Numbers That Will Make You Sad

Here is a sad true fact: If your head is on the TV, talking, Americans will trust you forever, no matter what. In return for the collective sacrifice of our humanity, we are rewarded with shows such as According to Jim's Testicles, and The Beard of Wolf Blitzer.

TV is on my brain because ThinkProgress is passing along some pretty grim polling data from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.



TP focuses on the drastic down tick in positive reviews from Democrats over the period of 2007 to 2009. They write:

"In a new survey of how the public views the news media, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that “partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007.” Though the percentage of Republicans who view Fox News positively is virtually the same (73 percent in 2007 and 72 percent in 2009), positive views of Fox News have dropped significantly amongst Democrats from 61 percent in 2007 to 43 percent in 2009. In comparison, the view of CNN by both Republicans and Democrats is “little changed from two years ago.”"

My question, though, is how the fuck is it that in 2007, 2007, 61% of Democrats held a positive view of FoxNews. That seems remarkably high to me. I mean, O'Reilly had been in full effect for years by then, as had Hannity and the lobotomized goons over at Fox and Friends. What could have changed between 2007 and 2009? Well there's this:

Glenn Beck joins Fox News

And I suppose their coverage of the Democratic primaries might have turned a few people off, but, still, 61% in 2007? Yikes.

Me on Citizen Radio

For anyone who's interested, I was just on Citizen Radio, a very fun, very leftist podcast run by Jamie Kilstein and Allison Kilkenny. The show can be heard here, or downloaded from itunes by searching "Citizen Radio." You should subscribe to the show, and I don't just say that because I was on it--although that is a big reason.

Topics covered on the show include: the public option, Obama's condescension towards the Left, my critique of Inglourious Basterds, and illegal human experimentation. But it's all funny! How do we manage to do it?! Lots of farty sound effects! Not really! Go listen and then we'll talk about it the next time we see each other.

Here Is What Matters About Obama's Speech To Congress

This sentence, and this sentence alone, tells you what was the goal and end result of Obama's speech to Congress. The NY Times today is reporting:

"The day after the nationally televised address, in which Mr. Obama signaled that he could accept an alternative to a government-run insurance plan, influential Democrats who previously seemed wedded to the public insurance option hinted that they, too, might be flexible."[emphasis added.]

Success! What an awesome speech that was, about transcendence, and moral imperatives. Lose one for Teddy!

The problem with the debate that liberals are having over health care is simple, and yet that's what makes it so frustrating. Those who support a public option but also give Obama the benefit of the doubt are operating from a false premise, namely, they assume that he actually wants a bill that contains a public option.

Why is anybody (or, more correctly, everybody) assuming this to be the case? Because he says he does? Since when did taking elected officials at their word become a hallmark of the left? As the great Izzy Stone said, "all governments lie." Obama says he favors the public option, but what actions--not rhetoric--serve as evidence for this claim?

There are none. And, in fact, there is ample evidence to lead one to believe the opposite is true, that Obama is in fact getting exactly the bill he wants. Obama has kowtowed to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; Rham "the trigger" Emmanuel has told progressive that they're "fucking stupid" for criticizing Blue Dogs. There has been no pressure on sex escort Max Baucus to produce a better bill.

To assume that Obama wants the public option based only on rhetoric is the height of idiocy. Do we assume a husband loves his wife simply because he says he does, despite years of infidelity? No, we don't. We judge him or her by their actions, and any one who doesn't use that standard is rightly accused of being naive.

We have to remember that public officials have every reason to say what we are meant to think they believe, not what they actually believe. That is not new or unique to Obama, it's just the nature of public service. That's why someone like Kucinich deserves praise--because he said he's in favor of single payer, and then introduced a bill that would allow states on an individual basis to adopt that system if they so choose. That's what actual advocacy looks like.

If the last 8 years should have taught us anything, it's that placing trust in elected officials without sufficient evidence to do so is asking for catastrophe.

Party of Racists Now Also Party of Stupid Children

It has been clear for some time now that the so-called "Republican Party" is little more than a confederacy of white nationalists and robber barons, united by equal levels of hatred and ignorance. Their party's symbol may as well be Glen Beck pissing on the grave of Thomas Paine. That's been obvious to anybody with a brain for quite some time. What's also now clear is that they are a party of whiny assholes who deserve to be treated like nothing other than whiny assholes.

During Obama's speech to the Congress on Wednesday night, the GOP revealed its true colors as a gang of disrespectful morons who will not participate in the act of governing in any meaningful way. Joseph Wilson outburst of, "YOU LIE" stands out as the most flagrant trespass against decency and civility of the night, but it was far from the only one. Alex Koppelman at Salon, and Dana Milbank at WaPo both catalogued the GOP's asshat-ery. There is a sickening irony to Dana Milbank of all people--he who suggested that Hillary Clinton drink "mad bitch beer"--calling for civility.

Watching some of the footage, I couldn't help but think that I've seen better behaved crowds at strip clubs. Members of the GOP were holding up homemade signs that read "What bill?", because a speech to Congress should, more than anything else, closely resemble a WWF SummerSlam. I half expected Larry the Cable Guy to kick in the door to the House and scream, "Health Care?! I say, 'GIT R DUN!!!!!'" and then the Republicans would all stand up, rip their shirts off, grease themselves up, and roam the streets looking for at-risk teens to beat the shit out of.

I give it even odds that that'll happen at the State of the Union.

The Senator From WellPoint Has a Bill!

Marcy Wheeler over at EmptyWheel is reporting that, surprise surprise, high-class sex escort Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) health care bill was written by a former executive for WellPoint, a health insurance company and the largest member of the Blue Cross Association. Representative Democracy! The bill was authored by Liz Fowler, sex slave Baucus' Senior Counsel and maybe Dungeon Master. She worked for Baucus from 2001-2005, then moved over to WellPoint to make MadMadMadMoney. But then she returned to public life to do some good! Or enrich her former employers and ensure that her boss would continue to receive more corporate donations than anyone else in the Congress! Either one is possible. But, yeah, Wheeler notes that,

"To the extent that Liz Fowler is the Author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well."

