Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

So a personal relationship qualifies, but a professional one should be ignored? You must be saying there is no scenario at all which warrants a special prosecutor, because as it stands right now, special prosecutors are lawyers "from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or, in the United States, by Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office."

Right.

See above.

TM

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Exactly. And let's not forget that the police have plenty of ways to screw defendents, too. In the real world, it's often about "street justice", and courts are just there to put some icing on the cake.

We have an outrageously high prison population. When we go complaining about repressive regimes, it's important to note many of those we complain about use force much less than we do. (Not to say it's still not worth complaining about places like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, or Russia, even if their rates of incarceration are all significantly lower than ours). You don't get a prison population like ours without giving police and prosecutors extraordinary powers.

Our cops also kill people at rates that would make many a dictator blush.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

This sort of arrangement happens all over the place, only the "jurisdiction" (that's a weird way of referring to the way that prosecutors divide cases within their offices) turns on the type of conduct, not the characteristic of the defendant. Here, Adder will tell you that the conduct is abuse of police power or some such thing, and that it would benefit from prosecutors who focus on this special area, and Bob's your uncle.

Of course, Adder is trying to tell you that he thinks that prosecutors have an institutional relationship with police that creates systemic problems akin to a conflict of interest, even if it doesn't fall within the requirements for that rubric as the law currently stands. That's the starting point for this conversation, not an incidental point of law.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Fourteen men stand accused of rape on different occasions. The crimes are in no way related. Fourteen armed burglaries have occurred. Fourteen separate persons are accused of committing each burglary.

Simple logic says: 5 of each, right? But suppose you wanted to deter rape. Maybe you try 6 rape cases and 4 burglary. What is the danger to the people?

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Under the current system, all the rapists go free, ten of the burglars are beaten to a pulp, four of those ten actually charged and convicted, and the four white ones are let off with a warning.

What's wrong with that? Crime is down.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Why does that seem weird? It's a very good, very concise statement of the basic legal principle under our system. We have gotten lazy and taken to using "jurisdicition" to mean the sovereign or some subset thereof. But, if fact, jurisdiction depends on the type of conduct, even that type of conduct is "all activity defined as criminal activity by the City of Baltimore, within the City of Baltimore, except as other wise provided."

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

I don't think Adder or anyone else is really talking about an "all-cops, cops-only" prosecutor. He's talking about the type of crime -- violence by a cop while on duty and under the cover of his authority. If an off-duty cop is arrested for robbery or domestic abuse, that's different.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Because when I was in the government, we never talked about the kinds of stuff we did as falling within our "jurisdiction." Just making a point about usage.

Dear Ayatollah
 

Dear Ayatollahs Khamenei and Cotton,

It is good to see the two of you becoming pen pals. I think dialogue can be an important way to Peace. I know, however, that there can be some problems with understanding multi-cultural exchanges, so I thought it might be helpful to explain a few things.

First, many of these exchanges have taken place in English, and I know there are a number of American-educated PhDs advising Iran so it has a good sense of what is going on, but it appears that many Republicans in the Senate have trouble understanding precisely what these negotiations are over.

For example, the Republicans talk about the Iranian "nuclear weapons program", even though Iran has repeatedly indicated that they do not have an actual weapons program but instead have a nuclear power program. Moreover, their nuclear facilities are the second-most inspected in the world (behind Japan), and the inspectors have consistently acknowledged that we have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Instead, we are negotiating over whether they have "capacity", in the form of refined, weapons grade material and delivery mechanisms. This is why knowledgeable people, and even people like Netanyahu, talk about what the time to a weapon would be once inspections cease. No knowledgeable person is disputing the ability of an agreement with Iran to ensure they do not have nuclear weapons while the agreement is in place - the dispute is over how much time there might be to a weapon once the agreement terminates.

Of course, an offer from the US Senate to terminate any agreement two years after we enter it must be very encouraging to Iran in this context. The Senate is suggesting Iran might be able to get what it wants today, and then have the Senate or the next President free them from the obligations they agree to in exchange.

