I have been sort of disappointed with the internet for sometime, but nothing surprising. It is the idea that Twitter isolates and amplifies id, and does so in ways that are anti-ploverian, which is the ideal we have here at the mothership. I have been struggling with an idea about how someone can be simultaneously correct or have an important point, yet personal motivations or interests render those correct points as points being scored in some competition or “red meat” for a watching crowd. This is akin to the criticism that some discussions can have a disingenuous side in that part of the discussion is “performance” by one or other side. And, in a toilet bowl spiral, an allegation of “performance” will inevitably be used to rhetorically undermine the performer, and act as a side step for the issue at hand. Anyhow, I didn’t really know how to write whatever I was going to write without it being assumed I was taking some side in some internecine argument. I just read something that essentially captures everything I was going to say. It is worth a read. I don’t think what are described as “Social Justice Discourse Fallacies” are actually fallacies or linked to ideas of Social Justice, I think they are rhetorical landmines that relate to how people argue and the normal human desire to establish rhetorical advantage, be accepted by a group, and feel important as member of a team, and thus are universal.
Archive for the 'Serious Pants' Category
Little guy had been in a slow, slow, slow decline, but he started to waste and we felt it was time. We didn’t want to see him go over the cliff. He spent a lot of time sleeping in the last year, and I had started to take some pics of him in his little doggie dreams. Even before he was showing his years, he liked to sleep with his head at some odd angles, but this seemed to increase. We’d see him and I’d go “Little guy, you missed your bed!” It is a little sad that the last year of this terrible blog has been losing Smokedog (1 year ago tomorrow), a few half-hearted Pitchfork posts, and the current hole in my heart, losing P-dog (three weeks ago tomorrow). I miss our “boys” and I miss our community. I feel like they were our mascots. I hope we all make it through our holidays and remember to share our jokes, happy events, and our proud moments along with our sad and difficult ones.
BEGIN UPDATE I had to add GC’s favorite pic of the little guy- taken at Half Moon Bay in CA.
When we were at the vet, they were so kind. There were some very nice, well-meant things said- especially thinking about P-man running free, and having all his legs back. That is not something I believe, but the thoughts were sweet and kind. I was reminded of this scene from the underrated and wonderful Babe: Pig in the City. I don’t want to spoil the film for anyone (it is quite dark for a children’s film), but it captures what we would like to imagine.
I know it will get patched up, but I feel so sad. The thing about Facesmash is that it is such a channel changer. There will be one post on your wall that is SO SAD and then another post on your wall that is YAY COOKIES. These are easily coincident emotions because Facesmash is just sort of a psychological test of rapid reactions. I think it is hard on these things to just watch the world go by when I just want to sleep for a few days and not go through the motions of HI HOW ARE YOU- FINE BUT THAT IS LIE- NOT GOOD MY DOG DIED. And maybe I will be back to normal in a few days but that sucks too because how can my heart heal that quickly?
Watching it again almost made me smile, but no one should smile at copyright violation. Smokey Dog was a wonderful little guy.
Rest in peace, Trish Keenan, vocalist for Broadcast.
This song already always felt wintry, a January chill, but a far off one. Now it much sadder, for many reasons.
Broadcast-“I Found the F”
Some of you might recognize the plaintive cries of the mecha-emu, because those are from “I Found the End”
Take it away, Josh Marshall:
JW checks in from the screechy sectarian left …
The fact that Jews were relentlessly persecuted by European Christians for seventeen hundred years by no stretch of the imagination gave them the right to go and do exactly the same thing to another innocent people. If Americans are so passionate about such a relic of the nineteenth century as the ethno-religious state, then by all means let us give New York to the Jews; Palestine was never ours to give away.
Continue reading ‘And this is how you troll punch a hippie fish’
A broadcasting giant, and a phenomenal voice, and everything else. Rest in Peace.
Perhaps this is too romantic of a view, as these things always are. But this speech will make you cry because you want so badly for it to be true.
I have been struggling with organizing my thoughts into a concise fashion, so I will be more brief than I usually am with these to be uncommented on opuses.
