Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Believing In Wet Works

by digby

Scott Horton discusses the available scientific evidence showing that torture doesn’t work and then notes this new information:

Now another important contribution to the scientific literature has appeared. Irish neurobiologist Shane O’Mara of Trinity College Dublin, writing in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, takes a special look at the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques:

the use of such techniques appears motivated by a folk psychology that is demonstrably incorrect. Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or ‘enhanced’ interrogation.

Newsweek’s Sharon Begley summarizes O’Mara’s analysis:

So let’s break this down anatomically. Fact One: To recall information stored in the brain, you must activate a number of areas, especially the prefrontal cortex (site of intentionality) and hippocampus (the door to long-term memory storage). Fact Two: Stress such as that caused by torture releases the hormone cortisol, which can impair cognitive function, including that of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Studies in which soldiers were subjected to stress in the form of food and sleep deprivation have found that it impaired their ability to recall personal memories and information, as this 2006 study reported. “Studies of extreme stress with Special Forces Soldiers have found that recall of previously-learned information was impaired after stress occurred,” notes O’Mara. “Water-boarding in particular is an extreme stressor and has the potential to elicit widespread stress-induced changes in the brain.” Stress also releases catecholamines such as noradrenaline, which can enlarge the amygdale (structures involved in the processing of fear), also impairing memory and the ability to distinguish a true memory from a false or implanted one. Brain imaging of torture victims, as in this study, suggest why: torture triggers abnormal patterns of activation in the frontal and temporal lobes, impairing memory. Rather than a question triggering a (relatively) simple pattern of brain activation that leads to the stored memory of information that can answer the question, the question stimulates memories almost chaotically, without regard to their truthfulness. These neurochemical effects set the stage for two serious pitfalls of interrogation under torture, argues O’Mara. The first is that “information presented by the captor to elicit responses during interrogation may inadvertently become part of the suspect’s memory, especially since suspects are under extreme stress and are required to tell and retell the same events which may have happened over a period of years.” As a result, information produced by the suspect may parrot or embellish suggestions from the interrogators rather than revealing something both truthful and unknown to the interrogators. Second, cortisol-induced damage to the prefrontal cortex can cause confabulation, or false memories. Because a person being tortured loses the ability to distinguish between true and false memories, as a 2008 study showed, further pain and stress does not cause him to tell the truth, but to retreat further into a fog where he cannot tell true from false.

If science wasn’t a proven communist conspiracy, that might be convincing. As it is we will have to rely on the renowned neurobiological experts Dick Cheney and John Yoo, who tell us otherwise.

Actually, I think “folk psychology” is the best way to describe the “feeling” people have about the efficacy of torture. They just “know” that people will tell the truth if they are given enough pain. We all probably believe deep down that we’d spill our guts if enough torture were applied, so naturally others would too. It’s truthiness about truth. But it’s one of those things like … well, aerodynamics. You just have to believe the engineers and pilots and the evidence before you that your plane won’t fall out of the sky even though it “feels” like it absolutely should. One hopes that the new interrogation team the Obama administration has gathered will listen to the science and jettison these methods from the interrogation arsenal once and for all.

I wish they’d consult some ethicists as well, however. We wouldn’t have to have these discussions in the first place if the moral compass of the American political and military establishment wasn’t so damaged that this country can’t tell the difference between right and wrong — or legal and illegal. There are many things that might “work” that are nonetheless taboo. Why this one is now controversial is less a matter of rejecting the science than accepting the clear and obvious moral depravity of those who would order such things be done to other human beings.

.

Dumb Choice

by tristero

Who sez Diet Pepsi ain’t health food? Well, Mark Bittman sez it ain’t, but whadda’s he know, he is simply one of the most widely read and respected food experts in the country. But if you pick up a bottle of the repulsive swill Pepsi has absolutely no shame to attach its name to, you’ll find a Smart Choice label on it, courtesy of a group of Well-Respected Nutritionists.

Nutritionists, my aspic. “Smart Choice” is as likely to get you to eat well as Bernie Madoff’s “investment business” would get you a comfortable retirement nest-egg.

But fair is fair. Compared to deep-fried butter:

Scoops of pure butter the size of golf balls are frozen and covered with dough and dropped into the deep fryer. Bite into a ball and melted butter pours out.

…well, then I suppose that, yes, Diet Pepsi and Froot Loops – another Food Choice product -really is good for you.

There are times I think we live in a very strange country. After all, this is a country in which feeding your addiction to nicotine is being marketed as freedom of choice:

Tiffany Ellis works for the company E-Cigarettes National. She says research from the UK and New Zealand proves the products are safe. And she says companies like hers are getting a bad rap.

