Re: I enjoy music made by downtrodden people the world over

1

People in developing countries have 32 words for the blues.


Posted by: Econolicious | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:41 AM
horizontal rule
2

Aren't musicians by definition downtrodden people the world over?

...at least so the Artist Formerly Known As Prince used to say.


Posted by: Jesurgislac | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 5:58 AM
horizontal rule
3

Woo-hoo y'all! Obama is on the job only a couple of days an' he's already bombing the crap out of those sneaky middle-eastern furriners! Yee-haw! My man, B-ROCK!


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:09 AM
horizontal rule
4

It looks like Barack also bombed Afghanistan this weekend, killing 16 civillians, including three children.

I think this and the bombing linked in #3 were two separate American attacks, one in Afghanistan and one in Pakistan, but I can't tell for sure whether it wasn't just one big-ass attack that spread across the border.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
5

3, 4: Well, its what he said he'd do.

I can't count it as being disappointed by someone new until he sinks beneath expectations.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
6

3 doesn't appear to have been reported by any American news outlets.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
7

He said he was going to kill children in massive air strikes? I guess he was really worried about losing the Jewish vote.

(I'm as pro-Israel as they come, but hey, the joke was there.)


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
8

re: 6

It's on the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7847423.stm


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
9

8 doesn't contradict 6.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
10

The BBC story has a rather different cast to it, doesn't it? "War in Afghanistan continues to be waged in the same fashion as three weeks ago" wouldn't be fun enough for GB, I guess.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
11

#6: To be fair, the American media do have their hands full grappling with the Travolta blackmail story.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
12

I never saw the BBC story.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
13

I don't know what the Travolta blackmail story is. It's not mentioned on any of the news outlets I just looked at.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:55 AM
horizontal rule
14

Here it is in the Post.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
15

(The airstrike story, not the Travolta story.)


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
16

I would have expected the Post to have both stories.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
17

...and it does!


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
18

Bahamanians have great names, apparently. Pleasant Bridgewater? Tarino Lightbourne?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
19
Posted by: | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
20

I heard about the airstrike story on NPR; whether that contradicts 6 is open to debate.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
21

The story I'm boggling over is this one:

President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

The above is from the Washington Post; Hilzoy did the write-up, with a special guest note from Charley Carp:

There aren't files. No one believes this at first, and it takes a long time to accept it, but really, that's it: no files. There are databases that can be searched . . . .

(And no, "databases" does not mean that there is a compehensive electronic file anywhere either.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
22

21: she has a follow up, too.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
23

On the bright side of thing, this solves our prior worry about whether it's appropriate to create special procedures for trying those detainees against whom there's enough reliable evidence to reasonably bring a case. It looks like there's nothing sane to do but let everyone go.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
24

So no one wants to talk about Greek music, huh? Even though this is fantastic?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
25

The Bush administration was never big on things like record-keeping. Actually, I get the sense that they were actively anti-standardization in a lot of areas (detainees, intelligence, environment, finance etc.) - standardization allows for coming to conclusions on the basis of evidence, which can contradict conclusions on the basis of whatever had already been decided would be the conclusions (bolstered by evidence picked for that purpose only).


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
26

So, even if the Bush administration had managed to somehow torture some valuable information out of the Gitmo prisoners (don't call them "detainees") there is a good chance that whatever actionable intelligence we gleaned would have fallen through the cracks due to a lack of coherent record keeping.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
27

I can't count it as being disappointed by someone new

Sorry, but why would you count child-murdering as something that "disappoints" rather than "horrifies"?

And is the standard we're really holding Obama to "not worse than Bush"? Because last time I heard, the conventional wisdom around these parts was that Bush was in the running for worst president in history. So as long as Obama doesn't become the very worst president in history, he's awesome?


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
28

inacessible island rail brings the troll as ever.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
29

IIL, you're just too good for this fallen world. Perhaps you will ascend directly to heaven like Elijah.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
30

And Sifu Tweety brings the ad hominem as ever.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
31

It's like we know each other, somehow.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
32

Somehow this discussion seems apropos.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:44 AM
horizontal rule
33

29: Here's what I don't get. When Bush was bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan and pointlessly killing civilians there, this was bad, right? And now that Obama's doing it, it's... beneath comment? Rude to even mention?

In an earlier thread I stated that I don't trust Obama to just do the right thing out of the goodness of his heart, that he has to be pushed to do the right thing like any other politician. That means that liberals, online and elsewhere, have to make a big deal about him killing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they want it to stop, because the usual path for American presidents is to kill a bunch of people in poor countries to show that they're touch, and Obama's made it very clear that he intends to do so. There's nothing trollish about wanting anti-war people to be vocally anti-war, even when a Democrat's in office.

Or maybe I'm reading this place wrong, and you're pro-war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and have never had a problem with what the U.S. is doing there, in which case, hey, whatever.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
34

29: But not before the Lord sends two virtual bears to tear up 42 of us.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
35

34: Elijah ascended to heaven, and then Elisha, who succeeded him, called upon the bears to devour the 42 boys who called him "Baldhead" on his way to Beth-el.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
36

33: I can agree with this in general, but the response to GB's comments in the thread is fully explained by the fact that he was giving us shit, rather than expressing substantive concern over President Obama's policies.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
37

When Bush was bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan and pointlessly killing civilians there, this was bad, right?

Yes. On the other hand, killing members of the Taliban and Al Queda is something I do approve of. This is a tough case. Its almost as if the issue isn't completely black and white....


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
38

Fighting terrorists is hard. Fighting terrorists by long-distance bombing is even harder.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
39

The bombing of Afghanistan does bother me.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
40

36: and meanwhile i.i.r. does the neat thing with the hiding until there's moral high ground to be claimed, and then leaping grimly for the peaks by -- essentially -- calling rob pro-child-murder. Everybody's having fun!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
41

36: I'm not familiar with his history here, so I took him in good faith.

37: On the other hand, killing members of the Taliban and Al Queda is something I do approve of.

But look. The US nominally targets "militants" in Iraq, too. And yet, every time it does so, it kills a bunch of civilians. This is why America's wars haven't earned it a reputation for "fighting terror" and "spreading freedom" in that part of the world; they've earned it a reputation for bombing villages and blowing up wedding parties.

If you want to reduce the amount of terror in the world, the way to do that is to stop doing things that create terrorists - and a good way to start is to stop blowing people up!


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
42

39: Bothers me too. I'm really unsure what the least-worst thing to do there is -- just pulling out is one of the leading options, but I really dislike leaving the Taliban in power, and I have the impression the Karzai government won't survive at all in our absence. And anything short of pulling out, I end up feeling very ignorant about what tactics I think should be used. This is one of those moments where I need to do more reading.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
43

It bothers me too. Fortunately, I trust Obama to wrap it up in a more constructive manner than Bush would have. And I trust Obama in his assessment that this is not a case where American policy can or should just turn on a dime.

So I will cut him some slack. Mind you, if we are still bombing Pakistan 4 years from now, I will be seriously pissed off.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
44

40: Sifu, I hope the only reason you haven't assassinated Obama yet is that you fear Biden would be even more evil.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
45

Fighting terrorists is hard. Fighting terrorists by long-distance bombing is even harder.

And that's why we should stop trying to do it that way.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
46

I'm not familiar with his history here, so I took him in good faith.

Christ, if that's your idea of good faith, I'd hate to see what a bad faith argument from you looks like.

(And WTF ever happened to the basic notion of netiquette that you lurk for a while and get a sense of the place before jumping in?)


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
47

i.i.r. does the neat thing with the hiding until there's moral high ground to be claimed

Huh? As opposed to opining about every diverse topic, or ... what?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
48

44: I can't believe you would even begin to use the word "hope", Ned. You realize people are dying?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
49

47: as opposed to wallowing in the muck with us chumps, I guess.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
50

I supported Obama and still do, but this place shouldn't be an Obama cheerleader site. I agree with IIR.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
51

And anything short of pulling out, I end up feeling very ignorant about what tactics I think should be used.

I'd be perfectly happy to see the Air Force never fly another sortie in Afghanistan. (Except in the unlikely situation that we find ourselves in a pitched battle with Taliban/al Qaeda forces again.) It's really not doing any good.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
52

44: I trust you were this cavalier about death when Bush was in office.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
53

52: That 44 should be a 48.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
54

52: you don't remember?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
55

34: Elijah ascended to heaven, and then Elisha, who succeeded him, called upon the bears to devour the 42 boys who called him "Baldhead" on his way to Beth-el.

AWB seems...suspiciously familiar with the details of this story.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
56

Seriously, what makes this conversation ridiculous is the 'turning on a dime' issue. Can we give Obama a couple of weeks to change the tactics being used in Afganistan?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
57

Further to 56: That said, I can agree with 51.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
58

As opposed to opining about every diverse topic, or ... what?

Yes, exactly. If you engage on a wide variety of topics (some of them hopefully less delicate and polarizing than Afghanistan), it shows that you're actually interested in engaging rather than haranguing. (Which in turn makes it more likely that people will take what you have to say on the delicate topics seriously, rather than dismissing you out of hand.) Is this controversial?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
59

56: no. If he hasn't fixed the entire American strategic posture by now, he's hardly any better than Bush. If we elected Obama to do one thing, it's to immediately reverse course on all the missteps of the past sixty-plus years of foreign policy. If we wanted baby steps, we would have nominated a baby.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
60

55: Sorry, I did a very long seminar paper in grad school about that particular incident.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
61

Can we give Obama a couple of weeks to change the tactics being used in Afganistan?

He did a lot of other shit quickly. I don't see why "let's hold off on bombings until we can assess their actual effectiveness" would take much time.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
62

When Bush was bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan, no one was paying attention to it at all. Which is why it's suddenly so shocking that the Obama administratin is . . . (continuing) bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan. IOW, it's not exactly *news*; it's more an opportunity for the GBs and IIRs of the world to pretend to be shocked by the heartlesness of liberals.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
63

we would have nominated a baby.

