I saw the NY Times Letters Page today (2 Aug 07) that commented on the now-infamous O'Hanlon & Pollock op-ed in which they describe themselves, falsely, as war critics. Naturally, the letters the NY Times chose to print either did not breathe a word of this particular controversy or had their comments edited out.
What I found especially interesting was that all of the conservative/pro-war letters accused liberals of not wishing to recognize progress when it happened. They ascribed this liberal hesitation to various factors, mostly having to do with denial and with the wish to see the US lose the Iraq War.
Well, pardon me, but I was going through some old papers today and happened across one from 9 Jun 06.
Naturally, everybody remembers the glorious day before that? What? No one recalls the glorious, decisive turning point of the Iraq War? That magnificent day when just as all seemed lost, that marvelous victory was achieved? Granted, the front-page headline "How big a blow?" was appropriately skeptical, but with around six newspaper pages of coverage, the US had clearly struck a mighty blow indeed.
That was the famous day that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed! What? No one remembers the terrible scourge of the leader of "al Qaeda in Iraq" and his awful end?
Problem is, there's really no reason people should remember. Even though that day's paper showed the dead Zarqawi, even though it showed a happy, joyous President Bush dashing through the halls, even though the lead editorial featured the title "Now that the beast is slain," the effect of Zarqawi's death in the following weeks and months was pretty hard to even detect.
Not surprising, really. The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count showed a very slight dip, May06 - 69, Jun06 - 61, Jul06 - 43, but Aug06 shot right back up to 65 and Sep06 was 72. If Zarqawis death had any effect, it was a very short-lived one. The losses suffered by American soldiers and Marines were in the triple digits from April to June. Sure the number fell to 82 in July, but is that a temporary lull or is it a significant drop?
Why are progressives skeptical of reports that Iraq is solving its problems? Why do they always take a "wait and see" attitude? Why can they never simply celebrate when a success has been obtained? I think the Bush Administration's overselling of each and every drop in the casualty rate, each and every glimmer of potential success and each and every possibility of breakthrough has thoroughly drained us of any enthusiasm that the more progressive, anti-war segments of the population might ever feel.
I agree with the pro-war partisans whose letters were printed in the NY Times, we progressives are quite skeptical of any victory announcements and we're quite slow to celebrate any "good news." The problem lies in our news. We have a propaganda service, not a news service. We're being told over and over that O'Hanlon & Pollock are "critics" of the Iraq War. They're no such thing. We progressives are catching on or have long since caught on. As Germans told us after World War II "We could tell the war was lost because the 'Glorious Victories' kept occurring closer and closer to home."
Update: Juan Cole explains how the pro-war people were viewing things and how things actually are. He confirms the skeptic's point of view.
The court scholar serving Hermann of Thuringia.
The scholar
2007/08/03
2007/07/23
A generation's call to duty
Glenn Greenwald quotes a writer from the Weekly Standard:
Er, sorry, but no, the young people of the "9-11 Generation" are no more likely to join the military than those of the Vietnam Generation were. In 1996, the number of personnel in the Army was a little over 490,000, in 2005, it was almost 489,000. The number stayed between 475,000 and 500,000 between those years.
Total numbers for the armed services as a whole were
1996: Over 1,470,000,
2005: Over 1,378,000.
We're constantly hearing stories like the following:
Nah, Greenwald accurately nails the problem. The Vietnam Generation had three components, those who went off to fight the war, those who stayed home and opposed it and the third, least honorable group, the chickenhawks, who enthusiastically supported the war, but who remained at a safe distance from the battlefield. Unfortunately, it's the chickenhawks who now run the country and the Iraq War. The "9-11 Generation" was told by their President to "Go shopping," so they did. There's nothing particularly wrong with the 9-11 Generation, but nothing particularly heroic, either.
In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn't answer the phone.
Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers -- those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation -- took the opposite path from their parents during World War II.
...
Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military.
...
But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.
Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers -- those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation -- took the opposite path from their parents during World War II.
...
Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military.
...
But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.
Er, sorry, but no, the young people of the "9-11 Generation" are no more likely to join the military than those of the Vietnam Generation were. In 1996, the number of personnel in the Army was a little over 490,000, in 2005, it was almost 489,000. The number stayed between 475,000 and 500,000 between those years.
Total numbers for the armed services as a whole were
1996: Over 1,470,000,
2005: Over 1,378,000.
We're constantly hearing stories like the following:
...as the war in Iraq rolls into its fifth year, the escalating cycle of combat deployments is wearing on the children and their families...
In other words, not only have the armed forces not expanded, they can't even bring in enough new people to replace those who are worn out and who are suffering from PTSD and really need to quit and allow others to take their places. Nah, Greenwald accurately nails the problem. The Vietnam Generation had three components, those who went off to fight the war, those who stayed home and opposed it and the third, least honorable group, the chickenhawks, who enthusiastically supported the war, but who remained at a safe distance from the battlefield. Unfortunately, it's the chickenhawks who now run the country and the Iraq War. The "9-11 Generation" was told by their President to "Go shopping," so they did. There's nothing particularly wrong with the 9-11 Generation, but nothing particularly heroic, either.
2007/07/17
More reasons Bush's Mideast peace push will go nowhere
From yesterday's briefing with Press Secretary Tony Snow:
"Q Who drew up this plan? Was it Israelis and Saudis and our -- or State Department worked with them --
"MR. SNOW: Who drew up this plan?
"Q Yes.
"MR. SNOW: Well, typically something like this -- you're talking about what the President will be describing today? We worked it out within the administration. That involves the NSC, it involves the Department of State, but it is not something that has been vetted or run by other governments.
"Q Why not?
"MR. SNOW: Because they --
"Q And how about with Congress?
"MR. SNOW: Members of Congress will get some notification, they will have a chance to see it."
----------
Y'see, the whole theory behind the idea called groupthink is that members of a group get along too well. They sit down with each other and sort of outbid one another in a not-really-conscious process, each one "daring" the other to get more extreme and more casual about being extreme.
The way to defeat groupthink? It's well-established that the best way to break up that sort of thinking is by bringing in outsiders, by opening up the group to fresh viewpoints and new ways of seeing things.
Reading the above, it's pretty clear that the Bush Administration will do no such thing. The quote below is from a story about how President Bush wants a Mideast summit. Sounds good, but the quote here reveals the catch:
In other words, "we'll deal with our friends (i.e., people who are predisposed to agree with us) and ignore our enemies (i.e., people likely to stand up for their own national interests)."
Same-old, same-old. This is going to be strictly a photo-op summit.
"Q Who drew up this plan? Was it Israelis and Saudis and our -- or State Department worked with them --
"MR. SNOW: Who drew up this plan?
"Q Yes.
"MR. SNOW: Well, typically something like this -- you're talking about what the President will be describing today? We worked it out within the administration. That involves the NSC, it involves the Department of State, but it is not something that has been vetted or run by other governments.
"Q Why not?
"MR. SNOW: Because they --
"Q And how about with Congress?
"MR. SNOW: Members of Congress will get some notification, they will have a chance to see it."
----------
Y'see, the whole theory behind the idea called groupthink is that members of a group get along too well. They sit down with each other and sort of outbid one another in a not-really-conscious process, each one "daring" the other to get more extreme and more casual about being extreme.
The way to defeat groupthink? It's well-established that the best way to break up that sort of thinking is by bringing in outsiders, by opening up the group to fresh viewpoints and new ways of seeing things.
Reading the above, it's pretty clear that the Bush Administration will do no such thing. The quote below is from a story about how President Bush wants a Mideast summit. Sounds good, but the quote here reveals the catch:
"Palestinians [are] divided between the Fatah-controlled West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza. Hamas is unlikely to be invited: Mr Bush said it must first renounce violence and recognise Israel."
In other words, "we'll deal with our friends (i.e., people who are predisposed to agree with us) and ignore our enemies (i.e., people likely to stand up for their own national interests)."
Same-old, same-old. This is going to be strictly a photo-op summit.
