Feb 19 2008

I Am Scared And Need Advise

This is a personal essay/story so I understand if there is a lack of interest. But I am scared, have good reasons to be and need advise as I am in panic mode when I need to be calm. Those of you who can,please help me with your thoughts.

Yes I have been quiet for nearly 2 months now and I gave a partial reason several days ago – I have decided to move to Italy and that required self contemplation. I did not state the second reason out of fear of seeming vain. Well, I am vain or I would not have done what I did and that’s the reason I am scared.

After the accident (you all know about it so I’ll skip it) my face did not look the same. Sure make-up covered the once straight nose and the once matching cheeks – but in truth I have always loathed wearing a lot of make-up. A little lip gloss and I was out of the house – good to go.

So after much thinking about it and listening to a ‘friend’ talk about a plastic surgeon who did unbelievable non-invasive plastic surgery without going under the knife – I decided to do it. He uses fillers instead to plump up certain areas – botox and others.

It was not until I got to his office that it dawned on me given that given that only recently I have really recovered from a traumatic brain injury I sustained in the accident and so maybe this wasn’t the best idea. So I explained my entire medical history to him and asked if there was any possibility  I could be hurting myself through having fillers injected not too far away from where the head stops and the brain begins. “No”he said. I believed him. I was wrong.

This essay is not about all of the things that went wrong – including fillers that are migrating lumps around my head and yes, I do not know where they are going next, and no the surgery to remove them is too risky – I have checked. It’s about that he had no remorse for either such a botched job or that he has seriously threatened my health. I found that odd.

So I called him and called him and emailed him and went on boards where he posted (being the celebrity doc that he is) and generally became a huge annoyance to the point that my ‘friend’ told me he was connected with the Armenian mafia in Los Angeles and I should watch my mouth. My “friend’ I later learned takes kicks back for bringing in new patients and no longer takes my calls.

Two things happened today were related but not intentionally so. I was contacted my a major LA publication because I had emailed them so much about this doctor that they decided to do a piece about the dangers of celeb doctors and yes they are naming names.

My mouth flew open about two hours ago when a story broke that he and several other doctors have been federally indicted for fraud, kick backs – both giving and receiving – and – here is the kicker – targeting the mentally ill or people with mental issues – with their procedures as they are less likely to object. He is facing a minimum of 10 years in prison if convicted. In the meantime his office is very much in practice and I just received a called from the law firm who launched the case. I haven’t returned the call.

Which brings me to why I am scared.Its obvious really. Husband out of town. Armenian mafia. Already warned once. What do I do? Be calm and pretend nothing at all is wrong, I am in no way at risk? That is what I want to do but each and every cell in my body is screaming alarm  bells at me. Your thoughts?

Feb 19 2008

The Principle of Campaign Finance Reform

Big Ten Democrat, whom I greatly like and respect, says Barack Obama should opt out of public financing, and that he should do it now, while it is still early. Strategically, Big Tent is absolutely right. As he says, should Obama opt out now, while his opponent is Hillary Clinton, the corporate media won’t question it. Should he win the nomination, and only opt out once his opponent is John McCain, the corporate media will eviscerate him. The free pass they give him against Hillary Clinton, whom they have always despised, and cherish the thought of defeating, if not destroying, will not transfer to a runoff against St. Maverick; and it won’t matter that the Saint is utterly and completely full of shit. But I strongly disagree with the fundamental premise of Big Tent’s argument:

Unlike most good government types, I believe that until there is full public financing of political campaigns, the Democratic Party should NEVER give away an advantage when it has one.

If John McCain accepts public financing for his general election campaign, and the Democratic nominee does not, the Democratic Party will lose the moral high ground, and much credibility, on campaign finance reform. That McCain is a liar and a hypocrite won’t matter. What will matter is that the Democratic nominee will be opting out, while the Republican nominee won’t be. Many are saying we should not cede the financial lead, now that the internet and a cratering Republican Party have handed it to us, but accepting that argument would only prove that campaign finance reform was always about the politics of being financially behind, rather than about the principle of creating a politics of people. Big Tent’s ideal of full public financing will never come to be because campaign finance reform will be, effectively, dead.

As I’ve previously pointed out, John Edwards had less than half as much campaign money as did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; and the rest of the candidates had much much less. Similarly, it’s no coincidence that Obama’s emergence as the clear Democratic frontrunner came as he vastly outspent Clinton, after Super Tuesday; and as they court the increasingly important Superdelegates, he has given more than three times as much money as has Clinton to those Superdelegates who are elected officials. Forget debates, speeches, policy statements, and stands on the issues, the Democratic nomination is being determined by nothing other than money.

Some claim that the internet has so changed the game, and so enabled people to participate, that it’s really a question of the other campaigns better resonating with the people. Obama supporters, in particular, point to his donors averaging some $250 or so, which sounds very nice. Unless you actually consider the national poverty rate, the more than 35 million people who live under it, and the 38 million who are food insecure. The poor cannot afford $250 donations. Those on strictly fixed incomes cannot afford $250 donations. We Democrats talk about the elderly who have to decide between needed medicines and food, well how many of them can afford $250 campaign donations? And who was the candidate who spoke most often, most passionately, and in greatest detail about poverty in America? More than a tenth of our population lives in poverty, but how high a priority will they be to candidates who depend on campaign donations that average hundreds of dollars?

The most common argument in favor of the Democratic nominee opting out of public financing relates to the Democrats’ extraordinary ability to raise huge sums of money over the internet. This is supposed to prove that the Democrats are more pure, their money more clean, and their susceptibility to favoring pernicious private interests over the common good diminished. Let’s look at some facts:

As Public Citizen’s White House for Sale website explains:

Bundling describes the activity of fundraisers who pool a large number of campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) and individuals. Bundlers, who are often corporate CEOs, lobbyists, hedge fund managers or independently wealthy people, are able to funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws.

While there are disclosure requirements for bundling, they only go into effect when a bundler personally hands over checks. Most campaigns get around the disclosure provision by not having the bundler ever touch the checks. Mandatory disclosure of all bundled contributions – regardless of whether the bundler touches them – is the very least we can do to address this new way to evade disclosure laws. Disclosure of bundling activity could be achieved either through a new law from Congress or by an improvement in FEC regulations.

And for all the talk about the Democrats being able to raise tens of millions of dollars from regular folks, via the internet:

  • Hillary Clinton has 322 campaign bundlers, 19 of whom are lobbyists, and from whom she has raised a total of $104,571,988.
  • Barack  Obama has 359 bundlers, 10 of whom are lobbyists, and from whom he has raised a total of $101,429,497.
  • John McCain has 468 bundlers, 59 of whom are lobbyists, and from whom he has raised a total of $37,036,050; and I’m going to make a wild guess that if he opts out of public financing, those 468 bundlers are going to produce much larger numbers for McCain, in the coming months.

    • But even more disturbing, for any idealistic Democrat, is the way special interest money seems to be influencing the candidates’ policy positions. I’ll give but a few examples:

  • Clinton and Obama have each raised millions of dollars from the health care industry, which may be why nyceve recently wrote:

    I want to tell you my good friends, if you care about healthcare, if you’re uninsured (that’s 47 million of us), or underinsured, (that’s the rest of us), less cheerleading and more holding their feet to the fire is in order.

    I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and  you may already know this, but neither health plan is great. Truth be told, they stink.

  • Clinton and Obama have each raised millions of dollars from the banking firms involved in the sub-prime disaster, which may have something to do with the bad news in this interview of The American Prospect‘s Robert Kuttner and The Nation‘s Max Fraser, by Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!

    JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you outline the differences between-the major differences between the candidates? And it would be instructive also to talk about John Edwards’s policies, as well.

    MAX FRASER: Sure. Well, when he was in the race, Edwards’s plan was by far the most comprehensive and aggressive, insofar as it really committed the government to intervening on behalf of homeowners and resolving the crisis in such a way that it would keep people from losing their homes. Edwards called for a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates, a real kind of redoubled efforts to not only regulate the mortgage markets, but financial markets generally.

    Clinton and Obama fall short of that, and Obama falls short most significantly. He is the only one of the three who hasn’t called for a moratorium on foreclosures or a freeze on interest rates, which really are the most effective short-term measures that can be taken to keep homeowners in their homes. And beyond that, his plan calls for the least aggressive government intervention, the most limited spending to bail out homeowners and to especially borrowers who are at risk of defaulting on their mortgages and to help them restructure their loans in such a way that they’re affordable moving forward. And his plan actually really most relies on a pretty insignificant tax credit, which comes out to about $500 on average for homeowners, which might make a difference for those who are just barely falling behind, but not for those who are falling further and further behind.

    AMY GOODMAN: Max, in your piece, “Subprime Obama,” you talk about his three main economic advisers.

    MAX FRASER: Right.

    AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who they are.

    MAX FRASER: Well, there are these three young economists: David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman and Austan Goolsbee. Cutler and Liebman are Harvard economists who hail from the Clinton administration. Goolsbee, who does the lion’s share of the work on this issue, comes from the University of Chicago. They’re all centrist market economists, I mean, what you would call them Clintonian in their politics, and that’s really where they’re coming from. They are oriented towards, you know, market-based solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler writes about incentivizing the healthcare industry as a way to improving care. Liebman has endorsed the partial privatization of Social Security. And Goolsbee also is one of the kind of market faithful.

    JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, I’d like to ask you about Liebman in particular, because I think that, from what I understand, he is proposing a-has proposed for a 20 percent increase in the Social Security payroll tax to, in essence, create private accounts for all Americans. It would be like the equivalent of dues check-off for Wall Street.

    MAX FRASER: Yeah.

    JUAN GONZALEZ: It would be an enormous windfall for the Wall Street firms to be able to get that kind of a operation.

    MAX FRASER: Right.

    JUAN GONZALEZ: But it’s not clear-Obama has never said anything about this in the campaign trail, but his key adviser is known as the main proponent of this, right?

    MAX FRASER: Well, one of the-a proponent of it, that’s right, entirely true. And, you know, Obama, I think what he says on the campaign trail on various issues of domestic policy are, you know, not wholly in line with where these policy advisers are, but they clearly are animating where he stands on these issues, like Social Security and the housing crisis, most notably, I think.

    AMY GOODMAN: Robert Kuttner, can you weigh in here with these three economists that Max writes about in The Nation magazine, their significance, and especially on this issue of privatization of Social Security?

    ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, it’s very distressing. I mean, I think it was National Journal, recently came out with a rating that showed that Obama has the most left-of-center record, voting record, in the Senate. And yet, the advisers that he relies upon are-I would call them center-right. They’re basically free-market guys who want to use markets to somehow solve social problems, which is like squaring a circle. And I was just at a board meeting of the Economic Policy Institute, which is, you know, the most effective left-of-center think tank in Washington. Except at the staff level, he is not reaching out to progressive economists. It’s a fairly narrow circle.

    Same, of course, with Hillary. If anything, Hillary’s advisers are a shade more open to reaching out a little further left. And you worry that as attractive as Obama is, as inspirational as he obviously is, he might be very centrist as president, and you wonder whether this is him trying to be the Democratic version of John McCain, trying to tone it way down in order to reach out to independents, or whether this is what the man really believes, or whether he’s still a work in progress.

  • Obama and Clinton are the two leading recipients of campaign donations from the nuclear energy industry. Obama has already demonstrated that he will sacrifice the common good to the benefit of his nuclear industry donors, and as Beyond Nuclear‘s Paul Gunter explained, in that same Democracy Now! interview:

    PAUL GUNTER: Well, both Senators Obama and Clinton have basically displayed a lot of indecisiveness about all the concerns with nuclear power-its cost, the inherent dangers, the unsolved nuclear waste issue, the proliferations issue. But I think that what’s most notable about that clip is the evasiveness, the indecisiveness, that the campaigns have taken. And it’s also been reflected in legislation with both Senators Obama and Clinton.

    One of the main concerns is that both Clinton and Obama have very strong backing, financial backing, from the major CEOs from the nuclear industry. For Senator Obama, the chief executive officer, John Rowe, with Exelon Nuclear, Chicago-based, largest nuclear utility in the country; and Senator Clinton has strong financial backing from David Crane, who’s the CEO for NRG Energy, which is based in New Jersey. Both Exelon and NRG right now have got applications before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build new nuclear power stations in Texas. So it’s disturbing that both Senators Obama and Clinton left out nuclear in their Utah speech, but we’ve seen that basically this kind of indecisiveness, you know, being all over the board indicates that influence-peddling with the nuclear power industry is alive and well on Capitol Hill and in these presidential campaigns.

    And is it but a coincidence that because it has no major financial or lobbying power, one of the most promising new, renewable energy resources gets nary a mention on the campaign trail?

    • Now, of course, John McCain is simply terrible on health care, inscrutable on the subprime disaster, and an unapologetic fan of nuclear power; and, beyond that, of course, he’s simply sinister and deranged. But this is not about Democrats being better than John McCain, it’s about Democrats being right! Does anyone truly believe that the fundraising prowess of the Democratic frontrunners is significantly better or cleaner or more beneficial to the public than was that of the Republicans? Does anyone truly believe that “experience” and “hope” are immune to money’s corruptive power? The evidence clearly suggests otherwise. As Senator Russ Feingold has written:

    Because it costs so much to run for office, interests with big money to contribute to candidates or spend on ad campaigns are able to get special access in Congress. Campaign finance laws on the books are supposed to limit the power of wealthy interests, but the search for ever-increasing sums of money to finance campaigns has led politicians and both parties to stretch the rules and create new loopholes – not to mention promoting legislation that serves wealthy interests rather than ordinary Americans.

    If the Democrats do not stand on principle, when they have the financial advantage, they will never again have the credibility to promote campaign finance reform. Rather, they will continue to be as addicted to the same big money from the same special interests that have been poisoning our politics and destroying our government. They will continue to pursue safe, unthreatening incrementalist policies rather than aggressively pursuing the bold transformations that are required. And when the political wheel turns again, and the Republicans, with their much more accommodating approach to big money special interests, regain the financial upper hand, the Democrats will be locked out. Campaign finance reform will be dead. If, on the other hand, the Democratic nominee wins with public financing, when he or she could have spent much more, with a much greater financial advantage, by opting out, the possibility of selling and enacting full public financing will never be greater. That Democratic president would be uniquely positioned to truly transform our political system, and would be ready on day one to create change we can all believe in. And from such principled leadership, the Democratic Party, the nation, and the entire world will benefit.

    Feb 19 2008

    Midnight Thought on Electoral Reform


    This is the Burning the Midnight Oil Midnight Thought for tonight … which will be found in Burning the Midnight Oil for Electoral Reform … but not until later tonight (Monday).

    Posted here because … well, Docudharma blogs the future. Yeah, normally further ahead in the future than three or four hours, but if I didn’t already have this part in the draft diary queue, ready to go, I’d have no idea what I was going to say.

    And, yes, the two most important parts of the Midnight Oil are, first, the commentary that follows and, second, the diary roll, so what I’m giving you here is a Bronze Medal at best … but thems the hazards. I haven’t finished the diary roll yet, because I am still reading diaries, and I have no idea what direction the commentary is going to take. Third Place is the only part of the future I can see with any clarity.

    .

    ..

    …

    ..

    .

    Midnight Thought

    Is the present mess any worse than a National Primary, dominated by 30 second sound byte ads and providing a revenue windfall to television networks, both broadcast and narrowcast, and raising the hurdle for a grass roots popular campaign even higher than they are now?

    Well, heck, I don’t know. The present mess is pretty bad but … all in all, given the example that jumping up to the first Tuesday open date on the calendar does not, in fact, make you decisive, and given the example that breaking the rules agreed to by the state parties working together under the auspices of the National Democratic Committee is not the high road to massive influence …

    … it seems like we – we, here, means both the body politic in general and progressive populists in particular – would really would end up better off running the the next Open Primary under the current mess than as a National Primary.

    So, no, I don’t think that the present mess would be improved by a Mess Media Dominated National Primary (and I am not copyrighting that phrase … I’m releasing it into the Public Domain, so feel free to use it anywhere and everywhere without bothering with attribution … but do attribute it if you are running for President and making a speech … you don’t want to pull a Biden, after all).

    But, just because a Mess Media Dominated National Primary is teh suck, doesn’t mean the present mess is the best we can do. Oh, no, there’s plenty we could do better.

    And fighting for electoral improvement is, after all, an old Progressive Populist fight.

    The National Primary Calendar

    First, we can only put this rule into place the year after a Democratic President is elected, because otherwise nobody would dare aggrevate Iowa and New Hampshire.

    • March: the smallest ten states may hold their primary
    • April: the smallest twenty five states may hold their primary
    • May: the smallest forty states may hold their primary
    • June: all fifty states must have held their primary by the end of June

    Territories and Districts of Columbias are allocated with the smallest state in the system with a larger population.

    No presidential caucuses. A caucus is a reasonable way for a private organization to determine delegates to a convention to make decision, including electing delegates to a higher level convention … but the Two Main Parties are by no means just private organizations. The Two Parties benefit from substantial legal support and government electoral support for a Two Party System. Disenfranchising someone from voting for the nominee of their choice in the party of their choice because they are working a late shift … that flies in the face of progressive populist principles.

    And, yes, caucuses in some states, and Iowa in particular, have been effective party building exercises, but we do have to put the rights of populace ahead of partisan political interest, if we are progressive populists.

    And, yes, certainly if a party chooses to have caucuses for other purposes, they may do so, and if they choose to have it at the same day as Primary day in their state, they may do so, and if they choose to have hold each caucus at a location convenient to a Primary polling station, so that people may vote in the primary on their way into the caucus, they may do so … but its gotta be a Primary.

    No Disenfranchising Marginal Candidates

    Allocation of delegates may follow some complex mix of congressional district and statewide proportional allocation … as at present. However, if there is any threshold rule in effect, then there must be Optional Second Preference Voting (OAC Archive post).

    Under this system, in addition to voting for their first preference, any voter may also cast a vote for their second preference. If their first preference is eliminated under the threshold rule … or indeed, just because of the way that rounding works in the proportional allocation of delegates … then their second preference vote is counted.

    This can be done the hard way, or the easy way. This proposal is to do it the easy way. Apply the threshold, those under the bar are eliminated, and any of their second preference votes for those originally over the bar are added to the total.

    This eliminates the whole “how can you throw away your vote” appeals, and allows everyone to cast their first vote for the candidate they wish to be nominated … and also, their second preference vote either for the candidate that is second in their estimation, or if they wish the “top tier” candidate they dislike the least.

    Is that it?

    Oh, good lord, how could I write a Midnight Thought on Electoral Reform and completely omit Edwards’ Platform?

    All votes must be paper ballots, filled out by the voter’s action, and that ballot is the official vote for purposes of auditing and recounts.

    And, yes, if the vote is filled in by touchscreen in support of voters who cannot vote by pen and paper, the touchscreen machine prints out the filled in ballot which the voter can inspect before inserting it in the ballot box.

    My personal preference would go further, all the way to a normal democracy that counts its ballots by hand in the presence of scrutineers, but I’m not going to press on that point at the outset. However, a paper ballot, the direct result of the voter’s action, as the formal record of the vote … that is not negotiable.

    Is that it?

    Yup, that’s it. Waddya think?


    One Country (1990)

    …

    Who wants to please everyone,

    who says it all can be done

    Still sit up on that fence,

    no-one I’ve heard of yet

    Don’t call me baby,

    Don’t talk in maybes

    Don’t talk like has-beens,

    Sing it like it should be

    Who laughs at the nagging doubt,

    Lying on a neon shroud

    Just gotta touch someone,

    I want to be

    So don’t call,

    me,

    the tune,

    I will walk away

    …

    OK, so I lied, the Midnight Thought is the fourth most important part. But you got the Bronze Medal anyway, so waddya complaining for?

    Feb 19 2008

    Those Fighting Can Do It, CAN YOU!

    Fort Hood soliders breaking the silence in war in Iraq

    A growing number of active duty soldiers or recent Iraq war veterans are speaking up about the war in Iraq.

    And with the number of soldiers speaking up about their experiences in Iraq via online forums, blogs and pamphlets,

    some vets feel it’s their duty to let the American public know the truth.

    This occurred on the 17th, yesterday, outside of Ft Hood Texas, which has a rich history of action by Active Duty and

    recent Veterans of the Vietnam Conflict, back than one of many bases, around the country, as well as the world, and In-Country

    Vietnam!

    This Austin Texas News Channel seems to have fallen in behind these Soldiers, embedded links and all, with no negative reporting!

    ‘There is a cost to this war. This war is being paid in American blood, in my soldier’s blood. And that is not okay,’ Coppa said.

    ‘We lost really good friends, really good leaders who died in Iraq. From my perspective, it didn’t make any sense, we didn’t

    accomplish anything, and I talked to a lot of other soldiers who feel the same way,’ Fort Hood soldier Casey Porter said.

    Visit above link to read and Watch the Video Report

    This morning Army Sargent had this posted up at Vet Voice:

    Winter Soldier: What We Believe?

    Many of you don’t understand why I believe in Winter Soldier, or what I think Winter Soldier is going to be about. It’s hard to explain, especially when you find yourself coming up against gaps. You can read my piece in the SIT-REP, if you’re lucky enough to be by a base where that hot little newspaper is going around.

    There’s abit more, it was leading up to this Moving Video of what is to come next month in the Nations Capitol, Winter Soldier, March 13-16 2008

    WARNING: A few very graphic photos and descriptions

    Winter Soldier Iraq and Afganistan

    When I returned home Thomas, brother Vietnam Vet, of  Military Project-G.I.Special

    had sent out the following in the News Letter, it’s from an issue on 11-14-07, from an Active Duty Soldier, who might recognize it:

    Army Values

    “I Am Loyal To My Fellow Soldiers; I Do Not Want Them To Die In A Purposeless War”

    “I Am Loyal To The Constitution; A Constitution Which Is Under Attack By Men Who Have Not Sacrificed To Protect It”

    “Our Leadership Is Currently Dishonorable”

    A lot of people question how I can be a sergeant in the Army, giving my oath true weight, and believing in its values, and still be a member of IVAW.

    It’s easy.

    I believe in the Army’s purpose-it is to defend our country and protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    I don’t think its purpose is foreign wars we can’t win.

    Its true purpose is noble, and has been subverted by armchair soldiers, politicians who have never had to serve.

    They don’t know these values, and they don’t live them — but I do.

    And here’s why they support, rather than contradict, what I’m doing now as a member of IVAW.

    Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and fellow soldiers.

    Nowhere in this list does it say “the current leadership of your country, and their political decisions”.

    I am loyal to my fellow soldiers; I do not want them to die in a purposeless war.

    I am loyal to the Army; I do not want it to be weakened on multiple fronts and taken away from its true purpose, defense of the nation.

    I am loyal to the Constitution; a Constitution which is under attack by men who have not sacrificed to protect it.

    I bear true faith and allegiance to these, most particularly the Constitution which founded our nation.

    Duty: Fulfill your obligations

    Our highest obligations as soldiers is our obligation to our country and the flag we salute. Our obligation as citizens and patriots compels us to defend our country in any way we can — against its destruction as well as its dishonor.

    The Iraq War, and the way it is being prosecuted, dishonors us in the eyes of the world, and even worse, dishonors us to ourselves.

    Respect: Treat people as they should be treated.

    Treat the people of the United States as well as the people of Iraq with respect.

    They deserve to be treated according to their status: if they are prisoners of war, then treat them with the full dignity accorded POWs. If they are criminals, then give them trials.

    Innocent until proven guilty: we do not lose our values when we step away from our shores.

    Selfless Service: Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.

    Being a member of IVAW is hard.

    It is hard to stand up, to devote effort and time to an organization committed to what is right, when your leadership so firmly believes that it is wrong.

    It’s hard to face the intimidation and harassment that many members of the active duty military face when they begin to speak out on what they feel. It’s hard to stand up and tell your higher ups that they are committing crimes.

    But the welfare of the Nation, our continued survival as an honorable country, and the continued survival of the Army depends on some of us standing up, and saying, “Sir, no Sir!”

    That we will not participate in illegal acts, and we will report them when and where we see them.

    We will not train our soldiers to commit them, and will train our soldiers to follow the honorable path.

    And the honorable path now, the hard service, means standing up and speaking the truth, so that legislators can begin to realize it, and bring us home.

    Honor: Live up to Army Values

    Honor is living up to all the Army Values, but it is even older than that. It is the thing you have when you have nothing else left. It is all you need: it should be the cornerstone of a soldier.

    It is phrased as living up to all the Army Values, because if you lack even one, you cannot be an honorable soldier.

    It is the ability to look yourself in the mirror at the end of the day and know you have done all that you can, and that you have not had to reproach yourself for anything.

    Our leadership is currently dishonorable.

    By their bending of the torture legislation to allow what they want to take place, they are attempting to put a stain upon our honor that will take at least a generation to erase.

    As soon as our soldiers have fulfilled their usefulness to them, leadership shuffles them away, with “personality disorders” instead of PTSD treatment.

    Benefits are cut, while contractors reach huge rewards.

    This is not taking care of the people who have given their all to the country.

    It is dishonorable, and the only way to restore that honor is to stand up against the people who are doing so and will do so again.

    Integrity: Do what is right, legally and morally.

    The things that the political leadership of this country are trying to do right now are neither legal nor moral.

    The acceptance of torture, the belief that once Americans go beyond their borders, they no longer have to hold to the beliefs that shaped our nation, ‘baiting’ with weapons caches, and other such tactics at the very least skirt the fine line of legality: they are definitely not moral.

    Claiming that it is okay to treat people dishonorably because they are not an organized force fighting against us is simply wrong, as is the argument that they are not citizens and therefore do not deserve the protections of the Constitution.

    We are the good guys!

    We do the right thing, even if others don’t, and if our leadership does not understand that, it needs to.

    It needs to pull out of this war, and cease its immoral actions, to bring itself in line with the country’s beliefs and principles.

    Personal Courage: Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or moral)

    It does not take physical courage to stand up and fight against injustice in this fashion.

    Most members have not been physically attacked — the cowards who attack people for their beliefs have gone after a father of a dead servicemember instead (Carlos Arredondo).

    But it does take moral courage.

    It takes moral courage to stand up for what you know to be true and right, moral courage to say that the country is steering in the wrong direction, and you are committed by your oath to turn it around.

    It takes moral courage to resist a war that your leadership believes in, or to stand against your entire platoon and state that you will not treat a prisoner with anything less than full dignity.

    And it takes moral courage to be counted, here, to let people insult you for perceived cowardice, when the truth is that you, like I, may not be against all wars, all places, all times.

    But hopefully you, like I, like many committed and dedicated members of the military community, are against this one.

    In the leadup to the present Winter Soldier we get words from one who participated in the one of the past.

    Joe Bangert, Smedley Butler VFP, Star of  “Winter Soldier” and “Sir! No Sir!” speaks at the Moonakis Cafe, Falmouth, Mass- 2/9/08- film by Paul Rifkin and David Souza:

    Joe Bangert, a Vietnam Vet, of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace, who gave testimony at the 1971 Winter Soldier Hearings, lays the groundwork for Winter Soldier 2.

    JOE BANGERT, WINTER SOLDIER

    Visit  IVAW-Iraq Veterans Against The War

    Feb 19 2008

    The Weapon of Young Gods #11: The Morbid Frieze

    I spent the first few minutes of 1996 trying not to come. I had Nadia up against a smooth section of an otherwise roughly stuccoed wall, and the soft, wordless rhythm of her voice brushed past my left ear as I tried to postpone the inevitable. The surrounding air’s dry, cool bite was more than tempered by the warmth of her breath, combined with everything else radiating off us, and my self-control melted a little more. I tried to focus, but the night had been so long and debilitating already that I was ready to accept the careening rush into oblivion.

    Previous Episode

    UPDATE: Edited a bit per helpful suggestions…

    Soundtrack (mp3): ‘The Morbid Frieze’ by Low Tide

    After leaving Olivia’s party under a cloud of guilt, we’d hurtled up Del Obispo and then Del Avion in the Altima, charging over the hills straddling Dana Point and Laguna Niguel. I’d guessed where Nadia was going once she blew through a yellow light at Crown Valley and rocketed up Pacific Island toward the hilltop. Once out of the car, she’d exploded in wild waves of  jealousy, overcome by the same old importunate paranoia that was always so close to her surface these days.

    Show me Roy, she’d pleaded as we crunched over the gravelly Aliso Peak trail, past the half-finished mansions that had almost burned down two months ago. Show me that you haven’t fucked off with any college girls while we were separated all this time. Show me you love me, show me you want me and only me, she begged, as we threaded the trail above the burned-out canyon. Show me right here, Roy. Show me now.

    So I did, and was still trying to, but probably not for much longer, as Nadia dug her chin into my neck, her voice rose a note or two, and the irreversible spiral of sex began to overwhelm me. Suddenly, though, her voice seemed to jump from careless ecstasy to something like surprise or maybe fear, and her breath held the beat for a few bars before some signal fought its way into her brain and she began to scream.

    Or tried to. My senses hadn’t totally abandoned me and for a split second I stifled the worst of her noise with my right hand before she bit down in a manic attempt to do the same. The sharp pain from her teeth released all my other sensory receptors as she and I fell apart and landed in the dust. I hit my head sharply and felt the dirt begin to cling to my skin. My eyes were shut tight and a weird mixture of adrenalized, painful pleasure shot through me as I took maybe five seconds to right myself and look at Nadia.

    She had fallen the other way and was as half-naked and dirty as me, but had wrapped herself in a tight ball with her small arms, shivering from fright and cold as she fixated on a point halfway up the wall not far from where we lay.

    “Jesus, Nadia, what’s wrong?” I tried to sit up but my head swam in the effort. “What happened? Are you o-”

    “Shhh!” She cut me off and pointed wildly. I looked, and at first couldn’t figure out what had frightened her. Few streetlights worked in this brand-new, uninhabited neighborhood, and anyway there weren’t any on this side of the property (rendering it an otherwise prime make-out location). I had to wait a bit for some moonlight, and even then the stucco was laid on so thick that discerning detail was tough.

    Then I saw it. Embedded right next to the smooth section of the wall, barely hidden by the sprouts of a small seedling and bathed in the dim moonlight, was the faint outline of what looked like the bones of a human hand and arm. Blobs of plaster distorted it here and there, but when I got closer it was unmistakable. I stared and stared, forcing my brain to process it, but deeper, malevolent things instantly tried to crawl out of old nightmares and claim their share of attention. I fought them off by forcing myself to think my way through my old tenth-grade anatomy textbook.

    “Wow… is that, uh… do you think it’s…?”

    I was answered by the sound of retching. Nadia’s shaky “I don’t know” peeked out of the chilly silence a few moments later. What I could see of her face had gone very pale. “I don’t fucking want to know, either.” Nadia coughed out a few more dry heaves, began to gather her jeans up from around her right foot and stepped down clumsily a few times with her left before finally getting her leg in. “Roy, let’s go, right now. I can’t stay here, even if that thing really is not what it looks like. I can’t stay here with that image in my head.”

    I felt the same way, but I couldn’t take my eyes off the morbid frieze. I must have pulled my pants back up at some point, but I don’t remember looking down to button them or anything. It wasn’t until Nadia had made her way over and almost yanked my own arm out of its socket that I wrenched my eyes away to follow her back up the dark trail to the car.

    We tripped and stumbled, hustling without a word over the pebbly track. Removed a little bit from the reality of what I’d seen, an inexorable creepiness began to filter into me, and I started really running as I imagined the pinpricks of empty eyes on my back and tried not to listen for Spanish whispers. I pulled ahead of Nadia, dragging her along the last few steps, before collapsing against the car. I wanted to just jump in and leave, but we were both too tired to move any more. Fight-or-flight lost out to sheer physical and mental exhaustion.

    “Roy, I… feel …terrible,” gasped Nadia, with her hands on her knees, trying to catch her breath. “I can’t drive… right now, I just…can’t. I’m sorry…that thing just scared the living shit out of me and… I think you have to drive.”

    I was afraid of this, but still felt too mired in my own freakout to think clearly.

    “Well I can’t…do it either…dammit,” I wheezed, but froze in the rictus of the hopelessly wrong once I looked up and received an immediate assault of piercing blue eyes and Ukranian righteous anger.

    “Oh, you’d better,” Nadia snapped, suddenly much more alert than I could ever hope to be, “and I think you will, too, unless you want to walk yourself back down the hill and all the way home.” She lost her breath again, but still coughed and sputtered with blooming indignation. “I’m sure you’ll have plenty of time to rehearse a great explanation for my parents when I don’t get back before dawn.”

    I slumped my shoulders in abject defeat, burning with embarrassment. She could tell right away, though, and seemed to recover a little patience. I closed my eyes and waited for it, but it still took Nadia about five more minutes to change course.

    “Roy, please, I can’t. Please take yourself home first, and I’ll try to be able to drive myself after.”

    I sneaked a glance at her, but now she showed only apprehension. I relented, opened the door for her, walked around, and got in the driver’s side. I was still grasping at coherence a little later as I carefully, soberly steered the Altima back down the hill, with a jumble of stimuli emerging from the ether to besiege my senses all the way home: Chris Addison yelling, the salty smell of my bloody knuckles, flickering shapes in low light, Olivia’s whispers in my ear, a stale whiff of vomit in the back seat of Derek’s Civic, wet tears balancing the sting of smoke, Nadia’s scream, R.J. babbling away in Spanish, frantic TV reports of the fire from two months ago.

    Nadia’s mechanical goodnight kiss brought me back to reality. I stood in my stepfather’s driveway watching her car creep away, no longer thinking about staying sober or about Derek Haynes or Lisa Arroyo or my sticky underpants or hot tubs or Olivia’s hands on me or anything like that. I’d even pushed Nadia out of my brain by the time my head hit the pillow, and unwillingly dwelled on one thing and one thing only for the rest of the night- so much so that I’d gone back up the hill the very next day and looked in vain for the place we’d been, for the distinctive grubby hole, the exposed metacarpals, and the gentle ridge of stucco that looked like someone’s arm. I looked almost all afternoon, wandering all along that damn wall, but never found it, and I couldn’t understand why.

    I never forgot it, though- hell, for the next month or so, even back at school, when I couldn’t fucking sleep at night, not at all. Nadia and I found reasons to not call each other as often, I quit the intramural soccer team, my class attendance went to shit, and I barely partied with my few friends in the dorms because I was constantly delirious with sleepless fatigue from new nightmares, about disembodied arms coming to get me, strangling me while I slept; of featureless, faceless Stucco-Things mucking out of the walls and smothering me, suffocating me in silence, muffling my screams with their pasty, semi-solid hands.

    Feb 19 2008

    Pick a number

    Everybody’s very intrepidly attempting to conjure the current delegate count. Of course, the problems with Superdelegates, Florida, and Michigan make it difficult to decide which standards apply, but there seem to be more different totals than applicable standards.

    CNN has it at Barack Obama 1262, Hillary Clinton 1213.

    Jerome Armstrong has a pledged count of Clinton 1127, Obama 1119, with Superdelegates at Clinton 240, Obama 140.

    Covering different bases, MSNBC has Obama at 1078, 1128, or 1306, with Clinton at 969, 1009, or 1270.

    The New York Times has Obama 934, Clinton 892, and also gives the AP count of Obama 1275, Clinton 1220.

    Real Clear Politics has Obama 1302, Clinton 1235.

    The Washington Post gives Obama 1280, and Clinton 1218.

    Confused yet?

    And while I thank everyone who is trying to figure this out, the real story, as usual, is not even being discussed; the question is this: if all these intelligent, assiduous efforts are coming up with so many different results, how screwed up is the Democratic Party’s nominating system? We’re talking about a presidential election, and we’re talking about an in-house effort. This can’t be blamed on hanging chads, butterfly ballots, Diebold or Katherine Harris.

    Given the level of vitriol and distrust that is poisoning the partisans of both candidates’ camps, wouldn’t a clear, transparent system of determining who is actually winning, and by how much, be of some benefit? This is a mess. This is the Democratic Party’s mess! Whoever wins this nomination, the DNC needs to radically reorganize the process. It might even be a good idea to make the results explicitly based on the clearly counted total of the popular vote. At this point, we don’t even know for sure what that total is.

    Feb 19 2008

    Pony Party: Long Weekend

    So, I’m probably on the road, or perhaps on the ferry. Hope y’all are having a fab Monday!

    Feb 18 2008

    the world, as it should be… according to me

    I swore that when I had kids, I would NEVER give as an explanation because. My mother was famous for it. Me: Why??? Mom: Because. If she really wanted to make the point (and a power play), she’d say because I said so. arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    Well, I never had kids. But I did end up with a few step kids. At first, any interventions on my part were always accompanied by explanation. I was a quick study though. I realized they didn’t care WHY. They’d ask and ask and whine and complain and ask WHY again a thousand times. But they never really wanted to know why. They were only interested in what they wanted and finding a way to actualize it. They used my explanations as an opportunity to stage never-ending debates, refuting all of my very sensible and very adult-correct thinking.

    Mothers. They do know what they’re doing. It just takes years to figure it out. There’s not much after the old because I say so.  

    I joined the establishment on this one. I can tell you. However, I did elaborate on the technique, just a bit. I’d say “because” and explain that I couldn’t explain. Adults are compelled to stop kids from doing things. There isn’t any rational reason WHY. It really is “just because.”

    That seemed to confuse them enough to change the focus and the topic. Fast, pull out the playing cards or suggest a walk through the woods. Distraction. And a funny kind of honesty. Worked most of the time.

    I pull this lesson into practice after surveying the upheaval of the last seven years. And I realize people who don’t agree with each other, in the fundamentals, don’t often hear or care to hear how one rationalizes their beliefs. They don’t care about WHY.  And “because” ends up being: because you’re an asshole, that’s why.

    The crazy thing is that most of us seem to agree on concept. Like killing is bad. Abusing people and animals is bad. Not helping those who can not help themselves is wrong. You know, the 10 commandments et al. God…

    PhotobucketBut while the words sound the same, there is a black hole of difference apparently. For example, some (not all) people who describe themselves as pro life would vote for pro life candidates, regardless of the candidate’s support of the death penalty and/or war with Iraq. To me, that’s wrong thinking. To them, I’m wrong in my pro choice stance AND I’m wrong in opposing the death penalty.

    How do you argue with people like that? Clearly, I’m right. Further, I see this as my intellect vs their DNA.

    For me, it has become about our ability to reason past a survival response that doesn’t work in the world we’ve created. It is another epic battle in a seething universe. A structural change. Thought-evolution as a response to instincts gone awry. Tribal conventions scaling up to global dimensions.

    This is how I make sense of things that I find otherwise hard to explain. I mean really. George W. Bush and everything that name conjures: the power-driven, the sycophants, the torturers, the theocrats, oil companies, the chemical industry (including big pharma), republicans, homeland security… No matter how you slice and dice it, most, if not all, of the constructs of these people/groups have dire consequences. Climate-altering. Politically-altering. Influence and affluence-altering. Species-ending.

    So I ask myself, why? These people have access to the same information as I do. We share the power of observation: lighting and tornadoes in February. Rising sea levels. Drought. Over 1 million people dead in five years and inciting another 100 years war.

    I mean why would anybody with all that power and access to knowledge/data/information skimp on safety precautions at chemical plants and nuclear power plants? Why would industries poison the Great Lakes?

    WHY? Because. Because they can. Because they don’t believe they will ever endure the consequences of what they have wrought. They’re all like 21-year-olds who smoke cigarettes, drink/drive, or do any of the multitude of stupid death-defying things kids do because kids don’t believe in consequences. Or death.

    WHY? I don’t know fucking why. Because. That’s why.

    What is clear: Being right doesn’t move mountains. The truth is situational. And nothing appears to be absolute… except maybe for nothingness.

    We need to find a different way into people’s heads.

    One other thing I’m thinking:  it is people like us who have probably caused the brutes and bullies to kill untold numbers of people. All to keep us quiet and everybody else afraid to even begin thinking in terms of what is really in their best interest.

    Because that is what this is all about. One’s best interest and how different groups of people interpret that very thing. This has never really been about right and wrong in the institutional/moral sense. But right and wrong in the survival sense. Survival produces its own ethic, its own morality.

    The way I think. The way I am. My sensibilities inform how survival looks to me. And I say it is this:

    Acting in one’s own interest is also acting on behalf of the sustainability of all earthlings and the ecosystems they need to survive.

    The side-choosing begins. The fight shifts, as it should, from right and wrong to forcing one vision (or version h/t buhdy) over another. Those who want to control the board (the old evolutionary model) and all its resources versus those of us who are the new ones… the consensus-builders and resource sharers.

    Simple, isn’t it? Why? Because…

    Feb 18 2008

    The Soul of America

    Crossposted from GentillyGirl

    So according to Dr. Morris, the networks in their crazed basketball frenzy keep referring to New Orleans as the “Soul of America”. Interesting considering how we have been treated post-Katrina/Rita/Federal Flood. Hell, I thought we weren’t worth the thought about the Future. (Thanks Bush Administration.)

    We here in New Orleans are the Soul of America. It’s not about the French Quarter or the drinks on the streets, it’s about our belief in our Culture, our History and our Future. To live here, I mean truly LIVE here takes one to a place of acceptance and worship. What we have here cannot be imagined in most of the localities of America. We are our own.

    I live this Reality day by day, and I thank the Goddess that She sent me home years ago. I had to be a part of this scenario… have to be a witness. Seattle: fucking Californication, Portland: being carved up as I type, San Francisco: god damned dot-com yuppies forced us out. I know… I was there for most of this shit.

    All I have left is my hometown, and I’m not willing to let the bastards win, period. I’m like a creature backed into a corner, and it’s my turn to strike back. This is my home and my folks… I can’t back down.

    For years I’ve fought for others, but this is what She wanted me to do: Fight for Her city. I see her statue on Decatur, and She tells me to fight. Therefore I fight.

    New Orleans is a place that inspires. It also is a haven for those of us who no longer wish to face assimulation. We are ourselves, and what can be more realistic than that. We live… and love, and welcome  those who are searching for a safe-place.

    Our world here is something that cannot be sacrificed to corporate desires or the entertainment crowd. We live as we always have. Our world is an anachronism, and yet, we are America’s hope. This is the last place to be assimulated to the corporate vision of the Borg. We are ourselves: Sinn Fein.

    Betty and I are sworn to return, and soon it shall be so, but we did so because we believe in the culture here. We could have gone anywhere after the Flood, but we both agreed that we must stand for this wonderful place. Where else can a real Human Being live in our dessicated land? (Not any city I know of.) How could we look in a mirror if we just walked away?

    Everything, every one here… my soul screams for. This city has been home for my folks for almost three hundred years.  Far be it from me to abandon familial ties. I must stand for New Orleans and the Coast. This is a labor of Love, not only for the Isle d’ Orleans, but for the country I gave some of my life for.

    Wake up and understand: we are under attack from the elite 3%. Speak your voice and we can screw these fuckers to wall. Ya’s just gotta believe.  

    Feb 18 2008

    Four at Four

    1. The AP reports 140 Afghans killed in 2 days of bombings. “A suicide car bomber killed 38 Afghans at a crowded market Monday, pushing the death toll from two days of militant bombings to about 140. The marketplace blast, which targeted a Canadian army convoy, came a day after the country’s deadliest insurgent attack since a U.S. invasion defeated the Taliban regime in late 2001.

      Irony alert! U.S. Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, NATO’s top commander in Afghanistan, back in September expressed his doubt the Taliban was ever defeated. Bush never finished his first invasion before moving on to oil-rich Iraq.

      “The toll from that bombing in a crowd watching a dog fight rose to more than 100… The previous deadliest bombing in Afghanistan killed about 70 people – mostly students – in November, part of a record year of violence in 2007 that included more than 140 suicide attacks.”

      In addition to a record number of civilian casualties in 2007, last year was also the deadliest year for American troops in Afghanistan too.

    2. The Washington Post reports on Army moms in Short maternity leaves, long deployments. “Many female soldiers hoping to start families face the prospect of missing most of their child’s first year. The Army grants six weeks of maternity leave before a new mother must return to her job or training, and four months until she can be sent to a war zone. The Marine Corps and Navy allow from six months to a year before a new mother must deploy… Under that system, a woman who wishes to have a child and remain with her unit must conceive soon after returning home so she can give birth, recover and prepare for her next overseas tour. Female soldiers… say the tight schedule cuts short precious time for mother and infant to bond and breast-feed, forcing women to choose between their loyalty to their comrades — as well as their careers — and nurturing their families.”

    3. The Los Angles Times reports that Student’s deportation roils New Mexico town. Until last December, Roswell had largely ignored the immigration debate. But when “a school security officer stopped Karina Acosta, an 18-year-old pregnant Roswell High School senior, and discovered she was in the country illegally. He called federal immigration authorities, who swiftly deported her. The district superintendent protested and the officer was removed from the school and transferred back to the city Police Department. About three dozen angry students and parents marched on police headquarters — a notable event in a town not accustomed to controversy — and were met by a handful of counterdemonstrators who backed the officer… Two months later, unease permeates the community.”

    4. CBS 60 Minutes sent Morley Safer to Denmark in The pursuit of happiness.

      Over the past 30 years, in survey after survey, [Denmark] consistently beat the rest of the world in the happiness stakes. It’s hard to figure: the weather is only so-so, they are heavy drinkers and smokers, their neighbors, the Norwegians, are richer, and their other neighbors, the Swedes, are healthier…

      After careful study, [Professor Kaare Christensen at the University of Southern Denmark] thinks he isolated the key to Danish anti-depression. “What we basically figured out that although the Danes were very happy with their life, when we looked at their expectations they were pretty modest,” he says. By having low expectations, one is rarely disappointed…

      All education is free in Denmark, right on through university. And students can take as long as they like to complete their studies…

      Denmark also provides free health care, subsidized child care and elder care, a social safety net spread the length and breadth of the country… Christensen says the average work week is 37 hours, and workers get six weeks of vacation. But in getting all of these wonderful gifts from the government, the Danes do pay a price. Christensen says a middle income person would pay about 50 percent – half – in taxes.

      But not everyone is happy in Denmark. The International Herald Tribune reports Danish police arrest almost 30 people in 8th night of youth violence. “Nearly 30 people were arrested for setting fires to buildings, cars and trash bins in an eight consecutive night of youth violence in Danish cities, mostly in immigrant neighborhoods, police said Monday… It was not clear what triggered the unrest… Some observers say the youth are frustrated over police harassment and the reprinting of a cartoon lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. Danish newspapers reproduced the drawing on Wednesday to show their commitment to free speech after police foiled an alleged plot to kill the cartoonist who created it.”

    A risky and controversial plan to save coral reefs from extinction is below the fold.

    1. Corals May Get Help Adapting to Warmer Waters, according to the Washington Post.

      For decades, rising sea surface temperatures have been driving out and killing the algae, called zooxanthellae, that give reefs their often-spectacular color. That has left behind the lifeless, bleached skeletons built by clustered colonies of thousands of corals. Meanwhile, the oceans’ growing acidity, caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the water, impedes the biological processes that allow corals to create their limestone structures.

      Those changes have devastating effects on the intricate collaboration necessary to build a coral head or reef or fan. That process is the product of a symbiotic marriage between the tiny marine creatures that are corals and even tinier single-cell algae that take up residence in corals and provide them with nutrients as the algae take in energy from the sun and photosynthesize…

      Scientists have learned that some corals seem to resist warming temperatures better than others. Andrew Baker, a University of Miami marine biologist, is about to embark on an experiment aimed at learning whether scientists can help corals adapt by providing them with symbiotic partners better prepared to cope with waters that are growing warmer largely because of the buildup of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

      Some corals have evolved to do this on their own, over a long period of time: Now, researchers want to see if they can speed up the process.

      “It’s controversial; it’s high risk,” Baker said last week. “But it’s really important we make the effort to try to show not only are we monitoring the situation, but we’re trying to do everything we can, literally, to make sure there are as many corals as possible left to save.”

    Hah! There’s a sixth story today. No one could have predicted that… I didn’t even give a hint of such above the fold.

    1. In the Los Angeles Times is a story about Cancer and the bacterial connection.

      Germs can teach our bodies how to fight back against tumors. Dr. John Timmerman, a cancer immunotherapy expert at UCLA’s Jonsson Cancer Center, says this revolution has produced “the most exciting sets of compounds in cancer immunology.”

      These scientists have not yet proved their case. But new studies are revealing that certain cancers may be reduced by exposure to disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and pharmaceutical companies are testing anticancer treatments that capitalize on the concept by using bacterial elements to boost the body’s natural immunity.

      The studies also imply that our cleaner, infection-free lifestyles may be contributing to the rise in certain cancers over the last 50 years, scientists say, because they make the immune system weaker or less mature. Germs cause disease but may also fortify the body, a notion summed up in a 2006 report by a team of Canadian researchers as “whatever does not kill me makes me stronger.”

    Feb 18 2008

    Outsourcing Torture? It Depends.

    cross posted from The Dream Antilles

    Photobucket

    Torture At Abu Ghraib

    It depends on what you mean by “outsourcing.”  If, like me, you’ve been assuming that “interrogations” of detainees prisoners at Guantanamo and the “black sites” were all being conducted only by CIA employees or uniformed armed forces personnel or at the very least US government employees, you’re probably making a mistake.  The facts seem to be that “interrogations” have frequently been conducted by “contractors” and not by government employees.  That’s right.  Arguments about what the CIA’s employees can and cannot do don’t directly address what contractors can do any more than US law determines how prisoners are to be interrogated after they are extraordinarily renditioned illegally extradited to other countries.

    Follow me behind the facade.

    In November, 2007, the WaPo reported that a suit by 200 Iraqis against abuses by contractor “interrogators” at Abu Ghraib in 2003 could continue:

    A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that a civil lawsuit alleging abuse and torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq can go forward against a U.S. military contractor, setting the stage for what could be the first case in a U.S. civilian court to weigh accountability for the notorious abuses in 2003.

    U.S. District Judge James Robertson denied CACI International’s motion to dismiss a civil lawsuit on behalf of more than 200 Iraqis who at one time were detained at the Abu Ghraib prison. The Iraqis allege that the contracted CACI interrogators took part in abuses and that the company should be held liable for the harm inflicted on the detainees.

    Attorneys for the Arlington-based CACI have argued the company should be immune from such a lawsuit because it worked at the behest of the U.S. military, but Robertson said he believes a jury should hear the case, in part because CACI had its own chain of command and might not have answered directly to the military. /snip

    Susan L. Burke, a lawyer representing the Iraqi detainees along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, alleges that CACI interrogators were responsible for numerous abuses. Burke also filed a similar lawsuit against Blackwater for wrongful death over the Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad. /snip

    Military investigations of the Abu Ghraib abuse linked CACI interrogators to alleged abuses such as the use of dogs in interrogations and putting detainees in painful “stress positions.“

    The lawsuit, which remains pending and is apparently unique in getting so far toward a trial, makes the point that the “interrogations” weren’t conducted solely by CIA or by army personnel.  No.  Not at all.  In Abu Ghraib, the claim is that contractors were abusive. Contractors, as opposed to US employees, have been accused of abuse torture.  Is Abu Ghraib an isolated venue for contractor use?  Apparently it is not. Is Abu Ghraib an isolated venue for abuse?  Apparently it is not.  Evidently, the CIA uses contractors in a host of situations and in various locations to conduct their “enhanced interrogations.”

    In February 5, 2008 testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, CIA Director Mike Hayden admitted to using contractors for “enhanced interrogation” at the CIA’s secret prisons, the so-called “black sites.”  The Q&A:

    FEINSTEIN:  I’d like to ask this question: Who carries out these [enhanced interrogation] techniques? Are they government employees or contractors?

       HAYDEN: At our facilities during this, we have a mix of both government employees and contractors. Everything is done under, as we’ve talked before, ma’am, under my authority and the authority of the agency. But the people at the locations are frequently a mix of both — we call them blue badgers and green badgers.

       FEINSTEIN: And where do you use only contractors?

       HAYDEN: I’m not aware of any facility in which there were only contractors. And this came up…

       FEINSTEIN: Any facility anywhere in the world?

       HAYDEN: Oh, I mean, I’m talking about our detention facilities. I want to make something very clear, because I don’t think it was quite crystal clear in the discussion you had with Attorney General Mukasey.

    As Hayden pointed out, “In many instances, the individual best suited for the task may be a contractor.”  And you’ll note the waffling around about “detention facilities” as compared to some other kind of “facility.”

    What’s this blue badge green badge talk? “Green badges” are contractors and there are two kinds: individuals, who are contracted by the CIA, and those who work for a corporation under contract with the CIA.  For quite some time, the CIA has directly hired its former employees and other experts individually as contractors.  Since 9/11 there has been an increase of corporate contractors without whom the CIA probably could not function.  Put another way, some of the CIA’s important functions have been “privatized.”

    Because of this, Hayden was asked about whether “enhanced interrogations” had been “outsourced.”  He denied it:  

       HAYDEN:  This is not where we would turn to Firm X, Y or Z, and say, This is what we would like you to accomplish. Go achieve that for us and come back when you’re done. That is not what this is.

       This is a governmental activity under governmental direction and control, in which the participants may be both government employees and contractors, but it’s not outsourced.

       FEINSTEIN: I understand that.

       HAYDEN: OK. Good.

       FEINSTEIN: Is not the person that carries out the actual interrogation, not the doctor or the psychologist or supervisor or anybody else, but the person that carries out the actual interrogation a contractor?

       HAYDEN: Again, there are times when the individuals involved are contractors, and there are times when the individuals involved have been government employees. It’s been a mix, ma’am.

    In other words, the “governmental function” of “enhanced interrogations” is not necessarily carried out by government employees.  Oh no.  In Bushco’s America in some cases it’s carried out by private contractors.  This evidently is not new news.  The issue has been around for some time.

    In 2004, the Baltimore Sun reported that contractors were acting as interrogators:

    The U.S. military’s use of private contractors for the sensitive task of wartime interrogation marks a sharp shift from traditional practices and is raising difficult issues of accountability as authorities investigate the alleged role civilian workers played in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. /snip

    But critics say that reliance on nonmilitary personnel undermines a key safeguard – the threat of punishment. While U.S. soldiers allegedly involved in the acts face a military court-martial or other sanctions, the legal status and possible penalties for private workers are far less certain.

    Two federal laws adopted in the past decade – each intended to protect Americans abroad – could be used to pursue charges against private military workers overseas, legal scholars and military experts said yesterday. Neither statute has been tested in any situation like the Iraqi prison abuse.

    “The whole status of private contractors is murky,” said law professor Scott L. Silliman, executive director of Duke University’s Center on Law, Ethics and National Security. The growth in the use of private contractors to fill even the most sensitive military roles has in some ways outpaced U.S. law, he said: “It is an area of great concern.”

    In other words, the privatization of enhanced interrogation torture not only pays private corporations and individuals for performing governmental functions, it also intolerably undermines legal accountability for abuse and for torture.  Criminal legal accountability under the two available, federal statutes requires prosecutions by US Attorneys.  To the extent that no such prosecutions have been commenced, the “privatization”, the “outsourcing” shields torture crimes from all accountability.

    Feb 18 2008

    Wither the Fourth Estate?

    Is this man laughing at you?

    Photobucket

    .

    Well. We are rapidly approaching some awfully critical events in the world of domestic and foreign politics. The denouement of the Dem primary battle, and at least a mini-showdown on a few of the fronts where the Democratic Congressionals are FINALLY opposing Bush. It sure feels like Pakistan is going to get interesting, and Iraq is reminding me of the old movie line “it’s quiet……..too quiet.” Despite all of the tensions behind the scenes having to do with the ineffective puppet Govt. And the Oil law, and the Turks and the Kurds….etc. It is going to be quite a ‘interesting’ spring and summer. And then we have the general election that will (at the VERY least symbolically) shape and determine the fate of the world for the immediate future.

    And of course during all this…the world is building hundreds of new coal burning power plants and huge numbers of cars and doing all it can to pretend that the ice caps aren’t melting.

    And presiding over it all will be the Fourth Estate, the media.

    The corporate owned media. The self interested media, the conflicted of interest media….what we used to call, the NEWS media….will decide which pieces of information you receive. Will decide which narratives to spin. Decide how each event will be framed. How each new development is perceived. Decide which story to tell the world. Will, in that way, decide how the world reacts to these possibly monumental events.

    In some ways the Wolf Blitzers and the Brian Williams’s and almost certainly Rupert Murdoch….have more influence on the way things will go than those actually generating the events they cover. In an interesting application of the idea that ‘All politics are local,’ the events themselves tend to be somewhat localized. The perceptions of events that are then broadcast, in large part determine the cultural…and thus political reaction. By picking and setting the narrative, by broadcasting their reaction to events, they are in essence telling us how we should react. And most definitely telling the politicians and participants….those who are required to react…..  What their reactions should be.

    The media have become our story tellers and our interpretors of the myths and meanings of all that happens in our global village, in effect, the shapers of our reality. All we have after all, to shape and understand our reality is the information that each of us takes in on a daily basis. And even the smartest and sharpest among us cannot analyze and process and integrate that now massive amount of information on our own. In olden days, the Wise…the Elders would perform that function. And in olden days, they had the time to consider just how to do it and the effect of their interpretations of events in relation to the culture and its myths. Now, we receive a never ending shotgun blast of new myths and interpretations and attempts at pre-programming our responses hourly and daily.

    There is not time to thoughtfully respond to events or to try to discuss, question and change the framework that the events are presented to us in. By the time rational thought even has a chance to surface, we are on to the next rapid fire iteration of sensation stimulating artificially enhanced emotionally barbed…’news story.’

    Yes we are fighting back on the blogs as much as we can. We are trying to do our part to temper and change the myths and memes that are inflicted on the public like a plague in order to sell headache remedies that you can apply directly to your forehead in the commercial breaks between the presentation of the representation of reality that is giving you the headache. But the blogs reach a TINY portion of the eyeballs and cortex’s that TeeVee does.

    So it comes down to this.

    You cannot change the world unless you change the perceptions of the world, and by extension the reactions to those perceptions. And as long as our (cultural) perceptions and reactions are influenced so greatly by…if not controlled by, in the case of those of weaker mind and curiosity….The Powers That Be: Media Division, we will have immense difficulty building and maintaining a different….better….narrative….and healthier myths, for the global village.

    How do we do that? How do we wrest control of the narrative away from those who are currently determining it through the way they present and frame “The News?”

    It is at least as important a question as who to elect or how to prosecute their brethren in our current executive branch, if not more so.

    Reality IS determined (at least to some extent)by war between two rival groups of programmers. How can we win that war?

    Load more