Again, this shouldn't be surprising, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing. The extent to which corporations exert control over our lives--psychologically, and in both public and private life--cannot be overstated.

In that vein, I'd like to pass along this excerpt from last Sunday's Bill Moyers' show for old people/smarties/folks with boring Sunday nights. The debate was about a case coming up before the Supreme Court concerning 1st Amendment rights for corporations--specifically, whether or not they are free to spend unlimited funds during an election cycle to support or defeat a specific candidate. Trevor Potter was advocating limiting the amount corporations can spend, and therefore, in the eyes of critics, limiting the "free speech" of corporations and potentially unions.

BILL MOYERS: [T]his is about more than a movie or a book. This is go [sic] fundamentally to the role of corporations in our political elections. And this concerns you, because you say in your brief that this is dangerous.

TREVOR POTTER: Well, if you just look at the numbers here you are dealing with a world we just have never seen in elections. Exxon Mobil has a political action committee, which means voluntary contributions given by shareholders and executives, about 900 thousand dollars in the last cycle. It made last year 85 billion dollars.

Now, there's just a world of difference in the resources available if you say to a corporation, "You can spend money to defeat global-- candidates who are in favor of global warming legislation." If coal companies can go out and say, "If you don't sign our pledge to support coal we're going to defeat you. We're going to spend money against you." You take those enormous economic resources and you use them for something that we've never seen before. That I think is the radical nature.

So, the case before the Court right now is whether or not corporations will be able to control even more of our lives, by being giant dicks, and probably making a movie about Al Gore being a pornographer or something. Free Speech now apparently means the ability to buy up as much of the limited, expensive, and exclusive means of public discourse as one can! THEY ALREADY WRITE OUR GODDAMN BILLS I MEAN COME ON!

Ahem. If anyone has any question left in their head about whether or not giving corporations more, ney, ENDLESS control over the public discourse might be cause for concern, here is the latest post from Matt Taibbi, telling us how "wacky evil" Goldman Sachs has become.

"It looks like Wall Street is developing a new use for the securitization process — bundling life insurance policies and selling them as bonds to investors who would be betting, in essence, on when the policyholders will die.
...
This feels like financial innovation as practiced by Josef Mengele meets the Zucker Brothers; not just evil, but wacky evil. I don’t even want to think about what happens when Goldman Sachs suddenly has a large financial stake in the premature deaths of a bunch of old people."

This is what Adam Smith meant by the "invisible hand of the market"--that it will strangle you to death, for profit, by giant dicks.

Predictions for Obama's Speech to Congress

Tonight, Barack Obama will address the nation on the topic of health care reform, one of his signature issues during the campaign. Whatever else may be true of the final bill that comes out of the House and the Senate, we can be sure that it will leave progressives disappointed and marginalized--even moreso than usual--and corporate congress people (both Democrat and GOP) thrilled, thrilled, thrilled.

It is in that spirit that I humbly present the following predictions for Obama's BIG NIGHT OF TRIANGULATION AND DEFEAT.

1. Before the speech even begins, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), giddy with certainty that Obama won't demand the inclusion of a public option, and intoxicated with visions of the millions more dollars he'll receive from health insurance companies, releases not a small amount of ejaculate into his non-descript gray suit.


2. Sen. Grassley (R-IA) passes the time by going back and forth between two sets of prepared remarks he will give after the speech. The first set, or "professional" set, describes that even though he won't approve of the final bill, he's glad Obama "reached across the aisle." The second set of remarks, or "actual" set, read as follows:
   

   Hahahahah!!!!!!!!!!! You maroons really ate my dick on this one! WE HAD NOTHING! You had everything going for you. We had nothing! Death panels?! That was a fucking bet between me and Rush about who could get Palin to say something stupider. Oh, hey, by the way, good luck getting a single-payer system passed someday. Hahahahahaha you maroons couldn't pass a kidney stone through a drain pipe.



3. Following the speech, which demands neither a public option or even gives lip service to a single-payer system, Reps Kucinich (D-OH) and Weiner (D-NY) are found in back-country Virginia muttering to themselves, "the horror, the horror."


4. Halfway through his speech, Barack Obama pauses, looks down, shakes his head, and says, "What happened to me? I squandered the best chance this country has ever had to push through real reform, because I sold out to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I TAKE IT ALL BACK, DAMMIT! We're starting over, and we're not including special interests in the debate this time. Instead of asking 'what role does the government have to play in health care,' we'll ask the question, 'what role do private, for-profit companies have to play.' The answer, my friends, is none. Now, let's join the rest of the goddamn Western world and provide universal coverage for our citizens!"

I'm just kidding, that last one would never happen. Also, I'm kidding about Max Baucus creaming his jeans. He can't even come unless Billy Tauzin is watching.

Human Experimentation Not Just For Nazis Anymore

In what may be one of the most revolting developments yet concerning America's "War on Terror," Physicians for Human Rights is claiming that US doctors--working in conjunction with the CIA--may be guilty of engaging in unlawful human experimentation. The Guardian reports:

"The most incendiary accusation of PHR's latest report, Aiding Torture, is that doctors actively monitored the CIA's interrogation techniques with a view to determining their effectiveness, using detainees as human subjects without their consent. The report concludes that such data gathering was "a practice that approaches unlawful experimentation".

Human experimentation without consent has been prohibited in any setting since 1947, when the Nuremberg Code, which resulted from the prosecution of Nazi doctors, set down 10 sacrosanct principles. The code states that voluntary consent of subjects is essential and that all unnecessary physical and mental suffering should be avoided."[emphasis added.]

Reading the report is very disturbing, but it shouldn't be all that surprising. Once the government explicitly engages in felonies--torture, resulting in over 100 detainee deaths--one should expect further unlawful behavior to follow. That should be so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but, as is clear now, when it comes to our country's collective understanding of the law, no principle is too elementary to be stated.

That's why we need investigations of the highest level Bush officials--illegal behavior was systemic, not the result of a few bad apples. Once the government opens the door to procedures that have been considered torture since WWII (like waterboarding), what's to keep interrogators from committing other WWII-era crimes? If the law can be disregarded when it comes to waterboarding, then it logically follows that the law can be disregarded when it comes to human experimentation.

The one silver-lining in this story is that it's SO repulsive it might actually provoke public outrage. Discouragingly though, as of posting-time, a google search of "CIA PHR Torture" yields no results from major American news outlets. For further reading, go here for more media implications, and here for an interesting historical take.

Schadenfreude

A few days ago the Chicago-based sketch comedy group Schadenfreude asked me to start writing for their blog, to which I replied, "go suck on a lemon." I held strong until they offered to buy me a beer someday, at which point I caved. I'm just a man. My first post for them can be read here.

New Huffpo Piece

Huffpo posted my "NY Times Challenging Itself to Get Worse at Being a Newspaper" article. Here's the link.

Party Of Lunatics

I was planning on writing about the now-certain death of the public option following Obama's statement that he wouldn't be addressing the issue in his upcoming speech to Congress, but Allison Kilkenny saved me the trouble. Her post is a must read, and I echo her sentiments fully, especially her final two paragraphs:

"Watered down bills, hybrids, triggers, and so-called “compromises” (tantamount to full surrender) are all window-dressing for a Democratic President and Democratically-controlled Congress capitulating to a fringe mob of radicals and coterie of corporate insurance and pharmaceutical companies by killing the public option.

Uygur argues that the Progressives should vote no on Obama’s healthcare bill if it doesn’t include a public option, and I agree. If Democrats buckle on the public option, not only will Republicans feel buoyed up by the surrender, but Democrats will lose all credibility with their base. They will permanently become the Party of Surrender, and the healthcare reform disaster will infect all future areas of contentious policy. The death of the public option will mean the death of the Democrats."

She's exactly right, and at this point little else has to be said.

So instead I'll pass along an example of full-blown hysteria, care of the GOP. From OnlineAthens (via Ed Murray):

"MADISON - U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is again raising the specter of Democrats turning the United States into a totalitarian state.

Broun, R-Athens, apparently has not changed his belief that President Obama may be a fascist since he made similar remarks in Augusta in November and then in an Associated Press interview.

He told a meeting of the Morgan County Republicans on Wednesday night that Obama already has or will have the three things he needs to make himself a dictator: a national police force, gun control and control over the press."

Oh, man, WHAT A MAROON!

Broun's hypocrisy--that it is in fact the Democratic Party that's leading the fight in subverting the law and overstepping boundaries--would be surprising only to someone who hasn't lived in or read about America for the last decade. The GOP has shown itself to be a mob of morally and intellectually bankrupt thugs willing to do or say anything to retain power. That said, it is still disconcerting to learn how well received Broun's message has been.

"More than 1,000 people combined turned out to hear Broun speak mostly on the topic of health care at town hall meetings Wednesday in Madison and Greene County.

About 300 attended the Madison meeting. At Lake Oconee, the audience filled three 300-seat movie theaters, where Broun spoke on the invitation of three local doctors who have been giving presentations on Democrats' proposals for health care reform, said Bob Cowles, one of the organizers. Broun spoke live in one theater, while crowds in the other two listened in over a closed circuit."

Greene County has a population of about 15,600, and Madison County has a population of about 28,000. So, roughly between 2 and 3 percent of the population came out to hear Broun. While that's not a ton of people, it's not nothing. My guess is that the size of these crowds will continue to grow, as people who are naturally drawn to this fringe hysteria will see every new government program as further proof of their paranoia. That is one of the trademarks of the apocalyptic mindset, and we'll see it come up more and more.

NY Times Challenging Itself To Get Worse At Being A Newspaper

The New York Times today published another horrible piece on the health care debate. The article makes virtually no factual claims, and the few that it does make are demonstrably incorrect, or at best deliberately misleading. The headline is "Conservative Democrats Expect a Health Deal," but it's not at all clear to me why that's the headline, or even why the piece was written at all.

The first five paragraphs describe nothing but how difficult it is to be a conservative Democrat, but, even so, they really want to get something passed. What would that be? Would it lower costs and extend benefits? Would it provide insurance companies with an enormous bailout in the way of individual mandates without a public option? Who knows?! And in the eyes of the Times, apparently, who cares?!

This is how the writers describe the so-called "reform" that the boot-licking Blue Dogs and their even more repulsive Senate fuck-buddies are in favor of. The reform bill is described in the first five paragraphs in the following ways:

"..[Rep Sandlin could support] a health care package if it was reasonable and represented a consensus Democratic view."

“I want to support necessary change,” she said. “But I don’t want to support radical change.”

"...many of the lawmakers still believe approval of some form of health care plan is achievable..."

"I do believe something will get passed..."

Those are all quotes from or descriptions of conservative Democrats, hereafter referred to as "gimps." That's five paragraphs, and all we know is that--according to the gimps--they really really want to get something passed, just not anything radical. I could continue to cite more vagaries from the article, but there's no point, because the content of the reform that the gimps are in favor of is never articulated.

What compels a writer to write--or a paper to publish--a story so devoid of useful information? What does the reader walk away with, other than a vague assurance that the gimps are acting in good faith to pass reform. Does that reform resemble progressive movement forward in the slightest? Does it actually benefit the insurance companies, not the patients? You would have no idea from reading this article. (The answer to those last two question are "no" and "yes," respectively.)

One thing you would learn is that the public does not want this radical public option nonsense so just go HOME already Russ Feingold. This claim--that the public is not in favor of a public option--is, of course, a bald face lie. First the quote, then my refutation. From the Times' article:

"With Republicans essentially out of the health care picture for now, Blue Dog members from suburban and rural America said they could provide the ideological balance to the more urban members of the Democratic caucus, who are pushing for a sweeping plan of universal coverage that has drawn public criticism."[emphasis added.]

(There is a lot to be said about the first half of that quote, but for the purpose of this post I'm just going to focus on the last half.)

So here you have a story that never defines what it is that the gimps support--other than the assertion that many of them are against the public option--and then a completely unsupported claim that plans for universal coverage have "drawn public criticism." I mean, SOME people have criticized it, so, technically, the writers' statement is more misleading that completely wrong. But using their logic you could just as easily write, "the assassination of JFK has drawn public applause." Yeah, maybe by lunatics it did, but that's certainly not what "the public" in any important sense of the word was doing.

The public at large is not against universal coverage, despite what the Times' statement would lead a reader to believe. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as this poll from last week shows. The Denver Post reports:

"Nearly 8 in 10 Americans support a federal health insurance plan for those who can't afford or can't get private insurance, but only 37 percent define "public option" correctly, a new national poll found.

The majority of people polled — 86 percent — say insurance should be available to everyone regardless of health history."

Hahahahahah FUCK! WHY GOD! WHY MUST THIS BE SO GODDAMN MADDENING!?!?!?! It's just...so....goddamn....fucking.....shit....frustrating. Only 37% of people can define the public option correctly. Why is that? Maybe, just maybe it's because the paper of record spends its time writing vague, idiotic tripe instead of attempting to educate the populace on what the goddamn debate is about. So, people don't understand the public option, but they DO believe that health care should be universal, and available to the poor. So, the question is, WHY THE FUCK WON'T WE GET A PUBLIC OPTION?

The answer to this question, at least in part, is that when the media isn't actively distorting the debate, they are playing the role of lazy stenographer. Why scrutinize the claims made by elected officials when it's so much easier to simply write down what they say and call it a night?

For further reading, I'll pass along these two links. Taibbi has a post today also criticizing the media that I recommend looking at if you have a chance. Also, Ezra Klein has a thorough post about the ways in which the cost of the more liberal plan--which is deficit neutral--is being used to distract and scare people away from it.

Since I usually try to end on a joke, I'm going to switch it up here and end on a real downer. Dem. Sen. Blanche Lincoln is bailing on the public option, and it looks like more Senators might be doing the same.

Senate Dems Desperately Trying To Prove Naderites Correct

If anybody is still clinging to the absurd notion that the Democratic Party, as an institution, is interested in passing progressive legislation, this report should take care of that. TPM is reporting that Senate Democrats are facing a strange predicament resulting from their so-called "go it alone" approach.

To briefly summarize--over the past few weeks, Republicans have shown themselves to be assholes of such epic proportions that using words to express thoughts to argue a point--ie, that which makes us human--has proved predictably futile. The GOP has never had any desire whatsoever to engage in health care reform in good faith (with the potential exception of Nixon, amazingly). That much has been obvious since the Truman administration, and now, a mere 60 years later, the Democrats have finally come around.

As a quick tangent, it's worth noting that in 1945, when Truman proposed a national health insurance program--at a time when most of Europe was nationalizing their health care--his plan was criticized as being "socialized medicine." (Follow link above.) That gives you a pretty good idea of how Sisyphean is the task of advocating for national health insurance in America.

Back to the subject at hand. For the Senate Dems to go it alone, they must invoke a parliamentary procedure known as Reconciliation, which is primarily a budget tool. To pass a Reconciliation measure, however, takes only 51 votes, instead of the 60 it takes to override a filibuster. What this means is that the Dems can pass a health care bill with 51 votes, as long as it substantially alters the federal budget. I know this is all kind of dry, but we're getting to the good part.

SO! One would think, "hey, if they only need 51 votes, Dems can really flex some muscle! Then, if the House bill is perfect, we might get a fucking public option!" That is certainly tempting fantasy, but, again, if you have to bet whether or not the Democrats will advance the wishes of their constituents, or the companies who fund them, it's safer to bet on the companies coming out just fine.

In this instance, that means that Senate Dems are split between those who want a robust public option, which will affect the federal budget in big ways. But more conservative Dems don't want a robust option, which means that it will have a smaller impact on the budget, which makes it less likely to pass the standards required by Reconciliation. From TPM:

According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who's helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option--one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers--would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies "will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014...it will have to be sunsetted."

And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black--and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package.

What this means is that there is an internal division in the Senate Dems between those who are in favor of small but actual health care reform, and those who simply are not. Without a public option, you are not talking about reform. So even when the requirements for passing a vaguely progressive bill are reduced to a simple majority, not a super majority, the Dems STILL might not have the balls to get it done.

It is pure speculation as to how the Senate Dems split will play out, but the fact that it's even up for debate proves that as an institution, the Democratic Party is fundamentally untrustworthy to lead the country towards meaningful reform. Those House and Senate members who refuse to turn away from advocating for corporate interests should be challenged at the primary level, either by better local Democrats or by third parties. Only by threatening their job security will they respond to the demands of those who put them in office.

Rendon Group Axed, Journalism Saved Forever

Politico is reporting that the Pentagon has canceled its contract with the Rendon Group, citing that it was becoming a "distraction." From Politico:

"The Pentagon, which first denied that an embed profiling program was used to reject reporters covering the war in Afghanistan, until Stars and Stripes proved otherwise, has now canceled its contract with the controversial Rendon Group.

“The decision to terminate the Rendon contract was mine and mine alone. As the senior U.S. communicator in Afghanistan, it was clear that the issue of Rendon’s support to US forces in Afghanistan had become a distraction from our main mission,” said Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, in an e-mail sent Sunday to Stars and Stripes.

Stars and Stripes first broke the news Monday that the Pentagon hired Rendon -- the firm involved with a PR campaign pushing pre-war intelligence -- to evaluate reporters' work as "positive," "negative," and "neutral.""

I wrote about this story on Thursday, claiming that although it was unfortunate to learn that the Pentagon was analyzing and potentially vetting reporters, it shouldn't strike anyone as surprising. The report from today that the contract was canceled is certainly good news, but we are still a long way from having a properly functioning media.

What this controversy highlighted more than anything else is that in America, we like our censorship subtle. Something that feels like outright censorship can cause a small but powerful outcry from those who oppose it, which is what we saw in this case. Having Rendon rate reporters coverage was too explicitly an attempt to control the message, and the public didn't like it.

