The Sideshow
Archive for March 2003
Main|
Check box to open new browser windows for links. |
|
|
The SideshowArchive for March 2003Main |
|
Monday, 31 March 200316:32 BST: Permalink
We Want the Airwaves!15:32 BST: PermalinkThose of you who check the We Want the Airwaves! page from time to time may have noticed that posting has been somewhat sporadic. This is partly due to the clumsiness of my posting set-up - one I can't possibly continue while I'm recovering from surgery next month but, let's face it, it was too slow anyway. So Lisa English and I have been setting up a weblog at Blogspot to make it all easier. We haven't done any real writing on it yet but we've more or less got it together now and there are some articles linked that you might find of interest if you are interested in preserving the free speech that is vital to our democracy.
So: the We Want the Airwaves! blog is now online. As always, your advice concerning relevant links is always appreciated - Contact us!
Also NEW! at The Sideshow: I've put up a little picture page.
Please note that I've changed the Sideshow e-mail address as well; Cix doesn't have useful webmail for my account type so I've opened a Hotmail account (for avedoncarol) to make it easier to handle mail on the laptop. Bear in mind that this means if you're writing to me on a list, your mail may be blocked unless you first mail me individually to arrange to unblock it.
Paul Corrigan at Bear Left tells us what he has learned from George W. Bush. Reading this list, I couldn't help thinking that the rest of the world might eventually think something must be done about that great big rogue state he's turning America into....14:09 BST: Permalink
Yeah, Maureen Dowd gets it:
Some of their soldiers are mere children. We know we have overwhelming, superior power, yet we can't use it all. We're stunned to discover that the local population treats our well-armed high-tech troops like invaders.Why is all this a surprise again? I know our hawks avoided serving in Vietnam, but didn't they, like, read about it?
Sunday, 30 March 2003
It is now British Summer Time. Remember, spring forward, fall back. 22:59 BST: Permalink
And only wealth should buy you justice22:02 BST: PermalinkNick Kessler provides an instructive look at a recent Supreme Court case:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, by a 5-4 vote (O'Connor joined the four moderates), upheld the use of Interest On Lawyers' Trust Accounts ("IOLTA") programs. PLA explained these programs very thoroughly (link via Atrios), but the short version is that lawyers often hold cash deposits from clients that are too small to earn interest in individual accounts. Under IOLTA, these small deposits are pooled into a big account, and the interest goes to legal representation for poor people. Conservatives went to court, claiming that the IOLTA programs were unfair because the interest belongs to the clients. But as PLA noted, this has nothing to do with money lost by lawyers' clients. It was driven by conservatives who want to "defund the left."You can be damned sure that Scalia would never express such an opinion if this were, say, me suing the phone company for the fact that they "estimate" an overcharge on my standing order every month and then I have to pry the money back out of them. They take the money from my account on the billing date rather than the deadline, too, so that's more interest they deprive me of. They will pay back the overcharge when I demand it, but I can just imagine the laughter if I ever suggested they should give me the interest back as well. Just about every company in the world expects retail customers to pay them immediately (or they charge you interest), and just about every company delays paying you as long as possible - and never pays you interest on that money.
[...]
Scalia's Rude, Pathetic DissentEven in this opinion, we see that the right isn't finished with IOLTA. Scalia's dissent is a clumsy exercise in dishonesty, pretending that IOLTA is "taking" something from individual clients even though IOLTA accounts create money that these clients could never earn themselves. Scalia's response to the majority's simple holding is typically obnoxious, and he refuses to genuinely address the facts of the case. Instead of reasonable argument, he gives us what we always get from conservatives--constant repetition of his massively flawed conclusion and a steady tone of triumphant arrogance.
You should go over to Nick's post and read the quotes to appreciate the pure chutzpa of Scalia, who pretends that money that would not otherwise exist at all is being stolen from "those who own it". Make no mistake: This is about eliminating money that helps fund people who would otherwise be unable to find redress through our legal system. There is no true "theft of property" principle at stake; these people genuinely mean that justice really should be available only to those who have the money to buy it.
[Note for Jim Capozzola (D-PA): Yes, it's a musical allusion that you won't get!] [PS. I think you're wrong, Jim - they've intended this all along, and they've been talking about it for a lot more than a week, and anyway if they were going to give someone the boot for being an embarrassment Ashcroft would have been gone a long time ago. They love Rumsfeld, he's their macho stud, they have no idea how he looks to the rest of us - and besides, they don't care.]
It's well worth checking out this post at Altercation for Eric Rauchway's evaluation of who the worst president was. The short version:21:17 GMT: Permalink
You should read the whole thing to find out why. Eric also treats us to an exasperated comment on inflated "coalition of the killing" claims from reader J.P. Trostle:
- Worst on economic policy: Benjamin Harrison has the title so far, but though it's too soon to tell, Bush seems primed to take it from him.
- Worst foreign policy: James K. Polk, but Bush definitely headed for the top.
- Contempt for American people: Warren G. Harding was the standard, but Bush is already neck-and-neck with him.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ENLARGE YOUR COALITION! GUARANTEED!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Want a big international COALITION? Tired of getting spurned by hot European girls because of your "unilateralism"?
Now, YOU can experience the COALITION ENLARGEMENT you’ve always wanted with a MASSIVE accounting breakthrough!! 100 GUARANTEED!!!
THE APPEARANCE OF SIZE DOES MATTER!
This fits in rather neatly with Jordin Kare's comment that, "When I heard Colin Powell say that there were 15 nations that were offering support but preferred not to be identified, I realized that the U.S. Government has been reduced to claiming that 'the lurkers support us in email.'"
Like talking to a Post20:56 GMT: PermalinkTwo letters to the formerly-good newspaper:
As a regular reader who has found your paper's coverage of the Iraq conflict conspicuously skewed in support of the administration's position, I was initially pleased to see the March 21 editorial "Speaking Out in Wartime," making the case that the voices of protest in wartime should not be condemned as treasonous. It's unfortunate, however, that the editors could not commit even to this basic democratic concept without dedicating more than a third of the editorial to a critique of Sen. Tom Daschle's position. What could have been a reasoned voice for the importance of maintaining open minds and sustaining civil discourse in painfully difficult times instead ended up eviscerating its own merits by taking unmistakable sides. Readers may be forgiven for inferring the message, "They're wrong, but it's the democratic way to let them speak anyway." [Winafred Brantl]And:
It was chilling enough to read that the Bush administration brooks no criticism of or dissent from its policies ["Bush's Strong Arm Can Club Allies Too," news story, March 21]. Then I turned to your "yes, but" editorial, which singles out Sen. Tom Daschle's critics in Congress but fails to note that the president's press secretary led the parade [news story, March 19]. I always thought your paper could hold two conflicting ideas at once, but its support for the president's war has clearly colored its usually sound judgment. The omission in the editorial does a disservice to us all by implying that it is only Daschle who has a political agenda; yet I suppose to do otherwise would be to criticize the president, and now we all know what that gets one. [Tom Hicks]
Check out The Daily Howler on the ludicrous Kurtz and Sullivan's attempts to portray the BBC as being biased because they lack pro-war bias.13:52 BST: Permalink
Electoral smash-and-grab12:58 BST: PermalinkAs if things weren't scary enough, GOP seeks to cut primaries in 5 states:
Democrats protest, call proposal for '04 biasedFolks, you need to be fighting to preserve the democratic process.JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Republican-led legislatures in five states believe they have found a way to ease the budget crunch: eliminate the 2004 presidential primaries.
President Bush is unlikely to face serious opposition in the Republican run-up to the election, so any budget-driven change to the primary would affect the growing field of Democratic candidates.
State Democratic lawmakers are crying foul, arguing that their GOP colleagues are politically motivated.
In Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and Utah, Republican lawmakers have taken the initial steps either to replace the primary with a caucus that would involve party delegates or to scrap the primary completely.
In three of the four states - Arizona, Kansas, and Missouri - Democratic governors would probably veto a Republican-crafted bill to change the election system.
A measure in Utah, where Republican Mike Leavitt is governor, has a better chance of becoming law.
Colorado was first out of the chute. Elimination of that state's presidential primary was among a dozen budget-cutting bills intended to slash $800 million from the 2002-03 budget.
Signed into law March 5 by Governor Bill Owens, a Republican, the measure eliminating the Colorado primary gives the state a one-time savings of $2.2 million.
In Missouri, one House committee has slashed the $3.7 million set aside for the Feb. 3, 2004, primary; another has voted to repeal the law allowing the contest.
Last year, Missouri lawmakers moved up the date of the primary to draw more national attention. But this year Republican lawmakers are citing a projected budget shortfall of $1 billion and the 19 percent voter turnout in the 2000 primary.
"If we're only getting low turnout, why would you want to spend close to $4 million in a tight budget year, when we could use that money for something else?" asked Representative Bill Deeken, a Republican and a former county election official. "I think it's a waste of money."
Countered Representative Jim Seigfreid, a Democrat: "I think there is some politics involved."
War Hero objects to Dubya Dubya Three12:10 BST: PermalinkU.S. planning more invasions, McGovern says:
Former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern charged Wednesday that President Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after finishing with Iraq.And it's worse than that, as Josh Marshall has pointed out. Rumsfeld has really made a hash of things. And then there's this:"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration," McGovern said. "I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House, that plans are in place for the next invasions."
McGovern did not disclose who his sources were, and attempts to get a response were not successful before deadline.
McGovern was in Milwaukee to speak at the Great Decisions conference Tuesday night, and at the First Unitarian church Wednesday. He noted that American soldiers still patrol Korea, more than 50 years after the war there, and predicted the Bush agenda could involve American soldiers overseas for decades.
McGovern, a decorated World War II veteran who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1972 as an opponent of the Vietnam War, said he supported the Gulf War but opposed the current action.
"This is clearly an American invasion. The chance of Iraq attacking the U.S. is about the same as attack from Mars," McGovern said. "Everybody knows Osama bin Laden was the man who conceived the 9-11 attack, but by harping on this, (the Bush administration) has gradually convinced 51 percent of the American people that Saddam was behind it."
McGovern said the Sept. 11, 2001, attack was done by religious extremists, whereas Hussein is "a hard-bitten atheist. I don't think he'd give Osama the time of day."
McGovern compared the action in Iraq to Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
"The Japanese tried to put out that line, that they thought America was going to attack them, and this was a pre-emptive strike. That didn't sell at the war crimes trial (after World War II)."
Noting that Japan's plotters were found to be war criminals, McGovern said, "it's quite possible an action of that kind (by the World Court) would be brought against Bush if there are a lot of people killed in a country we've invaded."
McGovern, who was a history professor before going into politics, predicted the doctrine of pre-emption could tie the hands of future presidents. "If we were to protest a pre-emptive attack by Pakistan on India with nuclear weapons, we'd have no influence at all if we ourselves had used that doctrine in Iraq and probably in places to come. We'd have no moral or political foundation to stand on," he said.
McGovern, who is 80, was president of the Middle East Policy Council from 1991 to 1998 and currently serves as the United Nation's global ambassador on hunger. He said America's international standing has declined markedly because of the Iraq war.
Humanitarian relief? This report is good news, bad news. Luckily more of the former than the latter, at least in the medium to long term. According to this AFP report, refugees streaming south to avoid fighting gave food to US Marines. That's a good sign of goodwill from Iraqi civilians -- possibly a sign of underlying support, kept in check for the moment by fear of Saddam's reprisals. But it does rather beg the question of why our troops are having to get food from Iraqi refugees. Isn't it supposed to be going the other way? Numerous news organizations are reporting that Marines at the tip of the spear have had to ration their food, limiting themselves to one MRE (meal) a day, because of supply-line disruptions farther south.This administration sure finds ways to stiff US soldiers, doesn't it? Didn't even give them enough food. Cheapskates.Marshall also discusses Operation Chicken Hawk Down.
Media11:13 BST: PermalinkJeanne D'Arc says: The "best newsman in Afghanistan" was, until recently, reporting for the Christian Science Monitor in Iraq. Last week, U.S. Marines escorted him out of Iraq after the Pentagon accused him of revealing too much information in an interview. The CSM insists that the information was already available in maps and in US and British radio, newspaper, and television reports.
Freedom of speech threatened, Gore says:
With fewer companies owning more media outlets, the lack of tolerance for opposing views increases, former Vice President Al Gore told a college audience here last night.Using recent attacks on the Dixie Chicks that followed anti-war comments by one group member as an example, Gore said big corporations threaten the true meaning of democracy because representatives — through various media outlets — try to stamp out opposing views with financial retaliation.
Earlier this month, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush for the war on Iraq while she was performing in Britain. As a result, many radio stations across the country stopped playing the group's songs.
"They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said," Gore said. "Our democracy has taken a hit. Our best protection is free and open debate."
Gore's concern over limiting opposition was one of the topics in his lecture at Middle Tennessee State University to about 250 students, faculty and community members. As head of the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies, Gore talked about how the mass entertainment media has affected the American family and democracy.
"Mass media has had a pervasive impact on families. Most families don't have dinner together — and of those that do, a television is on during the entire dinner."
Besides substituting ffor family communication, Gore said the entertainment industry has contributed to immobility, debts, lower voter participation and increased cynicism.
He said his biggest concern is people's inability to hear and express an opposing view. He called it "an extremely serious problem."
MTSU student Ada Egenji agreed. She said she noticed that peace rallies haven't gotten much coverage since the war started last week.
Iraq invasion quizIs this a great name or what? Why Your Wife Won't Have Sex With You (via Skippy).
The Bushies thought the Iraqis would not fight. Osama thought the US was "weak" and would not fight. Hmmmm.
Saturday, 29 March 200315:37 GMT: Permalink
It's going to be pretty tough to use my Cix mail while I'm doing the recovery thing from the surgery. I'm trying to make alternative arrangements and I'm hoping to set up comments on the Sideshow emergency weblog to reduce the problem. Meanwhile....
Many thanks to John Robinson for sending a better link for the Zen Garden, and to Dr. Plokta and Hal O'Brien, both of whom sent this alternative link.
Erik V. Olsen and John Kozak both took exception to the Michael Bérubé statement quoted below that went:
Fine, let's run with the stupid analogy: Imagine Allied officials in June 1945 saying, "Hitler is dead and Germany has been defeated, but you know, a lot of these here Nazis know a great deal about running the country, they have over a decade of experience, we think they're the people to work with in this crucial time of rebuilding."Erik said:
Except, of course, that's exactly what three of the four allies occupying Germany did. The fourth, the Soviets, did denazify the East German Government, but "denazify" had a much more sinister connotation in the Eastern Bloc.
Blimey, this was actually in TIME: "F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.Terry Jones now understands how to fight terrorism.
Friday, 28 March 200315:34 GMT: Permalink
Crazy Soph says:
As long as I'm in this groove, another LJ friend found this letter (at the top of the page, at least when I saw it) from science fiction writer Iain Banks. Does anyone else, er, any fan of a genre, find it fun (in a slightly inappropriate to the topic fashion) to see a writer they know then turn their hand to something completely different, like this kind of protest letter?That's the letter in the Grauniad that begins:
I'm writing on behalf of myself and my wife. This immoral, illegal war is not being waged in our name, yet now we're told we must support "our boys" (Blair appeals for national unity, March 21). What sort of support is it to accept a course of action which places them in such mortal jeopardy?Well, it's not a surprise to me. Back in '99 Feoreg called me one day to report some anti-porn looniness up in her area and asked if FAC had any people up there who'd be good for some sort of counter-activism. "Forget FAC," I said. "Fandom. Think about who you know." Well, who we know up in Scotland includes some excellent sf writers, one of whom is so famous they used his face on a sherry ad that kept startling me on the Underground for a while. I believe it was Charlie who actually wrote the letter:
2 December 1999The Herald printed the letter with the full list of names. The local paper turned it into a two-day story that quoted pretty much the whole letter in the text. The Telegraph, however, decided to cut the list and use only five names:This month, Edinburgh City Council (in conjunction with Scottish Women's Action Network) are using public funds to promote a torchlit political demonstration followed by a public book-burning. They may be calling it a "PORNFIRE ", but let us be clear about it: Scottish Campaign Against Pornography are burning books and magazines they disagree with on Calton Hill this Thursday.
The occasion of this event, with its echoes of bookburnings at Berlin, is "Sixteen Days of Action against violence against women". Nobody wants to oppose such a worthy cause, and indeed we unreservedly condemn violence against anyone. However, there is a second programme being promoted by this campaign; an attack upon our freedom of speech and thought, justified by an assertion that pornography causes violence against women. Violence against women pre-dates pornography. Violence against women is endemic in countries and cultures that have the strictest of censorship laws (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan). Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate a link between pornography and violence against women.
We do not agree with the politics of censorship; regardless of whether it is presented as gagging pornographers or defending public morals, it subverts the basic right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Burning books of any kind, whether they are pornography or prayer books, is wrong.
We believe that Edinburgh City Council has no business providing support for politically-motivated book-burnings and witch hunts that attempt to blame society's ills on an unpopular group. We call on the Council to respect the civil rights of all citizens equally, and to distance itself from the politics of intolerance. Expressing indignation about violence against women is not an acceptable justification for abolishing freedom of expression.
For further information, see http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/freespeech/
Mr. Yaman Akdeniz, Director - Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
Sister Athletica de la Bain, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
Iain Banks, Author
Paul F Burton, Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde
Kay Carmichael, Writer
Avedon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship
David Donnison, Emeritus Professor - University of Glasgow
Owen Dudley Edwards, Historian
Dr Ian D Goodyer PhD
Alex Hamilton, Lawyer
Sharon Hart, Editor-in-Chief - MacNow Magazine
Mary Hayward, Campaign Against Censorship
John Hein, Editor - ScotsGay Magazine
Karen Hetherington, The Liberal Party in Scotland
Mike Holmes
Colin Johnson MA, Consultant Philosopher
Ken MacLeod, Author
Stiubh Macmhicean, Edinburgh Freethinkers
Michael Meadowcroft, President of The Liberal Party
Dr Arabella Melville, Author - 'Difficult Men'
Chris Morris, Editor - Outcast
Helena Ravenscroft, Author - Erotic Fiction For Women
Charles Stross, Author and Journalist
Peter Tatchell, Queer Rights Activist
Ruth Morgan Thomas, Prostitutes' Rights Activist
"IAIN BANKSThere's no question about which of those names made it into a real story.
KAY CARMICHAEL
OWEN DUDLEY EDWARDS
MICHAEL MEADOWCROFT
PETER TATCHELL and others
Edinburgh
Thursday, 27 March 200316:24 GMT: Permalink
In some ways I've had less to say lately because others have been laying it on the line a lot more often. Like, for example, Josh Marshall:11:05 GMT: Permalink
Over-estimating the extent of one's own power is the best sign that someone or something is heading for a fall.It's not that Marshall hasn't been doing great stuff all along, it's just that, well, as each month goes by he seems to be saying it that much more straightforwardly. He's not the only one.This is something the Bush administration has been doing for months now. We're extremely powerful. But we're not all-powerful. Almost, but not quite.
