Over the last week or so, details have begun to emerge concerning the knowledge that Congressional Democratic leadership -- and particularly Nancy Pelosi -- had about America's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture) in the period immediately following September 11, 2001.
Sadly, after much dissembling and backtracking by the Speaker, it has become apparent that, at the very least (and despite her knowledge), she failed to raise any meaningful objections to these techniques until it became politically expedient for her to do so. Or, as 2004 candidate John Kerry might have said, Pelosi was "for torture before she was against it."
This is exactly why I can never be a member of the Democratic Party, why I could not bring myself to vote for John Kerry, nor for Al Gore before him, nor for Bill Clinton before him. Too often, too many Democrats (even on occasions when their inclinations may be correct) tend to take the path of least political resistance and ignore their principles. Or what should be their principles, were they not almost as corrupted by power and special interests as are their Republican rivals.
And what I find almost as disturbing is the willingness of many on the left to act as mere shills, to be apologists for the dereliction of duty practiced by Pelosi and her ilk. If she failed in her responsibilities to America, then let her face the consequences. She -- and all Democrats -- must be made to understand that enduring American ideals matter far more than the latest opinion poll, far more than the fleeting popularity of a Republican administration, far more than the next electoral cycle.
And, if they cannot understand this, then they do not deserve to maintain their current positions of power.
*****
That said, let us take a look at a point of emphasis about which the Left is currently obsessing: torture investigations and prosecutions. To me, there could be no worse idea. The President is correct; there is little of value that can come from such an endeavor.
Yes, I recognize that the Bush Administration lost sight of the ideals that make our nation extraordinary, and, yes, they may have violated both U.S. law and our international treaty obligations. But, I beg you, let us look back to the days after 9/11, to the desperate fear that gripped much of the country. Another attack was inevitable, went the conventional wisdom -- and soon. (And, many feared, in their own backyards. You narcissists know who you are.)
Was the Bush Administration torture policy morally right? No, I do not believe so. But was it borne of a sadistic desire to break the law -- or of a fervent inclination to protect America from further catastrophe? I must conclude that it was the latter.
We must learn from the pseudo-legal darkness into which we, as a nation, willingly descended. But to further descend into a spiral of retribution and bitterness could serve no good of which I can conceive.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Second-Guessing Everyone But Themselves
For the last week, we've had the opportunity to listen to the idea-deprived right wing bash President Obama for "not standing up to terrorists." Which, apparently, pirates who are in it entirely for the money qualify as, if you really, really want to paint a Democrat in a bad light. (Seriously, who pays attention to actual definitions of words?)
Then came this weekend's rescue, approved by the President himself, should it become necessary. Former hostage Captain Richard Phillips is fine now... and the vapid Fox News chicken-hawks are just as impotent and empty-headed as ever, even if there is slightly more egg upon their faces.
Do you think they'll actually say anything about it, fully admit how wrong they were? Or will they just move on to nit-picking about the next manufactured pseudo-scandal, such as whether or not the Obamas' new dog actually qualifies as a rescue animal?
I'm betting on the latter.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Language Of Irrationalism
Lately, I've been trying to gain some sort of understanding of just what it is that drives those of the right-wing stripe. It seems as though there are two mutually unintelligible political languages being spoken in this nation, as though there is an unbridgeable chasm between the far right and the rest of us.
Certainly, there are aspects of modern conservatism of which I have at least some comprehension: The affluent being in favor of policies that further enrich them is easily understandable; The pro-life movement I have some sympathy for, though I feel that they are being led down the primrose path by the G.O.P.; Right-wing racism, nativism, xenophobia and homophobia, though I find them to be reprehensible, are readily grasped.
But just what is it that drives an otherwise normal working-class person to act consistently against his or her own self-interest (and, as it turns out, the interests of the nation as a whole)?
This quest led, in the past week, to a rather interesting exchange with a conservative co-worker, the impetus being a bumper-sticker that read, "Obama: Keep the change. I'll keep my guns, my money and my freedom." It led me to muse aloud why so many people, despite the Administration's policy proposals, were so eager to believe the Republican Party's implication that Barack Obama wants to, in essence, disarm them, take their hard-earned money and give it to a bunch of shiftless Negroes.
My co-worker's ever-so-eloquent reply? "Because we're not liberal commies." I laughed, then ironically thanked him for being so helpful. His rejoinder: "It may be blunt, but it's true."
