There's been a hullabaloo in the last day or so even since President Bush commuted the sentence of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby, who had been found guilty of perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice. The commutation spares Libby any prison time. Bush has not ruled out a full pardon for the convicted felon. Personally, I'd be shocked if Bush DOESN'T pardon Libby at some point, most likely sometime between Election Day 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009.
Presidential pardons and commutations for their cronies aren't exactly new. It seems every president issues a rash of these orders in the waning days of his presidency. But Bush's clemency is odd behavior from someone whose party claims to represent law and order. Then again, those who scream loudest about law and order are usually those with the least respect for either. Just ask anyone who ever wore a 'Nixon-Agnew' button.
In a way, Libby is lucky. Not just because of who he knew but because of his job. Does anyone think he would've been granted amnesty for his multiple crimes if he'd been, say, an illegal immigrant who threatened America by picking strawberries?
The ironic part, assuming irony is not dead with the current administration, is this.
Scooter Libby spent less time in jail than Paris Hilton. I have no idea what Hilton did but I doubt it was more grave than lying under oath and obstructing justice?
A few weeks ago, one far right commentator opined: Hilton is an example of what happens when you don't obey the law and don't obey a judge's orders. Hilton apparently thinks the rules don't apply to her, she has another thing coming and she'll find that out in the slam very quickly. A lot of folks think that celebrities get special treatment when they run afoul of the law and while that may on some level be true it isn't always the case. It's important for the public to know that the law applies to everyone.
Yet the very same commentator said of Libby: This case was such nonsense in the first place... Bush should have pardoned Libby from the beginning.
The law 'applies to everyone' but not to the vice-president's chief of staff. Does that mean Libby is no one? Does that mean the vice-presidency is some sort of legal vacuum? Ok, maybe it is.
The same far right commentator added that: Even if Libby lied, he didn't lie under oath in a formal proceeding.
The person who said this is also a lawyer and thus should know that perjury is indeed the crime of lying under oath.
Then again, he's not the only right-winger who's changed his tune.
While many conservatives now pooh-pooh the severity of the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, they seemed to think they were a pretty big deal nine years ago!
Update: Joan Walsh over at Salon.com also takes to task Rudy Giuliani. 'America's Prosecutor' has apparently jettisoned (temporarily I presume) the populist law and order demagoguery that has been the pillar of his presidential campaign and decided to give the thumbs up to Bush's amnesty for a convicted felon. Walsh sneers: Way to stand with a beleaguered U.S. attorney, Rudy! What a wuss.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Monday, July 02, 2007
"The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable"
Former Los Angeles Times staff writer Ken Silverstein has a great guest column in his old paper. He concludes that the Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.
One of my regular criticisms of the political press corps (Albany as well as Washington) is that they are so obsessed with access that they are too timid to ask truly tough questions. Sure, they ask acceptably tough questions but they all too rarely challenge the boundaries of establishment, transcription journalism.
A great example in New York state politics is WAMC Northeast Public Radio supremo Dr. Alan Chartock. He rightly excoriates the New York state legislature for secrecy and for gerrymandering. He refers to the body's redistricting efforts as the 'incumbent protection program' and he is spot on.
He's done countless interviews with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. The interviews are inevitably chummy and cordial. Chartock sounds almost embarrassed when he asks something vaguely resembling a tough question.
Bear in mind that Silver and Bruno run their chambers with an iron fist, giving rank and file members (even of their own parties) little power. They could ram through true electoral reform and institute a fair electoral system in the snap of a finger, if they really wanted to. Of course they are more than content with re-election rates that are higher than the Communist Chinese National Assembly.
But to listen to Chartock, apparently this gerrymandering takes place in a vacuum. As far as I know, not once has Chartock held Silver's or Bruno's feet to the fire regarding the 'incumbent protection program.' If he did, he might lose his chummy monthly interviews with big shots.
After all, what's the point of having the vaunted access if you don't use it? Maybe being invited to fancy dinner parties is more important.
And on those rare occasions when journalists do push the boundaries, they are often the object of scorn more so than the corrupt folks they are reporting on.
In an investigation for Harper's magazine, Silverstein passed himself off to some as the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. He contacted some of Washington's elite lobbying firms and told them he wanted to burnish the image of Turkmenistan, not mentioning that the country is run by a neo-Stalinist, cult of personality regime. He was sure they already knew and didn't care.
Silverstein writes: the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
Yet Silverstein's work was attacked by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz.
Even though Silverstein's work exposed an extremely serious corruption of journalism.
Silverstein notes how things have changed in the corporate media landscape. Media docility has made serious investigative journalism much rarer.
He writes: there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.
Silverstein believes that this timidity is due in large part to the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.
No doubt increasing media ownership by large media companies demanding ever-increasing profits above less profitable quality journalism has played a crippling role. This is evidenced by the now virtually indistinguishable line that once separated news and entertainment.
Perhaps the most telling comment came from former 60 Minutes' producer Chick Lewis. Lewis told Silverstein, "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."
And I think this encapsulates how journalism has changed in the last half century. Journalists were once considered blue collar and identified with working class folks. They took their obligation to public service seriously. They believe it important to stand up for the little guy.
Now, journalism is considered white collar. A college degree is now generally considered an entry requirement. Political journalists now tend to identify more with the politicians they cover, who tend also to be educated and white collar, than with their more diverse readership.
In theory, higher education should lead to higher quality journalism. But in practice, it leads to far more caution. Journalists are taught the boundaries of establishment corporate journalism and more important, to never question them. Journalists learn from textbooks and professors instead of honing their instincts through experience.
Their preconceptions are formed before they ever publish their first piece as a paid reporter. A preconception being that they are transcribers rather than investigators. A preconception being that objectivity and neutrality are the same thing, when they're not.
Will mainstream corporate journalism ever return to being something more than mere transcription? Something more than CSPAN in print? If Silverstein's experience is anything to go by, probably not.
One of my regular criticisms of the political press corps (Albany as well as Washington) is that they are so obsessed with access that they are too timid to ask truly tough questions. Sure, they ask acceptably tough questions but they all too rarely challenge the boundaries of establishment, transcription journalism.
A great example in New York state politics is WAMC Northeast Public Radio supremo Dr. Alan Chartock. He rightly excoriates the New York state legislature for secrecy and for gerrymandering. He refers to the body's redistricting efforts as the 'incumbent protection program' and he is spot on.
He's done countless interviews with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. The interviews are inevitably chummy and cordial. Chartock sounds almost embarrassed when he asks something vaguely resembling a tough question.
Bear in mind that Silver and Bruno run their chambers with an iron fist, giving rank and file members (even of their own parties) little power. They could ram through true electoral reform and institute a fair electoral system in the snap of a finger, if they really wanted to. Of course they are more than content with re-election rates that are higher than the Communist Chinese National Assembly.
But to listen to Chartock, apparently this gerrymandering takes place in a vacuum. As far as I know, not once has Chartock held Silver's or Bruno's feet to the fire regarding the 'incumbent protection program.' If he did, he might lose his chummy monthly interviews with big shots.
After all, what's the point of having the vaunted access if you don't use it? Maybe being invited to fancy dinner parties is more important.
And on those rare occasions when journalists do push the boundaries, they are often the object of scorn more so than the corrupt folks they are reporting on.
In an investigation for Harper's magazine, Silverstein passed himself off to some as the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. He contacted some of Washington's elite lobbying firms and told them he wanted to burnish the image of Turkmenistan, not mentioning that the country is run by a neo-Stalinist, cult of personality regime. He was sure they already knew and didn't care.
Silverstein writes: the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).
Yet Silverstein's work was attacked by Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz.
Even though Silverstein's work exposed an extremely serious corruption of journalism.
Silverstein notes how things have changed in the corporate media landscape. Media docility has made serious investigative journalism much rarer.
He writes: there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.
Silverstein believes that this timidity is due in large part to the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.
No doubt increasing media ownership by large media companies demanding ever-increasing profits above less profitable quality journalism has played a crippling role. This is evidenced by the now virtually indistinguishable line that once separated news and entertainment.
Perhaps the most telling comment came from former 60 Minutes' producer Chick Lewis. Lewis told Silverstein, "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."
And I think this encapsulates how journalism has changed in the last half century. Journalists were once considered blue collar and identified with working class folks. They took their obligation to public service seriously. They believe it important to stand up for the little guy.
Now, journalism is considered white collar. A college degree is now generally considered an entry requirement. Political journalists now tend to identify more with the politicians they cover, who tend also to be educated and white collar, than with their more diverse readership.
In theory, higher education should lead to higher quality journalism. But in practice, it leads to far more caution. Journalists are taught the boundaries of establishment corporate journalism and more important, to never question them. Journalists learn from textbooks and professors instead of honing their instincts through experience.
Their preconceptions are formed before they ever publish their first piece as a paid reporter. A preconception being that they are transcribers rather than investigators. A preconception being that objectivity and neutrality are the same thing, when they're not.
Will mainstream corporate journalism ever return to being something more than mere transcription? Something more than CSPAN in print? If Silverstein's experience is anything to go by, probably not.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Indy booksellers mad at NPR
Publishers Weekly had an interesting report on how some booksellers are upset at an unexpected target: National Public Radio.
When the NPR website highlights certain books, the 'Buy this book' link directs users to Amazon.com. Presumably, tbe network gets a commission if a user buys something on Amazon via the link on NPR's website. A non-profit on which I am on the board of directors has a similar agreement with Amazon.
However, independent book sellers naturally aren't thrilled about this.
Collectively, independent booksellers support NPR to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. On top of that, a number of booksellers provide book selections to their local affiliates and occasionally nationally on NPR.
The main NPR affiliate in this area, WAMC Northeast Public Radio, isn't much different.
WAMC regularly provides an on-air forum to independent booksellers. And they do have links to the many independent bookstores that underwrite their programming. But links to books featured on their The Book Show program also take users to Amazon.
They do so while encouraging users to 'Support WAMC with your Amazon.com purchase,' though if I were a bookstore underwriter, I might wonder why I'm supporting WAMC with my dollars.
When the NPR website highlights certain books, the 'Buy this book' link directs users to Amazon.com. Presumably, tbe network gets a commission if a user buys something on Amazon via the link on NPR's website. A non-profit on which I am on the board of directors has a similar agreement with Amazon.
However, independent book sellers naturally aren't thrilled about this.
Collectively, independent booksellers support NPR to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. On top of that, a number of booksellers provide book selections to their local affiliates and occasionally nationally on NPR.
The main NPR affiliate in this area, WAMC Northeast Public Radio, isn't much different.
WAMC regularly provides an on-air forum to independent booksellers. And they do have links to the many independent bookstores that underwrite their programming. But links to books featured on their The Book Show program also take users to Amazon.
They do so while encouraging users to 'Support WAMC with your Amazon.com purchase,' though if I were a bookstore underwriter, I might wonder why I'm supporting WAMC with my dollars.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Enough malfeasance to make the head spin
I've bookmarked so many articles on malfeasance and incompetence in Washington that I've decided to condense them all into one entry for the purpose of saving time, even though each merits an essay of its own.
-From The Washington Post: The CIA has decided to release files about its covert, not-always-legal activities from the early 1950s to the early 1970s. There was warrantless domestic spying against political opponents ordered by Presidents Johnson and Nixon (the more things change....). The files also revealed details on the CIA's long suspected, but never confirmed, role in the assassination of then-Congolese prime minister Patrice Lumumba. The agency also apparently offered a Mafia boss $150,000 to kill Cuban strongman Fidel Castro. A decade later, then-director William Colby stated, "I can say, under oath if need be, that the CIA has never carried out a political assassination, nor has it induced, employed or suggested one which occurred." Perhaps his spirit was responsible for the 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction' determination.
