March 2006

The Brookings Institution has posted the Iraq Index, a compilation of statistics about Iraq, useful for determining the quantitative impact of the US occupation.

The Iraq Index is a statistical compilation of economic, public opinion, and security data. This resource will provide updated information on various criteria, including crime, telephone and water service, troop fatalities, unemployment, Iraqi security forces, oil production, and coalition troop strength.

The index is designed to quantify the rebuilding efforts and offer an objective set of criteria for benchmarking performance. It is the first in-depth, non-partisan assessment of American efforts in Iraq, and is based primarily on U.S. government information. Although measurements of progress in any nation-building effort can never be reduced to purely quantitative data, a comprehensive compilation of such information can provide a clearer picture and contribute to a healthier and better informed debate.

Oooooo…. informed debate. How will the ultra right cope with such a thing?

Hat tip: MetaFilter.

Russ Kick at The Memory Hole proves once again the value of the Freedom of Information Act. Using its provisions, he has obtained copies of reports from the State Department describing detailed plans for rebuilding Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein—plans which the Bush Administration has almost completely ignored. Read the rest of this entry »

Jay Stephenson at StoptheACLU again demonstrates why the radical right-wingers have to be watched so closely, and why their claims of holding the moral high ground ring so hollow. He’s posted a graphic advocating the murder of ACLU lawyers. Clearly visible in the graphic is the phrase “rope + tree + ACLU lawyer = pinata”. (I’ve mirrored the page, in the event Jay decides to take the graphic down and claim he never had it on his site.) Read the rest of this entry »

"The Dread Pundit Bluto" provides us with another example of how radical rightwingers use selective quotations to deceive:

Glenn Greenwald has joined the slavering ranks of Feingold’s Censure Army. Writing today in Unclaimed Territory, and cross-posted at the disgraced Huffington Post, Greenwald, whose masthead claims he is a lawyer, argues for censuring President Bush over NSA surveillance – without the bother of an investigation:

Therefore, while an investigation into Issue 2 is imperative, all of the facts relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law (the only issue raised by the Feingold Resolution) are already known, and for that reason it is illogical to claim that an investigation is needed before that question can be answered.

Well, my goodness. Why on earth would Mr. Greenwald want to forego an investigation into whether the President broke the law? Well, had Bluto had the honesty to put the quote in context, it would have been obvious:

But in stark contrast to Issue 2, all the facts necessary to know the answer to Issue 1 are already disclosed, are publicly available, and have been admitted by the Administration. Therefore, while an investigation into Issue 2 is imperative, all of the facts relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law (the only issue raised by the Feingold Resolution) are already known, and for that reason it is illogical to claim that an investigation is needed before that question can be answered. Put simply, we don’t know the scope and extent of the President’s illegal eavesdropping, but we do know that the eavesdropping he ordered was illegal.

(Emphasis mine.)

Simple, really. There’s no need to investigate whether the President broke the law, because he admits he broke the law:

Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We’re having this discussion in 2006. It’s a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It’s an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also—and we—look—I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn’t work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.

Bluto’s clumsy attempt to paint Glenn Greenwald as unreasonable falls apart the instant one looks at the facts.

Juan Cole has produced a series of excellent posts on the views of Islam as explicated in the Quran (or Koran), and he makes an excellent point about the right-winger tactic of bashing Islam with quotes from the Quran:

Readers asked me about the long list of militant verses collected by polemicists against Islam. The answer is that those verses refer to the Meccan power elite in the 620s AD, who were waging a determined military, political and economic war to defeat the Muslims holed up in nearby Medina, and wipe them and the new religion out. It is frankly dishonest to take a verse about, say, the battle of Badr against the militant Meccan pagans (“unbelievers”) and imply that it refers to contemporary American Christians or American atheists for that matter. What was objectionable to the Quran in practical terms about the Meccan unbelievers was their murderousness toward Muslims, not their attachment to their star goddesses. Muslims are instructed to be nice to unbelievers who don’t share that murderousness.

Read the rest of this entry »

Can religion be an addiction? In some cases, I suspect that it can. There are many millions of well-adjusted, intelligent people of integrity who have deeply held religious beliefs, and I respect their right to those beliefs. But in some cases, as Dr. Bob Minor points out, religious belief can become something more toxic:

[I]f we’re going to think clearly about the right-wing juggernaut’s use of religion, and not function as its enablers, we must realize that we’re dealing with an addict. Right-wing political-religious fundamentalism can destroy us too if we’re like the dependent spouse who protects, defends, and covers-up for the family drunk.

So, what can we do to protect ourselves, maintain our sanity, promote a healthy alternative, and confront religious addiction? What’s the closest thing to an intervention when we’re dealing with the advanced, destructive form of religious addiction that’s become culturally dominant?

…Don’t let the addict get you off topic. Addicts love to confuse the issues, get you talking about things that don’t challenge their problem. When you do, you further the addiction.

…Get your message on target and repeat it. Get support for your message from others so that they’re on the same page. Make it short, simple, to the point, and consistent.

The article is short and concise. Go read it.

Hat tip to PZ Myers at Pharyngula.

The great thing about humans is that there is no situation so terrible that it can’t be made fun of:

Patriot Act: The Home Version [is] the board game that brings the thrill of trampling the Constitution right into your home… newly updated for 2006 to include NSA wiretaps and renewal of provisions! [The game is] inspired by the historic abuse of governmental powers of the same name. Many of the hypothetical situations in the game are based on real-life events. Either as a game to be played or as a statement to be read, Patriot Act: The Home Version educates the user to the current erosion of our civil rights by the government while claiming to be protecting our freedoms. John Ashcroft may no longer be Attorney General, but his legacy lives on in the anti-freedom legislation that this game is a tribute to.

The game board, rules, and cards can all be downloaded as Acrobat PDF files and printed out.

Thanks to Daily Kos for the tip.

PZ Myers:

Waldman also wants to know the roots of our hostility towards “religion and spirituality”. That one is easy: it’s because guessing games, revealed knowledge, irrational prejudice, inappropriate traditions, and unthinking obedience to dogma are not sensible ways to run a country, especially not one with a plurality of religious beliefs. That is the real stumbling block here, not that a minority of the Democratic party demands a rational foundation for our policies.

Right on, brother!

It turns out that radical right-wing pundits and bloggers aren’t the only ones who like to set up straw men just to knock them down. Our Sainted President is quite willing to use that dishonest rhetorical tactic as well:

When the president starts a sentence with “some say” or offers up what “some in Washington” believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he “strongly disagrees” — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

…A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as “a bizarre kind of double talk” that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

“It’s such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people,” Fields said. “All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What’s striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff.”

It’s easy and tempting to create a caricature of an opponent’s position to argue against, but a dsicerning mind knows that the tactic is essentially dishonest. It relies on a lie, explicit or otherwise, about what the opponent has said. Those who use it — and its use is by no means limited to the right — expose their own inability to engage in truthful, meaningful debate.

Hat tip to MyDD.

UPDATE 3/21/06 16:25: Media Matters notes that, for years, “many AP writers… have simply reported Bush’s misrepresentations of his opponents’ arguments without challenging them.”