We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!!

In light of the current situation regarding the information recently revealed detailing America’s use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” against detained enemy combatants and terror suspects, as well as our discussion in class on the topic and the use of torture in war in general, I was particularly struck by two interviews I saw recently on this topic.

The first, interestingly enough, is an interview by Bill O’Reilly of Cato Institute legal analyst David Rittgers — a former Army Captain. In the interview, it is clear that O’Reilly has his own agenda. As we discussed in class, the key to winning an argument is to have control over what the questions are, and thus, as O’Reilly is conducting the interview, he seeks to prove his argument, namely, that he supports the use of torture under the circumstances it was conducted, by framing the “right” questions. Nevertheless, Rittgers, who opposed the use of torture in this situation, is able to firmly stand his ground on the issue, even pointing out the ridiculousness of the false dichotomy O’Reilly creates (comparing it to the show “24”).

The second video clip in saw is also quite notable and definitely worth watching. The clip is from an interview conducted by Shepard Smith, anchor of Fox News (which, interestingly enough, has been often accused of a right-wing bias) of Fox contributor Judith Miller (of CIA leak infamy) and Cliff May, President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, as Smith describes: “a conservative leaning think-tank.” In the interview, Smith also clearly has his own opinion on the matter, namely that torture should not be carried out by America, regardless of the circumstances, a stance Miller agrees with; while May struggles to defend his belief that these interrogation techniques fell short of the definition of torture and that even so, “saved American lives.”



This interview is full of phenomenal points. In my opinion, however, Cliff May’s arguments are entirely ungrounded. His first claim, that these “coercive techniques” fell short of torture I find completely false, especially in light of the recently revealed evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and the fact that waterboarding in classified as torture by practically the entire world, including every human right's organization, nearly all of our allies, and even the former Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Levin, who allowed himself to be waterboarded. As one commenter on the clip stated, waterboarding is not, and has never been, a method of obtaining information. It is a method of causing pain and suffering to an individual, either for revenge or sadistic purposes. May’s second argument that such techniques prevented another terrorist attack and saved American lives is also baseless, just as previously described by former army Captain David Rittgers in the previous clip.

However, what I believe is most notable about this exchange is Shepard Smith’s stance. I strongly agree with what he says": I doesn’t matter what the circumstances were, America should never torture, ever. I nearly exploded when I heard his reference to a “shining city on a hill.”

"They better not do it," he said. "If we are going to be Ronald Reagan's Shining City on the Hill, we don't get to torture. We don't do it."

And he’s right. The fact that we’re combating terrorists is not an excuse; as stated in the interview, Israel has outlawed waterboarding because it is defined as torture, and believe me, Israel has a much greater problem with terrorism than we do. On FoxNews.com's online show The Strategy Room Smith later reiterated his passionate opposition to torture. "We are America!" he shouted, slamming his hand on the table. "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not f**king torture!!" And I must say I whole-heartedly agree with him. Torture is a crime, and crime is conducted by criminals. If America chooses this path, it has no right to lead the free world.

Propaganda: It's All the Same

After exploring and discussion propaganda posters in class, I decided to look up some more. I looked at three sets of posters, a set from the United States during WWII, a set from the former Soviet Union, and a set from North Korea. In comparing these three sets, I noticed that while artistic style varied, they were all similar visually in that they all implemented solid bold colors, particularly red and black. The purpose for the posters in these three sets were also very varied, however, they were all similar in that they often equated fairly un-political and civilian duties and messages with drastic consequences or importance. Here are three such posters: one from each of the three sets.


“Beware of the wheels! - 1926
With a look that makes you think of the black plague rather than traffic safety, this poster was designed to inform people of the great dangers of a relatively new transportation method that was spreading in Soviet cities; the tram.”




“Prevention and more prevention. Let’s fully establish a veterinary system for the prevention of epidemics!”

I was also struck by the portrayal of the enemy in propaganda posters. While North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and the United States are very different and face very different enemies; the demonic, or at the very least, demeaning portrayal in their propaganda posters shows striking similarity. Here again are three posters, one from each set.




“Do not forget the US imperialist wolves!”


