This is redwood's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following redwood's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
redwood
Recent Activity
my apologies, everybody, but I'm having trouble following Gary Farber: redwood: So in your view, SOFA doesn't change the fact that by invading Iraq, the USG broke the law? Gary Farber: No, that's not my view. Or to explain it v...e...r...y s...l...o...w...l...y, I think the invasion was illegal I'm not sure what the 'no' is doing, but if you think the invasion was illegal, and that SOFA doesn't excuse the USG, why would you ask libhomo how the continued US presence is against international humanatarian law?: libhomo: "Any further war and occupation in Iraq is against international humanitarian law." Gary Farber: How so, given the SOFA? Even if libhomo could link to an "humanitarian law," it wouldn't matter because the invasion itself is illegal, right?
Toggle Commented Mar 1, 2009 on "We Will Bring Our Troops Home" at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
So in your view, SOFA doesn't change the fact that by invading Iraq, the USG broke the law?
Toggle Commented Mar 1, 2009 on "We Will Bring Our Troops Home" at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
redwood, "Would SOFA preclude any judgment that the initial invasion was illegal (should the U.S. ever appear before a tribunal competent to render such a judgment)?" Gary Farber, I don't think so, and I wasn't saying that. But that was then, and this is now. what's your 'but' doing, Gary? Are trying to plant in our minds that, even if the U.S. subjects itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, that some treaty or resolution would not allow the Iraqi government from filing a complaint over the 2003 invasion?
Toggle Commented Mar 1, 2009 on "We Will Bring Our Troops Home" at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Would SOFA preclude any judgment that the initial invasion was illegal (should the U.S. ever appear before a tribunal competent to render such a judgment)? If so, I don't see how. We have not seen any evidence that Saddam's Iraq threatened the existence of the United States.
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2009 on "We Will Bring Our Troops Home" at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
For W Bush, jonnybutter, I trust you're talking about slogans such as "healthy forests" and "no child left behind" when he knew perfectly well that he would let the private sector chop down the forests and had no intention of funding the Disabilities programs? To give your philosophically flawed style v. substance, symbolism v. policy, distinction credit, I'd agree that Americans generally don't sufficiently familiarize themselves with the substantive terms of the nation's complex and boring debates, such as the ones about energy and budgets. (but that's why we have angel hilzoy ; ) But I don't think that distinction supports the claim that Reagan and Bush "...did that because the raw substance is not very popular." For example, human interest stories, such as the one about the eight-baby-birthing mother involve virtually no secondary substance. Or at least, I can't see the concepts being discussed let alone how they're being discussed, i.e. not beyond the question of denying another female the possibility in the future, which is really just a rudimentary question of force. So for me, it is not that Americans (generally) don't indulge substantive stories, it's that, unless their business is effect by an issue, they don't learn the substantive terms of complex issues that are outside their special areas interest. our polis is a politics of professions, not poets as it should be.
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2009 on Michele Bachman: Keeping It Real at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I hope woody is not right, but we shouldn't forget that what pisses-off al Qaeda is that among other things secular forces are so close to Mecca. And as long as the US maintain bases in Iraq, they (and Iraqis) will continue to commit violent acts against US forces, whatever we call them. It's hard to understand, then, how dizzy von could see maintaining the bases is in our interest, especially since the longer we stay the less likely future Iraqis will sell us their oil. So if our interests have anything to do with peace and oil, I can't imagine how staying is in our interest.
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2009 on "We Will Bring Our Troops Home" at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. I'm happy too. He's handling it very well, and I wouldn't be surprise if the guy yanks every soldier out, as the Bush agreement Iraq calls for. I think he is sincere when he says we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis. But I doubt ordinary Iraqis are going to hear a significant distinction in those forces that are part of brigade and those that are named something else.
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2009 on "We Will Bring Our Troops Home" at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
of course raw substance is popular, that's why we see so many personal interest stories in the media and, moreover, that's how hilzoy is able to deny that she's ridiculing Republicans. She knows will privilege the more substantive. But the distinction between style and substance is false because without style there is no way to distinguish one individual from the next. come on, hilzoy, you need to get you class up to speed on these basics.
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2009 on Michele Bachman: Keeping It Real at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I think the idea is to drop it, Gary
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
The fact that they used it [?] in an "unsophisticated" way is exactly what they're being ridiculed for, redwood. This isn't about some words having magic that makes you a bad person for having them come out of your mouth or keyword regardless of context. can you say what it is that the Republicans are being ridiculed for? Because what I see here is a bunch intellectuals using Ebonics to bond with each other in their attempts to ridicule Republicans for trying to speak Ebonics.
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2009 on Michele Bachman: Keeping It Real at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
okay, now, you're all feeling good about using the very language you condemn the Republicans for having used in their, albeit, unsophisticated way? frauds.
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2009 on Michele Bachman: Keeping It Real at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I thought that what we saw with Joe the Plumber was a fraudulent messenger. Another thing I could do is this: hire another worker. If my personal take is going to drop by $50K anyway, I am better off spending that money to "create a new job" rather than send it to the IRS. Crudely speaking, at a 40% marginal rate on my personal income, the net cost to me of that 11th employee is only $30K. If that 11th $50K worker generates only $30K in extra gross revenue, I break even! In my observation, small businesses that hire employees (usually BS artists in marketing) to bring in more business are desperate. Sound small businesses hire employees when the demand for the business' services/goods is such that, unless they do hire someone, the business will lose customers. But that's not always a bad thing.
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Today "middle class" (unqualified) is American-speak for what in other parts of the world is called "working class" with those more prosperous folks mentioned above tacked onto the top end of the category to round things off. We don't like to use terms like "proletariat" or admit that we have a true working class which is quite large in the US, because to do so offends our sense of exceptionalism. does that tell us how, if not by trickling down, our helping the middle class is going to reduce the number of people below the poverty line and in turn boost the numbers of consumers in the marketplace? (Truly, everybody, with me, you're free to define categories any way you want, providing that afterward you don't conclude that in order to reach our teleological ends, the members in the category must be gassed, purged, etc..)
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
But the actual things he's proposing to do are exactly what he said he would do in every stump speech he made during the campaign: a tax cut for everyone making less than $250,000, and paying for univeral health care access with tax increases for those making more than that (a lot of which, I assumed, would simply be the expiration of the Bush tax cuts). I'm afraid Judd Gregg did a great job on NPR tonight spinning that above 250K bracket as anything but the ruling elite: Gregg says those making over $250,000 are frequently the small-business owners and sole proprietors. "Seventy percent of the jobs in America today are created by small-business people," Gregg says. "So basically what you're putting in place is a tax burden which is going to make it very difficult for those folks who are the entrepreneurs and job creators in our society to be successful." The idea of having small business owners pay for a new insurance plan is not going to fly.
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
this is a Democratic meme of the last the decade (or so) that troubles me. (my bold, if it all works): I think this is bad for the country -- we need a prosperous middle class, and something resembling equality of opportunity -- but also baffling on grounds of fairness so middle class money is suppose trickle down? all those hard-working doctors and lawyers are going to shop in the Tenderloin? Or will the Tenderloin evict the poor, marginalizing them to the up-and-coming Fresno Favela? I suspect that some social science studies have shown that a happy population is one with an expanding middle class. but I'm with the old Left who use to argue (and I thought Bill Clinton did) that it is our interest you to get money into pockets of the poor, if only to expand the consumers in the market. how does taking care of the middle class reduce the number below the poverty line?
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Since the debate has begun, I'd like to repeat the call to take medical insurance off the human resources desk. I don't much care how, but its currently a lose lose system for employer and employee. They just don't belong anywhere near our health records.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Hint: if you want to bring up a substantive point, preceding it with an anecdote that is more fiction than fact is not an optimal strategy. Credibility is the coin of the realm. Just saying. right, I thought I was reading a composite of every Business Times article in the U.S. But he really just wants to tells us how unfair life has been to him: so that if the project fails I'll have nothing left of what i've spent my entire life earning. life has given him nothing he has not earned.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
he's trying to drive a stake through the heart of the Reagan coalition by isolating the wealthy. I thought the best line of speech was sizing up Bush economics as giving the nation's wealth to the wealthy.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2009 on More Audaciousness at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
thank you, David. I think you hear me. And you’re lot more helpful than a friend who after reading this thread emailed: There's just so much wrong with pinning this behavior on the "enlightenment", that I hesitate to even wade in and not just for the lack of time, but more because I inevitably will leave out several important flaws in your thinking. funny guy. And perhaps I should re-read H.’s Questions. ‘Formalization’ is exactly what I should investigate before carrying on.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2009 on Space Oddities at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I question common sense. So should you.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2009 on Space Oddities at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
What’s interesting about Will's position is how it adopts one extremely old-school version of conservative thought, while ignoring another entirely. Will is an old-school conservative in that he hasn’t fully embraced democracy. (“In 1913, progressives, believing that more, and more direct, democracy is always wonderful…”). I agree with your larger point, publius, but I'm not convinced that Liberals do not share that same elitist view of governance George Will. If I'm not mistaken, Chomsky claims that we can see that particular anti-[d]emocratic position advocated by James Madison in the Constitutional Convention debates. Check-out Chomsky's lecture in the extras section of the 2008 film, The Chomsky Session: Noam Chomsky on the World. He goes on to lay much of America's elitism at the feet of Liberals. The guy still does bang-up research. I didn't know that Wilson had a chance to release Eugene Debs, my hero, but chose not to. I'll defer to you and/or Chomsky until I read the debates myself, but I'm not convinced that Americans self-identifying as conservation today are less inclined to support the rabble, than today's Liberals.
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2009 on Repeal the 17th Amendment? at Obsidian Wings
1 reply