Torture update, big deal.

2 big things are going on in the torture world.

1.  The honorable Judge Garzon of Spain (best known for taking down Augusto Pinochet) is at it again, and I love him for it. The LA Times reports,

A high-profile Spanish judge has initiated a possible investigation of alleged torture and war crimes by half a dozen U.S. officials who created the legal framework for interrogations at Guantanamo, a senior Spanish official said Saturday.

The process has gotten so far, it is scaring the begeezus out of Bush senior staff.  John Yoo and David Addington, two of torture enablers, have recently canceled their Chevy Chase esque European adventure.  Huff post reports quotes from both gentleman that show just how clueless they are to the pain they’ve caused.

“It’s a shame when you have someone who thinks they’re above the law…like Mr. Garzon,” said Addington, “and now two innocent people have to suffer. We had been looking forward to this for years, and now they just want to put us on the rack…I’m speaking metaphorically, of course.”

2.  Today a Federal judge ruled that detainees in Afghanistan are entitled to challenge their detention in US Courts.  The fact that they were unable to challenge their detention before was one of my only disappointments with Obama thus far.  So I’m glad that this has been overturned.  We must stop treating individuals as they have varying value.  We all have equal value in this world — this ruling helps affirm this.  As reported by the NYT,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in court. But the government had argued that it did not apply to those in Afghanistan.

Bates said the cases were essentially the same and he quoted the Supreme Court ruling repeatedly in his judgment and applied the test created by it to each detainee. It is the first time a federal judge has applied the ruling to detainees in Afghanistan.

Who to trust in a world or experts, pundits and bloggers?

The answer:  no one!  A study described in the NYT today, says that “expert” predictions, although they do have a slight impact on public opinion are no better than random guesses. The best part too is that the better name recognition with this expert, the more likely they were to be wrong!  Sigh…who can we trust nowadays.  Is Krugman wrong too!?

The expert on experts is Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His 2005 book, “Expert Political Judgment,” is based on two decades of tracking some 82,000 predictions by 284 experts. The experts’ forecasts were tracked both on the subjects of their specialties and on subjects that they knew little about.

The result? The predictions of experts were, on average, only a tiny bit better than random guesses — the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board.

“It made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or access to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience,” Mr. Tetlock wrote.

Indeed, the only consistent predictor was fame — and it was an inverse relationship. The more famous experts did worse than unknown ones. That had to do with a fault in the media. Talent bookers for television shows and reporters tended to call up experts who provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites. People who shouted — like, yes, Jim Cramer!

Looking at things from the other side…AIG.

Not saying that this op-ed in the NYT has made me believe that finance guys deserve the money they make, but admittedly I didn’t think about the story from their side as much as I should have.  The letter is a resignation letter from one VP to the CEO.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

Gamma Omicron Phi – Republicans might as well be a big fraternity.

The Republican party is acting like a sorority or a fraternity lately.  No individual thinking, only collective thinking.  Collective thinking is bad, unless it is collaborative thinking.  The only reason to have one opinion shape a group is to amass power.  Which is exactly what the GOP is doing.  The lovely ladies from Maine helped us out last time and it looked as if Arlen Specter was going to do us a solid this time with the Employee Free Choice Act.  But, he reneged.  Big surprise…  As reported in the Globe,

Big business won a key ally today in its high-stakes fight against the “check-card” bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who was the only Republican to support the bill two years ago, told business groups that he will oppose the measure.

Unions were counting on him as the 60th vote to overcome an expected GOP filibuster. Democrats and two independents who usually vote with them control 58 seats.

This basically kills the bill and drops it in filibuster land.  Not somewhere any of us would like to end up.

Click it and it all makes sense: Geithner plan.

Every once in a while some article comes across my computer screen and makes everything I’ve been hearing about a particular political controversy click.  This FAQ style explanation of Geithner’s plan did just that…check it out and hope it ‘clicks’ for you too!

AIG chieftain representin’ Che.

The fascination with Che in the US is hilarious.  I, along with many of my peers, own a silk screened Che shirt.  I feel a bit ashamed wearing it seeing as if I’m 99.9% pacifist and Che…well, was not.   But, I do consider myself a lover of many things ‘marxist’ and  ‘socialist’ and therefore wear the shirt as an unabashed criticism of capitalism.  So, that is my excuse.  What is the excuse of this AIG big-wig in charge of financial products?  I’m guessing he’s a pretty big fan of capitalism. 

Depression stamps?

The recent death of Sylvia Plath’s son, Nicholas Hughes, has prompted me to rethink my stance on depression.  Depression is an issue I have always grappled with as a progressive woman.  Although compassion is my mantra, I am easily angered by the amount of people in the US consider themselves depressed.  I believe many people could fight off depression if they tried but instead give into it.  I also think that the uptick in people with depression represents our unhealthy obsession with perfection and affluence.  Many times, instead of taking control of their psyche, people instead turn to the medicine cabinet.

My less cynical side reminds me though, that depression is a clinical syndrone with marked characterisitcs and possible genetic predispositions.  Many people can not just become ‘undepressed’ with some positive thinking.  After reading the article in the Boston Globe about depression in the Hughes/Plath family I am starting to believe that in the spirit of being ‘our brother’s keeper’ we should start looking at depression in the same way we look like poverty.  There should be better social infrastructure to find those people who are in pain because of depression and who have no ‘brother’ to encourage them to find help.  Especially in the PTSD era of today, the government should institute new policies from a public health perspective that will help impoverished people and veterans seek and find affordable psychological care.

Nuevo Mexico, dijo ‘NO’ al ejecución

With roots along the Rio Grande flood plain, I am extremely proud of my home state today.  Governor Richardson has shone himself to be an extremely principled person and he continues to do so today.  Gov. Richardson has repealed the death penalty in New Mexico and by doing so makes an incredibly valid point.  He is not anti-death penalty in all cases, but he is made uncomfortable by the finality of such a decision.  He says in his official statement,

Once a conclusive decision has been made and executed, it cannot be reversed. And it is in consideration of this, that I have made my decision.

I have decided to sign legislation that repeals the death penalty in the state of New Mexico.

Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.

But the reality is the system is not perfect – far from it. The system is inherently defective. DNA testing has proven that. Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country.

I agree with Gov. Richardson and would add one more reason.  In a world of malicious criminals who blow up buses and trains on a semi-regular basis we must stand firmly on the other side.  We must affirm that killing is wrong, regardless of why we are killing and we must accept that we have an imperfect moral judgment system and criminal judgment system.  By concluding that peace is better than war, and that life is better than death is the only way to regain respect as a just nation.

Obama, from “Socialist” to Populist

Both words sounds almost dirty…but why?  Socialism I get — history marred the image of socialism forever probably.  But why are people afraid of populism?  It seems logical to believe that populism and democracy are one in the same.  Even wikipedia supports this assertion,

Populism is a discourse which claims to support “the people” versus “the elites”. Populism may comprise an ideology urging social and political system changes and/or a rhetorical style deployed by members of political or social movements. Generally, populism invokes an idea of democracy as being solely the expression of the people’s will.

But in the few years I’ve followed Presidential politics, it has become clear that Populism and Democracy are not one in the same.  Democracy means that you have a vote — if you’re a citizen, well-off enough to not have to work on voting day, or educated enough to know how to use absentee ballots.  A vote doesn’t really mean ‘power.’  In fact, it means you only have power so long as you have not yet cast your vote.  After that the power is put back into the hands of the few (the few who have lots of $$), not the many.

So if populism puts the power in the people, not in the hands of a the elites than it can not be equal to democracy.  But on the contrary, good democratic governance should be one informed and motivated by the populace.  President Obama is doing just this, letting public opinion sway his agenda — just as it should.  Some in the highest echelons of government think that this is a “dangerous” road.  David Sirota, on OpenLeft, elegantly points out why this is hooey,

There’s been a lot of silly talk in Washington about the “dangers” of political populism. The storyline goes that Congress is prone to overreact in a populist manner to economic crises. Of course, nobody making these claims has a single example of that happening. It’s just standard fact-free Beltway bromide – a narrative that sounds plausible, even if there’s actually no evidence that it’s true.

However, I do believe that if today’s burgeoning populism in our politics is going to be driven by public “anger” (another word the Beltway media likes to use to denigrate the public when the public demands something), that anger will come from a public that sees the Establishment go on television and tell the country that AIG executives taking home taxpayer-financed million-dollar bonuses are actually “middle class.”

My only issue with President Obama being so populist, is that he is pretending like his agenda is his own and that he would have tried to roll back the bonuses on his own.  But Larry Summers came out just a few days ago and said that they were not planning on abrogating any contracts.  As the point has been well made in the media, there would be not bonuses if the US Treasury hadn’t have stepped in.  So, no company, no bonuses — new owner, new contract.

Getting fishy in the White House.

These past two days have been uncomfortable in politics.  The tone towards AIG has changed incredibly fast.  Politicians are taking a populist p.o.v. and Geithner is acting like he couldn’t have prevented this when he helped write the last loan contract.

Regardless, I think the administration is doing the right thing – I just wish it hadn’t come to this.  It all feels a little like a cover up at this point.  OpenLeft breaks down the flip-flopping here.  David Sirota breaks it down,

As I said yesterday, the White House is creating a serious economic credibility gap for itself – the idea that it cannot stop these bonuses at a company that taxpayers own is just absurd on its face. And this constantly changing message makes me wonder – WTF is going on? Who is in charge in the White House – the president or his economic team? And do these people really expect Americans to believe that nothing can be done to stop these bonuses?  

Steele makes it so easy…another ‘gotcha’ moment.

In an hard hitting interview in GQ magazine (the political powerhouse that they are) Michael Steele stole the maverick label from Gov. Palin by asserting that abortion rights are an individual choice.  As reported by Reuters,

In an interview with GQ magazine, the Republican National Committee chairman described abortion as an “individual choice” and said individual states should decide its legality.  Those comments, predictably, have drawn a sharp rebuke from other Republican leaders who say he should stick to the party’s core position that abortion should be outlawed nationwide.

Unfortunately for Steele, that single moment of honesty and logic might as well be the final nail in his coffin.  As Ezra Klein says,

Steele’s sound and solid reasoning would be unremarkable coming from almost any other American. But coming from the head of a party that in modern times has had at its very core a strident opposition to abortion, it is a heresy and will be received as such. Steele will be hounded from his job. It is hard to envision any explanation that would save him from the wrath of the extreme right.

Since then, Steele has come out with a statement he clearly was politically forced to put out.  $100 he didn’t write it.

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a “choice” before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

I’m taking bets of when Steele will be forced to resign.  I’d put $50 bucks on before June 1st.

Mike Lux: The Progressive Revolution

I had the pleasure of hearing Mike Lux speak this past Wednesday night at the Cambridge Democracy Center, courtesy of Drinking Liberally Cambridge.  I had started reading his book that same day and was impressed by the accessibility of his prose.  His book, The Progressive Revolution, leaves out the leftist intellectual vocab and plainly says what being a progressive or a conservative actually means.  His clarity is refreshing in a world of political correctness and cautious bi-partisanality.  In the introduction he defines the ‘Conservative Argument’ and the ‘Progressive Argument.’

The Conservative Argument in his words,

Successful businessmen and their allies make America great, and we should not undermine their authority or cost them money because that will mean bad things for the economy and all of us.  Their freedom to run things as they like benefits everyone in the long run.  

Just a year ago, conservatives would have adhered to that postulate.  So, in the grand scheme of life and America maybe it was good that the securities market busted.  How else we would have been able to ultimately say, capitalism is not the answer!  It failed, even the old school Financial Times said it.  He then goes on to explain why conservatives think we should keep traditional values, “once we tamper with tradition, society goes to hell.”  Lastly, he takes the most infuriating of all conservative arguments, “If people are poor it’s probably their own fault because they are too lazy to work, didn’t study in school, and are generally bad people.”  This is the most upsetting of all conservative values I believe.  How have we become so judgmental of those not as privileged?

Then he goes on to describe the progressive movement as one that believes all men were created equal but are not equal because of the current stratification and why we believe that we should all run the government…not just the elites.  Darn straight!

The point of the book isn’t to define conservatives and liberals — it is to explain how a few moments in our history have changed everything and that the moments we now revere were progressive ones.  Suffrage, the New Deal, and Civil Rights to name a few.  It really is a history book with a leftist vibe.  

I was in a awe of Mike Lux when I met him and enjoy following his thoughts on his blog at the Huffington Post as well as on OpenLeft.com.  He also generously offered his support of LadyProgress and wrote an extremely nice excerpt about me in his latest post. Read it here.  So, thank you, thank you Mike Lux for teaching me through your book and inspiring me through our conversation.  I look forward to staying in touch with you in the future.  Keep up the good fight !

Meghan McCain “I consider myself a progressive Republican”

After watching Meghan McCain on the campaign trail I never thought I would agree with a lot she has to say in her blog for the Daily Beast.  But she really does seem like a progressive Republican (which I previously thought to be a oxymoron).  Plus she is a great voice for the conservative youth which has a new agenda, different than their older counterparts.  Meghan talks about how this new progressive Republican ideology differs.

I am sure most extreme conservatives and extreme liberals would find me a confusing, walking contradiction. But I assure you, there are many people out there just like me who represent a new, younger generation of Republicans.

I’m often criticized for not being a “real” Republican, and I have been called a RINO—Republican In Name Only—in the past. Many say I am not “conservative enough,” which is something that I am proud of. It is no secret that I disagree with many of the old-school Republican ways of thinking. One of the biggest issues from which I seem to drift from the party base is in my support of gay marriage. I am often criticized for previously voting for John Kerry and my support of stem-cell research. For the record, I am also extremely pro-military and a big supporter of the surge and the Iraq war.

I also love that she is talking smack about Ann Coulter.  Now I believe in Meghan’s semi-sanity ever more!

To make matters worse, certain individuals continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Republicans. Especially Republican women. Who do I feel is the biggest culprit? Ann Coulter. I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time.

I  did however find many of Meghan’s musings rather sophomoric, sorry Meg.  Especially her views on dating people of the opposite party — something I’m pretty adamant about and something that she thinks is just plain stupid.  I’m adamant about it because I pay attention to the party line of the RNC and the DNC.  I don’t agree with everything the DNC says, but I am unable to think anything the RNC says makes sense or is ethical.  How can you like someone who you don’t think is ethical?

The election killed my personal life.  OK, maybe killed is a bit of an exaggeration. But it does seem to be on life support. Of all the things people warned would happen post-election, no one ever said anything about how complicated dating would become. Especially if your dad loses the election. There are things that have been difficult, but nothing quite as tough as dating. I fear the election has destroyed my ability and desire to date. Now, I cannot say at any point in my life that I have been very good at dating. But I have become something I used to despise: people who let politics dictate his or her attraction to someone.

I am a person that has always prided myself on keeping politics out of my relationships. I think I would have probably graduated from Columbia friendless had I made politics a focal point in any of my friendships during college. I have many friends who openly voted for Barack Obama (many of them also didn’t). Who my friends voted for is of no concern to me. I am adult enough to understand that people vote for their own personal reasons, and I know how personal politics can be to someone.

Of course politics are personal, so personal that they should play a big role in your choosing of friends and mates.

Steele — Amusing or embarrasing?

Watching Michael Steele fumble around, making more waves than any other RNC chair has been rather amusing.  Just glad I’m not a GOPer because then it would just be embarrassing.  At least lately he is recognizing his errors…kind of.  A Washington Post article reports,

Interviewed on NBC’s “Today” yesterday, Steele said his job is to balance the views of many figures in the party and acknowledged that “I wasn’t that effective at it this week.”

I still don’t think he really gets what the chair is supposed to do.  He needs to be uniting, embracing, and following the party line.  Instead he is making news that fits better in People than in Time.

His critics say Steele, a longtime conservative guest on talk shows, still shoots from the hip like an activist instead of carefully measuring his words as a party leader. One day he is musing on primary challenges to moderate GOP senators who voted for the economic stimulus package; another day he’s slamming Limbaugh, the critics say.

Great — well ‘critics’ can you go ahead and make sure he got the non-confrontational to GOP friends memo?  Maybe he needs to watch Howard Dean for a while — he’s the pro.  Listening to him talk about Hillary and Barack and who would be best was like asking a mom which of her kids she loved more?

Lastly, I really wish he, and Jindal for that matter, would make some public homage to Pres. Obama.  I honestly never thought the three most talked about people in the Republican party this winter would be a black guy, an indian guy and…well, I guess Rush kind of breaks the pattern.  But we all know, there is no way Steele would have won otherwise.  It was a clear sign on the GOP’s part to say, ‘hey, we’re hip, we have black friends too.’

Stop wasting time and start making progress

Some would say, how isn’t the government wasting time?  But as someone who’s seen public officials at work, I believe that the government is working a lot harder then we think.  Recently though, the younger generation has noticed a great deal of wasted time spent on either side of a very immature battle.  The battle is one we all know too well by now, the fight over gay marriage.  We have reason to hope for new progress again today, and as per usual the news is from Massachusetts.  The Globe reports ,

Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages filed a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

For the last 8 years, I’ve seen myself on one side of this debate and seen others (mainly from the GOP)  opposing me and other pro-civil rights young people.  Now, in the Obama-era I have been naively pretending as if we are all on the same side of a battle.  But there are still sides in this battle and the youth, who are some of the most responsible for Pres. Obama’s recent success, are tired of this issue.

Young people overwhelming grew up in a world with a “sexual spectrum.”  We don’t care who you’re dating, as long as we don’t want to date them too !  But somehow, someone got us into this mess by playing into the petty demands of rich, social conservatives who probably themselves have ‘sinned’ a time or two.  Who could have gotten us into this legal mess?

The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse’s last name on a passport.

Wait a second, Pres. Clinton wasn’t the messiah?  With the last 8 years of horrible policy and discriminatory practices it is easy to look back at ’92-’00 as a time of hope and progressive policy.  But that isn’t exactly what happened.  Clinton was a centrist, he loved being loved — and still does.  It is just unfortunate that now, instead of respect, gays and lesbians have to fight for common human rights.  The right to prosper is our nation and receive health care that their partner is paying for.

This issue is tired, and we are tired of it.  Why do social conservatives spend their time on this instead of on social programs?  Can they ever speak to why they really care?  In their eyes won’t God take care of everything?  I hope Obama takes a moment to speak out about this issue — so we can stop running in circles.

I hate hearing about this issue because I keep hoping we are better than this.  But we aren’t…yet.