Obama Pulls a Dick cheney on Disclosing Meetings Records

Anyone who has turned on the news recently has heard that Obama’s health care reform push is eroding in support. Despite being a country with over 40 million uninsured and premiums that rise to levels three times the rate of inflation, the majority of Americans would certainly agree that something has to be done. Our physicians, research departments, and medical technology may be the best in the world, but in terms of insurance our system is a disaster for those who can’t afford it.

However the question over how to pay for it without increasing the astronomical debt and what that bill contains, as well as the political risk for politicians taking action on anything is thwarting that. Additionally though people might have a right to be suspicious not only about the financial cost, but because the process of crafting such legislation isn’t being done as transparently as initially promised, a snag that cost the Clinton administration in 1993 and 1994 its health care plan.

Unfortunately Obama now seems to be taking a page from the Dick Cheney meetings with an “energy task force” in 2001, in denying the release of White House visitor logs regarding the names of 18 executive representing the pharmaceutical, doctor, and medical communities who have visited the White House to discuss health care, being requested by the open government advocacy group the Committee for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW).

LA Times:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new health care policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the “presidential communications privilege.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today. The group already has sued the administration over its failure to release details about visits from coal industry executives.

Once again it is acts like this that are eroding the popularity that ushered Obama into the presidency after nearly a decade of closed government, scarce accountability, and the consolidation of Executive power. Yeah, these might not be the sexiest issues, nor ones that people really cite in public surveys of areas they are most concerned about or interested in. Nevertheless, it goes to the heart of every action our government takes. In the Bush/Cheney administration it was showcased repeatedly that lack of oversight, transparency, and the amassing of unchecked power leads to corruption, violations of civil liberties, disastrous policy, lack of trust in public institutions, and general ignorance. Whether it be human rights violations via torture, lobbyist scandals, corruption at the U.S Justice Department, the humiliating response by the government to Hurricane Katrina, the evaporation in prosperity for the Middle Class and thus the entire apparatus of our economy, or the folly of Iraq; lack of accountability, fortifying the offices and instruments and knowledge of power from the public, and lack of accountability is always destructive to our country, its people, and even the reputation and strength of our leaders.

Quite frankly if this approach is adopted by the Obama administration, they deserve to fail on health care. Unfortunately it is we the people who deserve better.

Update (9:10PM/ET)- The White House has released the list of individuals representing the health care industry who visited the White house to discuss healt care reform.

Update (10:58 AM/ET)- Despite yesterday’s concession by the White House in releasing the names of 18 healthcare officals who visted the White House to advise the administration on health care policy; they still insist that white house vistor logs can be kept secret. One step forward and two steps back.

Investigate and Prosecute

Here is yet another disturbing, but not surprising allegation that former Vice President Cheney ordered that information on a secret CIA program ordered to kill Al-Queda terrorists, not be shared with members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees, a violation of the law, so the legislative branch can have oversight and knowledge of the CIA’s activities.

The revelations were made regarding the program that even current CIA director Leon Paneta lacked knowledge of until June when he ended the program.

WASHINGTON, July 12 (Reuters) – The CIA withheld information from Congress about a secret counter terrorism program on orders from former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a leading U.S. senator said on Sunday.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein told Fox News Sunday that CIA Director Leon Panetta disclosed Cheney’s involvement when he briefed members of Congress two weeks ago. She said Panetta told them he had canceled the program.

President Barack Obama appointed Panetta to head the agency early this year. The still-secret program, which The New York Times said never became operational, began after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

News of Cheney’s involvement, first reported by the Times late on Saturday, prompted an outpouring of criticism by Obama’s fellow Democrats and support by rival Republicans in Congress.

Now calls for investigations and possible prosecutions of officials in the small elite of the Bush/Cheney inner circle, regarding torture and wiretapping, could be reawakened after a period when such calls had begun to become more muted and Attorney General Eric Holder is even raising such possibilities.

Many Conservative critics worry this is politically motivated and that since those was a low level program that at least as far as was never “fully operational” or was employed, and if so would be utilized to target top Al-Queda Janissary’s, that this shouldn’t be met with such outrage.

