I’ve read about this before but never read a better explanation of this notion than I did last night in Meteor Blades’ diary, What Matters Isn’t the Photos, It’s the Torture.

And before I quote this comment, I’d like to ask that those reading this consider it as if it were true, whether it is or not.  Yeah, good luck to me, lol.

The comment is from dengre, and I’m blockquoting three comments in this thread (emphasis mine):

It is about the torture

and the rule of law. It is also about tactics to get to justice. Many do not agree with the tactics that the Obama Administration have been using. They would prefer something like a Pickets Charge on the issue as oppose to a more subtle and comprehensive legal strategy. I prefer the latter and that is what I think President Obmaba is doing.

One issue of concern is the Obama Administration filing legal briefs to continue Bush Administration arguments about various issues. If they did not do that then the Bush view would loose[sic] in Court, but it would be a loss based on withdrawal and the very dangerous legal theories of the Bush era–like the Unitary Executive–would never have their day in Court and would not face complete repudiation.  And so I think these cases need to be pushed forward as a tactic to take on the worst legal ideas of the Bush years. We need to know which of these ideas the Supreme Court would uphold so that Legislative restrictions (and/or a Constitutional Amendment) can be crafted to make sure that we never again have a Co-Presidency like Bush-Cheney ever again. Torture is just another symptom of that disease.

(this reply by joanneleon)

That would be a smart and honest strategy

if this is indeed what they are doing.  But why could they not be more honest about such a strategy?  It would give people a lot less to worry about.  For instance, Greenwald is pretty good at interpreting what is going on and I don’t think he has offered this as a plausible scenario, though I could be wrong and may have missed such an analysis.

(dengre’s response)

I think Greenwald argues tactics

and that he favors a frontal assault on First Amendment Issues and has concerns about allowing a mostly Republican appointed SCOTUS deciding the issue. I think he has a very healthy distrust of power. He is a passionate advocate for a set of tactics to deal with the issue, but I think he sees some of the symptoms like torture or individual legal fights as the most important and urgent issue. It seems to me that President Obama sees the twisted legal theories of the Bush/Cheney years as the core problems–as the disease.

As a result I think they have both embraced different tactics and that these tactics are–from time to time–at odds with each other.

This is an “Eyes on the Prize” fight. And victory (IMHO) is the complete destruction of the perverted views of power that were the foundation of the Bush/Cheney years.

My two cents for whatever it is worth.

So this is what I want to discuss.  Join me beneath the fold if you’re interested.

Sometimes while prowling back alleys you find things that don’t bear the light of day, brass ritual cymbal turns out to be a trashcan cover, exotic seafood dinner is really rotten fish guts.

Yet perhaps there’s some truth to these lies.

Here in NYC the sun has gone down.  That’s the time to prowl.

You’re in kindergarten and some strange large being is telling you about reading and showing you something called an alphabet.  And you go with the flow and recite all the letters and hear how they’re put together and daydream and look out the window and listen some more and sneak candy from out of your desk and make faces at the other children when the teacher’s not looking and take naps on mats.

And then one day you can read.  You look at a page with black squiggles on it and all of a sudden they’re not squiggles any more, they’re words and you can read them.  You’ve taken the leap.

I figured I’d look to the bloggers in the diversosphere I admire most when it came to the Sonia Sotomayor nomination, so I checked out the blogs of the editors of the recently received NAM Journalism award for journalism in ethnic media, Sanctuary.

Sure enough, Manny, from Latino Politico and Nezua from The Unapologetic Mexican had something to say.

From Manny:

I could go into how excited I am to see a Latina be considered for the SCOTUS, the first in this country’s history and only the third woman (because I am beaming), but the buzz-kill has been rather abrupt from the seeing this accomplished and competent judge attacked for those very things that I consider a source of pride.

It should be a source of pride to everyone.

Conservatives like to talk about bootstraps and how important it is to refrain from whining about ones situation. Well…Sonia Sotomayor couldn’t be a finer example of putting the nose to the grindstone despite all the societial odds stacked against you and making it.

But as we’ll see in the coming days, she is an “intellectual lightweight” despite having a long and stellar career on the bench. She will be attacked as a person of color who has the audacity to uphold affirmative action laws not because they’re the law, but because she’s looking out for her people. The media’s whiteness will show in all its unholy glory.

