by liberal japonicus
Outsourcing at its best. wj suggests
On the general topic, we might profitably have a discussion of whether or not it is even possible for someone to take a wrong position and later change it. Is it possible to have that change accepted as a good-faith change? Especially if one is a public figure or a politician.
And if someone does have a change of position, how much do they have to do to demonstrate that it is something more than a gesture of convenience? Presumably that would depend, in part, on whether they merely agreed publicly with something, or argued for it, or took concrete action in support of it. But how much does one have to do in order for a change, and/or an apology, to be accepted?
Already been aired out a bit from where the comment emerged, with the obligatory Robert Byrd reference, but you are welcome to discuss it a bit more, or take it in another direction. Maybe like what a saint has to do to tarnish his/her rep?
I think one thing that makes it easier to accept a change of heart is when people are born into and raised in situations where there are established norms that are problematic, particularly when those norms are reinforced through indoctrination by family and community. In such situations, it’s much easier to understand people holding offensive views that they later change, after coming to understand better the world outside the immediate circumstances of their upbringings.
Without such a compelling context, where someone can be seen to have come upon an offensive idea and embraced it on his or her own, simply based on the preceived merits, it’s more difficult to forgive – not impossible, but certainly more difficult.
I think one thing that makes it easier to accept a change of heart is when people are born into and raised in situations where there are established norms that are problematic, particularly when those norms are reinforced through indoctrination by family and community. In such situations, it’s much easier to understand people holding offensive views that they later change, after coming to understand better the world outside the immediate circumstances of their upbringings.
Without such a compelling context, where someone can be seen to have come upon an offensive idea and embraced it on his or her own, simply based on the preceived merits, it’s more difficult to forgive – not impossible, but certainly more difficult.
My apologies. I should have found time yesterday to give LJ a little more expanded piece to start things off. Well, here goes.
I think the first question as we approach this is: is the person wrong in their original opinion, or evil? (And note that just because two people hold the same view, that does not necessarily mean, when you disagree, that both are wrong, or both are evil.)
The difference, as I see it, is this. Anyone can be wrong. And someone who is wrong can be persuaded, by argument and/or evidence, to change their mind. Whereas someone who is evil will not change their mind, no matter what evidence you present; they have made a moral committment, and evidence is irrelevant. Indeed, they will tend to say that evidence which conflicts is either fabrication and lies, or merely something which appears to conflict that has been put there as a test of faith.
Not to say that someone who has evilly taken a position may not say that they have changed. But that is a matter of expediency, rather than a change of belief. There is no point in arguing with someone who has taken an evil position; all you can do is shame them, so that few people will be willing to consider adopting the same position.
But someone who is wrong, whether they were wrong enthusiastically or reluctantly, will consider evidence. And if the evidence conflicts with their position, they can come to change it.
Consider two people, one of whom thinks that gay marriage ought to be allowed, and the other thinks that it should not. Either one might be wrong. One test is what happens when gay marriage gets allowed somewhere. After Massachusettes allowed gay marriage, either of two things could have happened. (And probably somewhere inbetween, but ignore that for the sake of discussion.) Those who supported gay marriage could have discovered that the rate of heterosexual marriages fell of (from the trend, rather than in an absolute sense), and that the number of cases of homosexual child molestation jumped up. Those who had been wrong would have said, however reluctantly, “OK, this was a bad idea. Let’s back it off.” Or it could have been that there was no impact on heterosexual marriage and no change in the rate of child molestation. And those who had been wrong would have said, again however reluctantly, “Well, I still may not like it, but it isn’t the disaster I thought it would be.” Those, in either case, would be the people who were wrong.
Then there are those who, in either situation, would say “The facts are irrelevant! It is still just wrong to/not to allow this to happen!”
But it is hard to decide, from the outside, whether someone is evil, or merely wrong. Because it comes down, essentially, to knowing why they hold the position that they do.
OK, from there, for me it becomes a matter of both what the overall situation is and what someone does about it. If someone’s entire culture believes one thing, and all the evidence that they see supports that, there is no real way to tell which is which. But when a society is in the midst of changing, lots of people are changing their minds — that’s how a society changes, after all. And lots are not changing, or at least have not changed yet. I would contend that, in that latter circumstance, anyone who changes their mind should be given the benefit of the doubt. Whereas if a society changed decades ago, someone who refuses to change has to be considered someone for whom evidence is irrelevant.
And then we get to the question above. If someone does, in word or even in deed, appear to change, how much to they have to do to convince us that the change was real?
My apologies. I should have found time yesterday to give LJ a little more expanded piece to start things off. Well, here goes.
I think the first question as we approach this is: is the person wrong in their original opinion, or evil? (And note that just because two people hold the same view, that does not necessarily mean, when you disagree, that both are wrong, or both are evil.)
The difference, as I see it, is this. Anyone can be wrong. And someone who is wrong can be persuaded, by argument and/or evidence, to change their mind. Whereas someone who is evil will not change their mind, no matter what evidence you present; they have made a moral committment, and evidence is irrelevant. Indeed, they will tend to say that evidence which conflicts is either fabrication and lies, or merely something which appears to conflict that has been put there as a test of faith.
Not to say that someone who has evilly taken a position may not say that they have changed. But that is a matter of expediency, rather than a change of belief. There is no point in arguing with someone who has taken an evil position; all you can do is shame them, so that few people will be willing to consider adopting the same position.
But someone who is wrong, whether they were wrong enthusiastically or reluctantly, will consider evidence. And if the evidence conflicts with their position, they can come to change it.
Consider two people, one of whom thinks that gay marriage ought to be allowed, and the other thinks that it should not. Either one might be wrong. One test is what happens when gay marriage gets allowed somewhere. After Massachusettes allowed gay marriage, either of two things could have happened. (And probably somewhere inbetween, but ignore that for the sake of discussion.) Those who supported gay marriage could have discovered that the rate of heterosexual marriages fell of (from the trend, rather than in an absolute sense), and that the number of cases of homosexual child molestation jumped up. Those who had been wrong would have said, however reluctantly, “OK, this was a bad idea. Let’s back it off.” Or it could have been that there was no impact on heterosexual marriage and no change in the rate of child molestation. And those who had been wrong would have said, again however reluctantly, “Well, I still may not like it, but it isn’t the disaster I thought it would be.” Those, in either case, would be the people who were wrong.
Then there are those who, in either situation, would say “The facts are irrelevant! It is still just wrong to/not to allow this to happen!”
But it is hard to decide, from the outside, whether someone is evil, or merely wrong. Because it comes down, essentially, to knowing why they hold the position that they do.
OK, from there, for me it becomes a matter of both what the overall situation is and what someone does about it. If someone’s entire culture believes one thing, and all the evidence that they see supports that, there is no real way to tell which is which. But when a society is in the midst of changing, lots of people are changing their minds — that’s how a society changes, after all. And lots are not changing, or at least have not changed yet. I would contend that, in that latter circumstance, anyone who changes their mind should be given the benefit of the doubt. Whereas if a society changed decades ago, someone who refuses to change has to be considered someone for whom evidence is irrelevant.
And then we get to the question above. If someone does, in word or even in deed, appear to change, how much to they have to do to convince us that the change was real?
And while I was typing, hsh makes one of my points more succinctly, and probably more clearly.
And while I was typing, hsh makes one of my points more succinctly, and probably more clearly.
Maybe like what a saint has to do to tarnish his/her rep?
Checking the list of official saints, I spot quite a few absolutely despicable characters there and a lot of others that I would prefer never to meet in person due to their general dislikability. At least four of them were even made Fathers of the Church. In other words being a genocidal maniac is no fundamental obstacle to sainthood.
Maybe like what a saint has to do to tarnish his/her rep?
Checking the list of official saints, I spot quite a few absolutely despicable characters there and a lot of others that I would prefer never to meet in person due to their general dislikability. At least four of them were even made Fathers of the Church. In other words being a genocidal maniac is no fundamental obstacle to sainthood.
wj:
I thought these two thoughts were worth associating:
But it is hard to decide, from the outside, whether someone is evil, or merely wrong.
and
There is no point in arguing with someone who has taken an evil position; all you can do is shame them
I think these two concepts are major drivers of the political discord in this country. Probably other countries as well, I’m just not well informed.
It’s really hard to know what people are thinking and why they think it. Unless they are incredibly eloquent (most aren’t) and spend a lot of time talking about their thoughts (most don’t), its basically impossible to understand where someone is coming from, without spending A LOT of time with them.
Even in a discussion, people get caught up in being right, get caught up in their own words, poorly express one thing, or poorly understand another’s point. It can give you insight into why someone thinks the way they do, but its rarely a clean picture.
I’ve noticed, anecdotally of course, its generally far easier and more rewarding (for the id, at least) to think ‘evil’ than to think ‘misguided’ or ‘different opinion’.
Which brings us to shaming. It’s a cheap and easy social/political tool. But shaming only works if you have a strong majority, and even then I question its value.
Without a strong majority, it only serves to reinforce echo chambers, harden peoples minds, and make it harder for people to question themselves.
And questioning yourself is probably the most productive thing people can do. And creating an environment where people can question themselves is hard to do and not as viscerally appealing as snark and shame.
My two cents.
wj:
I thought these two thoughts were worth associating:
But it is hard to decide, from the outside, whether someone is evil, or merely wrong.
and
There is no point in arguing with someone who has taken an evil position; all you can do is shame them
I think these two concepts are major drivers of the political discord in this country. Probably other countries as well, I’m just not well informed.
It’s really hard to know what people are thinking and why they think it. Unless they are incredibly eloquent (most aren’t) and spend a lot of time talking about their thoughts (most don’t), its basically impossible to understand where someone is coming from, without spending A LOT of time with them.
Even in a discussion, people get caught up in being right, get caught up in their own words, poorly express one thing, or poorly understand another’s point. It can give you insight into why someone thinks the way they do, but its rarely a clean picture.
I’ve noticed, anecdotally of course, its generally far easier and more rewarding (for the id, at least) to think ‘evil’ than to think ‘misguided’ or ‘different opinion’.
Which brings us to shaming. It’s a cheap and easy social/political tool. But shaming only works if you have a strong majority, and even then I question its value.
Without a strong majority, it only serves to reinforce echo chambers, harden peoples minds, and make it harder for people to question themselves.
And questioning yourself is probably the most productive thing people can do. And creating an environment where people can question themselves is hard to do and not as viscerally appealing as snark and shame.
My two cents.
Assuming that someone with a different view is evil, and shaming them, may be easier. But it also guarantees that, even if they were open to argument and evidence before, they will cease to be open to it from you. And quite possibly, cease to be open to it from anyone who agrees with you. People can accept someone thinking that they are wrong. They will not, in general, accept someone saying that they are evil.
It can, if you are trying to change a society, become very much a matter of “win the battle but lose the war.”
Assuming that someone with a different view is evil, and shaming them, may be easier. But it also guarantees that, even if they were open to argument and evidence before, they will cease to be open to it from you. And quite possibly, cease to be open to it from anyone who agrees with you. People can accept someone thinking that they are wrong. They will not, in general, accept someone saying that they are evil.
It can, if you are trying to change a society, become very much a matter of “win the battle but lose the war.”
wj:
Dead on.
wj:
Dead on.
wj’s original comment came, IIRC, from the discussion of Andrew Sullivan in the other thread. since I was probably the most critical of Sullivan there, I’ll offer a couple of thoughts.
First, I have no interest in painting anybody as evil. I certainly wouldn’t put Sullivan in that camp, and I’d be hard pressed to think of anyone else I might include there.
So, “wrong” vs. “evil” is not really the issue from my point of view.
“Wrong” doesn’t quite capture the issue for me either, at least in terms of factual rightness or wrongness, because in the cases we’re talking about I don’t think the facts on the ground are really the nub of the disagreement.
What was wrong about Byrd being in the KKK was that the KKK was an organization dedicated to preserving white supremacy, including through violence and the denial of civil rights.
What was wrong about Sullivan’s (and many many others’) support for the wars of the 2000’s, and especially the Iraq War, was that it was in very large part motivated by the basic desire to avenge the 9/11 attacks by kicking the living shit out of somebody, without much regard for whether that was just, or made sense, or for what the consequences of that might be for us or anybody else.
There are lots and lots of facts involved in both of these cases, but they’re sort of beside the point.
And much evil was done in both cases, but it’s not necessary to conceive of the people involved as being personally and inherently evil to say that their actions and statements were wrong.
As far as “shaming” goes, I agree that it’s not a particularly useful motivational tool, but I also think that there are things that people quite rightly ought to be ashamed of.
There are many errors one can make where “Oops, sorry, my mistake!” is a perfectly adequate remedy.
Other forms of being wrong require you to not only misunderstand what’s right, but to refuse to understand what’s right, and in fact to embrace a position that is wrong on a level that goes far beyond mere questions of fact.
Believing that white people are innately superior to black people, and that whites therefore deserve to visit any and every form of humiliation and punishment on blacks, is not wrong because it misunderstands a point of fact.
Thinking that powerful nations can respond to disturbing acts of terror by laying waste to other nations at will is not wrong because it misunderstands a point of fact.
What is wrong about those positions goes much deeper than that.
I don’t really see an apology as being a sufficient remedy for stuff like that. What’s needed is, for lack of a better word, a repentance, a metanoia, an acknowledgement of *what it was that your were wrong about* and a turning away from that.
Especially when the matter under concern involves the levels of damage and destruction that we saw in Iraq and elsewhere.
There’s more at stake in these questions than abstract points of political philosophy.
wj’s original comment came, IIRC, from the discussion of Andrew Sullivan in the other thread. since I was probably the most critical of Sullivan there, I’ll offer a couple of thoughts.
First, I have no interest in painting anybody as evil. I certainly wouldn’t put Sullivan in that camp, and I’d be hard pressed to think of anyone else I might include there.
So, “wrong” vs. “evil” is not really the issue from my point of view.
“Wrong” doesn’t quite capture the issue for me either, at least in terms of factual rightness or wrongness, because in the cases we’re talking about I don’t think the facts on the ground are really the nub of the disagreement.
What was wrong about Byrd being in the KKK was that the KKK was an organization dedicated to preserving white supremacy, including through violence and the denial of civil rights.
What was wrong about Sullivan’s (and many many others’) support for the wars of the 2000’s, and especially the Iraq War, was that it was in very large part motivated by the basic desire to avenge the 9/11 attacks by kicking the living shit out of somebody, without much regard for whether that was just, or made sense, or for what the consequences of that might be for us or anybody else.
There are lots and lots of facts involved in both of these cases, but they’re sort of beside the point.
And much evil was done in both cases, but it’s not necessary to conceive of the people involved as being personally and inherently evil to say that their actions and statements were wrong.
As far as “shaming” goes, I agree that it’s not a particularly useful motivational tool, but I also think that there are things that people quite rightly ought to be ashamed of.
There are many errors one can make where “Oops, sorry, my mistake!” is a perfectly adequate remedy.
Other forms of being wrong require you to not only misunderstand what’s right, but to refuse to understand what’s right, and in fact to embrace a position that is wrong on a level that goes far beyond mere questions of fact.
Believing that white people are innately superior to black people, and that whites therefore deserve to visit any and every form of humiliation and punishment on blacks, is not wrong because it misunderstands a point of fact.
Thinking that powerful nations can respond to disturbing acts of terror by laying waste to other nations at will is not wrong because it misunderstands a point of fact.
What is wrong about those positions goes much deeper than that.
I don’t really see an apology as being a sufficient remedy for stuff like that. What’s needed is, for lack of a better word, a repentance, a metanoia, an acknowledgement of *what it was that your were wrong about* and a turning away from that.
Especially when the matter under concern involves the levels of damage and destruction that we saw in Iraq and elsewhere.
There’s more at stake in these questions than abstract points of political philosophy.
What’s needed is, for lack of a better word, a repentance, a metanoia, an acknowledgement of *what it was that your were wrong about* and a turning away from that.
Just out of curiosity, how is that different from what Sullivan has done?
What’s needed is, for lack of a better word, a repentance, a metanoia, an acknowledgement of *what it was that your were wrong about* and a turning away from that.
Just out of curiosity, how is that different from what Sullivan has done?
If thinking was all the Klan ever did, that would have not been so bad.
There’s the proseletyzing, and also the persecution and intimidation to be considered. Not to mentin the occasional horsewhipping and lynching.
If thinking was all the Klan ever did, that would have not been so bad.
There’s the proseletyzing, and also the persecution and intimidation to be considered. Not to mentin the occasional horsewhipping and lynching.
Just out of curiosity, how is that different from what Sullivan has done?
Prior to yesterday, I hadn’t read Sullivan in something like ten years. So, I can’t really comment on the quality of Sullivan’s turnabout.
I’m not really Sullivan’s judge, in any case.
I’m just not that interested in reading him. Same for any number of folks who held similar positions at the time.
If he’s a different guy now, good for him.
Just out of curiosity, how is that different from what Sullivan has done?
Prior to yesterday, I hadn’t read Sullivan in something like ten years. So, I can’t really comment on the quality of Sullivan’s turnabout.
I’m not really Sullivan’s judge, in any case.
I’m just not that interested in reading him. Same for any number of folks who held similar positions at the time.
If he’s a different guy now, good for him.
A psychologist at the Nuremberg trials defined evil as lack of empathy – so I think it’s fair to say that the old man in this video is evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGNTCde1Vw4
and so were Bush, Cheney and all the US citizens out for revenge after 9/11 – they lacked empathy.
The problem with Sullivan – apart from him being evil – is that his case proves that there is no accountability whatsoever.
There was a study about journalists who opposed the Iraq war vs. those supporting it and what subsequently happened to their career: predictably the latter continued to thrive while the former struggled.
If Sullivan had really been serious about repenting he would have STFU forever and become a plumber or something.
A psychologist at the Nuremberg trials defined evil as lack of empathy – so I think it’s fair to say that the old man in this video is evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGNTCde1Vw4
and so were Bush, Cheney and all the US citizens out for revenge after 9/11 – they lacked empathy.
The problem with Sullivan – apart from him being evil – is that his case proves that there is no accountability whatsoever.
There was a study about journalists who opposed the Iraq war vs. those supporting it and what subsequently happened to their career: predictably the latter continued to thrive while the former struggled.
If Sullivan had really been serious about repenting he would have STFU forever and become a plumber or something.
I think Sullivan has changed tremendously since the early 2000’s, and I read him regularly now, though I thought he was beneath contempt back then. He still says incredibly stupid things (IMO) from time to time, but as the Count said in the other thread, he has a wide range of interests.
It happens that at the moment I’m a little disgusted with him for what he wrote yesterday defending his pal Hirsi Ali, who was to be given an honorary degree at Brandeis before they changed their minds. I don’t think universities are obligated to grant degrees to people who say we should be at war with an entire religion, but Sully felt that it was horrible pc correctness not to grant her a degree simply because she might have made a few intemperate remarks about Islam. Presumably, in the name of discussing ideas, Brandeis could host a series of talks, with each week having a different speaker declaring war on a different religion. It might get touchy as we go down the list of monotheisms.
But he is pro-Obamacare and turned against his early post 9/11 imperialist views, so he isn’t the same jerk he used to be.
I think Sullivan has changed tremendously since the early 2000’s, and I read him regularly now, though I thought he was beneath contempt back then. He still says incredibly stupid things (IMO) from time to time, but as the Count said in the other thread, he has a wide range of interests.
It happens that at the moment I’m a little disgusted with him for what he wrote yesterday defending his pal Hirsi Ali, who was to be given an honorary degree at Brandeis before they changed their minds. I don’t think universities are obligated to grant degrees to people who say we should be at war with an entire religion, but Sully felt that it was horrible pc correctness not to grant her a degree simply because she might have made a few intemperate remarks about Islam. Presumably, in the name of discussing ideas, Brandeis could host a series of talks, with each week having a different speaker declaring war on a different religion. It might get touchy as we go down the list of monotheisms.
But he is pro-Obamacare and turned against his early post 9/11 imperialist views, so he isn’t the same jerk he used to be.
Now to be fair to Sullivan, he does print some of his harshest critics on his own blog. Here are few reactions to his Hirsi Ali apologetics–
link
Now to be fair to Sullivan, he does print some of his harshest critics on his own blog. Here are few reactions to his Hirsi Ali apologetics–
link
With Brandeis and Ali, as with Mozilla and Eich, there appears to have been a serious lapse in due diligence.
If you are going to do somethin ghigh profile (and CEO positions and honorary degrees are exactly that), and you care about your public image (as apparently both do), then why would you not do at least the minimal checking to determine that the individual you are honoring or hiring will not be a problem? It’s not like the information which caused them to reverse themselves was hard to find. It’s just that they (apparently) did not bother to look.
If those in charge really want to address their public image fiascos, they ought to start by firing themselves. And getting someone in, on their Boards, who will actually do the job — rather than just be decorative figureheads most of the time.
With Brandeis and Ali, as with Mozilla and Eich, there appears to have been a serious lapse in due diligence.
If you are going to do somethin ghigh profile (and CEO positions and honorary degrees are exactly that), and you care about your public image (as apparently both do), then why would you not do at least the minimal checking to determine that the individual you are honoring or hiring will not be a problem? It’s not like the information which caused them to reverse themselves was hard to find. It’s just that they (apparently) did not bother to look.
If those in charge really want to address their public image fiascos, they ought to start by firing themselves. And getting someone in, on their Boards, who will actually do the job — rather than just be decorative figureheads most of the time.
So not on the specific open thread topic, but since I am reluctant to slap this on top of LJ’s open thread, McClatchy got ahold of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusion on the CIA torture program. Not pretty, to say the least.
McClatchy story here.
And here are the conclusions themselves.
So not on the specific open thread topic, but since I am reluctant to slap this on top of LJ’s open thread, McClatchy got ahold of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusion on the CIA torture program. Not pretty, to say the least.
McClatchy story here.
And here are the conclusions themselves.
Also, too, apparently the NSA knew about the Heartbleed issue and… exploited it rather than tell anyone.
What benefits do we receive from them again?
Also, too, apparently the NSA knew about the Heartbleed issue and… exploited it rather than tell anyone.
What benefits do we receive from them again?
What benefits do we receive from them again?
they keep thousands of sociopaths and all-around assholes employed. better squirreled away in MD than sitting in the cube next to me.
What benefits do we receive from them again?
they keep thousands of sociopaths and all-around assholes employed. better squirreled away in MD than sitting in the cube next to me.
Sullivan explains where he went wrong.
This guy really really doesn’t like Sullivan.
This guy says hey, give the man a break.
Sullivan’s mea culpa in the Slate piece is orders of magnitude better than the average “yeah, I was wrong, but I was wrong for the right reasons!” line of bull that usually gets trotted out.
I just don’t see why I owe the guy anything. I think he should be ashamed of the things he said and wrote at the time, just as I think he should be ashamed of pimping Charles Murray’s stuff (which, to my knowledge, he has never disavowed).
As best as I can tell he’s still a freaking Thatcherite. I’m sure he’s an interesting and erudite Thatcherite, but I’m just not that interested in reading Thatcherites. I don’t think they have anything to offer me, on any topic I can imagine.
Call me closed-minded.
Sullivan explains where he went wrong.
This guy really really doesn’t like Sullivan.
This guy says hey, give the man a break.
Sullivan’s mea culpa in the Slate piece is orders of magnitude better than the average “yeah, I was wrong, but I was wrong for the right reasons!” line of bull that usually gets trotted out.
I just don’t see why I owe the guy anything. I think he should be ashamed of the things he said and wrote at the time, just as I think he should be ashamed of pimping Charles Murray’s stuff (which, to my knowledge, he has never disavowed).
As best as I can tell he’s still a freaking Thatcherite. I’m sure he’s an interesting and erudite Thatcherite, but I’m just not that interested in reading Thatcherites. I don’t think they have anything to offer me, on any topic I can imagine.
Call me closed-minded.
russell, nobody is saying that you should subject yourself to Thatcherite writings. Or anybody else whose opinions you find offensive.
But I would say that, however little you owe Sullivan (or anyone else), you do owe it to anyone with whom you disagreed to acknowledge when they have, however belatedly, come around to your point of view. (As you have done here.)
More to the point, I would say that you owe making that kind of acknowledgement to yourself. Refusing to accept that anyone who ever disagreed with you can possibly have had a sincere change of heart is not good for you.
russell, nobody is saying that you should subject yourself to Thatcherite writings. Or anybody else whose opinions you find offensive.
But I would say that, however little you owe Sullivan (or anyone else), you do owe it to anyone with whom you disagreed to acknowledge when they have, however belatedly, come around to your point of view. (As you have done here.)
More to the point, I would say that you owe making that kind of acknowledgement to yourself. Refusing to accept that anyone who ever disagreed with you can possibly have had a sincere change of heart is not good for you.
Responding to wj’s opening comment, I don’t think “evil” is the only type of person who refuses to change. First are the “set in their ways” grandparents, over the age of– who are given a pass for refusing to change. Second are those whose opinions are the product of expedience- many politicians are probably in this group. As the winds of the world change so will their votes.
As detailed in http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/iran-new-deal/?insrc=toc
ruthless politicians can wind up on the side of the angels. The author argues that the overwhelming severity of the suppression of liberal democrats in Iran in 2009 using prison and torture allowed Ayatollah Khamenei to cement his hold on power. This strength allowed him to open negotiations over nuclear weapons, surely a good thing.
Responding to wj’s opening comment, I don’t think “evil” is the only type of person who refuses to change. First are the “set in their ways” grandparents, over the age of– who are given a pass for refusing to change. Second are those whose opinions are the product of expedience- many politicians are probably in this group. As the winds of the world change so will their votes.
As detailed in http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/iran-new-deal/?insrc=toc
ruthless politicians can wind up on the side of the angels. The author argues that the overwhelming severity of the suppression of liberal democrats in Iran in 2009 using prison and torture allowed Ayatollah Khamenei to cement his hold on power. This strength allowed him to open negotiations over nuclear weapons, surely a good thing.
Refusing to accept that anyone who ever disagreed with you can possibly have had a sincere change of heart is not good for you.
I appreciate what you’re saying here, and in general I agree.
And, I absolutely do not think that there is anyone anywhere who is incapable of changing their mind or seeing things in a different way.
Basically, Sullivan came up in discussion because McK cited him as somebody who had an appropriate level of outrage about the Mozilla / Eith thing.
My reaction to that was, basically, why should I care what Sullivan says? And, who made him a spokesperson for “the left”, anyway?
Sullivan actually has a pretty long history of saying and doing things that I find really objectionable. His writings during the Iraq period were sort of just a particularly bad part of the total package. IMO.
So I appreciate that he changed his position on Iraq, and I appreciate that he is interested in lots of issues, and I appreciate that he presents points of view other than his own on his website.
But I don’t find him a particularly compelling example of somebody whose point of view I need to entertain or respect.
I guess I basically just don’t like the guy.
The question I guess I have for you, wj, and maybe also thompson, is whether there ever is a place for shame in public discourse.
Are there any positions that someone can take that we can find simply morally wrong?
Should we respond to that by carefully trying to walk them back from their point of view, point by carefully argued point?
Or is there a time to say, I’m sorry but you are wrong. Not factually wrong, but coming from a fundamentally wrong stance, overall.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph Welch asked:
Isn’t there a time and place to ask that question?
Refusing to accept that anyone who ever disagreed with you can possibly have had a sincere change of heart is not good for you.
I appreciate what you’re saying here, and in general I agree.
And, I absolutely do not think that there is anyone anywhere who is incapable of changing their mind or seeing things in a different way.
Basically, Sullivan came up in discussion because McK cited him as somebody who had an appropriate level of outrage about the Mozilla / Eith thing.
My reaction to that was, basically, why should I care what Sullivan says? And, who made him a spokesperson for “the left”, anyway?
Sullivan actually has a pretty long history of saying and doing things that I find really objectionable. His writings during the Iraq period were sort of just a particularly bad part of the total package. IMO.
So I appreciate that he changed his position on Iraq, and I appreciate that he is interested in lots of issues, and I appreciate that he presents points of view other than his own on his website.
But I don’t find him a particularly compelling example of somebody whose point of view I need to entertain or respect.
I guess I basically just don’t like the guy.
The question I guess I have for you, wj, and maybe also thompson, is whether there ever is a place for shame in public discourse.
Are there any positions that someone can take that we can find simply morally wrong?
Should we respond to that by carefully trying to walk them back from their point of view, point by carefully argued point?
Or is there a time to say, I’m sorry but you are wrong. Not factually wrong, but coming from a fundamentally wrong stance, overall.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph Welch asked:
Isn’t there a time and place to ask that question?
My reaction to that was, basically, why should I care what Sullivan says? And, who made him a spokesperson for “the left”, anyway?
Fair enough. Certainly Sullivan wouldn’t say that he is even a member of “the left,” let alone a spokesperson for it. To believe that he is generally anywhere left of center takes a wild misunderstanding of what the center is. On of what “liberal” and “conservative” actually mean — outside the fevered imaginations of those on the extreme of either.
To your question, I would say that certainly there is a place for smaing someone during public discourse. I would say that it comes when someone is not only holding a wrong position, but using that position to deliberately harm others. And fabricating “evidence” to justify doing so. Anyone putting on show trials, whether actually court proceedings or simply in thepublic square, should get shamed, and vigorously.
But someone who merely disagrees, however vigorously? Even to the point of supporting (monitarily or otherwise) efforts to convince others of his position? I don’t think that warrants shaming . . . unless he is distorting evidence as part of that effort.
To peggy’s point, I think it is a matter of those who are evil are a subset of those whose minds cannot be changed. But there are certainly those who are not, but are simply unwilling or unable to change. Whether thru age, religious belief, or otherwise.
My reaction to that was, basically, why should I care what Sullivan says? And, who made him a spokesperson for “the left”, anyway?
Fair enough. Certainly Sullivan wouldn’t say that he is even a member of “the left,” let alone a spokesperson for it. To believe that he is generally anywhere left of center takes a wild misunderstanding of what the center is. On of what “liberal” and “conservative” actually mean — outside the fevered imaginations of those on the extreme of either.
To your question, I would say that certainly there is a place for smaing someone during public discourse. I would say that it comes when someone is not only holding a wrong position, but using that position to deliberately harm others. And fabricating “evidence” to justify doing so. Anyone putting on show trials, whether actually court proceedings or simply in thepublic square, should get shamed, and vigorously.
But someone who merely disagrees, however vigorously? Even to the point of supporting (monitarily or otherwise) efforts to convince others of his position? I don’t think that warrants shaming . . . unless he is distorting evidence as part of that effort.
To peggy’s point, I think it is a matter of those who are evil are a subset of those whose minds cannot be changed. But there are certainly those who are not, but are simply unwilling or unable to change. Whether thru age, religious belief, or otherwise.
russell:
You asked a few different things and I’d like to unpack it a little. To be clear, I use “you” and “your” etc a lot below. I mean that in the general sense, not you specifically.
whether there ever is a place for shame in public discourse.
In my mind? Rarely. Just from a purely pragmatic point of view. I don’t think its a useful form of persuasion. I view it as counterproductive.
At best, it might have some deterrent effect. But even that I’d like to see data on before believing entirely.
I think *internal* shame is a powerful motivator. And I think clearly voiced disagreement, without harshly condemning someone, can be motivating. But shaming like: “how can anybody be ok with this? What sort of a**h*** are you?” is…unproductive.
I have altered my opinions a great deal throughout my life because those around me, people I respect, disagreed with me. Over time, that causes me to question myself and reevaluate my beliefs.
I’ve done the inverse as well. Respect, disagree, and advocate. It’s gotten me far more traction with people then sarcasm, snide answers, and shame.
Are there any positions that someone can take that we can find simply morally wrong?
Of course. But there are different levels of wrong, and the approach you take at those different levels should be appropriate for that level.
Should we respond to that by carefully trying to walk them back from their point of view, point by carefully argued point?
I would say yes, in general. Although, I’m probably not going to try it with a serial killer, frex.
But there is only so much time in the world, and you can’t convince everybody.
But often people resort to blanket statements, broad shaming of groups, complete bypass of any nuance in opposing arguments and attempt to browbeat people into submission.
It’s not productive. If you’re going to talk with someone on the other side of an issue, you might as well be respectful and careful, in my mind. If you’re not interested in being respectful and careful, it seems likely you’re out for a cheap thrill of ragging on someone that disagrees with you.
But no, I don’t think people have a moral imperative to have calm reasoned discussions with the Westboro folks, frex.
But rather than ‘shame’ them, I think it would be better to ignore them. But again, from a pragmatic sense. I think they thrive on the attention.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph Welch asked
It’s interesting that you bring up the Army-McCarthy hearings, because I view McCarthyism as one of the prime examples of the danger of shaming and related phenomena. McCarthyism was more than just McCarthy, there was broad social support.
Being “unamerican” or investigated by the committee lost people their jobs, ruined lives, etc. It seems that the shunning communists/socialists/liberals suffered at that time was very much akin shaming.
There were governmental overreaches, absolutely (and I’d love to talk about the eeeeevvvil big government), but this was more than the government. It was supported by “men of good will and stern morality” to quote Buckley (A man that I find lacks both good will and stern morality).
Shame is a powerful tool. Not for persuading people, but for marginalizing them. Shame is poorly controlled and does not allow for nuance, or shades of gray. It does not allow you to reach out to the shamed, or offer any defense of the shamed, lest you become shamed yourself.
Because it seems appropriate, I’ll close with Murrow:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
russell:
You asked a few different things and I’d like to unpack it a little. To be clear, I use “you” and “your” etc a lot below. I mean that in the general sense, not you specifically.
whether there ever is a place for shame in public discourse.
In my mind? Rarely. Just from a purely pragmatic point of view. I don’t think its a useful form of persuasion. I view it as counterproductive.
At best, it might have some deterrent effect. But even that I’d like to see data on before believing entirely.
I think *internal* shame is a powerful motivator. And I think clearly voiced disagreement, without harshly condemning someone, can be motivating. But shaming like: “how can anybody be ok with this? What sort of a**h*** are you?” is…unproductive.
I have altered my opinions a great deal throughout my life because those around me, people I respect, disagreed with me. Over time, that causes me to question myself and reevaluate my beliefs.
I’ve done the inverse as well. Respect, disagree, and advocate. It’s gotten me far more traction with people then sarcasm, snide answers, and shame.
Are there any positions that someone can take that we can find simply morally wrong?
Of course. But there are different levels of wrong, and the approach you take at those different levels should be appropriate for that level.
Should we respond to that by carefully trying to walk them back from their point of view, point by carefully argued point?
I would say yes, in general. Although, I’m probably not going to try it with a serial killer, frex.
But there is only so much time in the world, and you can’t convince everybody.
But often people resort to blanket statements, broad shaming of groups, complete bypass of any nuance in opposing arguments and attempt to browbeat people into submission.
It’s not productive. If you’re going to talk with someone on the other side of an issue, you might as well be respectful and careful, in my mind. If you’re not interested in being respectful and careful, it seems likely you’re out for a cheap thrill of ragging on someone that disagrees with you.
But no, I don’t think people have a moral imperative to have calm reasoned discussions with the Westboro folks, frex.
But rather than ‘shame’ them, I think it would be better to ignore them. But again, from a pragmatic sense. I think they thrive on the attention.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, Joseph Welch asked
It’s interesting that you bring up the Army-McCarthy hearings, because I view McCarthyism as one of the prime examples of the danger of shaming and related phenomena. McCarthyism was more than just McCarthy, there was broad social support.
Being “unamerican” or investigated by the committee lost people their jobs, ruined lives, etc. It seems that the shunning communists/socialists/liberals suffered at that time was very much akin shaming.
There were governmental overreaches, absolutely (and I’d love to talk about the eeeeevvvil big government), but this was more than the government. It was supported by “men of good will and stern morality” to quote Buckley (A man that I find lacks both good will and stern morality).
Shame is a powerful tool. Not for persuading people, but for marginalizing them. Shame is poorly controlled and does not allow for nuance, or shades of gray. It does not allow you to reach out to the shamed, or offer any defense of the shamed, lest you become shamed yourself.
Because it seems appropriate, I’ll close with Murrow:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
I’d also mostly agree with wj’s 2nd paragraph. That’s probably about when I’d say employing shame as a weapon becomes an option in my mind.
I’d also mostly agree with wj’s 2nd paragraph. That’s probably about when I’d say employing shame as a weapon becomes an option in my mind.
This post and thread has sent me off in twelve directions (hysterics is one) at once, which I’m not ready to articulate yet, but I’d just like to say that McKT is over at Redstate just now spreading love and tolerance and their Board is convening an emergency meeting to organize their forgiveness campaign of those they find EVIL.
Streiff is sending forgiveness singing telegrams to every RINO sent into the wilderness during the past ten years, Erick Evilson is coming out as a gay transgender female and and just admitted that he signed up his family for Obamacare on the first day the thing started, having made it to the front of the queue through his connections in Ted Cruz’s Congressional delegation before smoke started coming out of the back of the website, and Moe Lane up and quit and will be over here shortly to resume moderating bipartisanship like nothing ever happened.
Trevino/Tactitus/Topsy the ClownBoy will make a one-time cameo appearance here to kiss Gary Farber’s a#s, while simultaneously studying his nails in abject boredom and then he’ll be off to join a monastery to continue his penance ad infinitum, just for the attention.
As for Andrew Sullivan, word has it he’s waiting with bated breath as he reads every line of this post and commentary to see if the OBWI commentariat can persuade Russell to give up and return to the fold, while meanwhile looking up and asking his assistants repeatedly, “Who is this Russell person and tell me again why I should care what he thinks?”
That’s enough for now, except to provide this link from …. SULLIVAN!!! …. which I saw three minutes ago, which kind of illustrates, musically with dueling chamber music acrobatics, one of my views of political blogging, which is that it’s endless oneupmanship, oh- yeah-watch-this-chest-bumping, etc (which I’m happy to engage), the other main view being that we are in a political war in this country (OBWI being a very small skirmish a long way off from the epicenter) and the only thing to do is win it all by any means and then I fully expect the answer to a forgiving hand extended to the other side, yeah, that side, to resemble John Wilkes Booth’s thank you note to Abraham Lincoln.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HtrbMy4mU4
But, meanwhile, MCTX and Yoko are having a bed-in, singing Give Peace A Chance, and I’m all for it. However, if the conservative Republicans who once frequented this place (not the reasonable few who remain; and by the way, how did we get stuck with the half-dozen reasonable ones left in the country? Alright, Brett, but I hold nothing against him, after all, he’s me muse, as someone pointed out) showed up right about now, they would behave pretty much like Al Capp did at the real John and Yoko deal — rude and insulting — and McKT/Lennon would have to throw back the bed covers, say excuse me kids, we’ll give peace a chance here in a second, and leap out the bed in his pajamas and cold-cock Capp.
This post and thread has sent me off in twelve directions (hysterics is one) at once, which I’m not ready to articulate yet, but I’d just like to say that McKT is over at Redstate just now spreading love and tolerance and their Board is convening an emergency meeting to organize their forgiveness campaign of those they find EVIL.
Streiff is sending forgiveness singing telegrams to every RINO sent into the wilderness during the past ten years, Erick Evilson is coming out as a gay transgender female and and just admitted that he signed up his family for Obamacare on the first day the thing started, having made it to the front of the queue through his connections in Ted Cruz’s Congressional delegation before smoke started coming out of the back of the website, and Moe Lane up and quit and will be over here shortly to resume moderating bipartisanship like nothing ever happened.
Trevino/Tactitus/Topsy the ClownBoy will make a one-time cameo appearance here to kiss Gary Farber’s a#s, while simultaneously studying his nails in abject boredom and then he’ll be off to join a monastery to continue his penance ad infinitum, just for the attention.
As for Andrew Sullivan, word has it he’s waiting with bated breath as he reads every line of this post and commentary to see if the OBWI commentariat can persuade Russell to give up and return to the fold, while meanwhile looking up and asking his assistants repeatedly, “Who is this Russell person and tell me again why I should care what he thinks?”
That’s enough for now, except to provide this link from …. SULLIVAN!!! …. which I saw three minutes ago, which kind of illustrates, musically with dueling chamber music acrobatics, one of my views of political blogging, which is that it’s endless oneupmanship, oh- yeah-watch-this-chest-bumping, etc (which I’m happy to engage), the other main view being that we are in a political war in this country (OBWI being a very small skirmish a long way off from the epicenter) and the only thing to do is win it all by any means and then I fully expect the answer to a forgiving hand extended to the other side, yeah, that side, to resemble John Wilkes Booth’s thank you note to Abraham Lincoln.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HtrbMy4mU4
But, meanwhile, MCTX and Yoko are having a bed-in, singing Give Peace A Chance, and I’m all for it. However, if the conservative Republicans who once frequented this place (not the reasonable few who remain; and by the way, how did we get stuck with the half-dozen reasonable ones left in the country? Alright, Brett, but I hold nothing against him, after all, he’s me muse, as someone pointed out) showed up right about now, they would behave pretty much like Al Capp did at the real John and Yoko deal — rude and insulting — and McKT/Lennon would have to throw back the bed covers, say excuse me kids, we’ll give peace a chance here in a second, and leap out the bed in his pajamas and cold-cock Capp.
By the way, the more I read Russell’s reasons for giving up Sullivan, the more he’s convincing ME to give him up again.
I’d like to take this opportunity to exchange air-kisses with Joseph McCarthy, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Spiro Agnew, Mary Matalin, the denizens of the reptile house at the San Diego Zoo, (this is not in order of preference) Lee Atwater, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Wayne LaPierre, and the cast of hundreds, too numerous to mention, who despite being wrong, and knowing they were wrong the stinking lying filth about EVERYTHING, and viciously and cold-bloodedly so, over the past 30 years who maintain their media gigs and still outnumber liberals on every Sunday news-talk show and are trotted out to spew on every single domestic and international issue facing this nation and every single time question the loyalty to America and the American way of life of not only liberals and Democrats who differ with them but of any halfway decent republican who makes a gaffe of showing bipartisanship.
Air kisses done, now move the furniture to the walls and roll back the carpet because now its time to resume the fist fight with the above-listed shameless ones.
The IRS is awaiting, not very expectantly of course, for MCKT’s understanding and apologies. 😉
Hey, open thread. Let it all out.
By the way, the more I read Russell’s reasons for giving up Sullivan, the more he’s convincing ME to give him up again.
I’d like to take this opportunity to exchange air-kisses with Joseph McCarthy, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Spiro Agnew, Mary Matalin, the denizens of the reptile house at the San Diego Zoo, (this is not in order of preference) Lee Atwater, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Wayne LaPierre, and the cast of hundreds, too numerous to mention, who despite being wrong, and knowing they were wrong the stinking lying filth about EVERYTHING, and viciously and cold-bloodedly so, over the past 30 years who maintain their media gigs and still outnumber liberals on every Sunday news-talk show and are trotted out to spew on every single domestic and international issue facing this nation and every single time question the loyalty to America and the American way of life of not only liberals and Democrats who differ with them but of any halfway decent republican who makes a gaffe of showing bipartisanship.
Air kisses done, now move the furniture to the walls and roll back the carpet because now its time to resume the fist fight with the above-listed shameless ones.
The IRS is awaiting, not very expectantly of course, for MCKT’s understanding and apologies. 😉
Hey, open thread. Let it all out.
I forgot to name Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, and Grover Norquist.
Here hold my hor d’oeurves plate while i kick them in the nuts.
I forgot to name Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, and Grover Norquist.
Here hold my hor d’oeurves plate while i kick them in the nuts.
Well, started reading Sullivan post change of stance, or, really, mid change. I quit reading him for the same reason I quit watching Letterman.
Whether I agreed or disagreed with him, they just got tiresome on any subject they thought would get a reaction. Months after I quit caring he would be ranting on about the last thing some nobody said about a barely related subject.
Then I realized I was reading him just to see when he would finally let it go, so I let him go.
Letterman was the late night version of that, only his bits also got less funny the first time.
Well, started reading Sullivan post change of stance, or, really, mid change. I quit reading him for the same reason I quit watching Letterman.
Whether I agreed or disagreed with him, they just got tiresome on any subject they thought would get a reaction. Months after I quit caring he would be ranting on about the last thing some nobody said about a barely related subject.
Then I realized I was reading him just to see when he would finally let it go, so I let him go.
Letterman was the late night version of that, only his bits also got less funny the first time.
Wrong link in my 7:34 pm, although who doesn’t like Puddles the Clown.
This:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/11/mental-health-break-492/
Wrong link in my 7:34 pm, although who doesn’t like Puddles the Clown.
This:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/11/mental-health-break-492/
Sincerity is key.
Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
Sincerity is key.
Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
I thought Letterman’s stupid republican tricks and that thing where he threw republican notables off the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater and examined the remains of their landing in slo-mo were both classic funny bits, but I tired of him too.
Irony 100% of the time is not even ironic anymore.
I notice both Limbaugh and this guy:
http://gawker.com/conservative-writer-calls-stephen-colbert-political-bl-1561972751
… are in full forgiveness, tolerance, and understanding mode toward Colbert for acting just like THEM and getting the Late Night gig.
I thought Letterman’s stupid republican tricks and that thing where he threw republican notables off the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater and examined the remains of their landing in slo-mo were both classic funny bits, but I tired of him too.
Irony 100% of the time is not even ironic anymore.
I notice both Limbaugh and this guy:
http://gawker.com/conservative-writer-calls-stephen-colbert-political-bl-1561972751
… are in full forgiveness, tolerance, and understanding mode toward Colbert for acting just like THEM and getting the Late Night gig.
I have mixed feelings about Colbert, but Fallon fills the insomnia void fine if Colbert can’t be funny about any thing but politics.
I have mixed feelings about Colbert, but Fallon fills the insomnia void fine if Colbert can’t be funny about any thing but politics.
wj: People can accept someone thinking that they are wrong. They will not, in general, accept someone saying that they are evil.
I wonder whether that applies in reverse to Dick Cheney.
Whatever “accept” means, I think the likes of Cheney (whatever that means) would prefer to be widely thought of as “evil” over being widely thought of as “wrong”.
With the possible exception of Cheney again, most people don’t think of themselves as evil, I suspect. They might advocate cannibalism, or slavery, or gun control (McKinney’s list from the other thread) but do so on the grounds that those are good things. Good things by their definition, I mean. Other people might, possibly, consider those things “evil”. These opposite value judgments lie outside the domain of reasoned argument in which “evidence” plays a role.
Clinton raised taxes, Dubya cut them, and we thus have 16 years of “evidence” for such propositions as “Tax hikes stifle the economy” and “Tax cuts create jobs”. Has the evidence changed anybody’s mind? It doesn’t seem like it. Evidence, schmevidence: higher marginal rates at the top are unfair, which has nothing to do with statistics about GDP or unemployment.
I have just spent a half hour watching C-Span, which is either more conservative than Fox or more subversive than Rolling Stone, depending on whether you think that giving lots of air time to idiots promotes idiocy or immunizes the audience against it. The half hour was a broadcast (C-Span doesn’t “cover” things; it just puts them on the air) of a speech by zombie-eyed granny-starver and most recent VP runner-up who will never be President Paul Ryan at some Iowa Republican fundraiser. When I think about how I would argue with Ryan if I ever had the chance to do so, my first question would be “Are you stupid or evil?”
wj: People can accept someone thinking that they are wrong. They will not, in general, accept someone saying that they are evil.
I wonder whether that applies in reverse to Dick Cheney.
Whatever “accept” means, I think the likes of Cheney (whatever that means) would prefer to be widely thought of as “evil” over being widely thought of as “wrong”.
With the possible exception of Cheney again, most people don’t think of themselves as evil, I suspect. They might advocate cannibalism, or slavery, or gun control (McKinney’s list from the other thread) but do so on the grounds that those are good things. Good things by their definition, I mean. Other people might, possibly, consider those things “evil”. These opposite value judgments lie outside the domain of reasoned argument in which “evidence” plays a role.
Clinton raised taxes, Dubya cut them, and we thus have 16 years of “evidence” for such propositions as “Tax hikes stifle the economy” and “Tax cuts create jobs”. Has the evidence changed anybody’s mind? It doesn’t seem like it. Evidence, schmevidence: higher marginal rates at the top are unfair, which has nothing to do with statistics about GDP or unemployment.
I have just spent a half hour watching C-Span, which is either more conservative than Fox or more subversive than Rolling Stone, depending on whether you think that giving lots of air time to idiots promotes idiocy or immunizes the audience against it. The half hour was a broadcast (C-Span doesn’t “cover” things; it just puts them on the air) of a speech by zombie-eyed granny-starver and most recent VP runner-up who will never be President Paul Ryan at some Iowa Republican fundraiser. When I think about how I would argue with Ryan if I ever had the chance to do so, my first question would be “Are you stupid or evil?”
I forgive American corporations (no, I don’t) since they have the souls of actual people and the bankrolls to prove it, for whining about the 39% corporate tax rate forever and then torpedoing EVERY attempt to fix the system, even half-way reasonable Republican ones, because to fix the system and lower the rate would mean that overall they would pay more in taxes under a new lower rate than they do now by off-shoring their profits ($2 trillion) abroad.
From a business website, probably communist.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post–why-taxing-corporate-america-is-so-hard-to-do
Of course it’s the unAmerican, disloyal liberals who are to blame for this impasse.
They have next til Friday to get their money back here or I’m going to instruct the government to confiscate every cent of it and place it in Russian oligarchs U.S. bank accounts, where at least it can be labeled patriotic to American ideals and then frozen.
We’re full of sh*t.
I forgive American corporations (no, I don’t) since they have the souls of actual people and the bankrolls to prove it, for whining about the 39% corporate tax rate forever and then torpedoing EVERY attempt to fix the system, even half-way reasonable Republican ones, because to fix the system and lower the rate would mean that overall they would pay more in taxes under a new lower rate than they do now by off-shoring their profits ($2 trillion) abroad.
From a business website, probably communist.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post–why-taxing-corporate-america-is-so-hard-to-do
Of course it’s the unAmerican, disloyal liberals who are to blame for this impasse.
They have next til Friday to get their money back here or I’m going to instruct the government to confiscate every cent of it and place it in Russian oligarchs U.S. bank accounts, where at least it can be labeled patriotic to American ideals and then frozen.
We’re full of sh*t.
But there is only so much time in the world, and you can’t convince everybody.
And that is a natural fact.
I don’t think people have a moral imperative to have calm reasoned discussions with the Westboro folks, frex.
It’s been done before.
Open threading….
Just wanted to add that Puddles is my hero, that all of the Post-Modern Jukebox videos are nothing but fun (even if also nothing but ironic), and I’d watch Fallon just to watch Questlove.
I do miss Carson.
But there is only so much time in the world, and you can’t convince everybody.
And that is a natural fact.
I don’t think people have a moral imperative to have calm reasoned discussions with the Westboro folks, frex.
It’s been done before.
Open threading….
Just wanted to add that Puddles is my hero, that all of the Post-Modern Jukebox videos are nothing but fun (even if also nothing but ironic), and I’d watch Fallon just to watch Questlove.
I do miss Carson.
Sorry, here is the Westboro link.
Sorry, here is the Westboro link.
Paul Ryan.
We now have 7.5 million people with health insurance, most of whom did not have it before, and another 2 million who gained Medicaid coverage.
The state of Kentucky’s uninsured rate has dropped 43% in 6 months because of Obamacare.
Ryan is a killer who stands up in public and tells you exactly how he’s going to murder tens of thousands of people, more than that, by ruining their health insurance and denying care to those with pre-existing conditions.
How many World Trade Centers full of Americans did Osama bin Laden murder before we sent Navy Seals on their forgiveness tour to Pakistan to put a bullet in his eye.
Just two buildings worth? Ryan shows you the murder plan, the detailed diagrams of the murder plot, displays the murder weapons, and even tells you where the money is coming and going to carry out the murders of his fellow Americans, and no one lifts a finger.
It’s like finding out John Wayne Gacy announced every chance he got at kid’s birthday parties his plans to murder dozens of gay men and others, and bury them in his crawl space, putting the confessions on C-Span, and sending money to his clown charity.
Under Ryan’s plan, most of lower Manhatten is liquidated. Slowly, painfully, accompanied by bankruptcy, some would say the ole American way, but just as dead as Osama’s victims.
Sorry, is this the forgiveness and understanding thread?
I’m always in the wrong place at the right time.
Paul Ryan.
We now have 7.5 million people with health insurance, most of whom did not have it before, and another 2 million who gained Medicaid coverage.
The state of Kentucky’s uninsured rate has dropped 43% in 6 months because of Obamacare.
Ryan is a killer who stands up in public and tells you exactly how he’s going to murder tens of thousands of people, more than that, by ruining their health insurance and denying care to those with pre-existing conditions.
How many World Trade Centers full of Americans did Osama bin Laden murder before we sent Navy Seals on their forgiveness tour to Pakistan to put a bullet in his eye.
Just two buildings worth? Ryan shows you the murder plan, the detailed diagrams of the murder plot, displays the murder weapons, and even tells you where the money is coming and going to carry out the murders of his fellow Americans, and no one lifts a finger.
It’s like finding out John Wayne Gacy announced every chance he got at kid’s birthday parties his plans to murder dozens of gay men and others, and bury them in his crawl space, putting the confessions on C-Span, and sending money to his clown charity.
Under Ryan’s plan, most of lower Manhatten is liquidated. Slowly, painfully, accompanied by bankruptcy, some would say the ole American way, but just as dead as Osama’s victims.
Sorry, is this the forgiveness and understanding thread?
I’m always in the wrong place at the right time.
To peggy’s point, I think it is a matter of those who are evil are a subset of those whose minds cannot be changed. But there are certainly those who are not, but are simply unwilling or unable to change. Whether thru age, religious belief, or otherwise.”
To quote Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Which is to say, one should always consider, no matter how unlikely it seems, the possibility that they are the ones in need of a change of opinion.
Neither the left, nor the right, has a monopoly on truth and justice.
Just as, a couple of centuries ago, views were widely held that are today considered anathema in polite society, we should reflect that, a couple centuries hence, the same will be said of us.
Anyway, I don’t think the big problem today is the refusal to believe that anyone who once disagreed with you could have sincerely changed their mind. Rather, the big problem is the refusal to believe that anybody who TODAY disagrees with you, is sincere. From whence the belief that political disagreements are rooted in evil?
It stems, I think, from the premise that the people who disagree with us about policy agree with us about policy’s consequences.
The liberal thinks that conservatives must believe that affirmative action is good for blacks, and harms nobody else, and opposes it because they want to hurt blacks.
The conservative thinks that liberals must believe that gun control disarms the innocent, and empowers the guilty, and supports gun control because they want to disarm the innocent, and empower the guilty.
We all like to think that our conclusions are obvious, and evil motivates people who agree with them to express disagreement. This is a tendency we all need to fight.
To peggy’s point, I think it is a matter of those who are evil are a subset of those whose minds cannot be changed. But there are certainly those who are not, but are simply unwilling or unable to change. Whether thru age, religious belief, or otherwise.”
To quote Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Which is to say, one should always consider, no matter how unlikely it seems, the possibility that they are the ones in need of a change of opinion.
Neither the left, nor the right, has a monopoly on truth and justice.
Just as, a couple of centuries ago, views were widely held that are today considered anathema in polite society, we should reflect that, a couple centuries hence, the same will be said of us.
Anyway, I don’t think the big problem today is the refusal to believe that anyone who once disagreed with you could have sincerely changed their mind. Rather, the big problem is the refusal to believe that anybody who TODAY disagrees with you, is sincere. From whence the belief that political disagreements are rooted in evil?
It stems, I think, from the premise that the people who disagree with us about policy agree with us about policy’s consequences.
The liberal thinks that conservatives must believe that affirmative action is good for blacks, and harms nobody else, and opposes it because they want to hurt blacks.
The conservative thinks that liberals must believe that gun control disarms the innocent, and empowers the guilty, and supports gun control because they want to disarm the innocent, and empower the guilty.
We all like to think that our conclusions are obvious, and evil motivates people who agree with them to express disagreement. This is a tendency we all need to fight.
From whence the belief that political disagreements are rooted in evil?
Norman Vincent Peale?
From whence the belief that political disagreements are rooted in evil?
Norman Vincent Peale?
Quoting Cromwell about changing one’s mind is… interesting, and I’m not surprised that Brett would be the one to do it.
Quoting Cromwell about changing one’s mind is… interesting, and I’m not surprised that Brett would be the one to do it.
Yes, but the Irish and Scottish Catholics thought Cromwell deeply sincere.
If you are beseeching in the bowels of Christ to change hearts and minds, methinks you’ve entered the Kingdom of God through the wrong orifice.
“Norman Vincent Peale”
That cracked me up. But, I graduated from his alma mater.
Yes, but the Irish and Scottish Catholics thought Cromwell deeply sincere.
If you are beseeching in the bowels of Christ to change hearts and minds, methinks you’ve entered the Kingdom of God through the wrong orifice.
“Norman Vincent Peale”
That cracked me up. But, I graduated from his alma mater.
Just want to say that I appreciate Brett’s 8:08.
Yes, Cromwell is an odd choice to go to for a quote about peace and tolerance, but we converse with the quotes we have, not the quotes we wish we have.
As far as shaming as a useful means of public discourse, I’d be pleased to see John Yoo kicked out of the Berkeley law faculty, and I’d like to never see the scowling death’s head of Dick Cheney on my TV ever again.
IMO those would be appropriate public gestures.
I’m all for dialog, but I also think there is a point when you just have to draw a line in the sand. There is a point where dialog is no longer useful.
Just want to say that I appreciate Brett’s 8:08.
Yes, Cromwell is an odd choice to go to for a quote about peace and tolerance, but we converse with the quotes we have, not the quotes we wish we have.
As far as shaming as a useful means of public discourse, I’d be pleased to see John Yoo kicked out of the Berkeley law faculty, and I’d like to never see the scowling death’s head of Dick Cheney on my TV ever again.
IMO those would be appropriate public gestures.
I’m all for dialog, but I also think there is a point when you just have to draw a line in the sand. There is a point where dialog is no longer useful.
Bowel:
(in pl.): the heart, pity, tenderness (the emotions being supposed to be seated in the bowels) (obs., B. and Shak.)
O.K., then. A very good orifice it is.
Bowel:
(in pl.): the heart, pity, tenderness (the emotions being supposed to be seated in the bowels) (obs., B. and Shak.)
O.K., then. A very good orifice it is.
As far as shaming, I’d like to see gun control advocates own Leland Yee, the one advocate of gun control I’m moderately certain DID mean to disarm the innocent, and empower the guilty.
Anyway, the problem with shaming as a way of changing minds, is that it doesn’t work for people whose views are common, and commonly accepted. Why would Eich be susceptible to shaming for supporting a ballot initiative which had won just a few years earlier? He’s completely aware that his opinion isn’t some kind of bizarre aberration, that many people agree with him, and regard the opposing view as shameful.
Shaming doesn’t change the mind of somebody who thinks YOUR position is shameful. You can only shame somebody who is already fundamentally in agreement with you, and accords your view of them some weight.
As far as shaming, I’d like to see gun control advocates own Leland Yee, the one advocate of gun control I’m moderately certain DID mean to disarm the innocent, and empower the guilty.
Anyway, the problem with shaming as a way of changing minds, is that it doesn’t work for people whose views are common, and commonly accepted. Why would Eich be susceptible to shaming for supporting a ballot initiative which had won just a few years earlier? He’s completely aware that his opinion isn’t some kind of bizarre aberration, that many people agree with him, and regard the opposing view as shameful.
Shaming doesn’t change the mind of somebody who thinks YOUR position is shameful. You can only shame somebody who is already fundamentally in agreement with you, and accords your view of them some weight.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-someone-who-was-right-in-middle-of.html
Despite Vietnam, but for changing his mind and pursuing the domestic efforts that he did, I believe the bowels of Lyndon Baines Johnson should be carved into Mount Rushmore.
Of course, for his sins, the pitiless, gutless southern Democrats then dragged their heartless entrails into the Republican Party and here we sit under constant threat of evisceration.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/from-someone-who-was-right-in-middle-of.html
Despite Vietnam, but for changing his mind and pursuing the domestic efforts that he did, I believe the bowels of Lyndon Baines Johnson should be carved into Mount Rushmore.
Of course, for his sins, the pitiless, gutless southern Democrats then dragged their heartless entrails into the Republican Party and here we sit under constant threat of evisceration.
Shaming doesn’t change the mind of somebody who thinks YOUR position is shameful.
When I talk about publicly shaming a guy like Yoo, (not YOU, YOO), I’m not thinking in terms of what the effect will be on him. I.e., I doubt it would change his mind, and I don’t care either way.
I don’t give a single solitary crap about John Yoo or what he thinks.
I’m talking about the corrosive effect on all of the rest of us of having a guy who thinks, and publicly states, that crushing the balls of small children is perfectly justifiable if the President says it’s OK teaching law at a fairly prestigious university.
Is juvenile ball crushing something we need to have a “dialog” about? Or can we just say we are against it, without parsing the fine points pro and con?
Shaming doesn’t change the mind of somebody who thinks YOUR position is shameful.
When I talk about publicly shaming a guy like Yoo, (not YOU, YOO), I’m not thinking in terms of what the effect will be on him. I.e., I doubt it would change his mind, and I don’t care either way.
I don’t give a single solitary crap about John Yoo or what he thinks.
I’m talking about the corrosive effect on all of the rest of us of having a guy who thinks, and publicly states, that crushing the balls of small children is perfectly justifiable if the President says it’s OK teaching law at a fairly prestigious university.
Is juvenile ball crushing something we need to have a “dialog” about? Or can we just say we are against it, without parsing the fine points pro and con?
I am tired of listening to the juvenile ball crushing crap. He was asked question as a point of law, he answered it as a point of law. He didn’t make any moral judgment on it. Nor did he make up the scenario.
The president can launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone as a point of law, I am sure we don’t have to have a long discussion about the pros and cons of that either.
I am tired of listening to the juvenile ball crushing crap. He was asked question as a point of law, he answered it as a point of law. He didn’t make any moral judgment on it. Nor did he make up the scenario.
The president can launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone as a point of law, I am sure we don’t have to have a long discussion about the pros and cons of that either.
“As far as shaming, I’d like to see gun control advocates own Leland Yee, the one advocate of gun control I’m moderately certain DID mean to disarm the innocent, and empower the guilty.”
As soon as you tell us which part of the mess of his life he was truly sincere about, gun control advocacy or arming Chinese street gangs in LA or wherever with shoulder-mounted weaponry from the Philippines, I’m sure we can parse out the ownership issues.
Aren’t shoulder mounted weapons covered by one or the other commas in the Second Amendment?
This must put the bowels of the NRA in a tight spot.
I suspect Yee in five years or so, if he beats the rap or does his time, will re-emerge for Act II of his political life as a grass-roots, NRA funded Tea Party Libertarian candidate somewhere running against a RINO Republican who went squish and drew the line at carrying shoulder-mounted weaponry into shopping malls.
I see an interactive reality TV show in his future at the very least, maybe co-starring with Ted Nugent, Gary Busey, and Victoria Jackson in FOX’s “Shoot The Fag At The Urinal Target Practice”, produced by Tucker Carlson, in which middle-aged men with prostate problems and a wandering eye are played by Hillary Clinton lookalikes.
Next up, who owns John Wilkes Booth, Ted Nugent, and the Connecticut elementary school shooter?
I’ll take full responsibility for the Pittsburgh school stabber the other day because after all, I helped prevent him from using a machine gun to clear his grievances, and I guess I prevented the other innocent kids from carrying broadswords on their corporate persons.
It’s as if I placed the kitchen knives directly into his hand.
By the sweet regular bowels of Christ, my incontinent sincerity has backfired again.
“As far as shaming, I’d like to see gun control advocates own Leland Yee, the one advocate of gun control I’m moderately certain DID mean to disarm the innocent, and empower the guilty.”
