Unless you've been hiding out in a cave recently you are no doubt aware of Barack Obama's "Reverend problem." Over the past few weeks selective clips and statements from past sermons given by Obama's former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright have been used against him in a textbook example of guilt by association of which Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.
Wright has been accused of "anti-American" statements, and having "destructive and divisive" notions regarding race relations in America. Obama himself has felt the need to strongly condemn Wright's statements and distance himself from his one-time pastor. However, almost all of the "buzz" around this "issue" has been the result of selective sound bites and excerpts of small portions of the Reverend's statements and sermons. Media talking-heads and pundits on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have thrown lots of mud, but they invariably fail to place the excerpted bits from Wright's speeches in the context of his entire statements, nor of the more than 200 year long--and ongoing--history of injustice suffered by blacks in the United States. It is as if the terms slavery, Jim-Crow, separate-but-equal, and red-lining never existed. This kind of historical amnesia in corporate media coverage is now so pervasive, that it is no wonder Americans can consume so much media and still learn so little.
Initially Wright did not feel the need to "go public" to try and defend himself and his church, but in the past week he has given several public interviews (one to Bill Moyers), and speeches (before the National Press Club) in an attempt to get his side of the story out. Not surprisingly, these appearances have also been "sound-bited" and excerpted, and have been seized upon by the same corporate media as "proof" of Wright's wickedness. This has also prompted Obama's strongest yet denunciation of the Reverend and his statements. So, if you've heard the approved "sound-bites" and have swallowed the standard media narrative that Wright is a certifiable "wacko," then I'm also willing to bet good money that you did not listen to any of his full statements. If not, I urge you to do so. Let's consider his recent remarks before the National Press Club (NPC). These have also been excerpted at Democracy Now, which actually presents extended parts of his address and a debate featuring perspectives from black community representatives, not the corporate punditocracy.
In his address to the NPC Wright essentially gave some historical background on black religious traditions in the United States and explained, focusing on his own church, the underpinnings and goals of his faith. While I do not personally ascribe to the religious and theological analysis of the human condition, there was not much to find objectionable in these remarks, indeed, one can argue that the black religious traditions of liberation and reconciliation--with ALL people, regardless of race--are a remarkable, and hopeful response born of a situation of bitter oppression, such as slavery. One need only contrast this with the response of some white Christian denominations in apartheid South Africa, that rather than oppose oppression, constructed theologies consistent with white supremacy and apartheid.
So, if what the Reverend actually said, could not be found particularly objectionable, then what is the source of the venom directed at him, and by association, Obama? As Wright pointed out in his remarks, the notion of reconciliation requires that the wrongs of the oppressor are acknowledged, that amends are made, and that subsequent actions demonstrate a reversal of the oppressive behavior. That is, that race relations are not simply a one way street. This I think is largely the "sin" the Reverend is being accused of, that he has the temerity to point out that while injustice persists, true reconciliation cannot occur. That, and the fact that racial injustice still persists, there can be little denying that.
After delivering his remarks, Wright answered questions, and here is where I think some of his statements and actions perhaps partly undid the positive remarks he had just made. He was a bit defensive and accusatory with his tone in responding to some of the questions, but one might also be willing to excuse such a tone given the nature of the attacks he had been subjected to over the preceeding weeks. At times Wright did seem to be enjoying the attention, and perhaps also having a chance at last to respond openly to critics this may not be to surprising. But he also simply seemed to be trying to make light of a difficult situation, and have some fun, as he tried to make the occasional joke, not always successfully! Essentially all of the questions were of the "gotcha" variety, and were largely based on assumptions and myths that are essentially unchallengeable in the mainstream media. A glaring example of this is the notion that Wright ostensibly believes that America was "responsible" for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This has become a true "third rail" in American politics, anyone even remotely hinting at this is automatically labelled "un-American," and beyond the pale. However, this attitude completely suffocates any serious attempt to look at the question of why the United States was attacked. Obviously the situation is much more complex than, "they hate our freedoms," as Bush so simplistically put it. The point that Wright, and others, have tried to make is not that the terrorists were justified in attacking, but that the way that US foreign policy impacts other Nations and peoples is important and entirely relevant. Put very simply, if you punch someone in the nose, then it is quite possible that their response may be to punch back. Such comments meet with fierce media resistance because they challenge one of the fundamental myths propagated by US elites; that the US always acts on the world stage with the noblest of goals. Anyone still under the spell of this myth can begin by reading William Blum's, "Killing Hope" , or Chalmers Johnson's, "Blow-back," for example.