TIFFANY ELLIS: A lot of people seem to think that — that we’re just in this to make money, and we’re not. Making money is not as important as the ideology of what you’re trying to support and that is freedom of choice.

But then I remember that there are still a few Mark Bittman’s around, and I breathe (and eat) a lot easier.

Oh, and check out Mark on Nightline here (look under Thursday for “Food Label Fight”). Bittman’s great, but notice how the oh so typical on the one hand/on the other hand nonsense of the reporting works to promote the status of one of the fools who, to be charitable, has deluded himself into thinking Smart Choice isn’t merely a cynical marketing scam.

Feds

by digby

It’s a good thing that none of this violent anti-government rhetoric is dangerous in any way. But that doesn’t change the fact that census workers are the enemies of freedom:

The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. A law enforcement official says the word “fed” was scrawled on his chest.

The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.

Investigators have said little about the case. A law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, tells The Associated Press the word “fed” was written on the dead man’s chest.

FBI spokesman David Beyer said the bureau is helping state police determine if Sparkman’s death was the result of foul play, and if so, whether it was related to his census work.

Obviously, it’s possible that this man’s killer had something against him other than his profession. Perhaps he was an informant or something. Maybe it’s a cover up or something else entirely. I’m sure we’ll soon find out.

But if he was killed for being a federal census worker, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that “Feds” have been targeted. And we all know that the census is an ACORN plot and the Van Jones commies in the government are trying to destroy the American way of life. Michelle Bachman told us so. You can’t expect Real Americans to just sit back and let that happen.

Update: Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi is “living in another world” when she worries about violent rhetoric.

Update II: Updated AP story here. It says the FBI is investigating whether this is an anti-government crime. I have no idea if they have evidence other than what we know.

.

Twisting The Knife

by dday

Digby noted that A Man Called Petraeus was ramping up his 2012 strategy. It continued today:

WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) – The head of the U.S. Central Command, Army General David Petraeus, said on Wednesday that both he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen had endorsed an assessment by the top commander in Afghanistan that says more troops would be needed.

“Obviously I endorsed, the chairman endorsed… Gen. (Stanley) McChrystal’s assessment and description,” Petraeus said at a counterinsurgency conference in Washington.

It’s a little more complicated than that. Spencer Ackerman was there.

Question time. Trainor reminds everyone not to ask about Afghanistan. Did Petraeus’ strategy review ahead of the Obama administration include a resource request? Twenty counterinsurgents per thousand civilians was the recommendation in the counterinsurgency field manual, Petraeus says. “Concentrate your efforts in the areas where the insurgency is… most threatening the population.” He references Bruce Riedel’s strategy review for the Obama administration on Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, and shows a slide of insurgent activity focusing on the Afghan south and east to demonstrate where counterinsurgency efforts ought to focus.

Unprompted, Petraeus defends Obama’s review of Afghanistan strategy. “We said we expected some form of assessment that we thought would take place in the fall,” he said, and muses on the Afghan election. There have been “events like election that looks like it may not produce a government with greater legitimacy in the eyes of the people.” He praises Gen. McChrystal’s “superb” counterinsurgency guidance and his “highlight[ing] of the need to change the culture” by such things as obeying Afghan traffic laws. As for the resources McChrystal will request, Petraeus says, “the resource options piece will be in in a few days as well.”

It looks like Petraeus is content to let Obama walk into his own problem here. He asserts an endorsement of the McChrystal strategy, but is solicitous of the President’s review process. Of course, with each passing day the Pentagon and the neocons can team up to bang on the “indecisive” President (Mitt Romney’s already calling him Hamlet), so Petraeus can just sit on the sidelines, offer a hint of approval for escalation, expect everyone in the media to run with that and slowly constrict the President’s options.

Petraeus is a better politician than anyone the Republicans have, at least from where I’m sitting.

.

My Name Is Glenn And I’m A Paranoid Weirdo

by digby

Adele Stan at Alternet writes about the bizarre Glenn Beck interview with Katie Couric. As she says, “the paranoia is palpable.”

But this part is really amazing:

GLENN BECK: I used to be a real social liberal but that’s only because — I don’t mean to offend anybody here, well, what the heck, I will anyway –I was an alcoholic, and I’m a recovering alcoholic, and I think I was more of a liberal not for any thought process other than I just wanted to keep my options on the table, you know what I mean? Just keep everything out there, so, hey, that’s cool; I’m cool with that. [PUTS BOTH THUMBS UP]

When I sobered up I started looking at all the things that I believed in and decided to take everything out and only put the things back in me that I knew to be true — not because somebody told me, not because of a political party, not because of my upbringing, but because I really thought it. And I would put it back in and then I would look at all the other things that I found were true, and then I would match them. If one of them didn’t fit with the other, then one of them had to be wrong.

