The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Souter retires

Tell me this wasn't the first thing that popped into your head when you heard the news.

I like it much better when a Supreme Court Justice retires instead of, you know, dying. Because all anyone can talk about when a Justice dies is who his replacement will be. This way, we get to frantically figure out who the replacement will be and then later on, we can reflect on Souter's legacy. Unless you want to do so here in the comments, of course.

Nah, just kidding. Who's his replacement going to be?

Did Specter Switch Parties Over Souter?

I'm going to start a rumor, but I think there is real truth to it. Word comes today that Justice Souter is going to retire. Apparently at least one law blog noted that David Souter had not hired law clerks for next year, which normally is done about this time. I think Specter knew this was going to happen and knew that he either have to join a GOP filibuster of Obama's (pro-choice) nominee or lose his party's nomination, right then. Either way would likely cost him the seat in Pennsylvania. Now he can safely vote for cloture. The pressure is off. Moreover, by giving the Democrats a filibuster proof majority, he prevents the first ever judicial filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee and the potential nuclear threat revival from some years ago. Specter is known to value the traditions of the Senate.

Justice Souter will be missed. He is sometimes said behind closed doors to be the first gay justice. We don't know, of course, but we know that he was a voice for tolerance in a court that, under Burger and Rehnquist, was quite intolerant. His replacement will bring not just a tolerant and moderate voice, but a genuine progressive voice to the Court. There will be much more to say about Souter in the future. Suffice it here to say that he was the most dismayed of all over Bush v. Gore. He was a true believer in the rule of law.

Finally, a President Who Appreciates the Role of Science in Public Policy

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) formally met with President Barack Obama this week. A member of that distinguished committee expressed privately to close friend of mine they were very impressed with Obama's diligence and commitment to science. I am told Obama actually read the articles and summaries he was given by the committee co-Chairs and arrived prepared to discuss them, whereas former President George W. Bush rarely if ever met with PCAST and never followed up.

President Obama's appointment of Nobel Laureate physicist Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy made a lot of scientists sit up and take notice. And the President's announced intention to significantly expand federal funding for scientific research naturally has pleased the scientific community as well. It is gratifying to see that Obama takes seriously the role of science as one factor in determining policy.

Even More Gay Marriage News

I saw a link to this poll on Daily Kos. Two important things jump out right away. First, support for equal rights for marriage among Republicans has tripled from 6% to 18% in the last month! Second, support for marriage equality is now the position of a plurality voters overall.

This does not look like the polls I'd expect to see prior to a massive backlash. It's interesting that the numbers really didn't shift from the summer of 08 to March of 09. In other words, this isn't an Obama effect or a backlash against the Prop 8 campaign's transparent bigotry. Rather I think this is the response to the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling.

NoBama

I was on a flight from Sacramento yesterday, and one of the passengers waiting to board (this was Southwest) was wearing a "NoBama '08" T-shirt. He was a short, pudgy, buzz-cut, angry white college kid. He was also eager to pick verbal fights with people around him, including the old lady in the wheelchair who chided him "you don't wear that shirt if you don't want a reaction from people." He said things like "oh yeah, we'll get him out of there. Americans can only take so much socialism." And other talking points. The reactions of the onlookers varied from bemusement to shaking heads and knowing glances to one another. I got the impression his parents would have been embarrassed. The "socialism" comment got laughs from the onlookers. Now, this was a typical business/commuter flight where the average flyer is more affluent than the population at large. I suspect that my reaction was like that of most of the people around me. THIS is what the Republican party has come in California? The contrast between this angry dumpy kid to the enthusiasm of Obama's young volunteers is striking. This kid seemed pretty typical of the Teabaggers we saw on TV two weeks ago.

NoBama. No no no no. Given the bizarre "socialism" comments we keep hearing, it's not even clear what the Republican base is saying "no" to. Sort of like a baby crying when it doesn't want to go to sleep.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

More Gay Marriage News

Both houses ofthe NewHampshire legislature have approved gay marriage legislation. It now goes to Governor Lynch to sign. Like most Democrats, he has opposed gay marriage in the past, but there is some expectation that he will sign the bill, since his party politicked so hard for it. Similarly, the issue is before the Maine legislature. Democratic governor Baldacci has also not mentioned his stance on it, but one thinks that if it makes it through the lege, he will sign it.

We may be at a sort of national turning point on this issue. Gay marriage is becoming an issue that Democrats feel they can support in blue states without fear of electoral backlash against them. It will be quite a thing for presidential politics if BOTH New Hampshire and Iowa have legal gay marriage in 2012.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Specter of a Filibuster

Senator Arlen Specter announced today that he is switching to the Democratic Party. Assuming Al Franken is seated, Dems will have 60 votes in the Senate. This means that the GOP cannot filibuster anything without gaining a Democratic vote. This is a political earthquake. It assures Specter of re-election in the Senate. I wonder what he got for it. Committee chairmanship, perhaps? This is a failure of both high and low politics. High politics is the stuff we like to talk about - ideas, tactics, strategies. Low politics is about people. Obviously he could no longer stand Senators Cornyn and McConnell, while he likes Harry Reid. The fact that Specter is a Democrat and not an Independent is even more telling. He is not just defecting - a la Jim Jeffords of VT in 2001 - this is a real fork-in-the-eye move.

Housing Market Games- Lessons Learned

I want to start a little series on house hunting in the current California market. There is something rotten in the state of Real-estate. I will use my story as an example.

The sad truth about today's housing market is that it is as corrupt as ever. As a prospective first time buyer I sense something is deeply amiss. Allow me a couple of anecdotes.

I live in one of the most expensive parts of California. And for years, middle class buyers were locked out of this market, in part by design. There was ample opportunity for affordable housing, but none of it came to pass because local developers and property owners were greedy. They want stock low to keep prices high. Not much has changed, just hat the greed has gone a little deeper.

Back in March I placed a bid on a bank owned property. The house had been listed in January for $345K. On March 21st, they dropped the list price to $279K. Four days later, I offered the asking price and was told that they had 4 offers on the property, one over the asking price. So I gave a last and best offer of $285K. I was "Outbid". However, was I? The reason I was given was that they other people had a bigger down payment. Therefore, the highest bidder is not necessarily the "winner"., nor is the guy who is most likely to close. Lesson 1 learned. The property is still on the market by the way, but in escrow. We will see what happens there.

The second lesson from this experience is that seller's agents, in an attempt to generate offers, are listing homes for a "bargain", but then generating little mini-auctions. Because of the pent-up demand, they can get slighly higher prices this way. Clever, good for the banks, but ethical? Oh, what am I thinking. . . if ethical were part of the equation, much of this crisis wouldn't have happened.

Recently, I became mildly interested in a second property. This one was listed as a short sale (meaning the bank is willing to take less than the asking price) for $299K. It needed quite a bit of work. So I offered $250K. My realtor talked to the seller's agent who couldn't offer much information about the property because "she had so many, she didn't know which one that was." But she did say no offers had been made on the property. We offered $250K the same day. However, suddenly, at the same time, a second offer came in. We were outbid. We were told that the other people offered more money. Humm . . . an obscure house suddenly generates so much interest? Coincidence? Part of me doubts it. I hear this story too often.

My realtor has had clients who made as many as 22 offers and were outbid every time. Somewhere, there is collusion to keep prices high. And perhaps things aren't as distressed and we think. I think people in the biz here are loath to let a house go for under $300K. I have friends who have been looking for a year and a half and not been able to land a home after making several offers. Yet we are hearing how banks want to unload all these homes at all costs, but the reality seems to be different.

And no one does a thing to clean these places up. I am not talking about spending money, but something as simple as picking up the trash in the yard would improve the street appeal. In one yard, I found a dead dog, unburied. My realtor tells me that banks have no idea that their agents aren't doing their jobs in this regard and I am surprised the neighbors aren't squawking. Having a crappy looking yard doesn't help them either. But then, many of them are probably so underwater that they could care less.

People are still flipping houses as well. One house went for sale at $273K. Then three months later, was resold for $293K with improvements made.

This is what needs to change. 1) Houses should be sold for the list price. This is how we purchase everything from cars to groceries. The price on the tag is what you pay. 2) The amount of all bids should be disclosed. In what other auction environment do you NOT know the highest bid?

There is no transparency in the housing market, and there is tons of abuse. My search continues, but I am finding that it as slippery as college admission. When you aren't accepted, you have no real idea why. From time to time, I will post an update.

Learning and Persuasion: Rationality and Experiential Learning

The "torture" post just below led me to make a larger comment about how "the public" comes to coclusions about things. My understanding of the development of "Conventional Wisdom" and "Public Opinion" is about learning, not persuasion. Let me explain what I mean by learning versus persuasion. Persuasion is a reasoning process that can take place, theoretically, in an instant. Persuasion is what this blog is about (on a daily basis, although you might later agree with me that its larger purpose is to promote learning). Persuasion is about deductive or inductive reasoning, or it may be about emotional connection - it's about rhetoric and reasoning. Persuasion is essentially a static process.

Learning, by contrast, is a dynamic process that requires time. Learning proceeds from the belief that a person at time A may not be able to understand a concept, but may later be able to at time B. Hegel has something to say about the way the mind learns: he posits that you cannot go from A to Z directly, but MUST proceed through the intermediate stages of understanding along the way. The mind must, he argues, adopt and then later discard stages of understanding as it proceeds to superseding stages of understanding. This broad and somewhat bastardized reading of Hegel is useful here to distinguish leraning from persuasion.

A related concept is "Bayesian updating." This concept- which RBR can speak about - is not necessarily theoretically arrayed on either side as learning or persuasion. It can denote merely learning new information and updating one's preferences, or it might mean acquiring new understanding through experience, thereby updating one's preferences. I want to put a bracket around this concept unless RBR can say more about it that helps, since it may confuse more than help. It may or may not be a useful way to think about this. But it is crucial to realize that even something so rational as game theory can allow for experiential process learning. I'm not arguing against rational-actor assumptions, but against a particular "hard" rationalist view of them.

My argument about torture, in short, is that the public needs to learn; it cannot be persuaded. Learning requires digesting narratives. (forgive the pomo talk). Learning takes time. That is why the TV show "24" was so deadly. It provided a narrative that torture was necessary and effective. [I joke sometimes that "drama is more important than truth." It's only half a joke. Greeks understood that drama was a way of condensing the time of learning by allowing the audience to participate and experience the learning of characters on stage. This is what liturgy is about too, but I digress].

I will make the same argument about negotiations. Negotiation/mediation between opposing parties is not merely a process where we put our cards on the table and discover an optimal solution. At a radical, rationalist place, some people take this view. Some game theorists may simply decide that negotiation is about finding this optimum. Others may take a different approach, since game theory is a flexible tool. I believe that negotiation requires learning. The positions of both parties need to evolve, and evolution requires time. Persuasion alone will not accomplish the change. Solutions are not just rhetorically, but literally unthinkable until the opposing parties to a conflict undergo experiential learning about the other. Crucially, what changes is not just the information available to parties (which could theoretically be downloaded instantaneously) but the ability to process and combine the information to seeing new possibilities.

Experiential learning posits that the solution to a problem may not be visible ex ante, at least not to the parties involved. Note that I am not saying that it takes a while to persuade people to see the truth. I do not mean to present a static image of sweeping away cobwebs or the scales from the eyes. I am talking about seeing with new eyes.

Whether solutions to problems are visible ex ante to scholars considering the issue is another matter. I think the answer is yes. This is not a mystical process about coming to know the unknowable. But the problem is that one cannot persuade one's colleagues easily, because one must make statements about where the parties will be in the future that seem unrealistic and impossible now. In other words, a scholar may be right, but will not be believed by his colleagues. He may have to teach them.

The Obama administration believes in collecting parties together "at the table" to talk. He is not suggesting that they merely explain themselves, but that they explain themselves to each other, and allow their own understandings to change. I urge anyone interested to read Uri Savir's discussion of the Oslo process in 1994. It's called a peace "process" for a reason, I think. Not because it takes time to persuade, but because the parties need to experience and learn.

