Well, hey — my name is Lincoln Madison, so I've always felt a certain personal affinity for this particular holiday, ever since Madison Avenue invented it. True, this holiday generally commemorates Lincoln and Washington, and it's downright antipodal to my birthday, but I can still call it my own.
I've always taken a keen interest in Presidential politics. I watched hour after hour, day after day, as the Watergate hearings crept forward in Congress, even though I was only 11. Two years later, I watched large chunks of both the Democratic and Republican conventions. I was 17 when Reagan was elected, but I watched my older brother campaign for John Anderson, a Republican-turned-independent who broke from the "Conservative Movement" domination of the GOP. When Bill Clinton was elected, I was living abroad, but I stayed up into the wee hours of the morning, watching the returns roll in until a winner could be declared. I was utterly dismayed that the American electorate failed to repudiate George W. Bush in 2004, having had a pretty convincing preview of how badly he could fuck up if given another four years. I shall not stand idly by while my country surrenders yet farther to neo-conservative totalitarianism.
I believe wholeheartedly, more fervently than ever before, that our nation's freedom depends upon electing a Democrat in November. I would prefer that it be Barack Obama, but I will support any Democrat against any Republican.
Technorati tags: Presidents Day
Monday, February 18, 2008
Happy Presidents Day to Me!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Now, that's just TWISTED!
I was just reading on CNN.com about the recall of 70,000 tons of beef from a California slaughterhouse — the largest beef recall in U.S. history — because the processing facility did not separate cattle that were unable to walk for closer inspection, required because they are at greater risk of diseases that might be transmissible to humans. One of the sidebars is a list of the products affected by the recall (brief summary: the brand names are Westland Meat Co., King Meat Co., Regal, and Hallmark Meat Packing; details here)
The really twisted part, though: CNN suggested another article I might want to check out — "Create a recipe notebook." Gotta love that artificial intelligence....
Technorati tags: beef recall
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Inside Iraq: Haditha
This week's Inside Iraq program on Al Jazeera English focuses on a docu-drama about the events leading up to the killing of 24 innocent Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha on 2005-11-19. Nick Broomfield, a British filmmaker, has produced Battle for Haditha, an attempt to place the incident in context, showing the perspectives of both the Iraqis and the American soldiers. Host Jasim Azzawi alternates clips of the film with a one-on-one interview with Broomfield. It's difficult to watch, seeing the impossible situations in which people on both sides find themselves, especially knowing the tragic outcome. However, it is a reality from which we must not shy away if we are to have any hope of mitigating the disaster that has followed in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Video clips embedded below the fold.
The Iraq War has been a slow-motion train wreck from the very beginning, but the Bush Administration's response has been "full steam ahead!" The only legitimate questions remaining for the United States are:
The idea that our military presence in Iraq for another decade, never mind another century, will somehow magically transform the country into a peaceful, democratic land of milk and honey is nothing but fantasy. There is simply too much bad blood between the Iraqis and the United States, most especially the U.S. military.
Technorati tags: Inside Iraq, Battle for Haditha, Al Jazeera English, Nick Broomfield, Iraq War, Haditha
Click below for more...
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Giving Michigan and Florida a Voice
The Democratic Party primaries in Michigan and Florida were advanced before Super Tuesday in violation of Democratic National Committee rules. As a result, the party has ruled that the delegates chosen in those two primaries will not be seated at the national convention. Indeed, the candidates themselves agreed not to campaign in those two states, and Barack Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan. Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton won both contests. In a move smacking of deep cynicism and abject political opportunism, the Clinton campaign is now pressing to have the delegates seated from both primaries.
The party is faced with two unacceptable alternatives: seat delegates from primaries that both candidates agreed in advance were "rogue," or leave the citizens of two major states without a voice in the nominating process. There is only one way to resolve this dilemma. The state party leaders in Michigan and Florida must come up with a way to hold new primaries or caucuses, with both remaining candidates competing on equal footing. That's the only fair, democratic solution — fair to Michigan and Florida, fair to the other states, and fair to both candidates.
I support the candidacy of Barack Obama, but more fundamentally I support the democratic process. Even if these flawed primaries supported my candidate, my concern for the Party, in November and beyond, would outweigh that narrow interest. Unfortunately, short-term political advantage is the only argument on the side of the Clinton campaign's position. Indeed, Clinton's willingness to change the rules mid-game is yet another reason that I support Barack Obama.
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party, Michigan Primary, Florida Primary
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Colbert is BACK! (Huckabee transcript)
Even without his writing staff, Stephen Colbert is unto himself a formidable political force. On Wednesday's show, he interviewed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R–AR), who played along with the host better than just about any politician who's been on either The Colbert Réport or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Don't get me wrong — I will f-word-ing tear my hair out if Huckabee actually becomes President. However, I provide here the transcript of the interview, because I believe it to be of some importance to have a written record of an event of considerable bearing on the political process. For those of you visiting "The Third Path" for the first time, I do actually have a number of things to say of my own accord, but I have also provided transcripts of many interviews that would otherwise be only Comedy Central and/or YouTube clips, including quite a few from sources other than Comedy Central, most notably Al Jazeera English. It is my hope that the political discourse will benefit from the outside perspective — not anti-American, but also not only-American — of a network that sets the standard for journalistic courage in the 21st century, but also that the people will see that America should be embrace Al Jazeera English, not fear it. Al Jazeera English quite simply is what CNN was 25 years ago: serious journalism, with no punches pulled on anybody. But I promise I'm not trying to hijack Stephen Colbert to promote another network, so, without further ado, here are the embedded video clip and the transcript, below the fold.
Stephen Colbert interviewing Gov. Mike Huckabee (R–AR) on Comedy Central's The Colbert Réport, Copyright ©2008 Comedy Central. Original airdate: 2008-01-09.[Colbert chastises the audience for showing up the Pundits who predicted McCain in '08 (two years ago), Clinton and Giuliani in '08 (four months ago), and Obama and Huckabee in '08 (four days ago), by voting for Clinton.]
A few comments on Huckabee's responses:
Stephen Colbert: I mean, if you [the American people] keep voting the way you want, rather than the way we tell you you want, well then, pundits are just gonna stop tellin' you how to think. [audience cheers] No, no, no. I'm mad! You know what? I'm gonna give you a little taste of your own medicine, right now. The next big contest is South Carolina; I happen to be from South Carolina, I happen to know how you'd like to vote there, but I'm not gonna tell you what you want. I'm not gonna tell you who. the winner. of. South Carolina. should be. [pause] Joining me now — live from South Carolina — is the Republican front-runner, and the man who will win, Mike Huckabee!
Gov. Mike Huckabee (R–AR): Hello, Stephen, I hope you're doing well, and I hope you're ready to take it all the way to the White House, 'cause you know, you promised me you would be my running mate.
Colbert: Sir, I am so glad to hear you honor that promise. I was afraid that maybe I was gonna have to let you out of that.
Huckabee: I will keep that promise because, after all, the only reason that I'm the front-runner now is because of the "Colbert bump." If it were not for that, I would not be sitting in this chair, I would be probably somewhere serving hamburgers at a drive-in restaurant.
Colbert: Hamburgers, or Huckaburgers?
Huckabee: They would be Huckaburgers: whole-wheat bun, lean beef, and very carefully selected organic vegetables to go in the Huckaburger.
Colbert: Let me talk about one something for a second here, sir: when you asked me to be your running mate, I jumped on board when you were less than 1%. Obviously, I was thrilled to see you take the whole shootin' match in Iowa, but I gotta say, I'm underwhelmed about New Hampshire: third place? You might have to re-sell me.
Huckabee: Just two weeks ago, we were like in sixth place, so we saw dramatic move and momentum, just in a very short period of time.
Colbert: Umm, McCain: he's got "big mo,"if you pardon the expression. How are you gonna stop him? You're a man of the Faith; he said he will hunt Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell — will you hunt Osama bin Laden all the way into Hell?
Huckabee: And beyond. I will charge Hell with a water pistol, if necessary.
