The Value Of Propaganda

I always thought of propaganda as being a bad thing. In fact, in school I was taught about it as if it were a bad thing. Communist propaganda. Nazi propaganda. Socialist propaganda. Marxist Leninist propaganda.

In truth, Merriam Webster defines it more broadly:

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Whenever some history class made reference to Nazi or Communist propaganda, I always had the same recurring thought: How stupid must those people have been to fall for that shit? The answer, it appears, is not very. I have since decided it has nothing at all to do with intelligence but rather a willingness to believe. I think the kind of people who are susceptible to propaganda are those who are mostly already on board and just need a little rally point to get all the way there. A way to overcome the last, lingering doubt that tickles the back of their brain so they can join the herd of true believers. The non-believers are (as non-believers always are) the skeptical ones.

If propaganda were just a persuasionary device it would rank neutral on the scale of good and evil. I can think of lots of things that fall under the category of mere persuasion. I use ideas and information to persuade occasionally right here on this blog (when I am not busy alienating both of my readers). The problem with propaganda is that it's often tempting to misrepresent data in order to produce the desired thought outcome.

I accept a certain amount of propaganda in times of war because I think it's important to play up your victories and soften your opposition. War is as much psychological as it is physical. As such, the media swarm around Pat Tillman's voluntary tour of Afghanistan didn't bother me. I would consider this to be "good" propaganda... Pat Tillman giving up a multi-million pro-football career to selflessly serve his country was an amazing and uplifting story. The story around his death and subsequent receipt of the silver star was not. Friendly fire is a cold fact of war. It is a hideous circumstance but there is no dishonor in dying that way. The only dishonor was trying to turn Tillman's death into something it wasn't and awarding him a silver star for it.

I was a little more suspicious of the gloriously produced rescue of Jessica Lynch. If the information we received about Jessica Lynch's capture had been factually correct, or if her rescue hadn't been carefully scripted (they waited a day to rescue her to ensure a film crew was ready?) it would have served as "good" propaganda. As it turned out, the facts were purposely distorted to achieve a desired result -- thereby falling into the "bad" propaganda category.

There are some striking similarities in the distortion of the Tillman and Lynch events, as documented in today's congressional hearing:

Tillman's death received worldwide attention because he had walked away from a huge contract with the NFL's Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the Army after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

His family was initially misled by the Pentagon and did not learn the truth for more than a month. Tillman was awarded a Silver Star based on fabricated accounts -- who fabricated them still isn't clear after several investigations.

"We don't know what the secretary of defense knew, we don't know what the White House knew," Waxman said. "What we do know is these were not a series of accidents, these stories. They were calculatedly put out for a public relations purpose. ... Even now there seems to be a cover-up."

*snip

The committee also heard Tuesday from Jessica Lynch, the former Army private who was badly injured when her convoy was ambushed in Iraq in 2003. She was later rescued by American troops from an Iraqi hospital, but the tale of her ambush was changed into a story of heroism on her part.

Still hampered by her injuries, Lynch walked slowly to the witness table and took a seat alongside Tillman's family members.

"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate lies," Lynch said.

There is value in "good" propaganda but "bad" propaganda created in order to manipulate our responses betrays trust that will never be recovered.

At least for me.

Obama Speaks On Foreign Policy

I truly believe that America will never be as great as she was meant to be if this man does not get elected. Below is the foreign policy speech he gave yesterday in its entirety. I know it's long but it's a good and important read.

One thing that has really bothered me about the Bush administration is that they seem to have only two tools in their toolbox: Bully tactics and brute force, which they wield against every obstacle in their path. There is a time for such things but they are only two tools out of a hundred possible tools with which to go to work on our problems. A wise old sysperf guy once told me, "If you only have a hammer in your toolbox, then you'll begin to look at every problem as a nail." I think Obama has a natural appreciation for applying a variety of tools to solve complex problems -- the value of which is not to be underestimated.

Note: No, he does not include all manner of explicit little details (how could he have all the details yet?). The speech is meant to define his ideology and, to my eye, his ideology is exactly dead-on where I want it to be. I may have just two little quibbles. The first is on expanding the military, which I think is going to be difficult to do with recruitment numbers at an all time low. The only difference he could make would be a call to serve -- I would love to see a leader finally ask something of us. The second quibble is on the Global Education Fund, which I think is squishy.

In his own words, here's what Obama said yesterday to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs:

Good morning. We all know that these are not the best of times for America’s reputation in the world. We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect. We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision.

Many around the world are disappointed with our actions. And many in our own country have come to doubt either our wisdom or our capacity to shape events beyond our borders. Some have even suggested that America’s time has passed.

But while we know what we have lost as a consequence of this tragic war, I also know what I have found in my travels over the past two years.

In an old building in Ukraine, I saw test tubes filled with anthrax and the plague lying virtually unlocked and unguarded – dangers we were told could only be secured with America’s help.

On a trip to the Middle East, I met Israelis and Palestinians who told me that peace remains a distant hope without the promise of American leadership.

At a camp along the border of Chad and Darfur, refugees begged for America to step in and help stop the genocide that has taken their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.

And along the crowded streets of Kenya, I met throngs of children who asked if they’d ever get the chance to visit that magical place called America.

So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.

I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.

I believe that the single most important job of any President is to protect the American people. And I am equally convinced that doing that job effectively in the 21st century will require a new vision of American leadership and a new conception of our national security – a vision that draws from the lessons of the past, but is not bound by outdated thinking.

In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. When narco-trafficking and corruption threaten democracy in Latin America, it’s America’s problem too. When poor villagers in Indonesia have no choice but to send chickens to market infected with avian flu, it cannot be seen as a distant concern. When religious schools in Pakistan teach hatred to young children, our children are threatened as well.

Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.

The horrific attacks on that clear September day awakened us to this new reality. And after 9/11, millions around the world were ready to stand with us. They were willing to rally to our cause because it was their cause too – because they knew that if America led the world toward a new era of global cooperation, it would advance the security of people in our nation and all nations.

We now know how badly this Administration squandered that opportunity. In 2002, I stated my opposition to the war in Iraq, not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light. I believed then, and believe now, that it was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies – a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset.

There is no doubt that the mistakes of the past six years have made our current task more difficult. World opinion has turned against us. And after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs.

I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission – we must lead the world, by deed and example.

We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people. We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. We must lead by building and strengthening the partnerships and alliances necessary to meet our common challenges and defeat our common threats.

And America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world’s forgotten corners – because while there will always be those who succumb to hate and strap bombs to their bodies, there are millions more who want to take another path – who want our beacon of hope to shine its light their way.

This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership. The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.

This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.

There are five ways America will begin to lead again when I’m President. Five ways to let the world know that we are committed to our common security, invested in our common humanity, and still a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.

The first way America will lead is by bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocusing on the critical challenges in the broader region.

