McCain to Torture, "I hate you, but I need you."

AZ Senator, Presidential hopeful and former torture victim John McCain has come out repeatedly against the US' involvement in torture. This, more than any other issue has helped me not only get comfortable with him, but put him on the path to winning my vote. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) know that I abhor this practice, its a stain on our great nations honor, period.

In an election with lots of noise, pro-torture/anti-torture is one issue where there is no doubt that the President can act, and I think elections are about what a President can actually do. Call me silly.

So when the Senate took up a bill that would require that the CIA conform to the rules in the Army's field manual for interrogations, I thought, this is one good moment.

However, I was completely shocked (but fortunately not that kind of shocked) when Sen McCain voted against this bill. So it was right then that John McCain lost me for good. Why, you ask, did he vote against this bill? According to his rep, who said

that his vote does not mean the senator endorses any of these tactics. Instead, the aide said, there are noncoercive interrogation techniques not used by the Army that could be useful to the CIA. The aide declined to provide an example, but said it made sense for the CIA to use tactics that are not widely known through the field manual, which is a public document.

The great thing about not having much honor is that its really easy to hide it behind feeble words.

The good news is that its a Presidential Election so I can just read the article to see where his opponents stand.

Says Sen Obama,

I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It's time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding.

Ooooh, that's strong. I like that. Especially the whole "no Administration should allow the use of torture" part. So now I can mark down that President Obama would act against torture. Excellent. Hmmm, but he's not President Obama yet. I wonder what Senator Obama would do. Uh oh, it looks like Senator Obama is trying to becoming President Obama and neglected to vote. To recap, President Obama would not allow torture and is sick of "political parsing and legal loopholes" but Senator Obama, in a position to close a gaping version of said loophole, couldn't be bothered to vote. I think I like President Obama much better than Senator Obama.

What about Sen Clinton?

As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period.

Again, last I checked, the Senate plays a fairly large role in determining "American policy." Unless you have better things to do I guess, because she too, neglected to vote.

Look, I get that these two are running for President. I also get that they don't care nearly as much as I do about this particular issue. But Sen McCain dragged his butt to DC to sell his soul (again) to vote against a bill banning torture by the CIA, why couldn't these two do the same to show how they felt about this issue? Why? Well its becoming more and more obvious. The GOP is willing to take a stand, even if its terrible. The Democrats aren't willing to do anything that may "rock the boat" no matter how terrible the rocking.

So my choice is between a party that is willing to take stands on issues I completely disagree with them about, or a party that is filled with people who say the right things but are afraid to take any kind of stand. Awesome.

Honestly, I've held my nose every time I've ever voted in a Presidential election. Every time. This may be the year that I just go to the park and enjoy some fresh air.

PS. This great OPED about torture by Morris Davis former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo (and obvious hippy America hater) was just submitted by a long time reader. Mr Davis is clearly more eloquent than I, as evidenced by the great line,

Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues.

Yup. Please read the article.

Torture works

UBlo, I sent you the video that makes clear that there are intelligence successes that come as the result of "coercive tactics" (I don't know how to attach it to the Blog). Personally, I consider it a no brainer that torture can work. I also consider it a no brainer that it doesn't always work. The clear truth is that it is a tool that works in some situations and not in others. Even the head of Human Rights Watch granted the point that torture can produce valid intelligence. However, she followed up with the very logical counter that perhaps a less "aggressive" technique could also have achieved those successes. I find that a reasonable challenge to the pro torture crowd. "Torture never yields good intel" is simply a false claim.

Again, where this discussion needs to be is "what price should we pay?". I'm not sure I'm on the pro-torture side. However, I would be intellectually dishonest to maintain it never works. I know it works, but I'm still not convinced we should use it. The woman from Human Rights Watch is correct, you must show that there is no other alternative that can work before you conclude torture is necessary. But since it does work, let's assume that there was no other viable way to get the info. Is it OK to torture then? Or should we be absolutists on this? Never, no matter what the cost.

