Glenn Greenwald exposes the lies of Wired

After more than a year, Wired has finally published most of the chat logs between Bradley Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo. As Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out in his detailed analysis, Wired withheld this information as part of a cover-up:

[T]he controversy was over Wired's obvious concealment of matters outside of the scope of Manning's personal issues, ones that were plainly relevant to newsworthy matters and, in particular, to Lamo's claims about what Manning told him. The concern was that Wired was concealing material to glorify and shield its source, Poulsen's long-time associate Adrian Lamo, in a way that distorted the truth and, independently, denied the public important context for what happened here. Wired's release of the full chat logs leaves no doubt that those concerns were justified, and that Wired was less than honest about what it was concealing.

Continue ReadingGlenn Greenwald exposes the lies of Wired

Is this painting obscene?

I'm in London on vacation, enjoying many of the museums, including London's National Gallery.   Today I spotted the following painting, which is part of the National Gallery's collection: This is a painting by Palma Vecchio (painted around 1520).  The art gallery is open to all ages, including small children, and there were plenty of young children in the vicinity of this painting today.  The description next to this painting announces that the woman displays a "sensuous beauty" characteristic of Roman courtesans. Frankly, I find the woman in Vecchio's painting to be quite fetching, and I find the painting itself to be most excellent. To my eye, it is not in the least obscene.  But seeing it today made me think of Janet Jackson's "nipple" incident at the Superbowl XXXVIII.  What an incident that was, ending up with a fine of more than 1/2 million dollars for the TV network, and America ending all up bent out of shape because somehow . . . somehow . . . the sight of Ms. Jackson's nipple harmed children.   I strongly disagree with the attitude that the naked human body should be seen as perverse.  I have never seen any evidence that any child has ever been harmed by seeing a nipple; I've never seen any scientific evidence suggesting that it is harmful to view a nipple, despite millions of protests to the contrary (As to why so many Americans are so terrified about the public viewing of female nipples, I have a theory). Seeing this painting reminded me of  Dan Dennett's comment that people in American don't believe in God, but they believe in belief.    Likewise, we don't really believe that children are harmed by mere nakedness, but we believe in the belief that children are harmed by mere nakedness. If we  Americans really believed that mere images of nakedness and sexuality harmed children, we'd pass a law to remove quite a bit of art from our own museums, and we'd also take down quite a  bit of our suggestive advertisements currently on billboards and storefronts. It's incidents like Jackson's that make me think that we Americans are not even capable of having meaningful conversations anymore, unless the topic is sports, TV, movies, or consumer electronics. On important issues we'd rather yell at each other in tribal ways.

Continue ReadingIs this painting obscene?

Lies are easy; truth is painstaking

Here is perhaps the biggest challenge facing democracy today: Telling lies is often much easier than establishing the truth. This parallels physical construction, where destroying a building is much easier than building it. I'm going to pick on conservatives here, because this is where the problem most often and most saliently occurs these days (consider the track records of FOX News, for instance, or Michelle Bachmann). When conservatives lie (or palter or recklessly repeat falsehoods), it takes substantial time and effort to set the record straight. That work of setting things straight often involves tracking down primary sources, and it often requires rehabilitating the credibility of the smeared parties. When this repair work is done well in writing, it involves lots of research, ample linking and especially clear writing. The work required to damage truth is so much less than maintaining truth that I would propose that the smear campaigns run by 5% of the population are usually capable of incapacitating the other 95%. I'd like to point to a recent example from Missouri, where Dana Loesch, an entirely unself-critical conservative radio host affiliated with the Tea Party, in concert with other conservatives, spewed lies that almost cost two university professors their jobs. Both the lies and the truth have been well-documented by Adam Shriver of St. Louis Activist Hub. Shriver goes well beyond getting the facts straight in other articles he has written--he has given important context to the facts--something that a major St. Louis newspaper failed to do. Setting the record straight also required excellent work by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. So the battle goes on, and the forces of truth will be fighting at a major disadvantage because they carry the burden of establishing the truth. They will be working longer and harder to keep things accurate, and even when they successfully document and refute the lies of conservatives (as they did here), there will be no time to celebrate, because those who intentionally lie, or who are reckless with the truth, will have moved on to promulgate new falsehoods.

Continue ReadingLies are easy; truth is painstaking

Free Speech Above All

Johann Hari on Religious Censorship This video is an impassioned declaration on the importance of not allowing "sensitivities" and an unwillingness to offend become a force against free speech.  It is also, underneath, an argument for rejecting the pseuodthink of irrational defenses of absurdity.

Continue ReadingFree Speech Above All

The obvious ideas of a comedian and the “genius” of Osama bin Laden

I'm reading a 900-page compendium of George Carlin's written works: 3 x Carlin. It includes a full copy of Napalm and Silly Putty, a book Carlin published in April, 2001. Take a look at this excerpt from the chapter Carlin titled "Airport Security" (p. 325):

I'm getting tired of all the security at the airport. There's too much of it. I'm tired of some fat chick with a double digit IQ and a triple digit income rootin' around inside my bag for no reason and never finding anything. Haven't found anything yet. Haven't found one bomb in one bag. And don't tell me, "Well the terrorists know their bags are going to be searched, so now they're leaving their bombs at home." There are no bombs! The whole thing is fuckin' pointless. And it's completely without logic. There's no logic at all.  They'll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife!   Well, what the fuck is that? In fact, there's a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chainsaw, six knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they say to you is, "That bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you." And if you didn't take a weapon on board, relax.  After you've been flying for about an hour, they're gonna bring you a knife and fork!  They actually give you a fucking knife!  It's only a table knife--but you could kill a pilot with a table knife.  It might take you a couple of minutes.   Especially if he's hefty.   But you could get the job done.  If you really wanted to kill the prick . . .Or suppose you just had really big hands, couldn't you strangle a flight attendant?  . . .

.   .   .

Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe!. That's all it's for. To provide a feeling, an illusion of safety in order to placate the middle class. Because the authorities know they can't make airplanes safe; too many people have access.
Indeed, George Carlin pretty much summed up American airline security back in April 2001.  Consider what happened only five months after he wrote these words, a dramatic series of attacks that depended on the lax American security described by Carlin, as well as the less-than-brilliantly-conceived strategy of allowing flimsy doors to the cockpit. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, American political and military leaders elevated Osama Bin Laden to the status of alleged evil genius, essentially to give themselves cover for the pathetic American security protocol described by Carlin. The American establishment embraced bin Laden as an evil genius because it served two purposes. A) It was an attempt to deflect criticism from the abject stupidity of the American approach to airline security; recognizing the "genius" of bin Laden allowed hawks to continue with their mantra that Americans can do no wrong, and it was an exceptional and evil man that spilled American blood; B) Calling bin Laden a genius and broadcasting his brown-skinned non-English speaking image all over Televisiondom justified pouring trillions of dollars into America's warmongering-torturing-spying machine; it "justified" an immense job-security program for those who wanted to use those many of those exciting Yankee weapons of war to pretend to solve complex international social and economic problems. And lots of bombs have been dropped ever since. Here we are, a decade later, with our economy and our infrastructure on the verge of a second collapse, with almost nothing good to show for all of that money we've poured into our wars of discretion.  We Americans continue to demonstrate that we are absolutely incapable of self-critical self-examination, in that we continue to pour two billion dollars per week into our Afghanistan adventure despite the lack of any meaningful military objective.  It's merely an adventure in sunk costs (and see here).  And the American corporate media cozily continues to conspire with the American military to pretend that we've been making great strides in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history.  Americans are currently mesmerized by their "Peace President" to continue supporting, if not escalating, the most expensive self-deceptive con-job in history.  But at least we killed an evil man whose genius was that he was about as observant as an American funny man. To summarize by paraphrasing George Carlin, the American military involvement in Afghanistan is a stupid idea, it’s a waste of money, and it’s there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe!. That’s all it’s for. To provide a feeling, an illusion of safety in order to placate the middle class. Because the authorities know they can't make America completely safe from terrorism; too many people have access. [Photoshop image by Erich Vieth. Image of George Carlin by Creative Commons; Image of Osama bin Laden, public domain]

Continue ReadingThe obvious ideas of a comedian and the “genius” of Osama bin Laden