Liberal Hyperbole

Soapbox: Prison, and "cruel and unusual punishment"

2009-06-08T23:37:00.002-07:00

OK, it's time for me to vent about something that doesn't have anything to do with any particular current event, or something in my own life lately, or anything like that. In fact, that might be part of the problem with it, for prison rape pretty much never gets a mention in the news media. It seems to be accepted in U.S. society as just a constant in the background, something we pretty well know is going on, hence the surfeit of jokes and other alleged humour about it, but out-of-sight, out-of-mind, it never makes the papers.

For a rather unpleasant sample, there's a song by some Bob and Tom team called "Prison Bitch" (tasteless, disturbing YouTube video warning).

What I really loathe is how society as a whole seems to just accept this state of things in prisons, and treat prison rape as though it were merely part of a just and deserved punishment for the inmates. As Ezra Klein wrote a few years ago:

We've decided to tacitly accept rape in our prisons because we believe deeply and firmly in the guilt of all who enter -- this is just further punishment. Better yet, we're not the executors -- that such barbarism occurs behind bars is further confirmation that those we incarcerate are monsters. The assaults make us feel better, they vindicate our sentencing. And we can countenance them because we never face their horrors:...

However, we do, after all, have that pesky 8th Amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, after all. And, if one considered this part of the punishment, I'm pretty sure it would qualify on both counts.

I don't take much stock in playing which-is-worse oneupmanship, but if I had to pick the more vile between this and waterboarding alleged Al-Qaeda-linked persons, I just might call the prison rape system worse, largely because the "punishment" is completely uncorrelated to the crime for which they've been convicted. Indeed, the HRW report linked below suggests that the worse offenders (prior to incarceration) tend more often to be the rapists, and the victims tend to be those who've committed lesser crimes, along with a few other factors unrelated to the severity of their crime.

A Little Something More Serious

2009-06-06T04:25:00.009-07:00

In reading on Dr. Tiller's death, a good and compassionate man murdered by a zealot, I wonder if these forced pregnancy people have any kind of empathy at all. Birth defects and fetal deaths are not uncommon, even in this day and age. Miscarriages aren't rare either, come to think of it. I really wonder what these people think...on second thought, no, no I don't. I wouldn't want to be in their soulless minds, picking on strangers to make themselves feel better, faking compassion and concern trolling abortion clinics so that they can prop up their fragile egos for a few more minutes.

People can think that abortion is murder. That is their opinion; they are entitled to their own opinions on things, though they may disagree with me. We will just agree to disagree. People can even be uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. What cannot be done, however, is curtail the rights of other people to obtain legal medical care. If we go down that road, there is nothing to stop your doctor from not treating you because you're overweight or obese, smoke, eat an occasional hamburger, or drink. Had a heart attack? Well, you rarely exercised and your primary care physician recommended it, so why should you get that bypass surgery or angioplasty? You should have thought of that before it became serious enough that you had the heart attack. Oh? You haven't had a check up in years? Well, tough for you. Maybe your doctor could have warned you that your blood pressure and cholesterol were high. Didn't think of that, now did you? Well, if you don't die, then you're just going to have to live with the consequences. Too late for you now.

And it's not just that part of it. The other part is medical costs. Abortion costs far less than pregnancy and delivery, in terms of medical care, even at later stages. And if we talk about high risk pregnancy, and throw in a very ill baby, then the costs can be huge. Let's say that abortion is outlawed. It's not cheap to keep a premature baby alive. And many, many things can go wrong during a pregnancy. What if the mother has a complication of pregnancy that led to a stroke and she's still carrying the child? They have to keep her on life support in the hospital. But then they notice something wrong with the baby and they have to do an emergency c-section...and the baby is premature. And they have the baby on life support as well, because the child is alive but just barely. If you think that all of this medical care for both mother and child is cheap, you're delusional. Oh, maybe they have insurance, even just catastrophic coverage, and with this scenario, they've pretty much blown through their deductible (if they had one) if not on the first day then at least in the first few days. And what happens if they don't have insurance and can't pay? If mother and child are in the hospital for a month, I'd expect that the claims for it would be very high. One high claim will not necessarily hurt a large group. But we are talking about forcing all women to go through complications (leaving out the emotional turmoil of fathers for a moment), regardless of insurance or ability to pay. If you have several women, even in a small group plan, and this happens every few years or so, the premiums will be astronomical. Actuaries calculate premiums based on the likelihood of particular diseases in classes of individuals/groups; one claim may not affect premiums greatly but repeated claims will. And that's not even counting the struggle that dad has - both baby and wife are confined to the hospital, and that's really heartbreaking. Worse, even if they live, they now have a lot of medical bills to pay, not just the hospitalization but also follow-up appointments, surgeries, durable medical equipment that may be needed (like oxygen tanks or monitors).

I may be a liberal but I'm not heartless bastard. Oh, yes, it's a tragic situation, but it would also cost more than angioplasty. Now, if the woman in question had aborted the child when it was necessary (even if the child is wanted and it's late in the trimester), if the doctor and the patient came to this very hard decision, the woman would not have the stroke and be hospitalized, dad would not have to go through the possibility of losing everyone he loved, and the expenses to them would be less. The insurance may not pick up all of the costs but remember - claims totaling $1 million are different than claims totaling $6000, especially for smaller groups.

The thing is, forced birthers don't care. They don't care about costs, they don't care about lives, they don't care about suffering, they just don't care. They have no knowledge of how anything works - medical care, pregnancy, insurance, compassion - and they think that they're morally superior. Which is the other thing that gets me angry about the forced birthers...

Dr. Tiller was murdered in church. A man who was compelled to help women in the most difficult time of their lives, a man of compassion and dignity, murdered in a house of worship. A person who went to work every single day knowing it could be his last day on earth, all because he felt it necessary to provide the best care he could to expectant parents facing such a tragedy. And he was killed in church. In my opinion, Dr. Tiller was more of a Christian than his murderer.

Forced birthers don't even care about their own religion. Their bible must be pretty thin, what with leaving out the words of the Jesus.

Who Let The Dogs In?

2009-06-03T06:25:00.005-07:00

While I understand the drive for creating something, I do at least recognize that I can't do everything.

I had this inspiration of doing like a youtube/podcast thing playing a demon who works in Hell. I'm still thinking about it, and how I would go about doing this as to make it pretty believable (still working on the script!).

However, I at least have enough sense not to be a conservative rapper. Case in point:

I damn near died laughing. They should have a warning on this, like "May laugh yourself to death" or something. The lyrics? Totally awesome. I'm glad that "the youngins" are trying to uplift the very same party that stands for sexism, racism, homophobia, robber barons, and rapid depletion of natural resources as well as religious domination and war. Because what's cooler than bombing some brown people? Torture! And Jesus!

The lyrics are a laughfest. Really. I think that they need a little help.

Thank you Miss Cali for reminding us of marriage
Can't support abortion, and call yourself a Christian
I support life, you're a puzzled politician

Translation: I like to keep the bitches down, yo. That's where they belong.

So, since I'm feeling generous today, perhaps they could use this as a guideline:

I keep down the the bitches and hos
kickin’ liberal hippies in the nose
chilin wit’ my bros
pressin’ red buttons
blasting them desert hos
straight into the sun
you know you wanna join the fun
of being a Young Con
not “convict” son
conservative man
worshiping Ayn Rand
savin’ precious fetuses
for the Lord Savior Jesus.

See? Not that hard to take awful rap and elevate it to half-assed. Yo.

Bitter commentary

2009-06-01T19:10:00.005-07:00

Much of the response to the recent assassination of late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller puts me in mind of this bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I particularly have in mind the response from the likes of Michelle Malkin, about how we can't hold anti-choicers responsible for the act of this single lone gunman, and shouldn't take measures against future violence in the heat of the moment.

Please, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

(Relevant section starts at about 5:04, key phrases at 5:48)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

2009-05-27T23:43:00.003-07:00

Just a little note that I'm finally active again over at my other associated blog, Class Wargames. I'm taking a macroeconomics class, and blogging on subjects that come up during it over there.

On Means and Ends: Still Torture

2009-05-09T23:41:00.005-07:00

In the midst of this also-otherwise-fine item from Juliet Lapidos of Slate, "There Are Four Lights! Revisiting Star Trek: The Next Generation's eerily prescient torture episode," is this key paragraph, as far as my own little obsession with means & ends goes:

The extended torture sessions take a toll not just on Picard but on his interrogator as well. The more time the Cardassian spends with Picard, the more he becomes fixated on breaking his prisoner. And so the supposed goal of torture—information—is sidelined, while the means by which the goal will theoretically be achieved—mental submission—becomes an end in itself. As Picard puts it, "Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders it is still practiced."

Cf. On Means and Ends: Torture

Best Email Ever

2009-01-17T06:37:00.005-07:00

So I'm going through my email and cleaning out the junk box. For some reason, I'm on an email list for the Rev. Lou Sheldon at The Traditional Values Coalition. Most of the time I skip over those emails, as well as the ones from Wisconsin Right To Life (Right to Be Forcibly Pregnant, is more like it), but then this headline caught my eye:

Obamunist Nominee Gave U.S. Port To Communists

I had to see this article. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. There's only one line that address this issue. The first half or so of the article reminds us that Panetta worked for Clinton, and CLINTON HAD A BLOWJOB! DID WE MENTION THAT HE HAD A BLOWJOB? BECAUSE HE DID. No loony theories that China was going to take over the U.S., no speculation that Islamomarxofacist hoards are going to infiltrate the country. I really expected better.

Clark's Coincidence

2008-12-02T21:10:00.005-07:00

OK, I usually steer clear of posting this kind of post, but it's time for some speculation, theorizing, hypothesizing, and rank rumourmonging.

It should come as no surprise to long-time readers of this blog (if any) that I'm a fan of the idea of retired General Wesley Clark as Secretary of Defense, but knowing that retired military can't serve as SoD too soon after their military time, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him in any of various other Cabinet positions. (He does have a degree in economics from Oxford, after all; potentially useful in these times.)

Then, there was that overblown dust-up about his remarks that McCain's Vietnam service & POW-hood were not alone enough to qualify him for the Presidency.

Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

After which, the Obama campaign Largely disavowed him and his words. After that, I had pretty much abandoned any such hopes for him.

However, a couple of recent news items have me rethinking that. The first one that caught my attention in this regard was the appointment of Samantha Power to Obama's transition team. As you may recall, back in March, she was reported to have said:

[Hillary Clinton] is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything.

(A brief aside: I find it interesting that reporters will grant off-recordness by default to Bush administration officials, but report things from Obama advisors that are stated as off-the-record in midsentence.)

After this came out, Power resigned from the Obama campaign. However, it was recently announced that she would be part of his transition team for the Department of State, after Hillary Clinton was leaked as the likely (since official) choice for Obama's Secretary of State. This seemed like an unsubtle enough way of provoking those who were jumping on his campaign for misstatements and inartful phrasing that it got me thinking that there might be room for forgiveness for Gen. Clark, as well.

However, there was the talk of current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates staying on for at least a time with the Obama administration, also since confirmed. Apparently, Obama wants to keep him around while we withdraw our forces from Iraq, preferably within that 16 month time period that Obama had described during his campaign.

At this point, I thought to myself, "hmm, 16 months after inauguration, that would be in May 2010. I wonder when Clark would be eligible for an appointment to Secretary of Defense?" So I double-checked my recollection that it was a ten-year waiting period (10 U.S.C, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 2, § 113, "A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force."), and went to look up when Clark had resigned his commission. And what did I find?

Clark retired May 2, 2000; ergo, eligible May 2, 2010. The very same month that that 16 month period comes to an end. It could certainly be purest coincidence. But, as a famous presidential speechwriter once said, "Would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to!"

Light at the End of the Crazy Tunnel

2008-11-07T04:58:00.004-07:00

You know, I'm getting kind of sick of the "bipartisan" call on behalf of Republicans and the Beltway.

Face it, suckers, you lost.

Real America voted for the Black Man as President because he was speaking our language: change from the status quo, infrastructure rebuilding, bringing back our civil liberties, not to mention fixing our communities. I was talking to someone the other day who admitted that he voted Republican, but was glad that Obama won. I was walking down the street to the mall, and there was a group of people just walking around yelling "Obama won!" and cheering for the sheer joy of it.

That's Real America, motherfuckers. Get over yourselves. You lost.

Even if the Presidental Limo gets outfitted with spinners and those air-freshener crowns in the back, I don't give a fuck as long as I get my tax cut and we get alternative energy spending. Spinners on a car have never bothered me one bit, some are actually cool, and as for those crowns, well, my 60 year old mother thought they were awesome. And we're white. So suck on it losers, we won.

This election was a referendum on Republican policy, and America bitchslapped it with a resounding "Hell, NO!" at the polls. If George Bush had a mandate in 2004 with a few thousand votes, Obama's got a SUPERMANDATE, and doesn't have to be bipartisan, bitches. Go on, grab at those straws, but it's still not going to erase the EPIC FAIL that is the Republican party, take your motherfucking ball and just go home. Your game was good for a bit, but someone who knew what they were doing came to the court and wiped your ass with it. Now you're just being whiny about it. You've lost your power, at our hands. And you damn well deserve that, what with all the destroying of our country you've done. And I will do what my parents did for me, and remind the youngsters of this time, so that they grow up and never vote for you depraved motherfuckers.

Young people voted, and do you think that they voted just for themselves? They see what trouble their parents are in, their grandparents, aunts, uncles...and they voted for someone who would make a reasonable stab at change, so that the hardships they see for their family members might ease up. Why on earth do people think that only old people vote for "the children"? Do you think those young adults are totally incapable of voting for a candidate that would make Mom and Dad's life better? Apparently, there are some people out there who don't know any young people.

We're all in this together, us and the whole fucking world. You can take your isolationism and and exceptionalism and shove it straight up your ass.

And your bipartisanship? Launch that into motherfucking space - I don't want to see that shit again, unless you're talking bipartisanship with socialists and progressives. You lost, fair and square, America has spoken, and we resoundingly said that we don't want to listen to YOU.

Election night prep

2008-10-28T22:54:00.014-07:00

This is just a collection of links to the CNN election results pages for the races that seem to be of special interest, mostly for my own benefit, but feel free to follow along. Note that I'm extrapolating the likely URLs based on their 2004 results pages, so there likely will be dead links until the day, and might be even then; I'll update them if I find different URLs. And I'm publishing before all the names are filled in; I'll be completing it as time goes by.

Presidential Election: Obama v. McCain
Senate races:
- Alaska: Begich v. convicted felon "Series of Tubes" Stevens
- Colorado: M. Udall v. Schaffer
- Georgia: Martin v. Chambliss
- Kentucky: Lunsford v. McConnell
- Minnesota: Franken v. Coleman
- Mississippi: Musgrove v. Wicker
- North Carolina: Hagan v. Dole
- New Hampshire: Shaheen v. Sununu
- New Mexico: T. Udall v. Pearce
- Oregon: Merkley v. Smith
- Virginia: Warner v. Gilmore
House of Representatives:
- Arizona: 8th: Giffords v. Bee
- Colorado: 4th: Markey v. Musgrave
- Florida: 8th: Grayson v. Keller, 21st: Martinez v. L. Diaz-Balart, 24th: Kosmas v. Feeney, 25th: Garcia v. M. Diaz-Balart
- Minnesota: 6th: Tinklenberg v. Bachman
- North Carolina: 8th: Kissell v. Hayes
- Ohio: 1st: Driehaus v. Chabot, 2nd: Wulsin v. Schmidt, 15th: Kilroy v. Stivers, 16th: Boccieri v. Schuring

Update: Their URLs are inconsistent, and my predictions were wrong. Updating as I find what's where.
Senate races should all be updated now.
All links should be working now. Results are starting to come in.

Ayers, or ???

2008-10-07T16:28:00.003-07:00

I just want to point out another overlooked but significant point about the alleged Obama/Ayers best-friendsness/acquaintance/heard-of-the-guy. What was the alternative, from Obama's point of view? Just ditch the committee, in effect saying, "well, fuck the poor, I can't work with this guy, so they're just going to have to suck it up?" What kind of character would have behaved that way?

On an unrelated note, I'd just like to say that one of the greater trivial annoyances (isn't that like "jumbo shrimp"?) of the past few days has been repeatedly having my nose rubbed in the fact that the English language consigns the verbs "pall" and "pal" (if you can even tolerate its having been verbed) to share identically spelled gerund forms. Curse them!!

Lipstick, pigs, & female dogs: Redux

2008-09-15T00:56:00.000-07:00

They've gone and made the connection explicitly now. (Via Digby)

[Karl] Rove said he believed that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment was a "deliberate slap at Governor Palin," saying it came too soon after the Alaska governor's pitbull comment not to be.

Like I was saying, especially now that they're making the connection to the pitbull remark, this really points out that she went there first. Just because she's a woman, doesn't mean she couldn't be sexist, or make sexist remarks. (I'm not seriously suggesting that hers was a sexist remark, but it was at least as much so as Obama's.)

Lipstick, pigs, & female dogs

2008-09-11T04:07:00.002-07:00

And just a quick note about the lipstick thing: If it is supposed that Obama's comparison of McCain's economic policies to a pig with lipstick was somehow really about Palin, shouldn't somebody be bringing up Palin's insult to hockey moms, when she essentially called them pit bulls with lipstick? And you know what they call a female dog, after all.... Is this really the line of reasoning (if I may take liberties with the term) that they want to follow?

Yet Another Alternative

2008-09-10T05:44:00.004-07:00

Another unfounded assumption I've noticed in the discussion of Sarah Palin. Everybody seems to assume she's lying now about having "said thanks but no thanks" about the "Bridge to Nowhere". But could she not have been lying when she claimed to support the bridge while running for Governor, instead? She might be completely honest about her position on the bridge, now!

Take that, liberal media!

How about a Greek middle school? Would that work?

2008-09-05T01:23:00.006-07:00

OK, this is a bit of a puzzle yet, and explanations are entirely speculative so far, so I'm going with the one that seems fairly likely for the purposes of this post. Whatever the actual explanation, though, it can hardly be favorable to the McCain campaign, except inasmuch as everything is.

So, apparently, Candidate McCain chose to (or at least ended up) give his big acceptance speech, the highlight of the Republican Convention, in front of an image of a ritzy, dare-we-say elitist, North Hollywood middle school (not entirely dissimilar to an expensive McMansion, for that matter). Going with the reasoning of the Republicans and their pet pundits, that Obama's backdrop of Greek columns (much like George Bush's background when addressing the RNC, incidentally) was supposed to present him as a Greek god (so what was Bush going for? Roman emperor?), the only reasonable conclusion is that the McCain campaign chose a middle school backdrop to make McCain seem younger.

Kidding aside, it seems likely that it was a mixup due to the middle school sharing a namesake with Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I think it says something about the staffers of the McCain campaign that they would think it reasonable that Reed looks that beautifully kept up. It would seem to fit well with delusions that the Army's medical services are keeping things completely shipshape for our wounded veterans, not a speck of mold or anything, and no expense has been spared in keeping it lovely. If anything, it looks like we might have spent altogether too much on fancy architecture and groundskeeping! Except, of course, that it isn't. Just another notion based on fantasy.

There's a mavericky madness to his method

2008-09-03T01:25:00.002-07:00

I have it on good authority from a senior adviser to the McCain campaign* that the Maverick's choice for a running mate was sealed last Thursday morning, when he found Sarah Palin's face in his sunny-side up eggs for breakfast.

*What? I can't help it if one of the ferrets claims to be a senior adviser!

An alternative explanation?

2008-08-31T22:50:00.003-07:00

Much of the foofoora about John McCain's choice of running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, seems to have an underlying unstated assumption for which I haven't seen the justification yet: that she was his first choice for a running mate. I don't have any particular reason to think she wasn't, but it grates on me to see all this talk that seems to just make the assumption, without any evidence cited.

And it would be amusing to think that maybe Mitt Romney, Joe Lieberman, and Tim Pawlenty had all been offered the slot, and fled from him like the proverbial rats from the ship, until he finally found a sucker willing to run as the sidekick's sidekick.

A Modest Contradiction

2008-08-31T16:13:00.003-07:00

Candidate John McCain spoke of his new running mate selection, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:

She's exactly who I need. She's exactly who this country needs to help me fight the same old Washington politics of 'Me first and country second.'

And yet... notice to what his first sentence refers. Notice to what his second sentence refers. Notice which sentence comes first, and which one comes second.

I guess McCain is his own "same old Washington politics" which he disparages by implication.

Workin' it: Answered

2008-08-26T15:40:00.005-07:00

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall asks:

When Mitt Romney says that it was "hard work" that got John McCain all those houses that he got for marrying Cindy Hensley, what does he mean exactly?

I believe George W. Bush said it best, during the Sep. 30 debate in 2004:

You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can.... I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy.

Incidentally, that was occurrence number eight of eleven that night, of the phrase "hard work". Just sayin'.

I'm Confused

2008-07-10T19:11:00.004-07:00

From Sadly, No! comments, someone linked to this post at Pharyngula. Total Catholic Meltdown over someone "stealing" the communion wafer.

But I'm puzzled. Why on earth would you want to take one home? There's really nothing special about the taste. What was that guy thinking? "Damn, these are tasty, I'm going through the line again!!" or "Wow, I would like to taste that again!" If he fakes an illness for which he can't leave his house, he could call up his local parish and even have it delivered to his home! Complete with Mass!

Why? It just seems so odd. Granted, the people sending death threats have to chill the fuck the out. But as a Catholic myself (more culturally now than when I was younger), I'm more bemused at the idea than outraged. Why would you want to take with you a plastic-y wheat-tasting wafer?

If you really, really are longing for that taste, I suggest buying these instead. The wafer taste is very similar to the outer coating, and communion wafers completely lack the fun-filled sugar balls in the middle. Now those would be worth taking from Church!

Is It A Funny?

2008-05-21T18:10:00.002-07:00

I really hope that this was meant to be a funny, and not, say, serious.

Under their belief-system, every single individual in the entire country can elect to be on drugs. What would our society look like if this happened? People's lives would be destroyed and their productivity in our society would be unarguably compromised. In essence, people will have the right to govern their bodies but our country will lose its ability to effectively govern as well. This will then jeopardize the freedoms of people everywhere.

Just because you can't handle your drugs, doesn't mean that other people can't. And being on drugs is possibly the only explanation for our embarrassment of a president, but last time I checked, he was a Republican, no matter now much the wingnuts claim he isn't.

Remember: Happiness and freedom are both protected under the constitution.

Where's my fucking pony?

Perhaps the most vexing element of Libertarian thought is their implicit (and often explicit) contempt for our government.

Because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to have contempt for our government. No Siree, nope, no contempt here! I do agree that not everything should be a cutthroat capitalistic society because there are quite a few things that need government oversight, or should be provided by the government because I fucking pay taxes. Glam wars are not part of that equation.

That would be quite the concept: want to start your own war? Get a bunch of people together and go fight it in the name of [your entity here], personally funded by you and whatever delusional freaks you manage to swindle. Hell, it worked for Oliver North!

Awesomeness!

2008-04-02T19:57:00.001-07:00

Fafblog is back! Yipee!

Bwah-ha-ha-hah!!!

2008-03-20T20:44:00.002-07:00

This is just too good to pass up.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was …

Read it, and find out!

Sec. Alphonso Jackson, still at it in HUD

2008-03-13T01:28:00.000-07:00

Remember that Secretary Alphonso Jackson of the HUD that I have that grudge against? And my later follow up? Well, it looks like he's still at it.

After Philadelphia's housing director refused a demand by President Bush's housing secretary to transfer a piece of city property to a business friend, two top political appointees at the department exchanged e-mails discussing the pain they could cause the Philadelphia director.

"Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?" Orlando J. Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote about Philadelphia housing director Carl R. Greene.

"Take away all of his Federal dollars?" responded Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing. She typed symbols for a smiley-face, ":-D," at the end of her January 2007 note.

Cabrera wrote back a few minutes later: "Let me look into that possibility."

The e-mails, obtained by The Washington Post, came to light as a result of a lawsuit provoked by HUD's decision last September to strip the Philadelphia Housing Authority of as much as $50 million in federal funds. In December, it declared the agency in violation of rules that underpin its ability to decide precisely how it will spend federal housing funds. Kendrick was the official who formally notified the authority that she had found it in violation.

What a lovely group they do seem to have in that office. "Nice city ya gots there. It'd be a pity if something were to happen to it, know what I mean?"

Noted in passing

2008-03-12T22:05:00.005-07:00

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," [suddenly retiring Centcom CINC Admiral William] Fallon said in a statement Tuesday in which he announced his resignation as head of U.S. Central Command, arguably the most important in the U.S. military....

"I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility," Fallon said in his statement Tuesday, and he regretted "the simple perception that there is."

In keeping with one of my own pet peeves here, I would point out that their having the same objectives, doesn't mean they necessarily share views on how to achieve those objectives. The statement as is still leaves that possibility wide open, and military commanders don't really have any business choosing (big picture) objectives anyway; they're supposed to be figuring out how to achieve those objectives handed down to them. What we call the means to an end. So he's really not denying what he's trying to give the appearance of denying, here.

Furthermore, the second quoted paragraph there leaves open the possibility that there are differences in other areas. Not that I think there's likely much to that, but it does strike me as rather odd that he would specify and limit the policy in question that way. Why?

All told, he certainly seems to exude the air of somebody going out of his way to give the appearance of denying something, without actually denying it. Lying without lying, one might say.

Introducing Class Wargames

2008-03-10T17:17:00.002-07:00

I've wrapped up a short piece introducing my alternative economics blog, Class Wargames. So now, I'm announcing it here. Go take a look.

Compare and contrast

2008-03-08T01:20:00.004-07:00

Michelle Obama:

For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.

John McCain:

It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan [Washington, D.C.].

Now, which one do you suppose gets called out by the media for not being patriotic enough? The one who just suggested our nation's capital is chock full of demonically possessed bureaucrats and legislators? Does he sound like he's proud of our country? Really proud?

Update 2008-03-20: Now that I've given it some time for the McCain quote to get out there, if it would, here's the current tally via Google News: Michelle Obama: 304; John McCain: 24. Any questions?

Hope springs eternal

2008-03-05T23:45:00.005-07:00

Another apparently underreported bit of math I noticed last night: According to the CNN results, at least, all the Republican candidates put together got fewer votes (1,319,960; 100% precincts reporting) than even the lesser of the two Democratic candidates (Obama: 1,356,330; Clinton: 1,455,959; and that's with 99% precincts reporting, so there will be a few more). Granted, Republican turnout was probably somewhat suppressed by the presumption that McCain had things all wrapped up (which he now does). Still, this was in Texas! This could augur very well for the general election in November.

