It's Raining....

It's raining today. I've heard a lot of complaints about the weather. It's ruined our weekend at the lake, it's too cold to use the pool, I wanted to grill outdoors today, so forth and so on.

We have reached a point in our culture, where today is the "SUMMER KICKOFF" weekend and not the day of remembrance it should be. Today is the day that we should all take time to remember those that have given their life in the service of their country. Four thousand, nine hundred and sixty two so far in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are those who have blogged today about the innocent who die in war. The so-called "collateral damage" that accompanies any war. And make no mistake...those deaths are not to be minimalized. Every Iraqi child killed during the "liberation" of Iraq had someone who mourned their loss as bitterly as the mother of any soldier. A great deal of time could be spent in discussing whether those deaths were justified. BUT NOT TODAY!

Today is the day when we as a nation should honor the memory of our fallen sons and daughters. Whether we agreed with their mission, today is a day that we collectively take responsibility for thier blood. We as a people elected the officials that set the missions and authorize the funds. We as a people offered the lives of our children up as a testament to our collective ideals. And they go! And they die! And (for better or worse) they change the world on our behalf. For that service and sacrifice on this day we honor their memory.

Today we do not debate the merits of the job they do at our behest, but honor the blood they shed at our request. Because even when the mission itself is questionable or not well thought out....American Armed Services are on the ground doing thier job! We owe them respect for that.

It's a somber and gloomy day. It's raining...and perhaps that is appropriate. Even the heavens should weep for the loss of our soldiers.

And after we have reflected upon the blood that we have spilled, perhaps we as a nation will remember how precious that blood is. Tomorrow we will think about the loss before we commit the troops. Perhaps we will be certain that the loss is justified by the mission. Perhaps we will remember that war is a reality and not a B-movie! The extras don't get up after the filming and have coffee. In the real world we bury our children in war!

God Speed to our fallen countrymen! Our prayers go to your families. And thank you!

NOTRE DAME: An American Experience

On Sunday, President Obama gave the Commencement Address to approximately 3,000 graduates at Notre Dame and was given an honorary law degree. It was controversial because the President has supported a women’s right to choose. It was controversial because Catholic Universities have been asked not to bestow honors on pro-choice speakers, yet Notre Dame has given many past presidents an honorary degree. Their decision to give the President that honor has cost them an estimated $13 million dollars in alumni funding. Many students wore cards on the top of their graduation caps that showed a cross with two baby foot prints to the on looking cameras. Approximately 30 students skipped the ceremony to participate in a prayer vigil during the ceremony.

The ceremony had the potential of being a political nightmare for the President and a disastrous memory for graduates and their parents. Instead it was a beautiful reminder of what is best about our country!

What happened? Thirty-seven protestors outside were arrested for trespassing. The President of the University spoke on why he felt it important to listen to opposing views. He also gave strong voice to the fact that Catholics strongly oppose Obama’s stance on stem cell research and abortion. President Obama’s speech was interrupted three times by protesters yelling from inside the stadium. Each time they were shouted down by students. No graduates walked out in protest. And a graduating class was urged to “find a way to live together as one human family”.

During his speech, President Obama looked at one of the great questions of modern political discourse:

“The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”

And that was the beauty of last Sunday afternoon…an honest discussion was held on abortion without either side “demonizing” the other. Yes, there was protest! But that is part of being an American. Yes, there were people attempting to disrupt the ceremony…but they left quietly after their moment of civil disobedience. (And as someone who once disrupted a Chancellor’s inauguration…who am I to complain about that?) There were students who chose to boycott the ceremony, but that was their right as an American. (And while I do not agree with their viewpoint, I respect their integrity.) The students who wore the cross on their caps silently & respectfully stood up to one of the most popular Presidents of modern times. It became a unique opportunity to put into action the principals that they had spent the last four years learning at this Jesuit institution.

And in the face of this opposition, President Obama spoke of the importance of avoiding “caricature” when debating policy in America. He did not duck the issue but talked of finding common ground that we can agree on. Instead of laying claim to a battleground of differences, he asked us to consider issues with “Open hearts, open minds, fair words.”

He correctly assessed that we will never all agree on the abortion debate. But what we CAN agree on is the idea that we can actively work to decrease abortions. We must not make Doctors who are pro-life to perform abortions to keep their jobs. We must help to make adoption easier and to provide health care to expectant mothers who choose to keep their child. Common ground found through “fair words”. If only we could do the same all the time with the issues that divide us as Americans.

It was a great AMERICAN day filled with voices of opposition raised not in anger but in hope of making tomorrow a better day. Fifty years from now those graduating seniors will remember fondly last Sunday. It gave me hope and made me proud to be an American!

STICKS & STONES

Next week the Republican National Committee will be holding a special meeting. By "special", I mean that it took 16 RNC members from 16 different states and a little used procedual rule to override the objection to this meeting by Committee Chairman Steele.

The reason for this auspicious meeting? To vote on three resolutions for the party.

Resolution 1: To urge Republican lawmakers to reject earmarks. (A noteworthy purpose...are you listening Sen. Bond?)

Resolution 2: To commend Republican legislators for opposing "bailouts and reckless spending bills". (Wording that denounced Republicans Spectre, Snowe & Collins was dropped after Arlen Spectre joined the Democratic Party.)

But the main reason for calling the meeting is Resolution 3: Which "renames" the Democratic Party as the DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST PARTY.

You have to marvel at the arrogance of any group of grown men (and a few women) coming together to vote on changing the name of a rival organization. (Most people older than Junior High do not have to have a group vote to resort to name calling.) This is somewhat like Exxon-Mobile voting to refer to Greenpeace as "THE TREEHUGGERS". Or Planned Parenthood voting to refer to NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE as "NATIONAL RIGHT OF BREEDERS TO LIFE".

IT'S SILLY! STICKS & STONES!

The ever-shrinking GOP needs to realize that Americans want them to offer solutions to real problems. Formal voting for name-calling isn't going to advance their cause.

Be watching next week when Eric Cantor threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue if Obama doesn't resign from office immediately!

TOLD YOU SO!!!

Towards the end of Pres. Bush's first term there was much discussion concerning Presidential Powers. Many liberals were terrified that as a nation, we were ceding too much authority to the President. The Patriot Act and FISA were debated non-stop. Those of us on the left who argued that too many civil liberties were being encroached upon in the name of "security" were laughed at. We were stupid they said, at that time, to worry about such things. After all; if you weren't doing anything wrong, you had nothing to worry about. America had been attacked and we would stop at nothing to keep Americans safe.

Now many years later, those on the Right are suddenly concerned about these same civil liberties that the Left was warning about. Back then, it was no big deal that the FBI was infiltrating anti-war meetings to spy on the Left. Now it is a VERY BIG deal that the FBI spied on the Tea Parties. On four separate occasions during the Bush administration, legislation was offered to Congress to end term limits for the President. (A very bad idea but nobody had any objections to it.) But now that same bill (which is still stuck in committee) is a plot to make President Obama dictator for life. A report from Homeland Security (requested by the Bush Administration) warns of the dangers of domestic terrorism from Right Wing Extremists. Suddenly, the idea that "Big Brother's" watching you seems Orwellian and has nothing to do with keeping the country safe from terrorist acts but is a way to confiscate our guns.

Back then, I used to say, "Don't give President Bush any authority that you would be uncomfortable with a President Hillary Clinton having!" Now I just chuckle to myself and think, "I told you so!" as I listen to the Right scream about President Obama taking over the government and turning our country into a dictatorship that endangers their Constitutional rights!

And he could you know. Because both Democrats and Republicans gave him the means to do it way back then by voting for the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act lists the following provisions that many Americans feel infringe on civil liberties:

· INFORMATION SHARING: Allows information gained from a criminal investigation to be shared with intelligence agencies and other government departments. Sounds harmless but it allows the government to establish massive data bases on citizens who are not the target of criminal investigations.

· ROVING WIRETAPS: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices. (I.E. Phone, cell phone, e-mail, blackberry, etc.) Many feared that the language of the act was so vague that it would lead to privacy violations on people that came into casual contact with the subject.

· ACCESS TO RECORDS: Allows almost unlimited access to business records in foreign intelligence operations. These records can include credit card records, lists of library books you have checked out, etc.

· "SNEAK & PEEK WARRANTS: These allow a suspect's home or office to be searched by the government without immediate notification. Critics of this provision argue that it is so vague that it could be used for minor crimes as well as major intelligence investigations.

· MATERIAL SUPPORT: This expanded the ban on giving assistance to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance". The Left has always maintained that this makes "guilt by association" way too easy.

So how does this affect "Joe the Plumber" out in the "Real America"? Let's take a hypothetical example.

Joe likes collecting guns. So Joe goes to a gun show where he purchases a weapon from a dealer. He strikes up a conversation with the dealer, who seems really nice and very well informed on politics. He and the dealer exchange e-mail addresses and the dealer promises to send him some information on any new weapons he receives.

Over the next few months, Joe & the dealer exchange e-mails and phone calls. Joe even purchases a couple more weapons from the dealer. The dealer recommends some books that Joe might enjoy on politics and Survivalism. He also asks Joe for advice on a variety of subjects.

Now, unbeknownst to Joe, the dealer is also the Grand High Poobah for the Grand High Order of White Supremacists! They are secretly plotting to blow up a federal building because they are convinced that President Obama is actually a Kenyan and therefore his taxes are illegal. They are convinced that as "true Americans" it is their duty to keep America from turning Socialist.

The government has discovered this plot and they are now using provisions of the Patriot Act to look into all of the dealer's business and personal contacts. (They can do this because according to the Patriot Act, the President has the power to determine if you are an "enemy combatant", you don't have to be a foreigner to be so labeled.) During this investigation Joe the Plumber's contact with the gun dealer is discovered. And he now comes under investigation.

During a search of his home and computer, they discover a file on his computer that serves as a personal diary where he wonders if the US wouldn't be better off without Obama. He wasn't serious, just a little drunk when he typed it. Never published it or even wanted to show it to anyone. But now he is under suspicion.

E-mails show that he advised the gun dealer when asked specific questions about how to get a plumbing license. A check of credit card records show Joe has made several "payments" to the dealer. Unfortunately the dealer keeps bad books and has no records of originally owning the guns Joe bought. So it gives the appearance of Joe donating money to "the cause". Joe is guilty of offering "material support" (under the new legal definition) to the terrorists.

So Joe is picked up as an enemy combatant and "questioned" about his ties to the Grand High Order of White Supremacists. Now he has none, but they don't believe him. So they decide that he needs "extreme interrogation techniques" to make him reveal what they are certain he must know. (But don't worry....waterboarding isn't really torture!)

Now do I believe this will really happen? Of course not! But if I was as suspicious of President Obama as many on the Right are....I would be seriously rethinking the Patriot Act right now. And I am smart enough to know that in 2012 or 2016 the next President may scare me even more than President Obama scares the Right.

You see how this works. What was once heralded as legislation that would save us all from Muslim terrorists can also be used to persecute YOU for beliefs that differ from the current President. It is essential to our system of checks and balances that we give no President a power that we would not be comfortable with all presidents having.

So my question to Conservatives now is....Do you still support the Patriot Act? (Don't worry, if you're not doing anything wrong they won't bother you!)

I hope you keep in mind the next time you are worrying about how President Obama is going to come and get you....we gave him legal authority to do it. All in the name of keeping America safe!

And just in case you think my hypothetical story is really far fetched, I remind you to research the case of Steve Kurtz.

TORTURE: A PRAGMATIC VIEW

Fox News got it wrong again! On a recent online webcast, Fox anchor Shepard Smith responded to a question regarding whether America should torture detainees for vital information by yelling, “We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not f^*king torture!"

