This is kind of interesting. I'm beginning to breathe again and imagine it's possible that even Cheney playing in crazy gear won't be able to score an attack on Iran before January '09. (knock wood, rub rabbits foot, burn joss sticks, etc)

Time to Talk to Iran

By Robert Kagan

Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone.

Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible....

GMTA (great minds think alike). Had to look that one up in the indispensable Urban Dictionary. The internet's message board 'acronyms' are killing me. But, since you've used this one, obviously you know what it means, and Urban Dictionary fails me. What the heck does *g* mean?

Grin works for me. In the contexts I've observed it I figured it either had to be giggle or grin. I'd tended towards grin - but, with the gender neutral nature of some screen names (like mine) it was kind of hard to peg. Most guys I know wouldn't giggle - LOL, and it's many colorful permutations, perhaps. But, giggle? Not so much.

...this blog didn't used to have a daily ritual of purging someone as a means for forging social bonds.

I'm not sure I see that happening. I saw your defense of Pamela Troy (I think I got that screen name right) on a thread which is now closed. I believe you referred to folks' defense of Bebop as piling on. If you read that same thread closely, you'd also notice that at least one of the commenters here, defended and welcomed her. IIRC, your argument about piling on occurs after Pamela had apologized to Bebop, and Bebop had acknowledged that apology.

The point you're making now, which I believe is in reference to the response to punnjab (and others who support), reads more to me of "tactics" than some ritualized blood-letting for the sake of forging an in group-out group status. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I don't see a discussion of tactics as out of bounds.

Time will publish Feingold letter.

a tutorial from one of the original FDL/UT-ers? Where did Glenzilla come from?

??????

http://tinyurl.com/yppdot

I live in a state that has term limited its Congressmen/women. It has turned out to be, It sounded good at the time, or It sure was great in theory. Probably, not unlike splitting electoral votes, the unfortunate results may be, in part, attributable to the fact that not all states do term limit. Another unfortunate aspect may be due to the fact that "once a politician, always a politician" in the sense that they wind up in other positions of political influence by political appointment or through patronage in the home state.

If the term limited were good politicians (ie, responsive to their constituents) it works out okay if they turn up as the president of your state university/community college system, etc. In that case you'd have been just as happy if they stayed in DC. If they were unresponsive skunks, while you wouldn't wish them on the rest of the country, their destructive efforts are diluted by their colleagues in Congress. It's hard to counter their destructive tendencies when they sit at the helm of a public agency.

There also seems to be a tendency for those who pull the political levers to feel "sorry" for the term limited. As in, "Gosh, Senator/Representative X deserves to continue their political life somewhere. They'd still be serving us in DC (or, the state legislature) if it weren't for term limits. So, let's see if there isn't a soft landing to be had for them somewhere here at home." To some extent this happens anyway, but I think term limits amplifies it. It seems to be one thing if they fail to get re-elected, but the dynamic appears to be different if they're forced from office.

Anyone have a doctoral student in poli sci whose searching for a dissertation topic? The dynamics of term limits might make for a good one.

The dust-up with Harman anchored by this post by emptywheel pretty much settled Harman for me: http://tinyurl.com/32hr9r (or, hopefully, you can click on my sig).

As for "free will," I'll see if I can find a link (or, perhaps someone else has one handy - like, William of Occam Timberman, *g*). Neuroscience is beginning to challenge that notion. As a commenter on a previous thread noted, people may be less rational than they are rationalizing.

This isn't the best link - but it was handy (http://tinyurl.com/2rcegv or sig). It points to the problem with "free choice." And, when it comes to threats of personal harm, fear is a powerfully hot emotion. It doesn't excuse or justify horrible choices with respect to torture, or any other morally repugnant action. It's simply part of the context for understanding that people do the damnedest of things for the damnedest of reasons.