Monday, January 24, 2011

And the award for the most unsurprising news of the week goes to...

...the Turkel Commission! (Applause, presenting of the bouquet, tearful walk down the runway, etc.)

The Turkel Commission, in case you don't recognize the name, is the panel set up by the Israeli government to "investigate" last May's assault by the Israeli military on the Mavi Marmara, one of a flotilla of six ships then attempting to challenge the illegal Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine passengers - eight Turks and one Turkish-American - were killed and several more wounded.

After carefully considering all the Israeli evidence offered by Israeli government officials and Israeli military officials, this Israeli-government-established panel found that the Israeli soldiers (and therefore the Israeli government and the Israeli military) acted entirely lawfully. What's more,
[t]he Israeli investigation also found that Israel's three-year blockade of Gaza, which the ship was trying to broach, does not violate international law.
Put more simply, once again the accused have investigated themselves and declared themselves not guilty.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the inquiry.

"I hope all those who rushed to judgment against Israel and its soldiers will read this report and learn the truth about what happened," Netanyahu said. "The truth is that our soldiers were defending our country — and defending their very lives."
Indeed, the panel asserted that the soldiers' lives had been in danger - even though, somehow, pure coincidence (or God's will) no doubt, it was only passengers who were killed. Moreover, the commission claimed to have looked at 133 individual cases in which soldiers used force, including 16 involving shooting to kill, and found that in every single case the soldiers had "acted professionally in the face of extensive and unanticipated violence." Geez, you'd think they were cops.

The Turkish government, which had earlier released its own findings, rejected the report, as did Israeli Arab Knesset member Haneen Zoabi, who noted that the report is based entirely on the statements of the same people who ordered and carried out the attack.
"The Commission was not granted the power to investigate the detailed circumstances in which nine were killed, which was the primary motivation behind the Turkish and international demand for the establishment of a commission of inquiry."
She said the commission report "lacks any value."
Israeli human rights group Gisha also criticized the Turkel Commission's conclusions.

"No commission of inquiry can authorize the collective punishment of a civilian population by restricting its movement and access, as Israel did in its closure of Gaza," Executive Director Sari Bashi told AOL News. "A primary goal of the restrictions, as declared by Israel, was to paralyze the economy in Gaza and prevent its residents from leading normal lives."
In September, a UN Human Rights Council inquiry charged that the Israeli attack was “clearly unlawful” and "demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence." Now, as I said shortly thereafter,
[a]dmittedly, the Human Rights Council has a somewhat spotted reputation and in some cases, especially as it relates to its member states, a rather tenuous relationship with hard truth.
Even so, the US was the only member of the Council to vote against accepting the report - and, significantly, in doing so, offered no criticism of its contents.

The Human Rights Council report is separate from the four-member investigating committee set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which has yet to issue its own findings.

Footnote: The Gisha site has an interesting little game called "Safe Passage" which points out the legal and bureaucratic means Israel uses to restrict movement between Gaza and the West Bank in pursuit of a policy of "separation," using quotes from Israeli laws, regulations, and court filings. It's an interesting experience.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Passing thought

When was the last time you heard anything about the Park51 project, the one dubbed by the wingers the "Ground Zero mosque?"

It's been a while, hasn't it?

I mean, it was the news story for a while, a matter of vital national importance, all about how those people were mocking 9/11 of sacred memory and how we had to stop them now before Sharia law comes to your town! But as soon as the election was over and it was no longer useful as a boogeyman :poof: it vanished.

As Phil Ochs said "and all the news commentators are saying 'Thank God for coincidence!'"

Now, however, truth be told there is some recent news about the project: A NYC firefighter is suing the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission seeking to overturn its refusal to make a former Burlington Coat Factory warehouse surrounded by fruit stands, convenience stores, and porn shops a "landmark" of such historic or architectural interest as to prevent it from being developed into a Muslim community center.

Or rather, he isn't suing, he's just the front for the far-right wack-a-doodles of the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Pat Robertson (yes, that Pat Robertson), who are paying for the whole thing. If the suit sounds silly, it's because it is. But silly doesn't faze the cretins of the ACLJ, who, unlike for example the ACLU or the National Lawyers Guild, are financially able to need pay no attention to the chances of winning before running to court and so are free to engage in Hail Mary suits such as this one.

So far, it hasn't gone well for them. On Thursday, state Supreme Court justice Paul Feinman rejected a motion for a temporary restraining order blocking any work on the site, a ruling the ACLJ denied was any kind of setback on the grounds that no work was expected imminently anyway, in which case I'm wondering why the outfit doesn't get fined by the judge for filing a patently frivolous motion but never mind. The developers have filed a motion to dismiss the suit; the hearing on that is set for February 22.

The point here is two-fold: One, the only significant (if I can dignify it with that adjective) opposition to the project is what should be and hopefully will quickly prove to be no more than a nuisance suit by a wingnut outfit seeking only to hassle, delay, and harass the developers of the project and to fundraise for itself.

Two, searches on both Google news and Yahoo! news revealed no national media coverage. That is, it is now all but exclusively a local, New York City story. Which is what it should have remained and the fact that it was a local issue before becoming this big national point of contention only to become a local issue again once the election was over is proof of it being a case of what we knew it was all along: the rightwing Big Lie machine trying to stoke and then manipulate fear, hostility, division, and religious bigotry to advance their own sociopathic interests.

Oh, one last thing before anyone reminds me of how we're all supposed to "tone it down." That was toned down.

Totally pointlessly nonpolitical

Really. I mean it. It's completely non-political and isn't even one of my "science is cool" aka geek posts. This is something I hardly ever do - maybe a half-dozen times in the whole time I've been doing this - and I don't even know why I'm posting it other than I just damn well feel like it. Maybe 'cause we've been kinda semi-snowed in (defined as we could get out if we needed or just wanted to but health issues put constraints on how much snow and ice I'm prepared to move when I just don't hafta) and this was a nicer way to think about that. I dunno. It's just something I wanted to pass on.

I came across the video below by chance. It was posted on a Democracy for America discussion board by "Reed in VT," who identifies himself as "Heavy equipment operator for 33 years at highway dept." in Vermont and whose email wasn't listed so I can't even let him know I'm doing this. It is a 13-minute video of him plowing a tree-lined road in Vermont. That's it. Seriously. No tricks, no sudden exciting turn. Just 13 minutes and some seconds of going down a snowy Vermont road. At the end of it, you wonder why you spent that time watching it - but you're not sorry you did. So do.

Damn! The things I miss!

Unlike, I expect, a lot of political bloggers, I don't obsessively consume the news on a daily (even, clearly for some, minute-to-minute) basis. Instead I tend to do a cram session every couple of days. The advantage of this is that when I do post on a story, it's usually matured a bit and I can refer to multiple sources. The disadvantage, and it's a biggie, is that I miss stuff.

This is a prime example, a NY Times story from nearly a week ago I just learned of today. I find what it says revealing and what it doesn't say telling:
The Dimona complex in the Negev desert is famous as the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program, where neat rows of factories make atomic fuel for the arsenal.

Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.
That project was and is developing and releasing the Stuxnet computer worm,
a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.
News about the worm is not new; PC World, CNet, and security expert Bruce Schneier, among others, commented on rumors surrounding it and it's then-supposed targeting of Iran last fall. About.com even had an article claiming to have debunked the whole business.

But now, says the Times,
[t]hough American and Israeli officials refuse to talk publicly about what goes on at Dimona, the operations there, as well as related efforts in the United States, are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program. ...

The project’s political origins can be found in the last months of the Bush administration. In January 2009, The New York Times reported that Mr. Bush authorized a covert program to undermine the electrical and computer systems around Natanz, Iran’s major enrichment center. President Obama, first briefed on the program even before taking office, sped it up, according to officials familiar with the administration’s Iran strategy. So did the Israelis, other officials said.
To quickly sum up this and the rest of the article, the evidence says that the US and Israel were behind the worm - with Mr. Nobel Peace Prize actually accelerating the US side of the effort - and it was indeed aimed at Iran. That is the revealing part.

What is the telling part? The New York Times article is nearly 2800 words long - and in all that space it not only can't find space to raise a single passing question about the assumption that "of course Iran is trying to build nukes and if they did that would be the end of the world," indeed it embraces that assumption. More importantly it also can't find space to mention, just to mention, that what they are describing is the US and Israel jointly committing industrial sabotage against Iran - that is, committing an act of war against a sovereign nation.

