Plame, Cheney, and Treason

Recently declassified documents by the CIA have formally revealed what has been informally known for years. Agent Valerie Plame was covert at the time that her name became public in July of 2003. Plame, of course, is at the heart of yet another scandal involving the Bush Administration. Her husband, Joseph Wilson, wrote a scathing New York Times Op-Ed aimed at President Bush’s reasoning for the war with Iraq early in July 2003. As retribution, the administration leaked Plame’s name to the press only a week later. It was this affair that lead to the indictment and conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide. Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation into the matter.

Beyond ruining the career of an individual, one who had devoted her professional life to the service of our country’s intelligence agency, the matter was important because the revelation of Plame to the media could be a violation of federal law. For it to be such a violation, the agent whose identity was revealed had to be covert at the time of the revelation and the revealer had to know that the agent was covert. The former part of the equation is now an established fact. A strong case can be made that the threshold can be met for the latter part in the person of Dick Cheney.

Throughout the trial of Libby, and in his sentencing filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald both directly and indirectly made the connection between Libby’s wrongdoing and the likelihood that it was the result of his work for his boss. Dan Froomkin outlined Mr. Fitzgerald’s analysis in the 29 May 2007 on-line edition of the Washington Post.

Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." [Froomkin’s italics]

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." [Froomkin’s italics]

Up until now, Fitzgerald's most singeing attack on Cheney came during closing arguments at the Libby trial in February. Libby's lawyers had complained that Fitzgerald was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up -- and that set Fitzgerald off. As I wrote in my Feb. 21 column, the special counsel responded with fire: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. . . . He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to [meet then-New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. . . .

"That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."

To those of us watching the investigation and trial unfold, Cheney's presence behind the scenes has emerged in glimpses and hints. (The defense's decision not to call Cheney to the stand remains a massive bummer.) But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president.

I believe that Cheney is up to his eyeballs in this matter. I believe that Fitzgerald believes this as well. Whether he will be able to bring charges remains to be seen, but it is in doubt. That charges may never arise does not absolve the Vice President of his wrongdoing, wrongdoing that I believe may constitute treason against the United States. He knowingly caused the identity of a covert agent of his government to be revealed. This not only violated the very laws that he is in part charged with upholding, but weakened his country in however small or large a way in so doing. Cheney chose to play politics over the wellbeing of his country. He should be held accountable and I hope very much that Fitzgerald somehow finds the smoking gun necessary to bring him to justice.

31 May 2007

Political Hiring Started Under Ashcroft

It would appear that the politicization of career positions at the Department of Justice began while John Ashcroft was Attorney General. Check out the TPM Muckraker article by Paul Kiel for the full story.

Bush Ignores Major Pre-War Intelligence

We had house guests this weekend – fun! – so I was away from the computer. A story emerged last week that was big enough, and repulsive enough, to warrant mention better-late-than-never.

A report issued last week, and detailed in the Washington Post, made it clear that intelligence assessments presented to the White House in 2003 prior to the start of the war painted a very different picture than the refrain presented nonstop by Bush and Company.

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.

The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.

More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic. Other predictions, however, were less than accurate. Intelligence analysts assessed that any postwar increase in terrorism would slowly subside in three to five years, and that Iraq's vast oil reserves would quickly facilitate economic reconstruction.

Far from being “greeted as liberators,” we knew well in advance that the drive to Baghdad would be very different than actually “winning the war.” We knew that our very presence would cause many of the outcomes against which we were supposed to be fighting. We knew… and Bush ignored it all. As Steve Benen over at TPM put it:

In other words, the White House managed to reject what intelligence agencies got right and embrace what the agencies got wrong. How exquisitely true to form.

Bush has repeated until he is blue in the face that he acts because he “listens to the intelligence.” However, like any truth that the President utters, it is only part of the truth wrapped in a lie. Bush only listens to the intelligence that confirms that which he has already decided. He ignores the rest. No intelligence, right or wrong, actually is used to craft any decisions because they have already been made based on the world according to Bush. As a result, over 3000 Americans are dead, over 25,000 Americans are critically injured, and up to 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed. Bush is The Decider… of death.

Postscript: It is important to note that this intelligence assessment was not the conclusion of a lone analyst or even of one branch of the intelligence community. Rather, it was the collective report of the US intelligence establishment that was sent to the White House.

Most of the information in the report was drawn from two lengthy assessments issued by the National Intelligence Council in January 2003, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq” and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," both of which the Senate report reprints with only minor redactions. The assessments were requested by Richard N. Haass, then director of policy planning at the State Department, and were written by Paul R. Pillar, the national intelligence officer for the Near East, as a synthesis of views across the 16-agency intelligence community.

Postscript 2: Regarding why a report of this nature is only now coming to light, I can’t put it any better than did Steve Benen at TPM.

Following up on an earlier post for a moment, it may seem odd that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is just now, in mid-2007, producing a rerport on the White House ignoring warnings about Iraq in 2003. The war is already in its fifth year. Where has this information been? And wouldn't it have been a lot useful before, say, before the 2004 presidential election?

Let's take a stroll down memory lane. The Senate Intelligence Committee began a comprehensive investigation on the use (misuse) of pre-war intelligence towards the end of 2003. Initially, the committee was prepared to release one authoritative document on the intelligence, what it said, and how it was handled.

With the 2004 presidential election looming, and Bush's chances for a second term in doubt, then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) decided to split the report in two -- Phase I would document how wrong the intelligence community was (which was released quickly), while Phase II would report on how the White House used/misused/abused the available information.

And that's when the stonewalling began. First Roberts said publicly that he'd "try" to have Phase II available to the public before the 2004 election. He didn't. Roberts then gave his word, in writing, that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would have a draft report on controversial "public statements" from administration officials. That didn't happen either. Then Roberts indicated that he might just give up on the second part of the investigation altogether, because, he argued, there was nothing left to learn.

Under pressure to release Phase II before the 2006 elections, Roberts agreed to release subparts of the report, which documented what Ahmed Chalabi and other well-paid Iraqi exiles told the administration before the invasion, but nothing about the White House's mistakes.

In January 2007, after the Senate changed hands, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) agreed that it was finally time to take this investigation seriously.

As for why Rockefeller and committee Dems decided to release the report on a Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend ... well, I can't figure that one out.

30 May 2007

Memorial Day Weekend Wrap-Up

DoJ Scandal Continues

It would seem that the scandal unfolding at the Department of Justice is putting a damper on anyone wanting to apply for attorney positions at the DoJ.

The Bush administration's decision to fire nine U.S. attorneys last year has created a new problem for the White House: The controversy appears to be discouraging applications for some of the 22 prosecutor posts that President Bush needs to fill.

Of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys, 22 are serving without Senate confirmation as interim or acting prosecutors. They represent districts in Alaska, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, West Virginia and Washington.

In Florida, the panel that's evaluating candidates and making recommendations to the White House has received only two applicants for the vacancy left by U.S. Attorney Paul Perez in Tampa - even after it extended the May 3 deadline to apply.

Can Bush do anything else to hurt the DoJ and through it, weaken America? Stay tuned.

Cheney Hates Constitution?

Over the weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney gave the commencement address at West Point.

"As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away."

Once again, I can’t offer a better reply than Steve Benen.

At the risk of sounding picky, is it too much to ask the Vice President to refer to the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States as good things? Perhaps protections that he's proud of?

Welcome to 2003

An article in the Boston Globe by Peter Canellos details how Republican presidential candidates are using misleading or even false language in their discussions of the war in Iraq. Indeed, they are using language, also false and misleading, that strongly echoes that which was used by President Bush prior both to the war’s start and since it turned ugly. You can read the TPM analysis here. Just what we need is another head-in-the-sand president.

Mercenaries Fighting for US

Many may not be aware of it, but the US has paid mercenaries fighting on our behalf in Iraq. I most certainly do not mean US military forces. Rather, the State Department has hired a company called Blackwater USA to be its own private army. Blackwater calls itself a “private security firm.” However, think Special Forces, not rent-a-cop.

Details about the involvement of Blackwater can be found elsewhere, but – amazingly enough – having a private army killing for you may not be all it is cracked up to be.

Employees of Blackwater USA, a private security firm under contract to the State Department, opened fire on the streets of Baghdad twice in two days last week, and one of the incidents provoked a standoff between the security contractors and Iraqi forces, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

A Blackwater guard shot and killed an Iraqi driver Thursday near the Interior Ministry, according to three U.S. officials and one Iraqi official who were briefed on the incident but spoke on condition of anonymity because of a pending investigation. On Wednesday, a Blackwater-protected convoy was ambushed in downtown Baghdad, triggering a furious battle in which the security contractors, U.S. and Iraqi troops and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters were firing in a congested area.

Blackwater confirmed that its employees were involved in two shootings but could neither confirm nor deny that there had been any casualties, according to a company official who declined to be identified because of the firm's policy of not addressing incidents publicly.

For analysis of the incidents, see TPM.

Presidential Sophistry

Maureen Dowd wrote a nice piece in the New York Times outlining the current outlandish reasoning for continuing the war in Iraq.

The president said an intelligence report (which turned out to be two years old) showed that Osama had been trying to send Qaeda terrorists in Iraq to attack America. So clearly, Osama is capable of multitasking: Order the killers in Iraq to go after American soldiers there and American civilians here. There AND here. Get it, W.?

The president is on a continuous loop of sophistry: We have to push on in Iraq because Al Qaeda is there, even though Al Qaeda is there because we pushed into Iraq. Our troops have to keep dying there because our troops have been dying there. We have to stay so the enemy doesn’t know we’re leaving. Osama hasn’t been found because he’s hiding.

The terrorists moved into George Bush’s Iraq, not Saddam Hussein’s. W.’s ranting about Al Qaeda there is like planting fleurs du mal and then complaining your garden is toxic.

It would be funny if it were not killing people.

29 May 2007

Politicians or Statesmen?

I wrote yesterday regarding the Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party caving in the Bush Administration demands on the funding of the war in Iraq. I included indication of my feeling that this vote would play a role in the selection of the Democratic candidate for president in the 2008 election. The war is a flashpoint for the Democratic base, although that would also seem true for the party as a whole and for most independent voters as well.

The moment the legislation was announced, presidential candidates Senator Chris Dodd (D- CT) and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) came out against it. Dodd followed through by voting against the bill last night. Two other sitting Senators, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) also voted against the measure. Candidate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) voted for the measure.

I think that it is worth pointing out that both Dodd and Biden cast their votes early during the voting, before the measure had passed in the Senate. In essence, their votes helped to decide the fate of the legislation. Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, delayed their votes until after the measure had passed, making – after a fashion – their votes purely ceremonial. While I myself would have voted against the measure, in many ways I respect Biden’s early “yes” vote more than the “meaningless” “no” votes that came later from Clinton and Obama. I see these two as wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. I can assure you that in some speeches, both will say that the troops were funded – playing directly into the lies fostered by the White House – and that their “no” votes were strictly to “send a message.” At other times, they will surely play up the fact that they took a “brave” stand and voted against the President. I hope that when this comes about, that the strongly anti-war base of the Democratic Party calls them on it and holds it against them. It was a calculated political move on their part to delay their votes. We need statesmen and leaders, not politicians.

Postscript: There were some very odd votes cast on the House side in this matter. After introducing the “compromise” publicly with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) voted against the measure. (This one truly leaves me puzzled after reading her earlier statements.) Also, Congressman David Obey (D-WI), one of the original negotiators of the bill, voted against it. In the end, 86 Democrats, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), voted for the legislation.

25 May 2007

GSA Political Under Bush, also the Sun Rises in the East

The US Office of Special Council has found that Lurita Alexis Doan, Chief of the General Services Administration, politicized the GSA, using its recourses to help both Republican candidates and Republican causes. This is in violation of the federal law known as the Hatch Act. Doan has 14 days to respond to the report before it is presented to the President. (She was provided the report last Friday.)

The General Services Administration (GSA) is an independent agency of the US government, established in 1949 to help manage and support the basic functioning of federal agencies. The GSA supplies products and communications for U.S. government offices, provides transportation and office space to federal employees, and develops government wide cost-minimizing policies, among other management tasks. Its stated mission is to "help federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services and management policies."

At its most basic level, its role is administrative, not political. Just as with the Department of Justice, however, under the Bush Administration, everything is political and is to be used for partisan purposes. As reported in the Washington Post:

The special counsel's investigation was spurred by allegations that Doan solicited agency employees "to participate in political activities during a meeting held at GSA headquarters on January 26," the report said. The meeting, a "brown bag" luncheon, featured a presentation by J. Scott Jennings, deputy director of political affairs in Karl Rove's office at the White House.

Jennings gave a PowerPoint presentation of polling data about the 2006 midterm elections. In a slide called "2008 House Targets: Top 20," the presentation named 20 Democrats on whom Republicans intended to focus in 2008. Another slide, called "2008 House GOP Defense," listed GOP candidates to be protected.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Doan "asked a question about, 'How can we help our candidates,' " the report said. Some participants began to offer suggestions before Jennings asked that the session be taken "off-line," according to the report.

This is an open and shut case. It is well documented and Doan has no leg to stand on… except the President himself. It is up to him to discipline Doan for wrongdoing and I’ll be interested to see what the ultimate outcome will be. After all, it is a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse.

Postscript: It would appear that Doan, who was called before the House oversight committee earlier, is destined for a sequel. The committee is interested to learn both if Doan threatened retaliation against those who testified against her during the investigation and if she perjured herself before the committee earlier.

25 May 2007

Blood for Votes?

The Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate caved this week on the issue of funding for the war in Iraq. President Bush offered up his usual bull-headed stern gaze – always an amazing feat with his head stuck so far into the sand – and both Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi blinked. The President, of course, wants the war to drag on so that it will not come to its inevitable, sad, bloody conclusion on his watch. His hope is that somehow, historians will grow delusional and blame the entire mess on his successor in the White House, rather than on him. That Bush values both America and its soldiers so little is a given now, apparent from his every action since 9/11. I expect this from him. From the new Democratic leadership, however, I expected more. My naive expectations appear to have been just that.

Leaving Iraq will not be good for America in the broadest sense, but it will still be better than staying. To put it another way, staying will hurt us far more than leaving. At least in leaving, young Americans will stop dying in an unnecessary, misguided war. The vast majority of Americans recognize this. Some do so through careful analysis of the strategic realities of the conflict and its negative affects on our standing abroad. Others simply are tired of seeing both the funerals of more dead Americans and the daily bombings of civilians in Iraq. Regardless, they have made their voices heard, both in the midterm election of 2006 and since. The Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party sold these voices out this week.

Perhaps they did so fearing that the public would see them – as Bush has worked to cast them – as putting our troops in harms way through lack of funds. Troops being in actual jeopardy – well, additional jeopardy anyway – through a lack of funds as orchestrated by previous Democratic bills is a fallacy. That this is so doesn’t, of course, prevent the public from believing the Administration’s lies. Even if the lies prevailed, should not Democrats, who profess to be against the war, place the lives of Americans and the standing of the nation itself above political standing? Above votes? And if this scenario is not sickening enough, what if in the dark recesses of their minds they want the war to drag on through November of 2008. Maybe history through some misguided snafu will blame our 44^th president for the final calamity of this war. Maybe that president will even be a Democrat. Who cares? That will be after the election. For now, however, the war is an albatross around the Republican Party’s neck. Democrats have a much better chance to increase majorities in Congress and take the White House with a war still being fought. (Something else Republicans should consider as their president sells their party down the river.)

The Congressional Democratic leadership will put a bold face on this. They will say it is yet another nail in the coffin of the President’s Iraq policy. They will speak of political realities and a coming shift in the fall. And I believe that they are buying votes with blood.

I hope that I am wrong. I hope that they have some real, honorable strategy that will end the war as soon as possible, a strategy that I simply cannot see. If I am correct, however, I hope that the Democratic base will apply pressure and make its voice heard. I hope that rank-and-file Democratic Senators and Congressmen will vote against the measure. And if necessary, I hope that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate will be replaced.

Postscript: Watch for the reaction of the Democratic presidential candidates. This caught most of them off guard. I believe that their reactions and – for those who are currently in office – their votes will greatly impact the coming race. Keith Olbermann presented the equivalent of an Op Ed on his program last night and indicated as much. His words were an effective indictment of Pelosi and Reid et al as well.

Postscript 2: You will also note that in spite of the need to “fund the troops quickly,” Congress found time to pack the legislation with enough pork to sink a battleship. Pay-as-You-Go Democrats and No-Big-Government Republicans alike packed it onto their plates. All politicians in DC want “big government.” It buys them votes and it buys them power. What else is there?

Postscript 3: It is also worth noting that the Democratic leadership sold out its base recently on the issue of free trade. In that agreement with the White House, it went so far as to allow the Administration to write the final language and may even allow such legislation “fast track” status. Regardless of your views on the issue of free trade, let me assure you that this was done for one and only one reason… to fill Democratic coffers with campaign money from corporate America. When the Democratic Party is in bed with Wal-Mart and the American Chamber of Commerce, you can bet that money is the name of the game… and the only game in town.

24 May 2007

Monica Goodling, Round One

In her first day of testimony before Congress, Monica Goodling presented the following points of major interest.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and former Gonzales aid Kyle Sampson were all accused of lying to Congress under oath. McNulty was especially called on the carpet.

Goodling admitted that career – not political – hires at the Department of Justice under Gonzales were made on the basis of political affiliation in violation of federal law. By all accounts, this illegal practice was both pervasive and widespread.

Although it was not stated directly, Goodling certainly hinted that Gonzales attempted to tamper with her testimony during a meeting that occurred a week after Congress made clear its legal interest in Goodling as a witness and possible suspect in criminal acts at the DoJ. Such tampering would be a felony. Legal experts have already stated that if the facts of the meeting are true, and they have not been refuted by Gonzales as to the proceedings of the meeting, the test for tampering would very likely have been met under federal law. Gonzales maintains that he was simply trying to “comfort” Goodling during a trying time.

You can find good recaps of the day both at TPMMuckraker.com and at Slate.com. Congress has five more days to seek further answers from Goodling under its agreement with her. No stone should be left unturned. We are rotting from within.

Postscript: Will Goodling end up being Bush’s Monica?

24 May 2007

My Problem with Christianism

It will come as no shock to anyone who knows me that I view the Christian Right in America with utter contempt. The Moral Majority and its peer organizations are neither moral nor – thankfully – a majority. Jerry Falwell is dead and I will cry no tears.

I have so little regard for these people not because I do not believe in God (I do) or because I do not count myself a Christian (I do). My enmity for them rises for several reasons, first and foremost among them is the fact that they are so arrogant, so deluded, and so blasphemous that they believe that they – and they alone – know the mind of God. God is much too vast for any of us to grasp his – or her – intentions. Anyone who believes that they speak for God is deluded beyond belief. Should he choose to do so, God is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

From that belief springs my other concerns with their movement. When you believe that God is aligned with you, hating anything that is “other” comes easily and naturally. Hate is at the core of these groups and hate is the opposite of the true message of Jesus. Love others as you love yourself. Focus on your own struggle to do good rather than on the struggle of another. Remember that you are fallible on matters of faith, so leave judgment to God alone.

Finally, when you hate and when you see an “enemy,” moving against the enemy and erasing the “other” is the final solution. People of faith should be smarter than to mix their faith with the corrupting influence of politics. That, however, is exactly what these groups have done, with their ultimate goal being to rewrite the Constitution and to remake America within their own narrow vision of right and wrong. You will do it my way, which is God’s way, and there can be no other way. If this sounds familiar, it is also the view of an Islamist (as opposed to the view of a Muslim).

I have faith in my country to oppose these groups, to see them for the shadowy evil that they are. Yet is not always easy to do so. Hate is apparent when it takes the form of a Falwell rant on why the attacks of 9/11 occurred:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

It is much harder to fight the tide when it takes place quietly, slowly, and often from within our very systems designed to protect individual liberty, but which are subverted for a darker purpose. Such is the calling of the law school at Regent University and its graduates. Many people such as these, including the infamous Monica Goodling, are at the heart of the current scandals at the Department of Justice. They lie, they cheat, they steal, and – though I would never profess to know the mind of God – I believe that they are in no way Christian. It is attacks such as these that make my blood boil every bit as much – perhaps more so actually – than the open blathering of the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons of this world. They are why I watch. They are why I write.

I titled this piece as I did after a brilliant writing by Andrew Sullivan last year in Time Magazine, which I recalled after viewing the coverage surrounding Falwell’s death. My words are but a rough club next to the smooth rapier of his writing. Sullivan’s My Problem with Christianism is most assuredly worth reading.

Postscript: This past week on Bill Moyers Journal, Moyers interviewed author Bruce Bawer. In the interview, Moyers talked to Bawer about him leaving the US for Europe to escape growing Christian extremism decades ago, only to now be confronted with a rising movement of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe today. I found it most interesting and both video clips and a transcript are available. As always, I recommend watching Bill Moyers Journal every week on PBS.

Postscript 2: In all of the coverage about the death of Jerry Falwell that I watched, it was never noted that the despicable statement that he made and quoted above was during an appearance on Pat Robertson’s The 700 Club. It is worth mentioning that Robertson agreed with Falwell. We are indeed known in part by the company that we keep.

Your Mail and Our Democracy

Journalist Bill Moyers has a new weekly program on PBS. Bill Moyers Journal generally takes the form of one-on-one interviews and the topics thus far have been wide-ranging. I admire few people in contemporary public life, but Moyers is one person who has my admiration. The program appears for us on Friday evenings, so we generally record it for viewing over the weekend. You can check your local PBS listing for it in your area. It comes highly recommended.

Last week, Moyers opened his program with an oral essay regarding the new postal system rate hike and the affect it can have on our democracy, specifically through how it will affect smaller publications of all varieties. I have been hearing much on this issue of late, but Moyers put it as well as I’ve encountered, as noted in his 18 May 2007 blog entry.

It's time to send an SOS for the least among us — I mean small independent magazines. They are always struggling to survive while making a unique contribution to the conversation of democracy. Magazines like NATIONAL REVIEW, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, SOJOURNERS, THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, THE NATION, WASHINGTON MONTHLY, MOTHER JONES, IN THESE TIMES, WORLD MAGAZINE, THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW, REASON and many others.

The Internet may be the way of the future, but for today much of what you read on the Web is generated by newspapers and small magazines. They may be devoted to a cause, a party, a worldview, an issue, an idea, or to one eccentric person's vision of what could be, but they nourish the public debate. America wouldn't be the same without them.

Our founding fathers knew this; knew that a low-cost postal incentive was crucial to giving voice to ideas from outside the main tent. So they made sure such publications would get a break in the cost of reaching their readers. That's now in jeopardy. An impending rate hike, worked out by postal regulators, with almost no public input but plenty of corporate lobbying, would reward big publishers like Time Warner, while forcing these smaller periodicals into higher subscription fees, big cutbacks and even bankruptcy.

It's not too late. The postal service is a monopoly, but if its governors, and especially members of Congress, hear from enough citizens, they could have a change of heart. So, liberal or conservative, left or right, libertarian, vegetarian, communitarian or Unitarian, or simply good Samaritan, let's make ourselves heard.

Making your voice heard is easy. I invite you to visit the FreePress.net site for Stamping Out Rate Hikes. It will further explain the issue and – farther down the page – provides a link to send an e-mail to your legislators and the governors of the postal system, urging them to reconsider their current rate plans.

This truly isn’t an issue for any particular political stripe. It affects all of us equally and its chilling affect on our democracy is very real. Voice your opinion today.

22 May 2007

2007 Federal Farm Bill - Take Action

A local coalition that includes our community farmers’ market has been focusing on ways to change the federal Farm Bill to better serve both locally-oriented farmers and the current “brand” of the traditional family farmer who is producing material for our nation-wide system of food distribution. This coalition put together a letter to be sent by individuals to his or her members of New Mexico’s Congressional delegation.

The federal Farm Bill only comes up for a vote every five years. I believe that for some time, it has been used as a tool to enrich the coffers of a relatively few corporations at the expense of smaller farmers. Doing so has not only helped restrain locally-oriented farming – which is often organic in nature – but also greatly contributed to many of the health and environmental problems that our society is experiencing.

While the letter was written from the viewpoint of a resident of New Mexico, its points are just as relevant to the citizens of the other 49 states. I made a few minor changes in the letter prior to sending it to the members of my Congressional delegation. I will place the letter below, with portions highlighted in an alternate color that should either be deleted or changed to reflect your state of residence as needed. I urge you to become familiar with this piece of legislation and to make your voice heard on the issues involved. After all, what is more important to each of us than the food that gives us life?

Time is of the essence and your voice needs to be heard prior to the end of May 2007 to have any chance of affecting the Farm Bill.

Contact information for your Members of Congress can be found here.

Dear XXX,

I am writing to let you know that I care about your vote on the upcoming 2007 Farm Bill. I care about your vote because more than 35 million Americans, half of them kids, don’t get enough to eat. Yet, kids get the majority of their calories at school, which makes school lunches extremely important to their wellbeing. So what do we feed them? Tater Tots, chicken (parts) nuggets, chocolate milk, and canned fruit cocktail. School lunches are the dumping grounds for toxic food, and meanwhile one in two children will have diabetes by the age of 18!

I care about your vote because I worry about the loss of farmland and the fate of family farmers. In New Mexico over the last five years, we’ve lost over 200,000 acres of farmland and more than 500 farms! When farmland goes out of production, often the water rights are lost or transferred, which means that piece of land will never go into production again. As local farms disappear, our food security is threatened, especially as energy prices increase and our local production of food is compromised. Throughout the US, there are four times more farmers over the age of 65 than farmers under the age of 35. In northern New Mexico, the average age of our farmers is 59 years old. Who will replace this generation of farmers? How can we train new farmers?

I care about your vote because I don’t think it is right that our food system is dominated by corporations and commodities. It is crazy that almost 50% of all commodity subsidies went to just five percent of eligible farmers in 2005, which marginalized those who were producing locally-grown organic food and grass-fed meat and dairy products. I care because out of the hundreds of plant and animal species that have been cultivated for human use, the Farm Bill favors just four primary food groups: food grains, feed grains, oilseeds, and upland cotton. While millions of Americans are hungry, most of the subsidized food groups above are either fed to cattle in confinement or processed into oils, flours, starches, sugars or other industrial food additives. Now, there is the threat of diverting farms to the production of biofuels, too.

I care about your vote because something is terribly wrong when millions of Americans are obese and the Surgeon General is predicting that this could be the first generation of kids that won’t live longer than their parents. This is so because the Food Bill favors the mega-production of sugars and starches, rather than favoring regional supplies of fresh vegetables, healthy fruits, and nuts. Over the last 15 years, the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables has risen 40%, while the cost of dairy, red meat, chicken, sugar, and fat has fallen 25%. Our populace doesn’t have easy, inexpensive access to food that is good for them, but highly-subsidized highly-processed food is easily and cheaply available.

Farmland conservation programs need help, too! Conservation bills have been cut by 14% and wildlife incentive programs have been under-funded by 30%. The Conservation Reserve Program helps farmers reduce soil erosion, yet 28 million acres are being removed from the program. Wildlife Habitat Incentives, Wetlands Reserve, Environmental Quality Incentives, Farm and Ranchlands Protection – all of these programs need to continue to help farmers promote healthy habitat for animals and plants, reduce air and water pollution, and protect agricultural land from urban sprawl.

I think you’ll agree that things are pretty out of whack with our country’s Farm Bill. Now is the time to make our food and farm policies more enlightened, which is why I care so much about your vote!

Here are some of the things that I’d like to see better funded in the 2007 Farm Bill:

• Increase the funding for the Food Stamp Program so that those below the poverty level can access the more costly fresh fruits and vegetables and have a choice over eating the processed, high fat, low nutritional cheap food now flooding the market.
• Continue and increase the funding for the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. It will help farmers and ranchers create permanent conservation easements, receive a one-time, up-front payment equal to the fair market value of the development rights and continued use of the land for agricultural purposes.
• Please don’t consolidate conservation programs! Each is important and deserves to be adequately funded.
• Provide more support for disadvantaged and limited resource farmers, so that farming is a sustainable lifestyle that others will want to do. In the West, 25% of farmers are minority, yet they get less than 1% of the funding. Be sure that the census accurately counts minority farmers.
• Allow schools to use federal money to have geographic preference to buy food. Right now, federal money doesn’t allow us to buy food from New Mexico producers. New Mexico kids should eat New Mexico apples, not those flown in from Washington!
• Provide funding to help us rebuild our agricultural infrastructure. There’s been a big push in New Mexico, for example, to grow wheat, but we have to ship it 300 miles to get it milled in Texas! We need to rebuild our local mills and processing facilities to make it easier to grow and sell local food.
• Don’t just subsidize the “big 5” crops (wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans). Farmers need support to grow fruits and vegetables, and be sure the funding has a geographic preference so that it gets to all parts of the country, including New Mexico!

I depend on you to ensure that our food system is sustainable into the future by voting NOT with the farm bloc but for the common person who needs good food, which is locally available to live a healthy life. This opportunity to change the direction of our food and farm policies only comes once every five years, so please make the most of it. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

John Q. Public
555 Main Street
Anytown NY 55555

Note that the paragraph of the letter entirely written in blue print can easily be altered to fit the needs of those of you who do not live in New Mexico, thereby still making it a relevant example of the points illustrated.

I care about your vote because I worry about the loss of farmland and the fate of family farmers. New Mexico, for example, has lost over 200,000 acres of farmland and more than 500 farms over the last five years! When farmland goes out of production, often the water rights are lost or transferred, which means that piece of land will never go into production again. As local farms disappear, our food security is threatened, especially as energy prices increase and our local production of food is compromised. Throughout the US, there are four times more farmers over the age of 65 than farmers under the age of 35. Who will replace this generation of farmers? How can we train new farmers?

21 May 2007

Addition of 22 May 2007: I thought it prudent to note that this was not a letter that I would have written as to its form. This is not to say that it isn’t informative or that it doesn’t cover all/most of the necessary topics. However, it is not a good letter to express one’s viewpoint to legislators. This letter, of course, will not be seen by the politician to whom it is addressed. A staffer will be looking at it, trying to categorize its point so that he or she can simply note the viewpoint in a database. Before a vote on the issue, the politician will look at the tallies and this will influence how the vote is cast. As a result, when communicating with politicians, it is a good idea to treat them as you would small children. Be direct, be concise, and place what you want near the start of your communication. You can expound on it later, but your initial goal is to get your point across early and quickly. Now, sending this letter is better than not sending anything on the issue and I certainly didn’t have time to rewrite it line by line. However, whenever possible, following these guidelines will help one express a viewpoint such that it might actually count in political circles.

Returning from Bees to Blog

I’ve been away from my computer for the better part of a week. I can’t remember the last time that happened! There were two reasons for my absence. First, bees are beginning to swarm in my area and I was called to catch one such swarm. Second, my wife returned from a week-long vacation with her mother and I devoted a couple of days to time with her.

A couple of interesting stories emerged while I was “away,” including the testimony before Congress of former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey. Who knew that former Attorney General John Ashcroft could ever be seen as a defender of the Constitution? And exactly how bad does a Bush program have to be for Ashcroft to be against it? The whole sordid affair reaffirms both why Gonzales is not fit to serve as Attorney General and how very corrupt the Bush administration actually is.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also announced a plan that would prevent President Bush from using recess appointments, something the president has done far too often in an effort to subvert the Constitutional practice of Senate confirmation. Apparently, Bush will have to now play by the rules in letter and spirit.

Tom Goldstein over at Scotusblog offered up a nice analysis of the effect the 2008 presidential election will have on the Supreme Court. It is worth a read.

Finally, the Washington Post ran an article detailing the commencement speech given at Liberty University by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. (Is it just me or do you also want to include a “[sic]” after the “Liberty” in “Liberty University” every time you read it in print?) The piece read in part:

In a speech heavy with religious allusions but devoid of hints about his presidential ambitions, Gingrich drew applause from the graduates and their families in the school's 12,000-seat football stadium when he demanded: "This anti-religious bias must end."

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive," Gingrich said, deriding what he called the "contorted logic" and "false principles" of advocates of secularism in American society.

"Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard," he said during his 26-minute speech. "It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers."

Joshua Micah Marshall over at the Talking Points Memo blog effectively took Gingrich to task for his truly out-of-touch viewpoint.

Impossible to miss? It can't be that impossible; I have no idea what on earth he's talking about. Religious beliefs don't have a chance to be heard? Since when?

I'm hard pressed to imagine what country Gingrich and the 12,000 people who applauded his worldview are living in. Out of the 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, the president, vice president, the Bush cabinet, and nine Supreme Court justices, there is exactly one person -- not one percent, just one guy -- who does not profess a faith in God. If polls are to be believed, less than 5% of the population describes themselves as non-believers.

In the last presidential election, one candidate announced during a presidential debate, "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth.... I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith." This was John Kerry, the more secular candidate of the two.

As for "discrimination," the New York Times had an interesting report last week showing that so much public money is now going to ministries, religious groups are hiring lobbyists to get more.

In our culture, religion is common in the media — I can’t remember the last month Time and/or Newsweek didn’t feature religion as a cover story — almost exclusively in a positive light. In sporting events, celebrating athletes routinely express their religiosity. At awards ceremonies, entertainers routinely “give thanks to God” from the outset, usually to considerable applause.

Gingrich sees all of this and believes an “anti-religious bias” dominates U.S. society. I have no idea why.

I’ll leave you with those today in case you’ve missed them. Sadly, there is never a lack of grist for the mill whether I’m at my computer or not.

Sad Death of a Bacevich

I read in several sources yesterday, and it was then covered in the evening television news, that 1^st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich (junior) of Walpole, MA, was killed by an IED in Iraq on 13 May 2007. He was 27. I note Lt. Bacevich’s death, when I have not noted the deaths of so many others, due to the notoriety of his father, Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich (senior). Professor Bacevich has been a critic of the war in Iraq from before its start, challenging its fundamental basis as corrupt, immoral, and unwise. If you are unfamiliar with the professor, and lest you write him off as “just another left-wing New England university intellectual,” you should be aware that he approaches the issue firmly from the right. (This is different, of course, from him being correct, although he usually is this as well.) He is best known today as a firm opponent of the Bush doctrine of “preventive war.”

The professor graduated from West Point and fought in Vietnam. He was a career officer, serving in posts throughout his career in Germany, the US, and the Persian Gulf. Bacevich ended his career as a colonel and strongly believes in a powerful military and in the wise use of its force to defend the interests of the country. In addition to teaching at BU, he has taught at West Point and at Johns Hopkins University.

In opposing the war, Bacevich has written many articles and opinion editorials, as well as the book titled The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War. Despite his opposition, he was reported as being very proud of his son’s military service and supported him in his career choice. That his son died during a campaign he thinks not only unwise, but extremely harmful to his country, must make the blow of his son’s death that much greater. I have no doubt that the professor will continue his struggle for rationality in our country’s leadership. I hope that rationality – and wisdom – will indeed finally soon take hold.

The “News” Media

Having mentioned both network evening news and a 24-hour cable news network in recent writings, I thought that the topic of the news media generally should be covered. If you are pressed for time, here are the salient points in one-word descriptions: cowardly, gullible, enabling, titillating, beholden, and vapid.

I generally watch one of the network evening newscasts each day, at least when I’m at home at the proper hour. I don’t really have a preference among the three, although I will tune in to a particular program if I know that a topic of interest will be covered. Network news can best be described as a series of sound bites mixed with pretty graphics. The “news makers” of the day have a few of their sentences regurgitated and if there is any further dialogue on the matter from the members of the newscast, it by and large can’t be described as “in depth.” Very rarely is what is said by the news makers challenged. After all, each network only gives thirty minutes to news, although each used to give an hour or more. Moreover, news-gathering done right – digging into stories rather than parroting talking points – is expensive. And news today at the networks faces the same pressure to make money as do sitcoms, dramas, and “reality programming.” With not much there, why do I watch? For several reasons, I suppose. The first is simply habit. I’ve been watching a network newscast for as long as I can remember. (Of course, for much of that time, I actually thought that it was news.) Secondly, I find it interesting – and disheartening – to see what millions of Americans are watching… and very likely still believing that what they are seeing is the truth. Finally, occasionally stories are covered about which I’ve yet to get wind. It doesn’t happen often on network news, but the heads-up allows me to then go to alternative sources where the actual story might be told.

One would think after taking in what I’ve written above that the 24-hour cable news networks would be a better alternative. After all, they face no time constraints or – seemingly – internal competition from non-news programming. You would be mistaken. If anything, this format is even more mundane and the pressures noted above even greater. With so much time to fill – endless amounts! – stories are covered to death. Anchors and reporters will talk and talk and talk, but only occasionally will any new facts be covered. After all, facts about a story generally are not unearthed in such a way as to give them fresh topics throughout a program. Plus, getting those facts, once again, costs money and while these networks may not have comedies and dramas against which their news shows compete, they are large commercial concerns whose bottom line is to make money. Thus, we have witnessed the rise of the pundit. Bringing in an “expert” in a field and having that person talk a subject to death with the anchor is much, much cheaper than actually going into the field and getting the facts on a story. If you close your eyes and don’t think about it too much, it almost appears to be actual news. Plus, there is an endless supply of pundits. Filling a whole day, and the next, and the next will be no problem. Cheaper still than a pundit is the “news maker” herself. Why not have her come on camera to talk about the issues and the “facts,” thereby filling even more time? Why not indeed?

Most news outlets to one degree or another live in fear of not being able to gain access to the policy makers of the day. Having to fill air time 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, this takes on a greater concern. After all, having members of Congress, Senators, and high-level White House staff on a program fills a lot of time. It also looks important and can pass for news. The network also fears losing its pundits, which would leave more dead air time to fill still. Why would the pundits and the policy makers leave and be loath to return? Well, would you like being exposed as an empty suit, dishing spin rather than facts on national television? Exactly. These networks are especially reluctant to do their job and challenge people when they don’t tell the truth. It would cost money to go out and get the facts to issue the challenges… and their time-fillers might just not return next week once challenged. All of this is why you are more or less getting 24 hours of horse shit. [Filling time on the cheap is also why celebrity “news” (see Anna Nicole Smith) and what should be purely local stories (see Jon Benet Ramsey) also dominate the air waves. That, however, is a topic for another time.]

To illustrate my point, I’ll note a recent appearance by Rich Galen, a Republican strategist, on Wolf Blitzer’s nightly program, The Situation Room, on CNN (8 May 2007). CNN had just conducted a poll (and this example in no way endorses the validity of polls!) indicating that 57% of the American public supports a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Galen, however, stated that the poll indicated that 61% of Americans were against such a timeline. Note that Galen was not arguing the validity of the poll or what the poll numbers actually meant in terms of a debate. He simply changed the numbers and thereby entirely changed the outcome of the poll itself. I don’t blame Galen; he is paid to destroy the truth. No, I blame Blitzer for not calling Galen on his lying… about CNN’s own poll for Pete’s sake!

As an aside, I do like one program among the 24-hour news network pabulum, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which appears weeknights on MSNBC. You won’t generally find policy makers on his show because he’ll call them on their crap. He does have the usual posse of pundits, but I simply take all of what they say with a grain of salt. I’m certainly not saying that I always like his program or that I always am in agreement with his viewpoints. I simply think that Olbermann is actually trying.

A big part of the problem is the closeness of big, main-line news organizations to Official Washington. Since I haven’t mentioned newspapers thus far, I’ll use them here to illustrate this point. The NY Times and the Washington Post will be my examples. These are probably the two most broadly respected newspapers in the country. Along with that, they are probably the two most influential papers as well. The common wisdom is that discerning people read them – or at least respect them – and certainly policy makers read them. As a result, the staffs of these papers are able to speak with the policy makers themselves on the record. Moreover, their status buys them access to the policy makers as sources off the record as well. The tendency of the papers seems to be to “think big.” Why speak to the little fish when the big will bite? (In other words, the mentality is “why speak to the ‘underlings’ when policy makers are available?”) And if you can talk with the big fish, why dig further? That costs money and monetary pressure is every bit as much alive with print media as it is with television. So, too, is the tendency not to challenge your sources. After all, the big fish may not come back to your pond if you do. The problem with all of this should be apparent by now. Policy makers are designing policy, promoting it, and have a very large stake in its outcome. They will say what is in their best interests. Sometimes it will be the truth, but more often it will only be a “version” of the truth (read “spin”). Other times still, they will outright lie. This “big fish” mentality – focusing entirely on policy makers as sources – combined with the need to both have these same big name sources return in the future and to maximize profit for the company, means that reporters will face pressure to put out the story that the policy makers want them to put out… rather than print the truth. I’ve used newspapers to illustrate this pitfall, but it certainly exists for big-time television sources as well. [This section doesn’t even touch on the topics of journalists and policy makers socializing together or of the modern notion of journalists as celebrities in their own right. Both topics only bolster my arguments, but each could be the subject of a blog writing on its own.]

I’ll offer up an illustration in support of my assertions above. From the events of 9/11 until to the start of the war with Iraq, the Times and the Post in large part towed the Bush Administration line in its push for war. The sources noted were almost entirely “high level” and the off-the-record sources – often later revealed – proved to be the same. “Proof” of WMDs and “Saddam Hussein’s imminent intent” to use them was repeated as if from the Administration itself. It was. Congress as a whole bought the stories and so did much of the American public. Of course, it was all lies and half-truths, but who could know that then? Well, actually, journalists at Knight-Ridder knew. John Walcott, Warren Strobel, and Jonathan Landay put together a compelling piece of journalism, stories published over the months and months leading up to the war. They did it the old fashioned way, which is also to say the time consuming way, which is also to say the expensive way. They called people. They tracked down leads. They traveled and met with sources that were mostly mid-level. (Sources, I might add that had nothing to do with crafting policy and everything to do with implementing it. The very people, quite often career civil servants, who would know what was going on and who could verify or disprove what the policy makers were actually saying.) They dug through records, mostly electronic and many even on the Internet for anyone to see at home. They threw up warning signs as to why the Administration’s case for war smelled funny. They outright debunked then many of the things that now everyone – except Dick Cheney of course – knows to have been false. All of this could have been done by the Times and the Post. They had much greater resources at their disposal than did Knight-Ridder. So, too, could have any member of Congress had he been so moved. They did not. They were too powerful, too elite, and too close to Official Washington. It took people who were too “unimportant” to catch the big fish to actually do the work that needed to be done and get the real story (read “to get the truth”). Had the work been done by the Times or the Post, Official Washington would have been reading it. It might have helped frame the debate, such as it was. Unfortunately, Knight-Ridder published no papers in Washington. The organization was far enough away from the seat of power to get the story, but not close enough – or important enough – to tell it. The McClatchy Company purchased Knight-Ridder in 2006. If you are lucky live in a city that publishes one of their papers, you are very likely to be much better informed as to the political truths of our society than are those of us who live elsewhere. The latter most certainly includes those of you living in New York or DC, like it or not.

I suppose that my final topic today will be the myth of a liberal bias in the news media. Discerning, intelligent people still believe this to be the case… in the face of common sense if nothing else. The story of the press in America is the story of the ownership of production and distribution of the press itself. This is true today, where basically every major source of news in America is owned by a large corporate interest. Moreover, most of these corporate concerns are not focused on the news business as their only – or even their primary – venture. All of these businesses exist to make money. Period. Now, I happen to enjoy making money myself, so I can’t fault them that. However, let’s not whitewash the effect that this singular corporate goal has on news divisions. You don’t make money by pissing off your advertisers. You don’t make money by pissing off politicians that are so nicely in corporate pockets. You by and large play it safe, which means conservative (small “c”). You don’t rock the corporate boat, which is just fine for Conservatives (large “c”).

It is too easy to point out absurdly right-wing “news” organizations such as Fox News. That Fox is a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration and the RNC at large is the obvious, gospel truth even to my benchmark retarded squirrel. It displays outright, in-your-face Conservatism. No, I’m pointing to all of the little ways that the news media tip toes around the truth – and sometimes leaps over it – in order to not offend Big Business, which would play with the bottom line. We have the supposedly Harvard-loving, tea-swilling, intellectually-pinko New York Times, in the lovely words of my wife, “aiding and abetting” the Bush administration time and again on the road up to the war and sadly quite often still. (Hell, Judith Miller was so far up Bush’s bum prior to leaving the Times that she could see Condoleezza Rice and Robert Novak playing yahtzee somewhere near the President’s duodenum.) We have the supposedly liberal editorial (and also opinion editorial) staffs of papers publishing the work of the William Safires and Charles Krauthammers of the world right alongside their progressive counterparts. Certainly, there are examples to be found that are exceptions to all that I have noted above, but by and large, the pressure on today’s journalist is to trend conservative… which Conservatives find most satisfying.

I would be remiss if I didn’t tell a story that I just recently heard that illustrates one of the “leaps over the truth” I noted above. Just after college in the early 1980s, a fellow beekeeper from the US (“Kevin”) not only wanted to learn more about alternative beekeeping methods, but was also infatuated with Latin American culture. As a result, he traveled extensively throughout Central and South America. At one point, Kevin found himself in a relatively small town in Nicaragua. He was there to meet the people and to see how they kept bees. While there, he struck up a friendship with a reporter for Time magazine. This reporter was using this town as a base of operations while reporting on the war between the Contras and the Sandanista government. Kevin knew of the war, but it really had not affected his travels. Around this town were acres and acres of cleared forest – “stumps for miles” – but although the town had been a forestry town, its workers had not performed the clear cutting. That had been done by Weyerhaeuser, a giant wood and paper company, which had struck a deal with the Contras during their control of the area. Presently, the Sandanistas had control and were letting the foresters of the town use the area once again. In a raid to take back the area, and thus continue the flow of money from Weyerhaeuser, the Contra army attacked the town. Although Kevin thought that the townspeople were neutral in the conflict, focusing only on day-to-day living, dozens were killed in the gunfight. Both Kevin and the journalist were in the town at the time of the attack. The journalist was writing stories all of the time, of course, and Kevin would read the stories as magazine issues were sent down to the reporter. When no mention of the attack was made in any of the reporter’s articles during and after the time in question, Kevin asked him about it. The reporter told him point blank that it just wasn’t worth writing about because such a story would not be printed. The reporter had learned to only write favorable – or at worst neutral – accounts of the Contras because Weyerhaeuser was a big advertiser and a paper supplier to boot. It was a big eye-opener for Kevin and I can sympathize with him.

I’ll offer three final thoughts and a post script. First, Fox News is brilliant business. Rupert Murdoch may be a parasite, but he is a parasite with brains. There is often much more money to be made by serving the bulk of the customers in a smaller slice of the total market than by serving a broader selection of customers in the market as a whole. MSNBC followed CNN’s path to the latter, while Murdoch followed the former strategy with Fox News and laughed all the way to the bank. It also helps that promoting Republican leaders generally leads to more favorable business rules and laws. Republicans are slightly easier to buy than Democrats. However, if the world were turned upside down tomorrow and Murdoch believed that more cash would flow to him with Fox News having a left-wing bent, Bill O’Reilly would be parroting Michael Moore faster than a NASCAR race bores me.

Second, William Safire, both in his columns and as a TV pundit, championed the Bush case for war with Iraq. He as much as anyone fed the line “we will be greeted as liberators” to the press and to the public over and over again. I’m curious; can anyone find anything that Safire hypothesized about the war in the period leading up to it that proved to be correct? Why does this man still have a job and why does anyone take him seriously?

Finally, it is a sad reality that the best political commentary in this country comes in the form of political satire. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, and Gary Trudeau’s Doonesbury lampoon the powerful and shine light on the bullshit of our day. Humor frees them to call a spade a spade, a crook a crook, and a liar a liar. We don’t like to hear that the emperor has no clothes, but it goes down better with a laugh. Reading Doonesbury last week illustrates my point as to their collective worth nicely. Comics from 2002 and 2003 were reprinted. In these, Trudeau’s characters mocked Bush’s pre-war assertions that the war would be clean and swift, offering up a look at what Trudeau projected would come to pass. Sadly, he was spot on. A little digging, common sense, and a sense of history were a good guide for him.

My post script to this long piece is to remember Newton N. Minow, a former chairman of the FCC. On 9 May 1961, at a gathering of the National Association of Broadcasters, Mr. Minow called television programming “a vast wasteland.” Many today believe that even in the face of such criticism by a respected and influential figure, it was at this moment that the networks consciously chose profit over public interest. Although his judgment fell on deaf ears, he was correct then and he would be correct today. I do not know if he included TV news in his assertions, but I’m sure that he now would.

Note: This piece was originally finalized for publication on 11 May 2007, but I only found time to upload it today.