"Lots of people in the world care if waterboarding happened at Guantanamo. Why should this court martial care?" – Lieutenant Colonel Paul H. McConnell, presiding over the court-martial trial of Sgt Santos Cardona, yesterday.
This trial could be the one where we actually begin to identify the real people responsible for Abu Ghraib and the Bush torture policy. Human Rights Watch is blogging daily from the trial. Check it out.
In my recent column, I expressed mixed feelings about the Great Wall of America. As an immigrant to this country, my heart sinks at the symbolic exclusion of it. It reeks of the idea that foreigners are a threat, rather than the great resource they have always been to the U.S. I’m also in favor of liberal immigration policies, and would like to see more selection on the grounds of talent and abilities, rather than mere family reunification. I viscerally dislike some of the nativist and racist rhetoric surrounding this subject.
But I have to say that, after mulling it over, my objections to the wall are beginning to wane. I take Jonah’s point. If it’s possible to secure the border, why not? One of the core responsibilities of government is law and order, and protecting and controlling borders is a basic duty. A real wall might even alleviate some of the hostility to Hispanic immigrants, by removing the stigma of illegality. Yes, I’m also in favor of a gradual legalization of most of those illegals already here. But we’d have a better chance of persuading Americans of the need for a humane approach to this if they were persuaded the wall represented a real moment of border control – and not another gimmick. If we did it first, we’d have a better chance of integrating those already here. Just as welfare reform helped ease some racism in this country, the Wall might have a similar effect on the current wave of anti-immigrant panic. Or am I being naive?
"I introduce to you, as the Lord Jesus has said, the next governor of the state of Florida, Charlie Crist," – Rev. O’Neal Dozier, pastor of the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach.
Apparently, Jesus had appeared to Dozier in a dream and told him that Mr Crist would be the next governor of Florida. Why bother with a vote? No, I’m not making this up. This is what the Republican Party now is.
Bogota, Colombia, 10 am.
Another cartoon flare-up. See the offending image here. This time, it’s ethnic grievances at work. And I can see why Azeris might be upset. Still, riots? Jailed editors? Every now and again, you get a glimpse into how ready some parts of the world are for the thick skin that true democracy requires. And it’s not that hopeful an insight.
Sometimes the cliche is correct. Google trends show the top five countries worried about "bad sex": Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. I swear: if they could only get laid, we might get democracy in the Middle East. (Still, how did the Brits not get on the list?)
In between saving us all from hell-fire, Senator Rick Santorum has been extremely cosy with lobbyists; and they have been remarkably generous to him. In fact, Santorum has the honor of being the senator with the most money donated to his campaigns by lobbyists of various sorts. Money quote:
Looking at those four election cycles from 1998 through 2004, Public Citizen found that the Pa. Republican had raked in $1,163,560 from registered lobbyists – $838,133 from individuals, and $325,427 from their political action committees.
That puts Santorum in an elite club. Only four members have raised more than $1 million from lobbyists during that period — the one who raked in the most, former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle, with $1,687,721, was booted out of office by South Dakota voters in 2004.
The only thing worse than the Christianists’ sanctimony is their graft. In the current election cycle, Santorum is still the Number One lobbyist favorite. Runner-up? Hillary. Why am I not surprised?
I’m not a fan of peering into other people’s relationships. I’m of the view that only the people in the relationship really understand it, and often they don’t. Still, no marriage has generated as much political and cultural buzz over the years as the Clintons’ – and they have all but insisted we analyze it. My question re: 2008 – do we really want to go back there? There are all sorts of reasons to oppose Hillary for the Democratic nomination: her transparent opportunism, her polarizing effect on the country, the money she will raise for the Christianist right, her likely loss, etc. But the prospect of revisiting the gruesome details of Bill’s private life for another election cycle, let alone a term in office, is just too hideous to contemplate. When you recall what he got up to as president, can you imagine the attention-seeking shenanigans he’d pursue if he were First Husband? They love their psycho-drama. And they’re entitled to it. Just leave us out of it this time, ok?
Phoenix, Arizona, afternoon, during a dust storm. Keep ’em coming.
The International Herald Tribune has another, more comprehensive survey of what the new search features reveal. Money quote:
While Google emphasizes that its efforts to protect individuals’ privacy, the new site does nothing to protect the collective privacy of nations, if such a thing exists – the right of the British to conceal that they look up "handcuffs" most often, or the right of China’s leaders to hide that Mandarin ranks second only to English as the language used to look up "democracy," or the right of other officials to hide that Arabic-speaking users rarely look up "democracy."
The Saudis, meanwhile, are obsessed with gay sex. No surprise there.
(Hat tip: GayBlog.)
The Dish 