Etta James – "At Last"

RIP. This is the obvious pick, but there's a reason this is her most famous song. Then there's her duet with Mike Finnigan, "You Gonna Make Me Cry."

Tony Blankley, Civility and the State of Political Discourse

English-born conservative political commentator, former Newt Gingrich press secretary and former child actor Tony Blankley died of stomach cancer on January 7th, 2010, at the age of 63.

I'll modify what I wrote elsewhere. I was sorry to hear this. Blankley was a regular on Left, Right and Center (produced by one of my local NPR stations, KCRW) and I heard him often. He was more moderate there than in his columns, which could be fire-breathing screeds against the supposedly encroaching socialism of centrist Democrats. He marketed himself as a "reasonable conservative" for the NPR/PBS set just as Davids Brooks and Frum do, and was similarly a champion of the aristocracy and apologist for the crimes of the Republican Party. He was a despicable hack most of the time, but he put more craft into his propaganda than many of his fellows. Additionally, Blankley was much more paid shill than true believer, and would have been a bearable dinner companion. (I'd prefer dinner with friends and/or well-informed liberals, but I'd certainly pick Blankley over Rick Santorum or Mary Matalin.) Most importantly, every now and then Blankley would be honest or gracious, at least on a personal level. Regardless of Blankley's political work, stomach cancer reportedly can be a painful way to go, and I hope Blankley and his loved ones were spared the worst. Dying, and losing someone, are never easy.

The Left, Right and Center thread for the most recent show when the news broke filled with messages of condolence, most from people who disagreed with Tony's politics. The following show (1/13/12) started with an appreciation of Blankley, and its thread also full of comments on Blankley.

It may seem I'm damning Blankley with faint praise, and I can't object strongly to that characterization. However, it's possible to express human compassion for Blankley and those who cared for him, yet also critique what he did in his public life. (I felt similarly about Tony Snow, who dissembled for a living, but also left behind a wife and two young children.) Obviously, there's a time and place for this; the admonition against speaking ill of the dead makes sense at a funeral. However, honest accountings should have their place as well. Blue Gal both expressed her condolences and also quoted one of Blankley's scurrilous attacks on the Occupy movement. Blankley made many such attacks – on several occasions, he said he liked that America was not as class-conscious as Britain. His loyalty was firmly with the aristocracy, who he wanted to stay in power. Basically, he was a Tory (like fellow Brit Andrew Sullivan; David Brooks is essentially the American version). Jimmy Dore, near the end of his show on 1/12/12, denounced Blankley accurately as someone who lied for money. I have to agree, and dissected Blankley in some previous pieces. Politically, he caused far more harm than he did good.

Perhaps most of this post would be better suited for a separate piece, but Blankley's death and the discussions about him have had me pondering ideas I've been kicking around for a long time. I've found myself wondering whether a Blankley is preferable to other breeds of conservative pundit, all of which ties into the general notion of "civility." I'm firmly in the "honesty over civility" and "accuracy over politeness" camps. Civility has its place, but it is of secondary value to truth. The Civility of Aristocratic Propriety and Privilege is a way to insulate the ruling class and their courtiers from legitimate and essential criticism. As explored in Partisanship, Policy and Bullshit" – although the notion is radical to many in the chattering class – actual policies affect real people and do matter. When one policy is significantly better or worse than another, especially when increased human suffering is a consequence of one of those choices, policy debates and pundit blather is not just a game. The notion that two pundits clock in to do battle "civilly" and then are chummy afterwards works decently between pundits who agree on a general social contract and the notion of responsible governance. However, anyone who's seriously followed politics at any point in the past thirty or so years knows that the conservative movement (almost all Republican political figures, and some Democrats) reject those two precepts (often utterly, sometime viciously). The "ideal" rules of discourse break down in the face of this, and the happy centrist illusion cannot hold. Honest discussion will necessarily be harsher because one side's policies are themselves harsh, or even... "uncivil," toward the basic dignity and value of their fellow Americans and humans (who they view as lesser beings).



Hey, I'm going to call you a socialist after the break. Where do you want to drink after the show?


Remember, Alan, you're the Washington Generals here. You're supposed to lose.


It's the Yuppie Nuremberg defense: I've got a mortgage to pay.

There's an argument to be made that the hacks who market themselves as "reasonable conservatives" to the NPR/PBS set do more harm than their more rabid fellow travelers. I agree that this is generally the case when it comes to low-information voters and (what shall we call them?) those "middle information" voters so desperate to believe in a mythical moderate or centrist salvation they will deny how insane the Republican Party and American conservatism have become. However, if you read the comments about Tony Blankley at the KCRW site, most of the liberals leaving condolences were able to disagree with Blankley politically or essentially call bullshit while still expressing human compassion for him as a person. It comes with the bleeding hearts, I guess (although Blankley, to his credit, had enough personal class he would have shown similar consideration to his more liberal colleagues).

