Good Old Neon

Those defending Zimmerman's actions are either being willfully obtuse or an asshole.

The commercial is tacky and I hate it. Before they became just another marketing tool, flash mobs were great for introducing spontaneity into everyday life – now, as is the case with just about everything else, the idea has been co-opted and commoditized by marketers. And thus dies yet another form of spontaneous creativity for creativities’ sake – the sort of events that take place just for the hell of it, with no interest in selling you something.

As for the decision to sell another song, meh, whatever – I haven’t really listened to (new) Wilco all that much since Sky Blue Sky.

At some point, Wilco's entire catalog will be probably be available for use in commercials, etc - that will be fun.

Remove her teeth and claws or poke around (craigslist, etc.) for people in the market for an aggressive cat.

That's some good advice. This cat sounds like it would make an excellent companion for a 16 year old bi-polar cutter.

Have it put down.

 

The people who abondoned their jobs, spent their life savings, abondoned their family and friends...where do they go from here?

Well, I guess they could just go rapture themselves.

Album of the year for me here in the month of May.

For me, It’s not really America bashing, my responses are more of a response to the sanctimonious celebrating and USA#1 chest thumping that drives me up a wall – which is not to say that attitude has been displayed in this thread. In reality, the very real evils perpetrated by this country throughout its history exceed, exponentially, what the Taliban, al Qaida, or Bin laden were ever able to accomplish. That’s not America bashing, it’s looking history coldly in the face and acknowledging inconvenient, ugly-assed truths. Unfortunately, most American’s understanding of our history, the shit we’ve carried out is about as sophisticated as a fifth grade history book. The only truly exceptional thing about this country is its citizens’ willingness to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant.

With respect to the role torture played in finding Bin Laden:

From Glenn Greenwald:

The killing of Osama bin Laden has, as The New York Times notes, re-ignited the debate over "brutal interrogations" -- by which it's meant that Republicans are now attempting to exploit the emotions generated by the killing to retroactively justify the torture regime they implemented. The factual assertions on which this attempt is based -- that waterboarding and other "harsh interrogation methods" produced evidence crucial to locating bin Laden -- are dubious in the extreme, for reasons Andrew Sullivan and Marcy Wheeler document. So fictitious are these claims that even Donald Rumsfeld has repudiated them.

But even if it were the case that valuable information were obtained during or after the use of torture, what would it prove? Nobody has ever argued that brutality will never produce truthful answers. It is sometimes the case that if you torture someone long and mercilessly enough, they will tell you something you want to know. Nobody has ever denied that. In terms of the tactical aspect of the torture debate, the point has always been -- as a consensus of interrogations professionals has repeatedly said -- that there are far more effective ways to extract the truth from someone than by torturing it out of them. The fact that one can point to an instance where torture produced the desired answer proves nothing about whether there were more effective ways of obtaining it.

This highlights what has long been a glaring fallacy in many debates over War on Terror policies: that Information X was obtained after using Policy A does not prove that Policy A was necessary or effective. That's just basic logic. This fallacy asserted itself constantly in the debate over warrantless surveillance. Proponents of the Bush NSA program would point to some piece of intelligence allegedly obtained during warrantless eavesdropping as proof that the illegal program was necessary and effective; obviously, though, that fact said nothing about whether the same information would also have been discovered through legal eavesdropping, i.e., eavesdropping approved in advance by the FISA court (and indeed, legal eavesdropping [like legal interrogation tactics] is typically more effective than the illegal version because, by necessity, it is far more focused on actual suspected Terrorism plots; warrantless eavesdropping entails the unconstrained power to listen in on any communications the Government wants without having to establish its connection to Terrorism). But in all cases, the fact that some piece of intelligence was obtained by some lawless Bush/Cheney War on Terror policy (whether it be torture or warrantless eavesdropping) proves nothing about whether that policy was effective or necessary.

