Do you remember 4 years ago when Republican Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson, submitted 2.5 pages of paper to Congress asking for $700 billion? Do you remember how he wanted $700 billion, to distribute as he saw fit, with no strings attached, and said that if he didn't get the money by Monday, the United States wouldn't have an economy?
Do you remember when the state of the economy was so drastic that John McCain "suspended" his Presidential campaign?
Do you remember when America was on the brink of another Great Depression, the economy was losing over 750,000 jobs per month, banks were failing, the housing market was collapsing, and the American automotive industry was on the verge of extinction?
Do you remember not having a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or a Credit Card Bill of Rights? Do you remember when Americans with pre-existing conditions couldn't get health insurance?
Do you remember when health insurance companies could place lifetime limits on care, rescind coverage whenever they wanted, and weren't required to disclose the reasons for rate increases or how much of a customer's premium actually went toward health care?
Do you remember when Americans could go bankrupt if they got sick?
Do you remember color-coded terror alert levels, "weapons of mass destruction", the "Coalition of the Willing", and the War in Iraq?
Do you remember waterboarding?
Do you remember when America was waging war against "Islamic extremism" instead of fighting a war against al-Qaeda? Do you remember when Americans traveling abroad were embarrassed to admit that they were Americans? Do you remember "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"?
Do you remember 4 years ago? Do you remember how bad it was? Do you remember Osama Bin Laden?
Do you remember the Valerie Plame scandal, the lack of preparation for Hurricane Katrina, and the firing of U.S. Attorneys for strictly political reasons? Do you remember George W. Bush?
When voting this election, please remember how, in the midst of all these national crises, Republicans placed party politics above governance, and were merely obstructionists who, not only opposed but, filibustered almost all of President Obama's legislation. Please remember that Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said his top priority was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Please remember that Mitt Romney's policy proposals are no different than George W. Bush's except that Romney has actually said he's not concerned about the poor, likes firing people, and that his job is not to worry about 47% of Americans. Please remember how bad it was when these Republicans were in charge, please remember how much better off the country is than it was 4 years ago, and please remember to vote for President Barack Obama.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, November 3, 2012
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.
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!)
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?"
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.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
"Barack Diesel"
Christian Bale got arrested yesterday. I think more ironic than a guy named "Bale" posting bail is the fact that a judge didn't think Batman was a flight risk. All of this happened right after the "Dark Knight" overtook "Spiderman 3" as the biggest opening weekend box office ever. Now, I have no problem with the two most successful films in American cinematic history being comic book-based sequels, but I have a problem with Christian Bale and Tobey Maguire being superheroes! What six-year old, when he is pretending to be a superhero, imagines that he is Tobey Maguire? No kid puts on a cape and pretends to fly around the living room imagining that he is a fully-grown, yet still only ninety-pound, ambiguously heterosexual pussy. These waif twinks are not superheroes! A superhero is big and tough, and smart. A superhero would be Barack Obama in Vin Diesel's body. That's a superhero! Can you imagine John McCain challenging that guy to a town hall meeting? If Barack Obama had Vin Diesel's body the Republicans would probably just pass on this election. They'd announce at their convention, "you know what, Barack Diesel? We're just going to sit this one out, we'll be right over here in congress if you need us, thank you for saving the planet."
If Barack Obama had Vin Diesel's body it wouldn't even be an insult when the racist right-wing referred to him as "Barack Hussein Obama." Trying to make fun of Barack Obama for being named "Barack Hussein Obama" would be an anti anti-Muslim smear. Barack Obama would be like a Muslim superhero. Can you imagine a Muslim superhero? Flying around, making sure that Muslims abide by the peaceful teachings of the Koran? And what about a Christian super hero? I guess it would be Barack Obama again, but this time he'd be in Jerry Falwell's body. A flying donkey making sure that people who call themselves "Christians" actually follow the teachings of CHRIST!
I just wanna see Mary Magdalene in a Wonder Woman costume...
-Rocky
If Barack Obama had Vin Diesel's body it wouldn't even be an insult when the racist right-wing referred to him as "Barack Hussein Obama." Trying to make fun of Barack Obama for being named "Barack Hussein Obama" would be an anti anti-Muslim smear. Barack Obama would be like a Muslim superhero. Can you imagine a Muslim superhero? Flying around, making sure that Muslims abide by the peaceful teachings of the Koran? And what about a Christian super hero? I guess it would be Barack Obama again, but this time he'd be in Jerry Falwell's body. A flying donkey making sure that people who call themselves "Christians" actually follow the teachings of CHRIST!
I just wanna see Mary Magdalene in a Wonder Woman costume...
-Rocky
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Fight For The Presidency
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a physical altercation between the candidates this presidential election.
I think that the sole reason John McCain challenged Barack Obama to the town hall meetings is to juxtapose their toughness because if the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry have taught us anything it is that America does not like pussies, (figuratively, of course, a lot of us really like literal pussies, you know what I'm sayin'? High five!).
But if Obama holds his own or doesn't appear meek enough I think McCain could resort to physically challenging the junior senator because it would be a no-win situation for Obama – If Obama takes the high road he's just another liberal wuss, and if he stands up to McCain, he's just a punk who stood up to an old man.
(Which, coincidentally, is the same reason that I never sparred with girls – it's a no-win situation...ugly girls, that is...lesbian, ugly girls...because trust me if I thought getting punched in the face might lead to a blow job, then lace 'em up, you know what I'm sayin'? High five!)
-Rocky
I think that the sole reason John McCain challenged Barack Obama to the town hall meetings is to juxtapose their toughness because if the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry have taught us anything it is that America does not like pussies, (figuratively, of course, a lot of us really like literal pussies, you know what I'm sayin'? High five!).
But if Obama holds his own or doesn't appear meek enough I think McCain could resort to physically challenging the junior senator because it would be a no-win situation for Obama – If Obama takes the high road he's just another liberal wuss, and if he stands up to McCain, he's just a punk who stood up to an old man.
(Which, coincidentally, is the same reason that I never sparred with girls – it's a no-win situation...ugly girls, that is...lesbian, ugly girls...because trust me if I thought getting punched in the face might lead to a blow job, then lace 'em up, you know what I'm sayin'? High five!)
-Rocky
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
"...And All I Got Was This Lousy Pantsuit."
Why is Hillary Clinton's campaign debt still an issue? She spent more than she had, she bought stuff that she couldn't afford, and she did it out of spite – She deserves to be in debt.
Most of the time that she was saying she was being "out-spent" by her opponent, she was lying. She wasn't being "out-spent," she was being "out-raised."
She spent just as much as Barack Obama, and all in an effort to damage Obama. Her spending $30 million, cost Obama $30 million, so in essence she cost Democratic Party contributors an unnecessary $60 million dollars.
And where are these "18 million supporters" of hers? Do you realize that these "18 million supporters" of Hillary Clinton support her less than they regularly support a homeless person? If these "18 million supporters" thought Hillary's existence was worth merely the spare change in their pockets, she wouldn't have any debt.
The fact that Hillary still has a campaign debt means that there aren't 20 million people in this country who care $1 for her...which is fine - I say let the real world happen. Let Hillary have to start screening her calls because pestering bill collectors are calling at all hours. Maybe one will call at 3am.
-Rocky
Most of the time that she was saying she was being "out-spent" by her opponent, she was lying. She wasn't being "out-spent," she was being "out-raised."
She spent just as much as Barack Obama, and all in an effort to damage Obama. Her spending $30 million, cost Obama $30 million, so in essence she cost Democratic Party contributors an unnecessary $60 million dollars.
And where are these "18 million supporters" of hers? Do you realize that these "18 million supporters" of Hillary Clinton support her less than they regularly support a homeless person? If these "18 million supporters" thought Hillary's existence was worth merely the spare change in their pockets, she wouldn't have any debt.
The fact that Hillary still has a campaign debt means that there aren't 20 million people in this country who care $1 for her...which is fine - I say let the real world happen. Let Hillary have to start screening her calls because pestering bill collectors are calling at all hours. Maybe one will call at 3am.
-Rocky
Thursday, June 19, 2008
No MObama
I don't think that it's a good idea for the Obama campaign to give Michelle Obama a more public role, and it could cost Barack the election.
I realize that they are going after Hillary Clinton supporters but it could backfire – Michelle could become a "Hillary" – the bigger, easier, visceral target for the Right.
Michelle is no Oprah and it is going to be hard enough trying to convince America to vote for an educated Black man. To ask them to vote for a strong Black woman is too much...And she has a weird mouth – it kind of looks like the mouth of an evil rabbit nibbling on cookies.
Yes, I realize that what I just wrote is chauvinistic, racist, and superficial, but that's the way it is – this is America Goddammit!
Be mad at your parents if you're thin-skinned,
Rocky
I realize that they are going after Hillary Clinton supporters but it could backfire – Michelle could become a "Hillary" – the bigger, easier, visceral target for the Right.
Michelle is no Oprah and it is going to be hard enough trying to convince America to vote for an educated Black man. To ask them to vote for a strong Black woman is too much...And she has a weird mouth – it kind of looks like the mouth of an evil rabbit nibbling on cookies.
Yes, I realize that what I just wrote is chauvinistic, racist, and superficial, but that's the way it is – this is America Goddammit!
Be mad at your parents if you're thin-skinned,
Rocky
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Not Too Impotent, Harumpa!
All right, finally an issue that lets me express my non-partisan, extremely moderate views...
It isn't right the way the "liberal media" is treating John McCain's "not too important" remark. (Now, just because I don't think that it's right doesn't mean that I think it's unfair. The "right-wing media" has been practicing this type of conduct for years so for the "left" to merely counter with the same maneuver is reasonable and, as the saying goes, "turnabout is fair play." But it does reinforce, and slightly justify, claims of a "left-wing media bias.")
But it's not right the way the press is blowing John McCain's "not too important" gaffe out of proportion because John McCain was making a perfectly legitimate point – the problem with Iraq isn't that our soldiers are there, the problem with Iraq is that our soldiers are continuing to die there, (and the stop-loss policy which requires them to serve against their will for an administration that opposes paying for their college education, but that's another blog). But what McCain said makes perfect sense – our military forces have been in Germany, Japan, and Korea way longer than they have been in Iraq but there isn't a nationwide uproar demanding that we bring our troops home from those countries because our soldiers aren't continuing to die on a daily basis in Germany, Japan, and Korea.
The problem with Iraq is that the controversial war there has been so terribly mismanaged that our brave men and women are continuing to unnecessarily die there.
The problem with John McCain is that, when doing interviews, he resembles a beginner stand-up comic at his first open mic, (and he's nuttier than squirrel shit, but again, that's another blog).
John McCain is like a guy who loves comedy, has studied all of the greats, and can recite verbatim his favorites' routines; he's a funny guy, he's written a lot of funny jokes, and he has what he thinks is a very tight set, but then, when he gets on stage, he bombs because he doesn't understand the practical nuances of stand-up comedy. Not only has he not figured out the dynamic between the comic and the crowd, but more importantly, John McCain hasn't realized that not all types of jokes work for all types of comedians – John McCain hasn't found his comedic voice.
Whereas Barack Obama can say that McCain would just be a third Bush term and it works, McCain tries to say that Obama would be a second Carter term and it doesn't. Not just because his statement causes the listener to realize that McCain was in his forties during the Carter administration, and not just because it's a little silly that a guy has to go back three decades just to be relevant, but because when McCain says it, it's forced.
Obama's routine flows – it's motivated and it appears natural. McCain's bits are clumsy – they aren't set up and he seems to be trying too hard. Instead of reacting to what McCain says we're left pondering why and how he said it.
The "not too important" comment stands out because it didn't really answer Matt Lauer's question. McCain wasn't trying to say that it's "not too important" for the next president to have a good estimate of when our troops can come home from Iraq, McCain was trying to say that the question Lauer asked was "not too important" because he had recently figured out how to deflect and neutralize such criticism. But because McCain couldn't wait to reveal the punch line, he bungled the delivery, and, as the saying goes, "timing is everything."
The real story behind McCain's recent comments is that they reveal that what is going on in John McCain's head is different than what is going on. Like a teenager who wants so desperately to be cool that he wears his brand-new, hip sweater to school even though it’s a humid 94 degrees out, John McCain can't wait to show off his latest one-liner because he honestly believes that a superficial quip is what secures 270 electoral votes.
McCain is grossly outmatched in this election but twisting his words is only counter-productive because it will cause his supporters to become emotionally involved with his defense. If this campaign is kept on an intellectual battleground, the current administration's philosophies don't stand a chance, but if this becomes another election against the "liberal media," the Democrats could be in trouble. And regardless of the issues, if McCain starts finishing his sentences with "hurumpa!," Obama won't be occupying the White House any time soon.
It's Sunday so yes, I'm still a little drunk,
Rocky
It isn't right the way the "liberal media" is treating John McCain's "not too important" remark. (Now, just because I don't think that it's right doesn't mean that I think it's unfair. The "right-wing media" has been practicing this type of conduct for years so for the "left" to merely counter with the same maneuver is reasonable and, as the saying goes, "turnabout is fair play." But it does reinforce, and slightly justify, claims of a "left-wing media bias.")
But it's not right the way the press is blowing John McCain's "not too important" gaffe out of proportion because John McCain was making a perfectly legitimate point – the problem with Iraq isn't that our soldiers are there, the problem with Iraq is that our soldiers are continuing to die there, (and the stop-loss policy which requires them to serve against their will for an administration that opposes paying for their college education, but that's another blog). But what McCain said makes perfect sense – our military forces have been in Germany, Japan, and Korea way longer than they have been in Iraq but there isn't a nationwide uproar demanding that we bring our troops home from those countries because our soldiers aren't continuing to die on a daily basis in Germany, Japan, and Korea.
The problem with Iraq is that the controversial war there has been so terribly mismanaged that our brave men and women are continuing to unnecessarily die there.
The problem with John McCain is that, when doing interviews, he resembles a beginner stand-up comic at his first open mic, (and he's nuttier than squirrel shit, but again, that's another blog).
John McCain is like a guy who loves comedy, has studied all of the greats, and can recite verbatim his favorites' routines; he's a funny guy, he's written a lot of funny jokes, and he has what he thinks is a very tight set, but then, when he gets on stage, he bombs because he doesn't understand the practical nuances of stand-up comedy. Not only has he not figured out the dynamic between the comic and the crowd, but more importantly, John McCain hasn't realized that not all types of jokes work for all types of comedians – John McCain hasn't found his comedic voice.
Whereas Barack Obama can say that McCain would just be a third Bush term and it works, McCain tries to say that Obama would be a second Carter term and it doesn't. Not just because his statement causes the listener to realize that McCain was in his forties during the Carter administration, and not just because it's a little silly that a guy has to go back three decades just to be relevant, but because when McCain says it, it's forced.
Obama's routine flows – it's motivated and it appears natural. McCain's bits are clumsy – they aren't set up and he seems to be trying too hard. Instead of reacting to what McCain says we're left pondering why and how he said it.
The "not too important" comment stands out because it didn't really answer Matt Lauer's question. McCain wasn't trying to say that it's "not too important" for the next president to have a good estimate of when our troops can come home from Iraq, McCain was trying to say that the question Lauer asked was "not too important" because he had recently figured out how to deflect and neutralize such criticism. But because McCain couldn't wait to reveal the punch line, he bungled the delivery, and, as the saying goes, "timing is everything."
The real story behind McCain's recent comments is that they reveal that what is going on in John McCain's head is different than what is going on. Like a teenager who wants so desperately to be cool that he wears his brand-new, hip sweater to school even though it’s a humid 94 degrees out, John McCain can't wait to show off his latest one-liner because he honestly believes that a superficial quip is what secures 270 electoral votes.
McCain is grossly outmatched in this election but twisting his words is only counter-productive because it will cause his supporters to become emotionally involved with his defense. If this campaign is kept on an intellectual battleground, the current administration's philosophies don't stand a chance, but if this becomes another election against the "liberal media," the Democrats could be in trouble. And regardless of the issues, if McCain starts finishing his sentences with "hurumpa!," Obama won't be occupying the White House any time soon.
It's Sunday so yes, I'm still a little drunk,
Rocky
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Hungry For Change?
Anybody see John McCain's speech this week? The one scheduled right before Hillary and Barack's on Tuesday evening? What's up with his new campaign colors? I guess since Obama already gave claim to the patriotic, "red, white, and blue," the next best color scheme available was Subway and Blimpie's "green, white, and yellow"?
What message is McCain trying to send – "I know the nation is a mess folks, but come on, $5 footlongs...and make sure you get the right change..."?
It's a brilliant strategy – Who can focus on foreign policy, our economy, or his age when they're hankering for a Cold Cut Trio? Load 'em up on carbs and hopefully they'll be too sleepy to vote. And since he needs Florida maybe he can get that heavily sought after, extremely coveted, South Beach Diet endorsement?
Jared for VP!
-Rocky
What message is McCain trying to send – "I know the nation is a mess folks, but come on, $5 footlongs...and make sure you get the right change..."?
It's a brilliant strategy – Who can focus on foreign policy, our economy, or his age when they're hankering for a Cold Cut Trio? Load 'em up on carbs and hopefully they'll be too sleepy to vote. And since he needs Florida maybe he can get that heavily sought after, extremely coveted, South Beach Diet endorsement?
Jared for VP!
-Rocky
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Bluffing and a Joke
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." – John McCain June, 1998
Wanna hear a funnier joke? A lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are still trying to convince whoever will listen that they'd rather vote for Hillary's "good friend" John McCain instead of Barack Obama.
"Strong means weak." - Mike Caro on bluffing, Caro's Book of Poker Tells
Chip and a chair,
Rocky
Wanna hear a funnier joke? A lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are still trying to convince whoever will listen that they'd rather vote for Hillary's "good friend" John McCain instead of Barack Obama.
"Strong means weak." - Mike Caro on bluffing, Caro's Book of Poker Tells
Chip and a chair,
Rocky
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
"Time to Decompress"???
Barack Obama finally reached the magic number of primary delegates necessary for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination yet Hillary Clinton still refuses to concede or even explain her campaign's immediate objectives. And now she, (and the Right), are justifying her current stalling by saying that she can't make any decisions right now because she "needs time to decompress."
Really? "Time to decompress"? Are you kidding me?!!! For the past three months, even though she was all but mathematically eliminated, Hillary has been shouting at whoever will listen that she is the better presidential candidate yet now it's okay that she is without the capacity to make any decisions because she "needs time to decompress"?
Can you imagine FDR, JFK, or even Bill Clinton ever saying that he can't make any decisions right now because he "needs time to decompress"?
Picture George W. Bush explaining that he can't answer any questions about Scott McClellan's book because the past seven years have been very strenuous, and he has terribly mismanaged an unnecessary war, and his administration is involved in numerous scandals, and he really just "needs time to decompress."
The truth is, Hillary is such a narcissist that she needs to make it look like Barack's winning is her decision. She is such a control freak that she needs to be in charge, not Barack Obama, not the American voters, not the democratic process or even arithmetic, she, Hillary Clinton, is responsible for Barack Obama winning the Democratic Primary. And the irony is, she is responsible for Barack Obama winning.
She isn't as powerful as she thinks, she is as divisive, petty, and dishonest as the Right Wing Media said she was (before they magically (strategically) started praising her as the greatest thing since sliced bread), and honestly, she might be the only Democrat that the Republicans can beat this fall. Like Karl Rove said, her negative rating is too high for her to win a nation-wide election, and, as an extreme moderate and very liberal conservative Independent, I hope she just goes away so that America can get excited about positive politics again.
But, then again, I'm not an uneducated, hard-working white voter so obviously I'm gender-biased,
Rocky
Really? "Time to decompress"? Are you kidding me?!!! For the past three months, even though she was all but mathematically eliminated, Hillary has been shouting at whoever will listen that she is the better presidential candidate yet now it's okay that she is without the capacity to make any decisions because she "needs time to decompress"?
Can you imagine FDR, JFK, or even Bill Clinton ever saying that he can't make any decisions right now because he "needs time to decompress"?
Picture George W. Bush explaining that he can't answer any questions about Scott McClellan's book because the past seven years have been very strenuous, and he has terribly mismanaged an unnecessary war, and his administration is involved in numerous scandals, and he really just "needs time to decompress."
The truth is, Hillary is such a narcissist that she needs to make it look like Barack's winning is her decision. She is such a control freak that she needs to be in charge, not Barack Obama, not the American voters, not the democratic process or even arithmetic, she, Hillary Clinton, is responsible for Barack Obama winning the Democratic Primary. And the irony is, she is responsible for Barack Obama winning.
She isn't as powerful as she thinks, she is as divisive, petty, and dishonest as the Right Wing Media said she was (before they magically (strategically) started praising her as the greatest thing since sliced bread), and honestly, she might be the only Democrat that the Republicans can beat this fall. Like Karl Rove said, her negative rating is too high for her to win a nation-wide election, and, as an extreme moderate and very liberal conservative Independent, I hope she just goes away so that America can get excited about positive politics again.
But, then again, I'm not an uneducated, hard-working white voter so obviously I'm gender-biased,
Rocky
What If She's Right?
Kids, it's that time again...Time for another episode of..."What if She's Right?"
In emails, speeches, and to the media ad nauseam, Hillary Clinton and her team say that she has received "more votes than any candidate...in the history of the Democratic Party..."
Yes, she spent more money to campaign in more primaries, arguably unopposed, than any other candidate in history, and what about caucus votes, but still...what if she's right? Wouldn't that mean that Hillary Clinton, the lady who received more primary votes than any other candidate in the history of the Democratic Party yet still couldn't get enough delegates to win the nomination, is the biggest failure in the history of the Democratic Party?
Next time on "What If She's Right?" Sean Hannity and the "most radical elements in American society..."
-Rocky
In emails, speeches, and to the media ad nauseam, Hillary Clinton and her team say that she has received "more votes than any candidate...in the history of the Democratic Party..."
Yes, she spent more money to campaign in more primaries, arguably unopposed, than any other candidate in history, and what about caucus votes, but still...what if she's right? Wouldn't that mean that Hillary Clinton, the lady who received more primary votes than any other candidate in the history of the Democratic Party yet still couldn't get enough delegates to win the nomination, is the biggest failure in the history of the Democratic Party?
Next time on "What If She's Right?" Sean Hannity and the "most radical elements in American society..."
-Rocky
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
A Clever Title About a Fruit That Rots The Whole Bushel
John McCain and the Right would love nothing more than to be able to say "Obama-Clinton".
Hillary Clinton might be the only Democrat that the Republicans can beat.
-Rocky
Hillary Clinton might be the only Democrat that the Republicans can beat.
-Rocky
What If She's Right?
Geraldine Ferraro's recent resurfacing has reminded me of a game that I like to play called: "What if she's right?"
Ferraro asserted, and has been defending her claim, that Barack Obama is only in the position that he is in because he is Black. The media is fixated on debating why she is wrong, but "what if she's right?"
If Ferraro is right then that means that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, is such a terrible candidate that she can't even beat a guy who is only winning because he is Black.
Next time on "What if she's right?" Gender bias and the uneducated, hard working, white vote...
I love bacon,
Rocky
Ferraro asserted, and has been defending her claim, that Barack Obama is only in the position that he is in because he is Black. The media is fixated on debating why she is wrong, but "what if she's right?"
If Ferraro is right then that means that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, is such a terrible candidate that she can't even beat a guy who is only winning because he is Black.
Next time on "What if she's right?" Gender bias and the uneducated, hard working, white vote...
I love bacon,
Rocky
Monday, June 2, 2008
The Truth Is...
Welcome to another installment of "The Truth Is..."
Hillary Clinton says that her staying in the Democratic primary isn't hurting the Democrats' chances in the general election and that she is the better presidential candidate...
The truth is...Here on Earth, giving an opponent a three month head start is bad. Not only is Hillary hampering the DNC's ability to raise money because they don't have a candidate yet, but she is giving John McCain, a 72 year-old man who "misspeaks" when he is tired, over three months to rest. If Hillary doesn't think she is hampering the Democrats' chances in the fall she is either wrong or lying...again.
The truth is...Barack Obama is the better presidential candidate because, though half of the people in this country might not vote for Barack, half of the people in this country will definitely vote against Hillary.
There isn't a more polarizing political figure than Hillary Clinton. Even if she was just running for the local school board, nobody on the Right will stay home if Hillary Clinton is on the ballot. And it's not just the Right, there are Independents and Democrats who absolutely despise the lady. Hillary rubs people the wrong way, she always has, and it's not just because she's a woman, (but it is partly because she says it's just because she's a woman). Hillary is one of these people that cause strangers' intuition to say "careful with this one." They don't know why, they don't have evidence to support their gut feeling, but they have an instinct. And for the people who had this inkling but were evolved enough to not prejudge, her presidential campaign has only confirmed their deepest suspicions.
The truth is...The majority of Americans know that had any other Democratic candidate won the primaries in Florida and Michigan, Florida and Michigan wouldn't have been an issue.
The truth is...Had Obama made the "sniper fire" claims, his campaign would have been over in less than a week because Obama supporters would not stand for a dishonest candidate, (which is why they're Obama supporters).
The truth is...Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primary three months ago. And, whether she lost because of a terrible campaign strategy, whether she lost because of gender bias, or whether she lost because of a "disrespectful" media, the truth is...She lost!