In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi’a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement – a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But my plan also makes clear that continued U.S. commitment to Iraq depends on the Iraqi government meeting a series of well-defined benchmarks necessary to reach a political settlement. Thus far, the Iraqi government has made very little progress in meeting any of the benchmarks, in part because the President has refused time and again to tell the Iraqi government that we will not be there forever. The President’s escalation of U.S. forces may bring a temporary reduction in the violence in Baghdad, at the price of increased U.S. casualties – though the experience so far is not encouraging. But it cannot change the political dynamic in Iraq. A phased withdrawal can.

Moreover, until we change our approach in Iraq, it will be increasingly difficult to refocus our efforts on the challenges in the wider region – on the conflict in the Middle East, where Hamas and Hezbollah feel emboldened and Israel’s prospects for a secure peace seem uncertain; on Iran, which has been strengthened by the war in Iraq; and on Afghanistan, where more American forces are needed to battle al Qaeda, track down Osama bin Laden, and stop that country from backsliding toward instability.

Burdened by Iraq, our lackluster diplomatic efforts leave a huge void. Our interests are best served when people and governments from Jerusalem and Amman to Damascus and Tehran understand that America will stand with our friends, work hard to build a peaceful Middle East, and refuse to cede the future of the region to those who seek perpetual conflict and instability. Such effective diplomacy cannot be done on the cheap, nor can it be warped by an ongoing occupation of Iraq. Instead, it will require patient, sustained effort, and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. That is a commitment I intend to make.

The second way America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it.

We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is why our country’s greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

This administration’s first Secretary of Defense proudly acknowledged that he had inherited the greatest fighting force in the nation’s history. Six years later, he handed over a force that has been stretched to the breaking point, understaffed, and struggling to repair its equipment.

Two-thirds of the Army is now rated “not ready” for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency.

Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

But adding troops isn’t just about meeting a quota. It’s about recruiting the best and brightest to service, and it’s about keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve. It’s about providing funding to enable the National Guard to achieve an adequate state of readiness again. And it’s about honoring our veterans by giving them the respect and dignity they deserve and the care and benefits they have earned.

A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women’s ability to succeed in today’s complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, or Korean. It’s time we recognize these as critical skills for our military, and it’s time we recruit and train for them.

Former Secretary Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want.” I say that if the need arises when I’m President, the Army we have will be the Army we need.

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.

No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

And when we do send our men and women into harm’s way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.

We must take these steps with the knowledge that while sometimes necessary, force is the costliest weapon in the arsenal of American power in terms of lives and treasure. And it’s far from the only measure of our strength.

In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community – with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option.

The third way America must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency – securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

As leaders from Henry Kissinger to George Shultz to Bill Perry to Sam Nunn have all warned, the actions we are taking today on this issue are simply not adequate to the danger.

There are still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium – some of it poorly secured – at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. In the former Soviet Union, there are still about 15,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium capable of making another 40,000 weapons scattered across 11 time zones. And people have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market.

We can do something about this. As President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years – the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb.

We know that Russia is neither our enemy nor close ally right now, and we shouldn’t shy away from pushing for more democracy, transparency, and accountability in that country. But we also know that we can and must work with Russia to make sure every one of its nuclear weapons and every cache of nuclear material is secured. And we should fully implement the law I passed with Senator Dick Lugar that would help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.

While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, we should also negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.

As starting points, the world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy. For North Korea, that means ensuring the full implementation of the recent agreement. For Iran, it means getting the UN Security Council, Europe, and the Gulf States to join with us in ratcheting up the economic pressure.

We must also dissuade other countries from joining the nuclear club. Just the other day, it was reported that nearly a dozen countries in and around the Middle East –including Syria and Saudi Arabia – are interested in pursuing nuclear power.

Countries should not be able to build a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That’s why we should create an international fuel bank to back up commercial fuel supplies so there’s an assured supply and no more excuses for nations like Iran to build their own enrichment plants. It’s encouraging that the Nuclear Threat Initiative, backed by Warren Buffett, has already offered funding for this fuel bank, if matched two to one. But on an issue of this importance, the United States should not leave the solution to private philanthropies. It should be a central component of our national security, and that’s why we should provide $50 million to get this fuel bank started and urge other nations, starting with Russia, to join us.

Finally, if we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, “The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status – another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.” Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.

The danger of nuclear proliferation reminds us of how critical global cooperation will be in the 21st century. That’s why the fourth way America must lead is to rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats.

In the wake of the Second World War, it was America that largely built a system of international institutions that carried us through the Cold War. Leaders like Harry Truman and George Marshall knew that instead of constraining our power, these institutions magnified it.

Today it’s become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations. In fact, reform of these bodies is urgently needed if they are to keep pace with the fast-moving threats we face. Such real reform will not come, however, by dismissing the value of these institutions, or by bullying other countries to ratify changes we have drafted in isolation. Real reform will come because we convince others that they too have a stake in change – that such reforms will make their world, and not just ours, more secure.

Our alliances also require constant management and revision if they are to remain effective and relevant. For example, over the last 15 years, NATO has made tremendous strides in transforming from a Cold War security structure to a dynamic partnership for peace.

Today, NATO’s challenge in Afghanistan has become a test case, in the words of Dick Lugar, of whether the alliance can “overcome the growing discrepancy between NATO’s expanding missions and its lagging capabilities.”

We must close this gap, rallying members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization, streamlining decision-making processes, and giving commanders in the field more flexibility.

And as we strengthen NATO, we should also seek to build new alliances and relationships in other regions important to our interests in the 21st century. In Asia, the emergence of an economically vibrant, more politically active China offers new opportunities for prosperity and cooperation, but also poses new challenges for the United States and our partners in the region. It is time for the United States to take a more active role here – to build on our strong bilateral relations and informal arrangements like the Six Party talks. As President, I intend to forge a more effective regional framework in Asia that will promote stability, prosperity and help us confront common transnational threats such as tracking down terrorists and responding to global health problems like avian flu.

In this way, the security alliances and relationships we build in the 21st century will serve a broader purpose than preventing the invasion of one country by another. They can help us meet challenges that the world can only confront together, like the unprecedented threat of global climate change.

This is a crisis that cannot be contained to one corner of the globe. Studies show that with each degree of warming, rice yields – the world’s most significant crop – fall by 10%. By 2050 famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, South Asia.

As the world’s largest producers of greenhouse gases, America has the greatest responsibility to lead here. We must enact a cap and trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. And we must finally free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil by raising our fuel standards and harnessing the power of biofuels.

Such steps are not just environmental priorities, they are critical to our security. America must take decisive action in order to more plausibly demand the same effort from others. We should push for binding and enforceable commitments to reduce emissions by the nations which pollute the most – the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, and India together account for nearly two-thirds of current emissions. And we should help ensure that growth in developing countries is fueled by low-carbon energy – the market for which could grow to $500 billion by 2050 and spur the next wave of American entrepreneurship.

The fifth way America will lead again is to invest in our common humanity – to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.

A recent report detailed Al Qaeda’s progress in recruiting a new generation of leaders to replace the ones we have captured or killed. The new recruits come from a broader range of countries than the old leadership – from Afghanistan to Chechnya, from Britain to Germany, from Algeria to Pakistan. Most of these recruits are in their early thirties.

They operate freely in the disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world – the impoverished, weak and ungoverned states that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.

Some of these terrorist recruits may have always been destined to take the path they did – accepting a tragically warped view of their religion in which God rewards the killing of innocents. But millions of young men and women have not.

Last summer I visited the Horn of Africa’s Combined Joint Task Force, which was headquartered at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. It’s a U.S. base that was set up four years ago, originally as a place to launch counter-terrorism operations. But recently, a major focus of the Task Force has been working with our diplomats and aid workers on operations to win hearts and minds. While I was there, I also took a helicopter ride with Admiral Hunt, the commander of the Task Force, to Dire Dawa, where the U.S. was helping provide food and water to Ethiopians who had been devastated by flooding.

One of the Navy captains who helps run the base recently told a reporter, “Our mission is at least 95 percent civil affairs. It's trying to get at the root causes of why people want to take on the U.S.'' The Admiral now in charge of the Task Force suggested that if they can provide dignity and opportunity to the people in that region, then, “the chance of extremism being welcomed greatly, if not completely, diminishes.”

We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom – that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.

I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice.

Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world’s weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. And it requires states that have the capacity to fight terrorism, halt the proliferation of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat such deadly diseases as HIV/AIDS and malaria.

As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity. As we have seen recently with large increases in funding for our AIDS programs, we have the capacity to make sure this funding makes a real difference.

Part of this new funding will also establish a two billion dollar Global Education Fund that calls on the world to join together in eliminating the global education deficit, similar to what the 9/11 commission proposed. Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.

I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today. But as the U.S. military made clear in Camp Lemonier, a relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly – both in lives and treasure – down the road. In this way, $50 billion a year in foreign aid – which is less than one-half of one percent of our GDP – doesn’t sound as costly when you consider that last year, the Pentagon spent nearly double that amount in Iraq alone.

Finally, while America can help others build more secure societies, we must never forget that only the citizens of these nations can sustain them. The corruption I heard about while visiting parts of Africa has been around for decades, but the hunger to eliminate such corruption is a growing and powerful force among people there. And so in these places where fear and want still thrive, we must couple our aid with an insistent call for reform.

We must do so not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner – a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections. Extending an outstretched hand to these states must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people. And it’s about showing the world that America stands for something – that we can still lead.

These are the ways we will answer the challenge that arrived on our shores that September morning more than five years ago. A 21st century military to stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar. Global efforts to keep the world’s deadliest weapons out of the world’s most dangerous hands. Stronger alliances to share information, pool resources, and break up terrorist networks that operate in more than eighty countries. And a stronger push to defeat the terrorists’ message of hate with an agenda for hope around the world.

It’s time we had a President who can do this again – who can speak directly to the world, and send a message to all those men and women beyond our shores who long for lives of dignity and security that says “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

It’s time, as well, for a President who can build a consensus at home for this ambitious but necessary course. For in the end, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel a stake in its success – and unless they trust that their government hears their more immediate concerns as well. After all, we will not be able to increase foreign aid if we fail to invest in security and opportunity for our own people. We cannot negotiate trade agreements to help spur development in poor countries so long as we provide no meaningful help to working Americans burdened by the dislocations of a global economy. We cannot expect Americans to support placing our men and women in harm’s way if we cannot prove that we will use force wisely and judiciously.

But if the next President can restore the American people’s trust – if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility – then I believe the American people will be ready to see America lead again.

They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city.

That is not who we are.

America is the country that helped liberate a continent from the march of a madman. We are the country that told the brave people of a divided city that we were Berliners too. We sent generations of young people to serve as ambassadors for peace in countries all over the world. And we’re the country that rushed aid throughout Asia for the victims of a devastating tsunami.

Now it’s our moment to lead – our generation’s time to tell another great American story. So someday we can tell our children that this was the time when we helped forge peace in the Middle East. That this was the time when we confronted climate change and secured the weapons that could destroy the human race. This was the time when we brought opportunity to those forgotten corners of the world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity, and liberty, and hope on our doorstep.

One of these travelers was my father. I barely knew him, but when, after his death, I finally took my first trip to his tiny village in Kenya and asked my grandmother if there was anything left from him, she opened a trunk and took out a stack of letters, which she handed to me.

There were more than thirty of them, all handwritten by my father, all addressed to colleges and universities across America, all filled with the hope of a young man who dreamed of more for his life.

It is because someone in this country answered that prayer that I stand before you today with faith in our future, confidence in our story, and a determination to do my part in writing our country’s next great chapter.

The American moment has not passed. The American moment is here. And like generations before us, we will seize that moment, and begin the world anew.

Thank you.

Why Harry Reid Is Wrong

Harry Reid says we're losing the war. He's right... but he's also wrong.

I think people kind of tend to forget what the objective of the Iraq war was. If memory serves, it was 1) to depose Saddam, 2) eliminate the threat of WMD in Iraq, and, with a bit of a stretch, 3) give democracy to the Iraqis. As far as I'm concerned, we can put a check mark in each of those boxes. Done. Won. Over.

The problem is that Colin Powell's famous reference to the fictional Pottery Barn rule, "If you break it, you own it," has now come back to bite us in the ass. We shattered Iraq's Saddam-enforced veneer of stability, and, voila: it's now a mess o' potamia (thank you, Jon Stewart). Whether you think the "war" is winnable at this point depends largely on whether you think Iraq can be peacefully patched back together (or separated). Some folks still do but I chalk that up to either the inability to admit a mistake for something they once supported or else a grossly simplistic view of what the issues are. Time will identify the winner of that ideological battle but the point is that all we're doing at this point is playing referee. Is that a "war"? I don't think so... I think it's just crappy exit strategy planning.

I'd be all for staying if I thought for a minute that my kids would be better off for it, but I don't. Time for someone to start giving some consideration to that infamous Plan B that nobody will accept responsibility for. We need to figure out what we can still affect over there and then figure if there's anything we can do to contain the damage.

And then we need to go.

Happy Friday!

One of the greatest joys in my life is to occasionally recognize really brilliant stuff. An interesting song. A delicious flavor. Inspired writing. Insightful commentary.

The greatest sadness in my life is my inability to actually produce any of those things.

I have learned to be satisfied by the former; regarding the latter, I just keep on plugging away at it, hoping someday to stumble on some greatness of my own. In the meantime, I'll continue to marvel at those around me with talent. Keep rocking my world, ya'll!

Just sayin'...

