The above is a very good rule of thumb indeed. It`s a two thumb rule. And would be three if I had three hands. In fact, I would go so far(?) as to say that anything Obama and his ilk have to say is good advice. That is, listen carefully to Obama and Media-Obama and believe/do the EXACT opposite of what is being said. This rule applies to many areas of life as well, as I am sure many of you have by now realized. So just apply what you already know to Obama and Media-Obama and I am pretty sure you will come off the better for it. Put it this way, is Obama making Kim ILL and **Acmedidajob happier or sadder with his policies? I would say happier. And a happy ILL and a happy Acmedidajob should be a clear warning to you. If they are happy, you had better be a bit sad.**(Please check my spelling by accessing the Columbia University archives.)

Like many Americans, I have been closely following the “torture” debate. There has been much angst and debate, and I have indeed been concerned. Has my government been engaging in the evil of torture? If so, then we have indeed slipped far down a slope that is filthy indeed.

I’ve heard a lot of the discussions and accusations, and have decided it’s time for me to weigh in. I’ll do this from several different angles, because for one thing, I don’t think the debate is being framed correctly in any way shape or form. The left has pronounced President Bush as a torturer, no black and white here, the verdict is in, and he is guilty. The conservative has yet to mount a defense, except to claim somewhat meekly “we don’t torture”.

What is torture?

I wish first to come to a working definition of torture. I believe that certain things are black and white, “case closed”. Such things as the laws of nature; you jump off a roof, and you fall to the ground, likely breaking a bone or two. Laws of economics; you spend more than you make, and you wind up broke. I believe the ten commandments are black and white, and you break them willfully at your own risk and peril.

I also believe some things have a degree of relativity about them, that certain things are comprised of a spectrum, not so easily qualified or quantified as black or white. The concept and definition of “torture”, as it is being bantered around today is in this sort of spectral category.

Growing up in America, I learned about the torture regimes of history. The rack, impaling on stakes, quartering, breaking bones, disfiguring, pulling of fingernails and toenails, burial alive in ant hills, crucifixion, burning at the stake; typically resulting in extreme and prolonged pain followed by an agonizing death. We’ve all read about them, as well as the horrors of the Nazi and Soviet camps. These kinds of activities are easy to define as “torture”, because indeed they are.

Then we come to such things as water-boarding and sleep deprivation, the so called “enhanced interrogation” methods. These actions don’t rise to the same level as the others I’ve described, even though they are rough. There is no prolonged pain, disfigurement or death involved.

Thus, I have come to terms with the Bush “enhanced methods”, and do not believe them to rise to a reasonable definition of torture. Further, I object to the perversion of words such as torture. When we give all manner of latitude in defining a word or action, the word itself looses meaning as a useful tool, and it can mean whatever we wish it to be. Words should have meaning.

Motivations.

Motivation is also important when trying to determining what is, and what isn’t torture, and here I see several areas.

There is the basest of all motivations for torture; the perverted desire to inflict pain and suffering for the mere pleasure of doing so.

Another motive is control. Those seeking control of others often use torture as a means of keeping them in line with the agenda of the torturing regime. I place torture as punishment in this category.

Finally, there is the “noble, or righteous” motive. This is the “ticking bomb” motive, or the prevention of great damage. Charles Krauthammer makes a compelling case for this motive in his column Torture? No. Except…. I can accept this “noble” motivation as justification for the “enhanced methods” used on al-Qaeda captives, especially in the aftermath of 9/11/2001.

On the two criteria I’ve cited, I’ve concluded that the Bush administration acted properly, and in accord with what I expect of folks charged with defending this, the greatest nation on God’s green earth.

You may not agree, and that is your privilage.

In all economic systems, the inevitable and indispensable element is the human. There is no economic system that somehow suppresses humanity, supervenes it, or wrings it out of us. Collectivist economic measures in fact amplify its deleterious effects.

And the unappetizing facets of humanity are at work in every human enterprise. That very much includes the activities of the state. To theorize as if we can wield the state to mitigate the effects of pride, emotion, and vengeance on economic behavior is to imply that man somehow operates unaffected by these impulses in his political capacity.

That is the gravest of errors. Humans act far more under the influence of pride, emotion, and vengeance in the realm of politics than in any other, except perhaps that of spousal relations.

I recognize that you did not, in your post at #106, propose any specific redress of capitalism’s imperfections by state action. But someone is always about to. In our Marxist age, identifying something as a “problem” is always a precursor to justifying a government solution for it.

Government — the state — is just another vehicle for pride, emotion, and vengeance, to at least the same extent “capitalism” is. Whatever the equation is, it’s just humans on both sides of it.

It is not possible for humans to so control each other that no outcome is ever influenced by pride, emotion, and vengeance. What IS within our power is deciding what acts we will punish, and seek thereby to deter. The state does best to stick to that model.

I’ll ignore all the empty “nuh-uh!” denials and focus on this one:

“Give me one serious example of someone blaming a minor for the abuse received at the hands of a pedophile.”

Glad to oblige.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi42d3dKDsE

I’ll just bet you’re a culture warrior, eh Mr Mo?

This is an absurd, untrue statement. It is this sort of fantasy — stuff about the “laws of economics” — that is getting conservatives into trouble nowadays. Capitalism is far, far superior to its alternatives, but recent work in the fields of psychology and economics shows us that homo sapiens and homo economicus are not one and the same, and that emotions (AND MORALITY) certainly play into economic exchanges in all types of economies (good Lord, have you read _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_?). Phenomena like anonymous/unrecognized philanthropy often have a moral, emotional impetus, and recent research shows that online communities often defy traditional notions of the inevitability of social loafing and social hoarding (please read _The Wealth of Networks_ for a great study on the new economic paradigms created by the internet).

Different actors wielding different degrees of economic influence make transactions in different ways due to differences in circumstance, emotions, morals, etc. It is surely in our best interest to promote capitalism’s moral aspect — better quality of living for those who take part — and to shy away from notions of capitalism as a purely rational system. America is lucky that its early economic systems made possible the prosperity we see today, but do not doubt for a moment the role of pride, emotion, vengeance, etc. in the market.

regurgitating the exact same B.S.that got you PWNED on another thread?you are starting to suck on a whole new level.

Show me an example of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, or Chris Dodd accepting a modicum of blame for the housing collapse and I’ll consider it.

“And so they turn away from accountability and toward religious victimhood.”

The left is all about victimhood and pitting one group of people against another. Try again.

“Again, they are unwilling and unable to admit that religion demonizes itself.”

I’m guessing you have no idea what it’s like to have real faith. Either that or you can’t stand the thought that morality might actually have its roots in a higher power instead of how you might be feeling at a particular moment.

“They blame the boys for making themselves available to abuse by the priests.”

Give me one serious example of someone blaming a minor for the abuse received at the hands of a pedophile.

“Every refuge the right wing freaks seek has been fouled by their previous presence.”

Sounds like a justification for the beginnings of a purge. Hope you have your hooded red robe and branding iron ready. Oh, you got a little froth at the corners of your mouth there, want a tissue?

“They would do better to stand as strong and principled individuals rather than arbitrary commiserators in the church basement.”

Got any paint thinner for that broad brush of yours? I suppose it’s easier to just lump all of us into one group. Sure beats thinking, doesn’t it?