TeresaCentric

As more details come out in DC, it appears abundantly clear that Dick Cheney authorized and encourage the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to get evidence for a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda that did not exist. Torture is only useful for gaining false confessions, and has never been used by any competent regime to gather intelligence. As I've been saying for years, Cheney, Bush, Rumself are criminals who belong in jail. This is a debate that will rage until they die or go to jail. Their defense is that torture works and it saved lives. It didn't, and that appears to be the argument on the "left" (apparently torture is now a partisan issue. Well done, GOP). But the debate that isn't going on is the one that should be. Is torture morally wrong, period, and what happens when torture DOES work? We're really in no danger right now of living under a fascist regime that tortures thousands of citizens willy nilly. Mainly because torture is ineffective and only used by incompetent psychopaths (see Dick Cheney). But in a few decades, maybe less, brain imaging will allow us to tell if a person is lying or not with near perfect accuracy. And when that happens torture WILL work. Really, REALLY, well. And if we don't start debating whether or not we should use torture for moral reasons, taking a stand against it on all grounds, and prosecuting the people responsible for using it (see Dick Cheney), then someday another administration is going to torture people. And it will be an incredibly effective way of extracting information from people. Potentially vital information. And when that happens be much, much harder then to end torture in America, let alone the rest of the world.

I have admitted before that I guiltily read Perez Hilton when I need to unwind from work, but all too often, the blog leaves a sour taste in my mouth that can only be alleviated by changing the channel to Feministing afterwards. This is because Perez's coverage of the already too-sexist world of entertainment is at times absolutely off-the-charts misogynistic. Like in this recent posting, in which he says of a 15 year-old British mother:

Whores should learn never to give false statements to the public, cuz the truth will always come out. ... Turns out the dad to the four month-old is 15-year-old Tyler Barker, who happens to live on the same estate as Chantelle. The teen says he slept with slutty Chantelle only once when he was 14 at her parent's home. He claims, “It was routine for boys to stay over in her bed. I only slept with her once.” Oh, and he also blames Chantelle, adding that after having unprotected sex she told him she would take the morning after pill. "I thought she'd take care of it," he added. That wench!

Wait, WHAT?!? So Chantelle gets all the responsibility for this situation? I'm sorry, Perez but it takes two to tango - or in this case, have unprotected sex. The boy who did the inseminating is just as responsible as the girl who did the conceiving. These two children chose to engage in an adult act without the judgment to take adult responsibility and the result is a very unfortunate baby. You don't see Hollywood gossip bloggers or tabloid magazines following around the two potential fathers of this baby trying to find out how many girls they've had sex with with and - judging by their awareness of how contraception works - impregnated. The double standard here is absolutely unfathomable! Gay men have often been unfairly portrayed as women-haters in the same way that lesbians are often called man-haters. Both stereotypes are categorically untrue, but Perez seems hell-bent on adding support for the former outdated idea. How can he simultaneously take on homophobic beauty queen Carrie Prejean and rain such misogynistic judgment down on a fifteen year-old girl? Why can't he see that the exact same set of warped gender values calls pregnant 15 year-old girls whores while ignoring the contributions of their partners AND sets gay and lesbian couples back in their civil rights movement? Gay rights is about more than two men or two women being able to marry under the law, it's about gender justice for men, women and everyone in between. And Perez, just because you don't like to sleep with women doesn't mean you don't have to treat us with respect.

Thomas Bartlett writes in Esquire:

...we are told that when "irrational" regimes reach for the Bomb, like Tehran's mullahs or Pyongyang's whacked-out Kims, we enter into a new, far more threatening era. And yet history remains clear on this subject: When nuclear monopolies are ended and existing rivalries are nuclearized, stability tends to break out — time and again.

Bartlett's argument is based on the idea that nuclear weapons will only ever belong to nation states with a logical interest in self-preservation. He fails to account for the very real possibility that an unstable nation state would intentionally or unwittingly grant illogical non-state actors access to nuclear weapons. Terrorists have no interest in preventing mutually assured destruction. They only wish to cause the maximum possible damage. Hat tip: Sullivan

Join Ted Johnson, Maegan Carberry and I as we discuss Outrage, the new movie that outs hypocritical gay politicians who persecute gays and lesbians, the President and Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondent's Dinner and the new Star Trek movie.

To hear the Tom Ford Agency's "Blogging Booker" tell it, there is no link between modeling and eating disorders. [Update 5.17.09: It appears as though the booker has now deleted her post of more than a year ago. Curious.] To prove her point, the booker shows two sets of photos. The first set is of severely emaciated anorexic women who look to be in imminent danger of dying. The second set is of shots of very, very thin but healthy looking women professional modeling campaigns. The main point of the article is that models are not anorexic, they're merely born tall and skinny:

The fact of the matter is 95% of models do NOT have eating disorders, (I hate to rain on your parade) they really are naturally built to be tall and thin. Remember that skinny, tall, flat-chest, big-eared, awkward girl in middle school that everyone called 'big bird'? Well, she grew up, had her ears pinned back, took some pictures and got signed to a major modeling agency working with some of the biggest names in fashion. And… she remembers you who called her "big bird," "tree girl," "giraffe," "bean pole," "pancake chest" and "Andrea the giant." She remembers you every time she takes the runway or walks onto the set of a photo shoot. She thinks of you only because it's her way of giving you "the finger." She has tall parents and has been that skinny, tall girl her entire life and for the record, she does not have an eating disorder. Agencies have European clients who only hire models that are able to fit into their European samples. These samples are generally a size 0, 2 or 4. These clients pay the bills for most agencies and therefore agencies sign models that fit the clothes and can book these high paying jobs. Agencies do not encourage eating disorders. Why? BECAUSE IT'S BAD FOR BUSINESS! It's VERY bad to have models under your management throwing up at client dinners because their bulimia doesn't allow them to keep their food down. It's VERY bad to have malnourished girls fainting during photo shoots because they have anorexia. It's HORRIFYING if a girl loses her life because of an eating disorder. It's VERY bad PR and it's bad to have girls look unhealthy is pictures.

I'll buy that most models do not have eating disorders, just incredibly specific body types and very strict diet and exercise regimes. But that particular look is unattainable for the vast majority of people, and this is an industry that by and large represents the tall skinny look as the only acceptable way to be beautiful. And that leads me to my absolute shock at the arguments this "blogging booker" makes. First of all - reality check: girls who are tall and skinny and gorgeous get made fun of in school for being tall and skinny? More than say, girls who are short and curvy? Really? I wish I'd gone to THAT high school! And what about the ears comment? Why should a tall skinny girl with sticky-outie ears feel the need to get her ears "pinned back?" Why is she not fine just the way she is? And models are only required to be skinny because European fashion houses happen to make sample clothes in really small sizes? If the European fashion houses started making samples in a size 16, then of course we'd immediately start seeing heavier women on the runways. It has absolutely nothing to do with ingrained cultural ideas about what kinds of bodies or types of beauty are expected or acceptable. Right? Oh yes, and best of all, when a woman "girl" loses her life to an eating disorder, it's horrifying because "it's VERY bad PR?" Seriously? The cluelessness here is absolutely appalling!

I know it's been a while since I've posted anything here except for Wilshire & Washington, and that's partly because, the longer I go without posting, the more I feel like something really big has to happen before I post again. Eventually, I realized that it's silly to wait for something really big to happen, and instead I should just post about something that makes me feel like blogging and leave it at that. And oh, how this clip from Saturday Night Live made me feel like blogging: On one level, I find this clip hilarious. On another, I'm a little offended. Star Trek never takes itself too seriously, but it's also a franchise that never insulted the intelligence of its audience. It never pandered and it has always - or at least for the most part - been respectful of the devotion of its fan base. This clip reminded me a bit of what Kate Mulgrew, the actress who played my all-time favorite Starfleet Captain said about former Trek actress Denise Crosby's movie Trekkies:

Denise Crosby hosted it. But it ended up being kind of an indictment of their love for the show, though, don't you think? Shame on her-biting the hand that fed her so gently...I am continually amazed and honored at the love I receive from Star Trek fans.

Chris Pine and Zach Quinto have yet to demonstrate whether or not they truly appreciate the fan base that put them in the enviable position of having a true box office hit. I think at the very least, their appearance on SNL to make fun of us was a little premature. They have to earn that right. Live long, and prosper.

Join Ted Johnson, Maegan Carberry and I as we interview NOW president Kim Gandy about the vacancy on the Supreme Court and NOW's call for a female nominee.

Yes, I know I'm late to the party. This post is just mostly in case my mom hasn't already seen Susan Boyle. But in case anyone else out there hasn't seen her, wow. Just watch the video. Absolutely incredible.

It's nice to nice that someone in the Mainstream Media agrees with me. And on Fox News no less. Thank you Shep Smith. Just in case anybody wonders what the treaty on the subject of torture signed by Reagan says:

Article 1. 1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2. 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

This treaty is legally binding. I'm not really sure how there is a question that prosecutions must be forthcoming. Yet, there does not seem to be nearly as much momentum in that direction as I expected. So I would appreciate some reader comments on this subject. Yes or no*, do you agree that 1) America engaged in torture. 2) Torture, in all forms, is morally wrong and illegal, regardless of circumstance. 3) Anyone responsible for committing acts of torture should be held legally accountable. This includes: a) CIA and military interrogators. b) Authors of the "torture memos" within the Justice Department. c) Bush and Cheney. Again, I would very much appreciate your comments, regardless of whether or not (or how much) you agree with me. Thank you. *If you have the time to also explain why you said yes or no that's awesome, but I understand that we're all very busy.

*Unless you count all the people that we tortured. In case you somehow have managed to convince yourself that the guy in the YouTube is not a liar up to this point:

The memos, released in redacted form to protect the identity of CIA interrogators, describe acts of torture in clinical detail, always associating these with a threadbare legal defense. Among the forms of torture endorsed by the memos are: *Walling. “The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall... During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel... to help prevent whiplash.” *Water dousing. “Cold water is poured on the detainee either from a container or from a hose without a nozzle... The maximum period of time that a detainee may be permitted to remain wet has been set at two-thirds the time at which, based on the extensive medical literature and experience, hypothermia could be expected to develop... For water temperature at 41 [degrees Fahrenheit] total duration of exposure may not exceed 20 minutes...” *Facial Slap. “The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation.” *Cramped Confinement. “The confined space is usually dark... For the larger confined space, the individual can stand up or sit down; the smaller space is large enough for the subject to sit down. Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours; for the smaller space... no more than two hours.” *Stress positions. “A variety of stress positions may be used... they are designed to produce physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue... In wall standing, it will be holding a position in which all of the individual’s body weight is placed on his finger tips.” *Nudity. “This technique is used to cause psychological discomfort, particularly if a detainee for cultural or other reasons, is especially modest.” *Sleep deprivation. “The primary method of sleep deprivation involves the use of shackling to keep the detainees awake. In this method, the detainee is standing and is handcuffed, and the handcuffs are attached by a length of chain to the ceiling... a detainee undergoing sleep deprivation is generally fed by hand by CIA personnel so that he need not be unshackled. If the detainee is clothed, he wears an adult diaper under his pants. Detainees subject to sleep deprivation who are also subject to nudity... will at times be nude and wearing a diaper. The maximum allowable duration is 180 hours...” *Use of insects. A memo authorizes agents to place an insect in the “cramped confinement box” of a prisoner who interrogators noticed had “a fear of insects.” *Waterboarding. “In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench...Water is then applied to a cloth [that] is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth... This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individuals’ blood [which] stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning... The procedure may then be repeated... [A] medical expert... will be present throughout...” Based on language in the memos, it is clear that they were the outcome of extensive discussions among the CIA, Justice Department, and likely high-ranking Bush administration officials. For example, the memos refer frequently to face-to-face meetings between Justice Department lawyers and CIA interrogators that had already taken place.

I've been saying for years now that Bush and Cheney must be tried for war crimes. This can never happen again. Torture is the first and most important step towards a totalitarian, 1984-style reality, in which good is bad, up is down, tyranny is freedom. Torture is morally reprehensible. It is also tactically and strategically counterproductive. But none of those things matter by comparison. A society in which torture is lawful and those who carry it out go unpunished is no longer a free society.