Seeking Common Sense in a World Gone Mad
HOME ABOUT Got Comments? Email babblemur here!
Censorship Wars Update
by Akaoni
I’m sure that most readers of this site (if there are any) are aware of this whole Newsweek fiasco. Well today Newsweek
completely retracted their story in the face of heated criticism from the White House and Pentagon, and of course excessive
screaming and bloviating from the right. What is not getting a lot of time is the fact that what Newsweek reported is not at
all new. All of these claims were out there previously, beginning with four former British detainees. Raw Story illustrates in
great detail.
So what is this really about? It seems pretty clear to me. The Bush administration and wingnut right has once again seized
the opportunity to take the SCLM to task for daring to make public, information that is critical to the Bush admin. and its
policies. It is particularly hypocritical for the very same right wing punditocracy, who whole heartedly denies any connection
between U.S. policy and the upswing in anti-American sentiment, to then blame Newsweek for printing news, which was
corroborated by a source at the Pentagon.
If there was violence, it was not Newsweek policy that caused it, it was U.S. government policy which must take at least
part of the blame. Even if the Koran abuse story turns out not to be true (which I doubt), it is not Newsweek who is
ultimately responsible. Maybe they should have more thoroughly vetted their source, but they even checked the story with
the Pentagon before printing it. How much farther must they go before printing information?
This is ultimately about the Bush administration once again deflecting criticism and blaming the messenger. The Pentagon
and the Bush administration have been shown time and time again that they were at the very least allowing detainees to be
treated poorly, and at worst encouraging such behavior. But once again the administration does everything in its power to
avoid responsibility, and deflect blame. That is the real story here, it’s sad that the media once again lets it be a story all
about themselves.
On another front, the administration’s war against Public media has moved to NPR. Today’s New York Times has a story
about Ken Tomlinson’s continuing war on truth. As you may remember, in a previous post (The Assualt on PBS), I said that
NPR is pretty safe from these attacks because of the generous endowment of Joan B. Kroc (Ray Kroc’s widow), I was
wrong. As the New York Times Reports:
- In one of several points of conflict in recent months, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which
allocates federal funds for public radio and television, is considering a plan to monitor Middle East coverage on NPR
news programs for evidence of bias, a corporation spokesman said on Friday.
The corporation's board has told its staff that it should consider redirecting money away from national newscasts and
toward music programs produced by NPR stations.
Top officials at NPR and member stations are upset as well about the corporation's decision to appoint two
ombudsmen to judge the content of programs for balance. And managers of public radio stations criticized the
corporation in a resolution offered at their annual meeting two weeks ago urging it not to interfere in NPR editorial
decisions.
Yes, Tomlinson has expanded the war on independent media and truth telling. Even though internal polling by the CPB
has shown that PBS and NPR are not generally viewed as biased, Tomlinson is taking up the sword in the name of
balance. Yes the old right-wing meme, which is so often trotted out, is once again invoked. See my previous post for
my view of “balance.”
Anyway, this time Tomlinson has taken the bizarre step of appointing two ombudspersons, one from the left
and one to the right to ensure balance. To start with this is absurd, and contradicts the very nature of who
an ombudsperson is and what he or she does. Salon's Eric Boehlert explores this issue:
"It mystifies me," says Geneva Overholser, a Washington-based University of Missouri journalism professor who
served as the Washington Post's ombudsman from 1995 to 1998. "What in the world does it mean to have two? It
makes no sense." She argues that ombudsman responsibilities are specifically designed to be carried out by just one
person as way to demonstrate that a single journalist can be open-minded and listen to all sides of a dispute. By
setting up a sort of left-vs.-right, "Crossfire" approach, Overholser says, the CPB model "participates in the
ideological charade that journalists can't be fair. This is a perversion of the ombudsman.”
[…]
The two-person, right-vs.-left approach "is antithetical" to the ombudsman position, says Jeffrey Dvorkin, who holds
that position for NPR and serves as president of the Organization of News Ombudsmen. "The value of the
ombudsman is as an ideological and political independent."
"Why stop at two ombudsmen? Why not have four or a committee of 12?" quips Carl Stern, a former correspondent
for NBC News who teaches journalism ethics at George Washington University and, like Overholser, is a member of
PBS's Editorial Standards Review Committee. "Balancing ombudsmen -- when will this end? Are we going to have
armies of ombudsmen? This is silliness."
But as I’ve already noted this is not really about balance. Even if NPR was perfectly balanced, if it continued to report
issues of truth, it would inevitably contradict the Bush administration. It is this truth with which the Bush
administration is truly at war. This issue is about shutting up dissent; specifically, its about censoring news coverage
which might be critical, or produce information which contradicts the Bush administration narrative. Since NPR and
PBS present sensible, rational news, they must be brought into line with the rest of the garbage, sensational media.
They know information is power, and have done a masterful job of manipulating the media. Let’s make sure that this
effort is unsuccessful.
Salon also has a great article about Bill Moyers' battle with Tomlinson here.
The Carpetbagger Report weighs in as well.
Sensenbrenner's
Folly
by Akaoni
JIM SENSENBRENNER IS AN
ASSHOLE! First he introduces
a terrible anti-abortion bill, in
which he made it a crime for
family members and even taxi
drivers to transport minors
across state lines to obtain
abortion services. Then he alters
Democratic amendments to make
it appear as though they support
child molesters. Next he has the
unfunded and chilling REAL ID
act attached to the budget
resolution, basically guaranteeing
passage. Now he has released
his newest monstrosity upon the
world: H.R. 1528: Defending
America's Most Vulnerable: Safe
Access to Drug Treatment and
Child Protection Act of 2005.
Clearly the man is mad with
power. This bill is Republican
excess at its ugliest. H.R. 1528
increases mandatory minimums
for a number of drug offenses
despite the fact that mandatory
minimums have been largely
shown to be ineffective at best
and often counter productive.
Not only do mandatory
minimums not decrease drug
offenses, they serve to fill
prisons with low level drug
offenders, costing tax payers
billions of dollars each year.
Mandatory minimums have also
been shown to disproportionately
affect people of color, in
particular young urban black
men.
Families Against Mandatory
Minimums (FAMM) spells out
the case against mandatory
minimums here.
This bill is excessive to say the
least. Under this bill you could
be imprisoned for a 5 year
sentence just by passing a joint to
someone who happened to be
undergoing drug treatment. A
mother who sold a joint to a
friend while her child was at
school would receive a 10 year
minimum sentence. Someone
who knew about drug related
offenses on a college campus
could receive a 5 year sentence
for not informing the police
within 24 hours of the incident.
This bill is down right scary.
For other information on this bill
please check here and here.
Please take time to write your
congresspeople and urge them to
oppose this bill. If your
congressperson is Jim
Sensenbrenner, God help you.
Class Matters
by Akaoni
There is an interesting article in the New York Times this morning entitled "Class in America: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide." It essentially reinforces what I've
already read elsewhere: that class mobility is down in the US, and has been dropping since the 1970s. In fact, it appears that class mobility is lower here than it is in
many European countries.
Sadly, I fear that this issue is never going to gain any foothold in the main stream consciousness. It's just not sexy enough. What's more, it runs counter to many of
our national myths. It's very important for many Americans to continue to believe that the United States is the land of opportunity. Where anyone can roll up their
sleeves and work hard and make it. A poll conducted by the New York Times (found in this nice, handy dandy graphic) found that 80% of respondents felt that it was
possible to start out poor, work hard and become rich in this country. Of course it's true...it is possible. The rags to riches story of Mark Cuban, dot.com millionaire
and high-profile owner of the Dallas Mavericks nicely reinforces this belief. He has lived the Horatio Alger story, and his astonishing rise to wealth serves as an example
that people can site of the greatness on the United States.
But do people really think it's that easy to move up the ladder? Once again according to the NYT's poll, 40% of respondents stated that it was more likely now than
thirty years ago, whereas 23% stated that it was less likely and 35 % said it was the same. Of course the sad truth is that it is less, not more likely now that an
individual would move up the class ladder. But the dream remains. It is this disconnect that is the key to understanding why working class people tend more and more
to side with Republicans who consistently vote against their economic interest, instead of voting with Democrats, who traditionally are thought to fight for working
class economic values (I'll save the topic of whether or not they really do for another post). It's much easier to believe this myth of equality. I mean come on, anyone
who talks about wealth, or income inequality, or social mobility is engaging in "Class Warfare" (just ask Sean Hannity). And if you're engaged in Class Warfare, you
might as well be a Communist. So, talk of class mobility, is often discredited in the public discourse.
Plus, Big Media doesn't like these issues anyway. Instead, it's much more fun to discuss sexy, so-called morality issues, like the three Gs: God, Gays and Guns. It's
unlikely that technical topics like income and wealth mobility get any coverage from the TV media. There are no live feeds, car chases, sexy scandals, etc. Issues of
income are just too difficult to discuss; and they tend to get drowned out by more important stories like the "runaway bride" anyway.
But issues of income and wealth need to become part of the discourse. Time and time again people have voted with their pocketbooks. And hopefully people will begin
to see that the massive inequality of wealth and income in this country is not a healthy thing. First they have to hear about it. Sadly, I don't think that most people will
be reading these articles in the Times.
The Times is running a whole series on class this week. Follow it here!
12 May 2005
Bolton Battle
by Akaoni
Well today’s the day of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearings on John Bolton. So I thought I’d post
a few links relating to Mr. Bolton and today’s hearings.
There is an excellent article on the front page of today’s
New York Times hearings regarding Mr. Bolton’s battles
over intelligence, and maverick style. Some key passages
include:
- In interviews on Wednesday, several former senior
intelligence officials said the widely accepted view
was that policy makers had a right to state their own
views about intelligence matters, but that they also
had an obligation to be accurate and to make
explicit when they were stating personal opinions.
For weeks, the committee has been exploring
whether Mr. Bolton, as an under secretary of state,
improperly sought to press intelligence agencies to
endorse his views, and sought to bypass the
agencies' objections by describing his own views as
those of the government.
Mr. Kerry asked Mr. Bolton whether as ambassador
to the United Nations, he would "unfailingly use the
established procedure" for clearing speeches,
testimony and other public remarks with intelligence
agencies.
In his response, Mr. Bolton told the committee that
he would adhere to rules that require formal
clearance of any statement purporting to describe
intelligence agencies' views. But he also said, "A
policy official may state his own reading of the
intelligence (assuming the information is cleared for
release as a policy matter) as long as he does not
purport to speak for the intelligence community."
Here’s another concerning Bolton’s clashes with the
CIA over WMD intellinence.
Among newly declassified documents being reviewed
by the committee are some from the Central
Intelligence Agency expressing vehement opposition
to testimony on Cuba that Mr. Bolton planned to
give in June 2002, at least partly on grounds that
Mr. Bolton was presenting as the government's view
a conclusion that Cuba possessed biological
weapons, when the intelligence agencies were not so
certain.
The documents on Cuba were provided to the
committee by the C.I.A., and were provided to The
New York Times by a Democrat legislator opposed
to Mr. Bolton's nomination. Many had initially been
classified as secret, and they reflect intense, angry
debate between Mr. Bolton's office and senior
intelligence officials, including representatives of
the National Intelligence Council, that focused in
part on whether the intelligence agencies' had a
right to challenge some of the planned assertions.
One memorandum sent by an unnamed C.I.A.
official to George J. Tenet, then the director of
central intelligence, told how a meeting in mid-2002
on the Cuba testimony "quickly grew contentious
when we discovered that Mr. Bolton had left
instructions that we confine our comments to sources
and methods issues or to substantive information
that strengthened the under secretary's
argumentation in the proposed testimony."
