Archive for December, 2009

2009: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

2009 began with great promise: the exit of the criminal gang that had been running Washington for 8 years, and the emergence of a new administration full of hope and committed to tackling the substantial problems we face as a nation.

That promise has been in part fulfilled.

The Obama Administration prevented a depression, put an end to the arrogant posturing and jingoism that threatened our our global standing and moral authority in the world, and is on the brink of passing health care reform, which despite its flaws, is the most important addition to our safety net in nearly 50 years. Furthermore, the Administration has made countless regulatory decisions on the environment, banking, and judicial reform that, while falling far short of what is needed, have brought the idea of competent governance back to Washington.

By any measure, this was a good year for progressive politics.

Of course, the new administration took over in the midst of a deep economic recession and the threatened collapse of the global financial system. Although, the collapse was averted due, in part, to the Obama administration’s timely and forceful actions, unemployment skyrocketed, trillions of dollars of wealth vanished eviscerating the life savings of many ordinary Americans, and we held our nose while Wall St. bankers were rewarded for their incompetence and greed.

The economic prospects of Americans have taken a severe body blow, especially in California, where the Yacht Party continues to plunder our human resources, presiding over the collapse of the educational system that is the lifeblood of any modern society.

By any measure this was a bad year for the American Dream, which one year of progressive politics cannot restore.

As for the ugly, well, nothing is uglier than the rampant cynicism that grips large swaths of the American public, exacerbated by the ignorant know-nothings who call themselves “conservatives” and the impatient utopians on the left.

On the right, the inmates now run the asylum. The Republican Party is the party of “birthers” raging hysterically about “death panels” and “enemies lists” and spouting wild-eyed nonsense about ACORN and Obama’s re-education camps. It is a party in which the leadership honestly thinks a spending freeze is the solution to our economic crisis, compares Obama to the leaders of Nazi Germany, and openly threatens to encourage states to nullify Federal laws or secede from the union.

On the left, fuming perfectionists threaten never to vote again because of some compromise of principle perpetrated by the allegedly weak-willed Obama. Their belief in the magical powers of the President would be touching in a six year old, but is mere hypocrisy for someone claiming to be part of the reality-based community.

The world is a saner and safer place today than it was a year ago. We should be thankful for that while mindful of the real misery wrought by decades of conservative ideology.

 

 

 

Manufacturing Consent

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

In 2001, Sami al-Hajj, a Sudanese cameraman working in Afghanistan for the Arab news organization Al-Jazeera ,was imprisoned by the U.S., tortured at Bagram Air Force Base, and sent to Guantanamo where he languished for seven years before his release last year. He was never charged with a crime and his interrogation consisted largely of questions, not about terrorism, but about Al Jazeera.

The United States thus engaged in the illegal abduction and torture of a journalist.

This story had received little attention in the U.S. media until last week when Brian Stelter of the New York Times profiled al-Hajj, now a correspondent for Al Jazeera.

But Stelter’s story contains a “tell” that reveals the dark side of American journalism. Via Glenn Greenwald:

Among Al Jazeera’s viewers in the Arab world since the 9/11 attacks, perhaps nothing has damaged perceptions of America more than Guantánamo Bay. For that reason, Mr. Hajj, who did a six-part series on the prison after his release, is a potent weapon for the network, which does not always strive for journalistic objectivity on the subject of his treatment. In an interview, Ahmed Sheikh, the editor in chief of Al Jazeera, called Mr. Hajj “one of the victims of the human rights atrocities committed by the ex-U.S. administration.”

As Greenwald points out:

It’s amazing that the NYT would claim that Al Jazeera’s description of the Bush administration’s conduct as it concerns al-Hajj and other detainees — “one of the victims of the human rights atrocities committed by the ex-U.S. administration” — departs from precepts of “journalistic objectivity.”  How can the lawless detention, brutal torture, numerous detainee deaths, obvious targeting of unfriendly media outlets, and explicit renunciation of the Gevena Conventions be described in any other way?  The breach of “journalistic objectivity” comes not from calling this conduct what it is, but from refusing to do so — from obfuscating what took place by using soothing euphemisms and according equal deference to the plainly false denials of those who did it…

Of course the Pentagon denies that al-Hajj was mistreated. Who is right, the Pentagon or al-Hajj? The Times doesn’t say. And here we see why the Times thinks Al Jazeera lacks objectivity. Greenwald’s analysis is right:

Using the standard definition of American journalism, resolving conflicting claims and stating the actual truth is a violation of “journalistic objectivity.”  Journalists only neutrally pass on claims, not report which ones are true.  That’s why Al Jazeera’s doing so with regard to the Bush administration’s conduct is so offensive to The New York Times.

This despite the fact that the Times routinely accuses other nations of engaging in the human rights atrocities. It seems that such reports lack objectivity only when the perpetrator is the U.S.

Here is Greenwald again:

Americans love to believe that the differences in perception between themselves and the Muslim world are due to the fact that Americans are rational, well-informed, free and advanced, while those in predominantly Arab or Muslim countries are propagandized, irrational, primitive, conspiratorial, and misled….

Yet the al-Hajj case shows how often exactly the opposite is true.  That the U.S. Government imprisoned Muslim journalists without any charges of any kind is, as Stelter says, very well known in the Muslim world.  Indeed, as Rachel Morris wrote in her superb piece for the Columbia Journalism Review about this case, “al-Haj has become a cause celebre in the Arab world.”  The Muslim world is very well-informed about what the U.S. Government did — and continues to do — with regard to the due-process-free imprisonment of Muslim journalists.

By stark contrast, the American public is, as Stelter notes, almost completely ignorant of what our government has done in this regard.  And why is that?  Because the same media that fixates endlessly on the imprisonment of American journalists by other countries all but blacked out any reporting on what we did to al-Hajj (again, other than columnist Nicholas Kristof, who is commendably as concerned by the American imprisonment of foreign journalists as he is when other government do it to ours).

This episode is further evidence that the job of corporate media in this country is to manufacture consent for policies that serve the interests of big business and the Pentagon, policies that brought us the Iraq war and the meltdown of our financial system.

The world would be a better place without corporate media.

Copenhagen Chaos

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

There is a good deal of controversy about whether the Copenhagen accord on climate change is step forward or a step back. But there is no doubt that the negotiations were messy.

Mark Lynas was in the room and describes the  chaotic end of the Copenhagen conference:

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

….Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again….Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors….

It is becoming increasingly clear that China was a big obstacle, a point that has not gotten much attention in the press. But the U.S. also lacks a coherent policy on climate change.

There is lots of blame to go around.