious. However, what I find to be ridiculous is that they use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" about threats from the right and yet will not use those words in association with Islamofacist terrorists.

From an interview (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html):
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Apparently the "politics of fear" is acceptable in talking about certain groups.

BDBopper

04-16-2009, 12:39 PM

Just an FYI I was being sarcastic. I find the thought that since I am a conservative activist that I might be a threat to national security.

Ghoulish Delight

04-16-2009, 01:24 PM

From an interview (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html):
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Apparently the "politics of fear" is acceptable in talking about certain groups.I'm sorry, and where do you have a quote from Napolitano (or anyone else who has claimed to stop using the term "terrorism") referring to the right wing nuts as terrorists? Did I miss that?

scaeagles

04-16-2009, 01:38 PM

Are you serious? It was written in her 9 page domestic terrorism watch document. The use of the word terrorist is ALL over, with "right-wing" prior to it a lot of the time, but since the document is about right wing extremists, it's implied even when not used in the doc. It refers to terrorist cells and how the terrorist threat is higher than pre OK City bombing.

Is that enough of a quote for you? Or is it just because it's in writing in the report rather than her simply saying it?

Ghoulish Delight

04-16-2009, 01:44 PM

Ok, I did miss it. In that case, fair enough, she's being retarded. I guess it goes with the job.

Alex

04-16-2009, 01:55 PM

Just to make sure people are aware, but the Homeland Security report talking about Right Wing Extremists (which so many conservatives seem to have decided targets them personally) is part of an ongoing series of reports by Homeland Security on the threats from various extremist groups.

It had nothing to do with Obama (which very well may be why it uses words differently than the Obama preferred spin machine). Also, they were produced under the supervision of Bush appointees.

Here is the Rightwing Extremism (http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf) report in the news now (as hosted by WorldNetDaily to make you comfortable or not depending on your view).
Here is the Leftwing Extremists (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Leftwing_Extremist_Threat.pdf) report from earlier this year (as hosted by FoxNews to make you comfortable or not depending on your view).

I'm sure there are things that can be used to drive outrage in either report. But at least now we have no excuse for not having read them before getting outraged.

Ghoulish Delight

04-16-2009, 02:57 PM

Then I guess the question would be, did Napolitano have say in the right wing extremist report, and was it after the decision to stop using the term "terrorist/terrorism" in favor of "man-caused disasters". If so, I think it's a fair criticism.

Strangler Lewis

04-16-2009, 04:03 PM

A week or so ago, John Stewart made fun of the newspeak terrorism term, roasting Obama's budget director with repeated clips of his use of the term--the night before the guy was supposed to be on the show--where it was not discussed.

Strangler Lewis

04-16-2009, 04:05 PM

By the way, not that there could be a good one, but the stated rationale is stupid. Terrorism is what their bad guys do. The politics of fear is what our guys do (did) in response.

scaeagles

04-16-2009, 06:37 PM

I think Timothy McVeigh was a right wing terrorist. I think abortion bombers are right wing terrorists. I think various environmental groups are terrorists. I'm sure there are many more I just don't want to think that hard.

I am not offended by the use of the word terrorism in these reports, as it applies (or could). I just find it sickening that the word terrorism is acceptable unless we are talking about foreign groups, then it is taboo, as I think the are more "man caused events" related to Islamofacism than there are abortion clinic bombings.

And as I've read that Napolitano has tried to restict interviewers to one question regarding the report, it seems as if it is quite the touchy subject to her.

Andrew

04-16-2009, 07:17 PM

I agree with scaeagles.

Stan4dSteph

04-17-2009, 06:22 AM

Too bad Rush Limbaugh didn't OD on drugs.

SacTown Chronic

04-17-2009, 10:45 AM

There was a "man-caused disaster" in my bathroom this morning. Some would call it terrorism, I suppose. I call it burritos for dinner.

Ghoulish Delight

04-21-2009, 04:57 PM

Fvcking Texas (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/21/court-turns-down-cha.html)

Tom

04-24-2009, 08:03 AM

For BDBopper (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/why-doesnt-mike-huckabee-get-more.html)

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2009, 09:38 AM

Arlen Specter's becoming a Democrat.

Tom

04-28-2009, 09:39 AM

Arlen Specter is switching parties (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html), becoming a Democrat. He was facing a tough primary challenge next year from a onservative and probably sees this as his best chance for re-election

Tom

04-28-2009, 09:40 AM

Ah, you won this one.

The Lovely Mrs. tod

04-28-2009, 09:41 AM

Maybe if Cheney would shut his yap Specter wouldn't be quite so nervous about that R after his name.

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2009, 09:42 AM

Ah, you won this one.
Your mistake was taking the time to report details and provide a source.

Tom

04-28-2009, 10:19 AM

Lesson learned.

scaeagles

04-28-2009, 10:54 AM

Moonliner

04-28-2009, 11:06 AM

Specter didn't stand a chance to win his republican nomination when he's up in 2010. His only chance was switching parties, running unopposed in the dem primary, and winning the general - which he most likely will.

This was done for no other reason than preserving his political career.

Taking that as a given, how should the Dems treat him? Open arms or keep him at arms length? The one news report I heard on this talked about what concessions Specter should be demanding from the Dem's in terms of committee memberships and the like.

Alex

04-28-2009, 11:08 AM

True, I don't see why this will much change how he votes. I'm sure he'll stick with his new caucus on more procedural things but nothing really important where he has so far disagreed with (the new for him) party line.

I also don't think it eases his next campaign a lot. Yes, if he survives the primary he'll probably easily beat whoever the Republicans put up, but I don't see why the state party would have much reason to put a lot of weight behind him when they could have a true Democrat (rather than a slightly more conservative Lieberman).

Seems to me that Specter will be hoping to skate through the primary on name recognition.

Strangler Lewis

04-28-2009, 12:10 PM

I'd like to see Specter and Lieberman in a celebrity death match for the title of least funny Jew.