What the pro-torture crowd is really supporting

When discussing torture its important to discuss who it is we're actually torturing. As it stands, those who are lined up for torture are the ones who don't have a right to trial, with some small sub-set being selected for military tribunals (which offer less defendant rights than our standard courts) at the pentagon's sole discression. However, both classes can be tortured at any time. In other words, you can be tortured without ever seeing even a tribunal.

The standard defenses for this are along the lines of, "this is better than they would treat us," or "these terrorists don't deserve better," or "terrorists must be dealt with," etc.

The problem is this. Because we are not fighting an enemy nation with uniforms, how do you know you have a terrorist and not a goat farmer who was named by someone a) being tortured and giving up a name, any name to ease the pain, or b) someone with another agenda (like wanting his land)? Keep in mind, there is no link, anywhere between torture an guilt. Not in any document, bill, or memo I've found. Furthermore, even those selected to undergo trial do not get the standard defense, they have lesser rights and a harder fight. Normally, when a punishment is unusual the trial is biased for the defendant, think death peanalty. Even with all the hurdles in place to insure that those on death row are guilty, many were freed years, or decades, later with DNA evidence or when the real killer came forth. Now, we're told to accept that a watered down defense, or even no defense, will have a lesser innocent conviction rate than our standard trial system? Just to trust some random guy that a detainee is a terrorist? Has this ever worked out?

So when you find yourself supporting torture, remember the administration has never, ever said anything about only the guilty getting the business. When you support this administration and Congress and their torture bill, you have to accept that you are supporting the torture innocent people.

It's not about "getting the bad guys." Never has been. Otherwise there would be a push to make sure those we have are guilty. This is about fear and vengance. When you're a coward and your afraid you'll hurt anyone to feel safe. When you're feeling vengeful, you'll hurt anyone to satiate your desire. American is about justice.

How far from justice will we stray, and how long will it take us to come back?

McCain in McPain

I've been hearing rumblings regarding McCain and his anti-torture bill. Mostly from the talking heads and mostly along the lines of, "look I know he was tortured, and so clearly he has issue with it, but he will also tell you he broke, and it worked." Until now I haven't seen any actual references to what McCain said about his personal experience, but a web site called newsmax.com had an editorial about it by some guy named Carl Limbacher. Not to be dismissive, his bio is pretty impressive, but I've never heard of him. Anyway he makes the point that " Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked! " I thought, "well that's interesting," but when I read what Mr. Limbacher considered "worked" I missed it. McCain said he gave up his ships name, squadron number, and target, instead of the just name, rank and serial number. And then, after another episode, and 5 1/2 years later, signed a prepared document confessing to war crimes that he obviously didn't commit. I admit that I'm not a general, but I don't see the first "give"of information being that helpful, and the second is a joke. If we're looking to torture to get people to sign sheets of paper after 5 1/2 years, then OK. But in the most common hypothetical, a nuclear bomb is in the US and about to blow, I'm willing to bet that it would have blown after 5 1/2 years. The case against torture isn't that people will admit things under torture, its that they will admit anything. To call McCain's torture a success based on those two events is wrong. 5 1/2 years of torture isn't helpful, its sadistic. Maybe that's why he's so concerned with this. I'm sure he views the torturers and the government that supported them in a certain way, and he's honestly ashamed that his own leaders are now embracing the same useless assault on detainees.

What is up in CT?

Christopher Shays, (R)CT, fresh off reminding us all that serial, willful pedophelia is not as bad as Chappaquiddick, now says that Abu Ghraib wasn't torture, but rather a "sex ring." Later, in defending his comments he says, "...It wasn't primarily about torture" (emphasis mine).

One, why bother running to the defense of Abu Ghraib? He acknowledges that torture has happened at other prisons, so why draw the line here? US guards have been tried and found guilty, the picutres were so bad they couldn't be released, and up until Shays' recent comments, the only person I recall defending Abu Ghraib is Rush Limbaugh, but he's an actor so it's not really the same as an actual law maker defending it. So why wouldn't Shays just say something about it being a terrible incident, but it was an isolated event and those responcible have been punished, the US needs to do a better job of discussing its successes in Iraq, media bias, etc. But to defend something that all but the most loyal Republican's can tolerate, and only then through rose colored glasses, is just weird. Without going into each picture, I've seen some that clearly weren't sexual and had lots of blood and other nastieness going on. So let's just focus on the "sex ring" comment.

I'm not sure why no one in the debate, or any reporter in follow-up later, pointed out that if you look in the Torture Bill that Shays voted for there are provisions under "Prohibited Conduct" labled (G) Rape and (H) Sexual Assault or Abuse. Since my bet is the prisoners were not willfully engaging in the activity, I'm assuming they were forced, thus violating the provision in the very Torture Bill he voted for. So I'm not really sure what is point is. Shays is making the rattled comments of a desperate man.

So I started wondering why and found this. He's in a real squeaker with his opponent Diane Farrell (D), leading her only 44-40 with 16% undecided. For a sitting congressman, the way districts are gerrymandered this is enough to make a man like Shays panic.

And he is.

What would Sid Meier say?

The Senate passed the torture bill, aka The Military Commissions Act of 2006, yesterday, W is expected to sign.

Here's what the bill lacks.

Any proof of guilt before torture is allowed.

Any threshold of what constitutes a torturable event. For example it does not say, "If a bomb is about to go off in NYC and the suspect knows where it is, then it is permissible to torture." There is no minimum offense, or standard of information required to allow torture.

No requirement to keep records of how many are tortured, why they were tortured and under what methods.

No recourse for the tortured if they are innocent or do not have the information. In fact, since there is no requirement period for releasing anyone brought into custody, if you are embarrassing enough, you may never get released. Innocent, tortured, and life in prison.

So to recap. After careful consideration by our House and Senate, and at the President's urging, we are now a nation that can torture a mysterious number of innocent people, for any reason, and keep them locked up forever, without oversight or recourse by anyone outside those who are doing the torturing.

Mr. Bush said this is a battle for civilization.

He's right, they are destroying our civilization.

I'll let you decide who "they" are.

Torture; It's What's for Dinner

As Brian Ross of ABC News told Bill O'Reilly, water boarding has directly led to intelligence used to thwart terror attacks in this country. That is a fact. It also eliminates an argument mistakenly put forward that torture is not only wrong, but it is useless. It is clearly not useless. Now, this brings us to an interesting discussion. What price honor? I agree with UBlo that as Americans we should uphold the highest standards of decency. I also understand that that impulse is what led people to want to believe torture is useless. That way we could do away with it cost free. Well, not using torture (and American techniques are quite tame in the arena of real torture) now has a clear price - American lives. So I question is the moral high ground, in this case, worth the price?

McCain hates torture, stymied by what to do about it

GOP Presidential hopeful(ly not) John McCain tells 60 Minutes,

We prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II, and one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they waterboarded Americans.

And now America does it. Does, anyone have any ideas on why, and how to stop it? Lets see the follow up.

Asked "how did we lose our way," McCain answered,

I don't know the answer to that.

OH, OH, I know, I know, call on me, call on me, OH, OH! Thank you. Ahem. I think the answer to "how did we lose our way" is when politically ambitious anti-torture Senators sell their souls and vote against a bill that would bring the CIA into compliance with the Army Field Manual banning torture. Then to complete the sell-out urge the President to veto said bill. Which he did. Meaning America still reserves the ability to torture.

So there you go Mr McCain. Feel free to cut this post out and keep it in your pocket next time you're asked the question.

The new messiah

Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says,

"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country,"

So God told Rumsfeld to torture innocent people? Well then, who am I, but a humble blogger to question that? However,scanning by copy of the good book, I'm having a hard time finding the part where Jesus says to torture your enemies. Must be in the next draft.

Also, I'm not sure how well good ol' Pete will be at questioning and advising Rummy, what with Rummy's direct line to God.

*Disclaimer. I'm really uncomfortable with this post. I don't like talking about religion, I think its a private matter. I also don't want to imply that Rumsfeld is not a religious person, or demean his beliefs or way of carrying himself as a Christian. But I just couldn't let this quote go for two reasons. One, Rumsfeld’s insistence on torture, which any reader of this blog knows I abhor, and two, when anyone believes that a leader takes direct orders from God, that's sketchy ground for any American, when that person is, themselves, a leader it's really, really sketchy ground.

