More On Torture

As if you needed more reasons to oppose it, another government official experienced in interrogation and counter-terrorism, has publicly registered his disapproval of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – also known as torture.

Sergei Rachmaninov

Tomorrow is the 136th anniversary of Russian composer Sergei Rachmaninov’s day of birth. Radio WRTI is celebrating with a 12-hour marathon of the Rusky ex-pat’s crystal-clear texture and elegant yet strong phrasing.

Rachmaninov is best known for his Prelude in C-sharp minor, which he composed at age 19. He lost his land during the Bolshevik revolution and subsequently fled Russia for the United States, though he was consoled by an estate he managed to buy in Switzerland. He died in 1943, and his wish to be buried at his Swiss estate could never be fulfilled because of the ravages of the Second World War.

Rachmaninov on Rachmaninov, Prelude in C-sharp Minor.

Rachmaninov on Chopin, Nocturne in E-flat.

Mr. Rachmaninov's Neighborhood

Liner Notes: Corey Wilkes, Drop It

Liner notes, like the acknowledgements and preface sections of books, are rarely read but really one of the most important parts of a record. I finally got around to opening my Christmas present, Corey Wilke’s 2008 Drop It, and looked inside the cover. Today, I take inspiration from these words.

“There’s no need to be divorced from the current time and place in an effort to hearken back to bygone eras when there’s still such vital art to be made in the present…Don’t call an ambulance, there’s no need for resuscitation, because this music is alive and animated.”

More on Executive Power

On Thursday, the New York Times (number one source of conversations starters for yours truly) reported on two separate rulings that interpret federal regulations to permit health benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees. The Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law, is at the center of the controversy and has previously been interpreted and executed as a law barring the federal government from providing such services. Richard Socarides, formerly a Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton, made this interesting comment:

“[The President] has broad discretionary authority to find ways to ameliorate some of the more blatant examples of discrimination.” 

Now, I may be shooting myself in the foot by choosing a controversial topic such as homosexual rights as an example, but I think that Mr. Socarides’ statement deserves examination. For the moment, suspend knowledge that Mr. Socarides is talking about rights for homosexuals. In fact, he is not talking about the rulings described in the article at all, which have lawfully arrived at the same conclusion that Mr. Socarides would like to see. Instead, observe the relationship between the President and the rule of law. Mr. Socarides is saying that the President of the United States has authority to overrule law where the President sees fit to do so as regards the regulation of the federal bureaucracy.

Reviewing the Constitution of the United States, we find the situation to be slightly different.

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the power… To make Rules for the Government.

Article 2, Section 3: 

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

The President may not like the law or its interpretation, but that office does not have the discretion to interpret. The repeal or change of unfair laws must take the form of constitutional and legal processes and not through executive authority that aggrandizes the government’s power and sets precedents for unconstitutional activity.

A Limbavian Flap

Hibernation is over and this Dino is back! Now, it is time for more exhilarating commentary.

Monsieur Remi asks if anyone still listens to Rush Limbaugh. Seems like they sure do these days.

I will admit right here and right now that I am opposed to talking any more about Rush Limbaugh. He is a distraction, and everyone has said as much. Right now children are wandering about uneducated, the world’s economy is imploding, and Americans and other humans are getting killed in various wars.  But media talking heads, politicians, and average Americans love bright shiny distractions. So in the spirit of talking about affairs that have no demonstrable importance, I will indulge in the ultimate purpose of Dino: to tell you the things that I am thinking.

Barack Obama and his political machinery have made it very clear their intentions: no one likes Rush Limbaugh, so if you equate him with the average Republican then no one will like any Republican, average or no. Rush Limbaugh, whose income is derived from the number of people that listen to him, always profits from controversy. And he has hardly failed to take advantage of Rahm Emanuel’s generous offer to make him “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party.” 

The advantages may be financial for Mr. Limbaugh. Or maybe he genuinely wants to be the ‘intellectual’ force of conservatism. He certainly enjoys people paying attention to him. So on one or more of these levels, Mr. Limbaugh has profited. Mr. Obama and Mr. Limbaugh are in collusion – although certainly not as amicable partners.

Amy Holmes has conveniently inverted Mr. Emanuel’s comments and the situation they have created in a way that highlights what is really going on:

Imagine, for a moment, if George Bush and his chief of staff had made coordinated and concerted attacks on Michael Moore, and suggested that the colorful left-wing fulminator — not Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid — was the “true intellectual force” behind the Democratic party. Imagine the howls of protest. And, undoubtedly, the media would have focused on the propriety of a commander-in-chief and his advisers wasting time and political breath on an entertainer. And yet we have President Obama and his hammer, Rahm Emanuel, doing just that in a time of war and economic crisis, and the story is about … Republicans!

Conservative commentator David Frum recently rebutted this Limbavian flap in a Newsweek article entitled “Why Rush is Wrong.” He argues for changes that he believes will bring the GOP back to power, and Mr. Limbaugh’s place in that equation.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

Partly, Mr. Frum is motivated by the fact that Mr. Limbaugh and others have criticized him for his advocacy of a flexible conservatism. Mr. Limbaugh’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on 28 February included commentary on such allegedly fractious elements of the GOP, in favor of an unchanging set of conservative idealogies:

Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don’t check principles at the door. This is a battle that we’re going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservativism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can’t possibly like us; they’re our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they’re our enemy. They think we need to be defeated.

First of all, we can notice two tendencies here. One is the overt reactionary nature of these comments (and if you read the rest of the speech you will notice a tendency to ramble off-topic, and the speaker’s need to congratulate himself on what is, at various points, his first national and international address). Second, and related, is the ultra-montane attitude that goes out of its way to be disliked by ‘the media.’ I cannot imagine that Mr. Limbaugh does not realize that he is part of the media. He is using a simple but very effective rhetorical trick: set up a straw man, then burn it down. The straw man here is the liberal media bias, about which he would be happy to tell you. But the bottom line is that he does not want to be liked by the mainstream media, because he can simultaneously cast himself as a rebel and self-righteous advocate for conservatism.

Then, Michael Steele, RNC chairman, called Mr. Limbaugh an entertainer, and his show incendiary and ugly. After lambasting Mr. Steele, Mr. Limbaugh received an apology from Mr. Steele. There are fewer more public ways to broadcast the internal chaos the GOP must be experiencing than through a radio host who has 13+ million listeners per week and is always on the lookout for more outrageous ways to attract more.

This incident is not only a lens to highlight the problems that the Right is having, but it also brings out very disturbing, yet normal, behaviors in the Left. It is precisely at the juncture of the conflict between Messrs. Steele and Limbaugh that Mr. Emanuel framed Mr. Limbaugh as the intellectual force of the Republican Party. The timing smacks of opportunism and the White House has much to gain from a Republican Party handcuffed to Rush Limbaugh.

So where is the Change that the nation voted for in November? The change in dialectic, the change in Washington politics that Mr. Obama purported to bring? The bi-partisanship – that word that we love to say but scarce know how to implement – where is it?

In the end, this issue demonstrates the nature of power and justice. Bi-partisanship is not reaching across the aisle with an open hand and a smile, and cooperatively solving problems. It is winning elections, having a sufficient majority in the Congress, holding the White House, and then telling the other side what the agenda is because the opposition does not have the practical bargaining chips to do anything else. This Limbavian flap is a realpolitik method, employed by Mr. Obama, of accomplishing ‘bi-partisan’ relations.

Wall Street Journal Compares College Majors, Mid-Career Salaries

Turns out that by mid-career, Philosophy majors will be earning more than Architects, Biologists, Chemists, Geologists, IT guys, Marketers, and Political Scientists. Take that business school!

Classics conspicuously absent from this list. : (

Back in America, Back in Iraq

Today the Washington Post printed an opinion piece by an American officer in charge of interrogations in Iraq.

Matthew Alexander (a nom-de-plume for this homme-de-guerre) has conducted more than 300 and overseen more than 1,000 interrogations. His experience says: Abide by the U.S. Army Field Manual and the spirit of American freedom. Do not torture. We found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this way, it works.

But his experience is falling on deaf ears and obstructive bureaucracy. Top brass at the Pentagon and in Baghdad is not in the mood for ’soft’ interrogation.

Why? Because they are neo-conservative Bush Doctrine supporters? I suppose we will find out once the Obama administration takes the reins. Because they have existed in and propagate a culture based on aggression and the ability to dole out violence? Perhaps, but Mr. Alexander  exists in the same culture and is not so bent on using torture. While we debate the morality and motivations for torture, we are losing ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Janus previously addressed Victor Davis Hanson’s opinion that the Western war machine works because democracy is responsive to the public. But now we see the inevitable discord between ideal and reality: we espouse freedom, we bring torture.  Should we despise and denegrate our nation and our ideals because we can not live up to them?

I think not. Our ideals are still intact. We will probably never fully live up to them. We probably never have. Of course, we have our beautiful and ugly aspects. The liberty of the Constitution, the inhumanity of the Three-Fifths Compromise. The success of western expansion, the blood of native Americans and Mexicans. The triumph of the Second World War, the black mark of Japanese detention camps.

But neither should the knowledge that we will always fail our highest principles lull us into complacency. Are our leaders, in Congress, in the Supreme Court, in the White House, in the Pentagon – are they responsive to cries for justice? Will they stop torture, not only because it is ineffective but because it is wrong? Can we culturally and ideologically triumph over terrorism if we indulge in barbaric and anti-American practices? This antithesis between American freedom and American torture can only co-exist for so long before it mars our memory of this war, and more immediately hinders our ability to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Piracy Dino-Tracker

We here at Dino have seen the disturbing upward trend in piracy this fall. We are also aware of our constituency’s deep concern about this issue. You may be asking yourself, where is that 20-ton shipment of short-shorts I ordered? How come my Saudi crude oil hasn’t arrived yet? And our Dino-Staff is committed to bringing you answers to these questions.

That is why we are introducing the Piracy Dino-Tracker, so you can get all of your maritime hijacking related news in one condensed post. Check out this week’s entries:

• Somalia’s Pirates Flourish in Lawless Nation
• Pirates Seize 7 Ships in 12 Days
• Hijacked Supertanker Reaches Somali Port
• Thai Fishing Boat Hijacked
• Indian Navy Sinks Pirate Ship

Executive Power: Too Much

“Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries”

Now, before we all get out our Bush-whacking sticks, let us make a few observations.

1. This practice was made into precedent by Harry Truman, the successor to that Democrat of Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt. So being a Democrat does not make one an historical proponent of open and accountable government.

2. There is no constitutionality to this practice, just the inability of the Congress to assert itself.

3. Many Congressmen and Senators on both sides voted for the measures against which the majority of Americans now protest.

So why does the President take the heat? Is it because the people view him as the progenitor of all policy, domestic and foreign? Well, it takes at least two to tango in this Constitution – so why do we not also hold our legislators responsible?

An Election Note

Celebations are raging, quite literally, all over the world in the wake of the election of the new American President. Voters in the States are feeling a rushing high that they have enabled Change. Democracy, indeed, is designed to make one feel that his participation creates history.

And for all the symbolism of the 2008 election, and for all the historical import attributed to it, it might be helpful to remember: Nothing has happened yet. We have symbols, we have gestures. Will we fill them in with meaning?