Scare Tactics

From the New York Times today:

President Bush accused Senator John Kerry today of engaging in "shameless scare tactics" by suggesting that the president would weaken the Social Security program for older Americans and would reinstate the military draft.

In an interview with The Associated Press en route to a New Jersey campaign appearance, Mr. Bush accused Mr. Kerry of "trying to scare our seniors," adding, "It is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls." The president is to travel later to Florida, whose large number of retirees makes the fate of Social Security a particularly sensitive issue.



This from a guy whose VP practically promised a terrorist attack should John Kerry be elected. Go figure.

A Few Thoughts On The Vice-Presidential Debate

Exhillarating! That's how I'd describe this one. Edwards was nothing short of brilliant, and if Kerry can do what Edwards did tonight, then there is no doubt in my mind that John Kerry will win this election.

To begin with, Edwards was sharp, focused and never missed a beat or an opportunity to address and rebut Cheney. He was effective and thorough on foreign policy and was convincing and firm on domestic issues. More importantly in the eyes of the media though, he was bright and confident. These qualities were in sharp contrast to Dick Cheney who was not only unfocused, but frankly effete. Toward the end of the debate, Dick Cheney seemed as if he wanted to give up,and during several of the 30 second rebuttals, Cheney said little or nothing at all! To me, this debate symbolized the beginning of the end for the Bush administration. So raise your glass up on high and make a toast to regime change in Washington!

The Problems With Torture

The ball has really gotten rolling here at Le Penseur. Today Brian Samek, resident dissenter and skeptic (not to mention hard-working NYU undergrad), has a contribution for us.


Those who support the "Rumsfeld-approved torture" are fond of arguing that, in times of crisis, we must sacrifice our (or rather, those dirty Arabs must sacrifice their) civil rights. They brush aside those who argue that human beings have certain inalienable rights, that there is some minimum standard of human dignity we must uphold. They criticize this position by claiming that it is not "practical" and that we must focus on the "bottom line." The irony is that they, in their support of torture, have completely missed the very obvious "bottom line."

Torture is an unreliable, ineffective, inefficient method for extracting information.

And, because I can't put it any better than Amnesty USA: "Mistreatment of an individual plants seeds of resentment and anger in the individual and his family, friends and community, and thus any government-sanctioned torture here is certain to generate more embittered opponents of the US."

So, then, why do we continue torture?

I think the following song by Xiu Xiu explains it second best (perhaps a brief essay on the psychology of primitive tribes with references to the Stanford Prison Experiment would be better):

(begin song)
Did you know you were going to shoot
off the top of a four year old girl's head
And look across her car-seat down into her skull
And see into her throat and did you know
that her dad would say to you,
"Please sir, can I take her body home?"
Oh wait, you totally did know... that that would happen
Cuz you're a jock who was too stupid and too greedy
And too unmotivated to do anything else but still be
The biggest and still do what other people tell you to do
You did it to still be a winner
You shot your grenade launcher into peoples windows and
Into the doors of peoples houses why should I care if
you get killed?
(end song)

It seems to me that it's too easy to bury our natural human feelings of solidarity and compassion - especially, as Ben so astutely observes, when the Armed Forces are the most logical economic option for many in the lower classes.

Brian Samek, New York City

Bias?

John, in a recent comment, mentioned Bias, Bernard Goldberg's book. The book got a lot of attention, but unfortunately for those bent on proving the existence of a liberal media, the book contains NO credible evidence of one. For a more detailed analysis, see Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media?, or check him out at whatliberalmedia.com.

More Damning Evidence of a Liberal Media

I just got through reading the comment posted by "Nemesis" regarding our recent discussion of the media. Let's take a look.

"The Media Research Center has fully documented the "liberal" bias in the NY Times, not just in the editorials, but in the wording of the articles themselves and the slant the headlines take on a news story.Couple good websites:http://www.timeswatch.org/http://www.mrc.org/Both are run by "conservative" leaning people, but the facts can't be disputed, they are right there in the NYtimes' print, you can't slant reality".

"Nemesis" makes some pretty tansparent errors in his analysis of this one. I visited both sites "Nemesis" suggested, and what I discovered seemed more satirical than any sort of serious scholarship.

Firstly, timeswatch.org was simply a collection of New York Times articles read subjectively by, as "Nemesis" admits, conservatives. There was nothing sound in them to show a consistent "liberal" bias. Secondly, mrc.org was perhaps even easier to debunk. What it cites as "evidence" of a "liberal" media is little more than a series of opinion polls that reveal that the public percieves the media as liberal. That's hardly a surprise considering the existence of groups like mrc.org as well as the multitude of conservative commentators who are dedicated to proving a "liberal" media. Opinion polls aren't anything more than a reflection of what people think, not what has been systematically demonstrated through sociologically credible research.

"Nemesis" should look for some real evidence to back up his claims, but I think that it's probably much harder to find than the fake stuff.

Musings on the Media

In his contribution yesterday, Aarron Berg lamented the increasingly polarized media in this country. Berg writes, "...partisanship in the news media has descended to a deplorable level. Accusations and credibility attacks have overwhelmed the ability to have healthy intra and inter publication debates. A no-man’s land has developed between the New York Times and the National Review". Certainly, I agree with the assertion that healthy, political debate has degenerated. How else could we enter into an enormouosly popular war, only to realize later that many of the reasons for going were dubious assumptions at best? However, I disagree with Beg's diagnosis of the origins of this degeneration.

Berg identifies a "no-man's land between the New York TImes and the National Review". But this view assumes that the New York Times is a liberally biased newspaper. Where is the evidence to back this claim up? Some consider the Times's liberal bias so obvious that to actually collect data to support the assertion would be redundant. But the truth is there is no comprehensive body of evidence to corborate the accusation. The same holds true for other cries of a liberal mainstream media. No evidence exists to support the claims. Futhermore, why compare the National Review, a conservative opinion journal, to the New York TImes, a newspaper? A much more apt comparison would be between the the Times and the Wall Street Journal or The Nation and the National Review.

For sure there is a discernable conservative media as well as a liberal one. The Nation, for example, is a liberal magazine, the National Review a conservative one. However, news media coming from a specific political perspective make up a small percent of news outlets and attarct a relatively small percent of the public. In light of this fact, it is silly to blame increasing polarization for the degeneration in national political debate. In fact, one would think that increased polarization would lead to sharper arguments.

Clearly then, we must find a better explanation for the degeneration in national political debate. I suggest the mainstream news media's apathy has led to an un or misinformed public that shares the same sense of apathy. The New York Times's poor coverage of the lead up to the Iraq War only hurt the quality of national discussion. Other news sources contributed to the problem, and a majority of the population belived that many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi even though none were. It's pretty hard to have a discussion if you don't even have accurate information in front of you. Believe me, I've tried. Consistently, mainstream media outlets are more concerned with ratings than with accurate information, this has led to less thorough coverage of important issues and has left us with the shrillness of debate shows like Crossfire.

National political debate is struggling because there's nothing in the mainstream media to hold it up. The media is failing its democratic obligation to keep the public informed and aware of important political issues. Berg should focus his energy not on "finding" a journal or paper that maintains a balanced, measured coverage of the issues but rather he should demand that the mainstream media perform its proper role in a political democracy.

The West Coast Checks In...

I'm glad to say that we've got our first contribution from Stanford student Aaron Berg. Read and enjoy!

As I sat reading my Economist, I was stuck with an obscene ethical paradox. As I felt good about myself for reading journals, newspapers and magazines that are highly respected and influential, I felt uninformed and guilty for not reading journals that I consider to be Republican propaganda. I don’t respect them, but I feel like they are the “other side” of the argument, and, to be a balanced thinker, I am obligated to read them. Yet every moment I do read them is a moment I am hurting myself, absorbing logical fallacies and misrepresentations that many of my more liberal favorites have illustrated.

The crux of this paradox is that partisanship in the news media has descended to a deplorable level. Accusations and credibility attacks have overwhelmed the ability to have healthy intra and inter publication debates. A no-man’s land has developed between the New York Times and the National Review. Journalists who try to tread in the grey areas of partisanship are either sucked or pushed into the black or the white. Members on either side of the void dismiss the others as being biased, being misguided, or, worst, flat-out lying.

To a certain extent international publications like the aforementioned Economist fill the void, but in the end it’s not the same. International perspectives are interesting, but they are not the same as the legitimate national perspectives that must exist, but are suffocated by the war between the right and the left. Even in the policy discussions I chance into, I can get inklings of two legitimate perspectives, but, as the debate heats up, I feel an unfortunate duty to form ranks and win one for the liberals. As my loyalty rears, I bristle with an us-versus-them mentality that I despise despite being vulnerable to.

As my thinking develops, I try to stifle my polarizing emotions while slowly working through the paradox of partisanship. I will not allow myself to become one-sided by surrounding myself solely with like-minded thinkers. Neither will I waste my time reading unsubstantiated poison in the interest of fairness. Somewhere there must be some panacea of a publication that thoughtfully and carefully represents the other side. Somewhere there must be a forum for aligned and unaligned writers to work through nuanced solutions to our society’s challenges. And sometime, sooner or later, I am going to discover it.

-Aaron Berg, Palo Alto, California

Debates

George W. Bush has agreed to two debates with John Kerry this fall. The first is to revolve around domestic issues and the second to focus on international issues. However, the president has declined a third debate with Kerry. This is John Kerry's golden opportunity. With the American death toll in Iraq reaching a thousand this week, Kerry must implore the president to participate in a third debate or at least bring Bush's unwillingness to debate to the public's attention. He needs to articulate the importance of national discussion at such a precarious time in the American political landscape. John Kerry only stands a chance at winning this November if he can make the American people see the incompetence that has guided American foreign policy during the last four years. He must make clear to the public that a president uninterested in national discussion isn't really interested in the people he presides over. If Kerry can clearly show that this election is a decision between competence and incompetence, responsibility and irresponsibilty, he stands a good at becoming this country's next president.

P.S. I just wanted to share the fact that Le Penseur broke the story on the bombings in Be'er Sheva, Israel before even the New York Times! We look forward to hearing much more from Eli.

And We're Back!

This post marks the begining of phase II of Le Penseur. We're now going to be publishing a number of posts routinely on an array of political and cultural subjects by an array of authors from around the globe! Today we're going to hear from Eli Cohn-Wein, a student spending his year in Israel. Eli will keep us updated on Israeli and Mid-East affairs. Other contributors include Dave Hererra, a student at Bowling Green University in Ohio. Dave studies pop culture at Bowling Green and plans to keep us updated on music and television. Aaron Berg, a Stanford undergraduate, will keep us up to the minute on economic, political and international affairs, and finally Brian Samek, an NYU undergraduate, is our resident dissenter and skeptic. I should also take this time to note that though this site is a forum for debate and a variety of opinions, the opinions contained in each post do not necessarily represent the views of Le Penseur itself. Now we go to Eli...



Jerusalem –

This afternoon the first terrorist attack in Israel in nearly four
months occurred when two terrorists detonated bombs on two separate
buses in the small town of Be’er Sheva. The attacks that killed 16 and
injured over 100 have been claimed by Hamas. The terrorist group asserts
that this attack will be the first in a series in retaliation for
Israel’s targeted assassinations of Hamas religious leaders Sheikh
Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi.

This is where the story ends for many people, especially stateside.
Unfortunately for the residents of Be’er Sheva and other Israeli
citizens, a terrorist attack’s effects can have wide reaching
implications for the entire country. Israel, which over the past four
months had been trying to regroup in the precious peace, must now deal
with the psychological damage that this assault has left.

Hamas, consciously or not, struck a particularly vulnerable spot in the
Israeli subconscious. Those brave enough to remain in Israel since the
beginning of the Intifada could remind themselves that if things got
to bad in the big cities, they could retreat to outlying
settlements and small towns such as Be’er Sheva. The relatively
politically-meaningless town, which had not seen a terror incident in
almost nine years, served as the perfect setting to show Israelis that
they had no where to run within their own country.

Beyond the location, the timing also is perfectly set for maximum terror
effect. Today is the day before Israeli public schools begin their
years, sending parents into a further panic, wondering if the next
attack will come to their small town’s public school.

Hamas is a highly intelligent, well trained, and well disciplined terror
machine. It is a testament to Israel and its citizens that Israel has
remained calm and civilized in the face of such unabridged evil.
Today, the lives of over 116 families were changed forever. However,
as I spoke to a friend of mine, an Israeli teacher that had a friend
living within 5 minutes of the attack site today. Despite his fear,
his sadness, and his anger, he noted to me that they had also caught a
bomber before he reached his destination. Even this small catch was
cause for a smile.

-Eli Cohn-Wein, reporting from Israel