Wright has also been criticized for statements suggesting that AIDS was somehow the result of some government "plot" to harm blacks. This is indeed an unfortunate statement. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence to support it, and it does suggest a kind of paranoia with regard to government treatment of minorities. However, here again some context would have been most illuminating. Many Americans are probably unaware that there is in fact a documented, rather sordid history of medical experimentation on Black Americans, the most infamous example of which is known as the "Tuskegee Experiment". To summarize, from 1932 to 1972 the US Public Health Service (PHS) followed the progression of syphilis in about 400 black men. These men were mostly poor sharecroppers, they never gave informed consent, and were never told they had syphilis. By 1947, with the introduction of penicillin, all men still remaining in the study could have been successfully treated, yet it was not until 1972 that a PHS employee went public with information to force an end to the study. Hundreds of black men died unneccessarily, and wives and children were also infected. For other examples, see the book, "Medical Apartheid," by Harriet Washington. Given the context of this historical record we could perhaps be more forgiving with regard to Wright's unfortunate comments on AIDS.
My title suggests a second clergyman, but while most Americans now know the name Jeremiah Wright, it's very likely that many fewer know that John McCain has his own "Reverend problem," or, rather, that if the media treated McCain as they have treated Obama he WOULD have a "Reverend problem." The ecclesiastical albatross that should be hanging around John McCain's neck is the fundamentalist, evangelical Pastor John Hagee. McCain actively sought, and received the endorsement of Hagee for his White House bid. Hagee is head of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and sits at the hub of a fundamentalist media empire. He is an equal opportunity offender, having denigrated Catholics with statements suggesting that Catholicism has spawned, "a theology of hate." During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," Hagee claimed that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and later in the same interview claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment wrought by God on the sinful city of New Orleans. He holds views that most Americans should rightly regard as deeply offensive, and is perhaps most succinctly described as a spewer of hate. Yet, unlike Obama with regard to Wright, McCain actively sought the endorsement of his Reverend, so as to solidify his standing amongst the key fundamentalist Republican voting bloc. Even more troubling, McCain did a complete flip-flop in seeking Hagee's imprimatur, as in a different political environment he once termed such evangelical demagogues as "agents of intolerance."
While McCain has gotten a little heat from the media for his association with Hagee, it has been nothing like the scrutiny afforded Wright and Obama. McCain has recently gone as far as admitting that seeking Hagee's endorsement was probably a mistake, but nevertheless still being grateful to have it (go figure). How's that for mental gymnastics! Wright and Obama could never get away with such equivocating. The double standard here is indeed stark, and is difficult to understand in other than racial terms. In the end, John McCain is white, and so is "his" Reverend, and that seems to make all the difference.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Crazy Talk
Obliterate! That's some pretty tough talk. That was the term used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when asked to describe what her response as President would be if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Before discussing this further, let's get some hard facts on the table.
1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.
2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.
4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.
What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.
And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.
1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.
2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.
4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.
What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.
And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Meaning of Success
The war in Iraq recently entered its sixth year, and the long nightmare of the Iraqi people continues with no end in sight. After five years of carnage; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; 4,000 US troops killed; a vast fortune spent; what has been achieved? Events surrounding the 5th anniversary shed some illuminating light on the present state of American democracy. Consider the establishment media. The present consensus narrative, endlessly reinforced by recent Bush administration media opportunities that receive front page and/or prime time coverage on the TV news networks (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), is that the troop "surge" is working. Cheney recently made a "stealth" visit to Iraq, and proclaimed that the war, though not without its difficulties, has been a "... successful endeavor." Bush too claimed "success" in a recent speech to Defense Department personnel at the Pentagon. If what we are witnessing in Iraq is success, then one shudders to think what failure would look like! For a less hyperbolic look at what "success" in Iraq looks like, see the sobering report by Dahr Jamail.
Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.
One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.
Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.
