Since the release ten days ago of so called “torture memos” from the Department of Justice, the blogosphere has been abuzz with condemnation, excitement, and anticipation. Will CIA operatives under the Bush administration be prosecuted for greenlighting torture? Do the “enhanced interrogation techniques” described in the memos constitute torture in the first place? Can the United States finally move past this grisly period in our history in which we, according to Obama, lost “our moral bearings”?

First of all, I find the idea that the instances described in the torture memos constitute a loss of our moral bearings to be a bit laughable. Considering our history of genocide, slavery, segregation, internment, and a host of other ills conducted at home and abroad, it seems the United States is not recovering from a loss of moral bearings so much as a setback in the from-scratch construction of our moral compass in the first place.

That being said, I do rejoice in the transparency afforded by the release of the memos, and am heartened by the communal outrage that has been a result. There is little doubt that “enhanced interrogation” is torture, in the minds of the American people any way. And while I doubt that a majority of Americans realize that torture is forbidden in international law (meaning we are committing illegal acts by doing it) the general consensus is that torture does not align with American values.

In his 2002 memo to John Rizzo, former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee spends no time justifying the use of torture. Rather, he takes 18 pages to explain why the interrogation techniques used against Abu Zabaydah are not torture, and why they are necessary. Specifically he outlines ten different techniques, ranging from a facial slap to stress positions to waterboarding and argues in detail why each cannot be considered torture. I find the memo (available to read on the American Civil Liberties Union’s website) disturbing not just due to the techniques described, but the way in which Bybee argues for their use. What he does, in essence, is attempt to civilize an uncivilized thing.

Whatever the great strides achieved by humanity since the dawn of civilization close to 10,000 years ago, we continue to practice many crudely uncivilized things. The biggest of these is warfare, and the tools of war. While certainly not confined in use to war, torture is defined as the deliberate causation of physical or mental suffering to an individual, and in war in particular it is used as a means of soliciting information. But the problem with torture is that its very definition is inhumane. Regardless of motive, the deliberate causation of suffering to an individual is a violation of that individual’s human rights.

Bybee seems to understand this, and spends significant time in the memo arguing that the suffering endured by Zabaydah as a result of the techniques really isn’t that bad. The statute prohibiting torture in the United States defines torture as techniques which cause “severe physical or mental pain or suffering”. But who decides the definition of “severe”? Or for that matter, the definition of “suffering”? For his part, Bybee defines “severe physical pain” as that which is akin to pain felt from a major injury. And I would agree with him that none of the techniques in the memo is likely to inflict pain of that intensity.

But what about suffering? Certainly sleep deprivation, stress positions, confinement in small spaces, and waterboarding constitute suffering. What Bybee doesn’t seem to understand, or what he simply chooses not to acknowledge, is that the whole point of torture in this context is to get someone to talk who won’t do so willingly. Zabaydah proved himself to be resilient in standard question and answer sessions, so the interrogators decided to up the ante. And the only way to get someone to say something they don’t want to is to make it worth their while. Meaning, if you cause them enough discomfort (or suffering) they will say what you want to hear in order to make circumstances change.

My wording in the last sentence is deliberate. That is, I don’t believe torture is likely to produce any useful information, regardless of the ethical question. If suffering is great enough a person is likely to say anything just to get it to stop. But I don’t think we need to spend much time debating whether or not torture is effective, because it seems clear to me that its efficacy is a moot point.

Bybee takes pains to outline all the protective measures in place: presence of medical and mental health professionals, assurance that none of the techniques used would interfere with the healing of an injury Zabaydah sustained in capture. While he might have thought he was covering his bases, I think these admonitions confirm without a doubt that the actions described are unethical. The presence of doctors attests to the potentiality of the techniques to turn dangerous, and the participation of mental health professionals substantiates the claim that harsh interrogation can have adverse psychological effects.

To me, if a technique has the potential to become dangerous, it should not even be considered. The problem I think is that interrogation as a tool of war is part of a larger scheme of uncivilized practices we really should have outgrown by now. Does Zabaydah have information which could be useful to the United States? Of course he does. But the need to hold enemies prisoner (really, the whole concept of “enemies”) and interrogate them against their will points to an acute lack of human cooperation and belief in a common destiny.