Added: I suppose I should compare the numbers in Ohio as well, for completeness. Their greater preference for Clinton meant Obama did get fewer votes than all Republicans combined. Republicans: 1,010,864; Obama: 979,025; Clinton: 1,207,806 (all 100% precincts reporting). Even there, the mean of the Democratic candidates' votes (1,093,415.5) beats the Republicans' total.

Updated 2008-03-06: This other possibility had occurred to me, but I didn't want to bring it up without at least anecdotal evidence, even if it does tend to support my own preferred candidate. At The Rude Pundit (shockingly profanity-free for once), there's talk of Texas Republicans not just staying home because McCain's the obvious winner, but getting out and voting in the Democratic primary for the candidate they think will be easiest to defeat in November, perhaps most often Clinton. "Republicans knew that McCain would win Ohio and since in Texas we have open primaries, the RNC, Texas Repubs and Rush had been telling all their zombies to vote Clinton because they think they can beat her. My own mother, who hasn't voted for a Democrat for 40 years, told me that she voted for Hillary because 'you know, I support McCain, so I voted for her like everyone else up here.' My mother wasn't our only contact to verify our suspicions." All things considered, while I certainly consider these counts a good sign for November, I'm certainly not expecting a 2-to-1 blowout in Texas then, either.

Hagee vs. Farrakhan

2008-03-05T23:36:00.002-07:00

Just a note of something I checked out in this Obama & Farrakhan vs. McCain & Hagee dustup we've been hearing about lately. (Short version, if you haven't heard: Obama had to denounce and reject Farrakhan's support, repeatedly, during a live televised debate recently; McCain, on the other hand, warmly embraces the support of similarly radical (in degree, but he's Christian!) pastor John Hagee, and the media barely bats an eyelash) I thought I'd just do a quick comparison of Google News hits, and lo and behold: The Final Score (for now): Obama and Farrakhan, a numerologically significant 1,984 hits; McCain and Hagee, merely 459. Double standards, much?

The Trouble With Capitalism: Market Saturation

2008-03-04T23:42:00.001-07:00

pp. 35 & 36:

Market Saturation

The increasing maturity of most consumer markets in the industrialised countries was becoming a noticeable constraint to economic growth in the industrialised world by the end of the 1960s. This meant that in addition to static demand for non-durable goods (food, drink and clothing) the markets for most durable products (automobiles, television sets etc.) tended more and more to be governed mainly by replacement demand rather than by the continuous opening up of new groups of first-time buyers, which had been possible throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. Hence demand for goods generally began to grow more in line with population — which was in any case increasing more slowly than in the immediate post-war period — rather than at the rapid rates recorded up to the mid-1960s.

The result was that companies serving these markets were obliged to diversify into new products or services in their unavoidable quest for further expansion, especially as they were barred by anti-monopoly restrictions from taking over their competitors, at least within their national frontiers. One consequence of this was the emergence, particularly in the USA, of 'conglomerate' groups or companies with diversified activities ranging from telephone equipment manufacture to hotel chains....

One thing that I'm particularly sensitive to in reading this book, and elsewhere, is the idea that at least a significant part of the trouble with the modern economy is exaggerated expectations of return on investment on the part of investors. This is essentially one reference to it here. Still, it doesn't seem to crop up as much as I'd guessed it would. I'm not sure whether this is because the author understates its role (or I'm just wrong in its significance), or he just assumes it as a near-axiom, not worth mentioning because it's a given.

Yet gradually, as may now be recognised with the benefit of hindsight, the development of such new consumer markets proved insufficient to offset the impact of the saturation of existing ones.... Thus for many it was an article of faith that every economy was subject to a normal or 'underlying' growth rate or trend, from which it might be expected to deviate only under abnormal circumstances and, implicitly, for relatively short periods. Likewise, as already noted, many of the cruder apostles of Keynes had convinced themselves that 'demand management' could actually permit the stimulation of increased consumption simply by injecting more money into the economy, and that consequently excess productive capacity need never be a problem again. Thus they, along with most OECD governments, failed to appreciate that, once the short-term limits of purchasing power have been reached, the only consequence of artificially trying to extend them further is bound to be inflation.³

3. Even now it is quite common to find economists who reject any notion of limits to demand growth, usually on the grounds that it is based on the 'lump of labour fallacy' — that is, the suggestion that there is a fixed amount of output (and hence labour) required to meet demand (cf. S. Brittan, Capitalism with a Human Face, Fontana, London 1996). The obvious perversity of this argument is based on a refusal to bring the time factor into the equation, since it is not a question of suggesting that demand is finite in any absolute sense but only over a given time period. Yet since rates of return on capital are reckoned in relation to periods of time it should not be necessary to point out that it is the short- or medium-term limitation which is crucial in defining whether there is a ceiling on demand growth.

I think we're getting pretty close now to the "limits of purchasing power," "bound to be inflation" point he's talking about. By the way, have you checked the price of wheat lately?

The Trouble With Capitalism: Investment promotion

2008-03-01T23:12:00.001-07:00

Investment promotion (pp. 23 & 24)

Besides undertaking to apply the weapons of macroeconomic management to influence the level of output and employment, governments resorted to other forms of intervention to help sustain activity. Most conspicuously, they became significant promoters of investment, whether through state subsidies or incentives to private investment, or else through direct state equity participation in enterprise. The proliferation of such mechanisms — including grants, tax concessions, loan guarantees and subsidies to research and development — was for many countries (notably those of continental Europe as well as Japan) simply an extension of their traditional approach to economic development. Yet its rapid growth throughout the Western market economies (including the United States) in the post-war period meant that 'corporatism' had become a universally accepted element in the post-war capitalist system. What was scarcely perceived at the time — and is still not widely accepted even in the supposedly more laissez-fair 1990s — is that such uncontrolled use of state support for enterprise (whether in the private or public sectors) was bound to result in serious distortion of competition and international trade patterns.⁵

5. See H. Shutt, The Myth of Free Trade, Basil Blackwell/The Economist, Oxford 1985

Note that I would certainly agree that, here in the US, the "grants, tax concessions, [and] loan guarantees" have certainly gotten rather out of hand. More on that when I cover the later chapters.

Transnational corporations (p. 32):

Such was the basis of what was later to become known as the 'global economy'. Perhaps surprisingly, it has been widely acclaimed in the 1990s as the very model of a dynamic, free-market economic system in which the inability of either governments or private corporations to control the pattern of development is treated as a positive virtue. However, as suggested in this chapter, it is really the legacy of a post-war attempt to organise the world economy along the lines of international cooperation rather than uncontrolled competition & in a climate of opinion which had, indeed, come to reject laissez faire as an intolerably unstable basis for economic management. The fact that it proved a recipe for anarchy based on rampant market distortion was the result of misplaced commitment to the idea of the sovereign nation-state, combined with a lack of political will to curb the power of transnational corporations.

The Trouble With Capitalism: The New Deal

2008-03-01T04:28:00.004-07:00

I'll be mostly glossing over the next couple of chapters in The Trouble With Capitalism, as the mostly deal with historical background. But I'll doubtless find a few bits worth mentioning. Like the following. (pp. 15 & 16)

[W]hen US President Roosevelt assumed office for the first time in 1933 he was committed to a programme of vigorous intervention by the federal government to stimulate and underpin a recovery in the US economy — the New Deal — based on broadly similar principles to those applied by the Fascist regimes in Italy and Germany....

It is significant that one area where the Roosevelt administration's proposals for state intervention in the economy met with little opposition was support for the financial sector. Nothing had been more fatal to attempts to restore confidence in the United States following the Wall Street crash than the catastrophic collapse in the banking sector, with no fewer than two thousand banks failing in 1930 alone. This prompted the new administration to introduce, as one of its earliest measures, legislation requiring all banks to insure their deposits (up to a maximum level for each one) through a government agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, thus guaranteeing small savers against total ruin.¹³ This measure... foreshadowed what was to become, after World War II, an implicit commitment by the state to act as 'lender of last resort' to the banking community — in other words, to come to the rescue of any institution whose failure could be considered a threat to the stability of the financial system as a whole, regardless of how reckless its lending policy may have been. Yet as with so many other moves tending to advance the role of the state in sustaining the capitalist system, this far-reaching commitment was made as a purely pragmatic response to otherwise ruinous market trends. It is scarcely a matter of wonder that those responsible, who were also closely linked to the main beneficiaries, were not inclined to emphasise its ideological implications.

13. In reality the use of an insurance scheme was cosmetic, since the level of premiums paid by the banks never corresponded to the actuarial cost of providing the necessary cover and it has been understood ever since that the federal government will provide whatever support is necessary to avert the collapse of any bank which might entail 'systemic risk'.

In short, the kind of trouble that these policies were meant to avert does sound a lot like the current problems of the sub-prime collapse. Especially that bit about "com[ing] to the rescue of any institution whose failure could be considered a threat to the stability of the financial system as a whole, regardless of how reckless its lending policy may have been."

Counting the costs

2008-02-28T17:02:00.005-07:00

This story in The Australian ties in rather well with my current reading, and helps bridge the gap of the decade since it was written.

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003....

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.

The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world.

The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world, he said.

Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered, he said.

The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies.

"When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired.

"(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion.

"Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that."

This is just the kind of thing Shutt is going on about in this book. (My reading in it is currently far ahead of my posting about it.)

Afterthought (added 03-01): I might also point out that that sum comes to around $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Enjoy your tax cuts!

The Trouble With Capitalism blogging

2008-02-24T00:11:00.005-07:00

So, since I've gotten myself an old new book from the library, The Trouble With Capitalism: An Enquiry into the Causes of Global Economic Failure by Harry Shutt, and I'm reading it now, I thought I'd share some of the choicer excerpts as I go along. Some, I'll just post without comment; others, I might point out things that have come to pass since then, or how it relates to my own beliefs in the area, or even where I feel it might be in the wrong. Keep in mind, it is a 1998 book, so some of it is a bit dated. I might even pick on it a bit in places, for instance where it says the Interwebs don't seem to be really taking off. But it'll be good-natured; in that example, his thoughts seem to have been born out eventually by the bursting of the New Economy dot-com bubble.

A choice bit from the very first page of the introduction, to start off with:

The rapid advances of this new consensus [the superiority of laissez-faire capitalism] to near universal acceptance owes much to the recent conspicuous failure of economic models based on extensive state intervention to deliver adequate levels of prosperity or security — most spectacularly in the fallen Soviet empire. Yet despite this apparently compelling logic, anyone endowed with a reasonable capacity for impartial observation of everyday realities — and for treating official propaganda with due scepticism — might recognise that such claims of a triumph for the free market and of its supposedly magical powers are profoundly perverse, for at least three reasons.

Further on in the introduction (added 2-28):

This book is an attempt to expose the realities of the contemporary evolution of the global capitalist economy, and thereby to dispel the illusions which lie behind the neo-laissez-faire prospectus. By viewing it in the context of the longer-term development of the world economy it also seeks to demonstrate that the reason for the aggressive and irrational dogmatism of the Western political establishment in trying to forge this new consensus is a growing sense of the increasing fragility of capitalism rather than of its enduring strength. Indeed the reader may well conclude that only acute awareness of a genuine threat to the survival of the dominant vested interests could explain such systematic distortion of reality.

In some respects, it may be noted, the analysis presented here of the chronic weakness of profit-maximising capitalism is traditional, in that it emphasises the distorting and destabilising effects of the recurrent excess supply of capital in relation to the demand for it. What is perhaps less familiar is the revelation that technological change is leading to a long-term relative decline in the demand for fixed capital, thereby rendering traditional capitalist structures obsolete — much as the new technology of steam power made inevitable the replacement of feudal structures and cottage industries by capitalist enterprise some two hundred years ago.

A Troubling Thing

2008-02-01T17:44:00.000-07:00

When I read people debating about Clinton on various blogs, I've noticed that something always pops up that bothers me: the implication that Senator Clinton will run the presidency just like her husband did. I saw one comment, when one commenter provided the reasons for not voting for Senator Clinton, that basically outlined policies from Mr. Clinton's years in the White House. I mean, there were a few instances of Senator Clinton's voting record, but many were not. I'm not sure that it really is a valid point to bring up Mr. Clinton's policies and assume that's how his wife will run the presidency. It almost has the underlying current that Mr. Clinton will be running the country by proxy...as if Senator Clinton has no mind or will of her own. That kind of bothers me. I have no problems with people discussing Hillary's record and past history as a Senator, or the fact that she's a DLC-type. But really, do we know for a fact that she will most definitely run the presidency just like her husband did? Is pointing out his record even relevant to discussing how she would run the country? I would like to think that she has a mind of her own and can stand or fail on her own merits. For the record, I'm not decided on who I will vote for in the primary. I could live with either as the candidate.

If God Dies In Space, Will Anyone Hear God Scream?

2007-12-11T20:03:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning, devoid of caffeine as I had not yet cracked open my Dew, and lo and behold over on Sadly, No!, this awful Youtube clip greeted me. For anyone who doesn't want to mop up their brain because it leaked out of your ear, the video is a very unconvincing attempt at supposedly refuting astronomy. 'Cause, you know, God created the universe, and the eeeevil Scientists didn't calculate for that. Or something.

I'm sorry. (Dabs at ear with napkin.) Where was I? Oh, I don't remember the full stupid of this video, because thankfully, once the grogginess wore off, so too did the haze of idiocy.

But reading through the comments and such, I started thinking. (Dangerous, I know!) The whole creation story (and that is what it is, a story) in and of itself does not refute evolution at all. Really, the story of creation in Genesis doesn't exclude evolution, though in the Bible, it's all created by God and evolution is adaptations. There was light, there was planets,there was things in the sea, there was creatures on land, there was man. Of course, given the time frame of when the story was told and eventually written down, I wouldn't expect people at that time to know as much as we do now. A friend and I were discussing this over the weekend, and really, there's nothing in it that wouldn't loosely match up with the general framework of evolution (just my opinion, and in a very general sense). Of course, I was laughing at the Creationist she stumbled on, and she was of the opinion that there's two sides to this "debate". No, no there isn't really, I tried to tell her, but she didn't believe me.

But that got me to thinking about a passage in one of my favorite books, 1984. Here is the passage that I am reminded of reading through the comments at Sadly, No!:

"But the world istelf is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny - helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited."
"Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness."
"But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals - mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of."
"Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing."
"But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach forever."
"What are the stars?" said O'Brien indifferently. "They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the center of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it."

To me, their arguements are similar, only separated by the use of God. Of course, at this point in the book, Winston is being tortured.

Your Religious GOP: They didn't just read 1984, they studied it!

Recommendation from a fine businessman

2007-10-05T11:42:00.000-07:00

President Bush, State of the Union, 2007:

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery....

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born, and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others -- producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I have ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." And so tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur -- Julie Aigner-Clark. (Applause.)

Now:

More than a half-million Chinese-made products were recalled Thursday, including "Pirates of the Caribbean" and Baby Einstein toys, because they contain dangerous levels of lead.

Coin-shaped "Pirates of the Caribbean" flashlights and soft, textured Baby Einstein blocks were among the 555,200 products recalled, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced.

You're doing a heckuva job, Julie. (And Disney, to be fair.)

While we're at it, why didn't Bush ever tout his own entrepreneurial success in that speech? Surely, it would've fit right in with those others.

Facinating.

2007-09-23T12:19:00.000-07:00

This is a very interesting presentation regarding changes in the world since 1960. Enjoy!

There is also an update to the original presentation.

You keep using that word....

2007-09-13T22:00:00.000-07:00

If I might borrow TPM's video...

I especially like how, at around 4:45 left to play, it seems he gets confused whether to say "Petraeus" or "Betray-us".

But, on a slightly more serious note:

And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours....

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing....

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress....

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working....

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq.

I don't care how many times you keep using that word, it still does not mean what you think it means.

Nothing he talked about amounts to a "strategy" yet. Piling on more troops is not a "strategy", not even a "tactic". It's a relic of good old attrition warfare.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Sounds like he's making his excuses in advance on the off chance we ever catch bin Laden, or even if he just eventually dies of natural causes: "See? We finally got him, seventeen years later! That's not too late. Right? Let that be a lesson to the evildoers in the world! Freeance! Peance!"

On This Hallowed Fourth

2007-07-04T06:57:00.000-07:00

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

What has become of this great Republic on which we stand? The skies alight with fire for our Founding Fathers, that the memory of Independence shall live on. But those lights fall on unseeing and blind eyes; for the Injustice of our leaders and their moral poverty diminishes every citizen, even those who have endeavored to secure their grand position with the blood and toil of their fellow Americans. No one is exempt from the vigilance of Liberty, not even those who would wish to purchase their freedoms at the cost of others. Some would say that they are tired of struggle, some that they will one day hope to purchase their own freedoms, others that they have the exact amount of freedoms that they wish for themselves. Is Liberty such a cherished gift that one must only reserve it for special occasion? Is it just another trinket, to be displayed in glass casing upon the mantelpiece, taken down only to awe acquaintances but otherwise left steadfastly in place to nobly collect dust? I would like to think that our precious national beacon is more than merely a dream in a fevered mind. Should not all people declare their Independence from government oppression, secrecy, tyranny?

And what of it that a person so endowed with such Liberty fears that they will commit the most heinous acts which will weigh heavy on their conscience? Our laws are written so that there are penalties for such crimes, and a normal person will abstain from the temptation of said depravity. For those who fear their own Liberty, there are many establishments other than our own government that can provide a needed shelter for a struggling conscience. What confusion arises that Liberty means both independence from the laws that govern the populace and the basic laws of common humanity? Does such a person feel that, if endowed with Liberty, he would act as a child deprived of sweets would, engorging himself beyond capacity? Why would one feel that Liberty is merely a treat to the deserving, and only in moderation, or that it would be a cover for all of the base impulses that a person might have? Liberty is a common meal, not an after-dinner compliment, and is the basis of a healthy and sensible political diet.

But what of the men and women in our employ, who grace the halls of our government? For they, too, should embrace Liberty, even at the cost of the hands of the moneyed few who would like the value of their impressive trinket to increase by ensuring that the demand of Liberty far exceeds the supply of it. These are the same few who would export a crate labeled "Liberty", sold on merit alone and without inspection, to a mostly unsuspecting populace who, once they opened the crate, would find the completely different product of "Injustice". For how else do the merchants of suffering package an inferior product? And if we allow grave injustices to permeate the layers of the hallowed halls of government -- as seems to be the case, as more comes to light -- we do a disservice not only to ourselves, but to our fellow World, with which we might have little in common, save for our common humanity. We should not be so blind as to not see that our hand extends out beyond our body; what we are so willing to do to ourselves, we impart to other places without knowing the exact consequences.

So as we eat, drink, and be merry on this fine Independence Day, let us remember that there are still the forces of Tyranny working fast to chip away at our freedoms, and that we all owe it to our ancestors to renew our interest in our own Liberty.

Promiscuous cheetahs!

2007-05-30T18:20:00.001-07:00

Somewhat off the beaten path for this blog, but a few months ago, while reading a book, probably one of Dawkins' more biology/genetics books, it popped into my head that, given that cheetahs had passed through a severe population bottleneck a long time ago, I would guess that they would probably be less choosy about their mates than they had been before the bottleneck. My thinking was, with so few potential partners around, those who were still picky would be less likely to meet up with another cheetah up to their standards, and therefore less likely to bear a litter that season. So you might end up with, well, promiscuous cheetahs:

For female cheetahs in the Serengeti, the call of the wild is just too hard to resist as new research shows nearly half of their litters are made up of cubs with different fathers.

And while the serial infidelities of the females does ensure a broader genetic mix to help the survival of the endangered species, it comes at a cost, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) said on Wednesday.

Chalk up another one for evolution!

Well, technically, it isn't exactly the effect I was predicting. There's a distinction between pickiness and faithfulness, after all. But I do think it connects rather well, and could be explained in much the same manner.

Reasons for voting against

2007-05-26T11:30:00.000-07:00

My take on why Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama decided to vote against the war funding bill, despite some prior ambiguity:

It certainly seems apparent that President Bush is hoping to just wear out the clock on Iraq, and be able to pass the problem on to the next President. I suspect people at the GOP might even be expecting the next President to be a Democrat, and plan accordingly, presenting whoever wins with a "poison pill" writ large, or a flaming bag of dog turd on their doorstep, if you prefer that metaphor. Whichever reasoning they might follow, they don't want to pull out a significant number of troops before the next election at the very least, almost as certainly before the next inauguration.

Because whenever we do start pulling out, yes, there will almost certainly be a bloodbath. And it won't look good for whoever's running things at the time. But it's going to happen sooner or later. Why not just put it off for a year or two, and who cares about the extra casualties in the interim? And maybe by then a Democrat can take the blame; they're probably hoping that that might help them recapture the Presidency in 2012 (assuming a Democrat wins in 2008), and Congress in 2010.

So the Senators might be looking at this, and thinking, if they are successful in their respective bids, that they're the ones who will be stuck holding the bag. And even if they don't win, either in the primaries or in the general election, Obama will be up for re-election in 2010, and Clinton in 2012. So they would have good reason for wanting to get it over with sometime before 2009.

Submitted (almost) without comment

2007-05-21T15:07:00.000-07:00

Carter: Anti-Bush remarks 'careless or misinterpreted'

Deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto, with Bush at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, said Monday: "I think it just highlights the importance of being careful in choosing your words. I'll just leave it at that."

Perhaps Fratto should have chosen his words more carefully.

Parsing, parsing, parsing

2007-05-16T17:16:00.000-07:00

It's not so much that I like parsing and splitting hairs so finely (though I confess I do), as that with this crew in the Administration, they force you to, in order to figure out what they're really saying and meaning. From yesterday's White House press briefing (via Glenn Greenwald):

Q But you had the Acting Attorney General at the time saying, in regards to what Inspectors General -- the acting -- chief law enforcement officer in the country is saying in 2004, I've got problems with this, and then you've got the Chief of Staff and the Counsel, Alberto Gonzales at the time, going -- and according to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a sick man who was in intensive care.

MR. SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an appendectomy, his brain didn't work?

Note that this response is coming from Press Secretary Tony Snow, of whom Wikipedia summarizes:

On 2007 March 27, the White House announced that the [abdominal] growth was cancerous and had metastasized. ^[6]^[7]^[8] In Snow's absence, the press briefings began to be covered by Deputy Dana Perino. On April 21, 2007, Snow made an appearance at the annual White House Correspondent's Association Dinner, where he introduced a joking tape by David Letterman. Snow returned to work on April 30, 2007.

Funny how a little thing like surgery can knock you out for a day or two, isn't it, Tony? Ha, ha. What's that? A whole month and then some? Gee, why were you slacking off for so long?

Added: Also, for the record, it was Ashcroft's gall bladder, not his appendix, that he was in for.

Q Yes, "I was very upset, I was angry." He was in intensive care at GW. "I thought I had just witnessed an effort" --

MR. SNOW: I --

Q -- let me just tell you -- "I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man." Okay? Did any White House officials come and try to take advantage of you -- I mean, that's really not applicable in terms of this.

MR. SNOW: You know what, Ed --

Q They were trying to take advantage of him, according to James Comey.

MR. SNOW: Ed, I'm just telling you, I don't know anything about the conversations. I've also told you the relevant thing, which is, you wanted to ask from a substantive point of view, were there protections in terms of the terrorist surveillance program -- the answer is yes. It had multiple layers of review, both within the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency. Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there....

And what of the fact that Attorney General Gonzales almost flatly denied (with weasel words) that anyone within the Department of Justice had any such reservations, back in February of 2006? (via Think Progress' Peter Swire)

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

[LH: You can't get into the disagreements, the other matters, or the operations? I wish that sentence made clear to which object the clause applied. See amphiboly at the Fallacy Files.]

I will also say...

SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.

[LH: It seems to make some sense, if Comey rushed to the hospital over some other "program" than the Terrorist Surveillance Program per se.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.

SCHUMER: There are other reports, I'm sorry to -- you're not giving me a yes-or-no answer here. I understand that.

Newsweek reported that several Department of Justice lawyers were so concerned about the legal basis for the NSA program that they went so far as to line up private lawyers. Do you know if that's true?

GONZALES: I do not know if that's true.

SCHUMER: Now, let me just ask you a question here.

You mentioned earlier that you had no problem with Attorney General Ashcroft, someone else -- I didn't want to ask you about him; he's your predecessor -- people have said have doubts. But you said that you had no problem with him coming before this committee and testifying when Senator Specter asked, is that right?

Technology Keeps Getting Better

2007-03-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

You know, I had to read The Rude Pundit's post twice because I didn't understand what he was saying and so mad about...until I realized that car contained a living GW Bush and NOT a cardboard cutout. Although both pictures look like it, the one where the worker isn't smiling certainly looks more cartoonish and one dimensional than the other. So when did they start developing cameras that could capture the essence of your soul?

im in ur briges....

2007-02-02T00:33:00.000-07:00

Remember, people of America, the only thing we have to fear i—Oh my God! Is that a stoplight? It could be hiding a bomb!!

Seriously, though, are we becoming such a nation of imbeciles that not only do we confuse a little circuitry with a bomb, but then we have to blame all the fuss on the people who left the circuitry around? Even aside from the fact that it should have been obvious to anybody getting close enough to suspect that these were bombs, that they weren't, what about all the bomb-sniffing dogs and equipment we keep hearing about? If they couldn't establish that these weren't bombs within, I think, about two hours, are they really that useful?

Self-quote of the day

2007-01-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

The opposite of "natural" is "civilized".

(With respect to rhetoric sometimes pushed by people claiming that some behaviour, usually something "un-Christian", is also "unnatural".)

Welcome, Komrads!

2007-01-30T17:07:00.000-07:00

Per the New York Times:

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Political officers, anyone? Could they be much more obvious about it?

Don't turn around, oh oh
Der Kommissar's in town, oh oh
And if he talks to you
And you don't know why
You say your life
Is gonna make you die...

Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?

He's at it again

2007-01-25T20:54:00.000-07:00

VP Cheney was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer Wednesday. It's a pretty interesting interview overall, and the Vice President goes rather unhinged for a while. But I couldn't help noticing that one particular phrase popped up yet again (emphasis added):

BLITZER: The criticism is that you took your eye off the ball by going into Iraq and in effect reducing the focus of attention on al Qaeda and bin Laden.