Colbert: Okay, let's go over some policy things; I want to make sure we're on the same page here. Do we both still feel that Evolution is a farce?
Huckabee: Huckabee: It's all a farce.
Colbert: Good to hear it. Are we the candidates who think that the Devil and Jesus were brothers?
Huckabee: Uh, no. That's not us. But I'll send you a memo on that, and I'll underline the parts in red that we need to believe.
Colbert: You knew that. Where do you stand on global warming?
Huckabee: I do think we've gotta be better stewards of the environment, and, frankly, we need to take better care of this planet.
Colbert: You know what I say? I say we hit the Environment hard, before it hits us. It's payback for earthquakes and hurricanes. [pause] How 'bout outsourcing jobs?
Huckabee: As long as it isn't mine.
Colbert: Ditto! Now, there's criticism of you, that you do not have foreign policy experience. That's how I can balance the ticket for you, because I've been overseas — I've been to Sandals Resort in Jamaica, I've been to Sandals Resort in the Bahamas, I've been to Sandals Resort in Barbados, I've been to Epcot.
Huckabee: That oughta take care of it.
Colbert: Can I take you to task for something that, I gotta say, alarms me. You are being attacked, and I think in this case rightfully so, for not being harsh enough on illegal immigrants. Is it true that you do not support building a pneumatic tube to fire Mexicans back to Guadalajara?
Huckabee: [laughs vigorously]
Colbert: 'Cause I heard that you're not supporting that.
Huckabee: No, I don't support that; I'm not quite that harsh.
Colbert: Let's talk money problems. Do you have the cash to go all the distance here? I mean, Romney's got all kinds of money. If you're trying to raise a little scratch, South Carolina gun laws are so loose, you can go into any gun shop and buy as many handguns as you want, and just ship 'em up here to New York and sell 'em on the streets illegally and raise some serious scratch.
Huckabee: How do you think I financed my campaign for the past 11 months?
Colbert: Smart man! Pick me up a couple?
Huckabee: [nods] On their way. What kind would you like?
Colbert: Something with the serial number scratched off!
Huckabee: Consider it done.
Colbert: I know you're a man of your word — you would never rescind your offer of making me your Vice President, no matter how well you do in the campaign, but I want to let you know, I believe in you, I believe in what you're doing, I'm gonna give you this opportunity to get out of it with honor. Just ask me, one more time, I'll say no, and then, you know, then you can pick somebody else. Go ahead.
Huckabee: Stephen, please, be my running mate.
Colbert: YES! Yes, a thousand times, yes! [audience laughs] I've got my hooks in you, mister! I will see you at the altar.
Huckabee: Uh, we're not taking it that far.
Colbert: Huckabee, good luck down there, stay strong, be brave, and remember, stay a Hucka-be, not a Hucka-was.
Huckabee: Thank you, Stephen.
Colbert: Thank you, sir. Mike Huckabee, everybody.
I hope you've found this transcript, and perhaps even some of my annotations and comments, helpful, and that you'll check out the rest of the blog, including the various transcripts I've done, and maybe some of my own original thoughts. And yes, for the love of America, demand that your cable system carry Al Jazeera English now!CHRISTIANITY: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense. — found on the masthead of the Myth Understood channel on Justin.TV; original source unspecified
It is absurd, and even blasphemous, to suggest that any human could ever have an infallible understanding of "the will of God," if any God worthy of the capital G exists.
Technorati tags: Stephen Colbert, Mike Huckabee, Colbert Report, Comedy Central, Transcript
Click below for more...
I'm Not Dead Yet!
I can't help thinking of the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with the man bringing his father out to be carted off with the corpses, despite his vigorous protests that he's not dead yet. Hillary Clinton is definitely not dead yet, having squeaked past Barack Obama in New Hampshire (although they actually tied in delegates). John McCain is definitely not dead yet, having convincingly defeated "favorite son" Mitt Romney. What's scary to me, actually, is that so many people take Romney seriously. The Union Leader and the Concord Monitor got it right in their anti-endorsements of Romney.
For purely partisan reasons, I would love to see the Republicans nominate Romney, because I think he could challenge the electoral college tally amassed by the last Massachusetts governor to run for President: Michael Dukakis. (Dukakis lost by 426 to 111, with one rogue elector voting for running mate Lloyd Bentsen.) America needs a landslide Presidential victory, and with Romney on the red side, even a Mike Gravel–Dennis Kucinich ticket could win 40 states. Hell — even Dukakis would have a tough time losing to Romney!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Two very different views of Deliverance
[not a reference to the 1972 film Deliverance, starring Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds]
I'm watching MSNBC's coverage of the Iowa caucus, with Chris Matthews (whom I do not call "Tweety") giving a very good summation of the rut in which America finds itself, and comparing this rut to the beginning of the Great Depression.
[The choice of FDR over Hoover in 1932] wasn't an improvement, it wasn't finding somebody smarter than the guy we have in office, it was taking us out of the rut and taking us to a new place. The Biblical term for it, since we're in a Biblical era, is Deliverance. We're being picked up and moved to where we have to be. — Chris Matthews on MSNBCAs he also pointed out, there will be two prominent headlines on newspapers around the world tomorrow: "Obama Wins" and "Hillary Loses." I think Chris Matthews is right that Obama represents Deliverance on the Democratic side, and I think that Huckabee represents the Republican vision of Deliverance. Which vision can capture a clear and convincing majority of the American people?
The gridlock in Congress, with almost all Democratic efforts failing in the face of an unbreakable filibustering minority of Republicans, has resulted in inaction on issues of climate change, energy, Social Security and Medicare reform, the Iraq war, and foreign policy. In a meta-sense, the American people have to decide between picking one side decisively or continuing the near-50-50 paralysis. I'll take a look, with candid and obvious bias, at the two visions for breaking with the Bush legacy.
Mike Huckabee represents a return to the "Traditional American Values." In the stereotype of the 1950's, à la Pleasantville, those Values included second-class treatment for women, passive acceptance of racial inequity, homophobia, and a basically insular view of the U.S. role in the world. What happened in Kuala Lumpur or Nairobi or Caracas was of no particular interest, unless you worked in an industry with a particular connection to that region. Men were men, women were women, no one was ambiguously in between, boys were circumcised, pregnancy led to a shotgun wedding or a life of shame, marriage was an eternal bond shackling one submissive woman to one dominant male, and the rest of the world should do as we say, because clearly God has blessed America and therefore we must be doing everything exactly as He intended, and of course America was a Christian nation — it was silly even to ask. Mike Huckabee softens the edges quite a bit on several of those bullet points, but the core direction is the same.
Mike Huckabee aims to convince the solid majority of Americans who believe that a woman has a right to follow her own conscience in deciding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, that abortion should be banned in the U.S. Constitution. He couches it as an aspiration rather than a promise, but he says it's what he believes God holds in His Divine Will for the future of this country. He puts a "compassionate" smile on his face saying it, but he believes that two men or two women in a committed, loving relationship have no right whatsoever to any governmental recognition of the intertwining of their lives. He wants us out of Iraq, but he also believes that his years as a Baptist preacher have prepared him to take on the challenge of Islamic extremism. He believes that the same "aw shucks" folksiness that has swept him from Hope, Arkansas, to the national level, will work just as well on a global stage.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, represents a leap into the future. You could picture a President Barack Obama one day announcing the project to build a research station on the moon, if you know what I mean. Obama stands for the teaching of the science of evolution in science classes. He stands for a woman's right to choose whether to complete a pregnancy — and the right of two adults to choose to marry. He has lived a significant portion of his life outside the United States, seeing how it is perceived as a nation from the outside. Hillary Clinton scoffed at the notion that merely living abroad was in and of itself a qualification for being President, but I say it openly and directly. Christian extremism will no more protect us from Islamic extremism than vice-versa. The answer to extremism — Islamic, Christian, Republican, Communist, or White Supremacist — is embracing (not merely tolerating) diversity. In an era in which 19 men with half a million dollars were able to strike a stunning blow against the greatest military power in human history, military power is not the answer. The United States must dry up the reservoir of potential terrorist recruits by becoming popular, because only when the overwhelming majority of the people of the world see us as "the good guys" will we ever overcome a determined minority who despise us to the core of their being.
Around the world — even in Chris Matthews' favorite: Rangoon [Yangon], Burma [Myanmar] — the United States has taken a striking step by advancing the candidacy of an American who is a citizen of the world, not just of the United States. It is Barack Hussein Obama who represents the vision of Deliverance from the world of Al Qaeda, Taliban, Tamil, and I.R.A. It is Barack Obama who shines the beacon of Hope around the world. It is Barack Obama whom I want to see as the next President of the United States.
[This article also appeared in my DailyKos diary.]
Technorati tags: Iowa Caucus, 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, Deliverance, War on Terror
Click below for more... Read More......
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
That's So ... Canadian!
Last month, I flew up to Toronto for a few days, to attend and attest to the marriage of my good friend Howard. Aside from the heaviest one-day snowfall since World War II (the same storm that slammed New England and the Maritimes), it was an interesting peek into life north of the border. It had been ten years since my last visit to the Great White North — and that was in August, when it only barely went below freezing. Howard grew up in Los Angeles, and has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area his entire adult life, but he despairs for the future of the United States, especially with George W. Bush resolutely marching us in the wrong direction on issue after issue. For him, moving to Canada is a breath of fresh air in many ways. First and foremost, he can legally get married and have that union fully recognized by all levels of the government, but that's not all. As Howard said about one marvel after another, "That's so ... Canadian!"
Coming right on the heels of a snowfall that was heavy by Canadian standards (BRRRR!), the wedding was lightly attended. Almost as many Yanks as Canucks showed up — the Americans had flown or driven up before the storm hit, whereas the locals were stranded until the snow plows came. The actual ceremony was performed by a "certified marriage practitioner," a recent Canadian innovation for people who don't want a church service but find courtrooms unromantic. A couple of days before the big day, we went shopping for a few last-minute items, and every person we told that Howard and Don were getting married, gave us heartfelt congratulations; not one expressed any consternation at the thought of two men marrying. Of course, when your primary concern is "How am I going to shift this mound of snow off my driveway so I can get to work?" it doesn't leave much time for worrying who your neighbor is sleeping with.
We even went into a Wal-Mart, the pinnacle of American retail culture, but even a Canadian Wal-Mart felt somehow different. Maybe it was the patient single-file queue for the express checkout lanes. In America, we demand a separate line for each lane, never mind that it can be proven mathematically that a single line is more efficient. Maybe we get lucky and get a line that moves quickly, or maybe we get stuck behind "Price check, Aisle 666" — but then we get to bitch about it. But beyond that, patience isn't something I see in abundance in places like Wal-Mart, less than two weeks before Christmas.
The pervasive sense of anxiety that has seeped into every facet of post-9/11 American life is shockingly absent in Canada, even though Canada has troops in Afghanistan and has even faced some terror threats at home. As Howard puts it, "Nobody hates Canada." That's not quite literally true, but the United States has the sad distinction of being quite possibly the most hated nation in the history of the world, because the people who are pissed at us number in the billions. Another key point: every time a single Canadian soldier is killed in Afghanistan, the entire country pauses to mourn the loss. Here in the United States, we feel eerily detached from the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. We never see the coffins coming home. When Nightline devoted an episode to a simple list of the soldiers who have been killed, it was vilified by the neocons as being part of a defeatist conspiracy.
The other day, my TiVo recorded an episode of Degrassi: Next Generation, a Canadian soap opera drama set in a high school in Toronto. Degrassi is a very different place from my high school, and the kids are pretty different, too. There's an earnestness about them, a burning drive to change the world for the better, that kind of makes you think some of them might just grow up to be political bloggers. That's the characters in the script, at any rate, but what of the actors themselves? Well, on Christmas Day, the episode I caught was a travelogue of several of the actors on a trip to a remote village in Kenya, where they built a real school, not just a set on a soundstage. They spent about a week living in the village, hauling water back a couple of kilometers from the muddy river, moving rocks, pouring concrete, putting a roof on the building, and in general giving tangible expression to their concern for humanity. It was all very ... Canadian.
I love my country, and I'm not ready yet to give up the fight to take it back from the neocon cabal that has been in power the last 7 years, but I can't help thinking that I wish the United States of America could be just a little bit more Canadian — minus the record snowfall, of course.
Technorati tags: Canada, Same-Sex Marriage
Click below for more...
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
... and We're Back
Since putting the blog on hiatus in October for the sake of my poor, aching wrist, I've been putting in fewer hours on the computer, and I've also been on the road almost as much as I've been home. However, my travels are complete, with no more wandering at least until spring, and New Year's seems like a good day for a fresh restart.
The Iowa caucuses are only two days away, marking the official start of the Most Important Presidential Campaign of Our Lifetime™. Seriously, though, what is at stake in this election is nothing less than national security, economic prosperity, and our very national soul. Is America the kind of country that spies on its own citizens without judicial oversight? Is America the kind of country that detains people, including citizens, indefinitely, without access to lawyers, much less judges? Is America the kind of country that tortures prisoners, even knowing full well that torture does not produce reliable information? Is America the kind of country that stands idly by as millions of its citizens have no access to medical care? Is America the kind of country that launches unprovoked wars of aggression? Those questions are the backdrop of this campaign, and that's what I'll be talking about here.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Boytech and Girltech in Simpsons TiVo Easter Egg
I'm amazed that I find no references anywhere on the web to this one. I just watched last Sunday's episode #408 (KABF01) of Fox's The Simpsons, "Funeral for a Fiend," original air date 2007-11-25. Of course, I watched it on my TiVo, with remote in hand. The main plot centers on the return of Sideshow Bob to make yet another attempt to murder Bart Simpson, but there's a subplot around the Simpsons' acquisition of a TiVo. Lisa teaches Marge how to skip through the commercials — leading a bit later to having Keith Olbermann denounce Marge as "Worst Person in the World!" for denying paid advertisers their due.
As Lisa demonstrates fast-forwarding through the ads at the cliffhanger of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon, we see the Simpsons' TV screen; a series of commercials flash by in the blink of an eye. With the TiVo, though, I can freeze-frame and see what the commercials are for, including the bouncing Homer head advertising something in Japanese. There's a commercial for "Turbo Diary," enhanced with the ability to emit a blinding flash of light if a boy tries to read a girl's innermost thoughts. As you step frame-by-frame forward through the commercial, you see the logo "Girltech" leaping off the product; if you step backwards, though, you see the logo "Boytech" instead. I suppose one reading of it would be to say that pausing live TV is "girltech," but backing it up to see if there's a different image is "boytech." Call me a happy hermaphrotech.
By the way, I did actually watch a few of the real commercials in this episode. The Zune ad was way cool — as in, "Watch out Apple iPod" cool. The ad for the new Terminator series, though, looked cheesier than a daytime soap opera; it reminded me of the death of another fine franchise: The Never-Ending Story, Part III: The Final Chapter.
P.S. Buy Olbermann's book! [unpaid, unsolicited endorsement]
Technorati tags: Simpsons, TiVo, Turbo Diary, Girltech, Boytech
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Happy Anniversary to "Inside Iraq"
Al Jazeera English just passed the one-year mark. It is finally available on a few U.S. cable systems, but not on the big conglomerates like Comcast, nor on the two major satellite mini-dish systems. Fortunately, it's available on the web site, including a YouTube link of this week's anniversary special episode of Inside Iraq with Jassim Azzawi. As we head into the U.S. presidential primaries, it's a good time to take stock of developments of the last year. Check it out.