Matchmaking involves this sort of prescience - to see in the parties what they cannot see for themselves.

I am reminded of Mark Twain's wonderful comment that, "When I left home at 18, I thought my parents were the stupidest people on earth. When I returned four years later, I was amazed at how much they had learned." You can't persuade teenagers; you must allow them to learn for themselves. The same holds true of public opinion, I believe. The meaning of history, race relations, gender relations- so much of our culture wars are about learning, not persuasion. It's why our politics is one of hoarse shouting, futile persuasion. And this is why a generational gap develops too, I think. Each new generation has different experiences than the one before it - starts at a different place.

So these are thoughts on a big debate in academia applied to some narrow political issues. I wanted to spend a half hour (when I should have been working) doing this. Now I need to shower and go to work.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

We Don't Need a Truth Commission. We Just Need the Truth.

There are solid political reasons why President Obama would rather not publicly investigate further the former Bush administration's policy of torture. I get that. While it would be satisfying to hold former Bush administration officials to account for their role in this appalling story, however, it is far more important for President Obama to tackle personally the underlying cultural attitude that torture can be justified--and I am disappointed he has not done so in a more forceful and unambiguous manner. I would like to see him deliver a prime-time, Presidential address where he makes the following five points.

1. Torture is wrong. Torture is always wrong. Torture is never justified under any circumstances whatsoever. Torture is not necessary; it is just evil. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

2. Torture is surprisingly ineffective, and when it does work, it is slow. Case in point: they waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times over the course of a month and they still got little or no actionable intelligence from him. In the real world, if you need information from someone quickly, the last technique you would want to employ is torture, especially in those concocted "ticking time bomb" scenarios of "24."

3. There are better interrogation techniques that produce faster, more reliable results than torture. For obvious reasons one should not go into details, but as an example there are certain clever psychological tricks that work very well to get people to talk, typically by playing on their emotions. And you would be astonished how much one can learn simply by providing a conducive setting and a sympathetic ear. Many fanatics have an overdeveloped sense of self-importance: They are secretly eager to brag about what they know and privately desperate justify themselves to anyone who will listen.

4. Torture is bad policy. Al Qaeda was never afraid of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. Instead, those became Al Qaeda's best propaganda, their best recruiting posters. Torture has tarnished America's reputation around the world. An American policy of torture also greatly increases the likelihood that captured American soldiers will be tortured in retaliation. Torture is also highly illegal under both American and international law and has been so for decades.

5. Former President Bush lied to you about torture. Although in these difficult times we know we cannot afford squander the nation's effort and attention on hearings and prosecutions, we cannot afford to mince words either. Under President Bush's direct orders, Americans tortured hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Ghraib, at Baghram Air Force Base, and at secret CIA prisons around the world. Hundreds if not thousands more were sent to be tortured in other countries under a policy of "extraordinary rendition." As memos, facts, and figures come to light we will publish them. Only by doing so can we put an end to this dark chapter in American history.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Transparency and Paternalism

A penchant for transparency, some are calling it a "radical transparency" is becoming a theme of this administration. The effect of the Chicago School is making itself known this way. Transparency in this context means that the solution to many problems posed by the legislative process or the market is more information. So rather than forbid certain mortgage practices, the goal is to require more up-front disclosure of true risks. Rather than forbid earmarks, require that their authors be disclosed up front (query whether credit for earmarks is always bad). Rather than forbid abusive credit card practices, require up-front disclosure in "plain language." (Similarly, the approach to torture at first glance was to disclose information, not punish). The idea is that the marketplace - whether the marketplace of ideas or the market for any good or service - will move away from bad practices if there is more information. Consumers and voters can, in other words, be trusted. The position that one should ban - rather than just order disclosure of - exploitative or abusive economic practices is often called paternalism.

There's an interesting divergence between political and economic transparency. Those who favor term limits are justly accused of being paternalistic. Their message is: stop me before I vote for an incumbent again. Voters, in their view, must be forced to discard incumbents. Transparency (publicizing that they are incumbents) does not prevent their re-election. Yet those same (conservative) people often resist economic paternalism. Liberals, like me, often favor protective economic legislation but resist cramping political choices. (The justification for my position is that the power dynamics in economic relationships are largely absent in the voting booth).

