Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
More ludicrously overappreciated than Randy Newman by far:

• Lou Reed
• Jim Morrison
• Iggy Pop
• Sonic Youth

Your taste is in your mouth...

1. Lou Reed has a song catalog as classic as any pop musician who has ever lived. "Pale Blue Eyes," "Rock N. Roll" and "Sweet Jane" alone put him in that category.

2. Agreed Morrison and the Doors' thin sound are wildly overhyped. But "Moonlight Mile," "Indian Summer" and and the band's first record are amazing.

3. Agreed Iggy's a little more myth than talent. But the Stooges albums are all classics, as is his first solo record.

4. Agreed. I'm not a huge SY fan. But I know I like them a lot more than Newman

Still, the least of these artists is still 50X better than Randy Newman could ever hope to be on most inspired day. He is simply not that good. At his most listenable his lyrics are those of a dry, sober Warren Zevon with the backing music of Dr. John in a writing-gingles-for-Buick state of mind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• "You know, torture is the method of choice of the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough."

- Adm. Hutson, former JAG Officer and current Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, at the Mukasey hearings.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• "You know, torture is the method of choice of the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough."

- Adm. Hutson, former JAG Officer and current Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, at the Mukasey hearings.

Seems like the type of facile legal analysis that might be expected from a third-tier law school.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Seems like the type of facile legal analysis that might be expected from a third-tier law school.

dissent. anyone who can fully sum up and answer a horribly complex issue in a mere 17 words is one well-educated mother fucker.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I quite like "Louisiana 1927" and "Dixie Flyer." And that classic Charlie Sheen vehicle "Major League" just wouldn't be the same without "Burn On."

"America" and "Political Science" are also rather poignant.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dissent. anyone who can fully sum up and answer a horribly complex issue in a mere 17 words is one well-educated mother fucker.

Agreed. And the gentleman had one hell of a solid summation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• "You know, torture is the method of choice of the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough."

- Adm. Hutson, former JAG Officer and current Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, at the Mukasey hearings.

He forgets the logical, pragmatic and efficient. You can cite all the contrarian eggheads you like for the proposition torture isn't effective, but anyone who's broken a limb or been kicked in the balls would admit, infliction of intense pain will cause results.

Do not reply to this with some Kinsley-esque article where some professor suggests that a more clever form of psychological gaming gets better results. I'll admit there may be such techniques out there, and that a few serious pros know how to use them. But in a world where we have hundreds of these people in custody and need the information as quickly as possible, "torture" is a lamentable necessity. And really, when you start discussing "alternatives" to "torture," aren't you just talking about acceptable degrees of torture? In that regard, this debate is almost as pointless as the semantic contoversy over gay marriage and civil unions.

And the American public knows this. Which is why no one outside the NYTimes, DailyKos and John McCain even cares about the issue.*

*And McCain is biased for obvious reasons.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dissent. anyone who can fully sum up and answer a horribly complex issue in a mere 17 words is one well-educated mother fucker.

Oh, no. You have that backwards. Ayn Rand is 1000x smarter than William Butler Yeats or ee cummings.

The "Conserve Ink" movementarians have gotten to you, too, haven't they?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He forgets the logical, pragmatic and efficient. You can cite all the contrarian eggheads you like for the proposition torture isn't effective, but anyone who's broken a limb or been kicked in the balls would admit, infliction of intense pain will cause results.

But not always useful results. They tell you what you want to hear, which is why torture has always been used by repressive regimes with an interest in obtaining false confessions. If you want good information, you want to get the source to cooperate with you. The desire to torture people has more to do with wanting to be the kind of person who is ready to kick someone in the balls or break limbs. It's what intellectuals do to pose as tough guys and men of the world. Like you just did -- you call a veteran -- a retired admiral -- you know almost nothing about a "contrarian egghead."

But in a world where we have hundreds of these people in custody and need the information as quickly as possible, "torture" is a lamentable necessity.

Stop basing your worldview on "24."

And really, when you start discussing "alternatives" to "torture," aren't you just talking about acceptable degrees of torture?

No. You're talking about flipping a source so that he identifies with your side. There are different ways to do this, but they generally involve isolation and treating people decently.

All you have to do is look at the current crop of GOP presidential candidates to see that this desire to justify torture isn't really about the results -- it's about wanting to preen and pose, to look and sound tough. Giuliani, for one, is bent on making religious conservatives forget his marriages and cross-dressing and support of gun rights and all that other stuff by sounding more aggressive and tougher than the next guy.

I like your notion that McCain, who has actual experience with torture that you and most other people don't have, is "biased." Don't let reality get in the way of macho posing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1. But not always useful results. They tell you what you want to hear, which is why torture has always been used by repressive regimes with an interest in obtaining false confessions. If you want good information, you want to get the source to cooperate with you. The desire to torture people has more to do with wanting to be the kind of person who is ready to kick someone in the balls or break limbs. It's what intellectuals do to pose as tough guys and men of the world. Like you just did -- you call a veteran -- a retired admiral -- you know almost nothing about a "contrarian egghead."

2. Stop basing your worldview on "24."

3. No. You're talking about flipping a source so that he identifies with your side. There are different ways to do this, but they generally involve isolation and treating people decently.