As soon as you tell us which part of the mess of his life he was truly sincere about, gun control advocacy or arming Chinese street gangs in LA or wherever with shoulder-mounted weaponry from the Philippines, I’m sure we can parse out the ownership issues.
Aren’t shoulder mounted weapons covered by one or the other commas in the Second Amendment?
This must put the bowels of the NRA in a tight spot.
I suspect Yee in five years or so, if he beats the rap or does his time, will re-emerge for Act II of his political life as a grass-roots, NRA funded Tea Party Libertarian candidate somewhere running against a RINO Republican who went squish and drew the line at carrying shoulder-mounted weaponry into shopping malls.
I see an interactive reality TV show in his future at the very least, maybe co-starring with Ted Nugent, Gary Busey, and Victoria Jackson in FOX’s “Shoot The Fag At The Urinal Target Practice”, produced by Tucker Carlson, in which middle-aged men with prostate problems and a wandering eye are played by Hillary Clinton lookalikes.
Next up, who owns John Wilkes Booth, Ted Nugent, and the Connecticut elementary school shooter?
I’ll take full responsibility for the Pittsburgh school stabber the other day because after all, I helped prevent him from using a machine gun to clear his grievances, and I guess I prevented the other innocent kids from carrying broadswords on their corporate persons.
It’s as if I placed the kitchen knives directly into his hand.
By the sweet regular bowels of Christ, my incontinent sincerity has backfired again.
Brett:
Mostly agree with your 8:08.
russell:
As far as shaming as a useful means of public discourse
I’d agree there is a time and place for lines in the sand and an end to reasoned debate.
I’m not saying we should tolerate any view, no matter how heinous.
I guess my point was more that I don’t view shaming as an effective means of discourse. It’s for when the damage is done and a person needs to be marginalized.
FWIW, I think that line should be far out. Of course, people are clearly going have different lines at different points for different subjects.
Brett:
Mostly agree with your 8:08.
russell:
As far as shaming as a useful means of public discourse
I’d agree there is a time and place for lines in the sand and an end to reasoned debate.
I’m not saying we should tolerate any view, no matter how heinous.
I guess my point was more that I don’t view shaming as an effective means of discourse. It’s for when the damage is done and a person needs to be marginalized.
FWIW, I think that line should be far out. Of course, people are clearly going have different lines at different points for different subjects.
The president can launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone as a point of law, I am sure we don’t have to have a long discussion about the pros and cons of that either.
Maybe you didn’t participate in the thread on dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And maybe Yoo’s just flat-out wrong – as a matter of law – about crushing little boys’ testicles, despite the potential legality of a nuclear strike – following congressional authorization, of course. (I wonder if he thought the proposed crushing was okay only if congress declared war on some kid’s nuts.)
What makes a law professor go the wrong way on an issue such as that, I can only wonder.
The president can launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone as a point of law, I am sure we don’t have to have a long discussion about the pros and cons of that either.
Maybe you didn’t participate in the thread on dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And maybe Yoo’s just flat-out wrong – as a matter of law – about crushing little boys’ testicles, despite the potential legality of a nuclear strike – following congressional authorization, of course. (I wonder if he thought the proposed crushing was okay only if congress declared war on some kid’s nuts.)
What makes a law professor go the wrong way on an issue such as that, I can only wonder.
Yee, for the whom the Yoo tolls.
Marty, I’d be more confident of your weariness with the ball-crushing crap if I didn’t believe Yoo’s compatriots would now use this opening against the regulatory nanny state to get rid of child (only those with testicles; those without belong at home with the cakes) labor laws and OSHA’s 2000-page unread regulatory treatise on preventing testicle crushing in the manufacturing workplace.
Yee, for the whom the Yoo tolls.
Marty, I’d be more confident of your weariness with the ball-crushing crap if I didn’t believe Yoo’s compatriots would now use this opening against the regulatory nanny state to get rid of child (only those with testicles; those without belong at home with the cakes) labor laws and OSHA’s 2000-page unread regulatory treatise on preventing testicle crushing in the manufacturing workplace.
I, too, agree with most of Brett’s 8:08. Especially:
We all like to think that our conclusions are obvious, and evil motivates people who agree with them to express disagreement. This is a tendency we all need to fight.
I, too, agree with most of Brett’s 8:08. Especially:
We all like to think that our conclusions are obvious, and evil motivates people who agree with them to express disagreement. This is a tendency we all need to fight.
@marty The president can launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone as a point of law
No doubt the lawyers will correct me, but I don’t think that actually is correct. As a point of law, the President can launch a nuclear strike on anyone who has attacked us, that is, in defense of the nation. (Or, I suppose, anyone who has attacked someone with whom we have a defense treaty.) But otherwise, doing so would, legally, require a Declaration of War by the Congress.
Not that lack of a Declaration of War has kept Presidents from sending troops into battle numerous times over the past half century. But the legal justification for a lot of those action is . . . (dare I say it) tortured.
@marty The president can launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone as a point of law
No doubt the lawyers will correct me, but I don’t think that actually is correct. As a point of law, the President can launch a nuclear strike on anyone who has attacked us, that is, in defense of the nation. (Or, I suppose, anyone who has attacked someone with whom we have a defense treaty.) But otherwise, doing so would, legally, require a Declaration of War by the Congress.
Not that lack of a Declaration of War has kept Presidents from sending troops into battle numerous times over the past half century. But the legal justification for a lot of those action is . . . (dare I say it) tortured.
But the legal justification for a lot of those action is . . . (dare I say it) tortured.
I see what you did there.
But the legal justification for a lot of those action is . . . (dare I say it) tortured.
I see what you did there.
Tangentially relevant to the “original” discussion:
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dropbox-rice-controversy/
People are trying to push Rice off of the board of Dropbox. Again, I can’t really make myself care too much one way or the other.
But in terms of really, really stupid publicity, this probably takes the cake. A cloud based storage group giving the former NSA a board position *during* the Snowden fallout?
Tone. Deaf.
Tangentially relevant to the “original” discussion:
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dropbox-rice-controversy/
People are trying to push Rice off of the board of Dropbox. Again, I can’t really make myself care too much one way or the other.
But in terms of really, really stupid publicity, this probably takes the cake. A cloud based storage group giving the former NSA a board position *during* the Snowden fallout?
Tone. Deaf.
Hairshirt, I’m glad you brought up the Hiroshima thread, because McKT voiced a more or less similar sentiment in that thread to the one he made in the Eich discussion, and they were good and wise words as a general rule to follow, that we need to be cautious about condemning actions or opinions made in a certain context that we might not have either experienced or thought more deeply about and then holding those actions and opinions against the party.
Except for this: America and its democracy are the home of free-range second guessing. Our forefathers came here to exercise the full freedom of second guessing against despots and kings (yes, but try to second guess Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson and see where that gets ya) You might say second guessing is our second nature, now amplified by the internet, the foghorn of second guessing.
In fact, America is the only place wherein we elect leaders who, the split second before they are elected, know everything (like the rest of us) about what to do about everything and then the split second they are elected they know absolutely nothing about what to do, and we the unelected, who still know everything by virtue of not being designated a leader by election, second guess their know-nothingness, only to be told, well if you know everything, gets yourself elected and then we do and we’re instantly clueless and the guy who was elected before who knew nothing while elected is suddenly back in the in crowd of knowing everything on the op-ed page.
Hairshirt, I’m glad you brought up the Hiroshima thread, because McKT voiced a more or less similar sentiment in that thread to the one he made in the Eich discussion, and they were good and wise words as a general rule to follow, that we need to be cautious about condemning actions or opinions made in a certain context that we might not have either experienced or thought more deeply about and then holding those actions and opinions against the party.
Except for this: America and its democracy are the home of free-range second guessing. Our forefathers came here to exercise the full freedom of second guessing against despots and kings (yes, but try to second guess Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson and see where that gets ya) You might say second guessing is our second nature, now amplified by the internet, the foghorn of second guessing.
In fact, America is the only place wherein we elect leaders who, the split second before they are elected, know everything (like the rest of us) about what to do about everything and then the split second they are elected they know absolutely nothing about what to do, and we the unelected, who still know everything by virtue of not being designated a leader by election, second guess their know-nothingness, only to be told, well if you know everything, gets yourself elected and then we do and we’re instantly clueless and the guy who was elected before who knew nothing while elected is suddenly back in the in crowd of knowing everything on the op-ed page.
Has it occurred to anyone but me that the name Snowden is an alias, taken after the “Snowden” in Catch-22 — he who spills his guts?
Has it occurred to anyone but me that the name Snowden is an alias, taken after the “Snowden” in Catch-22 — he who spills his guts?
I am tired of listening to the juvenile ball crushing crap. He was asked question as a point of law, he answered it as a point of law. He didn’t make any moral judgment on it. Nor did he make up the scenario.
Yeah, and as a point of law, without commenting on or apparently considering the moral aspect of it, he thought it was fine.
Which is my freaking point.
Nor, since Yoo was one of the principal authors of the legal opinions justifying the regime of torture as practiced by the CIA and US military, was it an academic question.
Is there a point where we’re entitled to say “are you f***ing kidding me?”. If it’s not crushing the balls of young boys, how about burning people alive? Running over pre-schoolers with a bulldozer?
Just, you know, as a point of law?
And without kicking off any kind of extended debate on the pros and cons, I think you’ll find that the President can’t “launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone”, as a point of law or otherwise.
I am tired of listening to the juvenile ball crushing crap. He was asked question as a point of law, he answered it as a point of law. He didn’t make any moral judgment on it. Nor did he make up the scenario.
Yeah, and as a point of law, without commenting on or apparently considering the moral aspect of it, he thought it was fine.
Which is my freaking point.
Nor, since Yoo was one of the principal authors of the legal opinions justifying the regime of torture as practiced by the CIA and US military, was it an academic question.
Is there a point where we’re entitled to say “are you f***ing kidding me?”. If it’s not crushing the balls of young boys, how about burning people alive? Running over pre-schoolers with a bulldozer?
Just, you know, as a point of law?
And without kicking off any kind of extended debate on the pros and cons, I think you’ll find that the President can’t “launch a nuclear strike on just about anyone”, as a point of law or otherwise.
Then perhaps you should complain to the a$$ that came up with the stupid hypothetical question. He was, in fact, the one warped enough to consider it.
Then perhaps you should complain to the a$$ that came up with the stupid hypothetical question. He was, in fact, the one warped enough to consider it.
Yeah, it’s the fault of the guy asking the question, especially since he put Yoo in a position where he couldn’t have said anything but that it was okay, as a matter of law. I’m sure there’s no law professor in the world who would have responded differently in such a tight spot as that.
Yeah, it’s the fault of the guy asking the question, especially since he put Yoo in a position where he couldn’t have said anything but that it was okay, as a matter of law. I’m sure there’s no law professor in the world who would have responded differently in such a tight spot as that.
I actually am sure if that, but if you aren’t you gave to admit it was the classic when did you stop beating your wife question. He knew the answer couldn’t be no, si he thought up the most horrific mental picture he could use. More important to my mind us the fact that no one in an official capacity has said Yoo was wrong. In fact, Ibama had reinfircd the finding by picking and choosing which of those things he would declare to be “things we don’t do”. But he didn’t say “I can’t approve ir” he just said I don’t.
I actually am sure if that, but if you aren’t you gave to admit it was the classic when did you stop beating your wife question. He knew the answer couldn’t be no, si he thought up the most horrific mental picture he could use. More important to my mind us the fact that no one in an official capacity has said Yoo was wrong. In fact, Ibama had reinfircd the finding by picking and choosing which of those things he would declare to be “things we don’t do”. But he didn’t say “I can’t approve ir” he just said I don’t.
fuck Yoo.
the proper response to that question is not a fine legal parsing, it’s The US Would Not Do That.
fuck Yoo.
the proper response to that question is not a fine legal parsing, it’s The US Would Not Do That.
He knew the answer couldn’t be no
Why the hell couldn’t the answer be “no”?
He knew the answer couldn’t be no
Why the hell couldn’t the answer be “no”?
That’s Younotyoobama, not Ibama.
As a point of law, I don’t believe there is anything but very hazy and therefore inadmissible wording in the Bible or the Constitution about preventing a pack of crazed wolverines from gnawing the balls off of Dick Cheney, and until there is, I remain neutral on the issue.
That’s Younotyoobama, not Ibama.
As a point of law, I don’t believe there is anything but very hazy and therefore inadmissible wording in the Bible or the Constitution about preventing a pack of crazed wolverines from gnawing the balls off of Dick Cheney, and until there is, I remain neutral on the issue.
crazed wolverines
I think you mean “enhanced” wolverines.
crazed wolverines
I think you mean “enhanced” wolverines.
More important to my mind us the fact that no one in an official capacity has said Yoo was wrong.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s precisely what I’m talking about.
Not only has nobody in any kind of official capacity said he was wrong, he’s out in Berkeley teaching young people the freaking law.
Yes, nobody in any official capacity has ever said that Yoo was wrong. That is even more important to *my* mind also.
More important to my mind us the fact that no one in an official capacity has said Yoo was wrong.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s precisely what I’m talking about.
Not only has nobody in any kind of official capacity said he was wrong, he’s out in Berkeley teaching young people the freaking law.
Yes, nobody in any official capacity has ever said that Yoo was wrong. That is even more important to *my* mind also.
Who in a position to matter is telling the Prez he can’t bomb weddings? It’s not like Yoo doesn’t have his counterparts today.
Who in a position to matter is telling the Prez he can’t bomb weddings? It’s not like Yoo doesn’t have his counterparts today.
A different topic. Seymour Hersh has a piece in the London Review. Not sure what to think–
red line and rat line
The claim is that Turkey and the US had been arming the Syrian rebels, the rebels were obviously losing, and Turkey and the rebels wanted to drag the US into the war. The rebels, apparently, had already been using poison gas and so it was thought that maybe a really big attack would force Obama to act. Supposedly the US military isn’t convinced that it was Syria, but having made a claim of certainty that it was, the Administration is in no position to back down (since admissions of error on this scale are apparently impossible for governments). But that’s why we decided on the face saving and hopefully successful move to have Syria rid itself of its chemical weapons.
If true, on the bright side at least we didn’t do start another war on hyped and inaccurate WMD charges. If false, some people in the government apparently have an interest in playing Seymour Hersh or attacking Obama or both.
A different topic. Seymour Hersh has a piece in the London Review. Not sure what to think–
red line and rat line
The claim is that Turkey and the US had been arming the Syrian rebels, the rebels were obviously losing, and Turkey and the rebels wanted to drag the US into the war. The rebels, apparently, had already been using poison gas and so it was thought that maybe a really big attack would force Obama to act. Supposedly the US military isn’t convinced that it was Syria, but having made a claim of certainty that it was, the Administration is in no position to back down (since admissions of error on this scale are apparently impossible for governments). But that’s why we decided on the face saving and hopefully successful move to have Syria rid itself of its chemical weapons.
If true, on the bright side at least we didn’t do start another war on hyped and inaccurate WMD charges. If false, some people in the government apparently have an interest in playing Seymour Hersh or attacking Obama or both.
Yes, nobody in any official capacity has ever said that Yoo was wrong.
and
It’s not like Yoo doesn’t have his counterparts today.
Yoo is someone I’d like to marginalize. But it’s basically impossible in any official sense, because marginalizing him would call into question the methods we still use to conduct the war on terror.
Oddly enough, I think the use of shaming is the cause of this problem.
With both the former and current presidents, there is a contingent of people that believe that *admitting* or *questioning* the official stance is tantamount to committing political suicide.
I think we use shame like a cudgel in political discourse. Admit any weakness or faults on your part, or on the part of a politician you support, and be prepared for it to be used like a weapon against you.
Refusing to acknowledge any fault seems like a natural result of that.
Yes, nobody in any official capacity has ever said that Yoo was wrong.
and
It’s not like Yoo doesn’t have his counterparts today.
Yoo is someone I’d like to marginalize. But it’s basically impossible in any official sense, because marginalizing him would call into question the methods we still use to conduct the war on terror.
Oddly enough, I think the use of shaming is the cause of this problem.
With both the former and current presidents, there is a contingent of people that believe that *admitting* or *questioning* the official stance is tantamount to committing political suicide.
I think we use shame like a cudgel in political discourse. Admit any weakness or faults on your part, or on the part of a politician you support, and be prepared for it to be used like a weapon against you.
Refusing to acknowledge any fault seems like a natural result of that.
Donald:
Thanks for linking that. That is…awful.
Donald:
Thanks for linking that. That is…awful.
Thanks all for sorting through that typing nightmare, ibsma almost always corrects. But mostly the autocorrect has made me skip previewing out of laziness too often.
Thanks all for sorting through that typing nightmare, ibsma almost always corrects. But mostly the autocorrect has made me skip previewing out of laziness too often.
I think we use shame like a cudgel in political discourse.
I’m not sure we’re all clear on what the word “shame” means.
The political consequences of “marginalizing” Yoo, whatever that means, would be that Obama and/or the DOJ and/or whoever was doing the marginalizing would be accused of engaging in a partisan witchhunt. It would be intensely polarizing.
That’s not the same as shame.
In terms of the torture regime in particular, what I think would be really good for the United States would be for there to be a clear statement that what was done was, straight up, morally reprehensible and legally wrong. And just a statement, but a recognition, an acknowledgement, an acceptance of the reality and the responsibility for the reality.
I don’t really care if names get names, or if anyone goes to jail. I would just like a frank acknowledgement that we engaged in practices that are, frankly, abhorrent.
There are a number of practical impediments to that, not least the possible criminal and civil penalties that could flow from it. Not all of those are under the control of the US.
But as long as we blunder along pretending that it wasn’t plainly and obviously wrong, we’re never going to get past it.
Instead, Yoo teaches law at Berkeley, and Cheney pops up on TV now and then to tell us all how pleased and proud he is of the programs he put in place, and nobody has the stones to simply tell them, to their face, that what they did was wrong.
We chat away at it here on blogs, but don’t expect to see anything of the sort on the Sunday shows, or the newspapers, or any other broadly public venue.
The Senate report, should we ever be allowed to actually see the damned thing, might be a useful first step in at least having some kind of public recognition of WTF went on.
I don’t really expect anything more to come of it.
In any case, I absolutely disagree that the reason we haven’t had a candid accounting of what went on under Bush is because the folks involved are afraid of being shamed. I don’t see any evidence that they are susceptible to it.
I think we use shame like a cudgel in political discourse.
I’m not sure we’re all clear on what the word “shame” means.
The political consequences of “marginalizing” Yoo, whatever that means, would be that Obama and/or the DOJ and/or whoever was doing the marginalizing would be accused of engaging in a partisan witchhunt. It would be intensely polarizing.
That’s not the same as shame.
In terms of the torture regime in particular, what I think would be really good for the United States would be for there to be a clear statement that what was done was, straight up, morally reprehensible and legally wrong. And just a statement, but a recognition, an acknowledgement, an acceptance of the reality and the responsibility for the reality.
I don’t really care if names get names, or if anyone goes to jail. I would just like a frank acknowledgement that we engaged in practices that are, frankly, abhorrent.
There are a number of practical impediments to that, not least the possible criminal and civil penalties that could flow from it. Not all of those are under the control of the US.
But as long as we blunder along pretending that it wasn’t plainly and obviously wrong, we’re never going to get past it.
Instead, Yoo teaches law at Berkeley, and Cheney pops up on TV now and then to tell us all how pleased and proud he is of the programs he put in place, and nobody has the stones to simply tell them, to their face, that what they did was wrong.
We chat away at it here on blogs, but don’t expect to see anything of the sort on the Sunday shows, or the newspapers, or any other broadly public venue.
The Senate report, should we ever be allowed to actually see the damned thing, might be a useful first step in at least having some kind of public recognition of WTF went on.
I don’t really expect anything more to come of it.
In any case, I absolutely disagree that the reason we haven’t had a candid accounting of what went on under Bush is because the folks involved are afraid of being shamed. I don’t see any evidence that they are susceptible to it.
If false, some people in the government apparently have an interest in playing Seymour Hersh or attacking Obama or both.
Honestly, who cares. Obama probably felt that there was something that we could do, then saw that there was little we can do. It’s heartbreaking, and my belief is that there are probably many people there who are heroic, who are worth helping. But we can’t sort it out and, even if we could, our country wouldn’t support a leader who intervened.
If false, some people in the government apparently have an interest in playing Seymour Hersh or attacking Obama or both.
Honestly, who cares. Obama probably felt that there was something that we could do, then saw that there was little we can do. It’s heartbreaking, and my belief is that there are probably many people there who are heroic, who are worth helping. But we can’t sort it out and, even if we could, our country wouldn’t support a leader who intervened.
Then perhaps you should complain to the a$$ that came up with the stupid hypothetical question. He was, in fact, the one warped enough to consider it.
I think it’s worth remembering when this question was asked.
I recall thenabouts Serious People sagely discussing amongst themselves – with a great deal of carefully measured chin stroking and glances pregnant with significance – an anecdote about Russians in Beirut in the ’80s. This sort of thing was being publicly mooted as the proper way to deal with those people, if you don’t recall. See, when remembering all this you have to do so with an understanding of the Arab mind; the only thing they understand is force – force, pride and saving face. So we all were asking these sorts of questions – it’s what Serious People did! – and frankly you were an @$$ if you weren’t considering it. And while we may now live in a strange and hopey-changey world, where everything has changed again, and complacency has stripped us of our resolve, gumption, and purity of essence, in the old world that asker was certainly not the first, last, or only one to publicly voice that oh-so-important question, nor to give it the careful, measured consideration it so plainly deserved.
Then perhaps you should complain to the a$$ that came up with the stupid hypothetical question. He was, in fact, the one warped enough to consider it.
I think it’s worth remembering when this question was asked.
I recall thenabouts Serious People sagely discussing amongst themselves – with a great deal of carefully measured chin stroking and glances pregnant with significance – an anecdote about Russians in Beirut in the ’80s. This sort of thing was being publicly mooted as the proper way to deal with those people, if you don’t recall. See, when remembering all this you have to do so with an understanding of the Arab mind; the only thing they understand is force – force, pride and saving face. So we all were asking these sorts of questions – it’s what Serious People did! – and frankly you were an @$$ if you weren’t considering it. And while we may now live in a strange and hopey-changey world, where everything has changed again, and complacency has stripped us of our resolve, gumption, and purity of essence, in the old world that asker was certainly not the first, last, or only one to publicly voice that oh-so-important question, nor to give it the careful, measured consideration it so plainly deserved.
DKos runs a weekly summary of the mail he receives from the Understanding and Forgiveness Caucus among the Christian Republican American murderous subhuman verminous family values voter.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/12/1291395/-Saturday-hate-mail-a-palooza-Back-for-a-one-time-engagement?showAll=yes
Eich should be so lucky.
DKos runs a weekly summary of the mail he receives from the Understanding and Forgiveness Caucus among the Christian Republican American murderous subhuman verminous family values voter.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/12/1291395/-Saturday-hate-mail-a-palooza-Back-for-a-one-time-engagement?showAll=yes
Eich should be so lucky.
Hey Range War coming just in time to hot up the antigovernment antiAmerican filth to get them to the polls to vote for lawlessness this Fall.
Kind of like when Republican arsonists burned down the national forests in the 1990s to blame Clinton and the Feds for not properly weeding the National Parks.
Drudge is on it:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.net/Article.php?ID=488328&
Here’s my declaration to the rancher in question, his supporters and the BLM.
Since he won’t pay his grazing fees, and since the BLM has backed down (F*ck the BLM), and the land doesn’t seem to belong to anyone in this lawless piece of sh*t, Potemkin country Republican vermin are ginning up for the mid-terms, I declare the land, by personal Manifest Destiny, to be MINE.
Anyone steps one foot on that land, maybe a Drudge correspondent, without my permission, and I will hunt you and your children down and kill you like a Comanche squaw, or maybe instead I’m the Comanche and YOU are a dead piece of sh*t Texas Ranger, perhaps barbecued for lunch on and that is not yours.
Alex Jones and the usual rabble are on this.
I expect republican zombie filth to be intoning their usual vague threats of insurrection from their cosseted positions in the f*cking vermin House of Representatives.
Come and get it.
You’re dead vermin meat, Alex.
It’s my land now.
Please, please, come and get it.
Hey Range War coming just in time to hot up the antigovernment antiAmerican filth to get them to the polls to vote for lawlessness this Fall.
Kind of like when Republican arsonists burned down the national forests in the 1990s to blame Clinton and the Feds for not properly weeding the National Parks.
Drudge is on it:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.net/Article.php?ID=488328&
Here’s my declaration to the rancher in question, his supporters and the BLM.
Since he won’t pay his grazing fees, and since the BLM has backed down (F*ck the BLM), and the land doesn’t seem to belong to anyone in this lawless piece of sh*t, Potemkin country Republican vermin are ginning up for the mid-terms, I declare the land, by personal Manifest Destiny, to be MINE.
Anyone steps one foot on that land, maybe a Drudge correspondent, without my permission, and I will hunt you and your children down and kill you like a Comanche squaw, or maybe instead I’m the Comanche and YOU are a dead piece of sh*t Texas Ranger, perhaps barbecued for lunch on and that is not yours.
Alex Jones and the usual rabble are on this.
I expect republican zombie filth to be intoning their usual vague threats of insurrection from their cosseted positions in the f*cking vermin House of Representatives.
Come and get it.
You’re dead vermin meat, Alex.
It’s my land now.
Please, please, come and get it.
“on land that is not yours”
It’s tough translating from the Comanche dialect.
“on land that is not yours”
It’s tough translating from the Comanche dialect.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870
That’s not gonna be a very tender steak.
The lying about Ike must stop.
My sentiments, exactly.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870
That’s not gonna be a very tender steak.
The lying about Ike must stop.
My sentiments, exactly.
…we might profitably have a discussion of whether or not it is even possible for someone to take a wrong position and later change it.
We might profitably first inquire what, exactly, is a ‘wrong’ position to begin with. Then we need to ask, “Well, so what if they changed their mind?”
The topic brings to mind the Founding Fathers (doesn’t everything?). There they are, the victors of ’83, the authors of our Constitution, the embodiment of revolutionary virtue, a small and utterly victorious, class. By 1800 they are at each other’s throats in one of the fiercest and ugliest partisan elections in our nation’s history, an election where the term “take it to the house” had some real meaning.
So who was right, and who was wrong in that epic battle? Does anybody remember?
The Jeffersonian victors asserted many of the ideals of the French Revolution but their arguments were also the precursor of states’ rights neo-confederatism. Ironically, today’s Tea Party, which is hardly revolutionary, embodies a good deal of that same message. The Federalists, backed by the nation’s financial and merchant elite, advocated a strong and activist federal government…a position our current economic elite claims to abhor (they are liars, but that is a topic for another day).
My take from this is nobody changed their minds. Somebody won. Somebody lost (Hamilton paid with his life). The struggle was about political power. And who wields political power is important. This is self-evident.
And then, as always, times changed.
Nonetheless, the outcome of that struggle has reverberations to this day. So when somebody pulls the old “you’re just a partisan” card, I just chuckle.
We all are. You will change my mind over my dead body or dance on my grave, or time itself will make my “mistake” irrelevant.
The question for today is, as it is always in the present, “Whose side are you on?”
…we might profitably have a discussion of whether or not it is even possible for someone to take a wrong position and later change it.
We might profitably first inquire what, exactly, is a ‘wrong’ position to begin with. Then we need to ask, “Well, so what if they changed their mind?”
The topic brings to mind the Founding Fathers (doesn’t everything?). There they are, the victors of ’83, the authors of our Constitution, the embodiment of revolutionary virtue, a small and utterly victorious, class. By 1800 they are at each other’s throats in one of the fiercest and ugliest partisan elections in our nation’s history, an election where the term “take it to the house” had some real meaning.
So who was right, and who was wrong in that epic battle? Does anybody remember?
The Jeffersonian victors asserted many of the ideals of the French Revolution but their arguments were also the precursor of states’ rights neo-confederatism. Ironically, today’s Tea Party, which is hardly revolutionary, embodies a good deal of that same message. The Federalists, backed by the nation’s financial and merchant elite, advocated a strong and activist federal government…a position our current economic elite claims to abhor (they are liars, but that is a topic for another day).
My take from this is nobody changed their minds. Somebody won. Somebody lost (Hamilton paid with his life). The struggle was about political power. And who wields political power is important. This is self-evident.
And then, as always, times changed.
Nonetheless, the outcome of that struggle has reverberations to this day. So when somebody pulls the old “you’re just a partisan” card, I just chuckle.
We all are. You will change my mind over my dead body or dance on my grave, or time itself will make my “mistake” irrelevant.
The question for today is, as it is always in the present, “Whose side are you on?”
“Honestly, who cares.”
Well, it actually matters if our government was lying to us about what it knew. Or alternatively, if people in the Pentagon are lying to Hersh to make Obama look bad. As for Syria, of course there are plenty of good people there–unfortunately, many of them are on opposite sides of the civil war, and many of those on both sides who are actually doing the fighting are murderers. The Assad forces have probably killed more civilians, but some of the rebels would probably be worse if they won.
Syrian secular uprising hijacked by jihadists
“Honestly, who cares.”
Well, it actually matters if our government was lying to us about what it knew. Or alternatively, if people in the Pentagon are lying to Hersh to make Obama look bad. As for Syria, of course there are plenty of good people there–unfortunately, many of them are on opposite sides of the civil war, and many of those on both sides who are actually doing the fighting are murderers. The Assad forces have probably killed more civilians, but some of the rebels would probably be worse if they won.
Syrian secular uprising hijacked by jihadists
russell:
what I think would be really good for the United States would be for there to be a clear statement that what was done was, straight up, morally reprehensible and legally wrong.
I think so too. It can’t happen. Because we still employ many, if not all, of the same techniques. If you’d like to have an adult conversation about where we, as a country, draw the line, its going to involve discussions of current methods, and some of those methods are beyond what I would call reasonable.
As great as I think that would be, there are too many political careers at stake for any of the stakeholders to want that conversation to happen.
It’s sad, but I think for the moment the discussion will stay on the blogs.
because the folks involved are afraid of being shamed.
You miss my point (probably not your fault). I think shame is used as a cudgel in public discourse:
You don’t support our troops! You don’t support our president! You don’t support X group! How could you support a criminal! You’re increasing the deficit! You don’t care about the poor! The middle class! The hardworking!
etc etc etc
Maybe none of that matches your picture of shaming, but to me it is a striking way of making the political opposition out as immoral/evil. In other words, shaming them.
And there’s not much room for nuance in that discourse.
How does this tie to Yoo? I think that some conservatives, who might broadly support the GOP policies or what not, feel they have to also support Yoo. Or more accurately, deny wrongdoing by Yoo. Because he’s “their guy” on “their team”.
And I think they are mirrored by partisans that likewise defend the drone death of minors because Obama is “their guy” on “their team”.
I doubt it even enters the level of careful consideration until the rationalization stage.
I’m not saying Yoo is personally afraid of being shamed, I’m saying the polarization caused by shaming in public discourse gives people like Yoo political cover.
russell:
what I think would be really good for the United States would be for there to be a clear statement that what was done was, straight up, morally reprehensible and legally wrong.
I think so too. It can’t happen. Because we still employ many, if not all, of the same techniques. If you’d like to have an adult conversation about where we, as a country, draw the line, its going to involve discussions of current methods, and some of those methods are beyond what I would call reasonable.
As great as I think that would be, there are too many political careers at stake for any of the stakeholders to want that conversation to happen.
It’s sad, but I think for the moment the discussion will stay on the blogs.
because the folks involved are afraid of being shamed.
You miss my point (probably not your fault). I think shame is used as a cudgel in public discourse:
You don’t support our troops! You don’t support our president! You don’t support X group! How could you support a criminal! You’re increasing the deficit! You don’t care about the poor! The middle class! The hardworking!
etc etc etc
Maybe none of that matches your picture of shaming, but to me it is a striking way of making the political opposition out as immoral/evil. In other words, shaming them.
And there’s not much room for nuance in that discourse.
How does this tie to Yoo? I think that some conservatives, who might broadly support the GOP policies or what not, feel they have to also support Yoo. Or more accurately, deny wrongdoing by Yoo. Because he’s “their guy” on “their team”.
