?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The drieuxster's Happy Land
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Time Event
9:53p
Why does CarlyF hate American Veterans?
I can understand that so many in the GOP who voted to support the use of evidence derived from torture want to make sure that all of that just stays in the new Do Not Ask, Do Not Tell world where the majikal wonder of the war crimes games are allowed.

But carlyF is not yet an indictable war criminal? So what is her real motive here?

So that we are clear here folks. When the fine folks talk about wanting to bar enemies of the state from trials in civilian courts - they are OPENLY ADVOCATING detaching american military trials from american law, and the normal rights of appeal on matters of fact and law. When they get that detachment in place, let us be clear on what has happened.

ANYONE who is designated by the WarPrez, or his designate, as an enemy of the state will be shipped into the system, and beyond the reach of law. We watched that occur with Padilla. So let us not say any more that 'but it would not happen to an american' because it did.

It is a tragedy that Sen. Grahem, et al, supported the use of evidence derived from torture as admissible in ANY american court of law, but to say that it will be allowed in so called military courts, means that he is asking the officers who will serve to abandon their Legal, Ethical, And Honor Code Standards for strictly domestic political consumption.

So while we are talking about 'stolen valor laws' - how are you going to give back the honor code to american veterans after establishing that the nation supports the whole 'but I was only following orders' gambit. That we have adopted the policies of the very death camps we were suppose to be stopping.

Do they really want to sell americans the idea that the Military SHOULD lay beyond the real of american law? I can understand that terrorism is scary! But are we really wishing to destroy our own legal standards simply for domestic political policies? More importantly do we really want to tell the world that we REALLY want our American Military Forces to be beyond the legal pale?

Think about it kiddies. IF you take UCMJ beyond the pale - then we are talking not MERELY about the trials of some really irritable and whiney civilians who wanted to be 'military like' - we are talking about the Law our troops live with.

So Please. When you want to tell me that terrorists are not military forces, then please, leave them over there in your civilian hood! No REASON to be messing with my house, simply because you think that all american military personnel should be war criminals!

Terrorism is a Civilian Problem, and civilians are just going to have to figure out why it is that they keep breeding civilians who want to live outside the law of land warfare. And gosh, maybe CarlyF will lead that charge!

or NOT! because in the final analysis she IS about merely domestic political agenda, and let the US military be damned if it wins her an election.
11:42p
Notes on the Hayak Problem.
First off the good bits Biblical Capitalism - The Sacralizing of Political and Economic Issues - a very important background discussion. Since it is that moment in Network where we learn that it is bad to say scary things about the ruling elites, and we must preach the gospel, well, of folks who would love to be tyrannies.

On the flip side of the song book we have "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem where we get a rather broad swath of kvetching about the delta between Hayek and Keynes. What is crucial to understand is that Hayek is actually clear that he is NOT a conservative, please, no, actually READ his "why I am not a conservative" some time. No I am SERIOUS. If you actually read him you will learn that no, he did not consider himself a conservative, which is really not all that surprising a problem - since in the long run it IS a critical part of the analysis that all too often is not discussed in PsuedoCon circles as they light their joss sticks and pray to his Icon. But these are normally also the same folks who want to have their masturbatory fantasies about Milton Friedman, and how cool things would be, if only we could have our own Military Dictatorship, you know like China or Chile, or all of those other cool bastions of anti-freedom that these freaks in the long run want to, and traditionally, support.

So yes, it would be nice IF we could believe in the rational expectations of the market to protect us from the problems of 'irrational expectations' - but please - let us at least speak honestly. The alleged arguments about rational expectations have been trashed beyond belief. It was NOT the failure of regulatory over-sight that brought about the most recent economic fiasco! It was precisely the opposite! A point we COULD lay to blame on the Clinton administration for such horrors as ending the Glass-Steagal act. But that would require us to say that the years of the Dubya Administration were, well, blithely naive about the actual american history, and that they knew only the world AFTER WWII, and were absolutely and totally blocked from any knowledge about a time before 1944!

Which given the intellectual acumen of the time might be a reasonable assessment. Married to the IRONY that Ayn Rand had branded Allen Greenspan a mere 'social climber' - and gosh, those Randianists would be lifted by their own petards, since, gosh, they bought into him lock stock and two smoking barrels.... right up to the moment that he was Shocked! Shocked! to find out that given the conflict between personal greed and corporate civic duty so many corporate execs would opt IN on greed.

How absolutely shockin!

Hum.... I am sure that everyone agrees that the idea of allowing child and spouse abuse should be left to the free market to decide, since, well, clearly children would learn that they had other options and would embark upon such as the market allowed. Or that we all agreed that murder should only be defined in market terms, since clearly to allow the excess governmental regulation would mean, well limiting the freedome of the market.

When libertarians can go there, and follow their ideological frothing at the mouth for their love of the tyranny that Hayak has to offer, then we can at least have a reasonably HONEST discussion about their commitment to letting the market decide. Otherwise we have already established their position and are merely negotiating the price.

<< Previous Day 2010/02/16
[Calendar]
Next Day >>
About LiveJournal.com