Freedom is as Freedom Does

Americans like to talk about their freedom as the cornerstone of democracy. Indeed, political and religious freedoms were a big part of the reason people flocked to the New World throughout the 17th and 18th centuries and beyond. However, to an ex-pat like me, the word, “freedom” is defined differently depending on where you are and what your interests are. Here are a few of the differences between freedom in the U.S. and freedom in Brazil based on my 9 years in the latter.

In the U.S., freedom of speech is a main point used by the press and by political extremists alike. The freedom of speech is guaranteed to all people in the U.S. in the Bill of Rights and has probably been invoked as much as any other part of the Constitution in history.

In Brazil, freedom of speech is limited on certain occasions but no one complains about it. For example, it is illegal to use racist speech. So if you say that black people are inferior, you can be imprisoned. Most Brazilians support this restriction on free speech, but Americans would most likely not feel the same.

In the U.S., freedom of action is more limited than in Brazil when it comes to some personal habits. For example, it is illegal to drink a beer in public in most places in the U.S. It is also not legal to sell liquor after certain hours or in certain locations in most cities around the country.

Most Brazilians would laugh at that lack of freedom and mock Americans who brag about how free the U.S. is. Here in Brazil, if you want to buy a bottle of whiskey at 4am on a Sunday morning, you need only walk to the nearest gas station to do so. If you want to drink a can of beer as you walk down the sidewalk – no problem. As long as you are not causing a disturbance, you are free to follow your adult nature.

So I would argue that, for people who are not politically marginalized or religiously abnormal, the U.S. is not an exceptionally free place to live. Your actions are quite restricted when it comes to daily activities of an adult nature.

So when someone calls America, “The Land of the Free,” I snicker a bit because I see things from a different angle. Give me the freedom to drink when and where I want, screw whomever I want, and wear only a thong while walking on the sidewalk if I so choose. I’ll take those things over calling a black man the N-word any day.

A Means for the Mean

This week, Dick Cheney, possibly the most influential Vice President in U.S. history, was quoted as saying that dunking a prisoner in water as a means to getting information was, “a no-brainer.” This represents the first time that the Bush camp has openly admitted its stance on torture – it is OK if it saves American lives. While that may fly well with the Neocons in Washington, it does not with the rest of the world.

For more than a year now, the topic of what represents torture and what does not has been in the press and the Bush administration has been in the camp pushing for a loosening of the laws defining torture. Slowly, stories of torture of Gitmo detainees and other, darker reports of those kept in secret CIA prisons came to light over the past 18 months. These reports shook many Americans out of their egocentric slumber and called opposition leaders to the floor to stand up for prisoners’ rights – not a very popular political stance, but a very correct moral stance. As more stories became public (combined with the already famous Abu Graib prison pictures), people started realizing that Americans were indeed torturing prisoners in the name of Democracy and freedom. Hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

So the official Bush policy has been that they are against torture, and that what has been done to prisoners thus far is simply interrogation within the law. At the same time as they have said this, the Neocons have pushed for less strict laws dictating what torture really is. So basically, we are now trying to say that what was considered torture in the past should not really be considered torture today. What a load of bullshit.

Finally, with Cheney’s comments, the real colors of the Neocons are showing. The spin squad has been out in force claiming that the VP was not referring to waterboarding when he talked about, “dunking.” For those of you who don’t know, waterboarding is considered one of the most effective means of torture. It is the act of immersing a prisoner until he believes he will actually drown and then reviving him. Then repeating the process until the subject breaks. It is said that most victims cannot hold out for more than a few seconds. (For a more complete definition see this link.)

Only an idiot would actually believe that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding. Dunking would be nothing more than a refreshing experience for a prisoner. There would be no reason for Cheney, or anyone else, to talk about dunking if they did not mean waterboarding. Furthermore, the term, “dunking” when referring to torture is even worse than waterboarding. It was used on suspected witches and meant that the suspect would either drown by not admitting their guilt or admitting their guilt and being executed. (See same link as above.)

This is just one more example to show how low this administration has sunk in moral terms. Unfortunately, what the American government does reflects on all of us, regardless of our political leanings (as any Ex-Pat can attest).

The question is a simple one. Either you are for or against torture as a national policy. If you are for it, you accept the fact that your people will also be tortured by their captors and that it will be legal to do so. I, for one, do not want to go down that road. Individuals will always torture in times of war – it is inevitable. It is quite another thing though to have that act justified by government and law. There is no other stance to take than that of total commitment to avoiding torture of prisoners. That many not be the Bush Way, but it is the American Way.

The Real Breadwinners on the Political Trail

I understand that politicians use whatever means they have at their disposal to get re-elected. That often results in mudslinging, half truths, and even outright lies. But it never ceases to amaze me at how the politicos have no problem trotting out their wives in an attempt to curry favor when their own approval ratings are low.

When Clinton was busted for screwing his chubby young intern with possibly contraband tobacco products and leaving a nasty streak of evidence on her dress (How fucked up was she that she kept that rotting away in her closet without having it cleaned?), out came Hilary to save the day. She stood next to Billy Boy like someone out of a Tammy Wynette song and brought his ass out of the fire and only into the doghouse.

Now it is the Republicans’ turn to use the spouse card. The First Lady is considerably more popular that her husband right now, so she is the one doing a lot of the talking. Her latest shot was taken at Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial. In a recent CNN interview, when asked if her husband has misled the public regarding Iraq, she claims that her husband, “… has been frank from the very very first speech he gave to the country after the September 11 attacks.” What a bunch of garbage!

First of all, September 11th had NOTHING to do with Iraq. So she should not have even mentioned 9/11 when asked about Iraq. Her use of the two together only shows, again, how off base this administration has been when trying to link Iraq first with 9/11 and later with terror in general.

Second, numerous intelligence officials have come out to say that the Bush administration continuously rejected reports that did not fit what the President and his crack team of rocket scientists had in mind. Even Colin Powell became livid when he found out how he had been used in this whole little operetta.

But her words will certainly have a positive effect for the Republicans as her voice is considered to be one of calm and reason.

So the spousal parade will continue on its triumphant course. It may be a man’s world, but it turns out that it is often the woman who brings home the bacon in an election year.

Nuclear Madness and Hypocrisy

I stand with the rest of the international community in condemning the North Korean leadership in its quest for nuclear weapons. I have no doubt that the Korean people would be much better off without Kim Jong Il and his mad cult of personality in power. Indeed, North Korea may be one of the most uncaring and callous governments in recent history. However, there is one point that the UN is missing when it addresses nations on the prowl for nuclear arms – hypocrisy.

For more than 60 years, we have lived in an atomic age where millions of people could be wiped out in a matter of minutes. As an American, I lived most of my youth under the shadow of the bomb and learned to cope with it as best I could. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, I began to wonder why we still had so many nukes lying around. I mean, really, we will almost certainly never use them.

Think about it… Even if we suffered a nuclear attack, we would probably not respond in kind. It would be too much to bear to see so many innocents die because some mad leader (be it of a country or a terror organization) chose to use a nuke. To be honest, it is almost certain that any nuclear attack would come via terror and not conventional means. That would surely make any nuclear retaliation virtually impossible because there would be no “place” to bomb. The strategic use of nuclear weapons is simply out of the question – there is no strategic use for WMD.

As a result, there are many military leaders in the U.S., and other nuclear nations, who question the validity of a modern nuclear arsenal. Because of the above examples, these leaders see no real need or call for such weapons. In fact, the military would be much better off channeling the personnel and funds from the nuclear arsenal to the conventional military. It would simply be a more realistic and pragmatic application of resources.

When you look at the current political and strategic environment, there is truly no need for any country to have nuclear weapons at the ready. Of course, you cannot put the cat back in the bag, but you can keep it under lock and key. International and total WMD disarmament is the first step toward making all people around the world sleep easier.

So my point is this – if we don’t really need nukes, let’s just get rid of them. That way no one will have them. Here is where the hypocrisy comes in. We cannot tell North Korea, Iran, or anyone that they are not permitted to have something that we already possess (in mass). That argument lacks any moral high ground and these rogue states know it. If we first cleansed ourselves of these weapons of mass destruction, we would then be in a true leadership position to tell others how we think they should act. Though this is no guarantee that other countries will not try to get nukes, it does start everyone off on the right foot. Until that point, we are merely arrogant hypocrites to our detractors and make ourselves more vulnerable to hatred and terror.

Child's Play in Politics

Politics is a game of hide and seek. Politicians hide their true opinions and actions while intentionally seeking to deceive the public by manipulating them in various ways. The most successful politicians are those who can control the masses best. This is not something that is restricted to one culture or country. It is universal and timeless. So I am not fully surprised to see parallels between the current Brazilian presidential campaign and the 2004 elections in the U.S.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is at the opposite end of the political spectrum of George W. Bush. Lula, as he is called down here, has strong lower-class and socialist roots while Bush is from a wealthy conservative family. But despite their apparent divergence in political beliefs they both use the exact same strategy in their re-election bids – misinformation that leads to fear.

In 2004, Bush used the fear of terrorism to win a second term. Even though there was a strong argument to show that his actions had not made America any safer during his four years in office, Bush played up the assertion that Kerry was wishy-washy (I believe the Fox News catch-phrase was, “flip-flop”) and could not make up his mind on important issues. This was parleyed into showing Kerry as a president who would make America unsafe. Coupled with a constantly changing sword of Damacles known as the “Terror Alert,” which supposedly gauged how much danger America was in of terrorist attacks at any given time, the image of a weak Kerry was too much for Americans to risk and they voted for Bush. Better the devil you know…

Now, Lula is using the same strategy in his re-election campaign. For his four years in office, Lula has kept none of his campaign promises. He promised to lower taxes – he raised them. He promised to improve education – public education is as bad as it has ever been. He promised to reform the agricultural face of Brazil – he has done nothing of the sort. He promised to end corruption – his party has been involved in as many if not more scandals as his predecessors.
So, in his desperation to remain in office he is now playing the only card he has left – fear. He is making unsubstantiated claims that his opponent will privatize popular governmental corporations. Lula is also claiming that the opposition will end a popular program that combats hunger and poverty.

The similarity between the two examples of Bush and Lula is striking. Misinformation and fear have both been used to perfection to discredit their opponents and manipulate the ignorant masses. Bush’s campaign led to re-election. I am sure that Lula’s bid will have the same result.
I guess this is why I am so disillusioned with politics in general. Liars are constantly rewarded while those who would strive to tell the truth are left out of the political circles. At a time when we most need serious and honest people, we are stuck with the spin doctors and illusionists instead.

The world is most certainly doomed.