Conservative Bloggers Desperate?

A new antiwar ad by MoveOn.org urging redeployment of American troops out of Iraq has conservatives up in arms, with James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com (link here) and video blogger Political Teen (video here) both criticizing the video because of one still shot of troops preparing for a meal in Iraq. It turns out the picture -- shown while a narrator says "A hundred and fifty thousand American men and women are stuck in Iraq" -- is actually of British troops, not American troops.

While this certainly could be seen as a little embarassing for the makers of the video, it is unclear exactly what Taranto and the Political Teen are trying to prove... that we actually don't have troops in Iraq? That there are more British troops than American troops? The fact is that most Americans will not know the difference when they view the video, and that even if the ad showed Iraqis, that would not change the fact that there are American troops fighting and dying in Iraq, many of whom would like to come home.

It seems with things not going exactly their way lately, Republican hawks are resorting to all sorts of desperate nitpicking and childish games to score political points.

Another example of this desperate behavior is the video, also from Political Teen, in which former Congressman JC Watts "pointed out Colmes' Liberal, Anti-Bush views" (video here). In fact, Colmes says that Bush presented nothing new in his speech on Wednesday, and Watts responds with a completely irrelevant zinger: "Well, then, Alan, the reason you didn’t hear anything from the President today is because you listened to the President to respond to him as opposed to listening to what he’s saying."

While it might be true that Colmes was more interested in responding to Bush than listening to him, his point stood that Bush in fact did not present anything new. By failing to give any examples of anything new Bush presented, Watts concedes this much. When Colmes pressed the question by asking again what Bush said that was new other than displaying signs that said "victory", Watts responded by not answering the question, and throwing out a weak rhetorical jab:

"Alan, it’s amazing you refuse to accept the fact that Saddam Hussein, the biggest weapon of mass destruction, is no longer in power, that he is being tried in a — under the judicial system that’s in place in Iraq." (my emphasis)

This plainly has nothing to do with whether or not Bush presented any new tactics for the war in Iraq, also happens to be painfully cheesy. If this is the type of rhetorical and political "victory" being touted by Bush apologists -- much akin to their "victory" in Iraq -- these are dark days for the Republicans indeed.

Did Someone Say "Smear Merchant"?

Media Matters, a liberal news analysis operation which seeks to expose conservative untruths and bias on TV and radio programming, has once again demonstrated that Bill O'Reilly has no qualms with spreading blatant falsehoods in an attempt to smear institutions of which he does not approve, in this case the ACLU.

On The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, Bill and his guest Wendy Murphy both alleged that it was the official policy of the ACLU that children as young as 13 have a "constitutional right to have sex with adults" (video here). Citing an amicus brief submitted by the ACLU in a Kansas case involving a 14-year-old boy who was molested by an 18-year-old boy, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the ACLU wrote in their brief of this "constitutional right" adding that "they don't want any laws on the books that make it a crime for a child to be abused by an adult."

In fact, the ACLU's brief argued that the law in question, which imposed much more severe sentences on homosexuals than on heterosexuals for comparable behaviors, violated equal protection. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's position, stating that

"...adding the phrase 'and are members of the opposite sex' [which created harsher penalties for homosexuals] created a broad, overreaching, and undifferentiated status-based classification which bears no rational relationship to legitimate State interests."

In other words, O'Reilly's claims were completely fabricated and had nothing to do with what the ACLU actually wrote in their brief. In fact, the ACLU has never written in any form of a "constitutional right of a child to have sex with adults".

This example of O'Reilly's extreme bias and unrestrained tendency to lie on the air is even more ironic since he spends so much time decrying the "smearing" and "defamation" of the very entity (Media Matters) which exposed this baseless smear against the ACLU.

"Media Operations that Traffic in Defamation"

Over at his website, Bill O'Reilly has a new list of "media operations that traffic in defamation" (link here). Although the list of "worst offenders" is only 3 "operations" long as of now, O'Reilly is saying that he plans to add others to the list. Currently making the cut are The St. Petersburg Times, The New York Daily News, and MSNBC. Of course there is no evidence given of any wrongdoing on the part of these media outlets, just a request for visitors to not patronize those sources or advertisers that work with them. I am not necessarily defending these media outlets, however the absurdity of this highlights O'Reilly's enormous ego -- that he expects others to condemn these news outlets just because he puts their names on a list, without even a hint of evidence of their acts of "defamation".

