one says to the other, can I have some of the booty?

I come into the peace of wild things who do not tax their lives with forethought of grief. I come into the presence of of still water. And I feel above me the day-blind stars waiting for their light. For a time, I rest in the grace of the world, and I am free.

From me, silence.

Get ready for some more Change* (i.e. Clinton III)

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/19/tom-daschles-big-idea-a-fed-for-health-care/

His basic idea: Create a board modeled on the Federal Reserve to “offer a public framework within which a private health-care system can operate more effectively and efficiently — insulated from political pressure yet accountable to elected officials and the American people.”

Talk about the worst idea ever. Fucking accountable, sure, what a fucking joke, just like the Federal Reserve is held accountable during the dog on pony shoes Bernanke puts on in front of the committee.

Big Pharma wants its own version of the unaccountable bankster honey pot called the Federal Reserve. The Fed is doing so well driving the US economy into the ground that Daschle wants to apply it to health care. Which basically means he wants to turn over healthcare decisions to big pharma and provide "accountability", i.e. some bullshit oversight/worship services. His big plan is to model a Federal Health Board after the same federal reserve that bails out banksters and recently refused to disclose who it gave two trillion in tax dollars to (among it's various lesser moral hazards and crimes). Countdown to disaster.

How predictable. I knew Daschle would be tapped as soon as he came out with his stupid book about making a "Federal Reserve for Healthcare". The alarm bells were ringing when he first mentioned his retarded proposal while pimping his shitty book about it on "The Daily Show".

What a fucking huckster.

From Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312383010/ref=cm_rdp_product

“The American health-care system is in crisis, and workable solutions have been blocked for years by deeply entrenched ideological divisions. Sen. Daschle brings fresh thinking to this problem, and his Federal Reserve for Health concept holds great promise for bridging this intellectual chasm and, at long last, giving this nation the health care it deserves.” —Senator Barack Obama (IL)

Saw it coming from miles away. What a joke.

link at sig

Come on, guys....you can do better than this.

I re-read your Holder quotes and I do see your point. I was misreading it because, frankly, it was hard for me to fathom that Holder would be so sloppy in either his thinking or his articulation as to suggest that unlawful combatants are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. Everyone is subject to the Geneva Conventions, it's just a matter of which parts.

The reason I was giving him the benefit of the doubt is that I distinctly remember that the fight within the administration was whether the Taliban members were entitled to POW status. That's what I remember State Department Legal Adviser Will Taft really going to the mat about--and again, the point was not to ensure humane treatment for the detainees, as that was (supposed to be) a given regardless of their lawful combatant status. The point was simply to uphold the State Department's long-term and abiding interest in the proper legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. State always has in the back of their minds that, what goes around, comes around.

From my observation point, it seemed to me that the dunderheads at DOD either couldn't or wouldn't look at the Geneva Conventions themselves and wrap their brains around the notion that declaring someone an unlawful combatant was not going to remove the Geneva Conventions from the picture or otherwise legitimize what has now come to be known as "enhanced interrogation techniques." The dynamic was such that certain parties at DOD would just get a bee in their bonnet about something and at that point there was no reasoning with them; you were with them or you were with the terrorists.

If your interpretation of Holder's remarks is correct, this suggests that he never actually looked at the Geneva Conventions himself, which is kind of disturbing. Is it possible he was just caught off guard by the question and hadn't had the time to delve into the raging DOD-DOS debate to respond in a more nuanced fashion?

let me give it a shot:

All you Salonistas, I'll be waiting for you hypocrites to defend the indefensible when it comes to stuff like torture. Remember, as shooter242 has said, now that the Democrat Party is in charge, it all belongs to them! Yes! So, who's to blame for torture?! The dems!

I was talking to my sister, something (or other) and she said, before she heid (hide?) herself off to Whole Foods, that many people here (or should I say "folks") are utterly whatever. I think she's right!

Go Glenn Greenwald! I admire your stuff!

Thank you for taking my bait. I had no idea it would be so easy.

Another example would be what if the Canadians launched preemptive nuclear strikes at the US with the intent to kill everyone? At that point we certainly have the right to respond in kind to try and survive. The usually accepted rules of war go right out the window.

If a nuclear exchange occurs, then both participants will be committing war crimes, whether they are justified as self-defense or not. The "rules" don't go anywhere. How can you possibly miss this?

BTW, I think your argument to Reality Kid is absurd, and sounds to me like a familiar neocon tough-guy talking point with no basis in reality. Since when does following the "rules of warfare" consistently and inevitably give the non-rules-following enemy the advantage? What strange rules are these?

If the enemy slaughters civilians and you don't, it's true that the terrorized civilians may avoid helping you. But if you respond by slaughtering civilians as well, you lose. It's a child's argument you make, not one made by an adult with any knowledge of warfare or history.