I guess it's possible that I could think more highly of Nate Silver, but I'm not sure how. Reading most of this, I'm nodding along; then at the end, he kicks David Sirota, whom I loathe, repeatedly in the balls.

dajafi wrote:I guess it's possible that I could think more highly of Nate Silver, but I'm not sure how. Reading most of this, I'm nodding along; then at the end, he kicks David Sirota, whom I loathe, repeatedly in the balls.

A very good column. Ironically it is the radical progressives who become the conservative's allies in preventing significant change. To paraphrase the one critical commenter to Silver --"but when people are suffering we need to have all the change right now, so nobody suffers". It's nice philosphically, if totally impractical, but that seems to be the point. These are folks who enjoy the fight and don't really want a solution, deep down. They are the Arafat's of our society, and their ability to rationalize is infinite. They are always fighting for the common man, even though the common man pretty much loathes them, which is why they are such effective allies of the conservatives. They see themselves as the holy warriors and bomb throwers, intellectually or physically, who must heroically oppose the wrong. In my generation, they bombed schools and then blamed the janitor they killed for basically working for the pigs. Today, they'll injure lab workers, trash labs, and deny medical cures to save lab rats.

Drone strikes in Northern Pakistan continue.

The Pakistani prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, today reiterated Islamabad's concerns about the missiles, which are fired from pilotless drone aircraft operated by the CIA. "These (strikes) are counterproductive and not in the interests of the country," he said. "I think the Obama administration will have to reconsider this policy."

Given that pakistan just handed over suspects related to the mumbai shootings, you can't help but wonder if they're trying the 'be reasonable' route, and suggesting that anything which further radicalises the areas in the north makes their job harder and the country even more combustible.

It also relates back to dajafi's/nate silver's post. I've no truck with Obama continuing this policy or continuing to allow the CIA to use rendition. It would seem to me there's a perfectly rational argument against both - that both are blunt, indiscriminate (and very opaque) instruments that cost more in terms of increasing isolation of certain communities and countries through increased radicalisation than the short term benefit of dead mid level AQ operatives. Does that make me a radical progressive for getting angry with Obama for continuing with these policies? Sometimes the people getting angry with Obama aren't doing it because it's the easy way out.

dajafi wrote:I guess it's possible that I could think more highly of Nate Silver, but I'm not sure how. Reading most of this, I'm nodding along; then at the end, he kicks David Sirota, whom I loathe, repeatedly in the balls.

In addition to its Marxist roots, I would assert what Nate calls radical progressivism also has roots in the 17th Puritan movement.

Wiz, my guess is that in the case of the drones, one objective of the Obama administration is to motivate Pakistan a bit more to take the lead role themselves. Without knowing a lot about the specifics here, if the premise is "either you guys will go after these guys, or we will, using the drones," I at least see the reasoning.

The rendition policy, though, is shameful.

Thinking a little more about the Silver post last night, it occurred to me that "radical progressivism" perhaps deserves more credit than Nate (and I) might be immediately inclined to give it. There's something to be said for the "prophetic tradition"; if you had to put, say, Martin Luther King Jr in one or the other group, he's pretty clearly on the radical side. But maybe the distinction is that those sorts of people can't make it in a political system like ours, which really forces compromise--which is why people like Sirota on the left, or the Club for Growth on the right, often wind up shooting at their own feet.

jerseyhoya wrote:Venezuela sure is an interesting place to think about. The majority apparently approves of Chavez, albeit narrowly, but I guess something like that is more easily achieved when you have consolidated the organs of the state behind you and quieted all unfriendly media voices.

It was easier when he first started, when the memory of the oligarchy and military leaders who preceded him were fresher in the minds of the people. Chavez has succeeded by providing services and hope to the majority of the population who were extremely poor and beaten down by the prior regime. What we are seeing in VZ and Bolivia is a public uprising against the oligarchs who have controlled power since the time of the Spanish conquerors. The poor are basically of native descent and the rich of Spanish descent.

So, just to pile on the torture fun, an MI5 officer has now admitted the following in court:

The officer, who can be identified only as Witness B, admitted that although Mohamed had been in Pakistani custody for five weeks, and he knew the country to have a poor human rights record, he did not ask whether he had been tortured or mistreated, did not inquire why he had lost weight, and did not consider whether his detention without trial was illegal

Oh, and that whole thing about the US putting pressure on the UK if they released details of Biyam Mohamed's treatment? Apparently the UK foreign minister requested that the americans send the UK a letter to that effect (from the same article):

Miliband's position in the affair came under renewed attack yesterday after it emerged that his officials solicited a letter from the US state department to back up his claim that if the evidence was disclosed, Washington might stop sharing intelligence with Britain. The claim persuaded the high court judges to suppress what they called "powerful evidence" relating to Mohamed's ill-treatment.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, today described the move as possibly "one of the most outrageous deceptions of parliament, the judiciary and the British people. There must be an immediate investigation, with all related correspondence made public."

The FCO said it asked the US to make its position clear in writing "to inform both us and the court". It said it was "both perfectly sensible and the correct thing to do".

It's no surprise that no one was going to look pretty coming out of this, but at this point I'm doubly angry since we're almost definitely looking at a conservative government the next election. in and of itself, I have no illusions that a torture policy would bring down a government (even when it concerns UK civilians). but combined with all the other crap that's been building up, and browns culpability for deregulation within the UK as chanceller, it's looking very likely.

wow, didn't finish reading the article. It gets better:

In a letter to the committee, Clive Stafford Smith, the director of Reprieve, says: "The ISC would want to know whether the intelligence services brought the issue of Mr Mohamed's abuse to the attention of the prime minister (then Mr Blair) – and, if not, why not." He said if the evidence had been brought to Blair's attention, "the ISC would want to know what, if anything, was done about it. If nothing was done, that would raise serious questions about the respect that the UK government has for its obligations under the convention against torture."

Evidence heard by the court in-camera – once the public and the media had been excluded – resulted in Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, asking the attorney general, Lady Scotland, to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing" by both American and British security and intelligence officers.

I wonder how LAExile's documentary is coming along.

Woody wrote:I wonder how LAExile's documentary is coming along.

I think I answered my own question...

http://www.wheresthepartydoc.com/

ZOMG

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyxM3qwVXvs[/youtube]

I'm pumped, let's raise some money

Good lord, a lot of relatively important and famous people talked to him.

jerseyhoya wrote:Good lord, a lot of relatively important and famous people talked to him.

He'd kind of a big deal

jerseyhoya wrote:Good lord, a lot of relatively important and famous people talked to him.

They're politicians. He has a camera.

You both make excellent points.

I'm going to have LA's voice stuck in my head for days

Woody wrote:I'm going to have LA's voice stuck in my head for days

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOp-js7g2gk&e[/youtube]

This is pretty entertaining, if just for the awkwardness of Terry McAuliffe busting on Joe Trippi, and then getting smacked down from the audience. Plus the GOP candidate makes a Pat Robertson joke.

Watching the four, we sure seem to have the best candidate in VA.