Man, this is a big issue with me. I am perfectly happy to have a civil discussion with someone about whether what Obama has done is good or bad. That's perfectly reasonable. But anyone who claims he hasn't done ANYTHING is either arguing in bad faith or massively ignorant. Maybe both. Satyr's list is good, but you should also add the tobacco bill he just signed. Spoon-san's dad is quite right, we haven't had a proactive president like this in a long long time. Sure, there are things he hasn't done that he said he would, and there are way more things he hasn't done that people wish he would. But on top of his already mammoth agenda, he's been touring Europe and the Middle East, trying to rebuild our shattered image abroad and form new relationships with countries that we've had very hostile interactions with recently. Oh, and did I mention that he eased restrictions on travel to Cuba and allowed Cuban Americans to send money to their families? These things are NOT trivial. Obviously I'm a fan, and I'm speaking from that position, but even if you disapprove of these things, how can anyone argue they didn't happen? It makes less sense than denying the holocaust for crying out loud!

OK, rant off. Now to debate: let's talk about the bailouts.

I think what you're talking about is called moral hazard, Prince. It's a very valid concern that if an investor doesn't have to face consequences they may make reckless investment decisions, knowing they won't get in trouble. The problem is, in this case, the banks already MADE the reckless decisions. So we kind of had nothing to lose. Also, it's important to note that the way these companies are run these days, most of the INDIVIDUALS who were responsible for these decisions will never have to suffer the consequences. Look up golden parachutes and you'll see what I mean. Now I'm a little ambivalent about the bailout, mostly because we're already in debt up to our eyeballs, and I'm getting genuinely nervous about where this money is coming from. Because I actually know where it's coming from, and I think most people really don't get it. (Here's a hint, look in the mirror.) But the arguments for the bailout are reasonable too...

Complicating the issue of refinancing the home loans is that no one person owns them anymore. To refinance them, you now have to negotiate with many different entities, many of whom are based in foreign countries, or may be foreign citizens. Our government can hardly enforce a renegotiation on them, so... problem. Of course, getting paid a little less beats having an unwanted house on your hands, so they should be somewhat amenable, but you see what I mean I hope.

I just wish we'd finally legalize, regulate and tax marijuana, that would make a decent dent in our financial problems. Might fix California's budget problem entirely.

It's been a busy couple news days -- most of it good regardless of your politics! 

- First and foremost, July employment numbers indicate that job losses have fallen to their lowest level in months, and the unemployment rate held steady or even fell for the first time in over a year.  Nate Silver of 538.com correctly points out that some of the improvement in the unemployment rate is due to discouraged workers giving up on finding work and therefore no longer being counted as "unemployed," but even so, this is unambiguously good news.  As of this morning, the Dow was higher than it's been all year.

- Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the next Justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31.  Nine Republicans crossed party lines to vote for Sotomayor; all sixty Democrats (except Ted Kennedy, who abstained due to illness) voted for her as well.

- "Cash for Clunkers" was extended.  Now, for several more months, there will still be $4500 in it for you if you trade in your gas guzzler for a car with better mileage.  This program seems to have done a great job stimulating consumer spending on cars (though we may see a dip later in the year once everyone who wanted to trade has done so) and should have generally positive effects on carbon emissions and gasoline consumption.

- After a couple of the most lethal months for coalition troops since the occupation of Afghanistan, today we seem to have killed Baitullah Mehsud, a key Pakistani Taliban leader and the mastermind behind Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination a couple years back.  The Taliban are not a monolithic organization, so this is not a case of "cut off the head and the body will follow," but it's a step in the right direction.

- Florida Senator Mel Martinez, the Senate's only Hispanic Republican (and one of the nine who voted for Sotomayor), announced that he will resign imminently; previously, it was expected that he would simply wait till his term expires in 2010 and then retire.  This move will allow Florida's moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, to appoint Martinez's replacement.  There is some speculation that Crist, who is thought to have designs on that Senate seat as a stepping stone to the presidency, may appoint himself.  (This is perhaps more wonkish news than the previous few items.)

- And Twitter was shut down yesterday by a denial-of-service attack.  LJ and Facebook were also attacked and suffered slowdowns.  Google was also attacked, but no one noticed because Google has more processing power than anyone else on the planet.  The media is reporting that all these attacks were targeting a single individual, a pro-Georgian blogger [the country, not the state] who is blaming the Russian government (which seems farfetched to me).

Last edited by satyreyes (08-07-2009 11:08:45 AM)

Asfalolh wrote:

Satyr, did you edit your post to add the news concerning Sotomayor, or it's me who didn't read it well the first time? I was about to comment how the only USA news I heard today was Sotomayor's new place in the Supreme Court, and that you hadn't mentioned it...

(If you had originally already written about Sotomayor, I guess I'm having a weird day...)

You're not going crazy; I added that in via edit once I realized that I'd left out one of the most important parts

Some context on her confirmation: until and including the Clinton years, most justices were appointed close to unanimously if they were appointed at all.  It's only in recent years that a judge's politics have begun to matter in their confirmation.  The Democrats are responsible for that trend, I'm afraid.  When George W. Bush appointed John Roberts as Chief Justice in 2005, the Democrats split 22-22 on his confirmation, even though none of them could point to specific gaps in his experience, temperament, etc., that made him an unfit justice; they just didn't like his politics.  Similarly, when Samuel Alito was confirmed in '06, Democrats voted against him 40-4, again on matters of politics (though to be fair, Alito was a much more hard-right conservative than Roberts had been).  The Republicans appear to be having their revenge now, as they voted against Sotomayor 31-9.

Compare that to the previous few appointees.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3; Stephen Breyer 80-10; Anthony Kennedy 97-0; Antonin Scalia 98-0.  Only Clarence Thomas, who barely scraped through with a 52-48 vote when Bush I appointed him in '91, faced substantial opposition, and that was because of serious sexual harassment allegations rather than his politics.

The comparison between Martinez and Palin is interesting; both are stepping down in the middle of their first term for no adequately explained reason.  I have no clue why Martinez is resigning.  He's not too old (at 62), and unlike Palin, apart from his notorious involvement in the Terri Schiavo affair a lifetime ago he has not been followed by substantial controversy or scandal.  Possibly Martinez is frustrated at being in a 60-40 minority -- historically, members of the minority party tend to be more likely to decline to run for reelection -- but why now instead of when his term expires anyway in just one year?  The only thing I've read that makes any sense is that Martinez has expressed an interest in becoming the president of his alma mater Florida State University, a position that just became open.  Maybe Martinez and Palin have both just decided this life isn't for them?  Or maybe Martinez wants to make sure he gets replaced by a Republican -- but Crist will be in a sticky situation as far as whom to appoint.

Last edited by satyreyes (08-07-2009 12:05:09 PM)

Nanami's Rose Groom wrote:

Our politicians have forced the law of "forced chemical pedophile castration", after they're sentenced. Sounds good... I think...

That's interesting.  On one hand, it, I imagine, will be very effective in putting a decline on pedophilia related incidents, on the other hand, that's a very permanent punishment.  I think it is just, but there are occasionally people who do change their whole ways and outlook, and for that, while they technically have to lie in the bed they have made, that part of me and I guess many of us which appeals to mercy may have mixed feelings.  Or maybe I'm just projecting my own feelings. 

But still, you reap what you sow.  Law of the universe.

edit:  v Thanks for the clarification.  Well...in that case, what problems I did have with it are not as great.  But still, it makes you think about the humaneness of it, despite their own inhumane actions.

Last edited by spoon-san (09-26-2009 02:33:48 PM)

That's actually not how you think. The punishments for pedophilia were extremely low (up to 5 years prison, I think) in Poland. After they got back, they started to harm children again. That's why the law was issued, and what's more important, the punishment for pedophilia acts was increased to 15-20 years (almost as much as for murder, which is usually from 25 to life). I think it should be the judge's decision if one should be castrated or go to prison for a looong time.

Only 5 years?  Heh, no wonder.  You learn something new every day.  In that case, yeah, high time to crack down.  I mean, don't get me wrong, I know and think those people are sick, but I'm not one of those people who think people doing something so morally depraved ought to be put through inhumane things, but a slap on the wrist is pretty inhumane as well to past and potential victims.

I'm going to second asfaloh- I think its more is a medical thing to limit the chemicals in your brain. I don't think you go sterile, and it's not dipping your junk in acid to dissolve it. (Apparently, everyone I knew swore that was it...) And I think as soon as they stop taking it, they can get it up again or what have you.

...I'd look it up, but I'm far too trippy. D: Sorries.

Actually, I'd be surprised if chemical castration is much of a deterrent, but then I suppose I don't really know how pedophiles think. Mostly it seems to me that rational thought isn't the driving force behind such behavior. I mean, if you're whack enough to think that touching a 5-year old is a good idea, I don't think "they might reduce my testosterone levels" is going to be much of a concern. It would probably be more effective as a means of rehabilitation actually, although Naji makes the excellent point that it only addresses the biological urge, not the psychological one. But it's also true that they're related.