4. All you have to do is look at the current crop of GOP presidential candidates to see that this desire to justify torture isn't really about the results -- it's about wanting to preen and pose, to look and sound tough. Giuliani, for one, is bent on making religious conservatives forget his marriages and cross-dressing and support of gun rights and all that other stuff by sounding more aggressive and tougher than the next guy.

5. I like your notion that McCain, who has actual experience with torture that you and most other people don't have, is "biased." Don't let reality get in the way of macho posing.

1. Nice try. Third world regimes have used it, badly, and not with the level of sophistication we employ, to obtain false confessions. Comparing Pol Pot or Stalin to us is not a rebuttal. Their goals were false confessions and their mathods were not as advanced as ours. Be careful using the broad brush, counselor.

2. The only television I watch is the Daily Show and Colbert Report and Keith Olbermann and O'Reilly sometimes (for laughs). I have never seen an episode of 24.

3. No. No, I'm not. I'm talking about getting the info out of him with whatever method works.

4. Agreed. I don't carry the candidates water on this issue. I am merely arguing for what I see as a common sense reality of the thing - that torture no doubt works. Other methods might as well, but those are all torture under a different name, which you amusingly suggest involves "treating the person decently." You want to believe that's the only way we can get the best information because that gives the crux of your argument automatic credibility. But we both know that's not a settled fact, and the truth is, in some cases your approach works; in others, torture works; in still some others, blending both approaches works. I'll agree its a greay area and your approach should be the initial one used, for humane reasons. You'll agree, if you're thinking reasonably and not emotionally, that if your approach does not work, or if time is of the essence, torture is the next logical, necessary step.

5. McCain is biased. He cannot speak to this issue as dispassionately as others might because of his history. There is also controversy over what he might have spilled under torture. And he is running for President and trying to define himself against the others, who all, as you note, defend Torequmada techniques.

Summing it, I agree with you. But when your approach fails, I think taking things to the next level is necessary. Unfortunately necessary.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

5. McCain is biased. He cannot speak to this issue as dispassionately as others might because of his history. There is also controversy over what he might have spilled under torture. And he is running for President and trying to define himself against the others, who all, as you note, defend Torequmada techniques.

Ah, the swiftboating of McCain has begun. So you guys are even doing it to your own now?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, the swiftboating of McCain has begun. So you guys are even doing it to your own now?

Comparing John Kerry and John McCain and you're accusing me of Swiftboating? I admire McCain. If he coughed anything under torture, I don't care. He's just human, and I'd never hold that against him.

But others would, and he's a politician, so he will shrewdly gird against it.

This was a silly cheap shot, BTW. You need another coffee.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
[Though we torture people, unlike we Pol Pot and Stalin we do it in a sophisticated way -- torture is OK if it works.]

Your faith that torture works is disturbing, not least because the conversation started with a quote from a retired Admiral who said otherwise -- he's the guy you called an egghead. You offer a realistic pragmatism that is utterly impervious to contrary evidence. Why do you think torture works? Because we need to do it. Why do we need to do it? Because it works.

All this talk about how it "works" is, among other things, incredibly short-sighted. You're not going to win the so-called war with Islamofascism by torturing suspected terrorists until they rat out their cohorts. It's a war for hearts and minds, and when you start torturing people, you surrender this country's biggest advantage, the notion that we actually stand for something other than sucking as many petrochemicals into our SUVs for as little as possible.

What you say about McCain is just sad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Comparing John Kerry and John McCain and you're accusing me of Swiftboating? I admire McCain. If he coughed anything under torture, I don't care. He's just human, and I'd never hold that against him.

Do you think it was wrong for the North Vietnamese to torture McCain, or was it justified by the fact that they were at war and might have learned something?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your faith that torture works is disturbing, not least because the conversation started with a quote from a retired Admiral who said otherwise -- he's the guy you called an egghead. You offer a realistic pragmatism that is utterly impervious to contrary evidence. Why do you think torture works? Because we need to do it. Why do we need to do it? Because it works.

All this talk about how it "works" is, among other things, incredibly short-sighted. You're not going to win the so-called war with Islamofascism by torturing suspected terrorists until they rat out their cohorts. It's a war for hearts and minds, and when you start torturing people, you surrender this country's biggest advantage, the notion that we actually stand for something other than sucking as many petrochemicals into our SUVs for as little as possible.

What you say about McCain is just sad.

You're clearly undebatable on this issue. Any suggestion torture works is automatically discounted despite the clear reality that for thousands of years people have used it. Has it always been a failure? Is that your suggestion? Thousands of years of regimes torturing people has never elicted useful information becuase some admiral says it doesn't work?

I am trying to be open minded and accept your view as the best way to start interrogations, but you are being absurd and absolutist here. Yes, torture does work in some circumstances, and I would use it as a last resort.

And you've totally warped the logical steps I used to reach that simple conclusion. You either do that because you know your argument is a silly absolutist solution to an issue which is clearly one of degrees or you're simply so high on self-righteousness and the reinforcement you get from reading left-leaning materials on the matter that compromise on this issue seems offensive.

That would be sad.

"Hearts and minds"? I agree with winning hearts and minds. But what if that doesn't work? What if the zealot progamming is too deply entrenched for the "soft interrogation" angle? What shall we do then? Are you foolish enough to suggest your "feel good" approach works 100% of the time?

Back up and put your emotion and political leaning aside.