Open Thread

by hilzoy

If you haven't already seen a photo of the world's cutest baby, go to it -- and, again, congratulations to rilkefan and Mrs. R, as well as to the rilkekind for making his way to the outside world.

I just accepted an offer on my old house, which is very good news, though not nearly as important as the appearance of the rilkekind. And, amazingly enough, I have almost finished sorting the books, which is more impressive than you might think.

And one more thing: am I wrong, or did the Republicans in Congress spend last week confirming half the worst stereotypes about them? Blocking the renewal of the VOting Rights Act, blocking an attempt to raise the minimum wage (which is at its lowest point in decades), permanently repealing the Estate Tax (this still has to go through the Senate, thank God), scuttling immigration reform because the House Republicans found the Senate version insufficiently punitive, and so on, and so forth? And then, to top it all off, there are the nineteen Republicans who voted against an amendment "To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States."

Geez.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

"And one more thing: am I wrong, or did the Republicans in Congress spend last week confirming half the worst stereotypes about them?"

What stereotypes? Please elaborate in excruciating detail.

[Phil]

So, speaking of the minimum wage, why isn't it that the annual COLA increases in Congressional pay haven't had the predicted effect of reducing the demand for Congressmen?

[Chuchundra]

Since this is an open thread, does anyone know what happened to tacitus.org?

[liberal japonicus]

I think it became a wiki ;^)

[Jay C]

No, lj:I think the wiki was set up as a (experimental) sideline: someone/somebody seems to have hijacked the tacitus.org main site: I keep getting an automatic redirect to something titled "Alluvus" (?): a cheap-looking blog (with nonfunctional links) - nothing like the Augustan forum we know.

Anyone know what's going on?

[Gromit]

Tacitus.org is back up. As for what happened, hellifino.

[Prodigal]

Could you elaborate on how the 19 Republicans who voted against S 2766 plays to the stereotypes, Hilzoy? Seems to me that voting for something opposing the government of Iraq extending amnesty toward anybody that attacked our troops, rather than voting against it.

[Prodigal]

...would be playing to stereotypes.

(Sorry for forgetting to finish my own sentence.)

[lily]

I suppose as a matter of political expediency one would have to vote agaisnt amnesty for people who blow up American soldiers, but, in terms of bringing peace to Iraq, it might be necessary to have such a amnesty. After all they had thought over carefully the question of who to should get amnesty and who should not in terms of settling their conflict, not in terms of pleasing us.. People who blew up Shiite mosques didn't get amnesty, for example. The subtext was ( from our perspective) that it is forgivable to kill Americans but unforgiveable to to kill Shiites. That is obnoxious to us, but should our perspective be the one that prevails? It was a plan for Iraqis, after all. The subtext for them was that military action against an occupying power is Ok but terrorism against civilians is not. Bush might not like to think of us as an occupying power but if we dictate to them what the terms of their internal peace settlement will be, then what else can we honestly call ourselves? If the Iraqis can cobble something together that has a chance of bringing peace and getting us out, I think we should support it.

[Prodigal]

I suppose as a matter of political expediency one would have to vote agaisnt amnesty for people who blow up American soldiers...

That's my point exactly, Lily. I can't see how the 19 who voted against it were confirming any stereotypes.

[lily]

Yeah, I thought there were some Democrats being demogogues on this one.

[hilzoy]

Prodigal: you're right; I had originally had that as a separate para., which would have had the first votes confirming stereotypes and the last (about amnesty) being more 'wtf?', but I compressed it and that distinction got screwed up.

For what it's worth, I do not support any amnesty for people who kill American troops as long as our troops are still there. Once they are out of harm's way, let the Iraqis do whatever they think best, and I won't protest. While they are still there, I support the Iraqi government's right to do what it sees fit to do, but I also support the Senate expressing the view that it should not grant amnesty to people who kill our soldiers, unless they have some really good reason to suppose that those people do not plan to go on trying to kill them.

