Today is an important day, and as Michael Ignatieff writes in The Guardian : Whatever your view of the war, you should embrace today’s election.
Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders.
Why do so few people feel even a tremor of indignation when they see poll workers gunned down? Why isn’t there a trickle of applause in the press for the more than 6,000 Iraqis actually standing for political office at the risk of their lives?
Explaining this morose silence requires understanding how support for Iraqi democracy has become the casualty of the corrosive bitterness that still surrounds the initial decision to go to war. Establishing free institutions in Iraq was the best reason to support the war – now it is the only reason – and for that very reason democracy there has ceased to be a respectable cause.
The Bush administration has managed the nearly impossible: to turn democracy into a disreputable slogan.
Liberals can’t bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neo-conservative bombast. Anti-war ideologues can’t support the Iraqis because that would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies. And then there are the ideological fools in the Arab world, and even a few in the West, who think the ‘insurgents’ are fighting a just war against US imperialism. This makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates – fascists. [...]
The Bush administration knows that, while its mistakes have cost it any real influence in Iraq, its historical reputation will depend on whether freedom takes root there. Already the revisionists are working over the facts: the best way to write the history in advance is to shift the blame onto the Iraqis themselves. Those who opposed the war collude with this revisionism in advance by giving up on the Iraqis and this, their only chance of freedom.
Let us have the decency to support people who are fighting for a free election, and let us have the honesty not to blame them for our own incompetence if they fail. There is still no reason to assume they will.
I have to agree. There is always a silver lining, even within such an obviously ill conceived, horribly lead operation.
We must also be vigilant, because the right will also attempt to blame the left for their own failures. And, as stated, they will blame the Iraqi’s in fair time as well.
My propaganda radar has been overwhelmed for the past few days, so my initial impression is that the election will have little or no real affect upon the insurgency. But, victory will be declared by all sides no matter the outcome. It’s more of a public relations battle than a battle for votes at this juncture. Allawi and his political party will most definitely win the majority, since that has already been decided behind the scenes. Anyone who truly thinks that such an important step, during such a perilous time in Iraq, will be entirely decided by the election process are sadly misstaken and unfamiliar with the realities on the ground. The election is symbolic in every sense of the word, and certain aspects have been assured by the activies of the Rendon Group, and other consultancies prior to the election.
If a theocratic mandate were to come forward, does anyone truly believe that the Bush Administration would sede power?
Personally, I hope the election process sparks a bit of civility in Iraq. Anything that allows US soldiers to come home alive is a good thing. I’m not overly optimistic it will have that great of an affect. That is the direct fault of the Bush White House and the Pentagon for not dealing with the realities on the ground in Iraq and for not engaging the international community properly. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “Public relations doesn’t win wars.”
And, for those who find it impossible to hope for the best on this election day in Iraq, there’s always a good song.
With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him.
Until we, the American people, receive some answers to the our inquiries, we should not support the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez as AG. Join the movement at Daily Kos.
An excellent overview of Gonzalez’s career and his propensity for doing an end run on justice over at Blog Swarm.
“Words are the most powerful drug used by mankind.” – Rudyard Kipling
Exemplifying the fact that many on the right seem to worship Bush as G-d on Earth, comes the following headline from the Washington Times: Bush vows to end global tyranny. And, the intro:
President Bush was sworn in for his second term yesterday and used his inaugural address to lay out an unapologetically aggressive agenda that amounts to nothing less than “ending tyranny in our world.”
Now, it’s a great thing to want to end tyranny. I’m all for it. I’ve spent my young life fighting it in my own way. And, I’m passionate about it. But, assuming that tyranny can be entirely stopped is a bit unrealistic. It’s rhetoric to be consumed by the faithful. It’s bad rhetoric.
Think about what it means for a minute to truly “end global tyranny”. If such an event were to actually occur, you are essentially talking about an end to war. All war. It would mean the end of oppression. It would be the end of poverty. It would be the end of slavery in all of its forms. It would mean an end to all of those things that empower and are the components of “tyranny”. Granted, we all want such a world to become a reality. But, those of us who deal with real life also understand that such great changes have eluded man and woman since they were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
Now, the faithful are going to wail, “That’s not what Bush means.” But, then, what did Bush mean? It was only the most watched speech of his entire career to date. He’s only the most powerful leader in the entire world. It is important to know what words mean.
One can not simply state “we are going to end tyranny”, as if it were Polio. It is more complicated than that, and making such a statment is deceptive and illusory. It’s rhetorical sleight of hand meant to be neither honest or accurate. It is meant to create an emotional reaction and reinforce the Messianic fervor of the religious base. Thus, there are people who will now swear that the US will destroy tyranny around the world, just like we have destroyed Nazism, and Slavery. We did not, of course. They merely went underground. But, as long as we have rhetoric, the US is the savior of the world, and Bush wields the double edged sword of truth.
From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the one who destroys tyranny – evil essentially – and then ushers in a “thousand years” of peace, is denoted as the Messiah. Because that is what “ending tyranny in our world” would actually mean in a real sense. It would be the proverbial “Second Coming”, the “end of times” and all that it implies. Such word usage is entirely on purpose of course.
President Bush’s speech is riddled with rhetorical code for the true believers who worship him and think him unassailable. It is meant to appeal to their hopes and dreams and their impression of Bush as infallible and capable of saving them all from the evil that confronts them. But, for those of us with a foot firmly planted in reality, the speech is simply not believable. It is entirely “over the top”. It does not, for example, mention Iraq. Not once. But, taken at its word, “ending tyranny” would mean what it means.
It is important for all of us, left and right, to remain fully grounded in reality and understand that the human race has empowered tyranny from the very beginning of history, and will continue to do so until the very end, in some form or another.
Some day, perhaps, we may actually evolve or simply arrive at a point when our petty differences no longer rule our destiny and we do indeed turn our swords into ploughshares. But, I’m not expecting that day to be in my lifetime.
Call me a pessimist if you wish, but my thoughts on this are tempered not by rhetoric, but by history and a basic understanding of human nature. Common sense. Prayer also tempers my view.
We are a violent race. We are an ambitious race. We are also greedy and self serving to a large degree. Our own selfishness often outweighs any consideration of how our acts, deeds and beliefs affect others. The lack of such understanding sows the seeds of tyranny from a multitude of different sides – race, culture, religion, class, and sex to name only a few.
Tyranny can be kept at bay by vigilant adherence to liberty, the rule of law, democracy and a strong moral code. But, eliminating tyranny? That’s a different battle entirely from the one which President Bush is waging around the world and at home.
The key to truly ending tyranny is the ultimate battle. It is the battle for the soul of every single human being on the planet.
And, while I think the President is a formidable politician and the Commander in Chief of the greatest military in the history of the world, I’d venture to say I’m safe in stating that the battle to eliminate evil from the souls of all mankind is a bit out of his league.
The existence of liberalism as a discussion topic constitutes, in many ways, an unacceptable bias towards liberalism in the eyes of the far right (and barrier between the far and not-so-far right is creeping ever leftward). Daily, we see complaints about the liberal bias of, well, everything, to the point where, as Bill Kristol put it, the rationale for all conservative failures is bias towards liberalism.
It’s a weakness, and it’s probably going to be the downfall of movement conservatism. Eventually, liberalism can’t be blamed anymore. When you fail out of school because you tried to get a Poli Sci degree by writing “liberals are destroying America” for 20 papers a year, you failed because you did a bad job.
Whenever I can, I spend a bit of time lurking on a couple of right-wing blogs, those with comments. Have been doing it for a few years now. They can be, at times, equally as pertinent to a given issue as those on the left. As a liberal, I think it is important to engage as many points of view as possible to understand and solve an issue. I veer to the left on most issues, but my overall perspective is often one that has considered a few different views -left, moderate, right.
So, of the right-wing blogs, I have a few favorites, but, I never comment because it is simply not worth it. If you dissent from the accepted line you get bashed and called a commie pinko (when you’re not and think communism is not a viable system). And, playing devil’s advocate can get you a goodly amount a hate e-mail and /or the usual round of infantile insults. And, introducing facts is cause for ridicule and hate. It’s a culture, just like the left blogs. For the most part, you will see the same people, day in, day out, a big community with one thing in common: they all hate “liberals”. And, that means not only those they perceive as “liberals”, but pretty much anyone who disagrees with them. And, that is a signigicant departure from the culture of the majority of left blogs.
The other day, I decided to make an attempt at introducing either some facts (with supporting links) or a simple devil’s advocate argument into the middle of a few right-wing “discussions”. The blogs and the topics were chosen completely at random, and the comment areas were the basic liberal bashing festivals. As you might expect, the reaction to the “intrusion” of information was harsh.
The information that I introduced was met with complete disregard. They attacked me. Immediately. The exact same reaction, from all of the blog comment areas. I responded mostly on topic. Played along a bit, probably too much, but mostly stayed on topic.
On one blog, a poster was prone to attacking outright those who dissent with insults to their intelligence in order to divert the subject from the topic raised. A basic ad hominem and diversion. Obsessively prone to ad hominems. So, I called her on it. And, she simply denied she did it! The words were there for all to see. Yet, she simply made up excuses and launched attack after attack. At first, she claimed that the dissenter had insulted her first and she was responding to that. But, the dissenter never insulted her. Such an insult was nowhere to be found. Because it never happened. When I asked her where the insult was, she said that I was not “enlightened” enough to see the insult!
On another blog, I introduced a devil’s advocate point of view. And, was immediately attacked. I was attacked for taking the side of the “liberal” they were all focused upon hating, so I incurred their hate as well.
It is difficult to know what to write in response to all the hate you get, because part of you is saying: “This is fucking crazy.” Part of you is laughing, part of you is sad. Mostly, you have to keep the part of you that wants to respond to the playground insults from getting too involved and keep it on topic. Part of me felt bad at manipulating all of them, but the other part of me, upon reading their responses, said … Nah.
My observation has been that liberties such as free speech and the higher effort to discuss ideas are not tolerated at all in many right-wing forums. The members give “freedom” lip service, but it surely is not practiced. And, speech is censored in a very specific manner: they ignore your point and attack you and the source of the information. On more than a few right-wing sites, they will simply delete your post outright if you profess a dissenting view.
As you examine it closer, it becomes quite clear that there is a complete disregard for information, and for discussion of information, when the information comes from a perceived, or (G-d forbid!) actual liberal source. That information will be disregarded out of hand, and derided. The reporter or outlet responsible for the reporting of the information will be attacked and the person who actually posted the information into their midst will be denigrated. I’ve watched it happen again and again and again. It’s interesting, because generally, it is not something that occurs in quite that way on left blogs.
It is true that a certain form of this behavior exists on the left as well. People protect their turf when “trolls” come in to stir the pot. That’s to be expected from both sides. But, if you post a dissenting point of view that is well thought out and supported, a discussion will ensue, more often than not.
What is unique in the right-wing blogs is the sheer lack of willingness to engage information that might actually contradict their perspective. It’s denial in the strongest sense of the word. And, as noted, if that information comes from a source they consider to be “biased” (pretty much all sources that they don’t agree with) then they dismiss that information. They will do so without even considering it’s purpose, it’s role, whether it’s true, or untrue, or disinfo, or propaganda. (Or a combination of those things.)
But, the primary difference between the left and the right is in how they deal with their hate. Both sides hate the other. But, there is an important point of separation.
The right-wing blogs are riddled with examples of calls to destroy liberalism, of scapegoating liberals, of discussion of how to eliminate liberals from the democratic equation. That is not a perspective you will find on the left. To my knowledge, Liberals do not profess to a desire to destroy conservatism as an ideology. (Unless you cite a kook group such as the Socialist Workers. Not modern liberals by any stretch.)
The effort from the right to destroy the left is classic fascism. How do we know this is true? Because the right is using the left as a scapegoat. The left is to blame for everything.
The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing. [...]
In the last years of the 1990s, the GOP-voting middle class refocused its anger away from government and leviathan and toward the person of Bill Clinton. It was said that he represented some kind of unique moral evil despoiling the White House. That ridiculous Monica scandal culminated in a pathetic and pretentious campaign to impeach Clinton. Impeaching presidents is a great idea, but impeaching them for fibbing about personal peccadilloes is probably the least justifiable ground. It’s almost as if that entire campaign was designed to discredit the great institution of impeachment.
In any case, this event crystallized the partisanship of the bourgeoisie, driving home the message that the real problem was Clinton and not government; the immorality of the chief executive, not his power; the libertinism of the left-liberals and not their views toward government. The much heralded “leave us alone” coalition had been thoroughly transformed in a pure anti-Clinton movement. The right in this country began to define itself not as pro-freedom, as it had in 1994, but simply as anti-leftist, as it does today. [...]
The vigor and determination of the Bush administration has brought about a profound cultural change, so that the very people who once proclaimed hated of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power. [...]
I’m actually not surprised at this. It has been building for some time. If you follow hate-filled sites such as Free Republic, you know that the populist right in this country has been advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now. The militarism and nationalism dwarfs anything I saw at any point during the Cold War. It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie seems to actually believe that the US is God marching on earth not just godlike, but really serving as a proxy for God himself.
Along with this goes a kind of worship of the presidency, and a celebration of all things public sector, including egregious law like the Patriot Act, egregious bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security, and egregious centrally imposed regimentation like the No Child Left Behind Act. It longs for the state to throw its weight behind institutions like the two-parent heterosexual family, the Christian charity, the homogeneous community of native-born patriots.
That is why John Kerry lost the election for President in November of 2004. John Kerry was labeled a liberal. And, liberals are evil. They are the scapegoats. By contrast, there is no effort on the left to scapegoat the right. Some liberals will tell you we’re all to blame. Some will say Bush is to blame for some stuff. But, I don’t know any liberals who think that the right is to blame for everything. The left is a culture of ideas. It’s not a scapegoat culture. It is, by and large, a culture of disagreement. We can’t even agree amongst ourselves, which is why we are not in power.
It is important that all information be considered to solve problems. We are doing a disservice and putting ourselves at greater risk as a nation by not engaging and vetting information from all sides. Simply dismissing information because it is conservative or liberal is dangerous for us all. Especially considering the fact that we are at war and we are all at risk.
The left is obsessive about posting on the issues that they see being mishandled by the party in power. But, obsessed with destroying the conservative movement? Hardly. It’s not something that most liberals care about. We’d rather simply get into power again. And, we will.
Ted Hope has written a wonderfully honest and pertinent article on the independent film scene, why it needs to remain vital, and the unifying force behind what it means to produce outside of the mainstream system. An excerpt:
I have always felt the HIV scandal—the government’s complete indifference to everyone’s health and life—was a great stimulus to indie film production. Whether you were gay or straight, the message was clear in the Reagan-Bush era: The government not only didn’t care about anyone who was different from the old boys, but actively wanted the “outsiders” removed. Recognizing this neglect as an act of aggression encouraged all to embrace new aesthetics, new subjects, new methods, and new technology. The threat of extinction upped the urgency. You were either on the bus or a complete roadblock.
Yet I have not felt a similar effect from the equally reprehensible policies of today, be it the invasion of Iraq, the blatant lies to the public, the inequitable redistribution of wealth, the hypocritical morality of the “values” coalition, the invasion of our privacy and reduction of our civil rights, the continued neglect of Africa, the rise of American “empire,” etc. I certainly felt the New York film community engaged in politics far more last year than ever before—John Cameron Mitchell and Tony Kushner’s ACLU and MoveOn benefits, the various filmmakers who made spots for MoveOn, the huge number of craftspeople who regularly sent e-mail mobilizations. But will this direct political action lead to a new burst of artistic output and experimentation?
The indie production surge of the late ’80s and early ’90s was driven not only by a reaction to the Reagan-Bush agenda but also by the embrace of Gordon Gekko-esque greed. There is no denying that the indie scene of the ’90s was overrun by narcissistic “I want to get mine and get it now” types as much as it was populated by visionary artists. “Indie” was as much about filmmakers who only saw the indie sphere as a stepping stone to further riches, who were only interested in making it cheap and selling it high.
This is in the bathroom of a marketing firm in Reggio Emilia, Italy. Designed by a local artist and made of molded clear plastic embedded with good old fashioned barb wire, it costs about $300. Humor is essential in art. Made me laugh. Of course, I don’t have to sit on it every day either.
If you look at the clouds, you’ll notice that they are swirling about above the stones. The higher altocummulus clouds were sailing by at immense speed. The lower whispy vertical formations, vapors that would trail the larger cummulus clouds, seemed to be attracted to the rock formation, as this photo shows. They looked just like cirrus clouds. But, such clouds are usually at about 20,000 feet.
Not only is it true that it is always windy on the plain, but everyone who is there is smiling. Because, as you walk up to the stones, an overwhelming realization grips you: There is a purpose to Stonehenge which alludes us at the moment. It makes itself known to you. You are completely awestruck in a way which is difficult to explain.
When we walked back to the taxi, the driver looked up from his book and smiled at me knowingly. “Not your average pile of rocks is it?”
Some people will tell you that the sky is pretty much the same all around the world. But, they’d be wrong. This is something I know, having grown up in Nebraska and spent time in the Badlands and the Sandhills. I’ve seen some amazing sky all over the world as well. The Scottish sky was as unique as I’ve ever had the privilege of beholding.
Have been blessed the past few years and done a good amount of travel. This past December, we were in the UK. Heading back to London from Edinburgh, the pic was taken with my Sony DCR-VX2000, using the still photo memory stick, as the train was soaring along at about 90 mph, looking east as a storm worked it’s way around us.
So near to the Winter Equinox, the sun only rises to about ten o’clock on the horizon so far north. And, there are only about six and a half hours of real sun light during the day.
There was a lot of back and forth with the entire “America is stingy” meme. Wrote a bit on it here at Jakeneck when it was a hot topic. It was, of course, a phantom conjured up by the mighty righty machine. Amazing what it can do sometimes… As noted, the Washington Times first mistated that a UN representative had said “the US is stingy” and whoooooosh! the wurlitzer took it and ran with it. Soon, Rush had it and that was all she wrote.
It’s an excellent example of how the right will take a non issue and use it to their political advantage. Because, honestly, who really thinks that American’s are stingy? Historically, everyone knows the opposite is true. It’s not even worth debating IMO. So, what’s all the fuss about? Politics. And, we can blame the right-wing Moonie Times for this one folks…
As far as the facts are concerned, Daniel Drezner scribed the definitive post on this issue, and it’s worth reading and hitting the links he cites. Gets all the salient points, and manages to bridge the right and left while doing so…
I’ve written on this issue until my face is blue. And, a number of others have as well. You are all witnessess to a fascist movement in the United States. Continue to bare witness…
Read this article by Laurie Spivak entitled The Conservative Marketing Machine.
Then, stroll on over to See the Forest and read this post. Here’s an excerpt:
America’s political elite live in an information bubble. It’s like the Right has set up a “conventional wisdom machine” that is targeted at opinion leaders, legislators, their staffs and the circles they associate with. Heavily-funded right-wing organizations work to infiltrate their message into the information that these “leadership elite” receive. They achieve this in many ways. One way, of course, is that they have their very own bought-and-paid-for media outlets like Fox, the Washington Times, and most of AM radio. But they also have worked to get the more mainstream opinion leaders under their influence. Influential columnists and reporters receive large speaking fees from corporations and trade associations. They get free “retreats” where they learn about “market solutions.” And everyone is certainly afraid of the shame and humiliation should they become the target of the character assassination machine. That acts as a powerful incentive to toe the line and reject “marginalized” information sources — people like Scott Ritter and Michael Moore, constituents complaining about election fraud, and Progressive online news sources or blogs (those terrible things that leaked the exit polls) — and stick to “credible” sources.
The Armstrong Williams scandal shows us the amounts of money involved in, and the “reach” of this effort. I mean, Armstrong Williams? If Armstrong Williams is getting $240,000 directly from the government, imagine what mainstream opinion leaders are getting from the big-money corporate trade associations, right-wing think tanks, etc. — over (speaking fees, travel, gifts) and under (bribes, like Williams got) the table.
The amounts of money the Right is putting into their outside-the-election-process propaganda effort — over $300 million a year just for the think tank/advocacy communication infrastructure — ought to warn us that most of the traditional channels through which “the leadership elite” get their info are likely targets of this effort.
Marginalizing sources like blogs is one way to scare Washington types away from the info they contain. Reading blogs is a way to break through that bubble.
Always keep in mind that the machinations over “Rathergate” grasped upon by the right and promoted so heavily by right-wing radio and parrotted by bloggers who listen to that radio (Instapundit, Powerline, et al.) is all about power. It has nothing to do with justice, or facts. If it was about facts, the right-wing would be clamouring for the head of the person who wrote the memo. But, they are silent in regard to that particular point. They aren’t even actually accussing Rather of creating the memo, only of using it for political gain. So, who created the memo? Therein lies the truth. But, the truth is secondary to the political profit of manipulating the truth, keeping it hidden, and proffering the party line: the liberal media is not to be trusted. Never mind that the media is no where near liberal. And, Dan Rather a liberal? Hah!
It is all an effort in controlling media. All media. Through intimidation, money and propaganda. And Rather is the poster child for what happens when you don’t play with the right-wing machine.
All of this is about “liberal bias”, because, supposedly, bias is verbotten in the mainstream media. At least, that is the argument given by the right. Problem is, the media is full of bias, from all sides. Right-wing radio is biased, to the right. So, where’s all the outrage? Fox News is biased, to the right. Where’s all the outrage? If bias is not permitted in the media, then why is right-wing bias okay?
The asnwer to that question separates democracy from fascism.
The right-wing is nearly silent over the Armstrong Williams affair as well. Why? Because it is absolute proof of the existence of the right-wing deception machine, and they are all complicit.
I had a discussion via e-mail with a well known and influential conservative blogger who is in a place to comment upon the legality of Armstrong’s actions, and said blogger declined to comment upon it other than to say it was not a good thing. (In a manner of words.) That was it.
We all know that if a liberal pundit were caught taking money from the Liberal Administration, the conservatives would be calling for heads to roll. A grand jury would be forming as we speak.
The Armstrong Williams issue is important. Combined with Rathergate, it is proof that the right-wing is making moves to control the media in the US.
It’s just the tip of the iceberg. Read Digby on this issue as well… The veil has been lifted.
Where am I?
You are currently viewing the archives for January, 2005 at buzz twang.
