I haven't wavered much on the usefulness of pursuing the torture issue. I still think President Obama should stay away from it. Whatever happens, I don't have any interest in prosecutions. That said...
Why is the country debating torture? Does the debate we're having do us any good? Are we trying to figure which specific techniques constitute torture? Are we trying to figure out if torture produces good intelligence? Are we trying to decide whether to investigate the uses of torture? Are we trying to decide whether it's okay to torture at all? All of the above are part of the debate but there doesn't seem to be any purpose to it.
Part of the problem is that our national identity is at best fractured, and at worst non-existent. Debating our values is not new. However, we haven't set any parameters for this debate. As a country, we can't seem to decide whether torture is okay. If we can't be honest about that question, I don't see much use in discussing anything else. Hell, we don't even know what torture is, let alone whether it's an sensible policy.
The notion of "torture" is something we have, at times, rejected in theory. The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments". However, to my knowledge this applies only to citizens, and not surprisingly there is disagreement over which punishments are "cruel and unusual". The United States has also ratified the Third Geneva Convention which prohibits torture or prisoners, among other humanitarian concerns. It follows then, that at least as of 1949, the United States prohibited torture. There are many ways to torture a person, and again, these techniques are not specifically outlined. Presumably, we know it when we see it. Alternatively, even though we may see it, without specific techniques being outlawed, it's possible to define a particular technique as not being torture. Or, we can create a new type of prisoner of war who is not a real prisoner of war, such as an "enemy combatant" on the account that they aren't uniformed military. Thus, we don't need the Geneva Conventions at all.
I believe that the means by which such determinations were made will eventually be revealed. The people who sanctioned torture will probably be held to account in some way, even if it only amounts to public shaming and historical disgrace. The problem as I see it, goes beyond these specific offenses and enters the realm of our values as a nation; our national identity. Regardless of whether any particular technique is torture, and the legal end-runs that were created to get around the Geneva Conventions, do we want the United States government to behave like this? Another way to put it is "Do we wish to behave like this?" Despite what some righties would have us believe, we ARE the government. When the CIA tortures, we torture. I may not be John Yoo, but he served the Presidential Administration of the country to which I belong. I didn't vote for Bush, but I didn't leave either. We're all in this together.
Americans tend to believe that America is the "best country in the world", a phenomenon some have referred to as "exceptionalism", and trace back to our Puritan origins. If there are people who find comfort in the belief, then I'd like to know why they believe it to be so. Because of "freedom"? A lot of countries have freedom; even more freedom than us. Because we are a free market economy? Nope, plenty of those around. Because we care for the least of us? Hell, we don't even do that. Because God has placed us here? Because we can buy almost anything we want, often without having to pay for it? Because the second amendment allows us to keep nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles in our garages?
Human rights is rarely mentioned as a reason why America is "exceptional". Unfortunately, human rights has become code for "weakness" by those who believe America to be exceptional. If one group of people chooses to not talk about human rights because another group of people will say they are "wussies", then our moral bearing is clearly dysfunctional. Some will justify torture if it is deemed to keep us "safe". Others will condemn torture under any circumstance because it's morally wrong. Those most willing to condone torture also happen to be evangelicals. The teachings of Jesus are apparently to be applied only when it's convenient. Sadly, if ever there was a place where Biblical concepts should be considered, this is it. Jesus didn't waver on how his enemies were to be treated.
The most frequently used argument for torture has been that it can produce information which saves lives. This is dubious, but we all imagine ourselves holding some secret that we know we'd reveal under duress. Thus, torture must work. I'm not going to argue the efficacy of torture here. I'm merely questioning whether we wish to define ourselves in this manner? Is torturing people part of what America is about? If we consider torture to be okay (even some of the time), then the world of nations are certainly free to follow our example. When another country gets called on it, they can reply, "But America did it and they didn't get in trouble!" and they won't be asked whether they would also jump off a bridge.
President Obama quoted Winston Churchill in his press conference on April 29, 2009. Obama is obviously conflicted on the issue. He is stuck between wishing to do the right thing as a matter of national principle and accomplishing things that will help people in a tangible way right now (jobs, health care, etc...). Nonetheless, his reference of Churchill best explains the risk posed by our moral equivalency on the issue of torture:
I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day, talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, we don't torture -- when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood you start taking shortcuts, and over time that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
8:00 PM on Tuesday, April 28, 2009
0 Comments
Rock 'N' Roll Has Destroyed Us All
Back in the day, it was fine to grow up and be a teacher, or a construction worker, or a doctor. Rock stars have ruined all of that. I'm convinced that ever since the late 50s, a sizable portion of the world's youth has embarked upon hopelessly deluded and bitter lives due to the notion that they could be rock stars.
It used to be that if someone was famous, they had to do something relatively hard. Becoming the "next Benny Goodman" wasn't an option. All of that changed when rock and roll music came along with its three chords and a lot of shaking. Now almost anyone with a little talent could practice for about a week or so, and play the same three chords, and be exactly the same as Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc...
This situation was made far worse by the "rock star as tortured artist" phenomenon. We have Bob Dylan and John Lennon to blame for that. Ever since the mid-60s, introspective and depressed young males around the world have envisioned themselves as the "next John Lennon" or God forbid the "next Donovan".
Then came the 70s rock star such as Robert Plant. And with it came openness about groupies and orgies. And then punk came along to make rock music even easier and dumber. Jesus Christ, learn a few a chords, scream a bit, and get tons of poon? "Really? Its that easy?! Well to hell with math then!"
Being a rock star became a career option. Of course, being a rock star is not exactly like learning a trade. First of all, there is actually very little demand for rock stars. Secondly, rock stars are random and very attractive; facts ignored by 98% of Sam Ash customers. Consequently, millions (I'll bet) of young people have spent their lives fruitlessly aspiring to be rock stars, and then living out the rest of their lives as bitter old men, angry that they were never discovered and appreciated, and that idiots like Scott Stapp and Fred Durst are banging porn stars and giving long interviews in Rolling Stone espousing all of their political opinions.
Supposedly, blogs were an important factor in the 2008 and 2004 elections. I can't imagine why. I wouldn't trust anything I read in a blog. At least not without doing my own research. This pertains to sentiments with which I agree, and facts that support my positions. There simply is very little reason for a blog to be credible. Reputation doesn't matter because the writers of blogs are usually anonymous. Blogs don't have any practical relevance in their owner's lives so there isn't much reason for even the owners to take them too seriously.
"Ah yes", you say, "But my blog is different. I really KNOW what I'm talking about. I have a political science degree!".
Actually that's what I say. But I'm sure there are others who say the same thing or something similar such as "I have an economics degree", "I AM the President", "I read this one book", "I am a reputable writer on such matters and have proven my credibility over the years with a great volume of well-respected and thoroughly researched analysis". Oh wait. Am I kidding?
On the other hand, should political writing be left only to the well known print journalists, talking heads, and media pundits? That's probably not such a good idea. And before blog world, that is all there was: George Will, Friedman, Kristoff, Krugman, think tank goons, etc... established guys. There's nothing wrong with those guys. I recommend reading them. However, some fresh blood isn't such a bad thing either. Writers at some of the more established "blogs" probably wouldn't have had an outlet in a non-blog world.
Of course, all of the REAL dirt (meaning boring facts with entirely mundane and non-headline-making realities) were and are still in books by people we've never heard of (well, I have heard of couple), journals, and Congressional Quarterly. Thankfully, there are some really good blogs with a lot of useful information such as Simon Johnson's Baseline Scenario and Nouriel Roubini's RGE Monitor. These are basically niche blogs, and they are difficult to read, but they are rewarding. Unfortunately, these blogs aren't the ones making news.
A further problem with blogs is that most are maintained by one person and unless that person does nothing but sit in front of the computer, life will interrupt the blog at some point. It happened to me! There is also the problem of basically burning out (that happened too!) If I had to take a guess, I'd say that blog traffic has significantly dropped in recent months. That's another way of saying that since the election, "who cares?". We're either happy or sad. Your guy either won or lost. And that's it. Burning, righteous indignation is difficult to come by without a constant source of insane lies such as those in elections.
Alarming as it may be, newspapers are getting smaller and smaller and will probably disappear entirely within the next decade. It's frightening to me. Blogs will be all we have. Notwithstanding the editorial concerns, the political blog is boring beast. If it is too interesting, then it's probably filled with lies and garbage and could suddenly disappear! I think its fair to say that the same can be said of the actual readers of political blogs. Not you. Other people.
In the case of this blog, it will continue to be what it has been in it's current incarnation. Probably. So there will be political posts whenever I feel sufficiently righteous and/or knowledgeable (which is often the same thing, to be honest). However, take it with a grain of salt. Take it ALL with a grain of salt.
Stay tuned next time for a post about the taste of dog poop.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
7:58 PM on Thursday, April 23, 2009
0 Comments
Shake A Hand
President Obama has come under some criticism for shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and warmly greeting him. I don't know how much time I should spend on these criticisms because they are all coming from politicians trying to score points with the base of their party. I would take the criticism more seriously if it came from real experts in foreign relations.
The only reason this is even news is because media outlets like conflict. The conflict is more important than the worth of the news. Newt Gingrich's comments are meant to provoke:
"Frankly, this does look a lot like Jimmy Carter. Carter tried weakness, and the world got tougher and tougher, because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators – when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Gingrich said on Fox & Friends.
"I think it sends a terrible signal to all of Latin America, and a terrible signal about how the new administration regards dictators," Gingrich said on Fox, also citing Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran, his handling of North Korea and overtures to the Castro government in Cuba. "I don’t think there’s any downside to talking to him. But I think being friends, taking a picture that clearly looks like they’re buddies hurts in all of Latin America."
This is hardly reasoned foreign policy analysis. This is run of the mill Republican Party pablum about how Democrats are weak. Gingrich would even have us believe that Obama's friendly handshake indicated a friendship. Dick Cheney (and others) also weighed in along similar lines. However, if Cheney thinks that what Obama is doing is wrong, then he must think the Bush Administration's approach is right. Yet, in the wake of the Bush presidency we don't have better relations with any country, let alone the ones that might wish us harm. As far as I know, neither Gingrich nor Cheney claim that our international relations improved during the Bush Administration. Their failure to do so merely indicates that they don't believe what they're saying and wish to score political points. In Cheney's case, he's attempting to defend himself. He should be fly fishing in Wyoming.
Oops, I digressed into critique. This is exactly what they want. Prominent republicans say a bunch of offensive nonsense knowing that it will be reported all over cable news and the internet. At some point, it will be claimed that the reporting on these foreign policy pronouncements was "filtered through a liberal bias". Even if that's true, it doesn't matter. What matters is that news organizations made the decisions to have these guys on their shows and then repeat it over and over again. Everybody wins. If there is any liberal bias, it's all the better for Republicans. They love liberal bias.
When the Obama Administration innitially announced that the Justice Department would not prosecute CIA operatives who performed acts of torture I was sympathetic to the decision. I'm not sure that I'm not still sympathetic to that decision. However, it has recently come out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in the month of March 2003 (he was captured on March 1, 2003), while Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002 (he was captured on March 28, 2002).
The Office Of Legal Counsel was very precise in it's prescribed application of torture techniques. A generous reading would suggest that while harsh interrogation was used, every attempt was made to mitigate physical harm. The memos are very specific about how to use waterboarding for instance:
Two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water application
The application of all the techniques were outlined in this manner. I don't know how these limits were determined. I doubt scientific studies were used to determine when a specific technique went from very uncomfortable to torture. Doctors were on hand just in case something went wrong, which is unusual in itself.
I'm going to work from the assumption that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc... were not looking for ways to torture people just for the fun of it. I'm going to assume that they believed the application of the techniques was necessary. They signed off on the guidelines presented by the Office Of Legal Counsel. However, they most likely did not sign off on waterboarding anyone 183 times in a single month. Even if the technique produced useful information, how could it continue to produce so much information that a daily regime of five or more waterboardings was required?
It would seem to me that if the technique was going to work, it would work relatively quickly. The information attained would then either be useful or not. After the application of waterboarding, how was it known that there was more information to be had? It isn't like hitting the back of ketchup bottle. I can understand a limited application of a particular technique, but 183 applications makes me think that something went seriously wrong. This leads me to those who were directly in charge of the interrogation and/or application of the enhanced interrogation. These are the people President Obama has decided to not prosecute. If I am correct that those at the highest level of the Bush Administration were not sadistic, then I can't see how those who performed the torture did not abuse the directions outlined in the memos. If that's the case, then the justification for not prosecuting fails. At the very least, a full investigation is necessary.
I think that the "right" thing to do here is investigate the entire process from beginning to end and prosecute those who broke the law, including top administration officials if necessary. Unfortunately, what is "right" is not politically "right". The politics of this issue make it nearly impossible for President Obama to pursue past crimes without grinding his administration and agenda to a halt. Republicans should relish the possibility of this fight. Obama's presidency would become engulfed with investigations and lawsuits.
A full accounting of what happened should be done. However, seeking prosecutions at every level doesn't seem wise. I think prosecutions might be in order for those who violated the terms outlined under the Bush Administration though. However, even this might be enough to swamp Obama's presidency. The "183" really seems grossly wrong to me. I simply don't know what to recommend at this point. No matter what Obama does, someone is going to be angry. The pragmatist in Obama leads me to believe that he'd rather upset his base than Republicans on the premise that reader of DailyKOS will not be voting for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney in 2012. In addition, if Obama can deliver on Health Care, the left will be thrilled. I don't think this is moral, but pragmatism might be the best plan of action for now. I'd much rather see Universal Health Care happen than prosecution of former Bush Administration officials and CIA Operative.
Underlying the issue of whether to investigate and prosecute those involved with torture is pure partisan politics. That's an issue for another day.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
7:13 PM on Sunday, April 19, 2009
1 Comments
Only Anger Holds Us Together
I happened to notice a small gathering of folks in my local burgh. A man was speaking in the rain, proclaiming that it was time to "get government out of our back pockets" and give the power back to "the people". He received moderate applause with this line and others like it. There were maybe a few hundred people standing around, mostly passersby at lunch. A bunch of others had some fantastic signs with messages such as "President Fail", "Honk If I'm Paying Your Mortgage", and "Obama Socialist Pig". Yes, I ran into a "Tea Party". My normal reaction to this sort of thing is untempered rage. However, I tried to take my hate hat off and put my political science hat on and think sensibly.
These tea party events are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble". That goes for you and me. The Constitution is silent about the merits of assembling. The reason behind assembling doesn't have to be rational or intelligible or "smart". The assembled persons require no education. They can be ignorant in every way. Nothing stands in the way of the right of humans in the United States to assemble. I can't modify that right without dipping my toe in the water of despotism.
These people aren't completely without principle though. Regardless of what they say about "taxes" and "big government", their principle is "angry". In this sense, I'm not so different from the tea-baggers. We're all mad and we don't like what we see. No one likes to bailout banks and give their executives big bonuses. No one likes enormous debt. The tea-baggers and I are actually observing the same country, in peril. However, we are angry about fundamentally different things. I heard this little exchange on the radio:
Reporter: Why are you holding that sign? Tea-bagger: I think he's a fascist. Reporter: Why? Tea-bagger: Because he is.
That doesn't make me angry at all.
The man with that "fascist" Obama sign didn't know what fascism was. He knew the word, and that it meant something bad, and that was good enough for him. The funny thing about all of this is that I think I now understand how all those righties felt after 9/11. Sometime around, say the next day, many persons of my political leanings were back to normal. Meanwhile all I kept hearing was "nothing will ever be the same". Everything was the same for me on 9/12. I thought the war on terror was stupid because we could never win a war against a tactic. I felt no urge to "strike back". I thought going into Afghanistan was a disaster waiting to happen. Unsurprisingly, I was against Iraq altogether. The NSA surveillance programs, harsh interrogation, and re-interpreting the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war were abominations to me. I didn't think there was a threat after 9/11. There was a fairly significant threat on 9/10, but 9/12? Not so much. I wasn't the only person who thought these things. My like was referred to as "traitor" and "unpatriotic" by many on the right who were seemingly confounded that the Bush Administration was criticized.
Now, I look at the situation with the economy and it confounds me that those right wingers don't take it seriously. Unemployment is higher than it's been in 30 years. Our financial system nearly broke entirely. If the banks had all crashed it would have hit everyone. Yet, the tea-baggers don't think there is a crisis. They don't believe it. They think the crisis is a hoax so that liberals can institute "socialism" or "communism" or "fascism", etc... I think we're in the midst of one of the largest national emergencies this county has ever faced, but my right-leaning fellow countrymen are cheesed off about taxes, even though a tax cut was just enacted.
These views are diametrically opposed. We're all angry, but our sense about what is important is completely different. It's not a matter of one side being right or wrong. It doesn't matter because everyone is allowed to be heard (and vote), if they choose. Again, there aren't any requirements to do those things. They are "rights". What is sort of alarming is that we see the world in such different ways. I don't care that much about terrorism. Tea-baggers don't care about losing their health care. That is a core psychological difference. I don't know how we'll survive as a country when our differences are so vast. My guess is that only anger is holding us together.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
1:00 PM on Wednesday, April 15, 2009
2 Comments
Cogitive Dissonance In The Age Of Obama
Prior to the election in November, I caused my wife to lose precious sleep as I held forth on the power of the presidency. The gist of my political science lecture was that regardless of who becomes the next president, most of the new powers claimed by the executive branch under George W. Bush would be preserved. The subject at hand was related to the denial of information regarding surveillance activities and treatment of detainees, which was being discussed on CNN. The basis upon which the denials were issued was Bush's exaggerated interpretation of the state secrets privilege, a provision that excludes information from being used in a court of law, if that information is declared "sensitive" and would thus pose a risk to national security. My guess was that not only would this practice be defended, but that it would continue.
It appeared that many Obama supporters assumed that all of the problems with surveillance, interrogation, treatment of detainees, and requests for information would be remedied if Obama won. There were many signs that this would not be the case, but Obama supporters mostly focused on his criticisms of how Bush handled these issues. The problem as I saw it was that historically, the executive branch has not willingly given up power. I doubted this would change if Barack Obama won, regardless of what he said on the campaign trail or truly believed.
Earlier this week it was reported that President Obama has not only defended Bush's precedent, but went further by requiring those who wish to sue the government to display that information attained through surveillance (legal or otherwise) was used improperly. So, while the government may have been listening to your cell phone calls from the grocery store, as long it can't be proven that the government actually did something with those important conversations, then the request for information will be denied. Of course, if it can't be shown that your call was recorded (and it can't), then it can't be shown that the recording was used. Pretty sneaky.
This hasn't been a big news story, but among the civil libertarians, it has raised serious concerns. In fact, rather than reflexively defending Obama, the left wing of the Democratic Party has been very critical whenever Obama has deviated from campaign promises. Voicing criticism is probably the right thing to do, although I can't believe how naive some of these people must be. I wasn't hoping that I'd be proven correct in my assertion about the preservation of presidential power. That's really basic political science stuff. Nonetheless, while my political science nerd knowledge should have taken the edge off of my enthusiasm for President Obama, I have found myself occasionally taken aback by several decisions he has made.
This brings me to the main point of this post. As something of a student of the political process, I don't expect presidents to do all of the things they say in order to win. I even expect them to reverse themselves once in office. On the other hand, I can't defend Obama's interpretation of state secrets. I find myself attempting to rationalize that those things were bad under Bush because Bush was bad, but good as practiced by Obama because Obama is good. This is clearly senseless.
I didn't fully comprehend the amount of cognitive dissonance to which I would be exposed if Obama won the election. How and why Bush expanded the powers of the president is a topic better pursued elsewhere. Suffice it to say, Bush changed what it means to be the president. The presidency is simply different. Barack Obama pursued the office and now he holds that office. That means there will always be a little bit (maybe even a lot) of George Bush in President Obama. Thus, many of us will frequently find ourselves attempting to reconcile our values with the reality that President Obama will do a lot of things I didn't like when Bush did them.
In conclusion, it simply wouldn't be honest, nor even logically possible, to defend Obama because he's "Obama" while criticizing Bush because he's "Bush", because many of their decisions will be the same. Let the inner struggle begin.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
6:17 PM on Wednesday, April 8, 2009
3 Comments
Why I Like President Obama
Let me make this clear: I am a big fan of Barack Obama. I liked him as a politician and a public figure immediately. After reading a great deal about him, watching him deal with the strains of the primary, and listening to him discuss complicated subjects, I concluded that not only was Barack Obama the best choice for president, but that he was ideally suited to be the president at this point in time.
Brother Barack (yes, that's what I call him sometimes) wrote two books. I didn't read either of them until he won the election. I feared that if I read the books, I would become too emotionally invested in the outcome of the election. I was already far too emotionally invested in the outcome. Reading the books was simply not an option.
Following his election, I went ahead and read the books. Actually, I downloaded them and listened to Brother Barack read the books to me while I drove back and forth to work. I made the right decision about not reading the books before the election. I was so impressed with the man after listening to him read his first book, Dreams From My Father, that had he lost it would simply have been unbearable. Among other things, he did voices. Unbelievable. Most importantly however, he revealed himself to be both intellectually intelligent, but also emotionally intelligent. He has the ability to talk to people no matter who they are or what they think. He is a pure pragmatist. He doesn't let pettiness interfere with his interactions with others. Further, in pursuit of a goal, he has the ability to create consensus where it seemed impossible. I think he is able to work with people who hold very different opinions because of his ability to synthesize all of the relevant information about a particular issue without necessarily allowing his bias to get in the way of his goal. An understanding of the big picture, and where the varying opinions lie, allows Obama to operate at a level above almost everyone. Any good psychologist has this skill, particularly those who deal with conflict resolution.
I knew that these interpersonal and intellectual skills would be put to good use. I wasn't wrong. A perfect example occurred just today when President Obama successfully mediated a dispute between French president Nicholas Sarkozy and Chinese president Hu Jintao at the G20 Summit in London. Keep in mind, Obama managed to work with individuals from very different (and difficult) cultures and customs; both different from each other and different from Obama. This could have easily been a disaster. Instead, he pulled it off:
The exchange between Sarkozy and Hu got so heated, said a source -- who is not a member of the Obama administration -- it was threatening the unity of the G-20 leaders' meeting.
But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a "pep talk" about the importance of working together.
The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, "and discussed possible alternatives," the senior official said.
Once they arrived at one, President Obama "sent a message to the Chinese" that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.
So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.
"Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement," the official said. "There was a multiple shaking of hands."
I think that much of the Obama-mania is originates from persons like myself who believe Barack Obama has special skills. Given that he's both human and a politician, he will doubtlessly disappoint us, probably a lot. That's just reality. Nonetheless, given the difficulty of the issues facing this country both domestically and abroad, someone with well-developed interpersonal skills and the ability to synthesize a large volume of information is an asset.
I promise to write something critical about Brother Barack in a later post.
posted by Ant In A Hailstorm at
6:56 PM on Thursday, April 2, 2009
0 Comments
When the Obama Administration innitially announced that the Justice Department would not prosecute CIA operatives who performed acts of torture I was sympathetic to the decision. I'm not sure that I'm not still sympathetic to that decision. However, it has recently come out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in the month of March 2003 (he was captured on March 1, 2003), while Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002 (he was captured on March 28, 2002).
I happened to notice a small gathering of folks in my local burgh. A man was speaking in the rain, proclaiming that it was time to "get government out of our back pockets" and give the power back to "the people". He received moderate applause with this line and others like it. There were maybe a few hundred people standing around, mostly passersby at lunch. A bunch of others had some fantastic signs with messages such as "President Fail", "Honk If I'm Paying Your Mortgage", and "Obama Socialist Pig". Yes, I ran into a "Tea Party". My normal reaction to this sort of thing is untempered rage. However, I tried to take my hate hat off and put my political science hat on and think sensibly. 
