Sane perspective from the Wall St. Journal on the “torture” issue versus an insane perspective on torture from the NYT.

The latter compares the CIA’s proposition to use a caterpillar against one individual known to be terrified of insects to terrorists bringing a disease that’s worse than West Nile Virus to the US.  Um… what?  There’s a slight difference in degree there.  The CIA didn’t threaten the Arab world with the spread of Malaria, it used a harmless bug to try to scare a guy, something every five year old boy in the world has done to his female classmates and/or siblings.  I agree that bugs can be used as weapons of physical and psychological war, but in this case the CIA was depending on the man’s illogical fear of bugs, rather than the inherent viciousness of the caterpillar.  Get real people.

The Left decries that the Right supports torture.  This is not true.  The Right is against torture as well.  The question is what constitutes torture?  I think depriving someone of sleep is not torture.  For casual John Q. Citizen, a night where you are woken up (by a baby or dog) might be described as “torturous” as hyperbole, but in the legal and moral sense of the word, it is not torturous; it’s simply a bad night.  Putting someone on the rack is torture.  Pulling off fingernails is torture.  Anything that causes lasting physical or, within reason, psychological harm should be considered torture.  In my opinion, making someone think they are drowning (when they are not actually drowning) for 20-40 seconds when precautions are taken to ensure that water never enters the lungs and should that occur, medical professionals are present, is not torture. Uncomfortable?  Yes.  Eternally painful and/or life threatening?  No.  Keep in mind that many of the same people that consider such methods torture also consider spanking to be child abuse.  (Then they wonder why their kids are hellions and have supposed ADD problems.)

I’m just getting around to making some posts, so the articles are a little dated.

Wall St. Journal op-ed on the purpose of “enhanced” interrogations by a former director of NSA and CIA.  The key points:

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001…

Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don’t work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal…  But confessions aren’t the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation…

Of the thousands of unlawful combatants captured by the U.S., fewer than 100 were detained and questioned in the CIA program. Of those, fewer than one-third were subjected to any of the techniques discussed in these opinions. As already disclosed by Director Hayden, as late as 2006, even with the growing success of other intelligence tools, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those interrogations…

Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity.

The key finding in the aftermath of 9/11 was that the law enforcement side and the intelligence side of the national security community did not “share information.”  They, of course, did not share information because such practices had essentially been institutionalized, albeit informally, in the wake of the Church and Pike Commissions.  [During the Carter Administration, the country began learning of some of the tactics undertaken by the FBI during the tenure of J. Edgar Hoover (COINTELPRO, etc.).  A Democratic Congress was concerned that the intelligence people would "spy" on Americans that it deemed dangerous (white supremacist groups, anarchists, far Left-wing groups) and share it with the law-enforcement people, who would then round up "innocent" Americans for simply expressing their constitutional rights.  Thus, the "wall" between intelligence and law-enforcement was erected in order to protect groups like the KKK, the Black Panthers and Weather Underground.]

The point is that the airing of the entire “torture” discussion outside the administration has the same effect as the Church and Pike Commissions in the 1970s.   By publicly chastising and threatening legal action against it, the Intelligence Community learns timidity.  It learns to keep its head down and honor the house-line of the bureaucracy, the primary issue that led to the Intelligence Community’s failure to anticipate 9/11 despite, as George Tenet said, the “light was blinking red.”

These things matter.  Ideas have consequences.  I don’t think the Carter and Obama Administrations were/are intentionally trying to hurt the country, but I do think they were/are clueless enough where their actions do just that.  As stated, in paraphrase, at the end of the book “Broken”:  If you kick a guard dog every time it barks, it learns to not bark.  The worst type of intelligence community is one that doesn’t bark.

I’ve never been a huge comic book reader.  I grew up in the middle of nowhere, and access to a store that had comic books was pretty rare for me.  But every once in a while my brother and I would be given a a few, from family members, friends, etc.

At some point in the eternal comic universe there was a reoccurring Superman storyline that revolved around his doppelganger, Bizzaro, and the planet he came from.  While the storyline is entirely too long (and nerdy) to get into here, the concept is that a parallel universe/planet exists, which is populated by opposite versions of people in Superman’s world, doing the exact opposite things as their Earthly counterparts do.  As I have spent the last few days reading and hearing about Obama and the infamous 100 Days landmark, I can’t help but think about how similarly and completely backwards the political situation in our country has become.  (Additionally, I have been reading 1984 and have found similar terrifying parallels).  We are living in a complete Bizzaro World, where things would have been embarrassing at best, and politically devastating at worst, have become common, accepted practice.  The media is invested in party lines, and not the truth.  The public is looking for what will quickly and easily solve their present problems, not what will stand the test of time. Our politicians are looking for ways to hold onto power as best they can, not serving the principles and ideals that put our country where it is in the first place.

In the last few days Obama’s staff has been simultaneously downplaying and propping up the 100 Days mark.  Naturally, the main idea from his people has been that it is a worthless marker that should be ignored, except for all the “good” things he has done that we should be praising.  An unnamed Obama advisor has put out the following list as the landmark 100 day issues:

• Passing the “largest” economic stimulus bill in American history.
• Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
• Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
• Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.
• “Returning science to its rightful place” by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
• Signing laws to expand children’s health insurance
• Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.
• Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House
• “Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations” criticizing North Korea’s launch of a ballistic missile.
• Lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban Americans who seek to travel more frequently to the island and send more US currency to their immediate family.
• Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with “strength and humility.”

We really are living in Bizzaro World if these are the standards being given as a successful 100 first days.  Nearly every one of these points is something negative that is being spun as a positive.  Who needs reality anyway, right?  Each can be easily and quickly re-written:

• Passed the “largest” Economic Stimulus Bill in American history.  With this, Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than every President previous to him, combined.  This bill was based on a long discredited Keynesian notion that spending is a good way to solve a debt problem.  While it may prove politically expedient in the extreme short run, common sense economics and history show otherwise.
• Ordered Gitmo closed, but has no set time to close it, and currently has no plan for taking care of the prisoners.
• Set a timetable for Iraq, aka, kept Bush’s timetable in place.
• Has sent additional troops to Afghanistan, but has no new strategy (ie the Surge) to win said conflict/quagmire.  Moveon.org is strangely silent.
• Lifted Bush restrictions on stem cells, but brought most of them back a few days later, naturally in a much more quiet fashion.
• Vastly expanded government provided child-health care, paid for by a massive increase in cigarette taxes (keeping in mind that the vast majority of smokers are poor).  Touted as a providing health care for the poor, but in actuality provides health care well into the middle class range- a successful attempt at increasing the likelihood of full national health care.
• Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, (and did not place it on the White House website for multiple days for our viewing pleasure as promised), which changes the statute of limitations on pay discrimination cases.  It is a gross injustice to employers and a blatant payoff to trial lawyers.
• Talked big about cleaning up Washington’s lobbyist problem, but hired various lobbyists within the administration.
• Had the UN, in the words of Team America: World Police, send North Korea “a very angry letter,” which the entire world knows is backed up by nothing.
• Lifted travel embargoes on Cuba, which will end up benefiting the Cuban government and not the Cuban people.
• Engaged World Leaders by talking down America, and talking up himself.  Was so successful on his European Magical Mystery Tour that he was able to get virtually zero help whatsoever for his new campaign in Afghanistan.

Let’s not forget also that within his first 100 days he was also able to get 800+ grassroots organized protests in every state of the country.  Even Bush couldn’t do that.  Maybe Obama is Bizarro-Bush?  Now that’s a scary thought.  I’ll take neither please.

Sources:

100 Days: What Obama Wants You To Read

100 Days: How Obama Changed DC

Advisor: Obama’s First 100 Days Most Productive Since FDR

Happy Debt Day

The Weekly Standard has a good article regarding the effectiveness of Comedy Central in deriding the GOP brand.  The key graphs:

I asked a well-respected academic political scientist what accounted for the sharp move in recent years. His answer: Comedy Central. “Jon Stewart has done more to destroy the Republican brand among young voters than any person in America.” And after reviewing some new research, it’s clear he may have been on to something…

[Jon] Stewart has said repeatedly he is “. . . just having fun pointing out the absurdities that emanate from the people and processes involved in today’s political world” and not intending to persuade anyone. “Regardless,” Morris writes, “. . . even though Stewart may not intend to persuade anyone, the evidence suggest that may have happened . . . “

First, it’s ridiculous of Stewart to claim that he’s not attempting to persuade anyone.  He’s a diehard liberal satirizing a political newscast.  As a liberal, he’s predisposed to finding conservatism/Republicanism more humorous.  Thus, he’s going to mock his enemies more and thereby persuade his audience to mock/reject his primary targets.  And as a diehard liberal, why wouldn’t he want to do this?  If I had a show on TV, I’d certainly want to influence people to adopt my worldview and its values.  It’s simply human nature to do so.  Quit wrapping yourself in the warm blanket of satire!

Second, of course Stewart is persuading people.  He’s a funny guy.  Who would want to support the losers he mocks?  No one, of course.  But especially not youth voters who are already overly sensitive to being ostracized from the larger group and have a limited foundation - at best - of history, economics or philosophy upon which to weigh a statement’s merits.  Most are just looking to be entertained.  And there’s the problem: they’re being entertained by a humorous, one-sided impersonation of a news show.  Whatever their motive for watching the show, the message comes through loud and clear.  The Daily Show is television’s equivalent to the bumper sticker: witty and generally well-crafted, but incredibly one-sided without any feedback channel.  By shaping the arguments, Stewart is 90% of the way to winning the arguments.

Now, Comedy Central is a private enterprise, so it can do whatever it wants.  But where’s the personal responsibility?  There’s certainly a place for humor, but [from either perspective on the political spectrum] laughing while Rome burns is irresponsible, particularly when you know you are likely the only source of “news” your audience consumes.

We’ve become a generation of mockers.  From television to journalism to academia, people who have never accomplished anything mock those in the public square who have accomplished much.  Academia and journalism are the more serious problems overall (eg. PhD professors and editorial columnists who have never run a business in their lives lecturing the world about running businesses), but television is hugely influential, particularly over youth voters.  And nearly all television aimed at the youth demographic - from Comedy Central to MTV and its subsidiary VH1 - is filled with C-List actors/comedians mocking everyone else.  Much of it is in good fun and pokes fun at our society for latching on to fads, exalting celebrities and listening to bad music that gets overplayed on the radio; however, the people doing the ridicule are generally at the forefront of any and all fads whose life goal is to be famous enough to end up on the cover of US Weekly.  In reality, they’re a bunch of never-will-bes tearing down the lives - and in our present context the ideas - of others.

Don’t kid yourself, this stuff matters.  Derision and ridicule is an effective form of political warfare.  In WWII, Hitler was mocked incessantly by Hollywood (via Looney Tunes and Charlie Chaplin) as a fascist, goose-stepping loon with deep psychological issues.  More recently, in Team America: World Police Kim Jong Il was made to look like a petty gangster - “Hans Brix, oh no!” - and the United Nations was portrayed as the feckless organization that it is - “we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.”  Put simply, ridicule works because it makes the enemy into a pathetic farce, rather than a twelve foot giant worthy of respect.

Jon Stewart has led the charge in tearing down the GOP among youth voters.

The AIG bonus “outrage” of the last week is a complete joke, put forth by the same people who voted to give these people our tax money in the first place.  For excellent commentary, please refer to the following articles:

Minority View, from Powerlineblog.  A good sum up of the facts behind the whole thing.

Dodd Changes His Story, from Powerlineblog.

Bill Of Attainder, from Wikipedia.  The 90% tax bill passed by the House is completely unconstitutional.  Not that they care about that sort of thing.  Apparently even the Obama Administration is starting to think so.

Here’s the best commentary that I’ve read on the current economic situation:

The story so far: some capitalists behaved very badly. While this was going on, the socialists didn’t ask questions because they were too busy spending the receipts that flowed from that behaviour. Now, the socialists - who were happy to look the other way during the good times or even to delude themselves into thinking that they were responsible for them - want to use the ignominy of the capitalists to seize the kind of power they thought they had lost forever. …

In Gordon Brown’s fantasy, this is an “opportunity” to exercise control over the whole world. Not just stricter regulation by national governments of their own economic institutions, but a wondrous new level of international regulation by supranational functionaries - to be appointed by whom? A World Government agency accountable to no electorate and with no democratic mandate from the populations over whom it will wield such power? …

Meanwhile, Mr Obama - who gives the impression of being considerably out of his depth in the economic maelstrom - talks of an “opportunity” to “reorganise our priorities”. He gave a major speech last week in which he actually seemed to suggest that the present crisis had been caused by America’s failure to develop a universal health care system and to attend to the impending environmental disaster of global warming (”we made the wrong choices”), and that by focusing on these matters a way can be found out of the country’s economic problems.

Is he quite mad? Does he really believe that the banking crisis and the recession were some kind of divine retribution for the absence of universal health care, and excessive carbon emissions? …

What neither the Prime Minister nor the President can admit is what is becoming more obvious every day (and which has been admitted by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key): there is precious little that any politician can do to resolve the present economic problems. The values of assets and property are simply going to have to fall from the grossly inflated points they reached under the debt bubble to what are generally accepted to be realistic levels. Then people will start to do business again - as eventually they must - and confidence will gradually return.

… I grew up with the Left and what this looks like to me is a power grab: a seizing of the moment by the forces which always believed in state domination. The Left sees an opening here, first for telling a critical lie about the historical origins of this crisis, which was propelled as much by the Left-liberal determination to spread prosperity through easy credit to the poor, as by the greed of bankers. And then, out of the wreckage, to restructure the economy along the lines that it always wanted, complete with central controls over the pay levels in private financial institutions.

As Charles Krauthammer said:  Obama’s efforts to use the economic crisis to transform education, healthcare and energy “is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.”

From Powerline.

The Weekly Standard brings us a “timeless critique from Tocqueville:”

It seems that if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics: it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them. .  .  .

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd. .  .  .

If only he could soften, bend and direct the wills of our enemies as easily as he does his flock of sheep at home.  Unfortunately, in places like Iran, actions are more important than words.

The President the other night spoke before a joint session of Congress.  In his remarks he mentioned how he does not want big government nor does he want to raise everyone’s taxes.  Does not want big government?  Coming from a man who just introduced a $3.55 trillion dollar budget?  From the man who projects that because of the sheer amount of government spending he has proposed that the budget deficit will be $1.75 trillion?  Please.  He and his Democratic colleagues in the Congress are rushing to spend our money faster (see deficit) than they can collect it from us.

If President Obama really does not like big government then he should not rely on heavy tax burdens on the wealthy.  We are talking about people who make $250,000 and up.  These are the small and medium business owners.  These are the investors.  This are the corporate movers and shakers.  Thus far, Wall Street has not been brimming with confidence every time Obama talks about more taxes, spending, and heavy regulations.

The issue is a major philosophical one.  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress believe that only the government can create the necessary jobs to help the economy–not the private sector.  In fact, they believe that the private arena should be burdened with oppressive taxes.  The problems with this line of thinking are many (see: history).  But let us keep it simple:  how often do the poor or lower/middle class create jobs?  It is the upper middle class and the wealthy in this country that create the jobs for the lower and middle class.  Through commerce people are able to buy from companies which are then able to hire more workers.

Mr. President, please be honest with the American people.  Come right out and proudly declare your love for big government and taxes.  Inform the people that you think it is time to punish the hard working and give to the less fortunate.  Revel in your desire to take from those who are paying their mortgages to help those who made unwise financial decisions.  Just come out and tell us that you embrace socialism.  But please, stop insulting our intelligence with this talk of not liking big government.

In case you’ve somehow missed it, Rick Santelli of CNBC went on a (beautiful) tirade a few days ago on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange, decrying Obama’s new Mortgage Bailout.  In it, he calls for a Chicago Tea Party, to ask if Obama is listening.  Check out the video here and the new Facebook group here to get more information.

Thomas Sowell has an excellent article about the roots of the housing crisis that sparked our present economic downturn:

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.  What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market’s “greed.” That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down. It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

It’s a great article, but it reveals a larger problem as well:  The media has the authority to shape an issue so that its interpretation becomes fact, regardless of the actual history.  In this instance, the cause of the housing crisis is blamed entirely on “greed” rather than misguided politicians who wanted everyone to own homes, including those who couldn’t afford it.  However, as the “first historians” (a title I despise as an actual student of history) journalist’s can shape an issue however they please.  As the ones with the megaphone, they are able to control the dialogue of the debate.  As they have a vested interest in promoting Leftist ideals - as they are overwhelmingly liberal - this is a problem for conservativism.  In this case, as the Left wants socialism, the market must be blamed in order to convince the American people to seek deliverance from the government.  Thus far, the media appears to be playing their part to perfection.