dormouse said: Sorry mate, but you are missing the key thing here. They are prisoners and guards. Guards never have an excuse for torture. Being urinated on or having feces thrown at you is not a credible excuse to break your code of conduct, the UCMJ, or oath of service. Period. It should also be noted that these guards are also NOT the people torturing the detainees during interrogation. Did you miss the part where I stated mistreatment of guards "doesn't justify reprisals against the detainees in the form of torture"? We agree, mate. As for your ignorance of the physical attacks, threats, and degradations inflicted on U.S. guards at Guantanamo, and your request for sources, do a simple Google search for "American guards"+feces . You'll get over 400 hits, including Pentagon incident reports, C-Span Congressional transcripts (which claim they're attacking guards 20 times a day in some cases), stories from the Chicago Sun Times (August 2006), Reuters, and firsthand accounts.

dormouse said: Actually it has nothing to do with capital, most countries that really have earned the true socialist label nationalize corporations and industries with little to no regard for their worth. Umm, where have you been the last 10 months? Let's talk about nationalization (and just to neutralize your inane ad hominem ranting about "partisan paranoia and conspiracy theorists", I'll use liberal media sources). "Nationalizing Banks, AIG, Carmakers: The News and What It Means" Source #1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nationalizing-banks-aig-c_n_169388.html The part about the government owning around "40% of Citibank" is interesting, as well as the statement from New York Times reporting about the government owning 80% of AIG, and the cash infusions still not being enough. Here's some more Huffington Post commentary [source #2] on ABC's show with George Stephanopoulous: "Bank Nationalization: As American as Apple Pie" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/22/bank-nationalization-as-a_n_168948.html In this one, nobel-prize winning economist (and liberal) Paul Krugman actually said, "We have nationalized 14 banks already this year. We don't call it that but there were 14 banks, two a week, that the FDIC seized because they didn't have enough assets to pay their depositors. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation says, 'ok, we are taking over. We are cleaning out the stockholders.' We are going to do exactly, as Nouriel said, we should be doing for some major banks. So actually nationalization as properly understood is probably as American as apple pie." What was your definition of the "true socialist label" again, dormouse? Hmmm.... In a lengthy recent Newsweek interview, Krugman actually stated his belief that the Obama administration hasn't gone far enough with nationalization--a claim that has won him the ire and scorn of several other economists. But wait, we're not done yet boys and girls. On the same episode, economist Nouriel Rabini proclaimed, "There are some banks that are so insolvent, their assets are well below their liabilities. We have already put a huge amount of money as a government into these banks. This is not any more even a partisan issue, when you have Alan Greenspan, [sen.] Lindsey Graham and others saying we want a temporary nationalization..." "Insolvent", ehh? For a minute there I thought he was talking about the current state of Medicare and Social Security, or all that business with government entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and bad real estate, not banks. What was that you said about nationalizing something of little or no worth? Conservative George Will on Bank of America, "With credit now treated essentially as a public utility, the difference between what we have and what nationalization would be is marginal. One number: the market capitalization of Bank of America is $19 billion. Since October they have received $45 billion in public funds. So what's the difference?" I don't even need to provide a Source #4, as the GM news is so recent. Auto expert Harvey Finkelstein (radio show host for "Auto Talk") is one of many who've been claiming the Big Three and their supply and distribution chains account for 1 of every 10 U.S. jobs. Now the government owns 60% of GM. Let's see, 60% of 10% of the total labor force works out to be 7.8 million workers that just got "nationalized" and added to the 16% of original gov't employees--but wait, I haven't added AIG and all the nationalized banks....****. Obama may talk about not wanting to be in the auto business, but we've heard those words before, from Richard Nixon. The year was 1971, the industry that got "nationalized"? Amtrak and the rail companies. They're still on the government payroll, to the tune of $2 billion annually, and still, for many senators (*cough* special interests) that's not enough money. Once government gets its fingers into something, it only rarely gets out. Another example: Education. Well, it's already mostly run by the government anyway, but the second largest school system in the country is run by the Catholic church. Turns out that the economic crisis, frivolous lawsuits, and government protected monopoly are hitting them pretty hard. Doesn't matter that their students score higher on a broad spectrum of achievement measures compared to their average public counterpart, nor that that achievement is managed at about 60% of the cost of educating a student in the public system. 212 Catholic schools closed in 2007 (when many endowments--based on the Stock Market--failed to pay). Numbers for 2008 and 2009 aren't in yet, but as I know the administrators in the Archdiocese of St. Louis (and was an assistant principal myself before one of our schools closed), I know that 20 were in danger of closing this year, and three already have. Now the main problem with the dissolution of the private schools, from the perspective of the publics is this: They don't get any extra money for taking them (they were already getting those tax funds), so now they have new expenses without new revenue. I know public administrators that wanted us to remain open. Source #5: Obama's Universal Healthcare Plan. National Healthcare spending in 2008 came to represent 17% of the annual GDP. Obama and the Dems want to add services for the 46 million uninsured in America. How many extra government employed healthcare workers do you think that'll take? There are already 10.38 million of the 130 million labor force employed in healthcare. And I haven't mentioned the "Value Added Tax" proposed in order to fund that government program. A twenty to twenty-five percent sales tax on top of our existing taxes. Even if it's only half of the labor force that's working for the government (directly nationalized), the rest of us will be working for them at least a quarter to half of our time, just to pay for the social programs. If you don't think that's socialism, I've got some more facts and figures, but those'll have to wait.

