VOTE!

Tortured Logic

As Daniel Schorr indicates, it is absurd that the current dialogue regarding torture is focused on whether and when it is OK instead of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.

I should probably start out with the basics and define torture. Especially since ambiguity over what is and is not torture is abused by armchair nationalists to cloud the debate.

"torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Art I, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Or if you prefer U.S. law:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

18 U.S.C. §2340. The definitions are substantially similar in the act that constitutes torture is the infliction of severe suffering, though the U.N. treaty requires a particular goal in mind they both define torture as the act of a government. So clearly, any argument based around the ambiguity inherent in the word "suffering" designed to imply that imprisonment qualifies as torture is disingenuous at best. Any reasonable person would agree that water boarding fits under this definition as torture. The argument that the presence of a doctor during waterboarding changes it into something other than torture because the victim is less likely to die cuts decency to the quick. The blatant disregard for both the legal definition of torture and the suffering of the victim lays bare that anyone making such an argument has no respect for those the argument is being made to.

One might raise the argument that such legal protections only extend to uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield. This ignores the clear intention of the above convention which indicates that it is the goal of the person performing the torture that makes the act illegal, not the identity of the tortured subject. It's simple common sense to say that if we have the jurisdiction to hold a person then they are under the jurisdiction and protection of our laws regardless of whether we find it convenient. Further, though the United States Supreme Court has not decided this narrow issue yet, it has decided a line of cases that a rational person would think extends to cover this situation (a rational person being one who has not set out with the goal of achieving an end result where torture is justified). In a line of cases from Ex parte Milligan to Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court has held that even the detainees at Guantanamo Bay fall under the protection of U.S. law and that they can not be deprived of fundamental rights like Habeas corpus. Also, that Congress and the President, even working together cannot simply declare certain people and places to be without those protections.

Though it is yet to be determined if the prohibitions against torture apply to non-uniformed foreign national enemy combatants captured in a foreign country, we have frequently tried to make a clear argument on this blog that the protections of the law should apply to these people. I have tried to make this argument by making the implication that any innocent American citizen could be taken to Gitmo. Of course, any time someone implies that the government could wrongfully imprison an innocent person the notion is labeled as X-Files type conspiracy lunacy. Which is why I have tried to be careful and point to situations that show how easy it is to be mistakenly labeled as a terrorist. Where the no-fly list includes the names of innocent people, or where police label nuns and peace activists, that they admit are innocent of any crime, as terrorists.

If you combine the fact of how easy it is to become labeled a terrorist or an enemy combatant with the fact of how difficult it has been for those in Gitmo to even contest that label, even when they have been found innocent by their own government, you see that torture is being used on people merely for being accused of being a terrorist, having not been found guilty in any court, merely because there is the possibility that they may have some information that could be obtained through torture that could not be obtained as quickly through more conventional interrogation. Even when good old fashioned investigation still works. I am not so foolish as to believe that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent victim of circumstance or that there aren't dangerous terrorists being held there that can never be released without representing a serious threat to the American people. I am just worried about the labels being used and logic being applied to justify locking people up for an indefinite period of time punishing them without the accusations against them(and their accusers) seeing the light of day and I am particularly uneasy about the U.S. torturing anyone, especially in such suspicious circumstances.

Still Cheney is making the political talk show rounds insisting that torture produced valuable intelligence that saved lives. This argument is being picked up and repeated as if anything Cheney says about intelligence to the media can be trusted after the fiasco that was the run up to Iraq and the Valerie Plame scandal. It has even been revealed recently that torture was even used to produce some of that bad intelligence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. security council.

This is exactly the worst case scenario that comes to mind whenever there is mention of torture. There was no ticking time bomb and the poor sap being tortured didn't know anything and only gave the people committing the torture what they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. That bad information was relied on to put us in an unnecessary war and thousands of people have died. Yet the idea that torture produces effective intelligence continues to be tossed around like it is a valid argument. Even if torture produces good intelligence some of the time, the risk that bad information will be relied on because it is what is politically expedient at the time is far too great a risk for us as a nation to be throwing our morality to the wind.

Even if torture works it is still morally wrong. Unfortunately I don't have any arguments here, just a bald assertion of a moral absolute.

I could argue that Alberto Gonzales was clearly wrong at his confirmation hearing when he said we can never be like our enemy's. Or I could parrot the refrain that being seen as abandoning our collective principles encourages extremist anti-Americanism. Or I could point to the damage this does to our international relations. Friendly nations wonder why we have fallen from being Regan's shining beacon of freedom on a hill, and antagonistic nations like Russia and Iran point to our abuses when we criticize them for kangaroo trials or oppressive measures. I could point to truly oppressive regimes across the globe that now simply label as terrorists those they wish to abuse. However all those are pragmatic reasons, and I don't think that is the best foundation for a moral absolute. I know torture is always wrong because I have human compassion. And you know it too.

All that is beside the point. Torture is illegal and water boarding is torture. The only reason I can think of that the MSM has allowed itself to be hijacked by Cheney again is that Obama has decided that the people who committed acts of torture under color of law will not be prosecuted. So that ends that story. Only vague questions of conspiracy remain and the question still appears to be open as to whether those that wrote the torture memos and the members of Congress and the Executive branch who were complicit in authorizing torture will face any kind of consequences.

It is vitally important that we zealously prosecute everyone responsible for the use of torture from the interrogators and their commanders and guards at the camp that knew it was happening to those that wrote the memos and everyone in power who knew it was happening and did nothing to stop it. even if that means throwing half of Congress in prison. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, a full and complete prosecution of everyone responsible will correct many of the above mentioned pragmatic reasons that torture is wrong. Clearly extremists will continue to hate America for irrational reasons. However, by taking pains to correct our misdeeds we will show to friends and enemies internationally and future leaders of America that we are a nation committed to the rule of law and that we can bravely face our own misdeeds and see justice done.

The next reason is that only a full prosecution of everyone that could possibly be complicit is the only way to actually see justice done in this situation. Where the government at all levels and in multiple branches participates in enacting a broad policy that is illegal and immoral and actually produces negative consequences simply rooting out a sacrificial lamb like "Scooter" Libby only perpetuates the sense that those in power who are ultimately responsible for the crime are beyond justice. A full prosecution is also important to avoid domestic political wrangling. If we put Cheney on trial Pelosi needs to go on trial as well. So does every member of Congress that was briefed on the use of torture and everyone in the various agencies that used them, both political appointees and career agents. I am not saying that we need to imprison half the government and military, but in the interests of justice there needs to be a full and impartial investigation that brings charges against those who appear to be guilty of serious crimes against U.S. law.

I understand Obama's order that the interrogators not be prosecuted. Spies and agents in the field are not legal experts and have to be able to rely on the orders of their superiors. Unquestioning reliance on the command structure is vital to successful military operations. Still, there is a point where the guy who has boots on the ground knows something is wrong. That an order is wrong. It is that person's responsibility to say "no." I know it is a hard and cold and frankly unrealistic rule but that is the very same thing we say to accused former Nazi prison camp guards as they are extradited and prosecuted for simply guarding the camp. (No I didn't just fall prey to Godwin's Law)

I further understand Obama's decision not to prosecute the interrogators because doing so would turn our agents in the field into political paws by using them as a sacrificial lamb. An agent in the field has to be able not only to rely on his orders but also to believe that he can effectively carry out his mission even when there is an election coming. They need to know that they won't be hung out to dry just to appease the public when the party in power changes.

Because prosecuting the interrogators is off the table and it is highly unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that could put their own members in prison, and because there is a current sentiment that we need to move on with current troubles and not be concerned with the egregious acts of the prior administration it is highly unlikely that we will see any kind of full and non-partisan investigation that results in justice being done. The most we will see is someone like John Yoo getting a slap on the wrist. I am still too cynical to believe even that will happen.

Republicrats: Shifts Toward Blue

Why do my favorite Supreme Court Justices keep retiring? First it was Rehnquist, then O'Connor, now Souter. They were my favorites for writing intelligible opinions. Lawyers learn to write and use language partly to obscure their meaning. These justices seem to indicate to me that it is possible to be a brilliant and principled legal scholar and still be capable of being understood.

This would be my only comment at Souter's announcement of his impending retirement except for the political cast it takes on given the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democratic party which also occurred this week.

This article picks up on the greater significance that this has for the Republican party, especially given Specter's admission that the Republican party today is not the one he joined when he defected from the Democratic party. Like most of ABC's reporting it misdiagnoses the state of public opinion.

ABC paints this as being a division between moderates in power and conservative ideologues. I think this makes the inexplicable mistake of lumping fiscal and social conservatives together as one group. Well, i suppose it is not entirely inexplicable since this is the fundamental misconception of Karl Rove's political strategy that is misconstrued as appealing to the base.

Clearly the idea of going after the base is meant to be cast in contrast to Reagan's "Big Tent," particularly after the separation of the Libertarian wing of the party under Perot. But those of us who are truly Libertarian, not just fiscally but socially as well, understood Karl Rove's strategy as one of appealing to hot button right wing extremist issues that were rarely voted on before.

This whole strategy of appealing to people based on irrelevant emotional issues such as religion, national security, and immigration creates a misconception that conceals the true voting motives of "Blue Dog Republicans." This was something both Clinton and Obama picked up on in the last election and is why Ohio and Pennsylvania went blue. Sure there were narrow margins but it is illustrative of the problem of confusing propaganda with substance. The campaign propaganda to the MSM claimed these people were the base of the republican party but in truth you can only get so far by appealing to base and divisive emotions.

Now the Republican party is saddled with the burden of politicians that were elected for running socially right wing campaigns in a place and time when that would fly. This segment of the party is going to remain entrenched in its black and white social issues and while they may eventually learn to understand general notions of governance their presence at the table is going to continue to confuse the party at large about what went wrong in the last few elections.

In a political system where those that represent the people are forced to choose between two ridiculous characters of public opinion this does a tremendous disservice to real people who won't be stuffed into one of the two categories by Fox or MSNBC.

Ben Franklin Report: The Mark to Market Rule

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Fine Line
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

As if in direct response to Colbert's challenge to create something, anything to believe in to turn the recession around, the Financial Accounting Standards Board changed the Mark to Market rule. Unfortunately this was actually in response to intense pressure from Congress and the Banks. This lets banks revalue their toxic assets before reporting them on their books. (Which makes me wonder why this was done just after the end of the first quarter.) The banks that took on more risk than they could manage don't just get to value these assets at whatever they want, they get to value these pieces of steaming crap at whatever they think someone would pay if anyone was interested in buying a steaming pile of shit just because someone called it golden.

Of course this looks exactly like what we have been doing so far in relation to this banking fiasco. We looked at the disaster and saw that the people in charge had established a system of perverse incentives that encouraged highly risky acts and called them extremely safe because of a complete lack of regulation. Our response has been to give even more huge shit tons of cash these very same people that fucked us for fun and profit and by removing any other regulation that insists we call a spade a spade. I am finding it harder and harder to resist the urge to call for murderous mobs to converge on Wall Street.

The Wall Street response to the reduction of regulation was obvious. Though, two years ago, if you said that Dow 8,000 would be good news people either would have thought you were crazy or they would have been terrified.

In this article, John Berry tries to criticize the negative reaction to the rule change that I outlined above. But he is comparing apples to oranges when he says,

The family doesn’t have to put up money to cover the difference between the mortgage and the lower market value. Nor should the Atlanta bank have to take a big hit on its reported income because some other mortgage-backed securities owner sold in a depressed market.

He is comparing the effect on banks that have to back their lending by having 10% of that value on their balance sheets. Which of course home owners don't do. And the family that is upside down on their mortgage will have to pay that money on the mortgage that is more than the value of their home just because they bought at the wrong time.

Lots of pundits and apologists for the financial industry keep trying to accuse home owners that face loosing their residence of buying beyond their means. Through this argument they try to push some of the moral culpability for this fiasco on people who only wanted a nice house. They didn't buy above their means, they listened to the market. The market told them what they were worth. It's not their fault the market lied to them because they couldn't have understood the market. Seriously, if huge banks couldn't see this coming when they specialize in finance, then its simply irrational to accuse home buyers of wrongdoing just because the effect of their actions is to further reduce the property value of their neighbors.

Berry does make a legitimate point about the removal of reality in accounting. He asserts that the Atlanta bank he is referring to in the above quote intends to hold on to its mortgage backed securities until they mature. Meaning the bank will be getting all the money from the mortgagees. This is the family in his apples to oranges scenario who has to pay the full value of the mortgage even though the house is worth less. (But hey, at least it still provides the same amount of warmth and shelter. Its just that breakfast nook they added doesn't mean they can afford to send the kids to college.) This means that the banks assets are really worth nearly their full value because the bank will get paid what it originally bargained. So the accounting rule lets them value their assets at what they can reasonably expect to still get paid over 30 years and they can lend out more money to consumers and businesses which increases liquidity and gets the markets moving again and leads to more manufacturing, more jobs, and more spending. Everyone's happy.

Except that just brings us back to where we started last November. No one knows how many mortgages will go into arrears or how many will be devalued through the proposed new bankruptcy rules. The short of it is we don't know if the mortgage backed securities will be worth what they were originally bargained for in 30 years when they run their course. All we do know is that they will be worth less. If not become worthless.

Gun Control in Washington D.C. - No, This isn't a Repeat

I had previously remarked about the bill moving through Congress that would give full voting rights to Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.). In those comments I also remarked that it was interesting that John McCain was voting against more equal representation of the nations citizens on what appears to be party lines because the seat is expected to be solidly Democratic. People have tried to throw a red herring into this debate by claiming that only states can be represented in Congress. Which is an interesting academic debate from a legal perspective but in reality is a smoke screen for partisan bickering. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually has a principled stance on the nature of the state when it comes to representation in Congress like they do about gun control or abortion. It's a politicians issue and I seriously doubt that framing the issue in this way will get any traction.

To be sure, the Republicans aren't the only ones with partisanship dirt on their hands. The Democrats brought this up because they wanted the extra seat, and threw in the extra seat for Utah as a token gesture. That seat is likely to be just as solidly Republican but Utah was due that seat in 2000 and would be getting it in 2011 anyway after the next census so really, the Democrats aren't giving the Republicans anything of similar value to what they are attempting to give themselves. Still for me this is a freedom and democratic representation issue.

The real fun came in last week when the Republicans dusted off their old roadblock issue, gun control. This article comes from the same ignorant perspective that most MSM coverage of guns has but covers some interesting angles on the nature of gun politics in the Capitol. It pisses me off that in their effort to be as childish and partisan as possible the Republicans are dragging gun control into the mix. Sure it worked, but bringing an unrelated issue into the debate was crass and only indicates that these Republicans don't take a principled stand on anything. It's all politics.

The thing that pisses me off about this is that there is a legitimate reason for the Republicans to bring this up but they don't see it. They don't see it because they don't care about the Second Amendment. All they care about is political power and what they can get away with.

The real issue is the 5-4 decision in Heller. For gun rights Heller is Roe v. Wade. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep a pistol independent of any militia. That is a reasonably narrow interpretation but D.C. interprets the holding even more narrowly to only mean that individuals may keep a loaded single action pistol in their home. Which would mean a definition of "firearm" that is even more restrictive than the now expired Brady Bill and would mean that it is illegal to transport a firearm in any kind of working order. Lots of people on the abortion issue are eyeballing the Supreme Court and not just because of Justice Ginsburg's recent illness. (may she always be healthy and live to be 100) If D.C. can argue for their narrow interpretation successfully or if the balance of The Court shifts, the triumph of gun rights will have been short lived and the jubilation of gun nuts will turn to rage. Federal preemption of further suit by the fascists in D.C. will preserve the rights of law abiding citizens and help close a chapter of wasteful, ineffective, and unconstitutional legislation.

The Icy Cold Hand of Evolution is Reaching For You

It's Darwin's 200th birthday and that is as good an excuse as any to engage in soap-boxery. Atheists are using this day to publicly make a spectacle. Though when it comes to making an ass of yourself in front of the media the Freedom From Religion Foundation just doesn't have the flair of PETA. If only there was some way to combine public nudity with atheism. We need to see some hot atheist ass. I am publicly calling for an "Emperor has no clothes" parade in Madison, WI. It will start at the capitol and end in my "evolution research lab."

