Why I like Jenny Oropeza

So I really like Senator Jenny Oropeza of California's state senate. She's smart, she's a firecracker. She's been a vocal advocate in her district of Long Beach for the environment, transportation, health, and election reform. Most importantly, she's done some great things for Long Beach's school system. Personally, I'd consider her for Secretary of Education. Here's why:

Oropeza was a member of the Long Beach School Board from 1988 to 1994. Oropeza helped create the policies and programs that turned around the Long Beach School District. Today the district, which was awarded the 2003 Broad Prize for Urban Education, is nationally recognized as a model for reform and academic success. Oropeza led the effort to close the achievement gap and focus resources on underserved communities. She worked to create the highly regarded and innovative International School in her district, as a joint use project with the city.

From Wikipedia.

I find that very impressive and think she could be up to handle the job of reforming our national education system. I think she could really focus on improving urban schools and help put much needed focus on the issue. In addition, I figure if she can improve a district that was hurting that bad, she could perhaps bring that to the national stage. But, what do I know?

Also, check out this great clip. A little insight into why I call her a "firecracker".

Stupid Talk: The Race, Race, and Polls

Well, the Democratic primaries continue and quite frankly, I'm bored. I was frustrated, then I got mad and now, just bored. Barrack Obama will be our nominee, the math does not lie.

Currently, we are just waiting for that reality to sit in for some. The blog and pundit world seems to mainly consist of railing on Clinton or Clinton supporters fervently trying to perpetuate her arguments to stay in. Unfortunately, these same forums have also exploded into counter-productive talk of race. Talk of race can be a good thing in the right context. However, that hasn't been the case. Why? Race is not the only demographic that should be talked about. We are missing other important groups as well. We are forgetting about religion, age, class, and social background. All are part of the rich tapestry of America.

However, the talk this year is race and region. Namely, racial hotbeds. Racist Appalachia. The Black South. Labelling. Unfortunately it doesn't end there and many of these conversations degrade into flat out racism. All the talk seems to be about "poor, hardworking" white middle class voters, like they are the only ones that matter. (I do not want to give the illusion that I don't care or that they aren't hurting these days as well). Haven't we been catering to these voters since we started having general elections? Shouldn't there be other concerns this year? Like, maybe, say the people who actually are poor?

Of course all this talk of race is being fueled by polls. Polls that are taken and spun through regional demographics. The results are not pretty. The problem here is that we are all, and especially the pundit-class, oversimplifying and generalizing these polls and statistics. In the end we are left focusing almost completely on middle class whites. We are talking about one small segment of white voters and of course, the blacks are all lumped together. It creates an us vs. them mentality when you frame things that way. Why is there no discussion of middle class blacks or senior blacks or female blacks? Furthermore, looking at polls and people this way doesn't take into a account how truly diverse we are.

We are not discussing other important factors in the vote and how they interconnect or diverge. We are not looking at region in a full enough context. All we get is slices. Obama supposedly has a problem with middle class whites. But what about Kansas? Wisconsin? Iowa? North Dakota? To name a few. Religion is being ignored except in the most inflamatory ways possible. Age is a huge factor this year- yet nothing. Gender, largely ignored even with Clinton being in the race. Sexual preference- nada. There is some talk of class, but only in select groups (amongst whites). Hispanics are perhaps going to decide this election, yet all discussion of that demographic has died since Texas. Of course, there are no Latinos outside the Southwest! How silly of me.

To put it flatly- this narrowed discussion of the varied tapestry of America through the use of polls and demographics is divisive, polarizing, and demeaning to us all. They do not, cannot show how truly diverse we as a nation are, and they cannot fully capture how we as individuals come to our choices. Trends, perhaps. But trends change, and quickly, over time.

Ultimately my final point here is that polls are stupid and useless. No poll can truly factor in all the different types of people, their places in life, their very lives, their decisions. Thus polls prove nothing. Polls are not facts. So get a grip and don't believe the hype.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't see race. I see voters. Massive Democratic turnout this year. Period.

Discussion of polls at this point is stupid. We are not even in June yet. Furthermore, these polls will change dramatically when we have ONE nominee. These polls will continue to fluctuate until the fall and probably well into it. I refuse to keep arguing about polls and demographics. It is silly and it is divisive and needlessly polarizing. We are ostercizing the many to focus on the few. Basing a whole electability plan and path to the nomination on polls is just crazy.

So knock it off! Let's look to the future and start planning to win this thing. Time to put aside petty arugments and declare a winner. Maybe the silence will be deafening to some....

"...you saw a frame that presupposed white vs. black as the operative assumption. And, in the process, we simplified what was going on. In the earlier segment, someone mentioned -- I think it was David -- that Senator Obama is having trouble with moderate voters. Imagine a discussion last night that, instead of parsing based on racial lines, asked, what are the ideological divides? Or there is a division between younger and older. Or there is a division between male and female. There is actually also a division between rural and urban. And there's a difference that is really remarkable, when you start to put those patterns together, even in the absence of race. When the media focus on "the black vote," "the white vote," and then they start to particularize the white vote within that, they invite us to see race as a defining category of analysis. That simplifies, distorts, and heightens a concept that probably is best left not discussed in this broader, complex arena, because it's missing a whole lot of what's happening with this electorate."

-- Kathleen Hall Jamieson. She's brilliant. Love her.

"I would say that we are probably feeling a lot freer to talk about something that we're no better at talking about. And I think when you look at the -- such phrases as "soccer mom," "NASCAR dad," so many of the euphemisms that we have produced, to talk about people by race or class, we're still hiding behind something other than what we're actually saying. And, journalistically, I think our responsibility is not to reflect the society on those things, but to reflect the values of journalism, which suggests precision over euphemism, for example, and accuracy vs. obfuscation. And I think we have been guilty more of imprecision and obfuscation than we have of accuracy on this front. When you look at the conversation around those euphemisms, one of the consequences is that we have reduced people, in many ways, to those categories, and allowed the public, essentially, to draw what I would imagine will always be a race-based conclusion about the group we're talking about. So, when we talk about the white working-class voter who does not vote for Barack Obama, guess what conclusion the other folks in this country are going to make about those voters? Now, we're going to conclude that they are bigots. If -- when we talk about black voters without distinguishing between one and the other, then we have a bunch of sheep running behind the black candidate because they're black, and they're not thinking, and they have no sophistication whatsoever."

--Keith Woods

Both commenting from this segment on PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Check it out!

Update: Here is an example of what I would call a fair and detailed look at demographics and RESULTS, not polls. Here you get a better example of what role race, region, and religion are playing in the race. Where is the coverage on the tee-vee like this?

Torture in the U.S.: The Ongoing Narrative the Media is Ignoring

Hot off the wire today, apparently the CIA has over 7,ooo documents relating to our government run torture program. Of course, we ain't gonna see 'em. If we do I'm sure they'll include pages upon pages of blacked out paragraphs. Heck they didn't even want to admit they have them until now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080423/pl_usnw/cia_acknowledges_it_has_more_than7000_documents_relating_to_secret_detention_program__rendition__and_torture

Of course this speaks to the larger issue of the land of the free authorizing the use of torture on it's own citizens and the citizens of other countries. People who have been declared "enemy combatants" but many of whom have been found to have been erroneously captured.

How did we get here?

Here's is a great summary. Essentially this started with Bush's decision that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to "enemy combatants" and was followed by several memos sent to and from members at the highest levels of our government.

http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm (with links to the memos).


Gonzalez Memo (doesn't work in above link):

http://kbonline.typepad.com/random/files/gonzales_memo_on_gen_conv_january_25_2002_pt_1.pdf

A great summary from Talking Points Memo using sources from the Associated Press and ABC News:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/todays_must_read_315.php

There are some heroes in all of this horrible mess.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002819 (text below).

"Matthew Diaz served his country as a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. He watched a shameless assault on America's Constitution and commitment to the rule of law carried out by the Bush Administration. He watched the introduction of a system of cruel torture and abuse. He watched the shaming of the nation's uniformed services, with their proud traditions that formed the very basis of the standards of humanitarian law, now torn asunder through the lawless acts of the Executive. Matthew Diaz found himself in a precarious position—as a uniformed officer, he was bound to follow his command. As a licensed and qualified attorney, he was bound to uphold the law. And these things were indubitably at odds.

Diaz resolved to do something about it. He knew the Supreme Court twice ruled the Guantánamo regime, which he was under orders to uphold, was unlawful. In the Hamdan decision, the Court went a step further. In powerful and extraordinary words, Justice Kennedy reminded the Administration that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was binding upon them, and that a violation could constitute a criminal act. One senior member of the Bush legal team, informed of the decision over lunch, was reported to have turned "white as a sheet" and to have immediately excused himself. For the following months, Bush Administration lawyers entered into a frenzied discussion of how to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

One of the crimes the Administration committed was withholding from the Red Cross a list of the detainees at Guantánamo, effectively making them into secret detainees. Before the arrival of the Bush Administration, the United States had taken the axiomatic position that holding persons in secret detention for prolonged periods outside the rule of law (a practice known as "disappearing") was not merely unlawful, but in fact a rarefied "crime against humanity." Now the United States was engaged in the active practice of this crime.

The decision to withhold the information had been taken, in defiance of law, by senior political figures in the Bush Administration. Diaz was aware of it, and he knew it was unlawful. He printed out a copy of the names and sent them to a civil rights lawyer who had requested them in federal court proceedings.

Diaz was aware when he did this that he was violating regulations and that he could and would, if caught, be subjected to severe sanction. What he did was a violation of law, even as it was an effort to cure a more severe act of lawlessness by the Government. Diaz violated the law in precisely the same sense as Martin Luther King reminds us, in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, that his arrest was based on a violation of law. That everything the Nazis did in Germany was lawful. And that every act of the Hungarian freedom fighters was a crime. In terms of the moral law, however, Diaz was on the side of right, and the Bush Administration and the Pentagon had, by engaging in the conduct that the Supreme Court condemned, placed themselves on the side of lawlessness, corruption and dishonor.

Diaz was charged, tried and convicted for disclosing "secrets." For the Bush Administration, any information which would be politically embarrassing or harmful to it is routinely classified "secret." In this fashion the Administration believes it can use criminal sanctions against those who disclose information it believes will be politically damaging. The list of detainees at Guantánamo, which by law was required to be disclosed, was classified as "secret." Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this.

In the week in which Diaz received the Ridenhour Prize, another Pentagon "secret" was disclosed. This "secret" was a memorandum made to order for William J. Haynes II, Rumsfeld's General Counsel, and the man at the apex of the Pentagon's military justice system that tried, convicted and sentenced Diaz. The memo was authored by John Yoo. This memorandum was designed to authorize the introduction of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques to be used upon prisoners held at Guantánamo, and ultimately also used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The memorandum authorized waterboarding, long-time standing, hypothermia, the administration of psychotropic drugs and sleep deprivation in excess of two days in addition to a number of other techniques. Each of these techniques is long established as torture as a matter of American and international law. The application and implementation of these techniques was and is a crime.

The exact circumstances surrounding the dealings between Haynes and Yoo that led to the development of this memorandum are unclear. However, it is clear that Haynes had previously authorized the use of the torture techniques, and had secured an order from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld authorizing them.

Following the implementation of these techniques, more than 108 detainees died in detention. In a large number of these cases, the deaths have been ruled a homicide and connected to torture. These homicides were a foreseeable consequence of the advice that Haynes and Yoo gave. The introduction of torture techniques destroyed America's reputation around the world, dramatically eroded a system of alliances that generations of Americans fought and labored to sustain and build, and provided the basis for a dramatic recruitment campaign for terrorist groups who are the nation's principal adversaries in the war on terror. Yoo's and Haynes's conduct dramatically undercut the security and safety of every American. And equally, Yoo and Haynes demonstrated by their conduct contempt for the rule of law and the principles for which hundreds of thousands of Americans shed their blood in prior conflicts.

Yoo is currently a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, the author of a number of widely featured books, and a widely followed media figure whose works are routinely published in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. He remains a member of the bar in Pennsylvania and California.

Haynes recently left the position of General Counsel at the Department of Defense to become General Counsel–Corporate at Chevron Inc. He remains a member of the bar in North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

A system that punishes and shames Matthew Diaz, yet obstructs any investigation into the misconduct of John Yoo and Jim Haynes, and particularly their focal rule in the introduction of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, is corrupt. Indeed, it persecutes the innocent and rewards the guilty. A bar association that disbars Matthew Diaz and leaves Yoo and Haynes free to practice is fundamentally corrupt. In essence, this choice reflects a legal profession that puts upholding the will of the Executive, even when it commands the most egregious and unlawful conduct, over the Rule of Law. It reflects the abnegation of the bedrock principles of the profession and the principles of the American Constitution and the Revolution which gave rise to it.

Lieutenant Commander Diaz reminds us of the powerful words of Justice Brandeis:

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole of the people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law and invites every man to become a law unto itself. It breeds anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means would bring terrible retribution.

In a day when the legal profession is disgraced repeatedly by the performance of lawyers in the service of their government, Matthew Diaz is emerging as a hero to many, and as a symbol that for some lawyers devotion to truth, integrity and justice still matters. Indeed, that dedication and willingness to shoulder the burden it can bring, is and will likely be seen by future generations of Americans as the higher form of patriotism."

108 detainees killed! If that isn't torture, I don't know what is.

We are "disappearing" our own citizens and the citizens of other countries. Disturbing, reminds me of (from Wikipedia):

Operation Condor and Argentina's Dirty War

The phrase was infamously recognized by Argentinian de facto President, General Videla, who said in a press conference during the Military Government he commanded in Argentina: "They are neither dead nor alive, they disappeared".

It is thought that in Argentina between 1976 and 1983 up to 30,000 people (9,000 verified named cases according to the official report by the CONADEP)[7] were subject to forced disappearance under the military junta that was in power. From information collected from military officers involved in the so-called "Dirty War" it is known that many victims were sedated and dumped from airplanes into the Río de la Plata (today these are called vuelos de la muerte, death flights). Other people were held in torture and detention centres, the most notorious one being the Navy's Mechanics Training School (ESMA) in the Núñez district of Buenos Aires.

Detention centers that torture. Sounds like Guantanamo Bay. Do we as a nation really want ourselves to be compared to a military junta's torturing of their own citzens in a "dirty war". I am not alone in this comparison. Is the "war on terrorism" just another "dirty war" on this front?
What's next in the war on terrorism? Death flights? Oh, wait it's crushing children's testicles....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm

Also, please consider that even the Nazis did not believe in torturing high-value prisoners of war. I am not saying they didn't torture. Obviously, they did. The crimes the committed against the Jewish communities of Europe are inexcusable. However, they did not find torture to be an effective way of getting reliable information.

Take this, from Wikipedia:

Hanns-Joachim Gottlob Scharff (December 16, 1907 – September 10, 1992) was a German Luftwaffe interrogator during the Second World War. He has been called the "Master Interrogator" of the Luftwaffe and possibly all of Nazi Germany; he has also been praised for his contribution in shaping U.S. interrogation techniques after the war. Merely an Obergefreiter (the equivalent of a senior lance corporal), he was charged with interrogating every German-captured American fighter pilot during the war after his becoming an interrogation officer in 1943. He is highly praised for the success of his techniques, especially considering he never used physical means to obtain the required information. No evidence exists he even raised his voice in the presence of a prisoner of war (POW). Scharff's interrogation techniques were so effective that he was often called upon to assist other German interrogators in their questioning of bomber pilots and aircrews, including those crews and fighter pilots from countries other than the United States. Additionally, Scharff was charged with questioning V.I.P.s (Very Important Prisoners) that funneled through the interrogation center, namely senior officers and world-famous fighter aces.