Does transparency work? In one almost definitional sense, we know it does not. By placing the onus on the consumer to navigate the shoals, you guarantee that some will fail. Some will miss the disclosures, fail to understand their import, or undervalue the risks. For reasons of poverty and liquidity, some will make choices they otherwise would not. Advocates of transparency say this is the price of freedom. Maybe so. The other serious concern is that the power relationships in the economic sphere may render disclosure moot. What does disclosure matter about credit cards if the few remaining banks issue credit cards with the same terms? What if the terms you want are simply not offered? What if - as is normally the case - everything is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Ever tried to negotiate with AT&T or your health insurer? Can't be done. Take it or leave it. Transparency is not working if all it does is tell you exactly how you are being screwed.

I think the Obama administration should be less afraid of the charge of "paternalism" and a bit more skeptical about the ability of the market to drive out bad practices through better information. Their hearts are in the right place, believing correctly that if transparency can work, it is a better choice than paternalism. But we should be realistic, too.

Think of this example as typical. When you drive into a car parking lot, you get handed a ticket that spells out the terms of liability (basically, they won't take any responsibility for your car not being stolen in their unprotected lot). Negotiating with the teenager or immigrant manning the booth - if there is even a person at all - is not possible. You either park there or not. All the lots will have the same pre-printed tickets. There is no option except to park on the street. Where street parking is limited, as in big cities, you basically find yourself with little or no choice but to accept those terms offered. This (sometimes called a "contract of adhesion") is a failure of transparency. Even if the parking lot were ordered to place its theft statistics in big numbers on a banner on the front, that might deter some, and might encourage some improvement, but not much overall would change. You still could not negotiate and still have too little choice. This is where government needs to step in to make a decision, possibly, to require that parking lots acccept liability for theft (or not).

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Jane Harman's Wire Tap Flap

So a few years ago, I voted for a Libertarian candidate instead of Jane Harman (D-CA) because of her support for the passages of the Patriot Act that allowed for warrant-less and secret searches of people's book purchases and library records. Now Jane Harman is outraged, OUTRAGED to find that she was secretly wire tapped. The problem is that the conversation that was recorded has her offering a quid-pro-quo with some AIPAC (Pro-Isreali lobby) guys in which she would intervene in some investigation of their being involved some espionage stuff in return for AIPACs support for her being named Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (she did not get the job and the accused Israeli agents are up for trial soon).

So there are a number of things going on here. First, schadenfreude over seeing Jane Harman get victimized by exactly the kind of abuse of power she was supporting when I voted against her. Second, this may lead to clear evidence that the Bush administration was using wire taps to monitor political opponents (i.e. senior Democrats in Congress). Third, it appears that Jane Harman is corrupt. Assuming Jane Harman is still in office at the end of her term, I hope the Democratic party targets her for a strong primary challenge.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Redding v. Safford

So the US Supreme Court today is hearing a case as to whether it is acceptable for a school official to perform a strip search on a 13-year-old girl to search for ibuprofen pills (Advil) based on an uncorroborated tip from the girl who, it turns out, was actually responsible for bringing the unpermitted pills to school. Justice Kim Wardlaw of the 9th Circuit (en banc) wrote "of course not." Even the dissenters did not agree the search was reasonable: they wanted to announce henceforth that such a search would be considered unconstitutional, but that the school officials should not be held liable for breaking a "clearly established" rule. In this posture, it goes to the US Sct. (It's kind of crazy - do you need a Supreme Court case before you realize it's not okay to strip search a 13-year-old girl to find something that is neither dangerous nor illegal?).

The initial press reports are not heartening. Apparently Justice Breyer made comments about changing for gym class and getting stuff put in his clothes. Har har har. This is why we need more women on the Supreme Court.

