It's theoretically possible that 5 teams could finish tied for the Big 12 North title with 4-4 conference records. Ha! Scenario: Iowa State beats Colorado & Missouri; Kansas State loses to Missouri & Nebraska; Colorado beats Okie State & Nebraska; Kansas beats Nebraska, Texas & Missouri. http://espn.go.com/ncf...
The only seemingly implausible result there is Kansas over Texas. But even if the Jayhawks lose that one, if all the other results happen, we'd still have four 4-4 teams tied for first. Personally I hope Colorado wins out and Kansas State loses out (in which case the Buffaloes are Big 12 North champs), but barring that, this would be my preferred outcome. :)
- Brendan Loy
Stewart Mandel says BYU now has a legit title shot, writes: "Some will instinctively downplay BYU's 14-13 upset due to Heisman winner Sam Bradford's shoulder injury. Those people probably did not watch the game." - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009...
Stewart Mandel is one of my favorite sports columnists. He doesn't just parrot CW, but actually has original thoughts, and thinks about issues in a serious way. He also isn't a complete idiot when it comes to understanding how the BCS works, as 99% of sports commentators and columnists are. I disagree with him sometimes, but his arguments are never outright stupid, even when I think they're wrong. And they're usually right.
- Brendan Loy
Perhaps most importantly, he has the distressingly rare ability to look beyond today's situation (e.g., what the polls presently say, etc.) and analyze potential implications of current events as they relate to future events that COULD potentially happen in the future, even if those events seem unlikely. For instance, the majority of commentators aren't dismissing BYU's title bid right...
more...
- Brendan Loy
An example of this startling inability in most sports commentators is how long it took for folks recognize that Kansas had a real shot at the national title game in 2007, even though their ranking was initially so low. Most commentators seemed not to understand the obvious fact that, if the Jayhawks kept winning, they would inevitably rise further and further in the polls, leapfrogging...
more...
- Brendan Loy
Okay, here's the question I've been puzzling over since I first installed this plugin (and one that would allow me to solve my other issue below, too). Which specific parts of the plugin source code do I need to edit in order to subtract 6 hours from the timestamp on FriendFeed-imported posts -- but NOT Twitter-imported posts -- thus effectively...
...converting the posts from GMT to MDT, without causing the import engine to get confused and think the post in question hasn't been imported yet, thus resulting in endless duplication of each post? (I gather this a possibility because, when I manually change the timestamp, it will then re-import the item with the old timestamp.)
- Brendan Loy
Brendan; good question! If you select 'Twitter Search' as the feed type you can use any variety or combination of Twitter Advanced Search from http://search.twitter.com/advance...
- Bob Hitching
You can also construct Advanced Search queries in this way to import retweets, tweets of a particular language, or tweets near a particular location, etc. - all the Twitter Advanced Search goodness.
- Bob Hitching
Is that a feature in the new version? I'm still using 1.1.6, and am loath to upgrade because I've made a bunch of changes to the code in order to tweak the plugin for my particular purposes. But the Twitter Search feature sounds great, so maybe I'll have to upgrade and try to re-create my tweaks. :) Thanks!
- Brendan Loy
Question: if I use the Twitter Search feed type, can I still exclude tweets that START with @someone, but NOT exclude tweets that INCLUDE @someone later in the tweet (just not at the beginning)? I don't see a Twitter Advanced Search option for that, so I think I would still be relying on Fresh From's "Exclude @replies from Twitter" feature, and I'm wondering if that will still work if I'm using the Twitter Search feed type.
- Brendan Loy
Argh, I realized I can do it in 1.1.6, and it almost works, except... tweets from my Twitter search stream post in the correct time zone, whereas the FriendFeed items continue to post in GMT, as they always have. This is a problem because I've switched my whole blog to GMT in order to avoid the FF posts being out of order. But if I use the Twitter Search stream, now the *Twitter* posts are out of order!! Argh.
- Brendan Loy
BREAKING NEWS: World economic meltdown, global war on terror, Iranian uprising, swine flu pandemic all cancelled after Matt Drudge discovers stray unflattering picture of Barack Obama apparently glancing at a girl in a red dress. EVERYBODY PANIC http://drudgereport.com/#drudgefail#panic
LOL Brendan, come on! First, there's no longer a War on Terror, if there ever was one. Second, the economy is getting better just ask an administration official, Ahmedinejad won the election fair and square, and swine flu is a myth inspired to scare people. Get it right!
- Melissa
Heh. :) On an unrelated note, Nicolas Sarkozy looks like Mr. Bean.
- Brendan Loy
"Transformers 2" estimated at $201M for five-day opening, second all-time to The Dark Knight's $204M. If it had opened on a Friday, I think it would have broken the $158M three-day record. This is a movie that everyone was going to see once on its opening weekend (whether that was 3 or 4 or 5 days), but nobody was going to see twice. - http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/
Doubtful. Apparently this has been Sanford's MO in the past, only now he is under more scrutiny. But his staff's immediate responses to inquiries were flatfooted, so they kind of deserve the OMG!! reactions.
- John P.
Yeah, having running off to argentina to rendezvous with his mistress wasn't fishy at all...
- David K.
You say that like the story of Sanford's affair broke simultaneously with the story of his unknown whereabouts. What's your point exactly?
- John P.
My point is that you were (yet again) wrong. Something smelled from the get go about the whole situation. Even if an affair hadn't been involved its STILL messed up that he randomly dissapears and the Lt. Gov doesn't even know he is technically in charge.
- David K.
John, I think you need to concede this one. It's a minor point, admittedly. But David speculated that there was "something REALLY fishy" going on, and you responded, "Doubtful." It turns out, David was right, and you were wrong. The fact that David didn't KNOW that for certain at the time (because, as you say, the two pieces of news didn't break simultaneously) doesn't negate the fact...
more...
