alternative hippopotamus

Ever since the webby-award winning Al "Ozone Guy" Gore invented the fabulous internets, they have been used by various right-wing groups to twist, caricature, and distort events to make the case for their movement.

Far from advocating a self-correcting blogosphere, the right sees sophism as a legitimate tactic. It is, indeed, the attitude at the base of what's in opposition to "reality-based" reporting.

While often I'm tempted to throw up my arms and say: what's the use? Like cockroaches, you can never stamp them all out. This time Mona Charen is prevaricating on a topic near and dear to my heart: Sex Ed in Montgomery County, MD (emphasis mine):

At one time, the new curriculum was going to feature information on flavored condoms. There's something that will help the trade deficit! The cheery young lady who protects the cucumber also advises her audience of 14- and 15 year-olds that abstinence is the surest way to prevent pregnancy, but, "Buying condoms isn't as scary as you might think."

Read that, and then try to take seriously the sex educators' claim that they are merely providing information for teens -- not encouraging early sexuality. It's impossible to know how much of an effect sex ed has on kids' decisions, but it is interesting that even SIECUS acknowledged back in the '90s that sex ed had not succeeded in reducing teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases at all.

The SIECUS site puts it a little differently:

The pregnancy rate for teenagers 15 to 19 years of age fell 19 percent from 116 per 1,000 in 1991 to 94.3 in 1997, reversing an 11 percent rise from 1986 to 1991.

For using data from the second half of a sentence while ignoring the first half the staff at Alt Hippo is proud to name Mona Charen the Sophist of the Day.

Update: It appears the Pandagonians are already on the case.
|

Even here in lefty DC I run into a lot of people that are convinced that Michael Moore foams at the mouth and should be exorcised from liberalism, while Barbara Bradley Hagerty is mainstream.

Of course she doesn't foam at the mouth. It's like the "Tom is the devil" speech in Broadcast News, which I'll lightly rewrite:

"What do you think the devil is going to look like? Come on, nobody is going to be taken in by a woman with a long, red, pointy tail.

"She will be unthreatening, she will be nice and helpful, she will get a job where she influences a great God-fearing nation, she will never do an evil thing, she will never deliberately hurt a single living thing.

"She will lower the bar for Christianity until it's synonymous with the prejudices of a narrow-minded minority. And then she will carve up the world into two groups, Christian and non."

Better Angels has a number of posts on Hagerty. A short excerpt here:

More troubling still is her association with Howard Ahmanson's Fieldstead and Co. and Fieldstead Foundation. Ahmanson is a California millionaire who uses his trust fund to finance right-wing Christian, anti-gay, anti-evolution groups and politicians. He was previously associated with Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates a Biblically-based governement for the U.S. (Neither Ahmanson nor his philanthropic endeavors have their own websites. Make of that what you will.)

Hagerty has spoken twice at the Summer Institute of Journalism, a program run by the Council for Christian Colleges and University and funded by the Fieldstead Foundation. Student reactions to her talks are here.

Hagerty's keynote address to the 2003 National Student Media Convention was also sponsored by Fieldstead and Co. In 2003 she also spoke at the Baptist Press Student Journalism Conference, along with Terry Mattingly, a Scripps-Howard reporter who is also a Fieldstead grant recipient.

There is nothing wrong with having a point of view. What I like about Michael Moore is that he makes his viewpoint clear. What I don't like is when somebody is an advocate for particular viewpoint, or is being funded by a particular group and doesn't make that clear.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty can report objectively about religion the same way that the Kansas Board of Education can report objectively about evolution.
|

Then:

"It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron," laughed Chris Matthews. "I mean how did he get this idea? Now you've seen Al Gore in action. I know you didn't know that he was the prototype for Ryan O'Neal's character in ‘Love Story’ or that he invented the Internet. He now is the guy who discovered Love Canal."

Matthews compared the vice president to "Zelig," the Woody Allen character whose face appeared at an unlikely procession of historic events. "What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, 'I was the main character in ‘Love Story.’ I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal."

Now:

NEW YORK -- Al Gore may have been lampooned for taking credit in the Internet's development, but organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements don't find it funny at all.

In part to "set the record straight," they will give Gore a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet, said Tiffany Shlain, the awards' founder and chairwoman.

Meanwhile, 3000 years earlier:

"Democracy won't work, the great Socrates cried, because sophists will create mass confusion," Somerby recalled at his Web site. "Here in our exciting, much-hyped new millennium, the Great Greek's vision remains crystal clear." [The Daily Howler, Jan. 13, 2000]

|

Ken Rudin writes a blog for NPR. In this entry he answers listener's questions about Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Bill Weld, Marilyn Quayle, and throws in some Paul Laxalt trivia. 'Cause you can never get enough Paul Laxalt trivia.

It's not that he answers those questions plus some others about Democrats. That's the whole blog entry. It may be that this is the exception. Maybe he's been spending so much of his blog talking about Democrats that he feels guilty and wants to give the other side a chance.

Of course, he could also be a Republican Toady.
|

This one has more than a few heads scratching: (Newsday)

WASHINGTON -- An analyst in a controversial Pentagon intelligence office was charged yesterday with passing top-secret information to two staff members of a pro-Israeli lobbying group here.

Charged was Larry Franklin, an Iran specialist who worked in the Office of Special Plans, established by Pentagon Undersecretary Douglas Feith in order to give Pentagon civilians an independent source of intelligence that could bolster the case for war with Iraq.

Yet:

A source close to the public affairs committee said only that it "has been advised that it is not a target of the investigation."

Why in the world would AIPAC not be a target of the investigation? Because no one can come up with an ulterior motive? Because Feith had planned to leak this to the Israelis anyway?

This could, of course, be one of those word games that lawyers and spokespeople love to play. Later on in the same article we have a real jewel in the crown of deceptive wordplay: (emphasis mine)

Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, issued a statement saying, "Steve Rosen never solicited, received or passed on any classified documents from Larry Franklin and Mr. Franklin will never be able to say otherwise."

But an affidavit filed with the charges in federal District Court in Virginia said Franklin disclosed the information orally. It said he was also found a year later to have 83 classified documents at his home and that he disclosed classified information "to a foreign official" and to members of the media.

|

Not the whiskered, sneaky, vermin kind. Well, of course, now that I put it that way...

What I mean here is the kind of mole that goes undercover, say as a journalist, with the goal of serving a government, a foreign interest, or possibly a political party.

For instance, I can't help but notice that Klein's current Time Viewpoint column consists of Republican talking points. The whole column is basically two Republican talking points with Joe Klein's by-line hacked on at the end.

1. To Democrats, Social Security is just a wedge issue:
   
   "He proposed that the system be made solvent by reducing benefits on a sliding scale, according to income. This utterly responsible and progressive proposition was greeted by phony bleats of outrage from leading Democrats, who proved once again that they are more interested in the demagogic exploitation of the issue than they are in the impact of baby boom retirement on their grandchildren."
2. Bush should make independence from foreign oil his legacy issue.
   
   "Has Bush chosen the wrong issue to burnish his legacy? What if he had reversed these two priorities, gone bold on energy independence--an issue on which compromise with Democrats is possible--instead of Social Security?"

The first bullet is too stupid for this hippopotamus to comment on.

On the second, independence from foreign oil would only be possible if we radically decreased our consumption. As this article from factcheck.org points out, even if we produced as much as we consumed, we'd still be at the mercy of the Gulf states, since it's a global market.

By raising the question, however, Klein gives visibility to the so-called Energy Bill, legislation designed to profit Exxon-Mobil while being meaningless as far as conservation is concerned.

This wouldn't be the first time Klein has helped the Republicans. Primary Colors was a hatchet job of the first order. And despite protestations that Klein was just speaking satire to power, I find it curious that Klein sees no reason to satirize the bush crowd.
|

|

It's like rhetoric, but without the substance or form: (monkeys flinging poo)

And then Mitchell starts with what he sees as the most obvious similarity between Vietnam and Iraq:

Let’s start with: the nation’s leaders lying to the American people to gain our involvement in the two wars. Don't take my word for it. Gallup found this week that half of all Americans now say that President Bush deliberately misled them on WMDs.

Um. That’s his evidence? A poll? The number could be 100% of Americans and it wouldn’t count as proof – in a court of law or with a fair editor -- that Bush “lied” (neither, alas, would Mr. Mitchell’s “word” that it is so). Indeed, the polling question is whether or not America was “misled” not if it was lied to. Readers around here understand that the distinction is significant. Readers probably also understand that if the polls overwhelmingly said Bush told the truth, Mitchell wouldn’t bother with polls.

Where to begin? The question is whether or not the public believes bush deceived them. For reasons I can't fathom, with the possible exception of cluelessness, Jonah finds polls unacceptable as a means of gauging public opinion. WTF? Jonah then proceeds to split the hair between "misled" and "lied", a difference readers around here will hopefully fail to appreciate, as it tends towards nil. Like the difference between naked and lacking clothes, the emperor may be both a fool and unfit for his post. I like the bit at the end where Jonah says that the only reason Mitchell is using the poll, is because it proves his point. WTF? If Jonah lived 400 years ago would he have said: "The only reason Newton uses Mathematics is because it suppports his Physics"?

Don't answer that.
|

From Amazon's reader reviews:

"Thank You, President Bush" serves as a laudatory record of the past four years of the Bush Administration, substantiated with the one thing liberals detest most: facts. In discussing the reality of today's most important issues, the contributors are not fueled by blind faith. Rather, these are highly researched and thorough examinations of the true state of the economy, the successes of our foreign policy, the achievements in social policy, and a profound look at the remarkable character of President Bush.

This book is vastly different than the efforts of the Liberal Left. While the likes of Michael Moore, Al Gore, the Hollywood "elite" and MoveOn.org are driven by hate and the desire to defame President Bush, the works featured within the pages of "Thank You, President Bush" provide well-educated, factual, optimistic and thought provoking analyses of how President Bush has made our country a better place to live, and how the President has risen above the endless stream of attacks against his character, faith, and policies.

Customers who bought this book also bought: Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.

I especially like the part about "In discussing the reality of today's most important issues, the contributors are not fueled by blind faith." Which is true. When you're talking about Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson it isn't so much "blind faith" as rigid partisanship and gay bashing.

I should also mention that W's brother Jeb is one of the contributors. There's a bold move. Say, who can we get to give us an objective analysis of the president? I know, let's get his brother Jeb. He'll rip W a new one.
|

Bulworth asks:

Is it that Democratic filibusters are unconstitutional or filibusters in general?

That's a rhetorical question, I'm guessing.
|

Pat Robertson on This Week with George Stephanopolous (KC Star):

Acknowledging several passages from his new book - where he charged that liberals were engaging in "an all-out assault on Christianity," and that Democrats wanted to appoint judges who would "dismantle our Christian culture" - Robertson told ABC that the federal judiciary, as currently constituted, represents the biggest threat to America in its history. He warned: "They're destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

His interviewer, George Stephanopolous, asked whether Robertson was saying that the threat posed by federal judges was more dire than the Civil War, World War II, and the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11. Robertson replied: "I really believe that. ... I think that the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

I think it's interesting that Robertson doesn't even bother refering to our Judeo-Christian culture.

Mr. Robertson, if you happen to read this, please nota bene (I'll type slowly for your benefit): You're a member of a fringe organization. By fringe we don't mean elite, or in some way exceptional. We mean... well, borderline insane.
|

If you live in the DC area, tomorrow night, Monday May 2 at 7:00 Howard Zinn will be at Politics&Prose to discuss Voices of a People's History of the United States:

The beloved historian and his editor gather inspiring speeches, fiery poems and sharp political essays by the people who built the social justice movements. Zinn writes, “People who seem to have no power, whether working people, people of color, or women –once they organize and protest and create movements – they have a voice no government can suppress.”

Okay, I mean, he'll be there even if you don't live here. But, you know.
|

There's a lot in this report from the Civil Rights Commission (pdf). An excerpt from the executive summary:

This report finds that President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words. The report reaches this conclusion after analyzing and summarizing numerous documents, including historical literature, reports, scholarly articles, presidential and administration statements, executive orders, policy briefs, documents of Cabinetlevel agencies, federal budgets and other data.

While I'm tempted to write that the intersection of civil rights supporters and president bush's supporters are the null set, on reflection that may not be true. For instance, the report notes that both Powell and Rice are supporters of Affirmative Action. Of course, the report also notes that bush himself doesn't support Affirmative Action. Likewise, the report notes that while dick cheney's daughter is openly gay, the policies of the bush administration have been, well, openly hostile to gay and lesbian citizens. Instead of hypothesizing that bush supporters are orthogonal to civil rights, I prefer an alternative hippopotamus: bush's base sees civil rights as a threat, and that bush/cheney/rove et al, would prefer to re-invent the Civil Rights Commision to appeal to bush's base.

I'll also note that the report omits an important fact: that after the report was released the principal authors were fired, and the report was removed from government websites. Some news accounts say that Mary Frances Berry, the former chairperson, wasn't fired, but simply resigned. Here, I'm reminded of that great Claude Reins line: "we can't decide if he killed himself, or was shot trying to escape."

It may be that bush sees himself as an advocate of civil rights, and programs like faith-based initiatives are in his view a way of fighting for the rights of the repressed fundamentalist minority. It also may be that karl rove has identified exactly who represents bush's base, and has tailored programs and policies so that they benefit fundamentalists, neoconservatives, and plutocrats, and hurt everyone else. The point is certainly debatable. I'll report, you decide.

There's a fascinating section of the report that looks at bush's judicial nominees. One important fact that's often overlooked is that bush ended the long-standing practise of getting the recommendation of the ABA on judicial appointments. If nominees are vetted by anyone, it's the Federalist Society, the folks that brought us Ken Starr, Robert Bork, and Ann Coulter among others. (more on the Feddies here.)

Since these are the same nominees that we're about go nukular over, I thought I'd give a small excerpt on Janice Brown:

Several of Brown’s statements disclosed during her confirmation hearing led one former supporter, a University of California law professor emeritus, to rescind his support. Brown was criticized for engaging in “government-bashing” and presenting “extreme and outdated ideological positions” that are “outside the mainstream of today’s constitutional law.” In one speech, criticizing government programs, she stated that the federal government is “the opiate of the masses [and a drug for] multinational corporations and single moms, for regulated industries and Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.” The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Judge Brown and forwarded her nomination, but it has not come up for a full vote.

I understand that the right has been arguing that these nominees have been held up to spite the faith-based community. I'm not seeing that. She comes across, and judging by the report I'm not alone here, as bat-shit crazy.

Update: As this post by Armando points out, when the faith-based card doesn't work, there's always the race card. I thought this bit was particularly interesting:

The report, "Loose Cannon," notes that when Brown was nominated to the state supreme court in 1996, she was found unqualified by the state bar evaluation committee, based not only on her relative inexperience but also because she was "prone to inserting conservative political views into her appellate opinions" and based on complaints that she was "insensitive to established precedent."

Bat-shit crazy and unqualified. Think about that. This is what Frist is fighting for.
|