That is exactly what this is: an act of war. No arguments, no maybes, no yehbuts. It's an act of war. If you have even the tiniest doubt about that, just imagine what the reaction would be if the situation was reversed and an Iranian-developed worm had caused equivalent damage to a US industrial sector. And our "paper of record" can't even be bothered to so much as breathe a hint of it.

Some time back, I wrote somewhere - I can't find where just now so quoting as best as memory will allow - that "in our relations with other nations, we are suffused with arrogance and consumed with conceit." That we are "the cops of the world" and the rules we impose on others do not apply to us. What's even more telling about the Times' failure to refer to the sabotage as an act of war is that the reporters and editors there are so much a part of that way of thinking, so much involved with what has been called "American exceptionalism," that I frankly think it quite honestly never even occurred to them to look at it that way - and that may be their worst failing of all.

Footnote: Another thing the Times found unworthy of mention was the painfully obvious irony of the worm used to attack Iran's supposed nuclear program for its hypothetical future nuclear weapons being developed at Dimona, the center of Israel's very real nuclear program for its very real nuclear weapons, a program about which the US says nothing. (And yes, I know I used the word "irony" in a technically-incorrect but still popular sense. Go eat a dictionary.)

Another Footnote: On the other hand, something the Times did manage to mention - at the very end and only in passing - is that two Iranian nuclear scientists were killed and a third wounded in separate bomb attacks in 2010. It offered no hint nor diplomats' speculation on golly gee whiz who might be responsible for such a thing, despite adding that
[t]he man widely believed to be responsible for much of Iran’s program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a college professor, has been hidden away by the Iranians, who know he is high on the target list.
Maybe we should put crosshairs on him. Because then if anything happens to him it clearly will have absolutely nothing to do with us, not even indirectly.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Unhappy anniversary, Two

I'm a few days late on this one, but frankly I don't care.

Monday, January 17, was the 20th anniversary of the start of the Gulf War, the supposedly "good" war that expelled Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. And the old hands were there to pat themselves on the back for their own wonderfulness.
Former President George H.W. Bush and top officials from his administration on Thursday remembered the Gulf War as a time in history when the world stood united against a tyrant as well as a "textbook example" of how to go to battle.

Before a crowd of 3,500 people, including Gulf War veterans, Bush and key members of his national security team gathered at Texas A&M University to discuss the 20th anniversary of the conflict, which began on Jan. 17, 1991. ...

Bush said helping to liberate Kuwait and guiding as commander in chief of the U.S.-led coalition troops was one of the great honors of his life. ...

Sheikh Ahmad Humood Jaber Al-Sabah, representing Kuwait's emir who was unable to attend, thanked the former president, his officials, the U.S. and its military forces.

"Believe me, Kuwait and its people will never forget you," he said. "We carry in our hearts what you did for us each and every day."
Who else joined in the orgy of self-congraulation? How about
then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and then-National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft — and H.E. Mohammad Abdullah Abulhasan, Kuwait's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the war....

Their discussion detailed the efforts the U.S. made to try to resolve the situation diplomatically and build a worldwide coalition before deciding that military action was the only solution.
In other words, they lied through their teeth, still stained with blood precisely because of the on-going lies.

So herewith a history lesson, because we are also just a few weeks short of the 20th anniversary of the appearance of the print version of Lotus, which survived a couple of years before running aground on the shoals of printing costs. What follows is the full, unedited text of the lead article of that first issue, offered here for those too young (or too forgetful or too unwilling) to recall the truth.
Amid the intentionally mind-numbing drone of "successful sorties" and "significantly attritted" that so far has tricked many Americans into forgetting their "knowledge" of the Persian Gulf war comes through a prism of strict military censorship and while the pile of body bags remains small enough to see over, it's vital that we fix firmly in our minds a single, salient fact: George Bush wanted this war. From the start. He wanted it so much that he refused to acknowledge any hint of compromise, rejected out of hand any proposal, whether from ally or enemy, for a face-saving solution for Iraq, refused to countenance any settlement other than abject retreat - that is, humiliating defeat - for the "new Hitler."

Of course, he affected the highest moral stance, making grand declarations about refusal to "reward aggression." And indeed, the atrocity-laden invasion of Kuwait should not have been rewarded or even tolerated. But the painful fact remains that when faced with a choice between humiliation and war, nations have historically shown a depressingly consistent preference for the latter. If you don't want war, you have to give the other side a way to back out without appearing to back down. And that's exactly what George Bush refused to do.

George Bush wanted war.

That's why there was the parade of rationales-of-the-week, each of which was intended to strike a responsive, pro-war chord in Americans.

George Bush wanted war.

That's why just two months after they'd been imposed, White House officials were declaring economic sanctions had "failed" and Bush was said to be "out of patience."

George Bush wanted war.

That's why there were the posturing and pronouncements, the deadlines and denunciations, the rejection of anything resembling negotiations and the equation (by Vice-President Quayle) of patience with "appeasement."

George Bush wanted war.

It's not necessary to defend the indefensible invasion of Kuwait to recognize the depth of US hypocrisy on the issue, a level not seen since - well, since the invasion of Panama.

Bush's highly selective concern for human rights was perhaps the most obvious example. He quoted from Amnesty International reports about Iraqi savagery in Kuwait, but where were the quotes from AI's equally well-documented reports about outrages committed by Pakistan, by Saudi Arabia, by South Africa? Where were the international economic sanctions against Turkey for its brutal seizure and occupation of half of Cyprus? Where were the troops to stop Indonesian butchery in East Timor? And what of Syria, the once-and-future "terrorist nation" with which the US comfortably schmoozes now that it's politically expedient?

Then there was, again, the insistent denial of any chance of a settlement. Before war broke out, Iraq showed some flexibility - but every sign of compromise or concession was regarded with contempt when not ignored entirely. For example, Bush first said Secretary of State Baker could meet Iraqi Foreign Minister Aziz "any time before January 15," then scorned Saddam's proposal of January 12 as deceitful. He refused to speak to Saddam directly, which says to an Arab "You're insignificant, unworthy of my time." The US pointedly ignored the release of the hostages and dismissed as irrelevant Iraq's shifts from demanding a Mideast peace conference as part of a settlement to demanding a commitment to such a conference and from saying "no withdrawal" from Kuwait to "no unconditional withdrawal." After the Baker-Aziz meeting on January 9, the Iraqi's evasions on Kuwait were labeled callous intransigence by the White House. But as Roger Fisher, a leading specialist on international negotiations who advised participants in the meetings that lead to the Camp David peace accords, noted, what actually happened is that "for six hours, the Foreign Minister avoided saying Iraq would not give up Kuwait" - clearly an opening worth pursuing. Except that we didn't want to.

But the greatest hypocrisy may be a hidden one, one that goes to the very roots of the war: For years, the US has striven to keep any Arab nation from becoming preeminent in the Middle East, supposedly to maintain "stability" but in fact to preserve American corporate interests and access to cheap oil. So cynical has been our policy that during the Iran-Iraq war we not only secretly armed Iran, we provided military intelligence to Iraq and may have disinformed both sides to keep either from gaining an advantage even as the deaths mounted.

Pentagon strategists want a permanent base in the region, and a long-discussed scenario for the introduction of American forces is a "request for help from an Arab state attacked by another." Which means it's possible that the July meeting in which the US Ambassador to Iraq in effect told Saddam Hussein the US wouldn't care if he attacked Kuwait was the result of neither ignorance nor incompetence but a deliberate ploy to sucker Iraq into invading Kuwait in order to justify exactly what's followed. As Saudi Arabia openly acknowledges it'd be pleased with a large US military presence in the region and Kuwait says it'd welcome such troops on its soil for the indefinite future, such a twisted, immoral plan seems chillingly plausible.

That's particularly true since it's long been obvious that our goal in this crisis is not and never was the "liberation" of Kuwait - or, rather, the return of the emirs to their palaces. It's the destruction of Iraq and the establishment (or re-establishment) of American hegemony in the region, a goal that's become so clear that no one bothers to deny it.

Indeed, Bush admitted as much in his speech announcing the start of the war, when he said we intended to destroy Iraq's army, a plan going far beyond the UN resolutions he claimed as moral basis for US attacks - and thus also far beyond his Congressional authorization. (Health note: Don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to point that out.) And the Boston "Globe" reports that White House strategists are planning for "an indefinite and muscular presence" in the area including a large naval force in the Gulf and keeping newly-granted basing rights.

In short, this war isn't about "human rights" or "resisting aggression" or any of the other claptrap White House zombies incant. It's about what war is always about: power. Power, control, and domination. If justice was really our goal, we'd have reacted to Iraqi aggression by combining economic sanctions and patience with negotiations to address any legitimate grievances Iraq may have - and the issue of a Mideast peace conference would never have arisen because there already would've been one. But justice isn't our goal. Power is. That's why Iraqis die. That's why refugees stream into Jordan with tales of being bombed on the road out. That's why Israelis spend nights in sealed rooms. That's why thousands of body bags wait in Saudi Arabia. That's why the blood flows thicker and the hatred on both sides burns hotter. Power.

Power. That's why George Bush wanted this war. And we damned well better not forget it.
Even now.

Two if you will footnotes to that history. One is: Was it true that our real goal was, as I charged, to destroy Iraq, to, as I said in a personal letter to someone who challenged my argument, bomb it "back into the third world, deep, deep back?" In the next issue of Lotus I wrote:
In the course of our victory, we proved to anyone who could read or hear or see or breathe that we are liars and hypocrites, whose goals in the war had nothing to do with "freeing Kuwait" and everything to do with destroying Iraq. We bombed power plants, water supplies, oil refineries, roads and bridges, telephone lines and switching stations, and more, labeling them "legitimate military targets" because they could "help strengthen the Iraqi military" - a definition under which its difficult to conceive of anything that's not a "legitimate target."
So yes, I think I can say that was the goal. That's particularly true because - and this is the second footnote - of that July (1990) meeting I mentioned. It was between Saddam Hussein and then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie. After being hidden away by the Bush administration for some months, Glaspie emerged to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that those early reports about the meeting, the ones that had her telling Saddam we didn't care about his threats against Kuwait, were false, that instead she had "flummoxed" a "stupid" Saddam into silence with "clear, repeated warnings" against any "belligerent" actions. At one point she tried to cow the Committee by asking, in effect, "Who are you going to believe - me or Saddam Hussein?"

It turned out the answer should have been "Saddam." Her own cable to the State Department reporting on the meeting, released some time later, essentially confirmed the Iraqi version of the meeting and denied hers. She told her superiors that she had emphasized the friendship of the US and Iraq and told Saddam the US "took no position" on Iraq's long-standing and increasingly-hostile border dispute with Kuwait, which is diplomat-speak for "Do what you think necessary; we won't interfere."

Twenty years later, the decision of the court remains the same: George Bush wanted that war.

Unhappy anniversary, One

So today, Friday, is the one-year anniversary of the hideously bad Citizens United decision, the one that allowed over $100 million in "outside" contributions to flow into the 2010 elections on behalf of the most pro-corporate candidates.

When it was first handed down, Glenn Greenwald endorsed the ruling. I went after him on that (and in my own never-humble opinion took his argument apart) in a series of three related posts: one on his claim that the ruling expressed a genuine understanding of free speech, even if the results were unfortunate; one on his claim that "corporate personhood" was not a relevant issue; and one on his demonstrably false claim that such personhood was so much not an issue that the minority never even considered it.

One of the things I argued in that second post was to ask if that because of existing precedent corporations must be regarded as "persons" for the purpose of the First Amendment, where does that end? Where or even how can you draw the line?
Do corporate "persons" have all the other rights of people under the Constitution? If not, how do you pick and choose? By your logic, I don't see how you can. So can a corporation reply to a demand for records by pleading the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? Could a US corporation that's been around for 35 years run for president? How, once you say that corporations have the same rights as individuals, could you say no?
I mention that in particular because of this from DailyFinance.com, appropriately coming right around the anniversary:
For the past 35 years, whenever someone has used the Freedom of Information Act to ask for documents the government obtained as part of a law enforcement investigation, the government has had to assess whether their release would violate a human being's personal privacy. If so, the government had to redact or withhold the documents.

On Wednesday, AT&T tried to convince the Supreme Court that documents violating a corporation's personal privacy should be withheld too. ...

AT&T's core argument was this: Since a corporation is often defined in law -- including a case-relevant one -- as a "person," and "personal" is the adjectival form of "person," then the "personal privacy" exemption to the Freedom of Information Act must apply to corporations too. The argument was persuasive to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled for AT&T.
So even though it involves the FOIA and not the Fifth Amendment, I still say that it's just as I predicted: Business interests are indeed arguing that if corporations are "persons" and so have the right of free speech, they must also have the right of personal privacy. And the 3rd Circuit US Appeals Court agreed with them.
Thankfully, the [Supreme Court] justices' questions were so deeply skeptical of this concept that it's hard to imagine the court agreeing with AT&T when it ultimately decides the case later this year.
Even the reliably pro-corporate John Roberts and Antonin Scalia seemed quite unimpressed with the corporate argument.
The case is a good reminder, however, of just how far our legal system has gone in equating corporations and people. Remember, AT&T won at the appellate court level.
I guarantee this will not be the last such case and the last such argument. I wonder if Glenn Greenwald, who is usually quite good, has considered apologizing for his misguided support.

Monday, January 17, 2011

For Martin Luther King day

He who has done his best for his own time has lived for all times. - Johann Friedrich Von Schiller

Today, Monday, is of course Martin Luther King day. To observe the occasion, I've decided to post a modified version of something I wrote on a previous MLK day which contained a statement of belief linked with various bits and pieces of things I had written (and in some cases posted) earlier.

If you recognize any of what follows from things posted previously, just realize that I have little shame about recycling my stuff if I think it makes the point, which is that instead of another session of grousing and griping, denouncing and decrying, I thought I would try to be positive for once.

Despite that intent, I have to say at the start that even at this distance, even after all these years, I can't watch the video of his famous "I have a dream" speech and even more the end of his last speech, the one he gave the night before he was murdered, without choking up at the memory.

And I'm no softy. I'm no John Boner. I don't get weepy easily or commonly. But the hope, the hope, the hope he embodied and gave to so many, the hope that was drained away drop by bitter drop in the years since as we achieved our "post-racial" society where blacks still are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed and the poverty rate among both blacks and Hispanics is still two and a-half times that of whites and even Harvard professors still need to know to say "Yassuh" and "Nosuh" to white cops, the memory of just how great the hope was at that moment, that brief span of years, that memory can still haunt me and still move me.

Watching the video of his last speech - and I believe this is without the benefit of hindsight, but of course I can't prove that - I can see the weariness in his face. This is a tired man, a man who needs some time away from the arena but who knows he is unlikely to allowed it. And I can hear the resignation in his tone and in his words, the magnificent resignation of his namesake, who, not knowing what the future would hold and even possibly doubting he would have one, still stood before the assembled power of the Catholic Church in 1521 at the Diet of Worms and said "it is neither safe nor honorable to act against conscience" and added, at least according to tradition (although probably not in fact), "Here I stand. I can do no other."

Martin Luther King, Jr. stood in the halls of conscience and could do no other. Unlike his namesake, his resignation, sadly, proved well-founded and we are the lesser for it. But what we are called on to do, still called on to do these decades later, is in the words of a different sort of martyr, "Don't mourn. Organize." To respect the messenger and even more to uphold the message while denying both to the bigots, buffoons, bozos, and bastards of the rabid right who try to reinvent Martin Luther King as Allen West and as well as to the usurpers of history who would mold a preacher of nonviolence into a practitioner of perpetual war.

It's with all that and particularly the last part in mind that I mark the day not by memories or memorials but by again, trying to be positive: offering my own personal credo; not what I'm against but what I'm for. I know that some may find this an inappropriate time to write about what I believe rather than what MLK believed; I hope you understand that my intent is to honor, by embracing, the concept of the dream and the hope that he represented. And I realize what follows may sound pompous; please know that this sort of thing, this sort of sweeping, overarching statement of moral conviction does not come easily to me. I can swing a club of moral condemnation with the best, but I'm not nearly as practiced at "yes" as I am at "no." Be kind.

