Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Monday, October 09, 2006
Torture: An American Institution
“If you don’t violate someone’s human rights some of the time, you probably aren’t doing your job.”
That’s a classic. I seem to recall that one of those quoted in the WP article was Cofer Black, though the WP declined to impress that knowledge upon their readers. I don’t recall if the above quote is among those later attributed to him.
Here’s a collection of documents pertaining to the abuse/torture of prisoners.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/09 at 05:32 AMGovernments are built on secrets. Secrets “require protection.” The protectors are charged with doing “whatever it takes” to protect the secret. Humans being what they are, torture is the inevitable result.
I slip a step closer to anarchism every day. Bye all, work beckons.
Posted by Mudge on from Austin, Texas 10/09 at 07:49 AMThis is totally off topic but did anyone read the article in the Times Magazine yesterday about elephants?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sad stuff. Says as much about our insanity as theirs.
Posted by Brian on from Belly of the Beast 10/09 at 07:59 AMHello Expendables. It’s another summer-like day in NYC.
Thanks for the link, Jeremy. It’s a perfect coda to today’s post.
Brian: I read the article you posted and this line struck me as particularly insane: “Everybody pretty much agrees that the relationship between elephants and people has dramatically changed. What we are seeing today is extraordinary. Where for centuries humans and elephants lived in relative peaceful coexistence, there is now hostility and violence.”
Relative peaceful coexistence? I wish we could ask the elephants if they agree. Simply, those words do not apply to any relationship that involves humans.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 08:52 AMGood morning Mickey, Brian, Jeremy, and Mudge.
Mudge...I am happy to hear that you are slipping closer.
The uproar about the N Korean nuke test reminds me of the uproar about WMD’s. The Repubs and Dems in the usa missed the real point, which was that even IF there were WMD’s, it was none of our business. Iraq was a sovereign nation (before it was invaded, occupied, and destroyed). Most nations have weapons.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/09 at 09:52 AMPlus, as you know RMJ, which nation has used and still uses such weapons?
BTW, only one copy left in stock of my latest book at Amazon. Who’s gonna buy it?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 11:02 AMGood afternoon everyone,
As I read your article Mickey, my mind kept going to yesterday’s post and thinking that the way in which we ‘protect secrets’ or ‘gather intelligence’ makes it much less suprising how we ‘test product safety’ and ‘conduct research’ on other animals.
There is, and must be, some on/off switch in the human conscience that is inherently accessible to some, and can be taught (brainwashed) to others, which enables such behaviour.
Thinking like this, Brian’s linked article about the elephants seems not at all off topic. Those behaviour patterns in elephants are the same behaviours we see coming to fruition in humans in most parts of the world today.
It is called psychopathic behaviour. In some individuals it is reparable, in others it is inherant and cannot be changed.
Now just think what it means to have psycopaths running the world?
Captcha says “western”
Posted by Amelopsis on from Canada 10/09 at 12:31 PMExcellent point, Empress. As Derrick Jensen sez: “I’ve long used the simile that sharing our finite planet with the dominant culture is like being locked in a room with a psychopath. There’s no way out, and although the psychopath may choose other targets first, eventually it will be our turn. Eventually we’ll have to fight. There’s no way around it. And the sooner we fight back—the sooner we kill this psychopath—the more life will remain.”
Also, someone named “Steve” sent me this video to go along with today’s post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGJ-rx5Hd_QThanks, Steve…
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 12:56 PMSteve, the guy who hires people to hand out flyers on the street for Greenpeace?
Just have a second here, no access to private email-- how’s Sat. 10/28 for another veganish potluck thing? I know, sorry, excludes most of you…
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 10/09 at 01:20 PMJames...better have the potluck soon. The food supply is becoming more dangerous as each day passes. Just heard another report of botulism. In another week or two we might all have to resort to nibbling on the legs of our furniture.
Have you all heard about the new plan to spray virus on meat? That won’t bother those who don’t eat meat, but others who do, might soon become vegans.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/09 at 01:43 PMVirus on meat? Sounds awfully redundant to me.
CatLady: Not sure about 10/28 yet. Would that be a Halloween bash? As always, don’t plan around me
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 02:14 PMGood day, everyone.
I don’t mean to hijack the conversation, but I have a question that I figure someone here can probably help me understand. Hell, if I had any real interest in economics at all, I could probably figure it out on my own, but I’ve never much concerned myself with stuff like that. From an article on Online Journal, discussing Russia’s attempt to keep the US from completely owning the Middle East:
“Putin’s conversion to the ruble poses a direct threat to America’s dollar hegemony and could potentially send hundreds of billions of dollars back to the United States triggering massive hyper-inflation and an economic meltdown. (This may explain why the Federal Reserve cancelled publishing the M-3 report so that dollar holders will not know how many billions are being returned.)
The US must maintain its dominance in the oil trade or the dollar will plummet and the over-leveraged, debt-saturated American empire will disappear in an ocean of red ink.”
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1289.shtmlCan someone explain to me in real terms what this means? I’ve heard before that part of the reason for US domination is that oil is traded almost exclusively in dollars and that when Iraq switched to Euro, that was a big nono. But I want to know, WHAT effect that has on the economy exactly? I understand roughly what it does, but if someone could explain this in greater depth, I would be most appreciative.
Posted by Banta on from Inner Circle of Hell 10/09 at 02:19 PMRead your article today on counterpunch ‘what if michael moore was offed’
They offed a political activist a few years ago, Rachel Corrie, and not much happened. The left did not rise up in protest, though she had done what Chomsky, Moore, Zinn, etc have never done: she put her life on the line. She wasn’t a famous professor or a famous movie personality. The left basically ignored it, besides the usual tut tutting. I really think one of the problems of the US left is that Chomsky, who of course is a hero of mine, is much more respected than Rachel Corrie. I’d bet Chomsky would agree. We have elevated the importance of intellectuals, who often have tenure and class protection, and we have lowered the importance of organizers and street level activists. Thus we have no movement, only a lot of educated informed opinion. No threat to the elite in hot air, no matter how erudite and rebellious.
Posted by Lawrence on from france 10/09 at 02:31 PMLawrence, I’m not posting that article here until Wednesday but yeah, you make a great point, re: Corrie. In fact, I wish I had included her in that piece. Thanks.
Banta: Not sure if I’m qualified to answer your query.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 03:00 PMLoved the swirling Kermit The Frog, hey, It’s not easy being green! As far as torture, every country is guilty of the acts, at some point in their history, not agreeing with the acts, just stating what I see as obvious.
Posted by keving on from Bayside, NY 10/09 at 03:44 PMLawrence....Rachel Corrie, one of the greatest heroines of the century, in my view. BUT, there are those who would say that her heroic act did not do any good. I don’t agree. Ever since her brave act, she has been a great source of inspiration to many.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/09 at 03:58 PMKevin G: All countries are guilty, but not all countries pretend to be morally superior.
Hi again, RMJ.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 04:02 PMHi Mickey...and not all countries are equally guilty. One measure I use is the body count. Which country has killed the most people in the past 10 or 20 or 50 years?
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 10/09 at 04:35 PMI know the answer to that, RMJ. These United States of America, land of the free (to slaughter whoever the hell they want).
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 10/09 at 05:14 PMGive that man a prize.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 05:19 PMThose corporate media are really something, Mickey! And no, I don’t think Israel deserves that money - here is a good article on IDF from a recent issue of the LRB:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n16/print/laor01_.htmlAnd ‘hi’ to all you fellow expendables from a sunny Daylesford - tomorrow we expect 86F, no less! And summer is still almost 2 months away.
Ciao amici ..
Posted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 10/09 at 07:44 PMHi Helga...thanks for the link.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 10/09 at 08:07 PMTo followup on the question I asked earlier, I wrote Mike Whitney, the author of the article, and he sent me this reply:
“It is easier than you think. The dollar you have in your pocket maintains its current value because there are only a certain number of them in circulation. If there were twice as many, your dollar would be worth half as much. Its simple supply and demand. When our dollars are no longer circulated or held by foreign nations they come home to roost and depreciate the value of that dollar in your pocket.”
Figured I’d pass this along to anyone who might be curious. Sometimes I think that economics and business are SO simplistic that it’s easy to overthink things.
Posted by Banta on from Inner Circle of Hell 10/09 at 09:54 PMQuestion. What’s “the left”?
Comment. I don’t agree that Rachel Corrie was ignored. She was very much the center of attention, with a great deal of condemnation for US support for Israel. As RMJ pointed out, “she has been a great source of inspiration to many.”
Rightfully so, but I would question any assumption that a white American is/should be the focus of more attention than the Palestinians. Why should Rachel Corrie’s death cause us to rebel more than the death of a Palestinian whose name we don’t even know?
On Whitney’s explanation (re Banta’s question), it’s incorrect. It’s correct, of course, that inflation decreases the value of the dollar. But whether those dollars at circulating domestically or internationally is irrelevant to that equation. More dollars at home does not decrease the value of the dollar. It’s the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation that affect the devaluation of the dollar--where they are circulated is irrelevant.
What decreases the value of the dollar is inflation and the willingness to accept the dollar for value. If everyone in the world trades in US dollars, that’s good for the US dollar, which is itself a commodity (100% of your income taxes go to just paying the interest on the use of Fed notes [that’s the Reagan Grace Commission report]). If fewer nations accept the US dollar for value, but prefer other currencies, it’s not good for the dollar. It compounds the effect of inflation.
I don’t pretend to know the answer to Banta’s question, but I think the answer lies elsewhere, not with where the dollars are circulated but with how they are used.
If I have a piece of gold that every merchant in town will accept for value, that gold is valuable. The gold is inherently valuable because it represents an amount of labor (it had to be mined). But replace it with a piece of paper, and it could maintain the same value as the gold, so long as people accept it for value. If my paper note is only accepted for value at two stores in town, but I can’t use it anyplace else, the value doesn’t change, but it’s convenience does. And that could have implications that do decrease the value of the dollar.
When oil producing nations accept dollars for oil, it’s good for the dollar because oftentimes those dollars are then, according to arrangement, returned to the US economy. Saudi Arabia is the most obvious example. That nation invests heavily in the US economy, arms purchases being only one example. It’s good for the US dollar that Saudi Arabia trade oil with the dollar because they then invest those dollars back into our economy. The buy US stuff from US corporations.
That’s one factor, and only part of the answer. I share Banta’s question.
Posted by Jeremy on from Taipei 10/10 at 01:21 AM
Next entry: Read this before you vote
Previous entry: The NBA says "no" to leather
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