I discussed previously that the public debate over Evolution does not actually regard any scientific discussion. The Christian zealots are using this as a way of publicly challenging the faith of other Christians out there basically saying you will go to hell if you believe in science. Using the fear they have used since the beginning for recruiting. Even the British cling to religious posturing in their ignorance rather than trust the people who dedicate their lives to careful study of the natural world. Which is exactly what this is about. Making highly educated people who have dedicated their lives to rigorous study into purveyors of a competing ideology. Reducing science to mere faith and turning scientists into servants of the devil. Christians know well how to turn mundane decisions into matters of eternal moral significance and normal people into sinners and the enemy. Creationism is an ideology of ignorance and hate.

Moving Closer to Democracy

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee voted to give full voting rights to the Washington D.C. House seat today. For some time now their license plates have read "No taxation without representation." Referring to their lack of representation in Congress. It's interesting to see McCain voting against this Democratic seat as if party politics were the primary consideration.

Confidence: not yours

I was going to remark on the relation between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's speech yesterday, the way the markets reacted, and right wing pundits and opinion columnists, but I am having a bloggers' existential funk. I'll get back to that.

What I was going to say was a response to Geithner's comment,

"Our challenge is much greater today because the American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions, and are skeptical that their government has – to this point -- used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them. This has to change."

I wondered how much the lack of confidence the people have in governments ability to spend us out of the economy is due to past failures, or if it was due to the constant barrage of ideological criticism the bailouts have faced. I initially thought that this was a slightly more tenable position than friends I have who simply remark, "I hate the Republicans," when discussing the situation. While possibly more nuanced, I have come to realize that that thought is still colored by my dislike for the general Republican platform and my disgust with Congress.

Then I considered why my own criticism didn't cause me to feel any cognitive dissonance with regard to the thought that Republican ideologues are just peddling uncertainty. Other than a certain us vs. them outgroup antagonism, I find myself hard pressed to reconcile the apparent hypocrisy. To be sure, there is a significant difference in the details of the two (three?) bailouts, but what I am trying to do is separate out my moral, emotional, and ideological proclivities from the factual differences in hopes that I can logically assess the situation.

Clearly that is difficult for someone like me coming from a background of squatters rights and phreaking.

The Walk of Shame: Taxes

As commercials announce to Joe Punchclock that the Taxman commeth we are greeted with a plethora of news items detailing the failure of President Obama's cabinet nominees to pay their fair share. Many of the editorials are already decrying the "new politics of responsibility" being just like the old politics of . . . well what do you call it when the President says it's OK to torture people? Evil? Its understandable why commentators on the political right have attempted to focus on the immediate failures of the Obama administration in what appears to be a rapid return to politics as usual. I would be inclined to resist except Obama's picks for high level political positions seems less like looking to experience and more like rearranging the deck chairs on the S.S. Democratic party. Which, if I recall correctly, is exactly how the first G.W. Bush administration began.

Evamaloutions

I think the real issue is not clearly explained in debates over creationism. In discussion over changes to curriculum it becomes apparent that what is being debated is the position of science in our society and the deference due to science in examination of nature. I don't think that the scriptural interpretive preference of an obnoxiously vocal minority should have any bearing on how we regard the statements of experts on matters of fact. The point is not that fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack our culture through the indoctrinating power of the already failing public school system, but that they intentionally avoid narrowing the issue or focusing on details because this is a discussion they loose as soon as rationality prevails.

In case you were wondering this post was not provoked by anything in particular but is tangentially related to the posts this week regarding stumbling upon websites anthropomorphizing of animals and showing that the efforts by religious fanatics to destroy science is not restricted to right wing Christian maniacs.

Posted from a Palm Treo mobile device.