Anyway. In my very first post here, over seven years ago, I referred to a conversation I'd just had with a friend in which I said
"The truth is, my hope is nearly gone. My anger is the only thing that keeps me going."

So now I have an outlet to express that anger, to discuss what I'm angry about, why I'm angry, and, in my calmer moments, to try to rediscover that hope and offer a different vision of what we as a people, a nation, a culture, might do, might be, might become.
I haven't done as much of that rediscovering as I should, at least not overtly. Still, as I said a long time ago,
[e]ven many professional grouches (like me) are actually unregenerate romantics whose sharp words are honed on the inexplicable, indefensible, yet utterly unshakable conviction that things not only can be but must be better than they are.
Equally to the point, quoting yet another thing I wrote a long time ago and quoting as accurately as I can from memory, "our strongest, surest beliefs are those we don't even know we have until we find them within us." That is, our deepest, most abiding beliefs and commitments are not born consciously of careful philosophical argumentation and reasoned analysis but grow naturally from our root moral and ethical convictions - and they sometimes take us by surprise. That argumentation, those analyses, can give form to those convictions, they can provide them with substance and weight, but they do not drive them - rather, they are driven by them.

So despite my tendency to intellectualization, to try to argue my points rationally with facts and figures and references, still it's important - for me if not for those who may hear or see what I say or write - to drop away on occasion from "here's the data, here's the logic, here's the conclusion" to that fundamental, baseline, radical place, that place where there is no logic, no empirical data, no linear reasoning, that place where I say, I can only say, simply, I believe.

I believe, at root, that life is our highest good and embracing life, growth, and learning is our highest ideal. I believe that whatever advances life, improves life, is an expression of the crystal-glitter quality of being “human,” of that self-awareness, that capacity for love, that reach for hope that separates us from other animals. I believe that which opposes life, which rejects growth, which denies learning, that which advances hunger, oppression, and violence, is a rejection of that quality, a rejection of our humanity. I believe that to be human is to reach for life, for our potential, to reject death and all that advances death, death of the spirit, the if you will soul, as well as death of the body.

I believe in family, a broad, deep sense of family, family as based on commitment, not on ceremonies, as based on ties of the heart, not on ties of the blood. I believe we as human beings, as embracers of life, growth, and learning, are required to reach beyond the personal to the public; beyond self to others; beyond us and them to we; beyond the individual to the community. I believe we have social obligations, moral commitments to a type of extended family that includes even strangers, people who we'll never see, never meet, never have any contact with, but with who we share a mutual obligation, a mutual moral duty, a community that extends even to the community of humanity.

I believe that we must ultimately reject the right of so few to have so much when so many have so little, the power of so few to control so much when so many control so little. I believe in the right of every human being to a decent life free of hunger, fear, and oppression and in the duty of society, of community, of us, to strive to guarantee that right. I believe that while we should have no desire to place a ceiling over anyone’s aspirations, we are called by our shared humanity to put a floor under everyone’s needs.

I believe, ultimately, in justice: not in perfection or idealized utopias, but in simple human justice, a justice that elevates bread over bombs, public good over private greed, and people over profits. A justice that centers on the preciousness of life and will fight to maintain and expand that preciousness. A full justice, one that embraces the economic, the social, and the political. And finally, I believe in the indivisibility of that justice: It must be justice for “them” as well as for “us,” for enemy the same as for friend, or it’s not justice at all but mere favoritism.

I may sound like a philosopher, but the fact is that what I’m interested in is change: not slogans, not philosophies, but getting-the-job-done type change. That means being hard-nosed, practical, and factual in our programs. It was the Italian pacifist Danilo Dolci who said “Faith does not move mountains. Work, exacting work, moves mountains.”

But when I say “practical,” I don’t mean practical in the sense of the trimmers who, lacking even the minimal courage to stand by the label "liberal" instead falsely claim to be "progressives" while lowering their sights, hardening their hearts, darkening their vision, and then congratulating themselves on their “realism.” No, I mean something different. You know the saying “I dream dreams of things that never were and ask ‘Why not?’” What we have to do is dream dreams of things that never were and ask “How?” How? What are the practical steps we can take right now, today? We have to approach the world with steel in our eyes.

But at the same time we can’t let the steel in our eyes cloud the dream in our hearts. We have to hold to the vision of what we as individuals, what we as a community, what we as a people, a nation, can do, what we can be, and not settle, as so many do, for the mere hope that it will get no worse. We have to be, we are called on to be, our humanity requires us to be, steely-eyed dreamers, people who know the hard, factual work to be done but who never for an instant forget just where that work is supposed to take them.

Achieving the sort of wide-ranging justice I envision will not be easy. It will not be cheap. It will not be convenient. But it is possible - and when all is said and done it is simply the right thing, the moral thing, the human thing, to do.

Over the years I've tried to be a steely-eyed dreamer with varying degrees of success; as I said in a different way at the top, usually it was if anything a little long on the steel and a little short on the dream, a position that makes unnecessary compromise a little too easy and risk a little too - well, risky.

I've come to a point in my life when I've begun to slow down; I know it, I can feel it. I haven't spent as much time on the streets as I did in earlier years (nor as much as I'd like to) and my energy level simply isn't what it was. I find it harder to keep my spirits up and many discouraged days I don't regret that I won't live to experience the world I see coming at such times.

But goddam it, despite it all, despite all logic, despite a mountain of evidence, and without any good damn reason, I still believe that things can be, must be, better than they are, that it is possible. I just do. And will. Because - and thank you, Dr. King, for all of it but most of all for the hope - I, too, have a dream. And - although I have come perilously close to doing so on more than one occasion - at the end of the day and to the end of my life I will not give up on it.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Attack of the 50-foot geek

Salud! Skoal! Here's to ya!
The earliest known winery has been uncovered in a cave in the mountains of Armenia.

A vat to press the grapes, fermentation jars and even a cup and drinking bowl dating to about 6,000 years ago were discovered in the cave complex by an international team of researchers.

While older evidence of wine drinking has been found, this is the earliest example of complete wine production, according to Gregory Areshian of the University of California, Los Angeles, co-director of the excavation. ...

According to the archeologists, inside the cave was a shallow basin about 3-feet across that was positioned to drain into a deep vat. ...

They also found grape seeds, remains of pressed grapes and dozens of dried vines. The seeds were from the same type of grapes — Vitis vinifera vinifera — still used to make wine.
This site is in the same area where the oldest known leather shoe, dated to some 5,500 years ago, was found. Maybe now we know why whoever lost the shoe did. (Yes, I know, not really. Geez.)

Footnote to the Footnote

GOPper Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon is obviously up on slogan-speech, saying about the biomass climb-down that EPA had been "close to enforcing new job-killing regulations." Then again, the EPA always seems to get the slogan machine whirring: On Thursday, the agency invoked a rarely-used authority to veto a water permit for West Virginia's largest mountaintop removal mine on the grounds that
Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County would use "destructive and unsustainable" mining practices
that would irreparably damage the environment - including burying seven miles of waterways - and threaten the health of nearby communities. The action comes after a more than a year of urging the company to no avail to come up with a plan to mitigate the environmental impact of the mine and nine months after the veto was first threatened.

In response, Sen. Joe Manchin, one of the Ds and thereby, we are instructed by some to assume, one of the "good guys" of who we need more, called the action ""a shocking display of overreach" and "an unprecedented power grab."
"This is not just an assault on the coal industry. It's an assault on every job market in the U.S. economy," Manchin said. "It might be West Virginia and the coal industry today. It will be your industry tomorrow."
Overreach! Power grab! Job killer! And they're coming to get you!

A nice reminder that in the matter of spewing shit, it's not a case of GOPper versus Dim, it's one of right versus left. And Joe Manchin ain't no lefty.

Has the left spewed some shit? Of course. But if each were Pinocchio, the left would have a branch for a nose while that of the right could supply us with biomass into the next century.

Footnote the preceding, They Still Don't Get It Div.

The term "biomass," while it is actually a more general term, is now most commonly used to refer to plant material which is burned to obtain energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists gives a pretty good rundown on that, although it does tend to gloss over potential real-world environmental impacts rather quickly by repeatedly invoking the phrase "if used properly." Even so, one thing biomass undeniably is, is a renewable energy source: You can always grow most trees or plant more switchgrass, for example.

However, that does not mean, especially if we're going to talk about "if used properly," that this can be regarded as good news:
Under pressure from some members of Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is easing up on regulating global warming pollution from facilities that burn biomass for energy.

The agency said Wednesday it needs more time to figure out whether biomass — including farm waste, sawmill scraps and forest thinnings — is really a green fuel. ....

The EPA said it would issue a new rule July 1 to exclude biomass from regulations requiring large polluters to reduce their heat-trapping pollution for three years. That regulation went into effect earlier this month.
The kicker here is that this came in response to a letter from something over two dozen members of Congress wanting the EPA
to reconsider its position on biomass because it can be carbon neutral if emissions are counted as something that would be released anyway when wood rots.
Say what?

Never mind for the moment a big industrial biomass energy plant, just consider one individual family's wood stove. Note I said stove, not fireplace, and yes I do know whereof I speak: I heated my home with wood as a sole source for several years. During that time, I might go through two to three cords of hardwood a winter. Now, one good-sized tree can provide about a cord of wood, so put another way, I burned through the equivalent of two or three trees each winter. We're supposed to accept that releasing that much carbon in a few months is the same, has the same impact, as releasing that same carbon over the decades it would take those same trees to rot naturally?

We're supposed to accept that, even though release of carbon via wood rotting is part of the natural cycle, the natural equilibrium of carbon release and take-up which the environment established over thousands of years and the very heart of the carbon part of the problem of global warming is the release of carbon faster than the environment can take it up?

Now multiply that by as many times as it takes to gear up to biomass for energy production and the answer comes out as say what?

The intent, apparently, was to
sway some votes for legislation aimed at delaying or blocking global warming efforts.
Yeah, I'm sure the practice of backing up and off will work as well as it has so far. Meanwhile,
Bill Carlson, of the USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance, said the decision was encouraging to businesses that have been uncertain over investing in new biomass plants. It would give time to settle scientific debate over whether biomass helps combat global warming or not, he said.
Oh, yeah, "more study." Yeah, that's what we need. Sure. I got news for you, Bill Carlson, there is no "scientific debate over whether biomass helps combat global warming or not." It can, "if used properly." And giving you a green light to ignore your emissions for three years - I should say, considering how these things usually go, at least three years - and doing without even considering issues of what type of biomass or how it is obtained, processed, and replaced, is not "using it properly."

But - but - but - there's snow!

There's snow! On the ground! In 49 states! Global warming is a lie! Gotcha!

Um, except of course, it isn't.
Last year equaled 2005 as the warmest year on record, government climate experts reported Wednesday. ...

"The warmth this year reinforces the notion that we are seeing climate change," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at the climatic data center. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, he noted. The exception was 1998, which is the third warmest year on record going back to 1880.

Easterling said the data "unequivocally" disproves claims that climate warming ended in 2005.
Those claims themselves were a case of stepping down from the earlier claims that warming ended in 1998. Even so, despite being demonstrably wrong about 1998 and again about 2005, if we don't see yet another "all-time" (i.e., since 1880) record set by say 2012, you can be sure we'll be hearing from the same quarters claims that "global warming ended in 2010." The concept of "long-term trend" just refuses to register with them even when it's this clear:

The "anomaly" is the difference between the temperature and the average of the 20th century as a whole. The 132-month (11-year) running mean is perhaps the most significant line because using an 11-year span smooths out the natural variation in the Sun's irradiance. While recent research offers a hint that the relationship between solar activity and the Earth's climate may be even more complex than was thought, the fact that the 11-year running mean tracks so closely to the five-year running mean indicates rather strongly that the Sun's overall contribution to the global warming being seen now is minor. Which should - but probably won't - be the final nail in the coffin of the nanny-nanny naysayer chant that "it's all the Sun's doing."

(The charts were found at this link at RedGreen&Blue.org.)

Speaking of things that should make other things clear, the report, which came out of NOAA, said it was the 34th consecutive year with worldwide temperatures above the 20th century average and that for the US in particular, while it was only the 23rd warmest year on record, it was also the 14th year in a row with an annual temperature above that long-term average. Just how many years are there in a "not a coincidence?"

One point that struck me was that average ocean temperature was the third warmest on record (average land temp was the highest ever recorded) despite the fact that 2010 was a La Niña year, during which tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures are below normal. Which means if it had been a normal year, the ocean (and therefore the overall average) temperature would have been even higher.

Another point was that 2010 was tied for the warmest year ever despite the fact that it
saw record cold and snow in January and February in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly eastern North America,
and December was unusually cool. This simply emphasizes that, as I have said many times, one cold winter no more disproves global warming than one hot summer proves it. It's that overall trend that matters. At the same time, it's worth reminding ourselves that more severe weather patterns are a prediction of global warming models and that the effects of such warming in one area, particularly the polar regions, can actually cause colder weather somewhere else.

All of which means that
[t]hough you can't make a direct link between Australia's killer floods and climate change, they do hold a warning for the future: Scientists predict such extreme weather events will increase both in intensity and frequency as the planet warms. ...

The flooding follows a spate of severe natural disasters in the past year. While the most deadly was Haiti's earthquake, extreme weather also killed thousands of people across the globe, including a scorching heat wave that choked Russia in the summer and devastating floods that engulfed more than 60,000 square miles (150,000 square kilometers) in Pakistan.

"The Earth is delivering a message to us. And the message is that more extreme weather is becoming the norm rather than the exception," said John Magrath, a climate change researcher at British charity Oxfam.
How can that be? A very simple explanation would start by reminding is that heat is a form of energy. At the air and the oceans warm, more energy is being pumped into weather systems. At the same time, warmer air can hold more moisture.

(Which, parenthetically and in case you're interested in a sidebar but if you're not skip to the next paragraph, is why weather forecasts refer to "relative" humidity. It's a measure of how much moisture is in the air compared to how much it could hold at that temperature, expressed as a percentage. So a relative humidity of 50% means there is half the moisture in the air that there could be at that temperature but how much actual moisture is represented by that figure varies with temperature. Which in turn is why you rarely hear the term in weather forecasts except in the summer: At other times of year, the amount of moisture in the air is generally too low to be of concern. Which in turn in turn is why your nose runs in cold weather: It's your body trying to compensate for the dryness of the air. End of sidebar.)

So with global warming you've got more energetic systems with most available moisture, leading to more severe storms and potential floods. At the same time, that tendency to dump more moisture "here" can leave less moisture available "there," leading to droughts. Alternatively, that pattern could play out in one area, so that instead of a pattern of rain mixed with dry spells you get severe storms punctuating extended droughts.

At the same time,
[s]cientists caution against drawing conclusions about climate change from a single storm, flood, cold snap or heat wave. Natural variability is and will always be a factor when it comes to extreme weather.
Which is absolutely true. Which is why, yet again, you look at the overall pattern, the long-term trend. The more you do that, the more the nanny-nanny naysayers look like either fools or liars. Or, more exactly, they look like fools who are being fooled by being lied to by liars.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Yes, it's you

The other day, I wrote that even if it turns out that the murder and attempted murder carried out by Jared Lee Loughner were not connected to the vicious rhetoric of the right, I would still hold the wingers responsible for the climate in which he acted. My grounds werethat
[t]he very fact that you, yes you, have created a climate where the speculation about Loughner's motives and influences, even if ultimately incorrect, was still entirely reasonable is proof enough.
You might have thought that was a bit of a reach. It was not. The rightwingers know they are responsible for that climate. That's why they were so quick off the mark with their "Not us!" yelps and their "We're the real victims here" routine punctuated by their "You lefties are so mean to us!" sniffling. That's why Our Lady of the North was not retreating, she was reloading, making the around the bend and a mile down the road claim that her critics were guilty of "blood libel," a term cheapened by some to mean merely "a false accusation" but more properly labels something as the most despicable lie imaginable. It was all accuse the accuser (Rule #10) CYA, all posturing.

