I’ve had a few nicknames over the years, most notably Gue, which a few old friends still call me. However, I’ve never represented myself as anyone other than Mark Justice Hinton. That’s probably more driven by pride than ethics.
What’s got me writing is a new anonymous blogger. We’ve all read something written anonymously from time to time. Much loved locally are Pika Brittlebush and Coco, neither of whom I’ve doubted or disliked for hiding something from us all. I used to think Pika was a high school boy having a larf. For all I know, Coco is really John Fleck. Why should I care who they are physically? I know something about their minds.
Perhaps it took one more example to make me fear a trend, but I’m uneasy about Marston Moore who just burst on the scene at Duke City Fix. I’ll admit that I’m jealous of his/her inaugural piece and, especially, the way people are falling all over him/her with praise. Hey, isn’t there enough love to go around? What about those of us who have been writing for you for years? So, maybe I’m not seeing clearly through this green haze, but why write anonymously? What is Marston hiding or who is s/he hiding from? Does mystery enhance his/her/its message?
I’m conflicted over this because I think one of the great things about our virtual relationships is we don’t know much about each other that isn’t revealed as we go. In other words, when we walk into a room full of people, we start categorizing them quickly and easily. It’s harder here in cyberspace. Perhaps we all should be anonymous. Of course, for all you know, I am an old woman, named after my mother, who made up “mjh” one day.
These days a lot of people want you to believe you can’t trust anyone or anything. They say that every word is biased and spun. Of course, some of those same people give the party in power the faith they used to reserve for god — not that there’s any difference anymore. And those with power and money hire people to spin for them and create buzz. It’s not lying — it’s getting your message out there. It’s not tax-funded propaganda, it’s what’s good for the nation. It’s not stifling dissent or pranging the minority, it’s the Constitutional option.
I rather doubt that Marston Moore is Karl “der Grosse” Rove or John Blather Dimdahl. Maybe s/he’s the next Mark Twain or P.D. James. Pseudonyms may be no more a threat to democracy than pseudo-tits. But, if MM decides to come out and take off the mask, I’ll be interested in the truth. Gue
Assault On the Media
Assault On the Media By E. J. Dionne Jr.
The war on Newsweek shifted attention away from how the Guantanamo prisoners have been treated, how that treatment has affected the battle against terrorism and what American policies should be. Newsweek-bashing also furthered a long-term and so far successful campaign by the administration and the conservative movement to dismiss all negative reports about their side as the product of some entity they call “the liberal media.” …
I write about it now because of the new reports and because I fear that too many people in traditional journalism are becoming dangerously defensive in the face of a brilliantly conceived conservative attack on the independent media. …
But this particular anti-press campaign is not about Journalism 101. It is about Power 101. It is a sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power. By using bad documents, Dan Rather helped Bush, not John Kerry, because Rather gave Bush’s skilled lieutenants the chance to use the CBS mistake to close off an entire line of inquiry about the president. In the case of Guantanamo, the administration, for a while, cast its actions as less important than Newsweek’s. …
We now know that the conservatives’ admiration for a crusading and investigative press carried an expiration date of Jan. 20, 2001.
When the press fails, it should be called on the carpet. But when the press confronts a politically motivated campaign of intimidation, its obligation is to resist — and to keep reporting.
GOP Tilting Balance Of Power to the Right
GOP Tilting Balance Of Power to the Right By Jim VandeHei
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president’s judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause — as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts. …
The transformation started in the House in the 1990s and intensified with Bush’s 2000 election. The result has been a stronger president working with a compliant and streamlined Congress to push the country, and the courts, in a more conservative direction, according to historians, government scholars, and current and former federal officials.
Some of the changes, such as a more powerful executive branch, less powerful rank-and-file members of Congress and more pro-Republican courts, are likely to outlast the current president and GOP majority, they say. …
“Every president grabs for more power. What’s different it seems to me is the acquiescence of Congress,” said former representative Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), a government scholar at the Aspen Institute. …
Bush has demanded similar loyalty from GOP lawmakers — and received it. Republicans have voted with the president, on average, about nine out of 10 times. Critics and some scholars charge that the Congress now seldom performs its constitutional duty of providing oversight of the executive branch through tough investigations and hearings.
This has coincided with a dramatic increase in overall government secrecy. In 1995, the government created about 3.6 million secrets. In 2004, there more than 15.5 million, according to the government’s Information Security Oversight Office. The White House attributes the rise in information the public cannot see to the security threats in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.
But experts on government secrecy say it goes beyond protecting sensitive security documents, to creating new classes of information kept private and denying researchers access to documents from past presidents.
“We have never had this kind of control over information,” said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. “It means policy is being made by a small clique without much public scrutiny.”
Now, the Republicans, with the support of the White House, are looking to reshape the courts in their image.
Kraphammer Disses the Turncoats
Profiles in Flinching By Charles Krauthammer
The five losses were to be expected. Three were New Englanders: two from Maine (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) and one from Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee). No surprise here. They are a different kind of Republican, the almost extinct liberal Republican, and they might actually have been acting on principle.
Then there is John McCain, who is a party unto himself. Add to that John Warner, who decided to go against his party for what can only be called constitutional vanity. He sees himself as a lion of the Senate.
The Informed Debate
ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor
RE: “GOVERNMENT SHOULD Not Set Wages” column by John Dendahl
…. American capitalism has a long history of human exploitation. Dendahl seems not to understand that capitalism is an economic system that exists within, and is subservient to, our political system of representative democracy. Politics is about people. Economics is about generating wealth. Capitalism is a good economic system for generating wealth but a lousy one for distributing it.
When wealth is not distributed, that is when wealth — and, along with it, power — are allowed to concentrate in the hands of a few, you get an oligarchy. When our government sets wages, it is acting to prevent the concentration of wealth and power and thereby is preserving our representative democracy. That is not only government’s prerogative, it is government’s duty. …
ANNE KASS
Albuquerque
ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor
If this thing passed, the bottom line would be that businesses would raise prices enough to cover it and then everyone pays more. Communism failed in the Soviet Union and now even China is leaning toward capitalism to revive its economy. Why some people are trying to revive communism in America is a mystery to me. …
I may not be correct about what the answer to this problem is, but I am sure I know what it is not. It is not to rob people who educated themselves and got a good job to give money to those who did not have time to get an education and become a viable and desirable job seeker.
DANNY OLIVAS
Albuquerque
Party in the Woods
For the weekend, a dozen of us trekked to a sweet little spot I’d visited the week before. The place is called Resumidero and we all loved it on first sight. It is a long, flat meadow between two rushing streams, surrounded by dense woods on the edge of the San Pedro Parks Wilderness. It was perfect — up until it was ruined. But I get ahead of myself. …
United States is leading the way
One prisoner said in August 2002 that guards had “flushed a Koran in the toilet” and had beaten some detainees.
But the Pentagon said yesterday that the same prisoner, who is still in custody, was reinterviewed on May 14 and “did not corroborate” his earlier claim about the Koran.
Three years in Guantanamo might affect someone’s memory — or his willingness to anger his captors.
What exactly is America getting out of Guantanamo? mjh
Amnesty International released a report calling Guantanamo Bay “the gulag of our time” and labeling the United States “a leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture and mistreatment of prisoners. Amnesty and the Constitution Project, a legal advocacy group, made separate demands yesterday for an independent investigation into allegations of detainee abuse at U.S. facilities. …
“The refusal of the U.S. government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a coverup, of these disgraceful crimes,” [Executive Director William F. Schulz, Amnesty International]….
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said: “The allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.”
[mjh: Well, McClellan’s word is all I need.]