Day: September 28, 2009

Explain that to me

Barack Obama reports, you decide:

“I was up at the G20 – just a little aside – I was up at the G20, and some of you saw those big flags and all the world leaders come in and Michelle and I are shaking hands with them,” the president said. “One of the leaders – I won’t mention who it was – he comes up to me. We take the picture, we go behind.

"He says, ‘Barack, explain to me this health care debate.’

"He says, ‘We don’t understand it. You’re trying to make sure everybody has health care and they’re putting a Hitler mustache on you – I don’t – that doesn’t make sense to me. Explain that to me.’”

via Jack Tapper

Center-right (in Germany)

The MSM is lately trumpeting the German elections having created a “center-right” governing coalition as though that construction has meaning, or at least the same meaning in the United States as it does in Germany. And, of course, it plays to their MSM-preferred storyline that the “split-the-difference” solution is not just better politics, it’s better policy. Which is utter nonsense. But, for context, let’s review just what were the two key issues of the recent German elections:

-modest middle-income tax relief

-work toward a strategy for the eventual withdrawal of the more than 4,200 German troops in Afghanistan

The first is and was a key Obama plank. Everyone, and I mean everyone, on the “right” in Congress voted against that. Some Democrats on the right did too. The second wouldn’t even be on the table of a nationwide election in this country unless you’re Dennis Kucinich, or some other denizen of the “far” left. The fact is, our political spectrum has been radically re-formulated; this began with Reagan and accelerated mightily under W. Bush. Today’s bipartisanship, such as it exists at all, is between left- and right-of center Democrats. This seemingly obvious fact is, as yet, utterly unknown to the MSM. I’ve seriously never, ever seen mention of it outside the progressive blogosphere. It just isn’t said. Keep walking.

Anyway, back in Germany, it would seem the main point of contention comes down to:

the Conservatives disagree with the Liberals on some policy issues, for instance on how much regulation the finance sector needs or on the right balance between strengthening security measures and protecting civil rights.

That (at least) sounds vaguely familiar. Again, though, in the US, the GOP is categorically against any new financial regulation. Hell, Palin is going around saying there’s still too much financial regulation. But, I think we can rest assured: in Germany, “conservatives” are categorically for universal healthcare, support relatively high tax rates (compared to the United States; these very “center-right” Germans support raising corporate taxes, for instance), and are calling for a less aggressive global military stance (again, relative to the US).  Does anyone out there believe that any of those policy positions would fly in the modern GOP? At any level?

But, by all means, let’s simplify matters and just pretend that the German-GOP had big gains in the most recent German election cycle. As always, bad news for the Democrat.

The Shahab of Iran

Why, why, why is context never supplied? Oh, right, because it might ruin a perfectly good (and preferred) story. In this case, the NeoCon paymasters of your MSM want you to be terrified of Iran. Likewise, the ever-powerful Israeli lobby. Thus, you are instructed to assume the world is near its end because Iran has tested the terrifying Shahab-3 missile.

But what is it, exactly? It’s a medium-range ballistic missile with a payload capacity of around 700 kg (1,500 lb). It has an operational range of 2,100 km (1,300 mi), meaning it can deliver 1,500lb of whatever about 1,300 miles away. Now, it’s true that payload capacity likely includes highly sophisticated warheads like the those found in a Trident II MIRV. But nobody on this Earth thinks Iran’s nuclear program is anywhere near that level of sophistication. Hell, the United States worries that it’s not near (or soon will lose) that level of sophistication any more. Instead, Iran is (most likely) busily developing Fat Man. It weighed 10,000 pounds and required a modified B-29 for delivery. Even assuming they can halve the weight of a similar design, you’re still at 5x what they can lift off the ground. To continue the rather apt WWII theme, the Shahab-3 is really more consistent with the B-17; it had a range of about 800 mi with a bomb-load of 4,500 lb (2,000 kg). Oh, wait, that’s still almost 4x the payload capacity of this missile. How about a well-regarded, frequently ship-based fighter/bomber of the same era? Well, at 2000lb we’re at least getting close.

It’s also worth noting that the damage potential from a North Korean high-explosive carrying missile of similar capabilities is considered so minor that:

As a result, Washington and Seoul have not placed the highest priority on North Korean short-range missiles in their negotiating strategies

Ultimately, we’re talking about a relatively low-payload, unguided missile. Even if they could rain them down like arrows on Tel Aviv, the damage would be scattered and relatively minor. Think: SCUDs. Or, to close the loop: V2s.

But: more to the point. What, exactly, is the New York Times providing here? Internet, TV, and radio can give us quick-hitting, context-free “OMG Iran is going to kill us all!!!!!!!” stories much more quickly (and probably more cheaply) than can the NYT or any other dead-tree news source. Why in the world do they spend time and resources aping that? To be first? Please. For print media to survive, it needs to be better than this; if any paper-source were churning out indispensable, immediate context and analysis the day after the news initially broke, with long-form analysis a day or two later, don’t you think they’d be just slightly more relevant? And infinitely better for our National Discourse? Instead, they provide us this. More of the same. Truly, a national treasure…

How to Write With Style, by Kurt Vonnegut

givemesomethingtoread:

Newspaper reporters and technical writers are trained to reveal almost nothing about themselves in their writings.

This is most of our current problem in the MSM. But, the linked article certainly serves as instruction as to why KV is top three to Lemkin, and, really, should serve as a guideline to anybody writing, well, anything (summarized, but read the whole thing):

1. Find a subject you care about

2. Do not ramble, though

3. Keep it simple

4. Have guts to cut

5. Sound like yourself

6. Say what you mean

7. Pity the readers

How to Write With Style, by Kurt Vonnegut