How can I be sure it was not a reach? Simple: Even some conservatives admit, if indirectly, who is really responsible for that noxious climate. For just one example, a conservative commenter at a blog I read fairly regularly said:
Yes, when I first heard about this, I would not have been surprised to hear it was some nutso teabagger spewing some shit about Ayn Rand while firing into the crowd.
Perhaps more importantly, there was this exchange on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday between host Howie Kurtz and Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle:
SAUNDERS: You know, I've got to tell you, I'm a conservative. When I heard this story, my first thought was, oh, no, it's a right-wing nut with a gun. And I think that these stories about the Tea Party being a ticking time bomb are crap. I find them offensive, but we know that there are extremists.

KURTZ: But you said, oh, no, it's a right-wing nut with a gun, because you feared that then anybody on the right would, by implication, be blamed for this shooting?

SAUNDERS: No. Because I feared it was true. I mean, that was my first thought.
My own first thought in both of those cases was the question neither the commenter nor Saunders was asked: Why? Why was that your first thought? Why was it that the first thing you thought was that this was "some nutso teabagger," "a right-wing nut with a gun?" What is it about today's politics that made "teabagger" and "right-wing" central parts of your first reaction?

I'll tell you why: Because that seemed the reasonable, the natural, conclusion. More than that, it was an expectation, a reaction of "This was going to happen sooner or later, and now it has." The thought that this was a "nustso teabagger with a gun" may have distressed you - but it did not surprise you. And that is precisely the sort of "proof" to which I referred: It was indeed reasonable to speculate that Loughner is a "teabagger with a gun," who, inspired by the words and imagery of that movement's leaders, became convinced of the necessity to accomplish with bullets what ballots had failed to do. That speculation may, again, prove to be completely wrong - but it was entirely reasonable.

So conservatives, rightwingers, the whole lot of you, I'm calling you out. You knew, you knew and you know now of the risk you were running, the atmosphere you were establishing, the lines you were drawing, the physical threats you were creating; you knew then and you continued to do it, you know now and you still continue to do it, to do the same things, to create the same threats, to restate and reinforce the rancid rantings of the right and your only focused concern is to insure that whatever may happen, you do not get blamed for the results.

As I was writing this I came across the news that
Anthony Miller, who was recently re-elected to a second term as chairman of the Arizona Legislative District 20 Republican Party, stepped down from the post hours after the shooting
in Tucson avowedly because of concerns for his own and his family's safety arising from "verbal and online attacks against him" - attacks which came not from the left but from local tea party members in his own district in the Phoenix suburbs, more than 100 miles from Tucson. Even for GOPpers, the threat of violence comes from those even further to their right, not from their left.

So be honest with yourselves, conservatives and rightwingers, assuming that's possible: When you first heard that a Democratic Congresswoman had been shot, isn't it true that you, at least a lot of you, thought with Debra Saunders, "oh, no, it's a right-wing nut with a gun?" Didn't you? Wasn't that your immediate emotional reaction? You may later have pulled back, even grabbed the life preserver tossed by the wingiest of the wingnuts and convinced yourself against evidence that the shooter was a leftist, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about your gut reaction.

And then think about this: If you heard that a Republican member of Congress had been shot, would your first reaction be "oh, no, it's a left-wing nut with a gun?" You know damn well it wouldn't. It would be simple astonishment and "Who how why?" with no instant answer, no instant gut-level guilty party, springing to mind. Again, you may later find some thread of logic to claim the shooter was a leftist, but again that's not what we're talking about.

That difference, right there, tells you everything you need to know about the climate of implied violence in this country's political discourse, who it is directed against, and who is responsible for it. Yes, it's you. And you know it.

Monday, January 10, 2011

The Rules, all of them (so far)

The previous post referred to my list of "rules" for debate - actually for avoiding debate, for arguing rather than debating - deployed by rightwingers. The original list, which is my second-most-linked post, has been expanded a couple of times so I thought what the heck, I'd reprise the whole thing here since it just came up.

As I noted back then, early on the list had a number of forms because it was more an expression of my "varying degrees of annoyance and bemusement" with the tactics wingers used to dodge actual debates, so the whole exercise was a rather light-hearted undertaking. It was the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the attempts by the reactionaries - particularly by Bill O'Reilly, who repeatedly called him "Tiller the baby killer" and asserted that the failure to stop him undermined the very concept of moral judgment - to deny any connection to the murder that was the turning point.
I have had it[, I said]. I have had it with the evasions, the dodges, the schemes and slime that make up winger discussions. ... This is no longer a light-hearted list or a flip recital, but an indictment of deceit and philosophical bankruptcy on the part of a significant part of the American right.
So here it is, the always-subject-to-expansion-or-refinement list of wingnut arguing tactics, as it stands now:

Rule #1: Deny, deny, deny.

Rule #2: Attack, attack, attack.

Rule #3: When facts are undeniable, change the subject. This can be done in various ways, for example:
- Introduce irrelevant details on a tangential point.
- Pluck out from what your opponent said an individual phrase you think you can attack, even if it’s one that was just tossed off quickly, and treat that as if it’s the focus of the entire discussion.
- More subtly, try to tie your opponent up in piles of minutia to the point where everyone, including your opponent, loses track of the thrust of their argument.
- Apply Rule #4.
Whenever possible, insist that your changed subject is the "real" one under discussion.

Rule #4: Issue a lengthy, ranting denunciation of “the left” of the form “What about...,” being sure to include the words “hypocrites” and/or “hypocrisy,” thereby arguing that the left can’t legitimately criticize the right, while by using this tactic insisting that the right can continue to criticize the left. (Note: Where possible, include the phrase “you liberals.”)

Rule #5: Make the particular stand for the whole. Find something offensive or silly some liberal or leftist, somewhere, sometime, said or did and label it as identifying the entire left half of the American political spectrum. Demand that your opponent spend their time denouncing that example rather than discussing the original topic.

Rule #6: Never answer a question. When faced with one, ignore it and respond with a question, preferably on a different point. If possible, the question should be accusatory. (See Rule #4.) If you do not get an answer, repeat the question and loudly demand it be answered while continuing to ignore the original question you were asked. If you do get an answer, ignore it. If necessary, drop the matter without acknowledging having gotten a reply; if possible, repeat the question, insisting it has not been answered, even if it has.

Rule #7: Demand every remotely questionable assertion by your opponent be proved in every conceivable detail, right down to dates, times, and places, complete with signed affidavits. Refer to all factual assertions by your opponents as "just your opinion" even if the demanded level of proof is supplied.

Rule #8: Assert unsourced statistics and facts with great assurance. Reply to requests for proof by saying some version of "You can look it up." You thereby demand that your opponents do the work of proving your argument for you.

Rule #9: Frame the debate in false choices; for example, by responding to a call for withdrawal from Iraq with "Do you want to win or lose in Iraq?"

Rule #10: Accuse the accuser. As appropriate, use "You're being intolerant!" or "You're the real racist!" If something you said is challenged as bigoted or otherwise wrongful, decry the "suppression" of your "free speech."

Rule #11: When a claim of yours has been debunked, continue to use it nonetheless. When it has been debunked so thoroughly and completely that continuing to use it is counterproductive, stop claiming it for a time, perhaps a few months, after which assert it again as if the debunking had never happened.

Rule #12: Whenever faced with the evil resulting from some other winger following or acting on your arguments, accuse those who point out that fact of "politicizing a tragedy." Never, never, never admit any responsibility for the meaning or impact of your own words.

Rule #13: When all else has failed - and even when it hasn't - lie.

Rule #14: Specifically for use on TV: When you fear a contrary point may be raised, shout. If that contrary point is a good one, shout very loudly.

Rule #15: Seize control of the Clock of History. Insist that all events outside the time frame most advantageous to your argument are irrelevant and must not be considered.

Rule #16: You might call this the "Both Sides Now" tactic: If the behavior of some right-winger is undeniably bad such that it can't be explained away, airily dismiss it with "both sides do it." Freely employ false equivalencies such as equating people wearing anti-war t-shirts to a Bush rally with people carrying assault rifles to Obama appearances.

Rule #17 - This could be called the "I'm rubber and you're glue" method: Insist, even in the absence of any foundation, that any criticism of your methods or tactics actually applies to your opponent. For example, if someone notes you're avoiding a debate, insist "You're the one who won't debate!" Faced with examples of right-wingers lying, reply "That fits you lefties to a T!" (This is related to the "You're the real racist!"-type argument cited in Rule #10.)

Something I've mentioned before in posting and updating the rules is that I frankly expect many of us have at some time or another used one or more of these tactics in the course of debate, especially if it got heated. That is not the point of this list. This list is not about tactics used in debate, it is about tactics used by right-wingers to avoid debate. To avoid actual, factual, engagement on issues and to substitute accusation and obfuscation for investigation. It is about deceit. It is about intellectual cowardice. It is about being a bully. It is about being a liar.

It is about being an American rightwinger.

Exploiting a tragedy

Let me specify right at the top that no specific motive has been established in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords beyond the fact that according to witnesses and evidence, the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was consciously targeting Giffords. So the assertion that he was driven to murder by the vicious, hateful rhetoric of the organized right and its minions can't be made without any fear of future contradiction. Maybe Loughner is just, as the attempt is already being made to define (and thus dismiss) him as, a "mentally unstable" kid and his mass murder had nothing to do with the eliminationism that comes so easily to the lips of so many reactionary wingnuts.

But I doubt it.

I mean, maybe it's just a coincidence that Giffords was graphically "in the crosshairs" of the fanatics' grande dame. But I doubt it.

Maybe it's merely a happenstance that this occurred in the wake of advocacy of "Second Amendment remedies" that involved "taking out" elected politicians. But I doubt it.

Maybe there's no connection at all to a whole world of "beat[ing] the other side to a pulp ... chas[ing] them down," of being in Congress being "on enemy lines," of the need for supporters to be "armed and dangerous," the need to "send the socialists [i.e., Democrats] down ... in a river somewhere." But I really, really doubt it.

But I'll tell you who will doubt it: the media, which is incapable of dealing with right-wing insanity except with a "both sides do it" shrug, even if they have to bend over backwards far enough to kiss the back of their own knees to do it. AP, for example, referred sweepingly (and thus indiscriminately) to "the nation's caustic political climate," a "climate" it can't find to be driven by or blamed on anyone or even any side in particular but one that just, well, just is. Then there was Matt Bai's tortured equation of Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map with a comment at Daily Kos as if they were of equal significance, a contention made even more ridiculous by the fact that the comment at DK was that of a Giffords constituent saying because Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi keeping her leadership position in the House Democratic caucus, the Congresswoman is "dead to me," a phrase for which there is no interpretation that involves a threat of violence.

What's more, I will tell you not only who will doubt it, who will vociferously deny it: the right wing. "Of course," you say, and quite rightly, too, because now as always they will simply be invoking Rule #12 of my list of tactics of rightwing arguing:
Rule #12: Whenever faced with the evil resulting from some other winger following or acting on your arguments, accuse those who point out that fact of "politicizing a tragedy." Never, never, never admit any responsibility for the meaning or impact of your own words.
Lamar Alexander, for one example,
defended Sarah Palin Sunday, saying that it is irresponsible for the media to be bringing up her much-discussed image of political targets from the 2010 election in the aftermath of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and others in Arizona.

In an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union," Alexander objected to a question about the crosshairs map from host Candy Crowley, saying she was tying Palin to the tragedy.
"Nothing to do with us!" is the cry. "Can't blame us! No no no! Not fair! Not fair!"

In an unintentionally hilarious example of the same practice on the same point, SarahPAC staffer Rebecca Mansour has claimed the crosshairs on Palin's map had nothing to do with, you know, like, guns 'n' stuff.
"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," she said in an interview with talk radio host Tammy Bruce Saturday. "It was simply crosshairs like you'd see on maps." Bruce suggested that they could, in fact, be seen as "surveyor's symbols."
Sure, they weren't "targeting" those legislators, not even just symbolically or philosophically. They were, um, er, surveying them! Yeah! That's the ticket! No violent imagery at all! Perish the thought! In fact, Mansour went on to claim that "it never occurred to us that anybody would consider it violent." This despite the fact that Palin herself linked to the map on her "don't retreat, reload" tweet and after the election referred to it as her "bullseye" list.

The first part of Rule #12 didn't get neglected, either: Mansour
called any attempts to politicize the Arizona tragedy "repulsive."
I was going to include a few more examples of that claim, that any references to GOPper eliminationism is, as Rule #12 says, "politicizing a tragedy," but there so quickly were so many, all saying the same thing, making the same arguments, often enough in much the same words, that it became too much to spend more time with; the moral vacuousness expressed became intolerable. According to the nutbags and gasbags, pointing out their hate is not, cannot be, cannot be allowed to be, an expression of moral outrage or even just frustration or anger. It can't even be simply labeled misdirected or wrong and the one thing it absolutely must not be allowed to be is the be truth. Rather it is, it must be, it can't be recognized as being other than, the left "exploiting a tragedy," making a move to "leverage a crisis," for political gain. For shame, they cry, for shaaaammme!

Because, you see, the wingnuts and their associated wackos must be free to call those on the left "unAmerican" and "traitors" and "tyrants" and "a cancer" and "a virus" and "an infection" and "rats" and "vermin" - but call them on any of that and it's "You're against free speech" (Rule #10) and "No, you're the violent one" (Rule #17) and if you dare to point to anything clearly, even demonstrably, connected to their hate-filled spewings, then they will, as I said in an earlier such case, "scurry away like cockroaches."
"Oh no no no, I didn't mean that! You can't blame me for that! That has nothing to do with me! Oh no no no!" The sniveling cowards, hiding behind the brutality of others, too low, too craven even to take responsibility for the meaning of their own words.
And so here is it again: They denounce, they declaim, they rant and rave and rail about "tyranny" this and "government take-over" that and they ramble on and on about conspiracies and dark forces and looming threats and "they're going to slaughter you" and "enemies within" and how there are "anti-Americans" in the House of Representatives, but if someone actually listens, someone actually absorbs their vitriol, someone actually acts on their bilge, and does it in a way which is not to their political advantage, that is, in a way which reveals what they are truly about, reveals their soulless lust for power and domination, when they put crosshairs on specific individuals and then someone pulls the trigger, they're all wide-eyed blinking stares and "Who, me?"

Yes. You. And what's more, I have a news flash: Even if it turns out that Loughner's grievance against Giffords was the result of some disjointed, dysfunctional thought process and had nothing to do with rightwing rhetoric, it's still you. Because it has been you. And it will be you. The very fact that you, yes you, have created a climate where the speculation about Loughner's motives and influences, even if ultimately incorrect, was still entirely reasonable is proof enough.

Yes. It's you.

Footnote One: Roy Edroso has a good piece in the Village Voice about the reaction in the rightwing blogosphere to the shooting. Apparently, I underestimated the amount of "No, you're the real" whatever going on: The wingers have convinced themselves, largely on the basis of Loughner having listed The Communist Manifesto among a long list of books he liked, that he is a "committed leftist" - and what's more, some of them darkly hint, it appears that Daily Kos is somehow involved in what now assuredly is a political hit, not a "tragedy" by someone unhinged, once it's claimed the trigger-puller was somewhere to the left of Ben Nelson.

Footnote Two: There is another target for blame, one overlooked by many but not by the sharp, insightful doyens of the mass media: the internet. Yes, of course! Duh! Why didn't we all think of that? Everything is the fault of the internet!
“Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer ended his broadcast with a lament about the power of the Internet in a “dangerous hair-trigger time.”

“We scream and shout, hurl charges without proof. Those on the other side of the argument become not opponents but enemies. Dangerous, inflammatory words are used with no thought of consequence. All is fair if it makes the point,” he said.

“Those with sick and twisted minds hear us too and are sometimes inflamed by what the rest of us often discard as hollow and silly rhetoric. And so violence becomes part of the argument.”
In addition to being a wonderful example of a political form of the passive voice where everyone is equally to blame (and thus no one is to blame), it translates to "If only you'd all shut up and let us decide what's important and what isn't and let us decide the proper limits of the range of debate, everything would be fine."

Well, that might be okay, Mr. Bob, Sir, if it wasn't for your institutional tendency to pander to the right and piss on the left and the crappy job you and you ilk did and still do at one of your central purposes, which is to hold power to account. Do your job and there will be less need for us to do it for you. Not that I expect that to happen.

Saturday, January 08, 2011

We're having a small difference here

So Robert Gibbs, the man whose tantrums about "the professional left"
reminded me of some cliché guy in a bar whining that his wife doesn't understaaand him
(as I put it in August), is leaving as O's press secretary. It is an event whose description serves to offer us another sign of how, as F. Scott Fitzgerald had one of his characters say, the rich "are different from you and me," and how they view us across a divide as they would animals on a safari or, perhaps more accurately, as they would artifacts at an archaeological museum, as something in a vague way, as if by a single biological string, connected to them but not really of them.

What raises this here is Obama's praise for Gibbs as having "had a six-year stretch now where basically he's been going 24/7 with relatively modest pay." The "modest" pay in question, Walter Shapiro reports at PoliticsDaily.com, is $172,000 a year.
That income alone -- leaving out any earnings by his wife -- would put Gibbs in the upper 8 percent of all American families, according to 2009 Census figures[, Shapiro says].
Robert Gibbs is a rich man. Period. His "modest" income undeniably makes him one. Even so, it's an income which, Shapiro sharply notes, "the entire political-insider culture of Washington" regards as "a form of martyrdom." That is, being merely rich instead of filthy rich is some type of virtuous suffering.

Shapiro allows as how Washington, DC is not a cheap place to live, while adding that the reporters Gibbs deals with doubtless make a good deal less than $172,000, but manage to live there as well. Even more to the point, a cost-of-living comparison shows that both Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, are cheaper places to live than Boston, New York City, or San Francisco and that even McLean, perhaps the ritziest DC suburb, is only moderately more expensive than Boston or NYC and no more expensive than SF. So the supposed "martyrdom" of the expense of living in DC fails and in any event does not change the fact that an income higher than 92% of Americans is not modest, "relatively" or otherwise. It makes you rich - even as those around you proclaim your financial humility.

And that is the real point here, because they do not only proclaim that humility, they believe it. It is a reflection of how the rich view the world, their fellow rich, their proper place, and though that our proper place. Shapiro goes on to say that
Obama's sympathetic comments about Gibbs' financial sacrifice illustrate that populism remains an abstraction for the president, despite the persistence of the worst economic downturn since the Depression. In the world of Obama (or Clinton or either Bush), it is par for the course that William Daley, the new White House chief of staff, served as Midwest chairman for JP Morgan Chase between his stints in government. Or that Rahm Emanuel made $16 million as an investment banker during the three years between his departure from the Clinton White House and his 2002 election to the House.
Here, however, Shapiro falls short because this clearly predates Bush I. This is nothing new, not by a long shot. For just one earlier example, there was the occasion around 1975 or so, a time when nominal median annual income, nominal meaning in current, non-inflation adjusted dollars, was around $12,000 a year, when then-Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller (in)famously started an explanation of some tax provision by saying "Consider an average family making $100,000 a year." The clock of history could easily be turned back years, decades, even further, with the same result: The rich are indeed different from you and me.

More recently, in June 1983 there was a move by Congressional Democrats to limit a proposed tax cut to those making less than $50,000 a year. This was a time when nominal median annual income was just over $20,000. Then-President Ronald Reagan said that (and yes, this is a quote) “When they say we can do something for everybody below $50,000 but not above, they’re talking about clobbering an awful lot of people in the middle- and lower-income brackets.” As I remarked at the time, "There it is: Our President regards $50,000" - some two and a-half times the median - "as a low to moderate income."

And he believed it. That's what matters here. Applying the same standard today - two and a-half times the median - would make $125,000 a year a "low to moderate" income. That is the social context, the economic context, that is the worldview, in which Barack Obama can assert - and believe - that an income of $172,000 a year, that being richer than 92% of Americans, is "modest."

Several years ago I was set to editing a introduction a colleague wrote about the use of spectroscopy in astrophysics. He had all the terms down and the definitions correct, but in reading it, I could tell that he still didn't really understand the topic, didn't have a deep grasp of it, a feel for it, with the result that his understanding and so his ability to explain it didn't go beyond the words themselves. It's akin to a chess player who has memorized whole chapters of MCO and knows that this line in the Gruenfeld Defense is better than that line but can't explain why.

In that same sense, that very same sense of being able to say the words without experiencing the meaning, in that very same sense the rich simply do not grasp, not on an emotional, a gut level, not a level of true understanding, what the vast majority of us go through, live through, struggle though, on a daily basis. They simply do not, cannot, make the philosophical connection, cannot cross the experiential divide. They can say the words but they can't feel the meaning, so that's all they are and it doesn't matter if those words are gentle or harsh, supportive or dismissive: They are just words. We, our lives, are and remain, in Shapiro's well-chosen word, abstractions. Some never knew. Some, like Obama, have forgotten. The result is the same:

We are on our own and will be until we make it different.

Footnote: The full F. Scott Fitzgerald quote comes from his 1926 story "The Rich Boy." It reads:
Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft, where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand.
Even modern psychology sees the difference:
Looking for empathy and support? You're more likely to get it from a poor person than you are from a rich one, according to new research published in Psychological Science[ this past fall].

In a series of experiments, the new study found that lower-class people were better at reading emotions on others' faces — one measure of what researchers call empathic accuracy — than people in the upper class. "A lot of what we see is a baseline orientation for the lower class to be more empathetic and the upper class to be less [so]," says Michael Kraus, a co-author of the study and a postdoctoral student at the University of California, San Francisco. ...

An earlier study by the same researchers found that those of lower socioeconomic status were also more helpful and generous, suggesting that it's not just empathic accuracy but empathy itself that may be enhanced by circumstance.
But then again, we already knew that: A while back, my "Quote Unquote," um, quote, was from John Steinbeck: "If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones." He knew. We should. Because it is, apparently, still true.

Friday, January 07, 2011

A bit late but still relevant

Okay, I know you've heard about this but I wanted to throw my two farthings in.

When at least one version of the health insurance bill included a provision allowing for Medicare to pay for "end of life" counseling, the liars, wackos, and wingnuts screeched and spluttered about "death panels." It was ridiculous, of course, a case of the gullible being bamboozled by the snickering scammers, because all the provision did was to allow Medicare to pay for something it hadn't before because such a consultation was not considered "medical."

Never ones to avoid a chance for a one-way "compromise," the Dims dropped the provision from the bill as passed. However, it reappeared in the final regulations for Medicare rate-paying, which came out in late November; the regulation allowed “advance care planning” to be paid under Medicare as part of an “annual wellness visit.” It went into effect January 1.

Three days later, the Obama administration said it was pulling the plug on the rule. Why? According to the New York Times, it was because it
threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.
That is, the provision was withdrawn so the GOPpers (supposedly) couldn't make an issue of it. And I have to ask:

Just how stupid are these people?

What level of imbecility is required to be a White House political advisor? Do they really think this is going to make a difference? Do they really think this is going to diffuse the attack? At all? Do they really think that the best way to deal with loudmouths is to shut up, that the best way to deal with bullshit is to let it stand, that the best way to deal with lies is to essentially validate the claims of the liars?

That's like thinking you'll get rid of the bully by giving him your lunch money. It's like trying to calm someone clinically paranoid by telling them "they really are out to get you." It's like.... Just now stupid are these people?

I will note for the record and then let pass for now that one of my complaints about the health insurance bill was that, contrary to the claims of various supporters and sycophants, energy in the future would not go to "building on it" but to defending it against attack - put another way, it would not be seen as a floor but as a ceiling. That dynamic already seems to be in play.

But again, I will let that pass for now to get back to asking just how stupid are these people? I mean, they're "gearing up" for this big fight to "defend" their health insurance bill against a non-existent threat: Even the GOPpers admit the whole effort is symbolic (repeal won't even get to a vote in the Senate and Obama already pledged to veto it). They're running scared of shadows and starting their big fight by backing up.

And so it seems - yet again - that where they are not evil they are venal, where they are not venal they are moral and intellectual cowards, and where they are not moral and intellectual cowards they are just stupid. We are on our own and it's goddam well way past the time we realized that and started acting like it - and "acting like it" includes disabusing ourselves of the notion that the best way to deal with people who are not on our side is to focus on electing more of them.
 
// I Support The Occupy Movement : banner and script by @jeffcouturer / jeffcouturier.com (v1.2) document.write('
I support the OCCUPY movement
');function occupySwap(whichState){if(whichState==1){document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-blue.png"}else{document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-red.png"}} document.write('');