I have seen in recent days - in blogs, on tv, in the papers - people saying something to the effect of, "If thousands of lives are at stake, its alright to torture in order to save those lives."  These types of extreme and unrealistic dilemmas are better for movies than for policy making, but it raises important questions.  Is it really ok to torture?  Are there circumstance where torture should be allowed?  Should the laws be written so that governments can torture if they deem that they need to?  We can get into debates about whether or not it works, was used correctly, or it is being honestly reported as well as what actually constitutes torture.  But I want to ask the more fundamental questions. 

First, I don't think its as simple as torturing one person to save thousand.  The event does not end with the torturing.  The United States, as the most powerful country in the world, is an example for the rest of the world.  One person being tortured will lead to 1000s being tortured.  It can be a justification for other countries.  As well, it can become more prevalent in our own country. 

But the bigger question is whether or not we can ever trust our governments with the power to torture under any circumstances.  Is there any government that we can trust with that much power?  Some people might trust Obama, others might trust Bush, but will we be able to trust the next president?  Will we be able to trust the countries that deal with our citizens such as in South Korea today?  In even this limited circumstance, was the torture really done in the best interests of the country or was the torture done to try to justify a war for which there was no justification? 

If we justify torture based on an "ends justify the means" argument, and the government is defining the ends, we end up with a "government justifies the means.  Truly Orwellian. 

Torture is not, and can never be, acceptable.  We can argue about what is torture, where we draw the line, but when that line is drawn, it should not be crossed.  And if it is ever crossed, people have to be punished (imprisoned) to make it clear that we are a society that does not accept that.

Ralph Nader for Commerce Secretary.  He would be perfect for it and it would show the people that Obama is truly being inclusive in his cabinet.  Forget bipartisanship, Obama needs multi-partisanship. 

My mom lives in Indiana and works for a small company that is unfortunately run by McCain supporters.  For the past 2 days she has had to endure repeated angry comments about Obama winning the election and how bad things would be for everyone.  Today my mom's boss told her that she should expect her next paychecks to be smaller because their insurance costs were going to go up by $25,000 specifically because of Obama. 

Of course this does not make any sense, most obviously because Obama isn't even president yet and so could not have done anything to increase insurance costs.  Also, obviously Obama is committed to decreasing costs of health care.  

What can she do about this?  Any ideas?

The Chicago Tribune published an editorial today going after McCain for his relationship with Gordon Liddy.  The Tribune calls McCain a hypocrite for not fully revealing his relationship with Liddy:

This leads us to some inescapable conclusions. The first is that McCain lied when he promised to lay out his relationship with Liddy. The second is that he is hypocritical in demanding something of Obama that he won't do himself. The third is that he is scared to tell Americans the truth because they won't like what they hear.

Although Liddy only was convicted of burglary and wire-tapping, the article lays out some of the more serious plans that were considered:

He proposed to do still more--bomb the liberal Brookings Institution, kidnap anti-war activists and murder a couple of inconvenient people. But cooler heads prevailed.

And the article calls McCain on his claim that Liddy paid his debt:

Actually, most of the debt was forgiven by President Jimmy Carter, who commuted his sentence. McCain doesn't mention that, like Ayers, Liddy has never repented of his crimes, but takes pride in them.

And the article goes over some extreme comments Liddy made regarding the raid at Waco:

His contempt for the law has not abated. After the 1993 raid in Waco, Texas, Liddy urged lethal violence against federal agents. "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms," he told listeners. "Kill the sons of bitches."

From The Washington Independent

"During the past few weeks, people who posted “Obama for President” signs in their yards in Clarendon and in the nearby neighborhood of Lyon Park received this letter. Addressed to “Dearest Neighbor,” the letter informed them, in a tone meant to be friendly and helpful, that they should consider the possibility that they are supporting Obama to cover up for their own, hidden racism."

Does the way that the media treated Sarah Palin in the last debate and since remind anyone of Chauncey Garner?

She says stupid irrelevant statements and the press falls over themselves trying to make sense out of it. 

Wake up media!!! What she is saying is pure garbage. 

Maybe this is obvious, but I have been surprised that I have not seen it discussed.  Gwen Ifill got played last week.  Here's how it happened:

1. A couple days before the primary, McCain supporters accuse Ifill of being biased for Obama.  This is done mostly through her upcoming book, but also in her reception to Palin on the political scene.

2. The American people hear about the bias and are therefore made vigilant in looking for any perceived bias in her moderating.

3. Ifill knows she will be watched closely and is therefore guarded.

4. Palin gets to not answer questions and be evasive without worrying about being challenged.  And if she would have been challenged, McCain supporters would claim bias.

Cleverly played by the McCain team.  You have a candidate in Sarah Palin who you know can't handle questions well and certainly does not have an expansive knowledge to cover all of the topics to be discussed.  How do you deal with it?  Tell your candidate to only talk about a few topics: taxes, maverick, etc. 

But won't the moderator object?  That is why these objections to Ifill were launched right before the debate.  Challenge Ifill beforehand and Palin won't be challenged in the debate.  She can avoid any question.  And of course you have already made it so that Biden couldn't challenge her due to a fear of being called sexist.

Gwen Ifill, you got played.

"[McCain is] the most stridently pro-authority, pro-government major party nominee we’ve had in a long time."

Reason Magazine Senior Editor Radley Balko explains why he is so critical of McCain.  Sure, Balko is voting for Bob Barr, but he says that although Obama isn't perfect, McCain would be "much worse."

This might be a good article to forward to any libartarian or Reagan-Republican friends .

We've all become used to the GOP attack of "elitism."  The real elitism that is driving this election is the elitism in the republican party and in the media.  I'm not talking about the son of an admiral or husband of an heiress type of elitism.  Yes, all of that is the true elitism too.  But, I'm talking about the kind of elitism that brands most of America as too ignorant to deal with real issues.   The elitism that believes that all most Americans care about is personality and showmanship.  The belief that the dumb voters can be played.

After watching the vice presidential debate, I thought Biden killed.  He showed clearly that he could handle any question at any time.  Palin showed she didn't have a command over any issue.  I saw past Palin's rehearsed lines and winks.  I saw her performance for what it was - words without any substance. 

I was shocked to see some positive reviews.  David Brooks saying she did great.  Peggy Noonan saying Palin killed.  Even Mark Shields complementing her "colloquialness" and other saying that America would respond to her "folksy" charm (gag).  Most people in the media were saying that Palin did well, some that she did better than Biden.  That made no sense with the debate that I had just witnessed.

Why do these people think that Palin did well.  As Noonan later explained on Meet the Press, it was because she mastered the entertainment side of politics.  We were told that she looked us in the eye and connected with the Amercian  people.  We were told that people loved the wink and the dropped g's.

However, as the polls are making clear, most people did not respond favorably.  People are hurting and are scared and they need more than a wink.  Today the issues are too important, the pain is too widespread.

The real elitism today is the people in the press and in the republican party who think Americans are so dumb that a wink is good enough to win our vote.  They are the ones who look down on us.  They believe they know what we will respond too, despite what our voting preferences would otherwise be.  They believe they are better than us and therefore can trick us with a turn of the phrase.

By any reasonable standard, Palin did horribly in the debate.  She showed no command over any of the issues.  Yes, she showed she can deliver a line, but to say that that is something that will win votes brands the American voters as stupid.  That is the real elitism.

OBama's new ad on McCain's promise to Bermuda is disappointing to me.  It is based on one newspaper account and is about a relatively small amount of money.  It is frankly reminiscent of an ad from the McCain playbook.  I know, it attacks the characterization of MCCain as a maverick.  Its not a terrible ad, but why Bermuda when there is so much more to be hitting McCain on? 

Where's Keating 5? 
Where's his voting record on regulation bills for the past 20 years? 
Where are the ads listing the hundreds of Lobbyists on his team (there has been 1 or 2 hitting specific people, but why not more)? 
Where are the ads showing his lack of judgment on Russia, economy, etc. in recent days?
His notorious temper (countless examples)?
His admitted preference to make quick, uninformed decisions, like Bush?
Why not list the areas in which Obama's judgment has been better like in the convention speeches?
Why not list all the areas in which McCain has supported Bush?

It seems like the ads keep hitting softly when there is so much out there to be hitting McCain hard with.  There have been a few ads that hit harder recently, but not many.  My hope is that they are waiting to use the bigger stuff until either the debates or for ads closer to the election.  That could be a good strategy, but I was hoping for the same thing from Kerry and Gore and never got it.

Libertarian blogger and senior editor at Reason magazine, Radley Balko, once heralded Pailn as "a good pick."

Looks like recent events, specifically her vague answer today on her foreign policy credentials, has changed his mind.  He is now writing that he was wrong to praise her.

Add Balko to the growing list.  As she continues to talk and show her lack of knowledge of the issues, I am convinced that conservatives with any comprehension of the seriousness of the issues today will have to abandon their support.

Roger Ebert had a nice piece on Sarah Palin a few days ago.  Funny that a movie critic can talk about this, but few journalists do.

Some highlights:

"I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere."

"What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues."

"The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment."

From Letters to the Editors @ Fort Worth Star-Telegram - today

How racism works

What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable
organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does.
It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
Positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.


- Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth