Author: R J Adams

George W Bush has vetoed a bill outlawing torture by the CIA. In his own words, he stated that anything was permissible that prevented another terrorist attack on the US. Americans are, tonight, debating the rights and wrongs of that presidential action.

Let me just repeat that last sentence, so the reader has an opportunity to truly consider its import:

Americans are, tonight, debating the rights and wrongs of that presidential action.

What that one sentence clarifies beyond question is that over the last seven years, America has become a society that condones the use of inhumane and cruel practices, labeled ‘torture’ under the Geneva Conventions, as an official part of their national defense strategy.

How has a once proud nation fallen.

Europe, for decades, has suffered intermittent terrorist atrocities, yet never once has torture become a debated issue in any European nation. The atrocities of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan too clearly revealed the degradation of the human being who sinks to such levels. It is a matter few Europeans would even momentarily consider when discussing the combating of terrorism.

We can expect such low moral fiber from the likes of George W Bush. Anyone who, as a state governor, can openly mock the pleas of a woman condemned to die on death row is an obviously sick and depraved human being.^[1]

But what of the rest of America? Why is the question of torture even being debated in this nation?

          

The major reason debate is rife over torture techniques lies with America’s weak and wimpish politicians. So many of them refuse to come right out and condemn these practices, clearly and unambiguously, that a high percentage of the electorate, who rely on the communications of such individuals for their political and moral guidance, hear the hesitation of their congressmen and assume it must be an okay thing.

A similar situation exists in the right-wing churches where many pastors are insisting it’s God’s will that such practices as waterboarding are used against ‘evil’ and ‘ungodly’ terrorists.

When both politicians and churchmen are prepared to support acts condemned by the Geneva Conventions, it’s little wonder the populace are confused and begin to take sides over a matter that, in all decency, should never, ever, be an issue.

George W Bush is, thankfully, on his way out, so let’s examine the principles of those vying to take his place.

Can any of them be relied on to come right out and condemn, unequivocally, those actions of this present administration that are in contravention of the Geneva Conventions?

John McCain, the Bush alternative, has always opposed the use of torture techniques, including waterboarding, given that he was subjected to some rather vigorous examples himself back in the Vietnam era. We can assume his objections are rock solid – can’t we?

Sadly, John is given to sending mixed messages to the American populace, so his recent vote against the bill to ban the CIA from using such techniques perhaps comes as no great surprise.^[2] After all, he is running on a Republican ticket, and some rednecks just relish the idea of screwing a few of those Islamofascist bastards.

Republicans aren’t the only ones to pander to the neolithic base of their parties. Here’s what Hillary Clinton had to say recently on the subject:

This response from Ms Clinton outraged Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California-Los Angeles:^[3]

” The CIA just announced that it would no longer do waterboading. That clearly implies that the CIA was doing waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. If HRC can’t say “No waterboarding,” her “No torture” isn’t worth the spit behind it.

The same goes for the cold cell, for “long time standing,” for “disappearing” people into secret prisons, and to “rendering” people to countries which we know practice torture. It’s legitimate to say “I won’t know just how bad things are until I’m President,” but it’s not legitimate to pretend that we don’t already know that torture is going on in our name, and that if we decide not to hold war crimes trials we at least need a truth and reconciliation commission to expose the facts.

Part of HRC’s problem is that the Bill Clinton regime didn’t have entirely clean hands, specifically on the “rendition” issue. But it now seems clear that if we want the country to make a clean break with current policies on maltreatment of captives, we can’t do so by putting HRC in the White House.”

Oh, dear, it seems that Hillary can’t be trusted on the issue either; no wonder Americans are confused.

That only leaves one other presidential contender – Barack Obama. Is he joining with his fellows in skirting the issue, insisting the truth of waterboarding and similar ‘enhanced techniques’ can only be evaluated once the White House is won?

In October 2007, while commenting on the possible appointment of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, Obama stated:^[4]

“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.”

          

Throughout his nomination campaign, Obama has apparently remained consistent in his opposition to such techniques.

It would appear that Obama is the only candidate the American people can rely on to guide them in matters moral, as well as political.

Whether you love him or hate him, Barack Obama, at least for now, appears the only true embodiment of “what you see is what you get”.

^{[1] Karla Faye Tucker}

^{[2] Huffington Post, February 14th, 2008}

^{[3] “Would Hillary Clinton Waterboard?” – New York Times, March 8th, 2008}

^{[4] TPM Election Central, October 29th, 2007.}

Filed under: America’s shame

American life and society is based on the concept of Capitalism. Its antithesis, Communism or Socialism, has become the anti-Christ of the American dream. Yet Capitalism has fostered dreams of success that have become nightmares for many.

What is Capitalism? Does it reign supreme over Communism as the rightful heir to the next world order, or is there a third way that engenders the concepts of both Communism and Capitalism, lifting the poor out of poverty, yet preserving the rewards for the entrepreneurial that Capitalism fosters so well?

Capitalism is based on competition. To better understand the concept of Capitalism, we have to observe more closely the effects of competition.

This is best understood by relating to football. I don’t pretend to understand the complexities of American football, but football is football, and football by any other name, like ‘soccer’, will smell as sweet.

Football is made up of many teams all competing for the opportunity to win some magnificent trophy. After many play-offs, teams are eliminated until only two remain. These winners of the semi-finals, compete for the final prize – the grand trophy. Only one can be champion.

But, what of the the other teams who were knocked out in the earlier stages of the tournament? In the excitement of the Super-Bowl, everyone’s forgotten about them.

Yet, in our analogy of competitive football and Capitalism, those ‘other teams’ represent the bulk of ordinary Americans. Probably around 99% of the US population.

In our analogy, they are the losers – the forgotten teams. Competition is about beating everyone else. For every winner, there are a legion of losers.

In reality, Capitalism is about maintaining a few winners, while creating a host of losers.

Of course, in a perfect world, the winners care for the losers by providing jobs and salaries for the losers to live in relative comfort. It’s called ‘sharing wealth’. The winners cream off the bulk of the rewards, leaving the scraps for the losers, who do most of the work.

Communism, or in the Western world, its slightly more acceptable cousin, Socialism, differs from Capitalism by recognizing that those who do the bulk of the work deserve the bulk of the reward.

While Capitalism is fostered by the powerful few as a means to keep the many under control, threatening loss of jobs, recessionary consequences, and general suffering as the results of over-zealous demands on the system, Socialism endeavors to spread the bounty Capitalism bestows on the few, around those who do most of the work i.e. the other 99% of the American populace.

That seems a much fairer system to me. Yet, every year, the Rose Bowl is won by some high-fallutin’ banker CEO who walks away with $100 million or $200 million dollars or more of cash earned by the brow-sweat of ‘ordinary Americans’.

Of course, if you mention that fact to those ‘ordinary Americans’, they’ll likely spit in your eye and call you a ‘commie bastard’.

America is Capitalism; Capitalism is America.

Commonsense plays no part in the equation.

Filed under: Capitalism rules, ok?

Over the last months, Sparrow Chat has commented a number of times on the appalling state of the US Social Security Administration.^[1] Increasingly heavy workloads on the shoulders of fewer and fewer employees has led to unacceptable delays in payments to disabled claimants, ridiculous waiting times at field offices, and a general submersion into gross inefficiency at all levels.

Now, it seems the monstrosity that is the SSA may be finally waking up to the rot in its system, though whether that will result in any improvement is a matter for conjecture.

Below, is an excerpt from the minutes of a 17th January, 2008 conference call of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations Executive Committee. NCSSMA is an organization of Social Security management personnel:

“The state of field offices was a hot topic of discussion. Conference call participants weighed in with comments about the impact our resource shortage is having on the Field Offices and the Teleservice Centers [TSC]. Field/TSC employee morale is at an all time low and the number of employees retiring is growing. Employees do not feel supported by the agency, and so are more prone to retire as soon as they can. Many have over 30 years of service but are at the end of their ropes because there is no hope in sight. …Some of the regions expressed the concern that new hires seem to be targeted for urban offices with little done for suburban or rural offices. New managers are overwhelmed with the decreased staff and increased workloads. Managers are increasingly involved in processing direct service workloads and tabling traditional management activities as they have no other way to provide the public service. Rising expectations from area, regional and national components to clear work are unrelenting, with new reports, listings and additional workloads being piled on field office employees. The pain needs to be felt by other components including ADO [Area Director’s Offices] and regional employees. There is a sense of doom – Field Offices are being left to wither without any assistance. …With the usual dedication, employees have been very creative in their approaches to handling staffing losses with all pitching in across the board and doing the best they can. Maybe it is time that we quit trying to prove that we can do the same amount of work, or even more, with fewer resources. The despondency and anxiety in the field and TSCs continue to grow, but our staffing losses do not seem to concern Central Office.”
[my bold]

Admittedly, the NCSSMA is only an SSA management association, but if discontent is being loudly voiced at this level, there is hope of pressure on those higher up the ladder to make improvements in service and staffing more of a priority.

Unless, of course, the rundown of Social Security over the last five-ten years has been a deliberate political ploy, designed to provide an excuse to the nation that the only sure way to fix it – is to privatize it.

Should that turn out to be the case, and privatization of Social Security is allowed to proceed, it will prove a disaster for those most in need of its help; the disabled, the sick, and the elderly.

^{[1] Sparrow Chat posts on the state of the SSA can be found HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.}

Filed under: Social Security