But what is most troubling to Obama supporters, and reinforcing to Hillary haters, is that since losing, Hillary has embarked on a campaign to make sure that no Democrat will become president in 2008.
Maybe Hillary hopes that John McCain's head start is insurmountable, but luckily, the truth is...before the primaries started, most people thought Hillary's lead was insurmountable too.
-Rocky
Hillary Clinton says that her staying in the Democratic primary isn't hurting the Democrats' chances in the general election and that she is the better presidential candidate...
The truth is...Here on Earth, giving an opponent a three month head start is bad. Not only is Hillary hampering the DNC's ability to raise money because they don't have a candidate yet, but she is giving John McCain, a 72 year-old man who "misspeaks" when he is tired, over three months to rest. If Hillary doesn't think she is hampering the Democrats' chances in the fall she is either wrong or lying...again.
The truth is...Barack Obama is the better presidential candidate because, though half of the people in this country might not vote for Barack, half of the people in this country will definitely vote against Hillary.
There isn't a more polarizing political figure than Hillary Clinton. Even if she was just running for the local school board, nobody on the Right will stay home if Hillary Clinton is on the ballot. And it's not just the Right, there are Independents and Democrats who absolutely despise the lady. Hillary rubs people the wrong way, she always has, and it's not just because she's a woman, (but it is partly because she says it's just because she's a woman). Hillary is one of these people that cause strangers' intuition to say "careful with this one." They don't know why, they don't have evidence to support their gut feeling, but they have an instinct. And for the people who had this inkling but were evolved enough to not prejudge, her presidential campaign has only confirmed their deepest suspicions.
The truth is...The majority of Americans know that had any other Democratic candidate won the primaries in Florida and Michigan, Florida and Michigan wouldn't have been an issue.
The truth is...Had Obama made the "sniper fire" claims, his campaign would have been over in less than a week because Obama supporters would not stand for a dishonest candidate, (which is why they're Obama supporters).
The truth is...Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primary three months ago. And, whether she lost because of a terrible campaign strategy, whether she lost because of gender bias, or whether she lost because of a "disrespectful" media, the truth is...She lost!
But what is most troubling to Obama supporters, and reinforcing to Hillary haters, is that since losing, Hillary has embarked on a campaign to make sure that no Democrat will become president in 2008.
Maybe Hillary hopes that John McCain's head start is insurmountable, but luckily, the truth is...before the primaries started, most people thought Hillary's lead was insurmountable too.
-Rocky
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Hillabeans Clinton
A few weeks ago Hillary Clinton proclaimed that if the Democratic Party's primary process had the Republicans' rules she'd already had won the nomination. In a related, yet way less reported, story - If soccer was baseball you wouldn't get a point for kicking a goal.
She was asserting that she is the better candidate because the general election is based on states won not the popular vote. This week Hillary says she should be the Democratic Party's nominee because she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote.
In less than a month Hillary has said that she is the better candidate because she leads in the popular vote and because the popular vote doesn't matter.
"I have never seen a candidate so disrespected..."
-Rocky
She was asserting that she is the better candidate because the general election is based on states won not the popular vote. This week Hillary says she should be the Democratic Party's nominee because she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote.
In less than a month Hillary has said that she is the better candidate because she leads in the popular vote and because the popular vote doesn't matter.
"I have never seen a candidate so disrespected..."
-Rocky
Friday, May 30, 2008
McCain's "Just" Visiting
John McCain approved of and supports the Bush administration's invasion and subsequent "war in Iraq" but has recently been insinuating that Barack Obama isn't qualified to make policy decisions on Iraq because Obama hasn't visited Iraq in over four years. How many times did George W. Bush visit Iraq before he authorized the unilateral, preemptive, military action to overthrow its government?
Also, I’ve decided that one can be for the invasion of Iraq and against the handling of the war in Iraq, but one cannot be for the handling of the war in Iraq and for the invasion because all explanations that justify why Iraq is the clusterfuck that it is are reasons why the Bush administration should not have rushed into the "go-it-alone" invasion of Iraq.
-Rocky
Also, I’ve decided that one can be for the invasion of Iraq and against the handling of the war in Iraq, but one cannot be for the handling of the war in Iraq and for the invasion because all explanations that justify why Iraq is the clusterfuck that it is are reasons why the Bush administration should not have rushed into the "go-it-alone" invasion of Iraq.
-Rocky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
