what are all those people doing out there?

I've come across an op-ed in today's NYTimes by Yu Hua. I first encountered Yu after hearing a review of his book, Brothers, on NPR. (Am I liberal enough? Reading the Times and getting my reviews from NPR; and then blogging about it?) Brothers is a monster work and details the life of Baldy Li. I'll leave the reviews to others because I haven't finished the book and because they're much better at writing book reviews. (You can hear/read the NPR review here, the LATimes review here, and the NYTimes review here.) What the book has struck me as - in the first portion - is something akin to the writing of both Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Ismail Kadare; a bit fantastical and vaguely surreal. What's more important to this day is Yu's commentary on the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests from 20 years ago. He purports there were two facts that have become apparent since then, the second being that "... after the summer of 1989 the incident vanished from the Chinese news media. As a result, few young Chinese know anything about it." What strikes me isn't do much a direct comparison between the pro-democracy rallies in China (or the government crackdowns) and the eight years of the Bush Administration, but a process where something is forgotten or exiled to the past because was wrong. Who resigns something to the vault if it were a just or correct choice? If they don't leave it broken and shattered the dark corner they end up justifying it until it becomes such a weary and threadbare memory that people eventually let the dog lie.

This is the premise of Dick Cheney. If his misdeeds had been left in the dark, if no one had questioned his thuggery, then we never would have seen him again; a better future for us all. Instead, he's been forced into the light - no doubt against his will or desire - in an attempt to convince "the people", as Yu says, that his decisions were in the best interests of "the people". The problem with this tack is that there's a huge difference between our looking to the past and seeing that the intention was good but execution poor, and trying to convince me that your intentions were ever good. Cheney's intentions were never good and the longer he stays in the spotlight blathering like an ass the sooner "the people" will get the truth. His intention was always solely focused on his desire for retribution and revenge; there isn't an unselfish bone in his body. Instead of wanting him to disappear, I'm perfectly happy to see his mug all over the TV and newspapers because the house of cards will fall much quicker the longer we're exposed to the lies. The people can be right - remember the millions around the World that protested the Iraq War? - and the leaders wrong not because they misjudged but because they believe their good is greater than our good. Cheney still believes he can muscle his malfeasance into truth by merely changing his story, scowling at the press, or reaching for anything that will either justify his actions or make us forget. He has been, and still is, supported in this belief by both Republicans and Democrats whose hold that their political life is their actual life. It's disappointing to see how spineless and shallow the Congress has been.

As Yu says in his op-ed, there are loads of young Chinese who don't remember Tiananmen because it's been hidden in a closet. What Cheney really wanted was the same process; hidden away so nobody would remember and he could live his dying days as some type of hero in his own mind. Instead, we have the pleasure of seeing him unwind and attempt to define his legacy as something other than shitty. When not a single piece of good comes from your eight years of work in leading your county, you are a failure.

A light Sunday chat.

t

we'll just fix that later...or not.

It’s not like this is much of a surprise. (There’s loads of Web chatter today on the same subject.) George Tenet was a seriously incompetent DCI; first with the ‘slam dunk’, and now this peek further behind the curtain. I don’t know much more about him, but I have watched and listened to a bunch of his ‘avert the blame’ interviews, and this simply cements his lowlight resume. This caper that led to the CIA, and military members, to torture would be comical if the result wasn’t so heinous. I was trained by one the psychologists named in this article – two or three times – and it’s hard to believe that the SERE leaders didn’t fight back harder. Even with that mark against the SERE record, the CIA, legislators, and OLC were delinquent in doing in even the most basic investigation or background work on what they were proposing. Could it be true that they had no idea about the history and success, or lack thereof, of these techniques? Did they not understand that what we use as training on US forces (and I had all of these done to me, barring the water board) was done in an academic environment with training provided and after-the-fact review? There were timeouts allowed. Very little was a surprise to us and there was a clear timeline for the end of each training session. No matter where one might stand on the issue as a whole, if you were in this situation and decided you needed to call in the OLC for an opinion on legality then you better have done your homework. What your mind is telling you is that this walks, talks, and smells like torture yet all you do at that point is sit on your ass, at a desk, and make up whatever suits your needs. It’s not a lack of knowledge that’s embarrassing - knowledge can be gained – it’s the straight-pipe sense of moral right that’s the problem. I don’t care if this was during a time when people were worried and scared – that’s why we have laws. It’s during times when common sense fails that law gives us guidance.

channeling

Rob Riggle from The Daily Show in the role of me - even the language is appropriate.



I have little more to say on this fine early Summer day.

t.

not yoo again

Here he comes again. I think most of us know by now that being book smart and being regular smart are two different traits. I’m not certain I have a whole lot of either, but…John Yoo is an ass. Yoo, one of the authors to the Bush Administration torture posse, has been sued by Jose Padilla – for $1. Yoo wrote in defense of his actions last week in the Philadelphia Inquirer and proudly makes his case via this stirring type of narrative:

"At the time, I was an official in the Bush administration Justice Department working on the response to the 9/11 attacks. Our lives had taken very different paths. Padilla had turned to drugs and crime in Chicago and was convicted of murder as a juvenile. He became a radical follower of fundamentalist Islam, left for Egypt in 1998 and journeyed in 2000 to Afghanistan, where he trained to become a terrorist at al-Qaeda and Taliban camps.

I had the good fortune to grow up in the Philadelphia area, attend the Episcopal Academy for high school, and go off to Harvard for college and Yale for law school. I studied and eventually taught war powers, a subject that always interested me because of Philadelphia's rich history with the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and my family's origins in South Korea, the scene of one of America's more recent conflicts."

And he trots out the troops (as they are wont to do) as further defense of his actions for both the memos for the Administration and support of his cause:

"Think about what it would mean if Padilla were to win. Government officials and military personnel have to devise better ways to protect the country from more deadly surprise attacks. Padilla and his lawyers want them, from the president down to lowest private, to worry about being sued when they make their decisions. Officials will worry about all of the attorneys' fees they will rack up to defend themselves from groundless lawsuits."

Are we so confused in a time of war that it’s impossible for people to determine right and wrong? Legal and illegal? I would think that the President, whoever he or she might be, and the lowest private in the military should be damned concerned about whether or not what they are doing is legal or not. The idea that Yoo would blatantly drape a flag across his shoulders and put forth a lukewarm defense, of himself, by using wartime and potential legal action as justification for government misdeed is heinous. He seems to believe that when standing at the abyss of decision and consult that the only safe way across is to ensure that we, or they, are provided absolute immunity and free rein – how could they be wrong? And even they are, so what? We’re in charge. How dare!

I don’t think any legal mind would say that the Padilla chronology was a victory for America. Yoo is pretty flippant when he opens a paragraph with “After being sued by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla…” He was certainly convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorists (a conviction that was overturned and then reinstated), but the suit brought against Yoo and others pertains to his being held – in isolation, without charges for years – because he was an ‘enemy combatant’. His enemy combatant status was deserted as the case worked its way to the Supreme Court and he was eventually transferred (by the Bush) to civilian confinement and eventually tried in civilian courts – where the ‘dirty bomb’ charges were not even mentioned. It was the process, and Yoo’s direct influence and ‘lawyering’, that begat the life he’s now got to defend.

T.

return of the king

18 January 2008
Riverwalk, Reno, Nevada

Another trip back in time this week; another chance to see how Northern Nevada is doing in my absence. I'll give the quick rundown on my old river rabbit trail:

La Bussola - they've reopened back downtown after almost a year in a very small space elsewhere. The old landlords quadrupled the rent and they bailed out in 2006. They are now about 50 feet across from the old shop (which is still vacant) and in the same building where they live. Great news for them. They are hosting a 300+ soiree this evening to celebrate the launch of a new gay Website that will be hosted, and specific to, the Reno crowd. I may swing by...
Dharma Books - They're still going strong on the river and have closed the second location. Cheron is suppose to be in Tucson finishing her novel but she's still sitting behind the desk doing books as I type. I love the place.
Bibo Coffee - Still the best brew in town and opening a second location closer to the river.
Pneumatic Diner - Two evening meals this week and still great; still on my 'best of' list.

For those worried about the housing market I've got a little input on the leading indicator market in NNevada: there were 400 homes listed for sale in Fernley during December and 11 sold. It's ugly. The Sacramento median price for homes dropped 20% from December 2006 to December 2007. I thought my earlier predication of 2010 for the nation was frightening but I'll stick with it based on what I'm seeing out here.

Speaking of economics, what's the bruhaha with "immediate relief" to the American people? Remember the days when 'they' said Americans aren't saving money and are failing to plan for the future? 'member? Our spending culture, of which I am a proud member, was setting us up for some Monday when the money would be gone. Now we've got Bernanke and Bush contemplating a $800 to $1600 per family/person package that "gets money in the hands of Americans"....for what? They say it's so they can spend it and get the economy back on track. I'm no economist but I think this might be the stupidest thing I've ever heard - give us money so we can spend it. That's the plan for temporary relief? Yikes.

The Nevada caucus is tomorrow in the AM so candidates and politicos are swarming the city. They all look a little crazed.

I saw an Oregon license plate this morning in the hotel parking lot that was something that states now provide for owners to use as an indicator of person's love or support. This one was "Salmon". Nothing more. Just the word "Salmon" and a subdued picture of a salmon - I don't know if it was a coho or king but it was definitely a salmon. Since there was no other indication of intent - save the salmon, eat the salmon, catch-and-release the salmon - I've no idea of the context. I know that here in Nevada they have "support Nevada Arts", "Keep Tahoe Blue", the standard "University of Nevada", and myriad others, but I've not seen something so ethereal as "Salmon".

I'm thinking of a movie this afternoon - Juno is playing right nearby but There Will Be Blood is also opening here this evening. Any input is appreciated.

I'll be back home tomorrow evening.

Love to all.

t.

one more link

This an op-ed from a blog called Small Wars Journal. It's about torture and it eloquently addresses the issue and the answer. If you don't want to know, or don't care to read about it...no need to click. (Thanks to andrewsullivan.com)

Todd

no man

I heard a story on Morning Edition that informed me that Phoenix is an “urban heat island”. It appears that Phoenix, land of concrete, sand, and sun creates its own heat on a daily basis by absorbing the blast furnace-like death rays from the Sun. Even as the Sun sets and night falls upon the peaceful valley the temperature is maintained much higher than it should be throughout the night as heat dissipates from the parking lots and strip malls. When morning comes the temperature is higher than it would be if you weren’t living in an actual parking lot – hence, no relief ever arrives in the summer. Go figure. Physiologists also report that humans adapt after a number of weeks in that type of heat. The body creates greater amounts of something called heat shock protein which is a chemical that prevents your cells from killing each other. I know that when I plan where I’d like to live, if a locale either 1) acts as an actual furnace or, 2) alters the chemical composition of my body so it doesn’t start eating itself, I’m not packing up the wagon and settling down anywhere near there. Seems fair enough, right?

Here’s my wiggle-wave to the nearly departed Karl Rove and his divisive, stinking politics; thanks to the Old Crows and metrolyrics.com

victim by choice

I listened to most of the Goodling testimony last week while cutting-and-pasting graphics and inventing phraseology for training lessons. I don’t think either topic is much to write home to mother about, so if I must choose, and choose I do, I’ll gab a little on the Goodling testimony.

Who’s worse for the wear? Every member of the House Judiciary Committee. What a bunch of lost folk; not one of them came off as anything close to impressive. The Democrats couldn’t form a consistent line of questioning and the Republicans were like State Troopers who just pulled over a pretty girl…I’ll get to that further down the tome.

Where did they make mistakes? The Dems decided it would be a good idea to harp on her attending law school at Regent University, a religously affiliated university. The plot was lost right here because attending Regent wasn’t an issue that needed to be addressed. That's not the root of what bothers me and it simply opened up the door for Republican members to gush about godly universities and education (and every one of them did). What bothers me is how a 27-year old Goodling from a Tier-4 law school joined the Justice Department in 2001, and by 2003 (at the latest) was a 30-year old with no prosecutorial experience making judgments on attorneys at Justice.

Where didn’t they make mistakes? The Republicans just sat there looking stupid and waiting for the fish (the Dems) to take the bait. On the hook they had a mixed platter of god and the ‘harmless girl defense’. Not one of them was interested in the proceedings. They decided to not actually say anything...play dumb. There was bluster aplenty, but no intelligent questions or input. Beyond the ludicrous evolutionary timeline that attempted to link Yale to Harvard to Regent in the history of great institutes, I will take a moment to point out one deeply disturbed member of the committee. In his sophomoric attempt to make people look silly for bothering with this event, he revealed what is apparent to all: no matter where you go to law school, you can still be a dolt. Here’s to the smooth-brained Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla):
_________________________________________________________

KELLER: OK. The reason I bring [the Carol Lam controversy] up is because one of the most controversial things -- and you just hear it in the L.A. Times this week, and I'm looking at an article May 18, 2007.

And I'll just read you what it says: “Speaking at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles on Thursday, John McKay, who was the fired U.S. attorney in Washington state, said he suspected that U.S. attorney Carol Lam was removed in San Diego to derail the expanding probe of then-Rep. Randall 'Duke' Cunningham.”

You hear that allegation over and over, and yet I have the documents here, the first of 20 members of Congress to complain about Carol Lam not prosecuting illegal immigration was February 2, 2004, from Darrell Issa, which was circulated to Department of Justice, the White House and Carol Lam.

I hear from you that you had heard complaints about not enforcing gun control gun crimes in 2003, 2004, and you had heard complaints about not enforcing immigration-related prosecutions in 2005.

And yet, the San Diego Tribune did not even break the initial story of Duke Cunningham until June 12, 2005, which is a full 14 months after Congressman Issa wrote the first of many letters complaining about her not enforcing alien immigration laws, which makes it literally impossible that she was fired as a pretext for Duke Cunningham because all the problems were occurring, as we hear from the documents and your testimony and others, before the story even broke about Duke Cunningham.

And, in fact, when I had Carol Lam right here, I asked her, Do you have any evidence whatsoever that you were fired because of Duke Cunningham? She said no.

When I had the U.S. attorney here, Did you fire her because of Duke Cunningham? No.

I've looked at 10,000 documents, e-mails, many witness interviews, testimony, not a shred of evidence. But I still see (inaudible) that we saw in the L.A. Times this week saying that our attorney general's a criminal because he let Ms. Lam go because she prosecuted Duke Cunningham.

I'm happy that we were able to set the record straight with your testimony that the problems that she incurred dealing with illegal immigration and gun crimes far predated the breaking of the Duke Cunningham story.
And I will yield back the balance of my time.
_________________________________________________________

What I’d ask Mr. Keller at the end of his Barnum act of waving around Xerox copies of newspaper accounts (and he was) is this: If Carol Lam was so incompetent for so many years, and had 20 members of congress complaining about her (including the divine Mr. Issa!), why did it take the Justice Department 32 months to act? By the way, for those for geniuses like Keller, those 32 months are the 14 months you complain about in your pompous speech plus the 17 months before she was involuntarily resigned in December 2006. If I play along with your support of the Justice Department then I’m shocked that it would take over 2 ½ years to dismiss someone who was “obviously” so incompetent. I'm not sure that pointing out immature leadership actually increases the publics opinion of the department.

How did Monica do? Not bad. If this had been a heads-up poker game she would have won. That’s not really say much since she was playing against a bunch of 9-year olds. X pointed out this weekend that it’s horribly embarrassing to see that people of authority are still be swayed by any type of doe-eyed female using the distress defense. Monica’s greatest benefit was the immunity. She could be long-winded, she didn’t admit to much while at the same time admitting to breaking the law, she brought on a hair style suitable for maximum flattering of the crowd, and generallye managed to drive off with a warning. It was very well played on her part. Two things I suspect: her daily haircut, for a fastburner like her, was no doubt more rigid. Also, I think she had on way too much make-up, but what do I know.

And finally, to clarify the continually trotted out line that all Presidents fire U.S. Attorneys: they do, just not their own. According to the Congressional Research Service, and they only have numbers for those that don’t serve full initial four-year terms, not the carryovers, the numbers are staggering. A “carryover” is a U.S. Attorney who has completed the four-year term and remains in office after a presidential reelection (Reagan and Clinton) or because, for some reason, the new party president decides to leave them in office. Here are the numbers of U.S. Attorneys replaced when a new President takes office:

Reagan: 71 of 93 attorneys
Clinton: 80 of 93 attorneys
G.W. Bush: 88 of 93 attorneys

I don’t have the numbers for the first Bush, but I assume since there wasn’t a change of party in the White House in 1988 most of them were allowed to stay.

In the quarter century between 1981 and 2006, a total of 54 U.S. Attorneys did not complete their four-year team; only two of those were fired, the last being in 1984. The reasons for the others leaving are outlined in the document; those that didn’t gain appointments to the bench or return to private practice have some very interesting stories.

I’m just saying…suddenly 8 or 9 U.S. Attorneys are dismissed for performance-related issues? These aren’t holdovers that slid through from the last administration; these are your Attorneys. It’s comical if you think about it.

Peace.

T.

(pix: Stephanie Kuykendal for Newsweek (right); Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)