Month: July 2005

As much as I really was interested in attending Markos and Jerome’s session on Progressive Media, I really had reached the limit of my ability to handle the heat. Knowing that the big event at Stubb’s was coming up that evening, and was going to last several hours, it made sense to spend some of the time before that resting up somewhere cool.  Donna decided that she did want to attend the Progressive Media session, so we decided we’d try to watch some of the Take it Back film that was showing all day. Once Donna’s session let out, she would meet us at the Science Building where the film was playing, and we would give her a ride back to the hotel, where we would all have the chance to shower, rest, kick back, etc. before the evening festivities.
Once we arrived at the Science building, we saw a sign on the door that said showings were every 90 minutes, and not to enter while the film was in progress. We hesitated, but someone sitting outside the show said, “Oh, go on in”. He didn’t seem like he was there in any official capacity, but since we really didn’t have anywhere else to go for the next hour or so, we decided that was good enough for us.

So, we gingerly made our way to a couple of open seats as Heidi Draper’s film was reaching the part  where volunteers of all ages from many different places were pouring into Iowa. On the screen, a man in his 80s was telling of how family and friends were concerened that he might be risking his health going door to door in the cold Iowa weather. He went on to say (paraphrased) that this was what he wanted to be doing right now, that taking our country back was important work, and that if this was what he died doing, he’d had a long life and it would have been worth it.

Wow. Just one of many unsung everyday American heroes. There are so many all around us, and the Dean campaign was just filled with people with inspiring stories–people who made me feel that there really was hope for humanity. When Bush used the words “ownership society” during the campaign, I reflexively cringed. It immediately brought to mind the scenes in Finding Nemo where all of the seagulls would chorus “Mine! Mine! Mine!” as something potentially edible fell into the water. We see so much of that attitude any more–I’ve got mine, and too bad for you. It makes me heartsick to see that attitude taking root more and more, with our “leaders” validating it for us. There was so much about Dean’s candidacy that I was excited about, but probably what most struck a chord for me was when he said that the worst thing we’ve lost as a country is the sense that “we’re all in this together”.

And it was among Dean for America supporters (later Democracy for America) that we got a glimpse of what it would be like if we really thought of ourselves as “all in this together”. Right there, on the screen in front of us, we saw footage of all those people coming together, paying their own way, giving up their vacation for the year, sleeping in big rooms on the floor in sleeping bags–all because they wanted to make America better for ordinary people. So full of hope and purpose and a real sense of “we” rather than “me and mine” or “us versus them”.

And then the things that happened next began to unfold before our eyes. Anger at Kerry and the media, which had gradually faded in the months that followed Iowa came back to the surface as we relived the dreadful Osama ads that were funded by Kerry and Gephardt supporters, the whole stupid, manufactured “electability” meme, and the so-called “I have a scream” speech. The film did a great job of showing what the speech after the Iowa primaries looked and sounded like to the people who were in that ballroom, and contrasting it to what most of America saw. It was grossly irresponsible coverage, but in the months since then I have become more cynical and jaded and convinced that the way Howard Dean was misrepresented is pretty much par for the course as far as mainstream media is concerned. Jon Stewart spoke for me when he said on Crossfire, “You’re huuurting us!”

By the time I saw some Barbie-doll-esque reporter being interviewed by the creator of the documentary, I felt like I wanted to put my fist in something. Heidi asked the woman how she felt about her part in that coverage, and “Barbie” chirped that she felt really good about it, and, it doesn’t matter how people vote, but it’s important that they become involved and informed about the issues.”

“But they’re NOT becoming informed because you’re only feeding them part of the story you bit–!” Okay, looks like my “bad wolf” was now wide awake, and my good wolf was cowering somewhere out of sight. I’m not saying it was a bad documentary–it was very well done, and I understand why many other people enjoyed it. But I needed to be out of there, and was relieved when I saw Donna peek in the door. We left the theater, and headed for our car to drive back to the hotel.

After all, how often did we have the opportunity to spend some relaxing time together without the kids? I figured we really should take some time just to hang out before it was time to go home. So, it was time for some serious lounging. I flopped on the bed with the schedule for the weekend, and talked with Demetrius about how soon we should leave for Stubb’s if the doors opened at 6:30. Any event where Howard Dean will be appearing in person is guaranteed to be packed, so the earlier you get there the better, but on the other hand, how long were we willing to stand outside in line in the heat?

We figured that given how short a drive it was to Stubb’s, it should be fine if we left at quarter to 6 or so, so we flipped on the T.V. to see if anything fun was on. Hopefully something light and  funny to counteract that feeling of wanting to put my fist in something. Galaxy Quest was on–cool! Nice little light-hearted romp.

From time to time I peeked in at comments on the blog, and at 5:35 Austin, this post from Oscar showed up:

Whoops–guess that was our cue. Called Donna’s room to tell her it was time to go, and headed down to the lobby to meet her. We saw Rick Kolker in the elevator, also getting ready to head out–more evidence that it was now time to head out.

We met Donna in the lobby, and also saw Oscar there. I told him that his post was what had gotten us moving sooner rather than later, and he responded that even though he’d said he was on his way, that wasn’t totally correct, because he didn’t have a ride yet. We told him, “You do now” and were on our way to Stubb’s BBQ.

By the time we arrived, there was already a rather long line. We recognized some familiar faces, most surprising to me, though, was seeing Mandy and Marian from the Central Ohio Democracy for America group. I don’t make it to Meetups too often due to shedule conflicts, but I do still get email updates from the group. But I had no idea they would be attending this year. Anyway, it was neat to unexpectedly see people we knew from Columbus waiting in line with us in Austin, Texas.

Once the doors opened and we made our way, well, inside the Stubb’s property, but sadly still outside in the heat, I spotted Cheryl from Arizona standing near the stage. She, like Marcia Moody, strikes me as one of those people who knows where one should stand for the best Howard-appreciation experience. So, when I went through the line I got a couple slices of pork, stuck them between two slices of bread (thank you, Earl of Sandwich) and made my way over to the spot Cheryl had staked out. Demetrius, Donna, Oscar and others joined us, and the crowd started to fill in behind us.

I’m not especially big on crowds. Or standing for long periods of time in hot, humid weather. Once there were some people there who could hold my spot, I decided to make my way to the bar and put my official “I’ve shown my ID and proven that I’m old enough to drink alcohol” wristband to good use. Maybe some potent potables (Jeopardy flashback just there) would help me mind the sensory overload a bit less. Except here’s the thing–bars confuse me. I don’t get how they “work”–there’s no menu, but somehow other people actually know what to order. Somehow I never learned about such things. Bet there’s even a secret handshake I somehow missed out on.

I knew I’d had a drink called a Zombie that I liked, so I asked the bartender if he could make one of those. He said no. Well, I was fresh out of ideas. I wasn’t even sure what to ask, but I’d learned that “what do you have” was much too broad a question. The bartender helped me out by asking, “What kind of thing do you want?” “Sweet and fruity!” He said, “I can do that” and proceded to mix something up for me. I have no idea what it was–for all I know, there may actually be a drink called a Sweet and Fruity. It did have a fruity, citrus kind of taste. Sweet, not so much. But it was decent, so I brought it back to my spot in the crowd.

If anyone reading this was actually there, please fill in your own memories of the evening. Thanks to Demetrius, I have pictures to post. (No guarantees made as far as this being the order of appearance at Stubb’s–I just plain don’t remember.

Jessica!

I enjoyed the music, could have done without the part of the poetry slam that involved a couple dozen repetitions of the f-word, and enjoyed listening to Molly Ivins, who I’d missed earlier in the day. She talked about how Texas Democrats are in high demand now that Bush has spread his brand of Texas Republican policy and values to the whole country. After all, they’ve had years of experience in surviving such things with their sense of humor intact. She said, “We feel like Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer–they need us now!”

So, as I’ve said, there was a lot of it that I enjoyed, but I also spent a fair amount of time thinking like, “Might it actually be possible to take a little nap while I’m standing here?” Granted, last year’s DeanFest was the same situation as far as everyone having to stand during Dean’s speech–it’s what you need to do if you are going to fit as many people as possible. And Howard Dean still draws huge crowds. So, once it was finally time for him to speak, the electricity, the energy in the crowd was absolutely amazing.

As Tara reported on Blog for America:

Actually, Jim Dean had had a bit of a slip of the tongue and what he actually said was that there were signatures of over 15,000 people saying “I speak for Howard Dean!” But as Andrew C. White pointed out later on, “Actually, quite often we do!”

I wish I’d been able to tape Howard’s speech somehow, because, as I discovered at DeanFest last year, I have a really hard time actually hearing what he is saying when I get to see him speak in person…

So, sorry about that…it doesn’t make for very good reporting. Again, maybe some other people can fill in some of the details. But, here are some pictures:

When Howard was done speaking and left the stage, it was time for an intermission and I bolted indoors to groove on the air conditioning for a while. I talked to sarahj from the blog for a while, and also to TeaTimeTim, who told me that he has decided to run for county commissioner. I really am so impressed when my fellow Dean/DFA people have the guts and commitment to do that, because I sure don’t. Anyway, I never actually made it back outside, so I missed hearing Jesse Jackson Jr. speak, but I’ve heard that he was excellent.

It was a great evening, but I was still really really really glad to get back to our hotel room. And, as luck would have it, Galaxy Quest was on again, so while we were spending some quality time with the air conditioning, we got to watch the rest of the movie.

Still to come–Day 3. The last day (*sniff*) of DeanFest.

… lately it occurs to me … that I always tell you about the new items on the menu at The Whispering Campaign. And maybe that’s ok with you, but I’m getting bored with it. So this time I’ll tell you what’s been most popular there so far this evening… [drum roll]…

I Hope I Die Before The Next Re-Fill — Greg Palast on politics and the high cost of medicine.

Bush Sets Up Domestic Spy Service — hard news of the day as reported by the BBC.

Bush’s Alternative Speech — from the inimitable Robert Parry, a script bush would never read!

Unleashing The Resistance — former Pentagon insider Karen Kwiatkowski on what we have to be prepared to do.

From an Iraqi citizen to the American people — a letter from Iraq, to all of us, via Dahr Jamail.

Interesting stuff here, from many different points of view. And it’s not just for you: it’s also [especially!] for your neighbors, and all the other people out there who still watch TV and don’t even surf the net, let alone navigate the blogosphere. This is for them and for people like them — curious but uninformed. You can give them the gift of knowledge.

All our broadsheets are designed for easy printing [one click] and easy reading [large fonts]. They even contain instructions for their own replication. Please do your part to share the real news with our fellow citizens.

The Whispering Campaign
psstpsstpsst.blogspot.com
Visit. Print. Copy. Distribute. Repeat.
Knowledge Is Power. Pass It On!!

Some context first. A CBC reporter was allowed access to Guantanamo Bay to do a report. All part of the military’s information warfare no doubt. (I wonder if he tried the glazed chicken…) His report included an interview with Army Spec. Sean Baker, who suffered brain damage when he was beaten during a training session by his fellow Americans, part of the initial response force team.

My rough transcript of Neil MacDonald’s report for the CBC’s The National on Guantanamo Bay follows.

The segment is available for viewing online (The National). Click on the ‘Watch the National Online’ link for Real Player. The segment begins 37:57 in.

(Again, note that these are a rough transcript taken while watching the television program. Some sections missing. And thanks to zander for initially catching the program.)

~

NM: Journalists have been allowed inside of Guantanamo Bay (G.B.).

[The piece starts with an image of detainees praying.]

NM: 5 times a day as stipulated by their prophet, they heed the call.

NM: 528 men are being held at G.B.

NM: They have been characterized as the worst, most dangerous criminals. Guarding them is a singular honour by their jailors.

NM: No court has ever agreed or had a chance to agree, because G.B. operates in shadows.

~

[Interview w/ Brig-Gen Jay Wood.]

NM: Do you regard the detainees as terrorists.

JW: Yes.

~

NM: A perfect limbo for men deemed no rights. A legal black hole.

Tom Wilner, lawyer for detainees: We’ve created a culture of illegality. We’re treating the law as an impediment.

~

NM: The military acts as judge and jury, and metes out punishment. Some are questioning this trust is dissolving because what is going on here is not right. A number of prominent politicians are speaking out.

[Clip of Jimmy Carter speaking out agasint G.B.]

[Clip of Sen. Leahy arguing for the closing of the base.]

[Military lawyer – missed name – giving testimony.]

NM: They say they are sorry, but there are new realities now.

[Clip of Rumsfeld talking about the new terrorism.]

~

NM: US laws do not apply at the camp, but after the exposure they did institute new rules.

[NM discusses what happens when a detainee is brought before the tribunal.]

NM: They have brought a detainee in front of the tribunal. He is chained to the floor, hands and feet. Three colonels face him. The tribunal has produced no evidence. The questions are brief and the detainee was told he’d have a decision shortly.

NM: Not one prisoner has been released due to these tribunals.

NM: We were not allowed to speak with any prisoners. But CBC radio was able to pick up this conversation between 2 guards and a detainee [via long range mic I suspect]:

Detainee: We’ve got no legal rights. Nobody knows us. The world doesn’t know about us.

~

NM: The attention paid to religious rights here is unbelievable.

NM: Arrows pointing to Mecca. [Shows arrow painted on cot under mattress.]

NM: Korans are hanging in every cell, and US guards are not allowed to touch them. [Shows books hanging in slings on cell bars.]

[Shows medical care centre – missed some information here.]

NM: Prisoner’s medical files have been used to hone interrogation techniques.

NM: Amnesty International has called it the gulag of our times.

NM: Reports of vindictive guards and extremely coercive interrogations.

NM: This is not a fun place to be.

~

[Interview with Sean Baker, army specialist, who was brutally beaten by fellow Americans when he posed as a detainee during a training session.]

NM: After 9/11 he enlisted. In 2003 he was sent to be a guard in G.B.

SB: I thought I was going there to play a key role in the war on terror.

NM: He learned quickly about the initial response force.

SB: I didn’t see people wailing on detainees, but mainly techniques used to control or restrain.

NM: He was asked to help with training and posed as a detainee.

SB: They grabbed me and pushed me down on the floor.

SB: When I started to run out of air I started to panic and get scared. I felt like I was going to black out. I said, ‘Red, red.’ [The code word to stop.]

SB: They slammed my head down against the floor. It stunned me real bad. I had enough sense about me to say ‘I’m a US soldier.’ I said it twice. Then he slammed my head against the floor two more times.

SB: He shouldn’t have treated a detainee that way. I never did.

NM: You weren’t kicking or biting? You were submitting?

SB: I was cooperating.

NM: The attack left Baker with brain damage and uncontrollable seizures. He was D/C from the military. There have been no reports on why it happened. To this day the Pentagon is still reviewing the matter.

[NM asked Baker if he believes the response team abuses the detainees.]

SB: I would not care to comment on that sir. I know what happens. I saw what happens.

[Again with Brig-Gen Jay Wood]

NM: Soldiers had a code word to stop the exercise.

NM: This young man was beaten within an inch of his life and left with brain damage.

JW: That’s what Baker told you. The guard force here is well trained and capable of extraction.

NM: He [Brig-Gen Wood] will not discuss what happened last year, before his watch.

~

Others wouldn’t talk about the past either.

[Interviewing guard Michael Bumgarner.]

MB: I care about them as human beings and that we treat them with dignity and respect.

~

NM: The military did release a lot of prisoners after the court intervened. 234 were released. 67 were handed over to the custody of other countries. 167 were released outright.

NM: Journalists and politicians tour regularly, but a lot of it remains in the shadows.

~

TW, detainee lawyer:  When we abandon our principles we give every other country the ability to use the same. Can you imagine the reaction of Americans, if some country began kidnapping citizens off the street and taking them away to some prison on some island somewhere.

~

[Again with Brig-Gen Jay Wood]

NM: Would you be happy with US nationals or uniformed soldiers getting the same treatment as these people are being treated?

JW: Sure. I think you’re really mixing apples and oranges if your mixing those who are members of the Geneva Conventions versus terrorists.

~

NM: That answer seems to satisfy the American public.

[Charles Swift, Military Lawyer.]

CS: Fear played a large part of why this was allowed to happen.

~

NM: The official line, G.B. will handle prisoners at the military’s pleasure until the global war on terror ends.

NM: And it might not be in this lifetime.

End.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA/State Dept. analyst, makes troubling observations at the Counterterrorism Blog about U.S. intelligence issues following the Taliban’s downing of a Chinook helicopter in the mountains of Afghanistan:

• “The ability of the Taliban to communicate with the outside world about activities in a remote area of Afghanistan is equal to if not better than [the U.S.]. War is not simply engagements on the ground, it also involves information flow. The Taliban are showing a very sophisticated capability in this regard.”

• “More troubling is the possibility that the Taliban forces knew in advance that US forces were coming into the area and were in a position to ambush our people. That is a counterintelligence problem pointing to possible penetrations of US operational plans.”

  
  

• “[I]t is clear that Islamic extremists along the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan are stepping up their infiltration of Afghanistan … to derail elections there. This is a war the United States cannot fight alone … our erstwhile Pakistani allies are not doing their part to stem the tide of Islamic militants entering Afghanistan and to locate and destroy the remnants of Bin Laden’s forces. …”

It was a tragic loss of exceptional personnel needed in an emergency: “We now know from US sources that the helicopter’s passengers included members of a Quick Reaction Force who were responding to calls for assistance by US troops on the ground who were fighting Islamic militants,” Johnson notes.

Emphases mine.

My dictionary, while first offering the most familiar `to bring an accusation against’ definition of impeach, gives this as its second meaning: `to cast doubt on, to challenge the credibility or validity of`. The impeachment of President Bush would be a great victory for justice. But what about the office of the Presidency itself? Is it, in its present form, really functioning to serve the American people? Or is it part of the problem that made Iraq possible in the first place, and Vietnam before that, and on back through the generations?

How about this for an idea: Since, as Bush so aptly demonstrates, the Executive powers can be too easily misappropriated by one individual, why not change the nature of the Presidency. Before you laugh this off and move on to another diary, may I at least say this: as a Canadian, over the past year while I have been reading DailyKos and now BoomanTibute (this diary is cross-possted at both) I have learned a tremendous amount the US political system and history from the wonderful diaries and discussions here. But have been continually surprised by the total absence of what seems to me, for reasons detailed below, one of the most obvious of topics. So if you’re willing to give me a few minutes of open-minded consideration here goes: My suggestion is to consider the model used by many other nations, and have the office of President filled by the leader of the party that holds a majority in the Congress.
Before everyone piles on with the `so much for reality based ideas` derision, may I please point out this: That all of history was at some point the present moment for those that lived in it. If you want to consider some other ideas that couldn’t possibly be `reality-based’ the founding of the United Nations is a good start. The founding of the United States itself was another great instance of ideals that were obviously never going to become reality. What these two events have in common is that they occurred in windows of historical opportunity. It was the real, recent horrors of WWII that gave the  nations of the world the momentum to come together and recognize the need to create the United Nations.  

My point in this diary, more that the advocacy of one change over another is simply this: That historical opportunities to correct structural mistakes, update fundamental governmental institutions, to create new models of governance do not come along very often. This generation of Americans may well get such an opportunity for change.  When George Bush leaves the White House, he will leave behind him a gutted, damaged Executive Branch.  The easiest choice for Democrats will be to simply restore things back to how they were in the good old pre-Bush  days.  But this completely ignores the structural rot that allowed Bush to become such a disaster in the first place. And may well damn future generations to more of the same or worse. The saving grace with George may well be that he’s such an idiot, and has so recklessly squandered the money and might at his disposal. American might not be so lucky next time around.

I’m not claiming that this idea of merging the Presidency into Congress is the best candidate for a really meaningful structural reformation of the American political system. What I am putting out here is that there should be discussion on what options might be considered, that do more than stick a `good for one generation’ band-aid on a political system that, even in better times, seems to be doing a poor  job of representing and serving it’s citizens when compared to other first world nations.

As a Canadian I have a natural advantage in contemplating real structural change in federal government. Here in Canada, there is always ongoing discussion around tweaking, reforming, replacing or eliminating parts of our governing structure. Among our  most recent most fundamental changes was the addition of the Constitution Act in 1982 to the Constitution of Canada . (“Part I of this Act is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which outlines the civil rights and liberties of every citizen in Canada, such as freedom of speech, of religion, of mobility, etc. Part II deals with the rights of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples.”) Within my lifetime I may well witness the complete end of the ceremonial monarchy relationship (must we still have the Queen on our currency?), the abolition of one of our two legislative houses (discussion about reforming or removing the Senate is a  constant political pastime), or the secession of part of the county to form an independent nation (should one of the many Quebec sovereignty referendums ever get enough votes.) So the idea that even the most fundamental parts of a government can be changed to meet the evolving and changing needs and wishes of the people is to me not just a theoretically desirable ideal, but a practicably obtainable reality.

So what about idea that the Bush presidency may be not just a failure of George W. Bush as an individual, but also, and more importantly, as a failure of the office of the Presidency in its current form? This concept seems to be wholly missing from American political discourse. I am sure many members of this blog will have a better understanding than me of why this is so. If Americans genuinely wish to keep the underlying structure of the federal government, the Congress/Senate/President triad, as they currently are because they believe these institutions in their current form have proved to be the best arrangement with which to serve the citizens of the nation, then by all means, leave things as they are. But (and this is what to me seems to be the issue) if these things are only remaining unconsidered and undiscussed out of blind pride and deference to the extraordinary era of their creation and creators, and out of a cultural recoil from examining possible change because to do so would be `unpatriotic’, `un-American’; how tragic for the nation. And if I might say so, how bizarrely contrary to what it would seem like Americans in the 1800’s would have wanted. Abraham Lincoln, speaking of Jefferson’s generation in 1857 put it like this: “They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be constantly looked to, constantly laboured for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”

So for what it’s worth here’s my idea (crippled no doubt by my still patchy knowledge of the American political system, with a thank you to everyone who has helped make me better informed through this site over the past year.)

The office of President could be changed so that instead of being directly elected every four years in a national popularity contest, the position is held by the leader of the party with the majority of the seats in Congress. This would be a much simpler governing structure, that would seem to offer greater functionality and accountability.

 In order to become President you would first have to win the support of your party, and then the support of the voters. In most countries with similar model the leader is also a sitting member in that legislature, meaning that the President, as a member of Congress would in addition have to run for office their local district, adding yet another level of accountability. For example Tony Blair in Britain or Paul Martin in Canada have had to not only win the leadership vote within their party, then lead that party to an electoral victory, but also win in their local ridings. And if the majority party looses confidence in the President, they can remove him at the yearly leadership convention or through a non-confidence vote in the legislature (in the real world this is why Bush will likely serve out his full term, while Tony Blair will likely not.)

On the international front, this would be a godsend to foreign relations. One of the greatest difficulties other leaders face when dealing with the American President is that he has little real power over domestic legislation. Take a trade issue like beef. If the Canadian Prime Minister and the US President got together and decided they needed to set common goals for inspections and processing, the Prime Minister can actually do this, by introducing and passing legislation. Whereas the US President can’t do much unless Congress will support it, which inevitably degenerates into pork-barrel side deals and other unrelated issues being lumped in as the price for co-operation (if there is co-operation at all). This situation has lead to the US President being considered a bit of a lame duck internationally, good for a photo-op, but unable to deliver. (This dynamic has been particularly visible in the Blair/Bush relationship.)

And never again would the US be stuck in the nightmare scenario it has now: with 3 branches of government all held by one party, creating a legacy of harm with no likelihood of regaining all 3 in order to undo it. Yes, there would still be 2 conflicting chambers, and there would certainly be more occasions where both could be dominated by a single party. But there would also be much more accountability through opportunities for voters to punish bad governance by turning power in both chambers back to the other party.

It would seem to me that a debate on the merits of this structure, and the likelihood of it resulting a more moderate and accountable political climate, would be very worth having. Maybe it’s a bad idea. But if so, than what good idea could replace it? Because impeaching the President and not the Presidency seems a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Things may look nicer for a bit, but the boat’s still sinking.