The McCain ‘Torture’ Ban

aka The ‘Do it When You Need To’ Torture Ban.

I’ve gone without comment on this topic for a while, but C-SPAN was replaying a town-hall meeting with Senator Barbara Boxer from 12/12 where she responded to ‘community members’ (planted questions) who wanted to see the President held back from his ‘torture policies.’ So it got my ire back up, and I have to review what has transpired, because this farce has been so blatantly misreported, it needs to be rehashed.

To ensure the measure garnered sufficient public support, our wonderfully unbiased media has assigned the Senator the same “absolute moral authority” on torture that Ms. Cindy Sheehan was granted on the topic of Iraq. This is the same breed of “absolute moral authority” that made a convincingly unsupportable case for the war in Iraq being arranged by a secret Jewish Kabala, one which controls most federal government operations. But, as we all know, Senator McCain was a POW in Viet Nam—so he clearly knows more about the U.S. policy on torture than anyone else. Sounds logical to me.

The lynch-pin of Senator McCain’s beliefs regarding torture is that it is ineffective. I can understand him if he believes that, and would be accepting of measures that reflect that ideology. However, as has not been reported by any major media outlet (I’ve only heard mention of this on some right-wing, anti-McCain talk shows, and liberal blogs), the McCain torture bill permits under certain circumstances. For instance, a situation arises in which a suspect is detained who has specific information regarding an imminent bomb detonation, chemical device dispersal, or biological agent release. In this situation, government agents are permitted to engage in acts considered torture in order to extract the vital information.

If torture is ineffective, then why allow it then? Inconsistent.

I understand the argument that says torture, when applied constantly to a detainee over a long period of time where no useful information will likely be revealed, can be ineffective in a sense. However, by the allowance of the provision in his bill, Senator McCain must recognize that torture can be effective. Furthermore, it supersedes the ban itself, by having an act of Congress on the books that specifically allows torture. Did someone say incriminating evidence?

Also, you may not have heard because no one wants to cover it: Sadam Huessein and his friend and ally Ms. Cindy Sheehan received a late Christmas present in the form of the discovery of more mass graves in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/27/iraq.main/index.html.

On Teaching Children

What’s making me proud to be an American today? The Black Eyed Peas. I don’t want to brazenly chime in with the chorus of right-wingers who have been bashing the Peas, but they are a kind of double-edged sword for me.

The Peas make me proud because their message and sound appeals to an audience that is willing to pay for their performance, and it has made them both wealthy and famous. Good for them. I also think it’s awesome that they can do so in spite of the horde of fundamentalists and moralists who would like to see that their music is heard by no-one. It’s a fine example of first amendment rights in practice. The Peas should be allowed to sing whatever they want, just as I should be able to write practically anything I want about them. I realize at some point it becomes slander, but I could always make the case that the Peas have slandered an entire sex, and as a result, may win more than I lose.

On the other hand… “let’s get retarded” … “lovely lady lumps” … ? Are we serious? This is what we like as Americans? Does this really appeal to people? I’m skeptical.

I could go on ad nauseum about the cultural values that their lyrics reflect and the degrading morality of our country, but I think my man Billy Graham and the other Christian Conservatives have covered the bases for me. Instead, I’ll appeal to you on another level. I only care about the society as a whole insofar as it affects me, and anyone I hope to bring into the world. I don’t want my children to grow up thinking retarded—or mentally handicapped for the suddenly linguistically squeamish—should be marginalized, or that dancing is all about grinding and humping your partner on the dance floor, regardless of lovely lady lumpage.

I think it’s disingenuous that many Right-wing talkers are focused merely on the Peas simply because their message is apparently ‘so flamboyant.’ It’s not much worse than recent music preceding it. I have no problem smearing 50-cent or any other musician simply because they express support of our President, who is apparently a ‘real gangsta’ according to Mr. Cent. I similarly don’t want children growing up thinking anything that 50-cent, Snoop Dogg, Brittney Spears, or Christina Aguilera is reasonable or good. I understand that imparting such knowledge on my children would be my job, but what about the rest of the populace? Would everyone who reads this just stop to think once, is the music I’m listening to / the TV program I’m watching / the things I’m saying teaching my kids what I want them to believe?

The Role Reversal of Constitutional Interpretation

When I went through primary school, I was taught that the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats breaks down to the difference between means of interpreting the Constitution. According to my text, Republicans are ‘strict constructionists,’ and Democrats are ‘loose constructionists,’ where constructionist apparently refers to the degree to which one adheres to the exact wording of the Constitution. Maybe your school was like mine, or maybe mine was particularly bizarre, but that’s not what I find interesting at the moment.

What I find interesting are the topics in which either party seems to adhere to those guidelines. Particularly, looking at the debate over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it seems to me that the constructionist roles are reversed. Ultimately, this stems from my interpretation of what the intelligent design theory represents—I realize that. Still, I find it hard to discern what the difference between the theories of evolution/the big bang and the theory of intelligent design based upon the way it was taught to me.

As I learned it, evolution dovetails with the big bang theory, claiming that the universe began at some point in time, which led to the formation of things as they are including our solar system, which had one planet in which elementary life forms developed and grew into life as we know it today. The only difference intelligent design adds to the evolution/big bang theory, is the concept that the ‘uncaused cause’ that set off the whole chain of events—the big bang as it were—was set in motion by some intelligent designer, which many call God and hold in their hearts and minds as a supreme being.

If that is the only difference between the two theories, then why push the agenda for the more controversial theory? Even if intelligent design is merely taught as a brief, five minute section in which the teacher emphasizes the ‘alternative’ nature of the idea, what is the point? Why make the controversy? Has everyone forgotten personal responsibility? I see this as a prime case where parents, knowing their children are taught evolution and the big bang, need to step in and join in the education process—as they often should be doing—and inform their children of their beliefs, and the reasons for those beliefs.

Per the clause dictating no establishment of a state religion, it is similarly not the state’s responsibility to educate children on the topic or existence of religion. If the two theories are principally the same, then what is the agenda behind pushing the theory that potentially violates the U.S. Constitution?

Simple: the religious right wants to further polarize the country, and energize its base further through a controversial issue.

I think intelligent design makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t belong in public schools. Public schools ought to be for the purpose of secular education, and individual citizens responsible for educating children on religious topics.

(Below is a section of my response to John Jervinsky in the comments section, the whole version of which is there, but also belongs here, as it is pretty important to the argument.)

... The argument I've heard, and agree with, is the idea the one that the fact that Darwin's theories oughtn't be taught as an answer to all questions, and that adding the 'intelligent designer' into Darwinism can be construed as a violation of the church/state separation. The counter argument on the right for some is that not teaching ID propogates atheism as the national religion. Frankly, I don't think that's entirely reasonable, because not teaching God doesn't deny God's existence. However, teaching that God, or some other being, exists and is responsible for a sequence of events, does teach the existence of a supreme being.

Now, I'm in agreement with you on the point that I'd like to see it taught in schools. But, I'd be even happier of most parents took the time to educate their own children, or take their children to sunday school, in order to provide them additional spiritual insight with which to color their scientific understanding.

Putting the Death Penalty in Context

I’ll admit, it seems odd that you have a person like me who is ardently against partial birth abortion, but doesn’t have anywhere near the same revulsion for the death penalty. But I think I can finally put it in a context that would make sense.

Earlier today, Biswanath Halder was sentenced to 190-some counts for his shooting rampage in the Peter B. Lewis building here at Case Western Reserve University back in 2003. The judge spent two and one quarter hours reading aloud all of the convictions, among which include murder and attempt to kill an officer. The murder conviction makes him eligible to receive the death penalty in the state of Ohio.

I work in the Peter B Lewis building, and know many of the faculty members there. These are people who had their lives turned upside down by an armed lunatic—a man who held a building full of professionals and academics hostage and terrorized them during a six hour standoff. This also constitutes a large contingent of liberals, many of whom one would expect opposes the death penalty.

Yet, when the verdict was handed down this morning, and the realization the criminal would be eligible for the death penalty, I heard no sentiment against the possibility. Perhaps it’s too early and not yet real enough for the folks in the business school to consider the gravity of what it means to have been convicted of 190 criminal counts including murder and be eligible for the death penalty—but the rest seems a mere formality to me. I would be surprised if he wasn’t condemned to death by the judge, and local news analysts seem to agree with me.

And yet I still have yet to hear the ‘rational, progressive’ voice of dissent. I think that much of the blind opposition to the death penalty comes from those who have no context for it. Being terrorized and trapped by a madman in a shootout and day-long standoff seems like adequate context to change one’s opinion.

The only anti-death penalty argument I heard came from a friend afterwards, who hoped that the death penalty would not be handed down. Not because the man didn’t deserve it, but because the man is already 65 years old. Putting him to death will probably result in the flurry of appeals that most anti-capital punishment advocates cite as the economic reason for not putting a man to death. In this case, it may indeed be more expensive to put him to death, given the fact he will live a relatively short time in prison with however many life sentences he receives. Yet, is cost really the issue here? What are the real incentives carrying out a death sentence? Clearly, this argument goes well outside the bounds of basic cost differencing analysis.

Consistency in State Supported Killing

I knew that Jerry Springer would be up in arms as a result of the Stanley Williams being put to death in California—I just couldn’t predict how he intended to make his case. It was one I hadn’t heard before, but I appreciated the conversation that surrounded it. Springer pointed out that if the state was going to put people to death, it ought be broadcasted on public television, or the 12 o’clock news. He predicted his proposal would evoke an appalled reaction from his listeners, and he was correct. Droves called in to tell him what a sick idea it was. Springer, having well, was quick to point out that if the sight would be too revolting and inhumane, why support the government killing of criminals? After all, by paying taxes, one quite literally contributes to the killing of criminals in their state—a point Jerry didn’t make directly while I was listening, but the connection is there.

Frankly, I think his proposal makes some sense. Go ahead and air executions on television—and if the populace can’t stomach the scene, legislation will go through to stop the death penalty in states where people desire such legislation. And, while we’re at it—and as one of his callers aptly pointed out—let’s go ahead and air abortions on television.

As long as we’re talking about publicly funded killing projects, let’s go ahead and talk about abortion too. As long as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU receive tax breaks and subsidies to support abortion clinics, I think it’s only reasonable that I get to see an abortion or two. Some bang for my buck, as it were.

Of course, I’m being absurd, just as Jerry was earlier—an abortion is the last thing I want to see. Watching Nip/Tuck this evening presented the possibility that the female lead, Julia, would have an abortion. The story brought the audience into the clinic, the painful, awkward moments waiting on the couch in the lounge for the nurse to send her back.

Ultimately, the fictitious character couldn’t go through with it, but I could barely watch. I’ll admit that the jury for me is still out on the death penalty—I can certainly see better uses of public money and the criminal justice system—but I know that in my heart that the elective abortion of a healthy human fetus is wrong. I also know it’s wrong to kill a fetus when the biological father doesn’t want it to happen. It takes two adults to consent in creating life, why should only one be allowed to choose whether it lives or dies?

I’m all for equality—always have been and always will be. So then why don’t I get a choice in life? Why does my money have to support this? What can I do to stop it?

Toledo Nazi Rally Thankfully Uneventful

At least comparatively speaking. I’ll try and remove any hometown bias or other discolorations from my remarks regarding the Nazi rally in Toledo earlier today, but I have to get my thoughts in on this.

I had forgotten about the rally entirely until I heard a news item on WTAM earlier this afternoon, describing the scene in downtown Toledo where the Nazi coalition was outnumbered by at least 3 to 1 by the crowd that gathered to protest the rally. The report also cited circulating sentiment amongst the protestors that the mounted police officers were present “to protect” the Nazi group. The report ended on that note without comment from the station’s news-reader, and to that degree I can’t help but think of Hurricane Katrina coverage. Rather than reporting news, WTAM joined the ranks of rumor broadcasters.

Ethical journalism, anyone? Sorry, it would appear we are fresh out here in the States.

Perhaps it would have been better to cite the presence of police officers as “protecting social order.” Seriously, who benefits when people riot? In the case of the last rally, I agree with the opinion that the Nazis win in that case.

Local talk-show host Mike Trivisonno addressed the Nazi rally in a show earlier, where he denounced (read: shouted over anyone with a dissenting opinion) that the Nazis had no right to rally in Toledo. He grounded his argument on two points: the rally offended WWII veterans and those survivors of the German Nazi regime’s concentration camps and brutality, and that al-Qaeda would never be allowed similar privileges. Though I found Triv’s comments troubling, I was even more disturbed by the number of callers who echoed Trivisonno’s message.

I really can’t make a counter-argument against Triv’s first point. I would be kidding myself to say the rally doesn’t offend anyone, let alone those who fought against the German Nazis and suffered unbelievably from their racial-cleansing agenda. However, to say that someone cannot speak their message because it offends people is unreasonable. For instance, I believe 50 Cent’s music is offensive, vulgar, and perpetuates messages equally dangerous to the message of the Nazis, particularly because it is more popular, but I don’t think 50 Cent should be prohibited from performing in public. Free speech and free assembly were written primarily for the protection of unpopular speech.

As for an al-Qaeda rally, I would similarly support the rights of al-Qaeda to rally and spread their message, providing the demonstration was organized and peopled by law-abiding US citizens. In fact, I would much prefer an al-Qaeda that engaged in civic demonstrations as opposed to terrorism as a method of voicing their beliefs.

Reviewing the Academic Argument Against Harry Potter

I suppose it comes as no surprise to many that I dislike JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series. I find it interesting that the degree to which Harry Potter has found massive pop-culture appeal is mirrored in the growing opposition to Harry Potter’s success and appeal. Columnists, politicians, even Pope Benedikt XVI have spoken out against the series’ popularity—but why? Why do all of these presumably reasonable people hold such hatred—sometimes unsubstantiated hatred—against a pop-culture icon?

Any number of reasons can be cited given a particular critic. Conservatives disapprove of Harry Potter on the grounds of the text’s heretical content, distraction from reverence of reality, and fostering idolatry. Liberals disapprove of the mass appeal, marketing strategies, and the cultural homogenization supports. Others avoid the series for apolitical reasons such as aversion to the fantasy genre or popular literature in general.

All the reasons I’ve expressed so far do not engage the text itself, and actually indicate ignorance to the content. Simply hating something without understanding it has caused a lot of suffering in human history. But are there substantive reasons to dislike Harry Potter in the text itself? I admit to having disliked Harry Potter before having read one of the books; but having done so, I find there is sufficient evidence to support many of my own conclusions. Granted, the following evidence only represents the first text, but in discussion I have learned that the arguments can be extended and are, for the most part, not negated in subsequent Potter novels.

Critiques of the series content can be supported by numerous levels of evidence. At the level of the word, the vocabulary is only rigorous enough to the degree with which an intelligent person must be patient with its limitations. I understand writing for children has certain inherent constraints, but the group of children to whom Harry ought appeal should be capable of—and forced to occasionally—look up the meaning of a word once in a while. Without that component, children are gaining almost none of the benefits to language skills reading can provide. In that respect, the prose falls well below proposed educational merit.

For a fantasy novel, Harry Potter is painfully conventional. The narration takes place in an entirely believable environment—the real world—and follows the conventions that follow a young white male superhero protagonist. The problem with that, however, comes in the perception of powerful male characters and subordinated/dominated female characters. All the major power roles in the work are held by white male characters, and there is no female equivalent to any of the major power roles. The male protagonist is also frequently allowed to break rules without normal punishment and occasionally for reward, where other female and some male characters are punished. There are also other political issues beyond those of gender in the novel. The most alarming message delivered by the work seems to be a traditional anti-Semitic one. The goblins, all of whom resemble stereotypical Jewish characteristics, run the bank and are categorizes as greedy and unpersonable. Certainly many readers are aware of the stereotypes, but may not pick up on the nuance of their application in Harry Potter. Younger readers, however, may make the connections subconsciously if/when introduced to Jewish stereotypes.

Popular culture often inspires a counter culture revolution, and Harry Potter is no different. The people who overindulge in Pottermania, like buying all the memorabilia, staying up all night/calling off work to purchase the newest book, and waiting in line for days to see the latest film are engaging in unhealthy, unbalanced lifestyle choices that set poor examples for the works’ target audience. The real trouble with Harry Potter comes out in that regard, because the works are targeted at a highly receptive and impressionable audience. I am not saying Rowling should be censored or anything to that effect; rather, the consumers should be censored. Parents and other facilitators of children purchasing Harry Potter merchandise should take the time to be aware of its content and the cultural values it enforces—juts as they should with anything else they purchase for their children.

Springer and Liberal Anti-War Sentiment

Something that has been troubling me lately is the message of Jerry Springer’s radio program. While I won’t ever hinder him from attempting to make his opinions known, I do take issue with his attempts to reinterpret history. I say reinterpret because I don’t want to sound like I’m recycling the ‘rewriting history’ sentiment parroted by many Republicans, but that more nearly means what I intend.

Springer’s show promo, currently airing on WTAM and his other affiliate stations, call the audience to “think about it,” ‘it’ being the war in Iraq. The language use says a lot to me. ‘It,’ neuter, indefinite pronoun with the ability to reference anything, only represents the war in Iraq in this context. Not that I want to say the war is unimportant, but Springer’s language indicates is an all consuming concern with the war—one that I think is particularly unhealthy. I understand concern and caring for our troops, but I’ve never gotten the feeling from hearing Springer speak of or to military personnel on the program that his concern is genuine, and not a tool to draw attention away from blatantly undermining the administration. Yet, the all-consuming aspect of this leads me to believe he has lost his sense of what is really important.

This is echoed in the remainder of the Springer promo. Springer points out that the middle-east is an area where people have been “beating each other up for thousands of years” and there is a “tribal mentality.” The language here is equally perplexing. Springer seems to want to minimize the gravity of the conflict—they aren’t merely beating each other up—one odes not ‘beat’ with suicide bombers. These are intensely passionate, zealous people—in no way deserving the label of ‘tribal,’ which portrays modern people as Neanderthals. Where is the concern and regard for the Iraqis and other middle-easterners? Why are these ‘compassionate, progressive’ Liberals so eager to slander these people as barbaric? Only when convenient, when it suits their agenda, do they see need to be compassionate and fair. The hypocrisy overwhelms me, and yet the public perception seems to be backwards.

Springer moves on to guide the listener to see the fallacy of the US thinking they could stop all middle-eastern conflict and disarm the centuries old feuds there. In doing so, he blatantly misleads us, and begins the rewriting/reinterpretation I mentioned earlier. President Bush and other leaders never said the conflict in Iraq would solve or disarm any middle-east conflict. Rather, our nation attacked Iraq because the regime posed a threat to the region—potentially the entire world, and harbored and funded terrorist groups. That’s not to say Iraq sponsored 9/11, something else President Bush never said, and the media has given up trying to assert.

Springer’s blatant dishonesty really bothers me. I simply can’t understand how someone so apparently intelligent can be so deceiving—no-one since the Liberal’s own Joseph Goebbel’s, Michael Moore, have I seen someone so genuinely concerned with intentional deception, and rewarded for it.

To Jerry and everyone else demanding Iraq be abandoned, I ask you to stand up and live for the compassion you support, and stop lying. Lying and mistakes differ in knowledge and intent. I believe President Bush, along with many world-leaders, were mistaken about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—but to say that President Bush lied is beyond presumptuous and duplicitous.

A mission statement of sorts.

This evening I authored my last iteration of ‘the Right Stuff’ for Case Western Reserve University’s The Observer student newspaper. Having done so, I have been forced to realize that an outlet for my political musings has been lost. To rectify the problem, I have decided to bring the column to Blogger, for lack of a more convenient venue.

What can a reader expect to see here? My content concerns itself primarily with current events and the manipulation of news media and lack of investigation into various topics. Secondarily, the column will evaluate local politics in Northeast Ohio, the Federal Government, and the state of Ohio in descending order of relevance to my daily life. Finally, my writings serve as a kind of social commentary derived from my observations and thoughts.

Comments are welcome, but I reserve the right to censor anonymous posts.