Can you imagine? "I was raped, but I didn't think I could afford to call the police."
You're forgetting about their convenient installment purchase program.
Business opportunity: agree to use Dewey, Cheetham & Howe to sue your attacker for civil damages, and we will send you this complete test kit with nothing to pay RIGHT NOW! Call 1-888-DCH-HELP-RAPE! (Cost will be deducted from your eventual damages payment. If you are under 18, please ensure you have an adult's permission to call.)
"Interesting" isn't the adjective I'd use to describe the story. "Fucking appalling", maybe.
You could probably sell a bunch of them on late-night infomercials....
||
It really pisses me off that NPR did a story yesterday on Equal Pay for Equal Work about the Lily Ledbetter case where they quoted a Chamber of Commerce guy saying that the proposed law would encourage frivolous lawsuits, but in which they failed to mention that it would return the law to the status quo ex ante.
|>
No contradiction there, BG. The COC thought all lawsuits, regardless of merit, were frivolous before the decision.
I know, but I think that they said that there would be more frivolous law suits, as in an increase. There wouldn't be any more lawsuits than there were before. I am contemplating sending them an e-mail, but it takes me a while to write a good one. I'm no Scott Lemieux.
NPR could have, you know, put someone else on to make this point.
NPR has been very irritating.
I suspect that Fox's has coopted them by paying Juan Williams, Maira Liasson, et el, to appear on Fox.
20 point shift among white women puts McCain/Palin ahead...HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME, WHITE WOMEN! YOU ARE JUST AS STUPID AS WHITE MEN!
National information is useless. Gawd only knows how far ahead Palin is in the South, but I wouldn't be shocked to find out that it's a huge number. We shouldn't be hanging those people, like an albatross, around the necks of women in other areas.
I am surprised we have not yet seen any T-shirts with a picture of Palin and the words "FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH!"
That is all.
YOU ARE JUST AS STUPID AS WHITE MEN!
Equal opportunity stupidity!
But, via TPM, a new set of Rasmussen polls shows the gender gap in 4 swing states (I don't see a gender breakdown for Colorado, but maybe I missed it):
Ohio:
Obama leads 50% to 45% among women
McCain leads 59% to 36% among men
PA:
Obama leads 55% to 36% among women
McCain leads 55% to 38% among men
Virginia:
Obama leads 55% to 42% among women
McCain leads 58% to 37% among men
Florida:
Obama leads 50% to 46% among women
McCain leads 50% to 46% among men
Men clearly can't be trusted with the franchise--too emotional.
I have been familiar with the gender gap outlined in 15 for many years, and it has been making me hang my head in shame. Hence my irrational emotional outburst in 12. Projection, which is the key to everything.
making me hang my head in shame
Why? Do you keep voting Republican out of gender solidarity or something?
This sort of thing still surprises me. Despite following politics closely for a couple of decades I'm still regularly taken aback by the fact that so many right wingers have absolutely no compassion. More to the point, many of them have a kind of anti-compassion that sees weakness and suffering as something that should be punished.
Does anyone think there would be any support at all from the right for charging business owners the cost of lifting fingerprints from a breaking and entering crime scene?
Only if they were "asking to be robbed".
18: joking.
If we were going to get into ethnic solidarity, Jews historically vote about 80% Democratic. And I guess I really was a little ashamed about the Jewish/Israeli connection to the neocons.
According to one of my commenters, this pay-for-your-own-rape-kit thing was also the case in SC until very recently.
this pay-for-your-own-rape-kit thing
BitchPhD does not believe in the power of the free market.
B, if we give women rape kits for free, won't that encourage them just to go around making rape accusations willy-nilly? People only value what they pay for.
My good friend who knows much about state legislatures says it was the case in most states until the mid 90s, if not all states. NC still bills victims. Like, today. Apparently there was a push to change thigns in the early part of the decade and a bunch of states passed laws, but half appropriated funds and half (give or take) just said local hospitals and police had to deal with it.
I retract on NC, they might have made a change early this year. But a http://www.newsobserver.com/news/health_science/story/941202.htmlCharlotte News Observer piece from early 08 has hospital personnel complaining in the same way Palin's police chief was.
NC still bills victims.
Not so, though the change is very recent.
Pwned on 28 (though the News and Observer is the Raleigh paper; Chalotte's paper is just the Observer).
Gah. I jacked up everything about that.
OK, so how many other states bill rape victims for the cost of the exam and the rape kit? I'm sure it's not just one or two. Maybe this kind of scrutiny on Wasilla's policy will lead to a sea change across the country.
