Soapbox

The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat has been “thinking about torture.”

I keep waiting, I think, for somebody else to write a piece about the subject that eloquently captures my own inarticulate mix of anger, uncertainty and guilt about the Bush Administration’s interrogation policy, so that I can just point to their argument and say go read that. But so far as I know, nobody has. There’s been straightforward outrage, obviously, from many quarters, and then there’s been a lot of evasion - especially on the Right, where occasional defenses of torture in extreme scenarios have coexisted with a remarkable silence about the broad writ the Bush Administration seems to have extended to physically-abusive interrogation, and the human costs thereof. But to my knowledge, nobody’s written something that captures the sheer muddiness that surrounds my own thinking (such as it is) on the issue.

Some difficult truths:

So as far as the bigger picture goes, then, it seems indisputable that in the name of national security, and with the backing of seemingly dubious interpretations of the laws, this Administration pursued policies that delivered many detainees to physical and mental abuse, and not a few to death. These were wartime measures, yes, but war is not a moral blank check: If you believe that Abu Ghraib constituted a failure of jus in bello, then you have to condemn the decisions that led to Abu Ghraib, which means that you have to condemn the President and his Cabinet.

Given this reality, whence my uncertainty about how to think about the issue? Basically, it stems from the following thought: That while the Bush Administration’s policies clearly failed a just-war test, they didn’t fail it in quite so new a way as some of their critics suppose … and moreover, had I been in their shoes I might have failed the test as well.

Ross’ very honest “thinking” about this issue was refreshing. He framed it beyond the typical partisan framework, rather framing the issue from a very personal, morally troubled, yet pragmatic viewpoint. His post is long but well worth the read and worth considering. The last sentence that I quoted above was a profound one…

… while the Bush Administration’s policies clearly failed a just-war test, they didn’t fail it in quite so new a way as some of their critics suppose …

This is one of those uncomfortable truths that many Americans don’t realize or choose not to accept. A careful analysis of our nation’s policies throughout our history will find far too many examples of immoral and unlawful policies and actions. One example Ross cites:

The use of the atomic bomb. I think it’s very, very difficult to justify Harry Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in any kind of plausible just-war framework, and if that’s the case then the nuclear destruction of two Japanese cities - and indeed, the tactics employed in our bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan more broadly - represents a “war crime” that makes Abu Ghraib look like a trip to Pleasure Island. (And this obviously has implications for the justice of our entire Cold War nuclear posture as well.) But in so thinking, I also have to agree with Richard Frank’s argument that “it is hard to imagine anyone who could have been president at the time (a spectrum that includes FDR, Henry Wallace, William O. Douglas, Harry Truman, and Thomas Dewey) failing to authorize use of the atomic bombs” - in so small part because I find it hard to imagine myself being in Truman’s shoes and deciding the matter differently, my beliefs about just-war principle notwithstanding.

While I completely disagree with this administration’s policies and actions, I realize that this is indeed not “quite so new.” Which goes to this starkly profound statement from Ross…

… and moreover, had I been in their shoes I might have failed the test as well.

And that’s the fundamental point. Given the same circumstances with the same responsibilities, any of us might have made similar decisions as Bush and Harry Truman. That’s because we as humans fail, especially when under extreme circumstances. And that’s why we have laws — to help us make the right decision when the right decision is the most difficult one to make in the midst of the worst of circumstances.

An analogy: If someone were to harm one of my daughters in any way, I undoubtedly would be consumed by rage. My fatherly instinct would be to exact pain and suffering in a proportionally magnified degree greater than that which was inflicted upon my child. What keeps me from unleashing this instinctive (and some would argue justifiable) revenge are laws and the consequences that come with those laws. And those laws are there to maintain a civilized and orderly society and to protect us all from our human failings — things like misidentified persons being wrongly caught up in regrettable, yet nonretractable retaliation (such as killing the wrong man whose later proven to be innocent).

As much as I abhor this administration’s policies and actions, I find myself among those who have no stomach for a major reckoning of those who made these disastrous decisions. What I do want, as a condition of immunity from future prosecution, is a full accounting of the decisions made, the orders given and the actions taken by all those involved as well as an acknowledgement that these were wrong and regrettable.

We have to learn from our mistakes. But we have to acknowledge them as mistakes before we can truly learn from them and take corrective action.

Yesterday, Dave at Oklahoma Lefty asked the question, “What is wrong with ‘Happy Holidays’?” In his post, he said:

For as long as I can remember the term “Happy Holidays” referred to the time of the year from Thanksgiving through New Years and was an inclusive way of wishing folks well. Somehow “Happy Holidays” has become demonized by those who believe that Christmas and Christianity are under attack in this country.

I say we take “Happy Holidays” back from those who would demean and demoralize its inclusive, hopeful, and true nature.

*

Dave is absolutely right. “Happy Holidays” doesn’t dishonor “Merry Christmas.” Rather, it honors the plethora of holidays during this season, including Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the Winter solstice, Festivus, Christmas, and the New Year. There is nothing wrong with saying “Happy Holidays” to others. There is nothing wrong with saying “Merry Christmas” to others — even non-believers and/or non-participants in the Christian holiday, as long as you don’t mind them wishing you Happy Rosh Hashana or Merry Ramadan. We are, after all, a democracy and not a theocracy.

Just as Dave remembered, I too recall “Happy Holidays” being commonplace for as long as I can remember — even as a little kid. Granted, I’m not as ancient as others (like Mr. Martin), but I’m no spring chicken either. This phrase is not something brand new.

The fact that so many Christians choose to be offended by the term “Happy Holidays” is more of a reflection on those Christians than on the purported persecution of the Christmas holiday — and by extension the Christian faith. It is a classic speck-and-plank scenario Continued

Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, wrote an article earlier this week about world government, which was picked up by the Drudge Report. He woke up the next morning to find more than 200 “vituperative” emails in his inbox by Drudge readers who unleashed on the apparently unsuspecting writer.

… the whole experience has given me an insight into the mindset of the gun-toting, bible-[thumping], nationalistic bit of the United States. Here are my conclusions.

1) There is an unbelievable amount of anger and hatred out there - directed at everything from the UN to big business to Barack Obama. These people can read, but they cannot think.

2) The “End of Days” crowd is very strong. I would say that about a third of the e-mails I got referred me to the Book of Revelations - in which, apparently, it is all foretold. In an idle moment, I e-mailed one of my correspondents back and said that I have never read Revelations, since I am an athiest. Big mistake.

3) There are a lot of people who believe not only that global warming is a hoax - but that it is actually a conspiracy. The fact that the most influential reports on climate change have been produced by an intergovernmental panel (IPCC) - sponsored by the UN - fuels this theory. The idea is that the UN is perpetuating a climate-change hoax, to provide an excuse to impose a world government on America. I’m all part of it apparently.

4) I can see what Obama means by referring to “bitter” people clinging to guns and religion. And clinging is the word. Several people informed me that I would only remove their guns “from my cold, dead hands.”

*
And the comments on his blog post simply go to prove his point.

As much as it might be fun to have the exposure that Drudge brings, I’m actually glad I’ve never been “Drudged.” I’ve read the comment sections of some blog posts and articles that have been featured on the Drudge Report. It simply boggles the mind at the staggering animus and empty-headed, lowbrow invective displayed.

At least the “bitter” comments are more manageable here because I have a much smaller audience, which proportionally adds up to far fewer idiots to ignore.

It’s not the opposing viewpoint that is objectionable but the way in which it’s conveyed in such intensely vile, yet stunningly illiterate ways. It certainly was on full display for all to see during this most recent presidential campaign. “Bitter” has morphed into seething hatred that is insidious, poisonness and contagious. It’s a dangerous place for anyone to find themselves in the middle of — whether as the person infected or the person affected by this growing cancer.

United we stand, divided we fall. There is room for honest and even passionate disagreement and dissent in a healthy democracy. But bitter partisanship that prejudically despises and condemns ideological “enemies” — perceived or otherwise — creates an increasingly unbridgeable chasm that can destroy a society and a nation. Unless we learn to lay aside the prejudices and animosity toward our partisan foes, the enemy that will destroy our nation is not from outside, but within; we are our own worst enemy.

I sincerely hope that in this period of economic crisis and continuing political strife around the world that we as a nation can once again come together and work together to address and hopefully solve this nation’s challenges. United we stand, divided we fall.

The right end of the dial is all atwitter — borderline messing themselves — with this Blagojevich scandal. Nothing like a good scandal to get everyone all hot-and-bothered.

“Americans voted for change. Barack Obama promised that he would have the most open and honest administration and transition in history,” said RNC chairman Mike Duncan, on a conference call with reporters. “But that’s not what we’re getting. What we’re getting is the same old politics out of Chicago.”

Why all the sudden interest in an “open and honest administration” by the party whose leader for the last eight years was anything but “open and honest”? What short memories the clamorers must have. Wasn’t this the same party who just a couple of years ago faced significant losses in Congress following one of the worst corruption scandals in Congressional history? Does Abramoff ring any bells?

I’m as disgusted as anyone with the Illinois governor’s outrageous behavior. But, as Mike McCarville said, “guilt by association without facts is irresponsible.” Those so quick to pass arbitrary and capricious judgment on Obama were strangely silent — or worse, complicit with their unashamed defense of the indefensible — when their own president and administration, Congressional leaders and party powerbrokers were whole hog in the filth of corruption.

It seems to me that all the hand-wringing about this scandal would be better done with clean hands — something the GOP and its faithful following in the blogosphere cannot rightfully claim.

My oldest daughter attends one of Edmond’s three high schools. In general, we like her school, most of her teachers and her academic success there. Yet, there are some things that don’t always set well with me (as would be the case in just about any circumstance, I suppose).

Over the weekend, she was telling us about a substitute teacher she had in a couple of her classes on Friday. The curriculum for the day was apparently Mauri Povich during one class period and Divorce Court in another class period. For the students, this was entertaining, especially when the substitute talked back to the TV during Divorce Court. But, as you might imagine, to parents like us, such information raised eyebrows — or in my case, an exclamation of “WHAT?!?”

I’m glad that my daughter wasn’t in that substitute’s class during the Jerry Springer Show! While I will admit that these trash TV shows can be entertaining and that I’ve indulged in viewing a few times, they certainly don’t seem like the type of educational programming one would expect from a higher-caliber high school. It begs the question, is this a common practice? Are the substitute teachers not given guidance and/or plans for the classes their substituting for?

At one time or another, my father, my mother and my brother have all substituted in the middle and high school levels. I know the challenges that they face and I know that I wouldn’t want to do it. But that doesn’t excuse the schools’ responsibility to know what’s going on in their classrooms.

Don’t the schools owe the students a better education than Mauri Povich, Divorce Court or Jerry Springer — even if it is a substitute teacher? As a parent and as a taxpayer, I would most certainly expect more.

Last week, I posted about the controversy concerning Barack Obama’s citizenship status, which generated some interesting discussion. After that post, I said I wouldn’t comment any further about it until there some sort of resolution. However, I was pointed by a reader to a lengthy post this morning by Joan Swirsky writing for Tulsa Today. I didn’t think it was possible, but I was truly shocked at what she wrote.

She first opines about the “deafening silence” by the media about the controversy, including the right-wing outlets.

It is no mystery that the leftist media have refused to mention this potentially looming Constitutional crisis in virtually all of their print and electronic coverage. Having shilled for Obama for the past two years – dismissing his longtime radical associations, obfuscating his radical voting record, and taking a pass at their jobs of vetting a presidential candidate –  their failure to cover the most explosive story of the 2008 campaign speaks volumes about collusion of the highest order.

Then there are the late-night comics, as well as snarky “humorists” like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, who take pride in being irreverent and “outing” both people and subjects that others avoid. Not a word.

But what about the failure of the powerful conservative media – how to explain their total blackout of this story?

Could it be because the story is even too far fetched for even the most hardcore right-wingers? Joan singles out some specific examples Continued

The GOP is clammering about Obama’s cabinet selections:

“Leader Boehner obviously hopes and expects that the president-elect will keep his promise to include Republicans in his Cabinet,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner. “Obama has pledged to govern in a bipartisan way, and we have pledged to work with him when he does.”

“Choosing one or two token Republicans in lesser Cabinet positions won’t pass the smell test,” said Dan Bartlett, who served as communications director and counselor to the current President Bush. “Keeping Secretary Gates would be a huge signal and important governing move.”

I wonder. Could either Boehner or Bartlett point to how their party’s most recent White House administrations have done that? I had to go all the way back to Nixon to find a Democrat in a Republican president’s administration (unless you can point to a more recent example). President Bill Clinton appointed Republican William Cohen to be his defense secretary during his second term. What Democrats did George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan appoint to their Cabinets or White House staffs?

Obama has signaled that he may very well appoint Bush’s own defense secretary to continue in that role. He has also considered Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) for a role in his administration as well as former NATO commander Jim Jones for national security advisor.

Even so, grumbling within the right-wing blogosphere is that Obama’s choices aren’t Republican enough. Again I ask, how many Democrats did Dubya have in his Cabinet and White House staff? Why didn’t Boehner — or even the president’s own communications director Dan Bartlett — hold Bush to the same standard?

“43″ certainly was elected by much narrower margins than “44″ — in fact, he didn’t even have the popular vote in 2000. You would think if anyone should govern in a bipartisan way, it would be someone who was elected by the slimmest of margins among a bitterly divided electorate. But that didn’t happen, did it?

In yesterday’s Politico story about the scrutiny of Obama’s picks for his administration, one sentence in particularly really jumped out at me:

“Gates is not a sharply partisan figure.”

Okay… is that a bad thing? Is that why he’s not Republican enough to pass “the smell test”? Because he’s not a “sharply partisan” figure, does that disqualify him as a Republican or mean that Obama isn’t trying to bridge the partisan divide? Do we really want a sharply partisan figure? I thought one of the things about this election is that the American people wanted to move beyond the gridlock of the bitterly divided Washington and transcend such “sharply partisan” politics.

So far, in my opinion, Obama has done a better job than his predecessors of assembling pragmatic, centrist and arguably bipartisan team to help govern this nation through very difficult times. Based on some of the complaints in the left-wing blogosphere, Obama certainly hasn’t picked aggressive progressives that would satisfy the more left-wing branches of the Democratic Party — despite what fear-mongering you may hear from the radical right-wing bloggers. His economic team, which he is set to announce later this morning, is being pretty warmly greeted by Wall Street, which tells me that Obama can’t be too bad for business like the conservative pundits would have you believe.

This election, I believe the significant majority of the electorate made their choice clear, not only electing the candidate they felt best represented change, but also repudiating the governance of the dominant party for the last eight years by electing wider majorities in both the House and the Senate for the other party. Why, then, would we let members of that failed party’s leadership judge who’s best to serve in this new administration? We shouldn’t and Obama won’t.

I believe Obama is firmly committed to governing pragmatically, which means an administration filled with opposing viewpoints — whether it’s Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, pro-business or pro-worker, hawk or dove. There will be many voices led by one leader. It certainly will be a nice change.

I had a reader ask:

“What’s up with all the political blogging? I thought you said you were giving that up.”

Well, I did say that. But, I simply changed my mind. Some friends and long-time readers of this blog and the previous incarnations of my blogging expressed disappointment that I was giving up the political and current affairs writing. It seems, according to them, that I do my best blogging and writing when I talk about those things that stir up my passions. Politics, government and current affairs, social justice, faith matters and specific circumstances that affect me or my family are what stir up my passions the most.

So, I went back to writing specifically about those things that are on my mind and stirring my passions on any given day. Much of the time that means it will be about my viewpoint or others’ viewpoints that I find interesting and what to share regarding current affairs and politics. Sometimes, though, I will write something about my family or about a specific experience I’ve had.

For those who don’t like it, I’m sorry, but this blog is what it is. I’m not going to pretend to be something I’m not. I guess I just don’t do personal blogging as well as I do viewpoint and opinion blogging. It’s who I am. And this blog will reflect who I am.

Tag along, if you like. Or don’t, if you don’t. I’d love for you to keep following this blog, but I’ll certainly understand if you decide to look elsewhere.

Last week, I wrote about one of my most faithful readers, Jim Martin of Fried Green Onions, who frequently attacked some of my posts both in comments on this blog and in commentary on his own blog. While I welcome passionate debate about any given issue, I took issue with the manner in which he disagreed, especially the prevalence of vitriolic ad hominem attacks and extremely personal aspersions.

Yesterday, Mr. Martin seemed to offer an olive branch of sorts with this post:

Yes I am a daily reader of the Brad Neese…living large in Oklahoma site

I find Brad to be the most articulate spokesperson in Oklahoma blogging for his current view of things politic.
I think he will go far in liberal progressive circles.
The vast divide that separates us can be measured in years (perhaps 40 years between us). The vast difference between those reared in Tiny Town or Urban Utopia could figure in to the equation.
Brad really believes almost opposite to the views I hold. Unlike the other liberal bloggers I run across he appears to have no personal axe to grind other than his belief system.
I count him along with Oklahoma Lefty as a Worthy Adversary.
God bless and keep our country free!

I am grateful for his kind remarks. I certainly welcome respectful, reasoned discourse and disagreement about the issues we face here in Oklahoma, in our nation and in the world. It is indeed possible to have a great divide in political positions and yet respect and even admire our political opponents. And it is possible to have honest disagreement without making it a bitter war filled with animus, insults and slanderous insults. I would hope that we can have this type of dialogue here in the Oklahoma blogosphere as well as the American and worldwide blogospheres. Continued

I have a fan — fellow Okie blogger Jim Martin, publisher of Fried Green Onions and a number of other blogs. He apparently reads this blog often and he likes to leave me “nice” comments. He even likes to expound on his comments here with commentary on his own blog about things I have written here. Once you get past the poor grammar, his remarks both here and there are always entertaining, highlighted by fallacious and unreasoning commentary punctuated with acrid ad hominem personal attacks.

Yesterday, I published a post here entitled “Delusional Reality,” in which I was commenting on Sarah Palin’s intentional, delusional or intentionally delusional revisionism in her attempts to whitewash the historical record of the waning weeks of the presidential campaign. Mr. Martin apparently took offense to the post and responded on his own blog:

“Delusional reality: Brad Neese: Living Large and Woman-phobic”

Did you hate yo mama Brad baby or is it just that Sarah is common folk that irritates you blubber mouth? Nothing like an obese woman hater who was rejected by the chicks due to caloric intake to spread a little feminine frothing.

*
In one short paragraph, this brilliant writer has packed in so much bitterness, vitriole, absurdity and ignorance that it’s hard to know where to begin, but I’ll take a stab at it. Continued