The sands are shifting my friends. People no longer want the Republican party as it was nor the Democratic party as it is. People voted for change and they got more of the same. No one wants to make that mistake again. If you are a man or woman of principle, and you want to truly support small government, then you have no other choice than Mr. Paul. The Republican Party, despite its rhetoric, despite its promises, has never delivered on its promise of smaller government. THey have overseen massive spending hikes and huge expansions of big business. Even Reagan, the best of the best, still saw government growth. It's time for something different: Ron Paul 2012!

I've been way too busy with school and my personal life to even consider writing anything for Modern Counterculture. It's a shame, but that's life, No? Anyway, from here on out, I aim to keep my comments short but sweet. So anyway, onto the world and its never-ending problems:

I have a love hate relationship with conservatism. I'm love the movement but hate the leaders.

Take Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Michael Savage, etc. These folks – whom I once liked quite a bit in fact – have put so much effort into their partisan attacks, that their own ideology has become completely incoherent. More specifically, they have no idea what the hell they're talking about. To head off my impending diatrabe, I'm going to content myself with two examples for now: nuclear weapons and nuclear policy.

Just the other day, Palin came on the Fox News Channel to say this:

No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'

Michael Savage, in a similar vein, wrote an subtle little satire called "Obama the Destroyer." Mr. Savage clearly doesn't know that it's rude to shout:

HE STARTED DESTROYING OUR MILITARY BY SIGNING AN INSANE NUCLEAR TREATY WITH RUSSIA.

THIS TREATY, THE WORK OF THE MENTALLY DISORDERED LEFT, WILL MEAN A 30% REDUCTION IN OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL AND A STEEP REDUCTION IN OUR SUBMARINES AND STRATEGIC BOMBERS. [The Capital Letters are Savage's Touch, not mine]

Now, your feelings on nuclear disarmament aside, you aught to know one thing: Ronald Reagan was the biggest proponent of nuclear disarmament that our county has ever had. EVER. Even while the USSR was still alive and well, he went into private meetings with Gorbachev and came within a hair of agreeing to disarm ALL nuclear weapons in the US and Russian arsenal. Forever. How's that for radical? His "Star Wars" program eventually became a sticking point that sunk the deal, but he still walked away from an agreement to get rid of half of the US nuclear arseanal. When the START I disarmament treaty was finally signed, the US scrapped 365 of its B-52s, keeping less than 100 bombers! Thousands of nuclear weapons were removed from service. Guess what? So were thousands of nuclear weapons abroad in Russia and former Soviet Republics.

You see folks, the sad fact of nuclear weapons is that they're probably more trouble than they're worth. Trying to solve foreign relations with nuclear weapons is like picking up a sledge hammer to crack a hard boiled egg. If you use them first, you inevitably kill millions of civilians without warning, looking a little bit like the Nazi's Blitzkrieg on steroids. If you use them to respond to an attack, you're really "defending" a smoking crater. Certain applications can cause nasty fallout over thousands of square kilometers.

Perhaps the biggest problem, from a real conservative's point of view, is that they almost force the US to intervene globally. Nuclear conflicts threaten to grow quickly. With ICBMS and other missile delivery vehicles, even small, weak countries can acquire these very powerful weapons and use them to blackmail or, God forbid, attack other nations around the globe. We can't have that, so we need to constantly intervene to stop this from happening. Now, I'm not saying that getting rid of nuclear weapons ourselves will mean that no one else ever develops them, but it gives other countries less of an incentive to do so.

Most previous nuclear proliferation has been driven by one country reacting to another's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Britain sought it because it felt marginalized by growing US power. The USSR sought it because our nuclear weapons threatened their agenda. China got nuclear weapons to counter US and Russian nuclear power. India sought them to counter China's arsenal. Pakistan sought them to neutralize India's arsenal. Iran arguably wants them to counter Israel's own not-so-secret nuclear arsenal. Getting rid of nuclear weapons, or at least cutting the arsenal down to a still potent ~1000 warheads, only improves our national security. Is being able to destroy Russia four times instead of only one or two times really that important to national security? I dearly hope that you'll agree it isn't. 