Or.... maybe not?
how many other states bill rape victims for the cost of the exam and the rape kit
Unless I'm misunderstanding (which is quite possible), it's the hospitals billing them and not the states.
I believe that a lot of states enacted Crime Victim's protection acts in the last decade. They arent perfect, but they do increase the protections for victims (alleged or real.)
In my area, if you file for a protective order, you get a victim's witness advocate and lawyer for free. The person against whom the protective order is being sought gets nothing (but perhaps booted out of the house). Since protective orders are often given very easily, this can have a tremendous impact in close call cases.
24: BitchPhD does not believe in the power of the free market.
"You've already been raped once. Don't get raped again when you buy your rape kit! At Crazy Joe's our rape kit prices are INSAAAAANE!"
I think apo is right, hospitals bill in the absence of state funds appropriated for the kits. Or the bill gets sent to the police district if the case is to be prosecuted. If there are no state funds approrpiated, that becomes part of their budget. I also understand that the big issue in a lot of states/municipalities right now is whether hospitals shoud have to provide free kits ("jane doe" kits) for people who don't want to prosecute. In many small under-funded towns, they bill you for one unless you press charges and the cost gets wrapped into a prosecution.
12: Yeah, Nate Silver isn't super concerned:
The ABC News finding that Sarah Palin dramatically upped John McCain's support among white women is one I'm not entirely convinced by, mostly because other polling by the same agency shows Sarah Palin performing worse among women than she does among men. One needs to remember that the margins of error are much higher for subsamples of the data than for the poll as a whole. That's why I generally don't spend a lot of time focusing on the demographics in individual polls. If a poll is breaking out six or eight different demographic groups, and the margins of error on these subsamples are 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 points, then odds are that something is going to be out of alignment merely due to chance alone.
Argh. I just had a conversation with a couple of people in my office about this rape-kit issue. They weren't impressed. "Did Palin make the policy? Was it already the policy when she became mayor? Do you have video of her defending the policy?"
Do you have video of her defending the policy?
oh, and did you know that she is reformer who was against the Bridge to Nowhere!
Did Palin make the policy? Was it already the policy when she became mayor?
Unfortunately, those are perfectly legitimate questions. Also worth pondering is whether any rapes were reported in this very small town during her tenure such that she would have even been aware of the policy.
Didnt the article quote the Police chief as saying it would cost Wasilla between $5,000 and $15,000 a year?
If Palin didn't lose a voter at "fundie Red with a knocked up kid," she's not going to lose him. Or if she is, we have little chance of guessing what would cause him to renounce Palin.
BitchPhD does not believe in the power of the free market.
Hey, if you can't afford to pay for a rape kit, then don't go getting raped.
40: They are legit questions, and it's also a legit question if she even knew about it. That said, she *did* have a policy that no one spoke to the media without approval, so presumably her police chief had approval from *someone* to make those statements. And, of course, there's a follow-up question: once the law was passed, and her police chief made those statements, what, if anything, was her reaction?
One of my readers provided these statistics, in re. number of rapes during Palin's tenure as mayor.
I don't see stats for 96-99, but this says 1 in 2000 and 2 in 2001 and 2002. So, answered my own question.
They're legitimate questions, and reporters should be hounding her and the McCain campaign until they receive truthful answers. They're not reasons to sweep the whole thing under the rug.
They are legit questions, and it's also a legit question if she even knew about it.
Um, no, they aren't legitimate questions.
1 - the issue was prominent enough that the state passed legislation about it.
2 - Palin's police chief publicly opposed that legislation.
How is it possible to let Palin off the hook?
How is it possible to let Palin off the hook?
Well, for one thing, John McCain was a POW.
How is it possible to let Palin off the hook?
I cannot believe that you do not know the answer.
She is only responsible for the good things, not the bad things.
I don't know about that, will, there have been no Democrats in power in Alaska for decades, so how could there be any bad things in the first place?
there have been no Democrats in power in Alaska for decades
Tony Knowles was governor from '94-'02.
INdeed, he's the one that signed the bill saying you can't charge rape victims for collecting forensic evidence.
Typical democrat: protecting people from the financial consequences of being raped can only increase its prevalence.
Huh! Former democratic mayor of NYC and more recent semi neocon embracer Ed Koch would have voted for McCain, but now he is scared of Sarah Palin, what with the Jesus and the book banning. He endorsed Obama today! As goes Koch, so goes FL, mebbe?
53: I thought Obama has Lab's vote sewed up.
Fontana wasn't ever going to vote for McCain, Oudie.
But that would be awesome if Palin alienates Florida.
The state needs to save money on rape-kits so that they can pay for Palin a per diem to stay in her own house.
Labs: Philosophy prof by day; Ron Paul blimp pilot by night.
