Oh no! Fair Trials for Terrorists!

What will they think of next? Fair trials for child molesters? Will they allow accused drug dealers to hire lawyers and have a defense? Those evil Liberals! They want fair trials for mas murderers, rapists and every other kind of criminal. Why should criminals have a right to fair anything? Especially terrorists.

I know what you're thinking, "What if they are innocent..." Well, if the Government says they're terrorists they must be, the government doesn't ever make mistakes.

Stupid liberal constitution. Due process. Bah! Just shoot them all and let God sort them out!

It just makes me sad when people say that they don't like Democrats because they want to try "terrorists" in a proper court of law. When did these people start hating democracy? That's what free open democracies do. They have fair trials. Those people who want to live in a country without fair trials should go move to a nice military dictatorship where they will be safe from these liberal ideas like "rule of law" and "due process."

Here's a question: Why even have the tribunal Military "trial?" If the accused can't mount any kind of defense, and hearsay or tortured-rendered testimony can be used against them, what's the point of any kind of trial at all? Anybody accused of terrorism, just shoot them and be done with it.

Mexico doesn't have any inovaters

Or... maybe it's easier to be "inovative" when you get to sit on your ass with a laptop and not work 12+ hours a day for pennies an hour or go home to a shack with no plumbing. Nah that can't be it. I'm sure whoever says that has studied the history of Mexico or even been there. It's kind of hard to be dirt poor and wonder where your next meal is coming from and make that next new microchip.

Japan has lots of inovators. Let's see what's different? A strong social safety net and health care for everyone maybe? Nah that's communism!

Ever heard of Maslows Pyramid?

It's pretty much common sense that if basic needs aren't met then higher self-actualization needs aren't going to be reached. A society where basic needs are gauranteed rights of all citizens is one where much more inovation will happen.

Misconceptions

Once again I was caught in a car alone with my favorite right-winger, God bless 'em. But this time I feel we made progress. We got to the heart of one of the basic misconceptions that have infected his mind.

I told him off the subject we were talking about that states with the death penalty almost across the board have fewer murders and violent crime in general than states that have the death penalty. He said it went against reason. He said that throughout history the most brutal dictatorships have been and are very effective.

I told him that countries without the death penalty without exception have less crime than our own --but he still couldn't believe it. Here's a link for the States.

This is one perfect example of the difference between the reality-based community and the idiology based community. The simple, easy to understand model in the right-wing mind says that the tougher the penalty ==> less likely the crime. But there's that pesky reality butting in with the fact that, hey Canada has no death penalty and only a tiny fraction of our violent crime rate. This is true almost across the board with other countries and with states in our own country.

But how can this be? Being nicer to criminals makes for less crime? It reminds me of a Stephen Colbert joke when he was addressing the president:

"We all know, ladies and gentlemen, that reality has a distinct liberal bias."

Could it be that the less brutal approach is actually more effective? Apparently so in this case.

Here are some more examples: In war it is well known that if you wound an enemy, you take an average of three people off the battlefield --the one you wounded and two more to haul him off and treat him. If you kill him you only remove one. This, not some bleeding-heart concern for human life, was the main reason exploding bullets were banned by the Geneva convention. Once again being nicer can win you the fight.

Now let's talk about torture. If it gives our soldiers an edge to be able to use it, then why are so many generals and war veterans against us using it? Is it because Michael Moore and Hilary Clinton put something in their soup? It has been proven that when an enemy combatant believes he is going to be tortured or killed, he is much less likely to surrender or let himself be captured alive. This means more suicide bombs, and an enemy gauranteed to fight to the bitter end.

If they know they will be treated humanely and with dignity, then two things happen. 1. they are more likely to surrender peacefully which is a home run on the battlefield. It's the best case scenario. And 2. When captured, humans tend to develop a bond with their captors. This is called Stockholm Syndrome and it is a long-time proven scientific fact. You are then more likely to get reliable information from your captives.

Torture victims on the other hand will say anything to stop the torture --so information from them is generally worthless. When John Mckaine was captured, he gave his captors the names of players on his favorite football team.

So if I'm fighting your army and I adhear to the Geneva convention and you don't, I'll win --all other things being equal-- because I'll get better information from more-likely-to-surrender soldiers and I'll lose fewer men on the battlefield. Victory doesn't go to the meanest combatant with the "ugliest face" but to the one with the wisdom to do what is fair and right even in the face of adversity. Especially in the face of adversity.

Maybe when Christ said, "love your enemies," and "turn the other cheek," he wasn't giving us a recipie for losing. Maybe he was giving us an effective strategy in global conflict. And perhaps when he said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..." he wasn't trying to increase adultery cases in his area.