JWBear

04-30-2009, 09:30 AM

Great article on not giving in to fear and panic (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bouley/a-terrorized-city-and-tra_b_192979.html)

(Posted here for lack of a better place.)

Prudence

04-30-2009, 11:39 PM

Speaking of panic....SC justice nomination time!

scaeagles

05-01-2009, 05:00 AM

The left has nothing to panic about with that. They control everything. The right can't stop any nominee.

Alex

05-01-2009, 05:10 AM

Well, on that one issue the filibuster is irrelevant. The Repubilcans made it very clear a couple years ago that filibustering judicial nominees was essentially treason but at minimum violated the spirit of things.

scaeagles

05-01-2009, 06:14 AM

I don't think they'll have the numbers to filibuster, and even if they did, I'd be unhappy should they go that route. I think filibustering nominees is despicable. Let the nominee have an up or down vote. You don't like the nominee, win elections. I have no doubt I will not like who he chooses, but the reality is it is his choice and that individual (and the President) should get an up or down vote.

I am certain there will be calls to fight back in the same way, and I'm sure the dems will act shocked and as if this had never happened before should it happen. This is not to say the nominee should not be thoroughly examined.

Ghoulish Delight

05-01-2009, 10:02 AM

Wow, when I read that there was going to be a SC opening, I assumed it was RBG.

On an entirely different subject - I've heard so many times how atheism is evil because it would leave us with people who are only in it for themselves, with no compassion for other people since, without God, we are just amoral individuals whose only motivation would be self preservation.

That doesn't seem to jive with this observation (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html). The more you go to church, the more likely you are to be okay with torture. The group least likely to support torture are people with no religious affiliation.

Now, we could go back and forth about how it's not a matter of religious people not having compassion, it's about preserving a way of life that they consider superior. I won't argue against that (too strongly), it's a valid possible explanation for why their percentages would be higher. I'm not pointing to this study as a damnation of religion, per se. I'm more interested in the fact that it seems to debunk the "amoral atheist" assertion. Whatever the reasons for the high acceptance of torture among the practicing religious aside, it's completely counter to the claim of atheists having no reason to have compassion for other human beings. If it were the case, they should support torture in FAR greater numbers as the only reason to not support it is compassion. If it were purely about selfish self preservation, ateists should be all about any-means-necessary.

Of course, the rest result does not surprise me in the least. Religion's great achievement is the breeding of "in-group vs. out-group" mentality. It's a useful and understandable survival tool for societies as, lacking other protections, it's a convenient way of ensuring that you are surrounded by people you trust. But the side effect, by necessity of the construct, means that anyone deemed an outsider loses their humanity and is no longer "deserving" of the compassion and caring religions purport to value.

And please assume the standard disclaimers that individual attitudes and individual examples of good religious people and/or bad non-religious people are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about large-scale trends and attitudes, the kind of aggregate effects demonstrated by societal action and surveys like the one posted.

Alex

05-01-2009, 10:32 AM

This is complete speculation on my part with no studies or anything to back it up.

But if you believe in a deity that tortures (for an eternity) simply out of revenge as many evangelicals do, then I'd have to think that torturing for the actually (potentially) useful purpose gaining information that might save lives may not be as large a step to take.

Tom

05-01-2009, 02:42 PM

I nominate Alex for the Supreme Court.

Where's the suggestion box?

Alex

05-01-2009, 02:46 PM

I'd accept but I'd just get Borked when my video rental history was leaked.

Gemini Cricket

05-01-2009, 05:27 PM

I got Borked the other night. And when Cherny does it, does he actually get Bjorked? Wait. What are we talking about exactly?!

:D

SacTown Chronic

05-01-2009, 05:53 PM

I'd accept but I'd just get Borked when my video rental history was leaked.No dude, it's 2009. Your little problem fetish is no big deal these days.

scaeagles

05-01-2009, 06:39 PM

I left pubic hairs on the coke of the lady in the cube next to me, so I've got no chance either.

Well, I guess confirmation would be possible with that....just don't want to have my dirty laundry public, you know?

Ghoulish Delight

05-01-2009, 11:43 PM

I got Borked the other night. And when Cherny does it, does he actually get Bjorked? Wait. What are we talking about exactly?!

:D
It's not as bad as it sounds, but you do end up hearing Joe Biden's voice in your head for a couple days afterward.

Strangler Lewis

05-02-2009, 03:01 PM

Arlen Specter will defend you.

BDBopper

05-03-2009, 09:00 PM

I share this here more for the funny story behind it than because of what it is.

I spent the weekend in Indiana with some "HuckAfriends" Their kids raise pigs for 4-H and each night while I was there they needed to go by their Grandparents farm to clean out the pens and feed their pigs. On Friday night I went with them because I had never been in a pig pen before. One thing leads to another and I am right there in the mess with three pigs. My friend John, video camera in tow, in a burst of spontaneity asks me to come up with something on the fly. He said, "You have five seconds to come up with a political ad having something to do with these pigs. Ready...GO!"

This is the result (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AU0mzE2zs8). The funniest part is the end and my remark as the pigs are nipping at my heels and I am getting a little annoyed.

scaeagles

05-07-2009, 11:40 AM

So I go to read a story on MSNBC and I see this.

1113

Does anybody see that and think Obama is considering Rick Warren for the Supreme Court?

Not Afraid

05-07-2009, 11:44 AM

I almost barfed.

scaeagles

05-07-2009, 11:47 AM

Of course he isn't....I think MSNBC might want to be a little more careful as far as how they organize their page, though.

Maybe it was just me that saw it that way. Thought it was funny.

Alex

05-07-2009, 11:55 AM

Most likely no human did it. Just a computer working off metadata and when you do that, such amusing coincidences are bound to happen.

Gemini Cricket

05-08-2009, 02:08 AM

You know what? F*ck Joe the Plumber. Homophobic f*ckstick.

JWBear

05-08-2009, 08:45 AM

You mean Samuel the Not a Plumber? What a phucking tool.

Ghoulish Delight

05-08-2009, 09:13 AM

Pat Robertson can join SamJoe in whatever they deserve.

Meanwhile, I love this clearly unbiased (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/free_states_study/2009/05/06/211385.html?utm_medium=RSS) study.

Here's my favorite part
“The problem is that the cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments,” say the study’s authors. “While liberal states are freer than conservative states on marijuana and same-sex partnership policies, when it comes to gun owners, home schoolers, motorists, or smokers, liberal states are nanny states, while conservative states are more tolerant.”In otherwords, "If we only look the things conservatives don't think should be regulated, and ignore the things that conservatives do think should be regulated, then we can prove that these states are regulating the things that we don't think should be regulated, and define that as `liberal and unfree`."

scaeagles

05-08-2009, 09:58 AM

I'm not sure why what you quoted is problematic. He lists items that both sides of the fence are more likely to look for government intervention or control. He didn't say "conservatives are completely for freedom and liberals are for none". He said conservatives are move likely to look to regulate X and Y, and liberals are more likely to regulate a, b, c, and d. It the issue that more items were listed on the liberal side?

innerSpaceman

05-08-2009, 10:02 AM

My read is that the problem lies in the characterization of regulating guns, motor vehicles, tobacco, and home schooling as "nanny states" while regulating marriage rights and marijuana is more "tolerant."

scaeagles

05-08-2009, 10:05 AM

Alex

05-08-2009, 10:08 AM

The issue would seem to be that while they do list ways both conservatives and liberals regulate personal behavior they simply define the liberal regulations as more restrictive of freedoms.

But I haven't read the study so maybe the article just erroneously gives that impression. It is here (http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf). If I have time I'll read.

Alex

05-08-2009, 10:17 AM

Read the first paragraph and that is the slant. They simply define freedom along Libertarian lines. By that definition I imagine much of the results will not be a surprise (though I am interested in seeing how they evaluate the relative restriction on freedom created by seatbelt laws vs. animal cruelty laws vs. mandatory education laws vs. drug criminlization vs. etc.).

A lot of people would disagree with that definition though. Say by considering it an important "personal freedom" to not worry that you'll die from a gangrenous ingrown toenail because you don't have access to insurance or quality emergency care and that this is a much more important freedom (while the study would consider it a restriction on freedom) than the freedom to set up a target shooting practice range in your urban back yard.

The opening paragraph (which is in the Newsmax article as the last paragraph long after most readers will stop paying attention):

This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one's own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual's ability to do the same.So I'd say simply presenting the results as an objective measure of "freedom" is misleading. It is, perhaps, an objective measure of Libertarianism across the states (which isn't even necessarily a point of view that "conservatives" agree with).

innerSpaceman

05-08-2009, 10:56 AM

I can see that, but I read right over that myself. It would be like singling out the fact that earlier he used "freer" to describe liberal states as compared to conservative. But I can't say what you point out is without merit.

There's nothing particularly judgmental about "freer," nor - I admit - is there about "tolerant". "Nanny State," on the other hand, is a very biased characterization.

Alex

05-08-2009, 11:00 AM

Poking in the data (available here (http://www.statepolicyindex.com/)) is interesting.

Idaho is a freer state than New Mexico because they have compulsory education from ages 7-16 rather than 5-18. By Libertarian definitions definitely true. But many people wouldn't think this is an issue of "freedom" at all.

Kansas is freer than New Jersey because it allows students to be home schooled but has no curriculum requirements.

Arkansas is freer than Alabama because it allows you and your passengers to sit around with open beers while driving.

Any form of civil union, domestic partnership, or same sex marriage are considered equally "free." Obviously there are plenty who disagree that one is just as good as the other and others who disagree on whether this is an issue of freedom at all.

Not letting you get married because of closeness of genetic relationship has no bearing on freedom but actually requiring a blood test to prove it does.

Anyway, I have libertarian inclinations so many of the things they measure I agree with on a philosophical level. But so far I'm not buying into their relative measurements.

They ignore abortion access, for example. As well as age of consent (it is a restriction on freedom to require a 16 year old to go to school but not one to criminalize sex with a 19 year old). Death penalty is also excluded though many would consider that a significant abrogation of rights. Nothing about border control or illegal alien services (open borders being a libertarian ideal).

JWBear

05-08-2009, 10:04 PM

I have a question for our conservative friends... When did eating Dijon mustard become un-American? Seriously. I must have missed that memo.

Andrew

05-08-2009, 11:13 PM

I have a question for our conservative friends... When did eating Dijon mustard become un-American? Seriously. I must have missed that memo.
I have to think the two guys in limos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_pGT8Q_tjk) are probably Republicans.

wendybeth

05-09-2009, 12:07 AM

I have a question for our conservative friends... When did eating Dijon mustard become un-American? Seriously. I must have missed that memo.

That's Freedom Mustard to you, son.

sleepyjeff

05-09-2009, 10:37 AM

I have a question for our conservative friends... When did eating Dijon mustard become un-American? Seriously. I must have missed that memo.

Don't know....personally I love dijon mustard....I also prefer, like many Europeans, mayonnaise on my freedom fries:D

I have to think the two guys in limos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_pGT8Q_tjk) are probably Republicans.

Country club Republicans........like the Boss Hogg type Democrats of yesteryear, an extinct animal;)

That's Freedom Mustard to you, son.

:snap: :snap:

Ghoulish Delight

05-13-2009, 06:09 PM

I'm entirely conflicted whether I agree with the "pick a woman and/or an Hispanic person" strategy for the Supreme Court nom. I really do see both sides of it and I can't really settle on which I think is "right".

Betty

05-13-2009, 07:34 PM

They should pick the person who most agrees with MY opinion. I have preference if they have innies or outties or what color of skin they have.