An example of such over-reach is our current decision to threaten almost every country on the planet with payback for not following our lead on Iraq. Such threats aren't just ill-advised. Worse than that, they lack credibility since we're just not in a position to stick it to every country at once. Here at TPM we've been focusing on Turkey. But Dan Drezner has an excellent post on another country we're now threatening with payback: Canada ... (Drezner's post plays off this article in The Globe and Mail.)
It seems to me that liberals divided into two different camps in the shock of 9/11: Some needed to believe that no administration could fail to respond appropriately, and were therefore willing to suspend disbelief in the competence and integrity of the Regency in Washington; others had already seen the writing on the wall in 2000 and the first half of 2001, and were terrified of what those people in the White House would do to exploit this enormity and turn it into an even bigger disaster. As time has gone by, more and more of the first group are joining the latter as our worst predictions have not only come true but been exceeded. These days even a lot of Republicans who had been cheerleaders for the Bush regime are starting to withdraw their support. What's baffling is that there are people - some of them liberal Democrats - who are at this late date still willing to give BushCo the benefit of the doubt. I don't get it.
Quick picksCool pix: Space imaging (via Sore Eyes, who also tell you where you can download a zen garden for your PalmOS PDA. I want one! But when I click to download, it says, "The page cannot be found." *sigh*).
More cool pix: Rocks rock! (Via Making Light.)
Mac Diva now has a webblog.
Emma explains Political English.
Wednesday, 26 March 200320:06 GMT: Permalink
I've been doing a slow burn about this, but Seeing The Forest is in full fireball mode:13:17 GMT: Permalink
Senate Democrats Vote For Huge Tax Cut!Well, you know I love Atrios, but this was something that should not have passed at all. Not at all. Really.
It appears that Senate Democrats have voted FOR a $350 BILLION tax cut! I'm trying to find the exact count on this, but it appears a number of Democrats voted FOR this atrocity! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???!!
The country has massive deficits, we are at war, programs that help the public are being slashed - and Democrats vote for another tax cut!
It looks like they got rolled again. Please read Getting Rolled.
I am completely dismayed by this. This takes away the Bush economy as a campaign issue! This takes away the deficits as a campaign issue! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???!! Is it time to start recall campaigns to we can get some people in there who will represent US?
Update - Well, now I know what they were thinking. The person answering the phone at Senator Boxer's office portrayed this as a Democratic victory because Bush was asking for $750 billion and "only" got $350 billion. I'm thinking I should call back and demand $2 million! I sure could use the million that it appears I'll get! What a bunch of loons, thinking this is a victory!
OK I took out the comment about voting Green. No sense in that.
Update - Ruminate This agrees with me, Atrios disagrees. Obviously Ruminate is brilliant! Atrios, well... I know - HEY Atrios, give me $2 million right now! :-)
Liberal Oasis has an interesting round-up of claims made about how US forces will be seen by the Iraqi people as "liberators", and what the Iraqis themselves have to say. Like this:12:54 GMT: Permalink
We [in Baghdad] have 11,000 years of history. I know it sounds facetious, but it gives you resilience.Sound familiar?We complain about things, but complaining doesn't mean cooperating with foreign governments.
When somebody comes to attack Iraq, we stand up for Iraq. That doesn't mean we love Saddam Hussein, but there are priorities.
From Tapped:11:08 GMT: Permalink
WHAT NEXT? CONT'D. So now that the war is begun, what do liberals turn their energy towards? The University of Illinois' Michael Bérubé suggests, for starters, taking to task the Bushies for their apparent consideration of rehabilitating the Iraqi Ba'ath Party once the war is over.Not sure I like the idea that "the point" is merely to "hoist the Bush imperium on its own petard" or even to "get the antiwar left to be serious". That is to say, I don't like the idea that everything is about the politics - one would hope that the point was right up there on the surface - we've always disliked Saddam's government, and, especially given the claim that this is about creating "liberation" in Iraq, we don't much like the idea of leaving essentially the same people in power minus only the target of the Bush Family Feud. Whatever this is about for Bush, it should surely be about more than that for the rest of us.
I wonder whether the sane left couldn't start agitating now for a fairly simple but critical postwar position: No Ba'ath Party officials in a post-Saddam government. This is supposed to be a war of national liberation? Saddam is supposed to be Hitler, and antiwar liberals are being likened to Chamberlain? Fine, let's run with the stupid analogy: Imagine Allied officials in June 1945 saying, "Hitler is dead and Germany has been defeated, but you know, a lot of these here Nazis know a great deal about running the country, they have over a decade of experience, we think they're the people to work with in this crucial time of rebuilding."Sounds good to us.The point of this position, of course, is to hoist the Bush imperium by its own petard, and -- incidentally -- to get the antiwar left to be serious about coming up with a postwar agenda more plausible and cogent than "US Out of Everywhere." I'm now in the process of printing up 500,000 "Peace-Loving Americans for de-Ba'athification" buttons and bumper stickers-- a really catchy slogan, I think, even better than "No Blood for Oil."
But that's just quibbling about phrasing. The real point is that if we want to make the world a better place, we're going to have to find ways to do it in spite of Bush, and if exploiting his own rhetoric will help us do that, well, then do it.
Reading The Washington Past10:22 GMT: PermalinkDEMOCRACY: Be Careful What You Wish For:
There were two striking results in an opinion survey conducted earlier this month by Zogby International in six Arab countries -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.William H. Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins:One was that a huge majority of people in those countries said that, if given the choice, they would like their Islamic clergy to play roles bigger than the subservient ones currently prescribed by most Arab governments.
Equally impressive, less than 6 percent of those polled believed that the United States was waging its campaign in Iraq to create a more democratic Arab or Muslim world. Close to 95 percent were convinced that the United States was after control of Arab oil and the subjugation of the Palestinians to Israel's will. The survey, commissioned by University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, also showed that overwhelming margins said that terrorism was going to increase, rather than decrease, as a result of the U.S.-led invasion.
President Bush has said that the invasion of Iraq, and the establishment of a new government there, would be a "catalyst" for change in the region. But what kind of change? Rather than leading to liberal, pro-Western democracy, as Bush suggests, the war in Iraq is likely to bring only more radical Islamic fundamentalism. After all, the Islamic fundamentalist parties, grouped under the big tent of the Muslim Brotherhood, are the only forces with the organization, capability and ambition to take power if democracy were to become an option in the Arab world.
Last week we saw something unprecedented in American history: a push for tax cuts targeted to the wealthy in a time of war. As U.S. jets prepared to bomb Baghdad, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to the federal budget legislation accelerating the repeal of the estate tax. It is a provision that would benefit less than 2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. It passed by a narrow vote of 51 to 48.On the same subject, E. J. Dionne says there is No Excuse for Tax Cuts:There is something unseemly about Congress's obsession with repealing the estate tax, the nation's most equitable tax on accumulated wealth, at a time when life and death are at stake.
Do the leaders of Congress really want to make their branch of government look foolish?The attention of Americans is focused on the war in Iraq -- the successes, the sacrifices, the capture of American fighting men and women, the march on Baghdad.
Congressional leaders should not exploit this moment to push narrow ideological agendas. Ramming through enormous tax cuts is not the best way to unite the country or -- the phrase is on the lips of every politician -- to show our support for the men and women in uniform. At a time of war, we should not feel we are witnessing a political Ponzi scheme.
Paul Krugman on Channels of Influence, about how the big radio networks are behind the "patriotic" rallies:00:32 GMT: Permalink
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?
From Wampum:00:01 GMT: Permalink
As I suggested two weeks ago, the latest move by Senator Frist to push through legislation indemnifying Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical campaign contributors might in all actuality be worse than the provision tacked onto the Homeland Security Legislation last fall, but removed in January, at the behest of my own Maine Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Well, it is in fact worse. Much worse.There's no putting a stake through this thing's heart with Frist around. That means people are really gonna have to write to their reps if they want it to die. And you really should want it to die.
CalPundit catches O'Reilly in another whopper - this time claiming that only male demonstrators were arrested at Monday's protests in Chicago. He also says fear sells. (He has a point. The success of Limbaugh is that he has promoted fear of liberals. The failure of liberals is that we were insufficiently alarmist about him.)
Tuesday, 25 March 200323:21 GMT: Permalink
Mark Evanier reviews his predictions and the ceremony for the Oscars. He also has an answer to why people who were present weren't aware of much opprobrium for Michael Moore's comments, whereas it was pretty loud on broadcast:04:29 GMT: Permalink
ONE MORE THOUGHT on the booing (or not) of Michael Moore's remarks. The prevailing thought throughout Hollywood today seems to be that the booing heard on the telecast was more from stagehands than Academy members. It's all a function of where the microphones are. The ones over the audience are pretty far away from them. If Jack Nicholson stood up and screamed in the middle of the ceremony, you probably wouldn't hear it too well at home -- perhaps not at all. But the stage crew, which tends more towards the conservative side, knows where the open mikes are. Some of them, knowing what Moore was likely to say, may even have moved into position to register disapproval. Apparently, a couple of them did give the filmmaker a pretty rough time backstage, as per Steve Martin's comments. This may explain why Moore, in backstage interviews, said he only heard about five people booing. They may not have been booing down front.I happened to see a clip of the event after reading that, and from the camera shots you didn't see anyone in the audience booing - in fact, they all seemed to be smiling and clapping.Elayne Riggs also did predictions, but hasn't reviewed them (yet), alas.
