The other day I wrote a post asking people to suport the Innocence Protection Act. I wrote, “Whether or not you believe in the death penalty, I think it’s fair to say that nobody believes in executing innocent people.”
Please, law and order types, please spare me any more whining about somebody getting off on a technicality. You live by technicalities, whether it’s conflicting deadlines for counting votes or arbitrary cut-off dates for claims of actual innocence. And worse, you do it in the name of efficiency. At least the laws protecting defendents are in place to keep the country from turning into a lawless police state. You guys just want to make the trains run on time.
Sick, amoral and unjust. What is happening to this country?
For months both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.(Paul Krugman)
And how is this done, exactly? How is a population made to believe that war is inevitable, the enemy implacable, the government a source of unerring wisdom and might? Let us count the ways:
o The news programs with their zingy, multi-colored, eye-snagging graphics: “Target Iraq; “Countdown Baghdad” etc, as though war were comparable to a Monday night football game or an upcoming TV mini-series.
o The seemingly endless rounds of interviews with miscellaneous generals and preening pundits who discuss in lascivious detail the mechanics of war, i.e., the capacity of American missiles, the ideal weather for infantry attacks, the armaments of the Iraqi Republican Guard, as though questions of “why” and “whether” were irrelevant and all that remained were “how” and “when.”
o The demonization of the enemy into a single malevolent personality—quick, who has the trendier one-word name these days, “Shaq,” “Kobe,” or “Saddam”?—who serves as a cartoon figure that forestalls more complicated discussions of history, politics, and economics. (What happened to “Osama,” by the way? He’s off the “A-list,” at least for now.)
o The relentless assaults on talk radio against the patriotism, character, morality, and mental stability of those who dare to oppose the war. You are either with us or you are morally defective.
The good folks at Political Research Associates have done a nice job of cataloging some of these antics as they have taken place on the covers of the conservative publication, The Weekly Standard in 2001-2002. The covers, when you consider them together, offer a fine example of how citizens are prepared to accept war as inevitable, their leaders as noble, and their enemies as vile, terrifying characters who deserve pretty much whatever they’ve got coming to them. Here’s the visual gallery, with a few of my own comments underneath each image:
Kevin at Lean Left cuts to the chase of the Bell Curve debate:
The larger point is that it does not matter. Even if there was a strong correlation between race and “intelligence” (defined as you wish), it does not matter. It has no practical effect, other than the spread of racism. Why? Because the individual range is so obviously great.
Try it this way. Duke Ellington is a genius. Dr. Carver is a genius. John Rocker is a moron. History demonstrates that all races are capable of producing genius, and all races are capable of producing people so stupid you wonder if they will forget how to breathe, and of producing both in large numbers. In both “races”, history shows us that genius is rare but not unknown, stupidity is less rare, and the vast majority muddle along in the middle. From a practical stand point, it does not matter if the median white is dumber than the median black. As a society, you must allow for the geniuses of both groups to flower, and build institutions to contain the damage the morons of both groups could do. To do otherwise would be to doom your society, in the long run.
I was going to write a long piece dissecting Slate’s assertion that shock jocks are the voice of liberal radio. There are some aspects of that thesis with which I agree, but the larger point is that they are not explicitly political, and more importantly, they are not consciously aligned with the Democratic Party in the same way the right-wing talkers blatently work hand in glove with the Republicans. To the extent shock jocks are political, they are like Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura — they represent the male yahoo anti-vote. They are certainly not the answer to the imbalance on the AM dial.
However, Yuval Rubenstein at Groupthink Centraldoes such a thorough job of refuting the central theme of the article that I am going no further. Just go read it.
For my part, I never meant to imply that Kevin is anything but a fine person and someone with whom I agree 99.9% of the time. I believe that the argument about “intelligence” is one of semantics and where race is concerned, I think that semantics are a huge issue. Kevin may disagree, but I don’t think that there is any fundamental disagreement with respect to how we view race and racism. I wish that I had made that more plain.
Furthermore, I respect the angst and difficulty Kevin has had in coming to his position on Iraq and I recognize that this is so for many liberals. His position is not indicative of a knee jerk support of Dubyah or a sense of adolescent bloodlust like so much of the blogosphere. It comes from a sense that it is better to take care of the problem sooner than later even under our current terrible leadership.
But, I disagree. I do believe that terrorism and petty tyrants with nukes are exceedingly dangerous and that we cannot afford to disengage from those issues. But, I think that the way we do it is almost as important as doing it at all. In this modern world of cable news and internet chatrooms and seething resentment and economic interdependence it is no longer possible to be an imperial power without almost instantaneous blowback.