Big Brother Is Watching

Regarding a strange reveal in the news reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre, John Avarosis asked yesterday, "Why does the government have a list of everyone who has ever used anti-depressants?"

Guess what? They do. From ABC News, regarding the VA Tech shooter:

Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.

We don't even have a list of gun owners, and we have a list of everyone who has been prescribed anti-depressants? And in fact, the article suggests that this isn't just a database of patients who use anti-depressants, it's a federal database of every prescription drug you've ever bought.

What exactly do the Bushies do with that list? And what other lists do they have of which medications you've ever taken?

Does this make anyone else uncomfortable?

Avarosis follows up today with more information. I'm excerpting the full text because it's important to get this message out:

We learned yesterday that the Bush administration has created a database of every single prescription drug user/patient in the country (that would pretty much be all of us). The database was created pursuant to a 2005 law that was intended to prevent the abuse of prescription drugs. Funny that this massive new database of your private medical information is now being (ab)used for a purpose that wasn't intended in or approved by the law.

The federal database of your private medical information is now being used by federal law enforcement to investigate crimes that have nothing to do with prescription drug abuse. We know this because yesterday ABC News disclosed that the feds checked the database to see what prescription meds the Virginia Tech shooter might have been on. How does the mass murder of students and faculty at Virginia Tech have anything to do with prescription drug abuse? It doesn't.

The Bush administration has created a massive database of your private medical records and they're now abusing it. Gee, what a surprise - the Bush administration secretly prying into our private lives in violation of the law. If they wanted this power, they could have sought it from Congress. They didn't. So they took it anyway, even though the law doesn't allow it.

Your privacy is gone, and it's not terribly clear that anyone in Washington cares.

In case it isn't already abundantly clear, the government (and it doesn't matter who sits in the oval office) cannot help itself when it comes to power. Whatever they have, it's guaranteed they will abuse it. Those of us who went ballistic about the giant databases that were proposed post 9-11 know this and the government seems to go out of its way to prove it every chance it gets. Whether it's your financial data, your medical data, your personal communications, your whereabouts, etc... the government won't think twice about using the data however it sees fit.

It's time for people to come out of their 9/11 trauma-induced coma and recognize that the government does not have the ability (or desire) to limit its own power. It is not going to restrict its collection and use of information solely for the purpose of "protecting" us. In the end it will use our data for whatever purpose it wants, and it'll do it just because it can.

Birth Of New Conventional Wisdom

Glenn Greenwald identifies the birth of new conventional wisdom (the kind of unsubstantiated non-news that quickly escalates into a Known Fact):

We have been treated in the last 48 hours to an extremely vivid illustration of how conventional political Beltway wisdom is created. It all began with The Politico's in-house gossip, Ben Smith, who on consecutive days published a gossipy, petty article designed to fuel right-wing caricatures of the personality traits of John Edwards and Barack Obama, respectively.

First was a story on Monday about the costs of Edwards' haircuts and visits to a spa, plainly intended to fuel the principal right-wing anti-Edwards caricature -- his effeminate obsession with his hair.

That was followed by another Smith story yesterday ripping out of context a small part of Obama's speech -- in which he spoke of various types of "violence" (beyond physical violence) that create divisions in America. Attaching himself to the prevailing anti-Obama cliche, Smith asserts that these excerpts illustrate Obama's "instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action."

Obama's crime? Instead of proposing specific policies to "solve" the problem of school shootings (as though such problems can be "solved"), Obama "moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life." In the rotted world of Beltway media cynicism, any talk of "root solutions" or "ideas" or "abstract concepts" is automatically insincere, irrelevant and merely a tactic for avoiding "real substance."

Predictably, both Politico items were immediately trumpeted by Drudge, almost certainly the real goal of Smith's stories. Thereafter, the standard right-wing hacks then dutifully followed along, reciting the exact storyline manufactured by Smith and Drudge. The conventional wisdom-spewing internet gossip Mickey Kaus then joined in with an item entitled "Barack the Hack," which claims -- in an act of extreme projection -- that the speech reflects "a mindset that tries to fit every event into a familiar, comforting framework he can spoon-feed his audience without disturbing them." Kaus says the Obama excerpts are "not exactly evidence of a fresh intelligence, or even basic common sense" -- but that "Democratic primary campaigns will do that to you."

Read the whole thing. Greenwald has nailed that which escapes most casual observers, which is to say that most of what drives the media narrative is really just so much bullshit.

"Who among us doesn't love Nascar?" Ah, good times...

I Suppose I Should Comment On This

US Supreme Court upholds late term abortion ban.

I'm not terribly obsessed with women's rights. It's not that I don't expect them, demand them, or cherish them, but rather that I already feel pretty secure with them. That fight belonged to another generation of women; I am their beneficiary. Whatever leftover issues there were when I was a girl are long gone. Today, my daughters are just as confident about their rightful claim to the world as my son is.

I do think people tend to forget why reproductive freedom is an issue, though. It's probably hard to appreciate that 100 years ago a woman could be arrested for practicing birth control in this country. A woman had no right to her own body... it was merely a vessel for her husband's progeny. It made her financially dependent. It made her physically dependent. A woman spent her life as an extension of someone else. She was trapped.

We've come a long way, baby.

There's a weird bit of Big Brotherism at play these days, though, and it's not just focused on women. It's the same bit of Big Brotherism that determined that the shell of Teri Schiavo should live forever. And that the dying should be arrested for inhaling marijuana. It's like we've got an arm of government that suddenly demands to decide what is best for us. How we should live, how we should die, who we can love, etc. I long for the days when we were only dealing with helmets and seat belt laws. Now the stakes are so much higher.

So anyway, I don't accept the framing that attempts to turn people like me into abortion advocates. I don't sit around gleefully celebrating the destruction of human embryos. What I do think is that it's none of my damn business what a doctor and patient decide is appropriate for health and body. I may not be entirely comfortable with abortion, and I am especially not comfortable with late term abortion, but I do not believe it is the government's position to step into personal health decisions. Period.

Bad Things Happen

I feel the same way about the Virginia Tech massacre that everyone else probably does: It's a horrible, heinous, senseless tragedy. The thought of what the parents of the murdered kids must be going through is horrifying to me as parent. We send our kids off to college with the hope of helping them to build a future... the idea that their lives might end there couldn't be more disparate.

With that said, I find myself annoyed -- angered, even -- at what has turned into a non-stop festival of media coverage. As the days go by, the news pimps seem to find yet another angle to cover. Another story to exploit. Another private moment to display. Another policy to question. We have become a country with an endless appetite for voyeurism and a taste for endless debate.

I understand people's preoccupation with the blame game in these instances but, statistically, reactive positions on gun control, campus security, and zero tolerance policies aren't going to make us safer against unknown future threats. They're just going to be overly restrictive and difficult to enforce. Short of living in a hermetically sealed vault, we're going to have to admit to ourselves that we can't anticipate and resolve every threat we'll ever face.