But the truth is that we in America have tortured to obtain information. We have tortured systematically in Afghanistan, Iraq and Quantanamo and it has been approved by the highest levels of government. As a nation, we are bitterly divided on whether torture is justified or not. Approximately half of all Americans believe that there are some situations that justify torture while half believe it is NEVER justified. (Interestingly enough, over 60% of Evangelical Christians believe it is justified…and the more often you attend church services the more likely you are to support torture. While the people least likely to support torture do not attend church at all.)

Conservatives will tell you that America's "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not REALLY torture. "It's not like there is any permanent damage and it's not as bad as what Muslims do to each other anyway." Conservatives tell you that ALL other countries torture. We're no different than they are. Conservatives will tell you that it's ok to torture because IT WORKS!

But the truth is that waterboarding has been called torture by Americans in the past. We have charged, tried, convicted and hung Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American troops. Japanese soldiers whose only crime was to "interrogate" Americans in order to extract information needed to save the lives of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Why is the crime different now than it was then?

And yes, other countries torture. But as my Grandmother used to say, "If everybody else jumped off a bridge, does it make it ok for you to?"

Liberals will tell you that torture lowers our moral standing in the world. It provides recruitment propoganda for terrorists. It endangers our troops in future combat by making it MORE LIKELY that they will be tortured if captured. But these are merely ideological arguments.

If your personal ideology says torture is wrong, none of the arguments from the Right will persuade you that it's ok. If your personal ideology says torture is OK you won't change your mind listening to me. Stop reading, plop down on your couch and put in the second season of "24" or a rerun of HBO's "Oz" or just log onto an internet gay bondage site. You can get your jollies without wasting time on justifying it.

Conservatives are right on only one point. Torture can work. It can get you information that is needed. So if we ignore the ideological reasons for torture, we must examine the pragmatic aspects of torture as a way of obtaining information.

Now I have admitted that torture can work. But just because it works does not mean that it is the BEST way to achieve your goals of obtaining information. There are a lot of problems that are associated with answers received from torture.

For one thing you get a lot of bad answers to go along with the truth. And that leaves you with the problem of which answers are true "threats" and which are made up stories told only to STOP the torture. Eventually you can sift through the lies, but the time and resources to track down all of these stories can be enormous. Remember all the security alerts that were issued almost weekly in 2004. Liberals thought Bush was making things up to keep people scared and voting Republican. Now it looks like the government was reacting to fake confessions from terrorists.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) has been a poster child for waterboarding. The Bush administration has claimed that huge amounts of information came from KSM's "interrogation sessions". But CIA analysts contend that most of it was lies resulting in massive wastes of resources to check out the lies. Said one former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M.,

“90 percent of it was total f^#king bullsh*t.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

Only 10% of the information given by KSM was true and that 10% produced NO actionable intelligence. Does that justify torture? The military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (which oversees the SEAR program that our nation's torture policies were designed from) states, "the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained...A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop,". In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information."

Torture also comes with the problem of what if the person you are torturing for information really doesn't know anything. What if he's innocent? The assumption has to be made that he is resisting interrogation which means he knows something which means you need to keep torturing to get the information that you think he's withholding and that he really doesn't know! It's pointless.

Take the case of Diliwar, a young Afghan who was arrested by the Afghan army for suspicion of being involved in a rocket attack against an American base. The US tortured him for information on his co-conspirators. He never gave them up. He continued to insist he was innocent. Eventually he died of injuries suffered during his interrogation. AFTER his death, it was discovered that he really was just a 120 pound, 22 year old kid who had driven his taxi into the wrong neighborhood. The Afghan military officer who turned him in was later arrested and charged with the actual rocket attack. Dilwar was a patsy! We killed him in an effort to obtain information that he never had.

The problem with torture is that it is never as clean as it is in the movies. The information you recieve is not necessarily good information. In the end, we have to ask ourselves as a nation, Is torture really an effective use of intelligence resources? Even if you have no moral objections, you need to be able to prove that the information that torture produces is worth the cost to our nation's ideals!