Brain: Testosterony, The San Francisco Treat!

[elfs]

The Bush Administration's Coordination of Analysts Is Probably Illegal

It is illegal in the United States for the administration or congress to engage in "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties." That's exactly what Rumsfeld's analyst channel did.

It is not the "what an analyst did" issue that bothered me. It is the covert mechanisms by which the Bush Administration attempted to fill the news cycle with its own voices, behind the cover of public ignorance, to mold opinion.

It's not about being an analyst. It's about the attempt to use multiple individuals, each with apparent rank and distinction, and place them into the news stream in a psychological warfare operation against the American People. You and I were treated by the Pentagon not as informed citizens but as potentially unruly subjects. That offends me no end. Dammit, why aren't these people in jail? (via solarbird)

The Militarist

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain may protest that he hates war, but no American leader has promoted it more avidly. McCain is not only the most hawkish neocon on the horizon; he genuinely sees war as America's most ennobling enterprise. (via Brad DeLong)

Darwinists Hysterical Over "Expelled."

Worldnet allows Phyllis Schafly to go over the top (of what? I've always wondered) in an article in which she lies about l'affairs Richard Sternberg and Caroline Crocker, twists Michael Shermer's words to imply that there's something more to Expelled than demagoguery, and continues the blood libel of modern civilization.

Comments

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Just because i find it interesting, I believe the phrase "Going over the top" basically derives from World War I. As in leaving one's trench, and charging across no-man's land into the face of enemy fire with a very low chance of survival.

Although it's taken on a slightly different meaning these days.

"Over the top."

[pandakahn.livejournal.com]

I am still looking for the citation, but I recall that it was used, in a limited context, during the American Civil War during periods of entrenchment.

I know I ran across a journal entry (Civil War, not Pendorian) of an officer talking about going "over the top" and taking his men "over the top" with him.

I know the reference for the Great War is correct, and had been used by all parties on the western front. I think by The second world war it had fully entered the vernacular and was a part of colloquial slang, though how common or uncommon I do not know and have not documentation of.


MPK

[woggie.livejournal.com]

If the words "House Speaker Pelosi" were wonderful, can you imagine what joyous mayhem could be found in the words "President Pelosi"?

That would be interesting.

Illegal? Hardly.

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

Nothing described in that overwrought article is even remotely consistent with the GAO's definition of the law. All the Pentagon stands accused of is briefing analysts. In what conceivable way is that "covert"? By definition, anything contained in a briefing to independent analysts is about as overt as anything can be.

And since the analysts aren't being paid to express certain opinions, there's a second defense against the central allegation here-- appropriated funds aren't being used to influence the analysts. They're being influenced in other ways, certainly, but ways that only work on those analysts who are already sympathetic to the Pentagon. After all, the original story showed quite clearly that some analysts subjected to the same pressure were not persuaded.

And I bet there's a third defense, which is that Congress has probably specifically authorized the basic practice of briefing analysts at some point. Congress certainly meddles with all kinds of other details of DoD's operations, anyway.

C'mon, read that PR Watch blog post with the same critical attitude you'd use for a White House press release. It's rife with context-dropping, appeals to authority, selective quoting, opinion-shopping, misrepresenting opinions as facts, and on and on. It's just awful.

And I notice they don't even begin to claim that the language against propaganda is backed up by any actual criminal law. Maybe there is one, maybe not, but these bloggers don't mention one, so it's likely there's nothing to enforce no matter how many opinions the GAO issues.

And finally, since when is the GAO in the business of interpreting laws? I think that's what the US Attorney General and the Federal courts do.

. png


. png