This weekend contains the infamous "Grilling of the Meats" as well as "Operation Ginsanity", so posting may be a bit light. Mainly because my liver may stage a revolt, take my spleen captive and abscond with my pancreas to Aruba.
So to help all you pass the time, here is a webcomic that I have been growing increasingly fond of...
LICD
I'll let y'all figure out why I dig it....
-Cheers
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
We interrupt this rant.....
Bacon Explosion
I don't know what to say....perhaps adding some cheese and deep frying it would do it, but this is as close to awesome as one may come in life.
-Thanks to X-Tina for pointing out this heart stopping monstrosity
Dick Armey is a dick.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
If you disagree with them your are by definition not reasonable or serious, you are part of the "redistributionist". He is one of the people who republican poo bahs go to for economic advice!
You can not have an argument with him because all he will do is sneer and grunt while providing no empirical evidence for his claims.
At this point the optics seem quite obvious. No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will attack them for it. Bipartisanship is a canard what the media and Republicans mean by it, is that democrats must move as closely to their position as possible or it is their (democrats) fault. And even if they do that, they will still be attacked.
Well as is the norm Glennzilla (read the post the Texas GOP platform is interesting to say the least, and the catalogue that Greenwald has compiled on the 'bipartisan' bills past is also a hoot) is on the case and does a better job then I expressing my palpable frustration with the process. This part in particular sums up my feelings on the situation:
When the other side has been repudiated by the country as a whole. When their doctrine has been demonstrably shown to be bankrupt and farcical. They should not be coddled. If they want to negotiate, fine. But it needs to be understood that their bargaining posture is highly dubious. The democrats should not be held to some "higher" standard ( a common trap with liberal thought, deference and civility are viewed as weaknesses by the opposition) in this. They did win a sweeping electoral victory, so as such, do get to craft the direction of the policy. And the simpering of media personalities like Mark Halperin makes it no more true.Partisan disputes happen because people are very different and have very different views. Partisanship is about advocating for your own beliefs and discrediting the beliefs that you reject and believe are harmful. This doesn't mean that these disagreements must or should break down along Republican/Democratic lines. On so many critical, contentious issues, the leadership of the two parties are in perfect harmony. Many of the worst policies are embraced by the mainstream of both parties, and the real disagreements now break down on other lines, whether it be insider/outsider or diverging socioeconomic interests or rapidly-re-aligning ideological divisions. But politics is and should be about defeating ideas -- and people -- that are discredited and destructive.
To see why that's a good thing, not a bad thing, go watch the Dick Armey video or read the platform of the Texas GOP. Or re-review what has happened over the last eight years. The further away one is from that morass, the better; the closer one is to it, the worse off things will be.
HALPERIN: The other thing he could have done...you can go for centrist compromises and say to your own party, "Sorry, some of you liberals aren't going to like it, but I'm going to change this legislation radically to get a big centrist majority rather than an all-Democratic vote." He chose not to do that. That's the exact path that George Bush took for most of his presidency with disastrous consequences for bipartisanship and solving big problems.Mr. Halperin shows exactly what I am talking about. Meeting with the opposition. Encouraging them to offer advice
and listening to their counsel, is exactly what we saw from the Bush administration? Where the hell were you during the last 8 years Mark? Maybe the ideas weren't embraced because they were bad ideas. Bipartisianship for the sake of bipartisianship is assinine. Sometimes ideas or policies are just bad. Like the current GOP tax-cut fetish. It is dumb. It doesn't work in this environment. And least we did forget, president Obama did cut some projects from the bill to gain their support and before they even met with him (GOP leadership), they said they would vote no. So yes. It is obviously President Obama's fault. In case the the sarcasm is not obvious I think Mark Halperin is an intellectually dishonest twat.
You do not have to be like Dick up above, to stand by principle or defend your stance . But the Democratic leadership (this includes President Obama as well) should be more forceful in defense of their policy stances.
Be forceful in the assertion of those ideas. We won. You lost. The country chose our ideas over yours. You can have say in things, and we are will to meet with you. But if you try to shovel the same tripe you have been dishing for the last eight years, prepare for a kick in the teeth.
On the upside though, at least the President did sign a good bill into law today.
-cheers
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Richard the Cowardly
Richard Cohen has a piece in the Washington Post today that just bears reading. My mere words can not convey my disgust with this sort of rationalization. The passing of one's own beliefs off as "America writ large", is one of the most disingenuous logical fallacies out there (suggestively points to the links section of the blog!).
But as always Glenn Greenwald serves as the earthly avatar of my seething rage!
I can not help coming back to the issue of the rule of law. Are we a country of laws or of men?
In a conversation I was having today (on whether to prosecute or not), it was posited that those in charge bear a greater responsibility for those infractions of the law. With the added authority they have been entrusted with they also should face stiffer penalties for those infractions.
As it stands now, that is not the case, and you have members of the media cheering that on.
That is disturbing and it is cowardly. If you believe in what you have done, then defend it in court.
-cheers
But as always Glenn Greenwald serves as the earthly avatar of my seething rage!
I can not help coming back to the issue of the rule of law. Are we a country of laws or of men?
In a conversation I was having today (on whether to prosecute or not), it was posited that those in charge bear a greater responsibility for those infractions of the law. With the added authority they have been entrusted with they also should face stiffer penalties for those infractions.
As it stands now, that is not the case, and you have members of the media cheering that on.
That is disturbing and it is cowardly. If you believe in what you have done, then defend it in court.
-cheers
Republican's think you are dumb
Why else would they incessantly push for more tax cuts? That seems to be their solution to every and any problem the country faces. Also it seems to be the only solution they seem to offer.
If they just give rich people more money, then the great unwashed masses will be all taken care of!
That has worked so well thus far. I just wish someone would freaking take Sen. Mitch McConnell to task for it.
I also like how now is the age of bipartisanship. Remember these are (for the most part) the same republicans who wanted to do away with filibustering, and freezing out the minority party.
Basically congressional republicans are trying to find any and all reasons to object to the stimulus bill. They don't have any real ideas for a solution just that they will vote "no".
I firmly believe that President Obama and congressional Democrats should just rewrite the bills and pass it on a straight party line vote. If republicans vote against it go on every news show, website, and newspaper you can find and paint their conduct as obstructionist partisan hackery. When their constituents start calling about why they seek to torpedo the economy even more, maybe then they will get the message. Because obviously getting slaughtered in the election was not enough of an indicator.
-Cheers
If they just give rich people more money, then the great unwashed masses will be all taken care of!
That has worked so well thus far. I just wish someone would freaking take Sen. Mitch McConnell to task for it.
I also like how now is the age of bipartisanship. Remember these are (for the most part) the same republicans who wanted to do away with filibustering, and freezing out the minority party.
Basically congressional republicans are trying to find any and all reasons to object to the stimulus bill. They don't have any real ideas for a solution just that they will vote "no".
I firmly believe that President Obama and congressional Democrats should just rewrite the bills and pass it on a straight party line vote. If republicans vote against it go on every news show, website, and newspaper you can find and paint their conduct as obstructionist partisan hackery. When their constituents start calling about why they seek to torpedo the economy even more, maybe then they will get the message. Because obviously getting slaughtered in the election was not enough of an indicator.
-Cheers
Monday, January 26, 2009
Liberal by any other name...
Forbes Magazine printed a list of the "25 most influencial Liberals in the Media".
It's interesting as a thought experiment. There are some truly liberal people on this list.
Josh Marshall, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein and the like are on the list. These are people who by all definition are actual liberals (though I might make the case that Glenn Greenwald is more of a civil libertarian but I digress). Mostly by self identification.
Where as people like Fred Hiatt, Fareed Zakaria, Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan are not liberal. They do not claim to be nor should they. These are individuals are moderate at best, but more often then not conservatives. Most disagreed with specific Bush-era policies or the pick of Sarah Palin as vice president. That is it.
For all intents and purposes, "liberal" is a self-identifier. You choose to be a member of that group. It is not a title that can be foisted upon someone else.
In my estimation some of the basic pillars of liberalism would probably include (not an exhaustive list), progressive income taxation, universal health care, anti-Iraq invasion (anti-imperialism based foriegn policy), and some sort of governmental response to the issue of climate change. Some would also toss in a commitment to gay marriage rights, or a woman's right to chose as well, but honestly I think that is servicable enough for my purposes.
But what seems to have been the deciding factor the folks at Forbes? Was a lack of interest in voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, or a down right dislike of that ticket.
That may be an over generalization, but only slightly. Interestingly enough Mr. Sullivan has some words to say about his inclusion on the list that I think accurately encapsulate the problem conservative/liberal labels have in being assigned in this day and age. Here are two posts he did on the subject 1 and 2.
I think they are informative for a couple different reasons. Here is one of the relevant points Mr. Sullivan raises:
Personally I think this does an immense disservice to actual conservatives. Those who believe in limited government, or more stringent fiscal policy are not the same as this definition of conservative.
So if you are for gay marriage, you are a liberal by default. Think government should play a bigger role in regulating utilities? Liberal. You can be for a flat tax, and be a defense hawk, but if you are not lock step in line with the new conservatism you are a liberal.
And that is why that list bothers me. It dilutes what it is to actually be a progressive. But even more so it diminishes what it means to offer informed decent as a conservative.
You can see the same sort of disease infecting the national medias depiction of various issues as well. Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post on this topic. If you believe in the rule of law, then yes, even terrorists have rights. They have a right to due process and a right to not be tortured. If you believet that then by conventional wisdom that makes you a liberal.
It is not true. Simply having a belief in the laws and constitutional structure our country is founded on is not a liberal belief. It is a belief held by any who understand that those rules and guidelines are there to protect us from governments tyrannical reach. That they are there to buttress us from the insatiable grasp of men (and women) who hunger for more and more power over their fellow citizens.
These are not liberal beliefs. These are ostensibly American beliefs. The precepts and common ground we all believe our country was founded on.
