Advice for the Activist Blogger

Nice post from Soto, writing at Daily Kos.

What to do? First, spouting off in the blogs and staying engaged and informed, trading opinions and sharpening arguments, and conceding an opponent’s well-made points is healthy and good for all of us. It helps us find common ground where possible and identify issues that bother all of us. People who read and participate in blogs or get their news significantly from the Internet may be better informed than most. This doesn’t make us better than others, but it does give us the opportunity and responsibility to do something more than complain amongst ourselves. Yes, it means writing, faxing, or emailing your elected officials to let them know when you deem an issue to be important. But take the time to build an email mailing list and fax numbers made up of key US senators or representatives. What good is getting mad today about the GAO decision and your fears about the 2003 version of the Patriot Act if you don’t fire off a quick email or fax to these office holders about it? First off, they will be surprised to see that folks are paying attention. Secondly, although it may feel as if your message won’t make any difference, the experience of the right-wing media Wurlitzer of the last two decades shows that a small group of well-informed people who keep the heat up and gradually spread the effort around can convince officeholders and the media that people are paying attention to something other than the establishment spin.

This is a nice pat on the back for blogging, but there has got to be more in the informed activist toolbar. Volunteering on the presidential campaign comes to mind. Bloggers need to connect with the party activists to put action with the outrage....

Uninformed Consent

Can we say that the public supports the war? As Kane Pryor discusses in Salon, the public is misinformed (deliberately mislead, actually, by Bush propoganda) about key facts of the case. Only 9% of respondents knew that none of the 9/111 hijackers were Iraqis. Here is a nice quote.

To the behavioral psychologist, the truth about the hijacker's nationalities might seem a victim of a chronic state of inattention. Conditioning has rendered Americans hyper-responsive to emotional and sensory dynamics triggered by the news media, and relatively uninterested in intellectual content. Nobody understands this better than Rupert Murdoch, who has created an empire out of punchy anti-intellectualism. And few understand better how to use it to their advantage than the Bush White House. George W. Bush is, after all, the anti-intellectual's president....

Hypnotized by evocations of fear, Americans have consented to a Strangelovian military doctrine, one that makes the quantum shift from a defensive military position to one of preemptive aggression. Similarly, by appealing to the smoldering sense of national paranoia, the Justice Department has been permitted to revive the principles of McCarthyism, long regarded as a shameful episode of xenophobic fervor...

With relentless consistency, we then witnessed the morphing of al-Qaida into Iraq, and of Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein. It was a case of psychological transference on a national scale. The transformation came not by cognitive argument, but by emotional association -- Iraq was described persistently in the emotionally charged post-9/11 vocabulary and context, most often by an association with fear, anxiety and alarm.

Wow. This is one of the most forceful articulations of the issue that I have heard:

That the administration and the military of a nation -- even a great democratic nation -- should attempt to use disinformation to manufacture consent for an agenda should come as no surprise, even if it does disappoint and anger. That such an indubitable historical revisionism of 9/11 could occur can be seen as nothing less than a complete and profound failure of the media to protect the American people from virulent propaganda.

Very interesting article. Discusses all the right issues; identifies key dynamics; and then punts on the conclusion:

When the theme is war, the principal ethical directive of the media must be to effect a complete, transparent and balanced disclosure of truth, with a clear separation of media and state. It is a directive that does not in any way preclude editorial support of government opinion, but it must protect the right to the free public expression of dissent without persecution. And when the theme is war, citizens of a democracy have a responsibility to cherish that right and to use it vigorously.

In this case, that was probably destined never to happen.

Two things to draw from here: (1) We want to believe that when public opinion rallies towards our p.o.v., as it did in early January when support for the war dipped to 50%, that people have learned something to make them change their mind. In fact, for the key swing folks whom MWO calls the Moron-Americans, they have merely have been prompted by a change in prevailing media stimuli.

And (2) the lesson is not complacency (this "was destined never to happen) but anger and outrage. This has been done by people who might have done better.

Mary McGrory in the Post Op-Ed shows that she is swayed by personality and dramaturgy rather than the facts of the case. Bias is clear in the headline ("I'm Persuded") and the tone of McGrory's piece. She says, at the end, that she si persuaded not that war is justified but that it might be......

Not a single critical voice in the Post's increasingly Yellow Dog Op Eds today. Even in their own skewed poll, only 61% of folks support the war. And yet, on the most momentus question of our time, not a single opposition voice on the opinion page. They are reading from the script: Powell rallies skeptical nation....

Post Poll on War Public Opinion

The administration got a big bounce from Powell. Survey questions accept the premise that evidence of WMD = causus belli. Does not ask whether Iraq is an imminent threat.

Almost a push poll in that sense.

Gallup Pull: 49% think Bush Would Lie

Poll shows a minor post-SOTU boost in public support for war, up to 58%. But the question doesn't ask whether the the UN is involved.

63% trust Powell more than Bush.

Conason: Powell Didn't Make the Case

Conason's main point: Powell proved the Iraq is not cooperating, not that war is necessary.

Resolution 441 calls for "serious consequences" for material breech; war is not the only serious consequence.

Conason sites the inspections success in the 90s, contrary to CW:

"This effort to hide things from the inspectors is not one or two isolated events, quite the contrary," he said. "This is part and parcel of a policy of evasion and deception that goes back 12 years, a policy set at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime." No doubt true -- and yet the U.N. inspection team between 1991 and 1998 destroyed tens of thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons, prohibited missiles and the Iraqi nuclear program in its entirety, despite Saddam's duplicity. What the inspectors are now trying to find is a small fraction of what their predecessors found and neutralized.

Bush doubles tax cut proposals -- & the press doesn't report it!

Unbelievable. Here is an exerpt from an eye opening Daily Howler:

Bush’s new proposal is simply remarkable, both for what is shows about Bush himself, and for what it shows us about our “press corps.”

Regarding Bush: Has a bigger fake ever lived in the White House? As a candidate, Bush faked and falsified his actual values, making us think that he was carefully calibrating his tax cut plan to produce long-term balanced budgets. We were told that the tax cut package of $1.3 trillion over ten years was all that the numbers would allow. But in 2001, Bush passed a slightly larger tax-cut plan—and now he seeks additional cuts that are even larger than that initial package, the one over which he pretended to agonize. Plainly, Bush’s ongoing conduct bears no relation to the posing which drove his campaign. And he presents this new plan in the dead of the night—refusing even to tell his subjects about his new, large proposals. What kind of a man behaves in this way—hiding behind a war and a space disaster to peddle plans he’s too craven to acknowledge? Perhaps you know what kind of man—a Dear Leader behaves in this way. Has any president ever treated the “public” with such contempt? With such undisguised condescension?

But even more astounding is the press corps’ conduct. If this gang were shipped to North Korea, would they have any trouble fitting in? Try to believe that the president did it! Try to believe that he stood up in public the last few weeks, making us think that he was proposing $674 billion in new tax cuts! And try to believe that when the 13-pound truth was plopped down on desks—when it became clear that the president had simply deceived us—try to believe that USA Today treated this as a normal event, barely worth a word of mention, and try to believe that the hapless Times hasn’t even reported what occurred!

We have a Dear Leader, elected by stealth. And we have the perfect press corps for him—cowards, incompetents, Monicas all. No wonder they hated Lewinsky so much. Little people always see their own despised qualities in the vile, vile conduct of others. And of course, there’s one point more—such people always love to go supine before a very Dear Leader.

Conason on Dubya's Deficit:
A Caper Flick With a Lone Star

Lies to remember, from Dubya's 2002 SOTU:


"our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-lived."

American Smooth

We were dancing -- it must have
been a foxtrot or a waltz,
something romantic but
requiring restraint,
rise and fall, precise
execution as we moved
into the song without
stopping, two chests heaving
above a seven-league
stride -- such perfect agony
one learns to smile through,
ecstatic mimicry
being the sine qua non
of American Smooth.
And because I was distracted
by the effort of
keeping my frame
(the leftward lean, head turned
just enough to gaze out
past your ear and always
smiling, smiling),
I didn't notice
how still you'd become until
we had done it
(for two measures?
four?) -- achieved flight,
that swift and serene
magnificence,
before the earth
remembered who we were
and brought us down.

-- Rita Dove

Writing Ideas

Condi contrasted Iraq's disarmament to South Africa's. Let's contrast Bush's version of multilaterlaism to authentic multilateralism.

Kossovo was authentically multilateral. Imperfect but successful. Americans showed leadership but did not dominate.

Dubya has got the multilateralism of the stick. A multilaterlism that undermines the meaning of the word. Bush himself will tell you: Once we leave the station everyone else will get on board. That's not multilateralism. That's not working with allies. That's intimidation.

He hopes the Moron Americans wont notice. Look: Italy and Bulgaria are going with us.

Bush himself will tell you: I care about the governments not the street. Whether its Turkey or France or San Francisco for that matter, the marchers don't matter. The governments will fall in line.

Hello? That's profoundly undemocratic. That's no way to run a war.

Costs of Action Vs Costs of Inaction

Listening to blowhards on Diane Reihm debate the costs of Iraqi War.

The best argument of the pro-war guy is that you have to compare the costs of a war to the costs of what happens if Saddam attacks us.

He's a sober sounding guy. Makes the foolishness coming out of his mouth sound all the more ridiculous: on one side of the leger, big costs we can be sure of and huge costs that are not unlikely; on the other, big costs from an event that is extremely unlikely to come to pass.......

Somersby -- On the selectivity with which Americans mourn (and the way the press indulges it....):


David Brooks, limning Frist, shows that bio is easily spun


Those others “we will never hear about” include the coming dead in Iraq. It has been remarkable to compare the mourning for the Columbia seven to the all-encompassing lack of interest in the deaths which will soon occur in Iraq. Is war on Iraq a good idea? On that, we don’t express a view. But it has become rather clear that these upcoming deaths play no role in our current calculus. In the press, we have seen almost no attempt to estimate or discuss the impending loss of life. Recent reports about “Shock and Awe” or possible use of American nukes have produced almost no discussion. Do Americans care about Iraqi deaths? There is almost no sign that we do.

Luck and Leadership (washingtonpost.com)


What is the pedigree of the idea that France, more than, say, the United Kingdom or Italy -- whose leaders visited the White House last week -- speaks for "Europe" more than do the eight nations whose leaders on Wednesday endorsed U.S. policy? (The combined population of Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland is 232 million. The combined population of France and Germany is 143 million.) France has a population significantly smaller than, and shrinking relative to, the populations of, among many other nations, Vietnam and Egypt. France has a per capita GDP smaller than that of Denmark or Japan, among others. So why should France referee the game of nations?



That fool Will. Here is an example of the fallacy of split opinion.
(1) Opponents of the war say: Look, Europe is not for this war.

(2) Warmongers say: Many European countries (Italy, Bulgaria) are for this war.

(3) I say: The point is that people and nations are deeply divided. There is no consensus for this war. And in matters as large as this, in a war supposedly waged in behalf of the international community, consensus is necessary; in a war of choice, it is a criteria for going to war in the first place.

Interesting. Bradley, just about the most liberal guy we've got, wont even say that this war is fundamentally misguided. He says Clinton erred when Hussein ejected the inspectors in 98 (nothing "decisive was done, as if it could have been, in the midst of Monica-gate) and that Bush should just realize that achieving international consensus takes awhile, sometimes.

He's indulging in the fiction that Dubya's mind is still open. He's pretending he thinks the war would be a good idea if only we had the U.N. behind us.

I think we are seeing evidence of a stifled discourse. Bradley can't say that the Bush policy is disastrous at its root, because he'll be acused of something like treason.....


Bush Has Not Made the Case (washingtonpost.com)

America's War Train Is Leaving the Station

That has been the standing warning ever since, put most bluntly by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld when he dismissed the two big holdouts, France and Germany, as "old Europe." Sure, we'll consult you, President Bush told the world in his State of the Union address, "but let there be no misunderstanding": we're going in with you or without you.

If measured by the way the world was lining up last week, the approach has been effective. In September, when the administration began to talk seriously about going after Mr. Hussein, the questions were whether this was necessary or productive or a vendetta.

The skepticism has not waned, but most world leaders today are thinking less about how best to deal with Mr. Hussein than about how to deal with an unstoppable superpower.

Effective but wrong. These commentators don't seem to notice the frank immorality of what they observe. This is not a multilateral effort, but blackmail.....

Methodical demolition of the argument that "Saddam is a madman who can not be contained." A version appeared in Foreign Policy.

Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box Thus, logic and evidence suggest that Iraq can be contained, even if it possesses weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions — the ones that concern us most — are unlikely to be realized in his lifetime, especially with inspections under way. Iraq has pursued nuclear weapons since the 1970's, but it has never produced a bomb. United Nations inspectors destroyed Iraq's nuclear program between 1991 and 1998, and Iraq has not rebuilt it. With an embargo in place and inspectors at work, Iraq is further from a nuclear capacity than at any time in recent memory. Again, why the rush to war?

Ah, Those Principled Europeans

Ok, there is something seriously wrong with this column, this easy dismissal of the European pov.


For one thing, you are assuming that the American point of view is "serious." On both sides, there is positioning and there is core.....

The wingnuts don't hate Clinton because of his policies; they renounce his policies because they hate Clinton.

The bancrupcy of the notion that polls don't matter for going to war; on this, of all issues, the pols matter....


The Utopian Bush.....