I ran across this story today via the Huffington Post. Documents released yesterday by the Senate Armed Services Committee confirm that terrorist suspects who received harsh treatment at the hands of the U.S. military where hidden from Red Cross inspectors.

Here are a couple of quotes from the documents that demonstrate that the cover-up was planned: “We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques,” - Lt. Col. Diane Beaver. “In the past when the ICRC has made a big deal about certain detainees, the DOD (Department of Defense) has ‘moved’ them away from the attention of the ICRC.” - Jonathan Fredman, the chief counsel for the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center.

Time has released additional key findings of the Armed Services Committee investigation that led to the release of the documents. The first was that the Pentagon learned their “harsh interrogation” techniques by reviewing a U.S. military program, SERE, designed to train U.S. troops to resist torture. We were expecting our enemies of the time, countries like Soviet Russia, Vietnam (during the War) and North Korea to torture captured troops. Where we used to just prepare troops to handle that threat we now borrow those ‘techniques’. We have become our enemies.

The committee also found that Rumsfeld approved the use of torture (though I don’t think they used that word) over the objections of top U.S. military lawyers from all four major branches of the military.

Of course, we already knew this to some degree. What the documents indicate is that the leaders knew it was wrong, else they wouldn’t have sought to keep it secret. Our country has been misled from the top down.

It’s about time that congress has started to take action. I sincerely hope it leads to more. I want hearings, I want Rumsfeld in prison, I want the President and Vice President impeached and removed from office for crimes against humanity. But most of all, I want it to stop and want America to return to the principles of basic human rights and basic human dignity.

The actions of America in the last six years has robbed me of some of my pride in being an American. They have undermined my faith that the U.S. military will act with honor and my faith in our democracy’s ability to elect capable, just leaders. I now fear for our troops who may face “harsh interrogation techniques” at the hands of our enemies follower our lead. I am disgusted by the Bush administration. These are dark times in our history for sure, but there is hope.

Politics and the economy are intertwined. We all know this. That is why in recent political polls, the most common response to “Thinking ahead to the November presidential election, what is the single most important issue in your choice for president?” is “Economy/Jobs”. We wouldn’t name that as an election issue if we believed politicians could affect the economy.

Markets influence politics and politics influence markets. The actual stings on influence are many and diverse. Add to this tangle, a new thread, from Intrade.com. The site sets up a futures market for all sorts of events. Everything from the name of the last named storm of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season (’Omar’ is the current favorite) to the most used internet search engine. The most interesting futures, though, are about politics.

These are real markets. Real money is spent to buy shares of an Obama presidential victory and the like. The value of those shares fluctuate according to how the market views how his chances of winning change. As of the time when this sentence was written, an Obama victory is trading at 61.3 and McCain is trading at 34.4. They are followed by Clinton at 5.1 and, amazingly, Al Gore, who isn’t even running, at 0.6. I think I’d sell that one short, if I could find a buyer.

The numbers represent the percentage chance of the event occurring. Thus if you think Clinton’s odds of winning the 2008 Presidential election is greater than 5.1%, then you should buy shares. If not, you should sell them. The monetary value is one-tenth the percentage. Thus, in this example, a share of a Clinton victory is $0.51.

Anyway, they do a state-by-state victory as well. For instance, you can buy shares in a Republican Presidential victory in Ohio for $3.90 apiece (representing a 39% chance that the republican candidate will take OH’s electoral votes). Because of this, they always have a current Presidential electoral map based current prices. Check it out now and then and let’s see how self-correcting this market is.

Note: This was an article I originally wrote for ReligiousFreaks.com back in October of ‘06. Unfortunately, the site has fallen into disrepair and risks disappearing altogether. As such, and with inspiration from a recent Spitball Politics post, I wanted a permanent home for the article, so I am copying an edited version of it here. Note that some of the links are no longer valid due to the age of the article.

The Christian States of America?

There has been much debate across the web over whether the United States is a Christian nation or a secular nation. The debates can be categorized into three distinct questions: Is America currently a Christian nation? Was America founded as a Christian nation? And finally, should America be(come) a Christian nation? On the extreme sides of this debate are fundamentalists and atheists. Fundamentalists who desire a ‘Christian America’ often are of the opinion that the nation was founded as a Christian nation but an encroaching anti-Christian sentiment has made it a secular nation in need of reformation. On the other hand, atheists who believe America should be secular are of the opinion that America was founded as secular and has been growing increasingly Christian in recent times. Both sides feel they need to save the country from the other group. Which group is right about which questions and to what extent? This article attempts to detangle the noise surrounding this debate and argues that the nation was founded as, is still, and should remain secular.

Read the rest of this entry »

The other day I received my monthly email from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) full of recent articles that they have published and one article caught my eye. The article discusses the most recent business cycle from 2001 to 2007 and compares the data to other business cycles post WWII.

I was astonished to see the authors findings. The paper gives a great breakdown, so I will quote that below and you won’t have to work through a summary provided by myself, lucky you!

* Of the 10 expansions since 1949, as measured from the end of the recession (trough) to the end of the expansion (peak), the expansion from 2001 through last year ranks last in average growth of GDP, investment, employment growth, and employee compensation.

* GDP growth in the latest expansion was a full 40% slower than the post-World War II average (2.8% versus 4.8% in previous expansions).

* Despite tax changes that were promoted as incentives to increase investment, average growth in total investment over the latest expansion was less than half of the post-WWII average, and ranked last in this group. For the full cycle, investment growth was also less than half the average and worse than all cycles in the last 50 years.

* Compared to the start of the last recession (the peak that occurred in the first quarter of 2001), the percent of the population employed declined by 1.5 percentage points by the end of 2007. The only previous drop in this measure relative to a previous business cycle peak came during the mini-expansion of the early 1980s, and the drop in the latest expansion was five times as large.

As a matter of fact, the paper points out that of the 9 major indicators for economic growth the 2001-07 business cycle ranked 8th or worse (out of 10) in 7 of them when compared to all full cycles since 1949! The only two areas where this most recent cycle was above 8th were Unemployment (5th) and…drum roll please…Corporate Profits which was 2nd best! It is sad that during an entire administration’s 8 year reign, their policies were only able to help boost corporate profits.

The records are going to show that the administrations policy of tax cuts and economic policies did not produce strong economic fundamentals, instead they help create the worst economic recovery. The worst part about the tax cut policies, as the paper points out, is that it makes it harder for future administrations to create the liquidity they need to fund much needed programs.

I responded to another of Congressman Hayes’ newsletters today. I only had a quick question and wasn’t intending to blog about it. However, it appears that a quick question is exactly what was needed to get some real information.

In today’s letter, I mentioned that I had not received a response to my previous letters about FISA renewal and his energy policy. Not even four hours latter, his office calls me.

It seems that a specific question about his vote on the recently passed Farm Bill (a veto later today is expected as is an override) is the sort of thing Congress staffers handle quite ably. Since, in the past, I didn’t ask questions but disputed policy, they were a bit less responsive. I also think that I was ignorant on what the staffer’s consider a response. They thought that their call and assurance that they’d “pass my concerns on to the Congressman” was enough. I didn’t.

Things became more complicated when, in a previous letter, I mentioned that I have a blog and will be writing about my conversations. This had two effects. First, they didn’t want to respond in writing (electronically or otherwise) and second, they referred me to their communications director who handles press if I really want a written response.

Apparently, they haven’t adjusted to the new media. They still want a clear line drawn between constituents and ‘the press’. As a constituent, they wanted be responsive to my concerns but have no permanent record. As a blogger, they want a fully vetted response that doesn’t stray from the Congressman’s message. These are understandable gaols, but unrealistic expectations. Blogs and the like have rendered the difference fuzzy.

For now, I’ll play their game. I’ll contact their communications director and ask for a response to my letters. Now that I know, though, I will be ready with pen and paper when I see D.C.’s area code on my caller ID.

My state had it’s primary yesterday (May 6th) and, for the first time, I worked the polls. It turned out to be a fantastic, but grueling experience. I got to work with some amazing people who live in my area. These people were very friendly, intelligent, and politically engaged. It’s great to know that there are others who not only care about politics on all levels (not just the national level), but do something to assist the process.

