Chickens Coming Home To Roost - WMD And The Justification For War With Iraq
(spontaneous observations on learning the Bush Administration is open to an independent inquiry into Iraqi WMD)
I said before the war, in the early days of the war when passions were high, throughout the war up until today, that the Bush Administration was rushing to this war and exaggerating the reasons for doing so (my most generous interpretation).
Are the chickens coming home to roost?
***
A further problem seems to be one of operational negligence. Why were plans to avoid post-war Iraq chaos ignored and flushed? Why weren't they implemented if we were going to war for reasons of WMD, but that if we didn't proceed in a way that would assure orderliness we wouldn't be able to secure the WMD?
What does this tell us? Wanton exaggeration of war aims or severe negligence and/or incompetence? For, if there were WMD, and this was the causus belli for the war, then this would have had to been our first priority in building the war plan, and not getting Saddam, or liberating the Iraqi people, if the result ends up being further uncertainty about the WMD, whether it really existed or not, and/or whether it was spirited out to other countries or terrorist agents in the post-war chaos and aftermath.
For a war effort to secure WMD, and America, to not implement a strategy that takes these into primary account seems very odd, especially when there are known instances of wanton disregard for plans that accurately anticipated the aftermath and conditions on the ground after the initial ground war.
Was this just a variety of incompetence, with efforts to sway the perception of the war aims in order to mask this? Or was there something more rotten going on, as I suggested before the war?
Sunday, January 25, 2004
The Timing Of The State Of The Union And Video Coverage Of A Dean Campaign Event
Musing today on the association of Matt Drudge's hub connector spreading of passionate Howard Dean campaign speech images, and the timing of the State of the Union address. Was this dreamed up in advance? That Karl Rove, fearing the rise of Dean, wanted to juxtapose less-than-flattering images of one of Dean's fiery speeches, which probably never look good on video, against President Bush being "somber" and "presidential" during the State of the Union?
It's titillating, and, if this were the case, they must have been both greatly disappointed and pleased. Disappointed because Dean got trounced by John Kerry and John Edwards, who definitely come across less "nuts" than Dean during a campaign speech, and thus the timing of the State of the Union doesn't mean much in contrast to the Democratic front-runner, who is now John Kerry, who can easily compete with Bush on the "somber" platform.
Still, they must have been pleased with the effect on Dean regardless of the Iowa result, since he unexpectedly gave them a bonus with the "rebel yell" (or "shriek"). Has Dean ever done the rebel yell before at a campaign rally? Probably not, so that must be seen as a bonus, and Drudge didn't expect to have that too, but he was definitely ready with his doctored photo of Dean reading something and looking like Chucky (what is the source of that picture I wonder...is it real?).
But, with the rebel yell, and the whole thing becoming a national obsession, even with the mainstream media, the State of the Union pretty much disappeared from the national radar, for the most part, and Bush hardly gained any contrast points in relation to John Kerry for looking "presidential" (whatever the hell that really means).
So, in the aftermath of Iowa and the State of the Union, everyone is talking about Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards in that order, and President Bush is increasingly becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the mainstream media.
That's one take on the events of the past week, and the timing of the State of the Union. One never knows the truth of these matters until years later, if ever, and I don't have any more access to the Bush Administration inner sanctum than anyone else.
Just something that came to mind this morning.
Musing today on the association of Matt Drudge's hub connector spreading of passionate Howard Dean campaign speech images, and the timing of the State of the Union address. Was this dreamed up in advance? That Karl Rove, fearing the rise of Dean, wanted to juxtapose less-than-flattering images of one of Dean's fiery speeches, which probably never look good on video, against President Bush being "somber" and "presidential" during the State of the Union?
It's titillating, and, if this were the case, they must have been both greatly disappointed and pleased. Disappointed because Dean got trounced by John Kerry and John Edwards, who definitely come across less "nuts" than Dean during a campaign speech, and thus the timing of the State of the Union doesn't mean much in contrast to the Democratic front-runner, who is now John Kerry, who can easily compete with Bush on the "somber" platform.
Still, they must have been pleased with the effect on Dean regardless of the Iowa result, since he unexpectedly gave them a bonus with the "rebel yell" (or "shriek"). Has Dean ever done the rebel yell before at a campaign rally? Probably not, so that must be seen as a bonus, and Drudge didn't expect to have that too, but he was definitely ready with his doctored photo of Dean reading something and looking like Chucky (what is the source of that picture I wonder...is it real?).
But, with the rebel yell, and the whole thing becoming a national obsession, even with the mainstream media, the State of the Union pretty much disappeared from the national radar, for the most part, and Bush hardly gained any contrast points in relation to John Kerry for looking "presidential" (whatever the hell that really means).
So, in the aftermath of Iowa and the State of the Union, everyone is talking about Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards in that order, and President Bush is increasingly becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the mainstream media.
That's one take on the events of the past week, and the timing of the State of the Union. One never knows the truth of these matters until years later, if ever, and I don't have any more access to the Bush Administration inner sanctum than anyone else.
Just something that came to mind this morning.
Kevin Drum Puts The Smackdown On President Bush, War, And Elections
Kevin Drum is on fire today. His take on the Bush Administration and their electoral posturing as regards to Iraq is gold. Pure gold.
Kevin Drum is on fire today. His take on the Bush Administration and their electoral posturing as regards to Iraq is gold. Pure gold.
After 9/11 George Bush had a chance to build a bipartisan consensus about terrorism and how to respond to it. But he didn't just fail to do that, he deliberately tried to prevent it, and by transparently treating terrorism as little more than a chance to boost the prospects of his own party he has convinced everyone who's not a Republican that it's not really a serious threat. After all, if he quite obviously treats it as simply a political opportunity, it's hardly reasonable to expect anyone else to take it seriously either.
Treating Medicare or abortion as a partisan issue is one thing, but treating war the same way is quite another, and in the end it's George Bush who is largely responsible for convincing half the United States and most of the world that terrorism is little more than a GOP talking point. It's likely that someday we will pay a heavy price for this.
By the way, his rant today isn't related to my prior posts today, so noone get any funny ideas about that.
WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part IV
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
Another must-read is "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. Remember, he is the one whose earlier book "Blowback" accurately forcasted that the world was not at all happy with the proliferation of US bases around the world, and that one day it would come back to bite us.
Sweet reference Mimikatz. What every American should understand is the well-known international concept of "Islamicist blowback".
No serious analyst would ever dare to mention in the mainstream media that we practically reinvented Jihad ourselves in our attempts to enmesh the Soviets in Afghanistan [in their own Vietnam].
Or that the CIA sponsored the terror camps (to a signifigant degree) that we later spoke out so vehemently against, one of which Clinton bombed.
No, that's absurd analysis (not because it's based on faulty facts or information, the information is sound, but because it goes against the conventional wisdom and belief in our righteousness).