Read More......Friday, October 19, 2007
Slowing down
Regular readers may have noticed that I haven't been posting a lot lately, and I regret to inform you that the trend will continue for at least a couple of weeks. I've been getting some nasty pains in my wrist, forearm, shoulder, and hand. In layman's terms, it's "Carpal Tunnel Syndrome," although in proper medical terms it's some other form of Repetitive Stress Injury. The long and the short of it: too much computer. I just saw my primary care physician, who gave me a referral to the Physical Medicine Department, but the next available appointment is more than two weeks from now. In the mean time, I'll be taking lots of ibuprofen and trying to stay off the computer. I tried some voice-recognition software, but its accuracy "weasel out to be desired." (That's supposed to be "leaves a lot to be desired.")
Read More......Into the Wild
Sean Penn has a new film out, telling the true story of Christopher McCandless, a young man who graduated from college, gave away his life savings, and hitchhiked across the country, ending up in the Alaskan wilderness, living with little if any human contact. He meets up with a number of people along the way, including a few who act as surrogate parents. The story reminded me of a darker version of the Newberry-Award-winning novel My Side of the Mountain by Jean Craighead George, in which Sam Greeley, a high school student, runs away to live on his grandfather's disused farm in upstate New York. Sam Greeley had a penknife, an axe, a ball of cord, fire-making tools, and a small amount of money, but he learns to hunt and fish and harvest wild edible plants. Christopher McCandless had a rifle, some matches, and a few provisions, but was even more on his own, much deeper in the wilderness.
Into the Wild has been in limited release for almost a month, but today it begins its general release. The ads, which you have seen if you watched Daily Show and Colbert Report the last couple of days, focus on the indescribable sense of freedom McCandless feels when he is truly on his own, but the film also chronicles his travels and travails. Emile Hirsch turns in a gripping performance as McCandless, with Jena Malone (Saved!), Vince Vaughn, William Hurt, and the ever-amazing Hal Holbrook supporting. The scenery, from the east coast to the midwest to the southwest to the middle of nowhere, Alaska, is stunning, and the story is compelling. As the TV ads suggest, it's a good way to step out of the pressures and politics of 2007 for 2½ hours; strongly recommended.
Technorati tags: Into the Wild, Christopher McCandless, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Yes, Waterboarding is Torture
I am dumbfounded that this could ever in a million years be a controversial issue. I'm not prepared to tell you exactly where the legal line is between "legitimate aggressive interrogation" and "torture," but I can tell you that — wherever in the fog that line may lie — the practice of waterboarding — "the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces, and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning" — is miles over the line.
I am referring, of course, to Attorney General nominee Judge Michael Mukasey's refusal to answer the straightforward question asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI): Is waterboarding constitutional? Right now, I'm watching MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams, a show I make a particular point of watching when there is a significant legal controversy. Dan Abrams is a lawyer himself, so he can often speak with considerably greater clarity than us non-lawyer people. Pressed by his right-wing guest Cliff May to give a definition of torture, but then interrupted every time he tried to answer, Dan Abrams cut into the middle of the following commercial break to read a dictionary definition of torture:The act of inflicting excruciating pain as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. — Dan Abrams, quoting an unspecified dictionary
The Geneva Conventions don't have a definition of torture, but the reference to it in the Fourth Geneva Convention is couched thusly: it prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." Protocol II goes on to prohibit, at any time, in any place whatsoever, to any person who has ceased actual combat,
There's no direct answer in that particular language to the question of whether waterboarding is torture, but it takes an unimaginably twisted definition of torture to exclude simulated drowning. In fact, it takes an unimaginably twisted definition to exclude waterboarding from "violence to the physical and mental well-being of persons."
I've never been waterboarded, but I did once come seriously close to drowning, and it's not an experience I care to repeat. It brought me to a remarkable level of mental and emotional focus: having already exhausted myself to the point that I would have collapsed in any normal situation, I knew that the only thing that mattered to me was that I somehow do whatever was necessary to survive. In my case, it was a matter of swimming a short distance to get myself out of a river current that was stronger than I could handle, but if I were strapped to a plank in a prison cell, I would say absolutely anything I thought my interrogators wanted to hear. That establishes both that it is torture and that it would be unreliable in extracting "actionable intelligence."
Since Cliff May brought it up, let's look at the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario. You have a terrorist who has been captured, and you have reason to believe (or perhaps he has even said) that he knows details of a plot that will kill a large number of people, just a short time from now. You ask him nicely, pretty please, would he mind awfully much telling us where and how to neutralize the threat, and he demurs. What is the scope of the interrogation tools that are permissible in that situation? Can you torture this guy? Can you ram a steak knife into his thigh? Can you waterboard him? Can you cut off his pinky finger or break his kneecap? Can you slap him upside the head repeatedly? Can you tie him up and tickle him? Can you threaten to hunt down his wife and children? Can you take him over your knee and spank him like a child? Some of those are tougher questions than others, but waterboarding is definitely a gimme.
Setting aside for the moment the obvious ethical and legal considerations, though, let's take a cold and calculating look at the question of effectiveness. One need only look to Jack Bauer and an old episode of 24 for a plausible scenario: the bad guy is being roughed up, so he tells Bauer where the nuclear bomb is. Exactly where the bomb is. Except that the bomb isn't there — it's back at the airport where they started. The point is, what possible incentive is there for this terrorist to tell you the truth, thereby thwarting the plan to which he has committed not only his life, but his immortal soul? Does it even make sense to believe he would do anything other than lie, misdirect, stall for time, or do whatever he could to keep the terror plot on track?
The Attorney General nominee Judge Mukasey should be ashamed of refusing to answer such a straightforward question, and Cliff May should find a new name for his "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies." I would suggest just changing Defense to Destruction, so you don't have to change the abbreviation. Seldom in law will you find a question that is more black-and-white, more inescapably unambiguous, than Is waterboarding torture? Hell yes, and why does anyone even need to ask?
Technorati tags: Waterboarding, Torture, MSNBC, Dan Abrams, Cliff May, Ticking Time Bomb Scenario, Michael Mukasey, Sheldon Whitehouse
Click below for more...
Colbert in, Brownback out
Tuesday night, Stephen Colbert officially announced his candidacy for President of the United States — although he will be entered as a "favorite son" only in the primaries of his native South Carolina, 2008-01-26. Yes, I said "primaries," because Colbert is running both as a Republican and as a Democrat. In today's news, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas announced that he is ending his bid for the Republican nomination. Is it a case of cause and effect, or mere coïncidence?
Here are a couple of excerpts from Colbert's announcement on 2007-10-16:
on The Daily Show with Jon StewartBrownback is expected to officially announce the withdrawal of his candidacy tomorrow in Topeka, Kansas, the state capital. Brownback is consistently anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights; his position on evolution, though, is somewhat more nuanced. He said in a New York Times op-ed that he believes in "microevolution" — small changes within a species — but rejects any theory of evolution that does not include a divine guiding hand. In other words, a salamander may turn into a somewhat different salamander, but not into a wholly different species; that would require God to zap the new species into existence. Although Brownback's credentials as a religious conservative are solid, he failed to attract major support from the religious right in the Republican Party. His fundraising was so ineffective that he lacks the cash even to compete in Iowa.
Tonight, I, Stephen Colbert, am officially announcing that I have decided to officially consider whether or not I will announce that I am running for President of the United States [in South Carolina], and I will be making an announcement of that decision very soon — preferably on a more prestigious show.
on The Colbert Report
Well, after nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I've heard the call. Nation, I shall seek the office of President of the United States. ...
I am from South Carolina, I am for South Carolina, and I defy any other candidate to pander more to the people of South Carolina — those beautiful, beautiful people.
It remains to be seen what candidate(s) Colbert will drive out of the Democratic race.
Technorati tags: Stephen Colbert, Sam Brownback, SC-primary, 2008 elections Read More......
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Jon Stewart spars with Tony Snow
Last night (2007-10-15), Jon Stewart had a lively discussion with President Bush's former White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow. Before becoming WHPS, Snow worked at Fox News, as well as on radio and in newspaper columns, and was a speechwriter for President George H. Bush. The interview on last night's Daily Show was expansive enough that it took two segments — almost 14 minutes, not including the commercial break.
