Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2009, 08:51 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-29-2009, 10:57 AM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Don't the current on-going trials of Gitmo detainees make the issue of whether torture was used or not a timely one, though I agree the grandstanding around the isuue is sure unattractive?

It's somewhat ironic how Iraq managed to try, convict and execute a former president during a low level civil war and was applauded for the fact, not least by the former administation.

I'm was also stunned by John's admission that he's worried he will actually become a casualty in the War on Terror. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/193...7:18&out=27:28

Last edited by opposable_crumbs; 04-29-2009 at 11:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2009, 11:55 AM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Twenty-six minutes in and I'm shaking my head side-to-side thinking, no John, you are wrong to conflate the Taliban and Al-Queda. It's wrong to assume the Taliban fits within John's psychological 'theory' of the Muslim extremist.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2009, 12:30 PM
sealrock sealrock is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 18
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

yay! i love when these guys! i've not watched it yet, but I am certain it will be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2009, 12:56 PM
Namazu Namazu is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 185
Default You can't handle the truth!

Not you guys, of course. Compare and contrast the recent conversation between Joshua Cohen and Mark Schmitt, which concludes in pious agreement that there should be a truth commission to lay out all the facts relating to torture in the Bush administration. One issue omitted (an oversight? time limitations?) was whether all this water-boarding actually produced any information of value to national security. The CIA seems to be saying "yes." Now academics routinely ignore the forest for the veins on the leaves, but I've yet to understand the source of Mark's occasional fits of myopia (c.f. previous comments).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-29-2009, 01:18 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Now that is a segue:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/193...0:12&out=00:29
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-29-2009, 01:25 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

I found this to be the worst DV by these two ever.

1) They dismiss the idea of holding people accountable for their actions as "childish" and "bloodthirsty". I'm just a bit stunned by this attitude. should we abandon all attempts at law enforcement because its all "looking backward instead of forward"? or is this hands off approach to criminality only for the elites?

Glenn seems to think that Alberto Gonzales will be punished enough by his loss of reputation in certain circles. would this apply to me if I go rob a bank - after getting caught, the loss to my reputation should be punishment enough?

how about deterrence? Did either of these guys notice that a lot of the same people running a shadow government in the 1980s under Reagan selling arms to terrorists were the same people back in the executive branch eviscerating the constitution and the rule of law yet again under bush? maybe if some of these goons had been held accountable back then some of this stuff wouldn't have happened this time around.

2) John, "its 1918 again"? really?!! 7 confirmed deaths in mexico and 150 possible deaths is the same as 20 - 100 million dead from the 1918 flu pandemic? maybe a little teeny bit of perspective is in order.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2009, 02:56 PM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
I found this to be the worst DV by these two ever.
Definitely I agree with that. The whole torture discussion was bizarre. There are probably even elements of their seemingly shared point that I'd agree with -- e.g. that there are other important issues that should get attention and that one doesn't want to see hypocritical politicians wasting time and attention on something that really won't go anywhere -- but their tone for much of the discussion was really making me angry. Because some people might whisper about Gonzales or Yoo behind their backs at their fancy jobs or in their fancy country clubs this is supposed to be punishment enough? Just a note to Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter, being willing to forgive and move on is not magnanimous or virtuous when you were not the victim...it's just you disregarding the rights of the real human beings who were kidnapped, tortured and killed.

I definitely agree with the need to focus more attention on the horrific criminal injustice system in this country, but these two guys are too smart and have been through too much history to really think that somehow that issue would be dealt with if we only stopped focusing our attention on the torture debate.

Perhaps my difficulty in understanding where Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter were coming from in this portion of the diavlog was confusion on my part about to whom they are responding. Are there politicians or mainstream media figures who are jumping on this as a bandwagon issue? I really haven't noticed that, my perception is that the mainstream consensus is in agreement with the position Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter seem to be maintaining.

Are they upset with people like Andrew Sullivan or Glenn Greenwald (Both Bloggingheads)? If so, then I really don't get them because the efforts of these guys on this issue have been so important and have been obviously longstanding and they have really won eternal respect, admiration, and gratitude from this reader.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-29-2009, 03:44 PM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

I just got to some later parts of the discussion and Mr. McWhorter just makes less and less sense. What is his point on the swine flu? If it mutates and becomes worse than we'll all really regret we didn't talk about it more on Hardball before it happened? Even that doesn't make sense because I cannot believe he's arguing that the swine flu story is somehow not getting covered or not getting covered enough.

And as to Mr. Loury's criticisms of the masturbatory media? Well, obviously any thinking person feels the same way, but if the kind of activity that the cable talk show guys engage in is so silly and insubstantial, then watching it can only be more so. So, if someone's watching it, they kinda forfeit their right to complain as far as I can tell. Luckily for me, I don't have cable.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-30-2009, 12:07 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee View Post
I just got to some later parts of the discussion and Mr. McWhorter just makes less and less sense. What is his point on the swine flu? If it mutates and becomes worse than we'll all really regret we didn't talk about it more on Hardball before it happened? Even that doesn't make sense because I cannot believe he's arguing that the swine flu story is somehow not getting covered or not getting covered enough.
I've complimented you elsewhere for your previous post, but I'll contradict this minor point. As I heard him, John was objecting to Chris Matthews comparing the swine flu (as handled by Obama) to Katrina (as handled by Bush). His major complaints, in other words, were with the comparison in the first place and the rush by CM to jump on the bash-Bush/praise-Obama bandwagon. Not saying I agree with John, but just to make clear what he was saying.

However ...

Quote:
And as to Mr. Loury's criticisms of the masturbatory media? Well, obviously any thinking person feels the same way, but if the kind of activity that the cable talk show guys engage in is so silly and insubstantial, then watching it can only be more so. So, if someone's watching it, they kinda forfeit their right to complain as far as I can tell. Luckily for me, I don't have cable.
... totally.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-30-2009, 10:43 AM
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee Abu Noor Al-Irlandee is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 392
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Brendan,

Quote:
As I heard him, John was objecting to Chris Matthews comparing the swine flu (as handled by Obama) to Katrina (as handled by Bush). His major complaints, in other words, were with the comparison in the first place and the rush by CM to jump on the bash-Bush/praise-Obama bandwagon. Not saying I agree with John, but just to make clear what he was saying.
Thanks for trying to clarify what Mr. McWhorter was saying, I really didn't get it. (Still not sure I do, but thanks for trying). If that was his point, though, it still doesn't make sense since he was comparing the swine flu to the 1918 Flu epidemic when it is actually much closer in scale to Katrina than it is to that.

I don't know on what basis pundits could be saying that Obama is doing a great job with the swine flu situation at this point, so if that's what they are saying then I agree it doesn't really make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-30-2009, 04:19 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee View Post
Brendan,



Thanks for trying to clarify what Mr. McWhorter was saying, I really didn't get it. (Still not sure I do, but thanks for trying). If that was his point, though, it still doesn't make sense since he was comparing the swine flu to the 1918 Flu epidemic when it is actually much closer in scale to Katrina than it is to that.

I don't know on what basis pundits could be saying that Obama is doing a great job with the swine flu situation at this point, so if that's what they are saying then I agree it doesn't really make sense.
If it is the case that pundits are making this comparison, I completely agree. I haven't heard this, myself. I don't watch TV news, and if John said it, I don't remember it.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-29-2009, 09:26 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
I found this to be the worst DV by these two ever.

1) They dismiss the idea of holding people accountable for their actions as "childish" and "bloodthirsty". I'm just a bit stunned by this attitude. should we abandon all attempts at law enforcement because its all "looking backward instead of forward"? or is this hands off approach to criminality only for the elites?

Glenn seems to think that Alberto Gonzales will be punished enough by his loss of reputation in certain circles. would this apply to me if I go rob a bank - after getting caught, the loss to my reputation should be punishment enough?
Yes, justice comes in a variety of ways. Sometimes the best thing is to just move on.

Your robbing example is also not apt because if Dick Cheney had robbed a bank during his Vice Presidency he would have been prosecuted for it. Robbing a bank is not a policy decision or a political question; prosecuting an aggressive War against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others is something entirely else. This is something best left up to our democratic process.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:23 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

I thought that you might like to see this article The secrets of the London Cage
Quote:
Kensington Palace Gardens is one of the most exclusive, and expensive, addresses in the world: its stately row of 160-year-old mansions, built on land owned by the crown, is home to ambassadors, billionaires and princes. One property bought by the Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal for a reputed £57m is said to be the most expensive house in London. Down the road, a pair of Manhattan tax lawyers are renovating No 6, while next door, No 7, is the London home of the Sultan of Brunei. Over the years No 8 has housed its fair share of dowagers and dukes.

Between July 1940 and September 1948, however, these three magnificent houses were home to one of the country's most secret military establishments: the London office of the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre, known colloquially as the London Cage....

...The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.
Perhaps we will need to go back through all our wars and prosecute those that made some hard decisions in some very hard times.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-01-2009, 01:00 AM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Yeah, it's just not Bush administration people that would have to be prosecuted, but British officials, Iraqi officials, and many others to be really fair.

Obama is will be prosecutable once he's out office as well. I'm pretty he's killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in his first 100 days in office.

Last edited by Lyle; 05-01-2009 at 01:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-01-2009, 01:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
I thought that you might like to see this article The secrets of the London CagePerhaps we will need to go back through all our wars and prosecute those that made some hard decisions in some very hard times.
Or maybe we should just look to our own house. Is your argument any better than "the Brits did it?" I don't think so.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:43 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

I have no problem looking to my own house, but I do have a problem when our President shall we say misspeaks.
Quote:
...Churchill said 'we don't torture' when the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat," ...

..."And the reason was Churchill understood if you start taking short cuts over time that what's corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country."...
Yes indeed Mr Churchill said this but it is lifted out of context and is somewhat at odds with history.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-03-2009, 03:27 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
I thought that you might like to see this article The secrets of the London CagePerhaps we will need to go back through all our wars and prosecute those that made some hard decisions in some very hard times.
On a related note, see this post on Balloon Juice. It begins as follows.

Quote:
Two People Who Did Not Agree On Much, Agreed On One Thing

Via two posts from Sullivan, I have learned that the two most successful interrogators and spybusters from WWII, one German and one British, never harmed an inmate.

No German won as many intelligence coups as Hanns Scharff. Scharff worked for the Luftwaffe interrogating allied pilots and bomber crews, so successfully that the U.S. military taught his methods decades later.

Colonel Robin “tin eye” Stephens was a “bristling, xenophobic martinet” who ran a famously successful counterinelligence operation for MI5 out of a basement in London.

Colonel Robin “tin eye” Stephens was a “bristling, xenophobic martinet” who ran a famously successful counterinelligence operation for MI5 out of a basement in London.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:04 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Yet enhanced interrogation, apparently on steroids, was used by the British in WWII contrary to the stated claim of President Obama. I also find it interesting that a Google search for the 'Churchill "we do not torture" quote' and several variants returns links to much commentary but not to a valid quote, from Mr. Churchill's, that I can find. Make all the arguments, you wish to, about this is more effective than that, but I fail to see how distorting history makes the anti enhanced interrogations stronger.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-03-2009, 11:54 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Yet enhanced interrogation, apparently on steroids, was used by the British in WWII contrary to the stated claim of President Obama. I also find it interesting that a Google search for the 'Churchill "we do not torture" quote' and several variants returns links to much commentary but not to a valid quote, from Mr. Churchill's, that I can find. Make all the arguments, you wish to, about this is more effective than that, but I fail to see how distorting history makes the anti enhanced interrogations stronger.
Shorter:

Quote:
Because Obama might have misquoted Churchill, torture is good.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-04-2009, 12:13 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

You are one of the few commentators here that can make such an imaginative cognitive leap, from a comment about the Presidents specific misstatement of fact to one of my saying torture is good. In the first place I don't recognize the underlying premise, of yours and several others here, that the enhanced interrogation techniques are as a matter of law are torture. I have provided a link to the relevant statue that defines torture and have yet too see any persuasive, for that matter any plausible argument here, how they are torture under that statue.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-04-2009, 04:44 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
You are one of the few commentators here that can make such an imaginative cognitive leap, from a comment about the Presidents specific misstatement of fact to one of my saying torture is good. In the first place I don't recognize the underlying premise, of yours and several others here, that the enhanced interrogation techniques are as a matter of law are torture. I have provided a link to the relevant statue that defines torture and have yet too see any persuasive, for that matter any plausible argument here, how they are torture under that statue.
Sorry, pisc. That you can find something somewhere that lets you cling to the idea that the Bush Administration did not systematically torture captives means nothing to me. There is no point in our debating this -- I don't care about straining at legalistic gnats. If you don't believe waterboarding and all the other techniques described in the Senate Armed Services Committee report are torture by any reasonable standard, there is nothing for us to discuss.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-04-2009, 12:05 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
I found this to be the worst DV by these two ever.

Of course you and many others here do, because they are not foaming at the mouth in a manic blood lust to BRING BUSH AND CHENEY AND YU TO JUSTICE AND THROW THEM IN JAIL AND CHARGED WITH TORTURE AND RETRIBUTIONGASM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I know it's strange to many, but not everyone is so bent out of shape about not stringing up Bush admin officials for "torture."

1, it's not going to happen

2, it shouldn't happen

3, it waste energy better spent on other things


But not to the foaming dogs who want their pound of flesh. A pound of flesh many of us do not think is owed at all.


An equally if not FAR MORE compelling case could be made that General Sherman should be charged and strung up for war crimes.

Should that have been done?

Last edited by JonIrenicus; 05-04-2009 at 12:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-04-2009, 01:00 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Actually, putting aside Jon's hyperbolic partisan generalizations, what I and Brendan and several others have asked for is some form of bi-partisan truth commission to find out for the record who was responsible for activities that were defined as torture by the United States. Then, depending on the facts, the Attorney General could decide whether or not to bring charges, as is his duty. That's it. In other words, let Congress perform the checks and balance and oversight function that it was designed (and sworn, on a Bible) to perform. It's hardly a foaming mouth suggestion.

Since the pro-torture side is so fond of ridiculous hypothetical frameworks for their discussions I'm gonna follow their lead. If a bi-partisan commission could investigate the actions of the former administration with no cost to taxpayers and no opportunity cost to the Pres or Congress, (ie- it would take no time away from "other concerns") then would you be in favor of that? If not, why? Also, what other crimes do you think should the Pres get a free pass for? If there is evidence that Obama commits a high-crime, but his legal advisor writes a memo saying that the action is no longer a crime, is that it? And finally, to those who are so concerned about tax-payer $ being wasted, where is the outrage at the costs incurred with detaining and interrogating many people who turned out to have no intelligence value whatsoever? Gitmo, Abu Ghraib etc., all took place on the taxpayer's dime. At the very least I would think someone would be concerned over their efficiency and waste. Considering that millitary expenditures are a huge part of the budget deficit that wingnuts love to scream about, I'm always surprised that their keen magnifying glass eyes for waste in government never inadvertently veers over to THAT part of the government.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-04-2009, 01:49 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Actually, putting aside Jon's hyperbolic partisan generalizations, what I and Brendan and several others have asked for is some form of bi-partisan truth commission to find out for the record who was responsible for activities that were defined as torture by the United States. Then, depending on the facts, the Attorney General could decide whether or not to bring charges, as is his duty. That's it. In other words, let Congress perform the checks and balance and oversight function that it was designed (and sworn, on a Bible) to perform. It's hardly a foaming mouth suggestion.

Since the pro-torture side is so fond of ridiculous hypothetical frameworks for their discussions I'm gonna follow their lead. If a bi-partisan commission could investigate the actions of the former administration with no cost to taxpayers and no opportunity cost to the Pres or Congress, (ie- it would take no time away from "other concerns") then would you be in favor of that? If not, why? Also, what other crimes do you think should the Pres get a free pass for? If there is evidence that Obama commits a high-crime, but his legal advisor writes a memo saying that the action is no longer a crime, is that it? And finally, to those who are so concerned about tax-payer $ being wasted, where is the outrage at the costs incurred with detaining and interrogating many people who turned out to have no intelligence value whatsoever? Gitmo, Abu Ghraib etc., all took place on the taxpayer's dime. At the very least I would think someone would be concerned over their efficiency and waste. Considering that millitary expenditures are a huge part of the budget deficit that wingnuts love to scream about, I'm always surprised that their keen magnifying glass eyes for waste in government never inadvertently veers over to THAT part of the government.

For the record, McCain was critical of certain military expenditures and certain defense contracts, so it was out there, it's just that people with a more conservative bent on the war side have a higher tolerance on military expenditures in general. If it were left to many on the left, far more than "efficiency" excesses would be cut, as they see less value to the military in general.

To the first point, just because you CAN do something does not mean you should do something. Is this so difficult to understand?

Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana purchase was interpreted by many as unconstitutional, should the supreme court have declared the deal unconstitutional or congress checked the act?


If some type of systematic torture camps were set up, then you would have a better case, and I would even support you. This was not the case, this was NOT general policy, it was used in special circumstances on special captives. Add to that that the torture employed was one of the milder forms. Still a nightmare? yes, but to those who think all torture is the same, you betray a dishonesty.

So, having people brought up on charges for that is nonsense. Let it rest at a policy change to remove the practice entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-04-2009, 01:55 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
...
To the first point, just because you CAN do something does not mean you should do something. Is this so difficult to understand?
...
Just because you think you should not do something does not mean that thing should not be done. Is that any less clear?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:15 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

My point was that some of us actually believe in the system and want to see it perform as it was designed. Not because of partisan desire for a pound of flesh. If the truth commission finds that no laws were broken or that there's not enough "there" there to make charges worthwhile, then fine. That's how the system is supposed to work. But I don't think that turning a blind eye to something like this just to spare the Bush administration some potential black-eyes, is the way to go. You saying that this was isolated incidents with a handful of people and not general policy is not enough for me. I want people with more information than you have access to, to make that determination. fortunately, there are people who's job it is to do that. And as far as I've seen, there is no consensus supporting your assertion of the rarity of these actions. We were told there was NO torture, then a LITTLE torture, and we only waterboarded KSM once, and then a couple times, and now 183 times in a month. The obvious attempts to lie at every corner, at the very least, makes me curious to know what happened. If it was indeed only a couple occurrences with a couple prisoners, then I won't be nearly as alarmed as if it's a widespread practice. But the only way to find out if it was a widespread tactic is to investigate. Pro-torture people want to make the argument that what the Bush administration did was okay, therefore we shouldn't investigate their actions. But that argument is based on the foundation of WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID. Which nobody knows without investigation. And I'm sorry but I don't take them on their word. For all the talk of accountability and responsibility, why are conservatives suddenly so hesitant to actually put it into practice in a very important real world opportunity? You do realize that for all the ranting about Obama as a dictator, that accountability is the thing that separates Democracy from Dictatorships. I'm not that worried that the Lousiana Purchase as an unconstitutional act has the same potential threat to the country as the practicing of torture. A president buying land without the consent of the government would bother me, but the idea of selectively administering torture is a slippery slope towards a far worse scenario.

Last edited by uncle ebeneezer; 05-04-2009 at 02:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:27 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Personally, I won't be satisfied until I see Dick Cheney on a stage in full fetish getup saying, in a tiny Betty Boop voice, "I was a BAAAAD little girl, and I deserve to be punished, daddy" over and over again.

Or not. It's deeply disappointing to see the desire to impose public accountability over an issue of this gravity painted as partisan posturing.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:05 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Personally, I won't be satisfied until I see Dick Cheney on a stage in full fetish getup saying, in a tiny Betty Boop voice, "I was a BAAAAD little girl, and I deserve to be punished, daddy" over and over again.
Am I the only one who thinks Cheney probably enjoys that sort of thing?

Quote:
It's deeply disappointing to see the desire to impose public accountability over an issue of this gravity painted as partisan posturing.
Thank you. That's essentially what I've been trying to get at through these many posts. Well said.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:24 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post

Or not. It's deeply disappointing to see the desire to impose public accountability over an issue of this gravity painted as partisan posturing.
This implies that the source of my indifference and general apathy for going after officials/legal consultants for this is partisan. This is wrong.

I just tend to reserve my self righteous indignation for bad arguments as I see them and acts I consider malevolent. Water boarding Khalid is not one of them. Neither was Ken Stars witch hunt over Clinton, or the fact that he lied to a grand jury, I did not care.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:30 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
This implies that the source of my indifference and general apathy for going after officials/legal consultants for this is partisan. This is wrong.
No it doesn't. My assertion really has nothing to say about your motives. But, yeah, you definitely read like a partisan, regardless of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
I just tend to reserve my self righteous indignation for bad arguments as I see them and acts I consider malevolent. Water boarding Khalid is not one of them. Neither was Ken Stars witch hunt over Clinton, or the fact that he lied to a grand jury, I did not care.
I don't really understand what you're trying to get across here.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-06-2009, 06:23 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Personally, I won't be satisfied until I see Dick Cheney on a stage in full fetish getup saying, in a tiny Betty Boop voice, "I was a BAAAAD little girl, and I deserve to be punished, daddy" over and over again.

Or not. It's deeply disappointing to see the desire to impose public accountability over an issue of this gravity painted as partisan posturing.
The last line of the post I linked to elsewhere brought your comment to mind. Can't imagine why.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:25 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
... activities that were defined as torture by the United States. ...
Can you give me a reference to the specific statue you are using to define the specific enhanced interrogation techniques as torture. Just because you feel or think the techniques are torture does not make them by law that. If waterboarding were prohibited by law what was the purpose of President Obama's executive order prohibiting it's further use. If President Obama believes that it is prohibited, by law, there would have been no need for the executive order.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:30 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Can you give me a reference to the specific statue you are using to define the specific enhanced interrogation techniques as torture. Just because you feel or think the techniques are torture does not make them by law that. If waterboarding were prohibited by law what was the purpose of President Obama's executive order prohibiting it's further use. If President Obama believes that it is prohibited, by law, there would have been no need for the executive order.
Pisc, the prohibition of torture is not in dispute. The definition of waterboarding as torture is not new. Your assertions have no force of logic. The burden is on the people who decided to adopt a novel definition to show that theirs is the correct view.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-04-2009, 04:49 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

I guess that if the issue is pursued to it's logical conclusion the courts will have to decide that. Until that time it a matter of opinionating.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-04-2009, 05:27 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
I guess that if the issue is pursued to it's logical conclusion the courts will have to decide that. Until that time it a matter of opinionating.

That was great, talking down that snot nosed kid who "knows" he has all the right perspective.

As to legality of what was done, I do not know. But for those stating it was not legal, that is not very convincing.


Better that you lay out the legal arguments in both directions, showing that you fully understand the argument that says it was legal, and give the argument a fair hearing, and then state why you think that legal reasoning is wrong.

It's wrong because X person says it is, while Y person says it's not leave the lay person (most of us) with nothing but air to hold onto. It is the antithesis of a compelling argument... this deserves its own post, what arguments hold the most persuasive power...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-04-2009, 02:18 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

what made it their worst outing ever was not the fact that I don't agree with them. I have disagreed with both of them on numerous occasions and, in fact, I almost never agree with glen. However, usually Glen makes some sort of sense while not agreeing with me.

What made it ridiculous is that they didn't address any of the real concerns people have and were simply dismissive and insulting - they basically sounded almost as reactionary and stupid as you, jon, and that is really uncalled for.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-04-2009, 03:31 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
what made it their worst outing ever was not the fact that I don't agree with them. I have disagreed with both of them on numerous occasions and, in fact, I almost never agree with glen. However, usually Glen makes some sort of sense while not agreeing with me.

What made it ridiculous is that they didn't address any of the real concerns people have and were simply dismissive and insulting - they basically sounded almost as reactionary and stupid as you, jon, and that is really uncalled for.
Lie to yourself, not to others, you found it ridiculous because they did not see the concerns you had as legitimate. And you got all fussy over it, how could any reasonable person POSSIBLY not see this as important to follow through on as "I" do.

The conceit astounds.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-29-2009, 01:26 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Say it again!

Shock and aw shucks

Last edited by graz; 04-29-2009 at 01:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-29-2009, 01:26 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Non-Bloodthirsty Edition (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

Anyone who has been in either mental or prison facility for any length of time can see the one of the big problems inherent with segregating people in this manner from society is institutionalization. It's really quite pernicious and pervasive.

Take the board and care homes where many people live after being released from a mental hospital. Generally speaking that's where most will stay for their entire lives. They are by and large nothing more than warehouses for the mentally ill.

The recidivism rates in California for people in prison is about 70%. They leave and then commit another crime which puts them back in prison.

The reasons for this are many and varied but the public discussion on it is minimal and from what I see their is hardly anything being done to deal with it in a constructive manner.

John
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.