Here, you simply expose your ignorance of the Constitutional ramifications. We could not have constitutionally nominated and elected a baby as president, although we could have nominated an age-eligible candidate willing to commit to appointing only babies to all Cabinet level positions.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
64

People shouldn't actually be mocking IIR here. His or her point is merely that we should complain to the government when it does things we don't want it to do.

The strategy of pretending to be shocked that other people aren't shocked is kind of annoying, but can be effective.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
65

61: There's 'much time' and there's 'more than four days'. For changes at the tactical level of military operations, I'm willing to give him a month or so.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
66

60: uh huh, so they were some other bears, and your interest is purely academic. Suuure.

61: the institutional differences are pretty significant; lots of people -- including military people -- want guantanamo closed, and it's an issue he campaigned on. And, after all, bombing tribal areas of Pakistan is also something he campaigned on, not to mention something pretty much all the people advising him on the subject favor. It sucks, but like rob said, it's hardly surprising.

I'd love it if he abolished the Air Force, personally, but I imagine that's unlikely.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
67

I'd love it if he abolished the Air Force, personally, but I imagine that's unlikely.

You know the Air Force is tasked with defending us in cyberspace, and they have a protocol for responding to attacks in blog comments, right? You may be in for a tactical strike here.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
68

67: maybe iir is a deep cover Air Force troll, trying to draw out bombing opponents to be surveilled.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
69

60: That was supposed to be a bear joke.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
70

Oh--66 already got there. Hi Sifu!


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:37 PM
horizontal rule
71

I'm not sure why IIR is attacking me, because I completely agree with him. The air war in Pakistan and Afghanistan has been and is an abomination. The moral difference between firing inaccurate rockets from the sky at civilian areas and detonating car bombs in civilian areas is negligible. To separate them, you have to say that there is a moral difference between a civilian death you knew was very likely to be a consequence of your action but didn't directly intend, and a civilian death that you foresaw an intended.

There's a reason they call the car bomb the poor man's air force. I've made this argument before, probably somewhere on this forum.

In any case, saying that you aren't surprised by an event isn't even close to saying that you are ok with the event happening.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
72

maybe iir is a deep cover Air Force troll, trying to draw out bombing opponents to be surveilled.

Now I'm going to see this every time iir comments, and my life will be much happier for it.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
73

||
My doctor doubles the dose on my meds. Tells me to finish out my current bottle on two pills a day. I do so, go to refill my perscription. Insurance won't pay until two days later. Pills are $300 dollars w/o insurance.

That night, I have horrible nightmares of the like I can't even remember. Healthcare sucks.

(Yeah, probably should have tried to refill sooner.)
|>


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
74

GB and IIR are doing two different things. GB is trolling, and IIR is wondering what Obama's Afghanistan policy really will end up being.

Canadians have sex with bears, whereas AWB sends them to destroy her enemies. (Actually, AWB, of all people, should have sex with bears. Why hasn't she moved to Canada?)


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
75

To separate them, you have to say that there is a moral difference between a civilian death you knew was very likely to be a consequence of your action but didn't directly intend, and a civilian death that you foresaw an intended.

To be kind of an asshole about it: did you just argue against the distinction between manslaughter and homicide?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
76

separate them, you have to say that there is a moral difference between a civilian death you knew was very likely to be a consequence of your action but didn't directly intend, and a civilian death that you foresaw an intended.

This is the doctrine of double effect, right? I hate that shit. The formulation that shows up in criminal cases, along the lines of: A person is considered to have intended the ordinary and foreseeable results of their actions, makes much more moral sense to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:40 PM
horizontal rule
77

When Bush was bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan, no one was paying attention to it at all.

This isn't true.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
78

75: No, not really. First, manslaughter is a type of homicide -- you're talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder. And second, there are all sorts of circumstances where a defendant who intentionally took an action that he knew was likely to have the effect of killing another person would be guilty of murder whether or not he desired the victim's death.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:42 PM
horizontal rule
79

78 just proves, again, that the easiest way to find out true information on the Internet is to post an incorrect or misunderstood version of it. Thanks, LB.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
80

79: What else, besides porn, is the internet for?


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
81

71: I didn't mean to attack you; I'm sorry that it came across like that. I've just long been bothered by the "disappointed by someone new" thing.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
82

All my legal analysis is guaranteed worth the money you paid -- really, this is stuff that's messy to generalize about. The exact places the lines get drawn are all different state by state.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
83

The doctrine of double effect doesn't assume that you have intended the ordinary and forseeable results of your actions?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
84

I've just long been bothered by the "disappointed by someone new" thing.

Why? Do you think that anything better was on offer?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
85

Bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan was low on the queue of things people hated about the worst President ever. People who cursed Bush should have put in a "including but not limited to" clause at the beginning of their lists of reasons.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
86

25: Actually, I get the sense that they were actively anti-standardization in a lot of areas

Naw. Standard-issue banana republic precedure with 'disappeared'. If there are no records of the disappeared person, the person must not exist.

26: somehow torture some valuable information out of the Gitmo prisoners (don't call them "detainees") there is a good chance that whatever actionable intelligence we gleaned would have fallen through the cracks due to a lack of coherent record keeping.

Who said they wanted information? I mean, they said they wanted information about terrorists in general; they said anything about anybody in particular. If they mentioned anyone in particular who was locked up in Gitmo, they just said they were 'dangerous'.

