Sometimes the Republic of Media Breaks My Brain
Thursday, July 3, 2008
So, the people who want out of the Iraq war the most are going to be supporters of Barack Obama, right? So, Barack Obama's supporters are going to be the ones who would be most concerned and knowledgeable about his stated intentions to get out of Iraq right? So, why is it Republicans and the media--and not Obama supporters, as far as I can tell--who are claiming that Obama has altered his stance on the war? I don't think it's changed. No one I've read today thinks it's changed. Wouldn't we be the ones who would know if it's changed since we're the ones most concerned about his position here? Shouldn't the media actually be asking the anti-war people whether or not they see a change in his position? Oh I forgot. We don't let the anti-war people talk to the media. We let Republicans complain about Obama's supposed shift in his Iraq position to the media on behalf of the anti-war people. How nice of them to hold Obama's feet to the fire for us like this!
When will our politics start to have some relationship with reality? Really, any relationship will do.
PS What part of, "We need to be as careful in getting out as we were careless in getting in," do people not understand? Seriously. Brain=broken.
UPDATE: Digby offers something more substantial than "brain=broken" on this subject. She's a better person than I am.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
9:48 PM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Yo Mama Got a Discount on Her Home Loan
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The WaPo engages in some pretty well-unsubstantiated "symbolic issues" mongering by implying that corruption may have played a part in the Obamas' home loan:
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.Nate, at 538, offers a pretty good take-down of WaPo's fact-deprived innuendo:
Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.
So Obama's rate was 30 basis points better than the average. However, the amount of the loan and the nature of the property are not the only factors that determine a mortgage rate. Another major consideration is the creditworthiness of the borrower. According to current rate quotes from myFICO.com, a borrower with very good credit can expect a mortgage rate about 30 basis points better than someone with pretty good credit, and a borrower with excellent credit can expect about a 50 basis point discount.But what are petty details to a "journalist" these days? And in case there was any doubt as to the true purpose of this WaPo article, the name "Tony Rezko" is tossed in right at the end there...no relation.
Unless the Washington Post has access to Obama's FICO score -- and unless it has rented an apartment to him, it probably doesn't -- it is missing a pretty important piece of information on what Obama's mortgage rate ought to have been. What was Obama's FICO score? I don't know, but considering that...
* Obama had just gotten a $2.27 million book deal from Random House -- about $1 million more than the value of the mortgage.
* The Obamas each had exceptionally secure jobs that paid them a combined annual salary of about $500,000 per year.
* The Obamas had just sold their condo, on which they had realized a $137,500 profit.
* The Obamas were prominent public figures whose political futures depended in part on maintaining a reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness.
* The Obamas are known to be relatively thrifty and have no credit card debt but substantial savings....
To be fair, maybe the WaPo is trying to up their flagging subscription rates by becoming yet another neocon tabloid journal. Of course, one could argue that they might increase their readership more quickly by becoming better at their jobs--not worse. And if they want to criticize Obama for something, let it be for something substantial. I'm keeping a list in case they're interested.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
10:02 AM
3
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Karmic Justice on Behalf of Wes Clark
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
I'm with Brandon Freidman:
The bottom line is this: If Democrats tuck tail and run from Republicans in this instance, we run the risk of ceding authority on military issues to John McCain for the rest of the campaign. Whether you like Clark or not, everyone has an interest in defending him vigorously in this case. We cannot allow the Right and the media to get away with trashing the first guy to come out in prime time to slam McCain’s military "expertise." If our organizations don’t defend Clark as being right in this case, we give in to the idea that Republicans are the parents in terms of national defense, and Democrats are the children--something those on the Right will be more than happy to reinforce.So, after signing the VoteVets petition, I sent this email to MSNBC:
This idea that we can’t question someone’s expertise on military matters simply because they served could very easily become the next "whoever is against the war is unpatriotic" mantra. And that’s not something I’m prepared to accept.
Every time I hear on your programs that General Clark is "attacking" McCain's military service, I have to laugh. Your characterization is absurd. Simply pointing out the fact that serving in a war doesn't necessarily make a person Commander-in-Chief material is clearly not attacking the war service. My father served in Vietnam and earned the Purple Heart and a lifetime of disability. And while he's a decent man who served his country honorably, I wouldn't trust him within a thousand feet of the presidency. Do you see the distinction?I generally don't like to personalize this stuff, but sometimes, I'm too lazy to do otherwise. Also, a belated congrats to Vote Vets for getting the new GI Bill passed! In spite of a lack of vote (!) from Senator John McCain. But don't worry, John, no one's attacking your military service. Just your public service. Do you see the distinction?
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
11:47 AM
4
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Barack Obama says: "The Center...Myyyy 'The Center'!"
Monday, June 30, 2008
There's been a lot of talk about Obama's move to "the center" recently. Much of it has revolved around the political necessity of doing so. Like many people with actual principles, I think that's crap. We liberals put the Quotes of Irony around "the center" because, in spite of our elitist over-education, we have never been able to locate this place called "The Center" on a map. "The Center" is actually "The City" in the satirically-minded The Tick comic/cartoon. It's no place that's supposed to represent all places. Which means that even trying to just get there is pointless, because you'll never be able to find it. You'll just keep going and going and going until you realize that you're completely lost. And in spite of what the media claims, nobody actually lives there. Because there is no there there.
In other words, "the center" is all about framing. The establishment media love talking about "the center" because it means less work for them. They can just trace an imaginary line between the one extremist Republican standpoint and one of the many less extremist Democratic standpoints, then casually point news consumers to an imaginary point in the center of that line, and call it a day. Republicans love talking about "the center" because they can all just hang out together on the far, far right, let the media do its center-loving job and know that, no matter where the imaginary center is found, it will be a lot closer to them than it is to people like me. If the Democrats hung together on the far, far left, this would naturally negate the Republicans' center advantage, but they don't. In the name of diversity, Democrats don't hang anywhere together but, instead, let their members go wherever the mood strikes them--preferably toward "the center" after the media tells them where that is. Then, they let the people who are supposedly living in "the center" call them unprincipled and weak. This is called politics.
Using this strategy, Democrats fight Republicans like The Tick fights crime--often succeeding in spite of themselves. They simultaneously decry the incompetence of the Republicans in power while bending over backwards trying to prove that they themselves are no liberal Democrats. They talk about how Republicans are no fans of the worker and then extol the virtues of reaching across the aisle to work with them. The inconsistencies of this position are easily discerned on a gut level, if not easily intellectualized. So, whenever Democrats do happen to get something done to advance a worker's agenda, the average person still isn't quite sure whether they did so out of principle or out of expediency. To continue with The Tick analogy, did they use their keen insight and sense of purpose to sniff out the Idea Men's plans and prevent them from blowing up The City's dam, or did they just hear about it on the news and happen to show up barely in time? These are the kinds of questions rational voters--even liberal ones--ask themselves about Democrats.
The latest attack on Obama's bi-partisan bona fides exemplifies this problem for Democrats. Obama has worked with Republicans on securing loose nuclear weapons and helping to make government more transparent. But apparently, that's not deemed "politically courageous" enough. So, what does Obama do? Move to "the center" by giving Republicans what they want on FISA. Well, that'll show 'em. Maybe if Obama does more to help Republicans destroy the economy, lie us into war, hate on teh gayz and teh womynz, and torture some more people, he'll be "politically courageous" enough to be president. Of course, we already have a president who's that "politically courageous", so maybe we should re-think our strategery a little. Maybe when asked whether or not we've been brave enough to go out on a limb by defying the evil Democratic Party, we should actually ask which positions held by the evil Democratic Party are in need of defiance. One time Obama defied the evil Democratic Party was before we invaded Iraq. Of course, at the time, he was defying Republicans too, but apparently, defying both parties isn't "politically courageous" enough.
In summary, every time Obama is asked when he's gone out on a limb to work with Republicans, he should remind people that he's done what he thought was right but that Republicans, by and large, suck. That the notion of "the center" is a creation of Republicans and the media--both of whom, by and large, suck. That, sometimes, just because something is labeled "liberal" that doesn't mean it is, or if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. And that, periodically, Democrats do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because they were too politically incompetent to do anything else. And it would also be cool if he would sometimes remind us to "honk if you love justice!" Just cuz that would be funny:
For more about the insipidity of "The Center", here's Greenwald and Digby to start.
And for more The Tick, here's the beginning:
UPDATE: Obama camp disses Gen Wes Clarke for pointing out the obvious fact that getting shot at doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to be President:
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Run, chicken, run! Run to nowhere and see where you find yourself. Or as Josh Marshall says:
But if it really is a fear of getting things focused on McCain's war record or experience it really is the kind of mistake Democrats habitually make. Take a look. McCain's entire campaign is about his time as a POW and the claim that his war service makes him uniquely qualified to be the country's commander-in-chief. They're pushing the fact that he's been on the national stage for four decades, whereas Obama's only been there for four years. That is almost the entirety of his campaign. So it's out there. It's already a key focus of this campaign.
John McCain's claim to experience, based in large part on his military service, is a key issue in this campaign. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
"The Center" sure looks like weak knees from here.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
8:08 AM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Other People's Genius: Buried Alive Edition
Friday, June 27, 2008
In honor of the President potentially having legal authority to order someone to be buried alive, here are some of the stories I've been burying lately:
* John Cole wonders why the media ignores the House's torture inquisition:
What is surprising is that there is not more about this in the media. In fact, on the cable channels, there is nothing. Compare that to Rev. Wright’s Jackass tour at the NPR. One guy mocks the media, and we get our collective freak on for months. Addington and Yoo’s hands are all over much of the odious crap from this administration, come in and show thorough contempt for congress, and the media yawns.Would this be for the same reason that the teevee news media almost completely ignores FISA? If so, I'm going with "laws schmaws" as the most likely response from our intrepid blown-dry news anchors.
* Juan Cole (a different kind of Cole) reminds us that there's a war going on:
Big bombs in Mosul and in Karma, al-Anbar.Apparently, someone forgot to tell the Iraqis that the surge is working.
Questions are being raised about whether the Iraqi army can hold Mosul.
DPA reports that two major bombings in Sunni Arab areas of Iraq on Thursday killed over 40 persons and left over 70 wounded.
* Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog reminds us that there's another war going on:
In Afghanistan, June is "deadliest month for foreign soldiers"According to Joe, just forgetting about a war doesn't make it go away. Who knew?
[...]
If my history serves me, we went to war in Afghanistan directly because of the 9/11 attacks. But, then Bush forgot about Afghanistan to launch the war against Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
* The Daily Show would probably call this video of N Korea blowing up one of their nuclear reactors your moment of zen:
Now, I don't want to name names, but it seems that this video is evidence that a certain President of the United States has been busy doing some serious appeasing lately.
Happy other people's genius Friday!
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
3:51 PM
1 dispenses karmic justice! (or just comments here)
FISA: The Left's Symbolic Issue
A couple of months ago, I mercilessly mocked David Brooks for referring to Obama's mildly controversial acquaintances as "symbolic issues". Why do I find Brooks' description so hilarious? Because anyone who picks up a book from time to time knows that symbolic meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Example: David Brooks wears eyeglasses; I see his glasses as a symbol of his shortsightedness. What does my interpretation of David Brooks' glasses actually indicate? Well, it indicates at least two things: 1. I probably don't wear glasses; otherwise, I most likely wouldn't think of them as being symbolic of anything (other than sheer genius, of course). 2. Due to my ideological differences with David Brooks, I am pre-disposed to consider him shortsighted; the wearing of glasses can have a variety of symbolic meanings, so my own pre-disposition toward him is likely to be a major determining factor.
Unfortunately, however, the symbolism of David Brooks' glasses doesn't say much, if anything, about David Brooks. Just like Obama's mildly controversial acquaintances don't say much, if anything, about Obama. To people who aren't big fans of Obama, his acquaintances are either symbols of his hidden Marxo-Fascist agenda or symbols of his political cravenness (depending on their mood, I guess). To people who do like Obama, his acquaintances are symbols of his openness to diversity of opinion (or whatever; honestly, we don't really care). Notice how quiet the right wing is about the symbolism of an avowed Communist announcing his support for John McCain (Symbolism? What's that?). But in spite of the inherent subjectivity of symbols, our human tendency to seek and recognize patterns reinforces our desire to seek and interpret abstractions to reinforce said patterns. Meaning we [heart] symbols. A lot.
Like Glenn Greenwald and many others, I am inclined to see Obama's support for the Democrats' FISA capitulation as a symbol of the failures I see in the Democratic Party, en masse. Obama claims he wants to "change the mindset" that got us into the Iraq War. Well, we on the left see this FISA capitulation as a symbol of the mindset that got us into the Iraq War (or, as Greenwald calls this mindset, "The New Republic Syndrome"):
The number one problem facing the Democratic Party is that, as events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to be plagued by The New Republic Syndrome, one of the most fatal political afflictions that exist. In 2002 and 2003, The New Republic was one of the leading crusaders for an attack on Iraq, railing against what it called "the intellectual incoherence of the liberal war critics." In a February 2003 Editorial, they decreed that "the United States must disarm Iraq by force" and declared war opponents guilty of "abject pacifism."To make matters worse, Obama's newly found FISA stance is now being discussed as a symbol of strength rather than weakness because it means he's got the audacity to stand up to the all-powerful dirty hippie civil libertarian lobby:
[...]
Also in 2004, The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for President, using its endorsement to attack Howard Dean and his liberal supporters as suffering from "an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power" and said that Dean supporters were "dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld."
[...]
Despite those forced mea culpas and reversals, TNR never actually learns. Today -- in a post bearing the very sensible and Serious title: "Keeping FISA in Perspective" -- TNR is here, via Josh Patashnik, to tell you that there's nothing truly disturbing about the FISA bill that is about to pass...
All of the decades-old, conventional Beltway mythologies are trotted out here to praise Obama. Democrats move to the "center" by embracing hard-core right-wing policies. Democrats will look "weak" unless they turn themselves into Republican clones on national security. A President becomes "strong" when he tramples on the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of keeping us safe. Democrats must embrace the Right and repudiate the base of their own party, and they must support Dick Cheney's policies while "standing up to the ACLU."Nothing says "change of mindset" like disregarding the people who you've always disregarded, right? We, on the (what I might call "moderate") left, have seen a pattern here. And it's one that we don't like very much.
Nonetheless, because sometimes a FISA bill is just a FISA bill, and symbolism is inherently subjective in nature, I am inclined to look to other--more concrete--sources of outrage about this issue. Luckily, there are plenty of negative consequences to be found:
There were, however, a few sour notes during the proceedings. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) complained that the bill "actually permits the government to perform mass, untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized finding, and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "these blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) invoked the specter of past intelligence abuses, such as the wiretapping of Martin Luther King and the FBI's controversial COINTELPRO operation—an argument Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed by conceding the political abuse of surveillance powers in the past but asserting that "those days are behind us." (The latter development coinciding, as chance would have it, with the passage of legislation prohibiting warrantless wiretaps.) Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) warned that the compromise legislation would "redefine the Fourth Amendment, and thus the fundamental relationship between the government and its people" by licensing "a fishing expedition approach to intelligence collection.""Untargeted surveillance", "blanket wiretaps", "fishing expedition"...none of that really works for leftists, in general. Even if we were willing to concede that a blanket wiretap is sometimes just a blanket wiretap, it still doesn't sound good. And in our darker moments, we are pre-disposed to interpret these things as symbols of a police state. As symbols of a possible hidden "Marxo-Fascist" (minus the "Marxo") agenda, if you will. Maybe even as symbols of political cravenness (depending on our mood, I guess). If only we had people like David Brooks around to ask more questions about these "symbolic issues". I guess he's too busy digging through Obama's garbage looking for his "I [heart] Chairman Mao" pin to bother.
NOTE: The entire time the "liberal" media were beating up on Obama for his reversal on campaign finance, left blogistan was beating up on Obama for his reversal on FISA. What does that symbolize?
Also, thanks to xkcd for using the Creative Commons (non-commercial) copy left license, thereby allowing me to bastardize xkcd's Stand Back (Science) design.
UPDATE: FISA delayed and FISA's worse than you think. This means more action needed.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
4:35 AM
2
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
The Moment Marc Ambinder Officially Became a Joke
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
So, I was just now listening to Rachel Maddow laugh uproariously at the fact that Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review equated Obama's lead in the polls with Dukakis-level failure. Then, I clicked over to Marc Ambinder's blog only to see, "We're getting into Dukakis-Bush'-88 territory here...". When did Scaife purchase the Atlantic? Of course, there's this little detail: "(Reader CH notes: "The major difference between '88 and '08 is that the outgoing Republican president in '88 was nowhere near a 23% approval rating.")." Silly facts...they just get in the way of a good story.
And the joke only gets funnier with this ridiculous poll that Ambinder posted:
I wonder if the questions in this poll are representative of those Marc would have asked before we invaded Iraq:
Are you in favor of invading Iraq, or are you opposed to invading because you're a terrorist-loving hippie?Just curious.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
6:50 PM
2
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Michelle Obama "Whitey" Tape, "Terrorist Fist Jab" Saturday
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The online controversy around a supposed video showing Michelle Obama ranting about "whitey" has been...well...tedious.
Luckily, John Cole has finally tracked down the tape for all to see. As he said, it's "not that shocking":
Neocons are now claiming that this "scandal" is bad for Barack Obama because people are willing to believe that a video exists. In other words, it's bad for Barack Obama that people can believe that neocons are slimy enough to take words out of context, put them together into a video, and use said video to proclaim that the black folks are, as always, out to get them (you know, typical "victimology 101"). And in reality, I agree that it's bad for Barack Obama that neocons are that stupid, mean, and easily frightened. But then, it's bad for the rest of us as well since we have to share a country with them and all.
For more fun and games, a Faux News moron had something unusual to say about the bump/pound/dap that Michelle initiated before Obama's speech on Tuesday (via atrios):
It is bad for Barack Obama that people are willing to believe that a video exists of he and Michelle making "a terrorist fist jab". In other words, it is bad for Barack Obama that neocons are slimy enough to take a moment of video, postulate absurdly ridiculous intent, and use said video to proclaim that the black folks are, as always, terrorists out to get them (you know, typical "victimology 101"). And in reality, I do think it's bad for Barack Obama that neocons are that stupid, mean, and easily frightened. But then, it's bad for the rest of us as well since we have to share a country with them and all.
But I repeat myself.
Honestly, there are times when I have very mixed feelings about my country. Somebody bring me a flag lapel pin! Stat!
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
4:49 PM
3
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Pat Buchanan Makes a Racist Comment...When Will We Learn?
Friday, June 6, 2008
Listening to the first hour of Rachel Maddow while doing some chores, I distinctly heard Pat Buchanan say that part of the reason Obama won the Democratic nomination was that he was an "articulate African-American" candidate. Now, I would guess that I've called Obama "articulate" at times (I'd have to go back and check) because I often apply that label to people, but in those times, I don't think I ever would have connected the ideas "African-American" and "articulate". True, Obama seems to mostly self-identify as African-American and people treat him as African-Amercian and, on Tuesday, he became the first African-American to achieve a major party presidential nomination. Yet there are often times when his blackness totally recedes from my immediate consciousness. Just like there are often times when I totally forget that Clinton is a white woman. Just like there are often times when I totally forget that McCain's an old white man. Nonetheless, just hearing Pat Buchanan put those words together was really jarring (and made me stop to write this post). As soon as I heard it, I thought to myself, "Dude...that 'articulate African-American' comment was racist."
Nothing surprising coming from Pat Buchanan, but I still wonder how many minority presidential candidates we're going to need to have before we learn to be more conscious of our words.
Video:
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
3:43 PM
5
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Republicans Want Affirmative Action from the Media
Friday, May 30, 2008
One of the things I dislike about the Pew study on how the press treats the presidential candidates is that it gives jackasses on the right a reason for fake outrage. When McCain gets less positive media coverage than either Clinton or Obama, one such jackass says this:
Glenn Greenwald crowed yesterday that Scott McClellan’s book somehow disproved the existence of liberal-media bias. He spoke a day too soon. In this case, the media doesn’t have the fig leaf of claiming that the bias comes from the natural role of the media to challenge the government. All three candidates are members of the same body, the Senate, which now runs under Democratic control, not Republican. That excuse for prior studies by Pew showing the same negative bias about Republicans can now be discarded entirely.I don't know who was suggesting that the Pew study is flawed because the media is generally more critical of people in power, but it certainly wouldn't have been me. The biggest problem I have with the Pew study is that it doesn't factor in this little thing called REALITY. The reality is that the Republicans right now pretty much suck in comparison to Democrats. So, the fact that the media chooses to only cover one small portion of Republican suckage compared to that of Democrats really doesn't persuade me that the media is partial toward liberals. Even Republicans know their presidential candidate sucks. But when Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News write negative stories about John McCain, why isn't anyone bitching at them for being part of the "liberal media"?
I know that Republicans subscribe to the "fair and balanced" standard, which means that we are supposed to overlook their lameness just so we can say as many nice things about them as we do about smart, competent, decent people. But the rest of us just don't subscribe to that belief. So, I think it's important for all of us--media included--to force Republicans to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and to not praise them just for their existence. The Participation Award has already been given out for the year. Maybe if the media actually does their job this election, Republicans will finally stop whining about how mean we are to them and start being better stewards of this country for a change. We can only hope.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
5:05 PM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Thinking...And Media
A few weeks ago at my volunteer gig, I was chatting with a seventh grader about a paper she was writing. Her paper was about the development of Nazism in Germany in the 20s and 30s and how the post-WWI German economy and feelings of vulnerability among the German populace were easily manipulated by the Nazi propaganda machine. In the course of our conversation, I found myself wishing that I had been as smart as this girl was when I was in seventh grade. However, at some point during our discussion, she made an incorrect statement of fact upon which I corrected her. While she didn't argue with me on the point, I observed that she wasn't quite prepared to incorporate the change into her body of knowledge. I thought to myself that if she were older and more sophisticated, she would have learned to hide her unwillingness to embrace the new information by quickly changing or expanding the boundaries of the subject we were discussing. Instead, she just sort of hesitated a bit before she continued on to her point, after which time I took the opportunity to repeat the correction.
This scenario got me thinking about how or when we choose to incorporate new or corrected information into our personal bodies of knowledge. Arianna Huffington is right when she discusses the power of repetition as a means to help us change our minds about something, but repetition, in and of itself, can only go so far. Finding new ways of repeating the same information is where it's at (as my pugilism instructor reminds me regularly). We need to find ways of presenting information that fits into an individual's mental schema, which means that, in order to be successful, we have to have some idea of how they think. And the larger, more diverse, the group of people, we're trying to convince, the more ways we need to find to repeat the information. As someone who hates repeating things, I get exhausted when I think about the job of the teacher/propagandist.
Sometimes I think about the tedious ways in which information is processed in relation to my own blogging, and I periodically examine my own goals and responsibilities in the big, wide world of left blogistan. Do I want my role to be one of philosopher, propagandist, entertainer? Maybe none of the above? How do I incorporate my layman's awareness of how people think into my blogging, and how often am I skipping over the inconvenient facts that are presented to me in the blog comments? Or how often am I dismissing contradictory information when I write my own blog entries? Is the point I'm making clear to anyone but me? And then I realize that if all of these complicating questions are relevant to my own content--when it's just li'l ol' me making the decisions--I can only imagine how important they are in the world of real writers--those who deal with editors and publishers and corporate owners.
Scott McClellan's recent book has a lot of people finally conversing about the role of the media in our society. Not that people hadn't been doing this before, but now, we're happily seeing the individuals in the media joining in on the discussion. Glenn Greenwald, who has been blogging on these subjects for a while now, wrote about a recent revelation by a former MSNBC correspondent:
Jessica Yellin -- currently a CNN correspondent who covered the White House for ABC News and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003 -- was on with Anderson Cooper last night discussing Scott McClellan's book, and made one of the most significant admissions heard on television in quite some time:Glenn goes on to flesh out these issues and provide more examples of how f'd up the media is etc, etc...and all the time, I'm reading and agreeing and thinking, "We all know all this already.JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.The video of that exchange is here. As noted in Update II below, Yellin today said that she was referring to her time at MSNBC. Yellin's admission is but the latest in a growing mountain of evidence demonstrating that corporate executives forced their news reporters to propagandize in favor of the Bush administration and the war, and censored stories that were critical of the Government. Katie Couric yesterday said that threats from the White House and accusations of being unpatriotic coerced the media into suppressing its questioning of the war...
And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.
I think, over time...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?
YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.
Why are we still having these conversations?". The frustrating reality: repetition.
PS Speaking of which, here's a new way of presenting information intended to correct some of the falsehoods surrounding Barack Obama:
Repeat it up.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
3:06 PM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Liberal Media v. Rationality
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Pursuant to Scott McClellan's recent book release, Glenn Greenwald notes the following conundrum:
In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott McClellan, would forever slay the single most ludicrous myth in our political culture: The "Liberal Media":While I appreciate Glenn's ire here, in a "minimally rational world" the bizarro notion of the "liberal media" would have been quashed long before Scott McClellan pointed out the absurdity. Here are just a few other things you'd have to believe in order to believe the media is liberal:If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush's own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being "too deferential" to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush's ability to propagandize the nation on the media's uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration's falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.
The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.
- You'd have to believe a liberal media would completely ignore an anti-war speech by Ted Kennedy.
- You'd have to believe a liberal media would give Bill O'Reilly an Emmy Award.
- You'd have to believe a liberal media would be all about the xenophobia.
- You'd have to believe a liberal media would be all about the misogyny.
- You'd have to believe a liberal media would regularly slander liberals.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
4:08 PM
4
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Stuff from Last Night's Primary Coverage that I Need to Make Fun of
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
1. It's a travesty of justice that a boorish Neanderthal (or troglodyte homunculus, if you prefer) such as Joe Scarborough is in any position to affect public opinion in this country.
2. Apparently, it's going to take more than female and black male presidential candidates to get racists and sexists off the teevee (I'm looking at you, Pat Buchanan).
3. Chris Matthews thought Michelle Bernard was "left of center". I've heard this woman talk maybe three times ever (thanks to Rachel Maddow for forcing her on me) and knew instantly she was a right wing shill. She calls herself "right of center". The "liberal media" has no idea what the word liberal means.
4. Howard Fineman needs to either get a new hair dye or go au naturale. Or someone needs to stop spilling pots of coffee on his head before every teevee appearance.
5. Watching the pundits complain about the complexities of the Democratic nominating process while having no problems with their own elaborate dissections of voting demographics is hilarious. Working, white, undereducated voters have become working, white, undereducated, Appalachian voters. Their next logical step is to complain that Obama's problem demographic in this race has been working, white, undereducated, Appalachian voters named "Ted". My neighborhood video store has a better categorization method than these people. Want to browse movies about Christian Hermaphrodite Skater Teens with Eating Disorders anyone?
6. The pundits dismiss Obama's big win in Oregon because it's a far left state right after they claim that McCain wants to turn Oregon red. Do they even listen to themselves talk?
7. No one corrects a Hillary supporter's claim that Hillary has won the popular vote. What do these people do for a living again?
8. Still, the only person that counts in end of this race is the white man. It's amazing how many different contretemps end in that conclusion.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
8:10 AM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Women are People Too
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The last push in this Democratic primary campaign by Hillary and her supporters appears to be yet another play of the gender card. As someone who has written about several (though not even close to all) of the instances of sexism directed at Clinton, it would be absurd of me to suggest that she's overplaying it. She's not. The overt sexism, and even misogyny, that has permeated both her media coverage and her overall public image has been nothing short of appalling. But the reality is that, while Hillary has suffered greatly as a result of sexism, I see no reason to give her a pass on the sexism that she's been a beneficiary of.
And no, I'm not talking about any boyzarestooopidanddrool sexism directed toward men, in general, and Obama, in particular. While disparaging masculinity and men--such as they are--would clearly be sexist, the current social power structure is such that I don't care much about "reverse" sexism engaged in by women. Sorry, guys, when we have equal opportunities, equal pay, and you get your g'damn hands off my body permanently, then I'll feel your pain. Until then, you're on your own.
The bizarrely pro-Clinton sexism I have a problem with is the kind that hurts women as much as, if not more than, it hurts men. I'm talking about the "testicular fortitude" kind of sexism that says that, for a woman to be strong, she has to be willing to "obliterate" Iran and be prepared to bowl a 280 after downing a six pack of Bud followed by a few tequila shooters. I'm talking about the kind of sexism that results in Clinton and McCain competing to determine who gets to carry the Rocky Balboa mantle. I'm talking about the girlzarewimpy kind of sexism that pervades Kathleen Parker's disgusting "The Democrats Hug It Out" column about Edwards' endorsement of Obama:
Well, at least they didn't kiss.Ha! Get it? Obama's a wimpy, let's-talk-it-out girl, and Hillary's a real Ahmadinejad's man. And voters don't want a girl in the White House! (Yes, the supposed switching of 1950's-era gender roles is what passes for HI-larious irony among our elite media class.)
I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.
[...]
Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour united against old men (and women) who worship the status quo. Obama -- the man who makes Chris Matthews feel a thrill up his leg -- wants to "do the Lord's work," lately pictured in front of a cross illuminated with vanity lights on a flier aimed at Kentucky voters, while Edwards wants to roll out the catapults and nuke the Coliseum.
[...]
Clinton, who got a little face time as reporters took her temperature, was (as always) smooth and cool.
Which puts new thoughts in motion as voters project down the road. Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.
Has it pissed me off that Obama has let much of the sexism directed toward Clinton go unanswered? Yes. Has it pissed me off that Clinton has let much of the sexism directed toward Obama go unanswered? Yes. However, the reason that the unresponsiveness from both sides has bothered me isn't that it hurts my favorite candidate's chances or doesn't hurt your favorite candidate's chances. The reason it bothers me is that, in the end, this kind of sexism hurts me and everyone else who finds this pervasive antediluvian attitude utterly oppressive. And the people who are in the best position to fight against it--the two current Democratic candidates--either promote or ignore it when it benefits them. And pimping sexism really pisses me off.
So, I agree that it sucks when Obama calls a woman "sweetie" and no security issues reporter cares enough to wonder aloud whether or not that's how he'll talk to Kim Jong-il. But it also sucks when Hillary talks about whipping out her nukes to obliterate an entire country full of people (there are still people that live there, right?), and the venerable Mr. Security Issues doesn't seem to mind that either. However, laying it all at the feet of Barack Obama or implying that you'll campaign against him if your woman doesn't win the nomination is as foolhardy as it is foolish. Not only is he not the only Democrat in the race to blame for this problem, the fact remains that this election isn't even about him. As some of our candidates have to keep explaining, this election is about us. So, when we work to elect John McCain's Supreme Court nominees and national security, economic, and environmental policies, we're hurting all people. And no matter what the prevailing masses say, women are people too.
(And no, I didn't even touch on racism in this post because that's not what this post was about. )
UPDATE: An example from the New York Times:
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, many women say with regret, did not inspire a deep or nuanced conversation between men and women, only familiar gender-war battles consisting of male gibes and her supporters’ angry responses. Mr. Obama, who sought to minimize the role of race in his candidacy, led something of a national dialogue about it, but Mrs. Clinton, who made womanhood an explicit part of her run, seemed unwilling or unable to talk candidly about gender.These two paragraphs speak volumes about my ambivalence toward Clinton. Consistently playing around the edges of gender issues without addressing them head-on is hardly a rallying cry for feminists. Using Obama's way of dealing with race as a foil illustrates a clear distinction in the leadership styles of the two candidates. After realizing that he couldn't avoid it any longer, Obama went headlong into the topic of race, delivering the most direct and poignant speech on the subject we've heard in a generation. If Clinton were serious about dealing with gender issues in this election, she wouldn't have continually brought them up and then retreated from them when it suited her. She would have dealt with them honestly and directly. Her failure to do so doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her commitment toward gender issues.
Mrs. Clinton, for example, declined a New York Times request earlier this year for an interview about the gender dynamics of the race; her aides said the topic would be impossible for her to address in a frank way.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
3:30 PM
10
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Chris Matthews Dispenses Karmic Justice
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Chris Matthews and I have had our differences in the past. But he earned at least some of his paycheck this evening:
Stupid Neocon Guy: Appeasement ... appeasement ... appeasement ... appeasement ... appeasement ... appeasement ... appeasement...(via John Cole)
Matthews: You don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that Stupid Neocon Guy has a radio show and is in a position to show his face on the teevee should be a complete embarrassment to all of us. And the fact that our President is the king of dunces such as him makes it even worse. Doesn't anyone have to actually earn our respect and attention anymore?
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
8:41 PM
3
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Who is More Concerned About What's on Your Lapel: Neocon Blogs or the Establishment Press?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Simon Owens at Bloggasm recently analyzed four prominent neocon blogs to determine how much of their coverage of Barack Obama focused on policy issues vs. how much focused on non-issues. Not surprisingly:
The four blogs published a total of 311 posts in April prominently featuring Obama. Of those, 71 posts (23%) focused on policy issues. The remaining 240 posts (77%) focused on non-policy issues.While the fact that neocons obsess over non-issues isn't much of a surprise, the fact that they may do it more than the establishment press does is a pleasant surprise:
A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals. [emphasis mine]Glenn Greenwald often mentions the ways in which the right-wing blogs and the establishment press dovetail beautifully in their coverage of non-issues. But it's nice to think that the establishment press might be a marginal improvement over Michelle Malkin on this score. Of course, the differing timeframes and methodologies of these studies may end up playing a role in how each group fared. So, I'm still willing to entertain the notion that the establishment press could, in fact, be as bad as Malkin after all. I mean, Brian Williams does hold up Peggy Noonan as being a paragon of political commentary. Talk about worshiping false idols.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
6:52 PM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Marc Ambinder's Voice of Doom
Obama inadvertently said he'd visited 57 states this election, and Marc Ambinder had this to say:
But if John McCain did this -- if he mistakenly said he'd visited 57 states -- the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment. Just saying....So, McCain confused Sunnis and Shiites several times, and members of the media climbed all over each other to explain it away. But if he accidentally turns a 4 into a 5, then they'll make a big deal out of it? One of two things is true here:
1. When Ambinder said "the media would be all up in his grill", he meant that they would be there just to feed him more donuts;
-or-
2. Our national media has its priorities bizarrely out of whack.
Either one of these options bodes ill for this election.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
3:29 PM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
There is No Spin
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Obama takes North Carolina without even blinking; despite all previous predictions, Indiana is still too close to call. In my ideal world, some video genius will stitch together clips of every single TV pundit (particularly those of the invariably imbecilic Joe Scarborough) claiming that Clinton's gas tax pander is the way to get votes. I want to play it over and over and over and over again. Suck on that, you elitist jerks!
If Obama can prove--once and for all--that one can become president of this country without devolving into a vacuous, pandering poli-drone, we need to put his head on some currency day one.
UPDATE: I don't know what to say....I actually agree with Tim Russert. My head hurts.
UPDATE 2: Jon Stewart is a genius:
UPDATE 3: Now that nobody cares, Hillary has probably squeaked by in Indiana...I'm too uninterested to find a link.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
8:31 PM
0
dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)
Love the Plant, Hate the Planter
Monday, May 5, 2008
Lawyers, Guns, and Money (LGM) p