And I think they are mirrored by partisans that likewise defend the drone death of minors because Obama is “their guy” on “their team”.
I doubt it even enters the level of careful consideration until the rationalization stage.
I’m not saying Yoo is personally afraid of being shamed, I’m saying the polarization caused by shaming in public discourse gives people like Yoo political cover.
“Since he won’t pay his grazing fees,”
The BLM claims they had to collect the cattle to protect an endangered desert tortoise. They were protecting it by killing it themselves. Somehow I doubt the cattle were going to kill them any deader.
And they spent more than the grazing fees they claimed were owed on this attack. Rather than proceeding through the courts to the end.
I recall the militia attempting to save the Davidians in the same way. In that case, it just resulted in the feds burning the Davidians out before the militia, who were assembling nearby, could march on Mt. Carmel. I’m glad it turned out better this time.
If only for a little while. The feds hold a grudge forever. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes, they’ll kill him eventually.
About the only thing going for Bundy is that the whole thing was threatening to expose one of Reid’s big money schemes, the local press were starting to report on exactly why the BLM was suddenly interested in that land. And why they were in such a big hurry they had to go paramilitary. They might have to leave him alone for a while to make that story disappear.
But, you know, this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening if the feds hadn’t demanded 85% of the land in return for allowing Nevada to become a state. It looks like a large state, but after you subtract the federal land you’ve got something closer to the size of Maryland.
“Since he won’t pay his grazing fees,”
The BLM claims they had to collect the cattle to protect an endangered desert tortoise. They were protecting it by killing it themselves. Somehow I doubt the cattle were going to kill them any deader.
And they spent more than the grazing fees they claimed were owed on this attack. Rather than proceeding through the courts to the end.
I recall the militia attempting to save the Davidians in the same way. In that case, it just resulted in the feds burning the Davidians out before the militia, who were assembling nearby, could march on Mt. Carmel. I’m glad it turned out better this time.
If only for a little while. The feds hold a grudge forever. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes, they’ll kill him eventually.
About the only thing going for Bundy is that the whole thing was threatening to expose one of Reid’s big money schemes, the local press were starting to report on exactly why the BLM was suddenly interested in that land. And why they were in such a big hurry they had to go paramilitary. They might have to leave him alone for a while to make that story disappear.
But, you know, this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening if the feds hadn’t demanded 85% of the land in return for allowing Nevada to become a state. It looks like a large state, but after you subtract the federal land you’ve got something closer to the size of Maryland.
But, you know, this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening if the feds hadn’t demanded 85% of the land in return for allowing Nevada to become a state.
This claim strikes me as dubious. What would it take to change your mind regarding this “factoid”?
But, you know, this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening if the feds hadn’t demanded 85% of the land in return for allowing Nevada to become a state.
This claim strikes me as dubious. What would it take to change your mind regarding this “factoid”?
What exactly are you claiming is dubious? That the federal government owns about 85% of the land in Nevada? That accepting this was a condition of statehood?
Or that cattle ranches in Nevada wouldn’t have to run their cattle on federal lands in the first place, if most of the land in Nevada wasn’t federal?
I think this is a fairly even-handed account of the situation. The Bundys are likely in the wrong legally, a common situation where the other side in a conflict gets to write the laws. OTOH, they are the only remaining cattle ranchers in the area, because the government seems determined to abolish cattle ranching in the area. And apparently is doing so in this instance so that they can advance a Chinese solar plant Reid’s family stands to make money off of.
Not that the ranch is near the plant, only that the protection zone for the tortoises was expanded to cover the area he ran cattle, so as to make room for the solar project, precipitating the immediate crisis.
And the whole conflict would not exist, were 85%, (Ok, 84.5%) of Nevada federal land, creating a situation where it’s impossible to have a cattle ranch without using land owned by the federal government.
And THAT is, I think, the heart of the problem: Because the federal government claimed so much land in the West, especially in Nevada, people in Western states regularly come into conflict with the federal government, in a way where people living in most states, where federal land ownership is minimal, will not.
You wouldn’t see the Bundy fight going on in Nebraska, where a cattle ranch can be big enough to be economical without using any of the 1.4% of the land owned by the feds.
So, yes, I think that is the real cause of the problem.
What exactly are you claiming is dubious? That the federal government owns about 85% of the land in Nevada? That accepting this was a condition of statehood?
Or that cattle ranches in Nevada wouldn’t have to run their cattle on federal lands in the first place, if most of the land in Nevada wasn’t federal?
I think this is a fairly even-handed account of the situation. The Bundys are likely in the wrong legally, a common situation where the other side in a conflict gets to write the laws. OTOH, they are the only remaining cattle ranchers in the area, because the government seems determined to abolish cattle ranching in the area. And apparently is doing so in this instance so that they can advance a Chinese solar plant Reid’s family stands to make money off of.
Not that the ranch is near the plant, only that the protection zone for the tortoises was expanded to cover the area he ran cattle, so as to make room for the solar project, precipitating the immediate crisis.
And the whole conflict would not exist, were 85%, (Ok, 84.5%) of Nevada federal land, creating a situation where it’s impossible to have a cattle ranch without using land owned by the federal government.
And THAT is, I think, the heart of the problem: Because the federal government claimed so much land in the West, especially in Nevada, people in Western states regularly come into conflict with the federal government, in a way where people living in most states, where federal land ownership is minimal, will not.
You wouldn’t see the Bundy fight going on in Nebraska, where a cattle ranch can be big enough to be economical without using any of the 1.4% of the land owned by the feds.
So, yes, I think that is the real cause of the problem.
Some western states are so “land poor” that local governments have difficulty raising enough funds to provide basic services like law enforcement.
Some western states are so “land poor” that local governments have difficulty raising enough funds to provide basic services like law enforcement.
And the whole conflict would not exist, were 85%, (Ok, 84.5%) of Nevada federal land, creating a situation where it’s impossible to have a cattle ranch without using land owned by the federal government.
sounds like the ranchers need to take a hard look at their business model.
And the whole conflict would not exist, were 85%, (Ok, 84.5%) of Nevada federal land, creating a situation where it’s impossible to have a cattle ranch without using land owned by the federal government.
sounds like the ranchers need to take a hard look at their business model.
I absolutely disagree that the reason we haven’t had a candid accounting of what went on under Bush is because the folks involved are afraid of being shamed.
Quite. The reasons appear to be twofold:
– On one side, the folks involved may not be afraid of being shamed. But they are definitely afraid of being tried and convicted. And apparently increasingly afraid that the Senate report will inevitably lead to that.
– On the other, the folks in the current administration were afraid that, had they tried immediately to launch a criminal investigation, screams of partisanship would have made governing neigh impossible. (Of course, they got that kind of partisanship anyway. But they clearly didn’t expect it going in.) And now, having to explain why they didn’t act already would be . . . awkward.
In the end, it appears that what will bring the whole ediface crashing down is hubris. The folks involved were so sure that they could do anything that they wanted without consequences that they stomped on the toes of a Senator who was one of their strongest supporters. And nothing is more dangerous to a Federal bureaucrat than a Senator who feels disrespected.
I absolutely disagree that the reason we haven’t had a candid accounting of what went on under Bush is because the folks involved are afraid of being shamed.
Quite. The reasons appear to be twofold:
– On one side, the folks involved may not be afraid of being shamed. But they are definitely afraid of being tried and convicted. And apparently increasingly afraid that the Senate report will inevitably lead to that.
– On the other, the folks in the current administration were afraid that, had they tried immediately to launch a criminal investigation, screams of partisanship would have made governing neigh impossible. (Of course, they got that kind of partisanship anyway. But they clearly didn’t expect it going in.) And now, having to explain why they didn’t act already would be . . . awkward.
In the end, it appears that what will bring the whole ediface crashing down is hubris. The folks involved were so sure that they could do anything that they wanted without consequences that they stomped on the toes of a Senator who was one of their strongest supporters. And nothing is more dangerous to a Federal bureaucrat than a Senator who feels disrespected.
“As great as I think that would be, there are too many political careers at stake for any of the stakeholders to want that conversation to happen.”
I think that’s true. I also think that your point later on is valid–
“I think shame is used as a cudgel in public discourse:
You don’t support our troops! You don’t support our president! You don’t support X group! How could you support a criminal! You’re increasing the deficit! You don’t care about the poor! The middle class! The hardworking!”
The problem I have, though, is that shaming is sometimes appropriate. People should be ashamed of supporting torture or of a drone policy which sometimes blows up wedding parties or an old woman working in a field. We have no idea how these decisions are made. They should be ashamed if they oppose food stamps or health care for the poor and don’t have an alternative policy that would plausibly accomplish the same goals. In some of your examples, though, shame is being applied for illegitimate reasons. “Supporting the troops” really means “lining up behind whatever war we are engaged in now”. One should start with the presupposition that war is wrong, and can only be justified under a tight set of circumstances, and not argue for a war because otherwise you’re not supporting the troops.
In contrast, when we liberals say Republicans should be ashamed when they refuse to expand Medicaid, the point is that the Republicans aren’t proposing some alternative and more effective way to deliver health care to the poor. It looks for all the world like spite, as Krugman said in a recent column. If it was just a matter of competing ideas on the best way to help the poor receive health care, then I’d agree that “shame” shouldn’t be part of the discussion.
“As great as I think that would be, there are too many political careers at stake for any of the stakeholders to want that conversation to happen.”
I think that’s true. I also think that your point later on is valid–
“I think shame is used as a cudgel in public discourse:
You don’t support our troops! You don’t support our president! You don’t support X group! How could you support a criminal! You’re increasing the deficit! You don’t care about the poor! The middle class! The hardworking!”
The problem I have, though, is that shaming is sometimes appropriate. People should be ashamed of supporting torture or of a drone policy which sometimes blows up wedding parties or an old woman working in a field. We have no idea how these decisions are made. They should be ashamed if they oppose food stamps or health care for the poor and don’t have an alternative policy that would plausibly accomplish the same goals. In some of your examples, though, shame is being applied for illegitimate reasons. “Supporting the troops” really means “lining up behind whatever war we are engaged in now”. One should start with the presupposition that war is wrong, and can only be justified under a tight set of circumstances, and not argue for a war because otherwise you’re not supporting the troops.
In contrast, when we liberals say Republicans should be ashamed when they refuse to expand Medicaid, the point is that the Republicans aren’t proposing some alternative and more effective way to deliver health care to the poor. It looks for all the world like spite, as Krugman said in a recent column. If it was just a matter of competing ideas on the best way to help the poor receive health care, then I’d agree that “shame” shouldn’t be part of the discussion.
I haven’t followed this Nevada grazing issue and have no comment on the merits of Brett’s claims, but digby had an interesting take on one aspect of it–the use of tasers on conservative protestors apparently has them outraged. As she says, good, even though it’d be nice if they were also outraged when non-Tea Party types are tasered.
it’s not about cows its about freedom
I haven’t followed this Nevada grazing issue and have no comment on the merits of Brett’s claims, but digby had an interesting take on one aspect of it–the use of tasers on conservative protestors apparently has them outraged. As she says, good, even though it’d be nice if they were also outraged when non-Tea Party types are tasered.
it’s not about cows its about freedom
“Some western states are so “land poor” that local governments have difficulty raising enough funds to provide basic services like law enforcement.”
Bundy’s ranch (how did his ancestors get that land without the earlier thuggery of the federal government working in their favor) and MY land are in Clark County — county seat: Las Vegas.
I suspect they have a rainy day fund. And they rarely use it because, you know, no rain.
Moreover, both Las Vegas and I suspect, Bundy use water stolen from ME. That’s my f*cking water.
I don’t recall giving my personal permission for any of those fat black welfare parasites in their Cadillacs to take my water.
Like Bundy, I no longer recognize any long-standing arrangements, compacts, silly laws that any pieces of sh*t government at any level, reach in this land, which is my land.
I am Comanche, by which I mean I’m whomever lived on that land first, and I know it’s not the Spanish, and I know it’s not the U.S. Government or any local government, and I know it’s not Bundy, and I know it’s not the Calvary who secured the land for Bundy, and I know it’s not the ranchers and their barbed wire, and I know it is not, and I know it’s not, and that’s all I know.
If you want to go back to original causes of this, let’s go back. Let’s go way back, unless your prefer your “way back”, which is just sh*t made-up by armed white thieves, I mean if you really want to get down to the bedrock truth.
Bundy’s cattle drank my water on my land. Some armed militia c*cksucker from Florida, or Texas, or wherever these murderous crackheads come out of the woodwork with their weapons to once again f*ck up my country, drank MY water.
Out of a cup, also stolen from me.
I’ll stop there. I have more to say and more to threaten since this is the way we’re being trained to do it by armed filth, and believe me I’m going to disarm all parties involved in this mess, OR they can choose to die.
But, in the meantime, so that you get the Comanche out-of-control drift with which I’m going to finish this country, I would practice your Christopher Walken imitation with his distinct cadence and modulation from emphatic goofball to where his voice goes into the lower registers and he tells you the bottom line – that he is the Angel of Death come to dispense Cormac McCarthy justice on the so-called open range.
Here’s a sample for the practicing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEE8Hza6lU
Maybe you’d like to dance with me instead.
I don’t think you can keep up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEE8Hza6lU
By the way, I’m glad this has ended peacefully, for now, but remember, my land is my land now and my water is my water now and their are no laws that can be enforced on me.
Also, there was some tasering and scuffling going on at the site, which I highly disapprove of, but the rancher’s family and supporters started the shoving, and since Treyvon Martin, the little nigger kid who several here feel deserved to be murdered for defending himself as well on public property, got his for grazing his skittles without paying proper tribute to self-appointed armed militia filth, and tried to defend himself, like a man, with his fists, instead of like a pussy, with a gun, then I’m sure you appreciate the new rules.
“Some western states are so “land poor” that local governments have difficulty raising enough funds to provide basic services like law enforcement.”
Bundy’s ranch (how did his ancestors get that land without the earlier thuggery of the federal government working in their favor) and MY land are in Clark County — county seat: Las Vegas.
I suspect they have a rainy day fund. And they rarely use it because, you know, no rain.
Moreover, both Las Vegas and I suspect, Bundy use water stolen from ME. That’s my f*cking water.
I don’t recall giving my personal permission for any of those fat black welfare parasites in their Cadillacs to take my water.
Like Bundy, I no longer recognize any long-standing arrangements, compacts, silly laws that any pieces of sh*t government at any level, reach in this land, which is my land.
I am Comanche, by which I mean I’m whomever lived on that land first, and I know it’s not the Spanish, and I know it’s not the U.S. Government or any local government, and I know it’s not Bundy, and I know it’s not the Calvary who secured the land for Bundy, and I know it’s not the ranchers and their barbed wire, and I know it is not, and I know it’s not, and that’s all I know.
If you want to go back to original causes of this, let’s go back. Let’s go way back, unless your prefer your “way back”, which is just sh*t made-up by armed white thieves, I mean if you really want to get down to the bedrock truth.
Bundy’s cattle drank my water on my land. Some armed militia c*cksucker from Florida, or Texas, or wherever these murderous crackheads come out of the woodwork with their weapons to once again f*ck up my country, drank MY water.
Out of a cup, also stolen from me.
I’ll stop there. I have more to say and more to threaten since this is the way we’re being trained to do it by armed filth, and believe me I’m going to disarm all parties involved in this mess, OR they can choose to die.
But, in the meantime, so that you get the Comanche out-of-control drift with which I’m going to finish this country, I would practice your Christopher Walken imitation with his distinct cadence and modulation from emphatic goofball to where his voice goes into the lower registers and he tells you the bottom line – that he is the Angel of Death come to dispense Cormac McCarthy justice on the so-called open range.
Here’s a sample for the practicing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEE8Hza6lU
Maybe you’d like to dance with me instead.
I don’t think you can keep up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNEE8Hza6lU
By the way, I’m glad this has ended peacefully, for now, but remember, my land is my land now and my water is my water now and their are no laws that can be enforced on me.
Also, there was some tasering and scuffling going on at the site, which I highly disapprove of, but the rancher’s family and supporters started the shoving, and since Treyvon Martin, the little nigger kid who several here feel deserved to be murdered for defending himself as well on public property, got his for grazing his skittles without paying proper tribute to self-appointed armed militia filth, and tried to defend himself, like a man, with his fists, instead of like a pussy, with a gun, then I’m sure you appreciate the new rules.
“On the other, the folks in the current administration were afraid that, had they tried immediately to launch a criminal investigation, screams of partisanship would have made governing neigh impossible.”
More realistically, they understand that, if they ever breach the rule that administrations do not try prior administrations, THEY can be tried for the criminal acts THEY are today doing.
“On the other, the folks in the current administration were afraid that, had they tried immediately to launch a criminal investigation, screams of partisanship would have made governing neigh impossible.”
More realistically, they understand that, if they ever breach the rule that administrations do not try prior administrations, THEY can be tried for the criminal acts THEY are today doing.
The second link should be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wbaAV01qG8
uh one, uh two
The second link should be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wbaAV01qG8
uh one, uh two
That may be (part of) their motivation now. But going in, I doubt they anticipated doing criminal acts.
(Note, that doesn’t mean doing stuff that you consider to be criminal acts. It means doing stuff that they considered, going in, to be criminal acts. Because that is what determines their motivation.)
That may be (part of) their motivation now. But going in, I doubt they anticipated doing criminal acts.
(Note, that doesn’t mean doing stuff that you consider to be criminal acts. It means doing stuff that they considered, going in, to be criminal acts. Because that is what determines their motivation.)
In contrast, when we liberals say Republicans should be ashamed when they refuse to expand Medicaid, the point is that the Republicans aren’t proposing some alternative and more effective way to deliver health care to the poor. It looks for all the world like spite, as Krugman said in a recent column. If it was just a matter of competing ideas on the best way to help the poor receive health care, then I’d agree that “shame” shouldn’t be part of the discussion.
What a crock. “You” liberals don’t have a solution for anything that ails this country that doesn’t include expanding the dependent class to ensure your reelection. Defining ever greater numbers of people as poor, while ensuring they have no way to not be, is just cynical bs. You should be ashamed that during 5 years the number of people redefined as poor enough for food assistance has reached 47 million while over 10 percent still can’t find a job. Krugman is the most pompous of the current class of self aggrandizing liberals set on solving every problem by just stealing from everyone, not just the rich.
I am NOT ashamed that I believe we should be making fewer people need Medicaid rather than putting everyone on it. That is what “those” people offer as an alternative and its better.
Shame my a$$.
In contrast, when we liberals say Republicans should be ashamed when they refuse to expand Medicaid, the point is that the Republicans aren’t proposing some alternative and more effective way to deliver health care to the poor. It looks for all the world like spite, as Krugman said in a recent column. If it was just a matter of competing ideas on the best way to help the poor receive health care, then I’d agree that “shame” shouldn’t be part of the discussion.
What a crock. “You” liberals don’t have a solution for anything that ails this country that doesn’t include expanding the dependent class to ensure your reelection. Defining ever greater numbers of people as poor, while ensuring they have no way to not be, is just cynical bs. You should be ashamed that during 5 years the number of people redefined as poor enough for food assistance has reached 47 million while over 10 percent still can’t find a job. Krugman is the most pompous of the current class of self aggrandizing liberals set on solving every problem by just stealing from everyone, not just the rich.
I am NOT ashamed that I believe we should be making fewer people need Medicaid rather than putting everyone on it. That is what “those” people offer as an alternative and its better.
Shame my a$$.
You miss my point (probably not your fault).
Quite likely, and if so, it equally likely is my own mis-reading and general slowness of comprehension.
I think I also have not completely thought through or expressed very clearly my own point here.
Long story short, I find nothing to argue with in your 12:21.
I recall the militia attempting to save the Davidians in the same way.
Because what was really needed at Waco was another couple hundred people running around with guns.
From your Breitbart link:
Bundy is a nutjob.
Bundy’s pissed off because the BLM restricted the acreage he could ranch on. That’s understandable.
But it’s not his land.
I give the BLM props for standing down and not provoking a freaking stupid pointless shooting war with a bunch of delusional nutjobs who think this is going to be their big opportunity to shoot some feds.
Everybody should take a big step back, cool off, and come back at this issue when they’ve calmed down.
Framing it as some kind of big “our precious liberties” thing is stupid irresponsible crap, and is just going to end up getting somebody killed.
The land doesn’t belong to Bundy, he has no particular right to use it free of charge, running cattle is actually not a harmless use of the land in the first place.
If you want to walk back the history of how Nevada became a state, why stop there? Just give it back to the Indians, they were there first.
You miss my point (probably not your fault).
Quite likely, and if so, it equally likely is my own mis-reading and general slowness of comprehension.
I think I also have not completely thought through or expressed very clearly my own point here.
Long story short, I find nothing to argue with in your 12:21.
I recall the militia attempting to save the Davidians in the same way.
Because what was really needed at Waco was another couple hundred people running around with guns.
From your Breitbart link:
Bundy is a nutjob.
Bundy’s pissed off because the BLM restricted the acreage he could ranch on. That’s understandable.
But it’s not his land.
I give the BLM props for standing down and not provoking a freaking stupid pointless shooting war with a bunch of delusional nutjobs who think this is going to be their big opportunity to shoot some feds.
Everybody should take a big step back, cool off, and come back at this issue when they’ve calmed down.
Framing it as some kind of big “our precious liberties” thing is stupid irresponsible crap, and is just going to end up getting somebody killed.
The land doesn’t belong to Bundy, he has no particular right to use it free of charge, running cattle is actually not a harmless use of the land in the first place.
If you want to walk back the history of how Nevada became a state, why stop there? Just give it back to the Indians, they were there first.
“You” liberals don’t have a solution for anything that ails this country that doesn’t include expanding the dependent class to ensure your reelection.
Pay people more. That’s my big plan. Distribution, not re-distribution.
See how simple?
“You” liberals don’t have a solution for anything that ails this country that doesn’t include expanding the dependent class to ensure your reelection.
Pay people more. That’s my big plan. Distribution, not re-distribution.
See how simple?
I am curious what is considered a harmless use of land if 900 head of cattle on a million acres isn’t.
I am curious what is considered a harmless use of land if 900 head of cattle on a million acres isn’t.
Donald:
In some of your examples, though, shame is being applied for illegitimate reasons.
That’s my issue with using shaming. It’s a great political weapon, when it works. It completely shuts down or marginalizes dissent.
It turns political discourse into who can get the momentum on their side first.
You picked on “supporting our troops”, and I’d agree, that’s a prototypical example of what I’m talking about. It’s been used in the past as a short circuit to the debate on the use of force. Our soldiers are there, using force, any debate of that leaves you open to ‘well don’t you support our troops?’
Discussions about 4A rights often degenerate into, ‘why do we want criminals to get off on technicalities?’
etc etc The “illegitimate” examples abound.
But you contrast with people should be ashamed of X, and you list some examples of X. I agree they should for many of those examples.
I don’t agree “shaming” is the best mechanism to make them ashamed, nor the best mechanism to affect policy change.
I think it feeds into further polarization. And polarization provides political cover for…whatever. Where whatever is often handouts to large donors, eroding liberties, and bombing foreign countries.
As an example, take healthcare for the poor. I’m not going to defend republicans in congress, I don’t think they’ve proposed viable mechanisms to address the problem. Maybe a smattering of small steps that I would like, but nothing that addresses the whole problem.
They have been hammered with shame on healthcare for what, like 6 years now? Nothing has changed. Nate Silver is even predicting they might control the senate (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/ ).
Shaming doesn’t work. It’ll swing the pendulum one way, then the other. Both sides spend time and energy solidifying their base, polishing their sound bites, trying to capture the news cycle, and generally ignoring petty things like law and policy.
McArdle discusses something similar with regards to sexism. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-13/you-can-t-have-a-conversation-about-sexism-at-gunpoint
Donald:
In some of your examples, though, shame is being applied for illegitimate reasons.
That’s my issue with using shaming. It’s a great political weapon, when it works. It completely shuts down or marginalizes dissent.
It turns political discourse into who can get the momentum on their side first.
You picked on “supporting our troops”, and I’d agree, that’s a prototypical example of what I’m talking about. It’s been used in the past as a short circuit to the debate on the use of force. Our soldiers are there, using force, any debate of that leaves you open to ‘well don’t you support our troops?’
Discussions about 4A rights often degenerate into, ‘why do we want criminals to get off on technicalities?’
etc etc The “illegitimate” examples abound.
But you contrast with people should be ashamed of X, and you list some examples of X. I agree they should for many of those examples.
I don’t agree “shaming” is the best mechanism to make them ashamed, nor the best mechanism to affect policy change.
I think it feeds into further polarization. And polarization provides political cover for…whatever. Where whatever is often handouts to large donors, eroding liberties, and bombing foreign countries.
As an example, take healthcare for the poor. I’m not going to defend republicans in congress, I don’t think they’ve proposed viable mechanisms to address the problem. Maybe a smattering of small steps that I would like, but nothing that addresses the whole problem.
They have been hammered with shame on healthcare for what, like 6 years now? Nothing has changed. Nate Silver is even predicting they might control the senate (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/ ).
Shaming doesn’t work. It’ll swing the pendulum one way, then the other. Both sides spend time and energy solidifying their base, polishing their sound bites, trying to capture the news cycle, and generally ignoring petty things like law and policy.
McArdle discusses something similar with regards to sexism. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-13/you-can-t-have-a-conversation-about-sexism-at-gunpoint
Hard to day. Land management is not my field. I defer to the BLM on the topic.
Long story short, it’s not Bundy’s land.
He apparently considers Nevada to be a sovereign entity and the government of the US government to simply not exist. He’s wrong on both counts.
I’ll also offer my opinion, FWIW, that tasering Bundy’s son was an asinine move on the part of the feds, and I’m glad they’ve decided to step back and not escalate things further.
But it ain’t Bundy’s land.
Hard to day. Land management is not my field. I defer to the BLM on the topic.
Long story short, it’s not Bundy’s land.
He apparently considers Nevada to be a sovereign entity and the government of the US government to simply not exist. He’s wrong on both counts.
I’ll also offer my opinion, FWIW, that tasering Bundy’s son was an asinine move on the part of the feds, and I’m glad they’ve decided to step back and not escalate things further.
But it ain’t Bundy’s land.
“Hard to say”, not “hard to day”.
“Hard to say”, not “hard to day”.
“What a crock. “You” liberals don’t have a solution for anything that ails this country that doesn’t include expanding the dependent class to ensure your reelection.”
There are poor people in the country now and they need health care. You can pretend they don’t and say that if only Republicans ran the country there wouldn’t be any poor people, but right now we do have poor people, so what’s your suggestion?
And Krugman did have an idea on how to put people back to work–a bigger stimulus. It wasn’t politically feasible. That’s because a bunch of “serious people”, unfortunately including some Democrats, decided that the deficit was vastly more important than the plight of the unemployed.
As for caring about the Democrats and their political fortunes, not much interests me less. Back in 1999 I was actually, for a very brief period, intrigued by the phrase “compassionate conservatism”. It soon turned out to be meaningless drivel, but it probably didn’t have to be. It’d be nice if conservatives seeking public office seemed to care about the poor and unemployed, instead of imagining that there’s a society of “takers” who the Democrats try to bribe into voting for them.
“What a crock. “You” liberals don’t have a solution for anything that ails this country that doesn’t include expanding the dependent class to ensure your reelection.”
There are poor people in the country now and they need health care. You can pretend they don’t and say that if only Republicans ran the country there wouldn’t be any poor people, but right now we do have poor people, so what’s your suggestion?
And Krugman did have an idea on how to put people back to work–a bigger stimulus. It wasn’t politically feasible. That’s because a bunch of “serious people”, unfortunately including some Democrats, decided that the deficit was vastly more important than the plight of the unemployed.
As for caring about the Democrats and their political fortunes, not much interests me less. Back in 1999 I was actually, for a very brief period, intrigued by the phrase “compassionate conservatism”. It soon turned out to be meaningless drivel, but it probably didn’t have to be. It’d be nice if conservatives seeking public office seemed to care about the poor and unemployed, instead of imagining that there’s a society of “takers” who the Democrats try to bribe into voting for them.
Thompson–you could convince me on the lack of merit of shaming. I’m not sure. In practice, shaming seems to work mainly in the wrong direction, as far as I’m concerned. And that aside, maybe there are better methods of persuasion. I’m not sure what they are anymore.
Thompson–you could convince me on the lack of merit of shaming. I’m not sure. In practice, shaming seems to work mainly in the wrong direction, as far as I’m concerned. And that aside, maybe there are better methods of persuasion. I’m not sure what they are anymore.
“instead of imagining that there’s a society of “takers” who the Democrats try to bribe into voting for them”
I can’t imagine that there is anyone who imagines this more than the Democrats who spend every election cycle pretending they have fixed something.
There are poor people today, more than ever. The second part is the problem. While he runs out to give another bs speech citing bs statistics on the signups, the President hasn’t got one thing done to make less people poor. So it is a self fulfilling cy le, he makes more people poor, signs up more people for Medicaid, declares Medicaid a success, still needs more expansion, bad Republicans.
“instead of imagining that there’s a society of “takers” who the Democrats try to bribe into voting for them”
I can’t imagine that there is anyone who imagines this more than the Democrats who spend every election cycle pretending they have fixed something.
There are poor people today, more than ever. The second part is the problem. While he runs out to give another bs speech citing bs statistics on the signups, the President hasn’t got one thing done to make less people poor. So it is a self fulfilling cy le, he makes more people poor, signs up more people for Medicaid, declares Medicaid a success, still needs more expansion, bad Republicans.
“You should be ashamed that during 5 years the number of people redefined as poor enough for food assistance has reached 47 million while over 10 percent still can’t find a job.”
I wonder what led to the five years of people needing food assistance. Surely not an election. Something must have happened before that.
The private sector is welcome, with record high amounts of cash flow, to hire every single unemployed person in this country.
The government won’t interfere with that, except maybe to hire them themselves, but of course .. austerity.
I’m a shareholder many times over. I give my permission.
Do it. It could be done by next Friday.
“I am NOT ashamed that I believe we should be making fewer people need Medicaid rather than putting everyone on it.”
How you gonna make them? The Republican plan, placed in full view by Ryan last week, and reiterated by Ted Cruz yesterday, will remove the prohibition of denying health insurance, let alone affordable health insurance, to those with pre-existing medical conditions, just to cite one catastrophic bullet point.
That would seem to MAKE people turn to Medicaid. That seems to be the only alternative, unless sucking Republican dick will get the job done, which I think is Republican David Vitter’s scheme for the rest of us.
“Shame my A$$”
One of those dollars in A$$ needs to be confiscated to pay for universal health insurance, not this unwieldy Obamacare deal.
So, we’re back to terming government as “stealing”
Then violence against and killing the government is the answer.
Get the f*ck to it. Time’s a wasting.
Maybe the militia types now in Nevada can help.
They might need a new gig if the truce holds out there.
“You should be ashamed that during 5 years the number of people redefined as poor enough for food assistance has reached 47 million while over 10 percent still can’t find a job.”
I wonder what led to the five years of people needing food assistance. Surely not an election. Something must have happened before that.
The private sector is welcome, with record high amounts of cash flow, to hire every single unemployed person in this country.
The government won’t interfere with that, except maybe to hire them themselves, but of course .. austerity.
I’m a shareholder many times over. I give my permission.
Do it. It could be done by next Friday.
“I am NOT ashamed that I believe we should be making fewer people need Medicaid rather than putting everyone on it.”
How you gonna make them? The Republican plan, placed in full view by Ryan last week, and reiterated by Ted Cruz yesterday, will remove the prohibition of denying health insurance, let alone affordable health insurance, to those with pre-existing medical conditions, just to cite one catastrophic bullet point.
That would seem to MAKE people turn to Medicaid. That seems to be the only alternative, unless sucking Republican dick will get the job done, which I think is Republican David Vitter’s scheme for the rest of us.
“Shame my A$$”
One of those dollars in A$$ needs to be confiscated to pay for universal health insurance, not this unwieldy Obamacare deal.
So, we’re back to terming government as “stealing”
Then violence against and killing the government is the answer.
Get the f*ck to it. Time’s a wasting.
Maybe the militia types now in Nevada can help.
They might need a new gig if the truce holds out there.
Cattle grazing is notoriously damaging to the open range, especially along riverine environments.
Many, probably most, ranchers follow good grazing practices, with the help of their extension agents, you know, those government types, the thieves, previously noted.
Many don’t, and thus the fees to mitigate the damage.
I’ll cite the scientific studies if you like, but they were done by folks who studied the problem and that could lead to communism.
Cattle grazing is notoriously damaging to the open range, especially along riverine environments.
Many, probably most, ranchers follow good grazing practices, with the help of their extension agents, you know, those government types, the thieves, previously noted.
Many don’t, and thus the fees to mitigate the damage.
I’ll cite the scientific studies if you like, but they were done by folks who studied the problem and that could lead to communism.
In practice, shaming seems to work mainly in the wrong direction, as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed. That’s my main point.
maybe there are better methods of persuasion. I’m not sure what they are anymore.
I don’t know either. I like to think that nuanced discussions and calm, respectful disagreements are the way to go.
But beyond personal experience I have no evidence to support that.
In practice, shaming seems to work mainly in the wrong direction, as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed. That’s my main point.
maybe there are better methods of persuasion. I’m not sure what they are anymore.
I don’t know either. I like to think that nuanced discussions and calm, respectful disagreements are the way to go.
But beyond personal experience I have no evidence to support that.
What the drought-ridden ranchers in Nevada really need is for the BLM to lease all of the land surrounding their ranches for oil and gas exploration, which is extremely water-intensive these days and then both the ranchers, the government, and the rest of us can all suck on the same dick for a change.
Then we can have a real f*ckin range war out here over MY water, stolen from me, down it goes the West slope of the Rockies and into the welfare sump of the American Southwest.
Which I never minded until conservatives right here many years ago complained about THAT arrangement too.
Annuda ting, whilst I’m ad it. This drought, it’s driving beef prices to repeated record daily highs.
And this particular rancher nutcase can’t afford to pay his grazing fees?
I’m gonna be eating a burger with one hand and cocking my weapon with the other hand and trying to find the thief who stole my money.
What the drought-ridden ranchers in Nevada really need is for the BLM to lease all of the land surrounding their ranches for oil and gas exploration, which is extremely water-intensive these days and then both the ranchers, the government, and the rest of us can all suck on the same dick for a change.
Then we can have a real f*ckin range war out here over MY water, stolen from me, down it goes the West slope of the Rockies and into the welfare sump of the American Southwest.
Which I never minded until conservatives right here many years ago complained about THAT arrangement too.
Annuda ting, whilst I’m ad it. This drought, it’s driving beef prices to repeated record daily highs.
And this particular rancher nutcase can’t afford to pay his grazing fees?
I’m gonna be eating a burger with one hand and cocking my weapon with the other hand and trying to find the thief who stole my money.
I am NOT ashamed that I believe we should be making fewer people need Medicaid rather than putting everyone on it.
Great idea, Marty. Please provide your plan for making fewer people need Medicaid. Preferably with examples of where this plan has been implemented and worked in practice, if available. Thanks!
I am NOT ashamed that I believe we should be making fewer people need Medicaid rather than putting everyone on it.
Great idea, Marty. Please provide your plan for making fewer people need Medicaid. Preferably with examples of where this plan has been implemented and worked in practice, if available. Thanks!
“(Note, that doesn’t mean doing stuff that you consider to be criminal acts. It means doing stuff that they considered, going in, to be criminal acts. Because that is what determines their motivation.)”
I’m fairly confident that the Obama administration doesn’t think anything they do is illegal, and didn’t go in planning to do anything illegal. Not because they didn’t have any plans that conflicted with existing statutes or the Constitution. Because they figure that, if they do it, it ain’t illegal. Just a tautological truth, IOW.
That’s not to say that they don’t need to concern themselves with what a future administration might figure was illegal, should they break the tradition that the incoming administration not prosecute the outgoing administration.
“Long story short, it’s not Bundy’s land.”
That’s right. That’s my point: So much of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, that you can’t run a ranch on your own land. This situation wouldn’t have come up in Nebraska, because in Nebraska it WOULD have been Bundy’s land.
Can we discuss whether there’s a legitimate excuse for the federal government to own 84.5% of the state of Nevada, and a fraction of a percent of the land in most states? I mean, look at that map I linked to: West of Texas, the federal government owns most of the land. East of that line, the feds own hardly any land.
Weren’t states supposed to be admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
“(Note, that doesn’t mean doing stuff that you consider to be criminal acts. It means doing stuff that they considered, going in, to be criminal acts. Because that is what determines their motivation.)”
I’m fairly confident that the Obama administration doesn’t think anything they do is illegal, and didn’t go in planning to do anything illegal. Not because they didn’t have any plans that conflicted with existing statutes or the Constitution. Because they figure that, if they do it, it ain’t illegal. Just a tautological truth, IOW.
That’s not to say that they don’t need to concern themselves with what a future administration might figure was illegal, should they break the tradition that the incoming administration not prosecute the outgoing administration.
“Long story short, it’s not Bundy’s land.”
That’s right. That’s my point: So much of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, that you can’t run a ranch on your own land. This situation wouldn’t have come up in Nebraska, because in Nebraska it WOULD have been Bundy’s land.
Can we discuss whether there’s a legitimate excuse for the federal government to own 84.5% of the state of Nevada, and a fraction of a percent of the land in most states? I mean, look at that map I linked to: West of Texas, the federal government owns most of the land. East of that line, the feds own hardly any land.
Weren’t states supposed to be admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Well, a classic solution is to put methanol into the water supply at low concentrations. With life expectancy lowered by 5 to 10 years (for those that cannot afford water without it) a lot of the expensive medical conditions will not occur*. Smoking should be mandatory too since the overall balance is positive (while for alcohol abuse it is negative), i.e. people die so much faster that the money for medical expenses saved by years not lived by far exceeds the standard treatment for smoking related illnesses incurred.
*Few if any signs of acute posioning, just accelerated general age decay, so most people will not even notice
Well, a classic solution is to put methanol into the water supply at low concentrations. With life expectancy lowered by 5 to 10 years (for those that cannot afford water without it) a lot of the expensive medical conditions will not occur*. Smoking should be mandatory too since the overall balance is positive (while for alcohol abuse it is negative), i.e. people die so much faster that the money for medical expenses saved by years not lived by far exceeds the standard treatment for smoking related illnesses incurred.
*Few if any signs of acute posioning, just accelerated general age decay, so most people will not even notice
I’d like to second Donald’s point up thread about the use and abuse of tasering against children and liberal demonstrators across the country, especially in the hotbeds of militaristic, conservative discipline.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/dispatch-from-torture-central-aka.html
Here’s hoping that the Feds tasering someone their own size, after first being shoved, of course, who happens to be conservative shines a light on this abusive practice.
I’d like to second Donald’s point up thread about the use and abuse of tasering against children and liberal demonstrators across the country, especially in the hotbeds of militaristic, conservative discipline.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/dispatch-from-torture-central-aka.html
Here’s hoping that the Feds tasering someone their own size, after first being shoved, of course, who happens to be conservative shines a light on this abusive practice.
“Can we discuss whether there is legitimate excuse ..”
Good question. I’ll do some reading, and imagine it will reveal very complicated historical reasons for the Federal government to own the land, but these reasons will be dismissed as out of hand as “excuses” made up by the EVIL Federal government, so I’m not sure why I should bother putting in the time.
Interesting that Nevada statehood was rushed into by Republicans under Lincoln, the Great Satan to some in our practical joke of a country.
Probably done to hasten the demise of slavery and its movement west before the usual cracker suspects could do so, though why do I suspect many of the vehicles transporting our current crop of Doo-Dahs to Nevada this weekend sport Confederate Flag insignias.
Maybe the federal government doesn’t think the savages have been sufficiently neutralized yet on behalf of this rancher and his family.
There must be some “excuse”.
And this, from Wikipedia, regarding what is now …
“Nevada achieved its current southern boundaries on May 5, 1866, when it absorbed the portion of Pah-Ute County in the Arizona Territory west of the Colorado River, essentially all of present day Nevada south of the 37th parallel.
The transfer was prompted by the discovery of gold in the area, and it was thought by officials that Nevada would be better able to oversee the expected population boom. This area includes most of what is now Clark County. In 1868 another part of the western Utah Territory, whose population was seeking to avoid Mormon dominance, was added to Nevada in the eastern part of the state, setting the current eastern boundary.”
…… Clark County? Sounds familiar. Apparently stolen at the state level, but theft at any level below the federal is copacetic.
Time to settle scores.
Everything was stolen and given away to the very so-called Americans who populate the joint.
“Can we discuss whether there is legitimate excuse ..”
Good question. I’ll do some reading, and imagine it will reveal very complicated historical reasons for the Federal government to own the land, but these reasons will be dismissed as out of hand as “excuses” made up by the EVIL Federal government, so I’m not sure why I should bother putting in the time.
Interesting that Nevada statehood was rushed into by Republicans under Lincoln, the Great Satan to some in our practical joke of a country.
Probably done to hasten the demise of slavery and its movement west before the usual cracker suspects could do so, though why do I suspect many of the vehicles transporting our current crop of Doo-Dahs to Nevada this weekend sport Confederate Flag insignias.
Maybe the federal government doesn’t think the savages have been sufficiently neutralized yet on behalf of this rancher and his family.
There must be some “excuse”.
And this, from Wikipedia, regarding what is now …
“Nevada achieved its current southern boundaries on May 5, 1866, when it absorbed the portion of Pah-Ute County in the Arizona Territory west of the Colorado River, essentially all of present day Nevada south of the 37th parallel.
The transfer was prompted by the discovery of gold in the area, and it was thought by officials that Nevada would be better able to oversee the expected population boom. This area includes most of what is now Clark County. In 1868 another part of the western Utah Territory, whose population was seeking to avoid Mormon dominance, was added to Nevada in the eastern part of the state, setting the current eastern boundary.”
…… Clark County? Sounds familiar. Apparently stolen at the state level, but theft at any level below the federal is copacetic.
Time to settle scores.
Everything was stolen and given away to the very so-called Americans who populate the joint.
This situation wouldn’t have come up in Nebraska, because in Nebraska it WOULD have been Bundy’s land.
And, in Nebraska, to make it his land, he or some forbear would have had to buy it.
That, or, if the forbear went back far enough, had it granted to them by the feds.
Can we discuss whether there’s a legitimate excuse for the federal government to own 84.5% of the state of Nevada, and a fraction of a percent of the land in most states?
Sure, it would no doubt be an interesting discussion.
This situation wouldn’t have come up in Nebraska, because in Nebraska it WOULD have been Bundy’s land.
And, in Nebraska, to make it his land, he or some forbear would have had to buy it.
That, or, if the forbear went back far enough, had it granted to them by the feds.
Can we discuss whether there’s a legitimate excuse for the federal government to own 84.5% of the state of Nevada, and a fraction of a percent of the land in most states?
Sure, it would no doubt be an interesting discussion.
So much of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, that you can’t run a ranch on your own land.
then don’t run a ranch.
So much of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, that you can’t run a ranch on your own land.
then don’t run a ranch.
The problem is that they started out running ranches over 100 years ago, with the explicit understanding that they WOULD be allowed to range their cattle on the adjoining federal land. There’s a bit of a reliance interest there.
The problem is that they started out running ranches over 100 years ago, with the explicit understanding that they WOULD be allowed to range their cattle on the adjoining federal land. There’s a bit of a reliance interest there.
“then don’t run a ranch.”
Or any other enterprise. Local governments can just do without the property, sales and any other taxes they might otherwise collect. They can just hope that the federal government will continue to toss them some breadcrumbs now and then.
“then don’t run a ranch.”
Or any other enterprise. Local governments can just do without the property, sales and any other taxes they might otherwise collect. They can just hope that the federal government will continue to toss them some breadcrumbs now and then.
But cleek, since all (or at least all Federal) government is illegitimate, all Federal land ownership is illegitimate. So all the “Federal” land is actually just open lands with no owner. So no reason not to start a ranch which uses it.
See? Simple! All you have to do is embrace the assumptions….
But cleek, since all (or at least all Federal) government is illegitimate, all Federal land ownership is illegitimate. So all the “Federal” land is actually just open lands with no owner. So no reason not to start a ranch which uses it.
See? Simple! All you have to do is embrace the assumptions….
with the explicit understanding that they WOULD be allowed to range their cattle on the adjoining federal land.
Would that “explicit understanding” be an actual signed contract? In whih case, he’s on solid ground.
But if not, what did constitute that explicit understanding?
with the explicit understanding that they WOULD be allowed to range their cattle on the adjoining federal land.
Would that “explicit understanding” be an actual signed contract? In whih case, he’s on solid ground.
But if not, what did constitute that explicit understanding?
Please provide your plan for making fewer people need Medicaid. Preferably with examples of where this plan has been implemented and worked in practice, if available
And there ir is. The question that demands a long term plan with economic stimulus and regulation certainty, appropriate tax policy, etc. All of which is good for business, all sizes. Which will make it evil.
And it has to be a plan that is as simple as “we will pay 2 trillion dollars to insure some people. Now that we have some number enrolled you will never be able to consider any other solution and if you propose that not spending 2 trillion dollars will create as many jobs as the numbers you are signing up for free insurance, then you don’t care about poor people.”
Please provide your plan for making fewer people need Medicaid. Preferably with examples of where this plan has been implemented and worked in practice, if available
And there ir is. The question that demands a long term plan with economic stimulus and regulation certainty, appropriate tax policy, etc. All of which is good for business, all sizes. Which will make it evil.
And it has to be a plan that is as simple as “we will pay 2 trillion dollars to insure some people. Now that we have some number enrolled you will never be able to consider any other solution and if you propose that not spending 2 trillion dollars will create as many jobs as the numbers you are signing up for free insurance, then you don’t care about poor people.”
Pay people more.
Pay people more.
Plenty of ranchers endure the hard life of ranching to run millions of acres of private and corporate cattle ranch in the American West and have done so while keeping up on their grazing fees on the further millions of acres of Federal land where they run their cattle.
Seventy billion dollars of beef and by-product according to the figures I can find.
Now, small ranches are in decline, as small farms are, but tell me how that is the Federal Government’s fault? It’s the private sector’s fault for going full-bore to factory farms and ranches, dictated by King Market, the King whose tea never gets thrown in the Harbor, despite his depredations, and driving the small rancher out of business, same as Wal Mart drives the small merchants out of business, who then go on foodstamps because they have to work at WalMart and shop at WalMart and then have WalMart Republicans call them parasites, while WalMart cites one reason for slowing sales is the cutback on SNAP funding.
Likewise with this particular rancher, until 1993.
What else happened that year. Let me see?
The Republicans took the House under Gingrich, Armey, and Delay and the rest of the unAmerican domestic terrorists.
“crumbs” Crumbs?
I guess the beef industry can do without the Department of Agriculture shilling its product since forever, including the $4.5 billion in beef exports enabled by free trade agreements negotiated on their behalf by the good offices of the Federal Government.
I guess bullshit on a beef cattle thread (for the moment; what about them chickens?) is not a threadjack.
At least it’s recycled regularly. Save some for the next thread.
BULLSHIT!
Gesundheit!
Plenty of ranchers endure the hard life of ranching to run millions of acres of private and corporate cattle ranch in the American West and have done so while keeping up on their grazing fees on the further millions of acres of Federal land where they run their cattle.
Seventy billion dollars of beef and by-product according to the figures I can find.
Now, small ranches are in decline, as small farms are, but tell me how that is the Federal Government’s fault? It’s the private sector’s fault for going full-bore to factory farms and ranches, dictated by King Market, the King whose tea never gets thrown in the Harbor, despite his depredations, and driving the small rancher out of business, same as Wal Mart drives the small merchants out of business, who then go on foodstamps because they have to work at WalMart and shop at WalMart and then have WalMart Republicans call them parasites, while WalMart cites one reason for slowing sales is the cutback on SNAP funding.
Likewise with this particular rancher, until 1993.
What else happened that year. Let me see?
The Republicans took the House under Gingrich, Armey, and Delay and the rest of the unAmerican domestic terrorists.
“crumbs” Crumbs?
I guess the beef industry can do without the Department of Agriculture shilling its product since forever, including the $4.5 billion in beef exports enabled by free trade agreements negotiated on their behalf by the good offices of the Federal Government.
I guess bullshit on a beef cattle thread (for the moment; what about them chickens?) is not a threadjack.
At least it’s recycled regularly. Save some for the next thread.
BULLSHIT!
Gesundheit!
Free insurance?
Where is this? I’m all ears.
Let’s start a new manure pile, cause this one’s about to explode.
Free insurance?
Where is this? I’m all ears.
Let’s start a new manure pile, cause this one’s about to explode.
There were other options but the ‘conservative’ establishment simply refused to take any into consideration, if it came from the n-word who would soon repaint the WH to match the alleged colour of his skin and his soul, even if it was a carbon copy (see, another black thing) of the one they had still championed up to a few months before. A few were at least honest enough to admit that even that plan that Big O stole from them was not meant seriously (except by that Mormon) but had been a bad faith offer with the sole purpose to defeat the one from Bill’s b-word, not to be taken at faith value and actuially passed as a law (except in that blue cesspool by the Mormon).
There were other options but the ‘conservative’ establishment simply refused to take any into consideration, if it came from the n-word who would soon repaint the WH to match the alleged colour of his skin and his soul, even if it was a carbon copy (see, another black thing) of the one they had still championed up to a few months before. A few were at least honest enough to admit that even that plan that Big O stole from them was not meant seriously (except by that Mormon) but had been a bad faith offer with the sole purpose to defeat the one from Bill’s b-word, not to be taken at faith value and actuially passed as a law (except in that blue cesspool by the Mormon).
I didn’t get any of that Hartmut, if it was meant for me.
I didn’t get any of that Hartmut, if it was meant for me.
Gentleman, stop this fighting this instant!
Don’t you realize this is the War Room …. I mean, the change minds one a time and forgiveness thread!
Where was I? Oh yeah, basing a chair over this guy’s head:
“you will never be able to consider any other solution and if you propose that not spending 2 trillion dollars will create as many jobs as the numbers you are signing up for free insurance, then you don’t care about poor people.”
Ya had since 1948 and you buggered it every time by not having “any other solution”. Ya would have torpedoed Medicare and Medicaid and not come up with any other solution while people went bankrupt and were murdered by your no other solution final solution and YOU, not you, YOU (and Yoo, that rat bastard) and same YOU, would have buggered every chance at Civil Rights legislation too, with no other solution until Malcolm X murdered all of us in out plantation beds, which William F. Buckley deserved but was spared by LBJ.
We still dancing?
Gentleman, stop this fighting this instant!
Don’t you realize this is the War Room …. I mean, the change minds one a time and forgiveness thread!
Where was I? Oh yeah, basing a chair over this guy’s head:
“you will never be able to consider any other solution and if you propose that not spending 2 trillion dollars will create as many jobs as the numbers you are signing up for free insurance, then you don’t care about poor people.”
Ya had since 1948 and you buggered it every time by not having “any other solution”. Ya would have torpedoed Medicare and Medicaid and not come up with any other solution while people went bankrupt and were murdered by your no other solution final solution and YOU, not you, YOU (and Yoo, that rat bastard) and same YOU, would have buggered every chance at Civil Rights legislation too, with no other solution until Malcolm X murdered all of us in out plantation beds, which William F. Buckley deserved but was spared by LBJ.
We still dancing?
“regulation certainty”
7.5 million people have insurance at last, or in most cases better insurance than they had.
43% reduction in the uninsured rate in Kentucky, for one place.
I’ll leave Massachusetts alone, after all, the plan you hate was stolen from those republicans, which is beyond the pale.
“regulation certainty”
Pay your f&cking grazing fees. They’ve been a regulatory certainty for eons.
The only regulatory certainty today’s velociraptic conservatives want is one in which there is not a law against crushing foreign kid testicles.
“regulation certainty”
7.5 million people have insurance at last, or in most cases better insurance than they had.
43% reduction in the uninsured rate in Kentucky, for one place.
I’ll leave Massachusetts alone, after all, the plan you hate was stolen from those republicans, which is beyond the pale.
“regulation certainty”
Pay your f&cking grazing fees. They’ve been a regulatory certainty for eons.
The only regulatory certainty today’s velociraptic conservatives want is one in which there is not a law against crushing foreign kid testicles.
In case I was too deliberately obscure (which seems to be the case), I was referring to Obama(care), Romney(care), and Hillary(care), the one in the middle being originally AEI(the think tank)care and the first one being the middle one with just a fresh coat of paint and a different logo. Other options were, among others, a public option or single payer (plus a few versions based on other countries’ models).
In case I was too deliberately obscure (which seems to be the case), I was referring to Obama(care), Romney(care), and Hillary(care), the one in the middle being originally AEI(the think tank)care and the first one being the middle one with just a fresh coat of paint and a different logo. Other options were, among others, a public option or single payer (plus a few versions based on other countries’ models).
I will forgive and forget when you change your mind. Malcolm X aside,I would rather have a job than be told that I don’t make enough to be eligible for subsidies but I am eligible for Medicaid. No, not dancing anymore tonight.
I will forgive and forget when you change your mind. Malcolm X aside,I would rather have a job than be told that I don’t make enough to be eligible for subsidies but I am eligible for Medicaid. No, not dancing anymore tonight.
“regulatory certainty”.
(YOU) Hire every willing worker in this country, pay them well, and insure them, and never lay them off or fire them and you’ll have it.
We can even dispense with unemployment insurance, foodstamps, etc. Think of the regs we could wipe off the books if private actors would only stop acting in their individual self-interest at every turn.
No, no, we can’t do that.
We have to keep OTHERS uncertain at all times about their next paycheck and whether they can afford their kids’ medical procedures because, why again, some piece of sh*t theories about incentives and .. what, run this by me again.
“regulatory certainty”.
(YOU) Hire every willing worker in this country, pay them well, and insure them, and never lay them off or fire them and you’ll have it.
We can even dispense with unemployment insurance, foodstamps, etc. Think of the regs we could wipe off the books if private actors would only stop acting in their individual self-interest at every turn.
No, no, we can’t do that.
We have to keep OTHERS uncertain at all times about their next paycheck and whether they can afford their kids’ medical procedures because, why again, some piece of sh*t theories about incentives and .. what, run this by me again.
The question that demands a long term plan with economic stimulus and regulation certainty, appropriate tax policy, etc. All of which is good for business, all sizes.
Any plan would eventually need a lot of details. But any plan an also be summarized at a high level. 2-3 paragraphs max.
And that is all the question asked for — the high level summary of the approach that would achieve the desired end. If is came off otherwise, please accept my apologies.
The question that demands a long term plan with economic stimulus and regulation certainty, appropriate tax policy, etc. All of which is good for business, all sizes.
Any plan would eventually need a lot of details. But any plan an also be summarized at a high level. 2-3 paragraphs max.
And that is all the question asked for — the high level summary of the approach that would achieve the desired end. If is came off otherwise, please accept my apologies.
Returning briefly to an earlier theme in this thread, I’m surprised no one mentioned, among apparently repentant sinners, Robert McNamara, who not only had expressed publicly regret over what happened in Vietnam but has made some efforts at postwar reconciliation. I’m not 100% convinced – he’s still a political bureaucrat at heart, and wants everyone to believe he’s essentially good – but if you compare him with unrepentant slimeballs like Henry Kissinger (to say nothing of Dick Cheney and the authors of later wars), McN comes across pretty well.
I’d say more – and I would have said this sooner – but I’ve been in heavy rehearsal’s for the US premiere of James MacMillan’s St. Luke Passion, finished just a few hours ago. It’s a fiendishly difficult work – not just for choir and orchestra, but for children’s choir, which has more to do than any c.c. I’ve ever heard – but if you ever get a chance to hear it, from some group that’s been willing to devote MONTHS of their life to rehearsals, it’s well worth it.
(This is an open thread, right?)
Returning briefly to an earlier theme in this thread, I’m surprised no one mentioned, among apparently repentant sinners, Robert McNamara, who not only had expressed publicly regret over what happened in Vietnam but has made some efforts at postwar reconciliation. I’m not 100% convinced – he’s still a political bureaucrat at heart, and wants everyone to believe he’s essentially good – but if you compare him with unrepentant slimeballs like Henry Kissinger (to say nothing of Dick Cheney and the authors of later wars), McN comes across pretty well.
I’d say more – and I would have said this sooner – but I’ve been in heavy rehearsal’s for the US premiere of James MacMillan’s St. Luke Passion, finished just a few hours ago. It’s a fiendishly difficult work – not just for choir and orchestra, but for children’s choir, which has more to do than any c.c. I’ve ever heard – but if you ever get a chance to hear it, from some group that’s been willing to devote MONTHS of their life to rehearsals, it’s well worth it.
(This is an open thread, right?)
I’m not 100% convinced – he’s still a political bureaucrat at heart, and wants everyone to believe he’s essentially good
He’s dead. Those comments belong in the past tense. All of us will be dead, and what we want everyone to believe will be a done deal.
Actually, I think he was essentially good, although misguided. I’ve said this before on other threads, but the WWII generation, and their post-war actions deserve some consideration, and maybe a pass. They had horrible personal experiences, most of them, themselves, and were learning what to do with power in a frightening world. Vietnam was a huge lesson for former WWII soldiers, who now made decisions. i don’t blame them anymore. I do blame people who didn’t learn something from that time. (And that doesn’t mean: “never engage in military action!”)
But I agree, McNamara cared about what he did. He tried to figure it out.
I’m not 100% convinced – he’s still a political bureaucrat at heart, and wants everyone to believe he’s essentially good
He’s dead. Those comments belong in the past tense. All of us will be dead, and what we want everyone to believe will be a done deal.
Actually, I think he was essentially good, although misguided. I’ve said this before on other threads, but the WWII generation, and their post-war actions deserve some consideration, and maybe a pass. They had horrible personal experiences, most of them, themselves, and were learning what to do with power in a frightening world. Vietnam was a huge lesson for former WWII soldiers, who now made decisions. i don’t blame them anymore. I do blame people who didn’t learn something from that time. (And that doesn’t mean: “never engage in military action!”)
But I agree, McNamara cared about what he did. He tried to figure it out.
As a sort of aside to the whole Bundy thing, I’m often struck by the sheer recentness of “ancient history” when people talk about stuff in the American West.
Bundy’s family has been ranching in Nevada since the “late 1800’s” according to the Breitbart piece. They’ve been at it “for generations”.
My grandfather was born in 1879. So, the Bundys have been there for three generations? Four?
That’s really not a very long time.
By way of contrast, I live in a town that was founded in 1629, and also attend a church first gathered in 1629. A guy from my town was killed in Afghanistan, and a member of his family has gone to war – from the town I live in – in every war since the Revolution.
Probably before that.
I grew up in and around New York City, where the history goes back further than that. It’s buried under a lot more concrete compared to where I am now, but it’s there.
I’m not making any kind of value judgement about any of this, it’s just always strikes me weird to hear people talk about “sacred traditions” that didn’t exist 150 years ago, and how they’ve “always done things that way”, when “always” is, like, four generations back.
I knew my maternal great-grandparents. That’s four generations,them to me.
It’s not really that long a period of time.
The other thing is that the terms and conditions we all live with change all the time. The fact that Bundy’s folks had some kind of arrangement with whoever was managing the land 140 years ago has virtually nothing to do with what the arrangement is, or needs to be, today.
Does anyone here live in the same set of political, social, economic, or any other conventions, rules, arrangements, or whatever, that their families did 140 years ago?
I can tell you that circumstances of all kinds, by far not limited to meddling intrusive government, has not only “effected” how people make their livelihoods in the area I live in, it’s made entire industries, entire lifeways, entire demographics, all disappear.
Gone.
It’s a shame that the BLM’s policies have made it more difficult for Bundy to live the way his folks lived 100+ years ago.
Join the club.
As a sort of aside to the whole Bundy thing, I’m often struck by the sheer recentness of “ancient history” when people talk about stuff in the American West.
Bundy’s family has been ranching in Nevada since the “late 1800’s” according to the Breitbart piece. They’ve been at it “for generations”.
My grandfather was born in 1879. So, the Bundys have been there for three generations? Four?
That’s really not a very long time.
By way of contrast, I live in a town that was founded in 1629, and also attend a church first gathered in 1629. A guy from my town was killed in Afghanistan, and a member of his family has gone to war – from the town I live in – in every war since the Revolution.
Probably before that.
I grew up in and around New York City, where the history goes back further than that. It’s buried under a lot more concrete compared to where I am now, but it’s there.
I’m not making any kind of value judgement about any of this, it’s just always strikes me weird to hear people talk about “sacred traditions” that didn’t exist 150 years ago, and how they’ve “always done things that way”, when “always” is, like, four generations back.
I knew my maternal great-grandparents. That’s four generations,them to me.
It’s not really that long a period of time.
The other thing is that the terms and conditions we all live with change all the time. The fact that Bundy’s folks had some kind of arrangement with whoever was managing the land 140 years ago has virtually nothing to do with what the arrangement is, or needs to be, today.
Does anyone here live in the same set of political, social, economic, or any other conventions, rules, arrangements, or whatever, that their families did 140 years ago?
I can tell you that circumstances of all kinds, by far not limited to meddling intrusive government, has not only “effected” how people make their livelihoods in the area I live in, it’s made entire industries, entire lifeways, entire demographics, all disappear.
Gone.
It’s a shame that the BLM’s policies have made it more difficult for Bundy to live the way his folks lived 100+ years ago.
Join the club.
Brett,
Been busy and no time to answer your reply in a timely manner. Yes, the feds own 85% of Nevada. It was your claim that they “demanded” it that got me, not the %. So I may have misspoke. Nonetheless, this was pretty standard procedure as per the various Enabling Acts. The reason Nebraska doesn’t have the same problem is that they have water and homesteads of 160 acres could make it (barely). In Nevada this was and is not possible.
As I recall reading somewhere, they tried expanding the homestead policy to like 1,000 acres in the arid west. This didn’t work either. People went bust.
What were the feds to do in 1864? Cede all that acreage to less than 7,000 people (the number of residents at the time)? Why should the government had stood a longstanding policy on its head for Nevada?
And really, citing Alex Jones as a source? he is a f*cking nutcase.
Bundy is defying a court order. You f*cking conservatives are all the time whining about how we are a nation of laws, not men. Put up or shut up.
Brett,
Been busy and no time to answer your reply in a timely manner. Yes, the feds own 85% of Nevada. It was your claim that they “demanded” it that got me, not the %. So I may have misspoke. Nonetheless, this was pretty standard procedure as per the various Enabling Acts. The reason Nebraska doesn’t have the same problem is that they have water and homesteads of 160 acres could make it (barely). In Nevada this was and is not possible.
As I recall reading somewhere, they tried expanding the homestead policy to like 1,000 acres in the arid west. This didn’t work either. People went bust.
What were the feds to do in 1864? Cede all that acreage to less than 7,000 people (the number of residents at the time)? Why should the government had stood a longstanding policy on its head for Nevada?
And really, citing Alex Jones as a source? he is a f*cking nutcase.
Bundy is defying a court order. You f*cking conservatives are all the time whining about how we are a nation of laws, not men. Put up or shut up.
2 trillion dollars? My god, that is a big number!
But wait, I recall a recent president who blew nearly that much on a useless war in the middle east in less than a decade.
Seems to me if we can afford the one, we can certainly afford the other.
And context.
2 trillion dollars? My god, that is a big number!
But wait, I recall a recent president who blew nearly that much on a useless war in the middle east in less than a decade.
Seems to me if we can afford the one, we can certainly afford the other.
And context.
What the Count said at 4-13, 6:46 PM above gets to the essence of this matter, whatever that matter may be, but yes, certainty, because if there were certainty, there would be no such thing as investment risk…and where would that leave us….but I digress.
Well said, Count.
