Federal Wildlife Monitors Oversee a Boom in Drilling
Energy Programs Trump Conservation
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A01

This article seems to be classic muckraking. If it is correct, it reports a scandalous situation. Federal employees who are supposed to be monitoring the impact of Western gas fields on wildlife are being diverted into bureaucratic work to promote gas development. The reporter has identified opponents of the practice and whistleblowers, and even a former energy exec who is concerned.

So what's missing? Well, as usual in the Post, the corrupt process that led to this situation is missing. We don't know who the lobbyists are for this gas field. We don't know about their relationships with the relevant Congressional committees, or the higher-ups in the federal governnment. And we don't know what criminal sanctions are appropriate here, and whether any law enforcement agency is being pressured to apply them. And we don't see any confrontation of the individuals allowing this to happen.These are all legitimate news issues, but the Post doesn't touch them.

So we are left with a scandal, but no target for our rage. We are left with good reporting of a clearly evil process, of an abuse of our funds as a taxpayer, but we remain spectators. We are left with the understanding that somewhere, far above our heads, government will fix this -- or not.

Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson and Marion Barry are outside the magic circle of federal government power, so the Post is willing to portray them as morally flawed and subject to criminal sanctions. From time to time, the Post turns to local issues, and not only details scandals but names name of responsible officials. But as they tell us that people hired to protect our natural legacy conspire to destroy that legacy so that someone can make a profit on mining gas, there is no sense of shame or talk of punishment. It's just one more scandal story in the running series.

---

Blast Rocks Shiite Shrine in Samarra

Bassam Sebti and Ellen Knickmeyer Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; 11:12 AM

This story cites sources in Iraq who blame the U.S. for this event, which is the destruction of a mosque especially sacred to Shi'ite Muslims located in a Sunni Muslim area. Yet there is no exploration of why Iraqis would think or suggest this.

The current Administration policy is to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Most people in the world, including many in the US, believe that the reason they want to do so is to maintain control of an oil-rich region, since control of energy supplies is critical to global economic power. (Not because the oil is needed in the U.S., but because of the value of controlling oil needed in Japan, China and Europe.)

Because the war in Iraq is profoundly unpopular in the US, the current line of "national security" decisionmakers (Republican and Democrat) is that the US will leave as soon as we can be sure we are not leaving a civil war behind us -- as soon as Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds can run a peaceful Iraq together. With this mosque attack (which apparently no one has claimed credit for), that day is further off. The Bush-Cheney Administration has a greater rationale for staying.

In other words, there are rational (though despicable) reasons why the US might have perpetrated this attack. Certainly the US, as the occupying power, is the entity most able to have done it. And certainly the US is the entity in Iraq with the least commitment to Islam and the least reverence for holy Islamic places.

The unwritten rules that govern the Post will not allow any consideration of such ideas, of course. Only foreign groups, especially "terrorists" and the governments of developing nations, can be portrayed as carrying out such cynical and vicious schemes. To suggest that Al Qaeda did this is "realism." To suggest that the US did it is "conspiracy theory."

Somebody committed this crime. And somebody did it because they benefited from it. In Iraq, they are having a no holds barred conversation about who "somebody" is. But that conversation will not be in the Washington Post.

---

You can see hopefully see a cartoon ofmine .>

 

---

The New Pravda -- How the Washington Post Maintains the Status Quo

This occasional feature showcases articles in the Washington Post that spin the news to protect the US government as we know it.

My thesis is that the Post is neither liberal nor conservative, but is the house organ of those in power in the federal government, whoever they are. (Of course at the moment they are "conservative," i.e. they claim to support culturally conservative values and small government, and to identity with white workingclass people with fundamentalist faith. These claims are a bit shaky.)

While the articles critiqued here were written by specific reporters, this critique is of the wholeinternal process of the Post. We can assume that what is printed is not necessarily what the bylined reporter wrote or wanted to write. Post reporters are mid-level employees of a large corporation, which, like all corporations, has a "political line" that its employees must follow, and that line overrides its commitment to fact-based journalism. Just as at Pravda under the Soviet Union, some "stars" get a little more leeway, and occasionally stories seem to stretch the party line a bit.

But the overall party line at the Post is consistent from day to day --

• Federal power is exercised by responsible individuals who are motivated by sincere values and ideology to do the best thing for the nation and its people.
• Political differences in Washington are almost always matters of principled opinion and personality, of region and local interest and agency infighting. They do not reflect corrupt power blocs of people seeking personal profit. They also do not reflect grassroots movements for social change.
• Everyone worth taking seriously is a liberal or a conservative or a moderate, as defined by certain simple "hot button" issues. Radicals of all kinds are funny and silly.
• "National security" decisions in particular are not driven by corporate profit or by lust for power, but by genuine concern for our safety. These decisions are sometimes mistaken, but are never foolish, pathological, or criminal. Only those who have been employed in "national security" work have standing to say what "national security" means; if they say so, keeping a dictator in power in Central Asia is vital, while preventing nuclear reactors here in the US from being blown up is a minor concern. As for civil liberties, it's nice to protect them procedurally, but security (as defined by experts) always comes first.
• There may be a few "bad apples" in the high circles of federal power, but the independent mainstream media will seek them out and they will be punished. There never has been and never will be a corrupt conspiracy making our national decisions. There also never has been a grassroots movement based on popular outrage that has made a difference in people's lives.
• While there are always scandals in Washington, they just come and go, always unrelated to each other, with no need for organized action by citizens to fundamentally change the system. There are no patterns of power and privilege operating behind the scenes.

And if you buy all that, I have a nice monument I want to sell you, with a great view of the White House and the Capitol and the place where they keep that Constitution thing people used to care about so much.

---

---