Was just thinking, if we need to find out what happened at Gitmo as a matter of national security, does the precedent "established" by Cheney et al now justifies the torture of Cheney et al to extract that information?
Could we rescind the law only after a few fried testicles?
I've been saying for days now this whole "not in my backyard" thing is an example of an issue nobody in America is concerned about at all... until...every other talking head on t.v. starts regurgitating the sentiment over and over again until Viola! it's repeated by every other American at the proverbial kitchen table. It's a virus.
Stewart's a good antidote though. I liked him pointing out the U.S. is very good at locking people up; Number One in the world---take that China! But the brain eater guy bit gets the prize, because it really illustrates the inanity of this (fake) concern.
NIMBY has always been with us. Every conservative wants more prisons...until one of those prisons is a mile away. It's the same ol' something for nothing think. Don't sleep.
I realize the NIMBY complex has been around for quite sometime, but my point is it doesn't apply logically to this particular issue. As far as I know we're not talking about building new prisons, but utilizing existing ones. So I see the NIMBY argument here more as a red herring---rather than "something for nothing think." It's a way for conservatives to block the closing of Gitmo without having to defend the unpopular position of keeping Gitmo open.
I was worried that Stewart would be off his game once Obama was in office. If anything, after seeing this, I think he's going to be funnier because the jokes won't be as obvious. Bush was so easy to make fun of. Besides, he's still got the media to skewer, and I suspect he'll be introducing us to a lot of the quacks representing us in congress over the next few years.
I was just in Colorado this weekend, and in the cab from the airport I overheard news-radio discussion of the potential Colorado Supermax prison destination for some of the Gitmo prisoners. That was when I first heard the kind of nonsense that Stewart goes after in this wonderful piece.
If it's a "supermax" prison then, presumably, it's prepared to deal with anything we might send at it. Believing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, or even Osama bin Laden himself, could somehow magically defy the bars of an American maximum security prison is to give these men more power than they deserve, and exactly as much as they want. If we can lock up Manson, and Bundy, and Dahmer, then we can certainly lock up any terrorist that comes along.
I came home to find Stewart's piece waiting for me on the DVR and shouted with appreciation. His adding Timothy McVeigh to the mix was the capper, and I was sorry I hadn't thought of that example myself.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Was just thinking, if we need to find out what happened at Gitmo as a matter of national security, does the precedent "established" by Cheney et al now justifies the torture of Cheney et al to extract that information?
Could we rescind the law only after a few fried testicles?
Jon Stewart is a genius. His comedy during the campaign season was stellar.
I've been saying for days now this whole "not in my backyard" thing is an example of an issue nobody in America is concerned about at all... until...every other talking head on t.v. starts regurgitating the sentiment over and over again until Viola! it's repeated by every other American at the proverbial kitchen table. It's a virus.
Stewart's a good antidote though. I liked him pointing out the U.S. is very good at locking people up; Number One in the world---take that China! But the brain eater guy bit gets the prize, because it really illustrates the inanity of this (fake) concern.
Tessa,
NIMBY has always been with us. Every conservative wants more prisons...until one of those prisons is a mile away. It's the same ol' something for nothing think. Don't sleep.
one down, who knows how many more to go...
A TEST CASE FOR OBAMA
After Guantanamo, What Next for Bagram?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,604052,00.html
@R.oB.
I realize the NIMBY complex has been around for quite sometime, but my point is it doesn't apply logically to this particular issue. As far as I know we're not talking about building new prisons, but utilizing existing ones. So I see the NIMBY argument here more as a red herring---rather than "something for nothing think." It's a way for conservatives to block the closing of Gitmo without having to defend the unpopular position of keeping Gitmo open.
just more evidence that the entire republican/fox news approach to terrorism is and has always been:
be afraid!! hide! run! under your beds!!
if terrorism means actively spreading terror among civilian populations...
I was worried that Stewart would be off his game once Obama was in office. If anything, after seeing this, I think he's going to be funnier because the jokes won't be as obvious. Bush was so easy to make fun of. Besides, he's still got the media to skewer, and I suspect he'll be introducing us to a lot of the quacks representing us in congress over the next few years.
I was just in Colorado this weekend, and in the cab from the airport I overheard news-radio discussion of the potential Colorado Supermax prison destination for some of the Gitmo prisoners. That was when I first heard the kind of nonsense that Stewart goes after in this wonderful piece.
If it's a "supermax" prison then, presumably, it's prepared to deal with anything we might send at it. Believing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, or even Osama bin Laden himself, could somehow magically defy the bars of an American maximum security prison is to give these men more power than they deserve, and exactly as much as they want. If we can lock up Manson, and Bundy, and Dahmer, then we can certainly lock up any terrorist that comes along.
I came home to find Stewart's piece waiting for me on the DVR and shouted with appreciation. His adding Timothy McVeigh to the mix was the capper, and I was sorry I hadn't thought of that example myself.