(Lack of) Due Care Takes You Pretty Far

And Also: I finally -- Comedy Central shows are repeated so many times after all -- saw The Sarah Silverman Show, the new effort by the foul mouthed/kewpie voiced comedian. She's a mixed bag: her outrageousness sometimes can be pretty funny, but other times, it is just outrageous. The episode I saw, where she takes in a homeless man, was the latter. She also is one of those people you think would have better careers, but then wonder ... well maybe it's just that they aren't THAT talented. Think John Candy. He was in loads of lousy stuff, even if he was likeable in much of it. Sorta lazy really.

Sounding like Justice Blackmun in his swan song dissent against the death penalty, a criminal defense attorney that has some experience in postconviction appeals noted that the moral opposition to the death penalty is in effect almost besides the point. One need not go there to underline the fatal (NPI*) problem with the "government program" at issue -- simply put, as a due process matter, it is a mess. Last time, I linked to two of my posts on the matter, one putting a "fiscal" criticism of the penalty in some context. Basically, I agreed with the general sentiments, but was wary about some implications. But, you need not agree with everything to be on a certain side. Sometimes, in fact, it is best to emphasize areas of agreement, not dwell on controversial matters.

TPM rightly points out that this issue arises respecting war with Iran -- yes, the "evidence" that Iran is seriously arming insurgents is problematic, but ultimately, the important matter is the bottom line. Two parts: first, even if they are arming them, it is an insignificant part of the broader problem. Relatedly, going to war with them (or invading them, if one wants to use semantics) still is a stupid idea. This really arose four years back. The evidence was dubious, but even if it was not as dubious (and this part damns Clinton sorts), war simply was not a good idea. It's sort of like prosecutorial discretion. I'd add, per recent discussion on Clinton's comments, that even a resolution focusing UN emphasis on Iraq was a bad idea. Surely in the "do this or else" means used.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives resolution against the surge is refreshingly blunt, a limited, but important rejection of the President's judgment that is superior to some watered down pabulum that might get some "adult" Senate Republicans to come on board. The chatter is that the resolution also will get a decent number (maybe as much as a third ... think c. 300 total votes) of House Republicans. It states:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

It is but a start, but I can support that.

---

* No pun intended.