With the election of the Democrats to (slight) majorities in both houses of Congress this November, Congressman Charles Rangel of New York's 15th District has once again submitted a bill (as he did in 2003) for re-instatement of the military draft.
Congressman Rangel states among his reasons two points that are particularly interesting in how they appear to triangulate a Viet-Nam era mentality into their construction. This goes for many who share Rangel's view. Ironically, in the first case, despite media pre-occupation with that war, there is a clear ignoring of its lessons:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,"
The irony of this statement is that Viet Nam showed, as the political polemics in the 2004 election demonstrated, is that the political favored are able to avoid such a draft by a number of means, or can manipulate the form of service if they do go. Most can wearily recall the debate over the exact form of President Bush's national guard service, or the fact that despite having served, Senator John Kerry's swift-boat stint was also remarkable for its brevity. Rangel's proposal would do nothing to deter warmaking by the elite, for they are not impacted by it until such actions go extremely awry or costly.
His intention is sound, but a military draft would do nothing to deter aggressive foreign policy or war-making of the character Congressman Rangel rightly fears. Arguably it would lessen the quality and committed morale of the present force, comprised in large part by men and women who believe in their cause and have chosen to so serve. But more important, in my opinion, Rangel misses the point. It is the "undeclared war" the so-called "police action" or "intervention" that poses the greatest threat of the kind of wars Rangel wants to deter. Restoration of the demand for a formally declared war, and fully moblized effort, would do far more to deter such conflicts, by making it necessary to believe in them first enough to do so. It also would carry with it the abolition of an excessively `peace-time' mentality of concern with courts, civil offense, and "business as usual" among corporations "bidding" in the war zone that confuse and demoralize the national morale and public commitment to the war.
It goes without saying that if an administration cannot muster the support to get a declaration of war, then we should probably not be engaging in it, that it likely is indeed, the kind of war Congressman Rangel and others want to avoid and think they can by re-instating a draft. Threats that fall short of earning a declaration of war should fall under a category of special covert handling (theft, bribes, assassination, etc) or when appropriate, international coordinated efforts. The case of the first UN Gulf War of 1991 and NATO's intervention in Bosnia would be examples of the latter. But even these as the current war in Iraq shows, must be pursued cautiously in their launch. In any case, they certainly are out of line if you do not have a professional volunteer military, and are using conscripts. Consider the current call for intervention to stop genocid in Darfur;this too,can go disastrously awry or become `endless' if not defined, or engaged in by unwilling conscripts.
Congressman Rangel's other point reflects a vexing and persistent urban myth. This myth is even more disconcerting than the belief that a draft would deter elite politicians from poorly planned decisions:
"A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent."
However, this is not borne out by the facts brought to life in various studies, or even the most casual canvassing of college discussion boards, and simple hearsay of who knows who that is serving kind of talk. There is a marked difference from Viet Nam, which seems to be the only war that the mainstream media and most politicians (because of their age range, their generation) seem able to relate to or know about. In other words, they keep forgetting that it is a voluntary military, and very educated and articulate one at that, in many ways far more so than the general population.
A useful study helps point out some of this, which is otherwise apparent just in the character of the reports and witnesses we have from military persons serving overseas:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm#_ftn1
Quote:
"However, our research shows that the volunteer force is already equitable. That is, it is highly likely that reinstating the draft would erode military effectiveness, increase American fatalities, destroy personal freedom, and even produce a less socioÂeconomically "privileged" military in the process.
In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivÂalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population."
Unquote.
Instead, arguably the "most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent" that Congressman Rangel should have in mind are those of the poliical elite and the policy-makers of both parties. However, on reflection, it seems the real point is that the vision Rangel has in mind is a past-tense one, and like so much of the media and politics today, one that sees the present only through the lens of Viet Nam and the 1960's. Even the composition of the military in Viet Nam was not as underclass as the myths portray, but it is certainly true that the political elite were able to engage in far more obvious evasion than say in World War II. Where he may have a point of similarity is a similar evasion of accountability among leadership, but there is no need to change anything regarding the troops except increasing the speed by which their equipment needs are met by mobilization.
If Congressman Rangel and those of like mind want to deter or otherwise limit the scope of possibly misconceived wars like the current one in Iraq, they should look instead to restore the need for a formal declaration of war and put severe constraints and limits on the amount of military action that can be ordered without a national mobilization. If a "draft" is needed, it is really for new generation and voices in D.C. that are not enamored with or marinated in the views of the 1960's and stuck in the lens of the Viet Nam era kind of war.
By the way, this goes equally true for the administration and the recently toppled Republican majority --- they did indeed fight this war something like Viet Nam, complete with excessive unrebutted press influence on policy, and concern with appearances and domestic partisan vote politics rather than decisive victory. Likewise to President Johnson's time, a similar mulish insistence on not recasting plans and failure to feel free to press home the defeat of the enemy while presenting an obtuse face to the public and failure to counter-act ill-informed and even stupid media characterizations, or own up to error where the press was correct, has prevailed. In this sense, the critics of the war, such as Rangel, that make comparisons to Viet Nam are unfortunately not far from the mark.
Let's not compound the mistakes by repeating one of Viet Nam's greatest ones: a national conscription in service of an unaccountable and politicized government. Especially with a fairly illiterate-with-history band of bureaucrats that are more politicians and lawyers than statesmen.
- Anthony
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
A different interpretation of mid-term elections/2006 trends
Upon my return, clearly the most immediate and current public event is the ongoing avid discussion of the possible meaning (besides the obvious one of `wanting change') behind the almost complete expulsion of the Republican majority from both houses of Congress by the Democrats, albeit recognizing that the margin in the Senate remains very slim. Its all the more significant that the victors, the Democrats, are themselves quick to acknowledge what most of the pundits are pointing out, and that is this: the turnover is not a mandate for `Liberalism/Progressive' platform, for it was mostly moderate/conservative platform Democrat candidates that won. In Connecticut where the voters had a choice other than Republican or Democrat Senator running as an independent, that man, Joe Lieberman, won. This conclusion follows from the ironic fact though while it was singularly evident that the Republican Congress and especially the White House was very resistant to re-shaping plans and presenting any kind of coherent vision about getting a handle on the Iraq War and the war against Jihadism, it was equally obvious the Democrats had no counter-plan to offer at all. At least not one that was really spelled out. What follows runs a little long, but I am synthesizing several accumulated factors here.
Now it so happens that this election at first sight contains many seemingly contradictory threads ----- fairly conservative platforms referring to the definition of marriage, or attempts at setting English as a national language and getting some control of the border fiasco, passed in many places. Even in places where the Republican and `supposed' "conservative" candidates otherwise lost. So whatever the vote was `about' if anything, it shows a clear rejection of incumbents in most cases, while at the same time showing little to no migration or shift to the so-called `liberal/progressive' social agendas.
In my opinion, part of the answer is hidden in that last sentence, and finds a clue in the recent announcement by Wal-Mart that due to a substantial customer demand, they were renewing use of saying `Merry Christmas' in most cases this holiday season. This was quickly followed by Sears and other retail chains. While on its face, this may seem trivial, its more important for the clue it provides about the real common trend here. No, the restoration has nothing to do with a theocratic `agenda' or even Christmas. It is however, an example of a mainstream rejection of what is perceived as a hyper-political correctness agenda (the abolition of Judeo-Christian references in the public sphere.) Oddly enough, it finds an echo, a common thread in the imbroglio and local governments increasingly acting on the the border issue. Here again, it was in defiance of social elites determined to push their paradigm of unrestricted borders in the name of some social concept of inclusion even at the expense of dissolving the rules of citizenship. Since the national government had abdicated its responsiblity, the public has tried to use the local government levers available.
What is this common thread? Its actually a potentially very encouraging one, and is the real silver lining of this election outcome for any concerned American not holding to the excessively global or postmodern philosophical outlook popular in much of academia and the major media. The thread is a simple one: the `silent majority' is becoming less silent, and is increasingly tired of being ignored in the name of political-correctness or partisan opportunism, or second-guessing global approval. The American people, both Democrat and Republican, made pretty loudly clear for the past two years they wanted some kind of border reform. But the elites in the media and Washington D.C. patently ignored this. Going even so far as to make a debate out of the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are first illegal, and cannot and should not be confused with the rights of immigrants properly settled and employed here. All that differed among the public was which measures might be best, but there was rough consensus that something needed to be done. This consensus was ignored with breathtaking arrogance from the President of the U.S. right on through the editorial boards of the major newspapers. From the Dubai ports scandal to newspaper talking heads calling the simple logic of wanting to enforce borders `racist' the elites in power snubbed the voters perspective.
A similar consensus existed regarding Iraq and the war on Jihadism; most want some kind of clear plan, an articulated victory, and above all, an accountability for obvious failure. (This also comes into play regarding the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, which was a rare case of a perceivable change being made in response). Once again, the media with its strong post-modernist and relativist leanings does not reflect the public's concern. For example, despite all the hand-wringing on the issue, the "wiretap" and `detainees' debate pushed by the Democrats and the ACLU style factions received very little support from the public. For better or worse, they didn't fear wiretap of the enemy, so much as just wanted more transparency from the White House. Alas, it wouldn't readily give this, not even to simply obtaining retroactive oversight or after-the-fact green light, and this conveys a picture of abuse of power to those concerned with valid Constitutional precedents, as does excessive sword-rattling in public statements.
On the other hand, the Democrats found that the public is not as concerned with how a brutal and contemptible enemy is treated, as they are with the poor direction and handling of the War against Islamic terrorism. The view on GITMO is that the status of the detainess should have been defined, and then them left to stew there till the end of the war as long as that takes, just like other PoWs. Not given access to our civil courts, a privilege of citizeship Jihadists have not earned, and which wasn't granted to Axis soldiers. When partisanship is set aside and the common citizen talks, they are generally incensed about both the vaguely sympathetic and tolerant treatment activists and media give toward the enemy's terrorist actions, from airing their propaganda to calling them `freedom fighters' when they clearly relish blowing up the innocent and unarmed as much as any soldiers. But they equally resent the overly-abrasive and stubborn behavior of the administration in refusing not only to concede errors, even misrepresentations, but more important, to correct them and re-cast plans more decisively. Even among the hard-line base of the Republicans, for example, there was a dead-tie in feelings that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld needed to be replaced in favor of a fresh start. Among the rest of the nation and the Republican center, that opinion was close to overwhelming.
When recent events are looked at this way, I submit a common thread is increasingly discernible: where possible, where the working public still has a way to "out-shout" and be heard over the cacophony of Republican and Democrat party spin machines, and postmodernist, even nearly anti-Western media and editors, and dare one say it, hostile to Judeo-Christian ethics even as a philosophy, then the public voter is starting to USE that way, and use it to be heard. Hence the surprise and shock of the various talking heads and `experts' at the `apparent contradiction'. This `contradictory' thread actually has a strong Libertarian content, of wanting more accountability and less catering to special fringe interests of any kind, and especially that of the foreign enemy. Its important to notice here too, that that also goes for an over-zealous assertion of right-wing views, particularly fundamentalism and perceived attempts to impose beliefs or dictate how science is taught. In general, the public is wanting to avoid the extremes the pundits are actually promoting, whether it be the left wing one of wishing to impose radical income redistribution or the legislating morality epithet usually aimed at the right wing.
As we head into the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday season, its meet to close on a remark about that issue. Its apparent very triviality is actually a signpost of significance. The majority is tired of specialized fringe pressure groups imposing their demands on it, and seeking to violate the mainstream rights every bit as much as the minority ones they are claiming. The simple fact is that it is not a large segment of the public that wants to empty Christmas of its content, even those of other faiths, and big business, unlike politicians, generally is a bit more responsive to quantity of feedback rather than noise volume. Likewise, it is not a large segment of the citizenry that wants to grant blank checks and amnesty to illegals. In general, then, the fall of 2006 is not showing either a "Liberal" or "Neocon" trend, but rather an increasingly apparent desire to reject extremes and to get America's sense of identity and unity back.
This rejection of the sensationalized and hyped extremes then, is the real apparent trend, but its road is difficult and uncertain. Its really the media, judges/lawyers and the political pundits that are short-circuiting this process. Starting on November 7th, this paradigm of extremes has met a long overdue backlash and the beginning of a demand for sanity. Whether the best answer to accomplish this is a reformation of one of the major parties, or a third party becoming truly viable, remains to be seen.
- Anthony
Now it so happens that this election at first sight contains many seemingly contradictory threads ----- fairly conservative platforms referring to the definition of marriage, or attempts at setting English as a national language and getting some control of the border fiasco, passed in many places. Even in places where the Republican and `supposed' "conservative" candidates otherwise lost. So whatever the vote was `about' if anything, it shows a clear rejection of incumbents in most cases, while at the same time showing little to no migration or shift to the so-called `liberal/progressive' social agendas.
In my opinion, part of the answer is hidden in that last sentence, and finds a clue in the recent announcement by Wal-Mart that due to a substantial customer demand, they were renewing use of saying `Merry Christmas' in most cases this holiday season. This was quickly followed by Sears and other retail chains. While on its face, this may seem trivial, its more important for the clue it provides about the real common trend here. No, the restoration has nothing to do with a theocratic `agenda' or even Christmas. It is however, an example of a mainstream rejection of what is perceived as a hyper-political correctness agenda (the abolition of Judeo-Christian references in the public sphere.) Oddly enough, it finds an echo, a common thread in the imbroglio and local governments increasingly acting on the the border issue. Here again, it was in defiance of social elites determined to push their paradigm of unrestricted borders in the name of some social concept of inclusion even at the expense of dissolving the rules of citizenship. Since the national government had abdicated its responsiblity, the public has tried to use the local government levers available.
What is this common thread? Its actually a potentially very encouraging one, and is the real silver lining of this election outcome for any concerned American not holding to the excessively global or postmodern philosophical outlook popular in much of academia and the major media. The thread is a simple one: the `silent majority' is becoming less silent, and is increasingly tired of being ignored in the name of political-correctness or partisan opportunism, or second-guessing global approval. The American people, both Democrat and Republican, made pretty loudly clear for the past two years they wanted some kind of border reform. But the elites in the media and Washington D.C. patently ignored this. Going even so far as to make a debate out of the self-evident fact that illegal immigrants are first illegal, and cannot and should not be confused with the rights of immigrants properly settled and employed here. All that differed among the public was which measures might be best, but there was rough consensus that something needed to be done. This consensus was ignored with breathtaking arrogance from the President of the U.S. right on through the editorial boards of the major newspapers. From the Dubai ports scandal to newspaper talking heads calling the simple logic of wanting to enforce borders `racist' the elites in power snubbed the voters perspective.
A similar consensus existed regarding Iraq and the war on Jihadism; most want some kind of clear plan, an articulated victory, and above all, an accountability for obvious failure. (This also comes into play regarding the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, which was a rare case of a perceivable change being made in response). Once again, the media with its strong post-modernist and relativist leanings does not reflect the public's concern. For example, despite all the hand-wringing on the issue, the "wiretap" and `detainees' debate pushed by the Democrats and the ACLU style factions received very little support from the public. For better or worse, they didn't fear wiretap of the enemy, so much as just wanted more transparency from the White House. Alas, it wouldn't readily give this, not even to simply obtaining retroactive oversight or after-the-fact green light, and this conveys a picture of abuse of power to those concerned with valid Constitutional precedents, as does excessive sword-rattling in public statements.
