From YouTube's blood385, commenting and the commercial (and philosophical as well, no doubt) legitimacy of the Segway Wheelchair: "Only thing that would make this complete is if it ran off of bald eagle heads and diamonds."
That's a mouthful, blood.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Suicide Haikus
1.
Juan De Fuca Straits
Have very aggressive tides.
I doubt you'll find me.
2.
In three days I'll rise
And redeem humanity.
Oh wait! That's Jesus.
3.
Egomania
Is the sole motivator
For a note at all
4.
Self-immolation
Always seemed extreme to me.
Then I thought: why not?
5. (Not really a suicide haiku, but I like it anyway):
An owl and a snake
Fixate on a wounded mouse.
My money's on Owl.
Juan De Fuca Straits
Have very aggressive tides.
I doubt you'll find me.
2.
In three days I'll rise
And redeem humanity.
Oh wait! That's Jesus.
3.
Egomania
Is the sole motivator
For a note at all
4.
Self-immolation
Always seemed extreme to me.
Then I thought: why not?
5. (Not really a suicide haiku, but I like it anyway):
An owl and a snake
Fixate on a wounded mouse.
My money's on Owl.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 05, 2009
More on facebook
Update: Here's a decidedly British take on the phenomenon as well. . . Thanks to MonkeySkull for the link.
There is something incredibly invasive about this whole "Web 2.0" stuff, isn't there? (Aside: Has "Web 2.0" already become a hoary, quaint reference to what's going on with the Web, akin to the "information superhighway" or "cyberspace"? It feels like it. . . )
Perhaps "invasive" is the wrong word, as it connotes an unwelcome intrusion. With the exception of a few embarrassing old pics posted by "friends" most of the information available Facebook, etc. was placed there by our own volition, and not the result of some overreaching third party digging up dirt on us. That this information occasionally amounts to an embarrassing or compromising disclosure is more a function of our inexperience with the forum--much like the regrettable "reply-all" email response, sending a snarky, petty or downright cruel comment to the very subject of our derision. I haven't made that error in a long time, not due to some change in technology, but because I have been chastened by prior indiscretions to do two things: one, be more thoughtful about what I say in email, and two: be more discreet about who's on the receiving end of my emails.
If our means of interacting social networking sites follows the same user arc as email, will we inevitably see a shift towards more circumspection and discretion on how far we open our virtual kimono in the future? I'm not sure what's left of the sites if we stop posting our public, multimedia, extemporized diaries online. Perhaps social networking is just enduring its initial novelty phase right now, much like answering machines did in their inception? Remember when telephone answering machines first hit the market, and a critical mass of persons had some clever ditty or schtick for their message, when now, you're hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't use some near-verbatim flavor of, "Hi, I'm not here, so leave a message" message? So which is it? Is facebook more like email, or more like the phone answering machine? Are we more interested in conveying information via facebook and twitter, or receiving information? Exactly what information are we trying to convey: how clever we can be (a la the early phone messages), or something that we'll ultimately deem to be more utilitarian? And just as important: what information are we trying to learn about our friends, loved ones, or coworkers when we use the sites? Are we scanning for scandal, or are we really that curious about the quotidian goings-on of everyone?
Because of facebook and its ilk, we may see people become more comfortable knowing more about people's otherwise "secret" lives--the lives they lead when we may not be looking. If that's the case, then the social networking sites will have an enormous impact on society: getting people to relax their double-standards, and understand that we all have skeletons, thoughts, desires, alternative lives. Eventually, we'll learn that kinky, freaky, corny, tacky thoughts and actions don't detract from our professional and interpersonal competencies--on the contrary, they inform and enrich them. The predilections of the politician, the schoolteacher, the preacher, the middle manager, the stockbroker, previously looked down upon as perversions, will instead be seen as part of the amalgam that makes any of us competent at work, love, leisure, compassion. It's not that difficult to envision a future where our facebook profile is the "first" impression somebody creates of friends or workmates, rather than a supplement to our offline impression of a person. We'll see. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing what facebook becomes after the "answering machine jingle" novelty of it wears off.
There is something incredibly invasive about this whole "Web 2.0" stuff, isn't there? (Aside: Has "Web 2.0" already become a hoary, quaint reference to what's going on with the Web, akin to the "information superhighway" or "cyberspace"? It feels like it. . . )
Perhaps "invasive" is the wrong word, as it connotes an unwelcome intrusion. With the exception of a few embarrassing old pics posted by "friends" most of the information available Facebook, etc. was placed there by our own volition, and not the result of some overreaching third party digging up dirt on us. That this information occasionally amounts to an embarrassing or compromising disclosure is more a function of our inexperience with the forum--much like the regrettable "reply-all" email response, sending a snarky, petty or downright cruel comment to the very subject of our derision. I haven't made that error in a long time, not due to some change in technology, but because I have been chastened by prior indiscretions to do two things: one, be more thoughtful about what I say in email, and two: be more discreet about who's on the receiving end of my emails.
If our means of interacting social networking sites follows the same user arc as email, will we inevitably see a shift towards more circumspection and discretion on how far we open our virtual kimono in the future? I'm not sure what's left of the sites if we stop posting our public, multimedia, extemporized diaries online. Perhaps social networking is just enduring its initial novelty phase right now, much like answering machines did in their inception? Remember when telephone answering machines first hit the market, and a critical mass of persons had some clever ditty or schtick for their message, when now, you're hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't use some near-verbatim flavor of, "Hi, I'm not here, so leave a message" message? So which is it? Is facebook more like email, or more like the phone answering machine? Are we more interested in conveying information via facebook and twitter, or receiving information? Exactly what information are we trying to convey: how clever we can be (a la the early phone messages), or something that we'll ultimately deem to be more utilitarian? And just as important: what information are we trying to learn about our friends, loved ones, or coworkers when we use the sites? Are we scanning for scandal, or are we really that curious about the quotidian goings-on of everyone?
Because of facebook and its ilk, we may see people become more comfortable knowing more about people's otherwise "secret" lives--the lives they lead when we may not be looking. If that's the case, then the social networking sites will have an enormous impact on society: getting people to relax their double-standards, and understand that we all have skeletons, thoughts, desires, alternative lives. Eventually, we'll learn that kinky, freaky, corny, tacky thoughts and actions don't detract from our professional and interpersonal competencies--on the contrary, they inform and enrich them. The predilections of the politician, the schoolteacher, the preacher, the middle manager, the stockbroker, previously looked down upon as perversions, will instead be seen as part of the amalgam that makes any of us competent at work, love, leisure, compassion. It's not that difficult to envision a future where our facebook profile is the "first" impression somebody creates of friends or workmates, rather than a supplement to our offline impression of a person. We'll see. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing what facebook becomes after the "answering machine jingle" novelty of it wears off.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Crazy songs stuck in my head over the past 24 hours
Some know me to have a mind capable of evoking idiosyncratic, cloying, and often just downright awful music without warning. The past few days have been particularly rife with bad music. Here they are, in [reverse chronological] order:
Some horrible song by the hair band "Fastway."
"I've got a brand new pair of roller skates," by Melanie Safka (I had to look that one up);
"Woman" by John Lennon, off of Double Fantasy (a gawdawful album if there ever was one)
"Silly Love Songs," By Paul McCartney (hmm, I'm noticing a theme of bad music composed by Beatles well past their prime. At least Lennon had enough grace to get murdered before he could really fall off the deep end of creative blight).
"Theme from Magnum PI"
"Sweet Gypsy Rose," by Tony Orlando and Dawn.
A lesser man would die from such thoughts.
Some horrible song by the hair band "Fastway."
"I've got a brand new pair of roller skates," by Melanie Safka (I had to look that one up);
"Woman" by John Lennon, off of Double Fantasy (a gawdawful album if there ever was one)
"Silly Love Songs," By Paul McCartney (hmm, I'm noticing a theme of bad music composed by Beatles well past their prime. At least Lennon had enough grace to get murdered before he could really fall off the deep end of creative blight).
"Theme from Magnum PI"
"Sweet Gypsy Rose," by Tony Orlando and Dawn.
A lesser man would die from such thoughts.
Movies I want to see
Goodbye, Solo (Life of a Senegalese cab driver in NC)
Wendy and Lucy (Woman and her dog lost in Oregon, en route to Alaska)
Cold Souls (Woody-Allenesque Giamatti vehicle. That's good enough for me right there)
Shall we Kiss? (lighthearted french romantic comedy)
The Education of Charlie Banks (coming-of-age film, directed by Limp Bizkit's Fred Durst)
I love you Man
Monsters vs. Aliens
Tokyo Sonata (Willie Loman-esque study of Japanese corporate culture, from what I can tell. . .)
Wendy and Lucy (Woman and her dog lost in Oregon, en route to Alaska)
Cold Souls (Woody-Allenesque Giamatti vehicle. That's good enough for me right there)
Shall we Kiss? (lighthearted french romantic comedy)
The Education of Charlie Banks (coming-of-age film, directed by Limp Bizkit's Fred Durst)
I love you Man
Monsters vs. Aliens
Tokyo Sonata (Willie Loman-esque study of Japanese corporate culture, from what I can tell. . .)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, February 06, 2009
Words we need
We need a word for the guilt one feels when accepting someone as a "friend" on a social network even though we really don't like the person.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Suicide Haikus
This will be an initial dump of insights I've already captured. More will inevitably proceed. These are written in chronological order, during the last two years.
1. One more stinking day
Listening to the faucet drip.
But not tomorrow
2. What words will you say
The first time that somebody
Tells you that I'm gone?
3. Maybe I'll come back
Next time, as somebody
I don't loathe so much
4. My wife has grown fat;
I barely think of fucking;
35 more years?
5. What becomes of us
After we take our last breath?
I want to find out.
6. If given the choice
Never to have been conceived
I'd have taken it.
7. Life's a currency
Not only squandered on youth,
But also on me.
8. Most are terrified
To encounter the Beyond.
I can hardly wait.
9. This is just an itch
That has, over time, become
Irresistible.
10. I know you'll want to
Conjure some melodrama
That just isn't there.
11. What's to talk about?
Any words only bring shame
To what I have done.
12. In the war between
Dread and curiosity,
Dread prevailed, hands-down.
13. One thing that I'll miss:
The gawky way a heron
Saunters overhead.
14. Sorry for the mess
But I wanted to be sure;
Unlike the last time
15. There are bananas
Just to the left of the fridge.
They should be ripe now.
16. We're all gonna die.
At least I'm able to choose
How and where and when
June 16, 2008:
17. First I slashed my wrists.
This time, I blew my brains out
To remove all doubt.
18. I step in the sea
The water overcomes me
The waves, continue
July 20, 2008
19. Oh, give me a break!
Don't you dare for one minute
Take credit for this
20. You'll learn: sometimes jail
Has nothing at all to do
With a prison cell
July 29, 2008
21. Didn't want to, but
overwhelming impulses
managed to prevail
22. We only deal with
People because we have to
I prefer alone.
23. Even though I thought
Life was excruciating
I still will miss it.
9/14/08
24. Some deem suicide
Nothing more than cowardice.
Who are they to judge?
25. I left this note, as
It will take substantial time
To find my remains.
26. It should take more than
Handfuls of barbiturates
To make this all stop.
27. You heard it here first:
Over time, evolution
Eliminates thought.
28. We were meant to die
Far before the time when we
Actually grow old.
29. I have taken all
Of my trained belligerence
Out upon myself.
30. At some point, life
Always ends up looking like
Just another corpse
31. It is arrogance
That seduces us to think
We won’t be extinct.
32. Life’s an accident
Which by definition means
Death’s random as well
12/27/08
33. This is a gambit:
To expect resurrection
But if not? OK
1/18/09
I'm at my wit's end
My head's full of cicadas
I must make it stop
1/29/09
It's hard, when you learn
That in the Grand Scheme of Things,
There is no grand scheme
1. One more stinking day
Listening to the faucet drip.
But not tomorrow
2. What words will you say
The first time that somebody
Tells you that I'm gone?
3. Maybe I'll come back
Next time, as somebody
I don't loathe so much
4. My wife has grown fat;
I barely think of fucking;
35 more years?
5. What becomes of us
After we take our last breath?
I want to find out.
6. If given the choice
Never to have been conceived
I'd have taken it.
7. Life's a currency
Not only squandered on youth,
But also on me.
8. Most are terrified
To encounter the Beyond.
I can hardly wait.
9. This is just an itch
That has, over time, become
Irresistible.
10. I know you'll want to
Conjure some melodrama
That just isn't there.
11. What's to talk about?
Any words only bring shame
To what I have done.
12. In the war between
Dread and curiosity,
Dread prevailed, hands-down.
13. One thing that I'll miss:
The gawky way a heron
Saunters overhead.
14. Sorry for the mess
But I wanted to be sure;
Unlike the last time
15. There are bananas
Just to the left of the fridge.
They should be ripe now.
16. We're all gonna die.
At least I'm able to choose
How and where and when
June 16, 2008:
17. First I slashed my wrists.
This time, I blew my brains out
To remove all doubt.
18. I step in the sea
The water overcomes me
The waves, continue
July 20, 2008
19. Oh, give me a break!
Don't you dare for one minute
Take credit for this
20. You'll learn: sometimes jail
Has nothing at all to do
With a prison cell
July 29, 2008
21. Didn't want to, but
overwhelming impulses
managed to prevail
22. We only deal with
People because we have to
I prefer alone.
23. Even though I thought
Life was excruciating
I still will miss it.
9/14/08
24. Some deem suicide
Nothing more than cowardice.
Who are they to judge?
25. I left this note, as
It will take substantial time
To find my remains.
26. It should take more than
Handfuls of barbiturates
To make this all stop.
27. You heard it here first:
Over time, evolution
Eliminates thought.
28. We were meant to die
Far before the time when we
Actually grow old.
29. I have taken all
Of my trained belligerence
Out upon myself.
30. At some point, life
Always ends up looking like
Just another corpse
31. It is arrogance
That seduces us to think
We won’t be extinct.
32. Life’s an accident
Which by definition means
Death’s random as well
12/27/08
33. This is a gambit:
To expect resurrection
But if not? OK
1/18/09
I'm at my wit's end
My head's full of cicadas
I must make it stop
1/29/09
It's hard, when you learn
That in the Grand Scheme of Things,
There is no grand scheme
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Cool shot
This image was taken from Voyager, nearly 30 years ago. Back then, just eight years after we had first walked on the moon, it seemed as though we'd be seeing pics of man walking on Mars by now. Things have really stalled in that department, though. It's hard to imagine looking back at earth from this vantage. I'm reminded of a road trip, where a landmark like Mt. Rainier fades from view behind you, and new landmarks emerge in front of you.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Dance for me, boy!
There's a part of me that kind of feels sorry for McClellan, and the ridiculous positions of this White House that he's enjoined to defend. But that sentiment passes quickly, when I remember that he's just a shill, and he could leave on principle whenever the duplicity and lying become too much for him. But you have to love this exchange from yesterday's press conference:
Q Scott, the President told Brit Hume that he thought that Tom DeLay is not guilty, even though the prosecution is obviously ongoing. What does the President feel about Scooter Libby? Does he feel that Mr. Libby --
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, the President was asked a question and he responded to that question in the interview yesterday, and made very clear what his views were. We don't typically tend to get into discussing legal matters of that nature, but in this instance, the President chose to respond to it. Our policy regarding the Fitzgerald investigation and ongoing legal proceeding is well-known and it remains unchanged. And so I'm just not going to have anything further to say. But we've had a policy in place for a long time regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.
Q Why would that not apply to the same type of prosecution involving Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you we had a policy in place regarding this investigation, and you've heard me say before that we're not going to talk about it further while it's ongoing.
Q Well, if it's prejudging the Fitzgerald investigation, isn't it prejudging the Texas investigation with regard to Congressman DeLay?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered your question.
Q Are you saying the policy doesn't apply?
Q Can I follow up on that? Is the President at all concerned that his opinion on this being expressed publicly could influence a potential jury pool, could influence public opinion on this in an improper way?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in this instance he was just responding to a question that was asked about Congressman DeLay, about Leader DeLay, and in terms of the issue that Peter brings up, I think that we've had a policy in place, going back to 2003, and that's a White House policy.
Q But that policy has been based in part, in the leak investigation and other things, on the idea that it is simply wrong for a President to prejudge a criminal matter, particularly when it's under indictment or trial stage. Why would he --
MR. McCLELLAN: And that's one -- this is an ongoing investigation regarding possible administration officials. So I think there are some differences here.
Q There are lots of times when you don't comment on any sort of legal --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are also legal matters that we have commented on, as well. And certainly there are legal matters when it goes to Saddam Hussein.
Q So the President is inconsistent?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, we put a policy in place regarding this investigation --
Q But it's hypocritical. You have a policy for some investigations and not others, when it's a political ally who you need to get work done?
MR. McCLELLAN: Call it presidential prerogative; he responded to that question. But the White House established a policy --
Q Doesn't it raise questions about his credibility that he's going to weigh in on some matters and not others, and we're just supposed to sit back and wait for him to decide what he wants to comment on and influence?
MR. McCLELLAN: Congressman DeLay's matter is an ongoing legal proceeding --
Q As is the Fitzgerald investigation --
MR. McCLELLAN: The Fitzgerald investigation is --
Q -- As you've told us ad nauseam from the podium.
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an ongoing investigation, as well.
Q How can you not -- how can you say there's differences between the two, and we're supposed to buy that? There's no differences. The President decided to weigh in on one, and not the other.
MR. McCLELLAN: There are differences.
Q And the public is supposed to accept the fact that he's got no comment on the conduct of senior officials of the White House, but when it's a political ally over on the Hill who's got to help him get work done, then he's happy to try to influence that legal process.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. Not at all. You can get all dramatic about it, but you know what our policy is.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
ID is *not* creationism, but. . .
. . .if you legislate against teaching it as science, God, er, I mean your Intelligent Designer, may go all Old Testament on your ass, at least according to--who else?--Pat Robertson. Geez, Pat. It seems you kind of showed your hole card there, no? Either ID is a "legitimate" scientific discussion, appropriate for public school, or it's a legitimate doctrine only within the construct of a religious worldview. After all, God wouldn't be deliberately picking off cities for electoral decisions unless he had some serious skin in the game, right?
When is this guy going to stop getting a national forum? He is on a par with the Holocaust Hoax wingnuts, yet he shows up in the MSM on a regular basis.
When is this guy going to stop getting a national forum? He is on a par with the Holocaust Hoax wingnuts, yet he shows up in the MSM on a regular basis.
Vacuum-resistant lichen
This sounds like the start of a terrible sci-fi horror movie: Lichen, exposed to the hard vacuum and punishing radiation of space, return to earth, apparently unaltered, only to morph into this! (Thanks to HuffingtonPost for the link).
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Paul Harvey is a Fucker
Apparently, Paul Harvey's home-spun, "aw shucks, if everyone would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like when I was a boy, America wouldn't be in such a world of hurt" approach to broadcast journalism has won him the favor of Disney. Take note of these comments Harvey shared with his listeners earlier this year, as related in FAIR's online journal:
As FAIR pointed out: keep in mind that this award is being bestowed by the same Disney Corp. that found Fahrenheit 9/11 too inimical to Disney's family-friendly brand to allow its subsidiary, Miramax, to release it. Genocide, pre-emptive nuclear war and slavery are not similarly encumbered apparently.
You know, I take a lot of shit from my friends for being a real stick-in-the-mud when it comes to my disdain for Disney. I find their business model--focus your marketing efforts on children 10 and younger, cross-market your product with the help of junk food outlets like McDonalds--morally deplorable. They may be no more perverse or depraved than any other corporation, but because they so unabashedly prey upon the impressionable young, their approach really sticks in my craw. So hearing that they're cool with giving Paul fucking Harvey an award, while censoring their own subsidiary company's ability to distribute a timely, politically-charged documentary that happens to take a contrary position to that of the board, well, I feel pretty good about shunning Disney at every opportunity I get.
We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.
And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy.
As FAIR pointed out: keep in mind that this award is being bestowed by the same Disney Corp. that found Fahrenheit 9/11 too inimical to Disney's family-friendly brand to allow its subsidiary, Miramax, to release it. Genocide, pre-emptive nuclear war and slavery are not similarly encumbered apparently.
You know, I take a lot of shit from my friends for being a real stick-in-the-mud when it comes to my disdain for Disney. I find their business model--focus your marketing efforts on children 10 and younger, cross-market your product with the help of junk food outlets like McDonalds--morally deplorable. They may be no more perverse or depraved than any other corporation, but because they so unabashedly prey upon the impressionable young, their approach really sticks in my craw. So hearing that they're cool with giving Paul fucking Harvey an award, while censoring their own subsidiary company's ability to distribute a timely, politically-charged documentary that happens to take a contrary position to that of the board, well, I feel pretty good about shunning Disney at every opportunity I get.
The hoo-haw over torture
From today's WaPo, reporting Bush's comments on how the War on Turr requires us to be free from legislation preventing torture so that we can continue not torturing our enemies (apparently Bush has no compunctions against torturing rhetoric):
Bush is dancing around the issue of torture, threatening to veto any legislation explicity banning it, but claiming that we don't torture in the first place. If we don't torture, then where's the harm in codifying the fact?
The idea here is that some people are so bad and so dangerous that we have to retain the right to fuck with their minds and bodies to extract information to the safety of the American public.
If that's the case, fine. Many would assert that certain people need torturin', because they're so dangerous, and because they harbor such incendiary information that will be unearthed by no less drastic means. But why not force our government to prove it? To hold officials to a very high standard before torture could be countenanced would not categorically preclude "appropriate" torture. In fact, it may actually create the only climate where we can have some reasonable safeguards against an overzealous exercise of toture.
Consider the concept of a self-defense rejoinder to a charge of murder. Killing is wrong, but you are allowed to present an affirmative defense to a committed homicide that you were acting inself-defense. It's a post-hoc analysis of whether you had a reasonable apprehension that you were going to suffer serious bodily injury or death at the hand of another, had you not exacted deadly force on your assailant. And the burden is on the accused to raise it and prove it.
What prevents us from treating the prosecution of torture similarly? That is: forbid torture by law. Prosecute those who break the law and torture others. Should the
prosecutor succeed in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you tortured another person, you're guilty, unless you can put forth an affirmative defense of a reasonable belief in exigent circumstances, which left you with torture as your only reasonable recourse for extracting the information you sought.
Thus, the presumption going into any torture situation is: If I am caught, I will be prosecuted. And if I'm not damn-well sure that (a)there is overwhelming evidence that I have a bad guy (b) with specific knowledge of a plot to kill or maim other people and (c) that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plot can be overcome (d) with information the bad guy possesses, then I'm screwed, because there sure as hell going to be able to prove torture. Why can't we have something like
that? If you pre-emptively allow torture under certain circumstances, and inoculate the perpetrator from prosecution, you're going to have people manufacturing evidence, creating the pretext that warrants the torture in the first place. If you keep it as a criminal act, which can only be averted with a very specific affirmative defense, you'll go a long way into effecting the end that most people have in mind when they hesitate to endorse a categoric ban on torture, because, however unpalatable, there are occasions when it is the only recourse available to protect innocent lives.
Q Mr. President, there has been a bit of an international outcry over reports of secret U.S. prisons in Europe for terrorism suspects. Will you let the Red Cross have access to them? And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture?
"PRESIDENT BUSH: Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people; the legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people. And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.
Bush is dancing around the issue of torture, threatening to veto any legislation explicity banning it, but claiming that we don't torture in the first place. If we don't torture, then where's the harm in codifying the fact?
The idea here is that some people are so bad and so dangerous that we have to retain the right to fuck with their minds and bodies to extract information to the safety of the American public.
If that's the case, fine. Many would assert that certain people need torturin', because they're so dangerous, and because they harbor such incendiary information that will be unearthed by no less drastic means. But why not force our government to prove it? To hold officials to a very high standard before torture could be countenanced would not categorically preclude "appropriate" torture. In fact, it may actually create the only climate where we can have some reasonable safeguards against an overzealous exercise of toture.
Consider the concept of a self-defense rejoinder to a charge of murder. Killing is wrong, but you are allowed to present an affirmative defense to a committed homicide that you were acting inself-defense. It's a post-hoc analysis of whether you had a reasonable apprehension that you were going to suffer serious bodily injury or death at the hand of another, had you not exacted deadly force on your assailant. And the burden is on the accused to raise it and prove it.
What prevents us from treating the prosecution of torture similarly? That is: forbid torture by law. Prosecute those who break the law and torture others. Should the
prosecutor succeed in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you tortured another person, you're guilty, unless you can put forth an affirmative defense of a reasonable belief in exigent circumstances, which left you with torture as your only reasonable recourse for extracting the information you sought.
Thus, the presumption going into any torture situation is: If I am caught, I will be prosecuted. And if I'm not damn-well sure that (a)there is overwhelming evidence that I have a bad guy (b) with specific knowledge of a plot to kill or maim other people and (c) that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plot can be overcome (d) with information the bad guy possesses, then I'm screwed, because there sure as hell going to be able to prove torture. Why can't we have something like
that? If you pre-emptively allow torture under certain circumstances, and inoculate the perpetrator from prosecution, you're going to have people manufacturing evidence, creating the pretext that warrants the torture in the first place. If you keep it as a criminal act, which can only be averted with a very specific affirmative defense, you'll go a long way into effecting the end that most people have in mind when they hesitate to endorse a categoric ban on torture, because, however unpalatable, there are occasions when it is the only recourse available to protect innocent lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)