The Chinese know how to deal with corruption. When they found Zheng Xiaoyu, former head of the State Food and Drug Administration, guilty of taking bribes to approve untested medicine, they executed him. Just like that. Bad official terminated -- with prejudice.
I'm not a big fan of capital punishment, so this seems a tad severe. That said, where I don't think the death sentence does much of a job in deterring most murderers, I can see where it might have an immediate and positive effect on governmental corruption. Take a bribe, get a seat in the electric chair. Say goodbye to undue lobbyist influence!
If this sort of thing were instituted in the United States, there'd be a long line for the firing squad. Messrs. Bush and Cheney would be at the front of the line, of course, followed closely by Brownie and Gonzales and all their minions, down to the hapless assistants who can't bring themselves to say much of anything in front of Congressional committees. There's so much corruption and cronyism in the Bush/Cheney administration, it would probably be easier to single out the innocent bureaucrats than to name all the guilty ones.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. our corrupt politicians don't get punished for their crimes; instead, they benefit from them. There's no deterrent when offenders get a medal from the president and a fat book contract, instead of being taken to task for what they've done. In China, they execute corrupt officials; in the U.S., we reward them. How's that for an enlightened Western civilization?
I'm not proposing instituting the death penalty for governmental corruption. (In fact, I'm an opponent of the death penalty in general.) But I do think we need to get our moral and ethical act together and root out corruption and cronyism at all levels of government. Even if we don't line the crooks up against a wall and give them a blindfold and a cigarette, we can still throw the bums out on their bums. The bad apples have to go -- it's time to clean up our governmental orchard.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Propaganda
Notice anything different about Iraq war coverage lately? It seems that we're fighting and killing a lot of "al Qaeda" troops. Prior to a week or so ago, we were fighting Sunnis or Shias or just "insurgents." But all of a sudden all those factions have become "al Qaeda."
Except they haven't.
Al Qaeda represents a small fraction of the people fighting in Iraq. Very small. Most of the combatants are, as they have been, Shia and Sunni insurgent factions. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that the Bush administration is now referring to all enemy combatants as al Qaeda fighters, even when they're not.
This should not, I suppose, be surprising. The Bush administration has been lying to us for so long it would be difficult to take them seriously if they ever started to speak the truth. What is disturbing is how easily the lackeys in the press have accepted this new propanda, as witnessed by this headline from Reuters: "U.S. and Iraq Forces Kill 90 al Qaeda in Offensive." And this one from the New York Times: "G.I.’s in Iraq Open Big Offensive Against Al Qaeda." And this one from the Associated Press: "U.S. Targets Entrenched al-Qaeda Fighters."
None of this is true; the people we're fighting are not "al Queda fighters," they're the same Sunnis and Shias we've been fighting all along, as pointed out in exquisite detail by Salon's Glen Greenwald in this blog post. It's just that our government and military leaders are now calling them al Qaeda. But calling them al Qaeda doesn't make them al Qaeda; they're still Iraqi insurgents.
Why this particular lie? By defining our opposition as al Qaeda, the government links our fight in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, thus justifying the war as "fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here." It's all bullshit, and transparent bullshit at that, but it takes on a certain weight when the mainstream media repeats the bullshit without question.
The press has an obligation to report the truth, not to repeat government propaganda. If there is a single reason why our country is in the situation it's currently in, it's not Bush and Cheney and their quest for ultimate power, it's the failure of the press to do its duty. While there are exceptions (thank you, Seymour Hersh), the media today has abandoned the truth and thus forfeited its responsibility to help maintain an open, informed, and free republic. When the press fails us, our democracy fails.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Except they haven't.
Al Qaeda represents a small fraction of the people fighting in Iraq. Very small. Most of the combatants are, as they have been, Shia and Sunni insurgent factions. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that the Bush administration is now referring to all enemy combatants as al Qaeda fighters, even when they're not.
This should not, I suppose, be surprising. The Bush administration has been lying to us for so long it would be difficult to take them seriously if they ever started to speak the truth. What is disturbing is how easily the lackeys in the press have accepted this new propanda, as witnessed by this headline from Reuters: "U.S. and Iraq Forces Kill 90 al Qaeda in Offensive." And this one from the New York Times: "G.I.’s in Iraq Open Big Offensive Against Al Qaeda." And this one from the Associated Press: "U.S. Targets Entrenched al-Qaeda Fighters."
None of this is true; the people we're fighting are not "al Queda fighters," they're the same Sunnis and Shias we've been fighting all along, as pointed out in exquisite detail by Salon's Glen Greenwald in this blog post. It's just that our government and military leaders are now calling them al Qaeda. But calling them al Qaeda doesn't make them al Qaeda; they're still Iraqi insurgents.
Why this particular lie? By defining our opposition as al Qaeda, the government links our fight in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, thus justifying the war as "fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here." It's all bullshit, and transparent bullshit at that, but it takes on a certain weight when the mainstream media repeats the bullshit without question.
The press has an obligation to report the truth, not to repeat government propaganda. If there is a single reason why our country is in the situation it's currently in, it's not Bush and Cheney and their quest for ultimate power, it's the failure of the press to do its duty. While there are exceptions (thank you, Seymour Hersh), the media today has abandoned the truth and thus forfeited its responsibility to help maintain an open, informed, and free republic. When the press fails us, our democracy fails.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Acting
Fred Thompson is running for president. If you listen to the supposedly left-leaning mainstream media, you hear that Thompson is a good ol' boy, a down-home conservative from Tennessee who drives a pickup truck and embodies traditional (southern) American values.
What the press doesn't tell you is that this image is totally manufactured. Thompson is a high-priced attorney who's made millions as a Washington lobbyist. And when he's not busy buying off our legislators, he's out in Hollywood working as a high-paid actor.
All that down-home, pickup-driving, traditional conservative nonsense? It's just acting. The good ol' boy from Tennessee is just another role Thompson is playing; the Thompson we see (or want to see) is an amalgamation of his various movie and television roles. The reality is much different from the image.
That's fine; politicians have always tried to create optimal images for themselves. What's disconcerting is how the media buys into the image. Listen to any of the cable TV pundits, and they spout the pre-manufactured line: Thompson is a strong authority figure, he's a Washington outsider, he's a down-home good ol' boy. In reality, Thompson is the consummate Washington insider, but that's not what the media reports. They buy into the fabricated image, and perpetuate it.
I supposed it's not surprising; the media has long opted to simplify the complex, and present the story that they think will attract more viewers (or sell more newspapers). Just look at how the media helped to sell George W. Bush during the 2000 election (and beyond), as the good ol' boy from Texas instead of the privileged frat boy from Harvard. I suppose Bush as guy-next-door Texan is a more appealing story than Bush as spoiled rich kid, but it's not the real story.
Same thing with Thompson. It'd be nice to have a real, honest-to-goodness populist from Tennessee running for president. That's not what Thompson is, but it's what he pretends to be, and the press buys into it and perpetuates the myth. They're feeding us what we want to hear, as opposed to what we need to hear.
The press should do more than regurgitate campaign press releases. They should dig beneath the p.r. and unearth the facts, and then tell us what's really going on. That's the disappointing thing about this Orwellian world in which we live; it's not that the politicians are lying to us, it's that the press is falling down on the job. We expect our politicians to lies; we need the media to separate the truth from the fabrications.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
What the press doesn't tell you is that this image is totally manufactured. Thompson is a high-priced attorney who's made millions as a Washington lobbyist. And when he's not busy buying off our legislators, he's out in Hollywood working as a high-paid actor.
All that down-home, pickup-driving, traditional conservative nonsense? It's just acting. The good ol' boy from Tennessee is just another role Thompson is playing; the Thompson we see (or want to see) is an amalgamation of his various movie and television roles. The reality is much different from the image.
That's fine; politicians have always tried to create optimal images for themselves. What's disconcerting is how the media buys into the image. Listen to any of the cable TV pundits, and they spout the pre-manufactured line: Thompson is a strong authority figure, he's a Washington outsider, he's a down-home good ol' boy. In reality, Thompson is the consummate Washington insider, but that's not what the media reports. They buy into the fabricated image, and perpetuate it.
I supposed it's not surprising; the media has long opted to simplify the complex, and present the story that they think will attract more viewers (or sell more newspapers). Just look at how the media helped to sell George W. Bush during the 2000 election (and beyond), as the good ol' boy from Texas instead of the privileged frat boy from Harvard. I suppose Bush as guy-next-door Texan is a more appealing story than Bush as spoiled rich kid, but it's not the real story.
Same thing with Thompson. It'd be nice to have a real, honest-to-goodness populist from Tennessee running for president. That's not what Thompson is, but it's what he pretends to be, and the press buys into it and perpetuates the myth. They're feeding us what we want to hear, as opposed to what we need to hear.
The press should do more than regurgitate campaign press releases. They should dig beneath the p.r. and unearth the facts, and then tell us what's really going on. That's the disappointing thing about this Orwellian world in which we live; it's not that the politicians are lying to us, it's that the press is falling down on the job. We expect our politicians to lies; we need the media to separate the truth from the fabrications.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Spineless
The majority of Americans want the war in Iraq ended -- now. Yet the president ignores the public and orders more troops into combat in a pointless "surge" of death and destruction. This is not news.
It is dismaying that the new Democratic congress can't muster the backbone to stand up to our madman-in-chief. First it was the toothless "nonbinding resolution," now it's the "compromise" funding bill. They tried to tie additional funding to a timetable for withdrawal, but the president vetoed that version. They tried to soften the bill, but the president threatened further vetoes. He wanted a "compromise" that was no compromise at all, a funding bill with no constraints. That's what he's getting, as our elected representatives totally backed down to our power-mad leader.
Why is congress so spineless? America has its collective back; we elected this latest crop of representatives precisely to stop the war. The people no longer support the war, and no longer support the president. Why can't congress do the will of the people and stand up to Bush and Cheney to stop the war?
This tells me that we really do have a one-party system, the party of the powerful, and it will do anything to perpetuate its rule. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter; nothing must disturb the continued accumulation of power. The constitution be damned and to hell with the will of the people -- the ruling class must continue to rule, absolutely.
If our congresspeople listened to the people who elected them, we'd be cutting off war funding and considering a raft of impeachment proceedings, starting with Bush and going down from there. The people would support that; the people want change. But congress isn't listening, so the killing continues and America's democratic heritage is fast becoming a thing of the past.
The system isn't working. We need change, major change, and we need it soon. The spineless need not apply.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
It is dismaying that the new Democratic congress can't muster the backbone to stand up to our madman-in-chief. First it was the toothless "nonbinding resolution," now it's the "compromise" funding bill. They tried to tie additional funding to a timetable for withdrawal, but the president vetoed that version. They tried to soften the bill, but the president threatened further vetoes. He wanted a "compromise" that was no compromise at all, a funding bill with no constraints. That's what he's getting, as our elected representatives totally backed down to our power-mad leader.
Why is congress so spineless? America has its collective back; we elected this latest crop of representatives precisely to stop the war. The people no longer support the war, and no longer support the president. Why can't congress do the will of the people and stand up to Bush and Cheney to stop the war?
This tells me that we really do have a one-party system, the party of the powerful, and it will do anything to perpetuate its rule. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter; nothing must disturb the continued accumulation of power. The constitution be damned and to hell with the will of the people -- the ruling class must continue to rule, absolutely.
If our congresspeople listened to the people who elected them, we'd be cutting off war funding and considering a raft of impeachment proceedings, starting with Bush and going down from there. The people would support that; the people want change. But congress isn't listening, so the killing continues and America's democratic heritage is fast becoming a thing of the past.
The system isn't working. We need change, major change, and we need it soon. The spineless need not apply.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Falwell
It's impolite to speak ill of the dead, but there's no other way to reflect on the Rev. Jerry Falwell. I'm not a big believer in good vs. evil, but if there is such a thing as evil, Falwell's actions over the course of his career were just that. I don't know anything about the man himself; he may have been kind and loving. But the effect he had on American politics, religion, and the civil discourse was poisonous.
Where to start? Over the years, Mr. Falwell made comments in favor of segregation and apartheid, and strongly against civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, gays, and most forms of tolerance; he was anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, and anti-moderate Christian. His beliefs were profane to the extreme, especially his statement that gays and feminists and abortionists and the ACLU were to blame for the 9/11 attacks. In public at least, Falwell was a hateful, spiteful, and hugely intolerant man.
Even worse, Falwell's merger of politics and religion, both conservative, changed the face of politics starting with the Reagan era and continuing into the Bush monarchy. Instead of keeping private beliefs private, Falwell's Moral Majority gave rise to the Religious Right and helped to steer public debate away from substantive issues toward so-called social issues -- abortion, gay marriage, evolution in the schools, and the like. This undue influence of evangelical Christianity, in service to some future theocracy, could possibly undermine American democracy as we know it. And Falwell is at least partly to blame for that.
Whether Falwell himself was evil or not does not excuse his evil deeds. For a supposed righteous man, his actions harmed countless poor, minority, and repressed individuals. His theology was exclusive, not inclusive; his fundamentalist politics, as embraced by two generations of Republican politicians, have helped to make America both despised and the laughing-stock of the the modern world.
Am I glad that Jerry Falwell is dead? Any death is a loss, but we're all better off not having Falwell and his ilk trying to impose their intolerance on America and the world. Let's hope that Falwell's influence -- due in part to his appearance at the dawn of the cable television age -- wanes with his passing.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Where to start? Over the years, Mr. Falwell made comments in favor of segregation and apartheid, and strongly against civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, gays, and most forms of tolerance; he was anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, and anti-moderate Christian. His beliefs were profane to the extreme, especially his statement that gays and feminists and abortionists and the ACLU were to blame for the 9/11 attacks. In public at least, Falwell was a hateful, spiteful, and hugely intolerant man.
Even worse, Falwell's merger of politics and religion, both conservative, changed the face of politics starting with the Reagan era and continuing into the Bush monarchy. Instead of keeping private beliefs private, Falwell's Moral Majority gave rise to the Religious Right and helped to steer public debate away from substantive issues toward so-called social issues -- abortion, gay marriage, evolution in the schools, and the like. This undue influence of evangelical Christianity, in service to some future theocracy, could possibly undermine American democracy as we know it. And Falwell is at least partly to blame for that.
Whether Falwell himself was evil or not does not excuse his evil deeds. For a supposed righteous man, his actions harmed countless poor, minority, and repressed individuals. His theology was exclusive, not inclusive; his fundamentalist politics, as embraced by two generations of Republican politicians, have helped to make America both despised and the laughing-stock of the the modern world.
Am I glad that Jerry Falwell is dead? Any death is a loss, but we're all better off not having Falwell and his ilk trying to impose their intolerance on America and the world. Let's hope that Falwell's influence -- due in part to his appearance at the dawn of the cable television age -- wanes with his passing.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)