home

Friday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:03:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Glenn Greenwald writes a very good, nuanced piece on what was good and not so good from the Obama Administration yesterday on the torture issue. I also liked Digby's statement:

All of these cases were brought about by public and political pressure. It occurs to me that this is the only way it can happen in our broken political system --- that a president never willingly investigates itself, of course, but also never wants to investigate its predecessor either (the Democrats usually for fear of starting an endless vendetta, the Republicans usually for fear of setting a precedent.) They must be made to do it.

With respect to the Bush torture regime, it's obviously very difficult for the administration to take on the intelligence community unless there is a large public constituency demanding action. It's risky on all the levels mentioned above but also risks alienating a very important bureaucracy with a lot of very special power. I recognize that it's not easy, especially for a Democrat, although I think it's so important to the future security of the nation that I would have hoped the president would use some of his political capital to prove that the United States is a country of laws not men.

Speaking for me only. This is an Open Thread.

< WaPo Editorial Calls For Torture Investigations | Rasmussen: Tea Parties "Prompt" Secession Question >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I like (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    Digby's post but so far Obama doesn't have much support for the Geither Plan according to the polls you cited the other day and yet he continues to push forward with that plan. So IMO the jury's still out on whether he responds to pressure on this or not.

    Obama is (none / 0) (#14)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    the Judge and Jury so the jury is not out - the verdict is in.

    Besides the general public doesn't have a clue as to what is  a good plan and what is not. They also are not asked what alternative they would offer. And if they were they would not know what to say. Which makes those polls no more than a uninformed opinion.

    I know this won't be front paged today because it is good news for the economy. A glimmer of hope at least, so it was good to see so many banks and GE and others post good revenues and gross profits this week.

    We aren't out of the woods but good news at this point and actual dollars earned beats the heck out of what the doomsday'ers like to talk about. Think of it this way: The more good news there is in the financial sector the quicker the price of the assets will be fairly established and the obama plan to facilitate the sale of those assets will take hold; and the sooner the assets price is established and they start selling the quicker the banks can borrow and lend again; and the quicker they do that the sooner demand and jobs return.

    To hope for anything else is to root against your neighbor.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    If the news is so good then we don't need the Geither plan do we? If the banks are doing well we can scrap it then? Right?

    Parent
    Of course you can't be serious (2.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    with that reply.

    But if you are please let me know. If you truly do not understand all the moving pieces of the crisis I think you should make that public on the blog here.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    I know. Us little "know nothing peons" shouldn't be discussing what our money is being used for and whether we like it or not.

    Demand is not going to automatically appear once the banks get straightened out if they ever do. The unemployment is so high right now that people aren't automatically going to start borrowing money. Even the people that have jobs are afraid of losing them.

    Parent

    It's my money too (none / 0) (#101)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:12:54 PM EST
    and I like to stick with facts the best I can and control the rage when it will change nothing. I also don't buy nationalization that has been a favorite theme here especially by those who don't understand that it will cost more and likely be a ten year plus endeavor.

    I might also remind you that many people have called me and others here who go against the grain "know nothings" in so many words, and not one person has come to our defense. It's OK with yu when it is done to us but not OK when it is done to you? Good luck with that.

    Demand is not going to automatically appear once the banks get straightened out if they ever do.

    No kidding. Who suggested it would? It is a starting point which without we likely will not come out of the slump we are in. So when you join the choir cheering bad bank news just know you are rooting against your neighbor.

    The unemployment is so high right now that people aren't automatically going to start borrowing money.

    Those who feel stable and need or want to borrow will. Some businesses will also. The important thing is that the banks will be in a position to lend to those who want to and are capable of borrowing. When borrowing increases perception of the economy will improve and demand will rise and factories will slowly rehire, which will raise demand even more, and so on and so on. That is what happens in recessions. It's not like we haven't been through this before.

    And do you see how you look at the glass half-full? If unemployment reached 15% there would still be 85% working. But let's focus just on the 15% and ignore the other 85% why don't we?

    When the banks 'start' to get healthy and the Obama plan on the asset purchases works then we will be over the bank 'crisis' and then we will be left with the recession that started well over a year ago that had nothing to do with bad assets.

    The problem with many here though is that they don't want the banks to get healthy because they hate the banks and are so invested in hating them that they could never hope for their recovery.