First off, the video links:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, original air date 2007-10-15, ©2007 Comedy CentralJon Stewart: Welcome back! My guest — until recently, he was the White House Press Secretary. Please welcome back to the program Tony Snow! [applause] Thank you for joining us.
Tony Snow does have a point that Bush has succeeded in getting the Democrat Party — um, I mean the Democratic Party — to cheerfully follow him down the road to Hell, not just on funding the Iraq War and Occupation, but on other misbegotten projects as well. However, I just can't bring myself to call that "leadership" on Bush's part. In particular, the key element of Jon Stewart's definition that Bush lacks is the part about "convinc[ing] people to support [your decisions] actively and follow you." Bullying the milquetoast Democrats into grudging capitulation is not "convincing them to actively support your decisions." Indeed, the qualities that makes someone a bully — we know that Dubya was a schoolyard bully as a child, and the trait seems to have stuck — are antithetical to leadership.
Tony Snow: Good to be here. Thank you.
Stewart: First of all, may I say this: you look great.
Snow: Thank you.
Stewart: You look very healthy, and I'm very glad. How are you feeling?
Snow: I'm feeling great; thank you. Look, I've gotta say: this has been one of these things, having been sick, Democrats and Republicans have both come out and were terrific, so there was at least good bipartisanship there.
Stewart: You're a "uniter."
Snow: There you go.
Stewart: It is — I could imagine, too, going through the pressure of that job must be — incredible.
Snow: It actually — I love the job, it was so much fun. You know this — you get people on, you spar, I loved it, so in many ways being Press Secretary is pretty good therapy. It's a whole lot better than sitting around at home feeling sorry for yourself or thinking, "Is it worse today or better? I don't know. God! I don't know!"
Stewart: So, why leave, then? Was it really the thing, you just gotta make some money?
Snow: Got broke, yeah.
Stewart: See, that is admirably honest. Most people would say, all those guys always say, you know, "Geez, I'm gonna go, I really love my family and I want to spend some time with them." Nobody ever says, like, "This thing pays for crap."
Snow: Well, the other thing I figured out is you can actually make out like a bandit once you leave.
Stewart: Crazy.
Snow: It's great. So, I can make more money and spend more time on my family. It's a pretty good deal.
Stewart: See? People don't realize, that's how you should sell government service. Give us a couple of years, and then you can take a bath in gold. Let me show you this, I think you'll find this very interesting. As the Bush Administration's fortunes began to go — what's the direction? — downhill, look at the difference between press secretaries. Look how much better-looking they made them. Okay, [photo of Ari Fleischer] starts there, then things start to go south, but not so south. [photo morphs into Scott McClellan] Then they go, you know what, let's bring in a guy [photo morphs into Tony Snow] Okay, now, that's a nice-looking guy, but it's still tanking. What are we gonna do now? [photo morphs into Dana Perino] Hello, Mommy! You see how that went? And now, from there, [photo morphs into Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) from Star Trek: Voyager] yeah, that's where they go next. I really — here's what I like: you were great at it. Much better — McClellan always felt like it was Chuck Wepner getting into the ring. You know, it was like "The Bayonne Bleeder."
Snow: I know who Chuck Wepner was, yeah.
Stewart: "The Bayonne Bleeder." They'd call him up and go, "Muhammad Ali needs somebody to punch." What makes a good Press Secretary?
Snow: I think, you know, the answer is, I don't know, but one thing that probably helped me: I was in the press for 28 years. I liked reporters — still like 'em — and furthermore, look, there wasn't any trick they tried to pull that I hadn't tried to pull before, so when they were jerkin' me around I'd jerk back, but on the other hand, when they had legitimate needs, you also try to make sure you stand up for 'em.
Stewart: What tricks are they pulling, because, from the outside, watching it, they seem overmatched. [audience laughs] You know, just when I watch them, they seem, literally, like, [nasally] "I got something," and then they say it, and you're like, you know, "That's great, Helen," and then you move on. They seem overmatched, like it's almost vestigial in some [inaudible].
Snow: A lot of times, it's pulling an old quote from a Tony Snow column; well, that's easy enough. Or pull an old quote, try to find something incriminating, or try to set up a fight even where one doesn't exist, so there are a couple of kinds of stories that reporters now do. One is a process story, which is really boring. It's like, what color tie is the President wearing? Whoo-oo. And the second is —
Stewart: What does that mean?
Snow: Exactly. And the second is to try to pick fights. "Nancy Pelosi said this about the President; what does he say?" And it ends up being kind of kindergarten stuff a lot of times, but —
Stewart: That's how it appears to the outside is, it seems to be things that are maybe not as crucial, but on the other side, the President's got a tough time because he's so — their administration is so — uh, irrational.
Snow: How so?
Stewart: To business? We're going to take a commercial break, and we'll come back and we'll talk about — what I just said. We'll have more with Tony Snow in just one second.
[commercial break]
Stewart: Welcome back! We're speaking with Tony Snow. Before we left, I mentioned something about irrationality for the Administration. To some — me — the things that he says, for instance, that he is, seem to be the opposite. Like, he would say, "I don't like the partisanship in Washington. I don't like the tone," and then he would be very — he would politicize the Administration in a way that's unusual or be really dickish.
Snow: I've heard you say — but I defy you to go back and find a time when he's actually been the one throwing the mud or calling the names, because it is his instinct, if you go back to his history [audience groans] — sorry about that, look it up, do your homework, Google it.
Stewart: Remember 2006, so the Democrats taken, and everybody is talking about how the President is going to make sort of an olive-branch speech, and in it, he uses the phrase "the Democrat-controlled Congress," which is a real poke in the side. That seems unnecessary, and would only be used if you were exhibiting — what was the word I used earlier?
Snow: Irrational behavior. It's the way he talks. If you go back and look at the content of the speech, the content of the speech, the State of the Union Address, the President talks about trying to go to probably the most "green" energy policy in American history, going away from oil, going to ethanol, going to biofuels: big deal, that's something the Democrats could get behind. Have they tried to support it? No. No Child Left Behind, something Democrats and Republicans worked together on —
Stewart: See, this is fascinating, what you're doing right now. What I said is, why did he use that phrase?
Snow: What I'm trying to do is put in the context of the speech so I can give you a sense of the tenor of the speech. You're taking one word —
Stewart: But that word is an emotionally loaded word that he is aware of. These gusy are — everything is focus-grouped to within an inch of their lives. The phrasing that they use is really repetitive and rigid. It is a move designed to poke.
Snow: Actually, because we went through this, we went and talked to him and said, "Come on, did you mean to say —" and he said, "No, that's just the way I talk."
Stewart: You did ask him about it?
Snow: You've got the Senate Majority Leader who calls him a liar, you've got people who've been far more direct and personal in their criticism of the President, and suddenly they're howling as if he's been Jack the Ripper because he said Democrat instead of Democratic.
Stewart: What about politicizing, let's say, the Department of Justice? We had Jack Goldsmith on the show, and he said the first question he was asked in his interview was, "What's this campaign contribution to a Democrat? What's that?"
Snow: Well, I guarantee you, first, when you're having political jobs — he was a political appointee — they do ask questions like that, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican —
Stewart: The Department of Justice, though, is traditionally —
Snow: Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican — well, that doesn't mean that he's going to be called upon to try to do political hackery.
Stewart: So, you believe this, in your heart, you believe he's not a partisan guy, and he's not politicizing — has he had one Democrat in his administration, in his Cabinet, in a position of authority?
Snow: Uh, no. But, on the other —
Stewart: What I'm saying is, he says things that are, "I'm a uniter," but all of his actions — the problem that I have with their administration, in terms of credibility, everything that they say they are is what they're not. [audience cheers] Don't you think?
Snow: Here's where I want to come back at ya. First, if you go back to George Bush's history in Texas, the guy he worked with, Bob Bullock, a Democrat, he came to Washington thinking, "Okay, I'll work with Democrats," and he did a lot of outreach, and he said, "Look, let's work together," and basically what he's gotten is the back of the hand.
Stewart: So, this is the Democrats' fault?
Snow: Well, no, I'll tell you what's the Democrats' —
Stewart: They have turned a kind man, a uniter, into a bitter shell of a man. This is not right!
Snow: No! Wrongo, my friend, he's still somebody —
Stewart: All right, here's another one —
Snow: Whoa, whoa, let me just throw in one more, because behind the scenes there are regular meetings with Democratic leaders and he's still trying to reach out to these guys, and what will happen is, they'll have a perfectly pleasant meeting, and then they'll go out to the microphones and say perfectly awful things.
Stewart: But he'll say something to them like — okay, "This is the most important conflict of our lives. This is the fight. This is World War II," but he won't do anything like call for a draft or do anything else. You know, he's got the military on 15-month stop-loss. You know, it doesn't seem to make sense to say, "This is the battle of our lives," and yet, "Just go about your business; we got it covered."
Snow: Well, he's asked for 90,000 additional troops, and they're being built in, so that's happening right now. The other thing is, he understands, if you have a draft, think about Vietnam: a lot of people went unwillingly to a war they didn't support. What you have now is a volunteer military, where people know what they're getting into. They're more motivated, they're far more competent, and as a result you have a professional military force. You're asking for trouble, and you're really asking for political trouble — there is no political consensus for —
Stewart: You're definitely asking for political trouble, but do you understand people's frustration that the person that they see in the sound bites does not live up to the actions of the administration?
Snow: No, I get a different frustration, which is the person —
Stewart: Comedians?
Snow: No, because you guys have — look, you've got a great ability to sort of find points that are funny about people, but the fact is, the President is somebody — it's always frustrating when you've got somebody — I think he's a terrific leader. I think he's a guy who's made tough and courageous decisions.
Stewart: Now, see, that's a great — "He's a terrific leader": how is that?
Snow: Okay, number one —
Stewart: I mean that seriously, because my definition of a leader is to make tough decisions and then convince people to support them actively and follow you, not — you know, he says, "I'm not popular 'cause I make tough decisions." Maybe they're wrong. I mean, I could say, "Everyone should wear coats made out of puppies," and nobody wants to do it, and I say, "What a great leader I am! Look at me! It's unpopular!"
Snow: Coats made out of puppies?? Oh, my god!
Stewart: You know what I'm saying. But he's basically saying — [audience applause] [to the audience:] Settle down — He's basically saying, "Look how unpopular I am! I'm a leader!"
Snow: Well, think of it this way: he has said to Congress, "You need to fund the troops." They say, "No, we're going to pull them out." They come to a vote — guess what! — they do; they end up financing the troops. He says, "We're having success in Iraq." Today's Washington Post editorial indicates — guess what! — they are having success.
Stewart: They're apparently defeating Al Qaeda.
Snow: They're defeating Al Qaeda, and they're also [inaudible] the Shia.
Stewart: Let's leave!
Snow: No! Let's finish the job.
Stewart: How do they know what emboldens the terrorists so well? They seem to always know what emboldens the terrorists. For instance, when we have an argument about his policies, that's very emboldening, apparently, to the terrorists.
Snow: Well, let me put it this way: if you're Al Qaeda, and you think you're going to be able to chase the United States out, when we have clear military superiority, we've got the ability to win on the battlefield, and you end up leaving because of political pressure that in some ways have been fomented by their ability to stick it out, you look at yourself as a winner!
Stewart: But the President says we'll leave when there's an acceptable level of violence. So, if I'm Al Qaeda, and I want the U.S. to leave, don't I just lay low until they leave?
Snow: Yeah, but apparently they're not smart enough to figure that out, because —
Stewart: They're smart enough to watch C–SPAN, and make sure that if the Democratic leader from somewhere says something, they know to make their strategy around that, but not smart enough to do the other?
Snow: No, no, that's not how they build a strategy.
Stewart: You don't think the President and his administration has made it so that to discuss the war plan is to embolden the terrorists?
Snow: No, I mean, look: you gotta have a debate about war plan. You're gonna have it any time. [Jon Stewart laughs] It's true!
Stewart: No, I know, that's what I'm saying.
Snow: Yeah, well, I agree. I'm not fightin' you on this, and I don't think the President would fight you on this. Of course you're going to have a fight about it —
Stewart: Didn't you say yourself, "You gotta look at who's watching this: Iraq — Al Qaeda"? You don't think that has a chilling effect on debate to say to somebody, "Hey, those points you're bringing up, I think they're great points, but just know, Osama bin Laden's jumping up and down happy"? That's very tough!
Snow: I haven't noticed a lot of Democrats skittering frightened into the bushes because we [inaudible] the argument.
Stewart: Really?? Which Democratic Congress are you watching? Because to me, they look like giant pussies to me! They don't do anything! Don't you think? A non-binding resolution about the possibility of maybe saying something.
Snow: Exactly — which is why they lost an argument to a leader!
Stewart: You turned it around! Son of a bitch! Listen, that was fun!
Snow: That was fun.
Stewart: And I really do appreciate your coming on. You know, you were on before, and I really respect you as a person and I like what you bring. I really appreciate it.
Snow: The feeling is mutual; congratulations.
Stewart: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Tony Snow, everybody!
Avenging Angel over at DailyKos — crossposted at Perrspectives — listed a few of the dozens upon dozens of times that Bush has said Democrat Party. Sure, it's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly does get to personality and temperament, as well as lack of leadership. When Dubya repeatedly uses a term he knows is insulting and offensive, it is impossible to pass it off as "just the way I talk." He claims to be reaching out across the aisle, and Tony Snow makes it sound like it was entirely the Democratic Party that was rebuffing Bush's efforts at bipartisanship, but the record is clear, and it is not favorable to the President. His lack of leadership also shows in the way that prominent members of his administration have systematically attacked the patriotism, courage, intellect, and morality of anyone who disagrees with their program of unconstitutional surveillance, unconstitutional detention, and unconscionable treatment of detainees.
Tony Snow mostly ducked the point about "emboldening the terrorists," but the Bush Administration has systematically chilled debate about important issues of how best to protect the United States from the threat of international terrorism. To even discuss the notion that there are some forms of interrogation that are so uncivilized as to be anathema under even the worst circumstances is "emboldening the terrorists." To suggest that there should be some judicial oversight over the Executive's exercise of powers expressly denied it by the Constitution is "emboldening the terrorists." No, Mr. President, invading an Arab nation without provocation has emboldened the terrorists in ways that will harm our nation for a generation or more.
Tony also talked about concepts like "clear military superiority" and "the ability to win on the battlefield," but in order to win on the battlefield, you first have to get the enemy to engage you there. Given our overwhelming military superiority, the terrorists, insurgents, and other assorted Enemies of Freedom choose instead to engage us where "clear military superiority" doesn't work for us. Think about it: the Redcoats had "clear military superiority" over the Continental Army, the ARVN had "clear military superiority" over the Vietcong, the French had "clear military superiority" over the Algerians, and yet the underdog prevailed time and time again, because the superior military power lacked the agility and adaptiveness to fight an unconventional opponent. Our clear military superiority won't win the War on Terror — not in a decade, not in a generation, not even in a century — because we're on the wrong battlefield. We need to shut down Al Qaeda not by picking away at its extremities, the small fry we're going after in Iraq, but by going directly for its jugular vein and its aorta: the financing and the pool of new recruits. Military superiority acts against us in both, because the war in Iraq has been a magnet for recruits and contributions.
The Republicans succeeded in 2004 in tarring John Kerry with the idea that he would address the War on Terror as primarily a law-enforcement problem, rather than a military problem. Well, guess what! It is primarily a law-enforcement problem. We need more of Charlie and Don Eppes on Numb3rs and less Jack Bauer on 24.