We take our marching orders from the Rothschilds, not Ed Koch. When the Baron endorses the negro, we'll fall in line.
57: Bloomberg stays in his own house. I wonder, though, if he is a dollar-a-year man or something.
59: But you're totally more scared of the Jesus-lady than the black guy, right?
I wonder, though, if he is a dollar-a-year man or something.
He is.
61: The Jesus lady is white, isn't she? There's your answer. On the other hand, we've known Joey Biden for a long time. He's a good boy. And very handsome. So tall. And those eyes.
63: besides, the Jesus Lady was a Buchanan supporter.
64: What? You want I should vote for him again? On purpose?
64: Don't forget, we came out for Buchanan in big numbers once already. Who's to say what we'll do next. We're demented unpredictable.
We're demented unpredictable French Canadian.
Better than votes from a graveyard, mind
The Jesus lady is white, isn't she?
Yeah, she's white. But she thinks you're not. Or not really. Not that she'd ever say so, exactly, if you know what I mean. Just saying.
Normally crime victims are responsible for their own medical expenses. However to the extent that rape kits are to aid prosecution rather than treat the victim the state should pick up the cost. This assumes an official complaint has been made.
If people have to pay for their own rape kits, instead of billing it to the government, then the rape-kit market will become more transparent and the competition will spring up. In this way, Wassila can break the corruptive power of Big Rape-Kit.
Mary Catherine? What kind of name is that?
However to the extent that rape kits are to aid prosecution
To the extent that they are merely recreational, the expense should be private.
72's much better than what I was working on.
69: Rape kits aren't a medical treatment at all, they're solely to collect evidence. And considering how reluctant many women are to press charges right away, it's a good idea to have the evidence available should they want to do so later.
This assumes an official complaint has been made.
You're confusing crimes with torts. Prosecution of torts is private, and they are conceived of as private wrongs. Crimes are offenses against the public, prosecuted by the public, and prosecution doesn't depend on whether any private person making a complaint. If you kill someone the state should prosecute whether or not the dead person, or any friend of the dead person, wants to make a complaint.
Did Palin make the policy? Was it already the policy when she became mayor?
Given that these are not just legitimate questions, but ones that most people will immediately ask, and given that numerous states/regions have had similar laws until fairly recently, using this issue against Palin in any kind of organized way (whether by the Obama campaign or by newshounds of one sort or another) is a non-starter.
I have to admit, though, that I'm sorely tempted to mention it to my mother (who doesn't trust Obama, though I haven't talked to her about Palin) *even knowing* that it's, you know, not completely fair.
I know that my mom is among those who (a) don't trust the media, and (b) are swayed by the words of their friends, families and neighbors. I could whisper at her. But damnit, it's not right. This question has been bugging me in a general way quite a bit in this election.
75: To be fair (or nitpicky?) the willingness of the victim to cooperate with a prosecution can affect whether or not there is sufficient evidence to proceed.
77: Very true.
I have an unfortunate tendency to omit the major premise of arguments, leaving myself incoherent. I did it again here.
The reasoning goes: if it's a crime, an offense against the public, the public should prosecute and pay for the prosecution (and the collection of evidence) no matter what the wishes or opinions of the victim.
If it's a tort, it's up to the victim to pay for everything.
The sufficiency of the evidence has no bearing on that principle.
This is slightly related to the New Yorker article on shoplifting, which said that Target stores do (and pay for) all the investigating of shoplifting and embezzling. Otherwise, they say, the crimes would not be prosectued or investigated. This struck me as another instance of justice for the rich, and not the poor, to the extent that similar crimes against those not in a position to pay for the prosecution wouldn't get prosecuted.
76: You should click through the various links and read the stories, because the details matter. For example, fter Alaska changed the law to protect rape victims, Palin's chief of police maintained that the old way of doing business was better. In other words, Palin hasn't commented on the issue, that we know of, but her subordinates believe that the victims of sexual assault should have to pay for rape kits. Given that, I'm not sure that this issue should be off limits. Complicated, yes. Unfair, no.
||
I have resolved to never forgive Obama if he loses this election, but I must say, I may have to reconsider if he loses it for saying stuff like this regarding the rights of suspected terrorists:
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."
This makes me all whirly-eyed, and renders my leg like unto that of Chris Matthews. Who could ever imagine a plausible presidential candidate personally identifying with a hypothetical terrorism suspect?
|
But damnit, it's not right.
Jeebus.
80: I know. When I read that, I had to tell 4 different people immediately and then wag my tail a bit.
83: dammit I've been trying to come up with a joke about palindromes and things looking forward when they're backwards (or something) for like a week now. It ain't easy!
79: Given that, I'm not sure that this issue should be off limits.
Fair enough. We can start a national dialogue about the question, writ both large and small, and into the bargain, how it reflects on Palin's administration and any future one over which she might preside.
78
"The reasoning goes: if it's a crime, an offense against the public, the public should prosecute and pay for the prosecution (and the collection of evidence) no matter what the wishes or opinions of the victim."
...
"The sufficiency of the evidence has no bearing on that principle."
This is ridiculous, the state has limited resources and shouldn't waste them on cases where convictions will be impossible because the victim refuses to cooperate.
81: Tim, what I had in mind is that I could whisper along these lines: You know, Palin really worries me. She belongs to one of those churches in which people fall on the floor and speak in tongues, and she tried to ban books from the town library and fired the librarian when she wouldn't agree; and her town made women pay for rape kits if they were raped! She wants to make abortion illegal even for rape victims! She wants to teach creationism along with evolution in schools, and she's against sex education! Etc.
The problem is that not all of these things are clearly true. Surely you take my point.
James, you're able to know when a crime victim will and will not cooperate, are you? That's a handy superpower. You should consider a career in law enforcement.
83: I didn't see that in particular, but I have made many jokes about this!
89: Fuck law enforcement, James should consider a career in crime.
I could whisper at her. But damnit, it's not right.
Oh, I think Kant would cut you some slack on this one, especially in the circumstances.
91: Perhaps cannibalism, specifically. Just to tie the two active threads together.
This is ridiculous, the state has limited resources and shouldn't waste them on cases where convictions will be impossible because the victim refuses to cooperate.
That's an argument for declining to prosecute in cases where they believe they will not be successful. It's not any sort of argument against paying for `rape kits', which should always be payed for by the state, always be available, and the use encouraged regardless of the victims feelings about prosecution at that moment --- because these things are only useful for a limited time.
88: I'm kind of sympathetic to your point. I'd like it if being the superior candidate was enough to get elected, but as things stand it's clearly marginal. In the event I end up talking to some low information voters I'll be sorely tempted to take the approach you suggest.
If you do go down that path, drop "along with evolution" from the schools part. She wants to teach creationism. Presumably she also supports teaching of human skeletal structure, but we don't feel the need to point that out when we mention her creationist sympathies. Evolution shouldn't be put on a pedestal, don't you agree?
89 94
If they don't coooperate then you bill them.
||
Kill me. I just watched the most recent episode of Gossip Girl while eating my lunch, and assumed that the show title, "Never Been Marcused," referred to Herbert Marcuse and was so pronounced. This gave me no pause whatsoever, signaled no dissonance, until 1 minute ago, when I was like, "Ooooh. Mar-kissed."
|>
Evolution shouldn't be put on a pedestal, don't you agree?
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.
If they don't coooperate then you bill them.
No, you don't.
If they don't coooperate then you bill kill and eat them.
If you do go down that path, drop "along with evolution" from the schools part.
Believe me, I considered it.
Look, though, the problem with this approach is as LB, I think, mentioned in some other recent thread: you try to avoid going down that path because it puts you at risk of sounding wild-eyed and therefore dismissed out of hand,* and at risk of the "Gotcha!" moment in which it's pointed out that, actually, Palin didn't try to ban any books. She just asked about it.
* You know it when you've lost your audience: the longer pause, the noncommittal "hm."
This "coooperate" nonsense that James perpetrated and you all are repeating could have been prevented if diëreses were the norm.
C'mon ben, they were just cooooperating
Onthread bleg: Will someone look at this? And, after doing so, let me know why it's not a contradiction that Obama speaks of taking out terrorists in one breath but then says, in the next, that we must protect their habeas rights?
First you take 'em out and then you give the body to whomever asks.
You're allowed to shoot enemy soldiers in the field, but not once you have taken them prisoner.
He also says that only captured suspects deserve to file habeas writs. Someone you've "taken out", well, that person hasn't been captured, ari.
107: It's because we only shoot the right people, but sometimes we grab the wrong people.
I like how he ends with "These people." I think he's trying to bait Palin into coming back with "You people."
Yeah, I get that. But what, when you're talking about terrorists, constitutes "the field"? In other words, what if, because you're finding these suspects in Karachi, you shoot Barack the presidential candidate rather than Barack the bombthrower?
James and parsimon suggest all kinds of innovations for modern life. James says:
If they don't coooperate then you bill them.
I'm tired of subsidizing non-productive investigative work. Police departments need to become profit centers!
And parsimon says:
Palin didn't try to ban any books. She just asked about it.
There's a job for you in the McCain administration, especially if there aren't enough people willing to say things like "Yoo didn't try to facilitate torture, he just wrote a legal opinion."
Brendan Nyhan pioneered this approach when he suggested that Obama was wrong to say that "as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal" since the president can't actually write a national law making abortion illegal.
112: That guy shouldn't be campaigning in Karachi anyhow.
So it is a contradiction, then, and we should top doing the Snoopy dance as seen in 80. Because I just want to dance, dammit.
98 - sarcasm. I'm suggesting that if you're going to be sneaky and vaguely deceptive, might as well go all the way. As parsimon points out in 102 there are problems with that, though.
"stop" and "?" Must not comment while holding the baby.
114: There's a job for you in the McCain administration
Funny guy, you, politicalfootball.
In other words, what if, because you're finding these suspects in Karachi, you shoot Barack the presidential candidate rather than Barack the bombthrower?
Obama has always been clear that he thinks it's appropriate, when actionable intelligence is available, to do things like drop bombs on people or shoot them.
If Osama surrenders, then presumably Obama wouldn't have him shot or tortured. This is not an unusual thing among liberals - you pretty much have to be a pacifist to think that lethal force should never be used on humans, and you have to be something close to a pacifist to suppose that lethal force shouldn't be used in any situation where collateral damage is predictable.
As parsimon points out in 102 there are problems with that, though.
Potential problems, anyway.
Must not comment while holding the baby.
Where are your priorities, ari? The rule is, "must not hold the baby while commenting".
117: I don't see that at all. Barack the Iraqi cab driver might be fucked just because he happened to be in the wrong place at a time we legitimately targeted for bombing. Is there supposed to be a contradiction there?
Palin didn't try to ban any books. She just asked about it.
She asked if the librarian was willing to ban books, and after the librarian said no, Palin tried to fire her.
I think that's a hunnerd percent true. If weaselly. But you have to fight fire with weasels.
But you have to fight fire with weasels.
No wonder my house burned down.
And, after doing so, let me know why it's not a contradiction ...
Well, it is a contradiction, of course. If you support habeas and Anglo-American law in general, then you don't "take 'em out" unless you really are in the middle of a shootout or something. That's the whole bloody point of habeas! You just have to remind yourself that you're supporting the lesser of two evils, Ari.
And parsimon says: Palin didn't try to ban any books. She just asked about it.
Not to pile on parsimon, who disapproves of banning books and/or asking about banning books, I'm sure, but there really isn't any practical difference between the two. Anyone who's cool with the second probably doesn't have any qualms about the first. Anyway, I think it's sufficient to say that Palin wanted to ban books. Let her explain why that isn't true if she cares to.
But I feel pf's pain: the kind of infinitesimal hair-splitting over whether or not asking if you can ban books is worse than actually banning them or precisely how casuistical we must be when we're talking about it makes me lose my patience, too.
you pretty much have to be a pacifist to think that lethal force should never be used on humans
Right.
and you have to be something close to a pacifist to suppose that lethal force shouldn't be used in any situation where collateral damage is predictable
Wrong. I think.
Anyway, your comment, coupled with Tim's incredulity in 135, explains what I needed explained. I guess I'm thinking of the way that the Israelis target "terrorists" for assassination and assuming that we do the same thing. It doesn't sit well with me, because I'm ever the procedural liberal. But it seems to me that you're (along with Apo, I guess) saying that those are the rules of the game. No contradiction then. I can go back to Snoopy dancing. I think.
Dammit, MC, 128 is what I was thinking in the beginning. But then the big kids began twisting my arm. And now I just want to take a couple of terrorists out. And then dance like Snoopy! Catholics of conscience: ruining all the fun since whenever.
She asked if the librarian was willing to ban books, and after the librarian said no, Palin tried to fire her.
Right. That's the proper recounting of events as we know them. Declaring, on the other hand, that Palin tried to ban books, is deceptive. The most straightforward spin I've heard on this is that Palin was (paraphrasing) trying to determine which of the municipal employees under her purview would be on board with her administration's agenda.
How many times have we agreed that it's not a good idea to talk down to your audience? The above recounting isn't horribly challenging, and serves better than wild-eyed declarations that she's a book-banner. There's more dimension in this version, and there are deeper questions to be asked: Palin is not a cooperative administrator? She's not, um, bipartisan?
Call me a fool, but I'd rather speak to low-information voters with that sort of additional info than rant on.
Further to 132 (Populuxe, I hear you):
It's worth adding to such a more-nuanced account of Palin's actions in this respect that she also fired several other town officials at the same time she fired the librarian. She was cleaning house. The townspeople revolted. She is not bipartisan; she does not know how to cooperate with people. Pitbull with lipstick, indeed.
Ok, ari. I hear Palin is a slut, too.
Interesting if true: the town librarian was romantically linked with the sexist police chief.
135: No, I don't go there, parsimon. And I was kidding in 134. But really, whatever. You've lately appeared doggedly determined not to read anything about the candidates. So maybe you have more insight into the low-information voter than I do.
132: Another point for your mother re Palin: She, like George Bush, values personal loyalty above the rule of law. For example, she apparently had knowledge of illegal behavior by her sister's husband, but did not think it worthwhile to bring it to light until the divorce.
If your low information voter friends liked Gonzalez and the attempt to turn the Department of Justice into a partisan tool, they'll love Sarah Palin.
131: Oh, go ahead and take out a terrorist, Ari. Just so long as you go to confession afterwards. Because it would be a mortal sin, of course.
Seriously, PF, you don't have to be a pacifist to argue against a "take 'em out" policy. The "if someone was involved in 9/11..." line is more than a little disingenuous, and not much different from the Bush-Cheney rationale/rationalization for locking up "enemy combatants" in Gitmo and throwing away the key. If you have reason to believe they were involved, you gather evidence, and bring charges against them, and give them a fair trial, in accordance with the law. If you want to operate legally and constitutionally, that is.
The most straightforward spin I've heard on this is that Palin was (paraphrasing) trying to determine which of the municipal employees under her purview would be on board with her administration's agenda.
On board with what agenda? Are you saying that if she asked about banning books, then that was part of some agenda? An agenda to do what? (Hint: You've already told us that the answer to that question is not an agenda of book-banning).
It might not matter what the agenda actually was, pf, if the purpose was to determine if personal loyalty would trump professional obligations for you.
140: I think the statement was meant to imply "she was trying to determine which employees would be willing to do whatever she asked". So her defense is that she didn't really want to burn books, she was just teasing out unconditional loyalty. Which strikes me as not a very helpful defense.
137: You've lately appeared doggedly determined not to read anything about the candidates.
Well, this isn't remotely true. Sorry if it appears that way, and I'm not sure why it seems that way. I'm well aware of Palin's policy history and deficiencies (as well as those of other candidates).
I've been speaking chiefly to what sort of talk gains purchase among low-information voters, given the spin they've already received from the MSM.
My "slut" reference was meant in those terms: it doesn't work. Never mind that it's unfair.
. But it seems to me that you're (along with Apo, I guess) saying that those are the rules of the game.
I think the rules are unclear at the margins and that we'd have to have a lot of specifics to decide whether any case falls on a margin. And after that we might have to look at the rules about when we're allowed to cheat.
Seriously, PF, you don't have to be a pacifist to argue against a "take 'em out" policy.
My precise language was "something close to a pacifist," and I chose that language because I am willing to concede that such a thing might be theoretically possible for a non-pacifist, but I couldn't think of a war in history that didn't involve the moral equivalent of a "take 'em out" policy.
But you know, you can't spell histari without "ari." I'm willing to defer to the expert.
Which strikes me as not a very helpful defense.
Exactly. Which is why it damns her even further. Assuming you think that demanding unconditional compliance is not a good idea in government.
If you want to operate legally and constitutionally, that is.
I think it's more conditioned than you're allowing. A lot of this is a function of the location of the present problems on the border between war and policing.
but I couldn't think of a war in history that didn't involve the moral equivalent of a "take 'em out" policy.
Weren't we talking about terrorists, not `war' in the sense you mean here. Not the same thing at all.
But you know, you can't spell histari without "ari." I'm willing to defer to the expert.
What's weird is that I've got that slogan printed in gold filigree on my business cards. Some people think it's a bit self-aggrandizing and garish. But in for a penny, in for a pound is what I say.
In terms of the question, it used to be, speaking very broadly, much clearer who the combatants were and were not during wars. As Tim note, the rules that I spoke about above are constantly being re-written, particularly when one is dealing with "terrorists" and the War on Terror. My original hesitation stemmed from a sentiment very much like what Mary Catherine said above: I'd prefer that the United States fight actual wars, against actual enemies, governed by codified laws, and leave the "taking out" to nations like Israel. But hey, it's a new day.
Assuming you think that demanding unconditional compliance is not a good idea in government.
Doesn't that study LB posted about a few times* suggest that conservatives do think demanding unconditional compliance -- eg. "in-group loyalty -- is a worth value? Or am I reading "in-group loyalty" too expansively?
*I'd take the time to link, but I'm trying to write a brief!
And I'm pwned again. See, parsimon? This is the problem with nuance longwindedness; one is always getting pwned.
149 -- Hey, you can't spell "garish" without "ari" either!
Ari, you must simply type faster to make up the difference. Any increase in grammatically induced discomfort for ben is to the greater good.
147 to 148.
Tim understands me completely on this, and I hereby deputize him to respond on my behalf, until he fucks up.
Hey, you can't spell "garish" without "ari" either!
Not to mention charismatic and sybarite.
151: As long as you apologize in some fashion for suggesting that I'm not reading a damn thing about the candidates, we're cool. Fuck's sake, man, it's all I do these days.
But in for a penny, in for a pound is what I say.
A pound of flesh, no doubt.
A lot of this is a function of the location of the present problems on the border between war and policing.
Or is it just that a lot of the current mess is a function of trying to implement policing as war? It's an unnatural fit.
I think they are quite separable here.
I've been speaking chiefly to what sort of talk gains purchase among low-information voters, given the spin they've already received from the MSM.
Yeah, I think that's a good question. Personally, if I were in a private conversation with a low-information voter (which I have been, come to think of it), I would not hesitate to exaggerate and embroider somewhat and to not be scrupulously fair. But then, I tend toward intemperate rants about politics in private conservation (though I try [but sometimes fail!] to rein myself in on the internets).
155: Or 'marine'.
Ari, are you a US Marine? Or maybe a crustacean?
Ari, the prelapsarian archmilitarist aristocrat from aridest Zanzibaria, stood staring at the totalitarian terrarist who sought to impose Sharia among the septuagenarian secretariat.
156: I meant no offense. And I'm sorry. I remain, as ever, your humble, if longwinded, sybaritic, and charismatic (laydeez) servant. But I'm not, I'm afraid, a marine. You'll have to fine a protection detail elsewhere.
Also, you can't spell "ultrapowerful vaporizing superweapon" without apo. So everybody better be on their best behavior from here on out.
If 161 didn't take you a reasonably long time -- say, two or three weeks -- I find your gifts, worthless though they may be, unnerving.
You dodged the crustacean question, ari. I'm off to prepare some drawn butter.
166: You'll probably need a 50qt pot, too.
If 161 didn't take you a reasonably long time -- say, two or three weeks -- I find your gifts, worthless though they may be, unnerving.
$ grep -i ari /usr/share/dict/words | less
Interestingly, you can spell Aryan without "ari".
But then, I tend toward intemperate rants about politics in private conservation (though I try [but sometimes fail!] to rein myself in on the internets).
Don't lie to me, MC. I am not a low-information voter. Or am I?
170: Thanks. Ben thinks we're bitter, doesn't he?
170 only comes up with 2099 words.
[coelacanth ~ 02:14:25]$ grep -i ari /usr/share/dict/words | wc -l
3331
170: That misses too many:
bash-3.2$ grep -i ari /usr/share/dict/words | wc
6196 6196 71391
Bah. I shouldn't have stopped to add tags to 174 it seems.
Also: my dictionary file is much bigger.
Ben thinks we're bitter, doesn't he?
Probably. But I can't spell benzodiazepines without him, so I cut him slack.
(or, at least, contains nearly 2x the ari)
Real people don't need your extra words, guys.
178: Obama isn't going to win North Carolina, but any poll showing a 20-point gap had something go terribly wrong.
All of the polling right now is screwy. Too much noise. But I agree, he has no chance in North Carolina. Might Dole lose? Please say yes. Please.
All of the polling right now is screwy.
Gawddammit, apo. What the fuck did you do?
Real people don't need your extra words, guys.
New mouseover, though I think it's been done better already by someone's daughter.
Truly, though, the people out there in the real world (tm) who actually matter for this election barely know that the blogosphere exists, and they don't read the NYT or the Washington Post, either. Pffft: gone.
171: Well, of course you're not a low-information voter. And I would never lie to you, Walt. No, really. No, I mean that now.
And speaking of low-information voters: My son came home from school today all upset because he got into an argument about Palin with two of his classmates. "They said Sarah would make a good Vice President! but you told me she had bad ideas!" His first political argument. Sigh. They grow up so quickly.
All of the polling right now is screwy.
Seriously. We be inside some millennium madness.
MC - Give your son some ammo. "Sarah Barracuda"
Well, I mean, if you want. I'm not telling you how to raise your kid, but I can keep you supplied with childish ammo if you give me cover from the feminists.
Deal?
Tripp, you must stop digging. I implore you.
Might Dole lose?
A journalist friend whose predictions are usually spot-on says if the election were held today it would be tough to call but Dole would probably lose. If Kay Hagan weren't reputedly a terrible campaigner then she would be 20 points ahead with minimal effort.