2007/07/10
Media vs government
Marcy "Emptywheel" Wheeler comments on The Next Hurrah about Michael Isikoff's story on Bush's decision to commute I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby's just and richly-deserved prison sentence. Warning: Marcy is a loud and proud DFH Blogger, so don't read her account if you like your language clean.
Th main question that occurred to me as I read Emptywheel's account was "Why do we still have confessional insider-type accounts in the mainstream media? The media that's allegedly full of Very Serious people?" Emptywheel makes it clear right off the bat that Isikoff does not consult any sources other than the people he interviewed and it's also quite clear a few paragraphs into reading Isikoff's article that it's absolutely chock-full of unverifiable, alleged facts that Isikoff simply takes the word of his sources for. Many years back, first Ronald Reagan and then the Elder Bush and then to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and then to a huge extent GW Bush, all decided that the handling of the press was an extremely important task that required serious study and education and long, late-night talks.
We lefty bloggers don't think much of Joe Klein, who wrote Primary Colors, but the movie effectively pointed out how politicians view the press. When "Hillary Clinton" was apprised of a scandal, her first thought was of which media source was the best one to leak the news to. The Elder Bush made it very clear during his time in office that his wife Barbara, was keeping careful track of "friendly" and "non-friendly" reporters. Those reporters who were not considered friendly, i.e., those who wrote critical stories, were denied access to the President. Friendly reporters, of course, got unlimited access.
When a reporter is getting an "inside account," we need to keep in mind that these interviews occur after the President's PR people have thoroughly discussed "the mark" and his "tells," his liquor preferences, his level of knowledge on the issues and his favorite conversational topics, etc. They know how to make their "insider" stories convincing and gather afterwards to talk over what worked, what didn't, what the reporter found convincing and what he appeared skeptical of. What this means is that the much-admired reporter I.F. Stone got it right. When he was told that counter-insurgency warfare was being given primacy in Vietnam and bombing was being phased out, Stone looked up the respective budgetary figures and found out that the US was spending less on counter-insurgency per year than it was on B-52 bombing per month.
Reporting on the President requires of reporters a stubborn refusal to be manipulated, a keen awareness of the many tricks presidential administrations will use to steer reporters towards favored narratives and a deep appreciation for the subject the reporters is reporting on.
My solution? There are many stories that can be covered adequately by a single person, but I'd like to see teams on many other stories. To have a reporter being close to sources and to do a lot of personal interviews in Washington DC, over cocktail weenies and over glasses of expensive scotch is not a bad thing in and of itself. Even "bad guys," however one defines the term, deserve to be heard and to be able to relay their stories in an up-close and personal manner. What I'd like to see, though, would be for the interviewing reporter to turn over his or her notes and observations and conclusions to a blogger up in Minnesota or down in Alabama and for the blogger to take those notes and put them into context, with other facts and opposing viewpoints. The editor can then make sure that the resulting story flows well and isn't choppy and disjointed. As I said, I'd like to see a real team effort on important stories.
Th main question that occurred to me as I read Emptywheel's account was "Why do we still have confessional insider-type accounts in the mainstream media? The media that's allegedly full of Very Serious people?" Emptywheel makes it clear right off the bat that Isikoff does not consult any sources other than the people he interviewed and it's also quite clear a few paragraphs into reading Isikoff's article that it's absolutely chock-full of unverifiable, alleged facts that Isikoff simply takes the word of his sources for. Many years back, first Ronald Reagan and then the Elder Bush and then to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and then to a huge extent GW Bush, all decided that the handling of the press was an extremely important task that required serious study and education and long, late-night talks.
We lefty bloggers don't think much of Joe Klein, who wrote Primary Colors, but the movie effectively pointed out how politicians view the press. When "Hillary Clinton" was apprised of a scandal, her first thought was of which media source was the best one to leak the news to. The Elder Bush made it very clear during his time in office that his wife Barbara, was keeping careful track of "friendly" and "non-friendly" reporters. Those reporters who were not considered friendly, i.e., those who wrote critical stories, were denied access to the President. Friendly reporters, of course, got unlimited access.
When a reporter is getting an "inside account," we need to keep in mind that these interviews occur after the President's PR people have thoroughly discussed "the mark" and his "tells," his liquor preferences, his level of knowledge on the issues and his favorite conversational topics, etc. They know how to make their "insider" stories convincing and gather afterwards to talk over what worked, what didn't, what the reporter found convincing and what he appeared skeptical of. What this means is that the much-admired reporter I.F. Stone got it right. When he was told that counter-insurgency warfare was being given primacy in Vietnam and bombing was being phased out, Stone looked up the respective budgetary figures and found out that the US was spending less on counter-insurgency per year than it was on B-52 bombing per month.
Reporting on the President requires of reporters a stubborn refusal to be manipulated, a keen awareness of the many tricks presidential administrations will use to steer reporters towards favored narratives and a deep appreciation for the subject the reporters is reporting on.
My solution? There are many stories that can be covered adequately by a single person, but I'd like to see teams on many other stories. To have a reporter being close to sources and to do a lot of personal interviews in Washington DC, over cocktail weenies and over glasses of expensive scotch is not a bad thing in and of itself. Even "bad guys," however one defines the term, deserve to be heard and to be able to relay their stories in an up-close and personal manner. What I'd like to see, though, would be for the interviewing reporter to turn over his or her notes and observations and conclusions to a blogger up in Minnesota or down in Alabama and for the blogger to take those notes and put them into context, with other facts and opposing viewpoints. The editor can then make sure that the resulting story flows well and isn't choppy and disjointed. As I said, I'd like to see a real team effort on important stories.
2007/07/04
The "Libby Motion"
Defendants in criminal cases involving lying are taking note of President Bush's defense of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted felon who will now serve no time behind bars. The Alberto Gonzales Justice Department wants to throw the book at Democrats and decorated veterans, but appears to want special treatment for Republicans accused of similar crimes. We get some serious snark from Digby on the agony of President Bush as he seeks to decide between commuting Libby's sentence and between full pardon. Hint: If Libby is fully pardoned, he cannot "take the Fifth" if brought up to Congress to testify about the Valerie Plame Wilson case. If his sentence is "merely" commuted, he can still claim that he risks self-incrimination by speaking about it. The WaPo did a "Clinton accused" special on impeachment and the intent of the Founding Fathers in constructing the President's pardon powers. James Madison assured his fellow framers that "[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . ."
Dan Froomkin of the WaPo is collecting a list of questions to ask at press conferences about the commuting of Libby's sentence. One very good one is "When did [Bush] find out that Karl Rove and Libby had both leaked Plame's identity? Before or after he vowed that any leakers would be fired? Did anyone lie to him about their role? Why didn't he fire them?" Froomkin's email address.
A strongly pro-Bush article in the NY Times raises many more questions about the purposes of the commutation. The author comments several times about how unusual the case was and how unprecedented Bush's actions were. Question: If Bush felt that Libby's sentence was "excessive," why wait until long after the verdict to say so? Libby was sentenced on 5 June. President Bush commuted his sentence on 2 July. Funny, but I don't remember Bush commenting that Libby's sentence was too harsh until he needed to cast about for a reason to free a crony of his.
Update: Tony Snow, the President's Press Secretary, said: "The president believes pardons and commutations should reflect a genuine determination to strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government."
Fine words, but his actions did precisely the opposite. His action in commuting Libby's sentence demonstrated that no such determination had been made, that it weakened the rule of law and that it decreased the public's faith in the government.
"Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time." As Libby didn't serve as much as a single day, it's hard to credit Bush's explanation that he merely considered Libby's sentence to be excessive. BTW, the usual sentence for the obstruction of justice charge is 70 months. Libby was scheduled to serve 30.
Finally, just how much concern has Bush shown towards those appealing for pardons? Answer: Not much. The question of special favors, of a quid pro quo, is very much alive.
Dan Froomkin of the WaPo is collecting a list of questions to ask at press conferences about the commuting of Libby's sentence. One very good one is "When did [Bush] find out that Karl Rove and Libby had both leaked Plame's identity? Before or after he vowed that any leakers would be fired? Did anyone lie to him about their role? Why didn't he fire them?" Froomkin's email address.
A strongly pro-Bush article in the NY Times raises many more questions about the purposes of the commutation. The author comments several times about how unusual the case was and how unprecedented Bush's actions were. Question: If Bush felt that Libby's sentence was "excessive," why wait until long after the verdict to say so? Libby was sentenced on 5 June. President Bush commuted his sentence on 2 July. Funny, but I don't remember Bush commenting that Libby's sentence was too harsh until he needed to cast about for a reason to free a crony of his.
Update: Tony Snow, the President's Press Secretary, said: "The president believes pardons and commutations should reflect a genuine determination to strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government."
Fine words, but his actions did precisely the opposite. His action in commuting Libby's sentence demonstrated that no such determination had been made, that it weakened the rule of law and that it decreased the public's faith in the government.
"Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time." As Libby didn't serve as much as a single day, it's hard to credit Bush's explanation that he merely considered Libby's sentence to be excessive. BTW, the usual sentence for the obstruction of justice charge is 70 months. Libby was scheduled to serve 30.
Finally, just how much concern has Bush shown towards those appealing for pardons? Answer: Not much. The question of special favors, of a quid pro quo, is very much alive.
2007/07/02
Comparison-contrast
I thought this was pretty interesting:
Personally I don't have a problem with journalists' giving donations to political candidates, parties and causes. Even if they don't act it sometimes, they're American citizens and are afforded the same First Amendment rights as all citizens.
All I ask is that the consumer of the news be told what the journalists' political leanings are. We conservatives aren't shocked by the study done by MSNBC. We've been preaching in the wilderness about political bias for decades. It was the journalists, of all people, trying to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. "You Republicans are just paranoid."
Ninety percent of polled Washington journalists voted for Bill Clinton? Coincidence! From Walter Cronkite to Dan Rather to Katie Couric, the bias was plain to see. Whether it's the New York Times, Time magazine, the Washington Post or The Inquirer, adjectives are selectively placed to give an impression.
While Gloria Steinam is "witty and cordial," Phyllis Shlafly is "shrill and bitter." George W. Bush provides a "huge" tax cut and a "small" increase in education spending.
Sometimes it's not what is put into a news report but what is not: The American treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is reported, but without equal time or weight given to the treatment of Americans and Iraqi citizens by al-Qaeda sadists. "The Earth is getting warmer." So what? So are Mars, Venus and Mercury.
So give to your favorite candidates and causes, whether it's Hillary, the Green Party or NARAL, but just let us know, so we can view the news through the proper lens.
Fran Steffler
Philadelphia
My letter in response to the same piece (Not published):
Re: "Editorial | Political Donations by Journalists" Jun 26
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070626_Editorial____Political_Donations_by_Journalists.html
As to the story that %0.03 of journalists made political contributions (144 out of 50,000 and those contributions were heavily weighted towards Democrats), I certainly agree that fairness in journalism is important, but I've never felt that journalists can or should be completely neutral.
Right now, Rudy Giuliani is trying to establish himself as a serious presidential candidate and it was revealed recently that he was kicked out of the Iraq Study Group for failing to make a single meeting. A conservative online newsmagazine, The Politico, makes a very big deal about how marvelously objective and neutral they are, yet can't seem to find room in their reports to mention this very embarrassing fact to the Giuliani campaign. The much-vaunted neutrality of The Politico is just so much hot air.
Fairness is important, but objectivity, both in fact and in theory, is a hugely overrated virtue. There is no shortcut to judging how fair a news source is. One has to follow a news source over a period of time and one has to view it from what both their friends and opponents say about them. Judging news sources by a shortcut such as employee political donations is a waste of time.
Rich Gardner
---------
In my view, the really telling instance is in two recent events. Media Matters commented on Ann Coulter's hour-long interview on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball over her book Godless, which was being reissued in paperback:
"Ann Coulter is not only a remarkably unpleasant person, she's a serial liar. And yet NBC's David Gregory -- among other journalists -- pretends that she has a meaningful point and makes false assertions about progressives based on her lies.
"That's why it would be folly for progressives to ignore Coulter in hopes that she goes away: because the media don't ignore her. They promote her. They parrot her false claims. It's also why progressives should not only denounce Coulter, but MSNBC and ABC and CNN and Time and every other news organization that gives her a platform and doesn't challenge her lies and repeats them as though they are true."
Now, on July 2nd, Amazon reports that the hardcover version of Godless is selling for $18.45, reduced from $27.95 and that it's sales ranking is #1,625. The recently-released A Tragic Legacy by blogger and lawyer Glenn Greenwald is at #96, well above Coulter's book. Our local paper contains nothing about Greenwald's book and he himself states that:
"Despite its continuing strong sales and widespread attention in the blogosphere, Tragic Legacy is yet to be reviewed, or even mentioned, by any major newspaper or magazine."
Yes, the media is biased, but it's a very strong rightward bias.
One Reader's View
Be up-front about your political bias
Personally I don't have a problem with journalists' giving donations to political candidates, parties and causes. Even if they don't act it sometimes, they're American citizens and are afforded the same First Amendment rights as all citizens.
All I ask is that the consumer of the news be told what the journalists' political leanings are. We conservatives aren't shocked by the study done by MSNBC. We've been preaching in the wilderness about political bias for decades. It was the journalists, of all people, trying to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. "You Republicans are just paranoid."
Ninety percent of polled Washington journalists voted for Bill Clinton? Coincidence! From Walter Cronkite to Dan Rather to Katie Couric, the bias was plain to see. Whether it's the New York Times, Time magazine, the Washington Post or The Inquirer, adjectives are selectively placed to give an impression.
While Gloria Steinam is "witty and cordial," Phyllis Shlafly is "shrill and bitter." George W. Bush provides a "huge" tax cut and a "small" increase in education spending.
Sometimes it's not what is put into a news report but what is not: The American treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is reported, but without equal time or weight given to the treatment of Americans and Iraqi citizens by al-Qaeda sadists. "The Earth is getting warmer." So what? So are Mars, Venus and Mercury.
So give to your favorite candidates and causes, whether it's Hillary, the Green Party or NARAL, but just let us know, so we can view the news through the proper lens.
Fran Steffler
Philadelphia
My letter in response to the same piece (Not published):
Re: "Editorial | Political Donations by Journalists" Jun 26
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070626_Editorial____Political_Donations_by_Journalists.html
As to the story that %0.03 of journalists made political contributions (144 out of 50,000 and those contributions were heavily weighted towards Democrats), I certainly agree that fairness in journalism is important, but I've never felt that journalists can or should be completely neutral.
Right now, Rudy Giuliani is trying to establish himself as a serious presidential candidate and it was revealed recently that he was kicked out of the Iraq Study Group for failing to make a single meeting. A conservative online newsmagazine, The Politico, makes a very big deal about how marvelously objective and neutral they are, yet can't seem to find room in their reports to mention this very embarrassing fact to the Giuliani campaign. The much-vaunted neutrality of The Politico is just so much hot air.
Fairness is important, but objectivity, both in fact and in theory, is a hugely overrated virtue. There is no shortcut to judging how fair a news source is. One has to follow a news source over a period of time and one has to view it from what both their friends and opponents say about them. Judging news sources by a shortcut such as employee political donations is a waste of time.
Rich Gardner
---------
In my view, the really telling instance is in two recent events. Media Matters commented on Ann Coulter's hour-long interview on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball over her book Godless, which was being reissued in paperback:
"Ann Coulter is not only a remarkably unpleasant person, she's a serial liar. And yet NBC's David Gregory -- among other journalists -- pretends that she has a meaningful point and makes false assertions about progressives based on her lies.
"That's why it would be folly for progressives to ignore Coulter in hopes that she goes away: because the media don't ignore her. They promote her. They parrot her false claims. It's also why progressives should not only denounce Coulter, but MSNBC and ABC and CNN and Time and every other news organization that gives her a platform and doesn't challenge her lies and repeats them as though they are true."
Now, on July 2nd, Amazon reports that the hardcover version of Godless is selling for $18.45, reduced from $27.95 and that it's sales ranking is #1,625. The recently-released A Tragic Legacy by blogger and lawyer Glenn Greenwald is at #96, well above Coulter's book. Our local paper contains nothing about Greenwald's book and he himself states that:
"Despite its continuing strong sales and widespread attention in the blogosphere, Tragic Legacy is yet to be reviewed, or even mentioned, by any major newspaper or magazine."
Yes, the media is biased, but it's a very strong rightward bias.
2007/06/30
Should we ignore Ann Coulter?
Should we ignore Ann Coulter in the hope that she'll then go away? Media Matters argues no. First, she has a perch atop the media food chain anyway. "News" shows feature her in any event. Even worse, major media commentators repeat her charges. People you'd think wouldn't give her any credibility go around repeating what she says. With Coulter, you're simply getting the original, most hateful and venomous version. What you're not getting later from the major media is a version that's been watered down by facts or context, it's simply been softened to a more palatable form.
Also, keep in mind what Brent Bozell proclaimed:
Remember conservatives, insult der obergruppenfuhrer (Michelle Malkin, the number two hatemonger in the Republican Party, is just a gruppenfuhrer.) and you insult the Republican Party, why you insult Dick Cheney himself!
Oh, and Chris Matthews, as one of Coulter's prime apologists/enablers, really, really needs to go away.
Also, keep in mind what Brent Bozell proclaimed:
“But Ann Coulter is owed an apology from those outlets, including NBC’s Nightly News, The Washington Post and CNN’s American Morning, which have mis-reported her comments. And conservatives, take note: Today it’s Coulter, tomorrow it may be you. The left has demonstrated that it will stop at nothing, including flat-out dishonesty, to undermine our leaders.”
Remember conservatives, insult der obergruppenfuhrer (Michelle Malkin, the number two hatemonger in the Republican Party, is just a gruppenfuhrer.) and you insult the Republican Party, why you insult Dick Cheney himself!
Oh, and Chris Matthews, as one of Coulter's prime apologists/enablers, really, really needs to go away.
2007/06/23
Good grief!
What do the dates April 2004, July 2005, June 2006 and June 2007 all have in common?
They've all seen US Government predictions that forces in Iraq could be reduced within a year.
Yeah, that'll happen, yup, this time for sure!
They've all seen US Government predictions that forces in Iraq could be reduced within a year.
Yeah, that'll happen, yup, this time for sure!
Electoral troubles of John Edwards
The Politico, which purports to cover "the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign ... with enterprise, style, and impact," declared that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has what "opponents call 'the three h's' -- the haircut that cost $400, his huge house and his lucrative involvement with a hedge fund." Funny, but all three "scandals" were manufactured by news outlets including and just like The Politico.
As Media Matters demonstrates, there simply is no contradiction between being wealthy and between wanting others to live comfortably as well.
Apparently, seeing that the "three h's" weren't having any impact, the NY Times decided to up the ante by suggesting that Edwards' 2004 initiative, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, was just a cheap front for funding his own presidential campaign. (TalkLeft points out that, were the accusation to be made explicit and of course, were the accusation true, then Edwards would be guilty of the crime of tax fraud.) The accusations are not made explicitly, but the report uses "lines... highly charged with innuendo in a way that's beneath the Paper of Record."
Problem: there's simply no proof that any of these charges rest on factual evidence. The main, primary charge, of course, is that Edward's was the program's primary beneficiary. The apparent assertion that Edwards was motivated by anything other than a desire to help people is simply the reporters' unsubstantiated opinion, unsupported by any facts.
In fact, as The Daily Howler discovers, to its astonishment and amazement [/snark], "Edwards didn’t do anything wrong! But we get this statement in the next-to-last paragraph, after 1700 words of insinuation."
The really amazing kicker is that:
Of course, the National Review manages to work the "three 'h's' " into its quickie overview and also suggests that the NY Times piece rests on factual evidence.
A diary on DailyKos examines the deeper meaning of the story: "It suggests that the rich cannot care about poverty, that throwing money at a problem is the only solution and that candidates cannot care about issues." The whole point of mentioning that Edwards has "assets of nearly $30 million" seems to be only that "rich people can’t be concerned with the poor" and hey, look! Edwards is rich!
This kind of corrosive cynicism is like suggesting that "Vice President Gore doesn’t care about global warming and is only raising the issue to keep his viability as a candidate alive." A view which probably contains a few grains of truth, but the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" makes it clear that Gore was concerned about Global Warming many, many years before it became a real issue.
Yes, the question of "qui bono?" i.e. "to whose benefit?" is an important one and it certainly should be asked, but it's often portrayed as a massive, looming, overarching premise. It's often portrayed as the only really important question in a story. One of my college professors pointed out the problem with this kind of thinking. We had been discussing the subject of the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Western Europe and one of the students asked "Wasn't the whole purpose of that plan just to fight communism? Wasn't the recovery aspect irrelevant?" Our professor replied "The people of the US back then didn't see any contradiction between the two. They didn't believe that they had to choose, so they believed in both. The Marshall Plan was BOTH a way to help the people of Western Europe recover from World War II AND a way to build a strong Western Europe that could resist communism."
There's simply no reason that Al Gore cannot believe in both ideas at once, that Global Warming is a threat to all of mankind AND that the issue might improve his presidential prospects. There's no reason why John Edwards can't BOTH be fighting to improve the lives of those people who don't make anywhere near as much money as he does AND to be worth a great deal of money. There's simply no contradiction.
As Media Matters demonstrates, there simply is no contradiction between being wealthy and between wanting others to live comfortably as well.
Apparently, seeing that the "three h's" weren't having any impact, the NY Times decided to up the ante by suggesting that Edwards' 2004 initiative, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, was just a cheap front for funding his own presidential campaign. (TalkLeft points out that, were the accusation to be made explicit and of course, were the accusation true, then Edwards would be guilty of the crime of tax fraud.) The accusations are not made explicitly, but the report uses "lines... highly charged with innuendo in a way that's beneath the Paper of Record."
"John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.
"Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show."
Problem: there's simply no proof that any of these charges rest on factual evidence. The main, primary charge, of course, is that Edward's was the program's primary beneficiary. The apparent assertion that Edwards was motivated by anything other than a desire to help people is simply the reporters' unsubstantiated opinion, unsupported by any facts.
In fact, as The Daily Howler discovers, to its astonishment and amazement [/snark], "Edwards didn’t do anything wrong! But we get this statement in the next-to-last paragraph, after 1700 words of insinuation."
The really amazing kicker is that:
"...no mention of how the programs actually impacted people appears until the story's 18th paragraph -- and at that point it comes from the mouth of an Edwards spokesman. There's no indication that the reporter made any genuine independent effort at all to discover whether the programs helped anyone."
Of course, the National Review manages to work the "three 'h's' " into its quickie overview and also suggests that the NY Times piece rests on factual evidence.
A diary on DailyKos examines the deeper meaning of the story: "It suggests that the rich cannot care about poverty, that throwing money at a problem is the only solution and that candidates cannot care about issues." The whole point of mentioning that Edwards has "assets of nearly $30 million" seems to be only that "rich people can’t be concerned with the poor" and hey, look! Edwards is rich!
This kind of corrosive cynicism is like suggesting that "Vice President Gore doesn’t care about global warming and is only raising the issue to keep his viability as a candidate alive." A view which probably contains a few grains of truth, but the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" makes it clear that Gore was concerned about Global Warming many, many years before it became a real issue.
Yes, the question of "qui bono?" i.e. "to whose benefit?" is an important one and it certainly should be asked, but it's often portrayed as a massive, looming, overarching premise. It's often portrayed as the only really important question in a story. One of my college professors pointed out the problem with this kind of thinking. We had been discussing the subject of the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Western Europe and one of the students asked "Wasn't the whole purpose of that plan just to fight communism? Wasn't the recovery aspect irrelevant?" Our professor replied "The people of the US back then didn't see any contradiction between the two. They didn't believe that they had to choose, so they believed in both. The Marshall Plan was BOTH a way to help the people of Western Europe recover from World War II AND a way to build a strong Western Europe that could resist communism."
There's simply no reason that Al Gore cannot believe in both ideas at once, that Global Warming is a threat to all of mankind AND that the issue might improve his presidential prospects. There's no reason why John Edwards can't BOTH be fighting to improve the lives of those people who don't make anywhere near as much money as he does AND to be worth a great deal of money. There's simply no contradiction.
2007/06/18
Allegations on China & Iran
*Sigh!* Well, it seems our old pal Jeff Gerth has been a busy boy. Now, he's claiming that China is supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents via Iran
Yee-hah! It's a two-fer! Now our media is blaming not just one, but two evil empires!
Frankly, I thought the following:
and
First off, China's request that the US supply proof that they're sending covert arms shipments to Iraqi insurgents is an entirely reasonable one, one that would be honored immediately by an honorable administration. It's of course quite possible that there could be a rogue element in China's government that they would be more than happy to stop if only they were apprised of details concerning how the transfers are being made. If the US had 10 discrete
pieces of evidence, they could reveal perhaps three and see if action is taken that affects the other seven.
Second, the observation that the word of intelligence agencies do not constitute "concrete proof" is again an entirely reasonable one. Intelligence agencies "hoover up" all the information they can get ahold of because one is better safe than sorry. If one is making a diplomatic protest, it's not unreasonable to get other agencies to certify that the information they're working off of is solid. It was shown after the Vietnam War that military services did a very good job of critiquing the plans of other military services. The Navy critiqued the plans of the Air Force and pointed out quite a few things that later became common wisdom.
It's hardly called for to refer to those skeptical of the reports on China "Apologists for China."
Yee-hah! It's a two-fer! Now our media is blaming not just one, but two evil empires!
Frankly, I thought the following:
"...Beijing, which insisted it knew nothing about the shipments and asked for additional intelligence on the transfers..."
and
"Apologists for China within the government said the intelligence reports were not concrete proof of Chinese and Iranian government complicity."
First off, China's request that the US supply proof that they're sending covert arms shipments to Iraqi insurgents is an entirely reasonable one, one that would be honored immediately by an honorable administration. It's of course quite possible that there could be a rogue element in China's government that they would be more than happy to stop if only they were apprised of details concerning how the transfers are being made. If the US had 10 discrete
pieces of evidence, they could reveal perhaps three and see if action is taken that affects the other seven.
Second, the observation that the word of intelligence agencies do not constitute "concrete proof" is again an entirely reasonable one. Intelligence agencies "hoover up" all the information they can get ahold of because one is better safe than sorry. If one is making a diplomatic protest, it's not unreasonable to get other agencies to certify that the information they're working off of is solid. It was shown after the Vietnam War that military services did a very good job of critiquing the plans of other military services. The Navy critiqued the plans of the Air Force and pointed out quite a few things that later became common wisdom.
It's hardly called for to refer to those skeptical of the reports on China "Apologists for China."
2007/06/11
Looks like anti-al Qaeda alliance fraying, misc
In Iraq, it was hoped that Iraqis were making alliances with Americans, but TPMMuckraker makes it clear that any alliance was an "enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend" type of get-together. In other words, the alliance began when al Qaeda became a threatening third force and is doomed to end when al Qaeda is defeated. That also means that if the Americans leave Iraq, al Qaeda will then take the brunt of Iraqis seeking to reestablish control over their country.
----------
Democrats put out a fact sheet on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and why he needed to be chastised with a "no-confidence" vote. In order to proceed with the vote, Democrats needed 60 "ayes". They only got 53.
---------
Yippee!!! Habeas corpus upheld!!! Delightful phrase: "The Court thus rejected the Administration’s claim that the President has the inherent, unchecked Constitutional power to do whatever he wants in designating US residents as 'enemy combatants.' ”
Aah! Music to my ears!!! A heavenly chorus opens up to sing!!
----------
Democrats put out a fact sheet on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and why he needed to be chastised with a "no-confidence" vote. In order to proceed with the vote, Democrats needed 60 "ayes". They only got 53.
---------
Yippee!!! Habeas corpus upheld!!! Delightful phrase: "The Court thus rejected the Administration’s claim that the President has the inherent, unchecked Constitutional power to do whatever he wants in designating US residents as 'enemy combatants.' ”
Aah! Music to my ears!!! A heavenly chorus opens up to sing!!
2007/06/04
More fun with the media
"In an advance copy of the new book Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co.) obtained by Media Matters for America, co-authors Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr." make a charge against the Clinton's right in the beginning of their book and repeat that charge using the words " 'plan,' 'pact,' or 'project' more than 20 times in Her Way."
Problem: The books authors provide no evidence that such a " 'plan,' 'pact,' or 'project' " ever existed. As a matter of fact, one of their sources, the historian Taylor Branch, calls the allegations of a secret 20-year plan "preposterous." At no time do they show that any of their sources refer to any such plan. The closest they come is to quote a source who neither confirmed nor denied that the quote used was accurate. The Media Matters piece is lengthy, 28 kilobytes, most of which consists of quotes from the book concerning this "plan." After trying to track down exactly where the authors got the main theme of their book, Media Matters concludes that the authors were using, as the British might say, "dodgy and iffy" sources, or more to the point, Media Matters concludes the authors pretty much just made it up.
Amusing endnote:
Well, of course they should wait! That way, their [entirely justified] complaints get lost in the media chatter about the book and get shunted aside as booksellers seek to make money off of selling lots and lots of copies of the book.
Eric Boehlert does some further digging into the journalistic career of one of the authors, Jeff Gerth, and recounts quite a few interesting facts about Gerth's career. Seems that Gerth was a major writer on the Whitewater case, a case that thoroughly disproved the old saw about "Where there's smoke, there's fire." In Whitewater, the allegations of wrongdoing by the Clintons proved to be entirely smoke with no actual wrongdoing, or "fire" ever having been discovered. Gerth further disgraced himself and the New York Times by making utterly baseless accusations against Dr Wen Ho Lee, who spent 278 days in jail while Gerth won himself a Pulitzer for the same reporting. Dr Lee was then released for lack of evidence and again, the American public saw a lot of smoke, but no fire.
America's major media outlets are in very sad shape today because of the kind of abysmally poor "reporting" done by Gerth. Let's hope he doesn't get away with it this time and that fellow major media outlets report, truthfully this time, that there was no secret Clinton plan.
"In the prologue of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta write:
"More than three decades ago, in the earliest days of their romance, Bill and Hillary struck a plan, one that would become both the foundation and the engine of their relationship. They agreed to work together to revolutionize the Democratic Party and ultimately make the White House their home.14 Once their "twenty-year project" was realized, with Bill's victory in 1992, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her.15 Their audacious pact has remained a secret until now."
Amusing endnote:
"Additionally, according to a May 30 weblog post by Smith on Politico.com, Van Natta wrote to Smith: "[T]he Clinton people should wait until the book comes out before they nitpick everything from our alleged 'main premise' to footnotes."
Eric Boehlert does some further digging into the journalistic career of one of the authors, Jeff Gerth, and recounts quite a few interesting facts about Gerth's career. Seems that Gerth was a major writer on the Whitewater case, a case that thoroughly disproved the old saw about "Where there's smoke, there's fire." In Whitewater, the allegations of wrongdoing by the Clintons proved to be entirely smoke with no actual wrongdoing, or "fire" ever having been discovered. Gerth further disgraced himself and the New York Times by making utterly baseless accusations against Dr Wen Ho Lee, who spent 278 days in jail while Gerth won himself a Pulitzer for the same reporting. Dr Lee was then released for lack of evidence and again, the American public saw a lot of smoke, but no fire.
