Torture(d) Logic

Via TPM, supporters of relocating suspected terrorists/enemy combatants/Bad Guys™ counter the inane charge that bringing detainees from Guantanamo to the continental US by pointing to where many would likely be located: the Supermax prison in Florence, CO.  

Certainly, the thought of detainees somehow escaping Supermax and posing a threat to the outside world is more outlandish than the plot of The Rock.  Nor is the Guantanamo facility's continued existence and usage making the United States any safer.  But let's be clear: the conditions at Supermax and similar maximum security, solitary confinement-centered facilities may very well have the same effects on the detainees as any of the torture techniques used at Guantanamo or elsewhere.  As this recent, soul-crushing essay in the New Yorker demonstrated, and as the Washington Post article above cited, solitary confinement often leads to severe mental illness.  It is, essentially, a form of torture.

Which leads to an unasked question: is it okay for the United States to torture, post-conviction? At most, a blanket statement opposing torture would oppose torture no matter the context: detainees from abroad or convicts from home.  But context matters, and given the heightened bar for cruel practices in an American prison, a terrorist sentenced to life in Supermax, while heavily punitive, is probably not considered torture by most.  But what about before their trial? What about indefinite detention, an option that President Obama has left open for some detainees? 

Torture is a malleable term that we define, something that the use of the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" reminds me of each time I hear it.   It seems clear-cut that we shouldn't place Saran-wrap over a prisoner's face, then pour water over them, nor should we strip them naked in a cold room for extended periods of time.  That's torture.  Locking people in 10' x 12' cells with no light, 1 hour of movement a day, and no human interaction for the rest of their lives, letting them develop several mental illness? Sounds like Hell to me, but torture? Not now, it's not, at least not for some criminals, but it goes to show just how contested seemingly simple concepts can be.  

Back Online

It's been so long since last I've blogged...

After a busy month and a half of studying, finals, and moving, I've dusted off the old Blogger platform and get back into the habit.   This summer, I'm looking to produce some longer posts, rather than just quick links and pithy comments (for that, follow my Twitter feed).  Hopefully I'll be producing enough interesting material to be worth your while.  

Where is LBJ?

Given Sen. Schumer's gift for gab and outsized persona, I had pegged him as someone who could be an LBJ-like leader in the Senate, getting wary colleagues to come along through a combination of threats, compliments, back-scratching, and profanity.  For various, that hasn't happened, and as such, articles such as this one accurately detailing the uncanny ability Senate Democrats have shown in derailing presidents from their own party appear.  You might think that Democratic Senators would hitch their fortunes to the most popular politician in the country at this point--particularly when he's a Democrat, too!--but The New Republic piece gives some of the backstory explaining the curious case of Senatorial egos/motives.  

Missing the Point

According to ESPN, NFL owners passed four new safety proposals at their annual meeting, including banning the wedge formation on kick-offs, which I hadn't understood to be dangerous before.  However, at the same meetings, NFL owners are considering expanding the regular season to 17 or 18, which, as this Washington Post post points out, would be a major culprit in league-wide injuries.  It's understandable to some extent, given ownership's focus on profitability, that they wouldn't see the connection between expanded seasons and expanded injuries (and their focus, to be fair, is on limiting violent injuries to defense-less players).  But it's also emblematic of a group of people who see players as commodities: widgets in an incredibly violent industry that can be replaced, so long as ratings are up.  

Snapping on Ed Henry

It's probably not going to be a good night for your news agency when the President thumps your correspondent's follow-up question.  But such is the life of CNN and Ed Henry tonight, whose attempt at gotcha regarding AIG received the response of the evening (video to follow): "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."  

Bonus points for using "to talk" and "to speak" in the same sentence.  It's the kind of grammatical formulation that will be helpful for those learning English from the President's speeches.  

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Via Edge of the American West.

Church of Rahm

And no, it's not located in the West Wing.

Ron Silver, Ctd.

An appreciation from TIME's Joe Klein, a friend of Silver.

Ron Silver, RIP

Ron Silver, award-winning actor and frequent guest star on The West Wing, died yesterday at the age of 62.  Unmentioned in the obituary is how his West Wing character, Bruno Gemelli, had a mirror, left-to-right political shift to Silver's real life realignment. 

Prayers for him and his family.

Too Many Volunteers

Having been both an underutilized volunteer and a harried coordinator when more people than expected show up, I can relate, on some level, to both sides of the equation in this article on the influx of volunteers in the aftermath of the recession/the President's call for volunteers.  Particularly given the funding cuts at many non-profit agencies, it's understandable that many of the directors are struggling to best use the volunteers.  But as a volunteer coordinator, the attitude should be finding ways to say "Yes," rather than ways to say, off-the-record, "No."  After all, it might be a hard time to run a non-profit, but it's a harder time to rely on a non-profit's support.  

Where Are They Now?

Maurice Clarett, former Ohio State running back and briefly of the Denver Broncos, is blogging while serving a term in prison for a hold-up and police chase.   It's a pretty interesting read, revealing Clarett's own journey, presenting a look at life inside the prison system, and demonstrating new media's ability to share that information.

Lefty! Lefty! Part 2

Via bittman, NYTimes food writer, a National Geographic article that cites scientific research on the advantages and disadvantages facing lefties out there in the big, bad world.  There seems to be a bit too much talk of "mortal combat" for the 21st century (unless of course they meant Mortal Kombat), but it's good that they've reiterated the danger of serious accidents in this right-handed oriented world.   

Road Warriors

And I thought springtime baseball in Rochester was rough.  

Bloodletting in BigLaw (or, Lawyers are People, Too)

I understand that it can be hard sometimes to find sympathy for corporate lawyers, but waves upon waves of layoffs have rocked major law firms the past two weeks, with today bringing news of Latham and Watkins laying off 440 employees (190 associates, 250 staff), making it the largest layoff of its kind, according to industry blog Above the Law. The severance package is sizeable, to say the least, but the sheer size of the cuts--12% of associates, 10% of staff-- is eye-opening.  

One of the interesting trends that surfaces in this cut is the firm extending stipends for incoming associates to defer starting with the firm and work for community service organizations during the "gap year" in between 3L and the first year on the job.  Given the dire situation facing legal aid organizations and public defenders, one hopes that, if there is a silver lining to this recession, it's a renewed commitment to providing legal aid to those most in need.

Lefty! Lefty!

Story of my Little League career.   As it was, I seemed to prefer hitting it to left field, particularly as I got older, so they could shift all day.  

Can't wait for baseball season.

To Whom It May Concern:

Can we please arrange so that one of our players gets introduced like this on Saturday? I'm thinking Groove Theory could channel Jabbawockies.  All we need is a Shaqtus stand-in.  

Change We Can Believe In

Georgetown 65, South Florida 40.  So starts the 6-0 end to the season that will propel us to the tournament... right?

New Blogs, Please

Stumbling upon that marketing blog has also nicely broken up a bit of a Google Reader rut I had been feeling, something that coincides with this post from Andrew Sullivan.

What's the deal with Twitter?

I stumbled upon this blog via a friend's Twitter feed.  I haven't quite digested all of it yet, but these posts on Twitter strike me as being roughly accurate.  Maybe my environment--Twitter-happy Washington--makes me sympathetic/adhere to Twitter, maybe my upbringing (AIM, Gmail, and Facebook status updates) attract me to it, but either way, I think it's an enjoyable--and potentially useful--medium.  

Back

After a long weekend and illness-induced absence, I am back and will be posting this evening. 

Quote for the Moment

America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again, but baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good and could be again.

-Field of Dreams

The sports question at Pres. Obama's press conference? Not Michael Phelps.  Not Super Bowl-related.  Baseball.  For the wrong reasons? Yes.  But the game endures, and the quote continues to remain relevant.  Much better than "if you build it, they will come."  

Things I Didn't Expect to Read Today

Indulgences return to the mainstream in the Church.  On a related note, expect McDonald's to peg its Filet-O-Fish price to a mark slightly below the recommended donation level for an indulgence during Lent--though in past years, they've been selling them 2/$2 on Fridays, so they should be in the clear.  

I'm envisioning a price war between indulgences and Mickey D's. Sacrilege, I know, but isn't this the policy outcome of putting a price tag on bad behavior? It's Holmes' bad man formulation, only with the Afterlife, instead of the law, as the forum.  If it's easier to continue living a sort-of sinful, yet enjoyable life while making charitable donations that shave some time off of a stay in Purgatory than it is to live a slightly more virtuous, yet less enjoyable and more arduous life and require fewer indulgences, then the incentive is for Catholics to choose Option A.  The here and now will be more pleasant, and there will be negligible, if any, impact on the Afterlife.  

And this line cracks me up: "You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1857 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day."  Talk about a distinction without a difference. 

A-Rod

Point of inquiry: did people really think A-Rod was clean this whole time?

Lock It Up

Read Frank Rich this morning--the piece seems a little all over the place, which usually I appreciate, but I think it's Rich's attempt at being "fair and balanced."  

That's not to say that he doesn't have legitimate beefs with Geithner, Daschle, and the Bob Rubin contingent (to say nothing of the revolving door culture of politicians and business lobbies).  I could do without the I-bank alumni who are going to have a big say in sculpting the regulation of Wall Street, and it's bizarre that so many of the high profile nominees have tax problems (and if they need some part time help vetting from a law student, they should give me a call).  Obviously, not exactly Team Obama's finest moments from my perspective.

But it's a stretch to say that Slumdog Millionaire, which has grossed an impressive, but not overwhelming, $77M in the US is indicative of a populist streak tearing up the middle of the country.  A populist streak among critics and Oscar voters, maybe, but I'd pick Paul Blart: Mall Cop as an example of populism at the box office ($83M in 3 weeks, as of last week).  

And Daschle's withdrawal was the biggest news of last week until zero Republicans voted for the stimulus package, and until we found out that about 600K Americans lost their jobs in January alone.  Now I don't pretend to be anything but a partisan Democrat, but on some level, isn't it more frightening that, in the midst of losing 1.8 million jobs in the past 3 months, there is not one Republican member of the House who can get behind a package that will put people back to work and stop the bleeding?  I know the Daschle/Cabinet problems/taxes are good copy for newspapers, but I feel like the Washington élite are underestimating just how seriously screwed up our economy is.  That also includes the numerous Democrats in the House and the Senate who are proud of opposing/slashing such "frivolous" ideas like Head Start, public transit, and food stamps.

Here's hoping that Obama cleans house of both the revolving door types and the tax cheats.  Here's also hoping that someone other than the President, of any party and the media, can get it together and realize that if this nonsense keeps up and the federal government doesn't start cutting some checks, we might just find out what breadlines look like in HD.  

Hooveritis hits WMATA

Let us hope that this gets shouted down.  At a time when more people than ever are riding Metro and public transportation, they  want to cut back on the system's service, slashing not only the jobs of the people who work for Metro, but also for people who rely on it to work night shifts, get home afterward, etc.  And what the world needs now is more unemployment... 

 It goes without saying, but stimulus money should be directed toward public transportation systems for exactly this reason.  

Why would we cut these things?

Among the initiatives that could be cut are $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department, $1 billion for the National Science Foundation, $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million for Amtrak and $400 million forclimate change research. But so far, none of the suggestions come close to being enough to shrink the package on the scale proposed.

