The debate rages on, and thanks to media spin and constant false equivalencies, at least one poll has 57% of its respondents rejecting any possibility of inflammatory speech having any influence over Jared Lee Loughner's actions on Saturday morning. Welcome to the confluence of media echoes and denial.

It was predictable, this la-la-la response. Kneejerk, even. No one wants to believe that words can influence, because that would require individuals to own their own words. God forbid.

This is true in every context but politics, it seems. I believe there are some things one doesn't say to their spouse unless they really mean it. Words like "I want a divorce", "I hate you", "I want to be with someone else" are not things one says unless they're prepared to follow through with the appropriate actions. This is because once that barrier is broken, it cannot be rebuilt. The foundations of that marriage are forever weakened and possibly broken. Matt Taibbi takes that one step further.

Which makes sense. If we're being honest with ourselves, we in the media understand that our job descriptions do not entirely overlap with the requirements of good citizenship. If you're in a marriage, or are a parent or living with parents, or have brothers or sisters or close friends, when you argue over a difficult issue, you don't just take out all the weaponry in your arsenal and blast away. In the interests of preserving the relationship, and because you respect and love the other person as a human being, you argue as politely and respectfully as possible. And your goal in arguing is always to fix the actual problem -- there's no other, ulterior motive.

That's just not the case in either journalism (and I should know-- more on that momentarily) or politics. In politics, you don't need to treat everyone with decency and humanity, just 51% of the crowd. Actually, given that half or less than half of all people don't vote, the percentage of people who require basic decency and indulgence is probably even lower than that, maybe 20-25% of the population. There's plenty of power and money to be won by skillfully stimulating public anger against some or all of the rest, and there are few rewards for restraint.

Continue reading »

Vagabond Scholar: Common Ground and Equal Blame. And some useful diagrams

Brad DeLong: Bill Clinton: Words Matter

Alas, a blog: Arizona orders Tucson to end Mexican-American Studies program

TBogg: These are not the violent extremists you are looking for

Petrelis Files: You wont believe what is about to be proposed in Arizona's legislature by the NRA

BagNews: The New Pentagon: Soldiers of the Fortune 500

The Reaction: Nationalist kitsch and the GOP

naked capitalism: Foreclosures and delinquencies reach record highs. McCain nomination greeted by economic collapse

Corrente: Polish prosecutors probe Bush gulag at last

Ta-Nehisi Coates: What the white man means when he says "Ghetto"

Tomgram: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit.

Bob Geiger: The Saturday Cartoons

C&Ler "Z" sent this link to a letter to the editor of the Colorado Springs Gazette:

SUPPORT THE TROOPS
Many soldiers missing out on Bush's stimulus checks

In August 2006 the 10th Mountain Division, 2nd BCT, 1-89 Cavalry was sent to Iraq for 12 months. In April 2007, the troops were told the Army was adding three additional months to their time in country.

In November 2007 the troopers of 1-89 arrived back in New York from their tour. They are now being told by the IRS, via the IRS Web site, that they haven't earned enough money to qualify for the economic stimulus check.

There's an incentive for re-upping for three, four and five more tours. But hey, the good news is that the Pentagon has decided to change the way they handle the cremation of fallen soldiers after it came out that the crematorium the Pentagon has contracted with handles both human and pet remains. See, they're trying to be sensitive to the needs of those they've put in harm's way.

VetVoice:

The Pentagon has provided $30 billion in contracts to KBR during the Iraq War. Apparently that's just the Basic Troop Support Package, however, because it's not enough money to keep the contractor from electrocuting a dozen troops in showers and elsewhere throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. [..]

The New York Times piece goes on to explain:

The Army has provided little detailed information about the electrocutions, other than to say late Friday that 10 soldiers had been electrocuted in Iraq. A House committee has also reported that two marines died similarly.

One former KBR electrician was quite frank about what's going on:

And Mr. Bliss, who saw a soldier standing next to him in Qalat, Afghanistan, receive a severe shock from an electrical box that was not supposed to be charged, said his KBR bosses mocked him for raising safety issues. They were "not giving the Army what it needed," he said, "and not giving the soldiers what they deserved."

First Draft: MSM notices what anyone with the curiosity of an end table has known for years.

Big Daddy Malcontent: The 'family values' party lobbied for, and got, extended bar hours for their convention in Minneapolis. Hardly surprising. The leaders of this party commit war crimes daily, so some delegates might well require a lot of booze with their Kool Aid.

The Nation: Who in the Senate swallowed General David Petraeus's Iraq spin and who challenged it? It took a Democrat who is not running for president to speak the full truth

Concurring Opinions: Me, wife, and son have all been stranded for hours (or days) in the past week by canceled flights. Coincidence? Nope. It's BUSHCO! Demonstrating from day one that regulatory vigilance has no place in a Republican administration.

Blue Girl, Red State: The shameless GWB, a waste of skin who went AWOL, views dead soldiers as political capital.

Big Brass Blog: Some people are really out of touch.

Add this to the pile of monumental screw-ups committed by the Bush administration.

Raw Story:

A lengthy investigation published Thursday reveals that the Pentagon gave an inexperienced 22-year-old a $300 million contract to provide ammunition to Afghanistan. The shady deal resulted in decades old, substandard munitions being delivered to US and Afghan troops fighting on the front lines of the war on terror.

So to recap: During the free-cash-giveaway that is defense contracting, the Pentagon awards $300 million to the company of a clueless 22 year old, resulting in our soldiers having to use substandard weaponry.

The bright side? According to his MySpace page, he's a "super nice guy." That's nice to know, at least.

Thank God Waxman is on the case. We'll definitely be following this one.

March 13, 2002

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. (h/t Joe)

Download | play Download | play

File this one under Prince Harming. Apparently, Matt Drudge thought he had an exclusive on Prince Harry's whereabouts serving in the military in Afghanistan. It turns out that he didn't get the exclusive, but as Keith Olbermann points out on Thursday's Countdown, he does get all the blame - the blame for endangering Harry by revealing his location which had been kept a secret. More from The Independent UK:

An American website, the Drudge Report, broke a news blackout yesterday by revealing that Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan for more than two months.

To the fury of the Ministry of Defence and condemnation from the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the website announced a "world exclusive" and proclaimed: "They're calling him 'Harry the Hero!".

The article brought to an end an agreement with the media that the Prince's deployment to Helmand be kept quiet in the interests of his safety and that of the soldiers with him. [..]

"I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us. This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas outlets, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations," General Dannatt said. Read on...

Why does Drudge hate the troops and want them in harm's way?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

This Week with George Stephanoupoulos notes the passings of impeached Arizona Governor Evan Mecham, civil rights activist Rev. James E. Orange, author Robin Moore and 7 soldiers in Iraq, bringing the casualty count to 3,972, according to icasualties.org.