TorranaTony's Blog

TorranaTony recommended 'August' August Suspensions and a Heathcare Referendum? by TorranaTony

2009-07-28T17:41:02Z

TorranaTony Commented on NRA Flier: "Prepare For The Storm" by Eric Kleefeld

2009-05-21T20:51:34Z

A Katrina reference perhaps?
Just kidding...

TorranaTony Commented on Kristol: Obama "Pseudo-Thoughtful," Cheney A "Grownup" by Eric Kleefeld

2009-05-21T17:31:24Z

Kristol, Kristol... Where do I know that name from?
Didn't he used to be someone?
Billy Crystal was that guy in "The Princess Bride,"
but Bill Kristol...hmmmm, he was some kind of fiction writer once wasn't he? Mystery novels or something...
Seems to have lots of opinions though, he says things with such self assuredness he must know what he's talking about.

TorranaTony Commented on Liz Cheney Won't Deny Her Father Suggested Questions On Iraq-Qaeda Ties by Justin Elliott

2009-05-17T22:44:39Z

When did Liz Cheney get top secret clearance? Who gave her access and when? What am I missing? I've been wondering this since she started spouting off last week, has anyone asked her how she knows so much about what intel was collected, when where and how? Unless she has had access to secret material, why does anyone give a crap what she thinks? And if she has had access to secret info, isn't that the real story? Cheney tell daughter everything, daughter says leave my daddy alone...

TorranaTony Commented on The SEREing truth on torture [update to ref Cliff May on Daily Show] by eds

2009-04-24T22:31:41Z

You really have no evidence on way or the other as to how convenient or inconvenient my ignorance is... ;-)
However, your point remains unclear.
Are you arguing that the actions taken did not rise to the level of torture because of the nature of the conduct of those actions (a legalistic interpretive evaluation of the evidence)?
Or that the actions are not inherently torture (from a legal perspective)?
Are you arguing that the actions are not comparable to historic actions deemed "torture" because they differ in substance or circumstance?
If substance, how would you know?
If circumstance, isn't that an argument used by many heinous criminals? (War criminals and otherwise) How is the world to differentiate?

TorranaTony Commented on Is Torture Acceptable? by HowardFord

2009-04-24T22:17:32Z

What measure of a man or a nation is more meaningful than the one gleaned from actions during the most desperate of times, times of threat, times of existential threat. All would-be despots frame their arguments in existential terms, this technique was not invented or perfected in the 20th century, nor was it invented and perfected in the 18th century (on or about 1776). The use of existential threats as the rhetorical device of despots and tyrants was known to the founding fathers, and their fathers as well. Can a person or government torture? Clearly. Should a person or government torture? Never. Do persons and governments resort to abhorrent behavior when faced with a grave, even existential threat? Certainly. Does this fact absolve the behavior? No, we must not allow it to, we may have wisdom, compassion, even strategy when it comes to SENTENCING, but the crime must be prosecuted.

TorranaTony Commented on The SEREing truth on torture [update to ref Cliff May on Daily Show] by eds

2009-04-24T21:55:19Z

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the logic of your initial statement:
"If the enhanced interrogation techniques described by Bybee to Rizzo (Aug 2002) are torture, then the whole SERE program is torture"
Why?

For example:
Placing maggots on a patient with an infected wound may be "torturous" but not torture, the intent is to produce a curative action, the practice is (at least to the understanding of a somewhat informed an impartial observer) accepted to have efficacy. Placing maggots on or in the body of a prisoner for the express purpose of creating a torturous situation is torture. Same behavior, different legal definition.
Sere training may be masochistic, but it is not sadistic, the subjects are exposed to the torturous conditions for their own (potential) future benefit. It is not a matter of semantics, there is a qualitative and logical difference between the two states.
T

TorranaTony recommended How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Torture... by TorranaTony

2009-04-24T20:30:23Z

TorranaTony Commented on Top Obama Enviro Nominee Pulls Out Amid 'Scrutiny' of His Work With Scandal-Plagued Non-Profit by Elana Schor

2009-03-26T02:11:01Z

I agree, I get a little annoyed with the faux "vapours" expressed over the process, and over the issuing of waivers. Perhaps the admin. will have to backtrack, or issue more waivers, but that is not automatically a bad thing, especially when its done openly. The waiver process highlights potential conflicts of interest, and raises the bar for those who get them. I think we are seeing a bit of power struggling going on, the question is, who will blink?

TorranaTony Commented on Top Obama Enviro Nominee Pulls Out Amid 'Scrutiny' of His Work With Scandal-Plagued Non-Profit by Elana Schor

2009-03-25T22:15:23Z

Embarrassing, time consuming, and political capital consuming, yes.
But what did anyone seriously expect from imposing higher ethical standards?
The fact that the process is at times --time consuming, embarrassing, and consuming political capital is a sign that it is WORKING.
Compare and contrast:
Status Quo: President "x" promises high standards, political adversaries and largely random press initiatives are the mechanism of oversight.
Obama admin.: blah, blah, ethics, blah, blah, BUT here is the process, here are the "deliverables."
Now, if Obama's "blah blah blah" was more than just talk, what would be the evidence we could all look for that his process was doing something?
Should we expect 0 "scandal" and breezy confirmations of ALL Obama appointees?
Nonsense.
If the process is working, nominees will drop out, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes after rather minor criticism, sometimes after a chorus of criticism. There will be some vulnerability for the administration, some hand wringing, some regret...
However, what is lost in political capital, can be somewhat gained back in credibility.

The problem? A large, well connected, well motivated, and well funded group, previously accustomed to having great political access and influence is shut out... In short, if you really want a president to upend the culture of lobbying and influence inside the beltway, there is going to be some blood lost, and a lot of gnashing of teeth --lobbyist get/got paid a lot of money and did their job extremely well, they are not going to go quietly into the night.

TorranaTony recommended Anti-Obama Pastor Responds to The Daily Show (and to me!) by SuperBowlXX

2009-03-04T23:17:16Z

TorranaTony Commented on Anti-Obama Pastor Responds to The Daily Show (and to me!) by SuperBowlXX

2009-03-05T21:11:22Z

Short version minus crazed rantings:
I did NOT compare Obama to the anti-Christ as 1. that would probably be slander and get me sued, or possibly (when taken with my crazed rantings) threatening which will get me on the secret service watch list, I said that he was/is/will be doing the work of the anti-Christ,acting in a similar way to what my crazed rantings suggest the anti-Christ would act, and implying that supporting Obama is LIKE supporting the anti-Christ. Goddamn secularist hippie's always misquoting good God fearing folk.
(Please note Rev. if your reading, I'm scared shitless of your God too) ;-)

TorranaTony recommended More OLC Memos To Come? by Zachary Roth

2009-03-03T21:16:08Z

TorranaTony Commented on More OLC Memos To Come? by Zachary Roth

2009-03-04T03:56:10Z

WOW, I was about to comment on the absence of even a hint of opposing position (opinions of dissent etc), when I had a quick look at the best-practices-memo of 2005
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/best-practices-memo.pdf

Bradbury's overview SPECIFICALLY discourages the presentation of differing opinion here:
"OLC particularly should avoid giving unnecessary advice where it appears that policymakers are likely to move in a different direction"

Even though earlier he acknowledges the proud history and value of doing just that here:
"Over the years, OLC has earned a reputation for giving candid, independent, and principled advice—even when that advice may be inconsistent with the desires of policymakers."

Doublespeak is one thing, but substantially contradicting yourself within two paragraphs?
Oy.

TorranaTony recommended Tooting Our Own Horn by Josh Marshall

2009-02-27T02:32:40Z

TorranaTony Commented on Correcting Ambinder on the Budget by Greg Anrig

2009-02-26T22:16:41Z

Ok, this is so painfully obvious I feel stupid even saying it but...

In SS we have a program model that has maintained funded, indeed is fully funded for a number of years into the future (unlike, I don't know, EVERY other federal program???).

Reform social security? Ummm, isn't it the only one that is proven to work?

TorranaTony Commented on Coleman Lawyer Declares Whole Election Tainted -- And Doesn't Rule Out Re-Vote by Eric Kleefeld

2009-02-26T03:12:46Z

Or evidence of systemic error, or incompetence, or at least is prepared to ARGUE that x,y or z is such, but the Coleman team is not doing that, they are IMPLYING a laundry list of maybes and fishing for proof, arguing for exclusion of ballots at one step, inclusion at the next, then "oops no" exclusion again, and finally, standing in the hallway giving pressers and essentially saying "see, this process is f$@$ed because look what these dummies let us do to it..."