This weekend the White House has signaled agreement to submit the controversial so-called "Ports Deal" to a new and fuller review. This was the business deal whereby a United Arab Emirates company based in Dubai, was to take over significant operations at six leading American ports. The reconsideration is the result of an obliging offer by the Dubai company to submit the planned transaction to a second and broader U.S. review of potential security risks. This comes with fortuitous timing, rescuing the administration from a public relations gaffee with its own party that defies easy understanding.
Key Republican congress members, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, had been planning legislation in a roughly bipartisan intent to block or delay the deal until more was known. This was to take place at the end of the current week-long Congressional break. Moreover, it was to be in defiance to White House opposition - for when the predictable objections and concerns to a Mideast nation taking over some of our ports were raised, President Bush inexplicably responded in an obtuse manner, saying the deal would proceed regardless, and threatening a veto of any delaying actions. The administration went as far as to imply that even Republican lawmakers which had long supported many of its other initiatives (like the recent nomination Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court) were in fact engaging in a form of racial profiling by voicing what should have been obvious: After 9/11, people would be predictably jittery in at the appearance of turning over port control to Mideast authorities.
Stung and insulted, many Republicans have righly responded with indignation, and in an interesting testimony to the continuing Public Relations carelessness, even ineptitude, of the administration, the "Ports Deal" has momentarily brought feuding Republican and Democrat leaders into rough consensus and unity. Its been somewhat a minor spectacle, an abject lesson in how not to conduct political relations. At the moment, Republican congressmen seem to be showing more mindfulness of security matters, or certainly the perception of them.
On closer examination, the scheme for the ports likely poses little threat to national security, and may even be called semi-routine. What makes the matter important is rather what it revealed about how out-of-touch in the PR sense the executive branch is with the legislative branch at present. For the President to ask (paraphrasing) `what's the difference between a Great British company and a Mideast one?' is to boggle the mind. One is a staunch ally, has been, since the War of 1812. The other is in a nation that had definite links, however indirect, to the 9/11 attack itself. This is Public Relations 101, or should have been. Its especially so, when one considers the periodic segments on Fox that warn of various points of vulnerability, and speak in concerned volume about them. To not think that control of harbors or docks, or anything at all related to them, would not raise some hackles in this time of war with Islamofascism, is beyond astonishing.
The clash does have the ironic effect of making one wonder about some of the more long standing opposition, which claims the admin goes on the offensive with attacks whenever questioned. It sure looks that way --- Senator Frist and Representative King of NY were among those clearly smarting under the casual disregard for their concerns and what they termed the `playing of the race [profiling] card' against them. It was even enough to bring key pundits like Ann Coulter and Rep King to talking on MSNBC this week about their ire and simple point of what the real issue was: the `Ports Deal' may well be harmless, and not in any way put in jeopardy national security. But the executive branch should have realized that it had to make that case first, and not expect something of that magnitude to be taken `on faith' given other clear oversights in security matters, such as the continuing loose hand on the border.
For now, in speech Sunday, Senate Majority Leader stated that he will suggest that the Senate wait for results of fresh review that World DP (the Dubai firm) has obligingly offered. So any legislation to delay or block the deal is tabled for now. Senator Frist did say that he oversight hearings to continue to examine the agreement and its implications on the port and dockyard security of the nation. With this, the affair will now blow over for now. With this coming so soon on the heels of the `Cheney gun accident' affair with its lag in reporting, what remains is the vital needed for the administration to wake up to its mulish handling of PR and start speaking up more beforehand, rather than after, to prevent misunderstandings. One could wish Ari Fleischer could be enticed by a large sum to come out of retirement till '08. Experienced and/or new voices are clearly needed. If as has been claimed, this was another case of the right-hand not talking to the left, or of the State Department failing to inform the POTUS and Bush was truly surprised, then it is all the more reason for admin to demand better work of its go-betweens.
- Anthony
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
Cheney incident highlights press rumor-mongering
The vastly overblown incident of Vice President Cheney's accidental injuring of fellow hunter Harry Whittington with his gun the past weekend unleashed a truly startling display of folly. This writer has been rather critical toward press behavior and emphasis in the past, but even so, was still surprised by the sheer tomfoolery and descent into condescending hysteria by members of the White House Press Corps this week. With unctuous tones and innuendo, and even apparent partisanship, some of the press members fixated upon a botched PR move on the part of the White House (and don't mistake me, the White House PR has been, and remains, bafflingly abysmal in most matters) to leap to filing the most negative and hysterical spins on a straightforward story.
After all, under all the glare -- a true case of all heat and no illumination -- this week saw most of the news sources going ape about the sluggish response in informing them in detail or speedily about a very straightforward accident. With amusing indignation and self-righteous bombast, the White House Press corps was seen grilling Scott McClellan about the shooting as if a dire conspiracy had been concealed from them. It looked partisan, certainly at the very least, juvenile and hysterical. Given the tone they took, its useful to note the following basic facts:
1) The VP accidentally shot a Friend, in fact his Host, on a private hunting excursion. Fine.
2) The one shot was not a Democrat, or somesuch political rival, but the tone taken by questions seemed accusatory and angry. To even hint of foul play or misconduct was beyond absurd. Though this was not directly done, the very tone and heat of the coverage suggested it, and one feels, was intentional to make a big story out of a modest one.
3) There was a delay in the national press being informed, true.
4) This delay was then taken with the utmost offense by the White House Press Corps, who began to carry on and make angry statements, and let insinuations build where calls for Cheney's resignation were even being made. As if something more deliberate then a goof while hunting had taken place or been intended.
5) In all this, there was little concern for Mr. Whittington's own reaction to all this, how he felt about his FRIEND being accused, and especially there was NO concern at all for VP Cheney's feelings about injuring his friend in said incident.
6) The incident became the (understandable) butt of jokes in its immediate aftermath, and then after a lull when Mr. Whittington's health was in question, again once he was known to be alright. The incident is now fading rapidly.
What makes it important is that the White House Press Corps, and the mainstream media it tends to represent in the public's eyes, boldly and disappointingly displayed themselves as little more than rumor-mongers. A few even gave the impression of being schills for the opposition party -- or more precisely, its most conspiracy-minded fringe, the moveon.org crowd. This impression comes from their haste to make a straight-forward incident into a "black helicopter" scenario. As I said above, the press behaved AS IF Cheney had tried to take out an opposition member, not a friend. Indeed, given the basic character of the incident, they seemed determine to give it a `layered meaning' or `ominous nuance' for sensationalistic purposes, where there was none.
But that's just the point. From the very start, the circumstances of the shooting were too clear-cut --- VP Cheney wounding a friend on a private hunt -- to admit to all this black-helicopter think, or indignant affront on the part of the press. It is in fact arguable whether they even had this presumed "right to know" instantly about the incident before local press.
One thing is clear. The White House Press corps and the mainstream media has descended into the role of schills for their own significance and import. They come across as eager to make mountains out of the proverbial moehill, in their haste to create a `sensation' or `headline blaring' story. No attempt is made to use their power of investigation for `rumor control' but rather the opposite. This incident had none of the semi-opaque murkiness of the Iraq War or Abu Ghraib, yet they behaved with the same accusatory tone. They have completely forsaken the still needful and once embraced role of `watchdog' for and against BOTH political parties and big government in general. This neglect of stern inquiry in favor of overheated quizzing and innuendo just obscures the real issues. It also operates in the failure to seek out to cover and expose genuine malfeasance in domestic government, and in the frauds in various programs, both Republican and Democrat. Instead, over and over again, they go to the noiseist of demagogues for "story" and by so doing, as this week, seek to generate only the heat of sensationalism and hyperbole, and none of the illumination of inquiry and fact-checking.
This constant magnifying of all events out of all proportiona and coverage is counter-productive. Every disappearance becomes a national incident, every incident becomes a "a blank- gate" and bad occurrence "a crisis". This is just hyping for hype's sake, and clouds up all the issues more than anything else. The nation needs the true watch-dog role of the press restored, the current brand of journalism retired, and needs it now. A true bipartisan press, skeptical and slow to trust either party, but putting America's interests foremost, is what is called for. In many ways, such did indeed once exist, especially prior to the 1960's. But unfortunately, it seems all but extinct now. However, since history cycles, one can hope for a resurrection of such. Its long overdue.
- Anthony
After all, under all the glare -- a true case of all heat and no illumination -- this week saw most of the news sources going ape about the sluggish response in informing them in detail or speedily about a very straightforward accident. With amusing indignation and self-righteous bombast, the White House Press corps was seen grilling Scott McClellan about the shooting as if a dire conspiracy had been concealed from them. It looked partisan, certainly at the very least, juvenile and hysterical. Given the tone they took, its useful to note the following basic facts:
1) The VP accidentally shot a Friend, in fact his Host, on a private hunting excursion. Fine.
