Blogcritics Comments on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Comment by Vern Halen on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Sun, 26 Dec 2004 07:54:24 EST

Can I throw a bit of a curveball here? The best book I ever read about whether the right or left is the status quo in America is Invisible Republic (now reprinted as The Old, Weird America) by Greil Marcus. It's supposed to be a book about Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes and how that album relates to The Anthology of American Folk Music, a multirecord set that came out in the 50's. However, the book has a lot to sat about the development of the national character of America - you'd be surprised at how a book that's supposed to be about music can shine some light on political thought. From my reading of it, I think it says the national politcal character isn't about left or right, but something else entirely - but you'd have to read the book to come to your own conclusion.

Comment by Katharine on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:22:10 EST

I should have been more explicit with my terms the first time. And, I hate to be nit-picky, but its Katharine with two A's and one e.

Comment by Steve S on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:09:07 EST

Katherine, I agree with your post completely. I took you to mean status quo as an accepted/desired (by the majority) existing state of affairs.

Comment by Katharine on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:52:53 EST

You believe they are the status quo, because they tell you so. All evidence points to the contrary. They are just more effective at being a loudmouth, that's all.

"status quo" meaning "existing state of affairs". That's what we mean, right? The Right holds the office, we are governed by their policies. Doesn't that make them the existing state of affairs? And, ya they're loud, but they're also so good at framing what they're yelling that it looks neutral. The Right has successfully defined itself as The Americans. And being The Americans gave them the ability to attack everyone else as traitors and liars and cowards who aren't interested in you or your safety. If people voted for Bush because of terrorism and Iraq, I'd say they've used the language to get exactly what they wanted. And, again, if the point of language is to be able to communicate, and you get what you want by communicating, I'd say they're not misusing the language. (This doesn't mean I agree with their use of the language. It does mean that I'm giving them props for their efficacy,)

Anyway I think my point when I originally used the words "right" and "status quo" was that The Right owns the National Narrative. They frame their statements in such a way that they come off seeming as innocuous as a cotton ball. As far as that goes, they've got the family values thing, they've got the religion thing, they've got homeland security thing, they've got the strong in the face of adversity thing. And, who are we as a people? How do you define the term "American"? We're homesteaders who came to this country to practice our religion freely and to own as many guns as possible. And, we'll defend those rights until the end. In the last election, the democrats didn't offer up one concise, alternative narrative. They didn't offer a believable enough, together enough, or maybe just loud enough alternative to what it means to be American. I know a lot of people had trouble voting for Kerry because they "didn't know what he stood for." I think a lot of people in the States don't self-identify as homesteading, religious and gun-toting. I think these people looked to the left for a little support in being other things and didn't find what they were looking for. I think a lot of that had to do with rhetoric.

And, as for people "misusing" the term p.c. or racist, the only thing that can be done about that is to call people on it when they do it. In print or in person. And, I'm on your side on that one. In fact, I'm on your side with this whole language thing.

Comment by Steve S on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 16:00:07 EST

oh, and in regards to your 'Christmas is being destroyed by the liberal concept of PC-ness', here's a few more to add to your list: Right wing company, Parents TV.org that files 99.9% of all complaints to the FCC, wishes everyone a Happy Holidays. Bill O'Reilly, the great 'Defender of the Baby Jesus' this holiday season, doesn't tell you that Rupert Murdoch and Bill's parent company, want to invite a lot of people to a Carribean Non-Denominational Holiday Season" (and yes, Bill is invited too). President Bush wishes everyone a Happy Hanukkah and a Happy Holidays. So, Andy, from the liberal left again...Merry Christmas.

Comment by Steve S on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:48:13 EST

on the eve of Jesus's birth, can't you feel the love? Why would you take offense at being called a Right Winger, Andy? In all sincerity, I didn't not mean it as an 'attack'. Since you espouse the views of the Right, since you defend the ideology of the Right 100% of the time here, I would think you would have been appreciative in being 'lumped' in with them. I really did not mean it as a personal attack. Merry Christmas anyway.

Comment by andy marsh on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:29:02 EST

I got your rightwinger right here STEVE!!!

Comment by Steve S on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:33:30 EST

I wouldn't say that they misuse language. Oh, they most definitely do. See the thread about putting "quotes around my faith" by Flanagan, a right winger. He uses 'political correctness' in a whole new context. See the thread by a right winger about Christmas disappearing. He rants about being 'oppressed by political correctness', without using that exact term. (PC bullsh*t is the term used). The Right has coopted the word racist, in order to negate the power and applies the word to affirmative action. Affirmative action can be debated on whether it is discriminatory, but to apply racist to it, is a clear misuse of the word which stems from a belief of superiority. Affirmative action does not stem from an ideology of superiority. I'd say the right communicates pretty effectively that they are correct and that it can do no wrong. Correct. The fact that there are now over 1,500 conservative radio/tv talk show hosts is a significant reason for their ability to communicate their misinformation effectively. In fact, I think it can be pretty safely stated that the right ....are the status quo Oh, goodness, goodness, no. If you are going to define the Right by this recent election, Bush won by 3.5 million votes. Hardly a significant percentage of the overall population. While more people voted for Bush than Kerry, more people voted against Bush than any other President in history too. Taking into account that there were some on the Right who didn't support either candidate, and some on the Left who didn't either, you cannot determine who is the status quo by this election. Many people don't care for Bush but voted for him due to their perception of terrorism and the Iraq war. This does not make the Right the status quo. Also, the Right often touts the concept that more people watch Foxnews than the other cable networks. However, what they don't mention is that the three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) which they often scream of being too liberal, utterly squash Foxnews in the ratings. And most people have cable in this country now. So most people are still deciding AGAINST Foxnews. This is not an indication of the Right being the status quo. You believe they are the status quo, because they tell you so. All evidence points to the contrary. They are just more effective at being a loudmouth, that's all. and that, in their own terms, they are what we should all want to be. Exactly. One of the primary ways an aristocracy, or a one-party system can take hold is for the base to believe that it's leaders are morally and spiritually and intellectually superior. So they continually promote this ideology, and it seems to be working. And, George Lakoff started a liberal think tank. Its called Rockridge Institute. Yes, I read those articles. It seems like Lakoff had an instrumental part in the ideology of those essays I forwarded to liberals. Now that I know who he is, I hope to hear more from him in the future. What I did not see, anywhere in the articles, or anywhere else for that matter, is substantiation of Joe's claim (in comment 6) that the Left does this redefining of the English Language too.

Comment by carldec on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:32:52 EST

The real problem is that we have lost any moral position we held on human rights. George W Bush said, "we are not the kind of nation that does these things". Which, I think, was a fairly justifiable possition to hold before the revelations about abu Gareb prison abuses. I think a lot of people in the world thought that the united states was above this kind of thing. that we respected human rights, we treated people in our custody with respect and dignity. During Vietnam, Korea and the pacific theatre of WWII, Americans were shocked at the treatment of prisoners of war forign prisons. We believed that we were above the kind of treatment of prisoners that was routine in these conflicts. We knew we were not abusing the prisoners we held, because that was just not how we did business. Now this confidence is gone. In this war we are no better than the people who we demonized in those wars. We are guilty of the same crimes against humanity. We can no longer be proud of our record when it comes to the treatment of prisoners. Before the Bush adminstation most of the world believed that the USA does not hold prisoners indefinatly without hope of a trial. That we believed in giving everyone due process under the law. That we believed that treating well even the worst criminals was our moral obligation. That we would not stoop to torture and abuse because we believed in the rights of man and the rule of law. Loosing this moral high ground is a very sad day for America. Much of the support we have gained around the world has come from people who believe that supporting the USA is the right thing because we are above these kinds of immoral acts. Loosing this respect is going to cost many times more lives than will be saved by the information gained through our acceptance of torture and abuse are legitimate actions.

Comment by Katharine Donelson on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:46:40 EST

I wouldn't say that they misuse language. If the point of speaking at all is communication, I'd say the right communicates pretty effectively that they are correct and that it can do no wrong. In fact, I think it can be pretty safely stated that the right owns the national narrative, that they are the status quo and that, in their own terms, they are what we should all want to be. And, George Lakoff started a liberal think tank. Its called Rockridge Institute.

Comment by MCH on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:40:57 EST

"Having your spokesman, like Rush Limbaugh, categorize the atrocities as the equivalent as "frathouse pranks" also helps to desensitize the public as to the atrocities of war." I agree, Boom. It's amazing to me that people actually listen to Limbaugh regarding military affairs and the happenings of war, considering his only real-life experiences before becoming a radio talk show host was being a disc jokey and a PR man for the Kansas City Royals.

Comment by Steve S on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:40:56 EST

Sure, spiderleaf, I will send you an email with the info. Thanks Joe, for the references, I will look into them. Never heard of Lakoff before.

Comment by Joe on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:21:03 EST

Sounds like the stuff George Lakoff from Berkeley has been talking about. It's not really anything new and both sides do it. More on Lakoff here: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/11840230p-12728097c.html http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

Comment by spiderleaf on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:09:15 EST

Great analysis Steve. I would be interested in the info regarding language. It's something I've been thinking about for quite some time now. And the language used always instils a sense of fear in the populace. Would you mind sending to me as well? spiderleaf AT gmail DOT com

Comment by Steve S on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:47:09 EST

Using the term "shock and awe" in the Iraq invasion implants the suggestion there is a kind of beauty to violence, especially in the service of the imposition of American will. Equating your enemy with animals, as in the GOP wolves commercial, also helps to desensitize the populace to the horrors of war. Having your spokesmen, like Rush Limbaugh, categorize the atrocities as the equivalent of 'frathouse pranks', also helps to desensitize the public as to the atrocities of war. Language with a propensity to view the weak with contempt; to associate weakness with femininity; and to excoriate the feminine and glorify the masculine also helps to justify killing in the name of America to the populace. "Girlie men" was only the tip of the rhetorical iceberg in this regard. A large perception is that 'terrorists kill so they are bad, we are good, so it is okay for us to kill'. This is bolstered by the corruption and misuse of the English language for political gain. The conservative movement exhibits many of the attributes of facism, particularly in its assertion of the right to operate without restraint, justified by the horrors of 9/11. Otherwise, how could we have invaded another nation under false pretenses and in violation of international law? This war involves public relations just as much as it involves soldiers and tanks. If you break down Zell Miller's speech at the Republican Convention, the entirety of his speech was a raging attack, not merely on John Kerry, nor on Democrats, but on liberalism in general. At times -- especially as he attacked liberal "pacifists" -- he seemed almost to be extolling the aesthetic (or at least utility) of war. Liberals, he contended, are incapable of keeping our families safe. A vote for George W. Bush was a vote for strength and resolve. The weak and vacillating Democratic nominee stood in stark contrast: "From John Kerry, they get a 'yes-no-maybe' bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends." Miller expanded on this theme in suggesting that merely running against Bush in the election was a kind of treason, claiming that "our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief". This election became viewed as an assault on our Presidency. Miller's characterization of the opposition to Bush thus deftly identified it with attacks on the national interest by referring to him as "the Commander in Chief." It's a sly way of associating Bush's political enemies with our national enemies -- Democrats with Al Qaeda. Dissent is treason. Of course, only a few short days later, Cheney himself made this suggestion explicit at a campaign stop, saying: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." These themes have been the centerpiece of the Bush campaign since the convention -- Kerry an effete, vacillating "flip-flopper," Bush a virile, strong, resolute leader. Kerry a pointy-headed liberal, Bush a plain-spoken man of the people. And for awhile, it appeared to be working. But then came the first presidential debate, and Americans were hit upside the cognition with the dissonance transmitted over their television sets: It was Kerry who looked strong and resolute, while Bush was not only weak and vacillating, he was forced to fall back to his mantra of strength and resolve and "hard work," all of which were plainly belied by the image the man himself presented. Smirking, impatient, unknowledgeable, close-minded. The Right increased their co-opting of the English language and turned up their public relations machine to override this. BTP, you're not going to convince people of the disconnect going on, in terms of torture, until you look at the bigger picture. I sent about 25 patriotic liberals some infomation about the English language, public relations and right wing think tanks, to review, including yourself. Unfortunately, I only heard back from one. A scholar, who said that it was dead-on and worthy of further analysis. It's unfortunate, the lack of response. But it is what it is. Until people truly understand how Bush accomplishes what he does, we will not be able to convince the rest of America of the huge dissonance going on within the smaller elements (such as torture) in the war.

Comment by Big Time Patriot on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:38:29 EST

" If what they're doing in Gitmo saves one American life then it's worth it." And if it does NOT save one American life, is it then a bad thing? That's my point exactly, there is no proof that we are saving ANY American lifes by adopting the policies of Saddam Hussein. If these policies are okay, why exactly did we go to war with Saddam? Sure he tortured and killed Iraqi's, but hey, that seems to be okay with you? If there was nothing wrong with what Saddam was doing, then you have to ask yourself, wouldn't it have save 1300 American lives NOT to go to war with a guy who was just "doing whatever it takes to save one Iraqi life" (his own)?

Comment by JR on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:12:07 EST

I must have missed something in the news because I never heard how Plames name was made public. Her name was made public in this 14-July, 2003 newspaper column written by Robert Novak. In it, he credited "senior White House officials" as his source. Now you know.

Comment by andy marsh on Is US torture policy gathering information? Are we having 'Secret Successes' or just sadistic revenge?

Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:17:33 EST

BTP - I must have missed something in the news because I never heard how Plames name was made public. But hey, it's fashionable to blame Bush for everything. If what they're doing in Gitmo saves one American life then it's worth it.