Happy Memorial Day! Holiday weekend open thread
Just spinning through the news this morning but not finding much of substance. So, here are a few things that caught my eye.
The wheels of justice turn, as they should; we might all do better at remembering that before we get all incensed by lawlessness. The US soldier who raped the 14 year old Iraqi girl and then killed her and her family has been tried and sentenced .
The melting pot moves inland . Whites become the minority in a Kansas county. Welcome to the true face of diversity. It rocks! I've visited whitebread America, and I know you're kinda antsy about it, but truly, it is a marvellous thing.
Some local news. A local entrepreneur's warehouse goes up in flames last night. Since he prides himself on "next day delivery" that fire destroyed his entire stock. He's a great example of someone who has not only succeeded but has always given back to the community. People who have lost everything in fires, Katrina evacuees, and too many others to count have gotten free furniture from this man over the years. Not all businessmen are evil bastards out to enslave employees and rob communities.
And finally, for the grill. This is AWESOME . If you're wondering what to BBQ this weekend, this might be it ;-)
- Purpleface's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
Strong bipartisan support
was brought to bear on a bill the President signed today to limit abuse and fraud in defense spending.
Robert Gates defends closing Gitmo, because it has taint. (You all do know that Gitmo is funded by tax payer dollars right.)
Jack McCain will make the fourth generation of Naval Academy graduates in the McCain family. President Obama will be giving the graduation address.
I'm only half stupid
Hmm....interesting Open Thread all around.
Glad that the soldier who raped the 14-year-old Iraqi girl was prosecuted. This is something that was long, long overdue, imho.
Sorry to hear about the guy's business going up in flames like that. Hope he rebuilds soon.
That B-BQ recipe sounds interesting!
Oh, and last night, my alltime favorite film, West Side Story, aired on the TCM (Turner Classic Movies) Channel, and, as always, I watched it. WSS, as I've stated mucho times before here on SwordsCrossed, is a great, golden oldie-but-goody movie/musical classic. Although nothing beats seeing this great movie classic on the great big, wide screen, in a real movie theatre with the lights down low, WSS is great on TV, DVD or video, also.
There's a revival of WSS happening on Broadway right now, which, unfortunately, with relatively rare exceptions, did NOT exactly get rave reviews. C'est dommage. Anyway, there's always the wonderful movie version of WSS.
Bacon explosion? Oh my...
It looks good, but...
...I think I'll stick to some crab for starters, with a few mohito's or margarita's, maybe some homemade guacamole and humus on pita, and finish things off later with a nice bottle of wine or some cold beers and a thick Rib Eye with homegrown asparagus and corn on the cob.
Ya, that's the ticket.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Or some CiCi's BBQ pizza...
Or some CiCi's BBQ pizza...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Brutus14
You don't mean CiCi's here in Charleston do ya?
Are you a Southerner? I just passed a CiCi's in Mount Pleasant today and damn near stopped when I thought of this post. ;-)
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Sonic is
I have a brother that has lived near Charlotte for a little while now.
There also seems to be one in any Ohio town over 20k.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Man that bacon/sausage bbq loaf looks so good but heart attack
madness.
I hear you there, kindness.
n/t
It's meant to be shared
One slice won't kill you....eating the whole thing, however, might not be such a good idea.
I exist
And might now have time to be back full-time.
You can thank Brutus for dragging me back :-).
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Thanks Brutus!
And glad to see you back, Stiney! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yeah!
Hopefully this means you exist with some degree of happiness and comfort!
(Thx to Brutus)
I'm only half stupid
Depends on how you look at it
My wisdom teeth were removed on the 15th, and I'm still not completely recovered.
Otherwise, I'm with job and doing well paying off the student debts. I suppose I can't ask for much more.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Good news.....
I am thrilled you are with job and also happy that you are without bad teeth.
I have been wondering how you were doing. I hope the job is not the dreaded 'yellow knife'.
I'm only half stupid
Oh, yellowknife
Yellowknife refers to the city in Canada. It is my personal "42" and where I would go to die in a perfect world.
The job
pays well and has that laid-back, small business feel. I will enjoy it, I'm sure.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
don't post while on percocet!
Hey, good to hear from you (not that I spend much time here recently). I hope your mouth feels better soon.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I "fell off the wagon"
I took a single percocet on that Friday because I couldn't sleep...and promptly upchucked it a few hours later.
I don't take any pain medication for philosophical/moral reasons. It seems my body knew what was best for me.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Next time
just cut it in half, or even a quarter, instead of taking the whole thing. It will take the edge off the pain without making you sick. (I broke my shoulder and would have had a rough time making it through, the painful healing process, without pain pills. I could never take a whole one. Although I did the first day and I felt like even though the world was a mess, it was at it's exact cosmically correct location at that moment in time. ;-)
I'm only half stupid
Welcome back!
Hope you feel better soon.
Stiney, thought I saw you at Chipotle's a few weeks back
'twasnt you though... I called out to the guy and got a blank stare in return... I'm pretty bad at remembering faces accurately.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Wasn't me then
Which one was it? I used to frequent the one off Sawmill when I worked over that way. Lately, I've taken to the one off Dublin-Granville.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It was the Dublin-Granville one...
Or, "161" if you don't want to be pegged as a Columbus newbie ;-)
It made sense to me that you'd go to that one, being close to your pad and all...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I've been there twice
I know you live relatively close, but didn't know if that one was in your range.