JWBear

05-13-2009, 11:27 PM

I want him to appoint a liberal, tree hugging, hippie, vegetarian, cross dressing, lesbian Arab just so I can watch the collective heads of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Bachman explode. I'm just evil that way...

Moonliner

05-14-2009, 02:16 PM

Question:

Was the Waterboarding of prisoners at Guantanamo during the Bush Administration illegal under US law?

The only law I found passed by congress was that the US ratified the UN's Convention Against Torture but that ratification was filled with weasel words like "not self-executing (http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8463:1)"

So is there a clear smoking gun to use to prosecute government officials or not?

Ghoulish Delight

05-14-2009, 02:33 PM

Well if you read what it says directly after "not self executing" it says that torture inside the US was already criminalized and that sections 2340 and 2340A of the criminal code were added to criminalize torture outside of the US. Here's section 2340 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html).

Alex

05-14-2009, 02:45 PM

Title 18 §2340A:

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

So, if waterboarding is determined to be torture (and I personally think it is and that a long history of case law agrees) then it seems to me that is your statute.

Here's the definition of torture given in that section:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Alex

05-14-2009, 02:47 PM

And recent (2006) changes to the War Crimes Act would also further criminalize it though that wouldn't necessarily apply to the waterboarding in question.

That change also giving lie to the idea that congress has not done anything recently to make torture more illegal (a lie which also ignores that Congress last year passed a law specifically limiting the CIA to practices that do not include waterboarding but the president vetoed it).

And before somebody says "but, but, but, Pelosi!!!!" I'll say now that if she was aware it was being used then she should be subject to the same potential punishments as anybody else in similar positions.

JWBear

05-20-2009, 12:08 PM

If Obama nominated Jesus to the SC (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/1/726798/-BREAKING:-Obama-to-nominate-Jesus-Christ-to-Supreme-CourtRepublicans-Announce-Filibuster)

It's funny because that's just what would happen.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 06:49 PM

Wow.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/

Gemini Cricket

05-22-2009, 07:02 PM

I hope Glenn Beck volunteers next.

Ghoulish Delight

05-22-2009, 07:11 PM

I was thinking Cheney.

JWBear

05-22-2009, 10:42 PM

And Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Bachman, Coulter...

Gemini Cricket

05-23-2009, 02:01 PM

Elizabeth Hasselbeck...

JWBear

05-23-2009, 02:04 PM

Michael Savage... (But in his case, they need to use Rockstar... :evil: )

CoasterMatt

05-23-2009, 02:08 PM

They have(had?) waterboarding as a "sideshow" at Coney Island.

scaeagles

05-23-2009, 03:12 PM

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Geithner.....

JWBear

05-23-2009, 06:18 PM

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Geithner.....

Why?

scaeagles

05-23-2009, 10:09 PM

Why not? Pelosi knew, maybe I should have said her instead. I personally believe that most of them knew, and if they objected then, they were too freakin frightened to say anything. This whole thing is going to die anyway as Pelosi won't let it go farther when she clearly is damaged politically. And that's what it is all about to Pelosi, anyway - politics.

JWBear

05-23-2009, 10:28 PM

Be that as it may, the point was to list all the right wing pundits that keep insisting that waterboarding isn't torture.

Alex

05-23-2009, 11:09 PM

You believe Geithner was aware of in any way that the general public wasn't of the waterboarding of these prisoners? What exactly do you think the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York does? Other than simply using waterboarding as punishment (though it would apparently be for pursuing policies you find disagreeable), on what basis could Geithner be on any list of people to be considered for it?

That said, I'm in favor of any and all of our politicians who are healthy enough for it volunteering to experience waterboarding. Then maybe we'll avoid such moral failure in the future.

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 06:28 AM

Right. Geithner shouldn't have been on the list. I just started naming some prominent dems without really thinking. I do not think Geithner would have been in any position to know anything.

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 07:41 AM

Right. Geithner shouldn't have been on the list. I just started naming some prominent dems without really thinking.

Aha! Without really thinking. There's a lot of that going around with the repubs these days. Hey, I'm not especially political, and I only lean a little to the left, but really, is this the best that the Grand Old Party can do? Pelosi knew? Hey, I'm prepared to believe that she did, and that she is being a weenie by ducking the issue now. If so, so the hell what!? It's politically embarrasing for her - but the last eight years have been politically devastating to the GOP. Defending waterboarding and trying to indict Pelosi is a dead-end street. Y'all are going to have to do some soul-searching, my friends. (And I'm truly in favor of a healthy, intellectually robust conservative opposition. I look forward to their re-appearance sometime soon.)

The whole "let's waterboard (insert political enemy) next" meme is pointless from both sides. The consensus is in. It's torture, or so close to it as to make no difference. We've all known about it for years now.

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 07:49 AM

Why not? Pelosi knew, maybe I should have said her instead. I personally believe that most of them knew, and if they objected then, they were too freakin frightened to say anything.

The authorizing memos and the waterboarding took place in 02-03, right? Why on earth would Obama (not a senator until 05) have been notified about it?

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 08:14 AM

And, okay, this is the last time I'll pick on you, scaeagles - but, other than the fact that you don't like them - why again do you think prominent dems should undergo waterboarding? Because they might have known about it? Because you think they are horrible people? I disagree with those who think that conservatives should be waterboarded, as stated before. But at least it was coherent - Hannity doesn't think waterboarding was torture, so, let him try it and see how he likes it. (Which, of course, he offered to do before apparently changing his mind.) So, there is a direct correlation between the "crime" (thinking waterboarding is okay) and the punishment (let 'em have it.) Just to clarify, I don't follow this line of thinking. I don't even particularly advise anyone to voluntarily undergo the process, as I understand it's potentially much more dangerous than is generally acknowledged.

But, just to press you a bit - why exactly do you think Obama, Clinton, not Gethner but certainly Pelosi deserve waterboarding? They already agree it's torture. They presumably find it objectionable. So, they deserve it? Do you think they will undergo it and come out saying, "Oh! That wasn't so bad after all!"

Or were you just offering a knee-jerk response to all the "let's waterboard prominent conservatives" posts?

JWBear

05-24-2009, 08:25 AM

Or were you just offering a knee-jerk response to all the "let's waterboard prominent conservatives" posts?

Bingo!

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 10:19 AM

Aha! Without really thinking. There's a lot of that going around with the repubs these days.

I completely disagree. I can't speak for all of course, but as a listener of Hannity most of the time, the comments are not flippant, but thought out. I have gone back on forth on the issue myself. Most members of our military that go through specialized training are water boarded. Why would the military "torture" their own members? Just because something is unpleasant or I want it to stop doesn't necessarily make it torture.

In saying, that, though, I do go back and forth on it. There are days when i think it isn't necessary, prudent, or moral, then I wonder why the practices would be released without any results of the process being released. There has been a discussion (but I don't believe there has been any verification) of a 9/11 style plot on Los Angeles that was directly thwarted by info from these water boarding sessions. I also know only 3 detainees were subjected to it, so it was hardly a widespread thing. However, immoral behavior, regardless of how limited, is still mimoral behavior.

What I'm typing is part of the thought process I've been through.

I also have no doubt that should a 9/11 style attack have taken place on LA that the dems would have been screaming "why didn't Bush do more?!?!?!". Same as the dems screaming right now about this when I believe they knew of this practice. (And yes, Flippy, I just listed some prominent dems....my point wasn't the specific people, but simply trying to point out that there were people on left side of the aisle that certainly knew and didn't speak up until it was to their political advantage to do so....so in my listing of people, I didn't stop and really think about which ones. Perhaps I should have listed Pelosi and done some research into exactly who was privy to the breifings Pelosi was privy to.)

Scrooge McSam

05-24-2009, 10:23 AM

Pelosi knew

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. She maintains the CIA misled Congress, which is not an outrageous charge. I don't think we need to list the documented instances of the CIA doing just that, do we?

I just love who's leading the charge to discredit Pelosi, though - John Boehner. LOL Boehner says it's "hard for me to imagine" the CIA would mislead Congress. He's sure changed his tune, hasn't he? Wasn't he just defending Hoekstra for claiming the CIA misled Congress? Or have I fallen all Star-Trekian into an alternate timeline?

Boehner's attack on Pelosi is bronzer foam; a faux** front whipped into a creamy froth via the injection of compressed air. The only difference is attacking Pelosi doesn't make him look orange. I think that's something else. I don't know exactly why he looks orange, but you can be sure it's the fault of someone in the liberal media.

** - As a liberal, I by definition love all things European (especially France) more than my own country, so you'll have to excuse me if that frenchy stuff slips out now and again. Lucky I don't know more French, huh? I suppose I could take that Rosetta Stone course - seems to have worked for that nice Michael Phelps boy I see on the tee-vee machine - but it's hard to find the time when I'm not actively working to support the terrorists who seek to destroy us "because of our freedoms". Oh well, c'est la vie! (sOrRy - I did it again)

How's it going, Leo? Long time, no talk to. Did you get the Mustang? I've been off and on lately and may have missed it.

Scrooge McSam

05-24-2009, 10:31 AM

Why would the military "torture" their own members?

Read up on the "SERE" program and you'll have your answer.

A torturer can make you confess to anything, even if it's false. SERE endeavored to train our guys to resist an enemy's attempts to extract a false confession.

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 10:43 AM

And yes, Flippy, I just listed some prominent dems....my point wasn't the specific people, but simply trying to point out that there were people on left side of the aisle that certainly knew and didn't speak up until it was to their political advantage to do so.

A point I wouldn't have argued with at all.

So, just to be clear, there aren't actually any Democrats you feel should be waterboarded, right?

To my understanding, the reason that waterboarding is part of military training is to prepare soldiers in case they are ever captured and waterboarded. So, yes, in a sense, SERE training involves torturing recruits. I presume that the exposure to these techniques is relatively brief, done with full disclosure beforehand, and with careful attention to making sure no one is truly harmed. Emerging information seems to indicate that our detainees underwent endless hours of the procedure, in one case over one hundred times in a month. We don't yet know what, if any, useful information was obtained by these means, but indications are that conventional interrogation techniques have been far more effective.

If there really is a 24-style ticking bomb scenario that we avoided thanks to waterboarding, we should know about it. (Cheney insists there are documents that would vindicate the procedure - but even if they aren't released, surely there are people involved who could give us at least SOME information about this hitherto-unknown breakthrough in national security.)

I've got to go back onstage, but, as always, pleasure tossing the ideological volleyball around.

Alex

05-24-2009, 10:44 AM

SERE was not torture. Torture is not consensual. The tortured are not given a safe word or signal they can use to stop things whenever they want. And the fact that waterboarding was included is a pretty solid indicator that the military considers it torture. The point, after all, was to expose soldiers to a flavor of what it would be like to be tortured. It wasn't "here are perfectly legal and reasonable -- though tough minded -- extreme interrogation techniques you might experience if captured training" it was "here're are some of the things you might experience if you're captured and tortured" training.

SERE gave a taste of what it might be like to be tortured but psychicly it is fundamentally different from toture. On another board someone who has been through SERE said it well, I think. It was torturous, not torture.

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

That said, I certainly understand the pressure that leads to torture and after the fact society may decide to forgive or only lightly punish a transgession if the evidence is strong that it did do just such a thing (currently there is little such evidence for the torturing we did do). But still, you don't pre-emptively exonerate people for immoral acts that they might commit under the pressure to succeed.

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 10:50 AM

So, just to be clear, there aren't actually any Democrats you feel should be waterboarded, right?

I don't think so. I tried (and not very well) to make a rhetorical point.

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 10:57 AM

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

Something on which I do not doubt your sincerity at all, because you are not someone seeking political advantage.