- Brendan Loy
David's and your speculation obviously turned out to be true, but sarcastically saying "Yeah, having running off to argentina to rendezvous with his mistress wasn't fishy at all" presumes that I knew about the rendezvous when I poo-poohed his speculation and that I therefore thought there was nothing fishy about having an affair, which is FALSE. Subject to that proviso, I happily concede that David was right for once (stopped clocks and all that) and I was wrong, as I indicated in the other thread below.
- John P.
Well, I don't read David's "wasn't fishy at all" comment that way, but it profoundly doesn't matter. :)
- Brendan Loy
P.S. And can we start having these conversations on the blog version of my FriendFeed, please? :P
- Brendan Loy
I suppose Sanford deserves the benefit of the doubt as to his explanation that he told his staff he might go hiking on the Appalachian Trail and then changed his mind at the last minute, but it's still inexcusable that a governor's staff doesn't know his whereabouts when he's out of the country by himself.
- John P.
Personally, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on this. WHY was he in Buenos Aires (a notorious party city, no?) by himself for a week, incommunicado, over Father's Day weekend, his wife was unconcerned, etc. etc.? This is very fishy on a personal level. ... But also, yes, much more importantly, as you say, he's the chief executive of the state, and can't be disappearing for days at...
more...
- Brendan Loy
I didn't realize Buenos Aires is a notorious party city. If he had gone by himself to, say, Amsterdam, then that would obviously raise an eyebrow. But I can accept at face value his explanation of WHY -- that "he has taken adventure trips for years to unwind," wanted to "get out of the bubble" he was in, etc. -- because, again, there's nothing so far to indicate he was up to no good...
more...
- John P.
Maybe I'm wrong about Buenos Aires. I thought it was a party city, but I don't really know my South American vacations destinations that well. This is probably because hurricanes rarely hit there :)
- Brendan Loy
Um, yeah, never mind what I said above about the benefit of the doubt, accepting Sanford's explanation at face value, etc. I really only meant the last sentence of my previous comment!
- John P.
Oops #2: One issue, though: it seems to be fetching and posting hundreds of copies of the same tweet to my blog. Can you tell me how to fix that? I'm running WP 2.7, version 1.1.7 of your plugin, and it's set up to post single tweets rather than a digest.
Are you running Wordbook by chance? I had a similar issue -- not "hundreds of copies," but it did start posting duplicates right after I installed Wordbook.
- Brendan Loy
Iranian blogger: "I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. ... All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye." - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_dai...
It's like "One Day More" from Les Mis, come to life: "Tomorrow we'll be far away, tomorrow is the judgment day, tomorrow we'll discover what our God in Heaven has in store..."
- Brendan Loy
from Bookmarklet
John McCain to start a war with North Korea!!! EVERYBODY PANIC!!! I knew that trigger-happy hothead would get us into trouble!!! What? It's the warship U.S.S. John McCain, acting at the direction of President Obama? Oh. Never mind. - http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Brendan says, way to go, neocons -- your belligerent, know-nothing, blame-Obama-first blather on Iran is making John Kerry look smart. John Kerry! http://www.nytimes.com/glogin....
McCain is a neocon now? That term has become next to meaningless. But it's somehow fitting that one failed presidential contender would lecture another failed presidential contender.
- John P.
McCain isn't a neocon so much as a hothead who always seems to think the best response is to say something "tough," shoot from the hip, etc., regardless of whether those responses actually make sense given the facts of the situation. But most of the commentators and intellectuals making similar statements are neoconservatives, I think. Anyway, I mostly said "neocon" because I didn't...
more...
- Brendan Loy
thanks for this wonderful script, i have just done the hack for default category and default tag for site wide support, will be looking at default category and default tag for each twitter user.
I've never liked letterman to begin with. I'm not even convinced the man has ever told a joke that was actually funny. John, you make a fair point in your last comment on the previous thread. I was assuming that the travel plans of the Palin's would be a more off the radar topic than it seems is actually the case. What is it with our culture and celebrity hunting anyway? In other news two cannibals were hanging out behind the circus eating clowns...
- Dane L.
I agree re Letterman. He may have been “edgy” back in the 80s, but he hasn’t said anything that funny in a long time, and IMO comes across more as just mean. I much prefer Conan of all the current late night hosts (although not everyone seems to appreciate his style of humor – my wife hates him). For example, I thought Conan’s joke about Palin the Hockey Mom not doing a good job...
more...
- John P.
Indeed. Not sure what to do about, it seems to be what sells... I missed the not guarding the crease joke... That's pretty good. Letterman just seems to be a grumpy insulting old asshole... To anyone that comes on the show. NBC made a very good call not hiring him back when they picked Leno. Leno isn't great but at least he isn't a moron.
- Dane L.
Wow, something Dane, John and I can all agree on, our dislike of Letterman brings us together :)
- David K.
I wonder if Palin will do his show now. I kinda doubt it, but imagine the ratings...
- John P.
Letterman's jokes were in poor taste, yes, but given that they were aimed at Bristol (not Willow), they're no worse than the comment by Palin's spokeswoman that "it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman." That insinuates that Dave is personally a pedophile, or at least a pervert. Palin gave up the moral high ground with that crack. - http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote...
As I wrote over on Facebook, it's still a joke in poor taste -- but it's a poor-taste joke of the sort that has been told by literally thousands of comics, including all the late-night biggies, since Bristol's pregnancy became headline news. Does that make it OK? Of course not; the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the joke is a separate issue from how widespread it is. But the...
more...
- Brendan Loy
Furthermore, the whole thrust of the Palins' condemnation of Letterman has been that he was talking about a FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL!!!!, so of course he needs to explain that, no, he wasn't, or at least that wasn't his intention. Again, it's perfectly legit to say that making sex jokes about an 18-year-old teen mom, who was thrust unwittingly into the public spotlight by her mother's...
more...
- Brendan Loy
Don’t be ridiculous, Brendan. The Palins have certainly taken issue with cracks made at their oldest daughter’s expense before. If you’re going to raise the “everybody else said it so it’s no big deal” defense (which I don’t necessarily agree with – I recall jokes by Conan, Leno, Tina Fey, etc. that referenced Bristol almost always being at Sarah Palin’s expense, not her children’s),...
more...
- John P.
He made the joke because he thought it was funny. And I don't think anyone who only knew what the Palins were doing from Letterman's joke (here after called everyone stupid enough to watch Letterman less the lunatics that produce / watch Fox News) thought for a nano second that he was referring to anyone but Bristol because if he isn't referring to Bristol then there is no argument for...
more...
- Dane L.
Letterman should apologize that he inadvertantly reffered to a 14 year old girl. As far as I'm concerned thats the only thing he should apologize for.
- David K.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, should apologize for dragging her daughter into the national spotlight like that. Of course she should also apologize for being an idiot too. That said, I think she has every right to be indignant when her children are insulted, although I think she is reacting in a foolish way, and I don't think Letterman (even though he's just not funny anymore) should stop telling jokes like that just because they hurt Sarah's feelings.
- David K.
Setting aside the faux-umbridge and manufactured outrage to quibbling on a technicality, sex with a pubescent female is not pedophilia. But regardless, all of this is clearly drummed up by people who don't know how humor works and/or need publicity.
- Anthony Citrano
All of this was indeed clearly drummed up by Letterman.
- John P.
But I have to say, I find the "of course he was talking about Bristol and not Willow" meme somewhat specious. Why? Putting aside that Bristol was home in Alaska so the joke logically could only have related to Willow, I don't find it hard to believe AT ALL that Letterman's ilk would think that right-wing "morals" run in right-wing families and that, in a bit of that "schadenfreude-based...
more...
- John P.
John, if you think he was talking about Willow you are an idiot. And if you think anyone outside of the masturbatory conservative echo chamber knew which members of the Palin family happen to be where than you are also an idiot. I didn't even know they were visiting NY until this fake controversy was brought up. And I still couldn't tell you which members of the family made the trip....
more...
- Dane L.
Then Letterman must be part of that "masturbatory conservative echo chamber" since he clearly knew Palin was in NY with one of her daughters and cared enough to try and humiliate them. FAIL
- John P.
And let me just add that the “fake controversy” meme cooked up by leftwing douchebags is easily the most retarded and indefensible rationalization of this whole affair. How far up your own ass is your head to think that a mother – yes, even a (GASP!) conservative politician – who responds (the NERVE!) to an ugly remark made by an obnoxious late-night comedian about either (a) her oldest...
more...
- John P.
Sorry, John, I didn't mean to confuse you about this. I don't give a shit about Letterman or Palin so I really don't give a shit about this entire thing. It's two people having an irrelevant squabble about something that is only relevant to them. Palin has a right to get pissed off Letterman has a right to make a lame joke and I have a right to not give a shit about it. And that's what...
more...
- Dane L.
To reiterate, there are merits for Palin being pissed off about it. But the whole damn thing doesn't matter. It's not a story and it's not important. That's the last I'm saying about this, because I've got better things to do.
- Dane L.
Fair enough, Dane. While I might quibble with the notion that this episode doesn't have larger cultural implications for, say, the issue of misogyny and when it's still deemed acceptable, I can't argue with the fact that it's unimportant compared to issues like health care. But for the reasons stated above, I absolutely disagree that only "an idiot" could think that Letterman could've...
more...
- John P.
Even simpler, we should have some group somewhere that tracks the GPS positions of the planes, don't even need to broadcast the black box data (although that would be nice).
- David K.
Tough to get GPS signals in caves though isn't it?
- David K.
Because you can't do it via radio. You would have to do it via satellite which would require a rather ridiculously expensive satellite network to accomplish. Tracking users of GPS wouldn't give you the granularity to know what it is you are tracking. It could be a boat running drugs or a 747 you can't tell.
- Dane L.
If they can track down individual cars using GPS (and even cellphones) I am fairly certain they are smart enough to track GPS signals.
- David K.
Yes, but they are not tracking that from the GPS satellite system. Lojack uses, I believe, a radio based system to transmit data to the police receiver and I'm not even sure it uses GPS at all. Things like OnStar use cellular networks for transmitting tracking data. Same with cellphones. Just because you saw them do it on TV doesn't mean you can actually do it. A GPS receiver is a...
more...
- Dane L.
Sorry but I really don't buy the fact that it would be that prohibitively expensive to add a repeating signal that sends out a planes GPS coordinates on a regular interval.
- David K.
Brendan wonders how Obama's tougher-than-Bush stance on North Korea will be shoehorned into the right wing's Obama-as-Neville-Chamberlain storyline. http://www.nytimes.com/2009....
I would expect the right wing to simply ignore it, just like the the left has ignored Obama's vindication of many of Bush's anti-terror policies that had supported the left wing's Bush-as-shredder-of-the-Constitution storyline.
- John P.
John, you're full of it. The left has not "ignored" Obama's adoption of some Bush policies. Not. At. All. There has been a robust, public, and often angry debate on the left about that very issue. Obama has come in for a lot of harsh criticism from civil libertarians on his own side of the aisle. Others have defended him on the basis that he is repudiating enough of Bush's policies that...
more...
- Brendan Loy
P.S. For my part, I will freely acknowledge that plenty of conservatives criticized Bush for being too soft on North Korea in his second term. I just wonder if they'll give Obama credit for upping the ante, if indeed he does so. (I concede it's too early to definitively say what he will or won't do, and I recognize that an article in the NYT is not going to be enough to convince your...
more...
- Brendan Loy
Then for my part, Brendan, I'll acknowledge that I’ve indeed seen Obama criticized by some on the left for his adoption of Bush policies, but you're deluding yourself if you think that has been the rule and not the exception. Rather, the rule has been to justify Obama's 180-degree turns on the incredibly weak ground that he's made substantive "changes" to those policies, which in fact...
more...
- John P.
In answer to your question about whether conservatives would give Obama credit if he follows through on a tough stance against North Korea, it depends very much on who you’re talking about. Sean Hannity and Ann Coutler? Probably not. I realize it’s convenient for liberals to use figures like Hannity and Coulter -- who might say that Obama is the "biologically and pigmentationally...
more...
- John P.
John, your word was "ignore." That's what I was responding to. Both the ones who criticize Obama, AND the ones who "justify Obama's 180-degree turns on [what you consider] incredibly weak ground" are counterexamples disproving your point, because neither of those groups are "ignoring" what he is doing. Rather, they are addressing the issue head-on, and the fact that you might disagree...
more...
- Brendan Loy
P.S. "biologically and pigmentationally impossible love-child of a gay marriage between Jimmy Carter and Neville Chamberlain" was intended as a bit of humor. I was not suggesting that your average conservative would say such a thing. Nor am I the type of individual who makes a habit of pretending that Hannity and Coulter are representative of the Right as a whole. Likewise, I'm sure you would never suggest that Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan speak for the Left in some way.
- Brendan Loy
P.P.S. Having said that, it is much more common (among ideologues on both sides) to see a commentator giving a member of the opposite party/ideology "credit when he does something [one] agrees with" than it is to see a commentator explaining in a coherent, defensible way how the isolated, creditworthy action fits in, or doesn't fit in, with the overall picture they paint of the person...
more...
- Brendan Loy
Fair point. "Ignore" was poor word choice on my part. FWIW, I wasn’t asking you to “do [my] Internet research for [me]” as much as I was trying to get a sense of who you consider to be a “big time lefty” thinker/commentator that one should be familiar with to know what the left “is doing.” In any event, it’s funny that you mention Sullivan, since it was The Atlantic’s Head of...
more...
- John P.
P.S. Your word was “credit”, so that’s what I was responding to. As someone who thinks that many of Obama’s actions have been naïve or misguided (e.g., on nuclear proliferation, repeatedly running down his own country abroad, releasing the CIA interrogation memos, promising to close Gitmo, etc.), I find the possibility of a tough stance towards North Korea to be a welcome development....
more...
- John P.
What are you talking about, the stock market makes perfect sense. GDP declines more than expected; swine flu threatens global economy; banks still unstable, "stress tests" widely regarded as fraudulent. BUY! BUY! BUY!
- Brendan Loy
Weird, I was just talking about this with a colleague. And here's our answer, from DJ Newswires: "Although far larger than expected, the 6.1% plunge in real gross domestic product in the first quarter holds some reasons to feel just slightly better about the outlook. *That's because a significant share of the contraction reflects businesses taking an axe to inventories.* The drawdown...
more...
- Christopher Chung
Agreed, I was scratching my head about this one today. The Fed says things were worse than we thought, but there are some faint signs of recovery. Lacking serious good news in the morning, we might see some backtracking in Thursday's markets.
- Mike Reynolds
Shepard Smith on Fox webcast: "We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it [torture] helps, we are America! We do not f***ing torture! We don't do it." - http://www.dailykos.com/storyon...
Shep can sit on his high horse all he wants, but if it's the life of someone he cherishes on the line then I suspect he'll suddenly be in the mood to make exceptions.
- John P.
Even though experts say the information gained from torture is faulty at best? Even though it undermines our credibility and opens up American's abroad to torture? Even though we are fighting the terrorists based on the moral justification that we are better? Torture is wrong. When you start saying "well its wrong, but we should make exceptions because we have good intentions", things tend to start going in very scary directions.
- David K.
John, that's a really great argument for justifying... anything. Anything at all. Absolutely, literally fucking anything.
- Brendan Loy
And please don't respond that "there are far worse things than the type of 'torture' we're talking about." Of course there are. But your logic in your first comment - that moral absolutes should yield to pragmatism when something important is on the line - could be applied to literally any immoral action. You need to temper that opinion with an explanation of why you think this particular immoral action isn't SO immoral that it doesn't reach the level of a moral absolute; otherwise, it seems like you are...
- Brendan Loy
...rejecting moral absolutes altogether, in favor of moral relativism. Which is funny, because I thought it was the Left that was supposedly morally relativistic. But suddenly now it's the Right that seems to think "...but torture works!!" is a catch-all defense of the policy. It's not. The fact that something "works" doesn't necessarily mean we should do it, even if it prevents something really terrible. Down that road lies totalitarianism and the end of morality. I thought conservatives understood that.
- Brendan Loy
"We ARE morally better than terrorists even if we DO torture because of WHY we are doing it." This is the most disturbing thing I've read today, and possibly all week. And here I thought maybe I was overreacting by accusing you of moral relativism! So any action can be justified if there's a good motive behind it?!? Oh. My. God. This is what "conservatism" has become. I shudder at the thought. You are a totalitarian.
- Brendan Loy
By the way, just to be clear: OF COURSE we are "morally better than terrorists." Not because of ours subjective *motives* for doing objectively immoral things, but because we do far fewer of such things. Nevertheless, it is no defense of something objectively immoral to say "we did it for a good reason." That opens the door wide to subjective morality: if I, or a terrorist, or a Nazi, or whomever, think I have a good reason for doing something, then I can do it, because it's for the greater good!!
- Brendan Loy
What happened to your "We ARE morally better than terrorists even if we DO torture because of WHY we are doing it" comment? Did you delete it? If so, and if it's because you were having second thoughts about it, then good. It's an awful line of reasoning.
- Brendan Loy
By the way, just a side note to David, and lots of other anti-torture folks: don't hang you hat on the "torture doesn't work" argument. It's not the argument you should be making. There is no solid consensus that torture never works. It's well established that torture sometimes gives false information, but you're setting yourself up if your argument depends on the notion that it NEVER produces good information. That's so easily refuted. Don't go there. The argument you want to make is the one Shepard Smith
- Brendan Loy
is making. *Even if* it works, it's still bad. That's the key point. Getting into a side-argument about whether it "works" is moving the debate onto Cheney & co.'s territory. They might win that argument, or at least obfuscate it enough to attain a draw. But they can never win the moral argument.
- Brendan Loy
Thats why i made it only one aspect of my argument, although perhaps I should have phrased it better. Something along the lines of many experts point out that torture seldom if ever gives accurate and/or useful information.
- David K.
I understand that, and I don't mean to blast you, I just think there is a general overreliance on that aspect of the argument by a lot of people on the Left, and I think it's a mistake. You don't criticize slavery by saying "and it isn't even economically productive!" You don't criticize apartheid by saying "and it isn't even an effective or efficient form of government!" You don't criticize a brutal dictator by saying "and he doesn't even make the trains run on time!" Some things are
- Brendan Loy
equally damnable and detestable whether they "work" or not.
- Brendan Loy
That’s funny, because I thought it was the Right that was supposed to believe in moral absolutes, but suddenly now it’s the Left that seems to think that torture is never morally justifiable. David is fond of saying the world isn’t black and white when it’s totally irrelevant…well, here’s a situation where it actually applies. I guess I’m finding my inner liberal, because I ABSOLUTELY...
more...
- John P.
“Thou shall not kill” is a moral absolute and killing is objectively immoral, but that doesn’t mean it’s not morally justifiable to kill in self-defense. Why? Because you have GOOD REASON for killing someone under those circumstances – because they’re trying to kill you or your family. Likewise, torture is objectively immoral, but if torturing a captured terrorist in the proverbial...
more...
- John P.
I don’t see how torturing a guilty terrorist and saving thousands of lives could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands. In fact, given the enormity of the evil about to be perpetrated, and given that the gov’t has a moral duty to protect the lives of its citizens, then all other things being equal, I think the authorities are morally...
more...
- John P.
Why defending torture under extreme circumstances necessarily opens the door to the “end of morality” I’m not sure. Can ANY action be justified if there’s a good motive behind it? That depends on what you mean by a “good” motive, and if that makes me a moral relativist then so be it. A “terrorist, or a Nazi, or whomever” may think they have a good reason for doing any number of things, but that doesn’t mean their reason is necessarily “good.” Value judgments have to be made.
- John P.
For example, a terrorist may think he’s morally justified in planting a bomb to kill thousands of “infidels” to teach them a lesson for not submitting to Islam, but he’s not. A Nazi may think he’s morally justified in gassing million of Jews because they are subhuman and a blight on the Aryan race, but he’s not. As compared to the ticking bomb scenario, there is no conceivable way the terrorist or Nazi could justify their objectively immoral acts on the basis of trying to save lives.
- John P.
There is no “good” being protected by the use of force by the terrorist or Nazi. The force is not being directed against people who are acting badly or planning to act badly. There is simply no legitimate need for those actions to be taken by the terrorist or the Nazi. Their intent is not to prevent harm, but to CAUSE it in a desire to exact vengeance or exercise power or obtain some...
more...
- John P.
"I don’t see how torturing a guilty terrorist and saving thousands of lives could be morally worse than refraining from torturing him and allowing him to murder thousands." Except we know for a fact that atleast some of the "terrorists" being held weren't actually terrorists but innocent people who had been caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. In addition they were incarcerated. Torturing them wasn't going to prevent THEM from doing a thing.
- David K.
Also, based on your logic, its morally justifiable for a terrorist to kill and/or torture an American (including the President or yourself) if he believes it might prevent the U.S. from going to war or continuing to war in a given region. One of the problems with justifying torture if it has good intentions is that its a very slippery slope. There is a reason why its been outlawed by international treaties (which we, as signatories, are Constitutional bound by FYI).
- David K.
Another problem with your approach is that you have no gaurentee when you begin torturing someone that they can tell you anything which will actually prevent some atrocity or another. Where is the moral justification for torturing someone if they won't, or can't give you the information you want? You haven't saved any lives, yet you still tortured them.
- David K.
You're missing the point, David. Obviously there is no moral justification for torturing innocent people, nor is there moral justification for torture if it doesn't work. But that's NOT what we're talking about with the ticking bomb hypothetical. The relevant argument, as Brendan said, is the moral argument, i.e., whether torture can be morally justified. The efficacy of torture or...
more...
- John P.
John: you've mounted a fine defense of torture by Jack Bauer on "24," when there's always a nuclear bomb about to go off in five minutes, and we always know exactly who knows how to stop it, and the only way to get that information is through torture. Well done. Now, mount a defense of the ACTUAL program of systematic, routine, non-ticking-bomb torture that was practiced by your country in your name.
- Brendan Loy
From a former Condi Rice deputy: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts... "The focus on water-boarding misses the main point of the program. Which is that it was a program. Unlike the image of using intense physical coercion as a quick, desperate expedient, the program developed 'interrogation plans' to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time. ..."
- Brendan Loy
"...The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important."
- Brendan Loy
That is what was ACTUALLY done, for months and years on end, as a matter of policy, laid out by lawyers and bureaucrats and applied across the board. NOT in an exigent circumstance where a bomb is about to go off. NOT as a matter of last resort when nothing else has worked, or when there's no time to try anything else. No. This was torture as a matter of routine, as a way to systematically "break" our enemies. You need to stop defending a fantasy scenario and grapple with the real world.
- Brendan Loy
Wait, so NOW all of a sudden the issue is routine, institutional torture? NOW we're no longer talking about whether an objectively immoral act is defensible based on motive? When did that happen? And what was all your bullshit hyperventilating about above then, Brendan? "You need to explain why torture isn't SO immoral that it doesn't reach the level of a moral absolute." Right, until...
more...
- John P.
Okay, so then you admit that the program which *actually occurred* was immoral (since it did, indisputably, involve "SYSTEMATIC torture beyond the circumstances I described above"), and torture can only be justified in Jack Bauer-like circumstances? Since Shep Smith was reacting to the actual facts of what occurred, and you blasted him for it, I assumed you disagreed with him.
- Brendan Loy
P.S. My feeling is that torture is always wrong and should never be allowed as a matter of official policy, but that *of course* people are going to break the rules in true, honest-to-God, Jack Bauer-like ticking-bomb scenarios, and I'm okay with that. And I would oppose prosecution of the torturer in such a (rare) scenario. What I'm NOT okay with is re-writing the rules to explicitly allow torture in a wide variety of situations, and justifying it on the much broader basis that we're good and...
- Brendan Loy
...the terrorists are bad, and our "motive" is to stop terrorist attacks, so it's OK. If you think that's inconsistent with my rhetoric above, fine, maybe it is, maybe I got carried away with my rhetoric, or maybe these little texty windows aren't the best forum for debating such complex philosophical issues. All I can say is that I found certain aspects of your logical train of thought repugnant, as they seemed to be using a much broader rationale than the simple ticking-time-bomb situation, which is a...
- Brendan Loy
...largely fantasy scenario that has virtually nothing to do with what actually occurred under the Bush Administration. If you are limiting your support for torture to those types of scenarios, I'm okay with that, so long as you recognize that, factually, it now well-established that what happened under the Bush Administration went waaaay beyond that.
- Brendan Loy
Well, I might dispute whether all the items you listed constitute torture. If ANY physical coercion whatsoever is torture, then kids are routinely tortured by their parents every day. At some point a definition of torture is required, but that's a whole other debate. I also don't know that Smith was reacting only to particular acts. It sounded like he was pretty much referring to torture in the abstract to me, but I'd have to watch the clip again.
- John P.
P.P.S. It should be noted that the debate about whether torture "helps," which Shep Smith was responding to, is not a debate about whether torture can prevent a ticking bomb from going off; it's a debate about whether torture can/does produce actionable intelligence generally, not necessarily actionable intelligence of *imminent* and other un-preventable harm. So when he says "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps," that statement is made in the context of others claiming that it "helps" by providing...
- Brendan Loy
...intelligence that may or may not (in most cases, not) relate to an imminent attack that couldn't have been stopped other than through torture. I understand that Shep's comment is stated as a moral absolute, as were my earlier comments, but I suspect he probably agrees with me that, although torture should be illegal, we also shouldn't prosecute Jack Bauer for stopping the nuke from going off. But that accounts for, like, 0.0001% of the scenarios in play here, and the Right is relentlessly using the...
- Brendan Loy
..."ticking bomb" exception to justify the other 99.9999% of torture scenarios. And THAT, I think, is what Shep Smith finds repulsive, and what I also find repulsive.
- Brendan Loy
This "kids are routinely tortured by their parents every day" line of argumentation (also: "fraternity hazing," "our military is trained against this stuff," yada yada yada) is such intellectually dishonest, self-deceiving rationalization and utter bullshit. If you can't admit that the SYSTEMATIC PROGRAM of dehumanization, abuse and torment described in these memos is "torture," then we can't have actually have a discussion, because your moral and logical facilities are malfunctioning.
- Brendan Loy
Since your last prickish comment is merely an insult bereft of any actual argument whatsoever, Brendan, I can only assume that you in fact believe that ANY physical coercion is torture. If that's what you believe, fine, but then you're going to find a whole lot of things "repulsive" unless you yourself are intellectually dishonest. If being hosed with cold water is torture, then do you...
more...
- John P.
And perhaps the Right wouldn't relentlessly refer to the ticking bomb scenario if the Left didn't relentlessly refer to torture in absolutist terms.
- John P.
You are blaming the rights ridiculous stance on torture on the left being opposed to it? The left could ignore it completely and the right wingers would still claim its justified, the fact that they are DOING it is proof that they think its justified regardless of what anyone else says.
- David K.
John, I apologize for the "facilities are malfunctioning" line. It was overkill. My point is that folks on the Right, yourself included, need to stop pointing to isolated aspects of the torture program and making incredibly weak analogies to radically different situations that bear some superficial resemblance to those cherry-picked individual aspects, and look at the big picture, the actual reality of what was happening here. The absurd comparisons to frat hazing, parenting, etc. really grate on the nerves
- Brendan Loy
...because they are just so blatantly dishonest. We're talking a program of systematic abuse, torment and dehumanization designed to "break" people so they will talk. If you want defend that on its merits, go ahead. But saying "it's like a frat hazing! and sleep deprivation isn't that bad, I pulled an all-nighter before an exam one time! and we train our soldiers against some of the individual techniques in isolation, so it's OK!" doesn't count as defending it on the merits. It counts as utter bullshit.
- Brendan Loy
Apology accepted, Brendan. But you need to stop trying to anticipate my arguments because you’re really, really bad at it. I’m NOT comparing enhanced interrogation techniques to hazing or military training because, for one thing, those examples involve the consent of the “victim,” which makes all the difference in the world. If my reference to parenting seems like a “weak analogy to a...
more...
- John P.
So, let’s “look at the big picture, the actual reality of what was happening here” shall we? On one extreme are the Jack Bauers who think you do whatever it takes to get the information you need from terrorists. On the other end are people on the Left, yourself included, who refuse to grapple with definitions because -- one must assume, based on nothing more than empty cries of "absurd"...
more...
- John P.
How to define torture? Snort and roll your eyes all you want, but the answer simply isn’t self-evident. According to the former CIA Director, the “American standard” for torture is interrogation that “shocks the conscience.” The UN Convention on Torture says it’s “the intentional infliction of severe pain.” “Severe” is somewhat vague . . . where do you draw the line as to which specific...
more...
- John P.
Now let’s talk about the supposedly shudder-evoking things that were actually done here. Is putting someone alone in a cold cell torture? Not unless we’re talking meat locker temperatures. Getting hosed with cold water? Probably not, depending on the circumstances. Getting stripped down naked? Again, probably not. If none of those things are torture when they’re done to unconsenting...
more...
- John P.
