July 29, 2004
TRUE LIES:
In addition to the traditional tripartite division of lies -- white lies,
damned lies, and statistics -- one should not lose sight of a fourth: "true lies."
"True lies" are statements which, while strictly true, are intended to
convey falsehoods. They are the stock-in-trade of lawyers and of cagey
witnesses under oath, hard-pressed to put out false information while
evading perjury.
The most notorious recent example is Bill Clinton's denial: "I did not have
sex with that woman." According to Clinton's definition (intercourse), the
statement is literally true. But that's not what he meant for us to believe.
My favorite example of a "true lie," now completely forgotten, was by the
late California Senator, S. I. Hayakawa, a man I much admired as a scholar,
and admired much less after he turned to politics. Hayakawa was a steadfast
proponent of the adoption of English as an official national language which,
of course, would have worked to the great detriment of immigrants -- in
particular, Hispanic immigrants to California.
"Why shouldn't immigrants be required to make full adjustments to American
language and culture," he insisted. "After all, I did."
Seeing Hayakawa's Japanese face and reflecting on his Japanese name, and
then hearing these words in perfect non-accented, idiomatic American
English, you just had to admire his total assimilation into our language and
culture.
And yes, he was in fact an immigrant. Samuel I. Hayakawa migrated to the
United States all the way from Vancouver, British Columbia, where he was
born in 1906. His linguistic
assimilation consisted of little more than substituting "out" for "oot."
But that was not the point he wished to put across by offering himself as an
example of a successfully assimilated immigrant.
Now lets turn to the Bush Administration.
Bush's tax cuts, we are told, average more than a thousand dollars per
taxpayer. And guess what: he's right! The lucky top one-percent get
cuts into five and six figures. The median (middle) taxpayer is lucky if he
gets as much as two hundred dollars. (And of course, that much is taken back
by rising state and local taxes -- but that's another story). But the
average is still over a thousand dollars.
How does that work? Well, picture this: Bill Gates walks into a homeless
shelter with sixty impoverished wretches. As he does, the average net worth
of each individual in the room is a billion dollars.
Far better to ask, what is the median tax break -- the tax reduction to the
middle ranked individual? That's the statistic that the Bushistas would
rather you didn't know about.
Finally, there's Al Franken's favorite example of a Bush campaign-2000 lie:
"The vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom."
Sorry, Al -- he was telling the truth. If, that is, he was referring to the
number of tax cuts, not the amount of the tax cuts. Almost everyone is
getting a tax cut, and there are a lot more people at "the bottom"
than there are Fat Cats. But, of course, that's not the message that Bush
intended to convey.
So was Bush lying? Depends on the meaning of "lying."
And was Clinton lying? Depends on what the meaning of "is" ... --
no, sorry, the meaning of "sex."
"LOOSE CANNON OR CRAZY LIKE A FOX?"
That was the title of the Newsweek cover story about Teresa Heinz Kerry.
OK, now that you have seen the lady on TV, which is it? Loose cannon or
crazy like a fox?
This, folks, is what us unreconstructed philosophy professors call a "false
dilemma." And if you somehow suppose that you've got to choose one or the
other, then, as George Lakoff might put it, you've been "framed" -- led to
accept uncritically the point of view of the writer.
After watching Teresa Heinz Kerry's convention address, I'd say "neither of
the above." She is an extraordinarily intelligent, cultured, and articulate
woman. We would be fortunate, and should be proud, if she were to become the
First Lady next January.
Personally, I found her address to be brilliant, compelling and convincing,
an opinion that was shared by numerous observers whose columns were featured
in the progressive internet sites.
Then there was Newsweek's Howard Kurtz on CNN, who felt the speech was
self-indulgent and failed to achieve its purpose of introducing and
"selling" the candidate, her husband, to the public.
No doubt, Howie had still more to say, but by then I'd found the remote and
had shut him off. I don't need Kurtz to tell me how to think. Besides, I was
getting dizzy with the spin.
Grab the Dramamine -- there's going to be a lot more spinning in the next
three months.
MORE ABOUT "THE LIBRUL MEDIA."
How can anyone still believe that the mainstream media has a "liberal bias"
-- anyone, that is, except those who believe it because the media or the
right-wing hacks like Horowitz and Coulter tell them so?
About the only "evidence" for liberal bias is the apparent fact there are
more working reporters who describe themselves as "liberal" than those who
identify themselves as "conservative." However, when one surveys the
"bosses," we find startlingly different statistics. The current issue of
FAIR's "Extra" reports:
Among national news executives -- the people whose job descriptions
involve setting policy at media outlets -- only 16 percent describe
themselves as "liberal." Sixty percent call themselves "moderate," and 19
percent "Conservative." [Pew Research Center]. With 84 percent of media
bosses not identifying as "liberal," what happens to the myth of the
liberal media?
Of course, media bias issues, not from reporters, but from executives --
who, it should be added, hire and review the work of the editorial writers
and columnists: the designated "opinionators."
But the proof is in the publishing: for example, the editorial endorsements
of candidates, and the right-left ratio of opinions in the editorial and
columns.
Perhaps the most insidious bias is in the selection of "stories" given
prominent attention.
For example:
- Compare the six-year run of front-page attention to "Whitewater" -- a
land deal that ended in a loss for the Clintons and, after a $50 million
investigation, no evidence of wrong-doing -- with Bush's Harken Oil scam,
whereby he unloaded stock, apparently illegally on insider information,
and his Daddy blocked an investigation by the SEC.
- Compare the thousands of Nexis-Lexis "hits" on Clinton's perfectly
legal "draft dodging" with the mere dozens of stories on Bush's AWOL from
the Air National Guard. To this day, the press insists on downplaying this
potentially explosive story.
- "Flash polls" immediately after the three Presidential debates in 2000
disclosed that the public had judged Al Gore to be the winner. Polls taken
after the networks and cable stations broadcast the "spins" and the phony
"focus groups" showed a reversal of public opinion.
- A Wall Street Journal poll just prior to the election asked "Which
candidate is more honest and straightforward?" 45% said Bush, and 29% said
Gore. Bush's record of prevarication is known to any willing to face the
evidence. Gore's reputation as a "liar" was itself based upon lies --
i.e., that he had claimed to have invented the internet, etc. (See my
"The Hijacked
Election").
