There's no wishing there, only educated guessing of the type that informs my voting proclivities. I may not be Vonnegut, but when I get to wishing, I have a good deal more imagination, (to say nothing of more ambition!).

As to your complaint,

Obama's "incremental changes" will do little to forestall the potential for "social unrest and upheaval"

What you are missingis that "visionary leadership that attempts to get out in front of these problems" do not anywhere in the historical record, jump out of a briar patch. You simply don't get transformative 'visionary' leadership out of non-descript periods of relative peace & prosperity, such as we have had and still have. To be aware of the type of problems that are bearing down on this nation at this moment is to be flabbergasted at the state of the concurrant political discourse. They- politicians, media elite and other sanctioned leaders, and hence the broader populace- simply don't get it, and the last won't sign off on radical change before those truths become self-evident, as they will directly, (The global economy is going to get much much worse, many more jobs are going to be lost. At some point, the integrity of our currency, the global reserve currency, may come into disrepute. Should that happen, the Great Depression with its bread lines and 25% unemployment wouldn't be the half of it).

"that's hardly the visionary leadership I'd been led to understand Obama represents." Hey, if you're succeptible to marketing slogans, I'll wager you're used to being deceived.

@onedelette, Iranian 'root culture' has led to resentments from its East as well as West. The moguls spread it in that direction much as the Romans did the other.

Back To The Future XLIV!

"concurrant"

I get it. Nice preserves reference, Major.

You don't understand my position. Dershowitz was saying torture might be justified under certain circumstances.

I think it's never justified - but neither do I think KSM gets to walk just because Bush tortured him. I think the Bush officials who ordered torture should be prosecuted, too.

Yes, I do understand your position. You seem to have missed that I called your argument the logical equivalent to Dershowitz, not the equal of Dershowitz' argument. I did not say you believed in torture, I said that you argued that a one time grave threat justified overriding the rule of law based on an argued ability to limit the consequences of damage to the rule of law. Your grave threat is KSM going free, his is a ticking bomb in NYC. Your proposed solution is a one time exemption from our judicial practices, his is a one time exemption from our interrogation practices.

The arguments are logically identical. They do argue for different remedies, and use different threats. But they also both argue that they can limit the damage to an infrequent exception. I would maintain that you can't.

There are three possible outcomes to a democratic society that has practiced state sanctioned torture:

A renunciation resulting in an attempt to overthrow the government. A version of which is now playing out with the intelligence community threatening to not take risks to protect our national security unless their legal security is assured.

An accommodation resulting in a social acceptance of torture. This is playing out in the refusal to investigate, the '24' television series, the blowhards that show up to defend toughness here and elsewhere, those advocating a mild acceptance of gentle techniques such as sleep deprivation (e.g. Stuart Taylor).

A social repudiation, in which society and its leaders agree to stand in front of the unknown risk and take it, in order to cleanse the society. This last one almost never happens. In this case it implies putting KSM on trial and letting the chips fall as they may. It's really the only way to restore the rule of law, because to restore the rule of law to a society that has adopted torture out of fear, one needs to shepherd that society through the fears themselves. George W. Bush abdicated this responsibility after September 11th. It remains to be done, we need to face those fears. That includes the case where the fears are real.

Hey! No fair! I was going to use that one later.

Anyway, I'm sure that all the conversing grownup intelligentsia here know that, contrary to the wacko Justice Jackson, the Constitution IS INDEED a suicide pact. That "not" was probably a typo.

I'm sure that all the conversing grownup intelligentsia here know that, contrary to the wacko Justice Jackson, the Constitution IS INDEED a suicide pact.

Well, okay, but you go first.

Its not a suicide pact but it is a pact, asssholes. You don't get to just decide to violate it. Suicide my ass.

You know, at some point you should try pulling that hair-curler out of your ass (or just unplugging it). It might do something for your attitude, if not your manners.

That's nothing. I heard one divorce lawyer telling his adversary: "Look, the Constitution is not a pre-nuptial agreement!"

So it's hard to say. Maybe the Constitution is like the thing you sign when you join a health club?

it continues its uranium enrichment program.

So what?

The moguls spread hatred of Persia? Along with their Persian architects and artists?

There is an awful lot of "ass" in this thread...

He even supports the use of the same tactics the SS used in Eastern Europe, such as the razing of Lidice:

http://www.counterpunch.org/menetrez02122008.html

So anyone using him to vouch for torture might as well invoke Himmler.

Suicide my ass.

Okay, okay, you can go second.

That way we get rid of all the asss in one fell swoop.

THIS MEANS THAT WE INTEND TO DO TO IRAN WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO IRAQ.

RIGHT?

ANYBODY FOOLISH ENOUGH TO DISAGREE?

"W" he didn't agree to let ISrael start it last year. Bush, now he is a damned FOOL.

Go ahead. Make him look like a Genius, Morons.

They spread its influence, and influence leads to enmity. Or was it your point that the Greeks 'hated' the Persians? Points for obstinacy though.