Torture and the Media Conspiracy (posted by DT)

I know "conspiracy" is a strong word, but I don't see how one can argue it any other way when it comes to the US media and its response to the US torture policies of recent years.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com writes

On Monday, I noted that this Associated Press article twice used the word "torture" to describe what the Chinese Government did to Xue Feng, an American geologist now convicted of obtaining China's "state secrets." AP used the word "torture" despite the fact that (a) the treatment to which the Chinese subjected him (a few cigarette burns on his arms) clearly does not meet the Bush/Cheney/John-Yoo definition of "torture," and (b) the Chinese Government vehemently denies that its treatment of prisoners rises to the level of "torture." I very satirically demanded that AP apologize to China and cease using the word "torture" to describe what it did in light of the prevailing American media standard as articulated by the NYT's Bill Keller, The Washington Post, and NPR: namely, that the word "torture" must not be used by Good Journalists (at least when it comes to the U.S. Government) if the abuse falls short of the Government's official definition and/or if the Government denies that what it does is "torture." That, explained our leading media mavens, would be "taking sides," and only Bad Journalists do that.

Now Greenwald's post goes on to talk about media transparency, but I'm interested in how it portrays torture (Greenwald is too of course). I've had lots of arguments with liberal as well as conservative friends and relatives about whether waterboarding is torture. I am shocked that it has now become the consensus in the US that pretty much anything goes when it comes to treatment of terrorism suspects, and I predict it won't be long before the same logic applies to plain old violent crime suspects too (I mean, hey, they're trying to kill Americans too, right?).

The next time you see a story about mistreatment of prisoners by other countries, just try this thought experiment: change the country from North Korea or Cuba or whatever to "United States". Would that change the tone of the story? Why? Do we get to brutally treat prisoners because we're "the good guys"? If Jack Bauer were doing his work for Iran, would we still be cheering him on?

What has happened to President Obama? (posted by DT)

As I noted last post, it's getting kind of demoralizing over here in LiberalLand.

Now there are of course lots of reasons why, but one that isn't really being noted much is the style of the President.

This is the guy with the oratorical skills to inspire Americans? The one who made such a splash at the 2004 Democratic convention? He's completely unrecognizable now- he could be the Most Boring President in history. It's like he's had a lobotomy.

Now I find this sober style comforting, and it works to make Obama seem like he's going to govern based on careful reasoning, and that's all to the good. But it's not such a hot style when his policies are being hammered, mostly through lies and distortions, by the same unrepentant Right that's responsible for the Iraq War, the deficit, and the destruction of our economy. Basically we have one side throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the fight, while the leader of the Left responds with carefully worded tropes.

I think Obama believed his own hype about "changing the tone" in Washington. The more unreasonable the opposition gets, the more he thinks he can find a way to work with them if he just stays cool. Well, it's not working.

I know Obama will get hammered by the Right and their lapdogs in the media if he starts acting like an angry politician ("What about his promises of a new tone in Washington!?"), but he's getting hammered for it anyway- I keep reading disingenuous rants from the Right about how Obama hasn't followed through on his promise to work with Republicans, when their clear strategy has been to block everything they can.

At some point the stick has to come out; not because it will change the GOP- they've found that obstruction works just fine, thank you- but because it will energize Liberals and get them to the polls. The demoralization I'm feeling must be shared by others, and lots of us need to know that our leader is going to fight for what we believe in.

The Whacked Out Right (posted by DT)

It's a tough time to be a liberal right now- demoralizing. Trying to step back though, we've learned something amazing about radicalism in the 21st century.

After Democrats won the 2008 election, the Republican party moved way to the Right. This was a surprise to some, and many predicted they would have years in the wilderness, as it seemed so clear that they had lost because they had already moved too far right for the electorate.

But a funny thing happened. They've just pulled the whole conversation and the country rightward right along with them! Yes, there's still plenty of great political debate, but now the Right has set its positions so far out there that the center keeps moving in their direction.

So here in 2010 we're debating seriously:

• Is Keynesian economics viable, or did Herbert Hoover have it right after all?
• Should we should hold BP accountable for spilling oil or is that a "government shakedown"?
• Are federal economic policies based on improving lives of the middle class, or should the total focus be on getting easy money to the Rich so we can hope they'll create jobs?
• Why should America take care of its vulnerable people?
• Torture of suspected terrorists (this debate seems over, actually, and I'm on the losing side- Americans are totally fine with a limitless police state when it comes to defending the country from Arabs)

In my email correspondence with my Nut Case Righties, the latest thing is one of them sent around an article from the "Globe" supermarket tabloid about Obama being born in Kenya. Nothing is too far out for these guys, and I'm supposed to have a debate about where the President was born. I'd like to debate about how to eventually balance the budget or what to do about Global Warming, but I can't because we're still stuck on a religious belief in no taxes and a refusal to believe scientists who say Global Warming is real!

If I've learned one thing the last year and a half, it's that nothing lasts long, and I guess liberals will be back. But it's demoralizing right now.

Beware 2012 (posted by DT)

I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning, and there was speculation about whether Sarah Pailin was a legitimate candidate for president in 2012. The pundits were talking about what sort of strategy she would need to win the primary, etc. Finally, Mike Barnicle (not one of my favorite people, but that's a topic for another day) opined that she would get crushed in the general election if she won the primary.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. I've come around to the belief (well stated by one of my favorite bloggers Matt Yglesias) that general elections are decided by the Fundamentals. If the economy is in the toilet, the incumbent loses. If things are great, the incumbent wins. So while part of me would root for a Pailin victory over a more electable Mitt Romney, the other part of me worries that if things are bad, Obama goes down regardless and I should probably hope for a less crazy Republican candidate. Romney turns my stomach and is an opportunistic liar with no real beliefs, but I think he has better judgment than Sarah Pailin and her ilk.

Blogging from Socialized Health Care Utopia (posted by DT)

Just finishing a great long weekend in Montreal, home of socialized medicine and lots of French culture. (By the way, this is my first time here, and it's a great city).

I continue to correspond with my right wing nut job e-friends, and this weekend's topic has been the Stimulus. Basically, there is no stomach in Congress for more stimulus spending, even unemployment extensions (I read somewhere that this is the first time ever that unemployment benefits were allowed to expire when unemployment was over 7%- EVER!).

Anyway, my correspondent insists that the stimulus has been a failure because unemployment is still bad (which it certainly is), and argues along with the Right Wing Noise Machine for austerity. I tried to helpfully link to this Ezra Klein post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/two_stimulus_talking_points_th.html, which I think is a pretty rock-solid argument that Stimulus has been important in keeping things from being worse. The response from my correspondent was :

There is so much evidence that Government spending is doing very little stimulating and just adding to our childrens debt that the case is closed.
Except,,,for a few die-hard far-left Socialist types who have tunnel vision when it comes to Government spending.
They ignore California, they ignore Greece, they ignore Europe, they ignore our deficit, they ignore our debt. It's sort of like the the guy who catches his wife in bed with another guy
and tries to convince himself she's not cheating on him.
People who want the Government to keep spending money it has to borrow, are either blinded to the danger by Liberal Ideology or they have a sinister agenda. They're not
stupid,,they must know it's hurting us, our children and our
grandchildren.
The evidence is there for all to see. It's all over America
and Europe,,they just choose to ignore it.

This guy essentially accuses liberals of Treason. I throw facts and charts at him, and he responds with this. Anyway, how about this analogy: a patient goes to the Emergency Room, close to death due to a major stroke. The doctor in the ER saves the patient. One month later, the patient is alive, but bed-ridden and requiring years of rehab. The patient complains that his treatment didn't work, because look, he's sicker than he's ever been before. The doctor points out that if he hadn't had the treatment he'd be dead.
That's stimulus- the treatment that saved us from a Second Great Depression. Unfortunately, the crash of 2007-2008 was so severe that no immediate treatment was going to bring us back to full health in just a year or two.

It continues to boggle my mind that the economy was completely ruined by conservative policies over the past 8 years, and now they're blaming the liberals who've had 18 months to clean it up. And people are buying it!

Father's Day Blogging (posted by DT)

Well I figure that on Father's Day I should be allowed to spend time ignoring my children briefly so that I can blog on all the things rattling around in my head lately. Here goes the roundup:

• The Gulf Oil Spill: Fascinating turn of events last week when Republican congressman Joe Barton of Texas decided to switch up the tone of the congressional hearing with BP's president and actually apologized for the White House "shakedown" of the oil giant in pressuring them into putting up $20 Billion for future reimbursements of those hurt by the spill. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_s_ally Barton was quickly pressured into an apology of his own, but this kind of thing reminds me of someone's definition of a gaffe that I heard a while back: a gaffe is when a politician accidently says what he really thinks. Exactly. There are significant numbers of politicians who may say they believe in "taking responsibility" and "free markets", but they really seem to just want what Business wants. Corporate Welfare is no problem as long as the money is going to wealthy corporations and not diverted to poor people or immigrants. And now I see that congress is debating a measure that would raise the liability cap on oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion. Wait a minute: why is there a liability cap on oil spills at all??? If we believe that corporations, like people, should take responsibility for their errors, why shouldn't BP pay back every dime that is lost by every fisherman in the Gulf? How could anyone be in favor of capping their liability after they destroyed a huge swath of US coastline? What has BP done to deserve our protection?
• Gun Nut Nonsense: Jeff Jacoby's op-eds in the Boston Globe are usually a good bet to get me roiled up. This one www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/20/the_instrument_of_crime_remains_only_an_instrument/ is no exception. Jacoby writes that guns are merely the instrument of crime, not the cause, and makes analogies to crimes committed using camcorders (to illegally record women in a bathroom) and cars so ask why we would limit guns when we don't limit cars or camcorders. Well, for starters, how about because handguns have no purpose other than to kill people? Cars, knives, and camcorders have many legitimate and socially useful purposes- we have to put up with horrible vehicular homicides and drunk driving in order to make use of all the good things that cars provide. But what are guns doing for us? Not much. And furthermore, society does put restrictions on car use- we license drivers, take away their driving privileges if they drive badly, and have laws prohibiting driving while drunk. These seem somewhat equivalent to laws limiting use of handguns. Now I have no illusions that significant gun control is coming- in spite of what the NRA and the Right Wing Nut Machine would have you believe, there is no secret Democratic plan to take away guns because the votes aren't there- but that doesn't mean I concede the point on the merits. The lack of gun control laws in our country is crazy and unjustifiable, but it's not going to change any time soon.
• In my correspondence with some rabid right wingers, we've continued to go over the old ground around stimulus spending and its usefulness. One data point I hadn't considered much is the fact that federal stimulus spending isn't really injecting lots of extra money into the economy as much as it's replacing state cutbacks. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-13/economy-in-u-s-slows-as-states-lose-federal-stimulus-funds.html States have to balance their budgets, but the recession has decreased tax revenues, causing massive budget cutbacks. Much of this was ameliorated this fiscal year by federal stimulus, but as that winds down and the economy hasn't really returned to health, state cuts are expected to be bigger than ever for next fiscal year. This doesn't bode well for the recovery at all, and is a good reason for additional stimulus. Unfortunately, that won't happen because the Tea Party types won't let Republicans vote for more deficits, and Democrats are too spineless to do it on their own. If we have another "double dip recession" this year, though, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for their pathetic display. Meanwhile, I'm still left debating whether stimulus was a good idea at all, when most legitimate economists say it kept us from another Great Depression.

Lessons from Recent Disasters (posted by DT)

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, on the heels of the coal mine disaster in West Virginia, makes me think about government regulations. I think this also applies to Wall Street regulation to some degree.

Businesses hate government "red tape". Workers hate red tape. I work in a (state) government-regulated facility, and I hate the government's red tape. It is incredibly inefficient, forcing businesses everywhere to jump through often silly hoops to show the regulators that they're safe in some way.

Of course, we all feel we work for organizations that are fully incentivized without government help to avoid a major catastrophe. If someone dies in my facility because of our negligence, we would be in huge trouble, and we don't need government regulations to show us that. Similarly, mine owners and oil well owners probably argue that they don't need so many regulations to keep their facilities from killing workers or destroying a region because they care about quality too.

But then we get these two disasters, and we need to step back and remember that this is why governments throw up so much red tape. How many mine workers are alive and well thanks to "red tape" that forces them to have safe rooms and fans and gas detectors? How many oil spills have been avoided thanks to governments forcing drillers to put in redundant safety features that stop wells from blowing out?

This Gulf spill is a complete catastrophe for the region. 1000 miles of coastline may be destroyed for years to come. The fishing industry may be completely wiped out. So the next time an oil company complains about too much bureaucracy making it too hard to create jobs, we have to remember this- all that bureaucracy protects us, and we cut corners at our collective peril.