Jack & Honey

Just a simple phrase...

2011-12-24T02:47:00.000-05:00

To all a Merry Christmas.

...

In a nutshell...

2011-05-09T10:57:00.001-04:00

.
Shadow, shadow on the wall...

Yesterday was Mother's Day - to my mother, in Portugal, it has always been on December 8, now it's any given first Sunday of May and they call it "mothers day" - emphasis on the plural - we had a saying in Portugal that went "Mom there's only one!" but apparently not anymore - and a week ago a SEAL team killed Osama Bin Laden but none of this makes us forget the crisis; here, as in Portugal, the long and slow but relentless march towards social-corporatism goes on. Bye-bye socialism, bye-bye capitalism... I must admit that transforming with a single stroke all of the middle class - liberal or conservative - into ideological orphans is brilliant but anyway... Moving on.
The hummingbirds are back, the ground is ready for one more tomato plantation, the trees regain their spring splendor, the cat is accepting well the old lady dog that will stay with us for a while, the "boat" glides smoothly with a new set of Michelin and, finally, the Sun is shinning and it's hot out - yes because, this year, the snow shovels and salt buckets only returned to the basement in mid April.
In a nutshell, life goes on... As does the fight.
.

It's raining again...

2011-05-08T19:23:00.004-04:00

...

Moonwalker, rest in peace.

2009-06-25T20:59:00.003-04:00

michael

No words right now. Later.

michael

Neda is her name.

2009-06-22T16:33:00.019-04:00

neda

Neda Agha-Soltan (Persian: ندا آقا سلطان - Nedā Āġā-Soltān; born 1982, died June 20, 2009)

The images of Neda's murder are still on my mind. I believe they always will be. Like the image of Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12 years old boy shot with his father during the 2000 intifada in Gaza. Unlike the tank man image taken by Jeff Widener in Tiananmen square in 1989, Neda and Mohammed's images show the death of completely innocent people, that were killed just because they were there. They were not standing in front of a tank. They were just on the street, the day they died.

Neda Agha-Soltan was not throwing rocks at the Basiji or shouting against the Ayatollahs' regime; she wasn't even near a group of protesters doing those things. She was a woman walking on the street, coming from or going to a demonstration against the government that oppresses her people, a right granted to citizens by the Iranian constitution. Yet, she was singled out and shot in cold blood as she was walking peacefully, in what is a clear sign of the true nature of the Iranian regime: fascism.

She was a woman in Iran. A woman that like so many others in so many different ways aspired for change. She, like so many other women in Iran, was given new hope by the movement on the streets of Tehran, Esfahan, Tabriz, Kerman, spreading like fire through dry grassland. This makes her death a much greater symbol for those seeking freedom, for true freedom means human dignity and you can't have human dignity when basic human rights are being suppressed. She became a martyr in a greater cause, much greater than other causes that feed from martyrdom. She died not on the barricades, not on the front lines of this struggle, but peacefully walking the street; she died because she dared not being free but dream of freedom.

The fascist beasts that murdered Neda, like all fascist beasts everywhere, have not learnt that dreams are impossible to kill. But they try. They try with all their might and all their means. They shall not succeed. And yet, even as I write these words, outside of Iran the fear of this spreading fire grows. The role of Twitter, YouTube and Facebook in the Iranian revolt is downplayed more and more; the control freaks in power try to adjust, to understand how this is possible and how to manipulate and block the truth in this new age of information; the opinion makers desperately gasp in a world where opinion is no longer exclusive and at long last the word came to triumph over the sword; the false prophets of democracy shout and spout their bile without shame to try and stop this debacle looking as if they cherish the very things they despise; now they shed fake tears for Neda, when the world knows how many innocents like her they killed before. To free them, of course. Shameless.

I truly hope, like many many others, that Neda's death, and the deaths of hundreds of other Iranians, was not in vain. I truly hope the people of Iran can at long last win their freedom and embrace true democracy, parting ways with religion as a society and entering the modern world, keeping their true faith an individual right. I truly hope the rest of us finally learn how to respect them and help them achieve these goals, and at last stop thinking how this change can be made profitable and serve interests other than those of the Iranian people. In a world in turmoil, the revolting Iranians are heroes. Lets us always remember Neda, but let us never forget those left fighting for what she hoped for and will never have. And above all, let us make sure they will have it. For themselves.

Inch'Allah.

My thanks to Navid Aghabakhshi for helping me with the correct Farsi spelling of Neda shown in the image above. Khayli mamnoon.

[simulpost001/09: here in portuguese (in A Sombra)]
neda

Hope.

2009-06-20T09:15:00.004-04:00

line

[simulpost003/09: here (in A Sombra)]

Poem for the rooftops of Tehran.

Bliss of another kind...

2009-06-16T12:34:00.019-04:00

Today I had (yet another) nice surprise from my wife. (*)
I was immerse in the real-time Twitter hash feed #iranelection when I noticed a direct message from here - DMs are a private message system between twitters that follow each other. It only contained a link and the exclamation "Taaaa Daaaa!".

Following the link I found a new blog she authors! I still have a smile stamped on my face. Here's the link to it and, of course, Histerycal Roots is now on J&H's Blogosphere watch.
Welcome to the blogosphere, my darling.
May the hysterical roots grow and prosper!

Tori Amos . Bliss . Best Of Tori Amos

* The image is a sketch from my 2007 Moleskine diary. Easy to figure out who it is.
[simulpost002/09: here in portuguese (in A Sombra)]

Power to the Twitter.

2009-06-15T12:01:00.020-04:00

Yes, I know I am spoiled, coming from an European country where world news are a fundamental and significant part of every day news cycle, on television, radio and newspapers. Even so, I always relied on the Internet sources to complement information and always paid close attention to what the blogosphere and other social networks were saying about it. Now that I live in the United States, what I already knew became certain: there is extremely little information on every day world news and very poor coverage of on going international events. The latest DC gossip or political pseudo-scandal takes on whole news cycles, leaving little room for anything else. And on weekends, just forget it - endless repetitions of old reports and prerecorded programs, hardly any space for live news. Well guess what happened this weekend...

The world had it's eyes on the Iranian elections and was expecting a dramatic turn of events; Ahmadinejad faced some real competition from Mousavi and the turnout was fantastic. Then, two hours after over 40 million votes were cast, came the official announcement that Ahmadinejad won with more than 60% of the votes. Knowing the votes were on paper and had to be manually counted, this alone indicated something had gone terribly wrong. Pretty soon, Iranians took to the street, shouting "Fraud!" in indignation. The blogosphere exploded and accessing information from Tehran became more and more difficult; phones, electricity and web servers were being shut down. The main television networks with dedicated news channels in the States, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, were in weekend automatic pilot and kept on happily transmitting old news or prerecorded shows. At the height of tension, as police searched door to door for satellite dishes and students were trapped inside their campus, Larry King was interviewing a biker on CNN (prerecorded, of course). Without the Internet, knowing about the events taking place in Iran would be impossible. The reporters from all networks in Iran were (and still are) having a very hard time doing their job and very little was known about what was happening... Then, the Iranian people took upon themselves to let the world know what was going on. With all conventional channels severed or censored by the Iranian government, one new communication platform proved efficient in dodging the communications black out, resisting still countless attempts to shut it down. Twitter.

Iranians with a Twitter account, which they have already used to organize the electoral campaign, started pouring out information, organizing threads and collective accounts and telling the world in real time what they were going through. The rest of us picked it up very fast and the information flow in the main threads, or Trending Topics, was huge. Of course the sources are many and many are unreliable and even compromised, but for people used to parsing web flows it's relatively easy to figure out who's real and who's not.
Threads like #iranelection became the main source of news from Tehran and from all over the world, with real time updates on what was happening on the ground and what was being confirmed by reliable sources; from the student in a Tehran rooftop to the latest Al Arabiya breaking news we were watching history unfold before our eyes like never before and, what is more important, we were participating in it actively, by posting our own findings or relaying (retwitting - RT) important information or adding a personal note, a message or a comment.

Here is a sample of what's on Twitter as I write this post:

@persiankiwi confirmed - there is shooting in Azadi sq. protesters wounded and shot, no numbers yet, still hearing gunfire. #Iranelection
MarjonRostami: Thanks to everyone updating #IranElection. You are making a difference. Time to focus on work. I'll update as I get calls from Iran.
iran09 RT @PouyanA: CONF! there is #shooting in #Azadi sq. protesters wounded and shot, no numbers yet, still hearing gunfire. #Iranelection
jimsciuttoABC #iranelection sev reports of pro-govt militia firing on protesters, AP photog reports one protester dead
dailydish More Video Of The Crowds: CNN gets some video, finally. But then you hear a simple statement from the anchor tha.. http://tinyurl.com/l6tvrw
RuiSemblano RT @LaraABCNews: Iranian State TV reports gun shots at Mousavi rally; AP photog sees govt militia fire at protesters #Iranelection

Last tweet (twitter post) was mine... Government militia shooting protesters in Azadi Square, Tehran. One of the tweets this weekend reflected a sentiment that's been around for a long time, that should an American journalist be killed in Tehran we would have 24 hours news coverage. This is a cynical world. Today we have our eyes set on Iran, but for how long? Well, lets make the most of it while it lasts and make sure the Iranians get the support they need - not sending tanks and bombs, but sending word that they are not alone and letting their voices be heard.
Mousavi is no Obama, that's for sure. His past shows clearly what he stands for as far as foreign relations are concerned, but his views on what should change in Iranian society would make a great difference and, perhaps, be a decisive step towards a better life for Iranians and a more honest approach to the world at large. Iran will change at his own pace and from within, just as Iraq would have. If we'd let it. The only way democracy comes to be in a country is through the will and sacrifice of it's people. Maybe the "democracy export" apologizers should learn this fact today, only I don't believe they will for the simple reason they are quite aware of what they are defending and why - and it is surely not the exportation of democracy. Like the nice looking country club that is nothing more than a brothel, the front must remain intact for public relations purposes so the real business can go on inside.

What I came to realize this weekend, is that there is hope for those who love freedom and fear the ever growing control of society by interest groups and governments alike, especially communication and information control. There is always a way to let the truth be known and in today's world a tool emerged that shows how inevitable that is, even through the thickest darkness. So lets Twitter on and get it out there.

[simulpost001/09: here in portuguese (in A Sombra)]

post(erior) note:
The power of twitters:

[quote]

Monday, June 15, 2009

Down Time Rescheduled

A critical network upgrade must be performed to ensure continued operation of Twitter. In coordination with Twitter, our network host had planned this upgrade for tonight. However, our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran. Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran).

Our partners are taking a huge risk not just for Twitter but also the other services they support worldwide—we commend them for being flexible in what is essentially an inflexible situation. We chose NTT America Enterprise Hosting Services early last year specifically because of their impeccable history of reliability and global perspective. Today's decision and actions continue to prove why NTT America is such a powerful partner for Twitter.
posted by @Biz at 4:17 PM

[unquote]

from Twitter

Health and Wealth - capital mistake?

2009-06-12T12:17:00.006-04:00

Capital (letter)
an upper-case letter in a writing system.
Capital (financial)
any form of wealth capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.
Health
a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being
and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
Wealth
an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources.

Health Care reform is a dear subject to me. Each day I am confronted with it's effects and I realise the intricacies that compose it and it's many facets. Unfortunately, my wife's medical bills often reach 5 digits. Coming from Europe, where not only Health Care but Health Care rights are, for now, granted as social benefits, backed by private insurance when so desired, I landed in a very strange place. A place where people without health insurance are driven out of hospitals and left to their own fortune in the middle of the street. Literally. A place where being sick is not just a health condition, it is a social stigma. Of course I had knowledge of this sad reality in the United States, but having knowledge of it from 4000 miles away is one thing, being in the eye of the storm is another. To me, Health Care is one of the cornerstones of a civilized society and one of it's fundamental indicators. The more advanced the society, the more quality Health Care it provides. In Europe, still very far from a real Union in the sense of Federation, the quality of Health Care is variable from country to country, but within the EU the common perception is Health is a common good and should therefore be every one's responsibility. As there is no quantifiable value attributed to human life, Health Care is not viewed as a profit driven activity. So far. There have been - and still are - attempts to privatize Health Care in several EU countries (namely in Portugal, my country), but they are invariably met with understandable concern and rejection from the people. In fact, even when the public Health Care system is not working at it's best it still provides millions of people the help they would never get otherwise. Otherwise, of course, being Wealth Care.

Health Care, from the business point of view, is a disaster. On the pure entrepreneurial side, no one in their right mind would expect to profit largely from an activity that can be so costly and unpredictable. On the pure moral side, no one with a basic set of moral values would seek profit as the ultimate goal of providing health assistance to other human beings. These are the core values, then come the nuances. Is Health insurance a bad deal? No. Should Health Care professionals work for free? No. Like in many other aspects of life, one must have the freedom and the right to obtain better conditions even when it comes to basic common needs. It is accepted that we all have the need to have a roof over our heads, but the fact that some of us can afford a million dollar roof does not mean everyone should. However, everyone should have basic fundamental housing, and that is an aim for civilized societies. It is one of the aspects of what is known as the fight against poverty. Basic global Health Care is much more complex than global housing, and more expensive, but it is a goal much easily achieved for the simple reason that we all need basic houses to live in but not all of us need the same basic Health Care. The basic expensive Health Care that we all should have access to will never be used by everyone for the simple fact that we are not all unhealthy. If you couple this reality with another indisputable one, that global Health Care equals global preventive medicine, then the number of people that will ever need serious and expensive basic Health Care drops dramatically. And here is the catch: so do costs. Catch, you wonder? Well, it's a very big catch if you have a Wealth Care system. You see, reducing costs by diminishing the number of payers/clients is a very bad thing if you have a profit based system. Very bad. One would think that healthier clients would bring much profit to health insurance companies, the only problem is healthy people don't really need health insurance - not the expensive kind that is so common today in the United States, anyway. A general costs breakdown in Health Care would also steal away the health insurance companies excuse for the outrageous premiums they charge. So even if health insurance can survive and has indeed a market within a public Health Care system the profit margins would be substantially smaller, as in billions of dollars smaller. Why would a company, any company, wish for a system in which it's activity profit is reduced so significantly? None would and none does. The word "health" in health insurance is not misplaced but it is seriously mistaken for something it is not: a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being. The main concern of a profitable enterprise is how to make profit while providing the best possible service, that is why Health Care can never achieve significant return since the better the service, the less profit and this does mean what you are thinking. The ideal Health Care system - the one we will never achieve but must live trying to - is the one that pays for itself, which simply means it's cost would be neutralized by it's revenue, the definition of non-profitable. Do you know any businessman in his right mind that would aim for such a thing? That is a Social aim. It's a society's aspiration, not a business goal.

Health Care should not be a business. It concerns us all and affects us all, no matter how healthy or wealthy we are. Saying any different is excusing the fact that wealth, not health, is really what we are talking about.

D-Day

2009-06-06T08:32:00.020-04:00

Normandy, June 6, 1944.

"If we do not succeed in our mission to close the seas to the Allies, or in the first 48 hours, to throw them back, their invasion will be successful ...
In the absence of strategic reserves and due to the total inadequacy of our navy and of our air force we will have lost the war."

Fieldmarshal Erwin Rommel

Operation Overlord was the turning point of War World II. Nazi Germany could have sustained the Eastern front losses due to the immense territory Soviets had to cover to get to Berlin. The outcome of the war in the East was not as clear as it seems today, and one can only imagine the cost of even another year of war beyond May 8, 1945 (VE Day). Stalin knew this very well and pressed the Western Allies to invade Europe as soon as November 1943, when he met with Roosevelt and Churchill in Tehran (yes, in Iran). By the end of the war, Germany had lost 4,300,000 men in the Eastern front, but the Soviet losses were 10,600,000 men. To put things in perspective, the combined American and British losses in WWII were 668,300 men in ALL theatres. Yet it was on the beaches of Normandy that the tide of war was changed. On that day alone, 2499 American and 1915 men from other Allied nations died, a total of 4414 dead, according to the US National D-Day Memorial Foundation (much higher than the traditional figure of 2500 dead).

Today we argue over wars of necessity and wars of choice. On June 6, 1944, there was no such argument. War was fought to preserve freedom, and the price was very high. One can debate the strategies of those days, how effective and necessary were they and how many of those strategies translate to war crimes. Such debate is today highlighted by the wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, how they came to be and it's cost...
The young men that landed in Normandy and lost their lives, 65 years ago today, died for freedom. I owe them my freedom today, as an European, as much as my parents did then. Can we say the same about the young men and women dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? During Operation Overlord, an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. We owe them too, for their sacrifice. How many Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians were killed so far in war operations and what was the purpose of those operations? Based on the lowest credible estimates, over 700,000. The purpose of the operations responsible for their deaths is ultimately this: to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and it's Western allies. Such is the legacy of the "War on Terror".

A soldier is not a policy maker. A soldier's service, however, reflects the policies of the country he or she serves. We can be certain that the vast majority of the German soldiers in Nazi Germany were fighting for their country just as their enemies, yet their service will forever be tainted by the policies it served. It is a tragedy that so many Germans died for such distorted values and horrifying policies, defined by the Nazi ideology and government, and an even greater tragedy that so many people were killed because of it. Such is the nature of war, and such is the fate of soldiers. Can we imagine the feelings of the grandsons and granddaughters of the German soldiers that died in World War II? What do they owe them? What did they die for?

American and European soldiers are at war as allies once more. They are fighting at their governments bidding to protect their countries once more. Yet, there is much discomfort about the reasons that lead to these wars and about their objectives. The complexity of today's threats makes us question not only the way these wars are being fought but their need as well. World War II was the last conflict, if not the only one, from which the United States gained immense gratitude and respect. The sacrifice of the more than 400,000 American soldiers killed in World War II gave millions of people all over the world a future free from tyranny. This is not open to discussion. It is a fact. We know what we owe them and what they died for. And today we honor them, and all those who with them fought and died for the same purpose.
May we never forget the cost of freedom and may the fallen in the beaches of Normandy remind us the meaning of sacrifice and service. To fall for less is a tragic waste and, at best, a sad mistake.

(...)
Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.
(...)
The National Security Strategy of the United States - New York Times, 20 September 2002

Time Travel

2009-06-04T13:20:00.009-04:00

Today, President Obama made an historic speech at the University of Cairo. The first African American to be elected President of the United States would be enough to guarantee such claim, but it was much more than this; it was above all the audience's reaction to his words, even knowing full well they are a mere description of intent without any concrete steps mentioned. Intent, however, is very important. Telling people where you stand on issues to be discussed in the future gives them an idea of how to approach those issues and how they might expect the United States to approach them in concrete terms. Words of intent are the basis of diplomacy. Obama lived in Indonesia and has Muslims in his family so he knows Islam much better than any President before him, I dare say. That insight makes him special in the Middle East context, one that requires knowledge of the parties involved like perhaps no other. Israel and the Jewish people have a long and comprehensive connection to the United States and their plight is well understood, as is the background that supports it. It is time for the Muslim world to know that the plight of the Palestinians will be taken as seriously and in equal depth. That alone will do wonders, but it is not enough.

We need to once and for all realize that the Muslim world in itself is a paradox. To understand this statement, try using Christian World in a sentence in the same way. Despite all the modern world offers, from the Internet to sewage treatment to antibiotics, the Muslim World is for the most part stuck in time, centuries back. We can debate forever which reasons caused this discrepancy between Muslim countries (and plenty of other underdeveloped countries, independent of religion) and the more advanced countries (all democracies, most in the Northwestern quadrant of the planet). Yes, we are advanced. Advanced in the political system, the judicial system and the general social structure, from education and science to health care and justice. We are, of course, also more advanced militarily. Still, we are trying each day to improve every aspect of our society, making it more just and balanced and self-sustained. One would expect the Muslim World to do the same and only those clouded by prejudice will say there is no such thing as evolution and improvement in the Muslim World... However, we must remember that getting out of a plane in Cairo, Gaza or Islamabad coming from New York, Paris or Tokyo is like stepping out of a time capsule.

Europe has a better understanding of this reality because for Europeans the walk from obscurantism to progress, from religion to democracy, was a long and hard one. When the Muslims, by then mainly the Arabs, were at the top of their game and the brightest civilization on Earth, Western Europe was a mix of proto-Christians and barbarians, light years and many wars away from becoming a stable platform for development and social progress. The United States were born a democracy; Americans, for the most part, lack the understanding of how to become one. Like for so many centuries in Europe, the most part of the Muslim world has religion embedded in it's societies, in different levels of intensity but always present. It will take a very long time for Muslims to face religion the way most Christians now do, as a private belief separate from State. And even then, after this is achieved and it will, there is still the cultural heritage to overcome, the centuries of religious values and religious moral that are rooted in every day actions, sayings and traditions. It will take time and you certainly can't force these things to happen over night and most certainly not at the tip of a spear.

The future is unknown, as always. We should be careful, however, not to take our present status for granted and most of all, in particular when going through hard times, we must guard against returning to a religion based society - that is exactly what happened to the Arab civilization at it's zenith and a cause of stagnation and regression that still lasts. We should be careful not to reverse parts.

* The Arabic calligraphy reads “BISMILLAH HIRAHMAN NIRAHIM" this means "IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MOST BENEFICIENT THE MOST MERCIFUL”.

The Six out of the Seven

2009-05-21T09:25:00.044-04:00

The fulfilment of a promise. That's a reasonable expectation for someone who voted for change in the past presidential election. But the same people who elected Barack Obama also gave Democrats comfortable majorities in both Houses of Congress, so it is safe to assume their desire for change was not limited to the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They (*) surely expected something to change there as well. Were they (and the rest of the world that joined in the hope trip, so "we" applies here) wrong? Is the establishment too strong to be changed from within, as it seems to assimilate the ones who oppose it but still seem to condone, adapt and/or fear it? Are the imperfections of the system the one thing that keeps it from crumbling down? It appears to be that way.

President Obama promised three very important things during his campaign: to restore America's moral standing in the world by words and deeds. The three things that stand out in this promise: to regain the world's respect through diplomacy and acknowledging the end of unilateral reasoning in international affairs; to uphold and enforce the Law - both domestic and international; to break unequivocally from past uses of an administration that let fear, personal belief, greed and thirst for power become the main drivers of it's policy. This last part has a symbol, Guantanamo Bay, and a strategy, torture - of course, in the words of many, the infamous "enhanced interrogation techniques" strategy (sounds better that way, doesn't it?). From the beginning of time, torturing opponents served one purpose above all others: to instill fear in their hearts - a very effective (and barbarian) method of keeping power. Respect leaves room for dissent, albeit respectful, whereas fear leaves room for nothing but itself. We can be pretty sure this approach, still common in many places around the world, was not the corner stone of the torture rationale between 9/11 and the election of Barack Obama. Another important purpose of torture, however, does apply: the way it makes people say whatever the torturer wants them to say; from the Romans to the Catholic Inquisition, from the soviets to the Vietcong, from the Portuguese and Spanish totalitarian fascist regimes to the ones in their former American colonies, getting people to publicly admit to whatever the power that be wanted them to was common practice. So where does the 'information gathering" through torture comes to play?

According to Dick Chenney and his apologists, torture was very effective in preventing more than one serious threat to American lives that was thus thwarted; furthermore, it was not torture at all - the well being of those interrogated was paramount and they look all well and good after, so how could that be torture? Well, people can be beaten up pretty bad without leaving a single mark on them that shows proof of it, but still it is a beating, it just looks good after, so there is no evidence to show in a court of law and therefore no grounds for complaints. Isn't this, however, worse than just beating someone up without concern for posterior charges precisely because it proves the intent on the perpetrator to conceal the aggression? I am not saying concealing what was done to those subjected to torture under the Bush administration was the concern of it's defenders, hence the so called legal documents that support it's use and are supposed to justify them as lawful, but I am sure they would all be much happier if these facts never saw the light of day and even more happy if posterior administrations were to engage in such practices. They were not lucky on both counts.

We all know the position of the United States on torture before 9/11, and specifically waterboarding, from accounts of numerous occasions when people that used waterboarding on their prisoners were sent to trial and convicted, many by American authorities. It is a crime. When applied to prisoners of war, like it was during WWII by the Japanese or during the Korean War by the Chinese and north Koreans, it is a crime of war, clearly condemned by the Geneva Conventions. So why is this position now controversial? Because it worked and saved American lives? Because Al-Qaeda is not a regular combat formation from a country that acknowledges the Geneva Conventions and abides by them? Because Al-Qaeda does or will surely do much worse to their enemies if they catch them? The answers to these questions, although important, have nothing at all to do with the facts at hand: torture is wrong and illegal. Period. There are no mitigating circumstances. These are facts and that is why the defenders of this barbarian methods will time and again go back to the "waterboarding is not torture" defense, even after admitting it is - because once you admit it is, there is no defense.

The use of any means necessary to prevent future attacks of the same nature of those perpetrated in 9/11 cannot signify these means are unlawful - this was the rationale behind every legal opinion issued on the behalf of those willingly and knowingly going beyond the rule of law to achieve their goals, from petty corporate thieves to ruthless statesmen. So the right to act in self defense is always, exceptional times or not, based in the rule of law - unless the law is what one wants it to be depending where the wind blows, like in totalitarian regimes.

I come from a country that knew dictatorship in recent times, Portugal. I was almost 11 years old when democracy became a possibility, after the military coup of April 25, 1974, and went through the confused revolutionary process that eventually established it as real. Portugal is a democracy now. We lost almost all our wealth (that originated mainly from the African colonies of Angola and Mozambique), we have huge social problems that spawned after the loss of the Empire, the crime rate went through the roof and now we are just a small country that had to join the European Union to secure it's future as a modern nation (seems like a paradox but it is not). Bottom line is, Portugal seemed to be doing much better before April 1974 - there was practically no crime, we were rich, there was plenty of room for opportunity within the Empire, oil and diamonds were flowing from Africa and we proudly stood alone as the last colonial power in the world - there was a lot that was wrong, like literacy levels and freedom of speech, but people felt very safe and the disparity between rich and poor was nothing like it is today (still significant, but not insidious as well). All that changed with the advent of democracy. That is what an open and free society is like and that's what it should be. And yes, much less safe than a dictatorship. The difference is, obviously, that in a democracy rights and duties are the same for all under the law, and that means all, regardless of who you are and where you came from. Your freedom to do whatever you want within the law means everyone is free to do the same. This is the touch stone of democracy and both it's most amazing feature and it's most blatant vulnerability, but once you lose it, you have lost everything.

Now Americans, and also Europeans, are told by people that share Dick Chenney's beliefs that these are indeed extraordinary times and we are at war, so we must do battle and refrain from invoking citizenship rights that are only acceptable when all is well and peaceful, but now represent a clear and present danger to our societies, for they are weaknesses our enemies will use against us if they are presented with an opportunity to do so. What we are being told is there is no room for democracy and it's rule of law as long as there is someone out there willing to use their assets against us. What we must decide is if we are ready to abdicate democracy as we knew it and it's foundations so we can live free from fear - the only problem is, and this is painfully obvious, that fear is the only way to justify such an aberration. We are expected to abdicate democracy because we are afraid horrible things will happen if we keep it as it should be and we must do so until all threats are gone and the war is won - than we can have our freedom back. It's brilliant, I'll give them that, but it is also dark and ugly.

President Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay because it is a scar on the face of democracy, because it places fear over justice and expedience over the rule of law. To do this, Congress must approve the necessary funds - it won't come cheap and it involves complex logistic problems that must be dealt with. We already knew where the Republicans stood on this matter, but to see only six Democrat Senators stand by the President was a surprise. They are afraid to have the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay brought to mainland USA - not sure if they oppose them being sent to Alaska, Hawaii or even Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam or American Samoa - because they are apparently too dangerous to be allowed inside continental USA, which means, of course, America has no effective means to safely incarcerate potentially dangerous people. The headlines today read "1 in 7 Guantanamo detainees freed return to terrorism" based on "an unreleased Pentagon report provides new details concluding that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity" (source New York Times). A simple calculation will let you know that over 450 of those detainees did not engage in terrorism or militant activity after being released from Guantanamo Bay, those being 6 in 7 Gitmo detainees. Another six. My wife brought my attention to this fact this morning and now I thought of it remembering the number of Senators that voted for the President's position: six. So what were those more than 450 people doing in Guantanamo Bay? How long were they there? Is the Intelligence community acting like fishermen these days? You catch whatever comes in the net and sort it out later? At least fishermen return unwanted catch to the sea immediately... These are people that shouldn't have been in Guantanamo Bay to begin with, either they are not terrorists or they are not a threat of any kind. That's what you get when you turn a blind eye to the rule of law.

We lived (hopefully we no more do, but the Patriot Act is still in force, isn't it?) in a nation that throws people in prison with no rights for unlimited time based on suspicions only - it's the Bush doctrine, remember, preemptive action. Closing Guantanamo Bay's detention facility and ending torture is but a step towards the rule of law. And that is why President Obama said today: "In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis (...)". Indeed.

There are many legal challenges still ahead, if we are to resume our lives in spite of the post 9/11 world we live in. It is a very different world than we have known before, but we cannot allow it to change our way of life forever. Today, when people talk about the rule of law and democracy they are accused of "pre-9/11 mentality", as if it is some kind of nasty infectious disease! We must go back to that mentality! Moving away from it is the main objective of all those who oppose our way of life. And guess who is winning.

So along comes this man that has the audacity to hope for a better way of life; one that will fight those who seek it's destruction not by destroying it himself, but precisely by holding it up high and proudly: we are a democracy and we should not surrender our way of life for anything, including safety; we are a society based on the rule of law with responsibilities within and outside it's borders and we should not sacrifice the law nor escape those responsibilities for the sake of defending both against those who do not know them, care for them or share them with us; we are the keepers of the flame and should never put it out in times of darkness with the excuse that it makes us visible to our enemies.

That will be our choice in this defining moment. To refuse to live in darkness knowing full well it is the light that attracts those who seek to destroy us. To stand up once and for all without fear or forever be afraid and on our knees.

The No Blame Game

2009-04-22T18:23:00.013-04:00

So now some claim that torture actually works so it is ok. The ends thus justify the means. But do they?
Shouldn't we, as humans, moved on past Machiavelli?
I didn't think I have heard everything about this and I was unfortunately right. Since the release of the so called torture memos the torture apology never stopped growing: from the irresponsibility in exposing CIA methods to the enemy to the alleged success of torture in preventing the loss of innocent lives, as if it's alright to break the law if it is done in secret and as if breaking the law is alright if good is achieved from it.

Lets be honest about this: if any good comes from breaking the law then the law must be changed. If the law stands and is in force then no good can come of breaking it. So the use of torture to obtain critical information that may save innocent lives is wrong. No court of law in the civilized world would say any different.
There are a lot of soundbites out there in favor of torture and most of them start exactly by denying it is torture! We should dismiss this idea as well: sleep deprivation is torture, confinement in small spaces in stress positions is torture and waterboarding is torture (among other methods in the memos) - the fact that it is not executed with the intent to cause severe pain or death and that it's execution is monitored by doctors mean nothing to the person being tortured.
What would be the point of torture if the subject was made aware that there is no intention to cause severe pain or death and that doctors are monitoring the execution of such techniques to make sure nothing goes wrong!

The purpose of torture is to cause extreme fear in the subject and make him or her give up information in exchange for safety. If the subject knows he or she is safe, what's the point? So this talk that all this was done by professionals with no intent to cause severe pain or death backed by medical teams is sand thrown in our eyes.
What matters is you inflict pain, extreme anxiety and humiliation to extract information from someone. Pain inflicted by a professional with medical back up in a controlled environment is the same as the one inflicted by some terrorist amateur in a cave somewhere.
And drowning people is bad but making people believe they are being drowned over and over is ok? To me it seems that the difference between waterboarding and drowning is that when you drown you only go through the excruciating experience once - not 183 times - and you don't die, of course, although after 183 waterboardings you might wish you did.

Liz Cheney, interviewed by Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, said:" ... this argument about the Geneva Conventions, in terms of this idea that somehow Al Qaeda abides by the Geneva Conventions, if Al Qaeda captures an American they cut his head off so I think it's very important for us to take a step back from the emotion of this and say we needed to be able to get evidence about eminent attacks we knew these guys had information the information that was provided saved American lives and the techniques were not torture... "
So... If we are not talking about torture, why do we need to "step back from emotion" and see the enemies as decapitating savages with no respect for conventions? Oh, wait. Maybe it's because we ARE talking about torture and no matter how savage and barbarian the enemy is Americans should NEVER under ANY circumstances be turned into savages themselves - no matter how many American heads were cut or will be cut in the future by these people. If the way our enemy acts makes us act like them we become the enemy.
I am getting so tired of hearing these people (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the like minded) come on TV and say "we are less safe" and "they don't respect our laws" and "they have no legal restraints" - and all I hear is "They are STRONGER than us". So these people answer is to become like them.
Well they are not stronger than us, but the minute we surrender our rights, our freedom and our rule of law they will not only become stronger than we ever thought possible.
They will win.

The Nuremberg Defense Revisited

2009-04-18T10:05:00.006-04:00

The recent release of the G. W. Bush era so called "torture memos" calls for more than just exposure. Rep. Jan Schakowsky says she does not want to compare the argument that "CIA personnel acting on the legal advice of the Bush administration" involved in this sordid matter to "Nazi Germany" and the Nuremberg Trials, meaning what become known as the Nuremberg Defense - the notion that following orders excuses the ones executing them from responsibility. Such argument was dismissed by the judges in the Nuremberg Trials as they pointed out that regardless of orders one has always the capability of refusing to execute them on moral grounds, in what became known as Nuremberg Principle IV, that states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The main responsibility remains on the shoulders of the person giving the order, thus enabling the practice of the actions, but the executor will be accountable for his or her individual actions and judged accordingly. The manner in which the orders are executed and the context in which all happened are important and could mitigate to some extent the action of the executor, but it will not exempt him or her of responsibility. Comparing the CIA officials that carried out the orders to torture terrorists suspects to the Nazi officials that carried out the orders to torture prisoners of war is pertinent not because the Bush Administration was inspired by Nazism or was Nazi, that's just stupid, but because the principle of obeying orders is one and the same. In fact, the mitigating circunstances some of the german torturers invoked are more worthy of consideration, bear in mind that any german official that refused to participate in torture actions during the Nazi era would probably end up in a camp him or herself, which is hardly the case of any CIA official in the USA today. This does not take any responsibility off the actions of Nazi interrogators but in some cases could explain their actions, which are, obviously, still criminal.

Today's argument that bears similar grounds is not based on fear of the consequences to the executor should he or she have refused to act accordingly to the orders but on fear of the consequences to innocent people that might be saved should torture prove to be effective and was not used. So "I was afraid of what would happen to me if I did not obey" is now replaced by "I was afraid of what might happen to others if I did not obey". One may argue about the validity of both arguments and the extent of it's influence on the executor's actions, but no matter the conclusion the actions are criminal and they should have a consequence. To proclaim moral values and let their violators go unpunished is not enough today as it was not enough in 1945. Germany looked forward, moved past Nazism and became a civilized nation again, but the criminals were punished - and to this day are still being hunted and brought to justice. That is how the world knows such actions are not and will not be tolerated ever again.

I do hope the Obama Administration changes the aproach to this matter, because not doing so will leave the door open to future Administrations to do what was done under G. W. Bush. This problem transcends one particular Administration and we must make sure such actions will not happen again, not only during Obama's presidency but also in the future, no matter who the president will be.

Comma again?

2009-04-16T14:42:00.001-04:00

Recent developments in the US and abroad brought the discussion on gun control front and center. To begin with was the notion that a democrat in the White House enjoying comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress would certainly mean an attack on the people's right to "keep and bear arms". Then, an unfortunately not unusual spike in gun related violence, which always makes one wonder about the relation between the number and types of guns around and these tragic events. Last, the Mexican drug wars, and the idea that the US gun market could be supplying the Mexican drug lords and thus playing a part in the unprecedented level of deadly violence, spreading to the American side of the border.

As European, I've always wondered why the right to keep and bear arms as establish in the US is incompatible with gun regulation.

There are other countries around the world where people have access to, keep and use high caliber guns with little or no regulation at all, known in Europe as "war caliber guns", as in "army guns". Those I can think of are all in Africa and the Middle East, usually known as "developing countries" - the kind euphemism for the former Third World countries, back when the USA and it's allies were the "First World" and the USSR and it's allies the "Second World". Apart from the obvious differences, the United States do have such right printed in the law (article 4 of the Bill of Rights versed to the second amendment of the Constitution). Going through these documents two things got my attention at once (apart from the fact that they are a legacy of the 18th century in the wake of a revolutionary war, of course): the word "militia" and the expression "to bear arms".

According to the U.S. Army Center of Military History, "Ten companies of riflemen were authorized by a resolution of the Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. However, the oldest Regular Army infantry regiment, the 3d, was constituted on June 3, 1784, as the First American Regiment." I already knew that militias were the backbone of the American forces during the fight for independence but I had no idea the first army regiment was created after July 4 1776 and as I read the second amendment it seemed clear to me what the lawmakers were referring to. It was a rather wise decision at the time, but is it so today?

You can't have militia without armed citizens and you can't have armed citizens without a law that permits them to own their own guns, so as far as militias are concerned it all seems fine, except for the fact that the United States has the most formidable military in the world, including a National Guard with it's own Air Force, so... Why exactly do they need the militias helping them out? Militias often perform valuable service in case of natural disasters, reinforcing the help provided by professionals, such as firefighters and engineers, but considering that police officers, federal agents and, in the extreme, the National Guard are responsible for the safeguard of populations and their property - which means law enforcement - why exactly do they need to "keep and bear arms", or more precisely why do they carry war caliber arms?

It seems to me that the discussion around the scope of the "militia" concept expressed in the original Bill of Rights and it's meaning depending on the number of commas in it's fourth article is purely academic, so lets leave the militias and it's pertinence in today's world and move on to individual rights. As for the expression "bear arms", it clearly indicates some form of organized action (militia related), and it infers that the bearer is part of a unit, not an individual, but that's the discussion of 18th century terms versus todays terms and, trully, it gets us nowhere in itself - the fact of the matter is the original was writen then and is valid now, so we either take social evolution into account or we are living in another world/time.

No matter what role militias played in the thoughts of the original bill writers, article fourth of the Bill of Rights and it's verse to the Constitution's 2nd amendment is the cornerstone of individuals standing right "to keep and bear arms", which means the right to own a fire arm and to use it when justified. The problem resides in this last part: the justification for the ownership and use of a fire arm. Such must be and is based on the rule of law, meaning there is such a thing as the illegal ownership and use of a fire arm, obviously. Disagreeing with this is assuming anyone can own and use any type of guns available in the market for whatever they wish - including crime - so it's fair to say the vast majority of people already agree with the need of gun regulations and it's enforcement; for instance, it's commonly accepted that a FBI background check is necessary to give someone the permission to buy a gun; no one would presume such check is a violation of individual rights. Then it gets tricky. Among those who have a libertarian like view of this problem that's where the buck stops. The government should not interfere with anything beyond the buy permit - from storing conditions to types of guns available. This means, of course, one could leave a loaded gun abandoned in a porch and not be responsible for it or that one can own and use a .50 caliber rifle. Somehow, the responsibilities that apply to many other situations where people have to answer for negligent behaviour would not apply to gun ownership. And somehow, the rule of proportional force also would not apply to gun use; hence the "no problem" attitude towards such quaint self-defense and/or hunting guns as the Barret .50 caliber rifle, available in various versions from little over 4.000,00 up to 13.000,00 usd!! (well, 12.999,99 usd and a "unique opportunity: (...) This exclusive model has previously only been available to our US Military!" - right here!)

Americans, like citizens of all civilized countries, rely on their history and traditions to improve and perfect their legal system and the laws that govern them, so it's unrealistic to expect a total ban on the ownership of firearms by US citizens and many of them are responsible people who actually have a justification for owning a gun and for using a gun (like hunters). I think it's safe to say that apart from hunting, the only justification for using a fire arm outside of a shooting range is self-defense. But having a law that at the same time permits ownership and use of guns by everyone and does not effectively regulate both is dangerous. Some say that it should be that way, so the government is afraid of citizens and thus kept in check... To these people, living in a democracy must be indeed a frightful experience, for they never understood the power of the people in a democracy is their right to choose the ones that rule, and trully believe that power should be expressed by the right to shoot the ones that do not meet their expectations as their leaders. To these people, in a democracy, government officials should be more afraid of their bullits than of their votes! A simple example of how distorted the gun rights staunch defenders view is: the obligation to register a fire arm. People see no problem in registering a motor vehicle but they see a problem in registering a gun? The only reason I can think of for not wanting to register a gun is the intention to commit some sort of crime with it and not wanting authorities to be able to trace it. Guns cannot be compared to any other objects available in the market and yet less dangerous items, such as automobiles, are commonly accepted to be heavily regulated - within limits dictated by a mix of sense and reason, as all laws should be.

Appealing to both, sense and reason, is not only reasonable but essential when discussing the future of the right "to keep and bear arms" in America today. Without semi-automatic guns and high caliber guns available it would be considerably easier for the authorities to hunt criminals and without them it would be a lot more difficult for some derranged person to walk into a school and cause a blood bath... That alone should justify getting those guns out of the market, turning them into illegal fire arms, and there would still be plenty of very effective guns left available for hunting and self-defense. The right to own a gun should not be mistaken for the right to own an arsenal.

I served my country in arms when I was in the army; once I left I found no need to keep and bear similar weapons for that reason - others took my place and I implicitly trust them and the government I am responsible for as a citizen. To me, invoking that right today as it is by those opposing serious regulation is a clear sign of mistrust and disrespect for their defense forces, their law enforcement agencies and their government and also a sign of their belief that some day, in a democracy, guns - not votes - will be needed to overthrow the government.

Enough food for thought. :)

Picture Perfect

2009-04-16T11:19:00.001-04:00

My favourite picture from days gone by, when hope and change were the words on everyone's lips, regardless of how people viewed these concepts. I had just arrived in the United States and would stay for good not because it suddenly seemed like the country I grew up admiring was back, but it sure felt good to be around for that too.

Change is one of humankind's fundamental attributes and the way it comes to be shows everything about the people who make it. There were a lot of changes before November 4th 2008 and you better believe in them because they are still felt.

Here's hoping those changes will be changed.

By the way, you do know who these shoes belong to, right? *

That's why I love this photo. It shows a lot.

* you don't? Here's who.

Jack & Honey?

2009-04-16T08:28:00.001-04:00

Jack and honey...

It's always a good idea to sit back, chill and think things through before starting something. Having a glass of Jack Daniels with a little honey in it makes it even better. Honey in your Jack? Why not? You can't argue about taste, so if picking on someone's choices based on yours alone is your thing I predict a very lonely existence ahead of you. And even though you'll find Jack & Honey may be hard to swallow you are most welcome to it.

So it begins.