Charles Koch, Ahnuld, the Donald, Bernie's wife, Dick Cheney, and "Enhanced Interrogation"

CNN carried a story yesterday from the Washington Post concerning my alma mater, Florida State University. Charles Koch, multi-billionaire and reactionary, contributed $1.5 million to FSU recently to endow two professorships in economics, specifically to study free market economies. According to the story, Mr. Koch and his foundation retained veto power over the selection of professors for the positions. FSU has denied the claim that strings were attached to the gift, but acknowledged there was interaction between the college and the Koch charity.

Like all state universities, FSU is funded by taxpayer dollars, tuitions and endowments. Like all state universities, they undoubtedly spend a lot of time soliciting donations, what I used to call "dialing for dollars," when I worked for the National Park Service. The question is whether it is appropriate for a college to accept a gift if the donor clearly expects the money to foster a particular slant on subject matter and reach conclusions that might not be scientifically valid. Not saying that's the case here, but it sure makes a fellow wonder. And why give the money to FSU when the Koch charity has no special connection to either the college or the state?

There's more news today. Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged fathering a child by a domestic servant in his home. His wife, Maria Schriever, moved out last week, prompting the media frenzy that led to the revelation. The governator has supported (he says) the woman and child for the last ten years, but did not admit the child's paternity to Maria until very recently.

Arnold also campaigned for governor in 2003 denying allegations of sexual infidelity. So, he lied to the public and to his wife. He's not exactly the first or the last man ever to lie about falling off the fidelity wagon, but he was a public figure by his own decision, and now is exposed as a hypocrite.

Donald Trump, "the Donald," after dipping his toes in presidential waters, has decided not to be a candidate. Possibly he was told he couldn't win or even get nominated, but the already lackluster GOP pool of potential presidents has become even shallower. Can anyone actually see a President Romney, or President Pawlenty, or President Whats-his-name, the Domino's Pizza guy, or, God help us, President Gingrich? So back to "Celebrity Apprentice" to Donald Trump, where he can say, "You're fired," to forlorn wannabes.

This morning we learned that Bernie Madoff's wine cellar will be auctioned. Madoff, as everyone remembers, is in prison for bilking thousands of people, but contrived to shelter something like six or seven million dollars for his wife to live off. I have just a bit of sympathy for the good Mrs. Madoff. She didn't actually connive with her husband, though she'd have to be pretty stupid not to know some sort of shenanigans were afoot. So, I could support leaving her some sort of endowment. I don't know her age or physical condition, but there's still part of me that says, "Hey, Burger King is hiring. Lots of other people work there. You could too."

So, readership, does anyone want to buy a very expensive bottle of wine?

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead - what shall we call his death - justice, execution, assassination, or murder? - everyone is trying to claim the action was attributable to one or another partisan politician. Dick Cheney, once vice-president of the United States, said the raid was the result of intelligence gathered at Guantanamo Bay prison by "enhanced interrogation," waterboarding in the vernacular. The men still detained at Guantanamo were delivered there in 2001 and Osama didn't take up residence at the compound where he was killed until 2006, so it's a little difficult for me to figure how any information gleaned from the captives at Guantanamo could have led to him. But logic never was Mr. Cheney's forte.

Let me conclude with a word about use of these "enhanced interrogation" methods. The Bush-Cheney administration stoutly denied that forcing water into a bound captive's mouth until he was near drowning was not torture. It's true that waterboarding did not inflict pain on the subject in the way that, say, burning or beating would, but it still put the subject in fear of his life, or what's the purpose of it? To me, that constitutes torture.

Cheney argued further that if a captive had information that would save the lives of Americans, then obtaining that information by any means necessary is morally justified. Leaving alone the thought that the "shelf-life" of any information these men might have is probably quite short, I'll just say that any interrogator has to assume that any information obtained by coercion or inflicting pain is false. Until the subject reaches the last extremity of suffering he will continue to lie and throw up red herrings.

Bringing a prisoner to that extremity of pain is fundamentally immoral. If that's not wrong, nothing is wrong.