Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The Lounge: Trollilicious and Now What?

What a day its been.  What a year its been.  The end of a disastrous reign is over.

As the world takes a collective sigh, I have had the pleasure of perusing teh intertoobs.  And it seems like the old dogs haven’t learned any new tricks.  The same old trolls are back to their usual debauchery.  Which leads one to wonder – why?

We have had a couple of interesting theories.  Is it Malwebolence?

The trolls employed what the M.I.T. professor Judith Donath calls a “pseudo-naïve” tactic, asking stupid questions and seeing who would rise to the bait. The game was to find out who would see through this stereotypical newbie behavior, and who would fall for it. As one guide to trolldom puts it, “If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.”

Or maybe the Broken Window Theory?

Why aren’t some people able to have a discussion about the merits of a candidate, or strengths and weaknesses of a specific strategy without getting personal or mean about it?

Are the stakes really so low in some parts of the blogosphere, that people feel the need to be nasty about everything?

Short answer.

Yes.

For many people, flaming and hostility are the only reasons to get online.

These are folks who suffer from a chronic case of assholicism.

Trolls.

troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

It’s much easier to criticise and inflame than it is to be creative and stimulating.

No matter what the topic – these trolls can’t help but flame.  It’s sad really.  Either way though – its been a great day.  This morning I looked at my baby as I was watching the inauguration and thought – wow, you were born in the year that Obama was elected president.  Change has come.

The era of hope and brains has begun.  Take that trolls!

Reminder: A Corrupt Media.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg)

In recognition of the last hours of a disastrous 8 years and for some in the media the continual excusing of Bush and his ‘legacy’, I thought that I would pull out an old diary, dust it off and hopefully we can all be reminded about the total failure on the part of the media in its appeasement of Georgie.

Originally posted on 6/18/08

As some will note I have written several diaries now on the failure of the fourth estate during this primary season.  The reactions to these pieces were mixed from agreement, indifference and denial of any bias in the coverage.  But with the recent feeding frenzy of the press in response to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book – nothing could be clearer: A CORRUPT MEDIA HAS FAILED.

Amongst other things, McClellan’s asserts that the media’s failings are primarily responsible for the rush to war in Iraq and complicit in enabling the Bush administration.

And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it… the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth–about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict–would get largely left behind…

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should have never come as such a surprise. The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam Hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so because their focus was elsewhere–on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war.

He goes on to blame a liberal media bias, but that’s a whole other story.  PBS’s Bill Moyers devoted an entire show in April 2007, entitled Buying the War to answering the questions of a complicit media.

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored. How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?

But what’s more interesting about the fallout of this book is the sudden Mea Culpa by some members of the press.


Katie Couric:

“… I’ll start by saying I think he’s fairly accurate. Matt, I know when we were covering it–and granted, the spirit of 9/11, people were unified and upset and angry and frustrated. But I do think we were remiss in not asking some of the right questions. There was a lot pressure from the Bush White House. I remember doing an interview and the press secretary called our executive producer and said, `We didn’t like the tone of that interview.’ And we said, `Well, tough. We had to ask some of these questions.’ They said, `Well, if you keep it up, we’re going to block access to you during the war.’ I mean, those kind of strong-arm tactics were really…

CNN’s Jessica Yellin on 360:

Yellin: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.  I think, over time —

Cooper: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

Yellin: Not in that exact — they wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

Washington Post’s Dana Milbank::

Of course he’s right.  We didn’t do as much as we could have and the fact of the matter is we did raise these questions.  And I mean I guess what Scott`s just saying in a backwards way there is they were just doing a particularly good job of keeping the facts out of the public domain.

What’s worse is as Eric Boehlert points out, the warning signs were provided by Senator Edward Kennedy, who largely was ignored by the press.

Specifically, back in September 2002, with the Bush administration and much of the Beltway media rushing to embrace war with Iraq, Kennedy delivered a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about a possible invasion. Unlike today, the political press wasn’t very interested in Kennedy or what he had to say about the most pressing issue facing the nation. Back in that media environment, being the voice of American liberals didn’t mean much.

So what is the moral of the story?


Boehlert puts it best “let’s not forget that it wasn’t that long ago that the media did their best to ignore what Kennedy had to say. And when it ignored Kennedy, and when it ignored the voice of liberals, the press — and the country — paid a dear price.”

Halfway to a Ceasefire! [UPDATED]

Israel called off its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, saying Hamas was “badly beaten,” but Hamas vowed to fight on.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s statement, the unilateral ceasefire went into effect at 2 a.m Sunday local time (7 p.m. EST). The military warned in a statement early Sunday that further Hamas attacks “will be met with a harsh response.’  Within minutes of the ceasefire announcement, several missiles struck southern Israel.  

If Hamas holds its fire, the military “will weigh pulling out of Gaza at a time that befits us,” Olmert said. If not, Israel “will continue to act to defend our residents.”  Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni indicated that Israel would renew its offensive if Hamas militants continued to fire rockets at Israel.

Israel’s insistence on keeping troops in Gaza raises the specter of a stalemate with Hamas, which has insisted that it will not respect any ceasefire until Israel pulls out of the territory.

In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman in hiding, Fawzi Barhoum, said in a statement from Damascus that “we will not accept the presence of a single soldier in Gaza,” according to Agence-France Presse. “The Zionist enemy must stop all its aggression, completely withdraw from the Gaza Strip, lift the blockade and open the crossings.”

Beyond the potential for an effective end to heavy fighting on Sunday, the shape of any lasting peace was far from clear.  The length of Israel’s occupation of Gaza has now been put in the hands of Hamas. The Israeli government says it will not sign any deal with Hamas, which is committed to Israel’s destruction and whose rule over Gaza the Israelis do not want to recognize. But Hamas is seen as likely to reassert political control over Gaza.

Olmert said the ceasefire plan responded to an appeal from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has been at the spearhead of international diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.

The summit set for Sunday in Egypt is meant to give international backing to the ceasefire. Leaders of Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Italy, Turkey and the Czech Republic – which holds the rotating EU presidency – are expected to attend along with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and U.N. chief Ban.

What is Going on in Turkey?

(cross posted at kickin it with cg)

In recent years, Turkey has been regarded as being a moderate nation in the Middle East with regard to both Israel and the West.  Israel and Turkey’s ‘special’ relationship has gone even further with both countries forging close security ties and Turkey even seeking to develop a role as a mediator between Israel and its enemies.

But now it would appear that an outpouring of grassroots anger over Israel’s Gaza operation has rocked that special relationship and there are some alarming signs in its wake.  

For context, Turkey abolished Islamic Law some 80 years ago, and has been proud of its secular tradition, but now, a large and growing group is calling for its return. Anti-Semitic sentiment was recently fueled when its ‘moderate’ Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declared: “Allah’s punishment for Israel’s inhumane actions will lead to its destruction.”

The week-end before, some people wrote, “We will kill you” on the door of one of the biggest synagogues in Izmir resulted in the closing down of synagogues. Near Istanbul University, a group put a huge poster on the door of a shop owned by a Jew: “Do not buy from here, since this shop is owned by a Jew.” A group put posters on his wall saying that: “Jews and Armenians are not allowed but dogs are allowed.” Some young people are even threatening others with violence if they are seen as pro-Israel in social networking websites such as Facebook and Hi5.

As of late, Turkish society has exploded with an influx of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric, this included billboards being posted with anti-Israel and anti-Jewish expressions. Private firms are also posting anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish statements on their Websites. Bardak, a Turkish company which manufactures custom coffee mugs for Toshiba, HSBC, Cargill, Acer and Canon, has a phrase across its front page: “JEWS YOU ARE GOING TO PAY EVERYTHING THAT YOU ARE COMMITTING.”

Some Turkish commentators have said Erdogan’s rhetoric smacked of anti-Semitism, but the prime minister rejected the accusation.

“Neither myself, nor my government, nor anyone from my party has ever given any premium to anti-Semitism,” he said. “I am a leader who has said anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity.”

Whatever Erdogan’s intentions are or your opinion is on the conflict in the Middle East – those signs have to give you the chills, chills, chills.

Movement? [UPDATED]

(cross posted at kickin it with cg)

Today has been an optimistic day with regard to furthering peace in the Middle East.  First, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called for a week-long ceasefire in Gaza to allow humanitarian assistance into the strip.

This did not go over well.  Officials close to the outgoing Olmert blasted Barak.  “The remarks constitute a lack of national responsibility,” the officials said. “Ministers speaking to the media about the conduct of the war touching on cease-fire initiatives are very grave.”

Reports emerged that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was avoiding a meeting with his two key ministers in order to allow the military operation to continue.  Olmert was not planning to convene the war cabinet overnight so as to again avoid confronting the issue with the ministers, both of whom support a ceasefire.

Then later Hamas has agreed in principle to the Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire but is still demanding clarifications on a number of issues.

An Israeli envoy will meet Egyptian mediators in Cairo tomorrow after a Hamas delegation concludes talks on an Egyptian truce proposal.

Olmert told Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos that he wanted to bring the operation in the Gaza Strip to an end if Hamas agreed to the Egyptian proposal.

At the crux of the cooperation agreement between Israel and the U.S. is supervision to halt the smuggling of arms from Iran, through the Persian Gulf to Sudan and other countries, and finally to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The director general of the Foreign Ministry, Aharon Abramowitz, will meet with State Department officials Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Hale in Washington today, as well as officials from the White House, Defense Department and U.S. intelligence agencies, in an effort to reach a written guarantee that the United States will act more extensively against the smuggling.

If an agreement is formulated, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will travel to Washington to sign the agreement.

These seem like positive signs to me, although it seems that majority of both the Israeli and US public do support the Israeli military operation in Gaza.  Maybe this will change with an end of the hostilities.

Let’s all hope for a end on the attacks in the coming days and for an Obama administration to bring on an era of peace in the Middle East.

The Lounge: Creepy Crawlies & Other Follies From a Flawed Blogger.

Today something creepy happened to me…  But I’ll get to that in a minute – but first I guess I should give a bit of context.  Since I began blogging in the spring, I have generally been quite private and a bit of a recluse when it has come to sharing personal information.  Call me paranoid, but it just one of my ‘things.’

Anyway – this brings me to the creepy crawlies.  Today, someone at another blog cut out a snippet of one of my comments here and posted it at another blog.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, but part of that comment included a bit of personal information that I felt quite uncomfortable sharing elsewhere.

So I have decided to share some information about me. I:



my foot

-Have a serious affinity for lower case

-Smoke

-Eat way, way to much candy

-Drive an Volvo SUV

-Spend way too much time blogging

-Can be ditzy

-Love trashy TV

There’s more of course but since I’m private… Well…

Which I guess the point for me is that the Moose is my safe place.  So for those of you, the charter, long-time and new users – lurkers:  Look for me in the corner with a martini and a french pedi.

Broken Telephone in the Hyper Media-Age.

Throughout the day today I was reminded of my junior kindergarten days.  Namely of playing broken telephone. Remember the game?  Well basically –  the first player whispers a phrase or sentence to the next player. Each player successively whispers what that player believes he or she heard to the next. The last player announces the statement to the entire group. Errors typically accumulate in the retellings, so the statement announced by the last player differs significantly, and often amusingly from the one uttered by the first.

Which brings us to today, first people around the internet, and specifically in the blogosphere were shrieking from the rafters that Israel was using Depleted Uranium in Gaza then later this became accusations of Phosphorus Gas.  So I decided to investigate this further.

Here is what I found:

Richardson to withdraw as Commerce Secretary!

NBC is reporting that:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.

“Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact,” he said Sunday in a report by NBC News. “But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.”

He said he plans to continue in his role as governor. “I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country.”

Have I missed something????  Or is this out-of-left field?

"And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."

When President-Elect Obama visited the southern Israeli city of Sderot in July, he was visibly shaken by what he saw: “The Qassam rockets fired by Hamas deliberately and indiscriminately target civilians,” Obama said. “This terror is intolerable. Israelis should not have to live in terror in their own homes and schools.”

After visiting the hospital bed of two brothers injured by such an attack – one of whom an 8-year-old, who lost his leg as a result – Obama added: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do anything to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Obama is absolutely correct. Israel has the right and the duty, to put a stop to the threat posed by Hamas – an Iranian-backed Jihadist militia – to its citizens. A just and proportionate Israeli response is one that strives to eliminate Hamas’ ability to carry out attacks against Israel. No more, but also no less.  

Israel is portrayed as the big bully using an inappropriate level of force against a vastly inferior foe. This is how it is reported and is therefore the way that it is perceived. Little coverage goes to the 10 or 15 missiles or more a day fired at Israel, only the response.  But since April 2001, Israelis have been the target of nearly 8,000 rockets and mortar shells.

Usually people living within a 15-mile radius of Gaza have under 20 seconds to find shelter once a “code red” alarm is sounded. Sometimes a missile slips through Israel’s warning system, depriving civilians of the opportunity to scramble for safety.  The latest missiles launched into Israel have a range of around 25 miles and have been used to attack Beersheba. It should be noted that over half a million Israelis (10% of its population) live within range of these new, more powerful BM-21 Grad missiles.

Which brings us to today:

A Timeline of the Current Crisis-War as per Reuters.

June 19 – A truce begins between Hamas and Israel. It calls for Hamas to stop cross-border rocket fire and for Israel to gradually ease its embargo on Gaza.

Aug 2 – Factional fighting kills three Hamas policemen and six pro-Fatah gunmen in the Gaza Strip in the worst fighting since June 2007.

Nov. 5 – Hamas fires dozens of rockets at Israel after Israeli forces kill six Palestinian militants in an eruption of violence that has disrupted the four-month-old truce.

Dec. 14 – Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal is quoted as saying the group will not renew the six-month-old truce with Israel.

December 18 – Hamas Islamists declare the end of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel which expires the next day with a surge of cross-border fighting.

December 24 – Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip ratchet up rocket fire toward Israel.

December 27 – Israel launches air strikes on Gaza in response to almost daily rocket and mortar fire that intensified after Hamas ended the six-month ceasefire.

December 28 – Hamas says an Israeli air strike destroys a laboratory building at the Islamic University, a significant cultural symbol of Hamas.

— Israeli aircraft bomb some 40 smuggling tunnels in the Gaza Strip that provide a lifeline to the outside world.

December 29 – Israel steps up its air strikes and bombs the Hamas-run Interior Ministry, the first air strike targeting a government building in the offensive.

— Israel declares areas around the Gaza Strip a “closed military zone.”

— Palestinian militants fire rockets deeper into southern Israel.

December 30 – Israeli warplanes press on for the fourth day with attacks on Hamas targets.

— Palestinian casualties since December 27 are 348 dead and more than 800 wounded. A U.N. agency says at least 62 of the dead are civilians.

— Three Israeli civilians and a soldier have been killed by Palestinian rockets since the air strikes began.

— Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum urges Palestinian groups to respond using “all available means” against Israel.

— Israel says its attacks herald “long weeks of military action.”

December 31 – Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh tells Palestinians that “victory is near.”

— Emergency session of U.N. Security Council to consider resolution drafted by Arab countries calling for immediate cease-fire adjourns without a vote.

January 1 – Israel kills Nizar Rayyan, a hardline Hamas leader, in an air attack on his Gaza Strip home.

— Palestinian casualties since December 27 are 412 dead and about 1,850 wounded. A U.N. agency says about a quarter of the dead are civilians.

— Three Israeli civilians and a soldier have been killed by Palestinian rockets since the air strikes began.

January 2 – No sign of a cease-fire on the seventh day of the conflict, with at least 429 Palestinians killed and 2,000 wounded, but a Palestinian official says that Egypt had begun exploratory talks with Hamas to halt the bloodshed.

January 3 – An air strike on a mosque kills 11 Palestinian civilians and wounds dozens, as Israeli tanks and troops wait on the border for a possible ground offensive. Palestinian death toll rises to at least 446.

Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005, removing not only its soldiers but all Israeli settlements, despite bitter resistance from the settlers and their political allies. At great political, financial and security cost to itself, Israel removed every soldier and every single civilian from Gaza, hoping that disengagement would reduce friction, spur economic development and provide a model for peace that could be extended to the West Bank. Israel was not alone in this hope. The United States, United Nations, European Union, World Bank, the Arab League and a thousand nongovernmental organizations were poised to help Gazans build prosperity, freedom and peace. What was the response?   Delivering a Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections.  Hamas – the organization that is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, the United States and is banned in Jordan, Australia and the United Kingdom.

If Hamas, with total power in Gaza, had been willing to concentrate its energies on the economic development of the region and cease cross-border attacks, the Israeli government and public would have been much more willing to make a similar withdrawal from the West Bank where the majority of Palestinians live. We could have been seeing, by now, the birth of a new Palestinian state.  But I digress…

Despite the tragic deaths of civilians, Israeli’s airstrikes have been precisely aimed at Hamas fighters, installations and rocket launchers. Inevitably, the use of force causes injury and death to innocents, but from initial figures announced by U.N. personnel, it appears that more than 80% of those killed were Hamas security personnel or other militants – a ratio that might compare favourably with the use of force by NATO troops in Afghanistan.  Israel has chosen its targets carefully, pursuing terrorist training camps and rocket storage facilities, and has used precision missiles to minimize civilian casualties.

Hamas has even admitted, most of the dead are terrorists.

This stands in stark contrast to Hamas’ own conduct. By using heavily populated Gaza as a launching pad for its attacks and deliberately placed weapons factories and training centers in and around such civilian areas, Hamas is guilty of a double war crime. Not only does it target Israeli schools and hospitals, it also uses Palestinian women and children as human shields.  

The cumulative effect on those who have had to endure such assaults is devastating, but seldom reported in the American – let alone Arab – press. Unlike Al-Jazeera, Israeli media shy away
from inflammatory journalism, and the Israeli public tends to deal with the consequences of Hamas’ attacks with introverted dignity, not photogenic rage. Israel is unfairly condemned for defending itself because the court of public opinion tends to be presented only with evidence of Israel’s retaliation, not with its cause – Hamas’ aggression.

As well – it must be understood that the timing of this conflict is fundamentally linked to three elections. Israel faces a general election in February; Iran will choose its next president in June; and Obama becomes president in about two weeks.  As has been noted:

But the Israeli government’s objectives are not just to influence Hamas. They are equally anxious to influence Israeli public opinion. Israel is a genuine democracy. It is due to have a general election on February 10. If that election results in Tzipi Livni as prime minister with Ehud Barak, the Labour leader and former prime minister, as her deputy, the peace process has a serious prospect of getting somewhere. The attacks on Hamas are already helping Livni and Barak in the opinion polls. The international community might not approve, but if we wish to see a Palestinian state in the foreseeable future this is likely to be the best route.

An Israeli government re-elected just 21 days after President Obama takes office would create an unprecedented opportunity to relaunch the peace process. George W. Bush only seriously engaged in the issue in his last year in the presidency, when his authority was disintegrating. Obama is likely to have eight years of power ahead of him and will carry more weight with both Israelis and Arabs than any previous president for many years.

Having Hilary Clinton as his Secretary of State is an additional asset. She is a powerful figure in her own right, well thought of in Jerusalem, and respected by the Palestinians. If the new US administration is willing to engage and help guarantee any successful negotiations, the Middle East could at last turn a vital corner.

Finally, there is the Iranian dimension. Iran may not be a proper democracy but no one can predict whether Ahmadinejad will get a second term in June or be ousted by a moderate opponent. If he goes, much of his rhetoric on liquidating Israel will go with him. A peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear aspirations would also be more likely, especially as Obama has promised a serious dialogue with Iran to try to meet its security concerns. If the United States, under Bush, has been able to do a deal with Gadaffi’s Libya then a new relationship with Iran, brokered by Obama, is not inconceivable.

So the stakes are high. An Israeli-Palestinian peace will not ensure, as is sometimes asserted, that Iran will become peace-loving, that al-Qaeda will disband or that terrorism will be a thing of the past. But no one can doubt that Israel-Palestine, Iran and terrorism are linked both in the political psychology of the Middle East and in the strategy of many Western governments.

Stopping Hamas launching missiles at Israeli civilian communities will not ensure peace nor an independent Palestine. But Israel will never concede a Palestinian state unless the Palestinians provide an absolute guarantee of an end to hostilities by all Palestinian parties.

As for the rest of us who watch by the sidelines, we can only hope for peace, understanding and that people don’t play hard and loose with the facts.