Vermont Tiger is the flagship of GOP bloggery in Vermont. Oh sure, they claim to be nonpartisan, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who reads them, of any political stripe, who could repeat that claim with a straight face. Why so many Republicans fueling such efforts (from Vermont Tiger all the way to Fox News) feel the need to camoflauge their loyalties is a topic for another day…

In any event, some days their partisan hackery is more brazenly on display than others. This week it's particularly naked, for the simple reason that site founder Geoffrey Norman didn't go to the trouble of running his attack through the most fundamental filter of rationality and consistency, leading to a little hit that only a true-believer Republican who turns off his or her brain could love.

Don't get me wrong, its nothing big, earth-shattering, or otherwise meaningful. Merely the little 5-sentence smackdown in the screenshot to the right. It's just that its particularly illustrative of the partisan agenda in play and the hypocrisy of a site that continues to insist it doesn't have one.

You gotta give these guys credit, there’s a lot of BS crammed into those five little sentences.

First of all, the message the title sends is clear – evil librul Welch doesn’t want poor everyman “you” to have any more money. No bonuses. What a slimeball, eh? Of course, the content of the very same hit-post clearly states that Welch was referring to – in Norman’s own words – “recipients of Federal bailout money to be paying themselves bonuses this year.” I think its a stretch to believe that Norman believes its these very recipients that are the audience reading his blog, and as such the use of the word “your” in the title, while it may send a convenient partisan “evil elitist” message to the casual surfer, is fatuous at best, overtly dishonest at worst. take your pick (and I do mean “your”).

That’s sentence 1 of 5. Skip down to sentence 4 and you’ll see a snarky line poking Welch by name along with other congress-folk for receiving a scheduled pay-raise at the beginning of the upcoming year. Again, the implication is that Welch specifically is choosing to grant himself a raise (and coupled with the headline, the further implication is that said raise is at your personal expense), suggesting that it is consciously being granted for legislative “performance.” Shocking!

The problem here is that, with a simple click of the mouse on the link they provide, you find that its an automatic pay increase due to kick in without action or personal congratulations from Welch or any other Representative. There is a bill to suspend the increase with cosponsors from both parties of all political stripes (from Ron Paul to Peter DeFazio – although Welch is not among their number), but it’s currently bottled up in committee. So the implication that Welch is voting to increase his own pay for his fine performance is just as phony as the headline.

Finally, sentence 5 attempts to pull it all together with a link to a YouTube piece peddling the Limbaugh/Hannity notion, utterly rejected by non-ideologue economists, that the whole economic meltdown has its complete genesis with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapses, and that they were entirely brought on by liberal Democrats who mandated assistance to low-income Americans. As though the years of laissez-faire-inspired financial deregulation allowing the explosive propogation of bizarre financial instruments heaped upon bizarre financial instruments all destined for massive exploitation and ultimately to collapse in on their own weight is just a fanciful mythology of the evil, elite, librul, latte-sipping media.

Puh-leeze. I doubt even VTTiger’s own Art Woolf would go along with that desperate Republican attempt to avoid reality and responsibility. Although what do I know, maybe he would. Partisan denial is a powerful thing.

But the keyword, again, is “partisan.” And if Vermont Tiger, as it claims, is truly “non-partisan,” then I’ve got Barack Obama’s abs.

During the holidays, the topic of human nature is always, at least implicitly. in the air. Obviously one could write whole tomes on the qualities of human nature (many, many, many have), but in its simplest form, I always felt that questions about that nature can be reduced to musings over the interactions of a few variables in any given context; reason, instinct (which encompassses everything from the instincts to run, to fight – and the instinct to communalism and altruism which we see it other primates), emotions, personal cosmology, and the wisdom of experience. There may be others (or others may define those differently), but those are the basic ingredients in the soup, more or less.

The assumption that is often implicit in political discussions over “the big issues” (as opposed to quibbling over percentage points on balance sheets) is that, if all these variables are in proper balance in an individual, they should end up coming down on the good side of these issues – or at least they should if we enter into the process assuming (or wanting to assume) that human nature is generally itself good.

Case in point, Norwich University Cadet Michael Self.

Norwich University in Northfield is the nation’s first – and only remaining – private military college. While the profiles and activities of the student corps would look similar to those at VMI or another public military college, as a private school with a deep history, there are distinctions. A greater emphasis on the liberal arts, for example, but more than that, the Norwich tradition of military honor seems less subject to being effected by the ebbs and flows of everything from pop culture to the political administration du jour.

It is in that context that Self began his senior research as a criminal justice major into the subject of torture.

At the outset of his project, Self characterized his views as “definitely of the warrior mindset, which almost followed the Bush administration’s approach, which was when we went into Afghanistan we viewed the Geneva Convention as an obstacle to the goal of getting actionable intelligence.” In his own words, if he had been asked whether torture would be appropriate if it was seen as a way to prevent another 9-11, his response would have been “absolutely.”

But Self studied and learned, and the variables in the equation began to change. Self:

“I learned about the ineffectiveness of torture, about the extreme costs in terms of credibility, the loss of moral high ground, violation of international law and the bending of American ideals in an ideological war,” he said. “My ultimate conclusion is that it’s not worth torturing terror suspects for the chance-I emphasize, chance-to get actionable intelligence.”

Self worked on his project with NU Professor Rowland Brucken who worked with him through what became a grant-funded summer undergraduate project. Brucken, who is including some of Self’s research in his own upcoming book within a chapter on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sees a presentation Self made during the summer on his work as a turning point in his thinking:

“He faced some very challenging questions from professors and students in the audience because his thinking on the subject was evolving,” said Brucken. “His thesis back then wasn’t a strong one because it was equivocal and that opened him to criticism from either side. I think it was a sign to Michael that he had to come to a more succinct thesis, however it evolved.”

I think many of us on the left cling to the idea that, at least sometimes, if we can get a chance to make our case to people of goodwill, that we might be able to change minds.

It’s nice to have that faith in human nature rewarded from time to time.

Self is wrapping up the research that dominated his academic life for a year. He hopes to present his paper at other conferences and possibly have it published.

“Because we’re in an ideological war, trying to win hearts and minds and because of the limited effectiveness of torture, it’s just not worth it,” said Self. “I never would have said that before I started this research.”

Self’s experience stands as a reminder that the cynicism towards our fellow humans that we so often fall prey to is often the greatest impediment we face towards making the world a better place.