tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-295359452024-03-14T04:27:53.308-04:00Common NonsensePolitics and Political MediaMargalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-86678975050892349432009-03-15T23:39:00.005-04:002009-03-16T00:39:43.177-04:00Calling a Horse a Horse<i>It occurs to me after the fact that the title of this piece could be construed as poking fun at Ann Coulter's face, which many people claim is horse-like in nature. I assure readers this was not intended and that while a certain part of a horse's anatomy does remind me of Ann Coulter it isn't the face.</i>
<p>
Recently Meghan McCain had the audacity to <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-09/my-beef-with-ann-coulter/full/">call Ann Coulter</a> "offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time" - which is longhand for "being Ann Coulter." As Pandgon.net demonstrates <a href="http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/celebrate_good_times_come_on/">conservatives did not take kindly to this.</a> Even though Ann Coulter's entire schtick is to be offensive and insulting McCain somehow crossed a line by stating what everyone knows and what Coulter herself often brags about.
</p>
<p>Jim Cramer is a clown, a literal clown with honking horns and thrown pies. But point his clownish antics out to the world and he becomes a very sad panda. Both Cramer and Coulter want to have their cake and eat it too. Make names for themselves by acting like loons then feign amazement and offense when someone calls them loony. It's an odd game.</p>
<p>I was very briefly a member of the Cornell Review, a college conservative paper whose alumni include both Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza. As part of my indoctrination into the world of angry white conservative males with too much hair gel I was mailed a lovely packet of information from some sort of conservative consortium. This packet included a list of dead white authors we should all be reading (no joke) as well as an explanation of conservative "journalism." And that explanation was essentially "we're rude, vicious, infantile and proud of it. We rely less on pesky facts than entertainment derived from bashing gays and blacks."
</p>
<p>
It was in no way coy. The message was loud and explicit.</p>
<p>Is it then wrong to call the Cornell Review infantile? Is it wrong to call Ann Coulter, who helped establish the mold for conservative college papers then turned that style into a successful career, offensive and insulting?</p>
<p>This site has no love for Meghan McCain. (Just do a search) She's a transparent schill for her father who bills herself as a "citizen journalist." Her website is funded and operated by her father's people and is little more than McCain boosterism. She appears less interested in politics than in keeping her name in the limelight and pretending that she's some sort of fresh new voice in conservatism. But all that said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Of all the things to attack Meghan McCain over exactly describing Coulter the way Coulter presents herself is a little bizzare. And calling her fat? Really Republicans? That's your retort to accusations that Coulter is rude? Really?(Insert SNL "really" skit inflection here)
</p>
<p>
If you go on TV and throw pies and honk horns you're probably a clown. If you tell jokes about how Edwards is a faggot and claim that all Jews need perfecting you're probably insulting. This is neither rocket science nor brain surgery.
</p>
<p>My question is this: are there Republicans who honestly believe that Coulter is a serious and sober analyst full of insight? That being offensive and insulting is not part of her act? Or do they know full well that she peddles vitriol and merely feign offense at being called out?
</p>
<p>And which of those is worse?</p>
<p>Ann Coulter is an offensive nitwit, water is wet and the sun is hot. Shocking.</p>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-84542703475037036662009-02-02T01:37:00.006-05:002009-02-02T02:20:23.496-05:00I Remember Three Weeks Ago Like It Was Yesterday<p>
But John Yoo and John Bolton don't. Their NYT Op-Ed, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html?_r=1">Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power</a>, is a particularly sad example of Republicans doing a 180 with the election of Obama. The piece is an attack on Obama for making an end-run around the treaty process -- something he has not actually done, but could do at some point in the future, maybe. (Clearly a compelling subject for an op-ed.) You might remember John Yoo as the fellow who argued that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1-eWU2Ii0">no treaty or law on earth could stop the President from crushing an innocent child's testicles</a> if he felt the urge. Or perhaps you remember him as the man who <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/yoo-torture-mem.html">wrote that</a> "our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."
</p>
<p>Yet here is that same John Yoo arguing that the power of the President should be kept carefully in check. Curious. It's almost as if his arguments were less a product of careful legal reasoning than a product of the former White House resident being a Republican.
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>
There is a lot about the past eight years Republicans would like us to forget - including the philosophy of government they endlessly espoused. Pieces like the NYT op-ed read like the products of amnesiacs unaware of their own actions just weeks previous. Suddenly it's near impossible to find arguments that were commonplace only a month ago.
</p>
<p>The President has essentially unlimited power during wartime, where wartime includes undeclared wars of indeterminate length against unnamed foes. Anyone remember that one?
</p>
<p>How about that anything the President does is legal by definition? See many Republicans arguing that one these days?
</p>
<p>Disrespecting the President is disrespecting the office, which is disrespecting America. And even if we disagree with the President it's our duty as loyal Americans to support him. If we bellyache about the actions of the President our enemies are embiggened. I seem to recall hearing that one more than a hand full of times.</p>
<p>The willingness to immediately cast off these arguments as soon as Obama was elected is a tacit admission that the arguments were never more than posturing. The true belief of Republicans is apparently not that the President deserves respect and power but that Republicans do. I suppose these hypocritical Republicans believe that "progressives" will immediately cast off their former arguments as well and invent an entirely different set of principles now that Obama is in office.
</p>
<p>Perhaps on this blog I'll now argue that the Vice-President is both all and no branches of government, that the Bill of Rights is antiquated, and that anyone who criticizes the President should pipe down or move to France.
</p>
<p>Sadly I actually believed most if not all of what I've written here, despite the change from (R) to (D) in our highest office.
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-16627077573541746142009-01-12T02:05:00.004-05:002009-01-12T02:48:41.000-05:00Defending Sarah Palin is Hard Work<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrOfrU2rxhOQ7V8k0QZ27p9DKmtQNIYwZhct6vWql0geceBTcatVNyI-mtbTeIJzvR7B1BfoInAzDpq4p7dQVe_F8GVlm1mXUqJGjTGqj8KQ3ufP4LsPMObR3smc0r9yJFYxwb/s400/palindress.jpg"></img><br/>
<i>If this picture isn't enough reason to support Sarah Palin you're probably a Communist.</i></p>
<p><a href="http://www.howobamagotelected.com/">http://www.howobamagotelected.com/</a></p>
<p>
1: Conservative documentary-maker who called the media treatment of Palin a great injustice interviews her as part of a hit-piece on Obama voters and the media.<br /><br/>
2: He posts clips of his Palin interview online in which she blames anyone and everyone for her failures and wallows in self-pity and hypocrisy.<br/><br/>
3: The Palin people wallow in self-pity over the online clips and accuse said documentary-maker of more unfair treatment. Because the best way to fight the perception that Palin is an incessant whiner is with more whining. The GOP being the party of "personal responsibility" and all that.
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>Man, defending Palin is a tough gig when even a Palin super-fan is too full of insidious liberal bias to perform a proper interview.
</p>
<p>
C-SPAN recently <a href="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=282851-1">televised a forum</a> held late last year at Harvard where top Obama and McCain campaign officials discussed the race. When the subject turned to Palin the McCain people made the following points:<br/>
1: That the campaign needed a risky hail-mary.<br />
2: That it doesn't matter who you choose as VP if you don't win - "you need to win first."<br/ >
3: That Palin has strong positives among die-hard conservatives.<br/>
</p>
<p>Notable was the complete absence of praise for Palin herself.
</p>
<p>John Cole points out a <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=15405">similar defense of Palin</a>, quoting Robert Stacy McCain:
<p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Just as the conservative intellectuals once projected their hopes onto Dubya, now they project their disappointments onto Sarah. But the fault is theirs, not hers. And Sarah has something the intellectuals don’t have—an army. Brother, I’ve seen that army.<br /><br />
So you can take your David Frums and your David Brookses, and let Sarah take that army and, by God, we’ll see whose Republican Party this is.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
Once again: Palin is popular among the hardocre Republican crowd. That's her list of strengths in total according to the McCain piece.
</p>
<p>I keep reading the piece again and again, thinking I've missed the rousing defense of Palin's intellectual prowess and brilliant policies. Instead what I see is not one but two references to how sexy she is, including a photo of her from the rear that I gather is supposed to make proper red-blooded conservative men horny. (Shamelessly copied above)
</p>
<p>I believe this is what's called damning with faint praise.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-62131099634981838012008-12-14T22:51:00.005-05:002008-12-15T00:13:52.732-05:00Ask a Stupid Question<p><i>Whoever said there are no stupid questions needs to familiarize themselves with Slate.com.</i></p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2206229">"A blueprint for the closure of Guantanamo Bay"</a> Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes tackle a tricky conundrum: how best to close Gitmo such that it may as well remain open? According to Goldsmith and Wittes there are some truly vexing problems facing Obama if he wants to close Gitmo, chief among them how he can continue to perpetrate human rights abuses and weild pre-Magna Carta powers. For them the closing of Gitmo is only acceptable if it's a purely cosmetic change.
</p>
</p>In order to help the readers of Slate understand how best to maintain the status quo under the thinnest veneer of change they've prepared a list of moronic questions that entirely (and purposely) miss the point of closing Gitmo. I've selected a couple of the silliest ones for our reading pleasure.
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>Stupid question #1:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
<b>Under what theory can detainees who are not tried remain incarcerated?</b><br/> Detainees convicted of crimes will be incarcerated for the term of their sentence. But detainees not yet charged or who can't be charged must be held in some form of extra-criminal detention.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>"Under what theory can detainees who are not tried remain incarcerated?" Oy. (Insert sound of hand slapping forehead) This question can be reformulated as "Bill of Rights -- huh what's that?"
</p>
<p>"But detainees not yet charged or who can't be charged must be held in some form of extra-criminal detention."</p> Because, you know, they're totally guilty. So guilty that we can't possibly try them for lack of evidence. The authors don't even entertain the notion that people who can't be charged with crimes should be released -- that would make closing Gitmo something other than a meaningless symbolic gesture.</p>
<p>Stupid question #2:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
<b>What about acquittals and short sentences?</b>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>How about "sucks" or "them's the breaks" or "yeah, what about them?" In a working justice system acquittals happen. But that is apparently unacceptable. Because, you know, these people are all totally guilty.
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Any of the trial systems above might result in short sentences for or the acquittal of a dangerous terrorist.<br />
[...]<br/>
This conundrum gives the government an overwhelming incentive to use trials only when it is certain to win convictions and long sentences, and to place the rest in whatever detention system it creates. Should the government loosen the rules for trial to make convictions easier, or should it rely more heavily on noncriminal detention? Hard call.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
Should the government railroad detainees through a kangaroo court or not even bother with trials at all? Hard call. Goldsmith and Wittes are pondering how best we can create a Justice system that maintains only the thinnest veneer of justice. The entire piece is devoted to keeping Gitmo open in spirit.
</p>
<p>When Christopher Hitchens tackled the question <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/">"How Did I get Iraq Wrong"</a> he answered with "I didn't." Similarly the answer Goldsmith and Wittes want to give to "What's the best way to close Guantanamo?" is "leave it open." But unlike Hitchens, who revels in iconoclasm, Goldsmith and Wittes are compelled to pay lip-service to shifting political winds.
</p>
<p>At least the Hitchens approach is less weaselly.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-85521480938439255192008-12-07T00:41:00.004-05:002008-12-07T01:14:06.946-05:00Those Damn Bloggers<p><i>Welcome to Season 2 of Common Nonsense.</i></p>
<p>The traditional media has long held that the job of the news is not just to inform people of facts but to help them understand them in the broader context by constructing a coherent narrative out of events -- as if reality was a tightly plotted television show. Shoehorning the chaos of existence into story lines means that ill-fitting facts are massaged and ignored. Major news outlets assured us that McCain was "honorable" even as his campaign engaged in gutter politics because that was what the imagined script called for.</p>
<p>When the traditional media reports on bloggers the narrative is always that bloggers are bad. Rude, uncouth, inaccurate, not beholden to the awesome standards of journalism that brought us Wen Ho Lee. They are the upstart youth threatening their respected elders. As the traditional media shifts resources away from investigative reporting and more towards online efforts that narrative has become increasingly disjointed. The message is that bloggers suck and are not to be trusted -- and oh, by the way, check out our awesome new blogs!
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>Case in point: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence.</a> The piece is about an invented expert who has widely appeared in the news. The lynch pin of the story is this:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and <b>especially the blogosphere.</b>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>This fake expert was quoted by MSNBC, The New Republic and the LA Times. But the <b>real</b> problem is that he was also quoted on some blogs. Which blogs?
</p>
<p>Mother Jones. The LA Times. The New Republic.</p>
<p>That's "the blogosphere."</p>
<p>The central conceit of the piece is that while the traditional media was fooled the "blogosphere" was fooled worse -- yet all the example blogs are from corporate media outlets. The piece masquerades as a comparison between corporate outlets and independent venues, but it's really a comparison between two different pages on the same corporate website. Not a single non-corporate blog is named and the distinction drawn between news and blogs under the same LA Times logo is truly a distinction without a difference.
</p>
<p>And oh, by the way, it was William K. Wolfrum who spent considerable time and effort exposing the invented political expert. The same William K. Wolfrum who blogs at Shakesville, a decidedly non-corporate blog, which is not mentioned by name and is the only blog in the piece that can honestly be called part of "the blogosphere."
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-1095441752888699162008-11-25T23:34:00.002-05:002008-11-25T23:37:45.225-05:00Posting Schedule - Now With 100% Less Falsehood<p>Moved across country, computer broke, started new job, blah blah blah. Anyway I'm ready to begin posting again starting the first week of December. </p>
<p>
Thanks to the patient few who haven't totally give up on this.
</p>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-40637500760919258382008-09-07T01:17:00.001-04:002008-09-07T01:18:33.955-04:00Posting Schedule<p>I'm in the process of moving and my computer is sitting in a truck somewhere across the country. Will post again in mid-September.
</p>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-3522797599610813072008-08-25T21:21:00.005-04:002008-08-25T22:02:45.694-04:00The Convention You're Not Being Shown<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv90SNe_ojo4aOuFsHhN9g1SPo_B-fVZPPzMIYq7osFLWRexeKXyF-tMrt1L8iGZOxNGGA4_BiDeejTwLsxiM0g_aJiJGF9jAWBQ4lwjFHwwOf7w_K5HbnkyiXuZpFWoXtV6HeWA/s400/bagattzv4.jpg" /><br />
<i>I believe this image originated at <a href="http://www.demconwatchblog.com/2008/07/delegatemedia-welcome-bags-revealed.html">www.demconwatchblog.com</a> so kudos to them. The reverse side of the bag is a picture of a raised middle finger. <br />
I was going to title this post "The Convention We're Not Being Shown" but I gave away my TV so I'm not being shown anything.</i></p>
<p>Glenn Greenwald writes a lot of good stuff. It's tempting to post every day with "read this" but I try to save my Greenwald links for his best and most relevant stuff. With that said, <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/25/blue_dogs/index.html">read this.</a>
<span class="fullpost">
<p><blockquote>
Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program.<br />
[...]<br />
It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>The post includes a video by Glenn and Jane Hamsher of <a href="http://firedoglake.com">FireDogLake</a> of them trying to interview party attendees. Glenn and Jane are exceedingly polite but the attendees refuse to say anything substantial. Police / security soon intervene and force them further and further away from the guests. I imagine most people have been in a situation where authority figures attempt to enforce arbitrary rules and regulations, so at some level I think the video will resonate even with people who don't share its politics.
</p>
<p>A private party, thrown by AT&T, for members of congress, in which the press are not allowed and at which the police prevent any interaction between the press and the attendees. That's the convention we're not being shown. And that's not the seedy underbelly of the system, that <b>is</b> the system. As Glenn writes:
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.
</blockquote>
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-21797896003690742342008-08-20T22:51:00.004-04:002008-08-21T00:36:51.685-04:00Reality Intrudes<p>Something that has gotten nearly zero play in the traditional media is the recent "flip-flop" towards "appeasement" that the Bush Administration has made regarding Iran. I kept waiting for this to become a story and it never did.</p>
<p>Barack Obama stated that he would be willing to talk to Iran and was then attacked by McCain, Bush and the right-wing media as being a naive appeaser. Then lo and behold, the Bush Administration sends new Iran envoy William Burns to <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN1729925820080717">talk to the Iranians.</a></p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p><blockquote>
Burns, who as career ambassador holds the highest rank in the U.S. foreign service, will represent Washington in nuclear talks with Iran on Saturday, a sharp departure from U.S. policy that could be a launch point to reduced tensions.<br />
[...]<br />
Burns' mandate is to listen and not negotiate in Saturday's talks, but if Iran suspends its sensitive nuclear work, then the United States has promised to join full-blown negotiations.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN1629433920080716">Another piece</a> on the decision to send Burns:</p>
<p><blockquote>
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saw it as a "smart step" to depart from usual policy and send senior diplomat William Burns to Geneva on Saturday for talks with Iran along with other major powers, said Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack.<br /><br />
"It sends a strong signal to the world and it sends a strong signal to the Iranian government that the United States is committed to diplomacy," McCormack told reporters.
</blockquote></p>
<p>Hmm, where have I <a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_counters_mccain_on_appea.html">heard that before?</a></p>
<p><blockquote>
Sen. Barack Obama today continued to his running debate with Sen. John McCain and President Bush over foreign policy in the Middle East and whether it makes sense to have unconditional talks with Iran.<br /><br />
[...]<br /><br />
"Anything but their failed cowboy diplomacy that has produced no results is called appeasement," Obama countered. "Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear Holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do. That's what strong presidents do."
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
William Burns' talks with Iran are unconditional, literally without conditions. Here we have the entire right-wing establishment savaging Obama for a common-sense position, then adopting that same position, validating Obama's view while invalidating McCain's -- and the traditional media has been almost entirely silent on it. When Bhutto was assassinated we were subjected to endless speculation about who would be helped politically, but while Bhutto's assassination was a major event it was unrelated to the campaigns. Obama and McCain fighting over our approach to Iran has been in the news for months, yet this directly relevant action by the Bush Administration has gotten little play. Where are all the talking heads asking which campaign this helps or pointing out the obvious fact that Bush is now pursuing Obama's strategy?</p>
<p>It's as if the media was only interested when it was pure speculation and back-and-forth. Now that real-world action threatens to resolve the debate in favor of one candidate it's no longer an appealing story, the cameras are turned off just as the knockout punch is thrown.</p>
<p>I called this post "Reality Intrudes" because despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric about creating their own reality they have been forced to bend to actual reality. With North Korea we left ourselves only one option: bomb. And since we chose not to bomb North Korea acquired nuclear weapons while our "tough" talk got us nowhere. In Iran we were going down a similar road that would likely have lead to a similar outcomes To their credit the Bush Administration eventually realized that we need options between military action and absolutely nothing.
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-3590602079598445242008-08-12T21:58:00.005-04:002008-08-12T22:58:10.771-04:00And Justice For Most<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXj8p1Pou8cH1eUKAauyZ3Y8mJF69AZUcwfgoWYmjQz24CWEp0MTWbtDBaOjLMDIOadifVl7pU3-PZzuDvMVfQGu1oFwyMcBDkfgKHZa97vla0-16LSNzKKQVWFixd29GUNg8VKQ/s400/_39920736_banksy_203300.jpg" /><br />
<i>The new improved justice - less sense, nicer abs.</i>
</p>
<p>
Judge Allred, after the <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/12/hamdan_guantanamo/">sentencing</a> of Osama Bin Laden's driver to 66 months minus 61 already served in captivity (also known as a whopping five months):
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Mr. Hamdan, I hope the day comes when you return to your wife and daughters and country, and you are able to be a husband and father in the best sense of all of those terms.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Well that's odd. Surely that day comes five months from now no?</p>
<p><blockquote>
Whether that day will come, of course, remains unclear. Although the Bush administration insists enemy combatants can be locked up so long as the global fight against terrorism is under way, Hamdan's continued detention after Dec. 31, 2008, when his sentence ends, will become less sustainable politically in light of last week's verdict.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Oh.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>There have been many legitimate complaints about the trial process at Gitmo. It's a thrown-together mess with much lower standards of evidence and procedure, designed to find defendants guilty. But the entire process appears to be a red-herring -- whether or not the defendants are released is not dependent on the results of the trials.</p>
<p>Had Hamdan been found guilty of all charges and sentenced to life the Pentagon would be crowing about how the system validated its actions. But because the sentence was dissapointing the Pentagon feels free to ignore it. Keep the guilty verdicts and ignore the not-guilty ones -- that's justice?
</p>
<p>
The true justice system is guilt by decree. We pick people up, we use the parlance of "illegal enemy combatants" to declare them guilty, then the rest is an afterthought. Once we've declared someone an "illegal enemy combatant" they are too scary and dangerous to be let go, even if a rigged trial system still disagrees with that conclusion.
</p>
<p>That's the new justice, American style.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-73656568733132294592008-08-05T23:21:00.010-04:002008-08-06T00:33:55.107-04:00Land of the Free, Home of the Dumb<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNdtDEn-QO-d9ujOJfhH6vU_EWNhAQG2JxQPQy7UU9z0U3cpwbLZVZ6mGGUoetO1trRiAHHhovb-qiItpZk3Im1vQPRiyYY4Kx6f4P6x1XHdEyoxCjPWxorXhX-svnYWd4F_zFMA/s400/SnakePlissken.jpg"></img><br/><i>
This picture is extremely relevant in that it includes a motorcycle.</i>
</p>
<p>
There's no part of the McCain appearance at the Sturgis motorcycle rally that isn't embarrassing and idiotic. It's uncomfortable to watch the opening where McCain wears his joker death-grin while calling the entire crowd "my friend." (Singular) It's unfortunate to see the McCains using their children's military service to try to gain votes, something they'd previously sworn off. It's slightly pathetic to see McCain bashing Congress for inaction when he can't be bothered to show up and vote in the Senate. But the saddest thing of all is watching the Grand Old Party once again mocking human intellect and knowledge.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sK-LEyyf7d4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sK-LEyyf7d4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</p>
<p>Keeping your tires properly inflated and your car tuned saves energy -- period. But because that's real knowledge based on things like math and science, because that doesn't come from our brilliant guts (the same guts that told McCain that the anthrax attacks were the work of Saddam), it's worthy of nothing but ridicule from people who are proud to be dumb. Not only do they mock the idea that science can teach us about many aspects of our world including energy conservation, they do so while revving their engines. How is this not self-parody?</p>
<p>
<object width="400" height="334"><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/akjXqfvLu28&hl=en&fs=1" name="movie"></param><param value="transparent" name="wmode"></param><param value="true" name="allowFullScreen"></param><embed width="400" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/akjXqfvLu28&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="334" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant. They think it's funny that they're making fun of something that is actually true.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
It's not "like" that -- that's it. The nation that built the atom bomb and sent a man to the moon is increasingly proud to be stupid. If you know stuff you're an effete elitist, an ivory-tower academic -- you're not a real man, math and science and knowing stuff is for womanly nerds.</p>
<p>It's far too easy to imagine the same crowd, transplanted in time, laughing at washing their hands after going to the bathroom or at cooking their meat. At what point did being ignorant become synonymous with being a red-blooded American?
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-34407166067227461572008-08-02T02:01:00.004-04:002008-08-02T02:11:14.286-04:00Sadly Yes, This is our Media<p>The traditional media thinks that Americans' primary voting criteria is how mediocre a candidate is, where more mediocre is more betterer. Guys who read and know stuff aren't like you and me - we want a lazy moron as president because he won't make us feel bad about ourselves. We can point to him and say "hey, I'm just as smart as that guy" or "hey, I could be doing a better job" and be right.</p>
<p>Along those lines: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755336096303089.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today">"Too Fit to Be President?"</a> -
Facing an Overweight Electorate, Barack Obama Might Find Low Body Fat a Drawback.
</p>
<p>
Sadly, No! has much here <a href="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/10250.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/10322.html">here</a>, including a bit on the anecdotal testimonial from a message board user who was solicited by the author of the piece to produce a money quote.
</p>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-72876931737853420672008-07-10T03:58:00.010-04:002008-07-10T07:34:04.650-04:00Useless Democrats Excoriated<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgliOUu-wSB1lr_s0NAlV5biUCsBsJ8GeEBYPhZgsE0skD-9gWVihaw2cjoku5rgXz-C-UwMu_J1EuMCk4t1W9vwOE_Nho3CzzxgiM5CWy_od_PSP8n0hY6gdAzPi7ieozY7AB_9g/s400/fail-24.jpg" /><br />
<i>Pictured above: an erudite metaphor.</i>
</p>
<p>Democrats have once again caved to our historically unpopular President. Politely feign shock.
</p>
<p>In this post I revisit something I explored in <a href="http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/11/useless-democrats-explained.html">Useless Democrats Explained</a> and <a href="http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/10/democrats-master-plan.html">The Democrats' Master Plan</a>: the false notion that Democrats have done something politically expedient, offered up as either an excuse or a rationalization to soften the blow of another Democratic failure.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<br />
<h3>Weakness is Not a Virtue</h3>
<p>The primary narrative employed against Democrats is that they are weak-willed appeasers standing in stark contrast to tough manly Republicans. Against that backdrop it's not political savvy to take actions that predictably lead to headlines like <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD91QIA488">"Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill."</a> Although media narratives of Democratic weakness are often contrived this one is entirely accurate. Once again they have "caved", "capitulated" and "rolled over."
</p>
<p>I was looking for examples of heroic behavior to contrast against Democratic actions and remembered the "Kneel before Zod" scene from Superman 2. Per wikipedia:
</p>
<blockquote>
With this, General Zod's revenge on Jor-El seems complete, as he commands Superman to kneel before him, take his hand, and swear eternal loyalty to him. But Superman has not lost his powers a second time; instead, he has stripped Zod, Ursa, and Non of theirs while he remained safe in the molecule chamber. As he takes Zod's hand, he crushes it and then overpowers him, throwing him into an icy crevasse, where the general disappears into the mist.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>I googled <i>"kneel before Zod"+clip</i> for a video clip of that scene to use here. The second result? The gloating <a href="http://www.redstate.com/tags/kneel_before_zod">Kneel Before Zod | Redstate</a> about the most recent FISA capitulations, which presumably casts Republicans as the menacing Zod and Congress as those who compliantly kneel.</p>
<p>When Democrats and Republicans go head-to-head that is nearly always the presiding tone, that Democrats allow themselves to be dominated even though they have numbers and a mandate.</p>
<br />
<h3>Democrats Turned Strength into Weakness</h3>
<p> A typical explanation for Democratic capitulation is that if a terror attack occurs they will be blamed -- but they will be blamed regardless of their actions. Remember that Republicans blocked Democrats from extending the Protect America Act, an act Republicans previously argued was vital to our national security. Democrats were in a good position to make political hay off of a terrorist attack. (If you're into that sort of thing) Rather than push for an extension to the PAA while portraying Republicans as dangerous obstructionists Democrats instead decided to seek a "compromise" with existing Republican plans and painted themselves as the security lollygaggers. </p>
<br />
<h3>Politically Savvy Actions Lead to Politically Favorable Results....Right?</h3>
<p>
The most obvious problem with the argument that Democrats cave due to "political realities" is that there is no evidence that these savvy actions are producing good political results. Here is the polling data for <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm">Congressional approval ratings.</a> A graph would make a fun sled ride. Divining meaning from those numbers is difficult but they certainly aren't evidence of success. At Salon the Editor in Chief's current blog entry is <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/">"Betrayed by Obama"</a>, which runs on the front-page as "Obama's unforgivable FISA sellout." In various places Obama is being correctly labelled a dreaded flip-flopper for saying he'd filibuster any bill with immunity and then voting for this one. Most of the Democrats invested in this issue are strongly opposed to telecom immunity; Obama's actions here have induced a strong negative buzz that threatens to reduce voter turnout, donations and positive word of mouth. Meanwhile it's difficult to imagine anyone of any political persuasion donating more money and ethusiasm to his campaign thanks to this "compromise."</p>
<p>It's absurd to watch people argue that constant Democratic failures are a great strategy even as they generate mountains of negative press and dismal approval ratings, both among the party faithful and among the general public.</p>
<br />
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Once again Democrats have validated the narrative that they are soft and weak. They've squandered a politically favorable position that made Republicans look like irresponsible obstructionists and recast themselves as behind the curve on security. They've generated negative press and tarnished the image of their Presidential nominee. And despite protestations to the contrary there is no evidence that the Democratic master plan of kneeling before Bush is winning politics.
</p>
<p>I suppose it's possible that without these constant capitulations Democrats and Obama would be doing worse in the polls. Given how sullied the Republican brand is though it's difficult to believe that rolling over for Republicans is good politics and I've seen no evidence that it is -- and not for want of looking.</p></span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-86649718294718047282008-07-08T00:07:00.002-04:002008-07-08T00:08:49.527-04:00Will Post Regularly Again Starting Soon<span class="fullpost">
Been busy. Should start again Tuesday night.
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-39383685607321136892008-06-23T20:47:00.004-04:002008-06-23T20:59:51.396-04:00Impossible to Parody<p>John McCain on the <a href="http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2305723~zoneid_Home~title_Obama-and-McCain-Give.html">gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy</a>:
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
<img src="http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/mccain_70x70.candidate_thumbnail.jpg" /> Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.
</blockquote>
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>John McCain on <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/economy">general economic policy</a>:
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
<img src="http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/mccain_70x70.candidate_thumbnail.jpg" /> Once we win this ideological war on radical Islamic extremism which will rage for thousands of years, then we will concentrate on the economy.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>One comes from a Fortune Magazine interview, one comes from The Onion. Life imitates art.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-35491179900270892262008-06-22T01:35:00.010-04:002008-06-22T02:56:30.173-04:00People Who Think We're Stupid<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2wznMorlNjLuuUaFRxwWFyBQ4xfyUAVxvxLL3-2o89T_ueBBXhRBRikCvNiz0JZDiL50Ja9CPeDYhyXuKpqJiGpMmvOC5nH_0dl2XoVS-yZeeyjRqIlPAtIN91baTpN4LlXEDzg/s400/PelosiHetchy.jpg"/> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8eObELL0h14uW-KsqMj8i90f1wbegBAM9ZbbU1M_6874Bws1v0L2rk3WfX0uvCmaLkqGoDAep1T-DHwX84Vb9hYRkVUcq10FTRIRXpeSHmrJ4w4DzegV9Rktvf0k_KXXE8x1ZHA/s400/obama.JPG" /> <img src="http://time-blog.com/swampland/105_new_joe_klein.jpg"/> <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLHNpwUpgG1jq4snxBVIAEzvVatdehqruXZnOLAqcwpA5_CT8woZbeRMunrErqFs63_9jkRIYC9boir9LZEAGNVuobQtAOFjV3lew7Y-MxHu6CLanntpRJmd2pzLaPfASdwIgPYw/s400/atfhlitebright.JPG"/><br/>
<i>This guy... this guy is just pissing... he's pissing all over us. He's pissing on you. What does it taste like? Chief, what does it taste like, 'cause you know what, it tastes like piss to me.</i>
</p>
<p><blockquote><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2wznMorlNjLuuUaFRxwWFyBQ4xfyUAVxvxLL3-2o89T_ueBBXhRBRikCvNiz0JZDiL50Ja9CPeDYhyXuKpqJiGpMmvOC5nH_0dl2XoVS-yZeeyjRqIlPAtIN91baTpN4LlXEDzg/s400/PelosiHetchy.jpg"/> But I'm pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law. Reaffirmation, I guess that's the word I'd looking for. A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon.
</blockquote></p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p><blockquote><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8eObELL0h14uW-KsqMj8i90f1wbegBAM9ZbbU1M_6874Bws1v0L2rk3WfX0uvCmaLkqGoDAep1T-DHwX84Vb9hYRkVUcq10FTRIRXpeSHmrJ4w4DzegV9Rktvf0k_KXXE8x1ZHA/s400/obama.JPG" /> It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
</blockquote></p>
<p><blockquote><img src="http://time-blog.com/swampland/105_new_joe_klein.jpg"/> There was broad consensus in the Congress that if a suspicious pattern of communications is found and a U.S. person is targeted, there needs to be approval granted by the FISA court. And, as Nancy Pelosi insisted, it needed to be established that the FISA law was the only way to legally wiretap an individual--in other words, under this law the Executive can't just go ahead and do it.
</blockquote></p>
<p>To review: FISA legislation specifically says it "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted." President Bush chose to ignore that and to this day claims that nebulous Article II powers give him the ability to perform whatever surveillance he wishes, regardless of the law. Now Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Joe Klein (among others) tell us that we can rest easy now that we have reaffirmed the very exclusivity that Bush ignored in the past and reserves the right to ignore in the future.</p>
<p>Perhaps the next time we are capture a diabolic serial killer we should remind him that murder is illegal and yes, we totally meant it when we said it the first time -- then let him go free after wagging our fingers slightly. Problem solved!</p>
<p>At some point laws must be enforced but this Democratic Congress has proven repeatedly that it won't enforce the law. Impeachment was off the table from day one. Private citizens are allowed to openly flaunt subpoenas. Now Bush ignores FISA exclusivity without consequence.
</p>
<p>Why will Bush honor FISA exclusivity this time around? Not a trick question.</p>
<p>Is Joe Klein dumb enough to believe that simply restating the exclusivity of FISA will prevent Bush from further wrongdoing? Perhaps -- he certainly is a dope about FISA-related issues. (As I've covered previously) Is Nancy Pelosi? I doubt it. Is Barack Obama? Almost certainly not. He cannot honestly believe that "reaffirming" the exclusivity of FISA has meaning. It's just a line to feed to the dumb American public -- AKA us. Up to this point I've been impressed at Obama's willingness to treat the public as something other than rubes and suckers. But the question here is "is he that stupid or does he think we are?"</p>
<p>Perhaps nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, but feeding nonsense logic-free rationalizations to that public is hardly the politics of change.</p>
<p>
<b>Note:</b> Hunter at DailyKos made a very similar <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/145151/914/841/539196">set</a> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/155550/061/774/539255">of</a> <a href="http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/1545/63989/473/539564">posts</a>, but similar to how Leibniz and Newton independently invented calculus this is an example of great minds thinking alike.
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-26019280757661031692008-06-16T21:36:00.004-04:002008-06-16T22:23:17.117-04:00Score One for the Unitary Executive<p>
You <a href="http://margalis.blogspot.com/2007/09/quick-update.html">may remember</a> that in summer/fall 2007 the Bush Administration decided that the Office of Administration would retroactively stop responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. Now a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/16/wh.emails/index.html">court decision</a> has validated that action. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the paintiffs, <a href="http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/31995">explain the tortured logic</a> of the decision:</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p><blockquote>
In May 2007, CREW sued OA for records regarding missing White House e-mail and the office’s assessment of the scope of the problem. After initially agreeing to provide records, OA changed course and claimed it was not an agency and, therefore, had no obligation to comply with the FOIA. <b>OA made this claim despite the fact that even the White House’s own website described OA as an agency and included regulations for processing FOIA requests.</b><br/><br/>
[...]<br /><br/>
OA has admitted that it functioned as an agency and processed FOIA requests until August 2007. Although CREW filed its FOIA request in April 2007 – four months before OA changed its position – the court found that OA had no duty to respond to CREW’s FOIA request because OA was never an agency in the first place.
</blockquote></p>
<p>
The court found that the Office of Administation does not have "substantial independent authority" and exists solely to "advise and assist" the President. The intent of "advise and assist" is supposed to protect sensitive Presidential conversations, but in this case it was applied quite loosley:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Instead, OA’s charter documents and President Carter’s message to Congress make clear that OA’s function is to support, i.e., assist, the President <i>indirectly</i> [<i>emph. in original</i>] by providing efficient, centralized administrative services to the components within EOP.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
This is a win for the theory of the Unitary Executive on two fronts. First it waters down the meaning of "advise and assist", divorcing it from its original intent. Second it further validates the notion that something that looks and acts as an agency, and is generally understood to be an agency even by its own employees, may not actually be one and can have its status changed at any time for the sake of convenience. (Or malfeasance).