Are they ever going to time up those lights properly? I swear I get stopped at every light both to and from work.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Mancow gets waterboarded
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
This was the
it was a featured story on my local news channel last night!
What other conservative that thinks water boarding is just a little swim in the pool, is willing to test the theory, of whether water boarding is or is not torture.
Volunteers?
I'm only half stupid
Obama snubs kindergarteners so he can smooze with Steelers!
Incredible and yet not at all surprising. That's sad.
They plan a year in advance for a trip, each student pays $20 to go, and Obama simply tells them "Sorry, you're too late. Now go away." Obama can't even run tours for kindergarteners properly? Geeze Louise, we really ARE in trouble here...
What does it say about Obama when he gives the boot to 150 five and six year olds for being 10 minutes late so he can spend more time with the Steelers? Doesn't Obama care at all about the kids?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It says that he has a tight calendar...
...and a lot of demands on his time.
Poor planning on the part of whoever's responsibility it was to get the kids to the White House for the tour, IMO. Traffic delays are hardly unusual in Washington, so they should have left themselves an adequate time cushion.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It says he can't be bothered with five and six year olds.
It's a matter of priorities. I guess for Obama smoozing with the Steelers is more important than inspiring the youth of America ... or even treating them with a little respect. They were only 10 minutes late for goodness sake.
And how do you know that they didn't make a reasonable attempt to do so? Perhaps the traffic was worse than anyone could have reasonably anticipated? I think Obama could have trimmed a half hour off the Steeler smoozing session and still accomodated the kids. Instead he threw them under their own chartered bus!
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well then
I'd say that this is evidence that your previous accusations that Obama is a pedophile was rather incorrect, if he'd rather spend time with the Steelers than a bunch of five and six year olds.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Heh.
I'm not sure if his wanting to be surrounded by big burly men is am improvement, but hey, whatever floats his boat. :P
But on the other hand ... this DOES suggest an alternate reason that the staff person came out and suddenly canceled the tour. Maybe there was just a little too much excitement on Obama's part behind the scenes, if you know what I mean, and so the staff hurriedly cancelled the entire event. Hmmm.
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4House Democrats vote to help Pelosi cover up her lies ...
How typical. House Democrats afraid of letting the truth come out.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, yes
Good to see you again.
From your article:
I think this amendment probably was out of order since it had nothing to do with the FAA. I would have voted to table it as well. However, if this was brought up in regular order, I'd vote for it.
If indeed Pelosi knew what was going on, I'd expect her to be impeached and removed from office as well as brought up on criminal charges.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well, then good for you Stinerman ...
and welcome back! :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It is only the application of the law
There are several statutes and treaties that cover torture. Under ordinary criminal law everyone who participated in the torture of suspects should be in prison. If you want to go out to our treaty obligations, we have precedent for executing everyone from President Bush (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) all the way down to the person who brought the pitcher of water. Of course, since I'm against the death penalty in all cases, I will settle for life sentences w/o parole.
Frankly, anyone who had knowledge of our actions and didn't bring it to the attention of someone should be sitting in a federal penitentiary. Of course, that seems like it'd be most of Congress these days, but so be it.
Why someone should be congratulated for applying the law equally, regardless of partisan blinders, is beyond me.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The truth won't out.
This is not exactly a characteristic confined to House Democrats.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
LOL
Now where did I ever say anything that suggested it was confined to House Democrats? But that doesn't mean that it can't be typical of them, does it? :)
Meta: This post is not a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Back at ya
Where did I say anything that suggested that you said anything that suggested it was confined to House Democrats?
This could become an infinite loop, couldn't it? :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And for all you Dick Cheney fans out there ...
I found the following to be an interesting read ...
It makes the point that Dick is an unlikely character to step to the forefront but even in his short stint thus far he has done more to put both Obama and Pelosi on the defensive than anyone in quite some time.
He has Obama rolling completely over on Guantanamo and in so doing has him basically vindicating everything Bush and Cheney did. The one exception is perhaps the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, but he may find himself on the ropes on that one as well before Cheney is done with him ... especially if Cheney gets those intelligence memos released to tell the whole story.
Again, the Democrats are afraid to let the truth out. What are they afraid of. The documents will either show that Cheney is lying, or that Obama is. And Obama is the one blocking the release. Hmmm.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The whole story
At the absolute best (from the Cheney point of view), what "the whole story" will show is that the despicable torture techniques we used were occasionally effective in thwarting terrorist attacks. So sure, we can move the debate to "do the ends justify the means." I won't change my position if it comes to that. Sadly, I am afraid that many Americans would. And even more sadly, I believe that many Americans already think that way.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Depends on how much noise is cranked up
The military is not into using torture at all. And we know that on Bush's watch the CIA techniques for interrogation were halted by those on the inside who vehemently opposed the OLC justifications for torture as shoddy legal reasoning.
The military needs to stand up and speak out often, that these techniques are reprehensible and should not be employed. John McCain isn't afraid to speak out.
The real effect of Cheney's arm twisting tour is on some moderate Republicans who he is trying to persuade with his diatribe that 'if we don't use torture we are all gonna die in a mushroom cloud' fear mongering campaign, to buy his mafia kool-aid again.