I also take issue with Tony Snow's dismissive remark about "process" stories. Yes, sure, a story about what color necktie Bush is wearing is inane drivel, but that's not what a "process" story is. The American people need — and want — to know more about the ways the Bush Administration has subverted the fundamental processes of government, and especially the ways it has arrogated unprecedented powers to the Executive Branch. It isn't enough merely to fix Bush's insanely misguided policies, we must also fix the broken processes that allowed them to ever see the light of day.
On the subject of Bush's personally slinging mud, no, he doesn't call anyone "Poopy Pants," but here's an illustrative quote from just last week:Congress must make a choice: Will they keep the intelligence gap closed by making [Bush's evisceration of the FISA law] permanent? Or will they limit our ability to collect this intelligence and keep us safe, staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us? — George W. Bush, 2007-10-10
So, anyone who opposes Bush's watering down of the protections of the FISA law — a law that was enacted precisely because the Executive Branch had, under orders from President Nixon, routinely eavesdropped on Americans in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment — wants to hinder the ability of the government to protect America from terrorists. In other words, "You support my legislation, or you are a traitor and a fool."
Tony Snow chides the Democrats for partisanship because they didn't leap on board Bush's new "greenest ever" energy policy. Let's see: he still wants to drill in ANWR, last I checked, and his program for corn ethanol isn't an energy policy, it's a corn farmer subsidy program. His insistence that all emissions reductions be entirely voluntary undermines his entire "green" position. Likewise with No Child Left Behind, many Democrats oppose it because they believe it to be fundamentally misguided policy. That's not partisanship for the sake of partisanship, it's a legitimate policy disagreement. But Bush and his backers consistently paint any disagreement as nothing more than petty partisan squabbling.
There is one respect in which Bush's policies cannot be described as irrational. Viewed through the lens of what is best for the United States of America, they are insane, counterproductive, and downright frightening. Viewed, however, through the lens of what is best for the Imperial Presidency, the wealthiest Americans, the big corporations, and the narrow circle of his close political contributors and ideological backers, Bush's policies make complete sense. The Iraq War is welfare for Halliburton and Blackwater. Ignoring the hurricane bearing down on New Orleans and taking no measures to coordinate the evacuation and relief efforts is fostering distrust of government as a tool for helping ordinary people. The Energy Task Force is a way of funneling money from the public purse into oil company profits. Politicizing the Department of Justice and the courts is a way of pushing an ideological agenda through activist conservative judges and prosecutors who take a hands-off attitude on crimes by Republicans.
Note: Click where you see "Labels: transcript" below to see other transcripts of politically enlightening interviews.
Technorati tags: Jon Stewart, Daily Show, Comedy Central, Tony Snow, Transcript, Bush
Video links and transcript below the fold...
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Why Shawn Hornbeck didn't run
Back in January, I posted an entry about the case of Shawn Hornbeck, the Missouri boy who was kidnaped and held for four years by Michael Devlin, a pizzeria manager. One of the burning questions at the time was, why didn't Shawn run away? He appeared to have had ample opportunity to escape — he was often left unsupervised, and had at least some access to telephone and Internet. Bill O'Reilly and some others took the position that "obviously" Shawn must've been enjoying himself, or he would've made some attempt at escape. To this day, the most disturbing comments that have ever been posted by the readers here at The Third Path were in that thread. One of the comments suggested that Shawn "enjoyed his private and independent life with his pal [Devlin]," and callously ignored his parents' distress because he was having a good time playing hooky, and perhaps even actively participated in the abduction of the second boy.
Today we learned the truth, and all the people like Billo and "Therran" are shown for the insensitive idiots they truly are. It is they — not Shawn — who are Michael Devlin's accessories in crime.
Shawn Hornbeck didn't try to run away because Michael Devlin had already tried to kill him at least once. Any unsuccessful escape attempt could have been fatal. Shawn made a deal with the devil — rather more literally than the phrase is usually used — that he would do whatever Devlin asked, if only Devlin would let him live. He made that deal as Devlin's hands were around his neck, trying to kill him. We know that Shawn was not only sexually abused, but also tortured, because Devlin kept the video he made. We know that Shawn was kept tied to a bed for weeks at a time, with duct tape on his mouth. How many adults do you know who could go through that sort of horror with their faculties intact? But Shawn wasn't an adult. He wasn't even in junior high yet when he was kidnaped at gunpoint.
I said it nine months ago, and I'll say it again: just because you don't see the reason for someone's apparently "irrational" behavior, doesn't mean that there isn't a reason.
Technorati tags: Shawn Hornbeck, Michael Devlin, Sexual Predator
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Seymour Hersch on Inside Iraq
On this week's Inside Iraq on Al Jazeera English, the first half of the program was a one-on-one interview with Seymour Hersch of The New Yorker magazine. The second half was a discussion with Dr. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, professor of North American Studies at Tehran University, and John Alterman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The topic was the possibility of a U.S. military attack against Iran at some time before the end of George W. Bush's term as President [2009-01-20].
Here is the transcript of the first half of the program, the interview with Seymour Hersch. ©2007, Al Jazeera English, original air date 2007-10-05.Jasim Azzawi: Hello and welcome to Inside Iraq. I'm Jasim Azzawi. Reports indicate the Pentagon's growing plans to attack Iran. A routine procedure, or an indication of a regional war before President Bush ends his term? If Iran's nuclear dream goes up in smoke, will U.S. soldiers in Iraq become Iran's favorite target, and will the Iraqi government and militias side with the mullahs in Tehran or the Great Satan? Raoui Raggeh reports.
I very much agree with Jasim's point that Bush is like a gambler who has been losing big and is ready to go all-in. The problem is, our soldiers and our grandchildren's taxes are the chips. No sane person would order an attack on Iran, but it remains to be seen whether or not George W. Bush will.
Azzawi: To examine whether a U.S. military strike against Iran is a rumor or hard fact, I am joined from Washington by New Yorker magazine reporter Seymour Hersch. Welcome to Inside Iraq. Mr. Hersch, in your article you said that plans by the Pentagon are being redrawn, perhaps selecting the specific targets for the US military to strike. Is this part of a regular, routine procedure, or is this driven by political consideration in Washington, D.C., as well as hard facts on the ground in Iraq?All options are on the table. — Bush
[correspondent]: If there's one thing the US Administration has made clear in its policy towards Iran, it is: the US has the option of carrying out a military strike on Iran. Recent reports indicate that if the attack were to take place, it's not about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Rather, it's about its alleged role in backing Iraqi fighters and providing weapons that end up killing American soldiers. But can the country currently embroiled in the Iraq war, and the source of so much resentment across the world, carry out another military strike.
All options are still on the table. — Cheney
If you're in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target. — [U.S. official]
[analyst]: Iran is not Iraq. They are different. Iran is not Afghanistan. And at the same time, I really believe the American people [are] fed up with the corpses of their girls and boys coming back from Iraq.
[correspondent]: Reports suggest there's internal dissent within the Bush White House over what course of action the Administration should take against Iran. On one side, proponents of a more aggressive approach, led by Dick Cheney, have recently been able to get the State Department to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But what would a strike on Iran mean on America's endeavors in Iraq and the broader Middle East in general?
[analyst]: Iran will attack not only Israel, but the American administration in the Gulf. That means Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, all the countries.
[correspondent]: It's highly unlikely that a US strike on Iran could encourage the Iranian regime, or the Revolutionary Guards, to change their ways. In fact, it's likely to cause a surge in sympathy towards Iran around the Arab world, and from Iraqi politicians and clerics. A possible influx of Arab fighters could be expected. If the United States has learned anything from its endeavor in Iraq, there'd better be an idea this time around about what's to follow a possible strike on Iran. Raoui Raggeh on Inside Iraq.