And I can't help myself (from ThinkProgress):

FEB. 13, 2008: Today, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, containing a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that establishes one interrogation standard, requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and banning waterboarding. Just hours ago, the Senate voted in favor of the bill, 51-45.

Earlier today, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a former prisoner of war, has spoken strongly in favor of implementing the Army Field Manual standard. When confronted today with the decision of whether to stick with his conscience or cave to the right wing, McCain chose to ditch his principles and instead vote to preserve waterboarding: Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted "no" on Wednesday afternoon.

Naturally, the result:

Bush Vetoes Bill Banning Torture- March 8, 2008

However, the story does not end there. Anyone who is following this story knows that the Judiciary Committee wants to hear from John Yoo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/08/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4002602.shtml

Not that it is being covered by any major news outlets. In fact his article from CBS is the only mention I've found from a major news source. The liberal blogs are on top of the story however.

Oh, wait I found one article on this recent news from one major media outlet. One, this time ABC. John Yoo refused to testify to the House Judiciary Committee on torture.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/04/former-doj-offi.html

Of course, he was very willing to speak to several magazines and reporters for money.

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/qa/john-yoo-responds

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/yoo.html

Why the problem with going in front of our elected officials and testifying under oath?

Finally, it has also been revealed that top members of Bush's cabinet met in the White House to discuss torture on a case by case basis. The group included Vice President Dick Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-attorney general John Ashcroft. Nice, the leader's of the free world are meeting to discuss how they are going to torture prisoners in all it's disgusting details.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4622610&affil=wjla

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/10/BL2008041002069_pf.html

"Should we waterboard 'em, Condi?"

From ABC:

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns - shared by Powell - that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."

Conyers wants to speak to these cabinet members as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4010254.shtml

Two for CBS! Ya know I've always liked Olberman on MSNBC, but I think CBS may be my new major network news outlet. ABC sure isn't after that last miserable debate in Pennsylvania. Guess I'll have to warm up to Katie Couric (who a New Yorker friend tells me is actually quite personable).

Also, may I add that I heart John Conyers!

I digress. Now, most of the torturing seems to have been performed by the CIA, or in the very least authorized for CIA use in "special cases" that some would argue are not so "special" by the Pentagon, it also seems the FBI has been incapable of prosecuting, and perhaps investigating, this potential unconstitutional abuse of power by the CIA and Pentagon.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7126

I heart Wexler, also!

Opinion: Personally, it sounds to me like the Department of Justice is interfering and not allowing the FBI to continue with it's "protocols".

This would not surprise me, as the DOJ has been very tight lipped on, well, just about everything lately.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mukaseys_non_responsive_explanation_of_pre911_0418.html

This story is developing, more and more so every week. Yet one would hardly know it given our media's total lack of coverage on this major issue. I guess flag pins and mistatements by presidential nominees are more important.

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for finding us and spending a little portion of your day with us here at InDepth Left. Let me state that I am not a professional political blogger, whatever that may be. However, I decided to start this little political blog after my family and friends got sick of my political emails and said I should start a blog instead. Actually, they didn't get sick of them, they liked them. I'm too modest to admit that outright. In any case, here we are. The purpose of my emails was essentially to investigate an issue and explain how us left-leaning, liberal, progressives arrive at our decisions and opinions. Included in these analysis' will be links to news articles and my favorite, Wikipedia. Whenever, possible I will try to use facts and news articles the general populace would say are respectable. I will use citations and dates, whenever possible. I will try to use historical context. Finally, I will try to assert my opinion as little as possible, and if I do, only as a conclusion. I want people to make up there own mind. I do not want this blog to be considered propaganda, nor news. I do want it to explain the progressive viewpoint and perhaps, help sway a few people to that viewpoint after they have reviewed the facts and thought about them. In addition, I hope it will help progressives solidify there views and "talking points", help refresh their memory, and perhaps, just perhaps, provide some valuable insight into an issue, policy, or decision. Welcome to InDepth Left. Enjoy!