Whatd'ya know, Hillary know's the Clinton backpeddle too

Hillary Clinton, D(NY), appears to be backpeddling from her extremely well worded anti-torture stance.

Going from a September 28 Senate floor speech,

Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nation's values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.

George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants could reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values.

To a October 11 meeting where she said,

She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.

"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it’s reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."

Here's what happened to me. When I first read Hillary's initial statement I was pretty excited. I actually thought, "If this is Hillary, I can see myself voting for her." But almost as that thought finished, I thought, "Careful Hercules (that's what I call myself), she's the same person who was silent on the Iraq war and PATRIOT Act, until both became unpopular. Why don't you just wait and see."

Mostly I'm glad I didn't blog a glowing comment on her speech, and how she may be votable after-all because Stalin would have had my lunch. She's hedging herself a full two years before the election. She didn't even make it a full month of conviction on the torture issue. Isn't that some sort of record? Waffling two years before an election and only one month before an empassioned speech on the Senate floor.

Beyond everything else, I think this is her biggest problem. She's far to caluculating. Even with Bill, you had a sense that under all the politics he cared. Not so with Hillary. It's just about getting the title.

Count me out.

More Selling

More information about the White House's plans for alleged terrorists, "The bill would also bar “statements obtained by the use of torture” from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coercion was used would be admissible unless a military judge found it 'unreliable.'"

CNN's version just had the first sentence but left the key clause about "coersion" out of the article.

Notice that the judge only rules if the information is "unreliable" not if the information was obtained through "torture" or "coersion." Also note that, according to the administration, waterboarding, a "coersive" technique that mimicks drowning-and can cause permanent injury or death, is not considered "torture."

The Torture Knot

So Bush says, "we don't torture." But we have, here, and here apparently want to again as Bush is threatening to use is veto, if he can find the thing, on an Anti-Torture Bill that passed the Senate 90-9. Sometimes I need a map to understand what's going on.
*Apologies for leaning so heavily on Sullivan, but he's been on this case for awhile, and does a good job of it.

A Gulag By Any Other Name...

How easy it is to get attention these days. Everywhere you look there is a camera streaming images to somewhere on the cable spectrum. And people watching...for hours on end...watching. (Marx could not have been less prescient about what makes for good opiate.) And all that information. Good clean information. Well-considered and minty fresh. Oh, I know, you can't trust it ALL. I mean there are always a few kooks out there, a few exceptions to the rule of intellectual honesty and fair play. But certainly they get discredited quickly once the media has a chance to debunk. I mean who would risk that priceless jewel of credibility? Well, Amnesty International for one. And the mainstream media for two.

The United States has been charged with running a gulag, with ghost detentions and torture. Charges that one would expect would have to be well-documented to be credible. Or not. Ghost detentions and disappearances refer to summary and secretive executions usually carried out in dictatorships...catch the implication? Amnesty levels this charge without a single victim's name. Torture? Is this a well-defined term in the report that warrants the strong language? No, but there are some examples - like holding one inmate "incommunicado". Loneliness is torture. Thanks Amnesty International for your courageous war on boredom. The charges are laughable, the fact that the media accepted it uncritically is scandalous.

It's a shame. There was a time when a respectable thinker could quote an Amnesty International report to bolster an argument. Unfortunately, now such a quote would only reveal the mistaken use of "respectable".

The Hydrablog/Specter Bill

Here's a copy of the Anti-Signing Statement Bill intorduced by Arlen Specter. No one's giving it a chance. Makes sense, when party politics rule there's no room for Constitutional divisions of power, just mucks up the works.

Also, here's McCain telegraphing how he'll vote. Personally I think McCain is done. His strategy of hitching his wagon to the Bush anchor will probably backfire. He's hemmoraging the Democratic and Independent voters he had in 2000 and, increasingly, this maverick is looking like a lackey. W said the anti-torture bill doesn't apply if he doesn't think it does. This was a bill written by a former torture victim who worked to insure a veto proof majority only to see it completely eviscerated at the end, yet he does nothing. I backed McCain in 2000 but I just don't see voting for him in 2008. The good news for him, I guess, is that it looks like Gore's the top contender for the Dems.

