Today's New York Times article titled, "Photos With Disgraced Lobbyist Are 'Not Relevant,' Bush Says, is a good example of the issues Peter Daou brought up in his most recent essay.

The Times article is an understandable reporting of the President's news conference this morning, and it is newsworthy whenever a top administration official actually answers questions, especially since this particular President has been more loathe than most in holding Q and A's with the press. While the Times' reporter, David Stout, gives most of the words in the article to the President and his message, he does try to include criticisms and diverging viewpoints. This is to be expected and understood, though it does seem to be an exercise in trying to give the appearence of balanced journalism rather than an attempt to square what is truth with what is spin.

For example, I point to this paragraph in reference to the NSA's eavesdropping program:

As for the National Security Agency's surveillance program, which many Democrats have said was of dubious constitutionality and legality at best, Mr. Bush said it had been vetted by lawyers and was essential. "And so as I stand here right now," he said, "I can tell the American people the program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary."

The problem with the reporting here is that it gives the impression that worry and outrage over the NSA program is only a partisan matter, which it is not. Many conservatives, including movement lynchpins Grover Norquist, David Keene, and former Congressman Bob Barr, are outraged over the revelation's of the program's questionable use of warrantless searches. Furthermore, non-partisan government reports by the Congressional Research Service have also found that the reports to Congress on the program and the administration's legal rationale for it do not hold up to legal scrutiny.

Clearly, it is not just Democrats who are criticizing the administration on this, but the impression that it is gives the President and his supporters the easy dodge of "oh, this is just politics."

Not to sound shrill and cliched, but seeking impeachment over a blowjob is just politics. Seeking answers as to whether the President and his administration disregarded the constitutionally guaranteed rights of this nation's citizens is a matter of national importance.

This cartoon, Prickly City, by Scott Santis; which according to John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog appeared in the comics section of the Washington Post recently.

Aravosis connects this printing of a curmudgeonly homophobic cartoon to the Post's recent decision to disable comments on it's reader response blog, which he thinks is questionable on 1st amendment grounds, and is actually reaction to criticism Post Ombudswoman Deborah Howell has been recieving in the comments section by from left of the aisle bloggers and readers.


While I agree with Aravosis on his two main assertions:

1) that the cartoon is problematic and likely a homophobic response to Brokeback Mountain's depiction of homosexuality through archetypes of conservative conceptions of masculinity, cowboys.


2) It is disturbing that the Washington Post's ombudswoman is refusing to adequately answer citizen's concerns about the newspaper's desire and/or ability to address apparent and alleged misleading reports by closing down one of the main highways of discourse between public and the person who is supposed to be the public's representative at the paper. This move seems to contractict and negate much of the intended purpose of an ombudsman/woman, a job that the first president of the Orginization of News Ombudsmen, Alfred Jacoby describes as being initiated to:

to set up a department or an editor who would act for the public, investigating errors, solving problems in the interface between press and public (though in those pre-computer days, neither would have used the term), and generally doing the job that needed done at a crucial time in press-public relations.

However, I'm not sure that I agree with Aravosis that the printing of Prickly City cartoon is an example of hypocrysy, in direct contradiction to The Post's decision to ix-nay the comments on the blog.

I suppose my objection mainly comes with Aravosis' closing statement, which posits the co-existance of a homophobic cartoon and a reactionary encroachment on free speech as an either/or dichotomy between whether "the Washington Post is really for freedom of speech, or just run by a bunch of conservative bigots."

While the cartoon does seem to imply an acceptance of conservative bigotry, and the removal of a the comments section does imply the Post's less than stellar support of the 1st amendment when that amendment is being used as a critical tool against itself, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One can be a homophobic bigot and a strong supporter of free speech at the same time, though that of course does not mean that all conservative bigots are in favor of free speech. If Stantis' cartoon had said that the film shouldn't be shown at all, instead of just childishly mocking the film from an archaic conception of masculinity, then that certainly would have been an example of conservative bigotry assaulting the 1st amendment.

Though Aravosis never explicitly states that the Post should not be able to or allowed to run bigoted comics, it seems that the underlying tone of his blog post is implying that a cartoon with such an editorial opinion should not be able to run in a paper. A position which does have threatening overtones for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is perfectly possible that I am reading into Aravosis' words when there is nothing to be found under the surface, but it is not too hard for me to concieve of that type of stance following from the premises Aravosis is setting out. But again, I do not doubt my ability to misinterpret someone else's words.

I guess my my most basic gut reaction to the 1st amendment and hate speech is best depicted by the cliched quote often attributed to Voltaire, though it may not have actually been written by him:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

At the same time, I do find the sentiments expressed in Stantis' cartoon to be problematic, in a manner that is actually exemplfied by the tragic effect society's violent homophobia has on the lives of the two main characters of Brokeback Mountain. Homosexuality has a long history of forced silence as an oppresive tool wielded in defense of archaic and rigid conceptions of masculinity, such as the age old conceit that "real men" don't cry. I suppose this is one of those areas where I still feel a lot of internal tension in reconciling my beliefs and principles as I am still in the process of developing them. Hate speech is a problem, but I'm no sure yet how that problem can be addressed in a way that balances with 1st amendment concerns. At the very least, I do believe that 1st amendment concerns need to be heavily weighed when approaching problem solving around hate speech.

As a side note, though I don't doubt that the comic was found in the post, I haven't been able to find it directly on the Post's website. There is a link to Stantis'website archive of Prickly City comics in a section of the site titled "Other Comics", it explicitly states: "The following links will take you off our site. washingtonpost.com assumes no responsibility for the contents.

Whether the Post should be linking to that should be linking to such a comic is up for discussion. Too bad it can be discussed through the comments section of the Post's blog.


------------------------

On an almost, but not completely unrelated note. Stantis' use of John Wayne as the archetype of old time masculinity reminded me of this essay by Hunter S. Thompson.

- BH Glitter

This headline cuts right to the heart of the very real class warfare that exists today:

"I.R.S Move Said to Hurt the Poor"

For some reason these grafs stand out to me:

About three-quarters of those affected were employed parents who applied for the earned-income tax credit, under which all income and Social Security taxes can be returned and, in some cases, a payment made.

The credit is a kind of negative income tax, first advocated by Milton Friedman, the Nobel-winning economist, and championed by President Ronald Reagan as the government's best program to encourage the poor to improve their circumstances through work.

Perhaps it is due to the way it highlights how this presidency and much of the Republican leadership has abandoned many of the principles they have espoused of the years when they were arguing that they were the party of principle. Perhaps it is because it exposes the hypocrisy of right-wing complaints about how talking about class and wealth discrepancies is "engaging in class warfare." I don't know. It's possible that this is an example of good intentions leading to negative unintended consequences, but I'm doubtful this is a result of purely innocent conditions.

Kevin Drum has some interesting commentary on it over at the Washington Monthly

This headline, "Bush Listens to Suggestions on Iraq, seems quite telling to me.

The fact that the headline, which is usually meant to highlight the most newsworthy info in an article, is shouting that Bush "listened" to suggestions regarding Iraq, underlines the fact that he has been reluctant to hear it before.

By all means it is good that Bush is bringing in critics to discuss Iraq. But why now, finally? Why not before?

Perhaps it's the fact that another purported milestone in Iraq's march towards democracy isn't proving to be the cure-all that the Administration predicted it to be, as evidenced by today's attacks resulting in the death of atleast 100 people. As this Times article notes, these attacks followed the death of 50 more people on Wednesday.

Perhaps its all PR. Who knows. And who knows if they will be listened to. The Administration has certainly had no problem ignoring outside suggestions and criticismbefore. Call me cynical, but the past five years have made it hard to take to heart when Bush says he will take criticism "to heart."

And of course, Bush is still being quite particular about the criticism he does here, as the Times article points out:

"The unusual gathering continues an aggressive public relations push by the president that began last month. The White House hosted similar briefings for several groups of Congress members, including Democrats sympathetic to Bush's approach in Iraq."

No one from the opposition who actually opposes can be heard, just Joe Lieberman