Mind-boggling.   Normally, cutting cyber security measures and not preventing STIs would be a bad thing.   Why is this idea even taken seriously?  I've been trying to give the President the benefit of the doubt on the strategy of getting the stimulus passed; he still gets it, if only because he seems to be the only Democrat working to get this thing passed and to drum up public support.  Congressional Democrats--one of whom, Sen. Nelson, is promoting these cuts--are not getting the benefit of the doubt.  The economy is cratering; people are losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands each month; our infrastructure is crumbling; our climate is spinning out of control.  Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress seem to be up to the same tricks they were used to during the Bush years.   

Show me numbers

Good to see my hometown making the news for relatively positive reasons.  A few quick points: 

First, I admit that I haven't kept up on Rochester news since moving (both to college, and with my parents) 5 years ago, but I don't know how "many" people think East High is the most troubled in Rochester.  It has its fair share of problems, to be sure, but it also has one of the few IB programs in the county (suburban or urban) and as a larger school, has a fair amount to offer in terms of co-curricular activities.  Its mascot is also the Orientals, so by that measure, it's probably the most troubled.  

Second, the article seems to be more interested in writing creative nonfiction.  Sure, it traffics in innuendo about the tough halls of East High-- "ambulance attendants were rolling out a young man on a gurney and wearing a neck brace."  Insinuendo, we called in it college: no actual reporting on what happened to the young man--Heaven forbid a good image get ruined by a phys. ed. accident--just a tantalizing hint at the problems at East.  Insinuation + innuendo.   Same with the 5 person calculus class.  "Not normally enough to justify a class."  Well, why aren't there more people in calculus at East? The author lets our minds wander.   No supervision at home.  Too many kids taken out on gurneys.  Wait, I thought small classes were a good thing?  It's an interesting gambit (particularly by playing against popular conceptions of class size), but I'd prefer to see some numbers about the apparent disconnect between Rochester schools' success and their teachers' salaries.  

I Got You, Babe

In honor of February 2, a look at the religious implications of the 1993 classic Groundhog Day.  Me? I always enjoyed the encounters between Phil Connors and Ned Ryerson.  I've been trying to figure out where that fits into my spirituality, but haven't figured it out quite yet.  In the meantime, enjoy one of the funniest meetings.

Rabbit at Rest

John Updike, one of the greatest (and certainly most prolific) American writers of the past century, passed away today at age 76.  I first encountered Updike's writing in high school, critiquing (such as it was) Rabbit, Run and one of his short stories.  I can't go so far as to say that he was a life-changing writer, but I always appreciated his ability, like so many great writers, to transition between fiction and non-fiction writing.  One of my favorite non-fiction essays, and one of his best-known, is his essay on Ted Williams' last game at Fenway Park, Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu:

Like a feather caught in a vortex, Williams ran around the square of bases at the center of our beseeching screaming. He ran as he always ran out home runs - hurriedly, unsmiling, head down, as if our praise were a storm of rain to get out of. He didn't tip his cap. Though we thumped, wept, and chanted ''We want Ted'' for minutes after he hid in the dugout, he did not come back. Our noise for some seconds passed beyond excitement into a kind of immense open anguish, a wailing, a cry to be saved. But immortality is nontransferable. The papers said that the other players, and even the umpires on the field, begged him to come out and acknowledge us in some way, but he refused. Gods do not answer letters.

 He will be missed.

"Don't hit anything, and drive like you stole it."

My van certification would have come in handy for this.

(H/T The Plank)

In Which We Become Far Too Invested in the Athletic Exploits of 18-22 Year Olds (Myself Included) Con't

As an addendum: I realize that, at the extreme, I am advocating an incredibly tame style of fandom, one where there is only positive cheering, and never any criticism of any non-professional team.  I understand that's not likely--or maybe even desirable--but if people were to err on the side of deep breathing rather than loud screaming, they may find more enjoyment in the wins and less frustration in the losses.

In Which We Become Far Too Invested in the Athletic Exploits of 18-22 Year Olds (Myself Included)

3 straight Hoya losses have the faithful reeling, and with some justification: in the past two games, the team has been a half-step slow and 6 inches off the mark against West Virginia and Seton Hall.  It's a much different look from the team that shredded UConn on the road, or thumped Syracuse about 10 days ago, and for fans who have invested a lot of time, energy and (yes) money into their support of the team, it's unsettling.

That said, just as it's bizarre in victory to elevate college athletes to demigod status (H/T: The Plank), it's bizarre to pile on a group of college athletes in defeat (even unpleasant and unexpected ones to Seton Hall) as if their goal is to please us, The Excited Fan, and when they fail, we can express our disappointment however we please.  Obviously, no one is stopping fans from yelling out complaints from the stands or online, and we can bellow about bad shots or shoddy defense as loudly as we want.  But it strikes me as just the slightest bit odd that these 18 to 22 year olds are being held to a standard of excellence--and in college basketball and football--that is not expected of 18 to 22 year olds in college more broadly.  Lose 3 games in a row? I know people who have skipped class 3 weeks in a row.  In a shooting slump? I've been in writing slumps/testing slumps.  Groaning after missed free throws? Good thing nobody groaned when people couldn't answer questions in class (although in law school, it sometimes feels that way).  

It's a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg argument, to be sure: when college sports (particularly football and basketball) are marketed like their professional counterparts, when the coaches are paid comparably to their professional counterparts, and are played in arenas and stadiums as large, if not larger, than their professional counterparts, it's understandable that fans have reactions that resemble those at professional sporting events.  With the college sports-media industrial complex occupying such a prominent national status, it seems unlikely that the scale of the competition is going to decrease anytime soon.  Conversely, maybe we should be expecting a bit more of 18 to 22 year olds in college--certainly, when it comes to effort-based measures such as showing up to class and/or being prepared for class, the bar could be raised a bit.

Pointing out that college students loaf, coast, and generally "take plays off" doesn't make it any easier to watch our favorite teams lose heartbreakers or stinkers.  But maybe those who cheer on those college teams--particularly those who graduated from those schools-- could remember what it was like to be an undergraduate and ease up on their underage heroes.  After all, they are student athletes, and as such, not only are they busy with classes and growing up, but they're members of the alumni family.   We seem to cut a lot more slack for alums who help start unjustified wars than for those who hoist up unjustified 3s.  Just saying.

Quote of the Moment

I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...

Honestly, it was all over but the shouting after that today.  A thunderclap in American history.

But check out the speech here.  Obama sets the bar pretty high, and a lot of the initial feedback--and my initial perception from listening to it live--was that it was a really good, but not excellent, speech.  Just a standard Obama speech: strong, bringing the heat.  After reading it, however, it registers just how appropriate his tone was for the troubles facing the nation.  Much like his acceptance speech in Grant Park, there's no sugarcoating our problems--indeed, during parts of the speech, I thought he was going to have to turn around and ask outgoing President Bush if he wanted to excuse himself for parts of it that were, shall we say, not kind in recounting the past 8 years.   It made the pivot to the more optimistic, value-stating portion a relief--not only to alleviate the potential awkwardness of skewering a former President sitting feet away from the podium, but also to lift the spirits of the crowds.  

In person, the relief of moving on to a renewed values statement for the nation outweighed the words themselves.  But I have a sneaking suspicion that the words themselves will echo through the years, much more so than the discomfort of being reminded about our present (and recent past) foibles.

We've been waiting for this hour/history is ours

Setting up a blog seemed like an ideal fit for me: with an appetite for politics, social justice, sports, music, Washington, DC, and pop culture--and an opinion on most of these things--a blog was, and is, an ideal vehicle to hone my writing (conciseness has not necessarily been one of my strong suits) and to share some thoughts on my interests outside of law school.

But today, after experiencing Inauguration Weekend, I am momentarily speechless. The historical significance sets in, every now and then, and this evening is one of those moments. I'll try to reflect and string together some complete sentences in the next few days, but for now, I'll leave you with some photos.

Above: a view from our spot on the Mall.

Midweek Musical Break