Well It's Monday Open Thread

Submitted by Model 62 on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:10am

Culture

Let's get off to a good start.

The Legend In An Avuncular Mood

(#206837)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 9:41pm.

Jon Stewart sits down with Willie Mays:

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Saw that. Surprising.

(#206909)

Submitted by Zelig on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 7:34pm.

I've expounded before about SF Giants fans appreciation for Mays vs McCovey. To the locals, there's only one great Willie, and they named a tiny body of water out past the first base line after him.

So it was nice to see Mays NOT acting like the major league assh*le he had been known as since his retirement. Hopefully the personality change is permanent. Who says old dogs can't learn new tricks?! Go Willie Mays!!

Me: We! -- Ali

"Enhanced interrogation" on a 4-year-old

(#206796)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 3:25pm.

Apparently it's torture if done to white children.

See how easy that is?

If (victim == white)
waterboard = torture
ELSE
waterboard = enhanced_interrogation

You gotta know the code.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

You're close

(#206841)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 11:09pm.

The code is something more like:

if(victim.getReligion() == "Muslim") // he deserved it
   waterboard = "EIT"; 
else if(victim.getNationality() != "Merican") // probably an illegal
   waterboard = "EIT";
else if(interrogator.orderedBy() == "President") // Presidents can break the law
   waterboard = "EIT";
else // must have been done to us
   waterboard = "Torture";

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

Rules are there to: "Break in case it's more convenient"

(#206845)

Submitted by brutusettu on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:12am.

PBS had a summary of US and British Crossing the Rubicon with regards to intentionally dropping fire bombs on civilians. But it's not as though those civilians would be in a Utopia with Soviet or American tanks rolling through their streets either. There's at least a fairly strong case of sausage needing to be made there.

Advocating Waterboarding seems to be the idea that the closest one can get to torture, "w/o" torturing is automatically the best way to get "actionable intelligence" and not John McCain, the War Criminal.

. . ..

The purpose of torture is torture.

(#206847)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:59am.

The purpose of torture is torture.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

It damn near appears that way

(#206848)

Submitted by brutusettu on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 1:19am.

I don't recall any waterboarding advocate, including Yoo and his superiors, asking what was likely the "best way" to get intelligence. I've heard them ad nauseum say they were asking "how far they could go and not torture."

The "ticking time bomb scenario" gives the torturee all the more reason to lie.
Waterboarding seems to have possibly been 1st implemented to illicit knowingly false confessions, and at least was knowingly very good at that.

I almost think that if liberals advocated waterboarding, that many conservatives would be starting their own sugar free cookie factories en masse. Another part of me thinks that Yoo a useful idiot for Bush & Co that wanted to use waterboarding or something similar as a form of heads on a pike and have "plausible" denialbility that it wasn't.

. . ..

If liberals advocated waterboarding

(#206853)

Submitted by stillnotking on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 6:24am.

A lot of them do, in fact, advocate waterboarding, and most of the rest content themselves with pro forma finger-wagging. I'd say the number of Americans, conservative or liberal, who would agree with the statement "Waterboarding is torture, and the United States government should not torture under any circumstances" is quite small. The number who would be concerned enough to refuse to vote for any politician who ordered, allowed, or covered up torture is infinitesimal.

The Scott Brown election may have proved little else, but it proved that. He ran on an explicitly and adamantly pro-waterboarding platform and won in the most liberal state in the nation.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

I did just that

(#207070)

Submitted by stinerman on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 7:56pm.

The number who would be concerned enough to refuse to vote for any politician who ordered, allowed, or covered up torture is infinitesimal.

I left my ballot blank for US Senator after Sherrod Brown voted to do pretty much that in order to push back against Sen. DeWine.

Yeah, SNK's pretty much got it.

(#206871)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:12pm.

We're collectively degraded as a nation. I can blame the GOP for fanning the embers, but there's no question that the purpose of torture is torture, and that purpose is well-supported at all levels of our polity.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

What happened to your squeamish theory, then?

(#206950)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 12:35am.

Heh.

(#206969)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 3:02pm.

They like it in the abstract, but like the local shock jocks, once they see it for real, they change their tune.

Stupid and cruel.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The purpose of torture is to

(#206878)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:28pm.

psychologically destroy a person's will to resist, usually to punish and/or obtain compliance (i.e. turning informants), to provide propaganda/state evidence (i.e. false confessions, false testimony), and occasionally to extract actionable intel. There are other ways of extracting intel that work about as well and lack the substantial downsides. The ticking bomb scenario is rare as rocking horse excrement, and more typically police agencies use torture in a "dragnet" style operation, rounding up marginal players and ripping out their fingernails until they give up something useful on the biggies. That seems to have been the main Bush-era use for torture, only instead of fingernails we used less traceable Khmer Rouge/Gestapo techniques.

Using the ticking bomb scenario to justify a torture-based dragnet operation is specious in the extreme.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Sorry to disagree

(#206887)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 1:52pm.

psychologically destroy a person's will to resist, usually to punish and/or obtain compliance (i.e. turning informants), to provide propaganda/state evidence (i.e. false confessions, false testimony), and occasionally to extract actionable intel.

Lynndie England probably couldn't spell or understand most of the words you used, but she did have a big grin on her face.

Once you sanction it

(#206904)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 5:19pm.

it will become recreation for those who do it.

Look at Argentina. Started as the classic torture as a political weapon of terror directed from the top against a particular group but it did not take long before the torture gangs were selecting their victims based on their own sadistic preferences.

Agreed that sadism is part of the human condition

(#206902)

Submitted by catchy on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 5:05pm.

and I don't know why jordan is factoring that out.

Just wanted to pt. out that Lynndie was told how to pose by her higher ups.

That's probably still sadism, but it's a little more confusing.

a) she was probably acting under orders

(#206905)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 6:43pm.

and sadism-by-proxy doesn't explain much; b) sadism can be but need not be part of well-documented indoctrination of police interrogation squads; c) England wasn't a pro, just a jailer in a prison operating with non-American rules. She's a poor example on this issue since she was not a professional torture/interrogator.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Well do you believe she was acting under orders or not?

(#206899)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 4:27pm.

If the answer is yes, my explanation holds. Soldiers (some of them) love to kill people too. Did you know that? Some cops love busting heads. Doesn't answer the question "why law enforcement?" though. By the same token I'm sure there are in the world a number of torture/interrogators who absolutely despise their calling in life, who feel as degraded if not more so than their victims. Surely there are others who get a sadistic, maybe even erotic charge out of their work. People have different emotional feelings about their jobs. I know I do. Tells you nothing at all about why that job exists.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

"The job" != torture.

(#206900)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 4:28pm.

Torture is one of the perks.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I was speaking of police/military interrogators.

(#206901)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 4:30pm.

Certainly is "the job" for them.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

I guess what I'm saying is...

(#206903)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 5:18pm.

..."the job" implies this set of responsibilities to the greater good -- that one would have a professional obligation to be aware of what works and what doesn't. Since it's been fairly thoroughly established that torture is ineffective as an intelligence-gathering mechanism, we're back at the idea that the purpose of torture is torture.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Torture isn't "ineffective" insofar as it

(#206906)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 6:52pm.

does a poor job of extracting intel. If somebody knows something, you *can* break them and get them to spill it.

It's all the other downsides that make torture a bad idea: criminal prosecutions, even detention can no longer be sustained in any modern court of law; being extralegal gives it extreme latitude of & likelihood of abuse; it endangers US & allied captives; it erodes modern institutions like the GC (and the Constitution); it threatens to make torture an SOP of warfare going forward; it is diabolically immoral and makes soulless freaks out of people who engage in it and support it. Put it this way: such people don't *deserve* the respect & admiration of a world blindly fumbling its way toward greater freedom & self-government...to the degree that deserve's got anything to do with power relations.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Good grief, even after all this time...

(#206908)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 7:12pm.

...even decent people are tricked by the right-wing frames. No, torture does a lousy job of extracting intelligence.

The problem with torture is that whatever information you get is mixed up with desperate fabrication to make the suffering stop. It is a bad way to get information.

Ye gods, what has this country come to?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I'm sorry to say you're just wrong about this.

(#206927)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 8:03am.

The problem with interrogation is that whatever information you get is mixed up with desperate fabrication. All forms of interrogation suffer from this problem. Any police agency worth its salt will seek to correct for false leads by finding corroborating evidence/testimony. That's of course to the degree that they're interested in finding out "the truth" in a particular circumstance. Sometimes the truth isn't as important to these people as forcing confessions, recantations, providing false evidence against someone else, intimidation, etc.

But you can get good information with torture. There's a reason it's used by state police agencies around the world, and it isn't because they're all sadists. They have an actual job to do (generally protecting a repressive regime), and results matter. They wouldn't be able to do their job without sufficient intel on opposition groups.

The problem is that torture doesn't work in general any better than other, less coercive forms of interrogation. And when you are a democratic nation with an interest in promulgating law & order around the world, the downsides are legion. Unfortunately, that's not to say that the downsides are *obvious* to everyone.

I am truly sorry about this, and I wish it were as you say: that torture is absolutely ineffective as a tool for gathering intel. Would make it much easier to convince skittish, unwise Americans what a horrible road it is for us to go down. Unfortunately, available facts say otherwise.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

The reason it's used by state police agencies...

(#206934)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 2:09pm.

...is to extract false confessions.

Man, I live in a country where we are so eager to torture that ordinary folks parrot false justifications for it. Awesome.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Ok, you must be right. Tautology wins. -nt-

(#206938)

Submitted by Jordan on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 4:03pm.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

It's worse than ineffective: it's the worst of all techniques.

(#206930)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 02/13/2010 - 11:16am.

It's so hideously counterproductive, it makes even the cowardly and craven into the boldest of prisoners. There's nothing like torture to harden a man: Lenin said prison was the finishing school of the revolutionary.

+1,

(#206891)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 2:48pm.

seriously.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Too many people would be willing

(#206860)

Submitted by brutusettu on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 8:50am.

to pull out all the V-2 rockets anytime a 20 pound bomb goes off in a town several counties over.

Upwards to over 20% of American adults cannot correctly answer that this solar system is Heliocentric, I'd bet that far less than 20% can go the other way and name 3 or more countries that border Iran. There is a sizable minority of Americans whose view on evolutionary theory, is that if evolution were true, that there shouldn't be any more wolfs around, because there are dogs that were breed from wolves: Or that if evolution were true, humans should be immune to every disease and jump over buildings in a single bound by know. And I wouldn't want to see the number of people that still don't know the US sold arms to Iran and Iraq during their war in the 80's. Hard to base opinions on things, if people don't have some underlying facts to base them on.

. . ..

There's nothing near about it at all

(#206849)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 2:59am.

all these Republican scumbags like Sen. Kit Bond are calling for torture pure and simple, don't let the "enhanced interrogation" BS fool you. They're disgusting.

I blame it all on the Internet

It's a 4 year old

(#206840)

Submitted by brutusettu on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 10:34pm.

That has a big role.
The victim was 4, not an adult.

Hopefully though, this will play a Freudian way of slowly turning some away from the idea they can bring Padme back to life, after she died because of...

. . ..

Cool genetics & archeology.

(#206774)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 1:23pm.

early Greenland natives actually pretty close to Siberians, genetically.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

english adopted as new official EU language

(#206674)

Submitted by nilsey on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 3:16pm.

this is making teh rounds....

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan that would become known as 'Euro-English'.

In the first year, 's' will replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard 'c' will be dropped in favour of 'k'. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome 'ph' will be replaced with 'f'. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter..

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent 'e' in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing 'th' with 'z' and 'w' with 'v'.

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary 'o' kan be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou' and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl

Member of the Forvm Five

Heh. - nt

(#206679)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 6:29pm.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Dubl heh.

(#206705)

Submitted by mmghosh on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:41pm.

The thing is they knew this before

(#206661)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 2:04pm.

Bush had this right. In his first year in office, he was using recess appointments and running major legislation through the reconciliation process. That normalized those moves for the rest of his administration. Using those tools wasn't a story. The Obama White House, by contrast, is holding those moves in reserve, which has allowed Republicans to paint them as extraordinary measures. But they're not extraordinary measures. They're basic elements of governance in an era of polarization and procedural obstructionism, and the White House should treat them that way.

The above is from the WPost's Ezra Klein, who's been excusing D failure to pull the trigger on HCR and defending the necessity of a 60 vote strategy for most of the past year. Maybe it's a good sign he's finally changing his tune since he seems to be some sort of admin. barometer.

But this is now an election year, Obama's best window for passing legislation has already passed, and all Ds have to show for it is a reasonable but modest stimulus package.

People like Klein have played their role in lowering everyone's expectations. Frankly, it's a little late now.

It's never been hard to tell that BHL

(#206639)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:25pm.

- that's Bernard-Henri Lévy, if you're lucky enough to be unfamiliar with the man - is a fraud, but it's awfully kind of him to clear up any ambiguity.

(h/t Crooked Timber.)

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Haha. BHL, eh bien, quel fou.

(#206645)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:34pm.

Does anyone actually take him seriously? France's version of Chris Hitchens, save only for the fact that Hitchens doesn't try to pass himself off as a philosopher.

Philosophy, as Barbie observed of mathematics, is hard.

LOL!

(#206642)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:29pm.

“It has never been firmly established that Botul didn’t exist and it cannot therefore be ruled out that one day history will prove Bernard-Henri Lévy right.”

On the other hand, there's some irony in the fact that a quick check in Wikipedia would have saved BHL some trouble, no?

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Scott McLemee

(#206646)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:34pm.

postulates that this was the work of an incompetent or vengeful underling who put the reference in - suggesting that BHL is more of a 'brand name', like Tom Clancy, than an actual author (not to say 'thinker').

I mean, c'mon, if you can't tell something's fishy about a book titled "The Sex Life of Immanuel Kant," you're ... well, you're BHL, apparently.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Oops

(#206677)

Submitted by Model 62 on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 4:49pm.

It seems I clicked [edit] rather than [reply] to this a moment ago. I think I have undone what I did.

Apologies.

Herewith the reply:

McLemee postulates that this was the work of an incompetent or vengeful underling who put the reference in - suggesting that BHL is more of a 'brand name', like Tom Clancy, than an actual author (not to say 'thinker').

I dunno, your first link notes that in response to the revelation, "Lévy said he had always admired The Sex Life of Immanuel Kant and that its arguments were sound." The arguments of a simulacra of a philosopher are as sound as the arguments of a real philosopher? Now that's authentically French thinking.

I mean, c'mon, if you can't tell something's fishy about a book titled "The Sex Life of Immanuel Kant," you're ... well, you're BHL, apparently.

Easy to imagine a book with that title could have been written by Foucault, say. Still, I guess the underling theory is plausible. Visual artists* have been getting away with passing off the work of their underlings as their own for centuries.

The Guardian's write up notes a few more details, and reminds us of the Sokal Text hoax and the Nat Tate hoax.

-----------------
*A friend of mine is at this moment living in Beijing, overseeing the production of figurative paintings that will command six figures due to the brand of the "painter."

One more for the collection.

(#206618)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:37pm.

From Random Useful Pics

Goes along with:

From Random Useful Pics

and, of course, the classic

From Random Useful Pics

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Sarah Palin Hates Jews!!

(#206684)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 7:10pm.

Or maybe she just wants to count them.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

The astonishing thing about this...

(#206610)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:17pm.

...is that the "Republicans as Medicare defenders" meme is probably still active.

Consider the “Roadmap for America’s future” released by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House budget committee. In the long run, this would convert Medicare to a voucher system and impose sharp cuts in Medicare spending as a percentage of GDP. And even in the next decade, it would involve substantially less Medicare spending than under the Obama administration’s budget. Here’s the head-to-head comparison:

The defining quote, to me, of this health care debate remains, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." There was a lot of room for lying in the current debate, and of course our Republican colleagues did not shrink from their opportunities.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The Cossacks work for the Czar.

(#206600)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:35am.

The reason the Obama Admin's economic approach has been ham-handed, tone-deaf, and overall very stupid and ineffective is probably because the President is utterly deluded.

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Yikes

(#206612)

Submitted by Model 62 on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:18pm.

"Now watch me drive the lane."

Crash

(#206571)

Submitted by stillnotking on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:35am.

Caught a little of this movie at a party and was reminded again of its profound awfulness. Easily displacing Kramer vs. Kramer as the worst film ever to win Best Picture (and preposterously robbing Brokeback Mountain and Goodnight and Good Luck in the process), it is an eternal monument to artistic corruption and malfeasance; a polemic so trite, so laughably constructed, and so insufferably smug as to make a thoughtful viewer wonder whether racism might not have some merit after all. Watching plasticine Sandra Bullock strain to impart a scintilla of personality to a role beneath even her meager talents, I thought I might at last have some inkling of the scorn felt toward Tinseltown by the Palin crowd -- but my host, an avowed fan of the martyred former Governor, absolutely loved it. So much for that theory.

All this is by way of saying: I'm not looking forward to the Oscars this year.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Goodnight and Good Luck

(#206833)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 8:33pm.

Very disappointing. No real conflict at all. It was almost like a bad documentary.

Very, very disappointing.

I thought Crash was very insightful

(#206575)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:11am.

And I enjoyed the coincidences that wove a struggling social fabric together.

I didn't think it was trite at all -- Crash dared to explore forging genuine bonds between people while acknowledging their fears and prejudices, which is difficult given the sometimes inhuman PC confines that govern our relationships.

Crash is one of the best movies of the last 5 yrs.

You can't make a movie about the social fabric

(#206578)

Submitted by stillnotking on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:29am.

My point of comparison would be something like To Kill a Mockingbird, which is "about" the social fabric as it impinges on the lives of individuals. Crash had no individual characters, at least not that would require more than two words to sum up. Without character there is no conflict; without conflict there is no narrative; without narrative there is no movie.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

I found great depth in their characters

(#206588)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:53am.

who showed sides that other films neglect b/c they are afraid to go there.

In some ways, Crash broke new ground in the area of character development.

The narrative was innovative in its use of coincidence and chance to connect seemingly isolated lives and events. It bridged that gap as surely as it bridged the gap between people. Surely you cannot deny that.

And Sandra Bullock is highly underrated.

(#206576)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:24am.

She's exhibited a tremendous expansion of range that's been under-appreciated. She may have been 'plasticine' in Speed 2: Cruise Control, but by the time of Miss Congeniality 2: Armed & Fabulous, she had established herself as one of the foremost screen-actors of her generation.

She deserves all the honors she's been wracking up for her emotional, feel-good turn in The Blind Side.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

She was pretty good in...

(#206857)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 7:47am.

...28 Days, too, but now she's mid-40s but surgically altered to look mid-30s, doing sappy romantic comedies.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Life immitates art?

(#206862)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 10:03am.

/nt

I can't figure out

(#206583)

Submitted by stillnotking on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:36am.

whether you're yanking my chain on this one, h.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

It's called a wind-up, mate

(#206589)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:00am.

Crash is a horrible PoS. One of the most irritating movies I've ever seen.

[slaps five with hobbesist]

I keel you. nt

(#206590)

Submitted by stillnotking on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:02am.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Damn, they had....

(#206635)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:23pm.

....me going for a minute there, too.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Zing! -nt-

(#206632)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:19pm.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Fun time at theforvm!

(#206592)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:17am.

Is there anything better than winding someone up? If so, I don't know what it is.

He's been Crash'd.

(#206637)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:24pm.

oh it's rich.

I didn't mention her, but I agree.

(#206580)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:32am.

Her vulnerability and raw ability to occupy almost any emotional state have obviously helped her career, but are on display in Crash more than anywhere.

A jewel in the crown, so to speak.

The weirdest thing

(#206563)

Submitted by stillnotking on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:00pm.

about these "When will liberals stop beating their wives?" editorials is not that they are written, nor yet that they are commissioned by the feckless hacks at WaPo, but that liberals feel compelled to respond and "debate" them. Bush-league psych-out sh*t, man.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Yes.

(#206599)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:34am.

It's this "debate" part which is beyond weird.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

No.

(#206556)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:54pm.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Eat it, baby!

(#206602)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:53am.

I love that somebody put it up. :^)

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

How can we miss him when his mess won't go away? -nt-

(#206735)

Submitted by Jordan on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 10:35am.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Well, Sure

(#206685)

Submitted by Harley on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 7:12pm.

But you'd have to have a goldfish memory in order to actually miss him, no matter what political party you belong to.

With some exceptions, of course. Bernard.

“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco

There are still Franco and Mao fans, too, Hank.

(#206729)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 7:03am.

And what with all of Sarah Palin's fans running around with placards (and a very large Fox megaphone), I surmise some people will always vote for the Stupid Candidate, since they are Just Like Them.

You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American body politick. Oh wait, we did go broke.

We return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Like Richard Pryor on top of that Caddy: "I'll miss you all...

(#206624)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:05pm.

... as far as I can!"

Notice how every time Bush's name comes up, the usual suspects who all backed his madness and voted for that jackass, not once but twice, thereby scientifically validating their stupidity by repetition of the experiment, all wave their hands disparagingly and say Bush Is Old History.

He's not old history. There are still thousands and thousands of stupid people in the world who want to repeat the Bush Experiment again and again. But then again, it's rather like the circular reasoning of the old Commies: "Communism has failed because it has never been tried"

Haven't we had enough of the Republican Party? Shouldn't the whole thing be shut down? The GOP is a sort of reverse hippie commune gone hideously wrong. Not only did their lack of attention bring on the largest collapse of the world economy in modern times, arguably of all time, but still these morons soldier on, hoping beyond reason that history will validate their idiocy. It never will.

Bush43 should be in prison this minute.

The Tax Man Cometh!

(#206550)

Submitted by stinerman on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:58pm.

Woe is me! I finished my taxes today and, as I was sure it would happen, this year is the first year I actually have federal tax liability. Seeing as this was the first year I actually had a regular, full-time job, I was not surprised.

I suppose now it's time to register Republican? ;-)

Took my wife....

(#206603)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:54am.

...two additional years. :^)

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Heh.

(#206605)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:08pm.

Was she still paying down her Federally subsidized student loans at the time?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Nah, parent on staff.

(#206611)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:17pm.

We actually didn't need to take out big loans until my MBA, as it happens (UPS and the Guard for undergrad on my side.) Though that ultimately paid off in spades.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

It's all who you know.

(#206616)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:27pm.

The fun part is pulling up the ladder behind you.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Bootstraps, baby.

(#206620)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:54pm.

Paid for it all myself, ultimately, and "connections" never generated our test scores. I can't help it if most people are too weak and/or stupid to make it up all the ladders left in front of them. Devil Take The Hindmost; I know it won't be me. :^)

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

If most people are too weak and stupid,

(#206631)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:18pm.

those aren't very, um, good ladders. As a matter of fact, they're not really "ladders" any more at that point.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

It's called....

(#206638)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:25pm.

...."meritocracy". If merit were uniformly distributed, this wouldn't matter. But it isn't.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Hee.

(#206653)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:41pm.

Dude, you just posted about how your wife went to school paid for by who her parents are.

I like talking about true things more, though I freely admit that you've been quite clear that my preferences are not just irrelevant to your utility, but actively in opposition.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Nah, they'd have forked over....

(#206655)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:48pm.

....either way. I know I will. But you can manage a state school DIY (i.e. moi.) And, to be frank, the loans required for a decent undergrad should pale in comparison to your boost in income, unless you're dumb enough to stay.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

As you say,

(#206682)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 6:47pm.

meritocracy is when your parents' connections and ability to pay define your access to opportunity.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Hardly.

(#206743)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 11:48am.

a) As I noted, I paid for mine myself. And the Guard and a shift at a UPS hub aren't exactly work-study. (Still have my Teamsters card, as it happens!)

b) As I noted, she could have managed with loans. The lack of same certainly didn't hurt, but, as with my case, the ultimate level of income would have more than covered it.

c) You are making excuses for the talentless and feckless. Cut it out.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

There we go.

(#206758)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:49pm.

It's better when we're back at the hating "losers" than the pretenses elsewhere.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Were you in the same conversation I was?

(#206761)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:54pm.

I would have thought that you would have equated "too weak and stupid" with "the losers" maybe 4 posts back. :^)

But it ain't hate, Des. Mere disregard, perhaps benign neglect.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

The best part of the convo...

(#206776)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 1:24pm.

...was the implicit acknowledgement of the importance of the liberal opportunity enhancers, in the context of a discussion about how to undo them.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

"... unless you're dumb enough to stay."

(#206660)

Submitted by hobbesist on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 2:01pm.

Way to kick a man when he's down.

Remind me to take back every nice thing I've ever said about you.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Its the same everywhere

(#206834)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 8:35pm.

Our friend's wife was born on Third Base and he has the audacity to say that she could have easily hit the triple if she needed to.

I'll be sure to strike them....

(#206663)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 2:09pm.

....from the record if you'd be so kind as to point them out.

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

I recommended the five year plan for my kiddoes, they all did it

(#206658)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:53pm.

Two years in the Community College, live at home, get an AA and an AS, then get the hell out of Dodge, spend three years at a four year school, with two semesters of planned vacation, go overseas or something.

My oldest two got athletic scholarships. The youngest got a math scholarship. He's been a professional scholar for oh, seven years now, and he's not that big an expense.

Don't Be Silly

(#206560)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:15pm.

Owing a (small) amount of money come tax time is just a clever way of avoiding the masochistic exercise of giving the US (and state, if you have state income tax) an interest-free loan. As long as you pay enough during the year to avoid penalties, and make sure you have enough to pay the amount owing when the time comes, you're golden. The time to be annoyed is when that money is coming out of your check in the first place.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

It's part of my "US Treasury Microlending Stimulus Program"

(#206579)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:31am.

I figure extending tiny interest-free, penalty-immune annual loans to the gov't is a great way to get the economy back on its feet. Not.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

I <3 you, Mr. Eiland

(#206565)

Submitted by stinerman on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:24pm.

Exactly right, sir.

When my girl called, I told her I was indeed in a good mood after finishing my taxes. Big return? Oh, no. My deductions came out to be almost exactly my liabilities. The Treasury owes me $16. These silly people who take 0 deductions because they want an extra big return make me laugh for the reasons you allude to.

The bad thing was that I owe Gov. Strickland $13 after calculating my use tax properly. I'm not a tax cheat like a lot of my kinsmen who lie about their use tax liability.

All in all, I'm thankful for the fact that I made over $30,000 this year -- probably more than I've made in the previous 24 years of my life combined. I'll pay a few thousand in taxes and be all the happier.

You don't have to register R

(#206558)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:21pm.

just roll into your polling place, make the empty threat to anyone w/in ear shot that you might start working less to avoid taxes, and then pull the lever for an R knowing you supported the party with the most understanding of incentives.

Gotcher pick: tax and spend - or borrow and spend.

(#206559)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:25pm.

GOP won't save you, but you knew that. I shall never forget Ronald Reagan gently shoving the baseball bat up our collective tuchuses, telling us he was cuttin' taxes. Blithering old idiot: Bush the Wiser was left to pick up the pieces.

Nah

(#206552)

Submitted by HankP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:20pm.

just quit your job - no taxes then!

I blame it all on the Internet

Vote Republican?

(#206551)

Submitted by brutusettu on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:03pm.

Is this where Des makes a joke about Tax Cuts and Total Federal Spending Increases all 'round?

. . ..

Only $5.

(#206505)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:10am.

Maybe you even get a cool laminated card.

I'm in the clear

(#206549)

Submitted by stinerman on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:40pm.

I'm not part of a group. I just want to "overthrow" the government all by my lonesome. I really do. I want a new constitution made from scratch. That's overthrowing the government in a very non-violent way.

Yeah, but really. This doesn't pass even rational basis, much less strict scrutiny view.

Wow

(#206509)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:29am.

Read the text strictly and it becomes obvious that both the GOP and the Dems would have to register as subversives.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

GOP and Dems as "subversives"??

(#206524)

Submitted by Jay C on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:39pm.

Now there's an issue of "bipartisan comity" we can all agree with!

Well, except the teabaggers. -nt-

(#206528)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:47pm.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Fraternal and patriotic groups exempt

(#206506)

Submitted by stillnotking on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:17am.

Gets more Weimar Republic every day, doesn't it.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

But without the louche nightclub scene to compensate -nt-

(#206515)

Submitted by hobbesist on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:37pm.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

I can't see why they're giving the loners a free pass like that.

(#206507)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:28am.

/nt

Murtha is Dead!?! And a Medical Accident?!?

(#206478)

Submitted by Traveller on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:30pm.

(CNN) -- Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a longtime fixture on the House subcommittee that oversees Pentagon spending, died after complications from gallbladder surgery, according to his office. He was 77.

The Democratic congressman recently underwent scheduled laparoscopic surgery at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, to remove his gallbladder. The procedure was "routine minimally invasive surgery," but doctors "hit his intestines," a source close to the late congressman told CNN.

************

Jeeze, I just underwent a Colonoscopy, lots of pieces taken out, one growth, unfortunately too large, to entirely remove....

Except for the deadly aspects of the procedure and waiting for the biopsy results on Wednesday, with a prostate biopsy still to be performed, and lungs to do on Thursday....I explained to people, better to leave pieces behind for later removal than perforated intestinal wall, which will kill you.

See Murtha above.

I have felt badly not writing about the experience because there has been so much talk about American Healthcare delivery and here I have some knowledge up close and personal.