- On CNN's Crossfire, Paul Begala reported the following results from a
Lexus-Nexus search:
"There were exactly 704 stories in the campaign about this flap of Gore
inventing the Internet. There were only 13 stories about Bush failing to
show up for his National Guard duty for a year. There were well over 1,000
stories -- Nexus stopped at 1,000 -- about Gore and the Buddhist temple.
Only 12 about Bush being accused of insider trading at Harken Energy.
There were 347 about Al Gore wearing earth tones, but only 10 about the
fact that Dick Cheney did business with Iran and Iraq and Libya."
If the mainstream media is so biased toward the right, why would the same
media perpetrate a myth of "the liberal media"?
The advantages of this myth to the right should be apparent on reflection.
News items and opinions that reflect poorly on Republicans or favorably on
Democrats are discounted. "Can't believe that -- it's just the bias of the
liberal media." Conversely, news items and opinions that reflect poorly on
Democrats or favorably on Republicans are credited. "It must be true, even
the liberal media can't deny it."
And so it will continue, until the public finally "wises up" and turns to
alternative sources for information and balanced opinion. There is
encouraging evidence that such a shift might be in the making, as the most
egregious failings of the mainstream press become too apparent to be denied.
For example, there was the near unanimous press acceptance and praise of
Colin Powell's February, 2003 address to the United Nations. "proving"
Saddam Hussein's possessions of WMDs -- now thoroughly debunked. Even the
reporting of the most prestigious of newspapers have been seriously
compromised. Witness the New York Times' fruitless investigation of the
Whitewater story, and of atomic physicist Wen Ho Lee. Consider too the false reports
by the New York Times' Judith Miller of Saddam's "weapons programs."
For more about the myth of the liberal media, and how to deal with it, see
Eric Alterman's "Myth of the Liberal Media," FAIR (www.fair.org),
and my
Don't Give Up on the Media,
The Dragon at the Gate: The Media
Problem, and
Following the Light
A closing note about this blog.
On a couple of occasions, the twice-a-week deadline for this blog has become
a bit oppressive, and the words have been forced -- and thus usually
second-rate.. On a couple of additional occasions, I've simply taken a pass.
Meanwhile, there's an opening chapter for my book-in-progress that's buzzing
inside my head and demanding to be released through my keyboard. And yet,
when I'm about to let it out, there's that damned blog deadline again.
Accordingly, I will reverse priorities: the book comes first. Whenever the
blog is "fun," and some ideas flow easily on to my screen, then I'll collect
and post them. But when blogging is a chore and the words must be forced,
then I'll give it a rest.
Oh yes, when that chapter is done, you will be among the first to see it.
July 26, 2004
A STRING OF PEARLS:
Much of the content of this blog emerges from notes that I jot down, as
fleeting thoughts surface now and then while I am at work. Most of these
notes amount to nothing, while others develop into the "mini-essays" of the
blog.
In the stack before me, there's some good stuff that I'm reluctant to toss
out, and now that Crisis Papers has discontinued the "Short Takes," this
blog is the last chance for them to see the light of day.
Besides, who set a minimum-size rule for blogging?
No one!
This is my blog, dammit, and I get to set the rules!
So, for your enjoyment, here are some tid-bit odds and ends -- a "string of
pearls."
LOGIC SLIPS A COG
Let's see if I have this straight:
9/11 proved that a terrorist attack boosts Bush's approval ratings.
Thus another attack might assure his (not re-)election.
Tom Ridge warns us that Osama Bin Laden is planning a pre-election attack.
The GOP tells us that OBL wants Kerry to win.
Am I missing something here?
LOGIC IN GEAR:
"I don't do nuance." George W. Bush
The real world is nuanced.
Ergo: George W. Bush does not deal with the real world.
COME BACK, "HORSE," WE MISS YOU AND WE NEED YOU!
Sometime last winter, "media
whores online" (a.k.a. "media horse") became inactive. Those who visit
the site today will find the message: "Out to Pasture." No indication of
when, or if, "the horse" will ever be saddled up again.
It's a damned shame! For several years, this elegantly designed and sharply
written website has served us well as a watchdog over the wayward corporate
media -- exposing errors, damned lies, and shameless spinning.
Now, as the election approaches and it is needed more than ever, "the horse"
remains "out to pasture."
Will "media whores" revive? If so, we are entitled to an announcement of the
date of activation. If not, we are entitled to that information also, and
the site should then shut down.
We sincerely hope that media whores online will return and join the fight,
and soon. It's now or never!
THE DAILY SHOW -- REDUX:
Somehow, day after day, we forget to tune into Comedy Central's "The Daily
Show" with Jon Stewart.
No matter, its available online at
www.comedycentral.com. Even better, there are no commercials and you can
pick the segment you want to watch, at your convenience.
Our top picks are the interview with Wolf Blitzer, wherein "the Wolf" is
mercilessly "blitzed" by Jon Stewart, and deservedly so. Also, don't miss
"Conventional Wisdom," which features video clips of talking GOP heads,
clearly reading from the same script. If you ever doubted the Goebbels rule
-- "tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" -- you can now see the
method at work.
Chilling.
AN URBAN MYTH GOES DOWN IN FLAMES
Among the reader comments in
The Smirking Chimp today, I found the
following:
NEWSWEEK reports that President Bush, appearing before a right-to-life
rally in Tampa, Florida on June 17, stated: "We must always remember that
all human beings begin life as a feces. A feces is a living being in the
eyes of God, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights and
God-given blessings of any other human being." The audience listened in
disbelief as the President repeated his error at least a dozen times,
before realizing that he had used the word 'feces" when he meant to say
"fetus."
I want ya to know that this was my highlight of the day! Until I read
some of the sub-posts.
Turns out, it's an "urban legend" -- Bush never said it.
Bummer!
The website
urbanlegends.about.com reports:
False. President Bush has been known to commit verbal gaffes on
occasion, but nothing on the order of mistaking the word "feces" for
"fetus" a dozen times in a row in a single speech. I'm not sure it's even
humanly possible.
As it happens, Bush was in Tampa, Florida on June 16, 2004, the day before
this event supposedly took place, but according to the White House press
log he gave no speeches in Tampa on June 17.
No such news item appeared in Newsweek, nor any other venue, for that
matter.
When the hoax was exposed, that was the end of the matter for visitors to
The Smirking Chimp.
And here, I submit, is a fundamental difference between progressives and
right-wing "regressives": progressives have a "reality principle," and thus
when a belief is proven false, they promptly drop it. Regressives will
repeat falsehoods and lies, long after they have been confronted with
irrefutable proof that they are they are doing so.
For example, how often did we hear that Al Gore had claimed that he invented
the internet and discovered Love Canal? That Bill Clinton was dealing drugs
while Governor of Arkansas? That John Kerry faked his injuries in order to
get his purple hearts in Viet Nam? That Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was in
cahoots with Bin Laden? That George W. Bush is competent to function
as President? And so on.
It seems that the GOP, Faux News, Coulter, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and the
other right-wing gasbags all adhere religiously to the rule: "Never let the
truth get in the way of a good story."
And speaking of "regressives" ...
MEMO TO THE DNC: SHADDUP, AND PAY ATTENTION TO PROF. LAKOFF.
We've seen it happen so often: some brilliant liberal intellectuals come up
with effective prescriptions for defeating GOP campaign tactics, and these
proposals are then ignored by the Democratic Party "pros" who proceed to
repeat the same tactics that led to defeat in the past.
Case in point, linguistics professor George Lakoff. He has the goods on the
Repubs -- he will tell all who will listen how the GOP has crafted political
language and framed public debate to their advantage. (See
the
interview with Lakoff on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers).
But will the Democratic PooBahs listen? Naw! The poor saps will
continue to innocently talk in GOP-speak and play in the GOP's conceptual
ball park according to GOP ground-rules. As long as they do so, they are
bound to lose.
The left is equally entitled to come up with its own labels, and to put them
to good use. Why, for example, should the Democrats consent to the terms
"trial lawyers" or "healthy forest initiative"? Lakoff proposes instead,
"public protection attorneys" and "leave no tree behind".
And why do the Dems allow the right-wingers to demean the good word
"liberal," while the right boldly adopts for itself the name "conservative."
The right, which attacks our Constitution, the institution of science, and
the integrity of our language, as it attempts to roll-back
political-economic progress to the 19th Century, is anything but
"conservative." (See my "Conscience
of a Conservative"). So why do we continue to allow them to use
that word, without protest.
And so, I have this proposal: let's give "liberal" a rest for awhile, and
instead adopt the word "progressive." As for the "return-to-the-gilded-age"
right wing, lets call them "regressives" -- but never "conservatives." The
word simply does not apply.
That will be the policy of this writer. But I can't do it alone. Adopt the
"progressive"/"regressive" polarity in your own discourse and writing, and
pass it along. Maybe, just maybe, it will catch on.
'TRUTH CRUSHED TO EARTH WILL RISE AGAIN."
Amazing, isn't it? The corporate media have effectively shut down meaningful
left-right political debate, and have become, in effect, shills for the GOP.
Even so, the progressive message is getting through, and at times quite
effectively so.
(Yeah, yeah, I've heard about "the liberal media" jazz. But check out
www.mediamatters.com,
www.FAIR.com, and Eric Alterman's "What
Liberal Media?" Examine the hard facts presented therein. Then check these
against what you see and hear in the media).
So, in the face of right-wing regressive dominance of the commercial media,
does bold and challenging progressive criticism of the political
establishment simply disappear from the attention and awareness of the
public at large?
Not at all. It simply finds a new outlet -- a new medium.
That emerging medium, it appears, is the documentary film. Of course,
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" comes immediately to mind. Attempts to keep
it out of the commercial movie theaters backfired spectacularly. And now
"Outfoxed" follows, with still more to come.
All this, of course, follows upon the growth of the progressive internet.
And finally, with "Air America Radio," the liberals are struggling to regain
a foothold on the radio.
If, somehow, these avenues of dissent are blocked, others will be found and
utilized. It happened during the American revolution with Tom Paine and
other "pamphleteers." It happened in the Soviet Union with
Samidzat.
It it will happen here, so long as there are (authentically "conservative")
patriots determined to defend their Constitution and their liberties, and to
restore a just society.
You can count on it.
July 19, 2004
Dump on Joe Wilson Week.
And now, as if on cue -- (whadayamean, "as if"?) -- the thundering
right-wing punditocracy has gone after Joseph Wilson. Remember? He's the
ex-ambassador, much admired and praised by Poppy Bush, who betrayed Dubya by
telling the truth about the non-existent Saddam-African Uranium deal.
Did the Busheviks answer with a well-reasoned rebuttal? Not quite. They
committed treason by "outing" Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Well, you know about all that.
But now, they are after Joe Wilson again. With new information to refute
Wilson's report re: the non-existence of Niger uranium?
Don't be silly!
No, they are attempting to discredit Wilson by contending that Wilson was
"set up" for the African trip by none other than his wife, Valerie Plame.
Wow! What a posh assignment! A couple of weeks in the Saharan
desert, away from his wife and young twins, for no compensation whatever.
Now who wouldn't be tempted with such a junket?
Bottom Line: If, however unlikely, all the attacks aimed at Wilson
last week by the pundits and the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence
Committee are true, none of this has any bearing whatever on the undisputed
facts that he reported back from his African trip. Nor do these attacks in
any way mitigate the crime of exposing a CIA operative, engaged in thwarting
the sale and transfer of nuclear materials.
That the Bushistas and their Congressional and "journalistic" (sneer quotes)
toadies would let loose this smokescreen of irrelevance, testifies both to
their desperation and the indefensibility of their behavior.
The Wilsons -- Joseph and Valerie -- are national heroes. May they flourish
and prevail.
EVEN PROFESSORS CAN SAY THE SILLIEST THINGS.
An old high school chum, sends me the following.
"At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution
in 1787, a Scottish history professor by the name of Professor Alexander
Tyler had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" over 2,000
years previous to that date.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
largesse (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on,
the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits
from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always
collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has
been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this
sequence. From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great
courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from
abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy, from apathy to
dependence, from dependence back into bondage."
"Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.Paul,
Minnesota, wrote this about the 2000 election:
Population of counties won by Gore 127 million, won by Bush 143
million. Sq.miles of country won by Gore 580,000, won by Bush 2,427,000.
States won by Gore 19, by Bush 29. Murder per 100,000 residents in
counties won by Gore 13.2 by Bush 2.1 (not a typo).
"Professor Olson adds, 'The map of the territory Bush won was (mostly)
the land owned by the people of this great country. Not the citizens living
in cities in tenements owned by the government and living off the
government....'
"Professor Olson thinks the US is now between the apathy and complacency
phase of democracy although he believes that 40 percent of the nation's
population has already reached the dependency phase."
Surely, you didn't think I'd let this pass without comment! Well, I won't
disappoint you.
I replied:
I wonder what country the good Prof. Olson is describing. Surely not the
United States that I live in!
It is true that "the land is owned by the people of this great country" -- a
VERY few of those people. In fact, today 40% of the national wealth is owned
by 1% of the population. A quarter century ago, that was 20%.
Moreover, a quarter century ago, the average Fortune 500 CEO earned about
forty times what his median worker earned. Today, that number is 500 --
meaning that CEO earns in half a day, what the average guy earns in a year
-- if he is fortunate enough to have a job.
With the abolition of the estate and dividend taxes, and the reduction of
capital gains taxes, that disparity between the very rich 1% and the rest of
us is accelerating.
You will find all these statistics, and more, validated at the website of
United for a Fair Economy
. See also
"The Deserving Rich?.
There are, in fact, authenticated cases in "blue states" (e.g., California)
of people owning their own land (e.g., myself). Indeed, it is even possible
that there are more than a few folks in the blue states who do not live in
tenements. Furthermore, you can be sure that almost all of those
unfortunates who do live in tenements, have private, not government,
landlords.
As for this matter of "dependency," there is a great deal of wildly
inaccurate information at large, affecting, it seems, even Hamline
Univervsity law professors. In 1995, the late Hobart Rowen wrote:
“A survey sponsored by the Harvard School of Public Health ... revealed
that when asked to list the largest federal programs, 27 percent put down
foreign aid and 19 percent listed welfare as the biggest program... This
perception is sensationally out of tune with the facts. Welfare and
foreign aid are among the smallest, not the largest spending programs in
the federal budget. The foreign aid budget ... was less than 1 percent of
the federal budget.... The basic welfare program, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children ... [was] just over 1 percent of the budget.”
(Washington Post, January 16, 1995)
Yes, there is a "dependency" class. It includes the aforementioned top 1%
oligarchs, who have acquired and who maintain their wealth, thanks to the
education and labor of those who work for them. As L.T.Hobhouse, a
nineteenth century English sociologist wrote:
The organizer of industry who thinks he has 'made' himself and his
business has found a whole social system ready to his hand in skilled
workers, machinery, a market, peace and order -- a vast apparatus and a
pervasive atmosphere, the joint creation of millions of men and scores of
generations. Take away the whole social factor, and we have not Robinson
Crusoe with his salvage from the wreck and his acquired knowledge, but the
native savage living on roots, berries and vermin.
And now, in their wisdom, our Supreme Court selected "leaders" have
decided to roast the golden goose rather than feed it. They are drying up
the wellspring of all economic prosperity in industrialized civilization:
the educated work force.
Due to the state budget crisis, the freshman class at the University of
California has been cut by a third. (And no, this is not Gray Davis' fault
-- 46 of the 50 states have severe budget shortfalls). The public
universities of Virginia are now producing half the graduates needed for the
work force. And these are just two indicators of the nation-wide decline in
education due to a withdrawal of public investment. In general, state
deficits are causing sharp increases in tuition costs, which are closing the
doors of higher education to the talented poor -- Jefferson's "natural
aristocracy of virtue and talent."
Meanwhile, the public infrastructure of the US (highways, bridges, water
supply, power grids, sewages systems, etc.) are in a condition that would
embarrass a third-world country. (American
Society of Civil Engineers).
Yes, professor, there are worse things than paying taxes for the public
services that sustain us all.
As for "voting themselves largesse from the public treasury," look no
further than Mr. Cheney and his pals at Haliburton.
In less than a century, the leadership of Rome evolved from that of Cato and
Cicero to that of Caligula and Nero. We began with the likes of Washington,
Jefferson, and Madison. And now? You finish the rest.
For still more subversive, socialist claptrap, visit The Crisis Papers'
page on
"Economic Justice."
PostScript: The Scottish Prof. Tyler merely repeats an observation made by
Plato of old:
How does despotism arise? That it comes out of democracy is fairly
clear... Perhaps the insatiable desire for [liberty] to the neglect of
everything else may transform a democracy and lead to a demand for
despotism. (The Republic viii).
I believe that Plato meant "liberty" for self at the cost of liberty for
others, and also "liberty" unconstrained by wisdom and temperance. (Cf. The
Republic, ii-iv).
Have a nice Decline and Fall.
July 16, 2004
Mon Dieu! -- Still Another Right-Wing (Regressive) Idiocy
of the Week:
"The French have no word for entrepreneur." (George
Bush to Tony Blair)
Dubya is only following an honored GOP tradition.
Ronald Reagan repeatedly asserted that the Russians had no word for
"freedom."
Ronnie was not inclined to fact check. And yet, at any time that he
was in the Oval Office, he could have picked up the phone, called the
Russian desk at the State Department, and asked if this were so.
He would surely have been told, "Mr. President, the Russians do in fact
have a word for "freedom" -- it's "свобода" (svoboda)."
But then, why let a brute fact get in the
way of a good story.
After all, its the secret to the success of
right-wing talk radio.
And speaking of right-wing talk radio --
Time once again to blow the whistle on Rush-bo.
About ten years ago, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) put out a
booklet, "The Way Things Aren't" -- a fact-check of just a few of Rush
Limbaugh's "instant facts and statistics." False statements, as Al Franken
indelicately puts it, "taken from Rush's butt." (The title was a reversal of
the title of Limbaugh's book: "The Way Things Are").
Isn't it time -- way past time -- for an update. How 'bout it FAIR? Or maybe
David Brock's mediamatters.com
will take it on. Or maybe even a broader project, including Sean Hannity and
Bill O'Reilly.
Ken Lay does his part.
A couple of days ago, we listened to Air America Radio's "Unfiltered" gang
speculate with relish, what Ken Lay might tell the prosecutors, now that
he's finally been indicted.
Sorry, folks, it just ain't gonna happen. Kenny Boy wasn't busted in order
break open the Enron scandal, and to follow it all the way to the White
House.
No, sadly, it is much more likely that he's following a script that Karl
Rove designed to assist Dubya's campaign.
For consider: An indictment is not a conviction.
Ever since the collapse of Enron, we've heard the complaint, "there is no
justice in Bush's America, so long as Ken Lay remains a free man."
Now that Lay is under indictment, the critics are muffled.
Post-election, Lay will be acquitted or, failing that, pardoned by his pal
in the White House. You can take it to the bank.
Win-Win. A Win for Dubya and a win for Kenny Boy.
So call off the celebrations. In all likelihood, we've been had once again.
Bad Advice from Michael Moore.
Recently, Michael Moore was reported to have said that he had no problem
with people downloading and distributing pirated copies of Fahrenheit 911 --
provided they don't charge for these copies. Of course, the motion-picture
and recording industries cried bloody murder.
I've also heard that the commercial DVD of the film will be released in late
September.
I strongly recommend that we wait and buy the legitimate copies, Michael's
generous offer to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Throughout the country, teenagers, and even a few pre-teens, are being
nabbed and charged for downloading pirated music and movies. If, like the
co-editors of The Crisis Papers, you are actively engaged in the
effort to legally overthrow (i.e., by the ballot) the Bushevik regime, it
would be foolish to put yourself in a legally vulnerable position. You won't
be busted for a US version of what the Soviets called "slandering the Soviet
State" (i.e., political dissent) -- at least not quite yet. But the
powers-that-be devoutly wish that you would just "shut up!" (Bill O'Reilly's
all-purpose rebuttal). A bust for copyright violation will do the trick.
Come to think of it, better not spit on the sidewalk or jay-walk. And be
sure to use your super-duper-pooper-scooper whilst walking your dog.
The sins of the corporate media -- more of omission than of
commission:
Surely, most readers of this website and this blog agree that the (in fact)
non-librul media has shamelessly distorted and slanted the news in favor of
the Bushevik regime.
But probably, the most serious distortion arises, not through falsehood, but
by omission and neglect. Conversely, the media will crowd out important news
with trivia (Jon-Benet, OJ, Laci, Jacko, Kobe, etc., ad nauseum).
About ten years ago, I hosted a Russian friend -- an historian of science at
the Russian Academy of Sciences. He stayed with me for several weeks, and
when it came time for him to return to Moscow, his foremost impression of
the US (this was not his first visit) was "all this talk about Whitewater --
it's all I hear about on the news."
By that time, the Clinton's failed investment was (or should have been) old
news, and the media were reduced to telling us: "There's nothing new about
Whitewater today -- we have two reports, after this. Stay with us."
Eventually, as we all know, Whitewater was a journalistic dry-hole. There
was no there, there. Yet that dead horse was flogged for more than six
years.
Now, almost four years into the Bush term, there have been dozens of
authentic scandals, any one of which, had they been committed by Clinton or
another Democrat, would have brought the President up on impeachment
charges, or would have forced a resignation.
Election fraud, bribery, "outing" a CIA agent, lying to Congress, denial of
civil rights of citizens, deliberate violation of most of the articles of
the Bill of Rights, abrogation of treaties (which have the force of law),
illegal withholding of information, and on and on.
Crisis Papers readers know about all this, and more, but you are not
typical American citizens. You get our information from "the underground" --
the internet, the few remaining independent presses, foreign journalists.
Most of our compatriots -- the vast majority of those who are eligible to
vote -- get their news from TV, talk radio, Letterman and Leno, and
occasionally, newspapers. And the aforementioned crimes and misdemeanors,
which, in a country under the rule of law should decisively end a
presidency, might be reported one day, only to be gone and forgotten within
a week.
To repeat: the scandal of the corporate media is less its distortion and
slanting, and more its failure to investigate and report significant events
and issues, and to keep this news in the forefront of public attention.
In the Soviet Union, astute citizens knew they were being lied to, and so
they looked elsewhere for news -- The Voice of America, the BBC, smuggled
copies of foreign publications. And they organized, at great personal peril,
an underground media --
Samizdat.
In the United States, we are used to be being well-served by the news media
-- as we were, not too long ago. All too many Americans have yet to realize
that the media have betrayed them.
But when we do, we have an advantage over the people of the Soviet Union and
other despotic regimes. To the editors of Pravda and Izvestia,
it didn't matter if these enterprises operated at a loss. Propaganda, not
profit was not their objective. The same might be said of some right-wing
journals, like Rev. Moon's Washington Times, and Murdock's National Journal,
and worst of all, FOX (alleged) "News".
These exceptions aside, corporate media by and large cares very much about
the bottom line -- which is to say, circulation and Nielsen ratings which
are, in turn, tied to advertising revenues. Shutting off the tube, canceling
subscriptions, and boycotting sponsors, by even a small but measurable
minority, this will get their attention. That attention will be further
alerted as this small but significant population turns to alternative
sources -- independent media, foreign sources, the internet.
So let's, each of us, boycott the corporate media and their sponsors, and
spread the word.
Let them know, "WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT
ANYMORE!!"
July 13, 2004
Right-Wing Idiocy of the week:
"There's an arrogance in the scientific community
that they know better than the average American."
Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition.
This seems to suggest that scientific research and several years of
post-graduate scientific education are of no value whatever.
The following scene comes
to mind:
Doctor: "Our laboratory
tests show that your cholesterol level is at 250. We strongly advise that
you change your diet and bring that number down to a safe level."
Patient: "How arrogant of you and your lab to pretend that you know better
than me. After all, I am an average American"!
Sorry, Ms. Lafferty, but scientists do in fact know more than the average
American, concerning matters of their professional competence. That's
simple common sense.
About matters outside their specialty -- that's another matter. As
Mark Twain once said: "we are all ignorant, but about different things."
The arrogant ones, are those who allow their "hunches" and their dogmas
to over-rule scientific expertise.
"Kerry to reach out to 'people on the right,'"
Matea Gold and Mark Barabak thus title their July 11
Los Angeles Times article.
They write:
"Sen. John F. Kerry
plans to aggressively court more conservative voters with a message that
emphasizes traditional values of service, faith and family... Kerry's
strategy is not without risks. By wooing moderates and conservatives, he
could offend liberals in an election that could hinge on which side best
galvanizes its base. And casting his values as conservative, despite his
liberal voting record in the Senate, could reinforce Republican criticism
that Kerry lacks convictions."
Oh, now I get it!
Liberals are against families, faith and service. So by "emphasizing" these
"values," Kerry may offend his "liberal base."
What pure, unadulterated hogwash!
Has the right-wing propaganda been so spectacularly successful that
"liberalism" is now regarded as anti-family, anti-religion, and
anti-service?
Tell that to the liberals who teach in the public schools, who serve in the
Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. And tell it to the liberals who love their
spouses and children, and who even attend church now and then.
But no, we are told, to find authentic "values" in action, it seems, we must
look to the "compassionate" conservatives. Their "compassion" includes the
enthusiastic promotion of foreign wars, deficit spending that will put
enormous burdens on their children and grandchildren, slashing
appropriations to aid veterans, children, the aged, an impoverishment of
public education and a tax structure that speeds the flow of national wealth
from those who produce that wealth, to those who own and control the wealth.
There is no shortage of "values" among the liberals -- surely not in
comparison with the right-wing.
There is, instead, a shortage amongst the liberals of a resolve to defend
themselves against the slanders of the right.
So by all means, John Kerry, "emphasize traditional values of service, faith
and family."
There are precious few liberals who will be offended.
To the Affluent -- George Bush's "base:"
Is the the kind of country you want?
It is hard to see ...,
how the creation of an unhealthy, ill-educated workforce could possibly
serve the interests of corporate America in the long term. Nevertheless,
this is precisely the direction in which the Bush agenda points. Most
broadly, fiscal policy à la Bush has produced tremendous budget deficits
at the very moment when the looming retirement of the baby boomers makes
such deficits unsustainable. Were the nation to continue down the road to
bankruptcy, the resulting political and economic instability would harm
all Americans, but do the rich not have more interest than the rest of us
in maintaining the current order? The real beneficiaries of a fiscal
crisis would be none other than America's enemies abroad.
What the regressives fail
to appreciate is that by dismantling the cooperative economic order and the
social contract that has been painstakingly crafted and refined throughout
the history of our Republic, they are sowing the seeds of their own ruin.
They are telling the rest of us -- those who toil and produce their wealth
-- "tough luck, suckers!, your end of our common boat is sinking.!"
There is no need for progressives to appeal to the sympathy or the
compassion of their political opponents. Enlightened self-interest will
serve quite well enough.
For if the regressives "win," they will lose along with the rest of us.
And that is the message which must be told, again and again.
July 9, 2004
"The Goat Thing"
If the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry-Edwards campaign had
fraction of the propaganda smarts of the Repugs, they'd glom on to the goat
image like hungry dogs on a fresh steak.
The goat in question is, of course, "My Pet Goat" -- as read to Bush by the
Florida school children, while the World Trade Center towers were burning.
(Bush, let us recall, doesn't read books himself)
The goat image could, and should, be attached to Bush like a fly to
fly-paper. If it were, it would surely do more damage to Bush than the
sweater did to Jimmy Carter, the tank to Dukakis, the blue dress to Clinton,
or the alleged "invention of the internet" to Al Gore.
The goat, as a reminder of the Florida fiasco, could become the metaphor of
Bush's frozen catatonic panic in the face of an emergency, and his inability
at a such a moment to display intelligent and decisive leadership.
In addition, the "goat" is a sports metaphor for the athlete that screws up
-- the outfielder who drops a ball, a pitcher who serves up a home-run
("gopher"), the halfback who runs in the wrong direction, etc. Thus the
image might register with the ESPN crowd and the "NASCAR dads."
At his website, Michael Moore
has taken the lead by adding a goat to his home page header-image, and with
it a daily quote from "My Pet Goat."
For the goat-image to "take," it must be repeated -- over and over and over
again. Like the Clinton-Lewinsky hug at the rope line. Count on it, if it
were Kerry sitting in that school room for seven minutes, the "librul media"
would relentlessly pound that image into the public consciousness.
Well, of course, the media will do no such thing to Prince George. So its up
to us in the progressive internet, and, if the Democratic National Committee
and the Kerry-Edwards campaign are smart, they will follow our lead.
We at
The Crisis Papers will do our part. We are looking for a good
goat image -- a photo or a cartoon. Send it to us at
crisispapers@comcast.net .
Then spread the idea far and wide -- to progressive websites, publications,
organizations, whatever.
More about Lila Lipscomb:
Do you remember the scene in "Fahrenheit 911" when Lila Lipscomb, the woman
who lost her son in Iraq, was accosted in front of the White House by a
stranger who shouted "this is all staged!"
Lipscomb answered: "My son is not a stage. He was killed in Karbala, April
2. It is not a stage. My son is dead."
In an Air America Radio interview with Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher
(June 30), Lila Lipscomb elaborated that this scene was followed by a moment
of shock and remorse by the unidentified woman:
Shortly after that she came up and apologized to me. When I walked over
to the White House and was talking about people and their ignorance --
right after that, she actually came up and hugged me.
Was it, perhaps, a mistake for Moore not to include that scene as well?
It's not enough to know that there are a great many insensitive
self-described "patriots" amongst us who blindly support this war. We know
all that. Should we not be reminded that many can be moved, perhaps even to
change their minds, when confronted face to face with the human costs of
this war?
Did anyone notice? The Lipscomb family was notified of the son's death by
telephone.
In World War II, when a quarter million men were killed in action, an
officer and a chaplain were dispatched to visit each of the homes of the
bereaved relatives. (Remember the opening scene in "Saving Private Ryan"?).
Now its by telephone. Presumably another cost-saving measure by the
"compassionate" Bush Administration.
The Dog Eats Bush's Homework.
Bush Service Records "inadvertently destroyed" -- (Yea, Sure!).
In Today's New York Times, Ralph Blumenthal writes:
Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts
during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30
years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating
microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices
dated June 25.
The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when
Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
And I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
So, is the case now closed? No way to find out about Dubya's (alleged)
"service"?
Hardly.
A determined "Special Prosecutor" who like Ken Starr, is given a $50 million
budget, could find more than enough evidence to nail Bush's cowardly hide to
the wall. Hell, he could do it with $50,000.
As I pointed out in my "The
Coverup that's Worse than the Crime," in the US military, there's
no such thing as a "single copy." Bush's service record, no doubt,
exists in distinct copies in several locations -- most notably, in
microfiche in Colorado, along with the forty year old service record of
Ernest Partridge, HM3, USNR and the records of millions of other veterans.
And suppose, somehow (per impossible), that each and every copy of
that service record were "inadvertently destroyed," we could still recover
the most sensitive documents in that record: Bush's medical records in the
files of the Air Force Medical Department, and his officer fitness reports
with the records of the Commanding officers under which 1st Lt. G. W. Bush
served.
Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard is not a forever-unknowable
mystery.
It could be recovered by a diligent prosecutor or investigative journalist.
If the Defense Department or the media wanted the public to know.
Which, of course, they do not.
"Those who control the past, control the future.
"Those who control the present, control the past."
George Orwell, 1984
July 6, 2004
MICHAEL MOORE'S CRITICS:
Often the merit of a creative work is indicated by the quality of the
attacks upon it. Clearly this is the case with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit
911.
As I have read and heard numerous reviews of Moore's film, two modes of
criticism appear to be especially prominent: personal attacks on Moore (ad
hominem), and "refutations" of assertions falsely attributed to Moore
and his work ("straw man fallacy").
As an example of the personal attack, consider this
from Christopher Hitchens:
To describe this film as
dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the
level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be
to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the
excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would
be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity,
crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of
abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of
"dissenting" bravery.
One can almost imagine
steam coming out of Hitchens' ears has he threw these words on to the page.
(And they say that the Brits have a fondness for understatement). This is
pure spleen, undiluted by any reference to confirmable fact in Hitchens'
favor, or confirmable error on the part of Moore.
Moore's claim to have subjected his script to scrupulous fact-checking is
borne out by Hitchens' failure to catch Moore in any serious errors of fact.
Not that this failure inhibits Hitchens from making the broad charge that "a
film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only
sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by
wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
What "big lie"? What "serious errors of fact"? Moore freely admits that one
might dispute his interpretations and inferences, which Hitchens does at
length. But hard facts?
We search in vain in Hitchens' diatribe for explicit citations of factual
errors on Moore's film.
Hitchens' attempt to disarm the impact of the devastating Florida schoolroom
fiasco is especially weak. But I suppose he felt he had to give it his best
shot:
More interesting is the
moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in
Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the
news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should
have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to
work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing
then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month
later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man
who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse.
Aw, c'mon Chris, is that
the best you can do? An infinite array of options is reduced, in Hitchens'
imagination, to just two: the "Russell Crowe moment," noted above, and the
catatonic immobility that Moore displayed on the screen. Of course, a
poised, intelligent, commanding leader would do neither. He would
immediately and calmly excuse himself with a remark, "now children, I must
do what a President does and leave to take care of some business." He could
have been out of that room within a minute after hearing the dreadful news
from Andy Card. Perhaps a prompt call to the Air Defense Command might have
foiled the attack on the Pentagon. We cannot say.
What we can say, is that those seven minutes brutally displayed the
incapacity and unfitness of this little man for the office to which he was
appointed by his political allies on the Supreme Court. Hitchen's attempt to
explain this away is simply pathetic.
A careful rebuttal of Hitchens' six-page bombast might easily extend to
three times the length of its target. And I have other fish to fry in this
piece. So let's move on.
Al Franken quoted a critic (I can't recall who it was), who said that if
Michael Moore thinks that no son of a member of Congress in serving in the
military in Iraq, he should talk to Sen. Tim Johnson (D. SD) who's son is in
Iraq this very day. Now watch the film carefully, and you will find that
Moore said "only one member of Congress..." In addition, several
critics have pointed out that Moore falsely charged that the Saudi nationals
flew out of the country when all commercial airliners were grounded. In
fact, this has been widely reported. But not by Michael Moore. Again, check
the script.
These are just two examples of the "straw man" fallacy -- attacking claims
NOT made by Moore. (Compare these with the infamous and false charge that Al
Gore claimed to have "invented the internet.") When critics have to concoct
false targets of their attacks, one can only assume that they cannot find
genuine targets.
Finally, there is the criticism that "Fahrenheit 911" tells us nothing that
we don't already know. This was the line of attack by Terry Lawson of the
Detroit Free Press, on Laura Flanders' "Air America Radio" program of June
26.
First of all, not everyone who sees the film is as well-informed as a
full-time journalist in a major newspaper. But much more significantly,
Lawson completely fails to recognize the distinction between "knowing"
something and "appreciating" the significance of what they "know." We know
that six million European Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. The
significance of this "known" fact is totally beyond human comprehension. We
know that innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq, and that our
occupation has provoked a great deal of hatred toward American troops. It is
quite another matter to have the mutilation, suffering and destruction
displayed on the screen in all its horror, and to hear the anger of from the
mouths of those that we are told we came to "liberate."
Most Americans, we may assume, know that George Bush was visiting a Florida
elementary school when he received word of the attacks on the World Trade
Center. But the media have, for the most part, spared the Bush
Administration the embarrassment of reporting Bush's behavior that morning.
But now, millions of Americans have been stunned by the image of their
paralyzed President reading about a pet goat as the towers burned.
Yet Mr. Lawson of the Detroit Free Press tells us that "we've learned
nothing new" from the film. But even those who "knew it all" when they
entered the theater, must have exited with a transformed perspective on the
events presented and a transformed judgment of the leadership that has been
foisted upon our unfortunate nation.
I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" last Thursday, after reading numerous accounts and
reviews of the film beforehand. I was not disappointed: it is a stunning
piece of work, expertly scripted and edited. Propaganda, to be sure. But
rather than a distortion, it is a compensatory balance to the war promotion
that has been relentlessly pushed at the American public by a shameless and
servile media, acting in behalf of the Bushista junta.
Michael Moore has freely admitted that he hopes that "Fahrenheit 9/11" will
arouse the American public and contribute significantly to the defeat of
George Bush and the Republicans next November.
Judging from the extraordinary response this past week, he just might pull
it off.
A PROCLAMATION FROM THE
"SOVEREIGN" GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ.
The American public has been told that we have relinquished "full
sovereignty" to the new Allawi government in Baghdad.
If so, then the following hypothetical proposal is not only a possibility --
it is arguably, a necessity. Yet, we somehow suspect that we will not see it
soon -- if ever.
From: The Government of Iraq:
To: President Bush and the American People.
Subject: A Resolution, adopted by a majority of the Iraqi Legislature:
We, the representatives of the people of Iraq, express our gratitude to
the United States and its Armed Forces for liberating our country from the
tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein.
We are also grateful to the United States for its timely transfer of power
and full sovereignty to this government, acting in behalf of the Iraqi
people.
As the government of a sovereign nation, and in accordance with
international law, we hereby declare that all decrees and contracts
imposed upon the nation of Iraq by the occupying military of the United
States are null and void. In particular, the ninety-three decrees ordered
by the departing "viceroy," Paul Bremer, having not been approved by a
legitimate legislative body of the Iraqi government, are not binding on
this government or the Iraqi people.
Furthermore, the mineral, natural and capital resources within the country
of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people. Stock ownership of these resources by
foreign corporations and individuals are allowable only if these assets
are purchased by competitive bidding or sales in open markets. And in such
cases, they owners of these resources must be in full compliance with
Iraqi laws.
The American military, having alienated a large majority of the Iraqi
people, is hereby asked to leave the country with all deliberate haste. If
foreign troops are needed to help restore law and order within our
borders, they will enter our country only with the express invitation of
this government. Assistance of the United Nations in helping restoring
order is welcome. Presence of troops from Islamic and Arab member of the
UN would be especially helpful in this regard.
So-called "permanent" US military bases, now under construction, will
likely provoke the hostility of Arab nations (Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait) and non-Arab Islamic nations (Turkey and Iran) which border our
country. We therefore order the immediate cessation of construction, the
closing of these bases, and the return of the land in use by these bases
to the Iraqi people.
Immediately before the outbreak of the war, Tom Brokaw of NBC said we would
soon "own" Iraq. The hypothetical resolution above, says "no way -- its our
country, and its time for you to leave."
Now try to imagine the response of the Bush government to such a resolution.
If such a resolution were adopted by the new Iraqi government, we'd soon
discover just how "sovereign" that government might be.
Not very "sovereign," I suspect.
Does the Allawi government dare to try such a stunt? I doubt it. But one
never knows.
July 2, 2004
Black Hole
As many of our regular visitors know, I was incommunicado a week ago for
about five days. A day into my week-long trip to Utah, I discovered that my
notebook computer had suffered a fatal infection from the Sasser virus. Thus
for the remainder of the week, I was unable to access the internet, and my
only contact with "news" was through the TV, radio and local newspapers.
As far as significant news was concerned, I might just as well have been on
the opposite side of the moon. However, I had the opportunity to learn far
more than I ever wanted to know about Kobe, Laci, and Brittney. And in
remote Moab, Utah I was needlessly reminded by the local news that there are
robberies and auto accidents even in small towns.
About the economic and political disaster that is now unfolding in our
country, with dire implications for the lives and futures of every American
citizen -- Nada, Nichivo.
So it seems that to acquire reliable news and intelligent commentary on the
ongoing crises in our own country, we must turn to foreign correspondents
assigned to Washington, New York, and elsewhere within our borders, and to
the internet volunteers who are filling the void of facts, investigation,
and critical analysis, left by the departure of so-called "journalists" of
the corporate media.
Once again, thanks to a computer virus, I was reminded of what my Russian
friends had to put up with during the Soviet era, when Pravda, Izvestiya
and Gostelradio were worse than worthless, and when, for news, one
had to listen furtively to the BBC and the Voice of America.
The Russians, for the most part, knew better than to trust their "official"
media. Most of the American public, with fresh memories of a time when the
media were moderately free and independent, still clings to the belief that
they are still getting the "straight scoop."
Even so, the small voice of independent progressive news and opinion is
getting louder, thanks to the internet and the launching of Air America
Radio. And now, despite determined "establishment" efforts to prevent its
release, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has broken free, and is spreading
its message of dissent and defiance to huge audiences throughout the land.
"Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again."
A Question of Loyalty.
Before our very eyes, we seem to be seeing the dissolution of the Bush
regime.
- The 9/11 Commission concludes that there was no alliance between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- no involvement by Saddam in the 9/11
attacks, nor any other terrorist activities. Even so, Bush and Cheney
insist that there was an alliance, and that through it, Saddam posed a
significant threat to the United States.
- John Ashcroft refuses, for no legitimate reason, to release to the
Senate Judiciary Committee, a document that is readily available on the
internet. The memo states, quite explicitly, that with regard to national
defense, the President is above the law. The Geneva Conventions do
not apply, if the President decides that they don't.
- At long last, the Supreme Court tells the Administration that
regarding due process and the rights of the accused and detained
"unlawful combatants," the Constitution means what it says.
- The CIA Director, George Tenet, resigns "to spend more time with my
family." Nobody believes him, or should.
- One after another former member of Bush's Administration publishes a
damaging account of a ruthless, manipulative and clueless White House:
Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson.
- Twenty-Six distinguished retired diplomats and military officers, most
of whom are either Republicans or have served Republican administrations,
issue a statement urging the defeat of George Bush in the election. This
despite a long-standing tradition that diplomats and the military should
be independent of domestic politics.
- And now, "Imperial Hubris," a book anonymously authored by a serving
senior officer of the CIA, is about to be published. The essential message
is in the subtitle: "Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism."
What motivates individuals such as these to abandon their careers, or in
the case of anonymous "leakers," to endanger their careers?
Are these acts of disloyalty? On the contrary, these acts may display
loyalty, not to a failing and arguably illegitimate "leader" and not to a
party, but to moral principles and to the political institutions of our
country. These individuals, and many more, are at last beginning to
appreciate that there are more important issues at stake in the coming
election than careers and party affiliation.
Whether Democrat or Republican, left or right:
- No one wants the United States to lose the "war on terrorism."
- No one wants the American economy to collapse, or their children and
grandchildren to be permanently impoverished.
- No one wants the United States to be hated abroad and isolated from
the international community.
- No one, apart from a few religious fundamentalists, want the United
States to lose its leadership in science and technology.
- No one wants to live to see the end of the Constitutional Republic of
the United States.
Until recently, few Americans could imagine that the economy, reputation,
scientific and technological leadership, and Constitution of the United
States could possibly be in any kind of danger.
Today it is becoming apparent to more and more of our compatriots that we
are facing these very dangers. A few heretofore politically neutral
individuals and organizations are sounding the alarm -- the aforementioned
diplomats and military leaders, and such organizations as the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
But what of the elite writers and artists, journalists, leaders of industry
and commerce? They too have an enormous stake in the outcome of the
election. Why haven't more of them stepped forward and spoken out?
This might very well be the most important election in our history.
And time is running out.