One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
$ 3,000,000,000,000.00
Well, that's a lot of zeros! Three trillion (yes, trillion) dollars worth to be precise. That is a conservative estimate of the cost of the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as estimated in a new book by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes. It may seem a daunting task, to estimate the cost of the largest American foreign policy boondoggle ever, but as professor Stiglitz indicated, it's basically just an addition problem, so, at least the math is pretty easy, there's just a lot of it! Note that this number is conservative! Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that a more realistic number for the full costs is in the vicinity of 5 - 7 trillion.
Let's try and get our heads around that number. For comparison, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States is in the vicinity of 13 - 14 trillion dollars. So, we're looking at a cost approaching 1/4 of the ENTIRE economic output of the country for a whole year. Put another way, that's more than $10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. I'd call that staggering, but the "Spender in Chief," doesn't seem to get it, for Bush, the wars have apparently been a plus. When asked if he agreed with comments that the war in Iraq is hurting the economy, Bush quipped, "I don’t think so. I think, actually, the spending on the war might help with jobs." Rather ironic to hear a so-called conservative Republican plug the war as a three trillion dollar jobs program! But in Bush-land anything is possible.
Of course, the White House was none to pleased with the fully sourced and documented conclusions of these impeccably credentialed American academics. So they rolled out one of their professional obfuscators, in this case the insipid Tony Fratto, to set the record straight. According to Fratto, “People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11.” Fratto's comments are appalling in both their arrogance and contempt for the truth. "The cost of doing nothing, and the cost of failure?" Is he serious? The additional cost of doing nothing, at least in the case of Iraq, would be, well, nothing! Zip, nada, the big goose egg. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, so any cost associated with Iraq "containment" would have been as before. As for the cost of failure, that too would also be zero, since Iraq was an illegal, immoral war of choice. What we are all burdened with now is the cost of the failed policy of the president Fratto defends.
But Fratto didn't have the decency to stop there, he also had this gem, “It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?” Again, Fratto wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the backside. Our own government has stated that the war in Iraq has resulted in more instability and insecurity, not less. Investment? Remind me to never let Fratto make a stock deal for me. So, with no real facts of his own to refute Stiglitz's claims, the only thing Fratto can do is to try and impugn the reputation and patriotism of one of our most distinguished economists. I'd call that disgusting, but it's just another day in this White House. And perhaps the most Orwellian aspect of these statements is that this is from the administration that sold the war as one that would "pay for itself." All that Iraqi black gold was going to flow in, and it would only cost about 1.7 billion to patch the place back up! So, they were in the ball-park, only off by a factor of 2,000!
Well, since Fratto brought up the notion of investment, let's see exactly what 3 trillion dollars can buy:
Let's try and get our heads around that number. For comparison, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States is in the vicinity of 13 - 14 trillion dollars. So, we're looking at a cost approaching 1/4 of the ENTIRE economic output of the country for a whole year. Put another way, that's more than $10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. I'd call that staggering, but the "Spender in Chief," doesn't seem to get it, for Bush, the wars have apparently been a plus. When asked if he agreed with comments that the war in Iraq is hurting the economy, Bush quipped, "I don’t think so. I think, actually, the spending on the war might help with jobs." Rather ironic to hear a so-called conservative Republican plug the war as a three trillion dollar jobs program! But in Bush-land anything is possible.
Of course, the White House was none to pleased with the fully sourced and documented conclusions of these impeccably credentialed American academics. So they rolled out one of their professional obfuscators, in this case the insipid Tony Fratto, to set the record straight. According to Fratto, “People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11.” Fratto's comments are appalling in both their arrogance and contempt for the truth. "The cost of doing nothing, and the cost of failure?" Is he serious? The additional cost of doing nothing, at least in the case of Iraq, would be, well, nothing! Zip, nada, the big goose egg. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, so any cost associated with Iraq "containment" would have been as before. As for the cost of failure, that too would also be zero, since Iraq was an illegal, immoral war of choice. What we are all burdened with now is the cost of the failed policy of the president Fratto defends.
