MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: December 29, 2006 Archives

« December 28, 2006 | Main | December 30, 2006 »


Advertisement
recent entries Breaking: Osama bin Laden to Make 9/11 Video Address to U.S. Major Report on Status of Iraqi Security Forces Presented in Congress Today Looking Past Petraeus Huckabee vs. Paul: Video from Yesterday's Republican Debate With World Not Tense Enough, Israel and Russia Decide to Provoke Their Neighbors Fred Thompson Flubs the Facts on Tonight Show African Pentecostal Christians Destroying Ancient African Culture In Nigeria Congressional Battle Over GAO's Iraq Report Continues Saddest Picture of the Day Alert Since Nothing Else Important Going on in World, Congress Takes on Hip-Hop

December 29, 2006

Urge Overkill: CNN's Saddam Deathwatch

Some worthy points from Phil Nugent at No More Mister Nice Blog:

Man, CNN has spent the evening sitting on the prospect of Saddam Hussein's execution like a vulture. Word was that the execution was to take place 10:00 PM EST. A less hardy network might have slipped a reminder of it into their regular news wrap-ups and then cut to Iraq, say, around ten o'clock. I don't know when they actually started the deathwatch, but for at least three hours, they were focusing on the execution single-mindedly, with a different anchor every hour, Larry King included, checking in with the same poor reporter framed shivering against the night sky to ask her yet again--anything new? Did they get antsy and waste him ahead of schedule and then go to dinner? Did he shoot his way out yet? When the anchors weren't torturing this poor woman, they were asking, over and over again, what will it mean for Iraq when Saddam has been executed? Then they'd interview someone, preferably a scholar or human rights worker who "suffered under Saddam's regime." They'd ask them what it would mean, and this person would invariably say that, although there would probably be a quick spike in violence, in the end it wouldn't mean a goddamn thing. Then the anchor would turn to the camera and say once again that he sure wished there was some way of knowing what it would mean. You kind of came away with the impression that none of the on-air talent at CNN can hear for shit.

You can understand their dilemna. Once upon a time, many basic cable ratings cycles ago, the Saddam-is-boogeyman story was the making of CNN. When Bush launched Gulf War II, it must have felt like old school week in their offices. It must be a bittersweet thing for them to deal with his absolute irrelevance to the current situation. It must sting and confuse them as much as it did Saddam himself. There were a few moments in tonight's coverage that may be as close as I ever hope to see to suggesting what the media reaction would be like if they ever caught Professor Moriarty, such as an interview with some doctor about the mechanics of hanging--the interviewer wanted to know just how much it hurts, and seemed very disappointed with the answer that we don't know for sure, because the only people who know for sure remain unavailable for comment--and people whining that "nobody blames" Saddam for all the Arabs that he killed. Yep, that's how the guy got two cans of whupass opened on him and wound up swinging from a rope--nobody ever held him accountable for anything. Okay, granted, these people aren't so stupid that they mean the things that come out of their mouths. What they're really trying to say is that nobody blames Saddam enough, because as long as there's one person who'd rather finish breakfast than dance on his grave, then he's not being blamed enough. Word of warning: this is how people like Pat Buchanan wound up as Holocaust deniers. They just start off hating Stalin so much that it bugs them whenever they hear Hitler described as the worst person in the world, and then after awhile they go haywire and start believing that because so many people hate Hitler, then people must not really hate Stalin at all, because if they hated him as much as they should then they wouldn't have any room in their hearts to hate Hitler too. The next thing they know, they find themselves hinting that they don't think Hitler was really all that bad.

The cutest moment in the coverage I saw was probably when Anderson Cooper said that there was some speculation that Saddam would be taken out of the protected Green Zone for the execution, but this must have been rejected because how could American soldiers go outside the Green Zone, with the hated Saddam Hussein in tow, and not risk violence. The likelihood that American soldiers who went outside the Green Zone might be asking for trouble if all they were carrying was Rice Krispies in milk was not considered. Saddam will not be missed, and anyone who tries to turn him into a martyr is making a sad comment on the validity of his own cause, but still, a hollow feeling remains. If it's possible for a guilty man to be railroaded, that's what's happened here, and it's possible to feel squeamish about the official mechanics of politicized "justice" without mourning the man. In a world where a Pinochet can die in his sleep, Saddam was executed with an unseemly sort of haste for the same reason we went to war in Iraq, evidence and arguments to the contrary be damned--because the Bush administration decided it wanted it to happen and was not inclined to consider that there might be reasons not to give itself what it wanted, or even postpone it. If it leaves a bad aftertaste, that may be because people who hold human life so cheaply, who can take anyone's life, even a monster's, as casually as correcting a bookkeeping error, should be a little more bashful when it comes to lecturing the world about who gets to live and who needs to die.

(Is Pat Buchanan a holocaust denier? Google it and judge for yourself. Or go to this forum on the subject.)

Does ExxonMobil Pay the New York Times a Premium to Run Ads Next to Global Warming Stories?

Right next to a NYT story that begins:

A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a ''major'' reason for the event. The Ayles Ice Shelf -- all 41 square miles of it -- broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic.

Is an ad for the company that's done more than any other to fund global warming denialists (as a Mother Jones story nominated for a National Magazine Award reported last year):

Why not take wastes that would end up in landfills and recycle them so they end up as roads? Learn more about our committment to the environment. ExxonMobil: Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges.

So I've noticed this is a pattern with ExxonMobil, which seems to always just happen to run a corporate responsibility ad next to NYT op-eds and stories that have to do with global warming. So is the NYT ad sales staff selling against this content? Does ExxonMobil have a standing request to place ads next to global warming content? Or is it all a coincidence? (And don't forget that ExxonMobil also sponsored all the major election coverage in 2006. Maybe because it didn't like the fact that lawmakers were beginning to stand up to it.)

Back to this particular ad. Follow the link and you learn that ExxonMobil is touting its program to take waste from its operations (presumably tar, how innovative) and turn it into roadbeds, "another example of how we're maximizing energy output while minimizing environmental impact." Not harm, not damage, mind you, impact.

More outrageous is the list of links on this page to other of ExxonMobil's good works, including...wait for it..."Promoting math and science in the classroom." This from the company that funds 40 think tanks that expressly deny the science of global warming.

What are these efforts that ExxonMobil is making to addle, uh, improve the minds of our children? Further down the line of links we learn that:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson made the announcement in Dallas on Oct. 6, where he was joined by PGA Tour golfer Phil Mickelson, astronaut Dr. Bernard Harris and several prominent educators. The first step in ExxonMobil’s expanded educational outreach is to significantly broaden the scope of programs founded by Mickelson and Harris and supported by the company.

ExxonMobil will add new sessions of the Bernard Harris Summer Science Camps, providing funding to universities for 20 camps across the U.S. Designed to enhance students’ knowledge in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, camp activities include classroom study, experiments, individual/team/group projects, weekly field excursions and guest speakers who motivate and inspire students.

The Mickelson ExxonMobil Teachers’ Academy, launched in 2005 as an annual event in Fairfax, Va., will expand to new academies in Texas and Louisiana. The Academy was created to provide selected third- through fifth-grade teachers from school districts around the country an opportunity to enhance their math and science teaching skills, and discover new ways to motivate their students. With the new locations, 600 teachers will have an opportunity to attend the academies annually.

In addition to expanding its support of the Harris and Mickelson programs, ExxonMobil announced continued funding for Reasoning Mind, Inc., and UTeach. Reasoning Mind is developing an innovative Internet-based learning environment for fifth- and sixth-grade math students. UTeach is a unique University of Texas program that prepares and supports secondary math and science teachers.

So, helping ExxonMobil (at best) whitewash its horrible environmental image and (at worst) spread misinformation to teachers and students is a champion golfer, an astronaut, and UT. Hook 'em horns!

By the way, that ice shelf? That's really bad news. Read more about what it means here and here.

Breaking News: Saddam Hussein Has Been Executed

Hanged at dawn, according to news reports just coming over the transom. Will the Baathists retaliate? Stay tuned.

Joe Lieberman's Iraq Time Machine

"Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman just stepped out of his time capsule and penned an op-ed on his nostalgic trip to 2003:

I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

Apparently, Lieberman never got the memo that said Iraq no longer has anything to do with 9/11 or the war on terror or exporting democracy or making Iran quake in its boots. No matter. Lieberman goes on to say that the crisis there is the result of a "conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran" to throw the country into "full-scale civil war." Never mind the whole al-Qaeda=Sunni, Iran=Shiite thing; apparently opposing extremists agree on the shared goal of total chaos. The only answer, of course, is to send in more troops. Which brings us back to 2003, back when more U.S. boots on the ground could have secured Baghdad and the rest of the country, possibly averting the mess we're in 3 years later. Lieberman seems to get this. He writes, "In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission." However, that just means that now is the time for a big do-over: "The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission." Clearly defined mission? You mean like linking Iraq to 9/11? Fire up the Wayback Machine...

The Pentagon Digs Up the First Iraq-Related PTSD Case

Up to 30 percent of Iraq vets suffer from depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Pentagon. And those numbers go up with repeat deployments. So whatever may happen in the months ahead, we can expect a surge of soldiers with serious mental health needs. In the meantime, the Pentagon is gearing up for dealing with them with a series of Flash movies for VA employees based on the first documented case of Iraq-related psych issues. The patient is Gilgamesh, who, as you'll recall, was the king of Uruk—the ancient land that would become modern-day Iraq. In the new version, Gilgamesh goes off to war, watches his buddy die, and comes home with an epic case of PTSD. It's a cheeky, cheesy take, but hopefully it means the Pentagon is starting to take the issue more seriously. It has a ways to go: It was reported earlier this year that 80 percent of vets with PTSD symptoms didn't get a follow-up. And some GIs who were diagnosed with the disorder were unceremoniously booted from the service.