Fealk's very challenge betrays his own principles. If waterboarding were fundamentally immoral, he would not offer or suggest that anyone do it, let alone derive the apparent glee he has over the prospect of those he considers political enemies being waterboarded. Read his writings on the topic - they are disgusting. Fealk's challenge is that of a bully and school yard thug. Laura Berman's op-ed blog entry at the time catches the theme here correctly. It is this aspect that makes me most want to stand up to Fealk and accept the challenge on any terms. The best way to defeat a thug is to stand up to them - but one learns over time that it is also best to pick your time and terms somewhat in standing up to the thug. When the thug has a baseball bat and you have nothing, waiting for a better time is usually the wise thing to do. I won't let Fealk dictate the terms, and will walk away if they don't make sense. Fealk's language is obscene and childish. Calling people "chicken shit" and demanding they do things to cater to your whims is not civilized discourse. Fealk will lie, misrepresent your words, and twist everything to the most extreme strawman possible. Given his lack of trustworthiness, it wouldn't be wise to even believe he would pay up the pittance he has offered so far. Fealk himself has shifted his "offer" or challenges - he began by offering cash per second and quickly shifted to payment to a charity. He's added terms to an otherwise unclear challenge - trying to redefine waterboarding several times, one including use of urine, and trying to portray "craiglist" as a mechanism of identifying waterboarders. None of this was agreed upon at any time, though he insists that the challengee must accept those terms. He'll spin things as if I were somehow shifting terms, but I've never agreed upon anything to shift.
Given these realities, accepting any challenge issued by Fealk without extreme safeguards to ensure proper payment, let alone safety, would be difficult, and may ultimately be impossible. My legal advisers suggest that a "contract" in this area is probably unenforceable, but even if it were, Fealk's word or signature would be valueless as well. So here's my final word on the challenge itself. I have always accepted that waterboarding is intended to create a mental state sufficient to induce confession - that is, it is at least highly uncomfortable, and certainly unpredictable since I have no experience with it. No rational person would voluntarily subject themselves to something like that without considerable compensation, and more importantly, during the waterboarding itself, no rational person would try to endure any reasonable length of time if their wasn't a significant reward in mind to give one the incentive to endure. This is why journalists who have tried it quit after 14 seconds - they have nothing to endure for. A detainee however at least has the belief of 72 virgins in mind, and the moral cause of withholding timely information and being at war -- that is, if they can survive and hold-out long-enough they can see to fruition or success any plans they had in progress. The record duration of a waterboarding by the US government in Gitmo was about 90 seconds, from what I've read or heard - from one of the top Al Queda officials, who clearly had a cause to endure for. At $10 a second, even if I endured the record time, I'd make $900 on Fealk's first challenge. For a trauma Fealk himself considers barbaric and torture, that's a paltry and pathetic sum of money to offer. I'm rational - $900 isn't worth it whether it is defined as torture, unpleasant, or something in between. Why would someone push themselves a few extra seconds for a few extra $10 dollar bills? The lack of money itself diminishes the interest, and money is the only real measuring stick we have. If Fealk is interested in his challenge, he'll put a real stake and real money where his mouth is. Even Fear Factor puts $50,000 on its macabre stunts - and they're easier things like eating bugs or highly controlled physical stunts with safety crews and (you can buy them) specialty insurance policies. That's a good guage of the low-end of the market rate, I suppose. So here's the deal - I'll do the stunt for a guaranteed $50,000 (the money must be physically availabe in cash or some secure negotiable insrument before the event) if I last 30 seconds (twice the time that the journalists who've done it) and double that amount for every 15 seconds thereafter, with some pre-determined ceiling. I'll retain the right to keep do multiple waterboards to hit the goal as well until I give up permanently (giving up is what its all about, isn't it?). I'm guaranteed $5000 under any circumstance if I attempt the stunt in good faith and go any period of time. In addition, an Alzheimer's Care charity will be guaranteed $100,000 and/or double what I earn if that amount turns out to be greater. In the event of my death or health care needs, the entire amount above will go to my family or the necessary amount to my health care needs before paying charity (a form of self-insurance, avoiding the need for Fealk to take out a policy). Fealk can raise the money through any lawful source he wishes - but the money must be on hand at the time event in a standard cash equivalent. Additionally, I will own 50% copyright interest in any royalties and an exclusive license for unrestricted use on any video that is produced by Fealk or others (100% on my own productions), and I'll have the right of first refusal or negotiation with any media that wish to attend. To make everything easier for Bruce, I have eliminated some of my early requirements. I'll provide my own medical personnel and the people waterboarding me, pursuant to agreed upon instructions and a definition of waterboarding most closely matching what has already been done to a journalist. While there are precise details to be worked out here contractually - a basic definition shouldn't be hard to agree upon. No extra changes (like "urine" usage) by Fealk though - we need to agree on a simple definition and stick to it. If Fealk wishes to "compete" against me and can best me in time, he would earn the $50,000 assuming we both hit the minimum levels. I can anticipate two criticisms from Fealk. First, he's going to criticize the amounts or even the idea that significant money be involved. I believe in the free market, so I could care less about this criticism. He started the challenge with an amount, so clearly its open to negotiation and he himself has lost the moral authority to criticize putting a price on this. If Fealk wants to event to occur and there is enough "demand" for it, then this shouldn't be a problem and he should have no problem raising the amount necessary. Additionally, twice what I would earn goes to charity. He should want to take on the challenge of raising that amount for charity, and if I'm truly not strong enough or "chicken-shit" as Fealk argues, then he should have no fear I'll come close to earning a significant amount. Or is Fealk too "chicken-shit" himself to risk seeing me succeed on his challenge? On a challenge he'd prefer to control so that there is no definition of success and that he'd spin no matter how long I lasted as proof of his beliefs... here, we have a definition of a fair contest ahead of time, with real stakes and real motivations. If Fealk objects that it is "impossible" for him to raise this kind of money, then I guess that reflects on Fealk. Nothing is impossible, but Fealk's connections and power may not be all that he claims it to be so perhaps the real challenge is whether he can raise the money or not. Expect whatever I write to have the words twisted, so consider this my last word. |
