Of course, instapundit, being above the fray, offers meta analysis of the GOP , rather than moral analysis. Sad. Just like an instapundit.
I started reading that Insty post, but couldn't get past this:
Trouble is, those demands just provide an excuse for Republicans to repeat every single stupid or unpatriotic thing that every Democratic politician ever said. And there are a lot of those.
I even decided to click through the links he provided to see what was "unpatriotic". Specifically, I was looking for something along the lines of, I Hate America or I Want America To Lose. Only one came close -- Al Sharpton (come on, guys; you're trotting out Al Sharpton's influence??), when he said that with 9/11, America may have begun to reap what it has sown (and even that's a big stretch -- one could dispassionately point out that the U.S. did in fact train Bin Laden and many of his allies, unless statements of unpleasant fact are now unpatriotic).
No amount of "patriotism" will be sufficient if it is coming from those who would vote against George W. Bush. And yet, I haven't seen or heard anything, from any Democratic politician, that comes close to then-Majority Leader Trent Lott saying that he not only refused to support the mission to Kosovo, but refused to even support the troops that were sent. (I wish I could find a source on this; it's burned in my memory. The Republican leader refusing to support the troops. Extraordinary.)
Since you asked:
Bush won by going to the base. He'll be president for another 3 years 7 months no matter what happens, and he can't be reelected. Nothing to lose. The Social Security thing was a very bold move which, if successful, would have destroyed the Democratic Party by sinking its flagship institution and showing the party to be helpless and feeble. He didn't really need to win that battle. He just won capital gains, he won two judges and a weakeing of the filibuster.
Rove's speech was hardening the base and softening general public opinion for later, more aggressive attacks which will take place once there's a new security crisis of some kind, which there will be.
The hard right base has been loyal for 25 years without seeing much gain from it. They're restless. Since Rove is probably actually part of the base (not a country-club cynic), he's going to give it his best shot now.
I keep saying this until people get tired of it, quickly in many cases, but I do not believe that these are normal times and I do not think that Rove-Bush-DeLay have normal political goals. I think that the 2004 election was one of the most important in American history, matched only by FDR's, Lincoln's, and Jackson's.
We will now resume normally scheduled programming.
In answer to the question, yes, I do think it was intentional. It's a pretty old trick -- say something designed to get press that will force the other side to vociferously deny whatever accusation, which only gets more people talking about the accusation in the first place.
I have in my hand a list of 173 known Communists, and so forth.
I thought this stunk from the moment I read about it (wrote down my paranoia here).
In short, I think any lingering concern over our country torturing people that was raised by the Durbin controversy will now be effectively coopted into a larger, stupider narrative about political oversensitivity.
Rove is not elected. Neither is Mehlman, who has conspicuously backed up Rove's statements.
It's yet another attempt to control the terms of debate.
Democrats will respond, as they always do, by insisting that they are, in fact, devout Republicans.
It would be nice to urge the Democrats to do a little reality-making of their own but do I really have to remind anyone that this country has lost its collective mind? From a link a bit down the page from tom's post:
A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% of Americans believe prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated unfairly. Seven-out-of-ten adults believe the prisoners are being treated "better than they deserve" (36%) or "about right" (34%).
Sometimes, I wonder if the slave's longing for freedom is exceeded by a free person's longing for slavery.
That is to say, the majority of people seem terrifyingly pleased to march into cages.
I don't think that opposition even matters any more, except for the historical record.
It's of the same species as "jumping" someone in to a gang. You rally the base, get them to commit to something to which they really shouldn't, engender unconscious fears about the response from a future Democratic government, and generally buy loyalty for life. Same thing, essentially but unintentionally, happened with the civil rights movement.
R4L, baby! All they really need are gang signs to flash.
the majority of people seem terrifyingly pleased to march into cages.
Well, they all think they'll be the ones guarding the cages.
I don't think that opposition even matters any more, except for the historical record.
I'm sorry to say I agree with this. Maybe that's reason enough, though.
I take this sort of thing way, way too personally. I suppose I should just put it all aside and watch the country devour itself while I go get a gin-and-tonic. It would certainly be better for my emotional well-being, and the end result would be the same.
I've read very little philosophy. Is there a philosopher who addresses the phenomenon above, re: people longing for slavery?
There was that episode of The Simpsons wherein the ants on the space shuttle are released from their cage and say, "Freedom! terrible, terrible freedom!". You're probably looking for something more respectable.
I should just put it all aside and watch the country devour itself while I go get a gin-and-tonic.
Yeah, but there's the whole "hope" issue. And you have to be able to face yourself.
I think the 1920s must have seemed like a very long decade to educated people of moderate means who had thought, on the basis of previous experience, that scientific method and good sense were going to shape the American future. Think about it: on the morrow of Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson, you got
1. A President who delighted in deliberate mangling of the language, followed by a President who thought he didn't have to say much of anything to justify his actions;
2. A brand-new and shiny fundamentalist Christian movement going forth to fight secularism (and targeting Darwinism);
3. A drawing-down of international commitments made by leaders of both parties, and a complacent withdrawal into continental isolationism;
4. A war on drugs and alcohol waged on behalf of public virtue;
5. Lowering of progressive taxation, dismantling of commercial regulation;
6. Gradual and apparently inexorable advance of Republican electoral success, even into previously impregnable Democratic strongholds.
People who had been fighting the good fight and reading and writing about social welfare went home, mixed up the (illegal) gin-and-tonics, and began reading and writing about art and literature, which endured.
It didn't end well, either.
Ogged, of course you're right, and of course I'll always have hope. Believe it or not, I'll always be an incorrigible optimist, even though this shit gets me so down in the dumps. But FUCK it's so depressing to watch this all happen in slow-motion. It would be so much better if it happened all at once. It's the drip-drip-drip erosion that is so frustrating. It only amplifies my own sense of powerlessness.
I feel like Nietzsche might have mentioned something about this. But I'm probably wrong about that, since I don't know jack shit about Nietzsche, other than Zarathustra.
The Simpsons is as good as anything else, I suppose.
No no, there's a lot of stuff on this, but, of course, I can't think of any of it right now. I'll think harder and let you know.
The worst of it is that, by his stance, Cruise has effectively forsworn the future use of the "his medication caused him to whack out" walk-back as an explanation for his present behavior.
I take it you missed the SUPERDUPER CRUISE UPDATE, Ben.
Drudge has a longer transcript of the Cruise.
I can't wait until he's the new Michael Jackson.
I think your wait is just about over.
You know the in the picture of Cruise on the drudge page he looks kind of like guitarist Michael Angelo.
Is there anyway to convince you (ogged) to add a button alongside "Post" that inserts an automatic link to this comment? I suspect it would be really, really useful.
You have that bookmarked, don't you?
Is that the most linked-to comment on Unfogged?
Possibly. I count seven links (three of them from Weiner).
Is this the part where I come in and infuriate everyone by saying it's not so bad?
It's not so bad! Chin up, people! Ask yourself:
1. No one likes the Bush budget. But is US debt w.r.t. GDP so very, very terrible?
2. Is dissent being suppressed? Or is vehement, public criticism of the party in power very common?
3. Is the rule of law really endangered, or is there understandable (and understandably prickly) debate about how to handle civil liberties and rights of the accused when dealing with non-traditional adversaries? Are 500 people directly threatened by from these new modes of conduct? 5000? Or 50,000? How many people, total, has the government detained?
How many people, total, has the government detained?
Has this number ever been reported reliably?
Don't forget, baa, that we also have awesome guitar-tapping technology.
baa, two things. Three, actually.
First, coming to grips with the fact that the American people don't give a fuck about their own freedoms is profoundly depressing. And they don't. They don't care.
Second, the realization that the worse things become in Iraq, the more the press/Republican party will blame the people who opposed it in the first place, and that the Americans will continue to accept this argument because the alternative -- that our troops died for an unjust cause -- is too painful, is a very depressing realization indeed. The Democrats will never, ever, ever be able to match this sort of demagoguery, and I believe that this is yet another reason why we're moving closer to a Mexico-style one-party system, no matter how unpopular the Republican party may be from time to time.
Third, re: your 3, really, how many people is too many? (Not to mention that you know as well as I do that the number of people actually convicted of anything is in the single digits.)
I just thought of a fourth: the idea that Bill O'Reilly can say something (which presumably a large percentage of people agree with) which basically calls for me and my ilk to be locked up and/or executed, and not be deeply rebuked by every single person holding public office, is very, very depressing.
non-traditional adversaries
You mean like citizens?
They don't care
I do not see evidence for this. What freedoms, pray tell, have we lost in the past five years? I can't think of any I have lost, unless freedom to avoid time-wasting security checks counts.
Re: who gets the blame in Iraq. Please note that not everyone is convinced that the Iraq invasion is a big disaster, and those people are thus not looking to blame anyone. But let us stipulate that Iraq is a big disaster and we never should have invaded in the first place. Is your concern here that the wrong people will get blamed for this? But there seems to me much evidence that Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping, and that Iraq will be a anchor around the neck of the GOP in 06 and 08. Based merely on the state of the economy and incumbant status, Bush should probably have won more decisively. As it was, the election was quite close. So, again, it seems that those concerned about the war are blaming the appropriate parties.
Re: point three. How many is too many? If the question is a number sufficient to make dire predictions about the fall of the American republic, I persoally would want substantially more than 500 guys detained in Gitmo and a handful of US citizens.
like citizens?
Citizens account for what percent of Gitmo internees?
Fontana, what is guitar-tapping? Does it have something to do with Jeff Jarrett?
guitar-tapping, aka two-handed tapping, is essentially when you perform a hammer-on using your picking hand.