At this point, I realized that he was not attempting to amuse, in the manner that I might when jokingly calling him a fascist. Instead, he was dead serious; his mindless, and ultimately meaningless, iteration of hate-radio talking points was, in his own mind, a decisive bon mot.
I proceeded to ask him numerous questions about his beliefs. He refused to answer questions about actual public policy, instead preferring to engage in ad hominem attacks against the President; he repeatedly regurgitated the right-wing talking point concerning Obama's use of a teleprompter. Apparently not realizing that Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 had also extensively used such devices, he was only too ready to embrace the notion that a black man, as he put it, "can't speak well without his teleprompter."
In addition, he blamed the President for numerous perceived misdeeds that had, in fact, been perpetrated by others (or that were simply the product of the right-wing imagination). It became increasingly clear that he had no affirmative beliefs. His focus was only upon what he hated; Barack Obama was symbolic for him, a convenient focal point for his copious and otherwise-incoherent rage. He had been fed by the likes of Rush and Sean and Billo, for the entirety of his life, a simple explanation for every problem that he faced, for every injustice that he discerned in the world: blame the evil libruls.
It saddened me that this was all there was to it, that there was not some greater, overarching philosophical basis for my co-worker's beliefs. But, in the end, that is what conservatism is: an appeal to our baser instincts, to the lesser angels of our natures, to anger, to hatred, to irrationalism.
And that is the chasm that separates us, in our nation and in the world: The thoughtful versus the superstitious, the modern versus the medieval, the rational versus the irrational.
And God help humanity if my side loses this battle.
Certainly, there are aspects of modern conservatism of which I have at least some comprehension: The affluent being in favor of policies that further enrich them is easily understandable; The pro-life movement I have some sympathy for, though I feel that they are being led down the primrose path by the G.O.P.; Right-wing racism, nativism, xenophobia and homophobia, though I find them to be reprehensible, are readily grasped.
But just what is it that drives an otherwise normal working-class person to act consistently against his or her own self-interest (and, as it turns out, the interests of the nation as a whole)?
This quest led, in the past week, to a rather interesting exchange with a conservative co-worker, the impetus being a bumper-sticker that read, "Obama: Keep the change. I'll keep my guns, my money and my freedom." It led me to muse aloud why so many people, despite the Administration's policy proposals, were so eager to believe the Republican Party's implication that Barack Obama wants to, in essence, disarm them, take their hard-earned money and give it to a bunch of shiftless Negroes.
My co-worker's ever-so-eloquent reply? "Because we're not liberal commies." I laughed, then ironically thanked him for being so helpful. His rejoinder: "It may be blunt, but it's true."
At this point, I realized that he was not attempting to amuse, in the manner that I might when jokingly calling him a fascist. Instead, he was dead serious; his mindless, and ultimately meaningless, iteration of hate-radio talking points was, in his own mind, a decisive bon mot.
I proceeded to ask him numerous questions about his beliefs. He refused to answer questions about actual public policy, instead preferring to engage in ad hominem attacks against the President; he repeatedly regurgitated the right-wing talking point concerning Obama's use of a teleprompter. Apparently not realizing that Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 had also extensively used such devices, he was only too ready to embrace the notion that a black man, as he put it, "can't speak well without his teleprompter."
In addition, he blamed the President for numerous perceived misdeeds that had, in fact, been perpetrated by others (or that were simply the product of the right-wing imagination). It became increasingly clear that he had no affirmative beliefs. His focus was only upon what he hated; Barack Obama was symbolic for him, a convenient focal point for his copious and otherwise-incoherent rage. He had been fed by the likes of Rush and Sean and Billo, for the entirety of his life, a simple explanation for every problem that he faced, for every injustice that he discerned in the world: blame the evil libruls.
It saddened me that this was all there was to it, that there was not some greater, overarching philosophical basis for my co-worker's beliefs. But, in the end, that is what conservatism is: an appeal to our baser instincts, to the lesser angels of our natures, to anger, to hatred, to irrationalism.
And that is the chasm that separates us, in our nation and in the world: The thoughtful versus the superstitious, the modern versus the medieval, the rational versus the irrational.
And God help humanity if my side loses this battle.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Why So Angry?
I get the feeling that I may be the only person in the U.S. that is not freaking out about the AIG bonuses, considering the near-universal pseudo-populist outcry currently facing our friends in the credit default swap market. But that may be because I've actually been paying attention for the last thirty years.