Sometimes I feel like crying.

Signing off

The American Bar Association is after W for his use of signing statements. While I'm no legal scholar, I do agree with their point that it oversteps constitutional provision on three equal branches. The White House contends that W's siging statements clarify the constitutionality of congressional laws, a point clarified by Clinton during his days as the big P.

From a DOJ brief: "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority"

So just so I'm clear with Stalin, I'm not saying W invented this, actually Monroe had the first, rather, like most things excess may ruin the fun for everyone.

What I don't understand about signing statements, at least the way I remember civics class, is Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial decides their constitutional legality. So if the Executive is concerned about a Congressional law infringing on it's power, then the Executive should take the law in question to the Court. Thus if the President feels that the anti-torture law passed by Congress infringes on his Commander-in-Chief powers, then he should take it to court. Not say,

"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."

W can't decide the constitutionality of the law, he explicitly does not have the power, before he was "the decider," he was "the enforcer." He can't elevate himself above the courts, and doing so in reference to Congress places the Executive above both of those branches. Not how things work here, at least I hope not.

It's just a weird form of civil disobedience.

Secret, Secret, the State's got a Secret.

Been following the legal case of Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese born German citizen, and former terrorist suspect. He claims he was,

snatched while on a trip in Macedonia, taken to Afghanistan, jailed, beaten and harassed before being set free without charge after five months.

His request?

explanation and an apology from the United States for his detention, as well as 75,000 dollars in damages.

So he files suit, goes before a Judge, the Defense (the US Government) tells judge, "Hey we'd looooove to stand trial for all this, but unfortunately we can't. See we have this stupid 'state secret' problem. Man we hate that thing, its suuuuch a hassle. Anyway, can't help you, gotta go. Let's do lunch sometime."

Mr. Masri appealed. Defense comes in, says "State Secret" which is apparently Latin for "Screw off" and the appeal was denied. Also, in the appeal we find out that he was "sodomized with an object" while in custody, and while I'm sure that great fun was had by all, that seems like torture to me.

Let's review. A man was taken into custody, denied Habeus Corpus, denied access to a lawyer, taken to a foreign nation and tortured (which is expressly against US law), loses five months of his life (and I know how I felt when I lost 90 minutes of my life when I saw Date Movie), and is then told, "thank you for traveling with the CIA, go home now." Why? Prevailing guess is that his name is similar to someone else's, namely suspected terrorist Khalid al-Masri (wrong vowel leads to hurt bowel?).

The point isn't to rail against arresting an innocent man, it happens every day, and is just part of the legal/investigative process. The problem is that Mr Masri's wild ride was entirely avoidable. If he had the rights of habeas corpus, and the right to an attorney the mistake could have been caught early, avoiding trauma to Mr Masri and embarrassment to the US Government. Somehow habeas corpus and legal representation have come to mean support for the terrorists as opposed to support for the American way. Great marketing that, but entirely wrong.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

US Rep Michael Honda (D-CA) introduced bi-partisan legislation in January that

calls on Japan to formally and unambiguously apologize and acknowledge the tragedy which the comfort women endured under its Imperial Army during World War II. Not only should Japan’s Prime Minister issue a public apology, Japan must take responsibility unequivocally.

While this was a terrible crime, it feels like a Japanese issue. Why with all that is going on in this nation, does Rep Honda feel that we have the time or inclination to demand that another nation apologize for its own history?

Especially since when it comes to slavery our nation has yet to

formally and unambiguously apologize and acknowledge the tragedy which the Africans endured under its white citizens during the first 100 years of American history. Not only should President Bush issue a public apology, America must take responsibility unequivocally.