Palin Strikes Back

For those worried that the Daily Show might run out of material during the next four years of an Obama administration, the Internet's savior, Sarah Palin, has come through again, launching her own new SarahPAC. Political Action Committees are compelled under federal law to comply with certain regulations, but they spend a lot of money in a city where Benjamin Franklin speaks. What exactly constitutes "a better, safer, and stronger America in the 21st Century" should provide many punchlines in the near-term. Hopefully Governor Palin's four year vacation from federal electoral politics will help her develop coherent policy positions, but I don't imagine her supporters want to hear anything more than catch phrases.

In a slightly more disturbing twist, there is a group known as PalinPAC which stole the catchy name, and as of this writing has received 2588 hits on their website. The most telling mark of something resembling the political version of a scam is that their mission page mentions the values and issues of the Republican Party, but doesn't, at any point gto into any meaningful depth on what exactly those values and issues are. The one page that might reveal the thinking behind the leaders of the group, about their Religious Values has a bible quote, and a very interesting quote which is reproduced below.

Every problem we have can't be George Bush's fault like many believe. Why don't we look to and ask the Congress and House of Representatives what they have been doing about our country's problems? The Democrats wanted control and got it. But what have they done with it?

Obviously nothing a group that supports Sarah Palin would agree with.

Don't You All Fell Better Now That Racism Is Over?

I don't know if my own experience over the past month has been unique but I have noticed an increase in little incidents of racism and they seem to be connected to Obama being elected. Here is what I mean, I will be with a group of people and the topic will turn to the recent election and while the subject of the first black president is in the air someone will then tell a joke so racist that you would think Carlos Mencia had just walked in the room. It's like some kind of weird cognitive dissonance is trying to work itself out of the population. In many cases, the people I hear doing this are not what I would call racist but I don't know how else to quantify what I am experiencing. Its somewhere on the racism scale between being uncomfortable with interracial dating and using the word "colored" when drunk.

The Walk of Shame: A Shameful Roundup

Saving the best for last.

First, a new study shows that half of all American doctors prescribe a placebo to their patients, and most of them that do, do not inform the patient that the medication will not do anything for their condition. The study goes on to say that doctors usually use pain medication, vitamins, or stress medications rather than the sugar pill one usually associates with placebo.

This throws into question medical ethics and the doctrine of informed consent. It would be possible to meet the standard of informed consent and still get the beneficial effects of a placebo. It also raises questions of further wasting money in the already inefficient American medical system.

This strikes me as similar to the use of tazers since in both cases a professional with a fiduciary duty to the people is using a device as a shortcut around dealing with the psychological difficulty's of the individual they are faced with at the time. It's lazy. It's laziness that has harmful consequences.


Second, the McCain campaign volunteer who claimed to have been attacked and beaten by a black man who carved a "B" into her face to signify Barrac Obama, admitted to lying about the attack. Apparently the woman is mentally unstable and probably did it to herself.


Lastly, we have the Maryland police spying scandal. The state police went to public meetings of politically left protest organizations and entered the names of participants in a database of persons suspected for involvement in terrorism. So essentially what we have is a law enforcement body labeling as terrorists, U.S. citizens who are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed first amendment rights without any evidence that any crime had or would be committed.

The ACLU were the ones credited with this story seeing the light of day because of an information request. This week the state started sending out letters to people who's names are on the list. There are varying accounts of what the letters say or what their purpose is. Questions need to be answered like; why were these people targeted, was it because they were politically liberal, why not investigate groups like the KKK which is already listed as a terrorist group, what prompted this spying, will the victims be able to see what is in their file, what criteria are used to determine someone is a terrorist, how does someone get their name off the list, is it possible to remove someones name?

This again gives an answer the question, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to fear?" These people were not doing anything wrong. One officers reports even showed that these people were not planning on doing anything wrong. Yet they were labeled as terrorists. At this point we still do not know why. Again, most people don't concern themselves with the draconian methods of dealing with suspected terrorists since 9/11. Except we have been repeatedly shown that one does not need to do anything wrong to be labeled a terrorist and be subjected to torture. But then again, this woman seems to think that protesters, or anyone that is vocal about their political opinions deserves to be given the third degree.

The Walk of Shame: Palin

This is a pretty detailed article on the whole affair. The bottom line is that the legislative investigation found that Sarah Palin violated the public trust in her office as Governor when she allegedly pressured for the firing of a State Trooper that had been married to her sister. In these cynical times it is hard for me to explain how serious a violation of the public trust is other than to say that even lawyers are required to be more ethical than this.

