Torture: Always Wrong

Today, Mark Filip, the administration’s nominee to be Michael Mukasey’s deputy, had his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And much like his future boss did during his hearing, Filip (like Mukasey, a former federal judge) treaded lightly, seeming deferential while also proving elusive on certain key questions.

Source ~ TPMuckraker

When Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA ) asked whether waterboarding is torture, he punted, parroting Mukasey’s answer exactly. Like Mukasey, Filip called the practice “repugnant.” But stopped short, explaining that since Mukasey is conducting a review, he couldn’t “get out in front of him on that question.” He added: “if I am confirmed… I would view it like any other legal question and take a long hard look at it, and if I had a view other than his, I would tell him so.”

Kennedy responded that after what Mukasey went through at his hearing, “We thought you’d be able to give a response.”

Source ~ TPMuckraker

Repugnant.  Well, I suppose that’s one word for it.

Like rape or murder, perhaps, also repugnant.  But illegal or immoral?  Can’t say. Need to “take a long hard look at it” and think about it, and then say.

22Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

23And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

Matthew 27:22-23

Let us torture first, and ask questions later.

When Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) pushed Filip on the Justice Department’s recent stance that Congress had to sit on its thumbs until the Department finished its probe of the CIA’s destruction of its torture tapes, he got pretty much the same result. To Specter, the issue is clear (see video below) that Congress has “pre-eminence over the Department of Justice on these investigations.”

Specter asked if Filip agreed. He dodged: “I would hope, Senator, that I don’t have to pick between the two.” Some sort of agreement could be worked out with Congress, he said. When Specter tried again, all he got was “I would work very hard to find common ground.”

Source ~ TPMuckraker

Let us look for “common ground.” (Let us ignore those who have been tortured at our hands, let us ignore torture that has been paid for with our money, and done in our names.  Let us look for “common ground” on torture.  To me, there is none.)

But Specter said that he remains optimistic. He spoke with Mukasey the day before, he said, and hoped that conversation was just “the beginning” of more discussions.

Source ~ TPM Muckraker TPMuckraker

“Just the beginning.”

25Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

(Matthew 27:25)

Do not think, even for a nanosecond, that I equate terror suspects with Jesus Christ.  I am a 5th generation New Yorker; my childhood next door neighbor burned to death in the North Tower. Other friends escaped death by serendipity.  I am also a devout Christian — and a proud American — and as such, and as a human being, I am profoundly against torture, in any form.

27Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

28And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

29And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

30And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

31And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

(Matthew 27:27-31)

There is nothing remotely American, remotely patriotic, remotely debatable about torture.  It is wrong, always; plain and simple. And I am sickened, horrified and disgusted beyond measure that it is even a subject of discussion, in the Congress of the United States of America, in 2007.

Their blood is on us.  All of us.  Until we say NO.  

CIA to Release Videotape Docs to Senate Committee (Updated)

(@12 – promoted by buhdydharma )

In a turnabout, the CIA said “it would begin handing over documents to Congress about the destruction of videotapings showing the harsh interrogation of two terror suspects after the House Intelligence Committee threatened to subpoena two agency officials,” according to a breaking story from Associated Press.

This comes after the bombshell revelations earlier yesterday that at least four administration officials, including David Addington, Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales, were involved in discussions about what to do with these incriminating videotapes. dday had an excellent diary on this earlier.

The turnabout also comes after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said he was going to subpoena former and current CIA officials and attorneys if they didn’t agree to appear before the committee. The agreement by CIA apparently also includes agreement on the testimony of CIA general counsel John Rizzo, the official who is said to have ordered the destruction of the tapes, though CIA won’t commit him to a specific date.  

According to the AP story:

The committee’s announcement is another sign of increasing tensions between Congress, the judiciary and the White House over the interrogation tapes. Congressional overseers are angry they were not fully informed of the tapes and their destruction, and want to know what else they have not been told. A federal judge has summoned Justice Department lawyers to his courtroom Friday to determine whether the destruction of the tapes violated a court order to preserve evidence about detainees.

Reyes also wants the CIA to make available CIA attorneys Steve Hermes, Robert Eatinger, Elizabeth Vogt and John McPherson to testify before the committee. Former CIA directors Porter Goss and George Tenet, former deputy director of operations James. L Pavitt, and former general counsel Scott Muller are also on his list.

Reyes also denounced the Justice Department for trying to interfere with Congressional investigation into the matter, when the CIA inspector general sent a letter to his committee last Friday, telling Congress to suspend its investigation, arguing (speciously) that such an investigation would interfere with the joint Justice Department/CIA internal (bullshit) investigation into the matter.

It would be folly to believe that victory here is total. It’s not clear Reyes will get all the participants the Committee wants to agree to testify. Also, it would be hard to believe that the CIA will not turn over highly redacted “documents”, much less all the relevant documents.

Still, the speed of this about-face speaks to the intense heat flaring around this scandal, with its tentacles so obviously extended up into the Oval Office itself. Today’s story comes on the heels of the announcement by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that he would order a hearing into whether the Bush administration violated a court order, breaking a great many laws thereby, by destroying in November 2005 the interrogation videos of suspected Al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Judge Kennedy, too, had to confront Justice Department warnings to back off. Vyan had a good diary on this aspect of the scandal yesterday.

The AP story ends with an amusing (to us) bit about Dana Perino’s pique on the New York Times article that pointed to the White House.

White House press secretary Dana Perino called the Times story “pernicious and troubling.” In a tense back-and-forth with reporters, Perino was adamant her opposition to one of the headlines on the story that said: “White House role was wider than it said”….

She said the headline made it appear that the White House had been misleading the public.

“The White House has not commented on anybody’s involvement or knowledge, save for me telling everybody that the president had no recollection of being briefed on the existence or the destruction of the tapes before he was briefed by (CIA Director Michael) Hayden,” Perino said. “After that, I did not comment on anybody’s knowledge or involvement. So if somebody has information that contradicts the one thing that I’ve said, then this would be true – but it’s not. And that is why I asked for a correction and The New York Times is going to correct it.”