However, National Security is a matter that the American people have the most at stake and that transparency to a certain degree is of the greatest value. That doesn’t mean the whole world should have knowledge of military troop movements, or much our intelligence, but that at least Congressional Intelligence committees can exercises oversight and ensure that any programs aren’t either laden with waste or used in a way that breaks laws, violates liberties of American citizens, and be employed in the most efficacious manner.

Rather or not the aims of this program were admirable or just is irrelevant. Since at least 2001 a deplorable and dangerous culture where legislative power is usurped routinely, judicial power is manipulated, oversight is not administered, and a small circle of elites surrounding the Executive Branch seeks to maximize its authority and powers in matters both salient and trivial, large and small. That has to end and oversight and a level of transparency must be reintroduced so that a government that is based not on rickety ideology, an avarice for power, and incompetence in policy execution can be concluded and condemned for being the abhorrence to our system of what it is.

This is just one in a long train of possible infractions of the law regarding in the amassing of intelligence as well as allegations of torture and civil liberties violations. The mantra of “look forward, not backward” have been iterated by those in both parties. That is tempting, especially as we find ourselves in such a grave and deeply involved in foreign policy, national security, and economic challenges. But if the law was broken we must find out. Not only because a law could have been seriously broken, but because leniency in acting to penalize such a crime would set a precedent that will be used by this and other future administrations to justify similar controversial policies and continue to cast aside the system of checks and balances that oversight by the other two branches of government provides that protects the American people from the dangers and excesses that can result from power.

Also whenever in the annals of History a wrong has been committed and then goes unpunished or unaddressed, it paves the way for what is at best a repeat of that wrong or the foundation for something far worse. In the 1838 there was ‘the trail of tears’ where by order of President Andrew Jackson (and in violation of a Supreme Court ruling) around 42 million Cherokee were unjustly removed and resulted in the deaths of numerous Cherokee Indians, about sixty years later we saw another atrocious episode towards the Native American with the massacre of Wounded Knee. We had slavery and the ineffectiveness in dealing with the strife and horrendous crime of slavery led to decades of Jim Crow segregation and violence directed towards African-Americans. We had World War I and the failure to address the postwar situation, paved the way for the craven brutality of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. We failed to penalize those responsible for the Palmer Raids and Red Scare of the 1920s, and we got McCarthyism and the red scare of the 1950s. We failed to effectively punish those in the Nixon administration who wronged this country in the Watergate Scandal and COINTELPRO and we got the possible violations of law and national principles that have come to surface as a result of the previous administration.

Inaction will be seen as a new standard of good and lawful policy, and in the future injustice or ineptitude is certainly set to follow in the near future. The steady stream of allegations and the alarming use of secrecy by the last administration needs to be investigated, penalized, and condemned as the violation of our national principles that it is.

Tiananmen Square: Two Decades Later

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the protests in Tiananmen Square that caught the eyes of the world, as Chinese students and protesters rose up to demand freedoms from the Communist government. The Chinese government still denies the extent of the repression and brutality that took place despite the images broadcast around the world. Now the government is blocking off the site where the protests that shook China occurred to prevent any demonstrations,activists have been harassed, and Internet social networking sites, video sites, and some blogs have been blocked for so-called ” technical maintenance”. The government still shys from taking any official public accounting of what unfolded in June of 1989.

Well in the past twenty years, while the Chinese have made tremendous strides towards economic development and a more capitalistic (some would say laizze Faire in terms of deregulation) Free Market economy; freedoms of speech, expression, political rights, religious worship, and a government that heeds the rule of law and will of its governed still fall short. Some things I guess, just never seem to change. Furthermore this is Proof that capitalistic Free Market capitalistic economies and democracies aren’t necessarily one in the same.

New York Times:

BEIJING — China blanketed Tiananmen Square with police officers Thursday, determined to prevent any commemoration of the 20th anniversary of a military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters that left hundreds dead.

Visitors to the sprawling plaza in central Beijing were stopped at checkpoints and searched, and foreign television crews and photographers were firmly turned away. Uniformed and plainclothes officers, easily identifiable by their similar shirts, seemingly outnumbered tourists.

A few pursued television cameramen with opened umbrellas trying to block their shots — a comical dance that was broadcast on CNN and BBC. There was no flicker of protest. Other than the intense police presence and the government’s blockage of some popular Internet services, the scorchingly hot day passed like any other in the capital.

The scene was vastly different in Hong Kong, where throngs gathered at a park here on Thursday evening for an enormous, somber candlelight vigil to mark the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square killings.

