Natural Born Killers

NPR gives the tiniest blip of airtime to dissenting views of the blatantly anti-Constitutional and illegal assassination of US citizen, and terrorist suspect, Anwar al-Awlaki.  Most of NPR's coverage is decidedly favorable US security establishment - such as Friday afternoon's summary by CIA spokesperson Dina Temple-Raston and Pentagon Sock Monkey, Rachel Martin's Saturday defense of the murders of al-Awalki and Samir Khan.  

Friday afternoon and evening's 5-minute news summary featured Abu Ghraib criminal interrogator/and trainer for the Iraqi Torture Interior Ministry - Professor Matthew Degn - plugging the glorious successes of the endless War on Terror:

[Jack Spear] "In what US officials are deeming a significant blow to al-Qaeda's most active affiliate...the man believed to directed the attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas day among other plots was killed in a missile strike in Yemen today.  Matthew Degn is Director of Intelligence Studies at American University he says the attack is significant in the ongoing war with al-Qaeda.  [Degn] 'You win a war by defeating its leaders. You win a war by defeating the organization, and to do that you have to eliminate its leaders - capture or kill the leaders and that's what we're doing right now in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.'" [Now you know WTF we are doing in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere!]

The little squeak of dissent permitted occurred during Friday's ATC promisingly titled piece "Debate Erupts Over Legality of Awlaki's Killing." Carrie Johnson ran the briefest little clip of Hina Shamsi from the ACLU: 

[Shamsi] "The government should not have the unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere whom the American president deems to be a threat to the nation."

That was it for the dissenting viewpoint on Johnson's report.  The rest of the time was given to apologists for the assassination.  First was the Justice Department who Johnson tells us "responded that Awlaki wasn't just any American....[but] an operational leader who helped equip terrorist plotters with bombs." Next was Bushist lawyer, John Bellinger, who weighed in with this brilliant analysis: "The requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process for killing an American are not clear." [I swear I'm not making this crap up.]  To deliver a coup de grace to the concept of due process, Johnson found Ken Anderson, a professor who, according to Johnson, "says the analysis starts with whether Awlaki amounted to a lawful target, U.S. citizen or not." 

Probably the most grotesque defense of the assassination came from Rachel Martin on Saturday morning with Scott Simon.  Scott opens the discussion with an evidence free conviction of al-Awalki: "he was a key operative for al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen," and it's downhill from there.  Here are quotes from Martin - essentially her talking points - and they are indistinguishable from those of the Obama administration, the CIA, and the Pentagon:

• "...this was a man directly linked to several high profile terrorist attacks over the last couple of years." 
• "...part of why he was so important - because he INSPIRED others to violent action with his message." 
• "...he was the architect of that plot [Xmas day underwear bomber] against the United States.  This is what al-Awalki was all about...
• "one one side there is an argument that he is a US citizen, he has legal rights...but the US government is clear here Scott, they say this was legal..."
• "the US government argues that when someone, even an American citizen, joins the enemy in an ongoing war against the US that person becomes a legitimate target."

As our Constitution withers in the face the assaults of US corporate/security state with its promotion of endless war, NPR has made it clear which it is on.  To anyone still supporting NPR with donations, you do so at your own peril...

The Great Taboo

(If you want to purchase these cute little monkeys they are just $9.95)

On Friday's ATC Mara Liasson says one of the stupidest things I've heard on NPR in a while - which is saying something! Talking about the waning popularity of the BushLite Obama administration among more left leaning and progressive Democrats Liasson states,

"And there are other disagreements. On Afghanistan much of the Democratic base is opposed to the President's troop increase although the Christmas bomber may have taken some of the heat out of that sentiment."

In Liasson/Foxworld one's thinking seems to be limited to rather primitive stimulus/response equations, such as

Terrorist attempt [X] against a US target [Y] = more US military action [N] in Afghanistan [or Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan].

How else to explain the utter nonsense of her claim that progressives - who know that the Obama Afghanistan War is immoral, stupid, and ultimately destructive of real security - would change their minds based on one terrorist's attempt to bomb a US airliner? If Liasson had any clue about progressive/leftist voters she would realize that the attempted Christmas day attack contradicts the supposed rationale for stepping up the US war on Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, Liasson's comments reveal not just Foxified thinking but that of the mainstream media - and especially highlight its refusal to ever consider what creates and motivates acts of terrorism and/or violence against US assets.

After the Christmas Day bombing attempt, probably the biggest story of the week was the bomber who attacked the CIA in Afghanistan. Any curious person would want to know what motivated the apparently trusted attacker to infiltrate the US base and lethally target US/CIA operations. However, the stunning fact is how little attention is given in the mainstream media to the factors that motivate terrorists and irregular fighters who attack US forces. Glenn Greenwald has covered this taboo recently in two articles: the first regarding the Christmas Day bomber and the second on the CIA base bomber. Regarding the CIA bomber there's nothing unclear or hard to discern about his motives:

• Time magazine notes "The Jordanian intelligence sources who spoke to TIME speculate that al-Balawi had become enraged at the Americans for killing a high number of civilians in their hunt for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."
• CBS reports that the wife of the bomber stated that he "was outraged over the treatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison and the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan."
• The New York Times reports that the bomber's brother explained "that his brother had been 'changed' by last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians."

So how does NPR cover this? Try a little searching and see if you can find any NPR news stories relating Abu Ghraib, civilian deaths, or the Gaza massacre to the actions of the CIA bomber who attacked the CIA. Here's what you'll find:

• Search "cia afghanistan" - lots of coverage of the attack.
• Search "cia afghanistan civilian casualties" - nothing regarding the attack.
• Search "cia afghanistan abu ghraib" - nothing regarding the attack.
• Search "cia afghanistan gaza" - nothing regarding the attack.

I guess these details don't quite fit in with the "they hate us for our freedom" conventional wisdom or with NPR's recent adulatory coverage of the CIA.

You Lie!

When I listened to Obama's Nobel Prize war speech and heard him say this

"Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."

I wanted the blood of the millions of East Timorese, Vietnamese, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Haitians, Chileans and others murdered by the US "strength of arms" to cry out "You Lie!"

Then on Sunday morning I had to hear NPR feature not one, but TWO stories on an assassination carried out under Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. In spite of discussing the dreadful state of repression under Pinochet, neither story made any mention of the strong role played by the United States in instigating and supporting the Chilean nightmare.

This brought me back to Obama's speech. No wonder he can get away with saying something so blatantly and obscenely false. The news coverage of events that would contradict such propaganda disappears down the memory hole again and again.

You Got Punk'd

I had to post this because - to their credit - on Thursday's ATC, NPR had on Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation to give her reaction to Obama's War-You-Can-Believe In rubbish Nobel Peace Prize lecture. Here's what she said:

"President Obama is an ethical realist....a speech grounded in realism with elements of idealism ....could see why the Nobel committee awarded him this prize....had a humility and grace while confronting the paradoxes."

Even Bob Siegel had to ask, "But you seem to be resolving this conflict between the wartime president, who's escalated the U.S. operation in Afghanistan and the peace prize winner, and the speech about peace rather easily. I'm surprised. I'm surprised you're not more stuck on that one." [Yeah, me too!]

Vanden Heuvel simply took another sip o' the Kool-aid and added,

"And I think it is up to the people, not only in the United States, but this world, to push him to live up to the words he spoke in the speech which was a complex speech. It was a, kind of a speech that could be taught in a college course on just war and America's role in the world."

Wowzer! Even the pathetic Juan Williams was more articulate on Saturday's Weekend Edition:
"Well, I think it was a very militaristic speech....how does that relate to eight years of war that was based on weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist? And what does it say to us about dealing with Iran and their difficulties today?....here's a president who is advancing war - two wars at this moment - where is the peace? You know, where is the Martin Luther King? Where is the Mandela? The commitment to non-violence?"

Let's Have a Tea Party

In case you missed it last Wednesday's ATC gave a whopping 12.5 minutes of airtime promoting the sophisticated political maturation of the Tea Party movement - especially in Texas. Bob Siegel was hosting...
(cursor over each frame and click the hyperlinked ones you want to follow - nos. 1,2,3, 10, 13, & 14)

Damn the Constitution, Full Steam Ahead

Yesterday morning, before heading out of town, I had to hear Mara Liasson weighing in on why holding US government officials and agents accountable for grave crimes is so not-looking-forward.

Montagne opened the segment with this: "Today President Obama will attempt to keep the national focus on his plans for the future." She failed to mention that NPR would also be attempting to keep the focus there, too.

Liasson - even after noting that investigations or prosecutions would not target those who ordered and provided legal cover for torture, but only "operatives who went beyond even the legal guidance they were getting from the Bush justice department" - closed with this gem:

"...however this opens up a huge can of worms and if they do start prosecuting CIA operatives it will be a big distraction from the main issues on the President's agenda - like health care and the economy."

Take a look at Glenn Greenwald's post regarding a similar situation at NBC. Greenwald describes the NBC piece "as typical a discussion as it gets among media stars as to why investigations are so very, very wrong and unfair and unwise." The same could be said of the editorializing from NPR.

The Counterinsurgency Channel

If you were listening to NPR last night you might have thought Tom Bowman was describing US foreign policy in Afghanistan when he said, "picture a Brinks truck on steroids." Actually he was simply describing a US armored vehicle.

The report itself is meant to promote an aspect of US counterinsurgency in Afghanistan - the training of Afghan police as part of Task Force Phoenix [what dumb ass names these operations anyway?]. The report opens with some great editorializing from Michele Norris:

"If American policy is ever to be successful in Afghanistan, it will be because of people like Army Major Jim Contreras; he's the top American police trainer in Helmand province in Southern Afghanistan. Afghan police are key to fighting insurgents: they know the neighborhoods, the people, who is an insurgent and who is not."

In spite of the likely failure of the US "mission" in Afghanistan - and the dismal (and lucrative) history of the US training program for Afghan police forces, Norris assures us that this will be the "key to fighting insurgents." It's striking, too, how apropos of nothing, Norris confidently asserts that they know "who is an insurgent and who is not"?

There is nothing in the report to indicate how disastrous the new Bushama/Obamush War in Af-Pak will be, instead there is the focus on one program (and one man) that will deliver that ever elusive, mythical (can you say Phoenix?) success that empires are always gunning for in Afghanistan.

NPR hosts Obama-Cheney debate

President Obama engaged former vice president Dick Cheney in a heated debate last week on both administrations' use of torture and other violations of human rights.

Actually, the debate never happened; the two men were in completely different locations, each attacking the policies of the other administration and defending their own positions in speeches in front of friendly audiences unable to challenge them. Nonetheless, ME presented them as a face-to-face debate between the two men, alternating soundbites from each.

Yes, this is the same Dick Cheney who determinedly avoided all forms of open information and accountability during the eight miserably long years he was VP, and who has every motivation to cover up the various crimes committed under his reign in the Bush administration. So one might reasonably ask, Who gives a shit what Dick Cheney has to say now?

Well, evidently NPR does, because they gave Cheney equal billing with the president in a piece titled "Obama, Cheney: Different Views on National Security." The title is offensive not only because it presents Cheney's views as equally relevant as the current president's, but also because it refers to the crimes of torture, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and indefinite detention without trial, as simply "national security." (At least the extended web version of the "debate" is titled "Obama, Cheney face off on torture.")

And in case you were wondering who won the debate, Steve Inskeep introduces the article with:

"Cheney warned that the new administration was tearing down the policies that kept America safe, yet the new president also faces criticism for keeping the essence of many Bush administration policies in place."

I am not going to get into the details of the misreprentations and dissembling in both speeches. These have been covered well elsewhere. My point here is to just to ask why NPR decided it was appropriate to present Cheney's blatantly self-serving propaganda as anything remotely relevant to current policy.

Don Gonyea attempted to explain it by saying: "The administration seemed to relish the mano a mano competition, pitting the popular Mr. Obama against an unpopular former vice president."

Actually, it was NPR that seemed to relish it most. And, of course, Gonyea couldn't help but jump into the make-believe debate himself, with his own thoughts on just how darn difficult it is to stop torturing people:

"But the real battle for President Obama is not in outshining Dick Cheney but persuading a reluctant Congress and public that he can shudder Guantanamo without compromising security."

A Riddle Wrapped in Mystery

(H/T to Churchill for the title)

The contortionists at NPR are mighty busy these days being super, extra careful not to use the word torture to describe - well - torture. Keeping the English language in such painful stress positions leads to some rather interesting remarks. On ATC Wednesday I caught Bob Siegel stating,

"The infamous Abu Ghraib photos served as early evidence of harsh treatment of detainees. Today the White House announced its decision to fight against the release of other similar photos. The photos show the alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan."

That little paragraph is just packed full of maneuvers. The now public Abu Ghraib photos are "evidence" of "harsh treatment" [not the T-word!]. However, the photos that the Bush Obama administration now wants to keep secret show the "alleged abuse" of detainees. It wasn't just Siegel referring to photos of "alleged abuse"; I heard it several other times during the 5-minute news summaries NPR broadcasts. So now undoctored photos of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment don't show that at all; they simply show "alleged" abuses.

Taking NPR's skeptical approach, I present to you a few photos of other "alleged" events.

The alleged assassination of President Kennedy:


The alleged "harsh policing" of civil rights protesters:


-and-

The alleged landing of a man on the moon:

Smooth Operators

FAIR busts the media - including NPR - for its lockdown against reporting on a single-payer health plan for the US. So it was rich to hear Maura Liasson covering President Obama's Forum on Health Reform. Liasson feels no irony in stating "even the White House is careful to say it's open to ANY ideas that meet its goals of controlling costs" while never mentioning the single-payer option. Not only does this idea get no mention, Liasson's whole report is a shameless spin operation by two major players for the Hospital and Health Insurance Industry.

We hear a lot from Chip Kahn who's biography notes that

"Prior to joining the Federation of American Hospitals, he was one of the nation's foremost leaders of the health insurance industry. From 1998 to 2001, while serving as President of the Health Insurance Association of America."

Liasson's report also leans heavily on the comments of Karen Ignagni - president and CEO of - what do you know - the America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). We get to hear Ignani explain how she helped wreck the 1994 Clinton attempt at health care reform because her group was "very concerned about the role of government in that plan" but now - according to Liasson - AHIP "wants to help craft not kill a health reform bill." Isn't that sweet?

Liasson also lets us hear from Rahm Emmanuel who claims that the White House approach puts "everyone at the starting gate together." Seems like it would have been a good time to ask why single-payer representatives were only allowed in at the last minute, and why single-payer has been essentially eliminated from consideration by the administration (and by NPR too).

The one story NPR did on single-payer recently (Dec. 24, 2008) was interesting for how much time it spent trying to distort and dismantle the accepted fact that single-payer is viewed rather favorably by most people in the US. A good deal of that Christmas Eve program was turned over to Robert Blendon who tries to spin one poll into a rejection of single payer. NPR cleverly identified Bob Blendon as "an expert in health care public opinion at the Harvard School of Public HealthHarvard School of Public Health." What they failed to mention is that he's on the board of directors of Assurant, Inc., a corporate powerhouse which provides, among other things, "individual health and small employer group health insurance; group dental insurance." An honest oversight, I'm sure...

What Do They Pay This Guy?

Juan Williams was on Saturday morning with Scott Simon (what a combo!). Supposedly "news analyst" Williams was going to provide some insights on Pres. Elect Obama's proposed stimulus plan. Williams was nearly hyperventilating:

"...here's the problem...a plan that could reach a TRILLION dollars Scott! You know a billion here and a billion there and soon you're talking a trillion [Simon can be heard snickering in the background] and what you've got is a feeding frenzy...then you've got people who are doing some really strange things - the zoo and aquarium group want some tax breaks for zoos and aquariums Scott...I don't know if you Scott Simon need a tax break but this would be the time to ask...so he [Obama] is coming in with a deficit, the deficit is going to grow larger..."

Seriously, this sniping rubbish passes for commentary. As Krugman points out about people like Williams (and Simon), "Here’s how I see it: the opponents of a strong stimulus plan don’t really have an alternative to offer. They don’t even have a really coherent critique." Amen.

The hypocrisy of Williams "concerns" about wasted government money are astounding. I don't recall a single critique from "people are praying for you" Williams regarding the hundreds of billions of dollars poured down the Operation Iraqi Fiefdom rat hole?

Since so much of NPR's support comes from listeners, it owes it to us to post the salaries of all its on-air hosts and reporters so we can decide if our donations to NPR stations are such a good idea after all. Also, NPR should require Foxistas such as Williams and Liasson to disclose how much loot they receive for their efforts on that dismal outlet.

If It's Not Unanimous You Can't Have It

What a bizarre report from Julie Rovner on health care reform and the recent election. As everyone knows the the voters who helped elect Obama President want and expect major health care reform. Explaining the reasons why even reform (instead of complete overhaul) might not happen the way you thought it would when you cast your ballot, Rovner makes this statement:

"So obstacle one is a public that's divided between wanting more and less government involvement in in health care."

Divided? That's funny...I could have sworn there were some serious majorities out there who support government led universal health care. I did a little searching and - whew - I wasn't just hallucinating again. Let's see what some of the polls show:

• A Kaiser Poll of October 2008 (pdf file) shows 84% believe that "Health care should be provided equally to everyone, just as public education is," 76% believe that "access to health care should be a right," and "over 6 in 10 (63%) favor the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."
• A Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey from August 2008 shows "A government guarantee of universal health insurance, even if it means raising taxes, continues to attract broad support. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) favor such a proposal, while 34% are opposed."
• CNN Opinion Research Opinion poll of May 2007 (pdf) finds 64% of Americans "think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes."
• A CBS/New York Times poll of March 2007 finds that "most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance."

Yeah, that's real division. I mean 37% to 63% is like, wow, almost a 50-50 deadlock with just a little 13% change in each direction. Honestly, does Rovner think she can just make up any lie that fits NPR's general opposition to universal health care and pass it off as fact?

Hey Rovner - busted!

Execrable Takes on Great Expectations

(click picture for source)

In the comments of the "Crystal Ball" post below there were some angry (and informative) posts about Mara Liasson's Foxist assault on the expectations of Obama supporters. You have to love the bottom of the tank "scholars" that Liasson stitches together for her report (in order of appearence):

• Norman Ornstein of the extreme right American Enterprise Institute
• Michael Gerson, former Bush speech-writer (his bio at the Council on Foreign Relations lists his "Expertise" as -get this - "Democracy promotion; human rights issues; health and disease; religion and politics.")
• Bob Kagan who Liasson calls "a foreign policy scholar."
• Michael O'Hanlon - sorry hack of the Brookings Institution.

With the aid of these characters Liasson puts together her septic rant:

Regarding solving "the huge problems he's inheriting" Liasson says that "On the campaign trail he made it sound easy. The only sacrifice he asked people to make was (sarcastic tone) turning off the lights and checking the pressure in their tires." Funny how Liasson ignores Obama's campaign calls for sacrifice and service, but revives the ignorant Republican attack on tire gauges.

She then lets Ornstein make claims for "the left." He whines, "if the expectations are high generally, their highest on the left. You've got a group of people who think - first of all - that it's their victory, who believe that Obama is one of them..."

After Ornstein, it's on to Gerson who she says worries that "nothing Obama said during the campaign indicates when or if he might push back against the Democratic leadership in Congress." Seriously, a Bushist speech-writer worried about a President who won't "push back" against his party's leadership in Congress.

Next it's on to money. Liasson warns that "Then there's the clash of campaign promises with dollars and sense reality." Yes, Liasson has just been all over "dollars and sense reality" for that little war that she is so fond of.

