Ack! Ack! Ptui!

Well, I guess four out of five ain't bad...

Discovery Channel viewers have less than a week to determine who will be the "Greatest American." The big relief? It's not going to be a celebrity. The viewer vote-in show's host, Matt Lauer, announced the top five candidates for the series on Sunday: Benjamin Franklin , Martin Luther King Jr. , Abraham Lincoln , Ronald Reagan and George Washington . Nominations began in January; the winner will at last be revealed Sunday.

(snip)

The top 25 list puts such modern luminaries as President Bush (No. 6)and Oprah Winfrey (9) ahead of historical giants Albert Einstein (14) and Thomas Jefferson (12).

America is doomed.

Gitmusings

Some more semi-random thoughts about Gitmo:

One of the chilling but (IMO) underexamined wrinkles of the latest Gitmo torture revelations has been the reaction, as compared to the reaction to Abu Ghraib. When the Abu Ghraib photos leaked, there was near-universal outrage at the depravity on display, which the White House successfully deflected away as the independent actions of a few "bad apples."

But as the Gitmo stories have come out, the lion's share of the outrage has been directed at those who have tried to call attention to the immorality of what is going on there (Newsweek, Amnesty International, Dick Durbin), rather than on the torturers themselves, or their highly-placed enablers. It could be the way the news has dribbled out unaccompanied by lurid photos, as opposed to Abu Ghraib's sudden slap to the face, but I fear that it also means that Abu Ghraib has desensitized the American people to torture and abuse. Sadly, I just do not sense the same kind of disgust and visceral horror that was floating around the zeitgeist in the wake of Abu Ghraib.

Another underemphasized aspect of Guantanamo is its retroactive debunking of the "bad apples" canard. It's a lot harder to blame Abu Ghraib on a few rogue guards when similar techniques are enshrined as standard practice at Gitmo. Unfortunately, I see no sign that this idea is getting any traction at all, and Abu Ghraib itself is becoming nothing more than a faded memory of something bad we did once, but which doesn't really matter now.

Veering wildly over to the torture apologists themselves, it looks like the Republican party line is that what's happening at Gitmo isn't really torture torture, not like Saddam's Iraq or Auschwitz or the gulags. I'm willing to concede that very narrow point, but that doesn't exactly let anyone off the hook. Consider:

o As outlined in the Anthony Lewis op-ed linked below, even degrading, inhumane treatment that falls short of the Gonzales/Bybee organ-failure/limb-amputation definition of torture is still forbidden by two UN conventions and our own military code.

o Is this really the face that we want America to present to the rest of the world? That of an arrogant, unaccountable torturer? What happened to America the shining moral beacon and noble champion of human rights? (Yes, I know it's largely a fiction, but at least we used to want to believe it, and I think many people worldwide really did... once)
Do we really want to settle for "a little bit better than Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union"? Our moral baseline should be the ideals of decency and fair play that America supposedly stands for, not the practices of brutal dictatorships.

o Does sending prisoners to other countries for the more hardcore forms of torture really absolve us of moral responsibility? Is outsourcing torture really enough to keep our own hands clean? I'll skip any populist lament for all the American torturers that this puts out of work...

o By embracing and defending even the entry-level torture and mistreatment at Gitmo, we are sending the message that this is acceptable treatment of prisoners. Are the torture apologists really okay with the idea of our own captured soldiers being subjected to such treatment? Themselves? Their kids?

o And speaking of kids, how do you explain this to them? Do you tell them it's okay to be mean to the prisoners because they're bad people? (And how do you know they're bad? Because someone said so?) Or brown people? What kind of values are these kids going to grow up with?

o For those of you claiming to be Christians, can you really, honestly, for one second picture Jesus looking down approvingly at what we're doing at Gitmo? I sure as hell can't.

o More peripheral to the central issue of Torture, but how do you square "invisible" prisoners and indefinite imprisonment without counsel or trial with the US Constitution, which does not distinguish between Americans and foreigners in its due-process provisions.

Right, then. I think I'm done. I suppose I should feel better for having gotten it out of my system, but if anything, I think I'm even more pissed off now.

Anthony Lewis Nails It

There have been a lot of good anti-torture pieces, but I thought former columnist Anthony Lewis did an especially good job in the NYT today. I particularly liked how he pointed out that the Geneva Convention, UN Convention Against Torture, and Uniform Code Of Military Justice all prohibit inhumane and degrading treatment, not just the fingernail-pulling and genital-shocking that torture apologists consider to be the true limit of acceptable interrogation techniques.

Of course, if the US got busted using those, they would just find a way to move the goalposts even further ("At least we're not force-feeding them honey and then tying them to an anthill with a beehive in their underwear!").

Come back, Tony, we need you!

Serendipity II

I was just insomniacally photo-processing away when this one kinda jumped out at me. I'm starting to think the Pittsbirds are all total camera hogs or something...

Quote Of The Day

"It was just after he was released from jail in the early 1990's that Johnson... turned to evangelical Christianity and clown dancing more or less simultaneously."

From NYT's Sunday Magazine article about krumping.

O-KKKay...

Maybe it's just me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that when this is how your defense wraps up, your chances may not be all that good...

The defense rested its case today in the trial of Edgar Ray Killen, a former Ku Klux Klansman who is being tried for his role in the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers in Mississippi.

The final witness for the defense was a former mayor of the rural town of Philadelphia, Harlan Majure, who testified before a packed courtroom that the white-supremacist group was a "peaceful organization," according to The Associated Press. Mr. Majure said that Mr. Killen was a good man and that he "did a lot of good up here," The A.P. reported.

Hey, a lot of Islamic terrorist organizations do charitable good works too! Maybe we should cut them a break!

And no, I don't want to hear about "Ku Klux Kleagle Byrd" - yes, I think it's appalling that he was ever in the Klan, but he's repudiated it and apologized again and again, and I do believe that he genuinely regrets it. He did not downplay the KKK's evil or claim it was a peaceful charity organization.

Sadly, even if Killin'- er, Killen, is convicted and imprisoned, well, so what? He's 80 years old now. He's lived a full life already, and had 41 years that his victims never will. If there's a Hell, he'll burn in it just as surely regardless of whether he is convicted in the courts of man.

Yes, I am assuming his guilt. When you have three people killed by Klansmen, I think it's pretty safe to assume that an admitted Klan poobah damn well had something to do with it, even if he wasn't there personally. I hope he does burn in Hell, and I hope I don't have to sit next to him.

And Now For Something Completely Different: Torture Profiteering!

Just when you think they couldn't sink any lower...

More from Froomkin:

Carol Rosenberg writes in the Miami Herald [free registration required]: "The Pentagon
capped a week of intense debate on the future of its prison for terrorism suspects Friday with an announcement that Vice President Dick Cheney's old firm will build a new, $30 million 220-cell prison block at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root received the work under a $500 million Navy contract from July 2004, according to a Defense Department contract announcement e-mailed to The Herald on Friday."

Pat Riley For Preznit!

And for those of you who don't like sport... There's sport.

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing leads with a bunch of "Has Bush lost his touch?" stuff, suggesting that Bush's salesmanship is somehow on the wane. I don't think that's exactly what's going on. I think Bush's approach is the same one he's been using for the last four years, and that in itself is the problem.

It's not that his skills have eroded, it's that his act is starting to wear thin, and more and more people are seeing though it or tuning him out. Those of you who follow sports are well aware of this phenomenon - no matter how great the coach, they all ultimately hit a wall where their players have heard every motivational trick in the book, and it just doesn't have the same impact any more.

And it's not like Bush is a great coach. He's abusive; he plays favorites and turns his players against each other; he misleads them about their role on the team; he likes to go with his gut and call risky plays that usually backfire; he jealously guards his own authority and turf; and, quite frankly, the team has completely gone into the toilet since he took over.

I could probably stretch the metaphor further (and is he the "coach" of America, or just of the Republican party?), but really, my central point is that maybe, just maybe, the country is starting to experience some much-needed Bush Fatigue, or better yet, Republican Fatigue. I only have two questions: Will it last? and WHY DID IT TAKE FOUR YEARS???
Again, this is not Sparky Anderson or Pat Riley (80s edition) we're talking about here. We're talking Billy Martin at best, but probably more like Rich Kotite or Ray Handley... Or possibly Jim Fassel or Wayne Fontes, two mediocre-to-bad coaches who always pulled off winning streaks just as they were about to lose their jobs. Until one day they couldn't anymore. Let's hope that day has finally come for Coach Bush, and maybe for the Republicans as a whole.

Pro-Torture Not Enough

Well. Apparently Abu "Torture Memo" Gonzales, the guy who thinks the Geneva Conventions are outdated and "quaint", may be too moderate to be nominated as Rehnquist's replacement.

A Gonzales appointment would be a politically appealing "first" that could ease the confirmation process among Democrats and help expand the Republican base, according to some strategists. But many conservative leaders see him as too moderate on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, and a Gonzales-for-Rehnquist trade would effectively move the court somewhat to the left.

(snip)

...a Gonzales nomination could trigger internal dissension among GOP activists, some of whom have warned the White House against naming the attorney general. At a meeting of conservative groups last week to plot strategy for a possible Supreme Court nomination, one leader spoke out against a Gonzales appointment, according to people in the room.

"Some of the groups share that concern," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the Concerned Women for America.... While she noted that her organization has not taken a position, she predicted that if Gonzales is chosen, some activists "may not as vigorously support" the nomination, while Roberts or Luttig "would certainly have broader support across the coalition of conservatives."

"Everyone in my circle crinkles their nose when his name comes up," another activist said of Gonzales. "It would be a disaster if that happened."

My God, this is just terrifying. This pro-torture creep who shouldn't be allowed to practice law at any level isn't conservative enough???

My prediction is that Bush will nominate him anyway because Gonzales is his creature, one of those loyalists who would take a bullet for him. And better yet, it'll give the right yet another cherished opportunity to accuse Democrats of racism and hypocrisy for opposing an awful nominee who happens to be a minority.

Sunday Softball Blogging

Well, this one was pret-ty damn lopsided - I think we won by more than 20 runs or something. Kind of a mediocre game for me, 5 for 10 with 3 runs but 3 pop-ups. I did have one caught at the fence that probably would have gone out if there hadn't been a fielder there. Oh well. Fielding was less than brilliant, but I didn't really get much action in left.

Current Stats: 12 games, .580 BA (47-81), 8 2B, 26 runs, 14 RBI.


There's no shirt-wearing in baseball!


Well, okay. Red shirts are all right. But stay away from alien planets.

Saturday Black & White Blogging

I usually don't have a lot to say on weekends, so I'll just post some photos.


Not sure *what* this is supposed to be, really...


Not a big pigeon fan, but there was something regal about this one perched on the incongruous concrete thingies...

Friday Quote Blogging

"Mankind is just a component of the device which creates the devil."

- Naked, which features a tour-de-force performance by David Thewlis as an over-intelligent and cold-blooded drifter. He gave me the impression of someone impatiently channel-surfing through life.


Oh, look! A cat!


Mom's friend's cat, Sweet Pea. And a box.

Ew.

Well, I guess it's not all that surprising - Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are engaged. Tra-la-la. But check out the last sentence of the AP article and see if it doesn't make your skin crawl:

"The former star of television's 'Dawson's Creek' has said she grew up wanting to marry Cruise."

More Like This, Please.

John Danforth strikes again!

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

(snip)

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

I think the unspoken distinction here is between Old Testament Christians and New Testament Christians. It's the difference between defining mindsets of "Thou Shalt Not" vs. "Be Excellent To Each Other."

Krugmania!

I'm sure today's Krugman column has been done to death already; I just want to nibble around the edges a little bit.

Now, politicians and businessmen are always in a position to do each other lucrative favors. Government is relatively clean when politicians are sufficiently afraid of scandal to resist temptation. But when a political machine controls all branches of government, and those officials charged with oversight are also reliably partisan, politicians feel safe from investigation. Their inhibitions dissolve, and they take full advantage of their position, until the scandals become too big to hide.

In other words, Ohio's state government today is a lot like Boss Tweed's New York. Unfortunately, a lot of other state governments look similar - and so does Washington.

Since their 1994 takeover of Congress, and even more so since the 2000 election, Republican leaders have sought to make their political dominance permanent. They redistricted Texas to lock in their control of the House. Through the "K Street Project" they have put lobbying firms under partisan control, starving the Democrats of campaign funds. And they are, of course, trying to pack the courts with partisan loyalists.

In effect, they're trying to turn America into a giant version of the elder Richard Daley's Chicago.

These efforts have already created an environment in which politicians from the right party and businessmen with the right connections believe, with good reason, that they have immunity.

(snip)

The message from Ohio is that long-term dominance by a political machine leads to corruption, regardless of the policies that machine follows or the ideology it claims to represent.

First off, I feel obliged to smugly point out that this reinforces my earlier post about how the Republicans have replaced accountability with impunity (will provide link when I get home), which also gets into root causes and potential solutions.

Second off, I believe Krugman's last paragraph is incomplete. It does not address the chilling fact that Washington has proven that the dominance doesn't even have to be long-term to lead to corruption. In the Republicans' case, it seems to have been almost instantaneous (Enron, Energy Task Force), although it continues to worsen by the day.

Talking Downing

The Big Brass Alliance bloggers are probably all over this already, but if you haven't read WaPo's online chat with Michael Smith, the Sunday Times reporter who's been covering all the Damning Downing Documents, you should do so right away.

He has all kinds of interesting tidbits, like his belief that there's more out there that could ultimately create a public outcry for impeachment, the fact that he's a Conservative- voting ex-soldier who initially supported the war, and that the Geneva Convention obligates an occupier to stay until the occupied country can stand on its own (how quaint!).

He also agrees with me that all the impeachment talk is probably counterproductive right now, and makes Democrats look, well, a lot like Republicans did in '98.

Go! Read! Now!

Loud Is Good

Here's another idea that I've floated here and there but never given its own post. This one's pretty simple: A large part of Dean's role as DNC chair should be that of a promoter. By this I mean that whenever another Democrat has an especially important message to get out and is being ignored by the media, Dean should make an address to underline and call attention to it.

I know this is far from the traditional role of a party chair, which I understand to be more behind-the-scenes fundraising and strategizing. But Dean is unique among all the Dems (except possibly the Clintons) in his ability to get media coverage, which is an absolutely invaluable counter to the Republicans' media stranglehold. Better yet, his blunt and confrontational style is exactly what the Dems need right now, not the mush-mouthed equivocation and appeasement that has garnered their current milquetoast reputation. A few well-timed "Joe Biden/Joe Lieberman/John Edwards does not speak for the Democratic Party" jabs wouldn't hurt either, but I emphasize "a few," and only when they wander off the reservation and start making Republican noises.

I say we ride the Ho-Ho horse as long as we can, until Howard Fatigue sets in, if ever. In the meantime, we need to build up a bullpen of firebrands to reinforce the message, take some of the burden off of Dean, and provide a pool of strong successors as DNC chair and/or voice of the Democratic party.

A Practical Question

I could be mistaken, but given the diminishing effectiveness of my popup blockers, I'm pretty sure that there is an ongoing arms race between popup blockers and popup advertisers. My question is, Why would you want to force popups on someone who has gone to the trouble to install software to block them? Isn't it more likely that you'll just piss them off and make them vow to never buy your product? Are they really going to admire your popup's spunky can-do attitude?

Anyway, it's just a thought, and perhaps too perplexing for the pestilent popup people.

Dealing In Death And Donuts

Well, this is creepybadwrong. Bob Herbert on the Army's "School Recruiting Program Handbook":

"The football team usually starts practicing in August," the handbook says. "Contact the coach and volunteer to assist in leading calisthenics or calling cadence during team runs."

"Homecoming normally happens in October," the handbook says. "Coordinate with the homecoming committee to get involved with the parade."

"Recruiters are urged to deliver doughnuts and coffee to the faculty once a month, and to eat lunch in the school cafeteria several times a month. And the book recommends that they assiduously cultivate the students that other students admire: "Some influential students such as the student president or the captain of the football team may not enlist; however, they can and will provide you with referrals who will enlist."

That last quote is a particularly creepy microcosm of the "only the little people fight wars" mentality..

"If you wait until they're seniors, it's probably too late," the book says. It also says, "Don't forget the administrative staff. ... Have something to give them (pen, calendar, cup, donuts, etc.) and always remember secretary's week, with a card or flowers."

The sense of desperation is palpable: "Get involved with local Boy Scout troops. Scoutmasters are typically happy to get any assistance you can offer. Many scouts are [high school] students and potential enlistees or student influencers."

I'm not a parent (nor likely to be), but this is still disturbing as hell. Herbert also points out that these efforts are, of course, targeted primarily at lower income public schools where the students have limited life options after graduation.

Democrats really need to start publicizing this - I can't believe a whole lot of parents would be okay with the idea of recruiters cozying up to scoutmasters. If we can't get poor red-staters on pocketbook issues, let's appeal to their concern for their children. Make them decide whether they're really more afraid of gay recruiters than Army recruiters. Highlighting the desperation also underlines just how close to a draft we really are, and how unprepared for another pre-emptive war of choice.

Right now, every time the White House talks tough about Iran, Syria, or North Korea, the blue-collar red-staters puff their chests out and say, "That's my brave, manly president! USA! USA!" I want them to start nervously pulling their children closer instead.

Bring 'Em On!

Ugh. I guess it was inevitable that Bush would try to paint the Democrats as obstructionists who don't stand for anything, and make them the scapegoats for his own failed and unpopular policies.

For now, I'll just pretend to ignore the fact that the Democrats have been forced into the unpleasant role of that killjoy who's always trying to take the drunk's car keys away. If preventing someone from driving off a cliff or mowing down pedestrians is obstructionist, well, we need more of it.

At any rate, I think Bush may have unwittingly given the Democrats an opportunity, if they're smart and aggressive enough to take it.

From some fundraising dinner for rich people and porn stars (thanks for the reminder, A. Scott!):

On issue after issue, they stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership. (Applause.) It is the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock, and our country and our children deserve better. (Applause.)

Political parties that choose the path of obstruction will not gain the trust of the American people. If leaders of the other party have innovative ideas, let's hear them. But if they have no ideas or policies except obstruction, they should step aside and let others lead. (Applause.)

Okay, now, I seem to recall that Harry Reid offered up a very compelling Democratic version of the Contract With America earlier this year, but of course there's no chance at all that any of it could pass a Republican Senate.

So with that in mind, I would love to see Reid call Bush's bluff on this. Remind him that the Democrats do have ideas and plans, remind everyone what they are (and that they've been out there for months, and any specific examples of the Republicans shutting them down), and challenge the Republicans to stop blocking them. Oh, and also point out that blocking bad policies and nominees protects America, and is what Congressmen are supposed to do; when the Republican agenda is no longer toxic, the Democrats will be happy to wave it through.

I know there's a school of thought that says you shouldn't dignify this sort of smear with a response (and look how well that worked out for Kerry last year), but I think this is a winner: It gives the Democrats a platform to promote their own agenda while essentially calling Bush a divisive, partisan liar at the same time. And perhaps even more importantly, not responding would be an implicit admission that Bush is right,and that is just not acceptable.

One minor tactical point: I think the most appropriate way to publicize this would be an initial response from Reid (or a joint response by Reid and Pelosi), followed by a Dean address calling attention to it, in order to assure media coverage.

Here's hoping the Democrats fight back on this. Dean seems to have found his voice after a fairly quiet start, so I'm cautiously optimistic.