South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson's heckling of President Obama during an address to a joint session of Congress should not have surprised anyone, but the media still can't seem to get it right.
The issue regarding Joe Wilson's outburst has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, health care reform, or whether he or Obama are lying. What Joe Wilson's heckling, Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert's "What Plan?" and "What Bill?" hand-made posters, and Minority Whip Eric Cantor's playing on his cell phone during a Presidential Address to a joint session of the United States Congress reveals is that the current Republican Party is not mature enough to participate in a democracy.
There is nothing wrong with calling the President a liar, even when the President isn't lying – that's politics, but to shout such vitriol during a Presidential Address to a joint session of Congress, (ESPECIALLY when the President ISN'T lying), is juvenile and unacceptable.
The current GOP thinks that the United States Government is nothing more than the WWE and I would not be shocked if Minority Leader John Boehner showed up to a State of the Union Address wearing a rainbow-colored afro and waving a giant red foam finger.
Luckily the current Republican Party's lack of character and dignity are equivalent to their lack of political relevance.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
***BREAKING NEWS***
POLITICS. WASHINGTON, D.C.
AP is reporting that the first draft of Dick Cheney's memoirs have been rejected. Anonymous sources claim an editor was heard yelling, "I wanted to read about his time in the White House, not another novel defending the virtues of Mephistopheles!"
SPORTS. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Former Ohio State running back, Maurice Clarrett, has filed another lawsuit against the NFL. According to lawyers familiar with the case, Clarrett is now claiming that he should have been allowed to enter the draft early since the Minnesota Vikings were just allowed to sign a baby!
POLITICS. WASHINGTON, D.C.
AP is reporting that the first draft of Dick Cheney's memoirs have been rejected. Anonymous sources claim an editor was heard yelling, "I wanted to read about his time in the White House, not another novel defending the virtues of Mephistopheles!"
SPORTS. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Former Ohio State running back, Maurice Clarrett, has filed another lawsuit against the NFL. According to lawyers familiar with the case, Clarrett is now claiming that he should have been allowed to enter the draft early since the Minnesota Vikings were just allowed to sign a baby!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Inalienable Right
The pro-health care reformers' inability to counter even the most obviously irrational arguments is absolutely infuriating.
I have no problem with Republicans and the insurance industry being against health care reform – it's their duty. Politicians have donors and constituents to appease, and corporations have employees with families to feed along with share holders who expect a return on their investments – to not whole-heartedly fight to maintain the status quo would be irresponsible. But the most popular anti-health care reform arguments are so remedial that it is the equivalent of fighting an uphill battle without ammunition, yet they are winning; and even the most competent of journalists and political analysts are missing the lyrics for the music.
Lately, the most ire arousing is the failure to instantly shoot down the "Obama says 'if you like your coverage then you can keep it,' but if there is a government option available then employers are going to stop providing that coverage" argument.
So let me get this straight, the fact that businesses will jump at not providing their workers with health insurance the second that they are given the opportunity to do so is why we DON'T need reform?
This argument is ludicrous and proves the opposite of what the arguer is claiming, yet I still have not heard one person with a microphone immediately call "bullshit!"
Yes, because providing employees with health insurance is so financially straining, businesses would welcome the chance to stop paying for coverage, but that is a major reason why we need health care reform. And if the existence of public health care leads to a company discontinuing health coverage for its employees, the money that that business used to allot for workers' insurance is not going to evaporate – It would just mean that instead of letting an insurance company put that money into a pool that the workers disproportionately, or may never, have access to, those dollars will be directly passed on to the employees in the form of a wage or salary increase, thus giving the workers the power to spend the money that they earned instead of some corporate bureaucrat.
Also, a public plan would give businesses AND employees more leverage when it comes to negotiating health care benefits. It's basic economics – supply versus demand. If companies en masse start dropping health care coverage, then insurance companies are going to start losing business. If insurance companies start losing business, then they are going to have to try harder in order to entice companies into purchasing coverage. Those enticements would most likely be providing better coverage at a lesser price which would benefit both business owners AND employees. And if not all businesses offered medical insurance to their employees, then health care benefits would become a greater tool for both a company to use when trying to attract the most talented workforce, AND for the employee to use when deciding where to work.
Another blatantly contradictory statement is the "government can't run anything, and a public option would put the private sector out of business" argument.
Ugggh! I'm sure it is not their intent but what these people are basically saying is either "the government plan would be so terrible that everybody would choose it over private insurance" or "the government program would be so good that we shouldn't have it."
There are a number of ways to expose the stupidity of this claim with the first being to merely repeat what was just said.
Either the government CAN run an organization or it can't – Which is it? Either the government is NASA and our Armed Forces, or it's the line at the DMV.
Now, obviously, Republicans know first hand that the government can't run anything, (e.g. the past 8 years), but an inept government health care program would simply mean that the private sector would flourish. And the private sector flourishing is supposedly what Republicans are for, correct? Yes, a failed public program would cost the federal government billions, (kind of like the war in Iraq), and "How are we going to pay for it?" is a legitimate concern, (more on that later), but, being that our country is a popular democracy, I guarantee if a government program doesn't work, then we won't keep it, (e.g. slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote, etc.).
The truth is that the VA and Medicare programs offer strong evidence that the government CAN run a health care system; and the existence of the US Postal Service and FedEx, and the proximity of UC Berkeley to Stanford are proof that a public system CAN coexist with the private sector.
The "socialized-medicine would stop innovation" argument is usually made by people without an understanding of basic human psychology. We are "America" – Our culture is to strive to be the best, and we are always going to be at the forefront of science and technology. We are not going to stop being "America" just because everybody can afford to go to a doctor. And if a highly qualified individual doesn't pursue a career in medicine just because the paycheck isn't as big as it used to be then that is a good thing – I don't want a guy who is purely motivated by money to be treating my child, anyways.
The "death panels" argument is plain stupid, and shouldn't even be justified with a rebuttal, but financially, I'm against "death panels" because it doesn't make sense for the government to spend billions of dollars on making sure all our citizens can live to a ripe old age to then just kill them when they get to that ripe old age. Our current system is much more cost efficient when it comes to killing people. And politically it doesn't make sense for politicians to pass a law that kills the people who voted for them, (do you realize how easy it will be to run for office against "the guy who killed Grandma"?). Besides, Saint Peter is the only "death panel" that I need, dag gummit!
The "rationing" argument: Rationing is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "rationing" should be FOR health care reform. To think that a not-for-profit government program would "ration" care more than a profit-motivated private corporation does, is idiotic.
The "bureaucracy" argument: Bureaucracy is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "bureaucracy" should be FOR health care reform. A fun health care bureaucracy game that I like to play is called: "call the insurance company when they are wrong." It's a rather simple game – all one needs is to be billed for a service that the insurance company was supposed to cover. First, call the insurance company and explain the reason for the call, then simply multiply the number of times that the call is transferred by the number of minutes that are spent on hold, and then pull out an encyclopedia to see if that number is greater than the age of the universe.
The "Obama is Hitler!" argument: Hmmm, the guy pushing for inclusiveness and "bi-partisanship" is like Adolf Hitler? What's really pissing off these white supremacists is that now we a have a Black president and the only way that they can put him down is by denouncing their idol. President Obama is not comparable to Hitler and a government health care program has nothing to do with Nazism – I have yet to see one World War II-set movie in which there is a plot to kill Hitler because he was FOR socialized medicine!
The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument: Yes, frivolous lawsuits and malpractice coverage are a major reason for the exorbitant price of health care, but the need for tort reform has been a problem for decades, and it is not just a coincidence that the "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument only surfaces whenever there is a push for actual health care reform. The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument is a distraction technique. If the people who are bringing it up now were honestly concerned with the strain that malpractice claims place on our health care system, then they would have been passionately lobbying for reform throughout the Bush presidency.
The "When has the government ever taken away power and given it back?" argument: I would love to address this whiny/paranoid argument but I have to go remove a micro-chip that some dudes who repelled from a black helicopter inserted into me.
Again, the United States of America is a popular democracy which means WE are the government. When have WE ever taken power and given it back – Other than slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote? How about school desegregation, internment camps, and recently, Mohammed Jawad?
The "How are we going to pay for it?" argument is a legitimate dispute, but it usually takes having all of their other absurd statements shot down before the anti-health care reformers make this claim.
Being concerned with our nation's rising debt is a major reason to be FOR healthcare reform because not reforming our healthcare system will be much more costly. Yes, health care reform will be expensive, but THAT IS WHY WE NEED IT! Health care spending is nearing 20% of our GDP and to not address this problem will be fiscally devastating. Health care reform will reduce bankruptcies, reduce economic strain on small-business owners, reduce the financial burden that the uninsured place on private insurance companies, and reduce the overall cost of health care. Not having health care reform will be much more expensive.
But if cost were truly a concern for these people, they would have been protesting throughout the Bush administration and they would oppose national parks, all foreign aid for disaster relief, and the war in Iraq.
Yes, there are some anti-health care reformers who are against all government spending, but these people, like Ron Paul, are not practical and most likely have Asperger's syndrome. Most people who are making the "How are we going to pay for it?" argument are hypocrites who had no problem with Dubya running up the deficit. They are "us versus themmers," and are simply obstructionists who think our government is merely a team sport. Yes, these "town hallers" are honestly pissed off, but they are not angry for the reasons that they say they are. They are either, by definition, "conservatives" which means they want to conserve the way things are regardless of the alternative, or they are just mad because they are sore losers, stupid, crazy, and/or racist. And they are without credibility because the past 8 years were an experiment that unequivocally proved, (with the culmination of "bailouts" and being on the verge of a global economic collapse), that conservatives' economic policies do not work. (Thankfully, when it comes to governing our nation, Republicans are currently irrelevant.)
I have always been a free market capitalist, but I am also a realist. I, like the conservatives, do not want the United States to turn into France, but unlike many conservatives, I am actually aware of history and would prefer avoiding a class-warfare, French-style, revolution. Yes, public health care is a form of socialism, but so are farm subsidies, interstate highways, and the local fire department.
The current health care debate is really about "unalienable rights" and whether medicine is necessary for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Should the citizenry's access to health care be a stipulation in the social contract from which our Government derives its power?
Health care is increasingly becoming something that the poor, unemployed, working/middle class, small business owners, and everybody with "pre-existing" conditions cannot attain on their own, and since the government footing the bill for our federal court system, public education, and national defense, are not causing these "town hallers" to weep, "I want my country back," then neither should the government providing health care.
I have faith in President Obama, and I am sure we will have meaningful health care reform soon but, unfortunately, due to the media's inability to present a logical debate, America will most likely have to wait until a health care bill can be passed in memory of Ted Kennedy.
(...And to this lady at Arlen Specter's town hall the other day who shouted about awakening "a sleeping giant": Really? Now that the federal government is attempting to stabilize medical costs, provide health care coverage to the poor and uninsured, and make corporate illness profiteers more accountable to their customers, now you've become interested in our government? The Supreme Court deciding a presidential election with a 5-4, "burn after reading" decision didn't do it, 9/11 didn't do it, being lied into an unnecessary war didn't do it, the Valerie Plame scandal, the handling of Katrina, the firing of US attorneys for strictly political reasons, waterboarding, wiretapping, deregulation nearly causing another great depression didn't do it, but trying to make sure that citizens with a "pre-existing condition" can have access to affordable health care did it? You're stupid, crazy, and/or lying! Please shut up and let the adults with consciences do the decision making!)
I have no problem with Republicans and the insurance industry being against health care reform – it's their duty. Politicians have donors and constituents to appease, and corporations have employees with families to feed along with share holders who expect a return on their investments – to not whole-heartedly fight to maintain the status quo would be irresponsible. But the most popular anti-health care reform arguments are so remedial that it is the equivalent of fighting an uphill battle without ammunition, yet they are winning; and even the most competent of journalists and political analysts are missing the lyrics for the music.
Lately, the most ire arousing is the failure to instantly shoot down the "Obama says 'if you like your coverage then you can keep it,' but if there is a government option available then employers are going to stop providing that coverage" argument.
So let me get this straight, the fact that businesses will jump at not providing their workers with health insurance the second that they are given the opportunity to do so is why we DON'T need reform?
This argument is ludicrous and proves the opposite of what the arguer is claiming, yet I still have not heard one person with a microphone immediately call "bullshit!"
Yes, because providing employees with health insurance is so financially straining, businesses would welcome the chance to stop paying for coverage, but that is a major reason why we need health care reform. And if the existence of public health care leads to a company discontinuing health coverage for its employees, the money that that business used to allot for workers' insurance is not going to evaporate – It would just mean that instead of letting an insurance company put that money into a pool that the workers disproportionately, or may never, have access to, those dollars will be directly passed on to the employees in the form of a wage or salary increase, thus giving the workers the power to spend the money that they earned instead of some corporate bureaucrat.
Also, a public plan would give businesses AND employees more leverage when it comes to negotiating health care benefits. It's basic economics – supply versus demand. If companies en masse start dropping health care coverage, then insurance companies are going to start losing business. If insurance companies start losing business, then they are going to have to try harder in order to entice companies into purchasing coverage. Those enticements would most likely be providing better coverage at a lesser price which would benefit both business owners AND employees. And if not all businesses offered medical insurance to their employees, then health care benefits would become a greater tool for both a company to use when trying to attract the most talented workforce, AND for the employee to use when deciding where to work.
Another blatantly contradictory statement is the "government can't run anything, and a public option would put the private sector out of business" argument.
Ugggh! I'm sure it is not their intent but what these people are basically saying is either "the government plan would be so terrible that everybody would choose it over private insurance" or "the government program would be so good that we shouldn't have it."
There are a number of ways to expose the stupidity of this claim with the first being to merely repeat what was just said.
Either the government CAN run an organization or it can't – Which is it? Either the government is NASA and our Armed Forces, or it's the line at the DMV.
Now, obviously, Republicans know first hand that the government can't run anything, (e.g. the past 8 years), but an inept government health care program would simply mean that the private sector would flourish. And the private sector flourishing is supposedly what Republicans are for, correct? Yes, a failed public program would cost the federal government billions, (kind of like the war in Iraq), and "How are we going to pay for it?" is a legitimate concern, (more on that later), but, being that our country is a popular democracy, I guarantee if a government program doesn't work, then we won't keep it, (e.g. slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote, etc.).
The truth is that the VA and Medicare programs offer strong evidence that the government CAN run a health care system; and the existence of the US Postal Service and FedEx, and the proximity of UC Berkeley to Stanford are proof that a public system CAN coexist with the private sector.
The "socialized-medicine would stop innovation" argument is usually made by people without an understanding of basic human psychology. We are "America" – Our culture is to strive to be the best, and we are always going to be at the forefront of science and technology. We are not going to stop being "America" just because everybody can afford to go to a doctor. And if a highly qualified individual doesn't pursue a career in medicine just because the paycheck isn't as big as it used to be then that is a good thing – I don't want a guy who is purely motivated by money to be treating my child, anyways.
The "death panels" argument is plain stupid, and shouldn't even be justified with a rebuttal, but financially, I'm against "death panels" because it doesn't make sense for the government to spend billions of dollars on making sure all our citizens can live to a ripe old age to then just kill them when they get to that ripe old age. Our current system is much more cost efficient when it comes to killing people. And politically it doesn't make sense for politicians to pass a law that kills the people who voted for them, (do you realize how easy it will be to run for office against "the guy who killed Grandma"?). Besides, Saint Peter is the only "death panel" that I need, dag gummit!
The "rationing" argument: Rationing is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "rationing" should be FOR health care reform. To think that a not-for-profit government program would "ration" care more than a profit-motivated private corporation does, is idiotic.
The "bureaucracy" argument: Bureaucracy is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "bureaucracy" should be FOR health care reform. A fun health care bureaucracy game that I like to play is called: "call the insurance company when they are wrong." It's a rather simple game – all one needs is to be billed for a service that the insurance company was supposed to cover. First, call the insurance company and explain the reason for the call, then simply multiply the number of times that the call is transferred by the number of minutes that are spent on hold, and then pull out an encyclopedia to see if that number is greater than the age of the universe.
The "Obama is Hitler!" argument: Hmmm, the guy pushing for inclusiveness and "bi-partisanship" is like Adolf Hitler? What's really pissing off these white supremacists is that now we a have a Black president and the only way that they can put him down is by denouncing their idol. President Obama is not comparable to Hitler and a government health care program has nothing to do with Nazism – I have yet to see one World War II-set movie in which there is a plot to kill Hitler because he was FOR socialized medicine!
The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument: Yes, frivolous lawsuits and malpractice coverage are a major reason for the exorbitant price of health care, but the need for tort reform has been a problem for decades, and it is not just a coincidence that the "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument only surfaces whenever there is a push for actual health care reform. The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument is a distraction technique. If the people who are bringing it up now were honestly concerned with the strain that malpractice claims place on our health care system, then they would have been passionately lobbying for reform throughout the Bush presidency.
The "When has the government ever taken away power and given it back?" argument: I would love to address this whiny/paranoid argument but I have to go remove a micro-chip that some dudes who repelled from a black helicopter inserted into me.
Again, the United States of America is a popular democracy which means WE are the government. When have WE ever taken power and given it back – Other than slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote? How about school desegregation, internment camps, and recently, Mohammed Jawad?
The "How are we going to pay for it?" argument is a legitimate dispute, but it usually takes having all of their other absurd statements shot down before the anti-health care reformers make this claim.
Being concerned with our nation's rising debt is a major reason to be FOR healthcare reform because not reforming our healthcare system will be much more costly. Yes, health care reform will be expensive, but THAT IS WHY WE NEED IT! Health care spending is nearing 20% of our GDP and to not address this problem will be fiscally devastating. Health care reform will reduce bankruptcies, reduce economic strain on small-business owners, reduce the financial burden that the uninsured place on private insurance companies, and reduce the overall cost of health care. Not having health care reform will be much more expensive.
But if cost were truly a concern for these people, they would have been protesting throughout the Bush administration and they would oppose national parks, all foreign aid for disaster relief, and the war in Iraq.
Yes, there are some anti-health care reformers who are against all government spending, but these people, like Ron Paul, are not practical and most likely have Asperger's syndrome. Most people who are making the "How are we going to pay for it?" argument are hypocrites who had no problem with Dubya running up the deficit. They are "us versus themmers," and are simply obstructionists who think our government is merely a team sport. Yes, these "town hallers" are honestly pissed off, but they are not angry for the reasons that they say they are. They are either, by definition, "conservatives" which means they want to conserve the way things are regardless of the alternative, or they are just mad because they are sore losers, stupid, crazy, and/or racist. And they are without credibility because the past 8 years were an experiment that unequivocally proved, (with the culmination of "bailouts" and being on the verge of a global economic collapse), that conservatives' economic policies do not work. (Thankfully, when it comes to governing our nation, Republicans are currently irrelevant.)
I have always been a free market capitalist, but I am also a realist. I, like the conservatives, do not want the United States to turn into France, but unlike many conservatives, I am actually aware of history and would prefer avoiding a class-warfare, French-style, revolution. Yes, public health care is a form of socialism, but so are farm subsidies, interstate highways, and the local fire department.
The current health care debate is really about "unalienable rights" and whether medicine is necessary for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Should the citizenry's access to health care be a stipulation in the social contract from which our Government derives its power?
Health care is increasingly becoming something that the poor, unemployed, working/middle class, small business owners, and everybody with "pre-existing" conditions cannot attain on their own, and since the government footing the bill for our federal court system, public education, and national defense, are not causing these "town hallers" to weep, "I want my country back," then neither should the government providing health care.
I have faith in President Obama, and I am sure we will have meaningful health care reform soon but, unfortunately, due to the media's inability to present a logical debate, America will most likely have to wait until a health care bill can be passed in memory of Ted Kennedy.
(...And to this lady at Arlen Specter's town hall the other day who shouted about awakening "a sleeping giant": Really? Now that the federal government is attempting to stabilize medical costs, provide health care coverage to the poor and uninsured, and make corporate illness profiteers more accountable to their customers, now you've become interested in our government? The Supreme Court deciding a presidential election with a 5-4, "burn after reading" decision didn't do it, 9/11 didn't do it, being lied into an unnecessary war didn't do it, the Valerie Plame scandal, the handling of Katrina, the firing of US attorneys for strictly political reasons, waterboarding, wiretapping, deregulation nearly causing another great depression didn't do it, but trying to make sure that citizens with a "pre-existing condition" can have access to affordable health care did it? You're stupid, crazy, and/or lying! Please shut up and let the adults with consciences do the decision making!)
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Race Card Driver
The current Skip Gates situation has nothing to do with race, but it has a lot to do with acting stupidly!
Skip Gates is an asshole! He is uncompromising and views everything through the lens of race. But being an asshole shouldn't be an arrestable offense...especially when within one's own home.
One reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I am rather familiar with him – During my African-American Studies courses at UCLA I was exposed to Professor Gates' work and his views on race relations within the United States; but the main reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I, myself, am an asshole. And that is the main issue here.
Regardless of the exact order of events, and exactly what was said, the pertinent facts are clear: Somebody called the cops and reported a break-in at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s address. The Cambridge Police responded. Mr. Gates was there, it was his house, there was not a break-in, and there wasn't any need for police assistance yet Gates' behavior led to a middle-aged Black man, who walks with a cane, and was in his own home, being placed in handcuffs and arrested for a charge that was immediately dropped.
Skip Gates AND the Cambridge Police acted stupidly!
The police responded to a non-situation yet arrested a highly-renowned Black scholar because he just couldn't resist being "uppity" in his own house. That's stupid! It's stupid legally, it's stupid behaviorally, and it's stupid public relations wise!
But the controversy surrounding this case was not spawned because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly – the controversy arose because Gates and the Cambridge Police couldn't handle their stupidity being pointed out.
Police officers deserve our respect and admiration but they are not ENTITLED to our respect and admiration. A lot of us who went to school with kids who became cops realize that they were idiots and/or assholes when they were young and now they are just grown-up idiots and/or assholes with a gun and a badge.
But police officers are human beings and they have a very dangerous job. Like my Mom always used to tell me, "Every time they put on that uniform it's like putting a bulls-eye on their chests."
Their lives are on the line nearly every second that they are on duty, and if they allow one citizen to be unruly and challenge their authority, it will lead to other citizens being unruly and challenging their authority, and so on, until the "ultimate punishment" will be the only method available to maintain order.
Skip Gates was unruly, and he challenged the cops' authority, so he got arrested. He was quickly released and, since he didn't get ass-raped or shanked while he was locked up, "no harm, no foul."
But the arresting officer in this case, Sgt. James Crowley, chose to be a police officer and with his authority comes responsibility; and, again, like my Mom always used to tell me, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."
Please do not misunderstand me – just because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly, it doesn't mean that they are stupid – it just means that they acted stupidly. I act stupidly every day. That doesn't mean that I am stupid it just means that I am really good at it – and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't acting stupidly – the problem is lacking necessary self-awareness and/or being so thin-skinned that even the slightest criticism is devastating to one's ego.
Gates did not appreciate a White cop giving him directions in his own home, and Sgt. Crowley did not appreciate Gates being defiant. Both Gates' and Crowley's egos were threatened and, since Crowley had a gun and a badge, it led to Gates being arrested. That's it, that's all – a man was arrested for no reason other than because he could be. And that's stupid! Professor Gates' and Sgt. Crowley's fragile sense of self are why Gates was arrested; and the Cambridge Police Department's necessity to project infallibility in order to maintain order are why they are so offended by President Obama's widely-publicized assertion that they "acted stupidly."
The reason that this is being debated as a "racial" issue, (other than because Professor Gates is adamant that it is), is because instances like this, of police abusing their power, happen everyday, especially to minorities.
Inadequate individuals do not attack the strong, they attack the weaker. And when it comes to our justice system, the poor and uneducated are the weaker; and the majority of the poor and uneducated are minorities.
10 years ago I was pulled over while driving with my Black roommate in the car. Our only crime was driving late at night while being young, (and him being Black).
I was Pre-Law at Cal State San Marcos, (1 of 8 majors at 1 of 4 schools – my 4 years of college were the best 8 years of my life), so I knew a little more than most about the 4th amendment. Almost immediately upon approaching my vehicle they asked my roommate for his ID. I told my roommate and the cops that he did not have to show them anything – He was a passenger, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. But they persisted and kept asking him questions. I repeatedly told him not to say anything, and repeatedly told them that he didn't have to answer their questions – Again, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. They did not like my attitude, and I could tell, but it was the night before my Mom's funeral and I didn't want to get held for 24 hours just because, so I shut my mouth and we were soon on our way without any citation or warning.
Had I continued being an asshole I would have been taken into custody simply because they were the cops, and I was not. Race was the reason that I was pulled over, but giving the officers no avenue to demonstrate their power other than to arrest me would have been the reason that I spent the night in jail.
But Professor Gates is not poor and uneducated, and race did not play a role in his arrest, (other than it being the motivation for his agitation).
Yes, racial profiling exists, but the problem is not elevated arrest rates among certain demographics, the problem is law enforcement abusing its power.
I remember quite fondly when, during my "Malcolm X and the History of the Black Liberation" course at UCLA, after Professor Wolfenstein read statistics contrasting the ethnic makeup of our prison population with the general population, he and the rest of the class agreed that the statistics revealed that minorities were unfairly prosecuted, I, (one of 3 Whites in the class), raised my hand and stated that, "the numbers reveal that a higher percentage of minorities commit crimes."
I’m an asshole. But the reality is – we were all right.
Skip Gates and Sgt. Crowley are assholes, but they, and President Obama, are all right – It was stupid that Professor Gates was arrested, and it had nothing to do with race.
Skip Gates is an asshole! He is uncompromising and views everything through the lens of race. But being an asshole shouldn't be an arrestable offense...especially when within one's own home.
One reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I am rather familiar with him – During my African-American Studies courses at UCLA I was exposed to Professor Gates' work and his views on race relations within the United States; but the main reason that I don't have a problem with calling Mr. Gates an asshole is because I, myself, am an asshole. And that is the main issue here.
Regardless of the exact order of events, and exactly what was said, the pertinent facts are clear: Somebody called the cops and reported a break-in at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s address. The Cambridge Police responded. Mr. Gates was there, it was his house, there was not a break-in, and there wasn't any need for police assistance yet Gates' behavior led to a middle-aged Black man, who walks with a cane, and was in his own home, being placed in handcuffs and arrested for a charge that was immediately dropped.
Skip Gates AND the Cambridge Police acted stupidly!
The police responded to a non-situation yet arrested a highly-renowned Black scholar because he just couldn't resist being "uppity" in his own house. That's stupid! It's stupid legally, it's stupid behaviorally, and it's stupid public relations wise!
But the controversy surrounding this case was not spawned because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly – the controversy arose because Gates and the Cambridge Police couldn't handle their stupidity being pointed out.
Police officers deserve our respect and admiration but they are not ENTITLED to our respect and admiration. A lot of us who went to school with kids who became cops realize that they were idiots and/or assholes when they were young and now they are just grown-up idiots and/or assholes with a gun and a badge.
But police officers are human beings and they have a very dangerous job. Like my Mom always used to tell me, "Every time they put on that uniform it's like putting a bulls-eye on their chests."
Their lives are on the line nearly every second that they are on duty, and if they allow one citizen to be unruly and challenge their authority, it will lead to other citizens being unruly and challenging their authority, and so on, until the "ultimate punishment" will be the only method available to maintain order.
Skip Gates was unruly, and he challenged the cops' authority, so he got arrested. He was quickly released and, since he didn't get ass-raped or shanked while he was locked up, "no harm, no foul."
But the arresting officer in this case, Sgt. James Crowley, chose to be a police officer and with his authority comes responsibility; and, again, like my Mom always used to tell me, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."
Please do not misunderstand me – just because Gates and the Cambridge Police acted stupidly, it doesn't mean that they are stupid – it just means that they acted stupidly. I act stupidly every day. That doesn't mean that I am stupid it just means that I am really good at it – and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't acting stupidly – the problem is lacking necessary self-awareness and/or being so thin-skinned that even the slightest criticism is devastating to one's ego.
Gates did not appreciate a White cop giving him directions in his own home, and Sgt. Crowley did not appreciate Gates being defiant. Both Gates' and Crowley's egos were threatened and, since Crowley had a gun and a badge, it led to Gates being arrested. That's it, that's all – a man was arrested for no reason other than because he could be. And that's stupid! Professor Gates' and Sgt. Crowley's fragile sense of self are why Gates was arrested; and the Cambridge Police Department's necessity to project infallibility in order to maintain order are why they are so offended by President Obama's widely-publicized assertion that they "acted stupidly."
The reason that this is being debated as a "racial" issue, (other than because Professor Gates is adamant that it is), is because instances like this, of police abusing their power, happen everyday, especially to minorities.
Inadequate individuals do not attack the strong, they attack the weaker. And when it comes to our justice system, the poor and uneducated are the weaker; and the majority of the poor and uneducated are minorities.
10 years ago I was pulled over while driving with my Black roommate in the car. Our only crime was driving late at night while being young, (and him being Black).
I was Pre-Law at Cal State San Marcos, (1 of 8 majors at 1 of 4 schools – my 4 years of college were the best 8 years of my life), so I knew a little more than most about the 4th amendment. Almost immediately upon approaching my vehicle they asked my roommate for his ID. I told my roommate and the cops that he did not have to show them anything – He was a passenger, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. But they persisted and kept asking him questions. I repeatedly told him not to say anything, and repeatedly told them that he didn't have to answer their questions – Again, I was the driver, and we were (supposedly) pulled over for a moving violation. They did not like my attitude, and I could tell, but it was the night before my Mom's funeral and I didn't want to get held for 24 hours just because, so I shut my mouth and we were soon on our way without any citation or warning.
Had I continued being an asshole I would have been taken into custody simply because they were the cops, and I was not. Race was the reason that I was pulled over, but giving the officers no avenue to demonstrate their power other than to arrest me would have been the reason that I spent the night in jail.
But Professor Gates is not poor and uneducated, and race did not play a role in his arrest, (other than it being the motivation for his agitation).
Yes, racial profiling exists, but the problem is not elevated arrest rates among certain demographics, the problem is law enforcement abusing its power.
I remember quite fondly when, during my "Malcolm X and the History of the Black Liberation" course at UCLA, after Professor Wolfenstein read statistics contrasting the ethnic makeup of our prison population with the general population, he and the rest of the class agreed that the statistics revealed that minorities were unfairly prosecuted, I, (one of 3 Whites in the class), raised my hand and stated that, "the numbers reveal that a higher percentage of minorities commit crimes."
I’m an asshole. But the reality is – we were all right.
Skip Gates and Sgt. Crowley are assholes, but they, and President Obama, are all right – It was stupid that Professor Gates was arrested, and it had nothing to do with race.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Zodiac Killer
It is officially the end of one of the worst periods of the year – though it is still holocaust deniers' favorite month, (Jew-lie), it is no longer the birthday season for people with the most awful astrological sign.
I'm an Aries. I like being an Aries. Whenever I tell women who are into astrology that I am an Aries, they always respond with an intrigued/panic-stricken look. Their mouths then say, "Aries are passionate," but their faces say, "You're gonna fuck me 'til I love you and then never call."
"Aries" sounds cool, it is the FIRST sign in the Zodiac, and a ram is a rather butch animal. Also, "Ares" is the Greek God of war. But people born between June 22 and July 22 aren't as fortunate as me because those who have had birthdays within the past four weeks are Cancers.
Whenever someone tells me that they are a Cancer I respond with a compassionate/disgusted look. My mouth then says "That sucks," and my face says, "Don’t kill yourself, but if you do I'll understand."
Cancer is devastating and the most widely-affecting disease on the planet; and the word "Cancer" never elicits positive associations.
But Cancers then always respond, "Cancer, as in Crabs," as if that makes it better: "Oh, it's not carcinoma, it's sexually transmitted..."
Granted, Crabs aren't as bad as Herpes, but when I hear "Cancer" I don't think "Deadliest Catch;" and just because your sign doesn't need an oncologist isn't a plus.
And imagine the stigma that kids who are Cancers grow up with. Every time that they get introduced it's the equivalent of saying, "This is Tommy – he's a Leo, this is Sally – she's malignant..."
The astrological sign, Cancer, needs to be done away with because its detriments far outweigh its benefits. I don't care if Venus is in retrograde, horoscopes should not metastasize, and being a "Cancer" is not okay!
There are plenty of other crustaceans to choose from, and I'm pretty sure nobody would mind if we even replaced the sign with a mollusk. But though Scallops are good when cooked right and wrapped with bacon, I think the best choice for replacing "Cancer" is "Lobster." Lobsters also have claws, taste great, and are expensive; but even for people who don't like eating lobster, the worst connotation the name conjures is "Maine," "market price," or "Monk fish"...and none of those require biopsies!
I'm an Aries. I like being an Aries. Whenever I tell women who are into astrology that I am an Aries, they always respond with an intrigued/panic-stricken look. Their mouths then say, "Aries are passionate," but their faces say, "You're gonna fuck me 'til I love you and then never call."
"Aries" sounds cool, it is the FIRST sign in the Zodiac, and a ram is a rather butch animal. Also, "Ares" is the Greek God of war. But people born between June 22 and July 22 aren't as fortunate as me because those who have had birthdays within the past four weeks are Cancers.
Whenever someone tells me that they are a Cancer I respond with a compassionate/disgusted look. My mouth then says "That sucks," and my face says, "Don’t kill yourself, but if you do I'll understand."
Cancer is devastating and the most widely-affecting disease on the planet; and the word "Cancer" never elicits positive associations.
But Cancers then always respond, "Cancer, as in Crabs," as if that makes it better: "Oh, it's not carcinoma, it's sexually transmitted..."
Granted, Crabs aren't as bad as Herpes, but when I hear "Cancer" I don't think "Deadliest Catch;" and just because your sign doesn't need an oncologist isn't a plus.
And imagine the stigma that kids who are Cancers grow up with. Every time that they get introduced it's the equivalent of saying, "This is Tommy – he's a Leo, this is Sally – she's malignant..."
The astrological sign, Cancer, needs to be done away with because its detriments far outweigh its benefits. I don't care if Venus is in retrograde, horoscopes should not metastasize, and being a "Cancer" is not okay!
There are plenty of other crustaceans to choose from, and I'm pretty sure nobody would mind if we even replaced the sign with a mollusk. But though Scallops are good when cooked right and wrapped with bacon, I think the best choice for replacing "Cancer" is "Lobster." Lobsters also have claws, taste great, and are expensive; but even for people who don't like eating lobster, the worst connotation the name conjures is "Maine," "market price," or "Monk fish"...and none of those require biopsies!
Monday, July 20, 2009
RockyRob Video Beat Down
Welcome to the 1st "RockyRob Video Beat Down."
Watch the videos then leave a comment explaining which one you prefer. And if you'd like, include reasons for your preference. Enjoy!
*Explicit Lyrics*
Watch the videos then leave a comment explaining which one you prefer. And if you'd like, include reasons for your preference. Enjoy!
*Explicit Lyrics*
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
AP - DNR RNC
WASHINGTON (AP) - Today the Republican National Committee dropped a resolution to call the Democratic Party the "Democrat-Socialist" Party but instead voted on a motion to formally recognize the Democrats' "March to Socialism."
In a related, yet way less reported story, today the Democratic National Committee did not vote on something totally insignificant.
(Though some Democrats were overheard chuckling at the consideration of officially referring to the current Republican Party as the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight-Republicans," the "Republicans That Totally Messed Up Our Country-Party," or simply "The Party That Seems To Be Entirely Filled With Republican Douche Nozzles Who Are Always Focused On Absolutely Insignificant Shit Other Than Actual Governing-Party.")
Copyright 2009 Associated Press
In a related, yet way less reported story, today the Democratic National Committee did not vote on something totally insignificant.
(Though some Democrats were overheard chuckling at the consideration of officially referring to the current Republican Party as the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight-Republicans," the "Republicans That Totally Messed Up Our Country-Party," or simply "The Party That Seems To Be Entirely Filled With Republican Douche Nozzles Who Are Always Focused On Absolutely Insignificant Shit Other Than Actual Governing-Party.")
Copyright 2009 Associated Press
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Democratic Crusade
Jesus Effing Christ! (unintended) How big of an idiot does someone have to be in order to think that it is a good idea to put Biblical quotes on the Pentagon's daily intelligence reports during a war against a Muslim nation? Are you frickin' kidding me?!!! What a bunch of absolute morons! I don't care if that's "what the President likes." The Department of Defense and our Executive Branch are representatives of the American people, and now it looks like we are all Christian extremists complicit in your God damn, (intended), religious fundamentalist "crusade." You bunch of (earmuffs) fucking assholes! How the hell, (unintended), does that make us "more safe"?
I realize that you were idiots way before you got elected, and that you didn't cast every vote for yourselves, but Christ Almighty, (unintended), our country is way too important for you to have continued your "skipping class and talking your way to a passing grade" mentality. Especially after 9/11, (which, (get it through your thick skulls), happened on your watch).
Thank God, (unintended), we have elections! But then I started wondering...What if al-Qaeda had elections? What if the Taliban had a totally new administration every 4 or 8 years? What if we captured an al-Qaeda member and during questioning, (waterboarding), he asked, "Why are you doing this to me?"
And we replied, "You're al-Qaeda."
And he said, "So?"
And we replied, "You killed over 3000 innocent civilians on 9/11."
And he replied, "Yeah, but that was under Bin Laden, we got a new guy now. And he's totally not like that old "Daddy's money, image over substance" buffoon..."
And what if we went into a village and captured a Taliban fighter and he was like, "What's going on?"
And we were like, "You're Taliban."
And he was like, "So?"
And we were like, "You guys harbored al-Qaeda and stoned a teenager to death last week because she was caught reading."
And he was like, "Yeah, but that was the old Taliban. We just had elections and, thank Allah, (intended), the economy became an issue or else we'd have that guy who wasn't sure when our surge in stonings actually started and thought that we could just simply drill for more opium..."
I realize that you were idiots way before you got elected, and that you didn't cast every vote for yourselves, but Christ Almighty, (unintended), our country is way too important for you to have continued your "skipping class and talking your way to a passing grade" mentality. Especially after 9/11, (which, (get it through your thick skulls), happened on your watch).
Thank God, (unintended), we have elections! But then I started wondering...What if al-Qaeda had elections? What if the Taliban had a totally new administration every 4 or 8 years? What if we captured an al-Qaeda member and during questioning, (waterboarding), he asked, "Why are you doing this to me?"
And we replied, "You're al-Qaeda."
And he said, "So?"
And we replied, "You killed over 3000 innocent civilians on 9/11."
And he replied, "Yeah, but that was under Bin Laden, we got a new guy now. And he's totally not like that old "Daddy's money, image over substance" buffoon..."
And what if we went into a village and captured a Taliban fighter and he was like, "What's going on?"
And we were like, "You're Taliban."
And he was like, "So?"
And we were like, "You guys harbored al-Qaeda and stoned a teenager to death last week because she was caught reading."
And he was like, "Yeah, but that was the old Taliban. We just had elections and, thank Allah, (intended), the economy became an issue or else we'd have that guy who wasn't sure when our surge in stonings actually started and thought that we could just simply drill for more opium..."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The following is a response to my post, No Habla "War Crime", followed by my response...
Hey there... I'm fixin' to lay down a heavy-duty reply... I hope my comment will be received in the same spirit as your post, which was well-contemplated and deeply felt.
One of the harsh realities of being in charge of the nation with the greatest military might known to mankind is sometimes, the weight of the lives of millions of citizens is what sinks the scale favoring a choice while the human rights of a self-professed ultra-lethal individual non-citizen will just have to be weightless, comparatively.
I am not here to defend Dick Cheney. I have a whole separate set of long standing issues with him. His speaking out against BO (hey, the Dems had "Dubya") bothers me a little less than it might otherwise largely thanks to the carpings of Carter. And Gore. And Clinton. And Clinton. And MoveOn (insulting GEN Petraeus). And the harridans of Code Pink. And the anarchist shitting on my flag. I remember all of that, and more.
Most of all, I want someone, anyone to come to the defense of my soldiers, to the defense of the other civil servants who signed on to make sure my country never, ever, gets attacked like that again. All those people, humans just like me and you, who have families in cities like New York and LA, too. Seriously, I consider it my duty to defend my warriors.
I used to work in the Library Tower, when it was called the Bank Tower. The days following 9-11 were filled with barely subsurface anxiety. The city moved in cement street barriers in front of it. We had to evacuate every time some sick fukk would call in a fake bomb threat. We lived like incipient zombies. We dreaded the clear, blue sky. We watched every single jumbo jet from the moment it poked around the edge of the building until it fully left our view.
People like me demanded, without reservation, that the monsters responsible be found and made to pay and to give up anything and anyone to further our search for the top monster, UBL. Every time I softened that demand inside myself, thinking of the pictures of caught men being roughed up, messed up, fukked up, I'd remember the people who jumped rather than incinerate in jet fuel. I remember the woman fully engulfed in flame who walked into the lobby of one of those buildings and endured as she was beheld in horror by the others escaping and firemen rushing in. I remember the hard hats carefully, earnestly, cleaning the gaping wound of 16 acres.
And any feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others would instantly evaporate. His rights meant absolutely nothing. And they still mean absolutely nothing. And they always will. That's just how it is... and that is just how it always will be. For me. And, likely, there are millions like me.
I will not resort to putting myself in his place in order to help me remember the higher purpose of the American-style democracy aspiring to ideals that soar in our hearts. That would be cowardice. We want to pull up during a stall, because it just feels wrong to point the bird down. And that's how it feels to me, the urgings and promptings to identify with the enemy feels like wanting to pull up.
How better to retreat, pre-surrending for our enemy's convenience, than to identify with him as our prisoner? I do not think that he is no different from me, or better put, that I am no different from he, but for our positions in space and time. My good fortune as an American citizen does not mean I must throw out the value of it as the highest score, and toss out his lower score because he's not an
American, in order to achieve a mean balance.
So while Dick Cheney does not resemble the intercessor I'd like to speak up on the behalf of those fellow citizens who work to find those responsible, he'll do. And thank goodness. For if no one stands up to an unchallenged ACLU, our soldiers, while still in combat, could expect to be stabbed in the back. By us. Us. No... no... no.
I think Dick Cheney would have preferred to not be discussing the interrogations, or the memos, or the briefings, or the photos or any of it at all. He is a cagey sonofabitch, no doubt. I'm pretty sure, he does not see himself as the fall guy for Bush. That doesn't fit his persona. I get the sense that he told the people he commanded that he would do whatever it took to cover their backs. I think that's what he's doing.
What I'm about to add is, and likely always be, something we will agree to disagree on. Reality demands that I acknowledge some shit works. We might not like how it works, but it does work.
Waterboarding did work. So, some of it will be dirty and images without context will outrage the immature, the unfamiliar, the uncritical and weak-minded. But what if some of what is revealed is success? Can we handle good news delivered even by someone we're pretty sure we hate?
I do not agree that waterboarding is torture. While some legal minds and decisions have deemed it so, that doesn't persuade me to agree. Humans often make, shall we say, interesting laws that we later determine to be mistakes. One of the grave concerns I have about BO is that he is a lawyer. I used to work for lawyers.
I certainly don't want anything released to me, a member of the Ungrateful Public, that will endanger the security of our soldiers. But some people do. I don't understand the animus of people who want to punish the actors of the previous administration, demonizing them all, especially if they're agents and warriors who acted in good faith. The lunacy that attends them makes me want them to drop dead. I see their lips moving but I don't care what they're saying. You ever feel that way?
I wish there was something I could say that would relieve that gnawing in your craw about America using waterboarding on our enemies. I think that will have to come to you at your pace, in due time, if at all. But I find myself unbothered by that because, well, I keep remembering the suffering of all the people on 9-11. Their voices, saying goodbye to their loved ones, knowing they were about to die in a field is what haunts me. Not the cries of Khalid.
We were really scared it would happen again... we were very scared. Any frightened beast, human or otherwise, will bring to bear all weapons and all resources to get out alive and in one piece. And when the fear lasts long enough, it converts to anger. You need your anger to keep the energy, the heat, right there, on the tips of your fingers, to stay focused, to settle for nothing less than victory. I've been there. And when the raw animal edge of me demanded I stop at nothing to survive... that's exactly what I did.
To borrow another Spanish slogan, "si se puede... asi es que, por supuesto, si se quiere." It is a truth about humans that, as devoted masters of our destinies and captains of our souls (or so I keep hearing), we will make it up as we go and we will see it our way until and unless we don't. This is an inalienable right... and a skill. We will not stop improvising clear up until the pupils fix. Nor should we. And if I have to lie to make you think I will, when I most certainly will not, then... ok.
Half of us detest the voting habits of the other half of America. Not just dislike, but detest. So to that has the odor of America's politics in recent generations degenerated. That smell does not signal an improvement of our republic.
I sensed you'd at least hear me out about this. Maybe even want to discuss it civilly. I'm hoping you won't judge me an apologist or a defender of the indefensible, at least, not without trying to talk some sense into me. ;) I genuinely fear the state of political discourse these days, particularly when conducted across the interwebs. This binary language... it really does tempt us to be more barbaric, rather than less. Ain't that a kick in the head....
Anyway, I hope that all made sense.
-alexa
Alexa,
First off, thank you for your extended and obviously heart-felt response.
Second off, there is a cricket hiding in my apartment that just won't SHUT THE HELL UP! (Though I still believe waterboarding it would be cruel:)
The issue that keeps gnawing at me is not that we waterboarded. What's stuck in my craw is that nobody seems to realize that the actual issue is whether or not the Bush Administration waterboarded merely to justify the invasion of Iraq; and if that is case, than doesn't that mean that waterboarding didn't work?
Waterboarding the enemy not to gather information, but simply to attain a certain response does not protect our citizens or our troops and, in fact, only makes us less secure and more susceptible to attack; (according to the Art of War, "moral influence" is the first of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war).
But your response illustrates the essential disconnect between the two parties - Is the moral issue concerning "Enhanced Interrogations" about "them" or about "us"? Do we not waterboard because we don't waterboard, or do we not waterboard because they don't waterboard?
I believe that we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture because we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture...regardless of who they are.
(The "Jesus/Confucius" view – "Do unto others.../What the superior man seeks is within himself...")
My friend, the greatest "American" that I've ever known, was on the 102nd floor of Tower #2, and was only there because he was working to put his sister through college. Do not assume that opponents of the Bush Administration's policies and actions did not suffer the same, if not a greater, emotional and psychological trauma as a result of 9/11. Recalling my friend's last voicemail still, and will always, illicit a visceral response so strong that I am left temporarily incoherent and physically useless.
Everybody was terrified by 9/11 – that's the objective of "terrorism." To remain vigilant is necessary but to remain terrified, and to devalue other's humanity, means it worked and that "they" are winning.
Please do not misunderstand or believe that I have "feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others." If I were to be let into a room with KSM, I would cause him extreme physical harm. And that is my point: My intent to enter the room would not be to gather information, and I would not wait outside the door until I received a guarantee that my actions would not be punished.
It is not that I oppose the policies and actions of the Bush Administration because I don't understand the complexity or scale of their responsibilities – It is, in fact, the exact opposite.
As FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, famously said this week, "It's easier to hit somebody than outsmart them." Running the USA was too important of a job to consistently take the easy way out and to constantly make the shortsighted decisions that are the culprit for most of our nation's current ills.
And it is not as if the current fervor over these memos was a far fetched idea during the confusing days immediately following 9/11. I agree that groupthink is very powerful but the assumption that our leaders were under tremendous strain and thus should be given a pass for their behavior is utterly ridiculous. On January 26, 2002 Colin Powell drafted a memo stating exactly what going down this path of reversing "over a century of U.S. policy and practice" would lead to: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf
When we went into Iraq I was the loudest one shouting "remember 9/11?" As a student in Los Angeles, majoring in theater, mine was not the most popular view. I was naïve, I was racist, I was wrong. But even knowing what we know now about WMD, "yellowcake", and no link to al-Qaeda, had we been out of Iraq in two years, without our soldiers continuing to be maimed and slaughtered there, the invasion would have been the right decision. The war in Iraq was strategically and tactically terribly mismanaged and the Bush Administration is at fault.
The truth is: Criticizing the Bush Administration IS coming to the defense of our "warriors." Sending our troops into (an unnecessary) war, without a clear objective or "end game," without the resources necessary for their survival, (ammo, armor, H2O), and then to enact a "stop-loss" policy which affectively forced them to serve against their will, while at the same time engaging in, and demanding, behavior that erases any moral influence that they may have, and THEN to not give them adequate care when they returned home is the antithesis of "supporting our troops."
You are absolutely right that Dick Cheney is a "cagey sonofabitch." But he is also a selfish coward and the poster child for "chicken-hawk."
Dick received 5 Vietnam draft deferments. In January of 1963, when he turned 22, Dick enrolled in Casper Community College, (after he had already attended Yale), and applied for his first student deferment in March. He transferred to the Univ. of Wyoming and sought his 2nd deferment in July.
22 days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved and the war escalated rapidly, Dick got married, (he was still a student but being married REALLY protected him from the draft).
9 months and 2 days after the ban against drafting married men was lifted, Dick had his 1st daughter. 9 MONTHS and 2 DAYS! During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, Dick applied for a "hardship" exemption which excluded men with children from being drafted.
Dick always says that had he been drafted he would have served, and in all fairness, a lot of men avoided the Vietnam draft by legal means and the overwhelming majority of our vets joined voluntarily, but Dick's 5 draft deferments reveal that he believes his existence is more valuable than a lowly serviceman, and that he doesn't give 2 shits for the honor or importance of our military. If not for Dick's 5 draft deferments my Dad might not have taken shrapnel or had friends die in his arms. And if not for Dubya's sweet pilot gig in Alabama he might not think that being a soldier in Afghanistan is "romantic" (remember that?). It is the height of hypocrisy for Dick to question anybody else's patriotism, and please do not be tricked into thinking that Dick has any concerns other than self-preservation.
That being said, I LIKE DICK CHENEY! I love his resolve and his tenacity. Personality-wise I have a lot more in common with Dick, and Dubya, and John McCain than I do Barack Obama; but even if I were running for office against Obama, I would vote for Obama.
You need not worry that Obama is a lawyer, our "grave concern" should be that one day he wakes up and realizes that America does not deserve him.
Also during the Face the Nation interview Dick acknowledged what you believe are his motivations for his conitnuing public presense when he explained, "If I don't speak out than where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have a free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."
If what we did was so honorable, and "the right thing to do," than why would Dick's absence mean that his critics would have a "free run"?
The reality is: Not speaking out would be the hard thing to do and, as is obvious from Dick's biography, the hard thing to do is most likely not even under consideration.
You don't think that waterboarding is torture. My intent is not to "attack the arguer," but have you ever been waterboarded? A lot of those who have, believe waterboarding is torture. And excuse my vulgarity, but qualifying waterboarding based on the victim is like saying, "Rape is only wrong if you don't rape a nymphomaniac."
The fact that this debate has devolved into "some shit works" is the exact reason why our government should not have sanctioned torture.
9/11 was devastating but the harsh reality is in 1993 al-Qaeda used a bomb to kill 6 people at the World Trade Center, and in 2001 they used box cutters to kill over 3000. There was a lack of attention to detail at the NSA and communication barriers between the FBI and CIA, but 9/11 still could have been avoided if airport security would have just simply paid attention to metal detectors.
I agree that reducing the opposition to less than human or inferior is a problem – Whether it's al-Qaeda, a Democrat, or a Republican – and that doing so is way too common and not healthy for our republic. But I believe that doing such is more prevalent in certain personality-types and a higher percentage of those personalities are "conservatives."
I am not too familiar with MoveOn or Code Pink and it is probably because I believe that a person's motivation should be considered – do they believe what they believe out of sympathy or out of malice? And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" are motivated by malice.