The organizers said that 150,000 people joined the vigil, tying the record set by the first anniversary vigil in 1990 and dwarfing every vigil held since then. The police estimated the crowd at 62,800, their largest estimate for any vigil except in 1990, which they put at 80,000.

Regarding the Chinese government, this charade to deny the full extent of such a high profile incident, which so many Chinese citizens took par in, that the whole world witnessed, and is so well documented in terms of television footage and published accounts; seems just as futile as trying to win a wrestling match with the ocean. One can try, but sooner or later the forces you are up against are destined to prevail. The Chinese would be wise to step foreword as Secretary Clinton has said,to give a full accurate accounting that could be a step in ameliorating the divide between the Chinese government and the people.

Neoconservative Columnist Calls on Millitary Attacks Against Members of the Media

Neoconservative writers and academics often seem to be those all too willing to send other people’s children to war, but when they were called to serve their country they shrinked and did everything they could to avoid stepping up to fight (yeah I am talking to you Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol).

Retired Army officer LT Col. Ralph Peters who is a columnist for the New York Post is an exception to that rule, and one has to commend him for at least going to war instead of just rooting for war. Nonetheless his zeal for the neoconservative cause, jingoism, and the idea that America basically needs to commit national suicide to prevent becoming the victim of murder remain as intact as many of those neocons who have never even been in a bar fight.

In a lengthy essay in the international affairs publication called the Journal of International Security Affairs, Peters rails against radical Islamic terrorism and what he sees as an erosion of fighting capabilities on the part of the United States in terms of military and civilian. Fair points. He bemoans what he sees as a loss of familiarity and education in the field of history that causes many to have little if no frame of reference for the Majesty of our country. Fair point. And here as he lists some of those shortcomings of our nation in fighting war, he brings up this point that seems pretty spot on.

Fourth, an unholy alliance between the defense industry and academic theorists seduced decisionmakers with a false-messiah catechism of bloodless war. In pursuit of billions in profits, defense contractors made promises impossible to fulfill, while think tank scholars sought acclaim by designing warfare models that excited political leaders anxious to get off cheaply, but which left out factors such as the enemy, human psychology, and 5,000 years of precedents.

But what little sense Peters may have made is eclipsed by his anger and disdain, if not violent rage towards the media and an ends justify the means mentality. In his diatribe Peters engages in such cartoonish hyperbole in referring to the media as “neo-pagans” and “lackeys at the terrorists bloody alter”. And we’re supposed to take this guy seriously? Later he even goes on to speak of the possibility of “military attacks on the partisan media”. Now whether he means that the military should begin systematically executing journalists like they have in totalitarian nations or engaging in a war of words with the media is debatable. However in light of his recent column that suggests that we merely execute the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, it may not be too much of a leap to say he means the former rather then the latter.

While this brief essay cannot undertake to analyze the psychological dysfunctions that lead many among the most privileged Westerners to attack their own civilization and those who defend it, we can acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that, to most media practitioners, our troops are always guilty (even if proven innocent), while our barbaric enemies are innocent (even if proven guilty). The phenomenon of Western and world journalists championing the “rights” and causes of blood-drenched butchers who, given the opportunity, would torture and slaughter them, disproves the notion—were any additional proof required—that human beings are rational creatures. Indeed, the passionate belief of so much of the intelligentsia that our civilization is evil and only the savage is noble looks rather like an anemic version of the self-delusions of the terrorists themselves. And, of course, there is a penalty for the intellectual’s dismissal of religion: humans need to believe in something greater than themselves, even if they have a degree from Harvard. Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.

Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.

Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

Peters appears to take the view that somehow our ideals and the institution of a media free from the restraints of government or military control, which is absolutely crucial to a functioning vibrant democracy has like many argue a number of other rights that make the U.S great are somehow have become too cumbersome or as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said of the Bush/Cheney officials who advocated for “enhanced interrogation” ” a legal nicety that we could not afford”. They are wrong. A Free press, the rule of law, and other such human rights and freedoms have been fought for a forged in the blood, time, and toil of too many men for too long and have faced far greater threats to just be dispensed with or scoffed at.

