July 15
Someone from the New York Times is going to be murdered. You might think that's a joke, if only in the right wing looney Coulter-like sense of saying threatening things and calling it satire (I only said I was going to shoot up your house -- can't you take a joke?). No, that much more a prediction than a joke. The last time I can recall this level of hate radiating from the right was the mid-90's. The difference is this is pro-government hate while that was anti-government hate, but I expect the hate to have similar results. Government workers were the target then like the media, particularly the New York Times, is now. In fact it might be worse now, because to the best of my recollection there weren't people explicitly calling for government workers to be executed outside of fundamentalist Christian white supremacist circles. Now we have the nutcase right like the aforementioned Ann Coulter and talk show host Melanie Morgan calling for the Times editors to be executed, while the leaders of the Republican party remain silent, or at least I can't find the condemnations. Maybe some of them said something somewhere, I hope so, but they sure haven't been obvious. Instead, some have joined the call for prosecution (albeit not execution) for treason.
You certainly can and should read up the facts of the financial surveillance story, and it bears repeating until conservatives, who once upon a time believed in law and order, might at last understand the whole problem isnt' the surveillance, but the lack of warrants. Accountability used to be a good thing, don't you remember? However, aside from the story at issue, notice the willingness to routinely call the Times editors traitors, extend that accusation to mainstream media in general, and above all tolerate the call for executions. The feels like the mid-90's.
What happened in the mid-90's? The hate speech directed at the government led to the shootings at the White House and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. I'm aware there were more factors than just the likes of Limbaugh working lunatics into a lather. I doubt Timothy McVeigh just heard some dittohead agree with Rush one time too many and snapped. I nonetheless believe rhetoric made an atmosphere where murder was thinkable.
I'll tell you a story that wasn't funny at the time, had some dark humor years later in those marvelous pre-Bush days, and now isn't funny again. Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, but the shootings at the White House which gave me the idea, I wrote a sketch ("10-minute play" they get called in theatrical circles, but you get the idea) called "The Bomber". It was about a would be bomber who looked like a loser who wouldn't do anything when he threatened to blow up the White House. It was one of a few short plays chosen for a reading at a Playwrights' Center fundraiser. The bombing occurred just a few days before the reading. Under the circumstances, my script was pulled and I got the recognition of having written something worthy, but I couldn't dispute the decision. In the script, you'll notice I include Limbaugh and Newt Gingrinch as snarling animals, based on the rhetoric they were engaging in at the time. I believed, and believe, they had a hand in encouraging the violence. I don't claim they planned it, but they were sure reckless about provoking the likes of the Christian fundamentalists and white supremacists out on the lunatic fringe.
I see it again now. You can claim if you want that I'm extrapolating from one incident and I'll admit the validity of that. Just you admit I was right once. That's why I make my predication that someone will take the calls for execution for treason seriously enough to try to exact the punishment. I hope the Times staff are taking precautions sufficient to escape harm. I hope Bush will forcefully condemn the calls for execution. I hope that's enough.
And mainstream media, you're under an assault that may soon be more than just rhetorical. Stop thinking anything you do will stop the accusations of liberal bias. You're the whipping boys, and nothing you do will assuage the hatred. You have to fight back to preserve the first amendment. Stop pretending you can be objective about this and call the bastards what they are.
July 10
You might think from my inclusion on the quotes column a quote from Evelyn Douglass, a resident of the neighborhood which contains the Stature of Liberation, that I'm against that statue being displayed (if you're reading this a few weeks from now, you'll find it in the 3G quotes archive). You would be wrong. You would be right that I wouldn't pay for its construction. I would object strongly if it were on public property. I find the combination of nationalism and religious fundamentalism, the two main sources of conflict in the modern world, to be disturbing and I'm glad I don't have to see it. Nonetheless I would oppose any effort to remove it. It sits on church property, and I support their right to spend their own money and display it on their own property. The one caveat I'll make is I don't know the effect on the local neighborhood, so I'll allow the chance it's an eyesore, attracts more traffic than the streets can hold, or something else. However, I'll defend the right of people who believe this nonsense in hopes they'll defend my views which may not be entirely popular. Though I admit that religious fundamentalists who truly believe in the First Amendment would be a pleasant surprise.
July 7
I've got a couple examples for you of how to use some healthy skepticism in your news media consumption, one print and one TV.
First our print example of how misinformation is easy when you don't look closely: Kevin Murphy and Karen Dillon of the Kansas City Star produced a detailed article on how global warming is affecting Kansas and Missouri. They quoted several scientists and reflected the scientific consensus that it's happening and man-made. They quoted two people on the other side, unfortunately giving the impression there's a legitimate debate on the subject. These two doubters were at least only a small part of the article, not given equal time which is common practice. If many journalists heard someone say the Earth goes around the sun, they'd give equal time to someone saying the heliocentric theory is only a theory. Murphy and Dillon didn't do that, but they apparently felt the need to give critics some space. What I want you to notice is not just what the critics said, but where they said it and who signs the paychecks.
One critic is Richard Lindzen, and what jumped out about him was his quote was from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ editorial page is basically Fox News in print so that suggests right away he's not a reliable source. Doing more investigation before writing this, he is a legitimate scientist, but he's making his living not just from the WSJ, but also from the fossil fuel industries. He was exposed in Harper's Magazine in 1995. Here's the text, and since I don't know the web site where I found the text, I looked it up on the Harper's site and while their archives don't go back that far, I did find the article listed among the award finalists. You might wonder if Lindzen is being attacked for not going along with the consensus, but may I suggest he's not writing for the WSJ for free. He's also not telling the truth in his article from July 2. He attacks the metastudy in Science Magazine by Naomi Oreskes which found overwhelming consensus in scientific journals. He called Oreskes a "social scientist" as a subtle implication that she's unqualified to judge the physical sciences. She's actually a geologist. Let me reiterate I dug up all this tonight. I didn't know when I first read the Star article. I was just alerted by the fact Lindzen was writing not in a scientific journal, but in the conservative media.
The other critic was more obvious. The reporters quote Steve Miller, who is described as a spokesman for Sunflower Cooperative, which is a power plant company. I have no idea if he's a scientist, but I do know he's an example of that quote by Upton Sinclair, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
So if there's one lesson to take from this, it's that there's a difference between people who come to a point of view through their work, and people who get work because of their point of view. Specifically with global warming skeptics, you will have a hard time finding among them a scientist who is not getting paid by the corporate special interests trying to cover up the problem.
Now the TV example: MSNBC lets its hosts be open about their biases, and I learned Wednesday and tonight that substitute host Norah O'Donnell is off on the wingnut right. In both cases she was guest hosting Hardball. I saw what I thought was the end of her interview with Cindy Sheehan Wednesday, but it turned out when I looked at the transcript that it was almost the whole thing. O'Donnell stated during Sheehan's introduction, "She's called President Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world," and she stood side-by-side with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez in Venezuela." The wingnut right hates Hugo Chavez, but that he's a dictator is at least highly arguable. Most dictators don't run in elections judged free and fair, and let their opponents control most TV. She could have left out the words "socialist dictator" and the statement would have been factual, though a viewer might ask why she chose those two facts about Sheehan as an introduction. She could have called Sheehan the woman who has become an anti-war leader or the woman who protested outside Bush's ranch last summer, and those would have been correct too. Which facts she chose, and the use of the modifier "socialist dictator" is very revealing. But that's not all.
O'Donnell's first question was, "How do you expect to get change by going around the world and trashing the president of the United States?". Note the typical conservative use of issue framing. They're much better at it than liberals. It's one of those "Do you still beat your wife?" questions, because now the question isn't whether Sheehan's criticisms constitute trashing, but why she trashes. Fortunately Sheehan didn't fall for it, but denied what she does is trashing. Later, O'Donnell returned to Chavez, who remember she already framed as a dictator: "But why go stand side-by-side by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Why do that? I mean, it sounds like—would you rather live under Hugo Chavez than George Bush?" What a dumb question. Sheehan didn't fall for that either, denying Chavez is a dictator.
Then came the most amazing statement that qualified O'Donnell for wingnut membership, the willingness to throw around nonsense if it helps. After Sheehan said Chavez had been democratically elected (I have doubts about the eight times, but I haven't checked and that tangential right now), O'Donnell rebutted by saying, "Saddam Hussein was democratically elected." I'm not kidding. Read the transcript if you don't believe me. I wonder if later she said Saddam was Jewish and Kuwait invaded Iraq. But that's not all.
Tonight, as four conservatives sat around trashing, to coin a word, Sheehan, with no one present to rebut, O'Donnell showed the tape of the exchange I just described and she was proud of herself. The other three conservatives were the other MSNBC evening show hosts and none bothered to point out the absurdity of O'Donnell's statement. Instead, Sheehan was described as pitiful. Funny, someone astute enough not to fall for the interviewer's tricks and rebut the faulty premise of her questions seems pretty astute to me.
July 6
This may not be terribly much to do with politics, or maybe it's impolitic, but this is about idiots I saw tonight riding bicycles while I was too, only with considerably more intelligence. This gripe is addressed not to all bicyclists, just the stupid ones, but you don't know who you are so please follow along. While riding along the bike lanes on Minnehaha Av. tonight, I saw progressively dumber behavior. First was the rider who rode through a red light. At least he had a helmet on. I can't say that of the two women who were riding South in the northbound lane. They were simultaneously going against traffic and helmetless. At least they were using the bike lane. On the very next block was a man riding North in the southbound lane --- the car lane.
Look my fellow bicyclists, your dangerous and illegal behavior is why drivers get irritated with bicycles. If you've ever wondered why some drivers get irritated enough with bicycles to honk, deliberately drive too close, and cut us off merely for the offense of being on the same street, it's not just that they're jerks. As a driver I can tell you I get irritated with bicycling scofflaws. So OK, helmets aren't actually required by law so far as I know (when your head hits the pavement, you'll find you don't get the same pass on physical laws you think you get on traffic laws), and maybe it isn't illegal to ride in the car lane when the street includes a bike lane, but I'm pretty sure running red lights is illegal, and I'll take a guess going the wrong way in traffic is illegal too. So stop being stupid. If you don't care about your safety, consider mine when I run into the driver who doesn't respect the rights of bicycles.
The next winner of the Dead Polar Bear Award is Bruce Tinsley, the cartoonist behind Mallard Fillmore. It's an attempt to be satiric, to the degree conservatives can do satire which isn't much. He's a staunch disbeliever in global warming, holding the opinion expected of someone who thinks that the Washington Times and Townhall.com are objective sources for the nonsense he draws. What brings him the award is the strip published on July 4th where he portrays Al Gore manically yelling "We're all gonna die!" If Tinsley were actually to see Gore's film or read the book, he might catch the bit where Gore says we already have the technology to reduce CO2 emissions and avoid the worst of the problem. Gore has even repeated the point in his many interviews. That some disagree with Gore on that point isn't the point here. The point is Gore is saying nothing like what Tinsley says Gore is saying, so I must conclude Tinsley is doing the usual conservative thing of criticising things he knows nothing about when he's jumped to a different conclusion. Since he thinks he's figured out this issue he knows nothing about, he's the ideal winner of the Dead Polar Bear Award.
I figured there would be a topic where this was a relevant point, but it hasn't yet so I'll just jump in. I have admittedly been a Johnny-come-lately to the idea of a timetable for an end to the occupation of Iraq because as much as I was against the invasion and believe the acting president deserves impeachment for deceiving us, I worry about leaving the country worse off than we found it, and I figured since we made the mess we had to fix it. This thinking has conflicted with the possibility we can't make it better, because our very presence is part of the problem. I've come around to the side calling for a timetable. I don't think it can be written in stone, because no complex project fits the schedule. However, I've become convinced the Iraqis want assurance we will eventually leave, and don't plan to treat Iraq like a colony. What really made the case and shot down the notion the Iraqis don't want a timetable is that the Iraqi vice-president asked for one and the Iraqi president supports him. Hasn't Bush always said we'd leave if the Iraqis asked us to? Argue all you want that a timetable is a bad idea, but if we really consider the Iraqi government to be sovereign, isn't that their mistake to make? We know from the way Bush dropped in on the Iraqi PM with no notice they're not really sovereign: Bush would never land in London and travel to Downing St. without the British government being in the know. Still, if the government is to be respected, at some point they have to be allowed to decide when they'll have foreign troops on their soil. So make up a timetable, and it's fine if it's flexible. It seems likely to me support among Iraqis for both US troops and their new government will increase if they know we plan to leave.
July 2
You would think a travel article in a Sunday newspaper would be non-controversial, wouldn't you, even in the New York Times, which the right wing lunatics hate with such passion lately? You might think a resort town which attracts the powerful to weekend there would be a natural subject for the travel section. You would not then be one of those right wing lunatics. The right wing has decided that this article on the village of St. Michaels on the Eastern shore of Maryland is an attempt to lead Al Qaida to the place where they can locate Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Michelle Malkin says it's part of a conspiracy of left-wing thuggery against the acting president's officials and supporters. She's doing the usual right-wing blogger/columnist thing of incestuous sourcing, where her sources are mostly other rabid conservatives. She did link to Indymedia for a story on "Moonbats", her word, invading Rumsfeld's home. One was Cindy Sheehan taking a protest to Rumsfeld's home, a questionable protest tactic but come on, Sheehan is scary? She's linking places like American Spectator and Newsmax for her sources. Now I'm not going to claim I never look at other blogs. I got this story from a left-wing blog, Unclaimed Territory. However, I did read the Times story before deciding to write this, and I checked out Malkin's blog rather than just taking someone's word for it the conservatives were putting on the tin foil hats.
I also did one other thing that debunks the whole idea the Times was trying to give Al Qaida enough information to get Cheney and Rumsfeld, and it's not the simple notion that these guys have screwed up so much that Islamic terrorists would be self-defeating to them. I did a web search for "rumsfeld, weekend home" and found the same information without needing the times story. Here for example is the information on Rumsfeld's house on History New Network. He bought a historic home which has already been photographed and written about. A search for "cheney, rumsfeld, weekend home" produced this article from the International Herald Tribune mentioning the have homes close to each other. Of course, "International" in the name probably makes conservatives think they're just out to get Bush. If you're still thinking, notice that those searches didn't even specifically mention St. Michaels, though once you know to look for St. Michaels, all the information in the Times article is available.
So let me leave you with a method of debunking the conspiracy theories that give conspiracy theories a bad name. Ask whether the damaging information being revealed for allegedly nefarious purposes is already available elsewhere (though be careful also of people who claim to have done this, like the claim Valerie Wilson's identity was commonly known). If you want to repeat my searches, I used Netscape search.
