The Distant Ocean

Never talk to any police officer under any circumstances

You should never talk to any police officer under any circumstances.  Why not?  Take it away, Professor James Duane:

If there were any justice, this guy would be appointed  Emperor of the Milky Way.  Thanks to commenter Willy at A Tiny Revolution for pointing out this unbelievably cool video.

If you just can't get enough of this civil rights stuff, see also the worthwhile (but longer and far less entertaining) "Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters" here, or the related and very useful FAQ here.

Finally: I'm about to start following a bunch of tuneful Scotsmen across the country and then quite possibly looking at water and dirt, so posting will be light to nonexistent for a while.  In the meantime, feel free to watch this excellent video not once, not twice, but thrice.

[ NOTE: This posting contains three fun hidden contests!  The winners of two of them will receive the award of having impressed me by figuring them out, which is admittedly a sucky prize.  As for the third, I'd be very happy if nobody wins it, though my experience with human nature doesn't make me hopeful; the winner, should one come forward, will receive a coveted "most illogical person on the planet" award.  ]

Meanwhile, in the world of actual racial profiling

As the entire nation wastes its time arguing about preening aristocrat Henry Gates, this is the kind of serious, substantive story about racial profiling that's being ignored  (but not by Democracy Now!, as usual):

AARTI SHAHANI: Our understanding, those of us who were watching Obama and had hopes in Obama, was that, under Obama, programs like 287(g) would be terminated, because they are driven off of a desire for racial profiling. Officers that want to be able to have the power to pick up Latinos, brown people, while driving, these are the self-selecting group of people that joined to 287(g). And unfortunately, two weeks ago, Napolitano gave us our first really blatant betrayal when she decided not only not to suspend 287(g), but to expand it around the country.

Notably, she gave this program—she reinitiated the contract with Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. Mind you, Joe Arpaio is currently under federal investigation.

(Shahani is too circumspect to mention that Joe Arpaio is also one of the most vile human beings in the country and possibly all of human history, so I've said it for her.)

And what are some of the implications of this move by the Obama administration?

ROBERT LOVATO: I’ve been around the country interviewing undocumented immigrants pretty much everywhere, except a few states in the Northeast, and I’ve seen people’s hands shake like they did when I was in El Salvador, or their faces twitch. That’s terror. That’s post-traumatic stress disorder that’s caused by that. So, a lot of activists, I think, are finding a hypocrisy on a historic scale made by a historic new presidency, in terms of them talking about preventing terrorism or being against racial profiling, when, in fact, the 287(g) program and other programs like it foster new and extreme levels of terrorism and racial profiling.

"Extreme levels of terrorism and racial profiling"?  Yeah, sure, whatever.  Look, we Americans can't be bothered worrying about the re-persecution of the people who've fled here from the hellish abattoirs we've made of their countries over the years; we've got much more important things to spend our time fruitlessly obsessing over.

NOT TO MENTION: Democracy Now! also had this wonderful news snippet today:

The top US military commander in Iraq has suggested the US Air Force will continue to control Iraqi airspace beyond the 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops. On Tuesday, General Ray Odierno said Iraq won’t be able to provide its own air defenses by the time US forces are supposed to leave Iraq.

You might think I'd disagree with this plan, but actually I fully appreciate the mortal danger Iraq faces from the mighty air force of Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia.  And I congratulate the U.S. on its selfless desire to protect Iraqis from airborne attacks, which I understand have killed an awful lot of people there since March of 2003.

The non-event of the century

I don't want to risk having my citizenship rescinded if I fail to offer a half-assed commentary on the single most important news story of this century, and possibly all of human history: the misdemeanor arrest of Henry Louis Gates.  So here, in convenient bullet point form, are some thoughts which hopefully don't just rehash ten thousand other half-assed comments you've already suffered through:

• I'd say this is the most substantive and meaningful story to entirely dominate the U.S. news cycle since the Summer of the Shark.
• And coincidentally, it has just about as much to do with racial profiling.
• Rarely have I seen such a textbook case of projection.  In Gates' own words: "So I went over to the front porch still holding the phone, and I said ‘Officer, can I help you?’ And he said, ‘Would you step outside onto the porch.’ And the way he said it, I knew he wasn’t canvassing for the police benevolent association. All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’ ... Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me."
• I thought we'd never see someone as afflicted with delusions of grandeur or addicted to self-promotion as Donato Dalrymple—but after hearing Gates' immediate plan to make a documentary about this harrowing ordeal, or his later suggestion that his epic hissy fit "could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America" (move on over, Rosa Parks!), I've realized just what a failure of imagination that was.
• There's nothing quite like watching white liberals use any opportunity to hurl accusations of racism, with escalating fervor, to the point where even a slight deviation from doctrine can earn someone a denunciation (though I'm sure you could have seen the same kind of thing at Party meetings in East Germany).  It's difficult not to think they protest just a tad too much.
• Until now, I never realized so many people in this society had such powerful ESP—you know, the kind that allows them to make unequivocal assertions about the innermost thoughts and intentions of people they've read about via second- and third hand accounts in sketchy news stories.  It's a little scary to discover we're surrounded by psychics.
  
• Perhaps the funniest part of all of this (and not for lack of competition): the notion that the description "two black males", applied to two black males, is prima facie evidence of racism.
• Ironically, Gates has probably done more to damage the cause of those who work to document and raise awareness of the very real and very serious problem of racial profiling than anyone I can think of.
• And finally: from now on, I'll take Henry Gates' attributions of racism every bit as seriously as I do Abe Foxman's attributions of anti-Semitism.

I only hope that in a few months we can all get over this and get back to talking about something more important, like Michael Jackson.

UPDATE: I was curious to see what Black Agenda Report would have to say about this, and (as usual) they didn't disappoint; see here, here, and here for three excellent articles.

Fascism needs an enemy

The always-worthwhile Ran HaCohen has finally gotten around to writing another article.  I'll give you the punch line, and you can go read the setup:

The attack on Israel’s Palestinian minority has deep ideological roots in extreme nationalistic purism, but it is mainly politically motivated. The Israeli Arabs, despite six decades of discrimination, have been an incredibly loyal minority. The Israeli right-wing clearly wishes to put an end to this loyalty, hoping the incitement will lead Israeli Arabs to some form of violent resistance, from street violence to terror attacks. This would create the desired atmosphere of suspicion, fear, and hatred that fascism always needs in order to flourish. An Arab-Israeli Intifada is the wet dream of many Israeli right-wingers: nationally and internationally, it would enable them to present Israel once again as a threatened victim of Arab/Muslim/Gentile persecution, not as the rogue colonialist regional power it actually is.

Please, Ran, don't make us wait five months for the next one.

Thought of the day

Single payer is the Ralph Nader of health care reform.

If you're thinking, huh?, allow me to allow a special guest to splain:

Last month at a breakfast meeting with reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to a question about health care with these revealing and exasperating words: "Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it’s not going to be a single payer."

Never mind that 75 members of her party have signed onto H.R. 676—the Conyers single payer legislation. Never mind that in her San Francisco district, probably three out of four people want single payer. And never mind that over 20,000 people die every year, according to the Institute of Medicine, because they cannot afford health insurance.

What is more remarkable is that many more than the 75 members of the House privately believe single payer is the best option. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are among them. But they all say, single payer "is not practical" so it’s off the table.

Under the guise of this new administration

The Center for Constitutional Rights would like you to write to the Senate (which in practice means filling out a few fields and clicking "send my message").  And really, isn't it the least you can do for them after all they've done for you?

The details:

The U.S. Senate is in the process of debating the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2010. The NDAA currently includes a provision that bans the use of private military contractors from conducting interrogations of detainees. Also, an amendment to the bill could require the video recording of all interrogations. The White House is opposed to the provision that bans the use of private contractors from conducting interrogations and is also opposed to any amendment requiring video recording. There is a possibility that these elements could be stripped from the bill.

Also, while the elements pertaining to interrogations are positive developments, the NDAA could undermine our efforts to end the use of military commissions. CCR has long maintained that the use of military commissions is absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. The NDAA currently includes provisions that would change the laws regarding the use of military commissions, changes that the Obama administration appears to welcome, stating the changes will "make the commissions an effective and fair system of justice." Congress should not refine a broken and unjust system – they should repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Regarding the Obama administration's opposition to any amendment requiring video recording of interrogations, here was their reaction back in March to the CIA's destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes:

MR. GIBBS: Obviously -- obviously this is a -- the development is not good; it's sad. And I think the leadership in Mr. Panetta and certainly under the guise of this new administration, we want to give the people that work in the CIA the tools they need to keep us safe, but do so in a way that also protects our values.

In light of the administration's current position, Gibbs apparently meant it was sad that the CIA made the mistake of recording interrogations in the past, and Obama wants to correct that error and protect America's actual values from being captured on any further politically-inconvenient recordings.  I do at least appreciate the refreshing candor of the phrase "under the guise of this new administration," though.

Have you heard the good news for profits, brother?

You know those encouraging signs of economic progress we keep hearing about?  Well...:

U.S. businesses are cutting workers' hours and jobs at a pace that far outstrips the rate of the economy's contraction, generating a productivity boom that in ordinary times would be a welcome sign of healthy growth.

It is a bit of mystery why companies are downsizing so drastically, but the consequences are clear. For Corporate America, it means a strong -- although possibly fleeting -- rebound in profits. For employees, it means a dismal job market is getting worse and may not recover any time soon.

(See, it doesn't strike me as particularly mysterious that corporations would take advantage of an economic downturn to fire people, and then use the fear they've created in the remaining workers to demand even higher and more dangerous levels of "productivity".  But then, I'm not paid to ignore explanations like that.)

But surely someone is happy?

The fact that companies are managing to produce more with less labor is good news for profits and helps explain why many companies have reported better-than-expected second-quarter results in recent days.

Hey, great.  I admit I was surprised to hear that "profits" are following the news, but you learn something every day.

From cog to human being

Amy Goodman interviews Wendell Potter, a former head of corporate communications for CIGNA who finally listened to his conscience, left behind the blood money, and started talking about the evil he was doing as a shill for the health care denial industry.  Definitely worth reading (or viewing; the video is at the link).

What's most interesting is that Potter was the point man for CIGNA during various high-profile denials over the past few years, like the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died because CIGNA refused to give her a liver transplant.  Potter talks about what it was like helping cover for CIGNA as it killed this poor girl:

AMY GOODMAN: And how were you feeling at the time?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, just devastated. I have a daughter myself. And I—even though I was having to represent the company, and again was being as truthful as I could, I all the time was just thinking about the family and the grief that they were going through and the way their—you know, they were briefly optimistic that the decision to cover the procedure might save her life, and then so quickly for that hope to be dashed was just devastating for them, I know, and it was just crushing for me and a lot of people that I worked with at CIGNA, too. I want to make sure that that’s understood, that it, you know—I was so disappointed, and I was hopeful, too, that this might be something that actually would save her life. It was just a dreadful, dreadful experience for everyone concerned; there were no winners in that at all.

(Potter's wrong there, of course.  There was one winner: CIGNA, which saved itself the cost of giving the girl a healthy liver.  And when CIGNA finally did relent, too late to save Nataline's life, they were careful to explain that they were just "mak[ing] an exception in this rare and unusual case" and that the procedure was "outside the scope of the plan's coverage"—to avoid setting a precedent for the next dying teenager.)

What's worth taking away from this is how Potter spent this time devastated and thinking constantly about the grief and pain the family was suffering (and I don't doubt his sincerity in this at all)—and yet he dutifully did his dirty work throughout, presenting official excuses for CIGNA's lucrative refusal to provide life-saving care.  And "a lot of people" at CIGNA felt the same way he did, and yet also acted exactly as he did.

This is why it's a mistake to focus exclusively (or even primarily) on individuals when examining the evil done by institutions.  It's a guarantee that there was another person filling Potter's chair before it had even gotten cold—someone who likely has either a daughter or a conscience or both, but who nonetheless is just as willing as Potter was to explain to the world why CIGNA has to let more people die (explanations which oddly never seem to contain the word "profits").  As I've written before, the real problem is a system that puts people in the position where their own economic interests lie at odds with the most basic forms of empathy and common decency.

In any case, congratulations to Potter on finally finding his humanity, and trying to make amends for the sins of his former life.

Stop hating yourself

You may recall how right-wing loons went apeshit back in April when the Department of Homeland Security blandly outlined (pdf) the obvious risk from their more zealous ideological compatriots, and in particular the risk that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan—freshly trained (and practiced) in methods of killing—would be valuable recruitment targets for the whole sordid collection of right-wing extremist groups out there.

Well, in what's sure to be a nasty sequel, another military-hating, freedom-despising organization (MHFDO) has come forward with a similar analysis:

In what was billed as its most comprehensive study to date of violent crimes and combat exposure, the [MHFDO] looked at soldiers from the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division — nicknamed the Lethal Warriors — who were accused in a spate of five killings around Colorado Springs, home to Fort Carson, in 2007 and 2008. [...]

"This investigation suggest a possible association between increasing levels of combat exposure and risk for negative behavioral outcomes," the study said. [...]

Investigators focused on the cases of 14 soldiers accused of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder and aggravated assault, mostly with firearms.

Two of those 14 soldiers were not deployed. Among the 12 who were, investigators found the accused had experienced heavy combat in Iraq and that half of those interviewed reported witnessing war crimes, including the killing of civilians.

I'm sure you'll be as shocked as I was to learn that this MHFDO is none other than the United States Army.  Which raises the obvious question: why does the U.S. Army hate the U.S. Army so much?

The bottom line

As we've watched Obama sell out on issue after issue (waging war, executive privilege, health care, global warming, habeas corpus, corporate bailouts, etc, etc, etc), I'm sure we've all wondered: does he have any bottom line?  Is there any  principle he won't undermine?  Is there, finally, any issue on which he's willing to take a stand?

Why yes, as it turns out, there is:

President Obama vowed yesterday to veto a pending $680 billion military spending bill for next year if lawmakers set aside funding for more F-22 warplanes than the Defense Department says it needs. [...]

"We do not need these planes," Obama said in letters to the [Senate]. "I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress."

Sure, Obama may have done some  questionable things—a few Pakistani children blown to pieces here, a lie or two about Iran's nuclear program there—but he will not stand idly by and allow passage of a bill that would support acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress.  We all have our limits, and Obama draws the line at allowing the Pentagon to be forced to accept more F-22 fighters than it says it needs to keep up the desired levels of mayhem in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and any future theaters of American violence halfway around the world.  Is there any question that his "we do not need these planes" letters will be remembered right alongside the "I have a dream" speech as a stirring testament to human principle and courage?  Please pardon me while I wipe away a tear.

I especially liked this part:

Obama noted in his letters that, under his proposal, production of F-22s would be terminated at roughly the same level proposed by the Defense Department during the Bush administration in 2004.

True enough, but also redundant, since I'm hard pressed to come up with anything that isn't running at "roughly the same level" under Obama as it was during the Bush administration.

Almost too perfect

This is the single funniest article I've read in my lifetime:

For months, the reports percolated in Washington and other capitals. Iran was constructing a major beachhead in Nicaragua as part of a diplomatic push into Latin America, featuring huge investment deals, new embassies and even TV programming from the Islamic republic.

"The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned in May. "And you can only imagine what that's for."

(You can just see her leaning forward with a raised eyebrows and a knowing look, can't you?)

Honestly, it's hard to know where to start with this.  First, I'd swear I'm detecting some subtle irony here, hovering just beyond the edge of perception.  It's tantalizing, really.  Let me see if quoting from a random news article might coincidentally help me get a fix on it:

The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq’s turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

Why yes, that does seem tangentially related, doesn't it?  The U.S. has built its biggest embassy in the entire world—whose 104-acre expanse the architect bragged would be "visible from space"—in Iraq.  You can only imagine what that's for, huh, Hillary?

But wait, it gets even better!

"Iran recently established a huge embassy in Managua," Nancy Menges of the Center for Security Policy told a House committee last year. "Iran's embassy in Managua is now the largest diplomatic mission in the city," wrote Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute.

Gosh, what a menacing present we live in, in which Iran has such a huge embassy in Nicaragua.  And how fortunate we are to have the Center for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute to provide us with such thoroughly-researched information about the world we are currently living in right now at this very moment.  There's just one tiny problem:

But here in Nicaragua, no one can find any super-embassy.

Nicaraguan reporters scoured the sprawling tropical city in search of the embassy construction site. Nothing. Nicaraguan Chamber of Commerce chief Ernesto Porta laughed and said: "It doesn't exist."

But wait again—if you can believe it, it gets even more even better:

Government officials say the U.S. Embassy complex is the only "mega-embassy" in Managua.

And as the old saying goes, you can only imagine what that's for.

I realize it's a lot to ask, but it's my earnest hope that all news from now on will be this hilarious.

Second verse, same as the first

Why does this statement from Obama sound so familiar?

[W]e will reevaluate Iran's posture towards negotiating the cessation of a nuclear weapons policy.  We'll evaluate that at the G20 meeting in September.  And I think what that does is it provides a time frame.  The international community has said, here's a door you can walk through that allows you to lessen tensions and more fully join the international community.  If Iran chooses not to walk through that door, then you have on record the G8, to begin with, but I think potentially a lot of other countries that are going to say we need to take further steps.

Oh, right, now I remember:

Why did the Administration wait until September to make its case against Iraq? White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

And compare Obama's expansion on those "further steps"...:

[W]e're not going to just wait indefinitely and allow for the development of a nuclear weapon, the breach of international treaties, and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse situation and unable to act.

...with this:

[Condoleezza] Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

It's like everything old is new again!

Kissing cousins

I can't think of a better example of the incestuous relationship between the media and the government than this panegyric, in which "the CIA's house reporter" Walter Pincus (who nonetheless formally receives his paychecks from the Washington Post) reflects on the death of his close friend, war criminal Robert McNamara.  He cites his dear chum's commitment to peace, as when McNamara reportedly wrote to Lyndon Johnson saying that "we've got to reduce the casualties" in Vietnam—this of course meaning worthy American casualties, not meaningless Vietnamese casualties.  Move over, Gandhi.

Pincus didn't have any similar kind words for truth hero Gary Webb, who he helped hound to professional ruin and eventual suicide in 2004, but that's understandable; after all, Webb spent his career exposing the crimes of the powerful while Pincus has devoted his to covering them up.  And anyway, Pincus was probably too busy getting misty thinking about how "lucky" he was to have lunch dates with genocidal government officials.

ADDING: You should definitely take the time to read Noam Chomsky's brutal assessment of McNamara—possibly the most concise dismantling of received wisdom I've ever seen him deliver.  Thanks to Dennis Perrin for the pointer.

My aspirational goal to swallow only a quart of sulphuric acid

Still out and about, but this caught my eye:

The U.S., European Union and 12 of the world's largest nations plan to embrace "an aspirational goal" of reducing emissions of global-warming gases by 50% by 2050, according to a draft declaration by world leaders set for release next week in Italy.

Hey, that's great.  I'm sure the captain of the Titanic had "an aspirational goal" to avoid ramming into any large, frozen ocean-based obstacles too.

But at least the Obama administration is doing everything it can to break with the manipulative, corporate-friendly, obstructionist policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations that drew such criticism from other nations, right?

The base year against which emissions reductions will be measured continues to divide the U.S. and Europe. The EU would like reductions measured against 1990 emissions levels. The U.S. favors the baseline be based on more-recent data.

You've got to appreciate that "based on more-recent data" locution; the smoke it's blowing is apparently intended to obscure Obama's attempts to keep U.S. emission levels as high as possible in the future.  In case you're wondering about the specifics the article skirts, the baseline Obama wants to use is 2005—a year in which U.S. emissions were 17% higher than in 1990.  So when he talks about cutting carbon emissions 14% by 2020, that means 14% lower than 2005 levels, which works out to about 1% more than the 1990 levels.  In other words, Obama's "reduction" doesn't even reach the baseline value the rest of the world is talking about.  And all his talk about 80+% reductions in years after 2020 is of course pure pie in the sky, since he'll long since have moved on to memoir-writing, compensated speech-giving, and other assorted in-cashing.

At least now we know what President Snowjob actually meant when he said he'd "lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change."

Money for nothing

I'm sure you'll all be as pleased as I was to hear this news ("Bonuses bounce back on Wall Street"):

Financial markets are recovering and the jostling for talent is intensifying as securities firms once again are making money - and they look set to spread the wealth with their employees should the good times continue.

Based on earnings forecasts for 2009, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is on track to pay out $20-billion this year, or about $700,000 per employee. That would be nearly double the firm's $363,000 average last year, and slightly higher than the $661,000 for the average Goldman employee in fiscal 2007, according to analyst estimates reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Hey, as long as it's going to people who actually work for their money and not some pathetic parasites who go running to the government every time they're in trouble.