Hippos for a Friday Night

Committing to a Premise

Waiting 2: Still Waiting


Can even Harrogate find this funny?
Is the "shenanigans in a setting I'm familiar with" excuse strong enough to hold up against this mirthless soulbortion?

(And, for those as stuck in the auteur mindset as I am: same writer/director as the original. Apparently, there were questions left unanswered for a future generation.)

Now, I remember full well when Solon sent me out for Nazi scalps...

...and I find this premise welcoming and familiar.

Wednesday Musical Tribute

Sick of Irony but don't want Sappiness either? Hit play below.

Question of the Day Part the Second: IS an "Adult Pretending to be a Child Still an Adult"????

Solon's favorite blogger over at TalkLeft, TChris, offered up this fascinating post on Sunday, and Harrogate has had it rolling around in the back quadrant of his teeming brain ever since.

The issue before us, Situationers, is succinctly articulated by TChris

A troubling trend that vexes those of us who believe the police should prevent or solve crimes, not manufacture them, is the detective sitting in a chat room posing as a 15 year old waiting to engage in salacious conversation with an adult. Courts have typically held that an adult who travels to meet the "15 year old" for a sexual encounter can be charged with attempted sexual assault of a minor, even though the defendant never chatted with a minor and no actual minor was ever at risk.

TChris's own position on this issue is compelling:

Whether a mistaken belief about a chatter's age (when the belief is induced by a lying law enforcement officer) should lead to any form of criminal liability is questionable. Putting that question aside, it is reasonable to recognize, as Indiana now does (at least until the legislature closes this "loophole"), that people who don't put a child at risk deserve greater leniency than those who do.

It is of course no surprise that he or Jerlayn would take this stance, as standing up for defendants' and/or criminals' rights (unfortunately for some commenters who tried to morph it into a mouthpiece for a particular brand of feminism) is the true backbone of TalkLeft.

But in addition to the Legal Question, there is also a Rhetorical Situation here that needs to be examined. (Oxymoron, for example, continues to argue that when you are watching a football game on television, that the colored first down line is actually on the field. Of course, Oxymoron also once argued that Styx was a great band, so you have to be careful with Oxymoron.)

So, likely all of us on this Board dislike the idea of Entrapment. But will anyone here straight-up say that detectives should stop trolling for "pedophiles" in this manner? Or conversely, will anyone say straight up that the detective posing as a fifteen year old (what if the detective poses as an 8 year-old) is doing the right thing, indeed, protecting children?

Harrogate will leave the light on for you.

Revisiting the Alvin and the Chipmunks Soundtrack

Heh.

Letters from an Angry Congressman

As posted by Matt Stoller on Open Left

I.

Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.

Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.

Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this. Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that. That's a real possibility.

We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.

My favorite parts in bold. This is participatory democracy at its best! Whoever you are: I'll get the ankles if you get the wrists. Metaphorically, of course, since my mama taught me not to play with shit.

II.

Here's the industry's play: progressives will approach Nancy with ideas for reform, and she'll agree to push for their proposals, and she'll really mean it. Then industry lobbyists will go to Dennis Moore, Melissa Bean and a few other Democrats, and tell them how dire the consequences of the proposals would be, and that the members who understand how the economy works need to step up to stop Nancy and the crazy liberals from doing something rash. Then those Democrats will go to Steny and tell him how terrible Nancy's crazy ideas would be, and how we can't rush into something like that without much, much more thought. Maybe Barney will try to talk to Dennis or Melissa, but it will become apparent quickly that they have no idea what they're talking about; they're just repeating by rote what the lobbyists told them to say. Melissa may actually be dumber than Sarah Palin. Barney will realize he might as well talk to the lobbyists directly and save a step. The lobbyists will agree to something inconsequential, but certainly nothing that would really affect the industry's conduct. Then the leadership will do the math and conclude that because the vast majority of Republicans will vote against any bill, we can't get enough votes without the Dennis and Melissa crowd. The only way, our leadership will conclude, to get anything at all passed is to include nothing more than the inconsequential proposals that the lobbyists agreed to. Then we'll all go along because it would be wildly irresponsible not to act when we're staring over the brink of a complete collapse of world financial markets.

I'd diagram it for you if I had a chalkboard. I've seen the play again and again, and it always goes for long yardage.

The only defense for the play is for a significant group of Democrats to say they won't vote for any proposal that isn't unpalatable to industry, and mean it. It's a pretty high stakes game of chicken, but otherwise we come out of this with nothing but a $700 billion giveaway to a crooked industry.

So is this it? The left finally has something solid and of real world value that they can fight for that 99% of the world can get behind ("don't let the thieves pocket the money they stole after they've been caught" is pretty fucking universal) and even their angriest voice can't help but phrase it as the lever with which the Republicans can still win this election.

Blast!

Because Harrogate's "Happy Friday Musical Tribute" Fell Short of Expectation...

I want to remind him that there's always tomorrow.