Note on IPs and Banning by Digby and David and so on

Couple of things.

First, I have a different IP while I'm in New Mexico. Funny how that works.

I did a couple of tests while on the road to discover whether Digby/David were maintaining their ban on my posts in their comments. I was able to post comments under other names and IPs, so I tried my Blogger ID (ie: Ché Pasa) and sure enough, as long as I wasn't posting from my usual IP, no problem. Since my test posts were innocuous, it hardly mattered that they weren't instantly disappeared. Nor would it have mattered if they were. This is the blogosphere. Nothing that appears therein is graven on Golden Plates. The funny thing about it, though, is that you can never get rid of something permanently if you want to. All those posts I made while under ban at Digby's are still there after all. I'm the only one who can see them.

But the other thing is that I've found myself... erm... disinterested in reading more of the same-old same-old from either Digby or David. Yes, of course, I've been quite a loyal Digby reader since long before she set out on her own, and I have enjoyed her insight through the years. Her posts have lost a lot of the energy they once had, and, especially since the grueling marathon of the 2008 campaign, she's become dispirited and far more cynical about the electoral process and candidates than I think she has ever been. But through it all, she's maintained her grounding in yellow-doggedness. Meaning "do not vote for the R" under any circumstances. Sometimes that means defending the indefensible. I think she knows that. It does make for some tough going, and it gets harder and harder to read -- let alone put up with -- her insistence that those people in the White House simply don't know what they are doing.

Sure they do. They're doing what they set out to do and by their own standards they're doing it well. They never set out to do anything for the People. And guess what? They don't. There's your answer. It's very simple.

So the continuing defense of White House "incompetence" is really boring by now. I skip over it.

Then there's David. He seems to be fairly well informed about this and that, but most of it is irrelevant chaff, having little or nothing to do with the important things that matter to real people. Much of what he writes about is "insider" and "process" stuff that is basically about how many different ways you can bullshit the public, or how many distractions and shiny objects you can put up to divert attention from what really matters.

It's a form of deception that is engaged in by all political factions, no less by Democratic Party apparatchiks like David, and it's essentially worthless. It's all a game to him. So I don't even read most of his posts.

I've made quite clear that I see the effort to dis-fellowship the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus as the most important internal Democratic Party issue -- because it goes far beyond what's happening in California and is the touchstone for progressive dissatisfaction and disinterest in the Democratic Party nationwide -- and David, who is a member of that Caucus (he says) and a member of the executive board (he says) which is "considering" the matter refuses to discuss it at Digby's. He has briefly discussed it at dKos, but only to say that the Progressive Caucus was stupid to pass a resolution to explore primarying Obama, and he doesn't want to discuss it any more, and he doesn't want anyone else to discuss it either. For her part, Digby maintains the Cone of Silence about it.

This is pure party hackery.

The sad thing is that Digby would feel she has some need to give this sort of hackery yet another forum. David already has a happy home at dKos after all.

While I can post comments at Digby's these days, I find I have little interest in doing so.

There really are more important things.

Really!

After all, I'm still immersed in the Bolshevik Revolution....

Update: Still in Limbo, the CDP and the CDPPC

More sleuthing around has produced some interesting though not conclusive information regarding the flap in the California Democratic Party over their uppity Progressive Caucus and the resolution to explore primarying Obama.

I'm not necessarily a quick study about these things -- I chose to step back, way back, from party politics after Howard Dean was elected chair of the Democratic National Committee -- but I do try to study enough to keep up appearances.

I learned some things just the other day, and some today as well, regarding the Players in this psycho-drama. Such as the fact that David Atkins is not just sub-chair of the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee -- which everyone knows -- but he is also a member of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, AND he is a member of the executive board of said Party and he has therefore been involved in this brou-ha-hah from the get go. And he doesn't want to talk about it and he doesn't want anybody else to talk about it, either. Rather, he claims that the resolution passed by the CDPPC was "stupid," there's no point in even mentioning primarying Obama, and he believes the Progressive Caucus will be recertified by the executive board in November, despite their stupidity.

This comes from an exchange he had with Seneca Doane over at dKos on Monday. I read SD's lengthy post about the matter, but I didn't look at the comments, so I missed the exchange until recently.

It went something like this:

Seneca: Feel free to take issue with me as strongly as you'd like; that's politics. But don't even try to silence me; I can write this sort of diary as many times as I think I need to. Dissent will be heard. Some of you may not get it, but victory depends on it.

Spoon:the prog caucus will almost certainly
be recertified. Tabling the recertification prevented a floor fight at this latest e-board meeting until cooler heads could prevail.


Spoon:you have to understand--this was a room

of 200 people when this came up. The leader of the African-American Caucus--who happens to have run for state senate in a district that is partly in my county where I'm 1st vice chair and state e-board rep--made a motion to decertify. Given the sentiments in the room, that motion might just have passed.

I'm a member of the Progressive Caucus, though I wasn't present for the vote on the resolution in question.

But keep in mind that a big portion of the base, especially the African-American base, has great love for the President and takes strong offense at these kinds of maneuvers.

By tabling the motion, CA dem leaders probably saved the caucus from decertification until peace could be made.


Seneca: What consequences has the leader of that caucus

(whom I've taken pains not to identify, but let's presume you're right) faced for that action? (Let's not count whatever I've stirred up with this diary out in cyberspace.) So far as I know: none. The attempt to chill speech has, so far, worked.

Whatever the sentiment in that room, the responsibility of the voting members of the E-Board was to stand up to them, right then, right there. I understand why party leaders negotiated a delay in the vote. But let's not pretend that that was primarily to the benefit of the Progressive Caucus; it was to the benefit of the Party. Karen Bernal should be thanked by the Party for accepting some humiliation on the part of the Progressive Caucus to save the Party from doing something extremely foolish. Frankly, in her place, I might well have taken the decertification and the headlines, because what happened was outrageous.

Had the E-Board gone ahead and decertified under pressure, they would have had to spend the subsequent three months cleaning egg off of their face -- rather than this diary being the first that most people here had heard about it -- and the Progressive Caucus would have been recertified in November anyway.

With great and deserved respect to the African-American base of the party, they are simply not entitled to shout down a primary challenge, period.


Seneca: As I state in the diary, I am not in the [Progressive] Caucus

and I didn't discuss this diary with anyone representing it.

To me, the damage is done. It's not about the Progressive Caucus gaining recertification, it's about E-Board members not realizing that they should not have allowed this shot along the Caucus's bow to be so successful to begin with.

