This is where we are: The Washington Post editorial today is

A Defining Moment for America

The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture.

Friday, September 15, 2006; Page A18

PRESIDENT BUSH rarely visits Congress. So it was a measure of his painfully
skewed priorities that Mr. Bush made the unaccustomed trip yesterday to seek
legislative permission for the CIA to make people disappear into secret
prisons and have information extracted from them by means he dare not describe
publicly.

Link that will no doubt link-rot as dead-tree newspapers continue their slide into obscurity

(but even with the link-rot, I'm thinking that the headline and jump are enough to convey the story.

We are now at the point where it is considered

legitimate to debate how much we will torture.

So it turns out that I am an idiot. Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court Justice says so, and that means it must be true.

He spoke to the Federalist Society and said:

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.""

This is the Scalia who argued that filing a habeas corpus petition where the defendent was first held was wrong-you have to file it in the district where he is now being held. Now, this is idiotic, and is a rather clear violation of the Constitution saying something, in this case:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

This is a useful ruling, since now you can't file a writ of Habeas Corpus unless you know in which secret torture chamber the prisoner is currently being tortured.

Justice Stevens dissented

"The Defense Department first took custody of Padilla in New York, not in South Carolina. All the proceedings concerning Padilla’s detention as a “material witness” took place in New York. Padilla’s attorney wasn’t informed that he had been moved to South Carolina until after she filed the habeas corpus petition in New York. “If jurisdiction was proper when the petition was filed,” wrote Stevens, “it cannot be defeated by a later transfer of the prisoner to another district.”

Do you get that? The prisoner was moved after his attorney filed habeaus corpus. After. What a fun merry go round of liberty has been created.

Idiot? Me? I don't thinks so.

But on more interesting topics... This is a stunning quote.

"When you are young in this world, you believe that the class of deductive truths about social matters is larger than it turns out to be. The great attraction of libertarian thought lay in its deductive power. The hope was that you could axiomatize the system and sort of render social problems amenable to a set of principles that yielded necessary or deductive truths. That vision certainly fired my early academic life... Essentially, as I have gotten older and maybe a little bit wiser -- which why that 30 years really start to matter -- I have discovered, to my infinite regret, that most of the serious debates over the basic principles of any political order have an irreducible empirical content." Richard A. Epstein, "Skepticism and Freedom"

"TPMCafe || The Pro-Growth Progressive: I felt frustrated by the view - often from both sides - that there was an inherent conflict between promoting progressive values and being hard-headed about the power of markets incentives, the law of unintended consequences and the inevitability of globalization."

Read more From Gene Sperling talking about his new book "The Pro-Growth Progressive".

Brad DeLong quotes Intelligent Design moron Michael Behe as admitting that astrology is a theory on par with 'intelligent design.

Brad comments "The Discovery Institute people must be kicking themselves tonight on hearing of Behe's admission, but I'll give the man this much - at least he's honest, even if being under oath in a court of law does constrain one's scope for dishonesty somewhat."

Malcolm Gladwell popularized the idea of the 'tipping point,' and writes long articles about things like ketchup. In the current issue of the New Yorker he has taken up the question of the moral hazard argument against health insurance.

It turns out that Health Insurance is yet another think that I know nearly nothing about. It appears that the Republican position on health care is that poor people should pull their own teeth out with pliers.

It isn't phrased that way, but that is what it means.

The Moral Hazard position is that if you mitigate a risk, such as by providing insurance, or adding seatbelts to cars, that people will then use more health care services, or they will drive recklessly.

I can't argue against the general position that this Moral Hazard effect exists. I think that it does. The question that must be asked is how much of an effect this is?

We can map this with a series of linear equations, and then do a min-max analysis to find the set of parameters that optimizes for our desired conditions. But that would be actual work.

So perhaps...

1. More people get unneeded care if they have insurance than if they do not.
2. More people get needed care if they have insurance than if they do not.
3. More insurance coverage costs money.

So more people get care if they have insurance. I think that #1 represents a small percentage of costs, and that #2 is a social good. That is, our society is better off if people get needed health care. #3 suggests that costs will go up if everyone has coverage. There is evidence for either side of this point. The civilized world appears to provide universal coverage for less than we spend to leave 45 million people without health insurance. I support universal coverage regardless of the cost.

But don't trust my analysis, get thee to the new yorker and read for yourself

There is a horrible anti-gay movement in our country that believes that the US has been attacked because not everyone in our country is a hateful homophobic jerk. These people are currently protesting at the funerals of US Soldiers under some twisted view that those soldiers are responsible for fighting to defend Gay people, and so they deserved to die.

I know. It is insane. Anti-Gay bigotry is unacceptable. I no longer wish to be around people who are anti-gay. For a long time I've been relatively quiet about a lot of things, allowing spewing morons (I'm specifically thinking of Rod Linafelter who once managed the Berger 100 fund, until it was shown that he was an incompetent under performing boob) to, well, spew without question because of the power they wielded in the corporate hierachy. There have been more recent abusive people in my life, but I hold them in such contempt as to not be willing to mention them by name. Rod is just a moron to be alternately laughed at or pitied, but other people are more malicious. People who claim to be bad at what they do, but instruct you that it is your duty to compensate for them are in that group.

I'm not going to be quiet anymore. If you have even a whiff of belief that some 'god' is punishing America because of our 'morality' then I'd like to put you on notice that if I hear any of that crap come out of you I will not let it go. No more slack to just 'let things go.'

On the other hand, I'm not going to be the first one to bring it up. I'm happy to have polite meals with people with whom I disagree. But I can no longer let this evil pass by without comment.

According to this poll American's are in 'a bad mood.' The amusing thing about this poll is that I was just polled a few nights ago, and I thought this was that poll. But on reading it I realized it wasn't. But still vaguely interesting.

I think Bush is dead wrong on just about everything, but when I can get out of the 'what I think' it is fascinating to look at this time in American history. I suspect that I shouldn't write too much on this, it just messes with my mental hygiene, but it has been a revelation to realize that there are a lot of people out there who flat reject things that I see as inevitable, and welcome.

And perhaps it is welcome that on a lot of issues it is not longer a question of spin and nuance. And, ah, how about that rise in Creationism? What the hell? 6/10/2005

Electoral-vote.com
Brad DeLong
Talking points memo
daily kos
Atrios

To this thread, I made this comment:

I feat this is too late in the thread to actually be read, but what if Brian is more clever than you know? What if he is putting himself on the side of people who _actually believed_ Bush.

Aside from our little blog world, most Americans believed Bush. So writing from the position of most Americans makes your argument much stronger.

Saying 'you were an idiot to believe Bush and we told you so' has zero potential to convert anyone. Writing 'Damn, but we were all fooled' puts you on the same side as your readers.

To the extent that we are in the back room laughing at our own in jokes and making sport of the 'normals' we are okay, and we can entertain ourselves. But if you think that telling people they were idiots, or condescending to them, will win hearts and minds, well...

Rich | Email | Homepage | 06.18.04 - 2:11 pm | #

Sticking out one's neck is never good for diplomacy or family relations! My father has a cousin who is the nicest darn person, but whose political beliefs are, one presumes, as opposed to my own as possible. I hate the thought of offending this person, I hate sticking my head up and causing discord, but this issue is too important to me. So here is the text of an email I just sent to the American Family Association. If you email me I'll send you a copy of the email I sent to our Governor in which I develop some of these themes a bit more...

Hi,

I oppose your position on gay marriage. No surprise, I'm liberal and live in Northern California.

But I figured it might be interesting to let you know the depths of my feelings.

I personally _strongly_ believe that those who are currently opposed to gay marriage are the moral equals to those who promoted segregation just a few years ago.

Now of course I don't expect to pursuade you to my view, but what is the harm in communicating?

So as strong as your views on the issue are, mine are just as strong. I strongly believe that the 14th amendment demands 'equal protection.'

I believe with all my heart and soul that this includes, in fact requires, civil recognition of gay marriage.

And to reiterate, it is my belief that those who oppose gay marriage today are equal in their level of malevolent evil as were segregationists just a few years back.

And yes, I mean big 'E,' Satan speaking from within, Evil.

Of course you can, and probably will, dismiss me as misguided or possessed or whatever, but that diminishes not the depth of my feelings.

So please remember that your views are opposed by many with the same depth of feeling as you hold for your own values.

Regards,
Rich Gibson,

And boy am I glad that we escaped Colorado. In yet another example of the old heave ho to freedom, we have 'disturbing the peace' charges in Castle Rock Colorado against a member of a band who, gasp and surprise, thinks that Police control of expression is a bad thing.

"Officers said they heard some of the band members using obscenities during a break and warned them not to. According to police reports, when Lewis took the microphone, he dedicated a song to Castle Rock police, saying "I hate you all. [Expletive] the pigs."

"Officers cut power to the stage and escorted Lewis and several other band members off. Lewis was arrested on one count of disturbing the peace.

A town statute prohibits maliciously or willfully disturbing the peace by "loud or unusual noises, or by tumultuous or offensive language," among other things.

"We're not concentrating so much on the language he used ... as the general disturbance it created," Lane said.

Read the whole Freedom Forum Story

The disturbance created appears to be that audience members heckled the police after they cut off the power. So revisionism 101 is alive and well in Castle Rock.

Does anyone else find disturbing parallels with Lenny Bruce? I think it is in Salon's premium section, but read this article, Lenny Bruce Died for our Sins and see if you can find the parallels.

The Police Chief, Tony Lane in an email told me that I don't have all of the facts in the case, and that they are not trying to punish anyone for their freedom of speech.

Right Tony.

Using 'disturbing the peace' statutes to silence others is a classic technique. When you question a police officer, you will be told to move on or your will be arrested for 'disturbing the peace.'

When your music is too loud, or your expression too raw, it is the nebulous 'disturbing the peace' that they will use as their enforcement 'tool.' (side note: when they start talking about 'tools' you need to put your hand on your wallet and start walking away slowly, saying 'good doggie').

And, by the way, as 'officer' in nearby Denver once told me, 'What they wrote 200 years ago don't mean jack shit today.'

Of course, the fine people of Castle Rock seem to support the Chief. He has received "many emails and phone calls" supporting his repression. (yeah, 'repression' is the right word to use when describing the actions of armed thugs who cut the power and arrest people for expressing themselves).

And that is where we are in America 2003.

Patrick Ball is an amazing individual. He sets up systems to track war criminals. More precisely, to track the victims of war criminals. To check and cross check. To deal respectively with personal accounts of atrocity, while turning them into numbers.

Reading the interview made me reconsider what I am doing, and the importance of each step in our life. No, not in a 'quit my job and do something meaningful while throwing out everything I have done so far' sort of way, but in an 'hey...everything we do is, like it or not, a step on the path. Patrick put himself through Columbia as a statistics and database programmers.

Hey, I'm a statistics and database programmer. What am I putting myself through? From his interview at NewScientist.com:

Yes! Throwing away information is bad! The other error is to say I'm going to "clean" the data. That phrase makes my skin crawl. It means you're going to throw out all the duplicate reporting. Well, that's not very respectful to the people who gave you the data, is it? What you need is another database on top of the original database that draws out the elements that we judge to be unique and true.

Wendy M. Grossman did the interview. I admit to feeling a little 'heh heh' when I read the line 'When I grokked [understood intuitively] relational databases, I was, like, "Right, data's not flat."

It's a twofer hee hee...first because I grok the same thing, and second because I (well, okay, like at least half the tech savvy world) know where the word comes from...

I pulled out of the parking garage, looked left, and there was a 'direct action.' I'm not totally sure how blocking the intersection of College and Mendocino does anything to promote peace, but perhaps it is enough that it gives the kids someplace to gather and network.

I pulled up to a meter, across the street from my safe 50 cent/hour parking garage, and walked up. I met up with Lila, the mom of Janessa who is Molly's friend.

Janessa was in the intersection waiting to be arrested.

So I took pictures... And then after Janessa was arrested I went back to my car. Halfway there I remembered that I had neglected the money portion of my parking meter usage. Whoops. Oh well, the $25 was worth it for the experience.