Is the media imperfect and sometimes frustrating? yes. But to equate all with the enemies of our nation is not only profoundly stupid, but outrageous. According to Reporters without Borders, as many as 225 Journalists have been killed in Iraq, since the invasion and occupation began in March 2003. They two, while maybe not being as valiant as our military have certainly made sacrifice and have in some instances paid with their lives to inform the American people. And simply because your views, or your rigid ideology isn’t reinforced by the reporting does not diminish their work or sacrifice in the eyes of their families or colleagues.

But Peters elaborates on this become the enemy to kill the enemy, win at any price, if you criticize the mission or aspects of it you are a terrorist puppet, by basically saying the ends of victory justify any and all means and later scoffs at the idea that if we sacrifice our ideals that we will be sacrificing what makes our existence worth continuing.

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.

Isn’t that the kind of irrational violent sentiment that we are trying to combat Colonel? Can’t one as Albert Camus once wrote “love my country and still love justice”?

9/11 the Political tool

Tragically but not surprisingly, Dick Cheney in his speech today resorted to the old tactic of using 9/11 as much as possible to demonize his opponents and justify his agenda on torture and the war on terror as well as even the war in Iraq. David Wiegel of the Washington Independent writes this:

Weigel writes, “Cheney talks about the run-up to 9/11, the events of 9/11, where he was on 9/11 (’I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities’), the aftermath of 9/11 (’We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in’), the temporary patriotism of the media (’After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11′), the threat of a ‘9/11 with nuclear weapons,’ and how the administration prevented another 9/11. In all, he mentions ‘September 11′ or ‘9/11′ 25 times.”

Enough reminding us about 9/11! Seven years after it happened we remember it happened! We recall the carnage and horror of that day. As one of the so-called millennial generation I have to say it defined my generation the same way that the Kennedy assassination defined the ‘Baby Boomers’ and the attack on Pearl Harbor those who would later become known as “the greatest generation”. I and other Americans still thirst for the day with catch Bin Ladden.

Having said that enough with those politicians,(especially those of the Bush/Cheney administration, pundits, and Rudy Gulliani)and the RNC who invoke it every time they open their mouths. Most Americans view 9/11 as a solemn and tragic day fraught with horrors, but it seems that Cheney, Gulliani, and many others view it not as a day of devastation, but as a campaign tool or a scapegoat to justify the extreme acquisition of power. A warning to Conservative Republicans, we view it as the former so stop trying to exploit that. Imagine if past administrations and figures had used the tragedy of the Kennedy assassination or Pearl Harbor in such a matter. The American people would begin to grow vexed by that.

The “9/11” tactic isn’t working and if you have any doubts about that, Rudy Gulliani ran a campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination simply using the 9/11 fear card, and look how far that got him!

In other news if you want to see the differences between the speeches given by President Obama and Cheney take a look at these excerpts from their speeches:

President Obama:

We see that, above all, in the recent debate — how the recent debate has obscured the truth and sends people into opposite and absolutist ends. On the one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and would almost never put national security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “Anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants — provided it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That’s the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That’s what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

On the other hand here is Cheney:

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

Obama is in fact right on this. We are by and large not a country of two camps of citizens held prisoner by two extreme opposing ideologies. Obama took a more nuanced view saying that this matter is more complex then it appears, and though I have begun to be a little critical of Obama he comes off as the sensible adult. Rarely are things so morally clear cut after all if they were we would have resolved this whole issue already and Al-Queda and terrorism itself would cease. Besides, when the opposing view puts up a guy who carries a biological chemical survival suit with him everywhere he goes, appearing mature and rational isn’t that hard. But Cheney once again can’t help but inject politics into his argument as well as the childish black and white ideology that was a hallmark of the Bush/Cheney administration.

For some reason Cheney appears to be under the grand delusion that he is the lone figure that can keep America and the world safe and that without him it would degenerate into bedlam and bloodshed. A legend in his own Mind. Don’t flatter yourself Dick, your not that important and you don’t exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to the truth, the facts, or predicting the future.

UPDATE (8:35 PM/ ET)- Talking Points Memo states that a reporter commenting on the New York Times Story that 1 and 7 detainees returned to the proverbial battlefield may be completely accurate since some of the detainees were held on lesser charges. Which by the way if true, means that that 1 in 7 released were released during the Bush/Cheney administration. This says that either detainees were more radicalized by the whole Gitmo experience and thus unintentionally did Al-Queda’s recruiting work for them.

Update: (8:50pm/ET)- Neoconservative talk radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt meanwhile evidently believes that when President Obama says Supermax Prisons he means only one in Colorado.

After a few brief sentences trying to make political hay, Hewitt writes in a post that:

BTW: Supermax holds 490, and there are already more than 400 inmates. So even if the whole Gitmo gang goes to Colorado, where do they put the Unabomber’s buddies who have to move on?

And what do the guards and staff of Supermax (and their families) think about being ground zero for Islamist fanatics in the U.S.?

First of all I strongly doubt that all detainees would be kept in one facility. That would just be supplanting Gitmo and not eliminating it and the bungled inefficent and damaging system it represents. The Supermax Prison in Colorado isn’t the only one in the country. There are numerous facilities across the scape of our nation that could hold them. There is even one vacant supermax prison in a Montana county where a town council is practically begging to house some detainees, and any remaining ones would be held in other supermaxes or millitary prisons. Nice try Hugh!

Mother of Boy with Aspergers Humiliated and Expelled from Class by Teacher, Allegedly Threatened

A follow-up on a story I blogged about last year but amidst all the helter skelter in life didn’t follow up on as much as I should have. Last year around this time Alex Barton, a 5 year old kindergarten student with Aspergers syndrome, was publicly humiliated by his teacher when she had her students engage in an abhorrent exercise where they voiced what they didn’t like about Alex and voted 14-2 to expel him from class.

Following complaints by the Alex’s mother Melissa Barton to the school, the teacher Wendy Portillo was placed in a non-teaching role before being placed on one year suspension and then having her tenure yanked. A bit of a slap on the wrist for such a blatantly stupid and bullying act if you ask me. But supposedly Melissa Barton was recently threatened by another parent at the school.

Melissa Barton said she went to the school Friday for a ceremony honoring her oldest son, according to a Port St. Lucie police report. Another woman approached her in the school cafeteria allegedly threatening to fight her in the parking lot.

Barton’s son, Alex, was ousted from his kindergarten class in a 14-to-2 vote led by his teacher Wendy Portillo. Portillo in November was suspended for one year and her tenure was taken away.

The other mother denied the allegations, the police report said. She told police she approached Barton and said, “I’m going to be real discreet about this. I just want you to know that I love my school and what you did was not fair to our school,” the police report said.

The school resource officer said she escorted Barton to the parking lot because of safety concerns and told her she would send a patrol car to monitor her home.

No arrests were made and the case was closed.

Now if the allegations by Mrs Barton are true this just goes to show how low parenting has devolved to the level that some parents are just as immature and unrestrained in their behavior as their children. But even if this woman didn’t threaten Mrs Barton, all legalities aside, not fair to our school? What about young Alex, who has a social disorder that already likely makes him feel ostracized, was publicly humiliated and shamed before his class, by both his peers and the supposed adult enshrined with caring for each and every student’s welfare? I don’t know about moist, but it would seem that Mrs Barton did the school a service. After all would you want a teacher who instead of ingraining the values of civility in young children ,actually encourages such childish conduct? who acts not as the adult amongst the children but a chief bully amongst them? After all if she did it to one child she would likely do it to any other, including your own child.

Related Items: Check out the Justice for Alex Barton site and blog.

Poll: The More Religious Most Likely to Say Torture is Sometimes Justified

CNN reports on a Pew Poll revealing that the more people go to church the more they support torture.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

In a way this shouldn’t be surprising. The idea of good versus evil is prevalent in all religions, not just Christianity but in all religions. And by nature if one phalanx of religious worshipers or anybody really firmly believes they are the side of the just, the right, and the proverbial “good guys”, then the opponent must be evil. But especially with Catholics, when the Pope strongly has condemned the practice of torture, this all seems hypocritical. After all, would one not be willing to cede that Jesus Christ himself was not a victim of torture? Crucifixion after all is still torture isn’t it ?