“You behave! - Unknown year
The stereotypical yankee capitalist is a common figure in propaganda posters. Here, he's trying to set fire to and bomb the Soviet Union, but a vigilant (and rather handsome) Soviet soldier is keeping watch. With the attitude of the soldier and the slogan, this poster gives a sense that the capitalists are nothing more than mischiveous little juveniles.”

A Music Industry Run By Musicians?

This past week, I read an article entitled: “Reznor Urges Musicians to Ditch Labels.” For anyone familiar with Trent Reznor, this may not come as a big surprise. Frontman for the band Nine Inch Nails, which split from their Interscope Records in 2007 and is now an independent band, Reznor in recent years has been a strong critic of the music industry and a supporter of P2P file-sharing. In the article, Reznor is quoted as saying the following about the recording industry:

Anyone who's an executive at a record label does not understand what the internet is, how it works, how people use it, how fans and consumers interact - no idea. I'm surprised they know how to use email. They have built a business around selling plastic discs, and nobody wants plastic discs any more. They're in such a state of denial it's impossible for them to understand what's happening.

One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything' - like I did. When we found out we'd been released (from their recording contract) it was like, 'Thank God!'. But 20 minutes later it was, 'Uh-oh, now what are we going to do?' It was incredibly liberating, and it was terrifying.

Indeed, Reznor is very accurate in his statements. The structure of today’s music industry creates a massive gap between the top and the bottom. Hundreds of thousands of artists struggle to make a profit while music executives of the big 4 (Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, and Warner) makes millions each year along with a small group of predominately mainstream artists. The music industries relationship with musicians reminds me of the relationship loan shark companies have with the poor. Taking advantage of the fact that most artists do not have the money or resources to record, produce, advertise, and distribute their first album, these massive companies are able to force artists to sign contracts in which they will get a very small cut of the profit, and oftentimes, even lose the rights to their own music. As Reznor states in the article, it should be the musicians that dictate how the music industry functions, as they are, after all, the ones making the music.

I was also particularly struck by one of the comments left by readers of this article that further highlight the fundamental flaws of today’s music industry:

I fail to see what the music industry really does for artists or consumers. Example: I just tried to buy the 'Cold War Kids' album online. I live in Ireland, so I can't buy from Napster or Amazon. I use Linux so iTunes is not an option - and anyway, installing bloatware so I can download an album is ridiculous. Comparison: I google a few well-chosen words and clicked three times - the album can be mind for free. Alternative: Go into the city and buy the CD. Extra (environmental & financial) cost of packaging, transportation, store markup... but: "Oh, sorry, we don't have that in stock". So tell me, what did the music industry do for the 'Cold War Kids'? Nothing. Last FM introduced me to their music. YouTube showed me their latest video. If the band had a sell-direct website and a PayPal account, I could have paid them directly, and they'd make some money. Actually, not just 'some' money, but almost the whole amount that I paid. As it is, they get nothing until I find a record store that stocks their CD, and even then, they just get a tiny cut. Fair? I think not.

Such descriptions leave me with the unsettling connection to the wall-street workers and CEO’s that, thanks to their greed and disconnect to the rest of society, have led to the current economical crisis.

Let Them Eat Crack!

“The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.”

One of the few quotes from the graffitist / street artist Banksy. Banksy, originally from Bristol, UK, has sprayed his art all across the world; from London, New Orleans, Sydney, San Francisco, and Bethlehem. Banksy has refrained from revealing his true identity and creates his artwork simply for its own sake, although some of his graffiti art has been removed, wall and all, and sold at auctions for hundreds of thousands. Just as his above quote would allude to, Banksy’s art addresses many fundamental issues in today’s society: poverty, war, capitalism, materialism and government.

One notable recent Banksy piece is the one pictured above, painted in New York City as a response to the current financial crisis. The statement “Let them eat crack” is a reference to the quote often (falsely) attributed to Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake”, her supposed arrogant response to the bread riots during the French Revolution era. Banksy paints a rat (a popular subject in his art) to represent a business executive. Banksy’s strong critique of the attitudes of business executives towards the suffering of the general public, especially the lower class, in this economical crisis reminded me of Michael Moore’s critique of GM executives in his documentary “Roger and Me.”

Here are a few more Banksy works that address issues pertaining to the economy and society: