October 15, 2003
The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Trying to make sense of this world is definitely at risk because we get so much information fed to us in a thousand different ways these days. What makes it even worse is that now we are also getting so much mis-information fed to us. The reaction for most people is to pick a couple of sources they consider reliable and to tune the rest of them out. Unfortunately, it is very hard to understand and judge reliability, especially if the sources that feed the news are less than reliable themselves.
Today we are in a situation that the information provided to us as citizens is no longer being based on peer-reviewed studies. The government has gotten rid of the Office of Technical Assesment because when using a real scientific method to judge the value of a policy, those damn pesky studies just didn't support the conservative ideology.
Steve Soto found another incredible example of our government not just being hostile to facts, but now they are actively engaged in rewriting our reality. In their world as in Orwell's, don't believe your lying eyes.
But the use of lies to justify action is only good until people stop trusting the lies. According to Ron Reagan (as he says, son of that Reagan), the Bush policy in Iraq is one area that even conservatives who bought into the cult of Bush are now beginning to question. The sheer extent of lies are beginning to crash into their reality and it is starting to be a real problem for Bush.
The aforementioned Tom Joyce appears to be the latter sort. He voted for Bush in 2000 and, as we began our conversation, there was nothing to indicate he wasn't eager to do so again in '04. He pronounces himself "fully comfortable with the [Bush] package." "Bush seems like a stand-up guy" who "appears to be a strong proponent of family values," Tom tells me. "He's been consistent in setting a moral high ground."
Tom goes on to talk about what a "great country" we live in, his "strong sense of nationalism," and how, in light of the terrorist threat, we have to "defend our country and all that stuff." So far, this is entirely typical of what I've been hearing ever since arriving in O.C. But then -- carefully, because my role isn't meant to be that of advocate -- I begin pushing a little harder. I suggest to Tom: Bush sold the nation (or some of it anyway) on the need for war in Iraq by citing firm evidence of massive stocks of chemical and biological weapons, at one point even invoking the specter of unmanned Iraqi drone planes spraying botulinum toxins over American cities. Saddam, we were told, was on the verge of unleashing nuclear conflagration. Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and the world. Apparently, hundreds of Americans -- not to mention thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children -- needed to sacrifice their lives to forestall such catastrophe. So how does the now transparent falsity of these assertions square with Tom's impression of Bush as a "stand-up guy"?
"That's a tough question," he admits, and his eyes begin moving about the room as if searching for a convincing rationale lurking behind the potted plants.
The Bush administration is now in the state of having created their own "stalinist" state where most people will never come forward with information and most people will be careful to not get involved.
The moral of this story is that the quality of our data is even more important than the timeliness of the data. And since the Bushies have stomped on any and all facts that interfer with their pre-set views, they are now reaping the confusion.
Addendum: These days it is too easy to believe any and all stories about the arrogant Bush White House who have proved themselves willing do anything to get their way. I know that I am much more inclined to believe the worst. Yet, a few days ago I wrote about the Palm Dates destruction -- and now I find out that this might also be disinformation that I was all to readily inclined to believe. I recognize this comes from my own distrust of our government that has lied so often and has done things that are not defensible. Yet today, because I don't have any collaborating evidence, I would like to say I cannot stand behind the Date Palm story and I'd also like to give the benefit of doubt that we are not engaged in such a dangerous and destructive policy as collective punishment.
Posted by Mary at October 15, 2003 04:40 AM | TrackBackWe're still trying to confirm or deny the date palm story. I've gotten some input since then at my comments section. More to follow.
Posted by: James R MacLean on October 15, 2003 05:49 AMI'd read on IslamOnline that it wasn't collective punishment, but to remove hiding places for resistance fighters.
Posted by: NTodd on October 15, 2003 10:26 PMOh, forgote: the article quotes stuff Iraqis supposedly told AFP--Cockburn was not mentioned.
Posted by: NTodd on October 15, 2003 10:28 PMWith due respect, James, your basis for doubt of Patrick Cockburn's story, and the input in your comments section, seem to be based more on Cockburn's politics, or actually, his family's politics, than anything else. You are entitled to that doubt, but it certainly isn't very persuasive to argue against someone's reportage based on their personal politics and on what their relatives publish.
Patrick Cockburn makes a large number of statements of supposed fact in his story. These statements are not spin, not commentary, not outrage; they are statements of particulars he purports to have collected as he investigated the story. In fact, there appear to be enough details that any intrepid Western reporter in Iraq could check them out him- or herself. I urge that someone do exactly that. Until then, questioning his story because it comes from a member of the so-called liberal media is just politics.
And you are simply misleading when you say Riverbend doesn't claim to have seen the incident in question. That is technically a true statement, but she reports seeing very similar incidents of coalition troops destroying orchards in other areas, including the outskirts of Baghdad, on TV.
Let's skip the chop-logic and the carefully worded accusations. Have U.S. troops destroyed significant quantities of Iraqi orchards, or have they not? That is the only important question here. I am willing to be shown that the reported incident did not happen... but it is hard to make that case at this point, as the incident certainly fits with the reported pattern to date.
Posted by: Steve Bates on October 15, 2003 10:37 PMI'm still trying to find out, Steve.
My problem is not that I'm reluctant to believe the story--I ran out and posted a long denunciation of it. Believe me, I'm no apologist for the administration or Army policy. But the story has too many problems. I'm still looking for ammunition (pardon the pun) to use, and I'm doubtful that this is any use.
RE: Cockburn's politics: yes, it's true that a story that circulates only on radical web sites is not necessarily a compelling lead. The reason is that I'm trying to find something that is not easy to dismiss. Since I'm convinced the administration has to go, and you are too, the problem is those who aren't. Does that make a little more sense?
Posted by: James R MacLean on October 16, 2003 11:46 PMSo if the Independent UK story, and the AFP story on IslamOnline (see NTodd's link above), complete with a photo (yes, of course, it could be faked, or a file photo), and obviously reported independently of Cockburn's account (e.g., read the interviews of different locals in the two stories), are both not credible, what level of proof is sufficient?
And what about Riverbend's descriptions? (My understanding is that Salam Pax has been vetted by a Western journalist as being who he claims to be, and that he in turn has vouched for Riverbend's authenticity.) Are we to ignore her first-hand accounts of U.S. troops "hacking" down trees in Baghdad neighborhoods, or her descriptions of TV footage of troops bulldozing orchards?
This really isn't all about the Cockburn family, and I don't quite understand the attempt to make it appear to be, as many of your commenters seem determined to do. I agree that Counterpunch can often be taken with a large grain of salt. But that is not really at issue here, unless one intends to distrust all sources that happen to agree with a relative of someone on the left.
So far, there appear to be two additional corroborations of Patrick Cockburn's account that I've seen: the one by AFP of that particular story, and the one by Riverbend of similar incidents. What will it take to establish that this particular incident happened, or didn't? that similar incidents happened, or didn't? I'm asking that, not rhetorically, but in honest inquiry. As I said, I'm prepared to be persuaded that the incident didn't happen; I'm just not willing to accept statements equivalent to "the Cockburns are all crackpots" as evidence, when there appears to be corroboration. If the story itself has problems, then the many, many facts, or alleged facts, should be checkable. I do hope we get more independent accounts, and I look forward to reading any additional material you may turn up.
Posted by: Steve Bates on October 17, 2003 01:31 AMDo you have the link to the AFP story? Sorry about the slur of the Cockburns. I did more research since then, and yes, I'll admit I was hasty. But I posted about the problems with Riverbend's accounts. They vouch for the trees being cut down, but the Independent story says it's collective punishment, and that's the thing that I'm trying to nail down.
This isn't a debate over whether the thing actually happened, Steve; I'm trying to get something with confirms an illegal policy. So far I've actually read three actual accounts, which I've linked to. All of them describe (what appears to be) the same incident. But the details vary so dramatically I would have a terrible time summarizing them into a single coherent narrative. The motives are different; and there's also the matter of reddress: if the grove was destroyed because it was a security threat, as two sources imply it was, were the owners punished (for cooperating with guerrillas?) or were they offered unacceptable compensation (a common problem under imminent domain issues).
Riverbend's account is poetic and lyrical--as I said when I was trying to publicize it myself, it's moving. But what does it describe?
Posted by: James R MacLean on October 17, 2003 02:58 PMThe quotes attributed to AFP are embedded in the story on IslamOnline, linked upstream in this thread by NTodd here. I don't have a subscription to AFP, and much of their stuff in the past has been behind the subscription wall, so I don't have a direct link. Again, I'm not sure what you consider a source; you'll have to evaluate it for yourself.
This isn't a debate over whether the thing actually happened, Steve; I'm trying to get something with confirms an illegal policy.
I guess that was not my original understanding. I thought we... you, actually... were trying to find out the specifics of the incident. Confirming an illegal policy is of course a reasonable goal, but confirming the basic facts of this or any related incident is also important to me.
Riverbend's account is poetic and lyrical--as I said when I was trying to publicize it myself, it's moving. But what does it describe?
As I understand her post, she describes her personal eyewitness account, not of this incident but of U.S. troops "hacking" palm trees and stacking the remains. Riverbend, 10/14/2003:
Soon after the occupation, many of the palms on these streets were hacked down by troops for ‘security reasons’. We watched, horrified, as they were chopped down and dragged away to be laid side by side in mass graves overflowing with brown and wilting green.
It is possible she watched this on TV; I don't know. Later in the post, she also quotes what someone shouted into a camera about the crushing of an orchard, indicating to me that she saw another incident (perhaps the one we are discussing, perhaps not) on TV.
I regret to learn that writing "poetic and lyrical" text is somehow a bad thing. I've said it before... blogging is not journalism. If only journalists are entitled to write their observations of events, even if those observations are firsthand, then all of us in the blogosphere who are not also journalists may as well hang it up right now.
Hi, Checkout my links!__Phentermine_Meridia_Retin-A_Xenical_Levitra_Prozac_Ambien_Paxil_Propecia_Bontril_Zoloft_Effexor_Soma_Wellbutrin_Celexa_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_VigRX_VigRX_VigRX_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_Viagra
Posted by: Propecia on November 16, 2003 12:39 PMHi, Checkout my links!__Phentermine_Meridia_Retin-A_Xenical_Levitra_Prozac_Ambien_Paxil_Propecia_Bontril_Zoloft_Effexor_Soma_Wellbutrin_Celexa_Viagra
Posted by: Propecia on November 23, 2003 01:54 PMHi, Checkout my links!__Phentermine_Meridia_Retin-A_Xenical_Ambien_Propecia_Bontril_Soma_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_Vig-RX_VigRX_VigRX_VigRX_VigRX_VigRX_ViagraTramadol_Didrex_Valtrex_Adipex_Ionamin_Vioxx
Posted by: Propecia on November 26, 2003 04:30 AM
Zocor Buy Plavix
Buy Advair Buy
Prevacid Buy Casodex
Buy Pravachol Buy
Norvasc Buy Celebrex
Buy Effexor
Buy Vioxx Buy
Diovan Buy Zoloft
Buy Actonel Buy
Paxil Buy Celexa
Buy Claritin Buy
Actos Buy Singulair
Buy Nexium
Buy Mevacor Buy
Biaxin Buy Inderal
Buy Xeloda Buy
Crestor Buy Tenormin/Atenolol
Buy Procardia Buy
Depakote
Buy Toprol Buy
Sinemet Buy Monopril
Buy Glucophage/Metformin
Buy Lotensin Buy
Prozac Buy Topamax
Buy Clarinex Buy
Zyprexa Buy Coreg
Buy Tamoxifen Buy
Lupron Buy Calan
Buy Femara Buy
Soriatane Buy Prinivil
Buy Avalide Buy
Tiazac Buy Cozaar
Buy Ditropan
Buy Hyzaar Buy
Arimidex Buy Wellbutrin
Buy Avandia Buy
Prilosec Buy Premarin
Buy Detrol Buy
Proscar Buy Agrylin
Buy Altace
Buy Fosamax Buy
Tricor Buy Protonix
Buy Neurontin Buy
Lamisil Buy Flomax
Buy
Aciphex Buy Aricept
Buy Evista Buy
Bextra
Canadian Drugs
Canada Drugs
Canadian Pharmacies Posted by: canadian pharmacy on December 12, 2003 07:21 PM
: : : : : : condoms
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online gambling
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :viagra online
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : poker: : casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online roulette
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online gambling
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online slots
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : poker
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : blackjack
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : sports betting
: : : : :
: : : : : : :: : : : : casino links
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino links
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino links
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online casino links
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino links
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : online gambling links
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : casino links
: : : : : : : : : : :
Enlarge your penis now click here: Penis Enlargement
Posted by: Penis Enlargement on December 23, 2003 04:02 PMI found your web site interesting , keep on the good work .
http://www.repondeur.net
repondeurs
Posted by: repondeur on December 26, 2003 02:32 PM
great site!!thanks for the service
Posted by: online casino on December 28, 2003 02:16 PM