In a way, humanity is like an adolescent. We have come far and grown much in our development, but we still have trouble rationalizing all of our choices or seeing our conflicts for what they are. Like teenagers, we are capable of both profound insights and dismal failures of judgment. But my hope is, like teenagers, we will with time grow to see the errors in our thinking and enter healthfully and happily into adulthood.

There are some problems which are so multi-faceted and so controversial it seems a solution will never be found. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of these. History, religion, ignorance, racism, unending violence and numerous grievances by all parties involved have created the most hotly contested political environment on planet Earth. The conflict tends to incite a for-or-against mentality in both people and governments, leaving little room for compromise or middle ground. The United States is no exception to this stubborn thinking. It is so set in its ways that it has chosen to boycott the United Nation’s Durban Review Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.

The absence of the United States, as well as Israel, Italy, and Canada from the conference is just part of the controversy. The presence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has incited outrage and worry that the conference will crumble into an attack on Israel. Hordes of protestors from both sides have already taken to the streets in Geneva. The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, and Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Committee hosted their own conference over the weekend, representing an extremist anti-Israeli attitude. Conference attendees equated Zionism with Nazism and Apartheid and called for Israel to be brought before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

I find the stance of the United States and the stance of anti-Israeli conference attendees to be equally troublesome. This is not an either/or situation. Both Israel and Palestine are guilty of violence toward the other, and both bear some of the responsibility. While I tend to side with the Palestinians, I think comparing Zionism to Nazism is a bit over the top.

While I find the circumstances of the creation of Israel to be highly disturbing and regrettable, an obsessive focus on these beginnings will not help us move forward. After all, the circumstances of the creation of my own nation are highly disturbing, and a burden we carry with us to this day, but we cannot go back and undo them. All we can do is move forward.

The staunch either/or thinking from both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is what has been keeping us running in circles for years over the same problem. As both sides refuse to budge and the whole world adds its shouting to the din, the violence simply escalates, giving both sides more reason to dig in their heels and wish for the total destruction of the other.

As happens often with highly controversial subjects, it seems both sides refuse to see any truth in the other’s message. Protesting the alternative conference, anti-Palestinian advocates said they were in Geneva to “fight the good fight.” But of course, that is what anti-Israeli groups say about their message as well. It was my hope that with the Obama administration, the United States might finally adopt a more balanced approach to the conflict but so far he seems to be maintaining the nonsensical attitude of his predecessors.

There will not be peace in the Middle East without an independent Palestinian state. There may not be peace with one, but there certainly will not be peace without one. Of this I am sure. The US’s harsh stance on the Durban Review Conference is due to its assertion that the Palestinians have a right to an independent state, and protection from racism. It also states that the Israelis have the right to freedom from racism as well, and the right to national security, but this point seems to be lost on the Obama administration.

But the larger problem is that the Durban Review Conference is not just about the Middle East. It is about racism and racial discrimination in all its manifestations around the globe. It is about the caste system in India, the ethnic conflicts in Sudan and the Congo, the discrimination against indigenous peoples of Australia. And it is also about issues of racism of particular prominence in the US, such as gang violence and the burden in the national conscience of the heritage of slavery. What message is America sending the world by not being present in these discussions? What message is it sending to its own country?

The conflict in the Middle East is absolutely partially a product of racism. It is also a product of religious discrimination, which these days can be pretty indistinguishable from racism in many contexts. So it makes sense that it would be a central talking point of the conference. Even if the United States feels it will be in the minority opinion when it comes to this issue, why decide to not show up at all? If its opinions about the issue are not strong enough to stand up to scrutiny, maybe it needs to rethink its position.

Sometimes those who disagree with us are best left ignored (Ann Coulter comes to mind). And sometimes there really is no gray area between right and wrong, and a firm stance must be maintained no matter how long it takes to achieve victory. I certainly wouldn’t want to sit in a room and listen to President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel. But no more could I tolerate the insistence that Israel only uses violence in defense of lands it rightfully claimed. Both opinions are likely to come up at the Durban Review Conference, and the wisest delegates will refrain from entertaining either idea. This is not an issue of absolutes. The longer we recognize extremists on either side the longer it will take for a resolution to be found. And by boycotting the conference the United States is taking an extremist stance and missing out on the first reasonable step: conversation.

On April 15^th, protesters will gather around the country for TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. These cleverly named rallies are meant to send a message to President Obama that his stimulus package is not appreciated by all. While I am always pleased to hear of the engagement of citizens in political affairs, the irony of this particular situation is almost comical.

The gist of the TEA partiers woes is what they fear is the impending socialization of our nation’s banking system. As one protest poster reads: Revolt Against Socialism. I will refrain from wondering here why socialism is such a bad thing (after all, the free health care and college education that Western Europe has looks pretty nice from where I’m sitting…) because hatred of socialism is of course a calling card of the Republican Party. And to be fair, the government’s response to the economic crisis is certainly a Republican’s nightmare. With bailouts placing the government as a primary shareholder in many of the nation’s largest industries, it’s easy to see how terrifying this looks to a right-winger.

But what flabbergasts me about these protests is the complete lack of responsibility Republicans are accepting for the crisis in the first place. They should be wandering sheepishly around Washington with their tails between their legs, begging to be given another chance, not organizing large scale protests around the country. It was precisely the extremist ideas of some Republicans which brought us to this mess in the first place.

Of course, we could have had a Republican president to get us out of this mess. That Republican ideas got us here is with little doubt, and that a Democrat is attempting to get us out is the reality, but what if we had a Republican president attempting to get us going again? I have to say, I am at a complete loss wondering what they would have us do instead. After all, the government isn’t bailing out the auto industry or mortgage brokers or banks for giggles and grins. They are doing it because the economy cannot get moving again without these industries recovering. If they were to just let the housing market flounder and writhe in a prolonged death, or the domestic auto industry decay into obsolescence, the effect on the economy would be devastating—possibly irreversible.

Many of the alternative solutions proposed by protesters are actually not bad. Yes, some are horrifically, terribly, dreadfully awful, such as expanding the search for American oil (what part of “The Oil Will Run Out” do you not understand??) but others are worth considering. For example, I would think homeowner’s assistance is something everyone can get behind. The economy cannot recover without a functioning housing market and tax credits to home buyers is a great way to get things moving again. But Congress already approved at $15,000 tax credit to home buyers. Are protesters asking that a larger tax credit be given, or are they just not aware that there already is one?

I also delight in the sweeping naiveté which must have been required for them to come up with the goal of “eliminating Congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.” Well sure, that sounds like a great idea, right up there with getting politicians to actually achieve everything they say they will in their campaigns. While they have been splashed across the headlines throughout this crisis, earmarks and pork-barreling are nothing new to this or any economic climate.

For those not familiar with the lingo, earmarks are special spending items that members of Congress request, regardless of the benefit of those items to the country at large. Sound like a bad idea? Darn right it does. But eliminating this practice would require the dethroning of one of the most powerful pieces of the governmental machinery: lobbyists. Lobbyists wage a huge amount of influence over government affairs (see: unquestioning support for Israel) and elected officials who attempt to rise above do so at their peril. Because lobbyists have the power to give officials what they need most. Think about it: officials need votes to get and keep their jobs. So if a lobby threatens to remove their support if they don’t get 100,000 bucks to build some ice rinks, you fork over the cash. Because really, in a multi-million dollar budget, who is going to miss 100 grand? But the problem is these earmarks add up fast.

The other problem is, in times like this, every penny counts. Am I thrilled that my tax dollars are going to hockey enthusiasts in Toledo? Not particularly—but I’m also not thrilled they’re going to Iraq to help kill people, and I’d like to think I can keep my priorities straight. Still, I agree that earmarks are a pestilence in our budget, and in a perfect world we could be rid of them. And that’s not to say that people aren’t trying. Heck, George W. Bush tried, or at least gave a nod to the effort every now and again. Maybe I’m too cynical, and maybe we can be rid of them, but I think anyone who considers these a primary financial concern on par with energy spending and a health care plan is a bit out of touch with reality.

The same could be said about pork barrel spending. A mainstay in the United States government since the Bonus Bill of 1817, pork barrel spending is much like earmarks except it is the result of a more direct relationship between representatives and constituents, instead of representatives and lobbyists. Funding is given to localized projects in an official’s district, and in return the citizens of that district continue to support that official. From this text book definition, it actually seems like, well, isn’t that kind of the idea? An official is elected to represent the best interests of its constituency, so wouldn’t that include securing funding for projects which would improve the lives of voters? But again, the conceptual notion and the reality are somewhat removed. Especially in a time of national (and international) turmoil, the federal government really doesn’t have the money to indulge in the pet projects of specific representatives, even if they are well-meant and possibly helpful to the beneficiaries.