LiquidIce said: Stag is wise, as ever. Pretty well every advanced economy has elements in common with parts of socialist theory. But the core tent of socialism is government control of the means of production so the US is definitively not socialist. The bailouts could be read as a nudge in that direction but the government can't possibly aquire more than a tiny share of overall production with its limited resources, and what it already has is intended to be on-sold once the recession passes. The use of the overly simplistic "socialist" label says more about the aforementioned partisan media sources than it does about the actual nature of the US economy. Maybe in another 50 years... but probably not. I would say that energy dependence is the overwhelming issue for the US economy, not reds under the beds. LiquidIce, we agree on a working definition of socialism being "government control of the means of production." However, I've been doing some number crunching, using figures from CNBC, the U.S. Department of Labor, and other sources, and I disagree that the bailouts are 1) a mere "nudge in that {socialist} direction", and that 2) "the government can't possibly acquire more than a share of overall production". I'll really lay down the facts, figures, and sources tomorrow, but consider that even before the bailouts, the US Dept. of Labor's figures show that government jobs already account for 16% of all total employed adults. By simple calculation, figuring in the 6 million jobs lost in the last six months brings the number of employable adults on the government payroll to 22% of the labor force. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, as I'll soon show...

So, everyone from conservative radio hosts to liberals at Newsweek and the (formerly?) socialist citizens of Russia have been saying it... We're not living in the Republic of the United States of America, but in the Socialist States (or State--singular--if the federal government bails out the bankrupt state gov'ts) of America. Do you believe this is true, and what are the implications? I'll provide some statistics and research in a bit. If you want to do your own research, you could consult Glenn Beck's frequent "March to Socialism" segments, Newsweeks February 9th, 2009 issue (pictured below), or the editorial from the Russsian Magazine, Pravda, which was entitled, "American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper".

Advent, I've gotten back to maintaining the blog, now that the semester is ended, and I'm only working one job. Second post down (as of today) discusses the situation on the Korean peninsula (one of those "few dozen more important issues"). I might resurrect the "economic crisis" thread. Dormouse, you ask if my opinion that waterboarding is torture is based on experience or on the opinion of certain pundits. It's not based on experience, but on reading some of the reports (the "leaked" Red Cross summary, etc.). There are problems with some of those reports, as they take the detainees at their word without question, and take no account of the behavior those same detainees have subjected our soldiers to (which could itself be considered torture). I would think a rational, fair, and balanced media would have spent just as much time sharing how Gitmo detainees urinate and fling feces on our soldiers, threaten them, and how many of those soldiers' families have received death threats via mysterious phone calls late at night. Of course those actions don't justify reprisals against detainees in the form of torture, but they beg some questions about the media coverage.

I'm inclined to say waterboarding is torture. Two questions were essentially raised by the controversy over interrogation techniques: 1) What is "torture"? Many think something is only torture if it inflicts lasting or persistent harm. 2) Is torture ever justified? It's pretty clear from an examination of how the topic has been handled in Hollywood since the 1980s and on TV (recent episodes of "24" anyone?) that there is hardly some sort of American "standard" or "ideal" on the matter. Nor do feelings and beliefs on "torture" break down into neat little party lines (the myriad Democrats who went along with waterboarding, and those who suddenly opposed Gitmo's closure--alongside some 65% of Americans according to a recent poll). As for prosecution, if anyone is going to trial Pelosi should go too...anything less than including ALL congressional members who knew about it (of both parties) would be VERY dangerous for the nation as a whole. Finally, I believe waterboarding was used on 3 detainees. Let me repeat that...3 detainees. By that measure, there is substantially more torture probably being conducted by local police departments throughout the country on a weekly basis. The whole waterboarding issue is a perfect example of the media making a mountain out of a molehill, and sadly succeeding in their attempt to draw attention away from more important matters. It's sad so many Americans can so easily be led around by the nose. Obama put a stop to it, and we've got a few dozen much more important issues we'd be better off debating.

Just had a thought that I want to float with other fans.... I've been enjoying Bear McReary's BSG remake of Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower", and it got me thinking that maybe the "Six" and "Baltar" apparitions might be patterned after either the "joker" and the "thief" from the song, or the "two riders" who bring destruction. On the other hand, Starbuck and Lee Adama could be either of those pairings, too, though I'd think they fit the "two riders" more aptly (especially in their viper "steeds").

Stag Lord said: I also liekd the storng spiritual theme running through the final storyline. A ncie touch in this day and age. and so what was the deal with Kara? i'm guessing she was a ghost - a tradiitonal, old fashioned ghost who came back with unfinished business. Very nice, very touching wrap up to ehr story. Big thumbs up here. I thought it was a good finale, with the splashes of vibrant green and blue a welcome departure from the years of dark and dank sets. As for Starbuck, my take on it was that she was exactly what Baltar said during the memorial service--an angel, though not of a strictly Christian type. More a blending between Christian and Norse thoughts on such things (think Valkyrie--warrior come to collect the fallen). I say more angel than ghost because in actual angelology, there's two types of angelic presence. One is ghostlike, with the hallmark of intangibility. The other insists that full physical manifestation is possible, and is often characterized by the angelic visitor eating and physically interacting with the human, until they just up and vanish completely (as Starbuck did on the grassy plain). The ghost stories we have of apparitions leaving physical tokens behind might actually be stolen/mistaken for angelic appearances. Of course, theologically speaking, angels are their own species of creature. One cannot go from being human to angelic, but that's neither here nor there. I did also see hints that the "Six" and "Baltar" creatures (also angels) might have been allusions to Michal (sometimes thought to be a female in the Hebrew tradition) and Satan (not in the Luciferian sense--satan is not a proper name but a title meaning "adversary" [think "prosecuting attorney", which is why he seems so pessimistic about humanity's odds of breaking the cycle]).

jmccarthy said: JerusalemJones said: And one other question -- is it possible that the writers might film an ending where the cylons actually win? Doubtful. But will they leave the story still somewhat open for future BSG movies? Sci Fi likes to do that with their properties, but we better at least get some closure to the major stories. My wife is convinced at this point that the show will end with the fleet floating off into space, and a character narrating these words: "This has all happened before, and it will all happen again." I could see that happening, but it would totally blow (pardon the French). I forgot to mention another mystery I'd like disclosed: Why Baltar and Caprica Six had (schizophrenic?) versions of each other that give them guidance...

So what are the mysteries left to be resolved? 1) Kara's origins/nature (though we're made to assume the lost "Daniel" line of Cylons was her)? 2) What'll happen to Cavel and the last Cylons. 3) Whether they'll find habitation. 4) If the "gods" are still out there. 5) Why Xena Warrior Princess saw the final 5 in the Temple of the Ancients. 6) The significance of "Hera". Others?

Stag Lord said: I'm getting a tax cut - and so is everyone else in the middle class who pays payroll taxes. yes - its about 13 dollars a week, which doesn't sound like much, but will actually apy my transporation costs to the office. Let's set aside any purely speculative and highly questionable talk of how this package is going to "stimulate the economy", and look at things from another angle. That $787 billion has to come from somewhere, and with the trillions in debt we're already running, that means it is more future debt for us (around $10,000 per taxpayer). I broke it down, and if I'm getting $14/week, and I spent all of that just to pay down the $10,000 share of government debt that falls to me, it's going to take 14.8 YEARS collecting my $14/week and paying zero interest to do that. Sorry, but that is a really bad bargain, and nothing for which I'm going to be thankful.

