Edited how

James O'Keefe's videotaped investigation of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) circulated in mainstream media and ultimately lead to the government defunding the organization. O'Keefe, now the author of several such pieces, sees himself as embattled and his work undercut by an elite media class too ignorant or dishonest to recognize their own liberal bias. The primary criticism of his work claims that he selectively edits his videos to serve an agenda, ultimately misrepresenting the facts. But he fires back, pointing out that all media is edited; no story runs in The New York Times and no tape rolls on CNN without having been cut to highlight the action, to fit the time allotted, and to hold our interest.

I imagine a Times editor arguing that, in the paper, he edits for clarity, consistency, readability--qualities that serve not to obscure or spin but, rather, to make the facts more accessible, to make them clear. But clarity of narrative is itself a fiction, and order largely an invention of the mind. O'Keefe has a point.

He is currently profiled in The New York Times piece "Stinger: James O'Keefe's Greatest Hits", a well-written, brief and dispassionate study of the young advocate journalist. Its author, Zev Chafets, closes with this question about O'Keefe's investigations:

Had the videos revealed a larger injustice, O’Keefe’s stated goal? Had they demonstrated waste and abuse in Great Society initiatives run amok, or were they simply exposing the failures of some well-meaning, low-level bureaucrats in a basically worthy government program? It depends on your perspective. As for James O’Keefe, he is already looking for the next target.

An interesting and ironic conclusion. The larger, unspoken theme to this story is advocacy in journalism. Media criticism today takes aim at mainstream journalists' unwillingness or inability to call out bullshit where it exists; O'Keefe himself has echoed Liberal media critics by calling journalists "stenographers". Yet, in the very face of that criticism, Chafets casually poses here two charges, detonating neither, leaving readers perhaps less certain of where, how, and if a guy like O'Keefe fits in the fractured snow globe of our doomed national politics.

Few people doubt that at times we need journalism that aims to get the facts straight, nothing more, nothing less. But at these times, in cases like this, we need a journalism that does what O'Keefe says he does: Speak truth to Power. No journalist covering O'Keefe should have to ask himself if advocates for the poor constitute Power. If he does, I might ask myself, Is Chafets stupid or just a coward?

A quick review of President Obama's "Make your voice heard" speech

President Obama made excellent use of plain language during last night's speech about the budget debate. Although the use of plain language has spread through most government offices, Presidents are still expected to sound "presidential". Obama--oratorically gifted almost to a fault--managed to break through that "presidential" wall of tone momentarily early in the speech when he prefaced his apposing of two budgetary visions with this: "I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal". This translates as a favor to the audience; he is suddenly about to do you a favor by interrupting your evening with a summarized account of the budget debate.

Speech content was well organized. He first portrayed the deficit as everyone's problem, giving concrete examples of how it affects both private transfers of capital and monies within social programs. He then laid out the two visions that reflect the mindsets of each side of the debate: The first plan is "balanced"--like its planners. "The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach--an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all." I had not heard Obama call out Republicans by party name before.

Next he recruited John Boehner and Ronald Reagan, and counted them among the balanced. I imagine he hoped this move, made only minutes before the Speaker's rebuttal, would lead some of the audience to doubt Boehner. Then Obama tried to explain the meaning and risks tied to the debt ceiling: "Understand--raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money." But this proved to be the low point of the speech; while his first discussion of risks concerned the debt, and this later portion of the speech covered the debt ceiling, Obama failed to differentiate the two and, as a result, sounded repetitive to me.

The President then argued against a short-term solution by saying, "Based on what we've seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now." Sure: Another ridiculous, stressful, embarrassing, frustrating, and dangerous debate. Then he appealed to American Exceptionalism: "That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare."

A common rhetorical move for politicians now is to conjure the divide between Washington and the rest of the country. And this is the only divide politicians recognize. Obama followed suit, portraying the voting public as united. He tried to tap into peoples' frustrations: "But do you know what people are fed up with most of all? They're fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word ... all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can't seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be." He never used the word Democrat; he positioned himself with bipartisan support as the familiar, allied with the fed up people, and he positioned the new Republicans as the other.

President Obama concluded with an interesting appeal: "History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union."

There are two American values that seem to conflict with each other: Self-sacrifice vs. self-reliance. Each is perpetuated by its own myths, and each must be invoked carefully. Self-sacrifice surfaces during war and economic struggle: It promoted rationing during WWII, and Truman recognized later it after the German surrender: "Let us not forget, my fellow Americans, the sorrow and the heartache which today abide in the homes of so many of our neighbors -- neighbors whose most priceless possession has been rendered as a sacrifice to redeem our liberty." He followed this with his formal proclamation: "The Allied armies, through sacrifice and devotion and with God's help, have wrung from Germany a final and unconditional surrender." I don't know that this appeal translated here in the President's speech; he said, "America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise". I image some Americans would not give ground on that.

We’ve got the American people

The budget plan outlined by the so-called "Gang of Six" was warmly welcomed by President Obama, who announced,

We have a Democratic president and administration that is prepared to sign a tough package that includes both spending cuts, modifications to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare that would strengthen those systems and allow them to move forward, and would include a revenue component. We now have a bipartisan group of senators who agree with that balanced approach. And we’ve got the American people who agree with that balanced approach.

• The word "tough" means painful for the poor and working class
• The word "modifications" means overall cuts in benefits to recipients, which mostly matters to those who need it
• "Strengthen" means that the reduced public programs--Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare--could arguably last longer, given that you (1) already accept that these programs are in trouble and won't last long, and (2) somehow believe these programs won't be slashed again and again

The President omits that the richest Americans' tax rates will drop several percentage points.

News of their world

At the News of the World phone-hacking hearing, parliamentary members ask questions and Murdoch answers. This discourse is filtered, translated, and expanded by media into a discourse for the public. Where media and the public meet, consumption, demand, answer, and reply intersect.

The hearing is the statement from legitimacy; the pie in the face attempt is the response from illegitimacy, which took shape via the legitimizing power of the hearing. The media covers the illegitimate; this story is but one in an explosion of discourse. The hearing becomes a sideshow, almost irrelevant in an ongoing discussion about the role and standards of media, the particulars of American vs British law and politics, the appropriateness of relationships between media and politicians, corporations and media, and corporations and government.

Then the story expands into oblivion, and all is said at once in silence.

Postmortem: The loudest and most abundant coverage focuses on the personal drama--the relationship between Murdoch and his son, Murdoch and his protege, Murdoch and his wife, the wife and the pie thrower, Cameron and his hired hand. Lost are the victims of the original crime, who, like the important issues of power and corruption, are rendered irrelevant to the spectacle.

The News of the World focused on the sensational. Now the rest of the media follow suit.

This means war

Midway through Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, two young guerrillas named Andres and Primitivo probe American expat Robert Jordan about politics and wealth in the US. Andres asks, "Do you have any big proprietors?" Then, "But there are not great estates that must be broken up?" The narrative goes on with Jordan answering,

"Yes. But there are those who believe that taxes will break them up."
"How?"
Robert Jordan, wiping out the stew bowl with bread, explained  now the income tax and inheritance tax worked. "But the big estates remain. Also, there are taxes on the land," he said.
"But surely the big proprietors and the rich will make a revolution against such taxes. Such taxes appear to me to be revolutionary. They will revolt against the government when they see that they are threatened, exactly as the fascists have done here," Primitivo said.

The Sun Also Rises

Robert Jordan aims to destroy a bridge nested in the hills of Spain. He's fighting fascists in the Spanish Civil War, and for this mission he has embedded himself within a group of cave squatting peasants who casually identify as Communist Republican guerrillas. Jordan's new local comrades are a motley bunch that includes a modestly perfect old man, a couple gypsies, a once-ruthless but now shelled guerrilla hero, their hard boiled matron, and a victimized young beauty Robert takes for a lover. All of them are on his mission now, and to varying degrees each of them knows it will bring death.

Hemingway's protagonist fights the fascists but much of the action in For Whom the Bell Tolls unfolds in Robert's thoughts. It is there a quiet battle burns between cynicism and idealism, drafting in its duration his politics, his humanity, values, lineage, and his identity. The conclusion is appropriately unresolved, situated somewhere between an existentialist's consignment and a young boy's pretending.

Hemingway's pacing can put the reader to work, but this work brings satisfaction when it's done.

Business rules and faith in the leadership

Mitch McConnell wants the Republican-controlled Congress to stick President Obama with sole ownership of the decision to raise the debt ceiling. Probably a good move for them. This way, come election time, the GOP-Tea Party can point to the White House and say "Obama wants to spend even more, so he raised the debt ceiling!"

The whole debate places the Republican leadership in a tough spot: They don't want any part of a default, but they don't want to be perceived as being soft on spending, either. McConnell's way provides a way out. His additional requirement--that Obama specify cuts equal to each increase--almost seems unnecessary.

The New York Times article "McConnell Warns of Risk to Party, and Country, of Default" lays out the issue from McConnell's point of view. And it says,

While Mr. McConnell’s plan would face an array of political and perhaps constitutional issues, it signaled that Republican leaders did not intend to let conservative demands for deep spending cuts provoke a possible financial crisis and saddle the party with a reputation for irresponsible intransigence.

This sentence (1) nods in agreement with the premise that not raising the debt ceiling is bad and (2) signals confidence in the Republican leadership. And the word "irresponsible" is key there; it is at once (1) a recognition that the party has already been saddled with a reputation for neutral or responsible intransigence, and (2) a denial of any intransigence because such recognition goes unstated.

On the blue side, President Obama is always in need of strategy; if he wanted to rebuild some Federal Government credibility among the public, he should start a PR campaign to highlight new research and development in other countries and frame this in terms of other nations progressing while America stalls. What proud American wouldn't reconsider funding NASA after learning that China is gearing up its space program?

Jose Antonio Vargas

• Gay
• Undocumented
• Journalist

If you wanted to invent someone that the political right just could not sympathize with.

Humberto Leal Garcia v. Texas

Texas executed a Mexican Thursday night. The state broke no US laws and had no binding obligation to follow International law or treaty. The man, convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl, had been in the country for several years prior to his crime, arrest, and his subsequent years of imprisonment.

The President, appealing to pending future legislation, International decorum, and potential risk to US citizens abroad, asked the Supreme Court to halt the execution. By a 5-4 decision, it did not.

The majority opinion goes unattributed. Here's highlights:

Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be.

... The United States and JUSTICE BREYER complain of the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal’s execution. Post, at 4. Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” post, at 6, presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.

The minority opinion includes this ...

Thus, on the one hand, international legal obligations, related foreign policy considerations, the prospect of legislation, and the consequent injustice involved should that legislation, coming too late for Leal, help others in identical circumstances all favor granting a stay. And issuing a brief stay until the end of September, when the Court could consider this matter in the ordinary course, would put Congress on clear notice that it must act quickly. On the other hand, the State has an interest in proceeding with an immediate execution. But it is difficult to see how the State’s interest in the immediate execution of an individual convicted of capital murder 16 years ago can outweigh the considerations that support additional delay, perhaps only until the end of the summer ...

... In reaching its contrary conclusion, the Court ignores the appeal of the President in a matter related to foreign affairs, it substitutes its own views about the likelihood of congressional action for the views of Executive Branch officials who have consulted with Members of Congress, and it denies the request by four Members of the Court to delay the execution until the Court can discuss the matter at Conference in September. In my view, the Court is wrong in each respect.

I respectfully dissent.

Compared to the majority opinion, the dissent sounds rather pointed.

The Casey Anthony trial and the desire to punish

The Casey Anthony trial attracted major media attention. In the NPR piece, New Republic: Beyond Whose Reasonable Doubt?, University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos discusses belief in the system and how high profile trials like Anthony's figure into that belief. He says that we must decide what constitutes reasonable doubt and render judgment while adhering to the belief that "mistaken acquittals are vastly preferable to wrongful convictions". The price of this jurisprudence of prudent judgement, however, may lead to "deeply disturbing" verdicts, as in the Anthony case, where the defendant likely "has gotten away with murder", thereby challenging our belief in the system. He's counseling us. And with good reason.

Indeed, I think one function of high-profile trials such as this is to show that the system "works". The media inadvertently and advertently promotes the status quo, which requires a measure of belief in the judicial system. So, the pundits screamed when the verdict was read because they think the system should have rendered a guilty verdict. That an injustice has been done may be one reason for the vigor and volume of their response, but I would suggest another reason is at play here, too.

Casey Anthony's behavior defies our expectations of what young mothers are supposed to look like and act like. Pundits wanted to punish the mother not so much for killing her child as for the way she behaved after the death. What constituted evidence also constituted her crimes: Getting the tattoo and going to night clubs.

The concept of a mother who does not cherish her child challenges the ideal of the self-policing individual and the centralized interest in the protection and regulation of life. Media figures apparently salivated in agreement at the prospect of punishing Anthony, building a consensus among the public that the young woman was guilty and deserved punishment.

National myth

Most cultures and countries have their national myths. The myth serves many functions: They create and enable shared experiences, solidify a national identity, and promote values, just to name a few.

In America, myths about the Founding Fathers abound. America also has many myths about its soldiers. A primary myth revolves around the story of the young soldier--a boy, really--who goes off to war and returns a man, stronger than he was when he left.

Ideally, some young woman waits for him. This is the story of the journey, but focused and particular to the American soldier. These myths come to life in movies, books, and video games. But they take deep root in the public psyche when perpetuated through news media. The media's promotion and America's subsequent embrace of the so-called "Greatest Generation" exemplifies many of our military myths, including this one. Military sacrifice thus becomes the highest honor affordable to the middle and lower classes.

That returning soldiers often face unemployment, alcoholism and addiction, shrinking benefits, and physical and mental trauma goes unmentioned.

NPR is engaging in some myth making with their series "Who Serves". Here is an exemplary installment: "For Some, The Decision To Enlist Offers Direction"

Vignette, junked

One of them rose out the passenger side, measured steps took him inside the house. The other stalled in the driver's seat. Both wore black t-shirts, hiking boots, blue Dickies, close shaved hair. Looking on them saw hard looks, but those weren't hard looks they gave, trying. They were young. In short time the white Lincoln Town Car backed readily out the driveway, then pulled less readily up the street trailing a scent of stale cigarette smoke and car freshener like words in a goodbye letter between teenagers.