But Fratto didn't have the decency to stop there, he also had this gem, “It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?” Again, Fratto wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the backside. Our own government has stated that the war in Iraq has resulted in more instability and insecurity, not less. Investment? Remind me to never let Fratto make a stock deal for me. So, with no real facts of his own to refute Stiglitz's claims, the only thing Fratto can do is to try and impugn the reputation and patriotism of one of our most distinguished economists. I'd call that disgusting, but it's just another day in this White House. And perhaps the most Orwellian aspect of these statements is that this is from the administration that sold the war as one that would "pay for itself." All that Iraqi black gold was going to flow in, and it would only cost about 1.7 billion to patch the place back up! So, they were in the ball-park, only off by a factor of 2,000!
Well, since Fratto brought up the notion of investment, let's see exactly what 3 trillion dollars can buy:
- ~4,000 US servicemen (and women) killed in Iraq
- ~30,000 US servicemen (and women) wounded in Iraq
- Upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths since the US-led invasion
- 3 - 5 million Iraqi refugees; either having fled the country or internally displaced
- Much of Iraq physically devastated
- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, Waterboarding, etc, etc.
- Stature and Standing of US in the world demolished
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Torture Follies
Revelations concerning the use of torture against detainees held by the US in the so-called global war on terror (GWOT) have been slowly but steadily leaking out over the past few years. The pace seems to have quickened in the past few weeks, so much so that in recent days the Bush Administration has been rather shockingly upfront in confirming various allegations about the CIA's use of waterboarding (aka water-torture) as an interrogation technique, perhaps as a way of getting out in front of and controlling what appears to be an evolving scandal. On Tuesday CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed during Congressional testimony that the CIA had indeed waterboarded three detainees, but he also insisted that since those earlier interrogations the "technique" had not been used again. However, given this Administration's record of veracity on the question of torture, it would only seem prudent to take Hayden's assertions with a grain (or several) of salt.
Today the plot thickened even further. Statements from the very top of the Administration, from Tony Fratto in the White House, and from newly minted Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asserted that not only was waterboarding not torture, but that it was actually legal! Moreover, Fratto asserted that the President retained the authority to order its use again should certain conditions be met. The irony here is thicker than mud, as recall that Mukasey faced rather severe specific questioning concerning the legality of waterboarding during his Senate confirmation hearings. One wonders what those Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee who in the end agreed to support Mukasey's confirmation, such as NY's Chuck Shumer, are thinking tonight after his statements today?
All this takes place at a time when the Congress was beginning to feel that it had managed to, if not stop altogether, then at least put the brakes on the Administration's love affair with keeping the torture option available. Passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006--which ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions--would have appeared to have done just that. However, no one should underestimate the willingness of this Administration to ignore the law, simply look at the record of Bush's recent signing statements if you need convincing.
The most ironic and astonishing thing in all this, including the desire by some members of Congress to pass new legislation banning torture, is that torture is indeed illegal (and has been for decades) under US law! Congress did not, and does not need to pass ANY new laws to make torture a crime. Indeed, under existing US and International laws that have full jurisdiction in US courts, those implicated on suspicion of committing or abetting the commission of torture could be indicted and arrested tomorrow by agents of the Justice Department, assuming, that is, that those in the Justice Department with such authority had any intention of actually enforcing these existing laws and fulfilling the oaths they took to do so upon taking office. Clearly Mr. Mukasey had no such intent or he would have immediately opened a criminal investigation of the CIA after Hayden's public admission of the use of waterboarding by the agency, rather than squelching one.
While recent Congressional actions and legislation provide the impression that Congress is intent upon trying to hold the White House accountable on torture, the details are rather more murky. As noted above the prohibition on torture present in US law prior to the Detainee Treatment and Military Commission acts is unequivocal. Torture has been and is illegal, and the US is bound under that existing body of law to prosecute torturers. Now, the Detainee Treatment and Military Commissions acts contain language that either creates a defense for particular individuals implicated in torture, or forgives past violations of the Geneva Conventions, as Michael Ratner has pointed out. So, you be the judge, do these new acts strengthen or attempt to weaken the legal proscription of torture?
The actions of Congress in regard to the torture allegations (now admissions) have been frustratingly similar to its behavior in the face of other Administration wrongdoing, for example, the clear violations of FISA by the President's warrantless spy program. Rather than forcefully hold the administration accountable to existing law, the opposition party in Congress has repeatably sought to accomodate the law breaking so as not to appear "soft" on so-called Homeland Security issues (read terrorism). Thus, we are treated to statements from Congressional Democrats such as Senator Diane Feinstein (CA), "The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law. At that point, all U.S. government interrogations - military and civilian - would be conducted under the same rules and regulations, and eight specific techniques, including waterboarding, would be prohibited.” Feinstein still doesn't seem to understand that it is NOT a legislation problem. Here she falls for one of the Administration smoke-screens, that particular "techniques" need to be individually proscribed. No, the law bans ALL torture, or cruel and degrading treatment, a laundry list of prohibited conduct is not needed, just as murder is murder, regardless of the means used to carry it out. What is it about Feinstein's new legislation that she believes would "end the torture debate?" In deciding to torture detainees the Administration clearly thumbed its nose at the extensive, existing body of law against torture, what is it that makes Feinstein believe that this new bill will have any restraining effect? It won't, this is simply an "easy out" for the spineless Democrats, they can claim to have stood up to Bush on torture without really having done so. And so, undoubtedly, we have not seen the end of the torture debate, or for that matter, the torture.
Today the plot thickened even further. Statements from the very top of the Administration, from Tony Fratto in the White House, and from newly minted Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asserted that not only was waterboarding not torture, but that it was actually legal! Moreover, Fratto asserted that the President retained the authority to order its use again should certain conditions be met. The irony here is thicker than mud, as recall that Mukasey faced rather severe specific questioning concerning the legality of waterboarding during his Senate confirmation hearings. One wonders what those Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee who in the end agreed to support Mukasey's confirmation, such as NY's Chuck Shumer, are thinking tonight after his statements today?
All this takes place at a time when the Congress was beginning to feel that it had managed to, if not stop altogether, then at least put the brakes on the Administration's love affair with keeping the torture option available. Passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006--which ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions--would have appeared to have done just that. However, no one should underestimate the willingness of this Administration to ignore the law, simply look at the record of Bush's recent signing statements if you need convincing.
The most ironic and astonishing thing in all this, including the desire by some members of Congress to pass new legislation banning torture, is that torture is indeed illegal (and has been for decades) under US law! Congress did not, and does not need to pass ANY new laws to make torture a crime. Indeed, under existing US and International laws that have full jurisdiction in US courts, those implicated on suspicion of committing or abetting the commission of torture could be indicted and arrested tomorrow by agents of the Justice Department, assuming, that is, that those in the Justice Department with such authority had any intention of actually enforcing these existing laws and fulfilling the oaths they took to do so upon taking office. Clearly Mr. Mukasey had no such intent or he would have immediately opened a criminal investigation of the CIA after Hayden's public admission of the use of waterboarding by the agency, rather than squelching one.
While recent Congressional actions and legislation provide the impression that Congress is intent upon trying to hold the White House accountable on torture, the details are rather more murky. As noted above the prohibition on torture present in US law prior to the Detainee Treatment and Military Commission acts is unequivocal. Torture has been and is illegal, and the US is bound under that existing body of law to prosecute torturers. Now, the Detainee Treatment and Military Commissions acts contain language that either creates a defense for particular individuals implicated in torture, or forgives past violations of the Geneva Conventions, as Michael Ratner has pointed out. So, you be the judge, do these new acts strengthen or attempt to weaken the legal proscription of torture?
The actions of Congress in regard to the torture allegations (now admissions) have been frustratingly similar to its behavior in the face of other Administration wrongdoing, for example, the clear violations of FISA by the President's warrantless spy program. Rather than forcefully hold the administration accountable to existing law, the opposition party in Congress has repeatably sought to accomodate the law breaking so as not to appear "soft" on so-called Homeland Security issues (read terrorism). Thus, we are treated to statements from Congressional Democrats such as Senator Diane Feinstein (CA), "The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law. At that point, all U.S. government interrogations - military and civilian - would be conducted under the same rules and regulations, and eight specific techniques, including waterboarding, would be prohibited.” Feinstein still doesn't seem to understand that it is NOT a legislation problem. Here she falls for one of the Administration smoke-screens, that particular "techniques" need to be individually proscribed. No, the law bans ALL torture, or cruel and degrading treatment, a laundry list of prohibited conduct is not needed, just as murder is murder, regardless of the means used to carry it out. What is it about Feinstein's new legislation that she believes would "end the torture debate?" In deciding to torture detainees the Administration clearly thumbed its nose at the extensive, existing body of law against torture, what is it that makes Feinstein believe that this new bill will have any restraining effect? It won't, this is simply an "easy out" for the spineless Democrats, they can claim to have stood up to Bush on torture without really having done so. And so, undoubtedly, we have not seen the end of the torture debate, or for that matter, the torture.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
State of Disgrace
OK, I'll come right out and admit it, I can't watch these spectacles anymore. I'm already on blood pressure medication, and such shameful displays from our government as George Bush's final State of the Union address, would just send my diastolic through the roof. I'll read the transcript and a few choice stories about it after the fact, but sit through it? No, I would sooner have some dental work done sans novocaine.