It is sad commentary when belief in such things as due process, prohibition of illegal torture or illegal surveillance of individuals, have become one of the hallmarks of liberalism, and not just the ideals posited by our founding fathers.
So yeah, I think the Forbes list kind of sucks.
-Cheers
It's interesting as a thought experiment. There are some truly liberal people on this list.
Josh Marshall, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein and the like are on the list. These are people who by all definition are actual liberals (though I might make the case that Glenn Greenwald is more of a civil libertarian but I digress). Mostly by self identification.
Where as people like Fred Hiatt, Fareed Zakaria, Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan are not liberal. They do not claim to be nor should they. These are individuals are moderate at best, but more often then not conservatives. Most disagreed with specific Bush-era policies or the pick of Sarah Palin as vice president. That is it.
For all intents and purposes, "liberal" is a self-identifier. You choose to be a member of that group. It is not a title that can be foisted upon someone else.
In my estimation some of the basic pillars of liberalism would probably include (not an exhaustive list), progressive income taxation, universal health care, anti-Iraq invasion (anti-imperialism based foriegn policy), and some sort of governmental response to the issue of climate change. Some would also toss in a commitment to gay marriage rights, or a woman's right to chose as well, but honestly I think that is servicable enough for my purposes.
But what seems to have been the deciding factor the folks at Forbes? Was a lack of interest in voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, or a down right dislike of that ticket.
That may be an over generalization, but only slightly. Interestingly enough Mr. Sullivan has some words to say about his inclusion on the list that I think accurately encapsulate the problem conservative/liberal labels have in being assigned in this day and age. Here are two posts he did on the subject 1 and 2.
I think they are informative for a couple different reasons. Here is one of the relevant points Mr. Sullivan raises:
Further in Andrew's piece I think he sums it up correctly by stating that "conservatism has become a religious movement". I take his meaning as, the religious right has cooped conservatism so much that no one to the left of Rush Limbaugh is considered conservative. So you are left with the Sean Hannitys, Pat Robinsons andJames Dobsons as your "conservative" voices.None of these positions is in any way a mystery - every single one is in the public record multiple times. So why am I a liberal to these people, to someone smart and decent like Tunku Varadarajan? Why do I earn the prize of "most annoying liberal" out of countless others whose liberalism is avowed and long and uncomplicated, and none of whom supported Reagan and Thatcher and Bush in '88 and Dole and Bush in 2000? I mean: I'm more liberal than Michael Moore?
The answer, I think, is two-fold. The first is that I am openly and proudly gay - another fact that spans the last twenty years. Forbes writes the following:
His advocacy for gay marriage rights and his tendency to view virtually everything through a "gay" prism puts him at odds with many on the right.
Personally I think this does an immense disservice to actual conservatives. Those who believe in limited government, or more stringent fiscal policy are not the same as this definition of conservative.
So if you are for gay marriage, you are a liberal by default. Think government should play a bigger role in regulating utilities? Liberal. You can be for a flat tax, and be a defense hawk, but if you are not lock step in line with the new conservatism you are a liberal.
And that is why that list bothers me. It dilutes what it is to actually be a progressive. But even more so it diminishes what it means to offer informed decent as a conservative.
You can see the same sort of disease infecting the national medias depiction of various issues as well. Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post on this topic. If you believe in the rule of law, then yes, even terrorists have rights. They have a right to due process and a right to not be tortured. If you believet that then by conventional wisdom that makes you a liberal.
It is not true. Simply having a belief in the laws and constitutional structure our country is founded on is not a liberal belief. It is a belief held by any who understand that those rules and guidelines are there to protect us from governments tyrannical reach. That they are there to buttress us from the insatiable grasp of men (and women) who hunger for more and more power over their fellow citizens.
These are not liberal beliefs. These are ostensibly American beliefs. The precepts and common ground we all believe our country was founded on.
It is sad commentary when belief in such things as due process, prohibition of illegal torture or illegal surveillance of individuals, have become one of the hallmarks of liberalism, and not just the ideals posited by our founding fathers.
So yeah, I think the Forbes list kind of sucks.
-Cheers
Social Coteries
So I have an evolving idea. I would like to start a group.
A group that gets together once a week or so. The main purpose of this group is to discuss things.
Sort of like a book club, but over a wide array of topics. Everyone has a hobby horse, everyone has interests. The idea is to create an environment where those things can be shared, discussed and fostered.
Have thoughts on the pros and cons of nuclear power? Bring it to the group, roll over the various merits.
Think we should have a more vegan tilt to our agriculture/consumer base? Bring on the hummus discussions!
Like haberdashery? Well you are going to have explain this.
Basically any topic that comes to mind would be on the table, from amateur oenophiles to articles in Redbook.
With roving locations and what not. The Pig, coffee shops and even a dinner a two would all be appropriate venues. So drinking isn't the main impetus, the open exchange of ideas.
Maybe even something a bit more structured, topics submitted in advance and questions solicited, venues picked.
So those are some of the ideas I was mulling over.
A group that gets together once a week or so. The main purpose of this group is to discuss things.
Sort of like a book club, but over a wide array of topics. Everyone has a hobby horse, everyone has interests. The idea is to create an environment where those things can be shared, discussed and fostered.
Have thoughts on the pros and cons of nuclear power? Bring it to the group, roll over the various merits.
Think we should have a more vegan tilt to our agriculture/consumer base? Bring on the hummus discussions!
Like haberdashery? Well you are going to have explain this.
Basically any topic that comes to mind would be on the table, from amateur oenophiles to articles in Redbook.
With roving locations and what not. The Pig, coffee shops and even a dinner a two would all be appropriate venues. So drinking isn't the main impetus, the open exchange of ideas.
Maybe even something a bit more structured, topics submitted in advance and questions solicited, venues picked.
So those are some of the ideas I was mulling over.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Inauguration...
I haven't really said a lot about the inauguration.
It is pretty hard to put into words the jumble of emotions and pride, while maintaining a healthy distance from hagiographic sycophancy.
So I will just let a picture do the talking for me.
And of course I would add, "And tortured people and spied on me!".
Men are such pigs!
-Cheers
Friday, January 23, 2009
The groove of '08
This is a list of the songs that were in my head most often during 2008
So what are the rest of you all listening to nowadays? Feeling the need to branch out and try some new stuff, and get an idea for what is out there.
-Cheers
- You don't know me - Ben Folds and Regina Spektor. I just have a weakness for Ben Folds
- Halfway Home - Tv on the Radio. These boys from Brooklyn can rock it.
- Paper Planes - M.I.A. I am almost sorry she retired. But it also helped make Pineapple Express that much more awesome.
- Electric Feel - MGMT. The freaking contagious nature of the song coupled with a creepy video is pure win.
- When I Grow Up - Pussycat Dolls. I will offer no defense of this. You have some guilty pleasures, this is mine.
So what are the rest of you all listening to nowadays? Feeling the need to branch out and try some new stuff, and get an idea for what is out there.
-Cheers
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Taking suggestions....
Since it is the beginning of a new year it tends to be customary to make some sort proclamation as to what you seek to change at the dawning of the new epoch.
Tyler dubbed 2009, the "Year of bad decisions".
I am more in tune with, the "Year of behaving badly".
With his looming birthday celebration, I feel it important to have that clarified. In case I wanna put it on some towels or something. Just to get things off on the right foot for the new year.
Yes the goal is to encourage each other to be more spontaneous. And no Scot, you do not get a vote.
Back to serious posting tomorrow.
-cheers
Tyler dubbed 2009, the "Year of bad decisions".
I am more in tune with, the "Year of behaving badly".
With his looming birthday celebration, I feel it important to have that clarified. In case I wanna put it on some towels or something. Just to get things off on the right foot for the new year.
Yes the goal is to encourage each other to be more spontaneous. And no Scot, you do not get a vote.
Back to serious posting tomorrow.
-cheers
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Light posting today....
You can cover it..you can remake it....but the original is still the best.
Have a good day ya'll...see you in the future!
Have a good day ya'll...see you in the future!
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Ballad of Scot and Tyler....
Though I am sick...and may well die of the ole damp lung. I can pass from this mortal coil knowing full well that I may have seen the most awesomest weekend of all time.
I haven't really slept in about 2 days (for that Scot and Tyler are not to blame, coughing fits and some weird leg pains would be the culprit), and I will be on the D. L for much of this week. I have been warned that this coming weekend...the goal is actually to force Tyler to get a new liver. So I want to be in tip top shape in case I have to flee law enforcement. But I can say this weekend was well worth the effort. And I would be remiss if I did not at least meditate on it for a moment.
It would be hard to capture the sheer enormity of the awesomeness. So I will just say there was booty shaking, girls dancing in their underwear, a Jay-Z sighting, bar dancing and Scot shaking his money maker in a cage.
Yep. Scot. Dancing. In. A. CAGE!!!!!
When the weekend started I was sick and verging on a serious bout of melancholy. So I have to give a genuine and heartfelt thank you to Scot, Tyler, Michelle, Amy, Jay-Z and the girl who was dancing in her underwear.
Now that it is done, I am still sick, but I feel a bit lighter.
I am lucky to have friends who hate my sobriety as much as I do. These are the moments that we cherish, the times with friends that reminds us we do "fit" sometimes.
For someone like me those times are rare. So it is always nice when they happen. Though I am sure that copious amounts of alcohol may have helped.
Also, I still hate both of you.
In case you were wondering.
-Cheers
I haven't really slept in about 2 days (for that Scot and Tyler are not to blame, coughing fits and some weird leg pains would be the culprit), and I will be on the D. L for much of this week. I have been warned that this coming weekend...the goal is actually to force Tyler to get a new liver. So I want to be in tip top shape in case I have to flee law enforcement. But I can say this weekend was well worth the effort. And I would be remiss if I did not at least meditate on it for a moment.
It would be hard to capture the sheer enormity of the awesomeness. So I will just say there was booty shaking, girls dancing in their underwear, a Jay-Z sighting, bar dancing and Scot shaking his money maker in a cage.
Yep. Scot. Dancing. In. A. CAGE!!!!!
When the weekend started I was sick and verging on a serious bout of melancholy. So I have to give a genuine and heartfelt thank you to Scot, Tyler, Michelle, Amy, Jay-Z and the girl who was dancing in her underwear.
Now that it is done, I am still sick, but I feel a bit lighter.
I am lucky to have friends who hate my sobriety as much as I do. These are the moments that we cherish, the times with friends that reminds us we do "fit" sometimes.
For someone like me those times are rare. So it is always nice when they happen. Though I am sure that copious amounts of alcohol may have helped.
Also, I still hate both of you.
In case you were wondering.
-Cheers
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Late Night....
I was going to post something...then I noticed I was drunk....and stopped....I am sure it was amazingly embarrassing and possibly immensely entertaining. If I say anything, it would be I have a new appreciation for Single-T's gal! She may be awesome.
And yes going out on campus is never a good idea.
Instead I will just state for the record. I hate Scot. He may be a terrorist hell bent on destroying my liver.
-cheers
And yes going out on campus is never a good idea.
Instead I will just state for the record. I hate Scot. He may be a terrorist hell bent on destroying my liver.
-cheers
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Tortured Politics
Anyone who has had the the unfortunate luck of having to talk to me over the last couple of weeks, has had to deal with my constant commentary on whether to prosecute members of the Bush administration over their "Global War on Terror" (GWoT) policies.
I have been rolling the issue over and over in my mind for a few weeks now, and have decided to commit some of it to the Internet machine. From my perspective there seem to be at least three distinct camps of argument on this issue; those who think prosecutions should take place, those who do not, and those who think they probably should take place but now is not the best time because we should "look to the future and not the past".
If I were to describe my feeling on the subject I would place myself squarely in the first group I mentioned. Those who wish to see prosecutions now. All the various camps have their rationales. From commentary on the nexus between National Security and Liberty to simple paeans to the Rule of Law. Listed below are few examples of the types of argumentation I have been seeing in defense of immediate prosecutions or against prosecutions; Joe Klein vs Glenn Greenwald as well as few other commentaries (with the Ignatius and Scarborough pieces being against prosecution):
Klein I
Greenwald
Klein II
David Ignatius
More Greenwald
And this exchange on "Morning Joe" between Joe Scarborough and Krista Freeland.
These are the confines of the argument, that I am interested in. Regardless of whether you think torture is effective or not, it is illegal by U.S legal precedent and law. If that is taken as my thesis statement (in a real thesis it would be backed up by citations of Article II of the constitution and relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions treaty, but this is a blog and I fear this has become too long a post as is!), and it is conceded that under U.S legal code it is illegal to torture prisoners, what is gained from not prosecuting the individuals involved?
I happen to believe it is morally reprehensible as well as illegal. I will try, however to keep it to the legal ramifications ( I will fail, but I thought I should at least state that intent). In that vein I will immediately disregard what I placed in parenthetical! Because I could go on for days about the developed mentality that these acts are less heinous if "we" do them because we have cause. Everyone has "cause" when they do horrible acts, the current Gaza-Israeli conflict is a prefect example of that as well as our current deliberations on possible torture prosecutions.
Okay back on subject. What I am more concerned about is whether we are a nation of laws or not. Either we all are viewed equally under the law, from the lofty perches of the White House down to the dregs of the Louisiana bayou, or we are not. That seems to be what is being glossed over here. Investigations into whether Roger Clemons lied to congress (yes!), but nary a peep from the DoJ on the demonstrably false statements from the Bush Administration about its policies? (See here on the sort inequities I am talking about.)
I am not arguing whether these torture policies were necessary or not in the instances it was used. That is actually irrelevant to me. Whether it provides actionable information or not is relevant either. I am merely concerned that if torture was used, it was illegal. It is fine if you think it was justified, I merely ask that you be held accountable for those actions in a court of law. Lay out your defense, and if a judge, jury or tribunal finds those reasons sufficient then so be it. But laws were most assuredly broken, in the case of whether terrorism suspects were tortured or during the whole FISA debacle.
So it is not as David Ignatius says in the above article:
It is about whether we are a nation of laws or not, and it is important in a nation of laws that those laws be applied equally to all.
A pleasant note from the confirmation hearings this morning.
This is the sort of thing I want to hear from people in charge of safeguarding our rights and civil liberties, and one part of this has to be prosecuting those who break those laws. It is important for the integrity of the legal system that happens. If you believe that a law is inadequate, change it, do not simple ignore it. If you believe that there are mitigating circumstance which should absolve individuals of criminal penalties then have the laws rewritten to reflect that. Do not try to dodge it.
It is not a matter of "settling scores", it is about what our laws mean, and whether there are any constraints on those we place in power.
For me, the answer will always be "Yes there are constraints, and that is why we have a Constitution."
-cheers
I have been rolling the issue over and over in my mind for a few weeks now, and have decided to commit some of it to the Internet machine. From my perspective there seem to be at least three distinct camps of argument on this issue; those who think prosecutions should take place, those who do not, and those who think they probably should take place but now is not the best time because we should "look to the future and not the past".
If I were to describe my feeling on the subject I would place myself squarely in the first group I mentioned. Those who wish to see prosecutions now. All the various camps have their rationales. From commentary on the nexus between National Security and Liberty to simple paeans to the Rule of Law. Listed below are few examples of the types of argumentation I have been seeing in defense of immediate prosecutions or against prosecutions; Joe Klein vs Glenn Greenwald as well as few other commentaries (with the Ignatius and Scarborough pieces being against prosecution):
Klein I
Greenwald
Klein II
David Ignatius
More Greenwald
And this exchange on "Morning Joe" between Joe Scarborough and Krista Freeland.
These are the confines of the argument, that I am interested in. Regardless of whether you think torture is effective or not, it is illegal by U.S legal precedent and law. If that is taken as my thesis statement (in a real thesis it would be backed up by citations of Article II of the constitution and relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions treaty, but this is a blog and I fear this has become too long a post as is!), and it is conceded that under U.S legal code it is illegal to torture prisoners, what is gained from not prosecuting the individuals involved?
I happen to believe it is morally reprehensible as well as illegal. I will try, however to keep it to the legal ramifications ( I will fail, but I thought I should at least state that intent). In that vein I will immediately disregard what I placed in parenthetical! Because I could go on for days about the developed mentality that these acts are less heinous if "we" do them because we have cause. Everyone has "cause" when they do horrible acts, the current Gaza-Israeli conflict is a prefect example of that as well as our current deliberations on possible torture prosecutions.
Okay back on subject. What I am more concerned about is whether we are a nation of laws or not. Either we all are viewed equally under the law, from the lofty perches of the White House down to the dregs of the Louisiana bayou, or we are not. That seems to be what is being glossed over here. Investigations into whether Roger Clemons lied to congress (yes!), but nary a peep from the DoJ on the demonstrably false statements from the Bush Administration about its policies? (See here on the sort inequities I am talking about.)
I am not arguing whether these torture policies were necessary or not in the instances it was used. That is actually irrelevant to me. Whether it provides actionable information or not is relevant either. I am merely concerned that if torture was used, it was illegal. It is fine if you think it was justified, I merely ask that you be held accountable for those actions in a court of law. Lay out your defense, and if a judge, jury or tribunal finds those reasons sufficient then so be it. But laws were most assuredly broken, in the case of whether terrorism suspects were tortured or during the whole FISA debacle.
So it is not as David Ignatius says in the above article:
To underscore the message, Obama indicated that he would oppose retrospective investigations of wrongdoing by the CIA and other agencies, arguing: "When it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed [to] looking at what we got wrong in the past." This is the kind of realism that will disappoint liberal score-settlers, but it makes clear that Obama has a grim appreciation of the dangers America still faces from al-Qaeda and its allies.
It is about whether we are a nation of laws or not, and it is important in a nation of laws that those laws be applied equally to all.
A pleasant note from the confirmation hearings this morning.
This is the sort of thing I want to hear from people in charge of safeguarding our rights and civil liberties, and one part of this has to be prosecuting those who break those laws. It is important for the integrity of the legal system that happens. If you believe that a law is inadequate, change it, do not simple ignore it. If you believe that there are mitigating circumstance which should absolve individuals of criminal penalties then have the laws rewritten to reflect that. Do not try to dodge it.
It is not a matter of "settling scores", it is about what our laws mean, and whether there are any constraints on those we place in power.
For me, the answer will always be "Yes there are constraints, and that is why we have a Constitution."
-cheers
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Blog Machine
So it is that time of year for awards and award shows. The internets are no different!
Normally I wouldn't post such trivia, but it is subject matter that is near and dear to me, so I would like you all to drop by and put in a vote here for the best Science blog.
I would prefer a real science blog won instead of Watt's up with that, a haven for global warming deniers and just generally bad junk science. So I figured I would take the time to post something about it.
I would recommend Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, or Real Climate. All are fairly excellent choices depending on you focus.
It's unscientific, I know. But well, I just can't abide bad science.
-Cheers
Normally I wouldn't post such trivia, but it is subject matter that is near and dear to me, so I would like you all to drop by and put in a vote here for the best Science blog.
I would prefer a real science blog won instead of Watt's up with that, a haven for global warming deniers and just generally bad junk science. So I figured I would take the time to post something about it.
I would recommend Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, or Real Climate. All are fairly excellent choices depending on you focus.
It's unscientific, I know. But well, I just can't abide bad science.
-Cheers
Monday, January 12, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Brief respite...
Before I plunge back in to the various ills that are plaguing my mind, I thought it might be nice to take a step back and talk about something different for a bit.
During the holidays I always get a little bit nostalgic, thinking about the past, how the year has gone and what is to come in the new year. Same as most people I would suspect.
However this year, I spent some time thinking about, "what I would do if I could do anything?".
Now, since I am involved, I am intentionally avoiding any super hero related activity.
So with that out of the way, I always wanted to be a writer.
Funny I know, specially for someone who can not hold on to a narrative to save their life! I didn't even want to be that good at it really. Just being one of those guys who banged out those dime store westerns, or a good hard boiled detective story, would have been plenty. Books like Remo Williams, or Mike Hammer, or some good old fashioned pulp novels about Tarzan or Doc Savage, sort of like toss away romance novels, but with dames, broads and internal monologues.
That always just seemed kind of fun to me.
But I guess what I really always wanted to do was to write a fantasy novel. More then likely it would be a lengthy series involving a paladin, as the main character.
So what would you do if you could do anything?
-cheers
During the holidays I always get a little bit nostalgic, thinking about the past, how the year has gone and what is to come in the new year. Same as most people I would suspect.
However this year, I spent some time thinking about, "what I would do if I could do anything?".
Now, since I am involved, I am intentionally avoiding any super hero related activity.
So with that out of the way, I always wanted to be a writer.
Funny I know, specially for someone who can not hold on to a narrative to save their life! I didn't even want to be that good at it really. Just being one of those guys who banged out those dime store westerns, or a good hard boiled detective story, would have been plenty. Books like Remo Williams, or Mike Hammer, or some good old fashioned pulp novels about Tarzan or Doc Savage, sort of like toss away romance novels, but with dames, broads and internal monologues.
That always just seemed kind of fun to me.
But I guess what I really always wanted to do was to write a fantasy novel. More then likely it would be a lengthy series involving a paladin, as the main character.
So what would you do if you could do anything?
-cheers
Comics.....
I am new to it, but if you like web comics....Girls with Slingshots is pretty good.
Also it continues, my imaginary indie-hipster chick crush!
-Cheers
Also it continues, my imaginary indie-hipster chick crush!
-Cheers
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Ummm.....
http://www.louisvillefreeface.com/index.htm
This is the sort of altruistic spirit we need to lick our current problems!
-Cheers
This is the sort of altruistic spirit we need to lick our current problems!
-Cheers
Checking the scoreboard...
Just had to comment on this...
Back in high school, my coach used to always say, "Before you go into the game check the scoreboard. Then when you come out check it again. If it is better then when you came in that is all that matters.".
So I just had to post some of the numbers MSNBC had up this morning comparing January 2001 to now (Steve Benen has additional commentary here):
On the upside, it would not take much to get these numbers to improve. I would advocate making job creation priority
number one (sink money into colleges, infrastructure projects, new and alternate technologies), and push through a national health care system (that could relieve some of the burden on certain struggling industries, like the automotive and manufacturing segments of our economy), and finally stop listening to republicans, remove Harry Reid as majority leader, pimp slap Jay Rockefeller and Diane Fienstein. These people have been wrong more times then I can count over the last 5 years. If they want a seat the table, stop with the rhetorical bull shit. Singing the virtues of endless tax
cuts and empty paeans to bi-partisanship are not helping and have not helped.
I understand the dual weight of the statement I am about to make, some ideas are just wrong/incorrect, they do not deserve an equal hearing (Yeah I am looking at you Sen. Inhofe).
Also one other thing, this is small, but it would show the governments commitment to addressing the problem. Members of congress should retract the automatic yearly pay increase they receive, until the country's unemployment rate decreases. Why should they get pay raises when others are losing their jobs by the hundreds of thousands per month, especially since they share some portion of the blame?
-Cheers
Back in high school, my coach used to always say, "Before you go into the game check the scoreboard. Then when you come out check it again. If it is better then when you came in that is all that matters.".
So I just had to post some of the numbers MSNBC had up this morning comparing January 2001 to now (Steve Benen has additional commentary here):
Not really the sorts of numbers that make you feel particularly optimistic. I suspect the excuses will start any time from the president's defenders and ideological supporters.UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Then: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
Now: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE
Then: 10,587 (close of Friday, Jan. 19, 2001)
Now: 9,015 (close of Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009)CONSUMER CONFIDENCE (1985=100)
Then: 115.7 (Conference Board, January 2001)
Now: 38.0, which is an all-time low (Conference Board, December 2008)FAMILIES LIVING IN POVERTY
Then: 6.4 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 7.6 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent numbers available)AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE
Then: 39.8 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 45.7 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent available)U.S. BUDGET
Then: +236.2 billion (2000, Congressional Budget Office)
Now: -$1.2 trillion (projected figure for 2009, Congressional Budget Office)
On the upside, it would not take much to get these numbers to improve. I would advocate making job creation priority
number one (sink money into colleges, infrastructure projects, new and alternate technologies), and push through a national health care system (that could relieve some of the burden on certain struggling industries, like the automotive and manufacturing segments of our economy), and finally stop listening to republicans, remove Harry Reid as majority leader, pimp slap Jay Rockefeller and Diane Fienstein. These people have been wrong more times then I can count over the last 5 years. If they want a seat the table, stop with the rhetorical bull shit. Singing the virtues of endless tax
cuts and empty paeans to bi-partisanship are not helping and have not helped.
I understand the dual weight of the statement I am about to make, some ideas are just wrong/incorrect, they do not deserve an equal hearing (Yeah I am looking at you Sen. Inhofe).
Also one other thing, this is small, but it would show the governments commitment to addressing the problem. Members of congress should retract the automatic yearly pay increase they receive, until the country's unemployment rate decreases. Why should they get pay raises when others are losing their jobs by the hundreds of thousands per month, especially since they share some portion of the blame?
-Cheers
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Plug one..plug two...
I am still working up some serious dudgeon over the whole Thomas Tamm issue. I got a bit side tracked from my increasing rancor, by Mr. Roland Burris and the Senate Democratic caucus . So I am currently stoking the flames of a couple of different polemic screeds......
But that is neither here nor there.
This is more a post to pub a new blog y'all should check out:
True Stories of My Life?
I give props for the relatively inventive notion behind the blog. So check it out and guess what is what. Also it is entertaining and way better written then this crappy blog!
Also there is this entertaining post on what is and is not a word of at Ta-Nehisi Coates blog.
Tee hee.
So yes "irregardless" is a word, but my friend you ain't no neologist, just a maroon for using it!
Double negatives, finely split infinitives and dangling participles abound!
-cheers
But that is neither here nor there.
This is more a post to pub a new blog y'all should check out:
True Stories of My Life?
I give props for the relatively inventive notion behind the blog. So check it out and guess what is what. Also it is entertaining and way better written then this crappy blog!
Also there is this entertaining post on what is and is not a word of at Ta-Nehisi Coates blog.
Of course it's a word, the question is, is it acceptable. There are a lot of things that are acceptable in some situations, and not acceptable in others. "Table" is generally acceptable, but "ass" or "fuck" might not be, In some cases they would. It's the same for "hopefully" or "irregardless." They're all words, but it behooves us to be serious and ask, is it acceptable in this context? If you're delivering the State of the Union address, maybe "fuck" is not acceptable. If you're having sex with your girlfriend, maybe it is acceptable.
Tee hee.
So yes "irregardless" is a word, but my friend you ain't no neologist, just a maroon for using it!
Double negatives, finely split infinitives and dangling participles abound!
-cheers
Our craven leaders.....
I will have some more on this later, but this blog post by Glenn Greenwald captures a feeling I have had for a long time:
Mr. Greenwald's post is about the unfortunate case of Thomas Tamm. This man has sacrificed all to bring to light illegal actions of our government. None of those government functionaries are being prosecuted yet this man is. There is no question that laws were broken. People quibble over whether the executive can ignore those edicts, but the idea that there were not laws that governed these activities is not in question.
----
On a separate topic, if I hear that Roland Burris is an "honorable man" or "utmost integrity", I am going to scream. There may have been a time when that was true, but now, he as sold his soul for his 30 pieces of silver. His thin ambitions, glory seeking narcissism, coupled with the absolutely disgusting obliviousness to the facts of this appointment are revolting. What he has done is effectively lost my vote. I will not vote for this man ever. A person of integrity would have turned down this appointment, and asked for the governors resignation. For the sake of the state and its people. No, instead what we have is some one who is more interested in chiseling in a new "achievement" on his absolutely fabulous monument to himself. So yeah, you could count me as, not a supporter of Senator Roland Burris.
Also Harry Reid should no longer be the Senate Majority leader, his tenure has been abysmal. It is a history of capitulation and empty gestures. He would bar, Burris, but wouldn't discipline Joe Lieberman? The FISA debacle, investigations in to the telecommunications bill, this man has failed in ever conceivable fashion as leader of the Senate.
There are few viewpoints, if there are any, which trigger more fervent agreement across the political and media establishment than the view that George Bush, Dick Cheney and other top officials should not be criminally investigated, let alone prosecuted, for the various laws they have broken over the last eight years. Conversely, in the Beltway world, few things will render you "Unserious" as quickly and irrevocably as arguing that Bush officials should be held accountable under the rule of law for their multiple violations of criminal statutes.
Mr. Greenwald's post is about the unfortunate case of Thomas Tamm. This man has sacrificed all to bring to light illegal actions of our government. None of those government functionaries are being prosecuted yet this man is. There is no question that laws were broken. People quibble over whether the executive can ignore those edicts, but the idea that there were not laws that governed these activities is not in question.
----
On a separate topic, if I hear that Roland Burris is an "honorable man" or "utmost integrity", I am going to scream. There may have been a time when that was true, but now, he as sold his soul for his 30 pieces of silver. His thin ambitions, glory seeking narcissism, coupled with the absolutely disgusting obliviousness to the facts of this appointment are revolting. What he has done is effectively lost my vote. I will not vote for this man ever. A person of integrity would have turned down this appointment, and asked for the governors resignation. For the sake of the state and its people. No, instead what we have is some one who is more interested in chiseling in a new "achievement" on his absolutely fabulous monument to himself. So yeah, you could count me as, not a supporter of Senator Roland Burris.
Also Harry Reid should no longer be the Senate Majority leader, his tenure has been abysmal. It is a history of capitulation and empty gestures. He would bar, Burris, but wouldn't discipline Joe Lieberman? The FISA debacle, investigations in to the telecommunications bill, this man has failed in ever conceivable fashion as leader of the Senate.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)