What's discouraging is that the implicit relationship between the media elites and the government is virtually identical to the explicit relationship between Rendon and the media. By that, I mean that the corporate media imposes on itself the exact type of vetting process for which Rendon was so resoundingly criticized. The limits of debate are less explicit in the media at large, but they are no less strict.

Where Rendon was explicitly classifying journalists' coverage as "positive," "negative," or "neutral," corporate media similarly implicitly classifies ideas--and those who espouse them--as either "acceptable" or "unacceptable." Noam Chomsky writes about this in Manufacturing Consent:

"The right wing continually claims that the press has a liberal bias, and there's some truth to that, but they don't understand what it means. The liberal bias is extremely important in a system- in a sophisticated system of propaganda. In fact there ought to be a liberal bias. The liberal bias says, thus far and no further, I'm as far as you can go, and look how liberal I am. And of course it turns out that I accept without question all the presuppositions of the propaganda system. Notice that that's a beautiful type of system. You don't ever express the propaganda, that's vulgar and too easy to penetrate, you just presuppose it. Unless you accept the presuppositions, you're not part of the discussion. And the presuppositions are instilled, not by, you know, beating you over the head with them, but just by making them the foundation of discussion. You don't accept them, you're not in the discussion."

That is why we are seeing a backlash against Rendon. Their and the Pentagon's attempt to shape the coverage was too obvious. Those kind of tactics are more likely to fail, because the population can see what is happening. The establishment-worshiping novelty acts on TV are far more subtle.

American media operates from the basic premise that America Is Good, and has Noble Intentions and Good Leaders, and therefore it is crazy and unreasonable to question our country's intentions. What we can question, at most, are the tactics our Good Leaders employ. Chomsky continues:

"So, in the case of the, say, the Vietnam war, which was a major topic of debate, if you look over the media, there was a big debate over the Vietnam war. There were the hawks who said that if we continue to fight harder, if we're more violent, and so on and so forth, then we can achieve the noble end of defending South Vietnam and the free people of South Vietnam from communism. And then there were the doves who said it's probably not going to work, it's probably not going to be too- it's going to be too bloody, and it's going to cost us too much, and therefore we're not going to be able to achieve the noble end of defending the people of South Vietnam from communism.

Now, again, there's another view, and that is that we were attacking South Vietnam. That other view has the merit of being true, obviously true, but it was inexpressible. That's outside the spectrum of debate. You can enter the debate only if you accept the assumption. And if you check the media over the entire period as far as I can see -- I've- Hermann and I in this book review the media from about 1950 to the present on Indochina, and I don't think you can find an exception to this, even statistical error -- that's the spectrum, you've got to accept it."

You can find all sorts of contemporary examples of dialogue being limited like this.

The torture "debate" is a perfect example. Torture is discussed on TV in terms of whether or not it "works," whether or not it "keeps 'us' safe." (It should be noted that the "us" in that last phrase strongly connotes white Christians. Keeping "us" safe has very little to do with keeping Muslims safe, even if they are American citizens.) In terms of whether or not the DOJ should prosecute torturers, the debate consists entirely of whether or not it would be a good idea for Obama politically, or whether it would be a distraction. Virtually no one in the mainstream media says what is undeniably true, namely that torture is a felony--always has been--and that those who participated in it must, BY DEFINITION, be held accountable for their actions to the full extent of the law.

The same can be said of the escalation of troops in Afghanistan. The question is, "Can we achieve our noble goals?", not, "Is this occupation wrong on every fundamental level?"

Or consider Israel. The question must always be, "Are Israel's tactics bringing the country closer to Peace," not, "Is Israel committing war crimes in Gaza?" That idea has been labeled "unacceptable" for discussion. That's why you don't see Norman Finkelstein making the Sunday morning talk show rounds. Indeed, Israeli press is often far more critical of Israel's actions than American press.

Take, for example, Rachel Maddow's truly awful reporting on the massacre of Gaza. (via hawgblawg, who also has a great analysis, highly recommended)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So, in celebrating the cancellation of Rendon's contract, let us remember that ideas and scholars are constantly being ranked and evaluated by the Washington Consensus. Those invisible rankings are, in many ways, more destructive than more obvious methods of debate control.

GOP Nobly Maintains Status As Good Faith Opposition--Wait, No, No. Assclowns. Yeah, That's the Phrase. Assclowns.

America created Democracy in 1776 when they started shootin' Brits for sport, and also to use their (literally) blue blood to make writing more fun for Indian children. Prior to our Grand Invention, Man lived like an Animal, but not even like one of the good animals that has sex for pleasure. More like one of the filthy animals that has sex for money. Truly, they were dark days.

Then, this country taught the world to love. To sing. To LIVE, DAMMIT.

Sadly, this blog just received proof that our Noble Experiment has failed, and is now gasping its last, dying breath. What is our proof? This actual question from the RNC’s “2009 Future of American Health Survey.”


That is a real, actual, honest question, for morons. (via Wonkette, and The Washington Independent) If you have a sock drawer full of hash handy, I suggest taking knife hits and then following that WI link and reading the full survey. WOOOOOOO MAMA!!! Those questions hit you at the base of your skull like a black jack. Here are two (and again, these are real):

3. "Does it concern you that the liberal media has gone to unprecedented levels to only give Obama's views on health care reform and no one else's?"

6. "Do you believe that your health care decisions should be made by you and your doctor, not by government bureaucrats in Washington DC?"

Hey, they're just asking a legitimate question--namely, can the GOP continue to become more and more horrible by the hour? They confidently answer: Yes We Can.

Oh and then there's this (via ThinkProgress):

"The Oklahoma-based Express-Star reports that [Sen. Jim] Inhofe (R-OK) told a town hall crowd yesterday that he will vote against health reform legislation without even reading it or knowing what’s in it:

"At a town hall meeting Wednesday Sen. Jim Inhofe told Chickasha residents he does not need to read the 1,000 page health care reform bill, he will simply vote against it.

"I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways,” he said.

He went on to tell the crowd we are “almost reaching a revolution in this country” due to opposition to health reform. Inhofe is not alone in saying he will vote against any health reform bill. Last week Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told Fox News that he doesn’t think a “single Republican” will vote for health care reform."

Democracy on the march!

So, this is how our country functions now. A major political party wages an aggressive war to keep their constituents misinformed about basic facts, and the leaders of that party explicitly state that they will not even take the time to read the legislation they're going to vote against. Public opinion is not shaped by facts, but by posturing. The media reports on the scandals and controversy and polls, rarely bothering to examine the base claims that cause the controversy in the first place.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who runs FactCheck.org, speaking on Bill Moyers (whose coverage of health care has been absolutely PHENOMENAL), had this to say (from the transcript):

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:...But the nature of public opinion it's [sic] expressed in "USA Today" in-- at a front-page piece that appeared on Thursday of this week which says "Protests Tilt Views on Health Care Bill." Now that's reflecting the results of a poll that asked about people's response not to the health care bill but to the protests about the health care bill.

But the headline leads you to think it's about the health care bill itself. And it suggests that public opinion is now shifting dramatically away from the Obama health care reform efforts.

BILL MOYERS: So the protests seem to be making some people more sympathetic to the protesters?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And potentially the press then picks that up, polls, finds that sympathy, creates a structure that suggests that health care reform initiatives are losing support. Now polls have driven press coverage which says "Obama on the defensive. Obama struggling to explain. Obama trying," when, in fact, the dynamic under that has been created by a news structure that decided to cover this in a certain way, to do polling in a certain way.[emphasis added]

She's absolutely correct. That is how our media works, and it is structurally broken as an institution. The Republican party, not surprisingly, is doing everything in its power to keep people misinformed. The Democrats, also not surprisingly, are selling out the public to insurance and pharmaceutical corporations in a revolting attempt to simultaneously achieve two ends: they don't want to be painted as too liberal, and, most importantly, they want that corporate money. They know that if they alienate the insurance companies, those companies will not only stop giving to the Democrats, but increase campaign funding for Republicans. If you are a Party concerned only with maintaining power, as the Democrats without question are, then this outcome must be fought against at all costs. The result is--again, unsurprisingly--that the public gets fucked.

August has been a month spent reading tea leaves. Within the next few weeks, in theory, Congress will begin to shape a bill that can be examined and critiqued. I, for one, am ready to see some actual legislation.

Until then, here's something to put a smile on your face. Outside my building, I heard some guy on the phone saying, "I want chicken wings, and fries, and make the fries fresh." That dude knew what he wanted and went the fuck for it. We must elect that dude!

Surprise, Surprise, Pentagon Tries To Shape War Coverage

Stars & Stripes and The New York Times are reporting that the Pentagon has hired The Rendon Group, a DC-based PR firm, to rate journalists' war coverage as positive, negative, or neutral, before they are granted permission to embed themselves with the military. The Rendon Group helped to create the Iraqi National Conference, which in turn helped sell the invasion of Iraq to the American public--a fact that the Times' report leaves out. Apparently that is not relevant information to their readers.

The Pentagon denied these reports, but then Stars & Stripes released this yesterday:

"Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”

Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan."

It should not be surprising that the Pentagon would try to shape the coverage of an increasingly unpopular (question 26) occupation. That has happened in the past, and it will continue to happen in the future.

Here are two examples that come to mind immediately. If anyone has any others, please leave them in comments. First, we've recently seen the military parade retired generals around as "independent analysts" on the major news networks to put a pretty face on the occupation of Iraq. Much has already been written about this, and I have nothing to add right now. It's simply worth noting as an example of the military attempting to shape the public discourse.

And, to cite an older example, here's the words of David Halberstam, speaking to students at the Columbia School of Journalism. In this passage, he describes standing up to a Pentagon General in Saigon (via Greenwald):

"Picture if you will rather small room, about the size of a classroom, with about 10 or 12 reporters there in the center of the room. And in the back, and outside, some 40 military officers, all of them big time brass. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.

General Stilwell tried to take the intimidation a step further. He began by saying that Neil and I had bothered General Harkins and Ambassador Lodge and other VIPs, and we were not to do it again. Period.

And I stood up, my heart beating wildly -- and told him that we were not his corporals or privates, that we worked for The New York Times and UP and AP and Newsweek, not for the Department of Defense.

I said that we knew that 30 American helicopters and perhaps 150 American soldiers had gone into battle, and the American people had a right to know what happened. I went on to say that we would continue to press to go on missions and call Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins, but he could, if he chose, write to our editors telling them that we were being too aggressive, and were pushing much too hard to go into battle. That was certainly his right."

Again, it's not surprising that the Pentagon would act in these ways. I don't mean to excuse their behavior in any way, but this kind of intimidation should be expected from people who are hired to kill other people. That's why its so important for the media to push back and redouble their efforts to expose that which the military is trying to suppress.

Sadly, examples of the media stepping up to this task are often the exception, not the rule. For some far from conclusive, but interesting nonetheless, evidence, I'll quote Sy Hersh from an episode of Democracy Now! Amy Goodman interviewed him about his initial coverage of the My Lai massacre, and he had this to say:

"I was working in Washington as a freelance writer and began just—I had followed the war and knew what was going on in some visceral way and knew what was—there was something there. And I began—I finally got to the point where I began to find kids in the unit, and I was writing stories. I think I wrote five in five weeks as a freelancer. And it was just as the young boys talking over the weekend were ignored by the press, I had a hell of a time getting the major press to run the stories, for sure. This is always the way it is. You know, there’s always a disconnect between the bad stuff that goes on that everybody knows goes on and what I guess you could call the mainstream press want to write about. I don’t know why, but it’s true, there always is."[emphasis added]

New Huffpo Blog

Huffpo just put something of mine up on their website. The title is: Barack Obama's Disturbing Pattern of Condescension Towards the Left. It can be read here.

