Terrorists Win When Fear Forces Us to Torture

The following blog, "Chruchill vs Cheney," by Andrew Sullivan may have been the one President Obama was referring to in his 4/29 press conference, but whether it is or not, it reminds us some leaders stand tall and others cave in to fear.

Churchill vs Cheney

[Re-posted] The West has been attacked many times before by barbarians. As someone who grew up in Southern England between London and the Channel, this was perhaps more obvious to me than to some Americans. In the countryside around my home, there were still occasional concrete constructions designed to impede Nazi tanks left rotting in the woods. My high-school playground retained its air-raid shelters (we stored our dirty books there). My great aunt was blind in one eye from a bomb blast in the blitz; my grandfather lived with a brain injury when he was a prison guard in the war and was attacked by a prison inmate during an air-raid; my mother was knocked over by the impact of a rocket at the end of the war; my parents and aunts and uncles were evacuated. Most ordinary people lived through the Blitz, a random 9/11 a week, from an army poised to invade, and turn England's democratic heritage into a footnote in a Nazi empire.

As all that was happening, and as intelligence was vital, the British captured over 500 enemy spies operating in Britain and elsewhere. Most went through Camp 020, a Victorian pile crammed with interrogators. As Britain's very survival hung in the balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting. The chief interrogator at Camp 020 was someone out of the movies:

Colonel Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens was the commander of the wartime spy prison and interrogation centre codenamed Camp 020, an ugly Victorian mansion surrounded by barbed wire on the edge of Ham Common. In the course of the war, some 500 enemy spies from 44 countries passed through Camp 020; most were interrogated, at some point, by Stephens; all but a tiny handful crumbled.

Stephens was a bristling, xenophobic martinet; in appearance, with his glinting monocle and cigarette holder, he looked exactly like the caricature Gestapo interrogator who has “vays of making you talk”.

Stephens had ways of making anyone talk. In a top secret report, recently declassified by MI5 and now in the Public Records Office, he listed the tactics needed to break down a suspect: “A breaker is born and not made . . . pressure is attained by personality, tone, and rapidity of questions, a driving attack in the nature of a blast which will scare a man out of his wits.”

The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form.

Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. “Figuratively,” he said, “a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet.” But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: “The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner.”

Stephens did not eschew torture out of mercy. This was no squishy liberal: the eye was made of tin, and the rest of him out of tungsten. (Indeed, he was disappointed that only 16 spies were executed during the war.) His motives were strictly practical. “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”...

Torture is the weapon of cowards and bullies and monsters. Cheney is all three. Prosecute him.

Equal Pay Day

Today, April 28, is "Equal Pay Day" -- the day to which the average woman must work in 2009 in order to match the average man's earnings in 2008. If you see this as a problem, tell your senator to support President Obama's "Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 182."

BYOB

Have you ever wondered what happens to all (500 billion to a trillion) of those plastic bags we use?

If you think, like I did, that most of them are recylced, you would be wrong. Only 1% are recycled because it costs more to recycle one than it costs to produce a new one.

So what happens to them? Many, of course, go to landfills; but our landfills are not overwelhmed with them because as a 1975 study (US Academy of Sciences) showed that oceangoing vessels dumped over 8 million pounds of plastic annually. And we can be certain that over 30 years later that number has increased. Plastic bags have been found floating north of the Artic Circle near Spitzbergen, and as far south as the Falkland Islands. (British Antarctic Survey)  Ten per cent of the debris washed up on the US coastline consists of plastic bags.

The effect on wildlife has been deadly. 200 different species of sea life (whales, dolphins, seals, and turtles) die because of plastic bags which they mistake for food. On the other hand, smaller sea life and birds become entangled in the bags and also die.

Plastic bags are photodegradable; over time they break down into smaller, more toxic petro-polymers--not something we need in our environment.

Since each one of us uses 288 plastic bags a year, avoiding their use is a simple effort an individual can make to improve our environment.  And, since paper bags also result in using a valuable natural resource, the obvious solution is reusable cloth bags.

Plastic bags are made of petroleum based products. China, for example,  has banned free plastic bags, and they predict that this will save 37 million barrels of oil each year.

Consider BYOB--bring your own bag (reusable cloth bags, of course).

The Catholic League: An Insult to Catholics

William Donahue, the President of the Catholic League,  is once again trying to tell American Catholics what movies they should and should not see. His latest decree is that Catholics should boycott Dan Brown's and Ron Howard's recent movie, Angels and Demons, because it and they are "against all things Catholic."

If you read the book you know it is an exciting mystery, set in spectacular Rome. Professor Robert Langdon works with the Catholic Church to stop a vicious attack on the Vatican. If it were anti-Catholic, one would expect Langdon to be the one attacking the Vatican, rather than defending it. 

Be that as it may, the important point that Donahue and his kind seem to miss is that this is a work of fiction. Whether the Illuminati ever existed or not is beside the point. (Is it important that the Jedi never existed?)  It is an intriguing mystery; in my humble opinion, better than the DaVinci Code. It is not a history of Catholicism or the Vatican, and the readers are well aware of that. 

 Mr. Donahue, who uses the Catholic League as his podium, wants to tell Catholics what to read and what to see. That is an insult to any conscientious Catholic. Does he think we are incapable of making informed decisions? Does he want issue a new Index of Forbidden Books?

Perhaps the whole concept of the Catholic League has outlived its usefulness. Historically there was a time when anti-Catholicism had wide appeal in the US,  and like other religious groups, the Catholic Church felt the need to defend itself with an anti-defamation league. All organizations tend to perpetuate themselves although their original raison d' etre no longer exists. Now that there seems to be little need for this anti-defamation league, Mr. Donahue seems to be intent on perpetuating the Catholic League by turning it into an institution that tells Catholics what to think. Just what we need; someone else telling us what to think. After all, we have talk radio for that.

The Office of Film and Broadcast (successor to the Legion of Decency) has made a point of clarifying the point that The Catholic League "is not an official agency of the church." Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, points out that "Bill Donohue's perpetual bullying serves to remind us that he has no official capacity in the Catholic Church. The crudeness of the criticism he levels every week at the millions of Catholics who support Senator Obama is the starkest illustration of the fact that Bill Donohue speaks for no one but himself." (6/10/2009). The People for the American Way list The Catholic League among "Right Wing Organizations."

A Jesuit priest, James Martin, an assistant editor of the Catholic magazine, America, writes, "Often their criticism is on target, but frequently [The Catholic League] speaks without seeing or experiencing what they are critiquing, and that undercuts their credibility. Unfortunately, that type of response gives people the idea that the Catholic Church is unreflective."

Except for Bill Donohue, who receives $340'000 a year to tell us what to think, I suspect the rest of us Catholics would be better off without The Catholic League.

The Farts Just Keep Coming

Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, appearing on ABC's This Week,  in yet another attempt to downplay global warming, suggested cow farts as a cause of the increased levels of carbon dioxide.

But he is not the first Republican congressman to be concerned with animal flatulence. Dana Rohrbacher claimed that an earlier climate change may have been caused by "dinosaur flatulence."

Let Them Jump

The International Olympic Committee, in its ongoing lack of understanding, has decided that one group of world-class athletes cannot participate in the Winter Olympics at Vancouver because they are women. The women in question participate around the world in ski-jumping. 

The convoluted reasoning of the IOC seems to suggest that women are at greater risk of injury than the men. Wasn't that the same sort of argument they used in their attempt to prevent women from competing in the Olympic marathon? Now, in the Boston Marathon for example, the women in the race generate more interest than the men.

Also, of interest is the fact that a US woman ski jumper, Lindsey Vay, holds the record for the longest jump of males and females on the so-called "normal hill" which is to be used at the Vancouver Games.

The IOC's decision smacks of outright gender discrimination--not a good example for aspiring athletes.

Vatican: US Religious Women Should Shut Up

As a Catholic who was cared for in a hospital staffed by nuns and received an excellent education in a rural school staffed by nuns, I am dismayed that the Vatican finds it necessary to launch "an inquiry" into the adherence of US Catholic women religious to Catholic doctrine.

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, based in Silver Springs, Md., is made up of 1,500 nuns in leadership positions and represents 95% of the country's 67,000 nuns. Apparently, these leaders have held conferences at which speakers have voiced opinions contrary to the policies of the Vatican,  and now the Curia wishes to put a stop to it. Granted that the nuns have always known that the Church is not democratic and that free speech and open discussion, cherished by Americans and protected by the Bill of Rights,  worries the Pope and his cohorts in the Vatican, they nevertheless had reason to believe that,  after the Second Vatican Council, their church had moved beyond the days of Inquisitions and the Index of Forbidden Books. But they may have failed to realize that,  after the mysterious death of Pope John Paul I, the Vatican has been trying to take our church back to the Pius XII era.

According the The National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Levada cited three areas of concern: 1) promoting the ordination of women, 2) salvation - or lack thereof - through Christ alone, and 3) "the problem of homosexuality." Is the Vatican suggesting that US Religious Leaders -women or men- should not be able to discuss these three issues? Or should the male clergy discuss them and should the women just shut up?

The week after Easter, the Vatican announced that Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, OH, was chosen to lead a doctrinal investigation of LCWR. His appointment was opposed by the national Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "It rubs salt into already deep and still-fresh wounds, of both victims and Catholics, each time the Pope gives more responsibility to a bishop with a terrible track record on child sex abuse and cover-up," said Barbara Dorris, SNAP's outreach director.

Perhaps, the Vatican does not see the irony of a male-dominated hierarchy investigating the discussions of Female Catholic Religious Orders. While these women were teaching the young, caring for the sick, serving the poor, fighting social injustice, and observing their vows, their male counterparts were covering-up child sex-abuse perpetrated by priests.

Once again, the only conclusion is that Pope Benedict and his allies in the Vatican wish to slam the door on that "breath of fresh air" generated by Pope John XXIII's Second Vatican Council.

Give It Up, Norm

Although a Minnesota court ruled unanimously that Al Franken won the US Senate race by 312 votes in an election that was "conducted fairly, impartially, and accurately," the Republican candidate, Norm Coleman, insists on dragging out the process by appealing to the State Supreme Court. All of which appears to be a delaying tactic to keep the winner, Al Franken, from taking his seat and voting in the Senate. Does Mr. Coleman not realize that the manner in which a candidate handles defeat reveals more about his character than the manner in which he handles victory? Perhaps, a man who cannot admit defeat gracefully does not belong in public office.

And, to make matters worse, one of the Supreme Court Justices with a serious conflict of interest has not recused himself.  Justice Dietzen contributed to Norm Coleman's campaign on two occasions and also served as the campaign attorney for Republican Govenor Pawlenty's 2002 campaign. Two other justices have recused themselves because they served on the State Canvassing Board. If they felt their affiliation with the State Canvassing Board was a conflict of interest, surely being a Republican campaign attorney and donating to the campaign of Coleman is a much more serious conflict of interest.

Unfortunately, it appears to be all about delaying Franken from joining his fellow Democrats in the US Senate.  This is another piece of the Republican committment to obstructionism.

Cable Rates Continue to Rise

In many places, an annual rite of spring is an increase in cable TV rates. Frequently the increases are in the 3 to 6% range, and definitely above the rise of the cost-of-living index.

As Consumer Reports (May, 2009) states : "Rates for expanded basic tiers...have spiked122 percent since 1955. ....That's three times the rate of inflation." (Most customers have "expanded basic" service.) One of the causes, according to cable companies,  is that their cost for carrying popular networks like ESPN (provided by Disney) continues to increase. And that may be the case, but the lack of transparency among cable providers means that they want the customer to take their argument on faith. Why not allow the customers to see what it costs the provider for ESPN, Discovery Channel, CNN, etc.? Have the popular networks increased their fees commesurate with the increase of cable rates? Are some of the networks provided free to the cable companies?

Consumers, on the other hand,  are of the opinion that the inordinate increase in cable rates is due to the lack of direct competition. In most places throughout the country, the customer has no alternative. There is only one game in town. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ruled that: 1) basic cable packages would be controlled until cable operators face effective competition (no definition); 2) the rates for "expanded basic" would become unregulated in 1999 (source: OCABR). The problem with this is that consumers are not interested in "basic." They want CNN, ESPN  etc. and that is the "expanded basic" which is now unregulated. These are the rates that have gone crazy. In Findlay, OH, the cost has soared 67% from 1999 to 2007. Dayton customers' rates increased 47 % between 2000 and 2006. In Canton, the increase was 41% between 1999 and 2006. Akron saw an increase of nearly 40% since 2000. (Source: D.S. Katz, Mackinac Center foor Public Policy)

Yet, another example of deregulation helping the corporations at the expense of the consumer!

Hopefully, the FCC will take a second look at what has happened, and pursue a' la carte pricing, which would permit customers to choose the cable-TV-channels they want to watch and only pay for those channels.  

In the absence of true competition, the cable providers should be required to be transparent and allow their customers to choose what they pay for.