Turn up your volume. It'll make you feel more patriotic.
http://www.unsubscribe-me.org/waitingfortheguards.php?
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
How is this worth it?
Tens of thousands of US troops killed or wounded. Millions of Iraqis displaced. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed or wounded.
And now we conclude it is costing us $12 billion a month.
Can anyone please explain to me why you think this is worth it? How is this benefiting me and you?
And now we conclude it is costing us $12 billion a month.
Can anyone please explain to me why you think this is worth it? How is this benefiting me and you?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Trade
Hey everyone,
So I'm new to posting, although I've tried to keep up with what you all have written since Rachel invited me contribute. Here's an opinion article I just read called "The Pain of Globalisation."
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_pain_of_globalisation
It talks about the negative impact of trade on American worker's wages and why that's happening. Globalization is inevitable, and potentially also beneficial, but there are certain considerations that have to be made. Like demanding that the people who contribute the labor used to produce the goods we ultimately buy here are ensured basic rights. I also think government supported (at least partially) training for people who find their jobs shipped oversees so they can become employed again is a good idea.
Any thoughts?
So I'm new to posting, although I've tried to keep up with what you all have written since Rachel invited me contribute. Here's an opinion article I just read called "The Pain of Globalisation."
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_pain_of_globalisation
It talks about the negative impact of trade on American worker's wages and why that's happening. Globalization is inevitable, and potentially also beneficial, but there are certain considerations that have to be made. Like demanding that the people who contribute the labor used to produce the goods we ultimately buy here are ensured basic rights. I also think government supported (at least partially) training for people who find their jobs shipped oversees so they can become employed again is a good idea.
Any thoughts?
Friday, November 9, 2007
The Prez: Torture and Tapping, Power and Privilege
Power and the Presidency: A PBS interview with Charles Fried and Frederick Schwarz.
Intro
Part 1 of the interview
Part 2 of the interview
Charles Fried served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Reagan from 1985-1988. After Reagan left office, Fried returned to Harvard Law School as a distinguished lecturer. From 1995 until 1999, while teaching constitutional law at Harvard, Charles Fried was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, "the oldest appellate court in continuous existence in the Western Hemisphere."
Frederick (Fritz) A. O. Schwarz, Jr. is the senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. He had been a partner with the law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore since 1969. Schwarz was the lead counsel for the Church Committee, a Senate committee formed in 1975 in reaction to the Watergate scandal that investigated executive overreach stretching back to the FDR administration, eventually issuing 14 reports over three years.
Everyone should definitely check this interview out when you get a spare moment. It's so nice to hear reasonable people (both conservative and liberal) who have the experience and knowledge to speak intelligently about these issues. And you can read the transcript if you miss something.
Disclaimer: I do realize it's Bill Moyers, guys (F and T, you know who you are), but Fried was Reagan's boyeeeee! And get this-- I learned so much about secret wire-tapping from him that I have had a total turnaround and am all for it, with the proper Congressional oversight. To deter 'Mission creep.' I love that phrase. That's right. Secret wiretapping: FOR.
Part 1 of the interview
Part 2 of the interview
Charles Fried served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Reagan from 1985-1988. After Reagan left office, Fried returned to Harvard Law School as a distinguished lecturer. From 1995 until 1999, while teaching constitutional law at Harvard, Charles Fried was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, "the oldest appellate court in continuous existence in the Western Hemisphere."
Frederick (Fritz) A. O. Schwarz, Jr. is the senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. He had been a partner with the law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore since 1969. Schwarz was the lead counsel for the Church Committee, a Senate committee formed in 1975 in reaction to the Watergate scandal that investigated executive overreach stretching back to the FDR administration, eventually issuing 14 reports over three years.
Everyone should definitely check this interview out when you get a spare moment. It's so nice to hear reasonable people (both conservative and liberal) who have the experience and knowledge to speak intelligently about these issues. And you can read the transcript if you miss something.
Disclaimer: I do realize it's Bill Moyers, guys (F and T, you know who you are), but Fried was Reagan's boyeeeee! And get this-- I learned so much about secret wire-tapping from him that I have had a total turnaround and am all for it, with the proper Congressional oversight. To deter 'Mission creep.' I love that phrase. That's right. Secret wiretapping: FOR.
Iraqi Army
Here is a nice view of the Iraqi Army in training. I know I feel good about 'em.
Yes, that's real.
Yes, that's real.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
3 Quotes
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison
Interesting article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827
From the Wall Street Journal. What do you guys think?
From the Wall Street Journal. What do you guys think?
Monday, November 5, 2007
Time-out
Justin,
Hold on a freaking second. I'm sorry that you feel that I've insulted you. Let me at the very least try and address the things that have hurt your sensibilities.
First you're upset because I find it hard to take what you say seriously sometimes. Now, I didn't say that I don't taking you seriously.... What I meant was that the integrity of your comments (in my own mind) are in jeopardy because you offer up a great deal of criticism, but not much in the way of alternatives. For example, how should we conduct interrogations? Or what kinds of policies do you want to see from a future administration in regards to interrogations (or rendition, or wiretapping)?
Now I don't know why you care so much about my opinions, but maybe I shouldn't have used that phrase. I wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going to cause this result. And I am sorry.
You also said I insulted you because I claimed you are political and because you blame Bush for everything. I don't think that it is a stretch to say that you engage in political conversations with me, Rachel, and others. In doing so you invoke common political themes in some cases, and in others you create your own political stances. So in my mind you are being political, and that is not a negative thing. In fact I admire people who understand not only the issue, but also the politics that revolves around the issue.
Now you also use examples of people who use politics to advance themselves or their party or the people they represent. If you use a person's comments to make a point and I suggest that that same person's comments were used to advance themselves politically then I don't understand why you have to get mad at me. Just argue your point.
Now you said this: "since it seems to be beyond your ability to process as a list of obviously fucked up examples of things that ARE DIRECTLY HIS FAULT"
You then went on to list 7 things, which I assumed you meant were 'directly his (Bush's) fault". Maybe you don't blame everything on Bush, but in that list you included the melting of the ice among others. So I assumed that you were blaming the melting Artic ice on Bush because you said it was "directly his fault." And I responded accordingly.
---
Now let me show you some of your recent comments directed at me:
"since it seems to be beyond your ability to process..."
"maybe you can keep up..."
"Do you think before you write that kind of crap?"
These all could be considered insulting. I guessing that you think that I am stupid or slow. But that's OK, I didn't take offense. I understand when you get upset you like to go on about these things. However I do find it amusing that you have issue with me as being insulting.
---
Why do you get so upset when I use a historical reference? It's not like what I'm saying isn't relevant to the conversation. And if you don't like the reference then I'm not opposed to you forcing me to defend it. But, getting angry just because I mention something historical? Me doing so is not meant to point out something you don't know, it's just meant to add to the conversation. If you don't want me to make historical references in the future then I'll stop. But I really don't see why it's a problem.
T
Hold on a freaking second. I'm sorry that you feel that I've insulted you. Let me at the very least try and address the things that have hurt your sensibilities.
First you're upset because I find it hard to take what you say seriously sometimes. Now, I didn't say that I don't taking you seriously.... What I meant was that the integrity of your comments (in my own mind) are in jeopardy because you offer up a great deal of criticism, but not much in the way of alternatives. For example, how should we conduct interrogations? Or what kinds of policies do you want to see from a future administration in regards to interrogations (or rendition, or wiretapping)?
