I’m not a fan of the Daily Show.  From my perspective, a sane, reasonable and intelligent world would not designate former D-List actor Jon Stewart as a moderator for any semi-serious discussion.  However, he and a conservative guest, Cliff May, recently engaged in a short debate about “torture.”  It’s worth watching.

The Weekly Standard blog sums it up best:

It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman’s use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal “yes.” He’s certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it’s a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration’s war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman’s decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as “criminal.” And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

And for the record, under the Geneva Convention non-uniformed enemy combatants do not qualify as prisoners of war and thus, are not entitled to the provisions laid out in the treaty.  Thus, if you can cut through all the Democratic Party goose-stepping going on in the media, you’ll realize that the Bush Administration bent over backwards to ensure that all of these methods followed the proper, internationally-recognized and morally acceptable (to many at least) avenues on this issue.

Should we still treat terrorists in a moral fashion?  Absolutely!  They are God’s creation, just as much as I am.  But as their tactics are beneath the international standard of what is deemed acceptable in war, then they are not entitled, legally, to the specific protections outlined for prisoners of war in treaties such as the Geneva Convention.  Jon Stewart - and his adoring audience - doesn’t seem to realize that.

Here’s an article in the Economist discussing America’s opinion of Obama’s foreign policy.  This is a great example of liberal media bias and why, in particular, I do not read/trust the Economist.

The article’s implied reasoning:

1. Conservatives don’t want to improve relations with the Middle East
2. Conservatives only want to blacklist enemies
3. Conservatives love nuclear weapons, presumably because they love to use them, and;
4. Hawks are scary, a lunatic fringe; whereas doves are normal (as they are nowhere mentioned)

First, political parties do not always disagree with the ends of foreign policy, it’s the means over which they fight.  The means of the Democratic Party are, generally, to kowtow, talk, encourage the UN and unilaterally disarm (and hope for a better world).  Conservatives simply disagree, not because they hate talking or are even mean-spirited, but because it’s ineffective at best and catastrophically dangerous at worst.

A more close-to-home example:  A gunman absolutely dedicated to running into a crowded mall and killing people cannot be “talked” out of doing that.  Armed guards must be posted at the entrances.  If the police discover beforehand that a person in their area is planning such actions, it will dedicate itself to identifying the criminal and stopping him beforehand, by force if necessary.  The same is true in foreign policy.  Committed gunmen - Hamas, Iran, etc. - cannot simply be “talked” out of achieving their ends.  To the point where talking is effective, it should be done knowing full-well that the mall is protected, should talks “break-down.”

Because the Economist gives no effort to exploring what conservatives want in foreign policy, here is a concise list.  Conservatives want:

1. Effective dialogue:  trust but verify – the purpose of signing agreements and negotiating is not for its own end, but so that U.S. national security objectives are furthered. 
2. Strong defense:  not because we are hawks and warmongers who want to blow up the world, but because we believe that there are people just like that running around out there whom we do not trust.  It’s the same concept as keeping a firearm in the home, another thing liberals do not understand.  You don’t keep the firearm because you want to hurt someone, but because you don’t want someone to hurt your loved ones.  A firearm in the hands of a responsible, able, trained citizen is as much to be feared by society as a rotary saw in the hands of a carpenter.
3. Effective use of all the instruments of power:  economy, public diplomacy, political warfare, etc.

The argument should not be between diplomacy alone or military force alone.  Both are necessary, but even those two alone are inadequate.  The effective use of the other instruments of power must also be pushed.

Here’s a NYT op-ed on the report from the Department of Homeland Security that ring-wing groups, including veterans, constitute an emerging threat to national security.  His main argument:

[The conservative] argument seeks to suppress and subjugate two rather unfortunate facts: while only a tiny number of conservatives and veterans are members of hate groups, nearly all hate groups do indeed follow far-right ideology. And they covet members with military experience.

His first presumption is absolutely false.  The far right wing does not have a monopoly on hate (see the left wing during presidency of Bush, George W. as exhibit A and the left wing during the candidacy of Palin, Sarah as exhibit B.). This presupposes that:

1. Communism, the extreme left, is intrinsically benevolent, and;
   
2. Fascism (supposedly the extreme right) and communism (the extreme left) are polar opposites.

History has adequately disproven the first point.  However, the second has not received enough attention and still leads to much confusion/disinformation.  The idea that communism and fascism are polar opposites was a lie perpetrated by the Soviets when they were competing (politically) with Hitler in the 1930s, made all the more intense when Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941.  How best to get the sons of the fatherland to fight then to paint the enemy as enemies of the revolution.

Communism and fascism (along with Social Democracy) are all members of the Left.  In the case of the more extreme versions (fascism and communism), they use the same tactics to similar results, albeit for different goals.  In the case of communism, all human action, economic, religious or political, is subjugated to the authority of the revolution.  In the case of fascism, most human action is subjugated to the authority of the “master” race or the desired national empire (eg. the Third Reich, the New Roman Empire or Imperial Japan).  The modern fascism embodied by radical Muslims is still a part of the extreme left wing as it wants to subjugate all human action to the authority of Sharia Law and usher in the worldwide caliphate. Tell me, what’s the difference between that and communism?  Both are political-religious-economic worldviews intent on worldwide subjugation.  Perhaps the Iranians and terrorists worldwide are more worried about producing moral behavior in the end, but that was a large part of Communism as well (thus homosexuals and other moral undesirables were routinely executed).

The extreme right-wing is not fascism, but anarchy – which also produces lots of hate – where the state has absolutely no control over the individual.  The extreme left-wing is communism or authoritarianism where the state has absolute control over the individual.  There’s certainly plenty of hate to go around on all sides of the political spectrum.  It’s quite obvious which side the New York Times is on when it believes that hate is only espoused on the Right.

(Note:  The left-wing/right-wing debate isn’t exactly ideal to begin with because it relies on the linear political spectrum, which is somewhat inaccurate.  More reflective of reality is the political quadrant, explained here.)

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.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) told a crowed at a church in San Francisco that it was un-American to enforce our immigration laws.  She wishes to stop raids and deportations because she sees enforcing those laws as un-American?  Then why should I have to follow laws I don’t like?  We have already learned from several of President Obama’s cabinet picks that we may not have to pay taxes either.  What kind of system is this?  Is this the new era of responsibility that Obama and the Democrats talked about?  Ignore laws you don’t like?

I guess this was an important enough issue that Speaker Pelosi felt compelled to speak on.  You know, ensuring that people that have come into our country illegally have a way of getting jobs and using our tax-funded institutions such as health services and education while legal Americans are struggling to get jobs or hold onto them and trying to pay for healthcare.  Welcome to the Democrats’ America–where you may be better off if you’re here illegally.

For some reason, Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic.net, an ISP based in Northern California - @dane - enjoys slipping in occasional, and sometimes nonsensical, jabs at Christians, pro-lifers, and the Religious Right in his Twitter feed.

Why he thinks this is a good idea is for anyone to guess. He must either

1. presume that no one listening to him is a Christian, nor is anyone offended by the ridiculing thereof; or
2. think it’s good business to make fun of an entire culture in a way completely unrelated to his industry; or
3. think that Christians do not deserve the same respect as other cultures.

Is this a trend? A marketing strategy?

Most likely he assumes that any person in California intelligent enough to read his posts shares his views.

This is not the case, Mr. Jasper. Perhaps you could tone it down.