Continue reading ‘A Brief Interlude of Seriousness in My Pants’
I’m reading the Senate Armed Services Committee “Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody” executive summary now (link goes to TPM, their link gives you a gigantic PDF).
Allow me to bring William J. Haynes II “Jim” within the path of a giant space laser, or at least your wishful thinking. He’s the DoD Counsel, and he emerges a key linchpin for the war crimes cabal.
Quoting from page xviii to xix of the document. Any errors in transcription due to miscoding of PDF affecting copy/paste. As many have said, prepare yourself for the banality of evil. Interesting sidenote on Haynes’ inability to pull a Bybee and get on a Fed Court for life. It appears that Lindsey Graham could manifest the tiniest of consciences.
Prepare to mentally vomit.
Military Lawyers Raise Red Flags and Joint Staff Review Quashed (U)
(U) In early November 2002, in a series of memos responding to the Joint Staff’s call for comments on GTMO’s request, the military services identified serious legal concerns about the techniques and called for additional analysis.
(U) The Air Force cited “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques” and stated that “techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in the military order to treat detainees humanely…” The Air Force also called for an in depth legal review of the request.
(U) CITF’s Chief Legal Advisor wrote that certain techniques in GTMO’s October 11,
2002 request “may subject service members to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice],” called “the utility and legality of applying certain techniques” in the request “questionable,” and stated that he could not “advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principle that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business.”
(U) The Chief of the Army’s International and Operational Law Division wrote that techniques like stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and use of phobias to induce stress “crosses the line of ‘humane’ treatment,” would “likely be considered maltreatment” under the UCMJ, and “may violate the torture statute.” The Army labeled GTMO’s request “legally insufficient” and called for additional review.
(U) The Navy recommended a “more detailed interagency legal and policy review” of the request. And the Marine Corps expressed strong reservations, stating that several techniques in the request “arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution.” The Marine Corps also said the request was not “legally sufficient,” and like the other services, called for “a more thorough legal and policy review.”
(U) Then-Captain (now Rear Admiral) Jane Dalton, Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that her staff discussed the military services’ concerns with the DoD General Counsel’s Office at the time and that the DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes was aware ofthe services’ concerns. Mr. Haynes, on the other hand, testified that he did not know that the memos from the military services existed (a statement he later qualified by stating that he was not sure he knew they existed). Eliana Davidson, the DoD Associate Deputy General Counsel for International Affairs, said that she told the General Counsel that the GTMO request needed further assessment. Mr. Haynes did not recall Ms. Davidson telling him that.
(U) Captain Dalton, who was the Chairman’s Legal Counsel, said that she had her own concerns with the GTMO request and directed her staff to initiate a thorough legal and policy review of the techniques. That review, however, was cut short. Captain Dalton said that General Myers returned from a meeting and advised her that Mr. Haynes wanted her to stop her review, in part because of concerns that people were going to see the GTMO request and the military services’ analysis of it. Neither General Myers nor Mr. Haynes recalled cutting short the Dalton review, though neither has challenged Captain Dalton’s recollection. Captain Dalton testified that this occasion marked the only time she had ever been told to stop analyzing a request that came to her for review.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Approves Aggressive Techniques (U)
(U) With respect to GTMO’s October 11, 2002 request to use aggressive interrogation techniques, Mr. Haynes said that “there was a sense by the DoD Leadership that this decision was taking too long” and that Secretary Rumsfeld told his senior advisors “I need a recommendation” On November 27, 2002, the Secretary got one. Notwithstanding the serious legal concerns raised by the military services, Mr. Haynes sent a one page memo to the Secretary, recommending that he approve all but three ofthe eighteen techniques in the GTMO request. Techniques such as stress positions, removal of clothing, use ofphobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation oflight and auditory stimuli were all recommended for approval.
(U) Mr. Haynes’s memo indicated that he had discussed the issue with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and General Myers and that he believed they concurred in his recommendation. When asked what he relied on to make his recommendation that the aggressive techniques be approved, the only written legal opinion Mr. Haynes cited was Lieutenant Colonel Beaver’s legal analysis, which senior military lawyers had considered “legally insufficient” and “woefully inadequate,” and which LTC Beaver herself had expected would be supplemented with a review by persons with greater experience than her own.