Political Myopia: Where you stand depends on where you sit.

[Que]

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

It is an age-old expression that I've heard a thousand times and often found quite relevant. Intelligent and honest people can be looking at the same question, but through different lenses, and thus see different things. Sadly, though, in today's culture, rarely can there be a reasonable difference of opinion. Anyone holding an alternative view is seen as stupid, unknowledgeable, dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, or some combination thereof.

"Political Myopia" -Charles Cook in "The National Journal." Rest Here

 

[Que]

In the above article he discuses the swap of five Taliban fighters from GITMO for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdah from the varied perspective of his son, who served in a similar area of operation to the one where Bergdah deserted his post, his own feelings as a worried parent who had a son on the front-line, to the assumed feelings of the parents who lost sons in the several rescue attempts to recover Bergdah.

I have had trouble "picking a side" on that particular exchange for those reasons and more. I lean towards it was a bad idea in emboldening asymmetrical warriors worldwide that holding soldiers gives great leverage.

I am not naive enough though to consider that whether you do something to encourage it or not, they are already eager to grab soldiers, contractors and civilians anyway.

It seems to me you can't simultaneously call the people holding out military combatant in their home country "terrorists" and "hostage takers" while holding their comrades in arms indefinate detention as "battlefield combatants."

There are no good answers here.

Applying such concepts as the Geneva Convention and American Judicial Process to people who recognize neither, except as it can benefit their attempts to harm us, only unnecessarily burdens us for zero gain.

I understand the viewpoint of doing it anyway because we want to be "better than our enemies," but it seems odd coming often from those that see no inconsistencies between "respecting the culture" of people that have declared us their enemies, while showing not even lip-service respect to the beliefs of some of their fellow Americans religious practices.

I figured a thread for "I dunno." might be constructive. I doubt it though.

 

[toubab]

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

It is an age-old expression that I've heard a thousand times and often found quite relevant. Intelligent and honest people can be looking at the same question, but through different lenses, and thus see different things. Sadly, though, in today's culture, rarely can there be a reasonable difference of opinion. Anyone holding an alternative view is seen as stupid, unknowledgeable, dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, or some combination thereof.

"Political Myopia" -Charles Cook in "The National Journal." Rest Here

I find it strange that there are so many political hardliners here. Most of them are on the left, obviously, but there are quite a few on the right, as well. It's not a good thing, in my opinion. Neither side is right all the time.

 

[Que]

I find it strange that there are so many political hardliners here. Most of them are on the left, obviously, but there are quite a few on the right, as well. It's not a good thing, in my opinion. Neither side is right all the time.

Agreed. I am of the opinion that if the Libertarian Party was not universally considered a bastion of cranks and crack-pots, the majority of posters who have strong political opinions of whatever stripe would agree with one or more of the planks in that party.

I have a friend who was apolitical when we roomed together for a while while i was rebuilding my life after a divorce. We talked politics hardly at all. It genuinely held no interest for him.

All he knew was that his Dad, both a Ford and UAW retiree working directly for the union outside of Ford was understandably a Democrat.

He now fills my feed daily with anti-GMO, anti-drug-war, pro-pot, anti-administration-dissembling, anti-banker, anti-police-abuse, anti-crime, pro-military, pro-veteran, anti-amnesty (he has family that straddles the border, his mom is straight out of Sonora), anti-racism, anti-abuse of women, HOT chick pics, anti-democrat, anti-republican stuff. I like his consistency. The one holdout belief of his is that the extortion of employers and the coercion of employees by unions and the unions spending money in support of causes and candidates he disdains is somehow OK.

I bought a VW camper years ago... I removed the "Meat is Murder!" sticker. A while later, I saw the same sticker on a car with also, "Keep YOUR Laws Off MY Body!" As if the two positions are compatible. What she chooses to take out of her body is not my business, but awfully judgy about what I choose to put into mine.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I agree with Mencken's observation that all laws and popular causes are hostile conspiracies against the citizen caught alone.

I say government, at its best, is Capone and Bugsy Moran fighting for control of Chicago.

 

[Que]

I agree with Mencken's observation that all laws and popular causes are hostile conspiracies against the citizen caught alone.

I say government, at its best, is Capone and Bugsy Moran fighting for control of Chicago.

So, let's send the Democrats West to run Vegas with the Reid Family...


Menken fits in somewhere in the never-ending fight amongst libertarian for the "true" meaning of not visiting harm or the threat of harm on anyone through coercion or the threat of force.

To go from "We can't have ANARCHY!!!" to where we are now with everyone fighting to be in charge of who is regulated, in what way, by and to benefit whom, seems to leave a lot of middle ground unexplored.

There is at this point no human activity in the land that is not in some way touched upon by a need for gov'ment approval of something. Even the manufacture and distribution of petroleum jelly....

..and most people seem pretty neutral about that until their ox is gored, inspected, taxed and or confiscated.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So, let's send the Democrats West to run Vegas with the Reid Family...


Menken fits in somewhere in the never-ending fight amongst libertarian for the "true" meaning of not visiting harm or the threat of harm on anyone through coercion or the threat of force.

To go from "We can't have ANARCHY!!!" to where we are now with everyone fighting to be in charge of who is regulated, in what way, by and to benefit whom, seems to leave a lot of middle ground unexplored.

There is at this point no human activity in the land that is not in some way touched upon by a need for gov'ment approval of something. Even the manufacture and distribution of petroleum jelly....

..and most people seem pretty neutral about that until their ox is gored, inspected, taxed and or confiscated.

Liberty forever exists in a politically corrosive environment that harms liberty where it can. The fix is equal protection for plaintiff and defendant.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Interesting thread query.


JAMES - From where I sit it seems that we no longer want Justice to be blind, but that we want it to make subjective valuations and get past the petty issue(s) involving plaintiff and get to the justice required (or punishment) by plaintiff's group status.

 

[Que]

I was thinking about process crimes today having spent some time re-visting the Libby transcripts. I had that in mind when I ran across another article..

I don't have the link handy. I'll add it if I can later..

Some probably first generation immigrant is making a living in one of those fringe head shops. He gets raided and the fake marijuana "spice" that he is selling is confiscated. Along with $200K. He goes to court and wins because spice was not yet illegal at the time of the seizure. Since it was adjudicated at a later date that spice was to be classed as illegal as being an "analog" of marijuana, it was decided that the Feds get to keep the money because he was profiting from something that would later be illegal.

In making the determination that they would keep the money the Feds smugly said that the civil forfeiture statutes don't require a conviction, or even a charge in order to have your little hearing and keep the money.

The guy's lawyers said he isn't fighting it... Probably because lawyers don't do RICO statute cases pro-bono, or for a percentage of the proceeds like ambulance chasers.

Now....you can be GO-team-USA on the drug war, or be a raving pothead, but how can anyone think the public interest was served here?

I detest the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Which law? There are a lifetime's study worth on the books between local state, federal jurisdictions...hell... I risk tribal law on 4 reservations regularly. And never mind regulatory agency "findings" that have the force of law.

In this case he knew what the law was... sidled up to the legal side of it, was careful not to put a toe on or over the line, and he loses $200K plus attorney's fees.

 

[Ishmael]

I was thinking about process crimes today having spent some time re-visting the Libby transcripts. I had that in mind when I ran across another article..

I don't have the link handy. I'll add it if I can later..

Some probably first generation immigrant is making a living in one of those fringe head shops. He gets raided and the fake marijuana "spice" that he is selling is confiscated. Along with $200K. He goes to court and wins because spice was not yet illegal at the time of the seizure. Since it was adjudicated at a later date that spice was to be classed as illegal as being an "analog" of marijuana, it was decided that the Feds get to keep the money because he was profiting from something that would later be illegal.

In making the determination that they would keep the money the Feds smugly said that the civil forfeiture statutes don't require a conviction, or even a charge in order to have your little hearing and keep the money.

The guy's lawyers said he isn't fighting it... Probably because lawyers don't do RICO statute cases pro-bono, or for a percentage of the proceeds like ambulance chasers.

Now....you can be GO-team-USA on the drug war, or be a raving pothead, but how can anyone think the public interest was served here?

I detest the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Which law? There are a lifetime's study worth on the books between local state, federal jurisdictions...hell... I risk tribal law on 4 reservations regularly. And never mind regulatory agency "findings" that have the force of law.

In this case he knew what the law was... sidled up to the legal side of it, was careful not to put a toe on or over the line, and he loses $200K plus attorney's fees.

The RICO act is one of the most abused laws on the books. Quite literally a license to steal.

Ishmael

 

[Que]

The RICO act is one of the most abused laws on the books. Quite literally a license to steal.

Ishmael

the so called "ill gotten gains" punishment matches no other punishment for crime with the possible exception of capital murder and the death penalty.

If you are a highly successful drug dealer, and you get caught the maximum the government should be able to assess you should be time served whatever society deems appropriate, and back taxes and penalties like any white collar tax cheat would pay.

So one drug dealer makes a 100K and spends a large portion of it on whores and whiskey, then wastes the rest, the government gets nothing.

Another one takes his 100k and reinvests it in various places to "launder" the cash which really means repatriating it into the economy and paying taxes on it....

The government gets his 100k of "ill-gotten gains" as well as all the other money earned legitimately.

I know a guy that got caught with 72K in petty cash laying around his LA stereo store. The DEA had been eyeballing him and assuming he would use the shop to effect transfers of product. He did his 5 years, and now has a modest job that he pays taxes on and smiles a lot, as he is I would guess comfortably retired.

If his product at the time was legal, the taxes he would have paid would have far exceeded the $72K seized. Never mind the morality of drug laws, it makes poor economic sense...paying out resources to effect a prohibition, making the product more dear to consumers who then pay a higher price to those either clever or ruthless enough to avoid being caught or probably having a legal or illegal "license" from some govt official.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

the so called "ill gotten gains" punishment matches no other punishment for crime with the possible exception of capital murder and the death penalty.

If you are a highly successful drug dealer, and you get caught the maximum the government should be able to assess you should be time served whatever society deems appropriate, and back taxes and penalties like any white collar tax cheat would pay.

So one drug dealer makes a 100K and spends a large portion of it on whores and whiskey, then wastes the rest, the government gets nothing.

Another one takes his 100k and reinvests it in various places to "launder" the cash which really means repatriating it into the economy and paying taxes on it....

The government gets his 100k of "ill-gotten gains" as well as all the other money earned legitimately.

I know a guy that got caught with 72K in petty cash laying around his LA stereo store. The DEA had been eyeballing him and assuming he would use the shop to effect transfers of product. He did his 5 years, and now has a modest job that he pays taxes on and smiles a lot, as he is I would guess comfortably retired.

If his product at the time was legal, the taxes he would have paid would have far exceeded the $72K seized. Never mind the morality of drug laws, it makes poor economic sense...paying out resources to effect a prohibition, making the product more dear to consumers who then pay a higher price to those either clever or ruthless enough to avoid being caught or probably having a legal or illegal "license" from some govt official.

Government exists to keep the royals in cash, pay the soldiers, and bribe enemies to behave.

 

[Que]

Speaking of Libby...and myopia...

In an effort to dispel the false inflation of what he was actually charged with and why, I found myself in the distasteful position of arguing on the behalf of a political weasel like Libby.

Every administration has them. Gophers that do stuff, liaise with the press, maintain a hint of the plausible denial...

On the other side of the fence those who are just rabid about the treacherous behavior of Libby, are OK with the documented releasing the personnel file, in total, of a BATF whistle blower in an effort to discredit him.

Libby, though his quick-stepping has been conflated to include him being the source of the leak, had some idea that it was at least possible that the leak was done maliciously...(as it turned out it was a goof)..so he probably did dissemble in an effort to prolong, delay and possibly obstruct an investigation...even when the truth was not as harmful as they feared.

The other side of the fence is not only OK with the administration's obstructions on several ongoing investigations, they object to the investigation occurring at all.

....and they are not the least bit embarrassed by the glaring inconsistencies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Indeed...

 

[Liar]

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

It is an age-old expression that I've heard a thousand times and often found quite relevant. Intelligent and honest people can be looking at the same question, but through different lenses, and thus see different things. Sadly, though, in today's culture, rarely can there be a reasonable difference of opinion. Anyone holding an alternative view is seen as stupid, unknowledgeable, dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, or some combination thereof.

"Political Myopia" -Charles Cook in "The National Journal." Rest Here

Has it ever really been otherwise though? Was there a golden age of gentlemanny political discourse? Looking back at ye olde poilitical cartoons, posters and columns, it doesn't really seem that way. The "other side" has, it seems, always been either belittled or demonized.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Has it ever really been otherwise though? Was there a golden age of gentlemanny political discourse? Looking back at ye olde poilitical cartoons, posters and columns, it doesn't really seem that way. The "other side" has, it seems, always been either belittled or demonized.

And in some cases attacked on the floor of Congress with a cane.

 

[Amberchgo]

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

It is an age-old expression that I've heard a thousand times and often found quite relevant. Intelligent and honest people can be looking at the same question, but through different lenses, and thus see different things. Sadly, though, in today's culture, rarely can there be a reasonable difference of opinion. Anyone holding an alternative view is seen as stupid, unknowledgeable, dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, or some combination thereof.

"Political Myopia" -Charles Cook in "The National Journal." Rest Here

There seems to be a big diff depending on whether you live in urban or rural areas.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Neither side is right all the time.

Very true, but ever since Movement Conservatism took over the GOP they do seem to be wrong all the time.

They didn't used to be, back in the day, when there were such things as "Rockefeller Republican" liberals.

 

[Que]

Very true, but ever since Movement Conservatism took over the GOP they do seem to be wrong all the time.

They didn't used to be, back in the day, when there were such things as "Rockefeller Republican" liberals.

There still are "Rockefeller" Republicans...except they are Democrats.

There seems to be a big diff depending on whether you live in urban or rural areas.

The concept of the government as protector is easier to see and appreciate in an urban environment.

When I lived a few miles east in another state the county Sheriff was a minimum of 45 minutes away. What is the point of having one with an average of an hour and a half response time?

Not much has changed since Billy the Kid escaped from these parts.

The other day we had three armed, poorly trained BLM guys at the door in tactical vests. The were wanting to chat about a loud noise in the desert.

The thing about the "feds" is they are also, of course neighbors and in some cases friends. The guy they came to talk to had gone to high school with one of them. Their "evidence" came from a Facebook post. They are no longer "friends" at least on Facebook. Nothing was accomplished...

In the country little is asked of the feds except to stay out of the way.

The feds own a lot of poorly managed land that tends to be between where you are and where you want to be.

Has it ever really been otherwise though? Was there a golden age of gentlemanny political discourse? Looking back at ye olde poilitical cartoons, posters and columns, it doesn't really seem that way. The "other side" has, it seems, always been either belittled or demonized.

And in some cases attacked on the floor of Congress with a cane.

I suppose there had always been vitriol...these days though t seems like people don't even understand the existence of the ideas behind the opposition.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There still are "Rockefeller" Republicans...except they are Democrats.

Whatever you call them, at least they're not always wrong, which the remaining Pubs are.

 

[Que]

Whatever you call them, at least they're not always wrong, which the remaining Pubs are.

What happened to blue-dog democrats?

 

[Dream59]

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

It is an age-old expression that I've heard a thousand times and often found quite relevant. Intelligent and honest people can be looking at the same question, but through different lenses, and thus see different things. Sadly, though, in today's culture, rarely can there be a reasonable difference of opinion. Anyone holding an alternative view is seen as stupid, unknowledgeable, dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, or some combination thereof.

"Political Myopia" -Charles Cook in "The National Journal." Rest Here

No it depends on how honest you are with yourself. Blindly agreeing with the left or the right just shows self deceit, and the lack of the ability to reason.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What happened to blue-dog democrats?

Not many left.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What happened to blue-dog democrats?

We very rarely talk about them. It's part of that inclusiveness. You'll also notice that there is no commonly used term for a Democrat in Name Only.

 

[StrayKat]

I dont believe in "Political Myopia". To me politicians seem just to be unscrupulous and coldblooded in pursuing their own selfish agendas. The rest is a camouflage.