What honest assessment could conclude other than that the state of our Union is nothing short of catastrophic? It seems now that a substantial fraction of Americans have finally come round to this conclusion, judging from recent polling that suggests upwards of 75% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Disaffection with the status quo can also be seen in the much stronger interest in the Democratic presidential race than that of the Republicans. But, you would not necessarily know this if you simply listened to, and worse yet, believed, any of the drivel coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth the other night. Indeed, given the long, documented record of Bush and Co.'s outright lies, distortions and abuse of the truth, one can fairly ask the question, should the media even be obligated to cover such a pathetic spectacle? For in doing so, a strong argument can be made that they are simply providing a platform for Mr. Bush to continue to "catapult the propaganda" (his words). At any rate, perhaps a compromise would be to agree to cover the speech, but only with proper warning labels; "viewers be advised, this speaker has a long history of really shoveling the shit!"
And what of the Senators, House members, and other select government pooh-bahs in attendance? Is it really their "duty" to applaud, indeed, provide the occasional standing ovation, for this mendacious mediocrity? Was there anything he said that was worthy of praise? The gross overstatement of "success" in Iraq perhaps? A "success" that has destroyed a country, and precipitated the death of upwards of 1 million of its citizens. Worthy of applause? I think not. If I should have found myself so unfortunate as to be present in the House chamber, my hands would have been sore from being sat upon. Shame on any Congress member to applaud such suffering; shame, shame.
This version was really more of the same old nonsense: cut taxes, bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice (really, again, after abandoning Bin Laden in Tora Bora for the invasion of Iraq)! Democratize the Middle East, blah, blah. Predictably, there was also the usual dose of fear. Perhaps Bush's most audacious attempt to browbeat Americans into giving up yet more of their rights was his "threat" to veto a Congressional extension of the FISA law if it does not also contain retroactive immunity for the telecom giants who aided and abetted Mr. Bush's illegal spying operation. Forgive me, I misspoke, the terrorist surveillance program (sounds a lot nicer that way doesn't it). As Keith Olbermann has eloquently pointed out in a recent commentary, this one is truly astonishing. Bush wants us to believe that he absolutely requires the new FISA to protect us--a claim, by the way, that has been thoroughly debunked, most recently by Richard Clarke--but he's willing to veto it if it doesn't also contain the telecom immunity provisions. So, by his own reasoning, he's willing to put defending the telecoms from expensive litigation ahead of protecting us from terrorists! By immunizing the telecoms Bush is providing a de facto immunity for himself and his cronies in crime. Viewed in that light, such a gambit should come as no surprise to most Americans, it simply evidences the impunity and arrogance which have been the hallmarks of this catastrophic administration.
What honest assessment could conclude other than that the state of our Union is nothing short of catastrophic? It seems now that a substantial fraction of Americans have finally come round to this conclusion, judging from recent polling that suggests upwards of 75% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Disaffection with the status quo can also be seen in the much stronger interest in the Democratic presidential race than that of the Republicans. But, you would not necessarily know this if you simply listened to, and worse yet, believed, any of the drivel coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth the other night. Indeed, given the long, documented record of Bush and Co.'s outright lies, distortions and abuse of the truth, one can fairly ask the question, should the media even be obligated to cover such a pathetic spectacle? For in doing so, a strong argument can be made that they are simply providing a platform for Mr. Bush to continue to "catapult the propaganda" (his words). At any rate, perhaps a compromise would be to agree to cover the speech, but only with proper warning labels; "viewers be advised, this speaker has a long history of really shoveling the shit!"
