The downfall of the Murdoch empire is well underway, and the conventional wisdom seems to be that this will be limited to "the Murdoch Empire." And in a sense, perhaps it will be - but you really must think in terms of what that empire entails.
If you think only in terms of media, you would be quite wrong. If you were to think in terms of influence and corruption - well, you would be closer to the mark. If you were to think in terms of "what would have happened had Murdoch been against the Iraq war" - well, now, you are starting to get the shape of it. But you'd still be out of scale.
Media and money influence in two ways - by what they choose to "invest" in and what they choose to ignore. And both depend very heavily indeed upon credibility. RJ Eskow writes in an Truthout Op-Ed:
History books record an empire's fall as a series of dates and events. Battles are fought, people resist, elections are called, arrest warrants are issued. But those are just details. An empire really falls in that moment when people stop believing that it's invulnerable. Whenever the spell is broken, whether it's by anger or just by awareness, the end becomes inevitable. It doesn't matter what happens to Rupert or James Murdoch now. They may return to positions of relative wealth and privilege or their lives may take unpleasant turns. Either way, the Murdoch empire has already fallen.
But what will that mean in practical terms? There was something very telling to be found in a discussion of Murdoch's "hands on" approach to the news and his choice of politics and his choice of candidates to support.
Neil, the editor of Britain's Sunday Times for 11 years, told a House of Lords committee looking into media ownership in 2008 that he was never in any doubt what Murdoch wanted, even though he could not recall a direct instruction telling him to take a particular line.
"On every major issue of the time and every major political personality or business personality, I knew what he thought and you knew, as an editor, that you did not have a freehold, you had a leasehold ... and that leasehold depended on accommodating his views," he said.
"Rupert Murdoch is obsessed with what his newspapers say. He picks the editors that will take the kind of view of these things that he has and these editors know what is expected of them when the big issues come and they fall into line."
In the 1980s, the Sun's MacKenzie would hear from Murdoch on a daily basis -- not quite to discuss exact headlines, but to make sure the newspaper would report the major issues as the press baron saw fit.
Nor is it particularly surprising (or difficult) to find out that he Murdoch hive-mind approaches political clients the way he approaches employees.
In 1992, when Britain was unceremoniously ejected from the European Exchange Rate mechanism and forced to raise interest rates to double digits, then Prime Minister John Major called Kelvin MacKenzie, the editor of Murdoch's tabloid The Sun, to ask how he planned to play the story. Mackenzie famously told Major: "Well John, let me put it this way. I've got a large bucket of shit lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I'm going to pour it all over your head."
The Global Post goes on, a bit smugly:
Here is the important point: This is a story about journalism and its unique power — for good and evil Journalism is not like any other business — and it's product cannot be measured by normal business school taught analytics. The main product of journalism is not tittle-tattle and check-book obtained "scoops" about celebrities — as Rupert Murdoch has found to his cost. It is about digging out the facts about how societies are governed, about corruption, about eyewitness accounts of how the world works. Strong institutions — led by editors who are willing to give reporters the time and space — are necessary to fund that work.
And without their efforts and vigilance then parliaments and congresses and presidents can be cowed by all manner of powerful special interests, especially those whose idea of the journalism business is give the people what they want: tits and ass and a large dose of prejudice.
A keen observation that misses one of the great truths of history, even as they note in passing that Murdoch's tabloids are read by at least 40% of the UK population. While upmarket papers are included in his stable, I'm sure their private briefs are more about what will not be covered than what will be exploited. The way you deal with thinking people is to avoid giving them anything to think about that leads them to think about what you are up to.
His taste in politicians runs to those who are controllable and who's politics appeals to his tabloid demographic; Those who have no thoughts of their own, or have some weakness that can be used to keep them on a leash. Interestingly enough, the currently leading Republican contender (or so we are told...) is Michelle Bachmann. She reportedly suffers from such debilitating headaches that she's probably incapable of actually steering the ship of state. She would need to rely on some quiet, grey Eminence.
But she does appeal to the mob. And that, combined with built in leverage, is her appeal to Murdoch. And she's the only sort that has such appeal. So if you have wondered why those suppored by the media on the Right have turned out to be such a sorry, corrupt and shallow lot - well, consider the source of their support.
Nobody better has a chance with the yowling rabble - or the man who whips them into a froth.
The problem for Murdoch, Bachmann and the GOP is that the mob is ... a mob. And not only have they turned on Murdoch - they are likely to turn on anyone that reminds them of Murdoch.
Let me remind us all how this often works out.
The execution of Robespierre and his supporters on 28 July 1794
I just saw something like that today. It was over at the Daily Beast, and it has to do with the Odious Breitbart. Lloyd Grove writes:
For the media-savvy Breitbart, it’s an unalloyed triumph—even better than last year’s redacted videos of a fake pimp and prostitute seeking business advice from ACORN, which resulted in Congress voting to defund the community group. But lest anyone think he’s savoring his moment in the sun, he says think again.
“I hate this!” Breitbart told me Wednesday morning. “I feel bad for this lady.”
Well, as they say, sincerity is the key to success. Once you can fake that, the world's your oyster. Grove continues, apparently capable of processing such an enormity with a straight face.
“[Breitbart's source] told me about this back in early April—he said ‘I just heard a really sensitive speech, where this lady recounts this story and the entire audience affirms it,’ ” Breitbart said about the unidentified man who provided the video of Sherrod’s March 27 speech, adding that he can’t explain the highly selective editing. “I don’t know this person. I can’t divine what that person’s motivation was. I don’t know.”
In the full video—which Breitbart has since posted as well—Sherrod tells NAACP members about her experience decades ago as a case-worker for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund helping a financially strapped white farmer, and how she overcame her own prejudices to embrace the notion that whites and blacks share common interests and problems. “When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people and to black people only,” Sherrod tells the crowd. “But [with God’s grace] you realize that the struggle is really about poor people.”
I asked Breitbart if he regretted posting the redacted video: Wouldn’t the full context of Sherrod’s words be considered exculpatory? “’Exculpatory’ is in the eye of the beholder,” Breitbart answered. He stoutly defended his redacted video, claiming that the audience’s approving response to Sherrod’s confession—of initially not wanting to help the white farmer more than minimally necessary—demonstrates that the NAACP is guilty of the same racially charged attitudes for which the civil-rights organization recently slammed Tea Party activists.
Within hours of Breitbart’s post, Fox News stars such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were inaccurately presenting her remarks as though they reflected the current policy at the Department of Agriculture, and demanded her head on a pike. Weirdly, the NAACP, which had access to her full remarks, joined in calling for Sherrod’s resignation—and Vilsack followed suit.
Oh of COURSE it's a triumph! Yep. If that's what you need to tell yourself. And of course, by the way, the full version of the tape PROVES that "reverse racism" is a terrible, terrible problem, and that black people are out to get "whitey." Didn't people applaud when Shirley Sherrod revealed that she hadn't "gone the extra mile" for a white farm family? Well that proves she's a racist!
In the full video—which Breitbart has since posted as well—Sherrod tells NAACP members about her experience decades ago as a case-worker for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund helping a financially strapped white farmer, and how she overcame her own prejudices to embrace the notion that whites and blacks share common interests and problems. “When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people and to black people only,” Sherrod tells the crowd. “But [with God’s grace] you realize that the struggle is really about poor people.”
I asked Breitbart if he regretted posting the redacted video: Wouldn’t the full context of Sherrod’s words be considered exculpatory? “’Exculpatory’ is in the eye of the beholder,” Breitbart answered. He stoutly defended his redacted video, claiming that the audience’s approving response to Sherrod’s confession—of initially not wanting to help the white farmer more than minimally necessary—demonstrates that the NAACP is guilty of the same racially charged attitudes for which the civil-rights organization recently slammed Tea Party activists.
That's the message the people who like Breitbart want to hear. But, you know, they really don't need him to tell them. They can pull it right out of a Media Matters interview. The truth is irrelevant.
timeisnow (The Daily Beast Forums)
She is a racists, the tape was not edited, which would mean the tape was tampered with. When she refers that she gave the white guy to one of his own kind, that is sooooo offensive to a white person, who are you kidding.
The fact in Media Matters interview she was very Racist shows how racist she really is. She also admitted she didnt help him the best she could have, again thats racist... pay attention and stop making excuses, thats the double standard Breitbart is talking about.
Breitbart - and Beck, and Limbaugh and Boortz and quite a few others make quite a nice living serving up the stupid for those who want to be told what they want to hear. I'm starting to think that there ought to be some recourse, beyond economic pressure, for those who feel the public airwaves are being abused for private profit at the expense of the Social Contract. This clearly exceeded the bounds of protected speech; it was a deliberate and malicious ploy, performed with the clear intent to do grave, personal and unjust harm; disrupt the administration and deprive it of a surprisingly poised and competent civil servant.
Few of us would do so well under such circumstances. I'm sure that's what Brietbart presumed - that she'd do no better than any other person in such circumstances.
The political appointee turned out to be an ass - and admitted as much. He's embarrassed, as well he should be. And I can't even imagine what went through the minds of the people over at the NAACP. That utterly baffles me, as has been pointed out; they had the full tape. I presume they are humiliated.
"We were snookered," [into believing that Ms Sherrod made racist remarks] Benjamin Jealous, the NAACP president, noted ruefully.
Apparently nobody considered the source, and there were those involved who should know very well that Brietbart is in fact a committed political enemy - a propagandist, not a journalist.
But this is not about them; Mr. Grove, you treated Breitbart in the way one would treat a colleague.
...and that was the point, as it's lately felt that the piles of toxic flaming stupid are going to kill us all, and that at best, I might prolong the Darwinian angst.
I'm not sure whether to be relieved or annoyed at finding something I really HAD to blog about, something dear and relevant and essential to what I try to do, with a delicious sauce of irony ladled over top. It's no doubt telling that the only place anyone could be rewarded for publishing a succinct article about how to detect bullshit in the Mainstream Media is likely Cracked.com.
But here it is, 6 Subtle Ways The News Media Disguises Bullshit As Fact. I found it on digg. and the thing that tipped the balance from amused apathy to actual writing was that one of the "examples" cited chose to respond there. The article itself is an amusing retelling of Journalism 101. To the author, a mildly lucrative five finger exercise that brought them, if fortunate, the price of a case of better than average beer. Who - including the author- would think it's impact would be taken seriously by one of the offended parties?
But that's the magic of our new media, and the direct interaction between writer and reader. The real fun comes when the emperor insists that he is too wearing clothes!
The number one example given us by was one that is, one of the great cardinal sins of journalism: Guessing the motives instead of reporting the facts.
To illustrate, the author picked two particularly unsubtle examples.
How Can This Be Used For Evil?
Let's take a look at the same event, as reported in two different outlets:
The first headline presents what Obama actually did. It's factually true; Obama did in fact pledge to press ahead on goals. Then you have the second, which gives him a motive and adds a backstory: the Democrat party is "beleaguered" and his supposed pledge to press ahead on goals is just an attempt to boost a political party.
Now, some may say that the first one is just blindly repeating the politician's talking points, but the second is flat out mind reading. For a more ridiculous example, a newspaper in California sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to several tech companies to find out how many minorities they have working there. A few companies (including giants like Apple, Google and Yahoo!) refused the request. Headline?
Well, needless to say, this article was fairly popular on digg, no doubt due to "diggerals" who keep trying to impose their damned elitist "critical thinking," "science" and "evidence" on god-fearing real Americans.
There was a need to respond to such obvious misrepresentation of the craft of an honest reporter, thought the typist of the latter article, thinking he was being unfairly mocked.
This article contains big factual errors *in its #1 example*. Trying to slam my headline ""Steve Jobs Tries to Cover Up Apple's Racial Profile," the author erroneously states that Apple simply refused a Freedom of Information Act Request from a pesky newspaper, so there's no attempt to cover anything up.
In fact, Apple was never sent a FOIA request, nor did it every "deny" one. It's absurd to think it would since FOIA applies to the government not the private sector.
What *did* happen is that Apple fought for 18 months to prevent the release of taxpayer-owned data about its workforce on the grounds that a racial breakdown was a competitive trade secret. This claim was called "absurd" by FOIA expert and University of Pacific prof John Sims. Stanford Law's Richard Ford was among those calling on Apple to release the data for its value in studying broader race issues in America.
Given the extraordinary effort Apple went to to prevent the release of Labor Department aggregate data by quashing a FOIA request to which it was not a direct party, and given its absurd reasoning, I said it was trying to cover up its racial profile, which is quite literally what it was trying to do. It doesn't want its racial profile known and fought for
18 months to keep it that way.
If Cracked.com wants to hold my post up as the worst example of media manipulation it should at least do so on the basis of actual information about what actually happened and not laughably false assumptions. More on what ACTUALLY happened here , decide for yourself if Apple tried to "Cover Up" its racial profile.http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14382477 ...
Your article's title, "Steve Jobs Tries to Cover Up Apple's Racial Profile," not only implies that Jobs is a racist, but that HE WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for this "cover up," which you never actually point out in the article. You never once provided us with any actual evidence that Jobs was doing some sort of shady racist business.
Also, the article you linked said that Google, Yahoo, Oracle, and Applied Sciences did the same thing, yet rather than cover all of these companies, you focused on Steve Jobs. Why? So you could make a crack about how all the executives were white? You realize that there's more to "diversity" than skin color, right?
But I digress. The whole reason that your article was mentioned was not because of its content. It was because the title painted Jobs as a racist engaged in some sort of conspiracy when there was much more to it than that. The author's point still stands, you just missed it completely.
Perhaps this new media stuff is working out after all. Or perhaps irony isn't any deader than it ever was. I did, indeed laugh out loud.
This is a perfect illustration of the great unwritten commandment of journalism. "Never buy the slant of the rag you work for." Why?
Dude, are you a journalist, or an editorialist? A journalist is paid to be able to tell the difference between shit and shinola. An editorialist is one who's paid far, far better to to conceal the distinction, or better yet, imply that only commies, paedophiles and anti-Semites think there is any difference.
You see, the distinction is one of integrity. You may have to take a paycheck from someone like Hearst, Murdoch or Conrad Black in order to keep enough whiskey in your cupboard - but for the journalist, the whisky is the medication required to do the job, while for the editorialist, it's the reward at the end of the day for having done it.
Perhaps I'm strange. I'd claim to be an old-fashioned proponent of the high ideals of the journalistic and editorial trade, save that there have always been more Winchells than there have been Lipmanns, to the extent that claim to a noble tradition is a little horse-laugh-worthy.
"Infotainment" has been with us always, and has been part and parcel of many of the moral misadventures of the English-speaking peoples. In all probability, one could expand it to Russian, French, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Farsi and Finnish speaking peoples, but I speak none of those languages, or do I need to step out of my narrow linguistic comfort zone to find more than enough examples. Reading of Hearst and the Spanish-American War was my personal baptism into skepticism regarding my professional calling.
Glenn Grenwald, as always, is worth reading. Here he's speaking of the current media frenzy regarding the Fort Hood shootings, an incident he observes, is likely to pass into the stores of "common knowledge" regarding "what really happened" long before any factual information about the crime, the people involved, their motivations and their mental health becomes known well enough to say anything rational.
Here's what Glenn concludes.
The problem, though, is that huge numbers of people aren't ignoring it. They're paying close attention -- and they're paying the closest attention, and forming their long-term views, in the initial stages of the reporting. Many people will lose their interest once the drama dissolves -- i.e., once the actual facts emerge. Put another way, a large segment of conventional wisdom solidifies based on misleading and patently false claims coming from major media outlets. I don't know exactly how to define what the balance should be, but particularly for politically explosive stories like this one, it seems clear that media outlets ought to exercise far more restraint and fact-checking rigor than they do. As it is, it's an orgy of rumor-mongering, speculation and falsehoods that play a very significant role in shaping public perceptions and enabling all sorts of ill-intentioned exploitation.
I've rather lost patience with people who need this sort of thing spelled out for them. Granted, there's a lot of money to be made by pandering to the fears and presumptions of moral and mental superiority of those who are neither, in exactly the same way that there is a good deal of money to be made peddling lap-dances and back-alley blow-jobs.
In neither case is the transaction edifying to either participant, nor is there any significance to the act beyond the obvious. Someone is getting their rocks off, and someone is getting paid for facilitating it in a way that fits with the NSFW cartoon projected in the place where the frontal lobes normally reside.
Some are pandering to the fear of the Other, some are pandering to the fear of Teh Evil Gun, some are pandering to reflexive pacifism, others take the same lack of fact in evidence to call for even more "clearly necessary war."
Let us remember that much of this speculation had occurred prior to us knowing any of the Who, Where, When, Why or How, and even at the moment of writing, the entire body of public knowledge can be contained in two terse paragraphs, with room to spare.
So, set aside the Muslim thing. Refrain from hammering the PTSD thing. I resist the temptation to observe that psychiatry and sanity do not seem to go hand in hand. It is both cheap and has a high probablity of being irrelevant to the story.
But you will never see a telepundit admit that they have no basis for speculation. Fine, well, so long as we keep watching such nonsense, they will keep spewing it. For myself, I find that I'm far better informed by using the time I once spent watching cable news on Voyager and CSI re-runs. When Walter Cronkite had but an hour for the national news, he didn't waste it on things he could not nail down. Although, when I see all the interesting stories there are on various websites, it truly baffles me how anyone could spend an entire day upon one story, in advance of any facts at all, when there are always stories to tell with facts that can be found.
Do you realize, I managed to almost entirely avoid Balloon Boy? And I only looked at a point when I knew there would be some facts in evidence. The facts - as you may well remember - proved beyond a doubt that the entire event was intended to waste your time and attention.
Well, FOX, CNN, and MSNBC weren't doing anything important anyway.
You might take that into consideration next time you look at your cable bill.
Raw Story » Ventura: I’ll waterboard Hannity into saying Obama best president ever: "The former Navy SEAL said he’d relish an opportunity to waterboard Hannity, a procedure he endured himself during military training: “I’ll bet him a thousand bucks that I can get him to say ‘Barack Obama is the greatest president’ — if I get him to say it, he’ll give the thousand to charity and if I can’t, I’ll give the money to charity.”"
Actually, that's my problem. When crap like this goes on, and it has to be pointed out and explained and argued about as to whether water boarding is really torture or, Ghu forbid, the even worse, "yeah, so it's torture, but 9/11!"
It makes me wonder aloud what the point is. Those that get it, get it. Those that do not - perhaps it might make more sense to them AFTER the karma train comes rolling through their state of mind.
But then, I realize that it has, several times, and no luck so far.
And then I learn, that as a member of the "media" - peripherally and grudgingly - I'm the problem!
A new report for a leading neoconservative group that pushes a belligerent "Israel first" agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the U.S. should make censorship of media official policy and advocates "military attacks on the partisan media" (via MuzzleWatch). The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired U.S. Army Col. Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA's "flagship publication," The Journal of International Security Affairs. "Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight," Peters writes, calling the media "the killers without guns."
"Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza. ...
"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts, and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow's conventional wisdom.
"The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity's interests, while our failures nourish monsters."
Indeed they do. Monsters just such as this. And the only "humanity" they tolerate is their own kind - and so long as they follow the age-old trade of death, horror, madness, revenge and retribution. Do you wonder what sort of person would consider such "victories" to be in "humanity's interest?"
Whatever you may think of the Daily Kos; as a group they are unrivaled at picking out particularly idiotic statements by Republicans. Of course, the ammunition is provided with political intent - but all the sharp edges were lovingly crafted by the intended targets. If there is one great observation political critique to evolve over the last several years, it is this: "It shouldn't be this easy."
The fact that the following accusation of treason against Colin Powell is compounded by getting a "me too" from a fox news host is a matter that should be of bipartisan concern - and yet it can be presumed it is not, will not be and that pointing it out will be attributed to "political score-settling" or "lib'rul propaganda." I'm no liberal - but I become less and less interested in pointing out the apparently too-subtle distinctions between my own views and those of classical or modern Liberals. I'm unable to find words both small and rude enough to communicate.
And that, dear readers, is a significant problem. That is not merely a "political" issue. For treason is a rather consequential word to be attaching to a disaffected political ally.
If this accusation ever comes to Gen. Powell's attention - and I cannot imagine why anyone would think it significant enough to mention to him, nor would I expect him to consider Fox to be a source of reliable intelligence - I can only imagine that the very apt Patrick Henry quotation I chose to entitle this article might cross his mind.
If Colin Powell is a "Bad Republican," one wonders what a "Good Republican" looks like. Even more troubling, the speaker equates disloyalty to the Republican Party with disloyalty to the state. That is the sort of assumption that should have you checking your personal weapons to make sure they will function properly at sudden need.
But it does lead us to consider what "Loyal Republicans" look like.
Well, there's no lack of examples; Take Sen Dave Vitter (R, LA). Here's how he explains his tactic of holding up Obama's choice for FEMA chief just before hurricane season.
"Almost four years after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, communities like Cameron Parish and Grand Isle are still waiting on an answer from FEMA so that fire stations and other key facilities can be rebuilt," Vitter said. "And FEMA is complaining about a short delay of this nomination vote? It seems like they have their priorities mixed up. I'm eager to end all of this delay; I hope FEMA is."
Gee, Dave, that means that, during those four years as a valued member of the majority party, you were unable to fulfill your most significant duty as a Senator - to get federal dollars for critical infrastructure? You could not shake loose any money for these critical infrastructure matters? Couldn't form some sort of activist coalition? Do a little lobbying of various agencies and federal entities? Schmooze committee heads?
Considering your failure to do your job when you belonged to a party that made every decision in favor of Republicans and controlled every aspect of the decision making structure - perhaps it's not so unreasonable that the White House dismisses this as a purely political stunt. There's good reason to doubt you have any genuine interest in dealing with the needs of those who supposedly elected you. (Assuming, of course, they actually did.)
There is a place in politics for stunts, and it's reasonable to consider the timing, the skill and the objective. I think you need to go ask Ron Paul for a few tips. Because, you see, you don't hold up the President on a time critical appointment when your stated reason for doing amounts to "because I'm incompetent."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was notably blunt:
When asked about Vitter's reasoning, Gibbs said "the best way to get moving on any concerns that he has with FEMA is to get somebody of the utmost regard at the helm of FEMA to make progress."
"And I think his constituents would expect that same level of professionalism," Gibbs said.
One would think - but after eight years of prompt, high quality (R) service, they are probably relieved that the federal government has not designated New Orleans as a nuclear waste repository. You see, this is the sort of public servant you get when blind loyalty to Party is the only required qualification. And while the equations may have differing variables across the aisle - results do not seem to indicate that they add up to significantly higher values. There are a lot of places where people have simply given up on trying to get rid of obviously corrupt and conspicuously incompetent leaders. It's clear that the process itself is so badly compromised that going through the motions of participatory democracy seems - and in many cases likely is - a complete waste of effort. Speaking of incompetence - Colin Powell spent much of his tenure with the Bush Administration trying to fix a fuckup in progress, the completely incoherent and ultimately more than useless detainment program that led the US to national disgrace with the scandals at Gitmo, Abu Ghrab and elsewhere. This article establishes that Dick Cheney was one of, if not the major force behind the completely indiscriminate roundup of apparently randomly-selected victims, a process he apparently still defends as vital to national security.
Fox news - as everyone is well aware, due to the mindless cheerleading of techniques of torture by such leading Republican intellectual leaders as Sean Hannity, apparently concurs that torturing the wrong people is as likely to produce good, actionable intelligence as torturing the right people. That is, of course, a common-sense conclusion - if you understand that torture does not produce high quality intelligence. So, we must presume that the "good results" would be something more along the line of terrifying the crap out of certain target elements - the Iraqi people and, of course, "libruls."
Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence B. Wilkerson has a blistering assessment of the entire program that Powell's team ultimately failed to put an end to, and is unheasitatingly assigning direct responsiblity for that failure to Dick Cheney. (Though no doubt he would consider it as a "credit.")
After a relentless establishment of the reasons for making his statements - foundations that everyone concerned about national security from any perspective, political or practical should read - he bluntly concludes:
Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that "Protecting the country's security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek." I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he.
Fox news would presumably have the ability - as a news gathering organization - to contact people with appropriate, relevant and useful insights into matters of this import. Certainly, you would think that if a man of the stature of Colin Powell had qualms about Cheney's torture program, they would have sources that could have let them know about it.
We can then presume that they are either devoid of contacts that could have told them as matters developed - but that would then establish that they have no useful sources. Of course, by now, a simple Google search could have given them multiple sources to inform their analysis. At this point, we must therefor presume they have the intent of deliberately misinforming their audience, that, or presume they are absolute idiots. One could easily presume that both are true; it takes quite a bit more charity to say that neither is.
But Hannity proves by example that he's not firmly enough convinced that waterboarding is not torture to put his personal pink butt on the line to underline the network's editorial position.
Perhaps we should put the challenge to Rupert Murdoch himself?
I suspect for men of stature such as Colin Powell, being called a traitor to such a cause served and advanced by such people is an honor to be cherished.
As for those who continue to excuse and defend and demand the GOP move even further towards absolute sociopathic authoritarian mindlessness; "Fox Populi, Fox Idiotum."
I suppose Sun Tsu would council me to silence on this matter, but I'm willing to risk it. At this point, those who continue to have faith in this mindlessly evil sociopolitical philosophy are probably incapable of understanding the point I'm making here.
So in plain English, here it is. People this viciously stupid and this prone to violence will have to be dealt with. Nor am I saying that as a rallying cry - I'm stating it as a reality they will absolutely bring about by their own efforts.
You - whoever you are - should be considering how you, your family and the people and institutions you are responsible for might be affected should some fanatically idiotic person act in the manner that Fox news and agitators and propagandists are clearly urging them toward.
The only prudant assumption is that there are people - who are no doubt directly or indirectly connected to whatever circle of hell picks up the phone when Cheney calls - in position to use such a situation as a pretext to take some action you might well consider objectionable.
It's time to abandon the fond assumption that "such things could never happen here." They surely can - just as surely as there were those saying "such things could never happen here" when Caeser marched on Rome.
Nor do I expect that things will unfold much differently in the United States then they did after Caeser crossed the Rubicon.
But there is one lesson of history - repeated far too often, in my opinion - and it is this. It is profoundly unwise to question the loyalty of those who have defended the honor and security of a nation in such a way as to establish that those holding sway over it have no honor and are undeserving of personal security.
Oh, that's a fine way of puttin' it, Pegeen! Via HuffPo
On ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," George Will echoed several Bush officials when he criticized the release of the memos, saying "The problem with transparency is that it's transparent for the terrorists as well." Will expressed concern about the cost of letting "the bad guys" know what techniques, such as waterboarding, will be used on them. He went on to add, as noted by HuffPost's Jason Linkins, that "intelligent people of good will" believe the President of the United States can do whatever he wants to "defend the country."
Peggy Noonan went even further, articulating a position that upends George Santayana's famous quote: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"Some things in life need to be mysterious," said Noonan, adding, "Sometimes you need to just keep walking."
She also added:
"It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, oh, much good will come of that."
Oh, dear Peggy and fellow-traveling moral failures; it's not the documents that are the problem - it's the torture. Or did you think that there was some doubt as to what was going on? The knowledge, as the White House put out, was out there. Techniques and all.
As I stated a few days ago, the practice of torture makes little sense in terms of intelligence or security, but as a means of social control and as a recreational activity, it makes perfect sense.
[I]t seems to me the whole torture/don't torture debate is fundamentally misinformed.
Torture is an instrument of terror.
Permit me to repeat. Torture is an instrument of terror. Conducted by officers of the state, its state terror.
It's purpose is to terrorize the torturee, the torturer, the community from which the tortured is drawn, and, most importantly, the community from which the torturer is drawn.
Torture is not intended to extract information. Its intended to extract confession. Its intended to exact submission. Its intended to cow, to intimidate, to humiliate. Its intended to ensnare us all in the crimes of the regime. Its intended to plant a feeling of helplessness in the occupied population. Its intended to divide the occupied population into informants and informers. Its intended to demonstrate the complete power of the regime to dispose of people in any way they wish. Its intended to terrorize the population the regime fears most; us.
Do not be confused. All this blather about how torture is needed to compel captured al-Qaeda to spill the beans on their super-secret plans for murder and mayhem is absolute horseshit.
We know that few of the captives held at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and the CIA black sites are, in fact, al-Qaeda. Most of them are people swept up in pacification sweeps for being out after curfew, or whose papers were not in order, or who were denounced by informants, probably as payback for some quarrel. They could not be compelled to give information about al-Qaeda plans because they had no information. They could be compelled to confess. They could be compelled to infect their communities with terror.
And if you think the community the regime wished to terrorize was the Iraqi nation or the Afghan nation, think again.
Indeed. You should think again, and you should re-think any unexamined assumptions or principles you may have that would lead you to accept the rationalizations of torture. You see, while the above is correct - it is state terrorism - that is also beside the point. The important thing here is who controls the state, by what means they gained control, and to what end do they think that effort will profit them. What tactics and ideals do you see most commonly exemplified from the grassroots upward?
To be blunt, it's authoritarianism, the celebration of the domination and degradation of the weaker by the stronger, the basest and most destructive human motives re-cast into a sociopolitical philosophy that is sometimes called NeoConservatism . But the words and the rhetoric do not matter, for they are made a mock by the evident truth:
The means, the ends and the fallout have been equally well documented in history and literature. The sum of it is "no good can come of this."
It is not in your interest or in mine, not in the interest of your children or your neighbors, to accept this all-too present future.
And yet, every single decade, another crop of Great Leaders comes to the fore to try and disprove the premise, at least for a time. Since no sensible, sane person working from either an ethical OR a purely utilitarian perspective would advise anyone to build a nation or a legacy in this way, it's clear that the flawed and fatal process has an overwhelming appeal in spite of the obvious. It must be some very primal force. You would think someone would just say it.
But it seems that none dare call it sadism.
Nonetheless, it is. Both directly and vicariously. When you water-board someone over one hundred times, and they are able to give you no more information than they had given before being water-boarded for the first time, it's for the sheer, sadistic fun of it.
And as you can see, sadism is fun, as documented on AntiWar.com in 2006.
Oh, one may rationalize torture and abuse in many ways. One may, for instance, excuse it as a means by which one may actually break and reform the person, to make a brainwashed slave. Citations of "Stockholm Syndrome" are bandied around.
But it's all bullshit. Brainwashing, meta-programming and mind control were - and the CIA is very expert on this - blind alleyways leading to nightmarish blowback. The CIA knows better.
Torture is not a good way to gain intelligence, nor is it a terribly effective tool for "turning" an agent. Even if it were, when a person is known to be held and subsequently released they are likely to be suspected as an agent. Trust me, there is a great deal known about torture-enhanced brainwashing, interrogation and mind control. It's simply not an effective way of creating a reliable follower with the capability of acting independently and without direct supervision. The Manchurian Candidate was either a cautionary tale or a wet dream - depending on your point of view - but it did not prove out in practice, though there are many hints, much hearsay and even declassified documents to suggest that a large number of people who should have known better tried very hard to make it a reality. No doubt they still are.
None of this is secret. Nor are any of the techniques used for torture. "Water boarding" itself has been used in various forms for two or three thousand years. One form - The Swirly - is a favorite with grade-school bullies. The strong and sociopathic have always found it amusing to degrade and half-drown the weaker and better. And you can find no more pure manifestation of this mindset - and the society in which those who wish to become powerful and "socially significant" must learn to thrive - than Jr. High. And so long as bullying is allowed to thrive in our schools, so long as "boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls" is permitted to be an explanation for recreational sadism on playgrounds and schools, the very worst of us will always triumph over the very best, for they look out for their own, while carefully tending the breeding grounds of future victims.
The worst fear of the American Right is that Obama will implement some form of "re-education" programs that teach values contrary to their own bible-thumping, baby-beating, authoritarian and eliminationist "family values."
I think that their worst fear should be implemented - and without waiting for Obama.
The first step is for people with an ethical view of civilization to retake the arts, crafts and structures of education - and they must keep it. Nor must any institution that teaches children that "winners" are actually BETTER than "lusers" be permitted to continue.
I'm by no means saying that competition is bad. But children must be taught that success and failure are both good things in their way, and that all people are valuable, as much because of their differences as due to their similarities.
I have come to believe that we need a radical transformation in our imagination as to what civilization can be and - far more importantly - for whom it exists. Currently, all of society and culture exists to serve the ambitions, lusts and needs of those at the very top of the pyramid; with everyone else being assigned a "value" in accordance to their utility toward meeting those needs. Not only are individuals neglected and discarded; entire races, nations and continents have been arbetrarily designated as strip mines and toxic waste dumps, simply because none of "the people who matter" come from those places.
I say that it should be obvious that pandering to the interests of less than 5% of the human race at the direct expense of the rest of us is a mug's game. Collectively, creatively, non-violently, but gently and relentlessly, we must resist - and communicate the need for that resistance as widely as possible.
So long as there are large numbers of human beings living in poverty, in daily fear, concerned about the most basic necessities of life, we will all suffer oppression in the name of keeping those desperately poor people from resorting to acts of desperation. It should be clear by now that the oppression itself makes resistance and defiance inevitable, and you would think that after several thousand years of history, we would have grasped the essential lesson - that the oppression generates it's own justifications.
We now have the technology, the resources and the tools to ensure that every single human being on the planet has secure access to the basic necessities of life. We can ensure it, we can afford it and that one simple thing will inevitably unleash a mind boggling amount of creativity which will of course translate into greater prosperity.
Ultimately, those who have the talent to foster and manage wealth will become far more wealthy then even now, though it may not be measured so much in terms of their ability to crush or advance the fortunes of others, there will certainly be enough rewards out there for all - so long as we can at least statistically resist the darker urge to proper at the expense of others, rather than the far more effective strategy to prosper by enlarging the fortunes of all.
The need to do this is urgent. We simply cannot afford to have such a high proportion of the human race wasted on survival-level concerns.
For whatever reasons, the climate of the planet is shifting and no area will be able to isolate itself from the impact. Huge population shifts will occur; the areas best suited for food production are going to shift, global trade routes are changing - and it's all too easy to see nations, peoples and corporations positioning themselves to exploit the "unavoidable" misery about to occur.
The idea that such misery is, in fact "unavoidable" is absolute bullshit. As a species and as a global civilization - for that is a matter of practical reality - we have a simple and stark choice.
We can choose to devolve into small clusters of squabbling apes competing for diminishing resources - or we can choose to survive as a species, with the pragmatic determination that we are not wise enough to know what traits and talents will be needed for as yet unforseen challenges.
I know where my advantage lies. It differs from the advantage of those who are yammering at you that we cannot afford to not torture, to not invest in regieme change, who tell you that we cannot afford to trust individuals with their own life choices. The rhetoric and threats vary from the left to the right of the political spectrum, but it all boils down to a subliminal panic amoung the elietes that they are losing their grip upon the the information flow and the decision making process of people in general.
Glenn Greenwald, among others, has been relentless in documenting examples of this, but it's difficult to think of an example less subtle than this.
Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.
By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs. The Pentagon's secret collaboration with these "independent analysts" shaped multiple news stories from each of these outlets on a variety of critical topics. Most amazingly, many of them continue to employ as so-called "independent analysts" the very retired generals at the heart of Barstow's story, yet still refuse to inform their viewers about any part of this story.
I no longer consider any of the networks to be a primary source - and I hold reservations about the rest of the MSM. Nor are my reservations particularly new. Their coverage has always been suspect, but without access to the raw data and the ability for individuals to gain accesss to a global marketplace of ideas in which even linguistic barriers are falling, we need not rely upon them. Increasingly, we do not.
But the stories we are not told, the information that is not cited, the stories that become commonly known without ever seeing a mention on major American networks, that very silence speaks far louder than words.
And so, it comes right back around to education - for learning is a life-long enterprise. We can no longer allow ourselves to be led by those who's most important life experience was learning how to stuff the nerd in the locker - and get away with it.
Really, everything you need to know in life, you should have learned in kindergarten. Is it not time that those who learned how to "beat the system," to take advantage of the "naive" and "idealistic" and "sentimental," to be kept far from the levers of power.
This has been getting a bunch of attention: New Progressive America Twenty Years of Demographic, Geographic, and Attitudinal Changes Across the Country Herald a New Progressive Majority
"Obama’s 53 percent of the popular vote is the largest share of the popular vote received by any presidential candidate in 20 years. The last candidate to register that level of support was conservative George H.W. Bush, who won by an identical 53 percent-to-46 percent margin. So, separated by 20 years, we have two elections that are practically mirror images of one another, but with conservatives on the winning end of the first and progressives on the winning end of the second.
What happened? How did conservatives do so well in one election but progressives so well in the other? The answer: In those intervening 20 years, a new progressive America has emerged with a new demography, a new geography, and a new agenda."
Thursday, November 23, 2006 The Populist Libertarian
But the return to Populism this is not seemingly the result of an ongoing political debate among the members of the electorate; this is much more a dawning realization that there has been theft and chicanery at the highest levels. It is a wholesale disgust with corruption over a span of years that leaves neither party - or indeed any person associated with Washington in general - wholly free of taint. Add to this the outrage of the heartlands, who thought that in sending a wave of republican freshmen into congress in `94, they would be changing things for the better.
Instead, they were presented with the results of corruption and indifference to the needs and fates of ordinary folks that passes all understanding.
So a return to populist politics is both inevitable and refreshing - even though it is a fickle wind from a dangerous quarter. That is why I join with my liberal and progressive friends and allies in pointing out that whatever size and shape government is, an ethical and Constitutional government in these Americas (and yes, I mean all of them) is concerned with the well-being and prosperity of The People - as a whole.
I'm not doing this to point out my prescience, or my potential value on the pundit circuit. This isn't to flog my brand; rather, it's to point out that my gut check on the New American Progress article is that they are almost correct. They are seeing this as political phenomenon. I see it, rather, as a function of the medium.
I'm not one to dig into things in depth. I shamelessly rely upon others for that. My niche relies having a familiarity with a wide variety of many things, rather than a deep understanding of a few, because that allows me to realize that certain interpretations - such as the one put forward in "New Progressive America" - suffer from the inadvertent framing of the author. I've read it, it's written as honestly as any position piece of it's sort could ever be expected to be - but it presumes that this shift in viewpoint is a shift toward more progressive values. I did a blog search and found this to be the general consensus, but I already knew of one other outlier, The Dark Wraith, who's reaction to the political quiz put out earlier by Center For American Progress is a wonderful example of High Snort.
How progressive are you? Take the quiz and find out not only how progressive you are, but also how annoyed you get when complex matters of your relationship to society, your sentiments about politics, and your philosophical underpinnings get packaged into a 40-question instrument that reduces you to a series of knee-jerk Right-Left talking points, buzz words, and over-simplifications.
Who knows? By the end you might be so annoyed that, whether or not you get labeled a progressive, you can tell for yourself that you are old, impatient, and downright curmudgeonly.
Just like me.
I should note that I took the quiz and scored as "Highly Progressive," with over 300 points. That doesn't mean I am a "progressive," it means that the term is almost meaningless, if constructed innocently. Personally, I think it's intended to create the impression that there is a direct correspondance between not being an idiot and being a political progressive.
Why not be content with "a high degree of correspondence?"
There are many policy positions that I take a hard line for reasons that diverge significantly from the common herd, and therefore, my position on those issues is not at all predictive of my views in general.
Take the death penalty. I oppose it, utterly, in practice. In theory, IF it could be applied impartially and only in cases where guilt was not merely "beyond a reasonable doubt," but certain to an absolute standard, I'd have no objection. However, that is not the case, and mistakes are far too common, nor do I see any persuasive evidence to suggest that the death penalty causes a deterrant effect. So, since it's both expensive and often corruptible of our political process - I oppose it. 25 to life without possiblity of parole achieves the same thing, at lower expense. Or as I often say, when asked why I oppose it - "I'm not that merciful."
My readings suggest that we should not be thinking of this in terms of traditional politics. I think that sort of framing is as dead as the MSM it has always depended on. I see this as a reaction against biased and inaccurate media, against information managers who's agenda is to tell us what we should think, and have gotten so lazy that they have long ceased to bother to make a respectable case as to why we should vote for any particular party.
The report actually contains the data that points me to that interpetation:
"The Millennial Generation—those born between1978 and 2000—gave Obama a stunning 66 percent-to-32 percent margin in 2008. This generation is adding 4.5 million adults to the voting pool every year. Or consider professionals, who are now the most progressive occupational group and increase that support with every election. Fast-growth segments among women like singles and the college-educated favor progressives over conservatives by large margins. And even as progressives improve their performance among the traditional faithful, the growth of religious diversity—especially rapid increases among the unaffiliated—favors progressives. By the election of 2016, it is likely that the United States will no longer be a majority white Christian nation."
True enough; the question is why. And with two generations now having grown up with rich "pull" media that empowers them to seek out the information and entertainment they enjoy and find useful, rather than the passive acceptance more typical of earlier generations, we may be seeing something that is perhaps not all that obvious to traditional politicians and other marketers.
Did Obama win because he was more popular - or did he become popular because his understanding of reality and the situations we face had a greater correspondence to wired voters than others. I would bet that the latter is a large factor - and it doesn't seem to be a factor that the "movement leaders" seem to be considering, even now.