Serious analysis is that these terrorists are enemies of freedom and not patriotic defenders of their territory and culture, and that whether we encouraged this cocktail of territorialism and religious fanatacism is not relevant, if even acknowledged, since that was eons ago in the Cold War, and now they should know better that we are no threat when we build military bases on their "lands", and especially because everything has changed now since 9/11, and you can go back to Kansas, and the stars do revolve around the earth (oops...mixing my eras and dogmas).
WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part III
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
lest us all not forget that BushCo insisted throughout the run-up that they had oodles of evidence that they could not reveal because of security reasons.
Bush and Co didn't need evidence. All they needed was the conventional wisdom and existing belief that Saddam had weapons.
With their dogmatic emphasis, they cherry picked evidence and convinced themselves the case for war was undeniable. 80% of the free world disagreed.
As mentioned earlier, the rationalist Chomsky also believed there were WMD in Iraq, based upon the evidence that he had seen (admittedly not much).
The difference is that Bush and Co turned the evidence they could find into, for them, an undeniable claim that was widely denied. The claim was not that there was WMD, which almost everyone suspected there to be to some degree.
It was that this was a reason for a war. A just war. That there were no WMD only makes the claims that this was a just war, based upon WMD, that much more a crock.
Because, even with some WMD, the vast majority of the free world was against the war (an immediate war), because they did not consider Saddam Hussein, a weakened despot, an imminent threat.
Without WMD, this becomes so obvious as to not need to mention, though this apparently escapes our mainstream media, also caught up in the fiction of conventional wisdom and ratifying "official" belief systems.
WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part II
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
Everyone acknowledges we live in a dangerous world. But most everyone does not know why. They don't know, or have even really examined, why their enemies hate them.
Our leaders just lie about it. Plain and simple. So they are no help.
And it's not just our enemies that make the world dangerous. We make it so for ourselves. Conventional wisdom doesn't pay attention to nonlinear disruptions caused by our environmental impact.
Noam Chomsky's latest book is a good place to start shattering illusions and start examining the world and challenges we face rationally.
Howard Zinn's book, Artists In A Time Of War, is also a great place to get a dose of cognitive dissonance, and commit yourself to engaging and absorbing it, rather than ignoring and rejecting it.
There are two ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. It is not a new concept. Mainly, it's the difference between deductive and inductive thinking (well, not exactly).
If information does not support your conclusions, i.e. belief and conventional wisdom, do you reject or ignore it for this reason? If so, welcome back to the Middle Ages.
Or, in the face of conflicting information, do your examine and adjust your conclusions? This is the scientific process, and thankfully because of it we have become a more rational creature and have won our freedom.
Don't give it away. And don't ever believe that Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn are not serious analysts or commentators.
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
Everyone acknowledges we live in a dangerous world. But most everyone does not know why. They don't know, or have even really examined, why their enemies hate them.
Our leaders just lie about it. Plain and simple. So they are no help.
And it's not just our enemies that make the world dangerous. We make it so for ourselves. Conventional wisdom doesn't pay attention to nonlinear disruptions caused by our environmental impact.
Noam Chomsky's latest book is a good place to start shattering illusions and start examining the world and challenges we face rationally.
Howard Zinn's book, Artists In A Time Of War, is also a great place to get a dose of cognitive dissonance, and commit yourself to engaging and absorbing it, rather than ignoring and rejecting it.
There are two ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. It is not a new concept. Mainly, it's the difference between deductive and inductive thinking (well, not exactly).
If information does not support your conclusions, i.e. belief and conventional wisdom, do you reject or ignore it for this reason? If so, welcome back to the Middle Ages.
Or, in the face of conflicting information, do your examine and adjust your conclusions? This is the scientific process, and thankfully because of it we have become a more rational creature and have won our freedom.
Don't give it away. And don't ever believe that Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn are not serious analysts or commentators.
WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part I
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
If you look into it Kevin, you'll find that reliance on ideology and fiction is what allows these things to happen (mixed in with some genuine fear).
To be honest, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn [Kevin did not mention Zinn, but I'm using him as another example] are two of the more serious analysts around, and just because they seem so radical in their visions doesn't mean otherwise, just that the measure of useful illusions and fiction we live on may be the more radical in nature.
9/11 should have caused people to look up and start asking questions about the conventional wisdom, and its insistence on how to correctly interpret the available information, and, along with this, what information ought to be ignored or downplayed.
The answer is that important information should not be ignored when it contrasts with the belief system and conventional wisdom (i.e. cognitive dissonance). Instead, the rational thinker will examine the available information and look for patterns of consistency in order to gain some understanding and hopefully predictive insight.
This is called the rationalism - the scientific process.
There has never been a compelling argument that Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn aren't rational or scientific in their thinking - only that either they are too much so, or not suitably emotional enough to understand the importance of information being consistent to belief and conventional wisdom.
In other words, have you already formed your beliefs and understanding of the world, your knowledge, and only supporting information is needed, as you are rigid and certain in this belief?
Or, are you more fluid, adaptable, and able to change, by realizing that your beliefs and conventional wisdom are only working hypotheses, and that in the face of conflicting information more sensible wisdom and beliefs may be appropriate?
Which one do you think will be more successful in a changing and fluid world?
Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.
***
If you look into it Kevin, you'll find that reliance on ideology and fiction is what allows these things to happen (mixed in with some genuine fear).
To be honest, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn [Kevin did not mention Zinn, but I'm using him as another example] are two of the more serious analysts around, and just because they seem so radical in their visions doesn't mean otherwise, just that the measure of useful illusions and fiction we live on may be the more radical in nature.
9/11 should have caused people to look up and start asking questions about the conventional wisdom, and its insistence on how to correctly interpret the available information, and, along with this, what information ought to be ignored or downplayed.
The answer is that important information should not be ignored when it contrasts with the belief system and conventional wisdom (i.e. cognitive dissonance). Instead, the rational thinker will examine the available information and look for patterns of consistency in order to gain some understanding and hopefully predictive insight.
This is called the rationalism - the scientific process.
There has never been a compelling argument that Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn aren't rational or scientific in their thinking - only that either they are too much so, or not suitably emotional enough to understand the importance of information being consistent to belief and conventional wisdom.
In other words, have you already formed your beliefs and understanding of the world, your knowledge, and only supporting information is needed, as you are rigid and certain in this belief?
Or, are you more fluid, adaptable, and able to change, by realizing that your beliefs and conventional wisdom are only working hypotheses, and that in the face of conflicting information more sensible wisdom and beliefs may be appropriate?
Which one do you think will be more successful in a changing and fluid world?
Saturday, January 24, 2004
George Bush Threatens First Veto On Behalf Of Big Media
It's time to start focusing on Big Media again. Congress has just passed a bill to expand the reach of Big Media, by raising the number of outlets they can own from 35% to 39%, and this after we successfully put down similar efforts by the FCC to raise the limit to 45%.
Yes, "we". The blogosphere was primarily responsible in airing these issues when the FCC ruling came out. Big Media ignored it. No surprise there, and the most compelling argument on our behalf (will the media report on important issues not in its financial self-interest?).
Apparently, this thing got put into the Frankenstein omnibus spending bill because Bush threatened a veto if they didn't put it in. So now we know...George W. Bush is bought off by Big Media (well, many of us already knew that). The vast majority of the American people are not in favor of this action, and stated so in the last go-around. What is George W. Bush thinking, that he'd rather be on the ranch than be reelected?
It's time to start focusing on Big Media again. Congress has just passed a bill to expand the reach of Big Media, by raising the number of outlets they can own from 35% to 39%, and this after we successfully put down similar efforts by the FCC to raise the limit to 45%.
Yes, "we". The blogosphere was primarily responsible in airing these issues when the FCC ruling came out. Big Media ignored it. No surprise there, and the most compelling argument on our behalf (will the media report on important issues not in its financial self-interest?).
Apparently, this thing got put into the Frankenstein omnibus spending bill because Bush threatened a veto if they didn't put it in. So now we know...George W. Bush is bought off by Big Media (well, many of us already knew that). The vast majority of the American people are not in favor of this action, and stated so in the last go-around. What is George W. Bush thinking, that he'd rather be on the ranch than be reelected?
A veto threat also led GOP leaders to allow media companies to become larger than many lawmakers wanted. House and Senate majorities earlier had voted to oppose a Federal Communications Commission decision permitting a media company to own TV stations reaching 45 percent of the U.S. viewers, up from 35 percent. But GOP leaders, fearing a veto, raised the cap to 39 percent.
Like I said, it's time we start raising the roof on this again (not raising the ownership limit). Paging Lisa English...
What Happened To The Democratic Negativity (Part III)?
Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom"), discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.
***
Very short version: If you can't defend your own, even while competing against them, against unfair and distorted treatment from the media, which could happen to any of the candidates, then the media gets a pass for it, and when it gets turned against you, you deserve what you get, no matter how much you complain, because you gave the pass earlier saying it was alright, even though you clearly knew what was going on and seemed to have considered it wrong.
Just like the resolution in Iraq in some ways.
You can't have it both ways. The Democrats could have strengthened themselves as a party, and made a surge against negative reporting against them in general (and media bias), by uniting against negative coverage of them as a whole, and at least specifically in this case with Dean, which is the most egregious case of it so far.
They didn't. The Democrats aren't concerned with media bias - at least not today. Yet, they'll make it a big issue later, and I'll be reminding everyone who didn't mind, looked away, and in fact took advantage of, media bias just a months earlier.
Media bias sucks no matter who it benefits. We really need to move away from the corporate slush fund dominated two-party system.
Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom"), discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.
***
Very short version: If you can't defend your own, even while competing against them, against unfair and distorted treatment from the media, which could happen to any of the candidates, then the media gets a pass for it, and when it gets turned against you, you deserve what you get, no matter how much you complain, because you gave the pass earlier saying it was alright, even though you clearly knew what was going on and seemed to have considered it wrong.
Just like the resolution in Iraq in some ways.
You can't have it both ways. The Democrats could have strengthened themselves as a party, and made a surge against negative reporting against them in general (and media bias), by uniting against negative coverage of them as a whole, and at least specifically in this case with Dean, which is the most egregious case of it so far.
They didn't. The Democrats aren't concerned with media bias - at least not today. Yet, they'll make it a big issue later, and I'll be reminding everyone who didn't mind, looked away, and in fact took advantage of, media bias just a months earlier.
Media bias sucks no matter who it benefits. We really need to move away from the corporate slush fund dominated two-party system.
What Happened To The Democratic Negativity (Part II)?
Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom"), discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.
***
If Dean somehow surges again, get ready for more negativity. This is a joke, and clever commentators ought to pick up on it.
In other words, the negativity was pointed at Dean, since he was winning, and he responded with negativity. Now, he's not on top, and miraculously the negativity is gone. Since when does the obvious become compelling news? Big Media wants this to be about Dean spinning all the negativity, Kerry being a positive nice guy, and everyone taking notice now. That's not what really happened, at least in reality and not image.
The absence of Democrats speaking out against Big Media's portrayal of Dean (not the Internet, or Drudge, but mainstream media television and newspapers)...
...has been noted by independents everywhere. Apparently, the Democrats don't need to rally around their own, or defend reality, when image and the "politics of personal destruction" is underway, and not by other politicians, but by mainstream media coverage and misreporting.
What I'd like to emphasize is that a real party who really cared about politics in America would band together, despite self-interest of the individual players, and loudly proclaim that this "assassination" coverage is unacceptable and will be identified as such in public at every turn.
This isn't altruistic in its face. It works for the self-interest of all the candidates. If Kerry needs the mainstream media to assassinate Dean's character to win, he doesn't deserve to win. But if he pulls out the nomination, after saying nothing in defense of Dean (in terms of clearly unfair media coverage), and then suddenly faces it himself, and expects people to rally behind him because of it, he can forget it.
Hypocrisy doesn't sell.
Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom"), discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.
***
If Dean somehow surges again, get ready for more negativity. This is a joke, and clever commentators ought to pick up on it.
In other words, the negativity was pointed at Dean, since he was winning, and he responded with negativity. Now, he's not on top, and miraculously the negativity is gone. Since when does the obvious become compelling news? Big Media wants this to be about Dean spinning all the negativity, Kerry being a positive nice guy, and everyone taking notice now. That's not what really happened, at least in reality and not image.
The absence of Democrats speaking out against Big Media's portrayal of Dean (not the Internet, or Drudge, but mainstream media television and newspapers)...
...has been noted by independents everywhere. Apparently, the Democrats don't need to rally around their own, or defend reality, when image and the "politics of personal destruction" is underway, and not by other politicians, but by mainstream media coverage and misreporting.
What I'd like to emphasize is that a real party who really cared about politics in America would band together, despite self-interest of the individual players, and loudly proclaim that this "assassination" coverage is unacceptable and will be identified as such in public at every turn.
This isn't altruistic in its face. It works for the self-interest of all the candidates. If Kerry needs the mainstream media to assassinate Dean's character to win, he doesn't deserve to win. But if he pulls out the nomination, after saying nothing in defense of Dean (in terms of clearly unfair media coverage), and then suddenly faces it himself, and expects people to rally behind him because of it, he can forget it.
Hypocrisy doesn't sell.
What Happened To The Democratic Negativity (Part I)?
Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom") discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.
***
It's not the video (of Dean's "nuts" speech) that suddenly has made attacks out. It's that Dean is no longer in front.
Kerry was a big negative player in mailings, but now he's on top. He'll try to ride it out.
Gephardt was totally negative, and he's gone.
Dean knows he can't be negative anymore, and this is more from his showing in Iowa than anything else. The video just amplifies it for him.
Clark wasn't really that negative in the first place, so that doesn't really apply.
Ditto Edwards.
What we have here is the expounding of a "great difference" that really isn't such a great difference. Lieberman doesn't have to trash Dean anymore, and just has to try and posture with the other pro-war resolution Democrats (at least for the time being).
If Dean somehow surges again, get ready for more negativity. This is a joke, and clever commentators ought to pick up on it. But, if you favor a candidate who's helped by Dean getting trashed by Big Media, you probably have an ethical quandary.
The attempted assassination of Howard Dean's image has been epic, but not yet complete, and Dean can bounce back. Many are convinced he will.
The absence of Democrats speaking out against Big Media's portrayal of Dean (not the Internet, or Drudge, but mainstream media television and newspapers), which clearly has interpreted a campaign rally beyond what it really was, and misrepresented the spirit and nature of that post-caucus rally, not to mention has declared the victory of image over reality (since Big Media shouldn't be bothered to point out that the images do gross injustice to what was really going on...they only need to comment and amplify what the images seem to say).
I've taken note that none of the Democratic candidates or the party has spoken out against the blatantly unfair treatment of Dean, who has brought much energy, enthusiasm, attention, and fundraising to the party.
Whoever wins the nomination, if it isn't Dean, will be next.
I don't want to hear them complain when they get ambushed by Big Media, whether it's Kerry and his haircuts or some other nonsense.
Right is right all the time. If it's wrong for the mainstream media to do that, you need to say so all along. Guys like Kerry only complain when it happens to them, and take advantage when it's happening to someone else.
Like I said, whoever wins better not complain about their portrayal in the media. They stood silent while Dean was nearly destroyed, and he's a good man. They are no better, and deserve no better treatment.
Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom") discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.
***
It's not the video (of Dean's "nuts" speech) that suddenly has made attacks out. It's that Dean is no longer in front.
Kerry was a big negative player in mailings, but now he's on top. He'll try to ride it out.
Gephardt was totally negative, and he's gone.
Dean knows he can't be negative anymore, and this is more from his showing in Iowa than anything else. The video just amplifies it for him.
Clark wasn't really that negative in the first place, so that doesn't really apply.
Ditto Edwards.
What we have here is the expounding of a "great difference" that really isn't such a great difference. Lieberman doesn't have to trash Dean anymore, and just has to try and posture with the other pro-war resolution Democrats (at least for the time being).
If Dean somehow surges again, get ready for more negativity. This is a joke, and clever commentators ought to pick up on it. But, if you favor a candidate who's helped by Dean getting trashed by Big Media, you probably have an ethical quandary.
The attempted assassination of Howard Dean's image has been epic, but not yet complete, and Dean can bounce back. Many are convinced he will.
The absence of Democrats speaking out against Big Media's portrayal of Dean (not the Internet, or Drudge, but mainstream media television and newspapers), which clearly has interpreted a campaign rally beyond what it really was, and misrepresented the spirit and nature of that post-caucus rally, not to mention has declared the victory of image over reality (since Big Media shouldn't be bothered to point out that the images do gross injustice to what was really going on...they only need to comment and amplify what the images seem to say).
I've taken note that none of the Democratic candidates or the party has spoken out against the blatantly unfair treatment of Dean, who has brought much energy, enthusiasm, attention, and fundraising to the party.
Whoever wins the nomination, if it isn't Dean, will be next.
I don't want to hear them complain when they get ambushed by Big Media, whether it's Kerry and his haircuts or some other nonsense.
Right is right all the time. If it's wrong for the mainstream media to do that, you need to say so all along. Guys like Kerry only complain when it happens to them, and take advantage when it's happening to someone else.
Like I said, whoever wins better not complain about their portrayal in the media. They stood silent while Dean was nearly destroyed, and he's a good man. They are no better, and deserve no better treatment.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Failing To Defend One's Own
The Democratic Party should be very careful in regards to the attempts by media outlets to destroy Howard Dean's candidacy. In their joy of regaining traditionalist control of the party, they may, by failing to defend and stick up for their own (Dean), drive the final wedge between themselves and independents who have been willing to look the other way in order to defeat Bush.
This may possibly lead to a 3rd party presidential run, if the current Iraq, economic, and criminal investigation trends of the Bush Adminstration continue, by someone like John McCain. With a credible candidate and the right message, talking about bringing power and influence back into the hands of American citizens and not big monied organizations, the endorsements of progressive organizations like MoveOn.org and influential individuals like George Soros will not be assuredly Democratic (all are united to defeat Bush, so a better positioned 3rd party candidate would be just as good).
Depending on what happens in the next few days and weeks in terms of Howard Dean, and what kind of support he gets from his party, will decide if a large number of his supporters who are not die-hard Democrats will lean towards the 3rd party (if Dean's campaign is effectively derailed by Big Media, which is not a foregone conclusion).
Moderate Republicans, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, independents, progressives, Greens, the previously disenchanted non-voter are all up for grabs. A guy like John McCain would be able to put forth a credible challenge to win their vote. Such a platform would force the Democratic Party to choose between its liberal or centrist wing, and desperately hope it could keep the rest.
Like I said, if the Democratic Party doesn't stick up for Dean, and what he's done for them in terms of energy, organization, and fundraising, not to mention enthusiasm, then a useful illlusion gets shattered. It's not that Dean has to win, but the man and message is respected and honored by the eventual winner of the party nomination, and when it counts, in the pinch, and not when it's already over.
Some of us care about the issues, about the platform, and about the imminent danger of totally losing control and access to the media, and thus national discourse when the Internet is still much in its infancy in terms of impact. There are great dangers in the world today, not only from terrorism but from the effects of our actions and industries on the environment.
In America, obesity is an epidemic, even amongst the young. Our children are also becoming more prone to asthma and attention deficit disorder. This is no doubt due to the unregulated release of industrial chemicals into our communities, rivers, and natural reserves, the decreasing nutritional quality of our food, polluted air and water, and a dumbing down shallowicization of our culture through the influence of television and lowest-common-demoninator media marketing.
To me, the freedom of information and distributed media access and control is the number one issue in America, and for dealing with the immense challenges we have before us, and which our traditional political parties really have no feasible plan to deal with, if they even acknowledge them, in a timely and appropriate manner.
In their absence, someone will step up to accept the mantle. This is the first law of free markets. We must defend these free markets, especially in politics, or we will lose them. There is a growing danger facing us, and we are not institutionally prepared to deal with it. It's time to change. From this man, you will never hear "anyone but Bush" (though I'm not saying that when the time comes that will be the thinking behind my vote - it's just not a worthy rallying cry for the greatness of our times, especially to brag about or promote).
I'm not going down with the ship without a rational and engaged effort to plug the holes and get back on course. Right now, all hands on political deck are engaged in infighting, with the holes being ignored, and the course set by political expedience to win the smaller partisan skirmishes. This is unacceptable, and possibly will lead to a nonlinear development that overwhelms our ability to "weather the storm".
It's about time we wake up and take responsibility.
The Democratic Party should be very careful in regards to the attempts by media outlets to destroy Howard Dean's candidacy. In their joy of regaining traditionalist control of the party, they may, by failing to defend and stick up for their own (Dean), drive the final wedge between themselves and independents who have been willing to look the other way in order to defeat Bush.
This may possibly lead to a 3rd party presidential run, if the current Iraq, economic, and criminal investigation trends of the Bush Adminstration continue, by someone like John McCain. With a credible candidate and the right message, talking about bringing power and influence back into the hands of American citizens and not big monied organizations, the endorsements of progressive organizations like MoveOn.org and influential individuals like George Soros will not be assuredly Democratic (all are united to defeat Bush, so a better positioned 3rd party candidate would be just as good).
Depending on what happens in the next few days and weeks in terms of Howard Dean, and what kind of support he gets from his party, will decide if a large number of his supporters who are not die-hard Democrats will lean towards the 3rd party (if Dean's campaign is effectively derailed by Big Media, which is not a foregone conclusion).
Moderate Republicans, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, independents, progressives, Greens, the previously disenchanted non-voter are all up for grabs. A guy like John McCain would be able to put forth a credible challenge to win their vote. Such a platform would force the Democratic Party to choose between its liberal or centrist wing, and desperately hope it could keep the rest.
Like I said, if the Democratic Party doesn't stick up for Dean, and what he's done for them in terms of energy, organization, and fundraising, not to mention enthusiasm, then a useful illlusion gets shattered. It's not that Dean has to win, but the man and message is respected and honored by the eventual winner of the party nomination, and when it counts, in the pinch, and not when it's already over.
Some of us care about the issues, about the platform, and about the imminent danger of totally losing control and access to the media, and thus national discourse when the Internet is still much in its infancy in terms of impact. There are great dangers in the world today, not only from terrorism but from the effects of our actions and industries on the environment.
In America, obesity is an epidemic, even amongst the young. Our children are also becoming more prone to asthma and attention deficit disorder. This is no doubt due to the unregulated release of industrial chemicals into our communities, rivers, and natural reserves, the decreasing nutritional quality of our food, polluted air and water, and a dumbing down shallowicization of our culture through the influence of television and lowest-common-demoninator media marketing.
To me, the freedom of information and distributed media access and control is the number one issue in America, and for dealing with the immense challenges we have before us, and which our traditional political parties really have no feasible plan to deal with, if they even acknowledge them, in a timely and appropriate manner.
In their absence, someone will step up to accept the mantle. This is the first law of free markets. We must defend these free markets, especially in politics, or we will lose them. There is a growing danger facing us, and we are not institutionally prepared to deal with it. It's time to change. From this man, you will never hear "anyone but Bush" (though I'm not saying that when the time comes that will be the thinking behind my vote - it's just not a worthy rallying cry for the greatness of our times, especially to brag about or promote).
I'm not going down with the ship without a rational and engaged effort to plug the holes and get back on course. Right now, all hands on political deck are engaged in infighting, with the holes being ignored, and the course set by political expedience to win the smaller partisan skirmishes. This is unacceptable, and possibly will lead to a nonlinear development that overwhelms our ability to "weather the storm".
It's about time we wake up and take responsibility.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Emotional Selection In Memes - The Case Of Urban Legends
I'm reposting this from early May, for reasons that may or may not obvious to regular readers.
Every now and again, I'll post an article related to my interest in selective perception, attitude change, and cognitive dissonance. It sounds technical, but it really isn't. As time goes on, I'll elaborate on these models of the mind, and try to relate them to everyday occurrences. Especially involving political attitude change and reinforcement. This one is an interesting one, and I'll post my analysis of it a little later on, or perhaps in a brand new post about urban political legends.
I'm reposting this from early May, for reasons that may or may not obvious to regular readers.
Every now and again, I'll post an article related to my interest in selective perception, attitude change, and cognitive dissonance. It sounds technical, but it really isn't. As time goes on, I'll elaborate on these models of the mind, and try to relate them to everyday occurrences. Especially involving political attitude change and reinforcement. This one is an interesting one, and I'll post my analysis of it a little later on, or perhaps in a brand new post about urban political legends.
This article explores how much memes like urban legends succeed on the basis of informational selection (i.e., truth or a moral lesson) and emotional selection (i.e., the ability to evoke emotions like anger, fear, or disgust). The article focuses on disgust because its elicitors have been precisely described.
In Study 1, with controls for informational factors like truth, people were more willing to pass along stories that elicited stronger disgust.
Study 2 randomly sampled legends and created versions that varied in disgust; people preferred to pass along versions that produced the highest level of disgust.
Study 3 coded legends for specific story motifs that produce disgust (e.g., ingestion of a contaminated substance) and found that legends that contained more disgust motifs were distributed more widely on urban legend Web sites. The conclusion discusses implications of emotional selection for the social marketplace of ideas.
This emphasis on disgust, and emotion winning out over reason, is very interesting, and the scenarios and research credible. Even more compelling, the authors of the study extend their ideas to the social realm and see a method to the madness of fear-mongering.
In legal and public policy circles, researchers have expressed repeated concerns that the media may skew public policy by provoking irrational fears. By provoking such fears, the media may cause society to skew public policy toward trivial but emotional "problems" and away from legitimate problems that are less emotional ( Bailis & MacCoun, 1996 ; Edelman, Abraham, & Erlanger, 1992 ; Glassner, 1999 ; Marsh, 1991 ). Although the media may deserve all the criticism it gets, irrational fears often propagate in the form of informal contemporary legends that use as experts only the ubiquitous "friend of a friend." Until we understand more about emotional selection, we are unlikely to understand the social implications of a marketplace of ideas that competes not only over truth but also over emotion.
There are ramnifications on political discourse and campaigning as well. Will virtual urban legends be spread throughout the people by their participation in political blogs? By overreliance on emotion and skewed stories and facts? Or will the availability of instant research and fact checking powered by Google be able to counter this? I'm not sure. I know the emotions are already running high on political blogs, and on many sites, and in many comments threads, the mob rules and independent, thoughtful opinions, and especially dissent to the consensus view, are not welcome, or are misconstrued to be the work of "trolls" from the "other side" (i.e. the enemy, other party).
Freelixir Is Retired
Though, as with the case of Michael Jordan, retirement can never be presumed permanent. Only death (and some say taxes) are permanent. What I'm thinking though is that roaming around with an alternate identity, or at least name, isn't really the best thing, and sometimes discourages rigorousness or balance on my part.
So allow me to reintroduce myself. I'm Jimm, and I'm a nice guy. I love America, and I respect opinions that differ from my own. From now on, I'm going to be sure that I represent myself consistently and without the occasional (and very rare) head-scratching and bewildering outburst-as-gonzo-strategy (I won't even bother to explain).
Any of you who have been my irrational target on one of these two "days of infamy", my sincere apology.
Though, as with the case of Michael Jordan, retirement can never be presumed permanent. Only death (and some say taxes) are permanent. What I'm thinking though is that roaming around with an alternate identity, or at least name, isn't really the best thing, and sometimes discourages rigorousness or balance on my part.
So allow me to reintroduce myself. I'm Jimm, and I'm a nice guy. I love America, and I respect opinions that differ from my own. From now on, I'm going to be sure that I represent myself consistently and without the occasional (and very rare) head-scratching and bewildering outburst-as-gonzo-strategy (I won't even bother to explain).
Any of you who have been my irrational target on one of these two "days of infamy", my sincere apology.
God Blessed America With Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King is a personal hero. In elementary school, I was given the assignment of delivering the "I Have A Dream" speech on his birthday. I'm not sure if it was a national holiday then, and, for whatever reason, I didn't actually end up doing the speech. As I remember it though (vaguely), the impetus behind it was my 3rd grade teacher, Mrs. McNair, a brilliant and engaging black woman and teacher.
My elementary school was integrated, and the inner city kids were bused in. Many of my closest friends didn't come from the neighborhood, and were either Mexican or Black. None of us really cared about that though. The bottom-line denominator is that we loved sports, and we played football, soccer, or basketball together every recess and lunch. I loved those days, and will never forget Robert, Jesse, Reggie, and the rest.
The assignment and exposure to Dr. King changed my life. Ever since, I've been very interested in ideas and movements of liberation. It opened my eyes in those young days to realize that America was still growing into the land of freedom. After the "I Have A Dream" speech, I soaked up all the American rhetoric I could find during grade and high school (Daniel Webster being another personal favorite - "One and Inseparable").
Dr. King's dream is mine too, not to mention millions of others around the world. We should never rest until we see it awaken. In my mind, making Dr. King's birthday a national holiday is one of the best and most inspiring moves we've ever made as a people, because it assures that, in the absence of a Mrs. McNair, that all kids growing up will inevitably be exposed Dr. King's presence and brilliance. To his dream.
God bless America, and Dr. Martin Luther King.
Martin Luther King is a personal hero. In elementary school, I was given the assignment of delivering the "I Have A Dream" speech on his birthday. I'm not sure if it was a national holiday then, and, for whatever reason, I didn't actually end up doing the speech. As I remember it though (vaguely), the impetus behind it was my 3rd grade teacher, Mrs. McNair, a brilliant and engaging black woman and teacher.
My elementary school was integrated, and the inner city kids were bused in. Many of my closest friends didn't come from the neighborhood, and were either Mexican or Black. None of us really cared about that though. The bottom-line denominator is that we loved sports, and we played football, soccer, or basketball together every recess and lunch. I loved those days, and will never forget Robert, Jesse, Reggie, and the rest.
The assignment and exposure to Dr. King changed my life. Ever since, I've been very interested in ideas and movements of liberation. It opened my eyes in those young days to realize that America was still growing into the land of freedom. After the "I Have A Dream" speech, I soaked up all the American rhetoric I could find during grade and high school (Daniel Webster being another personal favorite - "One and Inseparable").
Dr. King's dream is mine too, not to mention millions of others around the world. We should never rest until we see it awaken. In my mind, making Dr. King's birthday a national holiday is one of the best and most inspiring moves we've ever made as a people, because it assures that, in the absence of a Mrs. McNair, that all kids growing up will inevitably be exposed Dr. King's presence and brilliance. To his dream.
God bless America, and Dr. Martin Luther King.
Taking A Retreat
Once again, I find that I'm pushing myself to the edge out here on the Internet. I spend an inordinate amount of time poring through information and blogs, and believing that it really makes a difference, that with enough time an integrative vision and message can be grown.
Yesterday, I snapped a little bit at a few bloggers and politicians, and, in my mind, that's never appropriate. I know it's par for the course for many, but not me. That's not what I'm about. Sometimes it happens because I'm mixing my reading of Camus with politics (especially meditating on his brilliant position against "murder justifying murder"), which is a combustible mixture for me.
Or, it might be rage at the idea of a renewed military draft, and the growing trend I see in this country of "failure justifying failure". I really think that our current course in this country, in both economic and foreign policy, is severely limiting our options for the future. I find this dangerous, and don't even really care whether its intended or not (and I don't assume that it is intended in the absence of supporting information for that contention).
So yes, I'm angry. To be honest, I'm very concerned and worried about our viability and strength as a nation (in a larger sense than military might). It's not healthy to be lathering myself into a rage, however, as it affects the quality of my life and of my relations with others (similar I find to the trend nationally).
With that in mind, I'm going to wrap up a few projects I'm working on in the next week or two, and then head off to the mountains for a zen retreat. In case you're wondering, I'm not a Buddhist, but a Christian who crosses over and sees great value in zen and taoist practices and insights. This movement is growing, of dialogue within and between faiths, and I encourage people of all faiths to explore the insights of zen meditation and philosophy.
I am.
Once again, I find that I'm pushing myself to the edge out here on the Internet. I spend an inordinate amount of time poring through information and blogs, and believing that it really makes a difference, that with enough time an integrative vision and message can be grown.
Yesterday, I snapped a little bit at a few bloggers and politicians, and, in my mind, that's never appropriate. I know it's par for the course for many, but not me. That's not what I'm about. Sometimes it happens because I'm mixing my reading of Camus with politics (especially meditating on his brilliant position against "murder justifying murder"), which is a combustible mixture for me.
Or, it might be rage at the idea of a renewed military draft, and the growing trend I see in this country of "failure justifying failure". I really think that our current course in this country, in both economic and foreign policy, is severely limiting our options for the future. I find this dangerous, and don't even really care whether its intended or not (and I don't assume that it is intended in the absence of supporting information for that contention).
So yes, I'm angry. To be honest, I'm very concerned and worried about our viability and strength as a nation (in a larger sense than military might). It's not healthy to be lathering myself into a rage, however, as it affects the quality of my life and of my relations with others (similar I find to the trend nationally).
With that in mind, I'm going to wrap up a few projects I'm working on in the next week or two, and then head off to the mountains for a zen retreat. In case you're wondering, I'm not a Buddhist, but a Christian who crosses over and sees great value in zen and taoist practices and insights. This movement is growing, of dialogue within and between faiths, and I encourage people of all faiths to explore the insights of zen meditation and philosophy.
I am.
Dick Cheney And Ending Careers
As Bush's Cabinet recruiter, Cheney brought O'Neill into the Bush administration. Cheney and O'Neill had known each other since they worked together in the Ford administration. Cheney fired O'Neill in December 2002 after the Treasury secretary objected to Bush's tax cuts and made several embarrassing public remarks.
"I was a big advocate of his, without question, and it's turned out to be a big disappointment," Cheney said. "We were friends. It's one of those things that happens periodically — you put a round peg in a square hole, and it didn't work."
Cheney said he thought O'Neill would do a good job because of his experience as deputy budget director under President Ford and his success as CEO of Alcoa.
"Why it failed? I don't know. I don't want to get into that," Cheney said. "Paul has had his say. I disagree with his analysis, obviously. But he's had his day. I feel badly for him, to some extent, that he has ended his career on this note. That's his choice."
Stream of Consciousness - This Morning
there's a fictional world, and the real world. the politician's job is to construct the most appealing fictional world, or, preferably, to cut through the fiction and show the real world, and how the platform is constructed on top of that.
***
ninedwarfs.com website dude. Says he supports Bush because the Democrats want to go back to Clintonian foreign policy where we always ask the UN first before we do something.
well, this is not only fiction, but diametrically opposed to reality. Clinton militarily intervened in Bosnia with NATO forces, and without UN imprimatur. In fact, knowing that Russia would veto the action, Clinton didn't even bother going to the UN (and wasting political capital).
also, comparing the casualties, one has to wonder which action was more effective, and look at the associations without rushing into judgements of causation. Who were the "peacekeepers" in Bosnia, and why having a better time of it than Iraq? Why are the numbers of casualties so different, and is this related to the conduct, strategy, or politics of the war?
finally, the Bush Administration went to the UN, and therefore can't try to claim otherwise. if their supporters try to claim otherwise, and blame it on Powell, they're forgetting who's in charge, and who's responsible.
contrary to Clinton, the Bush Administration was not able to divine that the UN wouldn't play ball, or didn't care, and instead ended up trashing the reputation and honor of our nation by trumping false evidence and championing a shifty case, resulting in great diminishment to our brand, image, and popularity around the world (badly wasting political capital).
in addition, we went in unilaterally, without even seemingly considering a NATO action, which inevitably led to even greater suspicion and disapproval of our motives and methods, though we claimed allies, most of which were repressive nations, along with England, Australia, Spain, and Italy, while the rest of the free world was greatly in opposition.
that's the reality.
***
association does not imply causation.
the claim that catching Saddam has diminished attacks by 30% of whatever number. there is a reach here, because there could very well be other reasons for this. we've known for awhile that the money and arms are finite for the resistance, and in need of being replenished, and not so easily available as time goes on. so this could just as easily explain the "lull" in attacks, and also possibly imply a strategy of theirs that preemptively realized this development, and therefore focused on more precise intelligence and deadlier attacks as the resistance went forward.
casualties do seem to be holding, if even the attacks have gone down.
regardless, the rush to imply causation from an association is not deductive or rational. the desirable conclusion is acknowledged and in mind, and the evidence is compiled to support it. we want the resistance to diminish now that saddam has been captured - who doesn't? but that doesn't mean we should get carried away with proving it, and our fiction, while ignoring that reality may differ.
indeed, it is our wish for reality to conform with our fiction, or utopia, that drives this. in anthropological and psychological terms, this might be construed as seeking "magical solutions", though we do seek to control and subdue nature, so there is a deeper and more intuitive explanation for it than dismissal as "magical".
I'm guessing that this fallacy of association implying causation is rampant in our public discourse, political communication, and media reporting. it would be interesting to follow that up.
how much fiction, and how much reality?
***
further ruminating on the difference between the Bosnian and Iraqi occupations. we've ostensibly gone into Iraq to liberate them, and to lessen the perceived danger of Saddam.
Saddam is now captured, the danger has clearly been dispelled, if not discounted in the first place, and the Iraqi people are liberated from Saddam's repression.
we are still occupying. yet we are doing so in a position of no strength. for, if the Shiites desired, they could make the occupation impossible.
why?
because our reasons are used up for being there, short of remaking Iraq into a modern free market democracy. in order to do that though, we need their cooperation. if they resist, especially the majority Shiites, the measures we would have to take in relation to our other goals as far as the liberation of Iraq would be regrettable and hyprocritical.
in previous occupations, the occupied were essentially the enemy, and this dynamic was known by both parties, and probably encouraged a one-sided balance-of-power that allowed the occupying power to do what was necessary to accomplish its goals.
on the other hand, the Iraqis are not our enemies but our friends, or at least sympathetic enough for us to expend blood and treasure in liberating them. either they are respected equals or charges we are responsible for. either way, this means we are limited in the destructive means by which we can compel obedience to the aims of the occupation.
if the Shiites all resisted, we would not have enough forces to deal with it, without bringing in reinforcements and beginning indiscriminate bombing.
we would be back to Vietnam-era hypocrisy and doublespeak where we had to "destroy the village (and villagers), in order to save it (and them)".
since in no way have we ever made the case that the people of Iraq threatened us, or threaten us today, there would be no moral basis for our upgrading to a war against a united Iraqi resistance either.
only very specious claims based upon our desire to build a modern free market democracy in Iraq as essential to our national security would then be left, and the American people and the world just wouldn't buy it.
the reality is that fiction wouldn't sell.
there's a fictional world, and the real world. the politician's job is to construct the most appealing fictional world, or, preferably, to cut through the fiction and show the real world, and how the platform is constructed on top of that.
***
ninedwarfs.com website dude. Says he supports Bush because the Democrats want to go back to Clintonian foreign policy where we always ask the UN first before we do something.
well, this is not only fiction, but diametrically opposed to reality. Clinton militarily intervened in Bosnia with NATO forces, and without UN imprimatur. In fact, knowing that Russia would veto the action, Clinton didn't even bother going to the UN (and wasting political capital).
also, comparing the casualties, one has to wonder which action was more effective, and look at the associations without rushing into judgements of causation. Who were the "peacekeepers" in Bosnia, and why having a better time of it than Iraq? Why are the numbers of casualties so different, and is this related to the conduct, strategy, or politics of the war?
finally, the Bush Administration went to the UN, and therefore can't try to claim otherwise. if their supporters try to claim otherwise, and blame it on Powell, they're forgetting who's in charge, and who's responsible.
contrary to Clinton, the Bush Administration was not able to divine that the UN wouldn't play ball, or didn't care, and instead ended up trashing the reputation and honor of our nation by trumping false evidence and championing a shifty case, resulting in great diminishment to our brand, image, and popularity around the world (badly wasting political capital).
in addition, we went in unilaterally, without even seemingly considering a NATO action, which inevitably led to even greater suspicion and disapproval of our motives and methods, though we claimed allies, most of which were repressive nations, along with England, Australia, Spain, and Italy, while the rest of the free world was greatly in opposition.
that's the reality.
***
association does not imply causation.
the claim that catching Saddam has diminished attacks by 30% of whatever number. there is a reach here, because there could very well be other reasons for this. we've known for awhile that the money and arms are finite for the resistance, and in need of being replenished, and not so easily available as time goes on. so this could just as easily explain the "lull" in attacks, and also possibly imply a strategy of theirs that preemptively realized this development, and therefore focused on more precise intelligence and deadlier attacks as the resistance went forward.
casualties do seem to be holding, if even the attacks have gone down.
regardless, the rush to imply causation from an association is not deductive or rational. the desirable conclusion is acknowledged and in mind, and the evidence is compiled to support it. we want the resistance to diminish now that saddam has been captured - who doesn't? but that doesn't mean we should get carried away with proving it, and our fiction, while ignoring that reality may differ.
indeed, it is our wish for reality to conform with our fiction, or utopia, that drives this. in anthropological and psychological terms, this might be construed as seeking "magical solutions", though we do seek to control and subdue nature, so there is a deeper and more intuitive explanation for it than dismissal as "magical".
I'm guessing that this fallacy of association implying causation is rampant in our public discourse, political communication, and media reporting. it would be interesting to follow that up.
how much fiction, and how much reality?
***
further ruminating on the difference between the Bosnian and Iraqi occupations. we've ostensibly gone into Iraq to liberate them, and to lessen the perceived danger of Saddam.
Saddam is now captured, the danger has clearly been dispelled, if not discounted in the first place, and the Iraqi people are liberated from Saddam's repression.
we are still occupying. yet we are doing so in a position of no strength. for, if the Shiites desired, they could make the occupation impossible.
why?
because our reasons are used up for being there, short of remaking Iraq into a modern free market democracy. in order to do that though, we need their cooperation. if they resist, especially the majority Shiites, the measures we would have to take in relation to our other goals as far as the liberation of Iraq would be regrettable and hyprocritical.
in previous occupations, the occupied were essentially the enemy, and this dynamic was known by both parties, and probably encouraged a one-sided balance-of-power that allowed the occupying power to do what was necessary to accomplish its goals.
on the other hand, the Iraqis are not our enemies but our friends, or at least sympathetic enough for us to expend blood and treasure in liberating them. either they are respected equals or charges we are responsible for. either way, this means we are limited in the destructive means by which we can compel obedience to the aims of the occupation.
if the Shiites all resisted, we would not have enough forces to deal with it, without bringing in reinforcements and beginning indiscriminate bombing.
we would be back to Vietnam-era hypocrisy and doublespeak where we had to "destroy the village (and villagers), in order to save it (and them)".
since in no way have we ever made the case that the people of Iraq threatened us, or threaten us today, there would be no moral basis for our upgrading to a war against a united Iraqi resistance either.
only very specious claims based upon our desire to build a modern free market democracy in Iraq as essential to our national security would then be left, and the American people and the world just wouldn't buy it.
the reality is that fiction wouldn't sell.
Bring On The War Gamers
Mr. Dean's gaffes are viewed as the main reason for his slide in the polls in recent weeks. As a result, Bush strategists disagree with pundits who say the person best positioned to emerge as the Dean alternative is Mr. Clark.
Campaign officials reason that if the Democratic Party balks at nominating Mr. Dean because of his propensity for gaffes, it will be loath to embrace Mr. Clark, whom Miss Iverson called "every bit as gaffe-prone as Howard Dean."
That would leave Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gephardt, both of whom recently have polled well in Iowa. While Mr. Edwards' popularity has surged to a lesser extent, his aversion to criticizing rivals in an increasingly acrimonious contest has positioned him for a possible spot on the Democratic ticket, perhaps as vice president.
Dr. Dean is not dropping because of gaffes, but because of overwhelming negative media exposure. Wesley Clark is clearly the scariest opponent of those left for the Bush wargamers, since Clark essentially comes as their worst nightmare, being that he can credibly put to bed the fictional meme that Democrats "want to bring back Clintonian foreign policy, which requires the permission of the UN."
Examining the record, we see that Clinton followed no such requirement, and Wesley Clark is proof positive in the case of Bosnia.
Beyond that, a Democratic ticket combining the talents of Dean and Clark, whoever ends up being the top man, would clearly worry if not prematurely defeat the Bush war gamers. If this were to be the case, that Clark and Dean would so intimidate the Republicans, can they drop President Bush? What would happen to all the money he's raised?
I only mention this because the Republicans would be better off without Bush, and Cheney, than with them. Any neutral observer would be hard-pressed not to come to the same conclusion, in preemptively considering all the facts and information coming out during the course of the election (that people just aren't paying attention to yet, that will paint Bush and Cheney negatively, and this after catching Saddam hasn't made a bit of difference in popularity).
Saturday, January 17, 2004
Democratic Challengers Champion Freedom Of Information
Wired magazine is reporting that secrecy is becoming a big campaign issue.
Wired magazine is reporting that secrecy is becoming a big campaign issue.
Normally, presidential candidates spend the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary sucking up to hog farmers and singing the praises of those oh-so-flinty New Englanders.
But in the last week, on the eve of the formal start of the 2004 elections, two Democratic contenders took time to talk about a topic that's usually reserved for spooks, conspiracy theorists and a couple of policy geeks: how the government keeps its secrets. There's a faint, but real, possibility that this most opaque of subjects could become a full-blown issue in the presidential campaign.
On Friday, retired Gen. Wesley Clark trotted out his proposals (PDF) to make government more transparent -- just a week after Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman unveiled a similar plan.
In a Manchester, New Hampshire, speech, Clark said he would "restore the public's right to know" by rolling back the Bush administration's expanded powers to make documents classified. He promised to return the powers of the Freedom of Information Act back to where they were before Sept. 11. And Clark vowed to keep public documents posted on the Internet permanently, "unlike the Bush administration, which has repeatedly removed and rewritten postings when politically expedient."
(snip)
"The vulnerability from Bush's perspective is that he's seen as covering up in favor of the special interests," said John Podesta, who was the White House chief of staff during Bill Clinton's second term. "The secrecy issue is the key into that story line. The public kind of smells a rat. And if you lift the veil a little bit, they'll see the rat's under there."
Last month, U.S. News and World Report devoted a cover story to how "the Bush administration is doing the public's business out of the public eye." And transparency crusader Steven Aftergood, after working in relative obscurity for years as the head of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, has suddenly found himself the subject of profiles in Esquire and The Washington Post.
Go Clark and Lieberman! I encourage all of the other candidates, and the Democratic Party itself, to follow suit.
In the case of Howard Dean, this is a sticky issue, because of his secrecy of his records in Vermont, but is fully consistent with the rest of his campaign.
All I can say is this, "Come clean Dr. Dean!" This issue - the freedom of information, transparency, and accountability - must be pushed in the larger campaign.
***
More on Wesley Clark's championing of the freedom of information later this weekend (I consider the freedom of information to be the greatest immediate challenge ahead of us in securing both the blessings of liberty and security in the 21st century and beyond).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)