I think I speak for a lot of people in their 20s when I say:

Smoke em if you got em.

I truly feel bad for the older people who've lost so much through no fault of their own, but the fact of the matter is there's not much worth saving, at an institutional level. So while I understand that its hurting people, including people I care about, I just think its for the best.

6,000

...

5,000

do i hear

4,000?

We can go lower. I think it might turn out to be a good thing.

ps - I'm on the record as saying it would get worse in October. My parents and wife are my witnesses. I said it would get a lot worse. I think its a safer prediction now than it was then.

Observations after watching the newest episode:

1. If there was ever a show about drugs & drug culture that did not glorify it one bit, it is Breaking Bad.

2. Like the movie Frozen River, its all about desperate people in bad circumstances just trying to make the best of it or get through it. Good viewing in a world where almost everybody is starting to feel that way, at least once in awhile.

3. As outlandish as it is, its somehow sorta believable. The exception for me tonight: a DEA agent taking a cell phone pic from a crime scene. Doesn't seem like something that would actually happen. But hey, it moved the plot forward.

4. Cranston is rail thin and looks, moves, feels like a dude who has cancer. It is downright exciting to know I get to watch an actor operating at his level every week.

5. What I'm trying to say is, watch the show. If you're too much of a wimp to handle it, hey, I don't judge. It is unpleasant at times but its never stupid, which is more than you can say for the comment boards at Salon!

Just let me pretend that some cops maintain a minimal level of professionalism. I mean, especially that guy, who is apparently a seasoned DEA agent. I'm depressed enough with the state of the world as it is.

...are common in most of the world. The reason is that many of the major human rights treaties contain provisions targetting racial hate speech specifically. CERD and the ICCPR do so explicitly, and require states to punish said speech criminally (I don't have time to grab the citations right now, if anyone really needs to see it i will be back in a few hours)The U.S. has signed these treaties with the reservation that we don't accept the speech-limiting provisions as they are contrary to the 1st amendment.

since most countries, excluding the U.S. of course, take their treaty obligations seriously, some speech is criminalized by the domestic laws of most state parties to the treaties.

Maybe. I guess it defends on your definition of the word "news." I didn't pay for it on Salon and I wouldn't pay for it from the Times.

E-man, if you're a lawyer, you've been to law school. If you argued for Yoo's definition of torture, in the manner he did, in a memo as part of your legal writing requirement, what grade would your professor give you? Honestly, think about it.

In the subsequent memos repudiating his opinions, the OLC felt it necessary to include a footnote saying that it was their opinion he had not breached his professional responsibility by reason of incompetence. Do you think its possible they worried readers of his original memos would draw other conclusions? His torture memo has (and I stress this) already been incorporated into legal ethics textbooks. My Ethics class discussed what sort of sanctions would be appropriate in his case last month.

The only compelling argument I have heard in Yoo's defense is that he was not the head of OLC: all of his memos were read over by multiple sets of eyes before they were submitted, and the other people involved in the process should be taking their share of the heat as well. That argument does not go to the quality of Yoo's legal opinions - there are no reasonable arguments in favor of them.

And just because I can't help but argue the substance: I am certainly willing to cut the guy some slack, moreso than a lot of people around here. He's an academic, maybe he reasonably thought he was just issuing hypotheticals. But we had a legal definition of torture. We signed the CAT; it doesn't matter if its self-executing or not. There was a subsequent act of Congress incorporating the obligations of the CAT as domestic law. If he was defining "torture" in the absence of a working definition I would be willing to say he was doing what he could to provide the administration with legal guidance. But he did not. He knew full well of the legal definition and went on a fishing expedition to find --any-- definition that would allow the administration to do what it wanted. He had a legal obligation to the president, but he also had an obligation to the American people. He gave the president cover to break the law. He acted contrary to the best interests of the American people. He deserves to be disciplined.