#14343: lloydletta — 01/25  at  06:48 PM
I wonder how Dayton will vote on this. Somehow, I doubt Coleman would have gotten your vote anyway.

#14344: DarkSyde — 01/25  at  06:58 PM
It is weird. "Someone we regs know" was mentioning his consternation over how atheists could 'believe' in various [highly distorted] items he chose to present. I don't understand how the [neo]christian right, those of them who openly champion BushCo, can juggle things like torture and so forth with their self-proclaimed sense of morality. I understand many of them are delusional beyond hope, but a lot of them are relatively rational. Yet as far as I can tell, they haven't yet caught on that they lost the morality argument the minute they signed on to Bush & Gonzales.

#14345: — 01/25  at  07:22 PM
I believe the concept they might invoke is "once saved, always saved".

#14347: DarkSyde — 01/25  at  07:25 PM
BTW you can get e-mails/phone numbers for your Senate reps HERE.

#14348: — 01/25  at  07:49 PM
I'm in a tricky spot. My senators are Kerry and Kennedy. Suppose they vote for Gonzales? The only way to vote against my senators is to vote for a Rethuglican. And I fear they will endorse him, actually, out of a desire to pick battles they can win.

#14349: DarkSyde — 01/25  at  07:54 PM
LOL ... I'm guessing they won't. But send 'em an e-mail anyway. They need to hear the support and PZ is 100% dead on balls accurate that this is a no brainer for anyone who values American values.

#14350: PZ Myers — 01/25  at  08:01 PM
Yeah, Eva, I didn't say I would vote for them if they rejected Gonzales, I said I definitely wouldn't if they approved him. There's not much Smilin' Norm could do to win my vote (by the way, that dentist's page that was touting all of his cosmetic work seems to have been zapped. Guess I'll have to use google's cache.)

And if Kerry or Kennedy were my senators, and they voted for Gonzales, I'd be telling they've lost my vote. And I'd stick to that. How else are we going to get representatives with a spine if we don't stick to our principles?

#14351: PZ Myers — 01/25  at  08:08 PM
Did you have to include a link to that moron Carter, DS? I want the three minutes I spent gagging over his masturbatory whine back. I'll be sending you a bill.

#14353: DarkSyde — 01/25  at  08:10 PM
Sorry, I'll kill it.

#14354: — 01/25  at  08:23 PM
.. and this post will only require minor modifications to address the upcoming vote on Condi Rice. I swear Dick must have told Joementum that he can be VP if the pacemaker fails. Lieberman might actually win a bootlicking contest against Rice.

As far as Kennedy and Kerry and their ilk go, there are primaries where we attempt to improve our candidates before they face the Republicans. I have my eye on Murray and Cantwell, and have not hesitated to let them know that firm stands are called for on these nominations and Social Security. This aint fence stradling time folks.

And, I was thinking that Teddy sounds like he is in the 'who gives a f**k' mood that would serve him well in a run for the White House. A Dean and Kennedy primary contest could be fun.

#14355: ajmilne — 01/25  at  08:25 PM
Re:

I don’t understand how the [neo]Christian right, those of them who openly champion BushCo, can juggle things like torture and so forth with their self-proclaimed sense of morality.

They have their little ways.

Three related ways, and, I'd think, the first line of defense: (i) don't look. Or (ii) don't believe it. Or (iii) forget it once you're told.

The brute (I use the term advisedly) facts that the administration they just elected is incarcerating people indefinitely without bringing charges, and regularly mistreating them and others--these facts can be avoided, if they just avoid reading, watching, or listening to news sources which might inconveniently bring it up. And if, when they do hear about it, they just don't think about it too hard.

Keep in mind there's a general mechanism for such situations these folk are particularly well-trained in exercising: the inverting of the usual approach to evidence and inference, in which the former precedes the latter. In certain religions (and the group you mention fits this particularly nicely), it's regularly flipped around: the evidence shall fit the pre-existing inference, or it shall be rejected.

So it's easy enough. Most of them, they've been training for this for years.

Fourth way, also probably critical here: rationalization. "It's regrettable, but a lesser evil; war's a dirty business; we need the intelligence garnered to save others" and so on...

... and never mind (i) that the very real, very deadly costs in terms of anger on the Arab street should make any sane person doubt any such alleged, (brutally) cold utility in terms of the numbers of lives saved in any case (quite regardless of the value of any alleged intelligence gathered, which, I might note, is also mere speculation, for the public, at least), and (ii) that those grisly photos are now an indelible part not just of how others see the US, but a part of what that nation actually has become now.

Which brings me to PZ's comment re "vocal disgust". I applaud him for it. It's appropriate. Nothing less would be.

Gonzales has rationalized torture. Under his aegis, the US administration has effectively made its use an officially endorsed policy.

