Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'll leave aside the "bomb the poor" silliness.

I was being silly, and thought that was clear. But I also do not believe that Republican domestic or foreign policy is driven by a deep and abiding love for free markets -- I think that love for free markets is instrumental and convenient, and easily abandoned for other loves.

Instead, I would guess that both you and GGG have supported sanctions, versus the transformative power of a business relationship, in certain instances, in particular instances -- especially with respect to apartheid South Africa. So you and I could be accused of the same flip-flop as the GOP is engaging in, by supporting that sort of engagement with respect to Iran (and Cuba).

So, why? What makes these cases different?

Not following where I've flip-flopped. In general, I think economic incentives are a more powerful incentive to get people to do what you want them to do than bombing them is. I think we consistently overestimate just how helpful bombing will be in accomplishing our goals, though I also think some people in our society (e.g., rhymes with Thrill Pistol) just groove on bombing people.

For Cuba, it's that sanctions failed, the country poses no threat, and there is a real opportunity for constructive engagement through business and capitalism, because they might benefit the Cuban people broadly (and there's the leadership-transition issue).

For Iran, it's different. Sanctions actually worked there, and brought the regime to a point of wanting to make concessions. Just because sanctions have worked, doesn't mean that more sanctions is the right call; instead, we should reap the benefit here. If this deal closes, Iran will be further away from acquiring nukes than it is now (or was 8 years ago), and a verification regime will be in place. But the regime's power is such that I doubt we'll see a broad beneficial effect to capitalist engagement.

Also, in Iran, we managed multilateral sanctions, which worked in a big way. In Cuba, not so much. I hear a lot of Canadians are unhappy now that they'll be vacationing with Americans in Cuba.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe Republicans don't believe in the transformative power of capitalism, but rather in rich people, and where a country has too many poor people and not enough rich people, bombing will help restore a more favorable balance.

Or not. Just a thought.

Burn, baby, burn.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not following where I've flip-flopped. In general, I think economic incentives are a more powerful incentive to get people to do what you want them to do than bombing them is. I think we consistently overestimate just how helpful bombing will be in accomplishing our goals, though I also think some people in our society (e.g., rhymes with Thrill Pistol) just groove on bombing people.

To be clear, I don't think you've flip-flopped, or that I have. I believed in sanctions vs. South Africa, and believed in them vs. Iran. I also believed in lifting them when they had accomplished their purpose, and engagement could work better.

Sorry to be cranky yesterday, this whole issue and the right-wing babble around it stress me out.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here, again, I think sanctions had their impact, but the real victory goes to the ANC and Mandela, who got change by bringing pressure every way you can, from sanctions to terrorism, on the government.

No question -- we only played a supporting role. But on the list of options that was available to the US, sanctions was the most effective thing, and they were effective. (Okay, supporting the ANC far more fully would have been more effective, but for our own f'd up reasons that wasn't on the list until way too late.)

But, yes, the real victory is to the ANC and Mandela. But aren't you acknowledging that blowing things up can be productive (at least if it's part of a broader approach)?

There is a large and overwhelmingly optimistic Iranian ex-pat community that seems pretty confident of this. That's my barometer. They know better than we do.

I truly hope you are correct. I saw a similar wave of optimism for China during the Tiananmen protests, and that's what scares me. This is, certainly, a much longer arc, but I don't see the religious hard-liners giving up power or getting truly marginalized in the next couple of decades.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

But aren't you acknowledging that blowing things up can be productive (at least if it's part of a broader approach)?

Of course it can.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No question -- we only played a supporting role. But on the list of options that was available to the US, sanctions was the most effective thing, and they were effective. (Okay, supporting the ANC far more fully would have been more effective, but for our own f'd up reasons that wasn't on the list until way too late.)

But, yes, the real victory is to the ANC and Mandela. But aren't you acknowledging that blowing things up can be productive (at least if it's part of a broader approach)?

I truly hope you are correct. I saw a similar wave of optimism for China during the Tiananmen protests, and that's what scares me. This is, certainly, a much longer arc, but I don't see the religious hard-liners giving up power or getting truly marginalized in the next couple of decades.

Let's face it, blowing things up can also be fun. Someday, I'll share some of the photos of long-haired me hanging out with Southern African revolutionaries back in the day.

The Iran deal is the right thing to do because it furthers our national interests, not because it is a recipe for regime change. But, the most interesting questions for a place like Iran are how its regime will evolve and change.

I think the younger generation in Iran seems like its going to be easier to work with and have less fundamentalist baggage than the same generation in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt, all places where the younguns seem to have a larger share of radicalized ideologues from what I can see (my sample is heavily twitter- and blog- based, so, look, it's wholly unscientific). And it may be easier to deal with old revolutionaries trying to run a country than new ones trying to take over one in any case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's sickening how un-funny this actually is. That video was horrifying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's sickening how un-funny this actually is. That video was horrifying.

So why was Scott running? Think the cop told him he was today's target practice?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's sickening how un-funny this actually is. That video was horrifying.

Agree completely. That incident and this graphic got me to wondering whether there is some sort of behavioral explanation for the way police officers act -- you have an initial stop and scuffle and the officers adrenaline is running high, and when the other guy starts running, there's some sort of fight instinct that can't be turned off easily. Officers learn to say the right things about what they thought (I saw a gun, I feared for my life) after the fact, but that is just post hoc dressing for a series of decisions that aren't rational at all.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Let's face it, blowing things up can also be fun.

This is the raison d'etre of my camp at Burning Man.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This is the raison d'etre of my camp at Burning Man.

I want to party with you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

File this under: Wars Being Planned by Republicans.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So why was Scott running? Think the cop told him he was today's target practice?

Because he had a bag of weed in his car or his pocket that he didn't want the cop to see?


Because he was scared? (Not to suggest that this cop was anyone for him to be scared of, of course.)

I can think of any number of other reasons. I can even think of a few hypotheticals that would legally justify shooting a fleeing suspect (running towards a gun, running to attack someone), but the video confirms that none of those were actually happening here.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

File this under: Wars Being Planned by Republicans.

"nothing like the Iraq war." I mean, it's not like anyone ever thought that war would only last a few days or weeks, right?