Will President Obama’s stimulus package work? Only time will tell. It certainly is a shame that we are shouldering more and more debt that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. But ignoring the ideas that got us here and suggesting we attempt to solve the problem with those very same ideas is preposterous and stupid. After all, the only bad mistakes in life are the ones you make twice.

In the months following the November election, the blogosphere has been overflowing with predictions and speculation regarding the future of the Republican Party. How can it recover from its devastating defeat in 2008, everyone wonders. Can it pull itself out of the muck of the Bush Administration by its own bootstraps, or will it wither into increasing obscurity as the Bright Light of Barack Obama shines ever brighter? The answer, I think, could be the former, if the Republican Party could remember what it means to be conservative.

In his brilliant essay for Harper’s Magazine, Garret Keizer scathingly points out the irony of the Republicans’ current predicament. After all, it “was supposed to stand for small government and fiscal restraint, and instead it has given us big government and the virtual socialization of large segments of our economy”. When did conservatism call for the completely unrestrained frolicking of large corporations? Say what you want about the free market, conservatives don’t trust large bodies of people to do the right thing (no pun intended) and as a result preach the virtues of small government high and low. So how can a true conservative (or anyone, for that matter) believe that corporations aren’t susceptible to the same flaws which make a large government dangerous? After all, corporations have the same powers of influence as government, only with more money.

The politics of the Bush Administration haven’t been based on conservatism so much as absolutism. As Barack Obama points out in his book The Audacity of Hope, it is not a conservative idea which brought on the current financial crisis, but an absolutist idea. No market regulation, no government interference, no safety net, rather than conservative political participation in the same. To again quote Keizer, such blatant eschewal of authority reeks more of '70s adolescence than any political idea ought. He even refers to Reagan as “the last of the California hippies, a man who told us that if we just let the markets run wild and the Magic Bus of juggernaut capitalism go barrel-assing down the road with its freak flag flying all would be groovy and out of sight.”

From that point of view, the idea of a free market economy seems to stem from a healthy dose of flower power as much as insatiable greed. Free love is a great idea too, in theory, but only in a world without chlamydia.

As everyone knows, the economy is seriously infected. All that playing sure was fun, but now we have an epidemic on our hands, and as is often the case, the ones who are most affected are not the ones that got us into this mess in the first place. And the sad thing is, the ones that did bring us here were the very ones who should have been the first to spot trouble coming.

But that’s water under the bridge now, and I don’t see any reason to add my voice to the finger-pointing multitudes. What interests me is where the Republican Party is going to go from here, whether they will forge a new identity which reclaims their conservative roots, or whether they will continue to alienate themselves from American reality with absolutist ideas.

Obama goes on to describe the “religious absolutism of the Christian right…[which] insists not only that Christianity is America’s dominant faith, but that a particular, fundamentalist brand of that faith should drive public policy, overriding any alternative source of understanding, whether the writings of liberal theologians, the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the words of Thomas Jefferson.” For a party which considers upholding the Constitution as a matter of fierce patriotism and pride (see: maniacal obsession with the Second Amendment) they have a crafty way of sweeping “separation of church and state” under the rug.

Or take the example of abortion. A great example of how much the Christian right has overtaken the Republican Party is the GOP’s stance on a woman’s right to choose. To quote Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative: “the choices that govern [a man’s] life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings.” Sexist language aside, that certainly sounds like a classic pro-choice argument. It seems to me that a true conservative would tell any government which attempts to control their body to take a long walk off a short pier.

Surely there are some aspects of the Republican Party which are reminiscent of conservatism. Its views on gay marriage can hardly be surprising, given the very definition of conservative includes a proclivity to tradition and the maintenance of existing institutions. So I am certainly not saying that a return to conservatism by the GOP would erase its sins in my eyes, or earn my affiliation. But I do think a genuinely conservative Republican Party would be a lot more successful, a lot more effective, and a lot more American.