Obsidian Wings

Reactions

1). No slam dunk. Neither Kerry nor Bush screwed up especially, except in that they were both a little slow to hit really hard, at least by the hyper-vendetta standards of the blogosphere. I would've drilled down on Bush's evasion of the Putin question, myself - and I'm voting for the guy in November. Likewise, Kerry left himself open a couple of times. Dunno if all of this is a bug or a feature.

2). For an event supposedly designed for swing voters, there was a lot of base-stroking involved.

3). It apparently seems quite the thing to mix debate-watching and beer-drinking. Go figure.

Sudan and Iran

Well, I brought one clear idea away from the debate. Neither candidate is anywhere near the realm of reality in formulating how they want to deal with genocide in the Sudan or nuclear ambitions in Iran.

Both want to 'give support' to the African Union in dealing with the genocide in the Sudan? Hello! The African Union is busy pretending there is no genocide in the Sudan.

Both are playing the negotiations game in Iran. Hello! Iran wants nuclear weapons. They have made that quite clear. They have engaged in negotiations for years. All they are doing is playing for time. Can the international community at least pretend they might try sanctions? Of course not. But both candidates pretend that there is gathering world pressure on Iran. Earth to presidential candidates--French griping does not equal pressure. Bush of all people ought to know that.

Debate Open Thread

Complex and tricky negotiations are taking place even as we speak for your Humble Essayist to be able to liveblog the debates - but I cannot promise anything, so here's an open thread to comment in anyway.

Still, I have my beer, my popcorn and my Robotic Right-Wing Talking Points ready and at hand, so let the debates begin! Dance, candidates! Dance for Moe Lane! Dance noooowwww.... sorry; was channelling Giblets for a moment, there. Either that, or Flying Dog beer's stronger than advertised. (Shrug) Heck, I've got tomorrow off...

UPDATE: I've retreated upstairs. Reactions"

ME: Interesting.

FIANCEE: Dear God, that was pointless.

And there you have it, America.

Shameless proxy bragging.

A WaPo link. Sure, it wasn't me (I'm quite the inconsequential blogger, these days), and sure, the post was originally a forward from somebody on her own hiatus (who can come back any time she likes), and sure, the author of the article apparently thinks that Obsidian Wings is the name of the blogger, not the blog... but, still. WaPo.

OK, I'm done now.

What Would You Ask?

The NYTimes printed questions for the President (from Albright, Clarke, and Schlesinger) and Senator Kerry (from Kristol, Wedgwood, and Davis Hanson).

If you could ask one question of either candidate (on the evening's topic of national security [JRQ]*), what would it be?

Mine, to President Bush, would be:

You've repeatedly said that if your generals told you they needed more troops in Iraq you would send them. Yet when asked by a reporter recently about a comment General Abizaid made saying more troops would be needed to secure Iraq for the January elections, you, with all respect, Sir, essentially mocked the reporter, saying that you had seen the general just that morning and he hadn't said anything to you about it. This quite honestly creates the impression that perhaps your generals are afraid to ask you for more troops, that they know it would be frowned upon, or at least that they'll have to overcome some resistance within your administration to increasing the troops. But it also makes me wonder, have you asked General Abizaid directly if he needs additional troops in Iraq? And, if so, what was his response. If not, why not?

*JRQ (Jesurgislac Requested Qualification).

Republicans Must Not Support Torture

I generally support the 9/11 Commission Bill (which is more formally known as H.R. 10). However, Sections 3032 and 3033 are very disturbing. They make it very easy for the US to move terrorist suspects into the custody of other countries in order to allow such suspects to be tortured in that country.

I strongly believe in the principle of policing your own. I am a Republican and a regular advocate for the Republican Party. You should consider this post a kind of 'toughlove'. As such I have some harsh words for the sponsors of this bill. This portion of the bill is morally, ethically, and politically wrong. It may be that you did not know all of what you were sponsoring (the bill is 300+ pages). But you should know now, and you should take action to change it.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of allowing real torture that I hardly know where to start.

First, it is wrong to treat people that way.

Second, these rules involve terrorist suspects. It is bad enough that we sometimes imprison the wrong people. Can we live with ourselves as a nation if we have condemned innocent men to having their fingernails slashed or their balls fried with electricity? If the French experience in Algeria is any guide, the regularization of torture causes an explosion of torture cases. They moved from the low hundreds to the thousands in just one year. That would likely involve torturing at least a hundred people per year who were innocent.

Third, it is a well understood conservative principle that people tend to push past the bounds of the legally permissible. Even though we have banned the use of torture in our country, the line between torture and non-torture is still skirted from time to time. Overzealous law enforcement people sometimes go a bit further than we allow. If we move the line to allow for exporting torture, where will those who go a bit further go? They will go to using a person's children against them. They will send a man and his wife to these other countries so the wife can be tortured in front of him. I can't predict exactly how it will work. But I know for a fact, and you do too if you think about it, that law enforcement pushes the line and pushes it hard. If we move the line so far as to allow suspects to be sent to other countries to be tortured, the actuality will go even further. You should also note that such exporting of suspects will never be under the classic 'ticking bomb' scenario which is sometimes used to justify torture. If we have time to send them to another country, the information isn't so crucial as a 'ticking bomb'.

Fourth, torture is rarely more effective than other interrogation techniques. Why open ourselves up to such horrors without even a payoff?

Fifth, for those not convinced by the above, it is politically stupid. This plays into all the left-wing fears about conservative blindness to the problems of the justice system. It makes all the whining about a 'police state' look a bit less crazy. It provides a perfect example of willingness to abandon our country's principles in the war on terrorism. Voters want tough, but they do not want crazy. We are at a crucial stage in a vital campaign. Throwing it all away by playing into every swing voter's concerns about Republicans possibly going too far is just plain stupid. So if your heart is hardened to the moral implications, at least pay attention to the political implications.

My message to Republican leaders is this, either listen to the moral implications, or at least learn Dan Rather's lesson. The blogosphere is beginning to focus its attention on this issue. Look at the number of trackbacks to katherine's post. It isn't just going away. Put it to rest now. Admit that you hadn't fully thought through the implications of this small section of the bill and move on. It would be the height of foolishness to risk the American public's backing for the War on Terror on a practice which is both highly immoral and typically unhelpful. We are going to have to steel the public's nerves for a lot of things to come in the future. It would be a shame to waste time and energy defending the unhelpful and indefensible instead of dealing with other issues which are highly useful to the war and merely tough to defend.

Bush's Support Explained At Last

For those of you who have been wondering, as I have, how anyone can support a President as disastrous as George W. Bush, a report from the Program on International Policy Attitudes explains it for us: his supporters have no idea what he stands for. Via Kos:

"As the nation prepares to watch the presidential candidates debate foreign policy issues, a new PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, on the other hand, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush’s positions, though to a smaller extent than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry’s positions correctly. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: “What is striking is that even after nearly four years President Bush’s foreign policy positions are so widely misread, while Senator Kerry, who is relatively new to the public and reputed to be unclear about his positions, is read correctly.”"

An Alternate, Mutually Exclusive, Superior Hypothesis

Via rc3.org
~~~~~~~~~~

Someone has finally found the words to explain something that's been bugging me. William Saletan explains that President Bush frequently justifies his decisions on unfalsifiable hypotheses. And as one who insists the US base policy on "sound science," he should really know better.

In 1999, George W. Bush said we needed to cut taxes because the economy was doing so well that the U.S. Treasury was taking in too much money, and we could afford to give some back to the people who earned it. In 2001, Bush said we needed the same tax cuts because the economy was doing poorly, and we had to return the money so that people would spend and invest it.

Bush's arguments made the wisdom of cutting taxes unfalsifiable. In good times, tax cuts were affordable. In bad times, they were necessary. Whatever happened proved that tax cuts were good policy. When Congress approved the tax cuts, Bush said they would revive the economy. You'd know that the tax cuts had worked, because more people would be working. Three years later, more people aren't working. But in Bush's view, that, too, proves he was right. If more people aren't working, we just need more tax cuts.

Now Bush is playing the same game in postwar Iraq. When violence there was subsiding, he said it proved he was on the right track. Now violence is increasing, and Bush says this, too, proves he's on the right track.

My Passed-Out Friend Here is Buying...Here's His Arm

Imagine you're out for a night of drinking. Somewhere between breakdancing in the Irish dive and being kicked out of the uppity martini lounge, you realize you've lost your wallet. No more cash, not even an ATM card...your night is over.

&-(

Fear no more, my sobrietyphobic friends; science has come to the rescue:

Imagine having a glass capsule measuring 1.3mm by 1mm, about the size of a large piece of rice injected under your skin.

Implanting microchips that emit a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) into animals has been common practice in many countries around the world, with some looking to make it a legal requirement for domestic pet owners.

The idea of having my very own microchip implanted in my body appealed. I have always been an early adopter, so why not.

Last week I headed for the bright lights of the Catalan city of Barcelona to enter the exclusive VIP Baja Beach Club.

The night club offers its VIP clients the opportunity to have a syringe-injected microchip implanted in their upper arms that not only gives them special access to VIP lounges, but also acts as a debit account from which they can pay for drinks.

It's not clear from the article if you pay upfront and then your bar/club-specific account is debited or if the chip charges against a bank card, meaning you could unwittingly party away your entire checking account. And how do you tip the bartender? Nevermind...not sure I want to know.

Debate Rules...

Like Pejmanesque, I heartily approve of these debate rules, although speaking solely in terms of aesthetics I prefer Rule 42 to Rule 98. And I hope to God nobody takes advantage of the final sentence of Rule 2.

What bipartisan (which is to say, stuff that's equally annoying from both sides) rules would you folks like to see? Emphasis on stuff that's true, applies equally to either President Bush & Senator Kerry and - most importantly - funny.