the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

...and yeah. i'm a liberal.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Becky was right about this: I may not be as liberal as I think I am. But then, that would mean I buy into this liberal-to-conservative scale:

1-----------------------------2-----------------------------3-----------------------------4-----------------------------5

Where:

1 is "liberal," meaning you don't entertain the possibility those theocratic conservatives may be right under any circumstances;

2 is "liberal-wannabe," meaning you do consider issues individually based on their own merits, but then, you aren't really liberal;

3 is "moderate/centrist," meaning you are a fence-sitter and no one likes you;

4 is "conservative wannabe," meaning you do consider issues individually based on their own merits, but then you aren't really conservative; and

5 is "conservative," meaning you don't entertain the possibility that those godless liberals may be right under any circumstances.

So...nyaaaah. I think many, many people more or less assume the scale works like that, though (particularly in the past few years, when polarization between the ideologies is stronger than ever). I see too many people from both sides who start with the assumption that the other side is wrong (and that their side is right). That's right. Extremists on both ends seem to think themselves infallible, like Jesus or something.

I think I'm still as liberal as I ever was, if not more so. I'm not liberal because I believe everything the liberal talking-heads tell me (I don't). I'm not liberal because buy into whatever Democrats or Independents (?) are pushing (I don't). I'm liberal because my understanding of history and human nature and our laws lead me to conclude that people need understanding and help as opposed to tough love, when possible; that I'm not inherently better than anyone else (although I may be better AT something, and thus don't deserve more; that people have always and can be expected to continue to act in their own selfish interests, and any government which wishes to maintain a good economy must use this fact to its advantage; and that the greater the disparity between rich and poor, the more jacked the economy will be.

I believe that the money I "make" is ours, just like yours is ours. I was able to "make" this money--in this case, my military paycheck--thanks to taxpayers, most of whom make far, far less money than I do. I make the money because the government is stable. It's stable because I and hundreds of thousands of others (who do far more and make far less) make it safe. It's stable because we have programs to help some of our poor. And we're rich because we leech services off of thousands (millions?) of people in third-world countries for a pittance. I didn't make my money in a vaccuum, and I don't keep it in a vaccuum. I am where I am because of the millions of people out there who cannot do better. The government does its best to ensure we don't have unchecked crime, that we have insurance for our losses, that we have electricity, and postal service, and clean water, and uncontaminated food, and at least emergency medical care. And so forth.

I guess what I'm saying is that no man is an island. :)

Sounds pretty socialist, huh? It is. But not entirely. I don't advocate complete equality (I don't believe in it); I just believe huge economical disparities aren't right, they only amplify our natural selfish tendencies, and they will ultimately destroy an economy.

Mmmmok. That was a tangent.

Here's the thing that got me thinking about all this liberal/conservative media/divide stuff today: the HuffPost "report" on Bush's "plagiarized" memoir.

Excerpt:

Crown [Publishing] got a mash-up of worn-out anecdotes from previously published memoirs written by his subordinates, from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections. He took equal license in lifting from nonfiction books about his presidency or newspaper or magazine articles from the time. Far from shedding light on how the president approached the crucial "decision points" of his presidency, the clip jobs illuminate something shallower and less surprising about Bush's character: He's too lazy to write his own memoir.

Reporting is never argument. Ever.

Listen. I'm only going to say this once (but who am I kidding?). A report provides the facts and does not deign to reach conclusions. Of any kind. Ever. Argument is the stuff of opinion.

This is basic freshman composition, people. If you're just sharing facts about volcanoes, you're writing a report. If you're saying volcanoes are God's way of punishing stupid people, you're making an assertion. If you have evidence to support your viewpoint, you're making an argument.

Again: Reporting is providing the facts and only the facts (and just the facts), Ma'am. Think Dragnet. Anything more is opinionating. It should be labeled "Op-ed" or "blog"; at the very least, don't call it a "report," for the love of Christ. It ain't--even if it is bringing new observations into play.

OK. I'm not a Bush fan, by any stretch. I am, however, a fan of fairness. If I need bullshit to hold against someone, I'm not being fair. I cannot be fair.

So. If the HuffPost bit had just provided their observations, that would have been a report. Clearly, they did far more than that. Grim accused Bush of lifting information "word for word" which implies a much greater "sin" than he did indeed commit in this case, if at all. Grim concluded that Bush is simply "too lazy to write his own memoirs," which is a huuuuuge step over the line.

Here is a sample of Grim's evidence:

From Decision Points, p. 205: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 – 102 days after 9/11 – several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"

From Ahmed Rashid’s The Mess in Afghanistan, quoted in The New York Times Review of Books: “At the airport to receive [Karzai] was the warlord General Mohammad Fahim, a Tajik from the Panjshir Valley …. As the two men shook hands on the tarmac, Fahim looked confused. 'Where are your men?' he asked. Karzai turned to him in his disarmingly gentle manner of speaking. 'Why General,' he replied, “you are my men—all of you are Afghans and are my men...'"

Bush was not at Karzai’s Innauguration. [sic]

Since I haven't read the book, I'll handle the questions here as though I were a conservative who didn't want to believe Bush had plagiarized--which implies intention, incidentally, which is extremely difficult to prove. My first question is this: Does Bush claim to have been at Karzai's inauguration? Yes...it is his memoir. However, if he does not claim to have been there, the reasonable explanation is that he was providing what he thought to be important background information (and considering his administration's penchant for pathos, I'll vote for this, as the anecdote is indeed moving). Otherwise, it certainly isn't "word for word."

Another point Grim may be missing: if information is common knowledge (he uses the phrase "worn-out anecdotes"), using it without attribution is not plagiarism. At the very worst, it is false advertisement, since the book purports to provide ""gripping, never-before-heard detail." But still...it doesn't promise that every detail will be gripping, and never-before-heard.

Let's look at another example.

From Decision Points, p. 267: "Several months later, four men came to see me at the White House. They were members of the Delta Team that had captured Saddam. They told me the story of the hunt…'My name is Saddam Hussein,' the man said. 'I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate.' 'Regards from President Bush,' the soldier replied."

BBC, Dec. 15, 2003: “How Saddam Hussein was captured”: "[Saddam] put up no resistance although armed with a pistol. 'My name is Saddam Hussein. I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate,' he told the US troops in English, according to Major Bryan Reed, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division. 'Regards from President Bush,' US special forces replied, Major Reed recounted."

A Time magazine story later questioned whether the story was accurate.

“Legends of the Fall,” Dec. 29, 2003: “A U.S. intelligence official, meanwhile, casts doubt on another widely reported tale: that a U.S. soldier hailed the nemesis of two Commanders in Chief named George Bush by saying: ‘Regards from President Bush.’ This person says some officials suspect the story is ‘apocryphal.’”

So did the soldiers tell Bush that story or did he lift it from the BBC?

To call this plagiarism (which Grim is implying, at least) is to assert that the soldiers did not tell Bush that story and that Bush did indeed "lift it from the BBC." But Grim admits he doesn't know. Suspecting a story is apocryphal--and there's always going to be people who suspect any good story is apocryphal--is a far cry from plagiarism. And I'm curious about this, too: What would Grim have said if Bush's account different markedly from the BBC report?

If you want to hate Bush, hate him for having his CIA operatives waterboard individuals until their distressed and coached victims "admitted" a link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Hate him for using this "intel" to sucker us into a pointless and unwinnable war. Hate him for turning a huge budget surplus into the largest deficit in history.

If you want to hate him, hate him for valid reasons. When you attack him for something you'd defend tooth and nail were it about Clinton or Obama, you just look pathetic, desperate, and hateful--any one of which negates reasoned debate.

Oh...when I first saw the HuffPost piece above, I looked around for a balanced report of the information. For almost 24 hours, no other news outlet had anything up about it. This suggests to me that the "liberal media" isn't nearly as widespread as many conservatives claim. The first outlet to take it up was the Christian Science Monitor. Their coverage was...well, actual reporting. Salon takes a side, but admits it's a blog, so I have no beef with them. I find nothing on Fox News about this yet. And I may not. They may sincerely feel there's nothing to report. And I wouldn't blame them.

d