Test your gag reflex

I just finished watching Torture: The Guantanamo Guidebook on our History channel.
I wonder if there is an American network which would dare to broadcast this show.
It made me sick.
This show was one of a series produced by Britain's Channel 4. It showed seven British volunteers who tried to withstand 48 hours with ex-Army interrogators giving them the kind of treatment that the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo have been subjected to for the last three years.
Four of the "prisoners" actually lasted for the full two days. One older man, 49 years old, was pulled out after 10 hours by a doctor because his body temperature was dropping too low. Two others asked to get out early -- they just couldn't stand it.
Here is what happened to them:
At the beginning of the show, when the volunteers showed up at the studio thinking they were just supposed to fill out some forms, the Army people grabbed them, hooded, stipped and shackled them, and took them to the cells. The Army interrogators had been told that one of the prisoners actually did have some terrorist connections, and their goal was to find out which one it was. So they were pretty motivated.
The "officially approved" tortures they used were all of these --

Environmental manipulation: Subjecting prisoners to extremes of hot and cold.
Sensory deprivation: Depriving prisoners of both sight and hearing, for example, by hooding combined with white noise.
Sleep adjustment: Repeatedly interrupting a prisoner’s sleep, while allowing them inadequate sleep overall.
Stress positions: Position which a prisoner is ordered to maintain, causing discomfort or pain without physical contact.
Forced grooming: Forcible shaving. Deeply humiliating for some Muslims. (in the show, they shaved the hair from a non-Muslim "prisoner", but with the Muslim "prisoners" watching)
Pride and ego down: Label for techniques used to undermine prisoners’ self-esteem and dignity.

They did not use "waterboarding" (in which the victim is smothered with a wet cloth, creating the sensation of drowning) nor "TheVietnam" (in which electrodes (real or fake) are attached to the victim's body.)
But seeing what they did do made me sick. Not only was it upsetting to watch these men being treated this way, it was the look of despair in their eyes that was most disturbing. Its not surprising that the real Guantanamo prisoners have attempted suicide in substantial numbers.
Or, at least, it used to be called suicide.
There is a frighteningly Orwellian approach to language here. I've been reading recently about how the Bush administration is now using the term "constitutional option" instead of "nuclear option" to describe the Republican attempt to end the judicial fillibuster, just like they tried to change the term "private" accounts to "personal" accounts to describe Bush's attempt to destroy Social Security. And I was thinking that all this arguing over terminology wasn't really very important.
But as this show pointed out, the Pentagon has a new name for it when a prisoner attempts suicide. It is now called "manipulative self-injurious behaviour". And after they started using this terminology, they could report that the number of "suicide" attempts had declined substantially.
Is there a euphemism for "totally disgusting"?

Only semi-tough

Do you know what's really stupid about the Bolton nomination? Its the idea that Bolton "has a tough-talking style that will help achieve needed reforms at the United Nations."
Oh, yes, those wimps at the UN will sure be intimidated by this guy.
Like, the ambassadors from China and Russia and France and Britain and the rest of the Security Council will say "how high" when a disrespectful, uncultured, lamebrain like Bolton says "jump" -- or else, I guess, he'll chase them through the halls like a madman and shove threatening letters under their doors.

This explains it

I guess this type of thing may explain why Microsoft pulled its support from Washington State's gay rights bill: TIME.com: Any Kerry Supporters On The Line? The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers
Absolutely everything with these guys seems to be "you're either for us or against us". Everything is political -- they seem to be incapable of seeing anything at all in non-partisan terms. And they always have to win.
So I wonder what kind of pressure was put on Microsoft to make sure they would not support a gay rights bill?
Nice little company you've got here, Billy-boy. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it. You wouldn't want the Justice department anti-trust action to continue would you?
And what scares me is this -- if Harper and his boys get in, will they adopt the same attitudes? We already have the same self-pitying tone along with manufactured conspiracies and scandals.

Mad as hell

Wow -- the Washington Post declares war against the Christian Right. Colbert King: Hijacking Christianity . . .:

Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn. It means challenging them when they say -- of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia -- that they are not legitimate members of the flock. Where do those on the religious right get off thinking they have the right to decide who is in and who is out? Who appointed them sole promoters and defenders of the faith? What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us? They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross. They should be resisted, not pandered to by politicians . . . if Frist shows up on TV and passes on the opportunity to place his party on the side of tolerance and goodwill, then his performance will be Exhibit A in the case to be made against his presidential quest. The Bergen Record in Hackensack, N.J., editorialized that the attempt by the Christian right to dominate all three branches of government "has to frighten anyone who is not a Christian conservative. It should frighten us all." Baloney. It should make us mad. Fighting mad.

Good, bad, ugly

Good: Here's Cardow's take on why we support the Liberals:

Bad: Microsoft: Gutless surrenders rarely work Gilliard writes "nothing you give them will be enough . . . [Pastor Hutcherson]is going to run around the country and talk about how Microsoft is his bitch. How they hop to his demands. MS thought they were buying peace, but they were only creating a monster on their doorstep. Once they see Microsoft back down once, they expect backdowns to continue."
Ugly: Bolton Finds U.N. Nomination in Jeopardy Bolton broke the Golden Rule of Bureaucracy -- be nice to the people you meet on the way up, because you're going to see them again on the way down.

Sticking with the Liberals

So My Blahg is going for the NDP this time.
Well, I don't blame you, Robert, but I am afraid that more NDP means fewer Liberals, and then Harper sneaks up the middle -- its the classic Canadian conundrum. So I think I am sticking with the liberals.
I feel like I am the only person in the country who thinks this way, but personally I'm not outraged, shocked and appalled about corruption in the Chretien liberals -- just like, 15 years ago, I wasn't particularly upset about the supposed corruption of the Mulroney conservatives. More important, I think, are their policies and legislation.
Economically and socially, I think Canada is better off now with Martin's liberals than with Harper's non-progressive conservatives.
The ad agencies and the pollsters and the public relations advisors and the management consultants -- and, now, the IT consultants -- have to get what they can from governments while the going is good, because as soon as the other guys get in, they're out on their ear. It was ever thus. Its a boondoggle, it always has been and it always will be. With these types of companies, there is no real difference between them anyway. So when the decision is made about who gets the contract, it is based on who your friends are -- what politician wouldn't rather hire their friends than their enemies.
Eventually, of course, with friends like these they find they don't need enemies -- the wallowing in the public trough gets a little too blatant and noisy and sloppy and then its Old Bums Exit There, New Bums Enter Here.
But the decisions which have the most impact on me and on Canada have nothing to do with which ad agency was overpaid in 1985 or 1995 or 2005. The important stuff is Mulroney's free trade agreements. And Chretien's decision to keep us out of Iraq. And Martin's funding for cities and reduction of health care waiting lists and support for gay marriage and decriminalization of marijuana and implementation of the Kyoto accord.
This is the stuff that will be important for me and mine in the future. So I'm sticking with Martin for now.

Judge not . . .

Keep Letting the Wingnuts set your agenda Ah, Grasshopper, it is all happening just as I thought it might. . .
If you had asked a hundred average Americans two months ago whether the Republicans should enact the nuclear option to end the judicial filibuster, you would have got "huhh?" from 70 of them, and "so what?" from the rest. The term "nuclear option" was about as well known as the infield fly rule.
So two months ago, the Republicans could have dumped the Senate fillibuster without any concern from more than a few of those average Americans -- actually, there would have been more objection to a change to the infield fly rule than to the judicial fillibuster!
Then came Shiavo.
And Mr. and Mrs. Average American woke up -- they saw just how important it is to have good judges. And they saw just how unlikely it is that the judges appointed by those crazy wingnut Republicans would actually BE good judges.
So now, most of those hundred average Americans have learned about the nuclear option. And at least 51 per cent have decided they do NOT support it. Making it much more likely that at least a handful of Republican senators will vote against it. So maybe, just maybe, the judicial fillibuster can be saved -- and it won't matter how many bases are occupied, either . . .

"Parliament Boy"