When Bush was bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan and pointlessly killing civilians there, this was bad, right?

*I* never said that. If they were hitting proper targets in Pakistan, I was fine with that.

And yet, every time it does so, it kills a bunch of civilians.

They report it when they kill a bunch of civilians. When they don't kill a bunch of civilians, they don't report it.

IOW, it's not exactly *news*; it's more an opportunity for the GBs and IIRs of the world to pretend to be shocked by the heartlesness of liberals.

Yep.

max
['It's a mess.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
87

The doctrine of double effect is hardly uncontroversial.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
88

And reading the Wikipedia entry on manslaughter, I find what may be the most depressing thing I've read this year: "Vehicular manslaughter is a kind of misdemeanor manslaughter". It's a fucking misdemeanor?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
89

83: As I understand it, no, it doesn't. The idea is that if your desired results are morally acceptable (say, taking out a valid military target), you are not deemed to have intended the ordinary and forseeable 'collateral damage' (dead civilians) resulting from your actions, if your desired results are sufficiently weighty and likely to come about when compared to the amount of the collateral damage. This strikes me as bullshit -- if you knew that civilian deaths were an expected result of, e.g., bombing, you intended those deaths, even if you wish you could have avoided them. The bombing might still be allowable, depending on the circumstances, but saying the civilian deaths were unintended because they were undesired feels very wrong to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
90

87: indeed, there are as yet no proponents of it in this thread.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
91

that the easiest way to find out true information on the Internet is to post an incorrect or misunderstood version of it.

Both the everlasting Fountain of Youth and the City of Gold are located several miles outside of Ponca City, Oklahoma


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
92

91: Actually, they aren't.

Wow, that does work!


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
93

It's a fucking misdemeanor?

I don't know why, but I'm eternally amused by the liquor store signs that say "It is a CRIME (misdemeanor) to carry a weapon on these premises."

Like, "It is a CRIME (but a small one!) so you shouldn't carry a gun in here unless you really want to have it with you."


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
94

92: Hmmm, these New York lawyers are too clever for me. Must try to think ....


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
95

Oklahoma, here I come!


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
96

They're actually both several miles inside Ponca City.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
97

88: the actual state of the law seems somewhat more complicated than that, though.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
98

89: The moral acceptability of the target doesn't have anything to do with your intent towards the civilians in the direction you propose: it's not as though a super-duper target changes your *intent.*

Two things have to come apart: whether you intend civilian deaths, and how valuable the target has to be for x civilian deaths to be acceptable. If you are bombing and you intend to kill civilians, your action is immoral. That doesn't mean that if you don't intend to kill them, you're automatically moral; it just means that you didn't fall at the first hurdle. Your bombing could still be immoral because the objective wasn't worth the civilian cost, or for any other number of reasons. DD shouldn't be thought of as a get-out-of-jail-free card.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
99

Guantanamo was primarily guerrilla theater for the rabid dogs of the Bush coalition. Neither intelligence nor prosecutions nor even false confessions was the primary goal.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
100

98: Really? I thought you got dinged for wrongful intent toward your collateral victims under the DDE if your desired target wasn't worthy or if the expected collateral damage was disproportionate -- like, a terrorist who attempted to assassinate a world leader by pitching a grenade at them in a crowded room counts as having intended the deaths of the ten people he killed as well under the DDE, because he didn't meet the standards otherwise. But I could be wrong; it's not stuff I understand well.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
101

But anyway, if that's it, the DDE seems to just use 'intent' where I'd use 'desire' -- "I didn't intend to kill your dog."

"Then why didn't you stop your car before you ran him over -- I know you saw him in plenty of time?"

"Well, I didn't want to stop, either. But I certainly wouldn't have gone out of my way to kill him."

While the speaker didn't actively desire the death of the dog, saying he didn't intend to kill it is a use of language that seems at odds with how I'd naturally use the word.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
102

I can't figure out how 98 and 100 are saying different things.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:16 PM
horizontal rule
103

You get dinged for doing something immoral; but I don't think it functions as a matter of counting your intent, but just as a matter of determining whether the military target is worth the civilian cost.

How that would get worked into the DDE is that the target isn't a morally acceptable aim (because it would kill too many civilians, because the grenade isn't a discriminate weapon) and thus it doesn't matter a good goddamn what your intent was, because good intent can't sanction an immoral action.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
104

101: dog shouldn't'a been on the trolley tracks.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
105

102: If I've got Cala right (and she presumably knows the DDE better than I do), the terrorist heaving the grenade didn't 'intend' the deaths of anyone other than the world leader, despite the fact that he knew they would occur when he threw it, because the only person he actively wanted dead was the world leader. He's still in moral trouble for killing them, because their deaths were disproportionate, but he didn't (under the DDE) 'intend' their deaths.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
106

105 crossed with 103, and I think I got it straight.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
107

101: DDE doesn't come into play unless there's a sufficient *good outcome* that has a bad side effect, as far as I understand it. (To put it crudely, it's why the trolley case has two tracks.) It's not just saying "I don't mean to!" as you run over the guy's dog.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
108

It's not just saying "I don't mean to!" as you run over the guy's dog.

You have to tack on "...but I'm really late for work!"


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
109

So wait, though, wouldn't assasinating somebody as a means of accomplishing something be verboten anyhow under that doctrine? Or is Stanford lying to me?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
110

107: Well, that's what I thought I was talking about with the moral acceptability of the target in my initial description -- that a 'good outcome' would make the DDE kick in, and so change your 'intent'. Which seems to me to do violence to the ordinary meaning of intent.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
111

105: Right. I see DDE as having a very, very narrow application. There's arguments against it, of course, but it isn't just the case that all DDE requires is saying "I don't intend!" and doing whatever you want. (Which is why it's perfectly possible to believe that the IDF didn't intend civilian casualties and still believe that what they are doing is immoral.)


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
112

Is it at all interesting that Kurt Eisner is not listed among famous people of
Bavaria, even though Adolf Hitler is so listed?

Wikipedia now has excellent new (1-2 yrs) articles on The German Revolution and Red Vienna. I am very pleased. They are apparently written by the same person, someone who has English as a second language. The mistakes are few, amusing, and endearing, I think. I hope the Wiki PTB don't "clean up" the articles.
...
...
...
I am not at all disappointed in Obama, so have no need to pretend.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
113

I realize that the conversation has moved on, but the story linked in 4 about civilian casualties in Afghanistan is not about "bombing" at all. It refers to a "raid" by Special Forces soldiers, which I take to be a much more targeted effort.

I do think that that changes the moral calculus somewhat and is therefore more likely to be justifiable.


Posted by: Lara | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
114

110: Here's one way to put the difference, or to try to show that it's not the "intent" that's changing. Two cases. The first one I hit your dog as I swerve to avoid Sally & Newt. The second one I hit your dog as I swerve to avoid Sally & Newt and say "Awesome, I get to kill Dogbreath."

Same outcome in both cases, but in the second case I seem to be on the hook for killing Dogbreath because I intended it.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
115

In any case, it's not that there aren't good arguments against DDE, it's just that it's a little more subtle than "I don't intend so I can do whatever wheeeee no backsies." (Not attributing this to you; it's been being misused in that way by some defenders of Israel's actions lately, like it's a talisman where all you have to do is whine "I didn't meannnnn to.")


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
116

The dsquared
post & thread over at CT on Walzer, collateral damage, double effect, just war. 234 serious comments.

I don't intend to follow another thread just like that one, only two weeks later. G'Day.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
117

That bit I got -- it's 'intent' as 'desire': you are deemed to have intended the results you desired, and not the ones you didn't desire.

The question I have is what effect the 'good outcome' has on my intent: say in both cases, I didn't desire the death of the dog, but in the first case I hit it rather than hitting S&N (foreseen but undesired consequence, signficant good outcome), and in the second case I hit it because I enjoy swerving rhythmically from side to side, and it happened to be in my pattern of swerves (forseen but undesired consequence, no significant good outcome).

It seems to me that I intended the death of the dog in case 2, regardless of whether I actively desired it, and therefore for consistency's sake I intended the death of the dog in case 1. I still did the right thing in case 1, but I think it makes sense to say that I did the right thing by intentionally killing the dog.

If I understand the DDE right, under the DDE I didn't intend to kill the dog in case 1, and I'm not sure if I did or didn't in case 2.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
118

I enjoy swerving rhythmically from side to side

That is quite fun.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
119

In case one you would not count as intending the death of the dog (foreseen, unintended, if you could have done something else, you would have.) You also can't be moral if you intend to bring about a good effect by doing a bad thing.

In case two, you are not doing a good thing by swerving back and forth, so what your intent was just doesn't matter, because you can't get DDE to work for you without a morally good action that's worth the cost.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
120

It really is. I've done remarkably little driving lifetime, and most of it has been city driving. I got my first taste of hilly country roads this fall, and that's very fun indeed.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
121

Was this around Western PA? We have some goofyass roads around there. Fun!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
122

so what your intent was just doesn't matter, because you can't get DDE to work for you without a morally good action that's worth the cost.

This is what I don't like about the DDE. Talking about your 'intent' seems to be making a psychological claim about your state of mind, that I can't see as being actually affected by whether you've got a 'morally good action that's worth the cost'. If you intend only that which you desire, when you're aiming at a m.g.a.t.w.t.c., then surely you intend only that which you desire regardless of what you're aiming at. And that seems to me to be a use of the word 'intent' that confuses more than it illuminates.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
123

121: You betcha. I'm in the enviable position of being an easily frightened adrenaline junkie: I really like speed and such, but it doesn't take much at all to thrill me. I was having the time of my life driving curvy country roads at about 40mph.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
124

That is quite fun.

Not for the Yves Montand character in The Wages of Fear.

The CT DDE thread is interesting, as I recall, but I couldn't thinking that applying the doctrine WRT Gaza or Afghanistan is sort of the philosophical equivalent of aerial bombing, in that it's done at a safe distance by people with no apparent investment in the lives and moral standing of innocent victims on the other side.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
125

That night, I have horrible nightmares of the like I can't even remember. Healthcare sucks.

You have my sympathy. In college I had a roommate who, at one point, had to stop taking the low dose anti-depressants (IIRC) he had been prescribed for sleep disorders.

It was impressive to me how pronounced the withdrawal effects were from even low doses of psycho-pharmaceuticals.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
126

123: Driving curvy country roads at about 40mph is my daily commute. There are some perks to living in the middle of Bumfuck.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
127

122: Arg. Your "intent" is *not* affected by whether your action was morally good.

Nothing about DDE says that making the action good means you intended it. It says if the action isn't morally good to start with, all the good intent in the world won't matter.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
128

But isn't your intent with respect to the foreseen but undesired collateral damage affected? I thought that was the whole point of the DDE, establishing that if you meet the standards, then you were allowed to say that you didn't intend the collateral damage.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
129

IIR is wondering what Obama's Afghanistan policy really will end up being.

Well, everything he's said has pointed towards a desire to reduce ground troops in Iraq and redeploy them in Afghanistan for a "surge" style attempt to hold and police territory.


Posted by: Byron the Bulb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
130

Nothing about DDE says that making the action good means you intended it. It says if the action isn't morally good to start with, all the good intent in the world won't matter.

Yeah, but the treaties don't say that. All they say is that it is illegal to deliberately target civilians. They don't say anything about morality. How could they? Especially since, if they did, it would be widely ignored.

max
['The problem with international law and bombing is that everything hinges on a standard of reasonableness.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
131

I just like killing. Like Merv Griffin.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
132

I once went on a ride through the mountains with a guy whose hobby, it turned out, was buying cars and pushing them to their limit until he wrecked them. He had planned a weekend which involved driving 700 miles, having a cup of coffee, and driving 700 miles back.

Remember that when evaluating the DDE it's important to have an assessment of how innocent those preschoolers really were. Some preschoolers aren't really aren't what they seem to be.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
133

128: You're allowed to say you're not morally responsible (or, maybe, less morally responsible) for the collateral damage *because* you didn't intend it (on the assumption that your actions met the other conditions.)

130: The real problem is trying to apply a principle that was formulated for something like self-defense being permissible to an actor which is a state.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
134

133: If that's how it works, then the DDE rests on the assumption that you intended only the desired, rather than the reasonably foreseeable, results of your actions. And that just seems like a confusing and counterintuitive use of 'intent'.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
135

I'm in the enviable position of being an easily frightened adrenaline junkie: I really like speed and such, but it doesn't take much at all to thrill me. I was having the time of my life driving curvy country roads at about 40mph.

This isn't limited to easily frightened adrenaline junkies. Most of my favorite roads for motorcycling are like that. And autocross is pretty popular.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
136

And that just seems like a confusing and counterintuitive use of 'intent'.

That's an awfully kind way of saying "It's a crock of shit"


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
137

136: Well, I'm not an expert in this kind of stuff. It's possible there's some good reason in the history of the relevant disciplines for using 'intent' in a technically defined sense. I just think it's confusing when laypeople are trying to talk about the same issues.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
138

you intended only the desired, rather than the reasonably foreseeable, results of your actions. And that just seems like a confusing and counterintuitive use of 'intent'.

Really? It doesn't seem that counterintuitive to me, in some cases. M. Bratman has some examples that seek to marshal intuitions along generaly DDE-friendly lines.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
139

134: You'd be confused if I said "I didn't intend to kill Dogbreath! I was just swerving to miss the kids!!" on the grounds that because I foresaw it, I must have intended it? Would you describe what happened as "She intentionally ran over my dog." ?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
140

It's possible there's some good reason in the history of the relevant disciplines for using 'intent' in a technically defined sense. I just think it's confusing when laypeople are trying to talk about the same issues.

They updated the treaties in 1949. 'Deliberate intent' was referring to things like the Germans giving the Dutch an ultimatum in 1940 saying that if the Dutch did not surrender by noon, the Germans would hit Rotterdam. (The Dutch did surrender, but there was a timezone mixup and the Germans hit it anyways.) But it was also directed to Bomber Command's 'de-housing' strategic bombing campaign of 1944 where the British attempted to break German morale (and end the war) by bombing German cities with the intent of destroying civilian housing.

I don't think those kinds of provisions were intended to prohibit hitting the Mitsubishi aircraft engine plant in Nagasaki with a nuclear weapon.

Later on, apparently, not-military people have wanted to go in the direction of prohibiting that sort of thing, and politicians have sort of gone along in the sense of 'agreeing with anything to shut them up' but in practice I don't think the actual understanding of what those provisions mean has changed at all. If it has, no one is following it.

133: 130: The real problem is trying to apply a principle that was formulated for something like self-defense being permissible to an actor which is a state.

I'm quite following that.

max
['Sorry.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
141

139: If you were just swerving for fun, and killed Dogbreath because you didn't want to stop swerving, I'd say you intended her death even though you didn't desire it. Given that, I'd say the same if you were swerving to miss the kids: if I wasn't being a jerk about it I'd say "She had to aim at the dog to miss the kids," and certainly wouldn't hold you morally responsible for having done anything wrong. But if asked whether you'd intentionally killed the dog I'd say that you did.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:08 PM
horizontal rule
142

This whole business of attemping to figure out what is or should be going on in someone else's head is wildly ambitious, to say the least.

That said, most of us live with some type of heuristics. When I see Lara's 113: It refers to a "raid" by Special Forces soldiers, which I take to be a much more targeted effort, I think, yeah, I *might* have believed that eight years ago.

On a related topic, a juror in the recent Fort Dix trial, a apparently a big test of the FBI's strategy to disrupt terror plots and then try the suspects, spoke to the press about the convictions:

Much of the case was built on two FBI informants who infiltrated the group and recorded hundreds of hours of conversations.
Defense attorneys mercilessly attacked the credibility of the main informant, Mahmoud Omar, who was paid about $240,000 for his cooperation and had been convicted of bank fraud.
Although the defense description of Omar as a "con man" seemed apt, the juror said, the panel didn't have any problem accepting his testimony.
Informants "have to be shady to get into what they have to get into," she said. "Get over it."
On cross-examination, defense attorneys accused Omar of steering the conversations and goading their clients into making incriminating statements.
"He sometimes had to move it along, but he did not entrap them," the juror said. "I think, without hesitation, what convicted these gentlemen was their own words."

Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
143

141: The way the philosophers talk about intention, the intent with which an action is done will govern and explain the action in question. So, still using the dog-and-kids example, if I swerve to avoid Sally and Newt, but they run back into my path, I'll swerve again if I can. Avoiding Sally and Newt is the goal I use in controlling my action, and so is what I can be said to intend. On the other hand, if I swerve to avoid the kids and am now bearing down on the dog, but he then gets out of the way, I don't turn to bring him back into my sights. Hitting the dog thus does not play a role in regulating my action, and so isn't part of my intent.


Posted by: bizzah | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
144

I mean, they said they wanted information about terrorists in general; they [never] said anything about anybody in particular. If they mentioned anyone in particular who was locked up in Gitmo, they just said they were 'dangerous'.

This exactly, for the men other than those few destined for prosecution. As to whom the files were a mess, but at least, it seems, there was some intent.

Here's a funny hypothetical story from the world of searchable databases. Suppose someone, prisoner 1234, was shown photographs of prisoners 205-211, and said "They're innocent bystanders." Suppose the jailer is ordered to produce exculpatory evidence, but when he looks for it with respect to prisoner 209, the statement from prisoner 1234 doesn't come up. Suppose further that the statement won't even come up for prisoner 211. Because, well, the record of the statement only talks about 205-211. That would be funny wouldn't it?

Or does this comment belong in the government IT thread?


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
145

Killing people is what states do, and the line between civilians and military targets has almost disappeared. This is all just a dog and pony show. There's no particular reason to process the global reality from an ethical point of view, because no one making the relevant decisions is going to be listening.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
146

Yes, Witt, criminal trials are a pretty scary prospect. You probably didn't see the XX Files article in todays Post (I'll link it later) but that's a common scenario.

Make me wonder why ol' George was so scared of the civil courts. Compare conduct and sentences of Lindh and Hamdan. You hear that the issue is torture, but Padilla's in jail right now and for quite a bit longer yet.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
147

The Padilla case makes me so incredibly angry. Moreso than gitmo, for some idiosyncratic, likely not justifiable, reason.


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
148

That would be funny wouldn't it?

[unprintable]

I wish, I wish, I wish I didn't believe you.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
149

147: If so, you're not alone.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
150

There aren't files. No one believes this at first, and it takes a long time to accept it, but really, that's it: no files. There are databases that can be searched . . . .

They're *in* the computer?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
151

This exactly, for the men other than those few destined for prosecution. As to whom the files were a mess, but at least, it seems, there was some intent.

I find it helpful, in understanding what has been going on, to think in terms of the Chilean security services (or maybe the Ohkrana): when you drag someone off to a brightly lit basement in a country house so you can beat the shit out of them, followed by shooting them in the head and dumping them in a shallow grave, paperwork is a nuisance.

I think I should point out that while the issues of what is justified in terms of collateral damage is neither well-defined nor well-understood, the rules for dealing with POWs and the like are clear and well-understood. Those rules have existed in practice for 200+ years, they were codified more than a century ago, and adjusted at mid-century to close loopholes around irregular forces. The specific lawyers who came up with justifications for getting around those rules were guilty of plain old rank malfeasance (of the murderous variety). The goons who carried out the actions justified by those rulings really were just following orders, but they should have goddamn well have known better.

max
['A fish rots from the head.']


Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
152

The Padilla verdict makes more than a little uncomfortable about submitting the rest to a jury trial. Obama will hopefully have better prosecutors, judges, venues than Bush would, but still.

Sorry. I almost think that any jury capable of giving the detainees a fair trial would have people like us p-challenged off. And I know I should be. Anyone predisposed to radical skepticism about the gov't evidence probably can't be fair.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
153

Obama should pardon Padilla immediately. But I won't be newly disappointed when he doesn't.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
154

153: Bob, how could you possibly be disappointed with Obama? If he's not apocalyptic enough for you?


