Letters to the Editor
anonny
Published Letters: 96 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Not because they won't admit failure -- because they can't admit their real reason for war
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From the point of view of those behind the war, and thus the pro-war media elite, things are actually going pretty well over there. Yes, we can accurately point out that civil wars are taking place both in Afghanistan and Iraq, that our troops are getting killed and maimed daily, and that the "fruits of democracy" that were supposed to blossom by now in both countries are nowhere to be seen.
But to the authors of the War on the Middle East (which is what this is), those failures are minor compared to the major success of the War, which is the establishment of the network of military bases.
Back in the 1990s, the authors of the War revisited the post-cold war foreign policy -- the infamous PNAC document of 1998 was but one example of their output. The forsaw a future in which carbon-based energy sources dwindled and which the remaining sources would be concentrated primarily in the so-called "arc of instablity" from northeast Africa to Iran, and up northwards to southern Russia. The solution, as they saw it, was to occupy Iraq and then Iran (Afghanistan was an unplanned practice session). The fact that PNAC and related groups were dominated by energy industry execs and radical supporters of Israel certainly influenced their thinking.
These guys now have what they wanted -- a network of bases, and they are fast closing in on Iran (covert action has been underway for over a year now). They are virtually unopposed, except for the American people and their Democratic representatives. No wonder they consider war opponents their enemy -- we are the only force that can defeat their plan.
Unfortunately, they can't convince the American people of the soundness of their strategy because they were never honest about it up front. They sold this as a "war on terrorism", so now have to keep making the absurd arguments and factual distortions that we hear every day -- they have no choice.
But do understand, they aren't doing this because they refuse to admit they were mistaken -- they are doing this because they think that it would be a disaster for America to give up it's middle eastern occupied territories.
-
Privacy amendment
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The U.S. needs a privacy amendment to the Constitution.
I've worked in European countries with strong privacy laws, some embedded in their Constitutions. (Germany is particularly strong in this regard, mostly as a result of how the Nazis used written public records to sniff out Jewish ancestry.)
The differences are enormous. Companies are limited in what personal data they can collect and must strictly control who can view that data. The concept of "mailing lists" distributed amongst telemarketing firms is virtually unheard of. The credit report industry is wholly different too.
Moreover, there is an attitude amongst the populace that personal data should be private -- and any transgression generates outrage. In contrast, although there is a lot of lip service in the US to keeping data private (such as having people sign the privacy statement when going to a doctor or pharmacist) it seems that most people have become acclimated to having their data in government databases.
-
Europeans tend to trust their governments more
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn writes: It's true - as is often the case - that Europeans limit much more stringently what corporations can do with such information, but it's also true that they are far less sensitive to ways their governments can maintain such information.
Good points. I have noticed that Europeans tend to be notably more suspicious of their corporations than they are of their governments. (Note I'm referring to the western continent here, not necessarily the UK and certainly not the former Eastern Bloc.) This probably is because their electoral systems tend to produce more responsive and open governments.
-
So what are we to do about it?
[Read the article: Right-wing blogs discover massive conspiracy to hide WMDs in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great research, great article. As usual.
So, to summarize what's been reported before: these extremist, illogical conspriacy theories always have existed on the far right and probably always will. The difference is that now the "transmitters" of these theories (borrowing a term from David Neiwert) like Malkin and Limbaugh are embraced by the mainstream media, who often reports the right wing theories uncritically.
Why does the mainstream media now treat the equivalent of black helicopter theories like they are valid news? Again, it has already been documented that the media consolidation, which began at the end of Reagan's term when the media ownership rules were loosened (at the same time that the Fairness Doctrine was scrapped) wasn't by accident. There was intent on the part of the leaders of the right (think: Heritage Foundation) to bring the major news organizations into the fold. Through a long process of ownership change/consolidation followed by selective hiring and promoting, the character of the news organizations themselves changed. Which is why the contrast between their treatment of Clinton and of Bush (and incidentally of Gingrich and of Pelosi) is so marked.
So, all well and good. And Glenn does a terrific job of documenting in detail the double standards here every day.
So what are we to do about it?
-
Yesterday's conspiracy theory is today's conventional wisdom
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and the "Triumphant Top Gun"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most extremist behavior has become so normalized in the last five years that it is easy to forget just how radical it is.
Way back in 2002, when Daily Kos was so small that it used haloscan and few posts got as many as 20 comments, I predicted that by 2004 pro-torture would be considered a mainstream position in the U.S. I was reacting to Alan Dershowitz' push for legal torture under some circumstances.
How said that this turned out to be true. YET, the extremism of the Bush movement was predicted by none other than Paul Krugman, who made the statement that is the title of this post all the way back in 2001.