News Cycle Roundup - May Day!
Good Friday morning Swordsmen. It's been a while since I dropped a NCR, but the last week of every month will always be a tough time for me. I hope everything is going well with everyone. a lot of stuff hit the Google reader that have since blown over, so if you see an old story or two, forgive me. On the ledger: a new guy in at Bank of America, Souter stepping down, Obama the socialist, black optimism, the future of the Republican Party, Chysler, cheating, and a surprise guest arrives to Twitter.
Wow! My alma mater's president emeritus is now chairman of Bank of America . Talk about random. In the picture behind the link is the dorm I stayed in freshman year.
Souter is stepping down from the court at 69. Time for a fight. Yay.
Check out this awesome kid . A real life Doogie Howser. When I was 14, I was also at a magnet school focused on health science and engineering, but I was busy trying to be cool among the smart kids.
Matt Welch: Obama says he's not a central-planning socialist. I believe him. No, wait..I don't believe him .
Marc Ambinder: Republicans are dropping in Party ID, but so are Dems .
T. Coates has a few words on that poll about Black optimism towards race in the U.S. Looks pretty encouraging, and means that soon Al and Jesse will have to look for other work..that is until the next overblown race story hits the media.
Finally, a company is (kinda) not too big to fail . Guess we'll find out in two months how it goes.
NYT: Should the Republican Party become broader, or purer ? Sen Lindsay Graham:
Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: “We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing.”
The Heavy Hitters of the Republican Party try to answer that above question--they will begin their version of the DLC. Looking forward to the website with lots over smooth blue or red stars, wheat, and sunshine...My prediction for their new America? The same as the last 30 years--low taxes, small government, strong defense. I do however, notice an intriguing lack of social issues. My belief that they'll do it if elected? Sorry, but minimal.
Guess who's on Twitter now ? You betcha!
Liz Edwards threw up when Johnny cheated on her. Literally .
- Charles J's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Mexico
I was going to use my newfound ability to create an Open Thread, but you beat me too it! The only additional bit of news I'd include is that Mexico
is shutting down non-essential government services, cinemas and restaurants to slow down spread of swine flu. The shutdown covers May Day, the weekend, and Cinqo de Mayo. Wow, that's gotta hurt economically. Could you imagine a nationwide shutdown of cinemas in the U.S. over, say, Memorial Day Weekend? They are definitely taking this seriously.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sorry about that:-)
I've been meaning to get over here and post and had quite a few stories to mention. I hope the US doesn't follow suit in shutting down the government. VP Joe "Get Ready to Cringe" Biden didn't help much yesterday, but I guess one way to look at it is that his outbursts are his way to stay relevant. I bet he'd make an excellent blogger.
To add, I think this Swine flu is way overblown. However, it does help us out a bit at work. We were losing market share to private labels because of the economy, but now people are buying Softsoap Antibac soap left and right!
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Seriously, antibacterial soap?
I can understand why people would buy more soap in this situation (the CDC recommends hand-washing to reduce the chance of infection), but do they need anti-bacterial soap to stop the flu virus?
I get the feeling that this country is lacking in scientific literacy (as is the whole world, but I expect more from America).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
bah
I missed the torture debate :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Start a new one
the thread was too long anyway.
I'm only half stupid
it's a bit late to debate now...
too much has been said. Anyways, I've written diaries here on the subject long time ago :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
suit yourself
I would guess that you, like my brother, believe that torture is not torture if the subject does not die.
:)
I am more than happy to leave it up to the DOJ to decide.
I'm only half stupid
I am more of the opinion
that if CIA thinks it needs to use it on high value suspects, we should let them do it. And I've always maintained torture to be a neutral tool - acquiring value depending on when and on whom it is used.
I'd prefer the fools of this Administration did not wade into it and bow to the radical left. Most of Americans support using it when it matters anyways. And the big hubbub about Zubaida and Zarkawi being tortured to within an inch of their deaths - big deal, I'd torture them myself if I could.
And that's my view :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bullseye!
nt
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Call me a fool
then.
I have no problem with not supporting your view.
I'm only half stupid
I did say "administration"
:)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I support the 'administration'
so I am still a fool.
=)
Curious, and you don't have to answer, but does the love of your life share your views on this subject?
I'm only half stupid
I prefer not to answer that :)
Torture can be quite evil if used on innocent people for political purposes. But it certainly can be useful in some situations and would be good if used to save people.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So what other signed treaties should the US abrogate?
While I can understand some folks thinking it's a 'valuable asset' (I don't share this view) I don't get the whole contradiction involved. That is that most the folk who use the whole '24' argument are Rule of Law people. And Rule of Law doesn't mean you obey laws you like and ignore laws you don't.
Torture, and many of the modus' the US has recently used are specifically against many laws and treaties the US government has signed. Most recently by Ronnie Reagan in the ratification of the Convention Against Torture(www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/01/shifts/index.html
), that part of the treaty specifically says waterboarding, prolonged stress positions, beatings & such were illegal.
From my point of view, I'm not a Rule of Law person because I have no problem with obeying the laws I like and ignoring the laws I don't. I'm not being hypocritical. I just think that morally, a civilized people don't torture....EVER. Especially if you expect to look across the table to any future adversary and tell them that they can't mistreat our GI's. And I expect to be able to say just that. Will that stop them? No it won't. But when we catch them I expect to be able to use those very treaties to charge and punish them just like the world had been doing up until the bush43 era.
You want to admit to being barbaric? Fine, OK, but also fess up to the hypocritical thingy too.
Seems like....
.... the 'pro' argument is about 50% ticking time bomb, 50% "They're bad guys so they deserve it." I'm going to start calling this the 'Red Dawn' reaction.
I'm too cynical to really believe that I guess... but a moral, civilized society certainly doesn't make a cottage industry out of it, codify it with official policies that sanction it, celebrate it because the bad guys deserve it, and brag about having done it because it means we're 'tough'. Cause when you get right down to it, torture is a pretty chickensh*t thing to do if you don't have the stones to accept the consequences for having done it, particularly when you get it wrong and do it to someone who's innocent by 'mistake'.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Only IF we have tortured anyone.
We have not in any legal sense of the term. For some reason this point just never seems to sink in ...
Meta:
This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All Animals are equal...some animals are more equal
I'm off to change the definition of murder and then go and not murder people...
In seriousness, that argument you posted [argument in jest I can only hope] is like Vanilla Ice saying he didn't steal from Queen.
Vanilla Ice: "There's goes ding ding ding da da ding ding. Our's goes ding ding ding da da ding ding, ting. That little bitty ting, it's not the same it's different."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What is your point?
I have not redefined torture in any way. The question has always been about the legel definition of torture. We are talking about the law here, right?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The Law you say?
(1) the act must cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering;
If mock executions/electrocutions/drownings don't create severe mental pain or suffering, then I'd be hard pressed to find anything that will.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, the limits set in the memos are there ...
... specifically to prevent any severe physical or mental pain or suffering based on the findings of professional psychologists with extensive experience in the area So I guess by definition then these enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture by the definition of the legal standard you are relying upon.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Torture by any other name.....
It has been discovered that there was an internal battle going on at the White House, debating the limits of interrogation. Many were horrified when they read the internal memos on enhanced interrogations, that by any other name described torture.
The interrogation debate sharply divided the Bush White House. This was an internal debate brought on by folks that worked on the inside, who were appalled that in essence torture was being used.
Bush gave a speech on June 26th, 2003 that set off alarm bells at the CIA. He claimed that the US was for eliminating torture, but the insiders at the CIA knew that the US was in fact using torture. They feared a huge political backlash if the word got out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain.html?_r=1&ref=pol...
I'm only half stupid
Study found marathon runners have extensive experience running?
So, can I can build a rocket ship based on the blueprints specifically designed to work by real rocket scientist with "extensive experience in the area?"
I question, the surrounding facts of the "extensive experience in the area"
That doesn't make bull fighting humane.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find someone with "extensive experience in the area" if that person is ok with "torture" to begin with.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
So what are you saying?
That the people hired by the military to train our soldiers to resist torture (i.e. the experts with experience in the area) are somehow "ok with torture" and, therefore, are presumably sadists of some form or another? I just want to be clear about the charge you are leveling here.
Is it possible, in your opinion, for someone to have years of experience observing the effects of techniques like those used to train our military forces without their being "ok with torture"? And is it possible, in your opinion, to draw a clear line between those things which are torture and those that are not based on the experience of these individuals?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It appears a couple lines
It appears a couple lines were accidentally taken out when I edited.
The gist of what is gone:
Bull Fighters, when consulted, might say they know a humane way to stick swords in bulls.
They put swords in a bull for a living, of course they're ok with it and don't consider it cruel and disgusting.
-------------------------
I fail to see how one doesn't see a monumental difference between willfully training for something and being forced to go through something by masked gunmen.
Just because there's not a practical way to train people to resist having an actual socket dislocated, doesn't make that one of the few things that's actually torture by the fact that it cannot be practically trained for.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ah, Brutus14 is not a bot?
nt
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
We certainly did.
We've got soldiers in jail because of it. I don't know why that doesn't sink in.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Really, who?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Right
because it is not torture if we don't call it torture.
Basically all you are talking about here is a legal loophole supported by word play and questionable legal briefs.
I'm only half stupid
Not for waterboarding we don't.
Because WB'ing simply is not torture, either ethically (IMO) or legally (by definition).
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Did I say...
.... waterboarding?
By the way, you saying, "Waterboarding is not torture" carries as much weight as me saying, "Roadhouse is the best movie ever" -- i.e. none. Waterboarding most certainly is torture under US and International law if it doesn't conform to the Justice Department's strict guidelines with respect to frequency, duration, and amount of water used -- and even under those circumstances it is not at all clear in a legal sense whether it's torture. You know that. I get that you think it isn't torture, really I do. I think you're wrong -- legally, ethically, and morally -- but that's just my opinion, which I will only state as an opinion, and not as a fact. If you truly believe it's an effective and morally justified technique to use in interrogations, perhaps you should lobby for its adoption by law enforcement? It certainly helped Torquemada to prosecute the 'war on witchcraft', and bring any number of evil-doers to justice.
http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/prosecutions_convictions/
Yes, I know you'll probably say these were the lamentable actions of some 'bad apples'. In my opinion that's a crock. This is exactly what happens when civilian leadership says, 'Take the gloves off...." or "Push harder...." or "Get better answers"... or "We know there are WMD, you have to get these prisoners to tell you where...." Is that what happened here? I don't know. Is it likely? Hell yes -- in my opinion.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Hello PuppetHead.
Well let's see, first of all, I did add the (IMO) to the ethical statement. So...
And this, this it one of the funnier strings of thought I've read this weekend;
Huh?
I fail to come to that conclusion, but you are certain, ok.
I could give a shit about International law in this respect, but it is not torture according to any US law.
It did conform, that's the whole point. The administration, in good conscience, sought clarity from the DOJ, then proceeded to closely follow those guidelines.
By the way, the stuff that went down at Abu was a crock, it was a huge embarrassment to the soldiering professional , and having been one myself for 6 years I resent the implication you assert that that is the mindset or activity our men and women serving their country are involved in, Abu ws an aberration.
So your first claim is what, an overstatement?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Hi Centinel....
..... Sorry, I don't think I was very clear.... I shouldn't comment when I'm half asleep.
With respect to waterboarding, this is the point I was trying to make:
It was illegal during the Spanish American war. It was illegal when it was used during the conflict in the Phillipines. It was illegal during World War Two. It was illegal during the Korean War. It was illegal during Vietnam.
Then, the Bush Administration's Justice Department devised a 'watered down' version (pardon the pun), and said that their 'watered down' version was legal. I'm saying that the Bush Administration's assertion that this 'watered down' version of waterboarding is legal does not, in fact, make it legal. I'm also saying that old-school waterboarding that doesn't fall under the 'watered down' definition was always illegal, and has long been considered to be torture. Hopefully that makes sense.
My second point is that much of the abuse at Abu Ghraib rises to the legal definition of torture. You might disagree, but that's what I think. I also believe that the abuse at Abu Ghraib and Bagram and elsewere was not initiated by soldiers or designed by soldiers. I think it was initiated by civilian leadership under Rumsfeld, designed by civilian contractors, and carried out without supervision by soldiers who did not have clear instructions from their chain of command. That's what I think based upon everything I've read. I may not be correct - I certainly hope I'm not. But even if I am correct, I would not place the bulk of the blame on the soldiers -- I think the majority of the blame belongs to the people who instructed the soldiers in how to humiliate Muslim Arabs, created the conditions that allowed the abuse to go on unchecked, and pressured the soldiers to 'get results' in 'softening up' detainees for interrogation by civilian contractors. Just my opinion, again. Maybe we'll find out what really happened if these lawsuits are allowed to continue:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/19/abu.ghraib/
Hopefully I've been clearer this time -- sorry for muddling this in my earlier comment. I don't think I had enough coffee in me at the time.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Let us review ...
GoRight said:
thepuppethead said:
GoRight said:
To which the puppethead did not directly respond, but he has provided a list of people here. Are you asserting that these people are in jail because they were convicted of committing torture?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yep.
I sure am.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Well, I just reviewed the list of things they were convicted of
in the list you provided. I don't see any convictions for torture. Can you please point me to where it says the were convicted of commiting torture?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah, GR...
.... you're right. Nowhere in there does it say, "Convicted for Torture."
So if that's the standard, then I'm sure that means I'm wrong.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
OK, so we are agreed.
They weren't convicted of committing torture which, unless I am mistaken, was your original assertion
.
But hey, I'm a reasonable person. If you can't demonstrate your claim directly, perhaps you can demonstrate it indirectly. Are you aware of any statute or other legistlative document or judicial precedent that explicitly categorizes any of the specific charges for which any of these people have been convicted as being considered torture for the purposes of any legal or judicial action which was in effect prior to their having committed the acts for which they were prosecuted?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Thanks...
.... but no, I think I'm done. Let's just say that I've made an assertion that I'm not willing or able to support, which makes it forfeit. I don't want to read about this stuff any more for a while... it's too depressing.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
OK, fair enough.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bobby Jindal wants state sponsored football
What screwed up priorities.
Jindal refuses to extend unemployment, or fund education with any stimulus dollars, but has no problem using a tax surplus to fund a Louisianna Football Team?
What a dofus.
Or why does Jindal believe in socializing sports.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/44037137.html?index=1&c=y
I'm only half stupid
Your slanting the story ML, bad girl!
Ok, so what's up?
Ah, so it is a cost saving move.
Now tht sounds like a good fiscally responsible thing to do, they can do it, because why, oh ya, because they have a surplus! Way to go Bobby!
Oh and look, LA is able to pay for its own infrstructure, and not by loading our kids with 100+K of interest only payments till they die either, sounds like Bobby's doing great things in L!
I don't think the people would be really stoked if the Saints left NO either ML, it's a win win.
You should be more honest in your representations. ;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
It's socialized sports
no matter how you parse it. You've been brainwashed! ;)
And blackmailed too.
If you don't pay for sports with tax money to support our private sports industry then we are gonna take our toys and go home.
They should rename the team the Tax Funded Tigers and the stadium Stimulus Field.
I'm only half stupid
No ML
It is local government, having been fiscally prudent, spending tax dollars on infrastructure and a professional sports franchise that brings hundreds of millions of dollars to their economy, and providing the citizens of LA a highly sought after entertainment venue.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
So socialized sports is okay if
it makes a profit?
By that standard, California should use tax payer money to fund Hollywood, because it brings in millions of dollars worth of income and is valuable entertainment.
By that standard, tax payer dollars to fund GM will bring in millions in profits and provide hours of entertainment driving your car.
I'm only half stupid
See ML, this is why you never produce any quality dialogue
Ok, I will "entertain" this for another round... ;-)
Every major city wants to have a stadium, one or more franchise teams in the big 3 American sports. It is a boon to the economics of any metropolitan area, it is good as gold.
Unlike your typically absurd response, they are not buying the team ML, they are not shareholders, and do not have any equity stake, or run the operations of the team.
They are simply building infrastructure into their city to accommodate the teams and cities mutual needs, as to facilitate the incredible collateral revenues that are the benefit of having the franchise in your town, such as tourism, restaurants, hotels, employment, retail, services, etc etc etc!
Municipalities do this sort of thing all the time to accommodate all sorts of businesses, schools, institutions, etc.
Get it?
You should really think through things before you leap in head first defending every liberal fantasy that enters that mind of yours.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
It's is undisputable that tax payer money
will support the team by furnishing them a play hall.
There are just no two ways around it.
Building Hollywood a bigger better studio with tax payer dollars, would be exactly the same principle.
Hollywood would simply be building infrastructure to accommodate the actors and other people surrounding film production that would garner much revenue for the surrounding city area.
I'm only half stupid
It's comments like these ...
That had me convinced you were actually BR. The tone here sounds exactly like him to me. I mean no offense even though I recognize how offensive that comparison could be to some people. I only bring it up in case you want to take corrective actions! :)
Although I acknowledge that these are fairly generic taunts so the similarity is most likely coincidental.
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In this instance it is purely honest information.
She is however, unfortunately, full of the very things BR points out, that much is true.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
In the words of Marge Simpson "hrrmmm"
When a (D) proposes spending money to dig to build a ramp out of a hole: Then the (D) is a commie.
When a (R) does the same thing: That's investing in the future.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It's so obvious
isn't it.
The word tricks that are played to obfuscate this clear point is a science unto itself.
The business world's fear of the so called tyranny of the left seems so overblown, a sort of chronic psychotic paranoia.
I'm only half stupid
The typical liberal concocted bellyaching.
nt
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
could you be more specific?
It certainly is true that Republicans speak of spending as 'investment' and laid claim to the mantra the deficits don't matter. It's how they ran the budget for years.
I'm only half stupid
I have no interest in defending
the bush spending spree, I was a vocal opponent of it.
You certainly should have no qualms with GW's spending policies, as you applaud Obama for making GW look like a penny pincher.
If you want to play on the Republicans spending, go ahead, but you're just preaching to the choir.
This administration has not done much good in my view thus far, but one thing for is for certain, it has herded the right into the same tent, I predict you will see no more big spending R's from here on out, what you will see is R's coming back to their principles of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and those other hallmarks that made the party great, and for that, Thank you Mr. President!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
To put it simply
Bush spent money on the wrong stuff. He blew up not only his own budgets but many future budgets (including Obama's and maybe some of the next President's) by running up the deficit AND tanking growth.
Deficits in general: bad.
Deficit spending during recession: probably necessary; must be oriented towards getting the economy growing again.
Obama deserves neither particular credit or blame for whatever numbers come out of 2009; he's basically applying standard Keynsian theory to an economic mess.
George W. Bush and the Republican have gotten lots of blame for the current mess but not nearly as much as they deserve.
Sorry, but last I checked ...
The economy is now worse under Obama that it ever was under Bush. This is a simple statement of fact. Obama gets the blame for the things that happen on his watch. We are currently on Obama's watch.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4By that standard
then Bush gets the blame for 9/11. It happened on his watch.
As did the collapse of the global financial system, and the largest loss of wealth in world history.
I'm only half stupid
Lagging indicators
Give me a list of the things you think a President can do to affect the economy, and I can show you how George W. Bush is far more responsible than Barack Obama for not only the state the economy is currently in but where it will be for the next few years.
Some right-wing idiots (not you) even tried to put the blame for the September crash on Obama's campaign promises. The psychological effect of the marginal rate climbing to 39% made everyone default on their mortgates!
Some Democrats (Schumer, Dodd, Frank) were partly complicit in boosting irresponsible lending and letting Wall Street slice and repackage shiny new garbage-backed securities. But the deregulatory, hands-off, ultimate faith in the invisible hand philosophy has been and always will be coming from your side of the aisle. Republicans created this mess.
When you:
- Cut taxes without regard to how the money will go to tangible societal benefits;
- Spend hundreds of billions on overseas wars that do nothing to improve life at home;
- Tout "ownership society" initatives at campaign rallies without regards to why banks have traditionally been wary of subprime lending;
- Appoint cronies and gut SEC enforcement of ever-complexifying Wall Street shenanigans;
What do you expect will happen? And how can a new President, any president, reverse that in three months? I don't believe you actually blame Obama for the current economy.
As for:
GDP annualized growth fourth quarter 2008 (under Bush): - 6.3%
GDP annualized growth first quarter 2009 (mostly under Obama): - 6.1%
So, even by your own cherry-picked unreasonable standards, you're wrong.
He is wrong
demonstrably wrong.
I'm only half stupid
Corph, corph, corph...
The truth of the matter can be found here
.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Centinel, Centinel, Centinel
The AEI has "the truth"? OK, well if they say so.
No acknowledgement of why Obama is proposing all that spending, or what its expected to do. So the AEI doesn't belive in Keynsian theory. Fine, let them propose an alternative solution to the Republican Economic Meltdown of 2008 complete with GDP and budget projections, and the real economists can all laugh at them. The AEI sounds like a public watchdog group complaining about a DA budget spending too much on investigating Bernie Madoff, or an arsonist who complains about fire department spending.
Also, equating Bush's Big Pharma Giveaway (designed to woo seniors for 2004) with the left's long-standing desire for universal health care is disengenuous.
THE AEI is a sham
generally. The fear businessmen have of workers is splattered on every page.
I wouldn't give the rag much credit. Aren't these the guys whose thinking we followed over a cliff?
I'm only half stupid
No, that was Barney Frank, his boyfriend, Maxine Waters,
Chris Dodd, and those guys.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Oh c'mon.
I already acknowledged their (limited) complicity upthread without being prompted.
In the interest of fairness, would you care to comment on what, if anything Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan had to do with the meltdown?
Nothing, without social engineers like Barney and that crowd
nt
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Gramm-Leech-Bliley
repealed Glass-Stegall, not Barney Frank and his "social engineering". Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only dabbled in subprime securities after everyone else had, they were not the instigators.
The right has tried to blame subprime lending on the Fair Lending Act
, which is total BS (there were no requirements to give mortgages to people with bad credit in the bill, only anti-discrimination statutes).
OK, I don't blame you if you can't do any better than unspecific jabs at Barney Frank. I wouldn't be able to either. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given that Republican commenters have blamed FDR for aggravating the depression, if not anachronistically causing it.
Aren't you cute...
GLB ws in 1999 Corph. 1999.
It's not what the right is asserting, it's what the left won't fess up to.
I don't need to take jabs at BF, he does all the work for me. He ACORN, and that whole philosophy is what initiated all our economic woes.
FDR did aggrivte the deppression, just as obama is not allowing things to repair themselves now.
Chrysler is a perfect example, we were told it couldn't go BK, if only we spen billions on it, trust the government, and let them fix it, now we are told it is going BK, and so where are the billions Obama spent on them?
As far as the Fair Lending debacle, you be the judge. Nightmare.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
BK = ????
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bankrupt, I think.
It's probably just as well Centinel didn't spell it out, given the spelling quality of the rest of that comment.
I was rushing, and my "a" is acting up.
Sorry for the spelling...?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Heh np.
That comment seemed out of character spelling-wise, is all.
BK = Bankruptcy
nt
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Well, I'm not trying to be picky or anything ...
... but how did you arrive and BK as a shorthand for bankruptcy? I understood that by context, I guess, I am just trying to understand the thought process that arrived at BK. The K seems to be randomly chosen. :)
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't know why, a friend who is a bankruptcy lawyer uses it
I just heard him say it so much I kind of fit it in as an abbreviation. I'll ask nd let you know. ;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Jeebus
I know it passed under Clinton; I'm not absolving him or blaming Bush for GLB. But I'm mainly blaming Gramm. You know, the author.
Even if the ACORN stuff weren't also BS, which it is, it isn't relevant to the financial meltdown.
What "philosophy"? Liberalism? You'll have to do better than that.
Maybe Obama spent billions trying to save Chrysler when it couldn't be saved. His bad; not relevant to the financial meltdown either.
Fair lending was thirty years old; the current crisis hasn't been incubating that long even if it had forced banks to make bad loans. I hereby judge that it too had nothing to do with the meltdown.
You seem like you're flailing around trying to find anything bad Democrats have done and attribute causality to the bad economy. I see this is going nowhere.
Ok, you want to play word games?
Explain away this.
This video is an informative look at the factors that are causing our current financial and economic crisis. It discusses policy changes 13 years ago that unleashed the sub-prime mortgage-backed securities market, which accelerated prices erratically, inviting speculation and loose lending practices which were both condoned and encouraged by existing regulation and carried out by risk-blind executives and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Yet everything stayed
relatively calm, until more deregulation was put in play and the financial engineers said bring me more bundled mortgages. Sub-prime loans were paid off at reliable percentages for decades and decades. It wasn't until they folks started doing fancy financial engineering that things went totally haywire. This was born from the world of the Credit Default Swap, not from sub-prime lending.
This didn't really hit the fan until after 01, as far as mortgage lending goes.
This also neglects the fact that many prime loans went bad.
Besides now that it is done, what do you propose to do moving forward, to avoid, prevent, curtail this from happening again...... nothing?
I'm only half stupid
Chicken and egg
Default swaps made the demand for mortgage-backed securities go up, which resulted in the need for more default swaps.
But I agree, it took a combination of a housing bubble, irresponsible lending, innovative financial shenaningans and lax oversight to blow everything up.
Can't see embeds, sorry.
But let me make a larger meta point: I'm more interested in your reasoning about the situation than something generated by a conservative media outlet. I'm familiar with most of those sources and on the rare occasions when they attempt to interpret or analyze it's usually targeted to the less politically aware, not us junkies. Without personal reflection, we merely become amplifiers or debunkers of media-driven talking points.
I personally like to post links and quotes to support my points, rather than have them make a point for me. In my experience that's what all the best bloggers do. It's always fun to read a good takedown of some nitwitted traditional media piece, but even those require some kind of personal flair or insight to make them memorable.
I understand
I am interested in truth, so when the point has previously been made by someone else who may have more informed insight, or what have you, on any given topic - I do not hesitate to employ it.
It is an expedited path to fruition so to speak.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Jindal iow
Jindal's animals will not sleep on beds, with sheets, moment.
Jindal thinks that the government doing a certain acts is like "[punching people in the face]" and that is a bad thing.
Jindal then decides to "[punch people in the face less hard than before]"
Jindal pats self on back.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Brutus14, your thinking is
...well, something else boy?
I have no idea how to unravel that one.
Do you mean Jindal believes in small government, but did the deal with the saints just the same?
If so...
What would you be calling any Governor who refused to accomodate a cash cow and electorate favorite like the saints?
Stupid, thats what you'd call him, and that's exactly what I call this sort of nit picking.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Swine Flu
"All good plausible reasons"
--------------
But in seriousness, the Swine Flu is known to go from person to person and is a new strain that people don't have a natural immunity.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Specter's Defection Could Help Republicans Block a Nominee
Well there is some good news out of the Specter defection (other than the obvious news that we are finally rid of the traitorerous RINO). It seems that the Rules for the Judicial Committee require at least one minority member to vote with the Majority to move a nominee out of committee for a vote by the full Senate. In the past Specter has been the one most likely to vote with the Democrats. Now that vote may be harder to get. :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The are rumors
that Spector will keep his seniority in spite of his party switch. We shall see. IN that instance he could remain as ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/specters-switch-creates-little...
I'm only half stupid
This of course is hogwash.
The is no way that he can be considered the ranking minority member when he is no longer part of the minority. I don't see any way for even the Democrats to try and successfully spin that one. The article to which you refer says that Specter will keep his seniority in the sense that he will be treated as if he had always been a Democrat, but obviously he gets ranked in amongst the majority line-up.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4OH yeah
duh. That was the stupid party of half stupid.
I screwed that up. He wants to keep his seniority, but he can't be in the minority, can he? %+#l
I'm only half stupid
Sign on a Church
in England.
"Speak well, of your enemies. After all, you made them."
I'm only half stupid
Jack Kemp Passes Away At 73
Four months after announcing he had cancer, the former football player, respected politician, and all around great American died
.
Godspeed Jack.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
You think Obama has the right idea's? - Look at California...
...what actually ails California is centrist evasions.
The state's crisis has been caused by "moderation," understood as splitting the difference between extreme liberalism and hyperliberalism, a "reasonableness" that merely moderates the speed at which the ever-expanding public sector suffocates the private sector.
California has become liberalism's laboratory, in which the case for fiscal conservatism is being confirmed. The state is a slow learner and hence will remain a drag on the nation's economy. But it will be a net benefit to the nation if the federal government and other state governments profit from California's negative example...
Good article
by George Will.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
This is a definte violation of the 14th amendment!
I am just stunned, I can not believe what is going on
.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
hate crimes are threats. Threats are crimes. Therefore...
Threatening another person is a crime right?
From Answers.com
:
If a person yells "get out of here you XXXX" before punching a person, he is not just punching that one person -- he is making a threat against all XXXX's. Therefore, he has commited an additional crime and recieves additional punishment.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
-4!
REALLY SHADY ANSWER.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
If there was
a large church clique dominated a small town, and decided to hang a storm trooper, and carve a swastika into his chest, that would be considered a hate crime, because the clique is trying to intimidate or terrorize the storm troopers.
It is intimidation intended to terrorize on the basis of identity. such as blacks, gays, church groups etc.
I'm only half stupid
shady, how?
I made a straightforward logical argument to demonstrate that hate crimes legislation is completely consistant with traditional American notions of "crime". What's wrong with it?
You gave a really evasive response.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You did no such thing
You made some unsuccessful attempt to link them.
It is no crime to think anyway one likes in America. It is no crime to dislike Jews, to like only pistachio ice cream, even to be a racist, or dislike conservatives, you can hate disabled people, or like the color green.
What a person thinks is not the governments jurisdiction.
Now, that being said, it may make you unpopular, and it is illegal to park in a handicapped space just because you disagree with them, or not let someone ride in your taxi because you dislike their religion or skin color, and it is illegal to kill anyone, for any reason, because we are all protected equally.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
let me spell it out for you (hate crime, threats, crimes)
I listed two premises:
P1) Hate crimes constitute threats
P2) Threats are traditionally recognized as crimes
I drew a conclusion from this:
C) Hate crimes are consistant with traditional notions of crime
You have two ways of attacking this argument. Either you can attack one of the premises, or you can attack the assertion that the conclusion is implied by the premises.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Sorry, I ain't buying it.
P1 is overly specified, it should read simply "Crimes constitute threats." The person's state of mind is irrelevant to the issue of the threat. Someone is free to hate anyone that they want so long as they don't commit crimes because of it. It is the crime part of that statment that matters, not the hate part.
And if we permit the legislature to delve into people's thoughts in order to outlaw or criminalize those thoughts, is that not a form of thought control? Personally I don't want to open that Pandora's box. I mean once we set the precendent that certain thoughts are subject to legislation well, then perhaps we should sentence people to be "re-oriented" using brainwashing techniques when we find that they are having "bad thoughts". After all, it will all be for the greater good, right? And besides, resistance will be futile, right?
Meta: This post is illustrating the absurdity of your point by being similarly absurd.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4clarification on hate crimes as threats
P1 is overly specified, it should read simply "Crimes constitute threats."
Clarification: hate crimes constitute threats against individuals other than the immediate victim of the cirme.
With that perspective, the crime is not in the thought, it is in the expression of the thought. As I mentioned elsewhere, we have a long tradition of defining crimes based on the message that was conveyed to others: threats, incitement to violence, terrorism, conspiracy, etc.
Basically, a hate crime is an attempt to make an example of someone based on how they live their lives.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Ummm, this is supposed to make me feel "better"?
Somehow your distinction doesn't make me feel any better. Criminalizing the way people choose to live? Bah.
You can't escape the fact that the very notion of a HATE crime requires you (a) to presume that you know the thoughts of someone else, and (b) seek to take punative action against someone who harbors thoughts that you deem unacceptable.
I reject both of these on their face.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Precisely
+4 ;-)
As I alluded to earlier, the governments jurisdiction ends where ones skin begins and a man's thought life will never be a matter for others litigation.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
inverted interpretation (re: making an example)
It is the criminal who commits the hate crime who is trying to make an example of someone (be they gay, black, Jewish, etc).
It is not the legal system trying to make an example of the person who committed the crime--at least no more than the legal system is always trying to make an example of criminals.
Basically, if a person attacks a gay person because that person is gay, then the attacker is trying to take on the role of the state and legislate other people's behavior. That is worse than just getting mad at someone over some personal dispute.
PS. Is your Meta tag calibrated properly? Your "absurd" comment seemed to clarify a reasonable misunderstanding, whereas your "serious" comment seemed to involve the intentional misinterpretation of my words. Hate crimes are distinct from hate crime legislation.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Well
If a person dislikes another person because they were gay, the 1st person obviously suffers from some neurosis around gays for whatever reason.
If a person is an arsonist they obviously have a neurotic disorder with fire.
If a person hates Jews, they are suffering from some underlying pathology that makes them that way.
If a person mugs a person in an ally, that is a crime, regardless if that person dislikes gays, likes to light fires, or hates Jews as well.
You can legislate crime, you can not with any degree of accuracy prosecute a man for what he thinks.
This is a particularly slippery slope you're advocating.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
we constantly prosecute based on inferred thoughts
Yes we can, and we do it all the time (as I've repeatedly illustrated in this discussion).
Anyway, these "thought crimes" face the same burden of proof as any other crime -- "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the jury cannot be certain about the defendant's intentions, then he will not be convicted. No harm.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You've proven nothing, nada, zippo.
Thoughts related to the premeditation of crime etc, sure, speculation in that regard is prudent and worthy to investigate.
However, it does nothing to substantiate the idea that because that premeditation was directed at a gay victim - the victim should be afforded special consideration, or the perp should be at additional risk anymore than if the victim was Armenian, or a Hindu, or is a democrat, or...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The law is about hate speech or hate crimes?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
that's not what the hate-crime law says
According to your source, this is what the hate crimes law does:
That is not equivalent to this...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You are struggling here.
In the first line of the Times article it clearly says;
It says simply stated, that the same crimes against one segment of society constitutes greater punishment than another.
Unconstitutional.
This is a short lived liberal boondoggle.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
It is to guarantee prosecution
of the actual crime. A person who committed intentional murder could get off, if he appealed to a local jury to say that he was only robbing, so and so, and that he pistol whipped him and hung him from a fence to die in 'self defense'. The local community might be sympathetic to that plea because of prejudice.
Like the days gone by when whites would shoot blacks, be tried before an all white jury and acquited in spite of overwhelming evidence that they had committed the crime.
It is not that hard to understand the intent of the hate crimes law in that context.
I'm only half stupid
I am trying hard not to be too tough on you ML
and I'd like to find some things we can talk about.
But in all honesty, it is exactly these kind of straight up ignorant, utterly senseless, and foolish comments that make that task so very difficult to accomplish.
Sorry.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
It's not senseless
if you consider that there was millions spent to take away the right for gays to enter into a legal contract in the state of California, as if some citizens in this country are unworthy. Worse this was an intentional play to rile up people's prejudices for political advantage. It has the potential to create a breeding ground for hate crimes, when you toy with people's prejudices and intentionally rile them up.
I'm only half stupid
I'm sort of gobsmacked at your thinking.
As if those stupid people in California were dumb enough to vote not once, but twice to nix gay marriages.
You seem so willing to elevate your own preferences and beliefs over those millions in California.
Talk about prejudice, no wonder you're not a big fan of the constitution.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
It was not the local people
of California that trumped up the anti-gay measure, it was monied interests from out of state that backed it.
Surely you are not so naive as to think that this was not purely a political move directed from on high, precisely because it arouses people prejudices (hate).
Further if you are for less government, why would you want to take the legal rights of people to enter into a private contract. That seems counter intuitive.
I'm only half stupid
It was a free and open election in America
Just like the first one was, if any finagling went on ML, it was Jerry Brown and the liberal pundits in San Francisco who ran this up to the Supreme Court in an effort to overturn the will of the people, not surprising the people voted the same way, again, if nothing else but to spite them.
Just because one votes against gay marriage, is no reason to suggest they hate anyone ML.
You evidently feel like the world should be only as you think it should be, I think it is great that the people of Vermont are going to have things the way they like it in Vermont, and here in Carolina we have it the way we like it. States rights!
We digress, this thread is about the unconstitutional hate crime bill being sent to the Senate though, not gay marriage, and your assertion that people can not be trusted is, a poor one.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
exactly, ML
As ML pointed out, the idea of "hate crimes" isn't something invented out of some abstarct liberal political theory -- it is a response to actual conditions that existed in American history (and still continue to exist today, according to proponents)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Gee, why would you say that?
Where exactly would you say that they WERE invented then?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4you can look it up as well as I can
when was the first hate crime legislation passed?
I can make a guess, but I'd likely be off by a decade or two, but that error would be irrelevant.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The whole problem with the concept of "hate crimes" ...
is who gets to decide what constitutes a "hate crime". I would be all for having "hate crime" laws if I was the one that got to decide what constituted a "hate crime". But somehow I think many of you would (presumably) balk at that idea.
I submit that it is the very fact that you would balk at that idea that illustrates why the concept is fundamentally wrong.
It is similar to when two people want to divide a piece a pie. One gets to cut it, but the other gets to pick which piece they get first. This insures that the one doing the cutting is going to be as fair as possible.
So, if you all think that "hate crimes legislation" is a valuable tool in the fight against prejudice, then fine, let's have "hate crimes legislation" ... but I am the one that gets to wield the tool by deciding which things are "hate crimes". If you balk at that idea because you fear that I would misuse the tool you gave me then you understand why I don't want to give the tool to you either.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4as with every other crime...
Congress. It's called "legislation".
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
As we say in Carolina,
that dog just won't hunt.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
another witty response....
with no substance
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Better than your dire position in this thread
no wit nor substance.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Is there a special exception
for crimes committed against police officers, as a group?
I find the public often seeks harsher sentencing when cops are gunned down in the line of duty.
I'm only half stupid
The law goes both ways.
If a gay person assaulted a straight person because the second person was straight, and the first person hated straight people.. Then that would be a hate crime too.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Can we Just ditch the whole thing?
Hate crimes are terribly murky crimes to do litigate. Basically, if you simply assualt/kill a gay person, or black person, abortion doctor, etc and you don't say anything when you do it, is it a hate crime? What if you truly hate gay people or black people and poison someone? Is it a hate crime? What if someone rapes you and you take your feelings out on them (in a negative way) but they are of a different race, or orientation? Should it be a hate crime each time, or simply a crime? I opt for using basic assault and murder laws to prosecute assualters and murderers. I don't see how hate crimes can be enforced fairly. In other words..don't blab this all over Creation, but I side wholeheartedly with GR and Cent on this one.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Only if similar mens rea aren't covered
Committing a crime because one doesn't like a person's religion, etc, can be far and away worse and more dangerous to a society than that crime committed for other reasons.
From Centinal:
x
The only way hate crimes should be abolished, is if:
Someone committing a crime because Person A was in Group B, was treated the same as, someone committing a crime because Person A was breathing [and having that motivation carried a similarly higher sentence as current hate crime laws].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
To understand the bill
you need to understand the nature of mass hysteria and hate radio and the steady drip drip drip against immigrants, or 'liberals', or the evil gays that some hate talkers claim are destroying the fabric of America.
Remember that historically this is how Hitler and his propaganda team advocated against liberal Jews for stabbing Germany's exceptionalism in the back, slowly dehumanizing an entire race of Jews over the years. If one Jew was 'accidentally' killed during a 'buglary' then the community was unconcerned. When the Jews were deported on trains, the Germans were also unconcerned.
This same sort of phenom has been laid against blacks and gays. When Matthew Sheppard was murdered, he was propositioned, pistol whipped and left hanging on a fence for days until he died. This was a hate crime.
That the gentlelady from Virginia laid claim on the floor of the house of representatives that this this viscious murder was just an accident during a buglary or a hoax, shows us a perfect example of the mentality that gives rise to the need for these types of laws.
A rural community in Wyoming that might scoff at the circumstances of the murder of this gay man, might not be inclined to 'waste' any local government dollars on prosecuting the murderer to the fullest extent of the law.
Hopefully the need for this type of thing is rare, but it does exist.
Dehumanizing a race or identity group is not acceptable.
We fought two wars over this. The Civil War and World War ll. That is why some of us are sensitive to the need for these sorts of laws, to prevent this sort of dehumanizing that leads to violent murders, from happening again.
I'm only half stupid
Now there's something we can agree on ...
I couldn't agree more. So people should stop dehumanizing white males immediately.
Meta: This post is meant to be a light-hearted joke which makes a serious point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Interesting
you could have dinged ML for invoking Godwin but preferred to play the beseiged white male?
I dunno. I gotta tell ya as a white male, I don't feel particularly dehumanized. When I start hearing quips about tokenism or window-dressing, noticing paycheck disparities and waiting longer for service, I might come around to your point of view.
Please read the Meta at the bottom of that post.
The joke part of that post was that I am obviously making a faux comment in that I don't really feel dehumanized as a white male.
The serious part of that post is that the tactics of the minority groups (i.e. the arguments surrounding affirmative action and political correctness) completely mirror that which they are railing against in terms of feeling oppressed. They are simply doing the same thing in reverse.*
By holding up a mirror to the rhetoric of these minority groups in this manner I am illustrating the absurdity of that rhetoric. So while they may have valid points to make their chosen approach, IMHO, is counterproductive to their cause.
----------------------------------------------------
* Which given the GoRight version of the Golden Rule would seem to be fair play on their part. :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh I see.
Hard to read in that faded font. Glad you see it as snark. Thing is, I'm pretty sure some white males actually believe they're being persecuted.
This is somewhat by design.
It is "meta" information provided for the benefit of new readers and a few, and you know who you are, who seem to be intellectually challenged enough to not always (ever?) catch this particular nuance. So I have decided to proactively label my posts as I write them to avoid the possibility of misunderstandings and long drawn out flame wars on whether I actually meant something seriously, or not.
So I chose to make the meta information blend in with the bar at the bottom of every post to make it sort of invisible unless needed (i.e. in circumstances such as this). I am also hoping to achieve a subliminal suggestion sort of effect with it as well! :)
It seems to be working because since I started using it some of those to whom I am referring don't seem to be trying to take the same old pot shots anymore, although this may be mere coincidence.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not need to presume
people who have trouble deciphering your meaning are "intellectually challenged", especially since that would apply to me in this case. Another way to see it is that your on-again, of-again snarky attempts to expose leftwing hypocrisy is just poor communication.
I can sympathize with your larger point about reflexively appealing to victimhood for minority groups. I think Bobby Rush's comments about Reid not daring to refuse to seat the only Senate AA (Burris) were disgusting; he knew damn well what the principle was. But why trivialize it like that?
To prevent dehumanization? Nah.
Centinel will probably chime in to disagree soon on your point on the Civil War.
They still happen. Murder is already a pretty heavy crime. The person is not going to be any deader (sp?) because of the reasoning behind the murder. Besides, we don't prosecute people for "hate." The Westboro Church is pretty clear on their stance of homosexuality, and they don't go to jail for thei dehumanizing tactics. Could you imagine what would happen if a person was to quietly (civilly?) murder a gay person and then we found out later that they are an "active" member of that church? This is why hate crimes confuse me--its highly subjective.
I have a little bit more faith in Wyoming's laws perhaps. If this was say, back in the 30s and 40s..I'd see your point. Murder is by definition pretty violent. There is no such thing as a civil murder. I'd like to think that if someone is murdered by a person of the opposite sexual orientation or race, then the law will prosecute them. as for Shepherd, yeah he probably was murdered for being gay, let's make punishable under Murder-1 (premeditated), not a "hate" crime.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Agree with much you said...
I won't go into the war, it would only distract from the point, and that point being;
We are a nation of laws, laws with equal protection for all, it is one of the main stitches in the American tapestry. One assumes a precarious place when they claim to have insight into the inner workings of another mind, or to elevate one segment of society all together over the other.
I thought we were against those things.
I am genuinely surprised to find just how the liberal mindset is quickly revealing itself to be quite the contradiction.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
+4
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey GR
Have you seen today where Obama had Geitner introduce him when he announced in an attempt to simplify the IRS and make it more fair, he was adding 800 new agents
?
He went on to add they would be looking abroad for tax evaders, gee, all he had to do was look over his right shoulder directly at Geitner. That was a weird moment, he evidently thinks the people are just stupid.
Talk about contradictions.
You ever read Pat's blog? Many of the guys in Iraq do.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Oh the irony!
After that he just needs to walk over to the state house and look at an alarming percentage of the people seated on the Democrat side of the aisle! I've decided that the main reasons Democrats don't mind raising taxes is because they don't intend to actually pay them.
Meta: This post is meant to be a light-hearted joke which makes a serious point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The liberal mindset
It's not "contradiction," it's "nuance." :)
FWIW, I am not particularly keen on the concept of special laws against hate crimes. Just another datapoint for you to show that "the Left" is not a monolithic entity with one set of beliefs.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Be very careful, you're publicly defying Obama
...you're going to end up on a list.
Welcome to the fringe. ;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
But SL, you are obviously more evolved than the rest of THEM ...
your regular exposure to truth and logic from the other side of the ideological spectrum here at SC has transformed you! Centinal and I will have you "fixed" in no time! *
------------------------------------------
* Ouch, that does sound painful. He he.
Meta: This post is just a good natured ribbing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Have you ever
been to Wyoming?
I'm only half stupid
When the Jews were deported
The Germans were told they went on vacation, then it was very common for the German government to hand out the left behind belongings, the belongings that the Jews were told that they should leave behind.
And the Civil War was mostly fought because the South didn't like tariffs (that hurt the South) and the South got impatient and fired on Fort Sumter after some halfhearted efforts at working out a resolution.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Is Brutus14 some sort of dysfunctional rogue bot?
Responding to threads by keyword, and trying to use yahoo answers or some data to reply?
Cause I feel silly, I've been replying to it.
Whats going on?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
??
My last post was a response to ML, and I didn't agree on some of her facts.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sorry, just looked back at the last few I saw and they semed
a bit odd, it is your style I was not accustomed to.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Technically correct
but that still doesn't negate the old Sunday afternoon hangings, which were considered 'entertainment' and keeping those coloreds in the place.
The history of trails by a jury of your peers, was a joke. Whites were routinely found not guilty murdering blacks.
In Germany Jews were routinely mocked and slandered as liberals. It just makes it that much easier to look the other way when they went on 'vacation'.
These essentially are historical versions of hate crimes.
It isn't a crime of jealous rage, or robbery, it is a crime against a group based on their identity. The goal is to terrorize these groups into groveling to the violent majority.
I'm only half stupid
Addendum
There were some deportations, nearly forgot what got the ball rolling on kristallnacht
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
ditch "terrorism" crimes along with hate crimes
Are you willing to ditch the crime of "terrorism" also?
Part of the reason that I ask is that India's anti-terrorism law included acts that (to paraphrase) "turned group against group" and could lead to some regions to declare independence.
Anyway, terrorism and hate crimes fall in the same category in that they both are considered especially heinous based on the message that they are sending.
FWIW, I'm not a big proponent of hate crimes legislation, but there is no basis for claiming that they represent some radical reformulation of American law.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
protection != punishment
"protection" does not equal "punishment"
learn to read
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Really?
the law provides for extra protections under the law Adam, which result in enhanced charges, which mean additional consequenses.
But that aside;
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Are "hate crimes" special in having enhanced punishment?
As far as I can tell, this is the point of the above quote (nothing else mentions enhanced charges):
Leaving aside the fact that there typically are extra punishments for killing a police officer or child (such as execution- see federal
and state capital punishment laws 
), this quote does not stand as evidence that the bill actually increases the punishment of those involved in hate crimes (above the punishment for similar, non hate crimes).
First, the quote doesn't even explicitly say that the bill increases the charges (it only implies such)
Second, this is just paraphrasing from an admitted opponent of the bill. Hardly a credible source for a summary of the bill. (And your immediate source is not cited either)
Going back to the original point, I am well aware that some hate-crimes legislation imposes additional punishments on the perpetrator. As I wrote in other comments, I believe such extra punishments are consistant with traditional notions of crime in America.
The issue here is that you have implied that this legislation does so, and presented as "evidence" various sources that do not actually discuss the prospect of additional charges being laid against the perpetrator. The original NYT story mentioned "protections" and then spelled out those protections without mentioning additional charges against the perpetrator.
There's a simple way of avoiding this type of confusion: just say what you mean.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
the actual text of the bill
So the bill
does actually impose additional punishments (Section 6)
Here's the law that it modifies
:
you're welcome.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thank You
!
I'm only half stupid
That's because additional protections do=additional punishment
Glad to see you learned to (take the time) to read
.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
you didn't supply the reading material
I read what you wrote and what you linked to. The source you linked to (NYT) did nothing but distract from your point. They did not even provide the bill number so that I could look it up myself.
Once you actually told me what you were talking about (by providing the bill number) I did take the time to look it up and read it.
Basically, I made your argument for you.
You're welcome.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
lol, hardly, you went kicking and screaming.
We were talking about the hate crime bill that passed the house, and was going to the senate, what, was I supposed to do your groundwork for you?
You just didn't know what the hell you were talking about, then had to admit it.
To bad you couldn't have done it more graciously.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
ack ack ack.....
Of course he knows what the hell he is talking about. Your point is a minor one, which Adam verified on his own.
I'm only half stupid
Put the crack pipe down and read the damn thread
before you comment - for your own sake.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
you started the debate
You started this debate. How is it my responsibility to make sure that the issue is clearly presented? You go around making comments as though we are all intimately aware of the obscure issues that you fixate on.
At least when you made your random comments about Koh, you just spouted off and left it at that, without linking to misleading articles about the issues.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Well if unconstitutional legislation is too obscure for you
don't comment .
But because you smelled blood in the water, thinking anything gay is like shooting fish in a barrel for a liberal genius like yourself, and dove in only to have embarrassed yourself not even knowing what you got yourself involved in, don't then get your elitist nuts in a bunch Adam.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
just make the case then
You never made the case that this is unconstitutional, you just asserted it. Your assertion seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that these laws protect specific groups (which are historically unprotected to begin with), rather than just recategorizing crimes based on motive. For instance, racial hate crime laws also protect whites
.
I wasn't attracted to the gayness, I was attracted to the hysteria ("this law will destroy civilization!").
Finally, I'd love to know what elitist comment I made. Is it now elitist to say "you're wrong"?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Hate crimes II (thoughts do matter in American law)
First, the "class" of the citizen matters because that is what the thoughts were about, and what the crime was about.
More generally, it is normal for American law to consider the thoughts of the criminal at the time of the crime, especially when the crime is an expression of those thoughts. On top of the earlier example (making a threat), consider these two:
1) Incitement to violence: like making a threat, incitement to violence doesn't even involve physical harm to the victim, yet we recognize it as a crime. This is very relevant because part of the problem with hate crimes is that they can serve as an incitement to violence: the criminal has singled out a group of people and indicated how they should be treated (with violence). A hate crime is worse than a typical incitement to violence because they criminal is leading by example, which is much more influential than simple verbal exhortations. On top of that, the criminal created a crisis situation (a fight) which could have easily drawn in others who would refrain from violence under normal circumstances.
2) Identity theft. A court ruling
concluded that a person can only be charged with identity theft if he actually knows that he is using another person's identity (rather than an invented identity) and intends to take something from that person. Frankly, this seems kinda obvious.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Additional "thought crimes": conspiracy, terrorism
nt
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
#1 involves actual damage
#1 involves actual damage caused by the words used, I don't think there's much more damage to a person that gets murdered due to the motives of murderer. Its not like the victims thinking "Man! I just wish this guy was murdering me for my money instead of because I'm gay".
2. This is clearly a case of not knowing what you are doing in a crime and, thus not being culapable, its a different issue than being prosecuted for you opinions.
I think hate crimes allow libs to play great word games. They can say ( as ML basically is) "Look at how terrible its is to hate people and kill them for it, were making what the Nazis and ante-bellum South did illegal." The problem with that line of reasoning is that the lynchings of the South, and sending people to concentrations camps is very welled covered in the law. So hate crimes are clearly not about making the crime illegal since the crime is already illegal - its about making the hate illegal. I don't know if its about making the thoughts of the murderer illegal, or his words, but whatever it is it should be covered under the first ammendment. The big problem with this is that the next step is to say that the hate by itself should be a crime. This logically follows since its really the hate that's being prosecuted, why should there has to be a crime?
I think you missed the part where
the hangings continued with a wink and a nod in spite of the fact that they were illegal. The white communities were literally getting away with murder, tried by a jury of their peers, after out and out shooting someone in cold blood and being found 'not guilty'. It was murder sanctioned by the community.
You completely mischaracterize the issue when you say it is about thoughts. That's just dumb.
It isn't about hate per se or thoughts per se, it is about a group that thinks that some humans are less worthy than others. The group can be spurred on with rhetoric over the radio or in church or at the bully pulpit, that says, "We hate gays/blacks/Jews/ immigrants". then goes on to say, "They don't deserve to walk the earth. They are filthy and immoral and a perversion of humanity."
It isn't hate that is being prosecuted. That completely mischaracterizes the issue, and is very disengenious as an argument. It is the actions of hate that arise to a hysterical level and result in what some would see as justifiable murder, ie: "That dirty fag deserved to die."
I'm only half stupid
the hangings continued with
What in the world does this have to do with hate crime legislation. You get the same jury trial with or without hate crime legislation, do you not? The problem of unjust trials has certainly been a problem, and likely still is to a certain point, but its a matter of enforcing laws justly not making new ones, and even if you were to make new ones, you ought to make ones that actually have something to do with the issue.
Really, what is it about then? The crime already gets punished so its not about the crime.
...
How do you know the crime gets punished. That's the point.
I'm only half stupid
They do if the law is
They do if the law is enforced. And contrary to popular belief the answer to a law that doesn't get enforced justly is not to make another law.
Really.....
Why did it take decades to get a conviction of a white man for killing Negroes in Mississippi?
The law was not enforced. We should have ignored it?
So as this injustice was revealed, folks were just supposed to stand idly by and say, "Oh well, this will just work itself out?"
It is a piece of history that the Jews stood with the Blacks against this senseless unpunished killing spree, because they went through it also.
I'm only half stupid
Explain how adding penalities
Explain how adding penalities for the motive of the crime helps enforce the crime. The same people will be on the juries, the same people will be cops, the same people will be judges. The problem you're are talking about is not adressed by hate crime laws.
There is
added incentive to make sure that juries serve justice by having a fair trail.
IF a crime meets the hate crimes threshold and the victim's family feels that justice will not be served by the local legal community, they can appeal to the avenues of the hate crimes law and receive funding to ensure that the local community will in fact conduct a fair trail.
The law essentially goes around a corrupt local justice system (such as the Mississippi example acquitting a murderer) by allowing financial and federal assistance if necessary.
I'm only half stupid
the crime of incitement does not involve actual damages
By my understanding, incitement to violence is a crime regardless of whether anyone actually enacts that violence. I could not find the actual statutes, but I found a SCOTUS case from the 1952 regarding the deportation of Communists
. Here's what they said:
As I read the above decision, advocacy of violence can be criminal regardless of whether it actually leads to violence.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
more info on inciting violence
From SCOTUS case BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
1) Incitement does not require subsequent violence
2) I think that hate crimes fit the exception ("is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"), at least if there are other people present who might share the perpetrator's dislike of the victim's group.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Preposterous Adam.
Unless the perpetrator of the crime expressly calls for, or actively incites such action, it is no different than claiming a bank robber is passively inciting others to rob banks simply by committing the crime itself.
Furthermore, should the individual does call overtly for such incitement, there is the laws you've cited to deal with it.
We don't need more more more Adam, we need better, focused, effective.
Again you fail to show any reason for this new unfair, unnecessary legislation.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
hate crimes do not fall under criminal syndicalism laws
Based on the cases I looked, the concept of incitement is used to justify specific laws -- it is not treated as a crime in itself.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
it's about the intention behind the action
Both hate crimes and identity theft are about the intentions of the person who committs the objective act. In the case of identity theft, we ask whether the person is trying to do something that is relatively harmless (a procedural crime) or something that is clearly harmful (stealing). In the case of hate crimes, the issue is whether the person is doing something bad (harming a single victim) or something very bad (intimidate/oppress an entire group of people).
It isn't about their opinions.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
nominally prohibited vs. truely prohibited
Federal hate crimes legislation is largely about changing the jurisdiction of a crime -- allowing federal prosecutors to become involved in situations where they normally wouldn't.
Anyway, I don't see anything odd in saying that some crimes are worse than others. I mean, murder is already prohibited by laws against assault and battery, isn't it?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Great, those are all part of equal protections though?
...and dude, this is pure ____ in my book;
Your argument is not only frivolous, it invites the case to be made for all sorts of sub-groups for similar claims to this legally preferred status. This is simply not progress my friend, this is about divisiveness.
Again, this emerging peculiar liberal mindset that invites these shocking contradictions between their long held and professed values, and the opportunistic behavior the current political climate is manifesting is interesting, and disappointing to see.
It seems so odd to be arguing about laws to create divisions in the law and separation amongst Americans, when for my lifetime we have always put such a premium on, and worked so hard for equality.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
equal protection jujutsu
You guy are loving this rhetorical jujutsu aren't you...because of course half of the motivation behind hate crime legislation (Federalizing the crime) is to assure equal protection for groups who have traditionally been denied equal protection of the law.
As a middle class straight white guy, I've never had any doubt that an attack against me would be fully investigated and prosecuted. I also am not particularly concerned about being attacked as I walk down the street at night or when I go to a bar. I don't begrudge others when they seek that same sense of security.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
But legally they already have
But legally they already have equal protection of the law, and to the extent this is ignored, so can any hate crime. When the problem is people ignoring the laws, making more laws doesn't make sense as the solution because they can just ignore those laws too.
to assure
equal protection. As noted federal intervention could be brought to bear.
It is giving added weight to equal protection to assure that the law is not ignored.
I'm only half stupid
Everyone already gets equal protection!
And we sure don't need more federal spending and bureaucracy to ensure one segment gets more of it than everyone else, it defeats the whole idea.
Unlike what you would have us think, this is 2009, not 1906, there are no lynchings, no white sheeted horsemen are burning a cross in your black neighbors yard, it's so damn pathetic that's your retort, sad.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Do they.....?
That must be why the weight of the Federal Government was brought to bear in the steroids scandal, to avoid the extra federal spending and bureaucracy to enforce an already existing law. Just ask Barry Bonds or Mark McGuire how much more equal protection he got than his coach.
That must be why the Federal Government was called back into session for equal protection of the pro-life groups represented by Terri Schiavo's parents who tried to over ride her own and her husbands legal wishes.
Yes it is 2009 and we can hope that cars with Ron Paul bumper stickers don't get singled out under equal protection clause as being possibly more prone to a violent reaction if stopped by the police, even though a police memo warned that such cars could be armed and dangerous and to proceed with caution.
IN each instance one could argue that Federal intervention caused an imperfect outcome, yet there are advocates for Federal Intervention for the sake of Justice, that come from all perspectives. And each highlights a particular issue of social justice that when pushed to the forefront brought us a broader awareness of potential outcomes.
There are plenty of targets for hate groups to foment over these days. I would suggest that one of them obviously is the Federal Government itself. There will always be some group that feels using mockery, taunting and then violence, is for a justified cause.
Social Justice and Liberty are not diametrically opposed and neither excludes the necessity of Federal Intervention in some (rare) instances.
I'm only half stupid
A Passive Government
If people chose to ignore the laws you want government to be passive? Could this be qualified as laissez-faire justice?
The sentiment you express here contradicts your admonitions in the recent SC dust up that someone needed to step in, step up and be the ultimate authority, to resolve a dispute between BR and GR, when it seems that all avenues to resolve the dispute failed, including relying on a voluntary code of civility.
I believe you said that the liberals who resisted appeals to an authoritarian figure or final arbitrator were do nothing 'pacifists' and you were advocating for an authoritarian or moderator to solve the problem.
Yet for folks who break or ignore the law where real violence and harm is done, that essentially terrorizes a group based on race, or sexual preference, or whatever, your recommendation is, 'leave them be'?
I'm only half stupid
jurisdiction
State vs. Federal law. If one is ignored, the other can be enforced.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
John Stossel has a point you guys.
--ABC "20/20" co-anchor John Stossel
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
At the risk of looking like Centinel's b*tch, :)
I rate this a +3.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4no one denies that credit cards are convenient...
The complaint against some credit card companies is that they write the terms of service in a way that confuses the customer about the real cost of having a credit card. It's a soft form of fraud, and there is no reason that the government should enforce a fraudulent contract. That's the issue here.
Anyway, Stossel never made any connection between these practices and the fact that credit cards are convenient.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
This scares the
hell
out of me!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Will Obama invade Pakistan to prevent this from happening?
What are the odds?
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I wonder what NeoCons are secretly thinking....
....something along the lines of "man, I wish we had the troops we have in Iraq to now be used to stop WMD from getting in the hands of terrorist."
[b]If[/b] something happened.
I suspect "liberals" might and likely will, look at this issue differently based on how the POTUS handled the situation and people in the GOP will cry hypocrisy.
Imagine [b]if[/b] a group with actual ties to terrorist, getting close to being capable of overrunning part of a nation to get WMD.
India probably doesn't like what's going on either...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Iraq is a great BO to deal with Pakistan
We could easily go in and defend strategic assets if we had the _____to do so.
But that requires a firm hand be placed on Iran's throat in the process.
I think we've done our part, but this is one of the few eventualities I would greenlight, we just could not tolerate that.
Don't you think the whole western world would want to prevent this too?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The whole western world......
This qualifies as a pre-curser for a hate crime against the whole eastern world. I guess the yellow people just don't count as civilized enough to bother with. =)
The people of Iran are much more friendly to the western world than their actual leaders.
I'm only half stupid
Oh ML, thank you, but I'm just not interested
in a commiserative apprenticeship in the politics of contrition?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The East is Rising
be afraid. Be very afraid.
Haven't you heard, China is building an air craft carrier and beefing up their military.
China loves Iranian Oil.
I'm only half stupid