While I have enjoyed Glenn Greenwald's posts for some time, I've found him during the last year or so to be about as spot on as any blogger out there in the post-Billmon age. Here he is on the latest Dowd nonsense (excuse the length but it is an important passage):
... in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every
repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political
Journalist:
*Jaded, bitterly cynical coolness masquerading as sophistication (no emotion, no passion, is even real);
* Vapid, shallow stupidity (political matters judged exclusively by Drudge-like personality distractions);
* Mindless recitation of idiotic, Kristol-like right-wing talking
points (we need manly Tough Guys, not Girly Crying, for our Wars);
* The basest and most glaringly obvious strain of sexism (no mention of the endless crying episodes from GOP Warrior-Cheerleaders);
* Their self-absorbed and almost-always-wrong belief that their own
insulated biases are how the Regular Folk Think (hence, Hillary's
"crying," which voters apparently either appreciated or ignored, was
going to doom her candidacy, just as Huckabee's press conference would
doom his in Iowa);
* Herd-like adolescent malice rituals directed towards the Hated Loser (NYT reporters grouping together to chortle and cackle oh-so-knowingly at the Wicked Witch).
Brokaw's
sudden, embarrassment-driven request for the media to act differently
(where has his sermon been for the last 20 years?) will not have the
slightest effect on what they do. It can't, because the media stars and
their editors and producers who shape coverage aren't capable of
anything else. They're selected and in those positions precisely
because this is all they're capable of doing.
Are Gloria Borger and Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman and Wolf
Blitzer suddenly going to abandon their desire to impose shallow,
melodramatic narratives on our elections and spend their time, instead,
analyzing the candidates' responses to Charlie Savage's questionnaire on presidential power,
or the dominant, corrosive role lobbyists and large corporations play
in our political culture, or the widening rich-poor gap, or the strain
and stain on our country from our imperial policies? The question is so
absurd, so laughable, that to ask it is to answer it. None of them
could remotely do that even if they wanted to, even if they were
allowed to, and they don't and aren't.
Now I suppose what is most frustrating personally involves as Greenwald states the "Vapid, shallow stupidity." Of course as a progressive I'm naturally going to disagree with, for example, certain types of conservative or anarchist or libertarian approaches, maybe involving economic and social priorities, manners of growth and stability in a society or notions of democracy itself. However ..... what one is so often faced with upon accidently stumbling upon a Goldberg or a Kristol in the paper or on the web is so mind-numbingly idiotic that what gets to you most is not how much you disagree, but that this absolute tripe is simply being published and moreover, that it is influential and these clowns earn a living by it.
Or maybe that's just me.
Anyways, as today's exhibit I give you James Pinkerton. Usually with these "deep thinkers" I can only get a few paragraphs before their simplemindedness forces me to stop reading in order to protect my sanity (btw, I don't think Greenwald gets enough credit for his strong stomach, daily sifting through the sewer that is the right wing blogosphere and much of the mainstream punditocracy). A couple of paragraphs was about as far as I got with Pinkerton's column today entitled "I'll Love America More":
My New Year's resolutions:
• I resolve to worry more about Pakistan's 75-weapon nuclear stockpile than about global warming. I am more worried about being incinerated by a loose nuke than I am about the water table rising a few feet.
• Yet, I also resolve to worry more about global warming than about democracy in Pakistan. Democracy is wonderful, but only for people who want it and who are willing to play by its rules. Democracy without self-discipline is a formula for, well, Pakistan.
Obviously, as any 3rd grader could tell you, we as humans are capable of dealing with two serious issues simultaneously. But Pinkerton also manages to display - what was that phrase again? - oh yes, "vapid, shallow stupidity" in his childish manner to minimize the gravity of a rise in sea-level. So, just for the record:
...It is not only small island states that need to worry about sea level
rise. More than 70 percent of the world's population lives on coastal
plains, and 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on the coast
or estuaries...
...There are many variables – including how
much the expected increase in precipitation will add to snow packs and,
most importantly, our greenhouse gas emissions over the next
decades. What we do know is that even a small amount of sea level
rise will have profound negative effects...
Even this
comparatively modest projected sea level rise will wreak havoc.
Coastal flooding and storm damage, eroding shorelines, salt water
contamination of fresh water supplies, flooding of coastal wetlands and
barrier islands, and an increase in the salinity of estuaries are all
realities of even a small amount of sea level rise. Some low lying
costal cities and villages will also be affected. Resources
critical to island and coastal populations such as beaches, freshwater,
fisheries, coral reefs and atolls, and wildlife habitat is also at risk.
But Pinkerton goes that extra yard. After claiming he will worry more about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, he unbelievably states he will worry less about democracy in that same country. Let's look at a real analysis, one actually worthy of print. (Again an extended citation, as usually when addressing issues as difficult as the current situation in Pakistan is, you need more than a few trite and contradictory remarks)
...There is certainly an openness to Pakistan’s dictatorship compared with other Islamic states, and some westerners have appeased Musharraf as “our” dictator, operating a “doctrine of necessity”. But there is nothing in this man’s track record to suggest that he is not a paid-up member of the dictatoring classes. His agents treat democrats with contempt and he funnels huge sums into his pockets and those of his generals. About 80% of US aid to Pakistan since Musharraf came to power has gone on military assistance, less than a quarter of it used even remotely against the Taliban. The virtual collapse of the state school system has followed a fall in education spending from 4% to 1.8% of GDP, one of the lowest in Asia. In its place have mushroomed the free madrasas, from a few hundred to over 10,000, financed by Wahhabist Saudi money and formerly in league with American-financed mujahideen training camps. Intended to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, they have since become a network of “faith training” for the poor, teaching little but the Qur’an. This is Musharraf’s (and America’s) most lethal bequest to Pakistan’s political economy.
America’s clodhopping sponsorship of Musharraf drove him to renege on the treaties with the tribal states, fomenting a Pashtun insurgency. The Afghan frontier has duly proved al-Qaida’s juiciest hunting ground, aided by every American bombing raid and every Pakistan army atrocity. The Pashtun mujahideen (whose American backers are well-documented in the film Charlie Wilson’s War) is a Frankenstein monster that has turned its vengeance on Musharraf, Afghanistan and Washington alike.
Whatever the defects of democracy, and in Asia they are legion, it remains the least worst way of curbing authoritarian power. There is no alternative. America’s handling of Musharraf since 9/11 - essentially to capture one man, Osama bin Laden - has rendered swaths of his country, from Baluchistan in the south to Swat in the north, wholly insecure. Even the Grand Trunk Road from Islamabad to Peshawar is patrolled by the Taliban. The idea that Musharraf’s troops, let alone the CIA or the US airforce, might suppress a people who have worsted every empire from the Mughals to the British is ludicrous. Modern armies are no agents of pacification. Civilian negotiation in a context of democratic assent is at very least worth a try.
Backing Musharraf has always seemed “a good idea at the time”. The next person to be cursed with Washington’s favour appears to be Musharraf’s successor as army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani. However, by opting for the realpolitik of dictatorship the west has not just repressed democracy but aided insurgency and terror. It has yielded no security benefit to anyone. If Pakistan becomes a “failed state”, the failure will, in large part, be one of democratic imagination in Washington and London. We simply refuse to practise what we preach.
This Simon Jenkins article in the Guardian is a very good summation of the paradoxes and complexities of Pakistan. However, when I flipped open today's opinion page in the paper here in Miami I was greeted with the buffoon Pinkerton. He is not some obscure RW blogging nutjob but rather a nationally syndicated columnist. I'll say it again. This isn't about ideology. This is about having to read (and dispute if you're a blogger) columnists' claims that I personally wouldn't publish in a high school newsletter, because somehow, someway, they make it into the biggest newspapers in the country.
A Citizen's Obligation
The other night I was sitting with some people and the subject of Iraq and "supporting the troops" came up. One person involved had family in the military and another had served. The old platitude how once the decision has been made to go to war it is the citizen's duty to support the soldiers - which equates to supporting the military effort - because, after all, they are defending our "freedoms" was consistently served up.
Now these people I was talking with can be labeled as middle class, educated white Americans, early to late 30s with both males and females there. They were, at best, aware of the what is generally going on in the world, however replete with all the traditional media narratives and for the most part dreadfully uninformed even about their own domestic political realities.
Now quite obviously the idea that the invasion of Iraq is somehow protecting Western freedoms is very much a non sequitur, not to mention the many freedoms that are being dramatically eroded at an alarming rate in the so-called "War on Terrorism." Nevertheless it got me thinking a little more of what is required of the citizen to protect the freedoms established in a democratic system as well as the irony of the discussion itself.
Most reading this should be familiar with the maxim regarding not caring about politics, that is, to say you don't care is like someone drowning saying they don't care about water.
Well, after the initial discussion on supporting the troops, someone (a very well educated engineer) made the absolute ludicrous claim * that the media has only been interested in anti-war figures and that war supporters don't get their chance to make their case. (after Cindy Sheehan's name came up in response to someone else arguing that somehow those without family in the military can not criticize the war effort because they don't know what it's like to have loved ones at risk.)
Eventually most everyone started to get emotional and abruptly the topic was changed with the standard, let's not talk about politics plea.
Ok, here's my point. On one hand you have some declaring that one must support the troops and their effort because they are defending the freedoms we treasure so highly. In other words, it becomes one's duty as a citizen. Minutes later someone else makes an astonishingly naive and absurd claim regarding the media and the war (and others, by the way, hardly a clue of the any political machinations of the Bushies, the media or the political system itself - for fun I asked who believed that Al Gore said he invented the internet.They all did and a couple got upset by that "phony" Gore) Then the subject must be dropped because, in the midst of their ignorance of the politics and media, they got too worked up.
What kind of ridiculous paradox is this? It is never anyone's obligation - whether there is family involved or not to blindly support naked imperialism and do so out of some misguided notion of patriotism. Rather the obligation the citizen has is almost completely contrary to this. If these people value their freedoms and democracy as much as they claim then it is their fundamental obligation to maintain themselves informed and speak truth to power in order to check imperialistic aims and ensure a democratic society can function within the nation's boundaries.
But try having a debate on politics and society with your "average guy in the street" without either, one, hearing an amazing array of falsehoods argued as fact with the utmost tenacity and two, the conversation ending as others bitch about bad it is to talk about politics.
Is it any wonder that the democracy is crumbling?
Update: Just to clarify one thing. In no way is this meant as a comment on the role of the military or the soldier in a democratic society. That, of course is another issue and for me, the idea of supporting the troops most certainly must include keeping them out of harm's way by avoiding or stopping needless and irresponsible wars.
Update 2:
From the Smirking Chimp, Senator Jim Webb:
Webb is a very prominent anti-Iraq war politician who calls for the removal of all U.S. military bases and withdraw of all combat forces from Iraq so I guess then that makes him guilty of not supporting the troops.
-----
* To give just a couple of examples:
Posted by Brian Hunter on January 06, 2008 at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)