Wikileaks: So What Else Is New?

Latest Newspaper Column:

Recently, the website WikiLeaks engaged in another one of its infamous info-dumps, releasing what it says is a collection of 251,287 State Department documents into the public eye.

Most of the documents are copies of cables that were sent back and forth between Washington and our embassies. Many of them contain, shall we say, less than flattering pictures of the people our diplomats deal with. The juicier ones, in fact, read like notes passed by mean high school girls, but with better vocabularies.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, one cable states, is "feckless, vain and ineffective." The prime minister and defense minister of Kazakhstan are a couple of hard-partying drunks. French President Sarkozy is "impulsive," "mercurial" and surrounded by "yes-men." Libya's Muammar Qaddafi is an eccentric nutcase who never goes anywhere without a voluptuous blonde Ukrainian "nurse."

I read this sort of thing and I have to ask: Is any of this really new information? Qaddafi's a loon, Berlusconi's an empty suit, and Sarkozy's arrogant and impulsive. Oh, and according to another cable, the Afghan government's corrupt. I mean, stop the presses. Everyone who cares already knows this stuff.

Of more interest are revelations about our so-called allies in the Middle East. The good news is that it seems that we're not the only ones worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions. The bad news is that they all seem to want to leave it to us to do something about it.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, according to one cable, urged the U.S. to "cut the head off the snake before it's too late."

Hey, I've got an idea, Your Majesty: You do it. We're kind of busy right now, and the snake's in your backyard. Meanwhile, while we cast about for al-Qaida in Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, it's another well-known "secret" confirmed by these cables that it's the Saudis who are among the biggest, if not the biggest, financiers of terrorism, who hope, according to the leaked documents, that if you give the maniacs enough cash, they'll "leave the House of Saud alone."

Again, this is not really news to anyone who's been paying attention the past few years.

It also appears, much to no one's surprise, that many Middle Eastern leaders can't stand each other. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "hates Hamas" and knows Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, but won't say it because it might "create a dangerous situation" (presumably most dangerous to Mubarak himself).

The above-mentioned King Abdullah says the country of Iraq "is in his heart," but its president, Nouri al-Maliki, is not. As for Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan, grumpy King Abdullah describes him as "rotten."

There have been demands (including, disappointingly, in this very paper) that WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesman Julian Assange be prosecuted. A former adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, went further, suggesting that President Obama "put out a contract" on Assange, and "use a drone or something" to assassinate him. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said the person responsible for the leaks should be executed for "putting national security at risk."

Well, now, let's hold on just a minute here before we fetch the rope.

Assange, to be sure, is an unlikable, pompous twit with an ego so massive it has its own gravitational field. He's under suspicion for rape in Sweden. Also, he has bad hair. There very well may have been a crime committed by whoever released the documents to WikiLeaks. But a capital one? So far, it seems like most of the information released is just embarrassing, not life-threatening or disastrous to our diplomatic efforts.

On a recent trip to Kazakhstan by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Berlusconi and the Kazakh leadership were quick to act as if nothing had happened. The fact is, they might be annoyed, but most world leaders are not going to sulk and jeopardize their own national interests because someone sent a snarky cable about them.

Even Iran's nutball President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off the disrespect as "psychological warfare" by the U.S. and said "such mischief will have no impact on the relations of countries."

Diplomacy has always been the art of negotiating with people you detest and who you know probably detest you, all the while pretending neither of you knows it. As one wit put it, it's the technique of sweetly saying "nice doggie" while looking around for a suitably large rock.

A bunch of leaked cables isn't going to change that.

BSWATs

In my interactions on various online fora, I've noted recurring patterns in so-called "debate" technique among the wingnuts and teatards. I'm collecting and numbering them here so you can recognize them. I refer to them as BSWATs (pronounced 'bee-swats.") The last three letters stand for "Wingnut 'Argument' Techiques." You can figure out what the first two stand for.

1) The simple unsupported contradiction and the repeated assertion of a demonstrably wrong premise as “Fact.” This clip from ”Family Guy” illustrates the technique:




2) A similar technique: dismissing the argument out of hand, without attempt to debate:

"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose."
"That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." (leaves discussion).

3) Ignoring what was said in favor of whining about the way it was said.

Example:
“Of course Kevin Bacon was in Footloose. Here’s the DVD box, you idiot. His name’s right there.”
”You called me a name! You libs don’t have any arguments. All you do is insult people.”

4) Handwaving away any information that contradicts you by dismissing the source out of hand.

“Look, Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose. It says so right here in the Internet Movie Database.”
“IMDB? LOL.”

5) Dragging some irrelevant celebrity bogeyman’s name into the conversation:

“Keith Olbermann thinks Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, too. You sound like Keith Olbermann.” Other names used: Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, George Soros.

6) "Yew thank yer purty smart, don't yew?" Usually expressed sarcastically: “Well, I guess not all of us have your wide expertise about movies. We’re all in awe of your knowledge.”

7) Attempts to change the subject:

“Well, Tom Cruise was in Top Gun and he’s a liberal and he’s crazy!”

8) Projection, or “I know you are, but what am I?” Example:



9) “I’m not your Google monkey”: making a wild and untrue assertion and insisting its the reader's responsibility to back it up for you or to disprove it:

“I know for a fact that Anthony Michael Hall was the star of Footloose.”
“That doesn’t sound right. Can you cite some source that backs that up?”
“I don’t have to back that up. You look it up!”

10) "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Asserting that because you're "entitled to your opinion." that any disagreement is an attempt to stifle your free speech rights.

11) Extreme leaps, often bizarre, usually off-topic:

"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose, not Anthony Michael Hall."
"So you're saying Anthony Michael Hall is a lousy actor and probably a child molester!?"

Watch for these BSWATs . See how many you can tag.

Sorry, Can't Back You Up On This One

Crooks and Liars Calls Sarah Palin A  Traitor

Anyone who reads this blog knows I'm no fan of the Resigning Woman or her belligerent and numerous brood.

But I didn't like it when I was called a "traitor" for criticizing Dubbya, and I don't like it when the Snowbilly Grifter gets the same treatment, even from a blog I agree with 90% of the time.

Treason has a very specific definition and criticizing the President  ain't it. It wasn't treason when I did it, and it isn't when Caribou Barbie does it, no matter how unfairly or stupidly she does it.

Besides, there are so many more accurate things to call the Quitta from Wasilla. "Fuckwit" comes immediately to mind.

Dances With Wingnuts

Latest Newspaper Column

I confess, I've never watched "Dancing With the Stars." The idea of has-been and never-were pseudo-celebrities shaking their booties has just never had that much appeal to me.

Lately, however, it's been impossible to escape the coverage across all forms of media regarding the participation of Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol on the show.

TV viewers and entertainment journalists began noting that Miss Palin and her partner, Mark Ballas, kept surviving the cut despite what the show's pro judges, and many watchers, considered weaker performances. Talk began to circulate that viewers were voting for Bristol not out of any particular appreciation for her terpsichorean talents but out of support for her mother, the Resigning Woman.

Some even suggested that the followers of Mama Grizzly were gaming the voting system, rumors that were fed when right-wing radio host Tammy Bruce organized what she called "Operation Bristol" and the wingnut website HillBuzz noted that, while you had to provide an e-mail address to vote online, you didn't have to provide a real one, which allowed people to vote multiple times.

Nonsense, said the show's producer. DWTS, he claimed, uses "a number of security checks" to prevent voter fraud via the Web, text and phone calls.

Still, some people remained suspicious. One particularly irate viewer actually shot his TV out of frustration, shouting "The politics! The politics!"

I certainly understand his frustration at the politicization of the pure and ancient art of the dance on a show that once featured Steve-O from "Jackass" doing the cha-cha. But I've got to say that there are so many things that are more worth shooting your TV over. Those commercials with the talking mucus, for example.

The Palins themselves fell back on their real talent: not for dancing, but for stirring up resentment and the furious certainty among their supporters that somewhere, somehow, there's someone out there looking down on them. They may not know who or where, by golly, but you could stick a finger in their imaginary eyes by voting for Bristol, who told an interviewer that if she won, "it would be like giving a big middle finger to people who hate my mom and hate me."

Even when Bristol came in third in the final episode, an anonymous writer at Hillbuzz claimed a moral victory, saying: "You drove the left crazy for three months. Score!"

Dudes, I hate to break it to you, but no one on the left even watches "Dancing with the Stars," and we certainly don't have time to get our mad on about whether or not one of the numerous progeny of the Quitta From Wasilla took home the trophy.

We're too busy figuring out new and fiendish ways to turn your children into Muslims, force them to marry gay abortionists, ban everything from the American diet except tofu and alfalfa sprouts, and destroy capitalism. (That was a joke, people.)

The Palins and the folks at Hillbuzz were only expressing one of the highest ideals of modern conservatism, to wit: Talent doesn't matter. Competence doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters is annoying liberals. If no actual liberals are involved in the issue, then think about what will annoy the liberals you've made up in your head.

It's the same principle that occasionally motivates some idiot to loudly proclaim that he's going to drive a big SUV and eat a steak, not because he likes those things, but "to make liberals angry." The steak and SUV industries appreciate it, and so do the cardiologists and the oil companies. The rest of us just wish you'd get the heck over yourself, when we bother to think about you at all, which isn't often.

But while I've got their attention, let me just say: You know what would really annoy me? If everyone had affordable health care. That would make me absolutely livid. A sane policy for fighting terrorism that guaranteed that terrorist criminals would face trials and that respected the Bill of Rights? That would really make me mad, too.

Dignity and basic rights for people who love differently from me, including the right to serve openly in the military and the right to marry? That would raise my blood pressure something fierce. A tax policy that gave relief to the middle class and made sure millionaires, billionaires and mega-corporations paid their fair share toward keeping this country running? Man, my head might explode from sheer rage.

Get to it, folks. Make me mad.

Poor Baby

Palin attacks media over coverage of North Korea gaffe

Seems that the most thin-skinned politician in the US today has her knickers in the usual twist over how MEAN people are being to her because she slipped up on Glenn Beck's show and said North Korea was our ally.

Now, a normal person would just laugh it off and go , "Heh, yeah, I misspoke." Not the Resigning Woman, who never misses a chance to stir up resentment and anger among her supporters over how her delicate feelings are hurt. And, of course, she's gone to the old "Obama did it too!" counterattack.

Yeah, Sarah, the President has made a few stumbles, like the time he said during the campaign that he'd been to "fifty-seven" states.

Yes, I cut Obama some slack for a simple slip of the tongue, and you know what? I'd do the same for you, if you and your wingnut dimwit brigade hadn't been clamoring for two years that that slip really meant that Obama doesn't really know how many states there are, or that he meant Islamic states and that that showed he really IS a Secret Mooslim. Or something.

So you can just suck it up, dear. Sauce for the goose, etc.

I cannot WAIT for this woman to run for President. The meltdown is going to be EPIC.

Finally, Enough

Latest Newspaper Column:

After the terrible events of 9/11, airline passengers found that their baggage was subject to greater scrutiny.

Things that were previously allowed on airplanes, including such deadly implements of war as nail clippers, were being confiscated at the gates by the newly formed Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). A few people grumbled, but there wasn't any serious resistance. After all, it was in the name of security.

After an odd-looking goomer named Richard Reid tried and failed to bring down an airplane with a bomb hidden in his shoe, airline passengers had to remove their shoes and put them into a grimy plastic tub to be x-rayed if they wanted to get on the plane. A few people grumbled, but there wasn't any serious resistance. After all, it was in the name of security.

After another set of screwups tried and failed to bring down an airplane with liquid explosives, airline passengers had to bring any liquids in little tiny containers sealed in little tiny plastic bags. A few people grumbled, but there wasn't any serious resistance. After all, it was in the name of security.

After yet another loser tried and failed to bring down an airplane with explosives hidden in his undershorts, airline passengers were given a choice: They could walk through a "full-body scanner," which showed everything under their clothes, or they could go through what was called an "enhanced pat-down."

Now, after all this time, people are doing more than grumbling. They're getting downright angry.

It started with the pilot's unions, who began to advise their members not to expose themselves repeatedly to the radiation from the so-called "backscatter" or "millimeter wave" scanners, which they regarded with suspicion, even though the manufacturer insists that the additional radiation is no worse than what they get from a few minutes at cruising altitude.

Let me just stop for a moment and pose a question to the readership which no one has yet been able to answer for me: Why the heck are we screening the pilots for weapons anyway? Are we afraid they'll seize control of the plane? I mean, if a pilot really wants to kill all the passengers and himself, he's not going to need to hold a box cutter to his own throat to do it.

But I digress.

Passengers also expressed distrust of the scanners, not just for the radiation, but out of a suspicion that TSA employees might be getting their jollies from watching their nekkid bodies as they pass through. Having seen the ghostly quality of the images, I actually find it a little hard to believe that anyone could find them arousing, but, you know, there are some really strange people out there.

The Internet and the airwaves are full of stories of people, including children as young as 3, having their intimate areas aggressively poked, grabbed and squeezed by ham-handed TSA officials who don't even buy you dinner first, let alone send flowers the next day.

Finally, it seems, American airline travelers have had enough.

A video of a passenger declaring to a TSA employee, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" went viral. A passenger's-rights organization declared the day before Thanksgiving "National Opt Out" day, suggesting that people bring the airports to a standstill on the busiest day of the year by demanding en masse that they be given the "enhanced pat down." More whimsical protesters have suggested showing up in the airport in a Speedo or a kilt (sans underwear).

Meanwhile, a Senate subcommittee began hearings this past week on the new policies, during which Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill immediately wedged her foot in her mouth up to the kneecap when she dismissed the "enhanced" searches as "love pats."

I, for one, am glad to see more Americans finally questioning the TSA and the increasingly ridiculous demands of what security expert Bruce Schneier has dubbed "security theater" - measures that claim to provide enhanced safety but do little or nothing toward actually doing so.

And it only took having the government try to look under their clothes or grope their unmentionables to get them to do it. Hey, it's a start.