Man (as he desists from pummeling another man):

Beating you up will never give me back Miami.

The above image comes from a ridiculous interview with Palin by John Ziegler, a right-wing buffoon who is making an unintentional self-mockumentary about how the Republicans would’ve won if only the self-hating corporate media (who McCain described as his base) hadn’t been so — get this straight — biased in favor of Obama.  (Yep, those corporations would do just about anything rather than serve their own self-interest.)  This is the same John Ziegler who did an incredibly biased poll that Zogby, to its shame, signed off on, and then cussed out Nate Silver when the latter interviewed him about it.  Even with the laughably softball questions Ziegler lobs her, Palin barely manages to stay coherent.  She’s certainly color-coordinated, though.  Cute boots.

I’m normally not much for photo-essays, but please do see Callie Shell’s awesome pics of Obama and family in Time, of which this (without the text) is only won…uh, one.

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The wackadoos are in full command. Not only do they have two of the three branches of the government in their pockets, but the Congress is theirs for the asking too (see the right-wing extremist FISA bill they’re about to pass). Now their judicial arm has created a new Constitutional “right,” just for the wackadoos. Brass knuckles are illegal, but guns are too safe for the government to ban. God bless America.

Incidentally, the above-quoted AP lede is dead wrong–it was by no means “the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.” The Supreme Court had ruled AGAINST the Second Amendment having any relevance to gun control laws over and over again in rulings going back to the 19th century.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Until the reign of general idiocy that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and is only just beginning to end, no one but gun wackos bothered quoting that irrelevant Amendment–or rather, quoting the second half of it, since the “well regulated militia” part never did their cause much good.

“Keep and bear arms”?  Nobody does that any more.  Members of the National Guard–which is today’s Congressionally-designated militia–do not keep their guns at all; they’re in an armory, and they’re the same issue the Army gets.  They DO bear arms when in uniform–unlike those who carry around a gun for self-defence or hunting, who are merely carrying arms.  In the eighteenth century, when the Second Amendment was drafted, to “bear arms” had a specifically military meaning (see the Oxford English Dictionary).

This explains the otherwise mysterious connection between a militia designed to protect the state and a right of the people.  Simply put, the feds can’t keep people from serving in their state militias–nor from keeping the weapons they’d need to do it, if any states still let militia members keep their own weapons (which they don’t).  It’s a right of the people to serve in their state’s military service–obviously subject to the provision that the state has to want them there (or the militia would hardly be “well regulated”).

Through the alchemy of our ever-obscurantist Supreme Kangaroo Court, this has transmogrified into a right to own a handgun for self-protection in the District of Columbia, which doesn’t have a militia.  Just about as logical as saying you have to stop counting votes because continuing to count them might at least temporarily swing the outcome, giving the impression that the person who’s going to be implanted into office anyway wasn’t really elected.  It’s the same five Justices–well, not quite, two having been replaced by the pseudo-president thereby implanted (and subsequently reimplanted through massive fraud).

What really worries me is the folks in D.C.  A lot of them are going to die because of this.  All in order to “reinforce the illusion, irrelevant to capitalist production but essential to its propaganda, that the individual stands self-sufficient above all symbolic restraint”–legal restraint in this case (quotation from page 21 of my big essay).

]]> http://www.newsince.com/2008/06/26/wackado-nation/feed/ 1 http://www.newsince.com/2008/02/04/why-listen-to-sibel-edmonds-when/ http://www.newsince.com/2008/02/04/why-listen-to-sibel-edmonds-when/#comments Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:24:59 +0000 Nuisance Man http://www.newsince.com/2008/02/04/why-listen-to-sibel-edmonds-when/

Media bias in favor of the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment (as protecting individual gun ownership) is so pervasive that even many gun-control supporters seem unaware that the federal high courts have never found a gun law to have violated the Second Amendment.

The Amendment is only 27 words: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias – nowadays, the National Guards.

The truth is — and one would hardly know it from the mass media — that since the Supreme Court’s unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.

I know Cohen’s right that the pervasive belief in the NRA interpretation must come from the media — where else? As I recall — yes, I am old enough to remember this — as recently as the 1980’s, only gun nuts talked about the “Constitutional right to own a gun.” Now, even liberals seem to think it’s an established, if regrettable, fact. It isn’t. It’s nonsense. And like all manner of other prevailing nonsense, it’s about time it got exposed as such.

Stuff like this spreads from television and other media into the popular discourse and is then passed on through endless repetition.  Why do people repeat what they hear on TV as if it is fact?  Television is one of the worst sources of information.   But this is what allows USTV (the U.S. T.V. culture zone) to perpetuate itself in its colossal ignorance, deliberately maintained through a one-way communication medium.

THE WAR GAME
is a 1965 television film on nuclear war. Written, directed, and produced by Peter Watkins for the BBC’s The Wednesday Play strand, its depiction of the impact of Soviet nuclear attack on Britain caused dismay within the BBC and in government and was banned for 20 years. It was scheduled for transmission on August 6, 1966 (the anniversary of the Hiroshima attack) but was not transmitted until 1985, the corporation publicly stating that “the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting”. It was widely viewed before its BBC debut on video and in art-house cinemas, often using prints provided by Watkins. The film won the Academy Award for Documentary Feature in 1966.