KATIE COURIC: I’m trying to understand the liberal-alcoholism analogy.

BECK: See — it’s liberals — they don’t understand that. I think they’re all — no.

COURIC: No, explain it, because some people might be scratching their heads and saying, ah, huh?

BECK: Socially liberal — being able to keep absolutely everything on the table. Being able to say, well, there’s nothing wrong with that, and it doesn’t hurt society here, it doesn’t hurt society there — I think is a, I think is an easy way to live your life.

COURIC: So you think people who are socially liberal are making excuses for bad behavior? Is that what you’re saying.

BECK: I think some do — not all

Hookay.

You can see the whole trainwreck at the link.

.

Fair And Balanced

by digby

It’s Groundhog Day:

Conservative bloggers and commentators know how to turn up the heat on mainstream media. Glenn Beck did it one day last week on his Fox News program. Theatrically unhinged, he directed viewers to call their local newspaper and demand coverage of ACORN, the national community action group targeted in an embarrassing hidden video sting.

“Right now, get off the couch. While I’m talking, you pick up the phone. You call the newspaper,” he commanded. If ACORN hasn’t been on the front page, or if the paper isn’t investigating the group’s local activities, “then what the hell are they good for?”

Shortly, The Post and other papers were flooded with angry calls and e-mails.

It’s tempting to dismiss such gimmicks. Fox News, joined by right-leaning talk radio and bloggers, often hypes stories to apocalyptic proportions while casting competitors as too liberal or too lazy to report the truth.

But they’re also occasionally pumping legitimate stories. I thought that was the case with ACORN and, before it, the Fox-fueled controversy that led to the resignation of White House environmental adviser Van Jones.

Jones had issued two public apologies before The Post finally wrote about him. One was for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech before joining the administration. The other was for signing a 2004 petition that said members of the Bush administration may have “allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war.” Conservatives had attacked Jones for more than a week before the first Post story appeared Sept. 5. He resigned the next day.

With ACORN, The Post wrote about it two days after the first of several explosive hidden-camera videos were aired showing the group’s employees giving tax advice to young conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp. Three days passed before The Post ran a short Associated Press story about the Senate halting Housing and Urban Development grants to ACORN, which operates in 110 cities. But by that time, the Census Bureau had severed ties with ACORN. State and city investigations had been launched. It wasn’t until late in the week that The Post weighed in with two solid pieces.

Why the tardiness?

One explanation may be that traditional news outlets like The Post simply don’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints.

It “can’t be discounted,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. “Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up by non-ideological media because there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms.”

“They just don’t see the resonance of these issues. They don’t hear about them as fast [and] they’re not naturally watching as much,” he added.

Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worries “that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It’s particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view.”

To guard against it, he said, “I challenge our reporters and editors with great frequency to look at what is going on across the political spectrum . . . at the extremes, among the rabble-rousers, as well as among policymakers.” He said he pressed the National desk this week to provide more ACORN coverage.

I’ll be waiting with bated breath for their in depth coverage of what’s happening among the left wing rabble-rousers who, the last I heard from the Washington Post, were rude, profane miscreants for even suggesting that the paper wasn’t adequately covering the myriad Republican scandals. (“It’s particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view.” Does anyone recall such concerns during the long era of Republican dominance?)

Back during the presidential campaign I predicted that the right was going to manufacture some scandal about Obama and I thought it would probably have something to do with corruption in Chicago. I was off on that prediction, but I think I see the contours of the scandal machine emerging now in a slightly different way. Indeed, it’s much more consciously racial than I would have predicted, but it’s even more than that. The subliminal racist association with Obama is just part of it — ACORN, Van Jones and the impending attacks on SEIU are all attacks on institutions and individuals which politically organize the poor and minorities and encourage their involvement in the electoral process. It’s clever and quite politically useful for the right to target those whom they can’t expect to win over and demobilize some of the most effective ground operations and grassroots leadership of the Democratic Party. They’ve always been about the vote suppression. And they always think ahead.

The methods of dissemination are the same as they ever were. They push the “scandal” through the right wing noise machine, work the refs hard (which isn’t hard to do because the villagers are convinced that the right wing represents “Real America”) and they create the illusion that something “doesn’t pass the smell test.” Here, we see that the wingnuts have convinced the Washington Post that “something is wrong,” that the “Van Jones story” was a huge deal which they failed to cover and that they need to be more vigilant about ferreting out these important issues. At the same time the villagers are busily convincing themselves that the fact that all these players are black is coincidental and irrelevant because none of them have a racist bone in their bodies and yet they “feel” there must be something to all this. In fact, I think they are probably in the process of convincing themselves that only by relentlessly covering these scandals can they prove just how colorblind they really are.

Unfortunately, the left won’t be able to counter this by writing as many emails or complaining more vociferously since such tactics only reinforce the Village’s apparent fear that the liberals have taken over, thus motivating them to be even more vigilant in presenting the “opposing view.” I’m not sure what to do about this, but I’m not sure one has to. After all, it’s not like this is anything new. The last ombudsman also lamented the alleged lack of proper deference to conservative points of view in their straight reporting:

Neither the hard-core right nor left will ever be satisfied by Post coverage — and that’s as it should be. But it’s true that The Post, as well as much of the national news media, has written more stories and more favorable stories about Barack Obama than John McCain. Editors have their reasons for this, but conservatives are right that they often don’t see their views reflected enough in the news pages. . . .

The Post’s latest circulation losses were less than many large papers suffered, and business executives say the advertising downturn has more to do with the economy than with political coverage. That said, the imbalance still needs to be corrected

If papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times (which also believes it needs to give conservatives special attention) really believe that their precarious financial future is served by following the Glenn Beck agenda, then we won’t have to worry about them much longer anyway.

Update: From Andrew Sullivan an observation to which the Washington Post should probably pay attention:

A reader recently made a very interesting reference. He said he believed that the GOP was morphing into the American equivalent of the Parti Quebecois. It is essentially a regional party now – representing the South in the national discourse. And its rhetoric seems divorced from any desire to actually hold responsible public office. So Republicans, like the Quebecers, tend to use politics as a means for disruption or protest or threat or veto.

It’s also worth remembering that the huge amount of noise on the far right is actually quite narrowly based. Here’s a fact from the Time profile of Beck:

In 1987 comedian David Brenner bombed in syndication with about 2.5 million viewers at midnight — which is roughly what Fox, the leading network for political talk shows, averages in prime time.

There is certainly a very angry far right base out there. But it would be foolish to over-estimate it.

h/t to bb

Update II: Oh Geez. Rick Perlstein has a great discussion of this at Columbia Journalism Review. Just read it.

Rick Perlstein: I read what Brauchli said, and what he was paraphrased as saying, and it almost suggests to me that Matt Drudge is becoming his assignment editor. I mean, why would a newspaper like the Post be training its investigative focus on ACORN now? Whether you think well or ill of ACORN, they’re a very marginal group in the grand scheme of things—and about as tied to the White House as the PTA.

The real story is that millions of Americans don’t consider a liberal president legitimate, and they’re moving from that axiom to try to delegitimize the president in the eyes of the majority. And one of the ways they do that is, frankly, by baiting the hook for mainstream media decision-makers who are terrified at the accusation of liberal bias. It really looks like Brauchli is falling for that

.

Update III: Jamison Foser is also on the case, with this piece today and an earlier one responding directly to Alexander’s original column. Apparently “ideological diversity” means the entire spectrum from Krauthamer to Hiatt.

.

Conrad’s Sneak Attack

by dday

Kent Conrad wants things his way. He’s turning out to be as devious as anyone in the Senate. Brian Beutler reports on his effort to get the health care bill outside the window for reconciliation, which is the clear intent of this stalling tactic:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) indicated today that there may be major delays in the health care process going forward. During today’s health care hearing, he told CBO chief Doug Elmendorf today that the Senate Finance Committee must be provided with a complete CBO score of the final package before the panel can hold a vote on it.

“With respect to the issue of when scoring might be available, because…it is critically important that we have scoring before a final vote is cast in the committee,” Conrad said, “it is important for us to know, once there is a package, after the amendment process here, can you give us some rough estimate, in days to have a CBO score.”

How long will that scoring take?

Elmendorf estimated that the full reporting could take two weeks:

“I think we can update our preliminary analysis…within a few days of the package actually being set. A formal cost estimate would require…two weeks of work by us, once the package is settled.”

Conrad ultimately suggested that the committee could hold its vote on the basis of the preliminary analysis, but that two week window would presumably still apply to progress beyond the committee’s vote. It would, after all, take a similar amount of time to complete a final cost estimate of the package that ultimately comes to the Senate floor.