The sad truth is that sometimes bad things happen. Sometimes people go crazy and do bad things. A sniper takes out ten random people in Washington DC. A woman drowns her four young children in a bathtub. A pair of teens kill 12 students and a teacher at a high school in Colorado. The reality is we can't predict these things and we can't control the outcome. We're an aggressive, forward thinking people so it's difficult to accept our powerlessness in these kinds of situations but, really, about the best we can do is hope fate doesn't land us in one.

Another reason to seize the day, I guess.

Scott Adams Lives In My Head

A friend sent this to me.

GWOT (Part II)

The rightwingers over on Hot Air have a different take on the Brit's announcement. In summary, they prefer the war title because it makes them feel like they're actually doing something meaningful against the crazy people who would like to see us dead.

I understand the sentiment, really I do... it's the same way I would prefer to believe there's a God who answers our prayers and that a magical man named Santa Claus really delivers presents to all the good boys and girls in the world. But wishing for the WWII simplicity of uniform wearing enemies, or a focused Cold War puppet theater, isn't going to make it true. The reality of the situation is that it's a new reality, and if we don't recognize that and adapt to it -- if we keep insisting on a response that fits the type of war we're most comfortable with -- we'll perish just as surely as if we refused to recognize our enemies at all.

The shift from Bin Laden to Saddam was an attempt to reshape the terrorist threat into something tangible we could engage with our military. Americans believed it because they wanted to believe it... because it's preferable to admitting the truth, which is that the greatest conventional military the planet has ever seen cannot be used against an unconventional enemy. And as expected, the lie has not served our country well. At all.

Our current enemy will to prove to be the most difficult enemy we've faced in our history, but the fight, if properly engaged, could make us a much stronger nation. A stronger league of nations, really. The battles will be subtle... economical, ideological, psychological, strategic, covert.

The bottom line: America is going to have to shift its mindset away from its pre-conceived notion of war if it has any hope of winning this one.

GWOT

Britain will stop using the term "War on Terror".

“We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,” Benn said.

“It is the vast majority of the people in the world — of all nationalities and faiths — against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.”

The term has always been cheap and meaningless rhetoric served up against a complex problem. It's meant to do nothing more than induce an emotional state of confidence that a difficult situation is being managed, whether it is or not. War on Drugs, anyone? War on Poverty?

It seems the British government has decided not to treat its citizens like stupid children. They are willing to tell them the truth... that there is no decisive action that can be taken to eliminate the threat. That the threat is something that must be chipped away at, a little at a time, with a variety of tools. Apparently our own government is still determined to placate us all with worthless slogans and platitudes. I wish our citizens were grown up enough to reject it.

Survey Says...

The latest Pew Survey results are in. From the Editor and Publisher article:

A new survey of 1,502 adults released Sunday by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that despite the mass appeal of the Internet and cable news since a previous poll in 1989, Americans' knowledge of national affairs has slipped a little. For example, only 69% know that Dick Cheney is vice president, while 74% could identify Dan Quayle in that post in 1989.

Other details are equally eye-opening. Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot -- with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct. Watchers of the Lehrer News Hour on PBS followed just behind.

Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. Fox topped only network morning show viewers.

Told that Shia was one group of Muslims struggling in Iraq, only 32% of the total sample could name "Sunni" as the other key group.

The percentage of those who knew their state's governor dropped to 2 in 3. Almost half know that Rep. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and 2 in 3 know that Condi Rice is secretary of state. But just 29% can identify Scooter Libby, 21% know Robert Gates and 15% can name Sen. Harry Reid.

But nearly 9 in 10 knew about President Bush's troop escalation in Iraq.

Men scored higher than women, and older Americans did better than younger, on average. Democrats and Republicans were about equally represented in the most knowledgeable group but there were more Republicans in the least aware group.

The Daily Show / Colbert Report bit was not surprising to me, although I hope nobody is inferring that viewers are being educated by the shows. The fact is that the shows are political comedy and political satire, respectively, and only the politically aware are going to "get" the humor. The politically unaware are not likely to watch.

The bit about Fox News didn't surprise me, either. It's not the first time it's been pointed out that relying on Fox is risky for those who actually want to know what's going on outside of the GOP-approved knowledge bubble.

What does surprise me (alarms me, really) is that 30% of the country can't name the sitting Vice President. I've checked, and all three of my kids knew the correct answer... *whew.

Let's Talk About Sex

I hope all those folks who got pissy about the $25 Million sugar beet funding (for renewable energy studies) will feel at least marginally pissy about the $1.5 Billion failure that's gone toward funding teenage abstinence programs.

Only the most delusional of humans could have believed this was a program worth funding. In fact, I imagine that the main supporters were either Christainists or that special group of people who long for the fictional golden era of 1950's non-sex.

The joke behind abstinence programs is that they're launched from the moral view that sex outside of marriage is bad and must be stopped. Anyone capable of mouthing the question "why?" isn't going to buy that argument. I mean, it's absurd from every angle. In fact, I chuckle when I think of the abstinence program extension aimed at 20-29 year olds. It's not that we all need to run around like animals in heat, but sex is an undeniable part of the human condition and experience. Pretending it's a forbidden fruit is just silly. It's also just as silly to think we should go back to marrying off 18 year olds so they can have sex under 'moral' conditions.

What we should be preaching to teens is that sex is surprisingly complex. There are biological consequences that include pregnancy and STDs, as well as psychological and emotional consequences. As with any other decision a person makes, one needs to be in a position to understand and mitigate the risks before taking action so that the right action can be taken. Maybe the right action is abstinence or maybe it's some other form of mitigation. The point is, there is more than one way to prevent pregnancy and STDs... it doesn't have to be abstinence. On the flip side, condoms won't prevent the emotional impact of sex on the emotionally unprepared. If morality has a role to play, it's really just a part of all that. It shouldn't be the whole of the discussion.

The best we can do for our kids is to educate them properly so they can make the choices that are best for them. It's called critical thinking, and yes -- that is a program that actually works.

Iraq Forever

Oh my gawd... what a mess:

*snip*

The modest initial gains made by the US-led security "surge" in Baghdad face a devastating new threat as thousands of Iraqi Shias are reported to be receiving military training in Iran.

*snip*

Although the vast majority of American casualties have been inflicted by Sunni insurgents, the US military views the Mahdi Army as the most dangerous faction in Iraq's sectarian war. It has frequently battled against British and US forces in Iraq, most recently in Diwaniyah, and has also been blamed for carrying out death squad killings of Sunnis and political assassinations. In recent months hundreds of its members have been arrested.These moves have prompted many Sadrists to believe they are on the brink of an all-out confrontation with the US Army. Peter Harling, an Iraq analyst at the International Crisis Group who is considered a leading authority on al-Sadr, said he had his own information that Mahdi Army fighters were now being trained in Iran. This "in no way implied" the operation was sponsored by the Iranian authorities, he added, although he suggested they were aware of it and chose to turn a blind eye.

The US has sought to portray the Sadr movement as an Iranian proxy, but the Sadrists are fervent nationalists who have also refused to tolerate Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs. Mr Harling noted "more lenient overtones" recently, however. "That suggests that either the Mahdi Army is in greater need of Iranian support or relations have actually improved."

*snip*

Within the Mahdi Army, suggestions of military ties with Iran are controversial, with many members insisting Iraqis are standing alone against foreigners.

"Our enemies try to say our leaders are hiding in Iran or that we depend on Iran or Hizbollah for support," said Mohammed Rabie Almejblie, a 26-year-old Sadrist militant in Wasit, southern Iraq. "But the Mahdi Army is a grassroots Iraqi movement that believes in the liberation from occupation forces. Solving these problems is for the Iraqis themselves."

If there's no plan B, we're going to be there for a long, long time.

Breaking It Down: From OJ to Iraq

It seems we, as a society, have developed a tendency to break significant items down into their most meaningless components. I first noticed this during the OJ Simpson trial, when the obsession over each small piece of evidence began to actually obscure the larger question of whether OJ actually killed his wife. The DNA blood evidence should have been damning with Simpson's blood thoroughly connected to the crime scene. Any logical approach to the question of whether Simpson had participated in that murder should have concluded that yes, he did. But, in order to create doubt, the defense lawyers brilliantly parsed the evidence down into pieces so small that, like a single dot in a Seurat painting, they lost their meaning to the case. Eventually the jurors lost sight of the big picture and were able to mentally disconnect from the DNA evidence that identified Simpson down to a 1 in 170 million match. The resulting verdict was, in a word, breathtaking.

Beyond painting and into the world of 24 hour cable news, pointillism is now a commonly used obfuscation technique. From Clinton's attempt to discuss what the meaning of "is" is, to almost every scandal in the WH these days, the new diversionary technique is to place obsessive scrutiny on some small piece of an issue until the buzz around it becomes a distraction to the issue itself.

The Valerie Plame outing should have been a very short, simple discussion. Plame was categorized as a covert operative by our government. That's a very black and white statement -- either the government has you listed as a covert operative or they don't. But somehow it became twisted in the media to a question of perception... was she perceived as a covert operative? Did she behave covertly enough? What did she do as a covert operative? In a spectacular sleight of hand, the national dialog was turned from "who outted a covert operative and why" to "but was she really a covert operative?"

It's happening again with the US Attorney scandal. In context, this is a scandal so simple that my 9 year old son could grasp the basics of it: The executive branch made a sneaky power grab to bypass congress in the appointment of US Attorneys. Forget all the whatsit and whosenot about what Clinton did, he did not do that. In fact, you can even forget all the rightful anger about the sub-scandals involving emails and fake voter fraud cases. What we should be discussing is that the small group of people currently residing in the executive branch believe they are entitled to more power than they've been allotted by law and they've got no problem with the idea of circumventing the law to take it. Ditto the FBI spying.

And finally, the most complex application of pointillism I have ever seen: Iraq. Even if we all agreed that we needed to affect a profound change in the Middle East after 9/11 (let's just pretend we all agreed, anyway), the case for not going into Iraq was strong. When our former military commanders (Zinni, Schwartzkopf, McPeak, Sheehan, Cordingley, etc) raised concerns about the tactical issues and strategic risks of the invasion, the WH went on attack against its own Dept of Defense, basically trying to portray them as life-long bureaucrats who felt threatened by a change in the power paradigm. When our former allies balked at the geopolitical implications of the invasion, the WH accused them of self interest (duh!) and orchestrated the selective leaking of Oil For Food scandal factoids (downplaying, of course, that the scandal was long known by the US, who provided oversight to the OFF program, and therefore had its tacit approval). When our arms inspectors raised concerns because they weren't finding any signs of WMDs, the WH unleashed personal attacks on Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, even leaking sealed court records regarding Ritter's personal life . When Joe Wilson raised concerns that the WH was knowingly using bad intel to help make its case for war (the Niger documents), the WH outted his wife so they could accuse her of nepotism. The list goes on and on and on...

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here by which a seemingly strong case is scuttled by some small distracting bullshit in an attempt to refocus everyone's attention? It seems to work like a charm every. freakin'. time. I only hope that people are starting to catch on, or that at least the media is, before this country does any more damage to itself.

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

Obama needs to learn to just say NO to Fox News. They maliciously (no, wait, worse -- incompetently!) slandered him on the whole Madrassa thing, the nature of his religion, his childhood, etc, so he turns around and gives them an exclusive interview? I don't get it.

Note to Obama: The people who watch Fox News are going to mock you, not vote for you. What's the point?

Playing Politics With The Troops

Atrios explains:

I write for my regular readers, who I assume are generally up to speed with the current events that I cover, and therefore don't feel the need to state and restate everything all of the time. So, when I suggested that the Bushies and Gates were pissed when someone in the Pentagon had prematurely leaked their deployment extension plan, something Gates acknowledged, because they had intended to announce the plans and then blame the Democrats for it, I knew that my readers would know this was a plausible theory because Bush had said:

"The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country."

In other words, they were planning to implement an "unacceptable" policy and then blame the Democrats, but the Pentagon leaker made that rather difficult.

Shocking

Imus has tanked. His TV show and now his radio program have both been canceled and, still, the media meltdown around him continues.

Look, people paid Imus to be shocking, just like they pay Howard Stern to be shocking, and Rush Limboob to be shocking, and even Sean Hannity to be shocking. I mean, everyone knows Howard Stern is nasty but if you've never been exposed to conservative radio then you've missed a real treat. I've listened to plenty of clips and read plenty of transcripts.... Limboob and Hannity say outrageous, highly inflammatory things they'd NEVER say on TV. Why? Their radio fans expect it... and everyone accepts it.

I have flipped past Imus on MSNBC a few times but I haven't bothered to watch because I think he's an asshole. In fact, I think the whole lot of them are assholes. Penis comedy and casually splayed insults don't make me howl with laughter like they do for some folks, I guess. To each his own. That it's suddenly a big surprise that people on radio say bad things is what surprises me.

I think everyone's probably just bored. With the Anna Nicole paternity results in and the conclusion of the Duke rape case, there's a big gaping hole in cable news entertainment. Hopefully this Imus stuff is only filler until the next white woman goes missing.

Et Tu, Turkey?

More chaos pending in Iraq:

Turkey's army chief said Thursday the military had launched several "large scale" offensives against rebels in the predominantly Kurdish southeast, and he asked the government for approval to launch an incursion into neighboring northern Iraq.

Washington repeatedly has cautioned Turkey against staging a cross-border offensive, fearing that it could destabilize the region and antagonize Iraqi Kurds, who are allied with the U.S.

But Iraq's government is barely able to control its own cities. U.S. commanders, who are battling the Iraqi insurgency in the middle of the country, are stretched too thin to take on Turkish Kurds hiding in remote mountains near the frontier.

On Monday, the Turkish government demanded again that U.S. and Iraqi officials crack down on guerrillas from the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK.

"An operation into Iraq is necessary," said Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the head of Turkey's powerful military. "The PKK has huge freedom of movement in Iraq ... It has spread its roots in Iraq."

Jeeez, just what we need.

Not Ringing True

The NYT reported yesterday that military officials (who don't wish to be identified) are claiming that the Iranian government is intentionally arming the Sunni as well as the Shia.

I would call the suspiciously "anonymous" officials on this bullshit if I were the Times. The last time this headline made the rounds, a friend of mine commented on the region's very active black market arms trading. I find that scenario entirely plausible -- even our own weapons have ended up on the black market in Iraq and have been used against us there. I also believe without a doubt that Iran is arming the Shia. What doesn't ring true is that the Iranian government would covertly arm their longtime enemy, the Sunni.

I was hoping Juan Cole would comment today so I could see if he had a similar take on it... and he did:

The US military spokesman Major General William Caldwell argued on Wednesday that Iran is giving military aid to Sunni guerrillas in Iraq. Since the Sunni guerrillas are killing and blowing up Shiites every day, and since Iran is closely allied with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, the leaders of which have repeatedly been targeted by Sunni guerrillas. That Iran is trying to kill its own guys in Iraq is flatly implausible. Caldwell can come out and say it every day, and I will come out here and say it is implausible every day. Anti-Iranian sentiments are a key characteristic of the Sunni Arab guerrillas.

Iranian arms may be being smuggled into Iraq, but it is unlikely that the government is doing the smuggling, or that they are more important than all the other arms that are being smuggled into Iraq from a variety of neighbors. So the US military might well find Sunni guerrillas with Iranian arms.

We also know that some Sunni guerrillas want to foment a war between the US and Iran. So captured Sunni guerrillas may be feeding interrogators this line that they are getting help from Iran, to make trouble. That is, whatever the US military is finding in the way of evidence for this absurd allegation can be explained in some other plausible way, so as to avoid our having to come to conclusions that make no sense whatsoever. I am hoping that journalists covering the war will treat these allegations with the profound skepticism they deserve.

The easy way for the US military not to be inconvenienced by arms smuggling into Iraq from neighboring countries is for it to leave Iraq.

These ridiculous allegations against Iran of supporting Baathists and Salafis in Iraq are probably just pressure tactics. The Iranians want the US to release five diplomats who had been invited to Irbil by Kurdistan president Massoud Barzani, but who were kidnapped by the Bush administration. The US maintains that they are intelligence field officers. Iran is threatening not to attend the upcoming Sharm el Sheikh conference on Iraq if their men are not released.

Why Environmentalists Annoy Me

Classic example:

Environmentalists and green campaigners, who have attacked all the performers at the London Live Earth show, particularly Madonna and Red Hot Chili Peppers, say that the celebrities are among the least "green" individuals on the planet.

So instead of being thankful that they've got people donating time and talent to raise a bucket load of money and awareness for the environmentalists' cause, they instead flame everyone for not being "green" enough. Isn't that supposed to be the point -- helping people who are currently not onboard to get onboard?

Go ahead, crazy environmentalist crowd. Limit your association to people who live up to your off the grid standards. I'm sure the 12 of you could host a really kick ass solar powered fundraiser in one of your sunbaked adobe huts. Everyone knows that selective association is a great way to bring a movement into the mainstream.

Whoot whoot!

Cash Home Destroyed

Johnny Cash's Tennessee lakeside home was destroyed by fire. His video for "Hurt" was shot there... amazing video.

Punked

Dang... I think I've been punked. Again. Mental note: When listening to Cheney speak, assume the truth is the opposite of whatever he says.

From the only investigative reporter left in America, Josh Marshall, at TPM:

Fox News Vs New York Times

Which version of the following reports describing the Najaf demonstrations is more true?

The low-key version on the Fox News website entitled "Demonstrators Mark 4th Anniversary of Baghdad's Fall" describing a big commemorative party with a few rotten apples spoiling it for everyone:

Tens of thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall, with some demonstrators calling for U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq.

Or the more dire sounding NYT version entitled "Iraqi Cleric Challenges U.S. With Big Rally" which makes it sound like an especially anti-American affair:

Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to the militant Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq, burning American flags and chanting “Death to America.”

Fascinating difference. Which is the correct version? We only report... you get to decide.

Undecided

Most of the things I write about are things that I have a definite opinion about. Believe it or not, despite my frequently belligerent tone, there are many issues de jour about which I am undecided.

• Timetables. As angry as I am about this giant rat hole we dove into, I am not entirely comfortable with a predetermined timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. On the one hand, I am pretty sure Iraq is destined to implode before it's ready to evolve. On the other hand, I hate to think of the genocidal mess we're going to leave in our wake. Now, if I thought there was a chance to salvage any kind of 'victory' in Iraq then I'd say we should go for it. There isn't one. We need to leave. But setting a departure date will create unnatural activity in Iraq as all sides calculate the best way to exploit that date. Also, trying to cut off funding (as congress would like to do) is a dangerous game when you've got this kind of operation in progress. I understand what the Dems are trying to accomplish since Bush would have us stay in Iraq forever, literally. The problem is that he is the commander and chief, he controls foreign policy, and, short of impeachment, he's going to be in the WH for another 651 days. The best of all ugly options may be to let Petraeus do his thing, have congress apply appropriate oversight, and quietly announce to withdraw 5 minutes into our next president's term. Hard to say.

• Illegal Aliens. I am not afraid of immigration... I feel rather sympathetic toward folks who are trying to build a better life for themselves and for their families. What bothers me is that the current situation is untenable. Illegal immigration is breaking our infrastructure. Keeping these people straddling the door with one foot in and one foot out isn't helping anyone. I'm thinking we need to lock down the borders, provide the current illegals with amnesty, and then allow controlled immigration to proceed in an orderly fashion. I am also not too obsessive about cultural diversity -- I'm more of a 'melting pot' person (my family being a product of it). Controlled entry will also allow time for integration and time to monitor the impact on the economy, infrastructure services like health care and education, etc. Plus we really need to secure our borders. Other than those things I guess it's just not a hot button topic for me.

• Global Warming. I don't understand why anyone would be hostile to this topic. Is it really so inconceivable that we're altering the environment? And even if it's not our human habits that are altering the environment, isn't it pretty clear that the environment is changing anyway, for whatever reason? And if the environment is changing, what's the risk to us? If there's a risk to us, shouldn't we be thinking about how to mitigate it? As you can see, all I have are questions -- no room for bloviation.
  

• Iran. I suspect this is going to be Cold War II, in which we must strategically outplay our enemy without tactically warring against them. As with the Soviets, overt military action will likely result in consequences too horrible to contemplate. The brutality of the regime makes them evil but in my gut I don't believe they're an existential threat to us (survival and prosperity being items of mutual interest). My gut isn't all that well informed, however, so I'll continue to listen to the broader arguments and see if I can't glean some truth out of that.
  

Thank You, Obama

Few things set me off like Fox News.

Maybe it's the way they refer to themselves as "fair and balanced" with a knowing wink and a nod. Or maybe it's the cynical way they pimp out their female hosts with highly glossed hooker lips and thigh-revealing camera angles. Maybe it's the predictable production of their Republican skewed panels (plus token illiterate liberal). Or their commercialized outrage. Or the pathetic attempt to portray themselves as representative of True-Blue-America (at least America the way a child's mind would imagine it, with an overabundance of flags and eagles and Jesus and apple pies).

But what sets me into fits of fury -- apoplectic rage, really -- is the coordinated misrepresentation of the truth to suit a partisan agenda. People should not become ill informed from watching the news but this is a documented phenomenon with Fox. And no, the "mainstream media" does not even come close to having a liberal equivalent (except for Keith Olbermann, bless his lonely little heart).

For all of these reasons I am thrilled beyond belief that Obama announced he won't be participating in Fox's joint debate with CBC.

Fox News is not a credible news source. They barely even try to conceal this truth except for those moments when it suits their feigned indignity. I suppose Fox News has every right to exist, and viewers have every right to watch, but let's at least be honest about what they are -- Republican programmed entertainment for people who want their world view affirmed 24 x 7. I don't want Fox News hosting a serious political debate any more than Karl "Turdblossom" Rove wants Air America to host it.

I'll leave it at that.

Bill O'Reilly Manufactures Some Outrage

It's good for ratings.



Watch the clip for the Geraldo Rivera - Bill O'Reilly main event. It's hack-tacular! I'm giving this one to Geraldo, who attempts to temper the manufactured O'Reilly outrage against illegal alien drunk driving with a little logic. Too late, though -- O'Reilly has found an audience formula that works and he's going to milk it. Just like he distorted the relevance of a few oddball occurrences to whip up War On Christmas outrage, he again tries to gin up the audience with a new angle on illegal aliens.

Fact: Nearly 13,000 traffic fatalities in 2005 involved a driver who was over .08. I couldn't find stats on 2006 but, you know, if you're going to manufacture some drunk driving outrage why not broaden your scope a little?

Note to Geraldo: Dude, you signed on with this outfit. You're not a stupid man -- you know what happens when you lie down with dogs. You can't expect to be a party to every slimy distortion they come up with and then suddenly freak out when they hit on a topic near and dear to your heart. Either you have integrity or you don't. Make your choice and live with it.

Via Americablog.

Miracle

The pope and I actually agree on something... nothing good will come of invading Iraq. It must be an Easter miracle! Meanwhile...

Sadr has declared war on the American troops.

I suppose it was the logical response to Bush having declared war on the militias, which I suppose is the logical response to the militias having decided they have the right to do whatever they want in Iraq with impunity. But all of these logical responses are just deepening our involvement in a war that we don't have a hope of winning.

We can bomb the hell out of the Najaf and Fallujah but we're probably not going to do any better against the militias in the long run than Israel did against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Time will tell, I guess, but I predict we'll just end up with a lot of homeless civilians, a lot of civilian casualties, and a majority Shiite community that's highly sympathetic toward their own and generally enraged against America.

Who will be happy? The Sunni insurgents and the Sunni population in general, since the militias have been kidnapping, torturing, and executing them in relatively large numbers.

So now the US will be pitted against Iraq's insane al-Qaeda element, the fairly organized Sunni insurgency, and the passionate, motivated, and deeply-entrenched-in-everything Shiite militias.
On the bright side, maybe the Sunni will soon be too busy with guerrilla warfare with the Kurds to give us their full attention.

Hopefully we won't be rewarded for our troubles in Iraq like the Soviets were rewarded for their nine year adventure in Afghanistan... with economic ruin. Because isn't that really the lesson Bin Laden learned in the 80's? How to slowly bleed out your enemy by forcing him to engage in a war he can't politically back out of, and doing it on your turf and on your terms.

My Bad Hair Day

After a 39 year dry spell, I had stylishly trendy hair for about 5 minutes. Today I entered a new phase: I now look like the love child of Elvira and Johnny Cash.

Love The Title

"Pope blasts rich nations, somehow overlooks Vatican."
Read the whole of Chris's blog post here.

The Problem

Good for Edwards.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday pulled out of a second debate co-hosted by Fox News Channel, saying the cable network has a conservative slant.

The Edwards campaign said it will not attend the Sept. 23 debate hosted by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, but officials added that Edwards will participate in a different debate hosted by the institute and CNN.

The problem with Fox News is not that's it's conservative, it's that it's Republican. It functions as a propaganda arm of the Republican Machine.

Happy Friday!

The men of Crivitz.

Winners And Losers

Wow... am I the only one who thought Iran looked transparent and schizophrenic and foolish in this latest hostage-prisoner situation? Reading around the blogosphere it appears that there's a vocal contingent who think Britain was humiliated.

Interesting.

Kirkuk

I am saddened to read that the one place in Iraq we've been touting as the model of stability, the Kurdish region in the north, is likely to become a whole lot less stable. The issue is Kirkuk, as the Kurds look to incorporate it into Kurdistan. From the report:

The city of Kirkuk may become a new source of instability in Iraq. The multi-ethnic city is contested between its Arab and Turkmen inhabitants, on one hand, who wish to remain united with Iraq; and its Kurdish majority, that wishes to affiliate Kirkuk with Kurdistan. The Kurdish argument is that Kirkuk is a historic part of Kurdistan that was excised from the province by previous Iraqi governments.

Non-Kurdish inhabitants have warned in the past that attempts to “separate” Kirkuk from Iraq will cause violence, and possibly ethnic cleansing. Turkey has also spoken against oil-rich Kirkuk joining Kurdistan, citing the rights of the Turkmen population of the city.

All of this discussion will become louder and perhaps more violent as we approach the referendum later this year.

Kurdish parties, however, insist on the application of the 140th article of the Iraqi constitution, which calls, among other things, for a census and a referendum that would determine the status of Kirkuk. The referendum is due by the end of 2007.

I don't know about you, but I'm betting there's a pretty strong contingent of non-Kurdish residents who don't want to leave. Already there's talk of luring the arabs out of the city via financial incentive. I can only imagine what will happen to those who decide to stay.

I think we can safely assume that this will mark the opening of a new front in Iraq's civil war. And maybe, just maybe, the mystery of Iran's interest in the Kurds is a little more apparent. It would seem a mighty convenient time to rekindle their relationship on the basis of shared interests against the Sunni arabs (the first time having been during the Iran-Iraq war).