[Prodigal]

Thanks for un-confusing me, Hilzoy. And I am in agreement with you on the matter.

[Gromit]

Maybe I don't understand Maliki's reconciliation plan, but wouldn't amnesty be part of a cease-fire, i.e. it would only apply to past actions, and would be predicated on future cessation of hostilities?

[liberal japonicus]

No, lj:I think the wiki was set up as a (experimental) sideline:

Sorry, just a joke, late night imagining that blogs turn into wikis and wikis into ???

[lily]

It is very intimidating to disagree with hilzoy. But here goes....
I imagine insurgents will continue to attack and attempt to kill Americans. That's what people do in wars.If we aren't prepared to accept that as a logical consequence of being there, then we should get out now. The Maliki plan is an attempt is to end the war and in that context assuring the other side that they won't be prosecuted is a logical step. Even normal. After all , isn't it taking American exceptionalism a bit far to think that people in another country should be prosecuted for killing our soldiers when our soldiers invaded and are perceived by them as the enemy? I can see saying that they shouldn't give amnesty to people who deliberately target civilians but soldiers expect to risk getting killed. It's in the job description. it's inherent in the situation.. It seems self-indulgent to me to invade a country and then act like the people who resist the invasion by fighting soldiers are misbehaving in an unforgivable way. ( I have a whole other idea about people who blow up school buses).
Our soldiers will be in a lot less danger if the Iraqis can come up with a plan for bringing about peace and troop withdrawals. If the removal of this amnesty language turns out to be a deal breaker, then the removal itself will increase their risk by protracting the war.
Of course I don't know if the deal would have worked or if this particular point was essential. I just don't buy the idea that one can fight wars without expecting the people one is fighting to try to kill our soldiers. Nor do I think it is reasonable to expect those people to stop if they think they will be prosecuted by the victors. So, if the goal is to stop the fighting, amnesty for the other side's fighters is quite likely to be required.
I think that for some people the issue here is that they don't want to give the insurgents any kind of legitmacy. They don't want the insurgents to be conceptualized as fighting for their country against invaders. i don't think the question of how we Americans conceptualize the insurgency shuld be driver in writing a plan.If it essential for Iraqi reconcilliation for the Shiites to give Sunni insurgents credit for being fighters against invaders, then so be it. And Maliki is in a much better position to determine this than we are.
Also some people might think that the possibility of amensty might encourage more attacks on Americans. I find that hard to believe. I think the possibility of our troops being there on and on and on is probably more of an encouragement.
The amnestty issue of concern to Americans, it seems to me, should be what to do with the politicans who got our soldiers itno this mess. I'm saving my wrath for them.

[DaveC]

what lily said,

Minus the last paragraph, of course!

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"But here goes....
I imagine insurgents will continue to attack and attempt to kill Americans. That's what people do in wars.If we aren't prepared to accept that as a logical consequence of being there, then we should get out now. The Maliki plan is an attempt is to end the war and in that context assuring the other side that they won't be prosecuted is a logical step."

I'm willing to buy it, if it actually ends the war. But you don't get an amnesty for past acts and get to continue the war. It is a bargain in which amnesty is exchanged for ceasing to fight.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Flag burning amendment fails.

[Jesurgislac]

Hilzoy: For what it's worth, I do not support any amnesty for people who kill American troops as long as our troops are still there.

What lily said.

The US has no grounds under international law for prosecuting Iraqis who kill US soldiers occupying Iraq, except American exceptionalism which holds that the US is entitled to invade other countries and the inhabitants of those countries are not entitled to fight back. As the current effective ruler of Iraq, of course the US has the ability to declare that for Iraqis to fight back against the US invasion/occupation is a criminal offense: but the fact is, in war, soldiers are legitimate targets.

I am genuinely shocked to see Hilzoy apparently upholding the principle of American exceptionalism.

[Jesurgislac]

I shouldn't say American exceptionalism, in fact, because I can think of at least one other example in 20th century history where an invading/occupying nation simply declared that local resistance to it was a criminal offense, and treated resisters accordingly. They made use of concentration camps, torture, and hostages, too. It was - for a few years - a very successful strategy.

