Do We Need A Constitutional Amendment To Ensure Our Privacy?

I'm beginning to wonder if we should push a privacy amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps along with an open government/freedom of information amendment. Not that the two need to be bundled. But it would be a joyous day if we were celebrating the passage of these two great measures.

Let's focus on the privacy amendment in this post. I've been poking around the Internet, and am finding surprisingly little on any past history of proposed amendments of privacy. This seems odd to me because our right to privacy is largely an interpretation of existing amendments, aside from protection from unlawful search and seizure, and is clearly a popular issue. Who wouldn't want a right to privacy from government (except for those who want to regulate personal behavior that results in no harm to another, but even they probably want their own privacy)?

I'm committing myself to this issue. Here in California, we have a right to privacy enshrined in our state Constitution. I'd like to see a similar development on the federal level, and enshrined in an amendment to our great Constitution. So, with privacy on our minds, I encourage you to go visit Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center as a way of getting up to speed with the world of privacy advocacy, activism, and watchdogging.

And, if you want to pursue open government, transparency, and the freedom of information a little further, then Transparency International, Open Government Information Awareness, Access Reports, freedominfo.org, and Open Society Justice Initiative can bring you up to speed.

Tony Blair Claims British Intelligence Never Breaks The Law...And Another Absurdity

Now, people say a lot of good and bad things about secret services and intelligence agencies, but I'm not sure anyone has ever said that "they never break the law". These are clandestine spy agencies - does Tony Blair honestly want me to believe that his spies never break the law? Does he think I'm a total fool? Does he thing the whole world are fools?

Probably not. Chances are this is just more legal posturing from Tony. And there's a lot of that going on over in the UK. Take that case against Katharine Gun, the translator who leaked the email request from American intelligence to spy on UN deliberations regarding the war. She regularly confesses to the deed, and yet the government drops the case against her for a "lack of evidence". Of course. Pure logic at its finest.

Though, had they pursued the case in court against her, the veracity of the email itself would have had to been established, and this very well could have led to disclosures that showed the government, and its precious secret services, committing illegal acts.

So, let's sum up. Two developments have arose in the past 24 hours. One, a prime minister claims that his spies never break the law. Two, a woman who regularly confesses to a crime is freed for lack of evidence by the initiation of the prosecutor.

My response to that is, one, I'm not stupid, and two, somebody's hiding something (beyond the obvious being this involves spies and politicians).

Why Is Big Government, Or Liberal Democracy If You Prefer, Necessary To Protect Marriage?

As expected, President Bush has weighed in on an amendment to the Constitution to declare it solely between man and woman. This will be a crux of his presidential campaign, and is a sign of his weakness. In reality, weakness is what I'm examining in this post. For many, we see strength in our traditions that have gone back for millenia, long before the establishment of our limited free government. President Bush is convinced otherwise:

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Now, far be it from me to say that marriage is stronger than it's ever been, since anyone can look around and see that marriages aren't lasting as long, on average, than other periods of history. But, as President Bush himself has noted on occasion, this trend has occurred in a world that we lead, and that has come largely to embrace the inalienable - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the root foundation (however well we are in the process of implementing and enabling this vision).

What am I saying? We live in the greatest days of the world, the days with the most freedom, for the most people, with the best health care, and the most incredible expansion of human innovation and ingenuity ever. This happened because we are free - we freed ourselves. In the process of attaining this freedom, we inevitably noticed the oppressions of the past, of man over woman, of master over slave, and have had to deal with their realities, lingering effects where largely eliminated, and our relative and varying complicity in these evils.

In the past, for millenia, men and women were often married against their will, or, in the case of polygamy, many women were monopolized by a few men. Because of the church, and the lack of freedom and personal autonomy, people trapped in ugly and moribund marriages were unable to exit them. With freedom, this situation has changed. Humanity is growing up, and in the process of choosing for ourselves our destinies. This has been enabled most of all by the aforementioned historical novelty - the right of exit. If you're in a bad marriage, you can leave. Today. In the past, often you could not.

In our culture today, people are free to come and go - to enter into a marriage contract as they please. America did not invent marriages, and our government is not needed to sustain them. Even today, in a growing scientific age, most people get married before a pastor, priest, or religious leader of some sort. As a reflection of our freedom of religion, and separation of church and state, this is also one of the great blessings of our system of government here in America. The government is not needed to protect what ought to be protected in marriage - the force of our traditions, morals, religions, and spiritual traditions will do that, as they have, for millenia.

Our government is embroiled in the legalities relating to marriage, however, and these can best be seen, and are by many, as necessary evils. People don't (or shouldn't) get married in order to take on so many new and unenviable legal responsibilities. That just comes with the territory, and marriage partners weight it as part of their decision, but not usually as a primary. No, people get married because they fall in love. Marriage is romantic. It's about romance. About uniting in a bond forever. This is the essence of marriage, and, if anything, what ought to be protected about it. And, judging by the force of our culture, and the vulnerability of our hearts, we have nothing to worry about here.

For millenia, people got married for various reasons, and so be it. In America, we don't really look favorably on most of history. It involved coercion and slavery, and as far as marriage goes, often much less romance than domination. Today, we are a romantic people, in love with liberty and romance, seeking to realize ourselves in work and play, and to find our life partner and soulmate. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we fail.

That's reality. Marriage has not always meant the same thing, other than being the focus of family. And we don't need the state, or Big Government, to be the strength behind our families. To tell us who to include in our families. As free and sovereign individuals we form and give legitimacy to our families and to the state. The government should never forget that. We don't need the government telling us how to collect together and form groups - as human beings, we've been doing that for millenia, our families (extended) are much older than America, or democracy, and ultimately we formed our government as a voluntary and willing association just as we do our other groups. The government needs to do our will - not try to become our will.

Which brings me to gay Americans. It's coming to consensus now that homosexuals do not choose to be so. For whatever reason, genetic or conditional, this is their endowment. Through this prism, they are sexually and romantically driven. If we didn't tie up sex and romance, which we do, we wouldn't be having this particular debate. We could all agree that in the particular sphere of sexual activity, we should just mind our own business.

But this amendment of President Bush's seems to miss all the insight I've mentioned, not to mention any sense of heart or compassion. People don't choose to be gay. Are they to be denied the right to realize their love, when they fall in love, to make that permanent union of heart and body, mind and soul, as do the rest of us? Are we to make the terrible mistake that marriage is about all the legalities and not what we know it to be - about love, and families, and a happy hearth?

Think about it. Marriage doesn't need government. Why does the government, and President Bush, need marriage?

Pentagon Opens Criminal Investigation Of Halliburton

Is it possible that Halliburton will finally be held to account? This site has documented numerous instances of despicable behavior and activities by Halliburton and/or its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Now it seems that KB&R has pulled a fast one on the American government and military, and, unlike with foreign governments in the past, didn't have the influence to evade accountability and the rule of law (i.e. the ability to bribe public officials to look the other way or to be their partners in crime).

The Pentagon said on Monday its criminal investigators were examining allegations of fraud against Halliburton Co. unit Kellogg Brown and Root, including potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Iraq.

"The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office, is investigating allegations on the part of KBR of fraud, including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," said a Pentagon spokeswoman.

John Kerry In The Arms Of Big Media

Well, I must say I'm a little taken aback this morning. Though I'm a fan of John Kerry, I'm disturbed by this latest article out of the Guardian.

Fresh from his latest win in Maine, the favourite to challenge George Bush for the US presidency has secured the financial support of some of the most powerful media moguls in the world.

As John Kerry's campaign to secure the Democrat nomination - and with it a crack at the White House - continues to gather pace, it has emerged that it is being bankrolled by key executives from News Corporation, MTV-owner Viacom and Sony.

Wow. Before rushing to judgement on this, it would be wise to see the history of these kinds of things, and John Kerry's backing by these companies, but it sure seems to fit into our ongoing theories about Big Media going all out to prevent Howard Dean from getting the nomination.

Unsurprisingly, the donation from News Corp's boardroom came not from chairman Rupert Murdoch, a committed Republican, but from the company's chief operating officer, Peter Chernin.

Mr Chernin, one of Mr Murdoch's most trusted lieutenants, is among several media chiefs who have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000 to support the Vietnam war veteran's campaign for the White House.

Others who have pledged to raise more than $50,000 include the Viacom chief executive, Sumner Redstone, and Sony chairman Howard Stringer, whose name has recently been linked with the vacant chairmanships at ITV and the BBC.

Most of the money raised from these contributors will have to be raised through business associates, relatives and friends as individuals can only give a total of $4,000 each to presidential candidates - $2,000 during the primaries and another $2,000 during a general election.

This certainly deserves more scrutiny. Howard Dean declared that he was going to break up media conglomerates, and swiftly became characterized in the media as a "loose cannon", "angry", and "unelectable". This should have been occasion for the Democratic Party to stand up for its own, and for the benefit of all its candidates, since to condone this behavior is to ignore how it has played negatively against you, and may again in the near future. If not speaking out against this treatment now, please don't bother me with any complaints should it come to you, or to your candidate.

Instead, it seems John Kerry is collecting big money from Big Media, a special interest, yet Kerry claims to be the worst enemy of "special interests", even though he's collected more money than any other senator from special interest lobbyists in the past several years. Odd.

Health Care Thoughts - Stream Of Consciousness

rising health care costs - integrative vision

need to emphasize preventive care and access to emergency care

population is aging, and requires more health care

with this in mind, what are people treated for?

how many of these ailments are related to pollution, poor nutrition, i.e. the result of activities that the government subsidizes or does not regulate appropriately?

obesity, asthma, adhd, cancer, etc.

profits for petroleum companies (and others) while we pay the health care cost difference in people's health

environmental health

overall vision that sees way to expand access to care, both preventive and emergency, thus saving money by having less intrusive care needs along with better prior accounting and market pricing of emergency care rather than the inevitable waste of bureaucratic "shifting".

no vision with business interests (like business roundtable, walmart)

they want less stringent environmental regulations AND a lower burden on health care costs, and it's not certain whether they advocate that the costs for these be passed on to other interests (not business), or just not acknowledged as long as they are not effected.

empirical: any evidence showing that states with tighter environmental standards pay less for health care? probably not, since most chemicals being dumped would seem to be a federal issue.

***

imagine we implement a better system. what will be demographic result if everyone eats a balanced diet? what will they then die of? what will be the costs of people as a rule living much longer than today? especially if we were to do away with highway and auto accident deaths too?

The Letter That Preceded This Blog

When the war in Iraq seemed almost inevitable, I fired off this letter to every news outlet, commentator, and blogger I could find an email address for. Since we've seemingly come full circle now, with admissions that the war was not justified, I'm reposting it for the purposes of reflection.

It's a crucial time in American history. The incompetent, scandalous and crooked are becoming the norm. The latest incident involving the forgery of the Niger nuclear documents is a telling case-in-point. Confronted with this development, a key component of our case for war against Iraq, all we get from our leaders and these documents' former champions is a shrug. Oh well, we passed it along in "good faith". We are not incompetent, or criminal, it just managed to "slip through". Forget about it. And we couldn't have been responsible for it, because our people are competent, talented professionals who surely would have done a better job of forging these documents. And so on...

Only this information is, and was, unforgettably important. We expressed it at the highest levels of our power apparatus, as a justification for a very expensive, in both human lives and material cost, war against Iraq. A war in which we've articulated our possible use of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and chemical, as a "defensive" measure "should it come to that". A war which has divided the world, invited enemies and derision, and which we have initiated. The people of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein himself, have not asked us to go to war with them. Mysteriously, it's not a priority for them.

Even more mysteriously, it's seemingly become our overriding purpose as a nation. You can't go anywhere and not hear about it. On TV, on the radio, in the newspaper, the non-stop onslaught of coverage of this possible war against a weakened tyrant and people is constantly in play. Forced to give an opinion by the pollsters, fastly becoming more tiresome and meddling in popular culture than the tax collector, Americans indicate a preference for action. An illusion. Most people don't know the facts, don't really care one way or the other, and would surely rather quit hearing about it. You'd think the mind-numbing coverage and escalating gas prices would have assured overwhelming support for war by now, just so we can "get on with our lives", but it hasn't. Most mysteriously of all, masses are gathering in the streets, not answering the call of obedience, irrationality and war, but demanding peace, rationality and sanity. The herd! Acting with compassion and reason, demanding information before consent! The elites must be trembling in their slippers...

Meanwhile, our young American men and women are strapping on their combat boots and chem-warfare suits, preparing to engage in a war of which they can't possibly be passionate about. Why do I say this? There's a difference in what you hear, and what you know. And only the most clueless of the clueless would believe we're sacrificing human lives for the cause of the common Iraqi. For his freedom. Or hers. So anyone who's looking for reasons, to engage their reason, to determine the right thing to do, the moral course of action, will find nothing but ideology and fiction, speculation and threats, forgeries and plagiarism emanating from our most competent war orators. The mere presence of a plagiarized, decade-old student thesis, and the aforementioned Niger document forgery, as key references for our case is more telling than anything else. The plagiarized student claiming to have been able to give more updated information if he had been consulted only adds insult to injury.

This war is a fraud. Essential questions have not been answered. Who is going to die, and why? Will our fighting men and women kill with certainty, or with doubts? When does being a patriot mean defending freedom, and when does it mean being a fool? We don't know. So to the perpetrators of this absurdity the American people should issue one last ultimatum. Stand down, or face the shame of a nation.

A patriot,

Jimm

I Love America, And This Is What We Should Do

I love America. I love our values. They are mine. Ours. Freedom and liberal democracy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or, better stated, prosperity).

I believe Bush and company lied and/or deceived us (and themselves). I seek to hold them accountable. I'm ashamed that they have trumped shoddy and plagiarized evidence before the world as a justification for WAR, the most dastardly thing any human group could do.

War is hell, and so has been my life, in some ways, since Bush implicated me in an unjust war.

They've degraded our name and brand, and, after then going to war, proceeded to screw that up too and make us look worse, not to mention make one wonder about the future of Iraq, and whether those people will be any better off (and them being so is no justification for a WAR).

It's time America becomes more about America, the dream and symbol, and less the domineering power and arms merchant that we've become.

It's time we throw the weight of our power and prestige (what's left) behind international law and the enforcement of universal and minimal standards of human rights (globally negotiated) - i.e. the inalienable.

We need to assure, in the face of suicidal illiberal terrorism, that our liberal and classical vision of democracy is so well distributed and balanced that no attack could portend to weaken it. This takes away the motive, for the most part. Why bother blowing up Washington D.C. if it won't sap America or the free world, because we've distributed and lateralized, and made the inalienable protected in a system of liberal democracy fault-tolerant against any attack short of global destruction?

This is not only a security strategy that deemphasizes vertical power structures and in the process reduces system vulnerabilities, it also implements the American dream and vision more thoroughly around the world, which is really a vision that goes beyond America.

This vision is freedom, dignity, and respect for a human being as a human being, and equal before the eyes of God, creation, and the cosmos.

We can strive to make this a reality because we have the power to do so. People already want it, and, as the greatest power, we can enable and grease the wheels. We can help rather than hinder or hurt. We can make freedom and democracy viable globally and enshrined in protections in the United Nations or an expanded system (with enforcement mechanisms in place).

None of this means loss of sovereignty, but the actual strengthening of it, since ultimately driven by the principles that sustain us as a free nation.

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?

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.

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.

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.

***

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.

***

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.