Of all the things that the Bush Administration has done in my name, practicing and condoning torture is the most horrific. Everything we read about torture in history books, or see in movies for that matter, are all presented as sadistic and unjustifiable. Yet, our President talks about whether or not we want to abide by the Geneva Convention, and now is asking to 'clarify' the document when we've never needed a clarification in the 50+ years since it was adopted.

We all know torture is morally wrong. Who is anyone to determine when it's okay 'in certain circumstances'? Some people have pointed out that if we do that, then our enemies will do it too. I think that a better way to say that is that 'if we make exceptions, we are admitting that exceptions can be made -- and of course every military will make the exceptions that benefit them and criticize all other exceptions.' It's just too much of a slippery slope to start down.

This issue shows, if we didn't know it already, either the total stupidity or the total insincerity of the Bush Administration when it comes to justifying its actions. Bush's defense for using 'alternative' tactics as they euphemistically call them is that it's necessary for protecting the American people. This, despite the many people I've heard on NPR and Democracy Now! lately, saying that intelligence obtained through torture is not reliable.

Another problem with torture is that it is making more terrorists. The occupation of Iraq in general, along with reports of torture, simply makes more terrorists. The recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said that Iraq has become a 'cause celebre' for recruiting terrorists. And yet Bush says it is a mistake to think that the Iraq war had increased the terrorism threat, and that it's ridiculous to say we increase terrorism by killing terrorists. Why is that ridiculous? Why is it ridiculous when your country does reprehensible things that people will want to cause harm to it? It really scares me that our president is so dim (or dishonest) as to dismiss the idea that bad things we do can create increasing hate, and that hate in some people lead to violence. It's as if that they're so afraid to say that terrorism is justified, that they won't even admit there is any reason why people become terrorists. It seems like one would learn to distinguish these types of ideas at Harvard.

Rush Limbaugh described the torture pictures at Abu Ghraib as something "you'd see Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage.. and get an NEA grant for...." I've also posted a link to these quotes on heavysyrup.net. Of course our society is more likely to take something like a pyramid of naked guys lightly, like some kind of college hazing incident. But what about stoning to death a woman for adultery? That's no big deal for some people in the Arab world, I suppose, and yet we're horrified. Of course I'm not justifying that kind of draconian penalty. But the point is, that it shows how when we're talking about whether someone is 'humiliated' or 'degraded' by some act, that judgment has to come from the context of the VICTIM's culture, not the tormenter's culture.

Just another example of how incredibly fixated many neo-conservatives are on their own viewpoint as 'the right viewpoint.' Don't we usually call that fundamentalism?

So, a new study came out showing how Vermont could save money using a single-payer health care system.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060830/NEWS/608300366/1004/NEWS03

Why do we have to be the last industrialized nation to adopt such an obvious policy. We educate our people for free (at least through high school) because it's an investment. Look at our obesity rate, cancer, heart disease, diabetes. Preventive health care is an investment, and it's time we did something about it.

One candidate who's talking about this is Marvin Malek, Progressive for Lieutenant Governor. I'm working on his website. Check it out at http://www.marvinmalek.org

Does it shock or infuriate any of you when you hear Israeli folks being interviewed about Lebanese civilians being killed in the present bombings? When you hear things like "well we warned them to leave."

Can you imagine what would happen with a situation like that in the U.S.? Our bravado that we're so proud of? Our sense of persevering that we're so proud of?

Imagine a texas town being bombed, but warned in advance. Do you think a single American would say -- well yeah, but they were warned. Those texans, or hell those Vermonters, would say -- we're staying goddamnit. You can't kill our spirit with threats and bombs. At least some would say that. Others might appreciate the sentiment but just be unwilling to sacrifice their lives for that kind of idea.

But let's not pretend that it's some sort of fanatical middle-eastern personality trait to say 'fuck you' to power.

Does "We will not negotiate with terrorists" sound familiar, or similar, to anyone?

Subscribe to the Heavy Syrup podcast and let me know what you think! If you're a Vermont band, please submit your music to me at heavysyrup@verizon.net