Tim Grieve in Salon says, Shut your mouth:02:44 GMT: Permalink
As radio giants censor antiwar musicians, TV networks bully pro-peace actors, and Attorney General John Ashcroft prepares a new assault on civil liberties, a climate of intimidation creeps over America.
Nick Kessler has a very fine post up about the dishonesty of the Republicans when it comes to judicial nominations:02:00 GMT: Permalink
Of course, once Clinton left office, Republicans somehow forgot their heartfelt belief that judicial vacancies were best left unfilled: "Helms, a Republican, spent eight years blocking nominations by President Bill Clinton to the court, arguing that adding more judges was a waste of taxpayer money. But suddenly Helms is not so defiant. 'It's his call,' Helms told The Observer, referring to President Bush's anticipated nominations of at least one conservative North Carolinian to the court."And you really can't trust those Republican "moderates", either:
The administration got its latest upper-income tax cut thanks to votes from Congressional Republican "moderates."
From HugoZoom:
Why aren't liberal bloggers talking about the war? Are they afraid of being wrong? For my part, I'd like to be wrong. Rumsfeld just announced that one soldier was killed in combat, in addition to the British and American soldiers killed in a helicopter accident. The Guardian said it was two, which may be an honest error. I'm willing, to an extent, to trust the administration on things like that, but I'm still suspicious that the net effect of Gulf War II will be a change from one Ba'ath dictatorship to another, more amenable one, that is just as brutal to its people, but has declared its chemical, biological, and nuclear programs dead. But what's to stop them from starting over after US forces, their new pals, leave? Let me make myself clear-- I'm not suggesting some kind of immutable flaw in the Arab character, but rather, that the Bush II administration is almost as afraid of a really democratic regime in Iraq as the Saudis are. As I said, I hope I'm wrong . Since this war is on, let's support our troops, as opposed to the administration that sent them there, and keep our eye on said administration.I guess we're not talking as much about it as you'd like, Hugo, because we're actually hoping we are wrong. But there's been the fear all along that this war would just replace one tyrannical regime with another. (Among other things.) It seems the way to bet.
Monday, 24 March 200319:17 GMT: Permalink
You drive me crazy!14:14 GMT: PermalinkYou're a very nice person, but your mail client is not so nice. Nice people send me e-mail all the time on their not-nice mail clients. (Outlook and Outlook Express definitely qualify as not-nice.) So please, please READ THIS and take it to heart. (And thanks to Erik V. Olsen for finding this page.)
Orcinus has received an interesting response on his series on "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism" from a reader who is a Freemason:01:14 GMT: Permalink
This weekend I had an opportunity to hear John D. Keliher, who is the Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Washington. He was speaking on the topic of responding to professional haters (my term, not his). As someone who is familiar with conspiratorial literature and professional haters, you can imagine how hot this topic is among serious Masons. The conspiratorial community is divided as to whether the Masons are tools of the Jews (as stated in the first Protocol of the Elders of Zion) or vice versa.The writer, John McKay, says some illuminating things about how conspiracy-mindedness affects his own little community, and then criticizes those who react against "haters". But, like me, Mr. Neiwert is not quite in agreement, there:In short form, his advice for confronting haters was: Don't; they thrive on attention, let them wither away in the darkness. He recounted the story of a brother who called him asking how best to respond to a professional hater who was making a well-supported presentation in his community. Keliher recommended not even attending the presentation. He continued: if you must attend the meeting, remain silent. If you must say something, don't confront him. If you must confront him, don't get personal. If you must get personal, keep my name out of it. Sadly, the brother ignored his advice at all levels.
I think there's an obvious contradiction between my analysis and Keliher's, in that I obviously advocate standing up to the haters in our society and shining a spotlight on them. My own experience made very clear that simply ignoring them in the hope they'll wither on the vine is a good way to have your home overrun with vines.There's more, and you should read it all. And then I want you to think about this: What is going on in society that makes people focus on a group (Jews, blacks, liberals, whoever) as their "enemy"?On the other hand, I strongly agree with the thrust of his point, and it's one well worth exploring further.
The choice isn't merely between ignoring and responding; there are smart ways to respond, and there are dumb ways that make matters worse. James A. Aho, in his This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy, explores the way opposition to hate groups and assorted Patriot activities often contributes to extenuating the cycle of paranoia and violence that is their raison d'etre.
Hate groups are built around the demonization of some class or clan of people. Though the common caricature of most people drawn to such groups is of a loathsome scumball, in truth these people see themselves as heroic, which is hardly an uncommon thing in our society, as Aho puts it: "To use Becker's phraseology, human beings need to know themselves as heroes." The worldview of haters is such that the marginalization they receive at the hands of broader society is actually confirming evidence of the rightfulness of their beliefs.
[...]
Aho goes on to explore the way that heroes and their enemies have a symbiotic relationship. Each needs the other. And after awhile, each comes to resemble the other. They are locked in a Manichean struggle of "us vs. them" that seems never to cease, unless the cycle itself is broken.I was tired last night when I posted the article below, or I might have written something about my quibbles with Dawkins' contention that, "Evil is a miscellaneous collection of nasty things that nasty people do."
I don't think this is true. I think, in fact, that all of us participate in evil, and that often we are at our most evil at precisely the moment we think we are most righteous. We may know that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, but unless we are very careful the "something" we do in response has the potential to be an even greater evil. Witness, for example, the vigilante justice meted out by those who learn that a "sex offender" lives in their neighborhood and proceed to burn that person's house down - with a child inside of it. Those people think they are doing good.
This extreme of violence may seem obviously over the top to us, but don't we know that something like this can happen the moment we begin the process of relieving people of their rights, their privacy, in order to "protect just one child"? And how many people shrug off the false accusations that wreck the lives - and families - of the unjustly accused in the name of protecting "just one child"?
I stand close the roots of this mushrooming evil, back in the '70s when all we were asking for was an acknowledgment that child sexual abuse is something that really happens and that when young people complain of abuse it would be wise not to assume - as was routinely done in those days - that it was all a fantasy and did not really happen. Understand: The issue was not simply the abuse itself, but the fact that well-remembered experiences were being denied to people who recounted these situations in their lives. "You didn't see it, you didn't hear it...." It was not just the primary abusers saying that it didn't happen; it was the standard assumption of the entire psychological and medical community, thanks to Dr. Freud. None of us imagined that within 20 years it would become just as standard to hear people insisting that all sex involving anyone under the age of 18 was "abuse", and that by now we would be denying that a minor could willingly agree to sex and enjoy it and not be "abused". (Nor did we imagine that children would be led to make false charges by well-meaning social workers who would then maintain - against all evidence - that kids never utter falsehoods!) Now psychologists are just as insistent that a minor should rue every sexual event as they were decades ago that abuse never happened at all. This significant problem - the denial of experience and the imposition of guilt - is perhaps even more of a problem than it was back then. Both versions constitute emotional abuse, the one a denial of remembered experience, the other a denial (and stigmatization) of natural sexual feeling. The modern version, however, affects far more young people and is much more likely to escalate into violence and murder by people who think they are doing good.
This does not, of course, mean we should do nothing about child abuse, but we seem to have embarked on a course that creates tremendous tragedy and does little if anything to prevent actual abuse of children. Because we were not careful.
We do large and small things, well-intentioned or merely petty indulgences, that help to create evil. Among them is the way middle-class people talk about "rednecks" - people we perceive as stupid, illiterate, slobs whose idea of a cultural event is to go out shooting things, swill beer, eat burgers, smoke cigarettes, and read Hustler. It infests our language in a thousands ways - a thousand ways that we make perfectly ordinary heterosexual attractions sound like perversion, natural impulses to make yourself feel good seem like some kind of attack on society or even the whole planet.
Consider the supposedly-good movements of the last 30 years that have explicitly attacked things that were long associated with the (largely white) lower economic classes: cheap mainstream porn, cigarettes, beer, guns. Nothing exemplifies nastiness like the word "McDonald's". We all know that a taste for big boobs is tacky (as are the women who sport them, who are also regarded as not too bright - as "bimbos"). Lager beer and tobacco are, of course, well-known lower-class drugs of choice. Low-income rural whites really do go out hunting and eat what they shoot, something that's relatively alien to most of the suburban middle-class. (And then, of course, there's country music....)
In middle-class language, the poverty of blacks is worth bemoaning and not their fault, but poor white guys are just redneck losers. It's not that no one in the middle-class cares about white single mothers, poor white families, or even guys who get their hands dirty in tobacco farming - it's just that we don't seem to think about them much. (Trust me, the guys who run RJR won't suffer if tobacco sales are finally banned, but a lot of low-income jobs are going to disappear when cigarettes can no longer be sold legally.)
You can only treat people with contempt for so long before they start to hate you, and this kind of thing has kept those poor white guys simmering for decades. It may seem bizarre that they hate "liberals" even more than they hate the rich guys who have kept them poor, but at least the rich guys had been happy to sell them beer, burgers, and butts. It is perhaps instructive that Hillary Clinton was burned in effigy in California after she banned smoking at the White House.
Sure, low-income white folk have bigger issues to worry about than beer, butts, and boobs, but so do we, and the fact that we've allowed those issues to take on such magnitude is what gave the likes of Rush Limbaugh the opening he needed to stir up all that resentment. Combined with marginal economic circumstances and residual racism, not to mention the confusion of changing sexual mores, that's a powerful lot of anger to work with.
These are people who should have been on our side of the class war, but instead we allowed our own little class war to get made on them, and they don't like it. So, see, our own thoughtless little evils have their own rewards.
For Richard Dawkins, it's Bin Laden's victory:00:29 GMT: Permalink
Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap.Dawkins suggests that something is wrong with the US Constitution because, well, look how Gore won the election but lost the presidency. I don't think Dawkins understands that it's stretching things rather a lot to pretend that the Supreme Court's intervention in the Florida election was Constitutional. In fact, the US Constitution clearly reserves the method of choosing electors to the individual states according to their own laws, and Florida's laws explicitly required that the overvoted ballots be hand-counted. The real problem is not that the Constitution allows debacles such as what happened when the Felonious Five stuck their nose in and invented an absolute deadline that was spurious, but rather that there is no form of law that can protect you once you allow your government's institutions - like, for example, the courts - to be hijacked by thugs. By failing to resist the appointments of people like Thomas and Scalia, we permitted that to happen years ago.
[...]
The claim that this war is about weapons of mass destruction is either dishonest or betrays a lack of foresight verging on negligence. If war is so vitally necessary now, was it not at least worth mentioning in the election campaigns of 2000 and 2001? Why didn't Bush and Blair mention the war to their respective electorates? The only major leader who has an electoral mandate for his war policy is Gerhard Schröder - and he is against it. Why did Bush, with Blair trotting faithfully to heel, suddenly start threatening to invade Iraq when he did, and not before? The answer is embarrassingly simple, and they don't even seem ashamed of it. Illogical, even childish, though it is, everything changed on September 11 2001.Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.
I forget who it was who said that no law can protect liberty if the people do not treasure it, and that no law is necessary to protect liberty when the people do treasure it (or something like that, sometimes attributed to Brandeis but I don't think it was him), but it certainly applies here; if we had cared enough to protect our Constitution when these people were nominated, they would not have been there to subvert it in 2000.
Jesse Taylor says: "Shock and Awe? Well, it's the LeMay strategy from every war since WWII (he was the one who coined the phrase "bomb 'em back into the Stone Age"). It's the way that the Air Force wants to fight a war - you bomb until you're done. And then you bomb some more just to show that you can."00:06 GMT: PermalinkFrom Body and Soul:
There isn't a lot of shame in this administration. A great deal that is shameful, but no capacity to be ashamed. They'd like us to believe that the rules and constraints we think exist aren't really there at all. The Constitution is a pretty, but fragile little tchotchke -- something you might need to put out of sight until things calm down. International law does not exist unless a great power wants to invoke it. Moral standards apply to things like sex and drugs, not war and peace, not compassion. There are no standards, there is only power and expediency (but just for the hell of it, we'll call that morality). A person who believes that whatever he does is good, simply by virtue of the fact that he is the one doing it, is not shameable. He's made himself into a little god, and a god is never embarrassed.
Sam Heldman says a few words about Scalia's strict textual interpretations of the Constitution.
Sunday, 23 March 200316:14 GMT: Permalink
Scooby Davis says it's a Must Read, and he's right:14:00 GMT: Permalink
"Stonerwitch on the spiritual warfare meme and how George W. Bush contributed to the spread of this meme which views the world as a battle between God's people (born again Christians) and the devil (everyone else). Some people like me view Bush's Christian piety as a sham to play to the sectarian right. But in practical terms, this is irrelevant. The damage is being done. I had hoped that Bush would have retreated from his sectarian rhetoric when he put his foot in his mouth--referring to the fight against terrorists as a "crusade." No such luck; this meme has escalated--a particularly noxious example has been Rush Limbaugh's portrayal of Tom Daschle as the devil. Let us pray."Definitely do read it, it's scary as hell.And while I was at Stonerwitch, I also found disorganized musings: the media, the next generation, racism, liberalism. It's an interesting insight into how today's college students view "the liberal media". I think I may add a comment, though, in response to what she says about the paucity of "new" liberal ideas.
Another reason the British might not want to fight alongside America: seems they lose more of their troops to the US than to the enemy. RAF aircraft 'shot down by US Patriot missile, says the Guardian.07:55 GMT: PermalinkGovernment Secrets: "Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" as to whether its release would damage national security." Not much of a surprise, but still.... Via Altercation, in which Eric also reveals that he has "dual loyalties". (In that sense, so do I, and I'm not even Jewish. But, of course, believing in the survival of the state of Israel doesn't translate into loyalty to the beliefs of Perle and Wolfowitz.) Eric also recommends this Michael Kinsley piece on Bush's abrogation of Congressional powers and this Eric Boehlert interview with John Brady Kiesling.
The Daily Kos says Dean is now tied with Kerry for top of the polls. There's also some very useful invasion commentary you should take a good look at.
Last week, William Rivers Pitt wrote: "An associate of mine, a former political appointee, recently spoke to a Republican friend of his who serves in a senior position in what has become the Office of Homeland Security. He reports that this official, along with many of his colleagues across the political spectrum within the apparatus of government, are absolutely terrified of George W. Bush. According to this official, the consensus is that Bush has completely lost touch with reality, and is bringing us to a place where politics will no longer matter."
Outrageous times for talk radio by Ellen Goodman, and A Double Standard On Dissent by E.J. Dionne, both via Summary Opinions.
Joe Conason finds another right-winger at The Washington Times saying what liberals aren't allowed to say: "Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies." - Paul Craig Roberts.
Rittenhouse Review reports on the ANWR Drilling vote with one more reason to support Copozzola for Senate in 2004.
VisualsAudio Stream: Episode #30 of the Joey Joe Joe Show (Wargasm!) is now ON THE AIR! "The global community was our last, best hope for peace. It failed."
Some posters (Thanks to Robert Lichtman for the tip.)
Saturday, 22 March 200313:24 GMT: Permalink
"A nation aware of its weaknesses may be said to have no weaknesses - for it will avoid showing the need to display them."12:40 GMT: PermalinkA preview of a Sean Gabb article from the upcoming issue of the libertarian Free Life Magazine:
Whatever the more nihilistic historians may claim, history does reveal certain regularities in our behaviour. One of these is that, whenever large numbers of intelligent people agree that it can only get better, the world takes a turn decidedly for the worse. The poets of the Augustan age saw that the present was better than the past, and thought the good times would continue. Instead, the Roman world got Tiberius, Caligula, Nero and Domitian. When Constantine became a Christian, Eusebius insisted this would herald an age of peace and justice. Within a century, Augustine was having to write at immense length to show how this had only apparently not happened. The Enlightenment is famous for its optimism, and we all know it ended with the Terror and a quarter century of bloodletting across Europe. The Victorian belief in progress was knocked on the head at the Somme and Passchendael, and quietly expired in the extermination camps and the Gulag.Then, after 1945, the unexpected happened. During the central decades of the last century, good writers competed to chill our blood with their predictions for the future. We were promised Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty Four, and Fahrenheit 451. What in fact we got was penicillin, birth control pills and the Internet, all of which have greatly - even if in the case of the latter two ambiguously - contributed much to the jollity of life. For much of Europe, and all those areas of the world settled by the European races, we have now had almost 60 years of spectacular progress. And if we like occasionally to frighten ourselves that this will be ended by AIDS, or global warming, or nuclear winters, or asteroid impacts, or whatever, hardly anyone seriously believes it ever will end.
Time, therefore, to start worrying - that is, if history does indeed teach anything.
Digby at Hullabaloo says: "This is why they are called media whores folks. Blitzer is in Kuwait City. He was responding to the same pictures that we all saw this morning. He didn't see anything we didn't see. But, like a good soldier he reported it as if he were live on the scene at Armageddon."11:08 GMT: PermalinkWow, I didn't notice that Al Gore has another new gig. Greg Greene notices that everyone tells the story the same way - based on that old favorite about how Al invented the Internet. Of course, as we all know, Al never said he did. But he kinda did invent the Internet, you know.
From Public Nuisance: "Instapundit has yet more proof of sweeping liberal bias in the media. It seems that a reporter at a Texas newspaper sent a nasty e-mail to a group called Young Conservatives of Texas - and was fired the same day. I suppose by the wacky logic of Conservoland this makes a certain sort of sense - in spite of the fact that expressing conservative opinions probably gets you a TV pundit gig at least and expressing liberal opinions gets you fired, some journalists are still daring to express liberal opinions. Although at least one fewer than a few days ago."
Jim Henley mailed me a Red Meat Alert about this from Joseph Stromberg at LewRockwell.com: "One of the much-ballyhooed reasons for voting for any swine that appears on the Republican ticket is that at least a Republican will appoint decent federal judges. This is better than nothing, you know, and you really owe your soul to a party that gives you anything more than nothing. On the historical record, this argument cannot stand much empirical testing."
Lisa English says it ain't just in America that the media concentration thing is wrecking the airwaves.
Natasha writes to Bush: "I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your actions since taking office. During the 2000 election cycle, it was difficult for me to convince some of my acquaintances that you were indeed a frighteningly unbalanced, proto-fascist theocrat with a boundless contempt for women, the environment, and all individuals making less than $400,000 per year. To my shameful delight, I have not had to endure a single "I told you so" since your ascendency to office." And while you're there, be sure to read this.
This week's cartoon from Ampersand: With God on Their Side.
Updated We Stand, with Mark Fiore's Blusterizer.
Which infamous criminal are you? (via Epicyle, which also links to a bizarre story about Tony Blair, and where you can find out how to be a gun-nut in England!)
Atrios posted this at the New York Press Billboard:
Radio Ga GaI can't help the feeling that if liberals were buying up all the radio stations, Michael Powell wouldn't be so enthusiastic about it.Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation's largest owner of radio stations (over 1200 stations in all 50 states and DC), sponsored the numerous "patriotic rallies" which were held in various cities around the country. They organized, advertised, provided speakers and entertainment for them, and even handed out numerous American flags to participants.
While Clear Channel promoted these as patriotic rallies, the attendees obviously felt otherwise. In addition to waving their provided flags, they also held signs condemning their fellow Americans - liberals, Hollywood, the Dixie Chicks. They were not so much patriotic rallies as pro-war rallies, and not so much pro-war rallies as rallies against anyone who opposes the Bush administration's policies.
There are close ties between the company and President Bush. The Vice Chair of the company is Tom Hicks, a member of the Bush Pioneer club for elite (and generous) donors. The relationship between Bush and Hicks goes back even further, however. The two were embroiled in scandal when Hicks, as University of Texas Regent, was responsible for granting endowment management contracts of the newly created (under legislation signed by Bush) UT Investment Management Co. (UTIMCO). The contracts were given to firms politically connected to both Hicks and Bush, including the Carlyle Group - a firm which has the first President Bush on the payroll and had the second one on the payroll until just weeks before receiving this lucrative business. The board of UTIMCO also included the Chair of Clear Channel, L. Lowry Mays. In addition, Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers from George Bush, making him a wealthy man through a deal that was partially sweetened by a shiny new taxpayer financed stadium, which included valuable land obtained at below market rates through the use of eminent domain.
Whether or not the close ties between the radio behemoth Clear Channel and the president have anything to do with their rallying support for his policies is unclear. If it were a small company it would not much matter. But Clear Channel is a media giant, dominating the radio and promotion industries. The potential for the alignment of big media and the government should concern us all, especially as FCC Chair Michael Powell continues to push to reduce the barriers to even further media consolidation.
Friday, 21 March 200313:55 GMT: Permalink
Operation Deserter Storm12:48 GMT: PermalinkThe Agonist has been keeping track of the news of the invasion. Is anyone else disturbed by this?
5:50 CST CNN Has just announced that the President will be going to Camp David for the weekend.Just wondering....Elsewhere: Sen. Robert Byrd: 'Today I Weep for My Country': "No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned."
And Charles Dodgson had technical difficulties: "I got sick of what was on the local NPR news station, people talking about the war as if it was a football game. So, I switched to all-sports talk radio for a change of pace. They were broadcasting the audio from CNN."
Geekery, please?00:45 GMT: PermalinkSince I probably won't be able to use the computer on my desk comfortably during my recovery from the impending surgery, I've been setting up my emergency Blogspot site (argh! - yes, I know!) for use on the nice laptop that Dr. Plokta has kindly loaned me (in disgust at the inadequacies of my own laptop, which he deemed insufficient for the purpose). But I really haven't a clue about how to customize the Blogger page (thanks, however, to Patrick for fixing the color scheme to my liking), and I'm at a loss as to how to do anything about things like the blogroll or anything else I'd like on the sidebar(s). I was even having vague thoughts of enabling comments, but I don't know how to do that, either. Yeah, I know there's a Help section, but my right eye is so annoying now that I couldn't even tell that those were brackets rather than parentheses...if you see what I mean. Anyway, advice from more experienced Blogspot inmates would be much appreciated.
Like Ted Barlow, I'm not ready to say much about the war just now. (And, like pretty much everyone, I guess, I just hope it's over fast without more than the absolute minimum of carnage.)However, after reading his page today, I feel a sudden urge to hear some Dixie Chicks (even though I normally can't stand anything that's more country than The Amazing Rhythm Aces, and I've never heard the Dixie Chicks at all), and eat a steak. (I did have a McFishburger last night, but that was an accident forged of desperation. I admit to enjoying it, though. More deliberately, I had smoked mackerel for breakfast. I actually eat a lot of fish, but nothing really makes the point like eating a steak).
[Update: I actually wrote this post before I went out yesterday, but then forgot and posted it after I got back. I had the steak - filet with a cream and brandy sauce with green peppercorns. It was delicious.]
One serious item worth checking out, which Ted quotes from an article in Newsweek:
The last point is perhaps the most crucial one. Being pro-American should not be a political liability for our allies.Hell, yeah. But that's just the hot-seat Bush has placed them in - especially in Turkey and Pakistan, where we could end up exactly where we don't want to be with them. If there's a worst-case scenario, Bush will court it, and probably achieve it. Watch out for that.Elsewhere in Blogtopia (Yes! Skippy invented that word!), Gary Farber discovers cute microrobots.
Thursday, 20 March 200315:00 GMT: Permalink
A Most Dangerous Man12:02 GMT: PermalinkFrom Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? (p.74):
Listening to Limbaugh, the idea that he enjoys genuine power in the political life of the nation leaves you shaking your head in awe and amazement. But it is impossible to ignore. Limbaugh's radio audience is the largest any program on the medium has enjoyed since the advent of television. President George H. W. Bush invited him for a White House sleepover, as well as to be his honored guest at his State of the Union address, seated next to Barbara Bush, in a demonstration of fealty and respect. Shortly thereafter, in 1993, National Review termed him "the leader of the opposition." William Bennett averred that Limbaugh "may be the most consequential person in political life at the moment." When the Republicans took the House back in 1994 in a profound and humiliating rebuke to President Clinton, Limbaugh's broadcast received a lion's share of the credit. Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz even defended nonsense like the above as "policy oriented." As Newt Gingrich's former press secretary Tony Blakley noted,Alterman also notes that many people feel - probably correctly - that Limbaugh was a vital factor in securing the Republican nomination for Bush:
After Newt, Rush was the single most important person in securing a Republican majority in the House of Representatives after 40 years of Democratic Party rule. Rush's powerful voice was the indispensable factor, not only in winning in 1994, but in holding the House for the next three election cycles. At a time when almost the entire establishment media ignored or distorted our message of renewal, Rush carried (and often improved) the message to the heartland. And where Rush led, the other voices of talk radio followed.
The influence cannot be said to have diminished markedly during the past decade, even after Limbaugh lost his most-favored targets when the Clintons left the White House. Much to his chagrin as a McCain supporter, William Kristol credits Limbaugh with rallying conservatives behind Bush during the 2000 presidential primaries. "He helped make it the orthodox conservative position that McCain was utterly unacceptable and also that Bush was fine, neither of which were intuitively obvious if you're a conservative," Kristol said. McCain's South Carolina political adviser, Richard M. Quinn, concurred, adding that the Arizona senator never recovered, in his opinion, from Limbaugh's repeated descriptions of the conservative Republican as a "liberal" in an extremely conservative state. "I never polled on the impact of Limbaugh," Quinn told the New York Times. "But anecdotally, I heard it all the time. You would hear on the street repetition of what RUsh was saying about McCain. There was a general sense in the campaign that Limbaugh was definitely hurting us."But think about that, for a minute. The idea that McCain, a staunch conservative, is a "liberal" did not remain confined within the discourse of Rush-listening conservatives, but eventually, post-2000, became a topic of debate in such publications as The New Republic and The American Prospect. The absurdity of such a canard should have been obvious to anyone outside the far right, and yet it was seriously entertained by people who were Clinton Democrats and Gore supporters. But McCain is a "liberal" only in a context in which "liberal" is defined as "not actively wearing a sheet and burning a cross on your lawn."As someone who was not listening to AM radio in the United States (or anywhere else) during the presidential campaign, I was unaware that this nonsense had first been heard on Limbaugh's show. It would be interesting to know whether there is any relationship between this early claim and the later currency it began to hold in the So-Called Liberal Media (SCLM), and if so, what path it took to get there.
Meanwhile, it is instructive to note that Limbaugh's power to affect the public discourse was so huge for such a long time - and recognized as such by right-wingers who at the same time were still pretending that conservatives had no impact on "the liberal media".
You do want to read this book, by the way, especially if you have any doubts at all about the rightward tilt of the media, but even if you don't. For all that it could have used at least one more proof-reader, this book is still everything that Coulter's Slander and Goldberg's Bias purport to be but are not: well-documented, honest, intelligent, and proof of a genuine media bias that infects the mainstream, composed of rabid distortions and out-and-out slanders - but of Democrats and the left.
This is the joke, for me: The right-wingers produce lists of award-winning "liberal media bias" all the time, and when you look at them virtually everything on them falls into one of four categories - stuff the right-wing spin machine made up, stuff that was said either by someone who isn't really on the left or a Democrat, stuff that was said by someone entirely marginal, or stuff that only a lunatic would find particularly reprehensible. Even the worst of it can't come close to the kinds of things that come out of the much more high-profile characters who dominate the right-wing media, or out of the Republican leadership or other elected Republicans. Cynthia McKinney herself has never sunk as low as the modern Republican version of a Supreme Court Justice, let alone Jim Inhofe. But Rush Limbaugh is out there for hours every day telling the whole country that Tom Daschle is bin Laden, Saddam, and Satan himself all rolled into one. Ann Coulter is on television all over the country, a woman who bemoaned the fact that Tim McVeigh didn't blow up The New York Times. Phil Donahue, the sole left-of-center media personality to have his own talk show on MSNBC, was fired - largely for being a liberal, despite the fact that his was their highest-rated show - and now they've added to their roster Michael Savage, someone so over-the-top hatefully right-wing that even the Freepers are complaining that he makes them look bad. And let's not forget Gordon "Headshot" Liddy....
And yet they vilify us for "name-calling" and other High Crimes of a similar type. To add insult to injury, "reasonable" commentators seem to have far more opprobrium to heap on liberals who occasionally get some small detail wrong or fool around with Howard Kurtz's (or Fineman's) name by calling him "Howie" or such other mild infractions of High Journalistic Standards, even if it's just on a weblog.
The other joke, of course, is that Rush Limbaugh still thinks he can get himself off the hook by dismissing all criticism with the claim that he is "just" an entertainer. For years he has been more influential on politics than almost anyone who is actually in politics, and there are still people who think they can ignore the horrific impact this man has on the public discourse because, after all, the guy is just a whack-job blow-hard. Well, he is, but he's oh, so much more than that.
One hardly knows what to say about this:11:41 GMT: Permalink
CLEVELAND (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from an appearance Wednesday where he will receive an award for supporting free speech.The City Club usually tapes speakers for later broadcast on public television, but Scalia insisted on banning television and radio coverage, the club said. Scalia is being given the organization's Citadel of Free Speech Award.
"I might wish it were otherwise, but that was one of the criteria that he had for acceptance," said James Foster, the club's executive director.
Alan Bostick discovers that he is the bogeyman:00:29 GMT: Permalink
National Review Warns of the Looming Specter of PolyamoryMakes you feel sorry for social conservatives, who apparently chafe under the burdens of family because, well, It's the Law, or God Said So. Their arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage usually take this form, as if it is unthinkable that they would actually want to be with members of a sex other than their own if law and custom didn't foreclose the alternative. They claim that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage, which apparently only works because it's a privilege gays don't share. Their lives would seem to be constructed entirely in the negative, lacking the bonds of love, caring, personal commitment and companionship, forced into the mold of heterosexual monogamy only because it's all that's available. (Does this mean I'm a liberal because my father loved his wife and kids and I get to be with the people I love, too?)Elf Sternberg calls attention to this column by Stanley Kurtz in National Review Online:
Almost unnoticed, a court case of immense cultural importance has been filed in Canada. The case, which asks that full legal recognition be granted to three parents of a single child, gives the clearest indication yet of the real impact that gay marriage will have on the American family.Apparently, heterosexual monogamous marriage is so unattractive, unappealing, and unpleasant that only the absence of an alternative makes it viable at all! One wonders if Kurtz has ever actually been married.A lesbian couple from London, Ontario has asked a Canadian court to simultaneously recognize the two of them (the biological mother and her partner), as well as the biological father, as legal parents of a young boy. Rather than turn to an anonymous sperm donor, the women in question asked a friend to father their child. The father does not live with the couple and child, but is nonetheless treated as a member of the household. ...
[T]he biggest danger here is that legalized triple parenthood opens the way to legalized polygamy or polyamory (sexually based group marriage). Although in this particular instance, the relationship does not appear to be sexual (except for the initial conception), once a legal precedent for multiple parenthood has been set, it will be impossible to deny recognition to sexually bonded groups (whether heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or a mixture of these). And just as gay adoption has set a legal precedent for gay marriage, so will group parenthood pave the way to group marriage.
Yet ... group marriage is inherently unstable in a Western cultural context. So legalized polyamory means still another radical increase in the difficulties of children. And polyamorists (not to mention polygamists) are already organized and ready to take advantage of any opening in the law. (Just try running a Google search on "polyamory.")
Once we cross the border into legalized multiple parenthood, we have virtually arrived at the abolition of marriage and the family. The logic of gay marriage leads inexorably to the end of marriage, and the creation in its place of an infinitely flexible series of contracts. Monogamous marriage cannot function if it is just one of many social arrangement. Marriage as an institution depends for its successful functioning upon the support and encouragement that the ethos of monogamy receives from society as a whole. If anything can be called a marriage — including group marriage — then the ethos of monogamy that keeps families together will have been broken, and the social reinforcement that is the essence of marriage itself will be gone. Again, it is children who will pay the price.
According to Kurtz, what holds families together is the "ethos of monogamy."
It's hard to escape the feeling that there are a lot more closet cases out there than anyone wants to acknowledge.
You might have seen a few of the WWII posters Micah Ian Wright has re-captioned. Here's an article (with illustrations) about why he did them.
In a nutshell, Wright takes old advertisements and war propaganda posters from the '40s through the '60s, Photoshops out the slogans and jingo, and puts in his own. Depending on your point of view of the current administration and war, combined with the images, Wright's slogans range the gamut from being very funny to, as some have suggested, treasonous. Suffice it to say, if you are a strong supporter of the current President and his war, you may want to stop reading now.This means you, Mr. Ashcroft.
The entire project started as a lark for Wright, who first saw a propaganda poster created by the National Security Administration. "The NSA poster used a lot of World War 2 imagery and it infuriated me that they were trying to make us think that this ethereal War on Terror was like WW2 again," Wright said. "They wanted to appeal to that anti-Nazi sentiment but without justifying it with their actions.
"So yeah, it started as a lark but grew pretty serious after about the fourth one. It just provided me an outlet for that intense anger I was feeling both about the attacks on NYC and The Pentagon -and- this Administration's weird and counter-intuitive over-reaction to it by declaring war on the Bill of Rights."
Wednesday, 19 March 200312:28 GMT: Permalink
MWO is packed with great stuff (as usual), and has a link to video of Robin Cook:11:06 GMT: Permalink
At location 8:45...Below that is a letter from a reader:
"Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than in regime change in Iraq. And that explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation because it reduces the case for war.What troubles decent Americans even more than that accurate observation is the irrefutable evidence that they did go the other way."What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way, and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops."
I was just watching Robin Cook speaking to the British House of Commons regarding his resignation over Iraq. He had just said that Iraq wouldn't be the issue it is today if it weren't for the disputed Florida vote count. All of a sudden, a FOX color test pattern appears and someone says that there has been a "technical problem." [William Walker]But most of the page reads George's lips and finds him lying his tail off (no surprises there). Their ironic review of Bush' speech is well worth a read:
Although it's true he's told us "we're at war" since 9/11 in order to gain support for any and all items on his radical right-wing theocratic agenda, we're more "at war" now.MWO gives the full Daschle quote on Bush's failure of diplomacy and takes a look at the Republican response. A statement by Howard Dean (pointing out that America is not Iraq) is also linked on the page.Besides, don't his critics understand that this man of deep faith is only trying to protect us? (As the media have told us repeatedly, there is strong evidence of his deep faith - namely that he stopped coming home drunk at the youthful age of 40, when his children were just three years old.)
George W. Bush stole the election from the American voters only to protect us.
He exploited 9/11 to justify every agenda item rejected by the American people in the election he stole, only to protect us.
In the wake of mass murder of Americans by fundamentalist fanatics, he gave up our civil liberties to fundamentalist fanatic John Ashcroft, only to protect us.
He has alienated the rest of the world thereby creating countless new terrorists and havens for terrorists. But only to protect us.
It's all for our own good. Anyone who doubts it should listen to the national mainstream media, our guardians of democracy. Even the New York Times said George W. Bush "grew" as a result of bombing the fierce and formidable Afghanistan and reading a speech.
Criticism of our all grown-up, gravitas-laden, firefighter-anointed President leads to chaos.
And we mustn't create chaos in the world.
Rittenhouse Review reports that George W. Bush has a furrowed brow!Sean Gonsalves at Alternet defends liberal celebrities who make political statements with Eleven Reasons to Give Actors a Break.
Gary Farber says playing with time is "Neato-keano" - but I suspect it would drag on my dial-up connection. I made some other people test-drive it for me and they said it was cool.
Tuesday, 18 March 200323:52 GMT: Permalink
Owen Boswarva, without whom I would be lost, points out that the link I gave previously for Robin Cook's resignation speech was actually to a summary. Here is the actual speech, from Hansard.23:31 GMT: Permalink
He loved baseball and Julie Andrews13:23 GMT: PermalinkThis was all it said in the Hagerstown Herald-Mail:
Harry B. Warner Jr., 80, of 423 Summit Ave., Hagerstown, died Monday, Feb. 17, 2003, at his home.In 1986, Gary Farber wrote:Graveside services will be Friday at 10 a.m. at Rose Hill Cemetery, Hagerstown. The Rev. David B. Kaplan will officiate.
Arrangements are by Andrew K. Coffman Funeral Home, Hagerstown.
I jerked myself upright from my reclined position in the chair, and said "Harry Warner, Jr., need never die!" Carl and John looked at me oddly, which is what people usually do when I say things like that. "No, really," I went on. "You know how Harry has been announcing his probable imminent departure from this vale of reality since about 1936. And we all love Harry, but it has been a running joke for years about how as soon as anyone announces thqt they've just contracted Tanganyikan Flowering Rat Disease, Harry will respond by saying he thinks he might have that too. This is the man who avoids taking half an aspirin so he won't get high."We'd almost gotten used to the idea that he would live forever.Harry Warner, Jr., author of A Wealth of Fable and All Our Yesterdays, was world famous in our circles - but not in Hagerstown.
Bill Scher has done his weekly round-up of the Sunday talk shows at Liberal Oasis, noting that the airwaves were dominated by war promotion (and taking Bush's latest move apart). And notes another problem:12:40 GMT: Permalink
After a few weeks where war critics were getting decent Sunday face time, Cheney and Powell hogged the airwaves and silenced criticism.Bartcop went after the same subject in his own way:Notably, MTP's Tim Russert reverted to deferential whore mode, just one week after giving Powell relatively rough treatment.
Not only were there scores of questions Russert could have asked, Cheney actively created opportunities for tough follow-ups, and Russert missed every one.
LO will forgo a list, but one thing stands out.
Cheney continually stressed how "everything changed on 9/11."
But as LiberalOasis has noted, as well as ABC's Nightline, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are closely linked to an organization that was pushing for Saddam's removal years ago.
Cheney's argument begged for follow-ups that probed for underlying motives.
Yet over and over, Russert simply gave Cheney a platform for propaganda and then got out of his way.
Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?And:Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim.
Russert: That's good enough for me - no need for a follow up, there.
Russert: Brent Scowcroft, a man you know well, national security adviser to Bush 41, when you were secretary of defense, talked to the National Journal and said this, "...arrogance, black eye. Eighty-five percent of Spain, 86 percent of Germans, 91 percent of Russians, all against this war. What happened? How did we lose a PR battle against Saddam Hussein in the world, and why would Brent Scowcroft say those kinds of things?And:Cheney: I have great affection for Brent. We've been friends for a long time. He is occasionally wrong, and this is one of those occasions.
Russert: That's good enough for me - no need for a follow up, there.
Russert: There is a perception, if you read papers around the world, the president is a cowboy, he wants to go it alone, that he and you are perceived as ...stumbling, that if you mention the president's name, "It's like a blast furnace. He just wants to lead the world into war.' How did we get to this point? And is the competence of the foreign policy of the Bush administration being seriously questioned?Among others. And this as well.Cheney: ...the notion that the president is a cowboy—I don't know, is a Westerner, I think that's not necessarily a bad idea. I think the fact of the matter is he cuts to the chase. He is very direct and I find that very refreshing.
Russert: That's good enough for me - no need for a follow up, there.
Jerelyn is back, and has posted at Talk Left about thousands of flawed FBI cases that the current head of the crime lab apparently thinks are no big deal.03:59 GMT: PermalinkI really wish Bill Altreuter would get some permalinks at Outside Counsel, but alas, you'll have to scroll for this: "Wouldn't it be interesting to see real numbers, real economic analysis, on the question of whether the tort system is damaging the economy? Wouldn't you be interested to know what the percentages are, the ratio of premiums to gross revenues as a component of overhead; the relationship between verdicts, reserves and premiums? Wouldn't you like to know if the number of medical malpractice or product liability filings has increased, decreased, or remained the same over the last ten or twenty years? And what the real damages awarded in those cases has been? And the number of those cases that have been successfully defended? Don't you think that those would be some of the things that would be good to know if you were discussing tort reform? Almost everything I know about the way the system works at present is anecdotal, and that is the basis upon which this debate is being conducted. This is not the way to go about having a discussion this important."
Josh Marshall says that even The Washington Post seems to be backing away from virulent support of the war, recommending a slow-down in order to try to get some more support. Not that we can expect much diplomacy from the administration. Later, Marshall recommends an article: "Still another TPM Must-Read. In Slate, Paul Glastris comes up with a dynamite comparison which illustrates one dimension of the administration's bungled diplomacy. Turkey's position vis-a-vis the Iraq war is quite similar to Greece's vis-a-vis the Kosovo war. How Clinton made the basket; how Bush fumbled the ball. Secret hint: it has to do with not *#$%&@# on your alliances."
Robin Cook's resignation speech02:35 GMT: Permalink
Part 12 of "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism" is up at Orcinus. You really oughta read it.While doing further research on my consideration of him for the incredibly short Loyal Opposition roll, I found that Julian Sanchez has responded to my remark about libertarians being liberals. Well, yeah, I know that thing about libertarians being classical liberals, of course, but I still think the government is helpful in opposing big commericial institutions if it hasn't already been co-opted by them. Some say that's a thing that goes in cycles, too. I don't see that free markets have the potential to correct overwhelming dominance by big corporations.
Uh oh, I think Justin Raimondo is right about something. (Via Electrolite.)
We've been here before, but Peace Tree Farm is taking seriously the idea that it's all about Euros. No, really.
Monday, 17 March 200322:29 GMT: Permalink
Rubbish!There has always been the periodic article in the mainstream press purporting to examine press bias, and it always painstakingly explains that while it may seem biased to you (because you are biased), it's not really like that at all. We now have a new category, the Transatlantic Press Divide. David Greenberg says in The Washington Post that We Don't Even Agree On What's Newsworthy:
A rift now separates the United States and the world -- not just a diplomatic gap, but a perception gap. One sign of the sundering is the discrepancy in how journalists here and abroad have treated some recent stories. Repeatedly, unflattering aspects of America's foreign policy have gotten big play overseas while receiving fleeting comment or shrugs at home.Then he provides a few examples:
On March 4, the New York Times reported that the Army was probing whether two Afghan detainees who died in December were victims of fatally abusive treatment by American soldiers; a military pathologist had officially characterized the deaths as homicides. Other domestic newspapers picked up the story, reporting the facts in measured terms and noting human rights groups' concerns. Yet the deaths didn't stimulate public outrage, op-ed pieces or cable news screamfests.Isn't that kind of in reverse order? It's generally the op-ed pieces and, most importantly, the cable news screamfests, that generate the public outrage. If the press refuses to behave as if a story represents an outrage, it's a signal to the public that our outrage isn't going to get any traction.
Newspapers abroad, in contrast, responded with indignation. While U.S. papers used the Army investigation as the news hook, suggesting that responsible officials were cracking down on anomalous behavior, foreign journals implied that American brutality was not out of the ordinary. "U.S. Prisoners Beaten to Death," read a headline in Melbourne. The lead paragraph of the Independent of London's account saidthat the "kill[ings]" were "reviving concerns that the U.S. is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected [al Qaeda] operatives."Foreign newspapers responded with indignation. I guess they didn't wait for the public to tell them what to think, either.The other two examples were of spying on the UN and the forged "evidence" against Saddam. These are all issues about which the US press should have been more outraged. That would be the same US press that was damn-near hysterical at the thought that Bill Clinton had gotten some blow-jobs without telling them all the juicy details. The ones who screamed "wag the dog!" when Clinton went after Al Qaeda. But when this administration lies to them - and us - in order to push us into a senseless war, they aren't bothered? What's that about?
What are we to make of these disparate takes on the same events? A crude interpretation would be that publishers, editors and reporters everywhere are cynically distorting the news. If you're hostile to the Bush administration's pro-war position, you might believe that U.S. journalists have downplayed these blockbuster stories because they fear they'll either derail the war juggernaut or alienate readers, advertisers and sources. Conversely, if you favor the Bush administration's approach, you're more likely to find the international press guilty of cynically magnifying molehill stories into mountainous ones either to pander to trendy anti-Americanism or to succor antiwar efforts.Gee, what if you're just someone who thinks your leaders shouldn't fabricate evidence to drive you to war? What if you believe the United States should stand for justice and not brutality? What if you just happened to notice that it's sleazy and dishonest to beat the war drums to the tune of "a coalition of the willing" when it's really that the government is spying on diplomats so it can know how to bribe and blackmail other nations into a false appearance of agreement? Do you have to be hostile to Bush to care about those things? Shouldn't it be, rather, the other way around?Maybe you have to be nuts to think these things are "molehills". It's possible, you know.
But the view that mainstream journalists or publishers rate the newsworthiness of stories by economic or ideological considerations doesn't jibe with reality. Generally only people without journalism experience adhere to this view. Journalists value a good scoop, regardless of whose ox is gored. Publishers prize stories that bring prestige to their papers.Or maybe you're just too biased to see a good scoop when it's staring you right in the face?
Distortion occurs at a deeper level, too. Journalists are beholden not only to the norms of their profession but also to the premises to which almost everyone in a given culture subconsciously subscribes. Ideology and culture do shape the news, though not in the crude way posited by left- and right-wing media watchdog groups. Those who assess what's newsworthy -- whether as members of the media or observers of it -- don't question bedrock beliefs that undergird their society's understanding of the world. That's why they're called blind spots.So what happened to the bedrock belief held by just about everyone that the United States is a democracy and chooses its leaders by holding free and fair elections in which the winner is decided by counting the ballots? Up until 7 November 2000, I would have thought that was pretty bedrock. How, overnight, did speed of outcome become more important than accuracy of ballot count?
In the case of these recent stories, most American journalists -- and most citizens -- are operating in an environment that takes an essentially benign view of our leaders. Though various American critics view the Bush administration as misguided, incompetent or overly hungry for war, few seriously entertain the claim that it's bent on conquest for self-aggrandizing or venal reasons. The natural inclination (even for reporters who are liberal or antiwar) is to infer that the beating deaths of prisoners, the spying at the U.N. and the forgeries represent not a pattern of American villainy but exceptional cases of error. The stories are reported, but relegated to inside pages, without the high-voltage language of exposés, and contextualized to fend off charges of sensationalism.You take a benign view of our leaders? Was it lost on you throughout the 1990s that William Jefferson Clinton and Albert Gore, Jr. were our leaders? Why didn't you take a benign view of them? You didn't seem too freaked out by Ken Starr's shenanigans, or for that matter the scandal of his appointment, let alone all those re-investigations of whether Vince Foster was murdered by the President of the United States and/or the First Lady. And what about all that hooting at Al Gore, who happened to be Vice President at the time? Where was this "benign view" then?
The gulf between the dominant American orientation and that of other nations is exacerbated by differences in our journalistic practices. Since the mid-century demise of the publishing titans who stamped their views on every page of their journals, big-league U.S. newspapers have clung to such lodestar values as balance, fairness and objectivity. Despite a growing role for "analysis" pieces, the mainstream press still prides itself on reporting the news straight and confining opinion to the editorial pages. The European press, in contrast, is comfortable with partisanship. Articles you read in the left-wing Guardian, if published stateside, would more likely appear in the Nation than in the Boston Globe; the right