What people forget is that those who are performing the torture also suffer adverse effects.
Two former army interrogators discuss the reprucussion of using harsh techniques.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104378628&ps=cprs
I'm only half stupid
For Gordo, Diesel, Hatch Back, and Storm'in Norman
This weekend I remember you, as I do everyday. I love you guys. Godspeed gentlemen.
H/T BLACKFIVE
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
"I need a dump truck to unload my head."
Happy Birthday Bob Dylan
I'm only half stupid
environmentalist capitalism
Time for a little rant...
The new greenhouse gas legislation (cap and trade) coming out of Congress seems to be as bad as I could have imagined. According to the Economist, 85% of the pollution permits
will be given away to polluters. And these polluters don't include the workers or consumers who produce or demand the polluting activities -- the permits will largely go to the owners of the firms (especially electricity companies) whose facilities generate the pollution. Like much of what Congress does, this program has become another massive transfer of wealth from the general public to the plutocrats who own Congress.
(to their credit, I am happy with the current credit card regulations which seemed to work against the plutocrats. They just better not continue with this price control nonsense--15% cap on rates)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Oh it's even better than that
Rural electrical co-ops, those nonprofit locally controlled electric companies that are the key suppliers for much of America's poorest are going to be hit hard. They can't play "cap and trade" with the big guys -- they don't have the capital. They'll either have to raise their rates considerably or fold and let the for-profit firms come in for some easy pickings.
cap-n-trade: volitility?
What do you mean that "they can't play ". Under ideal market models, the permits should have a price determined by supply and demand. Everyone will pay the same price for a permit, so electricity prices will increase by the same amount for everyone.
The only way that I could see this system favoring big companies is if the price of the permits is very volitile (as opposed to a tax, which would be perfectly predicable). In that situation, companies with little capital might not be able to meet operating costs if their production prices jump faster than they can raise rates.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That is their expectation
With a limited number of permits in circulation, then the price of the permit will rise. A carbon tax is their preferred alternative.
EDIT: I trashed the letter I had gotten, but I found some online info
when I got to the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association website. I'm pasting the entire text as it's so short
cap-n-trade is megalomania
I think that cap-n-trade is largely a political comprimise, but it also implies a certain megalomaniacal mentality that is absent from a carbon tax. The existance of a "cap" means that the government is trying to dictate exactly how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere -- it really leaves no space for regular people to say "but we really need to do this". It ignores the existence of tradeoffs; it ignores that there are costs and benefits to the processes that produce CO2.
On top of that it seems to make the system more complicated than necessary. It also seems to complement the OPEC monopoly since it makes it impossible for fossil fuel producers to increase the quantity sold by lowering their prices (however, OPEC members can probably under-price other oil producers if they want to) .
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Does it actually matter where we hold them?
Obama has been trying to make the argument that we need to close Gitmo because it has become a recruiting tool for the terrorists. But when I actually think about the implications of that line of thinking we will simply be moving them to other locations.
From a terrorist recruiting perspective, does it really matter that we are holding them at Guantanamo Bay vs. in some Super-Max Prison somewhere? Why would the would-be terrorists care whether they were being held in Cuba vs. Colorado?
Using his line of reasoning it seems that we should be just releasing them outright to appease the would-be terrorists rather than relocating the current detainees, right? Otherwise in a couple of years we are going to just have to argue about whether we need to close the prisons too.
What am I missing here?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4you're forgetting about ignorance
This is a standard propaganda technique -- make a "big' change that gets attention and looks good, but qualify it in subtle ways that mitigate it's real-world impact.
It relies on the fact that everyone (even the most informed among us) are largely unaware about what is going on in the world -- the world is just too big to keep track of everything. Then consider the Islamist sympathizers (who may contribute a few bucks now and then) and foot-soldiers. A portion of this group will be about as informed as the average American, meaning that they will only notice the big events and will not have information about the subtlty behind the event. For these people, Islamists could get them riled up (clash of civilizations!) by appealing to prisoner abuse at Guantanamo, but if these people are aware that the Gitmo prison has been closed, then they might not get riled up and even become suspicious that the Islamist propagandist is trying to mislead them.
Anyway, the real policy change is in regard to interrogation methods and the criteria for imprisonment. The problem with those changes as a propaganda tool is that they don't make any big, easy to identify change. Closing the Gitmo prison provides a propagandist's keystone with which to advertise those substantial changes.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Count me skeptical.
So when these Islamists come to them and say we are abusing Muslims at Guantanamo Bay they supposedly believe them, but after they hear that Gitmo has been closed and these same Islamists now tell them that we only moved the Muslims to a place called [Insert Name Here] and we are still abusing the detainees that now these people will be suspicious?
If this is the case let's just announce the Gitmo is closed and not change anything other than the name on the door. It would save a whole lot of trouble.
What policy changes would those be? They are still at Gitmo with the prospects of them actually being moved anywhere dwindling with every Congressional rejection to fund the closing. Obama is still using Military Tribunals to try them. Obama plans to hold some of them indefinitely without trial. Where's this big policy change you speak of?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Me as well
IIRC, Obama has changed a few of procedural rules pertaining to the trials. No longer will evidence procured by torture be allowed into the record, among other things. Forgive me as I can't recall where I read that.
I have no problem with that.