That didn't help me Ben... what is "hammer-on" (and why do so many guitar accessories/manuevers sound vaguely sleazy? e.g., wahwah pedal)
A hammer-on is when you're fretting with one finger at a particular fret, and you cause a note to sound by striking (and holding after struck) the string at a lower (=higher note) fret. Like if you had your index finger at the fifth fret on a string, and then you brought down your middle finger on the seventh, hard enough to cause the string to sound.
The opposite is a pull-off: if you fretted at the seventh fret with your middle finger, plucked the string, and then, with your index finger already fretting the fifth fret, removed your middle finger rapidly enough that you didn't dampen the string.
So tapping is like doing that, except using both hands, so you can do it over much wider intervals.
e.g., wahwah pedal
This is preferable to "woman tone", you have to admit.
"Is the rule of law really endangered, or is there understandable (and understandably prickly) debate about how to handle civil liberties and rights of the accused when dealing with non-traditional adversaries? Are 500 people directly threatened by from these new modes of conduct? 5000? Or 50,000? How many people, total, has the government detained?"
The law has been rewritten. A lot of the new provisions have never been used. They're sitting on the shelf until they're needed. The process of increasing the federal police powers and reducing restraints on it has already been going on for decades.
Americans can have their citizenship and rights stripped without trial. Yes, it's only happened to one or two guys. The feds don't feel that they need to use that power much at the moment, but they want to have it ready just in case.
When the committment of the central government to civil liberties is already non-existent, their behavior in a crisis situation can be expected to be bad, especially if they have engineered the crisis in order to have an excuse to take emergency steps of their own choosing.
Understanding political and historical events often requires looking beyond the moment when the event takes place, and taking the past and the future into consideration.
2: I too, clicked most of Insty's links, and didn't find anything to disapprove of. It is quite odd that Dean came up because he insults republicans. If I had to list all the emininent righties who insult all dems/liberals, it would be a decent-sized paragraph, just listing them, let alone what they said. It's a real bully mentality.
12: Hannah Arendt (Eichman in Jerusalam, the Human Condition) Deleuze & Guattari (Anti-Oedipus) Klaus Theweleit (Male Fantasies Vols. 1 & 2, more a study of NAZI fascism than outright philosophy, but informative)
baa,
2. Just because they haven't quite been successful doesn't mean there aren't movements in this direction. The flag-burning amendments are of this mentality. The efforts to pass legislation against university professors that I have seen, too, are headed in this direction. The constant public beratement of liberals for crticisism and the distortions of that criticism are tactics to keep people from speaking up, in the bullying sense. "ok , speak up, but, if you do, you're gonna get hit. hard."
3. Are you just counting Gitmo? Or the 5000 (as of last fall) other americans and immigrants who were detained and questioned, with no indictments resulting?
Tapping and popping are both a function of electronics. Hammer-ons and pull-offs have a much more restricted function in acoustic mustic, or even in early electric music.
Wow. Now if you think it would be bad if Tom Cruise ran for office, I'm with you.
And Baa, on the budget, it isn't the actual number, its the trend. And the trend looks ugly. Now something will happen, either a tax hike or a jalumptha spending cut, most likely to Medicaid, to forestall that trend, and I know which side I'm on in that fight, but it doesn't look pretty.
And just because they could be worse, doesn't mean they are good. And really, the Guantanamo question answers itself. Particularly when put in the context of real accountability. Lyndie English? please. She deserves punsihment for whatever she is guilty for. But the idea that it stops there is apalling. And a stain on our souls. The rule of law is quite endangered. Although, we've been on a slippery slope on that front for some time across a number of issues. Tax enforcement, labor rights, environmental enforcement. This is just the biggest one of these issues. I'm not a fan or regulation for regulation's sake. But what's happening is not good. And it creates a class of people, well educated, affluent, who believe the law is something that they do not have to worry about. Perhaps this is the same as it ever was and I'm just observing it up close now, I don't know.
But, overall, you have a point. Things could be worse. The eeyore in me says that will happen tommorrow.
It's not so bad! Chin up, people
...
If the question is a number sufficient to make dire predictions about the fall of the American republic, I persoally would want substantially more than 500 guys detained in Gitmo and a handful of US citizens.
Think, o chattering Bandar-log, lest you say something unwise:
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard—
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard—
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
At the very least, I would say our detainee policy is "without the Law," or so indicates Justice Scalia. "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."
This isn't a game of percentages. Either Law rules or it doesn't.
How you answer baa's questions depends on whether you're concerned with principle and precedent or with concrete harms to individuals. In terms of concrete harm, it's true that the scope is limited, but in terms of "rule of law," the fact is it couldn't get much worse. The government has already asserted and exercised its right to detain American citizens without charge or trial, and also asserted and exercised its right to pick up people anywhere in the world and hold and torture them indefinitely.
So, the answer to "What freedoms, pray tell, have we lost in the past five years?" is "most of them," but we get to walk around unfettered at the pleasure of the Attorney General.
"the law has been rewritten"
And if it gets broadly misapplied, I think we have a robust enough civil society to vote those guys out. Here's a radical thought: some of us citizens of the US want the government to have strong powers, because we are more concerned about terrorists blowing us up than about the DOJ kicking down the door and deporting us. That's not an obviously crazy calculation of risk/benefit.
If someone says it's a slippery slope leading to tyranny, I guess I agree; but I think the grade of the slope is about 2 degrees, and I see precious little evidence to make me think otherwise. Jeepers flag burning amendments? That hoary old chesnut? Liberals should be delighted to see the right pulling out that pitiful wedge issue.
About "engineered crises" I suppose the less said the better.
Scientology doctrine is to rid the planet of all mental health workers - therapists, psychologist, and psychiatrists. Their doctrine says these people are "fair game," which means if they don't renounce their work and convert to Scientology they will be killed.
They had a goal to do this by 2000, but they missed that. If they had their way all the workers listed above would be killed and it would be illegal to perform those practices.
Then we'd all have to endure Scientology auditing sessions and take massive doses of niacin and saunas for drug treatment.
massive doses of niacin
I hear they do a pretty good version of "Red".
some of us citizens of the US want the government to have strong powers, because we are more concerned about terrorists blowing us up than about the DOJ kicking down the door and deporting us.
One of the points of my 5000+ figure is that giving the government stronger powers doesn't seem to have resulted in anything effective. I think it is fairly well agreed-on now that 9/11 was caused by real fuck-ups, not a lack of governmental power. I imagine I could support some minor adjustments to the system to make things smoother for law enforcement, but I haven't been convinced of the need for all the major changes. Why don't we need courts, again? I'm not opposed to government power just because, but I feel very strongly that civil liberties must be vigorously guarded. History shows some precedents for such a need.
Sorry, missed a couple there. Yes, ogged, I think it could get worse in terms of the rule of law.
slolerner, I'll see you your recessional, and raise you a god of the copy book headings. These are tough questions, and everyone is in danger of saying something unwise. My judgment: deep negativity about the US is more unwise than moderate optimism. That's not blanket Pollyannaism: If seek American injustice you can do just fine looking at local prisons in every state. Much worse is being done there than in the Bush justice department.
I am willing to agree with ogged that bad precedents have been made: I tend to want the executive to have leeway, but not as much as they've taken.
Here's a thought experiment: if, in the next 5 years fewer than 100 US citizens are detained without charge or trial on terrorism-based concerns, will anyone on this thread think the problems "in principle" are overblown?
if it gets broadly misapplied
This alludes to precisely the problem that Democrats struggle with, and which Republicans seem to ignore: how do we address a tyrany of the majority? If the government is willing to limit its application of the law (think Jim Crow) to only those who are disfavored, it won't run into much in the way of opposition.
What we're talking about is something like multiplexing a telephone call; shave the rights finely enough that it looks like none of them have been abridged. We do this all the time. We couldn't live in a complicated society without doing it. But some rights are more fundamental than others. I put the right to trial, and in back of it, the rights of the governed to a public justification for governance and the general right of liberty, at the very first spot.
Moreover, I find your position baffling, if only because it is a deeply unconservative one. At base, we worry less about the individual and more about what happens to the culture when we accept these impingements on the individual.
re: flag-burning amendment. I suppose what provokes such a strong reaction to this on the part of the left is that it's a stark reminded that so many people don't share our ideas on individual liberty. And a person going so far as to want to criminilize the burning of a symbolic piece of cloth is a darn good indicator of intolerance of dissent, which is also frightening. Thinking about this now, I'm curious as to what punishment they're proposing for flag-burning.
I don't know why people are writing that the Cruise/Holmes relationship is some sort of publicity stunt. It's too damn crazy. It's clearly driven by the wish to gain a new Scientology convert.
A friend of a friend posted my friend's IM comment on his blog about Lauer. Matt did a piss poor job following up with Cruise.
I can't bear to comment much on the serious top thread. baa's attitude depresses the shit out of me. It's like the damn war on drugs. If we can protect the children, it doesn't matter if we bust people's doors down and ruin their lives. It's those other unlaw abiding, poor black people it happens to anyway. Shit.
I'm with SCMT. This is a deeply unconservative position. That's why Scalia, a deeply conservative Justice, does not take it. And I do not think, baa, you want to say that Scalia's position is immoderate or unwise. Do you?
Punishment for flagburning: death!
Wanting the government to have arbitrary power: a favorite of conservatives since Torquemada!
There's cheery, and then there's manic. Seriously, are you going to suggest that by conservatism you mean Torquemada and not Burke?
The Iraq war isn't an anti-terrorism measure. It just isn't. No matter how many terrorists are there now.
If bush was agressively attacking terror, rather than just bogged down in Iraq and Democrats were giving him shit I could see Rove having a point. That isn't happening.
