In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”
The sentiment seems similar. What's different?
In the article: "Why are these whiny hurricane victims stealing all our money?"
`Gimme, gimme, gimme — give me all my Sandy money now.’” Paul said, referring to federal funding after the hurricane last year
Not only is he literally saying it, but it seems like as soon as he is filmed by more than one smartphone camera he's not willing to say what he said to the students.(which was actually surprisingly moderate and reasonable)
I think he was referring to politicians, not victims. Some of those politicians, btw, have been accused of misappropriating the funds.
Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”
The sentiment seems similar. What's different?
Did we watch the same video? In the video, he indicated that he was willing to put national defense funding on the chopping block as well.
Yeah, ... and?
From "and not letting enough money be left over for national defense" I'm to infer that's completely changed? It's just one sentence and there isn't a whole lot of context behind it.
A few days later on August 6, Senator Paul was at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he said: “If we were to cut somewhere else in the budget, I would try to restore some money to the military.”
Sounds like he's a mixed bag on defense spending - for some, against some. That's pretty normal.
Edit: Also between his comments in '07 and '13 military spending was cut. Maybe he thinks the cuts were too much? Maybe he still thinks some is unnecessary (spying, foreign bases) and some needs spending restored. You'll have to tell me more than a couple sentences...
there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: [quote]
Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic.
furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous.
And you think we have a healthy democracy?
Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems?
No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore.
I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense.
Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical.
The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao.
Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain.
I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should.
On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:
On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:
On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote: [quote] The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi?
People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing.
You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis.
Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting.
Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic.
furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous.
And you think we have a healthy democracy?
Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption
which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized..
Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples.
I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage.
Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it.
NPR and CNN left or center-left. Otherwise, that right sidebar lists looks close.
Calling CNN left makes me chuckle since they are so aggressively neutral that its often a flaw of there's.
No one is neutral, they are close yes. I personally think they are as far left as Fox is right, but then again there are not any other news stations out there that go farther right. If you were comparing hot to cold it is like comparing warm to cool, and those that live in the super hot climates find cool to be 'freezing cold'.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
Yeah we were at war recently which pushed spending up. It's now falling. By the end of the decade it will be at a record low share of the Federal budget.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
Made necessary by the fact that everybody else is leaving a lot of slack to pick up.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
Made necessary by the fact that everybody else is leaving a lot of slack to pick up.
Soviet Union included. Sometimes I think those guys aren't even trying anymore.
On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote: [quote] And you think we have a healthy democracy?
Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems?
No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore.
I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense.
Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical.
The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao.
Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain.
I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should.
On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:
On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote: [quote] People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing.
You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis.
Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting.
Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic.
furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous.
And you think we have a healthy democracy?
Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption
which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized..
Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples.
I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage.
Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it.
NPR and CNN left or center-left. Otherwise, that right sidebar lists looks close.
Calling CNN left makes me chuckle since they are so aggressively neutral that its often a flaw of there's.
No one is neutral, they are close yes. I personally think they are as far left as Fox is right, but then again there are not any other news stations out there that go farther right. If you were comparing hot to cold it is like comparing warm to cool, and those that live in the super hot climates find cool to be 'freezing cold'.
The only thing further right then fox is talk radio and even calling them anywhere close to as biased as CNN is a major insult to them. I would say primetime MSNBC could compare more to the left version of Fox except Fox is just that all the time and they put no effort in hiding it to the point where I can even take them seriously.
I try to watch a lot of everything so I can tell you the difference in formula's between Fox and CNN and if I had to pick one I would pick CNN even if it goes to far sometimes. Fox will usually run with a story bashing something Obama or the democrats did or plan to do and then interview a republican who will talk about how it is the worst thing in the world.
Sometimes they just let a guest put something controversial out there with no evidence and just don't challenge it in order to discredit. The most recent example of this was when there guests accused the Obama administration of lying about the 7 million number for the health care signups. My personal favorite thing they did lately was the graph that got universally mocked when they tried to compare the (at the time) 6 million signups to the 7 million goal and column for 6 million was 1/3 the size of the 7 million.
I try to watch a couple hours of all the news stations a week and every single time I have ever tuned into fox no matter what the time the show that is on I always am able to go "so this is what conservative news is doing today" because its just so in your face that I could probably pick them out just with a nameless transcript of what was said.
CNN basically goes to the opposite extreme though. They will first report a story, lets use the popular Christie one where they will report what happened with all the facts basically laid out and then they will have a republican and a democrat (sometimes a strategist sometimes a congressmen but always a R+D) give the interpretation of what they just said. These usually provide zero information and are usually little more then both sides giving the party talking points but CNN does it to both make sure that they are staying in the neutral realm and because I assume it must popular with someone.
CNN's strong desire to basically be the neutral station or to force issues to have 2 sides when there shouldn't be 2 sides is often there weakness but if you want a network to give both sides of any issue a fair voice (even if one side is arguing something provably wrong) then you can usually trust CNN to do that.
The only universally covered thing between all of the major cable news networks is a sex scandal because they cant resist an opportunity to look like gossip columnists.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
because defense spending is outlandishly huge? we could halve our defense spending and still have the world's strongest forces easily. Also, certain kinds of spending are hard for congress to do: closing military bases; that issue with congress ordering tanks the pentagon doesn't even want. Structural changes to help ensure that spending is done in a sound fashion seems like an innately good idea.
(Reuters) - Financial regulators will vote on Tuesday to finalize tough requirements for U.S. banks' leverage that are expected to be stricter than the rules overseas firms must follow.
The rules, under consideration by the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, would force banks to fund part of their business through less risky sources such as shareholder equity, rather than by borrowing money.
Global regulators agreed in the so-called Basel III accord to limit the reliance on debt after the 2007-2009 financial crisis left banks on shaky footing.
U.S. officials' vote on Tuesday would implement a portion of the agreement known as the leverage ratio. Unlike risk-based capital rules, leverage limits are calculated as a percentage of a bank's total assets and are seen as harder to game.
Regulators have not released the final rules, but analysts expect them to closely follow a July 2013 proposal that called for the eight biggest banks to maintain much higher leverage ratios than were required under the Basel agreement.
"We believe regulators will keep the ratio largely as proposed," Jaret Seiberg, a policy analyst with Guggenheim Partners in Washington, said in a note to clients.
The proposed rules called for JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York Mellon and State Street to meet a leverage ratio of 6 percent of their total assets.
Their holding companies would have to meet a 5 percent leverage ratio under the proposal. Banks see tougher capital rules as costly for them, but U.S. officials have said the banks should have little problem meeting the higher requirements.
The agencies also will propose adjusting the way banks tally up their assets under the leverage rules. They are expected to tweak those calculations to bring them more in line with the Basel rules.
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/us-financial-regulations-leverage-idUSBREA3709B20140408]source[/url Did not expect the US to create tougher rules than the Basel 3 requirements.
The wage gap is the product of many factors, ranging from outright employer discrimination to differences in the occupations men and women choose and the hours they work. It is also a long-standing concern in the US. Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, but major gender pay disparities still exist more than 50 years later, despite other legislative actions intended to create more equality.
However, the issue remains controversial. There is, for example, widespread disagreement on the best way to measure the wage gap. Some believe the 77 percent figure is misleading because women tend to work in lower-paying fields than men. And while Democrats have put forth more legislation aimed at shrinking that gap, Republicans argue that the Equal Pay Act already made it illegal to discriminate on gender, and that any further legislation is unnecessary.
Do childless women have a smaller wage gap?
Yes. Numerous studies have confirmed that childless women tend to make more money than mothers. A 2001 study by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, for example, found a wage penalty for mothers of around 7 percent per child. And a 2003 study published by Cornell University found a gap between these two groups of around 3 to 5 percent that could not be explained by controlling for measurable factors like mothers' skill levels.
There is also evidence that employers tend to discriminate against mothers but not fathers. A 2007 study found that in a lab setting, study participants evaluated mothers as less competent and less committed than childless women, while the same effect did not happen among men. Participants also recommended a lower starting salary for mothers than for nonmothers.
Do some states have bigger gender pay gaps?
Very much so. The gap between men's and women's earnings varies widely from state to state. According to data from the American Association of University Women, Washington, DC, has the smallest wage gap, with full-time, year-round working women earning 90 percent of what men do. Next are Maryland, Nevada, and Vermont, all with 85 percent. At the bottom is Wyoming, where women earn 64 percent of what men do.
State-by-state and regional differences exist for a variety of reasons. States like North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming, for example, might have large gaps in part because they have many well-paid jobs in male-dominated fields like mining and oil and gas extraction. Other factors like age, race, and education levels also play large roles in determining a state's wage gap.
(Reuters) - Financial regulators will vote on Tuesday to finalize tough requirements for U.S. banks' leverage that are expected to be stricter than the rules overseas firms must follow.
The rules, under consideration by the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, would force banks to fund part of their business through less risky sources such as shareholder equity, rather than by borrowing money.
Global regulators agreed in the so-called Basel III accord to limit the reliance on debt after the 2007-2009 financial crisis left banks on shaky footing.
U.S. officials' vote on Tuesday would implement a portion of the agreement known as the leverage ratio. Unlike risk-based capital rules, leverage limits are calculated as a percentage of a bank's total assets and are seen as harder to game.
Regulators have not released the final rules, but analysts expect them to closely follow a July 2013 proposal that called for the eight biggest banks to maintain much higher leverage ratios than were required under the Basel agreement.
"We believe regulators will keep the ratio largely as proposed," Jaret Seiberg, a policy analyst with Guggenheim Partners in Washington, said in a note to clients.
The proposed rules called for JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York Mellon and State Street to meet a leverage ratio of 6 percent of their total assets.
Their holding companies would have to meet a 5 percent leverage ratio under the proposal. Banks see tougher capital rules as costly for them, but U.S. officials have said the banks should have little problem meeting the higher requirements.
The agencies also will propose adjusting the way banks tally up their assets under the leverage rules. They are expected to tweak those calculations to bring them more in line with the Basel rules.
I don't really see these rules as tough - 20 to 1 leverage is still pretty high. I think Lehman had something like 32 to 1. Of course the banks don't like it, but before the Glass Steagall act was repealed we even had total separation of commercial and investment banking which is what I would advocate.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A proposed California bill would force SeaWorld San Diego to stop using killer whales in its iconic shows and to release them from their tanks, the latest blowback that the exotic animal attraction has faced after a documentary criticized the marine park's animal welfare practices.
The state Assembly will hold its first committee hearing Tuesday on AB2140 by Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, that is pitting animal welfare activists against a staple of San Diego's tourism industry. SeaWorld San Diego houses 10 killer whales, which would be moved into a larger sea pen and could not be bred if the Legislature approved Bloom's bill and the governor signed it. The bill would also ban the import and export of the animals, and activists are moving to bring similar bills to Florida and Texas where SeaWorld has parks.
"They are too large, too intelligent, too socially complex and too far-ranging to be adequately cared for in captivity," said Naomi Rose, a marine mammal scientist with the Animal Welfare Institute, the bill's sponsor.
SeaWorld has been fighting back against that perception, which executives said is inspired by the 2013 documentary "Blackfish," which its officials say distorts the facts to favor an anti-captivity agenda.
"That argument is not based on credible peer-reviewed science," said John Reilly, president of SeaWorld San Diego Park. "It's based on emotion and a propaganda film."
Bloom introduced the measure in response to "Blackfish," which linked attacks on and deaths of SeaWorld trainers to the mistreatment of the animals and has led to growing public outrage and several celebrities canceling appearances at the park.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
Made necessary by the fact that everybody else is leaving a lot of slack to pick up.
Soviet Union included. Sometimes I think those guys aren't even trying anymore.
I know you jest, but have you been keeping up with Russia's military spending? Massively rising.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
Made necessary by the fact that everybody else is leaving a lot of slack to pick up.
Soviet Union included. Sometimes I think those guys aren't even trying anymore.
I know you jest, but have you been keeping up with Russia's military spending? Massively rising.
Of course it is. They have a powerful and populated neighbor. Russia is already spending tens of billions in trying to keep former blocs in their economic circle and losing.
Attorney General Eric Holder called Tuesday for the release of "as much as possible" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, making clear his position on an issue that has generated dueling criminal referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice.
"I agree that as much of the report as possible should be made public, of course allowing for redactions necessary to protect national security," Holder said in testimony prepared for the House Judiciary Committee. "Having prohibited these practices upon taking office, the President believes that bringing this program into the light will help the American people understand what happened in the past and can help guide us as we move forward, so that no Administration contemplates such a program in the future."
Holder's statement is in line with President Barack Obama's position. Last week Senate Intelligence voted to declassify the report's executive summary, and the White House has promised to move "expeditiously" to comply, albeit while putting the CIA in the lead declassification role.
But Holder's voice is significant to the ongoing debate over CIA torture practices like waterboarding conducted under former President George W. Bush. The attorney general's office closed its own investigation into those practices in 2012 without bringing any charges. That essentially granted legal immunity to the CIA for its actions, meaning that the Senate report may provide the only basis for accountability for the use of torture or for institutional changes.
On April 08 2014 12:30 zlefin wrote: there's certainly an awful lot of wasted defense spending. We need some new mechanisms to deal with that; since congress is especially unable to handle that properly. We should probably split congress up into more subsections, with different parts of the legislative process parceled out between them.
Defense spending is already being cut. Why is it still an issue?
Because you're still spending roughly 4.5% of your GDP on defense, which is three quarters of all NATO defense spending and over twice as much as the NATO spending guidelines would suggest. In other words, it's a ridiculous amount of money.
Made necessary by the fact that everybody else is leaving a lot of slack to pick up.
Soviet Union included. Sometimes I think those guys aren't even trying anymore.
I know you jest, but have you been keeping up with Russia's military spending? Massively rising.
Of course it is. They have a powerful and populated neighbor. Russia is already spending tens of billions in trying to keep former blocs in their economic circle and losing.
Russia's building up its military because it's worried about China. I suppose the Crimea invasion was also to acquire more territory at a distance from China. It doesn't get more Putin-apologist than calling his military spending a natural response to China.
Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in how the Justice Department prosecutes the laws that are on the books.
Holder’s remarks, during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, came in response to GOP accusations that he is flouting the law with its positions on marijuana legalization and criminal sentencing.
Leading the questioning was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who asked Holder whether he believed there were any limits to the administration’s prosecutorial discretion.
“There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has — and more specifically that an attorney general has,” Holder responded. “But that discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so that your acting consistent with the aims of the statute but at the same time making sure that you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values, consistent with the Constitution and protecting the American people."
Republicans on the panel grilled Holder on the Obama administration’s decision not to interfere with marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and elsewhere, as long as states establish adequate regulations.
Goodlatte criticized the decision, saying it is tantamount to ignoring the law.
“The Justice Department’s decision not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but a formal department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress,” Goodlatte said.
EPT
), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. 