Once again this raises the question of how well Palin was vetted before she was picked as the VP nominee. Her ability wink and to segue into memorized talking points during the VP debate does not reassure me that she is more intelligent than the Couric interviews have shown her to be. Now there is this report detailing how she wasted no time in becoming corrupt after being elected as Governor of Alaska. Its probably a testament to her Orwellian campaigning that she was originally billed as a reformer.

The most telling part of this story is the reaction of the Republican party and the Republican presidential campaign. When the eye of justice was turned on them they immidiately and vigorously began attacking the integrity and nature of the investigation. What they were doing was analogous to if one was a murder suspect, arguing that the police did not have the authority to look for the murder weapon.

It makes me wonder if any other Alaska Republicans will be found guilty of corruption in the final weeks before the election.

Gay Marriage In Connecticut

It should be obvious that anyone that is against gay marriage holds such an opinion because they don't like the idea of gay sex. Although we joke in popular culture that sex and marriage have nothing to do with each other, you won't see any significant principled division between the people who object to homosexuality and those who wish to deprive homosexuals of their civil rights.

Today Connecticut's supreme court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated that state's constitution. Effectively becoming the third state to allow homosexual marriage.

Something that is often glossed over in discussions of gay marriage is the issue of civil unions. These are often touted as being the same as marriage but with a different name. Gay rights groups often do a good job of pointing out that "separate is not equal," but it gets a bit more technical than that. There is a certain deference that is given to the status of marriage in American law that would not transfer over to any artificial legislative construction. You can make a statute that gives persons in a civil union the same tax benefits(penalties), the same visitation rights, and same property ownership as marriage and these are the rights typically cited by people discussing the issue, but there are a number of other rights that most people don't know come from marriage. You can have joint ownership of property but what about inheritance? What about the "Marital Privilege" where your spouse can not be forced to testify against you in court? There are a number of others but the point is that the status of marriage is so ingrained in our culture that a legislature would have to rewrite its entire civil code to create a substantially similar civil status to marriage.

Which still leaves the question of motive. Why would you go to all the effort to create something exactly like marriage just for the gays if not to keep them separate? I have yet to have heard a coherent explanation of why conservatives believe that it somehow harms their marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry. My wife and I may have had less sex, or poor communication on the week California first allowed gay marriage, but I guarantee you it was not the cause.

America Keeps Inching Back Toward Justice

There have been some gains for freedom and for the American people lately that have been overshadowed by the free fall in the stock market. The important thing is that these small steps show that our system still works, even if it draws its inspiration from molasses.

The Justice Department has completed its investigation into the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys and decided that since the Bush administration refused to cooperate with its investigation, Justice would appoint a special investigator. Whether this new investigator will have the power to get the information required to get to the bottom of this remains to be seen, and whether any power given will be effective is a whole other question.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered the release of the Uighers into the United States. What is significant about this ruling is that last part about being released into the U.S. These are Chinese Muslims that were captured in Pakistan during the early days of the war in Afghanistan. The U.S. government has not considered them "enemy combatants" for some time now but will not release them into the United States and will not send them back to China. So the Government has been looking for, and failing to find, any country that will take them in. As with any promising ruling, there are still many appeals to go through.

Free The West Memphis Three

Judge Burnett denied the request for a new trial for the WM3. He sided with the prosecution who argued that there being no DNA evidence at the crime scene did not prove the innocence of the convicted. Though if the Paradise Lost documentaries are to be believed there was no actual evidence connecting the three to the crime in the first place. If I understand the process correctly, the next step is to appeal to the Arkansas Supreme court and then to federal court. Unfortunately this could go on for some time.

Life Lessons and Vice Presidential Candidates

As a child, I learned two lessons about the adult world almost as soon as I was able to tell right from wrong. That the authority granted to adults and supposed authority figures most often is not granted because they are moral or even responsible people and is usually a coincidence arising from their career, rather than given to them through any legitimate means. Second, I learned that most people are not deserving of respect (beyond that due every human) until they prove otherwise. Since I learned those lessons at Catholic school, it took me a while to separate my problem with authority from my perception of all Christians as hypocrites. If you have read some of my other posts on this blog you will notice that I still have that perception of Christians.

