They got the talking points early today. The Dallas Morning News letters page is a good place to find the sheep of the new fascism. And they are flocking today, lemme tellya. Two letters to the editor abusing skepticism AND demonizing dissent:

Propaganda piece

Re: "Through Enemy Eyes – Fallujah guerrilla's story offers a window into insurgency," Thursday Page One news story.

I was shocked to see this story on the front page. But, considering the byline, I should not be surprised. The Washington Post is second only to The New York Times in its anti-Americanism.

This story is nothing more than a propaganda piece for the terrorists. Abu's story is typical – he states that he will kill anyone he feels is not with him, and he calls it a jihad. And the fact that he let his 13-year-old son participate with him is disgusting beyond words.

I fail to see why this was printed, unless it was a try at invoking sympathy for the very people killing randomly with roadside bombs. Good job, Dallas Morning News – welcome to the jihad.

Tom Mackinnon, Lewisville

NY Times is just wrong

Re: "Detainee torture alleged – U.S. intentionally using coercion at Guantánamo, Red Cross report says," Tuesday Page One news story.

It is sad that you put a New York Times article on your front page where the International Red Cross states that we are mistreating these wonderful people we are housing at Guantánamo.

Why do you insist on carrying water for The New York Times' vendetta against our country? Do you ever use your own judgment?

Jess L. Cariker Jr., Paris

I was not aware that the New York Times now openly hates America. I just thought it had a liberal bias. To paraphrase the Daily Show, the facts are biased.

Jon?

Musings on Rhetoric and Reality

I think that the Bush administration’s faith based reality, their wanton ability to dispute the truth has abused skepticism in dangerous ways that have trickled down throughout society, enabling people to hide out in their own reality camps and avoid the truth. I get this profound sense of skepticism-abuse going on in political thought around the country, abuse in the sense that it is not being used to better get at the truth, but rather to avoid it, like Bush. For instance: it seems increasingly common to take the stance that all the news sources that report things that challenge X worldview are biased, and therefore nothing they say is true. See, it's cool to question news skeptically, but what Bush does abuses that skepticism, enabling his adminstration to cloud issues in the American mind which, in reality, are obvious scandals. This is not to say that this is entirely new. On the contrary, it's been a part of politics just about always. But Bush has taken his approach to previosuly unimagined heights.

Skepticism at its best is used in good faith to better understand the context of information to find the truth; Bush's team uses the trappings of skepticism to obscure the truth.That's actually sort of what happens in a totalitarian state. All government is so propagandized that no one actually believes anything anymore, except in America it's also that the media spins the propaganda and then Americans only believe what they want. Watching the Bush team talk in public reminds me of Saddam's public information minister saying Iraq was winning as the city burned around him, not actually answering any questions, and basically describing whatever he wanted to describe as truth. The scariest thing is that a lot of Americans are unwittingly playing along, because that kind of abusive skepticism has just crept into the national discourse. Oh, well, your source must be biased. Oh, well, there are always two sides ( or at least one that supports my worldview).

The information explosion was supposed to better inform everyone, but its dark side is that it can be abused to actually better create alternative realities in place of helping democratize the dissemination of facts. The forum for information just got bigger, but what Bush is showing is that that doesn't mean the group with the biggest access will use it responsibly. Instead, they use the media forum to mislead the people with rhetoric while secretively giving kickbacks to the rich at their expense. And they use the basest power politics to consolidate power and shut down truth tellers.

You report on the truth? No more access.

You disagree with what we want you to believe? You're fired from the CIA

You try to prosecute us? We change the rules

You try to tell the truth about us to the people? We drum up a non-issue cultural attack to brand you and get a bigger loudspeaker to do it with than you have to counter, using funding by the corporations who expect kickbacks.

But what is also remarkable is that it’s not as though a fair amount of Bush’s scandalous actions aren’t reported in mainstream media. Even just based on what is reported the man is a tyrant. A why is that not objectively seen? Because the way people see truth has changed. They can just ignore what they don't want to hear and feel justified by appealing to things like bias.

For instance, published report, NYtimes, Bush orders new CIA director to basically "clean house" of those not loyal, figure out which agents did not support the Bush admin claims and fire them. Plain as day. That is totally against everything the intelligence community is about. Political loyalty before truth?! And this isn't a scandal? How could this possibly be the case?

I think these two things make a big difference:1. The media is much more balkanized, so there are all these different, competing "versions" of the truth. You have all these advocacy groups analyzing the media in new ways, some of them in good faith, others with an agenda of distortion.2. You have an administration willing to totally obscure the truth, cloud reality, non-respond to questions, and ignore the obvious. This disdain for reality trickles down, it’s an attitude, and it changes how people react to news. It creates this environment in which nothing is true but power, power is all that matters, not truth.

When enough things are reported and nothing happens, people just shrug and say, well, maybe it wasn’t really a scandal then? Maybe I should just forget about it, it looks like everyone else did. Bush must really be fine, there must be two sides. Oh well. What’s on FOX?

I’m sitting here day after day reading straight up news stories in mainstream newspapers about facts that are just terrifying, and it's like only 1 in 10 people even cares.

“Republicans change the house ethics laws for their leader.”

“Justice dept freely admits to using patriot act for mostly non-terrorist prosecutions.”

“Bush cuts funding for family planning and increases funding for abstinence only education which does not include any discussion of contraception.”

“Bush and Cheney were repeatedly told that nukes claims were murky and disputed, and then said there was "no doubt."

“Bush almost exclusively appoints former execs of industry to police industry.”

“Republicans put abortion change into spending bill as a blatant power play to avoid even having to discuss the actual issue”

and people shrug?

i'm sitting here reading about my government turning into Tammany hall and people are just going about their business? How much of a failure does it need to be? Think about it. His officials were wrong a lot, most of the time actually, about important things. Just take Iraq as an example: “we got enough troops”“they have weapons stockpiles”“once we get Saddam, we'll be fine in Iraq”“the insurgency is no big deal”“we won't need any more money”“Saddam had definite ties with al-Qaeda”I mean, how wrong do they have to be? What has to happen? What the hell will it take?Does anyone even care if these people are right about anything anymore?Do they just want to hear the oblivious rhetoric and go on about their business? It's like it's not even about truth anymore It's about loyaltyand identity.

"Do these people like people like me? Ok, then I like them. I don't care about anything else and I don't want to hear about it."

Bush may be able to fool Americans with his rhetorical abuses, but the world is not being fooled. Bush wins an election by election abuse in 2000 and then calls on other countries to be scrupulous in their own elections, we love to pontificate about "human rights", but won't take part in the international criminal court? I think what they sense is this elitism:

"well, those camel jockeys, they can abuse people, they can terrorize, but Americans!we can't even if we wanted to. It's impossible!"

In this environment we're inoculated by our own rhetoric against longstanding self-criticism. it doesn't fit with the American narrative. We criticize other countries for human rights abuses; meanwhile we only punish a few soldiers for one of the worst prisoner abuses in modern history? Bush fights transparency in government every step of the way? Oh, enemy combatants with no rights whatsover detained for an indefinite period with sole review by the executive? I’ve heard that before...in IRAN.

We talk the talk, but we don't walk the walk. it's so basic. If you want to have credibility, practice what you preach. We have stopped doing that in a more public, blatant and arrogant way than ever before. Bush goes around the world claiming that America stands for freedom, openess, pluralism, tolerance, and free-markets, and meanwhile his policies enforce the curtailing of freedoms, greater secrecy, oppression of minorities by the majority, intolerance, and rigged markets.

And will it even be reported?

Read this. It is vital.

I have contemplated changing the tagline of this blog to remove the reference to Fascism. I still may because I think we have to deal with things with as much hope and goodwill as possible. But we also must be realistic. And the reality is that our government is either proto-fascist or out and out fascist and we need to know this. This UUC minister has it spot on.

Of course it was on Yahoo's main website for about 30 minutes. I am not saying Yahoo is biased. I think it is based on the popularity of the story. And we can see why this one was not popular.

The Marines know what we all know: the insurgency is impossible to identify and impossible to control.

No, really, because the Dallas Morning News wants to know. Not "what do you think about the facts illuminated in this story" (ahem, did they miss that part about the kickback to SUV manufacturers?) "but what do you love about them?" They did not post my comment. Want to know why? Because my argument was the following:

I have a family friend shipping out to Iraq, 20 year old kid, following his Christmas dinner this year. This person, Tom, is like a little brother to me. I reach a point of rage when I see these big SUVs-- one part military glorification, one part terrorist gas guzzler-- with those "support our troops" ribbons on them. Maybe they also have loved ones in the service, but it wouldn't make a difference if they did.

It is a flat out affront to our troops, who are risking their lives for an imperialist venture, to consume gas unnecessarily and to shut your eyes to the devestation in Iraq by glorifying the military. Gas money is terrorist money. We have a moral obligation to use only what we need.

That "support our troops" Hummer H3 says so much about how 9-11 was manipulated and exploited rather than used as an opportunity to ask us to sacrifice to make our society better and safer. That you could drive an H3 and not carry your head in shame knowing what we all know speaks volumes about how corrupt and greedy George Bush's phony calls to public service have been. If he has even made them at all.

So, contribute your thoughts and tell the morning news exactly why you love your SUV.

But, if you are a decent, moral human being then take those damn ribbons off of your H3s and stop claiming to support Tom when you are really a central part of the very force putting him in harm's way.

Oy gevalt.

I would like to report that Corked Bats is really pushing the blog envelope. I have activated audio posting, which allows me to call in a message and have it posted without even being at a computer. Somehow, before I even had a chance to, George W. Bush AND John Kerry called in to my account and posted messages. I was beginning to think the President was being gracious, until I found out why he was calling...so typical George...so typical....

Check out the previous two posts.

She is due to be executed in two days. Write to Governor Perry. Tell him you value life, think revenge killing is wrong and that revenge killing with no evidence is premeditated murder.

If you have so little patience that you are unwilling to read What's the Matter with Kansas? or Don't Think of an Elephant, then just read "Stupid" from Alterman's Correspondents Corner yesterday. Get Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi on the phone now!

Try this: replace "Contract With America" with Bill Clinton's "New Covenant" and run under the banner of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Life: Democrats believe health insurance is a right of American citizens. Our first priorities are to guarantee health insurance for all children and to provide money-saving preventative care for all. Liberty: Democrats believe that the federal government should increase local police forces and domestic terrorism infrastructure while protecting civil liberties (include abortion rights here).

Pursuit of Happiness: Democrats believe that every generation owes the next generation a society where social mobility exists for anyone who does honest work This means budget sanity and honest government (you can fit everything from the Iraq war to Pell Grants here).

Why am I even blogging when there is this level of insight in so few words? If only Blogger.com had performance evaluations...

I am late on this one, but it is important to read this piece. 51% of Republicans would rather cut the deficit than have more tax cuts, and other tasty morsels...

Why does this guy have the answer to my public question to Pete Sessions and I do not? (Surprise: the answer he lists is "Yes" on the DeLay Rule.)

His office told me on Tuesday that Sessions had not sat down to discuss constituent mail about the subject, so still no answer. I was going to feel like a bad blogger until I realized "Hey! I am a voter in your district, Congressman. I deserve to know the answer!" That is probably why I wasn't told, which is even more cowardly. What resolve. What clarity. What manliness. He must be afraid that his 10 point spread was not enough. Well, I don't think it is either, Mr. Streaking Sessions. Maybe this will help.

But seriously folks, this one is on-the-money. It is so on-the-money that I think it should count as an intervention, frankly. Courtesy of Atrios.

Update on Garemko's intellectual development: I just picked up a copy of Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant. Reading it now. Will have thoughts soon.

It is very sad, indeed, that the optimism surrounding globalization in the 1990s has given way to a deep seated fear of the power of the technological revolution. It all looks so dark in the after glow of that second plane exploding into the World Trade Center on that clear blue day.

The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman seemed to me optimistic on the whole, even while ringing cautionary notes. In college, I sat in a seminar on the history of nationalism in the Spring of 2000 and we were assigned Michael Ignatieff's Blood and Belonging: Journies into the New Nationalism about the return of ethnic nationalism and the threat of devolution to world security. Our class universally agreed that his dark view of the post-Cold War world was the product of a hasty look at the immediate Eastern European security environment after the fall of the Soviet Union. The breakdown of Yugoslavia was terrible and chaotic. But, by the spring of 2000, the globalization optimism had revised those thoughts out of favor. The threats to order existed, but the internet seemed to present a solution on balance even though we all knew that some corners of the internet were dark indeed. In the view of many, the nation state was heading for a challenge but it would be challenged by democracy, innovation and knowledge, not the forces of anger, hate, and provincialism.

Be assured, however, that there is an undercurrent of optimism still there though it is recessive, just as darkness was a faint thought in our minds before our technology was twisted against us on September 11. We must remember that though America was attacked on September 11, the people under continuous assault are the cooperators, the thinkers, the optimists, the peaceful and the coalition-builders. We must fight for these forces lest our world gets creepier and creepier.