An example of this mindset can be found during today’s broadcast on NPR’s Morning Edition. Ed Whalen, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wasted no time on getting that talking point out into the mix right at the onset. There will be no holds barred with this nomination process.

The conservative movement’s success at derailing Sotomayor’s placement on the Supreme Court is hinged on causing white backlash against her identity and making her out to be a token latina/affirmative action candidate instead of the qualified, capable judge that she has proven to be over the years.

As a blunt blogger friend of mine likes to say, “Bet on it.”

So you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  If you don’t succeed, you haven’t pulled yourself up by your bootstraps.  If you succeed, you will never be good enough.  Meh.

It’s fashionable now for even the right wing to invoke how wonderful Martin Luther King was, now THERE was a nice gentleman!

I remember at the funeral of Coretta Scott King, the talking heads on the teevee were aghast at the Reverend Lowery’s eulogy where he dared bring up … gasp! … politics!

A brief example:

“She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar,” Lowery said. “We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.”

I remember the discussions at the orange about this and was shocked when there were many who agreed Lowery was out of line saying such things at a funeral.  Propriety was important.  This did our cause no good.  Etc., etc.

Of course, Martin Luther King didn’t hesitate to call folks out at a eulogy he gave for the young girls killed at the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing:

And yet they died nobly. They are the martyred heroines of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity. And so this afternoon in a real sense they have something to say to each of us in their death. They have something to say to every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows. They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. They have something to say to a federal government that has compromised with the undemocratic practices of southern Dixiecrats and the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing northern Republicans. They have something to say to every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice. They say to each of us, black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American dream.

See, Martin Luther King won his struggle, in the sense of changing the frame of how Americans view civil rights.  I’m not saying the struggle is over, but the moral force of his message is such that even the most bigoted folks will give lip service to respecting him.

But it wasn’t so clear at the time.

Amid all the various woes and glooms about the state of journalism today, a bright spot has appeared.

Sanctuary, a wonderful blog whose editors represent the cutting edge when it comes to work on educating and enlightening folks on migrant issues, is to receive the NAM journalism award for journalism in ethnic media.

If you have a chance, go over and give them some love and congratulations.

If you want to know why they’ve received the award, I suggest you read this outstanding post, written by the Editors, entitled The Luis Ramirez Murder: A Logical Step in the Process of Establishing a Subhuman Class.

These writers are changing the face of journalism — individual bloggers who got together and pooled their talents to create something new in the world.

Congratulations to Nezua, Kyle, Duke, Edmundo, Kai and Kety.

I’ve been spending quite a while following certain events, news, and writers on the issue of torture.  I’ve written some essays, poems and comments as well, but looking back there’s a real beginning for me on this and that was getting involved in the Special Prosecutor Project and the view I got from that, way more than anything I’ve written.

Seeing Bob Fertik post a question at Obama’s .gov website and then seeing George Stephanopolous ask Obama the question on teevee.  That was quite an amazing experience.

This effort was driven by so many different groups of people, from all areas of the political spectrum.  From my corner of the liberal world, I paid particular attention to the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, and, of course various bloggers who educated me on not only the facts but the politics and political strategies of confronting the issue of torture.

This week there’s been an explosion of traditional media attention on this issue.  From Nancy Pelosi’s involvement, dragged into the fray by the Republicans and the CIA, to the Whitehouse Judiciary subcommittee hearings earlier this week where I had the interesting experience of seeing Lindsay Graham literally speaking out of both sides of his mouth, to the controversy over Obama deciding to fight the release of the DOD torture pictures, everyone’s chattering now.

I’ve also seen this issue covered very differently in the diversosphere, where torture is not the top story for those who have had to face this kind of behavior by the USA for generations.  That view is stunningly different.

In some ways the moral high ground on this issue is clear — torture is wrong.

In other ways, the moral high ground is bitterly contested.

(crossposted from orange)

(h/t to Lady Libertine, who got me thinking about this)

The ACLU fought and won the case to force the Department of Defense to make public by May 28, 2009 “photos depicting the abuse of prisoners by U.S. personnel.”

There’s been a lot of pushback regarding the release of these photos.  I have no reason to believe otherwise, yet I wonder if those who are part of this pushback will succeed in keeping the pictures from being released.  Guess we’ll find out by May 28.

And when they are released, what will we do?  How are we to look at these pictures?  How can we prepare ourselves so that this is not just some sensational political event, but a somber confrontation of man’s inhumanity to man?

Do you know what it means?  Old Buddhist question, do you understand the words and do you understand the meaning?

The great Indian prince Naropa was tops in his field, of high renown, and everybody granted him great respect and obedience, no one wanted to tangle with him because he was the greatest of the scholars at Nalanda University and he would decimate their puny arguments, yeah, he had proven himself a great scholar and great teacher, all that.

One day he was sitting in his room and a really ugly woman appeared before him.  He was revolted by her, she was that ugly!

She asked him, “Do you understand the words and the meaning of what you are reading?”

He answered, “I understand the words,” and stopped there.

An amazing thing happened!  The woman began to laugh and suddenly she transformed in Naropa’s eyes to not being ugly at all, yeah, she looked rather beautiful all of a sudden.

Naropa thought to himself, “This is amazing!  If she’s this happy with my answer then I should make her even more happy!”

And he said to the woman, “AND, I understand the meaning!”

Now another change occurred.  The woman stopped laughing, the corners of her mouth turned down, and she began to weep, and she became even more ugly than before.

Naropa was perplexed!  And even more perplexed when the woman accused him of lying, the reason for her sadness.

Long story short, Naropa realized the woman was right.  He left Nalanda University, left his high seat of prestige and sought a teacher who could help him understand the meaning.  Well that’s a whole other story, Naropa’s meeting with the crazy Tilopa.

That is a saying my mom used to use a lot.  Or maybe she didn’t, and it was my brother who said my mom said it.  Being the youngest of six children, well I don’t always have the facts straight.

But I could picture her saying it, as she had a tough life, yet always appreciated anything to be optimistic about.  Granted, she wasn’t a credulous person, so we couldn’t just make stuff up and lift her spirits.  But she was always ready to acknowledge a sincere effort.

I was fortunate to have her live long enough for me to be a comfort to her — when I was in my 30s.  For most of my childhood and adolescence, we were at loggerheads and it was a frustrating time for both of us.  But eventually I broke free of her authority (a story in itself) and when I returned on my own terms, we had so much to say to each other.

She loved it when I’d use stories from what we called “the Blue Book,” Jewish Wit and Wisdom, edited by Nathan Ausubel.  She loved stories, and there were some very wise stories in that book.  I could actually feel the light going on in her head when I’d apply one of the parables in the book to whatever situation she was talking about.  Made me feel good.

My mom was not in good physical health by that time, and yet she had a lightness of spirit in her later years that was never evident during the difficult years when she was struggling to raise six children with a problematic husband and no money.  (Not to diss my father, because he was quite an interesting character, but this story’s about mom.)

She told me once her biggest fear was not of suffering misfortune, but becoming bitter over it.  I thought that was very wise of her and was glad to see she won that struggle.  Her ability to find the light in the darkness increased even as her body wore out.

Anyway, her birthday would have been Sunday, May 3.  She would have been 93 (born in 1916).  She died in 1992, doesn’t seem that long ago, but time is funny that way.

Happy Friday to all.  It’s raining here in the Big Apple and I’m still taking the subway … so there, Joe Biden!

Wrote an essay a while back entitled Yin.  Definitions:

Yin originally meant “shady, secret, dark, mysterious, cold.”  It thus could mean the shaded, north side of a mountain or the shaded, south bank of a river.

Yang in turn meant “clear, bright, the sun, heat,” the opposite of yin and so the lit, south side of a mountain or the lit, north bank of a river.

From these basic opposites, a complete system of opposites was elaborated.

Yin represents everything about the world that is dark, hidden, passive, receptive, yielding, cool, soft, and feminine.

Yang represents everything about the world that is illuminated, evident, active, aggressive, controlling, hot, hard, and masculine.

Everything in the world can be identified with either yin or yang. Earth is the ultimate yin object. Heaven is the ultimate yang object. Of the two basic Chinese “Ways,” Confucianism is identified with the yang aspect, Taoism with the yin aspect

I think we are now in yang time, hard power, conflict in activity, aggressiveness, and most of all a fight for control.

Control of the narrative, we are seeing that both in the blogs and in the media.  Control of our national priorities.  Control of the moral high ground.

We’re receiving a great wave of information about torture, but that information is also about how power was exercised and control taken in the most brutal fashion.  The information we are receiving illuminates far more than the past eight years.  A lot of chatter has resulted.

Hard power.  Yin and yang are not separate, cannot be separate.   As the image shows: