CommonPrejudice

"War on Democracy"

[Update below: Sister Diana Ortiz]

Just watched John Pilger's documentary "The War on Democracy." The second part of the film on the history of U.S. involvement in Latin America - while well-known to those of us who study the region - should be part of the basic curriculum in U.S. schools. Then maybe in mainstream America it will begin to be understood that it matters significantly more what the foreign policy of the candidate is than the candidate's bowling score. And maybe unnecessary wars that kill hundreds of thousands can be avoided.

Anyway, one reason I'm mentioning the documentary is to note perhaps one of the greatest wankers of all time, CIA chief of Latin America from 1981-1984 Duane Clarridge.

From the film (one of (the few) survivors of a concentration camp during Pinochet's fascist regime in Chile):

They took me to this room. They were punching me, hitting me, grabbing my nipples, telling me I was a whore, So they asked me to take off my clothes and they tied me up. Then they shocked me with electricity. Now the electricity all the time was inside my vagina, on my breasts and then it was going round my body, my legs, my arms ...

She was pregnant, Cecilia, 3 months pregnant when they took her, and they took another women ... she was 7 months pregnant, she went missing as well...

Sometime I think about what were they feeling, you know, when they were being killed....sometimes I think too much and I start feeling the pain. What do you feel when you are being killed, and in such a way... You wanted to do something for them.  Such isolation, you feel ... you feel very much alone.

Now Clarridge talking to Pilger (kudos to Pilger, the interview with this Clarridge was done quite well. For the most part there is no need to excessively challenge a clown like this, just give him the rope, he will hang himself):

Clarridge: Chile, the only reason it exists is because of Pinochet.

Pilger: At a huge human price.

Clarridge: What human price? Gimme a break.

Pilger: The thousands who were disappeared and murdered.

Clarridge: Thousands? You count 'em. What thousands? And don't talk to me about Truth Commissions.

Pilger: I've seen their names in the cemeteries in Santiago.

Clarrdige: I have too. There aren't thousands.

It has been indeed rare when I've seen arrogance and ignorance at the level this gentleman possesses. Watch the film. You will surely be repulsed. He is the epitome of everything that has been wrong with American foreign policy in Latin America - and he tries to justify  the most heinous, repugnant acts against humanity one can imagine through inane, erroneous and ethnocentric references which in the end basically turn into, 'yeah and so, what are you going to do about it?"

Yeah, right. Moral clarity.

Watching this fool rant on Chile reminded me of a Chilean student I once taught English to in Miami. She was quite obviously from the elite in Chile. Once when the name Allende came up she mentioned how her aunt had told her it was good thing for Chile that Pinochet had come along to save the country from another Castro. The anecdote she recalled was how her aunt had said how Allende was planning on forcing all the lactating women in the country to donate their milk so as to feed the poor. Then she laughed that laugh of relief; Thank god we avoided another Cuba.

Despite my horror at her ignorance and rationalizations there was nothing I could say (in Spanish even) that would have changed her opinion. She is supposed to believe some guy teaching her English over her aunt?  But really my point is that she was an incredibly sweet girl, endlessly polite with a constant smile on her face. She was not, in any stretch, a bad person. Initially I am tempted to ask, in situations like this, that if even a person as nice as she is refuses to see the evil in a monster like Pinochet, what hope is there. But in the end I don't see it that way.

In a sense the contradiction between her personality and nature and the defending of indefensible, ie Pincohet's regime, is a positive thing for me. It allows me as a progressive to continue to be on the side of justice and human rights and for the well-being of those who are abused and denied the most basic forms of dignity wihtout declaring the battle futile. Unlike the goon Clarridge who actually lived it and contributed to it then pretends it didn't happen, she really didn't know or under the circumstances was incapable of believing what the reality was. You see, this way I can believe that the fight is fundamentally against ignorance and not human nature. And that gives me some hope.

Update:

Another quote from the doc:

I've heard people say that what happened at Abu Ghraib is an isolated incident. And I have to just shake my head and say, 'Are we on the same planet? Aren't you aware of our history? Is the history taught about the role of the U.S. government in human rights violations?

-American nun Sister Diana Ortiz, who was abducted, raped and tortured in 1989 after speaking out against indigenous oppression by the U.S./Bush supported dictatorship Guatemalan government.

[A statement of hers regarding her torture, from Wiki:

    When the men returned, they had a video camera and a still camera. The policeman put a machete into my hands. Thinking it would be used against me, and at that point in my torture wanting to die, I did not resist. But the policeman put his hands onto the handle, on top of mine, and forced me to stab the woman again and again...

    The policeman asked me if I was now ready to talk, and one of the other torturers...mentioned that they had just filmed...me stabbing the woman. If I refused to cooperate, their boss, Alejandro, would...turn the videotapes and the photographs over to the press.... This was the first I had heard of Alejandro, the torturers’ boss....

    The policeman raped me again. Then I was lowered into a pit full of bodies— bodies of children, men, and women, some decapitated, all caked with blood. A few were still alive. I could hear them moaning. Someone was weeping. I didn’t know if it was me or somebody else. A stench of decay rose from the pit. Rats swarmed over the bodies and were dropped onto me as I hung suspended over the pit by the wrists. I passed out and when I came to I was lying on the ground beside the pit, rats all over me.

Also, regarding the U.S. involvement:

     The only uncommon element of my ordeal was that I survived, probably because I was a U.S. citizen, and phone calls poured into Congress when I was reported missing. As a U.S. citizen, I had another advantage: I could, in relative safety, reveal afterwards the details of what happened to me in those twenty-four hours. One of those details: an American was in charge of my torturers

    I remember the moment he removed my blindfold. I asked him, "Are you an American?" In poor Spanish and with a heavy American accent, he answered me with a question: "Why do you want to know?" Moments before, after the torturers had blindfolded me again and were getting ready to rape me again, they had called out in Spanish: "Hey, Alejandro, come and have some fun!" And a voice had responded "Shit!" in perfect American English with no trace of an accent. It was the voice of the tall, fair-skinned man beside me. After swearing, he’d switched to a halting Spanish. "Idiots!" he said. "She’s a North American nun." He added that my disappearance had been made public, and he ran them out of the room.

    ....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country. For the duration of the trip, I spoke to him in English, which he understood perfectly. He said he was concerned about the people of Guatemala and consequently was working to liberate them from Communism. Alejandro told me to forgive my torturers because they had confused me with Veronica Ortiz Hernandez. It was an honest mistake.

