You are here

Politics

Whatever It Takes

There's an interesting article of the same title by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker. It discusses in great detail the prevalence of torture in the popular TV show 24 (disclosure: I'm one of the few humans alive who has not watched 24...I assume I will someday on DVD, though I'm not so sure any more after reading this article...a show apparently so obsessed with torture doesn't sound attractive to me). It's a detailed, lengthy article. I'll highlight some of the most interesting passages here, but the whole thing is worth reading.

Bob Cochran, who created the show with Surnow, admitted, "Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb' situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week."

Since September 11th, depictions of torture have become much more common on American television. Before the attacks, fewer than four acts of torture appeared on prime-time television each year, according to Human Rights First, a nonprofit organization. Now there are more than a hundred, and, as David Danzig, a project director at Human Rights First, noted, "the torturers have changed. It used to be almost exclusively the villains who tortured. Today, torture is often perpetrated by the heroes." The Parents' Television Council, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has counted what it says are sixty-seven torture scenes during the first five seasons of "24" more than one every other show. Melissa Caldwell, the council's senior director of programs, said, " ˜24' is the worst offender on television: the most frequent, most graphic, and the leader in the trend of showing the protagonists using torture." The show's villains usually inflict the more gruesome tortures: their victims are hung on hooks, like carcasses in a butcher shop; poked with smoking-hot scalpels; or abraded with sanding machines. In many episodes, however, heroic American officials act as tormentors, even though torture is illegal under U.S. law. (The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which took on the force of federal law when it was ratified by the Senate in 1994, specifies that "no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.")

This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind "24." Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his "call" was. In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show's central political premise-that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country's security was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I'd like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show's producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."

Finnegan told the producers that "24," by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country's image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors-cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by "24," which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, "The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about "24"?' " He continued, "The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do." Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told me that he had similar arguments with his students. He said that, under both U.S. and international law, "Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted." Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer's: "Whatever it takes."

Afterward, Danzig and Finnegan had an on-set exchange with Kiefer Sutherland, who is reportedly paid ten million dollars a year to play Jack Bauer. Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas, a former socialist leader in Canada, has described his own political views as anti-torture, and "leaning toward the left." According to Danzig, Sutherland was "really upset, really intense" and stressed that he tries to tell people that the show "is just entertainment."

His [Surnow's] favorite bumper sticker, he said, is "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything." Although he is a supporter of President Bush-he told me that "America is in its glory days"-Surnow is critical of the way the war in Iraq has been conducted. An "isolationist" with "no faith in nation-building," he thinks that "we could have been out of this thing three years ago." After deposing Saddam Hussein, he argued, America should have "just handed it to the Baathists and . . . put in some other monster who's going to keep these people in line but who's not going to be aggressive to us." In his view, America "is sort of the parent of the world, so we have to be stern but fair to people who are rebellious to us. We don't spoil them. That's not to say you abuse them, either. But you have to know who the adult in the room is."

Will Obama positively not go negative?

From an article of the same title by Tom Bevan in the Chicago Sun-Times:

...with Hillary Clinton leading Obama by an average of nearly 20 points in the six major polls taken so far this year, will Obama be able to close the gap over the coming year without playing hardball? And how can he attack Clinton without looking small himself and undermining the core rationale for his candidacy? I put that question to Obama's senior strategist, David Axelrod, before Obama's presidential announcement last Saturday in Springfield. "If you have a difference over an issue that's something different than a gratuitous personal attack," Axelrod said. "But the real point is the premise that if you can inspire people and if you can give them something real to believe in, you can advance your campaign without tearing everybody else down. And that is our premise and we're going to try and see if it works. If it does work, then we truly have changed our politics for the better. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. But that's the only kind of campaign that he [Obama] really can run." So, I quickly followed up, Obama won't go negative? "I . . . I . . . I don't . . . I would not say that he won't draw contrasts where contrasts should be drawn," Axelrod hedged. "But if you're asking me, do we have a strategy to tear people down? We don't. And maybe that's incredibly naive, and maybe that is not feasible in modern politics. But we believe it is, and we believe it's important to run a campaign like that."

Will he change the tone of political discourse or play hardball like all the rest? We'll see...

Tags: 

In State Legislatures, Democrats Are Pushing Toward Parity Between the Sexes

From an article of the same title by Kirk Johnson in the NY Times:

On the low rungs of the nation's political system in the state legislatures, Democrats are pushing close to real parity among men and women - a historic threshold that is changing more than mere numbers. The new Democratic women, epitomized by the Woodbury Three, as they are known here, are focused on the bread-and-butter issues of the suburbs, like property taxes, schools and health care. They are the soccer-mom swing-voters of years past, now making the laws themselves, and that could end up changing both parties here and beyond.

While what happened here [Minnesota] was not repeated in Congressional elections, it was echoed in many other states, especially in the Northeast and West, where women made their biggest gains. Nationally, Democrats picked up more than 320 seats in state legislatures - about 140 of them by women - and gained control of 10 chambers, 4 of them here in the Upper Midwest: the Minnesota House, the Wisconsin Senate and both chambers of Iowa General Assembly. Republicans gained control of the Montana House of Representatives. Almost everywhere, women were crucial to those Democratic margins. In the New Hampshire Senate, which swung to Democratic control for the first time since 2000, women outnumber men almost two-to-one in the new majority caucus.

Republican women lost ground and saw their numbers slide everywhere but in parts of the South. There are now only 534 of them out of more than 7,300 party-affiliated state legislators nationwide, compared with 1,187 Democratic women, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan group.

TechPresident

This one's for you, Freeman. Via AmberMac, TechPresident.com:

TechPresident is a new group blog from Personal Democracy Forum that covers how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the web, and vice versa, how content generated by voters is affecting the campaign. The 2008 election will be the first where the Internet will play a central role, not only in terms of how the campaigns use technology, but also in how voter-generated content affects its course. TechPresident.com plans to track all these changes in real-time, covering everything from campaign websites, online advertising and email lists to the postings on YouTube and who's got the fastest growing group of friends on Facebook. Our team of bloggers is made of veterans of the 2004 and 2006 elections, ranging across the political spectrum. Their expertise covers everything from website design to the latest in mobile tools and social networking sites. And we'll look closely not just at what the campaigns are or are not doing, but what voters and activists are doing online to independently affect the election.

Tags: 

The 1/2 Hour News Hour

The 1/2 Hour News Hour, Fox News' answer to The Daily Show will finally see the light of day at 10 PM on Sunday. According to Variety, the second episode will air at the same time on March 4. The Huffington Post and Slate discuss it today. Here's a clip from YouTube:

Apparently the blogosphere isn't impressed. I thought the BO mag cover was OK. Its time slot creates a bit of a dilemma. It's on at the same time as Extras and Battlestar Galactica, so the adult's dual-tuner DirecTivo is otherwise occupied. Guess it will have to go on the kids' DirecTivo.

Pages

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer