Blogging Blue

Thanks to a phone call campaign coordinated by Peace Action Wisconsin, a virtual urban warfare game that allowed Summerfest goers as young as 13 to climb into a Humvee simulator and fire machine guns at life-size people displayed on a computer screenhas been shut down by Summerfest officials. Obviously I’m glad the folks from Summerfest came down on the right side of this situation, because it seems a little odd to allow a 13 year old to be able to jump into a Humvee and simulate shooting a killing people, given the fact that a video game of that nature would surely be restricted to Mature audiences due to the violence, blood, and gore that I’m sure were a part of the simulator.

Putting aside the issue of letting 13 year olds take part in such a violent simulation, I just think it’s hypocritical to attempt to glorify war when war is often far from being glorious. Though I’ve not personally had any experience serving in combat, I’ve read enough accounts to know it doesn’t seem glorious at all. Bert over at folkbum summed it up best when discussing Chuck Sykes’ reaction to the situation:

Shorter Sykes #2: This virtual war game, where kids as young as 13 suit up and ride a humvee to shoot with automatic weapons at images of “the enemy”, is good because it teaches this country the realities of war.
My question #2.a: How would you or I know the reality of war, since we have never come close to experiencing it?
My question #2.b: If it is important that the citizenry know more of the reality of war (I agree, by the way) since we are fighting two at the moment, did you ever criticize the White House policy to forbid images of our dead soldiers’ caskets? Did you ever applaud reporters for showing death on either side during these wars, or did you instead support more news about privates handing out candy to children?

As I said, kudos to Summerfest for doing the right thing.

The folks over at Pundit Nation have more on the situation, and whallah! has more on the all-too-predictable reaction from Chuck Sykes and his band of follo…I mean, listeners.

Earlier today, it was announced that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Dave Umhoefer won the Pulitzer Prize for Local Reporting for his investigation detailing pension deals for county workers. This is the first Pulitzer ever awarded to a member of the staff of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, while its predecessor the Milwaukee Journal won five Pulitzers.

Congratulations to Dave Umhoefer on his win, and hopefully this will put to rest claims by some that the MJS isn’t a quality local paper. Sure, it’s far from perfect in all its reporting, but hopefully this Pulitzer win will serve as a starting point for the paper improving its quality from top to bottom.

And curiously enough, as I browsed the list of Pulitzer winners and finalists, I neglected to see any mention of Charlie Sykes or Jessica McBride.

As first noted by capper over at whallah!, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is playing the blame game once again, and this time he’s blaming everyone but himself (conveniently enough) for the recent spate of shootings in Milwaukee. In an email to Chuck Sykes, Clarke blames Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Common Council President Willie Hines, Governor Jim Doyle, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court judges, and District Attorney John Chisholm in quick succession for the recent rash of violence in Milwaukee, but as I read Clarke’s missive, I noticed one glaring absence among those named as being responsible: Sheriff David Clarke. As Milwaukee County’s top law enforcement official, shouldn’t Sheriff Clarke share in some of the blame for the problems that plague Milwaukee? After all, as Milwaukee County’s “top cop,” Clarke should be at the forefront of any efforts to make Milwaukee a safer place to live, work, and raise a family.

Then again, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that Clarke’s casting blame at everyone but himself, because in doing so he’s shifting attention away from his own failed policies as Milwaukee County Sheriff - policies which include pulling deputies from patrolling Milwaukee County parks, eliminating the drug unit, and stopping support for the DARE program, among other things. Maybe Clarke’s bitter because knows he probably will never advance further than his current position, or maybe he’s just too arrogant to admit to his own shortcomings, but if he’s serious about helping find a solution to violent crime in Milwaukee, I’d like to see a lot less talking and a lot more action.

At the beginning of January, I asked the question, “What is torture?” in response to Charlie Sykes’ assertion that waterboarding isn’t really torture, or that maybe it is, but he’d support it as long as it worked, and so when I came across this little nugget on YouTube, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Charlie Sykes.

Now if Mike Mukasey would feel that waterboarding were torture if it were done to him, I can’t help but wonder what Charlie Sykes thinks.

Personally, I believe waterboarding is torture, because I believe in the definition of torture provided by the Geneva Convention:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Now I know the United States hasn’t ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so an argument could be made that our use of waterboarding isn’t anything bad, but what’s truly telling is the list of nations who along with ours have signed - but not yet ratified - the UN Convention Against Torture, including such bastions of civil rights as Cuba, Nigeria, Sudan, and Sierra Leone. We’re in good company right there…

Well, according to Chuck Sykes, it’s not waterboarding. Here’s Chuck’s take on torture (emphasis mine):

NOTE: I don’t believe I said that waterboarding wasn’t torture… personally, I don’t care what you call it: if it works I’m for it. On Insight, I was contrasting the brutal, savage torture of our enemies with our over-heated chest-thumping about waterboarding… which doesn’t kill anyone.