Now I don't know why you care so much about my opinions, but maybe I shouldn't have used that phrase. I wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going to cause this result. And I am sorry.
You also said I insulted you because I claimed you are political and because you blame Bush for everything. I don't think that it is a stretch to say that you engage in political conversations with me, Rachel, and others. In doing so you invoke common political themes in some cases, and in others you create your own political stances. So in my mind you are being political, and that is not a negative thing. In fact I admire people who understand not only the issue, but also the politics that revolves around the issue.
Now you also use examples of people who use politics to advance themselves or their party or the people they represent. If you use a person's comments to make a point and I suggest that that same person's comments were used to advance themselves politically then I don't understand why you have to get mad at me. Just argue your point.
Now you said this: "since it seems to be beyond your ability to process as a list of obviously fucked up examples of things that ARE DIRECTLY HIS FAULT"
You then went on to list 7 things, which I assumed you meant were 'directly his (Bush's) fault". Maybe you don't blame everything on Bush, but in that list you included the melting of the ice among others. So I assumed that you were blaming the melting Artic ice on Bush because you said it was "directly his fault." And I responded accordingly.
---
Now let me show you some of your recent comments directed at me:
"since it seems to be beyond your ability to process..."
"maybe you can keep up..."
"Do you think before you write that kind of crap?"
These all could be considered insulting. I guessing that you think that I am stupid or slow. But that's OK, I didn't take offense. I understand when you get upset you like to go on about these things. However I do find it amusing that you have issue with me as being insulting.
---
Why do you get so upset when I use a historical reference? It's not like what I'm saying isn't relevant to the conversation. And if you don't like the reference then I'm not opposed to you forcing me to defend it. But, getting angry just because I mention something historical? Me doing so is not meant to point out something you don't know, it's just meant to add to the conversation. If you don't want me to make historical references in the future then I'll stop. But I really don't see why it's a problem.
T
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Articles
Great article Rachel.
I disagree with many (not all) of his histoical intrepretations of the British Empire, American imperialism, and imperialism in general. Because of that I am taken down a different path of conclusions. However, I do like that at he is asking open-ended questions about the future in Iraq, and the future of American foreign policy. We so often are discussing the past and the present, it would be interesting to hear both of your thoughts on the future.
---
Here are some good articles that I've run across recently:
On governmental budgets (I discussed briefly in my previous post to Justin):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102548.html
It's by David Ingatius, and it gets at an issue about the federal government and how is works (or doesn't work).
Also, Justin has brought up the Turkish issue a couple of times. Well here is a wonderful article by Christopher Hitchens about the topic.
http://www.slate.com/id/2176842/
He's probably more in line with Justin than me. But I can only guess at that because I don't know where he stands on the issue outside of his believe that it's all Bush's fault.
And here's two more Hitchens articles is you have the time:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1
Hitchens writes about a soldier recently killed in Iraq, who decide to join the Army because of Hitchens own writings. It is a powerful introspective.
And this one about the new term "Anglosphere"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anglosphere.html
I disagree with many (not all) of his histoical intrepretations of the British Empire, American imperialism, and imperialism in general. Because of that I am taken down a different path of conclusions. However, I do like that at he is asking open-ended questions about the future in Iraq, and the future of American foreign policy. We so often are discussing the past and the present, it would be interesting to hear both of your thoughts on the future.
---
Here are some good articles that I've run across recently:
On governmental budgets (I discussed briefly in my previous post to Justin):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102548.html
It's by David Ingatius, and it gets at an issue about the federal government and how is works (or doesn't work).
Also, Justin has brought up the Turkish issue a couple of times. Well here is a wonderful article by Christopher Hitchens about the topic.
http://www.slate.com/id/2176842/
He's probably more in line with Justin than me. But I can only guess at that because I don't know where he stands on the issue outside of his believe that it's all Bush's fault.
And here's two more Hitchens articles is you have the time:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1
Hitchens writes about a soldier recently killed in Iraq, who decide to join the Army because of Hitchens own writings. It is a powerful introspective.
And this one about the new term "Anglosphere"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anglosphere.html
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
In the Spirit of Alternatives
Now, I would like to warn everyone that this article is written by:
John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His recently published work is called The Folly of Empire. I believe he would best be described as a liberal internationalist. Or, someone who believes in playing nice with others instead of acting unilaterally. So, yes, he is a liberal.
But please take the time to read what he has to say. He examines U.S. foreign policy pre-WW1 to present and then, at the end, presents alternatives for future policy decisions.
I also have to warn you that he uses words like "neo-conservative" and "neo-imperialist." Please try to get past any distaste you have for labels (I hate labels, too, so I totally feel you) and keep reading.
John B. Judis' discussion of Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy
Thanks,
Rachel
P.S. If you don't have time for the whole article, here is the end. But the whole article is really worth the read!
" The new administration needs to repudiate Bush's strategy of preemptive regime change and reaffirm the United Nations charter, which allows nations to act unilaterally only in their own immediate self-defense. That would have an immediate effect on American policy toward Iran, whose regime the United States is now officially trying to overthrow.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the idea behind internationally sanctioned and administered "mandates" and "trusteeship" for countries and peoples going through a difficult transition toward independence and statehood. If countries intervene to prevent war or genocide, they must do so in a manner that assures the peoples targeted that their right of self-determination will be respected. If the United States, for instance, had tried to intervene in the Balkans by itself, it might still be fighting an insurgency there.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the importance of international action and agreements -- through the U.N. and other bodies -- to aid in the prevention of wars, pandemics, and environmental catastrophe, and to ease the struggle over scarce resources, including oil and water. That means at a minimum returning to the negotiations over global warming; and attempting to revive the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the U.S. undermined in signing a nuclear deal with India."
--John B. Judis
John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His recently published work is called The Folly of Empire. I believe he would best be described as a liberal internationalist. Or, someone who believes in playing nice with others instead of acting unilaterally. So, yes, he is a liberal.
But please take the time to read what he has to say. He examines U.S. foreign policy pre-WW1 to present and then, at the end, presents alternatives for future policy decisions.
I also have to warn you that he uses words like "neo-conservative" and "neo-imperialist." Please try to get past any distaste you have for labels (I hate labels, too, so I totally feel you) and keep reading.
John B. Judis' discussion of Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy
Thanks,
Rachel
P.S. If you don't have time for the whole article, here is the end. But the whole article is really worth the read!
" The new administration needs to repudiate Bush's strategy of preemptive regime change and reaffirm the United Nations charter, which allows nations to act unilaterally only in their own immediate self-defense. That would have an immediate effect on American policy toward Iran, whose regime the United States is now officially trying to overthrow.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the idea behind internationally sanctioned and administered "mandates" and "trusteeship" for countries and peoples going through a difficult transition toward independence and statehood. If countries intervene to prevent war or genocide, they must do so in a manner that assures the peoples targeted that their right of self-determination will be respected. If the United States, for instance, had tried to intervene in the Balkans by itself, it might still be fighting an insurgency there.
The new administration needs to reaffirm the importance of international action and agreements -- through the U.N. and other bodies -- to aid in the prevention of wars, pandemics, and environmental catastrophe, and to ease the struggle over scarce resources, including oil and water. That means at a minimum returning to the negotiations over global warming; and attempting to revive the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the U.S. undermined in signing a nuclear deal with India."
--John B. Judis
Hippies?
Justin,
To begin with, Justin, I think that you are not only being political when it comes to Mr. Garamendi's comments, but that you are political on most things that we talk about. But this is not bad thing to be. It means (at least to me) that you are engaged in the topics and take you take stances based on rational conclusions.
--
I didn't realized that I made any sort of comparison between you and hippies. In fact I'm not sure that I've made any accusations against you about anything.
But I am more than happy to respond to things that you think are directly Bush's fault:
1. Turkey vs. the PKK
I didn't realized that Bush was responsible for a conflict that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. Now I guess that you could state that Bush's policies liberated the Kurds from Arab domination and therefore caused national Marxist groups like the PKK to become more brazen in their attacks against the Turks (and coincidentally against the Syrians and Iranians). But there is one caveat to that; It was the no-fly zones of the 90s that gave Kurds in Iraq their autonomy, and the PKK has had northern Iraq as a home base there ever since. So Bush is not directly responsible for this situation, but could have possibly added to it.
2. The ice caps
I didn't realized that Bush is directly responsible for global-warming. I understand political attacks on Bush by environmentalists over policy issues. I understand Democrats attacking Bush on global warming to score political points with liberal constituents. But I can't believe that Bush is solely and direct responsible fore the recession of the ice caps. If the scientists are correct then this melting has been going on for quite some time. And I believe that there is a great deal of earth science left to be understood before we have a full scope on global warming.
3. NG equipment and natural disasters
Now this one I will give you. A great deal of equipment is in Iraq. And the NG and reservist depots are much below there normal capacities. But I don't think that we need military equipment to fight fires. I think that we need fire hoses, and fire trucks, and perhaps some of those helicopters that can scoop up a bunch of water from a lake and dump it on a fire.
4. Cold people
I'm unsure what you mean by this. I'm guessing that you think that Bush wants poor families to be cold (as in a continuation of poverty so that they can't afford to heat their homes). This one definitely needs some elaboration.
5. Missing bin Laden
Is Bush solely responsible for not catching bin Laden? I don't know, and neither do you.
6. The cost of war
You are partially correct. Bush is only a piece in the governmental budgetary process. The current process is based on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (from a Congressional standpoint). This act set up a relationship between appropriating and authorizing committees, and created a budget committee to keep things in order. For the executive branches side, I believe it was during the Hoover administration that the White House for the first time began to send joint budgets to Congress, up until then each department would send budgets to the Hill independently of each other.
But to get back to your point.... yes Bush has responsibility for the cost of the War in Iraq, but he is by no means directly responsible.
7. Hack job science
Once again I need more elaboration.
To begin with, Justin, I think that you are not only being political when it comes to Mr. Garamendi's comments, but that you are political on most things that we talk about. But this is not bad thing to be. It means (at least to me) that you are engaged in the topics and take you take stances based on rational conclusions.
--
I didn't realized that I made any sort of comparison between you and hippies. In fact I'm not sure that I've made any accusations against you about anything.
But I am more than happy to respond to things that you think are directly Bush's fault:
1. Turkey vs. the PKK
I didn't realized that Bush was responsible for a conflict that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. Now I guess that you could state that Bush's policies liberated the Kurds from Arab domination and therefore caused national Marxist groups like the PKK to become more brazen in their attacks against the Turks (and coincidentally against the Syrians and Iranians). But there is one caveat to that; It was the no-fly zones of the 90s that gave Kurds in Iraq their autonomy, and the PKK has had northern Iraq as a home base there ever since. So Bush is not directly responsible for this situation, but could have possibly added to it.
2. The ice caps
I didn't realized that Bush is directly responsible for global-warming. I understand political attacks on Bush by environmentalists over policy issues. I understand Democrats attacking Bush on global warming to score political points with liberal constituents. But I can't believe that Bush is solely and direct responsible fore the recession of the ice caps. If the scientists are correct then this melting has been going on for quite some time. And I believe that there is a great deal of earth science left to be understood before we have a full scope on global warming.
3. NG equipment and natural disasters
Now this one I will give you. A great deal of equipment is in Iraq. And the NG and reservist depots are much below there normal capacities. But I don't think that we need military equipment to fight fires. I think that we need fire hoses, and fire trucks, and perhaps some of those helicopters that can scoop up a bunch of water from a lake and dump it on a fire.
4. Cold people
I'm unsure what you mean by this. I'm guessing that you think that Bush wants poor families to be cold (as in a continuation of poverty so that they can't afford to heat their homes). This one definitely needs some elaboration.
5. Missing bin Laden
Is Bush solely responsible for not catching bin Laden? I don't know, and neither do you.
6. The cost of war
You are partially correct. Bush is only a piece in the governmental budgetary process. The current process is based on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (from a Congressional standpoint). This act set up a relationship between appropriating and authorizing committees, and created a budget committee to keep things in order. For the executive branches side, I believe it was during the Hoover administration that the White House for the first time began to send joint budgets to Congress, up until then each department would send budgets to the Hill independently of each other.
But to get back to your point.... yes Bush has responsibility for the cost of the War in Iraq, but he is by no means directly responsible.
7. Hack job science
Once again I need more elaboration.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Response to comments
Rachel,
I agree that the National Guard is not at full capacity here in the US, but there's no reason that that fact should impact the governments ability to cope with natural disasters. The Katrina problems stemmed from incompetence at the local, state, and federal levels. They had trouble getting assets into place, not lacking assets. And in California they need fire-fighters and rain, not soldiers. Of course the NG could help displaced people, but so could anyone else. Mr. Garamendi's comments on Hardball were political opportunities. Opportunities which seemed, at least to you me and Justin, to be well worth it (since we're still talking about him).
---
I don't take Bush criticism personally. If I did that I would be pissed off pretty much every second of every day until he leaves office (and probably beyond that too). So, I was not upset by Justins comments. I was more amused (no offense Justin). It reminded me of me, bitching up a storm about Bill Clinton and how I thought that everything that was going wrong was ultimately his fault. These days I like giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, and I am always reexamining the Repubs for mistakes that they've made (boy have they been fucking up recently). Now that doesn't mean that I don't get angry and rail agains Pelosi and company, it just means that I attempt to be more patient.
As far as Bush and me. I will support him as long as he continues the current policy in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the pursuit of international terrorist organizations, and intelligence gathering. For me those are my principle issues, and I will vote for the candidate that I feel will continue these policies and also be able to adjust to future developments.
Now does that mean that I am wholeheartedly for every foreign or security policy that Bush has either pushed or created? Not at all. I understand, and try not to dismiss, the concerns expressed by you and Justin. And if Bush has a policy that I support, but don't like, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. But only if that alternative policy takes into account the risks and dangers that the current policy already addresses.
(quick aside -- The only Democratic candidate who does this (as far as I'm concerned) is Hillary Clinton. So while I will not vote for her, I hope beyond hope if a Democrat should win, that she will be it. She is the only Dem candidate that I believe is being serious about foreign policy and security issues.)
You guys are constantly tearing down the current policies for a whole litany of reasons, but rarely do you offer up your vision for alternatives. Because you don't do this, it is sometimes hard for me to take you seriously. So what I find frustrating is not Justin's rampaging, but how to respond without myself going on a rampage. Because I do respect you opinions and I don't want you to think otherwise.
T
ps. I'd like to get back to talking about the Military Commissions Act, will try to comment later this week
I agree that the National Guard is not at full capacity here in the US, but there's no reason that that fact should impact the governments ability to cope with natural disasters. The Katrina problems stemmed from incompetence at the local, state, and federal levels. They had trouble getting assets into place, not lacking assets. And in California they need fire-fighters and rain, not soldiers. Of course the NG could help displaced people, but so could anyone else. Mr. Garamendi's comments on Hardball were political opportunities. Opportunities which seemed, at least to you me and Justin, to be well worth it (since we're still talking about him).
---
I don't take Bush criticism personally. If I did that I would be pissed off pretty much every second of every day until he leaves office (and probably beyond that too). So, I was not upset by Justins comments. I was more amused (no offense Justin). It reminded me of me, bitching up a storm about Bill Clinton and how I thought that everything that was going wrong was ultimately his fault. These days I like giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, and I am always reexamining the Repubs for mistakes that they've made (boy have they been fucking up recently). Now that doesn't mean that I don't get angry and rail agains Pelosi and company, it just means that I attempt to be more patient.
As far as Bush and me. I will support him as long as he continues the current policy in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the pursuit of international terrorist organizations, and intelligence gathering. For me those are my principle issues, and I will vote for the candidate that I feel will continue these policies and also be able to adjust to future developments.
Now does that mean that I am wholeheartedly for every foreign or security policy that Bush has either pushed or created? Not at all. I understand, and try not to dismiss, the concerns expressed by you and Justin. And if Bush has a policy that I support, but don't like, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. But only if that alternative policy takes into account the risks and dangers that the current policy already addresses.
(quick aside -- The only Democratic candidate who does this (as far as I'm concerned) is Hillary Clinton. So while I will not vote for her, I hope beyond hope if a Democrat should win, that she will be it. She is the only Dem candidate that I believe is being serious about foreign policy and security issues.)
You guys are constantly tearing down the current policies for a whole litany of reasons, but rarely do you offer up your vision for alternatives. Because you don't do this, it is sometimes hard for me to take you seriously. So what I find frustrating is not Justin's rampaging, but how to respond without myself going on a rampage. Because I do respect you opinions and I don't want you to think otherwise.
T
ps. I'd like to get back to talking about the Military Commissions Act, will try to comment later this week
Come Now, Children
Dear "Tybz",
I do not appreciate you associating me with such a bumbling fool of a mortal as George W. Bush. Perhaps Dick Cheney, on occasion, has helped me with some minor tasks, but I once approached Bush about a partnership and he replied "A partnership? So what you mean to say is, workin together?" and then blinked rapidly.
I tried to explain the great things we could achieve together and he interrupted me quite rudely to ask if I was aware that his father had been president and did I have any blow, at which point I gave up. His eyes seemed to glaze over when I spoke for too long. As I turned to leave, he did mutter one thing I was hoping you could explain. I am fairly sure he said, "Fool me once, shame on...you...fool me..can't get fooled again!" Then he laughed maniacally and continued defecating on the Constitution. I just couldn't work with him.
However, if you have John Yoo's or Ted Haggard's contact information, please tell them I would love to chat.
Sincerely,
the Adversary
(aka The Devil, Abbadon, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Asmodai, Beezlebub, Lucifer, Belial, and Iblis)
P.S. If you don't mind, please tell Anne Coulter to get it under control if you see her. Obviously I'll be seeing her soon, but it seems she is losing her effectiveness.
I do not appreciate you associating me with such a bumbling fool of a mortal as George W. Bush. Perhaps Dick Cheney, on occasion, has helped me with some minor tasks, but I once approached Bush about a partnership and he replied "A partnership? So what you mean to say is, workin together?" and then blinked rapidly.
I tried to explain the great things we could achieve together and he interrupted me quite rudely to ask if I was aware that his father had been president and did I have any blow, at which point I gave up. His eyes seemed to glaze over when I spoke for too long. As I turned to leave, he did mutter one thing I was hoping you could explain. I am fairly sure he said, "Fool me once, shame on...you...fool me..can't get fooled again!" Then he laughed maniacally and continued defecating on the Constitution. I just couldn't work with him.
However, if you have John Yoo's or Ted Haggard's contact information, please tell them I would love to chat.
Sincerely,
the Adversary
(aka The Devil, Abbadon, Angra Mainyu, Satan, Asmodai, Beezlebub, Lucifer, Belial, and Iblis)
P.S. If you don't mind, please tell Anne Coulter to get it under control if you see her. Obviously I'll be seeing her soon, but it seems she is losing her effectiveness.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Bush is the Devil!
What about the Black Plague and AIDS? Bush is responsible for those too right? Rivers of blood, plagues of locusts, dogs and cats living together...Mass hysteria!!!!
I've also heard that Bush likes to bite the heads of puppies. I read it somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
By the way is the Lt. Gov of California a Dem? Wait a sec, he is, he is. So basically what you're saying that a virtually unknown Democratic state-level politician chastised a Republican president with low poll numbers; that is shocking! I bet none of us had ever heard of John Garamendi before now. But now we are discussing his bravery in stand up to a vile and despicable man. Wait, Justin, I thought that you disdained politics.
Hugh Rugter
I've also heard that Bush likes to bite the heads of puppies. I read it somewhere on the internet so it must be true.
By the way is the Lt. Gov of California a Dem? Wait a sec, he is, he is. So basically what you're saying that a virtually unknown Democratic state-level politician chastised a Republican president with low poll numbers; that is shocking! I bet none of us had ever heard of John Garamendi before now. But now we are discussing his bravery in stand up to a vile and despicable man. Wait, Justin, I thought that you disdained politics.
Hugh Rugter
Friday, October 26, 2007
Headlines
Bush is considering air strikes again Kurdish rebels in order to please the Ottoman Empire, which just approved an invasion of Kurd controlled Iraq. Such a nice situation we are in. Maybe we won't make a whole new slew of America hating insurgents. But hey, maybe it's the way we are handling it that is making things so darn poopy. Bush's Special Envoy to Turkey thinks so. He just resigned in protest because he was so frustrated that the Bush administration lack of diplomacy efforts. But he just forgot that diplomacy IS bombs. Silly envoy.
Chicken Little says: The ice is melting, the ice is melting!!! Oh shit, it is.
Yup, that's actual NASA satellite imagery folks.
The Lt. Gov of CA called out Bush for his disastrous record on dealing with disasters. He pointed out (as did the state leaders after Katrina and the midwest tornadoes) that the absence of National Guard troops and equipment greatly hampers their ability to deal with disasters. He apparently forgot that they are busy dealing with Bush's disaster.
Bush is apparently not content with trying to deny poor kids access to healthcare, but now he wants to take away funding for helping low income people heat their homes. A program that annually costs about what one week of Iraq does is apparently just too much of a burden for taxpayers. I guess Bush figures that illness isn't an efficient enough killer of children, so he intends to freeze the lil' fuckers.
Even Fox News had to report that just 2 months ago, we had a 70% chance to get Osama, but didn't because of, according to a Col. Hunt, "incompetence" among "our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders." Dead or Alive indeed.
The estimated cost for the Iraq occupation if continued for the next 10 years is... $2.4 t-t-trillion. Bush's spokesperson says they are not concerned with how much it costs. Isn't that nice, after selling it as only costing $50 billion we now find out it will check in at, oh, about 50 times that. And they don't care.
Scientists have denounced the "evisceration" of a CDC report on the potential health effects of global warming by the White House as "frustrating," "terrible" and "appalling." The edits reduced the initial report from 14 pages to only 6, and removed essentially any mention of potential health concerns. Dana Petrino remarked that the White House was simply trying to increase the focus on potential health benefits of global warming. She then ad-libbed how warming would help reduce cold related health concerns. A stance that wasn't even in the report, which actually did not find that there were any benefits at all. In fact it reported that any benefit from reduced cold would be outweighed by increasing heat related issues.
But you all have to remember that the scientists do not really understand the science here, the White House does. You see, political inculcation allows for true understanding. Years of education, specialization and study do not.
Chicken Little says: The ice is melting, the ice is melting!!! Oh shit, it is.
Yup, that's actual NASA satellite imagery folks.
The Lt. Gov of CA called out Bush for his disastrous record on dealing with disasters. He pointed out (as did the state leaders after Katrina and the midwest tornadoes) that the absence of National Guard troops and equipment greatly hampers their ability to deal with disasters. He apparently forgot that they are busy dealing with Bush's disaster.
Bush is apparently not content with trying to deny poor kids access to healthcare, but now he wants to take away funding for helping low income people heat their homes. A program that annually costs about what one week of Iraq does is apparently just too much of a burden for taxpayers. I guess Bush figures that illness isn't an efficient enough killer of children, so he intends to freeze the lil' fuckers.
Even Fox News had to report that just 2 months ago, we had a 70% chance to get Osama, but didn't because of, according to a Col. Hunt, "incompetence" among "our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders." Dead or Alive indeed.
The estimated cost for the Iraq occupation if continued for the next 10 years is... $2.4 t-t-trillion. Bush's spokesperson says they are not concerned with how much it costs. Isn't that nice, after selling it as only costing $50 billion we now find out it will check in at, oh, about 50 times that. And they don't care.
Scientists have denounced the "evisceration" of a CDC report on the potential health effects of global warming by the White House as "frustrating," "terrible" and "appalling." The edits reduced the initial report from 14 pages to only 6, and removed essentially any mention of potential health concerns. Dana Petrino remarked that the White House was simply trying to increase the focus on potential health benefits of global warming. She then ad-libbed how warming would help reduce cold related health concerns. A stance that wasn't even in the report, which actually did not find that there were any benefits at all. In fact it reported that any benefit from reduced cold would be outweighed by increasing heat related issues.
But you all have to remember that the scientists do not really understand the science here, the White House does. You see, political inculcation allows for true understanding. Years of education, specialization and study do not.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Why They Fight
This is some information on a documentary that is being shown to US troops in Iraq to help them explain what the insurgency really is. I think a lot of people that live here need to see it too.
Here is some info on it's screening to troops.
The trailer and more info can be found here.
Here is some info on it's screening to troops.
The trailer and more info can be found here.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Social Programs
I was thinking about what the ultimate reasons for our presence in Iraq are. It's to make our lives better, right? To make us safer, to make us wealthier and more secure. So, it's basically a social program. Just like the SCHIP program. Right?
Except, SCHIP, which costs a tiny fraction of what the occupation of Iraq does and would provide benefits to significantly more people than have benefited from our Iraq endeavor is treated with contempt by conservatives. And I really don't get that.
We're spending hundreds of times more, sacrificing thousands of lives, negatively impacting tens of thousands more for mercurial benefits that even if achieved will benefit far fewer than providing health care to needy children. Why?
Why do conservatives only seem to be willing to spend money on threats that come from overseas and can be bombed? Why do accidents and illness not matter to them?
I have to say that only reason I can think of is that there are loads of wealthy Americans that stand to make billions off of Iraq, and as a result they are completely willing to spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars in order to provide for them.
It's basically a social program, just for rich people. Take money (and livelihood and lives) from poor people and give it to rich people.
Except, SCHIP, which costs a tiny fraction of what the occupation of Iraq does and would provide benefits to significantly more people than have benefited from our Iraq endeavor is treated with contempt by conservatives. And I really don't get that.
We're spending hundreds of times more, sacrificing thousands of lives, negatively impacting tens of thousands more for mercurial benefits that even if achieved will benefit far fewer than providing health care to needy children. Why?
Why do conservatives only seem to be willing to spend money on threats that come from overseas and can be bombed? Why do accidents and illness not matter to them?
I have to say that only reason I can think of is that there are loads of wealthy Americans that stand to make billions off of Iraq, and as a result they are completely willing to spend hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars in order to provide for them.
It's basically a social program, just for rich people. Take money (and livelihood and lives) from poor people and give it to rich people.
Global Warming
Response from Justin, who for some reason refuses to post. Hmph.
That sure is a nice little rhetorical hackjob by Stossel.
First, a few words about his credibility on such exposes:
He has ties to the global warming denying (and industry funded) CEI, which went about defending him when he cited imaginary scientific studies in order to bash organic foods. He has "investigated" numerous pet issues of the CEI over the years and, shockingly, has found that they are dead right on every issue!
Both CEI and Stossel have used research out of context in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about issues concerning climate change and basically anything else he and they want to portray as they see them.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html
So, basically, take anything he reports with a giant grain of salt. He is a fervent libertarian and perceives science's conclusions that we need to regulate our industry to reduce our pollution as nothing but the boogy man of "socialism."
Now I'll respond to what he's actually reported on as either errors or exaggerations on the part of Gore and the IPCC.
Take note that he has nothing at all to say about the IPCC findings other than attempt to smear them as being lackeys for evil socialist governments. All he can do is attempt to imply they are not objective. Which I find hilarious coming from him.
But this article, written by scientists, does a good job of showing how hollow all Stossel's criticisms are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
And here is some info on the various "impartial experts" that Stossel has on his piece:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/oct/20/102000626.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
It is also notable that NONE of the experts used in this piece have ANY peer-reviewed research that proves their assertions. What they are espousing is simply their own personal opinions, nothing more.
I will leave you with some actual scientific conclusions and analysis, but that will likely not do anything, because believing the considered (and peer reviewed) findings of the people that actually study and understand this stuff is apparently not as good as going with your gut (and the free-market ideologue with the spotty record of journalistic integrity and accuracy who happens to have a gut just like you).
But don't let fact that EVERY major scientific body in the US whose member's expertise pertains to the matter have issued statements congruent with the IPCC conclusions influence your viewpoint.
Conclusions aren't made on rational input, they are made on emotions and ideological fundamentals.
I recommend to all of you that if you become injured or sick, don't go to see a doctor or anything crazy like that. Go boil some chicken bones and mix them with pig blood and toss them up in the air, then read their position to figure out what is wrong with you and what you should do. Or maybe just pray.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5524/2011a
Finnigan, Dan and anyone else who is swayed by such uninformed tripe as Stossel's work, the site I cited earlier is written by climate researchers that take the time to break down the science used and also critique the reports that one might stumble upon searching the interwebs. I've included an article from Nature that discusses it and corroborates their credentials. It is a great place to go and gain a better understanding of what the state of the science really is and what sort of methods are employed in this kind of research.
The fact that a group of scientists were so fed up with the twisted sensationalism and misleading media coverage of their research that they felt compelled to create a website (in their free time) to provide rebuttals to the punditry and spin that attempted to twist or discredit their conclusions should illuminate how distorted this issue has become outside of scientific circles.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/full/432937a.html
To all:
If you are actually serious about trying to understand the state of climate science I am very happy to provide sources and information to anyone who asks. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have been reading journals and publications for the last 10 years, and I found that the question was overwhelmingly resolved long ago. I'm not sure, but I might be able to give you something a little more substantial than a 20/20 piece.
The simple fact is that the vast, VAST, VAST preponderance of data shows that we are at least significantly contributing to the observed warming, that the warming will only increase and that the effects of this warming will be very deleterious to the industrialized world. The case for action regarding our energy policies is completely justified based on the research and has been for quite some time. Not to mention that aside from purely environmental considerations, our present energy policies are placing us in increasingly precarious economic situations as well as exacerbate global security issues in a number of different ways.
The debate should be over what to do about this, not whether it is really happening. That is a question for the researchers, we can only act on their findings. We face enough questions created by their conclusions to occupy our mental energies.
That sure is a nice little rhetorical hackjob by Stossel.
First, a few words about his credibility on such exposes:
He has ties to the global warming denying (and industry funded) CEI, which went about defending him when he cited imaginary scientific studies in order to bash organic foods. He has "investigated" numerous pet issues of the CEI over the years and, shockingly, has found that they are dead right on every issue!
Both CEI and Stossel have used research out of context in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about issues concerning climate change and basically anything else he and they want to portray as they see them.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html
So, basically, take anything he reports with a giant grain of salt. He is a fervent libertarian and perceives science's conclusions that we need to regulate our industry to reduce our pollution as nothing but the boogy man of "socialism."
Now I'll respond to what he's actually reported on as either errors or exaggerations on the part of Gore and the IPCC.
Take note that he has nothing at all to say about the IPCC findings other than attempt to smear them as being lackeys for evil socialist governments. All he can do is attempt to imply they are not objective. Which I find hilarious coming from him.
But this article, written by scientists, does a good job of showing how hollow all Stossel's criticisms are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
And here is some info on the various "impartial experts" that Stossel has on his piece:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/oct/20/102000626.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
It is also notable that NONE of the experts used in this piece have ANY peer-reviewed research that proves their assertions. What they are espousing is simply their own personal opinions, nothing more.
I will leave you with some actual scientific conclusions and analysis, but that will likely not do anything, because believing the considered (and peer reviewed) findings of the people that actually study and understand this stuff is apparently not as good as going with your gut (and the free-market ideologue with the spotty record of journalistic integrity and accuracy who happens to have a gut just like you).
But don't let fact that EVERY major scientific body in the US whose member's expertise pertains to the matter have issued statements congruent with the IPCC conclusions influence your viewpoint.
Conclusions aren't made on rational input, they are made on emotions and ideological fundamentals.
I recommend to all of you that if you become injured or sick, don't go to see a doctor or anything crazy like that. Go boil some chicken bones and mix them with pig blood and toss them up in the air, then read their position to figure out what is wrong with you and what you should do. Or maybe just pray.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5524/2011a
Finnigan, Dan and anyone else who is swayed by such uninformed tripe as Stossel's work, the site I cited earlier is written by climate researchers that take the time to break down the science used and also critique the reports that one might stumble upon searching the interwebs. I've included an article from Nature that discusses it and corroborates their credentials. It is a great place to go and gain a better understanding of what the state of the science really is and what sort of methods are employed in this kind of research.
The fact that a group of scientists were so fed up with the twisted sensationalism and misleading media coverage of their research that they felt compelled to create a website (in their free time) to provide rebuttals to the punditry and spin that attempted to twist or discredit their conclusions should illuminate how distorted this issue has become outside of scientific circles.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/full/432937a.html
To all:
If you are actually serious about trying to understand the state of climate science I am very happy to provide sources and information to anyone who asks. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have been reading journals and publications for the last 10 years, and I found that the question was overwhelmingly resolved long ago. I'm not sure, but I might be able to give you something a little more substantial than a 20/20 piece.
The simple fact is that the vast, VAST, VAST preponderance of data shows that we are at least significantly contributing to the observed warming, that the warming will only increase and that the effects of this warming will be very deleterious to the industrialized world. The case for action regarding our energy policies is completely justified based on the research and has been for quite some time. Not to mention that aside from purely environmental considerations, our present energy policies are placing us in increasingly precarious economic situations as well as exacerbate global security issues in a number of different ways.
The debate should be over what to do about this, not whether it is really happening. That is a question for the researchers, we can only act on their findings. We face enough questions created by their conclusions to occupy our mental energies.
Give Me A Break - Global Warming
From Anonymous Poster who does not wish to publish his/her beliefs before such a vast audience.
My first attempt
Sorry I've been incommunicado. The combination of work, applying to new jobs, and of course all things weddings have kept me from participating actively. Anyways, here are just a few things for everyone:
For Justin:
I read as much as I could of your lost email. However, I did not read each of the articles that you inserted. I assume that they all have a the same theme though - stress on the troops, low morale.
Now the articles that I read (both news and opinion) don't seem to reflect the same attitudes from the troops that the Guardian, NY Times, and LA Times do. I don't know why that is. Also the independent inbedded journalist like Yon, Totten, Smith, and others always seem to be with units that have no morale problems (in fact usually quite the opposite). I'm not disputing the NY Times or the LA Times, but there seems to be a disconnect between the people that I read and rely on and the people that you read and rely on. Perhaps it partly has to do with the significant changes that occurred all over the country over the last three months. Even some more mainstream news sources seem to be reporting on it:
Reuters -- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Newsweek -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/57358
For Rachel:
I am so sorry that I never responded to your wonderful post on interrogations. I really did intend on doing so, and then it kind of got lost behind.
I first meant to ask if you took excerpts from the paper you wrote about interrogations? Whether you did or not I would love to read it sometime.
Anyways I had an interesting conversation with a person I know who works with a former Guantanamo Bay interrogator. This guy worked at Gitmo for most of the War on Islamofascism (I wonder if you like that name better than War on Terror). As you can guess he never thought that anything that he or his colleagues did could be considered torture. He also said, interestingly enough, that most of the al-Qaida prisoners at Gitmo had been trained to overcome interrogation tactics during their time at training camps in Afghanistan. And that their goal after being captured was to use the US justice system as a mouthpiece to garner support from other extremist (and this was supposed to be done in American courtrooms). The idea that the US would hold them indefinitely, and not allow them court appearances did not occur to them, and in many ways threw a wrench into their plans (that is holding them as any other country would, for the duration of the conflict).
The other curious thing that was relayed to me was the way that interrogations are conducted now after all the brew-ha-ha over perceived torture. The guy said that under the old system they gathered some of the most valuable information ever collected from any source, and that they had a very high rate of successful interrogations. And that once prisoners let their guard down, they tend to give up huge amounts of info, as if they wanted to brag about their accomplishments to someone. The guy said that normally their hardest task is figuring out what is real and what is bravado.
But now they operate very differently. Today if they want to interrogate a prisoner they have to go to the prisoners cell and ask the prisoner if he wants to talk to them. If the prisoner refuses then they just leave the prisoner be. So basically we can't get any information from anyone anymore. This one particular guy quit because he was fed up with the situation (and he apparently claims that many other trained interrogators are also quiting).
This brings up my questions for you. If stress and duress techniques are no longer acceptable to you, then how would you conduct interrogations of prisoners in the future? Which sorts of techniques, if any, would you approve of, and how would you square the need for intelligence, and the desire to treat these unlawful combatants properly? And how would you want a potential Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama administration to tackle this issue?
There is so much more from the last email you sent about this that I would like to discuss, but it'll have to wait until next time.
For the environmentalists:
Do you guys remember my old roommate Anthony? Anthony graduated from Johns Hopkins with a masters in Environmental Policy. He and I had constant (constructive) arguments about all things political, all the time. However when it came to questions of the environment I normally gave way to him, since he knew so much about it. The only time that I ever really challenged him is when we switched from talking about the circumstances of environmental problems to what should the government do about those problems?
My concern is more about the effects of environmental policy on the American economy, and less about the affects of global warming on the earth. That's not because I don't take global warming seriously, because I do. But I just don't want us to do something that will inhibit economic growth for a science that seems to change rather frequently.
Also the politics global warming seem to me to have more to do with positioning, than it does with science. The Kyoto Treaty, for instance:
Normally Democrats liked to beat up Republicans over not Kyoto, saying something like Bush has "refused to sign Kyoto." However, Bush refused to sign Kyoto for a very good reason: he can't. The previous President already signed Kyoto, however he never sent it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would fail. There are differing constitutional rationales behind this. Some say that the Senate can take it up an time it wants to, while others say that the President actually has to send it over. Either way Harry Reid isn't clamoring to get going with it. He knows that every Democratic Senator would see their union support running for the hills if he brought the treaty up for a vote.
And besides its better to leave the matter unresolved so that you can use it to beat up a Republican President and Republican Senators. Until the science gets really firm, the politicians are going to play around with the policy to suit their political goals (Al Gore included).
T
For Justin:
I read as much as I could of your lost email. However, I did not read each of the articles that you inserted. I assume that they all have a the same theme though - stress on the troops, low morale.
Now the articles that I read (both news and opinion) don't seem to reflect the same attitudes from the troops that the Guardian, NY Times, and LA Times do. I don't know why that is. Also the independent inbedded journalist like Yon, Totten, Smith, and others always seem to be with units that have no morale problems (in fact usually quite the opposite). I'm not disputing the NY Times or the LA Times, but there seems to be a disconnect between the people that I read and rely on and the people that you read and rely on. Perhaps it partly has to do with the significant changes that occurred all over the country over the last three months. Even some more mainstream news sources seem to be reporting on it:
Reuters -- http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Newsweek -- http://www.newsweek.com/id/57358
For Rachel:
I am so sorry that I never responded to your wonderful post on interrogations. I really did intend on doing so, and then it kind of got lost behind.
I first meant to ask if you took excerpts from the paper you wrote about interrogations? Whether you did or not I would love to read it sometime.
Anyways I had an interesting conversation with a person I know who works with a former Guantanamo Bay interrogator. This guy worked at Gitmo for most of the War on Islamofascism (I wonder if you like that name better than War on Terror). As you can guess he never thought that anything that he or his colleagues did could be considered torture. He also said, interestingly enough, that most of the al-Qaida prisoners at Gitmo had been trained to overcome interrogation tactics during their time at training camps in Afghanistan. And that their goal after being captured was to use the US justice system as a mouthpiece to garner support from other extremist (and this was supposed to be done in American courtrooms). The idea that the US would hold them indefinitely, and not allow them court appearances did not occur to them, and in many ways threw a wrench into their plans (that is holding them as any other country would, for the duration of the conflict).
The other curious thing that was relayed to me was the way that interrogations are conducted now after all the brew-ha-ha over perceived torture. The guy said that under the old system they gathered some of the most valuable information ever collected from any source, and that they had a very high rate of successful interrogations. And that once prisoners let their guard down, they tend to give up huge amounts of info, as if they wanted to brag about their accomplishments to someone. The guy said that normally their hardest task is figuring out what is real and what is bravado.
But now they operate very differently. Today if they want to interrogate a prisoner they have to go to the prisoners cell and ask the prisoner if he wants to talk to them. If the prisoner refuses then they just leave the prisoner be. So basically we can't get any information from anyone anymore. This one particular guy quit because he was fed up with the situation (and he apparently claims that many other trained interrogators are also quiting).
This brings up my questions for you. If stress and duress techniques are no longer acceptable to you, then how would you conduct interrogations of prisoners in the future? Which sorts of techniques, if any, would you approve of, and how would you square the need for intelligence, and the desire to treat these unlawful combatants properly? And how would you want a potential Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama administration to tackle this issue?
There is so much more from the last email you sent about this that I would like to discuss, but it'll have to wait until next time.
For the environmentalists:
Do you guys remember my old roommate Anthony? Anthony graduated from Johns Hopkins with a masters in Environmental Policy. He and I had constant (constructive) arguments about all things political, all the time. However when it came to questions of the environment I normally gave way to him, since he knew so much about it. The only time that I ever really challenged him is when we switched from talking about the circumstances of environmental problems to what should the government do about those problems?
My concern is more about the effects of environmental policy on the American economy, and less about the affects of global warming on the earth. That's not because I don't take global warming seriously, because I do. But I just don't want us to do something that will inhibit economic growth for a science that seems to change rather frequently.
Also the politics global warming seem to me to have more to do with positioning, than it does with science. The Kyoto Treaty, for instance:
Normally Democrats liked to beat up Republicans over not Kyoto, saying something like Bush has "refused to sign Kyoto." However, Bush refused to sign Kyoto for a very good reason: he can't. The previous President already signed Kyoto, however he never sent it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would fail. There are differing constitutional rationales behind this. Some say that the Senate can take it up an time it wants to, while others say that the President actually has to send it over. Either way Harry Reid isn't clamoring to get going with it. He knows that every Democratic Senator would see their union support running for the hills if he brought the treaty up for a vote.
And besides its better to leave the matter unresolved so that you can use it to beat up a Republican President and Republican Senators. Until the science gets really firm, the politicians are going to play around with the policy to suit their political goals (Al Gore included).
T
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Emperor Bush's New Clothes
New Format: Less Blabby, more "What the fuck!"'s per bulletin
- Looks like the junior officers with experience in Iraq are not very encouraged by the state of the military and feel we need to implement the draft or withdraw.
- The head of the Marine Corps is concerned about their ability to respond to a security threat because the Corps are so depleted.
- Gen. Sanchez, the former commander of forces in Iraq thinks it's a debacle.
- And while the right is trying to crucify him for daring to be a "phony soldier" and lambast him for not voicing his concerns before; He was a critic of the war planning, and while he didn't criticize the war when he was in command. John McCain explained why, "...one of the reasons, in all due respect, my friend, is because General Shinseki gave his opinion and got fired." Which is a lovely example of how Emperor Bush views his generals.
- Lara Logan says Iraq is even worse than on TV! She also mentions how odd it is that our soldiers are now working with men that a few weeks prior were trying to kill them.
- US Head of Counterterrorism says that we are probably not tactically safer as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. He abruptly resigned today. He was not toeing the administrations line... I wonder if he voluntarily left? Also note how many of the men in prison in Iraq say they were fighting because they were angered by our occupation of Iraq, not because of fundamental beliefs.
- We also have Qwest coming out and saying the Bush's warrantless wiretapping program started 6 months before 9/11. Which suggests three things:
Impeachment
The Case Against Bush
Articles of Impeachment
Drafted by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
(The legal basis for impeachment)
Six Background Notes
Notes for the Consideration of Impeachment
Don't forget to sign the petition to impeach Dubya (on the left of the pages). It is doubtful that this would ever occur, of course, but one million people who acknowledge Bush's impeachable crimes sends a message to the rest of the world, at the very least.
Think of it as doing your part for American PR.
Articles of Impeachment
Drafted by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
(The legal basis for impeachment)
Six Background Notes
Notes for the Consideration of Impeachment
Don't forget to sign the petition to impeach Dubya (on the left of the pages). It is doubtful that this would ever occur, of course, but one million people who acknowledge Bush's impeachable crimes sends a message to the rest of the world, at the very least.
Think of it as doing your part for American PR.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Chris Chambers traded to the Chargers
This is the best news I've heard in a while. Oops, wrong blog.
But I knew that and I was just joking around. Actually I just wanted to shout out on here. I respect the vast amounts of material you guys have been reading, writing, and watching.
But I knew that and I was just joking around. Actually I just wanted to shout out on here. I respect the vast amounts of material you guys have been reading, writing, and watching.
Kudos R!
This is great Rachel:) The witty banter, uh or mudslinging, of J and T make my days most enjoyable!
Torture (Test Post)
Tybz, please do not associate me with Justin's ranting. :)
That's great that you found those techniques on globalsecurity.com, but I don't see their relevance to the techniques employed/allowed for the "war on terror."*
A sampling from the "Fear Up technique":
"Great care must be taken when doing this so that any actions taken would not violate the Geneva Conventions."
Well, that right there shows that these are irrelevant. One is not required to adhere to such a silly agreement as the Geneva Conventions when questioning an enemy combatant, which, as we all know, is a term that anyone in the world, including American citizens, can fall under, thanks to Prezzy Bush and his friends. As head of the military and national security, he can determine any one of us to be an enemy combatant. And torture us. Proof:
The Pentagon Working Group March 2003 draft report on interrogation methods concluded as follows:
"In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority…it does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority" ("Portions").
Essentially, no soldier, interrogator or other military person in a position of authority could ever be held responsible for an act of torture. The responsibility now rests legally, not just rhetorically, with the state, or, more specifically, the President and the Secretary of State.
Tybz, have you read the Patriot Act?
After that, I suggest starting with portions of the Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods (March 2003) and a troubling memo from John Yoo to White House Counsel from 2002 that pushes the limits of the English language to justify torture.
The memos engage in a semantic discussion of what constitutes a "general intent" to inflict pain and a "specific intent" to inflict pain, since a "specific intent" is the language used in the U.S. Code's prohibitions against torture. The researchers assert that "…even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent" (Yoo 3). For example, if an interrogator's specific "objective" was gaining essential intelligence through interrogation, then his "specific intent" could not be shown to be that of inflicting pain. Even if inflicting pain was the method employed to obtain intelligence, the interrogator would not be guilty of torture. In this case, the verbal question of intelligence effectively obscures culpability for the physical act of torture.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html
For anyone who is interested in being flabbergasted further:
Yoo, John. "Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White
House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture." Electronic. August 1, 2002. < http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ doj/bybee80102ltr.html>.
"Portions of Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods,
Reportedly Prepared In Consultation With The U.S. Deptartment of Justice." Provided by The Wall Street Journal Online. March 6, 2003. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment." Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1). < http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs. html>.
Bush, President George W. "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in
the War Against Terrorism." Military Order from the Office of the Press Secretary. Nov 13th, 2001. < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/ 11/20011113-27.html>.
This is a really good one!
Also, I find it odd that you are comparing the way a detainee or enemy combatant is treated to the way we train Navy Seals. I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but the people in question did not exactly volunteer to be Navy Seals. So....huh?
*Do we seriously have to keep using this term? First of all, it makes absolutely no sense. For the last time, you cannot actually fight TERROR. It is a freaking emotion. You can, however, suppport the aims of terrorist groups by making it into a giant slogan. Second of all, the phrase just allows us, as a nation, to cast any nation or individual as "the enemy", thereby throwing the rulebook of diplomacy and international law out the window and making room for war/torture/etc. Laziness. Slovenly lack of morals as a direct result of fear, or wait-- terror! They win!
Love,
Rachel
That's great that you found those techniques on globalsecurity.com, but I don't see their relevance to the techniques employed/allowed for the "war on terror."*
A sampling from the "Fear Up technique":
"Great care must be taken when doing this so that any actions taken would not violate the Geneva Conventions."
Well, that right there shows that these are irrelevant. One is not required to adhere to such a silly agreement as the Geneva Conventions when questioning an enemy combatant, which, as we all know, is a term that anyone in the world, including American citizens, can fall under, thanks to Prezzy Bush and his friends. As head of the military and national security, he can determine any one of us to be an enemy combatant. And torture us. Proof:
The Pentagon Working Group March 2003 draft report on interrogation methods concluded as follows:
"In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, 18 U.S.C. 2340A (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority…it does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority" ("Portions").
Essentially, no soldier, interrogator or other military person in a position of authority could ever be held responsible for an act of torture. The responsibility now rests legally, not just rhetorically, with the state, or, more specifically, the President and the Secretary of State.
Tybz, have you read the Patriot Act?
After that, I suggest starting with portions of the Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods (March 2003) and a troubling memo from John Yoo to White House Counsel from 2002 that pushes the limits of the English language to justify torture.
The memos engage in a semantic discussion of what constitutes a "general intent" to inflict pain and a "specific intent" to inflict pain, since a "specific intent" is the language used in the U.S. Code's prohibitions against torture. The researchers assert that "…even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent" (Yoo 3). For example, if an interrogator's specific "objective" was gaining essential intelligence through interrogation, then his "specific intent" could not be shown to be that of inflicting pain. Even if inflicting pain was the method employed to obtain intelligence, the interrogator would not be guilty of torture. In this case, the verbal question of intelligence effectively obscures culpability for the physical act of torture.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102ltr.html
For anyone who is interested in being flabbergasted further:
Yoo, John. "Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo to the White
House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture." Electronic. August 1, 2002. < http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ doj/bybee80102ltr.html>.
"Portions of Pentagon Working Group Draft Report on Interrogation Methods,
Reportedly Prepared In Consultation With The U.S. Deptartment of Justice." Provided by The Wall Street Journal Online. March 6, 2003. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/30603wgrpt.html
"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment." Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1). < http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs. html>.
Bush, President George W. "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in
the War Against Terrorism." Military Order from the Office of the Press Secretary. Nov 13th, 2001. < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/ 11/20011113-27.html>.
This is a really good one!
Also, I find it odd that you are comparing the way a detainee or enemy combatant is treated to the way we train Navy Seals. I'm not sure why I have to point this out, but the people in question did not exactly volunteer to be Navy Seals. So....huh?
*Do we seriously have to keep using this term? First of all, it makes absolutely no sense. For the last time, you cannot actually fight TERROR. It is a freaking emotion. You can, however, suppport the aims of terrorist groups by making it into a giant slogan. Second of all, the phrase just allows us, as a nation, to cast any nation or individual as "the enemy", thereby throwing the rulebook of diplomacy and international law out the window and making room for war/torture/etc. Laziness. Slovenly lack of morals as a direct result of fear, or wait-- terror! They win!
Love,
Rachel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
