By ALI H. SOUFAN
Published: September 5, 2009
PUBLIC bravado aside, the defenders of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are fast running out of classified documents to hide behind. The three that were released recently by the C.I.A. — the 2004 report by the inspector general and two memos from 2004 and 2005 on intelligence gained from detainees — fail to show that the techniques stopped even a single imminent threat of terrorism.
The inspector general’s report distinguishes between intelligence gained from regular interrogation and from the harsher methods, which culminate in waterboarding. While the former produces useful intelligence, according to the report, the latter “is a more subjective process and not without concern.” And the information in the two memos reinforces this differentiation.
They show that substantial intelligence was gained from pocket litter (materials found on detainees when they were captured), from playing detainees against one another and from detainees freely giving up information that they assumed their questioners already knew. A computer seized in March 2003 from a Qaeda operative for example, listed names of Qaeda members and money they were to receive.
Soon after Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, was captured in 2003, according to the 2005 memo, he “elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow Airport.” The memo speculates that he may have assumed that Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a fellow member of Al Qaeda who had been captured in 2002, had already divulged the plan. The same motivation — the assumption that another detainee had already talked — is offered to explain why Mr. Mohammed provided details about the Hambali-Southeast Asia Qaeda network.
Mr. Mohammed must have likewise assumed that his interrogators already had the details about Al Qaeda’s organizational structure that he gave them. When I testified in the trial of Salim Hamdan, who had been Osama bin Laden’s personal driver, I provided many unclassified details about Al Qaeda’s structure and operations, none of which came from Mr. Mohammed.
Some of the information that is cited in the memos — the revelation that Mr. Mohammed had been the mastermind of 9/11, for example, and the uncovering of Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber — was gained from another terrorism suspect, Abu Zubaydah, by “informed interrogation,” conducted by an F.B.I. colleague and me. The arrest of Walid bin Attash, one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted messengers, which was also cited in the 2005 C.I.A. memo, was thanks to a quick-witted foreign law enforcement officer, and had nothing to do with harsh interrogation of anyone. The examples go on and on. [....]
The author of this NYT op-ed piece served as an F.B.I. special agent from 1997 to 2005.
Monday, September 7, 2009
U.S. Open 2009
I'm sure you've been wondering about my relative silence on the premier annual tennis event on U.S. of American soil. Well, wonder no longer (and blame it on a nasty gastrointestinal virus).
There is much to be excited about in the women's draw, what with the return of Kim Clijsters and the excellent play of young Melanie Oudin. Venus is out, but Serena remains. I am not a fan of the sisters -- though I prefer Venus to Serena, if forced to opine. The crowds are going wild for Clijsters -- I think because she is as close to an Honest Player as it gets. What's an Honest Player? An unspoiled person who is gifted -- and who honors the gift with hard work.
Does that make any sense at all?
John Isner managed to piss me off by eliminating Andy Roddick. Were he talented enough to win the tourney, I'd not mind, but he isn't. Yes, I suppose I ought to be more properly upset with Roddick... but I'm not.
But the most exciting thing in the entire tourney thus far?
It seems likely that Rafael Nadal will be wearing (relatively) normal clothes when he faces, and beats, Federer in the final.
There is much to be excited about in the women's draw, what with the return of Kim Clijsters and the excellent play of young Melanie Oudin. Venus is out, but Serena remains. I am not a fan of the sisters -- though I prefer Venus to Serena, if forced to opine. The crowds are going wild for Clijsters -- I think because she is as close to an Honest Player as it gets. What's an Honest Player? An unspoiled person who is gifted -- and who honors the gift with hard work.
Does that make any sense at all?
John Isner managed to piss me off by eliminating Andy Roddick. Were he talented enough to win the tourney, I'd not mind, but he isn't. Yes, I suppose I ought to be more properly upset with Roddick... but I'm not.
But the most exciting thing in the entire tourney thus far?
It seems likely that Rafael Nadal will be wearing (relatively) normal clothes when he faces, and beats, Federer in the final.
No more silly vanity muscle shirts or tweedy capris that make him look all stumpy-legged.
Not that I've given the matter any thought.
Friday, September 4, 2009
More Proof of Stupid
This is the kind of thing with which I have a very hard time.
Granted, I refused to cancel a college French class -- for which a test had long been scheduled --just because President Reagan was visiting the campus. Most everyone managed to both take the test and see The Great Communicator.
I even managed to wave at the man as they whisked him away.
Not the same thing, though, as the stupidity being displayed by the 'concerned parents' referenced below. These people fear mass contagion through the medium of Televised Obama.
NPR interviewed a woman who expected the President's address to school kids to be a danger on the subliminal level. You know, like the messages at movie theatres that have everyone lined up in the lobby to buy popcorn.
That's only the case if you play the recorded message backwards...
The mind! It is boggled!
Some Parents Oppose Obama Speech to Students
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. and SAM DILLON
Published: September 3, 2009, New York Times
HOUSTON — President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.
The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear.
Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.
“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.
“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”
The White House has said the speech will emphasize the importance of education and hard work in school, both to the individual and to the nation. The message is not partisan, nor compulsory, officials said.
Granted, I refused to cancel a college French class -- for which a test had long been scheduled --just because President Reagan was visiting the campus. Most everyone managed to both take the test and see The Great Communicator.
I even managed to wave at the man as they whisked him away.
Not the same thing, though, as the stupidity being displayed by the 'concerned parents' referenced below. These people fear mass contagion through the medium of Televised Obama.
NPR interviewed a woman who expected the President's address to school kids to be a danger on the subliminal level. You know, like the messages at movie theatres that have everyone lined up in the lobby to buy popcorn.
That's only the case if you play the recorded message backwards...
The mind! It is boggled!
Some Parents Oppose Obama Speech to Students
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. and SAM DILLON
Published: September 3, 2009, New York Times
HOUSTON — President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.
The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear.
Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.
“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.
“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”
The White House has said the speech will emphasize the importance of education and hard work in school, both to the individual and to the nation. The message is not partisan, nor compulsory, officials said.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Good and faithful servants...
Note after publication: Yesterday, I received an email that took my breath away, then made me angry, then made me cry. Too cowardly to leave a comment here, this person was sufficiently emboldened to enlighten me about Senator Kennedy's "elitistism" and detailed how, in addition to being guilty of manslaughter, he was also a "serial adulter" and, of course, a Socialist. Mostly, though, it was the cold waters of Poucha Pond and the Chappaquiddik "incident" on his mind, plus some gobbledy-gunk about his shock over "the tumor finding [Kennedy's] cretin brain."
Yes, I *want* this here, heading the text of one of my favorite political speeches, below a picture of three brothers -- larger than life now, for sure -- who gave this country their all.
Much as I do not know anyone in favor of abortion, I also know no one who approves, even remotely, of Ted Kennedy's behavior that night back in 1969.
I do not link Chappaquiddick to the long list of good things that Senator Kennedy accomplished -- I do not link it, that is, with the limiting conjunction BUT. I link the details of the accident that killed Mary Jo Kopechne with the clear, expansive, all-inclusive conjunction AND.
For obvious reasons, I believe in, and hope for, redemption. I believe that Ted Kennedy rededicated his life to service, and that he also hoped for, trusted in, and now, at last, has realized, his eventual redemption.
[My penpal even condemns Ted Kennedy for being "born into ill-gotten prohibition money." Yeah, damn him, that was downright cheeky. I guess all we can hope is that Kennedy was part of the crowd that was bringing Catholic indulgences back into vogue -- no, they cannot be bought, but apparently X amount of do-gooding equals X amount of time-served in Purgatory.]
If you're filled with hate and unresolved anger at Ted Kennedy, and if you self-identify as a Christian, may I recommend spending a few minutes each day with the fifth chapter of Matthew? It has helped me to deal with you in a fairly magnanimous way; Perhaps it will help you deal with the likes of me. Maybe you, like me, will find yourself fervently hoping for inclusion as you follow the glorious cadence of the Beatitudes.
Text of Ted Kennedy's speech at the Democratic Convention, 1980
Thanks very much, Barbara Mikulski, for your very eloquent, your eloquent introduction. Distinguished legislator, great spokeswoman for economic democracy and social justice in this country, I thank you for your eloquent introduction.
Well, things worked out a little different from the way I thought, but let me tell you, I still love New York.
My fellow Democrats and my fellow Americans, I have come here tonight not to argue as a candidate but to affirm a cause.
I'm asking you -- I am asking you to renew the commitment of the Democratic Party to economic justice.
I am asking you to renew our commitment to a fair and lasting prosperity that can put America back to work.
This is the cause that brought me into the campaign and that sustained me for nine months across a 100,000 miles in 40 different states. We had our losses, but the pain of our defeats is far, far less than the pain of the people that I have met.
We have learned that it is important to take issues seriously, but never to take ourselves too seriously.
The serious issue before us tonight is the cause for which the Democratic Party has stood in its finest hours, the cause that keeps our Party young and makes it, in the second century of its age, the largest political Party in this republic and the longest lasting political Party on this planet.
Our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman.
Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers." On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies, and refreshed our faith.
Now I take the unusual step of carrying the cause and the commitment of my campaign personally to our national convention. I speak out of a deep sense of urgency about the anguish and anxiety I have seen across America.
I speak out of a deep belief in the ideals of the Democratic Party, and in the potential of that Party and of a President to make a difference. And I speak out of a deep trust in our capacity to proceed with boldness and a common vision that will feel and heal the suffering of our time and the divisions of our Party.
The economic plank of this platform on its face concerns only material things, but it is also a moral issue that I raise tonight. It has taken many forms over many years. In this campaign and in this country that we seek to lead, the challenge in 1980 is to give our voice and our vote for these fundamental democratic principles.
Let us pledge that we will never misuse unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.
Let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy.
Let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work; and we will not compromise on the issues of jobs.
These are not simplistic pledges. Simply put, they are the heart of our tradition, and they have been the soul of our Party across the generations. It is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfill the aspirations of all Americans seeking a better life in a better land.
We dare not forsake that tradition.
We cannot let the great purposes of the Democratic Party become the bygone passages of history.
We must not permit the Republicans to seize and run on the slogans of prosperity. We heard the orators at their convention all trying to talk like Democrats. They proved that even Republican nominees can quote Franklin Roosevelt to their own purpose.
The Grand Old Party thinks it has found a great new trick, but 40 years ago an earlier generation of Republicans attempted the same trick. And Franklin Roosevelt himself replied, "Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight those leaders have suddenly become the friends of average men and women."
"You know," he continued, "very few of us are that gullible." And four years later when the Republicans tried that trick again, Franklin Roosevelt asked, "Can the Old Guard pass itself off as the New Deal? I think not. We have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus, but no performing elephant could turn a handspring without falling flat on its back."
The 1980 Republican convention was awash with crocodile tears for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them.
The same Republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, and I quote, "Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders." And that nominee is no friend of labor.
The same Republicans who are talking about the problems of the inner cities have nominated a man who said, and I quote, "I have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the Federal Government not bail out New York." And that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have nominated a man who said just four years ago that "Participation in social security should be made voluntary." And that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, "Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees." And that nominee is no friend of the environment.
And the same Republicans who are invoking Franklin Roosevelt have nominated a man who said in 1976, and these are his exact words, "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." And that nominee whose name is Ronald Reagan has no right to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The great adventures which our opponents offer is a voyage into the past. Progress is our heritage, not theirs. What is right for us as Democrats is also the right way for Democrats to win.
The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue. It is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems onto a scrap heap of inattention and indifference. The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs. The middle class may be angry, but they have not lost the dream that all Americans can advance together.
The demand of our people in 1980 is not for smaller government or bigger government but for better government. Some say that government is always bad and that spending for basic social programs is the root of our economic evils. But we reply: The present inflation and recession cost our economy 200 billion dollars a year. We reply: Inflation and unemployment are the biggest spenders of all.
The task of leadership in 1980 is not to parade scapegoats or to seek refuge in reaction, but to match our power to the possibilities of progress. While others talked of free enterprise, it was the Democratic Party that acted and we ended excessive regulation in the airline and trucking industry, and we restored competition to the marketplace. And I take some satisfaction that this deregulation legislation that I sponsored and passed in the Congress of the United States.
As Democrats we recognize that each generation of Americans has a rendezvous with a different reality. The answers of one generation become the questions of the next generation. But there is a guiding star in the American firmament. It is as old as the revolutionary belief that all people are created equal, and as clear as the contemporary condition of Liberty City and the South Bronx. Again and again Democratic leaders have followed that star and they have given new meaning to the old values of liberty and justice for all.
We are the Party -- We are the Party of the New Freedom, the New Deal, and the New Frontier. We have always been the Party of hope. So this year let us offer new hope, new hope to an America uncertain about the present, but unsurpassed in its potential for the future.
To all those who are idle in the cities and industries of America let us provide new hope for the dignity of useful work. Democrats have always believed that a basic civil right of all Americans is that their right to earn their own way. The Party of the people must always be the Party of full employment.
To all those who doubt the future of our economy, let us provide new hope for the reindustrialization of America. And let our vision reach beyond the next election or the next year to a new generation of prosperity. If we could rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II, then surely we can reindustrialize our own nation and revive our inner cities in the 1980's.
To all those who work hard for a living wage let us provide new hope that their price of their employment shall not be an unsafe workplace and a death at an earlier age.
To all those who inhabit our land from California to the New York Island, from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf stream waters, let us provide new hope that prosperity shall not be purchased by poisoning the air, the rivers, and the natural resources that are the greatest gift of this continent. We must insist that our children and our grandchildren shall inherit a land which they can truly call America the beautiful.
To all those who see the worth of their work and their savings taken by inflation, let us offer new hope for a stable economy. We must meet the pressures of the present by invoking the full power of government to master increasing prices. In candor, we must say that the Federal budget can be balanced only by policies that bring us to a balanced prosperity of full employment and price restraint.
And to all those overburdened by an unfair tax structure, let us provide new hope for real tax reform. Instead of shutting down classrooms, let us shut off tax shelters. Instead of cutting out school lunches, let us cut off tax subsidies for expensive business lunches that are nothing more than food stamps for the rich.
The tax cut of our Republican opponents takes the name of tax reform in vain. It is a wonderfully Republican idea that would redistribute income in the wrong direction. It's good news for any of you with incomes over 200,000 dollars a year. For the few of you, it offers a pot of gold worth 14,000 dollars. But the Republican tax cut is bad news for the middle income families. For the many of you, they plan a pittance of 200 dollars a year, and that is not what the Democratic Party means when we say tax reform.
The vast majority of Americans cannot afford this panacea from a Republican nominee who has denounced the progressive income tax as the invention of Karl Marx. I am afraid he has confused Karl Marx with Theodore Roosevelt -- that obscure Republican president who sought and fought for a tax system based on ability to pay. Theodore Roosevelt was not Karl Marx, and the Republican tax scheme is not tax reform.
Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.
The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.
There were some -- There were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the heritage of the Democratic Party has been a history of democracy. We fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and purposes. We did not flee this struggle. We welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in Detroit where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent.
Democrats can be proud that we chose a different course and a different platform.
We can be proud that our Party stands for investment in safe energy, instead of a nuclear future that may threaten the future itself. We must not permit the neighborhoods of America to be permanently shadowed by the fear of another Three Mile Island.
We can be proud that our Party stands for a fair housing law to unlock the doors of discrimination once and for all. The American house will be divided against itself so long as there is prejudice against any American buying or renting a home.
And we can be proud that our Party stands plainly and publicly and persistently for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Women hold their rightful place at our convention, and women must have their rightful place in the Constitution of the United States. On this issue we will not yield; we will not equivocate; we will not rationalize, explain, or excuse. We will stand for E.R.A. and for the recognition at long last that our nation was made up of founding mothers as well as founding fathers.
A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves.
There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us.
Let this -- Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all.
In closing, let me say a few words to all those that I have met and to all those who have supported me at this convention and across the country. There were hard hours on our journey, and often we sailed against the wind. But always we kept our rudder true, and there were so many of you who stayed the course and shared our hope. You gave your help; but even more, you gave your hearts.
And because of you, this has been a happy campaign. You welcomed Joan, me, and our family into your homes and neighborhoods, your churches, your campuses, your union halls. And when I think back of all the miles and all the months and all the memories, I think of you. And I recall the poet's words, and I say: "What golden friends I had."
Among you, my golden friends across this land, I have listened and learned.
I have listened to Kenny Dubois, a glassblower in Charleston, West Virginia, who has ten children to support but has lost his job after 35 years, just three years short of qualifying for his pension.
I have listened to the Trachta family who farm in Iowa and who wonder whether they can pass the good life and the good earth on to their children.
I have listened to the grandmother in East Oakland who no longer has a phone to call her grandchildren because she gave it up to pay the rent on her small apartment.
I have listened to young workers out of work, to students without the tuition for college, and to families without the chance to own a home.
I have seen the closed factories and the stalled assembly lines of Anderson, Indiana and South Gate, California, and I have seen too many, far too many idle men and women desperate to work.
I have seen too many, far too many working families desperate to protect the value of their wages from the ravages of inflation.
Yet I have also sensed a yearning for a new hope among the people in every state where I have been.
And I have felt it in their handshakes, I saw it in their faces, and I shall never forget the mothers who carried children to our rallies.
I shall always remember the elderly who have lived in an America of high purpose and who believe that it can all happen again.
Tonight, in their name, I have come here to speak for them. And for their sake, I ask you to stand with them. On their behalf I ask you to restate and reaffirm the timeless truth of our Party.
I congratulate President Carter on his victory here.
I am -- I am confident that the Democratic Party will reunite on the basis of Democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a Democratic victory in 1980.
And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith.
May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.
And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:
"I am a part of all that I have met
To [Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."*
For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.
For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.
*************************************************************************************************************
Text of Ted Kennedy's speech at the Democratic Convention, 1980
Thanks very much, Barbara Mikulski, for your very eloquent, your eloquent introduction. Distinguished legislator, great spokeswoman for economic democracy and social justice in this country, I thank you for your eloquent introduction.
Well, things worked out a little different from the way I thought, but let me tell you, I still love New York.
My fellow Democrats and my fellow Americans, I have come here tonight not to argue as a candidate but to affirm a cause.
I'm asking you -- I am asking you to renew the commitment of the Democratic Party to economic justice.
I am asking you to renew our commitment to a fair and lasting prosperity that can put America back to work.
This is the cause that brought me into the campaign and that sustained me for nine months across a 100,000 miles in 40 different states. We had our losses, but the pain of our defeats is far, far less than the pain of the people that I have met.
We have learned that it is important to take issues seriously, but never to take ourselves too seriously.
The serious issue before us tonight is the cause for which the Democratic Party has stood in its finest hours, the cause that keeps our Party young and makes it, in the second century of its age, the largest political Party in this republic and the longest lasting political Party on this planet.
Our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman.
Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers." On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies, and refreshed our faith.
Now I take the unusual step of carrying the cause and the commitment of my campaign personally to our national convention. I speak out of a deep sense of urgency about the anguish and anxiety I have seen across America.
I speak out of a deep belief in the ideals of the Democratic Party, and in the potential of that Party and of a President to make a difference. And I speak out of a deep trust in our capacity to proceed with boldness and a common vision that will feel and heal the suffering of our time and the divisions of our Party.
The economic plank of this platform on its face concerns only material things, but it is also a moral issue that I raise tonight. It has taken many forms over many years. In this campaign and in this country that we seek to lead, the challenge in 1980 is to give our voice and our vote for these fundamental democratic principles.
Let us pledge that we will never misuse unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.
Let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy.
Let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work; and we will not compromise on the issues of jobs.
These are not simplistic pledges. Simply put, they are the heart of our tradition, and they have been the soul of our Party across the generations. It is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfill the aspirations of all Americans seeking a better life in a better land.
We dare not forsake that tradition.
We cannot let the great purposes of the Democratic Party become the bygone passages of history.
We must not permit the Republicans to seize and run on the slogans of prosperity. We heard the orators at their convention all trying to talk like Democrats. They proved that even Republican nominees can quote Franklin Roosevelt to their own purpose.
The Grand Old Party thinks it has found a great new trick, but 40 years ago an earlier generation of Republicans attempted the same trick. And Franklin Roosevelt himself replied, "Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight those leaders have suddenly become the friends of average men and women."
"You know," he continued, "very few of us are that gullible." And four years later when the Republicans tried that trick again, Franklin Roosevelt asked, "Can the Old Guard pass itself off as the New Deal? I think not. We have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus, but no performing elephant could turn a handspring without falling flat on its back."
The 1980 Republican convention was awash with crocodile tears for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them.
The same Republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, and I quote, "Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders." And that nominee is no friend of labor.
The same Republicans who are talking about the problems of the inner cities have nominated a man who said, and I quote, "I have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the Federal Government not bail out New York." And that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have nominated a man who said just four years ago that "Participation in social security should be made voluntary." And that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation.
The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, "Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees." And that nominee is no friend of the environment.
And the same Republicans who are invoking Franklin Roosevelt have nominated a man who said in 1976, and these are his exact words, "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." And that nominee whose name is Ronald Reagan has no right to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The great adventures which our opponents offer is a voyage into the past. Progress is our heritage, not theirs. What is right for us as Democrats is also the right way for Democrats to win.
The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue. It is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems onto a scrap heap of inattention and indifference. The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs. The middle class may be angry, but they have not lost the dream that all Americans can advance together.
The demand of our people in 1980 is not for smaller government or bigger government but for better government. Some say that government is always bad and that spending for basic social programs is the root of our economic evils. But we reply: The present inflation and recession cost our economy 200 billion dollars a year. We reply: Inflation and unemployment are the biggest spenders of all.
The task of leadership in 1980 is not to parade scapegoats or to seek refuge in reaction, but to match our power to the possibilities of progress. While others talked of free enterprise, it was the Democratic Party that acted and we ended excessive regulation in the airline and trucking industry, and we restored competition to the marketplace. And I take some satisfaction that this deregulation legislation that I sponsored and passed in the Congress of the United States.
As Democrats we recognize that each generation of Americans has a rendezvous with a different reality. The answers of one generation become the questions of the next generation. But there is a guiding star in the American firmament. It is as old as the revolutionary belief that all people are created equal, and as clear as the contemporary condition of Liberty City and the South Bronx. Again and again Democratic leaders have followed that star and they have given new meaning to the old values of liberty and justice for all.
We are the Party -- We are the Party of the New Freedom, the New Deal, and the New Frontier. We have always been the Party of hope. So this year let us offer new hope, new hope to an America uncertain about the present, but unsurpassed in its potential for the future.
To all those who are idle in the cities and industries of America let us provide new hope for the dignity of useful work. Democrats have always believed that a basic civil right of all Americans is that their right to earn their own way. The Party of the people must always be the Party of full employment.
To all those who doubt the future of our economy, let us provide new hope for the reindustrialization of America. And let our vision reach beyond the next election or the next year to a new generation of prosperity. If we could rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II, then surely we can reindustrialize our own nation and revive our inner cities in the 1980's.
To all those who work hard for a living wage let us provide new hope that their price of their employment shall not be an unsafe workplace and a death at an earlier age.
To all those who inhabit our land from California to the New York Island, from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf stream waters, let us provide new hope that prosperity shall not be purchased by poisoning the air, the rivers, and the natural resources that are the greatest gift of this continent. We must insist that our children and our grandchildren shall inherit a land which they can truly call America the beautiful.
To all those who see the worth of their work and their savings taken by inflation, let us offer new hope for a stable economy. We must meet the pressures of the present by invoking the full power of government to master increasing prices. In candor, we must say that the Federal budget can be balanced only by policies that bring us to a balanced prosperity of full employment and price restraint.
And to all those overburdened by an unfair tax structure, let us provide new hope for real tax reform. Instead of shutting down classrooms, let us shut off tax shelters. Instead of cutting out school lunches, let us cut off tax subsidies for expensive business lunches that are nothing more than food stamps for the rich.
The tax cut of our Republican opponents takes the name of tax reform in vain. It is a wonderfully Republican idea that would redistribute income in the wrong direction. It's good news for any of you with incomes over 200,000 dollars a year. For the few of you, it offers a pot of gold worth 14,000 dollars. But the Republican tax cut is bad news for the middle income families. For the many of you, they plan a pittance of 200 dollars a year, and that is not what the Democratic Party means when we say tax reform.
The vast majority of Americans cannot afford this panacea from a Republican nominee who has denounced the progressive income tax as the invention of Karl Marx. I am afraid he has confused Karl Marx with Theodore Roosevelt -- that obscure Republican president who sought and fought for a tax system based on ability to pay. Theodore Roosevelt was not Karl Marx, and the Republican tax scheme is not tax reform.
Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.
The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.
There were some -- There were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the heritage of the Democratic Party has been a history of democracy. We fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and purposes. We did not flee this struggle. We welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in Detroit where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent.
Democrats can be proud that we chose a different course and a different platform.
We can be proud that our Party stands for investment in safe energy, instead of a nuclear future that may threaten the future itself. We must not permit the neighborhoods of America to be permanently shadowed by the fear of another Three Mile Island.
We can be proud that our Party stands for a fair housing law to unlock the doors of discrimination once and for all. The American house will be divided against itself so long as there is prejudice against any American buying or renting a home.
And we can be proud that our Party stands plainly and publicly and persistently for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Women hold their rightful place at our convention, and women must have their rightful place in the Constitution of the United States. On this issue we will not yield; we will not equivocate; we will not rationalize, explain, or excuse. We will stand for E.R.A. and for the recognition at long last that our nation was made up of founding mothers as well as founding fathers.
A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves.
There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us.
Let this -- Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all.
In closing, let me say a few words to all those that I have met and to all those who have supported me at this convention and across the country. There were hard hours on our journey, and often we sailed against the wind. But always we kept our rudder true, and there were so many of you who stayed the course and shared our hope. You gave your help; but even more, you gave your hearts.
And because of you, this has been a happy campaign. You welcomed Joan, me, and our family into your homes and neighborhoods, your churches, your campuses, your union halls. And when I think back of all the miles and all the months and all the memories, I think of you. And I recall the poet's words, and I say: "What golden friends I had."
Among you, my golden friends across this land, I have listened and learned.
I have listened to Kenny Dubois, a glassblower in Charleston, West Virginia, who has ten children to support but has lost his job after 35 years, just three years short of qualifying for his pension.
I have listened to the Trachta family who farm in Iowa and who wonder whether they can pass the good life and the good earth on to their children.
I have listened to the grandmother in East Oakland who no longer has a phone to call her grandchildren because she gave it up to pay the rent on her small apartment.
I have listened to young workers out of work, to students without the tuition for college, and to families without the chance to own a home.
I have seen the closed factories and the stalled assembly lines of Anderson, Indiana and South Gate, California, and I have seen too many, far too many idle men and women desperate to work.
I have seen too many, far too many working families desperate to protect the value of their wages from the ravages of inflation.
Yet I have also sensed a yearning for a new hope among the people in every state where I have been.
And I have felt it in their handshakes, I saw it in their faces, and I shall never forget the mothers who carried children to our rallies.
I shall always remember the elderly who have lived in an America of high purpose and who believe that it can all happen again.
Tonight, in their name, I have come here to speak for them. And for their sake, I ask you to stand with them. On their behalf I ask you to restate and reaffirm the timeless truth of our Party.
I congratulate President Carter on his victory here.
I am -- I am confident that the Democratic Party will reunite on the basis of Democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a Democratic victory in 1980.
And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith.
May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.
And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:
"I am a part of all that I have met
To [Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."*
For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.
For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.
*************************************************************************************************************
*It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: all times I have enjoyed
Greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Through scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vexed the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honoured of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers;
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethrough
Gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life. Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this grey spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.
This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle —
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.
There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me —
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads — you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
--entire (and corrected!) text of Tennyson's Ulysses
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Rendition to Continue
This marks the first major disappointment I've experienced in President Obama's performance. The second major disappointment is in the works -- I expected something vastly different from him as part of the national conversation (or rabid ranting) on healthcare reform. (I expected him to carry out his mandate and not to pander to numbnut extremists.)
What has me upset? In short:
This is so far from acceptable that I'm almost speechless at the audacity. Almost.
The United States of America needs to be as transparent as possible in its treatment of *all* criminal suspects in order to reestablish some of the trust that the Bush administration allowed to erode so egregiously. There can be no more claims that the one hand knows not what the other has done.
I'm inflexible on this issue, having been a thoughtful adherent to the views of Amnesty International for several decades now. It's amazing how easy it is to distinguish between right and wrong when the "rules" of the game are straightforward and fixed. (That's not to say that policy review should not be a constant, ongoing endeavor. Scrutiny should be welcomed.)
I stand with AI in the belief -- in the knowledge -- that "torture and ill-treatment are wrong, always and everywhere..."; That only accountability for US counter-terrorism human rights violations will allow us to really counter terror with justice.
It was a "pushmi-pullyu" moment when I first saw this headline about the continuation of renditions, for it was published just below a related article: U.S. Shifts, Giving Detainee Names to the Red Cross.
I would like to be able to extend to the Obama administration a measure of my trust -- and say that opening this population to the scrutiny and protection of the Red Cross should bolster my faith that future renditions will, of course, be free from torture and ill-treatment.
Sadly, I cannot extend that trust.
On a lighter note, look at the consternation and then the relief on this child's face at the National Spelling Bee -- as he contemplates numbnut.
What has me upset? In short:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.
Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called “diplomatic assurances,” were no protection against abuse.
“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
Ms. Singh cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, where he was beaten with electrical cable despite assurances against torture.
This is so far from acceptable that I'm almost speechless at the audacity. Almost.
The United States of America needs to be as transparent as possible in its treatment of *all* criminal suspects in order to reestablish some of the trust that the Bush administration allowed to erode so egregiously. There can be no more claims that the one hand knows not what the other has done.
I'm inflexible on this issue, having been a thoughtful adherent to the views of Amnesty International for several decades now. It's amazing how easy it is to distinguish between right and wrong when the "rules" of the game are straightforward and fixed. (That's not to say that policy review should not be a constant, ongoing endeavor. Scrutiny should be welcomed.)
I stand with AI in the belief -- in the knowledge -- that "torture and ill-treatment are wrong, always and everywhere..."; That only accountability for US counter-terrorism human rights violations will allow us to really counter terror with justice.
It was a "pushmi-pullyu" moment when I first saw this headline about the continuation of renditions, for it was published just below a related article: U.S. Shifts, Giving Detainee Names to the Red Cross.
WASHINGTON — In a reversal of Pentagon policy, the military for the first time is notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross of the identities of militants who were being held in secret at a camp in Iraq and another in Afghanistan run by United States Special Operations forces, according to three military officials.Both sides of the mouth, speaking at once? The eternal one-step forward, one-step back, the illusion of progress?
The change begins to lift the veil from the American government’s most secretive remaining overseas prisons by allowing the Red Cross to track the custody of dozens of the most dangerous suspected terrorists and foreign fighters plucked off the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is a major advance for the organization in its long fight to gain more information about these detainees. The military had previously insisted that disclosing any details about detainees at the secretive camps could tip off other militants and jeopardize counterterrorism missions.
I would like to be able to extend to the Obama administration a measure of my trust -- and say that opening this population to the scrutiny and protection of the Red Cross should bolster my faith that future renditions will, of course, be free from torture and ill-treatment.
Sadly, I cannot extend that trust.
On a lighter note, look at the consternation and then the relief on this child's face at the National Spelling Bee -- as he contemplates numbnut.
,
Monday, August 24, 2009
Missing Children Banner and Other Good Things
Back in July, when I followed SecretWave101's lead and posted information about Lindsey Baum, 11, of McCleary, Washington, I "post-dated" the entry to August 20, 2009.The hope was, of course, that she would have been found by then. Instead, she remains missing and is believed to have been abducted.
In addition to the hope was the thought that I would then add the name and story of another missing child -- who would then be promptly found unharmed, unscathed. It seems such an easy thing to do with a blog -- particularly blogs like this one, that don't exactly follow a grand design.
And so I went hunting this afternoon through the names, faces, and harrowing tales of those children who have been reported missing during the last month. A fair number of the cases are "family abductions," code for custody-battles-gone-wrong. I figure those will likely be solved through basic application of 2 + 2 = 4 logic -- also, I figure those kids are, at least, with someone who cares for them.
I know, I know. There are big holes in my 1 + 3 = 5 thinking. Some of those kids are in real danger.
Still, I chose not to concentrate on custody cases.
I picked Daisja Weaver, a beautiful 9-month old little girl, out of the lists at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) website.
I'll spare you the details, but her parents have been arrested for her murder.
Then I was drawn to the grin of Hasanni Campbell, the precious 5 year old with cerebral palsy who disappeared without a trace from an Oakland street. He has difficulty walking, so believing him to have been abducted by a stranger didn't stretch my incredulity one bit.
Not like the news that his foster father has failed a lie detector test and has a newly discovered history of violence. The truth of it just seeped into my bones. I know of no other way to describe it -- it has a bone feel. Hasanni Campbell won't be helped by having his picture and tiny story on this blog.
I could go on -- and Lord knows, I need to -- but I won't. Did I think that the world of Missing and Exploited Children was one of lighthearted frivolity? No, not at all. I just deluded myself into forgetting the deadly evil adults can exact upon these young souls.
At least, thank heavens, I am no longer paralyzed by Do-Gooder's Disease -- even if I just barely escaped falling prey to the delusion that these ugly realities rendered my small efforts a complete waste.
A few weeks back, Fred and I had a Difficult Conversation. Contrary to the reigning pop psychology (that endorses a shift from either/or to and, for example), I was at fault. I was wrong. I was in error. I had been ba-a-ad. One of the things that came from our Difficult Conversation was Fred's belief that I did not spend my time in good and uplifting pursuits. I have been too focused on my pain and my illness. I was driving him crazy.
He asked that I please spend my time "on good things, on doing good."
It was a conversation worth having. I find myself examining every choice -- from making toast to surfing the web -- and questioning the subtle influences exerted by each activity.
He felt I was too interested in medical blogs and bloggers, that this interest didn't dovetail well with the reality of being sick, disabled, in a bleeping amount of pain, and on the verge of losing my insurance coverage. He might, maybe, have a point. Could be. It's within the realm of the possible.
Good things.
Doing good.
I don't know, Dear and Darling Readers. But when I have it all figured out, you'll be among the first to share my illumination.
Until then? I am installing a banner that links to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children -- and I hope some of you will do likewise.
And I consider this afternoon's reality check to be something of a dare to Fred's admonishment that I "do good," and involve myself with "good things." It is not that I am attracted to the underbelly of the beast -- foster parents murdering the children in their care, parents absconding with trusting sons and daughters, those sorts of fluff affairs. No, it is just the simple, sad truth that I understand the darkness more than I will ever comprehend the light.
It could be that Fred mentioned balance and equanimity along with all that jabber about goodness. At least, I'm sure he meant to.
You'll find the easy instructions for adding the Missing Children Banner to your webpage/blog here.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Casuist and Demagogue: Show me your bona fides
Casuistry: specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, esp. in questions of morality; fallacious or dishonest application of general principles; sophistry. That's what is going on over at WhiteCoat's Call Room: A blog from inside the emergency department. This medical blogger recently admonished a reader -- who had him dead to rights on his basic intellectual and political insincerity: "Dis me, but don’t dis the mag."
[He writes for EPMonthly, which calls itself "the independent voice of emergency room physicians."]
Of course! I would never cast a jaundiced eye toward the vehicle for WhiteCoat's demagoguery. I am sure his practiced subtlety has them absolutely hoodwinked.
And I'd never, ever infer that he has a measure of responsibility as a representative of the site.
The sea change of my opinion began on August 3, 2009 with the stupid and disingenuous post entitled Highlights from the health reform bill.
By the time I read the post, what needed to be said in commentary had been said, so I did my usual stutter-fook. What required airing? Well, BK said, for example:
WC,
You’ve had some shoddy arguments in the past, but this one takes the cake…by far!
Commentary (from unknown source) is contained below.
This doesn’t worry you at all? In a debate so filled with misinformation, halftruths, and outright lies, you’re posting some unknown partisan hacks interpretation of the bill? (and yes, if you look down the list it is obviously made by a partisan hack).
I wish I could say I was surprised that you posted this.
Nick even wanted to abstract WC out of authorship, saying:
Someone needs to apologize for the brazen dishonesty of this post, especially the completely fictitious assertions about government deciding end of life care.
I am requiring more of myself these days, the product of having spent so much time feeling rotten instead of trying to rise above. Everytime I am angered and offput by Stupid-Unto-Dangerous Politicking, I nevertheless lack the willpower to "unsubscribe" from the blog feed in question. I tell myself the lie that keeping an eye on the "other side" is instructive. I tell myself that it's worth putting up with because of the drole stories intersperced with dyspeptic agenda. I even dare to think that the rationed humor is funny enough. I say, "He challenges me to think in a different way... And it is important to keep an eye on The Loyal Opposition." But in so doing, I overstate the status of bloggers like WhiteCoat, and lower my level of responsibility in thought and discourse.
I also have admonished myself for being overly serious and terribly thinskinned. But I am in a period of accelerated aging, and along with the dearth in time comes an awful lot of additional maturity.
Is it over-the-top to employ terms like demagoguery and casuistry in reference to someone of little fame beyond the rarefied air of the medical blogosphere? Has he earned his bona fides* to the exclusion of all doubt of his good faith?
No, and no.
It saddens me to conclude that WhiteCoat is an insincere sniveler. And so I crowed hooray when Shadowfax took on his lame attempt to disown the disingenuity of More Analysis of the Healthcare Reform Bill:
You also backpedal greatly away from this email, which you claim was only posted to generate discussion. Your language was more approving at the time: “they are generally on point, although some of the commentary isn’t entirely accurate.” Fair enough, you had a disclaimer. My advice: don’t uncritically disseminate half-true stuff. Promote that with which you agree, debunk that which is untrue, but don’t weasel with the “I dunno, looks OK, you decide” approach.
I've canceled my subscription to WhiteCoat's blog. He'll be reeling from my absence for a long time, I know -- inconsolable. For my more progressive take on the issue of health care reform, I prefer the goods over at Movin'Meat.
And so, WhiteCoat (who doesn't know me from Adam), I have followed your advice and not dissed the mag.
*bona fides: Good faith, or in Latin bona fides (bona fide means "in good faith"), is the mental and moral state of honesty, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct.... In contemporary English, "bona fides" is sometimes used as a synonym for credentials, background, or documentation of a person's identity. "Show me your bona fides" can mean: Why should I trust you (your good faith in this matter)? Tell me who you are.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Insult to Injury
Adding to the list of things I pray never to experience:
Ambulance Drops Patient Mid Transport!
Ambulance Drops Patient Mid Transport!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Put Your Hands on the Magic Gams: Praise the Lord!
Unfortunately for you, quite happily for me, this blog continues to be a reliquaire -- the shapely sainted scent of this cut-glass bowl of -- well, let's be nice and continue the tired appropriation of potpourri.Actually, this motley collection calls more to mind those jeweled and funky medieval reliquaries in the form of the various holy body parts they contain. My favorite, and, I believe, the most salutary? The Magic Gams of the Saints.
Put Your Hands on the Magic Gams: Praise the Lord!
(to the right, Reliquary of Saint Blaise, Dubrovnik)
The Ho-Hum-itude of your generic reliquaries: your fancy boxes, studded with tiresome jewels and enamel work; your larger fancy-schmancy boxes in the form of romanesque churches and spired cathedrals; your humongous fancy boxes shaped like Ye Olde Ubiquitous Coffins, your musty grinning ossuaries that approximate real worship space (Chinese feng shui dates back a good pretty bit)?
They are patently inferior to the free-standing chasse legs of a more enlightened era.
Still, reliquary legs can pose the occasional conundrum, as noted in this article about the infamous three-legged Saint Chad back in 1996:
Scientists examining the relics of a 7th-century saint venerated in Birmingham have discovered that his casket contains three legs rather than the customary two.
Radio-carbon dating, however, has established that five of the six bones in the reliquary of St Chad may well be genuine, since they date form the 6th or 7th century; one of the bones which Catholics have revered for 1,300 years is a century or two older than the rest. The Oxford archaeologist who carried out the test believes that that bones from three bodies were jumbled together when the saint was reburied.
St Chad, or Ceadd, who died in 672, was the first Bishop of Mercia, with his seat in Lichfield, where he was buried. He had been, briefly, Archbishop of York, before he was removed from the post by St Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury. His bones had been moved to a new church in 700 and were kept in Lichfield Cathedral until the Reformation, when Henry VIII abolished the cult of relics.
St Chad's brother, Cedd, was also a saint and founded a monastery where St Chad was later abbot. On hearing the news of St Chad's many-legged state, one distinguished Catholic historian joked that the extra leg might belong to St Cedd.
The Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Maurice Couve de Murville, has authorised continued devotion to the relics - provided it is directed at all the bones equally.
See? I've good reason to prefer a more fitting fitted container-for-the-thing-contained. Something less a dime-a-dozen casket and more a Glamorous Gam.
Actually, the simple stories of the travels and travails of saintly relics can be enlightening of the human spirit -- frail and heroic -- as well as just plain hilarious. More about the relics of Saint Chad:
According to St. Bede, he was immediately venerated as a saint and his relics were translated to a new shrine. He is considered a saint in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, and is also noted as a saint in a new edition of the Eastern Orthodox Synaxarion (Book of Saints), in response to increasing attention to pre-Schism western saints. His feast day is celebrated on March 2.
Chad remained the centre of an important cult, focussed on healing, throughout the middle ages. This was centred on his tomb, behind the high altar of the cathedral, and his skull, in a special Head Chapel.
At the dissolution of the Shrine on the instructions of King Henry VIII in about 1538, Prebendary Arthur Dudley of Lichfield Cathedral removed and retained some relics, probably a travelling set. These were eventually passed to his nieces, Bridget and Katherine Dudley, of Russells Hall.
In 1651, they reappeared when a farmer Henry Hodgetts of Sedgley was on his death-bed and kept praying to St Chad, when the priest hearing his last confession, Fr Peter Turner SJ, asked him why he called upon Chad. Henry replied, "because his bones are in the head of my bed". He instructed his wife to give the relics to the priest, whence they found their way to the Seminary at St Omer, in France. After the conclusion of penal times, in the early 19th Century, they found their way into the hands of Sir Thomas Fitzherbert-Brockholes of Aston Hall, near Stone, Staffordshire. When his chapel was cleared after his death, his chaplain, Fr Benjamin Hulme, discovered the box containg the relics, which were examined and presented to Bishop Thomas Walsh, (RC) Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District in 1837 and were enshrined in the new Cathedral of St Chad in Birmingham, opened in 1841, in a new ark designed by Augustus Pugin.
Somewhere in this morning's journeys, I fell in love with the pottery of John Hodge. A brief communion with a photo gallery of his work went a long way toward the erosion of my present wise-crackery. He explains: "Every piece of pottery that I make generates from clay or slip (liquid clay) that has been mixed in my studio. I have begun to think of this clay and slip as a source of energy which I enhance with special additions, including holy water and fountain from our favorite churches and fountains in Rome, and holy dirt from the shrine of Chimayo in New Mexico. I also added the ashes of ribbon that I got from the trash can in the apartment where John Lennon and Yoko Ono were living on Bank Street in New York City, when they were fighting extradition to England in the ‘70’s. Also included are the ashes of ticker tape from the John Glenn ticker tape parade in New York. I think of my pottery as a reliquary of positive energy."
Wouldn't it be a wonder if our lives were such a perfect fit? I am reliquary :: I am [sufficient] relic?
A mesh, a complement -- either of two parts or things needed to complete the whole --counterparts -- a safe and sacred conversation?
So I'm a leg woman. You might be partial to hands. Not to worry, friend, as hands and feet are number six in the hit parade of fetishes, according to the ever popular Women's Sexuality Correspondent Vanessa Burton at AskMen.com, certainly my preferred source for informed erotica.
John Hodge has made some fascinating hand reliquary:
.........................................................
Au sens premier du mot, un reliquaire (du latin reliquiarium) contient les reliques d'un saint chrétien.
For an interesting look at relics in Buddhism, and the democratization (and proliferation) of those relics -- a process almost identical to that of their Christian counterparts -- read the first chapter (or at least the last half of the first chapter!) of The impact of Buddhism on Chinese material culture by John Kieschnick.
Also, I ran across an interesting take on "relics, cremation and organ donation" at the Blog of the Dormition: Eastern Catholic Apostolic Orthodox (one John R.P. Russell runs the joint) -- a very nice, but painful, logical extension of learning about reliquary as a [strictly Christian] concept:
Within the Christian tradition, to bury the dead is a work of mercy – to burn the dead a desecration. The bodies of our departed holy ones are rightly venerated in altars, catacombs, and cemeteries, in reliquaries and ossuaries in reverent expectation of the coming resurrection.
In the light of traditional Christian respect for the corpse, ought Christians to regard the transplantation of human organs as a desecration or a veneration of the body?
Most Christians are firmly in the latter camp, believing with neither doubt nor hesitation in this modern medical miracle. Others hesitate. I have hesitated for years.
A compelling argument against organ donation, it has seemed to me, is the resurrection of Lazarus. Imagine that, upon his death, Mary and Martha had carved him up and used his organs to save other folks’ lives. This would put a whole new spin on Christ's command, "Lazarus, come out!" Would his organs, in obedience to their Creator, have jumped from the guts of their recipients?
Lazarus is not unique. The Seven Holy Sleepers, too, rose from the dead. Peter raised the dead (Acts 9:40). The bones of Elias raised the dead (2 Kings 13: 21). How, if some organs of these lived on, would their resurrections have occurred?
Would Jesus have wanted His organs donated?
If, indeed, our bodies are to rise from the dead, are not our organs to rise with them? What is a body but a group of organs? Significantly, our bodies will rise from the dead – our souls are not given new bodies. Body and soul are linked. The soul is the life of the body. Our bodies rise and, if we are saved, are glorified. They are made new, but are not recreated.
Compelled as I have been by these arguments, in truth, “the free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious” (CCC 2301).
What is more, the practice of organ transplantation actually has ancient Christian approval. Sts. Cosmas and Damian, as here illustrated, once performed a miraculous leg transplant as a means of healing an ulcerated leg.
The workings of resurrection are mysterious – unplumbable. Our omnipotent God has taught us the greatest love is the gift of self – self-sacrifice. For the sake of such love, God, Who is Love, will surely make a way. Where I have seen contradiction, there is none.
No greater reliquary could there be for the organs of a departed loved one than the body of another – here is a reliquary of God’s own creation, “more precious than the most exquisite jewels and more purified than gold” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, c. 135). Here indeed is a fitting place to deposit our remains.
Saints Cosmas and Damian, unmercenary physicians, performing a miraculous transplant of a leg from a deceased Ethiopian. Attributed to Master of Los Balbases (15th Century).
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Alma de Cuba of the Ischium
I HAVE brought forth to the nations, the occupied and unincorporated territories, the communes, the departments, the states and counties, the unions, the parishes, and ALL of the condominia and nanovillages of the world -- a marvel.
FOR Unto me is born this day in the hinterlands between the thigh and the left butt cheek, a Pressure Sore, which shall be called Alma de Cuba of the Ischium, after the famed restaurant in Liverpool, "Winner of Best Bar, Best Restaurant and UK's Best Venue in 2008," situated in a converted Catholic church. When you think "cuban cuisine," think Liverpool!
Think of all the firsts Alma de Cuba of the Ischium and I will have! I need to invest in one of those little Pressure Sore Memory Albums so that I can be sure and jot down the particulars of all the wonderful times to come --
Alma's first saline rinse.
Alma's first colloidal dressing.
Alma's itch!
Alma's sting!
FOR Unto me is born this day in the hinterlands between the thigh and the left butt cheek, a Pressure Sore, which shall be called Alma de Cuba of the Ischium, after the famed restaurant in Liverpool, "Winner of Best Bar, Best Restaurant and UK's Best Venue in 2008," situated in a converted Catholic church. When you think "cuban cuisine," think Liverpool!
Think of all the firsts Alma de Cuba of the Ischium and I will have! I need to invest in one of those little Pressure Sore Memory Albums so that I can be sure and jot down the particulars of all the wonderful times to come --
Alma's first saline rinse.
Alma's first colloidal dressing.
Alma's itch!
Alma's sting!
Alma's eventual lack of sensation!
Alma's First Holy Communion!
Alma's First Holy Communion!
First day of school.
First smile.
As God ordains it, there will always be less of me and more of Alma de Cuba of the Ischium. That's the Pressure Sore Condition, the inevitable ingestion of The Host.
Holy Inevitable Ingestion, Batman!
I'll try to keep her public apprised of Alma's growth and evolution, but I don't want to expose her overly much to the contagions of The World.
I thought this day would never come.
As God ordains it, there will always be less of me and more of Alma de Cuba of the Ischium. That's the Pressure Sore Condition, the inevitable ingestion of The Host.
Holy Inevitable Ingestion, Batman!
I'll try to keep her public apprised of Alma's growth and evolution, but I don't want to expose her overly much to the contagions of The World.
I thought this day would never come.
It May Be A Long Way To Tipperary But It's A Far Cry From Latent Violence To Claymation. And Vice-Versa.
It's one of those times when I would prefer to call Fred "Poindexter." The preference is strong, almost overwhelming, and yet I didn't even know how I knew the name Poindexter.So it turns out that it comes from Felix the Cat.
ALERT! ALERT! When I went to Wikipedia (somewhere south of Des Moines) to find something out about Felix the Cat, a cartoon and comic strip pretty much unknown to me (except for the latent imprint of Poindexter, and, of course, the iconic image of Felix), there was a stern warning at the top of the page saying, among other dire things, that the article contained Weasel Words which compromised the quality of its information. The gist, for Wikipedia, at least, is that such words/expressions "are words or statements that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable."
Like me, you probably have your own definition of Weasel Words. Start with "words typical of a weasel." This necessitates that you identify the weasels in your life, not exactly a warm-fuzzy type of exercise but one that we all do from time to time, or daily. I usually ignore weaselly types, myself, being almost preternaturally laid back. It's almost a curse, I am so relaxed and easygoing.
Weasel *words*, though? Heh. {snark-ety:snark-ety}
Yeah, I thought I was hot stuff. Something else to sneer at, add it to my long list. Turns out I don't know everything about Rhetoric and her Devices. You Weasel Experts already know about the creature's ability to suck out the contents of a bird egg and leave the shell in pristine condition. It was news to moi. And so the allusion goes:
The expression weasel word derives from the egg-eating habits of weasels. An egg that a weasel has sucked will look intact to the casual observer, while actually being empty. Similarly, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon analysis are known as "weasel words". The expression first appeared in Stewart Chaplin's short story Stained Glass Political Platform (published in 1900 in The Century Magazine), in which they were referred to as "words that suck the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks the egg and leaves the shell."Sometimes the only way to avoid calling Fred-the-Ferret by the moniker of "Poindexter" is to sublimate that desire. Sublimation is the most productive of the defense mechanisms! Booya! iT'S dOWNrIgHT c.r.e.a.t.i.v.e.
In the political sphere, this type of language is used to "spin" or alter the public's perception of an issue. In 1916, Theodore Roosevelt argued that "one of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use ...'weasel words'; when one 'weasel word' is used ... after another there is nothing left."
[I plan to write a serious, short post about the wasted lives of those caught up in the topsy-turvy, crazy-assed world of devices and mechanisms. Soon.]
No -- not sublimation by a lighthearted and gentle slap to the back of Fred's dear head à la Gibbs to DiNozzo, no, no! No matter how much Tony smiles, that's abuse. ***
Me? I choose to sublimate by spending an afternoon developing an awesome, incomparable stop-motion animation short, using plasticine clay, pipe cleaners and fresh, organic vegetables.
Otherwise, it would just be one verbal assault after another. I might really err and call him a "son of a bitch!" Alternatively, I might suggest in a scary, scary, saccarine voice that he "take a long walk off a short pier."
It might even happen that I learn from some recent teachable moment and provide a pithy "your mama" reference.
Upon reflection, Obama sure did posit his fair share of Weasel Words about the arrest of Professor Gates -- spinning public perception 'n all -- didn't he? Wouldn't you like to know what the citizenry might have done with the situation if it had been left unspun?
{cough:cough}
Um. You needn't worry for Fred's safety. He's a big lug and I love him.
The fact that he is occasionally paranoid and short-sighted is beside the point.
***NCIS just recently arrived in Tête de Hergé, and we here at Marlinspike Hall have taken to watching NCIS marathon after NCIS marathon. That Ducky! Dr. Donald Mallard! Get it? nyuk-nyuk!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Corazon Aquino
The arc of Corazon Aquino's life lent itself to maxims, but two hard-nosed ones seem particularly worth pointing out. First, political sainthood is a gift from heaven with a Cinderella deadline — once past midnight, you are a pumpkin. Second, personal virtues are never a guarantee of effective or successful governance. What was truly shocking about Aquino's tumultuous six-year term as President of the Philippines was that those maxims proved untrue. Midnight always threatened Aquino but never struck; and she was a good woman whose goodness alone, at the very end, was what proved enough, if only by an iota, to save her country.
More On Ketamine (Courtesy of the StudMuffin)
Courtesy of Jim Broatch, the StudMuffin of RSDSA (Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association -- an organization in need of a new name, if ever there was one...). Jim and His Fellow StudMuffins at RSDSA do phenomenal work for those mired in suffering now, all the while keeping their heads above water, their eyes on the prize of future therapies and happenin' research.In fact, kiddos, the real "read" here is not this pitiful little article from People magazine (I mean, the magazine's editors *would* look at the most extreme and ill-afforded "therapy" out there -- forget the hundreds of thousands who have no access to it, or who don't believe in its claims, or who are just too far gone into misery... and co-morbidity. I rhymed!) -- no, the real read is in this link that Jim Broatch also provides, which is to legitimate information to help you make up your mind about the ketamine angle based on solid stuff.
To read up on my illegitimate posting on ketamine, much of it having to do with Laura Beckett and her sad odyssey, take a gander here. I promise it is all uninformed opinion. You're welcome.
All of that said, here's the gist of the People article, and best wishes to John Roach, its subject.
I love the title!
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
This Man CHOSE to be in a Coma
After years of excruciating pain that drove him to thoughts of suicide, John Roach decided to gamble on a controversial new treatment-a ketamine-induced coma.
August 10, 2009
By Alicia Dennis
PEOPLE Magazine
John Roach looks up at wife Rosemary from his bed in room 133 at the Hospital San Jose in Monterrey, Mexico. "Don’t say goodbye," he pleads as doctors prepare to send the burly grandfather form Allentown, Pa., into unconsciousness. "It’s okay," Rosemary says. "Pleasant dreams."
Soon, deep in a coma, John descends into a frightening, topsy-turvy world. Scene: He’s in a strange house with paintings on the ceiling. Scene: He’s watching as his cat rushes into the path of an oncoming car. Scene: He’s a World War II soldier fighting on a blood-soaked battlefield. "It was weird and frightening," John recalls of his voluntary, five-day ordeal in late May. "But I needed to do something."
Suffering from a debilitating neuromuscular disorder called reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) , John, 50, is one of about 100 chronic-pain patients resorting to a radical new treatment in search of relief-medically induced coma using ketamine, a surgical anesthetic and hallucinogen sold illegally as "Special K." advocates say ketamine comas can be a godsend for some. "We're giving people in excruciating pain a normal life," says Dr. Robert J. Schwartzman, neurology chairman at Philadelphia's Drexel University College of Medicine; since coma therapy isn't FDA approved, he's sent more than 60 patients to Germany and Mexico. But other experts say the treatment, which costs as much as $ 50,000 with travel, is too risky. "Vulnerable people are getting something expensive and potentially dangerous," says Dr. Norman Harden of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.
Some 200,000 people suffer from RSD, in which ordinary pain escalates to crippling levels. "Think of holding a blowtorch to your skin," says John, whose entire left side was affected after he fell down rotted stairs and tore his rotator cuff in 2002. Because ketamine blocks pain receptors, Schwartzman says, very high doses can restart the nervous system, "like rebooting a computer."
Brandy Sachs, 23, of Christianburg, Va., had spent seven years in a wheelchair after a finger injury and ankle sprain spiraled into all-over agony. "I was giving her pain meds in doses that would have killed a horse," says her family doctor, Jeremy Freeman. Last fall, after undergoing a five-day coma in Germany, Brandy needed months of therapy to relearn how to walk, talk and eat. But now, she says, she's pain-free and plans to start her master's degree: "It's a miracle."
Not always. In October 2008, RSD patient and mother of three Laura Beckett, 47, of Magnolia, N.J., developed pneumonia while in a coma in Germany and was kept under for three weeks as doctors fought to save her. She woke up paralyzed from the neck down and now lives at a rehabilitation center. "It's an understatement to say things went wrong," says husband Karl, though he adds his wife's pain was so unbearable they would likely choose the coma again. Says Schwartzman: 'We've had tragic outcomes. But this is only attempted after every other treatment has been tried."
John, a jovial retired phone-company worker, had tried surgery, physical therapy and heavy doses of pain medication, including OxyContin, codeine and fentanyl. When nothing worked, he thought of ending it all. "I couldn't be touched," he says. "I couldn't hold my wife's hand or sleep next to her. It wasn't the life I wanted."
Back home now, John is amazed that he's been virtually pain-free. Getting regular ketamine booster injections (at non-coma levels) from his physicians, Schwartzman and Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick, he has removed a protective compression sleeve he wore for years and can once again wear his watch and wedding ring. Best of all, he can walk hand in hand with Rosemary and scoop up his granddaughters for hugs. "I have been missing all the little joys in life," he says. "Now I want to live every one of them."
RSDSA: Information on Ketamine Treatment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)