Who asked for a war for Christmas?

 I had thought we were past this. Several weeks ago, it seemed like we were on the brink of war with Venezuela. Then the USS Gerald Ford carrier battle group left the area and tensions eased somewhat.

But now, just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Caribbean, they’re baa-aack (And yes, I’m aware that I’m mixing my horror movie metaphors.)

Image created by Grok

Share

Not only is the Ford back on station, Trump posted over the weekend that Venezuela airspace should be considered closed “in its entirety.” Trump’s online announcement came a few days after a warning by the FAA that GPS interference and “increasing Venezuela military readiness” presented potential hazards to civil aviation in the region. (Never mind that Trump’s provocations are why Venezuela is readying itself.) Many airlines cancelled flights after the announcement, to Venezuela’s consternation.

Trump’s announcement is particularly concerning for two reasons. First, shutting down airspace to civil flights is a potential preliminary step towards military action, albeit one that foregoes the element of surprise. Second, interfering with or blockading lawful air transportation is itself an act of war. By telling the world that Venezuelan airspace is closed, Trump is already embroiling America in an utterly unnecessary war of aggression even if no shots have been fired at the Venezuelan military yet.

But shots have been fired. The US has attacked numerous alleged drug boats, and in at least one instance, has launched a second strike to finish off survivors. The Secretary of Defense (the War Department still does not officially exist) recently tweeted a picture of a cartoon turtle blowing up “Narco Terrorists” (another made-up term) with the caption, “For your Christmas wish list.”

Leaving aside the fact that extrajudicial killings are about as far from the spirit of Christ as you can get (but apparently not from Christian Nationalism), Hegseth and Trump seem to think that the deepening military crisis is funny. Across party lines, Americans disagree and are not with the Administration on the brewing war.

As Steve Berman described, killing defenseless sailors is both immoral and unlawful. In both World Wars, submarine and ship crews murdering (because that’s what it really is) the survivors of sinking ships was considered a war crime and was used as fodder for propaganda against the barbarity of the Germans and Japanese, yet what we are doing now is directly analogous.

We are becoming the bad guys. As Pogo the Possum was wont to say, “”We have met the enemy and he is us.”

To a lot of people, that’s not a revelation. Since WWII, we have engaged in some questionable and unpopular conflicts, but I think our motives have always been good, even when our actions weren’t.

Not here.

There is no justification for war against Venezuela. Very little fentanyl comes through Venezuela and the majority of the cocaine that reaches the US comes through Colombia. Unlike Saddam Hussein and Ho Chi Minh, Maduro is not invading his neighbors. In fact, Maduro has sought a peaceful solution and been ignored by Trump. There is no Venezuelan WMD program, but who could blame them for starting one if they survive the next three years? Far from clamoring for liberation, Venezuelan civilians are preparing to take up arms against American invaders.

I’m not a pacifist. I’m not a non-interventionist. I do think the US has a moral duty to use its might to spread democracy and human rights where we can do so with a reasonable chance of success.

That’s not what is happening here. There is no coherent reason for why we are about to go to war with Venezuela. It makes even less sense than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine since we have no historical ties with Venezuela. The only plausible explanation is that Trump sees Venezuela as part of his sphere of influence and is thus fair game. Oh, and Venezuela has oil.

It’s literal imperialism.

Venezuela is going to be different than any other war America has fought. It will be a war of naked aggression. Even the Indian wars were made inevitable by the close proximity of two very different cultures. We are going out of our way to target Venezuela.

I don’t know when the war will start in earnest, but it is becoming ever more apparent that Trump is not going to forget about Venezuela. When it starts, it will be the most stupid and avoidable war in our history. No one asked for this war. Trump campaigned on peace and an end to “forever wars.”

What we about to - what we are doing now - is wrong. Americans need to make it known that we won’t support a stupid and unnecessary war, but we also need to acknowledge that we probably won’t be able to stop it. At this point, Trump thinks he can do anything and so far, Congress has let him.

I recently came across the story of AJ Muste, an activist who opposed the Vietnam War. At one point, a reporter asked, “Do you really think you are going to change the policies of this country by standing out here alone at night in front of the White House with a candle?”

Muste answered, “I don’t do this to change the country. I do this so the country won’t change me.”

That’s key for those of us who oppose Trump’s military (and other) misadventures. It’s not just about the policy outcomes (although we should work towards those as well), it’s about our own consciences and being able to live with ourselves. It’s about knowing we stood up for what was right.

Edmund Burke probably never said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” but that doesn’t make the sentiment any less true. Right now, there isn’t a lot that we can do to stop this looming war, but we should do what we can.

Thanks for reading The Racket News ™! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

A FINAL WORD As a footnote, I want to add that if/when the war starts, we should not take out our frustrations on individual military members. They did not sign up with this war in mind, and many probably oppose it. Nevertheless, low-ranking members lack the legal standing to disobey orders that have been deemed lawful by military lawyers. When individual soldiers are placed in a combat zone, politics quickly becomes secondary to survival.

The real pushback should come from Trump’s cabinet (which is unfortunately filled with yes-men), Congress (which is spineless), and top military brass. Maybe that’s going on behind the scenes right now. Maybe that’s why the war hasn’t started already.

If American soldiers are thrust into a bad war, if they can’t stay out of the fight, they can at least act honorably and within the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military Code of Conduct, which states in part, “I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.”

I think that most American soldiers will behave honorably, even if thrust into a dishonorable war.

From the Racket News

Notes on Community Notes

 

Contrary to the experience of many internet users, my earliest days on the internet found me gravitating towards debunking sites. Not long after I discovered the internet, I discovered Snopes, which at that point was mainly associated with debunking urban myths. I remember thoroughly enjoying reading their investigations of a great many early web and pre-Internet hoaxes. 

As Snopes grew into checking what was later to be termed “fake news,” the site itself became the target of hoaxers who claimed that the debunkers had an agenda beyond just outing the lies. Most of these claims have also been debunked over the years. Snopes isn’t perfect, but it is extremely helpful if you keep two things in mind when you use it and similar sites: 

1. Don’t just read the headline. Read the article. 

2. Click through to look at the primary sources that back up the fact-checker’s claims. 

Image created by Grok

Share

Drawing on my interest in truth and objectivity, I did some early fact-checking of my own. One of my early writing jobs was for a now-defunct outlet called Examiner.com, where I held the title of Atlanta Conservative Examiner. That may come as a surprise to some of my readers who assume that I’m a Democrat because I’m Never Trump, but I have been a conservative my whole life. The fact that I took conservatism seriously and not just as a synonym for “Republican” is why I oppose Trump. 

At that point, a lot of the fake news and conspiracy theories floating around the interwebs involved Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act. I opposed both, but I still felt that the truth mattered, so I debunked several of these conspiracy theories, such as the claims that Obamacare would usher in beheadings (that one got picked up by Politifact, which gave me a shout-out) and that the ACA funded a paramilitary secret police force. Living in Texas, I also did my part to debunk the Jade Helm conspiracy theories that Obama was going to invade the southwestern US (which really made no sense given that he already controlled the federal forces that were based in that part of the country) and detain citizens in concentration camps set up in abandoned Walmarts. 

For those who didn’t follow politics or were too young to remember those times, it’s difficult to believe just how crazy Republicans were even before Trump became a candidate. It does explain a lot about why a party that Obama literally drove insane and that was already not living in the real world was ready to rally behind Trump, though. It’s harder to explain why so many Republicans now embrace the very acts that they were sounding the alarm about in those days. (I don’t limit my criticism to the right, but I was a consumer of right-wing media, and those outlets were chock full of conspiracy theories.)

Fast-forward to the present, and the state of fact-checking has changed a lot. Fact-checking departments at social media platforms were closed and the fact-checkers fired after Trump’s 2024 win. It looked like the fake news had not only won the election but had also routed efforts to even balance the fakery with the truth. 

What replaced the professional fact-checkers was a band of volunteers. The social media companies began allowing select users to write notes that were appended to certain posts that were either outright lies or bent the truth. Needless to say, when I saw notifications that invited me to apply to these fact-checking programs, I signed up. 

The response was not quick. I signed up for the platform formerly known as Twitter and Facebook/Meta fact-checking programs back in the spring. I was approved by Threads a few weeks later, and the Twitter approval quickly followed. I was just added to the Facebook program yesterday. 

There is a lot of similarity between the programs. In all cases, Community Notes are written by users and approved by other users. On Twitter at least, the approval is not based on majority rule but by an algorithm that relies on agreement between users who have disagreed in the past. 

For a new Note writer, the first step on all platforms is to start reviewing Notes written by others. This gives the user an opportunity to see what good and bad Note writing looks like. It also gives the algorithm a chance to look at how the writer responds. Twitter gives writers an “impact” score for both reviewing and writing Notes, with a reviewing score of 10 being required before you can start writing. 

Across the board, the reviewing process is similar. Users are asked to choose whether a Note is helpful or not. (Twitter also allows “somewhat helpful” as an option.) For either choice, there is a checklist of items to support your choice that includes things like using high-quality sources, being objective and unbiased, adding important context, and being relevant to the post’s claim. For unhelpful Notes, the options include being biased or argumentative, incorrect information, typos, unreliable sources, or missing key points. Notes can also be rejected if they are based on opinion rather than facts or if a note is simply not needed on the post. 

Reviewers can also choose to write a Note to address their own views on the post. Sometimes this leads to interesting back-and-forth exchanges behind the scenes. Much of this back-and-forth is between partisans who disagree over both the underlying truth and whether a Note is needed. But disagree carefully on Twitter because there is a limit of one Note per day, and the back-and-forth Notes count toward this limit. 

Additionally, I have also seen some Notes written by AI on Threads. These notes still have the same review process as Notes written by humans. 

Notes can be written on any post, but the platforms do have a list of posts where a Note might be needed. Users can scroll down this list and add a Note if they choose.

So how well does this new system work? That is still being determined. A Spanish fact-checking site found that only 8.3 percent of proposed Notes on Twitter posts ever became visible. That number rises to 15.2 percent when the Note is linked to a verified fact-checking organization. 

Sometimes a joke gets through the approval process as well. The Twitter satirist and youth football coaching legend, @3YearLetterman, was famously defended by Note writers and reviewers who declined to correct him due to his status as a Notary Public. Another attempt to “Note” the Coach was beaten back amid allegations that the Note writer financed his waterbed. It generally helps in life to have a sense of humor. 

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the process doesn’t work. We may be seeing the algorithm weeding out bad Notes. After all, a lot of users probably have an ax to grind, and that may (it definitely does) show up in the Notes they write. 

In my personal experience, I have written 17 Notes for Twitter and 28 for Threads. Of those, zero have been published on Twitter, and six have been published on Threads. (The two Notes that I wrote for Facebook yesterday are also unpublished as of this writing.)

Yeah, I’d say the system is broken. And Twitter’s system seems more broken than others. 

The biggest problem seems to be getting Notes reviewed and published. As currently set, standards may be too high, or maybe there needs to be more incentive for users to go through and review Notes in order to reduce the backlog. Maybe a more fundamental problem is that we can’t even agree on what is true.

Similarly, if misinformation is highly technical or requires specialized knowledge to refute, a layman might not be up to the job. Misinformation about vaccines that cites medical studies would be an example.

It seems to me that if a Note isn’t approved relatively quickly, it will probably never be approved. This creates a problem because the misinformation is still out there, even if the corrective Note languishes. Having said that, I remember posting one Note on Threads on a hot topic, and it was published by the next morning. 

The crowd-sourced fact-checking is not a bad idea, but it does need improvement. In particular, there needs to be a way to expedite approval of Community Notes. Outlets also need to attract Note writers with expertise in technical areas. Artificial Intelligence, in addition to creating fake news, may turn out to be a big part of the solution. 

The fake news may be winning the battle, but we can’t let it win the war. The fight for truth on the internet is vital when it comes to preserving our rights and our Republic. In the meantime, try to be a savvy internet user and question sensational stories before you click “like” or share them, even if they tickle your ears and your preconceived biases. 

And if you’re already a savvy internet user who can look at issues objectively, we’re looking for a few good fact-checkers.

From the Racket News