As the "tire gauge" jab above shows, Liasson is interested in reviving old Fox News/Republican attacks from the campaign. She revisits the covertly recorded remarks of Biden predicting that Obama would be tested by an international crisis. Liasson says, "His running mate made it clear what he expected in the first six months for a young president just four years out of the Illinois state legislature. 'Mark my words,' Joe Biden told a group of Democratic donors. 'Mark my words.' (This is followed by the distorted recording made of Biden's remarks). This sleazy use of the Biden remarks leaves one wondering where Liasson's gig with Fox ends and her work for NPR begins.

Her piece winds down with Bob Kagan warning that Obama will need to take a complex view of Pakistan and Afghanistan, because "there are no easy answers"--this from easy-answer Kagan himself. It ends with O'Hanlon ratcheting things up on Iran and admitting that Obama does have world popularity.

This from what Montagne calls "NPR's national political correspondent." Astounding really...and disgusting.

All's Quiet in the Henhouse

Tonight on ATC, Michelle Norris and Mara Fox News Liasson pretend that all is about equally negative between the two candidates for President, and Norris asks, " Is there a more negative tone than we've been hearing in previous campaigns?"

To which Liasson answers, "I dont' think so. That 'too risky for America,' I bet you and I have heard that every single election cycle....no, we haven't seen a Willie Horton ad, we haven't seen John McCain accused of fathering an illegitimate black child. I think this is rather tame if you look at the history of campaigns. I do think it is getting tougher. I think the difference is that you see Barack Obama basically saying that McCain is mentally unstable, that he's erratic...what McCain has been doing is using a kind of guilt by association charge, raising the question of whether Obama has been completely truthful about his relationship with William Ayers..."

Well, I guess if you draw some of your pay from the sleaze machine called Fox News, then it all looks "pretty tame." And it's ironic that Liasson mentions the 2000 "whisper campaign" against McCain, when the vile anti-Muslim/Arab whisper campaign against Obama is the heart and soul of the McPalin mob strategy.

In addition to taking her morals from the Fox News den, I guess Liasson is not Arab or could care less how they are trashed by the Hate Talk Express. The racist overtones of the McCain camp seem to elude her too, although the report tonight opened with Norris noting that this past weekend Masa McCain promised to "quote, whip his you know what." I guess that means the "you know what" on "that one."

The Hate that Never Dies

Yesterday I made the "mistake" of watching the video posted here on Crooks and Liars: depressing and repulsive stuff. In just a few short minutes I noted the following from these McPalin supporters:

• "you're stupid"
• "hangs around with terrorists"
• "he's a terrorist"
• "Obama's a Muslim; he's a terrorist himself"
• "here it is" [giving the finger]
• "commie faggots"
• "get a job"
• "go to Russia"
• "socialist swine"
• "screw Obama"
• "die"
• "European socialist"
• "he is a Muslim"
• "I don't know what he is"
• "sleazy scum of the earth" [of ACORN & Obama]

Watching it I had a weird déjà vu experience. I had seen this crowd before, but where? Then it hit me, during the POV special about the Chilean judge investigating Pinochet there is a scene during Pinochet's funeral where his supporters taunt victims and opponents of Pinochet with nearly identical epithets: faggot, terrorist, etc. You can get a feel for these Pinochet fans by checking out this clip on YouTube.

One of the readers of this blog noted below that the issue of McPalin mob hatred and vitriol is "not being properly addressed by the major media." So when ATC on Friday covered just this topic I wondered how they would cover it. The title of the web post gives a clue: "Anxiety Rules at McCain Campaign Stops." Anxiety?

Melissa Block opens the piece with "Republican John McCain held a series of rallies and town hall meetings with increasingly anxious supporters. It's not just the slumping economy that has them worried..." Anxious? Worried? That's interesting because I've been around a lot of anxious and worried people in my time, and they don't usually scream at people, calling them liars, terrorists, faggots, etc.

Scott Horsley takes over and tells us the following about the McMob: They are "outspoken in their dismay" and "there's more defiance than celebration" in them. Outspoken? Defiance? And then after not really addressing the fundamental - and dangerous - issue of McCain and Palin cultivating this viciousness, Horsley wraps it up with a plug for McCain: "McCain and NPR has been embracing his underdog status."