What the Count said at 4-13, 6:46 PM above gets to the essence of this matter, whatever that matter may be, but yes, certainty, because if there were certainty, there would be no such thing as investment risk…and where would that leave us….but I digress.
Well said, Count.
Or any other enterprise.
The owners of all those casinos on the Las Vegas strip beg to differ.
Let’s get real, Charles.
As part of the statehood agreement, certain amounts of public (i.e., federal) lands were explicitly deeded to the state for local government and education. Look it up.
The citizens of Nevada at that time agreed to the deal. Are you saying they should have turned it down? Do you know anything about the history of the area prior to statehood? (clue: it was a real mess).
In conservativeland a contract is sacrosanct, unless of course, they don’t like it, then it’s “just another piece of paper” I guess.
And they lecture us all the time about moral relativism. How nice.
Or any other enterprise.
The owners of all those casinos on the Las Vegas strip beg to differ.
Let’s get real, Charles.
As part of the statehood agreement, certain amounts of public (i.e., federal) lands were explicitly deeded to the state for local government and education. Look it up.
The citizens of Nevada at that time agreed to the deal. Are you saying they should have turned it down? Do you know anything about the history of the area prior to statehood? (clue: it was a real mess).
In conservativeland a contract is sacrosanct, unless of course, they don’t like it, then it’s “just another piece of paper” I guess.
And they lecture us all the time about moral relativism. How nice.
But bobby, that’s not moral relativism. Moral relativism is a despicable, mendacious liberal principle whereby you spinelessly fail to decry other peoples’ assorted “evil” values as evil on the basis of your culture’s moral standards describing them as such. You’re thinking of situational ethics, which is an upright, bedrock conservative principle whereby you bravely refuse to decry your own assorted “evil” actions as evil on the basis of your culture’s moral standards describing them as such.
But bobby, that’s not moral relativism. Moral relativism is a despicable, mendacious liberal principle whereby you spinelessly fail to decry other peoples’ assorted “evil” values as evil on the basis of your culture’s moral standards describing them as such. You’re thinking of situational ethics, which is an upright, bedrock conservative principle whereby you bravely refuse to decry your own assorted “evil” actions as evil on the basis of your culture’s moral standards describing them as such.
(If we want to deal in politically orthodox stereotypes, anyway.)
(If we want to deal in politically orthodox stereotypes, anyway.)
Las Vegas is hard up against and almost surrounded by federal lands. One of the reasons the housing bubble was particularly severe there.
Las Vegas is hard up against and almost surrounded by federal lands. One of the reasons the housing bubble was particularly severe there.
Or any other enterprise.
if your enterprise requires the use of a resource that you do not have legal access to, don’t run that enterprise.
is that so difficult to understand ?
Or any other enterprise.
if your enterprise requires the use of a resource that you do not have legal access to, don’t run that enterprise.
is that so difficult to understand ?
That’s my issue with using shaming. It’s a great political weapon, when it works. It completely shuts down or marginalizes dissent.
If I may beat on this poor dead horse just a bit longer….
I’d like to put the words “shame” and “shaming” aside for a minute. I know that I introduced them into the thread, but I think that was a mistake, because I think they unduly personalize the issue of the moral quality of things that people do or say.
In other words, “shame” seems to take things from “what you’re doing is bad” to “you are bad”. Which, I agree, is unnecessarily polarizing and is almost guaranteed to end discussion.
My point about Sullivan – and really, about a broader range of issues that came up in the Bush years, many of which continue to now – is that some things are simply wrong on their face. They aren’t wrong because somebody is mistaken on some point of fact, they aren’t wrong because somebody’s logical argument doesn’t parse correctly.
They are just freaking wrong.
It’s wrong to torture people, and it’s wrong to invade other countries on manufactured pretexts. There is no argument that will make those things right or good.
So, when somebody brings a “mea culpa” that includes arguments like “I misunderstood the social structure of Iraqi society”, or “I thought we’d do a better job of the post-war period”, IMO it’s kind of weak beer.
To his credit, Sullivan goes somewhat beyond that, but many do not.
The post-9/11 period was a turning point for this country in a lot of ways, and one of those ways was our willingness to embrace things that were plainly wrong.
It’s understandable to some degree, but I think we need to unwind the decisions and actions that were taken then, recognize them for what they were, and get back to (or, maybe just get to) a place where we give more than lip service to the moral basis for the law.
Stuff like torture and invasion-at-will isn’t wrong because it’s illegal, it’s illegal because it’s wrong.
And if we are ever going to get past it, that has to be recognized. As long as we keep making up pissy little legal or circumstantial excuses for it, it’s going to keep on warping our character as a nation and a people.
That’s my issue with using shaming. It’s a great political weapon, when it works. It completely shuts down or marginalizes dissent.
If I may beat on this poor dead horse just a bit longer….
I’d like to put the words “shame” and “shaming” aside for a minute. I know that I introduced them into the thread, but I think that was a mistake, because I think they unduly personalize the issue of the moral quality of things that people do or say.
In other words, “shame” seems to take things from “what you’re doing is bad” to “you are bad”. Which, I agree, is unnecessarily polarizing and is almost guaranteed to end discussion.
My point about Sullivan – and really, about a broader range of issues that came up in the Bush years, many of which continue to now – is that some things are simply wrong on their face. They aren’t wrong because somebody is mistaken on some point of fact, they aren’t wrong because somebody’s logical argument doesn’t parse correctly.
They are just freaking wrong.
It’s wrong to torture people, and it’s wrong to invade other countries on manufactured pretexts. There is no argument that will make those things right or good.
So, when somebody brings a “mea culpa” that includes arguments like “I misunderstood the social structure of Iraqi society”, or “I thought we’d do a better job of the post-war period”, IMO it’s kind of weak beer.
To his credit, Sullivan goes somewhat beyond that, but many do not.
The post-9/11 period was a turning point for this country in a lot of ways, and one of those ways was our willingness to embrace things that were plainly wrong.
It’s understandable to some degree, but I think we need to unwind the decisions and actions that were taken then, recognize them for what they were, and get back to (or, maybe just get to) a place where we give more than lip service to the moral basis for the law.
Stuff like torture and invasion-at-will isn’t wrong because it’s illegal, it’s illegal because it’s wrong.
And if we are ever going to get past it, that has to be recognized. As long as we keep making up pissy little legal or circumstantial excuses for it, it’s going to keep on warping our character as a nation and a people.
Las Vegas is hard up against and almost surrounded by federal lands. One of the reasons the housing bubble was particularly severe there.
If only the feds would get the hell out of the way, Las Vegas would thrive!
Just bring your own water.
It’s good that the feds are around, if they weren’t there wouldn’t be anything for folks to b*tch about.
Las Vegas is hard up against and almost surrounded by federal lands. One of the reasons the housing bubble was particularly severe there.
If only the feds would get the hell out of the way, Las Vegas would thrive!
Just bring your own water.
It’s good that the feds are around, if they weren’t there wouldn’t be anything for folks to b*tch about.
My grandfather was born in 1879, too.
I grew up in the East, now live in the West.
Folks in the West don’t go antiquing. A wagon wheel, probably made last week, is ancient craftsmanship.
Without the Federal Government, the Mafia, and prostitution, Las Vegas as we know it would not exist.
Like the internet, brought to you by the Federal Government and developed and commercialized by Jenna Jameson.
It’s a mirage in the desert, a confection, a gaudy, glaring Hollywood set held up by Botox, charisma, sin, and the certainty that the House will win every time, the true shining fulfillment of American Manifest Destiny, itself a fairy tale made up by a journalist to justify rapine, theft, and a murderous but touchingly sentimental eye on the shimmering future, while the casinos keep their eye on us in case any one of we math geniuses might think we have an edge.
It’s everything Americans hate and revile — falsity, insincerity, Godlessness, and social diseases — it’s the Book of Revelations, Elvis, and the cheap suits on a hit man all rolled into one and napped in the sweet thin gravy of hope, which is why we fly there like locusts to get a closer look and pay tribute with our lost wages.
Go now. Cheap flights, the cheap buffets are great … and cheap .. and you can catch Cirque du Soleil do the Beatles.
Hurry. Lake Mead is near record lows. Take the elevator down to the bottom of the Hoover Damn inside the gazillion tons of concrete.
Tell the tour guide you don’t approve of the Federal Government’s role in all of it. What are you, some sort of out-of-town jasper, one of them effeminate enviro-wackos?
Have a cigar, and shut your trap.
I miss Buddy Hackett.
I’ll wager that if you talked to native westerners …. ranchers, tradespeople … good, solid, conservative (in the lost sense) folks, they would tell you, hunched over a whiskey at the bar, that as much as they hate the Federal Government, the last thing they want are the vast tracts of gorgeous country out here handed over to rubes, city boys, and sodbusters for ruination.
Hell, they make more money selling you a postcard of the distant vista than letting you live here.
And where do you think you’re going to get the water there, dude, sugarfoot? Uncle Sugar is tapped out.
It’s ranchers, many of them, conservatives, who don’t like the damned Keystone Pipeline crossing their land.
I’d had my say.
I’m taking a break.
I forgive all of you. Don’t change. It’s more fun this way.
My grandfather was born in 1879, too.
I grew up in the East, now live in the West.
Folks in the West don’t go antiquing. A wagon wheel, probably made last week, is ancient craftsmanship.
Without the Federal Government, the Mafia, and prostitution, Las Vegas as we know it would not exist.
Like the internet, brought to you by the Federal Government and developed and commercialized by Jenna Jameson.
It’s a mirage in the desert, a confection, a gaudy, glaring Hollywood set held up by Botox, charisma, sin, and the certainty that the House will win every time, the true shining fulfillment of American Manifest Destiny, itself a fairy tale made up by a journalist to justify rapine, theft, and a murderous but touchingly sentimental eye on the shimmering future, while the casinos keep their eye on us in case any one of we math geniuses might think we have an edge.
It’s everything Americans hate and revile — falsity, insincerity, Godlessness, and social diseases — it’s the Book of Revelations, Elvis, and the cheap suits on a hit man all rolled into one and napped in the sweet thin gravy of hope, which is why we fly there like locusts to get a closer look and pay tribute with our lost wages.
Go now. Cheap flights, the cheap buffets are great … and cheap .. and you can catch Cirque du Soleil do the Beatles.
Hurry. Lake Mead is near record lows. Take the elevator down to the bottom of the Hoover Damn inside the gazillion tons of concrete.
Tell the tour guide you don’t approve of the Federal Government’s role in all of it. What are you, some sort of out-of-town jasper, one of them effeminate enviro-wackos?
Have a cigar, and shut your trap.
I miss Buddy Hackett.
I’ll wager that if you talked to native westerners …. ranchers, tradespeople … good, solid, conservative (in the lost sense) folks, they would tell you, hunched over a whiskey at the bar, that as much as they hate the Federal Government, the last thing they want are the vast tracts of gorgeous country out here handed over to rubes, city boys, and sodbusters for ruination.
Hell, they make more money selling you a postcard of the distant vista than letting you live here.
And where do you think you’re going to get the water there, dude, sugarfoot? Uncle Sugar is tapped out.
It’s ranchers, many of them, conservatives, who don’t like the damned Keystone Pipeline crossing their land.
I’d had my say.
I’m taking a break.
I forgive all of you. Don’t change. It’s more fun this way.
To put a finer point on what Russell said — to use Las Vegas as an example of the victimization of America by the tyrannical Federal Government is as rich as it gets.
Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn would look at you like Joe Pesci eyeing a plate of marinara.
Then they’d hire you a lobbyist to throw their money at politicians because if YOU believe that, you can convince anyone to vote against their own interests, and for theirs.
You guys are like Vlad Putin. “Those aren’t our troops massing at the Ukraine border. Those are tourists.”
Please don’t change. But leave me alone now.
To put a finer point on what Russell said — to use Las Vegas as an example of the victimization of America by the tyrannical Federal Government is as rich as it gets.
Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn would look at you like Joe Pesci eyeing a plate of marinara.
Then they’d hire you a lobbyist to throw their money at politicians because if YOU believe that, you can convince anyone to vote against their own interests, and for theirs.
You guys are like Vlad Putin. “Those aren’t our troops massing at the Ukraine border. Those are tourists.”
Please don’t change. But leave me alone now.
Marty:
This: regulatory certainty and blood sugar levels regulated for certain:
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20140414&id=17521127
Now stop.
Marty:
This: regulatory certainty and blood sugar levels regulated for certain:
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20140414&id=17521127
Now stop.
Nombrilisme Vide,
I stand corrected.
Regards,
Nombrilisme Vide,
I stand corrected.
Regards,
This: regulatory certainty and blood sugar levels regulated for certain
First they came for the Big Gulp….
This: regulatory certainty and blood sugar levels regulated for certain
First they came for the Big Gulp….
“if your enterprise requires the use of a resource that you do not have legal access to, don’t run that enterprise.”
That’s certainly consistent of you: Your standing position appears to be: If my side rules, submit.
How about the prior question: Should the federal government have seized all those resources in the first place, instead of letting the western states enter on the same basis as the eastern? It seems to me that, at some point, the federal government just got disenchanted with the idea of giving up control over land when a state was admitted. So the states admitted after that point got to be second class, swiss cheese states, with most of the land under federal control.
“if your enterprise requires the use of a resource that you do not have legal access to, don’t run that enterprise.”
That’s certainly consistent of you: Your standing position appears to be: If my side rules, submit.
How about the prior question: Should the federal government have seized all those resources in the first place, instead of letting the western states enter on the same basis as the eastern? It seems to me that, at some point, the federal government just got disenchanted with the idea of giving up control over land when a state was admitted. So the states admitted after that point got to be second class, swiss cheese states, with most of the land under federal control.
Brett, you don’t see a difference between the farmlands of Pennsylvania and the deserts of Nevada, or their respective histories?
Brett, you don’t see a difference between the farmlands of Pennsylvania and the deserts of Nevada, or their respective histories?
If my side rules, submit.
how the fuck does my “side” have anything to do with this ?
if your business model requires you to break the law, you should expect trouble.
How about the prior question
it’s completely irrelevant. we do not live that counterfactual world. we live in the real world.
and in the real world, Bundy doesn’t own the land. he could legally use the land if he paid the fees, but he chose to break the law instead.
again: he broke the law.
there is no unalienable right to let your cows eat off of land you don’t own or haven’t gained permission to use. even a libertarian should be able to understand that. “property rights” are supposed to be big with you people, right?
If my side rules, submit.
how the fuck does my “side” have anything to do with this ?
if your business model requires you to break the law, you should expect trouble.
How about the prior question
it’s completely irrelevant. we do not live that counterfactual world. we live in the real world.
and in the real world, Bundy doesn’t own the land. he could legally use the land if he paid the fees, but he chose to break the law instead.
again: he broke the law.
there is no unalienable right to let your cows eat off of land you don’t own or haven’t gained permission to use. even a libertarian should be able to understand that. “property rights” are supposed to be big with you people, right?
So, what you’re saying, cleek, is that you aren’t the federal government? Can you prove that?
So, what you’re saying, cleek, is that you aren’t the federal government? Can you prove that?
Stuff like torture and invasion-at-will isn’t wrong because it’s illegal, it’s illegal because it’s wrong.
russell, I think you are doing your argument a disservice by putting two very different things at the same level. Torture is always wrong (and therefore illegal). No argument there.
Invasion-at-will, on the other hand, is usually wrong. But I bet we could both come up with circumstances where it would not be. Maybe not very likely circumstances. Maybe different circumstances. But still. It is illegal because it is usually wrong. But nowhere near the same level as torture.
Stuff like torture and invasion-at-will isn’t wrong because it’s illegal, it’s illegal because it’s wrong.
russell, I think you are doing your argument a disservice by putting two very different things at the same level. Torture is always wrong (and therefore illegal). No argument there.
Invasion-at-will, on the other hand, is usually wrong. But I bet we could both come up with circumstances where it would not be. Maybe not very likely circumstances. Maybe different circumstances. But still. It is illegal because it is usually wrong. But nowhere near the same level as torture.
Here’s a concise Las Vegas Sun article on the Bundy-BLM thing. There are some interesting comments.
From a couple by the same guy in response to others:
and
Here’s a concise Las Vegas Sun article on the Bundy-BLM thing. There are some interesting comments.
From a couple by the same guy in response to others:
and
at some point, the federal government just got disenchanted with the idea of giving up control over land when a state was admitted.
??????
If a state is created from land owned by the feds, the feds relinquish all claim or control over the land when the state is admitted to the union?
at some point, the federal government just got disenchanted with the idea of giving up control over land when a state was admitted.
??????
If a state is created from land owned by the feds, the feds relinquish all claim or control over the land when the state is admitted to the union?
From the article linked to in my last comment (emphasis added):
and
I’d be curious to know how many head of cattle the guy had 20 years ago relative to the number he has today.
From the article linked to in my last comment (emphasis added):
and
I’d be curious to know how many head of cattle the guy had 20 years ago relative to the number he has today.
If my quote from where ever upthread is correct, a good fer piece of that land, once territory, was “acquired” by the State of Nevada as a bulwark to minimize Mormon settlement and influence.
Now I learn Cliven Bundy is Mormon, not that there is anything wrong that.
History is endlessly complicated and enchanting, not merely a product of the federal government becoming “disenchanted”, whatever that is whenever that happened.
I thought I left for awhile.
I did.
Well?
Alright, I’m off.
If my quote from where ever upthread is correct, a good fer piece of that land, once territory, was “acquired” by the State of Nevada as a bulwark to minimize Mormon settlement and influence.
Now I learn Cliven Bundy is Mormon, not that there is anything wrong that.
History is endlessly complicated and enchanting, not merely a product of the federal government becoming “disenchanted”, whatever that is whenever that happened.
I thought I left for awhile.
I did.
Well?
Alright, I’m off.
man, the “conservative” rube-fleecing industry has truly whipped their flock into a frenzy over a deadbeat, law-breaking, big-govt welfare cheat. as Charlie Peirce notes, Hannity is going to get someone killed one of these days. but until then, Patriots, sing it: hail to the thief!
the old chant, “Rule Of Law!” just doesn’t suit the mood, does it?
and i wonder if the Chorus of Patriots would be singing in quite a different key if Bundy’s last name had a little more of a south-of-the-border ring to it.
man, the “conservative” rube-fleecing industry has truly whipped their flock into a frenzy over a deadbeat, law-breaking, big-govt welfare cheat. as Charlie Peirce notes, Hannity is going to get someone killed one of these days. but until then, Patriots, sing it: hail to the thief!
the old chant, “Rule Of Law!” just doesn’t suit the mood, does it?
and i wonder if the Chorus of Patriots would be singing in quite a different key if Bundy’s last name had a little more of a south-of-the-border ring to it.
Alright, I’m off.
I feel like Boy George in 1983 when I read this.
Alright, I’m off.
I feel like Boy George in 1983 when I read this.
“It is illegal because it is usually wrong. But nowhere near the same level as torture.”
I don’t agree, or maybe I don’t quite get your point. If you’re saying that an invasion of Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide wouldn’t have been immoral, fine. That, arguably, would have been a justified invasion. But in general, unjustified invasions (like Iraq) are about as bad a crime as you can commit, short of genocide. Sometimes they lead directly to genocide. The Iraq invasion probably caused the deaths of roughly half a million people and for no good reason. (I’m using the figures from the latest study which came out last year–roughly 500,000 excess deaths through 2011, over half from violence. Less than the Johns Hopkins study, but higher than Iraq Body Count.) It’s outrageous (though hardly unexpected) that the leaders of powerful countries can create death and chaos for millions of people and pay no penalty at all.
“It is illegal because it is usually wrong. But nowhere near the same level as torture.”
I don’t agree, or maybe I don’t quite get your point. If you’re saying that an invasion of Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide wouldn’t have been immoral, fine. That, arguably, would have been a justified invasion. But in general, unjustified invasions (like Iraq) are about as bad a crime as you can commit, short of genocide. Sometimes they lead directly to genocide. The Iraq invasion probably caused the deaths of roughly half a million people and for no good reason. (I’m using the figures from the latest study which came out last year–roughly 500,000 excess deaths through 2011, over half from violence. Less than the Johns Hopkins study, but higher than Iraq Body Count.) It’s outrageous (though hardly unexpected) that the leaders of powerful countries can create death and chaos for millions of people and pay no penalty at all.
For folks playing the home game, here is a state-by-state rundown of public vs private land ownership.
It breaks it down by federal vs state, and also (for federal land) which agency administers the public land.
I’m still curious about this “feds relinquish all claims upon statehood” thing, which appears to be the latest and greatest conservative meme.
My understanding is that each state made its own deal, with the particulars depending on the facts on the ground at the time the state was admitted to the union.
Is there any sort of legal or historical basis for conservative claim?
Note that I’m not saying the states have no right or standing to try to renegotiate if they want to, I’m just somewhat skeptical about the “automatic transfer to the states” thing.
It seems…. ahistorical, to me.
For folks playing the home game, here is a state-by-state rundown of public vs private land ownership.
It breaks it down by federal vs state, and also (for federal land) which agency administers the public land.
I’m still curious about this “feds relinquish all claims upon statehood” thing, which appears to be the latest and greatest conservative meme.
My understanding is that each state made its own deal, with the particulars depending on the facts on the ground at the time the state was admitted to the union.
Is there any sort of legal or historical basis for conservative claim?
Note that I’m not saying the states have no right or standing to try to renegotiate if they want to, I’m just somewhat skeptical about the “automatic transfer to the states” thing.
It seems…. ahistorical, to me.
Invasion-at-will, on the other hand, is usually wrong. But I bet we could both come up with circumstances where it would not be.
Um, you go first.
But nowhere near the same level as torture.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but I think it falls into a category similar to “which is worse, if somebody blows up your house, or runs you over with their car”.
Invasion-at-will, on the other hand, is usually wrong. But I bet we could both come up with circumstances where it would not be.
Um, you go first.
But nowhere near the same level as torture.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but I think it falls into a category similar to “which is worse, if somebody blows up your house, or runs you over with their car”.
If you’re saying that an invasion of Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide wouldn’t have been immoral, fine. That, arguably, would have been a justified invasion.
That’s exactly what I am saying. There is a significant difference, IMHO, between things which are never, ever, right, and things which are very rarely, but sometimes, justified.
If you’re saying that an invasion of Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide wouldn’t have been immoral, fine. That, arguably, would have been a justified invasion.
That’s exactly what I am saying. There is a significant difference, IMHO, between things which are never, ever, right, and things which are very rarely, but sometimes, justified.
Brett, you don’t see a difference between the farmlands of Pennsylvania and the deserts of Nevada, or their respective histories?
Move to strike. The fact that nobody actually wanted to pony up some cash and actually buy those vast tracts of arid uninhabitable land is irrelevant.
So I guess We The People got stuck with it.
Brett, you don’t see a difference between the farmlands of Pennsylvania and the deserts of Nevada, or their respective histories?
Move to strike. The fact that nobody actually wanted to pony up some cash and actually buy those vast tracts of arid uninhabitable land is irrelevant.
So I guess We The People got stuck with it.
That’s exactly what I am saying.
I’m not sure that a military action to stop a genocide in progress counts as “invasion at will”.
That’s exactly what I am saying.
I’m not sure that a military action to stop a genocide in progress counts as “invasion at will”.
I would say that invasion to stop genocide is certainly “invasion at will.”
We haven’t been attacked from there. We aren’t in the midst of a war (with the country invaded being on the path to the attacker). We choose to invade to stop something — what is that except “at will”?
I would say that invasion to stop genocide is certainly “invasion at will.”
We haven’t been attacked from there. We aren’t in the midst of a war (with the country invaded being on the path to the attacker). We choose to invade to stop something — what is that except “at will”?
Pardon me. It belatedly occurs to me that you might have envisioned us taking military action, and then departing.
We saw in Iraq what happens when you invade without actually thinking thru how long you will need to stay, and what you do while you are there. But I admit that sucha hit-and-run military action would not constitute an invasion. At least in original intention — however unrealistic.
Pardon me. It belatedly occurs to me that you might have envisioned us taking military action, and then departing.
We saw in Iraq what happens when you invade without actually thinking thru how long you will need to stay, and what you do while you are there. But I admit that sucha hit-and-run military action would not constitute an invasion. At least in original intention — however unrealistic.
“If a state is created from land owned by the feds, the feds relinquish all claim or control over the land when the state is admitted to the union?”
They used to, prior to the 1850 or so. Ever heard of the Louisiana purchase? Mostly made into states with under 10% federal ownership. Essentially, if your state was admitted after 1850, with very few exceptions, the federal government kept a huge fraction of the land. If it was admitted before that date, the federal government kept practically none of it.
And that’s the case even if the federal government originally bought the land.
“If a state is created from land owned by the feds, the feds relinquish all claim or control over the land when the state is admitted to the union?”
They used to, prior to the 1850 or so. Ever heard of the Louisiana purchase? Mostly made into states with under 10% federal ownership. Essentially, if your state was admitted after 1850, with very few exceptions, the federal government kept a huge fraction of the land. If it was admitted before that date, the federal government kept practically none of it.
And that’s the case even if the federal government originally bought the land.
russell:
I’d agree with your 7:43.
I’d note, before we abandon shame altogether, that this sums up what I was trying to say all along quite nicely:
they unduly personalize the issue of the moral quality of things that people do or say
But onto your point:
It’s wrong to torture people, and it’s wrong to invade other countries on manufactured pretexts.
I’d agree.
I’ve never liked the concept of American exceptionalism that is convolved with infallibility.
I do believe America is exceptional. I believe America can be a world leader.
But part of being a leader is questioning the past and understanding, accepting, and learning from your mistakes.
And one final note:
embrace things that were plainly wrong.
Even this is a little fuzzy. I likely have a very different concept of “plainly wrong” than a Quaker. Or a conservative christian. Or, for that matter, most of the people on this board. Even the most clear cut morals get fuzzy in extreme situations.
I’d love bright line morality that descends from heaven on stone tablets. But there is always going to be disagreement, even about things that are “plainly wrong”.
wj:
Invasion-at-will, on the other hand, is usually wrong.
Not to speak for russell, but I think a key modifier was “manufactured pretexts” which he used earlier in the comment. I don’t know if he was trying to say all invasions are immoral, I felt he was focused on invasions under false pretext, which I think addresses your point (not to speak for you).
russell:
I’d agree with your 7:43.
I’d note, before we abandon shame altogether, that this sums up what I was trying to say all along quite nicely:
they unduly personalize the issue of the moral quality of things that people do or say
But onto your point:
It’s wrong to torture people, and it’s wrong to invade other countries on manufactured pretexts.
I’d agree.
I’ve never liked the concept of American exceptionalism that is convolved with infallibility.
I do believe America is exceptional. I believe America can be a world leader.
But part of being a leader is questioning the past and understanding, accepting, and learning from your mistakes.
And one final note:
embrace things that were plainly wrong.
Even this is a little fuzzy. I likely have a very different concept of “plainly wrong” than a Quaker. Or a conservative christian. Or, for that matter, most of the people on this board. Even the most clear cut morals get fuzzy in extreme situations.
I’d love bright line morality that descends from heaven on stone tablets. But there is always going to be disagreement, even about things that are “plainly wrong”.
wj:
Invasion-at-will, on the other hand, is usually wrong.
Not to speak for russell, but I think a key modifier was “manufactured pretexts” which he used earlier in the comment. I don’t know if he was trying to say all invasions are immoral, I felt he was focused on invasions under false pretext, which I think addresses your point (not to speak for you).
We choose to invade to stop something — what is that except “at will”?
In general, I’d say that the phrase “at will” expresses the idea of doing something at the place and time of your own choosing, for reasons of your own, rather than prompted by events outside of your control.
But term-of-art wise, I’m not that invested in it.
The particular scenario involved in the run-up to Iraq was, it seems to me, clearly different from what a decision to intervene in Rwanda would have been. I doubt you will disagree.
We choose to invade to stop something — what is that except “at will”?
In general, I’d say that the phrase “at will” expresses the idea of doing something at the place and time of your own choosing, for reasons of your own, rather than prompted by events outside of your control.
But term-of-art wise, I’m not that invested in it.
The particular scenario involved in the run-up to Iraq was, it seems to me, clearly different from what a decision to intervene in Rwanda would have been. I doubt you will disagree.
They used to, prior to the 1850 or so
I think you are confusing “relinquish ownership to the states” with “selling or granting the land away”.
Some states came into the union with clear, pre-existing ownership and control of the land within their borders.
Texas, for example, which was already a sovereign nation.
That wasn’t true of basically any of the western states where the feds retain ownership of a lot of the land. They were mostly created from what were US territories of one kind or another, and those in turn were generally created from land purchased from other countries.
In the case of NV, specifically, the land came into federal ownership with the Treaty of Hidalgo, after the war with Mexico. It was originally part of the Utah territory, and was later split off as a territory of its own.
Different states had different deals with the feds at the time of their entry into the union. In no case that I can think of was some doctrine of “when you become a state, the feds give up all claim to the land in your borders” in effect.
Perhaps you are aware of some legal precedent that I’m not.
They used to, prior to the 1850 or so
I think you are confusing “relinquish ownership to the states” with “selling or granting the land away”.
Some states came into the union with clear, pre-existing ownership and control of the land within their borders.
Texas, for example, which was already a sovereign nation.
That wasn’t true of basically any of the western states where the feds retain ownership of a lot of the land. They were mostly created from what were US territories of one kind or another, and those in turn were generally created from land purchased from other countries.
In the case of NV, specifically, the land came into federal ownership with the Treaty of Hidalgo, after the war with Mexico. It was originally part of the Utah territory, and was later split off as a territory of its own.
Different states had different deals with the feds at the time of their entry into the union. In no case that I can think of was some doctrine of “when you become a state, the feds give up all claim to the land in your borders” in effect.
Perhaps you are aware of some legal precedent that I’m not.
They used to, prior to the 1850 or so.
That’s not exactly right. The feds “disposed” of the public lands in a variety of ways, starting immediately with the Washington administration (including vast tracts ceded to Native Tribes that were later reneged on – but their property rights are just so much piffle I guess).
Furthermore, this public policy as it grew and changed is not germane to your claims regarding “equal footing”, a concept which has nothing to do with the degree of federal land ownership and/or control (as backed up by a long string of court cases on the matter).
A brief history of federal land acquisition can be found here. It strikes me as a pretty neutral assessment, unlike the bilge you seem rely on.
I mean really, Alex Jones? Are you kidding me?
They used to, prior to the 1850 or so.
That’s not exactly right. The feds “disposed” of the public lands in a variety of ways, starting immediately with the Washington administration (including vast tracts ceded to Native Tribes that were later reneged on – but their property rights are just so much piffle I guess).
Furthermore, this public policy as it grew and changed is not germane to your claims regarding “equal footing”, a concept which has nothing to do with the degree of federal land ownership and/or control (as backed up by a long string of court cases on the matter).
A brief history of federal land acquisition can be found here. It strikes me as a pretty neutral assessment, unlike the bilge you seem rely on.
I mean really, Alex Jones? Are you kidding me?
thompson: Not to speak for russell, but I think a key modifier was “manufactured pretexts” which he used earlier in the comment.
No argument in those circumstances. Although, depending on the “pretext,” there might be some disagreement over whether the person making the decision was party to the manufacture of the pretext, or merely misinformed concerning the actual situation.
In the case of Iraq, it would be hard (in retrospect) to argue that those making the decision were misinformed. But easier to make that arguement for at least some of the rest of us.
thompson: Not to speak for russell, but I think a key modifier was “manufactured pretexts” which he used earlier in the comment.
No argument in those circumstances. Although, depending on the “pretext,” there might be some disagreement over whether the person making the decision was party to the manufacture of the pretext, or merely misinformed concerning the actual situation.
In the case of Iraq, it would be hard (in retrospect) to argue that those making the decision were misinformed. But easier to make that arguement for at least some of the rest of us.
“There is a significant difference, IMHO, between things which are never, ever, right, and things which are very rarely, but sometimes, justified.”
Well, this might be more a semantic disagreement than a real one, but invading Rwanda to stop a genocide would be like shooting your neighbor because he’s in the act of stabbing his wife. Invading Iraq on a false pretense is shooting your neighbor because you want his wife, but you pretend you thought he was stabbing her.
