In the past the Bush administration has favorably compared itself to Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. They may be more alike than even the President's speech writers might think. Historian William Loren Katz has an essay on HNN drawing from his own book The Cruel Years and Stuart Creighton Miller's, Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 in which he outlines the use of the use of waterboarding in history. In particular, he discusses the use of waterboarding by the U.S. military during the invasion of the Philippines with the approval of President Teddy Roosevelt. In the past the Bush Administration has tried to compare itself and President Bush to Teddy Roosevelt. At least in torture the two are quite similar even down to the euphemisms. At the turn of the 20th C. waterboarding was then termed, "the water cure". Highly recommended reading.

The “water cure” was probably first instituted when U.S. forces encountered local resistance. Professor Miller states that General Frederick Funston in 1901 may have used it to capture the Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo. A New York World article described the “water cure” as forcing “water with handfuls of salt thrown in to make it more efficacious, is forced down the throats of patients until their bodies become distended to the point of bursting . . ..” This may have been only one on the versions used.

The water cure became front-page news when William Howard Taft, appointed U.S. Governor of the Philippines, testified under oath before Congress and let the cat out of the bag. The “so called water cure,” he admitted, was used “on some occasions to extract information.” The Arena, an opposition paper, called his words “a most humiliating admission that should strike horror in the mind of every American.” Around the same time as Taft's admission a soldier boasted in a letter made public that he had used the water cure on 160 people and only 26 had survived. The man was compelled by the War Department to retract his damaging confession. But then another officer stated the “water cure” was being widely used when he reported, “the problem of the 'water cure' is in knowing how to apply it.” Such statements leave unclear how often the form of torture was used for interrogation and how often it became a way to exhibit racial animosity or display contempt. ...

President Theodore Roosevelt reprimanded Funston and ordered him to cease his inflammatory rhetoric. Facing a political challenge from General Nelson Miles based in the Philippines, TR, who rode into the White House on his heroic exploits at San Juan Hill, did not intend to nourish more competition. The President privately assured a friend the water cure was “an old Filipino method of mild torture” and claimed when Americans administered it “no body was seriously damaged.” But publicly TR was silent about the “water cure.”

tng's blog | 1 comment

I'm up late packing for the move. More like procrastinating packing for the move, but I can't resist one more blog post, especially when it concerns this great letter to the editor in today's Washington Post concerning Newt Gingrich's recent tirade about 'radical secularists'. Why is this man even given a voice by the media? Doesn't it just make you queasy to see Hillary Clinton palling around with the guy? Anyway, it really is a nicely crafted letter and really short to boot so I'm just going to disregard copyright infringement for the nonce and hope neither Bernard Singer or WaPo minds:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, speaking at the commencement ceremony at Liberty University, decried a "growing culture of radical secularism". He went on to say "in hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive."

Of course it is. As a history professor, Mr. Gingrich should know that because of the divisiveness of religious beliefs, even the word "God" was intentionally left out of the preamble and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers also saw fit to say, in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus establishing a firewall between church and state.

Hail the Founding Fathers, the first "radical secularists."

BERNARD SINGER
Springfield

Simply brilliant! Who says liberals aren't good at framing? Oh sure, I don't know that Mr. Singer is a liberal but I like to think secularlism is a particularly liberal idea. At least Gingrich has shown that it's not a particularly conservative one.

tng's blog | 3 comments

Blogging will be really light for me this week. Don't worry, Pete at BogsBlog and I will still get out Carnival of the Liberals (well, Pete will be doing most of the work -- I just need to send out e-mails) but otherwise I'll be slacking off and posting videos here and there.

Today we have an educational film about the history of electronic music that can only be described as porn for music geeks. The oscilloscope shots are really hot and the Moog modular and Fairlight clips will leave you breathing heavy.

Seriously, I practically salivate at the images of all these classic synths and associated technology. I'm not a practicing musician (I can barely play the riff to Iron Man on guitar) but I grew up surrounded by both electronics and electronic musical instruments so I love watching old videos like this. While today's synths are just fantastic and our ability to create sound with them is practically unlimited, making music with them just isn't the same. There was something very personal and human about crafting music with these old synths. Perhaps because they were so primitive it was such a hands-on affair. It took really getting to know your instrument on a very intimate level to produce anything beyond mere blips and bleeps. I share similar affections for old computing technology.

Parts 2 and 3 are after the fold. If you have an antiquated technology fetish (musical instruments or otherwise), tell us about it in comments.read more »

tng's blog