I believe that our government is way too important to be just another team sport. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" view our government as merely a game of "Us versus Them."
I believe that anybody who thought President Clinton should have been impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob and then accused the President of "wagging the dog" after he ordered the bombings of al-Qaeda facilities in 1998 is partially responsible for 9/11. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" accused Clinton of "wagging the dog."
I believe that the current state of the Republican Party is hilarious and well deserved, but without Obama, the Democrats would go right back to being the Republicans' "whipping boy."
I believe that an educated populous is essential for a democracy, and I believe that the study of logic (argument) is just as important as an understanding of history. And I believe that both parties take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed but right now a higher percentage of "conservatives" are doing so.
I believe in Science, and I believe that knowledge is good. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" don't.
I believe that the beauty of our democracy is minority rights, not majority rule. And I believe that the ACLU is the essence of "America" because I believe that "shitting on my flag" is one of the highest expressions of freedom of speech.
I believe that because you actually read and consider views opposing yours that you do not represent "conservatives."
And I believe that I am right...but I could be wrong.
(And I believe that my initial intentions for this post were good, but it ultimately deteriorated into a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay.)
(Thank you for causing me to write a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay:)
(And I am leaning closer towards waterboarding this damn cricket!)
Hey there... I'm fixin' to lay down a heavy-duty reply... I hope my comment will be received in the same spirit as your post, which was well-contemplated and deeply felt.
One of the harsh realities of being in charge of the nation with the greatest military might known to mankind is sometimes, the weight of the lives of millions of citizens is what sinks the scale favoring a choice while the human rights of a self-professed ultra-lethal individual non-citizen will just have to be weightless, comparatively.
I am not here to defend Dick Cheney. I have a whole separate set of long standing issues with him. His speaking out against BO (hey, the Dems had "Dubya") bothers me a little less than it might otherwise largely thanks to the carpings of Carter. And Gore. And Clinton. And Clinton. And MoveOn (insulting GEN Petraeus). And the harridans of Code Pink. And the anarchist shitting on my flag. I remember all of that, and more.
Most of all, I want someone, anyone to come to the defense of my soldiers, to the defense of the other civil servants who signed on to make sure my country never, ever, gets attacked like that again. All those people, humans just like me and you, who have families in cities like New York and LA, too. Seriously, I consider it my duty to defend my warriors.
I used to work in the Library Tower, when it was called the Bank Tower. The days following 9-11 were filled with barely subsurface anxiety. The city moved in cement street barriers in front of it. We had to evacuate every time some sick fukk would call in a fake bomb threat. We lived like incipient zombies. We dreaded the clear, blue sky. We watched every single jumbo jet from the moment it poked around the edge of the building until it fully left our view.
People like me demanded, without reservation, that the monsters responsible be found and made to pay and to give up anything and anyone to further our search for the top monster, UBL. Every time I softened that demand inside myself, thinking of the pictures of caught men being roughed up, messed up, fukked up, I'd remember the people who jumped rather than incinerate in jet fuel. I remember the woman fully engulfed in flame who walked into the lobby of one of those buildings and endured as she was beheld in horror by the others escaping and firemen rushing in. I remember the hard hats carefully, earnestly, cleaning the gaping wound of 16 acres.
And any feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others would instantly evaporate. His rights meant absolutely nothing. And they still mean absolutely nothing. And they always will. That's just how it is... and that is just how it always will be. For me. And, likely, there are millions like me.
I will not resort to putting myself in his place in order to help me remember the higher purpose of the American-style democracy aspiring to ideals that soar in our hearts. That would be cowardice. We want to pull up during a stall, because it just feels wrong to point the bird down. And that's how it feels to me, the urgings and promptings to identify with the enemy feels like wanting to pull up.
How better to retreat, pre-surrending for our enemy's convenience, than to identify with him as our prisoner? I do not think that he is no different from me, or better put, that I am no different from he, but for our positions in space and time. My good fortune as an American citizen does not mean I must throw out the value of it as the highest score, and toss out his lower score because he's not an
American, in order to achieve a mean balance.
So while Dick Cheney does not resemble the intercessor I'd like to speak up on the behalf of those fellow citizens who work to find those responsible, he'll do. And thank goodness. For if no one stands up to an unchallenged ACLU, our soldiers, while still in combat, could expect to be stabbed in the back. By us. Us. No... no... no.
I think Dick Cheney would have preferred to not be discussing the interrogations, or the memos, or the briefings, or the photos or any of it at all. He is a cagey sonofabitch, no doubt. I'm pretty sure, he does not see himself as the fall guy for Bush. That doesn't fit his persona. I get the sense that he told the people he commanded that he would do whatever it took to cover their backs. I think that's what he's doing.
What I'm about to add is, and likely always be, something we will agree to disagree on. Reality demands that I acknowledge some shit works. We might not like how it works, but it does work.
Waterboarding did work. So, some of it will be dirty and images without context will outrage the immature, the unfamiliar, the uncritical and weak-minded. But what if some of what is revealed is success? Can we handle good news delivered even by someone we're pretty sure we hate?
I do not agree that waterboarding is torture. While some legal minds and decisions have deemed it so, that doesn't persuade me to agree. Humans often make, shall we say, interesting laws that we later determine to be mistakes. One of the grave concerns I have about BO is that he is a lawyer. I used to work for lawyers.
I certainly don't want anything released to me, a member of the Ungrateful Public, that will endanger the security of our soldiers. But some people do. I don't understand the animus of people who want to punish the actors of the previous administration, demonizing them all, especially if they're agents and warriors who acted in good faith. The lunacy that attends them makes me want them to drop dead. I see their lips moving but I don't care what they're saying. You ever feel that way?
I wish there was something I could say that would relieve that gnawing in your craw about America using waterboarding on our enemies. I think that will have to come to you at your pace, in due time, if at all. But I find myself unbothered by that because, well, I keep remembering the suffering of all the people on 9-11. Their voices, saying goodbye to their loved ones, knowing they were about to die in a field is what haunts me. Not the cries of Khalid.
We were really scared it would happen again... we were very scared. Any frightened beast, human or otherwise, will bring to bear all weapons and all resources to get out alive and in one piece. And when the fear lasts long enough, it converts to anger. You need your anger to keep the energy, the heat, right there, on the tips of your fingers, to stay focused, to settle for nothing less than victory. I've been there. And when the raw animal edge of me demanded I stop at nothing to survive... that's exactly what I did.
To borrow another Spanish slogan, "si se puede... asi es que, por supuesto, si se quiere." It is a truth about humans that, as devoted masters of our destinies and captains of our souls (or so I keep hearing), we will make it up as we go and we will see it our way until and unless we don't. This is an inalienable right... and a skill. We will not stop improvising clear up until the pupils fix. Nor should we. And if I have to lie to make you think I will, when I most certainly will not, then... ok.
Half of us detest the voting habits of the other half of America. Not just dislike, but detest. So to that has the odor of America's politics in recent generations degenerated. That smell does not signal an improvement of our republic.
I sensed you'd at least hear me out about this. Maybe even want to discuss it civilly. I'm hoping you won't judge me an apologist or a defender of the indefensible, at least, not without trying to talk some sense into me. ;) I genuinely fear the state of political discourse these days, particularly when conducted across the interwebs. This binary language... it really does tempt us to be more barbaric, rather than less. Ain't that a kick in the head....
Anyway, I hope that all made sense.
-alexa
Alexa,
First off, thank you for your extended and obviously heart-felt response.
Second off, there is a cricket hiding in my apartment that just won't SHUT THE HELL UP! (Though I still believe waterboarding it would be cruel:)
The issue that keeps gnawing at me is not that we waterboarded. What's stuck in my craw is that nobody seems to realize that the actual issue is whether or not the Bush Administration waterboarded merely to justify the invasion of Iraq; and if that is case, than doesn't that mean that waterboarding didn't work?
Waterboarding the enemy not to gather information, but simply to attain a certain response does not protect our citizens or our troops and, in fact, only makes us less secure and more susceptible to attack; (according to the Art of War, "moral influence" is the first of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war).
But your response illustrates the essential disconnect between the two parties - Is the moral issue concerning "Enhanced Interrogations" about "them" or about "us"? Do we not waterboard because we don't waterboard, or do we not waterboard because they don't waterboard?
I believe that we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture because we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture...regardless of who they are.
(The "Jesus/Confucius" view – "Do unto others.../What the superior man seeks is within himself...")
My friend, the greatest "American" that I've ever known, was on the 102nd floor of Tower #2, and was only there because he was working to put his sister through college. Do not assume that opponents of the Bush Administration's policies and actions did not suffer the same, if not a greater, emotional and psychological trauma as a result of 9/11. Recalling my friend's last voicemail still, and will always, illicit a visceral response so strong that I am left temporarily incoherent and physically useless.
Everybody was terrified by 9/11 – that's the objective of "terrorism." To remain vigilant is necessary but to remain terrified, and to devalue other's humanity, means it worked and that "they" are winning.
Please do not misunderstand or believe that I have "feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others." If I were to be let into a room with KSM, I would cause him extreme physical harm. And that is my point: My intent to enter the room would not be to gather information, and I would not wait outside the door until I received a guarantee that my actions would not be punished.
It is not that I oppose the policies and actions of the Bush Administration because I don't understand the complexity or scale of their responsibilities – It is, in fact, the exact opposite.
As FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, famously said this week, "It's easier to hit somebody than outsmart them." Running the USA was too important of a job to consistently take the easy way out and to constantly make the shortsighted decisions that are the culprit for most of our nation's current ills.
And it is not as if the current fervor over these memos was a far fetched idea during the confusing days immediately following 9/11. I agree that groupthink is very powerful but the assumption that our leaders were under tremendous strain and thus should be given a pass for their behavior is utterly ridiculous. On January 26, 2002 Colin Powell drafted a memo stating exactly what going down this path of reversing "over a century of U.S. policy and practice" would lead to: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf
When we went into Iraq I was the loudest one shouting "remember 9/11?" As a student in Los Angeles, majoring in theater, mine was not the most popular view. I was naïve, I was racist, I was wrong. But even knowing what we know now about WMD, "yellowcake", and no link to al-Qaeda, had we been out of Iraq in two years, without our soldiers continuing to be maimed and slaughtered there, the invasion would have been the right decision. The war in Iraq was strategically and tactically terribly mismanaged and the Bush Administration is at fault.
The truth is: Criticizing the Bush Administration IS coming to the defense of our "warriors." Sending our troops into (an unnecessary) war, without a clear objective or "end game," without the resources necessary for their survival, (ammo, armor, H2O), and then to enact a "stop-loss" policy which affectively forced them to serve against their will, while at the same time engaging in, and demanding, behavior that erases any moral influence that they may have, and THEN to not give them adequate care when they returned home is the antithesis of "supporting our troops."
You are absolutely right that Dick Cheney is a "cagey sonofabitch." But he is also a selfish coward and the poster child for "chicken-hawk."
Dick received 5 Vietnam draft deferments. In January of 1963, when he turned 22, Dick enrolled in Casper Community College, (after he had already attended Yale), and applied for his first student deferment in March. He transferred to the Univ. of Wyoming and sought his 2nd deferment in July.
22 days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved and the war escalated rapidly, Dick got married, (he was still a student but being married REALLY protected him from the draft).
9 months and 2 days after the ban against drafting married men was lifted, Dick had his 1st daughter. 9 MONTHS and 2 DAYS! During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, Dick applied for a "hardship" exemption which excluded men with children from being drafted.
Dick always says that had he been drafted he would have served, and in all fairness, a lot of men avoided the Vietnam draft by legal means and the overwhelming majority of our vets joined voluntarily, but Dick's 5 draft deferments reveal that he believes his existence is more valuable than a lowly serviceman, and that he doesn't give 2 shits for the honor or importance of our military. If not for Dick's 5 draft deferments my Dad might not have taken shrapnel or had friends die in his arms. And if not for Dubya's sweet pilot gig in Alabama he might not think that being a soldier in Afghanistan is "romantic" (remember that?). It is the height of hypocrisy for Dick to question anybody else's patriotism, and please do not be tricked into thinking that Dick has any concerns other than self-preservation.
That being said, I LIKE DICK CHENEY! I love his resolve and his tenacity. Personality-wise I have a lot more in common with Dick, and Dubya, and John McCain than I do Barack Obama; but even if I were running for office against Obama, I would vote for Obama.
You need not worry that Obama is a lawyer, our "grave concern" should be that one day he wakes up and realizes that America does not deserve him.
Also during the Face the Nation interview Dick acknowledged what you believe are his motivations for his conitnuing public presense when he explained, "If I don't speak out than where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have a free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."
If what we did was so honorable, and "the right thing to do," than why would Dick's absence mean that his critics would have a "free run"?
The reality is: Not speaking out would be the hard thing to do and, as is obvious from Dick's biography, the hard thing to do is most likely not even under consideration.
You don't think that waterboarding is torture. My intent is not to "attack the arguer," but have you ever been waterboarded? A lot of those who have, believe waterboarding is torture. And excuse my vulgarity, but qualifying waterboarding based on the victim is like saying, "Rape is only wrong if you don't rape a nymphomaniac."
The fact that this debate has devolved into "some shit works" is the exact reason why our government should not have sanctioned torture.
9/11 was devastating but the harsh reality is in 1993 al-Qaeda used a bomb to kill 6 people at the World Trade Center, and in 2001 they used box cutters to kill over 3000. There was a lack of attention to detail at the NSA and communication barriers between the FBI and CIA, but 9/11 still could have been avoided if airport security would have just simply paid attention to metal detectors.
I agree that reducing the opposition to less than human or inferior is a problem – Whether it's al-Qaeda, a Democrat, or a Republican – and that doing so is way too common and not healthy for our republic. But I believe that doing such is more prevalent in certain personality-types and a higher percentage of those personalities are "conservatives."
I am not too familiar with MoveOn or Code Pink and it is probably because I believe that a person's motivation should be considered – do they believe what they believe out of sympathy or out of malice? And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" are motivated by malice.
I believe that our government is way too important to be just another team sport. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" view our government as merely a game of "Us versus Them."
I believe that anybody who thought President Clinton should have been impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob and then accused the President of "wagging the dog" after he ordered the bombings of al-Qaeda facilities in 1998 is partially responsible for 9/11. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" accused Clinton of "wagging the dog."
I believe that the current state of the Republican Party is hilarious and well deserved, but without Obama, the Democrats would go right back to being the Republicans' "whipping boy."
I believe that an educated populous is essential for a democracy, and I believe that the study of logic (argument) is just as important as an understanding of history. And I believe that both parties take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed but right now a higher percentage of "conservatives" are doing so.
I believe in Science, and I believe that knowledge is good. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" don't.
I believe that the beauty of our democracy is minority rights, not majority rule. And I believe that the ACLU is the essence of "America" because I believe that "shitting on my flag" is one of the highest expressions of freedom of speech.
I believe that because you actually read and consider views opposing yours that you do not represent "conservatives."
And I believe that I am right...but I could be wrong.
(And I believe that my initial intentions for this post were good, but it ultimately deteriorated into a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay.)
(Thank you for causing me to write a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay:)
(And I am leaning closer towards waterboarding this damn cricket!)
Saturday, May 16, 2009
No Habla "War Crime"
I was half asleep, (and still a little drunk), when I first watched this Sunday's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer but even I didn't miss the lyrics for the music when Dick Cheney actually said, "(Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) did not cooperate fully in terms of interrogations until after waterboarding. Once we went through that process he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al-Qaeda."
This was after Dick justified his refusal to abide by the common protocol of refraining from immediate public discourse after leaving office by accusing President Obama of upholding campaign promises: "They campaigned against these policies, across the country, and then they came in now and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with."
And it was also after Dick inferred that it is only proper to have all the information concerning a controversial issue available to the public: "If we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate, and those memos oughta be out there for people to look at, and journalists, like yourself, to evaluate in terms of what we were able to accomplish..."
(Seriously? Dick Cheney? "A complete debate"? Involving the media...and dissenters should have access to classified information? Seriously? The "Valerie Plame" Dick Cheney? The "fourth branch of government" Dick Cheney? That guy? The Dick Cheney that drafted a memo suggesting using the Justice Department in order to exact revenge on New York Times reporter, Seymour Hersh, because Hersh exposed the government's cover up of the My Lai Massacre? That Dick Cheney? Seriously?)
And it was right after Dick confirmed that KSM was captured in March of '03.
Immediately, (and ad nauseam all week), I screamed at my TV, "How much time was devoted to other interrogation techniques if KSM could be captured in March and still be waterboarded 183 times within the month of March?"
Mathematically Dick, how the hell is it possible to use other forms of interrogation and still start waterboarding right away? Or was "time travel" also a "legalized" "Enhanced Interrogation" tactic?
And did waterboarding lead KSM to give up "vast quantities of invaluable information about al-Qaeda" or did it prevent an imminent threat?
I apologize if my posts regarding "Enhanced Interrogations" are redundant, but this issue just keeps gnawing at me because every argument endorsing waterboarding can be ceded and the point that the Bush Administration's behavior was reprehensible and criminal can still be made apparent with a few, very simple, and obvious questions that nobody seems to be asking!
If waterboarding and "walling" and "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded so ferociously because he did not corroborate what Abu Zubaydah revealed during waterboarding, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
If "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded in order to attain information that would justify the invasion of Iraq, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
And if "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, isn't the fact that there were more al-Qaeda attacks after "Enhanced Interrogations" were used than there were before, (e.g. Tunisia, Karachi, Yemen, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombasa, Mumbai, Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid, (and that's just between 4/02 and 3/04), proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, didn't avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration merely created more "terror" and made the world less safe?
In all fairness to Bob Schieffer, it may simply be that Dick speaks and hears a language other than our popularly accepted version of English.
When explaining that he has formally requested that memos be declassified Dick said, "I started that process, as I say, 6 weeks ago – I haven't heard anything from it yet..."
Bob Schieffer then interjected: "They haven't responded to you as yet?"
And Dick responded: "No. That's right. Up 'til now I've got a letter of notification saying they've started the process..."
To most of us fluent in communicating via English, a "letter of notification" constitutes a "response," but apparently not in Dick's head because if so, Dick would have basically just said, "You're absolutely right, no, they haven't, because yes, they did..."
And this wasn't the only response that left me wondering if there is a Rosetta Stone for "War Criminal."
Later Bob Schieffer prodded: "...I'm not asking you to violate any rules of classification but is there anything you can tell us specifically...some fact that we got that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise?"
And Dick immediately replied: "That's what's in those memos – It talks specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped. It talks about how the volume of intelligence reports that were produced from that."
Then Bob asked: "Does it talk about planning for attacks or attacks that were actually stopped?"
And Dick stammered: "Umm, well I need to be careful here, Bob, because it's still classified..."
So let me get this straight, Dick, there is nothing wrong with saying the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" but explaining that the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" is too specific?
On the surface it appears that Dick no comprende the Ingles, but the truth may be that he is communicating more sophisticatedly than any of us have assumed. Every time Dick says "what we did was honorable" he may really be saying "you should have pardoned Scooter." Maybe Dick realizes that he was being set up to be the Bush Administration's scapegoat/sacrificial lamb, (ironic that goat and lamb are the main meats in Middle-Eastern dishes?), and his refusal to go away is simply the political-legacy equivalent of the Bush Doctrine. (I'll explain it to you later, Sarah.)
But it is far too rare that someone sifts through the emotional rhetoric and asks the Bush Administration defenders the practical questions that force them to explain how the enemy is the reason that the United States either does or does not torture prisoners of war; and thus, into the corner where the "we were really, really, scared" defense is their only excuse.
The "we were really, really, scared" defense may be the only retribution that we are going to be able to extract from this administration, and the Bush Administration should be forced to keep reminding us just how frightened they were because there are only so many times that someone can say "we were really, really, scared" before the public rightfully starts hearing "we were inept, incompetent, and totally unqualified for the jobs that we had."
I am not morally opposed to torture, but I am patriotically opposed to our nation's government-sanctioned torture, (as, I believe, the majority of the country is). But, "if we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate," and the people need to look at, and "evaluate, ["Enhanced Interrogations"] in terms of what we were [really trying, and] able to accomplish."
-Rocky
This was after Dick justified his refusal to abide by the common protocol of refraining from immediate public discourse after leaving office by accusing President Obama of upholding campaign promises: "They campaigned against these policies, across the country, and then they came in now and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with."
And it was also after Dick inferred that it is only proper to have all the information concerning a controversial issue available to the public: "If we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate, and those memos oughta be out there for people to look at, and journalists, like yourself, to evaluate in terms of what we were able to accomplish..."
(Seriously? Dick Cheney? "A complete debate"? Involving the media...and dissenters should have access to classified information? Seriously? The "Valerie Plame" Dick Cheney? The "fourth branch of government" Dick Cheney? That guy? The Dick Cheney that drafted a memo suggesting using the Justice Department in order to exact revenge on New York Times reporter, Seymour Hersh, because Hersh exposed the government's cover up of the My Lai Massacre? That Dick Cheney? Seriously?)
And it was right after Dick confirmed that KSM was captured in March of '03.
Immediately, (and ad nauseam all week), I screamed at my TV, "How much time was devoted to other interrogation techniques if KSM could be captured in March and still be waterboarded 183 times within the month of March?"
Mathematically Dick, how the hell is it possible to use other forms of interrogation and still start waterboarding right away? Or was "time travel" also a "legalized" "Enhanced Interrogation" tactic?
And did waterboarding lead KSM to give up "vast quantities of invaluable information about al-Qaeda" or did it prevent an imminent threat?
I apologize if my posts regarding "Enhanced Interrogations" are redundant, but this issue just keeps gnawing at me because every argument endorsing waterboarding can be ceded and the point that the Bush Administration's behavior was reprehensible and criminal can still be made apparent with a few, very simple, and obvious questions that nobody seems to be asking!
If waterboarding and "walling" and "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded so ferociously because he did not corroborate what Abu Zubaydah revealed during waterboarding, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
If "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded in order to attain information that would justify the invasion of Iraq, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
And if "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, isn't the fact that there were more al-Qaeda attacks after "Enhanced Interrogations" were used than there were before, (e.g. Tunisia, Karachi, Yemen, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombasa, Mumbai, Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid, (and that's just between 4/02 and 3/04), proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, didn't avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration merely created more "terror" and made the world less safe?
In all fairness to Bob Schieffer, it may simply be that Dick speaks and hears a language other than our popularly accepted version of English.
When explaining that he has formally requested that memos be declassified Dick said, "I started that process, as I say, 6 weeks ago – I haven't heard anything from it yet..."
Bob Schieffer then interjected: "They haven't responded to you as yet?"
And Dick responded: "No. That's right. Up 'til now I've got a letter of notification saying they've started the process..."
To most of us fluent in communicating via English, a "letter of notification" constitutes a "response," but apparently not in Dick's head because if so, Dick would have basically just said, "You're absolutely right, no, they haven't, because yes, they did..."
And this wasn't the only response that left me wondering if there is a Rosetta Stone for "War Criminal."
Later Bob Schieffer prodded: "...I'm not asking you to violate any rules of classification but is there anything you can tell us specifically...some fact that we got that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise?"
And Dick immediately replied: "That's what's in those memos – It talks specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped. It talks about how the volume of intelligence reports that were produced from that."
Then Bob asked: "Does it talk about planning for attacks or attacks that were actually stopped?"
And Dick stammered: "Umm, well I need to be careful here, Bob, because it's still classified..."
So let me get this straight, Dick, there is nothing wrong with saying the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" but explaining that the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" is too specific?
On the surface it appears that Dick no comprende the Ingles, but the truth may be that he is communicating more sophisticatedly than any of us have assumed. Every time Dick says "what we did was honorable" he may really be saying "you should have pardoned Scooter." Maybe Dick realizes that he was being set up to be the Bush Administration's scapegoat/sacrificial lamb, (ironic that goat and lamb are the main meats in Middle-Eastern dishes?), and his refusal to go away is simply the political-legacy equivalent of the Bush Doctrine. (I'll explain it to you later, Sarah.)
But it is far too rare that someone sifts through the emotional rhetoric and asks the Bush Administration defenders the practical questions that force them to explain how the enemy is the reason that the United States either does or does not torture prisoners of war; and thus, into the corner where the "we were really, really, scared" defense is their only excuse.
The "we were really, really, scared" defense may be the only retribution that we are going to be able to extract from this administration, and the Bush Administration should be forced to keep reminding us just how frightened they were because there are only so many times that someone can say "we were really, really, scared" before the public rightfully starts hearing "we were inept, incompetent, and totally unqualified for the jobs that we had."
I am not morally opposed to torture, but I am patriotically opposed to our nation's government-sanctioned torture, (as, I believe, the majority of the country is). But, "if we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate," and the people need to look at, and "evaluate, ["Enhanced Interrogations"] in terms of what we were [really trying, and] able to accomplish."
-Rocky
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Emily Post-Election
Today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Liz Cheney, (daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney), actually said that the only reason that people want her father to go away is because they don't agree with him. She told Pulitzer Prize-winning, Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, "...It seems to me that you want him to shut up because you disagree with what he is saying...I haven't seen similar columns...saying that Al Gore should go back to Tennessee..."
Al Gore should go back to Tennessee?
Al Gore DID go back to Tennessee! And much to the chagrin of his supporters! Remember?
After the controversial election that was arguably stolen from him and non-arguably decided by a 5-4, strictly partisan, "burn after reading," Supreme Court decision, Al Gore disappeared and didn't re-emerge until he had a full beard. A FULL BEARD!!!
The dude left as the Vice President who had just presided over 8 of the United States' most prosperous years and returned as Theodore Kaczynski!...And when he did resurface it was in praise of George Bush and his administration's handling of the 9/11 situation!
That should be the rule: After leaving office, in order to criticize the succeeding administration, a captured Unabomber-like, lower-facial, hair-mask is required. Only former Vice Presidents who have had enough time to change their appearance to the point that they look like they’re either Amish or run moonshine are allowed to publicly argue against the policies of the current President, (or they must be participating in the filming of a future Academy Award-winning documentary).