This Wall Street attitude of entitlement is unsurprisingly pro forma. It is nothing new; it is part and parcel of the "Greed Is Good," "the market is God" mentality that has dominated conservative economic "thought" since the Reagan Era. The basic premise of that ideology is that the market's "invisible hand" will always lead individual actors in the direction of the collective good, and that government can serve only as an impediment to the betterment of mankind.
And now, as during the Great Depression, that economic religiosity has been shown to be utterly lacking.
That doesn't stop Republicans from claiming be appalled by the greed of AIG. But let me say this loud and clear: THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME BEHAVIOR THAT YOU HAVE BEEN LAUDING FOR THE PAST 28 YEARS! This is its logical consequence, and if you are incapable of recognizing that reality, you have absolutely no place in the current public-policy debate. You are part of the problem, so stop pretending that your empty talking points are solutions.
It is time for conservatives to repent their sins or face political exile. There can be no in-between.
This Wall Street attitude of entitlement is unsurprisingly pro forma. It is nothing new; it is part and parcel of the "Greed Is Good," "the market is God" mentality that has dominated conservative economic "thought" since the Reagan Era. The basic premise of that ideology is that the market's "invisible hand" will always lead individual actors in the direction of the collective good, and that government can serve only as an impediment to the betterment of mankind.
And now, as during the Great Depression, that economic religiosity has been shown to be utterly lacking.
That doesn't stop Republicans from claiming be appalled by the greed of AIG. But let me say this loud and clear: THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME BEHAVIOR THAT YOU HAVE BEEN LAUDING FOR THE PAST 28 YEARS! This is its logical consequence, and if you are incapable of recognizing that reality, you have absolutely no place in the current public-policy debate. You are part of the problem, so stop pretending that your empty talking points are solutions.
It is time for conservatives to repent their sins or face political exile. There can be no in-between.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
I Guess I Hate America
Today I had the chance to watch "Erin Brockovich" on one of our movie channels, for the first time in a few years. This is one of those films that (as the right-wingers tell us) shows that Hollywood hates America. I enjoyed it immensely.
If you don't recall, the film recounts the title character's participation in a lawsuit involving the pollution of groundwater with hexavalent chromium by the energy company, Pacific Gas & Electric. It resulted in a tort settlement of over $300 million.
Now, I've heard many conservatives whine that hating corporations equals hating America, and movies like "Erin Brockovich" hate corporations. Thus, they are anti-American.
But why is it that disliking a corporation that breaks the law makes a person "anti-corporation," any more than disliking a person who breaks the law makes one a misanthrope? And why is it that the Right thinks that individuals are so much less important than corporations, as though we all have no purpose other than to serve as cogs in the industrial wheel?
Of course, what it really comes down to is a right-wing love affair with power. They kowtow to it, they worship it... and they believe that we all should merely hope to live off the table scraps that the powerful deign to give us. And if we all die from chromium poisoning, we should be grateful.
Me? I have nothing against corporations, but I feel that following the law is as incumbent upon them as it is upon me or you.
The difference between me and the Right, in the end, is that they are happy to be lap dogs, while I continue to be an independent human being.
If you don't recall, the film recounts the title character's participation in a lawsuit involving the pollution of groundwater with hexavalent chromium by the energy company, Pacific Gas & Electric. It resulted in a tort settlement of over $300 million.
Now, I've heard many conservatives whine that hating corporations equals hating America, and movies like "Erin Brockovich" hate corporations. Thus, they are anti-American.
But why is it that disliking a corporation that breaks the law makes a person "anti-corporation," any more than disliking a person who breaks the law makes one a misanthrope? And why is it that the Right thinks that individuals are so much less important than corporations, as though we all have no purpose other than to serve as cogs in the industrial wheel?
Of course, what it really comes down to is a right-wing love affair with power. They kowtow to it, they worship it... and they believe that we all should merely hope to live off the table scraps that the powerful deign to give us. And if we all die from chromium poisoning, we should be grateful.
Me? I have nothing against corporations, but I feel that following the law is as incumbent upon them as it is upon me or you.
The difference between me and the Right, in the end, is that they are happy to be lap dogs, while I continue to be an independent human being.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Been A Long Time Since I Rock 'N' Rolled
Last month I was lucky enough to get onstage for a reunion gig of the old band, Julio Goldstein -- the first time I'd performed musically in almost a year. Finally got photos of the evening in question: Massive crowd, drunken bar owner, many old fans; it was great fun. Makes me very glad that Jim and I are putting together a new band for the new year.
Rock on, my friends!
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wingnuts On Parade
Yesterday was a red-letter day: this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, convened in Washington, D.C. Billed as "the Largest Annual Gathering of Conservative Students, Activists and Policymakers," it is the right's lunatic fringe on full, proud and open display.
By all accounts, it's pretty much the nonsense you'd expect: Conservatives are the real Americans, Obama is taking us to hell in a handcart, science and rationalism are naughty, victimizing the powerless=Good, empowering the powerless=Evil, that sort of thing.
But one bit of reportage really caught my eye, this from Christopher Beam of slate.com:
Let's, for the moment, disregard the fact that Bolton has misquoted President Obama on the "tiny threat" reference, and let's also disregard the apparent glee that "real Americans" feel at the thought of Chicago being destroyed, Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style. Instead, because it's been sticking in my craw for a while, let's focus upon the current right-wing monomania concerning Iran.
To the heart of the matter: Even assuming that Iran possessed both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reliably delivering them to any given city in the U.S., why in the world would they launch said attack? It is a certainty that any such attack would result in the total annihilation of Iran, its reduction to a charred radioactive cinder, the deaths of a huge percentage of its populace. I find it hard to believe that this is what the leadership of Iran desires, and I am supremely confident that they are capable of "doing the math," so to speak.
"But, Wade," you say, "their President, Ahmadinejad, is a crazy fundamentalist and says terrible things about destroying Israel!" True enough... and he has about as much power in Iran as does John Bolton in the United States. The Presidency of Iran exists only to provide a certain amount of "democratic" sheen to what is a de facto dictatorship.
No, the real power in Iran resides in the person of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The military, the press and the judiciary all answer to Khamenei and are dependent upon him for their positions. And, though he is a despot, he is also a rational actor who wishes to retain his power, just as did the many Soviet Premiers who did not launch nuclear attacks upon the U.S. -- and for the same reason: their assured destruction, should they do so.
Though Iran is, indeed, a major regional power -- one that has been further empowered by the ill-advised U.S. invasion of Iraq -- and poses a direct threat to certain aspects of American policy in the Middle East, it is not about to start a nuclear war with the world's sole superpower. Either the right-wing wackos are too stupid to recognize this reality, or they are baselessly fear-mongering concerning Iran.
In either case, why would anyone listen to them?
By all accounts, it's pretty much the nonsense you'd expect: Conservatives are the real Americans, Obama is taking us to hell in a handcart, science and rationalism are naughty, victimizing the powerless=Good, empowering the powerless=Evil, that sort of thing.
But one bit of reportage really caught my eye, this from Christopher Beam of slate.com:
...the next speaker, John Bolton... recalls the time during the campaign when Obama said Iran was just a "tiny" threat. "Is the loss of one American city picked at random—Chicago—is that a 'tiny' threat?" He delivers this line like Kevin Nealon's Subliminal Man. This brings the house down.
Let's, for the moment, disregard the fact that Bolton has misquoted President Obama on the "tiny threat" reference, and let's also disregard the apparent glee that "real Americans" feel at the thought of Chicago being destroyed, Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style. Instead, because it's been sticking in my craw for a while, let's focus upon the current right-wing monomania concerning Iran.
To the heart of the matter: Even assuming that Iran possessed both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reliably delivering them to any given city in the U.S., why in the world would they launch said attack? It is a certainty that any such attack would result in the total annihilation of Iran, its reduction to a charred radioactive cinder, the deaths of a huge percentage of its populace. I find it hard to believe that this is what the leadership of Iran desires, and I am supremely confident that they are capable of "doing the math," so to speak.
"But, Wade," you say, "their President, Ahmadinejad, is a crazy fundamentalist and says terrible things about destroying Israel!" True enough... and he has about as much power in Iran as does John Bolton in the United States. The Presidency of Iran exists only to provide a certain amount of "democratic" sheen to what is a de facto dictatorship.
No, the real power in Iran resides in the person of the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The military, the press and the judiciary all answer to Khamenei and are dependent upon him for their positions. And, though he is a despot, he is also a rational actor who wishes to retain his power, just as did the many Soviet Premiers who did not launch nuclear attacks upon the U.S. -- and for the same reason: their assured destruction, should they do so.
Though Iran is, indeed, a major regional power -- one that has been further empowered by the ill-advised U.S. invasion of Iraq -- and poses a direct threat to certain aspects of American policy in the Middle East, it is not about to start a nuclear war with the world's sole superpower. Either the right-wing wackos are too stupid to recognize this reality, or they are baselessly fear-mongering concerning Iran.
In either case, why would anyone listen to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