I believe that terrorism is the biggest immediate danger facing America and that the Axis of Evil could have been kept in a box long enough to subdue that threat, at least to some degree. I think that blowing our relationships with those in the region and allies elsewhere was absurd considering the threat we are under. I grant that my mistrust of this administration is so thorough that I cannot believe anything they say, but they have been singularly unconvincing in the matter of Iraq’s immediate threat.
Public record shows that neoconservative foreign policy ideologues have been pushing for invasion for years and it shows that their most important rationale for invasion was to show the despots of the world that we would invade and overthrow those who would attempt to gain WMD. And they believe that this show of strength will change the dynamic in and of itself to one of a more acquiescent mid-east and a more reasonable Kim Jong Il.
This is what’s wrong with the invasion. I believe it is likely to have the opposite effect that it is intended to have and indeed the situation in North Korea suggests that I’m right. I believe that to wait would have been a better choice.
But, I too commented back in October on another blog (in answer to the charge that that antiwar rallies would likely turn into pro-Saddam rallies) that says some of the same things that Kevin and others are saying now:
I don’t think the pro-Saddam rally will be well attended.
But, there will be prayer vigils and sleepless nights on the part of those of us who hope that this incompetent administration doesn’t fuck it up so much that all hell breaks loose in the region, including the real possibility of nuclear war and many american and arab casualties. And we’ll be wishing fervently that terrorism on US soil doesn’t become something we’ll have to learn to live with because we just can’t seem to kill all the people who hate our guts and multiply exponentially with every aggressive action that we take. And we’ll sure hope that we can get some cooperation from the unstable regimes that finance them without having to invade and depose their leaders, too.
And, if everything works out, let’s keep our fingers crossed that we can turn the mideast into a democratic paradise quickly because judging from our experience in Afghanistan, our President meant it when he said he “wasn’t into nation building.” We really don’t need to fight this war again.
And I know that a lot of us will probably get together around the dinner table and water coolers to talk about the enormous sums of money remaking the mideast is costing, and will continue to cost for years to come, while we worry about whether we’ll have jobs or health care or a chance of a comfortable retirement.
So, rather than attending pro-Saddam rallies, people who are against this war being waged by someone in whom they have no faith will instead be gathering together to fervently pray that his adventure goes perfectly every step of the way.
Once the die was cast, and I believe it was cast last August during the meetings in Crawford with all the military brass, I don’t know that there was ever much we could do but register our doubts, make our statements, protest and go on the record and then hope that it doesn’t go as badly as we think it might.
Sorry Kevin. I think I’m getting edgy. Wartalk and terrorism does that, what with the lack of sleep and obsessive internet reading. Enjoy the movie. Make it a comedy.
UPDATE:
Charles Murtaugh writes: “Calpundit has become a one-stop shop for all my anguished-liberal needs,” which made me wonder: Is there such a thing as an anguished conservative? I can’t think of one.
The two psychologists think that inept people are often self-assured because they lack self-monitoring skills, which are the same skills required for competence. Subjects who scored in the lowest quartile in tests of logic, English grammar, and humor were also the mostly likely to “grossly overestimate” how well they performed.
“Not only do (incompetent people) reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,” wrote Dr. Kruger, “but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it
Why didn’t the artists speak out last night on the Grammys? I don’t know. I imagine it’s for many of the same reasons that many liberals in the US haven’t been speaking out — fear of being called unpatriotic, the sense that 9/11 is sacred (and Iraq, however inexplicably, is attached to it), knowledge that the war is inevitable and a genuine feeling of ambivalence about the goals if not the motivations of those who are waging it. It is also true that the Grammy’s were in New York City; there are those who feel that it is hallowed ground.
And, one cannot look at this without noting that the corporation that owns CBS also owns MTV and VH1, and that the large corporate entities that created many of these “artists” have a huge stake in the success of George W. Bush’s administration. Self-interest is our civic religion these days even if it’s subliminal.
But, I’d like to address another aspect of this issue. From what I’ve read today, it is taken as an article of faith from those on the right that artists are ignorant, ill-informed and so completely out of the mainstream that they should be treated as children and be seen and not heard. I have read at least 5 different comments today, and received several e-mails, saying that awards shows are properly places for the little tykes to clap their pudgy hands and giggle with glee when they get their nice awards, but they should leave the serious issues to the really important people (like warbloggers, presumably.)
(I have to say that calling artists “stupid” in the face of a president who cannot string two words together coherently is so chillingly obtuse that I’m afraid that a few of these people may be beyond reach. But, that’s another post….)
This view shows a complete lack of understanding of the history, function and purpose of art. So, let me try to clear up a few of the misconceptions that seem to be plaguing the right (who, as commenter Cheryl adroitly pointed out, revere the only entertainer to ever ascend to the presidency, Ronnie Reagan.)
There are two reasons why artists speak out on politics and why they tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. First, the practical reason is that they have an audience. It has been asked repeatedly why an awards show should serve as a platform for political sentiment. Well….
BECAUSE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE WATCHING, THAT’S WHY!
If artists/citizens feel strongly about a political issue they may also feel they have an obligation to use their access to large numbers of people to make that point. Those of us who blog or are actually active in politics from either side of the debate should understand this better than anyone. If you care, you try to persuade. And anybody who wants to can participate. It’s called democracy.
Which brings us to the second reason. Artists are overwhelmingly liberal because conservatives are always trying to tell them what they can and cannot say, write, paint, or make. There is nothing more precious to an artist than free speech and history is filled with examples of governments cracking down on art and speech they determine to be a threat to the nation. Even here in the US. And, certainly there. It is only logical that civil liberties would be of prime importance to artists, particularly those who use their art as a means of political expression and it should not surprise anyone that the more conservative and authoritarian governments are always the ones that are trying to curb them. Artists know this and usually support liberal politics as a result.
It is just reverse elitism to assume that the artistic community is any more stupid than any other group of people in this country. Some are, some aren’t. This smug snobbishness is quite revealing, particularly coming from the group that allows the likes of Jerry Falwell to speak for them on political issue ranging from taxes to war strategy.
I think it shows they’re scared. Smart Republicans understand something else about this phenomenon and that is that certain artists bring with them a powerful image that can be extremely useful if applied correctly — Charlton Heston as Moses for instance — Reagan in a cowboy hat. If the broad artistic community becomes truly engaged in politics, the right will have a problem on their hands. Popular Culture is a sleeping political and public relations giant and when it is awakened it can be a formidable foe. And it is overwhelmingly liberal.
And they know that the likes of Rupert Murdoch will never forego profits for politics. Ever. If the artistic communities make liberalism visible again, and by extension they make their art explicitly or implicitly political and profitable, the Republicans will be in trouble. FoxNews is only entertaining to dittoheads and masochistic Democrats. Everybody else is watching the real liberal media like Murdoch’s most successful television show ever — The Simpsons — the most subversively liberal TV show in history.
The musicians did a big el-foldo. Let’s see if the filmmakers can do a little bit better.
I saw this the other night and I almost couldn’t believe it. If it were anyone but Sy Hersh making the claim I would have to say it was tin-foil time.
When the war began, even though this is– again, you know, this is complicated. Musharraf asked, as a favor, to protect his position. If we suddenly seized, in in the field, a few dozen military soldiers, including generals, and put them in jail, and punished them, he would be under tremendous pressure from the fundamentalists at home.
So, to protect him, we perceive that it’s important to protect him, he asked us– this is why when I tell you it comes at the level of Don Rumsfeld, it has to. I mean, it does. He asked– he said, “You’ve got to protect me. You’ve got to get my people out.”
The initial plan was to take out the Pakistani military. What happened is that they took out al Qaeda with them. And we had no way of stopping it. We lost control. Once there planes began to go, the Pakistanis began– thousands of al Qaeda got out. And so– we weren’t able to stop it and screen it. The intent wasn’t to let al Qaeda out. It was to protect the Pakistani military.
But, when you think about it, it actually makes sense in Bush terms. In order to preserve Musharref’s tenuous hold on a nuclear nation that could easily be overwhelmed by Islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban, the US had to agree to evacuate the Pakistani military who were helping to train the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In the process, we evacuated al Qaeda and Taliban to Pakistan. From the war we were waging in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda.
The more we hear of things like this the more plausible it really is that the Bush administration doesn’t find the terrorist threat to be very serious and the war with Iraq is being waged as an easy, splashy “pageant” meant to put the world on notice that they should simply give up in the face of our awesome Death Star technology. To do this, it must be an easy win. Whatever the consequences, they’ll wing it.
The Spanish-America War, like the imminent war in Iraq, had its origins not in any direct threat to American security or in treaty obligations to allies or even in some affront to American honor, but in a desire to project a new sense of the country’s power and responsibility — in historian Frank Friedel’s words, “to see the United States function like a great nation.” Though the world of the late 19th century was not, like ours, dominated by a single superpower, America possessed an abiding faith in her own moral superiority to every other regnant nation, just as it does today. This was (and is) not entirely without justification. At the time, America was certainly more idealistic than Germany, France, England, Japan or Spain. She believed in the values of democracy and equality even if she didn’t always believe in their actual exercise — Third World nations would need a lot of help — and she increasingly saw her role as international cop, enforcing what other nations were too craven to enforce.
It’s probably only a coincidence, but Karl Rove calls himself a “student” of the McKinley presidency. (This is mostly because McKinley was really a creature of his political handler Mark Hanna, I suspect; they were almost always pictured together, as partners, in political cartoons like the one below.)
There are many other parallels between the two Presidents, not the least of which is that the war was fully supported, if not created, by the press. War — but most especially victory — is very good for the media business.
It would be a good idea, considering all this, to keep in mind that the rallying cry of “Remember The Maine,” referring to the incident that precipitated our declaration of war, was very likely an engine explosion, not a Spanish bomb, as we contemplate the impending and inevitable “material breach.”
Gabler concludes with:
In the end, as much as doves may hate to say it, Bush may be right. Why not go to war? The Cuban portion of the Spanish-American War did last less than 90 days, and it resulted not only in Spain leaving Cuba but in America taking Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines and thus asserting her power. But if Spain was quickly vanquished, the Philippine portion of the war dragged on for years as America tried to pacify insurgents there, resulting in 4,000 American dead and hundreds of thousands of Philippine civilian casualties. (Anyone looking for the analogy to Vietnam will find it here.) As the saying goes, watch what you wish for …
Of course the assumption, in 2003 as in 1898, is that war will be quick and bloodless — that it won’t be hell but a piece of cake. At least, that is what the Bush administration is telling us and that is what many of us want to believe. We are going to war no matter what and no matter why. If that sounds vaguely familiar, it is. We have been here before. It is 1898 all over again.
But, there were no Pakistans with nukes or bin Laden’s with al Jazeera. The world is much smaller now and the stakes are much bigger. This kind of adventure is beyond risky in the nuclear age. It’s reckless.
The Norwegians—who gave us the term “quisling”—awarded former President Jimmy Carter the Peace Prize
Ann Coulter
Kevin proposes that Jimmy Carter be appointed as civilian leader of Iraq.
Sure, conservatives hate him, but consider: he was president of the United States for four years and knows a bit about running a country. He’s a prominent dove and would be trusted by lots of people who otherwise wouldn’t give Bush the time of day. He’s rather famously sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which means he’d be trusted by the Arabs. And he’s a humanitarian, which means he’d be genuinely motivated to help Iraq and the Iraqi people.
If Bush did this he would cut the Democrats off at the knees. It would be brilliant. It would be right.
Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by “Blue-Chip economists” that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president’s tax cut proposal becomes law.
That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. “I don’t know what he was citing,” said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation’s top economists each month.
“I was a little upset,” said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. “It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president’s plan. That’s simply not the case.”
Deputy White House Press Secretary Claire Buchan insisted Friday that the survey, which mentioned “the likelihood that some version of the Bush administration’s latest stimulus package will be enacted,” justified the president’s claim. Moore said that a survey taken in January before the president announced his plan forecast 3.3 percent annual growth between the last quarter of 2002 and the last quarter of 2003. A survey taken in February reached the same consensus.
Sure. That makes sense. And, it’s not like it’s about sex or anything.
You kin keep yer 1945 Mouton Rothschild, Frenchy. It ain’t no different than a 1998 Damianitza Melnik innyhow
BULGARIA is turning into a competitive threat to French wine exports to the US market after members of the US Congress said they were considering a boycott of all French goods, especially wines.
At the end of 2002, Bulgaria occupied sixteenth place in the list of wine exporters to the US with only about 209 000 litres, while France was the second leading exporter of wine to the US with more than 74 million litres, behind Italy, which is the top importer.
US lawmakers, angry over France’s opposition to the White House administration’s Iraq policies, are considering retaliatory gestures such as trade sanctions against the French, the Washington Post said last Wednesday. The 17 senators that are behind the move have reportedly initiated a subscription list as well.
Bulgarian-language media reports this week said that the US Embassy in Sofia, as well as trade attaches, have been instructed to co-operate in increasing Bulgarian wines’ market share in the US.
“France and Germany are losing credibility by the day, and they are losing, I think, status in the world,” House of Representatives Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay said, quoted by the Post.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, angered by France’s policies on agriculture as well as on Iraq, has told associates he would like to target two of that nation’s most sacred drinks: water and wine. Hastert talked to House members about slapping restrictions on French imports of bottled water and fine wine.
