Friday freak out

Brought you courtesy of Mother Nature:

G'day!

A louse that replaces a fish's tongue.

Links

• Wikipedia
• Picture source

Read a M@#$@$%ng book!

Tortuous

Today for your delectation, I offer the coherent tirade Andrew Sullivan (an ex-conservative who has moved leftward...and leftfield) who writes an open letter to "Dear President Bush" . It's a four page rant in which you could easily ignore pages 2-3, but encapsulates the (still!!?!) current rage against Dubya as exhibited by most of the mainstream media and about 53% of Americans.

The timing of this column is to provide support for the Obama administration's imminent prosecution of CIA officials and interrogators who were doing their job. More on that later.

"In long wars of ideas, moral integrity is essential to winning, and framing the moral contrast between the West and its enemies as starkly as possible is indispensable to victory, as it was in the Second World War and the Cold War."

There is a well established school of thought that suggests that the moral high-ground is THE only place from which a war can be won, justly, thus the comparison to the greatest ideological battles fought in the 20th century against the default evil of Nazism and the still not dead bad-guy of Communism. Here, the moral high ground was aparently not hard to see (although not so obvious to Charles Lindberg, King Edward VIII of England, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg , Obama's friend William Ayers, etc, etc..) The problem I have with the position: "If we don't have the moral high ground, what do we have?" is what use is the moral high ground if you're dead?

Perhaps the reason this position is logically untenable, is that if you look at diaspora of Western society as a whole including old and new immigrant groups, we are constantly told that no one culture or value set is superior to any other (a notion I explicitly deny). So if there is no one set of morals, or absolute values that is the "correct" way to live, then how can you claim any moral high ground if there is no 'ground'?

"I have come to accept that it would be too damaging and polarizing to the American polity to launch legal prosecutions against you, and deeply unfair to solely prosecute those acting on your orders or in your name. President Obama’s decision thus far to avoid such prosecutions is a pragmatic and bipartisan one in a time of war, as is your principled refusal to criticize him publicly in his first months"

Except that Obama IS moving forward on the prosecutions and despite the so called repeated view that "[CIA interrogators] should not be prosecuted if they acted within legal guidelines laid out at the time" it's pretty clear that the Attorney General could not proceed with the prosecution if Obama didn't want him to. And what about the interrogators that did use illegal methods of torture, yet obtained information that prevented a terrorist attack? Will they roll back the security measures and actions taken? If not, then the current administration are morally complicit and have blood on their hands.

"You have also claimed that defending the security of the United States was the paramount requirement of your oath of office. It wasn’t. The oath you took makes a critical distinction: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country. To abandon the Constitution to save the country from jihadist terrorists was not your job."

"It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country." I may be being naive but what is the point of a constitution if there is no country? The charge that the US Government abandoned the Constitution wholeheartedly at multiple levels is a little hard for me to swallow. And somehow, saving the country from jihadists is exactly what I would expect from the elected leader of a country.

"Western freedom begins with the right to protect one’s own body from government power. That’s what habeas corpus means. What was done to Jose Padilla makes a mockery of that freedom and, in fact, establishes a precedent that, if left in place, could destroy it."

Habeas Corpus is protection for an individual citizen against unlawful imprisonment. The Habeas Corpus Act was adopted by the English Parliament in 1679, and was incorporated into the the US Constitution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.) The full text reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

And even though I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer (IANACL), I am pretty damn sure that this particular clause refers to the group identified in the first six words of the Constitution

"We the People of the United States."

Which would not include most of the current inmates in Guantanamo.

What follows in page 2 and 3 are descriptions of torture, and of course the mandatory inclusion of Abu Ghraib. What happened at Abu Ghraib was despicable, amoral and criminal. And the conflation of Abu and Gitmo is a convenient mash-up of all things American Evil, and photogenically illustrates the depravity of a superpower gone mad, crushing and torturing poor innocent Iraqi farmers in a repurposed Saddamite prison. The ever so slight problem with this is that Abu Ghraib has NOTHING to do with Gitmo, the torture memos, Rumsfield-Cheny-Bushhitler, the Christian Right and the Crusades. It was an aberration, a disgraceful example of what happens when the chain of command breaks down, and redneck hick reservists are left to rule the roost with no oversight.

Abu Ghraib has as much to do with American ideals and policy as Nazism had to do with the Enlightenment, ie nothing. Linking the lawlessness and the abuse that occurred in one prison in Iraq to the policy in practice of the US Government is disingenuous, but effective since the photos from one can be used as a surrogate for the other. There is a very important debate about State sanctioned torture in democracies, however it is important to distinguish between the actions of those that were carrying out orders, and those that were acting without. It does not diminish the seriousness of the abuse, but to merge these two issues to score an emotional point is a rhetorical flourish that neatly allows you to avoid answering the question: what if it works? What if information gained by the physical abuse of one individual allows you to save the lives of many? Would that change the moral calculation?

To bring the whole thing back to current events, this is currently what is happening on the political scene in the US, with the summary provided by Jennifer Rubin:

"The CIA discovers misconduct, which the CIA inspector general investigates. The information seems to suggest misconduct. They go to DOJ. DOJ tells them to stop and that [Justice] will now look at the issue, gather evidence, and investigate it themselves. They must decide if there is a reasonable belief that they could obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They looked at it. They made a decision and declined [to prosecute]. They go back to the CIA, which can, and in several instances did, review the matters for internal discipline. "

Obama's Attorney General is bringing another department in to investigate the DOJ's handling , and move forward with prosecutions of CIA officials if they possibly can. It is a flagrant waste of time and resources, motivated by partisan intent to punish anyone they can from the hated Bush regime, and in the process make the US and World less secure. Why the the World? Well, as far as I understand, there is cooperation amongst allied intelligence agencies and I know for a fact that Australia relies on it's relationship with the US to supplement their own intelligence needs; how willing do you think international agencies are going to be to help the US if there is the prospect of being prosecuted? Or in other words, why would ASIO give the CIA information gained by dubious means if it meant that sometime down the road, they could be sent to jail for doing their job?

This is not meant as a defense of Guantanamo or torture, but an attempt to show that the Obama administration is pursuing partisan objectives couched in terms of morality that will endanger the World, and there is no end to fellow travelers that are supporting this position.

And besides, exactly how much do you think Obama is doing different from Bush?

"It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is Barack Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists."

The 'permission' to hire males

From this story:

"The eastern suburbs special school was given an exemption by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to employ a man to supervise the youngster, because he is too dangerous for women."

The frightening thing here is that the school had to apply to VCAT for an exemption from Equal Opportunities law to be able to employ a “man”. The question here is why did they have to apply for exemption? The case as reported clearly requires someone with an ability to control (and restrain) a pre-teen boy, and therefore by virtue (or as some feminist theorists would posit “by vice”) of genetics, men will more likely have a suitable physique to be able to fill the role.

However, the school had to approach the State before being able to advertise exclusively for a man. The point here is why should any enterprise need to get government approval to be able to advertise for a suitable candidate?

On the other side of the coin, we have the Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls actively campaigning to implement quotas for female representation on executive boards. Why is this even necessary? Is “diversity” a good in and of itself?

Charlie Sheen is a bit crazy

The post September 11 political landscape in the US is populated by a small, but loud minority who “question the official version” of events that fateful day in 2001. They use this “just askin’” excuse to advance the most ridiculous conspiracy theory evar…namely that that George W. Bush and his administration was responsible for or enabled September 11. In the same breath, the nutjobs that have this opinion usually carry on to say what a retard Dubya is.

Well you cannae’ have it both ways; either he ‘s stupid and unable to organize a conspiracy to tie his own shoelaces, or his is a scarily smart supervillain genius that was able to change the melting point of steel and orchestrate a plot to allow the US to invade the Middle East (again) for oil money…and look what a resounding success that was.

The Democrats allowed this “truther” movement to grow as it attacked the incumbent Republican administration because they were often linked to and protested with the hysterical anti-war Left, which served the Democrats needs. Well to paraphrase Obama’s preacher the ‘good’ pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost.

Van Jones was appointed the Whitehouse “green jobs czar” in [who cares]. His government appointment was to presumably oversee the creation of green jobs which are [no really, who cares?]. The important thing is, he was working IN the Whitehouse, had the ear of the President and a nice unelected portfolio to manage. Except, back in the crazy days of 2002, he was a paid up “truther”. The evidence that he publicly called for and supported not one, but four investigations questioning W. Bush’s involvement in September 11 is irrefutable, and after about a week of blog-led protests, he was shown the door.

“You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier -- a person who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice.”
--Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 10th September 2009

Whilst I have neither the time nor the energy to debunk the many many insane claims made by the “truthers”, let’s just say that if you have sympathy for their views, odds are if you’re reading this post, you’ve probably lost your way on the internet. Alex Jones is perhaps the most well-known of the “truthers” because along with a friend he created the “internet sensation” film “Loose Change” stating in excruciating detail his argument for the biggest conspiracy since the moon landing (hint: Bush caused 9/11). I’ve seen videos of him threatening the life of conservative bloggers and generally think I have a good enough grasp of his, frankly, lunatic opinions.

All this was a long winded way to show that Charlie Sheen has penned a fictional interview of himself with President Obama, confronting him with the “evidence” of 9/11, on Alex Jones’ website. It’s not worth excerpting, and you’ll probably feel a little disappointed with Mr Sheen (as I was) if you like him as an actor.

Charlie Sheen wants answers!!!

Here it is: http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/

(I’m not linking to it because I think Alex Jones is a loon and I don’t want this blog to appear on his website visitor stats)

Chicken Hariyali

"Why???" I hear you cry...well because everyone wants a cooking show done Bollywood style. And no one looks this cool in a matching coloured chef hat and apron...

(via MetaFilter)

Orwell's future

Writing about the frightening ubiquity of CCTV cameras everywhere in the UK, Steyn elaborates:

“…in the twilight of his premiership, with his usual control-freak instincts, Tony Blair mused on the possibility of banning hooded sweatshirts in order to prevent “anti-social behaviour” and restore “respect on our streets.

But “respect” is a two-way street. And on Britain’s two-way streets, where the government cameras whir 24-7, the security state signals its contempt for the citizen.”

Thinking that his description of a London Transport poster put up recently was a bit of an exaggeration, I googled it and there are plenty of links (picture source):

Seriously, are they !@#ing kidding??

George Orwell must be turning in his grave; from the beacon of civilization and individual rights to giant eyes in the sky, proudly advertised by the State.

Making the world safer?

As I previously wrote, there are ramifications regarding the US Attorney General prosecutions of CIA interrogators that will flow far from the borders of the United States. This is not about torture or righting wrongs, this is a vindictive partisan bloodletting, pure and simple.

And here I was believing that The One was going to help us evolve past these petty political urges (you know how he was going to get us "beyond politics"). These actions taken by the Obama administration are going to endanger the US and the West. And whilst The One will do the merry tap-dance to distance himself from the prosecutions, it is highly improbable that the Attorney General would be doing this without the explicit consent and encouragement from the Commander-in-Chief.

Reprising his take on this, Thomas Sowell has an excellent breakdown of what this will mean for the US...and the rest of us:

"Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi-- the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people-- is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in the Western democracies in our time."

Speaking of the ongoing hand-wringing and outright creation of "rights" for those I would term "barbaric animals":

"So many "rights" have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you." (emphasis mine)

Read it all.

Calling them out

Whatever you think of Russell Crowe, there is always much schadenfreude to be had at the expense of snarky journalists. A snide gossip article about Rusty's fitness regime appeared in Sydney's Daily Telegraph having a go at him for having a ciggie break during one of his bicycle rides. Even the caption was heaping on the sarcasm:

In response, one of Rusty's crew called the Daily Telegraph columnist and challenged her to "get on her bike" to race the Master and Commander. Showing a Proof of Life, the columnist stopped her L.A. Confidential and prepared to go head to head, Gladiator style, with a Beautiful Mind hoping that his Virtuosity on the two wheeled contraption was as overestimated as she had reported. Well, it turns out it wasn't a Good Year for Annette Sharp, when she realised that a race with Rusty, it was The Quick and the Dead, and she got Romper Stompered near the finish line when she fell on the track as the American Gangster proved he was quicker than the 3:10 to Yuma.

From the BBC article, the columnist said:

"When you make a living throwing stones you expect that one day someone is going to lob one back. This was that day."

This post brought to you by the letters IMDb

An Inconvenient Baby

This story is disturbing.

"The star fullback's fiancee Shannon O'Malley will have their daughter's birth induced today instead of waiting until her September 16 due date so he can concentrate on the finals."

I'm sorry Mr Superstar AFL player that your daughter's birth is at such an inconvenient due date. I hope the little tike doesn't impact your ever so important sporting career in the future by you know, getting sick or depriving you of your sleep the same week as an important match. And I definitely think the fiancee "Shannon O'Malle" is as stupid and culpable as him for going along with it, if not more so.

Escaped Libyan jailbirds - redux

Following up on my previous post of an 'escaped' convicted mass murderer, it's not like this is a surprise to anyone.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

With any luck, this particular incident will bring down two corrupt governments, however the more things change....