There are many dead who deserve life. Can you give it to them? --Gandalf

The meanest approach to a situation is not the most effective. The most well-behaved kids I know were never spanked. The most sexually repressive societies tend to have the most haneous deviant behavior. The more you tighten your grip the more sand slips through your fingers --but this is a much harder, more mature approach to grasp.

Maybe in Iraq, we are like the monkey holding on to the beans in the jar. If only we would let go, we could pull our arm out, but the intuitive approach is to hold on tighter. There's also the chinese finger puzzle. The Rightie solution would be to pull hard enough to break the puzzle or our fingers --when all we have to do is relax, let our fingers go together, and the puzzle falls off effortlessly.

Socialism

I find it a bit... ironic? (Ok maybe only by the loose Alanis Morissette definition) --that someone I know who's living rent free with someone who's collecting Social Security checks is calling liberals "Communists."

He's creating a wonderful program and hopefully is going to make a lucritive business out of it and has a place to stay and do that without being out on the street --thanks to a program put in place by a liberal Democrat president (so liberal his last speech called for socialized medicine) dispite strong Republican opposition. This person ironically tells me that socialism "Creates nothing." Hmmm. It's a head-scratcher.

It leaves me to wonder what private business created the Space Shuttle or the Hubble Telescope. What private company commissioned the Ceiling of the Sisteen Chappel? Or cured Smallpox. It seems to me our greatest achievements as a species have been communal efforts, and these efforts hardly were at the expence of any personal freedom. You're not free if you're starving or in need of medical care you can't afford.

I don't understand the right wing hatred of the government. There's a famous quote from Ronald Reagan that says something like the worst thing you can hear is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The way he says it is very convincing --and I'm sure that would be a bad thing for a rich Hollywood actor like Reagan to hear. Because he'll never have to hear something like, "I'm your landlord and here's your eviction notice." or "Your health plan doesn't cover this prescription you need," or "I'm from the power company and we're shutting off your electricity." In fact there are quite a few Americans who would absolutely love to hear, "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

I'll say it again: You go find me a country with smaller government and fewer socialist programs that's better to live in than the USA. In fact go find me a country that has smaller government and fewer socialist programs than the US that isn't hellish for most of it's citizens. Those are called third world countries and they suck. Not for the few rich Oligarchs who run things --but for most of the population.

Medved crusading against the evil Paris Hilton tax!

Yes let's get rid of that aweful tax that effects what --the top 2% of the population? After all it's OK for the government to take a percentage my paycheck but not that of some trust fund hippie? His income should be tax free because he didn't work for it at all? If you don't think the evil government shouldn't take a percentage of Paris Hilton's inheritence, then why is it OK for the government to take something from a small business owner trying to make it?

Who, after all is going to pay for the giant porkstraviganza that these Republicans and their cronies have been enjoying for the last 5 years. Sweetheart deals and contracts --not to mention the 3 billion dollar a week occupation of Iraq-- things that mostly benefit the ultra wealthy? According to Medved it should only be paid for by working class people.

If Bush were serious about stimulating the economy with tax cuts, he would repeal the tax on waiter and waitress' tips. With that money, they would buy blue jeans, Dish Soap, food etc. Things right here in the USA stimulating the economy and creating jobs. They wouldn't get an underage hooker in the Dominican Republic or open a factory in India.

There are so many things wrong with the conservative stance I tend to get lost in one aspect of its wrongness. The idea that the government is evil and therefor shouldn't get any rich people's money seems to come up a lot. If Medved truly loves this country, and believes in democracy then he should acknowledge that the government IS the people and the people are America. So what Medved is saying really is that America is evil.

One of the things that makes America a great country is a deep down distain for inherited class distinction. The American dream is that anybody can make it with hard work and enginuity and that we are all born equal. Allowing huge inheritence to create a perpetual ruling class of "old money" like the lords and ladies of old Europe -- is completely an anathema to what America is all about.

If you want the government to not take as much money, how about voting in one that spends less. Vote for Democrats. Unless you like the fact that we are now borrowing billions from China, Saudi Arabia and yes I kid you not... Mexico to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Just another problem we didn't have when that horrible Clinton was in office.

Man I'm sick of rightie comments that get unchallenged on other boards.

(quote from a conservative on the “Oh That Liberal Media site”)

Exactly what has the left done? The last 20 years of prosperity were started by Reagan, and the Left destroyed it. Liberalism/Socialism doesn't contribute anything, it just takes away. Keep dreaming up your "facts".

Ridiculous.

What has left done? Let’s see. Won WWII (in spite of heavy Republican opposition in congress to get involved). Created Social Security, got us out of the Great Depression (the natural product of “free” capitalism).

Reagan administration’s first term took unemployment up to 11%. It wasn’t until the Democrats controlled both houses in 1984 that the great “Reagan Recovery” took place. A more accurate picture would be “Prosperity started by FDR and Kennedy dismantled by Nixon and Reagan –brought back a little by Bush 41 and a lot by Clinton –then stomped into the ground by GWB.

Under Clinton, there were fewer abortions there was less unemployment (it went from 8 to 3.4 percent declining steadily every year he was in office), there was smaller government, and despite all the hype, most working people paid less in taxes.

Besides spending more than any other administration, selling our country to China and Saudi Arabia and being indicted for corruption, what has the right done for us lately? Oh yeah handing over Iraq to Shiites and most of Afghanistan to warlords –half a billion in Halliburton stock options for Dick Cheney while our troops are digging around in rubble to find scraps to armor their Hum Vees. Now that’s leadership!

45 million Americans with no health care plus a war is going on, and our President takes time off from his Easter vacation, and congress has a special session for Terri Schaivo? Well, Righties, her autopsy came in and it doesn’t look good for you. She was brain-dead and blind just like the 29% of our country who still thinks this president is doing a good job. The pendulum has gone as far as it can go. Republicans had their chance to make this country better. Unless I’m misunderestimating their nucular strategery about isolationistism for the Grecians, it’s over.

And as far as their being a “Liberal Media,” I think Steven Colbert put it best when he said, “…and we all know reality has a liberal bias.” Were you people alive during the Clinton Administration when there was a front page story in the “Liberal” New York Times about Whitewater every single day for a year? Clinton couldn’t take a crap without a huge media expose and 45 thousand stories about “Crapgate.” Everyone knows about Clinton “Not Inhaling” but nobody talks much about Dubya’s drunk driving conviction in 1976. Everyone knows Ted Kennedy killed a woman in a car accident, but nobody talks about Laura Bush running a stop sign and killing a 17 year old girl when she was younger. How about Cheney’s drunk driving convictions?

There were a million stories about the Swift Boat Vets during the election but how many times on TV did we hear about Steve Gardner (SVB) admitting that he was lying or the fact that none of the SVBs were there at any of the times Kerry (according to everyone who was there and official Navy reports) earned his medals.

If there was a Liberal media, we’d hear more positive things about Labor Unions. between commercials for cialis and HMOs, we’d hear about how medicare only uses 3-6% of it’s money in administrative costs, but private health care firms take 15-30%. We’d see mass funerals for dead Iraqi children who were the victims of “Shock and Awe.” Most Americans wouldn’t believe that Saddam had connections to the 9-11 attacks or that Bush didn’t use cocaine.

Tell me, If there's a liberal media...

Why isn't this picture on the news?

Take a good hard look, Bush supporters. This is what you voted for.

This and thousands more dead children we don't have pictures of.

"We know that the only reason that this dead baby has his arm frozen to his lifeless face is that three years ago this week, George W. Bush gave the order to begin the unprovoked, unjust and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. He hasn't fired a single shot or launched a single missile; he hasn't tortured or killed any prisoners; he hasn't kidnapped or beheaded civilians or planted bombs along roadsides, in mosques or marketplaces. Yet every single atrocity of the war – on both sides – and every single death caused by the war, and every act of religious repression perpetrated by the extremist sects empowered by the war, is the direct result of the decision made by George W. Bush three years ago. Nothing he says can change this fact; nothing he does, or causes to be done, for good or ill, can wash the blood of these children – and the tens of thousands of other innocent civilians killed in the war – from his hands."

http://www.chris-floyd.com/march/

Fewer people died in Iraq than any other war ever.

I keep hearing this argument as though it makes the War in Iraq OK somehow. Asside from being factually false, it represents the sick,twisted logic you have to resort to to justify the unjustifiable.

This opinion comes I'm sure from someone who doesn't have the foggiest clue how many people died in every war ever, so it's kind of a "from the ass" statement to begin with, but let's just stick to American wars. Here's a list of American wars with fewer casualties than Bush's war in Iraq (so far --remember we're loosing more every day, so the number keeps going up).

War of 1812 2,260
Mexican-American War 1,733
Spanish-American War 385
Persian Gulf War 148

Now I'm not even counting stuff like Grenada and Panama or even Kosovo where we stopped a civil war (as opposed to starting one like this invasion has).

This is academic, however. Factual inaccuracy is the least of this argument's problems. Since we're loosing more and more soldiers each week, I wonder when the number will be high enough for chickenhawks to admit it's not the miracle that was advertised. What's the magic number where the price becomes too high? 3,000? 10,000?

What's the point? If fewer people died of AIDs than any plague that swept across Europe, should we inject ourselves with it? If the Green River Killer killed fewer people than any other serial killer should we invite him over for dinner? 2300 young sons, daughters, husbands, fathers not coming home to their families ever again is no big deal in this new crazy neo-con world I guess.