The Republicans also seem to believe the topics under discussion are under their jurisdiction. They may not have realized that these are the "5+1" talks, not bilateral negotiations (I know, bilateral is a big long English word - it means talks between just us and Iran). Iran doesn't really need the US to end its sanctions, which have been passed into law, as long as they get the UN off their back. Once China, Russia, India and the EU are all buying their oil, and once they get back their SWIFT codes so they can move money around internationally, they'll be happy. I don't know whether the problem is that Tom Cotton can't read the papers here, or doesn't open emails from the state department unless they come from Hillary's personal account, or whether he just doesn't want to acknowledge that the UN is what Iran cares about instead of the machinations of a bunch of sons of the Confederacy, but I think it's important that someone translate into whatever language the Tea Party has adopted that his new pen pal really doesn't care much about what he says unless it gives his friend leverage over the people Iran really cares about, which are John Kerry and his band.

I hope this letter enriches everyone's understanding of the 5+1 negotiations and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress and the Iranians take a little time out to rub Senate-produced bullshit in America's face.

[Add signature lines for GGG and all of his socks - anyone else want to sign on?]

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

This is your bestest work.

TM

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Thanks. New and improved version on FB.

Unfortunately, I'm talking about stuff of interest to Foreign Policy and ConLaw Geeks. The Senate letter looks like it was written by a political consultant who didn't give a shit about foreign policy or conlaw, just scoring points (and I can't figure out whether this is more about scoring points for Netanyahu in the Israeli election or for Red State senators among Tea Partiers). Most people couldn't care less about reason in this context.

BUT, any Republican presidential candidate who signed that letter handed Hillary a huge weapon in Presidential debates. That is when this should come back to bit them. Even though they'll just say "Iran. Islamist. Bad. Evil." over and over again, I think she can make them look pretty un-Presidential when the time comes.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

I appreciate the technical stuff.

From my perspective, this goes way beyond criticism or political theater. It's an absolutely amazing example of Republicans actively undermining a sitting President. I am continually floored by how little respect they have for the office when they don't like who occupies it. It is the exact opposite of patriotism and someone should be calling them out on it again and again.

I know these assholes are small minded, but one would think that no party would want to set this type of precedent.

TM

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

If the parties were flipped, how many times per hour would you be hearing the word "treason" on Fox News?

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Zero. I live in a Fox News-free zone. But I hear you.

TM

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Well, so do I, but I'd probably hear about it from John Stewart or John Oliver or some such.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

It is amazing to me that they aren't getting criticized by many Republicans. (For an exception, see here). But we ought to see members of the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment, people like Huntsman, Kissinger, and Bush I, ripping these guys 47 new assholes.

I was impressed by the pure snark level of the statement from Zarif, one of the key Iranian players. I think he understands America.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

I've been actively seeking out commentary by conservatives on the Cotton Club's Dear Ayatollah letter. Most are just trying to hide under a rock, but here is a noble but ultimately pretty funny example of just how tortuously an academic boot-licker has to work to come up with an article supporting the letter.

"But when the point of a letter is to lecture people about our law, getting the law wrong is, shall we say, unbecoming." No shit.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

They are so eager to have a different President that they would rather be led by an Israeli. It was a little bizarre.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

I read the crap my cousins post on Facebook. They call the President "Kenya" and discuss his plans to weaken the country.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Really? In tax it is used commonly. Sort of like a synonym to "wheelhouse."

Also, the IRS organizes itself by divisions and has a break along functional lines that is referred informally to as a jurisdiction, such "Gordon was the IRS's Assistant Commissioner for dealing with Stupid question. Your issue is in his wheelhouse.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Tax lawyers are different, Part MMMCLVI.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

In the last day the Foreign Minister of Israel has advocated Israel starting to behead its citizens while the Foreign Minister of Iran has engaged in an intelligent discourse on the US constitution.

I so, so, so hope Bibi loses this election.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

The 47 Traitors stuff is getting to me. I think what they did is incredibly stupid, just like inviting Bibi to speak was stupid, and violated the spirit of the constitution and the Senate's best and traditional role in government. I think they were total asshats in the way they did it, and ignorant to boot.

But the Logan Act probably violates the first amendment and being an idiot who undermines your country's foreign policy is still protected speech. Can we just call them 47 Idiots instead?

Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 

Stopping by to post this picture for Hank, from yesterday's Hillary presser on her emails:

http://i.guim.co.uk/media/w-620/h--/...3_794/1000.jpg

Patton (no, not that one)
 

This is an interesting article. I generally love Patton Oswalt and I think he gets a lot right in this piece. But there are instances where he is entirely way too inside his own experience.

The fact that he thinks humor is always more effective than outrage and shaming is colored by the fact that he's a comedian. The fact that he brushes off points about racists, anti-science types, misogynist, homophobic, ignorant assholes running things because it's so easy to laugh at them is said from a position which is not subject to the everyday oppression those assholes impose.

I also don't like this idea that every joke should be permissible, but someone's reaction to that joke should be tempered. Fuck outta here. I don't think we should be trying to keep people from joking about whole topics. But how is a truly offensive joke--made for the purpose of being offensive--any different than making an offensive slur? Go ahead and make your joke. But just like all things--even speech--there may be consequences to your actions. And I have every fucking right to call you out on your offensiveness.

Finally, his points about white men getting great late-night job offers because they are actually the most talented out there is interesting to me. Seems to me he is conflating "best" with "most successful." Those things don't always match. When it comes to those jobs, the people making the decisions are basing it on the ability to build the affluent white following that sponsors so covet. Does that mean they aren't brilliant? No. But it may mean that other types of people (women, minorities) aren't given the shot because the assumption is they aren't marketable. So, when Patton essentially says, "Why add something about how another white man is getting a great opportunity to a review about how good that white man is," I think, so what? What's the harm being done John Oliver? He is being diminished because we recognize the fact that he may have opportunities others have not? Again, that doesn't mean he shouldn't have a show or that he doesn't deserve one. But it does make you think about the issue a little more (although, I suppose the people who wouldn't take it as an insult to Oliver are already inclined to have the thought on their own).

Anyway, interesting read.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/11/salo..._peace_summit/

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Yes.

Is it Obama Derangement Syndrome, or is the country so polarized that they will do this under another Democratic president?

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

If Hillary wins (or Warren*) it will be no different.

TM

*I wish.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

It's not small minded. It's actual quite expansionist. The modern GOP has lost all sense of boundaries.

Somewhere, George Schultz and H.W. Bush are lamenting this letter in private conversations. This shit would never have happened in their days in office. Blame it on the internet or the volatility of the day, or whatever, but the GOP is no longer behaving like a political party. They're behaving like a political ISIS... Whatever means are necessary, none barred under any circumstances.

These are calculating nihilists. They know the demographics doom them going forward, and so are playing a nuclear hand on every issue. Total war -- exactly as McConnell swore it'd be the day Obama took office.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

You want to know where we're going with Hillary or Jeb (one of them will win)? Start watching defense contractor stocks. Much of it's probably priced in already, but as you see them solidifying their lock on nominations, you'll see defense contractor equities moving upward quite nicely. Because whichever of the two we get, we're going to get a whole lot more interventions abroad.

Hillary and Bill are seeking a legacy built around ending human rights abuses. And Jeb is-- well, he's an establishment Republican, who's owned by the defense complex.

The non-interventionists are going to hate 2016-2024.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

I think you are likely right. But if a white male Dem won, would it be different? I think so. The hatred that they feed off would be less intense.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Bill Clinton might disagree with you. Not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for his signature plan of 1993 (the first year of his Administration), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; you know, the thing where taxes were raised to lower the deficit. Al Gore had to cast a vote to break a tie in the Senate. Chelsea's future mother in law had to swallow her desire for reelection for the good of the country. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnib...on_Act_of_1993

Perhaps the hate would be a bit less visceral, but the GOP would engage in the same sort of scorched earth tactics whether the next president'a first name is Hilary, Elizabeth, Martin, Joe, or Jim.

Re: Patton (no, not that one)
 

Warning: Rant coming

This is not conflation, this is the core of bigotry today. Bigots today are too polite to say we don't want to hire Ordella because of her race or sex or religion. They don't hire Ordella because their customers, or their customers customers, or some other fictional universe THAT IS JUST A PROJECTION OF THEMSELVES might be uncomfortable. Because the audience advertisers crave love any number of Ellens, Oprahs, Arsenios or whatever, when they're talented, and it generally didn't matter, but people get denied the opporunity because the bigot says, gee, yes, Ordella is very talented, but she's going to have barriers to deal with that little white boy won't have, and that will make her less successful, and I'm hiring for success, so I'll take the white boy.

And this happens very politely, hopefully with people not having to say why they like the white boy, but with every room full of white men on a hiring committee magically choosing a white boy for every job from first year associate to being David Letterman. No matter what the talent pool looks like.

And bigots like this cross all kinds of lines, many are quite liberal and would be shocked that anyone's recognized their bigotry. Many of them fit into a category of people who are regularly discriminated against.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

I agree with you in general, but I think you're missing something. Hillary, like Bill before her, will be about the little wars. Bill will tell you history validates his intervention in the Balkans and that history looks ill on his failure to intervene in Rwanda, and he has a point. Hillary will pick the little wars. But she's not going to pick the big wars. Vietnam remains a Democratic nightmare, the last bigger war we pulled the trigger on. But Iraq is our bogeyman, and Afghanistan is not popular among Dems either. So Hillary is going to be very active policing the globe, but she'll have a couple of Balkans, a Libya or two, maybe even a nice Falklands war for Bill O'Reilly.

The biggest problem the Republicans have with both Iraq wars is that they weren't big enough. Jeb is about the big war. His loser father has a legacy of hangers-on now criticizing the 47 idiots at the very time Tom Cotton's stock is rising in Republican ranks. Jeb needs to give the Rs a big one. One they've been waiting for. Jeb needs an Iran.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Sadly, you're right. Also TM on the Oswalt stuff.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

It is not complete lockstep. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/gr...ttons-horrific

Re: Patton (no, not that one)
 

I see it more as recognition getting mad is ultimately futile. And mocking these types of people is the only effective, and truly demeaning response. To get pissed is to admit the crazies have strong enough points to incense you. To satirize them, brush them off with snark, or snicker at their ignorance, marginalizes them in a way no earnest response ever could.

I agree with this. Every subject - literally everything - should be open to joking. However, if one is offended, he can say so.

But I'll ad one important caveat... At least in regard to comedy, being offended confers no moral high ground. It does not automatically require the comedian to apologize. Too frequently in this society, we put the state of being offended on a pedestal - like it's some injury, however slight it may be, that must always be remedied. That's silly. Just because something bothers a person does not entitle him to redress (or the comedian to loss of his show). In exactly the same way a person may say, "Fuck you. I'll be offended, and don't tell me I can't be," a comedian has the right to say, "I note your offense, and I don't give a shit. Turn the channel."

He's talking out of his ass there. The default in all modern network media is to cast the biggest net. White males still do this. Until they don't, I don't see any of this changing. The barrier to entry is being male, after that it's being white. The crop we currently have in late night TV are the funniest whites with penises the network could find. (Though Fallon is demonstrating a level of talent that is truly remarkable. Were he any sex or race, he'd arguably be the best all around entertainer out there.)

Oliver's probably more victim here than anyone else. He could take almost any of the desks in late night TV and do a fantastic job. But he'd never catch a middle American audience because he's too British.

[/QUOTE]

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Good for her.

But she'll no doubt be receiving a memo from Ailes shortly: "Get back in line. (Or I'll have the folks at your Scientology Church start leaking personal information from your 'going clear' sessions.)"

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Even W said going to war with Iran was lunacy -- that inevitably, its population, which is not at all our enemy, would return to its more secular roots and normalize relations with both us and the rest of the world. I highly doubt the crazies in DC and the defense industry can overrule the sensible sorts in the State Dept who'd go on national TV and scream, "We have lost our fucking minds!" if we were to start considering armed conflict with Iran.

There is no way to sell war with Iran. That is not happening.

Regarding Hillary taking us into numerous little wars, if that's the trade off -- "Jeb 2016: Big Wars!" vs. "Hillary 2016: Little Wars!" -- consider me a Hillary vote right now.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

There is serious Jonesing for war with Iran on the right. Did you see the Washington Post Op-Ed from a few days ago? This is coming from one of the guys thought of as a neoconservative intellectual, despite being totally batshit crazy.

The old Republican foreign policy team from the Bush I days is gone, totally juiceless. There are a couple NYT op-ed writers still fond of the days when Americans trusted Rs on foreign policy, but we're now at the point where McCain signs Tehran Tom's letters because he needs cred with the bellicose upstarts.

There is one solution to Iran: capitalism. But from Cotton to McCain to Bibi, every one of Adelson's boys wants to make it another Cuba or worse.

Re: Patton (no, not that one)
 

It can all be open to joking, but has anyone actually made a funny racist joke ever?