The War Game is available from Amazon, but you can watch it online right now. It’s horrifying and, unfortunately, a must-see. Calmly, without histrionics, it shows some of the various effects that, AT A MINIMUM, we should expect from a nuclear war–an event that, with the proliferation of nuclear capabilities, may actually be a greater danger now than it was during the Cold War.

The Amazon page shows clearly that the battle to silence such knowledge is far from over. “The War Game is a fictional, worst-case-scenario,” the supposedly neutral plot synopsis begins. Wrong and wrong. It is not a fiction at all, but an extrapolation of what might happen in the future should a nuclear war break out, as the narration makes clear throughout. It doesn’t follow any one person but shows a series of different events, all based on the impacts of firestorms in Europe and actual atomic bombs in Japan. Far from a worst-case scenario, it was probably an overoptimistic scenario, even back in 1966, when the bombs weren’t as powerful. The real-life firestorms it’s based on cannot compare to nuclear war. (Note: the plot synopsis for some reason does not always show up on the Amazon page; sometimes, sometimes not.)

Also, the Amazon reviewer’s comment, “Subtlety isn’t Watkins’s suit” is exceptionally idiotic–I suppose he was hoping for a film about the SUBTLE EFFECTS of nuclear war? This reviewer also refers to “the film’s blunt antiestablishment politics,” which isn’t entirely wrong, but isn’t entirely right, either. Apart from one moment in which survivors express the sentiment that the British civil defense system didn’t do any good, the politics of this film are essentially in the scientific facts and historical events on which it’s based. This is a bit like Bill O’Reilly: you can’t trust the facts, because they have an antiestablishment bias.

The real political stance of the film is sufficiently given in this: it refuses to twist facts to suit the Masters of War. “Do so,” say the hawks. “Do so, but to a moderate degree,” say the moderates. “Do so just enough to make support for the military clear,” say the pro-establishment doves. Only the “extremists” of the anti-war cause actually want the facts to be given straight.

If the position that facts speak for themselves without any politics involved is inadequate, it’s not just because some sort of framing structure is required to present and indeed comprehend facts–the framing structure required to arrive at this film’s position is basically the establishment’s own. More crucially, it’s because, in the face of massive, relentless, and predictable political pressure, only a strongly-held political position can cause you to hold on to the truth, no matter how clearly it may present itself. Only in this sense does this film, which stays faithfully within the format of its assignment and of the BBC’s style, take a political stand.

Documentaries that enact possible future (or past) scenarios are hardly unprecedented, yet Amazon’s plot synopsis reiterates, “Although it won an Oscar for Best Documentary, it is fiction.” The people who voted it the Oscar had better political judgment than whoever wrote that. I doubt, in fact, that its horrifying nature was the real reason it wasn’t aired. As Amazon’s reaction shows, the unwillingness to know the true magnitude of what the world faces should these weapons ever be used is alive and well today.

This film is soberly and unsensationalistically done, based on solid research. It’s a dry BBC documentary, and at the same time extremely powerful. The presentation is cool and relentless. It’s hard to watch, but watch it anyway, and arm yourself with knowledge. Only if enough people realize the danger we’re in is there much hope of doing something about it. Bush Sr. and Clinton did NOT take the steps they could have to rid the world of these weapons when the Cold War ended, and they are now in more hands than ever. The risk of all-out nuclear war may be less than during the Cold War, but the risk of a smaller one has never been higher. Even if a smaller one did not escalate into a larger one, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Confronted with the indefensibility of the established order, Amazon.com shows the same defensive reaction as the New York Times and other dyspeptic corporate media outlets, unable to cope with the unruly turn public discourse has taken over the past two years. Anyone who points out that the Emperor not only has no clothes but is revealed without them to be a bizarre and horrifying monster must have faulty eyesight and an ungenerous spirit. Such generosity, of course, is never required of those who point out faults of figures who could be suspected of “antiestablishment” proclivities.

I got a little worried when I read the sample chapter from Feldman’s book and found out his glowing reaction to Teddy Roosevelt’s 1906 “Muck Rake” speech, in which the president attacked the bulldogs who were too persistently pointing out America’s failings. Old Teddy had — and in some circles apparently still has — a greatly exaggerated reputation as a progressive. He did do some trustbusting and supported some health and safety regulations, but behind the scenes he was generally quite pro-corporate. He was also a ferocious racist and imperalist. His “Muck Rake” speech, which gave us the word “muckraker,” showed the true colors of a sunshine liberal — sure, criticize abuses, but not too much. Feldman turns this into an inspiring moral message on some elevated plane of little relevance to the actual politics of the time — or of any time.

But what really threw me was this ringing defense of deliberative censorship. In the midst of a post in which Feldman performs the admittedly worthy task of shredding Bill O’Reilly, he chides Mad Bill for accusing DailyKos of fostering “9/11 conspiracy theories”:

According to the FAQ free and open for every human being and Bill O’Reilly to read, The DailyKos adheres to a strict editorial policy whereby posting a 9/11 conspiracy diaries results not only in the deletion of the diary, but the banning of the offending writers from the site. Write a 9/11 conspiracy diary on DailyKos and within hours, your diary,and every other diary you ever wrote, is deleted and your a free account is canceled.

More importantly, O’Reilly failed to report how a volunteer team of DailyKos “trusted users” constantly sifts through every diary posted to make sure the site does not step across that murky line dividing civil debate from violent rhetoric. They accomplish this through a combination of requests to writers to clean up foul language and–occasionally–by “bleeping out” offensive words (e.g., O’Reilly is full of ***t). If nasty words do make are kept in a post, it is typically because they are a key to the story (e.g., the story of Bill O’Reilly’s viewers sending death threats to the owner of The DailyKos). These trusted users do not get paid, they simply believe in DailyKos’s patriotic mission of fostering free and open debate. In the end, then, even though YearlyKos is distinct from DailyKos, JetBlue should be proud of any perceived ties this gives them to The DailyKos–a blog that historians will someday credit with helping to revive deliberative democracy in America.

The hypocrisy here is a clear indication that Feldman has learned a little too much from studying Republican framing — like Saruman researching the rings too long.

After the above quote, Feldman castigates O’Reilly for allowing Dinesh D’Souza to promote his own “9/11 conspiracy theory.” D’Souza’s latest cerebral hemorrhage is that the “cultural left” caused 9/11.

Like well-trained CIA liberals of the Cold War era denouncing both fascism and communism in the same breath (see MORE THOUGHTS below), Feldman wants to make very clear that he rejects both “9/11 conspiracy theories” that blame the U.S. government AND those that blame the left. Instead, he takes a sensible, moderate, reasonable, unideological position in the middle — that it was a conspiracy done by Arabs. The great advantage of saying that Arabs plotted the meticulous conspiracy is, of course, that this isn’t a conspiracy theory. Only if some prominent group of Americans or American allies were the alleged conspirators would it be a conspiracy theory. (If this seems at all an unorthodox statement, just check the way the term “conspiracy theory” is in fact routinely used.)

The kind of “deliberative democracy” Feldman wants is the same one that has murdered people by the millions overseas for the last sixty years — while debating at home how to take our unchallengeable supremacy in the practice of democracy to an even higher pitch of perfection.

MORE THOUGHTS: Of course, the CIA swindled the liberals with the notion of a new conservative-to-liberal mainstream premised on opposition to “totalitarianism” — the “extremes” of “both left and right.” Fascism, as the CIA defined it and the obedient liberals repeated it, lay entirely in the past, having already been defeated in World War II. No existing government, no matter how right wing, no matter how repressive, no matter how similar to the fascist governments of the past, was ever considered fascist by the Cold War consensus. On the other hand, opposition to present communism became the leitmotif that dominated American political life from the late forties to the mid sixties, and persisted as a major, if weaker, force until the late eighties. Left-wing governments and insurgencies that had no resemblance to communism, like the Sandanistas, were consistently labelled Communist, forcing respectable liberals to oppose any and all socialist tendencies except within the wealthiest, U.S.-allied countries. In return, conservatives opposed the Axis regimes, which had already been defeated and dismantled before the deal was made. It was as if your neighbor who, unlike you, kept his potted plants under an overhang, said to you, “Nice for you that the rain watered all your plants. In exchange, why don’t you water mine?”

Similarly, Feldman is swindled — or participates in a swindle. His tradeoff is to reject right-wing paranoid fantasies about 9/11 that any rational person would have to reject anyway, IN RETURN FOR rejecting the case that the United States government was involved. Thus, as a compensation for the left-leaning indulgence of being allowed to dismiss right-wing theories for which there exists no evidence, he is compelled, in order to be fair, to reject all of the manifold, well-documented physical evidence that indicates something drastically wrong with the official 9/11 story — a story which was itself concocted by the right-wing regime currently running this country, and which has never been officially investigated by any organ not effectively controlled by that regime’s appointees.

False balance is one of the most important “framing” techniques of today’s mendacious corporate media. If Feldman doesn’t see the blatantly tendentious framing at work in his use of the term “9/11 conspiracy theory,” or sees it and lacks the integrity to correct it, it’s hard to see how his ideas about framing can be taken seriously.

Then again, maybe there really wasn’t a conspiracy on 9/11. Maybe old friends happened to be on the same plane, started chatting, and only came up with the idea of hijacking it after it left the ground. And then the same thing repeated itself on three other planes in the northeastern United States within a two hour period — by coincidence. That really would be a nonconspiracy theory of 9/11. If someone wants to advocate it, I will not criticize that person for using the term “9/11 conspiracy theorists” to describe the rest of us.

Or rather, candiDATE, with no ’s.’ Tom Tancredo, R-Col., is the sole Republican candidate to address the NAACP convention. He was flanked by lecterns with placards for nine other GOP candidates — all no-shows. Every invited Democrat showed up.

As Jeffrey Feldman remarks, “One has to wonder why this photo was not the lead on every morning show and on the front pages of every morning newspaper in America.”