I keep reading about all of this torture business, and I find many aspects of it totally annoying.
For one thing, it all seems so half-hearted. Confining someone in a box with lots of insects? Come on, they do that on “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!” The viewing public seems to find it entertaining, and the celebrities find it merely annoying.
Water-boarding, wall-slamming, forced nudity, stress postures, sleep deprivation, let’s face it, theatricality aside, this stuff won’t get you very far. Those were the authorized tortures.
Then there’s the unauthorized stuff, the “improvised, inhumane and undocumented” stuff, like threatening with a gun, or a power drill, mock executions, and unverified threats against the subject’s family. What a failure of imagination! Anybody that stuff would work on is probably too stupid to know anything anyway.
The perpetrators of these annoyances watch too much TV, too many awful movies staring Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme. They suffer from a common Twenty-First Century delusion: the inability to separate fantasy from reality.
The worst part, definitely, is the very poor likelihood of success, being defined as actually getting good cooperation from someone who actually knows something. They’ll get a gunsel to tell you where the car is parked pretty damn quick, but a motivated, sophisticated opponent holding important information could play those games forever.
You may be surprised to discover my position vis-à-vis torture. I’m not 100% against it 100% of the time. I can’t think of any likely scenarios right now, but I’m sure it happens that a low-functioning subject may possess some knowledge that you absolutely need to know right this second, for reasons greater than convenience. In that case, let him have it, and both barrels too, none of this namby-pamby stuff. Make the sign of the cross and give him the full treatment, quickly and quietly (or more accurately, ‘soundproofedly’). Just don’t get caught. Make sure that no one knows that you have them, and that when you’re done he or she disappears more thoroughly than Judge Crater or Jimmy Hoffa.
Most of the time, the subject has or may have information that you want, sooner better than later. So why alienate the subject with macho theatrics that just confirm his bad impression of you? You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. And perhaps, as is usually the case, the Romans had it right, a big carrot, big stick approach works very well. The Romans offered people a clear choice: choose either number one, we leave you in charge, make you rich, make your entire land prosperous, and provide luxury for your families and a Roman education for your aristocratic children, or number two, we torture and kill all of the men and some of the boys in your land, make slaves out of all of your women and the rest of the children, destroy all of the buildings in your land and every manifestation of your culture, and give the remaining farmland to one of our allies or to our retiring soldiers. That’s a quick pick right there, number one every time, every single fucking time.
Some of our own interrogators know this as well as I do. They have achieved good results by getting to know their subjects, finding out what is important to them, and then offering it to them, and, if accepted, delivering it. Subjects respond to this kind of treatment readily, as long as the benefits are concrete and visible, verifiable and desirable. I have a hunch that the water-boarding lunatics think that these “nice guys” are weak sisters, punks at best and sympathizers at worst. They’re on the beam though. That’s the way to get somewhere in the applying-pressure business.
(Facts and some quotes from “The Torture Memos: The Case Against the Lawyers.” New York Review of Books, Vol. 56, Number 15, October 8, 2009, available at their web site free!)
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Power Of Water
I was just singing the praises of water, the power of naked water to accomplish cleansing, it’s a couple of posts down. I’m not just relieving myself into the wind here.
I have lived for weeks in houses where dishes were washed by the agency of mere water, and non-potable water at that, and neither I nor anyone else in the house got sick. The water was applied conscientiously, and the job was accomplished satisfactorily.
Beyond this underestimated, innate faculty of water, there is a greater truth: it is possible to be “too clean.” Ever take a course or two of powerful antibiotics? Killing off all of the body’s bacteria wreaks its own kind of havoc. Ever see an electron microscope photograph of a fingertip? It’s all “Starship Troopers” in super-miniature. We are filthy creatures, naturally and necessarily.
It is no kindness to isolate children comprehensively from the generally filthy world in which we live. There are benefits to be had, for instance, from the intimate manipulation of mud by a child. Besides being great fun, and encouraging creativity, playing with mud builds strength in the immune system.