More Balance

Obama is touring Israel and Palestine and NPR is on it. This morning Inskeep and Gonyea report with a big emphasis on balance:

Inskeep tells us that Obama's tour "is taking him to both sides of the dividing lines between Israelis and Palestinians. But while visiting both sides..."

Gonyea insists that Obama "is trying to balance things...probably the trickiest day of Senator Obama's overseas' trip."

Too bad our intrepid NPR journalists don't report on some of that tricky balance. They could have started with that slightly imbalanced US aid to Israel (you can also click on the graphic above to see another breakdown of this aid). They also could have gone looking into the balanced killings and human rights abuses between Israel and Palestine. Or reminded us that one side is an internationally recognized state which has used the full force of its military and US alliance to occupy, annex and repress the other side for over forty years instead of treating the situation as if it were a conflict between two balanced forces.

The other interesting aspect of this Morning Edition report is that Gonyea's pretense to being an authority on the full spectrum of Israeli and Palestinian opinions. Consider this exchange:

Inskeep: "What questions do Israelis have about Obama?"

Gonyea: "They are worried that in dealing with the peace process with the Palestinians that in forcing compromise and trying to broker a deal, he might push the Israelis harder, he might side a bit too much with the Palestinians...and that's obviously reflected in the kind of things we're hearing from Jewish voters in America."

Inskeep: "Are Palestinians any happier about Barack Obama?"

Gonyea: "They have some concerns as well...will no doubt have a warm meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, but there is concern...he might bend over backwards to please Israel."

I'm just curious how Gonyea knows what they are worried about? Who is this mythical they anyway? Gonyea is not reporting on surveys or polls. It's sloppy to report as if Israelis have some kind of unified opinion on Obama (or just about anything for that matter), and in spite of the reactionary politics of many American Jewish organizations - there are diverse opinions about US policy in Israel/Palestine (Jewish Voice for Peace or Tikkun for example). And of course, Gonyea is not talking about even a sampling of Palestinians, but only the US/Israel approved Palestinian officials who supposedly represent the "other side" in the conflict.

Wait a Minute

This morning John Ydstie was on to talk about the tax policies of John McCain and Barack Obama. I have to say, that tax policy is out of my league - but I think I know when I'm being hornswoggled. Ydstie had this to say:

"...for McCain the big idea is, a Republican idea going back to Ronald Reagan, and that is to boost growth...." After hearing a sound bite of McCain claiming that our corporate tax rate is the "2nd highest in the world" Ydstie is back to add "...and I think most economists would agree - if you cut corporate tax rates, if you cut personal income tax rates, you're going to boost growth. The rub is this: if you don't pay for those tax cuts and you increase the deficit, you could very easily undermine that growth..."

Now wait there one second fella. Before you go and sell the store claiming such miraculous powers for supply-side economics, I just don't think it's all that straightforward. I did a little research and currently there does seem to be a lot of religious faith (CATO institute and AEI, of course) in the powers of cutting taxes for corporations - but that "most economists" stuff is pretty darn sloppy. As this article from Smart Money notes, the tax rate is one thing, but what corporations in the US actually pay is a quite a different story. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has some interesting views on the whole "most economists agree" angle, too.

The thing that I have discovered is that since the Reagan-Thatcher counterrevolution of the 1980s corporate taxes have been falling globally (see the CATO article above). And I don't know about you, but looking around at jobs, real wages, health insurance, infrastructure, etc. - I'd say the period has been marked by definite growth (the rich getting a whole lot richer) combined with some serious shrinkage in the quality of life for most humans on the planet, and a lot of downward pressures on the middle class.

I'd be happy to hear from anyone with a bit more expertise in this area.

The Double Talk Express

Wow, McLiasson is working extra McHard:

On ATC Tuesday:

Liasson: "You can't really say that McCain switched his positions. What McCain did is the bill he proposed and sponsored had a path to legalization for undocumented aliens, also it had some border security measures. He hasn't given up on the path to citizenship, but he now says we have to secure the border first because if we don't Americans won't support comprehensive immigration reform."
[Holy smokes, McCain couldn't have spun it better himself.]