In another memo, a different agency official, also
unidentified, expressed "serious concerns about the
tone and tenor" of the testimony on Cuba that Mr.
Bolton had proposed, saying it "misrepresents" the
judgments of the intelligence agencies about not
only B.W.," biological weapons, "but also on
terrorism."
Bolton is clearly not interested in intelligence that
differs with his opinions; rather, he would rather
just read the intel himself and mold it so that it
supports his stance. Clearly this is at odds with any
sort of “reality based” thinking. Don’t think that
this pattern won’t continue when he’s UN
Ambassador. This zebra doesn’t change his stripes.
On a different, and more risqué front, Bolton may have
been a bit of a swinger back in the 70’s and 80’s.
According to documents which Hustler publisher Larry
Flynt has procured, Bolton may have visited the swinger
mecca: Plato’s Retreat, and may have forced his wife to
participate as well. This scandal is reminiscent of the story
which derailed Jack Ryan (Husband of Star Trek: Voyager’
s 7 of 9, Jeri Ryan)’s campaign for the Illinois Senate seat.
Although I believe that people’s sex lives are their own
business (as long as they don't hurt anyone), many
conservative Republicans are not of a like mind. I wonder
what impact this little scandal has on the nomination. It’s
sad that sexual scandal, rather than political substance often
carries more weight in our society, but it does.
Anyway, Raw Story has article here.
James Wolcott also chimes in.
(via.Crooks and Liars)
Finally, Steve Clemons urges all to read this article in the
Financial Times.
The hearings are on CSPAN. Go Watch Now.
10 May 2005
The Assault on PBS. (Or Akaoni looses it, and goes on a poorly thought out, and ill
conceived rant).
by Akaoni
Once again a Bush Administration appointee is trying to shape the media to fit his goals. This time it's Ken
Tomlinson, former publisher of the conservative Readers' Digest, and current chairman of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting who's plunged into the fray. And what excuse is he using? BALANCE, that old conservative talking
point, which has been repeated again and again, ad nuseaum.
Yes my friends, the Republicans know something: repetition indeed appears to be truth! It worked for Rush, didn't it? It
worked for Fox, didn't it? The Mainstream Media is Liberal, the MSM is liberal, the MSM is liberal, again and again and
again until the Main Stream Media gave in. They did what was asked of them. And what was that??? They strove to be
balanced. What's wrong with that, you might ask. Fairness dictates that we be balanced. Come on, you all know what
they sacrificed was the lifeblood of journalism. The heart of investigative reporting. The Quest for TRUTH. Now we
simply have no truth, only the left vs. right spewing punditry, that dominates cable news. We don't need facts we need
balance or so this right-wing meme tells us. This is what Jon Stewart was talking about when he pleaded with the folks at
Crossfire to "stop hurting America!" Instead of any solid factual ground to stand on, we get opinion to weigh. Does it
matter when one of these wise people's opinion is based on bullshit evidence. NO! As long as there's fucking balance it's
all good. Why do I turn to Jon Stewart, a self admitted "fake news" reporter? He's the only one calling people on this
bullshit. Like when he calls this idiotic CNN anchor on it. It's this kind of journalistic laziness that's eating our nation's
collective soul!
Now let's turn to PBS, which along with NPR are two of the only decent news outlets left. Why? Is it because they are
liberal? NO! It's because they do not sensationalize news. They report the news in a rational, truly balanced way. They
are not tied to the trough of profit (at least not to the extent that the SCLM is). We need programs like Frontline to continue
asking the hard questions. We need programs like News Hour to report the news in a calm, direct, independent manner.
Questioning and challenging authority is part of this. So when the current Government is taken to task, it just happens to be
Republican. That can't really be helped they control everything: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. When the news
questions the statements of our Great Leaders, this must then make them liberal, since they're challenging Republicans...
Right? WRONG!
The Bush Administration have shown themselves experts at manipulating media. It's not issues like Armstrong Williams
accepting money to shill for the DEA, as much as it is their overall strategy of controlling information and imagery. They
did it with amazing skill leading up to the Iraq war. They painted an image of WMD in Saddam's hands with a patchwork
of facts, and sold it to the Main Stream Media, and they lapped it up like the good doggies they are. Yes Saddam had
WMD. Yes he had close operating ties with Bin Laden. Yes, Iraqis were involved in the World Trade Center bombing.
Yes, the US has found WMD in Iraq. The American people believed them...that is except PBS watchers and NPR listeners.
Remember that University of Maryland poll in 2003? Well maybe this article will refresh your memory. Here's the money
quote:
- Champions of public broadcasting can draw comfort from the fact that those who relied on NPR or PBS had the
lowest misperception rate. A mere 23 percent -- less than half the next highest rate -- believed one or more.
Depressingly for broadcasters, those who said they paid close attention to the news were no less likely to be
mistaken. Indeed, the more closely respondents said they watched Fox, the more likely they were to harbor these
inaccurate beliefs.
Only those who got their news from what the study lumped together as "print sources" benefited from paying closer
attention.
The researchers also concluded that these results were not simply the reflection of the original biases of the audience.
Among those who relied on NPR or PBS, for instance, those who supported President Bush and the war itself were
still much less likely to believe any of the myths.
Of course this won't do. We can't have accurate news reporting competing with the Administration Approved
Narrative can we?
PBS and NPR are valuable because they prize accuracy over sensationalism. It is their independence that makes
them accurate. This is why the Administration and their lackey Tomlinson have targeted PBS. They threaten their
hold on information. Thus PBS must be controlled.
Why PBS and not NPR? Well NPR is currently flush with a big endowment from Ray Kroc (of McDonald's fame)'s
widow, thus they're less vulnerable. Not so PBS, whose funding depends largely on the CPB. Thus the move to
bend PBS to the Administration's will.
Here's another take on the situation from Salon.com.
10 May 2005
More on Bolton
by Akaoni
I thought I'd post a little more about Bolton today, since I probably won't write about him again until the committee
hearings next week.
There's a very interesting article about Bolton in today's New York Times. According to aide to former Secretary of
State Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, Bolton was a major source of tension in the State Department because of his
"temperament, his treatment of subordinates and the fact that he had "overstepped his bounds" on a number of
occasions..." Further, he was restricted from making speeches or giving testimony without Richard Armitage's
personal approval. It's just another piece of damming information for the Bolton nomination. Let's see if the
Republican members of the committee have enough spine to do what's right and put this nomination back on the
shelf...
Read the whole article here.
9 May 2005
Akaoni on Bolton
by Akaoni
"Time and time again Bolton’s rigidity and intransigence have stood in the way of negotiation and cooperation. He
has “cherry picked” intelligence for information supporting his positions, and sought to discredit anyone who called
him on it. He’s pissed off allies and enemies alike. This man is uniquely unqualified for the post of ambassador to
the UN." Click Here for the full story
6 May 2005
More Anti-gay activities by the Federal Government.
By Akaoni
I found this item on Big Brass Blog.
Apparently the FDA is considering implementing a ban on sperm donation from any men who have engaged in
homosexual activity in the past 5 years.
Read the whole article here.
Unbelievable...
6 May 2005
Culture War Alert...
It appears that 8 members were excommunicated from the East Waynesville Baptist Church for...Demonic Possession?
Nope guess again. Sexual impropriety? Not even close. Witchcraft? No. They were excommunicated for being...
Democrats! Apparently the pastor stated that if any of the parishioners voted for Kerry or Democrats they were acting in a
manner contradicting church law. Views concerning homosexuality and abortion were said to be the two primary issues.
According to one news report 40 other parishioners resigned in protest.
Read all about it HERE.
I wonder, could this kind of action be viewed as political, thereby nullifying the church's tax exempt status? It certianly
seems like a political move to me...