American Politics: the Lost Generation

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, Bush has avoided the issue for the most part. I was definitely thinking of Cheney. To me he sort of represents the "voice" of Bush's administration.

He admitted recently that he lost some of those arguments, and the Administration didn't follow some of his more aggressive recommendations. I know he is an incredibly polarizing figure, and I don't want to get into that debate. But there is a refreshing directness about the guy that I wish we'd see in more politicians.

[Shryke]

He admitted recently that he lost some of those arguments, and the Administration didn't follow some of his more aggressive recommendations. I know he is an incredibly polarizing figure, and I don't want to get into that debate. But there is a refreshing directness about the guy that I wish we'd see in more politicians.

And how terrifying is THAT to think about?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And how terrifying is THAT to think about?

Depends on your perspective, I suppose.

As I understand it, it seems like it would be difficult for several reasons to pursue these people. I don't like that. But I think I understand why its the case.

The biggest problem is that the people who carried out those instructions weren't lawyers -- they had to rely on the legal opinions of others. To prosecute them criminally for doing things that they had been ordered to do, that they had been informed were legal, and that were not self-evidently wrong morally, would be compounding one error with another.

[Shryke]

Depends on your perspective, I suppose.

Whether you are crazy or not?

The guy who is STILL pro-water-boarding and he was "held back".

Yeah, I think that qualifies as scary to anyone.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Whether you are crazy or not?

The guy who is STILL pro-water-boarding and he was "held back".

I know that's a freakish opinion around here, but 58% of U.S. voters thought that's exactly what should have been done with the guy who recently tried to blow up the plane. You might think that's a wrong opinion, but I'd say 58% of voters thinking otherwise makes it within the realm of legitimate discussion rather than simply "crazy".

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_information

I don't think we should do that stuff to every guy we grab, but I also don't think its indisputable that we should never do it under any circumstances. I do, however, think that a President who endorses something like that should have to sign the order/whatever himself, though.

[alguien]

He admitted recently that he lost some of those arguments, and the Administration didn't follow some of his more aggressive recommendations. I know he is an incredibly polarizing figure, and I don't want to get into that debate. But there is a refreshing directness about the guy that I wish we'd see in more politicians.

I do recall reading somewhere that towards the end of Bush's second term he lost some of his influence. I think this crystalized with Bush's refusal to "pardon" Scooter Libby despite Cheney's strenuous efforts to convince him otherwise.

Still, for the majority of those eight years, I think he was the primary influence of policy, specifically this particular policy.

Thanks for avoiding a drawn out Cheney discussion. The only comment I'll make is that perhaps its easy to be direct when your worldview is a tad bit... extreme, or simplified.

[Shryke]

I know that's a freakish opinion around here, but 58% of U.S. voters thought that's exactly what should have been done with the guy who recently tried to blow up the plane. You might think that's a wrong opinion, but I'd say 58% of voters thinking otherwise makes it within the realm of legitimate discussion rather than simply "crazy".

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/58_favor_waterboarding_of_plane_terrorist_to_get_information

I don't think we should do that stuff to every guy we grab, but I also don't think its indisputable that we should never do it under any circumstances. I do, however, think that a President who endorses something like that should have to sign the order/whatever himself, though.

So you are pro-torture.

You're a peach.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So you are pro-torture.

You're a peach.

Look, this is a really controversial issue that sets people off, so I really have no desire to get into the moral ramifications. I'll simply say I think the issue can present some tough moral questions, and that Cheney's side in this is not merely a fringe view.

[TrackerNeil]

Damn. Wish I'd written that.

Tracker, I know you and I disagree on the health care stuff. My point here has been that I think the discussion largely has taken the easy way out, just as you describe above. I think reality requires that some hard choices be made, and we're not doing ourselves any favors if we try to claim that there is an easy solution with no costs to anyway. We may disagree on what should be done, but I do think we owe it to ourselves to recognize that there are pluses and minuses no matter which side of the debate we're on.

Our current system clearly has flaws. However, I do think that one incredible virtue is that it encourages medical advances, and it is able to do that because of the enormous sums of money that pour into it. New drugs, new technology, new procedures, etc. And I think that looking into the future, those new things will benefit us all tremendously. Generic wonder drugs, etc. And I seriously worry that one effect of an entitlement program will be artificial cost controls that kill a lot of that innovation.

I don't question your concern, FLoW; I question the basis for that concern. The current, employer-based system that you seem to think works so well was created by government regulation, and yet in your judgment the system is no less innovative for all that. Government regulates energy suppliers with no dreadful consequences, and that regulation is more close than anything proposed in the Senate bill. In short, I think you're jumping at goblins that exist primarily in your mind and in the patter of the right-wing noise machine. I'm not going to try to convince you, though.