The man is a monster. It's not too strong a word.

#14358: Ian Gibson — 01/25  at  09:04 PM
What's torture and illegal war got to do with morality? As long as we condemn those gay, atheistic abortionists our consciences are clear..

#14359: — 01/25  at  09:34 PM
I'm with you, PZ. Unfortunately, when I wrote to my Repub senator about the matter (our Dem senator is totally wishy-washy) - and I'm generally impressed with his ethics, although we don't agree on anything - figuring, since he was a veteran, he'd surely oppose Gonzales, he wrote back, and said he'd be supporting Gonzales instead. It's not like I was in any danger of voting for him though (Richard Lugar, Indiana). Sucks to live in a red state with people who routinely defend torture and other indefensible practices. :(

#14361: — 01/25  at  10:04 PM
People who think Abu Ghraib was the crime of the century haven't been paying attention.

I'd like to hear, even if meant insincerely, a double barreled objection -- don't like Abu Ghraib but don't like the fact that the Geneva Convention has never, ever protected US prisoners anywhere east of Suez.

Instead what we always get is, 'What horror, the Geneva Convention was breached!'

Not it wasn't. It never existed.
Get a grip.

#14362: DarkSyde — 01/25  at  10:26 PM
I don't think anyone called AG 'the crime of the century' Harry. Nice try, no dice. It's the crime of BushCo, and anyone who apologizes for them is complicit.

#14364: PZ Myers — 01/25  at  10:30 PM
Wait a minute...your excuse is, "the other guys did it first"? I didn't accept that from my kids when they were 2 years old. The Geneva Conventions are simply commonly accepted standards for civilized behavior (as much as behavior in war can be called "civilized"). Telling me that barbarians don't pay attention to it does not pardon the US for violating it.

#14365: — 01/25  at  10:44 PM
Man Harry, do you grown your own straw, or can you purchase these straw men in six packs so you have one to throw out on a moments notice?

Come on 'crime of the century', really

#14366: — 01/25  at  10:53 PM
Some riot entertainment by Eric Schwartz:

http://jesuspe#nis.ericschwartz.com/media/video/JP_Full2.wmv

(You're going to have to remove the # from the url to make it work. ;)

#14368: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 01/25  at  11:14 PM

I don’t understand how the [neo]christian right, those of them who openly champion BushCo, can juggle things like torture and so forth with their self-proclaimed sense of morality.

Uh, dunking chairs, torture-until-confession, torture-until-conversion, and that goody, pretending the object of torture is not human or less than human so it doesn't really matter what you do.

#14369: — 01/25  at  11:15 PM
a) There is nothing in the Bible about torture. (I know, I know, Religion. But if these characters were self-consistant they'd remember the part about 'the least of my brothers' and 'Do unto others as you'd have done unto you, instead of 'He who has gold makes the rules' and ' Do unto others, before they do unto you'.)
b) It's not like they are advocating torturing some Caucasian male that is Christian and goes to the same golf club and church as they do, just anybody else. (Oksy, I'll stop using up all the snark in the blog.)

#14370: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 01/25  at  11:27 PM
Well, linnen, the Torah does, but not directly. It uses the example of a captured woman:

When you take the field against your enemies and Adonai your God delivers them into your power and you take some of them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife, you shall bring her into your house, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, and discard her captive's garb. She shall spend a month's time in your house lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-15)

By inference, because the case of a woman is presented, typically the object of rape in war, rape often being seen by men as a survivable and hence acceptable thing, the sages have concluded one must treat male prisoners well.

It's not consistent because there are other passages which argue for the annihilation of all male captives. This kind of stark inconsistency is one reason Jews have Talmud and is powerful evidence the Bible wasn't intended to be taken literally.

Israel used to torture prisoners in "ticking bomb" cases to extract information. The country's Supreme Court has ruled on and outlawed all such practices because of what Talmud says on the matter.

#14371: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 01/25  at  11:44 PM
Speaking of taking and keeping mates, returning for a moment to the purpose of this blog, there's a lizard, Uta stansburiana, which poses a conundrum for standard population dominence models. It has an evolutionarily stable cyclic mixed equilibrium:

Uta stansburiana has three types of male with different mating strategies (they are conveniently distinguished by their throat color). Type A keeps one female and guards it closely; type B keeps several females, and necessarily guards them less closely; and C guards no female at all and looks out for sneaky matings with unguarded females. The three types can invade each other cyclically. (Hofbauer, Sigmund, Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics, page xxiv)

A and B can enter a C population at will, since C males don't guard their females at all. A can snatch and protect females from B populations. But C can have sneaky matings with harems of A or B, although more likely B. B might not do well invading A.

