In defense of 'Zero Dark Thirty'

Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty Images)

By Michael Moore, Reader Supported News

readersupportednews.org

25 January 13

here comes a point about two-thirds of the way through Zero Dark Thirty where it is clear something, or someone, on high has changed. The mood at the CIA has shifted, become subdued. It appears that the torture-approving guy who's been president for the past eight years seems to be, well, gone. And, just as a fish rots from the head down, the stench also seems to be gone. Word then comes down that - get this! - we can't torture any more! The CIA agents seem a bit disgruntled and dumbfounded. I mean, torture has worked soooo well these past eight years! Why can't we torture any more???

The answer is provided on a TV screen in the background where you see a black man (who apparently is the new president) and he's saying, in plain English, that America's torturing days are over, done, finished. There's an "aw, shit" look on their faces and then some new boss comes into the meeting room, slams his fist on the table and says, essentially, you've had eight years to find bin Laden - and all you've got to show for it are a bunch of photos of naked Arab men peeing on themselves and wearing dog collars and black hoods. Well, he shouts, those days are over! There's no secret group up on the top floor looking for bin Laden, you're it, and goddammit do your job and find him.

He is there to put the fear of God in them, probably because his boss, the new president, has (as we can presume) on his first day in office, ordered that bin Laden be found and killed. Unlike his frat boy predecessor who had little interest in finding bin Laden (even to the point of joking that "I really just don't spend that much time on him"), this new president was not an imbecile and all about business. Go find bin Laden - and don't use torture. Torture is morally wrong. Torture is the coward's way. C'mon - we're smart, we're the USA, and you're telling me we can't find a six-and-a-half-foot tall Saudi who's got a $25 million bounty on his head? Use your brains (like I do) and, goddammit, get to work!

And then, as the movie shows, the CIA abruptly shifts from torture porn to - are you sitting down? - detective work. Like cops do to find killers. Bin Laden was a killer - a mass killer - not a general of an army of soldiers, or the head of a country call Terrorstan. He was a crazed religious fanatic, a multi-millionaire, and a punk who was part of the anti-Soviet mujahideen whom we trained, armed and funded in Afghanistan back in the '80s.

But he was a godsend and a very useful tool to the Dick Cheneys and Don Rumsfields of the world. They could hold him up to a frightened American public and scare the bejesus out of everyone - and everyone (well, most everyone) would then get behind the effort to declare war on, um ... well ... Who exactly do we declare war against? Oh, right - terrorism! The War on Terrorism! So skilled were the men from Halliburton, et al. that they convinced the Congress and the public to go to war against a noun. Terrorism. People fell for it, and these rich men and their friends made billions of dollars from "contracting" and armaments and a Burger King on every Iraqi base. Billions more were made creating a massive internal spying apparatus called "Homeland Security." Business was very, very good, and as long as the bogeyman (Osama) was alive, the citizenry would not complain one bit.

I think you know what happens next. In the final third of Zero Dark Thirty, the agents switch from torture to detective work - and guess what happens? We find bin Laden! Eight years of torture - no bin Laden. Two years of detective work - boom! Bin Laden!

And that really should be the main takeaway from Zero Dark Thirty: That good detective work can bring fruitful results - and that torture is wrong.

Much of the discussion and controversy around the film has centered on the belief that the movie shows, or is trying to say, that torture works. They torture a guy for years and finally, while having a friendly lunch with him one day, they ask him if he would tell them the name of bin Laden's courier. Either that, or go back and be tortured some more. He says he doesn't know the guy but he knows his fake name and he gives them that name. The name turns out to be correct. Torture works!

But then we learn a piece of news: The CIA has had the name of this guy all along! For ten years! And how did they get this name ten years ago? From "a tip." A random tip! No torture involved. But, as was the rule during those years of incompetency and no desire to find bin Laden, the tip was filed away somewhere in some room - and not discovered until 2010. So, instead of torturing hundreds for eight years to find this important morsel of intelligence, they could have found it in their own CIA file cabinet in about eight minutes. Yeah, torture works.

In the movie, after they have the name of the courier, they then believe if they find him, they find bin Laden. So how do they find him? They bribe a Kuwaiti informant with a new car. That's right, they find the number of the courier's family by giving the guy a Lamborghini. And what do they do when they find the courier's mother? Do they kidnap and torture her to find out where her son is? Nope, they just listen in on his weekly call home to Mom, and through that, they trace him to Pakistan and then hire a bunch of undercover Pakistani Joe Fridays to follow this guy's every move - which, then, leads them to the infamous compound in Abbottabad where the Saudi punk has holed up.

Nice police work, boys!

Oh - and girl. 'Zero Dark Thirty - a movie made by a woman (Kathryn Bigelow), produced by a woman (Megan Ellison), distributed by a woman (Amy Pascal, the co-chairman of Sony Pictures), and starring a woman (Jessica Chastain) is really about how an agency of mostly men are dismissive of a woman who is on the right path to finding bin Laden. Yes, guys, this is a movie about how we don't listen to women, how hard it is for them to have their voice heard even in these enlightened times. You could say this is a 21st century chick flick - and it would do you well to see it.

But back to the controversy and the torture. I guess where I part with most of my friends who are upset at this film is that they are allowing the wrong debate to take place. You should NEVER engage in a debate where the other side defines the terms of the debate - namely, in this case, to debate "whether torture works." You should refuse to participate in that discussion because the real question should be, simply, "is torture wrong?" And, after watching the brutal behavior of CIA agents for the first 45 minutes of the film, I can't believe anyone of conscience would conclude anything other than that this is morally NOT right. You will be repulsed by these torture scenes because, make no mistake about it, this has been done in your name and mine and with our tax dollars. We funded this.

If you allow the question to be "did torture work?" then you'll lose because yes, if you torture someone who actually has the information, they will eventually give it to you. The problem is, the other 99 who don't know anything will also tell you anything to get you to stop torturing - but their information is wrong. How do you know which one of the 100 is the man with the goods? You don't.

But let's grant the other side that maybe, occasionally, torture "works." Here's what else will work: castrating pedophiles. Why don't we do that? Probably because we think it's morally wrong. The death penalty sure works. Put a murderer in a gas chamber and I can guarantee you he'll never murder again. But is it right? Do we accomplish the ends we seek by becoming the murderers ourselves? That should be our only question.

After I saw Zero Dark Thirty, a friend asked me, "During the torture scenes, who did you feel empathy for the most - the American torturer or the Arab suspect?" That was easy to answer. "Oh, God, the poor guy being waterboarded. The torturer was a sadist."

"Yes, that's the answer everyone gives me afterward. The movie actually makes you care for the tortured guys who may have, in fact, been part of 9/11. Like rooting for the Germans on the submarine to make it back to port in Das Boot, that's the sign of some great filmmaking when the writer and director are able to get you to empathize with the person you've been told everywhere else to hate."

Zero Dark Thirty is a disturbing, fantastically-made movie. It will make you hate torture. And it will make you happy you voted for a man who stopped all that barbarity - and who asked that the people over at Langley, like him, use their brains.

And that's what worked.

P.S. One final thought. I've heard fellow lefties say that even if the filmmakers didn't intend to endorse torture (Bigelow called torture "reprehensible" on Colbert the other night), the average person watching the movie is going to take it the wrong way. I believe it is the responsibility of the filmmaker attempting to communicate something that they do so clearly and skillfully (and you can decide for yourself if Bigelow and Boal did so. For me, they did.). But I never blame the artist for failing to dumb down their work so that the lesser minds among us "get it." Should Springsteen not have named his album Born in the USA because some took it to be as a salute to patriotism (Reagan wanted to use it in his 1984 reelection campaign but Bruce said no)?/

Moderate to heavy smoke in Rim Country

Prescribed fire operations

planned for Verde Glen and

Thompson Draw II next week

Piles to be burned in Verde Glen area Mon.-Tue.

and Thompson Draw II area Wed.-Thurs.

Payson, Ariz. (February 1, 2013) – Prescribed fire operations to eliminate vegetative debris piles in the Verde Glen and Thompson Draw II areas will be conducted by Payson Ranger District fire specialists Monday thru Thursday (Feb. 4 thru 7).

Verde Glen – Ignitions will begin Monday and Tuesday (Feb. 4 and 5) to eliminate 150 acres of debris piles east of Verde Glen and Rim Trail.

Fire personnel will mitigate smoke impacts by ending ignitions by 3 pm each day.

Residents and visitors to the area can expect to see and smell moderate to heavy amounts of smoke that may linger in the area thru Friday, Feb. 8.

Diurnal air flow will move residual smoke in the evening hours down the East Verde Corridor and will impact the communities of Verde Glen, Rim Trail, Washington Park, Whispering Pines, Beaver Valley, Flowing Springs, East Verde Estates, and adjacent areas.

“The cold, inert winter air will impact these communities with heavy smoke,” said Gary Roberts, district fire prevention officer. “We continue to appreciate the understanding and support of residents and property owners as we work to protect areas like this from the very real threat of wildfire.”

Thompson Draw II - Ignitions will continue Wednesday and Thursday (Feb. 6 and 7) to eliminate 3-5 acres of debris piles in the Thompson Draw II area.

Residents and visitors to this area can expect to see and smell light amounts of smoke during the operation.

When fire operations begin, signs will be posted along roads that are likely to be affected by smoke. Motorists are urged to use caution while driving through these areas and to slow down for the safety of firefighters and the public.

Prescribed fire treatments are always dependent on optimal weather conditions, such as fuel moisture content, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and directions, and other variables.

            Prescription fire requests must be approved by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for each day of the burning operations.

 

For further information, please call the Payson Ranger District at 928-474-7900.  Residents can also stay updated on prescribed fires at www.fs.usda.gov/tonto. 

Justice is not only blind - it can wear a wig and mustache too

By MICHELLE PEIRANO 
Cronkite News Service

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a drug defendant’s right to confront his accuser was not violated when a witness testified against him in a wig and fake handlebar mustache.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the disguise was necessary to protect the safety of the witness, who was involved in an undercover investigation of the Sinaloa drug cartel, and it did not affect the outcome of the trial.
In doing so, it upheld Jorge de Jesus-Casteneda’s 2011 conviction in Arizona for possession of drugs with intent to distribute.

De Jesus-Casteneda’s attorney said Wednesday that she would ask for a review of the ruling, which she said could allow for testimony from anyone with interest in concealing their identities, whether merited or not.

“Anytime a witness testifies against someone in a criminal case, there is a potential for danger,” Celia Rumann said. “This could open a door for the federal court to use this in any way that they want.”

She said she disagreed with several aspects of the decision, including the statement that the disguise did not interfere with the jury’s ability to read the witness’s demeanor.

The witness had been an undercover agent making a drug and weapons deal at a warehouse where de Jesus-Casteneda delivered 10 pounds of methamphetamine.
 
At trial, the government asked that the witness be allowed to wear a wig, mustache and sunglasses on the stand to protect his identity. The trial court let him testify in a wig and false mustache, but no sunglasses.

The lower court judge called the disguise a “very small impingement” on the ability of jurors to judge the witness’s credibility when weighed against the danger of testifying without a disguise, according to the circuit court’s opinion.

The appellate panel agreed.

“Just as an audience assesses a character’s vulnerability and emotions by watching the actor’s demeanor, so too does a jury assess a witness’s credibility and emotions by examining the witness’s demeanor and eyes,” Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote in the opinion.

The court, pointing to other cases that let child sex-abuse victims testify via closed-circuit television so they do not have to physically face their abusers, said the Sixth Amendment‘s “face-to-face confrontation requirement is not absolute.”

But de Jesus-Casteneda argued in district court and on appeal that the disguise did violate that right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Rumann said that a disguise can also affect how a jury perceives a witness beyond just their mannerisms and demeanor: The simple fact that the witness needs to be disguised makes the testimony stand out to jurors.

“They think he is important because he needs to be disguised,” she said.

Dear NRA: Put me on your Enemies List

The NRA's enemy list is growing. (photo: CREDO)

By Alan Colmes, Reader Supported News

02 February 13
readersupportednews.org

he National Rifle Association has an extensive enemies list, and I am, frankly, insulted that I am not on it. The list is sorely lacking. Politicians favoring gun regulations are absent, as are this thing we have in the digital era called websites.

Addicting Info would be a nice addition, not to mention Occupy the NRA. I have a little site called Liberaland that isn't exactly an NRA press shop. Maybe if they spent less time playing shoot-em-up and gave The Google an occasional whirl, they'd know what century it is. Some of the people on the list are actually dead. I loved Nora Ephron and Jill Clayburgh, but they're not currently setting the world on fire. Nor is the late soap star John Ingle. I may not be the biggest name, nor am I the most important voice speaking out against the NRA's foolish, out-of-touch positions, but at least I'm operating above room temperature. HELLO!

Some of the NRA's "enemies" are groups like Hadassah, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and the YWCA. At least all major religions are covered. Then you have your evil, gun-hating corporations like Sara Lee. Sara Lee? I suppose their new slogan will have to be "Nobody Doesn't Like Sara Lee, Except The National Rifle Association." The Kansas City Royals made the list. I never knew they took a position on gun control. And there's the more-predictable Ben and Jerry's (new flavor: Glock-y Road).

Under entertainers you have your Rob Reiners and Barbra Streisands, right along with Boyz II Men and the Temptations. The Temptations? Really? There have been at least 22 members of the Temptations since the group was formed in 1960, and some of them, like the beloved Ephron and Clayburgh, are dead. But again, as for being on the NRA enemies list, breathing is not a prerequisite.

I think I'd fit in nicely on the part of the list featuring those who editorialize about guns. This is another way I have a leg up on The Temptations - who I don't think usually sing about lethal weapons - and those who are dead, who have not lately weighed in. Since it's alphabetical, I could be seamlessly tucked in between Marie Cocco and E.J. Dionne, Jr. if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

If anybody keeping score for the NRA sees this, thank you very much for your consideration.

Germs spread really fast at work

By Alexis Blue, University Communications | January 30, 2013

When someone comes to work sick, about half of the commonly touched surfaces in the office will become infected with the virus by lunchtime, according to a new study at the UA.

Anyone who has worked in an office knows what happens when a colleague comes to work sick – it isn't long before the hacking and sneezing starts to spread. New research from the University of Arizona shows how quickly those germs travel through an office environment when just one person comes to work sick.

Completed just in time for flu season, the study finds that more than half of commonly touched surfaces in an office – like doorknobs, copy machine buttons, the office refrigerator – can become infected with a virus when a single person in the office is ill. Some of the likeliest germ hotpots include the coffee pot handle in the break room, telephones, desktops and tabletops.

The study also revealed that simple interventions, such as hand washing and the use of hand sanitizer or wipes, can drastically reduce employees' risk of infection.

Conducted in an office on the UA campus, the study included about 80 participants, some of whom received droplets on their hands at the start of a normal work day. While most of those droplets were plain water, one person unknowingly received a droplet containing artificial viruses mimicking the cold, the flu and a stomach bug.
 
Employees were instructed to go about their day as usual. After about four hours, researchers sampled commonly touched surfaces in the office, as well as employees' hands, and found that more than 50 percent of surfaces and employees were infected with at least one of the viruses.

"We were actually quite surprised by how effectively everything spread," said Kelly Reynolds (pictured above), UA associate professor of public health and co-principal investigator on the study. "I didn’t expect to find it as much as I did."

And that was in an office environment where people work primarily in isolated spaces, she noted.

"There weren't a lot of people roaming around," Reynolds said. "They basically go in their offices, sit in their chairs and are on their computers. They may go to the bathroom, and they have a common kitchen area they share and a photocopy machine, but that's about it."

Researchers swabbed surfaces and hands again at the end of the work day. By then, the cold and flu viruses, known for their short survival time, had dissipated, but the stomach virus had continued to spread, infecting up to 70 percent of surfaces tested.

"We really felt that the hand was quicker than the sneeze in the spread of disease," said Charles Gerba (pictured above), UA professor of soil, water and environmental science and co-principal investigator on the study. "Most people think it's coughing and sneezing that spreads germs, but the number of objects you touch is incredible, especially in this push-button generation. We push more buttons than any other generation in history."

Although the cold and flu germs had died off by the day's end, risk to employees was still high since little exposure is necessary to make someone sick, Reynolds said.
The researchers calculated that employees faced a 40 to 90 percent chance of infection with one of the three viruses.

The same study then was repeated with a "Healthy Workplace Intervention" in place. Employees were provided free tissues, disinfecting wipes and a bottle of hand sanitizer and were instructed to wash their hands before eating lunch and after meeting with a large number of people.

With those simple interventions in place, risk of infection dropped below 10 percent.

"The take-home message here is that very simple interventions that we all kind of know about have great efficacy," Reynolds said. "Using tissues to wipe your face, using hand sanitizer or having it available for use, and washing your hands before lunch and after a big meeting resulted in an 80 percent reduction across the board, for all three viruses, in their risk of infection."

Another important message, Gerba says: Stay home when illness strikes.

On average, 80 percent of people say they will go to work sick, and when they do, they not only spread germs to others but can cost a company about $280 in lost productivity, Gerba said.

Office health and hygiene has become an increasingly important area of study, with roughly 80 percent of the population working in offices today, he added.

"One hundred years ago, most of us lived on a farm and went into town once a week for a couple of hours. Today, we go into buildings containing hundreds, if not thousands, of people," he said. "We put more people in bigger facilities, so we have more opportunities for trading germs than ever before."

Palin, Fox and the end of an era

Fox News is ending its relationship with Sarah Palin. (photo: Getty Images)

By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America

29 January 13

readersupportednews.org

asn't it fitting that Sarah Palin's exit from Fox News was made official the same week President Obama celebrated his second inauguration? Didn't it just seem apt that the once-future star of Fox News and the Tea Party movement lost her national media platform just days after the president she tried to demonize for four years basked in the glow of his easy re-election victory?

Palin's breakup with Fox was expected, but it's still significant. A "milestone," is how former Bush speechwriter David Frum put it.

The move represents the end of a brief, ill-conceived era within the conservative media movement, and specifically at Fox, where in the wake of Obama's first White House win Palin, along with preposterous cohort Glenn Beck, was irresponsibly tapped to become a high-priced pundit who trafficked in hate.

At Fox, Palin represented a particularly angry and juvenile wing of the conservative movement. It's the part that appears deeply obsessed with Obama as a person; an unhealthy obsession that seemed to surpass any interest in his policies. With lazy name-calling as her weapon of choice, Palin served as Fox News' point person for misguided snark and sophomoric put-downs. Palin also epitomized the uber-aggressive anti-intellectual push that coincided with Obama's swearing in four years ago.

And for a while, it looked like the push might work. In 2010, it seemed like Palin and Beck might just succeed in helping Fox change the face of American politics with their signature calling cards of continuous conspiracies (Beck) and perpetual victimization (Palin).

But it never happened.

In the wake of Beck's cable TV departure in 2011, Obama's re-election win in 2012, and now Palin's farewell from Fox last week, it's obvious the blueprint drawn up by Fox chief Roger Ailes was a programming and political failure. Yes, the name-calling and conspiratorial chatter remains at Fox, but it's no longer delivered by Palin who was going to be star some loyalist thought the channel could ride all the way to the White House.

Let's also note that Fox's Palin era was marked by how the Beltway press often did everything in its power to prop her up as a "star" reaching new heights, when with each passing month Palin's standing with the public seemed to register new lows.

Belying claims of liberal bias, the political press seemed desperate for Palin to succeed and to become a lasting presence in American politics; a permanent TV foil during the Obama era. Can you think of another time when the press so enthusiastically heralded the losing vice presidential candidate as a political and media "phenomena"?

• ABC's The Note: "There is precisely one superstar in the Republican Party."


• Time's Mark Halperin: Palin's "operating on a different plane, hovering higher than a mere celebrity, more buoyant than an average politician."


• Washington Post's David Broder: "A public figure at the top of her game."

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Whatever success and momentum Palin enjoyed on Fox in terms of influencing the national conversation (i.e. "death panels"), it slowed in January 2011. That's when, responding to an Arizona shopping center shooting spree that nearly claimed the life of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Palin cast herself as a victim, and condemned the press for manufacturing a "blood libel." (Palin appeared to not understand that historically, "blood libel" relates to the anti-Semitic charge that Jews murder children and use their blood for religious rituals.)

The Beltway press seemed truly aghast by Palin's performance. And so did Roger Ailes. When Palin bowed out of the 2012 presidential race and did so on a right-wing talk show instead of on Fox, thereby robbing the channel of the spotlight, her star seemed to fade precipitously, to the point where her views and commentary were irrelevant to last year's presidential campaign.

Meanwhile, Palin's departure is also significant because it comes at a time when Fox is still reeling from Obama's re-election. (A re-election Palin was supposed to help derail.) Where the channel spent the previous four years with a laser-like focus rallying right-wing believers in an effort to drive Obama from the White House, while simultaneously, we were told, saving liberty and countless freedoms, Fox today seems utterly lost knowing it won't ever defeat Obama at the polls.

Clinging ever tighter to the gears on its phony outrage machine, Fox talkers take turns taking umbrage. Last week's relentless sobbing over Obama's inauguration speech (too partisan!) was a perfect example of how the channel can't stop lashing out at imaginary slights.

Writing for Esquire's website, Tom Junod noticed the same pervasive sense of bewilderment. A student of Fox who wrote a lengthy profile of Ailes two years ago, Junod labeled the Fox incarnation on display early in Obama's second term to be a "freak show" wallowing in defeat and an over-sized "sense of injury":

The question, of course, is whether [Ailes] knows what anyone else in the United States might like, or whether his network, even as it holds its captive audience, will descend further into political irrelevance. For all his instinctive showmanship, and for all his purported populist genius, Ailes saw Obama cobble together his new majority right under his nose, and knew neither what to call it or how to stop it.

In other words, Fox News got steamrolled by Obama's re-election. Palin's departure from the Fox payroll serves as a useful exclamation point to that fact.

Library bookstore gets romantic in February

In February our thoughts turn to romance.  In honor of Valentine’s Day, the Library Friends of Payson Bookstore is featuring paperback romance novels at the incredibly low price of 20 for $1.00.

 

Many of these will be drawn from a recently received, extremely large donation of paperback romances that are in like new condition.  Hurry in for the best selection.  You will be amazed by the vast selection and great quality of this offering. 

 

Bookstore stock has never been better and new items are added daily.  Therefore, the wise patron stops by often.  Bookstore volunteers are always happy to help you.

 

Every penny spent in the Bookstore goes directly to the Payson Library for purchase of new materials.

 

 The LFOP Bookstore is located to the right of the circulation desk just inside the Payson Public Library, 328 N. McLane Road.  For more information visit the Library Friends of Payson website at www.libraryfriendsofpayson.org