</p>
<p>
According to the theory of the Unitary Executive the President is directly or indirectly in charge of the entire executive branch. Under that interpretation executive branch agencies are extensions of the President and no agency operates with "substantial independent authority" apart from the President. Currently the Department of Justice responds to FOIA requests, but if the <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/20/executive_privilege/">"U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will"</a> then presumably the DOJ can stop responding to FOIA requests at any time. If you accept the notion that executive agencies are merely appendages of the President then all of them can argue for exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-32645028698487087242008-06-06T03:16:00.005-04:002008-06-06T04:40:57.595-04:00Swampland Hijinks: Hail to the Queen<p>
<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/columnist/105_thumbnails/cox_anamarie.jpg"/><br/>
<i>"I'm willing to lose a friend over something I write but I'd like to know it was worth it."</i>
</p>
<p>Saving the best for last. Searching here for "Ana" (and "Anna" -- I'll go back and fix that at some point I swear) reveals plenty of choice quotes, so rather than rehash them I'll take a slightly different tack.
</p>
<p>Both Ana Marie Cox and Michael Scherer possess two different critical writing styles -- normal and McCain. Normal is short, to the point and pithy; McCain is labored, labyrinthine and full of disclaimers, written in a way that turns criticism into compliments. According to Scherer the heat McCain has taken for surrounding himself with lobbyists while decrying their influence is <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/the_downside_of_doing_the_righ.html">The Downside of Doing the Right Thing</a> -- as opposed to the downside of blatant hypocrisy. And according to Cox, the problem with <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/mccains_tortured_position.html">McCain's Tortured Position</a> is that sometimes McCain is slightly less awesome than his normal full-on awesomeness.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>McCain's "tortured position" is that he claims opposition to torture while continuously enabling it. In Cox's typical style that would be a two sentence post, but when the subject is McCain she goes into sprawling, "fair and balanced" mode, writing six paragraphs to explain, or rather confuse, the issue. The final and longest paragraph is a gem (emph. added):
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
To be sure, <b>McCain's self-scrutiny is withering.</b> (And the estimation of others can be wrong.)<b> If McCain is not always his own worst critic, he is still a vicious and constant one. The level of achievement, honesty and duty to his country that he sets for himself is incredibly high -- higher than most people's, perhaps even "towering." And I am sympathetic to his aides' point that he shouldn't be punished every time his actions meet "normal" standards but fail his own.</b> (This is the obverse of Clinton's claim that since she didn't promise to, for instance, conduct a clean campaign, you can't blame her if she plays dirty.) The problem lies not in the standards themselves, but in his certainty about them, a conviction that may sometimes blind him to even the question of whether he has, even by accident or mistake, blurred them in order to meet them.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>This is Cox in microcosm -- six paragraphs to explain away McCain's hypocrisy on torture while heaping superlatives on him. And one parenthetical aside to pick at Clinton while mischaracterizing her position.</p>
<p>
Ana Marie Cox likes McCain, something she fully admits to. (In comments in <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/okay_okay_okay_the_mccain_bbq.html">this post.</a>) She also admitted to being biased but bizarrely claimed her "transparency" counterbalances that -- in a post fessing up to the fact that she vacationed at McCain's ranch <b>that she wrote only after commenters caught wind of it through other channels and called her out.</b> Why are even her criticisms of McCain so glowing? She told us:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
I think of socializing as part of the larger project: I get to know people and then can then write about them with more depth, and it means that when I do write something critical about them, I take EXTRA care to get it right... I'm willing to lose a friend over something I write but I'd like to know it was worth it.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>When it comes to criticizing McCain she takes EXTRA care -- EXTRA parsing, EXTRA benefit of the doubt and EXTRA praise.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-53234766884632964872008-05-30T23:53:00.001-04:002008-06-01T21:32:20.469-04:00Swampland Hijinks: Michael Scherer Edition<p>
<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/blogs/images/thumbnails/105_mscherer.jpg"/><br />
<i>"In the Democratic presidential pack, the leading man is a woman and the leading woman is a man."<br/>
"May the best woman win."</i>
</p>
<br/><br/>
<h3>Scherer's Reporting History</h3>
<p>
Scherer joined TIME and Swampland after a stint at <a href="http://salon.com.">Salon.com.</a> Most of his pieces there were fluff, jello-journalism stories with multi-paragraph feature-style ledes or failed attempts at humor. His credibility at Salon was destroyed after a fawning profile of <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/18/meghan_mccain/">"citizen journalist" Meghan McCain</a> (I laughed typing that and again editing it) and <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/12/obama_hillary/">a piece</a> on the Democratic primaries with the sub-head and final line quoted above -- quips that are not only insulting but incoherent and contradictory.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<br/><br/>
<h3>TIME's Clever Response to Reader Criticism</h3>
<p>
In early spring Scherer and Ana Marie Cox were under scrutiny. Cox was writing favorably about McCain while vacationing at his ranch while Scherer was doing his usual Scherer thing. So Cox had a brilliant idea: trot out the old "think you can do better? Well let's see you try!" gambit.
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
I didn't try asking about anything else "serious." Those of you who think the press fell down on the job in not using that time to query him [McCain], well... the guy holds about five hours of press conferences a day when he's on the trail. A lot of questions get asked. <br />
[...]<br />
Maybe we missed the ones you want asked; in which case you should keep agitating the people who have the access and responsibility to ask questions on behalf of the public...
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>The genius here was that Cox was being taken off the McCain beat and could thus plausibly ignore the agitations. A few weeks later, however, Scherer repeated the gambit:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Here is an experiment. Tell me here what questions you would ask McCain that are not otherwise being asked.
</blockquote>
</p>
<br/><br/>
<h3>You Can Guess Where This is Going</h3>
<p>
Here are some of the questions commenters posed:
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Could you briefly explain, as you understand it, Iran's influence in Iraq, specifically with regard to the recent conflict between the Sadrists and the Maliki government?<br/><br/>
Please explain your attitude toward the United Nations and describe how the "League of Democracies" would support or undermine the UN.<br/><br/>
What would you do if a pluarality of Iraqi representatives voted to insist the US get out of Iraq within a certain deadline? <br /><br />
As a dedicated proponent of campaign finance reform and a candidate who would like both sides to take matching funds in the general election, how do you justify your efforts to get out of the restrictions on primary spending?<br /><br />
A few months ago you said you didn't know much about economic policy but that were going to read Greenspan's book. Have you read Greenspan's book yet and what did it teach you about economics? <br /><br />
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>A number of readers also pointed out the rather obvious follow-up to the 100 years in Iraq flap: if it's "out of context" to say McCain is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years if troops are out of harm's way, does that mean 100 years is unacceptable if they are in harm's way? Timetable questions have been asked before but not in the context of this 100 years discussion - either he is willing to have troops die in Iraq for 100 years or he is not.</p>
<p>Reader questions were submitted on March 30. Scherer on April 2:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
I still have not had a chance to respond to list of questions, but hope to get some posts up over the next few days to respond to at least some of them.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Scherer on April 4:<p>
<p>
<blockquote>
I was with McCain for two days, Wed. and Thu., during which he did not hold a press avail or gaggle. I did not get to ask him any questions directly. <br />
[..]<br/>
I am pursuing this. I am pursuing some of the other topics that have been raised as well. But I don't want to get into the habit of telling too much about my plans in a public forum, so you will have to wait to be pleased or disappointed. <br />
[...]<br />
But let me begin with this insight: The popular impression that reporters always have constant access to McCain to ask whatever they want is not accurate. (Also inaccurate: The popular view that reporters covering McCain are unwilling to ask him challenging questions, or do stories that will upset the campaign.) He has traditionally been far more open than anyone else, but right now he is campaigning in a more traditional mode. Nothing outrageous about it. But is not as simple as you sending me a question and me nailing McCain down with the question. And this has nothing to do with McCain avoiding me or the question, or me not wanting to ask it. That is just the way the game works. So hang in there all.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Here Scherer is already lowering expectations -- it's hard work and he doesn't want to divulge secret plans. The excuse that McCain is not accessible is an odd one. <strong>Above Cox wrote "the guy holds about five hours of press conferences a day when he's on the trail."</strong> And Scherer, in his piece at Salon, wrote about McCain's "endless on-the-record access". If we believe that McCain is infinitely accessible it's only because the press, including Scherer and Cox, has repeated that ad nauseam.</p>
<p>Scherer on April 11. At this point he has not gotten answers to any of the questions and has not made any Swampland posts about them:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Again, you all misrepresent my relationship with the campaign. There are no nightly booze and bbq fests. The campaign's relationship to reporters can be at times quite adversarial. I do not get all the information I am seeking, so some of this takes more time than I would like.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>As I write this it's May 30. As best I can tell Scherer's comments on April 11 were the last time he referenced the reader-asked questions -- questions he solicited and said he would post on -- in any way. He completely stopped responding to commenters asking for followups. It's become a running joke among his readers.</p>
<p>I would say it's disappointing but it isn't -- it's entirely expected.</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-13054387207201223012008-05-29T00:53:00.008-04:002008-05-29T03:30:45.509-04:00Scott the Snitch<p>
<img src="http://www.classicalvalues.com/StopSnitchinTees.jpg"/>
</p>
<p>
So it turns out Scott McClellan lives on planet Earth after all. You have to love it when Bush insiders <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24856034/page/2/">tell us what is plainly obvious</a> and it's treated as an amazing revelation:
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
McClellan calls Vice President Dick Cheney "the magic man" who "always seemed to get his way" and sometimes "simply could not contain his deep-seated certitude, even arrogance, to the detriment of the president." <br /><br />
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser earlier in Bush's presidency, "was more interested in figuring out where the president stood and just carrying out his wishes while expending only cursory effort on helping him understand all the considerations and potential consequences" of war. Rice "was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview," McClellan says, but he predicts that "history will likely judge her harshly." <br /><br />
And former Bush political guru Karl Rove "always struck me as the kind of person who would be willing, in the heat of battle, to push the envelope to the limit of what is permissible ethically or legally."
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>And Bush is incurious and stubborn. Shocker.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>
The revelations are not terribly exciting but the right-wing reaction is humorous. The primary objection appears to be disloyalty. Ari Fleischer was on Larry King saying something to the effect of:
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
I'm afraid that what Scott doesn't realize is that he may make some temporary friends on the left who will use him and discard him after a few weeks, but he'll lose some long-standing friends on the right.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>After Fleischer departed a few more right-wing talking heads came on to make similar points. "But... but... we're friends!" is the prevailing tone of the right-wing response to McClellan's book. As opposed to say "this is flat-out wrong" -- an impossible case to make at this point. Glenn Beck's show was teasing a McClellan segment with a graphic titled "Stop Snitchin'". If McClellan is a snitch doesn't that make the Bush Administration the Crips?</p>
<br/><br/>
<h3>Addendum</h3>
<p>I'm watching Chris Matthews rip into Fleischer for using the exact same talking points that Dana Perino and Dan Bartlett have been using. It's a little late but it's nice to see members of the media (at least on MSNBC) catching on to the fact that ring-wing talking heads robotically recite from the same centrally-managed script.
</p>
<p>David Gregory and Mike Allen (from Politico) are bitterly complaining about charges that the press was too deferential, saying those charges come from the left -- which implicitly underscores the point that the "liberal media" is anything but.
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-90947134989129185342008-05-18T23:21:00.013-04:002008-05-19T01:23:15.491-04:00Glenn Greenwald on the Miltary Analyst Propaganda Program<p>Glenn Greenwald is always worth reading, but his work on the Pentagon military analyst propaganda campaign has been particularly well-done. He's gone beyond the New York Times coverage and made it more tangible and immediate by including pictures of some of the most damning correspondence. I'm going to list the pieces he's written in order, bold the ones you should read if you only have time for a couple, and reproduce a snippet or two.
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>
1. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/20/nyt/">Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda</a><r />
2. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/22/analysts/">Media's refusal to address the NYT's "military analyst" story continues</a>
3. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/23/brown/">Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story</a><br />
4. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/28/kurtz/">Howard Kurtz on why media outlets ignore the "military analyst" story</a><br />
5. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/30/williams/">Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story</a><br />
6. <b><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/09/cnn_abc/">CNN, the Pentagon's "military analyst program" and Gitmo</a></b><br />
7. <b><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/">How the military analyst program controlled news coverage: in the Pentagon's own words</a></b><br />
8. <b><a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/12/di_rita/">Larry Di Rita's responses to questions about the "military analyst" program</a></b><br />
9. <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/analysts/">Joe Galloway blasts Pentagon and Larry Di Rita on "military analyst" claims</a><br />
</p>
<p>
The best parts of the series in my view are the snippets of correspondence between the Pentagon and the military analysts. These stand on their own without any comment required. Here are a few (click for larger versions) where the "independent" military analysts report back and crow about "carrying water" for the Pentagon and putting the "best possible face" on Guantanamo Bay based on a carefully managed 3-hour tour and some government-provided talking points:
</p>
<p>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGgCgHE8SeoG1cTBS9zMed_ygXL3H1SyD1rY4lir2V2F7bt1iF2DhMtTWLmK8ABpEoozX26YJjqC4XXZuekeJ4CvhMdUl_1MYCMa34SurQ4Di9Du3DigatrnqkBqUnv3OgiSoCow/s1600-h/shepperd2.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGgCgHE8SeoG1cTBS9zMed_ygXL3H1SyD1rY4lir2V2F7bt1iF2DhMtTWLmK8ABpEoozX26YJjqC4XXZuekeJ4CvhMdUl_1MYCMa34SurQ4Di9Du3DigatrnqkBqUnv3OgiSoCow/s400/shepperd2.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201932559193491778" /></a>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Eric - many thanks for your efforts putting together the Guantanamo trip - it was fascinating and added greatly to my understanding of detainee issues - let me know if I can help you - Don Shepperd (CNN military analyst)
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKO4qa76Vr6HkIpiFCsTyTy42kEA8Z-p9uhJtJ0g0BK7TDqfofyb6MxrQekKxyGzjfREN6EFYOXVHpbgXWMQ2bE_6l4jrzWX7fBMHH-YDwonLMPC54Opc39grV-Ygn_5WJh27MxA/s1600-h/cucullu_.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKO4qa76Vr6HkIpiFCsTyTy42kEA8Z-p9uhJtJ0g0BK7TDqfofyb6MxrQekKxyGzjfREN6EFYOXVHpbgXWMQ2bE_6l4jrzWX7fBMHH-YDwonLMPC54Opc39grV-Ygn_5WJh27MxA/s400/cucullu_.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201933705949759826" /></a>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
Here is my first GITMO piece ran this morning on Front Page Magazine. Link:...<br /><br />
I did a Fox & Friends hit at 0620 this morning. Good emphasis on 1) no torture, 2) detainees abuse guards, 3) continuing source of vital intel.<br/><br />
Best, Gordon
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLH0cuOPKlegMBgWO-Nm4hcaU0BZr0sMl69qKtVTpmbcURzuMCii0DQusLWD1HFK3B6EAfRpz-ctfbw8e8oUnw1GXJZwY3NQh_D7Y-KdMKOpnzUnR7MZAr6lyJS5DoS4r3lUHAAA/s1600-h/mccausland.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLH0cuOPKlegMBgWO-Nm4hcaU0BZr0sMl69qKtVTpmbcURzuMCii0DQusLWD1HFK3B6EAfRpz-ctfbw8e8oUnw1GXJZwY3NQh_D7Y-KdMKOpnzUnR7MZAr6lyJS5DoS4r3lUHAAA/s400/mccausland.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201934358784788834" /></a>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
[redacted] - don't know if you keep this stuff but CNN sent me a transcript. Just wanted to thank you again because the material you sent me very early this morning was very useful in trying to explain what is going on and trying to put the best possible face on it.<br /><br />
You are a pro...<br /><br />
Jeff
</blockquote>
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-43482661971399730802008-05-11T02:56:00.004-04:002008-05-11T03:48:24.466-04:00Let's Help the Burmese by Killing Them<p>
<i>Thanks to pedestrian at <a href="http://sadlyno.com">Sadly,No!</a> for spotting this inanity.</i>
</p>
<p>
This is low, even for TIME Magazine. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html">Is It Time to Invade Burma?</a>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.
</blockquote>
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>Wow, that sounds awful. So what's the solution, sages of TIME?</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma.<br />
[...]<br />
The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
That last line, which is the end of the piece, is a joke -- literally a play on words for chuckles. To some people war isn't hell, it's fodder for puns and flippancy. ("Give War a Chance" is also the title of a lecture Jonah Goldberg gave at the University of Massachusetts Amherst -- TIME is in poor company here) Here we are, five years into our Iraq misadventure, something most Americans agree was a mistake, and the national media is mocking those who believe war isn't something to be taken lightly.
</p>
<p>
When we invaded Iraq we created a <a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2008/0318fiveyears.htm">humanitarian crisis</a>. Millions of Iraqis lack access to uncontaminated water, proper medical facilities and electricy. Millions more are displaced refugees. So now, according to TIME, the solution to Burma's humanitarian crisis may be to go in and start shooting the Burmese.</p>
<p>
If we bomb enough bridges, hospitals, schools, water treatment facilities and energy plants surely that will solve their problems. And no doubt the Burmese will greet us as liberators and shower our troops with flowers, gladly welcoming us even as we kill their relatives with errant strikes.
</p>
<p>
In the US media today it's nearly impossible to be too bellicose to be taken seriously. Whatever the problem it's sober analysis to suggest shooting people as the answer. To a man with a hammer everything is a nail and to a country with a powerful military everyone else is a target.
</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-59409995237907587352008-05-10T03:56:00.005-04:002008-05-10T05:12:26.771-04:00Swampland Hijinks: Jay Newton-Small Edition<p>
<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/blogs/images/thumbnails/105_jnewtonsmall.jpg" /><br />
<i>Kids and Jay Newton-Small say the damnedest things. "You can't invite us in and then not expect people to ask questions."</i>
</p>
<p>
Jay Newton-Small doesn't get a lot of attention, perhaps because she isn't nearly as prolific as some of her Swampland colleagues. But her piece <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/lemme_eat_my_waffle.html">Lemme Eat My Waffle</a> and her subsequent followups may have been her breakout performance:
</p>
<span class="fullpost">
<p>
<blockquote>
He’d already spent more than 30 minutes glad handing the restaurant’s denizens, and with the 15+ press pool crammed behind the counter before him Obama dug in. Which is when one of the network reporters took the advantage of the close proximity to ask a question about Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas and Obama irritably answered: “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”<br />
[...]<br />
Obama hasn’t given a press conference in 10 days and the questions, some of them -- like Hamas -- rather important, are starting to build up. If he wins the nomination he'll be running again John McCain, whose philosophy is to give the press total access to the point of saturation; Obama might consider holding avails with a little more regularity. Then, maybe, reporters would let him to eat in peace.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
It's fluffy, irrelevant and an example of the "act more like a Republican" advice journalists feel obliged to constantly hand out. There's also the hint of a passive-aggressive threat in there: meet our demands or we'll make you look bad compared to McCain. But overall it's not so much terrible as terribly irrelevant.</p>
<p>As is often the case Newton-Small finds herself in larger trouble when she attempts to engage her commenters:</p>
<p>
<blockquote>
It's about access: you ask the press to cram up in front of you while you eat your waffle and banter friendly jokes with you, but God forbid anyone ask anything serious -- that's trying to have your cake (or waffle) and eat it too, you can't invite us in and then not expect people to ask questions.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>You can't? What if you trade the waffles for <a href="http://margalis.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccain-bbq-and-our-insipid-press-corps.html">ribs</a>? You can invite the press in, demand that they leave all recording devices behind and demand that they not ask serious question. As long as you are John McCain.</p>
<p>
As more people commented on the story it completely fell apart. Obama had been meeting frequently with the local press, answering the questions that mattered to Pennsylvania voters. He had already <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3532797,00.html">weighed in definitively</a> on Carter talking to Hamas, rendering the "important" question at the diner irrelevant -- a fact Newton-Small was apparently unaware of even though it's immediately obvious by running "Obama Carter Hamas" through google. And Newton-Small backed off her claim that McCain gives the press "total access to the point of saturation" after multiple commenters pointed out that her colleague, Michael Scherer, was complaining on the same Swampland pages that he couldn't get McCain to answer his questions after weeks of trying. (More about that in a later installment)
</p>
<p>
When you take all of that into account the original story is as follows: a reporter asked a question that Obama had addressed multiple times in the recent past and instead of addressing it again he took a bite of a waffle.
</p>
<p>Man eats waffle, details at 11!</p>
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-85250899120773780792008-05-05T06:53:00.006-04:002008-05-05T07:53:46.884-04:00Swampland Hijinks Part Zero: Joe Klein<p><img src="http://time-blog.com/swampland/105_new_joe_klein.jpg"></img></p>
<p><i>
Like comic books from the early 2000s this series begins with a hastily-produced can-miss post of little significance.</i></p>
<p>
In this series I'm going to bash TIME's <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/">Swampland</a>. (Motto: "hey it's a blog - what you expect quality?") But before I do that I have to give credit where credit is due: recently Joe Klein has been doing some good <strike>reporting</strike> <strike>blogging</strike> whatevering on the recent militia actions in Iraq and the Iraq situation in general. I especially enjoyed <a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/too_many_kagans_too_little_kno.html">"Too Many Kagans, Too Little Knowledge."</a> (Our foreign policy in a nutshell)</p>
<p>There is no more to "Read more." Someday I'll figure out how to turn that off for short posts...</p>
<p><b>Update:</b> I have slain the extraneous "Read more" link. Huzzah!</p>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29535945.post-32185175126726430262008-04-28T21:43:00.003-04:002008-04-28T21:45:28.781-04:00I'm Still Alive<p>I'll start posting again at the start of May.</p>
<p>I have a ton of topics prepared. Don't click on "Read More", there's nothing more to this post. See you in a few days.</p>
<span class="fullpost">
</span>Margalishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05113704757631863541noreply@blogger.com1