Christian hypocrisy is a good transition into discussing the issues surrounding the pregnancy of Sarah Palins unwed teenage daughter. Anti-abortion types will see this as not being hypocritical since Bristol, Palins daughter, will be keeping the child. This is itself a red herring and the hypocrisy I wish to discuss because it ignores the anti-contraception and anti-sexed positions that are associated with an anti-abortion and which Gov. Palin has herself expressed. A friend of mine observed today that you can't treat teen sex like the Easter bunny and decide not to believe in it because it does happen and has profound consequences. Many of those consequences will not be felt by Bristol and her child(eren) because of the financial status of her family. Sadly this is not the case for most unwed teenage mothers. Teen pregnancy is almost a guarantee that the mother and new child will live out their lives in poverty according to the CDC. It is easy to be anti-abortion when you have a safety net. Yet the Bush administration, right wing Christians, and other people with nothing personally at stake continue to push for abstinance only sex education, which has been shown to do nothing to reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy. At the same time, Jamie Lynn Spears is on a publicity romp, glorifying teen pregnancy. To get back to the accusations of hypocrisy, Sarah Palin has advocated abstinence only sex ed while claiming to be anti-abortion, which is consistent until you notice her unwed teenage daughters pregnancy and have to question Palins parenting.

So while she is telling the rest of the nations women what is right for them she is either not practicing what she preaches or she is ironically suffering the consequences of the polices she supports, but not really suffering from them the same way every one else will. At the same time the Republicans are decrying all the public attention this is getting because its prying into a personal family matter and shouldn't be public, which is hypocritical because of the way in which the very same Republicans dug into the personal sexual lives of the Clintons during the Monica Lewinski scandal.

I applaud Sarah Palin for supporting her daughters choice to become pregnant and to keep her child. (Remember there is always adoption.) I just hope it can be a learning experience for her about the failings of abstinence only sex education even though it will not open her eyes to the deep personal consequences it has for far too many American girls and the resulting social costs to U.S. taxpayers.

Zer-0bama

During Gov. Lingles speech at the RNC tonight the crowd could be heard chanting "Zero," when Lingle attempted to answer accusations that Sara Palin is inexperienced by pointing out that neither Obama nor Joe Biden has any experience in an executive office. The red herring aside, I was immediately inspired. The number zero and the letter "O" are similarly shaped and to distinguish between the two, people and computers will frequently put a slash through the zero. I thought this could be a clever way for the Republicans to say "No," to Obama while also implying that he has no experience as a leader. It could be spelled as 0bama or as zer0bama and pronounced "Zer-obama." Hands off that, I am going to try to sell the idea to the RNC.

The NRA and the upcoming election

The NRA recently sent out a political advertisement that purports to be a survey of members political attitudes regarding gun control issues among other things. They say that this will be used to dispel myths about gun owners and to prove that gun owners are a voting block that needs to be catered to by the political elite. They obviously don't respect the intelligence of their own members since gun owners attitudes regarding gun control are not going to vary significantly enough to require a survey by a lobbying entity that they are members of. What is really going on here is the NRA is sending out anti-Obama propaganda to its membership. I filled out the survey and sent it back with a letter that chastises the survey makers for undertaking such an Orwellian propaganda campaign against their own members, and for filling the "survey" with straw men and red herrings. This type of propaganda is more insidious in a private communication like a letter since there is noone there to point out to the reader what is being done.

I am no fan of Obama but the far right wing nature of the politics of the NRA disturbs me. To me, being pro-gun is about freedom verses fascism, not about left verses right. The fact that John Bolton is a prominent member of the NRA and was given a hero's welcome at the national convention would be enough to raise questions about the motives of the NRA but that fact that they gloss over John McCain's anti-gun votes in their American Rifleman interview where he receives the NRA's endorsement leads me to believe that the NRA is more about promoting a Barry Goldwater type of politics rather than looking out for the Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans.