Monday, April 17, 2006

Today I came across two good articles which address, from different perspectives, the harm done by treating young adults like children. 1:50:38 PM    comment () trackback () NRO: In Search of Chivalry. Carrie Lukas wonders about chivalry in the age of feminism, and commits a fundamental error: Gentlemanly conduct isn’t about women at all. It’s about men and their sense of themselves. Paul Anderson continues to say that he would give up his seat to someone truly in need, such as the elderly, pregnant women, and the disabled. But that’s not gentlemanly, that’s just humane. Nonsense. Chivalry is not about a man’s sense of self. Chivalry is about survival - not individual survival, but rather that of the species. The acts of the men on the Titanic - placing the survival of women and children before their own - is evolution in action. Societies that forget that simple premise are doomed. [code: theWebSocket;] They're both wrong. Chivalry is about a bunch of inbred morons charging across a muddy field towards a defensive position held by 5,000 longbowmen. 1:05:43 PM    comment () trackback () Lucy, Charlie Brown & the Football As amazing as it is, there is no question that a certain political segment of our country really is in full-on war-mongering mode with regard to Iran. What's most startling about it is that they are not even attempting to do anything differently. It's all exactly the same. Thus, we have Weekly Standard and National Review prattling on about all sorts of scary stories showing that Iran is an uncontainable danger (invariably as a result of hostile overtures towards Israel, but that doesn't seem to matter, just like it didn't last time); we have New Republic publishing a cover story, complete with all-too-familiar cartoons showing demonic Iranian leaders, which enable people like Jonah Goldberg, on simplistic script, to recite: "Don't let anyone tell you that it's the American right which is trying to "demonize" Ahmadinejad" (yes, what a revealing shock it is that even The New Republic has jumped on the War-Against-Iran craze); But what is really most alarming -- although, I know, it shouldn't be surprising at all -- is that the American media seems not just willing, but tongue-waggingly pleased, to be exploited and used again, in the best tradition of Pravda, as the principal mechanism for venerating governmental claim as though they constitute "news," without even pretending to subject those claims to the slightest bit of skepticism or scrutiny. This Washington Post article by John Pomfret, entitled "Iran Has Raised Efforts to Obtain U.S. Arms Illegally, Official Says," is really a museum-worth model for the type of mindlessly trustworthy "journalism"which convinced most Americans that Saddam had WMDs (and even that he personally participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks), which, in turn, led us right into the invasion of Iraq. The article is long and gives the appearance of being detailed and substantive, but in reality, it does nothing but slavishly print the uncorroborated statements of Bush officials claiming that Iran is engaged in all sorts of nefarious weapons-procuring activities, and has intensified (!) these activities of late. Thus, we "learn": The Iranian government has intensified efforts to illegally obtain weapons technology from the United States, contracting with dealers across the country for spare parts to maintain its aging American-made air force planes, its missile forces and its alleged nuclear weapons program, according to federal law enforcement authorities. Over the past two years, arms dealers have exported or attempted to export to Iran experimental aircraft; machines used for measuring the strength of steel, which is critical in the development of nuclear weapons; assembly kits for F-14 Tomcat fighter jets; and a range of components used in missile systems and fighter-jet engines. "Iran's weapons acquisition program is becoming more organized," said Stephen Bogni, acting chief of the Arms and Strategic Technology Investigations Unit of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). "They are looking for more varied and sophisticated technology. Night-vision equipment, unmanned aircraft, missile technology" and weapons of mass destruction. I love the "and weapons of mass destruction" oh-so-inconspicuously tacked onto the quote at the end. The next two paragraphs begin, respectively, with these two phrases: "Federal agents say" and "The Bush administration says," and the rest of the article. The reporter's sole effort to investigate the claims? "Calls for comment to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations were not returned." Gosh, I hope he didn't strain himself. Of all the dysfunctional aspects of our governmental system, this is, by far, the most dangerous. This is how most journalism works now. The Government wants to implant certain claims as "facts" into the public discourse. It then contacts the most slavish reporters, promises them exclusivity, and then feeds them a bunch of highly dubious claims which the reporter then dutifully and mindlessly publishes as though it is fact, without any corroboration, investigation, or anything else that distinguishes journalism from other fields such as, say, government propaganda, public relations, or stenography. There are no critical faculties exercised, no investigation, no skepticism of any kind. In short, there is nothing adversarial between the government and the media -- which was supposed to characterize how this watchdog relationship was supposed to work. The founders didn't guarantee a free press in order to ensure that it could publish government claims without interference. The idea was that the press would be adversarial to the Government, serve as a Fourth Estate when other checks on government power failed. The press has, of course, become the opposite -- it now exists only to amplify and lend credence to even the most suspect and manipulative government claims. The press simply does not perform its central function. In 2003, that core failure led us into an invasion of another country based on pretenses which turned out, in almost every respect, to be false, and clearly they have learned no lessons from that humiliating exploitation. Why did we need this Post article? What is the difference between it and a Bush administration press release. Nothing. It is difficult to be optimistic about much of anything when the longest articles in our nation's largest newspapers about the most pressing public affairs are indistinguishable -- literally -- from government press releases. As for the geniuses at New Republic, Weekly Standard, National Review, etc., who were wrong about basically everything when it came to Iraq -- how is it possible to be rational and do anything other than disregard everything which this exact crowd says about everything? But more importantly, the media was fed all sorts of fictitious garbage from the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion which they gullibly published, to their eternal embarrassment. How can they possibly not be exercising more caution this type? - Glenn Greenwald [Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald] Why should they bother changing when there were no consequences to them the last time? 12:28:00 PM    comment () trackback () Iraq protest officer says US behaved 'like Nazis'. Peter Graff and Shan Ross at The Scotsman - Malcolm Kendall-Smith, a British RAF doctor refused to follow an order to deploy to Iraq. At his trial, he said that he had decided that the United States is acting like Nazis. [grabbe] Quote: Kendall-Smith made his remarks amid a series of bitter exchanges with David Perry, prosecuting, at a hearing in Aldershot, Hampshire. "As early as 2004 I regarded the United States to be on par with Nazi Germany as regards its activities in the Gulf," Kendall-Smith told the court. Mr Perry, asking Kendall-Smith for clarification, said: "Are you saying the US is the moral equivalent of the Third Reich?" Kendall-Smith replied: "That's correct." He then continued: "I have documents in my possession which support my assertions. "This is on the basis that ongoing acts of aggression in Iraq, and systematically applied war crimes, provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany." [End the War on Freedom - Links and Commentary from my Crypto-Anarcho-Libertarian Perspective] Good for him. It's nice to know that at least one man is willing to do what everyone in the US military is obligated by their oath of service to do. 12:07:58 PM    comment () trackback () British Muslim admiral. Congratulations to Rear Admiral Amjad Hussain, Royal Navy, the UK's first Muslim admiral: The Royal Navy has appointed its first Muslim Rear Admiral, Pakistan-born Amjad Hussain, a British newspaper said Friday, April 14. "I count myself very lucky to live in a country where the opportunities have been beyond my imagination," Hussain told The Sun. Rear Admiral is the fourth-highest rank in the Royal Navy, equivalent to a major-general in the Army or an Air Vice-Marshal in the Royal Air Force. Hussain, who has become the highest-ranking ethnic officer among the 200,000 personnel of the British armed forces, said in the Navy one's work is what really matters. [Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs] Just the idea that one's work is what matters shows how much the Royal Navy has changed. It wasn't that long ago that it was one's place in the aristocracy that mattered, and work was at best a bonus. 9:21:51 AM    comment () trackback ()

© Copyright 2006 Ken Hagler. Last update: 5/2/2006; 11:33:46 AM.