Month: January 2012

The best political team on television

On her show, she gave the marines in question “one million cool points” and said that she would “drop trou” and “do it too.” She ended by saying: “Do I have a problem with that as a citizen of the United States? No, I don’t.”

Of course this is the same person who burns political opponent in effigy and endorses their mock funerals so this sort of macho ghoulishness is par for the course. We’re awfully lucky to have her very special brand of perspicacious analysis on international TV.

Hot moocher on looter action

by digby

I suppose the kids are tired of the Twilight series so they’re going to be looking for another supernatural romance:

AYN RAND & THE PROPHECY OF ATLAS SHRUGGED – Official Film Trailer from D&E Entertainment on Vimeo.

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand’s epic and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction for America.

Set in what novelist and philosopher Rand called ‘the day after tomorrow,’ Atlas depicts an America in crisis, brought to her knees by a corrupt establishment of government regulators and businessmen with political pull – the ‘looters’ and the ‘moochers’ – who prey on individual achievement.

Less a conventional work of fiction than a philosophical manifesto in the form of a romantic novel, over the course of a thousand-plus pages, Atlas tackles no less an essential argument than the one debated by philosophers and theologians since time immemorial: altruism vs. self-interest. Am I my brother’s keeper – or not? For Ayn Rand, the answer is an emphatic no. To Rand and the disciples of her Objectivist philosophy, self-sacrifice is as heinous an act as murder…murder of the soul.

Upon publication, Atlas Shrugged was widely scorned by critics for its ‘preposterous’ plot and one-dimensional characters. Intellectuals and academics from across the ideological spectrum roundly dismissed the new and original philosophy called ‘Objectivism’ that Rand so compellingly illustrated in the novel.

Despite this pummeling, Atlas became a best seller and has remained in print ever selling a healthy 75,000 or so copies each year. Then with the new century, sales began to increase dramatically. In 2007, its fiftieth anniversary year, Atlas sold a record 180,000 copies. Since then Atlas Shrugged – published over a half century ago – has sold over a million copies.

Why? Because – as evidenced by pointed and frequent references to Rand and Atlas Shrugged in the media – an increasing number of Americans – right or wrong – see their society devolving into a nightmare scenario like the one Rand projected over a half century ago.

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged looks into Rand’s background for the ideas and philosophy that inspired and shaped her novel and seeks to determine whether America is indeed headed for the disastrous outcome she predicted.

Let’s go Galt’s Gulch, let’s go!

The New York Times wonders aloud if it should care about the truth

by David Atkins

The New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane asked his readers a remarkable question today: should the Times actually care about the truth? No, I’m not kidding:

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about…

That approach is what one reader was getting at in a recent message to the public editor. He wrote:

“My question is what role the paper’s hard-news coverage should play with regard to false statements – by candidates or by others. In general, the Times sets its documentation of falsehoods in articles apart from its primary coverage. If the newspaper’s overarching goal is truth, oughtn’t the truth be embedded in its principal stories? In other words, if a candidate repeatedly utters an outright falsehood (I leave aside ambiguous implications), shouldn’t the Times’s coverage nail it right at the point where the article quotes it?”

This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.

Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?

Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign debates, The Times has employed a separate fact-check sidebar to assess the validity of the candidates’ statements. Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting? How should The Times continue a function like this when we move to the general campaign and there’s less time spent in debates and more time on the road?

That the question is being asked after all these years is, I suppose, a good sign. That it had to be asked demonstrates everything that has gone wrong with modern journalism.

Simply reprinting what a newsmaker says is known as “stenography.” Word for word transcription of organizational mouthpieces isn’t journalism, and isn’t worth paying for. When we worry about the potential loss of news organizations around the world due to shrinking revenue, the concern is not that powerful entities won’t be able to push their messages out to a waiting public via dutiful transcriptionists. We worry, rather, about the loss the investigative journalism: stories that ask hard questions, that uncover truths that powerful people and organizations would rather keep quiet, or even just stories that provide reality-based context in a sea of competing and distracting arguments.

That’s the true value of journalism, no matter what they may teach in modern journalism school. If printing the truth amounts to a story that is biased in favor of one side, then so be it. That’s the job.

It’s understandable that major news editors are deeply uncomfortable with that notion. In an hour-by-hour news cycle, fact-checking every statement a newsmaker makes is difficult–though the advent of vigilant partisan blogs on either side of just about any debate should make the process a little easier. If a public figure or organization lies about something, there are usually myriad stories online to debunk the lie in matter of hours or even minutes.

More importantly, though, news editors are worried that if their stories seem to be biased as a result of being truthful, they’ll lose credibility with people who cling to untruthful views. First off, that’s just too bad. That’s the job. That’s the public service a newspaper is supposed to provide: educate the ignorant and hold the powerful to account. But secondly, it’s not as if that isn’t happening already. The New York Times is already felt to be liberal Pravda by a good 30-40% percent of the public: failing to fact-check some conservative’s outlandish statements won’t suddenly make a Fox News viewer feel that the Times is any less biased. Meanwhile, partisan media organizations who don’t necessarily seek truth as their main objective will continue to grow audience and market share.

Pursuing uninformative stenography to avoid accusations of bias will mean an even faster death for modern media outlets. Seeking truth is the only way they can stay relevant, and the only good reason for them to survive.

.

Tangled up in Newt

by digby

As I’ve noted numerous times, conservatives are very confused these days. Of course, many liberals are confused as well. (I won’t even talk about the libertarians.) Seems to be the zeitgeist. Perhaps tough times and elite failure always have this effect. And who knows, out of the ashes, perhaps will rise a better society. I know I’m looking forward to seeing the plan for how all these disparate, contradictory ideas will produce one.

But as much as dissonance and confusion are overwhelming the political system in general, this attack on Mitt Romney by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry has to take the cake.
As Rick Perlstein pithily observed:

There is an important lesson in Rick Perry’s saying “There is a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism.” It is this: Republican presidential candidates have been criticizing the vampire squids of rapine corporate raiding for only the last fifteen seconds, for completely cynical political reasons, and will only be doing it for fifteen seconds more–but already have come up with more compelling messaging language to describe than it is imaginable any Democratic politician, let alone the president, could do.

I’m guessing that’s because, for all their faults, even the Democrats aren’t the colossal hypocrites that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are. Indeed, the hypocrisy is so overwhelming it’s downright disorienting.

For instance, Gingrich claims that “if someone comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” I agree, but it flies in the face of every deregulation and corporate tax break Newt backed during the GOP go-go years. Newt himself admits this. Just last month he said:

I was part of Kemp’s little cabal of supply siders who, I think largely by helping convince Reagan and then working with Reagan, profoundly changed the entire trajectory of the American economy in the 1980s. You could make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get to be rich, because I helped pass the legislation…He should be thanking me! He should be thanking me because I did the macroeconomic things necessary to make his career possible.

Moreover, despite his newfound populism, he is currently proposing exactly nothing that would prevent Romney from doing what he did and his tax plan would inevitably make Mitt Romney even richer at even more working people’s expense than he already is.

Now, it’s true that nobody’s focused much on vulture capitalism up to this point, so it’s a welcome opening to a larger conversation about capitalism in general and how an egalitarian society should deal with it.It would be just terrific if we could have one. But let’s just say I’m a little bit skeptical that Newt Gingrich is going to still be waving the populist flag in his left hand once his extended 15 minutes in the race are over. Newt as a populist is as believable as him as a faithful husband: I’m sure he believes it when he’s saying it.

I think Newts ads are very powerful. I’m glad they’re out there. Thank you Newtie and your wealthy, union busting benefactor. It may be the most positive contribution you’ve made to politics well … ever. But I think it’s also important for some of us to try to keep these various strands of opportunistic populist and libertarian messages straight for the day when it becomes important to try to make sense out of politics again. At this point I’m not sure that day will ever come.

.

Colbert’s latest brilliant satire

by digby

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

Hahahaha. He’s so funny.

Oh wait, that’s the New York Times public editor. For real.

Update: This

Read the comments. *sigh*

.

Thin skinned bullies Part XXX

by digby

Somebody’s very thin skinned and not too bright:

Not that Morgan is much of a wit, but this was fairly obvious. You know what they say about sarcasm.

Political confusion

by digby

Tom Metzger may be the best known White Supremacist in the country after David Duke so it’s always interesting to see his interpretation of the world around him:

Metzger runs an organization formerly known as White Aryan Resistance, or WAR, which produces racist propaganda and so-called survivalist manuals. The group has since changed its name to The Insurgent, but its message essentially remains the same.

Metzger is a proponent of “lone wolf” tactics, encouraging his followers to carry on the struggle by themselves or in small cells to avoid exposing the rest of the movement to law enforcement. The Southern Poverty Law Center puts him in the same category as David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader who once held elected office in Louisiana.

Metzger spoke by phone from his home in Warsaw, Ind. He said he supports the Mahon brothers and doesn’t believe they were involved in the Arizona bombing. In part, he said, that’s because he and his followers have moved beyond small battles. They are looking forward to a bigger war.

“We’ve long ago left that street type activity,” he said. “We’re interested in bringing the whole goddamn thing down.”

When asked what he meant by that, Metzger said just two words: “The federal.”

“I feel like an insurgent,” he said later. “I don’t feel connected to the federal government at all.”

Metzger emphasized that he doesn’t see himself as a member of the radical right. The right wing is too filled with informants and “Looney Toons,” he said. And he has no respect for anyone in the Republican Party.

“I’ve moved more to the left,” said Metzger. “I support the Occupy movement.”

When quizzed about issues of taxes and social programs, however, Metzger said he still opposes those things. Even less surprisingly, he also said he’s no fan of the nation’s first black president.

“We see Obama as just another corporate shill,” he said. “He doesn’t care any more about the black people than anybody else.”

It’s unsurprising that racists are using the discontent with the revolving door and federal incompetence to advance states’ rights. It’s always worked out well for them in the past. I just hope people who might be willing to make an alliance with such people on the basis of what they do have in common understand that business can corrupt state and local government’s more easily than the federal. They come cheaper and can be played off against each other. And as for Metzger’s real agenda … well, that’s easier to pull off on a smaller scale as well.

A lot of people are very, very confused right now, but I have a sneaking suspicion this Grand Wizard isn’t one them.

.

Lock ‘Em Up, Throw Away Their Dignity

by David Atkins

Digby speculated yesterday that America’s extreme incarceration rate may explain our collective lack of concern about the plight of the people at Guantanamo who are being imprisoned indefinitely in conditions that border on torture, without trial or any hope of one.

I agree, but I think it also goes further. There is an almost uniquely Calvinist mindset in much of America that is deterministic to the point of barbarity about punishment and reward. Income inequality is tolerated because the rich must have done something to deserve that wealth. Similarly, those who are poor must have been too lazy or too unloved in the eyes of Providence to better their condition. The mindset shows up in our debate over abortion, where abortion as a result of consensual sex is often frowned on, but abortion in the case of rape or incest is mostly accepted outside the far-right fringe because in the latter case, the poor woman didn’t deserve to be burdened with the pregnancy. This has always been one of the ugliest facets of American culture, and it remains so to this day.

Nowhere is this view more brutally repulsive than in our attitude toward criminal punishment. America has the distinction of being one of the very few modern industrialized democracies to retain capital punishment. We have some of the world’s longest prison sentences.

Most bizarre, however, is our tolerance for prison rape and other abuse. Other countries take the care of prisoners much more seriously than does the U.S. In fact, prison rape in America has become a routine subject of mainstream comedy. Where it’s not joked about, it’s utilized as part of the punishment disincentive for crime, even by respected progressive allies. When Taibbi jokes about the supposedly salutary effect of throwing Blankfein in “pound-me-in-the-a** prison” (itself a reference to a line in the comedy Office Space), it plays on this same dynamic: the idea that prisoner abuse is all part of the just desserts of the wrongdoer and a lesson to others. Taibbi would doubtless object (and correctly so) that all he meant was for Blankfein to receive the same treatment as any other felon–but the point remains that to even mention such a thing is almost uniquely American.

It’s shared across political lines and woven into our culture as a country, for better and (I believe) very much for the worse.

It’s not surprising that we have high tolerance for depraved treatment of foreign prisoners suspected of terrorism. We have a similarly high tolerance for depraved treatment of our fellow Americans locked up for petty crimes. The abuses at Guantanamo are uniquely awful in their Kafkaesque unconstitutionality and maddening sensory deprivation. But least they know they’re protected from one another, which is more than one can say for the inmates at your local penitentiary.

In America, once we lock people up, we seem to have no problem throwing away every last shred of their dignity.

.

Oh no

The black hole of Guantanamo

by digby

When killing becomes routine, I guess they feel the need to desecrate. There’s nothing particularly new in this — except the laws against it.

That’s just awful. That it comes on the 10th anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo makes it all the worse.

Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent piece up about that tragic decision and the legal fallout, which contains many insights, this one especially:

The paradox of Guantanamo has always been that it’s been invisible to so many Americans, and yet the only thing the rest of the world sees. The whole point of the prison camp there was to create a legal black hole. We’ve fished our wish: The world sees only blackness; we see only a hole.

That’s always been the challenge of Guantanamo: making it seem real to Americans who have tended to think of the Cuban camp as the potted palm in the war on terror. And it’s very difficult to get exercised over a potted palm.

I suspect that is largely because Americans live in a country with nearly 2 million people behind bars, many of them innocent, all of them subject to a system so byzantine and unfairly applied that “justice” has become a remote abstraction. We have jails everywhere, for everything, from the local hoosegow to country lock-ups to state prisons, federal penitentiaries and military brigs. Oh, plus the various holding facilities, psychiatric lock-ups and juvenile and immigration detention centers.

We are a nation of prisons. I just don’t think most Americans find it all that remarkable that a particular group of prisoners are caught in some kind of legal limbo. It happens every day to one extent or another. I’m not excusing it — it’s a blight on our country and we should all be ashamed. But I think that’s why Guantanamo is just another a potted palm. Americans can’t see the palm forest for the trees.

Just as those marines are so used to killing that they can’t see they’ve lost their humanity, the American public is so used to innocent people in prison that they can’t get worked up about a bunch of innocent foreigners caught in a Catch-22. We are uncivilized. The question is if we’re getting worse or if we’ve always been this bad.

.