bleeding heart

Well, Obama's proposed--and publically-announced--changes to US spying (whether they are cosmetic or not) occurred as a direct result of Snowdon. So anyone who has noted the rightness of Obama's speech has Snowdon to thank...which of course is close to unthinkable.

Oh, I know, I was taking the p***, as they say. However, that much-repeated quote (usually misattributed to Churchill, but not this time), is, for one thing, meaningless in the usual partisan sense; and secondarily, it quite explicitly makes a dueling values comparison: between "conservatism and intelligence" on one end, and between "socialism and sociopathy" on the other. I mean, sure I get it...."don't overthink it"....but the reason we shouldn't overthink it is because it holds no kernels of truth, unlike some other clichés or homespun sayings.

Segnosaur seems to think that all over-thirty lefties are not too smart....well, I can live with that. It might even be true in my case! I'd be more offended if I were a twenty-something conservative, and segnosaur was informing me that I am a sociopath.

If it's a specific sort of undercover operation in which the surveillance is dangerous to the officer, I doubt most folks would object to an occasional moment of (lack of) clarity. But, as with matters of Power generally, the onus should be on the powerful to justify legitimacy; in this case, the onus should be on the police to explain exactly why the personal surveillance apparatus could be (temporarily) avoided.

I sense a slight strawman, however, and am not sure why it needs be acknowledged it as a "good point"....presumably for the sake of a civil and polite debate (which is fair enough). But the fact is that I've never heard anybody claim that the plight of the poor in the US, or in Canada...or hell, in Brazil for that matter--is "as bad" as the plight of the poor in many more troubled economies and societies. I've never heard it implied, in fact, that I can remember. It appears that if any of us have some issue or other with freedom of speech, for example, the topic is a non-starter....because in many countries the issue is far less, well, free. Rape? Come on, not a serious problem....have we not heard about the horrible stats elsewhere, which suggests how much better it is here in this regard? Murder? Well, it doesn't even have to be said what the stats are in various places. That is....are we to preface every remark with a "could be worse" qualifier?

Bush_Cheney: As you well know, I was responding to a "thread derail," not initiating it. Which means, by definition, you are now as "guilty" of this as I am, which rather undermines your thoughtful and sober attempts at thread policing.

Argus, the point counters itself. The notion that there would have been violence anyway--and how much of it--is a speculative matter that doesn't even faintly undermine the lived reality of really-existing violence: hundreds of thousands dead, a massive refugee crisis, an increasingly autocratic government itself guilty of sectarian bloodshed and with the torture regime back up and running full-tilt. There's this crazy notion that people like to cite: that we are responsible for the likely consequences of our own behavior. Since the current debacle (which is bloodier than ever under Saddam's vicious reign, no small achievement) was predictable--in fact, predicted--then yes, the coalition shares direct responsible for precipitating it.

As to Ukraine...whether or not McCain or anybody else would have handled this situation better (or even differently at all) is, I suppose, a possibility, but by definition a complete unknown that can never even be speculated upon rationally.

I'm almost impressed that a fringe minority of Commissars to this day try to defend the Iraq War; since the people who opposed it were of course proven correct on nearly every front, the war's defenders (a continuously shrinking number, thankfully) have gotten a little unhinged on the subject. "There was going to be violence anyway....so the US coalition cannot be responsible for the violence that itself precipitated." A paraphrase, but I think an accurate one.

Camille Paglia used to be the go-to source for this sort of thing....but as she's become completely unhinged as of late, Wente and other members of the "men-are-the-real-victims here/Cool Girls guild" have stepped into the mostly reactionary vacuum.

I've noted that the show likes to make its "reveals" in relatively anti-climactic ways....which I think a pointed and deliberate choice. So when Rust's monologue about meeting "the monster" is met by an end-image of Reggie LeDoux, it is dramatic and frightening. But when we meet LeDoux he is--while certainly a "monster"--undramatic, a mere criminal, in the old "banality of evil" way. Now we've got the same thing with scar-faced guy--a multi-episode build-up of dramatic terror surrounding this almost otherworldly creature...and then the anti-climax of actually meeting him.

I especially like the implication that there are a bunch of lesbians, who are totally ignorant about any sexual issues outside of the Sapphic realm, and who are comprised of "Activists" screaming "rape!" at every turn...without thinking complex matters through in a sober fashion....like only a heterosexual male (and the inimitable Ms. Wente, of course) can do.

Sort of my impression, too. Most of the critique lacks meat, offering subjective comparison to other procedurals....which is fine as it goes, but I guess I simply disagree with most of it.

Yep.

Thanks BC_chick, something to think about, certainly.

I thought her pretty weak as a character, but yes, in the last episode she has become more interesting. At any rate, as I said, I'm not 100% keen on the critique anyway; I think Black Dog and others have made a decent point with the "cheesecake" factor; but as for women not being sufficiently characterized....like I said, no one is, beyond the two leads; so it's not clear to me that this is a weakness in the show....

Betsy, why are you still up to these old tricks? First you claim--repeatedly--that "Trolling" is completely subjective, so that you hold no opinion on whether a poster is engaging in "trolling behavior at all.... .......and then you claim--repeatedly--that you are consistently being "trolled" by all these rotten "trolls" who are aiming to "control" the tenor of discussion here....

Further, my OP contains a brief list of spying activities committed by British intelligence....most of which cannot be deemed "counter-terrorism", since that term seems to make people especially lenient towards government behavior. Up to and including detaining someone under "terrorist threats" concerns...with (as is freely admitted by the British)--ZERO evidence of any "terror-related" threats.

I have some agreement with the criticism you link (which is extremely harsh...and I don't think it is just the sex that bugs this reviewer). But I think she goes too far. I think it's a fantastic show, as I've said. And if the female characters aren't terribly fleshed out....well, might we not point out that no one on the show, outside the two leads, is given much characterization...female or male?

We've gone over this already; you haven't answered anything I've said; and you're equating boycotts to "lynch mobs"? You do know what a "lynch mob" is, yes?

Yes, true. I can see why they responded to the negative reaction, but don't understand why they couldn't have anticipated it in the first place.

Oh, they're moral cowards, all right. If they weren't, their supporters wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing for their courage, wisdom, and so on. ("Methinks the lady doth protest too much.") And the cults of Reagan, P.E. Trudeau, Thatcher, Kennedy and Churchill wouldn't have to exist.

Wha? A boycott is usually "a campaign to convince others to make the same choice." And when Rex Murphy asserts his argument on energy concerns, he is actively trying to sway people to his point of view.. And when Christopher Hitchens wrote about the Iraq War, he was explicitly trying to make the case for it, and to convince people to support it. Same with those writing in opposition to it, or debating with the war's supporters. And on and on. All political commentary is advocacy, and is enacted in part to alter the way people think about something.

I agree, cyber. Free speech is crystallized by response, disagreement and criticism; without the response, it is merely calcified.

But wouldn't my remark still stand, exactly as legitimate, either way?