The counterargument to the "reasonable conservatives" doing-more-harm position ties into an "Overton window" view of politics, where the contours of acceptable discourse are pushed in various directions (especially to the left and the right). In this view, letting Mary Matalin engage in McCarthyist attacks on liberals as traitors on Left, Right and Center (and she did something close to that in one appearance) is much worse than having Blankley on. I tend towards this view, despite my concerns about, and commitment to, challenging "reasonable conservatives" as well. Matalin might be so extreme that she turns off even those middle information voters (an inadvertent good), but I believe (and many other listeners agreed) she was so extreme and vicious she hijacked and effectively destroyed the show altogether. Perhaps this is more a matter of overall editorial judgment, and where one draws the line on acceptable guests, but regardless, featuring (and thus validating) a belligerent extremist undermines the whole enterprise of engaging in discussion in the first place.

This highlights a far deeper problem: it's nearly impossible (on the pundit level) to find an honest conservative in the first place – certainly one who still identifies as Republican and advocates for them – someone who will honestly state his or her views and acknowledge the probable consequences of enacting Republican policies. Most of the "honest conservatives" one could point to (Bruce Bartlett, Andrew Bacevich, Susan Eisenhower) have left the Republican Party. As we've explored many times before, large numbers of self-identified conservatives believe things that are simply not factually true, and they believe these things because their leaders lie to them. (As we’ve noted before, while the Democrats sure ain't perfect, the parties are not remotely equivalent in this respect.) Conservative guests lie in large part out of necessity, because their policies are often awful and favor a select few (normally those who are already the most privileged). They lie so frequently and deeply because they cannot possibly win an argument on the merits.

This is a serious issue for any program that purports to hear from "both sides," especially when those "sides" are defined by political party (and realistically, the political movements driving them). For instance, you could get a good discussion on economics with Bruce Bartlett representing the more conservative (but still reality-based) view and Paul Krugman representing the more liberal view. However, while Bartlett may be a fine guest on economic matters, movement conservatives and Republican officials have moved so far to the right that they view Bartlett as an apostate, and really, none of them share any of his views – to any degree. He may have fine ideas – and he does – but no one in his home party will heed them. Consequently, if the political discussion is centered on the political parties, their power, positions and likely actions versus the merits of various policy positions, it's not likely Bartlett will be booked (certainly not as the only "conservative"). The same goes for most issues. Take global warming – a merit-based discussion will focus on facts and invite experts and knowledgeable, honest lay people to participate, who will discuss various solutions. However, a politically-determined guest roster will undoubtedly include someone who denies that global warming is occurring at all (or denies its extent, or that it's man-made, etc.), and the only real mystery is whether they hold those positions out of proud, hard-won ignorance or due to a fat paycheck (or some mix).

Furthermore, how do we define "conservative" anyway? As Corey Robin points out, "conservatism" has always been reactionary in nature, and thus mutable in terms of actual positions or details. At some point, "conservatism" represents not some older, less destructive manifestation of the term, but what the overwhelming majority of self-described conservatives say it does. That's not to mention that that supposedly less destructive, more pure strain of conservatism was almost always much nastier than its champions would have you believe (basically, see Driftglass' entire archive on Andrew Sullivan and Davids Brooks and Frum). In this sense (and to use an old model) debating whether it's preferable to have a hack or a zealot representing the conservative side in a discussion merely points out that there are almost no honorable conservative wonks (substitute "movement conservative" or "Republican" if you really prefer).

Hacks marketing themselves as "reasonable conservatives" can definitely do a great deal of harm (David Brooks certainly does), but there is an ironic sense in which their presence is a positive sign. Blankley was almost always fighting a rearguard action against progress, trying to 'stand athwart history yelling stop.' That he had to do this meant his movement was losing (on at least some issues; some they've pretty much won). Blankley, like Brooks (and Matalin), was fond of falsely claiming that America was a center-right nation, and both Brooks and Blankley pleaded that something essential would be lost in the American spirit and congressional comity if the Affordable Care Act passed. Once they'd gotten to that stage, reduced to desperate and farcically illogical emotional appeals, it was clear they had nuthin'. None of this means that "reasonable conservatives" shouldn't be challenged; they should, and the slicker hacks can be harder to fight than the zealots. The major battle on "reasonable conservatives" is making those staying-in-my happy-place middle information voters acknowledge what scumbags these pundits really are (or at the very least, that they are wrong). Put another way, to paraphrase a line from Michael Clayton, Blankley and the other "reasonable conservatives (tm)" are 'the guys you buy.' Some are more personally and/or philosophically vile than others, but if you achieve progress despite their dissembling, they will set up a new redoubt. In one sense this dynamic is infuriating, but it also reflects that positive change can indeed be achieved despite these scoundrels. (History bears this out.) Blankley and Brooks fall in the hired-gun, hack category, while Karl Rove and Mary Matalin are hacks but also zealots. Zealots will fight to the death, but hacks try to avoid this; they are survivors and opportunists. (They are Thénardier versus Javert, knaves versus true believers or upfront villains.)

When it comes to Left, Right and Center specifically, I preferred Blankley to Matthew Continetti and definitely to the vile Mary Matalin. He was also less slimy than occasional guest David Frum, who has gotten more honest and accurate since being canned from his wingnut welfare gig at a conservative think tank, but has never fully abandoned his hackish ways (and remains a Tory, no surprise). Host Matt Miller, who describes himself as the "radical center," is very much a Beltway Establishment pundit, something of a centrism fetishist with a thing for fashionable contrarianism, often a dolt, but has his moments and is not irredeemable (for instance, he supports universal health care and more aid to the poor). Canadian Chrystia Freeland is normally pretty sensible (and the way she say "about" is charming). Besides checking out the spin and the bullshit of the week, I mainly listen for Robert Scheer. I don't always agree with Scheer, particularly on details, but he is doggedly honest and willing to criticize the Democratic Party far more sharply than Blankley or any conservative guest has ever dared to do with the Republicans (see Scheer's book The Great American Stickup, among other pieces). Scheer can be overly prickly (his colleagues sometimes goad him), but I admire his seemingly endless capacity for outrage at injustice.

On that point – bloggers, commentators and political activists who value the whole "conscientious citizen" thing come in many styles. Some excel at calm advocacy, detailed analysis and sober debunks. Some are wired for earnest outrage, while others are wired for snark and humor (at its best, true wit). Personally, sometimes I struggle with outrage fatigue; similarly, I can't always muster the detachment necessary for a satirical take, because the reality is just too appalling. That said, I think a sense of humor when dealing with assholes and Team Evil can be essential for one's mental health, and also more effective.

"Appreciating" the craft of someone's hack work while dissecting it might seem callous towards those the hack work hurts ("Cut food stamps for the poor!"), and certainly such analysis can be amoral if insightful. ("Amoral insight" is what little shits like Mark Halperin aspire to, but they only achieve the first part.) However, in the liberal blogosphere, I find that humor and wit tend to come with compassion and a moral compass (just as with serious analysis). Humor is often a coping mechanism. We may be fucked (have you noticed how insane and mean the American ruling class is?), but at least as the world burns, we can be in the company of some people we like and swap a few funny and kind words (plus pet photos). And while humor is sometimes mere consolation for the screwed and relatively powerless, it can also be an extremely effective political tool. When the problem is routine bullshit from Team Evil (which pays well), serious debunks have great value, but mockery plays better than outrage with low and middle information voters. The key reason that conservative and Establishment scolds attack The Daily Show, Colbert, and the wittier bloggers (Chuck Todd is the latest) is precisely because humor can be so effective and insightful. As Michael Palin points out:

…It is a brilliant form of subversion. And it's something I think modern revolutionaries should remember. If you can make fun of somebody, it's often very much better and far more effective than shooting them or making a martyr of them… And there's nothing [those in power] can do against it, really.

Good comedy depends on calling bullshit, while the modern political media machine depends on generating it. Even the most skilled hack or conscienceless scumbag can fall before a skilled exposé or on-target comedy.

Related to all this, I'd rather debunk the Tony Blankleys and Charles Krauthammers of the world, hired guns who at least take pride of craft in their propaganda, than tangle with the weak, incoherent flailings of Megan McArdle, the embarrassingly bad, whiny arguments of Ross Douthat, the slick disingenuousness of the significantly more malevolent Karl Rove, the cruel War-on-Compassion-Itself by Michelle Malkin and the fire-breathing right-wing base, or the gaping abyss of pure, unrelenting, nihilistic evil from the entire Cheney family and their ilk. (Your mileage may vary.) The passionate balderdash of Antonin Scalia at least shows some personality. The panache of select merry hacks at least shows a zest for life (think Nick Naylor versus the pre-conversion Scrooge). The foibles of certain hacks betray their suppressed humanity, which can, in the right circumstances, undermine their darker impulses and lead them to do good, despite of their own supposed nature and hefty paychecks. Most conservative political operatives are bought and paid for, and irredeemable, but historically, some have eventually changed their ways. Expose them, make them laugh at themselves, and make the audience laugh at their bullshit, and some of them will give up the game... or at least be forced to invent a new one. (I demand a better quality of bullshit from you, sir.) Their ultimate redemption is not something to count on at all, but playing the game that way can keep us sane, amused and effective in the meantime, and pushing the Overton window to include more humanity certainly can't hurt.

Election Rituals

Election coverage has a number of silly rituals and tropes. NYU journalism professor and media critic Jay Rosen at PressThink has a great piece up called "A Viewer’s Guide to Iowa Caucus Coverage" (1/3/12). Some of it pertains exclusively to the Iowa Caucus completed two weeks ago, but much of it applies to election coverage in general. His key point is:

The Iowa Caucuses are presented as a news event, a mini-election with an informational outcome, a winner. But what they really are is a ritual, the gathering of a tribe, which affirms itself and its place in our political system by staging this thing every four years.

This is spot-on. The specific reason for this is that “the Iowa caucuses will award no delegates to any candidate.” More generally, while the Iowa Caucus does hold some real consequences (candidates with very low numbers dropping out), there's no doubt that its importance is massively and artificially inflated. It should not hold the prominence it does. The same goes (to a lesser degree) for the New Hampshire Primary. Their predictive value regarding the eventual nominee is quite poor, and neither state is populous or demographically representative of the nation as a whole. (I explored much of this in "That Fragrant Horse Coverage" in 2008, a year that saw some high marks – or low marks – in idiocy in election coverage.)

Rosen features some sharp observations from Joan Didion and the late James W. Carey. Here's Didion:

When we talk about the process, then, we are talking, increasingly, not about “the democratic process,” or the general mechanism affording the citizens of a state a voice in its affairs, but the reverse: a mechanism seen as so specialized that access to it is correctly limited to its own professionals, to those who manage policy and those who report on it, to those who run the polls and those who quote them, to those who ask and those who answer the questions on the Sunday shows, to the media consultants, to the columnists, to the issues advisers, to those who give the off-the-record breakfasts and to those who attend them; to that handful of insiders who invent, year in and year out, the narrative of public life. “I didn’t realize you were a political junkie,” Marty Kaplan, the former Washington Post reporter and Mondale speechwriter who is now married to Susan Estrich, the manager of the Dukakis campaign, said when I mentioned that I planned to write about the campaign; the assumption here, that the narrative should be not just written only by its own specialists but also legible only to its own specialists, is why, finally, an American presidential campaign raises questions that go so vertiginously to the heart of the structure.

Rosen adds:

Then she goes in for the kill. “What strikes one most vividly about such a campaign is precisely its remoteness from the actual life of the country.” Yes! That is something else I want you to watch for tonight. That remoteness.

Sadly, remoteness seems to be a defining feature of mainstream election coverage. Here's Carney:

What is arrayed before the reader is not pure information but a portrayal of contending forces in the world. Moreover, as readers make their way through the paper, they engage in a continual shift of roles or of dramatic focus. A story on the monetary crisis salutes them as American patriots fighting those ancient enemies Germany and Japan; a story on the meeting of the women’s political caucus casts them into the liberation movement as supporter or opponent; a tale of violence on the campus evokes their class antagonisms and resentments. The model here is not that of information acquisition, though such acquisition occurs, but of dramatic action in which the reader joins a world of contending forces as an observer at a play.

Rosen comments:

Carey‘s point in “A Cultural Approach to Communication” is not that the transmission view is “wrong,” but that it cannot illuminate much of what is happening when we encounter the news. A feature on the candidate’s media adviser invites us behind the scenes, where appearances are contrived for an unwitting audience from whom we are now separated by our superior knowledge of the mechanics of manipulation. A television report puts us inside the cockpit of a fighter jet, zeroing in on an enemy target with high-tech precision. We might call this the “positioning effect.” It occurs regardless of whether the journalist-as-author takes a position or produces a neutral, “objective” account. Something else I want you to watch for tonight. How are we–the users, the viewers–being positioned by the reporting and commentary we are given?

I've long felt that, unfortunately, imbibing a great deal of mainstream political coverage can easily leave someone less informed than before, but with a false sense of confidence that the opposite is the case. As studies have shown, this is certainly true for Fox News viewers, but if we're discussing political understanding and context, I would contend the problem is much more widespread. In terms of knowing that specific events have taken place, avid news consumers will more informed and conversant than average Americans, but in terms of political insight, they can wind up worse than before. The conventional Beltway wisdom on any given subject reflects the social norms and consensus of the chattering class, but it is rarely actually wise. The political analysis in mainstream outlets is often appalling shallow and vapid if not factually incorrect. Smart and skeptical news consumers can sift through the dross in coverage, of course, but less grounded viewers can be misled – especially when poor political conversation is the norm. For instance, consider that the dreadful Mark Halperin, who is almost unfailingly wrong and chronically shallow, but is presented to viewers as a political sage. Halperin "won" #1 on Salon's Hack 30 in 2011, a well-deserved dishonor (he was #2 in 2010), but the other 29 are similarly presented as Very Serious People… and there are many more who didn't make the list. (These dynamics are explored in more depth in "Partisanship, Policy and Bullshit.")

As Bob Somerby has often opined, many prominent political reporters write novels rather than journalism, selling narratives that are almost always misleading and superficial, and often outright false. As Geoffrey Nunberg has observed, the selection of political pundits on talk shows resembles sitcom casting, with "types" of political observers being selected. (I have more on this in reference to Ann Coulter in this 2006 post, and Nunberg's insight deserves more discussion in a future post on political theater. "Silent Questions" also covers some of this material, more tangentially.)

This year, Mitt Romney was announced the winner of the Iowa Caucus (by a mere eight votes over Rick Santorum, although the results have been questioned, and now it appears Santorum won). Romney also won in New Hampshire, and is predicted by most analysts and odds-makers to be the eventual Republican nominee. The primary season is less suspenseful because of this, although there have been some interesting elements. Romney is absolutely despised by most voters in the conservative base (they didn't like McCain, either, but they hate Romney more vociferously). Watching those dynamics play out, and the rise and fall of a series of Not-Romney candidates, has been amusing. Meanwhile, the Super PAC money has made things more tumultuous. Such groups can widen the lead for the frontrunner (a Romney Super PAC slammed Newt Gingrich relentlessly and successfully), but a single rich donor can give a flailing candidate new life (A Nevada billionaire gave a Gingrich group five million dollars). With Romney pulling ahead, most of the other candidates have eagerly broken Reagan's "11th commandment" (thou shalt not talk ill of a Republican) in going after Romney as too liberal, too moderate, and even too conservative and heartless. This, too, has been pretty amusing, especially given the rank hypocrisy and bad faith of most of these attacks. Most importantly, with only a few exceptions, the actual policies the Republican candidates have been presenting have been absolutely horrible (Lower taxes on the poor rich!). The candidates, just like many of the reporters covering them, would prefer to keep everything on the level of personalities and gossip versus serious policy analysis and discussion of the likely consequences of their proposals (further devastating the middle class and the poor to give more to the most rich and privileged, mostly). None of this requires arcane knowledge to divine, either. Rosen presents some election rituals and other things he "want[s] you to watch for tonight" in election coverage, and news junkies and conscientious citizens should always keep an eye out for the bullshit: the old, recycled and revered, the re-vamped and re-branded, and the new.

The Peach Kings – "Thieves and Kings"

The SOPA/PIPA Protests

If you went on the internet tubes at all yesterday, you probably saw that Google, Wikipedia and many other sites protested the SOPA and PIPA acts, and provided readers information about contacting their members of Congress. On one level, this battle has involved competing corporations, but their positions have not been equally valid, and smaller entities and bloggers has overwhelmingly opposed SOPA and PIPA. While online piracy is a legitimate issue, the legislation as written was badly flawed and could lead to serious abuses .

I wrote more about SOPA and PIPA here (with links to analyses of the bills). Digby posted a great deal on it yesterday, xkcd has a SOPA strip up, The Oatmeal posted an animated gif yesterday (possibly NSFW) and a follow-up post on the massive play it received. The cartoonist behind Get Your War On has made some funny Get Your Censor On strips. Democracy Now (with Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales) and To the Point both covered the story today.

One of my local news stations (the local ABC affiliate) covered the story last night in a positive way, noting the massive response and overwhelmed switchboards in Congress. The reporters interviewed a few college students, including one who had never previously heard of the bills, but read more on them and signed a petition when he went to look something up on Wikipedia. (Digby covered this angle, too.) It's a bit funny, but as always, the best political campaigns hit people where they live.

Reportedly, several members of Congress have dropped their support for the bills or have called for their revision. We'll see how things develop, but so far, the day of protest seems to have been a great success, and an encouraging sign of the positive things that can be accomplished… especially with a free internet.

MLK Day 2012

In previous years for Martin Luther King Day, I've featured King's words and other civil rights material (see the "MLK" category below). This year, I wanted to at least link a few pieces focused on MLK himself (along with the Guantanamo piece). It's sometimes startling to remember he was only 39 when he was assassinated.

Democracy Now ran "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in His Own Words."

Rick Perlstein wrote a good piece back in 2008, "Conservatives and Martin Luther King." We've covered conservatives' attempt to appropriate King before, and it's especially amusing and shameless given their opposition to the actual man in his lifetime. As always, Perlstein provides some great details.

In a similar vein, Blue Texan has "Republicans and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: A Reminder." (Voting records are pesky things.)

Finally, one of my local PBS stations re-ran a 2010 special, "In Performance at the White House: A Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights Movement." If you've got a soft spot for folk music, especially civil rights music, check it out. (I wasn't crazy about every performance, but some of the renditions are pretty good.)

Update: Roy Edroso: "Every MLK Day you get conservatives talking about how Martin Luther King was kind of a Rick Santorum type. At The Heritage Fondation this year, Matt Spalding drew the short straw..."

Guantánamo at Ten

This past Wednesday, 1/11/12, marks the ten-year anniversary of the first prisoners' arrival to Guantánamo Bay. The American facility at Guantánamo remains a shameful stain on our national honor. The facility itself isn't as important as what went on there – torture and abuse, and prisoners known to be innocent being held for years – and what's still going on there – the indefinite "detention" of individuals without charges.

Unsurprisingly, the ACLU has one of the best statements on this disgraceful milestone:

Ten years have passed since the first prisoner arrived in Guantánamo Bay, making it the longest-standing war prison in U.S. history. Almost 800 men have passed through Guantánamo’s cells. Today, 171 men remain. Fashioned as an “island outside the law” where terrorism suspects could be detained without process and interrogated without restraint, Guantánamo has been a catastrophic failure on every front. It is long past time for this shameful episode in American history to be brought to a close.

Guantánamo started with two false premises: that the men sent there were all terrorists picked up on the battlefield and that, as “unlawful enemy combatants,” they had no legal rights. In reality, a very small percentage of the prisoners were captured by U.S. forces; the vast majority were seized by Pakistani and Afghan militias, tribesmen, and officials, and sold to the United States for large bounties. On instructions from senior White House and Defense Department officials, the men received virtually no screening before being shipped thousands of miles to Guantánamo. The only “process” these prisoners received upon arrival in Guantánamo was coercive interrogation.

As documents secured by the ACLU demonstrate, Guantánamo became a perverse laboratory for brutal interrogation methods. Prisoners were subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, stress positions, extreme temperatures and prolonged isolation. So inhumane was the interrogation regime that the FBI instructed agents not to participate. Within the Department of Defense, too, there were courageous objectors, but they were largely ignored.

Our nation continues to pay the price for those egregious errors. Torture is the principle reason for the astonishing fact that, more than ten years after 9/11, the alleged perpetrators of those attacks—though in U.S. custody for as many as nine years—have not been brought to justice. And it is the principle reason why federal courts were rejected in favor of military commissions with looser evidentiary standards. Even under this imbalanced system, only six Guantánamo prisoners have been convicted of crimes before a military commission. Only one prisoner has been tried in federal court, in a case that showed the strengths of our criminal justice system: after considering the evidence, the jury refused to rubber stamp the government’s case, convicting the defendant on the one charge it found justified, which still resulted in a life sentence. That case should have put to rest any unfounded fears that federal courts cannot conduct fair and safe trials for Guantánamo prisoners, just as they have in hundreds of other terrorism cases. Instead, fearmongerers spun the case as a defeat for national security. Bowing to pressure and unwilling to fight Congress’s subsequent attempts to ban the transfer of detainees to the United States for federal prosecution, the Obama administration restarted the discredited military commission trials.

The United States’ reputation as a defender of human rights has been profoundly diminished because of Guantánamo’s continued existence, damaging our ability to effect change on the world stage. Our allies have refused to share intelligence out of concern that it will be used in unfair military commissions, and will not extradite terrorism suspects if they will end up in military detention or face military trials. Perhaps most critically, military officials acknowledge that Guantánamo has been used for years as a recruiting tool by our enemies -- creating far more terrorists than it has ever held -- undermining rather than enhancing our security.

Each branch of government shares responsibility for the perpetuation of Guantánamo’s legacy...

Read the rest at the link. In his piece on this anniversary, Scott Horton makes many similar points, and adds:

The second underreported lesson of Gitmo relates to the poisonous effect of partisan politics. No one expected matters as deeply felt as 9/11 to remain entirely outside of partisan politics, but the idea of Gitmo was cast soon after the attack, amid a political campaign. Republicans made it an issue in the midterm elections of 2002, marketing it as a “robust” or “proactive” approach to defending the nation against terrorists. The message worked marvelously, scoring enormous gains for the G.O.P.

Unknown to most Americans, though, just before the fall vote, representatives of the CIA and FBI went to the White House to break the bad news: Gitmo had been filled not with dangerous Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but with a bunch of nobodies. Political considerations plainly dictated the response. The government would not review the prisoners’ cases or grant releases, we were told; instead, “the president has determined that they are all enemy combatants.” Not only did this approach deny facts later borne out in case reviews and habeas petitions, it aggressively demonized the Gitmo population in order to create a sort of political insurance policy.

The Bush Administration’s shameful response continues to distort the domestic political dialogue about Guantánamo, which amounts to an extended effort to avoid accountability for a series of stupid political mistakes. In the end, it has been effective domestic politics. But it has cost America enormously on the global stage, diminishing the country’s influence and degrading its moral image to an unprecedented degree. This, more than any other reason, is why Obama’s pledge to close Gitmo was fundamentally wise, and why Obama should be reminded of that pledge and pressed to bring it to fruition.

Lakhdar Boumediene was an innocent man held prisoner for seven and half years at Guantánamo without charges, and only released in 2009. He explains some of his ordeal in a New York Times op-ed, My Guantánamo Nightmare:

Some American politicians say that people at Guantánamo are terrorists, but I have never been a terrorist. Had I been brought before a court when I was seized, my children’s lives would not have been torn apart, and my family would not have been thrown into poverty. It was only after the United States Supreme Court ordered the government to defend its actions before a federal judge that I was finally able to clear my name and be with them again...

The fact that the United States had made a mistake was clear from the beginning. Bosnia’s highest court investigated the American claim, found that there was no evidence against me and ordered my release. But instead, the moment I was released American agents seized me and the five others. We were tied up like animals and flown to Guantánamo, the American naval base in Cuba. I arrived on Jan. 20, 2002.

I still had faith in American justice. I believed my captors would quickly realize their mistake and let me go. But when I would not give the interrogators the answers they wanted — how could I, when I had done nothing wrong? — they became more and more brutal. I was kept awake for many days straight. I was forced to remain in painful positions for hours at a time. These are things I do not want to write about; I want only to forget...

I will never forget sitting with the four other men in a squalid room at Guantánamo, listening over a fuzzy speaker as Judge Leon read his decision in a Washington courtroom. He implored the government not to appeal his ruling, because “seven years of waiting for our legal system to give them an answer to a question so important is, in my judgment, more than plenty.” I was freed, at last, on May 15, 2009...

I’m told that my Supreme Court case is now read in law schools. Perhaps one day that will give me satisfaction, but so long as Guantánamo stays open and innocent men remain there, my thoughts will be with those left behind in that place of suffering and injustice.

The ACLU has an audio podcast with Boumediene, as well as a video series , Voices From Guantánamo. Digby passes along Boumediene's appearance on Up (along with a reminder about a similar, disturbing case):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Boumediene's words, "I still had faith in American justice," strike deeply, and remind me of the words of an abused Iraqi prisoner quoted in a previous post": "When you came to our country, we hoped law would return. We still have that hope."

If you would like take action, you can sign the ACLU petition to President Obama. You can also check your congressperson and senators' stances on the issue, and voice your opinion to them (including thanking them, if appropriate).

America's history has never been pure, nor has any nation's. But as E.J. Dionne put it in an Independence Day column back in 2006:

...The true genius of America has always been its capacity for self-correction. I'd assert that this is a better argument for patriotism than any effort to pretend that the Almighty has marked us as the world's first flawless nation.

One need only point to the uses that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. made of the core ideas of the Declaration of Independence against slavery and racial injustice to show how the intellectual and moral traditions of the United States operate in favor of continuous reform.

There is, moreover, a distinguished national tradition in which dissident voices identify with the revolutionary aspirations of the republic's founders.

MLK Day is a good time to remember these things. Due process is one of the cornerstones of the civilization, not to be abandoned lightly, and not to be violated without consequences. Of all the human or civil rights, it perhaps the most basic and essential. It's heartening that other nations take American war crimes seriously (and perpetrators are scared to travel abroad), but it's shameful that America doesn't want to account for its sins itself. America's best tradition has been its commitment to improvement and better honoring its stated ideals. In this case, the necessary "improvement" is a reclaiming of principles we once held dear but our elected leaders have since abandoned.

(The ACLU has an excellent infographic on Guantánamo. Follow the link to see the whole thing.)

"Boogah Man" – The Phantom Blues Band

"Phantom Blues Band in the first music video from their new record, Inside Out. Group members are Tony Braunagel, Mike Finnegan, Larry Fulcher, Darrell Leonard, Johnny Lee Schell, and Joe Sublett."

Occupy the Hunger Games

A few friends kept raving about The Hunger Games trilogy, a series for young adults by Suzanne Collins, so I checked it out. It's well done, certainly markedly superior to what little I've read of the Twilight series (ouch). The first book is the strongest and most self-sufficient, and features some artful and memorable touches. It's not for young kids, though, given the plot: gladiatorial games involving teens fighting to death, serving as "tributes" to atone for their twelve districts' past rebellion against the almighty Capital – and the whole affair is televised. Katniss Everdeen, the heroine, is passionate but generally unsentimental, a survivor fiercely dedicated to her remaining family and justifiably skeptical of authority. Although she winds up in a love triangle with two young men, she doesn't seek it, and her honest ambivalence (even indifference) over the whole thing is a refreshing change from tween swooning. The first book especially is a page-turner.

There's been some controversy over the originality of Collins' concept, particularly in comparison to the Japanese Battle Royale (which I still haven't read/seen, although I know the premise). However, I'd say The Hunger Games is basically the umpteenth version of "The Most Dangerous Game," except with teens (and written for them) and set in a sci-fi dystopia. The core concept is not new at all, but in such cases, it's all about the combination of elements and the execution. Collins herself claims she was inspired in large part by the Greek myth of Theseus, the Minotaur, and the youths sacrificed every seven years. Certainly Collins' take resonates emotionally with that tale.

Gary Ross is directing the film adaptation of the first book (due out March 23rd), and worked with Collins on the script. Ross is a skilled, underrated screenwriter (his Oscar nominations notwithstanding), with a talent for visualizing character moments and plot developments, often unobtrusively and naturally. Many of his past films have had a sentimental touch, though, and a good adaptation of The Hunger Games should be gripping and exhilarating, but not exactly heart-warming. (You should care about the main characters, but the warm fuzzies are few and far between.) I'm less concerned about Ross than the studio, however. Since the movie reportedly will be PG-13, which isn't a surprise given the book's audience, I have to wonder how much of the book may be cut, and whether fans will rue the film's treatment of a few key events, which would be more stark and disturbing on screen than on the page. (Ross claims he'll be true to the source material.) The cast seems pretty good (we'll see), although tapping Donald Sutherland for President Snow is absolutely perfect.

There have been some fun and thoughtful pictures based on the Occupy movement involving fictional characters. If you read the Hunger Games trilogy, there's little doubt that Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mallark (portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson above) would be firmly with the 99%.

Here's one of Collins' best early passages. (It's so early in the book, involving the inciting incident that's also portrayed in the trailer, it can't really be a spoiler, but don't read it if you don't want to.) District 12 is one of the smallest and poorest, made up mostly of miners, and Katniss' father was killed in an accident several years back. Her mother went into a deep depression, so Katniss has been supporting the family, hunting game illegally beyond the district fence with her friend Gale. They sell some of it discreetly in the trade district, the Hob. In this scene, the people of District 12 have gathered for the annual selection of the tributes, one teen boy and girl. Both Katniss and Gale have extra selection chits in the pot as the price for buying more food for their families. Vapid Effie Trinket from the decadent Capital leads the proceedings, bubbly despite (or because of) the stark reality of sending young people to their death. Against the odds, Katniss' younger sister Primrose is selected, so Katniss volunteers to take her place, which for District 12 tributes means almost certain death:

I steel myself and climb the steps.

"Well, bravo!" gushes Effie Trinket. "That's that spirit of the Games!" She's pleased to finally have a district with a little action going on in it. "What's your name?"

I swallow hard. "Katniss Everdeen," I say.

"I bet my buttons that was your sister. Don't want her to steal all the glory, do we? Come on, everybody! Let's give a big round of applause to our newest tribute!" trills Effie Trinket.

To the everlasting credit of the people of District 12, not one person claps. Not even the ones holding betting slips, the ones who are usually beyond caring Possibly because they know me from the Hob, or knew my father, or have encountered Prim, who no one can help loving. So instead of acknowledging applause, I stand there unmoving while they take part in the boldest form of dissent they can manage. Silence. Which says we do not agree. We do not condone. All of this is wrong.

Then something unexpected happens. At least, I don't expect it because I don't think of District 12 as a place that cares about me. But a shift has occurred since I stepped up to take Prim's place, and now it seems I have become someone precious. At first one, then another, then almost every member of the crowd touches the three middle fingers of their left hand to their lips and holds it out to me. It is an old and rarely used gesture of our district, occasionally seen at funerals. It means thanks, it means admiration, it means good-bye to someone you love.

The Republican Candidates' Tax Proposals

The American Institute of Certified Tax Coaches has a neat graphic of the Republican presidential candidates' tax proposals. Three want to impose a flat tax, that would of course massively benefit the rich. In a similar vein, six would seek not just to lower the estate tax, but eliminate it altogether (alas, a standard position in their party). Because the estate tax already has a very large exemption built in (currently, it's 5 million for an individual), it only affects the most wealthy individuals, and even they can still pass on a tremendous amount of wealth. So, most of the Republican field favors measures that would simultaneously massively benefit the most rich and make the deficit they claim to care about so intensely... much worse. (Note that this chart still counts Michele Bachmann, who only recently dropped out, but not Herman Cain, who also proposed a flat tax, lowering the corporate tax rate, and eliminating the estate tax.)

Most likely, none of this is news to any regular readers, but head over to check out the whole graphic. (Hat tip to Blue Gal, who's running MBR this week.)

Estate taxes are a very old concept, arguably the most progressive part of our tax system, and one of the few remaining bulwarks against complete plutocracy in America. There are many reasons to oppose the Republican Party as it currently stands, but the almost uniform commitment of its leaders to immoral and irresponsible policies in the taxation/fiscal/economic realm, and their decades-long bad faith on such issues, is certainly way up there.

Update 1/5/12: Anne Laurie at Balloon Juice has more on Romney's tax proposals. In a huge shock, Romney, the richest of all the candidates by a long shot, proposes giving himself another huge tax break (and raising taxes slightly on the poor).

As a few people have noted, they're really all cartoon villains at heart, aren't they?