And what of the Senators, House members, and other select government pooh-bahs in attendance? Is it really their "duty" to applaud, indeed, provide the occasional standing ovation, for this mendacious mediocrity? Was there anything he said that was worthy of praise? The gross overstatement of "success" in Iraq perhaps? A "success" that has destroyed a country, and precipitated the death of upwards of 1 million of its citizens. Worthy of applause? I think not. If I should have found myself so unfortunate as to be present in the House chamber, my hands would have been sore from being sat upon. Shame on any Congress member to applaud such suffering; shame, shame.
This version was really more of the same old nonsense: cut taxes, bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice (really, again, after abandoning Bin Laden in Tora Bora for the invasion of Iraq)! Democratize the Middle East, blah, blah. Predictably, there was also the usual dose of fear. Perhaps Bush's most audacious attempt to browbeat Americans into giving up yet more of their rights was his "threat" to veto a Congressional extension of the FISA law if it does not also contain retroactive immunity for the telecom giants who aided and abetted Mr. Bush's illegal spying operation. Forgive me, I misspoke, the terrorist surveillance program (sounds a lot nicer that way doesn't it). As Keith Olbermann has eloquently pointed out in a recent commentary, this one is truly astonishing. Bush wants us to believe that he absolutely requires the new FISA to protect us--a claim, by the way, that has been thoroughly debunked, most recently by Richard Clarke--but he's willing to veto it if it doesn't also contain the telecom immunity provisions. So, by his own reasoning, he's willing to put defending the telecoms from expensive litigation ahead of protecting us from terrorists! By immunizing the telecoms Bush is providing a de facto immunity for himself and his cronies in crime. Viewed in that light, such a gambit should come as no surprise to most Americans, it simply evidences the impunity and arrogance which have been the hallmarks of this catastrophic administration.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Miracle Amish Heater!
I was in Boston the other night on some work-related travel, and after a busy day and a nice dinner I went back to my hotel room to decompress a little before retiring. I usually don't read the USA Today, but since it had been delivered free of charge to the room, I thought I would just flip through and see what I had missed all day (if anything). Anyway, I came upon this full page ad in the sports section (shown here in these two images). The more I read through it the funnier it got. If you were not looking at the fine print you might at first think it was a story, right, it looks like a story, but the finer print indicates it is an ad. The title just really caught my attention, "Amish man's new miracle idea..." From the headline and picture you might think that this righteous Amish gentleman had just invented some new heater technology, and now he's bringing it to the rest of the world. Note the well dressed gent with the "coveted" Underwriters Laboratory sign (it actually says coveted in the caption)! However, if you guessed that you would be wrong! For one thing, it's incongruous, the Amish are famous for shunning technology, so how could he come up with some new heater concept if he wouldn't even turn a light bulb on in his lab! Heck, for that matter what lab, about the only thing he could have in there without violating half a dozen tenets of his faith would be a bunsen burner.
Well, if you read the fine print, and look at the rest of the ad (pictured below), you will see that they are in fact hawking heaters, the "Heat Surge" fireless flame (whatever that means) in fact, and from the China coast to boot (wherever that is)! But, the wacky thing is that you don't buy the heaters, you get the heaters for "free" if you just purchase a genuine Amish mantle! According to the ad, the Heat Surge is a $249 value, but if you purchase the genuine Amish mantles, then you get the heaters for free, and it just so happens that the mantles cost $249 too! You
have to act fast though, because they are imposing a strict limit of only two per household, wouldn't want someone to get too warm I guess. Apparently "entire communities of Amish craftsmen are straining to keep up with winter demands..."If we go back to the headline, one wonders what the Amish man's miracle idea was to begin with, teaming up with the UL suit in the main photo perhaps? I like the photo on the right showing a pair of heaters being shipped out by horse and buggy! Also note the US map with the Frigid, Cold and Frost zones, with the Frost zone extending all the way down to balmy Miami.
I don't know if it's funny or sad the way that these advertisers try to "sell" using the Amish "brand." Also, the ad is so over-the-top in almost every respect that one wonders if it's all just a scam and the Amish are not really making the mantles. There is a web-site, but if you look you will see that "mantels" is mispelled, and the English usage is poor in spots, so that suggests to me that they may just be trying to scam on the good reputation of the Amish as excellent craftsmen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)