Anyway, I don’t think that torture is worse than an unjust war. The fact that some wars are just doesn’t make the unjust ones better.
“There is a significant difference, IMHO, between things which are never, ever, right, and things which are very rarely, but sometimes, justified.”
Well, this might be more a semantic disagreement than a real one, but invading Rwanda to stop a genocide would be like shooting your neighbor because he’s in the act of stabbing his wife. Invading Iraq on a false pretense is shooting your neighbor because you want his wife, but you pretend you thought he was stabbing her.
Anyway, I don’t think that torture is worse than an unjust war. The fact that some wars are just doesn’t make the unjust ones better.
So, when somebody brings a “mea culpa” that includes arguments like “I misunderstood the social structure of Iraqi society”, or “I thought we’d do a better job of the post-war period”, IMO it’s kind of weak beer.
I can’t think of anyone who would have voted to invade Iraq because of its social structure or even a very fervent desire to remake the country into a liberal democracy.
My recollection is that a significant majority of the country, a lot of other countries, and I (I was in close contact with GWB at the time, although it was and is a closely held secret) favored invasion because Saddam was believed to have significant WMD stockpiles AND he had a bad track record of using his WMD’s domestically and invading neighbors (Iran and Kuwait). And, there was that 9/11 thing and no one wanted another one using Saddam’s WMD. Yes, it was over-stoked, over-heated and misleading in the run up, but even Gephardt maintained after the fact that the intelligence was there supporting what, for many people, was the primary reason for invading.
That reason was wrong, the post-invasion was mis-managed, it cost way more and took way longer than we were told by the administration prior to the invasion. The key failing was the absence of WMD. The rest just add to the reasons for remorse.
We didn’t just haul off and invade some country at random. There was a debate and a vote in both the house and senate. Biden and H Clinton both voted for war. There is a lot of regretting yet to be done, not all of it on the right.
So, when somebody brings a “mea culpa” that includes arguments like “I misunderstood the social structure of Iraqi society”, or “I thought we’d do a better job of the post-war period”, IMO it’s kind of weak beer.
I can’t think of anyone who would have voted to invade Iraq because of its social structure or even a very fervent desire to remake the country into a liberal democracy.
My recollection is that a significant majority of the country, a lot of other countries, and I (I was in close contact with GWB at the time, although it was and is a closely held secret) favored invasion because Saddam was believed to have significant WMD stockpiles AND he had a bad track record of using his WMD’s domestically and invading neighbors (Iran and Kuwait). And, there was that 9/11 thing and no one wanted another one using Saddam’s WMD. Yes, it was over-stoked, over-heated and misleading in the run up, but even Gephardt maintained after the fact that the intelligence was there supporting what, for many people, was the primary reason for invading.
That reason was wrong, the post-invasion was mis-managed, it cost way more and took way longer than we were told by the administration prior to the invasion. The key failing was the absence of WMD. The rest just add to the reasons for remorse.
We didn’t just haul off and invade some country at random. There was a debate and a vote in both the house and senate. Biden and H Clinton both voted for war. There is a lot of regretting yet to be done, not all of it on the right.
At least in the case of Hillary Clinton I have the suspicion that the main regret is that her vote that seemed expedient at the time was the one thing that cost her the nomination for Dem POTUS candidate and thus the presidency (at least that is a quite common belief). And Obama had the advantage of not having to take that vote. My bet is that he too would have voted for the war* and for the same opportinistic reasons.
*I do not believe that any of them did actually assume their vote would not lead directly to an invasion, although several later claimed that.
At least in the case of Hillary Clinton I have the suspicion that the main regret is that her vote that seemed expedient at the time was the one thing that cost her the nomination for Dem POTUS candidate and thus the presidency (at least that is a quite common belief). And Obama had the advantage of not having to take that vote. My bet is that he too would have voted for the war* and for the same opportinistic reasons.
*I do not believe that any of them did actually assume their vote would not lead directly to an invasion, although several later claimed that.
I can’t think of anyone who would have voted to invade Iraq because of its social structure or even a very fervent desire to remake the country into a liberal democracy.
can’t say as i know of anyone who would’ve voted for it either, on that basis. but that is the essence of the neo-con case for the war. it’s the ‘domino theory’. and there was no shortage of people espousing it, during the run-up and after:
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/23/nation/na-outlook23
Biden and H Clinton both voted for war.
which, IMO, is a good part of why neither of them are President right now.
I can’t think of anyone who would have voted to invade Iraq because of its social structure or even a very fervent desire to remake the country into a liberal democracy.
can’t say as i know of anyone who would’ve voted for it either, on that basis. but that is the essence of the neo-con case for the war. it’s the ‘domino theory’. and there was no shortage of people espousing it, during the run-up and after:
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/23/nation/na-outlook23
Biden and H Clinton both voted for war.
which, IMO, is a good part of why neither of them are President right now.
Yes, it was over-stoked, over-heated and misleading in the run up, but even Gephardt maintained after the fact that the intelligence was there supporting what, for many people, was the primary reason for invading.
How is it that no one seems to remember that weapons inspectors were running around, on the ground, using our supposed great intelligence on the WMD stockpile, in Iraq for ~4 months finding jack sh1t?
Yes, it was over-stoked, over-heated and misleading in the run up, but even Gephardt maintained after the fact that the intelligence was there supporting what, for many people, was the primary reason for invading.
How is it that no one seems to remember that weapons inspectors were running around, on the ground, using our supposed great intelligence on the WMD stockpile, in Iraq for ~4 months finding jack sh1t?
Seriously, it’s like people go straight from the Congressional vote to the war, skipping the events of the intervening ~5 months.
Seriously, it’s like people go straight from the Congressional vote to the war, skipping the events of the intervening ~5 months.
My recollection is that there was virtually no debate on American’s mass media prior to the vote for war. I did hear Scott Ritter (chief U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998,) make his case on NPR that there were no WMD in Iraq. He asked for a debate and was ignored.
My recollection is that there was virtually no debate on American’s mass media prior to the vote for war. I did hear Scott Ritter (chief U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998,) make his case on NPR that there were no WMD in Iraq. He asked for a debate and was ignored.
I can’t think of anyone who would have voted to invade Iraq because of its social structure or even a very fervent desire to remake the country into a liberal democracy.
That example comes, specifically, from Sullivan’s article explaining why he changed his mind about Iraq. One of the reasons he gives was his lack of understanding about the Sunni / Shia conflicts.
So, not invading *because* of the social structure, but failing to recognize that the social structure would be an argument against a good outcome.
As far as what was known or not known about WMD, to speak plainly I do not believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any of the rest of them had any particularly strong belief that there was WMD or an active WMD program, nor do I think they cared either way. The threat of WMD is what they felt would make the best case for war, period.
That’s what Tenet’s “slam dunk” was. WMD would be the best sell to the American people. His accounting of what he meant by that statement, not mine.
Powell stood up in front of the UN and sold a line of crap, and both he and the folks that put it together knew it was crap.
I have no doubt that your understanding – you, McK – was that there was a high probability that there were WMD there.
I don’t believe the principal decision makers held any such belief in good faith, and I doubt most of them gave a shit either way.
Water, bridges. Right?
We didn’t just haul off and invade some country at random.
“at will” is not equal to “at random”.
There is a lot of regretting yet to be done, not all of it on the right.
I agree, completely.
I can’t think of anyone who would have voted to invade Iraq because of its social structure or even a very fervent desire to remake the country into a liberal democracy.
That example comes, specifically, from Sullivan’s article explaining why he changed his mind about Iraq. One of the reasons he gives was his lack of understanding about the Sunni / Shia conflicts.
So, not invading *because* of the social structure, but failing to recognize that the social structure would be an argument against a good outcome.
As far as what was known or not known about WMD, to speak plainly I do not believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any of the rest of them had any particularly strong belief that there was WMD or an active WMD program, nor do I think they cared either way. The threat of WMD is what they felt would make the best case for war, period.
That’s what Tenet’s “slam dunk” was. WMD would be the best sell to the American people. His accounting of what he meant by that statement, not mine.
Powell stood up in front of the UN and sold a line of crap, and both he and the folks that put it together knew it was crap.
I have no doubt that your understanding – you, McK – was that there was a high probability that there were WMD there.
I don’t believe the principal decision makers held any such belief in good faith, and I doubt most of them gave a shit either way.
Water, bridges. Right?
We didn’t just haul off and invade some country at random.
“at will” is not equal to “at random”.
There is a lot of regretting yet to be done, not all of it on the right.
I agree, completely.
How is it that no one seems to remember that weapons inspectors were running around, on the ground, using our supposed great intelligence on the WMD stockpile, in Iraq for ~4 months finding jack sh1t?
IIRC, we weren’t even supposed to notice that such a thing happened while it was happening. the warmongers had all kinds of awesome reasons why we should ignore it.
How is it that no one seems to remember that weapons inspectors were running around, on the ground, using our supposed great intelligence on the WMD stockpile, in Iraq for ~4 months finding jack sh1t?
IIRC, we weren’t even supposed to notice that such a thing happened while it was happening. the warmongers had all kinds of awesome reasons why we should ignore it.
We didn’t just haul off and invade some country at random.
Well, yeah. Iran would have been a tough and dangerous nut and Saudi Arabia (where the seeds of the act were born along with most of the perpetrators) said, “No, thanks.”
Better to invade a country ruled by a toothless tin pot dictator already brought to his knees by sanctions.
Land of the Brave.
Look up “New American Century Project”. There were those who sold the war based on the theory of using violence to bring ‘democracy’ to the M.E. would be a good thing.
But you’ve had your revenge. I see the South has won the Masters yet again 😉
We didn’t just haul off and invade some country at random.
Well, yeah. Iran would have been a tough and dangerous nut and Saudi Arabia (where the seeds of the act were born along with most of the perpetrators) said, “No, thanks.”
Better to invade a country ruled by a toothless tin pot dictator already brought to his knees by sanctions.
Land of the Brave.
Look up “New American Century Project”. There were those who sold the war based on the theory of using violence to bring ‘democracy’ to the M.E. would be a good thing.
But you’ve had your revenge. I see the South has won the Masters yet again 😉
There are still people claiming that Saddam had the WMD but transferred them all to Syria and Iran right before or during the invasion. Those same people tend to see (and saw then) that as a good pretense to roll onwards into those two countries (‘true men go to Tehran’).
And Rumsfeld was reportedly angry that he had to go into Afghanistan first (‘not enough targets’*).
*which even then reminded me of the old joke of people in an elevator, with one of them being in the wrong building. Asked for the reason, he answers ‘there is no elevator in the other building’.
There are still people claiming that Saddam had the WMD but transferred them all to Syria and Iran right before or during the invasion. Those same people tend to see (and saw then) that as a good pretense to roll onwards into those two countries (‘true men go to Tehran’).
And Rumsfeld was reportedly angry that he had to go into Afghanistan first (‘not enough targets’*).
*which even then reminded me of the old joke of people in an elevator, with one of them being in the wrong building. Asked for the reason, he answers ‘there is no elevator in the other building’.
I see the South has won the Masters yet again 😉
Texas is not really ‘the South’–it is Texas. A Texan came in second–two bogies and two missed putts away from first.
I see the South has won the Masters yet again 😉
Texas is not really ‘the South’–it is Texas. A Texan came in second–two bogies and two missed putts away from first.
Texas is not really ‘the South’–it is Texas.
Because Texas is a’ whole ‘nother country.
Sad. Because I was actually born there. When Texas secedes, can I claim citizenship? (Will have to assess Social Security benefits, if so.)
Texas is not really ‘the South’–it is Texas.
Because Texas is a’ whole ‘nother country.
Sad. Because I was actually born there. When Texas secedes, can I claim citizenship? (Will have to assess Social Security benefits, if so.)
He asked for a debate and was ignored.
Who was ignoring? A lot of people were saying “Give the inspectors more time.” There was a debate among “the people”. People demonstrated in Washington. It was just that there were cowards in Congress.
He asked for a debate and was ignored.
Who was ignoring? A lot of people were saying “Give the inspectors more time.” There was a debate among “the people”. People demonstrated in Washington. It was just that there were cowards in Congress.
It was just that there were cowards in Congress.
IMO that sums it up.
It was just that there were cowards in Congress.
IMO that sums it up.
Who was ignoring?
I was referring to the lack of a public debate about the presence of WMD in Iraq before the vote for war. The Bush Administration ignored Scott Ritter’s challenge to a debate. The main stream media never even gave Major Ritter the opportunity to present his argument.
Who was ignoring?
I was referring to the lack of a public debate about the presence of WMD in Iraq before the vote for war. The Bush Administration ignored Scott Ritter’s challenge to a debate. The main stream media never even gave Major Ritter the opportunity to present his argument.
My recollection is that a significant majority of the country, a lot of other countries, and I … favored invasion because Saddam was believed to have significant WMD stockpiles AND he had a bad track record of using his WMD’s domestically and invading neighbors (Iran and Kuwait).
My recollection of it was because, as russell mentioned, a significant majority of the country was sold on this (e.g., “Saddam has unmanned aerial vehicles!!!”), quite unconvincingly if you didn’t accept dubious claims uncritically*. He was presented as an immanent danger, with implications that he was an immanent danger not just to his neighbors, but to us. “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
I do agree that the subject of post-war Iraq and liberal democracy wasn’t used as a stand-alone lever to argue for the invasion, though. Its role, aside from nurturing the aforementioned neocon wet dreams of springboarding serial invasions, was to bludgeon critics who couldn’t be brought into line by fearmongering. Discussions of the humanitarian imperative to invade Iraq were frequently trotted out in response to questioning the intelligence, or observing the reluctance to pursue the inspection regime in good faith. At that point, the critic was a monster who wanted the Iraqi people to suffer under the lash of a genocidal dictator in perpetuity, instead of seeing a new era of regional democratic reform ushered in by a quick, clean, surgical intervention (not invasion, mind you, and certainly not occupation). It may not have been used to argue that we should invade, but it certainly was used quite frequently to dismiss arguments as to why we shouldn’t.
*My recollection of the immediate run-up to the war is skewed, though, because in September 2002 I relocated to France, and remained there until the following May, so I didn’t have an American experience of the charm campaign selling the war. Admittedly, I was already unconvinced (but resigned to the inevitability of invasion) before I left the US, but once I was once overseas, the European media was quite critical of the assorted misdirections being peddled by the White House. So yeah, I’d take my impressions here with a few grains of salt.
My recollection is that a significant majority of the country, a lot of other countries, and I … favored invasion because Saddam was believed to have significant WMD stockpiles AND he had a bad track record of using his WMD’s domestically and invading neighbors (Iran and Kuwait).
My recollection of it was because, as russell mentioned, a significant majority of the country was sold on this (e.g., “Saddam has unmanned aerial vehicles!!!”), quite unconvincingly if you didn’t accept dubious claims uncritically*. He was presented as an immanent danger, with implications that he was an immanent danger not just to his neighbors, but to us. “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
I do agree that the subject of post-war Iraq and liberal democracy wasn’t used as a stand-alone lever to argue for the invasion, though. Its role, aside from nurturing the aforementioned neocon wet dreams of springboarding serial invasions, was to bludgeon critics who couldn’t be brought into line by fearmongering. Discussions of the humanitarian imperative to invade Iraq were frequently trotted out in response to questioning the intelligence, or observing the reluctance to pursue the inspection regime in good faith. At that point, the critic was a monster who wanted the Iraqi people to suffer under the lash of a genocidal dictator in perpetuity, instead of seeing a new era of regional democratic reform ushered in by a quick, clean, surgical intervention (not invasion, mind you, and certainly not occupation). It may not have been used to argue that we should invade, but it certainly was used quite frequently to dismiss arguments as to why we shouldn’t.
*My recollection of the immediate run-up to the war is skewed, though, because in September 2002 I relocated to France, and remained there until the following May, so I didn’t have an American experience of the charm campaign selling the war. Admittedly, I was already unconvinced (but resigned to the inevitability of invasion) before I left the US, but once I was once overseas, the European media was quite critical of the assorted misdirections being peddled by the White House. So yeah, I’d take my impressions here with a few grains of salt.
The German foreign minister summed it up: ‘I am not convinced’. And Bush saved chancellor Schröder’s neck. Schröder beat his conservative challenger by tiny margin because he left no doubt that he would not follow Bush into Iraq (and Bush openly favored the challenger, not a smart move). Otherwise the Bavarian Mr.Stoiber would have won and there would not be a chancellor Merkel now (who did not actually beat Schröder by numbers but got the job through coalition negotiations after an essentially hung election a few years later).
The German foreign minister summed it up: ‘I am not convinced’. And Bush saved chancellor Schröder’s neck. Schröder beat his conservative challenger by tiny margin because he left no doubt that he would not follow Bush into Iraq (and Bush openly favored the challenger, not a smart move). Otherwise the Bavarian Mr.Stoiber would have won and there would not be a chancellor Merkel now (who did not actually beat Schröder by numbers but got the job through coalition negotiations after an essentially hung election a few years later).
I recall considerable concern at the time, that one could not rely on sanctions, even if they were working, because Saddam was gradually buying off the relevant UN committee members with “Oil for Food” money. And that the sanctions were expected to shortly become politically unsustainable for this reason.
I recall considerable concern at the time, that one could not rely on sanctions, even if they were working, because Saddam was gradually buying off the relevant UN committee members with “Oil for Food” money. And that the sanctions were expected to shortly become politically unsustainable for this reason.
Why did we invade Iraq?
Because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al, wanted to invade Iraq, and there was nothing on god’s green earth they wouldn’t do to make it happen.
9/11 was their ticket to ride.
Returning to the saga of Cliven Bundy, I found this to be very well said.
Why did we invade Iraq?
Because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al, wanted to invade Iraq, and there was nothing on god’s green earth they wouldn’t do to make it happen.
9/11 was their ticket to ride.
Returning to the saga of Cliven Bundy, I found this to be very well said.
Even if that is true (I have no opinion on that either for or against), that would not justify going in before it actually happens. It’s not as if Saddam could have fully rearmed the second sanctions failed (our world’s game mechanics do not work that way).
Even if that is true (I have no opinion on that either for or against), that would not justify going in before it actually happens. It’s not as if Saddam could have fully rearmed the second sanctions failed (our world’s game mechanics do not work that way).
Oh, yes, the Iraqi sanctions. That old American assumption that we can do anything to anyone so long as we aren’t hurt.
link
review of Joy Gordon’s book on the sanctions
Some quotes–
“The 661 Committee’s stated purpose was to review and authorise exceptions to the sanctions, but as Gordon explains, its actual function was to deny the import of even the most innocuous items on the grounds that they might, conceivably, be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. An ingenious provision allowed any committee member to put any item for which clearance had been requested on hold. So, while other members, even a majority, might wish to speed goods to Iraq, the US and its ever willing British partner could and did block whatever they chose on the flimsiest of excuses. As a means of reducing a formerly prosperous state to a pre-industrial condition and keeping it there, this system would have aroused the envy of the blockade bureaucrats derided by Keynes. Thus in the early 1990s the United States blocked, among other items, salt, water pipes, children’s bikes, materials used to make nappies, equipment to process powdered milk and fabric to make clothes. The list would later be expanded to include switches, sockets, window frames, ceramic tiles and paint. In 1991 American representatives forcefully argued against permitting Iraq to import powdered milk on the grounds that it did not fulfil a humanitarian need. Later, the diplomats dutifully argued that an order for child vaccines, deemed ‘suspicious’ by weapons experts in Washington, should be denied.
Throughout the period of sanctions, the United States frustrated Iraq’s attempts to import pumps needed in the plants treating water from the Tigris, which had become an open sewer thanks to the destruction of treatment plants. Chlorine, vital for treating a contaminated water supply, was banned on the grounds that it could be used as a chemical weapon. The consequences of all this were visible in paediatric wards. Every year the number of children who died before they reached their first birthday rose, from one in 30 in 1990 to one in eight seven years later. Health specialists agreed that contaminated water was responsible: children were especially susceptible to the gastroenteritis and cholera caused by dirty water.”
God bless America. The review also has some paragraphs about the corruption under Saddam vs. the corruption after we invaded, but I’ve quoted enough for one post.
Oh, yes, the Iraqi sanctions. That old American assumption that we can do anything to anyone so long as we aren’t hurt.
link
review of Joy Gordon’s book on the sanctions
Some quotes–
“The 661 Committee’s stated purpose was to review and authorise exceptions to the sanctions, but as Gordon explains, its actual function was to deny the import of even the most innocuous items on the grounds that they might, conceivably, be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. An ingenious provision allowed any committee member to put any item for which clearance had been requested on hold. So, while other members, even a majority, might wish to speed goods to Iraq, the US and its ever willing British partner could and did block whatever they chose on the flimsiest of excuses. As a means of reducing a formerly prosperous state to a pre-industrial condition and keeping it there, this system would have aroused the envy of the blockade bureaucrats derided by Keynes. Thus in the early 1990s the United States blocked, among other items, salt, water pipes, children’s bikes, materials used to make nappies, equipment to process powdered milk and fabric to make clothes. The list would later be expanded to include switches, sockets, window frames, ceramic tiles and paint. In 1991 American representatives forcefully argued against permitting Iraq to import powdered milk on the grounds that it did not fulfil a humanitarian need. Later, the diplomats dutifully argued that an order for child vaccines, deemed ‘suspicious’ by weapons experts in Washington, should be denied.
Throughout the period of sanctions, the United States frustrated Iraq’s attempts to import pumps needed in the plants treating water from the Tigris, which had become an open sewer thanks to the destruction of treatment plants. Chlorine, vital for treating a contaminated water supply, was banned on the grounds that it could be used as a chemical weapon. The consequences of all this were visible in paediatric wards. Every year the number of children who died before they reached their first birthday rose, from one in 30 in 1990 to one in eight seven years later. Health specialists agreed that contaminated water was responsible: children were especially susceptible to the gastroenteritis and cholera caused by dirty water.”
God bless America. The review also has some paragraphs about the corruption under Saddam vs. the corruption after we invaded, but I’ve quoted enough for one post.
Lets see if this works to stop the linkness.
Lets see if this works to stop the linkness.
Ugh was actually able to fix it (the force is strong in this one), but I went in and edited the tag, so that the whole comment wasn’t a hotlink.
Ugh was actually able to fix it (the force is strong in this one), but I went in and edited the tag, so that the whole comment wasn’t a hotlink.
Every year the number of children who died before they reached their first birthday rose, from one in 30 in 1990 to one in eight seven years later. Health specialists agreed that contaminated water was responsible: children were especially susceptible to the gastroenteritis and cholera caused by dirty water.
They only have themselves to blame, choosing to be born in Iraq and all.
Every year the number of children who died before they reached their first birthday rose, from one in 30 in 1990 to one in eight seven years later. Health specialists agreed that contaminated water was responsible: children were especially susceptible to the gastroenteritis and cholera caused by dirty water.
They only have themselves to blame, choosing to be born in Iraq and all.
“Just out of curiosity, how is that different from what Sullivan has done? ”
In the end, Sullivan is a rather dishonest person, with a few redeeming qualities. For example, he’s deeply against torture.
OTOH, he spend (and I believe still does) a lot of time pretending that there is some unicorn faction[1] on the right who are so into liberty and freedom that they would accept and support gay marriage.
In the Eich case, he suddenly took an attitude 100% opposite to the Alec Baldwin case. With no sign of belief that he was previously wrong. Of course, that was in the Long Long Ago – November, 2013 in the ancient Earth calendar 🙂
He still supports Charles Murray’s pack of garbage, ‘The Bell Curve’. He pretends that he was brave to print it.
[1] Where I’m using ‘faction’ to mean ‘a large enough group to matter; not just a few people’.
“Just out of curiosity, how is that different from what Sullivan has done? ”
In the end, Sullivan is a rather dishonest person, with a few redeeming qualities. For example, he’s deeply against torture.
OTOH, he spend (and I believe still does) a lot of time pretending that there is some unicorn faction[1] on the right who are so into liberty and freedom that they would accept and support gay marriage.
In the Eich case, he suddenly took an attitude 100% opposite to the Alec Baldwin case. With no sign of belief that he was previously wrong. Of course, that was in the Long Long Ago – November, 2013 in the ancient Earth calendar 🙂
He still supports Charles Murray’s pack of garbage, ‘The Bell Curve’. He pretends that he was brave to print it.
[1] Where I’m using ‘faction’ to mean ‘a large enough group to matter; not just a few people’.
Sullivan thinks there is a significant portion of the right which thinks gay marriage is OK because he uses “conservative” and “the right” rather differently than the current Republican politicians. When he uses it, it means essentially what it meant in the US circa Ronald Reagan. (Or what it meant in Britain while he lived there.)
Today, of course, a Republican politician with Reagan’s record in office would be lucky to merely be denounced as a RINO. (C.f. the revision of the tax code under Reagan. He was particularly proud of the fact that it provided that those making low incomes would pay zero Federal income taxes. Try selling that view of the “takers” to the Republican base today!)
Sullivan thinks there is a significant portion of the right which thinks gay marriage is OK because he uses “conservative” and “the right” rather differently than the current Republican politicians. When he uses it, it means essentially what it meant in the US circa Ronald Reagan. (Or what it meant in Britain while he lived there.)
Today, of course, a Republican politician with Reagan’s record in office would be lucky to merely be denounced as a RINO. (C.f. the revision of the tax code under Reagan. He was particularly proud of the fact that it provided that those making low incomes would pay zero Federal income taxes. Try selling that view of the “takers” to the Republican base today!)
Discussions of the humanitarian imperative to invade Iraq were frequently trotted out in response to questioning the intelligence, or observing the reluctance to pursue the inspection regime in good faith. At that point, the critic was a monster who wanted the Iraqi people to suffer under the lash of a genocidal dictator in perpetuity
This is an argument that former prime minister Blair still deploys on a regular basis in an effort to confound his critics.
I will refrain from rehearsing my opinion of Blair.
Discussions of the humanitarian imperative to invade Iraq were frequently trotted out in response to questioning the intelligence, or observing the reluctance to pursue the inspection regime in good faith. At that point, the critic was a monster who wanted the Iraqi people to suffer under the lash of a genocidal dictator in perpetuity
This is an argument that former prime minister Blair still deploys on a regular basis in an effort to confound his critics.
I will refrain from rehearsing my opinion of Blair.
From Charlie Pierce, the leakers are at it again:
Some of the report’s other conclusions, which were obtained by McClatchy, include: the CIA used interrogation methods that weren’t approved by the Justice Department or CIA headquarters; the agency impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making regarding the program; the CIA actively evaded or impeded congressional oversight of the program; the agency hindered oversight of the program by its own Inspector General’s Office.
The CIA is a disease. It needs to be put down.
From Charlie Pierce, the leakers are at it again:
Some of the report’s other conclusions, which were obtained by McClatchy, include: the CIA used interrogation methods that weren’t approved by the Justice Department or CIA headquarters; the agency impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making regarding the program; the CIA actively evaded or impeded congressional oversight of the program; the agency hindered oversight of the program by its own Inspector General’s Office.
The CIA is a disease. It needs to be put down.
That, while true, is like looking at the secondary tumor in your arm, and declaring it a disease, while resolutely defending the main tumor in your torso that it spread from.
Government is a disease. The problem we face is that it can’t as yet be cured, the most anybody has ever found a way to do is achieve a temporary remission.
We managed, by means of severe surgery, to get an extended remission in the US. It lasted long enough that some people have forgotten that it’s a disease they’re looking at, and, now that it’s turning virulent again, are in denial about what is really going on.
The CIA? Torture and lies? That’s what government really is.
That, while true, is like looking at the secondary tumor in your arm, and declaring it a disease, while resolutely defending the main tumor in your torso that it spread from.
Government is a disease. The problem we face is that it can’t as yet be cured, the most anybody has ever found a way to do is achieve a temporary remission.
We managed, by means of severe surgery, to get an extended remission in the US. It lasted long enough that some people have forgotten that it’s a disease they’re looking at, and, now that it’s turning virulent again, are in denial about what is really going on.
The CIA? Torture and lies? That’s what government really is.
How do you manage to make it through the day Brett?
How do you manage to make it through the day Brett?
How do you manage to make it through the day Brett?
government contracts?
How do you manage to make it through the day Brett?
government contracts?
Government is a disease.
zzzzzz…..
with all due respect.
Government is a disease.
zzzzzz…..
with all due respect.
Government is a disease
you be sure to let us know the second the armchair anarchists of the world accomplish anything that improves the life of any but their own.
Government is a disease
you be sure to let us know the second the armchair anarchists of the world accomplish anything that improves the life of any but their own.
(…or if you know someone who can teach me English grammar this early in the AM)
(…or if you know someone who can teach me English grammar this early in the AM)
((…or if you know someone who can teach me how to handle English grammar this early in the AM) see what i mean?)
((…or if you know someone who can teach me how to handle English grammar this early in the AM) see what i mean?)
…any but their own.
That’s the whole idea. The problem started when a guy got punished for ‘not my brother’s keeper’ by the self-appointed authority of the time. The same authority that kicked his family off the property they had lived on since (almost) the beginning of time for violating a contract they had not even signed and had no part in formulating.
…any but their own.
That’s the whole idea. The problem started when a guy got punished for ‘not my brother’s keeper’ by the self-appointed authority of the time. The same authority that kicked his family off the property they had lived on since (almost) the beginning of time for violating a contract they had not even signed and had no part in formulating.
I have to wonder. If government is a disease, why is it that it is found in some form or another in every human group? Without exception. And when it falls apart (think of Somalia), things are a disaster until it gets pulled back together.
Now you can argue that it is possible to have too much government as well as too little. And probably everybody here would agree with you in principle — while disagreeing about where the happy medium is.
But to just proclaim that “government is a disease” suggests that any and all government is bad. (After all, what disease can anyone name which it is good to have?) And from your other comments, it is clear that you do believe that there are some legitimate functions of government. So why make sweeping statements that you don’t believe yourself? Surely you aren’t just looking to start an argument for its own sake….
I have to wonder. If government is a disease, why is it that it is found in some form or another in every human group? Without exception. And when it falls apart (think of Somalia), things are a disaster until it gets pulled back together.
Now you can argue that it is possible to have too much government as well as too little. And probably everybody here would agree with you in principle — while disagreeing about where the happy medium is.
But to just proclaim that “government is a disease” suggests that any and all government is bad. (After all, what disease can anyone name which it is good to have?) And from your other comments, it is clear that you do believe that there are some legitimate functions of government. So why make sweeping statements that you don’t believe yourself? Surely you aren’t just looking to start an argument for its own sake….
You are disagreeing with some fairly august personages on this point, Brett. People like Madison and Jefferson. Oh, and Lincoln.
You are disagreeing with some fairly august personages on this point, Brett. People like Madison and Jefferson. Oh, and Lincoln.
Brett’s an idealist – ISTM, IMO, AFAICT, etc. He has highly theoretical, normative preferences for How Things Should Be. Government voilates those preferences in any number of ways, mainly by restricting what he can do and mandating what he must do, as matters of law, and by putting power in the hands of other (likely untrustworthy) humans who will abuse it, whether in keeping with the law or otherwise.
This model ignores that many, if not most, of the things he’d like to do would be impossible in a world without government and that other people would be able to do even worse things to him without government than they can with it – (again) ISTM, IMO, AFAICT, etc.
The benefits are invisible and the costs are plain to see.
Brett’s an idealist – ISTM, IMO, AFAICT, etc. He has highly theoretical, normative preferences for How Things Should Be. Government voilates those preferences in any number of ways, mainly by restricting what he can do and mandating what he must do, as matters of law, and by putting power in the hands of other (likely untrustworthy) humans who will abuse it, whether in keeping with the law or otherwise.
This model ignores that many, if not most, of the things he’d like to do would be impossible in a world without government and that other people would be able to do even worse things to him without government than they can with it – (again) ISTM, IMO, AFAICT, etc.
The benefits are invisible and the costs are plain to see.
You could trim all the discussion between bobbyp’s comment about CIA torture and HSH’s:
The benefits are invisible and the costs are plain to see.
And it would be perfect descriptor for the shroud of secrecy that protects the security apparatus.
You could trim all the discussion between bobbyp’s comment about CIA torture and HSH’s:
The benefits are invisible and the costs are plain to see.
And it would be perfect descriptor for the shroud of secrecy that protects the security apparatus.
I’m not sure we see all the costs.
I’m not sure we see all the costs.
just want to second hairshirt’s 10:51.
I’m hard pressed to find many points of agreement between myself and Brett as far as public policy goes, but I definitely recognize that his point of view is motivated by an ideal that is at least well meant.
No question that government is a PITA and appears to attract more than it’s share of crooks, narcissists, and sociopaths.
I’m just not seeing a realistic alternative.
If you’re looking for a disease, I’d probably propose human nature.
We’re complicated fallible primates, we are.
just want to second hairshirt’s 10:51.
I’m hard pressed to find many points of agreement between myself and Brett as far as public policy goes, but I definitely recognize that his point of view is motivated by an ideal that is at least well meant.
No question that government is a PITA and appears to attract more than it’s share of crooks, narcissists, and sociopaths.
I’m just not seeing a realistic alternative.
If you’re looking for a disease, I’d probably propose human nature.
We’re complicated fallible primates, we are.
By way of contrast, I live in a town that was founded in 1629, and also attend a church first gathered in 1629. A guy from my town was killed in Afghanistan, and a member of his family has gone to war – from the town I live in – in every war since the Revolution.
Late to this story but struck by the lecture I got in Boston two weeks ago from a Spanish guy who was struck by how new everything was, and how we confused 4 or 5 centuries with a long history.
It is a perspective I am sure we in America don’t grasp. We think that if we haven’t had to deal with a problem for twenty years it is gone away (Russia), to the rest of the world that is a blink of an eye.
By way of contrast, I live in a town that was founded in 1629, and also attend a church first gathered in 1629. A guy from my town was killed in Afghanistan, and a member of his family has gone to war – from the town I live in – in every war since the Revolution.
Late to this story but struck by the lecture I got in Boston two weeks ago from a Spanish guy who was struck by how new everything was, and how we confused 4 or 5 centuries with a long history.
It is a perspective I am sure we in America don’t grasp. We think that if we haven’t had to deal with a problem for twenty years it is gone away (Russia), to the rest of the world that is a blink of an eye.
Marty, it’s the same reason that teenagers want to do everything immediately. A time span that seems enormous to the very young seems like the blink of an eye to those who are significantly older. As with individuals, so also with nations.
Marty, it’s the same reason that teenagers want to do everything immediately. A time span that seems enormous to the very young seems like the blink of an eye to those who are significantly older. As with individuals, so also with nations.
“I’m just not seeing a realistic alternative.”
I’m not either, which is why I said nobody has found a cure for this disease. Doesn’t mean I have to pretend I like it.
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government. They’re not some kind of abberation.
“I’m just not seeing a realistic alternative.”
I’m not either, which is why I said nobody has found a cure for this disease. Doesn’t mean I have to pretend I like it.
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government. They’re not some kind of abberation.
russell:
In case I wasn’t clear (I don’t think I was) I just thought these two thoughts go well together:
the CIA used interrogation methods that weren’t approved by the Justice Department or CIA headquarters; the agency impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making regarding the program; the CIA actively evaded or impeded congressional oversight of the program; the agency hindered oversight of the program by its own Inspector General’s Office. (via bobbyp)
and
The benefits are invisible and the costs are plain to see. (HSH)
To me, that list is pretty much a list of costs. Often justified by security benefits that are never really detailed.
I just thought HSH comment, although not in the direction, summed it up really well.
russell:
In case I wasn’t clear (I don’t think I was) I just thought these two thoughts go well together:
the CIA used interrogation methods that weren’t approved by the Justice Department or CIA headquarters; the agency impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making regarding the program; the CIA actively evaded or impeded congressional oversight of the program; the agency hindered oversight of the program by its own Inspector General’s Office. (via bobbyp)
and
The benefits are invisible and the costs are plain to see. (HSH)
To me, that list is pretty much a list of costs. Often justified by security benefits that are never really detailed.
I just thought HSH comment, although not in the direction, summed it up really well.
We think that if we haven’t had to deal with a problem for twenty years it is gone away (Russia)
Wait, are you telling me Russia hasn’t gone away?
We think that if we haven’t had to deal with a problem for twenty years it is gone away (Russia)
Wait, are you telling me Russia hasn’t gone away?
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government. They’re not some kind of abberation.
Except no. We can look at plenty of other national governments in developed nations and find no analogue. It is an aberration, and to pretend otherwise is ignoring reality. I suppose you could argue that those other nations don’t have CIAs because they freeload off of the American CIA’s performance of civilization-critical CIA functions for all the Western world, but that’d be a hard sell, to say the least.
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government. They’re not some kind of abberation.
Except no. We can look at plenty of other national governments in developed nations and find no analogue. It is an aberration, and to pretend otherwise is ignoring reality. I suppose you could argue that those other nations don’t have CIAs because they freeload off of the American CIA’s performance of civilization-critical CIA functions for all the Western world, but that’d be a hard sell, to say the least.
I just thought HSH comment, although not in the direction, summed it up really well.
Agreed.
I wasn’t really disagreeing with you, it was just my attempt at being rueful.
Is there a “rueful” emoticon?
I just thought HSH comment, although not in the direction, summed it up really well.
Agreed.
I wasn’t really disagreeing with you, it was just my attempt at being rueful.
Is there a “rueful” emoticon?
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government.
Well OK. So where does that leave us?
You trot out a statement that, surprise, surprise, never seems to make it to your radar screen when it comes to the power you wish to dish out willy nilly to private actors who also (history I believe shows this)have every incentive to abuse unaccountable power in a remarkably similar fashion.
To my way of thinking this makes just about every argument you make on just about any subject painfully and obviously risible.
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government.
Well OK. So where does that leave us?
You trot out a statement that, surprise, surprise, never seems to make it to your radar screen when it comes to the power you wish to dish out willy nilly to private actors who also (history I believe shows this)have every incentive to abuse unaccountable power in a remarkably similar fashion.
To my way of thinking this makes just about every argument you make on just about any subject painfully and obviously risible.
Ah, yeah, sorry about that. I get it now.
Rueful emoticon would be good. It’s hard to believe that humans contain a wider range of emotion than can be readily summed up by the available emoticons.
Ah, yeah, sorry about that. I get it now.
Rueful emoticon would be good. It’s hard to believe that humans contain a wider range of emotion than can be readily summed up by the available emoticons.
Government is a disease.
The Belgian Congo was king Leopold’s private property.
Discuss.
Government is a disease.
The Belgian Congo was king Leopold’s private property.
Discuss.
NomVide:
I don’t know that I would call the CIA an “aberration” in national governments. Right of the top my head I jump to MI6 as having notably similar tactics to the CIA.
But you expand your view a little, Russia, Middle East, Africa, etc. Lot’s of security services that engage in fairly barbaric tactics.
Indeed, those other security services are where we send the people we want tortured but don’t want to do it ourselves.
I know the CIA has coordinated with German security for renditions (I can’t recall the case specifically, but I’m sure I could dig it out of Google if you need me too).
I can’t recall anything specific about other Western European nations, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some close coordination with the CIA at some point.
Note, I’m not arguing that this is a necessity of civilization (it’s not, it’s a horrible abuse of human rights). Nor am I defending the CIA by saying other people do it too (that’s no defense of torture). But the CIA is hardly an aberration.
NomVide:
I don’t know that I would call the CIA an “aberration” in national governments. Right of the top my head I jump to MI6 as having notably similar tactics to the CIA.
But you expand your view a little, Russia, Middle East, Africa, etc. Lot’s of security services that engage in fairly barbaric tactics.
Indeed, those other security services are where we send the people we want tortured but don’t want to do it ourselves.
I know the CIA has coordinated with German security for renditions (I can’t recall the case specifically, but I’m sure I could dig it out of Google if you need me too).
I can’t recall anything specific about other Western European nations, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some close coordination with the CIA at some point.
Note, I’m not arguing that this is a necessity of civilization (it’s not, it’s a horrible abuse of human rights). Nor am I defending the CIA by saying other people do it too (that’s no defense of torture). But the CIA is hardly an aberration.
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government.
“everything”? silly.
but, as long as we’re cynically reducing things to their rawest, most black-and-white caricatures…
the CIA’s problem is that it behaves as if it’s unaccountable. it’s not, but people allow it to act that way for various reasons.
but that is simply politics. and politics occur whenever two people meet regardless of whether it occurs in the context of a formal government, in a business, in a church, on a softball team, or in a family. what makes a person want to avoid holding someone else accountable for something is … politics. accountability is … politics.
the CIA’s problem is not government. it’s politics.
What I’m saying is, what pisses you all off about the CIA is that it’s everything you really ought to expect of government.
“everything”? silly.
but, as long as we’re cynically reducing things to their rawest, most black-and-white caricatures…
the CIA’s problem is that it behaves as if it’s unaccountable. it’s not, but people allow it to act that way for various reasons.
but that is simply politics. and politics occur whenever two people meet regardless of whether it occurs in the context of a formal government, in a business, in a church, on a softball team, or in a family. what makes a person want to avoid holding someone else accountable for something is … politics. accountability is … politics.
the CIA’s problem is not government. it’s politics.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mirrored Brett’s use of the term aberration, as it makes it seem a bit too singular. Still, his usage suggests we’re silly to view the CIA as unusual, as its behavior is just what governments do. And it’s that attitude which had me pointing to the existence of European governments that somehow aren’t engaging in that behavior; per Brett, those would be the aberrations, because they’re somehow resisting their primal nature by forgoing torture, etc.
Also, complicity in someone else’s malfeasance is not the same as doing it yourself.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mirrored Brett’s use of the term aberration, as it makes it seem a bit too singular. Still, his usage suggests we’re silly to view the CIA as unusual, as its behavior is just what governments do. And it’s that attitude which had me pointing to the existence of European governments that somehow aren’t engaging in that behavior; per Brett, those would be the aberrations, because they’re somehow resisting their primal nature by forgoing torture, etc.
Also, complicity in someone else’s malfeasance is not the same as doing it yourself.
Also, what cleek said.
Also, what cleek said.
Is there a “rueful” emoticon?
Take the emoticon for ennui, add it to the emoticon for apoplexy, and divide them by 2.
Is there a “rueful” emoticon?
Take the emoticon for ennui, add it to the emoticon for apoplexy, and divide them by 2.
#^/
#^/
NomVide:
complicity in someone else’s malfeasance is not the same as doing it yourself.
True, but I think assisting the CIA in renditions is still pretty bad. If you’re point is Western Europeans didn’t engage in torture themselves, simply transferred prisoners to where they would be tortured…eh, that’s not really that distinct in my moral book.
Also, again, Western Europe isn’t most of the world, and there are plenty of security services that engage in barbaric practices.
So I wouldn’t consider the CIA “unusual” either.
Also, what cleek said.
I’d agree that cleek was pretty close to bullseye. To me, the CIA does what it does because it is largely unaccountable, at least on the timescale of years. In other words, someone might someday be taken to account, but its so far out it’s unlikely to influence behavior.
Not that unaccountability is synonymous with brutality, but that if you have an unaccountable group, they will tend towards corruption. If you allow them to exercise violence, they will overuse violence.
That’s not unique to America or any other system of governance. Or any group of more than a few people.
What bothers me about the words “aberration” or “unusual” is that the CIA is acting exactly how I expect they would. How I would expect any group of unaccountable people to act.
Unlike Brett, I don’t link it directly to *government* but I do believe it is couple quite closely to *accountability* or lack thereof.
NomVide:
complicity in someone else’s malfeasance is not the same as doing it yourself.
True, but I think assisting the CIA in renditions is still pretty bad. If you’re point is Western Europeans didn’t engage in torture themselves, simply transferred prisoners to where they would be tortured…eh, that’s not really that distinct in my moral book.
Also, again, Western Europe isn’t most of the world, and there are plenty of security services that engage in barbaric practices.
So I wouldn’t consider the CIA “unusual” either.
Also, what cleek said.
I’d agree that cleek was pretty close to bullseye. To me, the CIA does what it does because it is largely unaccountable, at least on the timescale of years. In other words, someone might someday be taken to account, but its so far out it’s unlikely to influence behavior.
Not that unaccountability is synonymous with brutality, but that if you have an unaccountable group, they will tend towards corruption. If you allow them to exercise violence, they will overuse violence.
That’s not unique to America or any other system of governance. Or any group of more than a few people.
What bothers me about the words “aberration” or “unusual” is that the CIA is acting exactly how I expect they would. How I would expect any group of unaccountable people to act.
Unlike Brett, I don’t link it directly to *government* but I do believe it is couple quite closely to *accountability* or lack thereof.
Sorry about my link problems upthread.
My own revision of Brett’s point–
When one group of people has power over another group and the second group has no effective means of protest and no powerful allies, there usually will be abuses.
That covers governments and private groups. It explains the CIA–for the most part, the people they hurt are not American citizens (with some exceptions). To the extent that someone reins them in it will be out of altruistic motives. Those can’t be counted on.
And returning to my link upthread, it also explains why the US can and does inflict very harsh sanctions on places like Iraq–some Americans will complain, most Americans won’t care or will take for granted our right to do such things and will accept any excuse our government trots out. The Iraqis had no powerful allies and no way to exert pressure, so they suffered. I wouldn’t expect others to be better than us. On the other hand, the boycott, divestment sanctions movement against Israel (BDS) will never come close to inflicting that sort of pain on Israel (not that I’d want it to) because many more Americans care about Israelis than about Iraqis. There’s more accountability there. On the gripping hand (obscure SF reference), fewer care about Palestinians, so we’ll keep supporting the occupation.
If government didn’t exist, we’d just have warlords and/or armed corporations, so it’d be government again, except a really nasty sort. Something would fill the vacuum.
I just noticed I’m repeating Thompson’s point in a slightly different way.
Sorry about my link problems upthread.
My own revision of Brett’s point–
When one group of people has power over another group and the second group has no effective means of protest and no powerful allies, there usually will be abuses.
That covers governments and private groups. It explains the CIA–for the most part, the people they hurt are not American citizens (with some exceptions). To the extent that someone reins them in it will be out of altruistic motives. Those can’t be counted on.
And returning to my link upthread, it also explains why the US can and does inflict very harsh sanctions on places like Iraq–some Americans will complain, most Americans won’t care or will take for granted our right to do such things and will accept any excuse our government trots out. The Iraqis had no powerful allies and no way to exert pressure, so they suffered. I wouldn’t expect others to be better than us. On the other hand, the boycott, divestment sanctions movement against Israel (BDS) will never come close to inflicting that sort of pain on Israel (not that I’d want it to) because many more Americans care about Israelis than about Iraqis. There’s more accountability there. On the gripping hand (obscure SF reference), fewer care about Palestinians, so we’ll keep supporting the occupation.
If government didn’t exist, we’d just have warlords and/or armed corporations, so it’d be government again, except a really nasty sort. Something would fill the vacuum.
I just noticed I’m repeating Thompson’s point in a slightly different way.
On the gripping hand (obscure SF reference)
I got it. Good one.
Brett is mistaken. Government is not a disease, it is essential. Government, properly done, protects us from each other via codification and enforcement the social compact. However, limiting government overreach is also essential. How and the extent we do that is pretty much the core of the liberal/conservative divide. Subset A of the divide is the differing views of private property and government’s role in regulating the use thereof.
On the gripping hand (obscure SF reference)
I got it. Good one.
Brett is mistaken. Government is not a disease, it is essential. Government, properly done, protects us from each other via codification and enforcement the social compact. However, limiting government overreach is also essential. How and the extent we do that is pretty much the core of the liberal/conservative divide. Subset A of the divide is the differing views of private property and government’s role in regulating the use thereof.
What’s the gripping hand emoticon?
What’s the gripping hand emoticon?
McKTx, well said at 6:56PM
I would only add that another function of government is to do those necessary tasks that cannot be done by the individual and will not normally get done by privately organized groups.
Again there is a divide about what those tasks are and how far they should be pursued by government.
McKTx, well said at 6:56PM
I would only add that another function of government is to do those necessary tasks that cannot be done by the individual and will not normally get done by privately organized groups.
Again there is a divide about what those tasks are and how far they should be pursued by government.
Subset A of the divide is the differing views of private property and government’s role in regulating the use thereof.
Slaves were “private property” once. Hardly anyone, nowadays, would argue that government “over-reached” in regulating slavery out of existence. But plenty of people did, in the early days of the Republic. And some of them were no doubt “liberals” by the definition of their day.
So the line between over-reach and proper regulation is obviously not fixed by some set of eternal logical principles. It is where it happens to be at the moment. As always, the people who want to move the line one way call themselves conservative; the people who want to move it the other way call themselves liberals.
The divide is real. The notion that either side’s position is based on any set of permanent principles is at best ahistorical.
–TP
Subset A of the divide is the differing views of private property and government’s role in regulating the use thereof.
Slaves were “private property” once. Hardly anyone, nowadays, would argue that government “over-reached” in regulating slavery out of existence. But plenty of people did, in the early days of the Republic. And some of them were no doubt “liberals” by the definition of their day.
So the line between over-reach and proper regulation is obviously not fixed by some set of eternal logical principles. It is where it happens to be at the moment. As always, the people who want to move the line one way call themselves conservative; the people who want to move it the other way call themselves liberals.
The divide is real. The notion that either side’s position is based on any set of permanent principles is at best ahistorical.
–TP
I just noticed I’m repeating Thompson’s point in a slightly different way.
Honestly, I liked your version better. Well said.
I just noticed I’m repeating Thompson’s point in a slightly different way.
Honestly, I liked your version better. Well said.
I actually found myself agreeing with McKinney and thompson, so I think I’ll start drinking early tonight.
Well put.
I actually found myself agreeing with McKinney and thompson, so I think I’ll start drinking early tonight.
Well put.
“Gripping hand” is from a Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle SF novel It refers to some asymmetric aliens called Moties with three hands, the largest being the gripping hand. So some people in the novel have been saying “on the one hand, on the other hand, on the gripping hand.”
I liked the two Motie novels. We might be heading for a political system like the ones in the novels–one can only hope our fabulously wealthy aristocratic rulers have the same sense of noblesse oblige (sp?) that most of the ones in the novels do. I sorta doubt it.
“Gripping hand” is from a Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle SF novel It refers to some asymmetric aliens called Moties with three hands, the largest being the gripping hand. So some people in the novel have been saying “on the one hand, on the other hand, on the gripping hand.”
I liked the two Motie novels. We might be heading for a political system like the ones in the novels–one can only hope our fabulously wealthy aristocratic rulers have the same sense of noblesse oblige (sp?) that most of the ones in the novels do. I sorta doubt it.
True, but I think assisting the CIA in renditions is still pretty bad. If you’re point is Western Europeans didn’t engage in torture themselves, simply transferred prisoners to where they would be tortured…eh, that’s not really that distinct in my moral book.
No argument that it’s awful morally… but as a practical matter, having organizations that are merely willing and able to turn a blind eye to malfeasance or even passively assist is leaps and bounds better than having organizations that are willing and able to initiate the malfeasance. They’re both staffed with bad people (if you prefer, corrupt people), and to continue the theme upthread, the only difference between them might ultimately how accountable they’re being held. But as a practical matter, I’d much rather have the former than the latter if forced to choose.
Also, again, Western Europe isn’t most of the world, and there are plenty of security services that engage in barbaric practices.
…and I don’t protest this at all. Again again, my reason for mentioning to Western Europe is to point out that this is not an intrinsic part of government, or even security services. As someone upthread put it more eloquently than I could hope to: “Unlike Brett, I don’t link [CIA-style malfeasance] directly to *government* but I do believe it is couple quite closely to *accountability* or lack thereof.”
True, but I think assisting the CIA in renditions is still pretty bad. If you’re point is Western Europeans didn’t engage in torture themselves, simply transferred prisoners to where they would be tortured…eh, that’s not really that distinct in my moral book.
No argument that it’s awful morally… but as a practical matter, having organizations that are merely willing and able to turn a blind eye to malfeasance or even passively assist is leaps and bounds better than having organizations that are willing and able to initiate the malfeasance. They’re both staffed with bad people (if you prefer, corrupt people), and to continue the theme upthread, the only difference between them might ultimately how accountable they’re being held. But as a practical matter, I’d much rather have the former than the latter if forced to choose.
Also, again, Western Europe isn’t most of the world, and there are plenty of security services that engage in barbaric practices.
…and I don’t protest this at all. Again again, my reason for mentioning to Western Europe is to point out that this is not an intrinsic part of government, or even security services. As someone upthread put it more eloquently than I could hope to: “Unlike Brett, I don’t link [CIA-style malfeasance] directly to *government* but I do believe it is couple quite closely to *accountability* or lack thereof.”
“Passively assist” DNE “ship a prisoner to”. Unless maybe you want to say the guys running the trains to the death camps were “passively assisting” in the Holocaust. Now, maybe the people fueling the plane, not knowing who was on it, or to what end, were “passively assisting”. Not the guys who booked the flight, and made sure the victim was on it.
“my reason for mentioning to Western Europe is to point out that this is not an intrinsic part of government,”
Any more than sharp teeth and an appetite are an intrinsic part of a tiger. You can pull all his teeth, declaw him, and put him on diet drugs, after all!
Look, is it possible to defang the government, to so wrap it in chains that it doesn’t do nasty stuff even people who love government have a hard time stomaching? Of course it is!
The problem, I think, comes in when people make the error of thinking the tiger is a kitten, and doesn’t NEED to be wrapped in chains, because it’s an inherently benign institution.
We wrap the government in chains called a constitution, subject it to incentives to actually do something useful, called elections, because, absent these things, government gets really nasty. Holocaust nasty. Great leap forward nasty. The horrors of the 20th century weren’t committed by aberrant governments. They were committed by unfettered governments, governments free to do what they want.
And the government is always trying to slip these chains. Render elections moot by controlling political speech, or arranging for all the candidates to be in agreement. Render constitutions moot by selecting judges who will treat rules like suggestions, and words like silly putty.
And the government’s best ally in it’s perpetual effort to be freed to be a predator again, is the person who thinks government isn’t dangerous, and wants it’s limits taken off so it can do more useful stuff.
Including idiots who want the government to be able to run a Panopiticon surveillance state, of the sort that can feed it dirt on it’s enemies, a “ham sandwich nation” where everyone can be prosecuted, because there are too many laws to obey them all.
You don’t need to intend the Gulag to enable it. You just need to think you’re dealing with Aladdin’s genie, when you’re really faced with Godzilla.
“Passively assist” DNE “ship a prisoner to”. Unless maybe you want to say the guys running the trains to the death camps were “passively assisting” in the Holocaust. Now, maybe the people fueling the plane, not knowing who was on it, or to what end, were “passively assisting”. Not the guys who booked the flight, and made sure the victim was on it.
“my reason for mentioning to Western Europe is to point out that this is not an intrinsic part of government,”
Any more than sharp teeth and an appetite are an intrinsic part of a tiger. You can pull all his teeth, declaw him, and put him on diet drugs, after all!
Look, is it possible to defang the government, to so wrap it in chains that it doesn’t do nasty stuff even people who love government have a hard time stomaching? Of course it is!
The problem, I think, comes in when people make the error of thinking the tiger is a kitten, and doesn’t NEED to be wrapped in chains, because it’s an inherently benign institution.
We wrap the government in chains called a constitution, subject it to incentives to actually do something useful, called elections, because, absent these things, government gets really nasty. Holocaust nasty. Great leap forward nasty. The horrors of the 20th century weren’t committed by aberrant governments. They were committed by unfettered governments, governments free to do what they want.
And the government is always trying to slip these chains. Render elections moot by controlling political speech, or arranging for all the candidates to be in agreement. Render constitutions moot by selecting judges who will treat rules like suggestions, and words like silly putty.
And the government’s best ally in it’s perpetual effort to be freed to be a predator again, is the person who thinks government isn’t dangerous, and wants it’s limits taken off so it can do more useful stuff.
Including idiots who want the government to be able to run a Panopiticon surveillance state, of the sort that can feed it dirt on it’s enemies, a “ham sandwich nation” where everyone can be prosecuted, because there are too many laws to obey them all.
You don’t need to intend the Gulag to enable it. You just need to think you’re dealing with Aladdin’s genie, when you’re really faced with Godzilla.
The problem, I think, comes in when people make the error of thinking the tiger is a kitten, and doesn’t NEED to be wrapped in chains, because it’s an inherently benign institution.
This, on a thread where people are decrying the CIA’s and our government-in-general’s horrible, immoral treatment of people in other nations.
The problem, I think, is when people look at things in binary, black-and-white terms, as though you have a choice between only a tiger or a kitten. Are there no Labrador Retrievers anymore?
The problem, I think, comes in when people make the error of thinking the tiger is a kitten, and doesn’t NEED to be wrapped in chains, because it’s an inherently benign institution.
This, on a thread where people are decrying the CIA’s and our government-in-general’s horrible, immoral treatment of people in other nations.
The problem, I think, is when people look at things in binary, black-and-white terms, as though you have a choice between only a tiger or a kitten. Are there no Labrador Retrievers anymore?
Slaves were “private property” once. Hardly anyone, nowadays, would argue that government “over-reached” in regulating slavery out of existence. But plenty of people did, in the early days of the Republic. And some of them were no doubt “liberals” by the definition of their day.
I am not sure what point is being made here. Gov’t didn’t regulate slavery out of existence. It fought a war and during that war it passed a constitutional amendment. I am happy to put my property rights at risk by a constitutional amendment, not so much by unelected regulators.
More to the point, I imagine that some opponents of slavery owned their own homes, and possibly farms, stores or other businesses. I suspect that they, by opposing slavery, did not intend to subject their right to own non-human property to regulatory whim. But, I’m just guessing here. You could be right. Owning other humans really isn’t that much different than owning a toothbrush.
Slaves were “private property” once. Hardly anyone, nowadays, would argue that government “over-reached” in regulating slavery out of existence. But plenty of people did, in the early days of the Republic. And some of them were no doubt “liberals” by the definition of their day.
I am not sure what point is being made here. Gov’t didn’t regulate slavery out of existence. It fought a war and during that war it passed a constitutional amendment. I am happy to put my property rights at risk by a constitutional amendment, not so much by unelected regulators.
More to the point, I imagine that some opponents of slavery owned their own homes, and possibly farms, stores or other businesses. I suspect that they, by opposing slavery, did not intend to subject their right to own non-human property to regulatory whim. But, I’m just guessing here. You could be right. Owning other humans really isn’t that much different than owning a toothbrush.
I actually found myself agreeing with McKinney and thompson, so I think I’ll start drinking early tonight.
If you started early–and I started late–there is a good chance that, despite our time zone differences (among other differences), we were drinking together, albeit several thousand miles apart.
I actually found myself agreeing with McKinney and thompson, so I think I’ll start drinking early tonight.
If you started early–and I started late–there is a good chance that, despite our time zone differences (among other differences), we were drinking together, albeit several thousand miles apart.
Owning other humans really isn’t that much different than owning a toothbrush.
Well, how would you describe the mindset of the average slave owner in, say, 1820?
Owning other humans really isn’t that much different than owning a toothbrush.
Well, how would you describe the mindset of the average slave owner in, say, 1820?
Owning other humans really isn’t that much different than owning a toothbrush.
Do you mean morally? Or philosophically? Or legally? Or what?
Owning other humans really isn’t that much different than owning a toothbrush.
Do you mean morally? Or philosophically? Or legally? Or what?
In Roman law slaves were things (res) not persons and could never get their human status fully back even when released. Children of released slaves were not affected though. The main difference to later times was that any person could become a slave, so no group was excluded. The racial component was yet absent as far as the status went.
In Roman law slaves were things (res) not persons and could never get their human status fully back even when released. Children of released slaves were not affected though. The main difference to later times was that any person could become a slave, so no group was excluded. The racial component was yet absent as far as the status went.
The racial component just did a bang-up job of anticipating the need to stop and frisk certain kinds of people.
The racial component just did a bang-up job of anticipating the need to stop and frisk certain kinds of people.
Can anyone guess why I was just reading about non-Euclidean geometry?
Can anyone guess why I was just reading about non-Euclidean geometry?
HSH: I’m guessing that this thread triggered the decision to try to slip clear out of this tedious and tendentious dimension entirely.
HSH: I’m guessing that this thread triggered the decision to try to slip clear out of this tedious and tendentious dimension entirely.
Well, I only mentioned it on this thread because this is an open thread. I suppose that’s a hint, if not a very good one. So, I’ll improve it by noting that it wasn’t anything from this post that started me on my path to triangles having the sums of their angles equaling less than 180 degrees.
Well, I only mentioned it on this thread because this is an open thread. I suppose that’s a hint, if not a very good one. So, I’ll improve it by noting that it wasn’t anything from this post that started me on my path to triangles having the sums of their angles equaling less than 180 degrees.
non-Euclidean geometry is a myth and tool of the devil. So, win-win.
non-Euclidean geometry is a myth and tool of the devil. So, win-win.
No need to be hyperbolic…
No need to be hyperbolic…
Ugh, I would never have taken you for a flat-earth type. But if the earth is a sphere, then geomerty here is non-Euclidian. Just sayin’
Ugh, I would never have taken you for a flat-earth type. But if the earth is a sphere, then geomerty here is non-Euclidian. Just sayin’
Sperical triangles have angles that add up to more than 180 degrees, IIRC. I can think of one in particular that adds up to 270 degrees.
Less than 180 degrees? It turns out CharlesWT has nailed it. Can’t imagine the application, though. I haven’t seen common applications of hyperbolae since LORAN was in common use.
Sperical triangles have angles that add up to more than 180 degrees, IIRC. I can think of one in particular that adds up to 270 degrees.
Less than 180 degrees? It turns out CharlesWT has nailed it. Can’t imagine the application, though. I haven’t seen common applications of hyperbolae since LORAN was in common use.
Triangles can get up to 900° sum of angles (extreme case on the surface of a sphere). Not sure what the minimum is (I think saddle surfaces produce <180°).
Triangles can get up to 900° sum of angles (extreme case on the surface of a sphere). Not sure what the minimum is (I think saddle surfaces produce <180°).
Good ol’ Brett: And the government is always trying to slip these chains. Render elections moot by controlling political speech …
… or by passing “voter ID” laws to discourage certain voters.
Those are state governments, mind you, not the hated federal one. And they are Republican-controlled state governments. (The GOP prefers to “win” elections rather than try to earn the most votes.)
So what’s Brett’s position on “voter ID”? Is he more offended by laws which inconvenience rich donors than by laws which inconvenience poor voters? Would he tolerate a national ID card to “preserve the integrity of the vote”?
–TP
Good ol’ Brett: And the government is always trying to slip these chains. Render elections moot by controlling political speech …
… or by passing “voter ID” laws to discourage certain voters.
Those are state governments, mind you, not the hated federal one. And they are Republican-controlled state governments. (The GOP prefers to “win” elections rather than try to earn the most votes.)
So what’s Brett’s position on “voter ID”? Is he more offended by laws which inconvenience rich donors than by laws which inconvenience poor voters? Would he tolerate a national ID card to “preserve the integrity of the vote”?
–TP
hairshirt: … it wasn’t anything from this post that started me on my path to triangles having the sums of their angles equaling less than 180 degrees.
Then you haven’t been paying attention, hsh. How many times have I explained that certain political beliefs are like Euclid’s 5th axiom?
–TP
hairshirt: … it wasn’t anything from this post that started me on my path to triangles having the sums of their angles equaling less than 180 degrees.
Then you haven’t been paying attention, hsh. How many times have I explained that certain political beliefs are like Euclid’s 5th axiom?
–TP
McKinney: I am not sure what point is being made here.
Ahem: “The notion that either side’s position is based on any set of permanent principles is at best ahistorical.”
–TP
McKinney: I am not sure what point is being made here.
Ahem: “The notion that either side’s position is based on any set of permanent principles is at best ahistorical.”
–TP