As to pluses and minuses, I couldn't agree more. I don't propose that the Senate bill, or a single-payer system for that matter, would usher in an Age of Health Utopia, but I think what either would bring is better than what we've got now. New challenges will of course arise, or old challenges become more, uh, challenging, but that shouldn't prevent us from seeking improvement. But as I said, I'm not trying to convince you.

[TrackerNeil]

I know that's a freakish opinion around here, but 58% of U.S. voters thought that's exactly what should have been done with the guy who recently tried to blow up the plane. You might think that's a wrong opinion, but I'd say 58% of voters thinking otherwise makes it within the realm of legitimate discussion rather than simply "crazy".

Actually, I think the fact that 58% of the public proposes legalizing techniques we punished Japanese soldiers for inflicting upon Americans in WWII proves that the discussion is simply crazy.

[Yagathai]

Look, this is a really controversial issue that sets people off, so I really have no desire to get into the moral ramifications. I'll simply say I think the issue can present some tough moral questions, and that Cheney's side in this is not merely a fringe view.

Translation: "I am either a coward, lazy or both, and am unwilling to face the actual implications of my odious views, so I will attempt to evade the question by saying 'gee, this is really hard you guys' and throw in there a halfassed ad populum fallacy."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't question your concern, FLoW;

Well, some others do, which is why I made the point.

I question the basis for that concern. The current, employer-based system that you seem to think works so well was created by government regulation, and yet in your judgment the system is no less innovative for all that. Government regulates energy suppliers with no dreadful consequences, and that regulation is more close than anything proposed in the Senate bill. In short, I think you're jumping at goblins that exist primarily in your mind and in the patter of the right-wing noise machine. I'm not going to try to convince you, though.

I think I've pointed out enough specific concerns and historical back up to make it more than mere goblins. And actually, I'm a bit disappointed. I don't mind not convincing anyone I'm right, but I'd hope to at least convince folks I had a POV worthy of reasonable disagreement.

I have no desire to regurgitate this whole thing, but one thing that was really pushed hard when I first started commenting on this were all the brilliant cost control measures that this bill contained that were going to ensure it didn't suffer the budgetary implosion that other entitlement programs seem to have suffered. It was pointed out to me quite directly that the "paygo" legislation pushed through was emblematic of this commitment to real cost control. "This time, it's going to be different."

Well, as we all know, that didn't last -- paygo was ditched twice before its first month of existence. Bunning, for all his flaws, served the function of making that abundantly clear. To me, you guys are looking at this through rose-colored glasses and ignoring the reality staring back at you. I have yet to hear anyone identify even a single drawback to this plan. To the contrary, it's cheaper, better, more people covered for free, no decline in medical advances. Nothing. Not even one drawback. And believe me, I've tried to get someone admit to at least something.

It's like you guys just opened the "waste, fraud, and abuse" cookie jar and found all this money you just got done telling all of us didn't exist. I think that's more than just me seeing goblins, but like you said, agreement isn't going to happen.

[lokisnow]

I think reality requires that some hard choices be made,

entitlements will lead to an even worse situation down the road for everyone.

My dad is in the final stages of Alzheimer's, or a series of ministrokes that had the same effect. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see him now and know how he once was. And I know that there are a lot of other diseases out there that have horrible effects as well. I want a system that is going to encourage maximum innovation, so that maybe one day 50 years from now, we've beaten a lot of this shit.

Does your dad get medicare?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Translation: "I am either a coward, lazy or both, and am unwilling to face the actual implications of my odious views, so I will attempt to evade the question by saying 'gee, this is really hard you guys' and throw in there a halfassed ad populum fallacy."

I choose lazy. I have no desire to discuss something like that with a couple dozen outraged lefties at the same time. You flatter yourself if you think your arguments would be in any way unique, Yagathai. This issue has been debated to death everywhere, including here. What possible appeal could there be to rehashing all that?

There'd be the Jack Bauer scenarios, the claims that it ruins our international standing, the arguments that the information is inherently unreliable, that torture is a priori inhuman and never to be condoned, the claim that it puts the temporary discomfort of really bad people ahead of the lives of children who've done nothing wrong, the claim that it stains the psyche of the people who do it, the argument that if we can nail them with a Hellfire they never see coming why can't we inflict the far lesser sanction of waterboarding, etc. etc. etc.. To me, I think its a pretty clear moral argument if the people on the other side are not following the Law of War themselves. You evidently agree, though we come to different conclusions.

But rather than actually repeat all this shit ad nauseaum, just assume that my arguments all suck, I'll assume yours all suck, and both of our opinions will be the same as if we'd actually discussed it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Does your dad get medicare?

