History Lesson

I really don't want to get into the Sarah Palin and Fox News business.  But if nothing else, go and read the clinic Alex Whalen puts on about the American historical myths she espouses.

Her appeal is based on this historical romanticizing of America - that it's been all pretty, that America can do no wrong, and that anyone who believes otherwise (aka those who are educated to question doctrine rather than just blindly accept it) is an enemy of the state. We've highlighted this before, but it's still just shameful the ignorance and blind acceptance of her ilk.

For the Record...

(Illustration by Mike Mitchell; Hat Tip to Andrew Sullivan)

"A Discussion With The Devil."

When I found out this morning that Jon Stewart had interviewed former Bush Administration lawyer and author of the notorious torture memos, UC-Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, earlier this week, I stopped what I was doing and went searching for video.  As usual with interviews where there is far too much content to edit for the show, Stewart and The Daily Show staff put the entirety of the interview online in its 25 minute glory.

Usually in these interviews with high profile Bush Administration officers or controversial figures, Stewart comes out in his best form, asking questions few in the MSM will and press for answers in layman terms - I think, beyond his comedic prowess, this is his most valuable and incredible talent.  So seeing him suddenly square off with Yoo, who four years of political science and some international and constitutional law studies have taught me to subtally loath, I was excited.  Even the usually enthusiastic TDS audience, who will whoop and hollar for nearly anyone who walks over to Stewarts desk, only greeted Yoo with very quiet, controlled, dare-I-say forced applause.

And yet what happened next kinda shocked me.  Go ahead and watch, I'll wait:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

A few things I was struck by while watching:

First, how nice of a guy Yoo seemed to be.  He's doesn't have the cockiness, the smugness of Cheney or Rumsfeld, nor the know-nothing act that Alberto Gonzalez has put on display.  Stewart even admits something along the line of Yoo being, "the most charming torturer" he's ever met.  But it's true - the guy had real class, and to come into the lion's den of Stewart's studio and defend his positions the way he did was far more courageous than the bold, arrogant displays others have tried to pull off.

Which leads to the second surprise - I understood where Yoo was coming from, perhaps for the first time.  It made me want to go read his book, Crisis And Command, so that I could try and better understand where he was pulling this precident from for his President to authorize the torture of terror suspects.  Don't get me wrong - I still think what his memo did and resulted in is foul and disgusting, a very black stain on the pages of American history that did far more harm than good.  But I saw where he was coming from with this, that it wasn't just bullcrap.

Jon Stewart, for once, had a very worthy opponent in his guest chair, and the countless times that he became frustrated, I found myself becoming more so too - how could this person, John Yoo, be convincing me that what he did was not unconstitutional?  He was being logical, and yet the end result I knew was nefarious and wrong in it's entire being.

Lastly, Stewart's little section at the end of the interview about not demonizing those we don't agree with as pitch perfect.  Something I wish more people would understand and embrace - I try to do it as much as possible, and considering how willing I was to throw Yoo in with the lot of rogues and demons he worked for, it really did make me step back, after hearing this man explain himself so well, and think if he was worthy of such venom.

And so I've been lingering upon it all day.  Tonight I come home, and still just can't figure out what the problem was here, how I could be agreeing with the logical basis of policies I knew were wrong.  Even Stewart, on the following night's show, admitted that Yoo matched him - that there was no typical Jon Stewart-On- Crossfire "gotcha" moment.  And then I went into reading the comments at TPM - and I found my answer.

Commenter LarsThor:

Here's the thing, and it's kind of frightening.

Once you get into a debate in great detail over the legalities of this and the legalities of that, once you get down into the debate and discussion of whether, in a time of war, a President has the authority, in the protection of the Constitution to take actions in this regard or in that regard, what you find is you get way, way down into the weeds quickly. Because it is a largely academic sort of thing, and you can reach a point where A is more reasonable than B, but A is also less reasonable than C.

And then you look up and you realize that you have been seriously debating whether you can make another human being feel like he is drowning to get information out of him. You realize, whoa: I have just been seriously debating the merits of torture.

It's hard to describe. probably easier for lawyers to understand.

But the point is, every now and then you must -- must -- step back and see the forest for the trees. You have to think of the broader parameters of what you are talking about. Because when you back away from the pointilism, you see that what you are really talking about is altogether something else entirely.

Yoo got into the pointilism of the legalities of torture and executive power. What Yoo didn't do is back up and look at it broadly, and he never realized that what he was painting was an enormous mural of horror.

Stewart wasn't lied to or blindsided by false facts. He was dealing with a man who is able to describe how bit by tiny little bit, it's okay to look at a point from this angle or that, not from the perspective of right and wrong, but from the perspective of what the letter of the law says.

Discussions with the Devil are very pleasant, and very reasonable, and seem very sane. And that's what frustrates Stewart.

I am a serious man who is serious about certain things, and the misuse of the law is one. And as a serious man on that subject, I say this with absolute conviction, and absolute certainty, and absolute seriousness:

Jon Stewart, in my personal view, had a discussion with the Devil.

Now I don't think John Yoo is the Devil, but I do think the Devil did his work through him in writing those memos to allow for the torture of other human beings.  It's funny, and even gets mentioned to some extent in the interview, that all things can be used for the greater good and for the greater evil in our being, and that's what it comes down to - all men are good, and all men are evil, and that political power, much like nearly anything else in this world, depends on those who yield it to do good or evil and what their intentions are.  Sometimes even those intentions can seem good in isolation, but in the wider, grander picture are cruel, horrible, and wrong.  And that is where John Yoo was able to make his case - the isolated incident, picking examples through history that justify his ends.

I have a new appreciation for John Yoo - give the Devil his due, so to speak -  he is far from being the monster I wanted to believe he was.  But that does not now, nor will it ever, make what he served as a catalyst for anywhere near or close to being right, noble, or American.

Why I won't be voting on January 19th

I won't be voting on January 19. Many citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be - I will not be one of them. I am a political science major, and convinced many of my friends to vote, some for the first time, in the 2008 elections. And as hypocritical as it sounds, I will not vote on January 19. In fact, I probably won't vote anywhere next November in the 2010 Congressional elections that are already receiving some attention. I am renouncing my right to vote locally.

Some background for those of you who are wondering what I'm talking about and/or wondering why you too might not be voting next Tuesday: Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy passed away this past summer, leaving a vacant seat in the US Congress. After the Democrats of Massachusetts decided to recognize the mistake they made a few years ago by changing a law allowing the Governor (at that time Republican Mitt Romney, now Democrat Deval Patrick) to name the individual who would fill Massachusetts' senatorial seats if they became vacant, they decided it would be convenient for the Governor to temporarily name a successor until a special election could be held (For those wanting a further understanding, google "Playing Politics"). That special election is on January 19, 2010. Next Tuesday.

Up for the seat are one Democrat contender, Attorney General of Massachusetts Martha Coakley, one Republican contender, State Senator Scott Brown, and one Libertarian candidate, political activist Joseph L. Kennedy (of no relation to the dear former senator or his family). I could say who I prefer in this contest, but since I'm not voting I don't think I should put my nose into the politics of it.

I have the right to vote in this elections as I still have my legal address in Massachusetts and haven't registered to vote as of yet here in Pennsylvania. I could get myself an absentee ballot and weigh in on what some would say is shaping up to be a monumental, historical decision - the outcome of which could be the deciding vote on the national health care reforms up for debate in the US Congress right now. I think we need healthcare reform, and while I don't think this bill does enough to cover every citizen in America as it should, it's the right first step to ensuring all who need medical help in our country can receive it without destroying their finances in the process. Regardless of my feelings on health care, I refuse to let it be the determining factor for me in this election.

So why am I not voting? I think it comes down simply to this - I don't feel like I live anywhere. Sure, I am technically still a resident of Massachusetts, my driver's license is of Massachusetts, my sports affiliations are still in Massachusetts (and always will be), but I do not live in Massachusetts. Sure, I reside and work in Pennsylvania, I pay taxes in Pennsylvania, I am a beneficiary (or burden bearer, depending on your views) of the laws of Pennsylvania, and I will probably be counted amongst Pennsylvanians in the upcoming census. But I do not live in Pennsylvania.

I do not live anywhere. I feel like to live somewhere, one needs some attachment, as I have to Massachusetts, the land of my fathers and mothers, and land where I grew up. But I do not reside there any longer, am no longer effected by their laws and their society, so where is it my place to have my vote, the most sacred of American rights, influence their governance? And despite housing and working and living with the society of Pennsylvanians, I have been here a mere four months - I do not care for or love this place as I do Massachusetts. Where is it my place to have my vote impact the lives of those who call this place their home. I have no home anymore.

I am a provincial mercenary, a nomad of these United States - when my job here is finished I will look to go to school again and yet again change where I reside, but I will at that point be no more a citizen of Massachusetts than of Pennsylvania or wherever I hang my hat then. My brother at school in Arizona will vote by absentee ballot in this special election, but I feel like he still has that right, he still is of Massachusetts despite continuing his education in Arizona. But I feel that I cannot classify myself in the same way anymore, it is simply not the same way in the real world.

Voting for me, as I said before, is the most sacred of American rights. So much so that I cannot bring myself to use it for anything less than its true purpose - to represent me in the place and society and government that I call home. While I am sure that one day I will find that place, today and next Tuesday it is unknown to me.

I think I may again use my right to vote in the next election for the Presidency of the United States as that position is directly reflective of our nation as a whole body, and reflect the only citizenship I am certain of right now. But I have no state, I have no district, I have no precinct. I of course reserve the right to change my mind as I continue to grow, but today this is how I feel. I never thought, as a polisci major and with such a love of our Constitution and democracy, that I could defend, much less include myself amongst those who willfully choose not to vote.

I am a member of the silent, conceding American majority.

Join the Army, they said.

Usually, when I'm posting something by my good friend Dan Withrow, it's one of his movie reviews.  Because when it comes to all things film, I turn to Withrow before Ebert.

But today is a special occasion, for Mr. Withrow has produced his own short film!  I think it's absolutely fantastic, but I'm biased of course.  I give to you "The Battle of Tower Street:"

Now that he's broken into the field, it's only a matter of time before he will be making our much-discussed "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" feature film epic.  I smell "Best Picture" already, and a "Best Supporting Actor" nomination for yours truly as the Big Goron.

The Rare Post Relating To Hockey

I'm pretty sure most people aren't fans of hockey - hell, I barely qualify as one myself.  But a couple thoughts came across my mind as I was watching the NHL's Winter Classic yesterday between the Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers at Fenway Park in Boston:

Later this week, my alma mater and current NCAA DI Hockey National Champion Boston University Terriers will be taking on archrivals and 2008 NCAA DI Hockey National Champion Boston (Newton) College (University) Eagles on the same ice as was played on yesterday. This matchup in this building has been something that many of us recent BU graduates had heard rumors of for four years, and every year it would come to pass that when the schedule for hockey was revealed, we'd be excited but always just a little bit disappointed. Not that I'm spiteful that I'm missing out on being there in person - I did have tickets, but work beckons so my brother (who goes to school in the middle of a desert) will be going in my stead to the icy tundra of Fenway.

No matter who you are or how much you know about hitting a small rubber puck into a net with a stick (ON ICE!!!), you can kinda understand how cool it is to be playing hockey outdoors.  It means something special - maybe it has to do with being exposed to the raw elements of nature, maybe it has to do with the memories of innocence of a younger age of sport, playing a pick-up game on a pond or lake somewhere with local friends.  Maybe it's something else, I don't know.  But I know it was cool to watch them play hockey outside in one of the most fabeled sports venues in the world yesterday, and it will be just as awesome to see my Terriers play BC this coming Friday.

So where is this going?

In both football and baseball, you have teams that play outdoors and teams that play in domes.  But the most storied, the most revered, the most enjoyable and memorable experiences are in outdoor stadiums or parks - being outside under the lights is just more special than playing inside.  Ali's "Thrilla in Manila" is made even cooler because it was open air.  Indoor track is fun, but outdoors is where everyone really knows it's at.  Being outside playing or watching a sport is better.  It just is.

Hockey and basketball only play in indoor arenas.  But as hockey does once a year in its Winter Classic, the venue is moved outside because it's more special.  It's still just another regular season game, but ask any of the guys who were out there yesterday - there's just a little something extra.

So why hasn't some owner in the NHL capitalized on this?  They make newer NFL and MLB fields with retractable roofs - why hasn't the NHL thought about following suit?  I know you can't do this in the non-hockey climate of the south, but Minnesota? Buffalo? That's prime real estate.  Or if us weenie Americans can't get it together, maybe our friendly Canadian neighbors to the north would be willing to oblige the idea.  It is their sport.

And NBA - have you ever thought about a "streetball classic"?  How cool would it be to watch the Lakers versus the Celtics in an outdoor game?  If you don't want them playing on blacktop for safety reasons, that's fine, but I can guarantee the event would be a huge draw.  If owners are hesitant about it, test it out with the All-Star game one year and see the response.  I'm telling you right now - it's gone be huge.

I don't really have answers to any of the postulates I'm throwing out there.  But you have to admit, like playing your favorite sport when you were a kid without a care in the world and bounty of untapped potential, it'd be a whole lot of fun.

(Photo Credit: Asha Michener)

Happy New Year!

Hope everyone has had a great holiday season and finds you welcoming in the new year.  I've certainly been taking full advantage of my vacation, including that from blogging.  But we'll be getting back at it in the next few days, so heads up for new content in the coming week!