She also predicts that the Dems will hold the governorship and legislature without batting an eyelash but the presidential contest will be much harder to predict.
Real people fnord don't need fnord your extra fnord words, guys.
Gawddammit, apo. What the fuck did you do?
I told everybody he was black. Was that a mistake?
192: You should have said, "He's whatever Tiger is."
Anyone know if she took a position on Schiavo?
188: Hmmm. I also notice that Andrew Sullivan has suddenly stopped blogging for reasons he will not explain. I wonder if there is a connection here.
North Korea is lucky, I think Andrew Sullivan wil be a better president than Kim Jong-Il. Hopefully he was made the heir apparent a while ago and was just keeping it secret, instead of having it sprung on him in this time of crisis.
195: Odder still is the quotation for the day that he's added today: ""Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen."
I really do wonder what is going on over there.
I will turn Unfogged into an ocean of flame! The imperialists will cower before the might of the people! Forward into greatness, O Hungry Army!
Video to accompany comment 80. The good stuff starts around the 3:55 mark and really heats up 30 seconds after that.
Okay, Ari, I watched the clip, and I have more than a few thoughts and impressions, though to recite them all would be tedious, not to mention unedifying.
Were it not for his FISA vote, though perhaps even despite his FISA vote, I would be inclined to take Obama's "take 'em out" line as not very serious in intent. A rhetorical move, that is, in response to the 'deficient in manly militarism' charge with which all Dems have been judged and found wanting since I don't know when. The more Dems talk sense (not to mention rule of freakin' law) on foreign and domestic policy, the more they stand accused of talking like liberals, or perhaps like women. I'll leave it to the gender-bender types to elaborate on the sexual/textual politics of all of this, except to note that I'm increasingly convinced there's an important gendered subtext to all of this, and to suggest that, when the subtextual finally explodes into text, well, this being America, what you get is...Sarah Palin!
I still think there's a contradiction (between "take 'em out" and 'we must respect habeas,' I mean). But overall, the message is that the GOP are either transparently hypocritical or else hopelessly ineffectual, which is all to the good. The joke about Barack the bomb-thrower versus Barack the guy who's running for President is also very good.
I still think there's a contradiction
I am less sure. Couldn't we construct a ROE where somebody who was spotted in a training camp overseas, overseeing such training as is likely to lead operations in America, as a legitimate military target, but somebody who had been taken into custody by US forces could not be seen that way?
I'm unsure, saying this: couldn't we?
What means 'ROE'?
But, well, I guess we could construct all sorts of imaginary models, and 'ticking bomb' scenarios, and the like. But the way this stuff actually works in real-time practice is that the Americans don't really know quite what's going on, or where they should look, or who they should be looking at precisely. So they do a grand sweep (just take them all in for questioning, and etc, because you never know, after all), and all kinds of (some of them innocent) people get swept up in the process.
Honestly, Sifu, I really think it's best to just acknowledge from the get-go that the US is now a militarized empire of world-historical proportions (and no reflection on most of its actual citizens, most of whom never signed on for such grandeur in the first place), and then take it from there. Not expecting too much, I mean, so that you can hopefully do a bit of good. Once you start trying to defend this stuff (because, yeah, of course, there are some good people who are implicated, and they do their best to make it not quite so not-good, but still)....well, that way lies madness, I think, or else leads to Brooksian-style levels of hypocrisy.
I think that one is easy. It would be the flip side of asking if the 82nd Airborne training at Fort Bragg is a legit target? Hell ya. So's the Pentagon.
(What's with naming our posts after traitors?!)
206: Of course! You know, I really need to read some more Tom Clancy novels, just to get up to speed.
I have to admit, though, that I'm sorely tempted to mention it to my mother (who doesn't trust Obama, though I haven't talked to her about Palin) *even knowing* that it's, you know, not completely fair.
Why liberals lose elections, part XXIII.
What's with naming our posts after traitors?
You know what's creepy? West Point is crawling with statues of Confederates. Call me prissy, but I say that engaging in armed rebellion against the US should mean you don't get any statues of you at all in the military academies. I mean, surely this is behavior we wish to discourage, right?
I mean, surely this is behavior we wish to discourage, right?
Define your "we".
190: A journalist friend whose predictions are usually spot-on... predicts that... the presidential contest will be much harder to predict.
I'm sorry, nitpicker, I couldn't hear you for the sound of your tiny dick crying itself to sleep.
I know one woman who moved to Alaska. ONE. She was raped within 2 months of arriving there. Her case, like most rape cases, was summarily dismissed. In a state where rapists get nary a smack on the hand, charging the victim for their rape-tests goes one step further to ensure this backwater of human rights remains just that.