jmoiron.net

Glenn Greenwald, whose writing is better than mine is and will likely ever be, put into words quite succinctly the major problem with media in the united states in a column today. As is all too often, Chomsky's propaganda model is at least peripherally relevant to the discussion, and in fact (as elegant as a logically flawless mathematical theorem) is but a superset of the specific observed behavior.

Greenwald recognizes and illuminates with great aplomb what many people have known without being able to put properly into words, illustrating it concisely and masterfully in the following passages (emphasis in the original):

The Number One Rule of the bi-partisan Foreign Policy Community is that America has the right to invade and attack other countries at will because American power is inherently good and our role in the world is to rule it though the use of superior military force. Paying homage to that imperialistic orthodoxy is a non-negotiable pre-requisite to maintaining Good Standing and Seriousness Credentials within the Foreign Policy Community.

Conversely, one who denies that premise reveals oneself to be deeply unserious and unworthy of meaningful discourse. While differences on the "when" and "how" are permitted, there is virtually no debate within the foreign policy establishment about whether the U.S. has the right to continue to intervene and attack and invade and occupy other countries in the absence of those countries attacking us. Hence, to Cohen and his colleagues, it sounds perfectly normal and natural to say that the U.S. has "good reasons" to start wars against a whole host of countries because -- as bizarre and abnormal and unfathomable that idea is for most of the world -- it is an implicit, unexamined belief among our foreign policy elites that the U.S. is entitled, more or less, to use military force even in the absence of being attacked or threatened with attack.

This orthodoxy is not merely passively accepted, but actively enforced. The principal goal is to ensure that it remains a bi-partisan view so that, in turn, the question of America's role in the world is never subject to any real debate. The three "crazy, insane, wacko, fringe" presidential candidates are Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. Yet the only thing they have in common (other than having been elected multiple times to the U.S. Congress) is a belief that the U.S. has been using its military force illegitimately by using it against other countries that are not attacking us. But that belief, standing alone, is enough to eject one from the mainstream, because it violates the central consensus of the establishment.

Before I comment about this statement, I want to urge you to read this whole article. As a country, we are so "off course" now that there might as well not be an actual course. When people started referring to these United States as the "homeland", I knew there was trouble brewing. It is at the very least brashly imperialistic to presume we have rights to lands other than "our own", for which our claim is historically tenuous but at least long established. That this word (imperialism) has become somewhat acceptable in modern discourse is about as disconcerting. It is on par with how uncomfortable it is that the tactic we call "terrorism" is accepted in the middle east, and the sooner we come to realize that Imperialism (in it's classical form which we have begun to assume, or even in it's economic & cultural form) is more destructive than terrorism the better. But, to completely tip the scales into that land from which return is impossible, that hegemony is used, as quoted by Greenwald, by an established political thinker as anything other than illigimately evil, let alone in a neutral or even positive light, is something to look upon with great disdain. How long until the people who truly love the "ideals of freedom" elegantly described (and dreadfully administered) by our secular deities "the founders" (today a mere token to lend support to utterly unfounder-like ideas) are robbed of their ability to even claim they like this country?

Back on topic, Greenwald's point about the 3 "crazy, insane, wacko fringe" presidential candidates is actually quite salient; I have taken a lot of flak (privately) for treating Mike Gravel somewhat more harshly than a lot of people thought I would. The reason isn't that he isn't way better than the other candidates (it brings to mind the turdblossom vs. douchebag south park election), but it's that were it not for our completely diseased and nonfunctional system, Gravel would not stand out as a crusader for liberal ideals. A lot of his economic ideas are downright regressive, and I'm hesitant to come out and enthusiastically support someone just because they challenge the framing of the debate!

The idea that I elude to is borrowed 100% from Chomsky's treatment of the subject. In a functioning propaganda system (about the only thing functioning properly in our government), voices are allowed to be heard and in fact are encouraged as long as they fall within the accepted range. The discourse on a subject is framed a certain way, and discourse falling outside these lines is simply ignored as being too "extreme" or "left/right wing". Indeed, you can't even find a candidate (even among "the three") that is willing to come out against the war because it was preemptive and had no legal basis whatsoever; itself a complete cop out on pressing ethical questions that should be (but never are) explored fully by any country or culture that is going to war.

This is my forum, so I don't even have to be excused here, so what the fuck is wrong with our culture and our country when you can't even say that war is a terrible evil without being dismissed as a lunatic? Is it the just the same completely dangerous and deadly (just ask an Iraqi) cynicism with which the many absolutely shocking scandals coming out of the capital are covered?

Let's explore it briefly. Libby's sentence being commuted was absolutely criminal and to suggest that he is somehow personally damaged by a fine and disbarment (compared to months of "hard" time) is so batshit insane that even Chris Matthews had to call bullshit. Gonzales' contempt for congress has become a joke among reporters; "Wow, what gall! I wonder how far he will go?" Are they not Americans themselves? Do they have such disdain for democracy that the only mildly democratic branch of the government deserves their contempt?

When you start to distance yourself from the situation you put yourself in danger of saying things that are utterly stupid. Regardless of whether or not reporters and major media are merely operating within the carefully framed debates set by those in power (and they are, because these outrageous actions deserve outrage not merely surprise), it's absolutely shocking that they absolve themselves of any responsibility for the situations they have helped create. The complicity of "even" the New York Times (which, as the "challenging" paper of our time is utterly farcical) in creating this original daylight robbery called Iraq goes mostly unacknowledged in their day to day operation; one could even describe it as somewhat conveniently forgotten in their daily op/ed columns. Besides the irreparable damage they have caused hundreds of thousands of dead and injured in Iraq and potentially hundreds of thousands more in seemingly all but inevitable future wars, what possible defense can there be for their blase treatment of these critical issues? Critical if only to replace a dangerous "turdblossom" with a slightly less dangerous "douchebag"?

Noam Chomsky, one of the few extant political intellectuals and perhaps the most prolific of modern times, has taken a lot of flak for his early treatment of the Khamer Rouge. Because the press' treatment of the enemy regime (basically, a regime outside our influence) was in line with what Chomsky's own models were to expect, and because they ignored similar treatments elsewhere in the world (notably East Timor, which some people claim he was a bit "late to the show" on), he disregarded or otherwise unfairly dismissed fair reports of the significant human suffering in Cambodia. That the coverage there was accurate is not even contrary to the propaganda model. It turned out to be far more accurate than he thought, but the model only predicts a huge disparity between the treatment of client and enemy states, not that enemy states are necessarily treated unfairly in coverage (although, as a corollary, they often are). He eventually and repeatedly reneged his early statements, but they've stuck (especially with his critics) and although he probably personally feels that it's time has passed, his writings that fall under that somewhat cold treatment of victims as mere supporting evidence for a statistical model leaves a regrettable stain difficult to forget.

So what do these people (the punditry, op/ed, & established media powers) plan on using to defend these already indefensible acts? What can we do to restore an honor that was never truly deserved (we've been self-serving imperialists for our whole existence given that the situation made such actions militarily and politically viable) and is now forever tarnished?