Your Super Tuesday Horse Race Coverage

At least some of the broadcast networks are providing primary election coverage for Super Tuesday. But come on, guys:


(Click the picture for a larger view.)

I know you MSM types are addicted to your horse race coverage, but that's just mean.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Day of Shame

FOOL
We'll set thee to school to an ant, to teach thee
there's no labouring i' the winter. All that follow
their noses are led by their eyes but blind men; and
there's not a nose among twenty but can smell him
that's stinking.

[King Lear, 2.4, 66-71]

This post consists of three parts, all on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations five years ago about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to skip over any or all of it, as is your wont. Check out Day of Shame for more on this blogswarm. Thanks to VastLeft of Corrente for organizing this, and to Blue Gal for spreading the word.

I. Only a Frenchman Could Doubt Him

Despite a number of glaring problems with it, Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations earned widespread praise in the mainstream media at the time. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy/PR Watch have a book, The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq (Sept. 2006), that offers a superb rundown of the reactions. From chapter three, "Big Impact":

Throughout the Joseph Wilson affair, the White House argued that the yellowcake forgery was only a small element in the portfolio of evidence it presented in its case for war. Its claim about the uranium from Niger, so it argued, was only part of the evidence showing that Iraq had a covert nuclear weapon program, which in turn was only part of the evidence that that Iraq already possessed an arsenal of banned chemical and biological weapons — the "weapons of mass destruction" that were the main reason for going to war. In Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech before the war, he was quite specific. Iraq, he said, possessed "over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people"; "more than 38,ooo liters of botulism toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure"; "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent"; and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents." [1]

Eight days later, Colin Powell addressed the United Nations and laid out the charges in further detail. Powell said his evidence came from multiple, corroborating sources: Iraqi defectors, informants, intercepted radio messages, satellite photographs, and interrogation of detainees seized in Afghanistan and elsewhere since September 11. As he spoke, Powell displayed drawings, photographs, and audiotapes. [2] The speech, unusual in its details and specificity, was almost universally praised the following day by U.S. newspapers and was seen by many as decisive in the public debate over whether to go to war. Gilbert Cranberg, the former editorial-page editor of the Des Moines Register, reviewed editorial comments in forty newspapers following the speech and found "unanimity as to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction... Journalists are supposed to be professional skeptics, but nowhere in the commentary was there a smidgen of skepticism about the quality of Powell's evidence." [3]

• A New York Times editorial called the speech a "sober, factual case," and a separate news article described it as "a nearly encyclopedic catalog that reached further than many expected." [4] An analysis of the speech by Times reporter Michael Gordon stated that "it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington's case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information."

• Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called Powell's speech "powerful and irrefutable." A Washington Post editorial agreed, adding that "It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." [6]

• The Los Angeles times editorialized that Powell had offered "solid evidence" and declared, "The United Nations risks irrelevance unless it promptly sets a date on which it will use military force against Iraq if that nation does not disarm." [7]

• "Mr. Powell eliminated all reasonable doubt," wrote the Washington Times in an editorial, adding, "In the wake of Mr. Powell's presentation, no reasonable person can doubt that Saddam is continuing his longstanding efforts to deceive the international community about his weapons programs." [8]

• "Only the blind could ignore Powell's evidence," wrote the Dallas Morning News editorial page, adding that Powell "did everything but perform cornea transplants on the countries that still claim to see no reason for forcibly disarming Iraq." [9]

• The San Francisco Chronicle called the speech "impressive in its breadth and eloquence." [10]

• The Denver Post said Powel had presented "not just one 'smoking gin' but a battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubts about the threat the Iraqi dictator poses." [11]

• California's San Jose Mercury News said Powell made his case "without resorting to exaggeration, a rhetorical tool he didn't need." [12]

What these editorials and analysis all had in common was their assumption that a major speech by the secretary of state could not possibly have been based on exaggeration or outright fabrications. As the Washington Times put it, the choice was to "concede" Powell's case "or be prepared to call Mr. Powell a liar." [13] No one was prepared to call Colin Powell a liar. Newspapers did not attempt to fact-check his presentation until months after it was delivered. The first notable critique appeared four months later, when U.S. News & World Report wrote about Powell's own incredulous reaction to the first reaction to the first draft of his speech — "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!" [14] A couple of months later, Associated Press reporter Charles J. Hanley went through the speech, point by point, and wrote a devastating 2,500-word critique. [15] It would eventually become known that Powell's speech to the United Nations was riddled with statements that his own staff had flagged as "weak" and/or "not credible," but this fact did not emerge until later, after the United States had already gone to war, and the failure to find weapons in Iraq prompted congressional investigations and public scrutiny. [16]

White House claims about Iraq — and the failure of journalists to question those claims — were reflected in public opinion. Surveyed on July 2003, 70 percent of Americans said they believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war began. This belief died slowly. In January 2005, 54 percent still believed it — even though the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. team charged with looking for WMDs, had by then completed its final report, in which it declared that it had found no evidence of weapons or even of significant weapons programs. [17]

"Know" Means "Know"

The Bush administration did not merely say it suspected that Iraq had weapons. It claimed to know for certain, and even to know where they were located. "We do know, with absolute certainty," said Dick Cheney, that Saddam Hussein "is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." [18] In Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations, he said, "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." [19] President Bush made the same claim in his televised address to the nation announcing the start of war: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." [20]

The claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was not just a component of the administration's case for war. It was its main argument...

(I haven't included the footnote information here, for readability. Contact me if you want/need any of the source details. Or buy the book!)

All these editorials and articles pale in comparison, though, to the hyperbole of Fox News and their pals, and several other pundits at supposedly "serious" outlets. Many pundits were positively falling over themselves to praise Powell or otherwise prove their manhood by proxy, urging for war, excoriating those damned skeptics. Perhaps the nadir was Richard Cohen, the day after Powell's presentation (emphasis added):

This is where Colin Powell brought us all yesterday. The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.

II. Powell's Culpability

It's worth remembering the situation Powell was in. Cheney and Rumsfeld were waging an all-out assault on Powell and the State Department for ideological, bureaucratic, and ferociously personal reasons. Bush allowed this to happen. See this Hilzoy post for more on the deep dysfunction of Bush's White House, and Powell's acceptance of the same. Powell was probably the most realistic and wise of the major players in the Bush administration, and he was indeed sidelined and marginalized, but he was far from blameless.

Powell's also since tried to rewrite his role. At the Aspen Ideas Festival last year, Powell claimed that he spent 2.5 hours "vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq." That directly contradicts his interviews with Bob Woodward, ABC, and other outlets, not to mention his interviews with Karen DeYoung for her book on him. In an extended excerpt for The Washington Post, DeYoung wrote,

In fact, Powell had never advised against the Iraq invasion, although he had warned Bush of the difficulties and counseled patience. He had no reason to resign over Iraq, he told questioners.

The entire article is well worth reading (and DeYoung discussed it with readers here). Even giving some semantic license to Powell, in all previous accounts (at least that I've seen), he emphasized how brief his conversation with Bush on the subject was: "You break it, you bought it," and so on.

There's far, far more. The blog A Tiny Revolution has closely followed Powell's claims over the past few years, and compared his public statements with what's since been discovered about what he knew and when. Jonathan Schwarz has kindly summarized and compiled that past work in "Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago Today, And What He Told The World." Do check it out.

It's important to note that not everyone got it wrong, either on the war, or reading Powell. The previously linked Glenn Greenwald post on Richard Cohen's blather also features Howard Dean's sober and on-target response to Powell and the Bush administration's case to war. Greenwald tackled similar issues in "Why is being right or wrong on Iraq so irrelevant?" There are many, many blog posts on the pundit hawks, why they were so wrong and why they too are culpable, but Harold Meyerson's "Their War, Too" is a nice overview.


III. Excessively Florid Personal Reflections Brimming O'er With Righteous Indignation

To my eyes, early on it was apparent that the Bush administration wanted to go to war. That alone was reason not to trust them. The simple truth that war should be avoided if at all possible, that it is a measure of last resort at best, was another, related reason. Bush offered reasons for going to war that made no sense, and did so in a highly misleading manner, such as saying that Hussein gassed his own people. That occurred back in the late 80s, before the "first Gulf War," when Hussein was our ally and before Rumsfeld (as famously photographed) met him to assure him he could count on American support. Why, if Bush's case was so good, and his cause so just, was he being so deceptive? The Bush administration and their allies practiced a "throw everything out and see what sticks" approach that was highly unconvincing and suspect. Throughout Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, I kept asking, "Where's the evidence?" It'd didn't add up, and his tone and approach were cause for great concern. He appeared eager for a fight. Alarmist rhetoric should always be distrusted. War-mongering should always be distrusted. Salivating over violence should always be distrusted. Why was Iraq suddenly such a grave threat, seemingly out of nowhere? If what Cheney was saying was true, why the hell hadn't we heard about it earlier, and for years previously? Even if Iraq actually had WMD, was it necessarily an imminent threat? And even if Iraq actually had WMD, somehow wasn't contained and was a serious, imminent threat, why would weapons inspections not work? Why was an Authorization of Military Force possibly necessary before such inspections? Why the hell would anyone trust Bush or the other saber-rattlers?

I mention all this because I wasn't blogging at the time, although I had plenty of conversations about it, and I've been plotting a series of posts on war I expect to complete before the year is out. But to my eyes, it was clear Bush wanted war and was offering shoddy justification. To my alarm, the majority of pundits and politicians didn't seem bothered by this.

I also mention this because I remember Colin Powell's presentation. I remember I felt some relief he was going to deliver one, because at the time I trusted Powell, at least much more than other members of the Bush administration. I listened to his presentation willing to be convinced. Part of me might have even wanted to be convinced, because it seemed clear to me even before Bush's 2002 SOTU that we were likely to go to war with Iraq, and that troubling prospect was a bit more palatable if it was actually necessary. It is more comfortable to believe that our leaders can be trusted with such matters. It's a classic cognitive dissonance. It's a reasonable assumption — or at least, an understandable assumption — that surely the Vice President of the United States wouldn't lie about something so serious. Surely Secretary of State and former general Colin Powell, who understood the costs of war, wouldn't lie when lives hung in the balance.

The thing is… I wasn't convinced. I have friends, and know of plenty of public figures, who were convinced by Powell, or at least trusted him, the person, the figure, the soldier. My response to the United Nations was, "That's it? That's all there is?" and dismay. A few aerial photos of buildings and trucks, which could have been anything? Ambiguous intercepted conversations? I remember talking over it with a few people at the time who felt the same. It wasn't a pleasant feeling, knowing we were almost certainly going to war based on flimsy reasons.

Powell was used, and consented to be used, to sell the American public on the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, even though the Bush administration knew there was plenty of reason to doubt that was the case. Powell could have and should have refused to play along, or resigned, but he put personal loyalty and his own job prospects above his duty to the American people.

For all that, war still could have been averted. Even with the majority of power players claiming or thinking WMD existed, Bush could have let the weapons inspectors do their job. But that was never part of the plan for Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. Congress could have refused to go along with the AUMF or enacted any of several amendments to restrain Bush. They didn't. Powell alone doesn't let them off the hook, either.

Perhaps I should keep all this for my later series, but basically, I don't think opposing the invasion of Iraq required any special knowledge or insight. Regardless of the intelligence, even if WMD existed, weapons inspections could have worked. The only two things necessary to oppose invading Iraq was a decent bullshit detector and the simple, easily-obtained wisdom that war is hell and is to be avoided at all costs. Those that went along with the Bush line had too high a tolerance for bullshit, even on the most grave matters, and too low a threshold for supporting war, arguably the most consequential issue there is.

That's not to mention an apathetic or cowardly failure by the press to call Bush on obvious lies, as he tried to rewrite essential history mere months after the fact. And such atrocious mendacity (or rank incompetence) continues.

All of this is why, while I'm generally opposed to violence (except for comedic violence, or hitting my head against the wall), that opposition is sorely tested when I read the whining of still unrepentant hawks such as Michael O'Hanlon. He's expertly eviscerated here by Brad at Sadly, No!

I'm very sick of hearing hawks argue that if they were wrong, they were wrong for the right reasons, and those of us of who were right were right for the wrong reasons. Bullshit. I understand being a clueless imbecile brings with it the reflexive need to protect one's self with plenty of self-aggrandizing, ego-fluffing bullshit, but really, enough is enough. Hacks pretending to be wonks tend to be terribly prickly, but besides that, the whole deal of not saying "I told you so," to someone like O'Hanlon comes with an expectation. That expectation is that a halfway decent human being of average intelligence, who actually possessed the good will he claims to have had, would note his colossal error, not to mention the clusterfuck that is Iraq, bemoan the terrible devastation and loss of human life, feel horrible, and learn from it. O'Hanlon, and more "liberal" hawks than I care to mention, haven't fulfilled their side of that gentleman's agreement. (Decide for yourself whether the right-wing hawks who are still triumphantly unrepentant are better or worse, or merely deserving of a different circle in Dante's Inferno.) Who was right and who was wrong isn't quite as important if the folks who were wrong actually learn. When they don't (or perhaps even if they do), they shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions anymore. If they feel insulted, it's because they should be insulted, and insulted often, because their willful obtuseness is itself insulting, and dangerous. As Brad puts it:

The people responsible for pushing our country into its largest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam are well deserving of contempt. If anything, I wish Barack would show more public contempt for these clowns. If he were to, say, propose locking Ken Pollack up in stocks and providing his fellow citizens with an unlimited supply of vegetables, I bet he’d win in a damn landslide.

Let me spell it out, using O'Hanlon as an example. Had he been wise, he never would have held the views he did in the first place. Had he any intellectual integrity, he would have acknowledged his colossal error long ago. Had he any empathy, he would have had many sleepless nights, thinking of all those people dead, displaced or otherwise made miserable by his policies and positions. Had he any shame, he'd have left the public stage long ago, or at least shut up about how he's being picked on for getting such a clear moral issue as a war of choice so monumentally wrong (more on this in a later post). Sometimes it takes an awfully expensive education to make a man such a fucking moron. But I guarantee most Iraqi civilians, even before the invasion, wouldn't make O'Hanlon's mistake, not with the memory of the devastating Iran-Iraq war so fresh. I'm pretty sure more than a few junior high school students who have never experienced war directly wouldn't make the same mistake, either. The problem with O'Hanlon is, he'll keep on going, because he feels his reputation is at stake, which depends on him having been right, not on actually being right. It's nothing more than vanity, but more people could die as a result.

There's a famous conflict I'm sure Powell, O'Hanlon, Cohen and all the rest have studied to some extent. It's called World War I, but in its day, it was the Great War, and the War to End All Wars. Sadly, it wasn't the last. But one of the most striking aspects of WWI is that all the major nations fighting in it were eager to go to war. They had no idea what they were in for, and ignored the potential lessons of the American Civil War. They could have avoided the war, which was absolutely horrific. Invading Iraq was likewise completely avoidable, if only the will and wisdom were there.

The key, dire lesson of Colin Powell's day of shame is that more such days are bound to come, and they must be watched for and prevented if at all possible. Powell's always presented himself as the good soldier, the loyal Kent to Bush's Lear, but in truth, he and all the others are but rank knaves, and there's not a nose among twenty that will say, that's him that's stinking.

Powell's day of shame is ours, too, if we forget its lesson, or do anything less than fight to prevent another. Part of that fight is telling the truth, and hanging the albatross of unnecessary war around the neck of all such vain wretches as Powell, O'Hanlon, Cohen, Kristol and the rest. Let them be cautionary tales. Let the stench of their crime be apparent, and shock the senses of all they meet 'til it shocks their own consciences awake. The greatest trick for avoiding tragedy is never to mistake such villains for heroes.


A Doré engraving for The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.)

(Hey, I said it was excessively florid...)

(Update: I've corrected some typos and edited very slightly for clarity. A late night.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

An Unchallenged Lie that Still Drives Me Up the Wall

I've mentioned this one before, but for my "Day of Shame," post I wanted to reference it, and it deserves its own post. The best write-up I've seen is from The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. They've written a number of good books, and you can see some of their other work at the website for the Center for Media and Democracy/PR Watch.

From chapter five, "Rewriting History":

In November 2005, President Bush chose Veteran's Day to lash out at "Democrats and anti-war critics" who "are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war." It was deeply irresponsible," Bush said, "to rewrite the history of how that war began." [1]

The Bush administration itself, however, has tried repeatedly to rewrite the history of the war. In July 2003, when his popularity was still high, Bush explained the justification for war as follows, during a photo opportunity with United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan. "The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." [2]

This was as clear a case of falsehood as can be imagined. Weapons inspectors were not allowed to operate in Iraq during a four-year period beginning in 1999, but contrary to Bush's claim, Saddam Hussein did allow the weapons inspectors to return in 2002, and they were only withdrawn for their own safety when Bush decided to bypass them and the United Nations Security Council and proceed with his invasion of Iraq. Yet Bush's falsehood barely revealed a peep of criticism at the time from the U.S. news media, still seemingly hypnotized by Bush's popularity. His statement was ignored altogether by the New York Times. The Washington Post noted the discrepancy between Bush's words and reality in the most polite terms possible, stating merely that "the president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush has opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective." [3]

Since then, the administration's rhetoric about Iraq has shifted further, and the changes have taken it in directions that undermine its original case for war. During the initial buildup to war, the main arguments were:

• We know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
• Saddam Hussein is allied with Al Qaeda.
• The people will welcome American troops as liberators, so the war will be a "cakewalk" and the postinvasion occupation will be brief.

Those arguments have now shifted to the following:

• We were wrong about our intelligence assessments, but so was everyone else.
• We can't leave now, or the terrorists will win.
• If we leave now, all the lives and money we've spent will have been wasted.

Each of these arguments is also deceptive, but before considering the specifics of how they are misleading, it is worth noting that each of the current arguments is a pale and unconvincing version of the original case for war. The Bush administration has been forced to fall back on these weaker arguments because it has no choice. Reality is sinking in, even at the top levels of government.

Let's look at each of the Bush administration's current arguments in turn...

(I'll provide the footnote info if anyone wants a specific source.)

"Reality is sinking in" was probably premature, but by September 2006 when this book came out, a little more reality had at least entered the public debate, even if it eluded the White House.

I remember hearing Bush spout this lie, and it going unchallenged. Within four months of the invasion, Bush lied, making the outrageous claim that America only invaded Iraq because we were forced to, because Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors. Despite these events being in recent memory, with no historical research necessary, despite these events being central to the entire invasion and war, Bush said this, having the arrogance to think he could get away with it. And he was right. I felt incredibly frustrated, and disgusted with the media. If they couldn't even get simple factual matters right, even after they'd occurred in plain sight, what hope was there? If they couldn't challenge the president on a bald, self-absolving lie, how could they be trusted? Of course, at this point, with the horrible media conduct leading up the war, far more grievous, I wasn't truly surprised. My frustration was more along the lines of, "You can't even contest this, get this one right?" Gullible and eager for war though many in the press were, many actually believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, whereas here was something they absolutely knew, firsthand, was false. It was yet another sign to me not only that the media as a whole were lapdogs unwilling to challenge Bush, but that the media as a whole really didn't give a damn that the war had been waged under false pretenses. Whether one agreed with invading Iraq or not, Bush had consistently bullshitted, and the media just didn't feel that was important because far too many of them either agreed with the policy or were frightened to question it for fear of being smeared as unpatriotic. These were world-changing events, with serious, often dire consequences for real people, but you'd never have known it from how casually Bush rewrote history and the press played dutiful stenographer. In the case of Bush's lie about the weapons inspectors, obviously reporters knew it was a lie, but they either felt it was unimportant or just didn't care. Between Bush and the media, I'd still say Bush has more contempt for the American people, but boy, it's a close one.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

California Ballot Propositions, Feb. 2008

If you live in California, there's a number of statewide ballot propositions (and some areas such as Los Angeles have additional local propositions). If you're like me, you've been deluged by ads and mailers, some of them claiming X is lying while others claim Y is lying. If you're like me, you're also down to the wire for reading up on all of these. You may feel comfortable going to your polling place with one of those "here's how to vote" mailers from a group you trust. Otherwise, here's a few sites that might help.

The California Secretary of State website provides information on the propositions and voter guides for download, if you didn't get one in the mail or can't find yours.

The Los Angeles Times breaks down who's backing and who's opposing each ballot measure.

L.A.-based NPR show Which Way, L.A.? features discussions for and against various propositions over the past few weeks, if you scroll through the shows.

Progressive site Calitics features some posts on various propositions.

I hope that's of some help! Now I'm off to read...

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Blogroll Amnesty Day 2008

The scene was terrible, as a giant strode the landscape, leaving devastation and chaos in his wake. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!

This weekend has witnessed a blogswarm in honor of Blogroll Amnesty Day. It's dedicated to the idea of linking and promoting the fine work of bloggers who aren't gigantic mutant lizards breathing nuclear flame the usual "A-listers," and may be off one's radar. Jon Swift has a good write-up about the original Blogroll Amnesty Day and the response. His piece also compiles and links the posts of participating bloggers. Co-sponsor Skippy also has a great post for the occasion, and has been similarly linking participating bloggers. The indefatigable Blue Gal naturally has an entry, and thanks to her for spreading the word.

Personally, I'm rather fond of gigantic mutant lizards, as well as the work of many "A-list" bloggers. But there are times I read posts that seem surprisingly dismissive of bloggers who aren't as prominent, and who aren't necessarily blogging as their primary job, for greater influence with a given political party or for media gigs (luckily, the blogosphere also allows for dissections of such posts and more measured followups by their authors). Those are all valid reasons for blogging, and sincere kudos to those bloggers who can make a living doing it, but of course, the vast majority don't.

I wouldn't think writing about why people blog would be necessary, but I'm also surprised when people don't see the point of supporting the arts, or when friggin' professors don't understand the value of teaching literature. I understand why some bloggers are loathe to write about blogging itself, but given the mainstream media's still frequent dismissal of even prominent bloggers and their fact-checking, sometimes it's sorta necessary. ("Why the hell are you spending all that time blogging" is also a question many bloggers with families or the similarly over-committed may face fairly often, from others or ourselves!) Every blogger can speak for him or herself, and there's certainly not one way to blog — where would be the fun in that? But in my experience, I'd say blogging is about personal expression, about community, about an exchange of ideas, and giving more people a voice. Political blogging specifically is a way of more directly engaging in democracy, giving vent to justified frustrations and engaging in positive activism. Jane Hamsher put it nicely when she wrote:

During the '90s, railing at the TV set was the isometric sport of the silent majority... That isolation ended with the advent of the progressive blogosphere, which acts as a virtual water cooler for those who not only want to rail at the TV set, they want the TV set to listen.

As to the value of linking smaller blogs from those vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers of the left, I would hope that, given that "democracy" thing, explaining such linkage isn't necessary, but Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has a nice summary (via Skippy).

In any case, thanks to Jon Swift and Skippy, thanks to Blue Gal, and thanks to all those who make a habit of linking less trafficked blogs (such as Melissa McEwan and her thrice-weekly blogwhoring links and threads). Thanks especially to Mike Finnigan of Mike's Blog Roundup at John Amato's Crooks and Liars, where they do indeed celebrate Blogroll Amnesty Day the year 'round.

Finally, here's a set of blogs I'm highlighting for Blogroll Amnesty Day. While VS is rather low on the totem pole (and I suppose I should release sitemeter data to tracking sites), I get to fudge on the "less-trafficked blogs" thing thanks to BH. (Ha! Just try and stop me!)

House of the Rising Sons: Fade has a nice habit of highlighting other people's work, and has gone all poetic for this Blogroll Amnesty Day.

Ice Station Tango: It's hard to keep up with all the places Station Agent blogs, but head down to the chilly south to see Tom Cruise acting creepy and Bush acting even creepier. (Funnily enough, VS and BH got a shout-out for this event over there I just saw now. Thanks!)

Suzi Riot... Rants from the Left: Some days Suzi riots, and other days she just dissects the BS. (Okay, now I'm getting embarrassed, since she kindly linked VS in her B.A.D. post. I swear, I didn't plan this!)

Sugar Land is Dreaming could use a little love, and spending five hours on Arabic homework certainly does make the world a better place.

Cheyanne's Campsite: When not discussing Deer Hunting with Jesus, Chayanne considers the quality of all those jobs mentions by politicians.

The Non Sequitur provides "A Logical Analysis of Political Media." Run by two philosophy professors who sure know their informal logical fallacies, it makes for a fun and educational read. Check out "The Goldberg Variation."

The Nefarious Lair of LGPPP, Inc. (Lesbian Gangs Packing Pink Pistols): "An Organization Bent on World Domination," and doing it in style. To paraphrase Kent Brockman, I, for one, welcome our new lesbian overlords.

There are too many good blogs out there, and too little time to read them all, but I promise to do a better job this year reading, linking, learning, and spreadin' the luv. So more to come. Happy blogging!


(Cool pic courtesy of Skippy.)


(Another cool pic, courtesy of Zen Comix.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald, for more link luv, natch.)

Giants Slay Goliath

What a game! The Super Bowl is often a blowout and anti-climatic, but not this one!

First of all, while I'm not a Patriots fan (nothing will turn you off a team like knowing a really obnoxious fan), credit to them for an undefeated regular season, the highest scoring offense in NFL history, the most touchdown passes in history, and the most touchdown catches by a receiver in history. None of that's anything to sneeze at. (By the way, I do root for the Red Sox, mainly because as a Cubs fan I could always commiserate, and unless you're actually from the New York area and entitled, ya gotta root against the Yankees, especially give the ridiculous lack of a salary cap. I also had a pet theory before the two recent Red Sox championships that if the Cubs and Red Sox ever met in the World Series, a black hole would erupt and engulf the entire universe.)

The Patriots' dominance makes the Giants victory all the more impressive. The offensive line is always the most important-but-overlooked aspect of a successful team, and the Pats' O-line has been superb for the past several years. The Giants defense, though, was amazing. Back to back sacks on key downs and consistent pressure kept the game close throughout and the Giants in the game.

But none of that would have mattered without a phenomenal performance when it counted by Eli Manning and the Giants offense. The basketball-leap reception by David Tyree in the 4th was spectacular and a game-saver.

(And boy, did Belichick look pissed at the end!)

I'm not normally a fan of the Giants either (I'm for the Packers, and in the NFL East, the Redskins), but I said I'd forgive the Giants for beating the Packers if they beat the Pats, so all is forgiven. Deciding to play all the Giants starters against the Patriots in the last game of the season, a meaningless game for playoff positioning, was a risky decision for Giants coach Tom Coughlin. Had a starter received a major injury, he would have been severely criticized. But although the Giants lost, they played very well and measured themselves against the most dominant team in the league. It energized the Giants going into the playoffs, and they played superbly. If I remember correctly, three wild card teams from the AFC have reached the Super Bowl and won (Raiders, Broncos and Patriots), but the Giants are the first from the NFC, where generally the top seeds advance. Earlier this season alone, there was chatter that Eli Manning might not have the presence and speedy decision-making to be a franchise quarterback, let alone a NFL champion. Boy, has he arrived. While he can continue to refine his physical game, his mental game can't get much better. He has no reason to doubt himself ever again for the long haul. Bravo.

Two more thoughts. First, every year there's a warehouse full of merchandise made up for the team that winds up losing, because the NFL wants to hock their wares and can't take chances. That's why they have those championship hats ready at the awarding of the Vince Lombardi trophy. I've always thought it would be cool to get one of the hats for a losing team before they were destroyed, like say, the hat for the "world champion Atlantic Falcons." (It'd be rude to wear in Atlanta, but pretty damn funny elsewhere.)

Second, I get annoyed when folks, let alone the NFL Commisioner, talk about the Giants' "third championship." It's their third Super Bowl win, and the game wasn't even called that yet before the merger, back when the Packers won the first two "AFL-NFL World Championship Games" and the NFL Championship (including the fabled Ice Bowl) was the real game of note. The Packers have three Super Bowl victories, but they have twelve championships. Similarly, the Giants have three Super Bowl victories, but seven total championships. Yes, it's a much larger league now and the game has grown very different, but respect for history is a good thing.

Speaking of history, congratulations again to the Patriots for their impressive run, but even greater congratulations to the champion Giants!


(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Civil Rights Watch 2/3/08

There are two videos you really should see if you've missed them.

The brief video below is Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) explaining the real life ramifications of the surveillance policies the Bush administration and their allies want:



This comes courtesy of Glenn Greenwald, who has more here, and who often writes on these issues.

The second video is pretty disturbing, of a woman being strip-searched after a call to the police for help:



See The Raw Story for more (via Crooks and Liars and The Existentialist Cowboy).

Sadly, this isn't "unbelievable," although it is disturbing. There are good cops out there, but among cops and similarly-empowered people, they have always been plenty of bullies and thugs, too. This is about bullying and an abuse of power to put a woman who challenged a cop over a trivial matter in her place. Her husband relates that his wife said she felt raped without penetration. Rape is its own horrible crime, but the dynamics here are strikingly similar. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power, and here, it's not about due process or any reasonable suspicion, it's about power. The cops violated their own protocols, knowingly, since male cops shouldn't be stripping a woman. That's not to mention leaving her naked in a cell for six hours, denying her medical treatment or a phone call.

Hope Steffey deserved far better treatment, and deserves praise for the courage to get this story out. One account says there's still more video, too. There needs to be a full investigation, but let's be honest, it's not as if the conduct shown on the video is remotely excusable. I have very little doubt that the sheriff is lying through his teeth, and I hope this lawsuit leads to a loss of job, assets and reputation. These are cops, and of course they know better. Hope Steffey was reported as the victim in the call. The treatment she received was abusive and unconscionable.

We've covered these general issues many times before. (Here's the BH categories for FISA, civil rights and human rights, and the VS categories for surveillance , civil rights and human rights.)

Recent history alone provides ample examples of an important truth: surveillance power will always be abused eventually. The power to detain and imprison at will shall always be abused eventually. Unchecked power is always abused eventually. And even supposedly "checked" power can be, and is, abused.

Warrantless surveillance and police misconduct do have different aspects, but they share a common thread. It's a thread found in illegally holding onto surveillance records, eliminating habeas corpus, torturing people, and many other civil and human rights violations. It's a thread also found in retribution against whistleblowers and truth-tellers, and other vicious politics and vengeful management. It's a common thread of authoritarianism, where justice is not pursued according to due process and the rule of law, and where what's right and wrong is not decided by more objective standards of morality, but by who's in power. Torture is always wrong, even if Bush says differently. It's not wrong when perpetrated by the "bad guys" and right when perpetrated by the "good guys." In fact, torturing someone pretty much proves you're no longer one of the "good guys." The same is true of any misconduct or abuse or power.

I don't want to distract from FISA issues or the horrible treatment of Hope Steffey, which both deserve continued attention, but it's also important to see how they fit into the larger picture. They stem from the same general mentality, one that is both extremely dangerous and far too prevalent. People in power often get indignant that their virtue and judgment are questioned, regardless of the mountain of evidence proving its necessity (not to mention common sense). "Trust us," is never a sufficient explanation, and bullying bluster alone is reason not to trust someone in power. People in power must always be challenged. Bullies must always be challenged. The burden of proof lies with the people in the first group to show that they're not also part of the second group, not with the public, when these question arise. The founding fathers certainly felt the same way, as evident in our Constitution, most of all in the Bill of Rights. There's a good reason Thomas Jefferson said, "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Super Bowl 2008!

As I did last year, I've got some videos up over at Blue Herald for the big game. Alas, there's no Favre to cheer and no Madden to mock in this Super Bowl, but there's still room for a little Caliendo.

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse

Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain is the Republican nominee:



Hyperbole? Yes. A few salient points? Shockingly — yes.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Right-Wing Cartoon Watch #28 (12/17/07 — 1/27/08)

(Baby Jesus weighs in on the election.)

The 28th installment of RWCW is here, covering six weeks, with the emphasis on the new year. It's been a crazy political month, with tight races for the presidential nomination in both parties, pundits more blatantly wrong than usual, and scandals ranging from the overblown to the manufactured. Meanwhile, the greatest threat ever known to democracy conservatism — since the previous one, that is — spurred our right-wing cartoonists into action!

Who would be the focus of their ire? Who? Who? (I'm sure the suspense is just killing you.)