Not only that, but can you imagine our response if Japan actually had the audacity to issue such a demand? Now imagine their response to our "demand," I mean, besides this one. Personally, if I were a Japanese PM, despite whatever diplomatic response I may give, I'd think,

"Sure, we'll apologize, again, right after you apologize for slavery, the treatment of your Native American's, Japanese Internment Camps, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc, etc, etc, and as soon as you stop officially sanctioning torture. Yup, we'll be right there."

Isn't there some saying about glass houses (besides being a great album - WWBJD?).

As a US Congressman, Rep Honda should be concerned with the needs of US citizens, here African Americans, rather than worry about the actions of another nation and whether they've sufficiently apologized. Maybe if he attacked a US apology for slavery like he is minding Japan's business. For example, I like what he did with Japanese Internment Camps, this made sense. Look, I would very much agree with Rep Honda if the practice were still going on, but since its not, we have enough going on today to keep any US Rep busy. If he has the time to really worry about these things, then maybe, just maybe he has the time to do tend to the business of the US, things like, I don't know, actually reading the USA PATRIOT ACT before voting on it.

Like Fonzie I Was Wuhwoo. I Was Wroooough. I Was Woughroooggh.

OK, so I voted for Barr, and thus "Barred" myself from playing with all the other kids in the Obama/McCain debate.

My main beef with Obama was that he wasn't taking a hard enough stand for the my America. My democratic friends all told me, "He can't take a hard stand for these issues because he'll look soft on terrorism, but he'll restore the 4th Amendment, finally do away with legalized torture, shut down Gitmo, and restore openness to the government." But he has to present a certain image to win. Sort of like when Clinton went back to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of Ricky Ray Rector.

"Maybe," said I, but I'm tired of voting for what I hope someone will become, rather than what they are. It's generally a bad bet. Leaders should lead, right?

Well, looks like I'm losing that bet.

In the first week of his Presidency, Obama has,

Made the move to close Gitmo and international "black site" prisons. From the article, Obama said,

The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,

And,

We are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.

Then the cherry on top,

We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms.

Doesn't he know from Bush/Cheney that morals are on a sliding scale of "at least its better than Saddam," and that we should all be ready and willing to suspend core American values because Bush said we're supposed to be scared? Where's Obama been? For eight years we were lead to believe that there is no core morality, no resolute American values. Now Obama's saying that it right to abide by a code of conduct when its hard? My mind's spinning. In one week we moved from morals are for losers, to morals are for victors.

I guess its hard to have core value and stick to them, but I'm game.

But surely the American value of knowing what the government is doing and questioning it is still a quiant, outdated ideal for a democracy. Right?

Let's check on Obama, in his first, week says.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a
clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.
The Government should not keep information confidential merely
because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,
because errors and failures might be revealed, or because
of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never
be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of
Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed
to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive
branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit
of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of
the public.

Then, and it was hard to read this though my tears of joy,

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

Holy Smokes! Openess over secrecy? What kind of crazy radical thinks in order for democracy to prosper, the people have to have access to what's going on? Not only that, but that it's better to go ahead and inform the public, rather than making them jump thorugh hoops.

Yes it's been a week. And sure, some of those released will do bad things, but our prisions have been releasing people who have then done bad things for over 200 years, and we're doing ok. And yes, none of what he wrote above's been tested in action. Its certainly easy to say things, and harder to then do them. But I'll take these statements over what I've been hearing for the last eight all day long.

Frankly, this is much better than I anticipated. To all my friends that said this would happen, you were right. I hope it stays that way.

McCain cirlces the drain

The information in this post should not be new to any long time reader of the H-Blog (Hi Ma). But for the rookies, it looks like John McCain is real trouble after raising just $11.2 million in the second quarter (H-Blog called him "Dead Man Walking" in February). Yes $11.2 million is a lot of jack, but not when it puts you third in fund raising. See, its all about perspective and the perspective is all bad for McCain right now. Ron Paul would be thrilled with $11.2 million as it would signal upward momentum, but for Mr McCain, $11.2 is a big signal of downward mo'. Also, everyone likes to back a winner, and the perception that you're stallin' and fallin' only makes it harder to raise money. Mr McCain is on the edge of the dreaded downward spiral, where things are going bad, and things going bad only makes more bad things happen. Disappointing fund raising ($24.8 million so far on a $100 mil year end goal) and layoffs are a huge signal that bad things are happening (the bad event). Now, who's going to rush in and support that camp (the more bad things event)?

So the question is why? And that dear readers is why you come to the Hblog. Yahoo and CNN blame the two I's Iraq and Immigration, where McCain finds himself on the wrong side of public opinion on both issues. "Wrong" on Iraq with the general population, where Mr McCain used to be the belle of the ball, and "wrong" on Immigration within the GOP where Mr McCain plays Carrie.

But that's not really the issue. CNN Political Editor Mark Preston gets closest,

"He's going back to what he did in 2000. He realizes that the way he is going to win this nomination is not by getting the establishment votes but rather a grassroots campaign."

And there you have it. Mr McCain sold out. Sold out big, and sold out early. The cult of his particularly personality was built on "Maverick Senator John McCain." But immediately after he withdrew from the 2000 election he went from the voice of the people and supposed King Maker, to chief lap dog for the guy who blew him up. It killed him with his public. The man that fell victim to push polling suggesting he had a black baby, kissed the feet of the man who ordered the poll. Nothing maverick or heroic about it. A man who had the reputation of being a "man of principle" sold that principle to win. And that's just not his gig.

Two types of people win elections. People who will live and die by their conviction (W) and people with no conviction (Clinton). People will respect the first for their principles, and respect the second for their effectiveness (if they ever even notice it). But if your gig is that of conviction and you publicly sell out, well, it makes people gag. Its the worst of both. And that's John McCain. And Mr McCain's biggest "gag" moment was selling out on the Torture bill. It was a sad, sad moment. It was also when he lost this election. Everyone kept waiting for him to rise and champion something that should be so close to his heart. But everyone forgot that he sold his heart in 2000. Once his supporters, and his opponents realized this, he was done. Mr McCain was publicly played, and no one, not one single American, can vote for someone who was so badly manipulated in public.

So when Mr McCain says that he tried the maverick route last time and he lost, so this time he's going to court the right and suck up to his old opponents, it tells you a lot about the man and why he's destined to lose again.

For the record, I do believe that if he stayed with his Straight Talk Express persona (and that's clearly what it was), and repeatedly challenged the White House, then he would be the front runner. Now, not only will he badly lose the primary, but he cannot fall back to the "I'll run as an Independent" line. In 2000 he alienated the GOP core chiefmakers but won the hearts of the independents, some Republicans and a lot of Democrats. Feeling stung (aka panic), he spent the next eight years alienating all those R's, I's and D's. And what's that spell? RID, and that's exactly what the public is doing. They're getting RID of McCain (No? Too cute?).

So now its about layoffs and falling well short of his fund raising goals. Next it will be about falling well short of the White House (Was that better?).

Andrew Sullivan wrote a book (and he'll tell you this every chance he gets)

Allow me to vent for a bit. I'm a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog, I think his insight and ideas are interesting, and he's been on the anti-torture brigade since the beginning (which moves him up any list I have). However, he wrote a book called The Conservative Soul and its ruined him. Every since the book came out, it's dominated his site. Every third post has a huge picture of the cover, and just about every post at least mentions it. I get that its his blog, and he's free to promote his book however he sees fit, but at this point he's even less subtle about the fact that he wrote a book than Rush was back in the days when he did his TV show in front of a bookshelf loaded with copies of his book.

I used to hit his site fairly frequently, but now he's like visiting your grandpa. You like the guy, but you're afraid to talk to him because its going to be nothing but stories about him. I mean, if his site were a drinking game, and mentions of his book required a shot, you'd be blitzed by the fifth post. The weird thing is that he's English. Usually they're much more reserved about themselves. Maybe all these years in the US have rubbed off on him, "Hey, hey, look at me. LOOK AT MEEEEEEEE, I wrote a book."

Not a classy post from me, but I had to get that off my chest. He has a great site that's become unreadable, and I've decided to handle it like an eight year old. But I am giving his book a plug - hey, all publicity is good publicity.