I am actually most surprised that Media Matters isn't on the list (yet), since O'Reilly is a favorite target of theirs, and also since Bill has come up with at least 20 ways to call them liars ("smear merchants", "defamers", etc).

O'Reilly Goes (Even More) Insane

Over the past few months, Bill O'Reilly has been getting progressively more paranoid, angry, and hysterical about the "smear merchants" and "liars" he is convinced are dominating the media. He constantly rants and screams about George Soros, Media Matters, and other liberal figures and media outlets, to the point that he is starting to seem genuinely insane. He has become so angry that he is now threatening to "name names" and "take down" these people he is convinced are treasonously crippling our country. The thing that makes his rantings seem even more crazy is that he never addresses any specific "lie" or gives any examples of the supposedly terrible things that are being said by these liberal media groups. You have to hear it to believe how far gone O'Reilly is. Crooks and Liars has a clip of his latest outburst from his radio show here.

Really quite hilarious.

National Review Online Roundup

National Review Online has had a couple interesting articles lately worth commenting on, and as usual some of the viewpoints expressed are logical and well presented, while others are illogical and in some cases outright misleading.

Firstly, the article Labor Pains by Henry Payne (link here) discusses the problems being experienced in Detroit by automakers in general and General Motors in specific. In the wake of recent job cuts and the bankruptcy of the autoparts maker Delphi, many people are asking what has gone wrong. Payne makes a persuasive and economically sound argument that the strong political influence of unions in the motor city has lead to a situation in which workers are being paid amounts far beyond normal market rates, crippling the industry and harming workers.

Payne describes a situation in which those who mow grass and clean toilets for GM are being paid $26 an hour base, and up to $65 an hour when the cost of benefits is added. Furthermore, massive debts are being incurred by GM and other companies as workers retire with very large pensions at a relatively young age. Of course not all auto industry workers are so excessively well paid, however these excessive costs no doubt have contributed to GM's inability to remain profitable. When large employers like GM are incapable of turning a profit due to unrealistic demands of unions such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), the workers themselves are hurt as layoffs and downsizing are initiated in an attempt to regain profitability.

There is certainly nothing wrong with workers organizing themselves to gain negotiating leverage and better benefits from their employers, however the sort of unionism that prevails in Detroit is too political and coercive to be considered a legitimate or voluntary. With Detroit's soaring unemployment rates, there are countless people who would gladly cut grass or do other entry-level jobs for much less than the excessive $26 per hour demanded by union members. The reason these jobs are not going to those willing to work for less is because the unions are utilizing political influence and intimidating tactics against "scabs" (those more needy and willing to work for less). By doing so, these self-proclaimed advocates of the worker's cause are doing nothing more than harming countless unemployed and comparatively more needy workers with their greed.

Another article of interest on NRO, though for its dishonesty rather than its insight, is White (Phosphorus) Lies by Michael Fumento (link here). Fumento opens by discussing an Italian documentary about the horrific effects of white phosphorus on human beings and its use in Fallujah. He predictably writes off the extensive documentation of civilians burned alive by this "chemical weapon" by stating that there is no evidence that civilians were targeted specifically. He does not address the fact that as it is commonly used, white phosphorus is spread throughout a large area and indiscriminately kills insurgents, children, animals, and any other living things.

Fumento also tries to deny that white phosphorus can burn skin while leaving clothes intact, a characteristic of the weapon easily explained by the fact that the phosphorus reacts with water on the skin and in the body to form phosphoric acid (which causes chemical burns). The remainder of his defense of white phosphorus consists basically of claiming that since terrorists are cutting off people's heads, we can kill as many people as we want in as brutal a fashion as is "necessary". He also claims that white phosphorus's "best uses" are not directly against personnel, however he does not reconcile this with the extensive footage of insurgents and civilians burned alive by the weapon. Regarding the documentary footage showing numerous innocents burned alive by large chemical clouds of white phosphorus, Fumento claims that "there's no proof of any wrongdoing in the video itself" as if the indiscriminate use of such a deadly chemical in urban areas is nothing more than unavoidable "collateral damage".

Fumento's entire article is plainly poorly researched, flippant and callous, while seeking only to make weak excuses for the unnecessary use of such an obviously devastating weapon. If Saddam had utilized white phosphorus with similar grisly results at any point, no doubt Fumento would be among the first to cry out against such crimes, yet it appears there is nothing too brutal or indiscriminately deadly for Fumento's taste, so long as American troops are doing the killing and Iraqis are the ones dying.

More information on white phosphorus and its military uses can be found here and here.

Elections, Iraq, and Neocon Drivel

In a new article in the Chicago Tribune, Dennis Byrne touts the success of Iraqis in their new democratic state, and expresses frustration with the anti-war crowd for what he perceives as blind pessimism regarding all things Iraqi and democratic (link here).

In response to the bountiful voting anomalies, dead people voting, and alleged ballot-box stuffing in Iraq's past elections, Byrne responds by claiming that Chicago's elections are extremely crooked as well, so... it doesn't matter. Of course this type of absurd argument is nothing new to punditry, where the infamous Tom DeLay is defended with the argument that "the Democrats are crooked too". Byrne also derides those who begrudge Iraqis "tasting freedom for the first time" as if casting a ballot in some way undoes the terrifying climate of violence and insecurity in Iraq.

The inflated rhetoric of Bush apologists across America is growing increasingly tiresome, as inconsequential elections and the rushed drafting of a crippled constitution are touted as some ultimate triumph of freedom. No one worries about the fact that Iraq's constitution lacks any real limitation on the power of the new government, nor is it of concern to Republicans that the structure of the constitution makes civil war exceedingly likely. Lost in the fantastical and epic claims found in the pages of the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and other neocon strongholds, one can almost forget that Iraq is an occupied country consumed by war, poverty, ethnic divisions and religious power struggles. If there truly is freedom in Iraq, it is well hidden under the bodies of countless innocent civilians and obscured by the smoke and rubble of countless destroyed homes and businesses.

Byrne finishes his article with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that he isn't calling those opposed to the war "unpatriotic", but then claims that their position is "mistaken and an unconscionable betrayal". It is unclear what writers (to use the term lightly) like Byrne would resort to if deprived of their meaningless, masturbatory talk of "patriotism", "treason" and the like. Such pathetic arguments merely betray the fact that very little is going well in Iraq, and that what is arguably going well (the elections, the constitution) does very little to better the lot of Iraqis or lessen the horror of life in the Iraq.

Sadly, Byrne's article is very much representative of the sort of ultra-idealistic drivel that is churned out by the desperate apologists of this horrible war. In the face of the obvious failure that is the Iraq war, it becomes necessary for these writers to irrationally equate weak, fledgling democracy with freedom and security.

Furthermore, it is certainly a sad state of affairs when many of the more realistic Bush supporters have resorted to a "you broke it, you buy it" argument -- that the breeding ground for insurgents, lunatics, and suicide bombers we have created in Iraq is now our responsibility. It never seems to occur to them that maybe the entire idea was a bad idea, and that fanning the flames will not make anything better. Just because Bush set Iraq aflame doesn't mean we have to keep pouring gasoline on the fire. Of course things won't necessarily get any better if we stop making things worse (by pulling out), but our pride is doing nothing more than digging deeper graves and filling them with innocent Iraqis and American troops.

There isn't always a clear, happy ending to war, and it is long past time for Bush and his supporters to realize that they made a mistake with real, terrible consequences. In all likelyhood, Iraq will be worse off when we leave than it was when we got there, but there is every indication that there is little or nothing we can do to change that. What we can do, however, is stop making the wound bigger, and let the people of Iraq start trying to heal themselves. The lesson of this war, which we should have learned in Vietnam, is that America is not invincible or omnipotent, and that you cannot always make up for bad decisions. Some might consider this pessimistic, but the sad truth of this debacle is that pessimism will save more lives in this case than optimism.

Aphorisms for an Enemy of the State

Freedom is expression; it is struggle; it is both joy and sadness; it is the capacity to experience life as a full being, not chained by either oppression or ignorance; freedom is the ability to live as one sees fit. Life without freedom is truly not life at all, it is the bleak, meaningless existence of a machine.

Human interaction has always been based on a subtle balance of force and voluntarism. The libertarian posits a society of only voluntarism, and the statist relies solely on force. The anarchist recognizes the intricate exchange between these two modes of interaction. The anarchist prefers voluntarism and civilized society whenever possible, but does not hesitate to use force when injustice and coercion masquerade as reason and order.

The anarchist recognizes no measure of good or evil other than himself. He is unfettered by the exalted idols of state, law, and statist morality. The anarchist, knowing himself to be the only measure of right action, does what is right without appeal to popular conceptions of justice. The justice of democracy is the justice of the inhuman mob, and can justify any atrocity. Only the individual, both vulnerable and capable, can perceive right and wrong.

If a child is starving, feed the child. If a man is enslaved, free him. Do not appeal to the powers who have starved the child and enslaved the man, be the power that feeds and frees. Above all, help those starving and enslaved to free themselves, to become their own liberators.

The anarchist does not posit a 'system' of organization such as a government to replace the current system. Such inflexible and abstract systems are fundamentally hostile towards the natural beauty of human expression. Coercion and oppressive violence thrive in an atmosphere of such "order". Only the spontaneous order of free humanity is life-affirming and just.

Every 'right' and 'freedom' we are allowed by the state is just that: a condescension, a tiny concession by greater power to weaker power. These 'privileges' only serve the interest of the greater power, pacifying us and making us blind to the truth that such concessions represent our oppression as surely as a police beating. Those in power have drawn the map which delineates what we can and cannot do. Because of this, what is allowed shows our oppression just as clearly as what is disallowed.

Life on welfare is not life. When a human being is placed under the heel of another, whether through the institution of slavery or that of the welfare-state, they are denied that which is most valuable and meaningful to humanity -- freedom. What is preferable to starvation and squalor is just barely that.

Do not just act charitably towards the needy. To do only that much is to belittle and weaken those most in need of strength. Empower the needy. A man empowered can sustain himself, but a man constantly weakened can only become weaker.

It is better for the poor to appropriate wealth as they see fit through criminal acts than to rely on government to execute the theft and redistribution for them. When one relies on welfare, he or she acts as if the state's theft is not crime, and at once legitimizes the state's violence while belittling onesself. When the individual commits a crime, he places himself above the holy ideology of law and state, rather than depending on that idol for his life and well-being. Welfare is the slave asking for better quarters. He is still a slave. Do not be content in slavery.

Fake Intelligence

A new story in the Los Angeles Times covers the history of how "Curveball," the notoriously full-of-it intelligence source upon which Bush & Co. relied for a number of intelligence items regarding Iraq's WMD's, including the bit about mobile biological labs presented to the U.N. by Powell (story here). The German government, who had been handling "Curveball" at the time, had warned Bush's administration that the information provided by Curveball was often second-hand, unverifiable, and sometimes absurd on its face.

The Germans also determined that Bush mischaracterized the already-pitiful "intelligence" provided by Curveball. Although Bush supporters can obviously resort to saying that the German government is "anti-American," it is somewhat refreshing to see someone other than the criminal himself doing the investigating. To have Congressional Republicans (and Democrats who were party to the entire lead-up to war) investigating whether the intelligence was misused and if Bush lied is like having Vito Spatafore investigate Tony Soprano (or, if you're not familiar with the Sopranos, like having John Gotti invesigated by his wife, Victoria).

It is sad how willfully blind Bush's apologists are as they point out that the U.N. cannot mount an unbiased investigation into the Oil-for-Food scandal, but then rely on the reports of Republican-headed commissions who have found no wrongdoing in their "investigations" of Bush. Might as well have had Saddam inspect himself for WMD's -- it would make about as much sense. The real answers are definitely not going to come from a commission of the very people who assisted Bush in spreading his lies before the war, and anyone whose defense of Bush relies on these reports does not deserve to be taken seriously.

George W. Bush, Fake Conservative

For those who are very very slow, there's a good article over at Pittsburgh, PA's Post-Gazette about why there is virtually no reason for conservatives or limited government advocates to support Bush (link here). And of course, liberals have no reason to support him either. The question, then, is why does anyone support him? You got me.

More Problems...

Bush is having more exit strategy problems in Mongolia... (video link).

Krauthammer's Insane Gas Tax

A segment on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox News just pointed me in the direction of Charles Krauthammer's new op-ed piece on Townhall.com (link here). Krauthammer, one of the new generation of fawning state-worshippers (neoconservatives) to whom there is no problem the government cannot solve with brutal force, came out in his article with a proposal to fix the price of gas at $3 per gallon by legislative fiat, with the tax possibly exceeding $1 per gallon.

Hijacking the language of free markets, Krauthammer talked of "reducing demand" artificially through this tax (of course he never mentioned how such a tax would cripple the entire economy with the increase in energy prices) and of "letting the market decide" what kind of automobiles will be developed in the face of the astronomical gas prices.

This is all justified in his mind by the fact that we are "being held hostage" by Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Since we have troops in the Middle East dying for oil (at least he admits this much), we owe it to them to try to liberate ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil. The way to do this, of course, is by forcing every gas station to charge $3 per gallon by robbing hard-working people of their hard-earned money. Of course Krauthammer says that the money gained through this tax should go towards decreasing, say, Social Security taxes, but past experience has taught us that such a trade is never truly a trade -- the tax will be passed and Social Security taxes will remain as high as ever.

The same government who was just absurdly threatening oil companies over "price gouging" should now perpetrate real price gouging by forcibly holding the price of gas far above the market rate. In Krauthammer's muddled mind, the way to liberate ourselves from unfavorable external influence is not to develop new sources of energy, nor is it to educate or encourage people to voluntarily use less gas, it is to forcibly introduce a massive tax on one of the most central commodities in our market, and thereby cripple every part of the economy that relies on energy (that is to say, every part of the economy).

Being wealthy and constantly occupied by the fanciful absurdities of his inept mind, Krauthammer doesn't think of the results on the average American, whose quality of life will be significantly lowered by the leeching of such a tax. With the average American buying 690 gallons of gas per year, Krauthammer's tax, which would most probably become $1 per gallon or greater with coming decreases in gas price, would rob poor families and middle class families alike of $700, $1400, $2100 or even more per household per year, depending on the number of cars in the family. To Krauthammer, this money is the difference between one sofa and another. To the rest of America, this can be the difference between the possibility of a college education versus a long hours of physical labor, or the difference between eating at McDonald's every night or eating healthy foods. As bad as this is, it does not even consider the wasteful costs to business of complying with the tax, or the costs of the bureaucracy necessary to enforce such a tax.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, Mr. Krauthammer's "trade-off" between Social Security taxes and this gas tax is almost certain to transform itself into simply an added tax. That is how things work in Washington. So in reality, Mr. Krauthammer proposes an increase of $700 - $2100 (or more) per family per year in taxes, just to speed up a process that is already working to develop alternative sources of energy, and to comfort Krauthammer's sense of paranoia regarding the evils of oil-supplying countries. Needless to say, Krauthammer is as wrong about this as he is about almost everything he discusses.

National Security Letters & The Patriot Act

Quite possibly the greatest threat to freedom right now is the widespread use of national security letters, a form of warrant-replacement which can be issued by any FBI supervisor, without any form of judicial review. These "letters" can force libraries, banks, employers, and virtually any other company or institution to turn over sensitive information on any American citizen, while prohibiting these same institutions from informing you that information was collected. The FBI need not establish that the person being investigated has committed any crime, and can gather massive amounts of information on any person they wish, with no judicial "check" or "balance" necessary.

These "letters" are a blatant circumvention of judicial review and the entire principle upon which warrants are based. It allows the executive branch unfettered access to virtually all existant information about any individual, without the inconvenience of having to secure a warrant from a judge. With these letters, the FBI can peruse at their whim every transaction record, every purchase or library check-out, what you watch on TV, who you call, where you spend your time and money, and any other detail of your life that is normally kept completely confidential. The extent to which a person's views, preferences, routines, qualities and vices can be determined through such information is shocking. The FBI can draw a startlingly clear profile of any person's lifestyle from the information generated by eating, drinking, buying, and simply living life in our digital age.

Prior to 9/11, if the FBI investigated a citizen in this manner and found no evidence of criminal activity, they were required to destroy the information. This is no longer so, since George W. Bush ordered such information to be retained and made accessible to all levels of government and even some private entities. In his (geniusly titled) article "An enemy of the state," (link here) Doug Thompson quotes a friend of his in the justice department, talking about national security letters: "You can’t keep anything hidden. Your life is an open book with us and it will be to the day you die." Even worse is that the current use of these letters is purely totalitarian and has nothing to do with "democracy"; the letters were made into what they are now by Bush's Executive Order (royal decree) 13388.

The FBI now issues 30,000 such letters yearly, one hundred times the "historical norm," according to the Washington Post (story here). This drastic increase in the usage of the letters sends the clear message that the government is spending ever-more time and money spying on American citizens, and is doing so in a completely unaccountable manner. The potential for abuse in these letters is great, and there is evidence that these letters have already been used extensively to spy on political opponents (a la COINTELPRO), as described by Doug Thompson in his above article.

Under the guise of investigating terrorism, the federal government is amassing huge amounts of easily exploitable information about law-abiding American citizens, securing unprecedented power over every American while obliterating any semblance of real freedom or privacy in our country. In all probability these letters have already been used illegally for the manipulation of political opponents or for simply consolidating greater power. Such abuse is very probable for the simple reason that there is no check or balance to prevent such abuse or hold those who abuse their power accountable. It is the very nature of the national security letters that they are extremely prone to abuse. It takes very little for the government to move from amassing information on citizens to actively and "extralegally" interfering with them, as was revealed in the 1960's and 70's and on numerous other occasions when the FBI and CIA have taken matters into their own hands, eschewing the protections of the constitution or any limitation by the judicial branch. Combined with the militarization of police forces throughout the nation and the atmosphere of fear generated by the constant threat of terrorism, freedom in America is in greater danger than ever, and has already been alarmingly rolled back and degraded. As the police/surveillance state comes into full bloom, this is most definitely not a good time to be an American.

The Militarization of America

I recommend stopping by The Agitator and checking his ongoing coverage of post-9/11 militarization of police forces throughout the country, titled "Militarizing Mayberry." The latest example is a small town of 55,000 with a yearly murder rate of one, which has acquired full SWAT gear through post-9/11 increases in federal funding. Since there are no hostage situations or bank robberies occurring, the SWAT teams, armed like soldiers with automatic weapons, are being utilized to serve warrants against nonviolent "drug offenders" (i.e. someone growing a marijuana plant in their closet).

Furthermore, the SWAT teams have been unconstitutionally pushing for no-knock warrants in many situations where it is completely inappropriate. The result of this has been an unacceptable number of outright murders while serving warrants. The common situation is one in which someone wanted for having a small amount of marijuana hears a loud banging in the middle of the night as their door is knocked down. Fearing for their families (and thinking the intruder is likely a criminal), the person sometimes arms himself. Then as soon as the SWAT team sees someone toting a firearm -- the person need not even point the gun at them, let alone fire at the SWAT team -- they open fire.

Instead of using the military to assist in oppressing the American people, which would surely be met with resistance, our government has chosen to make our local police departments into militarized bases. As police departments become assault teams who shoot first and ask questions later (even when pursuing nonviolent "criminals"), the line between police and soldiers becomes blurred and the "War on Drugs" is revealed as what it is: a War on Americans. In small towns and large cities alike, serving warrants against nonviolent offenders is becoming a death sentence for many, with the militarized police as judge, jury and executioner.

Bush Was Right?

Didn't you hear? Bush was right about everything from WMD's to the Iraq-al-Qaeda connection. How do I know this? Because of the new song out by The Right Brothers, called "Bush Was Right". The Right Brothers are trying to get their song on Total Request Live on MTV, and have said that if it doesn't make it, its because of political censorship. Keith Olbermann has some fun with it over at Crooks and Liars here.