The above quote is taken from an interesting chat dialogue with Judge Richard Posner hosted by the WaPo, allowing the public to query him in relation to his Wednesday Op-Ed examining the recent N.S.A revelations.

I think it’s worth of a read because, well, it’s Posner, and he brings his usual bruising ‘brain in a box’ Spock mentality to the issue, refusing, as you might expect, to treat civil liberties as some sacrosanct marshland preserve where human rights must be allowed frolic and reproduce lest they go extinct.

The full thing's here, but, because its Chrismas and all, IÂ’ll give you a taste:

Richard Posner:Â…Are you worried about having a conversation of yours [Â…] recorded in a government database? Suppose that unbeknownst to you your neighbor is a terrorist, and you happen to mention his name in the conversation. A government computer picks up the name and learning from your conversation where he lives, arrests him.
Would such an episode bother you? If so, why?
Â…

Annandale, Va.: ...[Y]es, it would bother me.

It greatly bothers me that my communication is searched without authority, no matter who it captures. If the government is on the lookout for someone, they can choose to broadcast that (like the FBI lists at my local post office), and I, as a citizen, can choose whether or not to cooperate in the government's investigation.

In your hypothesis, everyone becomes an agent of the government, whether they approve or not. I am not as learned as you, but from my public school education, it was instilled in me the notion that the government is an agent of the people, not the other way around. If we choose not to help the government in its investigations, we may do so.

Richard Posner: If it would bother you, that is certainly a reason not to permit the kind of data mining that I described. But it is not a conclusive reason--even for you. You have to consider what might be lost by forbidding that kind of data mining. What might be lost might be an opportunity to prevent a repetition of the 9/11 attacks, or indeed something far worse. What weight would you give to such a possibility?

Whether or not you agree Posner would achieve the proper balance, you gotta credit him for recognizing there are two sides.

Also, itÂ’s an interesting read for the way Posner carries himself. As usual when I read the guy, I get the impression of a powerful drill bit, relentlessly boring his way through the hardened, accepted group-think thatÂ’s built up around an issue, slowly making his way to its very center.

Here, heÂ’s debating a crowd constitutionally incapable of using the words public safety without scare quotes and keeps making calm, reasoned insights in the face of near hysteria.

Again, you can disagree with him, but this guy pulls off “public intellectual” better than anyone walking that stage today.

(h/t BetsyÂ’s Page )

Posted by: Dr. Reo Symes at 02:57 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

And then, just to be a completist, he murders his defiant daughter's three younger sisters, too, aged 4 to 12.

Sorry to be so obvious, but this control-of-women thing is pretty f'd up. A lot of the worst psychological pathologies are tied up and mixed up with the sexual drive. The same seems to be true of some of the worst cultural/political pathologies.

The historian Bernard Lewis cites the feeling fundamentalist men have of losing control of their women due to modern ideas as one of the deepest sources of hatred of the West.

FOR a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness. The Muslim has suffered successive stages of defeat. The first was his loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of Russia and the West. The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws and ways of life and sometimes even foreign rulers or settlers, and the enfranchisement of native non-Muslim elements. The third -- the last straw -- was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children. It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable. It was also natural that this rage should be directed primarily against the millennial enemy and should draw its strength from ancient beliefs and loyalties.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

I had hoped to be the one to get this fellow's story.

He's posted comments here which have piqued my interest for some time but I never acted on it.

Lately he's been commenting over at JackM's blog.

Check out this post, and say hello to a remarkable person.

Please be aware that if you act like a dickweed in that particular comments thread, Jack will promptly delete it. If you can't say something nice or ask a polite question, don't bother.

UPDATE: Muslihoon's responses to your questions. Very, very good reading.

Posted by: LauraW. at 09:42 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Unbelievable.

And, once again, a charge accepted uncritically by the self-styled "reality-based community."

Posted by: Ace at 08:15 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep, he's just too conservative. He really peddles the conservative line.

I feel like we're arguing with five year olds. "The media is liberal," we say, with a great deal of evidence.

"Neener-neener, no they're not," comes the whiny taunt. "They're just too conservative."

Posted by: Ace at 07:15 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

So I did break down and see it yesterday. It was woefully boring. I'll post a review later, but here's Karol's.

Posted by: Ace at 06:34 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Boobies for Christmas! The whole freakin' list!

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 03:28 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

This sort of story makes me happy.

Because I didn't think Bush actually had the balls to authorize this sort of mission on friendly soil. But he does, Cheney love him.

The Italian judge is quite right to issue the warrants. The CIA agents acted completely illegally on Italian sovereign soil. So I'm not at all angry at his decision. Protecting and enforcing your state's laws is the first priority of a judge.

But I'm just delighted Bush ordered this, and I'm glad the CIA agents, save one, are, now, apparently nowhere to be found.

Prosecutors have identified one of them as Robert Seldon Lady, a former CIA station chief in Milan who has since returned to the United States.

The whereabouts of the others are unknown. Lady's attorney, Daria Pesce, said the new warrants meant the alleged operatives could no longer travel to Europe without risking arrest.

"That's the only problem," she said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Yep. That's the way I see it.

Prosecutors allege that Nasr, a cleric believed to belong to an Islamic terror group, was flown from Italy to a military base in Germany before being put on a flight to Egypt, where he was tortured.

F'n bonus, baby.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.

She disclaims any real connection with the terrorist. She's just trying to get noticed in her career as a wannabe musician.

Not to get off on an anti-religious rant or anything. I'm not Bill From InDC, after all. Religion is terrific.

But some religions -- and some systems of totalitarian thought which are similar to religion in their promulgation of an all-encompassing worldview -- are downright grim and antihuman in their denial of basic human desires for small doses of joy, whether in the form of cheesecake pictures of a cute Persian chick or a ban on the playing of Layla in Iran.

To some extent, this helps the theofascists or run of the mill fascists (Nazis hated jazz, after all; that savage Negro music!), because if you've made everyone's lives so grim and miserable, they'll be more willing to blow themselves up for you. The less joyous life becomes, the cheaper it becomes as well.

But, on the other hand, you can only make people so miserable before they rise up against you.

It's true that in any repressive, grim system of thought and desire and minor-pleasure control, those who do the controlling allow themselves all of the pleasures they deny to everyone else. The 9/11 hijackers hung out at strip bars drinking alcohol (just researching the American way of life, I'm sure); the politically-connected in the Soviet Union got all the benefits of a capitalist, consummerist society. And of course the Saudi princes, who support the Wahabist cleric thought-control police, are infamous for their materialist, pharmacological, and sexual excesses.

So they're all set.

But what about everyone else?

Is there any way we can get David Hasselhof to start crooning in Farsi? After all, it was one of his songs that brought down the Berlin Wall.

Edited: I didn't just mean to speak of religion. I meant to speak of any coercive totalitarian thought-system. I've edited a little to reflect that.

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Kinda takes the fun out of it, though.

Swingers clubs that feature group sex and partner-swapping are legal because they cause society no harm, the Supreme Court of Canada said Wednesday in a ruling that rewrote the definition of indecency.

The 7-2 majority said the new determining factor will be whether the sexual behaviour in question causes harm, replacing the previous yardstick that the act must offend community standards of tolerance.

"Moral views, even if strongly held, do not suffice," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

"As members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove."

In a biting dissent, justices Louis LeBel and Michel Bastarache accused the majority of turning their backs on public morality and the established legal order. Furthermore, the majority decision could lead to "anti-social behaviour," they wrote.

"This new harm-based approach strips of all relevance the social values that the Canadian community as a whole believes should be protected," said the lengthy dissent.

"The explicit sexual acts performed in the accusedÂ’s establishments clearly offended the Canadian community standard of tolerance."

The ruling, which legal experts described as a liberal move, overturned [a previous conviction for violating lewd-acts laws].

Hmmm... "experts" describe this as a liberal move.

As Taranto always asks, what would we do without experts?

I suppose this is a libertarian move, too. It does get to the Big Question -- what deference do we give to prevailing community values, as well as citizens' basic rights to have laws reflecting their preferences, and what deference do we give to the libertarian creed, I believe first announced on the Prince album 1999, "If it feels all right, then do it all night?"

That was snarky, but I do think it is a big question. One on hand, the majority has a right to promulgate laws designed to craft what it believes to be the Good Society. On the other hand, minorities who may not agree with such a vision would seem to have, on a strictly quantum-of-freedom analysis, the right to do what they will and pursue happiness to the extent they don't harm others.

The question will never be resolved, really. All Great Questions defy solution, or else they wouldn't be Great Questions.

Thanks to Bob.

Posted by: Ace at 09:28 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.