Every few years a documentary is produced that gives a compelling account of a controversial subject or event. It provides a shocking, perhaps disturbing look inside a place and time, that captivates the attention of the viewer and leaves them reeling with a mix of thoughts and emotions. It persuades the viewer and draws them into the perspective the director attempts to portray.
This is not one such documentary.
Last night I wasted 2 hours of my life as the kids from Abu Ghraib stared into the camera, made excuses for their actions and begged for forgiveness similarly to the way dogs beg for food. The documentary Standard Operating Procedure is an awful attempt to garner acceptance and complacency towards the actions of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib.
I must admit, I was a bit shocked by the performance, it was not at all what I was expecting. Cinematically speaking, a fine work of art it is. The storyline centered around the photographs that were taken by soldiers at the prison. The director, Errol Morris did a fine job of presenting the photographs in a way that would illicit an emotional response from the viewer.
However the praise must end there.
To allow these soldiers, all of whom were involved in prisoner abuse, and several of whom were charged, tried, and were punished for their actions, to present themselves in a positive light as scapegoats, is laughable.
Morris states that the intent of the film was “…not to say that these ‘bad apples’ were blameless… but… to say that they were scapegoats.” I appreciate his honest admission of the intentions of the film, and though it is quite clear that these soldiers were made to be scapegoats, we have no business looking positively upon them.
I was shocked because each and every one of these soldiers who was interviewed, attempted to play upon our emotions by rationalizing, and marginalizing their actions.
‘We were getting mortared all the time, we were angry, what would you have done?’
‘We did what we were told, there was no way we could stand up to these senior officers.’
What these soldiers did is illegal and immoral, plain and simple. Yes, these policies of abuse and torture went at least as high as the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, these soldiers were being ordered and pressured into doing the things they did. However, this hardly excuses their actions.
Americans talk proudly yet causally about the Constitution. We sometimes talk of it as if it is a document we most cherish, yet find cumbersome and dispensable when it doesn’t easily suit a particular situation.
Being an American and believing in the Constitution requires 100% complicity 100% of the time. It is not a contract one may opt in and out as one chooses. It does not allow for variations and distortions of it’s principles.
The Constitution does not allow for torture. Period.
If you believe Americans should be able to torture people if they are not American citizens or they may be a ‘terrorist’, then you do not believe in the Constitution. Plain and Simple.
This movie was so shocking to me because I think it is somewhat indicative of how complacent we have become in our Constitutional values. We have allowed ourselves to believe that upholding ourselves to these virtues is a burden. A burden that does not account for our present dangers.
This could not be more false.
Our sacred document is what separates Americans from the rest of the world. The patriotism we feel about our country and ourselves, is rooted in the ink on the parchment of our hallowed document. We must not abandon the virtue it provides us.
I remain saddened and appalled by the actions of our government over these last few years. Unprovoked war, illegal warrant-less wiretapping, and torture all are in contradiction to our Constitution. We must not allow the present dangers of our time to create excuses and exceptions for our rule of law. We must not allow the fear for our safety, become our standard operating defense for unconstitutional action.
Not many sports fans find themselves to be so lucky as to enjoy a signature call from a signature voice for much of their lifetime.
Not many fans can say they have had a single voice calling their games for the entire life of a stadium that was standing for over 30 years.
Not many fans can say that their play by play guy is as much a part of the team as the shortstop, or the first baseman.
This was Harry Kalas.
I grew up listening to Harry as a Phillies fan growing up just outside of Northeast Philadelphia. Harry was the reason everyone at the vet had on a walkman at the game.
We were all listening to Harry.
He called a beautiful game. I have come to love and appreciate the art of calling a baseball game, and Harry had an amazing gift and ability with his style and his voice.
He conveyed the love and emotion we all had for the Phillies, without over-dramatizing it. He told you everything you needed to know, without boring you with endless stats and numbers. His speed and tone were always on point. And his voice, his voice was simply amazing.
His voice was iconic. Nationwide he is most likely recognized for his work with NFL films, his boomy inspired voice perfect for this application. Locally, there will be many who for years will not feel the same without Harry’s voice calling the Phils games. His voice carried the team through many years of good seasons and bad, and was here for the only two World Series Championships this team has ever had. His signature call “Outta Here” is wildly imitated, but never duplicated.
I will miss Harry’s calls tremendously. I will miss him as a person because he was always so beloved by the players through the years, and he likewise has been embraced by the city of Philadelphia.
Harry died of heart disease on April 13th 2009. He was found in the booth passed out, where he was preparing to call the Phillies/Nationals game. A poetic end for such an iconic figure.
The Phillies saluted Harry with a moment of silence before the game, and then went on to beat the Nationals, 9-8. Shane Victorino had a touching moment when after hitting a home run, he paused after touching home plate, crossed over his chest and pointed to the broadcast booth where Harry would have been sitting.
This is Harry Kalas.
Harry Kalas Calls Mike Schmidt’s 500 Hr
We miss you Harry.
Well it’s no surprise the Phils continued their trend of losing the season opener. They have now lost the last 8 of 9 season openers. Brett Myers looked awful, giving up 4 earned runs on 8 hits. His fastball was weak, and he had no command of his curve until the fourth inning when he seemed to get it together for a few pitches. He surely looks like a man who needs some more work.
But no worries, baseball is back! The long season that seems to not end, but simply take a short break while it snows, is back from it’s winter hiatus.
I love this game, and it is good to have it back. Baseball actually was an acquired taste for me. I never used to be able to enjoy a baseball game from start to finish. I have come to the love the game for it’s nuance, and subtlety. It is a game of instinct and numbers, strength and intelligence, with a healthy dose personality mixed in.
I love the battles that a pitcher and and hitter wage at each pitch. The managers jockeying for position at every turn, playing the numbers and relying on instinct to create advantage.
And there is nothing better than a well called game. Jon Miller and Joe Morgan call a very nice game, with Steve Phillips providing extra insight into the game. Terry Smith who calls the Angels games on radio and sounds a wee bit like Harry Kalas, does a great job. And when Chris Berman does a Wednesday night game every now and again, it is must watch Baseball.
I’m just glad to have baseball back. Go Phils!
Will someone please explain to Eric Cantor that divided government does not mean having different political parties controlling the Houses of Congress. It does not mean that if the President is a democrat, the Congress should have a republican majority. Checks and balances does not mean having a republican in place to block the agenda of the democratic majority.
This implied argument Cantor makes is just silly.
I am aware of his strategy here, but it is just simply annoying. It is also another sad reminder that if the public at large were truly paying attention to politics and government, he would be laughed off the stage for trying to make this weak argument. The ability for politicians to make silly arguments without serious criticism, is very depressing, and in fact yields poor results from our elected officials.
Two party government equals checks and balances?
Really, Eric?
Wow. What a great tournament. Not perfect, not better than the NCAA tourney, but great. I just hope more Americans will come to embrace the WBC in the future.
The USA team made a much better showing than they did in ‘06, even though the country didn’t seem to notice. There was upsets (The Netherlands anyone?) and there was come from behind victories (I never thought I would thank David Wright). Japan and Korea battled it out all the way to the finals, which any baseball fan should love, putting on a stellar show in the process.
I just think its a great competition and is deserving of more attention. Perhaps by the next go around it will have gained more credibility, and the U.S. will more fully embrace the World Baseball Classic.
They just don’t get it. Both of them.
The Wall Street execs as well as Congress just don’t get it. AIG CANNOT pay bonuses no matter when they were negotiated to executives who have run the company into the ground, so much so that it requires taxpayer help to stay afloat. They just don’t get it. Congress on the other hand, seems not to understand that these people at AIG and the other fishes swimming in the pond of corporate greed and unaccountability, simply will not be shamed or talked into not accepting bonuses for themselves, no matter the source.
They just don’t get it. Both of them.
Never mind that the bonuses to be paid will amount 1/10 of one percent of taxpayer money received by AIG, IT IS OUR MONEY. I have no tolerance for public funds, no matter how small a percentage, to be used to pay bonuses of executives who have proven themselves incompetent.
This is the same issue as the omnibus spending bill that contained over 9,000 earmarks and millions of dollars in ‘pork’. The amount of earmark money totaled less that 2% of the entire bill, but that does not make it insignificant.
So we have the immoral, greedy, and perhaps illegal behavior. Check. We have two parties and two branches of government up in arms over this. Check. We have public outrage, demonstrations, picketing, marches, boycotts of AIG and related companies. Check. Wait, where is the public outrage? So far I have not seen any of AIG’s windows smashed. I have not seen a single demonstration outside AIG HQ. Are we so muted on every issue these days, that we watch as the government uses our money to bailout a failed company, watch as that company squanders and misuses the funds without so much as a good old fashioned rally and protest? Perhaps we don’t need to resort to illegalities to protest illegalities but certainly a negative response that is more involved than responding to a phone poll is warranted.
Two things need to happen here. Congress needs to grow a pair. Every woman and man in that chamber had better step up to the plate with a big anti-corruption, you will use tax payer money responsibly bat, and swing for the fences. Congress has grown incredibly weak over the last decade or so, and it is pathetic to watch it operate in it’s sad sorry state. They had better stop debating whether ‘if’ they have the power to recoup these bonuses and start getting our money right.
We own 80% of the friggin company, hello?!?
Have you no concept of what ownership of a public (forgive the pun) company means? The people do not want our money used to pay bonuses to idiots, so make it happen. We own the thing remember?
The public also plays a role here. We have become complacent, lazy, apathetic and disengaged. We must rediscover our roots of discourse, engagement, dialogue, protest, and civil disobedience. I am nearing a point where I am almost completely convinced that reinstating the draft for military service will have a great impact in re-instilling these values in our young people again. When our youth feel they have a stake in our country, not just as a whole, but as individuals as well, I believe they will re-awake to a new era thoughtful engagement that will help us make better choices as a whole in the future.
I care deeply in our country and it pains me to watch as in every aspect of our lives we are loosing what we have fought so hard to gain. But this is OUR fault. Our silence is deafening to those in power. It is perhaps the greatest asset to those who do not have the best interests of the country at heart. Sadly, it allows them to operate with impunity.
Perhaps it is we who do not get it.
George Bush is not an environmentalist. I am certain of this. In fact, I’m quite sure he has established a means of survival inside an alternate environment because he damn sure had no interest in the health and well being of this planet that the rest of us depend on for survival.
He refused to accept the consensus that global warming is real, and we as humans are contributing to it. He even scrubbed EPA reports that made mention of global warming.
In his last days in office he attempted to present America with some parting gifts in the form of last minute regulations that included; reducing EPA regulations of drinking water, granting uranium mining permits near the Grand Canyon, leasing lands for oil shale development (which requires several barrels of water of oil for every barrel of oil produced, which is just about a net negative in energy production), easing of mine dumping regulations, and exempting some power plants from installing pollution controls.
Now which of those regulations would indicate someone who possesses even a mild concern for the planet and country in which we live?
So when I read today that environmental groups are furious that the Obama administration will be upholding a Bush-era decision that removes gray wolves in certain areas of the country from the Endangered Species Act, I was not surprised and my initial reaction was a decidedly negative one.
After years of having a environmentally reckless President, nothing he did in this area deserves to be upheld it would seem. It also wasn’t a shock to find that some environmental groups are outraged by this decision, and plan to take the matter to court.
But in reading the article, I found that there is not a universal outcry against this decision.
The decision to remove the gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act only affects those living in the territories of Montana and Idaho. Wyoming’s population of wolves will remain on the list because the state lacked “management plans and controls to sustain wolf populations after the federal protections are lifted”.
Further, scientists and experts feel conditions warrant this policy and support the decision. (The following paragraphs unabashedly lifted from the MSNBC article)
“David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, supported the Bush administration’s assertion that the wolf population had rebounded.
“I’m satisfied, and most wolf biologists I know are satisfied, that wolf populations in both regions have been biologically recovered for the last five years,” Mech said of the Northern Rockies and western Great Lakes.”
I, unlike Bush, am an environmentalist. It has always been something of great concern to me, and given our current situation it is something about which I am taking action. I am in the process of starting a non-profit sustainability organization is San Diego that aims to develop and promote sustainability policy and living in our community.
I could kick, scream and cry out that the wolves can and should always be protected, despite the conclusions of experts and scientists in the field that indicate this decision is not environmentally damaging.
I could be angry about it. I could ignore the experts.
I could be an ideologue.
I don’t think the dictionary has a more perfect antithesis to my persona.
Ideologue, noun; 1: an impractical idealist: theorist 2: an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.
Despite my strong convictions in the realm of environmentalism, I refuse to let them define a rigid, inflexible ideology that does not allow the rational and practical decision making process to go forward. It is strict adherence to ideology that hinders sound policy formulation and decision making. This applies to the Federal government all the way down to the decisions you and I make every day in our own homes.
The experts say the gray Wolves in certain areas of the country have recovered enough to the point to where they can be removed from the Endangered Species Act.
Who am I to argue that? Exactly how much time have I spent in the last few years studying the conditions affecting the gray wolves of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho? Exactly what are my credentials that give me the right for my ideologically based opinion to supersede those with actual expertise?
Answer, I have none.
This does not render my opinion meaningless, nor does it exclude me from informing myself of the details and particulars of this specific case. It simply points out that I must not let my environmental concerns coalesce into an ideology that permits no deviation, reflection, or exception.
So I have no problem with the Bush decision, now to be carried out by Obama. It seems to me to be sound, reasoned, and based upon empirical data, and not opinion and ideology. In the end, it is a good decision, the wolves are healthy, I am still an environmentalist, and Bush still is not.
And I certainty am not an ideologue.
These are hall of fame numbers. These are Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, John Wooden, Pat Summit, and George Washington numbers.
Ok, so I killed the sports analogy with the Washington reference. The point being if he keeps these numbers even remotely consistent, he like Washington, will be consistently ranked by historians as one of our greatest Presidents.
Please don’t spit out your coffee and laugh, I am not saying Obama is already one of our greatest Presidents, with barely a month of experience under his belt. I personally not pleased with all he has done in office so far, and I certainly will not grant him a place next to Washington any time soon.
But when Washington Post-ABC News and New York Times/CBS News polls found Obama has a 68 percent, and a 63 percent approval rating respectively, he certainly starts his Presidency with an opportunity on which to seize.
Quite a unique situation to find himself does Obama. The country is a mess, facing titanic problems both domestically and internationally. Americans are losing money, losing their lives in war, losing their planet, and as a result are angry and scared about their futures.
Yet in another New York Times/CBS News poll, more than 75 percent of Americans are optimistic about the next four years with him as president.
That is quite a paradox!
He, in the eyes of the American people is also following though on his campaign promise of bi-partisanship. A New York Times/CBS poll found about 75 percent of respondents, including 61 percent of Republicans said Obama has been trying to work with Republicans.
If Americans think Obama is doing everything right why aren’t the Republicans trying to ride his coattails to victory in the 2010 mid-terms?
This seems to be a no-brainer to me. Do what Obama does, work with him to fix the economy, support him in the Iraq withdrawal (He is going to do it anyway) support at least some of his domestic agenda, and take credit for the positive results in the next election.
The New York Times/CBS poll also found that 63 percent of Americans said Republicans opposed the economic stimulus package for political reasons rather than policy concerns.
I see says the blind man!
The American electorate has awoken somewhat and is proving it’s new found resistance to being ’swift-boated’. It has seen through the hollow obstructionist arguments Republicans make in response to Obama’s plans and is clearly not buying them at present.
Eighty percent of Americans think Republicans should work in a bipartisan way rather than holding fast to their policies (New York Times/CBS).
I think it is quite difficult to misinterpret these numbers. Americans like Obama, they do not like Republicans. In fact, Americans wish Republicans would be more like Obama. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Michael Steele are foolish is they do not take the meaning of these numbers seriously.
The GOP is proving that they are still unfocused, lost, searching for ground on which to stand and finding none. They have spent too many years honing skills of division politics, and now have no practical governing skills to show for it.
The numbers I am now most interested in seeing, is how many points Obama will lose in his approval ratings in the coming months, and how many seats Congressional Republicans will pick up in 2010.
At this pace my guess is, not many.
Roland Burris is just damned goofy. His mannerisms, his way of speaking, and his demeanor all strike me as very very odd, in a playful sort of way.
That’s the definition of goofy isn’t it?
Goofy, adj: odd, in a playful sort of way.
It would be funny if he wasn’t just a wee bit tainted by the Blago scandal. It does seem as if he was engaged in pay to play of some sort, which unfortunately makes it harder for me to get a good laugh out of the man.
I would love to kick back with a cold brew and watch his press conferences like it was a Comedy Central stand-up act. I would love to laugh at the man as he defends himself by basically saying, ‘you know me, man! It’s me old Roland!’
But reality speaks, and what it says, is this man deserves to be the shortest serving Senator in U.S. history. The guy tried to raise money for Blago, lied about it on several occasions, and is proving every day that he has no business serving among the men and women of the U.S. Senate.
To be fair there perhaps are other people that along with Burris have no place in the Senate, but he would be the leader of that pack for sure.
But in these times it seems as if politicians, legislators and the public as a whole have a fierce resistance for demanding honor, service, and accountability in office. Investigations, inquiries, impeachments and trials are labeled as ‘partisan witch hunts’ and demonized. We have been lulled into an environment where corruption in politics, government and business has become the accepted norm, and enforcing the law and moral standard has been degraded, demonized and been made potentially politically damaging to those who seek to restore virtue to office. A sad state of affairs, indeed.
Oh, how I would love to simply laugh at Roland Burris.
This is a quite unusual event for me to experience. Former President Bush denied Dick Cheney’s exuberant demand for the pardon of Scooter Libby. It was denied, and Bush was right.
Al Sharpton went on the offensive and labeled this cartoon published in the New York Post as racist and offensive. Sharpton is right.
Agreeing with two public figures I almost never agree with is a good thing I suppose, and here’s the digg;
Bush had previously commuted the sentence of Libby and at the time he gave several signals that a full pardon was not to come. In not pardoning Libby he avoids a Marc Rich situation, which is a legacy item I’m sure President Clinton would wish he could un-check from his list. He saves face by sparing Libby prison time, while preserving the jury’s verdict. Commutation notwithstanding I think the right thing was done.
Dick Cheney has a greatly different perspective and ulterior motive for the Libby pardon to be granted. It is simple really, pardoning Libby closes the door on the Plame leak, and the pre-war intelligence battle. Cheney, it is believed, was a principle in the Plame leak and had also conspired with Libby and others to manipulate pre-war intelligence to coerce Congress and the American people into believing war with Iraq was vital to our national security.
Libby is the guy that would prove or disprove these theories. Perhaps without a pardon, he might one day soon be able to shed some light on this very dark situation.
And the Reverend in action! I personally do not especially like Al Sharpton. Yes, he is an activist and as he pointedly explained on Countdown last night (it was a great interview, check it out), it is his job to call attention to issues, but at times I think some of the things he says are just ridiculous. But here, he is certainly right.
First, comparing black people to monkeys and apes is just so disgusting I can’t put it into words. It is a form of what has become ‘acceptable racism’. You can’t call someone a nigger, but you can liken them to a naked ape, rummaging around the forest for bananas. It is absurd, disrespectful (to put it mildly) and flat out racist.
I agree with the Reverend in that nothing about the stimulus bill has anything in common with a chimpanzee being shot in Connecticut. Nothing. Not a damn thing. And that is exactly why it isn’t funny. Good political cartoons are good satire, and this is obviously neither. No rational person will be able to accept the excuse that the chimp is not meant to depict President Obama, and no rational person will be able to tolerate the insinuation of violence against a politician who wrote the stimulus bill.
This is just another shameful example of how skewed Americans perception has become in the realm of politics. We will huff and puff about the trivial ‘lipstick on a pig’ comment for days on end, but downplay the existence of racism and the implication of violence in a cartoon in which a monkey who wrote the stimulus bill, a clear reference to the President, is shot dead.
This is unacceptable, and Rev. Sharpton is right to call attention to it.
Damn, I think I’m more worked up about it than I was before the post!