On the other hand, the Democrats found that the public is not as concerned with how a brutal and contemptible enemy is treated, as they are with the poor direction and handling of the War against Islamic terrorism. The view on GITMO is that the status of the detainess should have been defined, and then them left to stew there till the end of the war as long as that takes, just like other PoWs. Not given access to our civil courts, a privilege of citizeship Jihadists have not earned, and which wasn't granted to Axis soldiers. When partisanship is set aside and the common citizen talks, they are generally incensed about both the vaguely sympathetic and tolerant treatment activists and media give toward the enemy's terrorist actions, from airing their propaganda to calling them `freedom fighters' when they clearly relish blowing up the innocent and unarmed as much as any soldiers. But they equally resent the overly-abrasive and stubborn behavior of the administration in refusing not only to concede errors, even misrepresentations, but more important, to correct them and re-cast plans more decisively. Even among the hard-line base of the Republicans, for example, there was a dead-tie in feelings that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld needed to be replaced in favor of a fresh start. Among the rest of the nation and the Republican center, that opinion was close to overwhelming.
When recent events are looked at this way, I submit a common thread is increasingly discernible: where possible, where the working public still has a way to "out-shout" and be heard over the cacophony of Republican and Democrat party spin machines, and postmodernist, even nearly anti-Western media and editors, and dare one say it, hostile to Judeo-Christian ethics even as a philosophy, then the public voter is starting to USE that way, and use it to be heard. Hence the surprise and shock of the various talking heads and `experts' at the `apparent contradiction'. This `contradictory' thread actually has a strong Libertarian content, of wanting more accountability and less catering to special fringe interests of any kind, and especially that of the foreign enemy. Its important to notice here too, that that also goes for an over-zealous assertion of right-wing views, particularly fundamentalism and perceived attempts to impose beliefs or dictate how science is taught. In general, the public is wanting to avoid the extremes the pundits are actually promoting, whether it be the left wing one of wishing to impose radical income redistribution or the legislating morality epithet usually aimed at the right wing.
As we head into the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday season, its meet to close on a remark about that issue. Its apparent very triviality is actually a signpost of significance. The majority is tired of specialized fringe pressure groups imposing their demands on it, and seeking to violate the mainstream rights every bit as much as the minority ones they are claiming. The simple fact is that it is not a large segment of the public that wants to empty Christmas of its content, even those of other faiths, and big business, unlike politicians, generally is a bit more responsive to quantity of feedback rather than noise volume. Likewise, it is not a large segment of the citizenry that wants to grant blank checks and amnesty to illegals. In general, then, the fall of 2006 is not showing either a "Liberal" or "Neocon" trend, but rather an increasingly apparent desire to reject extremes and to get America's sense of identity and unity back.
This rejection of the sensationalized and hyped extremes then, is the real apparent trend, but its road is difficult and uncertain. Its really the media, judges/lawyers and the political pundits that are short-circuiting this process. Starting on November 7th, this paradigm of extremes has met a long overdue backlash and the beginning of a demand for sanity. Whether the best answer to accomplish this is a reformation of one of the major parties, or a third party becoming truly viable, remains to be seen.
- Anthony
Renewed Posting to commence
Though there has been a precisely four-month hiatus while many things piled up on my plate in professional and personal life, fresh focus and the recent dramatic events pertaining to the mid-term Congressional election all prompt my return. Furthermore, this return accompanies a soon to be expanded and ambitious launch of a domain dedicated to providing a `cliff notes' version of historical events both ancient and current, and indeed, pretty much anything related to the world of facts and investigation. One of the aims will be to comprehensively integrate and discuss varied topics (mostly of non-fiction character), my publications, readings and reflections of interest, and general dialogue. This will cover matters ranging from the specialist to the `hot-button' issues.
Further updates on the expansion will be posted in the days ahead.
- Anthony
Further updates on the expansion will be posted in the days ahead.
- Anthony
Saturday, July 15, 2006
North Korea and Iran - which is a true crisis?
Right now we are beset by dire headlines and reports involving North Korea's mulish determination to test fire long-range missiles, and Iran's drive for nuclear weapon capability in the face of strong European pressure to stop, not to mention Iran's involvement with Hezbollah in escalating violence in the Lebanon/Israel/Gaza zone. Which, if either, is "an international crisis" , or are both?
First regarding North Korea and Kim Jong: In my opinion North Korea's posturing is NOT an "international crisis". At least it need not be. In fact it is being given a profile and potential latitude of provocation that the action itself does not need to have assigned to it. Its only the very tepid style of international dialogue and extraordinary reluctance to even talk strongly or clearly, let alone act. Consider: when you get right down to it, all North Korea is doing is testing ballistic missiles. Yet much of the reportage and public tone of the matter gives the impression of an imminent crisis, when this is hardly the case. After all, when consulted, Washington could ask the pointed and highly deterring question or statement phrased thus: "We are not too concerned about Pyongyang's action. Yes, we are annoyed that Kim Jong is *violating the terms of the cease fire* and are concerned about the attitude involved. But the point of his present actions, including nuclear development, is simple grandstanding for hopes of a better deal. As far as we know, he is not declaring war on America or Japan or any others."
Make it that dismissive, that blunt and clear. If the risk of a missile strike on the West coast by North Korea is raised, it again ignores the facts. We could plainly say, from solid ground: "We are not concerned about that. A national regime threatening us is different from a terrorist context. After all, M.A.D. of the Cold War has not been cancelled or disavowed by us. Should North Korea attack, they know we would retaliate with our own missiles. We all need not belabor what that would mean." This could form the basis of really firm response to North Korea's needling, by pointing out what Kim Jong likely is NOT doing -- namely, about to declare war and get his regime wiped out. He is in essence, extorting, trying to get concessions by using destabilizing talk and actions, and his bluff needs to be called. It would also re-assure Japan, who has become quite rattled by it all, and the sense of inaction. In the remote chance he is not bluffing, then apply the penalty if he does fire an armed nuke or better, positions one for launch. But deal with the matter firmly. It has none of the vagueness that makes fighting terrorism so difficult. Classic 19th and 20th C rules of action apply with North Korea.
Perhaps such a reminder has already been conveyed quietly through diplomatic channels, and the reportage on North Korea is failing to grasp its essentially localized and limited character. If one is going to call such posturing "international crisis" then it substantially lowers the currency of the term's impact. Which brings us to two other situations ongoing in the Mideast that are also being called "crisis" today: the Iranian drive for unregulated nuclear power, and the renewal of escalating violence in the Holy Land region, in forms disturbingly reminding of the 1982 Lebanon war.
Even aside from 9/11, these two situations do seem to rate the term 'crisis'. For one thing, Iran's rather stubborn drive for nuclear power capability is very disturbing. Its an open international secret, never admitted but obvious, that they seek nuclear weapons capability. The Russians among others have made offers that would have provided the means for truly civilian power and electric nuclear plants if Teheran really "only wanted that". Its also rather obvious given the huge oil reserves of Iran that nuclear power for energy is not likely to be their goal. That China and Russia have changed positions to be open to sanctions pretty much removes any remaining doubt about Iran's desire for nuclear processing being for weapon purposes in character.
This would be serious enough, but Iran's official and political rhetoric, from the mouths of its own government officials, has been genocidal in character regarding Israel and Jews. There is nothing in the tone that is different from Nazi rhetoric before WW II. Holocaust-inflicting talk when joined to nuclear missile capability is intolerable as a prospect. The convergence of these two streams -- genocidal desire to "wipe out Israel" tied with seeking the weapons most able to do this, does indeed qualify the Iranian impasse for the term "international crisis". For it also meets the criteria of the offending nation having sufficient power to deflect action by default long enough to gain its ends, absent decisive intervention or ultimatum. Yet it also qualifies as "crisis" in that one neglected aspect of such is that in many cases, they are diplomatic failings, and misunderstandings of context. Dire as it sounds, even Iran's current threat may be such an example.
For instance, though it is Iran's President and some of its officials that have openly threatened Israel, and spoke of "wiping out Israel" or `driving Jews into the sea' this still doesn't mean its the goal of the nuclear program. Instead, the difference is that in the Mideast, such talk is almost "necessary currency" to "establish one's credentials" as a leader, and especially in a semi-Jihadist atmosphere. This is especially so in theocratic revolutionary Iran. That is to say, the hate-speech itself is almost default, almost routine in context. What makes it different is the drive for nuclear capability. However, an equally likely motive for this resumed desire for the bomb on the part of Iran would in fact be the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies. Its fairly apparent, if not certain, that given some of the hesitation induced by reportage of heavy casualties, that Saddam would still be in power if he had gained one or two bombs. That is, having the bomb in today's climate also functions as invasion deterrent. Its working for North Korea, and does for any who has it.
What this means is that Iran may in fact be seeking the bomb to avoid the fate of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This is made even more understandable a response by the U.S. open embracing of concepts such as pre-emptive attack, and even attack on basis of capability. This is only aggravated by a marked reluctance to open-ended dialogue. In short, from the weaker nation's point of view, if an adversary already, as Iran is - there is no basis for trust in not having the capability, and a lot of gains by having it. This is what makes it a diplomatic crisis --- Iran is in a position where backing down offers no security, and America is in a position where they are nearly committed -- perhaps unnecessarily -- for viewing that as a de-facto immediate threat.
And this is where 9/11 factors in ---- at first glance, one might say, what makes Iran having nukes different from North Korea? If the latter is not a crisis, why is the former? The answer is this: why it is true that on its fact, Iran firing nukes would result in its destruction just like if North Korea did --- and a very one-sided destruction, however appalling the blow received by the Western side first -- the problem of exported terrorism rears its head. Iran has exported terrorism and violence since 1979, and indeed, Iraq was one of its first targets. Despite periods of lucid and restrained conduct, especially through the later 90's, the record is the kind that does not inspire confidence. And thus the big question appears -- would Teheran give nuclear weapons to terrorist cells to blow up Tel Aviv or Los Angeles or London? Anything short of a truly strong answer "can't see it happening" is not very appealing. Hence, the real challenge of Iran's stubbornness in its program is determining WHAT they would do with the capability, not why they want it. Its obvious as an "invasion proof" safeguard why they would want it; and they may conceivably feel they have no guarantee from Israel's weapons, let alone America's, till they do. The real dilemma is does the West have the luxury of allowing Iran to join the nuclear club if they will play by the rules?
Other nations have done so, with Pakistan being the next most unsettling outside North Korea on this score. But the gremlin is the possibility of transfer of the weapons to terrorists -- this threat already was trumped up in Saddam's case but rather unlikely given his ego and paranoia --- Hussein would not likely give such a weapon to a family member, let alone a renegade or another country lest Baghdad or his HQ be blown up. One would like to feel Iran is the same, but their tendency to export terrorism is the big question mark. That's the real fear that separates and is the key to understanding why some nation's provocations create more 'crisis' than others. Its also the one aspect that could transform the North Korea situation into a genuine crisis -- should Kim Jong export the capability, and necessitating his destruction as a result.
These times have a marked deficit in clear long-range thinking that is not too emotionally driven, and which takes account of the true differences and characters and motivations between nations. There is a disturbing "one size fits all" tendency to reportage and discussion of diplomatic choices today, and this is one reason why it is important to take the time and a few long breaths to determine what truly should be termed a crisis between nations, and what is mere saber-rattling or grand-standing to gain better agreements or treaties.
- Anthony
First regarding North Korea and Kim Jong: In my opinion North Korea's posturing is NOT an "international crisis". At least it need not be. In fact it is being given a profile and potential latitude of provocation that the action itself does not need to have assigned to it. Its only the very tepid style of international dialogue and extraordinary reluctance to even talk strongly or clearly, let alone act. Consider: when you get right down to it, all North Korea is doing is testing ballistic missiles. Yet much of the reportage and public tone of the matter gives the impression of an imminent crisis, when this is hardly the case. After all, when consulted, Washington could ask the pointed and highly deterring question or statement phrased thus: "We are not too concerned about Pyongyang's action. Yes, we are annoyed that Kim Jong is *violating the terms of the cease fire* and are concerned about the attitude involved. But the point of his present actions, including nuclear development, is simple grandstanding for hopes of a better deal. As far as we know, he is not declaring war on America or Japan or any others."
Make it that dismissive, that blunt and clear. If the risk of a missile strike on the West coast by North Korea is raised, it again ignores the facts. We could plainly say, from solid ground: "We are not concerned about that. A national regime threatening us is different from a terrorist context. After all, M.A.D. of the Cold War has not been cancelled or disavowed by us. Should North Korea attack, they know we would retaliate with our own missiles. We all need not belabor what that would mean." This could form the basis of really firm response to North Korea's needling, by pointing out what Kim Jong likely is NOT doing -- namely, about to declare war and get his regime wiped out. He is in essence, extorting, trying to get concessions by using destabilizing talk and actions, and his bluff needs to be called. It would also re-assure Japan, who has become quite rattled by it all, and the sense of inaction. In the remote chance he is not bluffing, then apply the penalty if he does fire an armed nuke or better, positions one for launch. But deal with the matter firmly. It has none of the vagueness that makes fighting terrorism so difficult. Classic 19th and 20th C rules of action apply with North Korea.
Perhaps such a reminder has already been conveyed quietly through diplomatic channels, and the reportage on North Korea is failing to grasp its essentially localized and limited character. If one is going to call such posturing "international crisis" then it substantially lowers the currency of the term's impact. Which brings us to two other situations ongoing in the Mideast that are also being called "crisis" today: the Iranian drive for unregulated nuclear power, and the renewal of escalating violence in the Holy Land region, in forms disturbingly reminding of the 1982 Lebanon war.
Even aside from 9/11, these two situations do seem to rate the term 'crisis'. For one thing, Iran's rather stubborn drive for nuclear power capability is very disturbing. Its an open international secret, never admitted but obvious, that they seek nuclear weapons capability. The Russians among others have made offers that would have provided the means for truly civilian power and electric nuclear plants if Teheran really "only wanted that". Its also rather obvious given the huge oil reserves of Iran that nuclear power for energy is not likely to be their goal. That China and Russia have changed positions to be open to sanctions pretty much removes any remaining doubt about Iran's desire for nuclear processing being for weapon purposes in character.
This would be serious enough, but Iran's official and political rhetoric, from the mouths of its own government officials, has been genocidal in character regarding Israel and Jews. There is nothing in the tone that is different from Nazi rhetoric before WW II. Holocaust-inflicting talk when joined to nuclear missile capability is intolerable as a prospect. The convergence of these two streams -- genocidal desire to "wipe out Israel" tied with seeking the weapons most able to do this, does indeed qualify the Iranian impasse for the term "international crisis". For it also meets the criteria of the offending nation having sufficient power to deflect action by default long enough to gain its ends, absent decisive intervention or ultimatum. Yet it also qualifies as "crisis" in that one neglected aspect of such is that in many cases, they are diplomatic failings, and misunderstandings of context. Dire as it sounds, even Iran's current threat may be such an example.
For instance, though it is Iran's President and some of its officials that have openly threatened Israel, and spoke of "wiping out Israel" or `driving Jews into the sea' this still doesn't mean its the goal of the nuclear program. Instead, the difference is that in the Mideast, such talk is almost "necessary currency" to "establish one's credentials" as a leader, and especially in a semi-Jihadist atmosphere. This is especially so in theocratic revolutionary Iran. That is to say, the hate-speech itself is almost default, almost routine in context. What makes it different is the drive for nuclear capability. However, an equally likely motive for this resumed desire for the bomb on the part of Iran would in fact be the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies. Its fairly apparent, if not certain, that given some of the hesitation induced by reportage of heavy casualties, that Saddam would still be in power if he had gained one or two bombs. That is, having the bomb in today's climate also functions as invasion deterrent. Its working for North Korea, and does for any who has it.
What this means is that Iran may in fact be seeking the bomb to avoid the fate of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. This is made even more understandable a response by the U.S. open embracing of concepts such as pre-emptive attack, and even attack on basis of capability. This is only aggravated by a marked reluctance to open-ended dialogue. In short, from the weaker nation's point of view, if an adversary already, as Iran is - there is no basis for trust in not having the capability, and a lot of gains by having it. This is what makes it a diplomatic crisis --- Iran is in a position where backing down offers no security, and America is in a position where they are nearly committed -- perhaps unnecessarily -- for viewing that as a de-facto immediate threat.
And this is where 9/11 factors in ---- at first glance, one might say, what makes Iran having nukes different from North Korea? If the latter is not a crisis, why is the former? The answer is this: why it is true that on its fact, Iran firing nukes would result in its destruction just like if North Korea did --- and a very one-sided destruction, however appalling the blow received by the Western side first -- the problem of exported terrorism rears its head. Iran has exported terrorism and violence since 1979, and indeed, Iraq was one of its first targets. Despite periods of lucid and restrained conduct, especially through the later 90's, the record is the kind that does not inspire confidence. And thus the big question appears -- would Teheran give nuclear weapons to terrorist cells to blow up Tel Aviv or Los Angeles or London? Anything short of a truly strong answer "can't see it happening" is not very appealing. Hence, the real challenge of Iran's stubbornness in its program is determining WHAT they would do with the capability, not why they want it. Its obvious as an "invasion proof" safeguard why they would want it; and they may conceivably feel they have no guarantee from Israel's weapons, let alone America's, till they do. The real dilemma is does the West have the luxury of allowing Iran to join the nuclear club if they will play by the rules?
Other nations have done so, with Pakistan being the next most unsettling outside North Korea on this score. But the gremlin is the possibility of transfer of the weapons to terrorists -- this threat already was trumped up in Saddam's case but rather unlikely given his ego and paranoia --- Hussein would not likely give such a weapon to a family member, let alone a renegade or another country lest Baghdad or his HQ be blown up. One would like to feel Iran is the same, but their tendency to export terrorism is the big question mark. That's the real fear that separates and is the key to understanding why some nation's provocations create more 'crisis' than others. Its also the one aspect that could transform the North Korea situation into a genuine crisis -- should Kim Jong export the capability, and necessitating his destruction as a result.
These times have a marked deficit in clear long-range thinking that is not too emotionally driven, and which takes account of the true differences and characters and motivations between nations. There is a disturbing "one size fits all" tendency to reportage and discussion of diplomatic choices today, and this is one reason why it is important to take the time and a few long breaths to determine what truly should be termed a crisis between nations, and what is mere saber-rattling or grand-standing to gain better agreements or treaties.
- Anthony
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Episcopalian and PC-USA debacles show perils of ecumenicism
This past week has seen the theological chaos and genuine debacles on the part of both the The Episcopal Church USA and the Presbyterian Church - USA, as both rather readily and startingly have begun to cave in to social activist mentality and varying strains of political-correctness at expense of doctrine and Scripture.
Though it is true that those more closely acquainted to the recent trends of both of these churches will not be surprised, the matter goes beyond internal schism. Indeed, the theological shipwreck of the Episcopal and PC-USA churches in America gives a stern warning and somewhat jarring stop sign to the ecumenical optimism of the 70's right through the 90's among Christian denominations and churches. The lesson is that a body is going to hold specific stances and beliefs, they necessarily must subscribe to a degree of exclusivity, and yes, even selectiveness. If they fail to do so, if they try to be all-inclusive of all viewpoints and paradigms of life, then they will end up with no clear meaning at all. The center will not hold. An ecumenical spirit and hope should not lead to misplaced trust or knaive ignoring of malignant momentums or incompatible outlooks.
This lesson has application in foreign and cultural relations as well. It is not possible to be all things to all people, or to include or ascribe to all views an equal value. Nor is it wise or sensible to even try to do so. What is happening to the once large and influential Episocopal and Presbyterian-USA bodies is a metaphor for some of the nation's dilemma as a whole. Especially as it applies to the ill-conceived concept of `multiculturalism' for its own sake which of late has taken on the form more of a specific rejection of Western cultural legacy or even the idea of a normative standard. The laudable attempt to understand and take some cognizance of other cultures and lifestyles has become instead a fear to take a clear principled stand on some matters, and to dare name some things and practices as not in the best interest or moral. The important goal of avoiding compulsion of others has been allowed to undermine the equally important task of setting a standard, of naming a benchmark that represents `doing better' and the latter of course requires judgment of some choices as far less constructive than others. In a relativistic world as the present has become, such as Pope Benedict XVI so strongly pointed out in a recent statement, the willingness to criticize or name some actions as harmful has been erased.
The doctrinal chaos and direction choices, and impending schisms, in the Episcopal Church and PC-USA thus find their relevance to other denominations, faiths, and even the secular citizens of America, as a red-flag of warning for the overall direction of a value-free, relativist social paradigm and its likely fruits. Unwilling or lacking the conviction to set limits and make some value judgements, such a culture cannot easily find a consensus or voice to even set policy. Without policy and constraints, social and cultural disarray and selfishly motivated anarchy follows in due time.
These are just some initial thoughts in the wake of this disturbing hard turn toward a more value-free stance on the part of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian-USA. I will discuss them more at a future time. Ironically, it bolsters the caution and slow pace currently extant where the ongoing attempts at re-union by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are concerned. The forces that pulled them apart did not come into being in even a century's time, but over multiple centuries. Though bridging this gap again will ideally not take so long; the schism can not be quickly resolved without grave risk of distorting principled positions on both sides.
I guess one might say that the present lesson is that the desire for unity is best exercised in the practice of mutual respect and attempt to accurately learn the position of the other. NOT in the "watering down" or `shortchanging' one's position and the value of their cultural legacy, or ignoring real points of dispute. This definition of ecumenical spirit does justice to both the chasms that divide us, and the instinctive yearning to bridge them. And goes for social, relgious, and international divides alike.
Writing this, I realize that the topic was covered earlier by me in some respects on 1 March 2006. Intriguingly, the topic of the error of trying to square Christianity with Egalitarianism forecast the result of the Episcopal General Convention this June in many respects, as they chose the path of making doctrine bend to the present. It can be found here:
Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily
- Anthony
Though it is true that those more closely acquainted to the recent trends of both of these churches will not be surprised, the matter goes beyond internal schism. Indeed, the theological shipwreck of the Episcopal and PC-USA churches in America gives a stern warning and somewhat jarring stop sign to the ecumenical optimism of the 70's right through the 90's among Christian denominations and churches. The lesson is that a body is going to hold specific stances and beliefs, they necessarily must subscribe to a degree of exclusivity, and yes, even selectiveness. If they fail to do so, if they try to be all-inclusive of all viewpoints and paradigms of life, then they will end up with no clear meaning at all. The center will not hold. An ecumenical spirit and hope should not lead to misplaced trust or knaive ignoring of malignant momentums or incompatible outlooks.
This lesson has application in foreign and cultural relations as well. It is not possible to be all things to all people, or to include or ascribe to all views an equal value. Nor is it wise or sensible to even try to do so. What is happening to the once large and influential Episocopal and Presbyterian-USA bodies is a metaphor for some of the nation's dilemma as a whole. Especially as it applies to the ill-conceived concept of `multiculturalism' for its own sake which of late has taken on the form more of a specific rejection of Western cultural legacy or even the idea of a normative standard. The laudable attempt to understand and take some cognizance of other cultures and lifestyles has become instead a fear to take a clear principled stand on some matters, and to dare name some things and practices as not in the best interest or moral. The important goal of avoiding compulsion of others has been allowed to undermine the equally important task of setting a standard, of naming a benchmark that represents `doing better' and the latter of course requires judgment of some choices as far less constructive than others. In a relativistic world as the present has become, such as Pope Benedict XVI so strongly pointed out in a recent statement, the willingness to criticize or name some actions as harmful has been erased.
The doctrinal chaos and direction choices, and impending schisms, in the Episcopal Church and PC-USA thus find their relevance to other denominations, faiths, and even the secular citizens of America, as a red-flag of warning for the overall direction of a value-free, relativist social paradigm and its likely fruits. Unwilling or lacking the conviction to set limits and make some value judgements, such a culture cannot easily find a consensus or voice to even set policy. Without policy and constraints, social and cultural disarray and selfishly motivated anarchy follows in due time.
These are just some initial thoughts in the wake of this disturbing hard turn toward a more value-free stance on the part of the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian-USA. I will discuss them more at a future time. Ironically, it bolsters the caution and slow pace currently extant where the ongoing attempts at re-union by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are concerned. The forces that pulled them apart did not come into being in even a century's time, but over multiple centuries. Though bridging this gap again will ideally not take so long; the schism can not be quickly resolved without grave risk of distorting principled positions on both sides.
I guess one might say that the present lesson is that the desire for unity is best exercised in the practice of mutual respect and attempt to accurately learn the position of the other. NOT in the "watering down" or `shortchanging' one's position and the value of their cultural legacy, or ignoring real points of dispute. This definition of ecumenical spirit does justice to both the chasms that divide us, and the instinctive yearning to bridge them. And goes for social, relgious, and international divides alike.
Writing this, I realize that the topic was covered earlier by me in some respects on 1 March 2006. Intriguingly, the topic of the error of trying to square Christianity with Egalitarianism forecast the result of the Episcopal General Convention this June in many respects, as they chose the path of making doctrine bend to the present. It can be found here:
Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily
- Anthony
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Congressional Democrats make impressive move
Friday June 16, 2006 saw a heartening step away from blatant and obvious corruption seen all too commonly these days with members of Congress and Executive branch. They voted to take away Congressmen William Jefferson's seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the wake of deep implication in a rather embarrassing bribery scandal and FBI discovery of $90,000 stashed in his freezer.
Jefferson, one of the Democrat representatives of Louisiana, has served eight terms and used his powerful influence to apparently serve his own interest during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Rescue forces were diverted to his home to evacuate objects among which seems to have been this freezer cache of money. Those actions causing some raised eyebrows and ridicule at the time, the FBI raid and bribery scandal since have gone far to answer some of the questions raised by his antics during the Hurricane's aftermath. The details of the case are still being sorted out, and Jefferson has not yet been charged with a crime pending further investigation of the money's origins, etc. The impression of self-serving corruption, however, is impossible to avoid, and has in fact, been routinely concluded by members on both sides of the aisle. It is this which makes Friday's vote significant.
For what is even more encouraging, is it came at the hands of the much maligned Democrat minority. It was Jefferson's own Democrat leaders and colleagues that strongly pushed for Jefferson to lose his seat on the House and Ways. This effort was spearheaded by their House party leader, Nancy Pelosi who rightly concluded that regardless of the official status of FBI charges at the moment, the abuse of office and position is abundantly clear. Pelosi has of late been saying, as part of an attack on a perceived "culture of corruption" about the Majority Republican leadership, that the Democrats will reaffirm standards of accountability in ethics among their representatives. The result has been rather interesting.
An Associated Press announcement notes:
"House Democratic leaders pushed for his [William Jefferson's] Ways and Means Committee assignment to be taken away. Nancy Pelosi, the party's House leader, has said repeatedly that Democrats will be held to the highest possible ethical standards, while she and others in her party accuse Republicans of nurturing a "culture of corruption."
"Mr. Jefferson has legal issues that he and his family must deal with. Mrs. Pelosi has political issues that she and her caucus must deal with," said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
His remarks reflected the political forces at work - an attempt by Pelosi, D-Calif., to make ethics a campaign issue in a Democratic bid to win control of the House this fall."
More at: House pulls lawmaker from powerful committee
The last quoted comment on the part of Associated Press suggests that the action was a form of political `pandering' to contrast with the Republicans and in part, it most likely is just that. Yet still, that position misses the basic point. The fact is that a precedent of renewed accountability has been set, and with it, a public expectation for it to continue.
Whether one believes the motive sincere or cynical, the House Democrats have now set a provocative standard and challenge to raise the level of ethics on Capitol Hill. To `walk the talk' as it were, of which, very little has been seen to date. The whole point is that Jefferson is being removed on ethical grounds, not legal ones, and that is important for any attempt to start raising the bar. Too often precise legal loopholes or carefully worded statements or outright obstructionism have been used to shield close to self-evident mischief. With the recent resignation of Speaker of the House Tom Delay, and now the removal of William Jefferson from the Committee on ethical grounds alone, a change of sort seems afoot. Certainly a change in the `rules' that will likely guide political campaign tones this fall.
Naturally some people and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus have said that Jefferson was entitled to a Constitutional presumption of innocence. This is correct for a legal matter, but not for an appearance of `above reproach' that a powerful Committee position requires, or should. A presumption of innocence is not mandated in matters of ethical behavior where perhaps the letter of the law has been followed, but the use and prestige of an office is not. It only makes sense in a time when Congress, and particularly the out-of-power party, are bringing strong pressure on the Executive branch to respond more ethically and transparently, that Nancy Pelosi turn around and demand that of her colleagues. Nor has the CBC indicated otherwise either, making no opposition in the vote or calling for a roll-call other than stating a concern for the uprecedented nature of Pelosi's action.
The actions of both parties to date have hardly been to a high standard and the absurd and wide-ranging scandal around the convicted Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff comes immediately to mind, as well as others. But this year has seen a marked "stiffening" in Congressional standards and response to both internal matters and particularly in opposition to the White House's use of power. Two recent examples being the opposition in defiance of veto-threat to President Bush's Dubai `ports deal' and his own party's pressuring the resignation of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay from his position. It is interesting to wonder if something of a counter-reaction is now setting in. Legislatures go through cycles of corruption and reform, and one can hope that one is beginning now. For House Republicans stand in solidarity with the decision, and with the Democrats, have turned around and are demanding the return of Jefferson's documents, and hard drives seized from his Washington D.C. congressional office. Thus, having rebuked and chastised one of their own, Congress has then in turn closed ranks and is confronting the ever-growing expansion of executive power and tendency of the administration to roughshod precedents and even legal barriers.
One can hope that such a phase is now coming into being, and whichever party comes out strong in the November mid-term elections, one hopes that this `turning back' toward accountability trend continues. For it is significant that this also extends to the charges leveled:
"Congressional leaders in both parties have made it clear they do not want to interfere with the investigation into allegations against the Louisiana lawmaker, even though they have sided with him in this legal dispute".
As for William Jefferson, the Democrat's taking the initiative to take away his Committee seat has, IMO, somewhat cleared Capitol Hill of his coming shipwreck. Missteps and abuse of position will always occur -- its enough that they be held immediately accountable at least informally where the legal rigid parameters of the law perhaps fall short. This helps defuse the perception of blatant nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and avoidance of responsibility that can otherwise grow.
After all, these are times where transparency and higher ethics are in need more than ever. For as "Both the political punishment and the legal case appeared to be without precedent. Jefferson has not been charged with a crime, and officials said last month's FBI search of his congressional office was a first." With such turmoil afoot, the time is ripe to make an effort to do much better and to not leave open doors for malfeasance. If this gesture jump-starts this process, it is a good thing itself.
Well done, House Democrats!
- Anthony
Jefferson, one of the Democrat representatives of Louisiana, has served eight terms and used his powerful influence to apparently serve his own interest during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Rescue forces were diverted to his home to evacuate objects among which seems to have been this freezer cache of money. Those actions causing some raised eyebrows and ridicule at the time, the FBI raid and bribery scandal since have gone far to answer some of the questions raised by his antics during the Hurricane's aftermath. The details of the case are still being sorted out, and Jefferson has not yet been charged with a crime pending further investigation of the money's origins, etc. The impression of self-serving corruption, however, is impossible to avoid, and has in fact, been routinely concluded by members on both sides of the aisle. It is this which makes Friday's vote significant.
For what is even more encouraging, is it came at the hands of the much maligned Democrat minority. It was Jefferson's own Democrat leaders and colleagues that strongly pushed for Jefferson to lose his seat on the House and Ways. This effort was spearheaded by their House party leader, Nancy Pelosi who rightly concluded that regardless of the official status of FBI charges at the moment, the abuse of office and position is abundantly clear. Pelosi has of late been saying, as part of an attack on a perceived "culture of corruption" about the Majority Republican leadership, that the Democrats will reaffirm standards of accountability in ethics among their representatives. The result has been rather interesting.
An Associated Press announcement notes:
"House Democratic leaders pushed for his [William Jefferson's] Ways and Means Committee assignment to be taken away. Nancy Pelosi, the party's House leader, has said repeatedly that Democrats will be held to the highest possible ethical standards, while she and others in her party accuse Republicans of nurturing a "culture of corruption."
"Mr. Jefferson has legal issues that he and his family must deal with. Mrs. Pelosi has political issues that she and her caucus must deal with," said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, chairman of the Democratic caucus.
His remarks reflected the political forces at work - an attempt by Pelosi, D-Calif., to make ethics a campaign issue in a Democratic bid to win control of the House this fall."
More at: House pulls lawmaker from powerful committee
The last quoted comment on the part of Associated Press suggests that the action was a form of political `pandering' to contrast with the Republicans and in part, it most likely is just that. Yet still, that position misses the basic point. The fact is that a precedent of renewed accountability has been set, and with it, a public expectation for it to continue.
Whether one believes the motive sincere or cynical, the House Democrats have now set a provocative standard and challenge to raise the level of ethics on Capitol Hill. To `walk the talk' as it were, of which, very little has been seen to date. The whole point is that Jefferson is being removed on ethical grounds, not legal ones, and that is important for any attempt to start raising the bar. Too often precise legal loopholes or carefully worded statements or outright obstructionism have been used to shield close to self-evident mischief. With the recent resignation of Speaker of the House Tom Delay, and now the removal of William Jefferson from the Committee on ethical grounds alone, a change of sort seems afoot. Certainly a change in the `rules' that will likely guide political campaign tones this fall.
Naturally some people and organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus have said that Jefferson was entitled to a Constitutional presumption of innocence. This is correct for a legal matter, but not for an appearance of `above reproach' that a powerful Committee position requires, or should. A presumption of innocence is not mandated in matters of ethical behavior where perhaps the letter of the law has been followed, but the use and prestige of an office is not. It only makes sense in a time when Congress, and particularly the out-of-power party, are bringing strong pressure on the Executive branch to respond more ethically and transparently, that Nancy Pelosi turn around and demand that of her colleagues. Nor has the CBC indicated otherwise either, making no opposition in the vote or calling for a roll-call other than stating a concern for the uprecedented nature of Pelosi's action.
The actions of both parties to date have hardly been to a high standard and the absurd and wide-ranging scandal around the convicted Republican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff comes immediately to mind, as well as others. But this year has seen a marked "stiffening" in Congressional standards and response to both internal matters and particularly in opposition to the White House's use of power. Two recent examples being the opposition in defiance of veto-threat to President Bush's Dubai `ports deal' and his own party's pressuring the resignation of Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay from his position. It is interesting to wonder if something of a counter-reaction is now setting in. Legislatures go through cycles of corruption and reform, and one can hope that one is beginning now. For House Republicans stand in solidarity with the decision, and with the Democrats, have turned around and are demanding the return of Jefferson's documents, and hard drives seized from his Washington D.C. congressional office. Thus, having rebuked and chastised one of their own, Congress has then in turn closed ranks and is confronting the ever-growing expansion of executive power and tendency of the administration to roughshod precedents and even legal barriers.
One can hope that such a phase is now coming into being, and whichever party comes out strong in the November mid-term elections, one hopes that this `turning back' toward accountability trend continues. For it is significant that this also extends to the charges leveled:
"Congressional leaders in both parties have made it clear they do not want to interfere with the investigation into allegations against the Louisiana lawmaker, even though they have sided with him in this legal dispute".
As for William Jefferson, the Democrat's taking the initiative to take away his Committee seat has, IMO, somewhat cleared Capitol Hill of his coming shipwreck. Missteps and abuse of position will always occur -- its enough that they be held immediately accountable at least informally where the legal rigid parameters of the law perhaps fall short. This helps defuse the perception of blatant nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and avoidance of responsibility that can otherwise grow.
After all, these are times where transparency and higher ethics are in need more than ever. For as "Both the political punishment and the legal case appeared to be without precedent. Jefferson has not been charged with a crime, and officials said last month's FBI search of his congressional office was a first." With such turmoil afoot, the time is ripe to make an effort to do much better and to not leave open doors for malfeasance. If this gesture jump-starts this process, it is a good thing itself.
Well done, House Democrats!
- Anthony
Saturday, June 10, 2006
An Unnatural War - Curious Ambivalence follows a success
The announcement of the successful discovery and killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this past Tuesday was a major success and achievement in the difficult fight to quell the terrorist-insurgency in Iraq. By an interesting coincidence, it roughly coincided with an anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy in WW II. One couldn't help but reflect on the contrast in both official and press descriptions of a war effort and victory. There is little comparison between the two conflicts, to be sure, but one could at least hope there would be comparable putting the campaigns and victories in context.
The death of Zarqawi and nearly ten of his staff or adherants, is not just `one win' on an interminable road. Its a success with potential that under a decisive and coherent political atmosphere, may carry the seeds of a turning point in the war. It ranks second only to getting Osama Bin Laden in its potential value and disruptive effect against the Islamo-terrorist enemy. Unfortunately we do not have such a coherent atmosphere, or any sign of understanding of the fact that wars involve alot of killing and violence, and the mere fact of that is not to be handled in a way that numbs public confidence. No war is winnable the way both the administration and the coverage are presenting. President Bush initally said the victory with Zarqawi "helps a lot" but at the same time stressed that it won't check the insurgency. Even if true, this is a very soft-pedal, even emasculating way, to treat a major victory. War is as much pyschological as it is about arms and armaments, and the government seems unable to realize they keep sending a detached and plodding message of policy inertia, rather than a steady MacArthur-like stepladder to victory as in "Operation Cartwheel" or even the precision plans and goals under Colin Powell's direction in Gulf War I. And then of course we have the media, relentlessly reporting on minutiae that would be truly staggering in a major war like Korea, let alone the World Wars. Its not really a case of them being "biased" or "spinning"; IMO, rather, the problem is the shell-shock and numbing effect it has on public perception, and to no real point. Casualties cannot be avoided in a war.
For example, I notice today, that MSCNBC reports that "A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Saturday, killing four people and wounding 27, police said" and that further "Gunmen in two cars also shot to death a Shiite metal worker and wounded two others in their shop in western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said". In addition "A mortar landed on a house elsewhere in the capital, seriously wounding a 50-year-old woman and a 2-year-old girl, Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said." Finally there is mention of a gunfight between Iraqi soldiers and "gunmen" (presumably enemy terrorists) that killed two people, and that other "gunmen" in killed three Shi'ites in a drive-by shooting at a bus station.
What is so striking about this is the truly small scale of the violence, considering that this is a "war" and not a riot or gang uprising, with which such death figures more nearly find parallel. Yet it succeeds in giving an `overshadow' feeling, if not eclipsing, the major success with Zarqawi's elimination. An elimination that itself is now already being second-guessed with talk about whether maximum effort to save his life was made by the Iraqi police and U.S. troops arriving on the scene. And remember, we are talking about someone who we had just targeted with two 500 pound bombs ---- as if that action was not itself a blatant attempt to kill him.
Its truly baffling, and the analogy above actually holds part of the answer. The problem is that the war in Iraq, if not the War against Terrorism itself, is treated with a style and micro-attention that is more appropriate to major civil unrest in nations or even political clashes that result in riots. But not a full-blown war. Nor is this only on the "press" side. The government too, speaks about gains and losses in the war with a curious lack of coherency and sought for goals.
And so it is no surprise at all to read this morning on AOL: "Poll Finds Backing for Troops Survey Also Underscores Doubts on War"
Noteworthy is the first quote: "The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, an unusual disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam."
Actually, this is not surprising at all. The only surprise is that it surprises. For the American people are actually more insightful than the journalist pool that insists on equating this war with Viet Nam; because its the only one many of the latter seem to have studied or are personally in touch with. Rather this poll shows almost exactly where the true fault line lies: the American people know that Islamist-terrorism "started this war" on 9/11/01, indeed earlier, and most get that Iraq was supposed to help in some way. So of course we support the troops -- unlike Viet Nam, its understood that the enemy is determined to bring the fight here, as the recent plan to attack Canada's govermment at its doorstep demonstrates. But the presentation and policy defense of the war has been so abysmal and indeed incoherent in both words and rebuttals, that it is the policy that is starting to dull trust and raise doubts. A fact utterly abetted by the style of reportage, which generally goes uncountered or even put in context.
Right-wing pundits complain that the public shows a certain ennui and flagging support. Left-wing pundits complain about a seeming indifference to overstepping of certain boundries, as in possible deliberate shootings in Haditha, or torture and abuse of detained prisoners. What both are missing is that the political dialogue and partisan rancor, and above all, the surreal reporting of the war by all involved, makes public enthusiasm both difficult, and exhausting. What the partisans don't realize, whether on CBS or FOX, is that American people thought we were fighting a war --- not putting down a riot or discussing a civil rights imbroglio and domestic issue. Yet that is how the Iraq war is continually framed -- with casualties reported in a hyper-detailed fashion more akin to murders in New York, and with the govt response much like a police one -- with no pretense that the `crimes' will ever end, or that there is a "strategy". There is a similar concern with the disposition and motives of the "accused", the enemy, that again undermines any sense of the there "is us" and there is "the enemy" that is essential to maintaining public morale and faith in a conflict.
Formulating and presenting a consistent message of goals and strategy, and speaking about each gain clearly when they are made, is an essential, as is not overplaying setbacks of an attrition nature. Contrary to possible expectation, this is not the press's job, but the government's. They leave the press little choice but to chase the next sensationalist road-side bomb or event. For when clear statements of candor are not provided, goals other than ethereal ones set and stated, and both Right and Left seem to show as much concern for how their actions are perceived as they do for victory, the public can't be blamed for a swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt.
- Anthony
The death of Zarqawi and nearly ten of his staff or adherants, is not just `one win' on an interminable road. Its a success with potential that under a decisive and coherent political atmosphere, may carry the seeds of a turning point in the war. It ranks second only to getting Osama Bin Laden in its potential value and disruptive effect against the Islamo-terrorist enemy. Unfortunately we do not have such a coherent atmosphere, or any sign of understanding of the fact that wars involve alot of killing and violence, and the mere fact of that is not to be handled in a way that numbs public confidence. No war is winnable the way both the administration and the coverage are presenting. President Bush initally said the victory with Zarqawi "helps a lot" but at the same time stressed that it won't check the insurgency. Even if true, this is a very soft-pedal, even emasculating way, to treat a major victory. War is as much pyschological as it is about arms and armaments, and the government seems unable to realize they keep sending a detached and plodding message of policy inertia, rather than a steady MacArthur-like stepladder to victory as in "Operation Cartwheel" or even the precision plans and goals under Colin Powell's direction in Gulf War I. And then of course we have the media, relentlessly reporting on minutiae that would be truly staggering in a major war like Korea, let alone the World Wars. Its not really a case of them being "biased" or "spinning"; IMO, rather, the problem is the shell-shock and numbing effect it has on public perception, and to no real point. Casualties cannot be avoided in a war.
For example, I notice today, that MSCNBC reports that "A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Saturday, killing four people and wounding 27, police said" and that further "Gunmen in two cars also shot to death a Shiite metal worker and wounded two others in their shop in western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said". In addition "A mortar landed on a house elsewhere in the capital, seriously wounding a 50-year-old woman and a 2-year-old girl, Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said." Finally there is mention of a gunfight between Iraqi soldiers and "gunmen" (presumably enemy terrorists) that killed two people, and that other "gunmen" in killed three Shi'ites in a drive-by shooting at a bus station.
What is so striking about this is the truly small scale of the violence, considering that this is a "war" and not a riot or gang uprising, with which such death figures more nearly find parallel. Yet it succeeds in giving an `overshadow' feeling, if not eclipsing, the major success with Zarqawi's elimination. An elimination that itself is now already being second-guessed with talk about whether maximum effort to save his life was made by the Iraqi police and U.S. troops arriving on the scene. And remember, we are talking about someone who we had just targeted with two 500 pound bombs ---- as if that action was not itself a blatant attempt to kill him.
Its truly baffling, and the analogy above actually holds part of the answer. The problem is that the war in Iraq, if not the War against Terrorism itself, is treated with a style and micro-attention that is more appropriate to major civil unrest in nations or even political clashes that result in riots. But not a full-blown war. Nor is this only on the "press" side. The government too, speaks about gains and losses in the war with a curious lack of coherency and sought for goals.
And so it is no surprise at all to read this morning on AOL: "Poll Finds Backing for Troops Survey Also Underscores Doubts on War"
Noteworthy is the first quote: "The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, an unusual disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam."
Actually, this is not surprising at all. The only surprise is that it surprises. For the American people are actually more insightful than the journalist pool that insists on equating this war with Viet Nam; because its the only one many of the latter seem to have studied or are personally in touch with. Rather this poll shows almost exactly where the true fault line lies: the American people know that Islamist-terrorism "started this war" on 9/11/01, indeed earlier, and most get that Iraq was supposed to help in some way. So of course we support the troops -- unlike Viet Nam, its understood that the enemy is determined to bring the fight here, as the recent plan to attack Canada's govermment at its doorstep demonstrates. But the presentation and policy defense of the war has been so abysmal and indeed incoherent in both words and rebuttals, that it is the policy that is starting to dull trust and raise doubts. A fact utterly abetted by the style of reportage, which generally goes uncountered or even put in context.
Right-wing pundits complain that the public shows a certain ennui and flagging support. Left-wing pundits complain about a seeming indifference to overstepping of certain boundries, as in possible deliberate shootings in Haditha, or torture and abuse of detained prisoners. What both are missing is that the political dialogue and partisan rancor, and above all, the surreal reporting of the war by all involved, makes public enthusiasm both difficult, and exhausting. What the partisans don't realize, whether on CBS or FOX, is that American people thought we were fighting a war --- not putting down a riot or discussing a civil rights imbroglio and domestic issue. Yet that is how the Iraq war is continually framed -- with casualties reported in a hyper-detailed fashion more akin to murders in New York, and with the govt response much like a police one -- with no pretense that the `crimes' will ever end, or that there is a "strategy". There is a similar concern with the disposition and motives of the "accused", the enemy, that again undermines any sense of the there "is us" and there is "the enemy" that is essential to maintaining public morale and faith in a conflict.
Formulating and presenting a consistent message of goals and strategy, and speaking about each gain clearly when they are made, is an essential, as is not overplaying setbacks of an attrition nature. Contrary to possible expectation, this is not the press's job, but the government's. They leave the press little choice but to chase the next sensationalist road-side bomb or event. For when clear statements of candor are not provided, goals other than ethereal ones set and stated, and both Right and Left seem to show as much concern for how their actions are perceived as they do for victory, the public can't be blamed for a swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt.
- Anthony
Monday, May 29, 2006
Moussaoui conviction aftermath puts myth to rest
Memorial Day seems an appropriate one to note a recent and historic reminder of the whole point and true cause and catalyst of our current struggle in the Mid East. This past week saw a small episode that passed almost unnoticed mostly due to the current brouhaha over illegal worker and border control reform. However, it was of potentially historic importance if legitimate, and the initial opinion is that it is authentic. On Tuesday, a videotape supposedly by Osama Bin Laden announced regarding Zacarias Moussaoui that among other things said:
Bin Laden Says Moussaoui Not Part of Sept. 11 Attacks
"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11,..."I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers."
He also went on to claim the same for anyone currently held at the GITMO detention facility for dangerous terrorist or Taliban suspects captured in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the statements regarding Moussaoui has the ring of truth and logic:
"Brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and if he had known something - even very little - about the Sept. 11 group, we would have informed the leader of the operation, Mohammad Atta, and the others ... to leave America before being discovered," Bin Laden said."
Such a cancellation did not happen, lending some credence to Osama's claim. However, it does leave hanging the obvious alternative possibility that the schedule for attack was stepped up, accelerated, for the same reason. After all, the reason for the date of the attack remains a mystery and somewhat baffling, coming as it did at a time when if anything, Washington was leaning hard for more restraint in Middle East affairs and even still conducted discussions with the Taliban. Was 9/11 launched on a random day, `asap' out of any obvious context because Moussaoui was captured? At this point, it remains impossible to know.
Rather, what makes this statement important is that Osama Bin Laden himself has laid to rest a persistent if somewhat lunatic fringe myth. Namely, there exists a small but loud body of policy objectors both in the United States and abroad that in their skepticism and objections go so far as to deny that Al Qaida launched the September 11th attacks, or most radical of all, that parts or all of the 9/11 attacks were somehow "staged". To be sure, the context and time has a lot to do with it. In the already over-charged atmosphere of `conspiracy-think' and `cover-ups' generated in the 1990s with charges and counter-charges regarding the Clinton administration and its deceptiveness, and especially the fiasco of the November 2000 presidential election, the events of 9/11 took place in a hyper-skeptic context. After the initial gung-ho unity was allowed to unravel into domestic squabbling in spring 2002, the tabloid back-biting of the 1990's returned full force.
The run-up in fall 2002 to launching the war in Iraq led to strong pressure on both Congress and international allies to participate, with heavy emphasis on the obvious dangers of spread of weapons from Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime to terrorist elements. However, this was done in such a blunt and almost bullying fashion that increasing polarization of the issue took place at home and abroad. This inevitably led to attempts to start trying to `debunk' the genuine and justifying cause of the whole clash, the jihadist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. on 9/11. It is no coincidence that the radical claim that the Pentagon strike in particular had been "staged" first found its strong impetus from a radical French writer. To be eagerly copied, expanded upon and believed by the pro-conspiracy cliques here.
Adding fuel to all this nonsense is the Bush administration's strong tendency toward opaqueness and lack of immediate candor, or more aptly, simple incompetence in public relations handling. The style of mostly non-speaking about some of the more crazy claims has had the unfortunate effect of looking like evasion. This has resulted in the most wild of charges against the White House, most of them grossly unfair, while obscuring the few that might indeed merit closer oversight. The controversy surrounding the intelligence failures regarding Iraq and the conduct and reasons for the invention in Iraq had been allowed to obscure the overall picture of the War against Islamafascist Terrorism. Doubts about Iraq have been allowed to "spill over" into absurd and insane doubts about the catalyst of it all, September 11th.
As recently as spring 2003 some relatives of the 9/11 victims were even questioning who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Books and online works seeking to even deny the use of hijacked airliners have become numbingly routine. The 2004 Presidential candidate Howard Dean even made the mistake of appearing to give them the slightest credence while simply trying to discuss the phenomena. And right up to this day, just the past month, the persistent absurdity that the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner was revived with some new security cam footage being released. Less the main point be lost, the bottom line is that there is a school of thought that seeks to call in doubt, if not outright deny, Al Qaida's role in launching 9/11. Most of it belongs to a lunatic-fringe. However, a more thoughtful minority of this segment has simply had basic questions and some doubts in the absence of a loudly voiced 'claiming of credit' in the immediate wake of the attacks. This past week saw a potentially decisive answer to add to earlier ones to those skeptics.
The Truth is that Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda planned and launched the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Period. He has said it himself.
Nor is it the first time, though its offhand manner makes it one of the most forcefully persuasive. The fact is that in November 2001 Bin Laden gave an interview to a Pakistani reporter that carried his words about the 9/11 attacks and was run in Al Jazeera and in common access in the Mideast, and these were also confirmed by the subsequent capture of an enemy videotape after the fall of Kabul where Bin Laden even spoke of the `unexpected effects' and success of the strike on the World Trade Center, and how the fires destructiveness exceeded expectations. These two alone should have buried the whole debate, but it persisted. Not least because it was not called attention to by the federal government. The White House seemed to underestimate the undercurrent of thought that was and is there about 9/11 in the lack of some bombastic `we were responsible' announcement by Al Qaida.
Yet I contend that it is outright folly to confuse the truth of the September 11 attacks by Al Qaida and the War against them and their allies the Taliban in Afghanistan that followed, with the somewhat bellicose and obtuse presentation and execution of the War in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. The poor public relations handling of the latter should not be allowed to confuse understanding of the former, and the start of the war. It is as if somehow poor diplomacy and press relations had been allowed to obscure the need to engage Hitler after Pearl Harbor had then been allowed to retroactively call into question the fact that Pearl Harbor itself had been attacked by the Axis.
In a climate of run-away partisan bickering and no sober guiding voices from the top, it becomes hard to know which sources or version to trust. In such instances, it is potentially more useful to look at statements by the enemy that are made with completely different motive and which used carefully, can at least remind that they, the enemy, are the ones that remain responsible.
In today's rush of media coverage, with its hit and run style of overwhelming focus one week, and then on to something else the next, its easy to lose track of the linear progression of events. Hence the desire to call attention to Bin Laden's announcement. Made on the behalf of Moussaoui and the GITMO detainees, it doesn't matter if Bin Laden's attempted denying of any role of either is true. What DOES matter is with the tape accepted as genuine, Osama Bin Laden has confirmed yet again that not only did Al Qaida launch the 9/11/01 attacks, but that he himself had a significant role in their planning, and that it was long in preparation.
The fact is that as far back as 1998 Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida declared war against the United States and the then President Clinton. Al Qaida had been conducting or planning attacks far earlier, since the early 1990's, but the formal fatwa came in 1998, after two devastating bombings of U.S. embassies in August of the same year. The attack on USS Cole followed in October 2000, along with frustrated schemes in 1999 aimed at millennium events. Then came "9/11" in 2001. This war against Islamafascism, against Terr-Jihadism, has nothing to do with President G.W. Bush. In some ways it is a descendent of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the flashes of terrorism confronted by NATO in the 1980's. More specifically, the current cycle was begun by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the aftermath of Gulf War I. We should not let controversy about the wisdom of the Iraq War or its prosecution divert attention from this fact or lead to excessive `retroactive doubts' about the struggle. The press and political parties both have done a spectacularly poor job of keeping this simple chronology and sequence clear in the minds of the public and our allies. Osama Bin Laden's latest tape is a potentially useful reminder of where the focus should go.
On this Memorial Day, it is important to realize that as poor and unimaginative as our civilian political discourse has been, the sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq have neither been in vain, or unprovoked. Both campaigns have the potential to transform the breeding ground for Jihadist terrorism that is found in the Arabian area at present. It is high time that our political and public division on this painfully obvious point be addressed and healed.
- Anthony
Bin Laden Says Moussaoui Not Part of Sept. 11 Attacks
"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11,..."I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers."
He also went on to claim the same for anyone currently held at the GITMO detention facility for dangerous terrorist or Taliban suspects captured in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the statements regarding Moussaoui has the ring of truth and logic:
"Brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and if he had known something - even very little - about the Sept. 11 group, we would have informed the leader of the operation, Mohammad Atta, and the others ... to leave America before being discovered," Bin Laden said."
Such a cancellation did not happen, lending some credence to Osama's claim. However, it does leave hanging the obvious alternative possibility that the schedule for attack was stepped up, accelerated, for the same reason. After all, the reason for the date of the attack remains a mystery and somewhat baffling, coming as it did at a time when if anything, Washington was leaning hard for more restraint in Middle East affairs and even still conducted discussions with the Taliban. Was 9/11 launched on a random day, `asap' out of any obvious context because Moussaoui was captured? At this point, it remains impossible to know.
Rather, what makes this statement important is that Osama Bin Laden himself has laid to rest a persistent if somewhat lunatic fringe myth. Namely, there exists a small but loud body of policy objectors both in the United States and abroad that in their skepticism and objections go so far as to deny that Al Qaida launched the September 11th attacks, or most radical of all, that parts or all of the 9/11 attacks were somehow "staged". To be sure, the context and time has a lot to do with it. In the already over-charged atmosphere of `conspiracy-think' and `cover-ups' generated in the 1990s with charges and counter-charges regarding the Clinton administration and its deceptiveness, and especially the fiasco of the November 2000 presidential election, the events of 9/11 took place in a hyper-skeptic context. After the initial gung-ho unity was allowed to unravel into domestic squabbling in spring 2002, the tabloid back-biting of the 1990's returned full force.
The run-up in fall 2002 to launching the war in Iraq led to strong pressure on both Congress and international allies to participate, with heavy emphasis on the obvious dangers of spread of weapons from Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime to terrorist elements. However, this was done in such a blunt and almost bullying fashion that increasing polarization of the issue took place at home and abroad. This inevitably led to attempts to start trying to `debunk' the genuine and justifying cause of the whole clash, the jihadist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. on 9/11. It is no coincidence that the radical claim that the Pentagon strike in particular had been "staged" first found its strong impetus from a radical French writer. To be eagerly copied, expanded upon and believed by the pro-conspiracy cliques here.
Adding fuel to all this nonsense is the Bush administration's strong tendency toward opaqueness and lack of immediate candor, or more aptly, simple incompetence in public relations handling. The style of mostly non-speaking about some of the more crazy claims has had the unfortunate effect of looking like evasion. This has resulted in the most wild of charges against the White House, most of them grossly unfair, while obscuring the few that might indeed merit closer oversight. The controversy surrounding the intelligence failures regarding Iraq and the conduct and reasons for the invention in Iraq had been allowed to obscure the overall picture of the War against Islamafascist Terrorism. Doubts about Iraq have been allowed to "spill over" into absurd and insane doubts about the catalyst of it all, September 11th.
As recently as spring 2003 some relatives of the 9/11 victims were even questioning who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Books and online works seeking to even deny the use of hijacked airliners have become numbingly routine. The 2004 Presidential candidate Howard Dean even made the mistake of appearing to give them the slightest credence while simply trying to discuss the phenomena. And right up to this day, just the past month, the persistent absurdity that the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner was revived with some new security cam footage being released. Less the main point be lost, the bottom line is that there is a school of thought that seeks to call in doubt, if not outright deny, Al Qaida's role in launching 9/11. Most of it belongs to a lunatic-fringe. However, a more thoughtful minority of this segment has simply had basic questions and some doubts in the absence of a loudly voiced 'claiming of credit' in the immediate wake of the attacks. This past week saw a potentially decisive answer to add to earlier ones to those skeptics.
The Truth is that Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda planned and launched the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Period. He has said it himself.
Nor is it the first time, though its offhand manner makes it one of the most forcefully persuasive. The fact is that in November 2001 Bin Laden gave an interview to a Pakistani reporter that carried his words about the 9/11 attacks and was run in Al Jazeera and in common access in the Mideast, and these were also confirmed by the subsequent capture of an enemy videotape after the fall of Kabul where Bin Laden even spoke of the `unexpected effects' and success of the strike on the World Trade Center, and how the fires destructiveness exceeded expectations. These two alone should have buried the whole debate, but it persisted. Not least because it was not called attention to by the federal government. The White House seemed to underestimate the undercurrent of thought that was and is there about 9/11 in the lack of some bombastic `we were responsible' announcement by Al Qaida.
Yet I contend that it is outright folly to confuse the truth of the September 11 attacks by Al Qaida and the War against them and their allies the Taliban in Afghanistan that followed, with the somewhat bellicose and obtuse presentation and execution of the War in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. The poor public relations handling of the latter should not be allowed to confuse understanding of the former, and the start of the war. It is as if somehow poor diplomacy and press relations had been allowed to obscure the need to engage Hitler after Pearl Harbor had then been allowed to retroactively call into question the fact that Pearl Harbor itself had been attacked by the Axis.
In a climate of run-away partisan bickering and no sober guiding voices from the top, it becomes hard to know which sources or version to trust. In such instances, it is potentially more useful to look at statements by the enemy that are made with completely different motive and which used carefully, can at least remind that they, the enemy, are the ones that remain responsible.
In today's rush of media coverage, with its hit and run style of overwhelming focus one week, and then on to something else the next, its easy to lose track of the linear progression of events. Hence the desire to call attention to Bin Laden's announcement. Made on the behalf of Moussaoui and the GITMO detainees, it doesn't matter if Bin Laden's attempted denying of any role of either is true. What DOES matter is with the tape accepted as genuine, Osama Bin Laden has confirmed yet again that not only did Al Qaida launch the 9/11/01 attacks, but that he himself had a significant role in their planning, and that it was long in preparation.
The fact is that as far back as 1998 Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida declared war against the United States and the then President Clinton. Al Qaida had been conducting or planning attacks far earlier, since the early 1990's, but the formal fatwa came in 1998, after two devastating bombings of U.S. embassies in August of the same year. The attack on USS Cole followed in October 2000, along with frustrated schemes in 1999 aimed at millennium events. Then came "9/11" in 2001. This war against Islamafascism, against Terr-Jihadism, has nothing to do with President G.W. Bush. In some ways it is a descendent of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the flashes of terrorism confronted by NATO in the 1980's. More specifically, the current cycle was begun by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the aftermath of Gulf War I. We should not let controversy about the wisdom of the Iraq War or its prosecution divert attention from this fact or lead to excessive `retroactive doubts' about the struggle. The press and political parties both have done a spectacularly poor job of keeping this simple chronology and sequence clear in the minds of the public and our allies. Osama Bin Laden's latest tape is a potentially useful reminder of where the focus should go.
On this Memorial Day, it is important to realize that as poor and unimaginative as our civilian political discourse has been, the sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq have neither been in vain, or unprovoked. Both campaigns have the potential to transform the breeding ground for Jihadist terrorism that is found in the Arabian area at present. It is high time that our political and public division on this painfully obvious point be addressed and healed.
- Anthony
Monday, May 22, 2006
May 22 : An epic anniversary in history....
Today happens to be the 219th anniversary of the beginning of a relatively unknown, yet awe-inspiring event in the annals of civil history and public power to make change for the better.
In the present time of seeming inertia and inability for frustrated citizens to make much impact on government conditions this is a particularly instructive story. There is a little known and truly inspiring aspect of the tragic history of slavery that with our Amero-centric bias, is often overlooked. Forget the example of the United States, which despite its ideals and intentions to promote freedom first had to split in half, and then fight a Civil War just to get rid of slavery, then suffer for almost precisely another century to get rid of the last of its legal legacies. In many ways, this is rightly a discouraging precedent. On the other hand, Great Britain's slavery had already ended in in the 1830's, and without a civil war.
It is how the British Empire's abolition movement began that is truly inspiring and encouraging to any who feel there is no ability to spark change for the better or to reform the entrenched mindsets of politicians owned by lobbyists. A recent book, "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman(to be reviewed soon) goes so far as to say that the `levers of change' in America, if not the West, are effectively gone and moribund. In effect, implying that there is little the common person of moderate means can do any more. This is not the American ethos, and is fundamentally defeatist, no matter how convincing. And it need not come to be.
When set against such a projection, the tale of how slavery was brought to a halt in the British Empire is positively enthralling and brings new heart. It is all the sadder that the Civil War and Reconstruction here, are the commonly known models, and that this epic chapter in the West is neglected. On May 22, 1787, twelve men gathered in a London book store and print ship at 2 George Yard for roundtable. In many ways, the anti-slavery crusade was born there, though there were many already existing strands of thought on this, and there was tacit consent intellectually that slavery was barbarous and un-Christian, but seen as an economic linchpin at the time. One Thomas Clarkson was the principal organizer, and the movement would attract men such as William Wilberforce, whose evangelical convictions and missionary work toward India would give him strong perspective and leverage in the movement, Olaudah Equiano a former slave who would hand down harrowing eyewitness accounts of how it was to be one, and John Newton, the former slaver who wrote "Amazing Grace" and who also wrote of a slave captain's side of the story and how came to see it immoral.
