Black Box Report

While conservatives were relieved to not have to endure another Michael Moore documentary win at last night's Academy Awards, they weren't particularly happy with the film that did win for Best Documentary Feature, Taxi to the Dark Side. New York Post film critic Kyle Smith writes on his blog:

“Move away from the dark side and back to the light,” the director of “Taxi to the Dark Side” says. I doubt our troops agree that we are stuck in the dark side. I think they would argue that the vast majority of them abide by the law, by the rules of engagement and by their own moral compasses, yet they get little feeling of support from their country because those who work in the media are bent on presenting sordid, depraved and illegal acts committed by members of the military and intelligence services (which are of course elements in this war, as they are in every war) as the norm in order to undercut the war and defund the troops.

So even though the film depicted actual events that were, in his own words, "sordid, depraved and illegal," it's wrong to condone this film because, hey, it happens in every war! Except, of course, it doesn't have to:

FP recently spoke with former FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan, one of the experts interviewed for the film, about his own experience interrogating real al Qaeda detainees. You don't have to use force to make a terrorist break down and cry, Cloonan says -- just brains.

Conservatives other well-worn complaint is that this film is just liberal Hollywood's latest effort to undercut the war. Because if we all just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything our military does is as pure as the driven snow, then we can't possibly be involved in an unjust war that undermines our credibility in the Middle East, while running up high costs in blood and treasure. But you know what undercuts the war even more? Torturing and killing innocent people:

The film had a hard time of it -- the Discovery Channel and the MPAA both threw up obstacles in the way of the story of a young Afghan cab driver who was suspected of being a Taliban fighter and was tortured to death. It was deemed "too controversial."

Nothing can right the shameful wrong of his death, or erase the enduring black mark on the legacy of the nation responsible for torturing him and others. But kudos to the filmmakers for making sure that the story did get told,.

If, like Kyle Smith, you concede that "sordid, depraved and illegal" acts are being perpetrated in Iraq in our name and do nothing to stop them - even go so far as to criticize others who would - then one can only conclude that you are quite pleased with them. Which makes you a little sordid and depraved yourself. The only way to stop these things from happening again the name of the United States is to bring them to light, something documentary filmmakers like Alex Gibney are apparently quite good at.

How do you know you're the Democratic frontrunner? When the rightwing noise machine starts throwing heaping handfuls of vile, foul-smelling mud exclusively in your direction. For Barack Obama, it started this weekend on Real Time with Bill Maher, with congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA):

Kingston tells us that Obama refuses to say the Pledge Of Allegiance, citing the "famous picture" of Obama not saluting the flag. This rumor originated in an anonymous e-mail and has since been debunked repeatedly by the mainstream media. The truth is that the photo is actually of Obama singing the Star Spangled Banner. It's sad to see any elected official still parroting the lies in that now-notorious chain e-mail.

The Associated Press then took the "Obama's patriotism questioned" story mainstream, leading off the expert opinions with that of noted Republican sleazeball Roger Stone (last seen harassing Eliot Spitzer's elderly father) who, surprisingly, thinks Obama is not very patriotic. While Nedra Pickler does take the time, a few paragraphs later, to note that these stories amount to a "Swift Boat campaign" and a "shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet," she closes this door long after the horse has left the barn. By perpetuating the smears, she is actually contributing to them.

And then it's off to the races with a little smear synergy. Take the Obama's patriotism angle, and add in a little alarmist bigotry...

Over at Islamica magazine, they are acknowledging what the few of us fighting the great fight have been saying all along. Hussein Obama is Islam's candidate. They call it a wink and a nod but shhhhhh don't let on to the fat, lazy infidels.

Expect the fantasy mongerers in the mainstream media to continue to scrub and whitewash (no pun) Hussein Obama's Islamic bonafides.

...and voila!

From there, Matt Drudge posted this photo of Obamain traditional Kenyan garb, and conservative blogs who see turban and think "terrorist!" shouted out a collective A-HA! Now, it matters little (at least to this conversation) if the image came from Clinton staffers or not (although it should). It's not the first time a rightwing talking point has been used against Obama, and it definitely won't be the last. To his credit, Right Wing Nut House blogger Rick Moran is suitably ashamed:

It embarrasses me to no end to see fellow conservatives who actually believe that Barack Obama is some kind of "Manchurian Candidate" sent by Muslims to undermine American society...To some of my unschooled, ignorant conservative friends, this (photo) is further proof that if we elect Obama president, there will be a department of Sharia Affairs.

Finally, CNN put the icing on the cake:

The poll has since been deactivated, but it doesn't really matter.
Obama-won't-say-Pledge-of-Allegiance-wear-a-flag-lapel-pin-he's-a-scary-Muslim is now officially part of the campaign narrative:

That's how it works. Starts at right-swing smear sites and hoax emails. Then the AP's Nedra Pickler, who specializes in scooping up this slop and laundering it into the mainstream press, writes it up for the AP that runs across the country. And then picks it up and makes it a regular part of the campaign conversation.

I doubt some top exec at CNN came up with this or any name anchor. It's some producer in the bowels of the operation. But it amounts to the same thing because it's part of the culture and there's no accountability.

Get ready for more.

Can't get him on issues? Attack his patriotism. It's like Karl Rove never retired.

Ralph Nader: The answer to a question no one asked.

I used to respect Ralph Nader. He was the consumer advocate before that kind of thing was cool, and no doubt inspired a generation of muckrakers and reformers to try and better their government.

That said, I never understood his quixotic attempts to inhabit the Oval Office. At first, I thought him benevolently harmless. Third party candidates could conceivably help shape the debate and influence the major party candidates if their ideas had wide enough support.

Then came the 2000 election.

When I first heard Ralph make the claim that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, that both were standard bearers for corporate-owned parties, I saw the larger point he was trying to make, but couldn't believe he would actually try to pass off such glib comparison. Even if you bought the "compassionate conservative" canard that Bush was pitching back then, all you had to do was look back at the history of both parties to see there were stark differences in their priorities, supporters and methods. The Florida recount fiasco was a perfect example of this, but by then, of course, it was too late. Due to all the sundry shenanigans going on; the intimidation, mobs, Katherine Harris, "hanging chads," etc., you couldn't pin the entire mess on Ralph, by his own admission he cost Gore the election.

Anyone who thinks the ensuing 7+ years would've been the same no matter who was in office needs to have their head examined.

Which brings me to Ralph's latest vanity fair. Actually, less of a fair and more of a circus. He says most Americxans are disenchanted with both parties. While I can point to any number of sources that show serious buyer's remorse over the GOP, Democrats are enjoying a primary season with record turnout across the board. He claims thrid party candidates can bring in young voters - Barack Obama seems to be doing just fine in that department, certainly moreso than Ralph has ever done. He insists America is clamoring for a third-party candidate, but there's ample evidence that no such "clamoring" exists. Believe me, if there was, we'd all be talking about the Bloomberg / Unity '08 juggernaut. But we aren't.

And finally, Ralph continues to push the idea that, "Tweedledum or Tweedledee," John McCain or Obama/Clinton, there's just no difference between the two sides:

After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

{/sarcasm}

It's time for Ralph Nader, self-described "progressive," to take a long look in the mirror and decide which side he's really on.

Actually, it's a little over 7 years past time for such introspection, but better late than never.