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
155

Good for you, bob.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 5:09 PM
horizontal rule
156

84: You misunderstand. My objection is that "disappointment" is not an appropriate reaction to the policies of the American government. Disappointment is something you feel when you don't get the toy you wanted for Christmas; it really doesn't apply to, say, detention without due process, or warrantless domestic surveillance, or aerial bombardment. George Bush could never disappoint me, but he never failed to disgust me.


Posted by: inaccessible island rail | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 6:16 PM
horizontal rule
157

What else, besides porn, is the internet for?

Pictures of cats, I hear.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 6:51 PM
horizontal rule
158

And free music.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
159

156:IIR is an Optimist & Idealist.

Yes, "disappointment" is appropriate, as in "slightly below expectations". My own expectations happen to be very low:Rwanda low, Pol Pot low, Harry Lime selling bad penicillin to the children who survived ten years of total war low. I am pretty hard to disappoint anymore. The last 8 years have broken me.

I cannot invest anything in Obama. That Obama can't disappoint me does not make him a bad person, or bad President. He may be very good. I am just not going to trust him.

Saw This Movie the other night. Puppet Theatre Euripedes used to illuminate the stories of four men:gay evangelical, bank robber, German 70s terrorist, martial arts student turn turn turning their lives around.

None of them had any hope. None of them had expectations. It was hope that had fucked them up.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:01 PM
horizontal rule
160

Hope, as do many things, obeys the well-known dictum "Once bitten, twice shy."


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
161

117 on Dishing it out: it's 'intent' as 'desire': you are deemed to have intended the results you desired, and not the ones you didn't desire.
Previously, on taking it in: it's 'consent' vs 'desire'.

I find that these discerned double effect consequentialist scenarios remind me of Simon Baron-Cohen's quizzes to diagnose autism.



Posted by: Econolicious | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
162

Question for the lawyers: how can someone do something like this and not be disbarred? Do the rules go out the window when drug dealers are the victims?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
163

I can't get the link in 142 to work, but is that the case that went through multiple juries after the government couldn't get convictions at first?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
164

No. It's about a lawyer who was informing on his clients.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
165

142, not 162.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
166

Reading comprehension is for nerds.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
167

A better link, maybe.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
168

Thanks. Turns out that the case with the re-trials was in Florida, not this one.

Also, from the link in 167:

Throughout the trial, the jurors - who initially were allowed to go home at night - were blanketed with extraordinary security. They were careful not to learn each other's last names.

Each morning, they met at one of two locations, where federal marshals loaded them into white vans with blacked-out windows for the drive to the courthouse in Camden. The jurors moved through the building in groups, always escorted by marshals.

"Until the last day of deliberations, we said, 'This is like a movie,' We kept waiting for - what's that guy from 24?" she said, groping for the name of Kiefer Sutherland's character in the TV drama. "That's what it seemed like to us."

That couldn't possibly have affected the jurors judgment, could it?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
169

And note that the story is pretty much juror number 3's version of events and that juror number 3's name seems to be withheld only because - she's going to write it up herself? Is that a normal journalistic reason for withholding a name?

Juror No. 3, a South Jersey grandmother, contacted The Inquirer after the holidays.

Her recollections were aided by her courtroom notes and a journal she wrote at night during the nine-week trial. Juror No. 3, whose identity The Inquirer has agreed to withhold, said she hoped to use them to write her own account.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:55 PM
horizontal rule
170

I kept looking around for a racial breakdown of the jury with no success; it just seems unlikely that black people under the age of, oh, sixty would accept the sole testimony of a shady informant in a case this serious.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
171

Cherry Hill is mighty white.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
172

"Get over it" is one of my least favor it sayings. I might use it myself, but only when I'm intending to be horrible.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
173

Incidentally, the movie IMDB-linked in 159, Protagonist was directed by Jessica Yu. The Euripidean play she uses as commentary on the four violent mens' autobiographies is The Bacchae

Here are some Introductory Notes on the Bacchae. I wish I had reread the play etc before I watched the movie, because the most pertinent (?) parts of the play aren't what she puts onscreen. Now it gets another star.

Marina Sirtis (STNG) was the voice of the Agave puppet, in ancient Greek with subtitles. Gilbert Murray 1911 trans, I think.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
174

Bob should start watching and commentating on anime series. That would be more entertaining.


Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
175

174:Currently following This Inscrutability but this blog is brutal on anime watchers


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 8:56 PM
horizontal rule
176

153 -- I'm still mad that Clinton pardoned Rich, and not Peltier. Can't always ever get what you want.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 10:18 PM
horizontal rule
177

I kept looking around for a racial breakdown of the jury with no success.

Yeah, that would be interesting. Per Sifu's link, I'm kind of surprised Cherry Hill has as many as 5% black people. I would have guessed 70% white, 22% Asian (mostly Chinese, some Korean), 8% other.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 01-25-09 10:37 PM
horizontal rule
178

Teenagely speaking, the girls at Cherry Hill H.S. must develop thick skins. I wonder if the Cherry Hill H.S. is located on an actual hill. (Or, God forbid, the Catholic girls' school).


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-26-09 8:51 AM
horizontal rule