The renowned de Tocqueville was to write of this movement later, but unlike the subject of some of his more celebrated writings, most Americans remain unaware of this other and more encouraging example of how injustices could come to be abolished. With India currently setting out on the difficult path of enfranchisement of its lowest caste, the lessons of 1787 apply to all cultures, for discrimination and institutionalized inequality was, and is, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a creation of of the age of Imperialism.
De Tocqueville said of the series of events unleashed by their meeting and efforts "was absolutely without precedent...If you pore over the histories of all peoples, I doubt that you will find anything more extraordinary." Its easy to forget that just over two centuries ago, well over three quarters of the world's people were in bondage of one kind or another, slaves in America, Europe, Ottoman Empire, Africa, serfdom in the Russian areas, peasants in debt bondage in China, etc, etc. Of importance here, is the terrible irony that in 1787, "freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution"! Yet the swiftness with which it died is an encouraging signal -- by the end of the 1800s it was outlawed almost everywhere, and the anti-slavery movement had achieved its goal in "little more than one lifetime".
In the process of their goal, they pioneered many of the tools of activists or conscience-raiser groups in use today, like posters, and even mass mailings, let alone boycotts and legal proceedings. Like many ills, a lot of the slave trade had actually depended on public ignorance of just how brutal and inhumane the conditions were, and what the real price being paid for certain luxuries was (the parallel today might be the diamond mines of South Africa or the tennis shoes made in Indonesian sweat shops) . Only five years after they began the movement, 300,000 Britons were refusing to eat the sugar that came from the slave trade in lieu of that which didn't, and the House of Commons has passed laws banning the slave trade. But the House of Lords initially voted down this bill, being comprised of the aristocracy backed by the powerful pro-slave interests; the analogs of the plantation owners and pro-slavery politicians of the ante-bellum South portions of the North and Midwest who in America dragged the country into armed confrontation over this when faced with the abolitionist movement.
But the cause refused to fade, and only gained moral and political headway, and though there were were uprisings and outbreaks of violence and upheaval, for the most part, the transformation came by public process. Thus, a half-century later, a slavers whip and chains were formally buried in a Jamaican churchyard in a ceremony for the last (William Knibb) of the `printing shop crusaders' who was still alive and had lived to see that day! The date was July 31, 1838 and there was even a plaque buried saying "Colonial Slavery, died July 31st, 1838, aged 276 years".
Slavery in the British Empire officially ended at midnight on August 1, 1838. Unfortunately, it still persisted in the United States. For a host of reasons, America proved finally unable to end the `peculiar institution' peaceably and by due process of legislation, and would have to fight a Civil War to end it and then a civil rights movement a century afterward. Slavery and institutional underclass structures also continued to persist beyond 1840 in different forms in the rest of the world: in Russia, most of Africa, and in the Islamic world. In fact, in the Islamic world, it still exists today in the ongoing tragedy of Sudan, elsewhere. In India, it is in the process of being confronted. But in 1838, "in the largest empire on earth, it was ended."
In many ways, this may have been one of the finer moments of Western Civilization's capacity to reform and improve itself, without resort to mass revolution and bloodshed. It is timely to recall this encouraging example as we confront the divisions and disarray of the present and feel that little can be done.
- Anthony
(The most recent book about this is now in trade paperback: "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the fight to free an Empire's slaves" by Adam Hochschild, Mariner Books 2006).
ISBN 0618619070
In the present time of seeming inertia and inability for frustrated citizens to make much impact on government conditions this is a particularly instructive story. There is a little known and truly inspiring aspect of the tragic history of slavery that with our Amero-centric bias, is often overlooked. Forget the example of the United States, which despite its ideals and intentions to promote freedom first had to split in half, and then fight a Civil War just to get rid of slavery, then suffer for almost precisely another century to get rid of the last of its legal legacies. In many ways, this is rightly a discouraging precedent. On the other hand, Great Britain's slavery had already ended in in the 1830's, and without a civil war.
It is how the British Empire's abolition movement began that is truly inspiring and encouraging to any who feel there is no ability to spark change for the better or to reform the entrenched mindsets of politicians owned by lobbyists. A recent book, "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman(to be reviewed soon) goes so far as to say that the `levers of change' in America, if not the West, are effectively gone and moribund. In effect, implying that there is little the common person of moderate means can do any more. This is not the American ethos, and is fundamentally defeatist, no matter how convincing. And it need not come to be.
When set against such a projection, the tale of how slavery was brought to a halt in the British Empire is positively enthralling and brings new heart. It is all the sadder that the Civil War and Reconstruction here, are the commonly known models, and that this epic chapter in the West is neglected. On May 22, 1787, twelve men gathered in a London book store and print ship at 2 George Yard for roundtable. In many ways, the anti-slavery crusade was born there, though there were many already existing strands of thought on this, and there was tacit consent intellectually that slavery was barbarous and un-Christian, but seen as an economic linchpin at the time. One Thomas Clarkson was the principal organizer, and the movement would attract men such as William Wilberforce, whose evangelical convictions and missionary work toward India would give him strong perspective and leverage in the movement, Olaudah Equiano a former slave who would hand down harrowing eyewitness accounts of how it was to be one, and John Newton, the former slaver who wrote "Amazing Grace" and who also wrote of a slave captain's side of the story and how came to see it immoral.
The renowned de Tocqueville was to write of this movement later, but unlike the subject of some of his more celebrated writings, most Americans remain unaware of this other and more encouraging example of how injustices could come to be abolished. With India currently setting out on the difficult path of enfranchisement of its lowest caste, the lessons of 1787 apply to all cultures, for discrimination and institutionalized inequality was, and is, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a creation of of the age of Imperialism.
De Tocqueville said of the series of events unleashed by their meeting and efforts "was absolutely without precedent...If you pore over the histories of all peoples, I doubt that you will find anything more extraordinary." Its easy to forget that just over two centuries ago, well over three quarters of the world's people were in bondage of one kind or another, slaves in America, Europe, Ottoman Empire, Africa, serfdom in the Russian areas, peasants in debt bondage in China, etc, etc. Of importance here, is the terrible irony that in 1787, "freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution"! Yet the swiftness with which it died is an encouraging signal -- by the end of the 1800s it was outlawed almost everywhere, and the anti-slavery movement had achieved its goal in "little more than one lifetime".
In the process of their goal, they pioneered many of the tools of activists or conscience-raiser groups in use today, like posters, and even mass mailings, let alone boycotts and legal proceedings. Like many ills, a lot of the slave trade had actually depended on public ignorance of just how brutal and inhumane the conditions were, and what the real price being paid for certain luxuries was (the parallel today might be the diamond mines of South Africa or the tennis shoes made in Indonesian sweat shops) . Only five years after they began the movement, 300,000 Britons were refusing to eat the sugar that came from the slave trade in lieu of that which didn't, and the House of Commons has passed laws banning the slave trade. But the House of Lords initially voted down this bill, being comprised of the aristocracy backed by the powerful pro-slave interests; the analogs of the plantation owners and pro-slavery politicians of the ante-bellum South portions of the North and Midwest who in America dragged the country into armed confrontation over this when faced with the abolitionist movement.
But the cause refused to fade, and only gained moral and political headway, and though there were were uprisings and outbreaks of violence and upheaval, for the most part, the transformation came by public process. Thus, a half-century later, a slavers whip and chains were formally buried in a Jamaican churchyard in a ceremony for the last (William Knibb) of the `printing shop crusaders' who was still alive and had lived to see that day! The date was July 31, 1838 and there was even a plaque buried saying "Colonial Slavery, died July 31st, 1838, aged 276 years".
Slavery in the British Empire officially ended at midnight on August 1, 1838. Unfortunately, it still persisted in the United States. For a host of reasons, America proved finally unable to end the `peculiar institution' peaceably and by due process of legislation, and would have to fight a Civil War to end it and then a civil rights movement a century afterward. Slavery and institutional underclass structures also continued to persist beyond 1840 in different forms in the rest of the world: in Russia, most of Africa, and in the Islamic world. In fact, in the Islamic world, it still exists today in the ongoing tragedy of Sudan, elsewhere. In India, it is in the process of being confronted. But in 1838, "in the largest empire on earth, it was ended."
In many ways, this may have been one of the finer moments of Western Civilization's capacity to reform and improve itself, without resort to mass revolution and bloodshed. It is timely to recall this encouraging example as we confront the divisions and disarray of the present and feel that little can be done.
- Anthony
(The most recent book about this is now in trade paperback: "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the fight to free an Empire's slaves" by Adam Hochschild, Mariner Books 2006).
ISBN 0618619070
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Mayor Nagin's re-election gives New Orleans momentum...
New Orleans re-elected incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin in a close runoff election this past Saturday. Despite some of the criticism and controversy leveled at him during the ongoing hurricane Katrina disaster and the response fiasco that followed it, his re-election not only seems important, but the right thing.
For one thing, as Mayor Ray Nagin pointed out in his dignified and generous victory acceptance speech, in many ways, Nagin at least for the past year, has been a politician subject to a similar brand of vilification and butt of jokes as President George W. Bush. The comparison is apt ---- like Bush, Nagin suffers from a tendency of the public - particularly those watching TV sound-bytes vs reading the more detailed accounts in print - to seek to `blame and scapegoat' the one on top for everything under the sun. A marked tendency to believe the worst characterizations in search of a simple and satisfyingly short answer that can `fit before commercial break'. This in complete disregard of whether the one `on top' even has the authority and jurisdiction to so act. In truth, such moments of crisis provide a valuable insight into the true limits of power and authority, and one might dare posit, suggest in just what areas those powers and authority maybe should be increased or augmented to meet public expectations already de-facto in place. (Example, that FEMA was more administrative in character, is not the public perception of what it was `supposed to be'. Ergo, it needs to become what it was thought to be). A similar insight is found when looking at what the New Orleans clean-up has to really deal with.
First off, the national public dis-information and overall clue-lessness of the sheer magnitude of what happened is very great. (This writer was not excepted from that number -- what I will discuss next was truly shocking to watch). The following elaborate graphic of the unfolding of exactly what happened during those wild hours Hurricane Katrina made landfall tells more eloquently than reports just how big a deal this was. That it overtaxed the experience of any municipal government, and even a state's, in the variety of a challenges posed comes as no surprise.
http://www.nola.com/katrina/graphics/flashflood.swf
If you visited the link, you will see that the winds and storm surges combined, had the effect of `launching' multiple and ever-shifting assaults on the various flanks of New Orleans. Like an enemy army besieging a great city seeking a weakness in its defense, Katrina's effects seemed to show a similar diabolical cunning and changing of tactics. As a historian with eye for detail, I found the actual facts here truly daunting, and yes, in retrospect, somewhat exculpatory in character, toward all levels of the initial government response. I had originally believed there had been a failure of levees on the north shore facing Lake Pontchartrain, with spillover from the Industrial Canal that flooded the 9th Ward and St.Bernard area, coupled with an unlucky breach of the 17th Street Canal, and a bit of water in the French Quarter. This impression itself, more detailed than some descriptions often heard on radio, was still woefully incomplete and far short of the truth. It is when viewing this graphic that one can truly appreciate that what happened was far more. This Hurricane's strength, matched to the peculiar topography of just where it hit, unleashed what in the I/T business is recognized as a cascading series of events.
A similar over-simplification presently stands about the recovery and rebuilding efforts, and what hurdles are faced. Unfortunately, there is not yet a similarly clear account and presenting of the facts of what is involved like the prior graphic does for the storm's strike. Yet enough is implicit from learning what happened and what is going on now to know this: The drama of the New Orleans recovery is in part an internal affair, which though requiring close supervision of how Federal funds and assistance is used, is also a recovery whose details and pitfalls and challenges are known and best left to the residents of NOLA. Off-cuff judgments from outside are not helpful and are demeaning. For example, there has been wild talk about "neglect in the clean-up" without taking any account of how much the Mayor and officials have had their progress and attempts stymied by legal hassles of property ownership or various other pitfalls, that have not yielded even to the extraordinary and obvious circumstances of disaster. Even wrecked cars and houses, which would be normally cleared away after a disaster, are often impossible to move due to legal entanglements of a kind that not as common in prior decades of disaster. Such tomfoolery hampers efforts of the city to reconstruct. Then of course, seeing the true scale of the damage there, and the Mississippi Gulf coast, as my brother did recently, goes a long way to explaining any `lag' in reconstruction.
What this means is, that like the conditions during Katrina itself, the facts behind the hype and the hit-and-run style coverage of TV at present show that the picture is not one so much of gross incompetence, as it is a story of overlapping and conflicting agencies and interests. Because of this, it is a sterling example and re-teaching of an old lesson: the overriding importance and need to have a unified chain of authority with a discernible and accountable capstone. A person where the "buck" can stop. Its all too easy for the sound-byte coverage to overlook that Mayor Nagain does not have such authority, and indeed, no one does. For this reason, navigating the labyrinth of legal and jurisdictional hassles ranging from the sound to the patently absurd will be difficult in the recovery. But a certain momentum is now in the air, and I have little doubt now that New Orleans will return, and is returning.
One of the hurdles to be passed was the distraction that the election campaign necessarily generated. For a variety of reasons, for purposes of morale and continuity, before the election I was of the view that Mayor Nagin should be given a chance as Mayor Guiliani was, to continue to lead his stricken city and provide a bridge of continuity to its road to recovery. Such continuity would also help stave-off a simplistic `scape goat' response that would distract from the fact that the failures in dealing with Katrina were shared by all levels of government, at the state level and federal, and its lessons to be learned by all. The growing tendency to just blame the city was unsound. As the experience of neighboring Mississippi shows, neglect and inertia by confused federal elements was not just a New Orleans phenomena. It would seem given the verdict after a close election, and then a hotly contested run-off, a discernible majority of NOLA residents agreed.
Mayor Nagin has had to bear a great deal of simplistic blame for forces and procedures to a great extent out of his control or unanticipated. Having gone through the crucible and learned its lessons, its right that he be given a chance to apply them and offer both city and nation a point of clear continuity pre-Katrina to post-Katrina; such continuity points can be vital to regaining and reviving momentum after a big loss. Helps to combat the impression of `ending' vs making a `new start'. President Bush has pledged the necessary impetus, and it remains to be seen if New Orleans is, as Mayor Nagin put it, "ready to take off" again. One prays so, and though optimism may seem out of place here, there is an intuition he is right.
- Anthony
For one thing, as Mayor Ray Nagin pointed out in his dignified and generous victory acceptance speech, in many ways, Nagin at least for the past year, has been a politician subject to a similar brand of vilification and butt of jokes as President George W. Bush. The comparison is apt ---- like Bush, Nagin suffers from a tendency of the public - particularly those watching TV sound-bytes vs reading the more detailed accounts in print - to seek to `blame and scapegoat' the one on top for everything under the sun. A marked tendency to believe the worst characterizations in search of a simple and satisfyingly short answer that can `fit before commercial break'. This in complete disregard of whether the one `on top' even has the authority and jurisdiction to so act. In truth, such moments of crisis provide a valuable insight into the true limits of power and authority, and one might dare posit, suggest in just what areas those powers and authority maybe should be increased or augmented to meet public expectations already de-facto in place. (Example, that FEMA was more administrative in character, is not the public perception of what it was `supposed to be'. Ergo, it needs to become what it was thought to be). A similar insight is found when looking at what the New Orleans clean-up has to really deal with.