I've spoken to small groups about my own take on "how to primary Obama in the least damaging way possible," as well as posting here, but it's not an idea that belongs to any organization at this point. I will continue to push it though, largely because if we don't have this sort of challenge I think we'll see a worse one.


Spoon: if the motion had gone to the floor it

might have passed. and if it hadn't passed, you'd have almost half the e-board going home furious.

Tabling was the right thing to do.



Seneca: And half the E-Board going home furious

at being stymied in their effort to suppress any hint of dissent is a bad thing why?


Spoon: because it would be an official

sign of disrespect to the Democratic President and the first african-american president. it's important not to get too caught up in the obama wars and take a broader perspective sometimes.


Seneca: So tell me this:

Would someone actually running against Obama in 2012 be -- or let's say "have been" -- a "sign of disrespect to the Democratic President"? Is his being African-American the thing that protects him from facing the sort of challenge that Johnson and Humphrey did, or Carter? What's the reasoning here?

Tell me further: if some serious candidate had run against Obama, would it be the responsibility of the CDP E-Board, out of "respect to the Democratic President and the first African-American President," to do what it could to hamper such a challenge? What is your current position on intra-party dissent?

If you'd prefer to take this discussion to e-mail -- and I would, were I you -- you know how to reach me.



Spoon: i'm am e-board member and prog caucus

member. i was there. you can just ask me.


Just Bob: Have you put up a diary?

Or would you rather elaborate here?


Spoon: no, i really don't want to give it

more attention. the prog caucus shouldn't have made the resolution. a primary challenge is a dumb idea, always has been.

they should have known a move to decertify would follow.

when it did, the cdp e-board did the right thing to have everyone chill out rather than risk a close vote that would likely have decertified the caucus. the votes were there to do it.


Nada Lemming: Well it HAS more attention now.

And I find it refreshing that you admit you stand on the side of blind allegiance to power. Well played, sir.

"Blind cheerleading of the president will create jobs and get him to stop droning on and on about deficits no one cares about to the point that his numbers have tanked among independents?" -kos


Just Bob: Thank you for your reply, but

I can't say I'm not disappointed in your position and the Democrat Party of California.

One of the few remaining reasons I'm still a Democrat is that Florida has closed primaries and I want to vote for a progressive Democratic candidate.


Seneca: I didn't know that you were E-Board

I thought that your brother was. Please do weigh in further if you wish.


Spoon: i was elected as the male ventura rep

several months ago.

This is admittedly a somewhat truncated exchange and it may be difficult to follow, but you can read the whole thing at the link. What we find here is interesting. Seneca Doane, who is a CDP Central Committee member but not a member of the Progressive Caucus, nor a member of the executive board, takes issue with the decision of the executive board to table the issue of whether to renew the certification of the Progressive Caucus. Spoon, who is a member of both the Progressive Caucus and the executive board (something Seneca didn't know, neither did I) agrees with the suspension of action on decertification until "cooler heads" prevail.

Meanwhile Karen Bernal is continuing to give interviews about this, and more and more people are expressing just how fed up they are with the continuing Hooverite policies of the White House -- not to mention the continuation of the Bush foreign and domestic "security" policies -- and nobody is planning to shut up about it. Even though it appears that Spoon and/or Digby have no intention of writing about it at Hullabaloo, and have been using their ban-hammers to ensure that there is no mention of it in comments. (Along with all the other unmentionables...)

Meanwhile, Karen Bernal was interviewed by the Black Agenda Report, and I'm posting a link to the whole radio broadcast because there is mention of the confrontation between Maxine Waters and a loud and very very unhappy-with-Obama largely black audience, and Karen points out in her interview that the African-American Caucus objection to the Progressive Caucus recertification was not all it's been cracked up to be, and that the DNC has had something to do with what's going on.

Black Agenda Radio on the Progressive Radio Network, with Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey – Week of August 22, 2011

This may all seem like Inside Baseball internal Democratic Party squabbling, but I think it is really important for the future of the Party and for the country.

Realistically, Obama is in the political fight of his life. His approval is tanking, and more and more Progressive Dems (regardless of color) are speaking up and speaking out about how barely distinguishable he is from a Republican in the White House, and how they are fed up with being dissed and kicked around by the White House and the DNC. While I don't really think the California Democratic Party is going to split over this matter, it's a matter of consciousness raising and standing up for yourself and your values in the face of what appear to be anti-democratic forces in the Party itself, led by Team Obama.

What do you do under those circumstances? If you are a stalwart Dem (called a Yellow Dog) you've either got to continue fighting from within -- and making a stink about it -- or give up and go somewhere else.

Karen and the Progressive Caucus are fighting from within, where supposedly Progressives need to be if they are to take over the Party and win. I've argued that Progressives not only took over the Party and won, they revived it from the dead, and the thanks they got was a kick in the nuts and a boot out the door.

Seneca seems to understand at least the outlines of that story -- and certainly sees it happening in the case of the Progressive Caucus certification struggle; regardless of whether they are eventually recertified, they have been told in no uncertain way that they are not appreciated. There will be blowback.

But David acts like he either has no idea of any of this, or if he does have an idea about it, he doesn't want to talk about it and he doesn't want anybody else to either. It is not a matter for public scrutiny.

I think it is. Enough is enough. Of course given my current immersion in the Russian Revolutionary period, I may be a bit biased!

[PS: unlike some of the players in this psycho drama, I have been in touch with Karen Bernal regarding this issue.]

Banned At Digby's!!!

Well, this one sure goes in the Blogospheric Quirks file.

Around or about August 11 but beginning earlier, it appears that dozens, ifnothundreds, of commenters at Digby's Place were banned -- without even so much as a "have an apple." To this day, many of them may not be aware of what happened, nor would they necessarily be able to find out. While complaints have been raised from time to time about "disappearing comments" at Digby's, the excuse has always been that "there's something not working right with Echo/Halsocan, oops." But when David Atkins ("thereisnospoon") was brought on as co-blogger there, all hell broke loose. Dozens, ifnothundreds, of David's non-fans from Daily Kos migrated over to Digby's and blasted away in her comments at what a damfool David was, and a tool besides. A tool worse, if that were possible, than the heavily blog-scarred head of Ezra Klein. But I digress.

First, a little history. Digby and I go back a long way in blogtopia (h/t Skippy the Bush Kangaroo), I like to think back to the days of the Clinton Impeachment (good times!) but maybe not that far. I first remember meeting up with her in comments at the Bartcop forum, around the same time as Duncan Black, aka "Atrios", started posting there. Bartcop's forum archives only go back to 2002 which is when they switched over to different forum software, so I'm not sure exactly when I started posting at Bartcop (under a different user name than the one I mostly use now), but it was probably well before the 2000 election because I remember posting pictures I took of the Rightist demonstrations to end the recount. Gun-toting Rightist demonstrators, no less. The TeaBag hostile attitudinalism if they don't get their way IMMEDIATELY goes back at least that far (and Hate Radio jocks and right wing lobbyists were in the vanguard then, just like they are now.)

So anyway, that's where I first remember encountering Digby and I always enjoyed her posts. Whether she even noticed mine, I have no idea, though we seemed to be engaging in forum conversation periodically. When she opened her own blogshop in January of 2003, it was all very exciting. Atrios had just won the 2002 Koufax Award for Best Blog Writing at his own Eschaton, and Digby herself (though at the time most assumed she was a he) had won the Koufax for Best Commentator of 2002. Yess. She would later pick up a couple of other Koufaxes for Best Blog Writing herself in 2004 and 2005.

Things got kind of tense for me at Bartcop during the 2004 election because I was working on the Howard Dean campaign (volunteer) and getting more and more heavily involved in Progressive Democratic politics in California -- and the Bartcop crew wasn't all that thrilled by my posts about it. It caused some friction, to say the least, especially with partisans for Kerry and Clark. Eventually there was a kind of purge from the ranks of Bartcoppers, most of it voluntary by people who didn't want to deal with the hostility either from other posters or the management any more. Apparently some posters were unceremoniously booted as well. I migrated away from Bartcop in 2006, to another site that had been established by exiles from the Bartcop Forum -- where I occasionally post to this day (as long as I don't lose the bookmark!)

Once she had her place up and running, Digby didn't post at other places any more. Why should she? She had quite a following of her own by then.

Meanwhile, I'd been posting at Daily Kos almost since its inception and I also posted at Salon's Table Talk; I had tried to start a couple of blogs of my own during that period, but did not have the time or energy to stick with them. I think the first was in 2000. I tried another sometime in 2002. This one is the third attempt, started in 2007 when I finally made some time for it.

But I've long been a commenter at other places as well, including Digby's where I've been both a strong supporter and a sometimes scold. I've been particularly strenuous with her about her obsession with Chris Matthews (who cares what an idiot he is?), and with what I regard as the inappropriateness of her "Village" metaphor for the Palace culture and its courtiers in DC. But that aside, I think she's a good writer, a sensitive and genuine liberal (one of the few A list bloggers who is a genuine liberal), and an insightful observer of the haps.

So imagine my surprise when I discovered last week that all the brilliant posts I'd made in comments at her place after August 11 were... gone. Vanished. As if they had never been. Whut? I was not logged in to Echo when I made this discovery, but as soon as I did log in under my Blogger ID, behold, all my brilliant posts re-appeared as if by magic. How bizarre. Obviously they hadn't been deleted, so those who had been accusing David and Digby of "censorship" must have been wrong. But how could the comments not be there when I wasn't logged in to Blogger and suddenly reappear when I did log in? Mystery. I emailed Digby about it and what my theory was at the time, giving her credit for not deleting posts (no matter what her accusers were saying) because I could see all of mine so long as I was logged in to Blogger.

But then something strange happened. If I posted without logging in, I could see that post until I did log in and then it would disappear -- and not be retrievable. No one at all was responding to any of my posts, which wasn't all that odd in general, but it did seem a little strange even direct questions to people I'd chatted with in comments at her place got no reply. Also the number of commenters radically declined, and many of the regulars were simply gone, along with essentially all of the Spoon-haters from dKos.

Hm. Very interesting.

Something was going on, but I couldn't honestly say what. I know that I posted the story of the California Democratic Party's attempt to purge its Progressive Caucus repeatedly, and asked David specifically about it, but not only did he not respond, no one did. It would seem to me it's a fairly important story. Especially where anti-Obama/anti-Democratic Party people like to hang out (a fair description of Digby's comment section under any circumstances, even now with far reduced numbers.) I even emailed Digby about the story together with contact information for Karen Bernal. She did reply to that one with at least the suggestion of interest in "running with it." But she's written nothing about it, neither has David, and so far as I know, neither of them have contacted Karen or the Dem Party Headquarters for comment.

At least over there, it looks like the story of the Progressive Purge of the California Democratic Party went right into the memory hole.

Today I did a little sleuthing and made a discovery. My goodness, I do believe my IP has been banned from Echo comments at Digby's! I do declare!

I can post all I want, logged in or not, and all of those posts will appear on the computer on which I have made them, but not on any other -- unless I am logged in to Echo with the same ID I used when I posted the original comment. I did several tests with other computers in the house to see just what would happen. If I log on to Echo with my Blogger ID, apparently on any computer, the posts I have made under that ID will -- magically! -- show up, but they are gone again the instant I log off and clear cache. If I am not logged in at all, and cache has been cleared, none of my posts (after August 11) will appear on any computer. If I log in with a different ID, such as my Twitter account, once again I can post at will, but none of my other posts will be visible if I've cleared cache in between log ins.

So. I've been banned. By Digby of all people.

Clearly the advent of David Atkins over there has had something to do with it. I am not a Spoon-hater, though I might challenge some of his premises sometime. Those who went after him hammer and tong seemed to be carrying a lot of baggage from dealing with his posts at dKos, and the truth is, I read very few of them and never got too hot or bothered by what I read in them. Mostly it's very conventional Democratic Party partisanship, and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. The only time I really get exercised by something someone has posted (whether or not I agree with it) is when they become really hostile and unfairly hostile with others -- such as the way Armando and some others behaved at dKos a couple of years ago. It's the internet, people. But there are (usually) real people behind the screen names, and going apeshit on somebody just because you can and think you can get away with it because it is the internet is like sucker punching a blind person, and I will come down on that kind of shit.

But otherwise, it's conversation, conversation that can sometimes become heated argument. Argument is one thing but there's no reason to be offensive or cruel or unfairly hostile to those you are dealing with online. Ultimately you can't win whatever it is you think you MUST that way, and it reflects badly -- very badly -- on you. So I don't engage in it (at least I hope I don't) and if I am around people online who do it on a regular basis I will typically either intervene, or just let the place go. I don't need that kind of poison in my life. No one does.

Nevertheless! I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!

As if there wasn't anything more important in the whole wide world. Priorities!

On Waxing Exceeding Wroth At Unexpected Revisionism

The last few days, I've been noticing a rather astonishing level of self-delusion and Happy Talk over the results of the Wisconsin Recall Campaign -- which failed to achieve its objective of flipping control of the State Senate.

The two Dems who will replace the recalled Republicans in the Senate won their seats, and I will take nothing away from them, but their election victories do not translate into an overall Win! (YAY!) for the Recall Campaign itself. Asserting some sort of overall Victory, however, has become standard issue on the so-called Left, and especially among the hackiest of Democratic operatives and their minions. In their highly propagandized world -- we are talking politics, after all, and propaganda for your side and against the other is a fundamental aspect of the game -- it was a "win" in Wisconsin because two Republicans were recalled (three were needed to flip control of the State Senate) and that means that "momentum" has built, and Scott Walker better watch out now because Russ Feingold is hot on his heels and will have his ass on a plate, just you wait and see, nyah, nyah, losers!!!

Eh, no. Not exactly. No, because the Power in Wisconsin remains right where it has been since last year's election -- which was a rout for Democrats in Wisconsin, primarily because Democrats and Independents stayed at home rather than vote for such disappointing Democrats who were standing for election. The Republicans in the State House still have a lock on government Power, which they have been using with extraordinary effectiveness to accomplish their objectives, despite a great deal of public resistance, demonstrations, protests, court orders, recall elections, and what have you.

The recalls haven't changed that Power dynamic at all, nor have they interfered more than marginally in the implementation of the programs and policies the Republicans in charge in Wisconsin want to implement. There is still nothing to stand in their way.

So it has been through much of the Midwest where one Republican power and governing coalition after another has been ramrodding anti-public interest measures through legislatures and implementing them in the face of growing public outrage and anger.

The Rs clearly don't care what the People think or what the People want. And because they are becoming more and more effective in managing and manipulating the electoral process and democracy itself, the Rs aren't fearing the wrath of the People either. "Let them do what they will, they won't win the Power. [evil chuckle a la Mr. Burns]"

And so the self-delusion among "progressive" advocates and Democratic Party apparatchiks over the state of affairs following the Wisconsin recalls is disturbing to say the least. Living in a fantasy of Victory [Eventually! YAY!] is not going to achieve Victory, but then, more and more, I'm coming to believe that's not the intent of the hacks and apparats and advocates in any case. Playing the game, engaging in the Process is what matters most to many of them.

Digby put up a post that sort of encapsulates this spirit:

Small d inspiration

by digby

These are very tough times and I am starting to see a lot of depression and fatalism and anger from people everywhere. I don't think I've ever seen the left so despondent -- and nights like last night in Wisconsin, although heartening in some respects, often make us feel worse because it takes so much energy just to move an inch. But I have to remind myself that it's about more than just achieving the goal --- it's the process itself that makes you strong.

Here's a note I got from reader Don P, who sent me the Stagecoach quote last week:

I know we are in dark times and the nature of the quote was not bright, however seeing that happen was very satisfying and put a bounce in my step. Saturday, when the item appeared in Krugman's column my union voted to approve a contract with Santa Clara County.

I was one of the negotiators and though contract contains cuts to the workers, I feel proud of what the negotiators accomplished. We negotiated from April 29th until 6:30 AM on August 3rd. It was grueling but we kept the worst pain from the lowest paid employees and tried to make the cuts as temporary as we could. We also avoided impasse and a strike.

I felt so incredibly proud that day of both achievements (contributing to your BLOG and successfully settling).

I also wish more people understood how democratic, ethical and downright American union work can be. We worked so hard to get all the voices heard, to discuss all the angles and represent the stated interests of the workers. The negotiation team practically tore itself apart but the sum of all this messy, difficult process was a contract that was as fair as possible under the circumstance. It felt like democracy in action and it gives me hope even in this dark time.

I want to galvanize people and get them involved civically with the kind of passion that the Tea Party has but oriented towards working on constructive solutions to the problems we face.

As long as people like Don are out there doing what they can for average working people, I figure I can't succumb to the malaise that threatens to drag me under. I imagine there was some disappointment in Wisconsin last night that they didn't take back the Senate. But they won two races --- a very difficult task --- and I doubt even one of the people who worked so hard to make that happen would give up having had the experience. As Don says, it's difficult and exhausting, but the real fulfillment is in the doing of it. (And, by the way, practice makes perfect.)

While this is far less delusional than some of the post-game analyses (OMG), still she's in a reverie of Political Process that just boggles the mind if you think about it.

Periodically, I've noted that Americans of the lefter persuasion cannot rely on a broken electoral system to produce the kind of results -- and Saviours -- so many want and believe are necessary. The system can't do it. The system is set up and run by interests that are opposed to the People and the Public Interest, and they have a nearly complete lock on political power in this country, operating through both major political parties. The public has very little input into or impact on that Process, nor do they have much of a say in choosing candidates or approving/disapproving policies. The political process and the Government are as divorced from the People and their needs and interests as they have ever been. The political game being played is as rigged as some sports contests are. We, the People, are spectators at best. This system cannot and will not produce positive results for the masses through electoral means alone if it produces them at all -- which is highly unlikely.

Yet here's Digby and her correspondent in effect asserting that engaging in the Process itself is a sufficient substitute for a "win." We don't need the Power, we just need to engage.

Years ago, I might have offered that same sort of pablum to those who were disappointed in the results of the System or were being crushed by it because I was part of the System and part of my job was to persuade people that participation in and engaging with the System was reward enough.

Well, really! It is! You gain so much when you participate!

I benefited for many years from both my advocacy efforts and what you might call my "ambassadorship" efforts. So I knew how advocacy and participation worked to accomplish certain objectives. But what I found was that those efforts reinforced a rotting status quo, they did not lead to what I believed was necessary and productive change on behalf of the vast majority of the People. What it did was lead to a proliferation of advocates and participants, all competing to be heard by a less and less responsive Government, which was literally barricading itself behind a security cordon, while a handful of interests at the top sucked up more and more and more resources for themselves, accumulated more and more power, and devised ever more cruel means and methods of rule.

If that was the view from the inside, I can only imagine what it looked like from the outside. Jebus, it's a wonder The Revolution hasn't come long before now.

But back to Digby. Her noting of the high levels of despondency and despair "on the left" at the Wisconsin results is interesting -- in part because there is no sign of any such depression, despondency and despair among "leftist" activists that I'm aware of. There is a good deal of anger and bitterness among some activists in that it appears that the good will of the "left" has been used once again for a failing political process endeavor, but that's by no means the same as despondency and depression. Far from it.

But calling that anger and bitterness by another name -- "depression and despair" -- is part and parcel of the revisionist propagandist ball game. Renaming and mischaracterizing the actual feelings and beliefs of the multitudes is part of the process of channeling high emotion as well as taking advantage of people at their low points. Another aspect of this renaming and revisionism is that it provides a means to reinforce pre-conceptions on behalf of desired outcomes that are often not revealed. Political players do it all the time.

The notion that "it's the process itself that makes you strong," is at best a half truth; at worst it is a deliberate deception move to quell rising revolt. Your aim is to substitute playing the game for actual revolt and confrontation. Play just one more round. "It gets better! Honest!" And you might just win next round! Come on! Play the game, don't sulk and don't throw a childish tantrum!

Oh man. I've heard it so many times, and I've said it myself. There was a time I think I even believed it, but I don't any more. Nope. No more.

And then she brings in the union negotiators' email -- and damn, I just lost it. Cripes, what horseshit. Paraphrase: "I have been so honored and rewarded, even though we had to concede this, that, and the other thing to reach agreement, that I was able to sit at the table and be heard! Oh! Oh! It was thrilling beyond measure to be part of the process of union negotiations that resulted in reducing wages and taking away benefits for our members! It was not a loss! Participation itself was a Win! I am so deeply moved!"

Vomit.

Yes, Digby concludes: "As Don says, it's difficult and exhausting, but the real fulfillment is in the doing of it. (And, by the way, practice makes perfect.)"

To me, that kind of pollyannaism in the face of what is a more and more dreadful reality for more and more people is a big part of the problem. NO, the "real fulfillment" is not in the process; the real fulfillment is making positive changes in an oppressive system that is destroying people's lives. This cannot be made any clearer.

The Process is part of the problem.

Then I went ballistic when several of her commenters claimed that "progressives" hadn't organized to press their agenda in the Democratic Party, and it will take many years of activism -- just like King and Gandhi -- for "progressives" to make any progress, nostrum, nostrum, lies upon lies. The Democratic Party as an institution is like an unmovable object, must be forced, yadda yadda, and all that takes time....

Of course what's missing from this picture is that real progressive insurgents revived the Democratic Party from the dead back in the day, and they actually did take it over, and they actually did press for positive progressive policies and programs, and actually did manage to get hundreds and hundreds of Democrats elected all over the country, and they actually were responsible for the Democratic congressional victory and statehouse victories in 2006, and they actually were the core activist of the Democratic sweep of 2008. And what they got as their reward for this series of stunning Democratic victories was a kick in the nuts and being thrown out the door.

According to the revisionists, however, it never happened. Progressives never took over the Democratic Party, never pressed their agenda, never worked for and gained hundreds of electoral victories for Democrats... and they were never purged, because they were never there.

It's as if the entire period from 2003 to 2008 has been completely disappeared.

It's a neat trick.

And it calls for both anger and revenge.

The Obama Problem

I have from time to time offered both criticisms and defenses of His Serenity, Barack "Hoover" Obama -- mostly critical observation of what he is doing and why I think he's doing it. I don't think he is particularly evil or smart for that matter, but I do see him as increasingly self-possessed, self-actuated, and increasingly rigid in his core principles and beliefs.

President Carter with better looks and no Southern accent.

Well, yes. The Carter comparison has been raised since forever, on the presumption that Obama would be a one term president -- which he might well be, and I don't think he really much cares about that.

But lately, the fashion mavens in the Blogosphere have decided to push the notion that Obama is somehow The. Worst. President. Ever. (Excuse me, no.) Aware observers are more than willing to point out that the premise itself is stupid and unworthy, but it's hard not to succumb to the silliness because it is based in a human need to be on a "team" and support or defy the conventional wisdom.

Someone who supports his team feels validated, especially if his captain wins the game. And one thing I can say about Obama -- which I have in other fora -- is that he is a true believer in his own principles and his abilities to institute them through his agency as President.

His primary principle is that of Transcendence. He believes, truly, that it is his role to transcend the partisan divide, to bring the parties together, if not in harmony at least in agreement that something must be done and can be done, and to help hammer out whatever deal is necessary to Make It Happen.

That's what this Debt Crisis Crisis is all about. And it is -- sort of -- looking like he might pull it off.

Meanwhile, I came across a couple of considerations of The Obama Problem today that I think help clarify the picture. The first, via Digby, is by Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast, and it is very good. The upshot is that Obama is doing what he is doing -- which often seems incomprehensible to observers -- because he really believes in the principle of transcendence and he is determined to stick with his principles no matter what.

He apparently really believes—still!—in civic-republican notions of government as an arena for reasoned deliberation. That he could still think this is akin to a child believing in Santa Claus until he’s 15—but apparently he does. The journalist Alec MacGillis captured this conviction well in a profile he did of Obama for the British New Statesman back in 2008. Barack Obama, he wrote, “was running not on a record of past achievement or on a concrete program for the future, but instead on the simple promise of thoughtfulness.”

From this perspective a unilateral action would be almost impious—or at least, if you’d rather aim a little lower than God, anti-Madisonian. Obama would be giving up on his ideal. Of course he should have long since given up on it. I was with him at the beginning—his conviction that politics could be better and more deliberative was one of the things I found appealing about the man. But that ship sailed long ago, and Obama’s position has declined from admirable principle to indefensible fetish. Politics simply isn’t going to get better and more deliberative any time soon.

The third reason the president probably won’t do it is related to the second, but it’s more personal. Unilateral action would be at odds with Obama’s image of himself. In his article, MacGillis defined thoughtfulness Obama style as “the notion that the leadership of the country should be entrusted not on the basis of résumé and platform, but on the prospect of applying to the nation's problems one man's singularly well-tempered intelligence.” This is pretty obviously a dead-on description of Obama’s view of himself and his potential as president.

I think it is really a good description of what is going on. Of course Tomasky, like many others, is OUTRAGED!!!!™ and wants Obama to Stop This Nonsense Right Now!!! Yes, well. Good luck with that. At no point during his reign on the Throne has Obama shown even a hint of giving up his principles -- though he will cheerfully give up just about everything else.

The other Worst. President. Essay I read today was by Sterling Newberry via Ian Welsh. Sterling, gosh, goes back a long way, into the mists of Internet times, and he's always been an acute observer and analyst of what's happening. In today's essay at The Sorcerer's Apprentice he examines what is wrong, desperately wrong, with the Obama Reign, and I think he gets it mostly right.

I especially like his historical notes and this part:

The President who Obama most resembles is Herbert Hoover, another one of those chief magistrates of government who became inflexible and iron willed. His idea of compromise is that he cuts out what he thinks is a compromise, and then relentlessly grind on it. He's dealing with people whose idea of compromise is a woman having an orgasm while she is raped. Neither of these two sides have actually compromised very much, other than compromising on extending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy.

Hoover was a malfortunate president. Unfortunate is not a sufficient adjective to describe it. He inherited an economy that was about to explode. He takes office in March of 1929, the move to January would, to no small extent be because the long gap between election and inauguration paralyzed the country when later he would lose the Presidency, and in October of 1929, the stock market plunges in what is know as "The Crash." In reality such a crash was essentially inevitable after the Olmstead Break in August. In effect he had 5 months of Presidency. The rest was a long grind and heavy flail. His response was not without compassion and, within his understanding, he worked hard to do what was right. He simply was a mammoth in a lake that had been swamped by a breaking glacier dam, to be found, frozen, as an oddity. His failure was that as his policies failed, he doubled and tripled down on them. In essence, he turned a single large downturn, into three back to back downturns, and left the very faith in capitalism and democracy bruised behind him.

FDR and Hoover had once been political friends, but his rants and threats, the most famous being his offer to let FDR be President early, if FDR would scrap the "so-called New Deal." FDR replied tartly that he was still a private citizen until inauguration, his term as Governor of New York having ended.

Like me and a number of others, Newberry is relating Obama to Hoover's presidency, and he explains why very well.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Debt Crisis Crisis, I think he is somewhat off the mark in that he doesn't seem to be able to relate it (or actually much of anything Obama has done) to Obama's principle of transcendence.

That's why I highlight both articles today: the one by Tomasky which gets into the underlying reasons why Obama is doing what he is doing -- though Tomasky is calling it wrong in all kinds of ways -- and Newberry's, take which relates Obama's actions with those of other Worst Presidents and takes him to task for missing so many opportunities to please The People (and his more leftward critics) by taking bold(er) and more authoritative/authoritarian action.

I honestly don't think Obama is doing what he is doing for political gain. He is doing it both because he can, and because he must. He is a believer, in other words, and a man of Principle. Unshakable Principle.

This is what Principled Governance looks like. It isn't pretty. And I don't think it is what we really want.

Pasty

The main impression I got from the snippets of the Glenn Beckistan Rally at the Memorial to Some President on the Mall was that this man is incredibly soft and pasty-white.

Hm.

Truly.

Nothing he said made the least bit of sense, and from the commentary of the chatterati about it, it didn't matter. No one was paying attention anyway.

Hm.

The attendees were having themselves a fine little get-together on a hot and humid summer's day, and no one -- but no one -- was going to interfere with their pleasure. Can't argue with that. Nor can you work up too much OUTRAGE!!!!!
™ over it.

Just another summer "news" filler.

But the warnings continue, as they should. This man is a prime, grade-A, number one demagogue who's been playing the road show circuit for quite some time. Most of the criticism of him that's appeared in the media, new and old, is of his truly appalling (what I've seen of it) television show -- a show that consists primarily of incoherent rants, nonsense and gibberish. With illustrations. But he has a radio show and a road show too, and he's been taking his show on the road for over a year. Hardly anyone talks about that part of his entertainment empire.

The personal appearances are where he makes the direct connection with the People, and that's apparently where his power lies. Beck does have power over his Masses, so they say, in that he is able to assemble sizable crowds wherever he goes, and he is able to manage them successfully to 1) give money; 2) believe what he says. Even if they don't understand a word of it.

His speechifying is literally incomprehensible to a radical secularist like me, and they say it is because he talks in a "code" that is only understandable by the Adept -- primarily those steeped in Christian Reconstructionism and general Authoritarianism. That may be, I don't know. What he sounds like is a drunk or drug addict (apparently he has been both) who is still high or on a bender. Cf: the gibberish out of George W. Bush's mouth. Only by comparison, Bush made sense, at least sometimes.

Beck? Never.

On a related note, when I was on the road a lot, I would listen to Limbaugh in the mornings. I was well aware of when he fell into the Oxycontin habit, for he became completely incoherent, his monologues making no sense at all, simply words strung together with Emphasis, as if they had any meaning, and as he got more and more into his drug of choice, not only was he making no sense at all, but he was losing his hearing, and so he was unable to hear either himself or anyone else, and it was almost like he was constantly whining or crying on the air. It was bizarre as hell, and it went on for a year or more.

No one noticed. That's not to say "no one at all." What it does say is that a very strict Code of Silence surrounded his on-air deterioration such that none of his media colleagues ever said a word about it, ever pointed out what complete nonsense he was spouting, ever publicly hinted there was something "wrong", not until the penultimate moment before he went into rehab. Apparently, too, his vaunted listeners -- all those millions, who are, by the way, far fewer than the number touted, not 20 million a week by a long shot, closer to 10 or 12 -- didn't notice. They just went along for the ride, and it wasn't his babbling nonsense that eventually clued them that maybe something was "wrong," it was his constant whining and crying because he couldn't hear.

Something like that episode is going on with this soft, pasty demagogue in his many appearances over the last couple of years. Beck's overt madness has made Bill O'Reilly look sane by comparison; that's scary enough all by itself.

But as Digby pointed out, he Speaks in Tongue, babbling in a language only certain Initiates and Those Chosen can "understand." And as he goes around the country doing this shtick, over and over and over, he seems to bring more and more lunacy out of his followers, while attracting more and more of the merely curious to check it out.

Crazy, perhaps. I wouldn't have any way of knowing what his true psychology is, because so much of what he does is show-biz hucksterism. It's an act. He's putting on a show for the Rubes, with the intention of picking their pockets. This is as obvious as sin.

And in that context, he is nothing more than yet another predator in our midst. Yet another religious predator as he is now propounding the theory that he is Chosen By God to Lead His Flock, yadda, yadda. Sure he was. Given that he is a convert to Mormonism, this is a very odd position for him to take. Yes, of course, Mormons "witness" to Gentiles, but they are typically modest about it, and they typically don't prattle on about being God's Chosen -- well, not unless they're Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, etc., in other words in charge of the Mormon Church itself. And I haven't seen any signs that the current Presidency thereof is yielding to the likes of Glenn Beck. Besides, his ecumenical "ministry" is not even remotely in line with Mormonism as Received From Above. It's little more than bastardized Social Darwinism dolled up in Moralism and Misquoted Scripture.

Not only is he Pillsbury soft and pasty white and he cries a lot -- which is appealing on an instinctive level, (white) babies, don'tchaknow -- he has been able to demonstrate significant levels of managing the masses, which the turn out in DC the other day amply showed. Crowd estimates fell short of the 100,000 - 300,000 that was being touted. Between 75,000 and 85,000 is said to be the most likely number based on pictures like this:





which shows a substantial but surprisingly sparse crowd in many areas. What time were the pictures taken? Time of day has some influence on attendance, and as there appear to be slight shadows from the east, I'd say it was before 11am. But I don't know.


And there was the CBS estimate of 87,000 based on those pictures. It's far less than the number "expected," but for those who watch for these kinds of things, getting a crowd of over 20,000 is considered adequate to demonstrate managing the masses sufficiently to be taken seriously. It was part of Obama's audition process for the Presidency as well.

The curious thing for me is where we go from here. Glenn Beck will be happy to pick the pockets of his followers until Doomsday, a destiny he -- and they -- appear to devoutly wish. OK, then. Have at it.

Healthy ecosystems require predators of a certain sort, and in some sense, the kind of predation Beck does is harmless enough. What's dangerous is letting him run wild, or what's even worse, form a pack of predators with others of his ilk, and doing that seemed to be a part of what he was doing the other day in DC. He had Sarah Palin, Arch She-Predator, and a whole passel of Ministers of the Lord (predators all). And plenty of yelping from would-be running dogs. This was the Display from the podium.

Go watch "Triumph of the Will" again; you will see something of the same thing. Or observe Stalin's rallies in Red Square.

Ultimately, it's a recipe for disaster.

Confiscatory Taxation

Digby is fretting -- again -- that Pete Peterson, et al, are gearing up for a major marketing push for a Commission to tackle Entitlements and the Deficit.

They're planting "news" articles in places like the Washington Post, they're getting on the teevee constantly, they're buying ads, and on and on and on, wailing and gnashing their teeth at the appalling level of the deficit (in these Recessionary Times, too!) and targeting the Entitlements of Social Security and Medicare for a major haircut if not outright elimination.

If we don't take on the Entitlements, runs their argument, and curb their unfunded liabilities, our grandchildren will be paying for our profligacy, and no one wants that. Do they?

Well, how about that, same as it ever was, we've fallen right back into 1934, only this time around, Hoover won a second term. Lucky us.

Of course, the real issue is simple: Peterson and his billionaire buddies (and their heirs) don't want to be on the hook for the taxes required to cover those unfunded liabilities, liabilities that are only unfunded because he and his ilk have benefited from massive tax cuts over the years (while ordinary workers' payroll taxes doubled) and now that the bill is coming due, they don't want to pay.

The specific remedy is to tax the holy shit out of these people, confiscatory taxation on incomes over a certain level, 100% tax on high value estates, tax all hedge fund transactions, indeed, tax all stock market transactions. Tax the movement of manufacturing and jobs overseas. Tax credit default swaps and all the other 'instruments' by which the Masters of the Universe rule. Take it all.

Every damned dime of ill-gotten gain for the last 30 years has been scammed and stolen from We, the People. Get it back.

No quarter. None. Take everything they have and everything they've hidden. Tax the damned ads they run. These people have had a free ride for decades, they are bloated with so much gold they can hardly move.

Don't fret. Get even.

Why "Village" is the Wrong Metaphor

For some time now, Digby has used the "Village" metaphor to describe the collective known as the Washington Press Corps, a metaphor that ultimately comes from a Sally Quinn piece quoting David Gergen from almost a decade ago in which she defended the world she and her colleagues lived and worked in from the Evil That Was Clinton. Gergen supplied the memorable quote:

"We have our own set of village rules," says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House. "Sex did not violate those rules. The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them. That is one on which people choke.

"We all live together, we have a sense of community, there's a small-town quality here. We all understand we do certain things, we make certain compromises. But when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it. That is a cardinal rule of the village. You don't foul the nest."

Quinn and Gergen were serious -- it was about SEX after all -- and Digby is overtly satiric in using the metaphor to describe a rotten to the core press corp in DC. And the Village metaphor has spread throughout the blogosphere to describe these decrepit media functionaries (no longer describing a place but merely the denizens thereof).

I have objected and tangled with Digby more than once over her devotion to this metaphor -- it is now pretty much universal in the so-called lefty blogosphere -- because I believe that it is a grossly inaccurate and potentially self-defeating metaphor.

A "Village" has certain -- generally positive -- evocations for most people, and artists have made whole careers out of depicting village values, characters and ways of life. Gergen himself was using the metaphor in a positive way to describe how closely and intimately linked the Washington Press Corps was with one another and with their all-important sources and how the insider linkages are fundamental to the operations of the "Village."

Digby and most of the rest of the so-called lefty blogosphere of course consider the incestuousness and clannishness of the Washington Press Corps and their sources to be a very negative thing, and so their use of the "Village" to describe the same thing David Gergen did is meant as a satiric jab, with a highly negative connotation.

The problem is, despite its universality, it doesn't work.

It doesn't work in part because it doesn't describe reality. Gergen, in other words, was wrong, even deliberately deceptive, in trying to put a positive gloss or spin on the incestuousness of Washington and its many layers of courtiers, eunuchs and functionaries by calling it a "Village."

It's a "Village" in somewhat the way Marie Antoinette's Petit Hameau was.



In other words, a subdivision of a Palace like Versailles.



And the Washington Press Corps is a bunch of powdered and perfumed, bewigged and panniered courtiers.



The Palace metaphor was even Digby's preferred metaphor, one that is used very effectively by Paul Rosenberg, but she says she shifted to the Village metaphor after reading Quinn's piece in the Washington Post all those years ago and hasn't been able to let go of it.

Sally Quinn -- and David Gergen -- rules her world. Which is silly.

And yet, once the Village metaphor was adopted by Digby it became the standard on the lefty blogs within weeks or months.

Only a few of us hold out for the old fashioned Palace metaphor, which I believe is a far more accurate and telling descriptive of the nature of DC courtier media and "source" incestuousness.

And there's another thing, I think a more important thing than being accurately descriptive with ones metaphors: The Palace Media and its layers of sources, it's go-to eunuchs, functionaries, and gossips, is something that most people can come to revile. Indeed, rebel against. A "Village" metaphor short-circuits the rebellion before it begins and transforms the natural revulsion at the goings on of the Palace and its retainers -- especially when exposed as being as bloodthirsty and corrupt as they truly are -- into a sort of tittery joke. A "Village" metaphor makes them and their evil seem quaint, charming, cute.

And that won't do. It just won't do. How can you do anything about something you think is so 'darling?'

Whereas Storming the Winter Palace has more than a little evocative and powerful meaning.



You see?




Ain't nothin' quaint or cute about it.

You want cute? I gotchur cute right here:

O(What You Call Your) Bama!

YAY!

Well. At least he's got enough delegates lined up to take the nomination if they don't change their minds between now and August. Which they are very unlikely to do. But, given the way things have been going this campaign season, nothing would surprise me anymore.

And there is plenty to be troubled about regarding some of the elements of the Obama campaign.

First things first. Let's get it out on the table and out of the way: too many of Obama's most ardent supporters have become disreputable punks. They've been led by people who have become some truly repellant internet characters like Markos and Aravosis and Arianna, and their primary objective has been to trash Hillary and her supporters relentlessly. It long since reached the point of an obscenity. And apparently, no matter what, they cannot let go of their hatred and contempt of The Clintons and anyone (which amounts to almost half the Democratic Party, and pretty much all of the the Republican Party) who does not sing the praises of Obama long and loud enough.

There is no Obama Presidency in January of next year if the Clinton supporters who have been rigorously alienated by Obamaites sit this one out or -- far less likely -- vote for McCain. You don't do a purge until after you've got the Power, but for whatever reason, Obamaites have an urge to purge right now, and they don't care how it affects matters in the future.

All those old white women who support Hillary can just go Cheney themselves, now and forever more.

OK boys. Have it your way. But don't go crying that the Nasty Old Coot Republicans stole your presidency -- because you are doing a fine job fucking it up yourself. Keep it up.

Digby has been one of the saner voices in the blogosphere about what is going on, and she has been relentlessly trashed by Internet Thugs for Obama when she tells the truth. Unfortuantely, in this campaign season, "Truth" is the thing that cannot be told, ever, or the illusion, the gossamer bubble that surrounds the Obama campaign, will burst. She's a CLINTON SUPPORTER!!!!! Get her!!!!

There are and have been plenty of reasons not to support Hillary, primarily her warmongering in my view, but that's apparently too simple for the Internet Thugs for Obama to contemplate. No, they see their mission as one of complete destruction of The Clintons, their Machine, and all their fans and supporters, scorched earth, from here to eternity.

It's insane. It's Stalinist. Oh boy, let's trade one set of Authoritarian Thugs for another. Send the Busheviks into Siberia and bring in the Obamamaniacs -- to complete the task of purging and Autocracy.

Lucky us.

Unfortunately, that's the flip side of the vision of hope and change that Obama has been marketing, in one of the slickest and most appealing presidential campaigns since RFK's in 1968. In the background are all these droogs.














Is that the lesson that we've learned from the constant crisis and thuggery of the Bushevik years? Maybe so. Or is it all more illusion? Is all this implied threat and internet thuggery more apparent than real? It isn't really there, and millions of Americans aren't really and completely alienated from the Obama campaign and he's gonna win by double digits in the fall, and we're gonna be happy again, just you watch.

I guess we're going to find out, aren't we?

There's plenty that Hillary and her campaign did wrong, first on principle: those unrepudiated votes for blood and gore and Empire. She couldn't be my candidate any more than Kerry could. That's very straightforward, and it doesn't require smearing and psy-ops to communicate. She has terrible judgement when it comes to the fundamentals like war and peace and whether the United States should act like the biggest bully on the block.

Hillary is not my candidate, she has never been my candidate. But I have defended her when I thought she was being unfairly smeared by the Obama Droogs.

And THAT made me a "Hillary Supporter!" to be targeted for the purges underway and to come. Defending Hillary from unfair smears was enough. That's not just Stalinist, that's full on Cultural Revolution Maoism.

The key question for me now: If McCain wins in the fall -- which is not beyond the realm of possibility if the wedges driven between Democrats aren't removed (and not by eliminating the dissenters) -- would he be more or less totalitarian? We know he's an authoritarian and wants to become an Autocrat like his mentor Bush. Would he turn into an all out Totalitarian? Could be. He's not running for President, he's running for Commander In Chief and he sees his future like Patton before the Flag. That may mean, to him, that the nation's already tattered and shaken self governing constitutional republic is finally extinguished replaced by a quasi military junta that operates on a distinctly Basic Training model. Yep, that's totalitarianism.

If Obama wins -- and it's an uphill climb, but he's done it before -- does he build on the Bush legacy of civilian authoritarianism and institute his own brand of totalitarianism? Or will he curb the excesses of some of his supporters?

We'll see, won't we?

Torture? What torture?

Digby, dday, and tristero over at Hullabaloo have been doing yeoman work flogging (er...) the torture issue with some of the most compelling and definitive posts anywhere.

Chris Floyd over at his Empire Burlesque likewise.

Scott Horton all but burned himself out on it over at Harpers.

And still most of our leading media outlets cannot bring themselves to call what our government does to its captives "torture," except by indirection or reference to what "some people say."

Most Americans, apparently, don't much care what happens to the captives in any case, any more than most good upstanding Americans cared what happened to captive Native Peoples or slaves when time was.

Captives, almost by definition, aren't really human, are they? So what happens to them, whether it works to stop the ticking time bomb or not, is of no particular consequence. As long as we don't see it or hear it, let our government or its contractors torture away.

Because our Congress won't hold the Bushevik regime to account through Constitutional means, those who are working against torture have to employ other mechanisms such as defunding the mercenaries and contractors, some of whom have been implementing the torture regime so as to provide some means of plausible deniability to the government. But even that is a long shot.

Until and unless the torture regime is stopped, however, and those responsible held to the strictest account, our nation's moral standing will be no higher than the dirt on which we walk.

Was there ever an empire so determined to self-immolate?