    Same with the Obama plan for the assets. Seems most here would love to see all of that fail so they would be right even if it means going back to square one, starting all over again, causing this whole thing to last longer, and nationalize 543 banks and their branches which would be even more expensive and last a long long time. That is the alternative that people root for when the root against the current plans that aren't going to change. I just find it absurd that people would on a daily basis root for failure.

    Parent

    He can continue to push (none / 0) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    forward on the Geithner plan because his (Obama's) continued high support in the polls, despite low support in polls for the plan.

    Parent
    On Torture Prosecution (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    I asked a question of the Washington Post this morning to help clarify in my mind some of the back and forth at TL yesterday about the prosecution of those involved in the torture memos. Here it is...

    Coral Gables, Fla.: In reading Obama's statement from yesterday on the torture memos, did he leave open the door to prosecuting those from the Justice Department who gave the legalese okay to torture?

    Ed O'Keefe: Yes, according to our Justice Department reporter Carrie Johnson.

    Wow. Immed. reply w/attribution! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:03:46 PM EST


    Parent
    amazing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    The 2 minute 19 second cinematic feature is filmed in one continuous tracking shot and offers an exploration into the world of movies being made for the cinema screen through the eyes of the director and the special effects and lighting experts. During playback of the movie, users have interactive touch points in which they can access additional content and feature demonstrations.

    Link

    I have done VFX for films and games for 20 years and I honestly dont know how they did this.

    C'mon. You're associated with this clip, (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    aren't you.

    Parent
    not at all (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    I work for a game company.

    Parent
    trust me (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    I had done that, I would tell you.

    Parent
    Fair enough, (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    it's just that your description sounds l;ike it was written by the director or someone. I suppose your game experience is similar enough.

    I'd imagine if it was shot live-action, it's several motion-control tracking shots spliced together. And a lot of stuff added/subtracted in post...

    Parent

    nope (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    that would not get it.
    I work for a game company now but only for the last couple of years.  before that I did stuff exactly like this for films for many years.

    I have been searching the web for some breakdown of how it was done.  so far nothing interesting.


    Parent

    ok, another option is 100's of DSLRs (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    ganged together in long trains, combined with lots of post.

    I've been in the film industry for almost 20 years, although not at all specifically in SFX stuff like this, so I'm happy to let you decide how it was done...

    Parent

    ah (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    the top paragraph was not my description.
    it was a cut and paste from some blog.

    Parent
    That explains it. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:49:27 PM EST


    Parent
    that is very cool (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    I can only think they created the whole world in a very sophisticated visual database and then did a simulated tracking shot, much like we do in flight simulation. I can only imagine the computing power needed for that visual though.

    Good advertising for that TV too. Wow.

    Parent

    the backgrounds and effects (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    I understand.  broken glass, debris, that part is not difficult.  in fact we have a feature in game development that works exactly like this.  its called "slewing".  you can pause the action and move around and make sure everything is doing what you want it to do.
    what I dont understand is how they got the people in.
    I am wondering if possibly they are not people at all but 3D models. its possible since they dont move.  they can do amazing things with mapping these days.


    Parent
    Exactly - 3D models with photo texturing (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    or more advanced techniques I don't know about - They probably have video texturing now. (I only watched the visual experts work, never did it myself.)  

    I do know it takes enormous computing horsepower to do it that well.

    Parent

    They look like mannequins (none / 0) (#87)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    except for the very first guy.

    Parent
    I may be mistaken, but there was, I believe (4.66 / 9) (#10)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    an enormous amount of pressure on Obama to vote against that FISA bill, and yet he did it anyway; he completely misrepresented the terms of the bill when he explained why he voted for it, and - addding insult to injury - more or less patted us all on the head and assured us we need not worry because he was going to make it all better when he was president.

    In this 11-dimensional chess game that has subsumed reality, is there any possibility that one of the reasons Obama released the memos - aside from the fact that time was expiring on the Court's Order that he do so - was to gauge the public's reaction, and then leave it to us to rise up in such numbers that he - and Holder, since it has to come from him - could say that "the people had spoken" and the process of bringing a whole host of people to justice could begin?

    I just don't know if I can take it that far; for one, I think the media for the most part are still framing the message and even ignoring the news - there was not one word about the release in my newspaper this morning.  Not on the front page, not buried in the depths, nowhere.  Contrast the coverage of those ridiculous tea parties with release of the torture memos: night and day.

