filed under "New Signs of the Impending Apocalypse."
Ok, I am officially scared. Don't read the following link if you are not willing to grow a few grey hairs, stock up on Power Bars, distilled water, and and draw up plans to build a bomb shelter.

www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

The Culture of "24"


I admit, I've never been a fan of the American TV show, "24." It always seemed implausible and rather ridiculous. I viewed it the same way I view shows about hospitals, after working in one for several years during grad school: not remotely in touch with any sort of reality of how a hospital really works, how doctors interact with patients, etc., etc.

So I read with great interest in the latest New Yorker (well, latest here in the hinterland) that a Dean from a U.S. military school and several FBI agents visited the "24" set to talk to the producer, director, and actors about the negative effect the show was having on soldiers, both in the field and in school. Apparently there have been 67 instances of torture in the show's total seasons, which is a giant benchmark, and most of these have been committed by the Americans, the "good guys," in a "ticking bomb" scenario. The scenes of torture have included stabbing, gouging, waterboarding, breaking limbs, and faking the death of a "terrorist's" child in order to make him talk, and the denial of pain medication to a "female terrorist" after she is shot.

The Dean and the FBI agents told the writers and the director during a meeting (the producer chose not to attend) that the show was creating a "culture of permissable torture" in the soliders who watched the show, and took cues from the show's ideology that "all is fair in war." The producer, who is a great friend and supporter of Rush Limbaugh, was not moved. Basically he said that it's a TV show: get real.

Ok, who should "get real" here? I'm thinking "24." The "ticking bomb" scenario is a red herring. It rarely happens. Very rarely. As the FBI pointed out to the writers, most cooperation with interrogators is gained from offers of small favors and reprieves, not breaking arms. In fact, as the agents pointed out to show's staff, torture often results in the subject not talking at all, or giving information that is wrong or information the interrogators already know. Normally, I would say "yeah, it's a TV show--I don't see the big deal." But when you have representatives from the military and the FBI pleading with "24's" executives to be more realistic, and that the show is contributing to captives' abuse, then it gives me pause. It's sad that individuals can't distinguish fantasy from reality, but unfortunately certain individuals cannot, and this manifests itself in either actual abuse or the opinion that torture/abuse is morally acceptable in the name of patriotism. It's not limited to the military. I've seen this attitude in students--thankfully a small minority. But of course, the students are not carrying weapons or being fired upon, so they don't feel personally threatened.

It's always the armchair warriors that are Mar's rah rah cheerleaders. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, the Producer of "24," although all were of age to be drafted during the Vietnam war, none of them went due to status, privilege and being enrolled in university. Those who have actually fought are not so keen to stoke the fire of senseless violence and warfare.

My grandmother always said that TV was bad for you. It seems in this case, it truly is.

The Forgotten War

I often read the blogs of soliders in Afghanistan, and agonize over how little people in the United States acknowledge, or even remember, this war. I know that the brass is worried about a spring offensive from the Taliban, who have regrouped in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and southern Afghanistan. The Canadians feel the pain acutely--they have lost a lot of soliders and have had many injured. I watch "Hockey Night in Canada," the grand old man of hockey shows on the CBC, and it seems like every week (the controversial intermission commentator) Don Cherry gives tribute to a wounded or killed Canadian soldier. Afghanistan is front page in Canada; I can find nary a whisper of it in American papers.

Wasn't this supposed to be our focus? To cut off the head of the 9/11 serpent in Afghanistan? To rebuild a country devastated by the Soviet and tribal wars? Much of it the CIA contributed to by arming the mujahideen with Stinger missles--many that we didn't get back and were turned on us--because anything was essentially permittable in our efforts to thwart the Soviet Union. "Blowback" at its finest.

Now, it seems like an afterthought, even for NATO. This is disheartening--for the soliders in Afghanistan, and the country's struggle to rebuild.

The Ides of February

Somehow I lost a post, and I'm not happy about it. . .it disappeared on me. Hmmmm

My state is going down in flames. We have a 800 million dollar deficit, and all industries and citizens are going to feel the pain. It is the 1970s redux. Then, we had a recession, and in my state, 14.5 percent unemployment, which is very high in the United States. In the 1970s, we were bogged down in another unwinnable war, our economy tanked, and people fled south as though there was an outbreak of plague. I did too. I went to Texas. I remember seeing a bumpersticker in Ft. Worth that read "The last one out of Michigan please turn off the lights." (The auto industry was collapsing, yet again.) It seemed like every Northern Midwestern youth had moved to the Southwest. I see the same thing happening now. It is ridiculous that we spend 2 billion a week to fight a war that is incredibly unpopular here and abroad, and our grade schools are closing because of a lack of funds. In my state, the citizens are adamantly against imposing new state taxes. I feel like I'm living Groundhog Day--"deja vu all over again." (Bring back KC and the Sunshine Band and platform shoes) You can't have it all. You can't fight a war, fix roads, fund schools, and provide services if your citizenry will not pony-up the money. But if your citizenry is stratified into the rich and the moderately poor, you are left with the mess we have presently. The rich feel that they have earned their money and shouldn't have to support the poor, and the moderately poor, which used to be the middle-class, cannot afford to pay more taxes. So schools close, services are curtailed, and yet, 2 billion, 2 billion, 2 billion a week is marching overseas. One half of a week of funding for the war in Iraq would erase my state's deficit (some of it caused by "Homeland Security" spending that was not reinbursed by the federal government, and most of it due to outsourcing to other countries: we have lost around 85,000 jobs this year alone). Argh.

I was horrifed to read on "Where Date Palms Grow" that United States visas cannot be obtained, without basically pledging one's first born, for those who helped the U.S., and/or that are threatened by the insurgents/militias. More Iraqis (mostly the intelligentsia) are going to Canada, the U.K., Jordan and other countries other than the States. That makes a hell of a lot of sense, doesn't it? We basically dismantle Iraq and then say, "Sorry, you have to remain here and become a walking target--our regrets, but we can't help you." Is any of the 2 billion a week helping these souls? Forget about it. An example: Paul Bremer testified before congress that he gave out 9 billion in cash (how could you even physically do this?), but he can't account for any of it. That's many countries' yearly GDP, and he can't "account for it." My god, no wonder no one wants to pay more taxes.