Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't really see a principled reason to think that government agents should have the unbridled discretion to torture people but can't be trusted to decide whether to prosecute others for torture.

As much as anything else, this whole debate is about the Bush Administration's desire to do away with checks and balances so that the executive branch can do whatever the hell it pleases. All government agencies would love to be free of oversight. It doesn't mean they make better decisions -- quite the opposite.

The first is kind of a tautology, isn't it? If torture's illegal, then everybody is prosecuted for it, so giving the agents the right to engage it is a crime in itself, isn't it?

I agree on the second point. The real issue here has never been torture. And this Admin should be reined in, dramatically. And you and I, we agree on the need to lessen the scope of the Exec's power. So why then does you side of the political spectrum ask to make the govt so much bigger in other areas? You want more social services, more programs and more oversight. You say govt is a friend and big business is a danger to us when we're talking about entitlements and taxes, but when it comes to branches of the govt using their power as Bush is doing, suddenly you're a Libertarian.

Why don't people like you and I get together around a compromise of shrinking all areas of the govt and reining in its power across the board? I want Bush downsized and caged. He's an idiot who's ruinging our foreign policy and taking us into an endless war. I also want our domestic govt and every program in it sliced to the bare bones. Cut it all. Lets be fair. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a big govt for those who suckle from it and at the same time a small govt when it comes to matters of Exec power. Either the govt is big and broadly powerful or it is small.

Pick.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The first is kind of a tautology, isn't it? If torture's illegal, then everybody is prosecuted for it, so giving the agents the right to engage it is a crime in itself, isn't it?

Not sure I follow. If torture is illegal, that doesn't mean it always must be prosecuted. If you really feel driven to torture someone to discover a hidden nuclear bomb, you're not going to stop just because a law says you can't do it, and I can't believe anyone would ever prosecute you for it anyway.

I agree on the second point. The real issue here has never been torture. And this Admin should be reined in, dramatically. And you and I, we agree on the need to lessen the scope of the Exec's power.

Kumbayah, dude.

So why then does you side of the political spectrum ask to make the govt so much bigger in other areas? You want more social services, more programs and more oversight. You say govt is a friend and big business is a danger to us when we're talking about entitlements and taxes, but when it comes to branches of the govt using their power as Bush is doing, suddenly you're a Libertarian.

Well, the most obvious answer is that the long arm of the government acts much less brutally when it takes tax dollars from the rich to pay for services than when it sics Egyptian security forces on the family of a man to get him to talk. All else equal, a larger government means less freedom, but all else is never equal.

I tend to be much more of a pragmatist than would be apparent on this board about which government interventions in markets are worthwhile.

Why don't people like you and I get together around a compromise of shrinking all areas of the govt and reining in its power across the board? I want Bush downsized and caged. He's an idiot who's ruinging our foreign policy and taking us into an endless war. I also want our domestic govt and every program in it sliced to the bare bones. Cut it all. Lets be fair. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a big govt for those who suckle from it and at the same time a small govt when it comes to matters of Exec power. Either the govt is big and broadly powerful or it is small.

Pick.

There is no consituency -- none -- for downsizing government in the way you describe. We've just had a Republican-run government for most of six years, and it did the opposite. The reason for this, of course, is that government spending is popular, even when it is wrong-headed, and Republicans in Congress and at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. did not want to risk the political heat that would come with cuts. It's not a conservative or liberal issues. Both parties want to spend $$$, but they want to spend $$$ on different constiuencies. That's politics.

You're linking issues that are fundamentally unrelated. One is a question of the size of the federal government. The other has to do with the balance of power between the different branches of the federal government.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you really feel driven to torture someone to discover a hidden nuclear bomb, you're not going to stop just because a law says you can't do it, and I can't believe anyone would ever prosecute you for it anyway.

since torture doesn't work wouldn't it be criminally negligent to waste time torturing the guy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
since torture doesn't work wouldn't it be criminally negligent to waste time torturing the guy?

I think the hypothetical is set up so as to preclude the sort of interrogation that would get you cooperation. Not to worry -- it works in the movies, which is the only time this sort of thing happens.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apropos of our earlier discussion, I just noticed this on Krugman's blog:

Why State hired Blackwater: Rumsfeld wouldn’t provide troops:

• A new executive order, signed in January 2004, gave State authority over all but military operations. Rumsfeld’s revenge, at least in the view of many State officials, was to withdraw all but minimal assistance for diplomatic security.

But they sat down to work it out, right?

• Meetings to negotiate an official memorandum of understanding between State and Defense during the spring of 2004 broke up in shouting matches over issues such as their respective levels of patriotism and whether the military would provide mortuary services for slain diplomats.

Remember, however, the important point: if you noticed back then that these were crazy, dangerous people, you were shrill. To be respectable, you have to have waited until 2006 or so to turn on the Bushies.

He's quoting from this Washington Post article.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the hypothetical is set up so as to preclude the sort of interrogation that would get you cooperation. Not to worry -- it works in the movies, which is the only time this sort of thing happens.

how do you know so much?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how do you know so much?

I watched a lot of PBS as a kid.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I watched a lot of PBS as a kid.

Is that mustard under the egg on the rye (?) bread? Weird. I like the walking, talking oatmeal. Or cream of wheat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is that mustard under the egg on the rye (?) bread?

Maybe egg yolk?

Weird.

Fortunately this never happened to me.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe egg yolk?



Fortunately this never happened to me.

The yolks look intact to me.

This is sooooo way a better conversation than anything political.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The yolks look intact to me.

This is sooooo way a better conversation than anything political.

How about baseball? I stand ready to discuss this evening's game at the slightest provocation.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How about baseball? I stand ready to discuss this evening's game at the slightest provocation.

shut it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How about baseball? I stand ready to discuss this evening's game at the slightest provocation.

So, Beckett's post-season ERA went up this game, but he still did OK.

[Gattigap]

Colbert hits double digits in recent Rasmussen poll.

• A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert’s surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office.
  
  The result is similar when Fred Thompson is the Republican in the three-way race. With Thompson as the GOP candidate, Colbert earns 12% of the vote.
  
  ****
  
  Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.

You know, I don't care if his candidacy is violating federal election laws. This is awesome.

Gattigap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Colbert hits double digits in recent Rasmussen poll.

• A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert’s surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office.
  
  The result is similar when Fred Thompson is the Republican in the three-way race. With Thompson as the GOP candidate, Colbert earns 12% of the vote.
  
  ****
  
  Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.

You know, I don't care if his candidacy is violating federal election laws. This is awesome.

Gattigap

The legal issues are easily solved. Colbert doesn't control the content of either his show or his campaign, Viacom does. And all Viacom has to do is give Romney and Clinton their own comedy show - I suspect they'd get good ratings. Mayor Red Sox and Obama, less so.