WOULD YOU CARE FOR SOME TEA?
Tuesday, May 24
I Know That Game
Glenn Reynolds (free, ad supported) links to a short piece by
Mickey Kaus (free, ad supported, ©2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC) regarding the latest efforts of George Lakoff to reshape the Democratic Party without actually having to go through any of that awkward
change.
Well, unless you knew Lakoff already, you wouldn't know that's what they were talking about, although Mickey links to pieces in The Atlantic and The New Republic Online, which, while both being for subscribers only, do give short excerpts which (more so in The Atlantic's case) give us some idea of what is going on.
Which is this: Lakoff says that the Democrats' problem is not their policies - the policies are perfect; flawless, glittering gems, thank you very much - but the words they use to describe them. From The Atlantic:
When conservatives invoke "strong defense," liberals, Lakoff says, must reframe the concept by referring to a "stronger America." Instead of "free markets," liberals should speak of "broad prosperity." Likewise, "smaller government" must be recast as "effective government," and "family values" as "mutual responsibility." Those greedy "trial lawyers" excoriated by the right should be reframed and praised as brave and selfless "public-protection attorneys." And perhaps most important, when conservatives start promoting more Bushian "tax relief," liberals should respond by defending taxes as "membership fees" or "investments" in America.
Mickey Kaus seems to think that the key weakness of Lakoff's argument is his model of politics:
Oddly, neither attacks Lakoff at what would seem to be his central weak point, namely his conflation of politics and parenting--identifying "conservative" values with "the strict father" and "liberal" values with the "nurturant parent."
Now, apart from the fact that anyone who uses the word "nurturant" and means it should be taken out and shot, this rather misses the point.
What Lakoff's point is, is this: Don't address the issues. Don't ever address the issues. Because although We (the Democrats) are on the right side of every issue, We have this little problem with educating Them (the residents of Jesusland) so that They are smart enough to agree with Us. In the meantime, feed them bullshit.
To put it another way: Lakoff is preaching contempt. His view is that voters are idiots, or robots, programmed into specific voting patterns, to be swayed by specific codewords rather than substantive policies.
It's one thing to disparage those that didn't vote for your party, Mr Lakoff, but what does that say about those that did?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:08 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
1
This reminds me of when my city's public transportaion company decided they needed to improve their service--so they changed their name....
Posted by: Susie at Wednesday, May 25 2005 12:46 AM (V1YvO)
2
ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net
Posted by: ya pidoras at Wednesday, July 26 2006 01:21 AM (w4nDS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Monday, May 23
Ah, That's the One
I've been looking for a particular article written recently about the game being played by the mainstream media, but I couldn't find it again among the flood of similar pieces both on blogs and the fringe (i.e. not hopelessly liberal) media. But following a random link (in other words, I've forgotten who linked to it), I
found it again:
Its rules are simple and cynical. Presume the U.S. government is lying -- particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the U.S. military -- even when the president is a Democrat. Add multicultural icing -- allegations by "Third World victims" get revered status, while U.S. statements are met with arrogant contempt. (Yes, it's the myth of the Noble Savage recast.)
I had found a piece by Austin Bay elsewhere that was awfully similar but didn't have the quite same clarity of expression. So I checked the author of this piece - aha. That would explain the similarities.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.
Bush Country
Not to be missed
article in the Wall Street Journal:
To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country. I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty. I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice. The speed with which Syria quit Lebanon was astonishing, a race to the border to forestall an American strike that the regime could not discount. I met Syrians in the know who admitted that the fear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy. They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future.
Stand firm; do not listen to the spineless weasels who protested against the wars to liberate first Afghanistan and then Iraq, and who even today are crying out to abandon the people of those countries. Stand firm, and we - and they - can transform the world.
(via Roger L. Simon)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
06:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
Sunday, May 22
Evil 'R' Us Too
Silicon Image SATA controllers are extremely common, and the second set of four ports on my new motherboard are provided by a Sil3114 chip.
They are, unfortunately, pure evil.
I know that the Linux developers are still adding patches to the kernel to work around problems with Silicon Image controllers. And maybe one day they will succeed. Until then, I wouldn't trust them at all. Well, maybe with one disk, if it didn't contain data I cared about, and I had backups of everything.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
04:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.
Saturday, May 21
Right and Wrong, Part II
This is wrong.
But note the source for the New York Times' report: A military investigation.
And recall that Abu Ghraib was also the subject of a military investigation before it was a blip on the radar of the media.
Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable.
There's a lesson there, for those willing to learn.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:08 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Does it police itself? The report named twenty-some people, including officers several layers above the individuals committing the abuse, as at least partially responsible for either knowing about abuse and not reporting it, for giving directives that either clearly encouraged abuse or were obviously vague enough to be interpreted as allowing abuse.
So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib.
And when you consider that some of the treatments described in the report -- and previously reported at Abu Ghraib -- were cleared by Rumsfeld and/or suggested by the Gonzalez draft memo, it's hard to escape the conclusion that responsibility OUGHT to extend, at a minimum, up to Rumsfeld -- even if it's not criminal liability, it IS responsibility. If he were a man of honor, he would've resigned in disgrace by now.
Posted by: Auros at Sunday, May 22 2005 06:25 PM (hzFpF)
2
So far only the grunts have been indicted -- same as at Abu Ghraib.
The officer overseeing prisons in Iraq, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski has been busted back to Colonel, which is a career-destroying demotion. She wasn't there and took no part in the abuse and so hasn't been indicted, but she was judged derelict in her duty.
Five other officers have also been the subject of disciplinary action over Abu Ghraib.
The New York Times report mentions that no officers have been indicted over the abuse in Afghanistan, but doesn't say anything else. I expect that the situation is much like Abu Ghraib: Officers not directly involved in the abuse but who should have taken action to stop it have been dealt with short of court-martial.
blah blah Rumsfeld blah blah Gonzalez blah
No.
Nothing in that paragraph is either factual or logical. Sorry, but you are an idiot.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, May 22 2005 08:22 PM (+S1Ft)
3
Says you.
"Despite autopsy findings of homicide and statements by soldiers that two prisoners died after being struck by guards at an American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, Army investigators initially recommended closing the case without bringing any criminal charges, documents and interviews show."
Part two of the same article, published this morning.
Posted by: Auros at Monday, May 23 2005 03:56 PM (hzFpF)
4
Was the case closed?
The case was not closed.
Were charges brought?
Charges were brought.
Did you have a point?
No, I thought not.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, May 23 2005 08:25 PM (+S1Ft)
5
Before you congratulate yourself, you should also note that if it weren't for ONE decent individual taking the in initiative to see the CIC because he was dissatisfied with the military's own inquiry, ONE decent individual who then leaked the CIC report to the Press, the military's "self-policing" would have wound up nought. Most of the soldiers were charged last week, probably because of imminent media exposure, and NONE for causing the deaths.
"Our military is imperfect, but it does police itself, and it does hold itself accountable."???
I wouldn't call it self-policing if it exonerates itself in its own inquiry and takes no further action until a whistleblower leaks information to the CIC and the press.
"In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command. Until then, he had never been interviewed."
"Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram.
Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case.
So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter. "
Posted by: qwerty at Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:54 PM (6CPp5)
6
Before you congratulate yourself
Eh?
you should also note [unsupported assertions]
Your quotes directly undermine your claims.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, May 24 2005 01:06 PM (+S1Ft)
7
Not a chance. My quotes were actually gleaned from the NYTimes quoting the CIC report. Note, it isn't the military's own internal report investigating the deaths of prisoners, but the CIC's investigation instigated by a whistleblower. If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses. According to the Red Cross, it seems many more complaints were lodged and reported to the military, but we hear nothing about them. And I wouldn't call a system which relies on whistleblowers sticking their necks out to report abuses a "self-policing" one. It's akin to saying the tobacco companies are self-policing simply because a whistleblower came out to the media and authorities and they were then reprimanded in court.
By definition, any organisation that covers up its abuses and is only called into account by the stray whistleblower reporting to an outside, higher authority isn't self-policing.
Posted by: qwerty at Wednesday, May 25 2005 06:56 AM (6CPp5)
8
From the same article, Mr. Pick-and-Chooser:
Citing "investigative shortfalls," senior Army investigators took the Bagram inquiry away from agents in Afghanistan in August 2003, assigning it to a task force based at the agency's headquarters in Virginia. In October 2004, the task force found probable cause to charge 27 of the military police guards and military intelligence interrogators with crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to lying to investigators. Those 27 included the 7 who have actually been charged.
"I would acknowledge that a lot of these investigations appear to have taken excessively long," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, said in an interview on Friday. "There's no other way to describe an investigation that takes two years. People are being held accountable, but it's taking too long."
There are valid criticisms to be made against the military over both the incident and the handling of the investigation. The problem is, you aren't addressing those points, you are instead choosing to press claims that have no basis in fact.
On the other hand, the military
is addressing those points. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
You say:
If there were no whistleblowers, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, no one would even know about the military's torture and abuses.
That's completely false. Not only was the Abu Ghraib incident the subject of a military investigation months before it became the liberal media's number-one chew toy, it was specifically included in press briefings.
Military 4, Liberal Media 0
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, May 25 2005 07:06 AM (+S1Ft)
9
You are seriously deluded. It was another whistleblower, Darby, that exposed Abu Ghraib, and Seymour Hersh broke it before the Pentagon was forced to admit it.
In the case of Bagram,
"In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command."
This is the whistle blower.
Two months later "Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case."
Before then, the internal miitary inquiry ended with no recommendations to take any action. If it weren't for the whistleblowers, one or two men out of hundreds and thousands, not a squeak would have been heard.
Any respectable self-policing org would have started immediate investigations into dead prisoners and STOPPED any further abuses and brought those responsible for torture and manslaughter to justice.
Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors.
You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years.
This isn't a self-policing entity. Unless self-policing means getting away with murder.
The refutation isn't personal or meant to undermine you, but many of us no doubt find it troubling you invest such faith in a military that has repeatedly been exposed as perpetrating crimes with impunity. In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military.
If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried. It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them.
I have enough of this rah, rah, rah, ain't we great stuff. Enjoy more of the same from your Bush.
Posted by: qwerty at Wednesday, May 25 2005 08:55 AM (6CPp5)
10
Sorry, no.
This is the whistle blower.
An army sergeant, reporting to an army investigative body.
In other words, even when the inital investigation failed, the military could be trusted not only to reopen the investigation, but to launch an inquiry into its own procedures.
Which means that we have a whole new level of trust established - the old "Quis custodiet ipso custodes" is answered.
Instead, the torturers and killers at Bagram were sent to Abu Ghraib to repeat their stellar performance AFTER the deaths of the two innocent Afghans by their superiors.
That is the first intelligent thing you have said. That is a very legitimate criticism that I haven't seen addressed by the military. Even ignoring your slant, it should never have been allowed to happen.
You still haven't explained how the Red Cross reports about torture and killings went IGNORED by the Pentagon for years.
The Red Cross reports have been investigated. In almost - not quite, but almost - every case they have been determined to be unfounded.
Unfortunately in recent years the Red Cross has developed the same brain-eating anti-Americanism that is so widespread elsewhere. It doesn't matter that you can't tell right from wrong; you're just one idiot. It
does matter that the Red Cross has lost all sense of proportion.
This isn't a self-policing entity.
A 2000-page report proves you wrong.
In effect, you are saying that things are just great and dandy in the military.
In effect, you can't read.
If not for the "liberal" media you despise, Hersh and NYTimes, all would have remained buried.
Hah.
Hersh is even more loosely connected to reality than you are. He is hopelessly unreliable. The NYT as a whole is just hopelessly biased.
Fortunately, we do not need to rely on either one for anything.
It is strange how instead of appreciating them for speaking truth to power, you would belittle them.
"Speaking truth to power"? That pathetic line, again?
With Hersh and the NYT, we see not so much speaking truth to power, as speaking falsehoods to the insane.
Which includes you, I'm afraid. Read part one of this piece, which details your mental problems. Or better, read Bill Whittle's
Sanctuary.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, May 25 2005 10:21 PM (AIaDY)
11
ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net
Posted by: ya pidoras at Wednesday, July 26 2006 12:52 AM (w4nDS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Important Things
Bill Whittle has a new post up. He's gotten a little irritated by the incessant carping of the left, and explains a few things to them.
Oh, and my SATA controller has arrived, so I'll be able to rebuild Yuri this weekend. The only problem is that it's a PCI card, of course, so it will be quite a bit slower than using the controller built into the motherboard, which sits on its own high-speed bus. On the other hand, it should actually work. There are few things more irritating than an intermittent, untraceable, and fatal fault in a $2000 machine. Well, actually there are many things more irritating than that, but Bill just dealt with most of them.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
01:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
Friday, May 20
The Sickness Spreads
The
New York Times has jumped into the mud (alongside Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Kos) to defend Newsweek and journalistic standards:
Newsweek is under intense criticism for a report it has now retracted about the American prison in Guantánamo Bay.
Yes, they are. They printed inflammatory bullshit on the basis of a single unnamed third-hand source. They damn well
should be criticised.
Since we've weathered a journalistic storm or two
Translation: Since we're not only hopelessly biased but have been caught red-handed making up stories.
we can only say the best approach is transparency as Newsweek fixes whatever is broken, if anything.
"If anything"?
Says it all, doesn't it? Look, you miserable swamp rat, Newsweek purports to be a news magazine. That involves reporting what actually happens. The Koran-flushing story was selected on the basis of consistent editorial bias, and not subjected to even the slightest examination before printing.
The entire bleeding magazine is broken, and indeed most of the industry.
There is already a debate about journalistic practices, including the use of anonymous sources, and these things are worth discussing - especially at a time of war, national insecurity and extreme government secrecy, a time when aggressive news reporting is critical.
There it is again.
No, you pathetic pismire, what is critical is accurate reporting. Aggression is for opinion pieces, and rarely helps even there.
Just try, try for once, losing the aggression and presenting the facts.
But it is offensive to see the Bush administration use this case for political purposes, and ludicrous for spokesmen for this White House and Defense Department to offer pious declarations about accountability, openness and concern for America's image abroad.
Why, exactly?
Should not the White House and the Defense Department be concerned with these matters? Since the mainstream media are quite obviously not; or at least only concerned with the destruction of all three.
It took Newsweek about two weeks to retract its report.
Two weeks to retract
two sentences.
It has been a year since the very real problem behind the article - the systematic abuse and deliberate humiliation of mainly Muslim prisoners - came to light through the Abu Ghraib disaster.
Abu Ghraib?
Which was already being investigated by the military before any newspaper touched the story?
Which involved the abuse and humiliation of prisoners on a single day?
Which did not in fact demonstrate any sort of systematic abuse, but has been shown to be one of a small handful of incidents?
Which was not any sort of disaster?
That Abu Ghraib?
And the Bush administration has not come close to either openness or accountability.
You mean, except for investigating everyone involved, and everyone in their chain of command?
Except for that, right?
The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policymaking that led to the abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during antiterrorist operations and the invasion of Iraq.
more...
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
05:40 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1216 words, total size 8 kb.
Mistake in the Job Description
Hugh Hewitt had ABC News' Terry Moran (who I have never heard of) on his show, discussing the
extraordinary exchanges between him and White House press secretary Scott McClellan, and McLellan and Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times.
This is what Moran had to say for himself:
It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.
Maybe it's just me, but I somehow thought that the media's job was accurate reporting?
We saw this during the Hutton Enquiry in Britain as well, with a senior BBC figure making the statement that the BBC's primary function was to oppose the government of the day. (I'd love to find the exact quote for that.)
Excuse me, but there is an actual, elected opposition to do that.
Your job is to present the facts. If you don't like that, you should have gone into real estate rather than journalism.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 238 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Susie at Friday, May 20 2005 10:23 AM (V1YvO)
2
Challenging power? He must be joking. Or maybe he meant to say "challenging Republican power."
When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.
When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.
When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post  which owns Newsweek  decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.
Posted by: TallDave at Friday, May 20 2005 04:14 PM (9XE6n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
73kb generated in CPU 0.326, elapsed 0.7897 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.7506 seconds, 251 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
