Obsidian Wings

Throw Them Out

by hilzoy

I'll be writing more about the horrible "compromise" on torture later. (Good posts at Balikization and Legal Fiction.) I don't really have time to post now; but I did want to draw attention to the following debate, by our representatives, in the House Judiciary Committee:

"But the talk of sleep deprivation caused Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) to stir. "Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours of sleep and cannot be awakened for interrogation," he said. "The average inmate gained about 15 pounds, was receiving better medical care by far, dental care, you name it: being given a Koran, they pray five times a day, there's an arrow on the floor in each of the rooms . . . so they know which way Mecca is so they can pray accordingly."

Sensenbrenner responded with a deep cough. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) set about building a straw man. "We just heard that not guaranteeing eight hours of sleep in Guantanamo has been interpreted by some as inhumane," he said.

"Who?" demanded Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.), for nobody had said such a thing.

But Feeney was just warming up. "There is not an American mom that is guaranteed eight hours of sleep every night. There are very few people in the business world . . . who are guaranteed eight hours of sleep." Further, he added: "There are suggestions that playing loud music is inhumane treatment. . . . The bottom line is, that means virtually every teenager I know is torturing mom and dad."

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) appealed for reason: "Although I'm sure parents do feel tortured by their teenagers, I don't think that's in the Constitution."

Nadler raised the ante. "Sleep deprivation [for] eight hours? How about 40 hours?" he asked. "How about waterboarding? How about holding people and subjecting them to hypothermia?"

"Absurd! Absurd!" heckled Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), who accused the Democrats of "hyperbole."

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) seconded the "absurd" accusation. "We are facing sleep deprivation here in this Congress at the shutdown of every single session," he cracked."

I saw the debate yesterday; all this got started when someone described treatment at Guantanamo, and then for some unfathomable reason proceeded on the assumption that this bill only allows what already happens at Guantanamo, which is wrong. That's where the 'eight hours of sleep' comes from: supposedly, detainees at Guantanamo get eight hours of sleep, and so, despite the fact that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill under discussion, the Republicans decided to argue as though anyone who objects to the President's bill must think that not getting eight hours of sleep is torture.

There are, basically, two interpretations of this. Either these Republican representatives have neither read the bill nor familiarized themselves with its contents and with current practices by the US government, including the practices that made them shout 'absurd!'. In this case they are flatly failing to do their job, which might be OK if they were considering some trivial bill that established National Dandelion Week, but would be inexcusable in this case. Or else they are liars and moral bankrupts: liars for pretending that the claim that we subject detainees to hypothermia and other genuine tortures is absurd; moral bankrupts for equating what we are doing to detainees to what they do to themselves at the end of every session.

In either case, they are unworthy of anyone's support. The people cited in this article as having made these ridiculous arguments are: Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.). If anyone can find a transcript of the hearing, I'll go through it later today, see who needs to be added to this list, and update accordingly. The full list of members of the House Judiciary Committee is here; all the Republicans but Reps. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Bob Inglis (S.C.) voted for the administration bill.

Thailand: Background

by hilzoy

dr ngo has graciously agreed to let me front-page his comment on Thailand from Charles' thread. Everything after this point is his -- and you should be grateful for that, since he knows something about Thailand, and I don't. Or didn't, until I read this.

***

Desultory Musings on the Thai Coup of 2006

OK, here I am. Have skimmed through many of the useful links provided by CB (and by Spartikus - the Manthorpe piece is nice, though the headline may be misleading, as it omits an "it seems" that Manthorpe carefully inserted in the text) I assume that anyone who wants to can get up to speed fairly quickly with what is known (and still not known). So my role, as I see it, is to provide a bit of perspective.

- First, the disclaimers. It's NOT about Islam. It's NOT about us.

Although there is an Islamic insurgency in the far south of Thailand, it is physically and culturally removed from the center of action, and there's no likelihood whatsoever that this is any kind of Islamic plot (though Sondhi is a Muslim, he's from Bangkok, not the south). The parallel that jumps to my mind is the "Irish Question" in 19th-century Britain. Governments might fall over their inability to resolve the "IQ" (including Gladstone's once, IIRC), but there was never an Irish threat to England itself. So with Bangkok and its Muslim south.

We can expect almost no change in Thai-US relations, regardless of the outcome of this event, unless we decide to make an issue of it. The Thai are, over the past century and a half or so, the world's finest practitioners of "bending to the prevailing wind" (e.g., they started WWII on Japan's side and ended it with a pro-Allied government - along the way they declared war on the USA, but never delivered the declaration!), and no change of government in modern history has resulted in a significant change in foreign policy.

- So, what IS it about? You'll see a number of theories in the links, most of them equally plausible (or not) at this stage. It's urban (Sondhi, the middle class) against rural (Thaksin, the farmers). It's personal (Thaksin was trying to fire Sondhi). It's for reform OR against reform, depending on the valence you give "reform." It's all of the above, or none of the above. I don't know, but ...

... as a historian, I tend to see it as an interesting overlap of the three major political themes of the past century or so: monarchy, the military, and democracy. Let me take them up in reverse order:

Democracy, in a functional (rather than ritual) sense, is relatively new in Thailand, though lip-service has been paid to it since the 1930s. Except for a brief period between 1973 and 1976 (ended by a military coup), the Thai had no really free elections until the early 1990s. Over the past 15 years, however, they've gotten into democracy in a big way, with numerous meaningful elections AND with the problems associated with such elections, including outright cheating, attempts to "buy" votes either directly (for cash) or for electoral promises, manipulation of the media, &c. I think we're all familiar with these.

Thaksin, the most successful politician of this era, has been frequently compared with Italy's Berlusconi, which seems apt - parlaying a communications empire with populist politics to seize and hold political power. The (rural) masses have been willing to forgive his indiscretions, to judge by election results. But his selling off his largest holding (for $1.9 billion) to a foreign firm (Singapore's Temasek) and managing to avoid taxes on the sale may have pushed the balance against him.

Unlike Italy and most of the West, the military has also played a strong political role in the recent past. They seized power (from the absolute monarchy) in 1932, and continued to hold it, directly or indirectly, for most of the next sixty years. There were some "civilian" governments during that period, but it was clear that they served only as long as the military let them. Coups were abundant (17-18 of them, about half successful), but generally bloodless; a dictator would wake up in the morning, see the tanks surrounding the palace, and be allowed to proceed to the airport, where he could fly off and spend as much as he had managed to salt away while it was his "turn" to rule. That's one reason the Thai public seems relatively blase about this whole thing - they're like Filipinos facing yet another typhoon, or Angelenos an earthquake.

The king is the real wild card in this situation. The absolute monarchy lasted until 1932, and the greatest heroes in Thai history are all kings (led by Chulalongkorn, 1868-1910, grandfather of the current monarch). When the military took over in 1932, they reduced the monarchy to a limited one - roughly comparable to the British in constitutional power - and for twenty years or so the kings had little to say or do. But starting in the 1950s the military started building up the symbolic role of the monarchy again, taking advantage of the fact that young King Bhumibol (b. 1927; r. 1946-present!) was sincere and likeable; the military positioned itself as the protector of King, Country, and Religion (Buddhism).

Over the past half-century, the king has increased in personal* prestige and (therefore) indirect power until it can reasonably be said that no political solution to any crisis is possible without his imprimatur. He still tends to stay in the background, but when he emerges, people pay attention: the last coup (1992) ended when the king scolded the general on TV! The current coup leaders all claim loyalty to the king - which of course they would (as would Thaksin, I'm sure) - and "it seems" that the king is going along with the coup, though he has not given it any kind of public blessing yet. We may never know whether he knew of it in advance or simply approved of it after the fact (it was well known that he disliked Thaksin), but the result is the same, if it appears to the public that he supports it.

*This is very much a personal prestige that Bhumibol has, and it is questionable how much of it will carry over to his heir, whoever s/he may be.

The king has a reputation for being honest, conservative (with a small "c" = move cautiously forward, not leap violently backward), and in favor of Good Things like the environment and democracy. It seems very likely that, even if the coup leaders had not promised to turn the country over to a new government in two weeks (?!), they would have to be seen to be on track toward civilianizing, if not democratizing, the country very soon if they were not to lose the royal and public support they apparently have at the moment.

So, what it looks like now (= 5pm Wednesday, EDT) is that Thaksin is out, the coup is on, there will be little violence, a new government will be appointed shortly, and there will be business as before ...

UNTIL

... the next election. From a pro-coup standpoint, the problem is that they need to have elections to restore democratic legitimacy BUT they don't have any obvious way to beat the proven power of Thaksin's vote-getting machine (centered on the TRT: "Thai Love Thai" party). Stay tuned.

Christian Values

by hilzoy

Via Balkinization, a statement from the Traditional Values Coalition, which, according to its website, "is the largest non-denominational, grassroots church lobby in America", and seeks "to empower people of faith through knowledge":

"The Traditional Values Coalition asked members of Congress to support President Bush's reform of prisoner treatment policies because "this is a war unlike any other we have fought -- the enemy is faceless and deliberately attacks the innocent."

TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague "outrages upon personal dignity" statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950.

"We need to clarify this policy for treating detainees," said Rev. Sheldon. "As it stands right now, the military and intelligence experts interrogating these terrorists are in much greater danger than the terrorists. Civil suits against our military personnel are tying their hands as they try to get vital information which will save the lives of our young military people and the innocent."

"Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.

"We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.

"And since this debate is, at its very core, about preserving the traditional value of prosecuting injustice and protecting the innocent, TVC will score this vote in both the House and the Senate. We encourage all of our supporters and affiliated churches to contact their elected representatives and let them know we support President Bush's efforts to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees in order to provide greater protection for our troops and the innocent.""

Brian Tamanaha, who wrote about this at Balkinization, adds: "This can't be right (although I'm not a Christian)." Well, I'm not a Christian either, but I used to be one, and retain a lot of respect for my old religion. Therefore, I don't feel the least hesitation about saying: it's not just that this isn't Christianity; this is the antithesis of what Christianity is supposed to be all about. And I think it's worth documenting this. I am not in favor of pretense generally, and so I am not in favor of Democrats who don't like religion pretending that they do. For that very reason, however, I think it's worth pointing out that there's a lot in Christianity that is genuinely worthy of respect; and that whenever those in power, or those who wish to ingratiate them, have sought to pervert its message, they have always stood condemned by the words of the God whose name they take in vain.

Documentation below the fold.

Administration Torture Bill Loses In House Judiciary Committee

by hilzoy

Reuters:

"In a rebuke of President George W. Bush, a U.S. House of Representatives panel on Wednesday rejected his plan for interrogating foreign terrorist suspects. The bill, however, will still go to the full House for consideration.

The House Judiciary Committee, in a surprise move, rejected the measure 20-17. The Republican-led panel had been widely expected to back the bill pushed by Bush while he battles with some key Republicans in the Senate for similar authority."

Meanwhile, I can't get into Congressional Quarterly*, but Justin Rood at TPMMuchraker can. From one story:

"GOP leaders from both chambers were headed to the White House Wednesday afternoon to discuss the state of play on the detainee legislation."

[UPDATE: They reversed themselves:

"About an hour earlier, the House Judiciary Committee rejected Bush's plan, with three Republicans joining committee Democrats. Embarrassed Republicans then summoned absent members, called for another vote, and approved it 20-19."

h/t Andrew. End of update.]

Discuss away, O annoying ones. I hope you learn something about the wisdom of treating basic American values as political props. But I hope you don't learn anything at all about the wisdom of making sure you've counted all your votes before you embark on a pre-election political strategy. May you repeat this particular mistake again and again and again.

Or at least until the House recesses without a bill passed. Please, Republican leadership, don't acquire a single bit of deftness, subtlety, or political acumen before then. We need you to keep on screwing up for one and a half more weeks. If you manage to go home without having stripped anyone of habeas rights, "clarified" the Geneva Conventions, or gutted the Fourth Amendment, you can go on to become Sun Tzu for all I care. Just keep on being idiots until then.

***

* I inquired about subscribing to CQ once, and discovered that their pricing is geared towards lobbyists who can put vast sums on expense accounts, not to bloggers working out of their own pockets. I'm happy to absorb the cost of subscribing to TNR, and even the Financial Times, for all of your sakes, but CQ is, in a lot of different ways, a bit much. Pity, though.

Throw The Rascals Out

by hilzoy

If we want our political news to involve something more heartening than debates about just how much torture we will allow this administration to practice, how many rights we're prepared to strip from people who have never been charged with any crime, or whether to wreck our country's finances and our international credibility forever or only for the foreseeable future, we have to do whatever we can to ensure that Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress in the upcoming elections. We can't afford not to do whatever we can to bring this about. To this end, I'm going to write a series of posts on candidates who deserve support. I'm concentrating on federal offices, not (e.g.) governorships, and on candidates who are not shoo-ins. And the first one is Joe Sestak, who's running for Congress in Pennsylvania.

Joe Sestak spent 31 years in the Navy, eventually retiring at the rank of Vice Admiral. He "commanded the U.S. naval battle group in the Persian Gulf during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003." While in the Navy, he found time to earn "a master’s degree in Public Administration and a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University". I like his views on the issues a lot -- not just his excellent position paper on defense, but his views on economic and health policy.

Moreover, while I don't support voting for people just because they have served in the military, which would be stupid, I do think that, other things equal, the Democrats could use as many Congresspeople as possible who have serious national security experience. A lot of our current problems, in my view, are simply due to the fact that many Democrats feel that they have to prove themselves on these issues, whether because of past votes (e.g., against the first Gulf War) whose memory they wish to erase, or to show that they really aren't wimps, or some such thing. We badly need people who have real expertise in these fields, and who have absolutely no need to prove themselves on national security. For this reason, I think that when we find a candidate for Congress who is a smart and decent person who we'd be lucky to have even if he were a retired ping-pong champion runs for Congress, and he happens to be, in addition, a retired Vice Admiral, we should go out of our way to support him.

Besides all that, though, there's his opponent: the completely bizarre Curt Weldon. I wrote about him here; Laura Rozen has just written a piece on him for the American Prospect. In addition to the usual litany of ludicrous Weldon moments -- Able Danger, trying to arrange for himself to discover WMD in Iraq with his very own shovel, pinning medals on Gaddafi, freelance diplomacy to North Korea -- she finds this delightful tidbit:

"Meanwhile, Weldon has publicly praised Uzbekistan’s corrupt and brutal leader Islam Karimov, whose security services have been charged in State Department human-rights reports with systematic torture of dissidents and pro-democracy activists. “He has made himself into a champion of [Karimov] and become a tool in some of Karimov’s vendettas against his adversaries,” says Scott Horton, an international lawyer and adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School.

A few years ago, a Central Asia hand observed Weldon introducing a young woman to Russian energy company officials at a Eurasia-oriented petroleum economics event in Washington, D.C. “The amazing thing was that Weldon was working the room and he had this young woman with him, and it was like, ‘I really want to introduce you to somebody who would do a great job to help you with government affairs,’ and it was his daughter, Karen,” the observer said. “A lot of people at the Uzbek embassy told me Weldon had very aggressively peddled his services to the embassy done in joint relationship with his daughter.” Weldon denied aiding his daughter to a newspaper in his district in 2004."

Recall: Karimov is the guy who boils dissidents alive (last link has horrible pictures). A great guy to "champion".

If you'd rather have a smart, thoughtful retired Vice Admiral in Congress than a champion of torturers whom even some of his colleagues describe as "slightly unhinged", you can contribute to Joe Sestak's campaign here.

Bill Frist: Man Of Conscience

by hilzoy

The Republican leadership never ceases to amaze me:

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist signaled yesterday that he and other White House allies will filibuster a bill dealing with the interrogation and prosecution of detainees if they cannot persuade a rival group of Republicans to rewrite key provisions opposed by President Bush.

Frist's chief of staff, Eric M. Ueland, called the dissidents' bill "dead."

With Congress scheduled to adjourn in nine days, delaying tactics such as a filibuster could kill the drive to enact detainee legislation before the Nov. 7 elections, a White House priority. Bush faced still more problems in the House, where GOP moderates Christopher Shays (Conn.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Jim Leach (Iowa) and James T. Walsh (N.Y.) publicly threw their support behind the bill opposed by the White House. The four Republicans told Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) that any House bill must maintain the dissidents' principles.

On another front, legislation to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program may be in more jeopardy. Frist said yesterday that he referred the warrantless surveillance matter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for further review and would not bring it up for Senate consideration until next week.

Yesterday's actions significantly dimmed prospects that Congress can complete its national security agenda before adjournment. Frist (R-Tenn.) acknowledged that a majority of the 100 senators back the rival group on military commissions but that there are not enough to block a filibuster, which requires a super-majority of 60.

Senate and administration negotiators talked throughout the day, but no real progress was apparent. "It could all come together in a matter of hours, or it could drag out for another week or so," said John Ullyot, spokesman for Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.).

The sharp rhetoric of last week was replaced yesterday by softer language from both the Bush administration and the three Republican senators leading the opposition to its proposals: Warner, John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.).

But Frist struck a more jarring tone, telling reporters that the trio's bill is unacceptable despite its majority support.

For a bill to pass, Frist said, "it's got to preserve our intelligence programs," including the CIA's aggressive interrogation techniques, and it must "protect classified information from terrorists." He said that "the president's bill achieves those two goals" but that "the Warner-McCain-Graham bill falls short.""

Wow. After all sorts of unspeakable bills have passed the Senate under his leadership, here is where Bill Frist is finally going draw the line: he will not allow limitations on the administration's ability to torture people, or to violate treaties our country has solemnly sworn to abide by. Making it illegal for CIA officials to keep people standing for 40 hours, or to hold them in rooms cooled down to 50 degrees while dousing them with water, or to deprive them of sleep, even when a pretty impressive array of intelligence officials say that these techniques don't work, and an even more impressive group of retired generals say allowing them would put our soldiers at risk: that's just too much for him to swallow.

And all this from the self-proclaimed defenders of Moral Values™. It's enough to make an ethicist scream.

"They told him yes, he could invent a story"

by Katherine

Von notes below that Syrian intelligence forces beat Maher Arar into falsely confessing that he had received terrorist training in Afghanistan. It's actually worse than that. Arar wasn't just tortured into a false confession in a Syrian prison. He also seems to have been sent to be tortured in Palestine Branch partly because of false confessions that two other Canadian citizens made under torture in the same prison.

Their names are Ahmad Abou El-Maati and Abdullah Almalki. Unlike Arar, they both traveled to Syria voluntarily. El-Maati flew to Damascus for an arranged marriage in November 2001. Almalki went there to visit relatives in May 2002. Both were arrested by Syrian intelligence forces when they arrived at the Damascus airport, and taken to a prison called the Palestine Branch. Both have since been released, returned to Canada, and given detailed chronologies of their experiences in Syria to their lawyers. (Here is a PDF of El-Maati's chronology; here is a PDF of Almalki's).

Fire Army Chief, Leave Country, Lose Job

by Charles

I'm not an expert on Thailand, but from this vantage point, when you have the combination of an unpopular prime minister (at least in Bangkok) and the firing of the highest-ranked commander in the Royal Thai Army, then the prime minister may well get ousted while cavorting at the UN (more here).  Although accused of corruption, prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has won re-election twice, in landslides, in large part because he has spearheaded quite a few reforms.  Those reforms might also have contributed to his downfall.

Shinawatra also faced a 32-month long Islamist insurgency in southern Thailand (according to Strategypage, with the most recent terrorist attacks being the nearly simultaneous bombings of 22 banks in the south part of the country.  General Sondhi, the man who led the coup, happens to be a Muslim (according to Publius Pundit's source), but it would be premature (to put it mildly) to call this an Islamic or Islamist coup.  According to the CIA Factbook, less than 5% of Thailand's population is Muslim.

Publius Pundit has a good compilation of Thailand links.  King Bhumibol has considerable influence in Thailand, which is why the new military junta quickly pledged their loyalty to him.  Whether democracy or military dictatorship takes hold, it look like it's the king's call.  It is a constitutional monarchy, after all.

For some roundups, there's Pajamas Media, and Bangkok Pundit has a running stream of up-to-date info.  So does Newley Purnell.

America: Where Anyone Can Run For Office!

by hilzoy

Consider the Senate primary in Washington, taking place even as I write this post. I was reading TPMCafe's Midterm Madness Primary Roundup, which mentions some (but not all!) of the odder candidates. For starters, there's Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, running on a platform of orbital space colonization. And there's Mike the Mover (his actual name), whose campaign statement begins:

"Listen to the thunder, hear the Governor roar; Mike the Mover’s loose again, and knocking at the door! Load up the cannon, call out the law, ’cause it’s the biggest calamity folks have ever saw. Girls run and hide, brave men shiver, every time they think they hear the name of Mike the Mover."

and ends:

"A message to Jenny Markum: Subject = Amber Alert.

A former Edmonds, Washington resident. Not seen since 1996. Call campaign headquarters ASAP (206)546.9545)."

Hmm.

You might think that it would be hard to match these candidates for sheer lunacy. But assuming that Mike the Mover is not fully in earnest, the Democrats have only one real lunatic, while the Republicans have two -- and I'm not counting Brad Klippert, who seems to think that his run for the Senate is on a par with giving up his life: "Like the five brave men on flight 93, join me now as I stand up and step forward to make a positive difference!", or Warren E. Hanson, whose statement begins: "Hello, I am Warren and I have a deep love of America". (Nationalists Anonymous, anyone?)

There's William Edward Chovil, a self-described "follower of: George Washington, Ronald Reagan, George S. Patton Junior, Ayn Rand, and John Galt", and "an expert on Government — American Government, un-American Government, Socialism, Communism, The New-World-Order conspiracy, and International Trade agreements." His statement begins:

"It is not illegal for Federal and State lawmakers to be practitioners of Democratic Communism and Socialism. But! Is it a good idea to elect and re-elect them?"

(I really like that 'But!')

It concludes:

"If you believe America can do better with more Americanism and less National and Global Communism and Socialism let me represent you in the United States Senate. If you believe America can do better with more National and Global Communism and Socialism and less Americanism I can’t help you."

I think we can do better with more Americanism, meaning more concern for the values that our country has always aspired to, like fairness and the rule of law. I don't particularly fancy more Communism, whether National or Global. And yet, strange to say, I wouldn't vote for Mr. Chovil, even if I were a resident of Washington State and a Republican. Curious, that.

There's also Gordon Allen Pross, whose statement defies mere summary:

"Imagine 100 people representing 100 percent of the American population to include 100 red headed Lincoln pennies representing all the money in America. Clearly, Congress legislated 59 Lincoln cents to 01 person, then 31 Lincoln cents to 4 people. Therefore 90 percent of the wealth is legislated to 5 percent namely “We the People.”

While 10 Lincoln pennies are legislated to 95 Americans, or 10 percent of the wealth legislated to 95 percent of the enslaved Americans. This is a 90 percent to 10 percent ratio. It was a snap for Congress to fix these numbers.

As your United States Senator, together it will be liberating turning this formula upside down so an American citizen will find equality in earning 10 red Lincoln cents through tithing 01 red Lincoln penny to govern. This one red headed Lincoln cent being the absolute one & only tax paid by an American citizen. Together we’ve found Your money for healthcare, education, career track and paid vacations.

When 100 percent pay 10 percent America’s domestic policy becomes equality guaranteed under the “Declaration of Independence!”

USA splits the one Taxed Lincoln cent equally three ways Federal, State and Local Governments receive a third, 33.33% times 3 equals 99.99%. With 00.01% left over for campaign finance reform. On a 11.1 trillion dollar gross nation product, one hundredth of one percent of a Lincoln penny is 10 billion 12 million to pay for Americas campaign from every city hall to the White House and all camps in between.

Now Americans can run against all lackluster incumbents, (vacated, vacating) seat with the same First Amendment voice as any candidate or incumbent. Like TV, radio, magazines, www., telephone, billboards, flyers. Now Washingtonians Vote justifiably abolishes censored auctions for public office.

Washingtonians proudly Resurrecting Sparks of Deity for First Amendment Primaries!"

Wow: one little primary offering so much entertainment! Sort of like the Weekly World News, only with potential real life consequences. I can scarcely imagine what I'd find if I looked more broadly. I do know this, though: sometime tonight, I'm going to be checking the web to see whether Mike the Mover broke into triple digits.

Not About Torture!

by hilzoy

The BBC has this wonderful story:

"A German art student briefly fooled police by posing as one of China's terracotta warriors at the heritage site in the ancient capital, Xian.

Pablo Wendel, made up like an ancient warrior, jumped into a pit showcasing the 2,200-year-old pottery soldiers and stood motionless for several minutes.

The 26-year-old was eventually spotted by police and removed from the scene. (...)

Mr Wendel is reported to have entered the museum on Saturday where he changed into his outfit, jumped over a barrier and took up a position on a pedestal he had taken along.

"I got to the area where he was supposed to be, looked around and didn't see him - he looked too much like a terracotta warrior," Hong Kong newspapers quoted a security guard as saying.

As Mr Wendel's "performance art" did not harm any of the ancient relics, he was not arrested or charged but given "serious criticism", the reports said."

Here are some of the Terracotta Soldiers:

and here is Mr. Wendel having his costume removed:

If he were asking me whether or not to go ahead and do this, I would have to say: no, don't, however hard you try, you might damage one of the soldiers. Now that he has done it without doing any damage, and given that his costume and demeanor were so well done that guards actually walked right past him without noticing that he was alive, I can say: That is a truly excellent prank.

So: Is there something truly silly that you have always wanted to do? If so, what is it?