America either tortures people or it doesn’t (updated)

Remember the debate over the torture issue? It was back before the fears of swine flu surfaced, so it’s pretty ancient now…I think it was last Friday. Near as I can tell, the position of the old Bush guard (pun intended) is that we do not torture, but it doesn’t matter anyway because it’s not illegal to torture, which is not something we do, anyway. I’m pretty much sick and tired of the debate, but it is a debate that apparently must be had, because there are seemingly honest, intelligent people in this country who will say with a straight face that simulating drowning by covering a person’s face and repeatedly dowsing them with water until they think they are on the verge of death is not torture, but “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and that we shouldn’t bother with any sort of investigations into the legality of such actions because…well, I guess it’s because we have better things to do. Of course, Republicans are always complaining that government is too big, so perhaps we can just use some of the extra weight to conduct investigations and prosecutions, while the important and necessary parts of the government carry on. If the alleged wrongdoers didn’t do anything wrong, then they’ve got nothing to hide, and what would be the harm in investigating, right? Right?

I can throw the quotes of Bushies back in their faces all day, and I’d love to do so, but here’s the thing: to say that investigations and prosecutions of torture would “tear this country apart” is bullshit, plain and simple. This is not an issue of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, or whatever. It’s a question of basic human dignity. It doesn’t matter what our opponents do, or what they plan to do, or what they’d like to do to us. We (and by that I mean America) hold ourselves out as the “shining city on a hill” to inspire the peoples of the world. We have squandered every last bit of goodwill that we spent the first 200+ years of our history earning from the rest of the world in the supposed name of keeping ourselves safe from…something. The Bushies never would tell us exactly what…

Investigations and prosecutions are not just necessary, they are essential…not just to regain the world’s respect, but to regain respect for ourselves. If this truly is a partisan issue, if there really is an argument to be made for legally sanctioned and clandestine torture, then let that argument be made out in the open, within the hearing of all Americans and the world, open to discussion and debate. If having such a debate would be damaging to our republic, if it would somehow damage our ability to “move forward,” it does not matter. If we cannot address our own wrongdoing without ripping ourselves apart, then we are just prolonging the inevitable. America is more than a nation, and at the risk of sounding trite, it is an idea that has endured longer than most states ever have. America is a dream of freedom and liberty under law. Let those laws work, and if it tears us apart in the process, what was it that we were really holding together in the first place?

UPDATE: Gene Lyons at Salon has two excellent pieces on the genesis of this whole debacle here and here.

UPDATE II: Ditto for Gary Kamiya:

Those opposed to reopening the book on the Bush years argue that doing so would tear the country apart. They’re right — but they forget that the country is already torn apart. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans has never been wider. The Republican Party, the home of those who still defend the Bush years, has become a reactionary and increasingly marginal movement that is in fealty to crude demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and whose hysterical denunciations of Obama sound more and more unhinged.

What this means is that those Americans who would be truly outraged by an investigation are already outraged. It could not make them any angrier or more bitter than they already are. And even if it did, how much difference would that make? The GOP base already regards Democrats as terrorist-coddling communists. Are they going to all join militias?

I kind of suspect that Mr. Kamiya has not been to Texas recently, or he might not be so sanguine about the idea of Republicans joining militias. I still prefer that to everyone hiding their true colors.

I suppose it’s possible that for some the battle lines have not yet been drawn. I certainly hope not, though.

Share

Mocking "conservative" movies, part 2

This is the second installment in my intermittent series poking fun at National Review Online’s list of the 25 best “conservative” movies. Mostly, I am mocking the notion that there is a single unified “conservative” ideology anymore at all. Now, then, on to #6-10 (WARNING: Spoilers abound!):

6. Groundhog Day. I actually haven’t seen this one, either (that’s two so far), but I’ve certainly heard a lot about it. It’s “conservative” cred apparently comes from its moral “that redemption and meaning are derived not from indulging your ‘authentic’ instincts and drives, but from striving to live up to external and timeless ideals.” All I can think to say is duh. If you do anything enough times (as Bill Murray’s character is forced to repeat the same day again and again ad nauseam), you’re bound to either (a) go insane or (b) discover some deeper meaning to it all. This is hardly a viewpoint upon which “conservatives” hold a monopoly.