Yes.

[Swordfish]

Yes.

I can't WAIT to see where he is going with this.

no doubt he's convinced he's caught you in some kind of diabolically ingenious trap here....

On a side note, i had to endure this same scenario with my grandmother, and it ain't easy. Worst day of my life was the first time she didn't recognize me when i visited here.

So I feel your pain. if i were the type of person who prayed, i'd send some prayers your way....

[lokisnow]

Orson Scott Card publishes--the day after the Pentagon was attacked by a white, European-descent middle-aged male--that white European-descent, middle aged males are never terrorists or act like terrorists and should be exempt from airport screening.

Actually he says that he's fat and wears loose clothing to 'cover' it and because he wears loose clothing he gets patted down at the airport and he is uncomfortable with that, and thinks that they should be patting down all middle easterners instead because white people are never terrorist threats.

and its also ironic this is less than a month after a terrorist like Joe Stack flew a plane into a federal building.

I am not a criminal. I have complied with all the laws and regulations. I should not have to be subjected to such loathsome alternatives in order to use public transportation.

It might be different (a) if I actually fit some kind of profile of a terrorist or (B) patting people down offered a reasonable chance of finding a terrorist weapon that would not be caught by a metal detector or body scanner. But (a) I do not fit any likely terrorist profile, being grey-haired, of European appearance, with an American accent, and (B) a pat-down such as I received would not have detected nonmetal explosives sewn into one's underwear.

Enough. There is no excuse except mindless political correctness to continue this level of harassment and abuse of citizens of a free country. Though the guard who was molesting me piously said, "There is no way to tell by looking who a terrorist might be," there is, in fact, a perfectly reliable set of indicators of who really doesn't need to be patted down.

For instance, non-Middle-Eastern-looking middle-aged-or-older fat people wearing loose clothing should not have to be abused in a way that young thin people wearing tight clothing would not.

Might loyal American citizens of Middle-Eastern appearance resent being given "special" treatment at airport security gates? Maybe. But the solution is not to abuse everybody. We're at war. If you resemble potential enemies, you get special scrutiny. If you don't like it, then get all the other people who look like you to band together to detect and report on all the crazies among you who approve of blowing up airplanes or killing Americans by other methods, until the danger is eliminated.

It is insane to abuse ordinary harmless citizens in these ways, while tiptoeing around trying not to offend members of high-risk minority groups.

Why is it all right to offend me, and deeply, because I'm a white male and therefore in no officially blessed minority group (though white males, too, are a minority of the population), while officialdom is so stupidly careful not to offend members of other groups, even the ones which really do harbor or at least include those who mean America harm?

If this policy remains in force, then I'm going to try to start a class-action on behalf of large people who wear oversized clothing. Once we declare ourselves a victimized minority, I'm sure we can get something done.

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2010-03-04-204495.112113_Loose_Clothing_DC_Pierson_and_Churchill.html

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

On a side note, i had to endure this same scenario with my grandmother, and it ain't easy. Worst day of my life was the first time she didn't recognize me when i visited here.

So I feel your pain. if i were the type of person who prayed, i'd send some prayers your way....

Thanks. He hasn't spoken for 2 years. When I go to visit him, I usually just sit by him, hold his hand, and tell him all the stuff that's going on with the sports teams he rooted for, his grandkids, etc. I sing sometimes too, and sometimes he'll squeeze my hand a tiny bit if I do that. It's hard, but there's still the nice part of just being there too.

It's a weird disease, though. He hadn't spoken for 2 years, my stepmom held a birthday party, and all her family came over to sing for him. Wonderful people. Anyway, he's just sitting there, and all of a sudden says "I'm happy". And that was it -- nothing since. My stepmother is very religious, and just thought that was the greatest blessing she could ever have gotten. But that incident just means she can't let go yet, and its her decision, not mine.

[lokisnow]

I can't WAIT to see where he is going with this.

no doubt he's convinced he's caught you in some kind of diabolically ingenious trap here....

not really going to go anywhere with it because it would be rude since its so personal. I just wanted to know if his family was benefiting from those onerous entitlements at the moment.

[Yagathai]

I choose lazy. I have no desire to discuss something like that with a couple dozen outraged lefties at the same time. You flatter yourself if you think your arguments would be in any way unique, Yagathai.

I make no claim as to the strengths or merits of my arguments (though they are, in fact, both mighty and meritous). Further, I take keen and personal offense as being categorized as a "lefty". I'm just pointing out that to stake out a position, then refuse to defend that position as unworthy of your time manages to be at once arrogant and cowardly, specific ratio indeterminate.