LiquidIce said: Yep, fiscal prudence hasn't exactly been on the menu for the US since... ? Cinton? When was the last time you ran a surplus over there? Got to be getting on for 10 years. Look on the bright side- at least the money will be spent in America. (I think Iraq has cost closer to a $700 billion than $79 billion- with the 2008 funding totalling about $120 000 for every person living over there). Obama is smart enough to string sentences, & comprehend some level of the economics involved. That alone holds promise for improvement. So your figure of $700 billion (wikipedia estimates just over $600 billion, BTW) for the total cost of the Iraq war over a 5 year period almost equals the amount the current Congress has spent in one month. Thank you for helping me put things in even more glaring perspective. And don't forget that a good deal of that cost for Iraq is spent on US citizen-soldiers, their medical care, and US military upgrades and equipment replacement. So in reality, a good chunk of that "Iraqi war cost" is spent over here in the U.S. at the factories stateside that produce the Humvees, retrofit and repair Abrams tanks, etc.. I just find myself thinking of some of the lessons from high school history class, concerning other countries that tried to spend their way out of debt and crisis. Anyone remember the Germany of the early 1920s , and a little thing called hyperinflation? Granted not an equal set of parallel circumstances, but more than a few similarities between then and America now...

LiquidIce, the man just signed a bill that's added $10,000 in debt to every American taxpayer, you'll pardon us if his vaunted "eloquence" is worth as much as the hot air coming out of him. To think, that the party and President that complained about $79 billion to finance a war in Iraq has managed to spend nearly ten times that in under a month... ~Oh yes, imagine what the man will do over the course of the remainder of his term (shudders).

LiquidIce, I'll pray for you and those affected. Hope the fires come nowhere near you. To answer your question, we haven't heard reports of this in the American media. Where I live, we've actually had lower temperatures and more snow in the past two years (we're in winter up here) than in previous winters. Wish we could send some your way.

LordofBrewtown said: Unfortunately, I think this recession is going to last a couple of years. I'm just not seeing/hearing the politicians moving in the right direction on this. The only saving grace is that the psychology of the masses does play an important role in helping the economy rebound, and President Obama is charasmatic enough to make a difference in helping there (in a way few others, if anyone could). I don't think it's going to last a few more years. We've been "in it" longer than the average bear market as it is, and I'm also intensely conscious of all the analysts that say we'll start coming out of the recession six months before it becomes really clear that we have. I'm not pinning any hopes on the politicians, because that's not how recessions have been ended in the past. What will happen (and may be already) is that you have a lot of people that were making big salaries, and have capital and creativity, but no jobs. Those people will get together with others who are out of work, or connections they had through jobs, and more than a few will start up new small businesses. Those businesses will create goods or services that improve lives or create wealth. Over time, those small businesses will need to expand in order to keep up with growing orders, and they'll hire people to sell, manufacture, deliver, etc.. They'll need new buildings for their facilities, and that will lead to a resurgence in the real estate or construction industries. Thing is, people eventually get fed up (little pun their) with waiting for some false messiah(s) to come along and save them, and they finally get the message they're going to have to do it themselves. That's how recessions really end.

I've actually been spending more time following the growing list of Obama nominees/appointees who're guilty of tax evasion . Tom Daschle--$140,000 Timothy Geithner--almost $50,000 Nancy Killefer (whom Obama ironically said would "help restore the American people's confidence in their government".) Oh yes, vaunted public officials, you told us it was our "patriotic duty" to pay taxes, then you showed us just how patriotic you really are...Glad to see our president did his homework before nominating qualified people to protect the public trust. Not that there isn't plenty of corruption to spread among the parties, but really, these fiascos just back up my pre-election point that power attracts the corrupt, and the last thing a sensible person should want is to concentrate unprecedented power in an institution (the federal government) that attracts such corruption. Maybe if we could actually get government officials to pay their taxes, we wouldn't be running a deficit.