#14373: — 01/26  at  02:29 AM
I don’t even understand how we can be talking about this. Before the election, the words “Abu Ghraib” were such a crystal-clear condemnation of the Bush administration, that I simply could not believe the man would be elected.

You Demi’s were hoping it was a crystal-clear condemnation, weren’t ya? But as usual, it’s just another case of over connecting the dots.

Even now I’m at a loss to grasp how people with even a shred of conscience could vote for a regime that endorsed torture.

Making naked men pile up in a big “pig pile” while having their picture taken isn’t exactly torture. A little embarrassing, but definitely not torture. Take a gander at Saddam Hussein’s “Buried in the Sand” footage or al-Zarqawi’s little snuff films and you will soon learn what torture is.

Well, maybe I can faintly see that people might think that Bush was stronger on defense, and could elect the administration while deploring some of their actions. It seems to me, though, that even those who endorse the larger policies of Bush should at least be willing to speak out against the details. And Gonzales is such a detail. Gonzales should have had the role of being Bush’s legal conscience, the quiet voice at his shoulder that says, “this is wrong.” Instead, he’s been an abettor—from damning the condemned in Texas with his silence, to writing and endorsing policies that have defied civilized behavior and encouraged what can only be called evil, he’s been nothing but a banal homonculus who hasn’t even tried to speak up for what is right.

I want him out.

Terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime holdouts should start fighting fair and stop cutting innocent people’s heads off. Imagine there’s a terror plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in Morris Minnesota. And the plot was only uncovered after the torture of a captured terrorist car bomb maker in Iraq. Would the use of torture be justified or not? Torture the terrorist, and all the people of Morris are saved. Don’t torture the terrorist, and Morris gets wiped off the map.

Of the 19 Muslim countries in the world, name one besides Afganistan and soon to be Iraq that provides democracy and freedom for its people and that doesn’t breed hate for America and the western world. Tyrannical, theocratic Muslim countries have fast become a serious danger and it’s high time we all start paying attention to this.

I’ve already written to my senators and told them that this is an issue on which I’ll tolerate no compromise. They must oppose Gonzales, or there is simply nothing they will be able to do in the next few years to convince me to vote for them.

If I had to pick one senator to support your cause, Dayton’s your boy. Unfortunelty for you, he’s a one termer and probably hard to get a hold of; afraid to go to the office “donch ya no”. Don’t count on any support from Coleman. He’s a smart guy and won’t be swayed by an irrational emotional outbreak.

This nation elected Bush. I hope they can at least speak out against one foul creature in his service.

I want more than “no” on Gonzales. I want him damned and cast out with the most vocal disgust. This is where our country could send a message that we will not condone or tolerate the inhumanity he has blandly advocated.

Being the good humanist you are, your outrage should be towards the brutal tryannical dictators and regimes of the world, who have commited thousands upon thousands of horrendous human attrocities, and not towards Christians, Republicans, and the Bush administration.

Somebody needs to get a morality checkup.

#14376: DarkSyde — 01/26  at  05:20 AM
Torture in Iraq still routine.


You've made a key error David, aside from assuming things have improved for Iraqis. You're operating under a false premise. We're not all dems. Criticizing those who lied (or were simply so incompetent they made a colossul blunder) us into a war with a price tag now closing in on 300 Billion dollars, and 12,000 KIA/WIA US Service Men and Women is not the sole purview of 'the left' any longer. Many of us on 'the right' are really disgusted as well.

Claiming someone else is a serial killer will not excuse you for beating your child in a court of Law. So pointing to oppresive regimes with the hope of making BushCo's use of torture and rape tame by comparison is an ugly, childish, tactics, that will get you no where, and never has.

Seriously pal, "Let's just go invade a country with a dictator and help those people out and pay for the whole thing no matter how much it costs' is the kind of liberal sounding pipe-dream I'd expect to come from an idealistic hippified dufus sporting a goatee, passing out flyers to a Green Peace Rally in the parking lot of Whole Foods; not something I ever thought I'd see pragmatic conservatives underwriting. That's what you've been reduced to in apologizing for this bullshit David. You're now a caricature of the ridiculous 60's hippy crowd. Totally clueless, grasping at any straw in desperation, you've embraced your own opposition. If we didn't have an enemy at large who's promised he's going to attack us over and over, it would be almost funny.

#14377: — 01/26  at  05:36 AM
Well David, I always considered this in terms of being an American. Torture is NOT American, nor is turning a blind-eye to it in any contry, nor is out-sourcing it so people can claim to keep their hands 'clean'!
As for mis-directed outrage, you should direct yours to politicians who do not hold the administration to their promises of freedom and liberty.

I guess the current spin point and meme is 'Being anti-toture is being objectively pro-tyranny'. Oh, and 'Black is White' is the other.