No one would ever convince me though, that should something horrid have happened (say the LA 9/11 thing), Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, whomever, would all be on the other side asking why we didn't use more agressive techniques to find out whatever we could.

And this is what disturbs me about politics, really. I don't consider myself innocent of it in the least. EVERYTHING can be spun in hindsight to make a political opponent look inept. With rare exception, I do believe (Obama included) that politicians have the best interests of America at heart, but each politician wants to be the one who is credited with making the decisions that have bettered America. Should Kerrey or Gore have been President and made some of or all of the same decisions, the left would be all for them and justifying or downplaying the significance of just what they are now condemning.

Alex

05-24-2009, 11:08 AM

Possibly, though you didn't realize anybody demanding torture-in-hindsight following 9/11 and we did have access.

But certainly politicians will sway to some degree with the political breeze. And to the extent that Democrats in positions of authority to intervene were aware and did nothing then they are deserving of the same response (though Pelosi or Hastert being told about it in a meeting she wasn't legally allowed to talk about and Bush making sure the legal office produced exactly the CYA guidance they wanted are not the same thing. And while Pelosi may have remained silent (she claims to have not actually be told while committee chair) the next minority chair of the intelligence committee, Jane Harmon, did write a letter of protest in February 2003 when she was told waterboarding had been used. So while you can claim she should have done more, her position (Harmon's) has been consistent.

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 11:38 AM

No one would ever convince me though, that should something horrid have happened (say the LA 9/11 thing), Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, whomever, would all be on the other side asking why we didn't use more agressive techniques to find out whatever we could.

Opinions based on "what if" and hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" scenarios have got to be the least convincing rhetorical device ever!

Strangler Lewis

05-24-2009, 12:43 PM

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

I would disagree with that as a theoretical matter. It arguably is another species of exigent circumstances, a familiar doctrine that says police don't need a search warrant if they have reasonable belief of an imminent or ongoing harm. Also, in such situations, I would draw both a moral and legal distinction between what might properly be done to save lives and what would be appropriate to admit in a criminal prosecution.

The problem that I have with the argument is that is akin to the capital punishment defense, "Well, would you execute Hitler?" in that it has little basis in reality. So far, no one executed in the U.S. actually has been Hitler, and so far, there's no evidence that we tortured anyone with a focused and reasonable belief that they knew where the bomb was.

I also heard someone say that a problem with torture is that it is bad and lazy intelligence gathering in that the torturer generally has an answer in mind that he wants to hear in order for the torture to stop.

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 01:16 PM

Alex

05-24-2009, 02:54 PM

I would disagree with that as a theoretical matter.

I agree. When we live in a world where it is possible to know with absolute certainty that Person A absolutely knows Fact B which will prevent Catastrophe C and torture is the only way to get it, then my view will change.

So I should have written "if we believed that torture was all that stood between preventing another 9/11..."

In the real world I don't know that the requistie perfect knowledge is possible but if you're holding a prisoner and believe it to be so then go ahead and torture, but do it knowing your violating our principles and very well may be punished for it. If it is so important it is worth torturing then it is important enough to live with the consequences.

JWBear

05-24-2009, 04:54 PM

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 05:37 PM

Again, you missed the point. We were listing people on the right who are quite vocal in denying that waterboarding is torture, not people who might have known we were diong it.

In my opinion, it is far worse to believe it is torture and do nothing when they know it is happening than to vocally express that it is not torture.

I personally know two members of the armed forces who have been subjected to it and do not consider it torture.....and in fact, find it somewhat ridiculous that it is categorized as such. There are people who have been subjected to it who do not consider it to be. What is torture to me may not be torture to someone else. I am deathly afraid of the dentist, do not go willingly, dread it, and want it to be over immediately. It literally takes every ounce of will power I have not to bolt from the chair. Is that to be considered torture? I don't think I'd like water boarding, but someone like Michael Phelps might not mind at all. Hell, I'd like to sue my son's 4th grade music teacher for making him practice his recorder for 3 hours/month. THAT is torture.

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Interrogation is not an issue of only finding out new information. A good interrogator will always ask many, many questions - by far the majority - that they already know the answers to. When the subject lies, they inform the subject of the real answer.

And Flippy.....hypotheticals are dealt with ALL the time. And really, I don't see this as exceptionally hypothetical. It is not difficult to surmise that political parties spin the decisions of their party members in one way and identical actions of the other party in the complete opposite.

A) Sure. I said nothing about standard interrogation procedure. No disagreement here. But the major justification of waterboarding is (can you deny this?) that we gained big important life-saving information from it. So, I'm eager to know more about that information.

B) Of course everybody spins. But saying that you know how democrats would react in a hypothetical situation is not evidence, and it's equally eye-rolling for me when the other side does it, too.

It's a horse that has been flogged in the Daily Grind many many times. I really enjoy learning new facts that shed light on the issues, and I welcome them even when they come from the other side of the aisle. (Sometimes the truth really does sting - that's fine) But hypothetical "I know what your lot would do" adds nothing to the conversation for me. I stand by this, and apologize in advance if I misunderstood your intent somehow.

flippyshark

05-24-2009, 07:25 PM

In my opinion, it is far worse to believe it is torture and do nothing when they know it is happening than to vocally express that it is not torture.

I personally know two members of the armed forces who have been subjected to it and do not consider it torture.....and in fact, find it somewhat ridiculous that it is categorized as such. There are people who have been subjected to it who do not consider it to be. What is torture to me may not be torture to someone else. I am deathly afraid of the dentist, do not go willingly, dread it, and want it to be over immediately. It literally takes every ounce of will power I have not to bolt from the chair. Is that to be considered torture? I don't think I'd like water boarding, but someone like Michael Phelps might not mind at all. Hell, I'd like to sue my son's 4th grade music teacher for making him practice his recorder for 3 hours/month. THAT is torture.

I'm with you all the way about the dentist.

It seems to me that the majority of democrats have been railing against it for years now. I'd want evidence that they knew and stayed silent back in '02. And if that is so, then I'd be interested in knowing when they changed their minds and why. And then, yes, I'd agree that said weasliness is worse than simply having the opinion that the practice isn't torture. But neither of these things are high crimes - they are pretty small potatoes compared to actually authorizing and carrying out torture. (Or even enhanced unpleasantness.)

I don't doubt that there are people who can take it and shrug it off. How much did your armed forces acquaintances undergo? Were they subjected for hours at a time, over a hundred times in one month? (That is definitely going into the torture category for me.) Would they feel the same way if they underwent the procedure after being imprisoned for a few years, less fit, confined and not knowing what was happening to them? I can't answer that, of course.

I'm convinced that waterboarding doesn't belong in our bag of interrogation tricks. It seems obvious to me just as its relative harmlessness seems obvious to you. But whether or not it deserves the name torture is just semantics. Until someone convinces me with evidence, I call the practice needless, ugly and ineffective. It makes us look desperate and scared, and I'm not convinced it bought us anything useful.

scaeagles

05-24-2009, 07:43 PM

How much did your armed forces acquaintances undergo? Were they subjected for hours at a time, over a hundred times in one month?

Honestly, I don't know. All I know is that they've both basically said that they were waterboarded during training, it while wasn't pleasant, they really didn't think they were bring tortured. I will certainly admit that in part could be because they knew it was training and didn't figure anyone was planning on killing them.

Strangler Lewis

05-25-2009, 10:52 AM

If it's not torture, why do it. Waterboarding doesn't seem to be easily lumped under the category of "loss of privileges," e.g., "Tell us everything you know, or you can't watch Zack and Cody."

So, if your soldier friends thought it wasn't torture, I submit that either 1) they didn't experience it long enough or 2) we're bad at devising methods of torture.

The latter argument certainly doesn't excuse us. It calls to mind the testimony of the defense expert at the Rodney King beating trial who said, no, Officer Powell was not committing police brutality because, as you can see, his baton technique is really quite poor.

Betty

05-25-2009, 02:02 PM

If someone in your family was suspected of being a terrorist, would you feel comfortable knowing that this was one of the techniques that would be used to "make them talk".

Note this would be before they had a trial - this would be an attempt to gain valuable information to save American lives.

Alex

05-25-2009, 04:27 PM

I am deathly afraid of the dentist, do not go willingly, dread it, and want it to be over immediately. It literally takes every ounce of will power I have not to bolt from the chair. Is that to be considered torture?

If somebody forces you to do it as punishment or a form of cercion, then it likely is.

As for your friends who don't consider it to be torture, do you think they'd still hold that position if it were Taliban fighters doing it to a member of their platoon? Or is part of the reason that they don't consider torture that it is Americans doing it to other people?

scaeagles

05-25-2009, 05:12 PM

I answered that above in post 4464. I said

I will certainly admit that in part could be because they knew it was training and didn't figure anyone was planning on killing them.

They didn't expand on their experience much.

scaeagles

05-25-2009, 05:21 PM

Alex

05-25-2009, 06:26 PM

Was your post (#4468) in response to my post before it? I'm not seeing how it addresses what I asked.

flippyshark

05-25-2009, 07:55 PM

And while the national debate continues along the lines of waterboarding 3 terrorists, North Korea detonates a nuclear weapon. Good thing they followed through on their agreements to dismantle their weapons programs!

Is anyone suggesting that this isn't as important? I bet we'll hear more about this than waterboarding for a cycle or two.

scaeagles

05-25-2009, 09:16 PM

To me it's more about the process of getting to this point that is important rather than the detonation itself. I wonder if anything will be learned from this when dealing with Iran. I doubt it.

Alex

05-25-2009, 09:19 PM

We should just give up on the silliness that anything will stop countries that want the bomb from getting the bomb. And live in the real world rather than hyperventilating.

It's our own damn fault. We used nuclear weapons for 40+ years to say "if you have one of these nobody gets to **** with you." Then we get all weepy when half the rest of the countries in the world say "ooh, shiny."

scaeagles

05-26-2009, 04:54 AM

So the nuclear non proliferation treaty is moot? And forgive me....I think Iran and N. Korea were both signatories, but perhaps have withdrawn from it?

To me, the issue of the bomb is not the issue. The issue of the bomb is how it shows what other countries think about agreements they make. I'm sure someone will say "but we tortured three people with waterboarding!". Point still remains. I don't trust these states that we make agreements with because they use these as a means to an end, knowing that we and the international community lacks the will to enforce them. Saying there will be grave consequences just doesn't hold much weight with Kim Jong Il or Ahmahdinejad.

flippyshark

05-26-2009, 08:51 AM

I don't trust these states that we make agreements with because they use these as a means to an end, knowing that we and the international community lacks the will to enforce them. Saying there will be grave consequences just doesn't hold much weight with Kim Jong Il or Ahmahdinejad.

I don't trust them either. Now what in blue blazes has this got to do with the ethics of waterboarding? I've seriously lost your thread here.

scaeagles

05-26-2009, 09:21 AM

Nothing at all. This is the "random political thoughts thread". When I posted a reference to discussion of water boarding while N, Korea was detonating nuclear weapons, it was simply a change in subject. Not relating the two of them in the least except to suggest that I think North Korea detonating a nuke is more important.

Ghoulish Delight

05-26-2009, 09:41 AM

Not relating the two of them in the least except to suggest that I think North Korea detonating a nuke is more important.
Gee, how could anyone have gotten the impression that you were trying to relate the two?
And while the national debate continues along the lines of waterboarding 3 terrorists, North Korea detonates a nuclear weapon. Good thing they followed through on their agreements to dismantle their weapons programs!

To me, the issue of the bomb is not the issue. The issue of the bomb is how it shows what other countries think about agreements they make. I'm sure someone will say "but we tortured three people with waterboarding!".

Well, I guess you're right. Setting up a strawman isn't quite the same as relating the two.

scaeagles

05-26-2009, 11:41 AM

Well, gee, GD, perhaps you should try reading this and figuring it out instead of jumping to conclusions like you do in other threads, where you choose to overreact and rip on me as well.

One was clearly a transition, and like I said, it was set up with the idea that I think the nuke test might be a slightly more important topic.

The second was an issue of me saying a country is violating their agreements, and preempting someone coming back and saying "we do the same, look at the our waterboarding torture", which I thought might be relevant in the context of recent conversations. I suppose they could be related in that way.

But if rudeness is your currently preferred method of communication, particularly with me, OK.

Gemini Cricket

05-26-2009, 12:16 PM

Opinions on Sotomayor?

I didn't realize it was pronounced "SO-TOE-MAY-YOUR". At least that's how they pronounce it on NPR.

scaeagles

05-26-2009, 12:26 PM

Seems a little early for many informed opinions on her. The only thing I know is that she was involved in ending some professional baseball strike sometime....enough reason for me to despise her already!

Gemini Cricket

05-29-2009, 12:40 PM

Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.
Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.
Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.
Source (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/)

So she's a racist for the following comment:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said.But the Liddy comments above are okay?
Huh?

JWBear

05-29-2009, 12:42 PM

Right-wing hypocrasy at its best!

Gemini Cricket

05-29-2009, 12:47 PM

I can't tell if the right wing talking heads are helping or hurting Sotomayor.

JWBear

05-29-2009, 01:00 PM

I can't tell if the right wing talking heads are helping or hurting Sotomayor.

Neither. They're just making themselves look like the frightened bigots that they are.

Betty

05-29-2009, 01:04 PM

OMFG! And men shouldn't be on the SC because they all think with their dicks.

(no, I don't believe that. but the level of truth is about the same.)

Gemini Cricket

05-29-2009, 01:06 PM

OMFG! And men shouldn't be on the SC because they all think with their dicks.

I don't think with my dick, it's more of a divining rod.

:D

Moonliner

05-29-2009, 01:34 PM

Neither. They're just making themselves look like the frightened bigots that they are.

*sigh*

It is possible to be against the views of an individual without being a "frightened bigot" you know.

SacTown Chronic

05-29-2009, 01:40 PM

...my dick, it's more of a divine rod./word on the street

scaeagles

05-29-2009, 02:01 PM

The middle Liddy comment is most certainly inappropriate. He should be criticized.

The first is, of course, pointing out her affiliation with a group that is questionable at best.

The last I agree with 100%. It isn't a representative body.

Should Sotomayor NOT be criticized for her racist comments? I think they are. They would be considered to be so if a white man said it about a hispanic woman. I also think she should be criticized for her comments about the circuit court "making policy". Courts should not "make policy".

And I'm not a frightened bigot because I don't like her as a choice. I don't like what I've read and hear about her.

I find it interesting that her "life story" is so huge. I can think of another minority member of the court that has a more compelling life story than hers, yet as a conservative, that wasn't the focus of the coverage.

Snowflake

05-29-2009, 02:36 PM

I don't think with my dick, it's more of a divining rod.

:D

Best fvckin quote ever, duly submitted for posterity

VGCM, I'm still howling.

JWBear

05-29-2009, 03:13 PM

*sigh*

It is possible to be against the views of an individual without being a "frightened bigot" you know.

Of course it is. Please re-read their comments. They go far beyond disagreeing with her views.

Moonliner

05-29-2009, 03:20 PM

Of course it is. Please re-read their comments. They go far beyond disagreeing with her views.

I was not defending Liddy and the like, I was just making a general point.

You can be against anyone of any race without being a racist

That of course does not deny that racism and other forms a hate exist.

JWBear

05-29-2009, 03:28 PM

The middle Liddy comment is most certainly inappropriate. He should be criticized.

The first is, of course, pointing out her affiliation with a group that is questionable at best.

What's wrong with that first quote is him referring to the Spanish language as "Illegal Alien". That’s unconscionable.

The last I agree with 100%. It isn't a representative body.

That’s a matter of opinion, and many would disagree with you.

Should Sotomayor NOT be criticized for her racist comments? I think they are. They would be considered to be so if a white man said it about a hispanic woman.

Um… What racist comments?

I also think she should be criticized for her comments about the circuit court "making policy". Courts should not "make policy".

Again, many (including Justice Scalia, BTW) disagree.

And I'm not a frightened bigot because I don't like her as a choice. I don't like what I've read and hear about her.

I never said that you were a frightened bigot. I was referring to the pundits who are making the nasty ad-hominem attacks against her due to her race and gender.

JWBear

05-29-2009, 03:31 PM

I was not defending Liddy and the like, I was just making a general point.

You can be against anyone of any race without being a racist

That of course does not deny that racism and other forms a hate exist.

I agree 100%. But these people are attacking her because she is a latina. That, my friend, is racism.

Moonliner

05-29-2009, 03:47 PM

I agree 100%. But these people are attacking her because she is a latina. That, my friend, is racism.

I don't think so. They are attacking her because they are on the other side of the political arena. Which is just as bad I suppose. Judging someone soley on their political affiliation is short sighted at best.

Scrooge McSam

05-29-2009, 03:54 PM

They are attacking her because they are on the other side of the political arena.

Thank you, Moonie

Strangler Lewis

05-29-2009, 04:08 PM

I'm not a huge fan of her "Latina" quote. However, if one steps back a bit, it's no different than many similar quotes.

As I will now demonstrate.

The reality is that many laws affect women and Latinos, or other groups that comprise what can be generalized as "the poor and underrepresented." More likely than not, these laws are not enacted by members of the poor and underrepresented.

Though that is changing.

Thus, her comment, boneheaded as it sounds, is really no different than comments made by members of any other group--small business owners, oil drillers, homophobic drill sergeants--who complain about laws being made and enforced against them by legislators and courts who have no practical experience with the subject that they are regulating.

Thank you.