Esoteric Dissertations from a One-Track Mind

May 29, 2008

Charlie Gibson: Stupendous Tool of the Bush Adminstration

Filed under: culture, media — Tags: , , , , — codesmithy @ 9:11 am

Matt Lauer from the Today Show sat down with the three major corporate network news anchors, Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and Charlie Gibson. They were promoting “Stand Up to Cancer” but while Lauer had them in studio he asked them to respond to McClellan’s charges that the media was too deferential in the run up to Iraq.

Here is the result. (h/t Glenn Greenwald)

Couric’s assessment was fair but a bit lacking. The Bush administration is media savvy. They knew how to bully reporters. Her claim was a little bit narrow in that she felt like it didn’t effect her coverage, but admitted that she felt that it affected the coverage in the media generally. In all fairness, Lauer poked her in that direction also, ensuring she did not impugn the integrity of the news organization she worked previously.

Brian Williams was establishment enabling as always. It was basic apologetics. The media wanted to verify the administration’s claims, but it was just too hard.  Iraq is on the other side of the Earth you know.

Then along comes Gibson and demonstrates what being a complete and utter douche is all about. He thinks the media did a terrific job, couldn’t have done any better. He was a grizzled veteran of the administration’s tactics, but he stood up to them. The media questioned Powell’s U.N. presentation. Gibson was a fine example of such skepticism.  Here is an example of him asking those hard-hitting questions he asked in the run-up to the war from Glenn Greenwald’s update:

On February 6, 2003 — the day of Powell’s speech — Gibson had on as guests former CIA Director James Woolsey and Terence Taylor of the International Institute For Strategic Studies to analyze Powell’s claims. Here are some of the super-tough, skeptical questions Gibson asked:

* Terence Taylor, let me start with you. Specifically, of all the biological and chemical weapons that he outlined, and the means of delivery, what’s the most frightening? Should be the most frightening?

* Question number two that was in my mind. James Woolsey, he showed intercepts, he showed photo intelligence. He talked about human resources that we had. How much intelligence was compromised?

* On a scale of one to 10, one being the most sanitized of intelligence information and 10 being laying out all our intelligence ammunition, where was he yesterday on the scale?

* Terence Taylor, as I look at some of the pictures that we were talking about just a moment ago with James Woolsey, the pictures dramatic in that they show Iraqi trucks pulling away from sites virtually as the, as the inspectors trucks are pulling up. How compromised are the inspectors there? Are they totally infiltrated by Iraqi intelligence?

Here’s how the segment ended:

CHARLES GIBSON

James Woolsey, the Iraqis immediately challenged a lot of what was shown, said it was altered, said it was doctored. The international community — do they know that stuff was genuine?

JAMES WOOLSEY

Oh, anybody who is objective about this I think does. The people who now doubt whether or not Saddam really has WMD programs, chemical and bacteriological, in particular, are really of two types, either they work for Saddam or they’re doing a human imitation of an ostrich. There really are, I think, no other possibilities.

CHARLES GIBSON

James Woolsey, former CIA Director, Terence Taylor, former weapons inspector, I thank you both.

Again, I have to ask, how would Pravda be any different?

Although, Gibson already proved his credentials as Republican water-carrier as he jokes about the crowd turning on him at the Democratic debate that ABC hosted.

I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised.

Advertisements

May 28, 2008

Bush Gets Whacked By Former Press Secretary

Filed under: books, media, politics — Tags: , — codesmithy @ 9:22 am

The Politico has a review of Scott McClellan’s scathing memoir “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” The story of how Politico got the book before its publication date is a little bit of a mystery. Apparently, they purchased it from a Washington bookstore. What was said store doing selling the book before its publication date? I imagine the publisher is pissed. Regardless, McClellan apparently gives his insights into the Plame leak, the run up to the war, and his general feeling about the administration.

McClellan said that Bush ran his administration like a campaign. As the Politico notes:

McClellan repeatedly embraces the rhetoric of Bush’s liberal critics and even charges: “If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

It is one thing for the disenfranchised left to complain about the lack of anti-war voices in the run up to the war and how the mainstream media left many of the administration claims about Iraq go unchallenged. Coming from McClellan, it is hard to call his endorsement of such views anything other than “blame the victim.”

We sometimes forget the incredible amount of national unity the United States had in the wake of 9/11. The need for unity; the need to put disagreements aside and work together for a common purpose in the name of our collective safety was real, is real. Like McClellan, I have no doubt Bush is an “authentic” and “sincere” man. I have no doubt he believed he was doing the right thing and felt he had a messianic purpose to lead this nation. However, he did something that was unforgivable. He cooked the books, excluded those who disagreed, kept the whole story secret and filtered facts to build the case for his desired purpose.

In short, he used us. He didn’t rule by consensus. He ruled by marginalizing all those who disagreed. He never started administrating. He just continued campaigning. Anyone who dared question his proposed course of action stood accused of helping the terrorists. The disaster he caused, with his war of choice, is larger than that caused by the terrorists he demonized. Despite Bush’s views on the matter, criticism and informed public debate is essential. It helps vet the thinking and ferrets out the bad ideas and mistaken assumptions. Bush wanted none of it. Of course, what should we expect from a failed oil man?

Bush was also helped by Fox News. If the “liberal” media failed to report something, they risked being scooped by Fox and the only thing worse in mainstream media than being wrong, is getting beat to a story.

Bush remains sure that history will vindicate him. I highly doubt that it will. The Iraq War will forever be Bush’s War in much the same way Vietnam was President Johnson’s. If Bush doesn’t have his foreign policy record to hang his hat on, it is hard to imagine the range of domestic crises throughout his presidency would bolster his record. Years from now, I think will be to pull a McClellan, blame others in the administration and ultimately those who elected him. He may have a point, although it doesn’t change the fact we were betrayed.

Update: Glenn Greenwald has more about the McClellan revelations.

May 27, 2008

RE: The new American segregation

Filed under: culture, media, politics — Tags: — codesmithy @ 7:02 am

Gregory Rodriguez wrote an “op-ed” in the Los Angeles Times on “the new American segregation.” It shares a similar editorial slant coming from other dead-tree and ink proprietors, bemoaning the rank partisanship that dominates political discourse. Rodriguez revels in his role as a Cassandra-esque hand-wringer about what what this might mean for democracy.

Rodriguez points out that there is a link between political participation and partisanship. Rodriguez asserts:

In other words, a healthy democracy needs the uncommitted middle, the fence straddlers and the apathetic as much as it the firebrand activists. Indeed, in a nation so torn by the passions of partisans, it is those of us who aren’t all that enamored of either side who give politicians the room to compromise, which, of course, is the art that politics is supposed to be all about.

First of all, the percentage turnout of the voting-age population in the U.S. has never been as high as it was in 1960 at 63.1%. So, presumably the society is less partisan than it was in an earlier era. Second, there are a number of countries that enjoy higher turnout percentages and they haven’t imploded.

Country Turnout
Australia 95%
Italy 90%
Sweden 86%
Norway 81%
Israel 80%
Canada 76%
Japan 71%

(source)

So, even if voter turnout were 70% (which I think is well beyond most people’s predictions for the 2008 election), predicting the demise of democracy as a result seems to be directly at odds with the reality in other countries.

Rodriguez then goes on to bemoan the shrinking numbers of “skeptics and the uncommitted.”  I assert this is more of an artifact of the issues we are facing as a country.  We are occupying a foreign country.  We are torturing people.  There is good evidence to say that the government is illegally spying on American citizens.  The president commuted the sentence of one of his own staff; a crime the staff member committed to stonewall an investigation into other members of the administration.  The list goes on.  What compromise is there between those of us who say the United States should abide by the Geneva Conventions and those who think they can dance around those principles with impunity?

Rodriguez then goes on to cite Bill Bishop’s thesis that it the plethora of media choices which are tearing us apart.   Similarly, people are clustering in like-minded communities meaning they don’t have to interact with people who don’t share their world view.

From my perspective, the real problem is there isn’t a shared culture of consensus building.  Put another way, there isn’t a shared recognition of a superior argument, or broad understanding of arguing something on the merits.  There might be such a culture, but it certainly doesn’t apply to everyone.  Instead, people resort to a number of logical fallacies or sloppy thinking to defend what they believe.  In certain cases, that is the only way a world view survives.

Hence, the unstated premise becomes clear.  The presumption is that some world views are equally valid as others.  This is the core of the centerist doctrine and it is also incorrect.  In an information age, with a great variety of information sources we would expect a split to take place.  The previously apathetic are now awash with more than enough information to make up their own minds about any particular issue.  The superior world view spreads in the communities where it can.  As for inferior world views, they have to circle the wagons and introduce filters in order for their world view to survive or else it would simply disappear.

In short, this isn’t the end of democracy; it is the new beginning.  We may be establishing a truer consensus now than at any other time in our past.  In the meantime, the centerist doctrine is one of the world views I cheer towards extinction.

May 26, 2008

RE: Why People Don’t Trust Free Markets

Filed under: capitalism, economy, politics, science — Tags: — codesmithy @ 7:32 am

Michael Shermer wrote a post on his blog called “Why People Don’t Trust Free Markets.” Shermer is the founder of the The Skeptics Society and editor of its magazine Skeptic. Skeptic magazine is dedicated to investigating and debunking junk science and supernatural claims.

For me, Shermer is a little bit of a mixed bag. He gave a good talk at TED on “why people believe strange things.” I criticized one of his columns in Scientific American on “Rational Atheism.” So any criticism of Shermer should be tempered against the good work that he does. It is a phenomenon that people tend to hold greater disdain for those they disagree with slightly than completely. A young-Earth creationist can be dismissed as haplessly misinformed. Their employment of logical fallacies and poor evidence is not notable, it is expected. Shermer, as a person who advocates a more rational understand of the universe, employs similar canards; it feels like an outright betrayal. He should know better!

Shermer starts off by quoting Ludwig von Mises:

The truth is that capitalism has not only multiplied population figures but at the same time improved the people’s standard of living in an unprecedented way. Neither economic thinking nor historical experience suggest that any other social system could be as beneficial to the masses as capitalism. The results speak for themselves. The market economy needs no apologists and propagandists. It can apply to itself the words of Sir Christopher Wren’s epitaph in St. Paul’s: Si monumentum requires, circumspice.

Noam Chomsky breaks apart this argument when asked if capitalism is making life better?

As Chomsky correctly notes, one could say the same thing about slave societies. As a skeptic who knows the importance of tracking the failures as well as the successes, I am surprised he employs this line of argument.

Next Shermer goes on to state:

Market solutions to social problems are generally received with skepticism. Businessmen are distrusted, corporations looked at askance, and there is a well-known resentment against those who have most benefited from markets.

I’m surprised Shermer doesn’t offer any examples for this. What is an example of a market based solution to a social problem? Would school vouchers be a fair example? Or is “a market solution” turning over a municipality to a private entity.

Businessmen should be distrusted. Anytime some one is trying to sell you something, their claims should be looked at skeptically, especially because they have obvious incentive to cheat.  Corporations are distrusted because they are incredibly powerful and largely, publicly unaccountable institutions.  By their very nature, they are one-share, one-vote, not one-person, one-vote.  This has major ramifications for so-called “externalities.”  See ship breaking in Bangladesh for an example of externalities.

As for resentment towards the biggest winners in a free-market, I know of no way to meaningfully quantify it.  Even for Bill Gates, his book “Business @ the Speed of Thought” was a best seller near the time it was released.  Is that antipathy?  Is that resentment?  Buying a book that he wrote?  Yes, there are people that don’t like Bill Gates, but that seems indicative of any public figure.

Shermer then gives a sketch of historical development from hunter-gather tribes explain “evolutionary egalitarianism” or the collective reversion for “excessive greed and avarice.”  Then Shermer pulls a remarkable rhetorical trick:

Throughout most of the history of civilization as well, economic inequalities were not the result of natural differences in drive and talent between members of a society equally free to pursue their right to prosperity; instead, a handful of chiefs, kings, nobles, and priests exploited an unfair and rigged social system to achieve gains best described as ill gotten.

I would love to see this great break in history where society moved to a pure meritocracy based on a free market.  It is telling that whenever a country democratically decides to redistribute land to undue some of the “ill gotten” gains of the past, the United States has seen fit to intervene as was the case in Iran, Chile and Guatemala.

The most laughable part of the piece, and the most unconscionable is Shermer citing “well-documented liberal bias in the academy and the media against free markets.”  It absolutely must be screaming in the back of Shermer’s mind that the argument he employs in this section is exactly the same tactic intelligent-design advocates use to claim bias against their espoused ideas.  There are not two, equally valid sides to every issue.  Setting up a false dichotomy and adhering to the doctrine of “centerism” is incorrect on its face.   Arianna Huffington posits it as equal time for lies.  If Shermer wants to demonstrate some bias against free market ideology, he needs to improve his method.  He needs to look at individual stories and pick out irrefutable inaccuracies.  The “centerist” doctrine he tries to employ is worse than worthless.

Shermer then concludes:

This is, in fact, why WorldCom and Enron type disasters still make headlines. If they didn’t — if such corporate catastrophes caused by egregious ethical lapses were so common that they were not even worth covering on the nightly news — free market capitalism would implode. Instead it thrives, but just as eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, so too must it be for free markets, since both are inextricably bound together.

Capitalism and freedom are not inextricably bound together.  They are frequently diametrically opposed propositions.

Naomi Klein investigated the link in “China’s All-Seeing Eye.” Shermer sentiment is no more true than when Milton Friedman pitched it.

May 24, 2008

Castro and McCain Trade Barbs

Filed under: politics — Tags: , — codesmithy @ 10:13 am

Fidel Castro wrote a column called “Martí’s inmortal ideas” in which Castro criticizes McCain and George W. Bush.

In his book The Faith of My Fathers, McCain confessed that he was one of the five bottom students in his cohort at West Point. He is demonstrating that. At the end of his time in prison he was weak, and he acknowledges that as well. He launched innumerable bombs on the Vietnamese people. How many lives and how much money did that adventure cost? At that time gold was worth $35 and they squandered $500 billion in that war. The consequences are still being paid. A Troy ounce is now worth $1,000 and once again hundreds of billions are being squandered in wars. New and complex problems are compounding that.

What first got me interested in this story was to find out if Castro actually said “West Point.” As a point of historical accuracy, John McCain did not attend West Point; he attended the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. Apparently, Castro got it wrong although the article itself is interesting in its own right.

McCain drew recent ire from Castro for repeating his claim that Cubans helped the North Vietnamese torture US POWs. A charge that Castro calls a lie.

Later, McCain expressed his hope that Castro would “ha[ve] the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon.”

I just find it interesting that Castro finds the time to read “The Faith of My Fathers” and “Bush on the Couch.”  The Gallup poll Castro is referencing can be found here.

I imagine McCain will take Castro’s condemnation as some sort of ringing endorsement without ever addressing the substance.  If McCain holds Castro to the standard that:

For me to respond to Fidel Castro who has oppressed and repressed his people and who is one of the most brutal dictators on Earth, for me to dignify any comments he might make is certainly beneath me

Then we must also examine Castro’s charges that:

Neither of the two speakers [Bush or McCain] on May 20 and 21st even mentioned the five Cuban anti-terrorist heroes, whose information made it possible to uncover the plots of Luis Posada Carriles and to prevent the sabotage of airplanes in full flight with foreign visitors on board, including U.S. citizens, in order to damage tourism. They pressured and bribed the president of Panama and helped to secure Posada’s release. Santiago Alvarez transported him to Florida. I publicly denounced that almost immediately. Everything has been proven. After that an enormous weapons arsenal was seized from Santiago Alvarez himself.

Or his charge that both McCain and Bush are ignoring the brutality of the U.S. imposed embargo.

As for the siege of hunger and blockade that has lasted for decades, not a word.

May 23, 2008

McCain News Redux Part Deux

Filed under: politics — Tags: , — codesmithy @ 9:15 am

The first item is that McCain got around to repudiating Pastor Hagee. Proving once again, nothing is more toxic in American politics than the ghost of Adolph Hitler. Hagee made it appear as if the dissolution was mutual. McCain also got around severing ties with Rod Parsley. The preacher who said it was the historical mission of the United States to destroy Islam.

The central point here is that it isn’t like these pastors views were unknown. The views of both these pastors were clear long before McCain specifically sought their endorsement. Either McCain is a horrible judge of character, he secretly holds the views of these pastors and welcomes their endorsement, or a complete shill and cynic running for president, completely willing to say anything or do anything to win. Regardless of the answer, this episode demonstrates further why McCain is completely unfit to be president.

The second item was McCain was on the Ellen DeGeneres show. Ms. DeGeneres challenged McCain on his stance towards California ruling which determined same-sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to enter into civil unions or marriage. In the end, McCain pulled the we’ll-just-have-to-agree-to-disagree card. That is right, McCain said that he thought it was right to discriminate against same-sex couples, although he demonstrated he didn’t have the cojones to say it to her face. McCain’s history of opposing same-sex unions is documented on the Think Progress page.

The third item is that the new GI Bill was attached to the war funding bill. It passed by an overwhelming majority 77-22. McCain was opposed to the GI Bill and offered an alternative. Subsequently, he didn’t bother showing up for the vote. It really shows his commitment to supporting the troops.

The final item is that McCain is supposed to release 400 pages of medical records on Friday. Left off the list to see the records, the New York Times. Yup, McCain isn’t above the same access bull the White House currently employs.

Bonus item: McCain demonstrates his ignorance of Iranian government. The pure racket of it all is that he references the demonizing of Ahmadinejad as evidence of his rectitude.  Why are people seriously considering this man as a candidate to be president?

May 22, 2008

McCain News Redux

Filed under: politics, religion — Tags: , , , , — codesmithy @ 8:30 am

Here are some of the ways John McCain is making news.

The first item is that news broke today that the Pastor John Hagee said Hitler was fulfilling God’s will by carrying out the Holocaust.

It should be noted that McCain explicitly sought Hagee’s endorsement. Add this to the other Hagee beliefs such as the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon spoken of in the book of Revelations and that God sent hurricane Katrina to stop an gay-pride parade that was supposedly set to get out-of-hand. In case you don’t know this already, dispensationalists are wacky and dangerous.

The second point is that the McCain campaign is trying to reward commenters who push John McCain talking points on blogs. The three featured blogs that they currently have targeted are:

  • Red State
  • Jeff Emanuel
  • Daily Kos

I couldn’t find any direct reference on the sites in reference to the news that they have been targeted.  I guess they call it a noise machine for a reason.

The third is more of an around-this-date-in-history type of item.  Two years ago, John McCain went on a university commencement speaking tour.  He spoke at three “universities.”

  • Liberty “University”
  • Columbia University
  • The New School – A University

The New School was the last stop and apparently the most protested.  Jean Sara Rohe gave a stirring speech trashing McCain’s before he had a chance to repeat it.  The immaculate Amy Goodman covered the story for Democracy Now!

Here is a summary in the New York Times.  The row Ms. Goodman mentions is still available on Huffington Post.

Basically, Rohe wrote this piece on Huffington Post better explaining why she decided to speak outMark Slater, a McCain aide, responded with some harsh remarksFinally, Rohe responds to Slater.

The fourth item is that the EFF is reporting that John McCain wouldn’t give Telecos Immunity if he were president. This is in direct contradiction to his voting record on this issue.  He voted in favor of the bill that would grant the telecoms retroactive immunity and already voted against an amendment to strike telecom immunity from that bill (h/t yutt).  Given McCain’s close ties with lobbyists, Republican ideology, and already proven track-record of supporting telecom immunity with his votes and actions, I don’t really think we should give him the chance to demonstrate that this was just another one of his many campaign lies or flip-flops.

May 21, 2008

Summer of Terror, South Korea 1950

Filed under: history, media, politics — Tags: — codesmithy @ 8:37 am

The AP is running a story of the mass graves recently found in South Korea. Experts estimate 100,000 people killed by the U.S.-backed regime. The people executed were suspected leftists or hapless peasants. We are told that the South Korean dictatorship was concerned that the people they ended up executing might reinforce the North Koreans if the area was taken over. Regardless of the reason, extermination of civilians is a crime against humanity.

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

A couple points are worth noting.  The AP ran another story explaining why it took so long for the truth to come out titled: “Fear, secrecy kept 1950 Korea mass killings hidden.”  However, we find near the end of the article that “[s]cattered reports of the killings did emerge in 1950 — and some did not.”

It is important to note that people at the time dismissed the atrocities at the time as fabrication and almost charged those who spread the stories with treason.

Earlier, correspondent Alan Winnington reported on the shooting of thousands of prisoners at Daejeon in the British communist newspaper The Daily Worker, only to have his reporting denounced by the U.S. Embassy in London as an “atrocity fabrication.” The British Cabinet then briefly considered laying treason charges against Winnington, historian Jon Halliday has written.

For those who dismiss this as some academic exercise left to the distant past.  Here is an example of the U.S. getting rid of Al Jazeera in Fallujah.

The U.S. military responded by ordering Al Jazeera out of Fallujah, so that the killing could continue without witnesses.  Gen. Mark Kimmitt declared, “The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources.  That is propaganda, and that is lies.”  Four days later, on April 15th, Donald Rumsfeld said that Al Jazeera’s reporting was “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.  It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.” (pg. 194 Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People who Fight Back – Amy Goodman and David Goodman)

There is also considerable evidence the U.S. military specifically targeted Al Jazeera as one can glean from watching “Control Room.”  There are also some other cases documented in “Static” leading to the conclusion that “[t]he penalty for presenting unofficial truths soon became apparent: U.S. bullets and bombs were ultimately trained on Al Jazeera.” (pg. 197 Static)

A framework for understanding these issues is offered by Noam Chomsky.  Chomsky presents three types of terror: constructive, benign, and nefarious.

It takes a while for him to lead-in to it, but it is about 2:15 minutes in.

A “constructive” form of terror is what McCain advocates by bombing Iran.  We never put it exactly in those terms, but it is exactly what we are doing.  It is usually hidden behind some euphemism about “showing Iran” or giving them a black-eye or bloody nose.  It masks the fact that we are planning on destroying parts of Iranian infrastructure and indifferently killing some of the citizens of that country.  “Benign” forms of terror are mostly irrelevant for purposes of discussion.  “Nefarious” forms of terror are what the other-side does.  These are typically seared into the national psyche such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc.

As Chomsky notes, we are more responsible for the atrocities of governments that we support than those that we oppose.  However, what I hope is clear is that the government cover-ups or downplays the actual effects of our violence or by our proxies and their human cost.  The mainstream media is frequently complicit in that portrayal.  The few who speak the truth to power are frequently branded as treasonous or unpatriotic.  These few are later vindicated.

It is my sincere hope that citizens in the United States will be able to recognize and react to these atrocities when they occur and help bring them to a close.  The first step to winning the true “War on Terror” is to end the acts of terrorism our own country engages in.

May 19, 2008

When Straight-Talk Goes Crooked

Filed under: politics — Tags: , — codesmithy @ 9:17 am

The above video paints McCain as a say-anything-do-anything politician (which he is). However, the most disconcerting thing about McCain is his policy towards war. He honestly believes Vietnam was “winnable” (what ever that means). He has indicated what his approach will be towards Iraq and the Middle East general: we stay and we bomb more. If Iraq doesn’t well, then he will expand the theater to Iran and we’ll bomb them. With McCain as president, the possibility of a conflagration that engulfs the entire region is very real. In the meantime, his expressed domestic policies are inline with what George W. Bush has been pursuing for the last 7 years. A vote for McCain is a vote for another term of George W. Bush’s disastrous policies with one significant difference: we can expect less restraint in terms of Iraqi civilian causalities.

May 18, 2008

Keeping Tabs: Amy Goodman

Filed under: media — Tags: , — codesmithy @ 9:58 am

Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, was on the Colbert Report back in 2006 promoting “Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People who Fight Back” that she co-authored with her brother David Goodman.

Here are the two parts to the interview 1 and 2 (pops) as such.

Unfortunately, Amy’s interview is notably short. Chomsky called it “concision.” Luckily, Amy and David Goodman went to Google and to promote their new book “Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times” where we piece together the fragments of what she was able to express before.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.