Now it’s obvious Chuck Sykes isn’t a supporter of the Geneva conventions regarding torture, which clearly define waterboarding as a form of torture, but I can’t help but wonder something:

Would Chuck Sykes and all the folks on the right who support waterboarding as a non-torture interrogation technique support its use on U.S. military forces?

I’d venture to guess Chuck Sykes and his compatriots on the right wing would gnash their teeth at the very mention of waterboarding being used against American troops, which leaves me to wonder why our government shouldn’t be held to the same standards as any other foreign power when it comes to proper interrogation techniques.

In thinking of the controversy surrounding the coexist bumper sticker, as well as
comments made by Daniel over at GOP3.com - not to mention his own ham-handed attempt at a “CONVERT” bumper sticker - I’m reminded of one of my favorite passages from the Bible:

“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke [reason with] thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”
– Leviticus 19: 17-18 (KJV)

In this passage originates a powerful idea: that you should treat your fellow as you yourself would be treated. This is perhaps the oldest definition of empathy, and it’s something folks like young Daniel from GOP3 and all the right-wing talking heads here in southeastern Wisconsin would be wise to keep in their minds and hearts.

Now unless you’ve been living under a rock lately like I have, undoubtedly you’ve heard about the controversy surrounding Chuck Sykes’ comments in defense of a spoof of the “Coexist” bumper stickers that can be seen on bumpers across southeastern Wisconsin. Said spoof, which was contrived by Tom McMahon, involves replacing, among other things, the Star of David on the bumper sticker with a Swastika.

In case you haven’t heard about it, Jay Bullock over at folkbum is talking about it, as are the folks over at Whallah! Anne Quimby Mathias over at Pundit Nation has something to say as well, so feel free to check any of those fine blogs out if you’d like to read a little more about the situation.

After making it clear he supported Tom McMahon’s spoof, Chuck Sykes came under fire from the folks at the Interfaith Conference - and rightfully so in my opinion - but after briefly removing a letter he wrote defending his support for Muslim-bashing, the letter found its way back onto Sykes’ website at 620WTMJ. Apparently Chuck Sykes is sticking to his guns in comparing Muslims to Nazis and Communists, going so far as to say,

Mr. McMahon believes, and I agree, that we are now engaged in a struggle with Islamic fascism. We cannot coexist with terrorists who blow up buses filled with children, cut off the heads of hostages, and slaughter innocent civilians. We need to resist and fight them.

What seems to be escaping Chuck Sykes is the fact that “Islamic fascism” and Islam do not go hand in hand. Sure, there are extremists within Islam who are willing to go to any lengths - including perverting their religion - in order to serve their own ends, but the same could be said for Christians. Apparently Tom McMahon and Chuck Sykes buy into the thinking that all Muslims are terrorists, and that’s really an unfortunate way of thinking, because it’s simply not true.

Now I certainly understand Chuck Sykes’ argument that this is a free speech issue, and in that respect he’s right. No matter how distasteful - or downright disgusting - we may think Tom McMahons’s parody is, he’s still allowed his freedom of speech. What I take issue with is Chuck Sykes’ ignorance in defense of Tom McMahon, because the kind of ignorant and misinformed opinions that Chuck Sykes is spreading are dangerous.

EDIT: Michael Plaisted over at Plaisted Writes sums up this whole situation about as well as anyone….read more here.

So Charlie Sykes - also known by his more formal sounding nom de plume Charles J. Sykes - has graced us all with a preview of his 50 Rules, due in stores Thursday, presumably to whet the appetites of his rabid and devoted fan base.

Michael Mathias over at Pundit Nation and Paul Soglin at Waxing America have both started to break down the three rules Charlie previewed, and I just wanted to add my own thoughts on Rule #11, because it’s got some glaring problems (emphasis mine).

RULE (11): After you graduate, you won’t be competing against rivals who were raised to be wimps on the playground.

The Duke of Wellington once said that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton ” – reflecting his view that competitive sports shape a nation’s character. We sure as hell should hope that’s not true about America unless, that is, we plan on going to war against an enemy who also values non-competitive, risk-free, self-esteem building play activities for its young….

Now I’m sure you’re wondering what’s wrong with the quote I’ve highlighted, and I’d love to explain. It’s improbable Wellington ever actually said, “the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton,” because according to various sources I’ve read, Wellington had been dead for three years when, in 1855, Charles Montalembert credited him with that remark in his De l’Avenir politique de l’Angleterre. The Duke of Wellington was at Eton from 1781 to 1784, from the ages of 12 to 15, and it’s known he was an idle and dreamy boy who took no part in organized sports. There was, in fact, little in the way of organized sport at Eton at that time, the activities to be seen on the playing fields appeared to the uninitiated to be more like free-for-all fights than games. Further, Wellington was said to have remembered his days at Eton as lonely and unhappy, his only sport being solitary leaps across a local brook, and he almost never visited the school in later years despite being its most famous alumnus.

I’m left to wonder if Charlie Sykes has any researchers on his staff, and if so, did he bother to have any of them make sure this quote - which he uses to help justify the logic behind Rule #11 - was accurate and attributed to the right person? If not, Charlie should get someone on that.