I have a serious problem with that. If this is indeed the case, Obama should be impeached and removed from office. I charitably gave him time to transition and figure out what the situation on the ground was there before moving forward. He's dragging his feet, and my patience has worn thin. He'd better be getting around to trying these people or I'll be for his impeachment.
It is and was very obviously smooth talking to get the base on-board with his candidacy. Now, as is always done when Democrats take high office, they ignore their base to appear "moderate" (what is the base going to do, vote for Nader?). The sad thing here is that "moderate" is defined as splitting the difference between what actual moderates want and what the Republicans want.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The policy change
is huge. It is actually charging them with something, and allowing them access to lawyers who can use a real appeals process, instead of some sham kangaroo court.
The 'military tribunals' held previously were a joke. There was a female neo-con judge, very much disliked by the jag lawyers, who was blatantly prejudice, and refused to allow evidence except that which made the case for the prosecution.
The last category of 'preventive detention', is the biggest delima. The problem is that some of these detainees are 'known terrorists', yet the evidence against them was ill gotten, sloppy, or lost. This is a very muddy area legally.
Think of Osama bin Laden as a 'known terrorist'. There are a few in Gitmo who fall into a grey area, that might not be able to be prosecuted because of sloppy evidence collection, yet it would be insane to let them out. Imagine the political implications of letting Osama bin Laden, free due to lack of evidence.
When you suggest that Obama is ignoring his base, the opposite is true. The reason he gave this national security speech was for those on the left in his base who have been most unhappy with his policy of going back to the military tribunals. They are screaming bloody murder that Obama has broken his word and and preventive detention is absolutely unacceptable. (I guess they want Kalid Sheik Muhammed released if he can't be charged. Which is insane, in my view.) The right is not the political thorn for Obama here, it is the hard left.
IN his speech Obama spoke of absolutism on the left and the right. Those on the hard left who think that known terrorist detainees should be freed, because doing anything else violates a principle of civil liberties, are not too different from those on the hard right who see any form of birth control as murdering children.
There are shades of grey here, that can't be defined in absolutist terms.
I'm only half stupid
what about POW?
The laws of war allow for detention of enemy combatants, and I don't think that anyone has a problem with that. I don't know how that would be implemented given the nature of the enemy organization, but at least there is some sort of precedent.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That sounds reasonable
to me. I am not sure of all the legal technicalities involved, other than knowing this this is a big tar pit and a mess.
btw, glad you have some time off for the holiday. I always enjoy reading your comments.
I'm only half stupid
Not so much.
Hmmm. The last I heard Obama had shut off all action on these people until he could decide what to do. There is talk of reviving the Military Tribunals with some relatively minor changes, IMHO, but as far as I know that process has not started yet. So where are the facts to back up your position here?
If Obama detains anyone without trial, as you not only admit he plans to do but you also seem to support that position (i.e. "because it would be insane to release some of these guys"), so your fundamental claim above seems to be false on its face.
Obama clearly ran on a platform that the way Gitmo was being handled in terms of detention without trial, trial by Military Tribunal, etc. were all wrong and against American values. Well, despite his continuing rhetoric to that effect he seems to be increasingly on a course to implement something that is almost identical to what Bush was doing.
Sure, he may make some changes in the fringes like what evidence is, or is not, allowed to be presented but I don't consider that to be a fundamental change ... especially when the changes he proposes are likely to create acquittals for the worst of the bunch.
Obama has been hit squarely between the eyes with the reality of the situation and so now we are seeing the effects of having reality rain down upon him. He's retaining and resurrecting Bush policies left and right. So while I find it hilarious that he is being forced to basically vindicate the Bush era policies, I'll be happy to let him hang himself in 2012 by implementing the things that the hard left are demanding ... because that means he is going to be forced to release KSM into a neighborhood near you and politically that would be suicide and we all know it.
He's definitely found himself in a pickle.
Personally I am not worried too much about it because it is becoming obvious that when the hard calls have to be made he is going to err on the side of vindicating Bush rather than releasing these Gitmo detainees like KSM onto American soil.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm missing something
If some accused terrorists are not able to be prosecuted because they were tortured, I don't understand why we'd have to release them in the US. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for instance, is a Kuwaiti national. We can send him back home. Furthermore, he is wanted by the Indonesian authorities for other acts of terrorism.
Perhaps someone could clear up why, if detainees are released, they must be released as free men in our country. I mean, does he have a valid visa to be here or something? ;-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Khalid will be selling
ice cream to your children, according to the wingnuts.
I'm only half stupid
Not what I said, actually ...
I said that he would err on the side of vindicating Bush rather than release them here. Right? Is that not what I said? So if Obama does that KSM will be staying right where he is now.
But if Obama caves to the hard left KSM will likely have to be released and from there who knows? Has Obama indicated what he plans to do? No.
Ironically we also won't send him to any place where he is likely to be tortured. I mean really tortured, not like what we did to him.
<Mocking Tone> Where's the exit plan for Gitmo? Obama said he was going to close the place, so where's his plan? What kind of an incompetent moron announces the closure without any plan for what to do with the detainees? More evidence that Obama is a bumbling incompetent, and that he's none too bright either since that much should have been obvious. Geeze Louise! </Mocking Tone> :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment, except for the part with a Smiley which is mocking the left.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's your mocking tone from Gen Petraeus's mouth
Sweet Jesus how will you twist Gen Petraeus's word to attack Obama now?