Torture Program Deviates From History, Oh, Not Really That Much, Sadly

Two events from this week highlight America's staggering willingness to commit violence upon civilians to achieve a military end, whether real or imagined. Coincidentally, both events also showcase America's extreme reluctance to hold high-end government officials accountable for their crimes, an historical trend that is hypocritical in the extreme--considering our country's childish mis-identification as a nation concerned with equality under the law. The release this week of the 2004 Inspector General's report detailing CIA abuses of detainees under the Bush administration, and the recent apology of the only soldier held responsible for the My Lai massacre--both of which took place this week--are but two examples of our country's brutal history towards civilians from other countries. Taken together they paint a gruesome picture of America, both in its execution of various imperialist "wars," and its willingness to grant immunity to those most responsible for the atrocities that are inevitably committed.

The IG report of CIA abuses is simply the most recent example of America's tendency to tolerate violence against civilians in the name of war. That is not to minimize the horrors it describes, or the importance of its release. Far from it. The techniques that were used to intimidate prisoners into believing they were facing imminent death are repulsive. (It should also be noted that many detainees died in US custody, some of which are referred to as murders.) If one actually takes a moment to visualize the terror one would feel if a soldier approached you carrying a power drill while you were hooded, naked, and had literally no idea where you were (city, country, or continent)--well, the desired effect of that torture technique is quite readily apparent. It should also be noted that many of the prisoners, while called "enemy combatants," had never been accused of, much less convicted of, any crime.

The CIA abuse case breaks from history because these atrocities were specifically sanctioned by the highest levels of elected government. That's what makes the prosecution of those responsible for the torture memos so important, and that's why Holder's "narrow focus" on rogue interrogators is discouraging. Simply finding more scapegoats--ie, low level CIA interrogators--won't do anything to prevent actions like this from being taken in the future. (Glenn Greenwald writes extensively about this topic. One of his many relevant pieces can be read here.)

Scapegoats, of course, brings us to My Lai. Four decades after the fact, William Calley apologized for his role in the massacre of a Vietnamese village comprised primarily of women, children, and the elderly. Calley, a former lieutenant, was the only person convicted in the massacre. He was given a life sentence, which was commuted by Richard Nixon. According to the Times' report,

"The governor of Georgia at the time, Jimmy Carter, called Mr. Calley a “scapegoat.”

...

Calley told the group “I did what they say I did,” but also maintained that he was following orders."

He "maintained that he was following orders," and yet he was the only person convicted of a crime. Ever since Nuremberg, "following orders" has not been a viable defense, and those who commit crimes under that pretense should be punished. The problem is when punishment stops with those at the bottom of the totem pole. We saw this happen already with the tragedy at Abu Ghraib, and, now, it appears that we may see the same thing happen with the CIA abuses.

We must also remember the vast catalogue of American violence against citizens of other countries in the 20th century, and the total lack of legal accountability officials have faced. We remain the only country to have used nuclear weapons, one of our highest officials identified himself as a "war criminal," we waged a war of choice in Vietnam that resulted in the deaths of between 1 and 2 million Vietnamese, and a separate war of choice in Iraq has killed between 92,000 and 101,000 civilian deaths. The CIA alone is responsible for a legacy of failure, death, and intervention in the Middle East, and Latin and South America. Not one high ranking official has spent time behind bars for any of this. In fact, on the rare occasion that a high-level official is even charged with a crime, these sentences are either pardoned, as was the case with Nixon, or commuted, as was the case with I. Lewis Libby.

In presenting this brief list, I don't mean to say necessarily that Truman, or every president who presided over 'Nam, should have faced prison time. I'm simply putting forward the argument that as a nation, we fundamentally don't believe our leaders are capable of acting wrongly. That is the heart of "American Exceptionalism," a doctrine to which every major political and media figure must swear undying, unrelenting allegiance. Our leaders simply can't be evil--we're America! after all--and so holding them accountable to either domestic or international law is the height of unfairness. The USA acts in good faith, the myth goes, so punishment is unneeded and unwarranted.

It is in this context that we must view the crimes of Bush officials. Not as some isolated incident that we can simply "get over" by "looking forward," but as the result of a continuous and implicit policy of this country--namely, that no matter what the crime, those who are most responsible for the deaths of civilians will not be held accountable. Instead, low-level grunts--if anyone at all--will bear the brunt of the law. Holding Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and anyone else who authorized torture accountable is a necessary, and, in fairness, radical step towards a better country.

Democrats Secretly Can't Wait To Be Victims Again

Numbers-pr0nstar Nate Silver has some potentially ominous news for the Democrats:

"After a couple of relatively quiet months, the Senate race rankings have undergone a fairly major shakeup, with 15 distinct contests receiving an upgrade or a downgrade based on a combination of local and national circumstances. Most of these changes favor Republicans -- 7 of the 10 upgrades (meaning that a party switch is now more likely) were made to Democratic-held seats; 4 of the 5 downgrades were made to Republican-held seats. While there are still plenty of opportunities for the Democrats in the Senate, I believe that the Republicans are now slightly more likely to gain seats than to lose them, potentially threatening the Democrats' supposed filibuster-proof majority."[emphasis added]

It's clearly too early to start worrying about 2010, and I'm passing this information along only as an interesting--if potentially unimportant--snapshot of the country right now.

The Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 with overwhelming electoral mandates, yet they've stumbled on major domestic issues (health care) and straight up failed on major international issues (escalation in Afghanistan, continuing rendition, etc.). I wrote at the beginning of this month:

"...Will the country eventually swing "Right" again? History tells us that it will, but, who will actually do that?

The changing demographics in America have rendered the Southern Strategy--in which you use code words to convince scared white southerners that you're on their side--obsolete. Latinos, who traditionally have voted Republican, are moving to the Democratic party in droves. It remains to be seen if the youth vote will remain as strong as it did for Obama in the coming years, but they certainly won't be the ones to give power back to the GOP. The Republican base is shrinking fast, and there's no reason to believe that that trend will reverse itself."

Like I said, it's far too early to know what will happen in 2010, but it appears that my prediction that the GOP might have been gasping its final breath may have been overstated.

That said, here's another interesting poll that argues, "No, no, everyone still hates the Republicans more than the Democrats." From Swamp Politics:

"The poll found that favorable ratings for the Democratic Party have declined since spring. Just 49 percent said they have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared to a 59 percent positive rating in April and 62 percent in January.

Opinion of the Republican Party has remained constant, at 40 percent all year."

That's from August 19th, so the numbers might be slightly different now, but that's the gist. Nine percentage points is still quite substantial, but the downward trend makes me a bit nervous. For all the Democrat bashing that happens around here, the idea of the GOP in control of anything beyond a traveling freak show is truly terrifying.

Max Baucus Has Always Loved Public Option Since Yesterday

Turd-whore Max Baucus (D-MT) chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, the committee that is widely assumed to produce what will eventually become the final Senate health care reform bill. Baucus gets more money from the health care industries than any other member of Congress, a fact that renders anything that comes out of his mouth concerning health care reform completely untrustworthy.

That's why this report (via FireDogLake) leaves me unimpressed. Apparently Max Baucus is now claiming that he honestly LOVES the idea of a public option! Seriously, guys, he really does. He's only been trying to kill any type of substantial reform for the past 8 months, but that's never been his intention! OOOOOO, he wants the public option so bad!

The press release from the Coalition of Montana Democratic Central Committees reads:

"U.S. Senator Max Baucus has finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Last Monday night (8/17), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option.

While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, "I want a public option too!""[emphasis added.]

Hey, Baucus, way to go. He's got his finger on the pulse, doesn't he? In politics, like in comedy, timing is everything. And to extend the comedy metaphor, Baucus waited about four months between saying, "Take my wife," and "please." Kind of kills the desired effect, Maxy.

Should progressives take this as a good sign? Maybe, but it seems much more likely that Baucus is desperately trying to protect his left flank than he is trying to take on the insurance companies. In fact, imagining Baucus "taking on the insurance companies" is like imagining the military going to war with Lockheed Martin. It is fundamentally impossible to wrap one's head around that possibility.

In theory, I suppose, Baucus might be forced to fight for a public option if there is a large enough outcry from his constituents. More than anything else, the vast majority of Congress-people want simply to get re-elected. That's why they take so much money from lobbyists and special interests. It's not that they're inherently evil (though a strong case could be made that many are), it's that they want to keep their job. Maddeningly, the way that this is accomplished all too often is by pleasing companies who can finance re-election campaigns, not by pleasing the citizens who elected them in the first place.

It remains to be seen whether or not Max the whore will fight for a public option, but we can know for certain that he doesn't actually want one. He's had every, EVERY, fucking opportunity in the world to fight for it over the past several months, and he has done nothing but push policies that are favored by the interests who own him. If he does turn his back on his owners, like a beaten dog who has finally had enough, then it will be as surprising as it will be praise-worthy.

Sadly, there is no reason to expect that to happen, so don't get out your doggy treats just yet.

Murder Mystery Where The Victim Is Us

I'm passing along two articles that I just read and can't recommend highly enough. The first is, big surprise, by Greenwald, and the second is by Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake. Each piece persuasively describes exactly how progressives have been played like suckers for the entire length of the health care debate. Each piece argues that the "public option" was never meant as a serious option; its purpose was to string progressives along until the last moment, when the White House, working in conjunction with conservative Dems in the Senate and the stomach-turning "Blue Dog" coalition, could pull a bait-and-switch. The hope was that by the time the progressives knew what hit them, it would be too late.

Reading these two articles back to back creates a feeling exactly like the end of a mystery novel, where the detective gathers all living parties into the parlor to explain exactly what happened. Point by point, Jane methodically plots out the deception and coercion of which the the WH and its congressional allies have been guilty. I felt like she just as easily could have been saying, "you were meant to THINK the butler was the murderer, but, in fact, it was the heiress the whole time!" And in the same way that a wonderful mystery makes perfect sense and seems wholly inevitable when explained at the end, so too does the likely jettisoning of the "public option." Of course, you think when reading Jane and Glenn. It was a red fucking herring the whole time!

It's a gripping narrative, really. Feel the thrill that comes from reading this passage from Greenwald:

"The attempt to attract GOP support was the pretext which Democrats used to compromise continuously and water down the bill. But -- given the impossibility of achieving that goal -- isn't it fairly obvious that a desire for GOP support wasn't really the reason the Democrats were constantly watering down their own bill? Given the White House's central role in negotiating a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry, its betrayal of Obama's clear promise to conduct negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN no less), Rahm's protection of Blue Dogs and accompanying attacks on progressives, and the complete lack of any pressure exerted on allegedly obstructionists "centrists," it seems rather clear that the bill has been watered down, and the "public option" jettisoned, because that's the bill they want -- this was the plan all along."

And from Jane:

"Mike Allen said earlier this week that "this weekend’s comments by White House officials simply acknowledged the long-obvious reality that the idea of a government-run insurance plan was partly a bargaining chip."

If you look at the cat-and-mouse game played between the Democrats and the Republicans, support expressed by the President for a "public plan" meant "don't you dare." A commitment that the bill will be "bipartisan" (since the GOP would never agree to one) was a signal that there would be no public plan.

The White House never cared about getting Republican votes -- it cared about keeping the Republicans from peeling off the dollars of stakeholders like PhRMA. Giving in to "Republican" demands was cover for writing shitty things into the bill that would keep the stakeholders happy. They didn't need Republican votes, they never did, and they never truly cared. As long as the money stayed out of their campaign coffers, it was all good."

Ugh, god, it hurts to read.

If there is any cause for hope here, it's that FDL is raising money to reward and embolden progressive House members, and collecting signatures for a petition for House members to keep their word and only vote for a bill with a public option. You can support that effort here.

If the House can revive the public option, it will be a coup of epic proportions. If not, then let's just say, "It was Rahm Emanuel, in the Oval Office, with the knife."