2) The one shot was not a Democrat, or somesuch political rival, but the tone taken by questions seemed accusatory and angry. To even hint of foul play or misconduct was beyond absurd. Though this was not directly done, the very tone and heat of the coverage suggested it, and one feels, was intentional to make a big story out of a modest one.
3) There was a delay in the national press being informed, true.
4) This delay was then taken with the utmost offense by the White House Press Corps, who began to carry on and make angry statements, and let insinuations build where calls for Cheney's resignation were even being made. As if something more deliberate then a goof while hunting had taken place or been intended.
5) In all this, there was little concern for Mr. Whittington's own reaction to all this, how he felt about his FRIEND being accused, and especially there was NO concern at all for VP Cheney's feelings about injuring his friend in said incident.
6) The incident became the (understandable) butt of jokes in its immediate aftermath, and then after a lull when Mr. Whittington's health was in question, again once he was known to be alright. The incident is now fading rapidly.
What makes it important is that the White House Press Corps, and the mainstream media it tends to represent in the public's eyes, boldly and disappointingly displayed themselves as little more than rumor-mongers. A few even gave the impression of being schills for the opposition party -- or more precisely, its most conspiracy-minded fringe, the moveon.org crowd. This impression comes from their haste to make a straight-forward incident into a "black helicopter" scenario. As I said above, the press behaved AS IF Cheney had tried to take out an opposition member, not a friend. Indeed, given the basic character of the incident, they seemed determine to give it a `layered meaning' or `ominous nuance' for sensationalistic purposes, where there was none.
But that's just the point. From the very start, the circumstances of the shooting were too clear-cut --- VP Cheney wounding a friend on a private hunt -- to admit to all this black-helicopter think, or indignant affront on the part of the press. It is in fact arguable whether they even had this presumed "right to know" instantly about the incident before local press.
One thing is clear. The White House Press corps and the mainstream media has descended into the role of schills for their own significance and import. They come across as eager to make mountains out of the proverbial moehill, in their haste to create a `sensation' or `headline blaring' story. No attempt is made to use their power of investigation for `rumor control' but rather the opposite. This incident had none of the semi-opaque murkiness of the Iraq War or Abu Ghraib, yet they behaved with the same accusatory tone. They have completely forsaken the still needful and once embraced role of `watchdog' for and against BOTH political parties and big government in general. This neglect of stern inquiry in favor of overheated quizzing and innuendo just obscures the real issues. It also operates in the failure to seek out to cover and expose genuine malfeasance in domestic government, and in the frauds in various programs, both Republican and Democrat. Instead, over and over again, they go to the noiseist of demagogues for "story" and by so doing, as this week, seek to generate only the heat of sensationalism and hyperbole, and none of the illumination of inquiry and fact-checking.
This constant magnifying of all events out of all proportiona and coverage is counter-productive. Every disappearance becomes a national incident, every incident becomes a "a blank- gate" and bad occurrence "a crisis". This is just hyping for hype's sake, and clouds up all the issues more than anything else. The nation needs the true watch-dog role of the press restored, the current brand of journalism retired, and needs it now. A true bipartisan press, skeptical and slow to trust either party, but putting America's interests foremost, is what is called for. In many ways, such did indeed once exist, especially prior to the 1960's. But unfortunately, it seems all but extinct now. However, since history cycles, one can hope for a resurrection of such. Its long overdue.
- Anthony
Monday, February 13, 2006
Cartoon debate underlies differences in cultures
In the space of two weeks, the world has seen an uproar raised by the actions and drawings of cartoonists. In the first example, a seemingly insensitive portrayal of a crippled U.S. veteran was used to take jabs at the policies and perceived indifference of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It predictably angered and vexed many veterans, conservatives, and myriad Republican supporters. However, despite this, generally the response by such pundits as Sean Hannity and various radio moguls was that the cartoonists had the right to do so, however poor in taste. This was seen as a necessary price and cost of having freedom of speech and expression. Especially regarding the political sphere, which is the arena the Founding Fathers most wanted protected from censorship.
Though many on the `Right' were deeply offended, and did in fact call for retraction or not running the cartoons, these were outnumbered by conservatives equally determined to permit the expression, and remaining content to censure and lament the lack of class involved on the part of the cartoonist. As a result, the affair quickly died down and things moved on.
However, shortly afterward, in an unrelated incident, Dutch cartoonists ran some cartoons that cast the role of the Prophet Muhammad in the role of a terrorist or other such objectionable purveyor of violence. When this provoked an outcry, these cartoons were then picked up and reproduced by various other European papers. In the time since, the world has seen some extraordinary scenes of Muslims demanding reprisal and demonstrating with actual destructive riots and burning of property in response to the perceived offense. The rogue Presidency of Iran has even sponsored a tacky counter-protest of anti-Jewish cartoons related to the Holocaust. The bottom line is a clear fundamental rejection of the concept of the freedom of speech, and serves to remind that in the Mideast, such expression generally takes a back seat, if seat at all, to ideology and religion. There is no doubt, no disputing, that the cartoons were offensive (as political satire often can be) and even stupid to issue, given the possible provocation. However, there is another component to consider.
What makes this remarkable is the comparative lack of a Western response pointing out that it is precisely such violent demonstrations, threats, and burnings that fuel the characterizations the cartoonists portray. It is correct to regret and recant any real offensive literature, but in free countries the governments have little say in such matters and beyond official mollifying statements like Chirac of France chose to make, its not really their place to do so. Especially in the face of such belligerent displays. There really needs to be a general global call by the international community for responsible Muslim leaders to make a clear censure and condemnation of such behavior and to distance themselves from it. The equation of their beliefs with violence and terrorism is becoming too strong and too reflexive. In turn there should be clear recognition that such mocking of a religious founder is not only inviting unrest, but is painting with a broad brush. It is on a different level of trespass altogether from rightful satirizing of a current ruler engaging in demogoguery like the leaders of Iran and North Korea.
Yet in essence the real problem is one of cultural disconnect. Leaving aside those who intend to impose their views by violent terror - which can only be dealt with by like force, at the core of the matter would seem to be a failure to recognize the old maxim, "in Rome, do as the Romans do". Europeans often fail to respect Mideast traditions and habits when in the Mideast, and Muslim immigrants to Europe appear to be failing to respect the free expression and traditions of their hosts. At a glance, though there is much to mull here, it appears that imposition of multiculturalism and failure to assimilate are the true culprits. In many ways, the tendency these days is for opposing or differing cultures to `export' too much one's own set of values and paradigms to a place, without taking effort to avoid disturbing those of the host nation involved. This holds true for an immigrant or representative both.
- Anthony
Though many on the `Right' were deeply offended, and did in fact call for retraction or not running the cartoons, these were outnumbered by conservatives equally determined to permit the expression, and remaining content to censure and lament the lack of class involved on the part of the cartoonist. As a result, the affair quickly died down and things moved on.
However, shortly afterward, in an unrelated incident, Dutch cartoonists ran some cartoons that cast the role of the Prophet Muhammad in the role of a terrorist or other such objectionable purveyor of violence. When this provoked an outcry, these cartoons were then picked up and reproduced by various other European papers. In the time since, the world has seen some extraordinary scenes of Muslims demanding reprisal and demonstrating with actual destructive riots and burning of property in response to the perceived offense. The rogue Presidency of Iran has even sponsored a tacky counter-protest of anti-Jewish cartoons related to the Holocaust. The bottom line is a clear fundamental rejection of the concept of the freedom of speech, and serves to remind that in the Mideast, such expression generally takes a back seat, if seat at all, to ideology and religion. There is no doubt, no disputing, that the cartoons were offensive (as political satire often can be) and even stupid to issue, given the possible provocation. However, there is another component to consider.
What makes this remarkable is the comparative lack of a Western response pointing out that it is precisely such violent demonstrations, threats, and burnings that fuel the characterizations the cartoonists portray. It is correct to regret and recant any real offensive literature, but in free countries the governments have little say in such matters and beyond official mollifying statements like Chirac of France chose to make, its not really their place to do so. Especially in the face of such belligerent displays. There really needs to be a general global call by the international community for responsible Muslim leaders to make a clear censure and condemnation of such behavior and to distance themselves from it. The equation of their beliefs with violence and terrorism is becoming too strong and too reflexive. In turn there should be clear recognition that such mocking of a religious founder is not only inviting unrest, but is painting with a broad brush. It is on a different level of trespass altogether from rightful satirizing of a current ruler engaging in demogoguery like the leaders of Iran and North Korea.
Yet in essence the real problem is one of cultural disconnect. Leaving aside those who intend to impose their views by violent terror - which can only be dealt with by like force, at the core of the matter would seem to be a failure to recognize the old maxim, "in Rome, do as the Romans do". Europeans often fail to respect Mideast traditions and habits when in the Mideast, and Muslim immigrants to Europe appear to be failing to respect the free expression and traditions of their hosts. At a glance, though there is much to mull here, it appears that imposition of multiculturalism and failure to assimilate are the true culprits. In many ways, the tendency these days is for opposing or differing cultures to `export' too much one's own set of values and paradigms to a place, without taking effort to avoid disturbing those of the host nation involved. This holds true for an immigrant or representative both.
- Anthony
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Abortion Advocacy is Liberalism's great failure
The commentary and rancor accompanying the passing of yet another anniversary of the ill-conceived Roe vs Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court brings to mind a more neglected, but possibly even more fundamental truth about the controversy:
From the pov of outside looking in, the fact is that Abortion Advocacy of the hardline type is in fact the greatest stain by far on Liberalism's (or if one prefers, the Left) supposed champion of ideals and concern for the unwanted. By hardline, I refer to such things as partial-birth abortion, and the refusal to readily grant parental notification rights, and the insistence on unlimited abortion on demand and for any reasons including psychological ones.
What is so amazing about this is at a stroke this advocacy negates and undermines the possible overall message of Liberalism, and makes a mockery of its stated goals. After all, on other so-called Left issues, like gay/lesbian rights, the Civil Rights movement in general, the correctness of offensive war in policy, the harshness of capital punishment ---- EVERY one of these issues boils down to an attempt to seek a gentler and more restrained solution to problems. Most of the causes also share in common a concern for those of lesser means, or opportunity, to defend or look out for themselves. This at least, is the stated goals of Liberalism. In my opinion, it was even true, prior to the rise of the Pro- unrestricted Abortion clique imposing their will by judicial fiat and resisting any attempts to in any way modify or lessen the harshness of their cause.
You see, there are many Conservatives, `Right-wingers' whatever the Left wishes to term them in turn, that would give more credit to the Liberal point of view if it were not so casual and naked in its hypocrisy. Advocacy to abolish capital punishment, complaints about destroying enemies in war, mistreating saboteurs and terrorists --- all these fall on deaf ears as long as the Left lets itself to appear to not only approve, but glorify abortion of definite innocents.
Consider: the very foundation and point of the Civil Rights movement, and egalitarianism in general, was to establish safeguards and protections for the less advantaged, the dependent, the downtrodden, or those with little political voice or means. Protect them particularly from the depredations of larger agendas and social attitudes. Allow such lives a fair chance. The campaigns on behalf of the handicapped are a good example of this as well. Yet into this mix drops unlimited, unconstrained Abortion. The very act of sacrificing millions of lives waiting to be, those with almost no legal option or voice just because they are dependent in much the same way that the bedridden elderly are. Sacrificing these unborn for what on any honest analysis is really the insistence on the right to have careless, unplanned, and irresponsible sex. Abortion as birth control to secure casual sex is by far the vast majority of the millions of abortions now performed, with the oft-touted `triage' of Rape/Incest/Danger to Mother being comparatively rare.
Even if one wishes to argue some cases that legislation should exist to allow an abortion option, the real issue is the unlimited and flagrant abuse of the civil rights of the unborn, and that this was imposed by judicial fiat with no room for modification. After all, medical science has shown that all the genetic components that will make the person-to-be are present from the start. The only difference inside and outside the womb is the dependency on the environment --- much like exists in nursing homes.
This is not denying that sometimes special and tragic individual circumstances that are not frivolous or a product of casual behavior lay behind some abortions. The real problem is the Left's continuing failure to call for some restraint, to aggressively explore more humane and thoughtful options to the challenge of unwanted pregnancies. In a real way, the issue with Liberalism and Abortion-on-Demand is not even about the act of abortion. It is about how this is really the single-greatest stumbling block to the Liberal, or Progressive, or whatever one prefers, paradigm and stains their credibility.
The irony is, if this is realized, if Liberalism itself turns from a near advocacy of slaying the unborn for convenience(and statements like "the sanctity of abortion" prove this tendency) , then it can likely regain the noble and inspiring role it played in our history in "raising the bar" and imagining a better nation for all. Once the abusive excesses of unlimited abortion are confronted by Liberals, consistency on matters of life and dignity will be regained, and overall habits of callousness in punishment and even policy will begin to fade. It can't happen now. This because to thoughtful Centrists and Conservatives the loudest voices and spokesmen of Liberals - and their party of choice, the Democrats - at present come across as hateful, intolerant, and glorifying of abortion and the trampling of decency. Ironically, the very things they once opposed, and claim to still do.
That is the challenge for Liberals in the coming years, and a long-overdue new crop of spokesmen for the Democratic Party.
- Anthony
From the pov of outside looking in, the fact is that Abortion Advocacy of the hardline type is in fact the greatest stain by far on Liberalism's (or if one prefers, the Left) supposed champion of ideals and concern for the unwanted. By hardline, I refer to such things as partial-birth abortion, and the refusal to readily grant parental notification rights, and the insistence on unlimited abortion on demand and for any reasons including psychological ones.
What is so amazing about this is at a stroke this advocacy negates and undermines the possible overall message of Liberalism, and makes a mockery of its stated goals. After all, on other so-called Left issues, like gay/lesbian rights, the Civil Rights movement in general, the correctness of offensive war in policy, the harshness of capital punishment ---- EVERY one of these issues boils down to an attempt to seek a gentler and more restrained solution to problems. Most of the causes also share in common a concern for those of lesser means, or opportunity, to defend or look out for themselves. This at least, is the stated goals of Liberalism. In my opinion, it was even true, prior to the rise of the Pro- unrestricted Abortion clique imposing their will by judicial fiat and resisting any attempts to in any way modify or lessen the harshness of their cause.
You see, there are many Conservatives, `Right-wingers' whatever the Left wishes to term them in turn, that would give more credit to the Liberal point of view if it were not so casual and naked in its hypocrisy. Advocacy to abolish capital punishment, complaints about destroying enemies in war, mistreating saboteurs and terrorists --- all these fall on deaf ears as long as the Left lets itself to appear to not only approve, but glorify abortion of definite innocents.
Consider: the very foundation and point of the Civil Rights movement, and egalitarianism in general, was to establish safeguards and protections for the less advantaged, the dependent, the downtrodden, or those with little political voice or means. Protect them particularly from the depredations of larger agendas and social attitudes. Allow such lives a fair chance. The campaigns on behalf of the handicapped are a good example of this as well. Yet into this mix drops unlimited, unconstrained Abortion. The very act of sacrificing millions of lives waiting to be, those with almost no legal option or voice just because they are dependent in much the same way that the bedridden elderly are. Sacrificing these unborn for what on any honest analysis is really the insistence on the right to have careless, unplanned, and irresponsible sex. Abortion as birth control to secure casual sex is by far the vast majority of the millions of abortions now performed, with the oft-touted `triage' of Rape/Incest/Danger to Mother being comparatively rare.
Even if one wishes to argue some cases that legislation should exist to allow an abortion option, the real issue is the unlimited and flagrant abuse of the civil rights of the unborn, and that this was imposed by judicial fiat with no room for modification. After all, medical science has shown that all the genetic components that will make the person-to-be are present from the start. The only difference inside and outside the womb is the dependency on the environment --- much like exists in nursing homes.
This is not denying that sometimes special and tragic individual circumstances that are not frivolous or a product of casual behavior lay behind some abortions. The real problem is the Left's continuing failure to call for some restraint, to aggressively explore more humane and thoughtful options to the challenge of unwanted pregnancies. In a real way, the issue with Liberalism and Abortion-on-Demand is not even about the act of abortion. It is about how this is really the single-greatest stumbling block to the Liberal, or Progressive, or whatever one prefers, paradigm and stains their credibility.
The irony is, if this is realized, if Liberalism itself turns from a near advocacy of slaying the unborn for convenience(and statements like "the sanctity of abortion" prove this tendency) , then it can likely regain the noble and inspiring role it played in our history in "raising the bar" and imagining a better nation for all. Once the abusive excesses of unlimited abortion are confronted by Liberals, consistency on matters of life and dignity will be regained, and overall habits of callousness in punishment and even policy will begin to fade. It can't happen now. This because to thoughtful Centrists and Conservatives the loudest voices and spokesmen of Liberals - and their party of choice, the Democrats - at present come across as hateful, intolerant, and glorifying of abortion and the trampling of decency. Ironically, the very things they once opposed, and claim to still do.
That is the challenge for Liberals in the coming years, and a long-overdue new crop of spokesmen for the Democratic Party.
- Anthony
Friday, January 20, 2006
This week showed how race dialogue is deliberately twisted
Its no secret that `playing the race card' rhetoric seems to have reached new lows in the past few years, with members on the political stage, not just from the left, but also the right, ever-ready to react with off-the-cuff stereotypes and remarks designed to appeal to their audience or `push' certain buttons.