Will Rush Limbaugh and the true conservatives savage Gen Petraeus mercilessly as 'soft on terror', because he believes ini *gasp* the Geneva Conventions *horrors*, and that closing Gitmo in a responsible manner will move take things forward with regard to how we treat detainees is the responsible thing to do?
"RFE/RL: Well, thank you for coming here today, General Petraeus, to talk to Radio Free Europe.
Petraeus: Good to be with you, Jay.
RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?
Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward.
But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
I'm only half stupid
Meh.
I have no problem with his statements. I completely agree with them. I fully support them. Why? Because I contend that we have not violated the Geneva Conventions to begin with. We can do nothing and still meet that burden. But if closing Gitmo somehow sends a message to the rest of the world that reaffirms our ongoing commitment to honoring the Geneva Conventions, then I don't have a problem with that as long as we don't release the terrorists on US soil.
The problem with your attempt at a trap here is that you fail to understand our actual position. From our perspective we haven't committed torture so we haven't violated the Geneva Conventions. Period. If putting on a show of closing Gitmo buys us some popularity on the world stage then fine.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then I trust that you understand
That the DOJ is working intensely on how to deal with the detainees as Gen. Petreaus stated.
Why would we have to reaffirm our commitment to the Geneva Conventions?
I am not trying to put you in a trap. I am just highlighting what Gen. Petraeus said.
Where as you, with your mocking tone, are putting the interests of your favorite game, poking sticks at Obama and democrats, first and the interests of your country second.
When your only goal is not to look at the policy but to obstruct it merely because you hold a grudge against all democrats, it is sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees.
I contend that if Obama had said the exact same thing you would be denigrating him mercilessly, claiming that Obama was trying to let terrorists go, so they could sell ice cream to children.
I'm only half stupid
Oh, yes. They are working diligently on this problem.
Is there any doubt?
We don't have to. Doing so won't change anything but if it smooths over mistaken impressions around the world as you seem to think it will, hey, why not reach out? But your question suggests that you don't know the definition of the word reaffirm
.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Please ML, let us be clear, and differentiate
...between average Muslim insurgents one encounters on the battlefield, of whom the good General was referring, and Al Qaeda leadership, or even more so terror mastermind types like KSM.
Secondly, no one in their right mind, especially the top American General in the middle east, especially as he is embarking on a war in Afghanistan, is going to site publicly we should do anything outside the Geneva Convention ML.
Surprise, surprise.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
He was asked point blank about closing Gitmo
He reaffirms that it is the responsible thing to do.
This Republican talking point that there are going to be terrorists selling ice cream in the streets is absolutely ludicrous.
Yes I do see a difference between insurgents and the leadership of al_Queda. It is possible that some of these al_Queda leaders are the ones in the 4th category, in a legal netherworld, of being 'known terrorists', yet with inadequate legal evidence to prosecute them with a specific crime. That is why Obama is stuck with the most distasteful task of possibly having to create a special limbo category for future prevention, for a few detainees.
As for the Geneva Conventions, John Yoo and David Addington wrote special legal briefs asserting that torture was within the legal bounds of the Geneva Convention. As GR says, he does not believe the Geneva Conventions were ever violated.
I'm only half stupid
Time to grow up nd be a big girl ML
Closing GITMO is fine with me, I would like to keep the real estate just to aggrivate the murdering dictator Castro brothers.
Why, it is very plausible. Taxi driver, 7-11 employee, lots of empathy in those sectors I suspect.
Welcome to the real world ML, not the world of Brandenberg gates, pixie dust, and all those other lofty unthoughtout promises.
I could give a rats ass about the geneva convention as it relates to terrorists.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I will repeat
for emphasis:
"I contend that if Obama had said the exact same thing that Gen Petreaus said, you would be denigrating him mercilessly, claiming that Obama was trying to let terrorists go, so they could sell ice cream to children."
As for the Geneva Conventions, I don't why Gen. Petreaus keeps mentioning them during this interview, as if they were important.
I'm only half stupid
I will answer
for redundancy:
You are WAY over playing what he said.
I don't know a soul who wouldn't close GITMO, if there was a more suitable arrangement. The fine General included.
As far as selling ice cream, which you have said 10 times if you've said it once, who cares, point is, we don't want them on the streets of our country, and the Obama administration has floated that idea.
The General didn't go over board on Geneva either, he was talking torture, when that topic comes up, the word Geneva is never far behind.
Do yourself a favor, move on.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Why is it ludicrous?
You haven't said what you are planning to do with the people who are already cleared for release. Are you planning to keep them locked up or something?
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Please...
You ask as if, it was up to me.
As Gen Petreaus stated, in his interview, Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are working intensely on the legal questions involved in charging detainees, and how to deal with the whole situation.
Gen Petreaus is siding with Obama on the matter of responsibly closing Gitmo and dealing with the detainees.
The General has more faith in our American system and the process involved in upholding the law and dealing with this complex issue than you seem to.
It's not up to me.
I'm only half stupid
Pfft. Dodging the question again.
I said that I comepletely agree with the General so why are you trying to pretend that I haven't? I have plenty of faith in the American system. It's Obama and the liberal left that I am worried about.