-From The Washington Post: yet another appeal to close the Guantanamo Bay kidnapee camp. Though the paper warned that shutting down the camp, however warranted, would not automatically undo the damage it caused to America's credibility and moral authority. It also cautioned the government against merely shipping the kidnapees back to their home countries, where they may be subjected to torture and other forms of abuse. The administration doesn't want them moved to American soil because then they might be subject to the rule of law, legality being something the White House has always been desperate to avoid.
-From The Washington Post. Where do I get off saying that the White House has always been desperate to avoid respecting the law? It's not exactly a secret. The president has openly flaunted this contempt. The Post notes that President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes. Basically, if he doesn't like part of legislation that HE HIMSELF SIGNS INTO LAW, he just decides to ignore it. If this is the Iraqi government's model for how to conduct democracy, then that explains a lot.
-From Reuters: The CIA doesn't have a monopoly on abuses. FBI officials admitted that they may have violated the law or its rules more than 1,000 times since 2002 in collecting data about phone calls, e-mails and financial records while investigating terrorism or espionage suspects. Apologists told us that we should just give the executive (that's the presidency, not the vice-presidency, it seems) any power it desires without question because nothing wrong could possibly come of it. Privacy? That's sooooo 19th century.
-From Amnesty International: In the same vein, the human rights' organization took the CIA to task for kidnaping people. A practice euphemistically known as 'enforced disappearance,' a term that eerily invokes similar actions taken by fascist South American juntas during the 1970s and 1980s against that era's boogeyman: communists. AI also reports, even more sickeningly, that the CIA has kidnaped the wives and children of suspects for interrogations and... to 'secure the capture of their husband or father.' Click your heels twice and repeat after me: they only reason they hate us is because we're free.
-From Newsweek: Think Bush is the first president to invoke Divine Right in rationalizing a foreign military aggression? Not exactly. In 1898, President William McKinley was trying figure out an excuse to conquer the Philippines. "I walked the floor of The White House night after night until midnight," he recalled. "I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance. There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them ... " Newsweek pointed out that the Filipinos were already Christianized (Roman Catholic) and probably weren't to keen on being dominated by a foreign power. The brutal insurgency that followed cost the lives of over 4,000 Americans and more than half a million Filipinos. The weekly noted that this is where the torture technique of waterboarding, so eagerly championed by Vice-President Cheney (oops, I mean Senate president Cheney), was developed. This war (and Algeria with the French), not Vietnam, is no doubt the closest analogy to the disaster that's happening in Iraq.
-From: The Associated Press. Oh wait, Iraq is not a disaster. After four years, the world's most powerful military and its allies control a whopping 40 percent of Baghdad. At this rate, it'll only take until 2013 until we control the whole city and can declare once again Mission Accomplished!
-From: Democracy Rising. Maybe this is why the man who commanded US forces in Iraq for the first year said, "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time." Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said that America should get real about its expectations. "I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat." He must hate America and want the Evil Doers to win too!
-From: Alternet. Remember when the snake oil salesmen were trying to peddle us the aggression against Iraq? They promised us the war would be quick and relatively painless. We'd go in there. Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. We'd be in and out of there in a few years, just like after World War II. Now, Bush is saying that our troops will be in Iraq for another half century... or more. To Bush, the model is not West Germany or Japan, but South Korea, where US troops have been stationed since 1953 (earlier if you count the war). Alternet called it such a naked acknowledgement of America's long-term designs on carving out a strategic foothold in the region that even the milquetoast American press had to acknowledge it. Wonder why they didn't mention this in 2002?