America's major media outlets are in very sad shape today because of the kind of abysmally poor "reporting" done by Gerth. Let's hope he doesn't get away with it this time and that fellow major media outlets report, truthfully this time, that there was no secret Clinton plan.
2007/05/30
Bush Administration and women
Britain's Guardian points out that
"The status of women was never as high under Saddam [Hussein] as opponents of the [Iraq] war sometimes asserted, and it was already declining throughout the 1990s, as Saddam embraced Islam to distract the populace from the effects of the Gulf war, UN sanctions, and his own depredations. But Iraq today is even worse for women: more repressive, more violent, more lawless."
Iraqi women selling their bodies are now a common sight in Syria's capital, Damascus.
"Inexpensive Iraqi prostitutes have helped to make Syria a popular destination for sex tourists from wealthier countries in the Middle East."
What of First Lady Laura Bush? She who famously said "...no one suffers more than their President and I do." while watching the devastation in Iraq. She later amended this: "...she means the 'peace of mind' that Americans 'sacrifice…when they see the terrible image of violence on TV every night.' " Yep, Iraqi women sure have come a long way from the days of "The Road to Freedom" when Laura Bush and Iraqi women sat around all comfy and cozy and talked about how great everything now was that Saddam Hussein had been deposed and the Americans were now running things in Iraq.
Oh, and "honor killings" are now on the rise. Funny, but it seems Laura Bush is now copying Karen Hughes, who famously went AWOL when the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah broke out. Hughes quickly chucked her "Public Diplomacy" portfolio and adopted a low profile, almost as though her "Public Diplomacy" efforts were a front that she discarded as soon as it became ever-so-slightly inconvenient.
"The status of women was never as high under Saddam [Hussein] as opponents of the [Iraq] war sometimes asserted, and it was already declining throughout the 1990s, as Saddam embraced Islam to distract the populace from the effects of the Gulf war, UN sanctions, and his own depredations. But Iraq today is even worse for women: more repressive, more violent, more lawless."
Iraqi women selling their bodies are now a common sight in Syria's capital, Damascus.
"Inexpensive Iraqi prostitutes have helped to make Syria a popular destination for sex tourists from wealthier countries in the Middle East."
What of First Lady Laura Bush? She who famously said "...no one suffers more than their President and I do." while watching the devastation in Iraq. She later amended this: "...she means the 'peace of mind' that Americans 'sacrifice…when they see the terrible image of violence on TV every night.' " Yep, Iraqi women sure have come a long way from the days of "The Road to Freedom" when Laura Bush and Iraqi women sat around all comfy and cozy and talked about how great everything now was that Saddam Hussein had been deposed and the Americans were now running things in Iraq.
Oh, and "honor killings" are now on the rise. Funny, but it seems Laura Bush is now copying Karen Hughes, who famously went AWOL when the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah broke out. Hughes quickly chucked her "Public Diplomacy" portfolio and adopted a low profile, almost as though her "Public Diplomacy" efforts were a front that she discarded as soon as it became ever-so-slightly inconvenient.
2007/05/28
Memorial Day speeches
Very interesting! Congress prepares a bill to expand detainee rights at Guantanamo at the same time that VP Cheney speaks to West Point graduates, trashing the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. At Guantanamo, only two people are identified as awaiting trials while the authorities there have plans to try only 75 more. There are about 380 prisoners there. Why these prisoners are so dangerous that they must be kept in confinement for over a half a decade is not at all clear, especially when so few of them can be credibly charged with anything.
BTW, the Department of Homeland Security has shown a very unimpressive record of only 12 terrorism convictions out of over 800,000 cases, a "success" rate of %0.0015.
But remember, according to Cheney: "Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away." No clue here that perhaps the Geneva Conventions protect all of us, that perhaps when the shoe is on the other foot, when US soldiers, sailors or airmen are in enemy hands, maybe we'd like to have those protections applied to us. I guess Dick "five deferments" Cheney is more macho and heroic than the rest of us are.
Our tombstone display will be up until this afternoon opposite the Liberty Bell between 4th & 5th Streets on Market Street. And kudos to Fox29 for giving us a good video report on the display!
BTW, the Department of Homeland Security has shown a very unimpressive record of only 12 terrorism convictions out of over 800,000 cases, a "success" rate of %0.0015.
But remember, according to Cheney: "Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away." No clue here that perhaps the Geneva Conventions protect all of us, that perhaps when the shoe is on the other foot, when US soldiers, sailors or airmen are in enemy hands, maybe we'd like to have those protections applied to us. I guess Dick "five deferments" Cheney is more macho and heroic than the rest of us are.
Our tombstone display will be up until this afternoon opposite the Liberty Bell between 4th & 5th Streets on Market Street. And kudos to Fox29 for giving us a good video report on the display!
2007/05/22
What to do about outstanding subpoenas?
The Senate Judiciary Committee has threatened to subpoena Karl Rove for his role in the US Attorney firings that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been giving such shifty and uninformative testimony about and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said she won't comply with the subpoena issued to her by the House Reform Committee. As Congress is covered under Article I of the Constitution and the presidency is under Article II, these two branches of our government are co-equal partners, but Congress is a "little bit more equal" than the presidency. As a military veteran, the way I'd put it is that the Executive Branch is being "insubordinate" towards the Legislative Branch, which generally results in what we refer to as "counseling". What's that you say? I might be angry because it doesn't look like the Legislative Branch will successfully end the Iraq War through legislative means? Let's just say that "counseling" has a wide variety of meanings. Granted, military superiors have strict limits on how mean they can be to subordinates, but they can have 'em hatin' life all the same.
So what can Congress do about Executive Branch personnel refusing to obey subpoenas? TPMMuckraker says that subpoenas are rarely followed through all the way to court and that they're usually either complied with or negotiated. What makes the difference between compliance and defiance? Public pressure!! We need to let our Congresscritters know that we're quite serious about wanting Executive Branch personnel to comply with their subpoenas, that we want to see Rove and Rice testify, under oath and in public.
Update: Very, very interesting. Seems the one thing that might make our President quit the game and leave Iraq might be an Iraqi failure to pass the Oil Law that the Bush Administration has been pushing for so long. "Bush warned al-Maliki that Washington expected to see 'tangible results quickly' on the oil bill and other legislation as the price for continued support." [snip] "Senior Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed that U.S. pressure was mounting, especially on the oil bill, which was endorsed by the Iraqi Cabinet three months ago but has yet to come to the floor of parliament."
So what can Congress do about Executive Branch personnel refusing to obey subpoenas? TPMMuckraker says that subpoenas are rarely followed through all the way to court and that they're usually either complied with or negotiated. What makes the difference between compliance and defiance? Public pressure!! We need to let our Congresscritters know that we're quite serious about wanting Executive Branch personnel to comply with their subpoenas, that we want to see Rove and Rice testify, under oath and in public.
Update: Very, very interesting. Seems the one thing that might make our President quit the game and leave Iraq might be an Iraqi failure to pass the Oil Law that the Bush Administration has been pushing for so long. "Bush warned al-Maliki that Washington expected to see 'tangible results quickly' on the oil bill and other legislation as the price for continued support." [snip] "Senior Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed that U.S. pressure was mounting, especially on the oil bill, which was endorsed by the Iraqi Cabinet three months ago but has yet to come to the floor of parliament."
2007/05/21
Continuing relevance of FISA
I was tipped off to this OpEd by Glenn Greenwald.
In the third paragraph, Mike McConnell admits what FISA is all about:
FISA was created to guard against domestic government abuse and to protect privacy while allowing for appropriate foreign intelligence collection.
But he never returns to the point that the problem FISA is intended to solve involves human nature. Governments want to engage in far more surveillance than is necessary or is called for. Government tries to retain far more data about non-threatening peace groups and religious people than it needs to. The entirety of the rest of McConnell's OpEd concerns technology, but it's not at all clear that technology is the problem.
Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries.
What does this have to do with technological changes? Nothing really. FISA was indeed passed in the era when computers had memories of 16 kilobytes and telephones had rotary dialing, but human nature remains the same. As a comparison, sure, Social Security was established in1934 because:
For most of human history, people lived and worked on farms in extended families and this was the foundation of their economic security. However, this changed as the developed world underwent the Industrial Revolution.
The extended family and the family farm as sources of economic security became less common as more and more people became wage-earners, working for others. Along with the shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy, Americans moved from farms and small rural communities to larger cities.
How has any of this changed? Are family farms any more likely to take care of elderly people in retirement today than in 1934? Hardly. Why does Social Security need to be updated? The answer is that it doesn't. Human nature is that folks spend what they have on hand and only wealthy people will put aside what they need for retirement. The reason Social Security has been an issue in our politics has been that investors wish to cut up Social Security and feed it to the wolves of Wall Street. They want to tear it apart for the sheer profit of it all. It's not an issue because of any changes that have occurred.
Likwise, FISA is designed the way it is because of human nature. Government engages in far more surveillance than is necessary for our security. The whole point of FISA was to prevent that.
I found it quite telling that Mr McConnell spends most of his OpEd discussing technology. The reason for that isn't hard to guess at.
2007/05/17
Doing the right thing: Timing
The Washington Post came out today in response to the Comey testimony and expressed shock that the Bush Administration could act in such a blatantly thuggish and lawless manner. Sending Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card to John Ashcroft's bedside to get him to sign off on an unlawful surveillance program struck the WaPo, quite properly, as reprehensible. But this was a side issue in the whole warrantless-wiretapping case. America knew about that case in December 2005 and a District Court Judge decided in August 2006 that it was without even a figleaf of legitimacy. A Bush Administration appointee said a few months back that he considered the program to still be legitimate and proceeded to name precisely those reasons that had been shot down by the District Court Judge!
I mean, hey it's great that the WaPo now sees the light and is speaking out against this disreputable behavior, but where have they BEEN since December 2005?!?! Making excuses for the Bush Administration and averting their eyes, mostly.
They're hardly the first ones to do this, they are aware that things are not the way they should be, but say nothing until the damage is long since done. I mean, it's great that George Tenet is now coming out and saying that the Iraq War was built on phony info, but the appropriate time for him to make this point was before the war was launched. As Crooks & Liars puts it:
I've written about David "Dean" Broder who also held his tongue just long enough for the Bush Administration to get away with what they were doing. Broder showed several weeks after the Swift Boat Vets attack on John Kerry's candidacy for the presidency petered out that he was fully aware of the dishonorable and disreputable nature of their attack on Kerry. Problem was, he was nowhere to be found when the attack was taking place, when a column by him exposing the Swift Boat Vets might have stopped them in their tracks.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, one kinda has to wonder just how long the WaPo's outrage will last. Will this be something that will shake them out of their torpor and lead them into devoting front-page stories to it, or will it be a one-day story that will never make it out of the back pages?
Further links on Comey testimony:
FireDogLake
Taylor Marsh
TalkingPointsMemo
I mean, hey it's great that the WaPo now sees the light and is speaking out against this disreputable behavior, but where have they BEEN since December 2005?!?! Making excuses for the Bush Administration and averting their eyes, mostly.
They're hardly the first ones to do this, they are aware that things are not the way they should be, but say nothing until the damage is long since done. I mean, it's great that George Tenet is now coming out and saying that the Iraq War was built on phony info, but the appropriate time for him to make this point was before the war was launched. As Crooks & Liars puts it:
Meet the Press continues the George Tenet buy my book traveling show. Dear Tim, please ask why Tenet felt that holding onto this information for four long years was acceptable — and how he thinks that fact ought to sit with family and friends of our soldiers stationed in Iraq and elsewhere, for starters.
I've written about David "Dean" Broder who also held his tongue just long enough for the Bush Administration to get away with what they were doing. Broder showed several weeks after the Swift Boat Vets attack on John Kerry's candidacy for the presidency petered out that he was fully aware of the dishonorable and disreputable nature of their attack on Kerry. Problem was, he was nowhere to be found when the attack was taking place, when a column by him exposing the Swift Boat Vets might have stopped them in their tracks.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, one kinda has to wonder just how long the WaPo's outrage will last. Will this be something that will shake them out of their torpor and lead them into devoting front-page stories to it, or will it be a one-day story that will never make it out of the back pages?
Further links on Comey testimony:
FireDogLake
Taylor Marsh
TalkingPointsMemo
2007/05/14
The Right-Wing Noise Machine falls on some hard times
I was talking with a buddy of mine from the anti-war movement and he was telling somebody else about "The Mighty Wurlitzer" which was going to bowl over every Democrat who tried to contradict the Republican message (See a good example of what he means). Seems to me progress has been pretty gradual, but I think the "Noise Machine" of the right wing has been losing steam lately. Exhibit #1 is Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria taken during the first week in April. The mainstream media tried really, really hard to make her trip seem controversial, as though she had done great damage to US foreign policy. The polls are now in and her approval rating is virtually unchanged. She's fallen a whole point, going from 46% approval to 45% approval. At the same time, President Bush scored only a 35% approval.
Keep in mind that the WaPo, two major pundits from NBC, a CNN anchor and the usual right-wingers, the Weekly Standard and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), all criticized her Syria trip. Secretary of State Rice also had some very negative comments to make about Pelosi's trip: "She claimed Pelosi had only gone to Damascus 'to have those pictures' and to suggest a relationship 'that doesn’t exist with Syria.' ” CNN ran a caption "Talking with the Enemy" as though Americans regarded Syria as on a par with the former Nazi Germany or the now-collapsed Soviet Union. (They don't. According to World Public Opinion, 75% of Americans think talking with Syria is a good idea.)
Why is the RWNM so impotent at this point? I'd guess they've just hit the panic button too many times, for one. People get tired of being fearful all of the time, they get jaded and cynical after being told "Wolf" over and over and over again, they realize after awhile that people that we're supposed to trust are inveterate liars who can't be trusted, lots of reasons having to do with simple burn-out. If the old adage is true, that "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on," then Truth is now fully dressed and ready to kick butt and take names.
Also, seems to me that with a critical mass of people getting their information from the blogs (The blog Firedoglake says that its readers are "discerning, highly informed, roughly forty years old (on average) and often hold advanced degrees. Ads here will reach 2 million unique visitors per month."), that means that people are getting more and more used to the idea that, by going online and by intelligently weighing the different accounts, they can get a reasonable approximation of the truth. And trustworthiness in the regular media is taking some really hard hits recently. The Bill Moyers documentary on the lead-up to the Iraq War is causing all sorts of heartburn and distress among major media figures. The very highly cynical and disrespectful Jon Stewart is enjoying a huge success with the under-30 crowd and the blog DailyKos is getting almost a half-million hits a day. The retired General Batiste of VoteVets is also a prime example (In this example, VoteVets slams the Bush Administration's dishonest use of the word "fascist.")
The number of people who believe that any particular source of information is automatically trustworthy is steadily shrinking. The Noise Machine has certainly seen better days. Let's hope the days get far worse for them.
Keep in mind that the WaPo, two major pundits from NBC, a CNN anchor and the usual right-wingers, the Weekly Standard and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), all criticized her Syria trip. Secretary of State Rice also had some very negative comments to make about Pelosi's trip: "She claimed Pelosi had only gone to Damascus 'to have those pictures' and to suggest a relationship 'that doesn’t exist with Syria.' ” CNN ran a caption "Talking with the Enemy" as though Americans regarded Syria as on a par with the former Nazi Germany or the now-collapsed Soviet Union. (They don't. According to World Public Opinion, 75% of Americans think talking with Syria is a good idea.)
Why is the RWNM so impotent at this point? I'd guess they've just hit the panic button too many times, for one. People get tired of being fearful all of the time, they get jaded and cynical after being told "Wolf" over and over and over again, they realize after awhile that people that we're supposed to trust are inveterate liars who can't be trusted, lots of reasons having to do with simple burn-out. If the old adage is true, that "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on," then Truth is now fully dressed and ready to kick butt and take names.
