While the “news” networks covered Donald Trump and his comments about John McCain all weekend, we cover a bit of what they did not on today’s BradCast.
First, the climate crisis comes home, as two different climate change-related disasters on California and Arizona freeways over the weekend (one drought related, one flood related) were averted — just barely.
Then, we’re joined by Dr. Yosef Brody, president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility to discuss the disturbing new independent 542-page report [PDF] commissioned by the American Psychological Association (APA), confirming that top officials at the APA colluded with the Bush Administration to approve CIA and Dept. of Defense torture techniques after 9/11. The APA then spent the next decade covering it up and smearing the whistleblowers at Brody’s organization.
The findings of the new report, and the scandal in its wake, has touched off a shakeup at the top echelons of the organization. The report by a former federal prosecutor reveals “a complete and utter failure of psychological ethics,” Brody tells me. “What it’s saying is that what we critics have suspected for about a decade now — that senior [APA] staff have been currying favor with the Pentagon and the CIA, effectively facilitating torture. And to top it off, they’ve engaged in this very sophisticated, decade-long coverup.”
It was all done, he explains, to protect the Bush Administration from legal liability for war crimes, allowing them to describe their “enhanced interrogation techniques,” with the blessing of the APA, as “safe, legal, ethical and effective”, when they were anything but.
“This is really about a culture of corruption at the top of the largest organization of psychologists in the world,” says Brody, about the APA’s complicity. “We’re talking about war crimes here, ultimately. And we’re talking about a health professional association!”
Then, some politics: First, #BlackLivesMatter protesters disrupt Democratic Presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders at the progressive Netroots Nation conference over the weekend. And then, can Al Franken be blamed for Donald Trump’s controversial comments about the war record of John McCain? Maybe. I explain all of that on today’s BradCast!…
I seem to remember at the time, Brad, when all of this was going down, that the Cheney administration was milking both the psychological and the legal professions for collaborators of ZERO (or less) moral compass to lend a bloody hand with the rollout of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib….sentient beings knew AT THE TIME how despicably fucked up and criminal these actions were, done in our name, to our shame, and our eternal blame….if i hear one more prickface politician or pundit smugly mumble the words,”If only we knew then what we know now” i swear to god i’ll….they’re either flat out liars or five star imbeciles….PEOPLE ON THE STREET “knew then” what we “know now” but somehow no one in any position of authority did?????!….for them that collaborated in torture under a jauntily waving American flag, i’ve got some bad news: goes around, comes around, ladies and gentlemen of the jury….karma’s a bitch….
Excellent interview, Brad
Re: Netroots
I don’t think the emotional rants were fantastic, Brad. It’s one thing to ask for an opportunity to ask questions and expect answers & quite another to heckle only to hear your own chants without any desire to hear the answers.
What, in reality, did those emotional rants accomplish? Certainly not the type of meaningful interactions that are essential to democracy and meaningful democratic discourse.
For Bernie Sanders, black lives have always mattered. He was arrested in 1962 when, as a member of the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE) he took part in civil rights demonstrations.
By contrast, in 1964 Hillary Clinton joined the Young Republicans and campaigned for Barry Goldwater.
Thanks for the comments on the interview, Ernie.
As to the other comment, re: #BlackLivesMatter protest during Sanders (and O’Malley), we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Well, for a start, you and I likely wouldn’t be having this conversation here at all without it. And there are millions of others having a similar conversation who might not have had it otherwise.
I wouldn’t have talked about #BlackLivesMatter or played any of that audio yesterday without that protest. And, if I (and you and everyone else) is lucky, we’ll have more discussion on it in the days ahead.
What did it accomplish? So far, a lot!
I believe there already is a widely building national conversation on our current civil rights failings and on minority empowerment, but i felt the Netroots incident may have started the wrong conversation….badgering one’s committed political allies is hard to fathom and is usually not a very effective strategy, in either the short or the long run….but that’s just me….
ChicagoMel @5 wrote:
My take is that heckling the champion of your cause is like shooting yourself in the foot.
As to Brad’s point, it was one thing for #BlackLivesMatter to be permitted to appear on stage and to stress what they saw as an important issue that must be addressed; quite another to badger both Sanders and O’Malley so as to prevent meaningful conversation.
I got the impression that a number of hecklers were more enamored with the sound of their own voices than in any answers.
I don’t think it productive to engage in hysterical rants about this being an “emergency.” There are deep structural issues entailing racism and inequality that are the product of more than 200 years of history. Those issues require intelligent discourse in which we are as attuned to what others are saying as well as what we would like people to hear.
I am in full agreement with the substance #BlackLivesMatters concerns. I vigorously disagree with the method deployed to express those concerns — a method that gave the MSM a perfect excuse to ignore the effort by both O’Malley and Sanders to discuss the many issues confronting this nation. So, in that sense, the Netroots protest detracted from the #BlackLivesMatter cause.
Ernie said @6::
You actually think the MSM ignored the substance of the forum at the Netroots Nation because of that?! I actually saw at least some coverage of NN for the first time in (ever?) on network news outlets because of that! Otherwise, they would have ignored the event completely as they have done for the past 15 years!
Not to mention, we wouldn’t be talking about it (like so many others have been), nor would I likely have devoted the entire interview segment on today’s BradCast to the topic! (In which both you and ChicagoMel are cited, btw.)
Brad @7 wrote:
Yes, similar to MSM “coverage” of anti-war protests that is limited to violent acts by demonstrators. Not exactly the type of coverage that furthers the movement.