The Report: The Not-So-Good Old Days

My wife and I saw The Report last night on Amazon Prime.  Even more so than its superb star-studded cast - Adam Driver, Annette Bening, Jon Hamm, Michael C. Hall, Maura Tierney, Ted Levine, you get the picture - the story of  how our government, before Trump, lied and otherwise did its utmost to keep the public from knowing that we tortured prisoners via water-bordering after September 11, makes The Report an absolute necessity for anyone who cares about democracy and human decency to see.

I say the government, but Senator Diane Feinstein, brilliantly portrayed by Bening, sticks with Daniel Jones (powerfully played by Driver) and is ultimately instrumental in seeing his report published.  Not so much just about everyone else, other than a few of Feinstein's colleagues on her Senate committee.

That George W. Bush would have wanted to keep this secret is not surprising - the torture took place on his watch.  But Obama was in no hurry to make it publicly known, either.   And since the government was regularly denying that it ever took place, including when Obama was in office, well, he doesn't come across the greatest in this narrative, either.

But the most disconcerting was CIA Director John Brennan (2013-2017, i.e,, under Obama) perfectly played by Ted Levine, whom I first noticed as a good guy in Monk.   Here, in The Report, Levine plays pretty much the complete antithesis of a good guy.  I've seen Brennan many times on MSNBC.  He's understandably a favorite critic of Trump to have on the air, seeing as how Trump took away his security clearance after Brennan dared to criticize Trump.  But the way he behaved in regard to Jones, coming this close to getting him thrown in prison for years for daring to uncover the truth, well, I'll never look at Brennan the same again.

The point here is the degradations of democracy and humane conduct on which we pride ourselves here in the United States were bipartisan, with many Democrats, at least in the Administration, more than willing to do whatever it took to cover up what the Bush Administration had done and denied doing.  All in the name of national security.

To be clear, I'm a New Yorker, and was terribly traumatized by what happened on September 11.  Although I wasn't in favor of torturing prisoners, I might have at least understood it though not supported it, if it had really worked.  But as The Report makes clear, it did not.  And the attempt to keep it from the public, to lie about its effectiveness, represents a low day for all Americans.

The only heroes here are Driver, Feinstein, and The New York Times for going public at a crucial time with what it knew of the story, which kept Jones from being ruined.   And now, this crucial movie is heroic for being made (written and directed) by Scott Z. Burns and shown on Amazon right now.  Kudos to all, and, once again, our First Amendment.

Jose Antonio Vargas and Joy Reid at Powerhouse Arena

 I first heard about Jose Antonio Vargas in 2007 from my wife Tina.  She was editing Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia pages, and Jose had called her for an interview in a article he was writing for The Washington Post about the impact of Wikipedia on that Presidential election.  Those were early days in the advent of social media - or what I call New New Media (buying a book online is new media, creating a book online is new new media, or consumers becoming producers).  Twitter and YouTube were just a year old, and Wikipedia, though a little older, was not allowed as a reference in student papers in probably every class except mine at Fordham University.   But it was a new new medium par excellence - anyone who could read an article on Wikipedia could edit it - and Tina and Jose recognized its importance.

Tina and Jose kept in touch after that article was published in 2007.  We were delighted when Jose's team at The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize the following year for their reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre, and applauded his incredible bravery when, in 2011, he announced that he had been living here in the United States since age 12 as an undocumented immigrant.  Jose and I had met for the first time, a month earlier, in May 2011, when we both were guests on The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, talking about social media and politics.   Tina and I greeted him at a screening of his autobiographical documentary Documented at the Village East Cinema in Manhattan in 2014 and saw it again on CNN.  (Jose had asked Tina to look at part of it before the film was completed.)

We of course were in the front row last night when Jose was interviewed by Joy Reid at the Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn about his new book, Dear America.  First, the venue, with a Manhattan Bridge archway out the window as backdrop for the speakers, was perfect.  And Joy conducted a savvy and sensitive interview, not easy when you're better known than the subject of interview.  Jose told the story of his difficult and dangerous life, which is the story of his book, which I'll review here in the next few weeks, after I've read it.  It's the story of someone not only unwilling to accept the hand our idiotic and arbitrary immigration laws has dealt him, but unwilling to accept this for everyone else in the same or similar boat as he.   Not only does Jose refuse to live off the radar, he and his group Define American actively campaign in every way they can to take this discriminatory radar, inconsistent with the true spirit of America, totally offline.

From such an all-out warrior, we shouldn't be surprised to find unusual opinions.  Jose of course sees Trump as a threat to what is good in America, but musing about Presidents and their impact on immigrants, he cited George W. Bush as the President who was most congenial to immigrants, meaning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama not as much.  In other words, Democrats and Republicans have been more equal opportunity abusers of this crucial aspect of the American dream than we may have supposed.

Go see Jose talk wherever you can.  And get his book.  And look here soon for my review.

Ending the Electoral College

Yesterday as an extraordinary day, the likes I which I haven't seen since I rallied against the Vietnam War at the Pentagon in 1969, and my wife (then girlfriend) and I marched against that same immoral, unconstitutional war that same year in New York City.   Yesterday, my son and daughter and nephew marched in New York City against Trump and everything he espouses.  My daughter-in-law and mother-in-law marched against the new President and his polices in Washington, DC.  Another nephew was at a similar rally for decency in Barcelona.   My wife was taking care of our grandson, and I helped out a little with that, too.

The marches against Trump were also rallies against immorality.  But not against a violation of the Constitution.  Because, unlike the Vietnam War, which occurred without the Declaration of War mandated by our Constitution, Donald Trump was elected President in accordance with our Constitution.  He received more than the required majority of votes in the Electoral College.

We'll never be able to precisely identify all the factors that led to this miscarriage of democracy - miscarriage not only figuratively, but literally, since Trump lost the popular vote.   If I had to identify the single most important factor, I would certainly put James Comey's public statements about possible Hillary Clinton email on her assistant's computer, so close to the election, in stark violation of FBI precedent and policy, right up there as a grievously significant factor.  But it's obviously not the single most important factor.  Because that would have to be the Electoral College.

Because, look, even with Comey's statements, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million.  Which means that the only absolutely knowable reason Trump not Hillary is now President is  Electoral College.

Yeah, I know that Trump's campaign would have been deployed differently if winning depended on the popular vote.   But Trump only won because he won very narrowly in a lot of states.  How could those narrow margins possibly have added up to a victory for Trump in popular vote, however differently he might have campaigned?

And, this is not the first time in recent history the Electoral College has defeated democracy.  The Supreme Court wouldn't have been called on to make a decision in Bush v. Gore over the Florida vote in 2000 - and awarded the election to Bush - if there had been no Electoral College - because in that year, Gore won the national vote, and no one objected to the national vote count.

The rallies yesterday are aptly focused on winning elections in two years, and after.  That's the only way to stop Trump and Republicans who support him.   But that impressive power - correctly identified in the media as the most powerful demonstrations since the Vietnam War - needs to go further.   We need to once and for all retire the Electoral College.  We need to insist that a vote in California or New York counts exactly the same as a vote cast in Michigan or Wisconsin.

This doesn't guarantee that someone like Trump would not be elected again.  But it will mean that an occupant of the White House will never again be a product of an antiquated system designed to protect the nation from democracy, rather than directly express the will of the people, which is democracy itself.

Designated Survivor 1.2: Unflinching and Excellent

A powerful episode 1.2 of Designated Survivor with the past Wednesday, with jolting references to what's going on in our own reality off-screen, and President Kirkman even saying "dammit!" in Jack Bauer voice at one point.

But, look, I'm going to stop making snide references to 24, because, as great as that series was, Designated Survivor is its own show, and so far a very good one, deserving assessment in its own right.

Given the world in which we live, you don't have to look far to find something on our news which mirrors through cracked glass what we're seeing in Designated Survivor.  The train crash in Hoboken this week is apparently not the work of terrorism, but the mangled station and train brought forth all the feelings we still carry with us about 9/11.

Kirkman going down to site of the attack in Washington, the ruins of the Capitol building, taking the bullhorn, making like George W. Bush at Ground Zero after September 11, was very well done.  The whole backdrop of the destroyed Capitol is one of the most effective, haunting scenes I've ever seen on television.  It kicks you in the gut every time you see it.

The attack on innocent Muslims in Michigan, ordered by its Republican governor, also kicks you in the gut, and is obviously but convincing a reference to what could happen in our country if Donald Trump and his ilk get into power.   Kudos for Designated Survivor for not flinching away from this issue.

We still don't know who set the bombs, but the likelihood that an un-exploded bomb was deliberately left there to point investigators in the wrong - Islamic - direction continues to percolate, and supports the sense I had in the first episode that the perpetrators are domestic.  Designated Survivor is now much-watch television for me, and I'm looking forward to more next Wednesday.

See also Designated Survivor: Jack Bauer Back in the White House


  terrorist squirrels and bombs in NYC

#SFWApro

Obama in Afghanistan: Tragic History Repeating Itself

In the tradition of George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama has just committed 30,000 American troops to fight an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Afghanistan.

It is amazing and depressing to hear how similar the rhetoric of our current and past Presidents on this issue - the sending of more Americans to fight an undeclared war overseas. They all told us that we need these additional troops to hasten the time when all of our troops can come home, that we need to be in these foreign lands to preserve our own security at home.

But did Johnson and Nixon's actions in Vietnam hasten the return of Americans first sent to fight in Indochina by JFK? It wasn't until after Nixon had been forced to resign that we finally left South Vietnam, as North Vietnam overwhelmed a country that mostly did not want our defense.

There are differences between Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to be sure. Obama was right to point out that no one situated in Vietnam had ever attacked us, and the same is true of Iraq.

But Afghanistan is nonetheless a country that we have no business in occupying, whatever Obama or anyone may term the presence of our growing number of troops. Osama bin Laden's presence there nearly a decade ago justified a brief military action back in 2001 - an action which failed to get him then. But how does that justify a "war" - Obama's term - right now?

Presidents should not be allowed to send troops for any length of time to fight in any foreign country, without a Declaration of War by both houses of Congress (Senate and the House of Representatives), as required by our Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11), the Supreme Law of the Land.

Congress and the media failed to do their jobs with Johnson, Nixon, and both Bushes. I hope Congress and the media finally begin to do their jobs with Barack Obama now.

The Deeper Issue in Investigating Bush Administration Policy on Torture

I agree with Obama's decision to leave the door open for investigation, and prosecution, if warranted, of top Bush administration officials who sought to paint torture as legal. And it's not just because of torture as an issue. It's because our country needs, at long last, to confront an abuse of the law, at the highest levels, that goes much deeper.

The last war our country declared, as per our Constitution, was World War II. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (twice), whatever their justification, were and are thus not legal by our Constitution. Neither, for that matter, is the Afghan war. Since the 1950s, our government has been operating in contradiction of the supreme law of the land when it comes to going to war.

Since the 1930s, and the creation of the FCC, our government has been operating in contravention of the First Amendment to our Constitution, and its insistence that Congress make "no law" abridging freedom of speech or press.

There are many other examples, in many other areas. The Supreme Court has ratified some of these actions (such as the FCC, incorrectly, in my view), but has not ruled on others.

In that climate, the Bush administration was only making its own contribution to nearly a century of lawlessness by our own government.

If an investigation of Bush administration policy on torture gets Americans to pay more attention to our government's bending and breaking of the law, that would be a result of the most lasting import, and one which all political philosophies should welcome.

Throwing the Shoe at the First Amendment

It's hard not to burst out laughing when you see the first part of the journalist throwing two shoes at George Bush at a press conference in Baghdad today, but the second part has some horrible echoes of assassinations (see the video below), and the incident raises some serious questions about the First Amendment.

Muntadar al-Zeidi, the shoe-thrower, is an Al-Baghdadia television correspondent, according to AP as reported by Bloomberg News. Muntadar al-Zeidi was taken into custody, and Fox News reported this afternoon that Al-Baghdadia and other Iraqi journalists have called for his release, on grounds that his shoe-throwing is protected under the First Amendment.

To begin with, it serves little purpose to note, as Fox commentator Julie Banderas said to her colleague Gregg Jarrett, that Iraq has no First Amendment. That's true, but the far more important point is whether shoe-throwing constitutes a kind of speech or press, and therefore deserving of First Amendment protection, if Iraq did have a First Amendment, or if a similar incident happened here.

The answer, I would say, is clearly no. Throwing a shoe may indeed be a political statement, but it is also a form of assault, as Banderas did correctly observe. If the shoe is steel-tipped, it could do serious damage - like taking out an eye.

Here's a handy check list:

"This is the farewell kiss, you dog," al-Zeidi said when he threw the shoe. Protected under the First Amendment.

"This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," al-Zeidi said as he was being led away. Also protected under the First Amendment.

Throwing a shoe - or, in this case, two? I don't think so. Throw the book at him.

Make the Dream Come True

I learned a long time ago that the really big events in politics and elections and their consequences are unpredictable almost until the time they occur. I was a kid when JFK was elected, and supported him in the campaign, but I had no idea his Presidency would lead to the liberating revolutions of the 1960s, and a human being on the Moon by the end of the decade. I thought Reagan was a joke when he was governor of California, and thought he would lose to Carter, and even when he won, I didn't think his Presidency would have much impact. When Bush was first reported as winning Florida in 2000, I was aggravated to say the least, and when Gore was on top by the end of the night I was thrilled - I had no idea that the US Supreme Court would make Bush President in the end.

I first became aware of Barack Obama when I saw him speak, on television, at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston. My son, covering the convention and the speech for The Harvard Crimson, saw that speech in person. My whole family thought Obama was great. I don't think a single one of us thought he really had a chance at the White House in 2008.

I endorsed Obama in my blog last December. I later said I thought he'd win the popular vote by 10% and the Electoral College handily. I of course had no real knowledge - those predictions were an instinct, a hope, a dream of setting America and the world on a better course.

And now it all comes down to tomorrow. The polls say Obama is ahead. But the only poll that counts, as everyone knows, is what happens at the actual polls.

I'm pulling for a fulfillment of what couldn't have been predicted even five years ago.

We've had a lot bad surprises in the past decades. America and humanity are due to have a good one.

As Obama just said in his closing speech in Manassas, Virginia, broadcast on CSPAN: Fired Up! Ready to Go!

Getting Ready for Friday's Debate - Some Blasts from the Past

The AP has put together this video of some classic Presidential debate highlights ... JFK in 1960 looks a little more pasty than I recall, but still way stronger and confident in his position than shifty-eyed Nixon ... Reagan in 1980 is prime ... Lloyd Bentsen scores the knock-out punch of the century in his reply to Dan Quayle in the 1988 VP debates ("you're no Jack Kennedy"), but Quayle was still elected VP on Bush the father's ticket.

I have no idea why the AP put in Bush the son's unremarkable segment from his 2004 debate with John Kerry, or why they piped in the dinky music under these clips. But they're still a nice compilation of debate history.

Will Obama land any blows like Bentsen's ... will he look as good as JFK against Nixon ... I'm looking forward to Friday.

Obama Comes Back Tough and Eloquent Today on Bush/McCain

Barack Obama came out swinging today in a South Dakotan town hall meeting and subsequent press conference - tough, eloquent, intelligent response to Bush and McCain's slurs about Democratic "appeasement".

Among the highlights of what Obama said -

.The Bush administration, supported by McCain, is responsible for the strengthening of Iran - a consequence of the U.S. destruction of Iran's enemy, Iraq, and on the basis of weapons of mass destruction which were never found.

.American Presidents ranging from Kennedy to Nixon to Reagan were unafraid to sit down and talk with our enemies, because they understood that talk is not at all the same as appeasement.

.Hamas was strengthened by the Bush administration's pushing of elections in the Palestinian territories before those places were ready. And - it was McCain, not Obama, who called for talks with Hamas several years ago, before McCain adopted the Bush agenda.

.Obama also made a good, clarifying statement about the Second Amendment: he supports it, but also supports regulation of guns, which he sees as not in conflict with the Second Amendment. (I agree. Unlike the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law" restricting press and speech, the Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This means that regulation of guns is permissible under the Second Amendment, as long as that regulation does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. In contrast, the First Amendment permits "no law" regulating speech of press. Obama didn't say all of this, but his position on the Second Amendment is consistent with it.)

.Obama challenged McCain to debate him about foreign policy, any time.

Such a debate will go a long way towards insuring Obama's substantial victory in November. Some parts of the world may indeed not yet be ready for Jeffersonian democracy, as Obama said today. But the United States surely is. Indeed, the time has never been better for presentation of rational arguments to counter the propaganda that has washed over our nation for nearly eight years - presentation of reason in response to distortion and misrepresentation, in response to McCain and Bush, as Obama did today.

Chris Matthews Lambastes Bush Apologist for Bush Comparison of Obama to Nazi Appeasers

Chris Matthews was at his best on Hardball tonight, taking talk-show host Kevin James apart on his inability to say what Neville Chamberlain did wrong in his appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War II. The correct answer, of course, is that Chamberlain allowed Hitler to carve up Czechoslovakia - which emboldened rather than satisfied the Nazis, and led directly into World War II.

The wrong answer is that Chamberlain talked to Hitler. Talking wasn't the problem - giving away a piece of a sovereign country, in the hope that it could be bring peace, was the problem.

Matthews made all of that very clear.

It's especially helpful to keep that in mind, today, in the aftermath of Bush's comment in his address to the Israeli parliament, comparing Americans who want to talk to Iranian leaders to appeasers of the Nazis.

Barack Obama wasn't mentioned by name, but he was clearly the main target. Unsurprisingly, McCain issued a statement that agreed with Bush. (Click here for McCain's statement, and links to Obama's response.)

I've got to say that I never bought the idea that Bush's stumbling speech somehow was an unfortunate connection to a generous mind and soul. In contrast, Bush's words are carefully considered, and express a dangerous, almost paranoid mind. This was the mindset that got us into Iraq in search of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. It was the mindset that led Bush to even indirectly compare Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain before the Israeli parliament. And it's the mindset that McCain buys into.

But it's not the mindset of Barack Obama, who believes we can do better than saber-ratting, who wants to talk to our adversaries, as we keep America strong.

Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were quick to jump on Bush for his inapt analogy.

I'm heartened to see the media jumping on it, too.

The battle lines are being drawn.