    Given that disturbing reality, I think it far more likely that Obama sees the release of the memos and assurances of immunity as the "pragmatic" approach that will allow us to "move forward."  And I think he will have the support of much of the media, which will be read as much of the people, even if that isn't true.

    I just wonder if he has any idea that he doesn't have nearly as much control over where "forward" will take us as he thinks he does.

    And I do not forget (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    to add on to your first paragraph, his grin after he voted -- the grin of the next guy who would get to use FISA.

    Parent
    Yeah..that grin. (4.40 / 5) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    I remember it all too well, I'm afraid; it made my stomach turn over because it was so revealing - to me, anyway - of who Obama really was.  He has given us more of those kinds of glimpses, ones that disturb a lot more than they reassure.

    Can't say we didn't try to tell people, though, can we?

    Parent

    Not 11-dimensional (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    on this question, I don't think.  He did not shut the door on prosecution of higher-ups in the Bush White House and Justice Dept. like the authors of the memos, just the CIA people who carried them out.  That simply can't have been accidental.

    Secondly, we've been hearing there's been a huge internal battle in the administration about whether to release them at all (with the AG on the side of releasing them), so I'd guess it's probably safe to say there's also divided opinion on whether to prosecute.

    With some stuff he's undecided or ambivalent about, Obama has been making a habit of leaving doors open and seeing what sort of consensus may develop, whether from the public or most often from Congress.

    So to my mind, this is pretty straightforward.  He's given no "guidance" about prosecutions of the people in between Bush/Cheney themselves and CIA guys.  I do think he's waiting to see how opinion develops before deciding.

    In any case, I can't imagine he would go forward with something like that until at least a year or two from now.

    Parent

    I don't see them going forward at all. (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    When you consider how long they have had access to these - and other - memos, and how much more they probably do know than we have any idea about, there's no reason why Obama could not have come out, with Eric Holder, to announce the release of the memos AND their intention to start the wheels of justice moving.

    Really, what is the point of waiting?  Other than to make this more political than it needs to be.

    No, the longer they do nothing, the greater the chances that "nothing" is the choice they made from jump street.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    But I think there's no question Obama is consistently being very, very careful about what he tackles when, and he's made the decision, rightly or wrongly, that prosecuting these people is of lesser importance than all the other stuff he's trying to do, from the economy to the long-range plans on education, environment, energy, etc., so if it gets done at all, it will have to wait.

    But I have to say again, he very pointedly did not close the door on prosecution.  Given how careful his statements are, I think that means he, um, hasn't closed the door.

    I agree entirely it's unlikely, but I also think this is an area where a big public/political clamor could have an effect on the direction he goes.

    Parent

    What I don't (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    understand is why he hasn't somethings that are popular and don't cost money or rather actually save money like get rid of NCLB.

    There's no reason to believe that he's going to have four years to get things done. His "political capital" could be gone by fall. You have to use it when you have it and going slowly could be frittering it all away.

    Parent

    You probably won't be happy to hear (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    this, but my understanding is that Obama wants to strengthen NCLB, not get rid of it...I may have read that at Think Progress in the last couple of weeks, but I can't seem to find the link.

    Parent
    Oh (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    Geez. He's waiting for someone to tell him what to do? He's waiting for a concensus that may never happen and leave the door open to further abuses?

    I guess you could say that you can read what you want to read in Obama's statements.  

    Parent

    Of Course (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by daring grace on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    I guess you could say that you can read what you want to read in Obama's statements.

    And people on both sides (perpetual Obama admirers and detractors) do that all the time anyway.

    But I think gyrfalcon presented the president's play here pretty accurately. Not surprising, really, since he's always displayed a very cautious, careful disposition.

    Parent

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:43:17 PM EST


    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    It would help a lot more if he was clear. It seems that he wants to be obtuse on purpose. I guess if you're obtuse no one can ever pin you down on anything and maybe that's his point.

    Parent
    I Think He Is Clear (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by daring grace on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    He says in his statement about releasing the memos that he did because he was ordered to do so by the court and decided to comply rather than appeal or resist.

    He says he's prohibited this conduct (torture) under his administration, and that it is not occurring.

    He says he won't agree with prosecuting the front line intelligence personnel who conducted the torture.

    He does not directly address investigating or prosecuting Bush administration officials who sanctioned the torture, but he gives a strong sense about 'gong forward' that he doesn't want to do that. But by not specifically stating that, he leaves the door open for the potential to do that in the future.

    So if his administration tortures, we can pin that on him.

    If he prosecutes the torturers themselves after saying he won't, we can pin that on him.

    That he leaves his options open about prosecuting or investigating Bush admin people seems to me like a standard pol or even standard executive strategy. We can speculate why (and have been all day). But there's nothing particularly obtuse in his explanations.

    It all seems clear to me.

    I don't particularly agree with all of it, but it certainly seems clear.

    Parent

    He needs (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    you to write for him. His statements are entirely too long and wordy.

    Parent
    I Could Use The Work Right Now Too (none / 0) (#107)
    by daring grace on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    I'm being bought out of my share of my business and looking at changing careers.

    But I'm not moving to D.C. ;)

    Parent

    In a similar vein, (none / 0) (#104)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    it occurred to me that the positions the DOJ is taking on wire tapping, etc. were taken on the assumption that they will be shut down by the Court decisions, even on appeal.  Too much to hope for?

    Parent
    tragic (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:16:52 AM EST

    1,500 farmers commit mass suicide in India

    So sad.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    nothing a few dollars couldn't fix either...what a terrible shame.

    Parent
    It was over Monsanto and similar (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    "high-tech" seeds, the crops from which failed because (a) the varieties required more water than available or (b) they were about 100x more expensive than traditional seeds (which had suddenly become "unavailable").

    These poor guys were scammed into this debacle.

    Remember them when you buy some Roundup (TM) to spare yourself the labor of stooping to pull some weeds.

    Parent

    Remember it also when you (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    buy tomato plants.  Essentially, every common hybrid variety, from Big Boy to Early Girl to Celebrity and pretty much every other non-heirloom you find in your garden center is now owned by Monsanto, which bought them all out about five years ago.

    As for Round-Up-- anybody who uses it on weeds they could just pull up is too stupid to be allowed out on their own.  Unfortunately for us Monsanto haters, though, it is still the only thing out there that can cope with the most hideous perennial weeds that spread primarily via underground rhizomes and choke out anything else in their path, things like Goutweed and Bindweed or the horribly destructive and spreading Japanese Knotweed.  You can't dig these things up because it regrows from the smallest fragment of the easily broken rhizome, and pulling them up only stimulates the rhizomes left in the ground to spread faster.

    Unfortunately, other companies' glycophosphate formulations don't work anywhere near as well, either.

    If you do have this kind of problem, the way to at least minimize the use of R-U is to cut the plant's stem and immediately drip just a few drops of RU into the cut stem with an eyedropper.  That sends the chemical into the root/rhizome faster than spraying it on the leaves, keeps it from splashing on nearby plants you don't want to kill, minimizes the amount that goes into the environment (although it really does break down so fast, you can plant seeds or transplant plants into R-U treated ground within three or four days with no problem), and puts as few dollars into Monsanto's pocket as possible.

    Parent

    My sister's husband sprays that crap... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    on his lawn..I never cease to give him sh*t over it...nevermind supporting a nasty company, his kids and dog play on that grass!

    I pull my weeds..err, technically my landladys weeds.

    Parent

    Sure it's Round-Up he's using? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    Round-Up isn't a weed killer, it's an everything killer.  Spray that on your lawn, and you won't have crabgrass, you will have bare nekkid ground with nothing growing on it.

    Parent
    But Monsanto (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:54:59 PM EST
    sells "Roundup-Ready" seeds that are resistant to the herbicide, and thus everything gets killed BUT the crop you want to grow!  Full disclosure, I actually represented the company that developed that product (and is now part of Monsanto).

    Parent
    It's an evil company (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    They're also busy selling seeds to impoverished farmers in Asia and Africa that produce plants that themselves have sterile seeds, thus forcing these folks into complete dependency on the company.

    The problem with their Round-Up resistant stuff is, of course, inevitably, it's been hybridizing with pernicious weeds and producing Round-Up resistant weeds.

    I would bet a great deal of money that Monsanto long ago constructed an herbicide that will kill those hybrid weeds and will produce it for sale once the problem becomes widespread.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    Not to be an apologist, but those sterile seeds really aren't much worse than the concept of planned obsolescence that exists in other industries...

    Parent
    Oh, Steve! (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    As far as I know, only Monsanto has the morals to apply the concept of "planned obsolescence" for food crops for impoverished people.  Very different thing from, say, Bill Gates lining his pockets with cash from new versions of Windows every two years.  Geesh.

    Parent
    Be nice (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    If the impoverished farmers kept using those seeds for multiple crop cycles, they'd quickly become no more useful than regular non-resistant crops.  And if you want non-resistant crops, just get normal seeds in the first place.

    The sterile seeds make money for Monsanto but they are also a way of enforcing the appropriate crop cycle.

    Parent

    To my knowledge (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    they're doing this not just with resistant crops (a bad idea anyway, IMHO, see other comment about hybridization with weeds) but ordinary seeds, as well, solely to protect their patent or whatever it is.  God forbid starving people in Africa should "steal" some seeds from their own crops to replant and be able to feed their families.

    Parent
    Which reminds me. Henry Ford was (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    dedicated to making cars w/o planned obsolescence.  His successor introduced that concept.  Heard it on NPR so it must be true.

    Parent
    This sounds a little hysterical, and a lot untrue. (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    From Monsanto:

    Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product.

    [...]

    If Monsanto should decide to move forward in the area of GURTs (Gene Use Restriction Technology), we would do so in consultation with experts and stakeholders, including NGOs. Our commitment to protecting smallholder farmers and our promise not to commercialize sterile seed technology will carry forward with these developments, should they occur.



    Parent
    I'm not... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    its probably some other brand of poison, all the same sh*t to me.

    I do worry about the kids and dog...if it kills life dead it can't be good for ya, no matter how safe they tell ya it is....whatever it is:)

    Parent

    All chemicals are not alike (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    Round-Up is actually an incredibly safe one, and as far as I'm aware, has never been even suspected of causing any problems for human beings, animals or insects.  Even farmworkers who practically have to bathe in the stuff repeatedly have shown very little ill effects.  I think there's one study that suggests possible effects from massive exposure for a small but statistically significant minority.

    Of course, if your dog (or you) lick up a puddle of it, that's another story.  But the minimal exposure from home use, no evidence whatsoever of any bad effects.  And this stuff's been around for what, 30 years or so now?

    That said, the idea of fussing with chemicals or anything else to control which variety of green stuff grows in your lawn has always struck me as idiotic.

    Parent

    Ever pour your bong water on some grass? (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    Kills it dead.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    I'll have to pull a Mr. Wizard this weekend and try it...I know it wreaks havoc on my carpet:)

    Parent
    Nah, I have no idea. I just made it up. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    Boring subjects today on TL.

    Parent
    Probably pH (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    I know nothing about bong water, but that's my best guess.  

    Parent
    According to the vet that sees my (none / 0) (#61)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    ten year old dalmatian (Haley Dog), some studies are beginning to link these chemicals to seizures in dogs.  

    Parent
    "These chemicals" (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    I don't mean to be a pain in the neck about this, but "these chemicals" encompasses such an incredibly wide range of stuff that homeowners use in their gardens and on their lawns and around their houses that it's essentially meaningless.

    I'm personally a believer in not using chemicals if I can possibly avoid it, especially since there are excellent organic solutions for most garden/lawn problems.

    But there are some widely used chemicals, like Round-Up, that are incredibly benign and others that are not.  Round-Up is so rapidly absorbed by the plant, for instance, that you can't tell where you've sprayed it five minutes later because it's all been sucked into the plant.  Unless someone sprayed the dog in the face, it's beyond me how it could ever even be exposed to the stuff.

    Parent

    I heard John Dean say last night (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:26:09 AM EST
    that the Spanish thing was not a closed book.  that the prosecutor had declined to do anything but the judge might still have options?

    any of you legal eagles have an opinion about that?

    I Would Like To See... (none / 0) (#5)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    criminal prosecutions of those officials who thought it was their sole duty to give legal cover for torture.  With a Democratic Administration and a Democratically-controlled Congress the danger is that such prosecution will be seen as politically motivated which would be very damaging to the rule of law concept.  

    Obama does have an opportunity to show leadership by figuring out a way to bring to account those responsible without it appearing or being political.  So far, it looks like he is saying that the release of those memos is sufficient.   Seems like a bit of a cop out to me.  

    Parent

    According to a NYT (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    report, the attorney general, Candido Conde-Pumpido,  indicated that he would oppose any legal action by Spain because the proper forum would be an American court and that any investigation should focus on those who actually mistreated detainees.  However, the attorney general is not the last word, and a struggle is on between  Spanish politicians and judges.  The judge, Baltasar Garzon, who is handling the complain against the Bush guys is the same tough magistrate who ordered the arrest of Pinochet. But, the heat is on him from the Spanish government who wants to play nice with the Obama administration, so this approach does not look promising for now, in my view.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    thats pretty much what I thought.