This week that began with the commemoration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King ended up providing some striking examples of this phenomena at work. A tendency to use race or react to racial matters in sound-byte fashion designed to pander to audiences, with no regard to its overall harmful effect. Two examples this week served to illustrate this clearly: New Orlean's Mayor Nagin's remarks upon the desired demographics of the recovered city, and Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton's bald-faced and rather embarrassing pandering just to slam the House of representatives.
The context of both scenarios help underscore the fact that there currently exists in the body politics large segments who have a vested interest in perpetuating cheap race-baiting talk, and are not the least interested in seeking to understand context or what is really going on. Instead, they leap to press emotional buttons.
First, there was Mayor Nagin's comment during a speech, about the reborn New Orleans should be "chocolate again and "that this city will be chocolate at the end of the day". This rather defensive speech and poorly chosen turn of phrase immediately led to the speech being turned into an objection of derision. There is no denying that at first glance, it seemed rather divisive, even potentially insulting, using a colloquial phrase to refer to the fierce debate going on in New Orleans about what direction the rebuild should take and what regard o f its demographics.
In many boards across the country, Mayor Nagin's comments became grounds to accuse him of reverse racism, of a reflexive bigotry toward whites similar to the bigotry that so concerns civil rights movements. It certainly sounded that way. However, this turns out instead to be an object lesson in the importance to try to avoid sound-byte style rhetoric and `quick to the draw' accusations about racism or implied slurs.
It has been brought to the attention by New Orleans insiders that there is an irony in all this: Mayor Nagin in fact is far from being any kind of latent bigot, and indeed, much of the former black constituency of New Orleans had concerns and complaints that he seemed to be too friendly to business and Uptown interests. (IMO, this is probably not the case --- it seems rather that Mayor Nagin had a strong dedication and vision for the city, and this involves sometimes difficult choices and balancing acts, as all politics do). There have even been insinuations that Nagin does not want some of those who left to come back. The speech being given on MLK Day by the Mayor was intended to re-assure people that he wants the New Orleans that existed before --- It was chocolate before Katrina, as he said, and was really trying to say that he intends for it to be as much like it used to be as possible. The long story short -- -what sounds like racist comments to perhaps the other 49 states, or outside New Orleans, was not at all even subliminally meant that way. New Orleans insiders see it as reference to the extraordinary racial mix and amalgam that made - and hopefully will again -- "NOLA's ambiance" what it was . Videos tend to support this --- the speech is not rabid, or with bouts of rage, or anything of the kind.
The point is that this is a case where the `over-nationalization' tendency and `leap to over-simplification' of the mass media has given a `wrong read' of a very local-specific speech and ongoing debate. It was a mistake to "nationalize" it, and make it a bone of `racial contention', because it was a speech that was answering specific misgivings and competing interests and questions that are being raised within the New Orleans political leadership at this time. Yes, it is true Mayor Nagin invoked racial make-up and demographics in his speech, but it was in a context that was arguably even objective and simply colloquial in its delivery that whether they voted for him or not, most New Orleaners probably can relate to. After all, the amalgamated character of New Orleans is quite famous, and one of its charms.
On the heels of this however, the next day came a true, bona-fide example of `playing the race card' and blatant racial pandering. One that rated all the calling out it did get from some of the media, and deserved far more. And that was when Senator Hillary Clinton said on 17 January:
" The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-New York. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
When heard this, did an absolute double-take. It was such shameless, naked pandering to one segment of Hillary Clinton's voting block, that it staggered the mind. To talk in terms of a plantation was to needlessly demonize the House of Representatives and evoke comparisons to slavery that were so out of line that a CNN panel duly censured her statements about it, right along with the expected talk radio and FNC.
It was political character assassination of the worst sort, for it was making allusions to the fact that many of the House Republicans are Southern Senators, and was the kind of statement designed only to affirm and encourage the most cynical and skeptical attitudes among black voters. After all, Clinton's comments wouldn't have even made much sense to much of her own party, many of whom's key figures have wealth far in excess of long-extinct plantation masters.
By invoking such a charged comparison, and right after the day dedicated to Dr. King, who worked for a far better and less divisive American than the kind Clinton's comments tends to encourage, she way overstepped the line of basic decorum. Arguably entered the zone of patronizing and condescension. Sadly, such comments and off-the-cuff `pushing racial buttons' has become too commonplace, and the `heat' and `noise' they trigger tends to obscure and drown out the fact that as much as race is being thrown around as a bait-word, there is a palpable silence on any real serious talk about taking a long hard look at addressing what really has gone right and improved since Martin Luther King, and where things are not only still falling short, but quite possibly, are stumbling, or being willfully led down a regressive path that serves the interest of a small select group of wealthy activists or politicians pandering for votes without ever really tackling genuine discussion.
These two examples of this week, IMO, show how flawed and over-charged to the point of total irrationality, the topic of race and any speech about it has become. The first example warns of how eager some who wish to have their stereotypes of minorities confirmed are, and how ready they are to leap and demonize a conversation, a turn of phrase, or a speech, without first checking to see if it has a clearly local or inoffensive context, or how it was received in its own place. The second example is but the most recent of an arguably more egregious and routine mis-use of the sad legacy of first slavery, and then pre-civil rights period to push emotional buttons just to score political points and pander to a base.
What both have in common is neither is useful or constructive for building a bridge across what real racial divide may remain, or for discerning how much of it is actually simply a fading echo kept alive past the time of its natural passing by demagogues and cynical manipulation.
-- Anthony
This week that began with the commemoration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King ended up providing some striking examples of this phenomena at work. A tendency to use race or react to racial matters in sound-byte fashion designed to pander to audiences, with no regard to its overall harmful effect. Two examples this week served to illustrate this clearly: New Orlean's Mayor Nagin's remarks upon the desired demographics of the recovered city, and Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton's bald-faced and rather embarrassing pandering just to slam the House of representatives.
The context of both scenarios help underscore the fact that there currently exists in the body politics large segments who have a vested interest in perpetuating cheap race-baiting talk, and are not the least interested in seeking to understand context or what is really going on. Instead, they leap to press emotional buttons.
First, there was Mayor Nagin's comment during a speech, about the reborn New Orleans should be "chocolate again and "that this city will be chocolate at the end of the day". This rather defensive speech and poorly chosen turn of phrase immediately led to the speech being turned into an objection of derision. There is no denying that at first glance, it seemed rather divisive, even potentially insulting, using a colloquial phrase to refer to the fierce debate going on in New Orleans about what direction the rebuild should take and what regard o f its demographics.
In many boards across the country, Mayor Nagin's comments became grounds to accuse him of reverse racism, of a reflexive bigotry toward whites similar to the bigotry that so concerns civil rights movements. It certainly sounded that way. However, this turns out instead to be an object lesson in the importance to try to avoid sound-byte style rhetoric and `quick to the draw' accusations about racism or implied slurs.
It has been brought to the attention by New Orleans insiders that there is an irony in all this: Mayor Nagin in fact is far from being any kind of latent bigot, and indeed, much of the former black constituency of New Orleans had concerns and complaints that he seemed to be too friendly to business and Uptown interests. (IMO, this is probably not the case --- it seems rather that Mayor Nagin had a strong dedication and vision for the city, and this involves sometimes difficult choices and balancing acts, as all politics do). There have even been insinuations that Nagin does not want some of those who left to come back. The speech being given on MLK Day by the Mayor was intended to re-assure people that he wants the New Orleans that existed before --- It was chocolate before Katrina, as he said, and was really trying to say that he intends for it to be as much like it used to be as possible. The long story short -- -what sounds like racist comments to perhaps the other 49 states, or outside New Orleans, was not at all even subliminally meant that way. New Orleans insiders see it as reference to the extraordinary racial mix and amalgam that made - and hopefully will again -- "NOLA's ambiance" what it was . Videos tend to support this --- the speech is not rabid, or with bouts of rage, or anything of the kind.
The point is that this is a case where the `over-nationalization' tendency and `leap to over-simplification' of the mass media has given a `wrong read' of a very local-specific speech and ongoing debate. It was a mistake to "nationalize" it, and make it a bone of `racial contention', because it was a speech that was answering specific misgivings and competing interests and questions that are being raised within the New Orleans political leadership at this time. Yes, it is true Mayor Nagin invoked racial make-up and demographics in his speech, but it was in a context that was arguably even objective and simply colloquial in its delivery that whether they voted for him or not, most New Orleaners probably can relate to. After all, the amalgamated character of New Orleans is quite famous, and one of its charms.
On the heels of this however, the next day came a true, bona-fide example of `playing the race card' and blatant racial pandering. One that rated all the calling out it did get from some of the media, and deserved far more. And that was when Senator Hillary Clinton said on 17 January:
" The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-New York. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
When heard this, did an absolute double-take. It was such shameless, naked pandering to one segment of Hillary Clinton's voting block, that it staggered the mind. To talk in terms of a plantation was to needlessly demonize the House of Representatives and evoke comparisons to slavery that were so out of line that a CNN panel duly censured her statements about it, right along with the expected talk radio and FNC.
It was political character assassination of the worst sort, for it was making allusions to the fact that many of the House Republicans are Southern Senators, and was the kind of statement designed only to affirm and encourage the most cynical and skeptical attitudes among black voters. After all, Clinton's comments wouldn't have even made much sense to much of her own party, many of whom's key figures have wealth far in excess of long-extinct plantation masters.
By invoking such a charged comparison, and right after the day dedicated to Dr. King, who worked for a far better and less divisive American than the kind Clinton's comments tends to encourage, she way overstepped the line of basic decorum. Arguably entered the zone of patronizing and condescension. Sadly, such comments and off-the-cuff `pushing racial buttons' has become too commonplace, and the `heat' and `noise' they trigger tends to obscure and drown out the fact that as much as race is being thrown around as a bait-word, there is a palpable silence on any real serious talk about taking a long hard look at addressing what really has gone right and improved since Martin Luther King, and where things are not only still falling short, but quite possibly, are stumbling, or being willfully led down a regressive path that serves the interest of a small select group of wealthy activists or politicians pandering for votes without ever really tackling genuine discussion.
These two examples of this week, IMO, show how flawed and over-charged to the point of total irrationality, the topic of race and any speech about it has become. The first example warns of how eager some who wish to have their stereotypes of minorities confirmed are, and how ready they are to leap and demonize a conversation, a turn of phrase, or a speech, without first checking to see if it has a clearly local or inoffensive context, or how it was received in its own place. The second example is but the most recent of an arguably more egregious and routine mis-use of the sad legacy of first slavery, and then pre-civil rights period to push emotional buttons just to score political points and pander to a base.
What both have in common is neither is useful or constructive for building a bridge across what real racial divide may remain, or for discerning how much of it is actually simply a fading echo kept alive past the time of its natural passing by demagogues and cynical manipulation.
-- Anthony
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Iraqi Election Success highlights Media's failure
Today has been a historic day. With preliminary estimates indicating a voter turnout of some 11 million, well over the lower projections and indicating a high turnout, this month's election in Iraq is yet another step forward toward success, and the difficult goal of providing an alternative example of free choice to people of the Mideast that are still burdened by despotism and violence.
Without denying the fact that the White House public relations have done a very poor job of both articulating the goals and specifics of various actions in the prosecution of the Iraq War, the basic idea has always been sound. With few exceptions, like the Gulf Emirates and Turkey, the choices in the Arabian peninsula have generally since WW II fallen into choosing between a charismatic or strong despot or monarchy, or an Islami-fascist style of fundamentalist theocracy. Starting in 2003, for better or worse (this writer feels for the better) America and its allies have sought to provide another choice --- some form of elected representation, of freely chosen or at least accountable representative government. That's a laudable goal, and even for those unconvinced that intent was benevolent, or warranted, today's election should serve as reminder again that however it exactly came about, that this is a future worth trying for Iraq, as well as the United States, and the world.
It is this basic fact that more than any other throws into stark relief the deplorable condition of editorial comment and vision these days, whether in print or televised. Put frankly, all partisan bickering aside, each success in Iraq is arguably more proof of the mass media's failure. Failure to have vision, to have any sense of daring, or able to see beyond the next moment. Since our forces went into Iraq, most of the media to varying degrees have worked tirelessly to stress the failures, the setbacks, the problems, involved in warfare. And only America's faults. They have used their power in a very real way to constantly "talk down" the war's possibilities, and our fighting forces. Even the character of our military is hastily and almost eagerly impugned and called into question on the basis of isolated incidents. Incidents which have little importance in the grand scheme of things, and reflect a dangerous emphasis on the opinions of the enemy and of political forces with the interests of the United States far from their mind.
The same holds true for the chronicling of the attacks of the enemy. Footage re-run constantly, the losses stressed, and hyperbolic commentary. While similar coverage of our military's victories or successful sweeps or even reconstructions get scant comment. In one sense, the losses inflicted by suicide bombers -- while individually tragic and significant --- in the larger sense are little more than the kind of attrition strafing and bombing fighters inflicted on our forces daily in World War II or Korea, or any conflict. Attrition losses cannot be avoided, and while every effort must be made by officers in command to limit them, they should not be allowed to dictate the verdict on a war effort. For example, attrition losses did not lead to the U.S. Navy abandoning the push through the Solomons in the 1940's, because the overall success was clearly discernible. The election in Iraq today is just such a discernible success and step toward progress. Yet except for these most obvious of moments, too big to ignore, the mainstream media generally focuses only on the results of a suicide-bombing, or isolated examples of misconduct. With an overwrought anxiety for the welfare of the enemy and a magnification of our cost that is mind-boggling, given the scale of what we are attempting.
No one with any knowledge of the history of the region could have expected this attempt to establish any form of representative government in Iraq to go either easily, or swiftly, let alone, free of murderous violence and opposition from reactionary forces. Today's election shows that process is still moving forward despite the enemy's efforts, just as it does in a war that is being slowly but surely won. Its really high time many Democrat party leadership and the media get on board with the potential, and stop carping about how we got here. Very few good decisions were made diplomatically after the end of the first Gulf War to present. We need to accept that and work with the moment and toward the future. Now is not the time to lose heart and go wobbly at a time of historical paradigm shift potential. Backing away from the task we have both been handed, and stumbled into, is not an option now.
- Anthony
Without denying the fact that the White House public relations have done a very poor job of both articulating the goals and specifics of various actions in the prosecution of the Iraq War, the basic idea has always been sound. With few exceptions, like the Gulf Emirates and Turkey, the choices in the Arabian peninsula have generally since WW II fallen into choosing between a charismatic or strong despot or monarchy, or an Islami-fascist style of fundamentalist theocracy. Starting in 2003, for better or worse (this writer feels for the better) America and its allies have sought to provide another choice --- some form of elected representation, of freely chosen or at least accountable representative government. That's a laudable goal, and even for those unconvinced that intent was benevolent, or warranted, today's election should serve as reminder again that however it exactly came about, that this is a future worth trying for Iraq, as well as the United States, and the world.
It is this basic fact that more than any other throws into stark relief the deplorable condition of editorial comment and vision these days, whether in print or televised. Put frankly, all partisan bickering aside, each success in Iraq is arguably more proof of the mass media's failure. Failure to have vision, to have any sense of daring, or able to see beyond the next moment. Since our forces went into Iraq, most of the media to varying degrees have worked tirelessly to stress the failures, the setbacks, the problems, involved in warfare. And only America's faults. They have used their power in a very real way to constantly "talk down" the war's possibilities, and our fighting forces. Even the character of our military is hastily and almost eagerly impugned and called into question on the basis of isolated incidents. Incidents which have little importance in the grand scheme of things, and reflect a dangerous emphasis on the opinions of the enemy and of political forces with the interests of the United States far from their mind.
The same holds true for the chronicling of the attacks of the enemy. Footage re-run constantly, the losses stressed, and hyperbolic commentary. While similar coverage of our military's victories or successful sweeps or even reconstructions get scant comment. In one sense, the losses inflicted by suicide bombers -- while individually tragic and significant --- in the larger sense are little more than the kind of attrition strafing and bombing fighters inflicted on our forces daily in World War II or Korea, or any conflict. Attrition losses cannot be avoided, and while every effort must be made by officers in command to limit them, they should not be allowed to dictate the verdict on a war effort. For example, attrition losses did not lead to the U.S. Navy abandoning the push through the Solomons in the 1940's, because the overall success was clearly discernible. The election in Iraq today is just such a discernible success and step toward progress. Yet except for these most obvious of moments, too big to ignore, the mainstream media generally focuses only on the results of a suicide-bombing, or isolated examples of misconduct. With an overwrought anxiety for the welfare of the enemy and a magnification of our cost that is mind-boggling, given the scale of what we are attempting.
No one with any knowledge of the history of the region could have expected this attempt to establish any form of representative government in Iraq to go either easily, or swiftly, let alone, free of murderous violence and opposition from reactionary forces. Today's election shows that process is still moving forward despite the enemy's efforts, just as it does in a war that is being slowly but surely won. Its really high time many Democrat party leadership and the media get on board with the potential, and stop carping about how we got here. Very few good decisions were made diplomatically after the end of the first Gulf War to present. We need to accept that and work with the moment and toward the future. Now is not the time to lose heart and go wobbly at a time of historical paradigm shift potential. Backing away from the task we have both been handed, and stumbled into, is not an option now.
- Anthony
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Hitler's Death -- Some parting secrets from Soviet Archives
"Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the files of the KGB"
by V.K. Vinogradov, J.F. Pogonyi and N.V. Teptzov.
Chaucer Press, London, England July 2005.
This is the most recent work to come out regarding the endlessly interesting and elusive story of the last days of Adolf Hitler and his regime in the Berlin bunker in 1945. Already chronicled in many books, these are the events captured so dramatically in the recent film "Untergang" (2004) (Released in English as: `Downfall' 2005). However, where that movie is a dramatized recreation, albeit some of the most accurate kind of recreation, this book deals with the very nuts and bolts of history: primary source documents. True, there have been many books published on this saga (n the writer's opinion the best, most accurate and comprehensive being "The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends - The Evidence - The Truth" by Anton Joachimsthaler)this book is still important. In many ways, it is more a reference volume, than a narrative, of the last days and Berlin and the shadowy and contradictory details surrounding the suicides of Hitler and Goebbels. However, something sets this one apart, and makes it a must for any who have followed the twists and turns of the mystery and various accounts over the years. This is the fact that the primary source documentation is in Russian, including facsimiles and reproductions of the original Soviet investigation and collected documents pertaining to the last gasp of the so-called `Reich Chancellery group'.
It is far from being the first time that Soviet reports and accounts were published, but heretofore, those have been `doled out' and presented in paraphrases, amalgams, and intermittent selected quotes. In this book however, even familiar segments or photos appear in startling fuller and detailed context. For those familiar with the case, this book purports and indeed appears to be, the larger bulk if not nearly all, of the never before published Soviet folios on the subject, the so-called "Operation Myth" files. To appreciate the value of the book, a brief digression into some of the popular works on the subject and is in order.
It is well known among aficionados in the field that tantalizing segments and descriptions of the Soviet side of the investigation into Hitler's death were first released in the mid-1960's, but contradicted the then most accepted Western interpretation --- Trevor Roper's "Last Days of Hitler" -- by saying that Hitler, Eva Braun Hitler, Goebbels and his family, and General Krebs all suicided by poisoning, and not by gunshot. This and other discrepancies led to some general discounting, but there was always something fairly persuasive in the photos and documents published in the Russian book. At the very least, it appeared to quoting parts of a genuine Soviet report, if omitting certain facts and sections for political purposes.
This state of affairs remained basically unchanged till the mid-1990's when after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 previously hidden records and photographs began to come to light. Particularly important in this regard was the 1995 "Death of Hitler" by Ada Petrova and Peter Watson. This claimed, and did, to reveal large sections of never before published information from the declassified archives of the former KGB, and among other bombshells, revealed that there had been two investigations, not one. It was the details of the first, in May 1945, that formed the corpus of Bezymenski's 1968 book which had so puzzled western historians. It turned out there was a second, larger follow-up investigation, carried out thru the spring of 1946, termed by the Soviets "Operation Myth". Its findings in places contradicted the earlier one, and in other places confirmed it. Both collections ended up filed under `Operation Myth' folios in the Soviet archives.
When Petrova and Watson's book came out in 1995, with all of its provocatively incomplete quotations and referencing of the source material, it was speculated whether the day would ever come that the lion's share of it would be published. That is what makes this new book so important --- for it appears that day has come. "Hitler's Death" contains not only some of the same information of the Petrova/Watson work, confirming its own veracity retroactively, but does indeed publish fresh material and documentation instantly recognizable as such. Historians of the Berlin bunker will immediately note and prize the interrogation reports of German officials and figures from the drama, especially those who died in captivity, and whose story never made it to the west. These include General Weidling, last defender of Berlin, and Professor Werner Haase, who was known to have witnessed or been aware of key details in the final act.
Laid out in a stark but useful reference style of quoted documents and occasional photographs from the inquiry, as well as portrait `mug shots' of nearly all of the witnesses question, the book puts the bulk of the Soviet point of view out there, without obvious emendation or revision. The primary sources are there to read and examine and to draw one's own conclusions from. To one such as the author very familiar with course of this mystery, this is strong plus, not a drawback. For example, though the photographs (with a key exception on page 65) associated with the discovery of the remains of Dr. Goebbels and his wife, and the remains identified as those of the Hitlers have often been published before, they have previously lacked clear context. The context now dates them and makes clear they belong to the early-May and mid-May 1945 period and are authentic images from the time frame before the Allied arrival in Berlin at the start of July which has been the source of most of the documentation of the ruins of the Reichs Chancellery and the Fuhrerbunker.
The presentation of the original sources and their form has been noted. What is nearly of equal interest is the extensive Preface of the book. For it too, delivers a narrative from Soviet sources and pulls together the mystery and fragmented chronology of the investigation much clearer than has been done before. It reveals where there had been darkness, and where the light was dim, it casts a brighter illumination. For example, we learn the surprising fact that General Krebs, last Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht, apparently committed suicide in the courtyard of the ruined Propaganda Ministry next door where his body was found, and not in the Reich Chancellery. It also gives the correct names of Soviet personalities that had previously published under cognomens --- for instance, we learn about the famous Elena Ryzhevskya involved in the first published account from the Soviet side, and figuring in Bezymensky's book as well, that her real name is E.M. Kagan. A host of similar such details and anecdotes add to the value of the book.
I hope to review this book in fuller context of prior ones on Hitler's bunker and the end in Berlin at a later date, but wished to call attention to this work as soon as possible. Its not the kind of read the casual laymen might expect, but to any interested in the fall of Hitler it will not disappoint. Its title and form could easily fool weary scholars into thinking they were dealing with yet another `re-tread' of the same sources, but that is not so. In fact, when combined with the greater narrative for 1946/47 in the 1995 Petrova/Watson book, the volume nicely rounds out the picture from the Soviet side.
- Anthony
by V.K. Vinogradov, J.F. Pogonyi and N.V. Teptzov.
Chaucer Press, London, England July 2005.
This is the most recent work to come out regarding the endlessly interesting and elusive story of the last days of Adolf Hitler and his regime in the Berlin bunker in 1945. Already chronicled in many books, these are the events captured so dramatically in the recent film "Untergang" (2004) (Released in English as: `Downfall' 2005). However, where that movie is a dramatized recreation, albeit some of the most accurate kind of recreation, this book deals with the very nuts and bolts of history: primary source documents. True, there have been many books published on this saga (n the writer's opinion the best, most accurate and comprehensive being "The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends - The Evidence - The Truth" by Anton Joachimsthaler)this book is still important. In many ways, it is more a reference volume, than a narrative, of the last days and Berlin and the shadowy and contradictory details surrounding the suicides of Hitler and Goebbels. However, something sets this one apart, and makes it a must for any who have followed the twists and turns of the mystery and various accounts over the years. This is the fact that the primary source documentation is in Russian, including facsimiles and reproductions of the original Soviet investigation and collected documents pertaining to the last gasp of the so-called `Reich Chancellery group'.
It is far from being the first time that Soviet reports and accounts were published, but heretofore, those have been `doled out' and presented in paraphrases, amalgams, and intermittent selected quotes. In this book however, even familiar segments or photos appear in startling fuller and detailed context. For those familiar with the case, this book purports and indeed appears to be, the larger bulk if not nearly all, of the never before published Soviet folios on the subject, the so-called "Operation Myth" files. To appreciate the value of the book, a brief digression into some of the popular works on the subject and is in order.
It is well known among aficionados in the field that tantalizing segments and descriptions of the Soviet side of the investigation into Hitler's death were first released in the mid-1960's, but contradicted the then most accepted Western interpretation --- Trevor Roper's "Last Days of Hitler" -- by saying that Hitler, Eva Braun Hitler, Goebbels and his family, and General Krebs all suicided by poisoning, and not by gunshot. This and other discrepancies led to some general discounting, but there was always something fairly persuasive in the photos and documents published in the Russian book. At the very least, it appeared to quoting parts of a genuine Soviet report, if omitting certain facts and sections for political purposes.
This state of affairs remained basically unchanged till the mid-1990's when after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 previously hidden records and photographs began to come to light. Particularly important in this regard was the 1995 "Death of Hitler" by Ada Petrova and Peter Watson. This claimed, and did, to reveal large sections of never before published information from the declassified archives of the former KGB, and among other bombshells, revealed that there had been two investigations, not one. It was the details of the first, in May 1945, that formed the corpus of Bezymenski's 1968 book which had so puzzled western historians. It turned out there was a second, larger follow-up investigation, carried out thru the spring of 1946, termed by the Soviets "Operation Myth". Its findings in places contradicted the earlier one, and in other places confirmed it. Both collections ended up filed under `Operation Myth' folios in the Soviet archives.
When Petrova and Watson's book came out in 1995, with all of its provocatively incomplete quotations and referencing of the source material, it was speculated whether the day would ever come that the lion's share of it would be published. That is what makes this new book so important --- for it appears that day has come. "Hitler's Death" contains not only some of the same information of the Petrova/Watson work, confirming its own veracity retroactively, but does indeed publish fresh material and documentation instantly recognizable as such. Historians of the Berlin bunker will immediately note and prize the interrogation reports of German officials and figures from the drama, especially those who died in captivity, and whose story never made it to the west. These include General Weidling, last defender of Berlin, and Professor Werner Haase, who was known to have witnessed or been aware of key details in the final act.
Laid out in a stark but useful reference style of quoted documents and occasional photographs from the inquiry, as well as portrait `mug shots' of nearly all of the witnesses question, the book puts the bulk of the Soviet point of view out there, without obvious emendation or revision. The primary sources are there to read and examine and to draw one's own conclusions from. To one such as the author very familiar with course of this mystery, this is strong plus, not a drawback. For example, though the photographs (with a key exception on page 65) associated with the discovery of the remains of Dr. Goebbels and his wife, and the remains identified as those of the Hitlers have often been published before, they have previously lacked clear context. The context now dates them and makes clear they belong to the early-May and mid-May 1945 period and are authentic images from the time frame before the Allied arrival in Berlin at the start of July which has been the source of most of the documentation of the ruins of the Reichs Chancellery and the Fuhrerbunker.
The presentation of the original sources and their form has been noted. What is nearly of equal interest is the extensive Preface of the book. For it too, delivers a narrative from Soviet sources and pulls together the mystery and fragmented chronology of the investigation much clearer than has been done before. It reveals where there had been darkness, and where the light was dim, it casts a brighter illumination. For example, we learn the surprising fact that General Krebs, last Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht, apparently committed suicide in the courtyard of the ruined Propaganda Ministry next door where his body was found, and not in the Reich Chancellery. It also gives the correct names of Soviet personalities that had previously published under cognomens --- for instance, we learn about the famous Elena Ryzhevskya involved in the first published account from the Soviet side, and figuring in Bezymensky's book as well, that her real name is E.M. Kagan. A host of similar such details and anecdotes add to the value of the book.
I hope to review this book in fuller context of prior ones on Hitler's bunker and the end in Berlin at a later date, but wished to call attention to this work as soon as possible. Its not the kind of read the casual laymen might expect, but to any interested in the fall of Hitler it will not disappoint. Its title and form could easily fool weary scholars into thinking they were dealing with yet another `re-tread' of the same sources, but that is not so. In fact, when combined with the greater narrative for 1946/47 in the 1995 Petrova/Watson book, the volume nicely rounds out the picture from the Soviet side.
- Anthony
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Alito, Miers and what the debate reveals to Independents
I had a few thoughts on this that I wanted to share, because they stand outside the debate of how "moderate" or "liberal" or how "conservative" current selections for the Supreme Court, or indeed, any judge's chair, should be these days. In my opinion the question of whether one is an originalist or strict-constructionist comes closer, but even this barely grazes the main issue.
The real issue should be WHY has the Supreme Court taken on such a numinous, almost governing role, in our society in the first place? And by extension, how to start to correct or provide reasonable checks for this. Whether one disagrees or agrees with whether something like RvWade or the ruling this summer on Imminent Domain was faulty law or not (I believe both were) , the real concern is the elevation of the selection of Supreme court members to a significance to now so dominate, and even captivate the public mind. This has been particularly true since the so-called "Borking" of Robert Bork's nomination in 1987 but has reached a fever pitch at present. It has almost become more significant than which party controls Capitol Hill, and in the writer's opinion, this is a travesty of constitutional intent and process.
Yet one hears little questioning of the legitimacy of all this in the first place. What has happened to the legislature? What has happened to the idea that major changes should ultimately reside to some degree in the popular will as expressed at the ballot box, and not through pressure groups? True, the people still allegedly have the power to elect the Chief Executive, the President of the United States, and he will appoint judges in rough conformity with the mandate upon which he ran for office. But the abuses of the confirmation process are undermining this. It has gotten to the point where certain very narrow and unyielding interests on both sides are able to effectively sabotage the entire Presidential election outcome by blocking nominees. This must stop, and the real pressure needs to be to move to a full Senate form of confirmation that is less dominated by litmus tests either liberal or conservative, and more reflective of the national body politic as a whole.
But this is only a first step --- the other must be to re-examine the character of both the length of the terms, and how appointed, of those sitting on the bench. If they are going to regularly, almost unilaterally, shape and determine law for the whole society, then their needs to be some revision of the process -- perhaps including either term limits or direct election, to restore a check. As it is, one of the branches of the government has become dangerously close to not only being unaccountable, but also immune to influence and the general will. Ultimately, tyranny by minority is far more dangerous, for the majority by nature tends to find a balance in its variety and large numbers cancelling its extremes out. But when a minority rules - as the litmust test approach is increasingly empowering, then a few warped minds can take the whole down a dark and uncertain path.
- Anthony
The real issue should be WHY has the Supreme Court taken on such a numinous, almost governing role, in our society in the first place? And by extension, how to start to correct or provide reasonable checks for this. Whether one disagrees or agrees with whether something like RvWade or the ruling this summer on Imminent Domain was faulty law or not (I believe both were) , the real concern is the elevation of the selection of Supreme court members to a significance to now so dominate, and even captivate the public mind. This has been particularly true since the so-called "Borking" of Robert Bork's nomination in 1987 but has reached a fever pitch at present. It has almost become more significant than which party controls Capitol Hill, and in the writer's opinion, this is a travesty of constitutional intent and process.
Yet one hears little questioning of the legitimacy of all this in the first place. What has happened to the legislature? What has happened to the idea that major changes should ultimately reside to some degree in the popular will as expressed at the ballot box, and not through pressure groups? True, the people still allegedly have the power to elect the Chief Executive, the President of the United States, and he will appoint judges in rough conformity with the mandate upon which he ran for office. But the abuses of the confirmation process are undermining this. It has gotten to the point where certain very narrow and unyielding interests on both sides are able to effectively sabotage the entire Presidential election outcome by blocking nominees. This must stop, and the real pressure needs to be to move to a full Senate form of confirmation that is less dominated by litmus tests either liberal or conservative, and more reflective of the national body politic as a whole.
But this is only a first step --- the other must be to re-examine the character of both the length of the terms, and how appointed, of those sitting on the bench. If they are going to regularly, almost unilaterally, shape and determine law for the whole society, then their needs to be some revision of the process -- perhaps including either term limits or direct election, to restore a check. As it is, one of the branches of the government has become dangerously close to not only being unaccountable, but also immune to influence and the general will. Ultimately, tyranny by minority is far more dangerous, for the majority by nature tends to find a balance in its variety and large numbers cancelling its extremes out. But when a minority rules - as the litmust test approach is increasingly empowering, then a few warped minds can take the whole down a dark and uncertain path.
- Anthony
Monday, October 24, 2005
Bill O'Reilly slandered by Dallas Morning News?
I have been following this squabble with some interest because it has the unfortunate facet of stemming from the pen of a commentator who apparently was intending to address a real issue, but chose the most unfair and undeserving target. The real issue was the growing hype and even near demonizing of the complicated matter of illegal immigration from Mexico across the ludicrously open border. Since 9/11 the matter of border security has taken on another dimension, and justly so. However, it is impossible to ignore the decade’s long legacy of weak federal response ranging from half-hearted to outright impotent. It is unrealistic to expect any deep and immediate changes or fixes without some sober discussion of the true stakes and conflicting motives on both sides of the border argument, whether these sides be the right vs. left, or Mexico vs. America's interests. Enter an op-ed piece by Macarena Hernandez of the Dallas Morning News for October 15, 2005. In this article, Ms Hernandez laments of the insidious anti-immigrant climate brewing while discussing the recent tragic and brutal murder of a group of six Mexican farm workers in Georgia. These same workers happened also to be illegal aliens, but arguably, this has nothing to do with the crime, which was motivated by greed and brutality. Still, Ms Hernandez chose to make this about the current `high-volume' debate about illegal immigration in general, and how we look at it. She was actually trying to make this very good point:
"More globally, horrors like these demand that a nation descended from immigrants take a hard look at the ways we think and speak about these most recent arrivals."
Valid enough, and there is no denying the heated and even true hate talk that seems current these days about it. Not least driven by the continuing flaccid response of high officials on the matter, which fuels a sense of frustration and ire that might not otherwise be present with decisive leadership from both parties.Be that as it may, Ms Hernandez was trying to sound a note of warning about the current tone of the debate, and commenting on the reaction of some complaints to a chivalrous gesture by the Mayor of Tifton went on to make the egregious blunder of this statement:
"Were the complainers angrier about the red, white and green Mexican flag fluttering in the Georgia air than they were about the horrific murders? Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills? (Sample comment: "Each one of those people is a biological weapon.") "
This is where it all went wrong. There are even some radio commentators she could have named that could approximate the charge of being hateful, but Bill O'Reilly does nothing to deserve it on either his TV program The O'Reilly Factor or his radio show. Ms Hernandez could not have chosen a more unjust example, for Bill O'Reilly is on record time and again as not objecting to the actions of illegal immigrants from the immigrant's *point of view*. He has said over and over in so many words, and one readily concurs `that one can hardly blame them. I would probably do the same in their shoes. The blame lies with the government in not taking steps to do its duty to find some way to either regulate the influx, or halt it.' Her error was made worse by attributing the comment of a listerner to O'Reilly, or least letting that impression stand.
Though not directly intended, the net-result was Ms Hernandez ending up insinuating that Bill O'Reilly of all people helped incite anti-immigrant climate. But his sober concern about securing the border is simple logic, and has always been balanced by recognition that the intent of the vast majority of the illegal immigrants is not even remotely malevolent, unlike any would-be terrorists from the Mideast.The resulting blow up was unfortunate, and the fallout from it is still falling, but I inject commentary here on it to point out that it could if harnessed, serve the useful purpose of helping to bring the debate on the illegal immigrant/worker issue back to some sense of equilibrium and sensible discussion. Neither Macarena Hernandez nor Bill O'Reilly would have wanted the impression that resulted, as their own statements make clear that they are simply trying to comment on crucial aspects of the issue, and are not bomb-throwers. I am familiar with both of Bill O'Reilly's shows and his genuine attempts to try to see the whole picture, and on the other hand, it was sad to seem some of the comments quoted by Ms Hernandez to her along the lines of "go back where you came from" (she is from Texas!) and the like.It all points to the over-charging of the atmosphere these days with sheer hyperbole and hype, and is making reasoned dialogue very difficult. But still, we must try.
- Anthony
"More globally, horrors like these demand that a nation descended from immigrants take a hard look at the ways we think and speak about these most recent arrivals."
Valid enough, and there is no denying the heated and even true hate talk that seems current these days about it. Not least driven by the continuing flaccid response of high officials on the matter, which fuels a sense of frustration and ire that might not otherwise be present with decisive leadership from both parties.Be that as it may, Ms Hernandez was trying to sound a note of warning about the current tone of the debate, and commenting on the reaction of some complaints to a chivalrous gesture by the Mayor of Tifton went on to make the egregious blunder of this statement:
"Were the complainers angrier about the red, white and green Mexican flag fluttering in the Georgia air than they were about the horrific murders? Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills? (Sample comment: "Each one of those people is a biological weapon.") "
This is where it all went wrong. There are even some radio commentators she could have named that could approximate the charge of being hateful, but Bill O'Reilly does nothing to deserve it on either his TV program The O'Reilly Factor or his radio show. Ms Hernandez could not have chosen a more unjust example, for Bill O'Reilly is on record time and again as not objecting to the actions of illegal immigrants from the immigrant's *point of view*. He has said over and over in so many words, and one readily concurs `that one can hardly blame them. I would probably do the same in their shoes. The blame lies with the government in not taking steps to do its duty to find some way to either regulate the influx, or halt it.' Her error was made worse by attributing the comment of a listerner to O'Reilly, or least letting that impression stand.
Though not directly intended, the net-result was Ms Hernandez ending up insinuating that Bill O'Reilly of all people helped incite anti-immigrant climate. But his sober concern about securing the border is simple logic, and has always been balanced by recognition that the intent of the vast majority of the illegal immigrants is not even remotely malevolent, unlike any would-be terrorists from the Mideast.The resulting blow up was unfortunate, and the fallout from it is still falling, but I inject commentary here on it to point out that it could if harnessed, serve the useful purpose of helping to bring the debate on the illegal immigrant/worker issue back to some sense of equilibrium and sensible discussion. Neither Macarena Hernandez nor Bill O'Reilly would have wanted the impression that resulted, as their own statements make clear that they are simply trying to comment on crucial aspects of the issue, and are not bomb-throwers. I am familiar with both of Bill O'Reilly's shows and his genuine attempts to try to see the whole picture, and on the other hand, it was sad to seem some of the comments quoted by Ms Hernandez to her along the lines of "go back where you came from" (she is from Texas!) and the like.It all points to the over-charging of the atmosphere these days with sheer hyperbole and hype, and is making reasoned dialogue very difficult. But still, we must try.
- Anthony
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Grand Opening - Introductory Discussion Post
Welcome,
This is my first post in what is intended to be a place where various historical musings, reviews, and comments on current events will be written and offered for discussion. Those familiar with my historical writings on the naval actions of the Pacific War in World War II will find here a broader approach, but of related depth and emphasis on accuracy. I have for my first post chosen to review a very interesting new book of Late Roman Empire history, a favorite epoch of my investigation.
"The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun"
by Babcock, Michael A., Ph.D.
The Penguin Group, New York, NY July 2005.
To one interested in Roman Empire history, the title alone is sure to catch attention. After all, the received conventional view is that Attila the Hun died of natural causes, some manner of internal bleeding or burst vessel, on his very wedding night to a barbarian princess named Ildico, sometime in the early spring of A.D. 453. However, it doesn't take much examinaton of the circumstances and timing to cause one to scratch their head and ask questions. Questions that if pressed, soon end up challenging the veracity of at least the assumption that Attila's death was merely providential.
As it happens, Professor Babcock does far more than just ask questions. He first lays out the available sources and how we have derived the accepted version of Attila's demise. Then the case for at least questioning, if not outright scoffing, at this acceptance is made. Taking up the challenge, the author then launches into his quest and case, presenting one piece at a time the components of a complex tapestry that is as fascinating as its goal. By brilliant use of the sometimes overlooked field of philology, Dr. Babcock, proceeds to trace and unravel the intricate chain of evidence whose story actually begins before Attila's own death, with that of his brother chieftain (and apparent elder rival) Bledda. These events are interwoven throughout with the compelling story of the the "Last Roman" the famous General Aetius, and the complicated intrigues and military genius of the Eastern Roman Empire's Emperor Marcian. The cast of suspects for Attila's assasination, and even how it would be concealed is laid down in eagerly `page-turning' fashion. The context of Attila's famous invasion of Italy in 452 is also explored and some lasting and incorrect myths about this venture and the heretofore maligned strategy of Emperor Honorius and General Aetius convincingly debunked. The scope and range of the facets considered in the case never ceases to amaze and intrigue, including a surprising connection to Wagner's famed "Fall of the Burgundians".
To reveal the conclusions reached in this work would do it a diservice, but as an avid enthusiast of Roman and particularly Late Roman and Byzantine history, I think it is a must read. Even if you don't accept the conclusions (I personally do), there is a bit of something for everyone.
As I plan to post historical breifs and commentaries here, this was an appropriate work with which to begin.
- Antony
This is my first post in what is intended to be a place where various historical musings, reviews, and comments on current events will be written and offered for discussion. Those familiar with my historical writings on the naval actions of the Pacific War in World War II will find here a broader approach, but of related depth and emphasis on accuracy. I have for my first post chosen to review a very interesting new book of Late Roman Empire history, a favorite epoch of my investigation.
"The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun"
by Babcock, Michael A., Ph.D.
The Penguin Group, New York, NY July 2005.
To one interested in Roman Empire history, the title alone is sure to catch attention. After all, the received conventional view is that Attila the Hun died of natural causes, some manner of internal bleeding or burst vessel, on his very wedding night to a barbarian princess named Ildico, sometime in the early spring of A.D. 453. However, it doesn't take much examinaton of the circumstances and timing to cause one to scratch their head and ask questions. Questions that if pressed, soon end up challenging the veracity of at least the assumption that Attila's death was merely providential.
As it happens, Professor Babcock does far more than just ask questions. He first lays out the available sources and how we have derived the accepted version of Attila's demise. Then the case for at least questioning, if not outright scoffing, at this acceptance is made. Taking up the challenge, the author then launches into his quest and case, presenting one piece at a time the components of a complex tapestry that is as fascinating as its goal. By brilliant use of the sometimes overlooked field of philology, Dr. Babcock, proceeds to trace and unravel the intricate chain of evidence whose story actually begins before Attila's own death, with that of his brother chieftain (and apparent elder rival) Bledda. These events are interwoven throughout with the compelling story of the the "Last Roman" the famous General Aetius, and the complicated intrigues and military genius of the Eastern Roman Empire's Emperor Marcian. The cast of suspects for Attila's assasination, and even how it would be concealed is laid down in eagerly `page-turning' fashion. The context of Attila's famous invasion of Italy in 452 is also explored and some lasting and incorrect myths about this venture and the heretofore maligned strategy of Emperor Honorius and General Aetius convincingly debunked. The scope and range of the facets considered in the case never ceases to amaze and intrigue, including a surprising connection to Wagner's famed "Fall of the Burgundians".
To reveal the conclusions reached in this work would do it a diservice, but as an avid enthusiast of Roman and particularly Late Roman and Byzantine history, I think it is a must read. Even if you don't accept the conclusions (I personally do), there is a bit of something for everyone.
As I plan to post historical breifs and commentaries here, this was an appropriate work with which to begin.
- Antony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