-From Tomdispatch.com. But wait a second? America doesn't have 'long-term designs on carving out a strategic foothold' in the Middle East or anywhere else. The US military is only ever used for the sole purpose of defending American soil, not for any economic reasons. Tomdispatch.com adds As Chalmers Johnson has pointed out in his book The Sorrows of Empire, the United States has, mainly since World War II, set up at least 737 [foreign military] bases, mega and micro -- and probably closer to 1,000 -- worldwide. An astonishing number when you consider there are only about 200 countries in the world. According to our national fairy tale, the US is a republic, not an empire. Well, our 'republic' that spends almost as much on 'national defense' as the rest of the world combined. So wouldn't you think that a country that by itself accounts for 48 percent of all global military spending should feel a lot more secure than Americans do right now? It makes you wonder when Americans will finally connect the dots and realize that our meddling, expansionist foreign policy has served to make us less safe, not more.
-From The Washington Post: The CIA has decided to release files about its covert, not-always-legal activities from the early 1950s to the early 1970s. There was warrantless domestic spying against political opponents ordered by Presidents Johnson and Nixon (the more things change....). The files also revealed details on the CIA's long suspected, but never confirmed, role in the assassination of then-Congolese prime minister Patrice Lumumba. The agency also apparently offered a Mafia boss $150,000 to kill Cuban strongman Fidel Castro. A decade later, then-director William Colby stated, "I can say, under oath if need be, that the CIA has never carried out a political assassination, nor has it induced, employed or suggested one which occurred." Perhaps his spirit was responsible for the 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction' determination.
-From The Washington Post: yet another appeal to close the Guantanamo Bay kidnapee camp. Though the paper warned that shutting down the camp, however warranted, would not automatically undo the damage it caused to America's credibility and moral authority. It also cautioned the government against merely shipping the kidnapees back to their home countries, where they may be subjected to torture and other forms of abuse. The administration doesn't want them moved to American soil because then they might be subject to the rule of law, legality being something the White House has always been desperate to avoid.
-From The Washington Post. Where do I get off saying that the White House has always been desperate to avoid respecting the law? It's not exactly a secret. The president has openly flaunted this contempt. The Post notes that President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes. Basically, if he doesn't like part of legislation that HE HIMSELF SIGNS INTO LAW, he just decides to ignore it. If this is the Iraqi government's model for how to conduct democracy, then that explains a lot.
-From Reuters: The CIA doesn't have a monopoly on abuses. FBI officials admitted that they may have violated the law or its rules more than 1,000 times since 2002 in collecting data about phone calls, e-mails and financial records while investigating terrorism or espionage suspects. Apologists told us that we should just give the executive (that's the presidency, not the vice-presidency, it seems) any power it desires without question because nothing wrong could possibly come of it. Privacy? That's sooooo 19th century.
-From Amnesty International: In the same vein, the human rights' organization took the CIA to task for kidnaping people. A practice euphemistically known as 'enforced disappearance,' a term that eerily invokes similar actions taken by fascist South American juntas during the 1970s and 1980s against that era's boogeyman: communists. AI also reports, even more sickeningly, that the CIA has kidnaped the wives and children of suspects for interrogations and... to 'secure the capture of their husband or father.' Click your heels twice and repeat after me: they only reason they hate us is because we're free.
-From Newsweek: Think Bush is the first president to invoke Divine Right in rationalizing a foreign military aggression? Not exactly. In 1898, President William McKinley was trying figure out an excuse to conquer the Philippines. "I walked the floor of The White House night after night until midnight," he recalled. "I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance. There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them ... " Newsweek pointed out that the Filipinos were already Christianized (Roman Catholic) and probably weren't to keen on being dominated by a foreign power. The brutal insurgency that followed cost the lives of over 4,000 Americans and more than half a million Filipinos. The weekly noted that this is where the torture technique of waterboarding, so eagerly championed by Vice-President Cheney (oops, I mean Senate president Cheney), was developed. This war (and Algeria with the French), not Vietnam, is no doubt the closest analogy to the disaster that's happening in Iraq.
-From: The Associated Press. Oh wait, Iraq is not a disaster. After four years, the world's most powerful military and its allies control a whopping 40 percent of Baghdad. At this rate, it'll only take until 2013 until we control the whole city and can declare once again Mission Accomplished!
-From: Democracy Rising. Maybe this is why the man who commanded US forces in Iraq for the first year said, "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time." Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said that America should get real about its expectations. "I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat." He must hate America and want the Evil Doers to win too!
-From: Alternet. Remember when the snake oil salesmen were trying to peddle us the aggression against Iraq? They promised us the war would be quick and relatively painless. We'd go in there. Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. We'd be in and out of there in a few years, just like after World War II. Now, Bush is saying that our troops will be in Iraq for another half century... or more. To Bush, the model is not West Germany or Japan, but South Korea, where US troops have been stationed since 1953 (earlier if you count the war). Alternet called it such a naked acknowledgement of America's long-term designs on carving out a strategic foothold in the region that even the milquetoast American press had to acknowledge it. Wonder why they didn't mention this in 2002?
-From Tomdispatch.com. But wait a second? America doesn't have 'long-term designs on carving out a strategic foothold' in the Middle East or anywhere else. The US military is only ever used for the sole purpose of defending American soil, not for any economic reasons. Tomdispatch.com adds As Chalmers Johnson has pointed out in his book The Sorrows of Empire, the United States has, mainly since World War II, set up at least 737 [foreign military] bases, mega and micro -- and probably closer to 1,000 -- worldwide. An astonishing number when you consider there are only about 200 countries in the world. According to our national fairy tale, the US is a republic, not an empire. Well, our 'republic' that spends almost as much on 'national defense' as the rest of the world combined. So wouldn't you think that a country that by itself accounts for 48 percent of all global military spending should feel a lot more secure than Americans do right now? It makes you wonder when Americans will finally connect the dots and realize that our meddling, expansionist foreign policy has served to make us less safe, not more.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Choice and flexibility are bad for consumers
I know Cal Thomas is hardly our nation's foremost embodiment of intellectual honesty. But this column has to be one of the most Orwellian pieces I've ever read, even by his standards!
Thomas' argument in a nutshell: Allowing consumers to pick à la carte which TV channels they subscribe to amounts a "government official or bureaucrat deciding which cable shows are good for [you]."
Now maybe there is actually a legitimate argument about why such an arrangement would be bad for consumers, an argument more substantive than "Fox News could not have been launched in an a la carte environment." But Thomas sure didn't make it.
I want to pick which cable channels I subscribe to. Apparently, this constitutes the FCC controlling my entertainment choices.
Thomas wants it so I must decide essentially between two choices that Time Warner picks for me. That is the avenue of consumer freedom, according to him.
Just as freedom is slavery, choice and flexibility are bad for the consumer. So says one of our foremost advocates for the 'free market.'
Thomas' argument in a nutshell: Allowing consumers to pick à la carte which TV channels they subscribe to amounts a "government official or bureaucrat deciding which cable shows are good for [you]."
Now maybe there is actually a legitimate argument about why such an arrangement would be bad for consumers, an argument more substantive than "Fox News could not have been launched in an a la carte environment." But Thomas sure didn't make it.
I want to pick which cable channels I subscribe to. Apparently, this constitutes the FCC controlling my entertainment choices.
Thomas wants it so I must decide essentially between two choices that Time Warner picks for me. That is the avenue of consumer freedom, according to him.
Just as freedom is slavery, choice and flexibility are bad for the consumer. So says one of our foremost advocates for the 'free market.'
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The governmental equivalent of Gitmo
The Washington Post has a chilling piece on the frightening amount of power accumulated by Vice-President Dick Cheney. It seems Cheney de facto has a good chunk of the powers of the presidency while avoiding most of the media scrutiny and resisting all attempts at accountability.
A telling quote on Cheney's belief in impunity:
His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either.
In other words, the vice-presidency is the governmental equivalent of Guatanamo Bay: a sort of limbo, a legal black hole asserted for the purpose of avoiding respect for the law and American values.
Judging from his actions during the last six years, it's no surprise to read that Cheney doesn't believe in the law or the Constitution since he hasn't shown much respect for either. It's just surprising to hear this admitted publicly.
Update: Apparently some in Congress thought it would be a good idea to call Cheney on his b.s. Some House Democrats tried to strip him of his executive branch budget. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee suggested that if Cheney were in fact part of the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, then that would mean the same body could also expel him. The vote to follow Cheney's contention to its natural conclusion failed 209-217.
A telling quote on Cheney's belief in impunity:
His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either.
In other words, the vice-presidency is the governmental equivalent of Guatanamo Bay: a sort of limbo, a legal black hole asserted for the purpose of avoiding respect for the law and American values.
Judging from his actions during the last six years, it's no surprise to read that Cheney doesn't believe in the law or the Constitution since he hasn't shown much respect for either. It's just surprising to hear this admitted publicly.
Update: Apparently some in Congress thought it would be a good idea to call Cheney on his b.s. Some House Democrats tried to strip him of his executive branch budget. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee suggested that if Cheney were in fact part of the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, then that would mean the same body could also expel him. The vote to follow Cheney's contention to its natural conclusion failed 209-217.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Developmentalism as neo-colonialism?
New York University professor William Easterly has an interesting piece in Foreign Policy entitled The Ideology of Development. I've sparred with him in the past in FP's pages and take issue with some points he raises here but this essay is worth a read. Easterly offers a pungent critique of top-down of what he calls 'Developmentalism,' an ideology he claims is just as dangerous as fascism and communism.
He contends that a noble idea (the free market system) has been hijacked by bureaucrats of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions were created primarily to advance the interests of corporations in donor (western) countries. As such, they have typically advocated policies to achieve precisely this end. During the 1980s, the cure-all-prescription was for poorer countries to completely deregulate their economies and to open themselves up to unrestrained foreign pillaging.
I'm generally in favor of more openness in trade. But I believe in this to the extent that it helps raise the standard of living of people in countries that do so. Raising the standard of living broadly, not just for the narrow elite. Where more openness hurts the broader population, I see nothing wrong with regulations, social programs, etc. I do not believe in government intervention merely for its own sake. I do not believe in deregulation and free trade simply for their own sake either.
Easterly echoes a criticism I've often made myself. These international institutions try to shove down the throats of poorer countries one-size-fits-all policies, regardless of any other considerations. These policies are conceived in air-conditioned offices in London or New York and completely disregard local realities on the ground, realities that are key to the success or failure of any reform. This is why most structural adjustment programs (the formal name for when a country hands over management of its economy to foreign bureaucrats) have failed.
He points outs out that this top down imposition of policies is the antithesis of free markets. Furthermore, he argues that these ill-suited foreign prescriptions have had a counterproductive effect by giving open markets a bad name. This disillusionment is what opened the door to a populist demagogue like Hugo Chavez who has become a mythical figure precisely by attacking laissez-faire capitalism. Most of the countries in South America, the continent most harmed by structural adjustment policies, are run by at least moderately left-of-center governments.
Easterly fails to mention another situation that further alienates people in the non-western world: hypocrisy. Western countries preach the gospel of the free market. But it's only a one way street. Africa is regularly encouraged to follow the laissez-faire prescription by opening its economies to foreign exploitation, something which has obviously garnered the continent's people such wonderful results during the last 200 years. But western countries reject the same prescription by refusing to eliminate huge agricultural subsidies to their farmers, subsidies which make African agriculture uncompetitive in relation. Free trade implies a certain reciprocity that western countries presently aren't willing to concede.
Laissez-faire capitalism is a fantastic ideology in theory but ideology doesn't fill your stomach.
And it's worth noting that developmentalism is not the sole provenance of the right-wing. Many moderate left-of-center folks, such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs, embrace these theories. They view it as a sort of benevolent update of old theories. Laissez-faire with a human face, you might say. But there's nothing particularly humane about any ideology that ignores the wishes and desires of the humans that it affects!
He contends that a noble idea (the free market system) has been hijacked by bureaucrats of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These institutions were created primarily to advance the interests of corporations in donor (western) countries. As such, they have typically advocated policies to achieve precisely this end. During the 1980s, the cure-all-prescription was for poorer countries to completely deregulate their economies and to open themselves up to unrestrained foreign pillaging.
I'm generally in favor of more openness in trade. But I believe in this to the extent that it helps raise the standard of living of people in countries that do so. Raising the standard of living broadly, not just for the narrow elite. Where more openness hurts the broader population, I see nothing wrong with regulations, social programs, etc. I do not believe in government intervention merely for its own sake. I do not believe in deregulation and free trade simply for their own sake either.
Easterly echoes a criticism I've often made myself. These international institutions try to shove down the throats of poorer countries one-size-fits-all policies, regardless of any other considerations. These policies are conceived in air-conditioned offices in London or New York and completely disregard local realities on the ground, realities that are key to the success or failure of any reform. This is why most structural adjustment programs (the formal name for when a country hands over management of its economy to foreign bureaucrats) have failed.
He points outs out that this top down imposition of policies is the antithesis of free markets. Furthermore, he argues that these ill-suited foreign prescriptions have had a counterproductive effect by giving open markets a bad name. This disillusionment is what opened the door to a populist demagogue like Hugo Chavez who has become a mythical figure precisely by attacking laissez-faire capitalism. Most of the countries in South America, the continent most harmed by structural adjustment policies, are run by at least moderately left-of-center governments.
Easterly fails to mention another situation that further alienates people in the non-western world: hypocrisy. Western countries preach the gospel of the free market. But it's only a one way street. Africa is regularly encouraged to follow the laissez-faire prescription by opening its economies to foreign exploitation, something which has obviously garnered the continent's people such wonderful results during the last 200 years. But western countries reject the same prescription by refusing to eliminate huge agricultural subsidies to their farmers, subsidies which make African agriculture uncompetitive in relation. Free trade implies a certain reciprocity that western countries presently aren't willing to concede.
Laissez-faire capitalism is a fantastic ideology in theory but ideology doesn't fill your stomach.
And it's worth noting that developmentalism is not the sole provenance of the right-wing. Many moderate left-of-center folks, such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs, embrace these theories. They view it as a sort of benevolent update of old theories. Laissez-faire with a human face, you might say. But there's nothing particularly humane about any ideology that ignores the wishes and desires of the humans that it affects!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Mediocrity perpetuated
Sadly, the once proud Boston Bruins have become a joke of a hockey club. The team made the Stanley Cup playoffs for an NHL record 29 consecutive years from the mid-60s through the mid-90s. But they have missed the playoffs for 4 of the last 7 and 5 of the last 10 seasons. They've won one playoff series since 1995. They'd won 12 series in the previous 7 seasons before that, making it to the Stanley Cup semifinals 4 times. Since the mid-90s, the Bruins have become mediocrity personified. A once great pro hockey town is now apathetic about the sport, thanks to a club run into the ground.
The Bruins fired head coach Dave Lewis earlier this month, but waited a good two months after the end of another pathetic regular season to do so. Most teams with common sense would've made that decision within a week or two.
But give the B's a little credit. They had a good reason for waiting so long. Rather than getting the organization's head out of its collective behind, the front office was concerned with far more important things: tweaking the team's logos.
Sure, it took them two months to figure out that their coach wasn't getting the job done, but how can you bet against a club that comes up with such breathtaking prose as this:
Each tweak and adjustment to the Bruins B-spoke is made for legibility, modernization and enhancement of a historic team and an icon of Boston.
Pathetic.
The Bruins fired head coach Dave Lewis earlier this month, but waited a good two months after the end of another pathetic regular season to do so. Most teams with common sense would've made that decision within a week or two.
But give the B's a little credit. They had a good reason for waiting so long. Rather than getting the organization's head out of its collective behind, the front office was concerned with far more important things: tweaking the team's logos.
Sure, it took them two months to figure out that their coach wasn't getting the job done, but how can you bet against a club that comes up with such breathtaking prose as this:
Each tweak and adjustment to the Bruins B-spoke is made for legibility, modernization and enhancement of a historic team and an icon of Boston.
Pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)