Speaking of Canada on Canada Day

I went to check on Canada today, to see if we were doing anything at all interesting. But on the very eve of Canada day, during the Queen's Visit, and immediately subsequent to the 100th' birthday of the Canadian Navy.¹ this is the top story.

Yes, there is the odd murder. Yes, we are still spilling blood in Afghanistan, our own and those of Afghanis. And yes, being Canadian, part of our contribution is a rather large contingent of medical professionals. Once someone HAS been shot and is unable to shoot back - if they were ever so inclined in the first place - we think that it is utterly unremarkable for us to be concerned about their well-being. This is quite aside from the fact that we are entirely sure that our soldiers are, man for man, twice as good as any Ahmurican, three times as good as any Frenchman, and five times as good as any person from Ireland, Wales or Scotland who is cognezant of his history and yet willing to take the Queen's schilling.

Oh, we will serve along side them, and gladly. It gives us an opportunity to prove which of the various Commonweath members can be smuggest under fire.

We are Canada. We are a people who are as ethical as we can afford to be. No more than that, Lord save us, but by the Lord Harry, not one whit less than that! We are a complacent, polite and rather dull people, who value being able to turn on the news and find out that certain things are as they should be, and whatever follies might have been committed, can be reasonably and properly blamed on having taken bad advice from Americans. 

Sadly, like all partners in power-imbalanced relationships, we do that rather a lot. But being Canadian, we do regret it in the morning, and promise to never, ever do it again.


One of my favourite things about Canada is that we actually do something about our regrets. Although, I do suspect that at least half of the reason that our Royal Commissions actually do come to conclusions and our politicians actually do make sincere public statements of regret that are backed up with money and actual change is that it proves to the world that we are Canadian.

Which is to say, NOT Ahumurikan.

Being Not American, by the way, is pretty much the whole Canadian thing. We are the continental Plan B. The Unelected Senate of the Northern Hemisphere. The living proof that if you take your time and do things right, you need not do to do it twice.

This does means that it takes us rather longer to do certain things.  I clearly remember a time, just prior to Trudeau, in which we were a nation that was a client state to both the UK and the US, and damn proud of it. A nation in which poverty and disease and grinding toil were taken for granted. A time when many areas of British Columbia,one of the richest provinces in Canada today, resembled a third world nation and the worst areas resembled rural Tennessee. When you crossed the border, a superhighway changed into a two lane road.

Yes, Surrey, British Columbia, I am speaking of you, ye of the white fringed boots and the spray-on jeans with optional thong. This is a cliché because this is what you were, once, and not one person inside or out of Surrey thought twice of it. Now, it's an ironic fashion statement, and you heark back to it, you who are born in bred in the the realm of seven digit street addresses, not because you are actually sluts, but because being *thought* of as being sluts is as much a part of the heritage and culture of Surrey as Newfie jokes are part and parcel of being from Newfoundland.

In Canada, our history is what it is, and we did what we did in order to make do. We are neither proud nor embarrassed, but in the words of the famous Canadian marching song:

"We're here because we're here/

were here becaue were're here/

We don't give a damn that we're here!

We are here because we're here!.

This changed. Not suddenly. Not as a result of some radical upheaval by the terms of any other nation than our own. We didn't have a civil war. Nope. We had an election. The socialists came to power, changed a few things and then once they had had a chance to implement their rather good, overdue, and entirely unwelcome ideas, the Conservatives returned. But our conservatives did not repeal the changes. They respected the will of the people and therefore, were required to make sense of it all, put it all on a proper footing, and make it Canadian - that is to say, an idea that would be have been a completely Tory idea, had they only been capable of thinking of it in the first place.

It is not at ALL an accident that the US tried to get Canada to repeal it's entire social safety net as being an "unfair business subsidy." Of course it is. Bless you, dears, what part of "trade" implied "fair" to you? Isn't "fair trade" one of those sloppy-minded "libtard" ideas? No, we are Canadians. Fiscally conservative. That means that we we do indeed focus on the bottom line. That is to say, our Gross Domestic Product and our balance of trade. So whatever we can do to tip that bottom line in our favor... and more to the point, whatever you can be encouraged to do to tip YOUR balance of trade in our favor.. well thank you very much. And come again.