So, since you have now introduced a whole new issue (i.e. your perosnal opinion), please answer the following:
What does Obama plan to do with the people who have already been cleared for release if there are no other countries willing to take them?
What do you perosnally think that we should do with the people who have already been cleared for release if there are no other countries willing to take them?
Yes, of course. They have been working on this since before Obama even took office. The end result thus far seems to be, well I guess Bush had it right all along.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush had what right?
exactly?
And on the points that you say Bush had things right was he effective in implementing policy?
I do remember Bush saying he wanted bin Laden dead or alive, putting troops in Afghanistan, and then withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and relocating them to Iraq, where bin Laden was not born, did not reside, and not one time referred to Iraq as his homeland.
I do remember local Iraqi's being rounded up off the streets by US soldiers and housed in Saddam Hussein's favorite prison Abu Ghruiab, and being detained and brutalized under guidance from then President Bush.
Is that what you mean when you say Bush was right on changing his policy, reversing the original decision to brutalize prisoners in both Abu Ghruiab and Gitmo?
I'm only half stupid
Haven't you been following the news?
1) The Democrat Congress pretty much told Obama to jump in a lake w.r.t. closing Gitmo.
Result: Bush is vindicated on setting up Gitmo.
2) Obama's advisers are now saying that Military Tribunals are the way to address these detainees, legally speaking.
Result: Bush is vindicated on using Military Tribunals to try the detainees.
3) Obama's advisers are now saying that some of the detainees will be held indefinitely without trial.
Result: Bush is vindicated on holding some detainees indefinitely without trial.
4) Obama has been actively using the DOJ to protect the terrorist wiretapping program and has not issued any statement to the effect that the program has been discontinued.
Result: Bush is vindicated on the use of wiretaps to fight terrorists.
5) Obama has reserved for himself the right to use these same enhanced interrogation techniques in emergency situations. *
Result: Bush is vindicated on the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques after 9/11.
These were some of the biggest issues on the Democrat agenda, and one by one they are coming back to the Bush policies, or some variant thereof, as the way to go. I fully expect more such cases to arise in the coming months as well. You might want to keep up to date on these topics as Obama is reversing himself left and right almost every day.
------------------------------------------------
* See the conclusions of some notable left wingers ... here
, and here
, and here
.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Middle ground fallacy
The idea that if a policy is embraced by both a Democratic and Republican administration, it does not follow that the policy is advisable, legal, or anything. Obama isn't vindicating Bush, he's digging his own grave.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry, but from a pragmatic point of view, ...
he is being vindicated. Obama is only digging his own grave if someone is going to actually pursue both him and Bush. Who's going to do that if neither the Republicans or the Democrats can muster the gonads? No, in any practical sense of the term Bush is being vindicated.
He is also being vindicated in the intellectual sense as well. Obama was good at talking smack during the campaign when he had nothing to lose, but now he has to really address the realities of the situation just like Bush did. And now that the Democrats are up to bat with the same issues they are, essentially, caving and falling back on the Bush era policies, or variants thereof. Given that these great thinkers of the world can't come up with anything significantly better, I'd say that mean Bush is vindicated in having identified and implemented that best over-all options on each of these points.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4He was dealt a poor hand
Obama was. If there was no torture, there'd be no problem. Since there was (your definition of torture notwithstanding), Obama has to choose between releasing some people who in all likelihood are terrorists and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and embracing the idea that the executive has unlimited power to detain anyone he sees fit for any amount of time.
Obama is a coward. He wants to have it both ways, just like everything else on his agenda. He knows what he is doing is morally and legally wrong, but he is playing CYA since he's a politician. Politicians with bullet-proof ethics don't exist, which is really a shame.
There are certain things we just don't do because we're civilized (or at least I thought we were). One of them is torture people. Another is detain people without trial (be it civilian, military, or otherwise). Never, under any circumstances is either one permissible.
Taking the extreme example of KSM, I think we can all agree we don't need any of the evidence procured by his waterboarding to find him guilty of terrorism. We've got more than enough on which to hang him. Some of them, probably not. They'll have to be deported: that's the only remedy we have under the law to deal with them.
And I'm in the blue, so the last word is yours.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Are you calling
Bush a coward?
=)
I'm only half stupid
vindicated is the wrong word
The word you are looking for is stuck.
Obama has been stuck with the legal and political quagmires and traps that Bush left behind.
I'm only half stupid
Even if I accept your obviously biased premise ...
how Obama found himself in his current position is not relevant. That once he was there he came to the same conclusions as Bush on how to move forward in these areas is relevant, and it is on this point that Bush is being vindicated.
And Obama is not the only one that was "stuck". Bush was "stuck" with 9/11 and its aftermath just as much as Obama is now. That is, of course, unless you are one of those conspiracy theorists that believes 9/11 was an inside job. Are you? :)
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4vindication is the wrong word
the correct word is stuck.
I'm only half stupid
Actually, both are correct as I have just shown.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why don't you believe
in America? You don't think Americans are capable of handling this?
Unlike Bush, Obama wants Americans to participate in the process and the dialogue that surrounds closing Gitmo.
You set priorities, such as closing Gitmo, or landing on the moon. Then you put smart people to work at the job of how to accomplish your goals.
I don't recall JFK having a detailed rocket design, before he stated that America wanted to put a man on the moon.