Being the real news junkie that I am, always right on top of everything that's going on, naturally I didn't get home from work soon enough to actually see Layton's remarks, or Duceppe's either. I only heard most of Martin's address, and some of Harper's response, on the radio.
It won't stop me from blogging about it, of course.
I liked what Martin had to say tonight. You can discount my opinion if you want, because in general I like Paul Martin. But I thought the end of his speech hit a good tone, humble yet combative:
". . . there are people who think I was wrong to call this inquiry, wrong to expose my government to the political cost of the scrutiny that has ensued. They warn we will pay a price in the next election. And perhaps we will. But I trust your judgment. And I will not dishonour this office by trying to conceal or diminish such offensive wrongdoing. I have too much respect for this place. When I was young, I practically lived here in the Parliament Buildings. My father was a cabinet minister in four Liberal governments. He taught me that those who serve in public office have a duty to protect the integrity of government. My pledge to you tonight is that I will live up to that ideal. I went into public life because I believe in the good that government can do. And I will do my all as prime minister to make sure that your government is worthy of your respect. The final judgment on whether I have done that will be yours."
I particularly liked the image of the little boy scampering around those gilded Ottawa halls, learning integrity at his daddy's knee . . . hey, if Chretien can make himself out to be the little guy from Shawinigan, then maybe Martin can adopt the meme of "Oh, Parliament Boy with cheek of tan . . . blessings on thee, little man".
It might work.
It all depends on whether the public really wants another election right now, or not.
It appears that both Harper and the Bloc are champing at the bit. But if the public doesn't want an election anyway, then if Harper uses the Bloc to bring down the govermment, it creates the impression that the Conservatives are so desperate and so unprincipled they will ally with separatists just to grab power. So Harper really, really needs Layton to vote non-confidence as well.
But the tone of Layton's remarks indicated he is not in any big hurry to fight another campaign right now. And the public may be grateful to him for not forcing an election. So if Layton becomes the government's saviour over the next month, this could be Layton's big chance to shuck his Toronto-alderman-not-ready-for-prime-time image and finally demonstrate to the country that he IS a leader.
POGGE thought Layton's speech was a winner, as did several other bloggers he polled. Reading what Layton said, I thought his remarks came off as very 'federal' and responsible, showing political leadership for a country which needs it pretty badly.
And I must refer to a great post from My Blahg: Preview of a Conservative Government -- oooh, pretty chilling.

One is the loneliest number . . .

Gingrich agrees to retract statement
Gingrich told Fox News on Tuesday "Far more of the 9-11 terrorists came across from Canada than from Mexico."
Now, none of the 911 terrorists snuck into the US from either Canada OR Mexico -- nope, they flew in from Europe and the Far East and were officially admitted on US visas through US airports.
But there was ONE terrorist two years earlier who DID try to sneak into the States from Canada. Ahmed Ressam was the terrorist that Clinton and Richard Clarke caught before he could blow up the Los Angeles airport . And as far as I know there have been no terrorists at all who have tried to sneak into the States from Mexico.
So I suppose, a person could say there actually have been "more" terrorists trying to sneak into the US from Canada -- one, as compared to none.
But listen to this -- Gingrich's spokesman said Gingrich made the slander about Canada because "That's become accepted conventional wisdom here."
Now, even I read the 911 commission report and know where those terrorists came from. So how stupid is it that Newt Gingrich, who pretends to be a knowledgeable politician and still gives speeches about US foreign policy, actually hasn't bothered to learn about the actual events of the 911 attacks.
But I'm glad that Frank McKenna took him on, in a pleasantly Canadian way.
And on the Canadian side, I hope the media doesn't write more agenda-driven scare stories, and political trash talk stories about our border security, which are why Americans have such a poor impression of Canada in the first place.

Why did he jump off the ledge?

RossK from the Gazetteer posts a comment on Digby's blog in response to his Ball Gag post about Voinovich's shot heard round the world yesterday.
Ross says ". . . help me, a poor in-the-dark Canuckistani out, please. Why'd he step off the ledge?"
That's an interesting question.
When Lieberman goes on the Sunday talk shows saying how great Bush and the Republicans are and how well everything is going in Iraq, the progressive bloggers do trash him. But they're not raising money to run ads about how disloyal he is, and saying things about how he ". . . has become a traitor to the . . . party."
Maybe Digby suggests an explanation when he says "It must be awfully uncomfortable being told that either you become a submissive slave to the right wing or you are a traitor."
But I also wonder if this may be the thin edge of the wedge, that the Senate Republicans are finally saying to the Bush boys -- ENOUGH! We already cashed in our chips with the democrats just to get Gonazles and Rice through by the skin of their teeth, not to mention how stupid we looked after Shiavo. Stop jerking us around by making these stupid nominations for unqualified idiots like Bolton and those seven pathetically-bad judges, and then expecting us to turn the Senate inside out just so you bully boys can get your own way on everything. We have to live here, you know, long after you are gone so just BACK OFF!

Yes, there is still time

The Washington Note on the Nelson Report
Someone named Chris Nelson writes something named The Nelson Report every so often -- no link available because apparently it's not online.
This is what he had to say on Monday, as quoted in The Washington Note, as linked on Liberal Oasis:

If the fight over John Bolton's UN nomination were just about John Bolton, he'd be history already. But this isn't about Bolton, it's about the exercise of power . . . We are at the point now where the Republican Leadership refuses to allow the possibility of a loss on anything, regardless of the merits. This renders 'debate' meaningless, since nothing said actually matters, so truth is irrelevant . . . Oppose something the President wants, and you aren't just wrong, you are betraying the Party. The underlying message is that you are also offending a very particular definition of God. The sad, sorry Bolton/DeLay spectacles are about total war, the kill-the-prisoners exercise of power that national US politics has become since the 2000 election. If it were merely about power, it wouldn't be so terrifying. Washington is used to that. . .it's what we exist for. But the fear, the self-loathing, the pathetic, cowardly, sniveling, excuse-making drivel from such 'leaders' as Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, the entire House Republican Leadership under DeLay. . . is about something far more dangerous to the Republic than mere political power. What we are seeing is a fight for the political soul of the nation. We've had these before, in the existential sense . . . in my political lifetime, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women's rights versus, to a certain extent, the right to life movement. But this time it's totally and completely a fight about God . . . specifically, whether God is going to rule in the United States. The Constitution says that would be illegal, and any serious expert can tell you that not only were the Founders liberal in their interpretation of the Deity, but they intentionally enshrined a purely secular civic government, including the courts. They didn't think that Jesus had an official plan for us, much less did they think that politicians who defined their duties in secular terms were defying the word of God. Tom Delay manifestly believes this, and it sounds like any number of Senate Republicans either agree, or lack the imagination or moral courage to disagree . . . why else would some endorse threats against Republican-appointed judges who dare to interpret the law in secular terms? This is what the Bolton fight is really about: you can't dump him, because that lets the Democrats win on both the facts and principle. . .fatal notions to a desire to pack the courts with religious and secular policy extremists.
Why else would there be the constant drumbeat of attacks on the "liberal media", except to undermine public trust in the Constitutionally provided mediator between the politicians and the people?
The Founders knew how to protect what they intended; this crowd has figured out how to undermine the very rule of law in the United States. Listen to what DeLay is arguing . . . that his excesses have nothing to do with his "persecution", interesting choice of word, by the Democrats and their "liberal press allies". If a majority of Congressional Republicans don't, in their hearts, see the hypocrisy of all this, the Republic is doomed.
The real story behind Bolton and DeLay is obvious, to anyone not already seduced by the dark side.
Connect the dots. There's still time.

And, as it turned out today, there actually was still time.
It was the Senator from Ohio, who was discounted or ignored in all the recent progressive blogosphere calculation of which Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee might or could or would or should vote against the Bolton nomination.
About two hours into the Senate committee meeting, it seemed inevitable that the vote would be held to move Bolton's nomination to the Senate floor.
The Democrats were magnificent -- Boxer, Kerry, Obama, Biden, Dodd arguing that there were just too many questions remaining about Bolton's kiss-up, kick-down serial abuser behaviour. But a visibly uncomfortable chairman Lugar was pushing to have a vote, and quickly, before anything else negative about Bolton could be released -- apparently some possibly dangerous document was going to be released at 5 pm, and Lugar's marching orders were to get the vote done before then. Chafee was going to vote in favour; Hagal was going to vote in favour. It seemed like a done deal.
I happened to be watching the CSPAN live feed when, from the corner, Republican Senator Voinovich began to speak. Quietly he said "...I wasn't present during the hearing on John Bolton ... I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton."
It was stunning.
Suddenly, what had been an 10-8 vote became a 9-9 vote. Half an hour later, a visibly relieved chairman Lugar postponed the vote three weeks.
That will likely kill the momentum for this appalling nomination -- in fact, the mo is likely starting to go the other way. Once again, as with Iraq, and the preemptive war doctrine, and Guantanamo, and Social Security, and the Guest Worker idea, and the Mars mission, the realization is sinking in that Emperor Bush has no clothes. As long as everyone believes in how clever the Bush administration is, they can appear invincible. But its a shallow, brittle pose which, when it cracks, shows nothing of substance beneath.
This is not like the Kerik nomination, which died because of problems in his personal life and previous jobs.
In the Bolton case, the problems are in his work life, and the jobs he has done for the Bush administration. So if this one does down, it says that people are starting not to like how the Bush administration operates.
And maybe this will kill the so-called nuclear option, too.

Gilead-watch

Air Force Cadets See Religious Harassment If Americans want to see what it will be like for them once the theocrats take over the country, here's what is happening in the Air Force Academy (via Atrios)

There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet. . . "It is inextricably intertwined in every aspect of the academy,'' said Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, N.M., a 1977 graduate who has sent two sons to the school. He said the younger, Curtis, has been called a ''filthy Jew'' many times . . . The board chairman, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, warned Rosa that changing things could prove complicated. He said evangelical Christians ''do not check their religion at the door.'' . . . Two of the nation's most influential evangelical Christian groups, Focus on the Family and New Life Church, are headquartered in nearby Colorado Springs. Tom Minnery, an official at Focus on the Family, disputed claims that evangelical Christians are pushing an agenda at the academy, and complained that ''there is an anti-Christian bigotry developing'' at the school.

So they're had more than one complaint about discrimination every month for four years. And now people are being told how hard it will be to stop this, and being accused of anti-Christian bigotry for even trying.
Sounds like another example of Mafia-style bullying -- 'Nice little air force you've got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.'

Living by the sword

Harper says ploy will doom Liberals
Well, maybe.
But its hard to see how.
Basically, Martin's flim flam with the so-called "opposition days" scheduling means that the Conservatives won't get a chance to move a non-confidence motion until June, resulting in a midsummer election which the whole country would hate. And we would blame the Conservatives.
Or they could vote non-confidence against the budget, but this would mean the budget everybody liked wouldn't come into effect. And we would blame the Conservatives.
According to the polls last week, a majority of Canadians don't want a spring vote anyway, so it doesn't seem like we're going to be unhappy with the liberals for delaying it. In fact, the longer it is delayed, the more chances for Martin to slip up.
And once again this news story shows Conservatives thinking they can just clap their hands to make unpleasant reality disappear: ". . . the Tories have taken the position that the Queen should not have to cancel her trip to the Prairies next month, even if the country is in the middle of a federal election." Well, Stevie, you can assume the position all you like, but your position won't cut any ice with the royals. And so we would miss having the Queen come to Saskatchewan's Centennial. Thanks a bunch!

Dream team

I just read a blog on the Right Wing side of the Daou Report which described what the blogger called a "nightmare scenario" -- that the Republicans would lose in '08 because John McCain would run as an independent and therefore split the right-wing vote. Hey, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy!
This blog described McCain's decision not to support ending the filubuster as a signal that he had decided to "break with the party" and also said he has given up thinking he could get the GOP nomination in 2008. Now, I lost all respect for McCain when he slobbered all over Bush in Florida during the campaign. But I really do hope this scenario comes true, and I hope Colin Powell comes out of retirement to run as his VP candidate. Either that, orI hope the Christian right goes completely batsh*t crazy during the republican primaries and gets Judge Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore nominated as the GOP candidate for president instead of Jeb Bush. And then he picks Scalia as his VP . . .

Check out the Iraq Occupation Watch site

Today in Iraq linked to this site: Iraq Occupation Watch which I intend to add to my news lists. The site gathers and posts articles from various sources about what is happening in Iraq.
And the news isn't very good. Check out Washington's Iraq Panic Attack :

Rumsfeld’s concern suggests much greater apprehension in US military circles over the state of Iraqi security than is apparent in the current “official” line emanating from Washington. There are five aspects of this apprehension . . . First, attacks on Iraqi security forces and on US bases are continuing with unabated ferocity . . . Second, more members of the occupying coalition are now withdrawing from Iraq . . . Third, the Pentagon is privately worried by the huge costs of the damage to equipment used in Iraq . . . up to $18 billion in replacement costs . . . Fourth, the re-emergence of Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia (often termed the Mahdi army) is a concern to American strategists. Its units have reasserted their power in many urban areas across southern Iraq . . .
Fifth, Iranian “interference” in Iraqi politics is returning to the forefront of US minds . . . Iran could, if it wished, cause major problems for the United States in Iraq . . . the United States perceives a problem in Iran’s purchase of a wide range of military equipment, much of it suited to guerrilla warfare. The US’s difficulty is that Iran can claim an internal security use for such equipment because Iran has long been engaged in a bitter war with drug smugglers on its border with Afghanistan . . . Most European countries view the bulk of Iran’s arms stockpiling as legal, and some of them also informally support Iran’s drug war on its eastern border. The United States, however, sees Iran’s efforts as raising the nightmare possibility of an Iraqi insurgency acquiring (for example) a combination of sniper rifles and night-vision equipment under Iranian tutelage – even in the absence of evidence of such an intention at present . . .

And there is this article by Jim McGovern, What I didn't see in Iraq :

If things in Iraq are so much better, why are we not decreasing the number of US forces there? Why is the insurgency showing no signs of waning? Why are we being told that in a few months the Administration will again ask Congress for billions of dollars more to fight the war? Why, according to the World Food Program, is hunger among the Iraqi people getting worse? It's time for some candor, but candor is hard to come by in Iraq.