Canadian Conservatives, trained in the most exclusive and unforgiving prep schools, equally blessed with regular canings and training in the critical thinking that no doubt makes them question the necessity of it even as they add it to their repetoire of private sexual deviations are qualified to  use spreadsheets, run the numbers and accept the results as being true, regardless of the answers their ideology says the answers should be.

If welfare and unemployment turn out to stimulate the economy, well, they do. A proper Conservative does not give an amputated rat's ass if that means that the money goes to an "unworthy person" as the first stop. Let us say that the "unworthy person spends all their money on drugs."

Being a Conservative, they know quite well that first, the drug operation was bankrolled by someone who votes Conservative, they know that regardless of who "deserves" the money, some of it was spent on toilet paper, which is made from Canadian trees owned by quite reliable Tories, unreliable people of COURSE buy McCain brand lunch meat, Hunky Bill's pyrogies and Top Ramen... and so it goes.

The less "reliable" and "worthy" the person it is, the less likely that money will be saved and the more likely it will immediate will pass into entrepreneurial, Conservative hands. For proper economic stimulus, it's not so much about the sheer amount of money, as the velocity - how many hands it passes though in what period of time on it's way back to the proper hands.

Like I say, we run the numbers and follow the money. And the numbers reflect reality as it is, not as some sorts would prefer it to be.

^1.Via Skye News, who, due to their editorial slant, include two paragraphs of anti-monarchism, and being British, must relegate them to the last two paragraphs.) (See also here what a very precarious thing it was, in true Canadian form.

Sales are up in Europe and the Middle East...

From the fine folks at Stupid.com... :)

On Blowback and the Judgement of History.

Blowback: The unintended consequences of intervention in the affairs of others.

This is blowback. Given this modern era, it comes faster and harder than at any previous time.



I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the statements made in the above video. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that these tensions exist and are inevitably created when you send young men and women to war. Those who come back are affected and changed.This will change your culture and indeed, the world as a whole these days - in ways that are unpredictable, but directly related to the material and obvious justice of the cause.

So here is the question - for those of you who are deeply and passionately in favour of the various wars out there - do you think the risk to your way of life is worth it? Because he's certainly going to be spending the rest of his days very eloquent and persuasively undermining everything you will surely tell me these wars were meant to protect.

Of course, one might reasonably more concerned about the risk of vets returning with the ability and inclination to do violence. Most often that is the worry expressed - but that won't actually affect change in anything close to the way this young man will change things.

The thing about warfare is that win, lose or draw, nobody involved is ever the same. Those who survive are transformed, usually not for the best, and certainly not toward the path they would have taken. And it is rare and remarkable when this turn is actually better for thee or me in the long run. That is, of course, what makes their story remarkable, and why they are touted as the hero of the age.

But for every one like that, there are a hundred who will spend the rest of their shortened lives unable to sleep through the night, who turn to drugs, who endure homelessness, who leave society behind them and take to the rails and roads in search of meaning or in rejection of what they once thought to have been meaningful.

And they too will tell their stories, not on stages or in press conferences, but to fellow bikers and hobos, on the loading docks and the factories, for decades. It will become part of the common wisdom, the experience of the world. But here's the kicker. They might be poor, they might be homeless, they might be utterly off their nut. But unlike any other time in history - any one of them can make it on to YouTube, and speak to millions about what happened.

So there will be no need for a Bonus Army, and you won't be able to direct Pershing to clear them away. Oh, and they took their phones and their video cameras to war and they brought the footage home. Whether to brag of their exploits or to document the horrors, or just to record the daily grind - it will come out; not via approved channels and not in the fullness of historical time, but in ways that will affect the fates of those who made the judgements.

George Bush famously suggested that only history could judge him. Indeed, this is true. But Bush failed to realize that there is more history happening faster than at any time in history. He made the choice to set a great deal of history in motion. But for George and those who thought it a good idea at the time - they may not be able to outrun the delay between the occasion and the judgement.

Maddow Mocks Republican Bohner

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I found this clip in the strangest place (once) imaginable, Little Green Footballs.

I remember the days when LGF and Free Republic seemed to have a considerable... philosophical congruence. But things do change. Or sanity at last prevails.

Nonetheless there's a difference between swearing off strong drink and deciding to become a Baptist. This feels rather like someone's "come to Jesus" moment. Or at least, testify to the fact that they actually watched Maddow's show. 

On the other hand, if there's one thing that is gonna be instantly popular at LGF...

A Glorious Nutsacking.

It's good to know that some things never change!

Rape, Incest "All Part of God's Plan," Angle Says

Sharon Angle, the Cristo-Republican Senate candadate in Nevada, said this. Out loud.



Um... Sharon, dear. You just said out loud that child rape and incest are all parts of your god's plan.


Via the Huffington Post:

In an segment that has gone unnoticed since it first aired, the Tea Party-backed candidate told the Bill Manders show -- a favorable platform for Republican candidates -- that she opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. A pregnancy under those circumstances, she said, was "God's plan."

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.
 

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.


I'm not sure what god that would be, but in Christian tradition, degredation, the torment and exploition of the innocent, the screams and terrors of children, and being impregnated by some personification of loathomeness is the domain of the Red Guy with Horns.

You call yourself a "christian," but untold millions of Christians would disagree.

But let's set "God's Plan" aside for a moment, because clearly that god's morals aren't helping you do anything remotely ethical.

My plan is to help make YOUR words go viral, and tie you like the stinking albatross you are around the necks of the vicious, small minded evil people you so capably and honestly represent.

Petraeus throws Obama into the Briar Patch

I've never thought Barack Obama was an idealist. Nor did I ever think that his "lack of experience" as a legislator was a critical factor. It's the "community organizer" aspect that caught my attention. You see, in Chicago, that means you learn to deal with a lot of various sorts of people, and this very much includes fronting up to stone killers and squeezing a donation or some leverage out of them.

I think he's a man who is very much a realist, and very familiar with dealing with things as they are and the people on the ground that are there, and rather less affected by the various idealistic and doctrinal slants that people on the "left" and the "right" try to assign to him.

I consider him to be the very sort of person that you would want piloting an crippled airplane toward a distant airfield with one single chance of putting it down in one piece. I don't think for a moment that he's confused about the real "mission at hand."

So I'm amused to see this headline: "Petraeus Locked Obama In."

At this morning’s hearing, General Petraeus tamped down talk of an early withdrawal from Afghanistan—and warned of greater U.S. casualties to come.
With his four stars and battle ribbons speaking for themselves and his reputation soaring, Gen. David Petraeus Tuesday told the Senate Armed Service Committee just what President Obama wanted its members to hear: (1) fighting the Taliban and al  Qaeda in Afghanistan remains essential to U.S. security; (2) the president’s counterinsurgency strategy and U.S. troop reductions projected to begin on July 2011 were fine; and (3) this general and this president are in harmony unlike the departing U.S./NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

But make no mistake, the thrust of the general’s remarks in these confirmation hearings was to further lock Mr. Obama into the Afghan war and to protect his right flank against Republicans and conservatives who have begun charging that the president is about to cut and run from the war. He offered very little to Democrats and liberals who have stepped up their demands for an exit strategy.

There are many stories written by the Terribly And Professionally Sincere from the left, the right and the clueless, who don't see that the "exit strategy" for a politically-driven war has to be, first and foremost, a political maneuver, one that places the price of failure on the heads of those who carry the banners for the satus quo ante.

President Obama absolutely must achieve a fundamental shift in the way Americans think about the projection of power, the use of military force and the expense in terms of guns, of butter and human life. Given the things he has expended political capital to achieve, he is either working in this direction or accepting it more readily than many others.

His critics haven't read their Sun-Tsu or their Von Clauswitz or their Rommel - or they would understand that victory comes from creating conditions in which your enemy will make some very critical mistake.

American financier Jay Gould. 

After hiring strikebreakers, he said "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."^{[Wikipedia >Wage Slavery;#35]}

In order to win a war, you need to know exactly what the war is about, which side you are on, and who your enemy is.  For President Barack Obama, the most direct threat to his policies, and indeed, to the people who gave him his mandate is the Military Industrial Complex and the National Security State types - the ones who are all in favor of the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Terrorism - that is to say, the war on you.


He's fighting the war that Eisenhower predicted, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq give him cover and opportunity to bleed his opponents dry, discredit or kill them and created conditions whereby a long-term socio-political shift might be achieved.

What Obama needs to do is allow his enemies the opportunity to make mistakes - and then use the mistakes they make against them. So when someone says this out loud, I giggle.

 Peter Galbraith writes in the Daily Beast:

The U.S. will have to be deeply engaged diplomatically to keep the erratic and ambitious Karzai from destroying his own country. Eikenberry and Holbrooke understand the man and the terrain. The last thing President Obama needs now is a group of new faces who believe the U.S. strategy is working, and who take his recent Karzai charm offensive seriously.

Clearly there have been strains in the relations between Eikenberry and Holbrooke, which is hardly surprising since both men sit atop large organizations devoted to making progress in Afghanistan. But both Eikenberry and Holbrooke are exceptionally competent and they know it is essential to work together.

With Afghanistan possibly headed for a full-scale civil war, this is not the time to replace an experienced and accomplished diplomatic team. The mission in Afghanistan is difficult enough without the Afghan leader believing he has the upper hand in his relations with the United States.

Yep. A terrible mistake. Assuming that Obama actually thinks the situation in Afghanistan is actually more critical to the national security of the United States than the threat to the United States presented by it's National Security establishment. But Iraq and Afghanistan are both wars of political choice, based on neoconservative assumptions about the role of the US in the world and what it should use it's military and economic power to achieve, at the expense of the entire demographic that President Obama grew up with, went to church with and was largely elected to represent.

I'd be looking to see what Obama has Eikenberry and Holebrooke do next. Because I think that giving Karzai what he thinks HE wants, and giving Petraeus what he thinks HE wants, Obama is achieving three important goals. Setting up Karzai to fail, sooner rather than later. Setting up Petraeus to personally fail to make make his Counter Insurgency plan work - sooner rather than later. And getting his people out of the way so they will not be damaged by the inevitable association with a huge military and foreign-policy failure.

The COIN doctrine is what much of the Pentagon and the civilian Neo-Conservative hangs it's hat upon, and the doctrine justifies and necessitates a commitment to indefinite, potentially global low-level counter-insurgent warfare - a prospect that is the life-blood of the military-industrial complex.



It is a strategy that absolutely depends on a very close diplomatic support and skilled intelligence. If Obama "acceeds to pressure" to replace "his people" with those who are philosophically inclined to support Karzai and COIN, it will be a strategic maneuver to generate victory in the very real cold civil war that is raging in the United States right now. Afganistan is a sideshow for Obama, but the "graveyard of empires" could indeed become the undoing of those who thought the United States had the right and the need to become one. But of course, that's not the sort of thing a President can say out loud.

Obama may be the titular commander in chief, but the tail has been wagging the dog for several Administrations. What he's doing is slipping the leash, and letting the puppy try and bite the tires off of the rolling semi.

Obama will be be handed a political exit, and he will take it like a statesman. In part, I think this perception will be genuine, but in order to achieve it, he must first get his enemies to eliminate each other - and ideally, it should occur all at once. What it will be - well, I can't say for sure. But it might look something like this...

The Unspoken Third Party

“I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” - Barry Goldwater

Bill Pendergast writes regarding Michelle Bachman and the emergence of the Religious Right as a de-facto political organization.

    Over the past thirty years, the evangelical Christianity of the right has been organized into a discrete/particular political machine--and this fact has eluded the overwhelming majority of our professional political commentators. And the fact is that this machine (and its umbrella organization that directs it, the Council for National Policy) has successfully evaded regular media coverage of its operations. That has made this political machine incredibly powerful.

I think he's right in pointing out that it's been long, long overlooked as an effective third party. I think it's become much more dangerous since conservatism was left bereft of the wisdom of Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr. But I note at the same time that this all does sound a little familiar.

H.L. Mencken writes (The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 13, 1925)

 The Book of Revelation has all the authority, in these theological uplands, of military orders in time of war. The people turn to it for light upon all their problems, spiritual and secular. If a text were found in it denouncing the Anti-Evolution law, then the Anti-Evolution law would become infamous overnight. But so far the exegetes who roar and snuffle in the town have found no such text. Instead they have found only blazing ratifications and reinforcements of Genesis. Darwin is the devil with seven tails and nine horns. Scopes, though he is disguised by flannel pantaloons and a Beta Theta Pi haircut, is the harlot of Babylon. Darrow is Beelzebub in person and Malone is the Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm.


I have hitherto hinted an Episcopalian down here in the coca-cola belt is regarded as an atheist. It sounds like one of the lies that journalists tell, but it is really an understatement of the facts. Even a Methodist, by Rhea county standards, is one a bit debauched by pride of intellect. It is the four Methodists on the jury who are expected to hold out for giving Scopes Christian burial after he is hanged. They all made it plain, when they were examined, that they were free-thinking and independent men, and not to be run amuck by the superstitions of the lowly. One actually confessed that he seldom read the Bible, though he hastened to add that he was familiar with its principles. The fellow had on a boiled shirt and a polka dot necktie. He sits somewhat apart. When Darrow withers to a cinder under the celestial blowpipe, this dubious Wesleyan, too, will lose a few hairs.

But others have been following these trends too. I've been a long time reader of Katherine Yurica,
 who has been warning about dominionist theology for years and years. I've written about Dominion (the idea that Christians should rule the nation, in order to conquer the world and bring forth a kingdom so that Jesus may return, the theology that is taught at the C-Street church
Heck, I've written about it a bit, most memorably and relevantly in The Spiders Behind Sara's Eyes. Now, that's not really a critique of their political goals as it is of their "will to power" from a viewpoint some would dismiss as "woo." Me, I think the word "evil" is a perfectly respectable word, and I take the utterly illliberal view that you will know it when you smell it.

Meanwhile, if there are people who's religious viewpoint makes it perfectly defensible to do anything whatsoever to gain power - lie, cheat, steal, foment war, manufacture consent, slander, steal elections - whatever it takes - then it's never a good idea to think of them as anything less dangerous than your own personal, direct, mortal enemy. Because... they are.

Roundup

I'm in the midst of a "thing" right now. I'm being forced to move from my home because my landlord is seven kinds of idiot. It's a fight I could take to court, but he's seven kinds of idiot, and he lives upstairs. So to win - would be to lose.

Anyway, for the last while the internal gibbering has been drowning out all else. Autistics ... we don't move well.

But that's not your problem. It's an explanation of why I'm making t-shirt sites and mucking about with my blog template. I'm moderately freaked.

Anyhoo, I'm trying to squeeze out a post anyhow. Found this at Skippy:

It appears that when a Republican is laid off and needs that UI other Republicans start thinking of them as a "lousy, free-loading, welfare sucking Democrat. Oddly, this seems to breed a bit of resentment.

Echidne of the Snakes, her very own self, called someone an "Asshole". Of course, it was Camille Paglia. Nonetheless, we are unspeakably proud.

Over at LGF - which has become one of the lone voices of sanity to the upper-right, observes in sadness the harmonic convergence of Pajamas Media and Alex Jones.

So there you have it. Pajamas Media, the company I helped start, is now sharing contributors with the most batshit insane conspiracy theorist in America. Hope you’re proud, Roger.

In all sincerity: "Hugs if Acceptable."

Oh, and then there was that Palin thing. What was it? Ah, yes...

"Now I know, the dumbness doesn't come just from soundbites," 

Let us speak once more of our Family Values.

"Tell The Truth and Shame the Devil."

Having to conceal his relationship, Choi explained, contradicted his values, as well as the military values of integrity and honesty. He created a fake female name for his boyfriend in order to talk with other soldiers about his relationship, and he began to struggle to make up excuses about why the people he worked with couldn't meet his significant other. The delicate balancing act proved too much for Choi.

"It was really when I had to force my boyfriend into the closet -- that was when it got to be too much," Choi said. "That's when I saw it as lying and as absolutely immoral.

"I promised to live under an honor code at West Point that says, 'You will not lie, and you will not tolerate lying,' " Choi said. "It's simple. It doesn't say, 'Straight people cannot lie, but gay people are allowed to lie about their loved ones, so we'll make exceptions for gay people.' I found that to be antithetical to the values that our military was founded on."

Attack the idea, not the person

This week, Elliott Abrams, the former Bush official and noted neoconservative, wrote an essay in the Weekly Standard attacking the Obama administration for not more forcefully defending Israel during the flotilla crisis. Abrams said the White House had joined an anti-Israeli “lynch mob.” Over the course of the article, he used the metaphor six times.

It’s remarkable when you think about it. To Americans with even the slightest degree of racial awareness, “lynch mob” conjures something quite particular: African American men hanging from trees in the post-civil war South. To deploy the metaphor to describe a United Nations resolution that obliquely criticizes Israel is audacious. To deploy it to describe the support for that resolution by America’s first African-American president is downright astonishing. It’s a bit like calling Joe Lieberman’s opposition health-care reform a “pogrom.

Never let your morality ideology sponsorship get in the way of doing the right thing.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, went out on a limb today to do something maybe no other American would think to do: Heapologized to BP for having to put $20 billion into a fund for Gulf spill damages. Only Barton called it a "slush fund" and a "shakedown."

Barton's apology to BP led at first to a delicate dance, as some Republicans tried to move awayfrom the so obviously toxic statements without outright condemning Barton, and later a full court press as Republican leaders publicly calledBarton's comments "wrong."

The leaders reportedly gave him an ultimatum: "Apologize, immediately. Or you will lose your position, immediately."

Eventually, Barton, who would become the energy committee's chairman should the Republicans take the House this fall, said he was sorry. He first apologized if anyone had "misconstrued" his statement, and shortly after apologized for using the word "shakedown" and retracted his original apology (to BP, that is).

I try never to assume the motives of an individual - particularly a political individual - but here I'm forced to wonder aloud, which apology was sincere, and which was extracted under pressure? Having found that the question must be asked, the fact that it IS a good question is really all the answer I need.


A footnote to the above: The 7 Dumbest Things BP Has Said About The Spill -- So Far

Oh, yes, let the people speak!

I have been feeling overwhelmed by the flaming pools of stupid around me. and the amazingly poor job, it seems, of the media and the blogosphere in keeping the whackadoodle nutters out of polite company.

Yeah, there's something of the "back when I was a boy" to all of this.

When I took Journalism 101, there was a hard limit on the amount of nonsense that could go into a publication. 

Speech was free, but printing that speech was expensive. Someone (not the writer, for the best one could hope for then was a basic comprehension of grammar and construction) had to proofread, edit and typeset the speech, and then someone had to decide which was more important, the fifth paragraph, or the paid ad from a neighbourhood sandwich shoppe. That paid ad is what made it all possible, so one did not run the risk of offending an advertiser - at least, not the important ones, and certainly not without cause.

I've done all of those. On a small community paper, I often did all of those on the same story - and all the time knowing that my work and my words were most likely to be consigned to line the bottom of a birdcage before reading.  

My job was to somehow fill the spaces between the ads in a way that seemed as if it were being informative, without in any way disturbing the fond prejudices and presumptions of the readership, in the sure and certain knowledge that if they thought they were being informed by my newspaper, there was no hope for them in any case. I tried to not simply retype press-releases too often, but if it was good, and it was free... Hell, anything that didn't make the typesetter weep was likely to make the final cut. And I mean this in general, across the board. It's amazing what school-board presidents and community association leaders will put on paper, thinking that it is English. 

It's rather touching to see how sincerely such people believe that anyone cares, when in fact, most people, most of the time, wish such people to do their damn job as silently as possible, as competently as can be managed, in a way that bears no expectation of them thinking difficult thoughts about complicated issues. But if anyone actually believed that such a bleak appreciation of human nature applied to them, personally - we'd all book a flight to Gyana and party like it was 1978.

So let me reprise - under ideal circumstances, when everything functions as it should, when commerce flows, leaders lead, followers follow and comedians have to make shit up rather than just opening a newspaper - well, that makes for uninteresting times. Trust me when I tell you - the best sort of news is a bold headline that says, "Life as Usual." Remember that "May you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse, and that an "Adventure" is someone else, far away, surviving circumstances you'd not wish on most enemies.  

So when a community newspaper has anything of genuine interest - that's not really a good thing. But interesting times tend to sweep away the complacent assumption that things are working well due to good faith and good design, when in fact, inertia has far more to do with it. 

This is when the role of the community newspaper (back in the day) and the Local Blogger (now) becomes important.

When I was wielding wax and knife, it was a given that when a story mattered enough for anyone to comment you would get a few sane responses and a raft of letters that ranged from the sincerely uninformed to outright lunacy. It was standard practice for the editor to pick the responses in this order:

1: The most articulate and informative response(s) to the story, pro and con.

2: The responses from whatever official or buisiness found themselves to be suddenly and unfortunately newsworthy. 

3: The comic relief.

 By "comic relief," I mean the capering, giggling morons that would type in all caps - and yes, they did it then, too. Single spaced. With quarter-inch margins.

They were terribly sure that they were expressing "common sense" and of course, we were more than happy to let them do so. Which ass-clown got the privileged of being a public example of stupidity was a function of editorial bias. There was, after all, little else to base a decision on, and there's only SO much room for the stupid.

Anyway, it struck me as I was wading through the conspicuous idiocy, trying to find a hook to hang a post upon, that nothing had really changed. What has changed was the price of public speech and the barriers to access.

These days, we make them type it themselves, and there's no serious costs associated with publication. 

And it occurred to me that I was speaking from a set of assumptions that don't apply at all, and indeed, didn't even then. Elites were the gatekeepers because, well, what other option was there? Gaining, sorting, indexing and maintaining information was breathtakingly expensive. Every trade, every profession, every course of study required some form of standard reference, and each of those was instantly obsolete when published - and the fair price for a good reference was in the hundreds of dollars.

Not any more. There is no practical barrier at the moment to anyone with Internet access learning anything they wish about anything that is on the net - and you'd have to be an idiot to bear the cost of publishing and distributing your information any other way.

Strangely, we are entering a time rather like the Enlightenment, when suddenly access to information explodes, with consequences that are unforeseen and indeed, unforeseeable. This fact alone is more than enough to make a certain portion of the population lose their water and cling to traditional approaches even when those approaches are clearly not working at all well. 

No doubt there were those such as myself at the time, bitching and whining aloud at the insults to enlightenment and assaults upon reason that Gutenberg's demonic tool had made possible, clearly making the downfall of all that is good and holy inevitable.

Indeed, that's pretty close to what happened, and looking back, it hasn't been such a bad thing as all of that.

Now, any fool can say whatever they wish and gain wide public exposure. And they do. 

They may even find a wide and willing claque for their species of wishful thinking, but with a rapidity that would amaze people back in my salad days, the idiocy is exposed and the stupidity addressed with a forthright contempt that would make my teachers of criticism blanch. A consensus is emerging that there is little point to treating the wilfully stupid with public respect, at least on the Internet, when the barrier to gaining an informed opinion on anything is so low.

And then there's another factor, not often said aloud, but one that no free-thinker can leave unconsidered; on the Internet, it's difficult to respond to an unwelcome truth with a Molotov Cocktail. And so we see a great difference between what people are willing to say in public, when an honest view, informed or otherwise, may put livelihood or life at risk, and what people really think,

It is at once inspiring and appalling, for it's dreadfully clear that mostly they don't.

But nobody is forced to undergo the indignity of recasting the words of some flaming moron into something that can be printed without getting the paper into legal difficulty - or worse yet, make the typesetter stomp out to explore a career in dental hygiene.

There have always been idiots and creeps among us. Mostly, they didn't find themselves in public office, because they were discreetly cut off at the knees as a matter of policy, a policy that was pervasive, smug, elitist and dismissive of the views of the uneducated, and unwashed. 

How do I know this? I'm an Episcopalian who spent some time in a Jesuit Prep School. I qualified for an Honours society in college. I was, to all appearances, well prepared to become another cultural gatekeeper, not unlike the bouncer at the door of a hot club, picking the pretty people from the mass of schlubs and losers.

The fact, I was told and accepted as uncritically as young people do, was that the "top ten" are destined to lead and the rest will benefit from following. Now, it's not quite such a cynical observation as it sounds, for it was articulated by Jesuits. Therefore it was presented as much as a duty and a fate as a ticket to hot chicks and fast cars. 

It was the classic, Burkian conservative view, that there were patterns in society that may arguably be unfair, but it would be far, far worse to pretend that these very real distinctions do not matter, particularly if one one is inclined to lift the poor from poverty or strive for a wider acceptance of Social Justice. Being Jesuits, they tended to think that a wider application of the principles of Christ might well be something worth contemplating, so long as it did not conflict with the authority of the Church.

These were the seventies, and it was not a time of innocence. There were airline hijackings, there were ecological catastrophes, terrorism was a fact of life for much of Europe and the situation in the Middle East was... much as it is now, save the excuses given for the reasons that it could be no other way still seemed somewhat original. There was widespread unemployment and everyone disagreed as to what should be done about it.

But the presentation of all these unpalatable, and horrifying things was the responsibility of people such as me, or rather, the me I would have become, had I been capable of living up to my promise.

"Fails to live up to potential" could well be my given name. Nor am I particularly embarrassed by that, for my "potential," and yours, is not judged in this culture by what you would be best at doing, and what would best fulfil your personal needs, but rather, what utility you might bring to your various cultural "owners;" your class, your family, the people who's calls you feel obligated to answer, regardless of your true feelings.

Did you know that the single best predictor of popularity (and therefore success) is the ability to conceal your reactions? That is to say, if someone says something horrifyingly racist, appallingly idiotic or simply, tragically, smugly ignorant, you never, ever contradict them in a way that they will notice.

This is still true. I suspect it's something that's wired into us at a very, very deep level. But at the same time, no leader making good, informed decisions can in fact believe the crap he pretends to accept as "common sense" for the sake of getting elected. There are unavoidable complexities that must be dealt with, in private, by people who ideally have both some sort of convictions, and at the same time, a pragmatic sense of what is possible today.

When someone appeals to "common sense" - well, I refer them to my own personal hero, and evidence that nothing happening today is much different than what happened nearly a century ago.

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." - H.L. Menken

We have seen the price paid when an ideologue is put in a position of leadership. It ain't pretty. An ideologue is a species of idealist, and an idealist is always ready to sacrifice the lives and fortunes of others to preserve the things they hold to be self evident, trusting in a Higher Providence to Ensure that Blessings will Trickle Down upon us all.

With that nitrogen-enhanced watering, how does your garden grow?

I almost wasted my entire morning at cracked.com

...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:

"Obama Pledges to Press Ahead on Goals."

"Obama Tries to Boost Beleaguered Democratic National Committee."

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?

"Steve Jobs Tries to Cover Up Apple's Racial Profile."

Damn! When's the next Klan meeting, Steve Jobs?

You can read more from C. Coville at her site Bloodslides.Livejournal.com.

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.

• 1 Reply — best has 2 diggs
• -43 diggs  
  ryantate
  on 03/17/2010
  Below viewing threshold.   Hide
  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 ...
  Reply
  2 Replies — best has 45 diggs
  • +45 diggs  
    NCHammer326
    on 03/17/2010
    Dugg by friends: Berkana, KaiserArny
    Oh cry me a river, you ass.
    
    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.
    Reply
    1 Reply — best has 7 diggs

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.