http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMUWuA-Rq4&feature=player_embedded

The facts

Obama released the Torture Memo and said that those who designed the rules for torture may face criminal charges.
It was reported most recently here, here, and here. Watch Obama talk about it here.

Counterarguments

His opponents (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Really) argue that:

1. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
2. Obama flipped-flopped on that decision in 24 hours.
3. Torture was supported by the congressional Democrats.
4. Torture was supported by the majority of Americans.
5. Torture produced the results and saved American lives.
6. It wasn’t torture.
7. It was perfectly legal.
8. Our enemies will use the Torture Memo as a recruiting and educational tool against America for years to come.
9. In the future, people will be afraid to give advice to the President because of the risk of criminal charges brought by the next administration.

My thoughts

1. So what if it is politically motivated? Why don’t we judge an argument on its face regardless of the motivation of the messengers? Very often the discussions of issues in the media and the blogosphere deteriorates into the pissing match on motivations of people making arguments. I’d rather listen to a true message by a bad person than to a false message by a good person.
2. I don’t care. For the topic we are discussing, it doesn’t matter.
3. Yes, and they are immune from the prosecution by our laws. They might have been wrong also, so what? If the torture is wrong, we shouldn’t prosecute the responsible officials because the people who are calling for prosecution supported the torture when it was enabled? If the torture is wrong, we should go ahead with the prosecution, regardless of how inconsistent the politicians are.
4. This is completely irrelevant. We are a republic, not a democrathy. If anything, it’s good to punish once in a while politicians who blindly follow the majority of population instead of following the law. Next time, it’ll help them to keep their heads cool when the mob insists on doing something illegal.
5. This is probably the main argument. Cheney wants Obama to release other memos proving that the torture saved lives. I don’t mind releasing all the relevant information, but the argument itself is bogus. Here’s the question to see this in the proper light: If by cutting the terrorist’s genitals, poking his eyes with a screwdriver, and breaking his knees with a hummer, we could save lives, should we do it?
   My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then we should have a completely different discussion on a completely different topic whether the end always justifies the means. And even if you are right and I am wrong, and the end does justifies the means at least on the question of torture, and if you win and I lose, than you should run the risk that I would be allowed to make my case in court against you.
6. I can hear the response to my previous point: It wasn’t a torture and it saved lives. If it wasn’t a torture then it’s ok and enough by itself even if it didn’t save a single life. If it was a torture, then it is bad even if it saved lives. So saving the life is irrelevant for our discussion.
   Now, maybe it wasn’t a torture. I think it was, and I have no doubt that from the common sense point of view it was a torture. It might have been a relatively soft kind of torture in the entire range of possible tortures developed by the people through centuries, but it is up there (cont.)
7. On the other hand, I understand that from the legal point of view, it might not be a torture. Based on the legal arguments of both sides, one thing is clear: it’s not absolutely accepted that it wasn’t a torture. So let this legal question be tested in courts where the defense and the prosecution are able to prepare and advance their best arguments. We’ll all benefit by getting better legal understanding on where the robust interrogation ends and the torture begins.
8. We can’t make our decisions based on what our enemies will say about it. It’s safe to assume that they’ll hate us regardless of what we do. I could make a point that releasing a memo like this shows American resolve in adherence to the Rule of Law to many potential terrorist recruits and may prevent them from participating in illegal activities against America, but it’s as irrelevant as the other argument.
9. I will be happy if the politicians are afraid to do something illegal regardless of how supportive for their ideas the current President or the Congress is. For example, I’ll be happy if the future administration will sue Obama’s administration for financially ruining the USA with extreme borrowing and taxing, and for the war in Afghanistan. I think it’s healthy to instill fear in the politicians for their actions. It’s healthy for the nation to know that when the politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and then act against it, their greatest risk is not just they may not be reelected. They might end up in prison.

This article was also published on OpEdNews.

2. “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. (Applause.)” The reason we are in trouble now is because taxes were decreased for all?

3. “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.” You don’t think it’s the government regulations that created the problem? People were offered a great deal by the government: buy a house with no down payment, no income verification, below the government artificial cost of money. If the price of the house goes up, you’ll make a lot of money. If down, you’ll get out. Or, as it turns out, be bailed out, or will get even better terms. Who was irresponsible except the government? Fixing the cost of money artificially low and insisting on banks lowering their standards of lending?

4. “It’s an agenda that begins with jobs. (Applause.) ” Former Soviet Union and Cuba and North Korea has full employment. What good does it do? If the people are not willing to voluntarily pay for the products of those jobs, why do we need them?

5. “I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardship.” How do you know that? Some economists who expect the governemnt handouts for their reasearch support that, some don’t. Is your famous judgment the only proof you can offer? It’s not acceptable when you take my money to do so. Use your own money if you are so convinced. And others who agree with you.

6. “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector — jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.” Suppose this hazy numbers are correct. Who are you to use the force to get other people money to start building wind turbines? If it’s such a good thing start you own company and make it success. Why do you experiment with our money? I noticed you are not talking about ethanol anymore. You were very enthusiastic about it just a year ago. What happened?

7. “I have told each of my Cabinet, as well as mayors and governors across the country, that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend.” “And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.”
Bloomberg News is suing you to get information to identify the recipients of about $2 trillion in emergency loans. Why do you hide this information?

8. “That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks — it’s about helping people. (Applause.) It’s not about helping banks; it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend. And if they can get a loan, too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business.” And maybe they won’t be able to pay their loan. What then?

9. “In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear — let me be absolutely clear, because I know you’ll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: If your family earns less than $250,000 a year — a quarter million dollars a year — you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: Not one single dime. (Applause.)” Do we have the right to get their money? Is it their money or ours? Or yours?

10. “And yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” “But we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade. (Applause.)” In about trillion dollar stimulus bill that you just signed before this pledge, can you identify the best three programs that you are proud of? That are not wasteful?

But do you know what Fret is? Have you heard about Deeksha?
Fret stands short for fluorescence energy transfer. It’s an application of nanotechnology developed by the scientists at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution a few years ago. It transfers the levels of crucial chemicals in living brain cells involved in everything from learning to memory to mood and perception to nanosensors. See here.

Deeksha is a transfer of spiritual energy to the brain. Sounds a bit non-scientific, but there may exist some supporting evidence. Judge for yourself. Check pdf here.

Publicani is based on the assumption that it is possible to transfer intellect from one person to another. This thriller looks into social problems that such transfer would create. How far-stretched this assumption is? With explosion of Fret research we may not be too far away scientifically.

But socially, we are already there. The government creates special programs and allocates resources to people who in the government’s opinion need it the most. Programs like “No child left behind” and affirmative actions help certain group of people to get better education. The programs are based on transfer of money from one group of people to another to make the recipients smarter. The donors, “the rich,” could have used their money themselves to improve their intellect. What if they pay the money to the best scientists to get private lessons in whatever they want? Unfair?

Obama famously said: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” What if he spreads your intellect around?

Two remarkable events happened during this presidential cycle that went underreported by big media but produced huge splashes on the internet. The first was the song sung by John McCain answering a question about the Middle East. The other was the whisper, probably coming from a hidden wire worn by Romney during a debate.

Yesterday, the Song “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” was officially endorsed by the Whisper “He raised taxes, I am not gonna.”

“This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour,” said Mitt the Whisper about John the Song. “Senator McCain understands the war we are in, the necessity of victory, and the consequences of surrender.”

I am not going to argue that we are not in a war, but in an occupation; not in a military but in a police action; that we have already killed so many people, destroyed so many buildings, and killed or otherwise replaced so many government officials of Iraq that it would satisfy the definition of victory for any of the bloodthirsty tyrants from across the entire world military history. These are not my points.

At the last debate, Ron Paul actually told Romney and McCain that there is no difference between them, and that they have no money to continue the war anyway.

Money? During the debates, Ron Paul was essentially making the argument that the income tax brings in about one trillion dollars, which is about the amount we waste in maintaining our empire not only in Iraq, but also in Korea, Japan, and dozens of other countries, so by pulling out we could easily abolish the income tax.

The Republican candidates still talk about smaller government and smaller taxes. Their stance is similar to the Democrats’ stance on the war: they talk about stopping it, somehow, but they do nothing. The Democrats’ stance on the income tax is also similar to the Republicans’ stance on the occupation: increase it.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee talked about actually abolishing the IRS. Paul has his record to back it up, though Huckabee does not, but at least he talks about it. The rest of the Republican Party just uses slogans to hypnotize the masses: “smaller government, less taxes” like the mantra “four legs good, two legs bad” from Animal Farm. I doubt that anybody seriously believes that any remaining presidential candidate will do anything to abolish income tax or to even reduce taxes.

The term “tax cut” itself has even been accepted in our society to mean a government action which results in some people getting their taxes reduced. Hello Maymin’s lemma: After any zero-sum redistribution, some people will end up with more money than they had at the beginning. In other words, the redistribution, the opposite of the tax cut, is nowadays called a tax cut.

I know, I know, nobody thinks that the income tax is that bad. Fifty percent of wage earners don’t pay any income tax. And the rest of the voters who are not wage earners don’t pay income tax by definition, so income tax payers are an insignificant minority. The greedy, the wealthy. Who cares about them or about the income tax?

I wrote a novel exploring how much the government can tax before the people object. You can read the book free online here.

You think I am overreacting? Just remember: when whispers join songs, they are soon followed by war marches, patriotic chants, and funeral hymns.

Editor’s note. I read and reviewed the book, here. rob kall