|
|
Virtually no one disputes Gary Webb died in 2004 of self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Yet the question “What killed Gary Webb?” still exists.
Was it that his August 1996 “Dark Alliance” series in the San Jose Mercury News regarding how some Nicaraguan “contra” rebels backed by the CIA received funds from crack cocaine traffickers was seriously flawed? Was it that the Mercury News distanced itself from the series and Webb? Was it that “Dark Alliance” was the subject of withering attacks by such major metropolitan newspapers as the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post? Or was it as simple as the depression Webb suffered and the fact he found himself divorced, unemployed and sufficiently impoverished that he was moving back in with his mother at age 49?
While Nick Schou’s Kill the Messenger does not — and cannot — answer those questions, it is an excellent exploration of how and why they, Webb, and “Dark Alliance” remain relevant today. Schou may be a perfect author for this book. An investigative reporter himself, Schou has examined the “Dark Alliance” series for a decade. Equally important, he applies a journalist’s eye and style to the story, examining such things as the way the editing process and even internal newsroom politics may have contributed to the problems in “Dark Alliance.”
Webb’s three-part series was not unique solely by virtue of exploring the relationship between the CIA and crack cocaine traffickers. It also demonstrated the impact the so-called mainstream media could have via the internet. Given its location in the heart of Silicon Valley, the Mercury News simultaneously published the series on its web site and provided links to many of the documents Webb used. Once the series appeared, the paper’s site went from thousands of hits per day to half a million per day. Yet as we have learned over the last decade, things not only seem to take on a life of their own on the internet, it is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. A large number of people, including significant portions of the African-American community in and around Los Angeles viewed the series as confirmation of suspicions the government was behind the explosive growth of crack cocaine.
The Mercury News did not help the situation. The graphics used to illustrate the story showed the silhouette of someone smoking a crack pipe over the CIA seal. The headline suggested that the crack cocaine problem in Los Angeles grew from the battle between the contras and the Nicaraguan government. Webb was not involved with either of those decisions. Similarly, the story’s opening sentences, revised during the editing process, suggested that millions in drug profits had gone to a the contras and that this helped sparked a crack “explosion” in America. Yet as Schou makes clear, the series did not accuse the CIA of being behind that explosion.
That is a position Webb himself always took but seemed never able to convince people. Webb wrote in his own 1998 book that he “never believed, and never wrote, that there was a grand CIA conspiracy behind the crack plague. Indeed the more I learned about the agency, the more certain of that I became. The CIA couldn’t even mine a harbor without getting his trench coat stuck in its fly.”
Schou agrees with and supports that assessment. According to Schou, Webb’s series was correct in its most important respects, that being that the CIA had at least some ties to those bringing cocaine into the U.S. and that some money from the drug traffic was finding its way into the hands of the contras. At the same time, he details how neither Webb nor his series accused the CIA of being involved in the distribution of crack cocaine.
While Webb’s series was an unprecedented exploration of government activities to support the contras (predating revelation of Oliver North and the Iran-Contra affair), it at first generated little attention. When reaction began, it spread rapidly. Not only was the story taken up in the African American community, three major metropolitan papers assigned some of their top reporters to investigate what had appeared in some upstart regional newspaper and spread across the country over the internet.
By October, the Mercury News and Webb were under an unprecedented full frontal attack. The Washington Post, followed quickly by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, attacked Webb’s reporting and his sources. In fact, the L.A. Times devoted 17 reporters and produced its own three-part, 20,000-word (more than “Dark Alliance”) series to debunk Webb’s reporting. One part of that series was devoted to exploring whether African Americans were more likely to believe conspiracy theories.
The coverage in each of the major newspapers often was based on CIA sources and seemed to highlight errors that either did not go to the true premise of the series or were the result of the editing process, which cut the series from Webb’s initial four parts to three. According to Schou, the problem with “Dark Alliance” was that it “contained major flaws of hyperbole that were both encouraged and ignored by [Webb’s] editors.” Nothing in the series, however, justified what Schou has called “the most vicious and unrelenting campaign of vilification directed against a reporter in recent memory.” In fact, in late 1996 even the Washington Post‘s ombudsman said the mainstream media engaged in a feeding frenzy that “showed more energy for protecting the CIA from someone else’s journalistic excesses” than examining the true nature of government involvement.
And while the Mercury News initially supported Webb, who’d won more than a dozen reporting awards before joining the paper, it eventually distanced itself from him. In May 1997, the paper published a letter to readers that, while saying the series was “right on many important points,” said there were significant errors in the series and that it oversimplified the crack problem. As Webb feared, the letter was immediately viewed as a repudiation of the series. This idea was reinforced when the paper reassigned Webb to a routine beat in a suburban bureau more than 150 miles from his home. He left the paper at the end of the year but, by then, was a pariah in mainstream journalism.
In telling Webb’s biography and the story of “Dark Alliance,” Schou relies not only on his own extensive research but interviews with Webb’s family and former colleagues, including his editors and fellow reporters. And while he is rightfully critical of the Mercury News and the major metropolitan papers who attacked the series, he does not take a hands off approach to Webb. His interviews with Webb’s colleagues and editors not only touch on some of Webb’s shortcomings, he also explores lawsuits arising out of articles Webb wrote earlier in his newspaper career. Schou also points out, among other things, that portions of the series were predicated on the testimony of convicted felons which may or may not have been reliable. In fact, Schou notes, the federal law enforcement records cited as sources in the series were “mostly transcripts of testimony by crooks.”
All things considered, Kill the Messenger ultimately leans toward Webb’s perspective on the “Dark Alliance” series. That does not damage this highly readable and detailed exploration of not only the series but the reporter behind it and the ensuing and perhaps wholly unprecedented feeding frenzy of the mainstream media. And in the end Schou does what any good author should do with this type of story. He leaves us to decide for ourselves what killed Gary Webb and who, if anyone, is responsible.
[W]e now live in a country where reporters dread becoming Gary Webb. God help us.
Charles Bowden’s Introduction to
Nick Schou, Kill the Messenger
First, I will ackowledge stealing this idea from Vonnegut’s Asshole (and that’s a sentence that is incapable of sounding quite right). It occasionally looks at some of the, shall we say, odd search terms that bring viewers to the site. While I still get plenty of hits from searches like those using “Stephanie Herseth” and words like lesbian, hottie, boyfriend or naked, those aren’t the ones that leave me scratching my head.
Although I’m not positive how all of them led people to this blog, here’s a list of 10 recent interesting queries and my responses in case the searchers return. I am hoping to make this a regular (or irregular) feature. Please note that quotes are my own. If the searcher put terms or phrases in quotes, that will be shown by single quotes within the search phrase.
GOOGLE SEARCH: “circle jerk pictures”
Don’t have ’em. Don’t want ’em. Am concerned that you do.
GOOGLE SEARCH: “ron branson jail insane”
To quote the Magic 8-ball, “Outlook good.”
MAMMA METASEARCH: “9th Amendment Meaning apply to child molesters”
Last time I checked, the 9th Amendment applied to everyone, although it doesn’t really create any rights, saying simply that the Constitution’s enumertion of certain rights doesn’t deny other rights that may exist.
GOOGLE SEARCH: “wife have 7 month pregnant want a abortion”.
Got to defer to the Magic 8-ball on this one, too. “Don’t count on it.”
GOOGLE (SWITZERLAND) SEARCH: “she’s lie wind music”
Sorry, I, too, am bemused by Zen koans.
GOOGLE (CANADA) SEARCH: “medical testing for pregnancy first 16 percent then 29 then 49 does it mean i could be pregnant”
I’m not sure, but I feel confident saying the odds appear to be increasing.
GOOGLE SEARCH: “what would happen if you dropped a junior mint into someone during surgery”
Seems I saw a TV show about that. I don’t recall if it was a documentary but think it had some guy named Kramer in it.
GOOGLE SEARCH: “Tim’s grandfather’s son is Mike’s dad”
Not sure if this is a riddle or someone concerned about inbreeding. In either event, please be aware that it will be unconstitutional for Tim and Mike (or their male relatives) to marry each other in South Dakota.
GOOGLE SEARCH: “Compare and Contrast Jimi Hendrix and Carlos Santana”
I don’t even do my kids’ homework but… Both play guitar. Jimi is dead. Carlos is not.
YAHOO SEARCH: “annual fatalities from running with scissors”
I speculate there are not a great number — unless your parents told you otherwise, in which case they are correct.
If you follow every dream
You might get lost
“The Painter,” Neil Young, Prairie Wind
It might be unfair to include William Hopper’s The Heathen’s Guide to World Religions with reviews of works by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. That’s because Hopper’s work is a Marxist manifesto. Marx as in Groucho Marx.
Yet that may be what is ultimately required when it comes to advocating atheism. Religious faith and belief are not founded on concepts of logic, reasoning or the scientific method. As a result, perhaps humor is the only way to draw believers in and educate them.
Farce is not Hopper’s sole approach to his “secular history of the One True Faiths.” It is actually two-fold. The serious side examines the precepts and contentions of various religions in the context of what history actually reveals. The other is to approach it all with biting satire and flat out humor. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t.
Hopper, a Canadian who pursued a college program in world religions, turns a skeptic’s eye toward the largest of the world’s religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. One thing is certain. When Hopper offends, he does so on an equal opportunity basis. Thus, Jesus is referred to as “JC” or “Josh” (short for Joshua, his actual Hebrew name), Buddha as “Sid” (short for his real name, Siddhartha Gautama).
People like me who tend to look askance at religion likely will find The Heathen’s Guide far funnier and less offensive than believers. And, certainly, believers will find that shots Hopper takes at other religions far more palatable than any shots he may take toward their own. But Hopper is also intent on trying to educate people about what history really says.
Thus, in his examination of Christianity, Hopper takes an honest and serious look at what a messiah was insofar as Judaic tradition meant. That is a wholly acceptable approach since that is the only religious tradition in which the term had meaning at the time. Likewise, Hopper seeks to belie some of the gloss put on the religions, such as the view of Jesus as this bearded, long-haired, fairly attractive white man. He quotes a description of Jesus that appeared in the work of 1st Century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus:
His nature and form were human; a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits high [about five feet], hunchbacked, with a long face, long nose and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with a parting in the middle of his head . . . and an undeveloped beard.
Not quite the image with which most people today are familiar.
While Hopper’s work is replete with such information, it is within a satirical setting that, once again, does not discriminate based on religion or creed. A few examples:
- His description of the Essenes, a Jewish sect in which Hopper believes Jesus was a member: “They’re the nutbar, genuinely certifiable Jews; the ones who would have been in the Waco, Texas standoff if they’d lived today.”
- The Christian concept of the Rapture “is basically like being beamed up to the Enterprise, except you end up in Heaven instead of the transporter room.”
- His description of when Mohammed first saw the archangel Gabriel: “There’s nothing scarier than being half-asleep on a mountain and having an archangel show up out of nowhere with a silk scroll and commanding you to read. Unless, of course, it’s being half asleep on a mountain and having an archangel show up out of nowhere commanding you to read when you’re illiterate – which, as luck would have it, was what Mohammed was.”
- His description of the death of the caliph that caused the split between the Shi’a and Sunni sects of Islam: “[T]he orthodoxy got together and removed Hussein from his position as head of the faith. They left the rest of him, mind you. They just took his head. It was mounted on a stick and taken back to Damascus, where it was paraded around the streets[.]”
- His version of “Suffering,” the first of Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths: “Life is shit.”
This tongue-in-cheek approach pervades Hopper’s exploration of these religions. Unfortunately, while there’s plenty of information here, there are items that cause you to wonder about either Hopper’s knowledge of the tenets of the religion he examines or his attention to detail. Having been raised with a Roman Catholic background, I can only truly comment on his explanation of some of its doctrines. Here he makes at least two fundamental errors that require pause in evaluating his explanation of other denominations and faiths. This is particularly so since Hopper’s biography at the end of the book indicates he was born Catholic.
For example, Hopper refers to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as the “Immaculate Conceptee” and indicates it was the conception of Christ that was immaculate. Roman Catholics (particularly those of us who attended Catholic schools named “Immaculate Conception”) should immediately recognize that is erroneous. The dogma of the immaculate conception stems from Catholic obsession with original sin, the “hereditary stain” all humanity is born with because Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden. Seeking to avoid Jesus being born of someone afflicted by original sin, the church came up with the doctrine that when Mary was conceived she was “preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.” Thus, the concept refers to Mary’s conception, not the supposed virginal birth of Jesus.
Similarly, while Hopper explains how the Nicene Creed came about from the doctrinal debates over the concept of the trinity in western Christian faiths, he says that Catholics will recognize the prayer “as being the first words said in the mass.” That, too, is wrong. Instead, the Nicene Creed is said in the Roman Catholic mass after the homily and immediately before the Eucharist services.
Adherents of other religions or creeds might find equally egregious errors in the discussion of their faith. Then again, they may not. It is that uncertainty that causes the most harm to an otherwise enjoyable work. Also undercutting The Heathen’s Guide is something that rankles me about books issued by any number of very small or vanity presses — the proofreading is horrible. This book is no exception. In comparison to the factual errors, this is minor but it never helps an author when the reader is forced to stumble over various sentences.
That said, as long as the reader is aware that it is possible that not every fact in the book should be taken as gospel (pun intended) Hopper’s blend of cynicism, humor and history make this a top notch “Dummies Guide to World Religions.” It also provides an excellent counterpoint to traditional “heathen” views of religion.
You’d figure that God, being the omniscient kinda guy he is, might make some allowances for human stupidity, No such luck.
William Hopper, The Heathen’s Guide to World Religions
With two books on the bestseller list raising questions about the validity of belief in God, some observers see a movement they call the New Atheism. If they are right, Richard Dawkins is to New Atheism what Bertrand Russell was to what is now apparently “Old Atheism.”
Yet there is a fundamental and significant difference between Dawkins, the author of the bestselling The God Delusion , and Russell. Russell was a philosopher. As such, he approached the question of the existence of God as an interesting exercise in logic and philosophy. Dawkins, in contrast, is an evolutionary scientist at Oxford University. He approaches the subject with an eye honed by scientific analysis and reason. His conclusion: belief in God is a “delusion” because religious faith is a false belief in the face of extremely strong evidence to the contrary. His use of science to reach that result is the topic of significant recent discussion. In fact, a “debate” between Dawkins, described as an “atheist biologist,” and “Christian geneticist” Francis Collins is the cover story of this week’s Time magazine.
There is also a difference between Dawkins and Sam Harris, the author of the best-selling Letter to a Christian Nation (the subject of the first review in this series). Harris provides a condensed view of the problems many people see with Christianity. Dawkins’ scope is much larger. He presents a lengthier and perhaps more erudite analysis of not just Christianity but the whole idea of a belief in God. In fact, Dawkins frequently challenges the reader intellectually with his analysis and commentary, particularly when he embarks into philosophical ideas and examines them with a scientific eye. At the outset, for example, Dawkins even invokes Russell in explaining why he believes agnosticism — the position that it is impossible to know whether there is a God — is untenable. He also devotes a chapter to deconstructing arguments for the existence of God advanced by thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas to C.S. Lewis and, more recently, the mathematical approach of Stephen Unwin.
Yet even here the scientific method that permeates this work shows through. His scientific approach becomes stronger as the book progresses. He uses evolutionary principles to show why arguments that the existence of life supports the existence of God cannot withstand scrutiny. Likewise, in examining why all human cultures seem to have religion, Dawkins discusses not only evolutionary principles but alleles, memes (a term Dawkins is credited with coining) and memeplexes.
With his razor-like approach, Dawkins is almost brutal in his deconstruction of the argument that religion is necessary as a source of morality. He says “much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird.” Anyone who wishes to “base their morality literally on the Bible,” he writes, “[has] either not read it or not understood it.” In response to criticism that no one takes every word of the Bible literally any more, Dawkins says
[T]hat is my whole point. We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist’s decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is “morality flying by the seat of its pants”, so is the other.
Dawkins, like Harris, also sees inconsistency evidenced by the Ten Commandments as being the foundation of morality. He points out:
If we took the Ten Commandments seriously, we would rank the worship of the wrong gods, and the making of graven images, as first and second among sins. Rather than condemn the unspeakable vandalism of the Taliban, who dynamited the 150-foot-high Bamiyan Buddhas in the mountains of Afghanistan, we would praise them for their righteous piety.
That is not the only commonality between Harris and Dawkins. Both are equally appalled that religious doctrines not only influence but often dictate public policy. Likewise, perhaps given their ardent approach toward the subject, Dawkins joins Harris in questioning why religion is granted “such uniquely privileged respect” that any disagreement with it is considered intolerance.
The immunity and existence of blind and unquestioned faith is a large part of what Dawkins sees as the evil of religion. Once again, though, Dawkins approaches it from the standpoint of analysis and evaluation.
More generally (and this applies to Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them — given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by — to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads or crusades. …. If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools[.]
That also leads Dawkins to a conclusion that undoubtedly prompts outrage from believers. He considers some aspects of religion to be child abuse. For example, he believes it improper to refer to a child as “Catholic” or “Muslim.” While they may be a child of parents of that religious belief, “children are too young to know where they stand on such issues, just as they are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics.”
It is somewhat surprising The God Delusion has remained on the bestseller lists for as long as it has and that it has been featured in many bookstores. First, advocacy of atheism is not a subject one would expect to find popular favor in the United States. Second, despite Dawkins’ unquestionable writing skills, the book can be difficult going at times. Yet commercial success does not necessarily equate to practical success. The God Delusion is afflicted by an inherent and perhaps ultimately fatal flaw. It is almost impossible to use logic and reasoning to educate and persuade others on a subject that requires ignoring and rejecting logic and reasoning.
What impresses me about Catholic mythology is partly its tasteless kitsch but mostly the airy nonchalance with which these people make up the details as they go along.
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
No, not as in “Diana Ross and.” The South Dakota Supremes.
In a decision handed down today, the Supreme Court helped Kevin Costner keep the Midnight Star casino in Deadwood going and saved him hundreds of thousands of dollars in the dissolution of a limited partnership that currently operates the it. From a legal standpoint, the case resolves questions about the legal rules South Dakota courts should use when a partnership is dissolved. From a voyeur standpoint, it attracts attention because of Costner’s involvement.
The casino is named after the saloon in Costner’s breakout film, Silverado, and its restaurant and sports bar are named after characters in the movie. It is operated by Midnight Star Enterprises, L.P. (“limited partnership”). Midnight Star Enterprises, Ltd. is the general partner in the partnership, owning 22 percent. Costner owns 71.5 percent and Francis and Carla Caneva each own 3.25 percent. That is somewhat deceptive, though, in that Costner is the sole owner of Midnight Star Enterprises, Ltd. and, thus, essentially owns 93.5 percent of the partnership.
According to the Supreme Court decision, the Canevas managed the operations of the casino but Costner became concerned about their management. The Canevas’ employment was terminated and they declined to participate in “an amicable disassociation.” Costner then filed an action to dissolve the partnership. An accountant hired by Costner indicated the “fair market value” of the partnership was $3.1 million based on a hypothetical transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Another Deadwood casino owner, however, offered $6.2 million for the partnership. Although Costner claimed the offer was solicited by the Canevas, the trial court ordered Costner to buy the business for $6.2 million within 10 days or the court would order it sold on the open market.
On appeal, the Supreme Court adopted Costner’s position. After rejecting an argument by the Canevas that the partnership agreement required the casino be sold on the open market, the Supreme Court said a hypothetical transaction was the proper test of fair market value. It said Costner offered
sound policy reasons why an offer cannot be the fair market value. For example, what if a partnership solicited a “strawman” to offer a low price for the business? What if a businessman, for personal reasons, offers 10 times the real value of the business? What if the partnership, for personal reasons, such as sentimental value, refuses to sell for that absurdly high offer? These arbitrary, emotional offers and rejections cannot provide a rational and reasonable basis for determining the fair market value.
As a result, the Court said the value of the casino was $3.1 million and, hence, Costner could not be ordered to buy it for $6.2 million. The Court also concluded that rather than the remaining partners (Costner) having to pay for the entirety of the partnership, they were only required to pay any interests the withdrawing partner is due. Thus, Costner is obligated “pay the Canevas the value of their 6.5 partnership units, if any value exists after revaluation.” If Costner refuses to pay that amount, though, the Court said a forced sale of the business would be appropriate.
If the valuation remains the same and each partnership unit is equal to one percent of ownership, that means, at a minimum, Costner’s cost to buy out the Canevas dropped from $403,000 to $201,500.
The 5-0 decision was handed down roughly four weeks after the Court heard oral arguments in the case.
I don’t believe a lady has to explain anything to a man this ugly.
Jake (Kevin Costner), Silverado
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