    Parent
    What about the (none / 0) (#105)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    Hague?

    Parent
    This whole torture issue is political (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    pandering.  Obama dumped these documents to give the left plenty to grandstand about and nothing will come of it.

    There is a legal case to be made that these tactics where not torture.  They where harsh, extreme but not torture.  Defining sleep dperivation to quote Charles Krauthamer is to devalue the word torture.    

    This boils down to the fact that the left views these tactics as torture and the right doesn't.   Where we draw the line is not legally definable so we can choose to play a political dance about it or move forward.

    Obama was elected so he gets to decide as CIC that these tactics are no longer viable.  He should not go back and retroactively redefine the laws according to the lefts views that these tactics where torture and even if you think it's justified the process will be too political and not worth our time.

    Obama did enough by producing these documents.  He has said the last administration did this and we will no longer do it.

    Enough.

    Sleep deprivation (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by jnicola on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    when practised at the levels envisaged in the memos is, in the view of the medical profession, and most people through history and around the world, torture.

    True, there's disagreement from a small minority of the public. What I find difficult to understand is why, if they're confident in their view, they're so adverse to making that case to a court.

    Parent

    Slado and other apologists for Bushco torture (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by scribe on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    should spend some time (re)reading The Gulag Archipelago, to revisit how brutal those techniques (including sleep deprivation) are.

    Then they should go back and revisit the trial records of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials to check on niceties like "forced standing".  We prosecuted the hell out of Japanese PW guards who did things like forcing PWs to squat, let alone stand.  And things like face slaps, belly slaps, and the like.

    Anyone who thinks these techniques were not torture because "we used them on our own troops in SERE training" is being willfully ignorant, or willfully stupid.  The prime differences between the two, such that it might not be torture to do it to your own troops but would be to do it to prisoners are (A) your troops volunteered for the duty knowing they would have to go through the SERE training and that this would be part of it and (B) your troops knew that, if they held out for a specified length of time all this would end, while the prisoners would not and could not know when, if ever, it would end.  Your troops would know, of course, that the SERE Training program was X days long and they had already made it through Y (<X) days such that the program of mistreatment could only continue for X-Y days more, at most.  That works a significant difference in the impact of the treatment since you know it's going to end.  

    Parent

    Christy at FDL had a post up yesterday, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    in which, via an Armed Services Committee hearing transcript, she puts to rest this nonsense that, bcause we subjected our own troops to these methods, they aren't torture.

    Christy Hardin Smith, in her post, says, in part:

    Note that Haynes name comes up. No shocker there. (For information on the hearing, see Sen. Levin's opening statement and a compilation of documents referred to therein. (PDF) As well as filed witness statements and the complete hearing transcript.)

    During the testimony in the clip here, experts on SERE and survival school -- who work directly for and with DOD -- testify expressly that there is a vast difference between a survival school class (wherein, for example, safety words and signals are built into the training so the waterboarding or other technique doesn't go too far) and an intel interrogation where no such safety protocols or oversight is in place.

    Common sense ought to tell most people that if the techniques were so innocuous, why would the government think they would induce anyone to spill the beans?

    Parent

    Once liberals go down this road (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:55:02 PM EST
    They need to prepared to loose.

    This link shows the kind of disecting of testimony that will come from any sort of investigation.

    We already know the evidence.  We waterboarded a few key members of Al Queada and preformed less harsh techniques as the memo's suggest on other key detainees.

    So now what?   The Administration took the legal view (their view) that these tactics weren't torture.

    Obama and most on this site took the view that it was.

    What legal authority does the left wish to now use to determine who is right?

    A ttreaty? Their definition.  The Supreme Court?

    This will drag out into a long, messy constitutionally political battle with reems of experts on both sides stating that the other is wront and eventually this will boil down to yeah it was bad, now our position is it's torture but we have no jurisdiction to say that it was then so thanks for the memories.

    Parent

    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    what one conservative thinks about why this is against the law.  I'd say it's pretty clear cut.

    But, if there is a case to be made that it's not - than make it to the courts.  Let them decide.  But don't write it off because there is a chance you could lose, and personally, I think it's a very slim chance and will not "boil down" the way you think it will.

