Senate drops NSA probe

It was clear a few days ago that Congress was not going to investigate the secret NSA surveillance program due to pressure from the White House. Today it seems certain. Is it really surprising? Many said that not much would change after the last election--that we shouldn't make such a big deal of Bush's victory. The problem isn't just Bush. Because of a Republican Congress and weak Democrats, we're missing checks and balances. This is why I feared a Bush victory.

One Senator (Democrat) said that we shouldn't have an investigation if its just to punish the President politically. It was suggested that the problem could be solved with legislation. No! You see, the problem is that Bush's argument depends on the notion that executive power in time of war can go unchecked. If you don't punish him politically for this position, it'll continue to happen, possibly even getting worse. This is the direct result of Bush winning the framing war. Because he framed any dispute of this program as being purely political--that the program itself is, as it stands, absolutely necessary for the War on Terror--weak Democrats are unable to discuss the legal implications of executive abuse.

Perhaps this will be my final post on this matter. I need to move on to other issues...

When is it OK to speak up?

This weekend I experienced two fascinating films: Good Night, and Good Luck, & Imagining Argentina. These stories commented on the political environments in two very different parts of the world during very different times. Good Night, and Good Luck examined the role and power of television news during the McCarthy Hearings of the early 1950s. As a backdrop to a psychological thriller, the context in Imagining Argentina reflected the paranoia and abuse of a dangerous regime fueled by fear, denial, and paralysis across a powerless population.

The effect of each movie was powerful and alarming. In a scene with his boss, CBS’s Murrow revealed his motivation to go after McCarthy, a motivation that was met with support from others like Murrow, while simultaneously met with resistance from network sponsors, the government, and others in the media:

I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument. If you call it editorializing, then call it that…They’ll have equal time to defend themselves.

Such logic was ground shaking in the 1950s. I would argue that it is even more provocative today. Have we regressed? Are we allowing a free press to be free…or are our men and women in the influential corners of the press missing this motivation…or both? As Murrow showed us, one can allow another to make rebuttals without also attempting to put the two arguments on equal logical grounds. On the contrary, one can point out the logical flaws in another’s arguments if, indeed, the argument is irrational and satisfy his role of informing the public with the news matters of the time with virtue. (Imagine parallels here to areas where the today’s press has failed to accurately comment on the logical footing of two opposing arguments.)

Difficult to talk about is the abusive period serving as the background to Imagining Argentina. Between 1976 and 1983, a military regime abducted, tortured, raped, and murdered 30,000 Argentine citizens, claiming ties to leftist terrorists who were allegedly seeking to destroy the country. The most troubling aspect of this period, to me, is the slow, subtle, deceptive method in which the military and police was able to penetrate an otherwise peaceful populace. Equally troubling was the response by the people. Scenes in which people were abducted in public or in quiet neighborhoods showed the quiet fear and paralysis by onlookers and neighbors—and rightly so as any objection would surely be met with violent attacks. Having been born in 1977 in Argentina, it amazes me that this period, which was very real to my parents and their friends—though shockingly not to all of their acquaintances, as many remained in denial or even defended the government’s actions with clouded vision of logic—finds little place in my memories, photos, videos, or even stories about my early childhood. The reason is complicated. In part I suspect because the real danger resided as a backdrop to daily life, not everyday occurrences. I suspect that many were, in fact, quite afraid of the possibility arrest, but the more common effect for most of the millions was the slow realization that their protections of civil liberties were entirely missing or, at least, in great danger.

Lest you think I’m leading to some comment on the likeness with today’s concerns of Bush’s administration, allow me to redirect the point of my topic today. These two eras—the Red Scare and the Dirty War—point to one constant aspect of the implementation of power: As McCarthy used fear to further his cause in Congress and as the military used fear to justify the torture of many, many Americans and Argentines found themselves trying to enjoy their everyday lives without worrying about the slow erosion of unalienable rights—without worrying of whether they or someone close to them would one day be in the position of defending themselves without due process, valid evidence and legal representation. Without the crisis of an explicit war with an identifiable enemy on their land, they could strive for an ordinary routine through denial, or apathy, or paralysis by fear, or paralysis by realization of helplessness. And in doing so, the context in which they lived slowly morphed into a quiet civil war fought in legislation and secret surveillance.

My comment isn’t to draw a likeness between Bush’s administration and a military dictatorship or Senator McCarthy’s methods. Rather, I mean to raise a question that is relevant to all countries in all periods in time: at what point do we confront our fears in hopes to prevent current or future abuses of power? At what point do we stop becoming "paranoid?" When is it not too early to say that our government is going too far?

Politics and Science

Back in the early days of Fantastiko, I wrote about how this administration handles information provided by scientists. It appears little has changed. In a recent Washington Post editorial, I learned that a 24 year-old NASA spokesman who was politically appointed by Bush recently resigned for lying about having an undergraduate degree (he doesn’t). Most appalling, though not surprising, is the continuing push to inject hot button political issues into science. As the piece points out, placing political pressure on career civil servants is not new. But this administration is taking it to a new and scary level.

Lessons from King

I've been watching the funeral of Coretta Scott King and have been amazed by the speeches given by Maya Angelou, Edward Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and others in her honor. The common theme is a reflection on the struggle of the civil rights movement and her role as a peaceful leader. The political shots at Bush, sitting behind each speaker, have been frequent, severe, and well received by the audience. My favorite line was given by Jimmy Carter, reminding us that the King family was the subject of secret government spying and wiretaps. He stared straight at the camera when he said it. In a time when we're keeping a secret eye on peace groups, campuses, and Quakers, the reminder was very appropriate.

NSA and 9/11

I've been watching the NSA hearings on C-SPAN today (note that it hasn't been given comprehensive coverage on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News, though I did learn a lot from Matt Lauer's review of last night's Super Bowl commercials. Thanks, Matt!). I’ve been struck by Senator Sessions' (R-AL) appalling approach during news conference given during break. Before the Senator's comments in the news conference, he had a relative of a 9/11 victim give a speech about how she believes that the NSA program is important and could have prevented the attacks--the implication being that her husband would be alive today. This has been argued by the President, Vice President Cheney and others. Regardless of whether this is true or not (and I believe it is ridiculous to think that other failures outlined by the 9/11 Commission and others would have been non-factors), the method of evoking 9/11 in this manner is sick. It's manipulative and theatrical. It does not raise the level of debate as the President supposedly aims to do. It simply appeals to our basic fears, angers, and sympathies.

From Bush’s State of the Union Address:

“In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part.”

Is the basic emotional response sought by presenting victims of 9/11 not similar to this level of debate discouraged by the President?

Favorite Fox Moments & Other Clips

I recently went back to find my favorite TV clips. I couldn't find them all, but here are a few of them:

Fair and Balanced Inauguration Video

O'Reilly vs Donahue!

O'Reilly vs Stewart!

Stewart on 87 billion in Iraq (Quicktime movie)

Bob Novak Unleashed!

Ankle Deep in Danger Video

Enjoy!

Arrest Her!

I'll limit my comments on last night’s speech to three:

1) His tax cuts aren’t the answer. They certainly aren’t the answer during record deficits, rising health care costs, and several wars (both current and to come. Watch out, Iran!). When included, every poll in the universe shows that taxes are among the lowest of priorities for Americans, yet it remains the central component of Bush’s economic policy. Even worse, he attributes economic success to his tax cuts. This is ridiculous. Employment numbers are mixed; the real wage continues to drop as the spread between the rich and poor is at an all-time high (Clinton’s biggest failure); family debt is rising, skewing the vitality of economic growth. Productivity and job creation are the only two measures Bush considers. That’s like looking at a hood and fender of a car and trying to describe the quality of the whole vehicle. The rosy paintings are getting on my nerves. This isn’t spin; this is lying. Americans know this and that’s exactly why they remain very concerned about the economy.

2) Despite talking about them in the same breath, Health Savings Accounts do NOT address rising health care costs; they only address how to pay for rising costs. Just because most Americans don't know what HSA are doesn't give you the right to give the impression that you're lowering the real cost of health care. This deceiving here is shameful. SHAME!!! I do like, however, that he spoke about electronic health records (my masters thesis!). Don't give up on this, W. Be careful though. Don't try to make us all believe that this also solves the problem of rising costs. It increases safety and quality, but the effect on provider and payer efficiency is unknown.

3) I’m not big on activism, though I respect activists for their courage. I was shocked when I read this morning that Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night. She was at the speech as an invited guest and decided to wear an anti-war t-shirt, which she refused to remove after being asked to by the police. What the hell is this? She didn’t get arrested for breaking the law in terms of dress codes or expressing obscenities. No! She was arrested for not listening to the police! She was charged with unlawful conduct. First of all, HORRIBLE public relations move on the part of the police. Second of all, who the FUCK are they to arrest someone for quietly expressing her opinion in a non-disruptive manner in MY capitol building? In what way does her t-shirt threaten the safety of the people or even the proceedings taking place in that building last night? It is an act like this that painfully reminds me that even the US is capable of fascistic behavior.