In the ongoing controversy over whether to call torture torture, the New York Times continues to favor softer, administration-friendly, and dare I say it, patriotic terminology.
President Bush, reacting to a Congressional uproar over the disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions permitting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects
Harsh interrogation? What does that mean? Do they yell at them? Call them names? Insult their mothers? That would be harsh. But no...
the Justice Department authorized the C.I.A. to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
That’s not harsh. That’s torture. And who is naive to think that's even close to the half of it. We know of electrodes to the genitals, attack dogs, severe physical beatings, and murders. The only people they are fooling are the major media and liberal Democrats. The Republicans and wingnuts just chortle contentedly.
In the same article, the Times inadvertently juxtaposes two of the president’s conflicting pro-torture talking points, illustrating both the hypocrisy of the administration and the incompetence of the reporting.
“I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people,” the president said...
the deputy White House press secretary, Tony Fratto, took The Times to task for publishing the information, saying the newspaper had compromised America’s security.
“And I could tell you that every time I’ve dealt with any of these stories, I have felt that we have chipped away at the safety and security of America with the publication of this kind of information.”
It’s not the stories that chip away at our National Security. It’s the torture. And the secrecy.
Of course we could fill pages with examples of how the Bush administration chips away at National Security and there are so many chips that we could use them to pave a road from here to the moon, but we must only list those chips related to the article in question, or the massive weight of the disaster becomes too oppressive.
The Times also has a nice piece that argues the wealthy should be taxed back to 1950’s levels.
“Getting the very best of New York real estate is an extension of who they think they are; it goes with the rest of their résumé and portfolio,” said Denise Lefrak Calicchio,“
“This trend is not going to go away because there are so many people who want these apartments,” she explained. “There’s the new rich and there’s the old rich. There’s the poor rich and the rich rich.”
“If you spend $20 million on an apartment, you want it to be right,” said Edward Lee Cave, a high-end Manhattan real estate broker. “And it’s never absolutely right.”
So far this year, 324 buyers purchased Manhattan apartments worth more than $5 million; of those 16 buyers closed on homes that cost more than $20 million, according to the research firm PropertyShark.com. Another 45 homes are on the market with asking prices of more than $20 million.
Meanwhile, a tumbling down shack in Brooklyn costs $700,000. Twenty percent down payment would be $140,000 and the monthly payments on the remainder would be almost $3400 per month at 6 percent interest, not counting taxes and other fees. A couple making $100,000 per year cannot afford a shack in Brooklyn. The scale is different in the rest of the country, but it is apparently just as big a mess out there, if not bigger.
Yep, time to reel these rich fucks in, return to being more of a meritocracy. Too bad there’s no political party they don’t control.
In other news concerning America’s lack of a two party system, the Times reports that Democrats are like dogs who have been neutered and beaten for so many years that all they can do is stare mournfully at the Republicans and hope for more crumbs and fewer beatings.
The debate now raging here over the children’s health insurance program offers a cautionary lesson to Democrats running for president. It shows how hard it will be to persuade many Republicans to sign on to their vision of universal coverage.
Yea, a cautionary tale. On an issue supported by the great majority of Americans, the poor Democrats will have difficulty persuading the Republicans. Awwwww. Poor Democrats. Gonna get a beating for even trying.
Never mind that in a Democracy they would worry about persuading the people rather than the powerful. Here, the people are already persuaded but they (we) don’t count for shit.
Note also how the Times, as usual, buried that lede. Aw fuck. That’s giving them too much credit. I doubt it even occurred to them that the Democrats would have to persuade anyone other than Republicans, with the possible exception of New York Times honchos.
In three separate reports we learn that American forces attacked and killed another 25 civilians in Iraq, that that there would be no prosecutions for the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians awhile back in Haditha, and that our chief war crimes prosecutor had been forced out by the Pentagon.
Connections? I don’t see no fucking connections.
And finally, in another example of how out sports heroes are totally out of control, the Times informs us that:
Giants’ Tynes Juggles Kicking With Children
Someone should report that sicko to Health and Human Services.