Update: Scott Shane at the New York Times has an article up now covering this new aspect of the tapes story (Tapes-gate?). He emphasizes that the appearance of “Jose A. Rodriguez, who as chief of the agency’s clandestine service ordered the tapes destroyed in 2005” is not a done deal. There might have to be “complex negotiations over legal immunity”, due to that dubious DoJ/CIA internal review. Reading between the lines, it seems Bush/CIA are hoping this will cool things between the Administration and Congress, i.e., keep this out of the headlines.

The agreement marked at least a partial resolution of a standoff between the Bush administration and Congress….

In a conciliatory statement Wednesday night, Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said the department has “no desire to block any Congressional investigation” and has not advised the C.I.A. against cooperating with the committee…..

A C.I.A. spokesman, Mark Mansfield, said the agency’s director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, was eager to accommodate the committee as it performed its oversight role…..

An intelligence official, offering more details on condition of anonymity, said the top-secret documents would be made available either on Capitol Hill or at the agency, as soon as the logistics could be worked out, as early as Thursday afternoon.

In a final show of just how incapable, though, the administration is of talking straight on both torture, and now this latest cover-up of its crimes, Judge Mark Filip, Bush’s nominee for deputy attorney general, apparently told his Congressional interviewers yesterday that “he might have counseled the C.I.A. not to destroy the tapes.”

“It might be the better practice to keep those in any event, given the interest in the subject matter that was on the tapes,” Mr. Filip told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Nothing like principle to make one give a strong statement of right and wrong.

Also posted at Invictus and Daily Kos

I’m a Grandpa! So Indulge Me.

OK. I know this is a political site, not Facebook or MySpace, and that, given the state of the world, there are certainly more important things for me to be using my share of pixels than talking about my family. But tonight I can’t help myself. My first grandchild has arrived. If you haven’t already guessed, that’s her to the left.

She was born by c-section on December 17 in Manchester, England, and weighed in at 7 pounds, 1 ounce. Her name is Mariam Ahmed al-Musaud al-Hashim. Mariam is the name of her mother’s mother, and also of her father’s other wife. (Yes, my stepson’s father-in-law is a polygamist.)

There is, in our house, a special kind of joy from this birth. As many of my on-line acquaintances know, my wife taught English to nuclear engineering students in Libya for three years after marrying a Libyan. In 1983, she divorced and her ex-husband kidnapped her two children, smuggling them out of the United States on false Afghan passports that were easily available at a time when the United States was aiding the mujahidin war against the Soviets. The children were 3 and 2 at the time. He took them  to Libya and refused to allow my wife to see or even talk with them.

Politics, including the U.S. bombing of Libya, the bombing of Pan Am 103, an economic embargo, conspired to make it impossible for us to track down her children by traveling to Tripoli. In a Catch-22, the only way she could obtain a visa from Libya was to get her ex-husband’s permission. Which, obviously, he would not grant. The U.S. State Department was more of a barrier than a benefit. Finally, 10 years ago, a trip to Tunisia to visit my wife’s former sister-in-law helped break the ice. For one thing, we learned that the extended Libyan family of my wife’s kids – and the kids themselves – had been told their mother was … dead.

In 1998, after years of grasping at every straw in an attempt to reunite with her children, my wife joined a group of British mothers in similar circumstances and traveled to Libya. After three tense days, with her ex-husband doing everything he could to keep the children away from her, my wife’s former sisters-in-law forced the issue. In a reunion that someone thoughtfully videotaped, the children were brought to her. Fifteen years had passed since they had seen each other. What followed was what my wife later called the best two weeks of her life.

In 1999, she returned for another visit. And in 2000, the four of us met in Malta, which has been a crossroads of east and west since the time of the Phoenicians and is a short haul from Tripoli. In 2001, my wife’s children came to the United States to visit. After six weeks, they returned – on September 6 – to Tripoli. Shortly afterward, as the United States geared up for war and many Americans began looking at Arabs and Arab-Americans through narrowed eyes, my wife’s son called to say he wished to come to the United States and live with us while he attended college. This he did. In 2005, when he married a British-born Libyan and moved into his own apartment, his sister arrived from Libya to take his place in our house, where she still lives. Last year, he and his wife moved to Manchester, where her family lives.

Needless to say, all this would have made for interesting times under any circumstances. But with two wars going on, with young Muslims (and their families) getting extra attention at airports, with rendition and torture being justified, with the Constitution being selectively dismantled, with neoconservatives talking about the “long war,” and the “clash of civilizations,” with ethnic hatred resurfacing in public discourse, and with Libya going from pariah to America’s new best friend, we cannot but feel we have had a front row seat at a cultural and political crossroads in world affairs. Often, it hasn’t been easy. Some people we thought were friends turned out not to be. Others unexpectedly went out of their way to make my stepchildren welcome. There are other stories with political implications, too, and perhaps I’ll tell some of them another time.

For now we’re basking in the joy and energy that comes from being new grandparents. Indulge me if I wax pollyannish  knowing that Mariam will get to learn Libyan-Arabic, Italian, Spanish, and two brands of English. And that, like other children of mixed heritage, she’ll have a rich upbringing and a chance to leave behind much of the racial and ethnic and political crap that has afflicted people of her American grandparents’ generation.

The Stars Hollow Gazette

Assault On Reason, Time Excerpts

American democracy is now in danger-not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The “well-informed citizenry” is in danger of becoming the “well-amused audience.” Moreover, the high capital investment required for the ownership and operation of a television station and the centralized nature of broadcast, cable and satellite networks have led to the increasing concentration of ownership by an ever smaller number of larger corporations that now effectively control the majority of television programming in America.

(W)hat if an individual citizen or group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But too often they are not allowed to do even that. MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad for the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast to express opposition to Bush’s economic policy, which was then being debated by Congress. CBS told MoveOn that “issue advocacy” was not permissible. Then, CBS, having refused the MoveOn ad, began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the president’s controversial proposal. So MoveOn complained, and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporarily, I mean it was removed until the White House complained, and CBS immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the MoveOn ad.

Fortunately, the Internet has the potential to revitalize the role played by the people in our constitutional framework. It has extremely low entry barriers for individuals. It is the most interactive medium in history and the one with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another and to a universe of knowledge. It’s a platform for pursuing the truth, and the decentralized creation and distribution of ideas, in the same way that markets are a decentralized mechanism for the creation and distribution of goods and services. It’s a platform, in other words, for reason. But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets-through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it, because of the threat of corporate consolidation and control over the Internet marketplace of ideas.

Run Away! Cats!

If you’re one of those folks who hates all those stupid, moronic cat shot diaries, run away! If, on the other hand, you don’t mind a pootie pic or two, I’ve got a ton of ’em from being kind of stuck indoors with ’em a lot and having a digital camera. Here’s a few shots of two of mine, one of which I lost not too long ago. Before we check her out though…

This is Sweet Poo, when he was a kitten, given it a big yawn. I like to think of him as a male, feline Ella Fitzgerald though.

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

Sweet Poo is a Manx, so he really doesn’t have a tail. Well, he’s got a little stumpy thing. The Manx cat comes from The Isle of Man. Here’s the deal on that:

The Manx breed originated on the Isle of Man (hence the name), where they are common. They are called stubbin in the Manx language. They are an old breed, and tailless cats were common on the island as long as three hundred years ago. The taillessness arises from a genetic mutation that became common on the island

I wanted everyone to know this before I showed you these pictures of me and ‘Poo, goofin off:

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

And then…

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

Just so happens that one of Poo’s fluffy toys looks like it could be his tail! Hilarity ensues! (Yeah, I’m desperate)

He’s pretty smart, actually. Here he is, watching a dog show on tee-vee (Know thy enemy and all that…)

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

He’ll even fetch Q-tips, and bring ’em back, like a dog.

Anyway, lastly, here he is again, hangin’ around me, bored shitless…

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

This next one is the one who got me started with the manx breed. She was in the city animal shelter and my girlfriend showed me a pic of her online and this cat was hilarious. It looked like Adolph Hitler – little mustache under the nose – and it was screaming… Not in fear or anything, just “hollerin”. I thought surely someone would snatch her up. But no one did. As her days grew numbered, I couldn’t stand it and my girlfriend and I picked her up. I had no idea what the hell kind of cat she was – turns out she was a manx.

Let me tell you, she was a bitch!! She’d hop up on my kitchen table, then put her paws up on a chair – so she could get eye-to-eye with me… Then she’d SCREAM at me when she wanted something – like to play with some string, get fed, let out, whatever. She was like this little Mussolini cat and I have no idea why but I really loved that cat. She had 10 times more personality than 90 percent of the people you meet. And she wasn’t a bitch all the time – on the contrary she was really sweet when you picked her up and she had a good “motor” (purr).

She wasn’t de-clawed but she never used ’em on us. She was an incredible hunter though and pretty much every day there was a dead mouse on the back doorstep.(Delicious!) She had to earn her keep, she thought.

So of course after only having her around about a year, she was hit by a car (truck actually) right in front of my house. I’m pretty sure she died instantly; I mercifully didn’t see it happen. My neighbor called, I looked out and yeah. That was her. I had to bury her in my backyard and it really fucking sucked then and and it still sucks now.

Without further adieu, here is Cutlet rolling around on her back, in the dirt. When it comes to cats rolling in dirt, you’ll be surprised as an owner when you first see it, considering how clean they like to keep themselves usually, but all cats have a strange habit of doing it every now and again:

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

She looks kinda stupid there – but she wasn’t. That cat could open any door in my house. She was a fucking safe-cracker.

This next one she’s actually yawning. But it captures pretty well what she looked like when she’d scream at me:

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

This next one was taken the day before she was hit. I like it but it sure makes me sad.

Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com

Well, I have two more cats and a bazillion pics. If I don’t get flamed too bad for this essay, maybe I’ll save them for another day. Oh and feel free to leave a pic of your critter – feline or otherwise!

E.P.A. Denies California’s Emissions Waiver

Cross-posted from THE ENVIRONMENTALIST

(I’m having trouble figuring out if this latest Bush Administration move is cynical or arrogant or both…)

Just after the Bush Administration signed an auto fuel efficiency bill, they denied a request for a waiver by California to tighten their own emission standards.

The Bush administration said Wednesday night that it would deny California’s bid to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than federal law required as part of the state’s efforts to fight climate change.

The E.P.A’s decision was a victory for the American auto companies, and came just hours after President Bush signed legislation that will raise fuel economy standards by 40 percent to 35 miles a gallon in 2020.

More below the jump…

From the NYT article:

Had the E.P.A. agreed to the waiver, California and other states would have enacted rules requiring the auto companies to achieve a 30 percent reduction of emissions by cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles by 2016. The rules were set to begin taking effect with 2009 model year vehicles, some of which go on sale as soon as next month. Link.

California’s effort to adopt the new emission standards was halted by the E.P.A.’s refusal to grant a waiver for the last two years. Twelve states, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, then sued the E.P.A. to demand they make a decision on the waiver.

That is the decision that came down tonight — just after Bush signed an auto fuel economy bill that he praised as a step toward energy independence….

“This decision is like pulling over the fire trucks on their way to the blaze,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. Krupp has sent out a general e-mail asking everyone to send an email to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson to condemn the decision.

With the twelve states involved and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah saying they intend to follow California’s standards, as well, the next step would be for the states to sue the E.P.A. Given the prior court decisions over the past two years in the effort to get the E.P.A. to make a decision on a waiver, which resulted in rulings in the states’ favor, it is likely the E.P.A.’s position will not hold up. However, the amount of time involved for such a court process will likely have the same result the E.P.A. is trying for: to delay the implementation of standards as long as possible in support of auto makers.

The post continues at this link

WGA strike gossip Dec 19

Tempers are showing,

Award shows aren’t going,

Those words still aren’t flowing,

anyone HO-HO-HO-ing?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Substance below the fold.

Consumers Support the WGA has Proctor & Gamble’s addresses up — and she doesn’t have the flu, it’s a gall bladder thing. My SIL is dealing with that — we had a discussion last week over dinner about removing it through her bellybutton. She had a hard time with the concept, but hey, so long as her bellybutton is still pretty afterwards…

The WGAQ ‘Union Solidarity Fund’ is now officially the Writers Guild Foundation Industry Support Fund. UH reports that they’re accepting donations to assist non-WGA professionals affected by the strike, although info on how to apply isn’t up yet.

Cash For The Crew is raising money (raffling off autographed scripts) to help crew members affected by the strike, supporting the Motion Picture & Television Fund’s Work Stoppage Relief Fund. And StrikeSwag.com is still selling strike T-shirts, donating profits to the WGA’s Union Solidarity Fund Writers Guild Foundation Industry Support Fund.  

Firedoglake has an easy email letter tool, sending stuff to show producers, and I think you can still buy  pencils.

Some sites to check out for info:  

Nikki Finke, at DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com

UnitedHollywood

WGAeast blog

Livejournal fan supporters

fans4writers.com

Well, today’s big news is that when you change the fonts, text sizes, and colors on the computer, it’s like having a completely new machine on which everything is slightly (yet disturbingly) different. Also, it seems I have to watch (well, record) the Radio City Christmas Special at 11 tonight (on MSG) — my sister-in-law just announced that she wants to go see it (had a hard time with the concept that we’d need to know that in, like, August), and Dad found out that it’ll be on TV and thought it’d be nice to tape it for her. Where do I come in? Just in case Dad screws up and forgets. So that’s what I’ll be doing tonight.

Oh, right, the strike. It’s really more of the same today. Nikki Finke was called “Tokyo Rose” at a WGA-bashing Disney/ABC ‘Educational’ Strike seminar (for employees), and she’s not pleased. Also pissed at Variety, for not explicitly labeling an AMPTP ad as such, as well as for a delightful exchange in which a former journalist explains why she’s cancelling her subscription (with so much obvious bias re: the strike, how can she trust anything else they publish?), and is told that she’s been drinking the kool-aid. With respect.

United Hollywood got all activist today, with a post about FCC media consolidation (action link, more here) and something on the Writers Guild Foundation Industry Support Fund, which is accepting donations to support non-WGA members affected by the strike.

The WGA is starting to negotiate with independent producers, and will be talking with Letterman’s company on Friday. So far, I guess, we don’t know exactly what’s going on there.

Let’s see… there’ll be a rally at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor tomorrow… the People’s Choice Awards ceremony, set to air Jan. 8, is ‘sorta’ going on with a ‘new format’ (I like their statues). I love the part of the press release where they’re ‘excited to pilot a new format’ and ‘reinvent’ the show… Some other awards show stuff… and did I tell you about StrikeTV.com? It’s apparently going to be strike-supporting videos etc., starting in January… the LA City Council had a meeting about the strike’s impact on the city. The AMPTP sent a statement but no rep… and, um, I guess that’s it for the day.

Do liberals and conservatives think differently?

(cross posted from dailyKos)

OK, obviously we have very different opinions.  We’d like to think we’re smarter (whatever that means) but likely they think the same about themselves….. This isn’t about that.  This is about how the brains of conservatives and liberals work.  And it’s not based on ideology or opinion, but on scientific research

I subscribe to Scientific American Mind – fascinating stuff.

They had a brief article on a difference in thought processes between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals, it turns out, are better able to suppress habitual responses when faced with situations where the habitual response is incorrect.  Liberals are also more tolerant of ambiguity, while conservatives prefer more structure.  

That got me interested, and I pursued it to the articles that this short piece was based on.

The first reference was to Amodio, Jost, Master and Yee (2007): Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism Nature Neuroscience, 10, 1246 – 1247….(AJMY)

AJMY led me back to several articles and books, and it makes more sense to write this diary with those articles first.

Thoughts on how personality relates to political beliefs go back at least to Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality, which I haven’t read in a very long time.  

One seminal article in the field is much more recent: Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski and Sulloway (2003): Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129 339-375.

On another angle, is it possible that liberalism and conservatism could be partially in our genes?  It seems so, according to Alford, Funk and Hibbing (2005).  Are political orientations genetically transferred? American Political Science Review, 99 153-167 (AFH)

and those led me elsewhere, but that’s going to be it for this diary.

All these are behind various walls; I accessed them through a university where I work, so I’m not even sure which is behind what wall – therefore, I am going to be careful about how much I quote.  Abstracts, though, are fair game.

JGKS note that a meta-analysis



           

          sidebar 1: meta-analysis is a set of statistical techniques for

          combining different studies of similar phenomena

         


of 88 articles from 12 countries indicated that political conservatism is predicted by death anxiety (r = 0.50), system instablity (r = 0.47), dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity (r = 0.34), openness to experience (r = – 0.32), needs for order, structure, and closure (r = 0.26), integrative complexity (r = – 0.20), fear of threat and loss (r = 0.18) and self-esteem (r = – 0.09)



          sidebar 1: r is the correlation coefficient which is a

          measure of the linear relationship between two

          variables.  It ranges from -1 to 1; numbers above 0

          indicate a positive relationship (as one variable

          goes up, the other goes up); numbers below 0 indicate

          a negative relationship (as one variable goes up,

          the other goes down).  Numbers far from 0 (in either

          direction) indicate a strong relationship.  In

          psychology and social sciences, r below -0.3 or above

          0.3 are pretty strong<



In other words: Conservatives tend to be fearful and dogmatic, and to crave order and structure.

All this is rather controversial (which makes the AFH and AJMY studies even more valuable, see below).  One reason for this controversy is that some researchers have conflated two meanings of conservatism – the political and the psychological – into a messy amalgam of both.  Attitudes towards jazz, modern art, and horoscopes are probably not measuring the same core construct as attitudes towards the death penalty, tax structure, and abortion – the two constructs may be related (in fact, the research I report on here says that they are related) but they aren’t the same.

Two general characteristics of conservatives are 1) That they oppose change and 2) That they view social and economic inequality as benign, or even beneficial (thus, William  F Buckley once wrote an essay claiming that rich people were so valuable that, if there ever were a society where everyone were equally wealthy, they should randomly pick a small group and make them wealthy)

There are a variety of theories as to why people are conservative.  Some see it as self-interest.  There is certainly some face validity to the idea that the rich and powerful would oppose changes that might threaten their status, and would seek to justify inequality.  But this does not explain the phenomenon of poor conservatives (e.g. What’s the Matter with Kansas), nor of rich liberals (e.g. areas of San Francisco, NYC, and other places are full of wealthy liberals). JGKS posit that conservatism is due not to self-interest but to motivated social cognition; that is, one that emphasizes


the interface between cognitive and motivational properties of the individual as they impact fundamental social psychological phenomena

Thus, people who are fearful (whether rich or poor) fear change.  People who fear change seek to justify that fear by saying that the situation is either benign or even beneficial.  During slavery, many slave-holders justified slavery by claiming that it was the natural situation, or even that it was beneficial for Blacks (really!).  The various European colonizations were seen as bringing ‘civilization’ to the poor benighted regions of the world (you know, places like Africa, China and India that had no civilizations of their own /snark)

JGKS go on at some length about all this, and it’s interesting stuff. I recommend the article.  But it’s easy to theorize.  What about data?

If political views could be inherited, if they were somehow in our genes (even partially) that would indicate that there is, indeed, something real going on – something neural, something hard-science.  My training is in psychology and statistics, and I understand the mushiness of a lot of social science theorizing and model building.  The idea, though, that one could inherit political views is not taken very seriously by many.  To suggest this would invite laughter from many.  The only problem is, it seems to occur.  Readers of other diaries of mine will know my views on heritability quotients and the like (see nature nurture nonsense.  But AFS show evidence that there is some genetic component, by showing that monozygotic twins are more similar politically than dizygotic twins are, even after accounting for various other factors.

Even harder evidence would come from actual studies of the brain.  If the brains of conservatives are different from those of liberals, then something serious is happening; something that can’t be easily dismissed.  And those differences are exactly what AJMY show.  They asked people to self-rate themselves on a conservatism scale (one that has been shown to be highly reliable and valid), then they gave them a Go-NoGo task.  This consists of rapidly responding to a stimulus (or failing to respond).  The authors would repeatedly say “go” and expect a response, and occasionally throw in a “No Go” where the respondent was not supposed to respond.  Then they studied electroencephalographs as people did this task.  Liberals were better at the task, and


greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern

what does all that mean?  In brief, liberals will be better at Simon Says than conservatives 🙂  

Don’t give him my regards . . . Give him my respect.

(gorgeous piece… – promoted by pfiore8)

(cross-posted on Kos)

In the 1950’s, my Dad was the head counselor at a summer camp in in Pennsylvania. About 10 years ago, I ran into a friend who had gone to the camp.  After reminiscing for a few minutes, I asked him if he would like me to give his regards to my father.  His answer:

“Don’t give him my regards.”  He paused.  “Give him my respect.”

The comment captured his larger-than-life presence for generations of kids at summer camps and at the schools where he was a teacher and principal.

My Dad died on October 24 at the age of 91.  He was a quintessential member of the “Greatest Generation.” Born in 1916 to immigrant parents, he made it through the Depression, went to City College, served in W.W. II, took advantage of the G.I. Bill, raised a war baby (my big brother) and a boomer (me), moved to an “urban suburb” (Rockaway Beach, NY), worked two jobs — teacher and principal; and camp counselor and director.

Also, between 1973 and last month, he tenaciously and courageously fought his way through several heart attacks, a couple of “mini-strokes,” two multiple bypass surgeries, carotid artery surgery, gall bladder surgery (with complications), knee surgery and loss of most of his sight and hearing.  But another heart attack on January 1, 2007 began a series of events that even he could not withstand.  

In the Emergency Room that night, the doctor asked a series of questions to test his cognitive functions:  He aced “What’s your name?” and  “What’s your wife’s name?”  Then the doctor asked “Who’s the President?”  

His reply: “We have a President?”

We knew then that his mental functioning was fine.  

Following New Year’s Day, he was in and out of hospitals and nursing homes (Arden Wood Christian Science home provides nursing care on site and within the San Francisco Bay Area, and we considered them at one point too), with a few precious but difficult months at home with my equally heroic Mom.

I usually spoke by phone to my parents in the evening, just before 11:00, but Dad was now unreachable that late.  Because I’ve been blessed with the opportunity to walk to and from work through Central Park and midtown Manhattan, I talked with my Dad by cell phone as I walked.  

We talked on winter days with snow gracing the trees around Strawberry Fields, on gorgeous spring mornings with the emerging sunlight slanting through the trees lining Literary Walk , and on brilliant summer evenings with red sunsets dropping between the buildings west of the Sheep Meadow.  Out of the Park and on the midtown streets, I’d tell him what New York landmarks I was passing: the Museum of Modern Art, the Plaza Hotel, F.A.O. Schwartz, and points beyond.  Just after he died, I was very touched when one of the nursing home aides let me know that that they tried to time his morning or evening routines so that he’d be able to take my calls.

A lot of the time we’d talk about politics.  He’d often start with “So what’s going on in the world?” followed quickly by “Don’t answer that!”  — his recognition of the latest horrifying or merely depressing events unfolding that day.  Despite his failing eyesight, he was still reading the Times op-ed page up to just a few weeks before he died, and together we shared our disdain for David Brooks and our admiration for Paul Krugman. I became a walking “link” to the blogs, and Daily Kos in particular.  (I gave him an autographed copy of Crashing the Gate.)  He was proud that one of my diaries on Brooks’ loathsome piece about Gore) had been “recommended.” (That is, he was proud after I explained what that meant, and why, in our strange corner of the world, this is significant).  The very last book he began reading was the large type version of Obama’s The Audacity of Hope.

The rage and passion in my calls increased commensurately with the mounting abuses of the Bush administration, and my Dad actually became concerned that my health might be jeopardized by overwrought emotions.  I assured him that by writing comments and diaries, and otherwise being involved in campaigns, I had channeled my emotions in a healthy direction.

One of my last rants to my Dad involved the Telecom immunity bill.  Fueled by Glenn Greenwald’s brilliant exposition and righteous indignation, I described the issue to him in detail.  In particular, he was surprised and appalled that former Clinton administration officials, including an Assistant A.G., were lobbying hard for immunity.  What was especially galling was that the A.A.G. had been a camper at his camp in the 1970s!

“Nobody’s perfect,” I told him.

My Dad was born in bucolic Holyoke, Massachussets in 1916, and lived there until he was five.  He also visited there frequently after that, staying with his grandfather Max and his Uncle David, who had built a flourishing exterminating business.  In his teens, he was sort of an intern for them and developed a deeper understanding of poisonous gases and powders than most kids of his age.  He went on many bug and rodent jobs in the Holyoke/Springfield area, and remembered cleaning out one infestation in the Lowell, Massachusetts City Hall that turned out to have been caused by City Councilmen leaving their lunches in their desks for long periods of time.  

Fortunately for generations of school kids and campers, my father did not go into the exterminating business.  

Back in East New York, Brooklyn, he entered Junior High School and was elected class president.  Thus began his career as a campus politician. He went on to hold similar offices at Thomas Jefferson High School and City College.  He liked to say that he was elected because nobody else wanted the job, but we knew better.  His charisma and leadership skills then were the same ones that inspired people at schools, camps and elsewhere for the rest of his life.

His position as student government President at City College led to one of several close encounters he had with Eleanor Roosevelt.  Both he and Eleanor spoke at his 1938 commencement, and his photo was to appear in the Microcosm, the City College yearbook. However, at the last minute, a photo of Eleanor replaced his, illustrating the College’s inexplicably distorted sense of priorities.

One of my Dad’s lesser-known skills was making and working with marionettes.  He put on children’s shows, of course, but also delved into more serious adult fare.  I think it’s safe to say that his was the only marionette production of Clifford Odets “Waiting for Lefty” ever to be performed.  

He took his marionette skills to a summer job at a camp in 1935 – the beginning of his 45-year career in camping.  One evening that summer, he joined a round-robin ping-pong game that included some female counselors from a neighboring camp.  He and a dance counselor named Giselle ended up as the last two players, and the rest is history. After a whirlwind courtship lasting five years, they were married in Brooklyn in 1940.

After college, he had a variety of jobs, including as a New York City Board of Education teacher-in-training, running a mechanical pony ride at the 1939 World’s Fair, and teaching at a Yeshiva.  His incipient teaching career was interrupted by the start of the Second World War, and by 1942, he was in the service – a three-year hitch that took him to places like Biloxi, Mississippi, Denver Colorado and Hondo, Texas – but fortunately, not to Europe or the Pacific.  My older brother was born in July 1943.

After the war, he continued his teaching and camp careers.   While he was teaching at a junior high, he took a job as assistant director of the East New York Youth and Adult Center, located at his alma mater, Thomas Jefferson High School.  In the early ’50’s he succeeded to the full time job of director of the Center, where over 8,000 kids and adults took over 100 courses.   Summers he and my Mom continued their camp counselor careers.  I appeared in February 1948, and four months later, started my own camping career as camp infant.

In about 1951, we ventured out of Brooklyn to the beach community of Belle Harbor, and moved into a red brick house just a half block from the beach.  Also that year, Dad  became head counselor at the camp in Pennsylvania.  He left the Youth and Adult Center in about 1954 and a few years later, was appointed as Principal of P.S. 80 in Coney Island.  He stayed there for 17 years, and made the school an educational oasis in the poverty-stricken resort area.  For most of the same period, he and my Mom were directors of a girls’ camp in the Adirondacks.

In November, we had a beautiful Memorial Service for my Dad, which included tributes from people representing from all aspects of his life going back to the 1940’s.  There were speakers or written messages going back to the 1940’s from colleagues, teachers who worked for him, campers and counselors from his camps and Ethical Culture Society members.  A teacher at his school in Coney Island wrote:

His passing has revisited memories of a very caring and admired person whom I recognize today as the most distinguished gentleman I ever met.

A man in his late sixties who had been both a camper and a counselor at the camp praised my Dad in several extended  anecdotes, including this story:

In 1955, I was the captain of the “Green” team in color war [a week-long all-camp competition toward the end of the summer].  We won, and for a few days I was strutting around the camp, feeling not just good, but a little too cocky.  I was passing by HQ (the head counselor’s office) and he called me in.  He looked my in the eye and said, “Two days ago you were a hero.  .  . Now you’re an asshole.”  Rather than being offended, I took his blunt advice to heart.  That lesson in humility turned out to be invaluable throughout my life.

But the most revealing story came from a member of the Ethical Culture Society, who described a 2000 millennium activity in which everyone was asked to come to a board at the front of the room and write “the best thing about the 20th century,” anticipating responses like, “Aviation” or “The United Nations.”  

My Dad wrote simply:

                                                                                                                             

Giselle

This is What We Do

(@10 – promoted by buhdydharma )

Yeah, this is what we do.  We are citizen journalists.  Our media has failed us — for every good reporter and story there is a tsunami of dangerously false information being fed to the American public, causing human suffering and great damage that every blogger here knows the extent of all too well.

It is in this light that I write about something which may not seem terribly important in the midst of all the big scandals and campaign goings on.  But mark my words, this is important to us — as bloggers.

The NOLA blogs have been an invaluable source of real information for me since the Federal Flood destroyed America’s illusions on how much our federal government is willing to solve national problems.  Instead we saw our federal government head straight for the cash register and give out billions of our tax dollars and overwhelming federal agency powers to corporate and political cronies.

When the Federal Flood occurred, thousands of residents of public housing were forcibly evacuated from their homes, even though the homes themselves were not overly damaged in many cases.

And they were not allowed to return.

Now HUD and politicians in New Orleans are planning on demolishing this public housing, before real guarantees can be had that folks can have a home to return to in the so-called “mixed housing” that is being proposed.

The community has not been given the chance to give real input here.  Advocates for the poor, some of whom are truly humanitarian souls and others who are rabble rousers extraordinare, whose actions irritate as many as they inspire (for after all, poor folks rarely get slick lobbyists to represent them, that costs a bit, ya know), are trying to halt these demolitions.  One of the best things I saw was a video where a man simply stated these folks had leases and their rent was paid.  Think about that.  Think about being shoved out of your apartment when you had held up your end of the bargain, and not being allowed to return.  That’s just plain wrong.

And, of course, this has, unforgiveably, gone on over two long years.

My least favorite New York Times reporter, Adam Nossiter, wrote a recent article, With Regrets, New Orleans is Left Behind.

I’ve never agreed with Nossiter’s viewpoint on New Orleans, but there’s some interesting stuff in the article.  It speaks of those still living in the diaspora, and how they feel now that their entire neighborhoods have been scattered, neighborhoods that provided them a social network far outvaluing the money they made, folks who would watch their kids and watch their backs.

LAKE CHARLES, La. — With resignation, anger or stoicism, thousands of former New Orleanians forced out by Hurricane Katrina are settling in across the Gulf Coast, breaking their ties with the damaged city for which they still yearn.

They now cast their votes in small Louisiana towns and in big cities of neighboring states. They have found new jobs and bought new houses. They have forsaken their favorite foods and cherished pastors. But they do not for a moment miss the crime, the chaos and the bad memories they left behind in New Orleans.

This vast diaspora — largely black, often poor, sometimes struggling — stretches across the country but is concentrated in cities near the coast, like this one, or Atlanta or Baton Rouge or Houston, places where the newcomers are still reaching for accommodation.

The break came fairly recently. Sometime between the New Orleans mayor’s race in spring 2006, when thousands of displaced citizens voted absentee or drove in to cast a ballot, and the city election this fall, when thousands did not — resulting in a sharply diminished electorate and a white-majority City Council — the decision was made: there was no going back. Life in New Orleans was over.

Nossiter drones on about how folks have resigned themselves to living elsewhere than in NOLA.  But it still comes through, how they want to go back.

One of those interviewed:

“Where are the people, you know? Where are the people?” Ms. Shanklin said. “It’s like somebody threw a bomb on it.”  Now, she lives in a trim little house that Habitat for Humanity built in a curving subdivision of similar dwellings definitely unlike New Orleans.

The town of Houma is nearby, but there are fields all around, and it is quiet enough to hear birds. New Orleans noises — police sirens, traffic, honking car horns, children, hip-hop music — can be conjured only with difficulty. At night, Ms. Shanklin boasted, she opens her window and listens to the cows in the pasture.

But a year ago, she had a nervous breakdown and spent 10 days in the hospital. She missed New Orleans.

There is so much damage to human beings that cannot be undone.  But to add to it?  Not without a hell of a lot of witnesses, if I can help it.

The NOLA blogs have had some bumps in the road reporting about this.  Due to understandable annoyance at some of the more flamboyant and, well, annoying advocates for the poor, there has been too much distraction over what the real problem is.

Because it’s not just public housing that is slated for demolition.  There have already been too many demolitions done for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way, as is brilliantly researched and reported at Daily Kos by Matt McBride in his diary Demolished – A New Orleans Tale.

Of course, it’s all about money, all about it.

I urge you to read this incredibly well researched diary, but Matt sums it up well, both the problem and the solution:

So what do we have here? We have a city under a tight deadline to tear down nearly 2000 structures, with its credibility in Washington’s eyes on the line. We have a city department and a city committee that is very willing to flout city ordinances and cut citizens out of the process of determining the look and feel of the very fabric of their city. We have other bureacracies taking advantage of these facts to speed their own demolition plans without public notice. And we have federal dollars powering the whole process, meaning the city has no incentive to act as an honest broker. This is a runaway train that needs to be stopped now.

What needs to be done?

An immediate moratorium must be called on all demolitions until clarity can be brought to the entire process on behalf of the citizens.

The 70% rule must be repealed immediately. It has served as a huge loophole, and its exploitation and misapplication has led to hundreds of possibly illegal, city-sanctioned demolitions.

HCDRC, made up of mid-level city bureaucrats with little to no interest in historic preservation, needs to be shut down. Its’ functions should be moved under the jurisdiction of the HDLC, which has far more experience in these matters.

In light of the fact that city government bodies appear to be flouting local ordinances, the new DRC contract should be suspended until the whole process can be sorted out. FEMA will not be happy, but so be it.

The new City of New Orleans Inspector General needs to open a top-to-bottom investigation of the entire Safety & Permits department.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General would be well served to open an inquiry into the disposition of federal taxpayer funds to a municipality apparently willing to break its own laws to spend that money.

The citizens of New Orleans have been through far too much to deserve and demand anything less than full transparency and competence from their government. Hopefully this message will move the city toward that goal.

Dangerblond nails it when it comes to the lack of transparency in the local process (while, unfortunately, all too many other NOLA local blogs are trapped by the distraction of a woman on public assistance who happens to have a 60″ TV, yep, that’s the real story here — shades of Reagan’s great narrative of the welfare mother with the Cadillac — you’d think we’d be over falling for that by now).  But back to reality:

By all means, do read her post, but it’s in the comments that Dangerblond shines.  Another new meme being sent out to distract us over this issue is “valuing bricks over homes,” i.e., folks are all wrong to care about the bricks of an old (and possibly historic and better made, but that’s just my take) home and somehow “care” more about redevelopment and shiny promises of “mixed housing.”  Yeah, caring more about bricks than homes.  Lame.

Dangerblond has a great response to all this nonsense:

The fact is that people were driven out of here en masse 2.5 years ago and and no one has done anything about it. Now, the only possible choice that the city has been given is to turn the public property over to private real estate developers. Well, that is NOT the only choice, and not everyone is convinced that it’s the best. If our leadership thinks it’s the best choice, then they have to explain why, and they better be convincing. The way this situation has been handled has made people feel powerless. What else are we giving away?

I realize this project will create jobs, but I am not simply interested in jobs. Believe me, many of the workers will NOT be living in Orleans Parish, or paying sales/property taxes here. It is more critical that we have public services for the people who live in the development, not to mention the working poor and middle class that can’t get public housing. I am more impressed by a daycare center than by a mega-store that provides junk for people to buy.

I like Shelly Midura, she’s posted at Daily Kos and she wrote a kick-ass letter to Dubya when he visited New Orleans over the summer.  But if her plan is so great, it will not suffer from real transparency and input from the community, as well as real guarantees, for once that housing is demolished, there will be no turning back.

And I, for one, do not trust private developers nor do I trust HUD or Bush’s cronies not to pull every dirty trick in the book to profit off this at the expense of real New Orleanians who deserve better.

As citizen journalists, it’s a very good exercise to take a look every now and then at the Times-Picayune as they spread misinformation about what should be done both about public housing and the demolition of historic homes in the city that should never have been torn down.

This is a national issue.  And the distractions are already in place.  Poor folks are shiftless and lazy and all have giant TVs and eat, oh, I don’t know, big T-bone steaks every night.  Folks are too concerned over bricks and not over “homes.”  The advocates for the poor are obnoxious, so can’t we just all get along and until the poor get cooler advocates, not really do much about them?

This is what we do.  We cut through the bullshit to find the truth.  No one else is going to do this.  Sometimes we make mistakes and then we know damned well someone will let us know about that in no uncertain terms.

But if we don’t do this right, no one will.  Make no mistake about it.  This is a war against both the poor and the middle class, and if the powers that be can divide us against each other it’ll make it that much easier for them to fill their pockets even faster.

An Ill Wind Blows Our Way?

Having one of those days.  Going to put my fears up and then maybe they won’t be swimming around my head today.  This is an accumulation of a month of starting to smell that smell again.  It started last month when a soldier friend shot an email out to friends that in the midst of Iraq and a group of officers he witnessed a full bird Colonel and a one star General come to blows and try to beat the hell out of each other.  He gave no names and at the time I didn’t really want any.  His email was just one of those holy shit things that we all send out when we have witnessed the impossible happening around us.  There was only one thing that I filed away from the email as a note to self and that was that there was infighting before David Petraeus cuz there was no fuggin plan.  Everybody was their own cowboy in the Wild West.  To have such a physical fists to faces fight take place post David Petraeus disturbed the little voice in my head.

The second thing that disturbed me and joined that voice was this comment yesterday.  That was finished up today by my husband phoning me and asking me to search the net for a war video he had seen part of yesterday that had an Apache helicopter taking out an insurgent car in Iraq but also taking out about three other cars with it on a highway.  I didn’t have the heart to look very hard for it today.  I heard the concern in my husband’s voice.  It was concern about when this happened because this can’t be our ROE under the Petraeus plan and have that plan have any hope at all.  We can’t just create that kind of damage at will and have anyone able to feel any sort of sense of security of any kind.  My husband’s too smart too for his own good.  I know there is more behind his concern than just seeing the last half of a video.  He’s picking up a vibe out there and the surge is going to be a year old soon and how long can these people keep this up before everyone is certifiable?

Ending the Real Culture Of Death

(@8 – promoted by buhdydharma )

Cross-posted at The Great Orange Satan (DailyKos)

The faux religious zealots like to go around spouting about a “culture of death” in our country because we let women make their own decisions about their bodies. However the real culture of death in this country is the unjust death penalty. We join beacons of justice China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Sudan in accounting for 90 percent of all executions. 133 countries around the world have abolished the death penalty. And yet we stick on to this culture of death. However great news has been coming out in recent days for those who wish to end this injustice. Two days ago New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine on Monday signed a law abolishing the death penalty, the first state to ban it in 42 years. And then yesterday on a 104 to 54 vote, with 29 abstentions the U.N. General Assembly passed a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.

First the New Jersey ban. On Monday Jon Corzine the Democratic governors of New Jersey signed a bill passed by both chambers of the state legislator and with a stroke of the pen abolished the unjust practice in New Jersey. Here is what Corzine said shortly before he signed it.


“Today, Dec. 17, 2007, is a momentous day, a day of progress, for the state of New Jersey and for the millions of people across our nation and around the globe who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous crime of murder.”

Indeed it was a day of progress for millions of people across our nation and around the globe. But the next day another blow was dealt to this culture of death. As I noted above the UN passed a resolution calling for “”a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty,”. It was passed by a near two to one vote. The US and such firm allies as Iran lead the opposition. Here’s what U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had to say about the vote.

I welcome the adoption today by the General Assembly of a call on all States to establish a moratorium on the application of the death penalty. Today’s vote represents a bold step by the international community. I am particularly encouraged by the support expressed for this initiative from many diverse regions of the world. This is further evidence of a trend towards ultimately abolishing the death penalty.

Doesn’t it put pride in you’re heart to see you’re country leading on such a important issue? Oh wait.

Today Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights penned a op-ed in the Los Angles Times entitled The U.N.’s death blow

When the U.N. General Assembly called Tuesday for a worldwide moratorium on the application of the death penalty, it took a significant step toward the definitive abolition of capital punishment, a move that would enhance the protection of human rights and the inviolability of the person.

Let us hope we someday reach that day. And now that we’ve gotten action and probably cameras the only thing that was missing was lights. And what better to light up then a former sybol of death: The Colosseum. From the AP:

The ancient arena was bathed in white light as Italy celebrated the U.N. General Assembly resolution approved Tuesday despite opposition by supporters of the death penalty, including the United States, Iran and China.

It also gives a great fact that I had not previously been aware of.

Rome’s Colosseum, once the arena for deadly gladiator combat and executions, has become a symbol of Italy’s fight against capital punishment. Since 1999, the 1st century monument has been lit up every time a death sentence is commuted somewhere in the world or a country abolishes capital punishment.

That’s what I call a good use of public buildings.

Many make the politicians make the argument that we must be tough on crime because the almighty poll says so. This is what I have to say to them. Isn’t it about time we looked past polls and governed by our principles, our values, our beliefs? Isn’t it time we have a little compassion to those murdered on death row for committing no crime? Sure you’re little polls say the majority of Americans oppose abolishing the death penalty but then why do they vote for leaders with conviction like Tim Kaine who oppose the death penalty? It’s because we’ve had enough of the culture of death. Not the supposed culture of death the theocons believe in but the real, unjust policy of the death penalty.

It’s time that we as a country and we as a world stand up and say “And eye for a eye makes the whole world blind. It’s time to say we’re not going to live with a culture of death anymore.

Load more