Torture: Our Slide From Grace

I. Understandings: Human Nature & Governance Principles

Let's be honest and clear about all this. When imminent danger threatens the American mainland and its people, it is instinctive--or, at least completely understandable--to want to pull out all the stops to protect them. And do it fast. That's exactly what President George W. Bush did immediately after 9/11. And most all of us supported him in his pursuit of al Qaida into Afghanistan--even if the remainder of his presidency was at best misinformed and misled in so many areas of national interest.

And if using extreme interrogation measures--torture, yes--to gain information thought critical to protecting the American homeland from another attack was what it might take, then we might understandably consider making an exception this time. Erring on the side of doing everything possible--torture or not--was embraced by many people in the emotional moment of this immediate threat. And even if you don't relate to this emotion personally, you can understand it, perhaps even sympathize with it.

We might then also understand and sympathize with those in subordinate positions--even important positions--called upon to formulate the national security rationale and legal support for a policy change on torture. We might see how they would view it as their patriotic duty to support their government leaders and help make it happen. Under these circumstances, it is at the very least unfair and inappropriate to hold subordinate staff in the national security apparatus and the Justice Department criminally culpable for bringing their best skills to their duty to serve their superiors, including the heads of the CIA and Justice Department and, yes, the Vice President and President of the United States. It is after all, a legitimate issue of national security, and they should bring their best supporting arguments to the policy discussion, as they also address arguments to the contrary.

Lawyers are by training and the requirements of their codes of ethics aggressive advocates for their client-employers. Wherever there is an argument to be made on the merits, the facts or law, it is their duty to their client-employers to make that argument and defend their interests aggressively. National security agents, in turn, must be able to depend on the rulings of the Justice Department and their agency or departmental leaders. It is not their place to be jurist or moral arbiter. That responsibility rests with those whose job it is to judge the merits of the arguments and appropriately protect the higher moral ground (see II, below). In this case, that responsibility fell to the same heads of the Justice Department and the CIA, National Security Council, and the Vice President and President of the United States of America. And, as a matter of sound policy, great latitude must be allowed in exercising those judgments.

Justice Department lawyers who did their professional duty (writing supporting opinions), however narrowly defined, and those CIA or other staff operatives or agents who in turn did theirs in effecting the policy (using approved torture techniques in interrogations) should not be punished for doing what their government and their professions expected of them. Any other approach would inappropriately, perhaps dangerously, impede the proper functioning of departmental and agency professionals in their service of both the government and the governed. It would also encourage and expand the unseemly "get-even" tendencies extant in our adversarial political party structure to the point where the first order of business for each succeeding administration would be a witch hunt for those responsible for policies they disagreed with. That approach to governing would be profoundly lacking in reason and wisdom. And it would surely weaken government's ability to function responsibly and accountably in the future.

Of course, however unsatisfying it may be, this same policy concern applies to our policy leaders as well. If government executives had to second guess every policy decision entertained based on whether they might somehow be charged with criminal culpability by a later-elected administration--an opposing political party, perhaps--government would be restrained from making difficult decisions addressing our country's most important issues and serving its best interests. This would be an untenable context for government. Excepting clear and material violations of U.S. or international law, policy decisions of senior policy makers must be immune from prosecution.

So, then, is there no recourse against our senior-most policy making executives of government? Of course not; that too would be unjust and fail to serve good and accountable government. If there is a question of violation of international law--the Geneva Convention, for example--the appropriate international authority or court has the primary responsibility of bringing forward such charges. Where timing is critical, a sitting legislature may bring articles of impeachment in appropriate cases. Otherwise, it is the duty of congress and succeeding presidential administrations to investigate serious concerns with material policy breaches of U.S. or international law by predecessor administration officials. In egregious cases, a bi-partisan commission should be empaneled to investigate and report findings--a "truth-telling" commission, if you will. Such exercises may be important to understanding and correcting institutional and individual governmental failures, and advancing reconciliation between the American people and their government. Of course, it also identifies those guilty of indiscretions, errors and harm done. And, if important to the cause of justice done, individual censure may also be appropriate. Public shame--shame as history--is punishment enough for the culpable. We shouldn't underestimate the power of the effects results.

II. Leadership: A Shining Beacon of Principles & Ideals?

Among the qualities we should expect in a U.S. president are those of the classic philosopher-leader and statesman. Presidents, to be sure, but vice presidents, and senior government and legislative leaders, too, should aspire to that ideal. But over the course of my lifetime--62 years--it appears to me that we have seen less and less of those qualities reflected in our presidents and leaders.

This is not a unique or profound observation; it has been noted often by many thoughtful writers over those years. And doubtless, it has been an issue of concern at various other times in US history. But seldom has it reached such a low point as it did in the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. There were precious little of those qualities present or expressed by him, his vice president, and many in his administration. And as ideological purists and the political Religious Right combined to dominate and tightly narrow the identity of the Republican Party, the political and legislative process became partisan, polarized, and dysfunctional to the extreme--a matter of deep concern to those who observed and chronicled it all from the fewer places where wisdom resided.

The ideal of the philosopher-leader and statesman balances the exigencies and practicalities of everyday politics, economics and the national welfare--yes, including the lower expressions of populist demagoguery and political self-interest--with the need to define and protect the higher principles and ideals of enlightened humanity in community: the shining beacon on a hill, if you will. Yes, American presidents and their administrations have seldom fully realized or fully reflected those highest of ideals. But many came close, especially those founding thinkers and statesmen like Washington and Adams, those who set the foundation stones, the visionary principles and ideals. And, yes, there was Lincoln. Others would fairly suggest the presidencies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. All these presidents and others acted consistently and unambiguously to express and defend our ideals and policies condemning abuse and torture of prisoners.

But President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their cabinet leadership left little evidence that a philosopher-leader's and statesman's more enlightened principles found a respected voice in the decision making of their administration. Theirs was more a creature and servant of the unregulated marketplace, and therefore of large corporations and the most wealthy--but also of the narrow cultural dictates of the highly political, judgmental Religious Right, and the often xenophobic, jingoistic and bellicose nationalism reflected so often by their core constituencies.

The world was changing around them, and they didn't understand what it meant or how to respond. Their only instinct and personal point of reference was the lowest common denominator of the simplest, black-and-white constructions, understandings, and responses to complex, interdependent cultural, economic, and geopolitical changes. They refused to talk or listen to other voices, honorable voices who might help them--including the wiser former President G.H.W. Bush and key members of his very able cabinet.

What does it say about us that, when our people, leaders and ideals are threatened, we bow to our basest instincts and abandon the higher ground for expediency's sake? What does it say about us that we would waterboard a man 183 times in one month? I'm still stunned by the reality of it. What more could we expect to be confessed by the man the last 170 or 180 times? As civilized people, don't we recognize this as cruel and unusual punishment in extemis? In states where capital punishment is allowed, this level of pain and suffering could not be imparted in a legal execution, however heinous the crime or deserving the criminal. These "enhanced interrogation techniques" appear as much about illegal punishment as interrogation.

Former Vice President Cheney would have us believe that justification for these "enhanced interrogation techniques" stands or falls based on their efficacy. That is, did they produce actionable, "high-value" intelligence? Somehow, the vice president missed the college class discussion on Aristotelian ethics, the discussion on means and ends. A foundation stone, a necessary consideration, in any discussion or decision making is whether the ends justify the means. If you are the US--or most other civilized Western countries--and purport to occupy, exemplify and defend the high moral ground, then honoring and protecting our principles should not be a negotiable matter. And when it came down to these circumstances and the use of torture in interrogations, our Western allies, staunchly reflecting their values, said, no. But the Bush administration abandoned our place on the hill as they compromised our ideals and identity; they said, yes.

Of course, we can talk about the efficacy of torture in interrogations, but those discussions and arguments have been repeated so many times over the decades. And the voices reflecting the honor, strength and discipline of an ascendant humanity have always concluded that torture has no place in it. Yet, that history, those ideals, and the duty to honor them somehow eluded President Bush's administration. Somehow they thought efficacy should be the determinative question. So, since it is again the subject of discussion and dispute, lets talk about efficacy.

The information gained through torture is too often unreliable. So say the real experts in the field, the most experienced professional interrogators and those who have researched the issue. It's not that you can't extract some "high value" or "actionable" information from some prisoners; it's just that it is very hard to separate what might be useful from the other information tortured prisoner may be eager to provide. Most often prisoners will say anything to stop the pain or fear of death. Sometimes what they say may be true, often it is not. The stronger subjects may lie, and lie again. Even if they do not know the answers, they will guess or fabricate answers--anything to stop the process, even if only temporarily. And more, many of the most experienced, most effective professional interrogators are confident they can gain the most reliable information, without the indignity to us and our prisoners of giving expression to our basest instincts to punish while we interrogate. We do not have to torture.

What do you say, then? Why not dust ourselves off, raise our heads and straighten ourselves again? Let's reaffirm to the world who we are and the higher values that have always been ours. Lets polish again that beacon and carry it with us back to the top of that hill where we belong.

Sharing Power With China (and Others): An Unaccustomed Relationship

Beijing is challenging the world's economic and financial order. Americans had better get used to it....

The Chinese government has not been sitting idly by while the Obama administration has gotten into gear. Put another way, there has been chaos under heaven, and Beijing's situation is excellent. Over the past two months, Beijing has made a series of moves that could be interpreted as a challenge to the American-led economic and financial order. In March, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao explicitly voiced concerns about the direction of U.S. fiscal policy at his annual press conference. Later in March, China's central bank governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, argued that the costs of relying on the dollar as the world's reserve currency now exceeded its benefits....

--"Fearing China," by Daniel Dresner, Newsweek

A variation on a theme stressed here before: the American public must get past it's last-century, nationalistic misperceptions of its place in an evolving, "flattening" world--and especially with regard to China. And our leaders, who should understand this quite well, must act wisely and collaboratively in our new and evolving international relationships. It's not just that the Chinese are on such a steep ascendancy, or that the place of India, other Asian countries and the EC are also more prominent, but also that the self-inflicted damage to our financial system, economy, international standing, and our vulnerable creditor status, have so weakened us that there is no other wise and workable strategy available to us.

Chrysler's and General Motors' self-inflicted failures offers another example of changing industrial leadership--and another example of China opportunistically advancing its leadership ambitions during this time of international economic weakness. An article in the Washington Post (5.18.09), "As Detroit Crumbles, China Emerges as Auto Epicenter," makes the point:

The global auto industry is restructuring. Italy's Fiat is on the verge of taking control of Chrysler. Last year India's Tata Motors, already famous for its $2,000 Nano, acquired Jaguar and Land Rover.

And China's auto sector has emerged as a threat to the long-standing pecking order. Earlier this year, Geely Automobile, one of China's largest private carmakers, purchased an Australian drivetrain transmission supplier, a leading gearbox manufacturer. Weichai Power, one of China's top diesel engine manufacturers, acquired a French diesel engine producer. Another Chinese company, BYD, which counts Warren E. Buffett as an investor, launched a mass-market plug-in electric car, ahead of GM's anticipated Chevrolet Volt.

Detroit's annual auto show in January was somber, but Shanghai's show dazzled attendees with throngs of models, rock bands and light shows. This year, Nissan skipped Detroit and attended the Chinese event in April. Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche all unveiled new-vehicle models in Shanghai.

"The center of gravity is moving eastward," Dieter Zetsche, chairman of Daimler, told reporters at the show.

This is just one example of China's evolving industrial leadership ambitions. And as we discussed in an earlier post, they are also moving confidently toward a greater financial leadership role in the world--and critically initiating a dialogue that calls into question the appropriateness of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice. (See my post, China's Way Forward, the US Response, 4.26.09, Hyde Park's Corner.)

The challenge for the U.S., however, is not to overreact, but to find a balanced view of how threatening these changes actually are to the U.S., and to fashion a balanced, constructive response to it. And there is also the challenge of preparing the American people for these inevitable industrial and financial restructurings, and that new role of constructive, shared power in an evolving 21st-century world economic and geopolitical reality.

The Newsweek article by Dresner provides reasons why most of these changes should not be viewed as a threat to American prosperity, but only if we assume that shared leadership role. And there's the rub. The greater concern, posits the article, is that America is unaccustomed to a role of shared leadership, and unprepared to carry it out successfully, even if that is our stated strategy and clear intention. From the article:

If these moves do not amount to much, then why all the hubbub? To be blunt, America is out of practice at dealing with an independent source of national power. For two decades the United States has been the undisputed global hegemon. For the 40 years before that, America was the leader of the free world. As a result, American thinkers and policymakers have become accustomed to having all policy decisions of consequence go through Washington. Our current generation of leaders and thinkers are simply unprepared for the idea of other countries taking the lead in matters of the global economic order.

Dresner concludes by summarizing his conclusions on each point:

Most of China's recent actions do not constitute a real threat to the United States; indeed, to the extent that China helps to boost the economies of the Pacific Rim, they are contributing a public good. Obama—and Hunstman—need to make the mental adjustment to a rising China, welcoming many of China's policy initiatives while pushing back at those that threaten American core interests. If they can make this cognitive leap, then Sino-American relations can proceed on the basis of shared interests rather than mutual fears.

And they have to prepare the American people to make the same mental adjustment, the same cognitive leap, don't they?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/198586
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702269.html

Staying Healthy, Happy Across the Years: A Longitudinal Study

Is there a formula—some mix of love, work, and psychological adaptation—for a good life? For 72 years, researchers at Harvard have been examining this question, following 268 men who entered college in the late 1930s through war, career, marriage and divorce, parenthood and grandparenthood, and old age. Here, for the first time, a journalist gains access to the archive of one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history. Its contents, as much literature as science, offer profound insight into the human condition—and into the brilliant, complex mind of the study's longtime director, George Vaillant.

--"What Makes Us Happy?" by Joshua Wolf Shenk, The Atlantic

I like The Atlantic magazine because it so often offers me articles like this one. It is interesting, even compelling, not just because of the case studies and findings, but because of the story of the study itself, and the medical researcher who carried on this very personal relationship with both the longitudinal research and the people who were the subjects of it. And I suppose it should surprise no one that even among such a gifted, privileged, and initially healthy population, the study of their lives was as much the chronicling of failures, deteriorating health, and emotional distress, as it was of successes, health and happiness. From the article:

And as the Grant Study men entered middle age—they spent their 40s in the 1960s—many achieved dramatic success. Four members of the sample ran for the U.S. Senate. One served in a presidential Cabinet, and one was president. There was a best-selling novelist (not, Vaillant has revealed, Norman Mailer, Harvard class of '43). But hidden amid the shimmering successes were darker hues. As early as 1948, 20 members of the group displayed severe psychiatric difficulties. By age 50, almost a third of the men had at one time or another met Vaillant's criteria for mental illness. Underneath the tweed jackets of these Harvard elites beat troubled hearts. Arlie Bock [who initiated the study] didn't get it. "They were normal when I picked them," he told Vaillant in the 1960s.

In approaching the study and the subjects, Vaillant was focusing on what he calls "adaptations," or unconscious responses to pain, conflict or uncertainty--what others have called "defense mechanisms." According to the author and Vaillant:

At the bottom of the pile are the unhealthiest, or "psychotic," adaptations—like paranoia, hallucination, or megalomania—which, while they can serve to make reality tolerable for the person employing them, seem crazy to anyone else. One level up are the "immature" adaptations, which include acting out, passive aggression, hypochondria, projection, and fantasy. These aren't as isolating as psychotic adaptations, but they impede intimacy. "Neurotic" defenses are common in "normal" people. These include intellectualization (mutating the primal stuff of life into objects of formal thought); dissociation (intense, often brief, removal from one's feelings); and repression, which, Vaillant says, can involve "seemingly inexplicable naïveté, memory lapse, or failure to acknowledge input from a selected sense organ." The healthiest, or "mature," adaptations include altruism, humor, anticipation (looking ahead and planning for future discomfort), suppression (a conscious decision to postpone attention to an impulse or conflict, to be addressed in good time), and sublimation (finding outlets for feelings, like putting aggression into sport, or lust into courtship).

"What allows people to work, and love, as they grow old?" the author asks. By the time the study's subjects entered retirement, Dr. Vaillant had identified seven factors that best predicted both physical and psychological health as the population aged. From the article:

Employing mature adaptations was one. The others were education, stable marriage, not smoking, not abusing alcohol, some exercise, and healthy weight. Of the 106 Harvard men who had five or six of these factors in their favor at age 50, half ended up at 80 as what Vaillant called "happy-well" and only 7.5 percent as "sad-sick." Meanwhile, of the men who had three or fewer of the health factors at age 50, none ended up "happy-well" at 80. Even if they had been in adequate physical shape at 50, the men who had three or fewer protective factors were three times as likely to be dead at 80 as those with four or more factors.

Are there overarching factors or concerns that should be highlighted? Yes, says Vaillant: on the positive side, the power of relationships; on the negative side, the destructiveness of alcoholism. From the article:

One is alcoholism, which he found is probably the horse, and not the cart, of pathology. "People often say, 'That poor man. His wife left him and he's taken to drink,'" Vaillant says. "But when you look closely, you see that he's begun to drink, and that has helped drive his wife away." The horrors of drink so preoccupied Vaillant that he devoted a stand-alone study to it: The Natural History of Alcoholism.

Vaillant's other main interest is the power of relationships. "It is social aptitude," he writes, "not intellectual brilliance or parental social class, that leads to successful aging." Warm connections are necessary—and if not found in a mother or father, they can come from siblings, uncles, friends, mentors. The men's relationships at age 47, he found, predicted late-life adjustment better than any other variable, except defenses. Good sibling relationships seem especially powerful: 93 percent of the men who were thriving at age 65 had been close to a brother or sister when younger. In an interview in the March 2008 newsletter to the Grant Study subjects, Vaillant was asked, "What have you learned from the Grant Study men?" Vaillant's response: "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people."

So then, "What factors don't matter?" asks the author. I have to give you some incentive to read and enjoy the whole article, don't I? Perhaps learning of things that don't appear to matter and some other interesting findings will be incentive enough.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200906/happiness

The GOP's Undereducated Spokesmen

There is not a college degree among them.

The only educational credentials that Rush Limbaugh (the alpha voice of the three), Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck stand upon are their high school diplomas. I don't mean to suggest they are not bright enough by most practical measures--and they are clearly very accomplished at what they do--they're just undereducated and lack meaningful experience for the GOP thought-leader roles they pretend to. They are, after all, radio and TV personalities, and they operate principally in the mode of political provocateurs. And however much they enjoy their unofficial roles as the GOP's populist conservative spokesmen, they are first and foremost public entertainers, building and protecting a professional franchise and a loyal, committed audience--and the handsome income, lifestyle, acclaim and notoriety that come with it.

Not one of them has the formal education, training, or professional experience expected of someone aspiring to speak for the philosophy, platform, and values of a major political party. None has an educational foundation or experiential background in economics, finance, government, international or geopolitical affairs, national defense, science, law, taxation and fiscal theory, philosophy or theories of society, or macro- and microeconomic decision making in the public sector. And yet, they confidently, publicly, hold forth on the most important domestic and international issues facing our country.


Rush Limbaugh* graduated from Cape Central High School, in Cape Girardeau, MO, in 1969. At the urging of his parents he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University, but dropped out after two semesters and one summer. His mother is quoted as saying, "he flunked everything," and further, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."

After dropping out of college, Limbaugh moved to McKeesport, PA, where he became a Top 40 music radio disc jockey. Through most of the '70s he moved to different music radio opportunities before settling in Kansas City, MO. In 1979, he took a break from radio and worked as director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. Then, in 1984 he returned to radio, but for the first time as a talk show host at KFBK in Sacramento, CA. In 1988, after a very successful stint in Sacramento, he moved to WABC in New York City and the debut of his national radio show that continues to draw the largest and most devoted audience in radio today. It has been reported that his contract calls for him to be paid more than $30 million a year.

More than just an unofficial spokesman for the GOP, in some corners Rush Limbaugh is viewed as the leading voice of the Republican Party. Excepting his own voice, of course, Dick Cheney appears to support that view. An unlikely, amazing success story, but a chilling prospect.


Sean Hannity* graduated from St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary High School in Uniondale, NY, in 1980. He enrolled in and dropped out of both NYU and Adelphi University. Higher education was not for him, either.

Hannity too wanted a career in radio. But before getting his first opportunity at the UC Santa Barbara radio station in 1989, he tried his hand as a contractor and bartender. A controvertial talk radio stint at the UCSB station ended with his termination after some of his comments about gays and lesbians. Ironically, it was the local branch of the ACLU that fought successfully for his reinstatement. Nonetheless, he left and pursued talk radio opportunities in other locations until, in 1996, the new Fox television network hired the unknown talk show host for what would become the Hannity & Colmes show which, with Colmes eventual departure, became the Hannity show. Hannity also now host the Fox network's Hannity's America.

But he has not neglected his career in radio. He now hosts The Sean Hannity Show on ABC Radio and last year drew a national audience of over 13 million devoted listeners a week. It is reported that his radio show alone pays him $5 million a year. An American success story.


Glen Beck* graduated from Sehome High School in Bellingham, WA, in 1982. It is reported that at some point he entered a program for nontraditional students at Yale University while working at a New Haven radio station. He took a single theology course and dropped out, possibly because of his divorce. But that was his one and only brush with higher education.

After graduation from high school, Beck pursued a successful career in music radio as a Top 40 DJ at a succession of radio stations. Then, The Glen Beck Program, a news and political commentary show, was launched in 2000 in Tampa, FL. It's notable success led to a 2002 change in affiliations and his show was broadcast to a national audience. That audience now numbers over 6 million listeners.

And in 2006, TV came knocking on Glen Beck's door, too. It was CNN, where his Glen Beck show was among their most watched shows. And then in 2008, the Fox network offered him a deal to broadcast his show, which was then extended to weekends in 2009. Yes, another success story.


But as successful as these radio and TV personalities have been, they have all lacked a temperament for higher education; they are not suited to it. They prefer to hold forth to their audiences sharing confidently their political views and what they do know based on their self-taught foundations. Then they write books, selling the same opinions to the same audiences. Confidence, however uninformed, and a penchant for populist demagoguery appear their surpassing personal traits. Listen to them and follow them if you must, if that is where you find affirmation and comfort in identity, if that is where you find intellectual security. But understand who they are, and how little they truly have to offer you. And ask yourself whether they represent the intellectual and temperamental high ground of the Republican Party, and why they should be the party's standard bearers. And then you should ask the same questions about Karl Rove.


Karl Rove*, it should be noted, also lacks a temperament for higher education, although he did manage to earn a few courses more than a year's credit at the University of Utah. But at the earliest opportunity, he jumped into developing his life-long craft of aggressive political campaign management and, say many, mastery of the darker political arts. He did enroll in and drop out of colleges a couple times after that, although those occasions appear more related to maintaining his college deferment from the Vietnam war than earning additional course credit.

A protégé of Nixon dirty-trickster Donald Segretty of Watergate fame, Rove also introduced political colleague and fellow campaign operative Lee Atwater to the George H.W. Bush presidential campaign. It was those credentials and that background that lifted him to manage G.W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. He then served as Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, where he functioned as a freelance political advisor and operative. Today he is a conservative political consultant and another of the GOP's most undereducated and revered spokesmen. And like the three radio and TV personalities--Limbaugh, in particular--he is also one of the GOP's most polarizing individuals.


The reason I make these points is that Americans need to hear the Republican-Democratic debates carried on by the best educated, trained and experienced exponents of each point of view. Both parties represent important ideas and claims that are historical and complementary parts of American life, economics and values. If Americans are to be well informed citizens and voters, we need the most able explanations and defenses of each party's current policy prescriptions for our country. It's that simple. And if that's what the current Republican Party believes we have been offered, then we cannot be surprised that they don't understand why so many have fled them for Independent status or the Democratic Party, why a recent poll found only 21% of American voters now willing to admit being Republicans.

But that is the state of things. Speaking for the Republican Party today are three undereducated radio and TV personalities, an undereducated former political campaign operative and master of misinformation, the discredited Dick Cheney, the Religious Right, and the legacy of George W. Bush. This could be the sad obituary of the GOP. But it doesn't have to be. America still needs to hear credible voices from a modern, inclusive, socially adaptive and politically evolving Republican Party. But there are no such voices being heard.

[*The source for most of the information on individuals named in this piece is Wikipedia and the sources cited therein.]

Kris Kristofferson

I explained that I was born in Austin, Texas, in 1970, to a 20-year-old father who did, and still does, a killer cover of "Me and Bobby McGee." My dad plays the song slower than Janis Joplin did. He pores over the lyrics, enjoying each rhyme, his voice heavy with that song's melancholy sense of loss. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," my dad will repeat, and then often add, "That may be the best song ever written." One Sunday morning, we skipped church to go see an early showing of the film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. For me, Kris has always been a part of the landscape of my country — an amalgamation of John Wayne and Walt Whitman.

---"The Last Outlaw Poet," by Ethan Hawke, Rolling Stone (4.7.09)

Kris Kristofferson, almost 73. The man himself is a statement for his changing times. The son of an Army major general. A high school and college athlete. Graduated summa cum laude, Pomona College. A Phi Beta Kappan. A Rhodes Scholar. A captain in the Army, ranger and helicopter pilot. Gave up the Army for Nashville. An accomplished songwriter and singer. Three Grammy awards. An accomplished actor and activist. A personal life of notable highs and lows. Changed with his times, followed his muse, made his statements.

This article in Rolling Stone by Nathan Hawke is a great reminder of one of America's originals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/27113898/the_last_outlaw_poet/2

Health Care Access: Just Another Reason

Even as rising unemployment strips people of health insurance, sending many to emergency departments for care, doctors on the front lines say the lingering recession is also prompting an unexpected outcome. More patients, they say, are refusing potentially costly procedures ranging from tests to confirm heart attacks to overnight stays to monitor dangerous infections....

---"Too broke for the ER, patients flee," msnbc.com

This deep recession, the resulting job losses, and the fear of unaffordable medical costs has caused more care seekers to leave ERs or hospitals "against medical advice," doctors say. And how many more are not showing up at ERs at all for the same reasons? Just one more reason why now is the time for health care reform and access for all. For what kinds of problems are these people turning down treatment? From the article:

Just last month, Laskey saw a woman with bronchitis and pneumonia with life-threatening oxygen levels who refused hospital admission because she had no insurance. Even when Laskey arranged for her to have an oxygen kit to take home, the woman turned it down because of the cost....Just this month, Chawla, a spokesperson for the American College of Emergency Physicians, said he argued with a man who refused hospitalization to drain a large abscess on his buttocks; another man who declined admission for an infected kidney stone; a woman with low-risk chest pain who didn’t want to pay for further cardiac exams; and a patient with acute appendicitis who needed emergency surgery but didn’t want to pay for an ambulance.

But for the turns of fortune or fate, it could just as easily be you or me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30628634/

Klein: Health Care's Moment? A Question of Pragmatism

The early headlines have been all about the President's efforts to repair the financial system and jump-start the economy. If he succeeds, he probably will be re-elected. But Barack Obama's place in history will be determined by the long-term structural changes he initiates, and his most important legacy battle is just beginning as Congress tackles the holy grail of modern liberalism, a universal health-care system.

---"The Fire This Time: Is This Health Care's Moment?" Joe Klein, Time (5.07.09)

Time columnist Joe Klein focuses the political spotlight on the backstage Obama initiative that will likely be the measure of his social policy legacy. And, along with his management of the economic crisis, foreign policy and foreign conflicts, too, it will be a determinant of his place in history. That initiative for national healthcare reform and universal access is now moving forward. And Obama, understanding full well the opportunity and the stakes, the previous failures, and the political minefield he must negotiate, has employed a patient, careful, and pragmatic approach to the legislative challenge. Klein, on where we are:

In the 2008 campaign, Obama and Clinton worked overtime to assure voters that if they liked their current health-care coverage, they could keep it — that is, the system would remain a private one, presided over by a more strictly regulated insurance industry. And in the months since the election, the insurers have indicated that they will play ball: they've said they will cover everyone, at the same rate, regardless of pre-existing condition. (There are caveats: the details of health insurance are devilish, and pitched battles are fought over arcana too obscure to cover in this space.) But more-liberal Democrats have decided to press the issue. They have proposed a "public" health-insurance option, similar to Medicare. They argue, correctly, that the profits made by insurance companies are a good part of what makes health care so expensive in the U.S. and that a public option is needed to keep the insurers honest. Needless to say, the insurers are vehemently opposed to this and will unleash a torrent of negative advertising and lobbying power if the final bill includes it.

So, now there must be fashioned practical, cost effective program priciples and decision making citeria. The critical economic and societal trade-offs must be wisely, bravely settled upon in setting rules governing what is covered under what conditions. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and the program rules, as well as the principles, must assure a fair, cost-effective health services program. Klein, on next steps:

But the question of whether the government can decide which health-care treatments are appropriate is central to whether an affordable universal system can be devised. Part of the answer is implicit in the electronic medical-records system that Obama has proposed: it will be easier to determine which treatments are cheaper and more effective. The other part of the answer involves an essential change in Medicare, from fee-for-service to a managed-care system that decides whether a hip replacement is necessary for a terminal cancer patient.

But in the end, it is about how well the issue is set up politically, how much negotiating room is created and preserved, and how pragmatically, effectively, a workable program can then be moved to "yes." Klein, on a likely end-game:

My guess is that the public option is a bargaining chip that will be cashed in to gain support from moderate Republicans and Democrats as crunch time approaches. The real battle, and the fate of this liberal dream, will be fought over what gets covered and who decides.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896574,00.html

The Economist: On the Stress Test of Banks

The stress tests have worked in one sense. They have produced a credible estimate of the likely losses banks will face. But the second part of the test—establishing a buffer big enough to allow banks to absorb those losses and command confidence without state support—looks to have been fudged. It is still hard to imagine the banking system being able to stand on its own two feet without explicit state guarantees of debt issuance and the implicit understanding that the government would step in again. As Mr Geithner admitted, we are only in the "early stages of repair." The mechanics should keep their spanners at the ready.

---"Stresses and strains," The Economist (5.08.09)

If you are still trying to understand what the so-called "stress test" of major US banks is all about, trying to put the various pieces together, a recent edition of The Economist adds another piece or two along with their concerns. It is worth the read. But they miss or fail to acknowledge the principal reason for the stress tests: to raise public trust and confidence in the financial system, and investor optimism about investing in the financial sector. And that appears to have been a success. Financial stocks along with the stock market generally have risen notably.

But I too have heard and read the concerns about whether one or the other of the assumptions was demanding or distressed enough. I have seen Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's frustrated pleas that the assumptions of the stress tests are fully adequate for the banks, the government, and the public to understand the general condition of various major banks--and what a reasonable level of capital might be for each. But what is most important to the banks is not whether the stress test assumptions on needed capital are perfectly accurate or would provide a conservative enough cushion. No one knows better than the banks themselves what their loan losses could potentially be. And they know just as well the level of capital that will likely be required to absorb those losses.

No, what the banks need is a more trusting and confident investor public, an investor public ready to see the market situation today as an investment opportunity. And if the government assumptions and findings are roughly in the ball park, then that is likely all the "street" is reasonably looking for. Then the banks will again be able to access the public markets to raise needed capital, as many of them are now starting to do.

This has always been what the stess tests were about. And does anyone doubt that the government will still be there to guarantee the debt of any too-big-to-fail bank that may not be able to successfully raise enough capital independently? Fed Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Geithner's recent comments and written disclosures make clear that they will be. So far, so good.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13635450&fsrc=nwl

And Bernanke, Too: His Testimony on the Economy

We are hopeful that the very sharp decline we saw even last fall and early this year will moderate considerably in the near term and we'll see positive growth by the end of the year.

--Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (5.5.09), Reuters

Only a couple days after Warren Buffet's optimistic comments, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony to Congress followed in the same optimistic spirit, but with the same cautionary, qualifying comments, underestandably. But he also addressed more economic topics and covered the ground in greater depth:

BERNANKE ON STATE OF FINANCIAL SYSTEM

I think we're in far better shape today than we were in September and October. While I know there are many critics of the TARP ... I do believe that availability of that capital helped us dodge what would have been a truly cataclysmic collapse of the global banking system, which would have had terrifically bad effects on the U.S. economy...

I think we've made a lot of progress. The financial markets are still fragile, we don't want to take anything for granted, but we have, I think, come a long way since last fall.

BERNANKE ON COMMITMENT TO PRICE STABILITY AND FED INDEPENDENCE

We are very committed to price stability. We have recently provided projections which suggest how we plan to approach medium-term price stability and given information on what we think inflation ought to be in the medium term. We firmly believe that we will be able to, after stimulating the economy to help it recover from this very difficult financial and economic situation we are in, come to a situation where we will emerge with sustainable growth and price stability. We are spending enormous amounts of time planning that and thinking about our exit strategy. I would also take great exception to the notion that the Fed has sacrificed its independence. The critical element of Fed independence is monetary policy and it has remained completely independent of all other government institutions. We have not sought advice or input on any aspects of monetary policy. That remains completely independent and it will remain independent.

BERNANKE ON CONFIDENCE IN U.S. DEBT

Senator, it's U.S. government debt bearing yields which are I think indicative of confidence. The relatively low yields that you see on 10-year and even 30-year debt suggests that investors in those securities, first of all appreciate the liquidity and safety of those securities, and secondly that they are confident that the U.S. will have low inflation and fiscal stability in the long term. Having said that, it's imperative on all of us as the policy-makers, particularly the Congress, which is responsible for fiscal policy, to make sure that we do achieve the necessary stabilization that will allow deficits to come down and allow us to deal with those issues. So, there's confidence in the market that we'll deal with those problems, and we must fulfill that confidence.

BERNANKE ON INFLATION RISKS

I just want to assure the American people that we are very focused, like a laser beam if I may, on this issue of making sure we have price stability in the medium term and that we are working very hard to make sure that, while on the one hand, it's very important for us to provide a lot of support for this economy right now because it needs support...at the same time we understand the necessity of winding this down in a orderly way at the appropriate moment so we will not have an inflation problem on the other side.

BERNANKE OF SAFETY OF FED LENDING

I'd first like to draw a very strong distinction between fiscal spending and the Fed's lending programs. Our lending programs are just that. They're lending programs, and with the exception of some of the things involved with AIG and that kind of thing, which is less than 5 percent of our balance sheet, the whole bulk of all those programs are very safe. They will be repaid with interest. We are making money for the Treasury.

There's a difference between spending money and lending it out and getting it back with interest.

And there is more commentary on the bank stress tests, and banks' sources of additional capital where needed, both private and government.

It's true that the economic environment is not good for most people right now. But I am comforted by the comments of Buffet and Bernanke, the world's best mind on the economy and business from an investment perspective and, perhaps, the most knowledgeable and experienced scholar and government economist in the world on the errors of the Great Depression and the many smaller-scale financial disasters and collapses in the years since then. No one knows more about how best to avoid those problems or manage through them. As difficult and uneven as the process has occasionally been in a volatile political environment, I can think of no one I'd rather have at the center of this management challenge than an independent Ben Bernanke.

The text of the Chairman's complete statement to the Joint Economic Committee can be read on the web site of the Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNes/idUKN0546003320090505
http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20090505a.htm

Buffet: Government is Doing the Right Thing; Most Banks Not Too Big to Fail; Recession Ending

OMAHA, Neb. - Billionaire Warren Buffett said Saturday that the U.S. government is taking the correct actions to help the economy recover. Buffett spoke briefly before the opening of the annual meeting for his Berkshire Hathaway Inc., expected to draw an audience of roughly 35,000 people.

"The government is doing the right things," Buffett said. "They're acting in a countercyclical manner." But Buffett said he can't predict how quickly the economy and the markets will improve.

---"Buffet: Government is doing the right thing," Associated Press, msnbc.com (5.03.09)

And the next day, he held forth on the recession and the "stress test" on banks:

OMAHA, Nebraska - Billionaire Warren Buffett says the latest recession really shook up Americans' confidence but he sees the economic slide ending. [But] the head of Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. said Monday that he can't predict how quickly the economy will improve....

Addressing the bank "stress tests" due to be released this week, Buffett said most of the banks the U.S. government is evaluating with stress tests are not too big to fail. Buffett says he's not sure how the government will handle the situation when the results are released, but he doesn't think the government should rule out the failure of most of the banks. Buffett said all but the four biggest banks the government is examining could be sold and should not be considered too big to fail.

---Buffet sees economic slide ending," Associated Press, msnbc.com (5.4.09)

So, let's see, Warren Buffet thinks the Obama economic team are doing the right thing with TARP, the stimulus package and other economic stimulus and remedial programs. (And in a 4.04.09 cnbc interview he accepts that the associated debt levels and implications will be challenging, likely inflationary, and notes matter-of-factly and without concern that significant additional taxes will have to be raised--and clearly implies that in all this we have had no choice.) And as to the results of the government "stress test" on banks, he says any banks but the four largest should be allowed to fail and could be sold. Of course, that would allow large, sound banks like Wells Fargo, in which Mr. Buffet has a substantial investment interest, to buy those failed banks. Yes, it is a self-serving prescription. But that's alright; it is also balanced and likely right. So far so good.

He also sees signs that the recession is ending, although he won't or can't predict when economic recovery will begin or how quickly it will improve. (Although in the same cnbc interview, he stresses how optimistic he is about recovery and the future strength of the economy.) Okay, Mr. Buffet, I think I've got it. And that works for me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30532962/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30547579/

On Muslim-Americans; Understanding Jihad: An Article, Commentary

From a recent article in Newsweek:

I thought back to an awkward experience I had as an undergraduate student applying for a job at my university. When I handed the receptionist at the student union my Social Security card, a required form of identification, she told me she needed my passport as well. Surprised, I questioned the need for it. She brought over her supervisor, who glanced at my hijab—a headscarf worn by many Muslim women—and asked, "Aren't you an international student?" "No," I said. "I'm an American citizen. I was born in New Jersey." Her mouth dropped open and she stammered, "Oh, you're not a foreigner?"

...That's why Obama's decision to visit a Muslim country within the first 100 days of his presidency was such a significant moment for me. Hearing his unwavering, unapologetic message to the Turkish Parliament filled me with pride: yes, he told the world, Muslim Americans exist, and our existence has enriched—not impoverished—American culture. His words mirrored what I have long sought to convey to other Americans: that you can be both a devout Muslim and a patriotic American.

I can only hope my fellow citizens get the message. When many Americans see Muslims like me, they tend to define us as something non-American, which forces us to choose between our religion and nationality. As long as Islam is equated with a foreign culture, as opposed to a faith like any other practiced here, then our mosques and our schools and our headscarves will continue to be perceived as a rejection of "American culture." This idea of Muslims as "other" surfaces every time someone like my friend Kathy, a veil-wearing Muslim American, is told to "go back home" when she and her daughter eat at Subway, or when a man plows his truck into a Tallahassee, Fla., mosque to remind Muslims they're not safe in this country...

I have learned to go out of my way to confront the stereotypes brought to the surface by my headscarf. At times, that has meant speaking out in public forums. At other times, it has meant striking up a conversation with anyone who passes by as I walk my baby through our neighborhood. I have learned through personal experience that interaction and kindness can go a long way toward knocking down barriers.

Obama's gestures make me feel empowered to do more. His words and deeds have given me cause to believe that someday soon, people will look at me and, instead of seeing a woman with a headscarf, they'll see another American, just like them.

Hadia Mubarak is a doctoral student of Islamic studies at Georgetown University and a panelist for the Washington Post/NEWSWEEK On Faith Web site.

---"As American as Apple Pie," Newsweek (5.4.09)

If you are moved by the feelings of this sensitive, thoughtful American, you are right to react that way. And Ms. Mubarak is quite representative of Muslims in America. She is not an exception. You can readily tell from her heart-felt remarks that she identifies as an American, even if other Americans make that difficult--and she longs to be embraced by the broader, diverse American public as part of another rich tapestry in the expansive fabric of American society.

A recent e-mail message that came to us via a group distribution depicted the Muslim faith--and therefore Muslim-Americans--in misleading, disparaging, unjust terms. As someone who studied the Islamic faith (among others) as a young man in his search for God, I was quite sure that e-mail representation was misleading and unfair. But I did some google research of reliable sites which provided a useful refresher and update.

Much of the problem and the misrepresentation related to the meaning of the word "jihad" and its implications. The principles of jihad are much misunderstood by most non-Muslims, and particularly by Westerners in this time of "jihadist" terrorism. And like most Americans, the author of that e-mail badly misrepresented its principal meaning and implications for religious and civil life among most Muslims today.

The word jihad means "struggle," and it is commonly used in the Quran and Muslim religious life in the sense of "striving in the way of Allah [God]" or the "struggle to improve oneself and society." But tradition, and the religious sayings of the Muslim Hadith, do ascribe to Muhammad a distinction made between the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad.

The Greater Jihad is the "jihad of the soul," and, as the Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub is quoted, "The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living)." Some point out that the Greater Jihad can be compared spiritually with the struggle that Christians undertake in resisting sin: temptation, selfishness, pride, disbelief, etc. Others add that it is about holding fast against any ideas and practices that run contrary to Muhammad's revelations (Quran), sayings (Hadith) and the examples set by how he lived his life (Sunnah). This is the most meaningful principle of jihad in the active religious and community life of the vast majority of Muslims, including Muslim-Americans. It is not in any way related to any kind of armed conflict. This is the principle of jihad passionately explained to me and embraced by an understandably distressed Muslim-American classmate after 9/11.

On the other hand, the Lesser Jihad addresses the circumstances, conditions and rules for defense and warfare under Islamic law. And yes, this is the jihad you think you understand. But do you? It may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, non-Islamic leaders or non-Muslim combatants. And it doesn't have to include armed conflict; it could be acts of civil disobedience. The rules do not allow killing women, children and non-combatants, nor damaging cultivated or residential areas. Modern Muslims have taken the further step of revisiting the interpretation of Islamic sources, and now stress that jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam. And all authorities agree it includes armed struggle against persecution and oppression.

You may have noticed that the Islamist jihadists that have authored the terrorist acts in the US and across the world have acted and lived notably outside the Islamic rules governing a defensible act covered by the principle of the Lesser Jihad. That is because they operate outside both the civil and spiritual boundaries of mainstream Islam. They are renegade terrorist elements and a law unto themselves. They certainly do not represent the vast majority of Muslims. Now, isn't it important to recognize that?

It might also be important to mention that the Quran clearly reflects Muhammad's admonition to respect and honor other "people of the book." Narrowly speaking, he meant people of the other Abrahamic faiths: Jews and Christians. Sufi poets of the Middle Ages occasionally referred to "the Christ" in respectful, holy terms. And today most mainstream Muslims extend that respect to other faiths as well. But if Islamist extremists do not honor that element of the Quran either, can we be surprised? For they rationalize their criminal behavior, in part at least, as a response to Middle Ages and latter day Christian Crusaders--a reference to the "holy wars" initially prosecuted by "Christians" who had lost any meaningful sense of Christian identity and purpose, and the more modern expressions of Western hegemony. Ironically, then, we now have Islamist extremists who have lost any meaningful sense of Muslim identity and purpose prosecuting their armed response to the Crusades and Western dominance with their self-stylized version of jihadist "holy war."

Now, remind me why it is that the criminal agenda of these miscreants has anything to do with how we view and respond to honorable Muslim-Americans who respect people of other faiths?

But you still remain concerned about language in the Quran, don't you? You likely find it difficult to reconcile the more bellicose, violent or punitive elements of the Quran with the more spiritual elements of it--and then you wonder how the behavior of observant Muslims might be influenced by that more troubling language? I suggest that you have the best answer to that concern right in front of you--if you are looking in the mirror, that is. I suggest you consider how you would reconcile the war-prone, vengeful, violent and punitive elements of the Old Testament with your modern understandings about spiritual life--and explain why non-Christians and non-Jews should not be concerned about how an observant Christian or Jew might be influenced by them today. Should they be concerned that you might be more likely to take an offending, wayward daughter to the gates of the city to be stoned, or expect them to? Or more likely to wage war against a nonbelieving country? (And remember, as we have noted, that New Testament "Christians" have also done that--and it was Muslims who we waged war against.) These are what are called rhetorical questions, of course--so why am I concerned about your answers?

So, if we can possibly carry reason, fairness, and Biblical or Christian principles as our standards, then can't we, shouldn't we, make the simple and fair distinction between terrorist criminals who call themselves Islamic Jihadists and the Muslim mainstream that act and deserve to be treated like the respectful neighbors they are--and especially here in America. I would think so.

In closing, it is worth noting again that in practice the Islamic principle of the Lesser Jihad, armed holy conflict, is not a principle that finds active expression in mainstream Islamic communities in America and the West. It is the Greater Jihad, jihad of the soul, that focuses their lives. Like Ms. Mubarak, all the Muslims I have known or now know have represented their faith with thoughtfulness and kindness, and their American citizenship with pride.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195084