The arguments seemed to be about whether a strip search is justified without evidence that something is in the underwear. As if a tip "she's got advil in her bra" would justify this outrage more than just "she's got advil [somewere] on her." Nobody on the Court seemed particularly bothered that the search was for something as innocuous as ibuprofen. This is because the conservatives do not want to undermine 'zero tolerance' policies that prohibit all drugs on campus, even those that 13-year-old girls sometimes take for headaches or cramps. And of course, their children are sent to private schools where such outrages never happen, so they need not confront the reality of watching a granddaughter humiliated like this. "Zero tolerance," it has been properly said, is as stupid as it sounds. It should be obvious that before a state official has a constitutional right to consider an intrusive search of a minor child, the object of the search must be something that poses actual danger to someone.

Justice Breyer: do you know why 13 year old girls get cramps, and why they might not want some principal poking around in their private business? Thank heavens that in seven states, including CA, a strip search is per se forbidden by schools (Cal. Educ. Code s. 49050.). (A search for dangerous substances must be by police under normal rules of law). FYI, the proper response to someone trying to peer into your 13-year-old daughter's underwear begins with a hockey stick to the face. You thought Kelo v. New London pissed people off? Wait until this comes down wrong.

Obama and the Axis of Stupid

So, there is quite the furor here in the States over President Obama's public overtures to the Castro Brothers in Cuba, Ahmadinejad in Iran and Chavez in Venezuela. Republican critics are fond of crying that this "legitimizes" these rogue leaders. But here they completely miss the point. By making public overtures Obama is actually backing these bozos into corners. And so far only the Castro brothers seem smart enough to realize it (you don't stay in power for half a century without learning a thing or two about politics).

Here is how it's working. For years Bush has lead US policy from a position of intransigence and unreasoned bellicosity. For years leaders and constituencies that might be open to taking our side on a variety of issues are repelled by this. And all eyes are on the US waiting for it to get real. In a stark reversal, Obama makes a public show of being reasonable and compromising. This throws all the eyes back onto to the tyrants mentioned above. If they respond by making their own moves towards reconciliation and compromise, great. But if they respond by trying to take advantage of percieved weakness by the Obama administration, they look like the intransigent and bellicose ones.

Of these three tyrants, only the Cubans have responded with talk of returning compromise with compromise. Very clever. If they play it right, the Castros might just be able to have some modicum of influence over the identity of their successors. They are not young men and their time in power is limited at best. They must be thinking a great deal about not just their own mortality but the future of their party, movement and regime.

In contrast, Chavez and Ahmadinejad responded by reverting to type. Chavez responded to Obama's rather mature approach to the Summit of the Americas by handing the President a copy of book about the history of war and oppression in Latin American in an obvious attempt to make it appear as if he's teaching Obama something about a tragic history. Of course, Chavez didn't say that the room smelt like sulphur after Obama left (which he did say after Bush gave a speech) so I guess this is compromise of a sort by his standards.

Ahmadinejad went into a fairly predictable anti-Semetic/anti-Isreali rant at a UN conference about ending racism. Because of his presence and influence on the conference, a number of countries chose to join the US in boycotting it: Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland. Now, the payoff for Obama's strategy though came when another group of European governments, including UK, France and Finland walked out in the middle of Ahmadinejad's speech.

The result is that Europe and the US are now rather publicly driven together in opposition to Iran's government. Ahmadinejad could have made the US look bad by showing up to the conference and playing Mr. Nice Guy. But he's too stupid.

I've heard stuff on TV and radio that Ahmadinejad is going up for reelection soon and the Iranian economy is in trouble with lower oil prices. So it may be that Ahmadinejad is willing to sacrifice sound foreign policy for the sake of populist appeals designed to squeeze out just enough votes back in Iran to stay in power...hmmmm, sounds familiar, sounds a lot like Bush-Cheney-Rove politics to me.

LTG and I were talking last night about some other positive developments in Russia. So far, Obama has been in power for only 3 months and already he appears to have radically altered US foreign policy and is already starting to see some positive returns. So far so good!

Monday, April 20, 2009

Impeach Bybee!

The New York Times has called for Judge Bybee, a Federal Judge on the 9th Circuit, to be impeached. It's particularly annoying that this piece of fascist filth is on the 9th Circuit because that is the Circuit most known for progressive rulings (right, LTG?). Two days later this call has been picked up by a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Nadler is the Chair of the Constitution subcommittee.

We can't impeach Bush or Cheney now that we've already voted their party into oblivion. And it may not be practical to prosecute these bastards. But we can impeach this asshole, Bybee, that no one has heard of! He's a member of the F-ing Mormon Church too! I bet he contributed money to Prop Hate too.

(upon correction from friends I have edited the above drunken statement in an attempt to direct my ire against the organizatin rather than the faith).

Deep thought for the day

Alex P. Keaton would be vehemently opposed to federal funding for stem cell research.

Bush Administration Lies about Torture

The NYTimes this morning reminds us that in 2007, a Bush appointee in the CIA said that Abu Zubaydah agreed to cooperate after only 35 seconds of waterboarding. Nobody ever stepped foward to clarify the statement. The purpose of this statement, which we now know to be false, was to convince the American people that (1) waterboarding was very rare and (2) that it was effective. We now have word that Mr. Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding 83 times in a row. Apparently Kahlid Muhammed was waterboarded over 180 times. This is sadism. The lies show a guilty conscience. To paraphrase the Simpsons, "This time, you didn't just cross the line, you threw up on it."

I think it is becoming more imperative to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bybee, Yoo, Bradbury and other co-conspirators under oath to find out what they knew and when they knew it. It is all too tempting to suggest that they be treated in the manner they declared lawful, but that is just childish. It is also unnecessary. It is not important, however satisfying it may be,to have these cruel and deceitful people acknowledge their sins. What is important is that these men be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. President Obama and AG Holder have already taken significant steps to describe their era as a "dark period" and to use the powerful words "never again."

Saturday, April 18, 2009

World's Biggest Jerk: New Title Holder?

Since the retirement of George W. Bush the "honor" of being the biggest jerk among the World's leaders has been available for anyone to claim. Apparently, a strong challenge for the position has been made by France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy (who flunked the 6th grade and washed out of graduate school in political science). Over lunch on Wednesday, he said that US President Obama (former chief editor of Harvard Law Review and professor of Law at the U. of Chicago) was "not always up to the standard on decision-making or efficiency" Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero (a law graduate) was "perhaps not very intelligent" and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (a former Physics professor) "Had no choice but to come around to my position."

Gee, this sounds a lot like the kind of dismissive BS Bush and Cheney would say about people who they felt intellectually threatened by. Obviously, France would never elect a jerk exactly like Bush but Sarkozy is like the French version. An aristocrat who does well at politics but has never really proven himself in academic pursuits. A man who seems to "know what he knows" and have little interest in learning more from others.

It's so nice to not have Bush. Poor France though. Hopefully, the Socialists there will get their act together and defeat Sarkozy.

Friday, April 17, 2009

More about Torture

Former CIA director Hayden and Former Atty General Mukasey -both Bush era toadies- published an article today lambasting the decision to release the torture memos. Their really ignorant article is premised on the idea that (1) torturing a few people is okay and (2) torture is necessary to get important information. Both are totally false propositions.

Finally, in a great harrumph, they write, "Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable. Any president who wants to apply such techniques without such a binding and durable legal opinion had better be prepared to apply them himself."

And of course, that was the point of releasing the memos. No public servant, no military man, no CIA agent, should ever look to a wink, nod, or handshake that phony legal cover for their actions will protect them. If these two are right that federal interrogators will not undertake torture because they are afraid that they will be held liable someday, no matter what slimy legal opinion the president's lackeys gin up for them, Amen to that!

I pray that Mukasey and Hayden are right. For the good of our country, and for the protection of all of us.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

The Torture Memos

Here is a link to the Bybee torture memo. It outlines ten forms of coercive interrogation, including waterboarding. It is thoroughly disgusting. I am sick that the author, Jay Bybee, is currently a sitting federal judge. Read it for yourself. It reads the prohibition on torture out of existence. Here is the subsequent one, authorizing even more horrific techniques, including dousing a person repeatedly with 41 degree(F) water for 20 minutes without drying or rewarming or sleep deprivation of up to 180 hours (7.5 days).

Thank you, President Obama and Attorney General Holder, for releasing this to the public. Never again.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)