They Pay Wankers, Don’t They?
Never before in my lifetime has the American people been more poorly served by its pundit class. I’ve previously written about the neo-con pseudointellectuals who got us into two losing wars against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq: Bill Kristol, Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, etc. Because there is no God or at least no American culture of enforced accountability, all continue to draw paychecks for their worthless, discredited opinions.
But wankdom isn’t confined to neo-cons. Michael Kinsley, currently writing a column for Time magazine, exposes the sloppy thinking that repeatedly gets the world’s richest (and in some ways its coolest) into one utterly avoidable fiasco after another. Consider his column in the August 13th issue:
There is grim fun to be had, and many are having it, by reviewing what the pundits said back in 2002 and 2003 about the notion of going to war in Iraq and comparing it with what they are saying as they survey the results today. They’ve all changed their tunes, a little or a lot, with various degrees of contrition.
Not “all.” Some of us got it right. Back in 2003 and 2002 and even 2001, the left—the real left, not the squishy soft liberals who play the left on TV—called Bush on his dictatorial tendencies, his lack of planning and the low odds of success in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Politicians, too, are under pressure to recant anything nice they may have said about the Iraq war–or, if they were Senators at the time, to apologize for their votes in favor. Some, like John Edwards, have done so. But one important voice was as wrong as any of them and now is among the most censorious about the way things have turned out. Yet this voice has never acknowledged its previous errors. In fact, no one expects it to do so, even though it is more responsible than any pundit for U.S. policy in Iraq. This is the voice of the citizenry, the American people.
Americans are unhappy with President George W. Bush right now. In the New York Times/CBS News poll, his approval rating dipped to 29% during July before nosing back up a point. Approval of Bush’s handling of what is delicately called “the situation in Iraq” is only 25%. By 53% to 39%, we disapprove of the way he is handling the war on terrorism. “Looking back,” 51% say that the U. S. “should … have stayed out” of Iraq, while only 42% think the invasion was “the right thing.” Two-thirds of Americans think our “efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq” are going somewhat or very badly, and the same fraction think we should withdraw in part or completely.
Dislike of opinion polls is one of the great clichés of American politics, but it’s not clear exactly what people dislike. They dislike politicians who follow the opinion polls, and they dislike politicians who fail to follow the will of the people, as revealed in opinion polls. But the real problem with opinion polls is different: they reinforce the impression that everything is a matter of opinion, and all opinions are equally valid.
Although–or perhaps because–I manufacture opinions for a living, I am always amazed at the things people are willing to express opinions about.
I’m writing this early, and my coffee may not have kicked in quite as nicely as I might like, but there’s something mighty hilarious about Kinsley claiming that he “manufactures” opinions. Maybe he thinks that’s his job. But he’s supposed to express opinions. It would also be nice if his opinions of what was going on were supplemented by largely accurate predictions of what was going to happen. That’s his job too.
Is the “surge” working? Is there likely to be a terrorist attack in the next few months? Are “most of the insurgents in Iraq today … under the command of Osama bin Laden”? These are not matters of opinion. The correct answer may be unknown (e.g., the success of the surge), or it may be known perfectly well (e.g., bin Laden does not control most of the Iraqi insurgents), but one thing the correct answer is not is a matter of opinion.
Even when getting it right, Kinsley gets it wrong. Bin Laden doesn’t control any of Iraq’s insurgents. According to everyone, even the Pentagon, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia doesn’t take orders from Al Qaeda, the Pakistani-based umbrella group for various Islamist groups. The Iraqis took the name to fuck with us.
But in opinion polls, citizens are treated like gods, dispensing or withholding their “approval” on any basis they wish or none at all. They may give a President a green light to go to war (not that Bush needed it) and then condemn him for going when it turns out badly. Just after 9/11, Bush’s approval rating was as high as 90%. Only 5% disapproved. In the spring of 2003, when Bush launched the war, deposed Saddam Hussein, occupied Iraq and declared victory, public approval of his conduct of the Iraq “situation” rarely dipped below 70%. As the “situation” went south, so did Bush’s poll numbers, until now he faces snarling or sullen disapproval from two-thirds of the electorate.
Ninety percent of the electorate once approved of Bush’s “handling” of terrorism. Now only 39% approve. That means at least 51%, or more than half of all Americans, used to support Bush on terrorism but don’t anymore. You might say they have decided they were wrong, but opinion-poll democracy requires no such self-criticism. Political opinions are like old-fashioned airline tickets, with no change penalty.
The American people haven’t “decided they were wrong” about Iraq. They’ve decided they were lied to. And they’re right. I’m not going to recite all the Bush Administration quotes about mushroom clouds and anthrax and fighting “them” “there” and linking 9/11 to Saddam—something Bush continues to do all these years later. If you read the , you know all that stuff. Criticize the American public for trusting their government to tell them the truth. Honestly, after Watergate and a million other examples, there’s no reason for anyone to believe what a politician says. But let’s not pretend that the public changed its mind because it’s fickle and because the war is going badly. The war going badly is what proves that we were lied to; that was the very thing that was not supposed to happen.
The U.S. is now despised around the world because of the Iraq “situation.” Thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead as the result of our deliberate decision to invade and occupy another country with no immediate provocation. We reduced that country to ruin and chaos, and now we care only about how and how quickly we can get out of this mess we created.
This is not all the fault of the pundits or of “Washington” or of politicians. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq was scandalously unilateral, but it did in fact have the support of most American citizens, which surely egged him on.
Chicken, meet egg. The Bushists manufactured support for their stupid-ass wars (use the plural! there are two!) by repeatedly lying about WMDs and being greeted as liberators and claiming we’d be getting even with the mofos who carried out 9/11. Which, of course, they did use to claim a mandate. But is that the people’s fault?
. The ensuing disaster is partly the fault of those Americans who told pollsters back in 2002 and 2003 that they supported Bush’s war and then in 2004 voted to re-elect him, which he took, quite reasonably, as an endorsement of his policies.
Whoa, pony! “Re-elect”? Even a squishy pseudo-liberal like Kinsley oughta know Bush lost the 2000 election—shit, he lost Florida by thousands of votes! And, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction to rule in Bush v. Gore. (States run elections, so state courts—not federal ones—handle disputes over their outcomes.) If you think Bush won in 2004, he was at best elected, not re-elected. But there’s plenty of doubt about the bullshit that went down in Ohio. And even if you allow that Ohio was legitimately a Republican state in 2004, Bush was running for “re-election” using a phony and illegitimate incumbency.
Millions of Americans now apparently regret those opinions. But unlike the politicians and the pundits, they do not face pressure to recant or apologize. American democracy might be stronger if they did.
How exactly, Mr. Kinsley, are “millions of Americans” supposed to “recant” or “apologize”? I share his annoyance at those morons who, had they only bothered to scratch the surface, should have known that Bush was a serial liar. But I don’t expect them to apologize. An apology, after all, isn’t going to bring back the million Iraqis and 3,000 soldiers and trillion dollars that have gone down the sinkhole. No, what I expect from the American people is to remember how all this went down the next time some two-bit huckster tries to sell them a line of shit, and to activate their skepticism chip.
Hopefully the professional opinion “manufacturers” will lead rather than blame the people.
Column for Tuesday, August 7
Here is today’s column.
PERVERTED JUSTICE
The Criminalization of Thought
NEW YORK–“This is not a crime about thought,” says the assistant U.S. attorney. Then what is it?
Mahmud Faruq Brent, a 30-year-old D.C. taxi driver, is about to spend the next 15 years behind bars for “conspiring to support a terrorist organization.” No one, not even prosecutors, believes that the Ohio-born Brent planned to attack the United States. Brent was convicted of supporting Lakshar-e-Taiba, an Islamist group in Pakistan, and of attending one of its training camps.
“This defendant took action and he offered himself to a terrorist organization,” explains the prosecutor. But all the “action” took place in the would-be jihadi’s brain. There was no terrorist act. There was no crime.
Based in Pakistan, Lakshar-e-Taiba has attacked India, which it seeks to drive out of Kashmir. It has also carried out terrorist acts in Pakistan as part of its campaign to oust the military junta of General Pervez Musharraf. It’s easy to see why Musharraf is afraid of the group. One could understand why the U.S., as Musharraf’s ally, might honor Pakistan’s request to extradite one of its members. But Lakshar-e-Taiba has never attacked a target in the United States, the West–anywhere outside the Asian subcontinent. Why are American taxpayers footing the bill to lock this man up for 15 years?
Abdulrahman Farhane, a Brooklyn bookstore owner accused with Mahmud Brent of supporting the Pakistani group Lakshar-e-Taiba, received 13 years in federal prison. Two others charged in the case are awaiting sentencing.
As the government breaks up one alleged “plot” after another (Columbine-type massacre narrowly avoided as high school kid nabbed with “hit list” of fellow students! Crazy Muslim radicals caught with camera full of digital photos of tourist attractions!) it’s easy to see that anyone–yes, even you–can get swept up by hysterical grand inquisitors wielding dubious legal logic as naïve journalists dutifully report the latest victory against imminent danger.
“The government is arresting individuals on terrorism charges based on what individuals have said or thought–not on actual, concrete plans,” editorialized the Daytona Beach News-Journal- about Hamid Hayat, one of countless Muslims nabbed after 9/11 for “providing material support or resources to terrorists.” The feds “only proved that he did things that sometimes precede acts of terrorism. It was pre-emptive justice, but was also speculative justice.”
Most people have indulged in theoretical discussions about how to rob a bank or even how to get away with murder. They obviously don’t intend to carry out their “plots.” Yet any of us could fall victim to the recent tendency to equate crimes of intent to crimes of action.
Jack McClellan, 45, is a self-described pedophile who runs a blog that advocates sex with children. “If you look at things he has posted, he clearly is a pedophile,” says Lt. Thomas Sirkel of the Sheriff’s Department in Los Angeles, where McClellan lives. As far as we know, however, he has never acted on it. His record is clean.
Local mothers are plotting–er, organizing–to “to push lawmakers in Sacramento to legislate Mr. McClellan out of business,” reports The New York Times. “Just the idea that this person could get away with what he was doing and no one could press charges has made me angry,” Jane Thompson of East Los Angeles told the paper. Of course, what really angers her is that he’s getting away with what he’s thinking.
I don’t blame her. But McClellan hasn’t done anything. Do we really want to live in a culture that penalizes violent and impure thoughts?
Thoughtcrime pours big bucks into CBS Television, broadcaster of the take-a-bath-after-viewing program “To Catch a Predator.” No one cares about entrapped suckers like the guy “in a SpongeBob SquarePants jacket, armed with a bottle of K-Y Jelly.” Like dozens of other would-be pervs, the 21-year-old man thinks he’s going to meet a 14-year-old girl for sex, only to find Dateline’s Chris Hansen and a passel of cops waiting to arrest him.
Run your neighborhood through your state’s Megan’s Law database and you’ll likely conclude that sex offenders are all over the place. One is too many, but the problem isn’t as widespread as we’ve been led to believe. Many of the registrants are statutory rapists like the 17-year-old Georgia boy doing hard time for consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl.
“Anti-predator stings involving decoys may actually outnumber crimes involving real victims,” reports Rolling Stone. “To Catch a Predator” claims there are 50,000 child molesters online. But “a study conducted by the University of New Hampshire estimated that there were fewer than 2900 arrests for online sexual offenses against minors in a single year. What’s more, only 1152 involved victims who were approached by strangers on the Internet–and more than half this number were actually cops posing as kids.”
In other words, most men who fantasize about sex with children don’t actually do it. Judeo-Christian tradition rewards those who deny temptation; we throw them in jail. Perverted Justice, the group that trolls chat rooms to set up stings for “To Catch a Predator,” has a fitting name.
Ari Fleischer warned us to watch what we say. Now we’d better watch what we think.
COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL
Centiheads
While researching a cartoon I encountered the dorkiest Internet discussion thread ever. It’s actually quite sweet, but more than that it’s…just dorky.
A classic post:
Caco is right, its a good idea to know locals who are interested in pedes, as Im highly interested, we can all share knowledge together and hopefully one day have pedes that we can breed together, and catch some pedes.
But, even in the world of centiheads, there’s gotta be a wiseass who derails the discussion with talk of millipedes:
I’m personally more into millipedes, and I’ve just been starting to find some nice ones after the weeks of rain. I just found a huge soil millipede (sorry for the lack of a more scientific name) the other day, and it seems like there are tiny red centipedes under every log. Hopefully this will be a good spring for collecting.
All this “centihead” talk got me thinking about the whole -“head” suffix to address a hobby. State Route 114 outside Sag Harbor NY has its highway cleaning sponsored by the “Metro Parrothead Club,” which I believe is a club for Jimmy Buffett fans. Why aren’t people into George Bush called Bushheads? What about people into heads–would they be headheads?
Where did the “-head” suffix to indicate interest or fandom originate? William Safire, call your office.
Privatizing the Bridges
posted by TheDon
Here’s a concept that Congress hasn’t though of … if there is a problem with infrastructure, why not let the private sector fix it! Or maybe Congress did think about that response but refuses to ignore it, because it would take away their power. That’s probably a more likely scenario.
The costs of overhauling US infrastructure are astronomical. Texas estimates having to spend $100 billion just to keep up with growth, mush less maintain existing roads. And Oregon estimates $1.3 billion a year. Each state has similarly startling figures.
In Indiana governor Mitch Daniels decided that he wasn’t going to sit around and wait for federal subsidies or increase taxes on his constituents. Needing a quick $3 billion for his state’s transportation needs, he decided to auction off the rights to the Indiana Toll Road. It’s so very simple. Auction off the rights to the road and, in essence, you have the private sector paying .. big bucks .. for the right to collect tolls on those roads … or bridges. Right now 23 states currently have laws to allow public-private deals of this type.Democrats aren’t too happy. Democratic congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon says that Indiana is “giving away” a valuable taxpayer asset. No, Congressman .. Indiana is giving away noting. Indiana is considering selling a state-owned asset to private enterprise for a price! Perhaps that price will even include a revenue-sharing agreement with the state whereby Indiana will still collect revenues from the tolls, but will have absolutely no responsibility for maintenance and repair! Sounds like a pretty good deal from my side of this computer screen.
Sunday’s shows were a stunning full-court press by the Cheney administration to push the “surge is working” storyline, and attacks on Democratic front-runners. The stenographers played along.
Meat the Press
Bob Gates acknowledges how fundamentally wrong this administration has been in every aspect of the Iraq War so far, but NOW we should trust General Petraeus. Yikes. I guess you go on the Sunday shows with the storyline you have. Bob repeats the oft-claimed notion that Diyala and Al-Anbar “successes” prove that the “surge” is working, ignoring the worst July since the war began, and the claim by the Iraqi government that the power grid is about to completely fail.
Bob backs Cheney on the Edelman letter to Senator Clinton, ignoring his own prior denunciation. What a tool. He amusingly claims that if we have actionable intelligence that OBL is in Pakistan that Mushy would move on him. He says we wouldn’t move without permission, which I believe is true, but claims we would get permission which we know is false.
Panel Time
Carl Bernstein (Clinton biographer), Doris Kearns Goodwin (Lincoln biographer), David Mendell (Obama biographer), and David Boddy (CBN – WTF is he doing here?!?!?)
They spend their time bashing Clinton and Obama. Fun. Ambition and Arrogance seem to be the big flaws for both. Iowa poll says Clinton is comparatively strong and experienced, Obama is likewise honest and likable. Bernstein calls the voters “pretty smart” as a way of insulting Clinton’s honesty and likability, and Obama’s strength and experience. I really hate this panel.
The panel coalesces around the idea that the press hasn’t scrutinized presidential candidates enough, so it’s time to dig for flaws. That means more of what they did to Gore and Kerry on the Dem side, more of what they did to W on the GOOP side. Thanks, assholes!
More Dem bashing, and a national poll showing Dems up double digits on all issues except 5 points on morals, R’s with a slim lead on “strong military”, GWOT, and “homeland security”. Boddy claims that the only three issues that will matter are taxes, economy and GWOT, giving Rudy a big edge – calls him “authentic”. Heh. They really don’t like Mormons on CBN
Fred will apparently announce Sept 5. I’m starting to think of him as this cycle’s Wesley Clark – good on paper, no real chance. To clarify – I would never, ever compare the two men, only their much anticipated entrances into already crowded fields.
More Dem bashing, with Boddy calling them pussies for rolling over for wiretapping. Wait. That would be an *excellent* band name. Rolling Over for Wiretapping.
Bernstein says Hillary’s problem will be honety and candor, especially after the W presidency. It comes off as equating them. Ugh. On that note, they end the bashing. For now. I sense an anger growing in me as they do this for another year.
Fawkes News
TERROR IN THE BIBLE BELT!!!1!
posted by TheDon
TGIF – Headed for the beach
posted by TheDon
Blastoff Tang
fill a double old-fashioned glass halfway with ice
3 oz orange flavored vodka
1 oz orange liquer (triple sec, etc)
top off with orange juice
Answer the Clue Phone, Speaker Pelosi
posted by TheDon
The Nation is reporting on a breakfast with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and it’s not pretty.
If she were not in the House–and not Speaker of the House–Nancy Pelosi says she “would probably advocate” impeaching President Bush. But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.
“The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country,” Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker’s office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. “I know what our success can be on those issues. I don’t know what our success can be on impeaching the president.”
And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.
She is greatly disturbed by the lawlessness of this Administration and its contempt for checks and balances. “I take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, so it is a top priority for me and my colleagues to uphold that.” She notes the vigorous oversight hearings held by committee chairman like John Conyers and Henry Waxman.
