scanners

Dustin Hoffman doing a real Robert Evans impression in "Wag the Dog" (not at all like what Martin Landau did in "Entourage," which could never be mistaken for Evans).

It's enormously frustrating and stressful trying to live in three places at once, especially when they're: 1) the "reality-based community"; 2) the arena of critical thinking; and 3) America in the 21st century. So, who was surprised by this headline?

Prosecutors drop case in Ramsey slaying

Prosecutors abruptly dropped their case Monday against John Mark Karr in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, saying DNA tests failed to put him at the crime scene despite his insistence he sexually assaulted and strangled the 6-year-old beauty queen.

Just a week and a half after Karr's arrest in Thailand was seen as a remarkable break in the sensational, decade-old case, prosecutors suggested in court papers that he was just a man with a twisted fascination with JonBenet who confessed to a crime he didn't commit.

The only difference between this story and innumerable others (like, say the non-case for invading Iraq) is how quickly and easily it unravelled (or, rather, evaporated), after the press and the public suddenly realized they'd never had any good reason to accept it as legitimate in the first place.

This isn't even a story I've followed, or had much interest in. (Sorry, the simple odds are that someone in the family did it and the others either don't know or have tried to protect him or her.) It's just another example of authorities jumping to unsupported conclusions and the yammering media following along.

Last week you couldn't avoid the headlines about how some guy had "confessed" to the Christmas JonBenet Ramsey at her parents' house in Colorado ten years ago. He said he was in love with her and he had a special relationship with the famous dead girl. And he said it when apprehended in Thailand on what authorities said was some kind of sex vacation. So, the evidence against him was... ? Nonexistent. And the authorities knew they had nothin' when they shipped him back to Boulder, only they didn't admit it until the DNA tests came back negative.

The first thing any lawyer knows is that the only thing less reliable than an eyewitness account is a confession. Neither are good for much of anything without solid evidence -- especially in a case like this, where a decade has gone by and the former "suspect" was known to be delusional by any definition. The cops said they arrested him because they thought he was on the verge of doing something bad with some young girls in Thailand, and it's good they may have prevented that. But will they even be able to make that charge stick? I doubt it. (It's like the way the Bush administration goes after "terrorists" -- randomly, usually arresting the wrong people, and doing it so clumsily that they couldn't prosecute them even if they were guilty. So, did arresting authorities even try to place their suspect at the scene of the crime before announcing they'd apprehended an obviously disturbed individual who'd "confessed" to this tabloid murder scandal? Did it matter that his brother said the guy had never missed Christmas with his family? Couldn't be too difficult to verify. This is why we're in Iraq, and why George W. Bush is still in the White House: People don't pay any attention to the reality-based world until it's too late.

I try to think critically, and to put events (including movies) in some kind of context. I think I'm even somewhat inclined by nature to do so, yet I don't always succeed. But when I hear, for example, that Saddam Hussein's refusal to produce weapons of mass destruction (or evidence of having destroyed WMD) actually confirms that he must be hiding them, I think: That's not even the most likely explanation. Of course he's not going to admit he has them, or doesn't have them. The only reason he's in power is because the US and neighboring countries believe he has them. If he reveals he doesn't (rather than play his usual bluff-the-West game), his power is so weak that he'll be invaded and overthrown in no time.

Or when I hear that the evidence in favor of an immediate pre-emptive invasion is either old (pre-1998) or inconclusive, I have to think: If that's all they can come up with, there must be some other reason for wanting to invade Iraq. (See: Grenada, Panama, the Falklands.) Or, if that's the best they can do, they're likely not capable of invading, occupying and stabilizing Iraq because they clearly don't know nearly enough about the place. Or, if they keep downplaying the idea of having a plan for success in Iraq, maybe the reason is that they don't think such a plan is important. So, maybe they don't have one. (OK, I confess I didn't make that last leap ahead of time. The reality was more absurd and unconscionable than I could have envisioned.)

I've been reading "Fog Facts," the 2005 book by Larry Beinhart (who wrote "Wag the Dog") and it's full of examples of how some stories (even some facts) that fit the official myths made it into public consciousness, while other more important facts -- though reported -- just never "stuck." I was reminded of Roger Ebert's review of Wag the Dog" from 1998. See if anything here strikes you:

So, why did we invade Grenada? A terrorist bomb killed all those Marines in Beirut, the White House was taking flak, and suddenly our Marines were landing on a Caribbean island few people had heard of, everybody was tying yellow ribbons 'round old oak trees, and Clint Eastwood was making the movie. The Grenadan invasion, I have read, produced more decorations than combatants. By the time it was over, Ronald Reagan's presidency had proven the republic could still flex its muscle -- we could take out a Caribbean Marxist regime at will, Cuba notwithstanding.

Barry Levinson's "Wag the Dog" cites Grenada as an example of how easy it is to whip up patriotic frenzy, and how dubious the motives sometimes are. The movie is a satire that contains just enough realistic ballast to be teasingly plausible; like "Dr. Strangelove," it makes you laugh, and then it makes you wonder. Just today, I read a Strangelovian article revealing that some of Russian's nuclear missiles, still aimed at the United States, have gone unattended because their guards were denied bonus rations of 4 pounds of sausage a month. It is getting harder and harder for satire to stay ahead of reality.

In "Fog Facts," Beinhart uses simple, on-the-record, uncontested facts to topple the prevailing myths about contemporary "stimulus-package" (formerly known as "trickle-down") economics, Iraq, terrorism and 9/11 ... and is especially good at detailing the ample evidence collected in the months before 9/11 that terrorists were planning an attack on the World Trade Center using civilian aircraft -- more than enough to have prevented it if the system had worked as it should have.

I'm amazed at how many people I talk to don't remember any, or even one, of these stories, which were reported in 2001 and 2002, before fading into the fog.

For example, Beinhart offers a few notable "fog facts" that contradict Bush and Condoleeza Rice's assertions that nobody could have predicted or imagined anything like 9/11:

On March 4, 2001, Fox broadcast a pilot for an "X-Files" spin-off series by Chris Carter, "The Lone Gunmen" (now available on DVD), about a terrorist attempt to fly a passenger jet (by remote control) into the World Trade Center. An article in Wired describes a "jet loaded with passengers heading toward New York’s World Trade Center."

In December 1994, Al Qaeda had hijacked an Air France plane and tried to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. (This was the first thing I thought of when I heard Rice say she didn't think "anyone could have predicted these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." How in the world could you NOT have thought of it, when it was your job and you knew the WTC had already been, and remained, a primary Al Qaeda target?)

In October, 2000, the Pentagon performed a MASCAL training drill based on the idea of a hijacked plane crashing into it. From a Department of Defense news release, Nov. 3, 2000 (since scrubbed): "The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.... 'You get to see the people that we'll be dealing with and to think about the scenarios and what you would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real good scenario and one that could happen easily.'" (Photos here -- scroll down.)

More evidence summarized here -- a Fox News/AP story!

Beinhart also has one of the best explanations for the mass delusional behavior we've witnessed over the last four or five years that I have seen anywhere:

"The tragedy of 9/11 was a result of the failure to see the facts that were in front of us.... If we could have known, utilizing the resources that were already in place, which were normal police and intelligence functions, and all we had to do was pay better attention [to the evidence already collected], then that's all we have to do: pay better attention.

Instead of merely paying better attention [first and foremost, improving computer systems for database sharing among and within security and law enforcement agencies] we have had two wars with a few thousand of our people dead, over 100,000 Iraqis dead, some number of Afghans dead that has never been estimated or mentioned in public, the creation of a vast new homeland security bureaucracy, and serious incursions into our civil rights.

This has cost well over $200 billion. That's on top of all our normal defense and intelligence and criminal justice spending. Yet not a single one of the 9/11 backers, planners, or supporters has been brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced. As of March 13, 2005, "The 120 terrorism cases recorded on Findlaw... have resulted in only two terrorism convictions -- both in a single case, that of Richard Reid, the notorious shoe bomber."

Whew. OK, I admit it: I needed to vent. Here's the main thing I want to get across: Never, never assume that the first stories you read about anything are giving you the full picture of what's going on. Most likely they are spin or misleading fabrications at worst, incomplete and in need of further investigation at best. Always step back, ask yourself what's missing, and see if the story would still be the same if those missing pieces were found. Then keep alert and try to find them.

Comments

I think one of the biggest reasons why people believe the first thing they hear, why they don't question it, is to resolve as soon as possible that emotional unrest, that feeling of not being able to do anything about it. It's an unfortunate state of mind to find oneself in especially when the government in all of its faces knows exactly when and how to take advantage of it. And the people who need to read this blog... probably won't. Isn't that how it always is?

But what you talk about goes far beyond politics. It can easily and should be applied to everything in ones life: with children, love interests, work. Anything, just to maintain that perspective and make a wise decision.

Posted by: Phillip Kelly | August 28, 2006 10:55 PM

I'm thinking that should read "In October, 2000, the Pentagon..." -- by October 2001 it would hardly have been notable.

JE: Fixed. Thanks!

Posted by: random | August 28, 2006 11:17 PM

I'm sure you'll get some 'stick to the reviews, dude'-type flak for this post, but I think it's great you're thinking outside the box here, even if I don't completely agree with you.

On the Ramsay thing, I put more of the blame on the authorities or the public than the media. Maybe I'm reading the wrong newspapers, but all the reports on this that I read stressed that everything was unconfirmed, and that there were conflicting accounts. I mentally filed this under 'wait and see' based on the stories I came across. That's how it should be, right?

And on the 9/11 stuff, I think a lot of what you're saying is 20/20 hindsight. Yes, the administration should admit that using airplanes as missiles was a feasible option for terrorism, but how many other terrorist acts *could* happen? It seems like there were these massive red flags to us now, but there was so much 'noise' in the form of other terrorists and threats at the time. Personally, I think 9/11 would have happened under just about any non-Martin Sheen president's watch. As much as I hate defending this administration, I just don't see the alarm bells pre-9/11.

JE: The 9/11 myth says that, even though many pieces of the puzzle were known, the failure was nobody "connected the dots." That's only partially true. If anyone had acted on any one of those dots, the 9/11 plan would have been at least partially disabled, and it's likely the whole plot could have been foiled. If two or more of the dots had been acted upon (not even connected), the 9/11 atrocities would definitely have been lessened or stopped entirely. Some of the hijackers were already on terrorist watch lists, and their whereabouts were known. The millenium plot to bomb LAX was foiled by one alert guard at the US-Canada border who stopped a known terror suspect. The months leading up to 9/11 are full of such missed opportunities -- where if one or two officials had been doing their jobs properly, the hijackers could have been stopped. Check out that Fox/AP link for a long list of missed opportunities.

Posted by: Rottin' in Denmark | August 29, 2006 05:48 AM

I really appreciated this post. What bothers me more than just about anything else is the way this administation refuses to learn from its mistakes. How many stories have I heard in the news in just the last week on 1) the inability of airport/port security forces to screen or catch deadly or potentially catstrophic elements or 2) the falibility of the levees in New Orleans?

The answers, the administration seems to believe, lie in more money (ironic, given its dedication to conservative ideals) and not in improving training, thoughtful alternatives, or, God forbid, a change in ideologies. And I think a media afraid to question or think independently is also to blame, as is a public that eats up any explanation given as long as it comes in a pleasing, easy to repeat, two second sound bite.

Posted by: Phillip Scott | August 29, 2006 11:56 AM

Shame on you! Haven't you learned anything yet? The only way we'll ever be safe is if we agree to everything our leaders say and never question whether they are right or wrong. Anyone who suggests that the president might be wrong is anti-American and should be thrown in jail.

Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9-11. He's an evil villain who rings his hands and laughs like a maniac. He's a bad guy. We're good guys. We'll only be safe once we get rid of all the bad guys. See, there are two types of people in this world: good guys and bad guys. It's that simple.

Our president is the decider. All that he loves is good, and all that he hates is bad. Stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality, pacifism... why do all you people hate America?

We'll be back with more fair and balanced coverage right after these messages.

Posted by: Raymond | August 29, 2006 07:21 PM

Down here in Alabama (home state of John Mark Karr-aren't we proud?), your "example of authorities jumping to unsupported conclusions and the yammering media following along" happens every other week. We are constantly hearing of "a new arrest" in the Natalie Holloway case. She's dead and the public will never know what happened (at least not until we see the Lifetime original movie with Swoosie Kurtz), but that doesn't stop the covereage.

Posted by: Robert Daniel | August 29, 2006 11:06 PM

Mr. Jim, venting or not, I'm glad you toss this information out there. You do it a little longer or get a larger readership, maybe you'll get fired. But God bless you for bringing this stuff up.

Posted by: Claudette | August 30, 2006 01:49 PM

Thank you Jim Emerson; counter-terrorism expert, trained legal scholar, political scientist and apparently a clairvoyant as well. Rather than writing a blog read by eight people (which, call me crazy, I thought was about movies ) you should be applying for a cabinet position in the next administration in 2008. Just show them this post - at the very least, I guarantee it will get some laughs. I was laughing anyways. Thanks for the giggles JE.

JE: You're welcome, Mr. Brown! But please, don't be so lazy. A lot of us were writing about these things back in 2001 - 2004, including me and probably 7 of the 8 readers of this blog (where do you get your traffic figures?). You (and members of the current administration) just chose not to pay attention. And if you don't understand what this has to do with movies, then you don't understand why terrorists chose the WTC, to create the images (the first plane made sure the second would be captured by many, many cameras) that they used to spread fear, panic and terrror. That wasn't "only a movie."

Posted by: Aaron Brown | August 30, 2006 03:54 PM

Um, Mr. Brown was the eighth person to merely comment on this entry. I guess every single person who reads your blog, Jim, has commented on this one. And now you have a readership of nine, apparently.

JE: Yeah, I guess traffic is going through the roof, according to AB's estimates!

Posted by: DVC | August 30, 2006 08:05 PM

Nobody could have foreseen any of it, of course not.

Anybody familiar with how the protagonist of THE TURNER DIARIES (the book that inspired Timothy McVeigh) dies. He flies a kamikaze mission into the Pentagon.

I would have thought that after OK City, everybody involved with fighting ANY kind of terrorism would have been required to read that book.

Posted by: Dan Polcyn | August 31, 2006 07:13 AM

It's pathetic how easily media organizations have become the blowhorn end of PR campaigns. The Ramsey case is a fabulous example. Anyone, anyone at all, can objectively review the evidence in the case and determine that the girl died as a result of some horrible accident in the home, and that the "murder-kidnapping" crime scene was a cover-up. The Ramsey PR machine, hired on Boxing Day 1996, has people convinced that this is a murder case involving an intruder. SO much so that the Karr confession, which never made any sense, turned into a big event, as if "we finally know what happened" - I think I actually heard that a few times over the last few weeks. The few times I saw experts on the case, outside the PR machines, interviewed, they all said that this was a false confession and that the girl died accidentally.
This is the problem with the media, in my view. Not that it presents a slanted Left/Right view or some such nonsense, but that it merely passes on press releases, instead of evaluating them first. I can't see Ed Murrow doing a news cast about the Karr confession without plainly saying that it was false because it doesn't fit the evidence. This was the crux of Jon Stewart's complaint when he went on Crossfire (and ended the show).

This is why the Blogosphere is so popular, because rather than vacant reading of banal press releases, the Blogosphere presents real criticism, right or wrong.

Here are a few links about the Ramsey case:

Posted by: Brandon Snider | September 1, 2006 09:42 AM