Reagan Realized this. He saw Nuclear Weapons as amoral, and wanted to get rid of them. In his quest for this, he came up with a great solution that we aught to pursue today: missile defense. If we disarm the biggest nuclear powers, but retain a missile shield, we can guard against rogue states while avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.

So before Palin and friends open their mouths to condemn Obama's move as unprecedented, they aught to crack open a book and see just how useful nuclear weapons actually are. I I'll even recommend a few of my own:

1. Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons by Paul Lettow
2. The Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell
3. The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

They can argue that it's a bad idea, but to act as if its some great break from the foreign policy of liberal and conservative presidents is just… well… dumb. I'm not the kind of guy who demands that you're an expert on everything before you open your mouth, but if you're a nationally known and respected pundit, you damn well better know something about what you're talking about. 

 I expect the Democrats to disappoint. I look for no solace from leftists, but I hold those folks who claim to represent me and other conservatives to a high standard. They're not  making the grade, and I'm not going to let them off the hook.

On June 28, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was forcibly removed from power in an apparent coup. Unlike many coups, however, this one was relatively unique in that it was not driven by a would-be-dictators power lust but by a desire to stop just such a thing from happening. You see, Mr. Zelaya had for some time been pushing a referendum that would enable him to "reform" the Honduran constitution to allow for re-election. Unfortunately for Mr. Zelaya, the Honduran constitution has sections which are explicitly labeled as immutable, they cannot be changed ever. While this may seem archaically rigid to inhabitants of the United States, the framers of the Honduran constitution had the nation’s former military dictatorship, which ended in 1982, firmly in mind as they crafted a democratic government. 

President Zelaya, like many other leftists such as Hugo Chavez, believes that the end justifies the means. More appropriately, he uses the cover of his impassioned love of the people as an excuse to increase his own power and trample over the institutions which placed him in his position of power. Despite the condemnation of this referendum by the Honduran Attorney General, it’s Congress, and its Supreme Court Zelaya planned to continue with his illegal referendum. He ignored the Supreme Court’s decision that it was illegal. By all reasonable standards, President Zelaya destroyed his legitimacy by planning to violate the constitution.  Sadly, the Honduran constitution does not specify how to remove a President who violates his mandate and is derelict in his duty. 

In a stunning act of bravery, virtually the entirety of the ELECTED government of Honduras authorized a coup which removed Zelaya from power. The order to do so came from the Supreme Court, but it was largely supported by the rest of the government. The President of the Honduran Congress, a member of Zelaya’s own party, was named interim president as required by the Honduran constitution. The military did not threaten the independence or integrity of the Congress nor other branches of the government. In many ways, this incident seems to be the very picture of justice and patriotism. Men elected by the people or appointed by elected officials, acting in accordance with the law to defend the balance of power, took action to defend the constitution of the nation from the whims of a power hungry ideologue. If only the Germans had been so lucky in 1933. 

Astoundingly, instead of congratulating the nation of Honduras, most of the governments of the Western world have condemned President Zelaya’s removal. Most galling of all, President Obama himself has called the action illegal and insisted that change must be accomplished democratically. It’s hard to believe that his statement is anything but an attempt to appeal to the sentiments to the boisterous strongman of the region, Hugo Chavez. The arrogance or stupidity required to state the Mr. Zelaya was still operating inside of a democratic system is ridiculous. Something that progressive such as President Obama have never properly understood is that the end does not justify the means. The legal fabric of a nation only allows for certain acts. There are some actions that are beyond the bounds of law and constitute either the implicit formation of a new government or a criminal act. An elected leader cannot violate the rules of the system in which he or she was elected, even if the people desire it. Indeed, as Obama is fond of saying, the rule of law must prevail. A leader confronted with such a conundrum, that of an electorate desiring an action which is clearly outside of the reach of his power, must acknowledge his limitations or relinquish his power and openly oppose the system if he feels it is inadequate.

Perhaps the reason for the condemnation from Western governments is that they too are guilty of gradually pushing the envelope of Constitutionality? From Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, many President of the United States have blatantly violated the constitution in the name of progress and the people. Their crime is that they deceive the very people who gave them their power. The people, for the most part, were never aware of the liberties that neither FDR nor Wilson took with the law. They were simply aware of the ostensibly good reasons that were given for certain actions, and, being content with the manner in which their leaders were elected as well as their goals, they remained quiet. A good leader, a truly great leader of a Democratic system does not subtly attempt to push the envelope. He must be honest with them for the system to work. If he must come out and say that the system is flawed and a new one is needed, all people should be informed of this and be allowed to participate in what is essentially the formation of a new system of government.

When a leader hides this necessity, however, he usurps from the people what is their right. One man cannot see all the flaws or all forms which a nation’s government can be in the future. It is in his nation’s best interest for him to solicit the input of all men (arguably a referendum is that, but Zelaya’s was designed to remove limits on his power so that he could make further changes as necessary). For such a leader, such as Zelaya, to take it upon himself to violate a system that was agreed upon by a majority of the people in his nation, to violate a system that the working, voting man adheres to every day, he is usurping the rights and power of the people like countless dictators before him. It is the sacred right of the people to decide how they shall be governed and an attempt by one man to decide this for them is an unacceptable violation of that right. 

President Obama should be ashamed of his public condemnation. He should be ashamed of groveling before his rotundity, President Chavez. If only I were a Representative of the United States, I would offer the United States’ most sincere congratulations to the nation of Honduras. Sic semper tyrannis.

–Madas

Congressional motors releases a teaser for it’s latest vehicle! Soon you too can enjoy the comfort of your very own government issued vehicle at low low price!*

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

*NOTE: Price varies on a progressive scale from free to one million $. Does not include government carbon monitoring service fee and fuel, carbon, and oxygen taxes. 

Read More: http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/01/us-voting-checks-060109/

 I want to start by talking a little bit about my family background. One of my great grandfathers arrived in New England as a sailor on a whaling vessel from Portugal. For a time, he worked for the owner of a farm on the Massachusetts coastline. Every week when he was paid, he gave some of his pay back to the farmer with the understanding that, eventually, he would own the farm. Not knowing the customs of the land and not being a very good English speaker, he paid this man in good faith week after week but he never asked for nor received a receipt. At the end of this period, my great grandfather was informed that he had no proof of payment and, therefore, no claim to the land. He was fired and dismissed from the property. The Irish branch of my family was greeted by the KKK upon moving into a suburb of Boston. Don’t let me forget my Italian ancestors who lived in ghettos and worked menial jobs in the Jersey City Colgate toothpaste factory. My hardworking German ancestors helped tame the west. Despite my pride in my ancestors for their perseverance and my respect for their hardships, I do not identify as Italian, Portuguese, Irish, etc. Above all, I do not view myself as "white." Instead, I view myself as an American. I like to consider myself the personification of the promise of the "melting pot." Once parts of different and mutually exclusive ethnic groups, my ancestors found their common ground to work towards a common goal.  

If you ask a proponent of the "salad bowl" what I am, you’ll likely get "white male." The assumptions that go along with the term, the assumptions of privilege, a uniform cultural background in my family, and the assumption of prejudice, are falsely attributed only because of race. Yet these same people who have reduced my family’s narrative to a story of privilege and prejudice are the very same who cannot help themselves in lauding the ethnic identity of non-whites. Take Sonia Sotomayor for example. In the past week, there has been no shortage of controversy over President Obama’s choice. Much of this has focused on Sotomayor’s comment that she hoped that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Conservatives have decried the nomination and cited this quote as racist and evidence of Sotomayor’s unwavering faith in identity (race-based) politics. Unsurprisingly, Liberals have pushed back insisting that Sotomayor’s comment has been "taken out of context" and that she is a judge of "empathy." Many Liberals go further, lauding the nomination primarily because Sotomayor is of Latin American descent.

To fully understand this contested comment, I read Ms. Sotomayor’s speech in its entirety. From the start, the speech is very accepting of the assumption that different racial and ethnic groups have profoundly different experiences in America. She, too, discusses the tension between the "salad bowl" and the "mixing bowl," describing the "struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences." From the comment, it’s clear the Sotomayor views society as the salad bowl. Her goal is to not just maintain a unique cultural identity, but to promote it. As I read her descriptions of her unique Latin American heritage, however, I couldn’t help but notice how similar it sounded to my own family’s experience. I truly had difficulty seeing what it was that made her experience so unique from mine and in need of promotion (presumably) over another.

To describe her background, Sotomayor starts with a discussion of her family.  She delves into the unique Latino foods and her family’s traditions. She looks back fondly on family dinners and on the games she played with her grandmother:

My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother’s house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loteria, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

 What bothers me about this passage is not her fond memories or happy family life.  I mean, who wouldn’t have fond memories of nights at home with their family? The problem with this passage is that Sotomayor emphasizes how all these things make her distinct from someone who is not a Latino. Much of the controversy is over a comment that speaks of a fundamental difference in experience, but what here… is different from a black, white, Asian, etc. family? So she played bingo with chick peas instead of pennies and played loteria instead of monopoly. The adults played dominos instead of cards. Her family cooks rice and means instead of spaghetti and meatballs. Those differences are but mere details.

The way I was raised, and the way the melting pot works, is to find and emphasize common ground, not differences. I find it more important to see how much she shares with all of the wonderful people in our nation. Like myself and many of the people I know, Sotomayor loves her family and they have shaped her development. This, however, does not make her experience distinct from the average Americans’. Thankfully, Sotomayor acknowledges that these things alone do not make her distinctly Latin American, though the context implies she still finds they distinguish her from many Americans:

Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. 

So what does make one a Latino? Well, according to Sotomayor:

 I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. 

Again, I think Sotomayor is too concerned with her race. Any good parent, any good human, should have loving and caring parents who convey the same message. I think that any American parent and any American immigrant comes to America hoping to love his or her experience and find a new life through hard work. Any family should teach one to love and live; children should be taught to love who they are.

I’m not trying to say that Sotomayor’s family culture is unimportant. It most certainly is. What I am trying to convey, however, is that every family shares one trait: it’s different from every other family. Tiny differences like chick peas and pennies or cards vs. dominos, are not as important as the monumental things that we share. Below our distinct traditions, we all love, live, and hope. We all want to promise our children a better tomorrow. We all look back fondly on our family and the lessons that it taught. That is what makes us human.

Is the "wise Latina women" comment racist? Judged from the standards that I, as a white male, am judged by daily, I must say that it is. Does it imply that Sotomayor is racist at heart? I think that depends on what one means by the term "racist." If one uses the definition of discrimination on the basis of race with malicious or harmful intent, then probably not. If you consider racism the belief that one race is fundamentally different from another and this difference cannot be overcome (the common definition of the word), then yes, it is racist. I believe that Sotomayor, like many salad bowl proponents, is too enamored with the superficial differences that divide us and this obsession keeps her from seeing our similarities. While salad-bowlers intentions are different from someone like a KKK member’s, they are still racist in their logic and their reasoning.

Being American, as President John Quincy Adams said, is casting " off the European [or any distinct group's] skin, never to resume it. They must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors." I do not view myself as a white but rather American because my family has lived the American dream. We have found a home here and we are no longer Italian, nor German, nor Polish, nor Portuguese, nor Irish. No, we are Americans and proud of it. If we hope to continue as a nation, then we cannot concentrate so heavily on our cosmetic differences and cling to the things that divided us in the past. I do not see Sonia Sotomayor as a "Latina" and I refuse to call her one because she is not one. She is an American. That is the promise of this great land. Until I am confident that Sonia Sotomayor can look past the chick peas and see the child, I can never support her as a justice for the highest court in all the land. That is what a judge is supposed to do, to see past the small differences to the great big things that hold us all together. Contrary to what some people say, it’s not hard to do.

If you enjoyed this article, I’d just ask that you to share this with your friends. Click on the "Share This" link with the green button to e-mail it to your friends or share it via social networking sites. Spread the word. One person can make a difference.

–Madas 

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ by Sonia Sotomayor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Quick Summary:
•    Uses the Geneva Convention to highlight why former President Bush is not a War Criminal.
•    Discusses the implications of coercive interrogation and government power and presents a possible compromise for the issue.

Since the images of the Abu Ghraib abuses were released, followed by the news of the CIA’s secret prisons and its enhanced interrogation techniques, there has been a fierce debate over the legality of the various measures involved. Republicans and Conservatives generally favor the techniques and insist that the stated but yet unproven benefits of the programs justified the questionable means used to achieve them. Democrats and Liberals insist that no matter what the benefit, such techniques are never justified. Some on the ultra left have gone further, calling for the persecution of the Bush Administration, partly as a response to the scandal and largely as a parting shot at an administration that they bitterly despised.

On April 19, 2009 President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made a statement to ABC news that finally seemed close this controversial chapter of our nation’s history. Mr. Emanuel stated very clearly that “those who devised the policy [of Enhanced Interrogation] should not be prosecuted.” Only two days later, however, President Obama said that he didn’t “want to prejudge” the issue and that the decision to prosecute “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws.”

When the furor over enhanced interrogation erupted anew following the President’s flip-flop, I started to pay closer attention to the content of the debate as opposed to its tenor. What I found was quite shocking. While both sides obviously are very passionate about the underlying implications of torture (save opportunists like Speaker Pelosi & Co.), facts are few and far between. The left bandies about vague references to the Geneva Conventions while the Republicans push out endless sound bites about keeping Americans safe.

What legal ground does the Bush Administration have to stand on and how strong is the case against it? Furthermore, is water boarding torture? Is there an objective standard for torture beyond people’s personal sensibilities?

I’ll start with the legal issues. After a little research, I determined that the war crimes accusations revolve around the claim that Bush violated the United States War Crimes Act of 1996. According to this act, a war crime is a “grave break of the Geneva Conventions,” and the penalty for the perpetrator is life imprisonment or death.

To properly understand the full definition of a “grave breach,” however, one must read the Geneva Convention. This is where I discovered a shocking and widespread misunderstanding of the facts underlying the issue. If columnists and commentators were to read the actual convention, they would find that the first part of the Convention specifically defines when, where, and to whom the provisions of the document apply to. Despite what media reports might have you believe, the document does not apply to any person anywhere in the world. 

Part 1, Article 4 is the most applicable section as it deals with Prisoners of War, the very issue at the heart of the Bush Administration’s controversy. The entirety of the argument against President Bush (except for the few dreamers who believe war can be conducted without collateral damage) is that his Administration’s treatment of the some prisoners of war, such as the water boarding of Abu Zubdaydah and two others, amounts violations of the Geneva Convention and thus war crimes.
For this to be true, both under the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act of 1996, Abu Zubdaydah and his co-conspirators must satisfy the conditions set forth in the Geneva Convention for a person to be recognized as a prisoner of war deserving of the protection of international law. If the prisoners if Guantanamo meet the Geneva Convention’s litmus test, then the Bush administration’s treatment of them must also violate protections set forth for Prisoners of War in order for its conduct to be criminal.  According to the convention, Prisoners of war are:

1.    Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Uh oh. Well it looks like Bush & Co. should go straight to prison, not pass go, and take a ride in the gas chamber. Unfortunately for diehard left-wingers, the term armed forces, in the historical context of the day, refers to uniformed soldiers and adjunct, uniformed militias. This nuance is made even clearer by the next definition, which sets additional conditions for:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This provision, provision 2 of Part 1, Article 4, clearly defines the conditions that “resistance” movements not part of traditional, uniformed armed forces must meet in order for the terms of the Geneva Convention to apply to them. First, they must report to a responsible commander, something that could easily be contested of most insurgent and terrorist forces.

 Secondly, they must have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. This requirement is never met. Terrorists, or insurgents as our media prefers to call them, do not wear distinctive uniforms and prefer to operate in civilian clothes among the civilian population so as to maximize publicity generating collateral damage. 
Next, these resistance movements must carry arms openly. Again, this condition is openly flaunted. Suicide bombers wear their “weapons,” if they can be called such, underneath civilian clothes, hidden from view. Insurgents hide their weapons in schools and tunnels.

Finally, these resistance fighters must respect the customs of war, which, for the purposes of this short piece, we can consider to be conduct laid out during the Geneva Convention. That means that resistance fighters must not take civilian hostages, they must refrain from public exhibition of killings, they must tend to the sick and wounded, and the list goes on. The only condition that the average “insurgent” might meet is the condition that a commander responsible for subordinates commands him.

So, according to the Geneva Convention and, by extension, the War Crimes Act of 1996, almost every prisoner captured (and in all likelihood, all prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq) is not technically a Prisoner of War as the Geneva Convention defined the term and thus is exempt from the protections of the document.
Now that the legality of the techniques is out of the way, it’s time to discuss the interrogation techniques themselves. I believe that President Bush and his advisors truly had the people of the United States in mind when they green lighted the enhanced interrogation. I am willing to conceded that the techniques probably produced useful information, but neither I nor anybody else can verify that information unless that CIA were to declassify the relevant documents.

What is difficult to do, however, is deny that water boarding is harmless. It first rose to infamy during the Spanish Inquisition. Overzealously applied, it can cause permanent physical harm and even death. In the early 20th century, Americans were appalled to find that American soldiers had been water boarding Filipino guerillas and the public consensus was that this technique, if it was not torture, was morally abhorrent. I believe that holds true today and the legality of the circumstances does not excuse the morality of the act.

I am a firm believe in small government and I believe that a government that has to go to such lengths to protect itself and the people it represents must have gone wrong somewhere. Furthermore, I fear what such techniques could be used for in the wrong hands. Do not forget the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who President Bush designated an “enemy combatant” on June 9, 2002 (don’t get too excited left-wingers, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration is responsible for that term). By doing so, President Bush effectively declared Padilla a party to a conflict who does not follow international rules of conduct nor clearly identifies himself as a belligerent. Using the arguments I have just set out, Mr. Padilla is not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention and could have been water boarded, abused, or worse without any significant violation of the law. The key to the legality, however, is whether provided the government indeed has the power to declare someone an enemy combatant. While the distinction between a criminal and an enemy combatant may seem clear cut now, I urge you to look beyond the short-term ramifications of this power and the accompanying technique of enhanced interrogation.

When you consider the danger of government power, do not look at what something was intended to do. Instead, look at what it could be used for and what similar provisions have been used for in history. What if a radical group came to power in the United States only to flagrantly violate the Constitution, declaring all those who opposed the new regime “enemy combatants?” I believe in the free exchange of ideas and the mutual respect required for that to take place. The possibility of using government power to forcibly censor or silence such a debate is a chilling prospect and I do not believe the government should be allowed the power to potentially do so.

The logical way out of this debacle, if all parties are genuine in their claims, is to thank President Bush for his service to this nation and then legislate away the government’s ability to use enhanced interrogation regardless of the circumstances. For some, Enhanced Interrogation may be a stain on our national honor, but the simple fact is that the program obeys the letter of international law. If we feel that we are above such techniques, we should ban them and be willing to live with the potential security consequences.  Prosecuting our former President for his honest attempts to protect his people or forming partisan truth commissions will not heal our wound nor mend our image. The way forward is through a constructive and open-minded look at where we’ve been and where we want to go. Here’s to a brighter future. 

-Madas

Sources:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/04/obama-adminis-1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/21/obama-open-prosecution-officials-cleared-interrogation-tactics/
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jose_Padilla
 

Arianna Huffington’s Book: An Autobiography?

Arianna Huffington, the liberal’s liberal and (in)famous co-founder of the ultra-liberal Huffington Post, believes that the future of journalism lies in selling journalistic credentials to the highest bidder. Yes, someone who believes dearly in democracy and the middle class apparently believes that we should trust a news source which hires reporters based upon how much they can afford to donate **ahem** pay, for their position. Arianna has offered a summer internship, available in a charity auction for the Robert F. Kennedy center, to the highest bidder. It will be more fun than those bygone summers in the Hamptons, only now your ceaseless complaints about the inequity of society will be broadcast much further than they ever were from atop your polo pony.

I really find this astounding given that Ms. Huffington has spent so much of her recent career lambasting moneyed elites in books like “Pigs at the Trough.” No doubt she finds it disgusting that there are those who see fit to spend their money on lavish lifestyles and self-serving fundraisers under the guise of philanthropy… which is why she has turned positions at her blog into the digital equivalent of a lavish fundraiser.

It baffles me that she didn’t see fit to offer this as a paid position to someone out there with real talent. Why not offer the job to inner city graduates or low-income students? Why not give someone who needs a lucky brake a chance to make a difference. Oh that’s right, “[t]hat’s not [their] financial model." The Huffington Post offers “promotion and distribution with a great company,” to people who can already afford it. Liberal elitism is alive and well. 

See the auction here:
https://auction01.charitybuzz.com/secure/viewItemDetail.do?auction_item_id=93263

Description:
Includes: a two-three month internship at The Huffington Post in NYC or D.C. Must be at least 18 years old. NYC is the main office and D.C. is the political office. Winner can choose which location they would like.

The Huffington Post is an American liberal news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring various news sources and columnists. The site, often referred to as HuffPost or HuffPo, covers a wide range of topics, including sections devoted to politics, entertainment, media, living, business, and the green movement.

Launched on May 9, 2005, as a commentary outlet and liberal alternative to conservative news aggregators like the Drudge Report, and has expanded to cover news of politics and many other things.

In addition to columns by Huffington and a core group of contributors (such as Harry Shearer, John Conyers, and Rosie O’Donnell) and Roy Sekoff, Founding Editor, The Huffington Post has featured celebrity contributors from politics, journalism, business, and entertainment, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Norman Mailer, Saskia Sassen, John Cusack, and Bill Maher.

Donated by: Arianna Huffington
 

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd recently tried to ask Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs how the administration could honestly attempt to portray its $17 billion budget cut, which amounts to less than a half a percent of the total budget, as a serious spending reduction. Todd asked, "1/2 of one percent, how is this truly a tough decision and a tightening of the belt?" Gibbs responded by making quips about the stock price of GE (NBC’s and Chuck Todd’s parent company) and how much its revenue has dropped. Mr. Todd, unfazed, continued to press the question and received this response: "Let’s you and I walk out on the street today… let’s interview maybe a dozen people and ask them whether  they think 17 billion dollars is a lot of money." According to this statement, Mr. Gibbs thinks that the best way to deal with a problem is to approach the people with only a piece of the picture. Just go out on the street and ask people if $17 billion is a lot of money? Of course it is, but $3.4 trillion is even more. That didn’t seem to bother Mr. Gibbs when the budget under consideration. I’ve got another idea for Mr. Gibbs. Let’s go out on the street and ask someone if a half a percent is significant If that would mean that someone making $100,000 a would cut only $300 from their budget (Thanks to MSNBC for this one). So much for truth and transparency, it’s more like smoke and mirrors.   

www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_gIIp5yuoI