First off, the national public dis-information and overall clue-lessness of the sheer magnitude of what happened is very great. (This writer was not excepted from that number -- what I will discuss next was truly shocking to watch). The following elaborate graphic of the unfolding of exactly what happened during those wild hours Hurricane Katrina made landfall tells more eloquently than reports just how big a deal this was. That it overtaxed the experience of any municipal government, and even a state's, in the variety of a challenges posed comes as no surprise.
http://www.nola.com/katrina/graphics/flashflood.swf
If you visited the link, you will see that the winds and storm surges combined, had the effect of `launching' multiple and ever-shifting assaults on the various flanks of New Orleans. Like an enemy army besieging a great city seeking a weakness in its defense, Katrina's effects seemed to show a similar diabolical cunning and changing of tactics. As a historian with eye for detail, I found the actual facts here truly daunting, and yes, in retrospect, somewhat exculpatory in character, toward all levels of the initial government response. I had originally believed there had been a failure of levees on the north shore facing Lake Pontchartrain, with spillover from the Industrial Canal that flooded the 9th Ward and St.Bernard area, coupled with an unlucky breach of the 17th Street Canal, and a bit of water in the French Quarter. This impression itself, more detailed than some descriptions often heard on radio, was still woefully incomplete and far short of the truth. It is when viewing this graphic that one can truly appreciate that what happened was far more. This Hurricane's strength, matched to the peculiar topography of just where it hit, unleashed what in the I/T business is recognized as a cascading series of events.
A similar over-simplification presently stands about the recovery and rebuilding efforts, and what hurdles are faced. Unfortunately, there is not yet a similarly clear account and presenting of the facts of what is involved like the prior graphic does for the storm's strike. Yet enough is implicit from learning what happened and what is going on now to know this: The drama of the New Orleans recovery is in part an internal affair, which though requiring close supervision of how Federal funds and assistance is used, is also a recovery whose details and pitfalls and challenges are known and best left to the residents of NOLA. Off-cuff judgments from outside are not helpful and are demeaning. For example, there has been wild talk about "neglect in the clean-up" without taking any account of how much the Mayor and officials have had their progress and attempts stymied by legal hassles of property ownership or various other pitfalls, that have not yielded even to the extraordinary and obvious circumstances of disaster. Even wrecked cars and houses, which would be normally cleared away after a disaster, are often impossible to move due to legal entanglements of a kind that not as common in prior decades of disaster. Such tomfoolery hampers efforts of the city to reconstruct. Then of course, seeing the true scale of the damage there, and the Mississippi Gulf coast, as my brother did recently, goes a long way to explaining any `lag' in reconstruction.
What this means is, that like the conditions during Katrina itself, the facts behind the hype and the hit-and-run style coverage of TV at present show that the picture is not one so much of gross incompetence, as it is a story of overlapping and conflicting agencies and interests. Because of this, it is a sterling example and re-teaching of an old lesson: the overriding importance and need to have a unified chain of authority with a discernible and accountable capstone. A person where the "buck" can stop. Its all too easy for the sound-byte coverage to overlook that Mayor Nagain does not have such authority, and indeed, no one does. For this reason, navigating the labyrinth of legal and jurisdictional hassles ranging from the sound to the patently absurd will be difficult in the recovery. But a certain momentum is now in the air, and I have little doubt now that New Orleans will return, and is returning.
One of the hurdles to be passed was the distraction that the election campaign necessarily generated. For a variety of reasons, for purposes of morale and continuity, before the election I was of the view that Mayor Nagin should be given a chance as Mayor Guiliani was, to continue to lead his stricken city and provide a bridge of continuity to its road to recovery. Such continuity would also help stave-off a simplistic `scape goat' response that would distract from the fact that the failures in dealing with Katrina were shared by all levels of government, at the state level and federal, and its lessons to be learned by all. The growing tendency to just blame the city was unsound. As the experience of neighboring Mississippi shows, neglect and inertia by confused federal elements was not just a New Orleans phenomena. It would seem given the verdict after a close election, and then a hotly contested run-off, a discernible majority of NOLA residents agreed.
Mayor Nagin has had to bear a great deal of simplistic blame for forces and procedures to a great extent out of his control or unanticipated. Having gone through the crucible and learned its lessons, its right that he be given a chance to apply them and offer both city and nation a point of clear continuity pre-Katrina to post-Katrina; such continuity points can be vital to regaining and reviving momentum after a big loss. Helps to combat the impression of `ending' vs making a `new start'. President Bush has pledged the necessary impetus, and it remains to be seen if New Orleans is, as Mayor Nagin put it, "ready to take off" again. One prays so, and though optimism may seem out of place here, there is an intuition he is right.
- Anthony
Monday, May 01, 2006
Folly on all sides in today's `protest' re: illegal immigration
The build up and now arrival of today's (May 1st) `protests' regarding `Immigration Policy' as it is termed has revealed a startling range of folly and muddled thinking on all sides. The demagoguery and hype associated with the issue is all the more perplexing for its blatant disregard of reality and true facts. This is spectacularly true on both sides of the fence, both literally, and metaphorically, but of course, especially true regarding the `illegal's rights' side. So will comment on that first. Before saying so, a Disclaimer: in the post that follows I generally take the immigration debate as referring to specifically the en-masse and growing migration across the United State's borders with Mexico. Other groups are not really at the core of the debate, because they are not coming in such volume and scale.
First off, the entire issue is a proverbial `slam dunk'. Almost by definition, `illegal immigrants' are not going to have any `rights' regarding immigration beyond the globally recognized human rights of all. Which is to say, the same kind of rights tourists and other temporary visitors to this country, let alone citizens, should expect in treatment. But beyond that? No. Anyone who came here illegally has done just that, arrived illegally. In this context, any deference shown must be regarded as a courtesy, not a privilege or right. That there are actually illegal -- or if one prefers, `undocumented residents or workers' -- out in the streets openly protesting or walking off jobs is pretty mind-boggling. It’s a commentary on the national dialogue and pandering of scores of public officials that the issue has become as confusing as it has. It’s really clear-cut, in legalese, at least. America has a right to set the conditions for citizenship, and entry into this country and how the borders are crossed. EVERY nation does this, and with almost no media or journalistic pressure about being `racist' or `discriminatory' in having such a concept as conditions of citizenship per-se.
Quite predictably, this has created a backlash, particularly from more conservative and nationalist quarters, against the illegal issue in general. After all, for illegals to openly demonstrate and complain, when they should be being simply arrested, appears the height of insolence and shows an intolerable degree of scofflaw attitude. Yet it is equally true that the protests for the most part have been very dignified and restrained, however large, and the irony is here that to some degree, it is the over-simple response of the `close the borders' chorus that sparks the effrontery of an open protest like this. Day after day, for two, maybe three years now, we have heard a particularly strong drum beat about `the borders' and the `illegal aliens' problem, etc. Yet at the same time, almost never an embracing of our own role in it --- our continued desire for cheap labor. Like the rather rational and forgivable desire for cheap oil, this on its face makes perfect sense. The middle and lower class do not have the wealth of much of the officials, and the price of goods can matter a lot. Nevertheless, like the oil issue, this point of the citizenry's culpability in the sustaining of "the problem" in question must first be recognized if any change is to be sought. So citizens have every right to be angry at the scofflaw behavior, and particularly the choice of a date (May 1st, May Day Parade) with problematical relationship to capitalism, to say the very least.
On the other hand, there is no denying a lot of pointless demonization and overwrought caricatures regarding both the effects and form of illegal immigration. Sometimes true bigotry is indeed lurking, and in that vein, the writer proposes that we retire part of the word `illegal alien'. Not so much for pc-think reasons, as the more honorable and genuine goal of pc to avoid needless, blunt offense. `Alien' after all, in a post Star-Trek/Star Wars era, not to mention the Alien genre itself, now has strong connotations of `totally Other' and not just `foreign' but `incomprehensible' or `incompatible' without some extensive self-education at the very least. This is hardly true of the majority of immigrants, and especially not true of Mexicans sneaking here in hopes of better pay or even better lives. In short, `alien' is needlessly, well, alienating. In fact, to all the above, it now connotates not human at all. Its time is past, and meaning has changed. Let's retire it to refer literally to as yet un-met extra-terrestrial life.
Conversely, let’s resist any pressure -- particularly by editorial and mass media bullpens -- to have any embarrassment or expectation to refrain from the use of `illegal'. For the illegality of the immigration is the very point, not really what they are doing here. Only a small minority is criminals in the true sense, and should be dealt with like all criminals, either through our system or Mexico's. Hence, "Illegal Immigrants" is a perfectly valid way to refer the "undocumented residents/workers" phrase that is being bandied about, and a lot more honest and to the point. Drop `alien' but keep `illegal'. So this debate and `protest' is really about the supposed rights of illegal immigrants that have come here illegally, in short, invaded. This on its face is absurd, and would not even be an issue, if it were not for the equally dishonest posturing on the American side by some of the major concerned advocates.
What is dishonest? Quite frankly, the continuing pass given to businesses and employers who suffer no penalty when hiring illegal immigrants, thus both fueling and perpetuating the desire of same to migrate here in large numbers. In short, American employers are creating too strong an incentive for mere laws to deter would-be workers desperate for any opportunity or improvement in the situation. This fact has the effect of making all the protestation and great debate sound more than a little ridiculous. After all, we have not even taken strong steps to outlaw the activity that sustains illegal immigration, so why the mass concern over those downtrodden workers simply answering opportunity and the employer's call?
Some will answer, "Things have changed since 9/11, and the threat of terrorism and the War". But this is an evasion. Strictly speaking, the government could still be staging discrete "interceptions" and even liquidations in a covert style of actual enemy operatives trying to sneak into the country, just as they always did on both sides in the Cold War. The War on Islamo-Terrorism is a reason to strengthen border patrol, NOT control of illegal immigrants employed or residing here already. They really are not the same thing.
Second, there is an even more fundamental point. Though I said above that we lack strong punishments or disincentives to business to curtail their use of illegal labor, this does not mean we SHOULD DO SO. Actually, what is far more questionable is the whole point of exactly why some form of temporary worker program could not be set up. How many really want the businesses to stop employing illegal immigrants? To what end exactly? This in a time when almost nothing is done to stop the massive outsourcing of jobs to low-wage earners in foreign lands by business for almost exactly the same reasons as illegals are hired -- -to save a dollar, or rather, millions of dollars.
Isn't the concern rather, the amount of American capital in the form of dollars being sent out of the country? Is that not itself more a side-effect of our continuing use of an income tax, which can be evaded by cash payments, instead of national sales or flat tax, which cannot be evaded by anyone who purchases anything here? If the concern is the amount of untaxed-money being sent to Mexico, then look at ways to either tax that, or see that it is not sent there in objectionable quantities. OR, conversely, simply enforcement citizenship proof as the minimum requirements for access to services ranging from medical, to welfare and schools. This too, would remove the point of `we are paying for illegals to use our services without return' argument.
These are just some initial thoughts, on a problem that is more a problem because it is not being looked at rationally and "as is", but rather through emotional and nationalist lenses that do not see their own role in the conundrum. Or at the minimum, if they truly feel government is not listening - their duty to find and elect officials who will reverse or untangle this mess in a more sober way.
- Anthony
First off, the entire issue is a proverbial `slam dunk'. Almost by definition, `illegal immigrants' are not going to have any `rights' regarding immigration beyond the globally recognized human rights of all. Which is to say, the same kind of rights tourists and other temporary visitors to this country, let alone citizens, should expect in treatment. But beyond that? No. Anyone who came here illegally has done just that, arrived illegally. In this context, any deference shown must be regarded as a courtesy, not a privilege or right. That there are actually illegal -- or if one prefers, `undocumented residents or workers' -- out in the streets openly protesting or walking off jobs is pretty mind-boggling. It’s a commentary on the national dialogue and pandering of scores of public officials that the issue has become as confusing as it has. It’s really clear-cut, in legalese, at least. America has a right to set the conditions for citizenship, and entry into this country and how the borders are crossed. EVERY nation does this, and with almost no media or journalistic pressure about being `racist' or `discriminatory' in having such a concept as conditions of citizenship per-se.
Quite predictably, this has created a backlash, particularly from more conservative and nationalist quarters, against the illegal issue in general. After all, for illegals to openly demonstrate and complain, when they should be being simply arrested, appears the height of insolence and shows an intolerable degree of scofflaw attitude. Yet it is equally true that the protests for the most part have been very dignified and restrained, however large, and the irony is here that to some degree, it is the over-simple response of the `close the borders' chorus that sparks the effrontery of an open protest like this. Day after day, for two, maybe three years now, we have heard a particularly strong drum beat about `the borders' and the `illegal aliens' problem, etc. Yet at the same time, almost never an embracing of our own role in it --- our continued desire for cheap labor. Like the rather rational and forgivable desire for cheap oil, this on its face makes perfect sense. The middle and lower class do not have the wealth of much of the officials, and the price of goods can matter a lot. Nevertheless, like the oil issue, this point of the citizenry's culpability in the sustaining of "the problem" in question must first be recognized if any change is to be sought. So citizens have every right to be angry at the scofflaw behavior, and particularly the choice of a date (May 1st, May Day Parade) with problematical relationship to capitalism, to say the very least.
On the other hand, there is no denying a lot of pointless demonization and overwrought caricatures regarding both the effects and form of illegal immigration. Sometimes true bigotry is indeed lurking, and in that vein, the writer proposes that we retire part of the word `illegal alien'. Not so much for pc-think reasons, as the more honorable and genuine goal of pc to avoid needless, blunt offense. `Alien' after all, in a post Star-Trek/Star Wars era, not to mention the Alien genre itself, now has strong connotations of `totally Other' and not just `foreign' but `incomprehensible' or `incompatible' without some extensive self-education at the very least. This is hardly true of the majority of immigrants, and especially not true of Mexicans sneaking here in hopes of better pay or even better lives. In short, `alien' is needlessly, well, alienating. In fact, to all the above, it now connotates not human at all. Its time is past, and meaning has changed. Let's retire it to refer literally to as yet un-met extra-terrestrial life.
Conversely, let’s resist any pressure -- particularly by editorial and mass media bullpens -- to have any embarrassment or expectation to refrain from the use of `illegal'. For the illegality of the immigration is the very point, not really what they are doing here. Only a small minority is criminals in the true sense, and should be dealt with like all criminals, either through our system or Mexico's. Hence, "Illegal Immigrants" is a perfectly valid way to refer the "undocumented residents/workers" phrase that is being bandied about, and a lot more honest and to the point. Drop `alien' but keep `illegal'. So this debate and `protest' is really about the supposed rights of illegal immigrants that have come here illegally, in short, invaded. This on its face is absurd, and would not even be an issue, if it were not for the equally dishonest posturing on the American side by some of the major concerned advocates.
What is dishonest? Quite frankly, the continuing pass given to businesses and employers who suffer no penalty when hiring illegal immigrants, thus both fueling and perpetuating the desire of same to migrate here in large numbers. In short, American employers are creating too strong an incentive for mere laws to deter would-be workers desperate for any opportunity or improvement in the situation. This fact has the effect of making all the protestation and great debate sound more than a little ridiculous. After all, we have not even taken strong steps to outlaw the activity that sustains illegal immigration, so why the mass concern over those downtrodden workers simply answering opportunity and the employer's call?
Some will answer, "Things have changed since 9/11, and the threat of terrorism and the War". But this is an evasion. Strictly speaking, the government could still be staging discrete "interceptions" and even liquidations in a covert style of actual enemy operatives trying to sneak into the country, just as they always did on both sides in the Cold War. The War on Islamo-Terrorism is a reason to strengthen border patrol, NOT control of illegal immigrants employed or residing here already. They really are not the same thing.