On the flip side, maintaining a child in an artificially sanitary environment may actually harm the child, not only by stunting the development of the child’s immune system, but also by exposing the child to a universe of harmful chemicals, known as “cleaning products.” Asthma, or worse, may result.
The problem, I believe, is in misinterpreting progress and modernity. We may rightly embrace higher standards of hygiene, but we cannot completely leave behind our origins as beasts of the earth.
I have lived for weeks in houses where dishes were washed by the agency of mere water, and non-potable water at that, and neither I nor anyone else in the house got sick. The water was applied conscientiously, and the job was accomplished satisfactorily.
Beyond this underestimated, innate faculty of water, there is a greater truth: it is possible to be “too clean.” Ever take a course or two of powerful antibiotics? Killing off all of the body’s bacteria wreaks its own kind of havoc. Ever see an electron microscope photograph of a fingertip? It’s all “Starship Troopers” in super-miniature. We are filthy creatures, naturally and necessarily.
It is no kindness to isolate children comprehensively from the generally filthy world in which we live. There are benefits to be had, for instance, from the intimate manipulation of mud by a child. Besides being great fun, and encouraging creativity, playing with mud builds strength in the immune system.
On the flip side, maintaining a child in an artificially sanitary environment may actually harm the child, not only by stunting the development of the child’s immune system, but also by exposing the child to a universe of harmful chemicals, known as “cleaning products.” Asthma, or worse, may result.
The problem, I believe, is in misinterpreting progress and modernity. We may rightly embrace higher standards of hygiene, but we cannot completely leave behind our origins as beasts of the earth.
The Tip Of The Fed-Killing Iceberg
This story is out there, but it’s not easy to find. Out in the Heartland of America, the Faith-Based heart of Middle-America, the Values America, the devoutly Christian, non-Socialist America, killing “Fed’s” has become a status crime, a hate crime.
Did I say killing? More like brutal, intensely violent torturing and murdering. Stripped naked, bound and blinded with duct-tape, and hung from a tree. Compared to that, mere killing, like one or two caps in the back of the head, is filial devotion.
Isolated incident, you say? There’s usually no such thing. The Collyer brothers were an isolated incident, two crazy brothers collecting their stool in labeled boxes. This is no such thing. It’s happened before, recently, arising from the same insane reasoning, and it’s obvious that the whole giant iceberg is floating along there under the visible tip.
A hate crime, as in, it’s not personal, he was a Fed! From all indications, the victim was a nice guy, low key, not ambitious, not a big shot, a single dad raising a small son. The killers would probably have liked the guy, if only he hadn’t been a stinking Fed.
This crime is horrifying and dangerous, this was an incendiary act with huge implications for American politics and culture. Want proof? It’s being covered way on the down low, kid-gloves and all. It’s being treated as “The Mysterious Death Of Bill Sparkman,” like we don’t know yet what really happened. The first day it was literally: maybe he killed himself? Even now it’s, “State Trooper Don Trosper said it was clear this wasn't a natural death but said all other possibilities were being considered.
"This case has many facets," he said. "To investigate cases, you have to rule out different scenarios. We are not able to rule out many scenarios at this time, and that's what makes this a difficult case."
It’s a difficult case alright, but the difficulty is not in figuring out what happened. No, some brave patriots, low-functioning I’ll bet, drunk probably, got their hands on a Fed and struck a tremendous blow for freedom! Passions inflamed, the odds are, by someone outside their own moronic heads.
It’s not over. As my beloved cousin H. told me when he was teaching me to parallel park a car: “what man has done, man can do.” This has been made into a war by some people, and it’s just getting hot.
Did I say killing? More like brutal, intensely violent torturing and murdering. Stripped naked, bound and blinded with duct-tape, and hung from a tree. Compared to that, mere killing, like one or two caps in the back of the head, is filial devotion.
Isolated incident, you say? There’s usually no such thing. The Collyer brothers were an isolated incident, two crazy brothers collecting their stool in labeled boxes. This is no such thing. It’s happened before, recently, arising from the same insane reasoning, and it’s obvious that the whole giant iceberg is floating along there under the visible tip.
A hate crime, as in, it’s not personal, he was a Fed! From all indications, the victim was a nice guy, low key, not ambitious, not a big shot, a single dad raising a small son. The killers would probably have liked the guy, if only he hadn’t been a stinking Fed.
This crime is horrifying and dangerous, this was an incendiary act with huge implications for American politics and culture. Want proof? It’s being covered way on the down low, kid-gloves and all. It’s being treated as “The Mysterious Death Of Bill Sparkman,” like we don’t know yet what really happened. The first day it was literally: maybe he killed himself? Even now it’s, “State Trooper Don Trosper said it was clear this wasn't a natural death but said all other possibilities were being considered.
"This case has many facets," he said. "To investigate cases, you have to rule out different scenarios. We are not able to rule out many scenarios at this time, and that's what makes this a difficult case."
It’s a difficult case alright, but the difficulty is not in figuring out what happened. No, some brave patriots, low-functioning I’ll bet, drunk probably, got their hands on a Fed and struck a tremendous blow for freedom! Passions inflamed, the odds are, by someone outside their own moronic heads.
It’s not over. As my beloved cousin H. told me when he was teaching me to parallel park a car: “what man has done, man can do.” This has been made into a war by some people, and it’s just getting hot.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Other Cheney Redux
The following re-blogged almost ancient post has generated a huge number of comments, over the course of historically significant time, all appearing on my screen as a series of otherwise featureless rectangles. Some of these mysterious comments are available for viewing at the original post, which can be accessed at the word search feature. (Enter, "the other cheney.")
Here's the post. Help me out here . . . who is commenting? why? why are the comments so suspiciously encrypted? who is this Lynn Cheney anyway?
Ancient Post:
I saw, you know, Liz Cheney on the Larry King Show and, you know, she was a public official in the Bush Administration and, you know, she’s pretty good at remembering the daily talking points, but I’m wondering, you know, who cares what she thinks? At the end of the day, you know, who is she?
Has the Republican party really come to this? Sarah Palin, Rush Limbo, Mark Sanford, “Bobby” Jindal, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and, dare I say it, Jeb Bush?
I have to look up Liz Cheney’s education, I want to know what institutions she’s embarrassing, you know, by saying “you know” every four or five words. Her content is nothing to write home about either, merely running together an endless parade of boilerplate talking points. Her debating style is interruptionist in the extreme, she is just boiling to deliver the next point on her list, no matter who happens to have the mike at the moment. No one will remember what you said, because, you know, I was talking over you all the time.
Maybe I should be happy. My family, my friends, and all of my regular readers know full well that I feel about the Republican Party like other birds feel about crows; like Carpathian villagers feel about the vampire in the castle; like Jews feel about Hitler. But I’m not happy at all, in fact, to see them implode, because whether I like it or not we have a two party system, and it’s bad for that system if one party just flies off the rails and loses its ability to debate the issues honestly.
And let’s face it: this Liz Cheney style debate wrecking is not honest debate. It’s obscurantism, plain and simple, and it’s stupid and destructive.
That two party system. Feeling that America is a giant economy that needs careful tending is a legitimate point of view; feeling that America is a great culture made up of individuals and sub-groups that need careful tending is a legitimate point of view. Within the tension of a reasoned debate there is the possibility of compromise that nurses the whole thing forward, whatever it is. That’s where I stand. I’m no revolutionary, I don’t want to live through any Great Leaps Forward (although I wouldn’t mind a Second New Deal).
I’m just an everyday secular humanist shithead, Liberal definitely, progressive maybe, libertarian? not in this lifetime.
So . . . Liz who? Oh, yeah, soon-to-be-attempted-Senator Liz. What a nightmare.
Here's the post. Help me out here . . . who is commenting? why? why are the comments so suspiciously encrypted? who is this Lynn Cheney anyway?
Ancient Post:
I saw, you know, Liz Cheney on the Larry King Show and, you know, she was a public official in the Bush Administration and, you know, she’s pretty good at remembering the daily talking points, but I’m wondering, you know, who cares what she thinks? At the end of the day, you know, who is she?
Has the Republican party really come to this? Sarah Palin, Rush Limbo, Mark Sanford, “Bobby” Jindal, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and, dare I say it, Jeb Bush?
I have to look up Liz Cheney’s education, I want to know what institutions she’s embarrassing, you know, by saying “you know” every four or five words. Her content is nothing to write home about either, merely running together an endless parade of boilerplate talking points. Her debating style is interruptionist in the extreme, she is just boiling to deliver the next point on her list, no matter who happens to have the mike at the moment. No one will remember what you said, because, you know, I was talking over you all the time.
Maybe I should be happy. My family, my friends, and all of my regular readers know full well that I feel about the Republican Party like other birds feel about crows; like Carpathian villagers feel about the vampire in the castle; like Jews feel about Hitler. But I’m not happy at all, in fact, to see them implode, because whether I like it or not we have a two party system, and it’s bad for that system if one party just flies off the rails and loses its ability to debate the issues honestly.
And let’s face it: this Liz Cheney style debate wrecking is not honest debate. It’s obscurantism, plain and simple, and it’s stupid and destructive.
That two party system. Feeling that America is a giant economy that needs careful tending is a legitimate point of view; feeling that America is a great culture made up of individuals and sub-groups that need careful tending is a legitimate point of view. Within the tension of a reasoned debate there is the possibility of compromise that nurses the whole thing forward, whatever it is. That’s where I stand. I’m no revolutionary, I don’t want to live through any Great Leaps Forward (although I wouldn’t mind a Second New Deal).
I’m just an everyday secular humanist shithead, Liberal definitely, progressive maybe, libertarian? not in this lifetime.
So . . . Liz who? Oh, yeah, soon-to-be-attempted-Senator Liz. What a nightmare.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Incredible! Amazing! Travel Slogans
Asian cable TV is full of glossy ads run by the national tourist offices of various countries, some in the neighborhood and some pretty far a field. Throw in lots of ads for first class air travel and you have a picture of a perfect world, a non-stop, five star bonanza of gourmet food, perfect white sand beaches, beautiful serving girls, and uninhibited luxury.
“Malaysia, truly Asia!” If there’s one thing that Malaysia truly is not, it’s truly Asia, not even truly South-East-Asia. Oh, it’s a nice place, and the people seem friendly enough, but believe me, a little bit goes a long way.
“Amazing Thailand!” This one is much more on the mark. Thailand is pretty amazing, in good ways, ways that will surprise and delight you. If there’s one place that’s worth going half way around the world for, Thailand is probably it. After five years, I still find it endlessly fascinating and comfortable, and I feel quite safe here, in spite of what you may be reading about the local politics.
“Incredible India!” This slogan is also precisely descriptive, although not in the way in which it was intended by the tourist board. India is incredible, unbelievable, as in, “can you believe that smell?” Or, “who would believe that there could be so many beggars in the world?” Or, "I can't believe I have to throw up again!"
The real punch-line here is Angola. Way out in South-West Africa, it’s a little strange that they would advertise in Asia looking for tourist business. For most of my life, Angola was a lawless place, a still-born state torn by revolutionary struggle, overrun by various armed factions, South African armed forces, and bandits. For some reason known only to God, they decided to go with the slogan: “Reach for the Sky!”
“Malaysia, truly Asia!” If there’s one thing that Malaysia truly is not, it’s truly Asia, not even truly South-East-Asia. Oh, it’s a nice place, and the people seem friendly enough, but believe me, a little bit goes a long way.
“Amazing Thailand!” This one is much more on the mark. Thailand is pretty amazing, in good ways, ways that will surprise and delight you. If there’s one place that’s worth going half way around the world for, Thailand is probably it. After five years, I still find it endlessly fascinating and comfortable, and I feel quite safe here, in spite of what you may be reading about the local politics.
“Incredible India!” This slogan is also precisely descriptive, although not in the way in which it was intended by the tourist board. India is incredible, unbelievable, as in, “can you believe that smell?” Or, “who would believe that there could be so many beggars in the world?” Or, "I can't believe I have to throw up again!"
The real punch-line here is Angola. Way out in South-West Africa, it’s a little strange that they would advertise in Asia looking for tourist business. For most of my life, Angola was a lawless place, a still-born state torn by revolutionary struggle, overrun by various armed factions, South African armed forces, and bandits. For some reason known only to God, they decided to go with the slogan: “Reach for the Sky!”
My Favorite Lecture Of All Time
It was at the Santa Monica Hospital, a good place that saved my life one time. The lecture was in about the year 1982. They had a clinic of family medicine that served as my de facto health insurance policy at the time. Maybe the lecture was just a clinic service, but I seem to remember that it had something to do with the local day care community. It was a lecture about hand washing, the importance of it and the proper technique, with a healthy dose of myth dispelling thrown in by a conscientious doctor-speaker.
I recalled a conversation that I’d had with my mother when I was a small boy. She’d seen my wash my hands and noticed that I didn’t use soap. She counseled me that I must use soap, because soap killed the germs. My hands hadn’t been very dirty to begin with, and I’d washed them very thoroughly under the running water, and frankly they looked and felt very clean to me, and I told her so. I gave her my opinion: the water had killed the germs just fine. No drama ensued, that was about it really, but for some reason the entire little conversation stuck with me over the years. I can still see and hear it. Memory is a funny thing.
So I was very interested in attending the hand washing lecture. I tend to believe that I am right most of the time, and I was probably looking for validation for my previous endorsement of water-only hand washing for hands that weren’t really dirty.
Well, I got it, kind of. The lecture was fascinating. The doctor spoke to us like we were adults, unlike most doctors who treat anyone who doesn’t have an MD as though they were children, or even retarded children. Killing germs, he explained, was not the goal, forget killing germs. Soap will not kill germs. Hot water will kill them, but the water needs to be something like one hundred and seventy five degrees Fahrenheit, which of course would scald the skin right off your hands. It’s the mechanical action of the water that cleans your hands. Warm water and soap are recommended, they enhance the mechanical action of the water by reducing its surface tension, which has the effect of making your hands get wetter, getting a deeper rinse-off of the whatever it is that makes them “dirty.”
Not exactly a validation of my boyish practicing of science without a license, but it was nice to recall a relatively calm conversation with my mother long ago, and it still is. My memories of her happily smiling are shamefully few.
I recalled a conversation that I’d had with my mother when I was a small boy. She’d seen my wash my hands and noticed that I didn’t use soap. She counseled me that I must use soap, because soap killed the germs. My hands hadn’t been very dirty to begin with, and I’d washed them very thoroughly under the running water, and frankly they looked and felt very clean to me, and I told her so. I gave her my opinion: the water had killed the germs just fine. No drama ensued, that was about it really, but for some reason the entire little conversation stuck with me over the years. I can still see and hear it. Memory is a funny thing.
So I was very interested in attending the hand washing lecture. I tend to believe that I am right most of the time, and I was probably looking for validation for my previous endorsement of water-only hand washing for hands that weren’t really dirty.
Well, I got it, kind of. The lecture was fascinating. The doctor spoke to us like we were adults, unlike most doctors who treat anyone who doesn’t have an MD as though they were children, or even retarded children. Killing germs, he explained, was not the goal, forget killing germs. Soap will not kill germs. Hot water will kill them, but the water needs to be something like one hundred and seventy five degrees Fahrenheit, which of course would scald the skin right off your hands. It’s the mechanical action of the water that cleans your hands. Warm water and soap are recommended, they enhance the mechanical action of the water by reducing its surface tension, which has the effect of making your hands get wetter, getting a deeper rinse-off of the whatever it is that makes them “dirty.”
Not exactly a validation of my boyish practicing of science without a license, but it was nice to recall a relatively calm conversation with my mother long ago, and it still is. My memories of her happily smiling are shamefully few.
Monday, September 21, 2009
L’Espoir Du Succes
I cannot say exactly why, but I still enjoy reading about the challenges facing constitutional governance in America. What profit could there be in becoming more informed about the vast, negative changes that have taken place since World War II? Better by far to simply keep one’s head in the sand, and wave the flag like most Americans while the original dreams of the Constitution fade into darkness.
What, in any case, could one man do?
Maybe it’s encouraging to read well considered articles written by very smart people who are willing to study these problems. One such article, very brief and to-the-point, is:
Entangled Giant
By Garry Wills
New York Review of Books
Vol. 56, Number 15, October 8, 2009
Mr. Wills is very concerned about the growth of executive power in America, especially the huge security apparatus that has grown up around it. We should all be concerned about it. This has been accomplished under the guise of the “theory of the unified executive,” and no recent Supreme Court has had the talent or the inclination to do anything about it.
Even Mr. Wills is very dubious of the chances of limiting this concentration of power in the office of the presidency, much less of unwinding the damage that has been done already. After all, this is permanent war! World War II; the Cold War; the War on Terror; whatever comes next. Perhaps, he wonders, the Constitution has become as “quaint” and “obsolete” as the Geneva Conventions as described and (not) observed by the Bush II administration and, unfortunately, the Obama administration as well. (Quoth, David Addington, and signed off on by Alberto Gonzalez.)
Mr. Wills and I agree, however, that efforts should be made to return to the rule of the Constitution as it existed for 150 years, a sweet dream that should not so lightly be given up. We love our Constitution, we Americans, that’s what I teach my law students here in the developing-world. It’s a sacred thing, I believe, and worth fighting for.
Winning the battle? Mr. Wills finishes the article on a distinctly pessimistic note, quoting Cyrano: “one doesn’t fight in the hope of winning.” (mais on ne se bat pas dans l’espoir du succes).
What, in any case, could one man do?
Maybe it’s encouraging to read well considered articles written by very smart people who are willing to study these problems. One such article, very brief and to-the-point, is:
Entangled Giant
By Garry Wills
New York Review of Books
Vol. 56, Number 15, October 8, 2009
Mr. Wills is very concerned about the growth of executive power in America, especially the huge security apparatus that has grown up around it. We should all be concerned about it. This has been accomplished under the guise of the “theory of the unified executive,” and no recent Supreme Court has had the talent or the inclination to do anything about it.
Even Mr. Wills is very dubious of the chances of limiting this concentration of power in the office of the presidency, much less of unwinding the damage that has been done already. After all, this is permanent war! World War II; the Cold War; the War on Terror; whatever comes next. Perhaps, he wonders, the Constitution has become as “quaint” and “obsolete” as the Geneva Conventions as described and (not) observed by the Bush II administration and, unfortunately, the Obama administration as well. (Quoth, David Addington, and signed off on by Alberto Gonzalez.)
Mr. Wills and I agree, however, that efforts should be made to return to the rule of the Constitution as it existed for 150 years, a sweet dream that should not so lightly be given up. We love our Constitution, we Americans, that’s what I teach my law students here in the developing-world. It’s a sacred thing, I believe, and worth fighting for.
Winning the battle? Mr. Wills finishes the article on a distinctly pessimistic note, quoting Cyrano: “one doesn’t fight in the hope of winning.” (mais on ne se bat pas dans l’espoir du succes).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
