Friday
June 17 2005
DICK DURBIN'S TORTUROUS ANALOGY: Consider the following
statement:
"We
sat on our knees for an hour. Then they began slapping us on
the back of our necks, real hard, and then they started pouring
hot wax down our back.'"
If this described
something that had happened at Gitmo, Dick Durbin would have decried
it as a despicable form of torture that "must have been
done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol
Pot or others— that had no concern for human beings."
Since this didn't happen at Gitmo, however, but is instead a description
of a fraternity
hazing incident, an analogy comparing Delta House with Auschwitz
would look rather silly - just as Durbin looked on Tuesday.
The problem
is that Democrats want to conduct a debate about torture without
defining exactly what torture is. Republicans haven't exactly
defined torture in detail either, but they've benefitted from
the feeling among the public that torture is like pornography:
"I'll know it when I see it." Keeping suspected terrorists
awake by playing Christina Aguilera songs or by turning up or
down the air conditioning simply doesn't pass that test.
Instead of
trying to conduct a reasonable debate over what is or isn't torture,
however, Democrats like Durbin are overrun by partisanship and
a desire to humiliate this administration. The result is a massive
rhetorical overreach like the one on Tuesday which defies historical
fact, slanders the U.S. military, and leaves the impression that
Democrats are instinctively more interested in protecting the
rights of suspected terrorists than they are about protecting
the country.
Dick Durbin
is not revered as one of the brightest bulbs in the United States
Senate, but he does have a reputation as being one of the most
partisan. Steve Neal, a liberal columnist for the Chicago
Sun-Times, once wrote that Durbin's "mind is unburdened
by original thought" and that "he seems to be more guided
by the polls than anything resembling a political philosophy."
This leads
me to an ironic thought: we might actually be better off fighting
the War on Terror with a Democrat as president. I say this because
if a Democrat occupied the White House under the same exact circumstances
we find ourselves in today, the narrative on detainee rights (driven
by a Republican Congress, of course) would almost certainly be
that we are being too soft on suspected terrorists at
Gitmo. We're serving them lemon fish! Handling their
Korans with white rubber gloves! Blasting their prayers over the
loudspeakers five times a day! Outrageous!
Then first
-rate partisans like Durbin would be taking to the floor of the
Senate to defend our treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, not condemn
it - though unfortunately not out of any special love for or deep
belief in the good character of our troops.
And instead
of giving the enemy a propaganda coup by comparing American treatment
of prisoners with some of the most murderous regimes in history,
Durbin's partisanship would have him striking a much more patriotic
tune, as
he did in 1998 when defending the Clinton administration's decision
to bomb Iraq:
"I
call on those who question the motives of the president and
his national security advisors to join with the rest of America
in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad.”
What a shame
that to Dick Durbin the idea of presenting a united front to our
enemies abroad only applies when a Democrat is in the Oval Office.
- T. Bevan 9:30 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Thursday
June 16 2005
DURBIN COMES UNHINGED, TRIBUNE YAWNS: Normally, when
a paper's home state Senator has an out-of-mind experience on
the floor of the United States Senate it makes for good copy.
Not at The Chicago Tribune. As almost everyone in America
knows by now, Dick
Durbin said something remarkable yesterday:
When
you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred
here—I almost hesitate to put them in the RECORD, and
yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you
what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
On
a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a
detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the
floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated
or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18–24
hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been
turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the
room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold.
. . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been
turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room
well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious
on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently
been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night.
On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably
hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the
room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee
chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
If
I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent
describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control,
you would most certainly believe this must have been done by
Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol
Pot or others— that had no concern for human beings. Sadly,
that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the
treatment of their prisoners.
The Sun-Times
carries the
follow up AP story saying Durbin has no intention of apologizing
for his comments. On The Tribune's web site, however,
we get two round-ups of the debate over detainee rights on Capitol
Hill yesterday - one reprinted from The
Los Angeles Times and one taken from Newsday
- neither of which mention Durbin's over-the-top remarks. On the
other hand, the Trib's online editors do see fit to inform us
savvy news consumers this morning that three
former SIU students are suing Hooters Air.
I'll have
more on the substance of Durbin's remarks a little later. -
T. Bevan 9:30 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
UPDATE: I see the Trib finally managed to link to Nedra
Pickler's AP dispatch on Durbin at 1:22pm central time today
- just in time to reach the 5 people in Chicago coming back from
lunch who haven't already heard about the story somewhere else.
Nice work.
Tuesday
June 14 2005
THE HOMECOMING THEY NEVER RECEIVED: One of the greatest
stains on our nation's history in the last half century is the
disgraceful way in which America treated its veterans returning
from Vietnam. As someone born in 1969, I've never been able to
get my head sufficiently wrapped around the idea that even a portion
of our country could have been so callous and disrespectful to
the sacrifices made by our soldiers - regardless of what those
people thought about U.S. policy at the time.
Treating
today's soldiers and veterans the same way would be unthinkable.
That's a welcome change, but it's also something that should serve
to deepen our shame about the way we treated our men serving in
Vietnam. Imagine what it must be like for them to watch the way
our soldiers are rightfully lauded for their service and sacrifice
today, and to contrast that with the memories of how they were
treated upon returning home from duty. Our country owes these
men an apology.
In the meantime,
we can take heart in what's
happening in Branson, Missouri this week:
Monday
marked the beginning of "Welcome Home: America's Tribute
to Vietnam Veterans," a weeklong celebration for Vietnam
veterans in the Branson area that organizers have dubbed "the
homecoming you never received." They initially predicted
the week could draw up to 100,000 visitors to the Branson area
but have since revised the estimate to between 35,000 and 50,000...
"Nobody
did anything for us," said Zrinksi, who did two tours as
a Marine in Vietnam and was also wounded. "This kind of
makes you feel good. But there's still a bitter taste, and it's
not going to go away."
On
Monday, strangers reached out to one another, touched a shoulder,
offered a handshake or hug. "Welcome home, brother,"
could be heard again and again. Many of the veterans wore baseball
caps or berets with their unit identification. Some were in
wheelchairs or leaning on canes. They asked about each other's
unit, dates of service and inquired about mutual acquaintances.
Although
not the first time Vietnam veterans have gathered in large numbers,
Linderer said it would be one of the few national events not
hosted by veterans themselves. The idea for the tribute grew
out of a conversation Linderer had a couple of years ago with
fellow veteran and organizer Steve Presley of Springfield, Mo.
Both men wondered why more Vietnam veterans didn't come to a
town that takes pride in honoring veterans.
The
city advertises itself as the national home for all veterans
and for years has hosted military reunions and other veterans
events. World War II and Korean War veterans flocked to the
town, but gatherings of Vietnam vets were few and far between.
Linderer and Presley landed on the idea of a homecoming and
formed a not-for-profit corporation.
Linderer
and his wife moved to Branson two years ago to work full time
on the project. "I did this because it needed to be done,"
said Linderer, who did a one-year tour in Vietnam. "It
needed to be done before we all die."
The
week's events include military demonstrations and displays,
fishing and golf tournaments, national radio broadcasts, banquets,
reunions and a parade. The celebration ends Saturday 10 miles
north of Branson with a fair, air show, fireworks and scheduled
performances by the Beach Boys, Credence Clearwater Revisited,
the Doobie Brothers, the Four Tops, Mary Wilson of the Supremes,
the Oak Ridge Boys and Tony Orlando. Satellite feeds from President
George W. Bush and troops in Iraq also are planned.
The
final price tag will be about $5 million, Linderer said. Major
contributors include Anheuser-Busch, American Airlines, Coca-Cola
and Texas businessman Ross Perot, who is scheduled to attend.
Linderer
was one of several veterans who credited the treatment and public
respect that members of the armed forces receive today in large
part to the pain they suffered during the last 30 years.
"This
country suffered a national embarrassment the way it treated
Vietnam vets," Linderer said. "It wasn't the whole
country, but it was enough of the country that it flavored our
homecoming with the animosity and the indifference that we ran
into. And I'll tell you something else: Kids today will never
get the treatment we got as long as we're alive."
You can get
more details on the event at the Operation
Homecoming USA web site. Kudos to the organizers, performers,
and corporate sponsors who have made this thing happen. It's the
least that can and should be done to honor their service and sacrifice.
- T. Bevan 8:30 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Monday
June 13, 2005
UNITED WE FALL: My father retired from United Airlines
in November 2002 after 34 years with the company as a pilot. Like
thousands of other United retirees across the country, he stands
to lose a substantial chunk of his pension (more than 80% in his
case) as a result of the recent bankruptcy court ruling allowing
United to terminate its pension plans.
This comes
in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars my dad saw
evaporate from his portfolio as the value of his shares of United
stock (acquired in 1994 when United's employees gave up $5
billion in wage cuts in exchange for a 55% stake in the company)
went from over $100 per-share at their peak in 1998 to
about $1 per-share in early 2003 when he dumped them.
Unfortunately,
as I said, my
father's story is far from unique. But there's an extra element
of tragedy to Ellen Saracini's story, whose husband Vic was the
captain of UAL Flight 175 that crashed into the WTC on September
11. (Click here
to read the text of a letter Ms. Saracini sent to Congressman
George Miller describing the details of her situation.)
What's being
done to United's retirees is total disgrace, one made that much
more shameful by the fact it's been perpetrated completely within
the bounds of the law. Here is what Bradley Belt, the head of
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), told
John McLaughlin on May 12:
"As
I testified last year, United stopped making contributions into
its pension plans last summer, beginning last summer, notwithstanding
the fact that the ERISA [The
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974], the law
we talked about that created the PBGC and the Pension Insurance
Program, would have required them to put in that money. However,
since they were in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code trumped their
legal obligations under ERISA and did not require them to put
those monies in.
But
the other important point to note is that United, up until that
point in time, had actually made all the minimum contributions
that were required by law.
The
problem is with the laws themselves. There are on the books
laws that are supposed to keep -- make sure that companies keep
their pension plans reasonably well-funded. Those laws have
failed us. Those funding rules have failed us. That's the reason
we have a $10 billion gap at United alone. The funding rules
are not stringent, they're full of loopholes, and that's what
the president is committed to addressing."
In other
words, what we have is another example of CEOs and CFOs of major
corporations pushing accounting practices and utilizing all available
loopholes to comply with the letter of the law even while violating
its spirit.
United is
the largest and most visible example of retirees being put at
risk by executives playing fast and loose with ERISA, but they
certainly aren't alone. To put this emerging fiscal train wreck
in context, the PBCG estimates there are currently 30,000 defined
benefit pension plans in the United States that are under funded
by a total of $450 billion. That's nearly
three times the amount it took to bailout the S&L industry.
In addition
to United's $9.8 billion default, The
Washington Post reports that 20 other companies have defaulted
on pension plans in the last three years to the tune of $100 million.
Northwest and Delta are standing on the PBGC's doorstep with billions
more in default. It's only a matter of time before the Big Kahuna
- General Motors - comes knocking.
Two quick
points worth making. The first is that one of the driving forces
behind this crisis is union contracts. My father earned a good
wage with good benefits under the pilot's union contract (as did
other members of United's unionized workforce) but those contracts
ultimately played a big part in United's inability to be competitive
with non-unionized low-cost carriers which, along with September
11 and soaring gas prices, caused the airline to go belly up.
Looking back, most United retirees would probably have rather
earned a slightly lower annual wage if they had known that the
trade-off would be United going bankrupt and then reneging on
a big chunk of their pension nest-egg.
Second, United
is a textbook example of why Social Security should be at least
partially privatized. For decades employees like my father faithfully
paid into a pension system in return for assurances that a certain
amount of money would be there for them when they retired. When
push came to shove, however, and the company ran out money, those
promises were broken.
If United's
employees had instead put that money into a 401K account, it would
still be sitting there. They would own it, be able to see it,
control it, and spend it or invest it as they liked.
Social Security
is nothing more than a big defined-benefit pension plan. Now that
we're getting a glimpse of what the future Social Security tragedy
is going to look like, it seems immoral for Democrats to resist
the idea of allowing people the option to control a portion of
their own Social Security contribution.
I don't know
that anything can be done to rectify the injustice being done
to United's retirees. The only two possible options I see - liquidating
the airline's assets or some sort of tax-payer subsidized bailout
mandated by Congress - seem untenable both economically and politically.
Perhaps the
only good that can come from the United debacle is that new laws
will be put in place to prevent companies with defined benefit
plans from using loopholes to under fund them. That would certainly
benefit future retirees, but it's a very small consolation to
my father and many more of the 50,000 lifelong United employees
who are watching their retirement dreams go up in smoke. -
T. Bevan 1:00 pm Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