Really, it's very good...I was awake throughout and got to watch the yellow bile spill into to the healthy pink and white cylinder of tissue, and the not so healthy darker stuff....but I see now the wisdom of being very careful in there.

In any case it was a good experience...except for the waiting for the results, knock on wood, of course.

I was very impressed by my care...I wish I had the time to write about it, but I'm too busy...too many people have too much trouble for me to try to solve, but it was pretty interesting.

But American Healthcare, if you can afford it, The Best.

Traveller

EDIT: Well, maybe not the best for John Murtha...ahem

Trav,Trav, Trav

(#206535)

Submitted by tomsyl on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:42pm.

Take care of yourself, please, The world would be a poorer place w/out ya.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx

What Tomsyl said...

(#206540)

Submitted by JKC on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:34pm.

Be well, Trav!

(#206513)

Submitted by hobbesist on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:24pm.

Hope your body and dignity both come through the procedure unscathed.

Bene vixit, bene qui latuit

Trav

(#206494)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:06am.

I'm really hoping your biopsy results show no cancer and benign growth.

Very scary stuff.

I'm glad you had a good experience with the health care system so far. My own experiences with the healthcare system recently with family members has been mixed: the best and the not so good.

May you continue to have good experiences and truly all my best wishes.

American health care is like the blind men and the elephant

(#206512)

Submitted by AndrewSshi on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:17pm.

It can differ wildly based on the facility one's insurance plan (or lack thereof) and a ton of other factors.

My own experiences with American health care have been pretty good, but it's all been sports medicine stuff that usually required fairly simple procedures (like a cortisone shot to fix an inflamed bursa).

Seconding your well-wishing to Traveler. Colonoscopies are no fun at all (even if the proctologist is friendly and chatty as he probes around).

Oh, Thank You, but No Worry...

(#206496)

Submitted by Traveller on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:25am.

...if the biopsy is bad, they'll just cut me up. I'm more concerned over the prostate...which has been tested and tested again, and will be biopsied soon, and the lungs of course.

It will be all interesting...and of course being the, really, the coward I am, no one has more fear over...most everything...than I...I shiver and sweat and have panic attacks...

Will be a test.

Of some sort...

But thanks.

I still think it weird that Murtha is dead because the Doc nic'ed his Peritoneum by accident...just strange.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Something similar happened to me

(#206508)

Submitted by Kierkegaard on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:37am.

When my gallbladder was removed last spring. They apparently nicked my pancreas, which was why I was kept in the hospital three days. However, no one told me at the time, and I didn't find out until much later.

I'm guessing Murtha felt pain but waited too long before going back to the hospital. Also, he had his done in suburban VA, rather than at GW with the same team that removed Cheney's (which is where I opted for). But so much for a lap choly being a routine procedure.

Or a colonoscopy; my uncle died from one two years ago. So, best wishes and fingers crossed for you, Trav. Got plenty of Xanax? That and Jack Vance novels is all that got me through it...

I was wrong; AP reports that Murtha

(#206541)

Submitted by Kierkegaard on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:49pm.

had his initial surgery at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.

So...a VA benefits issue?

Sorry, No, Not a VA Benefit Issue....Alas....

(#206546)

Submitted by Traveller on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 6:23pm.

...it is a we are all going to die issue. It is the accumulation of the insults to our Corporeal Being that are, from the moment of our birth, unending...that eventually will take us away.

Singly, in reference to myself, all of this is fine and overcomeable...but it is the three separate biopsies that are a concern, any one alone is fine, but co-joined is not good.

The same is true for Murtha, I am sure there were a plethora of health issues piling up...and the more we subject ourselves to the healthcare system, though we must, the more likely something will go wrong.

As happened here. I'm sure the Doctors were careful...but they accidentally cut his intestinal wall without noticing or noting it.

And so he died.

Probably of medical malpractice...but if it can happen to him, it can certainly happen to us.

I'm not even terribly down on the Doctors...poo-poo happens with complex systems.

As an aside, I'll pull through all of this; I'm too young with far too much work to do to die now, (though I expect to suffer some), but, a few profundities:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." -Mark Twain

"Death is everything to the dead just as life is everything to the living"...some Zen Master

After you die you're no longer sentient, and that's the best case scenario. I cannot imagine what can be worse than an Eternity of Awareness in a Universe that cannot be Infinitely Amusing.

Ahem

Traveller

Genuine malpractice reform...

(#206514)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:34pm.

...would help with this.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Watermelons Gone Wild

(#206465)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:08pm.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

The thing I liked about that ad,

(#206516)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:38pm.

although the ad itself was awful, was the way it demonstrated the vast gap between the way the world actually functions and the way that anti-environmental crusaders appear to believe the world functions.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I read it as pure absurdist humor

(#206562)

Submitted by stillnotking on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:50pm.

Not especially well-done but I think that was the intent.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

on at least two levels

(#206525)

Submitted by nilsey on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:41pm.

i mean other than the superficial level that the eco police in the commercial are orders of mag different than what goes on in the real world, it also demonstrates that the most brazen and hypocritical of the green "boosters" are usually the polluters.

i mean, its a commercial for a green car, which is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Member of the Forvm Five

Yeah, that commercial was like a 30 second window...

(#206527)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:44pm.

...into the deeply confused American environmental consciousness.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Scott, from your comments in the past

(#206498)

Submitted by HankP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:31am.

I would have thought it was a documentary.

I blame it all on the Internet

A lot of people seemed to be in fear after that ad

(#206495)

Submitted by brutusettu on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:15am.

It's a nightmare world for some, a the libertarian-Hal 9000's hell, one where not only were Hal cannot turn up his new stadium sized speakers to 11 at all times of the day and night to enjoy the classic Daisy Bell or incidentally shine a security spot light into a neighbors bedroom window at night. But Hal cannot help but live in fear that Hal cannot slowly pollute the environment too and deprive other people of a less polluted Earth, the time scales are too long, and his personal contribution too little, for Hal to realize what he's doing.

. . ..

I Saw It as a Very Good Sell Job for Audi...

(#206497)

Submitted by Traveller on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:34am.

...one doesn't even think that Audi has a green diesel in its line-up...like the famous 1984 Mac ad, this will be remembered by its target audience.

Traveller

That's one way to solve the problem.

(#206439)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:46pm.

Outlive your adversaries.

Melanie Shouse believed Barack Obama could reform health care, and the St. Louis activist worked hard to help get him to the White House.

She died last Saturday from breast cancer while battling her insurance company to pay for her chemotherapy treatment.

You gotta love Obama's moxie in using her death as a rallying cry.

"How can I say to her ... 'We're giving up'?" Obama said.

The same way you said, "We're not gonna bother to try to move this thing or do anything which would possibly help your situation," I'm pretty sure.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

NOOO

(#206453)

Submitted by brutusettu on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 8:09pm.

Ann Coulter is going to build up her soap box pyramid again to trot out her same complaints for a new book.

. . ..

More 11th dimensional chess

(#206435)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:39pm.

While Obama is stressing that he won't start over from scratch, he's leaving room for "scaling back the scope of the legislation in hopes of drawing more support for a health care plan." ... Perhaps this is nothing more than an elaborate set-up to expose the depth of Republican obstructionism and, as Greg Sargent speculates, lay the groundwork for passing the bill through reconciliation by providing them cover... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/8/834998/-Where-is-the-White-House-on-HCR

Why should anyone pay attention to the left if they rationalize away every time someone screws them?

This was the same strategy with the public option. Contradictory reports from the WH to confuse and demoralize the base. Meanwhile what's wanted is some bi-partisan legislation that can count towards Obama's 'transformational' political reputation.

A significant part of Ds continue to support or tolerate Obama's 'transformationalism' even when it directly conflicts with providing decent health care to millions.

Count me out. I didn't think of all the stuff Obama peddled to get my vote that 'bipartisanship' and 'centrism' would be what he stuck to above all else.

I'm withholding judgment, but I'm concerned too

(#206440)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:50pm.

I think if the Republicans are smart they'll get a bunch of 'em -- maybe Brown, Snowe, and Collins -- to rope-a-dope Obama back into negotiations that, of course, would never end.

I don't see how else Republicans can get a win out of this. As communicators and personalities, they've got nobody that could stand toe-to-toe with Obama. The best case scenario for Dems is if Republicans bow out of the exchange. The second best scenario is if they argue it out, and of course, necessarily lose.

However, I fear a trap. And if Obama falls for it he would be very foolish. If he turns them down, he may hurt the optics he's trying to build. I may be wrong, but I feel a certain trepidation.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Does that mean I'm not evil any more?

(#206444)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:46pm.

I'd like to not be evil, if that's cool.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Evil? You Were Never, Have Never....Been Evil....

(#206446)

Submitted by Traveller on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:54pm.

....I watched again last night while doing a project, There Will Be Blood...that's Evil, but human Evil....a terribly good exploration of Evil.

I didn't see you anywhere.

Not even your shaddow.

Also, I have finally seen The Tutors on Showtime...I remember the series being debated a while back.

I really enjoyed it.

And liked especially the portrayal of Thomas More as coniving, a little treasonous, a lot begging for martyrdom.

And I'm a big fan of Sir Thomas, having read most of everything about him...but it rung true, emotionally, as did lots of scenes with lots of characters.

Factually true? Sometimes it was off, but emotionally as to that time and those people...seemed pretty good to me.

Traveller

after awhile, withholding judgment is self-delusional

(#206442)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:23pm.

The entire summer and fall of HCR already centered around trying to get Snowe or Collins or some R to play along. The gang of 6 was months and months of bad-faith negotiations.

What's funny is thinking back to Obama's criticisms of Bill Clinton as not 'transformational'. Clinton came to power with an ascendent conservative movement, 43% of the popular vote, and went down swinging on healthcare reform.

Obama comes to power with 53% of the popular vote, conservatism in decline, the largest Congressional majorities of any political party in decades, and checks his swing at health care reform in the name of 'centrism'.

That's not transformational, that's worthless.

But then there's reality...

(#206449)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:35pm.

The median voter in this country is a detached moderate who doesn't keep up with the news but sorta kinda keeps an ear up, hoping to hear both sides agreeing on something, which would save him the trouble of worrying about which side is right. Obama has clearly been playing to that voter since the State of the Union, and he's getting traction. If this is the prelude to a long negotiation with the Republicans it's a mistake. If it's giving the Blue Dogs enough cover to come home, it could be very good: the winning touchdown play with the clock running down.

There's a fantasy that Obama was going to fly in, cape billowing, and knock some heads together. Obama was plainly pushing Baucus to wind up negotiations as early as possible. He was clear about that. You imagine that he had some kind of leverage over the moderates that he didn't use. That he could say, shut them out of committee assignments or something. He doesn't get final say over something like that; the Senate caucus does, and Senators do like to feel like they have privileges. Your denunciations assume a knowledge of motives and back room dealings that you simply don't have.

Maybe years from now, after HCR has passed or failed, we'll read the memoirs and records and see what mistakes each of the players made. But right now you seem to be assuming that Obama is some kind of caped superhero who's failing is lack of will or an unaccountable indulgence of moderates. I think it's much more likely that he's a President facing immense structural challenges to passing an extremely ambitious piece of legislation. You tend to see structural politics when you're defending your side's calls, but you're blind to them when it's people that are frustrating you.

Let's not forget... we've only gotten this far because we got 60 votes in the Senate. Obama and Reid got them. Those were really tough votes for Senators in red states to cast, and no Obama tough guy act is likely to have changed their political calculus.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Look Wags

(#206457)

Submitted by HankP on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 9:25pm.

absent pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it's pretty clear they mishandled this. The GOP has no problem with passing divisive issues through reconciliation, why in the world would any negotiator take their best bargaining chip off the table in advance?

I never mistook Obama for a superhero, but I did think he was more interested in getting legislation passed than in appearing bipartisan.

I blame it all on the Internet

You can't pass

(#206461)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 9:43pm.

Insurance regulations with reconciliation... that's the heart of the reform. (Insurnce regulations do not have a "non-incidental" impact on the budget, and thus would likely be stricken by the Parliamentarian.) What good would reform be if insurance companies could still exclude for prior conditions or rescind coverage when people got sick or cherry-pick customers by charging older people way more?

Reconciliation can work as a sidecar, but not as a solo act.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

True

(#206481)

Submitted by HankP on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:30pm.

but where's the strategy or the leverage? I'm pretty sure a few stand alone bills that, oh, remove the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies or eliminate recission or eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions would pass easily - the pressure is either work on the big plan or we'll pass all the popular pieces and you'll have to stand against them. That's hardball. But we've seen nothing but softball from the admin and the Dems since this thing began.

Also, I question the "non-incidental" interpretation given that Medicare is such a large part of the budget. But that's an argument for another day.

I gave this admin a lot of leeway and held back on criticism because I don't know what's going on in the back channel negotiations. But even though I may not be as current on the details as you, I know that what I've seen is indistinguishable from a poorly handled effort. There is a fetish for bipartisanship that should have been tossed months ago. One simply cannot negotiate something like this from a position of weakness, and not putting up clear markers and enforcing them is weakness.

I blame it all on the Internet

The trouble with the piecemeal approach

(#206502)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:50am.

Is that you're stuck with what you pass. Eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and then people can just wait until they're sick before they get coverage... and costs hit the ceiling as healthy people leave the pool. Eliminating exclusions requires mandates. Unfortunately, the popular and unpopular parts of the plan need each other.

As for the fetish for bipartisanship, I agree with you. I wish it had been ditched back in August. But it's not just the administration, there's structural pressures at play. The Senate moderates and the Blue Dogs like to have bipartisan cover, and they won't move until any chance of it disappears.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

There are troubles with every approach

(#206522)

Submitted by HankP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:33pm.

when you start out with 40 implacable no votes willing to invoke cloture on every vote. But negotiating in this environment is not "Come, let us reason together", it's "Do you feel lucky, punk?" If you let it be known right at the start that you're not willing to push it to the wall, you're negotiating from a position of weakness. You simply can't take any options off the table at the start of the negotiations. The Republicans do this all the time with tax cuts, they lead with that and push it constantly. The public messaging on this has been awful - if you need this to pass as a package (which you and I understand, but I'm guessing at least 3/4 of the public doesn't) then you can't make the case in generalities. You also can't allow every single member of the caucus to come up with their own individual policy. Obama's public requests to Congress about what to include in the bill haven't been specific enough, or repeated enough. The coordination within the Dem caucus has been weak to non-existent. They needed to get a small number of strong talking points and repeat them until they were blue in the face, that's how it gets to be the conventional wisdom. It's not so much the voting discipline as it is the message discipline. My God, the GOP got destroyed in the last two elections and they still stay on the same few messages - there's a lesson in that, don't you think?

The problem is that it's not restricted to health care, I see the same thing happening with bank and financial regulation. If they don't figure this out soon they'll never get anything passed.

I blame it all on the Internet

Is that a bug?

(#206523)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:39pm.

I kind of feel like there's been a lot of internalization of critiques.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

What are you talking about?

(#206530)

Submitted by HankP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:57pm.

I'll critique whomever I damn well please. Just because I support Dem positions doesn't mean that they're immune from criticism on competency grounds.

I blame it all on the Internet

I'm very sorry.

(#206531)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:06pm.

That's the opposite of what I meant -- I feel like there's been a lot of internalization of right-wing stupid by our Congressional leadership and their support staffs.

My bad for the miscommunication.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I don't know about that

(#206532)

Submitted by HankP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:14pm.

but they sure as hell should be internalizing some messaging discipline.

I blame it all on the Internet

The Parliamentarian

(#206479)

Submitted by stinerman on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:25pm.

You do understand he has no real power, right? It is all advisory. The Parliamentarian ruled unofficially that the Nuclear Option under the Republicans was out of order under the rules. They were going to take a vote to ignore him. Only 51 votes were necessary.

The House does stuff like this all the time -- vote if an amendment to a bill is out of order according to some rule. It is always a straight party-line vote. I really don't see why the Senate can't say "yeah, the Parliamentarian is wrong on this one; insurance regulations have a huge impact on the budget" and overrule him.

I suppose the reason why is that is presupposes the Democrats actually want to do HCR.

Jesus, Stinerman...

(#206482)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:32pm.

Republicans pulled some crap like this... firing the Parliamentarian, once. I thought it stunk then, and I still think it stinks. This is just not the right thing to do. We have a democracy to keep -- playing by the rules matters. We're not going to be in power for ever.

Now I don't mind playing hardball -- I'd favor ditching the filibuster, for instance -- but if you can break the rules with impunity, what is the future of the U.S. Senate?

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Whoa, hoss

(#206548)

Submitted by stinerman on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:36pm.

I'm just saying that they can do this if they wanted. It isn't like if they overrule the parliamentarian, the Sergeant-at-Arms is going to start arresting Senators. I think it isn't the right thing to do either, but it is able to be done.

It is interesting that you bring up the rules. The 111th Congress never voted on the standing rules of the Senate. It reasons that they could vote on new rules anytime they wanted. However, by accepting other rules, they have tacitly acknowledged them by carrying on as if they were bound by them.

Sen. Udall has already mentioned he will make a motion to adopt rules in the 112th Senate. What will happen is that someone will move that they adopt the previous rules, and that's what they'll adopt. What they should do is eliminate the need for cloture votes to do routine business.

Why?

(#206557)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:17pm.

I think it isn't the right thing to do either

Why are preserving these peculiar rules of the Senate more important than passing HCR and other bills?

The Senate has not passed significant good legislation in over 15 yrs. (with the possible exception of the stimulus bill)

1993 was the last time any major non-right/non-'centrist' bills made it through the upper house. That was the year Ds significantly raised the marginal and corporate rates, pushed through medical and family leave protection, and created Americorps. (Somehow with much larger majorities, 2009 Ds managed to do a lot less.)

You were in what grade that year?

I can't think of any institution in the US that deserves more shaking up than the Senate, and find yours, wagster's, and HankP's reverence for it mystifying.

Not reverence, just memory

(#206567)

Submitted by HankP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:42pm.

would you have liked to see SS privatized in 2004? Because if you remove all restraints to simple majority rule, you'll see that and a lot more the next time the GOP gets a simple majority in both houses.

I blame it all on the Internet

Hee.

(#206722)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:40am.

No, that's not really what would have happened. Bush never proposed anything; he just wanted the Dems to take the fall for it.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Of course he proposed something

(#206726)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 5:13am.

LINK

I blame it all on the Internet

There never was anything resembling a bill.

(#206727)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 5:19am.

Just Dubya humping shelves full of IOUs, trying to cause the financial panic early.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I'd still take it

(#206696)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:00pm.

The process is either right or wrong regardless of the outcome. 218 House members + 50 Senators + Biden + Obama should = a federal law.

Of course outcomes matter

(#206698)

Submitted by HankP on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:11pm.

this isn't some abstract philosophical argument.

I blame it all on the Internet

It most certainly is

(#206699)

Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:17pm.

Here's all you need to know about philosophy:

Mill was an idiot. Kant had the right idea, but the wrong conclusions. Rawls, FTW.

You should be able to draw up the rules of the Senate and agree on them without knowing which party will be in the majority. If you can't, then the word "rules" is meaningless. You might as well join the First Temple of Guerrisieme.

Um, that's my point

(#206708)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:16am.

if you read what I wrote, it was that I'm not proposing radically changing the rules because they served when the Dems were in the minority and will serve in the future when they're in the minority again. There are plenty of tools the Dems could use to pass stuff now if they had the balls to use them, changing the rules won't affect the fear of representatives who are afraid to take a stand or threaten their political donors. That's being consistent.

Rawls is interesting but bases his thought experiments on easily disprovable assertions. In other words, people don't behave the way he says they do.

I blame it all on the Internet

That's at least tenable

(#206730)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 10:13am.

However, you'd have to tell me why you believe that 60 senators is the magic cutoff. Why not 67 or 75?

51 suits me just fine. The Senate already gives disproportionate influence to small states and rural areas, it doesn't need to give even more influence to those places by way of the filibuster.

There is no good reason to be for anything other than 51 votes to get anything done in the Senate unless you're afraid of what the other party will do when they're in power. Elections should matter. Right now all they mean is that the party given the mandate to implement their platform is stopped by the opposition...and then returned to power in the next election because the voters didn't get what they voted for. That is a consequence of our institutionalized two-party system and idiot voters, but that's a different discussion for a different day.

Because that's the way it was designed?

(#206789)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 3:12pm.

You could ask why the Senate has such a disproportionate weighting for small states too. It was part of the design to prevent the tyranny of the majority - in other words a representative (but not strictly by population) republic. The filibuster rules aren't technically part of that, but they do adhere to its spirit. The government wasn't designed to move quickly unless it was a true emergency.

Now the entire design was predicated on an informed, politically active public which may or may not exist.

I'm aware of how these things swing back and forth, I guess I'm more concerned about allowing the excess of my political opponents than I am about making it easier for my political allies. As I said, they have plenty of tools, they're just afraid to use them.

I blame it all on the Internet

That doesn't answer my question

(#206831)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 8:24pm.

Why 60? Why not 67?

Actually the 1st Senate had no provision for a filibuster. Cloture took form of a simple majority. It was eliminated quickly thereafter because it was unnecessary. And furthermore, it was the House that had the ability to filibuster until the mid 1800s.

I agree that the Senate should serve to consider more broadly the bills passed the House, but when a majority of Senators sign off, the bill should be law. Perhaps there should be rules for how long a bill must sit before the Senate can pass it. What we have now is effectively a 60-vote requirement for any and all business before the Senate.

No, we don't

(#206842)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 11:23pm.

the majority could overrule the cloture rule if they had the political courage to do so, but they don't. Mostly because they don't want to set a precedent that the GOP could use next time they're in the majority.

I blame it all on the Internet

You are very confusing

(#206843)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 11:40pm.

the majority could overrule the cloture rule if they had the political courage to do so, but they don't.

My opinion is that they want there to be a 60 vote rule so that they can pretend to be for bills they don't really care for and then use the Republican obstructionism as a way out. Do you really think the Evan Bayh's of the world want to get rid of the filibuster? It isn't that they don't have political will, they don't have the will at all; they don't have a problem with the current system.

Mostly because they don't want to set a precedent that the GOP could use next time they're in the majority.

See above. But this isn't even a good objection. The Republicans will do what is best for the Republicans. They aren't about to pull punches because the Democrats were nice to them when they were in the minority. This has always been one thing I strongly respect and admire about the Republican Party. They get bills they want passed and keep their members in line.

When Republicans are in power, they get it done. When Democrats are in power, nothing gets done.

No, the Republicans didn't

(#206844)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 11:49pm.

they talked about a nuclear option as a negotiating point, but they weren't willing to actually go ahead and do so. Next time they get a majority, maybe they will. But the people who have been around for a while and have memories know that things can change from election to election. They weren't willing to set that precedent.

You're far more confusing, by the way. You think the current Senate isn't democratic enough but you want to go back to having them appointed by the state legislatures? How responsive to public opinion do you think they'll be then?

I blame it all on the Internet

They didn't have to.

(#206846)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:56am.

The Dems folded.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Er, no.

(#206794)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 3:21pm.

The entire design was predicated on a lack of political parties, a concept which was discarded within five years of adoption.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Er, yes

(#206805)

Submitted by HankP on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 3:52pm.

the design was meant to be less representative than the House, and was specifically designed to slow down and cool the popular passions of the time - political parties or no political parties. They had federalists and anti-federalists back then, while they weren't formal parties they certainly voted similarly to the way political parties do.

I blame it all on the Internet

Yes, I'm aware of what it was for.

(#206821)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 7:14pm.

But it was designed very much in the context of a dislike for political parties, as such.

This puts aside the fact that a parliamentary party system, such as the one we have now, was technologically impossible back then, so it's hardly surprising that the institution has become actively sclerotic, rather than merely inertial.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Federalist #62

(#206814)

Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 5:33pm.

If one is actually interested in the words of one who helped create the institution in an age where deconstructionist arguments aren't mocked out of existence as a routine exercise, of course.*

* Obviously, the direct election of Senators after the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 has mooted part of Madison's discussion.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

17 was a mistake -nt

(#206820)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 7:02pm.

+1

(#206832)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 8:28pm.

Now the Judiciary is the only check on Federal power, and they've done a pretty crappy job of it.

3rd grade

(#206564)

Submitted by stinerman on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:17pm.

That was at good old Gilbert T. Nolley elementary school in what is now called New Franklin, OH.

To answer your other questions, the reason why we have to follow the Senate rules is because they're the rules. Change them in January of 2011. The Democrats should have thought of changing the rules when the the 111th Congress convened.

Of course we all know that doesn't matter. There aren't 51 votes to eliminate the need for cloture votes. The arcane rules of the Senate give individual Senators (especially moderates) lots of power. In a sane system without the filibuster Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, and Joe Lieberman would be afterthoughts.

When Udall makes his motion in January of 2011, I guarantee you the rules won't change a lick. There simply aren't the votes in the Senate right now to eliminate the filibuster ore even reform it as Harkin has proposed (60 for cloture, then 57, then 54, then 51).

We voters will need to start putting process reform front and center when voting for candidates. I'd happily give the Republicans a majority in the next congress to remove the filibuster once and for all.

I gotta go with this one.

(#206561)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:16pm.

At some point, it's time to be done.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The parliamentary rules

(#206490)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:35am.

Heaven forfend! Majority rule would be installed in a democracy.

Are we in primary school here? 'The rules'? In the face of R obstructionism and Lieberman bad-faith negotiations?

HCR is a WEE bit more important than the parliamentarian's judgment that the filibuster can only be removed at the START of a legislative session, but NEVER in the MIDDLE.

COunt me as unworried that the Senate is somehow going to get worse with fewer of its customs than it already is... as Shelby's hold on all nominations continues.

Side-car reconciliation is available now.

(#206466)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:14pm.

Why wouldn't Obama want to use it? Why wouldn't he push for it? Is Rahm really unable to get 51 Senate votes to remove the excise tax and pass HCR? Why is Obama still pursuing bi-partisanship?

Maybe your answer will also explain why the Gang of Six, Lieberman, and Nelson were able to write HCR.

It's time for you to revise this 'Obama was forced into everything by structural features beyond his control he's not magic you stupid lefties!'

It's just not very up-to-date.

You're too up-to-date

(#206470)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:41pm.

You're anticipating news.

Has Obama abjured sidecar reconciliation? If so, I missed it.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

He's put it on the back-burner

(#206474)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:01pm.

It's after jobs. Maybe after financial regulation. He's doing nothing to get the process rolling.

There's an April deadline for reconciliation on the Senate bill. Why do you think people who have kept silent are starting to moan?

There's the 11 dimensional chess theory and then there's ...

Look, Obama's obviously putting HCR at risk right now.

If he cared more about passing the Senate bill with some changes vs. his transformational political rep. he and his admin. would be working on reconciliation currently, vs. talking to Republicans in a show of bi-partisanship.

You don't need any Rs at this pt. to pass HCR. If that's what's important to you.

If you're right...

(#206483)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:37pm.

I'll moan as loudly as you will, but I think there's a chance this is a pivot to give some space for the Blue Dogs, who I worry about more than the liberals.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

11 dimensional chess

(#206491)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:38am.

While he's explicitly saying he's willing to narrow the scope of HCR in order to gain bipartisan support.

But you're willing to moan after the fact, while criticizing the left flank. That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm criticizing

(#206503)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:56am.

Everyone who's not signing on the line.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

The median voter will follow leadership

(#206455)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 9:10pm.

It's pretty embarrassing you're still pushing leadership failure apologetics of the form 'you lefty dreamers thought Obama had magical powers'. That's so summer 2009.

What's been unmasked since is a POTUS whose core principles are staying above the fray while securing a post-partisan legacy.

How many D Senators and House Ds who actually want HCR have criticized Obama's hands-off approach?

There are a lot of non-magical powers not exercised -- re: reconciliation, excessive bipartisanship, bully pulpit, etc. I'm not going to bother listing them, we've been through this before.

Structural challenges are present of course and a given.

But you don't stick with a plan this long when it's obviously failing unless your core principles conflict with actually passing decent HCR.

Obviously failing?

(#206463)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:01pm.

Again, we got to 60. As the cliche goes, the ball is on the 1-yard line. It didn't get there by accident.

Sometimes I wonder what success would look like for you. Obama says he'll veto legislation without a public option, and the moderates say "good, we didn't want to take such a tough vote anyway, and this is an excellent excuse for us to ditch the bill."

Would that make you say "goshdarn, that's great, I've got a President who's got my back!"

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

A good bill

(#206467)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:28pm.

Gang of 6 disbanded after 3 weeks. Baucus told to get his bill in line with other Senate committees, including Ted Kennedy's, bipartisanship over. Conrad hit hard by party leadership, including DSCC.

House passes bill backed by WH and gets robust PO, instead of being forced, tooth-and-nail, by outside groups to get a weakened version.

Senate passes bill with threat of nuclear option, reconciliation on non-regulatory part of HCR, and maybe a single news report of pressure on 'centrist' Ds by Obama admin. behind the scenes. Obama uses bully pulpit against excise tax, for 250k over tax, and for PO or expansion of medicare.

Let's remember that two days before the Senate bill was passed Reid was considering a PO or an expansion of medicare ... until the WH told him to cave. According to you, Reid just couldn't count and Rahm could.

Anyway, the fantasy continues, we'd then have aggressive negotiating between House and Senate where the WH comes down more on side of House.

Of course you know all this was *impossible* and that the only reason the WH didn't go for it is b/c they knew they couldn't get it and were just being realistic (stupid dreamer lefties!).

Nevermind that doesn't explain past events very well and doesn't explain the current state of play at all. But hey, if DC establishment suck-ups wrote it in the newspapers months ago, it must still be true.

To repeat for the millionth time...

(#206469)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:34pm.

I don't know what's possible. Only you do. I just don't know how.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Didn't JFK have a quote about that

(#206477)

Submitted by stillnotking on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:15pm.

The problem is that there really is no such thing as the Democratic Party. There are just a bunch of Congressmen with Ds after their names.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

You don't know the possibilities you just know the realities.

(#206473)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:53pm.

Same difference, wags.

Big difference

(#206480)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:25pm.

Talking about the structural pressures politicians are under is verifiable.

Speculating that a certain strategy would make Senators fold is just that... baseless speculation. You're not privy to private conversations, or inner states of mind.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

We have past evidence of how parties dealt with structural

(#206492)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:51am.

pressures. Rs did twice as much with half the resources.

I don't claim all of my suggestions above are great moves, but some of them could've been tried and the fact that they were off the table altogether was political malpractice.

Further the process itself spoke to many possibilities -- I saw people like Schumer and Harkin and Pelosi suggesting different strategies, trying to play some hardball, and push HCR in the right direction in the midst of a leadership vacuum. E.g. they wanted to get reconciliation on the table, wanted to pursue a bifurcated strategy if people wouldn't shape up.

The WH did not have their back, had no political courage, and just let this baby stink all the way back to where the unions couldn't support it b/c it gave them nothing but a new tax on their middle class members.

That was my read anyway, and yours has been cast in serious doubt.

There are no structural reasons whatsoever forcing Obama to appeal to Republicans to pass HCR right now, to place it low on his priorities, and to remove himself from House/Senate negotiations.

Those are his political preferences.

Sometimes I think

(#206504)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:09am.

You use your 11 dimensional chess schtick because you don't want to think of the sausage-making.

E.g. they wanted to get reconciliation on the table, wanted to pursue a bifurcated strategy if people wouldn't shape up.

If you're a Senate moderate and you want to maintain your influence, what do you do? You say "Harry, I'll give you 60 for the main bill, but you've got to promise me there won't be a reconciliation sidecar." Now, might this be worth breaking a promise? Sure, but there's independent actors here, and costs associated with strategies. That's why I'm hesitant to criticize the leadership strategies from Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I know what I don't know.

There are no structural reasons whatsoever forcing Obama to appeal to Republicans to pass HCR right now, to place it low on his priorities, and to remove himself from House/Senate negotiations.

Do you have a whip count in the House? You seem to be assuming it's the liberals that are the only impediment... how about the Stupak crowd? How about the Blue Dogs? Maybe passing a house bill is impossible without cover. Know what you don't know.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Of course I don't 'know' with any high degree of certainty

(#206510)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:51am.

but your refusal to ditch the more and more improbable hypothesis that Obama is getting as good health care reform as he can given the system must be based on some sort of odd faith in Obama.

IMO the smart bet here is that the same guy who put on a spending freeze values his overarching post-partisanship political strategy more than good health care reform.

As for the current HCR sticking pts., the reporting has been consistent on the excise tax and maybe a few other small things being the main impediment to the House passing the Senate bill. Pelosi has said she's ready.

No one who's shown interest in passing health care reform is asking the president to go give the centrists cover by reaching his hand out again to the GOP. The obvious way forward is reconciliation.

The pivot idea I regard as fairly wild, but typical speculation by Democrats.

When leadership overtly acts like they're ignoring the base's basic standards, smart Ds dream up reasons why it must be so or why we should sit back and wait for the magic to unfold.

This stopped being reasonable the better part of a year ago, IMO, and just isn't rational at this pt.

Unable or unwilling

(#206484)

Submitted by stillnotking on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:40pm.

the outcome is the same. A Democratic Congress will not pass even the least controversial liberal agenda items. That's the bottom line.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

That's a heck of an assertion.

(#206450)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:44pm.

Obama was plainly pushing Baucus to wind up negotiations as early as possible.

I . . . don't remember that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember ever thinking, "Obama's got my back on this one."

I don't think it's a good idea to be reinforcing righty talking points regarding Obama's purported Messianic qualities.

Anyways, why are we assuming that the 60 vote thing is set in permanent stone? Why did Democrats retain the filibuster? Why are they set to do so again in January?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

There were deadlines after deadlines

(#206460)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 9:37pm.

That Obama made and Congress broke. Baucus is Chairman of finance, you know, that gives him a certain power. And there were lots of news reports about the pressure Baucus was under.

As for the filibuster, I would be pleased to have the Dems get rid of it. In January 2009, this wasn't even on the radar screen though. And in January 2011, I'm not sure the votes are there. First of all, the majority will be lesser. The moderates certainly won't want to give up their power, and there are probably enough Senate proceduralists (Byrd and Feingold for starters) to join with Republicans and scotch the plan.

I don't think it's a good idea to be reinforcing righty talking points regarding Obama's purported Messianic qualities.

Dude, you're the one that seems to think Obama could get the moderates in line with a snap of his fingers. Not too reality-based.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

You need to update your line on this

(#206464)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:04pm.

You're just behind the times -- 'snap his fingers'?

You've read the papers since Scott Brown won and know Obama dropped HCR like a hot potato once reconciliation might have to be used. I guess leading or even being involved is now considered 'magical'.

How could anyone expect the Obama admin. to use the unseemly and non-post-partisan tactic of reconciliation? What is he, a magician?

You may have also read about House and Senate Ds (Franken, Brown, etc) -- you know the ones who actually want HCR -- asking the Obama admin. for more leadership. Guess they're just not 'reality based', but stupid dreamer leftists ... who've held their tongues during the entire process.

The thing about these recent events is that they show the dynamics behind the scenes all along. No one's changed their core principles on this -- events that have simply exposed the WH's role all along.

The Obama admin. doesn't care whether they sign a House or Senate bill or something worse. It just has to have lots of 'bi-partisan' elements to the process and count as HCR reform.

You were on the verge of updating, but then forgot or something.

Finally, Des. is right. You're stooping to using right-wing talking pts. -- 'The One' -- to attack those you disagree with.

Yes, update your line

(#206468)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:29pm.

You've read the papers since Scott Brown won and know Obama dropped HCR like a hot potato once reconciliation might have to be used.

Right, that's why he mentioned it in the State of the Union. And the caucus meeting with the Republicans. And the caucus meeting with the Democrats. And in town halls. And why he's calling for a televised event with Republicans on it. Like a hot potato.

How could anyone expect the Obama admin. to use the unseemly and non-post-partisan tactic of reconciliation? What is he, a magician?

Read my response to Hank please. Reconciliation alone would give us a mere shadow of real HCR.

You may have also read about House and Senate Ds (Franken, Brown, etc) -- you know the ones who actually want HCR

You've read me, you know I was frustrated at the lack of direction from the WH after Brown too. But now that the President has actually called a play, I'm willing to sit back and check out the execution, as I said in my initial comment. (Parenthetically, I take my hat off to your soul-reading capabilities.)

The Obama admin. doesn't care whether they sign a House or Senate bill or something worse. It just has to have lots of 'bi-partisan' elements to the process and count as HCR reform.

Again, you can't really argue with a mind-reader.

Finally, Des. is right. You're stooping to using right-wing talking pts. -- 'The One' -- to attack those you disagree with.

I'm quite open to being criticized for not being a team player, but not by a guy that has spent the last few months trashing a Democratic President who's trying to bring about perhaps the most important Democratic ideal -- expanded health coverage -- because he didn't get everything he wanted in the bill.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Who's line is it anyway?

(#206472)

Submitted by catchy on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:51pm.

All I know is my line's been reinforced, while yours makes less sense than ever.

why he's calling for a televised event with Republicans on it.

He's talking. he's doing nothing behind the scenes, per recent grumblings of to-date very solid team players.

And what Obama's talking about is 'reducing the scope' of HCR to get more bipartisan support.

Sorry if after the continued and total centrism uber alles in this process I don't 'sit back' and wait for the 11 dimensional chess to happen again. Really, I think at some pt. you're going to have to call a spade a spade. Maybe consider pressuring Obama from his left flank? Just an idea.

Reconciliation alone would give us a mere shadow of real HCR.

Reconciliation is available right now to remove the excise tax and the House will pass the Senate bill.

nevermind that a two-part strategy by Harkin and Schumer was floated months ago -- pass the regulatory framework via a 60 vote strategy and the PO and funding through reconciliation.

I wonder why that wasn't ever pursued or on the table even after the Gang of six completely fell apart and Conrad, nelson, and Lieberman wandered around threatening to filibuster their own party's central legislation with no push-back from the WH?

You're sure that Harkin and Shumer 'couldn't count', but Rahm could.

the last few months trashing a Democratic President

But I trashed him for not being true to liberal principles! I didn't trash him w. right wing talking pts. BIG difference, buddy!

One's called 'pressure from the left flank', the other's called 'centrism on drugs'.

Let's get one thing straight

(#206486)

Submitted by Wagster on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:46pm.

I never mocked him as The One or a Messiah. This is just a figment of your Lefty Dreamer imaginations. I mocked you guys for thinking he had superpowers he wasn't using. As you say, big difference buddy.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

I don't agree that there's a difference.

(#206526)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:43pm.

It's the same marginalization of opponents by accusing them of having non-rational expectations. The usual right-wing "DFHs are non-rational because they're DFHs" frame. You shouldn't reinforce it, and you really shouldn't defend reinforcing it after being called on it.

Anyways, I'll look forward to the discussion of how this was all the lefties' fault after the Obama 2012 "screw you DFHs" SOTU, leading up to the Palin Presidency.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Sorry, Desi

(#206539)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:11pm.

That's just pathetic. If I think you have non-rational expectations I'm going to say it, and no victimization theory will dissuade me. Likewise, if you think I have non-rational expectations about Obama you can call me on it.

I'm not part of any weird tribal left-wing blood oath compact, okay? Just as you certainly don't seem to be part of any Democratic Party compact.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

I think they're separate

(#206534)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:32pm.

This is my take (mostly borrowed from john Emerson):

The D party has a 10-20% or so 'wonk demographic' -- well-educated, interested, and active political types who follow policy and procedure. They read reasonable and smart people like Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Steve Benen, the TNR guys, all the left-of-center Washington reporters on TV, etc.

These media guys are partially weenies who have no idea how to negotiate, how public opinion is shaped and framed, and partly just DC establishment suck-ups.

The wonk demographic who listens to them is well-meaning, however, and doesn't wish to make the best the enemy of the good. They base their judgments on what's politically achievable from these smart left-leaning guys and downgrade their expectations accordingly.

That's roughly where I place wagster.

The wonk demographic isn't w/out blame tho, since their gullibility is partly b/c they hope Obama is a great guy who probably leans reasonably liberal and who's just fighting a hugely bad system and winning as best he can.

What else but 'the system' could explain the lack of meaningful action on health care, the financial sector, civil liberties, etc.?

IMO that doesn't fit the observable facts at all, but that view is not the same type of mocking that goes on often on the right. Many on the right aren't interested in defending the good from the best in any way, just in trashing their opponents with talking pts.

That was exactly my point.

(#206536)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:46pm.

We've gone from a serious disagreement on politics and policy to adoption of right-wing frames to demonize the DFHs.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

They're happy to discuss politics and policy all day

(#206537)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:10pm.

They're the wonk demographic.

And people insult each other a little when disagreeing. I called em 'weenies', 'gullible' and said they didn't know how to negotiate.

I think that's just give-and-take.

If or when these people put all the blame on the left, then you can say it's factless demonization.

But I don't think it's true of the wonk demographic -- like wagster, they're evenhandedly spreading around the blame. Above all, they're fair-minded.

Heh.

(#206538)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:23pm.

Wow, we really have, as DFHs, internalized the idea that we deserve to have ten times the criticism of the centrists. Remember, Wags blamed us for HCR stalling even when it was Stupak. And wished fire and brimstone down upon us. And when it fails due to Obama's lack of interest in pushing it, then it'll be our fault again.

Yglesias gets something right that Klein and the others don't. Conservatism is malign. When you compromise with conservatives, you create something which is more malign than when you started. Sometimes, you can get away with that, but most of the time you can't. And if you start from this happy fair-minded place, what you're really doing is just including more "malign" in your final product.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

You've internalized it....

(#206621)

Submitted by Bernard Guerrero on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:55pm.

...because it's true. :^)

-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009

Average unemployment:

(#206723)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:43am.

Dem admins: 5.1%
Repub admins: 6.75%

I know, I know, feature, not a bug.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

We disagree right now

(#206542)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:50pm.

I think HCR is stalling b/c Obama backed and enabled centrist Senators to completely write HCR and it's unacceptable to the left wing generally, where their only strong representation is in the House. This isn't about Stupak. Have you noticed no one's mentioning Stupak but you?

It could be fixed by reconciliation, but that would ruffle feathers in the Senate and Obama doesn't like the idea of 'ramming' HCR through.

Myself, I place 0% of the blame on unions and their house supporters, who have continually compromised and are even willing to let go of the public option -- my read is that they expect nothing except to represent their members, which means no new taxes on them for nothing in return.

I place 95% of the blame on Conserva Ds and the WH, who expect the House to simply sign a bill they didn't write and that screws their union support. That's apparently the deal, or comprehensive HCR can die.

I place 5% on the Rs who continue to be trouble-makers, but let's face it, they were given an open invitation to do so and it's not really their fault someone set them a place at the grown-ups table.

Wags distributes the blame differently, but I think eventually our positions will align more. It is difficult to tell what's going on, but I don't think the obfuscation approach from the WH can mask what's going on indefinitely.

Yes.

(#206553)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:44pm.

I've noticed that nobody mentions Stupak but me.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

For the record

(#206547)

Submitted by Wagster on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 6:45pm.

My wild-assed guess is that it's both Blue Dogs/Stupakites AND liberals who are the problem. If it was just one or the other, I don't think Barney Frank would have been moved to throw his hands in the air and declare the matter hopeless.

As for blame, I'd go with 60% Republicans, 20% Moderate Ds in congress, 10% Liberals Ds in general, and 10% Desi specifically.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

The WH isn't on your list

(#206555)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:49pm.

a slip, intentional slip, your slip is showing?

Admit it -- after you get back from Africa you're going to apply for a job at the WPost.

Catchy, you're pretty outspoken on this issue.

(#206577)

Submitted by Jordan on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:28am.

Have you listed what you think the WH has done wrong, or could you whip up a diary or something? It's been a long time since I got to argue with you. Also, I haven't been the best Prez watcher for the past 10 months or so, wondering what I've missed. I'm sure there's a lot.

Strongly Worded Letters to the President Party over at catchy's everyone!

Thank you! Vote Republican!

You missed your chance to argue with me

(#206643)

Submitted by catchy on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 1:30pm.

when I was defending Crash.

But srsly, there are WH criticisms in this open diary. e.g. http://theforvm.org/diary/model-62/well-its-monday-open-thread#comment-206466

I knew it! -nt-

(#206554)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:47pm.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Fair enough!

(#206493)

Submitted by catchy on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:53am.

I take it back. There's a definite difference. My apologies.

I still think the criticism sucks tho!!

Nodding in Sad Agreement With Catchy....NT

(#206443)

Submitted by Traveller on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:30pm.

Traveller

But remember,

(#206437)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:45pm.

it's the lefties' fault that HCR didn't pass.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The good war.

(#206411)

Submitted by mmghosh on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:37pm.

William Shawcross

In the years since Saddam's overthrow tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed. Most of them were victims of the brutal confrontation between Sunni and Shia extremists, in particular al-Qaida and the agents of Iran. The woefully inadequate post-invasion planning by the coalition added to the chaos. Yet the seeds of this conflict were sown by the devastation wrought by Saddam's despotism.

Despite the continuing vicious attacks of suicide bombers, Iraq is now bravely inching towards a much more open society. Indeed, on many measures it is one of the freest countries in the Arab world.

Overall, violence is much reduced and opinion polls show that support for democracy is overwhelming. New elections with many competing parties are to be held this year. The dinar is strong, the economy is growing. The Iraqis I know say they have hope for the future, and they thank Blair and Bush for that.

Heh.

(#206422)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:13pm.

A man wrote that article.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Iraq was a botulinic can of tomatoes. Bush43 opened the can.

(#206412)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:47pm.

The ethnic and religious unrest in Iraq was well-understood from history. The Shiite-Sunni split begins with the murder of Ali -- in Iraq.

Iraq is not inching toward an open society. It is inching toward the Balkans.

Most Iraqis tend to see their identity in nationalistic,

(#206543)

Submitted by AndrewSshi on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 5:35pm.

Not ethno-sectarian terms.

The great problem is that so many of the major Iraqi political parties who rode in on American tanks do see things in ethno-sectarian terms. It's not just Dawa and the Supreme Council, either, the Iraqi Islamic Party is an Iraqi spin-off of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Which leads into two great questions whose answers I will every know.

In 2002, when it was clear that the U.S. was intent on toppling the Ba'ath Party, out of the U.S. government, the Tikriti Ba'athists, and an ex-video store clerk, the one of these three that actually made a clear post-invasion plan was... the ex-video store clerk. Hussein didn't appear to have plans beyond, "Fedayeen hit and run attacks," and the Bush Administration didn't have plans beyond, "Overthrow the government and then peace and democracy break out." It was Zarqawi who started planting cells throughout central Iraq in 2002. How was Zarqawi the only one who had a strong handle on things?

The other question is to how the folks at PNAC and associates didn't realize that so many of the Iraqi exile groups had things like "Islamic Revolution" in their name and had headquarters in and took paychecks from the Islamic Republic of Iran. I mean, I can understand a naturally uncurious man like GW himself not tweaking to that, but there had to have been *someone* in the administration who realized that several of the parties that were clamoring for an overthrow of Hussein were Iranian proxies.

That pretty much deserves a diary of its own

(#206544)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 5:49pm.

Look, Iraqi identity was forged in the Iraq/Iran War. Once the Baath regime broke, that identity was broken.

Kurds view themselves as Iraqis only in the sense they are Iraqi Kurds.

As I said, let me write a longer diary. Simply put, you're mistaken, pretty much all the way down the line, but you're asking excellent questions.

So why is it that in poll after poll

(#206545)

Submitted by AndrewSshi on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 5:57pm.

When Iraqis are asked if they see their identity in ethno-sectarian terms or national terms, they indicate that they think of themselves as Iraqi first (except for the Kurds)? I mean, I know that taking polls in post-Ba'ath Iraq is difficult, but most of these things are pretty consistent.

As for the second set of questions in my last, it continuously baffles me, and I'd love to read a diary with your thoughts.

Maybe it's the wrong question

(#206595)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:28am.

Maybe the problem isn't that they don't think of themselves as Iraqis, it's that they don't think those other guys should be considered Iraqis.

I think you've pretty much hit it.

(#206724)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:45am.

Firstly, the Kurdish question is unsolvable, so that's awesome.

Secondly, I agree that the Sunnis and Shiites both view themselves as Iraqis. But their idea of what Iraq "is" is vastly different, and they seem to be willing to impose their views violently.

Finally, Iraq will never be as good a place for a woman to live as it was under Saddam in our lifetimes.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

I'm slogging away on my essay: short spoiler

(#206622)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:57pm.

There are as many definitions of Iraq as there are Iraqis. Yes, in some limited sense, they all consider themselves Iraqi. But Saddam tried to drive off this Iraqi-ness: he wanted them to think of themselves as "Arabs". Which of course annoys all the smaller ethnic entities, well represented in Iraq.