« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 21, 2006

It not just us

Der Spiegel, the German news magazine, reports that the BND, the German foreign intelligence agency has also spied on journalists. This has created a scandal. Also, they have their Judith Millers in that some journalists have been informers for the BND, receiving cash for their work.

Meanwhile, in the NYT today, David “the world’s dumbest columnist” Brooks has an essay arguing that since the press didn’t give any attention to the NSA scandals and the Democrats were their usual spineless selves, that, well, the NSA scandal must not have really been that bad.

May 13, 2006

That non-existent balance between stupidity and intelligence

I’ve written before on the absurdity of the claim that we have to ‘balance’ civil liberties with the need to ‘do anything to stop the terror.’ I’m still looking for an example of where violating civil liberties helped stop terrorism in either the long-run or in the medium-run. But Kung Fu Monkey slams that argument in the context of the latest NSA spying deal (otherwise known as “How much can we do to the sleeping American public before they wake up” party game that Bush is now playing.)

Comment: "We need to catch the bad guys, and anything is worth --"
Answer: Have you secured the ports yet? Secured the chemical plants? Figured out a way to scan all the luggage on US flights? Worked out the kinks in the retarded "No Fly" list? Started buying up some of the 2,000 loose nukes in Russia? Gotten first responders the equipment they need in case of emergency? Fixed FEMA and Homeland Security? Caught Osama Bin Laden? Tell you what, nail down the jobs that don't require you to wipe your ass with the Constitution first.

May 06, 2006

Is Conservatism a mental illness?

A provocative, extreme title. But I have come to wonder if in fact a fundamental shift hasn’t happened in American Conservatism over the past 30 years. I grew up in a fairly conservative state, but it was a different sort of Conservatism. My memory is that Conservative vs. Liberal was about interpreting the facts, or choosing which facts to focus on. So, should people in trouble be helped? How much should they be helped? The conservative said less, the best society results from one that fosters individual responsibility and initiative. Liberals said more, ignoring unfortunates leads to cruelty and the best society is one of teamwork and connection. But nobody said their weren’t poor people, or handicapped, or mentally ill, or homeless and that those people suffered.

But now, the conservative would dispute the existence of deserving poor at all, they are shiftless, illegal immigrants, terrorists or simply not on the radar screen. Listen to the arguments about how the economy is booming – it’s not based on examining the actual well-being of the majority of Americans, it’s based on the stock market and interest rates and low inflation. Or listen to one ranter on the Asylum site discussing Iraq:

People still point to the arguments made by the moonbats regarding Iraq (no WMDs, Saddam was contained, we're in a quagmire now, etc.) and yet they refuse to look at the documents released from the regime that not only justifies our invasion, but has now exonerated the president and his decision for invasion. The same will pan out for Iran. As a matter of fact, after the first election in Iraq, France and Germany both issued statements that we were right for our invasion. So, I fail to see where America's position in the world could be harmed by striking Iran. The Middle Eastern nations over there, according to the Saddam documents, no longer fear, respect, or look to Iran. Their ally is the United States.

Or in another example:

But I doubt that the troops would see little difference in the enemy in Iran as they did in Iraq, as they did in Afghanistan. These people are cowards, and act as such. But, the crucible we faced in Iraq may have been what was needed to prepare our forces for the inevitable showdown with Iran.

And one could site a thousand comments by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush. Comments that are not putting a different spin on the facts, arguing that the facts can change over time, or pointing to other facts but are (in fact) simply fiction writing.

For all that liberating us from objectivity is laid to the feet of the liberals, it is the conservatives who have embraced it the most completely. Those who defend Bush live in a land where we’re winning in Iraq, the world loves our strength, the world wants our democracy, the budget is in surplus, the world isn’t warming up, and New Orleans is just fine. How is that different from a delusional mental illness?

May 04, 2006

Stephen Colbert: American Patriot

Stephen Colbert: American Patriot

By now, you’ve likely heard of Stephen Colbert’s ripping of the President, the Media, the Generals and everyone else at the Correspondent’s dinner. Daily Kos has the transcript.

And maybe you’ve already heard the conservative reaction in our doormat media: “over the top”, “not respectful”, “wasn’t really that funny.” Yes, of course, we really do need to take lessons from the Republicans in how to respect a president, don’t we? Let’s go play some Clinton transcripts again.

Maybe Colbert wasn’t side splittingly funny. But this is the era when humorists are the real commentators, the ones with weight and credibility. And what Colbert did was satire, and he did it well.

Speaking of how his TV character and the President are so much alike he said:

We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book.
Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

There we have the telling response to Bush’s weird adoption of the postmodern ethic that things can mean what we spin them to mean, that things can be “true for me” and it doesn’t matter what others say.

And reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Ever since that presidential aid dismissed us as living in the “reality based community” it has been clear what is going on. Bush, like the Talaban, or any religious fundamentalist who thinks God has granted him a new revelation that supersedes all the old ones, believes that reality itself is his opponent. I’ve almost never read a conservative screed in these past years where in the first sentence there wasn't some amazing invented ‘fact.’ Conservatism depends on inventing facts. It’s not about making sense of the facts, or adopting a stance to the facts. Now it is about making up the facts.

I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

Part of the separation from reality is that now we all understand that far too much of our public discourse deals with staged events, what Daniel Boorstin long ago called the pseudo-event. We know the aircraft carrier, the dinner with the troops, the visits to New Orleans, are not expressing some other reality, not capturing a reality that can’t easily be made visual – they are the event itself. The president’s response to the destruction of an American city was first the photo op. The laws, the money, that was the secondary response.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

And now comes the paragraph that earned Colbert all the snide attacks in the press, for the mainstream press will tolerate anything, anything at all except the truth about themselves. And when the history of this era is written, the abject surrender of any integrity from the media in its coverage of the Bush administration will be an obvious theme. Can you just imagine how this would be handled differently if it was a Democratic president who had blown up the budget, suppressed scientific data, lied to start a war?

No, Steven Colbert was not hilarious. He was accurate. He made few if any sexual references. He was intimate in addressing the real issue. He lived up to the highest standard of his calling of satire. And in speaking truth to power, he lived up to the highest standard of American patriotism.