CHENEY: It's just not true. I've heard that charge -- it's simply not true, Wolf. The fact of the matter is we can do more than one thing at a time and we have. And we've been very successful with going after al Qaeda. They're still out there, they're still a formidable force. But they're not nearly as formidable as they once were, in terms of numbers and so forth.

That reminded me of these hoary chestnuts I dug up from an old post. I guess since it had been almost a year, it was time to revisit and revise.

"It's important, always, to work to make sure you get information out like this as quickly as possible," McClellan said. "But it's also important to make sure that the first priority is focused where it should be...."

"I can't let this comment stand," Mr. Bush shot back, telling Ms. Albright and the rare assembly of her colleagues, who reached back to the Kennedy White House, that his administration "can do more than one thing at a time...."

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I really don't because-- and I know we can do more than one thing at a time. We have got special operators and capable intelligence folks on the hunt all the time....

Gee, you'd almost think they were a bit touchy and nervous about their ability to do more than one thing at a time, wouldn't you? Nah, that's just crazy unhinged Bush Derangement Syndrome talking.

SotU Snark

2007-01-24T17:35:00.000-07:00

Just a little tidbit out of last night's State of the Union address that jumped out at me as sounding a bit odd. Near the end of his speech, as he was wrapping things up, Bush addressed the country as a whole, and said, "We've been through a lot together." Both my roommate and I had the same thought—"Is he breaking up with us, or what?"

I just wish he were.

Fixing the Internets

2007-01-08T19:12:00.000-07:00

With all due respect to Sadly, No!:

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he proposes to pay off with your money. — G. Gordon Liddy

A neocon is someone who feels a great debt from his fellow man, which he proposes to pay off with your children's money. — J. Owens

You're welcome.

Why context matters

2007-01-04T00:05:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. Instapundit, a.k.a. Instaputz, a.k.a. Mobius Dick, wrote today:

It's as if the only good Republican President is a dead Republican President.

Unfortunately, he wrote it in the context of:

HOWARD KURTZ ON GERALD FORD REVISIONISM: "Another way of putting that is that many journalists, three decades later, are admitting that they misjudged Ford and were wrong about the Nixon pardon."
They said nice things about Reagan after he died, too, despite hating him in office, and they're already gearing up to do the same thing with George H.W. Bush, who was treated quite unfairly during his term. (See, e.g., the supermarket scanner story). It's as if the only good Republican President is a dead Republican President.

so he doesn't get full credit. Still, it's nice to see a nugget of truth crop up in there for once.

Via Blue Texan at Unclaimed Territory.

On the passing of Pres. Gerald Ford

2006-12-27T23:19:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to pop back in for a bit (sorry, I've been a bit busy getting surgery) to comment on my own personal take on the death of former President Gerald Ford. He has the distinction of being the first and last Republican I ever would have voted for, if I'd had the vote at the time. See, when he was running for re-election, I was all of six years old. I was just wise enough to know that I didn't know anything worth speaking of on the issues and such, so I figured, if I could vote (I don't remember whether we had a mock election in first grade), I would cast my vote for the guy who already had the job experience, who happened to be Ford at that time. By the time I was ten and Jimmy Carter was running for re-election, I had opinion enough of Reagan, at least as the PR spokesman he was, to pretty thoroughly despise him, and I've never looked back since.

Anyway, it's not so much that there was anything special about Ford as a man or a politician that makes him the only Republican I ever would have voted for. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, much the way he became President, I suppose. Nonetheless, in hindsight, and with some of the news and comments coming out since his death, it seems that he was certainly a different kind of Republican than either the one who preceded him, or those who have followed him, in the White House.

Added: Cf. Digby's somewhat similar musings.

About time already!

2006-10-13T17:52:00.000-07:00

Dissatisfied with the reporters' prickly questions, Bush went about answering his own. He said abandoning Iraq would allow terrorists to launch new attacks on America. "How do I know that would happen?" Bush asked himself. "Because that's what the enemy has told us," he answered.

Oh, did he finally get and read that PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S."?

P.S. Mr. President, do you always take your intelligence cues from the enemy?

Daily Goods

2006-10-12T22:28:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald — disgusting
Keith Olbermann on the life and death of the right of habeas corpus

A general note

2006-10-08T15:36:00.000-07:00

It has occurred to me that, in some of my broader posts on thought and reasoning, e.g. On Means and Ends: A Confusion, I might come across as the kind of crazy crank who think's he's found some deep new insight, never before realized. But I do doubt that any of these are truly new to the world. Rather, since I lack a formal training in philosophy, epistemology, etc., these are things that are somewhat new to me. I generally have to figure these things out myself the hard way, reasoning from first principles and my own knowledge of the human condition. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many of my "great ideas" are covered in your average Philosophy 101 class. Nonetheless, it might be interesting to see the approach of someone who hasn't been exposed to these particular ideas. And assuming they aren't new, some do seem to be forgotten by people in the course of typical political discussion and such, so a reminder now and then can't hurt (except those who benefit from illogic and unreason; screw 'em).

Daily Goods

2006-10-07T19:23:00.000-07:00

Daily Goods has been a bit overwhelmed of late. There's just not much point to trying to keep it updated with the latest Foley news. On the other hand, there's been a bit of a drought of non-Foley news. But I'll bring you what I can.

Seed Magazine has an article about a study that identified a part of the brain that seems to be responsible for that "spite" behaviour that I've discussed and Brad DeLong gave me a name for.

Ignoring the Elephant in the middle of the... closet?

2006-10-07T16:17:00.000-07:00

Reader DK @ TPM cracks wise, but I'll try to outdo him:

As a precaution, the governor [Jeb Bush] was ushered into a T-station supply closet and stayed there until the crowd left.
When I said Republicans were on the run, this isn't quite what I had in mind.

When I said there were a lot of Republicans in the closet, this isn't quite what I had in mind.

Note: Another new feature added: When I'm quoting liberal sources, the quotes will be in blue; when I'm quoting right wing sources, the quotes will be in red. More or less neutral sources (typically the media) will remain in orange. I might slowly apply this to the archives as well.

Atrios has it just right

2006-10-06T16:19:00.000-07:00

The stupid! It burns!

Is he catching on?

2006-10-05T17:53:00.000-07:00

From today's White House press conference:

MR. SNOW: So when you take it in the broad sweep of history, and as we look back — you and I probably — well, you may, centuries from now, but I don't think I'm going to last as long as you will, Helen — but the facts is –

Is Tony "Racism Is Dead" Snow starting to think that, when the revolution comes, he will, indeed, be one of the first up against the wall?

Disgrace and Schadenfreude

2006-10-03T22:56:00.000-07:00

While there is certainly room for a lot of Schadenfreude in the massive political upheaval over former Rep. Mark Foley and those who heard about his behaviour but didn't bother to investigate thoroughly, and its probably ramifications in the upcoming election, it pains me to see that this is what it takes for the scales to fall from the eyes of the people. All the news and revelations of this past week alone aside from the page affairs — those in Bob Woodward's new book, how much contact there was between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House, another warning before 9/11 ignored, let alone Congress "abridging" the Constitution without going through the proper Article V process for amendment, and authorizing not-quite-torture — is as naught compared to a single (so far, and I don't mean his marital status) Congressman taking advantage of probably a few dozen Congressional pages, and some of his party's leadership not looking into the matter adequately, if not actively covering up.

Granted that the behaviour of the Congressman was sick, wrong, evil, and deserving of bringing down the careers of himself and many of those involved, and hopefully some well-earned jail time, it pales in comparison to the violence that has been done to our nation's institutions, foundations, and Constitution. And if one might think, "but those are just abstractions, these are real people, children even, who've been hurt," I would point out that these "mere abstractions" could have very real, concrete consequences for many of our nation's citizens and the people of the world, and more abstract consequences for all of us. The consequences were pretty concrete for the 74 US servicemen killed and the 577 gravely wounded in the most recent months I can easily find (September and August, respectively), let alone the approximately 1,579 Iraqis killed in September. The ignoring of the CIA warnings might have seemed rather real for about 2.973 people who used to dwell in New York and Washington, DC, if they were still with us.

More abstractly, one of our Constitutional rights, one so important that it went into the main body of the Constitution rather than being passed later in one of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, has been pretty much rendered null and void, so that our President can imprison whom he wants to, when he wants to, without having to explain to himself why. Oh, and he can go ahead and torture them now, as long as he wouldn't judge it to be torture. Abstract for now, for most of us, and apparently for all US citizens except Jose Padilla, but I wonder how long it might be until it becomes all too real and concrete for some of the rest of us.

But all of that can go on the back burner for now, because we've got a sex scandal!! And that's what the media really wants to talk about. Apparently, people just can't bother to get worked up about all that death of people and liberty. But give them some titillating emails and IMs, and they're finally ready to rise up and throw the bums out!

It's a disgrace to thinking people across this country, those who actually pay attention to what's going on, and care about this country and the path it's taking. And yet, if it's what it takes to get some responsible people actually capable of governing, rather than just playing political games with other people's lives, I guess I'll take it, for now.

Added: I think I just came up with the right metaphor for it. It's like getting Al Capone on tax evasion charges. Yeah, you got him, but....

Update: The September count for serious injuries of American soldiers is out now. Up to 776, a 34% increase over August.

The little beasts were egging him on

2006-10-02T20:44:00.000-07:00

Matt Drudge thinks the Congressional pages were just asking for it:

And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts… and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this....

You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet." Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't… they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend… all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?

Damn those kids these days, with their MeTubes and their InterWebs! The little sluts were just asking for it! And taking advantage of that poor, trusting, upstanding Congressman.

At least I now have a good "Exhibit A" for people who wonder why I don't do Drudge sludge.

Also, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) thought the only important thing of the affair was how it might affect the upcoming elections:

HASTERT: No, I’m not saying [that Congressman Reynolds is lying]. I just don’t recall him telling me that [in the spring]. If he would have told me that, he would have told me that in the context of maybe a half a dozen or a dozen other things. I don’t remember that.

REPORTER: Other allegations of improper e-mails?

HASTERT: No, just other things that might have affected campaigns.

Added: The ever-wise James Dobson' group has something they'd like to share with us, too:

"This is not a time to be talking about politics, but about the well-being of those boys who appear to have been victimized by Rep. Foley. If he is indeed guilty of what he is accused of, it is right that he resigned and that authorities are looking into whether criminal charges are warranted.

"This is yet another sad example of our society's oversexualization, especially as it affects the Internet, and the damage it does to all who get caught in its grasp."

And that from the same man who said,

When assessing the legacy of Bill Clinton, we can’t overlook his shameful sexual behavior in the Oval Office, and then, his lies under oath to the American people to cover it up. Indeed, it is my belief that no man has ever done more to debase the presidency or to undermine our Constitution -- and particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is based -- than has William Jefferson Clinton.

Patriot games

2006-09-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

To the Bush voters and their ilk who would question my patriotism, and have questioned the patriotism of my ilk, I ask this:

Why do you claim to love America? Is it for the hope of freedom, of liberty, of justice? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Or is it just because it's the nation that happened to be blessed with your presence? If you'd been born anywhere else, wouldn't you now be insisting that God (or, God forbid, Allah) had made the place of your birth the most perfect nation on His Earth? Does America have anything else going for it than having been lucky enough to be the host of your over-worthy person? Does America exist for the sole purpose of ensuring your physical safety and your family's from scary people?

What makes you think America is so special?

Late update: I found this over at Staring At Empty Pages which said pretty much the same thing, a few weeks earlier, and better, of course; via Carnival of the Liberals.

New slogan suggestion for the GOP

2006-09-29T01:33:00.000-07:00

Torture: If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the brown people.

(Or maybe even too good for 'em.)

On Means and Ends: Torture

2006-09-28T16:30:00.000-07:00

I found some possible examples of means becoming ends regarding the recent torture debate (on which more soon). One even cites Aristotle on the matter, in a way similar to but distinct from my own formulation.

From Jason Vest at the National Journal via Digby at Hullabaloo:

The moral dimensions of torture, [former CIA Moscow station chief Burton L.] Gerber adds, are inextricably linked with the practical; aside from the fact that torture almost always fails to yield true or useful information, it has the potential to adversely affect CIA operations. "Foreign nationals agree to spy for us for many different reasons; some do it out of an overwhelming admiration for America and what it stands for, and to those people, I think, America being associated with torture does affect their willingness to work with us," he says. "But one of my arguments with the agency about ethics, particularly in this case, is that it's not about case studies, but philosophy. Aristotle says the ends and means must be in concert; if the ends and means are not in concert, good ends will be corrupted by bad means...."

"If you talk to people who have been tortured, that gives you a pretty good idea not only as to what it does to them, but what it does to the people who do it," [Merle L. Pribbenow, 27-year veteran of CIA's Directorate of Operations] said. "One of my main objections to torture is what it does to the guys who actually inflict the torture. It does bad things. I have talked to a bunch of people who had been tortured who, when they talked to me, would tell me things they had not told their torturers, and I would ask, 'Why didn't you tell that to the guys who were torturing you?' They said that their torturers got so involved that they didn't even bother to ask questions." Ultimately, he said -- echoing Gerber's comments -- "torture becomes an end unto itself."

Amanda at Pandagon:

But the thing that jumped out at me is that because torture isn’t really an effective means to an end but an end in and of itself, once it becomes policy, absolutely everything is considered a reason to torture someone. No “ticking time bombs” necessary, but you already knew that.

A conundrum

2006-09-26T12:40:00.000-07:00

[Sen. George] Allen's campaign strategist Chris LaCivita tells the AP: "Larry [Sabato] is obviously relying on words he heard from someone else. We believe it's completely inaccurate."

Unless I'm wrong, isn't LaCivita "relying on words he heard from someone else," in this case Sen. Allen? That's a bit of a bind he's made for himself there.

Daily Goods

2006-09-25T21:18:00.000-07:00

I was busy over at Pandagon over the weekend....

A brief question...

2006-09-25T19:46:00.000-07:00

...for the right-wingers out there.

Exactly how many innocents being tortured is your feeling of safety (rather baseless, but if that's what you feel....) worth to you?

Executive Interpretation

2006-09-22T13:08:00.000-07:00

Remember back when we weren't sure yet whether Bush would become President, on November 22, 2000, he came up with this little nugget?

The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law.

At the time, everybody thought it was just Bush misspeaking again, and assumed he knew better than that, that that's the job of the judiciary branch.

Maybe not. Apparently, his Press Secretary, Tony Snow, agrees with him, and officially says it's so:

Me [Eric Brewer, I think]: But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?

Tony: No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself.

Add onto that heap of ignorance, that Tony didn't even know that John Yoo was one of the big guys in claiming more and more power unto the Executive. He assumed that Yoo's editorial was an attack on Bush, because of the outrageousness of Yoo's claims, I suppose. And had to defend his President from this "attack" that was published in the New York Times editorial section, written by his former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, who dared to claim that, “the White House has declared that the Constitution allows the president to sidestep laws that invade his executive authority."

Daily Goods

2006-09-22T00:13:00.000-07:00

Pandagon has a discussion of mediæval reproductive thinking as it relates to the role of women in modern society. I provide a relevant movie link from PZ Myers, and cite a Biblical reference for "maternal impressions".

Hullabaloo — More or less depressing news, as expected. Bush pretty much got his way in the torture department, and especially on habeas corpus.
Per Norwegianity:
Max Blumenthal reports Preston Moon, the youngest son of Washington Times financier Sun Myung Moon, has initiated a search committee to find a replacement for editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden -- a replacement who isn't Pruden's handpicked successor, managing editor Francis Coombs. The younger Moon doesn't care for their brand of conservatism, says Blumenthal. "A Harvard MBA, Preston Moon is said to be seeking to install an editorial regime with more widely palatable politics," he writes.
[Romenesko]

Wes Pruden, a dyed in the cotton unreconstructed Southern white power supremacist, is TOO FUCKING CRAZY FOR EVEN THE CULTMASTER REV. SUN MYUNG MOON!
In case you didn't get the idea, the Washington Times leans "a little bit" right, and is owned by the same Rev. Moon of the mass marriages of my youth.
Pandagon's and Stirling Newberry's take on the idea of a "carbon tax" on fossil fuels. I point out that I'd want to see exemptions for mass transit, perhaps.
Remember what I wrote about Sec. of HUD Alphonso Jackson telling potential contractors that they'd better support Republicans? He's back, and it looks like it wasn't really just a joke after all:
- “During the investigation, Secretary JACKSON’s Chief of Staff, as well as the HUD Deputy Secretary testified that, in a senior staff meeting, JACKSON had advised senior staff, to the effect, that when considering discretionary contracts, they should be considering supporters of the President, language consistent with the remarks made by JACKSON in Dallas, Texas, on April 28, 2006.”
- “Investigation did disclose some problematic instances involving HUD contacts and cooperative agreement grants, in particular, the cooperative agreement award issued to Abt Associates…was blocked for a significant period of time due to Secretary JACKSON’s involvement and opposition to Abt. Secretary JACKSON’s Chief of Staff testified that one factor in JACKSON’s opposition to Abt was Abt’s political affiliation.”
- “Secretary JACKSON’s Chief of Staff also identified other instances of Secretary JACKSON intervening with contractors whom he did not like. Reviews of political contributions indicated these contractors had Democratic political affiliations.“
h/t AMERICAblog
Via tristero at Hullabaloo, more news bringing us that much closer to war with Iran. And oddly enough, ships might arrive just about two weeks before the midterm elections. Go figure.
The Mahablog brings us a good overview of Bush's Good vs. Evil dualism.

Daily Goods

2006-09-19T14:23:00.000-07:00

Pharyngula — PZ discusses a post he found discussing what they call "denialists," and tactics they share.
AMERICAblog — As pointed out many times previously elsewhere, the Administration & the EPA in particular lied about the air around Ground Zero after 9/11. (What, did they think they were suddenly going to run out of people if anyone found out? Hello, did they notice a little bit of national pride in the air that month? It would've just meant the workers would have been wearing the appropriate breathing filters, not that they would've quit entirely.) John there says,
So, basically, George Bush and the Republicans intentionally and negligently put our 9/11 heroes at risk of their lives. Then again, they did the same to 150,000 members of our military, so why not another couple of tens of thousands in New York as well?
He overlooks the fact that most of those New Yorkers didn't vote for him anyway. By the reasoning Bush seems to often use, he's not their president. So fuck 'em.
Kevin Drum — Apparently, the so-called "conservative Christians" are starting to feel less warmly towards Sen. John McCain because he isn't going along with the President's "family value" of being pro-torture enough.
An interesting little historical tidbit that I came across while Googling, in which a church claims that despite having lost their tax-exempt status previously, they had been offered protection; I'm guessing that the two would be related through political endorsement, which is a no-no for tax exempt churches.
"We had a promise from the Bush administration. We had every reason to believe there was a moratorium. They were going to dismiss the case. We had a deal, and they welshed on the deal."

Daily Goods

2006-09-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

Pandagon — I point out that as moral arguments go, the recent claims that the no-birth-control branch of the Christian Right are going to come to outnumber those of more liberal bent amount to a "might makes right" claim.

Watch Keith go tonight.
Pandagon — How to "punish" single women who don't have sex only when the Doctor says they should.

Breaking News: Breastgate!

2006-09-16T18:02:00.000-07:00

This just in! According to reliable sources, at approximately 1:37 PM EST on Tuesday, an unidentified woman known only as "Jessica Valenti" of Feministing was able to sneak a pair of breasts into close proximity to former President Bill Clinton undetected. Concealed under only a shirt and (possibly) brassiere, the offending breasts were only discovered thanks to the perspicacity of keen-eyed observer Ann Althouse, followed up by Dr. Helen Smith and her husband, Glenn Reynolds. When last seen, the trio were attempting to locate Jessica for an intervention using a burqah and a chastity belt, in accordance with their One and True Feminism.

Obviously, this is just the break President Bush and his followers have been looking for in the ~~Global~~ ~~War~~ ~~Struggle Against~~ War on ~~Terror~~ ~~Terrorism~~ ~~Islamic extremism~~ ~~brown people~~ ~~Islamonazism~~ ~~Islamofascism~~ ~~Islamofeminazism~~ Breasts. Nothing could be more important in stopping the Brown Menace. We'll keep you abreast of developments as they come in.

Followups:

Feministing — Feminists don't pose (my two cents; I took a different angle)
Lawyers, Guns, & Money — Feminism: It's About Not Having Your Picture Taken in a T-Shirt and Overturning Roe v. Wade
Pandagon — But there’s titties in that picture!
Atrios has seen Jessica's breasts, and lived to tell about it!
Lawyers, Guns, & Money — Sexual Harassment As A Reactionary Prop
Feministing — The “dirty pillow” line of attack
Lawyers, Guns, & Money brings us a picture of the kind of group with which a proper feminism-respecting President surrounds himself.

The moat in Bush's eye

2006-09-15T19:01:00.000-07:00

Iraqi security forces will dig trenches around Baghdad and set up checkpoints along all roads leading into the city to try to reduce some of the violence plaguing the capital, the Interior Ministry said Friday....

The plan to dig trenches around Baghdad will be implemented in coming weeks, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Kareem Khalaf told The Associated Press.

It comes as more than 130 people were slain in two days — either killed in attacks or tortured and dumped in rivers or on the city's streets.

"Trenches will be dug around Baghdad in the coming weeks when the third part of the Baghdad security plan is implemented," Khalaf said.

One question that often comes up when such fortifications (or moat, as John likes to call it) are conceived and built: Is it intended to keep people out, or keep people in? Especially if they might be expecting more and more Iraqis to suddenly want to get the heck out of the country.

Update:

The U.S. military confirmed Iraqi plans, announced earlier this week, to restrict access to Baghdad by forcing cars through 28 checkpoints, but denied some Western media reports that the plan involves digging a giant 60 mile trench around the city.

Daily Goods

2006-09-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

Pandagon — I make an additional point in answer to a question about the "different but equal" school of (self-claimed) feminism. I follow up with some snark, naturally.

PZ and Phil the Bad Astronomer and many others pile up on the poor neo-con who is the only one with the clarity of vision to see the Evil Conspiracy behind some of the recent renaming of heavenly bodies.
Pharyngula — PZ looks on the bright side of ~~life~~ global warming.
Pharyngula — PZ discovers the Gateway to Information: your vagina. He also makes some excellent fashion suggestions (as always).

Daily Goods

2006-09-14T13:59:00.000-07:00

Disturbing.
Pandagon — more on how to keep women under your thumb.
Pharyngula — The Archbishop of York makes common cause with the Muslims against the Ultimate Evil – secularism.
Firedog Lake — The latest troubling news about the threat Diebold poses to democracy.

Cliffs Notes Torture

2006-09-13T18:42:00.000-07:00

Short version torture definition: If you're trying to get as close as possible to what you'd consider actual "torture", without it actually being what you would call "torture", then it's torture.

Update: More on that.
And still more.

Daily Goods

2006-09-13T12:31:00.000-07:00

Tony Snow still wants to imply a "relationship" between Saddam and al-Zarqawi. After reading this one, I'm thinking when they make the movie about this Administration, the roles of Tony Snow and/or Ari Fleischer should be played by Jon Lovitz. "Yeah, there was a relationship between the two. As a matter of fact... umm... we've got photos of the two having brunch together! Mimosas and everything. We just can't release those pictures. Yeah, that's the ticket."
Added: Best comment in there, I think: "I am beginning to think Snow has a relationship with Bush, but not one with reality."
The Washington Post—Bush Tells Group He Sees a 'Third Awakening'
President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."...

"He's drawing a parallel in terms of a resurgence, in dangerous times, of people going back to their religion," said one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was not open to other journalists. "This is not 'God is on our side' or anything like that."
Oh, no, of course not, what would ever lead one to think that? And why would the aide even bring it up, since it's so unimaginable?
Pharyngula — Man in funny hat dislikes, doesn't understand evolution: News at 11!
Pandagon — Women, don't let this happen to you.
At the end of the evening, when I go into the kitchen to help Sarah with the dishes, she confesses that she’d love to go back to school for her master’s degree, but she just can’t see finding the time. “I guess it’s just not part of the plan,” she says in a soft, distracted voice....

Abolafya no longer reads secular books or speaks to her old friends.... Between her marriage ministry, the women’s Bible study she runs, her two small children, and taking care of her husband and her home, Abolafya says she doesn’t have time for many relationships anyway, and when she starts to home-school her kids soon, her time will be even tighter. “It’s not what I ever imagined,” she tells me, “or even what I ever wanted, but it’s my duty now, and I have to learn to live with that.”

Daily Goods

2006-09-12T15:03:00.000-07:00

At Sadly, No! I point out another error in conservatives' narrative of 9/11.
At Pandagon, I point out that police shouldn't have all the same rights as the civilians they protect, although they also have more.

If you haven't already seen it plugged elsewhere, watch Keith Olbermann's Countdown from last night.
The Rude Pundit also nearly quotes me. And BTW, I heartily endorse his slogan suggestion:
"Don't let Osama Bin Laden tell you how to vote."
A series from Pandagon's Amanda on religion and politics:
After reading the caption on the photo with this TBogg post, I think I need to go scrub my eyes with bleach. Or drain cleaner. Or maybe both at the same time.

Bush's 9/11 Speech

2006-09-11T22:04:00.000-07:00

I don't have the exact quote yet, but here's the bit from Bush's 9/11 anniversary speech that jumped out at me: One of the defining problems with Islamic extremists is that they despise dissent.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

Update: Full quote:

Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.

Daily Goods

2006-09-11T14:57:00.000-07:00

As mentioned below, Retardo at Sadly, No! links back to my little essay.
At TPM Cafe, I noted that I had addressed a small facet of the problem of politicians lying here a bit over a year ago, and ponder a bit of why people consider it acceptable to lie, and what Tim Russert should've said to VP Dick Cheney.
A few tidbits from Pharyngula: a little lovely gospel music from one John R. Butler, Weird Al's White and Nerdy, a cartoon on belief, and a disturing video featuring "crappy music, worse dancing, puppets, pirates, Christian rap". PZ's posts: 1, 2, 3, 4.

On Means and Ends: A Confusion

2006-09-09T17:54:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that tired old saw about "the ends not justifying the means." It's bunk. Sure, not all good ends can justify all bad means. But certainly some good ends justify some bad means. However, it seems to me that, in many areas of discussion and debate currently, especially in politics, there is a confusion and conflation of means and ends.

The egregious example that brought this to mind recently concerns the idea of Adam Smith's "free market". As Brad DeLong put it:

...arguing with center-right reality-based technocrats about whether it is center-left or center-right policies that have the best odds of moving us toward goals that we all share--world peace, world prosperity, equality of opportunity, safety nets, long and happy lifespans, rapid scientific and technological progress, and personal safety.

One would like to think that something like this was an agreed set of goals, and certain policies were means to achieve them, possibly one among many, possibly the optimal of all possibilities. However, it seems that many in our discourse have come to believe that various ideologies which were originally espoused in pursuit of these ends, are themselves goals, to be pursued even at the cost of other, more ultimate goals, such as those listed above. They'd sacrifice the equality, the safety nets, the progress, the fairness, if they conflict with the "goal" of, for example, having free markets.

One of the motivations for the development of free markets during the 19th century was that it was believed that they would promote peace, since free trade amongst the states implied that if you attacked your trading partners, you damaged your own economy. They were also intended to make societies richer as a whole. But, as judges have recently said (much less deservedly) about our Constitution, they aren't a suicide pact. When market failures destroy access to entire segments of our economy, e.g. the current health care crisis, there are still those who insist that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will cure all, if given the chance. They've forgotten the reasons why free markets were proposed in the first place, and taken them up as a standard to be supported for its own sake, like those who would defend the flag by forbidding burning it, tarnishing that which it stands for.

Perhaps even more pervasive is the equation of democracy with freedom & liberty. (For an interesting study on the comparative origins of the terms "freedom" & "liberty" themselves, read poputonian here and here at Hullabaloo.) Despite the phrase "the tyranny of the majority" having been in use for over a century and a half now, many people assume that democracy automatically conveys freedom along with it. But this certainly isn't so. Witness the wishes of at least a plurality of those in Iraq, planning to impose their own version of a theocracy on the state (one could hardly call it a nation, really) through democracy. Or the current leadership of Iran, elected to bring them back to a more conservative Islamic democracy by cracking down on excesses of freedom. On the other hand, although I don't know if there are any concrete historical examples, one could hypothetically have a monarchy or some such in which the ruler granted near–perfect freedom to his or her subjects. Essentially, the principles of democracy and liberty may not be completely orthogonal to each other, but they certainly aren't perfectly parallel, either. Yet our current President constantly conflates the two concepts in speeches and strategies, and no one calls him on it.

In his Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln promised "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Breaking that down, the first part might lead to some semantic confusion: Does "gevernment of the people" mean the government belongs to the people, or that the people are being governed? Regardless, the latter two are clear enough to make my point. Democracy is pretty literally "government by the people." But this does not guarantee "government for the people," by any interpretation. Even if you define "the people" to mean the majority, they can still be convinced to vote (or otherwise participate in government) in ways that are not in their own best interests. And when it comes to people who aren't in the majority, all bets are off.

Democracy does not even guarantee liberty or freedom for the majority, let alone minorities. And liberty and freedom could, hypothetically, be had without democracy. In my view, democracy is "merely" a means to achieving a government that governs in the people's best interests, including their freedom. But some seem to view democracy as a goal to aim for in and of itself, regardless of the oppression, inefficency, or other malfeasance that may follow from it if the people choose poorly, or are misled. Certainly it is a worthy object to pursue, but it is not the ultimate goal.

A more simple and concrete, if more trivial, example might be the automobile and, to a lesser degree, related internal combustion vehicles (e.g., trucks, trailers, busses, etc.). Essentially, it is a means of transportation, of getting oneself, possibly some passengers, possibly some cargo, from point A to point B. Yet, especially here in the United States, we've grown a culture that venerates the automobile as though it were an end itself. This manifests itself in a general reluctance to use mass transit, and looking down our noses at those who do. There are also movies that "worship" the car to some degree, such as The Fast and the Furious and Days of Thunder and so forth. These, along with other examples, contribute to the overall impression that American society views the automobile as an end itself, rather than a means to achieve a necessary end. Thus, people are reluctant to consider transportation options that don't involve the automobile.

Now of course, I'm somewhat more concerned at present about the first two examples than that last one. These confusions lead to a fundamental failure of common sense, morality, and logic when people come to assume that what was originally a means to achieve a certain end is now a goal worthy of pursuit for its own sake. It becomes unthinkable to question its rightness, because while the means of achieving a goal might be debated, and alternatives considered, when one comes to think of it as an end, then any doubt cast upon its rightness calls large portions of one's belief structure into question, something with which most people are rather uncomfortable.

The next question would be, how can we make this clear to people, that what they've been considering to be goals, aren't actually? And how to prevent concepts that are currently considered means from being confusedly thought to be ends? At that point, my thinking on the matter is rather lacking so far. I'm open to suggestions and discussion, either here or on other blogs (with more traffic than this one!). Let's just try to remember whether this reminder of where things actually stand is, itself, a means or an end.

I'll post more on this as I find more examples and evidence for the examples, especially as I try to track down just how means are transformed into apparent ends. I'll add links to new posts here, so we can find them all together.

Meanwhile, here's another relevant post: Sadly, No!, on technocrat centrists, "propertarians," and free markets.
The Empire Links Back, with one word, "interesting." Ironically, Retardo of Sadly, No! linked to this (at my humble behest) shortly after a discussion in comments on another of his posts in which he was taking the opposing view that democracy was a noble goal for its own sake. I think he'd agree on my first example of the free markets, though, at least.
As an afterthought: I should have brought into the discussion of automobiles the fact that they also serve as status symbols, a form of conspicuous consumption that Brad DeLong was discussing recently, as I'd already linked to below. That would certainly be a big part of the demand for automobiles above and beyond needing a means to get from one place to another.
I found a a couple more examples related to torture.

Labor Daily Goods

2006-09-06T15:00:00.000-07:00

A chain of related posts, interspersed with a comment from me:

Brad DeLong — I Am a Reality-Based Center-Left Technocrat... — my two cents, and a bit of a preview of an upcoming post here
Atrios — Technocracy — nearly quotes my earlier comment at DeLong's
Brad DeLong — MaxSpeak Gets Semi-Medieval on DeLong

Elsewhere

Brad DeLong — Lyndon Johnson, Yes. William Jennings Bryan, No — on the relative marginal utility of wealth for the rich vs. for the poor
Brad DeLong — Department of "Huh?"
Brad DeLong — Making 'em Feel Small... — Greg Mankiw responds to LBJ, Yes. WJB, No above. Brad gives a name to the motivation I've been contemplating for a while, calling it "spite". I'm not sure if this is standard terminology amongst ethicists, philosophers, whomever, or his own term that he's applied to it.
PGL at Angry Bear — Measuring Poverty: Max Sawicky on Nicholas Eberstadt — PGL & Max Sawicky take one Nicholas Eberstadt to task.
Kevin Drum — Deep Thoughts — Mickey Kaus thinks the reason poverty rates are up is that all the newly rich amongst us can afford to take a year of luxury off. Without even reaping any capital gains in the meanwhile, of course, because everyone who's that rich got there by har work and the sweat of their brows, not by having a big nest egg to begin with, of course.
Kevin Drum — Happy Labor Day! — a depressing map showing the change in median incomes over the past six years. And speaking of maps....
PGL at Angry Bear — Poverty: Mickey Kaus is All Over the Map — more on the inanity of Mickey ~~Mouse~~ Kaus
Brad DeLong — I'm Not Going Back Over There!! — Brad can't bear to read the inanity of Mickey Kaus
Brad DeLong — Alan Krueger Channels Ori Heffetz... — More on "spite" and conspicuous consumption, from Alan Krueger
Pandagon — The expensive lives of the working poor in America — exploring why it's so hard for the poor to get ahead
Brad DeLong — "It's a Great Market to Be a Worker!" — Daniel Gross points out how delusional some of the people at AEI (American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank) are.
Pandagon — More on the expensive lives of the working poor

Presumptions

2006-09-02T18:58:00.000-07:00

President Bush the other day:

Americans believe that every person of every religion on every continent has the right to determine his or her own destiny. We believe that freedom is a gift from an almighty God beyond any power on Earth to take away. (Cheers, applause.)

Do we, now? Each and every one of us? Are you sure about that?

Traitorgate trivia revisited

2006-09-01T18:18:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent revelations that Richard Armitage may have been the one who revealed Valerie Plame's CIA activities, probably without realizing it was classified, I'd like to revisit a question I asked here last October:

Something I've been pondering over the past week or so, as we were getting a somewhat clearer picture of what went on around the Plame/Wilson leak: of course, it's verboten to reveal classified information that you know to be classified to someone not cleared for it. But is there a law that would cover the specific situation of someone who shares classified information with someone who is cleared for it, but doesn't tell them that it's classified, or at what level it's classified?

I'd think that may possibly be a very relevant matter in the (still!-)current investigation.

Seems all the more relevant now, doesn't it?

Daily Goods

2006-09-01T15:15:00.000-07:00

Jon Swift — I correct a linguistic detail, and point out what kind of God these warbloggers seem to believe in.
Sadly, No! — affirming the parallels between Mark Twain's latter years and our current times

Glenn Greenwald examines a fascinating psychological profile.
PZ Myers hopes that church leaders will feel freer with the tool of excommunication after reading this:
A Vatican official has said the Catholic church will excommunicate a medical team who performed Colombia's first legal abortion on an 11-year-old girl, who was eight weeks pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, said in addition to the doctors and nurses, the measure could apply to "relatives, politicians and lawmakers" whom he called "protagonists in this abominable crime".

"We acted within the constitutional framework," Dr Lemus said. "We were faced with the petition of a girl who wanted to go back to playing with her toys."

He said Cardinal Trujillo "calls the doctors and nurses 'evildoers'. I think the person who raped her is the evildoer".
Rapist, the evildoer? Where do they get these crazy ideas? Don't they read their Bible?

Daily Goods

2006-08-31T07:13:00.000-07:00

Pandagon — hypocritical hiring/firing practices of the extremist wingnuts
Pandagon — smart-aleckness about inconsistencies of the strawfeminists the reichwingers are always pointing to, and arguing against
Pharyngula — sympathy & snark for PZ in his time of tribulation
At Jesus' General, I point out that some families just aren't deserving of a "flat daddy".

Keith Olbermann on Rumsfeld & freedom, via Crooks and Liars – definitely a must-see
Here's some of the finer commentary out there on this today, not that there's any shortage of commentary on it.
h/t poputonian @ Hullabaloo
My thoughts on The Rude Pundit's subtle distinction between cynicism and sarcasm reveal that I tend more towards the sarcastic than the cynical.
At Think Progress, Sen. Allen still thinks nobody "actually care[s]" about "macaca".
Remember, you heard it hear first! Kevin Drum quotes David Weigel quoting Kathryn Jean Lopez (a.k.a. J-Lo) quoting Congressional Quarterly (no link, guess we know who's the sloppy one in this crowd!) quoting Jack Reed from a conference call, on Bush's fondness of Islamofascism... I mean, the term "Islamofascism":
And again, I think it goes to the point of that their first response is, you know, come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face.
Glenn Greenwald talks about the overuse of the Neville Chamberlain–appeasement slur, which leads me to think we need another corrolary to Godwin's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Neville Chamberlain approaches one. Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned Chamberlain has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

Daily Goods

2006-08-30T13:22:00.000-07:00

Pandagon — point out the inherent illogic of human interaction

Hullabaloo on sacrifices & trying to make sense of what Dubyah's saying
Kevin Drum on the VA system as a model to be emulated or sabotaged
Angry Bear about transfer pricing & Ireland

New "feature"

2006-08-30T12:16:00.000-07:00

Starting today, I'm going to be doing daily posts when appropriate merely consisting of links to comments I've made on other blogs, and perhaps sometimes even to posts on other blogs where I haven't commented on. The main reason for this is to show a bit more of my thinking than my somewhat sporadic posting here reveals, and incidentally to give myself a handy reference wherein I can find those comments I've left elsewhere but forgotten just where. Secondarily, it's a way to indicate others' posts that I find interesting enough to comment on (although often, that interest is merely that it conjures up a "witty" joke that I just can't pass up, so quality is not assured).

In doing this, I'll be modifying my general rule of never editing a post without noting it (usually with "Update:", "Added:", or "Edit:"). These I'll be adding to over the day (or however long) as I make comments, or find interesting articles. This way, I won't fall into the Eschaton trap of posting a dozen or two one-sentence links to articles in one day. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's just not my style.

I'll start off with a few comments from the recent past, both for their own sake, and as example of the fairly standardized format I'll be using.

Pharyngula — me being a smart aleck about PZ's apparent 70s/80s/90s confusion
Pharyngula — me being a smart aleck about language evolution
Pharyngula — a warning of the dangers of watching Darwin's Deadly Legacy
Pharyngula — Finally getting away from the smart–aleckness, I suggest a blog meme I'd like to see start making the rounds; with followups here and here.
Jon Swift — a little snark about the fellow who claims that "science is dead."
Pandagon — I point out the word Amanda was looking for.
Pandagon — I point out the word Brooklyn Girl might have been looking for.
Pandagon — Trying to make sense of the new FDA Plan B rules
Pandagon — acknowledge the Dickensian qualities of Blackwell's health care proposal for Ohio, and then ask a little about Marx

A little bonus for today (I might make this semi-regular as well), my self-quoting of the day:

At least it isn't unrequited hatred. I hate that, even if it doesn't hate me back.

Added: Another note on my editing existing posts is that most browsers probably won't retrieve the updates when you first visit, until there's a new post. You may have to refresh after loading for newest content (like this very paragraph).

Overextended metaphor

2006-08-30T06:15:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

We didn’t teach them how to fish. We gave them the fish. We didn’t teach them how to slaughter the cow to get the butter. We gave them the butter. The real bloat here as we know is in government.

OK, aside from the obvious mangling of cliche in the third sentence, even the sentiment of the first sentence is overlooking the reality of it. Perhaps we are giving "'em" fish, but it seems to me nobody's willing to give them a fishing pole or bait, either. So teaching them to fish is pretty pointless.

Updated: Put in the exact transcript version of what was said, now that it's available.
Added: For that matter, he probably thinks it would be a bull you'd slaughter for butter, a la the Bushs' stallion-milking joke.

Some moron wrote:

2006-08-23T01:08:00.000-07:00

What always puzzles me about Paul Krugman and his claims about inequality is why he doesn't seem to realize how silly he sounds when he refuses to acknowledge, and take some pride in the fact, that he is part of that top 1 percent. I find it hard to imagine that Paul Krugman's income in 2004 wasn't above $277,000, between his income from his university, his speaking engagements, his books, his columns, and his investments.

Now, does Paul Krugman think that he was just a tool of the "New Gilded Age" politicos? Does he owe his income gains to the people he despises, those nasty Republicans and that ridiculously centrist Clinton? I'd like to know. I suspect that if you asked him why his income grew to the point where he's in the top 1 percent, he would give some long answer, the shorter version of which is that he's "highly educated" and he's not lazy.

And the salient fact about this explanation is that it is accurate. Krugman's about as highly educated as you can get. He's got plenty of skills and occasionally (though not here) a good argument. People like what he does and he gets paid for it. Good for him. But good for Secretary Paulson as well, since Paul Krugman's own experience supports both parts of Paulson's assertion.

OK, then, what if you want to hear from someone well out of the top percentile? Here you go (let's say these happen to exactly match my own thoughts):

But he [Treasury Secretary Paulson] quickly reverted to form, falsely implying that rising inequality is mainly a story about rising wages for the highly educated. And he argued that nothing can be done about this trend, that “it is simply an economic reality, and it is neither fair nor useful to blame any political party.”

History suggests otherwise.

I’ve been studying the long-term history of inequality in the United States. And it’s hard to avoid the sense that it matters a lot which political party, or more accurately, which political ideology rules Washington.

Since the 1920’s there have been four eras of American inequality:

The Great Compression, 1929-1947: The birth of middle-class America. The real wages of production workers in manufacturing rose 67 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans actually fell 17 percent.
The Postwar Boom, 1947-1973: An era of widely shared growth. Real wages rose 81 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent rose 38 percent.
Stagflation, 1973-1980: Everyone lost ground. Real wages fell 3 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent fell 4 percent.
The New Gilded Age, 1980-?: Big gains at the very top, stagnation below. Between 1980 and 2004, real wages in manufacturing fell 1 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent — people with incomes of more than $277,000 in 2004 — rose 135 percent.

What’s noticeable is that except during stagflation, when virtually all Americans were hurt by a tenfold increase in oil prices, what happened in each era was what the dominant political tendency of that era wanted to happen.

So what the hell is your argument against that now? And if you actually have an argument against me saying that, why didn't you bring that to the gunfight along with your lame-ass ad hominem butter knife?

Say what?!?

2006-08-17T13:26:00.000-07:00

OK, today's big news, the judge in Michigan ruled that the NSA's warrantless wiretapping is illegal. But one particular line jumped out at me here (emphasis added):

All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exegencies of our present situation as a people, however, have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputedly been continued for at least five years, it has undisputedly been implemented without regard to FISA and of course the more stringent standards of Title III, and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Has this administration been using warrantless wiretaps before 9/11 even happened? If so, then two questions come immediately to mind: What was the justification for it at the time, and how useful do they seem to be if they couldn't stop any hypothetical people "determined to strike U.S." with the warrantless wiretaps?

Q: What does Bush call violating the privacy of 26 million Americans?

2006-05-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

A: A start.

Pet Peeve Day at Liberal Hyperbole

2006-05-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to note a little something that's always bugged me since that ~~second~~ third dark day in 2001: people referring to "the Patriot Act." It's an acronym, which stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"; in full form, the acronym is "USA PATRIOT Act." It has no relationship with the common nouns "patriot" or "patriotism," nor the adjective "patriotic," unless it's that of antonymism.

So, please, stop calling it what it isn't. Or Rep. Sensenbrenner might be angry with you for abusing his oh-so-clever acronymic title.

Logic says they don't get the contract.

2006-05-09T22:32:00.001-07:00

Dallas Business Journal:

After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, [HUD Secretary Alphonso] Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

There's been something about him claiming it was just a joke, and it never really happened, but I don't care whether it's just a joke. (Although I do care about whether it happened.) Regardless, it conveyed the message to his audience that they'd better go along with the Administration if they want in on those juicy contracts. And that's bad enough by itself to call for his head, whether or not he ever actually turned a contractor down for saying such a thing.

[The Real Estate Executive Council] attendee Junior Glymph, a defensive end for the Dallas Cowboys, said he could see Jackson's point.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion," he said. "But in politics, you have to watch what you say."

But this wasn't supposed to be politics—this was supposed to be about government. You know, actually running the country, not running for the office.

Just a thought...

2006-05-05T16:54:00.000-07:00

Perhaps Porter Goss should have released his medical records to the public, much like some expected John Kerry to do when running for President.

Who knows what kinds of fun and exciting diseases he might have been treated for in the past decade or two?

Added: More seriously, I wonder if there might be a connection in the timing, besides the obvious Hookergate possibilities, to the Mary McCarthy business a couple of weeks ago?

They're doing it again (or still?)

2006-04-17T15:33:00.000-07:00

From a Wall Street Journal editorial defending & supporting Donald Rumsfeld today (via CNN, since WSJ is subscriber-only):

"It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93."

9/11!! Iraq!! Saddam!! WMDs!! Mushroom cloud!! We're all going to DIE!!!

Unless you appropriately support our SecDef, and our Preznit!

Added: By the way, I fully expect all those who condemned the general officers critical of Rumsfeld's performance for speaking out about political matters to be tripping over themselves to condemn Gens. Crosby, McInerney, Moore, & Vallely. I'm starting to hold my breath, right now....

Blaming the messenger

2006-02-16T17:55:00.000-07:00

The United States has criticized an Australian television network's release of grisly images that show apparent detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq....

American officials have said the pictures should not have been released, with Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman telling The Associated Press their airing "could only further inflame and possibly incite unnecessary violence in the world."

Seems to me they/we ought to maybe be more concerned that detainee abuse "could only further inflame and possibly incite unnecessary violence in the world."

Too busy?

2006-02-13T17:34:00.000-07:00

So, Cheney's handlers say that they didn't immediately notify the press that the Vice-President had shot a man while hunting because they were too busy seeing to his care:

The White House is defending its delay in disclosing Vice President Dick Cheney's weekend hunting accident, telling reporters Monday the focus was on making sure the man Cheney shot got medical attention.

Cheney was hunting quail at a friend's South Texas ranch when he shot and wounded Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old attorney from Austin and Bush-Cheney campaign contributor, about 5:30 p.m. Saturday. Whittington, who was hit with birdshot in the face, neck and upper torso, was being moved out of intensive care Monday at a hospital in Corpus Christi, officials at the facility said.

President Bush was told Saturday night that Cheney had been involved in a hunting accident, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. But Cheney's office did not acknowledge the shooting to the public until Sunday afternoon, after the family that owns the ranch told a Corpus Christi newspaper about it.

"It's important, always, to work to make sure you get information out like this as quickly as possible," McClellan said. "But it's also important to make sure that the first priority is focused where it should be, and that is making sure that Mr. Whittington has the care that he needs."

So, Scotty, are you saying that seeing to one man's medical needs is all your administration can handle? Why should we trust you with a drug plan then, much less something like the War on Terror/Iraq?

Remember when Bush was so stridently insistent that his administration could "do more than one thing at a time"?

Saying the war in Iraq was "taking up all the energy" of President Bush's foreign policy team, [Madeleine Albright] asked Mr. Bush whether he had let nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea spin out of control, and Latin America and China policy suffer by benign neglect.

"I can't let this comment stand," Mr. Bush shot back, telling Ms. Albright and the rare assembly of her colleagues, who reached back to the Kennedy White House, that his administration "can do more than one thing at a time."

And similarly on the Lehrer NewsHour?

JIM LEHRER: No, I was just going to say in that respect directly, do you have any second thoughts now about not having first eliminated Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida before taking on Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I really don't because-- and I know we can do more than one thing at a time. We have got special operators and capable intelligence folks on the hunt all the time, and we've done a very good job of dismantling al-Qaida's operating structure, at least the operating structure that was in tact before September 11th, like Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shaibah, and mainly Osama bin Laden himself has not yet been brought to justice. But we dismantled al-Qaida, and they're constantly trying to reconstitute themselves and we're constantly on the hunt which is what America is going to have to do for quite a period of time.

("On the hunt," great choice of words.) So the administration can absolutely be trusted to handle these many facets of foreign policy at once, to the point that Bush "can't let this comment stand," and has to interrupt himself to say that "we can do more than one thing at a time" about intelligence operations. But expecting them to keep an eye on one man's medical condition and communicate with the press about it — what, do they look like some kind of miracle workers?

The Torture Matrix

2005-11-29T02:39:00.000-07:00

It might be for the best to read my "Inconceivable!" post from the relatively recent past before reading the rest of this post.

Again, I was randomly thinking of sci-fi stuff, and The Matrix somehow crossed my mind. (I'm not a big fan, especially given its massive reality holes, but it's got a few points.) I got to thinking of the scene from the first movie (I try not to remember that there were others after that) where Agent Smith is trying to find out from Morpheus the passwords for or location of Zion, or something like that. And I started thinking, if these Agents et al. are totally in control of the Matrix in this hypothetical world, why does it seem that they're giving Morpheus some kind of truth serum, when they're in total control of his world? I mean, compared to what they should be capable of imposing on him, the Bush regime's waterboarding & wiring up etc. would be pretty tame.

And then, something popped into my head in connection with this, which I've sort of known for a while now, but which hadn't made quite such an immediate connection as of yet: I've expected for a short while now, that fairly soon, we'll be technically capable of tapping in to the neural inputs of the brain, to some degree. And I would think that one of the very simplest things to do, along these lines, would be the simulation of pure, raw pain. (If I had to guess, given the current state of the art (i.e., monkeys being able to control arms and such), I'd expect this in between five and twenty years, a rather broad span.)

And this lead, inevitably, to the thought: If we did gain the technical capability to simulate such complete and thorough pain, where would that leave our current policies on torture? I divvied it up into a few different possibilities: Does "organ failure" mean a level of pain similar to organ failure, or the actual threat of organ failure? If the former, then pain stimulation can totally bypass any such rule. Similar questions surround the matter of whether "cruel and unusual punishment" describes any hypothetical torture technique that might cause incredible psychic damage, but leave no physical scars at all. (In case it isn't obvious, I think it would be "cruel and unusual", but I can see where other might argue otherwise once it were possible.) And for further specifics, is risk of death a significant factor in torture? If one can somehow simulate, e.g., waterboarding to one's heart's content, day in and day out, without risk of actually causing death at all, does that make it all peachy kean, and hunky dory? What about the chances of actual physical damage to get the answers one wants (regardless of the matter of whether the answers the torturer wants are actually informative)? Again, if you can simulate any level of pain desired (on the part of the torturer), what's the point of that jibber-jabber about "major organ damage"?

Now yes, you can say that, for the moment, this is all sci-fi kind of consideration, and nothing about which to get your panties in a bunch. But, much like my fears of airplanes used as weapons, it could easily become reality rather too soon. And I can't help thinking about how the recent discussions comparing levels of torture to "major organ damage" could too easily facilitate the kind of torture that could leave permanent psychic damage, even leave one psychologically completely crippled for the rest of one's life, as long as it didn't actually cause any physical damage to biological organs, per se.

And if that door were opened, I fear for us all, because the Eighth Amendment could be interpreted to be practically meaningless, as far as the "cruelty" part is concerned. After a Supreme Court ruling that might approve of such methods in extreme circumstances, the "cruelty" clause of the 8th would become virtually meaningless, given any kind of capacity for neural simulation of pain (probably one of the very simplest methods of neural stimulation). After that, torture techniques could pretty much completely ignore all the damage done to the psyche of the subject, and any rehabilitation or therapy they might require to return them to society (granted, assuming they were a member of society in the first place, but a big part of the context of the Constitution & Bill of Rights is that we can't trust government entirely to judge such things right off the bat) would just be so much water under the bridge; not the government's responsibility at all, and so what if they might be incapable of relating to other humans thereafter, or even have been turned from a well-balanced, peaceful person into a sociopath by the pain to which they've been subjected.

While this all probably seems pretty out-there at the current time (even to myself), it's almost inevitable that, sooner or later (maybe even later than the twenty years I mention as a likely max), it will come to pass. And when that time comes, we will either find ourselves having to figure out the morality of such techniques from scratch, or we will have the precedent already laid out for us, in precedents that were adjudicated in cases having nothing to do with such possibilities. And if those judgments rely on such simplistic definitions as "major organ damage," we could be in for a world of hurt. So to speak.