I talked to Dan Carlin a little over a year ago, and was fortunate enough to talk to him again. After hearing the two most recent episodes of his podcast "Common Sense," which dealt with the hefty subject of torture, I wanted to be able to grace my own blog with his brilliant thoughts. (I'm sure he'll love that line...) Our last conversation was at the beginning of the two presidential primary campaigns, and this comes right after Barack Obama sealing the deal on the Democratic nomination.

D: Both Barack Obama and John McCain represent a break from Bush's stance of tolerance in regard to coercive interrogations. Do you think that the Bush policies will survive into an Obama or McCain presidency?

DC: Well, judging from Obama's and McCain's public statements on the issue you wouldn't think so. They both seem to be quite anti-torture on a core moral level. But, I imagine this is only something that can be tested in another 9/11 type situation. It is easy to say you won't torture when people aren't feeling quite as threatened as we were after the WTC attacks. I doubt the Bush people envisioned going down the road they seem to have traveled on this before the attacks in New York and on the Pentagon. Events and conditions create the environment where people's minds can change very quickly on stuff like this.

I think what you will probably see is a much more targeted version of whatever it is we do now (because what we do is not exactly public knowledge) with clauses to cover extreme situations. I imagine Obama's will probably have less loopholes and be more targeted than McCain's...but that's just a hunch. I think we will see the "outsourcing" of torture continue though. It is a way to "have our cake and eat it too" on the torture issue. We can distance ourselves from the practice, while still essentially doing it via third parties. We can even pretend it is part of deporting someone back to their home country sometimes. There's a lot of "plausible deniability" built into this way of doing things. That might make it too valuable to get rid of in the eyes of the people running the show...be they Obama's people or McCain's.

Let's just say that I am cautiously optimistic things will get better.

D: What do you fear most about an America that uses coercive interrogations or torture?

DC: Fear most? I think it is the crossing of some invisible line from one sort of society to another. And not so much in the laws and practices involved in torture, but in what laws and practices we as a people become comfortable with and accepting of. What sort of a people are we Americans? Well, one that is a lot more comfortable with the idea of torturing our enemies than we used to be only a decade or so ago. I fear the continual degradation of our standards.

D: How do you think the Bush Administration will be viewed by history?

DC: I think it is fun to pretend that we can see already how President Bush will be seen in the future, but we really haven't any perspective on the subject yet. We need at least a decade to begin to unravel
how the decisions made during this Presidency turned out. Did Iraq end up happily or unhappily? Did Iran nuke Israel because we didn't do something? Or does it go 180 degrees in the other direction? The way things turn out will determine the way history views Bush. He sure doesn't look very good right now. But, that's not uncommon with presidents when they leave office. Sometimes their standing grows with historians as time passes. They will certainly be seen as the Administration that crossed the torture line however..

D: How do you think Scott McClellan's tell-all book will impact the election?

DC: I don't think it will have a very large effect. The election is still a long way off, and McCain is distancing himself from the Rumsfeldian mistakes of the Bush Administration's past in a way that I think will probably insulate him from the McClellan book revelations.

D: Why do you doubt the sincerity of Bob Barr's conversion to libertarianism?

DC: Well, Bob Barr may be a libertarian...the Libertarians may be changing and they may BE the party of Bob Barr now (he did, after all, win the nomination). What I doubt is his commitment to the causes that were so important to more strident and longstanding members of the movement. Barr is certainly a "Johnny-come-lately" on many of the important libertarian issues and while this doesn't preclude his inclusion in the party, it's intriguing that it seems to not have badly affected his chances of becoming the party standard bearer. Don't you want your central figure in the Party to have better credentials on the bedrock issues? I would. But, I'm not in the Libertarian Party, so maybe it's not my business.

Anyone reading this enjoys the written word. Because you enjoy the written word, you should also cherish freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as it is the right that allows for an environment of many words to read and hear. If you cherish the freedom of expression, you should be concerned about the assault on those freedoms by Canada's Orwellian "Human Rights Commissions."

The Canadian Human Rights Commissions' stated goal is thus:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is empowered by the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal jurisdiction. Under the Employment Equity Act, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that federally regulated employers provide equal opportunities for employment to the four designated groups: women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities. The Commission is also mandated to develop and conduct information and discrimination prevention programs.

That's all well and good. Nobody likes discrimination, and I myself have been discriminated against on the basis of both race and disability. It's unpleasant. I don't see how censoring people's political speech plays into making sure employers don't discriminate against minorities. There is nothing in their stated goal about "hate speech," which is the loaded term the Commission threw at the Canadian conservative website Free Dominion last year:

OTTAWA, July 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Free Dominion, a Canadian conservative web forum, has been targeted via the Canada's Human Rights Commission (HRC) over allegations the conservative site promotes "hate speech."

"We have been waiting for six and a half years and the day has finally arrived, somebody is going to try to silence Free Dominion using the Canadian Human Rights Commission," Mark Fourier quipped in posting the letter. "Somebody has likely decided that because they can't defeat some argument presented by someone at Free Dominion they will instead try to silence the whole site. It isn't going to work."

The Commission has taken on other conservative writers, acting as some of sort of partisan law enforcement agent aimed at censoring those that disagree with them. The most high profile case has been Mark Steyn, the best selling author of "America Alone" (I wonder if his being a best selling author was part of the Commission's motivation?). After publishing "The Future Belongs to Islam," the magazine Maclean's recieved complaints of Islamophobia on the part of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Ontario has a specific code in its Human Rights Code that "interfer[ing] with the freedom of expression of opinion," but this has not stopped the Commission, which in April said that it has a "broader mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights in Ontario, forward the dignity and worth of every Ontarian and take steps to alleviate tension and conflict in the community, including by speaking out on events that are inconsistent with the spirit of the Code."

This is really frightening stuff. There is a slippery slope that occurs when any government decides that it should step in and try to govern the free exchange of ideas. One minute a commission is filing complaints, and the next it could be imprisoning those with opinions its members differ with. Liberal democracy exists to oppose this kind of tyranny, and if we fall back into it the evolution and revolution from monarchy and dictatorship will have been a waste of time.

Hillary Clinton wins the support of this Spanish-speaking protectorate. However, there's reason to believe it's not much to brag about:

"Most people in Puerto Rico, I would venture to guess, they are not even aware that there's a primary going on," said Luis Pabón-Roca, a local political analyst.

He said the political atmosphere on the island this week is subdued compared to the fever that sweeps the island before local elections.

South Dakota and the most beautiful state in America, Montana, will be putting an end to the Democratic nomination saga next week. Yes, it will be over soon.

Over at Townhall, Patrick Buchanan asks the question, "Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?" to which I answer, don't all presidents become irrelevant at the end of their second term? Harry Truman was vastly unpopular, Richard Nixon's presidency had become a smoldering wreck that he no longer steered and presidential candidate Al Gore was distancing himself from President Clinton at the end of their terms.

Ultimately, his main point that Bush embraced a failing utopian ideology of a democratic Middle East may very well be true. I don't pretend to know how history will treat the present, but it doesn't look good for Bush now. However, there has not been a terrorist attack on United States soil since 9/11. That is a result of either drawing the fight into the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters (which fits with the "fight them over so we don't fight them here" line), heightened levels of law enforcement and security aimed at tackling terrorism or both.

Another horror story from the halls of an American school, as a teacher demolishes a child's self-esteem in an act of sadism: 

PORT ST. LUCIE — Melissa Barton said she is considering legal action after her son's kindergarten teacher led his classmates to vote him out of class.

After each classmate was allowed to say what they didn't like about Barton's 5-year-old son, Alex, his Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo said they were going to take a vote, Barton said.

By a 14 to 2 margin, the students voted Alex — who is in the process of being diagnosed with autism — out of the class.

Melissa Barton filed a complaint with Morningside's school resource officer, who investigated the matter, Port St. Lucie Department spokeswoman Michelle Steele said. But the state attorney's office concluded the matter did not meet the criteria for emotional child abuse, so no criminal charges will be filed, Steele said.

The name of that teacher, once again, is Wendy Portillo. Her school e-mail address is portillow@stlucie.k12.fl.us.

This story hits even closer to home for me as the child in question has Asperger's syndrome, which I also have. They tried to get me expelled in kindergarten, so this isn't surprisingly by any means, but it's still very depressing.

According to ExpertRealty.com, Morningside Elementary "is a public school in the city of Miami, Florida serving prekindergarten through the fifth grade." From my own personal experience of attending public schools, I believe the chances of Portillo being fired are very small. Teachers' unions are often so powerful and guidelines are so vague and limited that you can get away with next to anything aside from having sex with a student or stealing school property.

 

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Romney played down the notion that his vigorous support for Sen. McCain was part of an effort to win the vice-presidential nod. "I think my run at public office is over," he said, but added: "Time will tell."

I have a very unorthodox opinion on gay marriage that is a bit outside of both realms of debate. In other words, I don't fall in with the Christian fundamentalists in opposition or the gay rights groups in favor. In honor of the recent California court decision on gay marriage, I have decided to finally put this opinion into words.

Gay people deserve all the rights of straight people, and I think they would more easily be able to gain those rights if their fighting for them didn't appear to be threatening to the values of religious institutions. The way to solve this would be to completely get government out of the marriage business and reduce its involvement to something similiar to an driver's license, permitting a "license of union" or something similiar to two individuals that decide to live in a personal union.

This would make government involvement minimal, and reduce it to allowing couples to average their incomes and whatnot. How the couple chooses to define their union could be left to their church, synagogue, mosque, temple, family, friends or themselves. By going in either the evangelical or gay marriage direction at this point government is endorsing ideology, and in my honest opinion government should be as unideological as possible if it is to keep from infringing on its citizens' lives.

Recent events sparked some personal interest in the country of Burma, and quick research revealed something pretty important:

Democratic rule ended in 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup d'état. He ruled for nearly 26 years and pursued policies under the rubric of the Burmese Way to Socialism. Between 1962 and 1974, Burma was ruled by a Revolutionary Council headed by the general, and almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control (including the Boy Scouts).[27] In an effort to consolidate power, General Ne Win and many top generals resigned from the military and took civilian posts and, from 1974, instituted elections in a one party system. Between 1974 and 1988, Burma was effectively ruled by General Ne Win through the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP).[28]

There seems to be a common sequence of events that occurs when socialism is enforced on a people, yet many seem to cheerlead as the same tragic cycle initiates itself again and again. Sigh.

The last couple years weren't the best for comic book movies. From Ang Lee's arthouse interpretation of the Hulk to the inspirationless Ghost Rider, a series of comic book adaptations were produced that failed to reproduce the magic and commercial success of the first two X-Men and Spider-Man movies. The potentially great Daredevil was a train wreck. Having been absolutely thrilled after seeing the characters I grew up with come to life with the first X-Men movies, my own enthusiasm, which originally was just founded on the thrill of mainstream entertainment recognizing my childhood idols, dissipated and I began to have lower expectations. Whereas I used to go see every comic book related movie that came out in theaters, I waited to see V for Vendetta and A History of Violence on DVD.

I was going to do the same thing in regards to Iron Man until the positive reviews started flowing in. Hugh Hewitt of Townhall called it a "fine movie" and The A.V. Club called it "the rare comic-book movie that makes the prospect of a sequel seem like a promise instead of a threat." The political message was pleasurably complex, showing barbaric terrorists and noble secret agents (in the form of S.H.E.I.L.D., the government agency that deals with superhuman activities) in addition to war profiteers.

Iron Man has a top notch cast in addition to a witty and creative script and plot. Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard, two of Hollywood's most talented actors, both shined as Tony Stark's closest friends, Pepper Potts and Jim Rhodes (who goes on to become War Machine). Jeff Bridges played his role of Obadiah Stane well, though the lack of a menacing or villainous voice on his part made me keep thinking of his role of "The Dude" in The Big Lebowski when I should have found him frightening.

The all star cast was topped off by the excellent casting of Robert Downey Jr. There was a famous storyline in the Iron Man comic books where Downey faced a crippling alchohol addiction, and Stark was obviously modelled after reckless behaving billionares like Howard Hughes. Downey's own struggle with drug use and his ability to overcome it made him perfect for the role of this imperfect superhero.

Iron Man is probably not for everybody, but if you enjoy action movies, superheroes or even geopolitical thrillers, you will definitely like it. Let's hope that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Incredible Hulk are up to snuff as well.

There are all sorts of things I could post in honor of the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, but this is probably the most unusual and one of the more illuminating things you'll see, a video from the 1950s commissioned by the woman's group Hadassah to promote the need of a skilled workforce in Israel. The interesting thing is the contrast within this video with the gloominess of today's talk of Israel's future (such as in the Atlantic Monthly's "Is Israel Finished?" cover story).

There's an F. Scott Fitzgerald line about the necessity of living with flat out contradiction, and that's the line I end up towing with the subject of American interventionism. I don't like my country serving as a global policeman, but I fear for the state of a world where third world disasters, of the natural and human variation, are left in the hands of the United Nations or (shudder) China.

So I find myself looking quizically at this article by Anne Applebaum in Slate, where she makes a case for intervention in Burma. There are very valid reasons to want to take out that government and in order to take full control of relief efforts, and Applebaum cites at the top of the article the terrible things that have been said about the Burmese regime by decent people:

They are "cruel, power hungry and dangerously irrational," in the words of one British journalist. They are "violent and irrational" according to a journalist in neighboring Thailand. Our own State Department leadership has condemned their "xenophobic, ever more irrational policies."

She goes on to say about the intervention in Iraq:

Unfortunately, the phrase "coalition of the willing" is tainted forever—once again proving that the damage done by the Iraq war goes far beyond the Iraqi borders—but a coalition of the willing is exactly what we need. The French—whose foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, was himself a co-founder of Médecins Sans Frontières—are already talking about finding alternative ways of delivering aid. Others in Europe and Asia might join in, along with some aid organizations. The Chinese should be embarrassed into contributing, asked again and again to help. This is their satrapy, after all, not ours.

Was the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein not "cruel, power hungry and dangerously irrational?" From his laundry list of atrocious acts to not conceding that he had no weapons of mass destruction when it could potentially avert disaster, Hussein met all three descriptions. The people who would likely take over Iraq when a vaccuum has been left by an American withdrawal would likely also meet those descriptions as well, as the chances of a peaceful democratic transition in those circumstances seem pretty miniscule.

Iraq is almost talked about as if there was a tolerable government in place before the 2003 invasion, and not a psychotic dictatorship. It's almost Orwellian to hear people speak about the tragedy of one intervention and then talk fondly of another, as if the latter will be without bloodshed. I wrote an article on this very subject for a college paper in 2006 in regards to critics of Bush who argued that we should try to intervene to remove the Arab dictatorship of oil rich Sudan. It's funny how times sometimes don't change.

Do yourself a favor and go watch video of Sheik Ali Al-Faqir on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV station. Any responsible media would give the rantings of these religious clerics the coverage it deserves, as it illuminates the true perspective of political Islamists. What's especially disturbing is his talk of "reclaiming" for Islam Spain and Rome. (When was Rome ever under Muslim rule?) You can also tell by the talk of Constantinople how far in the past these guys are living.

I found this story, which I first heard on the NPR program "The Bryant Park Project," simultaneously hilarious (in a very dark way), horrifying and numbingly sad:

The Kingwood teenager's story of decapitating a corpse and using the head to smoke marijuana was so outlandish that at first Houston Police Department senior police officer Jim Adkins did not believe it.

Yet, Kevin Wade Jones Jr., 17, appeared almost indifferent as he relayed the bizarre description of his and two friends' activities at an Humble area graveyard, Adkins said.

"I just doubted it because it's very morbid, and I couldn't see anybody doing something like this," Adkins said Thursday.

Not until police went to the home of another Kingwood 17-year-old, Matthew Richard Gonzalez, did the officer believe the tale.

"He regurgitated in his plate of food when I asked him about it," Adkins said. "So I knew there was some truth to the story."

I've always found the idea of having my body messed with after death to be a frightening thought, which is why I am definitely going to be cremated.

Over at Slate, writer Arthur Delaney wrote about the science of being able to actually smoke marijuana out of a human skull, which it sounds like according to Delaney it is not very possible.