cultureandpower

Chicken Shit: What about the Media?

2007-09-18T14:35:00.000-07:00

Very few news sources reported one of the best stories of last week: the Asia Times writes that
" [Petraeus' boss] Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that," the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior."

Not only is this a funny story ipso facto, it also reveals how little we are seeing of divisions within the military over Iraq policy in the mainstream media. It is abundantly clear that Bush used Petraeus as his talking dog, disgracefully sending him on a political mission to the Hill and mainstream Media to sell a shitty policy on a shitty war that is going now where. However, very few media outlets are reporting on whether the generally really represents the best military strategic thinking in this country. What are his superiors saying? what about those on the grounds? The times op-ed by 7 Iraqi soldiers was an exception.

The reason it is so important to find out the debates within the military itself is to overcome the biggest obstacle to ending this war. The pro-war lobby has the monopoly on the "the army said so" trump card, and can easily paint anti-war people as anti-patriotic or peaceniks. More information on divisions within the army and the real debates going on about the surge and how to end the war would neutralize the pro-war lobby that is still far too strong.

Friedman's not alone

2007-08-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

I read two pieces of official admiration for the alleged cooperation of the Sunni tribes in the fight against AQI. I commented yesterday that Friedman's op-ed in the NYT contradicts the NEI version of the cooperation between Sunnis and US foces in the fight against AQI. Today, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino, when commenting about the damning GAO report on the Iraq progress becnhmark, said: "On the other hand, one of the things it does not take into account, which is not on the benchmark list, is the cooperation of the Sunni tribes, who have decided to fight back against al-Qaida."

Huh? Where is the truth here? either the NEI is wrong, and faulty intelligence is what got us part of the way into this shithole in th first place. It seems the White House and Friedman are not the only neo-cons spouting off about how the Sunni's are our best friends in Iraq now. From National Review editorial:

"The fact is that the surge is President Bush's policy, and one that he implemented over the vociferous opposition of Democrats who thought the best strategy against al Qaeda in Iraq was to begin to leave. Now the surge has helped turn Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, advancing the goal that nearly everyone in the U.S. notionally shares of routing the terror group from Iraq."

You can read into this either some kind of cognitive dissonance on the part of these neo-cons, another failure of intelligence by the Intelligence Community or maybe they are right. I would go for a bit of cognitive dissonance, but this muddiness show how hard it is to get any truth out of the debacle in the Gulf.

Friedman vs the NIE

2007-08-29T12:57:00.000-07:00

Today's NYT carries an op-ed from Thomas Friedman, ace war reporter and ardent supporter of globalization, on his recent experiences embedded with US forces in Iraq. He gushed: "I did see something here that could help to stabilize Iraq...the willingness of the Sunni tribes...to work side by side with American soldiers".

I wonder if Friedman managed to get a look at the recently released National Intelligence Estimate. I know its only the most authoritative assessment on the situation in Iraq the US intelligence community could muster, but I think its assessment might be more trust worthy that anecdotal evidence from an embedded neo-con. The NIE states that Sunni groups are not even joining forces with the US to fight their mutual enemy, Al Qaeda: "Sunni Arab resistance to AQI has expanded in the last six to nine months but has not yet translated into broad Sunni Arab support for the Iraqi Government or widespread willingness to work with the Shia".

Senator Craig's Wide Stance

2007-08-28T13:08:00.000-07:00

Senator Larry Craig (R-Id) apparently has a wide stance when he takes a dump, and in no-way likes to pick up men in known sex spots. And then he likes to tap his foot against the foot of the man in the stall next to him, and might even reach under the stall to brush the hand of his neighbor. But its all a big misunderstanding. Even if he did plead guilty to disorderly conduct and pay the fine.

And the Senator who maintains a wide stance whilst dropping the kids off at the pool also maintains a close-minded stance on social issues. His voting record is replete with votes against progressive social issues and for socially conservative measures. According to On the issue, Craig :

Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005),
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a request with the Senate ethics committee to see if they should punish him. Whilst I am all for punishing unethical Senators of any stripe, this issue isn't really about the ethics of picking up sexual partners in public toilets. For me, it really highlights the rampant hypocrisy of many social conservatives. It makes you wonder how many are viciously homophobic because of closet desires and fantasies they are ashamed of. It would be far better for this country if they led by example and embraced their desires, rather than hide them and punish others who share similar desired through legislative activities such as banning same sex marriage. In the meantime, Craig can apologize to his family, constituents and the country by resigning for being a total hypocrite.

The Iraq Invasion is Iran's Golden Goose

2007-08-24T14:46:00.000-07:00

The recently released National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), produced by the biggest boffins the Intelligence Community can muster, does not paint a pretty picture of the effects of the surge, nor of the chances of stability or peace coming to Iraq anytime soon. It basically tells us that progress is slow and whilst Iraqi security forces perform 'adequately' and what is really a concern is the capabilities of the Iraqi Government. The NIE does not expect the Iraqi Government to become more effective over the next 12 months, contributing to more sectarian division and violence.

As a sign of how illegitimate this government appears to many Iraqis, the NIE reports that Sunni groups fighting Al Queda in Iraq still refuse to join forces with the government in this struggle. It's a terrible sign when people can't even unite over a common enemy, a basic principle of politics from Machiavelli to Rove.

Beyond the tragedy this spells out for Western troops and Iraqi people, the significance of the quagmire in Iraq extends beyond Iraqi borders. The invasion is a realpolitik disaster for the US- it has provided incredible incentives for neighboring countries to ensure chaos reigns in Iraq and has shifted the regional balance of power irrevocably. Previously, the US could rely on 'moderate' (but corrupt and poorly governed) Sunni allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Saddam's Iraq, before he became a pariah in the late 80's, to keep the region 'in check'. Now, the US has nicely removed two big threats to Iran, which has always sought to play an increasing role in Muslim countries since the revolution in '79. Radical Sunni Taliban Afghanistan was felled in 2001/2002 and secular, Sunni-led Iraq, arch-enemy of Iran since the vicious war in the 80's, was destroyed in 2003. Now Iraq has been transformed from existential enemy to the biggest opportunity any nation perhaps has ever been handed. Iraq is Iran's golden goose for the forseeable future, allowing it to shore up the power of the clerics, spread its revolutionary message and gain power in an increasingly unstable region.

If you were a nation on the 'axis of evil' list, perhaps next to be invaded, what makes the most sense for you? To make sure the first invasion, which could have been a dry run for an attack on your country, ends in failure. Iran is flooding Iraq with weapons and providing support to disgusting terrorist groups so that it can get ideas of a pre-emptive strike out of the neo-cons' heads. While they're at it, they are leveraging their power across the region by showing they are capable of acting against the strongest nation in the world and influencing a major government in the region.

I can't decide which is more tragic: the undeniably illegal and immoral invasion or the utter failure to do any form of post-invasion planning, thereby making the situation a thousand times worse. The issue of what to do now seems clear. I cannot understand why right-wingers are so committed to nation-building, which should go counter to most of their cherished beliefs. Western troops must be withdrawn, in an orderly way, but as soon as possible. Intense diplomacy needs to be instigatedby the US with Syria and Iran. Massive international support for Iraq needs to be guaranteed. In short, the not very controversial recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report. Where is that document now?

Link to the NIE - http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/aug/20070823_nie.pdf

Class C Felonies

2007-08-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

I know the gun laws in this country aren't exactly the strictest in the world, and there has been a lot of anger and criticism in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, but recently I found myself on the wrong end of the law concerning guns. It makes me want to join the NRA (just kidding).

Apparently aliens are not allowed to touch a firearm, even under supervision at a range with a borrowed shotgun and a US citizen accompanier. I found this out after having completed the shooting section of my hunters education, and apparently I committed a Class C felony. Not knowing what this was, I looked up the Washington State Bar association and, lo and behold, it involves 1-10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Hmm. Seems a little extreme to me.

So, the bottom line is I have to get an Alien license, which no one ever told me at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I am hoping to hunt in a week. I decided to send off my application for my Hunters Edcutiona Certificate anyway and hope to get a license and put on my best American drawl to avoid detection as an alien at our hunting site, out in the middle of no-where, population 0. I think my chances are good.

Except for one fatal flaw: I had to send in notarized affidavits of my shooting proficiency to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. They therefore have proof that I committed a Class C felony. I could of course lie and say I made the affidavit up, but then I would be guilty of committing perjury, which carries a nice punishment with it too. Well, wish me luck in my hunting endeavours and visit me in the federal penitentiary if it all goes tits up.

English Lass = Class

2007-08-22T10:41:00.000-07:00

As an Englishman, I am often embarrased at the state of drunkeness and general malarky that surrounds friday and saturday nights at pubs and parties in the UK. Possibly revealing my sexist side, English women in particular seem to be more disgraceful in public, wearing teeny ugly skirts revealing white fat legs that wobble in their high heel appendages. This story on the Beeb bites the biscuit for me in terms of English women + Bacardi Breezers = Mess. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4253849.stm

Basically, a lady (although I am not sure this term is entirely appropriate) was hanging out at a party with her ex-boyfriend , and decided at some moment to wrip off his testical with her hand. As the BBC reports :

"She pulled off his left testicle and tried to swallow it, before spitting it out. A friend handed it back to Mr Jones saying: "That's yours."

It makes me proud to be a Brit.

The Cherry Post

2007-08-21T15:40:00.001-07:00

Peru Earthquake kills 500: flashed on your screen for a day, seemed pretty crazy hey? But where is it now? 6 miners trapped in a coal mine in Utah- been running non stop all over the major media for a week. Do we infer from this that one American life = 85 or so Peruvian lives? Or is this an interesting insight into the power of nationalism?

Why are we so shocked by the coalmine collapse, to the extent that is becomes an national drama, and tragedy-in-waiting? I think there could be a good argument made that this event is one of those rare (ish) events that allow people wherever they are in the nation to feel sorrow and emotion focused on a single location and realize how they are connected across this vast country. The bridge collapse in Minnesota is probably also one of these, but a highway bridge collapsing in rush hour is always going to attract tons of attention.

So what makes an event a nation-focuser? It seems that it has to come at a relatively stable news time (so that something can't come in from leftfield and overshadow it), at a time of economic or national worries (to give the collective spirit a boost). They also take up a tremendous amount of news space and disappear realtively quickly once the situation has been resolved. Nation-focusing events probably wouldn't be that newsworthy in other situations. It helps if there is a potent race or class element to the story.

Some past examples include the 2006 Duke University Lacross Scandal, 2001 Chandra Levy disappearance (remember that?), Micheal Jackson Kiddy Fidling (at least the first one), OJ Simpson trial, Rosy O'donnel and Trump fight. Ok the last one might not count. I am not from this country, so my knowledge of national-focusing events is not that great, so if you could add to the list of potential nation focusing events that would be great.

An alternative, or perhaps complimentary, argument concerning the attention the mine is getting is that the US is having a crisis about its industrial identity. Offshoring, outsourcing, de-industrialization embodied by the troubles in Detroit has contributed to an enduring sense of angst about American power. China and unfair trade is dominating the business and economic headlines. Having mines collapse on workers is hardly indicative of an industrial powerhouse at the top of its game. That such a story takes so many inches of column space is in itself a sign of this malaise.

And probably some people are fed up with dreregulated and privatized industries performing incredibly poorly. A disaster in Utah in 1984 prompted a federal review of ventilationa nd respiration regulations in mines: it took 3 years to get a report out, and bureacratic work slow tactics got the follow up review to take another 12 years. By 1999 the Mine Safety and Health Adminstration was ready to act on the new reccomendations for ventilation, and guess what? 2001 President Bush shelved the proposals. Nice. Similarly, apparantly, this summer is the worst on record for airline delays and general misery for passengers. Another score for Reaganomics.