Also, seems to me that with a critical mass of people getting their information from the blogs (The blog Firedoglake says that its readers are "discerning, highly informed, roughly forty years old (on average) and often hold advanced degrees. Ads here will reach 2 million unique visitors per month."), that means that people are getting more and more used to the idea that, by going online and by intelligently weighing the different accounts, they can get a reasonable approximation of the truth. And trustworthiness in the regular media is taking some really hard hits recently. The Bill Moyers documentary on the lead-up to the Iraq War is causing all sorts of heartburn and distress among major media figures. The very highly cynical and disrespectful Jon Stewart is enjoying a huge success with the under-30 crowd and the blog DailyKos is getting almost a half-million hits a day. The retired General Batiste of VoteVets is also a prime example (In this example, VoteVets slams the Bush Administration's dishonest use of the word "fascist.")
The number of people who believe that any particular source of information is automatically trustworthy is steadily shrinking. The Noise Machine has certainly seen better days. Let's hope the days get far worse for them.
2007/05/12
Retired General John Batiste fired by CBS
It was unfortunately, an entirely predictable scenario. An on-air analyst for CBS (The station where Katie Couric proved that she's a hard-line, right-wing conservative) came out in an ad done for VoteVets.org criticizing "Dear Leader" G W Bush. Batiste was promptly canned and CBS made a statement saying that their written policies do not permit open, explicit political advocacy.
Well, guess what? Yup, the blogs started searching back through the careers of other CBS on-air analysts and promptly found at least two (As of late May 11) other on-air commentators who openly and explicitly advocated for the "surge" policy in Iraq and for the presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain.
Problem: The rule of law is based on the idea that laws are enforced in a fair, objective and impartial manner (And no, no actual laws are at issue here; with CBS, we're talking about an internal, self-imposed rule). In a democracy, laws and rules apply equally to everyone. When CBS or anyone else enforces rules in a blatantly partisan, unfair manner, that hurts the credibility of all laws and rules. When any large institution applies rules so that they apply in some instances, but not in others, that means people have to get by or get ahead using less-then-clear rules.
That's bad for everybody who doesn't like living under a monarchy or a dictatorship. That's the essential distinction between what they used to call "Rule by law" vs "Rule by men (people)." I saw a column several years ago where an elder, white conservative guy said basically "Hey we shouldn't be so hard on elder white guys who happen to be hypocrites, people who condemn President Clinton for having an affair while having had affairs themselves." Pardon me, but yes, we should! Neither is it much better to have condemned Clinton for his affair while going easy on later public figures who did much the same thing. When a former Speaker of the House criticizes a current Speaker of the House for something that the former Speaker did when he was in office, that's an extremely relevant point that should be taken quite seriously. Of course, not all accusations of hypocrisy are equal. People condemned feminists for giving Clinton a pass on the issue of sexual harassment, but it wasn't clear that he actually engaged in that particular conduct.
For further thought on the issue of hypocrisy, Concurring Opinions reprints a passage from a story involving what appears to be the Right Honorable James Hacker, MP (Member of Parliament). Marvellously dry humor.
Well, guess what? Yup, the blogs started searching back through the careers of other CBS on-air analysts and promptly found at least two (As of late May 11) other on-air commentators who openly and explicitly advocated for the "surge" policy in Iraq and for the presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain.
Problem: The rule of law is based on the idea that laws are enforced in a fair, objective and impartial manner (And no, no actual laws are at issue here; with CBS, we're talking about an internal, self-imposed rule). In a democracy, laws and rules apply equally to everyone. When CBS or anyone else enforces rules in a blatantly partisan, unfair manner, that hurts the credibility of all laws and rules. When any large institution applies rules so that they apply in some instances, but not in others, that means people have to get by or get ahead using less-then-clear rules.
That's bad for everybody who doesn't like living under a monarchy or a dictatorship. That's the essential distinction between what they used to call "Rule by law" vs "Rule by men (people)." I saw a column several years ago where an elder, white conservative guy said basically "Hey we shouldn't be so hard on elder white guys who happen to be hypocrites, people who condemn President Clinton for having an affair while having had affairs themselves." Pardon me, but yes, we should! Neither is it much better to have condemned Clinton for his affair while going easy on later public figures who did much the same thing. When a former Speaker of the House criticizes a current Speaker of the House for something that the former Speaker did when he was in office, that's an extremely relevant point that should be taken quite seriously. Of course, not all accusations of hypocrisy are equal. People condemned feminists for giving Clinton a pass on the issue of sexual harassment, but it wasn't clear that he actually engaged in that particular conduct.
For further thought on the issue of hypocrisy, Concurring Opinions reprints a passage from a story involving what appears to be the Right Honorable James Hacker, MP (Member of Parliament). Marvellously dry humor.
2007/05/06
Author of the "surge" defends same
Frederick Kagan wrote an article in the NY Times pleading for Americans to support the "surge" (Really an "escalation" as there's no indication as to when it will ever end) in Iraq. What are Kagan's qualifications to have designed the escalation? Well, he is a scholar. He's a former professor of military history (He specialized in the Soviet Union) and has published several peer-reviewed articles, but none of those articles were in either the Mideast nor were they in guerrilla warfare.
Late in his piece, I found a very interesting paragraph:
First off, al-Sadr was calling for a demonstration against the American occupation of Iraq, not merely the escalation. Second, I found it very interesting that in a contemporary gathering of pieces on the march (From the BBC, Al Jazeera, UK Guardian and IslamOnLine) there's no mention of a letter, "open" or otherwise from Petraeus. If he ever wrote such a letter, it didn't come to the attention of anyone in Iraq or in the larger Middle East.
Did the followers of al-Sadr need to advised to avoid violence? There's no question there was a great deal of violence at the march, but all of the violence was directed against inanimate objects:
But as Juan Cole points out:
Was the march reduced at all? Doubtful, as there were about a million Iraqis there. That doesn't sound like a march that was "limited in scale." It's not at all clear that the appeal allegedly put out by Petraeus, if there ever was any such appeal, had any effect whatsoever. I think this "open letter" of General Petraeus falls under the category of what Markos Moulitsas referred to as "making shit up."
Late in his piece, I found a very interesting paragraph:
"When Moktada al-Sadr called for fellow Shiites to demonstrate against the American surge last month, General Petraeus wrote an open letter to the Iraqi people pointing out that such demonstrations would not have been permitted under Saddam Hussein, and asking the demonstrators to avoid violence. In the end, the demonstrations were limited in scale and peaceful, and fears that Sunni terrorists would set off a wave of attacks on the protesters proved unfounded."
First off, al-Sadr was calling for a demonstration against the American occupation of Iraq, not merely the escalation. Second, I found it very interesting that in a contemporary gathering of pieces on the march (From the BBC, Al Jazeera, UK Guardian and IslamOnLine) there's no mention of a letter, "open" or otherwise from Petraeus. If he ever wrote such a letter, it didn't come to the attention of anyone in Iraq or in the larger Middle East.
Did the followers of al-Sadr need to advised to avoid violence? There's no question there was a great deal of violence at the march, but all of the violence was directed against inanimate objects:
"Many in the crowds were seen trampling on and striking US and Israeli flags painted on the ground with their shoes, an act considered one of the worst insults in Arab culture."
But as Juan Cole points out:
"...some journalists are writing that al-Sadr called for violent attacks on US troops, the communique he released on Sunday simply says that Iraqi Army troops and Mahdi Army militiamen should not fight one another and should not allow the Americans to manipulate them."
Was the march reduced at all? Doubtful, as there were about a million Iraqis there. That doesn't sound like a march that was "limited in scale." It's not at all clear that the appeal allegedly put out by Petraeus, if there ever was any such appeal, had any effect whatsoever. I think this "open letter" of General Petraeus falls under the category of what Markos Moulitsas referred to as "making shit up."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)