As noted below, Gen. Petraeus has already spoken to the Justice Department on the best way to move forward with closing Gitmo and how to deal with the detainees
I'm only half stupid
Who says I don't think we can keep them locked up ...
on US soil, if we want to? I have faith in our prisons to be able to keep them locked up if that's where they actually end up.
But your question completely misses the point. Obama has promised to close Gitmo AND stop the Military Tribunals AND give these people all the same rights as an American citizen AND access to the US Courts. Once he has the detainees here if he then caves to the hard left the scenario I am describing is what will play out.
We're playing Chess here, ML, not Tiddlywinks. You have to think several moves ahead and put up defenses where needed to prevent bad things from coming your way.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Umm, no on else is willing to take him (and others) ...
so if we are going to release him, where else? Are you suggesting we drop him off in some unsuspecting country like a stray dog?
If we can find others to take him that is an option, of course, I don't mean to imply that it is not. But we already know that we have many others who are less dangerous than KSM that no one is willing to take so why would any one be willing to take him?
In any event, KSM was merely used as a recognizable example. He is not the only one to which this discussion applies.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4http://in.reuters.com/article
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39862420090525
"Italy [claims to be] willing to take Guantanamo inmates - Berlusconi"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
as does Montana
There is a Super Max prison in Florence Colorado, also.
Why don't American conservatives have faith that America can handle the job? Sad.
I'm only half stupid
Sure, as long as the others are willing to take some too.
This isn't a wholly unconditional offer, but still it's something. To keep this in perspective, it sounds like they are saying if other European countries agree to do us a favor, well then sign up Italy too! Hmm, perhaps not yet the breakthrough we all might be hoping for here.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes
Absolutely. Well, no. I suggest we drop him off in the country where he has citizenship. Call ahead and let Kuwait know we're coming. We deport illegal immigrants every day back to their country of origin. Why do people at Gitmo not count?
If no one is "willing to take him" put him in a plane, outfit him with a parachute and push him out the plane door. This is not rocket science. Yes, I am serious.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I agree with Stinerman
...always have, I am sorry if China wants to kill you when you get back, should have thought of that before you booked your vaction to Pakistan.
As for KSM, convict and kill that ______ ______.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Obama Saving Or Creating Jobs - Is Just Not Reality
The House Republicans have put together some data
your local mainstream media outlet probably will shy away from discussing.
Today, Barack Obama told the public, “In these last few months, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has saved or created nearly 100 — 150,000 jobs”?
But that’s just not true. 16,000 jobs have been lost every single day since Barry’s stimulus plan was passed.
At some point the media cannot ignore Barack Obama and the Democrats killing the American private sector economy while claiming to “save or create” American jobs.
And note to the Democrats: creating government paper pushers is not the same as creating or saving private sector jobs. That is the Democrat rebuttal — they created government jobs.
Only the Democrats think more bureaucrats will save America.
H/T
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
unemployment numbers are dropping ("GOP lying with stats")
From the Dept of Labor
:
It seems that the GOP is using the seasonally adjusted stats:
That's reasonable in itself, but they should have said so. Since they misidentified the statistic that they are using (and undoubtedly chose that statistic simply because it looked better), the GOP is lying
.
Even if we look at the seasonally adjusted numbers, we see that Obama has some basis for his claim -- jobs aren't being lost as quickly as they were a few months ago:
Finally, we should note that these stats are for unemployment insurance; they are not pure unemployment numbers. If I recall correctly, the stimulus bill extended the length of time that a person could stay on unemployment, so some of this increase may come from the fact that unemployed workers are not being turned away.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
lol, come on Adam, 1st, why would you use the unadjusted number?
...2nd, the GOP is not lying, the numbers are there, in black and white, as you linked to them.
3rd, when you make the claim;
Even if we look at the seasonally adjusted numbers, we see that Obama has some basis for his claim...
And attempt to justify it with;
In the week ending May 16, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 631,000, a decrease of 12,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 643,000. The 4-week moving average was 628,500, a decrease of 3,500 from the previous week's revised average of 632,000.
You fail.
But that is the lest of you failures.
When you then try desperately to rationalize way Obamas lie with;
Finally, we should note that these stats are for unemployment insurance; they are not pure unemployment numbers.
So?
If I recall correctly, the stimulus bill extended the length of time that a person could stay on unemployment...
Ya, so?
...so some of this increase may come from the fact that unemployed workers are not being turned away.
But they're still unemployed Adam. whether they re collecting unemployment or not.
Obviously there are more unemployed than are on UI at any given time.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Still waiting for Mark Sanford to
create some jobs in So. Carolina.
The unemployment rate for SC was the second highest in the nation and hit a record state high for of 11.5%.
Why isn't Mark Sanford creating more better business opportunities for his state.
I'm only half stupid
Umm ML. The national avg is 9%, so...
...the real question is;
...with Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, California, North Carolina, (takes a breath) Nevada, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinios, Indiana, Kentucky, (another breath) Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, the D of C, and Ohio (woosh) all being between 9% and 12% percent unemployment, and with very little exception the rest of the country following not far behind...
...what is wrong with this supposed "stimulus" you so desperately want Mark Sanford to accept, and when is it going to start creating some jobs for the people of this country?
LOL! ;-)
We could take the money and create a bunch of temporary jobs in the ever expanding unsustainable government bureaucracy, and reduce unemployment a point or two, but that would be stupid ML.
We may have 1% or2% unemployment + or - than most of the other states in the country, but we also don't have hundreds of millions in federal debt to pay back either.
Mark Sanford is the best Governor in the country!
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Yes we know Sanford is sticking to his guns
but you still haven't answered the question.
Does he plan as the Gov of the State to attract business opportunities and jobs for So Carolina and put people to work?
I know he is dead set against accepting any federal stimulus unless it is ear marked to pay off So. Carolina's state debt.
I'm only half stupid
You have confused me
To whom, does "we" refer?
It was not my understanding that the people in Ohio have to pay back any federal assistance sent their way*. Am I mistaken? If I am, please correct me. If not, then how is not taking the assistance decreasing the amount of debt you have to pay back?
*Of course, I mean debt that is over and above the debt that we have to pay in ordinary course of filing taxes every year, etc.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Oh Stiney...
Yes you have to repay it.
It will be amended in your 2009 taxes, if you got 400 bucks, and you get a refund, 400 bucks will be withheld from your refund, if you pay tax, your payment is added to your return.
Unless you declined it, or you are on SS and received a 250 dollar check.
It just gets more F___ed up all the time with Barack, huh?
Sorry to be the one to break it to ya bro... ;-)
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Got $400 for what?
I was out of the loop for awhile.
The last time I got cash money from the government was when Bush was President.
In any case, your comment implies that somehow Gov. Sanford's refusal of federal money means that you guys didn't get $400 checks.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ok, hold on a sec, lol
I thought you were asking about what you got, and paying that back.
Unless you have not filed taxes, you should have got a check, unless it went to a dead person, which evidently many have.
Now the stimulus is a gargantuan thing, and different monies are allotted different ways, true enough, some are grants and tax breaks, but by and large the stimulus must be repaid by the states that receive it.
Don't you remember the naysayers accusing Mark Sanford of screwing us SC's because even if he didn't take the cash, the federal government was going to force SC to participate in it's repayment. lol.
That won't happen, but it sounds scary enough.
But yes, the Ohio treasury will be repaying the stimulus monies it accepted - with your money. ;-(
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Where are you getting this information?
I know Mitch McConnell wanted to make the stimulus funding received by states into loans rather than grants
, but I find it hard to believe that the idea gained any traction at all.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Perhaps...
Because I had $0 in federal tax liability in tax year 2008, I didn't receive $400. I did receive the $300 from the original stimulus program in 2008 (most received $600).
And then again, perhaps you are talking about the reduction in taxes that have been withheld from my paycheck starting in March...
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Your right, 600.
And you will see that 300 taken out of you taxes, watch.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
I don't see how
Seeing as I already filed and completed my 2008 taxes, I don't see how they're going to take it back.
Can you provide links to actual public laws that provide for "taking back" the stimulus payments? In any case, this sidebar isn't something I care to spend much more time on.
And since I don't know you very well yet, I will take this time to let you know of my directness before I offend you. I will often decide I don't want to continue a thread and say as much. Do not mistake my directness for asshattery.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
No worries, I will find some info if you are interested. ;-)
If you determine where that money coming out of your check is going let me know...
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
The confusion comes
because there were two 'rebates'.
The first Bush 'rebate', was essentially an early tax return.
The second Bush 'rebate' is a stimulus check in 08 that counts only as income on your 09 taxes.
I'm only half stupid
we are not comparing equal measurements
Are you trying to play the pity card now?
My point was that we may be measuring different things in March and May. For instance, in March we may be counting 50% of the unemployed population while in May we are counting 60% of the unemployed population. That makes a difference. Or do you come from the school that the "facts speak for themselves" and their presentation is not connected to any argument being made.
(I've heard that one around here before)
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Please clarify your meaning with respect to this then...
If I recall correctly, the stimulus bill extended the length of time that a person could stay on unemployment, so some of this increase may come from the fact that unemployed workers are not being turned away.
My point was that it doesn't matter if they extended UI or not, if they are receiving UI or not, for the benefit of our conversation, they are unemployed, period, bad sign for the economy, and just further evidence that Obma's employment claims are bogus.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Seasonality probably should
Seasonality probably should be included:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_variation
But stats and comparisons are nearly worthless when they go outside the ranges of past data.
I do like how the graph has a teeny tiny bar for 5 million and huge bar for 6.6 million.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
An even better idea
Quote the "unemployment rate" as the rate of people not in school who don't have a job.
There is no need for "seasonal adjustments". All that is hand waving to make a statistical value "look" good or bad. I can tell based on a graph if employment normally goes up or down depending on what time of the year it is. I don't need "adjustments" to attempt to make the picture rosier than it is.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Meh
Unemployment rates are adjusted for seasonal trends in hiring and firing, which most economists believe gives a better picture of the job market.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
False baseline -- another classic method of deception
I hadn't originally noticed the false basline, but its pretty severe. This is a classic method for misleading the audience.
It can be legitimate if it doesn't impact the comparison being made, but in this case it greatly exaggerates the increse in unemployment.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
seasonality is great
I said that it was reasonable to use the adjusted number, but they need to tell us what statistics they are using. I have no doubt that they would have used the raw numbers if that served their purposes.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Wow, you're right!
It looks like "destroying jobs" would be a more apt term.
Meta: This post is a serious comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4