My only disappointment was that there weren’t more young people involved in the process. I was the youngest by at least 25 years and was less than half the average age of everyone there (there were seven others). Even at my training, where there were about 30 people, I was the 2nd youngest (there was one inspiring young woman there who couldn’t have been more than 23) and likely the only one there in my 30s. It’s been said many times before, but usually with respect to voting: the democratic process needs younger people!

Here’s why. The electoral process is slowly modernizing. Here in NC, we already have electronic voting machines (with a paper trail). This election was the first time they had an electronic registered voter database. Every other person there, despite having the same training and more years of experience, would not have been able to successfully run that machine. Furthermore, most of them knew this. This is because they didn’t grow up with computers. They have little familiarity with how they work. It’s not just a matter of comfort level. Most of them don’t even have email address, yet they were expected to run (if not understand) a databasing system. Our nations youth have grown up with computers around them. They understand them and are familiar with them. Most of them would have had no problem learning and using the new system.

The above image is created and licensed by Danny.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s official: G. W. Bush is the worst president ever as measured by his disapproval rating. According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 71% of Americans disapprove of how he is handling his job as president. This is well above every presidents’ disapproval ratings in every poll of this kind in history. It’s even lower than Nixon’s disapproval rating just prior to announcing his resignation. In other words, Americans distrust President Bush more than they distrusted Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal. Perhaps it’s because Watergate didn’t result in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of non US citizens nor did it cost trillions of dollars. Amazingly enough, his approval rating is still higher than the lowest experienced by Nixon (and Truman).

Okay, so polls aren’t necessarily the best way to objectively (or accurately) measure the quality of a political figure. Furthermore, it tells us what we already knew: Bush is unpopular. But at least America is waking up to what foreigners have known for year - Bush is one of the worst presidents ever.

The image is created and licensed by Brian Sims.

That’s right! It’s been five years since IV Day, when our president declared in his historic speech “…my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” On May 1st, 2003, America avenged the deaths of September 11th with such efficiency that we even vanquished a dictator who had absolutely nothing to do with it!

It’s easy to forget this day, having grown so comfortable in our half-decade of peace and prosperity. Please don’t forget this victory that signaled that Iraq was safe for us to rebuild. Had we not had such a decisive win, American soldiers may well have been dying in Iraq to this day! Thankfully, this did not come to pass and cries of “Allah bless the US!” can be heard every where American tourists go in Iraq.

Don’t let others forget! It’s your patriotic duty to wish everyone you see today a Happy IV Day!

Foreign Policy Magazine has identified what it considers the top 100 public intellectuals. Now they want our help to pick the top 20. On one of their webpages, you can vote for your top 5. Here were my choices:

1. Peter Singer
2. Steven Pinker
3. Richard Dawkins
4. J. Craig Venture
5. Steven Levitt

As with any voting system to chose the top anything, it’s far from perfect. Everyone brings their own bias, not least of which is familiarity bias. I voted for those because they were members of the subset of listed intellectuals that I actually know about. Still, it’ll be interesting to see who winds up in the top 20 list.

Who did/would you vote for?

Is the government actually ahead of the curve on an issue?? It appears they may be (or I am sorely ignorant to this issue)! According Wired Science the Senate unanimously (95-0) approved the bill that bar employers and insurance companies from using genetic information to hire, fire, determine premiums or deny coverage.

GINA, as it is affectionately know, apparently has been bouncing around for 10 years in Congress and is know fully expected to be passed by the House and then signed by President Bush.

The prompt behind GINA is that individuals were hesitant to obtain genetic testing to help screen for predispositions to certain disease indicators. The fear was that a genetic “bank” would be maintained by employers and insurance companies and they would use the genetic information to hire and insure only the most fit or individuals that have clear genetic tests.

The benefits to patients having genetic testing done to me is obvious, if you are genetically predisposed to a disease you can take measures to help prevent it or detect it very early and allow for proper treatment.

I think the most amazing thing of all of this is that the government is taking steps to protect individuals from discrimination prior to the mass discrimination occurring. I didn’t believe we really have a pro-active government because history has shown that we are a very reactive system. Add to this amazing occurrence that I actually agree with the legislation almost makes me awe struck. Yes we were really proactive on a positive issue! Now if we could only guarantee that discrimination won’t occur for all those others that live in this country and prove no threat to the life and liberty of their fellow citizens!