Many of these who are both wedded to religion which typically is a vehicle that preaches love and respect, as well as acknowledging at least some of the most rudimentary human rights; yet simultaneously support such hideous practices as waterboarding see themselves and America as inherently good. Most can agree on that, but those who support torture seem to take it to a point where the core of their argument seems to be that the ends justify the means. As long as we are victorious it doesn’t matter what we do to protect ourselves and fight our enemies as long as in the end we are the last ones standing. That it doesn’t matter what we do to protect ourselves, even ceding our constitutional rights or practice tactics that in the past we had condemned when employed by those such as the Chinese military during the Korean war and the reign of Mao, the Imperial Japanese during World War II. But it does matter. It matters whether we are going to continue to stand as an example of moral dignity and human rights on the world stage or if we will surrender that ground in a bout of hysteria and panic. Rather we will be a land that remains as free and vibrant as the promise etched into our constitution and our spirit, or if we will degenerate into an angry people seeking to fortify ourselves against what is best in us shedding liberties one by one , believing that bombs and threats alone can bring us safety or enrichment.

In the end it is just not enough to say you are the “Good Guy” to be seen as having the moral high ground. It is through your actions, the liberties you grant others, the openness to those caught in the crossfire between we and the real extremists we face, and overall our actions that will determine whether we are the “Good Guy” or just a land so enveloped by fear that we start believing that the American idea is our foe.

And after all, how many of these supporters of such torture techniques are willing to say that some these same tactics that defined the horrible regimes of Mao, Imperial Japan, and others were immoral when they utilized such tactics in the name of preserving their way of life, are now okay merely because we are the ones now using them? If virtuous people such as we in the United States use means employed by despots such as Mao and still retain the reputation of good virtue that we have?

"Straw Dogs" Re-make?

Remakes of good classic treasures of film often annoy me. There is an argument to be made that these remakes can expose a new generation to a great movie with a little more relevance, but a few tweaks in the script often doom a remake to be drained of much of what made it so entertaining and poignant in the first place. Besides the performances of actors in remakes are rarely as memorable as the originals.

Now according to the Hollywood Reporter, a re-make of the violent, yet powerful and striking 1971 Sam Peckinpah classic Straw Dogs is being considered.

The film itself revolves around David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) a bookish American mathematician and his voluptuous British wife (Susan George) who reside in the English countryside. They think they have escaped all the violence and chaos of society, but when a band of hooligans hector and torment the couple, the mathematician learns that shying away from conflict is not always an option.

James Marsden will star in Screen Gems’ reimagining of the 1971 thriller “Straw Dogs” being written and directed by Rod Lurie.

The new “Straw Dogs” follows Los Angeles screenwriter David Sumner (Marsden), who moves with his wife to her hometown in the deep South. Once there, tensions build in their marriage and old conflicts re-emerge with the locals, leading to a violent confrontation.

The original, co-written and directed by Sam Peckinpah, saw Dustin Hoffman in the role of Sumner, with the story set in rural England.

Both films are based on the book “The Siege at Trencher’s Farm” by Gordon Williams.

Me, I will stay with the Sam Pekinpah original any day over any glossy star studded effort to update it.

Notes on the Second Presidential Debate

Tonight’s debate started off tedious and I found it less exciting then the last one, though it got more energetic as it unfolded. The only real news maker is that McCain said he wants to buy up bad mortgages, a move that makes many in the conservative base none too happy and reminds them of why they hated him to begin with. Thus those of all political persuasions can find something to not like John McCain for, the Democrats hate his tactics against obama and support for the war, independents hate his economic policy as well as his dramatic metamorphosis from the transparent anti-establishment republican of 2000, and republicans can hate him for wanting to get the government to buy up bad mortgages.

But while there were few significant alterations, there were a few moments that will make debate history. For example when John McCain was asked by moderator Tom Brokaw as to whom he would appoint as treasury secretary if elected president, he responded by saying “Well Not you Tom.” An awkward instance and I saw a few befuddled faces in the audience I was watching the debate with up at Westfield State College. An odd attempt at humor and in these times when the economy is dropping like acid at Woodstock and we are fighting two wars, the electorate is not exactly in the mood for a few giggles.

Obama also once again re-stated his opposition to the War in Iraq and took McCain to task for his past forecasts of a quick and peaceful war and subsequent peace in Iraq that over 4,000 American lives later we found was outright erroneous. But the moment that could well go down as a sort of “I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, Senator You are No Jack Kennedy moment” came after McCain referred to Obama as reckless on foreign policy when he stated that if their was actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of top Al-Queda leaders including Osama Bin Ladden, that if the Pakistanis couldn’t pursue and eliminate him that a President Obama would ensure that the U.S Military would.

In an odd break with the sort of Neoconservative bravado associated with McCain, McCain stated that this was improper and that we should to use the Theodore Roosevelt mantra “Speak softly and carry a big stick” and alleged that obama was merely “talking loudly”. Here Obama landed a punch that no doubt was the big moment of the debate and likely will in the end will be the most remembered instant and exchange of all the 2008 presidential debates. My apologies it is much better on video when McCain actually interupts Obama when he states “Senator McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and I’m just spouting off and he’s somber and responsible.” Obama then hits back hard:

The temperatures rose again when the debate veered into national security, as Obama rebuked McCain for saying he wanted to attack Pakistan , over his vow to hit Al-Qaeda targets, in the country if Islamabad would not.

McCain cited the maxim that the United States should “talk softly, but carry a big stick,” and slammed his rival who he said “likes to talk aloud.”

“He has announced that he will attack Pakistan,” McCain said.

Obama hit straight back, citing a YouTube video from last year taken on the campaign trail which showed a McCain joke misfiring when he sang “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of an old Beach Boys hit.

“Senator McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and I’m just spouting off and he’s somber and responsible,” Obama said.

“This is a guy who sang, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of speaking softly.”

McCain once again showed his cantankerous and crumudgeoned side when he refereed to Obama as “that one” when he asked rhetorically who had voted for a past Bush/Cheney energy policy. Some pundits say it made Mccain look older, like a grandfather referring to one off his grandchildren (which exactly is what McCain needed to do, look older than he actually is). Almost instantly Obama Campaign communications director Bill Burton sent out a statement via e-mail about this.

And in terms of coverage post debate, radio right winger and Fox News talking head Sean Hannity has made much of Obama’s William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, but it is interesting to see Hannity on the defensive when Obama communications Director Robert Gibbs brings up a past guest that Hannity had on his tv show the other night, who is an anti-semite. Funniest part, Hannity refers to himself as a journalist. Yeah sure, Hannity is about as much of a journalist as Hugh Heffner is a celibate monk.

And well we are on past associations Sean, how about your drug dealing and terrorist dealing Iran Contra buddy Oliver North or Watergate Burglar G Gordon Liddy, or how about radio talk show host and Anti-Semite Hal Turner? Hannity might want to cease this McCarthyistic Guilt by association because his hands aren’t exactly clean either.

In terms of at least style it was like the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. Obama, who like then Senator Kennedy came out into the arena looking youthful and buyont, telegenic, and sounding articulate and informed, while McCain came off more as then Vice President Nixon, appearing sour, uncomfortable, and awkward as he often wandered out of the frame of the camera.

Response of the night this via Andrew Sullivan. Whether or not you agree with this statement or assesment of the second presidential debate, one has to cede that the following seems to be the most animated quote of the night in terms of the commentariat. here is a quote from Will Wilkinson:

Gut read. Obama owned it. This election’s over unless he murders and eats the flesh of a child on live television.

Could Democrats Pick Up a Senate Seat in Minnesota?

Despite Obama’s recent spike in the polls in the North star state, its been relatively tight presidential race for a state that has voted for a Republican in a statewide election since 1972 (it is the only state that Reagan never won). In terms of the U.S Senate race, polls show author/former talk show host/ satirist/ former Saturday Night Live personality, and Democratic (or DFL as it is known in the state) candidate Al Franken pulling ahead, against incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN). Franken has lagged behind Coleman for the bulk of the race but a new poll seems to be offering some hope for the Franken people.

Star Tribune:

The survey, conducted Tuesday through Thursday by Princeton Survey Research Associates International among 1,084 likely Minnesota voters, shows Franken leading Coleman 43 to 34 percent. Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley is supported by 18 percent of respondents.

Franken’s lead is outside the poll’s margin of sampling error, plus or minus 3.7 points.

For Coleman, there is little good news in the poll. The number of voters who view him unfavorably continues to grow, the number who see him favorably is falling, and his job-approval rating has slipped to 38 percent — his lowest ever in the Minnesota Poll.

I don’t know, this is just one poll. Like I said Franken was behind for since the start of this race for the most part and while this could be possible, I still think the edge still belongs to Coleman, who I believe will be re-elected in this state that he becoming a little less reliably blue.