Kate Pickert has more on this, though she curiously removes Conrad’s name from it. He does appear to be the prime mover. He never agreed with the option of reconciliation, and if he can push the bill past October 15, a sort of deadline for that process, he can assure that all the legislation would have to move through a 60-vote process. Since nobody is suggesting that a public option has 60 votes in the Senate, it would essentially doom that measure, and boost Conrad’s preferred co-op option, which would give millions in seed money to Blue Cross of North Dakota, which has 90% of the state market, because they could conceivably as a non-profit pass for a co-op.

It’s not that Conrad really cares about the score of every item in the health care bill – after all, when the CBO produces a score he doesn’t like, he’s happy to ignore it.

When the Star Tribune asked Conrad if he agreed with CBO director Doug Elmendorf’s conclusion that, “They seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country,” Conrad answered:

I do not agree with the Mr. Elmendorf’s assessment on co-ops. Based on the advice of leading actuaries, we are providing enough federal seed money for these co-ops to insure 12 million Americans.

If Conrad doesn’t care what the CBO assigns to his own preferred policies, why should it matter to get a complete score before voting the bill out of committee?

Conrad laid it on thick yesterday, trying to use the experience of countries like France, Germany and Japan – which do things like guarantee a baseline level of coverage for all citizens and ban insurance companies from making a profit – as proof that no government-run program is needed. But of course, Conrad’s conception of health care reform bears no resemblance to those systems at all, and a public option offering baseline care at an affordable price actually does.

Harry Reid’s still out there talking about reconciliation if 60 votes cannot be attained. Is it worse if he doesn’t know that Conrad is pulling out the rug from him, or if he knows?

…Olympia Snowe supports this delay as well. Amazing that the two Senators with lots at stake in their own non-public option alternatives would want to delay the bill past the reconciliation window! Ezra notes that this kind of delay would be unprecedented in the history of the Finance Committee.

…This amendment was defeated. Blanche Lincoln voted with the minority, but Conrad didn’t. He would rather bottle up the bill after it leaves the committee. Maybe that will satisfy his needs.

.

Empathy

by digby

This completely turned my thinking around on the health care issue. As a good liberal, I can’t help but be moved by the stories of average insurance company CEOs being destroyed by a cruel system that refuses to protect them:

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

.

Novel Experiment

by digby

TNR apparently assigned one of it’s “young people” to profile the blogosphere’s favorite congressman Alan Grayson with appropriate youthful snark and attitude. But it doesn’t actually come off as badly as she may have hoped (even with the utterly predictable and tiresome use of silly online handles as a punchline.) But there are some fairly dumb passages, like this one:

His brief tenure in Congress is a novel experiment. Other members of Congress have shared the liberal blogosphere’s ideological predispositions. But Grayson is the first member to bring the blogosphere’s in-your-face style to Capitol Hill. It has made for one of the more, well, interesting clashes of cultures in recent congressional history. The blogosphere is the medium of the outsider–the self-consciously rambunctious truth-teller holding the dissembling establishment to account. That’s the very essence of Alan Grayson, the way he tells it

Actually that’s one of the fondest American political archetypes there is — the ousider, frontiersman coming to to the capital to truth tell and hold the effete elites accountable. I’m pretty sure it goes all the way back to thevery beginning. In fact, we’ve had quite few presidents run for office on that very image.

That’s not to say that Grayson isn’t the authentic article — he is. But he’s not some creation of the blogosphere. We just happen to appreciate him for what he is.

Grayson is a bigger than life fellow, in more ways than one, and he’s perfectly sincere in his passion on the issues. And he’s making a difference:

He has relished providing tongue-lashings to the likes of Timothy Geithner or Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit. His grilling of Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman was watched more than one million times on YouTube. And, to his credit, his argument has taken hold–a Federal Reserve audit bill, once relegated to the margins of the Ron Paul fanatics, now has about 100 Democratic co-sponsors in the House. According to Politico, Barney Frank is now working with the sponsors of the bill to achieve more openness in the Fed. It‘s a development that pretty clearly wouldn‘t have happened without Grayson.

The blogosphere’s embarrassing support for Grayson aside, that sounds like a pretty effective freshman congressman to me.

He’s doing something very interesting on the ACORN business that you should read about and help out with if you can. No money, just a little time required. He’ll also be appearing on Crooks and Liars to talk about Afghanistan, another issue on which he is showing strong leadership, on Thursday, so get your questions ready.

.

Wild Thing

by digby

This may be the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen:

.