Don't Torture, But Tell Them We Do

I guess I have to add my two cents to the torture topic, with the release of Bush admin memos. Talking point number 1 from the GOP is that the release of this information makes us less safe. They say, that telling our enemies about our tactics hurts us. That terrorist now know that if they are captured by the US they will not actually be hurt, therefore reducing our ability to trick them into thinking we will hurt them.

This is the single stupidest argument I have ever heard. Do we want terrorists thinking they will be tortured if caught? Did Japan not use that fear to train their soldiers to fight us until death because capture would be worse than death? I want the world to know, to be completely confident, that the US will not torture them. Have we not seen Al-Qaeda using torture, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo as a tool for recruitment? If we are going to say, as President Bush did (blatantly lying to the American people) that we absolutely do not torture, do we not want the world to know that?

It is simply idiotic, not wrong, idiotic to argue that America should not torture, but should make sure the world thinks we do so they are scared of us. Idiotic. Idiotic. Idiotic.

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey make this idiotic argument, as elegantly as they tried to frame it:

Public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Prove it. Actually give us proof of these claims, or shut the fuck up. We as an electorate, can only make accurate decisions about our Representatives if we are informed, so spare me the we have to lie (a lie of omission is still a lie) to you to protect you.

I guess we will call this the "Bluff technique" to anti-terrorism. Do not actually torture but tell the world we do torture. This is what we call speak hard but walk with a soft stick. Simply stupid.

The Google Constituency and New Incentives

There is a uniqueness of the "Youtube Era" and that is the creation of the "Youtube Election." Although, in truth they should be called the "Google Era" and the "Google Constituency." I guess I should briefly explain why I call it the "Google Constituency" and not, specifically not, the "Youtube Election." The reason is, that Youtube, while a substantial part, was merely one of many tools used to increase our communication and connectedness. Google, while only one tool as well, is a symbol of our ability to find information. As a search engine, one that works magnificently, it represents our ability to find what one said yesterday to check it against today. And while Youtube made those moments of hypocrisy and pandering real and vivid, there were many other forms of communication that played a role as well. Blogs acted as a running log of expectations, surprises, fears, hopes, and lies. Ads embedded at a website acted as a volunteer, registering voters, expressing a candidates message, and recruiting more volunteers. All this, and much more, combined with our ability to find this relevant information to create an impressive force of citizen power.

The "Google Constituency" brings with it, consequences that, in large part, protect and progress the integrity and sanctity of our electoral process.

The increase in communication and ease with which the individual can find information has had a specific effect on politicians (many of them) and the idea of political messaging. Whereas, in decades past, politicians had a clear incentive to say one thing to one group of people and something completely different to another, in the election of '08, anything you said could be easily uploaded and blogged. It became somewhat of a risk to pander.

And there was another, more unexpected, consequence. That consequence is the exact opposite of the "say one thing to one group and another to another" strategy. That is the political gain of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of people intentionally, out of principal. President Barack Obama (then Senator Obama) spoke of carbon caps and energy efficiency in Detroit, and the importance of fatherhood at a mostly African American church. Both of these speeches could be seen as condecending, or could be taken that way by the members of the audience. A "Google Constituency" however, makes those local events a national occurrence. Therefore, while President Obama was speaking to a small group, the entire country was listening. While he may not have been in front of the choir, at least not for the specific issue he spoke of, the choir was still listening. And those that disagree with you tend to respect pandering less than saying something they disagree with, assuming they find out it was just pandering.

These events, these instances of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of people intentionally, became a talking point for surrogates and volunteers to describe President Obama's courage and commitment to the issues he preached, preached even if the choir wasn't listening. This concept is entirely new to politics. The "Google Constituency" has allowed us to question all of the traditional thinkings on political strategies. Standard operating procedures now longer apply.

So We Teabagged, What Now?

It may be awkward at first. Staring into your country's eyes, trying not to think about the disgusting teabaggin' you just did to it. What now? Now that you have demonstrated your rage over taxation without representation, errr, I mean, losing an election. What was the purpose? What was the plan, past the act of teabaggin'?

Or is this, yet another, phony, astroturf act of organizing? Was this nothing more than a display for media? A desperate call for attention, like a teenager who gets a tattoo just so mommy and daddy notice him. A play, in the theatrical sense, to show the public that there is an angry, hurt, and hateful group of people that are ready to yell.

What I am trying to get at is this question: What is their plan?

Think back to 2004. We had just lost to President Bush, again. After four years of yelling, we had lost again. However, that time, we decided to get real. Liberals that had never taken a truly active role, put down their "Make Peace Not War" sign in exchange for a clipboard. Gov. Howard Dean called on us to help him create a 50-state strategy and we responded, laying the framework for President Obama's historic campaign. We realized that having a voice is not all that powerful, it is how you use that voice that counts.

Will the teabaggers realize that screaming about the things you disagree with is not nearly enough? I highly doubt it. The likes of Hannity and Santelli care far more for grandstanding than real organizing. Because, as we all know, conservatives have jobs (unlike liberals of course) so they have no time for protests and organizing.

The Responsibility to be an Asshat, err, I Mean Republican

I need to take a quick minute to share with you, a bit of hilarity from the folks over at redstate. An article they have up about the Gov of the country of Texas.

First things first, a series of questions from sir asshat:

Can anyone tell me that Medicare and Social Security are not each about to hit a wall VERY hard, and leave millions of Americans wondering what in the hell happened to their retirement and health care? Can anyone tell me that the massive amounts of spending being spent will not lead to significant inflation in the coming years? Can anyone tell me that the United States government will enforce its borders? Can anyone tell me that the United States government will take the necessary steps to get adequate fossil fuels, or build nuclear power to maximize liberty and lower energy costs? Can anyone tell me that we will be able to celebrate Christmas in schools or graduate students equipped for the world if we follow the ways of Washington? Can anyone tell me our healthcare system will be better off with greater Washington involvement?

Question 1: Yes. In fact, the Social Security bankruptcy is an unsubstantiated myth. When our government evaluates Social Security, they put together three separate forecasts. An optimistic one, a pessimistic one, and one somewhere in the middle. The one saying it will be bankrupt is the middle one. At first glance, that sounds reasonable. However, historical evidence shows us that every time, the optimistic forecast has been the most accurate. Our optimistic forecast (put out by President Bush's administration, mind you) says that, not only, will we not be bankrupt, we will have more money for it than we do now. Secondly, when it comes to Medicare, please show me one mainstream Republican that is in favor of cutting Medicare, or cutting up their own Medicare card. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.

Question 2: First off, "spending being spent" is not exactly proper English. As you like to say to the non-whites, you're in America, learn English. And no, I cannot tell you it will not lead to inflation. What I can tell you, is that doing nothing (or in Republican, cutting taxes and reducing regulations) would have a far worse impact on our economy after the devastation of your king, err, President Bush.

Question 3: Yes. In fact, liberals support enforcing the border (especially pro labor liberals). And, I think, our support for it will increase tenfold if Texas secedes. Secondly, I ask conservatives to name one democrat since Reagan's amnesty drive that has reduced the number of boarder patrol guards. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Question 4: Yes. You know what else they'll do in the process, invest in new, cheap, cleaner, more efficient forms of energy to make us "energy independent" so we don't have to give so much money to the conservatives most hated people, Muslims (see "terrorist" in the GOP dictionary).

Question 5: That's not a real question, right? Name one, one single move that President Obama has taken to outlaw celebrating Christmas in schools? This reminds me of when I got in a fight with a McCain staffer because one of their guest speakers accused President Obama (then Senator) of wanting to outlaw the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously, you whacko, fuckhead, see a therapist.

Question 6: Yes. In fact, the best health care systems are Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration. I dare you too find anyone clamoring to get off Medicare. In fact, when ever people do switch from Medicare to a private option, they later complain about being lied to, manipulated, scammed. So yes, almost anything would be better than an industry which makes its money off denying coverage to the ill (or the people that need health care, as I like to call them).

So, in conclusion, shut up.

And about that crazy, asshat of a Governor, the federal government has the right to attach strings to funds (which is why I agreed with the feds that schools who refuse military recruiters can lose federal funding, I would be the first one to set up a table next to them telling people not to enlist while we have an immoral war going on in Iraq, but I agreed with the feds). Where was this outrage while President Bush tied our economy up and put out lit cigars on it? Where was this outrage when we found out that President Cheney, err, Bush was spying on Grannies for peace?

Where was the outrage when our legislators passed the Patriot Act, the single largest dump ever taken on the Constitution?

Republican's are not conservative. They are anti Democrat. In other words, they support everything the Republican's do, so long as it is not in line with anything the Democrats do, and if it is, they better have done it first.

I call your bluff Governor Perry. Our opinion on the subject has not changed. So, either secede and cut off all ties to this oppressive dictatorship, or shut up with the grandstanding.

President Bush on Piracy

Quick note: I know this blog has been somewhat inactive as of recently. Between my hospital trip, my trip to Albany for the special election, getting a new job, and partnering up with a film maker to produce political videos, I needed a little rest.

Piracy has been the hot topic of the last week or so. While not nearly enough attention is given to the question of how these men became pirates (a sad story of nuclear waste and illegal fishing), what has been talked about even less is this little PDF put out in December of 2008.

This reminds me of Clinton's Counter Terrorism Initiative. The big difference? President Bush threw his predecesor's plans out the freakin window, whereas, President Obama left his predecessor's plan in place. It may have been insufficient (like the majority of President Bush's attempts to solve a problem), but it was not ignored.