Unless you've been living in an Afghan cave, you're aware of the worldwide protests and riots sparked (in part) by a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons deemed offensive to Islam. You've probably also heard the constant smug, self-righteous declarations of "You don't see Christians resorting to violence every time someone insults Christianity!" No, of course not!
We in the West are so innately superior to Muslims that we would never resort to such barbaric means to express our religious frustrations. You see, we're civilized, unlike those backward Arab types wandering the desert. When Christianity is insulted, Christians just pray for the poor lost souls who have never known Jesus. If the Muslims knew Jesus, they'd be peace-loving, tolerant, free-speech promoting, democracy-spreading saints like "us."* Right? I've got to call this one as I see it. Bullshit!
Figures, of course. Now, why else would our beloved brat say he's gonna veto anything against his deal....? In the midst of a story on Iran's unsurprising rejection of $75 million that President Bush has asked congress to allocate for encouraging democracy there, the Financial Times reports today that "Iran's reformists - regrouping after election defeats - are loath to accept US money and argue US pressure strengthens militarism in Iran." The Washington Post is delving into the controversy over the use of anonymous sources in the press, a controversy which has left that paper's reputation besmirched to say the least.
The most famous anonymous source in the history of journalism, Woodward and Bernstein's "Deep Throat," proved the necessity and the value of occasionally agreeing to conceal the identity of the person providing a reporter with vital information. There are some things too dangerous to say on the record. There are some people whose identities must be protected, as revealing them would put them and perhaps our nation in grave danger. There is information so vital to our freedoms that it must be printed even if you have to bend over backwards, go to jail, whatever to protect the source of that information.
So, there's all sorts of people who not only should but must be identified by pseudonyms or vague qualifiers like "unnamed senior official." Intelligence agents, undercover police officers, whistleblowers, crime victims, political refugees and dissidents, minors, etc. deserve the protection of honest journalists serving both the truth and the people's right to know. Recent events however have shown that anonymous sourcing has gone too far, becoming simply a means to protect a reporter's access to the powerful or as a public relations ploy on the part of the administration. We have been spun.
I was tempted to categorize this as humor, but Brother Jeb sure doesn't see it that way. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Jeb is all het up that Common Cause won't come clean. It disclosed "only" its top contributors to the $2.6 million Florida ballot campaign it has waged to have redistricting taken out of the hands of the Republican Legislature: the 44 largest contributors who gave $5,000 or more.
Bush's response: "I appreciate they gave up some of their donors. But what about the rest? Where's the outrage?"
While reading a discussion on national health care, I started thinking about how important it is for people to have common reference points when we speak. In language, the most basic reference points are the very definitions of the words we use. It's crucial that we share definitions for any meaningful communication to occur. And, conversely, employing a different definition than the one your listener employs makes it very easy to deceive the listener as to your intentions.
Which brings me to the political discourse in America, where I think some folks on the right are using the definitional game to their advantage and to the detriment of real discussion and communication.
For a man with pretensions to presidential power, some serious education, and presumably lots of experience in dealing with the public in his role as a surgeon, Senate leader Bill Frist comes across as surprisingly doctrinaire and partisan.
Witness his performance on today's Face the Nation program. I find this odd. Very odd. But not surprising given the general level of arrogance that my country has exhibited since being placed under the thumb of George W. Bush.
The U.S. Treasury Department has reportedly set off a potential international incident (of the admittedly mild variety) by prodding an American-owned hotel in Mexico to evict the Cuban delegation to an energy conference in Mexico City. Lots of right wingers love to console themselves with the myth that opposition to the absurdly misguided policies of the Bush Administration are based on nothing more than some visceral "Bush hating." How they manage to convince themselves that hate could spring out of nothing is beyond me, but then much of what they claim to think is beyond me.
One of the most dedicated advocates of "they just hate Bush" is the Weekly Standard, that exercise in neocon smugness run by Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, with lots of contributions from PJ O'Rourke, that "humorist" who suffers from fear of altruism. One secondary headline over there in 2004 actually read "Amateur and professional Bush-haters gather in Washington for the Take Back America conference.".
Pamela Leavey, at Democratic Daily takes a good look at the approval of the corporate takeover that results in port security at several American ports being run by a company, DP World, from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Check out the comments, too, for several flurries of accusations of racism and bigotry on the part of people who might object to the deal.
|
