Parallels too closely drawn invite intellectual train wrecks, but it might not be too far a reach to connect yesterday’s Supreme Court decision overturning the District of Columbia’s strict handgun control law to our gunpoint involvement with Arab society.

Every Arab civilization since the advent of Islam in the 7th Christian century has been forced to deal with armed tribes. It was the tribes under the leadership of the Umayyad caliphs that turned the Mediterranean into an Arab lake and carried the green banners of Islam into Europe.

But it was also the tribes that toppled many an Arab rule. Sometimes the tribes were Shia, more often Sunni, and sometimes Berber. The impossibility of disarming the tribes posed an exquisite dilemma. On the one hand, the armed tribal Arab was a racial prototype, much like the Scots highlander, the Viking, or our own frontiersman.

When Islam burst out of the Arabian peninsula it was on the horses of tribesmen to whom raiding and hunting was a way of life. But as Muslim rulers came to preside over vast areas and were confronted with the task of governing with an unwieldy bureaucracy they often came into conflict with their own tribes. (more…)

John McCain, who knows a thing or two about the Navy, thinks military recruits should be instructed in our foreign policy. But foreign policies fluctuate with our political EKG, while our national ideals, however soiled they may be by scare tactics, hold fast.

My most memorable experience in Navy boot camp in the early 1950s at Bainbridge, Maryland, was being shown the 1943 film The Ox-Bow Incident, starring Henry Fonda. Each and every one of us knew the United States Navy wanted us to know that a man may be unjustly accused and lynched and that it was up to each of us to stand, like Henry Fonda, against the terroristic atmosphere in which men may be wrongly accused and even executed. (more…)

(This is the transcript of Hot Copy No. 42, my regular pod cast for The Student Operated Press).

Scott McClellan, the former White House spokesman, has written a book confirming some of the public’s worst suspicions about the presidency of George W. Bush. McClellan (inset) says, among other things, the White House lied us into the Iraq war and covered up its role in destroying the career of a CIA undercover agent simply because she was married to a critic of President Bush’s war policies.

Self-righteous critics on the left and the right of the political spectrum immediately accused the once adamant Bush loyalist of being a day late and a dollar short. Why didn’t his conscience bother him when he foisted these lies on the public, his critics ask? Well, conscience isn’t always as hair-triggered as John Wayne in the movies. Sometimes it takes a lot of introspection to accept that you have been part of wrongdoing, that you are part of the problem when you have been posing as part of the solution. (more…)

It’s interesting how eager both the left and the right wings are to pull the trigger on Scott McClellan, the former White House spokesman, who has written a book confirming many of our worst suspicions about the Bush Administration.

If he knew his bosses were lying about Iraq and Valerie Plame, the CIA undercover agent whom they treacherously outed, why didn’t he speak up, save thousands of lives, dollars and damages? That’s what many of his critics of the left and right are yowling. (more…)

Greg Palast, the outré investigative reporter, claims the Iraq war and the subsequent surge are a global swindle— read about it here— a conspiracy of government and industry to pick our pockets and to hell with the future.

How much truth there is in this, if any, remains to be seen. But considering the sheer amount of inconsequential BS fed to us by the media—Barack Obama’s elitism, Hillary Clinton’s abrasiveness, etc—isn’t it a wee bit strange that nobody in the mainstream media even pretends to examine Palast’s contention? Reminds you of how they sat on their hands while the White House lied us into a catastrophic war, doesn’t it?

After all, media gasbags are perfectly willing to waste their time and ours entertaining stupid notions like the McCain-Clinton gas tax holiday or some ditzy celeb’s boringly bad behavior, so what’s their problem giving Palast’s theory a toss? Oh, that would be irresponsible journalism, right? Like yakking about John Edwards’ hair?

And why hasn’t Congress asked him to testify. After all, he was once a congressional investigator.

I don’t always know what to make of Palast. His hopped-up language worries his most serious reports. But we know Enron manipulated California’s power supply, so why is Palast’s notion so unworthy of inquiry? Is it unimaginable that Big Oil would con us? Or is it because the Big Media yakkers, while telling us what a great job they are doing, are doing a job on us? —DM

With Hillary Clinton having recently made like a schoolyard bully, maybe this isn’t the right moment to bring up the issue of misogyny. Or maybe it is.

Anybody who thinks this is a dead-letter issue should take a look at those e-mailed erectile dysfunction advertisements bubbling up from the cesspools of humanity. Their revolting language is full of references to the male member as a weapon. They talk of overpowering, exploding and nailing women. They assure men “their” women will be delighted by this weaponization of sexuality. (more…)

It’s often said our government is a cosmology of checks and balances, and lately it’s often said the Bush Administration has labored mightily to subvert it in favor of executive authority. In nature, too, there seem to be checks and balances that humanity labors mightily to subvert.

I have been wondering lately whether advertising has played the role of the Bush Administration in subverting culture in favor of appearance over content. It seems clear to me that a precariously broad segment of the electorate favors appearance over discourse and slogan over an intricate interplay of facts and ideas. (more…)

—seriously diminished U.S. standing in the world

—diverted “manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers” from “all other efforts in the war on terror”

—severely strained our armed forces

—made Iraq an incubator for terrorism

—emboldened Iran to expand its influence in the region

                        —Conclusions of National Defense Institute

The first rule of the corporado press is to bury the inconvenient story in plain sight, so that’s exactly what the press did last week to the National Defense Institute’s authoritative report calling the Iraq war a “major debacle.”

The press reported the story, to be sure, but then it kept on yakking incessantly about the Pope and Barack Obama’s alleged elitism, and it kept on giving John McCain a free pass regarding his wife’s failure to make public her tax filings and his own medical records, to say nothing of the free pass he can now count on whenever he deliberately confuses the many kinds of insurgents in Iraq with Al Qaeda. (more…)

(This is the transcript of Hot Copy No. 40, Del Marbrook’s regular podcasts for The Student Operated Press)

The most frustrating aspect of journalism is its daily failure to challenge society’s assumptions.

When television reporters say General Motors or Ford have decided to downsize, they say something like, “Heavily unionized General Motors announced a plan to downsize its North American operations this morning.” Notice the anti-union bias. It is assumed that part of GM’s trouble is its unions. There is never a story saying, “Badly managed General Motors…” or “Unimaginative General Motors…”

But that’s hardly the only problem with this kind of knee-jerk reporting. First, it’s not reporting at all, it’s putting a GM press release on the top of a huge stack of assumptions. There is rarely any reportage about huge salaries and bonuses paid to executives for managing their companies poorly or chopping them up and shipping them overseas. There is never any reportage about whether there should be any more obligation in American society to limit profit margins in order to share more with workers. It is presumed that whatever is good for shareholders is good for everyone. And sometimes it is simply assumed that whatever is good for executives is good for the rest of us. These undemocratic assumptions essentially take healthy discussion off the table—and that is their intent. (more…)

Calling for Iraq’s militias to disband, whether it’s our call or the Baghdad government’s, may be like King George or the Continental Congress calling on the states to disband their militias. Lots of luck with that.

Iraq’s separate sects, peoples and provinces have far less in common than the original thirteen states.

Seen in this context, the debate over how long to stay in Iraq looks very different from the debate the press has framed. The picture we’re getting is that if we leave there will be chaos, genocide and further threats to our domestic security, and therefore discussion about leaving is political blather. (more…)