The return of well-timed suspense

So 24 has come back, and I'm excited. It's about the only non-comedy TV show that I follow. This season looks pretty good so far.

But it seems like they just don't want to let go of the subject of torture. And it gets me thinking. I understand both sides of the argument. Some situations call for drastic measures. At the same time, torture can produce false positives, ie, the interegation subject just saying what the interegators want just to get them to stop. And there are certain civil rights issues. But I understand where people are coming from when they argue that some of these people that we may torture have forfeited any civil rights.

One thing that I certainly do not agree with is extending Constitutional rights to detainees who are not American citizens. The Constitution is for Americans. Now, can we argue that these people have basic human rights? Yes. But they have no Constitutional rights. If they are in any way responsible for acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, I don't see any reason to go to any extreme lengths to make sure that they are all nice and comfy.

I'm still on the fence about the issue because of what I mentioned before. But I do think that some people who are against torture dismiss the issue too quickly. I can totally understand the thinking of people who are in favour of its use, and of those who actually use it.

Just think about this situation. You have this prisoner and you know that he is hiding information about an attack that could cost thousands of lives, and he's not talking. You also know that there are people who are close to you who are in danger. You know that torturing is wrong. But time is running out, and you know some very good ways of inflicting non-lethal pain on this person. No cameras, no one who would punish you will know about it. What would you do?

I'm just trying not to be so quick to judge people. We are all people, after all. We are all capable of doing the same horrible things.

It seems that Congress shares my study habits...and that's freakin' scary.

The situation with this "stimulus" bill just keeps getting better.

Did I say "better"? Because I meant ridiculous to the point of outrage.

Remember Obama's pledge to make sure that any bill he signed will be given five days so that we, the People, have a chance to look it over ourselves? Apparently he doesn't. And even the Dems in Congress don't seem to be able to keep their promise of having this new bill available online 48 hours before the vote. It was finally posted last night at 11pm. The vote was scheduled this morning for 9am. Good try. F for effort.

You can read some details here.

The scary thing is that our Congress is now voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without even knowing all of the details. How do I know that? First, no one can read and retain over 1,000 pages and have a good enough grasp on it to give an educated vote in only ten hours, especially when they are hopefully sleeping during some of those hours.

Second, that's exactly what members of Congress are saying themselves.

This is so mind-blowingly...something...I can't even find words.

Oh, and Chuck Schumer is a douche.

Do you care? I care. Let them know.

Sometimes, pork is a bad thing.

I hope that all of you have at least heard of this so-called "stimulus" package that President Barry has been pushing, and that Congress has voted to pass (though in slightly different forms in each house). We're being assured that it's necessary, and that only government can save us now. That's a pretty scary thought. Not because it's actually true, but because they're trying to make us think that it's true.

I saw some of Obama's press conference on the matter last night. Someone needs to tell the man that he doesn't need to be campaigning anymore, at least for a couple years. Someone asked him a question involving where blame should be cast for our current predicament. Obama was sure to not place any on the American people, but instead blamed banks for making risky investments. Essentially, he's talking about loans and credits that banks made for people that defaulted. Apparently, it's the banks' fault for making those loans, and not the people who defaulted. And it's also definitely not the fault of the US government who, back in the '90s, imposed regulations on banks to make loans to more and more underqualified people in the name of increasing home ownership, "fairness" and "justice" and all that. They had to make loans to people who didn't even have to prove that they had a source of income! But seriously, it's all the banks' fault. People (except rich people) and government are good.

I could go on and on about this bill: all of the pork, how the first one didn't work so this won't either, government can't create wealth but only re-distribute it, the dangerous implications in it for health care - if you're old and need treatment, it's up to the government to decide whether it's worth it based on how much longer you're expected to live. Seriously. That's in there. (Thanks, Daschle!)

But I'm no expert. And according to Obama, many economic experts agree with his plan. He claims a concensus, in fact. I've learned never to trust 2 big things. One, any news story about anything that Rush Limbaugh says. Always out of context, always mis-interpreted. And two, any time a politician says "consensus." They were wrong about the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and they're wrong about this consensus.

Proof? Of course. Here you go.

But if you would like to hear more from an expert, you can read this interview with Prof. Mike Munger from Duke University, one of the many economists to sign that add. It's really good, and he's much smarter than me. But it all makes sense. And no, he's not Republican. Just correct.