Liasson: "...both these candidates are for the same thing."
[Fact based journalism at its best.]

Liasson: "...but McCain did change his emphasis and Obama sees that as an opening."
[That Obama is a wily devil!]

And then on Wednesday's ME Liasson is back at it, with a little help from her friends:

Inskeep: "One of his strengths is his record on immigration reform. McCain favored a path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants and he paid a heavy political price for that."
[So heavy that he lost the Republican primary...okay, not that heavy.]

Liasson: "...on immigration reform Obama and McCain are very similar."
[At least it's no longer "the same thing."]

Liasson: "Last year McCain took on his own party."
[Along with that maverick George Bush.]

Liasson: "to the McCain campaign, Obama is trying to get credit for a bipartisan compromise that he supported but also tried to torpedo by sponsoring or voting for labor union backed amendments that if passed would have weakened support for the bill."
[Labor backed amendments? Same thing? Very similar? Hmmm.]

(an attendee at the LULAC conference): "I actually voted for Obama in the primaries. I think I just kind of jumped in the bandwagon and sort of voted because I really like his personality and I always say I like him with my heart and I like McCain with my head."
[Surely a representative perspective.]

Pretty amazing stuff.

Community Radio - Intelligence Community That Is

(click on image for source)

Tom Gjelten is on ME today talking about the two major candidates latest turns against rule of law and Constitutional liberties. It's an odd report in that Gjelten seems not to be reporting on the relationship between the candidates and the "Intelligence Community," but to be actually speaking for that "community"....

Gjelten's statements about FISA and Obama are misleading. Of Obama Gjelten states,

"he's advised on intelligence matters by John Brennan, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Like many intelligence professionals, Brennan says the FISA program is essential to the fight against terrorism - by adopting Brennan's view, Obama improves his standing with the intelligence community. For someone looking ahead to a presidential administration, that's important."

When Gjelten refers to Brennan and "many intelligence professionals" saying that "the FISA program is essential to the fight against terrorism" he is continuing to cloud the issue, implying that Obama's original stand against unconstitutional and illegal disregard for FISA (which is what the Bush administration has done) was a stand against FISA. FISA has never expired, and the government has had and continues to have the lawful means under FISA for intercepting suspected terrorist emails, phonecalls, etc. What Obama is now supporting is the Orwellian Protect America Act amendments to FISA, and as Glenn Greenwald so cogently explains,

"What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it."

It is also worth noting that Gjelten fails to mention that Brennan is also in the intelligence profiteering business; he's the president and CEO of The Analysis Corporation - and so would have a vested interest in getting Obama to back more invasive surveillance and immunity to lawbreaking telecoms.

Keeping the Liar in Liasson

"Maverick" journalist Mara Liasson was on Morning Edition today to burnish the "maverick" myth of John McCain. Here are a few priceless assertions:

"McCain has made a career of taking heat from his own party for working with liberal Democrats like Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, or Ted Kennedy on immigration and these bipartisan efforts are both the source of his maverick reputation and the cause of his ongoing problems with the Republican party's conservative base."

Actually the source of his "maverick" reputation are hacks in the media who keep repeating it despite of a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Liasson's assertions of "taking heat from his own party" leaves one asking, What heat - has he ever been passed over for important committee appointments? Has he been denounced publicly by the leadership of the party? Has he been sanctioned in any way? Facts be damned, Liasson is not about to be deterred:

"...if the criteria is who's stuck their neck out on difficult issues and paid the price for doing it, McCain has it all over Obama."

Whether it's her recent collaboration with Montagne in citing the biased National Journal's attempt to paint Obama as the ultra-liberal (Don't I wish!) or her joining in on Fox News to bash liberal bloggers - you have to wonder just how far into misinformation, smear, and outright lies someone like Liasson has to go before getting called out by NPR. Or could it be that her tactics and politics are right in line with the tactics and politics of NPR's leadership? You'll have to make that call yourself.

UPDATE: I emailed Media Matters regarding this piece and I see they've dinged NPR...again.