Also on the issue see this previous post.

Labour Standards

Interesting article at Washington Monthly on international labour standards and how big corps inspect their factories.

I have one criticism though. The author T.A. Frank says:

The problem that arose for Nike and many other companies, however, was that the media, starting in the 1990s, began to run stories on terrible labor conditions in factories in Asia. When consumers started to get angry, Nike and many other companies were nonplussed. We're just buying these shoes, they said—it's not our business how Mr. X runs his factory. And they had a point. If, for example, I learned that my dry cleaner was paying his employees less than minimum wage, I might feel bad about it, but I doubt I'd spend hours vetting alternative dry cleaners for labor compliance. I've got too much else to worry about in life, including my shirts.

I'm sorry I don't believe they have a point at all. As the writer probably knows (a former factory inspector) this is the old argument. And his analogy doesn't work. A much better one would be that in general I have been quite satisfied with my local dry cleaner but I hear that all my friends are using a dry cleaner across town that is infinitely cheaper. So I go there. Then I find out about what the dry cleaner pays - though I strongly suspected as much when I went there in the first place - but continue to use it, or switch to some other dry cleaner that charges the same price. You see, the difference between Frank's analogy and reality is the companies actively seek out the "cheaper dry cleaner." So they always have been "vetting," just for cost not labour compliance.

But overall the article is good. Nike actually comes out looking like they have taken the vast amount of criticism in the 90s to heart and, at least comparatively speaking, act reasonably. Walmart, on the other hand, are the SOBs that you would completely expect.

It Grew Back!!!

About 4 years ago while citing a story about the possibility of teeth growing back I made passing reference to that old Monty Python skit about the man losing his leg and asking when it would grow back.

Well, that was nothing, nothing at all.

This dude actually grew back his finger (click one of the images for the story and video)

Traitors

One more note on the ex-general controversy.
I can remember getting to my local bar one night a while back when a couple of patrons greeted me with impassioned diatribes on how sleazy Moveon.org was to play word games General Petraeus' name, turning it into BetrayUs.  Can't criticize those generals after all they have done for the country, right.

Well, of course like all right wing rants there was precious little substance or consistency in their attacks (remember how whenever an ex-general came out against the Bush crime family and the illegal war in Iraq they were immediately assailed by the government and the RW blogonuts as liars or being bitter or some other insult which avoided any discussion of the actual claims raised).

Now it comes out that a multitude of ex-generals were being paid for advocating war. Further as noted in the video below by a CNN journalist, many had shares in companies getting contracts during the war. This is obviously quite scandalous. (though of course the liberal media has almost entirely ignored the controversy...what a shock).

Advocating a war because you are told to do so by the government and moveever, because this war will most probably enrich you greatly is pretty much the height of unethical behaviour by an ex-general. And yeah, if I were American I wouldn't hesitate to call these people traitors (neither would anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq either, I'm guessing.)

Manufacturing Consent Any Way They Can

One question that you don't hear nearly enough is why did Americans, and only Americans, support the invasion of Iraq. I was in Mexico at the time and it was clear from abroad that the overwhelming sentiment across the planet was anti-invasion. Are Americans simply not as bright as the rest of the world?

I won't argue that here. People are stupid .... and smart ... everywhere.

So then was the consent by the American people, to use that only Chomsky thesis, 'manufactured'? Clearly it some way it was. And for all of Chomsky's outrageous statements on such areas of the world as Cambodia and Bosnia I've always thought his media critique has been very accurate and informative. Hell even Micheal Berube would support Chomsky on the media "22/7" (read two comments and two replies by Berube here on this issue). Berube does, though, argue that there is much more to it - and apparently does this as well in a book coming out soon that looks to be quite interesting - mentioning at least in this thread that the 'manufacturing consent' contention overlooks the competing interests within the elite. I don't doubt he makes a very strong case. I think of Greg Palast's depiction in Armed Madhouse of the two facets of the pro-invasion group, one that looked for control over world oil prices while the other advocated for war for mostly geo-political reasons. (Btw while I don't always agree with Berube he is certainly one the most intelligent and humourous commentators out there). Nevertheless if you are looking for a strong argument for the theory last week one appeared.

So for any of you who aren't familiar with the NYTimes story documenting how the media simply used paid ex-generals as supposed neutral commentators in the lead up to the war the following video does an excellent job in explaining the story (via Greenwald). It shows how, if not always the result, when the chips are down consent will be manufactured.

So watch it.

Sports Narratives

A break from the regularly scheduled programming....

I've been following the Phoenix Suns fairly closely the last several years and I can tell you that the results so far this post season have left me, shall we say, distraught.

Last night I was reading through a Suns thread here and came across a familiar narrative. While certainly sports narratives do not deal with life and death issues (or distract from them) as political narratives do the process is exactly the same. Repeat some BS enough times it becomes conventional wisdom, leaving it to us lonely bloggers to set the record straight. Anyways, here is a comment I was going to leave at the thread but decided I would put here for the record.

I'm just using the following as an example of what I hear repeated all the time on comment threads, and in newspaper columns, and on sports blogs and from the blowhards on Around the Horn about the Suns so-called inability to advance in the playoffs. It is a very familiar refrain.

"Suns are a nice team that win 50 plus a year and take a dump in the first and second round year after year after year. No need to watch the regular season because this is where we end up."

It's bad enough putting up with this crap from ESPN but man do I have to see it here on a Suns thread as well? While I don't give the Suns much of a shot this year god damn let's at least get our facts straight. Obviously, to begin with this year isn't even over yet - don't tell me you won't be making time Sunday afternoon for game 4 if the Suns win game 3 by 20. But much more importantly to my point, if they are to lose the series this will be the first time they will have lost in the first round in the Nash era, or in other words the first time in the current streak of playoff appearances. The first time.

Let's just look at what actually has happened. This is year 4. Year one the team came out of nowhere to reach the conference finals, lose to injury one of their better players prior to the final and finally succumb to an experienced Spurs team. Not the first round and definitely a successful season. Year 2 minus Kurt Thomas and Amare somehow the team makes it all the way to the conference finals again only to lose in 6 - they were even leading in that game by 7 in the second half as I recall only to finally, ultimately wear out. So don't you think that team with Thomas and Amare doesn't roll all the way to the title denying Shaq the ring? Anyways, bottom line once more a trip to the conference finals and once again you must label this a successful season considering the injuries. So last year was the year. That was when it was supposed to happen. And that "loss" I will never believe was a fair and just outcome to the series. And now it seems the time has past.

That said, I didn't want the Shaq trade because this group deserved one more shot with at least that core group (though the team really should have kept Thomas). Never forget that the day the trade was made the Suns had the best record in the West ... and if the suspensions last year hadn't happened would even beating the Spurs be an issue? I say it wouldn't. Remember how good things looked in that brief time after the victory but before it became obvious the suspensions were going to happen.

Not getting another shot with the original group and apparently going down in the first round this season are bad enough. Don't take way their history too. Sometimes I almost think the endless repetition of this giant myth is what caused the Shaq trade to happen.

I'm really tired of these mindless narratives that get spouted by so-called sports experts who really haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about. oh yeah..and go suns.

On this Earth Day I Have Only One Worry ...

Are we going to be able to put enough people to death if the Democrats win the presidency?

So today is earth day.

We've got global food crises certain to get worse as will shortages of water.  The best and brightest scientists around the world warn that we may be past the point of no return in regards to climate change and the devastating effects this will bring about. We've got record temperatures - both high and low - all across the planet. There are record levels of storms and droughts. We've got a man-child heading what has been historically the world's leading polluter and he has only made things much worse. And we've got legions of flat-earthers decrying the uncertainty of the phenonmenon and still, unbeleiveably, referring to it as the "global warming controversy,"

There's also  a very important Democratic primary today in Pennesylvania, which if people could pull attention away from flag pins, might indicate where the United States will be going in terms of its environmental policy.

So what has LA Times columnist and certified nut Jonah Goldberg "melting away into real anxiety, even panic?" Simply that one of the justices of the Supreme Court believes that the death penalty is unconstitutional based on his life experience.

This is why we are screwed.

Now if I were to overhear drivel like this at a bar I initially would feel like mentioning to this person how deluded they were and how, while the U.S. faces wars, a devastated economy, environmental catastrophe and torture and eavesdropping scandals among other things, you decide to focus on this makes you a moron. But alas, I would probably just take a big drink of my beer and admit it's not worth it. The fact that it is a nationally syndicated columnist saying that this is what causes him great anxiety heading into the election makes this something you can't ignore no matter how much it deserves to be. If there a reasonable society an immediate court order would be issued keeping Goldberg from within a hundred yards of a keyboard.

But we know Goldberg has a national forum not likely to get taken away any time soon.

And this is why we are screwed.

At US Today another brilliant mind has this to say.

Earth Day is a Holiday for Liars

....There are several common attributes of environmentalism. High on the list is its barely hidden contempt for the human race...

Once more time:
This is why we are screwed.

As long as people so inarguably dim play an important role in the political discourse of the United States - a country that absolutely must be on board if we are to accomplish anything regarding climate change -  we can be assured that very little will be done to significantly counteract the severe damage we have already done to the planet. To be clear; their views and comments are so far beyond the pale that their mere inclusion in acceptable mainstream debate on climate change means we're screwed.

Label me a Cassandra if you'd like but for those who toss about the term without actually knowing the story you should be aware that in the end she was right.

Happy Earth Day.

Uh Oh, Another Latin American Populist

Yesterday Paraguay joined the ranks of the Latin American countries tired of the endless corruption of the traditional political parties in the region and the huge inequalities brought on by years of IMF managed economic approaches when they elected former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo.

Now you can sure the Oppenheimer and his fellow travelers will be warning against reckless populism that this election result surely demonstrates. Stepping up to the plate today is Latin Business Chronicle:

First and foremost, Lugo should realize that Paraguay's status as the poorest nation in South America is not due to Capitalism, but rather the lack of true free markets.

Besides being an empty cliche devoid of any actual specific policy advice (usually done on purpose because detailing the policies would show how little they differ from the disaster of the 1990s which led to devastating poverty, unemployment and economic instability), it is also presented without any actual evidence.

The article calls for a plan similar to Chile's and pleads to avoid following in Chavez's footsteps (couldn't see that coming, could you?) The article notes the very low rate of foreign investment in Paraguay and states that this is cause of all the underdevelopment. We know though from experience that foreign investment alone is not sufficient to develop a country. Local governments get precious little of the profits made from this investment as most of the profits are repatriated. Certainly in terms of employment and tax collection (from workers) expanding business by increased foreign investment can be a boon. But these so-called free markets that folks like those at Latin Business Chronicle call for are really a means to depress wages, limit union activity and eliminate regulations for  business, especially regarding the environment and workers' safety. The best case scenario usually is an expansion of the middle class while the poor' needs are never met. In the end a near or complete economic collapse is likely because the money that came into the country will leave just as quickly at the first sign of economic or political trouble. As almost always is the case you are left wondering where the social investment is going to come from?

We've seen this story a thousand times. It won't.

And for those who have only relied on traditional media to evaluate Venezuela's and Chile's economic performance I recommend this article by Mark Tuner from last December. He opens up by asking:

Here is a quiz for you: Which South American nation:

    a) depends on one single product for the majority of its exports?

    b) derives 35% of its total GDP from said product?

    c) has relied on the sharp rise in world market prices for its product to fuel growth?

    d) has not added significantly to its international currency reserves in the period?

    e) is often lauded as the LatAm model economy by world peers?

    f) may possibly be worried about forward macro effects of the recent drop of over 20% in world market prices for its main product?

    If you guessed Venezuela then began to doubt your choice, this analyst would not be at all surprised. The answer is Chile, and the major product in question is copper.

Turner also notes, unsurprisingly given how the business elite are usually enamored with Chile, that Chile's inflation rate is much lower than Venezuela. But much more importantly he also notes - again unsurprisingly given Venezuela's greater concern over the well being of all its population - how despite the much higher inflation rate in Venezuela real salaries there have exceeded the rate of inflation so people actually can purchase more. In Chile, despite the low inflation rate, salaries have failed to keep pace. But then again low inflation combined with low salaries is an investor's dream. Let them eat cake.

Turner notes how international reserves have greatly expanded in Venezuela whereas in Chile they have remained the same despite very high copper prices. Venezuela, Turner adds, has also done better in combating unemployment. He says:

Politically, Chile has been coming under greater pressure from its populace to spend more of its copper windfall. Polls suggest that two out of three Chileans want its government to relax the saving rules with the IMF and spend more of the windfall on social projects. This makes sense in a country that is ostensibly prosperous, but in fact runs the second highest level of social inequality in the LatAm region.

But...but.... social projects? Those aren't free markets!!

And by the way, Venezuela's record of economic growth has been outstanding the last 5 years. Of course you would never know that if you, say, relied on, the Miami Herald for your information. If you'd like another, much more accurate depiction of Venezuela today you can check this Mark Weisbrot article out [links to the actual study].

"The Venezuelan economy has been booming for five consecutive years now, with the poverty rate cut by more than half and real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increasing by more than 87 percent, with very little of that in oil," said Weisbrot.

"Real social spending per person has also tripled, with increased access to subsidized food, health care, and education for the poor. There really shouldn't be any question about these basic issues, and this debate should make that clear."

The paper also shows that the amount of poverty reduction accomplished in Venezuela during the current economic expansion, relative to the growth that has occurred, compares quite favorably to other countries - contrary to one of the main allegations in the Foreign Affairs article

Oh it seems that despite conservative critics claim's of reckless social spending by Chavez the year ended with a budget surplus.

The Speech

As much as it doesn't surprise me, the apparent fact that the Wright controversy, and moreover the reaction from Obama's speech on this and on race in America in general, has hurt Obama's candidacy (especially regarding a potential McCain match-up), is profoundly depressing. I'm as cynical as anyone yet I was truly amazed by Obama's candor and straightforwardness. It was also tremendously courageous for a politician to take on so bluntly an issue such as this, especially a politician who's so very close to the U.S. presidency.

I mean, when a candidate honestly confronts such a controversial  issue and deals with it in a mature, intellectual, and sincere way and somehow this hurts them you kinda have to ask, what's the f***ing point?

Just "Our Bastards?"

Yglesias and Atrios talk about US support for 'bad guys.'

Yglesias

...The question is, thus, whether or not this posture of creating a mostly arbitrary class of "bad guy" that we're going to take down with our awesome powers of snubbing accomplishes anything meaningful. Obama's contention is "no." Bush's contention is "yes" but he has absolutely nothing to show for it....

Atrios:

....The frustrating thing is that the media plays along, designating "bad guys" as whoever the US government is designating a bad guy that week, while perpetuating the notion that the "bad guy" designation is linked to some sort of human rights badness when in fact it's just because they're bastards, but not our bastards...

Is it simply a "mostly arbitrary class of "bad guy?"" I don't think so. Atrios notes how they are "their bastards." But there is more to it than that. Certainly the vast majority of dictatorial regimes the United States has supported over the last century, and nowhere more so than Latin American, have been fundamentally right wing, quite favourable to U.S. economic interests. In Latin America while there have been countless more right wing regimes in Latin America than left wing counterparts, many of them far more murderous than Castro, it is the Castros, and Chavezes, Ortegas popular narratives refer to as the greatest villains in the region. Why is it the names of Trujillo, Somoza, Vidella, Machado, Rios Montt, Stroessner are hardly known (to name just a few)? Even moderate leftists - Allende, Bosch for example - have been portrayed as extremists when U.S. economic interests have been challenged.

Of course geo-political concerns have played a role in who becomes a bad guy in the eyes of a U.S. administration. However, while it is certainly overly simplistic to state it in such terms, it is nevertheless not much of a stretch to claim the overriding determinant has always been ideological and if you're left, you are not one of "their bastards." Now of course the fact that the US, like all great superpowers acts virtually in its own self-interest, especially regarding economic concerns, isn't exactly an earth-shattering revelation. Nevertheless referring to the class of bad guys the US has supported as "mostly abritrary" or simply "our bastards" goes a way in demonstrating how even many progressive commentators within the United States fail to appreciate the degree to which American foreign policy - including amoung Democrats - is looked upon as very right wing.

How Time Flies

When I have finished my task here, I will retire and devote myself to other affairs.
- Fidel Castro, January 8, 1959

I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief.
- Fidel Castro, February 19, 2008

That took awhile.

The Most Trusted Name in News ....

..... by government officials looking for an easy interview.

It is well-known that Fox News is a bastion of lunacy and lies. However there is a perception that CNN is somewhere in the middle, and - contrary to reality -  a reputable news organization. Someone the other day asked me to explain the difference between Fox and CNN and I had to talk about slants and narratives and built-in assumptions - more subtle instruments in the propaganda machines today's mainstream media organizations are. But really examples are where it's at. From Greenwald once again:

[CNN's John Roberts interviewing CIA chief Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, discussing the retroactive impunity for telecommunication companies who assisted the Bush administration in breaking the law after the Bush administration failed to get the required warrants before initiating a wiretapping program.]

[CNN] ROBERTS: Mr. McConnell, first of all, why the urgent need for retroactive immunity for these telecommunications companies?

MIKE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Good morning, John. The primary reason for retroactive immunity or liability protection from the carriers is to obtain their assistance. Quite frankly we cannot do the job we have to do without the cooperation of the private sector. So the situation we're in now with private sector companies being subjected to huge suits, they're not inclined to give us assistance. So there is varying arguments about having the bill expire, extending it or continuing it in its current form. In either case, all three of those, we are losing and will continue to lose significant amounts of information because we can't do this mission without the cooperation and participation of the private sector.

ROBERTS: So you say it is important to protect these telecommunications companies from liability so that they continue to help in the program. But is it also important from your perspective to keep the prying eyes of attorneys who are launching these lawsuits away from uncovering information about the program as they go through the discovery process?

MCCONNELL: Well, certainly, John. That's a part of it. This is a classified program.....

[Greenwald]......Roberts' argument is self-evidently moronic. It would mean -- as many, many political and media elites have come to believe -- that nothing the President and his aides do in a classified setting can be or should be subjected to oversight or to judicial proceedings -- no matter how illegal -- because the imperative of keeping everything Secret vastly outweighs the imperative of living under the rule of law. But the fact that it's a "journalist" -- someone who ought to be intrinsically hostile to government secrecy and instincitively adversarial in his questions -- feeding such authoritarian reasoning to our government leaders speaks volumes about where we are as a country.

At least it's not a major news organization where millions get their basic information from. Then there'd be problems, like murderous wars and environmental catastrophes because of a government not held accountable by the fourth estate.

No Moral Authority Whatsoever

Why on earth would anyone respond to any U.S. government (specifically the Bush administration) appeal to respect human rights? Here (pdf) was US Attorney General Michael Mikasey in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy on January 29, 2008:

During the course of my review I have been briefed on the CIA interrogation program. A limited set of methods is currently authorized for use in that program. I have been authorized to disclose publicly that waterboarding is not among those methods.

Notice the "currently." Today it is revealed (yeah like we didn't know already):

The CIA has for the first time publicly admitted using the controversial method of "waterboarding" on terror suspects.

CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress however that it had only been used on three people, and not at all for the past five years.

You hate to be a cynic but given that they had never admitted it before and that Mukasey had just gone on the record saying it wasn't a current technique (don't want to make him look bad) I'm kinda doubting that the practice has stopped. Of course, this isn't much of a defense anyways. Your honor, I don't kill anymore. I gave it up years ago. And then there is this.

Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which the detainee is put in fear of drowning.

Some critics describe it as torture and Congress has been debating banning its use by the CIA.

President Bush has threatened to veto such a bill.

Of course the war criminal Bush has threated to veto the bill. That is what war criminals do. But notice the statement above. Very slowly now. It - is - fucking - torture! Smashing someone in the legs with an aluminum baseball bat can destroy their knees. Some critics say this hurts.

So let's be clear. If you support the use of waterboarding you support torture (and, frankly, you are a real S.O.B.)

Go here if you care to see what waterboarding is really like. Here's a taste:

...So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

It is truly remarkable and disgusting that this is even being debated. My god.

Oh and one more thing. As I've said Bush is clearly a war criminal and if there is a god he will be tried as such. Once more that old pic from Billmon that we all dream about.

Update: And you know just for the record, these observations in no way imply some support for terrorists of any stripe. Nations which strive to be democratic and just need to be working to eliminate inhumane tactics such as torture - not utilizing them for gods sake. It's sad that nowadays that you have to point out something that should be so obvious.

Narratives and Double Standards

Al Gore was a serial exaggerator who invented the internet. John Kerry was a constant flip-flopper who lied about his Vietnam service. John Edwards was a hypocrite who liked expensive haircuts. Hillary is ruthless, power hungry bitch. Yet..... Bush was a regular guy who you wanted to have a beer with. Rudy was America's mayor. McCain is a straight talking maverick.   

It is not at all a stretch to say that a half a million innocent Iraqis are dead because of the mindless, false and simplistic narratives big media regularly spin out. But that's ok, Wolf and the boys still have their health care and, despite their enormous salaries, still keep their fingers on the pulse of the average citizen. The excellant Jamison Foser from Media Matters:

....Over the past year, as journalists mocked John Edwards for getting an expensive haircut and having a big house, they constantly justified their behavior by claiming Edwards is a "hypocrite" for being rich while pursuing policies that would help those who aren't. This is total nonsense, of course. As an Altercation reader noted this week, asking how Edwards can care about the poor while being rich is like asking a doctor: "How can you care about sick people when you're so healthy?"

And yet, again and again, journalists justified their relentless focus on Edwards' wealth by pointing to his policy positions.

And they ignore -- absolutely ignore -- the personal wealth of conservative candidates who pursue policies that would line their own pockets.

For all the news reports you saw about Edwards' supposed hypocrisy, how many have you seen that tell you how big a tax cut Mitt Romney or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani -- wealthy men all -- would get if their policies became law? Probably somewhere around "none."

This is not merely an obvious double-standard; it's a completely backwards double-standard: one that rewards politicians who pursue policies that are consistent with their narrow self-interest at the expense of the greater good; one that penalizes politicians who act out of concern for the greater good rather than narrow self-interest.

Acronyms

Greenwald has another excellent post up, this one on a U.S. senate committee hearing with the new attorney general, Michael Mukasey.

The Senators and Mukasey spoke all day long about torture with such dispassion that one would have thought it was nothing more than the latest bureaucratic HUD program. They don't even use the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" any more. That phrase has been so normalized that they now all know and use an abbreviation for it -- "EIT." So Senators ask questions about when "EITs" can be used and the Attorney General outlines the elusive formula he applies to determine its legality and all controversy, all passion, all intensity is completely drained out of the discussion in the U.S. Senate of our torture policies. "Torture" is now an EIT Unit.

So this is where it's heading, isn't it. Now euphemisms become acronyms of euphemisms. But then again, it's Super Bowl week and I hate to be downer. It's not like you or anyone you know is getting tortured or anything like that and it should be a good game. I like the Patriots to cover.

Quote of the Day

Via Kos a quote from former Senator and Republican Lincoln Chafee on the Democrats who enabled the Bush march to war (though I would certainly extend it to a host of pundits and journalists):

... Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”

Good Times, Good Media

Obviously this Moveon.com is out of control with their communist propaganda.

The top reporters on all the major TV networks asked the presidential candidates 2,679 questions in the last year. Only 3 of them were about global warming.

Stephen Colbert had it right:

Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

You see there were questions like these to ask (From a Republican debate on May 03/07, via the incomparable Howler)

Chris Mathews: "In the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, just 22 percent believe this country is on the right track. Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's “Morning in America?”...

Let me go to Senator McCain. We’re in the house of Ronald Reagan. Every cab driver in America knew what Ronald Reagan stood for: defeat communism abroad; reduce big government at home. Can you, Senator McCain, restore that kind of unity of purpose?...

Governor Huckabee, the question is: How do you unify the country the way Reagan did, a good portion of the country?...

One of our prized guests here today, Governor Schwarzenegger. Looking this man in the eye, answer this question. I'm going to go down the line, starting with Governor Romney. Should we change our Constitution, which we believe is divinely inspired, to allow men like Mel Martinez, the chairman of your party, born in Cuba, great patriot, the senator from Florida, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, to stand here some night?...

And for some contrast and to once more demonstrate that damn liberal media bias here's Somerby summarizing one segment of the Democratic debate on April 26/07:

...[Brian]Williams proceeded to ask “uncomfortable questions” of all eight Democratic hopefuls—“gotcha” questions, for lack of a better word. Less than twenty minutes into the evening, Williams dredged up the most embarrassing thing he could ask about each one of the candidates. He asked Edwards about his troubling bouffant; he asked Obama why he’s such a big crook. Citing a fact that isn’t in evidence, he asked Clinton why Republicans “are looking forward to running against you with so much zeal.” Along the way, he even asked Biden why he can’t shut the fuck up.

Like us, you may have found this a tough approach, so early in the year’s first debate. But surely, you felt you knew one thing. Since NBC News would also host the Republican debate, you knew they’d give the GOP hopefuls absolutely equal treatment! The Republicans would get an early round of those “uncomfortable questions” too!

And of course, if you thought that, you haven’t been alive on this planet over the past fifteen years...

The Elite of Talk Radio

Is this a sign of a healthy country?

Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, says that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. And according to Talkers Magazine, The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.

Kinda a problem here, I'm thinking. These are three most popular radio talk show hosts, and there's not the slightest trace of a brain between them.

By the way, Savage said this about Media Matters:

"Let me explain who Media Matters is. ... It's run by a bunch of fascist homosexuals. They're the brownshirts of our time."

This is so stupid and infantile that there really is no way to properly respond. Of course, the problem isn't that this asshole says these things. It's that 8 million people a week think it's worth listening to. That is seriously scary.

Jimmy Carter Speaks Out

Never knew he had it in him:

...Oh, what's that I hear? The weather's all screwy? You got a global warming problem? Boo-fucking-hoo! I was telling you morons to turn off your lights and unplug all your shit at night to conserve energy in 19-fuckin'-75, for chrissake. Gee, I wonder what woulda happened if we'd all switched to solar power like I fucking did back when we had a fucking chance to do something about it...

That's funny stuff.

The Opinion Page, Punditocracy and Pakistan

While I have enjoyed Glenn Greenwald's posts for some time, I've found him during the last year or so to be about as spot on as any blogger out there in the post-Billmon age. Here he is on the latest Dowd nonsense (excuse the length but it is an important passage):

... in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist:

*Jaded, bitterly cynical coolness masquerading as sophistication (no emotion, no passion, is even real);

* Vapid, shallow stupidity (political matters judged exclusively by Drudge-like personality distractions);

* Mindless recitation of idiotic, Kristol-like right-wing talking points (we need manly Tough Guys, not Girly Crying, for our Wars);

* The basest and most glaringly obvious strain of sexism (no mention of the endless crying episodes from GOP Warrior-Cheerleaders);

* Their self-absorbed and almost-always-wrong belief that their own insulated biases are how the Regular Folk Think (hence, Hillary's "crying," which voters apparently either appreciated or ignored, was going to doom her candidacy, just as Huckabee's press conference would doom his in Iowa);

* Herd-like adolescent malice rituals directed towards the Hated Loser (NYT reporters grouping together to chortle and cackle oh-so-knowingly at the Wicked Witch).

Brokaw's sudden, embarrassment-driven request for the media to act differently (where has his sermon been for the last 20 years?) will not have the slightest effect on what they do. It can't, because the media stars and their editors and producers who shape coverage aren't capable of anything else. They're selected and in those positions precisely because this is all they're capable of doing.

Are Gloria Borger and Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman and Wolf Blitzer suddenly going to abandon their desire to impose shallow, melodramatic narratives on our elections and spend their time, instead, analyzing the candidates' responses to Charlie Savage's questionnaire on presidential power, or the dominant, corrosive role lobbyists and large corporations play in our political culture, or the widening rich-poor gap, or the strain and stain on our country from our imperial policies? The question is so absurd, so laughable, that to ask it is to answer it. None of them could remotely do that even if they wanted to, even if they were allowed to, and they don't and aren't.

Now I suppose what is most frustrating personally involves as Greenwald states the "Vapid, shallow stupidity." Of course as a progressive I'm naturally going to disagree with, for example, certain types of conservative or anarchist or libertarian approaches, maybe involving economic and social priorities, manners of growth and stability in a society or notions of democracy itself. However ..... what one is so often faced with upon accidently stumbling upon a Goldberg or a Kristol in the paper or on the web is so mind-numbingly idiotic that what gets to you most is not how much you disagree, but that this absolute tripe is simply being published and moreover, that it is influential and these clowns earn a living by it.

Or maybe that's just me.

Anyways, as today's exhibit I give you James Pinkerton. Usually with these "deep thinkers" I can only get a few paragraphs before their simplemindedness forces me to stop reading in order to protect my sanity (btw, I don't think Greenwald gets enough credit for his strong stomach, daily sifting through the sewer that is the right wing blogosphere and much of the mainstream punditocracy). A couple of paragraphs was about as far as I got with Pinkerton's column today entitled "I'll Love America More":

My New Year's resolutions:

• I resolve to worry more about Pakistan's 75-weapon nuclear stockpile than about global warming. I am more worried about being incinerated by a loose nuke than I am about the water table rising a few feet.

• Yet, I also resolve to worry more about global warming than about democracy in Pakistan. Democracy is wonderful, but only for people who want it and who are willing to play by its rules. Democracy without self-discipline is a formula for, well, Pakistan.

Obviously, as any 3rd grader could tell you, we as humans are capable of dealing with two serious issues simultaneously. But Pinkerton also manages to display - what was that phrase again? - oh yes, "vapid, shallow stupidity" in his childish manner to minimize the gravity of a rise in sea-level. So, just for the record:

...It is not only small island states that need to worry about sea level rise. More than 70 percent of the world's population lives on coastal plains,  and 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on the coast or estuaries...

...There are many variables – including how much the expected increase in precipitation will add to snow packs and, most importantly, our greenhouse gas emissions over the next decades.  What we do know is that even a small amount of sea level rise will have profound negative effects...

Even this comparatively modest projected sea level rise will wreak havoc. Coastal flooding and storm damage, eroding shorelines, salt water contamination of fresh water supplies, flooding of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and an increase in the salinity of estuaries are all realities of even a small amount of sea level rise. Some low lying costal cities and villages will also be affected.  Resources critical to island and coastal populations such as beaches, freshwater, fisheries, coral reefs and atolls, and wildlife habitat is also at risk.

But Pinkerton goes that extra yard. After claiming he will worry more about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, he unbelievably states he will worry less about democracy in that same country. Let's look at a real analysis, one actually worthy of print. (Again an extended citation, as usually when addressing issues as difficult as the current situation in Pakistan is, you need more than a few trite and contradictory remarks)

...There is certainly an openness to Pakistan’s dictatorship compared with other Islamic states, and some westerners have appeased Musharraf as “our” dictator, operating a “doctrine of necessity”. But there is nothing in this man’s track record to suggest that he is not a paid-up member of the dictatoring classes. His agents treat democrats with contempt and he funnels huge sums into his pockets and those of his generals. About 80% of US aid to Pakistan since Musharraf came to power has gone on military assistance, less than a quarter of it used even remotely against the Taliban. The virtual collapse of the state school system has followed a fall in education spending from 4% to 1.8% of GDP, one of the lowest in Asia. In its place have mushroomed the free madrasas, from a few hundred to over 10,000, financed by Wahhabist Saudi money and formerly in league with American-financed mujahideen training camps. Intended to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, they have since become a network of “faith training” for the poor, teaching little but the Qur’an. This is Musharraf’s (and America’s) most lethal bequest to Pakistan’s political economy.

America’s clodhopping sponsorship of Musharraf drove him to renege on the treaties with the tribal states, fomenting a Pashtun insurgency. The Afghan frontier has duly proved al-Qaida’s juiciest hunting ground, aided by every American bombing raid and every Pakistan army atrocity. The Pashtun mujahideen (whose American backers are well-documented in the film Charlie Wilson’s War) is a Frankenstein monster that has turned its vengeance on Musharraf, Afghanistan and Washington alike.

Whatever the defects of democracy, and in Asia they are legion, it remains the least worst way of curbing authoritarian power. There is no alternative. America’s handling of Musharraf since 9/11 - essentially to capture one man, Osama bin Laden - has rendered swaths of his country, from Baluchistan in the south to Swat in the north, wholly insecure. Even the Grand Trunk Road from Islamabad to Peshawar is patrolled by the Taliban. The idea that Musharraf’s troops, let alone the CIA or the US airforce, might suppress a people who have worsted every empire from the Mughals to the British is ludicrous. Modern armies are no agents of pacification. Civilian negotiation in a context of democratic assent is at very least worth a try.

Backing Musharraf has always seemed “a good idea at the time”. The next person to be cursed with Washington’s favour appears to be Musharraf’s successor as army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani. However, by opting for the realpolitik of dictatorship the west has not just repressed democracy but aided insurgency and terror. It has yielded no security benefit to anyone. If Pakistan becomes a “failed state”, the failure will, in large part, be one of democratic imagination in Washington and London. We simply refuse to practise what we preach.

This Simon Jenkins article in the Guardian is a very good summation of the paradoxes and complexities of Pakistan. However, when I flipped open today's opinion page in the paper here in Miami I was greeted with the buffoon Pinkerton. He is not some obscure RW blogging nutjob but rather a nationally syndicated columnist. I'll say it again. This isn't about ideology. This is about having to read (and dispute if you're a blogger) columnists' claims that I personally wouldn't publish in a high school newsletter, because somehow, someway, they make it into the biggest newspapers in the country.

Progress to What?

A couple of questions regarding the "progress in Iraq":

1. Does anyone seriously want to argue that it is possible to achieve stability in Iraq, never mind the Middle East, as long as there is an American military presence in the country?

2. Does anyone seriously want to argue that the United States is prepared to abandon those military bases and their embassy under a Republican government?

And under a Democrat government? I'd say the only one who would adopt Senator Jim Webb's position that the United States must remove all military bases and withdraw all of the combat forces from the country is John Edwards. (Apparently though while he has aggressively confronted the Bush regime Webb  de-emphasized this portion of his Iraqi plan after I remember first hearing him speak about the subject).

Edwards in early November in New Hampshire stated what others won't and did so rather clearly:

“These are the questions I think should be asked -- and answered -- by everybody,” he told the crowd inside Stone Church. “First, will you have all combat troops -- all combat troops -- out of Iraq in the first year of your Administration? That’s question number one. The answer to that question for me is yes, I will have all combat troops out of Iraq.

"Second, if you’re not going to have all combat troops out of Iraq, are you going to continue combat missions in Iraq over the longer term? The answer to that for me is no, because continuing combat missions is continuing the war. And if we’re going to bring this war to an end, we have to get combat troops out and we have to stop combat missions in Iraq, and I will do that.

"The third question is, will you keep permanent military bases in Iraq? The answer to that question for me is no, I will not. No combat troops, no combat missions, no permanent military bases.”

I would like to see a bit more, obviously, such as a firm rejection of any military presence including military advisers and military aid to a government the U.S. feels compelled to prop up. But I see the United States in Iraq minimally for a couple of more years under a Clinton or Obama government.

Alterman's Blind Spot

One day I would really like to offer up a detailed critique of the American political system, especially in regards to legitimate progressive alternatives in the face of the continually spineless, corrupt and shallow opposition party known as the Democrats..

But in the meantime I have to say that Eric Alterman's obsessive criticism with Nader voters and Nader himself in my mind is the epitome of sour grapes and misplaced blame. Yes it appears Nader long ago put himself above the cause, especially in 2004. But Alterman knows the reality of the media in the United States as well as anyone. Yet he appears to lay virtually all of the blame on the "fools and naifs" who supported Nader along with the candidate. Further, those 50 odd million who voted for Bush receive nowhere near the scorn that the million or so Nader voters do.

I'm sorry. While I never recognized how Bush II would become the crazy extremist he has, it took all of two seconds to see what a complete disaster the man-child would be as president. For me it's rather simple. I blame each and every one who voted for Bush as well as the reprehensible behavior of the MSM during the War on Gore. Naders voters are way way down the list of culpability - this is even more so the case when one considers if Bush had been like his father the rest of the world would have hardly noticed the difference between the economic policy of either candidate. The only caveat is that Gore, with his tremendous and well-deserved reputation as an environmentalist, would have made a very significant difference compared with some generic pre-Bush II Republican president in terms of development outside the American borders. That said, Gore's trade policy was probably just as destructive.

(Note: In the link to Altercation he actually refers to Nader supporters as the far left. I remember once reading Alterman - I think in What Liberal Media? -  talking about how the "left" in America would be considered, in reality center, if not right-wing, in the rest of the world. Now all of the sudden those who don't support the center to center right Democratic Party are the "far left?" What the hell is Alterman doing adopting Bill O'Reilly talking points? Geez Louise)

Consider this analogy: A football team playing in the championship has a horrible game. On top of that the referees continually make calls against them in a game that appears fixed. Moreover, the coaches have an inadequate game plan. But somehow the team, due to its superior talent, hangs in the game and only trails by two points as time is running out. They line up for a field goal on the last play of the game. The center makes a bad snap but the holder manages to get the ball down and the kicker gets the kick off.  Replay shows it barely squeaked through the uprights but the referee calls it wide left, and contrary to established rules, replay is not allowed. The other team  is declared the victor, even though a replay emerges that clearly shows the ball inside the upright. Game and season over.

During the entire off-season Alterman bitches about how the center cost his team the championship. And then after the following season when his team completely tanks, he spends the subsequent off-season still complaining about that god-damn center.

Alterman is  most definitely one of my favorite media and political analysts. However, regarding his compulsion with ridiculing those who desperately seek for some - any - kind of decent progressive alternative he has clearly lost his grip.

Update: I just wanted to clarify one thing. It's not that I would necessarily agree with someone who voted for a Nader-like candidate. That would depend on a wide range of factors. All I am saying is that the contempt towards those who voted that way is very misplaced. Further I would argue, it is very destructive toward the progressive movement in general.

A Citizen's Obligation

The other night I was sitting with some people and the subject of Iraq and "supporting the troops" came up. One person involved had family in the military and another had served. The old platitude how once the decision has been made to go to war it is the citizen's duty to support the soldiers - which equates to supporting the military effort - because, after all, they are defending our "freedoms" was consistently served up.

Now these people I was talking with can be labeled as middle class, educated white Americans, early to late 30s with both males and females there. They were, at best, aware of the what is generally going on in the world, however replete with all the traditional media narratives and for the most part dreadfully uninformed even about their own domestic political realities.

Now quite obviously the idea that the invasion of Iraq is somehow protecting Western freedoms is very much a non sequitur, not to mention the many freedoms that are being dramatically eroded at an alarming rate in the so-called "War on Terrorism." Nevertheless it got me thinking a little more of what is required of the citizen to protect the freedoms established in a democratic system as well as the irony of the discussion itself.

Most reading this should be familiar with the maxim regarding not caring about politics, that is, to say you don't care is like someone drowning saying they don't care about water.

Well, after the initial discussion on supporting the troops, someone (a very well educated engineer) made the absolute ludicrous claim * that the media has only been interested in anti-war figures and that war supporters don't get their chance to make their case. (after Cindy Sheehan's name came up in response to someone else arguing that somehow those without family in the military can not criticize the war effort because they don't know what it's like to have loved ones at risk.)

Eventually most everyone started to get emotional and abruptly the topic was changed with the standard, let's not talk about politics plea.

Ok, here's my point. On one hand you have some declaring that one must support the troops and their effort because they are defending the freedoms we treasure so highly. In other words, it becomes one's duty as a citizen. Minutes later someone else makes an astonishingly naive and absurd claim regarding the media and the war (and others, by the way, hardly a clue of the any political machinations of the Bushies, the media or the political system itself  - for fun I asked who believed that Al Gore said he invented the internet.They all did and a couple got upset by that "phony" Gore) Then the subject must be dropped because, in the midst of their ignorance of the politics and media, they got too worked up.

What kind of ridiculous paradox is this? It is never anyone's obligation - whether there is family involved or not to blindly support naked imperialism and do so out of some misguided notion of patriotism. Rather the obligation the citizen has is almost completely contrary to this. If these people value their freedoms and democracy as much as they claim then it is their fundamental obligation to maintain themselves informed  and speak truth to power in order to check imperialistic aims and ensure a democratic society can function within the nation's boundaries.

But try having a debate on politics and society with your "average guy in the street" without either, one, hearing an amazing array of falsehoods argued as fact with the utmost tenacity and two, the conversation ending as others bitch about bad it is to talk about politics.

Is it any wonder that the democracy is crumbling?

Update: Just to clarify one thing. In no way is this meant as a comment on the role of the military or the soldier in a democratic society. That, of course is another issue and for me, the idea of supporting the troops most certainly must include keeping them out of harm's way by avoiding or stopping needless and irresponsible wars.

Update 2:

From the Smirking Chimp, Senator Jim Webb:

I still keep my father's picture to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served his country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a helicopter pilot. My son has joined in the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way. We owe them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

Webb is a very prominent anti-Iraq war politician who calls for the removal of all U.S. military bases and withdraw of all combat forces from Iraq so I guess then that makes him guilty of not supporting the troops.

-----

* To give just a couple of examples:

• Prior to the war just 7% of ABC coverage was anti-war.
• In an interview on April 4, 2003, with Aaron Brown,lead anchor for CNN’s Newsnight on Democracy Now! Rendell [Steve Rendell, from Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)] noted that,“…On the four flagship shows on each of the four networks, that less than 1 percent of the guests they had speaking on stories about Iraq over a two week period in February…less than 1 percent anti-war voices were heard there.”
• The infamous New York Times work as an official government propagandist by printing all the Bush administration lies in the build-up to the war.
• Also one can click here to see a full outline of the American media coverage of the Iraqi war from the outset to the war to present day as well as, of course, Media Matters.
• Finally, it is exceedingly difficult to explain, if the media had an antiwar bias, how the a University of Maryland study could produce such startling results as these:

# Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
# Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
# Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
# In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox News watchers had one or more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71% for CBS and 27% who tuned to NPR/PBS

Good News

I'm a big Washington Redskins fan and yesterday's game, despite the score, must be considered a victory. Sure the score indicated that the Seahawks prevailed but I still like our chances this season. Wait, wait. I'm sorry. It was a devastating loss and the season is over. The problem was that I am still in my "no matter how ridiculously obvious the defeat is, it is good news for John McCain" mode.

(Yglesias captured it best a couple of days ago: "I think Kansas will beat Virginia Tech, but the real winner of the Orange Bowl will be John McCain ..."

Begging the Question

Nowadays everybody and their dog use the expression; "this begs the question," and proceed to ask a question the issue being discussed raises. Of course, that is not what the original meaning was.

Sometimes the exact sentiment eludes me so I would like to take a crack at the proper way to use the term, which describes a logical fallacy.

Would this qualify as begging the question? We know that the Englishman Binyam Mohammed currently detained at GItmo is a terrorist because the United States says it only tortures terrorists and the United States has tortured Mohammed. Is that right?