Fuck civility!

---

A little over a year ago a crazy man with a gun shot some people. Several of them died. If he had just been shooting up a post office or a school nobody would wonder about his political motivations. One of the downsides to living in the land of the free and the home of the brave is nutjobs with guns going on killing sprees.

Thankfully, even though we are all too familiar with the scenario, such killings are statistically rare. But even more rare in recent years is politically-motivated violence. In many countries bombings and assassinations are commonplace. Not here. Take away two particularly notorious incidents from recent years and political violence is insignificant in this country, both in terms of the number of incidents and the number of victims.

This blog owes it’s existence to one person’s insistence (despite all evidence to the contrary) that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party were responsible for the shooting last year in Tucson. When you make assertions that are contrary to objective fact, that’s called lying. When you believe things that are contrary to objective fact, that’s called being delusional.

---

Losing hearts and minds

Marines Face Potential Prosecution for Video Desecrating Corpses

At least two U.S. Marines face potential prosecution for urinating on Afghan corpses in a video that spread globally, complicating U.S. talks with the Taliban.

The Marine Corps has identified two of the four Marines depicted in the video with the corpses of three Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, a Marine Corps official said.

The two men, part of a sniper unit from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, served in Afghanistan last year from March to September, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation. The other two Americans in the video have since left the unit and haven’t been identified, the official said.

The video comes as a blow to a Marine Corps that prides itself on a reputation for rectitude, said Jack Hoban, who was a Marine officer and now teaches ethics courses to Marines.

“We’re all universally disgusted by it and ashamed,” Hoban, the president of Resolution Group International LLC of Spring Lake, New Jersey, said in an interview.

While training teaches Marines to respect all life, “people under stress sometimes do things that are counter to their training and their ethics, particularly when they’re young,” he said.

---

We won the war in Afghanistan a long time ago. Part of the reason we’re still there is because we don’t want that nation to revert to a terrorist homeland as soon as we leave.

Things like this don’t help.

If you don’t think this is a big deal, just look at the picture below of the body of U.S. Staff Sgt. William David Cleveland being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

How do you feel now?

---

---

St. Tebow’s Fire

John Parr, who originally wrote and recorded St. Elmo’s fire (which is almost an anthem to some of us of a certain age, ahem), explains to NPR why he re-wrote it for Tebow:

NPR:Are you a fan of Tim Tebow and the Broncos?

PARR: I’m a fan, generally, of him. I mean, it’s funny. I’ve not seen many Broncos games. I’m definitely a Tim Tebow fan because of two things. I think he’s a complete maverick, and he believes in something. I mean, everybody doesn’t share his religious belief, but I think we live in a world where people have lost faith in anything. And I just like it that here is a man that believes in something, his teammates believe in him. And it just inspired me.

He is definitely an inspiring kid. He’s serious about doing good in the world. If you go to The Tim Tebow Foundation website you get to see his focus on helping sick and hurting kids near and far. This month is when his foundation and CURE break ground for a new charity children’s hospital in Davao, Philippines, where he was born and where his parent’s ministry is.

This is why he’s on fire. It’s not because he’s a good quarterback, or an underdog, or showy about his religion. It’s because we, the public, are parched for sincerity and goodness and he just brims with it. I care nothing about football but I hope he has a great year.

Truth vigilantes?

---

Arthur S. Brisbane, Public Editor of The New York Times:

Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?

If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:

“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

---

The blogosphere is having lots of fun with Brisbane’s column, but the answer is somewhat nuanced. Journalists should prize truth as a primary value, but who decides what truth is? Where does “fact” stop and “opinion” begin? When is someone wrong and when are they lying? What do you do when there are conflicting authorities?

In law the solution is to give all sides an opportunity to present evidence and then leave it up to a jury to determine who is telling the truth. But how does that work when both sides are lying?

Ironically, Brisbane provides an example of what is another commonplace problem – selective fact-checking. Notice that his examples challenge the credibility of two Republicans. We see this on a regular basis where the words of Sarah Palin are carefully parsed for accuracy while Obama’s gaffes and lies are ignored.

The answer is fairly simple but messy – free speech. Shove it all out there and let people sift through it for themselves. No one should be the sole arbiters of truth.

Individuals and entities like the New York Times have to police themselves. They should only publish what they feel confident is accurate and publish retractions and corrections when they are wrong. If you want to be a hack for one party, group or candidate, go ahead. It’s your credibility you’re selling, not mine.

It seems to me the truth is out there, you just have to look for it. Unfortunately, too many people self-edit their sources of information. The problem isn’t FOX news, it’s “only FOX News.”

Free your mind.

---