Thank you Liz Cheney for revealing what proper political etiquette should be. Now tell your Dad to go borrow your sister's beard.
(Though this post is based on actual events, its intent is purely comedic. Gay rights are civil rights, and I am an advocate for equality.)
Fuck Dick Cheney!
Al Gore should go back to Tennessee?
Al Gore DID go back to Tennessee! And much to the chagrin of his supporters! Remember?
After the controversial election that was arguably stolen from him and non-arguably decided by a 5-4, strictly partisan, "burn after reading," Supreme Court decision, Al Gore disappeared and didn't re-emerge until he had a full beard. A FULL BEARD!!!
The dude left as the Vice President who had just presided over 8 of the United States' most prosperous years and returned as Theodore Kaczynski!...And when he did resurface it was in praise of George Bush and his administration's handling of the 9/11 situation!
That should be the rule: After leaving office, in order to criticize the succeeding administration, a captured Unabomber-like, lower-facial, hair-mask is required. Only former Vice Presidents who have had enough time to change their appearance to the point that they look like they’re either Amish or run moonshine are allowed to publicly argue against the policies of the current President, (or they must be participating in the filming of a future Academy Award-winning documentary).
Thank you Liz Cheney for revealing what proper political etiquette should be. Now tell your Dad to go borrow your sister's beard.
(Though this post is based on actual events, its intent is purely comedic. Gay rights are civil rights, and I am an advocate for equality.)
Fuck Dick Cheney!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Dirty Barry, President # .44 Magnum
Kind of reminds me of somebody...Hmmmm...Where did I hear something like that before? Hmmmmmm....?
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Tea Baggers, "Do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya punks?"
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Enhanced Finger Pointing
I predict that this "Enhanced Interrogations" scandal is about to escalate/dissolve into a "he said/he said" finger pointing exercise in ass covering between the Bush Administration and the CIA. And this is gonna be fun:)
Soon the opponents of these "Enhanced Interrogations" are going to realize that the real moral and criminal concern regarding these memos isn't that the United States participated in torture – It's that the United States participated in GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED torture. This wasn't some rogue CIA operative who waterboarded and "walled" detainees here and there, this was a carefully-crafted, sophisticatedly-reasoned, pain-staking and thought out, top-down, Executive Branch-authorized, program for torture.
As I stated in a previous entry, the frightening and revealing issue pertaining to these memos that nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that THERE HAD TO BE MEMOS!!! The existence of these "Enhanced Interrogations" memos means one of two things – either the Bush Administration ordered that these techniques be used and the CIA REFUSED or the CIA blackmailed the Executive branch into sanctioning torture.
If the CIA initiated the request for these "Enhanced Interrogations," that means that the CIA, in affect, told the President that they COULD protect America but that they WOULDN'T unless he drafted written legal rationale giving them permission to torture. That would mean that the CIA is a bunch of blackmailing cowards – I doubt that is the case.
The other option, and the most likely, is that because these captured, high-ranking terrorists refused to admit that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration ordered the CIA to do whatever it took to get a confirmation from these detainees that Iraq was a partner in a global terror network. That would mean that the Bush Administration was not trying to avert an imminent threat, but rather, that they were trying to create one in order to justify an invasion that they had already decided was going to take place. If the Bush Administration were the ones that initially requested that these tactics be used than that would just be another example of the Bush Administration trying to take the easy road.
I know where I've got my money.
Soon the opponents of these "Enhanced Interrogations" are going to realize that the real moral and criminal concern regarding these memos isn't that the United States participated in torture – It's that the United States participated in GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED torture. This wasn't some rogue CIA operative who waterboarded and "walled" detainees here and there, this was a carefully-crafted, sophisticatedly-reasoned, pain-staking and thought out, top-down, Executive Branch-authorized, program for torture.
As I stated in a previous entry, the frightening and revealing issue pertaining to these memos that nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that THERE HAD TO BE MEMOS!!! The existence of these "Enhanced Interrogations" memos means one of two things – either the Bush Administration ordered that these techniques be used and the CIA REFUSED or the CIA blackmailed the Executive branch into sanctioning torture.
If the CIA initiated the request for these "Enhanced Interrogations," that means that the CIA, in affect, told the President that they COULD protect America but that they WOULDN'T unless he drafted written legal rationale giving them permission to torture. That would mean that the CIA is a bunch of blackmailing cowards – I doubt that is the case.
The other option, and the most likely, is that because these captured, high-ranking terrorists refused to admit that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the Bush Administration ordered the CIA to do whatever it took to get a confirmation from these detainees that Iraq was a partner in a global terror network. That would mean that the Bush Administration was not trying to avert an imminent threat, but rather, that they were trying to create one in order to justify an invasion that they had already decided was going to take place. If the Bush Administration were the ones that initially requested that these tactics be used than that would just be another example of the Bush Administration trying to take the easy road.
I know where I've got my money.
Pac-Man vs. Hit Man
The Rockstradamus predicts Pacquiao on cuts in the 8th, ("the Rockstradamus" is a made up name, and I'm totally just making an educated guess/talking out of my ass, and by "8th" I mean 6th-10th).
(A head butt in the 2nd is not too far-fetched either.)
You owe me a portion of your winnings,
Rocky
(A head butt in the 2nd is not too far-fetched either.)
You owe me a portion of your winnings,
Rocky
Thursday, April 30, 2009
You Must Be This Gay To Ride This Ride...And I Want To Cuddle Afterwards
No Mr. Elliptical Machine, I will not "cool down" for "5 minutes"! We mutually agreed to 15 minutes. Not 15 minutes...plus some more minutes. FIF-TEEN MINUTES! When I pushed "1" and then "5" and you responded by commencing my workout and posting a timer that was counting down from 15 minutes that was a tacit acknowledgment, approval, and agreement that a 15 minute workout was suffice. If you wanted me to "cool down" for 5 minutes you should have figured out a way to incorporate those 5 minutes into our original, heretofore agreement. It's bad enough that you make me look like an effeminate, power-walking gazelle!
-Rocky
-Rocky
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Torture is a Semantics Issue
Watching the usual-suspect talking-heads discuss waterboarding and the "Enhanced Interrogations" memos this past week has been like watching people who speak different languages argue with each other.
Adversaries of waterboarding made "legal" arguments causing defenders of the Bush Administration's policies to respond with "literal" rationalizations for "practical" explanations of "philosophical" justifications...And not once did I hear a legal arguer make a literal objection to the practical application of a philosophical defense.
According to the dictionary, "uncomfortable" is not "torture" (literal), but according to the Geneva Conventions, waterboarding is (legal). But so what?! In the real world, if sitting across the table from someone who has knowledge of an imminent terror threat, it is obligatory to do whatever it takes, law be damned, to attain that information in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians because the value of a human life is greater than the inconvenience one might suffer by serving time in prison (practical and philosophical). AND THAT'S THE POINT!!! That is why these memos are so egregious - Waterboarding someone 183 times is a violation of the Geneva Conventions (legal), is physical abuse (literal), is not a "means to an end" because it does not work and is only used to attain a certain response (practical), and is evidence of it not being a "ticking time-bomb" situation (philosophical).
Article III of the Geneva Conventions states: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...who have laid down their arms...shall in all circumstances be treated humanely..." and "the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever...violence to life and person...cruel treatment and torture."
These "Enhanced Interrogations" violate the Geneva Conventions because the detainees were not active participants on a battlefield, they had laid down their arms, and subjecting them to waterboarding was inhumane, violent, and cruel (legal).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if waterboarding causes physical discomfort or results in lasting psychological damage to a person who has caused, or has knowledge of, an attack that will result in the permanent physical and psychological trauma to innocent civilians (practical and philosophical), but by definition, waterboarding IS torture (literal). These memos required that there be a doctor in the immediate vicinity while waterboarding was taking place in order to prevent death to the detainee - Not because waterboarding is simulated drowning without the threat of death but because waterboarding is simulated death without the threat of drowning. Waterboarding shuts off oxygen to the brain thus triggering physical responses such as causing the brain to try and run on carbon dioxide. Shutting off oxygen to the brain is not good and results in lasting neurological trauma...especially after 183 times!
But regardless of whether waterboarding is torture (legal and literal), the point is that it doesn't work (practical). Torture causes the victim to say or do whatever is necessary to make the torture stop. No matter how short-term the cessation of agony - humans will do whatever it takes to stop the pain. If that means telling the truth, than so be it, if that means lying, than so be it. Torture results in the torturers being told what they want to hear, and that is why the information attained through torture is unreliable – it could or couldn't be the truth. It's very simple, if waterboarding is done to get the truth, than that means that it is done AGAIN because it didn't get the truth. It is not a "means to an end" because in reality, waterboarding is not done to get information, it is done to get a specific response.
And that is the real concern regarding these memos. Before these memos were drafted the CIA (allegedly) discreetly used these techniques in "ticking time-bomb" situations (philosophical), but these memos reveal that the Bush Administration instructed interrogators to use these methods in instances when the intent was not to thwart an imminent threat (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical). If there was enough time to draft legal memos, how imminent was the threat? If there was enough time to waterboard someone 183 times over the span of a month, how imminent was the threat? And if a detainee that was captured in March wasn't waterboarded until August, how imminent was the threat?
But the most damning revelation concerning these memos could be that these "Enhanced Interrogations" were ordered merely to validate an invasion of Iraq. The fact that these waterboardings were ramped-up preceding the invasion of Iraq most likely means that the Bush Administration was not concerned with attaining information but that they were simply using these tactics to acquire the justification to wage war. These "Enhanced Interrogations" were not done to avert an imminent threat, but rather, to create one (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical).
Whether or not that threat was that there WAS a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq – the Bush Administration told us that there was...and they were wrong. Whether or not that threat was that Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction – the Bush Administration told us that he did...and they were wrong. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq WAS the result of faulty intelligence – the Bush Administration told us that it was...and they were right.
But one frightening and very revealing issue pertaining to these memos that nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that THERE HAD TO BE MEMOS!!!
Military personnel and high-ranking security officials are not in the business of questioning authority. A 2nd Lieutenant has to lead his platoon into more than one, (usually numerous), ambushes before his troops start questioning their leader's map-reading abilities. Chain of command is the backbone of our military and security agencies; and these memos reveal that the CIA would not follow a Bush Administration order unless written legal rationale accompanied, and justified, their instruction.
These memos illustrate that George W. Bush had a fundamental lack of understanding of the enemy, of human psychology, and of reality in general; and had already demonstrated so much incompetence as Commander in Chief that his charges were justifiably insubordinate. And his administration's defense of these memos only shows that they will do whatever it takes to protect...THEIR EGOS!
But, though what these memos say is easily comprehensible, the most articulate response is still unclear.
The past 8 years with the Bush Administration has been like playing Wheel of Fortune. Some folks saw what was hidden right away, a lot of us needed most of the vowels being on the board to solve the puzzle, and a lot of people, even after most of the letters had been revealed, still had absolutely no clue as to what was being concealed, (and even after the mystery is completely exposed they will probably still just be left saying, "hmmm - that's not a Popular Phrase at all").
But the United States of America is more important than a nightly game show, and it was the duty of the majority of us who realized what was being kept out of sight by the Bush Administration, to make known those secrets, and to hold our democratically elected officials accountable for their corrupt conduct the moment that we recognized it. Though it is appropriate and necessary to trust our leaders until they prove that they cannot be trusted, when it is apparent that betrayal has become policy it is the citizens' task to take action. We are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," not a government "for the party in power, by the party that was out of power, to go after the party that is no longer in power." George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in their administration should be punished for their actions but to ask President Obama to do what was our responsibility is irrationally selfish and could be disproportionately detrimental to our Union.
Obviously moving forward without the lessons being learned from this chapter in our nation's history is negligent and dangerous, and thankfully our Department of Justice is no longer a faith-based initiative. An Independent Counsel is probably the correct course, but our democracy is our obligation, and though George W. Bush committed war crimes and was an absolutely inept president, the true shame is that he was democratically elected twice because he was the best man for the job both times, (anybody who is not resourceful enough to win an election against George W. Bush is not sophisticated enough, (and thus, not qualified), to be the most powerful person on the planet). Sadly, what these memos reveal is that the America of the past decade most likely deserved its leaders.
Adversaries of waterboarding made "legal" arguments causing defenders of the Bush Administration's policies to respond with "literal" rationalizations for "practical" explanations of "philosophical" justifications...And not once did I hear a legal arguer make a literal objection to the practical application of a philosophical defense.
According to the dictionary, "uncomfortable" is not "torture" (literal), but according to the Geneva Conventions, waterboarding is (legal). But so what?! In the real world, if sitting across the table from someone who has knowledge of an imminent terror threat, it is obligatory to do whatever it takes, law be damned, to attain that information in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians because the value of a human life is greater than the inconvenience one might suffer by serving time in prison (practical and philosophical). AND THAT'S THE POINT!!! That is why these memos are so egregious - Waterboarding someone 183 times is a violation of the Geneva Conventions (legal), is physical abuse (literal), is not a "means to an end" because it does not work and is only used to attain a certain response (practical), and is evidence of it not being a "ticking time-bomb" situation (philosophical).
Article III of the Geneva Conventions states: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...who have laid down their arms...shall in all circumstances be treated humanely..." and "the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever...violence to life and person...cruel treatment and torture."
These "Enhanced Interrogations" violate the Geneva Conventions because the detainees were not active participants on a battlefield, they had laid down their arms, and subjecting them to waterboarding was inhumane, violent, and cruel (legal).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if waterboarding causes physical discomfort or results in lasting psychological damage to a person who has caused, or has knowledge of, an attack that will result in the permanent physical and psychological trauma to innocent civilians (practical and philosophical), but by definition, waterboarding IS torture (literal). These memos required that there be a doctor in the immediate vicinity while waterboarding was taking place in order to prevent death to the detainee - Not because waterboarding is simulated drowning without the threat of death but because waterboarding is simulated death without the threat of drowning. Waterboarding shuts off oxygen to the brain thus triggering physical responses such as causing the brain to try and run on carbon dioxide. Shutting off oxygen to the brain is not good and results in lasting neurological trauma...especially after 183 times!
But regardless of whether waterboarding is torture (legal and literal), the point is that it doesn't work (practical). Torture causes the victim to say or do whatever is necessary to make the torture stop. No matter how short-term the cessation of agony - humans will do whatever it takes to stop the pain. If that means telling the truth, than so be it, if that means lying, than so be it. Torture results in the torturers being told what they want to hear, and that is why the information attained through torture is unreliable – it could or couldn't be the truth. It's very simple, if waterboarding is done to get the truth, than that means that it is done AGAIN because it didn't get the truth. It is not a "means to an end" because in reality, waterboarding is not done to get information, it is done to get a specific response.
And that is the real concern regarding these memos. Before these memos were drafted the CIA (allegedly) discreetly used these techniques in "ticking time-bomb" situations (philosophical), but these memos reveal that the Bush Administration instructed interrogators to use these methods in instances when the intent was not to thwart an imminent threat (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical). If there was enough time to draft legal memos, how imminent was the threat? If there was enough time to waterboard someone 183 times over the span of a month, how imminent was the threat? And if a detainee that was captured in March wasn't waterboarded until August, how imminent was the threat?
But the most damning revelation concerning these memos could be that these "Enhanced Interrogations" were ordered merely to validate an invasion of Iraq. The fact that these waterboardings were ramped-up preceding the invasion of Iraq most likely means that the Bush Administration was not concerned with attaining information but that they were simply using these tactics to acquire the justification to wage war. These "Enhanced Interrogations" were not done to avert an imminent threat, but rather, to create one (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical).
Whether or not that threat was that there WAS a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq – the Bush Administration told us that there was...and they were wrong. Whether or not that threat was that Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction – the Bush Administration told us that he did...and they were wrong. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq WAS the result of faulty intelligence – the Bush Administration told us that it was...and they were right.
But one frightening and very revealing issue pertaining to these memos that nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that THERE HAD TO BE MEMOS!!!
Military personnel and high-ranking security officials are not in the business of questioning authority. A 2nd Lieutenant has to lead his platoon into more than one, (usually numerous), ambushes before his troops start questioning their leader's map-reading abilities. Chain of command is the backbone of our military and security agencies; and these memos reveal that the CIA would not follow a Bush Administration order unless written legal rationale accompanied, and justified, their instruction.
These memos illustrate that George W. Bush had a fundamental lack of understanding of the enemy, of human psychology, and of reality in general; and had already demonstrated so much incompetence as Commander in Chief that his charges were justifiably insubordinate. And his administration's defense of these memos only shows that they will do whatever it takes to protect...THEIR EGOS!
But, though what these memos say is easily comprehensible, the most articulate response is still unclear.
The past 8 years with the Bush Administration has been like playing Wheel of Fortune. Some folks saw what was hidden right away, a lot of us needed most of the vowels being on the board to solve the puzzle, and a lot of people, even after most of the letters had been revealed, still had absolutely no clue as to what was being concealed, (and even after the mystery is completely exposed they will probably still just be left saying, "hmmm - that's not a Popular Phrase at all").
But the United States of America is more important than a nightly game show, and it was the duty of the majority of us who realized what was being kept out of sight by the Bush Administration, to make known those secrets, and to hold our democratically elected officials accountable for their corrupt conduct the moment that we recognized it. Though it is appropriate and necessary to trust our leaders until they prove that they cannot be trusted, when it is apparent that betrayal has become policy it is the citizens' task to take action. We are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," not a government "for the party in power, by the party that was out of power, to go after the party that is no longer in power." George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in their administration should be punished for their actions but to ask President Obama to do what was our responsibility is irrationally selfish and could be disproportionately detrimental to our Union.
Obviously moving forward without the lessons being learned from this chapter in our nation's history is negligent and dangerous, and thankfully our Department of Justice is no longer a faith-based initiative. An Independent Counsel is probably the correct course, but our democracy is our obligation, and though George W. Bush committed war crimes and was an absolutely inept president, the true shame is that he was democratically elected twice because he was the best man for the job both times, (anybody who is not resourceful enough to win an election against George W. Bush is not sophisticated enough, (and thus, not qualified), to be the most powerful person on the planet). Sadly, what these memos reveal is that the America of the past decade most likely deserved its leaders.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Iambic Pentathlon
On Monday the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry was awarded. In response, the International Olympic Committee announced that they would now be awarding medals in "Not Being Able to Swim."
Before a hastily arranged press conference the head of the IOC was overheard remarking to an aide, "If they're going to be giving awards to fuckers who can't write prose or play a musical instrument, than why the fuck not?"
"...And the Pulitzer Prize for "Writing a Blog That Nobody Reads" goes to..."
Before a hastily arranged press conference the head of the IOC was overheard remarking to an aide, "If they're going to be giving awards to fuckers who can't write prose or play a musical instrument, than why the fuck not?"
"...And the Pulitzer Prize for "Writing a Blog That Nobody Reads" goes to..."
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Definition of Irony. (Look It Up!)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Moment of Zen - Ignoramus | ||||
| ||||
I love this clip for so many reasons: First off, SHE HAD TO GOOGLE THE WORD "IGNORAMUS"!!! Not only is she a full-grown adult, and not only is she a full-grown adult who is allowed to leave the house unsupervised, ride the bus by herself, and use grown-up scissors, but she is a full-grown adult who is supposedly capable and learned enough to be an on-air co-anchor for a nationally televised "news" network...without wearing her walking helmet!
She didn't know, (and proudly admitted such), what it meant to be called an "ignoramus"!
...And on top of that, even after googling, she still doesn't know what it means to be called an "IGNORAMUS"! Any 7 year-old, (who has been on a public-school playground (more on that later), can tell you that being called an "ignoramus" is the equivalent of being called an "idiot"! The ETYMOLOGY, not the definition, of the word "ignoramus" is "ignorant lawyer." (1570, Anglo-French, legal term for "we ignore.") Ignoramus was a satirical play written by George Ruggle in 1615 about the obliviousness and stupidity of common lawyers and the title role, Ignoramus, was an "ignorant lawyer." The definition of "ignoramus" is "an utterly ignorant person," a "dunce," or, most suitable in this case, "a vain pretender to knowledge," but still, SHE HAD TO GOOGLE THE WORD "IGNORAMUS"!!!
...And now there are thousands of people - a lot of them parents in middle-America who are home-schooling their children in order to prevent them from being brainwashed by them evolution books - who think, and are teaching their kids, that the definition of "ignoramus" is "ignorant lawyer"...Frickin' liberal media!!!
Friday, April 17, 2009
"Happy Rx To Me...Happy Rx To Me..."
If you're only as old as you feel than how come I feel like Propecia and Viagra would make great birthday presents?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
"...Shit Taco"
My favorite TV segment of the week...I've decided that Comedy Central has officially become more credible and politically relevant than the Fox News Channel.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
Friday, April 10, 2009
I'm Pretty Fly for a Quota
I've decided that if you have ever said, "I'm a pretty good dancer...for a white guy," "I run pretty fast...for a white guy," or "I jump pretty high...for a white guy," you are not allowed to be against affirmative action.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
I'm Like Stevie Wonder on a Computer
I decided that I needed to type faster so I took a keyboarding class. I'm still very slow at typing...but I'm pretty good on the piano.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Como Se Dice "FUBAR"?
It's no wonder that Afghanistan and Iraq are still a mess - The Bush administration trying to teach democracy is like a Spanish teacher trying to teach Korean...over the phone!
"It's my way or the high road..."
"It's my way or the high road..."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
G's Up
The G-20, Group of 20 Industrial Nations, wrapped up their summit in London today and this got me wonderin' - How much does it suck to be G-21? To be the 21st Industrial Nation? To only get invited to meetings G-21 and up?
Being G-21 during a G-20 meeting is worse than getting picked last in gym class - it's like not getting picked at all. It's like not even being good enough to be the team manager. Being the G-21 nation during a G-20 summit is like being forced to watch from the sidelines as the fat, uncoordinated Mexico gets to play. Hey Egypt and Singapore, it's great that you brought your gloves, and I can see that you really wanna play, but we'd much rather have the asthmatic and mildly-retarded Turkey on our team. What's that Ivory Coast, you have a note from your doctor? Well then go sit with Malaysia and Chile - they forgot their gym shorts. Hey Morocco and Thailand, wanna hear a funny joke? If I catch you smoking in the boys' room again, "IMF" is gonna be what your grade says when it introduces itself...
Being G-21 during a G-20 meeting is worse than getting picked last in gym class - it's like not getting picked at all. It's like not even being good enough to be the team manager. Being the G-21 nation during a G-20 summit is like being forced to watch from the sidelines as the fat, uncoordinated Mexico gets to play. Hey Egypt and Singapore, it's great that you brought your gloves, and I can see that you really wanna play, but we'd much rather have the asthmatic and mildly-retarded Turkey on our team. What's that Ivory Coast, you have a note from your doctor? Well then go sit with Malaysia and Chile - they forgot their gym shorts. Hey Morocco and Thailand, wanna hear a funny joke? If I catch you smoking in the boys' room again, "IMF" is gonna be what your grade says when it introduces itself...
My Week Without Fast-Food Diary - Day 2: Wow!!! I feel absolutely fantastic! I have so much energy! Usually around 3pm I start dragging ass and feel like I need to take a nap, but today the afternoon came and went and the thought of taking a nap never even crossed my mind. I wish I could sleep in until noon everyday!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Stream of Conscience
My elbow has been acting up lately, (old boxing injury), and it sucks because whenever I am sore there is a midget in my head who constantly yells, "Da pain! Da pain, boss, da pain!"
And then my conscience tells me, "Midget is offensive. The correct term is dwarf."
And then the midget screams at my conscience, "You're a dwarf!"
And then my conscience asks me, "Seriously? We're not people, dude. What the fuck is wrong with you?"
And then I think, "In Bruges was cool."
And then my conscience says, "What? Oh, what the fuck?! You put me in a school-boy outfit? You're an asshole! You deserve to be an alcoholic...and broke...and you probably have AIDS..."
And then I think, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"
And then my conscience says, "Norm Coleman is a douche nozzle..."
And then my conscience tells me, "Midget is offensive. The correct term is dwarf."
And then the midget screams at my conscience, "You're a dwarf!"
And then my conscience asks me, "Seriously? We're not people, dude. What the fuck is wrong with you?"
And then I think, "In Bruges was cool."
And then my conscience says, "What? Oh, what the fuck?! You put me in a school-boy outfit? You're an asshole! You deserve to be an alcoholic...and broke...and you probably have AIDS..."
And then I think, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!"
And then my conscience says, "Norm Coleman is a douche nozzle..."
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
"Jeffrey Dahmer has a first name..."
I recently watched an Oscar Mayer commercial and it dawned on me how ridiculous those ads are - Why would anybody name their bologna? And on top of that, give it a last name? If my kid starts naming processed meats and then eating them I'm gonna think he's a retarded cannibal.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
We Ho
*****Interesting Fun Fact*****
It's called "West Hollywood" because the name "Tranny Hookerville" was already taken.
It's called "West Hollywood" because the name "Tranny Hookerville" was already taken.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Hershey's With Nuts
Yesterday I saw a 6-foot tall Black transvestite crossing the street and my first thought was, "Damn, I bet that bitch can dunk!"
Is that sexist?
Is that sexist?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
"I'm Rubber, You're (Sniffing) Glue..."
I told an ex-junkie that I only smoked when I drank. He replied that he only shot heroin when he smoked pot. I told him that I don't shoot heroin when I smoke pot.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Bindle of Joy
This economy is so bad that the University of Phoenix is now offering online degrees in "Hobo." Graduates receive a cap, a gown, and a bindle.
Thank you, be here all week, try the waitress - she's wonderful...
-Rock
Thank you, be here all week, try the waitress - she's wonderful...
-Rock
Friday, January 16, 2009
Sully
Former Air Force fighter pilot, certified glider pilot, runs an air traffic safety consultation firm on the side...What the heck is that guy doing flying for US Air?
That's like a Delta resume'.
-Rocky
That's like a Delta resume'.
-Rocky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