The more I learn about this subject (including the fact that many Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, were BRIEFED on these techniques shortly after 9/11 and DIDN’T SAY BOO at the time), the more I am persuaded that the moral “outrage” on display on the Left is simply being feigned for ideological and political reasons, which is the real blatantly dishonest, “utter bullshit” here.
- John P.
Agree or disagree, I'm nearly always impressed with how thoughtful Obama is. He doesn't speak in sound bytes (unless he's in front of a teleprompter), but he does speak in a way that demonstrates he is intellectually engaged in the matter he is discussing, especially when it's an important one. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009...
And those conservatives who say otherwise -- who try to argue that he's some sort of ignoramus whenever he's without his teleprompter -- are demonstrating flagrant intellectual dishonesty and/or partisan blindness (not to mention hypocrisy, if they ever once defended Bush from liberal criticism of his intelligence), and simply should not be taken seriously. The evidence to the contrary of the "Obama is dumb" position is so overwhelming as to be irrefutable. Obama is wrong about some things, perhaps many things, perhaps most things! We can debate that. But he is clearly a smart and thoughtful man; that much should be obvious to anyone with eyes and ears. Unless of course one holds that liberal positions are inherently dumb or unthoughtful, which brings me back to "...simply should not be taken seriously."
- Brendan Loy
What a hypocrite, "He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt" gee, where was he the past 8 years when his buddy Dubya was balooning the deficit and getting us INTO this mess? And talking about secession?
- David K.
The difference John is that there was no economic catastrophe that Bush had to clean up, he CAUSED this mess. Blaming the people that come after him and have to spend money to clean it up, is like blaming the plumber who comes in to fix things for charging you after you break things trying to do the job yourself.
- David K.
In all fairness, David, the proposed spending in Obama's budget is by no means ALL for economic stimulus. What you're saying is a reasonable defense of the stimulus bill, and of the deficit for the next 2 years or so, but you can't blame Obama's projected budget for the next 10 years entirely on the "economic catastrophe that [he] had to clean up." It would be more reasonable to blame it, at least in significant part, on the entitlement-costs crisis that has been allowed to go unfixed for...
- Brendan Loy
...the last several decades, but that's a bipartisan failure, not something you can just pin on Bush (though his Medicare prescription drug benefit certainly didn't help). You risk sounding a bit like those Republicans who still blame Clinton for all of Bush's failures when you suggest that Bush's sins effectively give Obama a free pass, not just this year, not just next year, but for his planned budgets out as far as the eye can see, beyond even the end of his potential second term!
- Brendan Loy
Having said that, the jury is entirely still out on what Obama & co. will do re: the entitlement crisis. It will require actual, genuine bipartisan cooperation to tackle that issue, because it will involve so many difficult and unpopular choices, and neither party is going to risk being demagogued by sticking their necks out and proposing, say, benefit cuts. In any case, whether the projected 2013-2019 deficits come true is almost entirely dependent on whether entitlement reform happens, and it's...
- Brendan Loy
...utterly ridiculous to declare Obama a failure merely because he has failed to achieve, in his first three months, something incredibly difficult that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush all barely even *tried* to achieve, namely entitlement reform. Just by having a freakin' summit on the issue, Obama practically did more than any of his predecessors. Obviously a summit is not nearly enough, but it's a start, and to declare that OMG HE'S A FAILURE BECAUSE OF THE PROJECTED DEFICIT is completely absurd, when...
- Brendan Loy
...his success or failure at entitlement reform will almost single-handedly determine whether those projected post-2012 deficit projections are accurate. Give the man a freaking chance. He's being (relatively) honest about his budget, which is more than Bush and the Republicans can say, and so the numbers look terrible. But they're terrible mostly because of a problem that Obama hasn't yet had any reasonable opportunity to try and fix.
- Brendan Loy
Forget ALL -- the bill isn't even MOSTLY for economic stimulus. Less than half the money dedicated to infrastructure spending will be spent within the next two years, meaning most of it will likely come too late to actually impact the recession in the way that Obama sold the bill. And since roughly a third of the total cost of the "stimulus" bill represents a massive increase in welfare...
more...
- John P.
And I haven't heard anyone declaring Obama a "failure" yet because of the projected deficits, Brendan. The only premature declarations of failure I've heard recently have come from liberals with BDS. For my part, I was simply pointing to the projected deficits to illustrate David's hypocritical whining about ballooning deficits under Bush.
- John P.
"Reminding us of the spendthrift ways of President Bush and the Republican Congresses of the early 2000s, Democratic officials and liberal bloggers attempt to deny the sincerity of Tea Party protesters and conservative Republicans decrying the excessive government spending proposed by President Obama and passed by a Democratic Congress. Their line of attack shows they would rather dwell...
more...
- John P.
"It is shocking that some of the very people who attacked then-President Bush for increasing the debt burden we are passing onto the younger generation support his successor’s plan to increase that debt far [more] quickly than W ever dreamed possible." INDEED. More than enough hypocrisy to go around.
- John P.
First, the right wing calls it excessive and the people on the other side HAVE been defending it. Criticizing Republicans for their hypocrisy doesn't mean thats all that is happening. Nor should we ignore it simply because there are other things to talk about as well. Then again, its not surprising you are taking this tack John, it was Sen. McCain who seemed to believe the President could only do one thing at a time after all.
- David K.
As to the increase this will cause, well DUH, of course its going to make the debt go up. When your house gets damaged it costs money to fix it. Again however, the root cause of all these costs now are the position Bush put us in with his Presidency. Blaming the guy who has to clean up the mess doesn't make much sense. Especially when the only "solution" the right wing has offered is to do the same things that got us INTO the mess in the first place.
- David K.
And again, no one is criticizing the sincerity of the protests, no one doubts Republicans hate taxes. We are criticizng their hypocrisy and their proposed changes. Both of which are absolutely valid criticisms.
- David K.
If you think it's only the right wing calling Obama's spending excessive then you either haven't been paying attention or you're confusing Obama's personal popularity with the popularity of his policies, which are two very different things. And the issue isn't the informed supporters who defend Obama's unprecedented deficits on Keynesian grounds as much as it is the ignoramuses who...
more...
- John P.
If it's hypocritical to bitch about a $2 trillion deficit without also having bitched about a $300 billion deficit, then isn't it at least as hypocritical to support the former while criticizing the latter?
- John P.
No John, I don't. I don't think its hypocritical to not criticize him for doing the dirty work for having to clean up after Bush's mess. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I did Bush after 9/11. Obama is making what many of us feel are necessary choices, some of which involve spending, to stave off financial collapse. Other people feel they are too much, which is fine. But again, as I said, their only alternative so far is to do the same thing that got us into this mess.
- David K.
Put another way, its not that Bush ran up the deficit, its that he did so in a reckless and unnecessary manner. Reagan also ran up a deficit, but atleast he was upfront about it, and did so with a more justifiable purpose. Frankly Obama's situation is more akin to Reagan's than Bush's. If the situation is so black and white for you that you can't understand the differences, well, thats your problem not mine.
- David K.
Of course you don’t, David. But that very much depends on (a) whether Bush’s policies were actually the cause of the economic crisis, and (b) whether Obama’s unprecedented deficits are actually necessary to stave off financial collapse. Your argument is conspicuously lacking on both counts.
- John P.
For (a), the argument seems to be simply putting “deregulation” and “greed” together in the same platitudinous, demagogic sentence. Unless there is factual support that explains CAUSATION – as opposed to mere correlation – then what you have is more of a rationalization than an actual argument. Again, I’m not saying that argument can’t be made, it’s just that all of the FACTS I’ve read...
more...
- John P.
If you can’t explain what caused the crisis besides blaming Bush, then it’s no wonder you’re oblivious to the alternatives that were out there to writing down a liberal wish list and putting dollar amounts next to each item at random.
- John P.
For (b), as I mentioned above, it’s questionable at best whether Obama’s spending will actually stimulate the economy. You may “feel” that it’s necessary, but feelings yield to logic every time, and legislation that is short on incentives to spur spending and long on social goals, which Obama’s “stimulus” bill is, won’t stimulate anything except a liberal agenda (but then, maybe that’s...
more...
- John P.
In other words, there’s every reason to think that the “stimulus” bill Obama and the Dems rushed through Congress will run up deficits in even more reckless and unnecessary a manner than liberal partisans claim Bush did.
- John P.
Brendan thinks someone needs to teach conservative protesters about civil disobedience. Did the original Tea Partiers have a permit?! http://www.nbcwashington.com/news....
That's sort of my point, in suggesting that someone needs to teach them about the concept of civil disobedience. :) I also realize it goes against the conservative grain to disobey a law enforcement officer (I assume it was some sort of uniformed officer, not a bureaucrat in a suit, who told them not to dump the teabags.) But c'mon: yielding to a federal agency's bureaucratic directive about permits isn't exactly in the revolutionary spirit!!
- Brendan Loy
Heh, fair enough. Reminds me a little of a protest I saw in Amsterdam once . . . can't remember who they were or what the issue was (I was, ahem, a little out of sorts at the time), but they were marching down the street in straight lines and in total silence. It wasn't the least bit disruptive, and was pretty odd. Then again I may have hallucinated the whole thing.
- John P.
Clearly, PJ O'Rourke needs to draw on his 60's experiences and tell the movement how protesting is done.
- Charles Fenwick
Perhaps there's an ideological correlation too - coastal liberals call it soda, midwestern moderates say pop, and southern conservatives say coke? Can we get Nate Silver to look at this? Is Obama the soda/pop president?
- Alec Taylor
David, they are not lame - they are bitter. They cling to the Coke label due to economic frustration.
- Alec Taylor
So why do Coastal Liberals on west coast call it Pop?
- David K.
Yes - the Pacific NW is an exception to this rule. (But California is soda-land).
- Alec Taylor
Clearly pop is the accurate choice because its used by both liberals and conservatives across the PNW, Mountain West, Great PLains and Midwest states. Those largely former confederate southern states continue to use the term Coke, and the super liberal north east and California use Soda.
- David K.
I just want somebody to explain to me what's the deal with St. Louis & environs calling it soda.
- Brendan Loy
North East transplants? Being a major travel hub for the past few centuries may have also dampened the "coke" affect.
- David K.
Ah yes, it must have been the westward-bound pioneers in the early 1800s who decided not to call it Coke. :P
- Brendan Loy
You don't remember packing 7-up along with the rest of your supplies when playing Oregon Trail??
- David K.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_dai... is exactly right about both the Angry Left of recent years and the Angry Right of today. They're critically wounding their movement, and thus the nation (because a vibrant democracy *needs* a viable opposition), by being so ridiculous. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch....
The difference is that Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore were never the de-facto leader of the left, while Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter are the defacto leaders of the right.
- David K.
That's a stretch re: Ann Coulter. I'd say she and Michael Moore are in similar positions in terms of their mainstream-ness. Rush, however, is certainly more mainstream than Sheehan or Moore ever were, as is the hilarious/terrifying/terrifyingly hilarious/hilariously terrifying Glenn Beck.
- Brendan Loy
The idea that someone might be brainwashed by a logo is very odd indeed.....
- Alec Taylor
Heh. As I wrote on Facebook, putting the article about me having the best grade in algebra class on Page 2 (with a teaser on Page 1), while the article about the presidential electors re-electing Bill Clinton is relegated to Page 9, is, in retrospect, a mildly embarrassing lapse in editorial judgment... LOL! But in terms of the "Geometry Olympics," this is just the tip of the iceberg -- there are dozens of articles from freshman year, some of them very amusing, going into the elaborate competitions we had.
- Brendan Loy
I'm not so sure if I'll ever get around to digitizing those... ;)
- Brendan Loy
Ah no, it was a sound editorial judgment - at least the Geometry Olympics wasn't a foregone conclusion (your impressive form notwithstanding!).
- Alec Taylor