[Jackmormon]

Thank God that stupid flag-burning amendment failed! Demogoguery, pure and simple. Can this issue just GO AWAY?

[dutchmarbel]

Jes; the challenge is probabely in finding an invading country that DOESN'T declare local resistance a criminal offence.

[Anarch]

Jackmormon: Thank God that stupid flag-burning amendment failed! Demogoguery, pure and simple. Can this issue just GO AWAY?

No, precisely because it's demogoguery, pure and simple -- specifically of the jingoistic kind needed to keep people in the correct frame of mind for whatever Bush and the GOP have planned.

That said, this kind of thing, from the CNN article linked above, always infuriates me:

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

Look, people, it's pretty simple: it's an amendment. An amendment cannot, prima facie, "violate" another amendment because it's bloody amending it! You can argue against it on the grounds that it's a stupid amendment -- as indeed I do -- or that the liberties enshrined in the First Amendment shouldn't be so cavalierly compromised, or what have you, but to argue that an amendment violates another amendment is like arguing that keyboards can't have backspace keys. Yeesh.

[Anarch]

Jes; the challenge is probabely in finding an invading country that DOESN'T declare local resistance a criminal offence.

I can't think of a single one, actually; can anyone else?

[Bernard Yomtov]

Jes,

You are talking about the UK's policies towards Ireland, I take it?

[Bernard Yomtov]

Amendments amend. Got it, anarch.

By the way, since it's an open thread I'd like your opinion of Incompleteness, Rebecca Goldstein's book about Godel. I recently finished it. Any major objections, or have you not read it?

[Jackmormon]

My favorite argument against the flag-burning amendment, actually, is that it violates the principle of private property. ("If I buy this flag, it's my flag to do with as I please, at least until the government chooses to make the flag-design the intellectual property of the US, to be leased under conditions to individual flag-holders.")

[kenB]

Jackmormon, that's great, where'd you see that one? I could so picture having to sign a EULA before buying a flag.

[Ischander]

Anarch

I understand your fury over the 'violate' thing. It is sloppy stuff I am sure.

Not to defend sloppiness, but perhaps they were using a common euphemism.

"Opponents said the amendment would rape the First Amendment right to free speech."

[matttbastard]

Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House on the flag desecration amendment:

I understand that many of my conservative friends – and even Arlen Specter, the hypocritical bastard – are in favor of the proposed amendment that the Senate will start debating today on criminalizing the burning of the American flag.

But in a nation born of dissent, it seems to me that passing an amendment that would contradict one of the main things the flag represents is not only wrong but does an injustice to those who fought and died to protect it.

I know I’ll get a lot of flack for that last statement. But how meaningful can a heroes’ death be if we place a limit on what he died for? Must we also pass an amendment saying that this religion or that religion is outlawed? Should we amend the Constitution to prevent the New York Times from publishing all secrets? Perhaps we should have an amendment that outlaws lobbying? Or that limits demonstrations against the government?

[...]

Living in America ain’t easy. This is a country that re-invents itself every few years, putting enormous strain on people to adapt. But there must be some things in America that should never change. And one of those things is the right to dissent in any way that does not harm another person or their property. Putting restraints on how someone dissents is the same as limiting their ability to disagree. Yes there are better ways to dissent than burning the flag. But who are you or I to tell anyone else that?

Burning the flag is hurtful, stupid, and reveals the dissenter to be more interested in provoking people than in making a statement against the government. But there’s no law against being an idiot. If that were the case, most politicians would be thrown in the slammer.

[...]

Specter and the Republicans in the Senate are pandering, pure and simple. I don’t mind it so much when they push something like the so called Marriage Amendment that hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. That kind of pandering is constitutionally harmless just because it will never pass. (Whether or not the issue is hurtful to gays is another issue entirely). But political posturing in support of this amendment that would limit the way people dissent is a different story. Mucking around with the Constitution for political gain is wrong. I felt the same way about ERA, the balanced budget, and the abortion amendments. Fooling around with the Constitution is deadly serious business which is why it has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights became law.

[lily]

My god, I wrote something that Sebstian and DaveC agree with! (Reeling with shock).

[liberal japonicus]

That kind of pandering is constitutionally harmless just because it will never pass... But political posturing in support of this amendment that would limit the way people dissent is a different story.

Is it just me who is struck by this disconnect? I get the impression that one can rile people up about things that won't pass because, well, they won't pass and they help fill up the coffers, but for something like this, this is just flat out dangerous!

[Jackmormon]

kenB--The general argument about flag-burning as a property-right came from "slolernr" on some Unfogged.com thread a couple of months ago. The "quoted" text was me quoting a hypothetical line of argument in my head. I'm sorry to have been unclear--since I'd like slolernr's argument to expand to combat this idiocy. It really would help if I had a link.

[Anarch]

Bernard Yomtov: Amendments amend. Got it, anarch.

You sure? 'cause I can rant some more if you'd like =)

By the way, since it's an open thread I'd like your opinion of Incompleteness, Rebecca Goldstein's book about Godel. I recently finished it. Any major objections, or have you not read it?

I haven't read it, no. I did read the AMS review (now conveniently online!) when it came out and was... underwhelmed by the book, to put it mildly. Without having read it, though, I can't say whether I think its popularizing virtues outweigh its myriad technical and historical flaws. And to be perfectly honest, I know very little about what Godel thought about his own work; I've only read a few of his papers (his seminal 1931 "On Formally Undecidable Propositions...", which is mind-numbingly tedious [unavoidably so, IMO] and bits of others) and I was more interested in the technical details than the individual philosophy underlying them. If you have any specific questions, though, I'd be happy to try to address them.

[hilzoy]

Oh. My. God. It is the same Rebecca Goldstein who wrote The Mind-Body Problem -- one of the greatest wastes of a really good idea for a novel ever. Ugh.

[kenB]

Well then, kudos to you, JM, because it was the intellectual property analogy that tickled me.

[Anarch]

I get the impression that one can rile people up about things that won't pass because, well, they won't pass and they help fill up the coffers, but for something like this, this is just flat out dangerous!

It also neglects the fact that the drive for passing these amendments can themselves generate support for a second (or third or fourth or... how many times has the flag-burning amendment come up anyway?) time. Essentially, it's mainstreaming a fringe/extremist proposition (for suitable threshholds of fringe and extremist, natch) and can be dangerous for that reason alone.

Also, John Scalzi has a terrific deconstruction of the amendment here, from last year.

[Anarch]

Jackmormon: You and the Rude Pundit, apparently.

[Yama001]

>>Sorry, just a joke, late night imagining that blogs turn into wikis and wikis into ???

Izzat a riff on the old story where paper clips turn into coat hangers, coat hangers turn in bicycles, etc???

We wonders what McManus and Thullens turn into.:)

[liberal japonicus]

Yama001,
Yeah! Avram Davidson "Or All the Seas with Oysters"

I'm kinda hoping I'll turn into a McManus or a Thullen...

[Jackmormon]

I haven't read the Rude Pundit since mid-2004. How's he doing with the despair?

[Yama001]

>>I'm kinda hoping I'll turn into a McManus or a Thullen...

Don't we all.

If only I had half the wit...

And Avram Davidson - it brings me back.

[Anarch]

I haven't read the Rude Pundit since mid-2004. How's he doing with the despair?

Rudely.

[Jesurgislac]

Bernard: You are talking about the UK's policies towards Ireland, I take it?

Well, that is another example. (Technically, the British army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were not invaders/occupiers.) But certainly there was an absolute refusal for many years by the UK to accept that a British soldier in Northern Ireland was a military target - that there was a war being fought, not a series of criminal actions. Peace is not achieved by treating your opponents as criminals.