7. The Pursuit of Happyness. Long story short, single dad sacrifices everything to provide for his young son, and becomes a fantabulously successful stockbroker in the process, all during the Reagan administration. Possibly Will Smith’s best performance ever, and it certainly does demonstrate the ostensibly “conservative” virtues of self-reliance, family values, and accumulation of wealth. I have a few bones to pick with NRO’s analysis of the film, though:

  • “[T]his film provides the perfect antidote to Wall Street and other Hollywood diatribes depicting the world of finance as filled with nothing but greed.” Perhaps you missed the scene where Will Smith’s character gets the idea to become a stockbroker from a man driving a Ferrari.
  • “They’re black, but there’s no racial undertone or subtext.” Except for the one you just created. Seriously, you already said it was a Will Smith movie, so why was this sentence necessary?
  • “Gardner [Will Smith’s character] is just an incredibly hard-working, ambitious, and smart man who wants to do better for himself and his son.” Who takes an unpaid internship based on the dream of a Ferrari and the ability to solve a Rubik’s Cube (see above YouTube link).

Those quibbles aside, this was a terrific movie. Certainly some liberties were taken with the facts, but the story ought to inspire anyone who sees it.
An amusing side note: after getting the job at Dean Witter, Gardner was then recruited to Bear Stearns.

8. Juno. Sigh. If this movie has any sort of anti-abortion message to it, it’s really just one that viewers impose onto it. Juno’s only stated reason for leaving the clinic is that it “smelled like a dentist’s office.” More importantly is the fact that Juno chose to leave the clinic after running a gauntlet of a single protester. The protester was more an object of satire in the film than anything about Juno’s decision to seek an abortion. A common problem in the whole abortion debate is that people see it as only being two-sided: you oppose abortion rights, or you think it’s all hunky-dory. I always thought “pro-choice” was a great choice of labels, because you can support the right to choose without actually liking the procedure itself. But back to the film: aside from the imposed “pro-life” meaning (and I hate that label for reasons I’ll discuss some other time), the NRO reviewer doesn’t have much nice to say about the movie: “The film has its faults, including a number of crass moments and a pregnant high-school student with an unrealistic level of self-confidence.” Actually, I thought it pretty much depicted the teenage years as a series of crass moments. Juno is not a particularly realistic individual 16 year-old, but she is a pretty good cypher for a generalized teenage mindset: torn between all the various pressures and expectations of late childhood, and trying to maintain her own sense of self throughout it all, blah blah blah…point being, there is a lot more going on here than just a “pro-life” or “conservative” message. Finally, recall that the movie ends with the baby being adopted by a single mother. Yikes!

9. Blast from the Past. If you wanted evidence that “conservatives” have no sense of irony or satire, look no further. “Brendan Fraser plays an innocent who has grown up in a fallout shelter and doesn’t know the era of Sputnik and Perry Como is over. Alicia Silverstone is a post-feminist woman who learns from him that pre-feminist women had some things going for them.” I haven’t seen the film in a good long while, but I’m trying to imagine the two actors discussing the merits of Valium-addled ’50s housewives versus Prozac-addled late-’90s career-driven mothers, etc., etc. It could be that I’m too cynical. Maybe I need a good dose of 1950’s-era idealism! Well, it’s sure a good thing I’m not a gay black communist woman–I hear the 1950’s weren’t so great for those groups. This is just the same tired old “conservative” cliche that there existed some mythical past when Everything Was Better, and modern society has somehow lost its way.

10. Ghostbusters. Really? Well, there was a very Reaganesque ethic to the movie, which I think is the sole basis for including it on this list: “[Y]ou have to like a movie in which the bad guy (William Atherton at his loathsome best) is a regulation-happy buffoon from the EPA, and the solution to a public menace comes from the private sector.” Of course, the EPA buffoon as portrayed utterly failed to follow any of his own agency’s procedures for information gathering, but that allowed Bill Murray to have a funny smackdown scene with him. The shutdown of the containment facility was a sterling depiction of Bush II-era disregard for the rule of law in the interest of national security (they had a warrant none of the Ghostbusters were allowed to see.) But seriously, my main concern with this movie’s “conservative” creds arises from two facts: (1) a god not mentioned in the Bible tries to destroy the world, and (2) salvation is left to the New York National Guard and four snarky private contractors–four smart-asses defeating ultimate evil? That’s what the movie is really about, and it’s a little too timelessly awesome to just be “conservative.”

Now for some video:

Share

Question re: pirate standoff

OK, I understand the importance of safeguarding the captain held hostage aboard the pirates’ lifeboat, as well as the 200-odd other hostages held by Somali pirates elsewhere. This isn’t something where we (and by that I mean the U.S. military) should charge in guns blazing–those times are quite rare, if they exist at all. Keeping the hostages safe is the most important factor, although I think “never negotiating with terrorists” is strongly vying for the top spot among priorities. And yes, just because your motives are pecuniary and not ideological doesn’t mean you are not a terrorist–just my $0.02.

Here’s what I don’t get, though: the U.S.S. Bainbridge, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, is “keeping its distance, in part to stay out of the pirates’ range of fire.”

I am no expert in naval strategy and tactics, nor do I have any proficiency in hostage negotiations (particularly where there are potentially multiple hostages in play in multiple locations). But really, unless they are carrying suitcase nukes, what could the pirates possibly have on board the lifeboat that could seriously threaten the Bainbridge? The only shots fired so far appear to have been fired by the pirates during an escape attempt by the hostage. Does the Bainbridge have any Marine snipers on board or anything? Maybe I’ve just seen too many movies, but when the most powerful Navy the world has ever known is held at bay by a lifeboat, something just seems a bit wrong.

Discuss.

Share

I triumphantly return to blogging by mocking the idea of "conservative" movies

It’s not difficult to point out some movies that are decidedly “liberal,” at least based on the overall tone and plot of the film. A few titles come to mind such as The American President and Dave, wherein Republican politicians receive their comeuppance by Democratic politicians or a likeable everyman character. For some reason, it seems harder to label a particular film “conservative,” particularly using the present-day meanings of the words “liberal” and “conservative.” Sometimes I think “liberal” ideas just make for better drama–stories of an underdog triumphing against the odds are much more compelling than stories of the struggle to remain abstinent or to retain one’s tax cuts. I jest, somewhat, but the reason I’m even writing this is because I have been haunted for the past several days by the National Review Online’s list of the 25 best “conservative” movies (h/t Chez Pazienza at HuffPo). What, you may ask, is a “conservative” movie? Well, in this case it refers to films “that offer compelling messages about freedom, families, patriotism, traditions, and more.” With such a generic definition, this should be an entertaining list. Personally, I think it shows the utter bankruptcy of the very concept of a single “conservative” ideology in 2009 America. Cue the snark.

1. The Lives of Others. Beyond a doubt, this is one of my all-time favorite movies. Set in East Berlin in 1984, it tells the story of a Stasi spy assigned to snoop on a barely-tolerated subversive playwright, and how the spy comes to sympathize with the playwright’s ideals and freedoms over the Communist system he has devoted his life to. Thinking that communism and totalitarianism suck is hardly the sole domain of “conservatives” anymore, though, so I hereby reclaim The Lives of Others for my fellow political independents.

2. The Incredibles. Another one of my favorite movies, said to “celebrate marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement.” These are “conservative” values? I think someone missed the last 8 years.

3. Metropolitan. I haven’t seen it, but it apparently involves a normal guy showing up a bunch of effete New York snobs. And that’s really what conservatives are all about.

4. Forrest Gump. The title character is described as “an amiable dunce who is far too smart to embrace the lethal values of the 1960s.” I suppose that is one way of interpreting it, but I got a rather strong anti-everything-stupid vibe from the movie, not just limited to hippies. Meh.

5. 300. Seriously. 300 is considered a conservative film. Beefcake in leather speedoes being fed into a meat grinder in the name of defending a society that kills unfit individuals at birth. It is worth noting that a major cause of the eventual smackdown they receive (aside from being horrifically outnumbered) is the betrayal of one of those “unfit” individuals who was allowed to live, and man was he pissed. I suppose the lesson is that freedom isn’t free and must be defended at all costs, which is why so many College Republicans have volunteered to go to Iraq. Oh wait…

I think I’ll have to make this a series of sorts, since I’m not going through all 25 in one sitting. Besides, I like to leave my reader(s) wanting more…

Share

Just when you thought it was safe(r) to go in the water…

Prepaqre for the invasion of the jellyfish. That’s the result of a National Science Foundation study, which reveals massive swarms of jellyfish are appearing in oceans worldwide in apparently unprecedented numbers.

I don’t know about you, dear reader(s), but jellyfish scare the crap out of me. They’re just…weird. They’re goopy, tentacle-y, and they don’t even have brains!!! How can we compete with such a beast???

I remember summers on the beach at Port Aransas as a kid, having to dodge beached jellyfish and Portuguese men-o-war (which also contributed, I’m sure, to a lifelong fear of Lusophones.)

Incidentally, having spent all of my childhood beachgoing at Port A and Corpus Christi, Texas, I was in my early teens before I learned that it is not normal, after a day at the beach, to sit in the tub and clean tar off of yourself. Thank you, offshore driliing industry!

Back to the jellyfish, though…if we’re already having problems with depleted fisheries, melting glaciers, and oceanic “dead zones,” the thought of angry swarms of jellyfish in coastal areas is, well, troublesome. I will be spending all of my vacations in mountainous inland areas from now on.

Portugese Man o’ War pic from Wikimedia Commons

Share

Tattoos hit the political mainstream, finally, sort of

After years of hard-fought, oft-thankless struggle, a tattooed she-devil may finally have a shot at the United States Senate.

Okay, that’s a gross exaggeration, actually. It would appear that Caroline Kennedy has a tiny, partially-removed butterfly tat on her left arm that, now that she’s pondering a Senate run, is making a few waves here and there.

Could this be the defining moment for body art on the body politic? Perhaps. It’s much more likely that the Mainstream Media just didn’t have very much to do today. Still, I have been pondering for some time where all of this is leading–those of you who don’t live in Austin in the summer months may not be used to the sight of more tribal patterns than a New Guinea jungle (was that racist? Maybe a little–I was just going for a “tribal” analogy. Apologies to all Melanesians who might take offense.) Will the bulk of my generation of Austinites eventually come to regret their dragonscale sleeve tats? For my part, I think the HR directors of the future will have little to no cause to bemoan others’ ink, as they will no doubt be (at least partially) concealing old tramp stamps from their wild college days.

I leave it to history to decide.

And anyway, Ms. Kennedy has a tiny butterfly, big whoop.

Share

It’s good to be the king

I can’t say I agree with or approve of the practice going on here, but I am astonished to see this headline in 2008:

Bare-breasted virgins compete for Swaziland king

By Phakamisa Ndzamela

LUDZIDZINI ROYAL VILLAGE, Swaziland (Reuters) – Tens of thousands of bare-breasted virgins competed for Swaziland King Mswati III’s eye on Monday in a traditional Reed Dance.

Walking through the dense crowds in a leopard skin loin cloth, Sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch was expected to choose his 14th wife.

Critics say Mswati, who has courted controversy for his lavish lifestyle while two thirds of his subjects live in poverty, sets a bad example by encouraging polygamy and teenage sex in a country where about 40 percent of adults live with HIV.

Some of the women did not seem to mind, hoping to escape from the southern African nation’s hardships for the easy life.

“I came here to dance. I wish the king would have chosen me because it’s nice at the king’s place. The wives live a nice life,” said Tenene Dlamini, 16, in a traditional brown skirt.

“Everything is done for them. They don’t work. They earn.”

Wow. Just wow. Read more about this guy here.

Share

"Old Time Religion" Challenge!!!

Greta Christina is offering fun and prizes to whomever can come up with the best verse to “That Old Time Religion”‘s evil pagan cousin, the “pagany folk nerd” parody. Check out the link for some good ones.

Because I’m such a self-aggrandizing boor, I felt compelled to post my own verse here, as well as at her blog:

We give thanks to mighty Ceres,
with her shredded wheat and Cheeri-
o’s that make our bowels so clear. You
know that’s good enough for me.

This won’t win me any points with the choir marm, but she’s not really my target audience.

Share