pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:Cool, thanks for the followup post.

Here are some other interesting links for the day:

Japan pays Latin American workers to leave

utterly disgraceful policy

Good luck with that aging population thing.

dajafi wrote:Senate Leaders Opposes [sic] Interrogation Inquiry Panel

At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Senate Democrats endorsed Mr. Obama’s view on Thursday, telling reporters that they preferred to wait for the results of an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee expected sometime “late this year.” But Ms. Pelosi renewed her call for an independent panel.

Mr. Reid, who repeatedly denounced the use of harsh interrogation techniques when Mr. Bush was president, suggested that naming a special panel would signal an intent to exact “retribution” and he sought to paper over the disagreement with members of his own caucus, like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who want a commission.

I'm starting to think there's no good outcome here.

If they do investigate, the Democrats will overdo it and the Republicans will dig in; the oxygen will be drained from trying to get anything else done, and the political climate will remain as bad as it's been since 1993 or even get worse.

If they don't investigate, a (last?) chance to rein in the imperial presidency is foregone, and we come across to the world as enormous hypocrites. Not to mention a strong message is sent that we'll torture again at some point.

It's should not be Obama's choice to say whether or not this is something that is investigated because unfortunately for him (and all of us as a country) it obviously happened. It's nice to say we should look forward and not back but I think Obama is wrong in that he's kinda saying the same thing the Bush White House said: the end justifies the means. In other words, he is going to overlook a blatant breaking of the law in order for him have a better chance of advancing his own political agenda.

To me this is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed and I don't care what the fallout is. It kinda boils down to what Shepard Smith (oh jeez) said "This is America! We do not fucking torture!"

Warszawa wrote:To me this is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed and I don't care what the fallout is. It kinda boils down to what Shepard Smith (oh jeez) said "This is America! We do not $#@! torture!"

Emotionally, I completely agree. But this seems like yet another of those difficult things that we as a society don't, maybe can't, really do anymore. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Messing with Texas

Nate Silver is a god. I could read stuff like this all day.

dajafi wrote:

Warszawa wrote:To me this is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed and I don't care what the fallout is. It kinda boils down to what Shepard Smith (oh jeez) said "This is America! We do not $#@! torture!"

Emotionally, I completely agree. But this seems like yet another of those difficult things that we as a society don't, maybe can't, really do anymore. I hope I'm wrong about that.

On Charlie Rose last night, David Brooks framed it more as a matter of opportunity costs. The administration has a lot on it's agenda and doesn't want to sacrifice any of it to what will almost inevitably feel of red/blue warfare. That makes sense to me.

jerseyhoya wrote:Messing with Texas

Nate Silver is a god. I could read stuff like this all day.

i guess its kind of interesting, but what's the point? it all ends up a push, more or less. you can say the same type of thing about any number of states, really.

gr wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Messing with Texas

Nate Silver is a god. I could read stuff like this all day.

i guess its kind of interesting, but what's the point? it all ends up a push, more or less. you can say the same type of thing about any number of states, really.

Everyone is focusing on the political considerations, but I think there are other critical issues that Nate ignores. The biggest fight would be over oil revenue. Then, access to the gulf itself--the other four states wouldn't I don't think willingly cede a shoreline. The "El Norte" would be very poor.

One thing Nate doesn't recognize is that "DFW" is the kind of thing that makes sense from a certain sort of modern progressive regional planning perspective, but fails to take into account that Dallas and Ft. Worth are very different kinds of places. Ft. Worth really belongs more in the Plainland area. (Ironically, Dallas historically isn't much of a Cowboy city, Forth Worth is.

gr wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Messing with Texas

Nate Silver is a god. I could read stuff like this all day.

i guess its kind of interesting, but what's the point? it all ends up a push, more or less. you can say the same type of thing about any number of states, really.

It's just an interesting hypothetical. And the difference between Texas and other states is it was expressly given the right to split into as many as five states when it joined the Union, which I think is unique.

I really enjoyed Nate's piece on Texas, just as a diversion/thought exercise.

Meanwhile, Greenwald nails it on the torture investigations question:

The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become. The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact: serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims. A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so. That has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.

It has to do with the most central premise of the American system of government: that we are a nation of laws, not men, and all are equal before the law. People like John McCain argue that only "banana republics" prosecute former political leaders, but the reality is exactly the opposite. As the Western world has spent decades pointing out, the hallmark of an under-developed, tyrannical society is the very same premise we have embraced: that political elites are free to break the law with impunity and never suffer the consequences that ordinary citizens do.

Emphasis mine. This notion of equal justice under the law is I think the deciding factor for me; if we don't investigate, we're admitting that foundational principle is a farce. The question is how to do it in a way that's most resistant to politics.

(Another way to think about this was suggested by a comment on the NY Times political blog piece I linked to yesterday: Obama doesn't want to see torture investigated, and he's opposed to legalizing marijuana--so it logically follows that he believes a kid smoking a joint has committed a worse offense against the law than someone who authorized actions in violation of treaties we've signed. That doesn't seem right, does it?)

dajafi wrote:I really enjoyed Nate's piece on Texas, just as a diversion/thought exercise.

Meanwhile, Greenwald nails it on the torture investigations question:

The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become. The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact: serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims. A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so. That has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.

It has to do with the most central premise of the American system of government: that we are a nation of laws, not men, and all are equal before the law. People like John McCain argue that only "banana republics" prosecute former political leaders, but the reality is exactly the opposite. As the Western world has spent decades pointing out, the hallmark of an under-developed, tyrannical society is the very same premise we have embraced: that political elites are free to break the law with impunity and never suffer the consequences that ordinary citizens do.

Emphasis mine. This notion of equal justice under the law is I think the deciding factor for me; if we don't investigate, we're admitting that foundational principle is a farce. The question is how to do it in a way that's most resistant to politics.

(Another way to think about this was suggested by a comment on the NY Times political blog piece I linked to yesterday: Obama doesn't want to see torture investigated, and he's opposed to legalizing marijuana--so it logically follows that he believes a kid smoking a joint has committed a worse offense against the law than someone who authorized actions in violation of treaties we've signed. That doesn't seem right, does it?)

I don't think it's quite correct to paint this in "elites get away with stuff" terms. I think there's a substantial portion of our population who are ok with torture. I believe the sense of outrage over these allegations are limited to a small number of people. There's no political gain for anyone in pursuing this.

Now, my view of this is that this is the result of a combination of racism and relativism, and frankly, the inability of people to think clearly about moral issues (and moral relativism is a product of fuzzy thinking) is a bigger culprit than race.

On torture, it's so much worse, though, because the so-called champions of moral absolutism don't seem to recognize torture as a case of moral degeneracy.

But there's personal morality, and then there's law. To take the pot example, my hope (and maybe I'm wrong) is that more people are basically okay with recreational use of intoxicants than with torture. But both activities violate laws. Among the first statements of those who aren't okay with drug use is that the laws need to be enforced, or they have no meaning; how does this not hold for torture?

dajafi wrote:I really enjoyed Nate's piece on Texas, just as a diversion/thought exercise.

Meanwhile, Greenwald nails it on the torture investigations question:

Krugman tackled this today as well

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

*Edit--just saw he mentions the Krugman article. My fault, posted first, read second.

dajafi wrote:But there's personal morality, and then there's law. To take the pot example, my hope (and maybe I'm wrong) is that more people are basically okay with recreational use of intoxicants than with torture. But both activities violate laws. Among the first statements of those who aren't okay with drug use is that the laws need to be enforced, or they have no meaning; how does this not hold for torture?

I don't really think many people take the rule of law as a principle seriously. Obedience to the law is motivated largely by a desire to avoid punishment. If there's any overarching principle, it's a consequential one. And in the case of torture, well, we're making the country safe from terrorists.

Again, I just don't get a sense that people think any great injustice has been done here.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:But there's personal morality, and then there's law. To take the pot example, my hope (and maybe I'm wrong) is that more people are basically okay with recreational use of intoxicants than with torture. But both activities violate laws. Among the first statements of those who aren't okay with drug use is that the laws need to be enforced, or they have no meaning; how does this not hold for torture?

I don't really think many people take the rule of law as a principle seriously. Obedience to the law is motivated largely by a desire to avoid punishment. If there's any overarching principle, it's a consequential one. And in the case of torture, well, we're making the country safe from terrorists.

Again, I just don't get a sense that people think any great injustice has been done here.

I'm totally with dajafi on this one (I know... it's the kiss of death), that rule of law is an important principle for a country of laws to uphold. Your observation that people are generally consequentialist is one I find anecdotally correct. But part of the reason for this consequentialism is because, over the course of US history, the morality of citizens tend to match up with the morality of the laws. The laws that aren't ritualistically broken are the laws that reflect our moral feelings. Laws that are viewed as arbitrary or morally vacuous, like speed limit laws and medicinal marijuana laws, are more quickly broken.

My point is that obedience to the law should be stressed; without this, it will be even more difficult to enforce the laws that are dubious in morality. The problem is in the latent/underlying/unsaid reality: that laws against torture are ones that are OK to be broken. Acknowledgment and acceptance by our highest public figure (Obama) of this conclusion, that some laws can be broken, is terrible policy BECAUSE of the consequences it will produce in the citizenry's mental accounting. With each law that the government agrees to ignore, the larger the logic behind "I'm an American citizen, and it is moral to obey the law because the law is just" is eroded.

Tedisco conceded to Murphy

ZOMG SHUT UP JERSEY NO ONE CARES / je2insufferable

kool.

kruker wrote:

dajafi wrote:I really enjoyed Nate's piece on Texas, just as a diversion/thought exercise.

Meanwhile, Greenwald nails it on the torture investigations question:

Krugman tackled this today as well

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

*Edit--just saw he mentions the Krugman article. My fault, posted first, read second.

America's soul = Dancing with the Stars

I don't disagree with what he's saying, but the problem with Krugman saying it is that there's probably no pundit in America who's more transparently interested in "retribution" than he.

So Jerseyhoya doesn't feel alone with his fixation on a political race that no one else cares about, more on Blanche Lincoln, and why she'll win re-election and explaining continued Democratic dominance in a red state.

From John Brummet in www.arkansasnews.com

Arkansas politics remains a cult of personality and Republicans currently come unarmed to that battle in Arkansas.

What this means of course is that you won't find any national trends in Arkansas. In 2002, we were the only state where an incumbent Republican Senator was defeated. Why? People didn't like Tim Hutchinson, but they liked Mark Pryor's daddy.

However, I disagree that this is the whole story. Here's another way to look at it. Arkansas is a conservative red state with a weak Republican party. To some extent, that's a function of characteristics unique to Arkansas's political culture.

But I think there are also aspects of a deeper problem for the Republicans. There are attractive moderate (in Arkansas terms) candidates who can't get nominated for statewide office. If you want to field a candidate who really can compete against Blanche Lincoln, you don't have a bruising expensive primary (in which few Arkansans will vote since everyone votes in the Democratic primary since that's the real election for most state and local offices) and you don't run someone with 18 kids and counting but no apparent source of income other than a reality television program.