    Parent

    You could be right but even you (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    must admit you could be wrong.  I know I could be wrong.  

    I think we can all agree that this will get nasty.   It took 3 or 4 years to get the Plame info out in the open and then we convicted a flunky (who was then pardoned) for lying to the investigators and the one who leaked the info (which was also debated as not even being a crime) went scott free.  

    This will be 10X the legal/political battle the Plame affair was (each side will stake out their political positions) and we may find out similarly that there are many more involved then just the percieved masterminds and many democrats knew exactly what was going on (and I'm sure many did)and suddenly this open and shut case will become nothing more then a political mess.  

    We as a country have decided waterboarding and harsh techniques aren't worth it.  We had an election and the winner stands on the side of lesh harsh techniques.   So be it.

    We need to move on.

    Parent

    Regarding Plame (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    I do not for a second regret having taken that route even if the result was not what I had hoped.  It is still far better than doing nothing.

    If Democrats were involved, they should go down too.

    I don't disagree this will be a political mess, but I absolutely think we can't afford NOT to do it.  We had an election - and the winner was chosen to represent the views of the people that put him in office.  Those views include following the rule of the law.

    I admit I could be wrong in how the courts interpret it.  I do not admit they didn't break the law.

    Parent

    Almost, but not quite (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    We had an election - and the winner was chosen to represent the views of the people that put him in office.  Those views include following the rule of the law.

    The winner must represent the views of the people. That's it. Not just those who put him there. This mess we're in is very much attached to GWB only representing the people who got him his job. Obama must not do the same.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    PPUS isn't dead.

    People are always gonna disagree.  There is no way to represent everyone, but that's why we hold elections.

    Frankly, I think the president's job is to do what is right - regardless what the people think.  But clearly that is wishfull thinking and pols will be pols.

    Parent

    Man (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Steve M on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    The talking point that there was "one" Plame leaker, as if the leaks by Rove and all the others never even happened, just will never die.  It's really astonishing to behold the power of myth-making sometimes.

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    Testimony

    Parent
    According to (none / 0) (#106)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    Alexander, former AIr FOrce INtelligence interrogator on Olbermann last night, torture was far more widespread, and there were similar techniques used wherever U.S. housed suspected Al Queda members -- Guantanamo, Brigam(?) and Abu Gharaib.  What's more, the techniques were well known throughout the world and were cited by many as the reason they signed up with Al Queda.

    Parent
    waterboarding had been used (none / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    more intensely and more frequently

    Earlier this year, President Bush defended his administration's use of torture by claiming that the techniques, including waterboarding, "are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information to protect the American people." However, in one of the four legal memos released yesterday, a footnote (page 41) revealed that for a time, waterboarding had been used more intensely and frequently than originally thought:
    ...
    But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used "with far greater frequency than initially indicated" and with "large volumes of water" rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.'s inspector general. Think Progress


    Parent
    The right (none / 0) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    views torture as torture.  They don't care as they feel it's 'justified'.  I don't view it as a question of is it/isn't it... the questions for me are did we violate international agreements, did we violate our constitution, etc.  Obama does not get to that politics takes priority to the constitution.   Obama does not get to ignore the constitution to protect Bush because (whine) it's inconvenient.

    Obama has not done enough to release the documents.

    Never enough.

    Parent

    I think that starting a comment (4.50 / 2) (#27)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    on the topic of torture with the words "the right" now is nullified.

    Parent
    It would be interesting to learn (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:05:57 PM EST
    whether plaintiff civil rights lawyers, haveing read the memos, are in the process of rounding up clients, i.e., persons who were maltreated as a result of the memos, and planning to file class action civil lawsuits for money damages against the federal government agency as the proper party (can't sue the federal employee, or former federal employee (authors of the memos) directly.  

    Preemptive Goldman Rebuttal (none / 0) (#13)
    by santarita on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    I read an article in the NYTimes business section(Floyd Nrris' column)  today talking about why there is so much suspicion about Goldman Sachs.

    One of the points made is that Goldman's Viniar was somewhat disingenuous when he said that it had properly hedged against AIG and that the TARP conduit payments to the counterparties was not a factor in its earnings report for this quarter.  The author points out that even Viniar agreed that an AIG collapse would have had systemic effects and those effects would have negatively impacted Goldman.  I have no problem with this conclusion.

    However the author points out that if AIG had filed bankruptcy, Goldman would have ended up scrambling like other creditors as happened with the counterparties in Lehman.  I don't believe that that is an accurate statement.  According to Goldman, it had hedges in place and it had collateral equal to or greater than what was owed.  So it wouldn't have been scrambling in an AIG bankruptcy.  

    I would like to have seen a better analysis of the Goldman creditor's claim.  

    Viniar already stated that the (none / 0) (#18)
    by Catch 22 on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    payments to the firm "rounded to zero" in the first quarter. That most of the cash flow from AIG payments took place prior to the end of last year. Goldman has also reported that it lost $780 million in December. First quarter revenue and earnings came mainly from record Fixed Income Trading.

    So the slate is clean. We know what they lost in December and we know where bulk of the $1.81 billion profit in the first quarter came from as well as what the other first quarter profit sources were.

    Parent

    For you Survivor fans... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    Obama treats his political capital like most of the contestents treat their hidden immunity idols - he may get voted off the island with it still in his pocket, unplayed.

    What is he saving it for?

    just a guess (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    the budget battle?
    if it shapes up like some say it will it will be the battle of the century.


    Parent
    I sure hope so (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    I can think of a few things, mainly healthcare and the environment.

    Speaking of the environment, this is encouraging.

    "Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2"

    also

    "The EPA's next step will probably be to grant the 'California waiver', which would allow states to restrict tailpipe emissions, and that we expect to happen very soon,"

    word.

    Parent

    its hard for me to understand (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    how people can think that an administration that would consider incurring scorched earth retribution of the republicans by shoving through a budget containing most of the agenda many of us have only been able to dream of for decades is "not progressive".

    if that is not drawing the battle lines I cant imagine what would be.

    Parent

    Considering it is one thing (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:59:30 PM EST
    Doing it is another.

    i'll believe it when I see it.

    Parent

    11 dimensional chess (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    he didn't propose it because he wants it, he proposed it because he knew it would create tremendous opposition that would then kill all progressive legislation for the next 8 years.

    Parent
    possibly he doesnt want it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    but I totally think he would do it.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    "Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2"

    He's going to ban all politicians from speaking?

    Parent

    He's gonna legislate that all cows (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    be fed Gas-X. The Beano PAC is very upset...

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    because regulate is the exact same thing as ban.

    Geeze.

    That's like saying they banned pooping when they decided to regulate methane.

    Parent

    "banned pooping" (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    I see a supportive George Will column in the works.


    Parent
    Fred Astaire... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    ...certainly never pooped.  Or Grace Kelly...

    Parent
    or George Will (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    other wise he could not be so full of it.

    Parent
    Speaking of GW... (none / 0) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 07:23:25 PM EST
    ...you might enjoy this

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    you missed the joke

    Parent
    apparently (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    my apologies.  Snark tags necessary!  I can't identify sarcasm online :)

    Parent
    He's (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    a big advocate of keeping his powder dry.

    Parent
    I thought his hero was Lincoln (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:57:27 PM EST
     Not McClellan.

    Parent
    Double bonus points (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    For invoking not only Lincoln (which anyone can do), but McClellan as well, AND being snarky.

    Well played!  :)

    Parent

    Oy. McClellan! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 06:08:28 PM EST
    My impression of McClellan was that he missed the point that to actually WIN a battle that it was necessary to first FIGHT.  

    "If General McClellan isn't going to use his army, I'd like to borrow it for a time." (Commenting on General McClellan's lack of aggression, 1862)

    That's the quote I was thinking of.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 06:58:49 AM EST
    Apparently he was a great organizer and built the Army of the Potomac - disciplined and a procurer of items an army needs to survive - but missed the big picture of having an army, namely, using it to fight.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#64)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    did we allow the Intelligence Community to become so powerful or so "big" that we are now afraid of upsetting it? WTF?
    So the most important thing in the USA today is the intelligence community? Don't mess with the inteligence community! We gripe alot about the need to hold politicians accountable, but apparently that doesn't apply to the intelligence community. Is it because, much like the banks and financial institutions, we've allowed them to become too "big" to fail?
    If we're so afraid of the intelligence community then we've merely accepted a "cleaner" form of terrorism than the traditional form of terrorism.
    Re torture memos and the rule (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 04:47:54 PM EST
    of law.  I just started listening to CDs of Franz Kafka's "The Trial."  So far, Joseph K. (who is a banker) is relying on the rule of law.  But that's the first disc.

    Friday Morning Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment