Clarifying the Muck

David Sirota, as usual, does a spectacular job unmasking Louise Slaughter and the professional Democratic politicians.

Needless to say, the endgame in the Middle East is coming down to a 12 Step solution:

Codependency--"A psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (as an addiction to alcohol, heroin", [or power]

Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., Mirriam Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA; 1998; p. 221.

Well, Duhhhhhhhhhhh!

Admitted we were powerless over _________________, and that our lives had become unmanageable.

Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Being such a "Christian nation," I doubt we'll get anywhere close to step 3:

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him.

What could be clearer, then?

Can you spell, " M-O-N-E-Y ?"

I had that kind of bitter sense of amusement today reading, A New Silent Majority, by Marc Buchanan in the Times. It's part of a regular opinion column he writes, apparently, applying the principles of physical science to the social/political sphere.

The Times calls him a theoretical physicist.

OK. So what?

He makes a great case that the "mainstream" (hereinafter, "commercial") media are out of synch with the public--reporting prevailing opinions that are actually unpopular, minority positions and focusing on stories and scandals that the public finds irrelevant.

Buchanan offers some different explanantions for this discrepancy.

A common explanation of this tendency toward distortion is that the beltway media has attended a few too many White House Correspondents’ Dinners and so cannot possibly cover the administration with anything approaching objectivity. No doubt the Republicans’ notoriously well-organized efforts in casting the media as having a “liberal bias” also have their intended effect in suppressing criticism.

Then he proffers his pet explanation--the scientific theory.

But I wonder whether this media distortion also persists because it doesn’t meet with enough criticism, and if that’s partially because many Americans think that what they see in the major political media reflects what most other Americans really think – when actually it often doesn’t.
Psychologists coined the term “pluralistic ignorance” in the 1930s to refer to this type of misperception — more a social than an individual phenomenon — to which even smart people might fall victim.

So, he goes on to commit the very misinformation he's claiming to demystify.

He never mentions that the reason commercial news media try to tell the public to think in terms contrary to the public's own conscience is that the media sponsors want to promulgate those opinions, and the media companies do, too.

Buchanan plays the role of masker, suggesting this misrepresentation of public opinion is a mistake, or a matter of shyness.

Yet in the classroom of our democracy, at least for many in the media, it still seems impolitic – or at least a little too risky – to raise one’s hand.

He actually has the arrogance to liken it to the shyness of students in a classroom, afraid to raise their hand for fear of being the only one to think something.

Whatever your broadcast network, whatever your cable station, whatever your talk radio, you are hearing what the media companies and their sponsors want you to hear. They lie about everything, why shouldn't they tell you that their opinion is really YOUR opinion, too?

If they say it enough, you'll believe it.

But that is Buchanan's saving grace. He is onto the symptoms. He is just wrong about the illness. Still, he's the only one out there saying this.

At least he's honest, which is more than we can say about our Representatives in Washington, or the commercial media "reporting" on their governance.

Look at It This Way

When the IPCC report first came out, there was a lot of hoopla in the corporate media about how exaggerated the predictions were.

The scientific community and the public media were complaining, however, that the predictions were too watered-down, catering to the oil lobby and their drones in Washington.

So, now, at least, we get to bark up the other side of the same tree. Will anybody listen anyway?

CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate ... higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This was on Alternet today, courtesy of Peter R. Spotts.

In the Zone

From Thomas Wagner in an Associated Press article, dated May 16, linked here in the Huffington Post:

The Green Zone, a sprawling complex on the west bank of the Tigris River, also was hit by a rocket Tuesday, wounding nine foreigners. Fintor said he could not provide specific nationalities but they were not Americans or Iraqis.

A recent increase in mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and major Iraqi government offices, has raised concern, especially since they are occurring during the U.S.-led crackdown.

USA Today echoes the surge dirge in an op ed piece by pointing out that,

At this midpoint between announcement and verdict, it is too early to say whether the surge is working. Not all the extra troops are in place. Nor is there agreement on how to measure progress. But the preliminary indicators are far from encouraging ...

America's newspaper then goes on to list three reasons for believing that, in fact, the surge isn't working.

None of the three reasons, by the way, were "increased attacks on the Green Zone."

Illegal Wiretapping (reprise)

Glenn Greenwald pierces the soft underbelly of Congress and their Bush Administration fascist co-conspirators:

We enacted a law 30 years ago making it a felony for the government to eavesdrop on us without warrants, precisely because that power had been so severely and continuously abused. The President deliberately violated that law by eavesdropping in secret. Why don't we know -- a-year-a-half after this lawbreaking was revealed -- whether these eavesdropping powers were abused for improper purposes? Is anyone in Congress investigating that question? Why don't we know the answers to that?

His big point is that Comey intimated that prior to 2004, when the illegal wiretapping program was running unchecked by DOJ, they were wiretapping everybody they wanted -- not just terrorists.

And, furthermore:

How can we possibly permit our government to engage in this behavior, to spy on us in deliberate violation of the laws which we enacted democratically precisely in order to limit how they can spy on us, and to literally commit felonies at will, knowing that they are breaking the law?

But the kicker is the letter in the Washington Post from 60 members of the Harvard law school class of 1982 to Alberto Gonzales:

survey

Please take my blog reader survey!

Democratic Sell Out?

David Sirota has an alarming post up on DKos, vividly outlining the unfolding Trade Deal between the White House and Democratic leaders.

Steven Weisman of the Times reports that the agreements the parties reached "guarantee workers the right to organize, ban child labor and prohibit forced labor in trading-partner countries. It would also require trading partners to enforce environmental laws already on their books."

I'm skeptical. Why would we need an agreement to enforce laws that already exist, unless we really had no intention of ever enforcing them?

I'm also curious as to whether Pelosi and the Democratic leaders believe that the enforcement of international labor standards guaranteeing workers the right to form unions is going to include the United States of America. Is there going to be some international trade body that the United States will submit to judgment over fair labor practices?

Meanwhile, everybody involved in the negotiations is patting themself on the back.

“I think today is a recognition of the results of the November election,” Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference. “It doesn’t mean that this paves the way for trade agreements where we have other obstacles. But where it comes down to labor standards and environment, this is enormous progress.”

As Sirota says, there's so much riding on the terms of this agreement as far as the future direction of trade, but we don't even know the specifics of any of the provisions yet.

we have not yet seen the details of this deal. While the secrecy and this information aggregated in this dispatch certainly raises very serious concerns about what the White House and this handful of Democrats are trying to hide, we have to reserve final judgment on what the deal ultimately means until these players decide to disclose their deliberations to the American public.

Nonetheless, there are very real reasons to be concerned.

I'm skeptical.

On Trade

Robin Toner, in today's NY Times article, talking about the conflict on trade policy:

The main Democratic demand, at the moment, is that new trade agreements require countries to meet international labor standards on issues like child labor and the right of workers to organize, a provision fervently backed by the Democrats’ longtime ally, organized labor. Officials say the latest sticking point is whether such provisions would make labor laws in the United States vulnerable to legal challenge, a concern raised by the administration and its allies, who want some insurance against that possibility.

Don't look to the GOP for any glimmer of fairness on anything. Every speck of decency has to be beaten out of them.

The Wall Street / Chestnut Street Cafe

I read Owen West's editorial today with interest, having seen it highlighted on CSPAN. The "liberal" media prints pro-surge opinion ... huh?

I'm copying the whole thing here, because it's Times Select so you can't go to their website and read it.

It reminded me of Winston Smith in the Chestnut Tree Cafe, waxing nostalgic in his patriotism after having emerged from months of torture, brainwashing, and emotional collapse in the "Ministry of Love."

He's reading some war propaganda in the paper and tears come to his eyes over how the brilliance of Big Brother's martial manouvers is so swift and subtle as to evade the notice--not only of the enemy, East Asia (or is it Eurasia?)-- but of the loyal party members themselves!

For the ultimate in contemporary Orwellian experiences, the New York Times--with subtle and sudden, under-the-radar irony--presents the rationalizations of an American citizen soldier from the Wall Street Cafe:

Op-Ed Contributor
Why Congress Should Embrace the Surge
By OWEN WEST

WHEN the civilian hierarchy fails them, soldiers tend to seek solace in Clausewitz’s observation that war is an extension of politics. But in 2005 and 2006 the reverse was true in Iraq: the battle churned in place, steadily eroding the administration’s credibility and America’s psyche, while most politicians stood on the sidelines, content to hurl insults at one another until the battlefield offered a clear political course.

What was most remarkable, however, was the military’s inability to grab the reins and articulate a realistic war plan for Iraq. At home, recruiting, supply and deployment crises were solved; but in Iraq the generals continued to offer assessments of the fight that were as obviously inaccurate as those trumpeted by the politicians. The goal was to put Iraqi forces in the lead, but as a consequence, large-scale battlefield adaptation was scarce.

Today the civil-military relationship has righted itself, yet soldiers like me who believe that Iraq can be stabilized face a bitter irony. On one hand, the military is finally making meaningful adjustments to the complex fight. On the other, the politicians are finally asserting themselves. The tragedy is that the two groups are going in opposite directions.

Most Americans who have served side by side with Iraqi units, especially those of us who have been advisers to Iraqi companies and battalions, believe that significant numbers of our soldiers will be needed in Iraq for another decade. This timeline is about average for a classic insurgency, and optimistic for one so muddied by tribal feuds and religious hatred.

American soldiers in Iraq are constantly asked about our commitment to a fight we started. Most of the advisers I got to know during my most recent tour, which ended in February, were quick to try to assuage their Iraqi counterparts’ concerns and dismissive of the calls for withdrawal by American politicians, news of which trickled onto the battlefield during the winter. After all, the surge itself would not be fully under way until mid-summer. Surely the politicians would give it a chance to work.

The two Congressional votes last week establishing timelines for withdrawing American troops completely undermined such assurances. The confusion stems from an inherent contradiction in our politics: Though the burden of war is shouldered by few, the majority of Americans want to vacate Iraq, and the percentages are increasing. Something has to give.

We’re four years into a global conflict that will span generations, fighting virulent ideologues obsessed with expansion. It’s time for those who are against the war in Iraq to consider the probable military consequences of withdrawal. But it is also time for supporters of the war to step back and recognize that public opinion in great part dictates our martial options.

It’s hard for a soldier like me to reconcile a political jab like Senator Harry Reid’s “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” when it’s made in front of a banner that reads “Support Our Troops.” But the politician’s job is different from the soldier’s. Mr. Reid’s belief — that the best way to support the troops is by acknowledging defeat and pulling them out of Iraq — is likely shared by a large slice of the population, which gives it legitimacy.

It seems oddly detached, however, from what’s happening on the battlefield. The Iraqi battalion I lived with is stationed outside of Habbaniya, a small city in violent Anbar Province. Together with a fledgling police force and a Marine battalion, these Iraqi troops made Habbaniya a relatively secure place: it has a souk where Iraqi soldiers can shop outside their armored Humvees, public generators that don’t mysteriously explode, children who walk to school on their own. The area became so stable, in fact, that it attracted the attention of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. In late February, the Sunni insurgents blew up the mosque, killing 36.

If American politicians pull the marines out of Anbar, the Iraqi soldiers told me, they too will have to pull back, ceding some zones to protect others. The same is true in the Baghdad neighborhoods where the early stages of the surge have made life livable again.

Then America will be left with a dilemma: we could either vainly try to patrol Iraq’s borders to keep the murderous foreign insurgents out and the swollen ranks of Al Qaeda in, or we could make assaults every six months or so into fallen cities and neighborhoods, like the bloody fight to retake Falluja in 2004. Either way, the cost of quitting will be heavier fighting by American troops.

So how can we reconcile this military reality with the desire by the majority of Americans to reduce troop levels in Iraq? The current surge may provide an excellent opportunity, if we acknowledge two things: Iraq is now a law enforcement war and Iraqi security forces are best suited to fight it.

The surge must be accompanied by a commensurate surge in Iraqi troops. To date, the Iraqis have simply been shifting soldiers from other areas into Baghdad. But these are stop-gap soldiers — as are our own — when what we seek is permanence. The Iraqi government must double the size of its army, to 300,000 combat troops from 150,000 today. The American surge will give them the breathing room to do so, and a deadline by which it must be done.

The idea is that, starting this fall, the Iraqi units would bulk up so the American units could begin to break up, moving to an advisory model in which the number of American soldiers embedded with Iraqi units triples while the overall United States force declines. Today many American patrols operate independently. In a year’s time, ideally, no American patrol would leave its base without a fully integrated Iraqi presence.

Oddly, the Congressional resolutions calling for withdrawal would allow for this continued American advisory presence, somehow not including these troops as “combat forces.” So even those members of Congress who voted for the resolutions could support bulking up the number of Americans assigned to Iraqi units without appearing as hypocrites.

The issue will be the numbers. A meaningful advisory force — both the embedded troops and the support personnel — would likely mean 75,000 Americans still in Iraq in the fall of 2008. This is about half of what we’ll have in place for the surge this summer, but more than the supporters of the resolutions might expect.

It will take political courage for these politicians to agree to the needed advisory forces. But it is the only way the Iraqis themselves will ever be able to make their country secure. And that is the one goal on which all Americans, those who support the war and those who “support the troops,” should be able to agree.

Owen West, a Wall Street trader and major in the Marine Reserves, has served two tours in Iraq.

Trends in Republican Governance

Just ask Bill Clinton.

In a case in which a Democratic candidate was charged with bribery and then acquitted, questions are raised about a national pattern of prosecution of Democrats by US attorneys.

They point to inquiries that drag on for years but end with no charges, an acquittal or convictions for relatively modest infractions.

Not only is it an electoral tactic of the Republicans, but their news outlets have made an industry out of maligning Democrats.