To tell the truth . . .

Matthew Dowd, who served as chief strategist in the re-election campaign of George W. Bush in 2004 and who now is an ABC News political analyst, raises some important questions concerning the uproar of the WikiLeaks release of U.S. diplomatic documents:

He quotes his Iraq war veteran son as having asked, in a post-Thanksgiving dinner conversation:

“When as a country did we become a place where the government gets upset when its secrets are revealed but has no problem knowing all our secrets and invading our privacy?”

Citing Republican outrage over Hillary Clinton's "secret" meetings on health care planning back in the early 1990's -- and the Democratic outrage over Cheney's "secret" meetings on energy policy in 2000 -- Dowd observes:

Now both sides have gotten together to attack WikiLeaks over the opposite situation: They are criticizing the Internet watchdog for openly releasing information related to how our government conducts foreign policy. . . .

Some would contend that secrecy in domestic policy is a very different matter from secrecy concerning our relations with other nations and their leaders, especially in a time of war. I would agree, up to a certain point. But "secrecy" and "classified documents" offer up an all too convenient cover for mistakes and mendacity, whether it's simple embarrassment or criminal acts, including lies to get us into an illegal war and the war crime of torturing prisoners of war.

Where is the "free press" in this? Dowd asks. The New York Times has defended its right to publish selected portions of the leaked documents (edited to remove some sensitive information). But publishing documents that were supplied to you by another party is viewed differently from the criminal offense of the one who secretly copied the memos and gave them to WikiLeaks. The suspected copier seems clearly to have committed a crime -- he was authorized to work with the documents but his revealing them to others is a serious criminal offense.

But what of the middleman, WikiLeaks, who received the documents and passed them on to the media and tried to make them available online? Is that a crime? This is what the media seems to be avoiding commenting on. When is the whistleblower a hero and when a villain?

Dowd, again:

When did we decide that we trust the government more than its citizens? And that revealing the truth about the government is wrong? And why is the media complicit in this? Did we not learn anything from the run-up to the Iraq war when no one asked hard questions about the justifications for the war and when we accepted statements from government officials without proper pushback?

My own sense is that we should err on the side of telling the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or when it makes our lives—or the business of government—more complicated. And that people who tell the truth should at the very least not be denigrated. . . .

And shouldn’t news organizations be defending WikiLeaks and doing some soul-searching of their own about why they aren’t devoting more resources to the search for the truth? Why is it that the National Enquirer and Internet blogs sometimes seem better than they are at finding out what’s really going on?

The decline of journalistism's "watchdog" function has long been a growing concern of mine. Where are the Edward R. Murrows and the Walter Kronkites? Perhaps it is the Jon Stewarts and the Rachel Maddows -- and the new technology and internet bloggers who will take up that role. WikiLeaks played an important role in this. But there are powerful forces out there, including our own government, trying to crush them. They have already gotten Amazon.com to deny them access to its web spaces.

Where is the outrage?

Ralph

What happens when conservatives actually think ?

Respected political analyst/blogger Dan Froomkin has an interesting article on Huffington Post, titled "An Example of How Civil Political Discouse Threatens Modern Conservatism."

Conventional wisdom says that, if liberals and conservatives would just sit down together in civil discourse, they would find common ground for solving the nation's problems. The implication is that this common ground would be somewhere in the middle of the divisive public posturing of our politicians.

And that is the rhetoric put out by AmericaSpeaks to describe what happened last June when this supposedly non-partisan, non-political foundation organized 57 local meetings across the nation, involving some 3,500 ordinary Americans, to discuss ways of handling the federal deficit.

The foundation is organized and funded by conservative deficit hawk Pete Peterson, and the framing of the questions had a definite hawkish slant (i.e., initially participants were asked to discuss options for controlling health care costs, but single payer was not one of the options.) A press release yesterday, along with the foundation's report from the meetings, declares "Liberals and Conservatives Find Common Ground About How to Resolve National Debt."

According to Froomkin, however, the common ground was not in the middle but definitely toward the liberal/progressive position. Participants rebelled against the hawkish, conservative framing and came up with their own solutions. Citing numerous statistics on individual issues, Froomkin shows, for example, that 39% of conservatives became more supportive of cutting defense spending, with only 12% less supportive; and 24% became more supportive of raising taxes on the wealthy, with 12% less supportive.

On the other hand, examples of liberals shifting to a more conservative position were statistically negligible.

Froomkin concludes, despite the final report from the foundation that blurred all this and tried to paint a picture of "finding common ground" that implied "meeting in the middle:"

So the real lesson there would appear to be that if liberals and conservatives actually sat down and listened to each other, the result would be widespread agreement on what are traditionally called liberal positions on the issues -- but which perhaps should be renamed simply common sense.

That, I guess, is what happens when one side of the political debate has departed so far from reality that its arguments don't easily survive genuine contact with the enemy.

Hear !! Hear !! So that's what the Republican noise machine and the blustering are all about: Don't let your base have a chance to really think about the issues. Flood them with distortions, slogans, smears, and trivia. Because actual contemplation of the truth means they lose.

And winning is everything, isn't it?

Ralph

Couldn't happen to a more deserving cad

Nigerian government officials plan to charge Dick Cheney in a bribery case involving Halliburton in the years that Cheney was CEO. It involves an alleged $180 million bribe to secure a $6 billion natural gas contract in Nigeria. Twelve Halliburton employees in Lagos were arrested but later released.

This case, of course, will never come close to the X-VP himself. But any reminder of his association with that firm keeps his shady legacy alive.

Ralph

DADT is dead #13

Maybe more than you wanted to read about DADT. Obviously, it's a major issue for me.

Now comes the drama of senate hearings. Testimony from DoD Secretary Gates, Adm. Mullen, and the authors of the survey report -- all making an almost unarguable case for repeal. But that didn't stop John McCain's shameless demagoguery and reducing his credibility to zero.

Here's a news flash from Huffington Post, quoting the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, about McCain:

John McCain's demeanor throughout the testimony of Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Ham and Mr. Johnson, was entirely dismissive bordering on disrespect. In the testimony, no one made a more powerful argument for repeal today than Admiral Mullen. In a measured, methodical fashion, Admiral Mullen addressed and destroyed each one of McCain's irrational fears about open service. McCain continues to ignore the findings of the report that showed 92% of troops are fine working with gay service members.

In contrast, McCain's buddy Joe Lieberman, for whom I have no great affection, broke with his buddy and strongly endorsed repeal of DADT, a policy which he essentially called "un-American." And Republican senator Susan Collins is a strong supporter of repeal, suggesting that she would even break ranks with the GOP's threat to block cloture on anything until tax cuts are settled.

Joint Chief of Statt Adm. Mullin's opening statement was an eloquent endorsement of repeal:

There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas. There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital. . . .

My belief is, if and when the law changes, our people will lead that change in a manner consistent with the oath they took. As one Marine officer put it, “If that’s what the president orders, I can tell you by God we’re going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen.”

And frankly, that’s why I believe that in the long run, repeal of this law makes us a stronger military and improves readiness. It will make us more representative of the country we serve. It will restore to the institution the energy it must now expend in pursuing those who violate the policy. And it will better align those organizational values we claim with those we practice.

As I said back in February, this is about integrity. Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.

How in hell can John McCain still try to block this, substituting his own pitiful poor judgment for this unprecedented support from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a veteran of 40 years of military leadership who has risen to the very top military rank?

This should be the final nail in this pipsqueek little man's political coffin. Mullen speaks about integrity. John McCain has no clue what that means. He sold out any he ever had long, long ago.

Ralph

Plain talk

Democratic governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, was narrowly defeated for re-election. He has some harsh words for the Democratic leadership in Washington. Though he praises Obama for several legislative accomplishments, each of which should be historic in its own right, he says that the Democrats in general suffer from "intellectual elitism" and seem to be averse to populist rhetoric that would more likely resonate with the people.

This is nothing new. Democrats, and progressives particularly, have been bemoaning the lack of a clear message that can counter the Republican's message control. We have the better case to make; but we can't seem to make it.

A case in point, in Strickland's own words, quoted on HP:

But his frustration was evident as the discussion progressed. Talking, unprompted, about the debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts, Strickland said he was dumbfounded at the party's inability to sell the idea that the rates for the wealthy should be allowed to expire.

"I mean, if we can't win that argument we might as well just fold up," he said. "These people are saying we are going to insist on tax cuts for the richest people in the country and we don't care if they are paid for, and we don't think it is a problem if it contributes to the deficit, but we are not going to vote to extend unemployment benefits to working people if they aren't paid for because they contribute to the deficit. I mean, what is wrong with that? How can it be more clear?"

I totally agree.

Ralph

DADT is dead #12

It's official now. The Pentagon's massive survey of military personnel and their families about the effects of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is even more supportive of change than leaks had suggested.

We already knew that 70% of the 115,000 responders say, essentially, that it would be no big deal. Only in the Marines was there a significant negative response.

But, even there, 84% of Marines from combat corps units said that they thought they had worked with homosexual service members in the past and found the experience either "good," "very good," or neutral." This undercuts that last-ditch claim that it would be disruptive of the vaunted Marine macho culture.

One of the co-authors of the study, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, said this:

"The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today's U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this. . . . Further, in the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that, aside from the moral and religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about 'openly' gay Service members is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes."

The report's executive summary includes this:

". . . in recent times a number of other countries have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gay men and lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Israel. Significantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated much higher levels of resistance than our own survey results -- as high as 65% for some areas -- but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption."

I really don't know how John McCain can continue to demagogue this. He's already spun all the way around several times and made a fool of himself. This leaves him little room -- even for him, but he'll find a way, you can be sure.

If this doesn't tip the scale of wavering senators, then there's just no redeeming feature left in them. That's all.

Ralph

GOP outrage about the leaks

Julian Assange, the Australian native and founder of Wikileaks, told the Sydney Morning Herald on May 22, 2010 (well before this latest document dump) that Wikileaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined:

"That's not something I say as a way of saying how successful we are – rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It's disgraceful."

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsburg said that Assange "is serving our [American] democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations." Amnesty International gave him its International Media Award for 2009, and he received the Sam Adams Award for integrity in intelligence. The New York Times editor in chief Bill Keller justified publishing excerpts as in the best interest of the American people.

Not everyone agrees that this is a good thing. The Obama administration has condemned the leaks and may pursue legal action.

She Who Shall Not Be Named used it as another chance to condemn Obama for failing to protect the lives of Americans. She twittered on her Tweety Bird that Assange:

". . . is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents reveal the identity of more than 100 Arghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

The GOP scourge Rep. Peter King (R-NY) who is ranking minority member on the Homeland Security Committee and presumably is in line to become Chairman in January, said that

". . . if the lives of some Americans are endagnered by the illegal release of classified information by the Likileaks website, then the government should "go after" the people who control Wikileaks for violating the espionage act."

My, my, my. Such high dudgeon. Where was this outrage when officials in the Bush administration intentionally and deliberately leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to hack journalist Robert Novak -- thus ending a distinguished career and endangering numerous lives of those she had worked with as secret sources and undercover operations.

At least Assange has an ideology that the government's business needs more transparency, and he sees his action as civil disobedience in the service of a good cause.

In contrast, the Plame coverup was all in the interest of protecting the administration's lies about why we were about to invade Iraq in an illegal act of war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the United States. That is what needed to be exposed, which is what Plame's husband Joe Wilson was doing -- which is why they destroyed Valeria Plame, even if it meant doing it to their very own CIA.

At least one of those leakers has never been identified and brought to justice -- but enjoys his post-White House career as the mastermind of the conservative resurgence and retaking of the House majority. None other than Karl Rove himself, FOX News commentator.

Why, She Who Shall Not Be Named and Rep. King, was KR not pursued -- nay, why was he not waterboarded --and forced to confess and spill all he knew about the president's role in "fixing the evidence" to make the case for invasion?

I'll bet that fat little Rovian pig would have squealed with the first sprinkle of water over his nose. My cup of contempt runneth over.

On a lighter note: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been busy talking to her diplomatic counterparts among our allies to patch up the damage done by these revelations. She reported that some have made light of it, one saying, "Don't worry about it. You should see what we say about you in our dispatches."

Ralph

And now for something different

Finally, a slow news day. Even the Huffington Post's home page is running the same days-old stories, including Obama's 12-stitch, elbow-to-lip cut in a pickup basketball game with friends. And including what has now seemingly become obligatory: the 6 -- count them every day -- always 6 and sometimes even 7 or 8 -- blurb stories with pictures of She Who Shall Not Be Named. It's really tiresome, and she doesn't deserve that much coverage. We can only hope the excess will hasten the burn-out of public fascination.

Anyway, I've been saving this up for just such a slow-news day. One of my hobby-horse complaints is how poorly journalists understand statistics and how they can be manipulated to show almost anything you want. The public is often misled by well-meaning news reporters who simply don't understand the basics. And then there's the whole other realm of the partisan cherry-picking numbers game of junk science and political lying.

Now comes news of a book, The Numbers Game: The Commonsense Guide to Understanding Numbers in the News, in Politics, and in Life, by Brits Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot, who base it on a popular BBC radio show.

A NYT review begins by debunking, and explaining, some headline grabbers:

"Most people have more than the average number of feet." How's that? Simple. Because of amputations and birth defects, some people have only one foot; and almost no one has more than two. Therefore, the average is somewhat less than two. Therefore, the vase majority of people, having two feet, actually do have more than the average. Get this picture?

Another: "Republicans enjoy sex more than Democrats." Facts: more men than women vote Republican, and men tend to report enjoying sex more than women do. Therefore, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to report enjoying sex.

And a common one from the daily news: "Poll shows majority favor X." Read further, and the numbers show 45% favor X, 43% favor Y, and 12% are undecided. A majority? No, that could at best be called a plurality; but even that is misleading, because the reliability will likely be something like + or - 4%. So it's really a statistical tie. Or sometimes, even correctly calling something a majority, can be very misleading: 51% to 49% is indeed a majority, but the implication of "most people favor" is anything but true. "Majority" is not equivalent to "Most People."

But then you get into reported results of actual or so-called "studies" with real "results" in numbers that can still be very misleading. A lot depends on how representative the sample, on how the questions are asked, and on the what and how of data collection. Some of my favorite examples stem from my long-running battles with anti-gay rhetoric and even in my battle against the pope and his position on condoms last spring.

One of the "studies" that religious conservatives love to quote comes from multiply discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, who claimed that gay men should not be allowed to adopt children because they have a shortened life span. What did he base this on? A "study" in which he recorded the age at death of noted men who had died from AIDS and were listed in the obituary column of a popular gay magazine. Then he compared the age at death of this highly selective sample of gay men with the national average of life expectancy of all men. Ergo, these men died at a younger age; ergo no gay man should be entrusted with responsibility for a child because he will die young.

What is obviously wrong with this? The sample. This is not a random sample of equal numbers of gay men and straight men and comparing the age at which they died. This is a highly skewed sample of gay men taken from a list of those who had died young because of one specific cause and comparing it with the general population of men. The result that Cameron claims would have to assume that all gay men are infected with HIV and that all straight men are not.

If you actually did an honest, age-of-death comparison, there would be many factors besides HIV that would affect the results, some of which might favor gay men and some straight men. Such things as the incidence of engaging in high risk sports, violent crime, being soldiers in combat, tendency toward traffic accidents, suicide rates, as well as the incidence of drug-related HIV spread in straight men. Complicated? You betcha.

Another example: In response to my op-ed piece in the AJC in which I was scathingly critical of the pope's statement that relying on condoms actually increases the spread of HIV, a letter from the head of Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights of NY, stated as fact that "the promiscuous distribution of condoms has coincided with a precipitous increase in infections." He doesn't, of course, claim causation; but he ends with: "The holy father can connect the dots; why can't Roughton?" It was clearly meant to imply causation, and the average reader will assume that is what is claimed.

The is the simplest form of mistaking coexistence with causation. It's true, back in the 80's when the rise of HIV infections was rampant and rising rapidly, there was a lag in any effective measure showing up in reduced new cases -- simply because there is often a long period between contracting the virus and diagnosis. This year's "new cases" may have become infected two years ago. However, at this same time there was a concerted effort to distribute free condoms on a wide spread basis to help stem the spread. So the number of "new cases" may actually have gone up during the first year or so of free condom distribution.

So, yes, the rising curve of delayed-reporting of new cases coincided with the institution of free condom distribution. But, rather than the cause of the spread, it was a belated effort to stem the spread. And any positive effect of condom use may not show up in the new-case statistics for a year or two. And now, longer-range statistics, especially in Africa, have shown a direct, robust correlation of condom use and reduction of the spread of HIV, just as I stated and as the pope and his minions contradicted. Public health authorities now confidently assert that condom use is the most effective single factor in reducing the spread of HIV.

I believe it was Harry Truman who coined the phrase: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

This book should be interesting reading, even for those who don't need to be taught about the numbers game.

Ralph