May 29, 2009 by vortmax.

Link:

Abu Jandal’s guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel’s Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn’t touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: “He was a diabetic and couldn’t eat anything with sugar in it.” At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal’s angry demeanor. “We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him,” Soufan recalls. “So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures.”

It took more questioning, and some interrogators’ sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point. “After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans,” Soufan says. “Now he was thinking of us as human beings.”

Hard to believe… well, actually it’s not.  These people are taught that us “evil Americans” will rape and torture them when we get them in custody.  Soufan proved those beliefs wrong…

… then Cheney, Gonzalez, the CIA, and Abu Ghraib proved them right. 

Torture
Doesn’t
Work.

Posted in News, Politics | 2 Comments »

May 22, 2009 by vortmax.

After reading the speech in it’s entirety several times, I have to say it is the quintessential “Yes we did it, and thought it was right” speech.  It is also a perfect example of the black and white thinking that even psychologists say is present in conservatives.

From Cheney’s speech:

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.

That’s it, those are the only two choices he presents. There is no middle ground. You either support his views, or you don’t and you’re asking for another attack on this country. No middle ground. No shades of grey. No compromise.

Some may quote this section as a rebuttal:

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear- armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

But once again we see the absolute thinking in action: “no middle ground.” He outright says that to debate and compromise on policy will bring another attack. This combines uncertainty avoidance, fear and agression, and terror management in an attempt to persuade the listener.

Cheney’s speech was a self-justification of his ideals and actions. Cheney is defending his decisions as well as those of the Bush administration. Since they are under attack, it’s completely understandable for him to do so. However, I disagree with his actions, and his justifications for those actions, and conclusions about the results of those actions.

Mr. Cheney has given the terrorists even more ammunition with his actions after 9/11, as well as his current arguments defending said actions.  Here is what the terrorists most likely concluded post-9/11:  America under Bush and Cheney didn’t stand for the ideals that it touted. America will treat terrorists just like they treated us, thus America must be destroyed not only for the great evil of freedom, but the hypocrisy of touting freedom while holding and torturing people in violation of the very laws America says it holds dear. Not only that, but it re-writes said laws to justify it’s illegal actions.  Terrorists see 9/11 not only as a successful attack that brought down two symbols of American greed, but as their successful exposure of what America really is:  a nation of hypocrites.

That is what the terrorists and their sympathizers see. That is what they tell their recruits. Thank you, Mr. Cheney, for giving them this victory.  You dragged America down to their level.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

May 15, 2009 by vortmax.

I see that Fox News has released a poll, from which they are claiming 71% of respondents want “less government in their lives.”  Considering my distrust of Fox News’ intentions, i felt I should take a look at the actual polling questions (PDF file):

8. The Obama administration has recently said there are signs the economy is starting to improve. Do you believe the economy is starting to get better, or is it that the administration is putting a positive spin on things?

Obvious loaded question. Kill the first sentence, then reduce it to “Do you believe the economy is getting better or worse?” This is much more neutral.

10. Based on Barack Obama’s criticism of Bush administration deficits during the presidential campaign, are you surprised the Obama administration is increasing the nation’s deficit, or not?

Not loaded, but a reflects the general bias of the poll.

14. Are you worried the country is moving away from capitalism and more toward socialism, or not?

Again, reflection of general bias. As is:

For reference: Does the news about stimulus packages and the federal government giving financial aid to several major corporations make you feel like the country is drifting away from capitalism and more toward socialism or don’t you feel that way?

The major objection I have to this is the implication that socialism is the bad thing as opposed to capitalism, the good thing. These two questions play upon unfounded fears and might influence more “yes” replies.

15. Which do you think would do more to improve the nation’s economy right now? (READ RESPONSES 1 AND 2)
SCALE: 1. Cutting taxes on individuals and businesses 2. Reducing federal spending by the government 3. (Both) 4. (Don’t know)

Where’s “Increasing taxes on wealthy individuals and large corporations,” “More spending by the government,” or even “neither?”

Very loaded question that was designed to get at least one answer the pollster wanted, and none they didn’t.

36. How do you think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution? (READ RESPONSES “1” AND “2”)
SCALE: 1. No matter what the outcome, the court should follow what the Framers meant when they wrote the Constitution
2. If necessary, the court should ignore what the Framers meant to reach the outcome it feels is appropriate for today

What about “The court should interpret what the framers wrote and apply it to modern circumstances?”

Look at the reference question asked in August, which is presented in the document after the above question:

For reference: Which of the following comes closest to your view of how the Constitution should be interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court? (ROTATE CHOICES) SCALE: 1. Judges should base their rulings on what they believe the Constitution’s framers meant when it was originally written 2. Judges should base their rulings on what they believe the Constitution means in today’s world 3. (In between/Combination) (Don’t know)

THAT is a more neutral question which is not designed to influence the response.

Again, the new question changes the “negative” reply to influence the desired response.

52. At the request of the American Civil Liberties Union, later this month the Pentagon will release photos of alleged detainee abuse by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. How likely do you think it is that the release of these photos will cause a backlash against the United States and endanger the lives of U.troops: Very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely?

The ACLU  portion probably should have been omitted, as most people view the ACLU as a “controversial” group, thus it might have some influence over the answer. However I don’t consider the question “loaded.”

65. Who do you think the White House will put in a muzzle first — Vice President Joe Biden or First Dog Bo?

Funny, but useless question.

To summarize:  this poll, while most questions being neutral or not obviously biased, is in itself biased and has loaded questions designed to elicit desired responses.   Typical for Fox News.

Posted in News, Politics | No Comments »

May 9, 2009 by vortmax.

I had been looking for any reason not to like this film.  I read the reviews on RottenTomatoes, especially seeking out the negative ones (Roger Ebert gives it a “meh” with 2.5 stars).  I hate remakes, and this had the initial stench of being yet another non-original remake that overdid the special effects.  But having seen every Trek film in the theater, and being able to identify every original series episode in twenty seconds (me and my college roommate competed to see who could name the episode first), I vowed to see it with an open mind.

To say it exceeded my expectations is an understatement, it blew them away completely.  This film is a must-see for both the trekker* and non-trekker.

* - Yes, I use “Trekker” not “Trekkie.”  I’m proud of my nerdiness.

Posted in Home | No Comments »