And those causal issues are, of course, entirely independent of the legal and moral questions shunted to the side by this re-ignited "debate." There are many actions that the U.S. could take that would advance its interests that are nonetheless obviously wrong on moral and legal grounds. When Donald Trump recently suggested that we should simply take Libya's oil and that of any other country which we successfully invade and occupy, that suggestion prompted widespread mockery. That was the reaction despite the fact that stealing other countries' oil would in fact produce substantial benefits for the U.S. and advance our interests: it would help to lower gas prices, reduce our dependence on hostile oil-producing nations, and avoid having to degrade our own environment in order to drill domestically. Trump's proposed actions are morally reprehensible and flagrantly lawless despite how many benefits it would produce; therefore, no person of even minimal decency would embrace it no matter how many benefits it produces.

Exactly the same is true for the torture techniques used by the Bush administration and once again being heralded by its followers (and implicitly glorified by media stars who keep suggesting that it enabled bin Laden's detection). It makes no difference whether it extracted usable intelligence. Criminal, morally depraved acts don't become retroactively justified by pointing to the bounty they produced.

* * * * *

It was striking to note in yesterday's New York Times the obituary of Moshe Landau, the Israeli judge who presided over the 1961 war crimes trial of Adolf Eichmann. It's a reminder that when even the most heinous Nazi war criminals were hunted down by the Israelis, they weren't shot in the head and then dumped into the ocean, but rather were apprehended, tried in a court of law, confronted with the evidence against them for all the world to see, and then punished in accordance with due process. The same was done to leading Nazis found by Allied powers and tried at Nuremberg. It's true that those trials took place after the war was over, but whether Al Qaeda should be treated as active warriors or mere criminals was once one of the few ostensible differences between the two parties on the question of Terrorism.

Speaking of which: I know that very few people have even a slight interest in the unexciting, party-pooping question of whether our glorious killing comported with legal principles, but for those who do, both The Guardian and Der Spiegel have good discussions of that issue

I'll bite. Bin Laden would have killed billions if left unchecked with our resources, because he was a madman. But that's also what makes it so easy to dismiss him as just a single lunatic. For me, it is far more disheartening that we have a large group of individuals, with a system a checks and balances, that is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and a country full of people that elected them there that are either fine with it or choose to ignore it. It's easy to be ignorant to the atrocity of war when it hasn't been fought on your turf since 1865.

 

I'd much rather we went to all special ops (like with Bin Laden) to fight the terrorists vs. bombing. It would greatly reduce collateral damage and would cost us trillions less.

Well said.

Eh?

From CNN

"Osama bin Laden was not armed but did put up resistance when U.S. forces entered the compound he was in and killed him, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/03/bin.laden.dead/index.html?hpt=T1

For what it’s worth, with Osama dead, the US’s Boogey Man position is now accepting new applicants – which, can only be good news in this economy.

I'm not discounting the loss of any innocent lives. The loss of any life is tragic. But I do find it ridiculous to compare the U.S. to bin Laden and then decide that the U.S. is worse.

One could argue that, given all the stated reasons for invading Iraq have proven to be false or outright lies, and that our initial incursion into the country was defined as “shock and awe” – which, to these ears, sounds a lot like, terrorize, and that the current civilian casualty rate, though debated, hovers between 100,000 to as many as 650,000 – well, one could argue that our little adventure in Iraq – which, at the end of the day, really has to do with oil and our continued access to it – i.e. our own selfish interests, perpetuating our own standard of living, which, in a way, is not all that unlike Osama wanting to spread and preserve his way of religious life, which, though the US claims to be a Christian nation, more or less worships oil and the comforts it affords, well, one could make the argument that we're really no better or worse – we just have much better PR.

Which also might help explain why the rest of the world holds a much different view of the US as we here in the US do.

When I was probably like, ten or twelve, a group of friends and I were out riding our bikes, suddenly, a hot air balloon appeared above us – this thing was obviously in distress, bouncing off the tree tops and shit. We followed it for as long as we could – well, a short while later, we heard sirens. Turns out, the dude crashed into a tree, tipped his basket and, no shitting here, fell to his death.

Anyways, have fun up there.

Prepare to be inspired (not quite sure why this is not working as a link)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jYcW1nEsGk&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=MLGxdCwVVULXdGpBa0-ntkCFW48xeQGKV5

I would like someone who has run an actual business at some point.

If in fact the decision were made "to run government like a business," which particular business would be the best model? Merrill Lynch or Bank of America? How about JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs? Citigroup could be a possibility, and please give some consideration to Wells Fargo, General Motors and Chrysler.

Enron?

Which business model would Jules choose?

You have an odd concept of "freedom."

 

Ask the Danes if they feel like their freedom is impinged in any way. They pay astronomical taxes, but they also get free healthcare, free education including university, a stunning array of well-funded social welfare programs, ample funds for infrastructure ... and all of these taxpayer-funded benefits allow them a degree of freedom that Americans will never know.

 

Denmark is basically a socialist country in many ways -- certainly in terms of its welfare state -- yet it's also consistently at or near the top of the list of countries whose residents are happiest. Businesses thrive despite this socialist nightmare, and the markets are as free as virtually any in the world. According to Wikipedia, those America-hating commies at the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation rated Denmark's economy as the "11th most free" in the world, yet 80% of workers belong to unions. Income taxes are the highest in the world, yet the standard of living is also among the world's highest, and wealth disparity is among the lowest.

 

What Denmark is doing, we could be doing too ... except that no one could ever sell that kind of success to the American public, who prefer their uniquely "American" brand of fucked-up, failed economics, corrupt politics, and greed-based corporate supremacy, despite it being against their best interests. Our system is pulling us over a cliff, but as a nation we're more interested in wrapping ourselves in the Stars and Stripes and shouting about how America is the Greatest Country In The World™ (or might have once been, anyway) than in facing up to the mistakes we've made and finding real solutions. That stubbornness and willful ignorance of our systemic problems will propel us over that cliff, sooner rather than later, and in the resulting chaos we'll see how much people truly cherish things like "freedom." In times of crisis, true freedom is one of the first casualties.

this

Sparky,

I live in Tampa, FL. The snowless winters have been snowless. They aren't going so well for me. I like snow. By mentioning those snowless winters, are you implying that weather and climate are the same? They aren't. How do you feel about the theories of gravity and evolutuion? I am sure that you can find 1000 scientists offering alternative theories. That doesn't mean that they aren't the accepted theories by the scientific community. Do the science teachers in your school wear tinfoil hats? I appreciate you typing your resignation. Anything that will help my profession gain more respect is appreciated. Oh, and I'm sure that you are going to debate this with me here. It's what you do.

If I recall correctly, Sparky watched a documentary on Youtube that for him, pretty much blew his mind w/r/t climate change - since then, he's posted links from "scientists" that not only dispute man made global warming, climate change, etc, but also believe in like, chem-trails and other such nonsense.

I took this photo from the Hampton Beach pier this morning.

I'm voting for cryptique

I bet 46 percent of Mississippi Democrats want the same thing. I don't see what political affiliation has to do with this.

You really don't?

2011 – but obviously at least half of the GOP-ers that responded are useless fucking bitchbags.

As human behavior tends to change very slowly (and one could make the argument that, in general, we’re more tolerant and less like, assholely than we were 50 or 60 years ago), I’ll go out on a pretty sturdy limb here and suggest today’s children behave pretty much the way they always have. If things were so much better “back in my day”, why the hell was there so much paddling taking place in schools – if, after all, children were, according to popular myth, little angels. The truth is, most studies have shown that hitting children is counterproductive, and, quite frequently, simply doesn’t work – leading to more and harsher punishment. If hitting your child doesn’t produce the desired result, were does one go from there?

The child in this case is known to have behavioral issues, quite possibly stemming from some form of emerging mental illness. Being pepper sprayed by the cops may not leave physical scars, but they are not the only type that leave a mark, mental scarring can be just as or more damaging in the long term.

Hitting/spanking/paddling a child, to me, is a sign of an adult’s inability to control themselves and/or a particular situation. I expect children to behave irrationally – as an adult, I feel it is my responsibility to react rationally when a child cannot. Striking a child is, in my opinion, a sign of parental/adult/authority figure/etc failure.