Second, there is an even more fundamental point. Though I said above that we lack strong punishments or disincentives to business to curtail their use of illegal labor, this does not mean we SHOULD DO SO. Actually, what is far more questionable is the whole point of exactly why some form of temporary worker program could not be set up. How many really want the businesses to stop employing illegal immigrants? To what end exactly? This in a time when almost nothing is done to stop the massive outsourcing of jobs to low-wage earners in foreign lands by business for almost exactly the same reasons as illegals are hired -- -to save a dollar, or rather, millions of dollars.
Isn't the concern rather, the amount of American capital in the form of dollars being sent out of the country? Is that not itself more a side-effect of our continuing use of an income tax, which can be evaded by cash payments, instead of national sales or flat tax, which cannot be evaded by anyone who purchases anything here? If the concern is the amount of untaxed-money being sent to Mexico, then look at ways to either tax that, or see that it is not sent there in objectionable quantities. OR, conversely, simply enforcement citizenship proof as the minimum requirements for access to services ranging from medical, to welfare and schools. This too, would remove the point of `we are paying for illegals to use our services without return' argument.
These are just some initial thoughts, on a problem that is more a problem because it is not being looked at rationally and "as is", but rather through emotional and nationalist lenses that do not see their own role in the conundrum. Or at the minimum, if they truly feel government is not listening - their duty to find and elect officials who will reverse or untangle this mess in a more sober way.
- Anthony
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Time for an Official News Source?
The title states the question. The growing gulf between any sort of balance and objectivity in the mainstream televised media (and to a lesser degree the newspapers) and the actual facts and true character of the subject being reported strongly suggest such a forum would indeed be useful, even necessary.
What prompts this in addition to prior musings on the matter is the recent feedback and commentary arising from the prior `blaming the messenger' post.
For example, commentatary there drew attention to some key facts. There *is* need for a reliable and accurate news source, and the catch-22 is this: not only is that not true of the present brand of `mainstream news' (and this refers to Cable like MSNBC and FOX as much as the old `Big Three') but further, those outlets do not call attention to or admit that their main goal now is entertainment and audience draw. The reason this is significant is that a large segment of the public -- albeit shrinking by the day -- still believes the TV news to be near-gospel truth and accurately cross-checking its facts. This might be called the `legacy of the Walter Cronkite' days or public image of investigative reporting.
Most of the public has no idea now just how "derivative" and `headlines first' oriented the media has become. In fact, it is not uncommon for major TV outlets to simply base their day's stories and leads on what the New York Times leads with first. More and more, the media appears to cater to snaring a particular `target-audience' or base, not unlike the two political parties, rather than both tracking down the news, and reporting the truth. Spin, rather than the old watchdog function, dominates the day.
Much has been said about the `bias' of the media, and it is true --- alot of it is ideologically driven, but the main motive is audience share. Truth or fact-checking has almost nothing to do with it. And the newer outlets like FOX are no exception. They too, cater to delivering content calculated to stimulate and draw a target audience. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. It means that you have at once two things: (1) A public that still thinks the mass media seeks to `report the news and inform', and (2) a mass media that seeks audience share at almost any cost, with accuracy playing almost no role at all, and a willingness to `target a base constituency' if it will meet its rating needs, thus allowing it to neglect true balance in its reporting. It is easy to see how the combination of these two has led to a dangerous state of the public being consistently misled from one wing of the spectrum to the other, with the common ground usually being whatever `most provokes and stirs' the viewer.
One of the commentators on the last post pointed out that it is useless to complain of this supposed abandonment by the mass media of a `responsibility to inform' regarding the public. And this because nearly all of it is now owned by mega corporations whose primary goal is the bottom line, which in turn is driven by advertising, which naturally, brings us back to "audience share" as paramount. As another commentator pointed out, this leads to the kind of distortion where there is a prior public expectation of truth that arguably justifies some form of regulation and oversight as is found in Food and Drug Advertising. Especially if there is not further transparency about the mass media's agendas at present, and they continue to posture behind the guise of political `watchdogs' rather than what they have become, `political lapdogs' -- where the only difference is to what party or ideology.
Yet this is precisely the point. If the `mass media' has no obligation to inform -- and I can agree with this --- then it also should not enjoy any "default level of trust" on this score. Furthermore, if the mass media is not going to accurately and responsibly *inform* the general public, than something else must take up that task. Because there is no disputing the need for such accurate and least biased-as-possible flow of information. Particularly regarding government political trends, votes, foreign policy, and domestic initiatives.
Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the time has come for the government, both state and federal, to wake up to the fact that in a very real sense, it has no accurate voice speaking for it. The truth only filters through blogs, print media, and online sources and bulletins lengthy and detailed enough to describe it, and these are only being consulted by a minority with the time, skill, and inclination to do so. Yet just because most of the working public is too busy to research the truth and do the `comparative fact shopping' its pursuit requires, does not mean the public should then be blamed for being misled by the mass media which it had been raised to look to for such information.
No, the blame goes of course to the source of mis-information and spin continuing to present itself as objective, and the blame also goes to the simple lack of a voice for the government that is not already `hard wired' to either Left or Right in inclination, or Democrat vs Republican. What is needed is an information arm that will soberly and clearly lay out at regular intervals what decisions and actions are being made, and the where/who-to to address if one wishes to get more involved.
A good example is the lamentable mass media reporting about the Iraq War, vs the quality reports of embedded journalists, online bloggers, and print media summations that never make it to the TV screen except as a one line sound-byte before a "hard break for a commercial". It is arguable that much of the perceived failure in the administration and the Iraq War is due to its contining inability to speak about its achievements or accurately describe whats going on. Always what is said is filtered either thru the jingoistic never-say-wrong bullhorn of the Right media, or the pessimistic and carping doubt of the Left media.
From discussions it seems pretty clear to most of those with familiarity with history that we are currently in a "yellow journalism" period very much like that of 1898 and the Spanish-American War. On top of this, the problem is exaberrated by equally obscuring and manipulative "gotcha" politics by both parties, and campaign handlers and advisors such as Karl Rove and James Carville, whose expertise and brilliance lies in winning votes, not accuracy and truth. Divide and conquer politics, not consensus seeking, is the rule of the day. Faced with such a nexus of circumstance, at first glance, any `reform' of the mass media seems difficult, if not impossible.
However, despite the tone of this post, IMO, the situation is not nearly so intractable. It only requires thinking outside the box. In this case, the `box' is the very assumption that the mass media be the only voice available for officials and policy to communicate. The establishment of a bureau that would provide government with a way to "boringly" speak about basic and straightforward matters whether dynamic like Iraq War plans, or mundane, like projected pharmacy reform, would go a long way toward providing a means for the public to be put-in-the-picture sufficiently to make at least reasonably informed decisions and votes. Partisanship might be minimized by making it subject to a fact checking process, as well as staffed in a manner indepedent of the changes in administrations that come with Presidential elections.
To the inevitable objection that such might simply become a government `propaganda arm' the best reply is though a risk, it is worth taking. The need for a more sober and unifying political climate and information dissemination is so dire that some major changes are necessary if national `balkanization' is to be avoided. Under the current scheme you have a series of competing corporate-doormat news agencies each catering to `their base' at the expense of those outside that base, lambasting and provoking to play on their base's emotions and win ratings. None of them are seeking to build consensus, or point out where it might exist.
An official source might start to do this, especially if its charter began with an emphasis on integrity and a zero-tolerance for inaccuracy and distortion. By setting such a high bar, the natural pressure of being `outed' on any major falsehood would act as a corrective, instead of the resigned `expectation of falsehood' the public now feels toward TV in general. As for a possible overseer/parent, the author's familiarity with the straightforward and sober manner of the National Archives administration suggests it as a likely candidate. It tends to have a `long view' and seems to avoid excessive partisan outlook because its activities and staff tend to span several presidential administrations. In any case, it suggest a model, and since the means is already at hand, the need building by the day, all that remains is to settle on its form.
For the truth is, such a source is already available, via the online media and its ability to quickly and reasonably fact-check and verify the truth of things, and where necessary, locate and involve experts truly well-positioned or read to do so. What is needed then, is a forum where this capability is actively harnessed and put to use on an information basis, where profit and audience share is not the goal. As its reputation for accuracy and reliability grew, those truly interested in policy would increasingly learn to reference it. Nor could the mass media as easily get away with distortions in instances where it was revealed they had not consulted or cross-checked with this forum or clearing house. Who knows, in time, this might weaken the trend to `yellow journalism' in turn, and the mass media might ease back toward a more reliable presentation as in the days of the truly "Evening News".
- Anthony
What prompts this in addition to prior musings on the matter is the recent feedback and commentary arising from the prior `blaming the messenger' post.
For example, commentatary there drew attention to some key facts. There *is* need for a reliable and accurate news source, and the catch-22 is this: not only is that not true of the present brand of `mainstream news' (and this refers to Cable like MSNBC and FOX as much as the old `Big Three') but further, those outlets do not call attention to or admit that their main goal now is entertainment and audience draw. The reason this is significant is that a large segment of the public -- albeit shrinking by the day -- still believes the TV news to be near-gospel truth and accurately cross-checking its facts. This might be called the `legacy of the Walter Cronkite' days or public image of investigative reporting.
Most of the public has no idea now just how "derivative" and `headlines first' oriented the media has become. In fact, it is not uncommon for major TV outlets to simply base their day's stories and leads on what the New York Times leads with first. More and more, the media appears to cater to snaring a particular `target-audience' or base, not unlike the two political parties, rather than both tracking down the news, and reporting the truth. Spin, rather than the old watchdog function, dominates the day.
Much has been said about the `bias' of the media, and it is true --- alot of it is ideologically driven, but the main motive is audience share. Truth or fact-checking has almost nothing to do with it. And the newer outlets like FOX are no exception. They too, cater to delivering content calculated to stimulate and draw a target audience. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. It means that you have at once two things: (1) A public that still thinks the mass media seeks to `report the news and inform', and (2) a mass media that seeks audience share at almost any cost, with accuracy playing almost no role at all, and a willingness to `target a base constituency' if it will meet its rating needs, thus allowing it to neglect true balance in its reporting. It is easy to see how the combination of these two has led to a dangerous state of the public being consistently misled from one wing of the spectrum to the other, with the common ground usually being whatever `most provokes and stirs' the viewer.
One of the commentators on the last post pointed out that it is useless to complain of this supposed abandonment by the mass media of a `responsibility to inform' regarding the public. And this because nearly all of it is now owned by mega corporations whose primary goal is the bottom line, which in turn is driven by advertising, which naturally, brings us back to "audience share" as paramount. As another commentator pointed out, this leads to the kind of distortion where there is a prior public expectation of truth that arguably justifies some form of regulation and oversight as is found in Food and Drug Advertising. Especially if there is not further transparency about the mass media's agendas at present, and they continue to posture behind the guise of political `watchdogs' rather than what they have become, `political lapdogs' -- where the only difference is to what party or ideology.
Yet this is precisely the point. If the `mass media' has no obligation to inform -- and I can agree with this --- then it also should not enjoy any "default level of trust" on this score. Furthermore, if the mass media is not going to accurately and responsibly *inform* the general public, than something else must take up that task. Because there is no disputing the need for such accurate and least biased-as-possible flow of information. Particularly regarding government political trends, votes, foreign policy, and domestic initiatives.
Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the time has come for the government, both state and federal, to wake up to the fact that in a very real sense, it has no accurate voice speaking for it. The truth only filters through blogs, print media, and online sources and bulletins lengthy and detailed enough to describe it, and these are only being consulted by a minority with the time, skill, and inclination to do so. Yet just because most of the working public is too busy to research the truth and do the `comparative fact shopping' its pursuit requires, does not mean the public should then be blamed for being misled by the mass media which it had been raised to look to for such information.
No, the blame goes of course to the source of mis-information and spin continuing to present itself as objective, and the blame also goes to the simple lack of a voice for the government that is not already `hard wired' to either Left or Right in inclination, or Democrat vs Republican. What is needed is an information arm that will soberly and clearly lay out at regular intervals what decisions and actions are being made, and the where/who-to to address if one wishes to get more involved.
A good example is the lamentable mass media reporting about the Iraq War, vs the quality reports of embedded journalists, online bloggers, and print media summations that never make it to the TV screen except as a one line sound-byte before a "hard break for a commercial". It is arguable that much of the perceived failure in the administration and the Iraq War is due to its contining inability to speak about its achievements or accurately describe whats going on. Always what is said is filtered either thru the jingoistic never-say-wrong bullhorn of the Right media, or the pessimistic and carping doubt of the Left media.
From discussions it seems pretty clear to most of those with familiarity with history that we are currently in a "yellow journalism" period very much like that of 1898 and the Spanish-American War. On top of this, the problem is exaberrated by equally obscuring and manipulative "gotcha" politics by both parties, and campaign handlers and advisors such as Karl Rove and James Carville, whose expertise and brilliance lies in winning votes, not accuracy and truth. Divide and conquer politics, not consensus seeking, is the rule of the day. Faced with such a nexus of circumstance, at first glance, any `reform' of the mass media seems difficult, if not impossible.
However, despite the tone of this post, IMO, the situation is not nearly so intractable. It only requires thinking outside the box. In this case, the `box' is the very assumption that the mass media be the only voice available for officials and policy to communicate. The establishment of a bureau that would provide government with a way to "boringly" speak about basic and straightforward matters whether dynamic like Iraq War plans, or mundane, like projected pharmacy reform, would go a long way toward providing a means for the public to be put-in-the-picture sufficiently to make at least reasonably informed decisions and votes. Partisanship might be minimized by making it subject to a fact checking process, as well as staffed in a manner indepedent of the changes in administrations that come with Presidential elections.
To the inevitable objection that such might simply become a government `propaganda arm' the best reply is though a risk, it is worth taking. The need for a more sober and unifying political climate and information dissemination is so dire that some major changes are necessary if national `balkanization' is to be avoided. Under the current scheme you have a series of competing corporate-doormat news agencies each catering to `their base' at the expense of those outside that base, lambasting and provoking to play on their base's emotions and win ratings. None of them are seeking to build consensus, or point out where it might exist.
An official source might start to do this, especially if its charter began with an emphasis on integrity and a zero-tolerance for inaccuracy and distortion. By setting such a high bar, the natural pressure of being `outed' on any major falsehood would act as a corrective, instead of the resigned `expectation of falsehood' the public now feels toward TV in general. As for a possible overseer/parent, the author's familiarity with the straightforward and sober manner of the National Archives administration suggests it as a likely candidate. It tends to have a `long view' and seems to avoid excessive partisan outlook because its activities and staff tend to span several presidential administrations. In any case, it suggest a model, and since the means is already at hand, the need building by the day, all that remains is to settle on its form.
For the truth is, such a source is already available, via the online media and its ability to quickly and reasonably fact-check and verify the truth of things, and where necessary, locate and involve experts truly well-positioned or read to do so. What is needed then, is a forum where this capability is actively harnessed and put to use on an information basis, where profit and audience share is not the goal. As its reputation for accuracy and reliability grew, those truly interested in policy would increasingly learn to reference it. Nor could the mass media as easily get away with distortions in instances where it was revealed they had not consulted or cross-checked with this forum or clearing house. Who knows, in time, this might weaken the trend to `yellow journalism' in turn, and the mass media might ease back toward a more reliable presentation as in the days of the truly "Evening News".
- Anthony
Monday, April 10, 2006
"Blaming the Messenger" is justified these days...
The past several days has seen a perplexing and continuing spin and odd phraseing of the debate on the illegal immigration problem. This brings to mind that recently some members of the press, particularly the White House Press Corps, and several leading newspapers, were complaining that the American public was in a frame of mind to "simply shoot the messenger", to blame the media for the bad news they were reporting, whether it be on Iraq, or domestic issues like the immigration imbroglio.
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