Seymour Hersch: Well, it's beyond just normal. There's of course, always, always contingency planning. In other words, my government's always planning for everything, you know, every contingency possible. But in the case of Iran, it's a little more complicated, and it's gone well beyond the normal contingency planning and what the military would call operational planning. This has been going on, you know, I've been writing the same story now for almost 2½ years. The planning traditionally, until recently, the American planning was targeted mostly, largely at the Iranian nuclear facilities, Natans and other places that were very hard targets. Natans, for example, is 75 feet [22 meters] underground. And that was the planning until what I reported in the New Yorker this week, is that there was a sudden change this summer. For a number of reasons, they decided the American government would no longer target primarily Iran's nuclear facilities, but instead go after the Revolutionary Guards.
Azzawi: Wouldn't that be the same for Iran? I mean, if American fighter-bombers come and bomb targets within Iran, does it make much difference to them whether they are hitting the Revolutionary Guards or the nuclear facilities? Wouldn't the response by Iran be the same regardless?
Hersch: Washington's thinking is that they've been telling the world for the last 2 or 3 months that the Revolutionary Guards are responsible — indirectly — with supplies and ammunitions and guidance responsible for the deaths of American soldiers and British soldiers, coalition soldiers, in Iraq. And that has been a new thesis put out by this President since early summer: Iran is directly involved in the problems we're having in Iraq. The British say the same things about the problems they had in Basra; as you know, they're leaving the south gradually, not so gradually, and they blame the Iranians, too. Of course, the case isn't that clear, so the thinking is that the American public would accept a cross-border raid, a raid on revolutionary camps, and some of our allies, Britain in particular, might even go along with the idea of limited raids. So, from the American point of view, this is a huge change from what we call counter-proliferation.
Azzawi: If that is the case, Mr. Hersch, what would be the spark in order to precipitate this military strike? Would it be some sort of miscalculation by Iran? Would it be an increase in the IPF or IED or even the money or training for the militias? Like you said, you've been writing about this for 2½ years, and the last two articles indicated somehow there might be a military strike against Iran. President Bush leaves office January 20, 2009. He's a lame duck, perhaps next year. Will this be indicated or driven by time or driven by other factors like Cheney, as you suggested in your article?
Hersch: Well, one of the things that would certainly trigger it would be if the Iranians did something across the border, made a serious raid. I quote one American general as saying it would take 10 American — 10 dead soldiers and 4 burned trucks, and that would be enough of a casus belli. That would be a justification. There's no evidence that Iran has done any military action across the border. There's also no evidence — there's a great dispute, as I said — about the extent to which the Iranian arms and et cetera aid is any different than it was over the last 20 years.
Azzawi: They are not that stupid, are they, Mr. Hersch, to give Mr Bush the casus belli as you said, for Cheney and Cole to start, you know, driving the President, as well as the other establishment, to say, "This is it. This is what we've been looking for. Let's go after them"? The Iranians so far have been extremely careful. Their calculus is very meticulous. While it's true they are supporting the militias with military training and arms and money, and yet, even commanders on the ground are saying that it is not very explicit.
Hersch: Well, you know, there is always Ahmadinejad. The Americans can always fall back on him, but I don't think his statements are going to be enough of a driving force. It certainly doesn't help Iran's position in America when he does things like challenge the Holocaust; that's quite foolish in my book, but that isn't a military action. I think you're right: so far, the Iranians have been very, very careful about what they do, and the aid they provide, particularly to their fellow Shi'ites in the South, is essentially the same aid they've been providing since Saddam was in power and putting his foot on the neck of the Shias all the time, so there's always been a tremendous tie, as everybody in your audience knows, between the Shias of Iran and the Shias of Iraq, and there, unfortunately, is America's dilemma.
Azzawi: I don't know whether President Bush is a poker player or not, but when you play poker and pretty much, as the game comes to a close and you lose all your money, oftentimes poker players double down, they put the last chip they have on the table with a view of recouping their earlier losses. Is the President perhaps that kind of a guy? The dominant thinking in this region is, since the President made a huge, calamitous gamble in Iraq and he lost, the only way he can recoup his credibility and perhaps some interest for the United States is by going up to Iran. Does that play in Washington?
Hersch: Well, that's certainly the concern of some of the people with whom I talk. That is, there's a fear that the President — this may not be necessarily a rational act — there's a tremendous opposition, but, you know, I just happened to have breakfast with somebody this morning who knows the Pentagon, who described people there, worried in the military, worried about what they see as a messianic President. I have no idea what George Bush is really thinking on the inside. I can just tell you, I've been watching this President for a long time, and the one thing that's interesting about George Bush is, I do believe him when he says things. He said he was going to go into Iraq, and he's making threats to Iran right now, he's constantly threatening them, and he's saying in private, he's making clear in private, that he would very much like to go. I report some of that in the article in the New Yorker this week.
Azzawi: Political analysts, including Mr Antony Cordesman, have this theory that right now it does not make sense for the US to attack Iran, especially its nuclear facilities, simply because we don't know the extent of that facility, how far advanced it is, perhaps about 5 to 7 years away, as Mr El-Baradei of the IAEA says, so, why attack it now? Why not let the Iranians spend the energy and the money and bring it to almost fruition, to about 90% or 95%, and then the next President has the luxury of attacking it and get Iranians to spend another 20, 30 years in order to bring it back again. What do you think of that theory? Because, simply, the military and strategic assets right now do not exist in the region. Most of the carriers have gone.
Hersch: You know, you can ask me questions, hypothetical questions, all week. What I do in my articles and my basic, when I do interviews, I try to stick — I'm not a theorist, and when it comes to guessing about what's going to happen, I will tell you that I think it's very likely, and from what I understand, this President, George Bush, sees himself as "The Man," and he's not sure that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, would have the integrity, in his view, or the courage, in his view, in his belief, to do what he can do.
Azzawi: Given the fact that this final act by President Bush might not be played according to some sort of calculus and logic, I was surprised and fascinated by a quote you have in the article, "Shifting Targets," by somebody saying, "Cheney does not give a rat's ass about the Republicans," so this is above and beyond politics right now? This is driven by some sort of a special agenda within a certain group within the White House and the executives?
Hersch: Oh, yes. I don't think there's any question there are many people who believe any rational assessment of the situation would preclude going to Iran. There's just too many things. Iran has too much potential to strike back. I saw some senior — for this article, I saw some senior European intelligence officials, who believe Iran would not strike back at America or Israel, but would strike asymmetrically other targets, perhaps oil targets and gas targets in the Gulf, to drive the price up, perhaps go back to terrorism and even trigger activities against Americans or Europeans in Europe or even Latin America, bring in Hezbollah, perhaps.
Azzawi: Mr. Seymour Hersch of The New Yorker magazine, thank you for being a guest on Inside Iraq.
[voiceover]: No President, at any juncture in history, has ever taken military options off the table. — Dan Bartlett, White House spokesman
Technorati tags: Inside Iraq, Al Jazeera English, Seymour Hersch, New Yorker, Jasim Azzawi, Iraq War, Iran, Bush, Politics, Transcript
Click below for more...
Friday, October 05, 2007
New Mexico's new area code
My two key interests are politics and telecommunications. Every once in a while, the two intersect. The state of New Mexico, which has been served by the single area code 505 since area codes were created in 1947, gets a second code on Sunday. Several years ago, there were plans for an area code split. Rural commissioners on the NM-PRC overrode the commissioners from the more urban part of the state; the result was that Albuquerque and Santa Fe would've changed to the new code, leaving most of the state in 505. (There is precedent for such a move. In eastern Kentucky, the urban areas of Lexington and the Cincinnati suburbs changed to 859 while the rural areas kept 606.) However, the issue was kicked down the road a couple of years by number conservation measures.
When the need to split again rose to the surface, the urban commissioners managed to swing the vote their way: Albuquerque and Santa Fe will remain 505, while places like Las Cruces, Roswell, and Tucumcari change to 575. The boundary has a rather odd shape, looking a bit like a dragon in flight, or perhaps a dog crawling out from under a blanket.
If you have friends in New Mexico, specifically in the yellow area of the map above, you have until 2008-10-05 — a year from today — to get used to the new area code.
Technorati tags: New Mexico, NM-PRC, Area Codes, Telecom
