Letters to the Editor
lupercus
Published Letters: 170
-
how police deter crime
[Read the article: Joe Klein and Beltway seriousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I actually didn't know how that worked, so I did a little searching:
Most of our police forces operate under a philosophy called deterrence theory. Deterrence theory contends that if the public knows the consequences of deviance, many individuals will not commit a crime. "Through punishment, corrections serve to deter the offender from deviating again and it scares others who might be tempted into crime" (Robertson, 1989:129). There are three aspects of deterrence theory. In order for deterrence to be successful each aspect should be true.
- The individual has to know what the law states. Without clear knowledge of the law, the individual cannot know he/she is in the process of violating the law
- The potential offender must know what the punishment is. How tough will the punishment be? It makes a difference to a potential bank robber when planning a holdup whether the penalty is 1 year or 20 years in prison. Likewise, is a white-collar criminal is relatively sure that they will get a light punishment, they might be more inclined to embezzle from a bank or to use substandard building material
- Will an offender receive punishment? If punishment is certain, then the philosophy of deterrence comes closer to achieving its goals. If, on the other hand, one is relatively sure that they will not be punished, deterrence is not achieved.
http://www.delmar.edu/socsci/rlong/intro/crime.htm
How does this even remotely approach the situation in Iraq? What exactly is the "punishment" for kidnapping a group of Sunni men, binding and gagging them, and drilling them full of holes before executing them? What is the "punishment" for giving little children chocolate in return for the names of all the men in their families? What is the "punishment" for gathering under the window of a Sunni family and calling out "be gone by evening prayers or we will kill you?
Scooter doesn't know. Because he doesn't give a fuck. All that matters to him is his religious certainty that "liberals" are wrong, and so rational argument on his part is necessary.
-
"you may feel a slight sting..."
[Read the article: The really smart, serious, credible Iraq experts O'Hanlon and Pollack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush closed the questions and said to Brown: "Good Job".
Oh that poor fucker. What do you think Bush's nickname is for him?
Remember, Gordo, pride only hurts, it never helps...
-
'measurable metrics?'
[Read the article: The really smart, serious, credible Iraq experts O'Hanlon and Pollack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is there any other kind of metric?
-
Once and for all, Iraq is NOT the fucking Pottery Barn
[Read the article: The really smart, serious, credible Iraq experts O'Hanlon and Pollack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is also morally wrong to stay at the scene of an terrible accident you negligently or intentionally caused and cause further accidents, maim and brutalise the survivors, run down the road and break into their homes, wreck everything, dump it into the street and set it on fire.
We are long past the point where metaphors are of any use.
It's time to just stop fucking shit up.
-
the definition of insanity
[Read the article: A new low of mindlessness for our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Scooter (I begin, pretending my interlocutor is the slightest bit interested in conversation), we have been told the same thing over and over again, literally since the first Bradley thunder-ran across Baghdad. Every time without exception the reports of progress have turned out to be false.
Maybe you can think about the need, most unbecoming in a free man, to believe anything so long as it accords with your preconceptions.
-
or picking a scab
[Read the article: A new low of mindlessness for our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lets all stop wasting time
This is not the first time such sentiments have been raised in this forum. While I agree wholeheartedly in spirit, at the same time it's a dirty pleasure some of us can't help indulging from time to time.
Think of it like biting one's nails.
-
"We can work on moving the Dems to the left after we take some kind of real control."
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah! That'll happen!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
-
anonymous's "visceral" thinking
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman, from his indie perch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The idea that the only alternative to bombing the shit out of anyone we don't like is "appeasement" - the idea that history began and ended with Neville Chamberlain - is the main reason, in my humble opinion, that we are in the mess we're in.
I'm sure it must feel great to reduce the world to such cartoonish simplicity, but for the sake of all the dead and maimed - American and Iraqi, not to mention Pashtun and Hazara - I sure wish you'd try thinking with your brain instead.
-
@mona
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]nothing I've read so far convinces me that it means Bush gets to go back to the status quo
Then, kindly, read:/
http://www.cdt.org/press/20070804press.php
-
@LWM
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't say what to make of your comparison of (I presume) mid-1960s proto-neo-conservatives to today's left. Are all out-of-power minority political alignments equal, in your view? Can we, as leftists, build the corporate-ideological-Beltway alliance that helped propel the neocons to power? If the answer to both questions is "no," then what validity does your comparison have?
Look, there's a huge conflation of critiques that seems to be going on in the comments on this piece. Not all of us who are disgusted by Democratic party's failure to heed the (IMO fairly clear) mandate of the last election are saying we will never vote Democratic again, even if it means the Republicans would win. Not all the people who disagree are saying "Bush bad, Democrats good."
I personally think the outcome of this Senate vote is a pretty damning indictment of the idea that what we need to do to stop the steady erosion of our rights in 21st century America is elect Democrats. I am limiting my critique to that point alone. Others may differ.