Bin Ladin attacked the US so what are we doing? Are we going into Pakistan to get him? No. Are we shutting down his sources of funding in Saudi Arabia? No. We are in diplomatic discussions with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Just like a Democratic president would.
Duuuude. I said I'm not wild about the detainee precedents. I just don't see it as Incipient Fascism. Free societies have a hard time dealing with private criminal organizations. Two more 9-11s, and we'll see a civil liberties situation we really don't like. So it doesn't seem to me that the equivalent of "better 19 Al Queda members go free rather than have one innocent man detained" be widely applied.
Iraq, I agree, is another matter entirely.
Instead of a gin-and-tonic, I had a Big Mac with the same intent.
baa-
I don't have a particular problem with the theory advanced to support Padilla. The problem is the application; it's in the application where we need judgment. It is hard for me to think of a smaller threat to national integrity than 20 whack jobs implementing a plan that could have been put together by a decent undergraduate engineering class.
I have a really hard time believing that I couldn't go back to the mid-80s, for example, and data-mine for evidence that the "insurgents" in the (ridiculous) War on Drugs pose a much greater threat to American lives than the Islamo-whatevers. Why not apply our brand new detainee rules there? On a bet, most of the people effected would fall into a disfavored class: poor, undeducated minorities with (probably) already existing criminal records.
What I want(ed) was for some people, either the government or the voters, to repudiate Padilla as applied. Didn't happen, which makes me distrust they are willing to allow at some future date.
Tim: if you're using firefox and greasemonkey, this script will add a button which, when pressed, will ad a link to that comment, thusly:
Also.
Two more 9-11s, and we'll see a civil liberties situation we really don't like. So it doesn't seem to me that the equivalent of "better 19 Al Queda members go free rather than have one innocent man detained" be widely applied.
I refer you to the subtitle of "Punchup at a Wedding."
We aren't catching all the Al Qaeda members. Even if arguendo our fucked-up policies were helping at all in the war on Terrorism, they still wouldn't be reducing the chance of another attack by less than half, I think. (And don't get me started on the bad attacks--nuclear--and Bush's total pooch-screw on proliferation, though now that Bolton has lost that portfolio apparently things are looking up a bit.)
So the way to avoid the civil liberties situation we don't like isn't to give up a little freedom now in exchange for security against something that will really piss people off. It is--well, was--for our leaders to boldly say, "We've been hurt, but we will not give up what is essential to us. That is our freedom, and our duty to serve as a beacon of democracy and human rights. That's what the terrorists hate about us--and that's what we will never give up for them. Never."
One might also ask if those sacrifices that have been made were actually well thought out or effective at all. I have not read this book but my undrestanding is that Schneier basically thinks almost all of our anti-terrorism efforts have been colossal wastes of money and haven't made anyone even a little bit more secure, and he's pretty freaking smart when it comes to security models.
will ad a link
Ah hahaha. Add.
65--agreed. I decided to suppose arguendo that they were, just to keep the vitriol down.
That would have been great, Matt, I agree.
Instead, they followed a script (at least) as old as the Roman Empire, using the crisis to further consolidate their own power.
w-lfs-n's laughter sounds a little manic (to me).
"And if it gets broadly misapplied, I think we have a robust enough civil society to vote those guys out."
Are you serious? you live in the USA, right? Evidence for this?
Baa is a regular here, and I'm not, thank God.
not that i necessarily disagree with your position, but, if asking someone else for evidence for their observation, should you note supply evidence which you believe contrdaictisit?
"not that i necessarily disagree with your position, but, if asking someone else for evidence for their observation, should you note supply evidence which you believe contrdaictisit?"
No.
Well, I can spell when I'm drunk at least. Not like some people I could name.
Now then. On the one hand, I was assuming that the problems with our political system are well known.
And on the other, I was assuming that most people are aware that you do not give extraordinary powers to the authorities on the assumption that if you change your mind you will just have to ask the authorities to give those powers back to you. "Excuse me, sir, but can I have my gun back?"
But I was wrong again. Twice.
Forget tyranny, who's the best drunk commenter?
1a. i'm not drunk, but my fingers apparently are.
1b. Is this really a contest? The apostropher.
2. if you assume the problems are well-known, and therefore are known to baa, then you and baa seem to be in disagreement about the interpretation of those facts. It seems the only profitable way to advance such a contradiction would be for you to submit your interpretation.
3. Your second assumption is puzzling to me, because it implies that you perceive that the Bushies intend to become self-suficient sovereigns, which A) is most definately not a view you should assume is shared and B) new to this conversation.
2. I was and am dismissing baa, as well as you. I don't live here, I just pass through.
3. I don't understand what you were trying to say here. It's sort of a general rule of limited government that powers should not be given on trust. Even if it were not, the Bush people are clearly not worthy of trust.
Most of the assumptions I have made are common to anyone who has ever had any concern whatsoever about, or awareness of, civil liberties, (Well, those who think that civil liberties are actually a bad thing do not share these assumptions, but I don't argue with them). I am not willing to start from zero with sharp, college-educated people; with them, I assume that ignorance is willful.
Perhaps I've wandered into the wrong neighborhood.
How is "dismissing" an accurage characterization of asking a question and returning to converse further?
give extraordinary powers to the authorities on the assumption that if you change your mind you will just have to ask the authorities to give those powers back to you.
What baa, was saying, I believe, is that if the Bushies go too far, they will be voted out of office. There will not be a need to "ask" them. So perhaps that is the misunderstanding.
It's not that I agree with baa, it's that your arrogance and presumption irk me.
Be irked. You have my permission..
I understood what baa was saying. Given what we know about recent political history, what he said seemed silly. The majority may well agree with Bush, but the reduction of civil liberties, with the consent of Congress, will remain a very bad thing. Many, including me, also feel that the last two elections were fishy.
Yes, I am also saying that elected authorities with extraordinary powers in their hands historically have often cancelled or fixed elections. That is not an avant-garde, edgy idea. It's one of the big things about extraordinary powers.
It hasn't happened in the US so far, but it's not like we're uniquely different than the dozens of other countries where this has happened.
John. 'Til you show us your tits, I hold the title.
Once again, I'm drunk now.
I may add that, with regard to institutional chnages of any kind, the present incumbent of an office should be completely irrelevant to your judgement of the change, since it's in the nature of incumbents to be replaced, whereas it is in the nature of institutional changes to be permanent.
Forget tyranny, who's the best drunk commenter?
I'm drunk!
Not only am I drunk, but Michael is proofreading something. Have heaven and earth truly changed places?
Fragments of the conversation between michael and myself (reproduced without his permission):
(00:20:46) He: (actually, i googled you once, so i shouldn't point fingers. and i'm not actually certain you use your real name)
(00:21:04) He: but if that is your name, it's googleproof.
(00:21:19) I: Fontana Labs is also not sure I use my real name, or wasn't at one point.
(00:21:30) I: this is an excellent demonstration of Brian Leiter's foolishness.
(00:21:43) He: you've demurred before, and it seems like you might find it funny to mislead in that manner
(00:22:08) He: that he implicitly trusts those who put on there mere face of being honest? heh. indeed.
(00:22:50) I: That simply having a real-name-like pseudonym is sufficient to disperse doubt concerning one's potential pseudonymity.
(00:23:13) I: For instance, "ben w-lfs-n" sounds like a real name, so no one will suspect that my real name is Stephen Philip Quincy Arthur.
(00:23:47) He: i have no idea whether you're fucking with me.
(00:23:55) I: I am well pleased.
I kind of like using initials because they may or may not stand for a real name which, even if it is real, may or may not be mine.
Googling is only a first step in trying to figure out identities, though. I looked up one pseudonymous person when I first started blogging, and then realized it wasn't worth the trouble. It does make it easier when someone consistently posts from an identifiable .edu domain, though.
that was my line, that we had changed places. but, ben's have one of those nights, so i'll kindly let him retain credit for it.
w-lfs-n inspired me to take a drink, which is why i msiread 85. Ben did not directly steal from me, but rebirthed my sentiment in a more poetic form.
Be irked. You have my permission..
I shall concede this is funny.
You can find using google that someone named Ben w-lfs-n was recently a student at the school which the person who comments here under the name Ben w-lfs-n claims to have attended. Not that I did that when I first read this comment 2.5 months ago.
John Emerson, I am calling you out. Mississippi John Hurt hammered on all over the place, as did John Fahey much later. (Strictly speaking that's not incompatible with what you say, but never mind.) Hans Reichel does some interesting tapping stuff with specially modified acoustic guitars, but it might not come across without modern recording technology.
As for the other issue--don't you think Judy is positioned to make a serious run, if she keeps up her early form?
(No, the real issue, baa seems to be saying that even if we give the government power to lock people up arbitrarily, elections will serve as a check on it. And that is completely bugfuck. How are we supposed to even monitor this again? Is there any reason to think that if things get seriously ugly Michelle Malkin's views won't gain wider currency?)
Yeah, but as far as I know there was never an acoustic guitar player in any style who played a whole song of tapping alone, much less popping. Tapping grows from hammer-ons etc., but electronics allowed you to hammer on all the time, with both hands.
Be it known that I started coming here more often because the relatively frivolous tone was less upsetting than political sites, where I always lose my temper. (For awhile I quit the political blogging entirely). But I should alos add that when I lose my temper, I don't feel bad about myself or my own lack of self-control. I just hate being reminded about how bad things are, and how little I am able to do about it.
So then ogged throws out a political thread.
The post is by Fontana, but nevermind. He and I have mostly laid off the political blogging, because it's upsetting for us too. But occasionally, you know, one does feel like saying something.
I pretty much agree with all o' 93 and 94. Every time I say, "OK, no more politics on my own blog unless something makes me lose my temper this much," it happens.
While I like the frivolity, I originally came here for the politics, so more like this will always be welcome, particularly if it attracts John Emerson to comment. (I'm on a low-commenting regimen for the forseeable future, though. I'm so far behind the eight-ball at work that I can't even see it anymore, and the charming little disease-vectors I call my children just laid me flat on my back for the last two days with some virus they brought home from the petri-dishes where I send them to be educated on weekdays.)
But I think John just said that he wouldn't come here if we keep doing politics.
LizardBreath/John Emerson cage match!
No, I went back to political blogging. But less of it.
I read the Huffington Post, so baa doesn't have to:
"Newt Gingrich is narrating a Fox Special tonite suggesting that Salvadoran gangs might smuggle Al Quada terrorism into the United States. It is crucial to challenge this growing allegation, which also has surfaced in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
Fusing the war on terrorism with the war on drugs and war on gangs makes good politics, but is as flawed as the claim that Iraq was collaborating with Osama Bin Ladin."
I think what JE is saying is that we're being glib, that we shouldn't express our opinions without going out and getting informed, reading the medical reports, as he has done, that we don't know the history of psychiatry. He's just living his life, is grateful, is in love: a lover of learning and of life. Take your vitamins.
Judy is my vote for best drunken poster, as she displays vulnerability with her drunkenness, an important element. I am a poor drunken poster, and tend to say offensive things about Tom Hanks that don't make any sense.
What baa, was saying, I believe, is that if the Bushies go too far, they will be voted out of office. There will not be a need to "ask" them. So perhaps that is the misunderstanding.
If this is what baa thinks, this is just nuts. Executive power essentially goes one way. It's never pulled back. Once there's precedent, it becomes the norm, barring illegality (and then, only if the executive faces consequences, Nixon-like). People may get pissed and vote Bush out of office, but the next executive will use those same powers that the Bush administration grabbed, mark my words.
No president ever won an election by saying that he'd be less of a strong leader.
I'm drunk too, bitches.
I'm so far behind the eight-ball at work that I can't even see it anymore
I will be a little bitch and point out that this is a mixed metaphor--being behind the eight-ball is only a problem if you're right smack up against it, since the issue is that the eight-ball can't be the first ball you strike, and being behind the eight-ball means you have very little room to make a shot.
This should not detract from the fact that LB's metaphor was actually quite clever. Come back soon!
Let's extend a little charity here. When you're behind the eight-ball, you're close to it, yes? You're right behind it. So LB is saying, in saying that she's "so [far] behind the eight-ball", that she's so damn close to it that it's taking up her entire field of vision, and that, insofar as it's the only thing she can see (and she probably can't even see all of it), it's as if she can't see it at all.
Actually, I was mixing the metaphor intentionally for comic effect. But nice save, w-lfs-n -- I was tempted to claim that your post was exactly what I'd meant.
And what is this place for, if not bitchy nitpicking? (And of course, earnest uncoolness.)
(Back to work.)
Damn. You're working on Sunday morning, LB?
Hell, it's so close that she can't even focus on it.
I was out sick on Friday and lost a full working day, and I have deadlines with teeth in them looming. And I'm reading comments here and over at ac's place (listening to ac reminisce about high school, I feel vaguely brain-injured. I know I was around, sort of, for most of the stuff she remembers, but I clearly wasn't paying attention), and arguing about c-sections at pandagon.
I have a nasty tendency to react to pressure with avoidance, which is part of the reson that my hours are so awful -- a decently disciplined person would merely be working grotesque hours at my job, rather than ludicrous hours. I really must close this browser now and focus.
That's really what I'm going for with my reminiscences, the sensation of head trauma. So that's good.
It's interesting, because I do, on some level, remember the people you're talking about, it's just that while I knew I spent high school in a fog, I hadn't realized it was quite such a deep fog.
Maybe if you run into some of these people again, you'll get a strange sense of déjà vu, and think you encountered them in a past life. In, say, Atlantis.
Sadly, this has happened, and I owe someone an apology. He must think I'm the world's biggest jerk. Ran into some guy from HS on the street when I was in law school, and knew his face but couldn't place his name. He got the impression I was just fucking with him, and spent ten minutes saying things along the lines of "Yeah, right you don't remember me. Come on, stop kidding around," and finally stalked off in a bit of a huff, without having reminded me of what his name was. This was someone I'd certainly talked to at parties -- not a friend, but at least a friendly acquaintance -- but I couldn't for the life of me come up with his name.
I felt like such a complete ass.
I ran into a friendly acquaintance from high school not long ago (indeed, she was still in high school at the time, and nothing about my high school experience is so long ago on the time scale you geezers must use), couldn't remember her name, and, finally running out of conversational dodges, just had to ask her what it was after five-ten minutes.
Now, of course, her name is burned into my memory as if by welder's torch.
What, for someone from high school? If I'm not mistaken law school would've been about ten years later--past the statute of limitations, I think. In this situation the complete ass is he who won't remind you of his name.
(Unless it turned out you actually dated or something. That could be bad.)
I used to think of a scale of how much you're allowed to not remember--like, if you've met someone once you're allowed to forget that you have, if you've met someone three times you're allowed to mess their name up, past a certain point you just have to curl up and die. But then there'd have to be another scale for when past meetings expire. And is "I would've recognized you if you were with your girlfriend" count as a valid excuse? I doubt it.
Not like I would ever have had occasion to consult this scale, myself.
Dated, no. That was a short enough list that I can be certain I'm not forgetting ayone.
114-115 are nothing to be embarrassed about. Here is something embarrassing:
In 1990 I was transferred to the 101st Airborne Division, which was getting ready to deploy from Kentucky to Iraq. The same day I got there, a female doctor joined the unit to be our Surgeon. I saw her around over the next couple of days and finally asked her out to dinner. At dinner, a young officer who I had trained when I was an ROTC instructor came over to our table to say hello. When I turned to introduce my date, I realized that I had totally forgotten her first name. Worse, I lacked the presence of mind to introduce her by her rank and last name, which I knew. So, I stood there like an ass until my date, realizing that I did not know her name, introduced herself to my former cadet. Needless to say, romance did not subsequently bloom in the desert (which is too bad, not just for practical reasons (women were in very short supply where I was), but also because she was a nice person).
As in 115, I still remember her name.
Idealist! What's your email address? (For the reading group.)
I know this suggestion comes too late, but why not just say "Hot Lips"?
121 to 119, though it's probably a better answer to 120.
Dude! That is, in fact, I think the most embarassing story I've ever heard you tell. And I say that after mentally reviewing all the stories I've heard you tell.
re 121:
1. because I am always a gentleman (except for forgetting my date's name).
2. Hot Lips was a nurse, while my date was a doctor (although, confusingly, her last name was pronounced "nurse")
Unfogged's comments section is always a good place for me to remind myself that, fervent wishes to the contrary, I have some distance to go before I can be considered mature. I read things like
That is, in fact, I think the most embarassing story I've ever heard you tell
and realize that I should think, "Wow, that is embarrassing." What I actually think is, "That counts as embarrassing? Ah well. Growing up is a lifetime's process, I guess.
Once, at the beginning of a course in college, the TA had everyone in discussion section pair up and ask their partner a few questions. Then each pair was supposed to introduce each other to the class. When it came to be my turn I realized that I remembered everything but the name of my partner.
After I paused for a moment, the TA asked me, "Are you ready?"
"Sure," I said, "but I just have one more question." And I turned to my partner and asked, "What was your name again?"
Everyone thought it was a joke and started laughing. Luckily my partner did repeat her name and I went on with the introduction.
(I've also re-met people whose names I've forgotten but none of those stories are interesting. Not that this one was.)
In high school once, probably right before my schmistory teacher launched another exciting investigation into whether Primitive African Tribe X was a hoax – they had no word for "gondola" or whatever – one of my classmates was gave a dissertation on name recall. Her thesis was that if you remember a new acquaintance's middle name, it means you like them (like them like them). It's fair to say I didn't like her like her, but her middle name is still with me. Not her last name, though. Weird! Take that, S.R.X., for some value of X.
Someone who did not go to my school once pointed out that everyone from there always referred to old classmates by first and last names, never as "this guy named Doug." He found it disconcerting, as though even he, who did not go there, was expected to remember the names.
Ooh! I have an uninteresting anecdote relating to both SB's and ac's! It seems that a few years ago I was wandering around the campus of the state university that makes its home in the town from which I hail, or rather, around the soi-disant "marketplace" which embraces it, and was addressed by a former classmate: "ben w-lfs-n!" (he actually used my real first and last names). To which I responded, "Mohammed Amin Davari, who prefers to be called 'Amin'!".
Then we spoke about this for a while, and then for a while about that. I'm pretty sure I never liked him liked him, though.
I have an uninteresting anecdote relating to both SB's and ac's!
Does this imply that our anecdotes are uninteresting as well?
Maybe. Maybe even probably. But yours were not uninteresting, not at all. I spoke too loosely.
Just read it that way and thought, "the cheek!" But then I realized what you meant. Reading: work.
To relate my anecdote to 114, though--if we expect even people who don't go to our school to keep track of us, just imagine the impact of being forgotten by one of our own. He was probably crushed. Confused. The universe seemed to tilt...
I think I remember lots of middle names, and therefore probably give lots of people the impression that I like them like them.
This just in from my subconscious: the X is S. It just took a while to burble up into the frontal lobes.
It was true love, wasn't it.
If we ever decide to start a weblog devoted entirely to the most obscure Mineshaft injokes, along the lines of The H Is/Was O, it will be called "The X is S."
Matt Weiner has spoken.