Coming from the perspective of protecting the citizens, pedophiles can be more dangerous than murderers. They're a bit like a cancer, in that they can make healthy people into deranged freaks like them. It's not quite that simple of course, but it seems like that sort of thing is more insidious than just shooting a convenience store clerk. But you'll also never hear me say that a person can be punished based on how their crime MIGHT affect their victim years later. And then again on the punishment side, it's true that pedophiles have an EXTREMELY high rate of repeat offense. This is a case where I may actually be ok with capital punishment, as long as guilt can be adequately established. So if the chemical castration thing actually works, I'm all for it.

dlaire wrote:

I don't like the word 'castration' in Polish debate - it's not removing balls so the word that is used just isn't correct. Basically, it's making pedophiles take one pill every day to put their libido down. Sex addicts use similiar kind of pill. Still, pills won't solve any problem, therapy is necessary. As far I know, criminals are supposed to leave jail when they are capable of living healthy social life.

This may be true, but in America, anyway, prison is rarely taken seriously as a way of rehabilitating criminals.  Most of us think of prison, in order, as A) a punishment for the criminal, B) a public safety measure to keep the criminal off the streets, and C) a deterrent to discourage others from committing crimes.  If you say "I think the point of prison should be to reform criminals and teach them how to be productive members of a community," you would probably be laughed at as among the most liberal of liberals.  Similarly, if you say "I think criminals should be treated humanely while in prison," a lot of people will instantly accuse you of undermining the foundations of the American judicial system.  Studies on whether criminals can be rehabilitated have had mixed results and the issue probably deserves further study, but near-term reform seems unlikely.  There's also the complicating factor that we imprison 1% of our adult population -- more than any other nation in the world, including China.  (1 in 4 prisoners in the world is a prisoner in America.)  Consequently, our prisons are overcrowded and it's all we can do to manage our inmates, much less give them therapy.  Maybe if we didn't go around jailing people caught with two grams of pot in their glove compartment we wouldn't have this problem. 

Pedophiles in particular I don't have much to say about.  It wouldn't particularly bother me to see people who have abused children put in jail for life, if such a law wouldn't encourage child abusers to kill their victims to eliminate witnesses (since in many states life in prison is the worst sentence you can hand out anyway).  If we have to release pedophiles, we should do effectiveness studies to see whether chemical castration actually works, and if it does, I would use it.  The only moral problem I have with any of this is that some nonzero percentage of convicted child molesters are probably innocent, a possibility that haunts every conceivable punishment regime; but at least prison time and chemical castration are reversible if new exonerating evidence comes to light.

Last edited by satyreyes (09-27-2009 08:41:17 AM)

Well it's about damn time. I'm guessing Kansas is NOT one of the states where it can be prescribed, but I mostly look forward to the day when we won't be shoving so much money up our own collective ass by trying to stop people from smoking weed on their couches.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love this Obama dude?

DLBE POST GAIZ :OOOO

Not that I expect anyone particularly cares about English politics, but I was wondering if any of you were aware of what's going down at the minute with the leader of the British National Party appearing on Question Time? For those of you who don't know, the BNP is a far-right nationalist organisation that has ties to white supremacy groups and is generally quite reviled here for being racist, homophobic and Islamaphobic. Unfortunately they're also getting to be quite popular (1 million voters and an MEP), so the BBC decided to let their leader, Nick Griffin, on a long-running political programme called 'Question Time'. It's been all over the English papers and facebook, incidentally.
I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on this, because quite a few people here seem to be saying that he shouldn't have been let on the programme as it gives him publicity and a chance to try and win people over, but the BBC's saying that it's not fair to censor him. Personally as much as I'm against the BNP, I do recongise that the 1 million people who voted for him chose him to be their representative and have a right to make their opinions heard. On the other hand, the BNP are notorious for being racist shits and holocaust deniers, so...yeah, that's not great.
I suppose it kind of comes down to media responsibility and free-speech and all that in the end.

I have to say I support the BBC's decision. If we're fortunate, pointing out to people that this man has real political prospects may scare whatever rational people are left in the world into voting for a change. Or teaching some children that hate is wrong, or whatever you do to stop people from being moronic bigots. I have to confess I'm not terribly optimistic about that one at the moment, hatred seems to be on the rise all over the globe. But in any case, if people are stupid enough to vote for this guy, the BBC can't really be blamed for that. And since the BBC (unlike, say, FOX) attempts to be an honest broker, they're not allowed to take sides, no matter how obvious that side may be to an individual.

As for your political sympathies, it's not like it's wrong to hate child molesters. I mean, they're repugnant. It doesn't make you some kind of fascist to want them in jail for a long time.