America is not `War Weary' but Political Climate Weary

An observation came to mind listening to the Mark Davis show this morning with the forthcoming movie on 9/11 about Flight 93 being discussed. The drama and impact of the movie was mentioned with much speculation about what angst or other emotions it might release or rekindle regarding 9/11 and the War on Terror (as it is called). It was said that "many need to be reminded of WHY". The question was specifically asked "what impact on war-weary Americans will this reminder of what we fight for have?".

I submit that as pretty much any casual conversation among rank-and-file Americans - those in the "real" jobs and day-to-day world - will show, is that America is NOT in fact "war-weary" but weary of the poisonous and vitriolic political climate when a united front against an implacable enemy should be being presented. Nor in these conversations is the easiest path, of simply blaming the war critics and naysayers, always taken. The "reflexive opposition", particularly the "blame America-first" crowd, as it sometimes is called, DO bear a heavy burden. But equally heavy a burden, and heard with increasing frustration, is that born by the administration for failure to provide coherent and consistent answers, and proper transparency, to its overall war strategy. It still seems completely clueless that even many of the Iraq War supporters find the 1-to-1 connection to 9/11 as a justification a bit of a stretch.

This appears especially so in the face of otherwise lackluster approach on matters of border security and appointing strong, firm hands to handle the departments, or to supervise things like the treatment of the prisoners, and last, but never least, to present a compelling and honest case to the public by whatever media is willing.

In short, the `war-weariness' has more to do with the senseless lack of clear direction and absence of feeling of `we know what we are doing'. Its hard to avoid an impression that our response to any given setback or crisis in the war has been purely reactive, and a baffling tendency to never re-evaluate an initial decision or own up to it. This lack of transparency is what then in turn unsettles as reports of corruption, abuse of power, debates whether there is a civil-war or not, etc, grow. And through it all, the Republicans and Democrats can only dance and point fingers at one another with partisan glee at another "got you" successfully pulled off.

Partisanship has always existed, but there seems something particularly craven about it now, in the midst of a war with such reputed `high stakes'. It is the `always moving goal posts' and `never answering candidly when first asked' aspect of the Public Relations which is eroding confidence. Two thousand soldiers have been lost, and contrary to the media's way of couching that, that is a tragic, but indeed small price to pay for a high-stakes war. For WW II stakes, even more could and probably must be, paid. But it is too great a price to pay for an elaborate game of political C.Y.A. and lack of candor. If mistakes have been made, and the Secretary of State's speech the other day finally conceded this, then start fixing them by repenting of what doesn't work, and look at options that probably do, like massive increase in firepower, or more severe covert means. At the same time as owning any mistakes, confront head-on the craven naysayers who criticize, but offer no alternative to fighting the War on Terror but apparent submission and apathy. It is this dichotomy of witlessness from both parties that is the real source of ennui.

Meanwhile, the American people grown increasingly sullen and bitter over the absolute absence of World War II clarity of thought in a war that the government keeps wanting us to believe has stakes as high as the confrontation with Fascism. Many of us need no "reminder" of 9/11, and instead still wait to see truly decisive and engaged response to its deeper sources. If a certain ennui has set in, it is one of resignation -- not lack of an abiding desire to still see Islamofascism direly punished for 9/11 or righteous anger, but a growing sense of despair at our politicians thinking for once of the bigger picture and long range result.

If they want that climate of weariness and despair dispersed, and to revive one of "Can Do!" and "We Are With You!" it would help alot if Washington and the press would start acting the part if stakes are as high as they say.

- Anthony

Public Relations snafus endanger credibility

The shocking news released today that the fourth highest official of the Homeland Security Dept, Deputy Secretary Brian J. Doyle, has been charged with online seduction of a minor, a presumed fourteen-year old girl, serves notice of the continuing Public Relations shipwreck the administration is making. Coming on the heels of the impotent response in rhetoric and action regarding revamping border policy and the baffling spectacle of illegal aliens demonstrating and making demands, this is yet another straw on the strained back of public faith.

As poster `psych' somewhat prophetically pointed out in a commentary on `WSJ urging admin shake-up', the White House and this administration show peculiar disregard for the need to nurture and keep public confidence. As noted, this is especially necessary in a democracy, where so much of direction of the public space is now determined by impressionistic forces like hyperbolic headlines and glitzy talking point banners and `segments' on TV commentator shows.

This makes it all the more important to take pains and care to at least project an impression of calculation, awareness, and competence. After `image disasters' like Katrina, and the failure to fully and honestly grapple with the fact that the search for WMDs in Iraq was hyped, only to prove a no-show, the administration cannot take trust for granted. In a way, it must `re-earn it' and go on the offensive. Not on the offensive in the Rove-style manner of partisan maneuver and clever traps, but on the Public Relations front. Not only must a new attempt to `get the message out' regarding Iraq and other policy trends (like the border and immigration debate currently lighting up the boards this week), but a new message and spokesmen must also be put forth.

It is essential that the semi-defiant and aloof air of unaccountability and even concern with past errors the leadership gives be transformed. Public confidence is being shaken, and arguably, much damage that undoes all the careful and vigorous PR image building that Ronald Reagan did to bring the Republican Party back from Nixon's disgrace and scandal. As all know, Watergate and Viet Nam between them shook public confidence in their government and leaders like few events have. Then the 1980's and the successful winning of the Cold War did much to restore that. In the 1990's despite constant personal scandals, the Clinton Presidency presided with a Republican Congress over an intelligent handling of the economy that let a memorable boom run its course.

Now it seems, in the name of misplaced loyalty, and unthinking stubborness to not appear to admit a mistake or even need for revision, that the adminitration has things on a course to combine a Nixon/Carter impression of both non-transparency, and incompetence. Unfortunately, the pundits are increasingly sounding like "hear nothing, see nothing" hacks, that won't admit they have disappointed the public's confidence in the climate they have allowed to form. Whether the mania of the anti-Bush far left, or the never-say mistake neocon right, both are only able to thrive and hijack the public discourse because NO other voice of reason and leadership speaks up loudly and often. Because of this, thoughtful people are increasingly doubtful they can trust the likes of either CBS or FNC for any accuracy -- their partisan tilt is too obvious, and raises concerns that any truth dissemination, good or bad, is being spun beyond recognition by "handlers" whose only skill is vote manipulation, not inspiration.

So we can read that Iraq-story embedded blogger Michael Yon just now had to point out that:

"Last week, in America, a radio producer for a large syndicated program in the United States called me requesting that I go on the show, a show that has hosted me many times and where I’ve been referred to as, “Our man in Iraq.” But when I said Iraq is in a civil war, that same producer slammed down the phone and, in so doing, demonstrated how much he reveres truth....When the receiver slammed into the phone, the producer revealed himself naked; he was not supporting the troops, nor the Iraqis, but the President."

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/

We saw a similar inexplicable `disconnect' between the obvious need to "speak up" and a bewildering official paralysis in Hurricane Katrina's wake. In this sense, the details of the Hurricane Katrina fiasco hardly matter. Who to blame for what is really immaterial. Instead, it is an instructive warning, and `snapshot' of the general disarray. For the truth is the fiasco is an apt metaphor for the the complete neglect of giving the appearance of command and smooth organization that the administration persists in, whether it be the border, Iraq, or Katrina. Its not a `details' thing -- it is an IMAGE perception, that is mulelishly disregarded in complete defiance of the fact that once a government loses the confidence and trust of its people, it has lost almost everything else by default.

- Anthony

WSJ urging admin shake-up is correct

The Wall Street Journal created a bit of a flutter this week by coming out and putting into direct words ideas that many otherwise supportive Republicans have been feeling of late. Namely, that far too long, President Bush has carried on with nearly the exact same team that he entered office with, and this despite a barrage of crises and a full-blown war which are the types of events that generally require a culling process to bring unique talent to the fore.

Consider: even after 9/11 for the longest time there was no obvious change in personnel or methodology from the George Tenet tenure, apart from the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Yet a continuation of "things and people as they were" after a major catastrophic event does not breed confidence, but concern and doubt. It suggests a failure to adapt and learn. The Pearl Harbor debacle was followed by several sackings and re-shufflings of command by FDR, which is what one would expect. Except in cases of truly exceptional talent deliberately retained (MacArthur after the fall of the Philippines, for example), history has shown that setbacks are best followed by some re-shuffling and resignations to show the public that steps are being taken to prevent recurrence, and that new voices probably ignored till now, are being given a chance to be heard.

We are now into the third year of a war in Iraq that while showing distinct promise and a worthy venture, clearly suffers from inertia from some initial wrong decisions on both how to prosecute the war, and what strength level to devote to it, as well as an abject failure to address the public relations side of the failure to clearly account for the WMD claims fiasco. This has been abdicated to the purview of the cable news and talk radio, with little direction and clear speech from the White House public relations sector. Not even the illusion of accountability for the mis-carriage has been provided, or the impression what caused it rectified or at least now understood. It doesn't seem to be realized the serious undermining effects this has as the White House seeks to step up pressure on Iran at home and in Europe with similar references to intelligence and threat danger.

But even aside from the question of credibility in the Iran warnings, the failure to make changes, yes "to fire" when needed, has had a corrosive effect overall. One thing most expected of leadership is to make sure that the right subordinates are in charge. In roundtables and discussions, as well as routinely heard on radio call-ins, its becoming clear that an increasingly large block of Republican voters, and conservatives, and any number of supporters of the administration are becoming very dissatisfied with the lack of `new blood' and any effort to restore vigor and new dynamics to the last part of the second term. There seems a baffling willingness to let confidence shrink to the point where a true lame-duck presidency is now possible, and this despite the fact that ALL three branches of government are under the same party's control. Its truly amazing.

The Dubai ports deal fiasco ---- fiasco in how it was handled, not the fact of its existence -- seems to have proven something of a last straw, and many even among the right-wing openly opposed the administration response, and a split even formed with the Republican held Congress. From Katrina to the Dubai ports deal, and the recent upheaval of sectarian disorder in Iraq, all are congealing to give a picture of a certain and peculiar degree of inattentiveness at best, and obstinance at worst.

It is significant that Brown's firing after Katrina was almost the only clear case of such change, despite the fact that history shows that after a major debacle like 9/11, the Iraq insurgency, Katrina, etc, that for purposes of morale and re-igniting public confidence, obvious and clear changes in staff and those-in-charge should be made by the Executive. The public relations part of this is far more crucial than the actual fact of `just who is to blame-for-what' that tends to tie up thinking. It distracts from the fact that first and foremost, `new blood' and vigor should be appointed to break any perception of inertia, and most especially, to avoid any impression of no changes or repairs made, or lessons learned. Nothing looks as bad as doing nothing different, no personnel shake-ups, after clear setbacks. In most cases, it is in fact, unwise. Often personnel DO have a correlation to such failures, and changes are a way to come back from them.

The Wall Street Journal has simply come out and declared what has been on the minds of many disappointed supporters of Bush's re-election and who do not want to see the second term needlessly reduced to a `lame duck' status that endangers the overall position after 2008 by not responding to the need for new spark and inspiration.

The lightning-rod relationship between VP Cheney and Halliburton, whether one believes it a fabrication and shrill overstatement of some of the media and pundits or not, continues to needlessly undermine and weaken the perception of integrity of the goals. The over-emphasis on secrecy doesn't help here, but is appropriate in military circles where it is not in the civilian Executive. For this reasons it would not be a bad idea for Cheney to move to the SecDef position as the WSJ suggests, for he could bring great force to it, and Condoleeza Rice installed as VP might have opportunity to both cultivate a sense of how much support she might get for a Presidential run, and ideally, to have that possibility "grow" on her, by the proximity and hint of it that the VP's office would provide. She has said she isn't that interested in running, and yet, a stint as VP might allow her the perspective to reconsider. The possibilities of her running in 2008 are important enough to do all that can be done to make it more easier and plausible.

A similar case may hold with SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. The perception that a more massive and stronger hand in Iraq is needed is growing, right alongside the idea of those advocating withdrawal and downsizing. What this means is an important fact that has been overlooked -- those for the war and those opposed have actually reached an unrealized consensus: They are in fact two sides of the same coin - the present course is seen as `too lean' and `unfocused' to properly midwife the new Iraqi nation; to the point where either a stronger hand is needed, or that hand must draw back entirely.

These are just some thoughts. What Wall Street advocates in the administration leadership may be more changes than are necessary, more `shaking up' than is warranted. Yet the falling out with its own Congressional leads is a clear warning that the basis for unity is fraying, patience worn thin. What is clear, is the main point: some visual change in the cabinet prosecuting the war and even domestic policy is clearly needed, for an all levels, the present arrangement and combination around President Bush has about exhausted its reservoir of confidence.

- Anthony

Faith's convictions and Egalitarianism don't meet easily

Today was Ash Wednesday, inaugurating the Catholic season of Lent with the ritual laying on of ashes. It is a time of reflection and abstinence, as the solemn time of Easter approaches for Christians. However, it so happens this week there has occurred a minor set-to between the Reverand Jerry Falwell and the Jerusalem Post, regarding which Rev. Falwell released a statement this day.

The point of contention is the oft-debated one of whether members of the Jewish faith must convert to Christianity first, before being able to go to heaven. A front page column in the Jerusalem Post by an evangelical pastor and an orthodox rabbi had claimed to "have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity."

Falwell's statement today was a blunt, and categoric rejection of this claim, saying in part:
""While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.

"Dr. Hagee called me today and said he never made these statements to the Jerusalem Post or to anyone else. He assured me that he would immediately contact the Jerusalem Post and request a correction."

But it is not this rejection and clarification that really is pertinent to this writing. For purposes of this post, it doesn't matter which view one believes regarding salvation. Rather, the point of interest is what Falwell said next, for hidden in it is a factor that this blog has long considered crucial to understanding the current clash dubbed by some, `the culture wars'.

Falwell said this: " "In this age of political correctness and diversity, the traditional evangelical belief that salvation is available only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is often portrayed as closed-minded and bigoted.

"But if one is to believe in Jesus Christ, he must believe in His words: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me' (John 14:6). I simply cannot alter my belief that Jesus is The Way to heaven, as He taught."

A straight-forward declaration of belief, itself hardly surprising. But the key is the phrase "in this age of political correctness and diversity" --- the traditional evangelical position (and a closely related Catholic one for that matter) that maintains that the way to salvation is through Christ is now painted as "closed-minded and bigoted."

Given the strong underpinnings and legacy of Judeo-Christian faith in the history and building of the United States, this shift in thinking continues to baffle and perplex, yay, even anger, many. However, it is submitted that a very basic collision of values underpins this whole debate, and whose pervasive presuppositions are often overlooked. This does not refer to the oft-cited clash of cultures of permissive vs discipline, liberal vs conservative, theists vs atheists, or even good vs evil. If it were just those, the lines would be more clear in their separation, somewhat less ambivalent confusion, and the divisions relatively unblended. But one encounters today several contradictory strands even among believers, regarding some of the apparent demands of scripture and tradition, and what it has to say about right and wrong. A good example is the portion of the Catholic vote that supports abortion rights. On its face, this seems an impossible contradiction. Another would be the Episcopalians ordaining of an openly gay bishop. What makes these signficant is they take place among the groups in question, not are an outside force imposing. How so then?

The reason is something of an elephant in the room: it has not been fully realized how much certain traditional beliefs and habits, no matter how well grounded they may have seemed, quite frankly now appear to contradict American ideals. This is because of the rise of Egalitarian ideals and frames of thought. Yet both liberal and conservative Americans generally (and rightly) see egalitarian views as noble and ideal, differing more on points of detail like whether outcome-based assessments should guide, or instead, emphasis be placed on opportunity and equal consideration. But they tend to agree on the ideal itself, that `sanctioned persecution and marginalization' -- tacit or overt, is not to be advocated or abided. It no longer seems rightly American to judge another's actions. This is carried to its most numbskull extreme by the apologists for foreign enemy actions in wartime, but is found throughout if one just listens and looks.

Enter the real force of several of today's hottest debates on the "values battlefield". The blunt truth is, that as stated and handed down, many religious views and beliefs, as they tend to be expressed, simply don't hesitate to condemn or censure certain behaviors. This is obvious. Its usually called morality in the overall sense. However of late, this same point has come into increasing conflict with the already pre-supposed ideal of Egalitarianism and equal protection. From gay marriage debates to the abortion controversy debacle, we see time and again traditional faith blocks crash headlong into the ideals that instinctively want to limit, reverse, or reject persecutorial or judgemental sounding paradigms.

The problem is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of certain postmodernist attitudes and opinions, which openly subscribe to the self-evident folly of holding all opinions and choices of equal value. Reducing things to a `point of view' perspective against which neither faith or even science can often make a reasoned argument. It needs to be emphasized, however, that as a paradigm, the concept of egalitarianism is not only good, but is what helped make America great. By upholding the dignity of individuals, it gave the necessary room to achieve and innovate that they demonstrably often are denied in more conformist systems of thought -- whether in theocracies like Iran or or super-statist regimes of social engineering like the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, or Communist Korea and China today. Such states tend to go for a one-size fits all, and overall collective at the expense of the rights or even opportunities of any `square pegs' of faith, capability, or orientation. For this reason, to be American is to have an `instinctive' favor toward Egalitarianism, and its correct to do so.

However, of late, the egalitarian concept has become distorted and twisted, to function more as a way to build walls around behavior or practices. The central egalitarian ideal, which drove and animated the nation's spiritual aspirations (in the conventional experience) in terms of "all men are created equal" has moved down that line to a form not far removed from `all choices, cultures and lifestyles are equal' --- and this is especially true if the aforementioned do not `harm another'. Naturally, carried to its extreme, this means any moral judgements or even criticisms not based on truly criminal and hostile behavior cannot be voiced, and that is exactly the trend we are seeing today.

It is proposed that such a `value-free' standard by nature, cannot easily co-exist with, and certainly can rarely agree or give sanction to, any moral judgements, especially those imposed by faith and tradition, which rampant egalitarianism and postmodernism both see as suspect. The basic point is that some of the angst of Christians and Jews in this country, and of theists in general, is driven by the fact they see the culture increasingly modified to accomodate and even normalize some of the most questionable practices in the name of `avoiding bigotry or judgementalism'. Yet what is not realized is that the confusion comes from the fact of failing to recognize that the American ideal has become Egalitarianism (with a strong dose of the work ethic and capitalism still central) and is no longer even paying much lip-service to religious values that are seen as judgemental, seen as not fully inclusive, for precisely the fact that they indeed are not.

Falwell's statement clashed with the built-in desire to believe all faiths are equal. And in some vast omniscient galactic sense, they might objectively be. But that is not the starting point of most doctrines of faith. To understand the current conflict that is growing (and even the war on Islamo-terrorism has some connection) between faith and secular, it helps to to first notice and admit that most religion, by its very dogma and nature, does not, and cannot embrace full egalitarianism. Christians in America need to realize that in some ways, they must choose --- not all or nothing, but *which* view to hold: biblical doctrine OR egalitarianism. America is no longer `a Judeo-Christian' nation in govt and intent (IMO, it indeed was at some time in the past, arguments of revisionists notwithstanding) , but more a secular hegemon. The real key is, things are similar to what they were in the time before Constantine's conversion in the Roman Empire, but when Christianity was a large and influential minority. The culture, the laws, were pagan. It fell to Christians to try to model a better way and witness with their lives and gospel. Not expecting the secular arm or values to reflect them.

When seen against this backdrop, clashes like Falwell's and the attempts to `drive God out of schools' that seem to be going on, make perfect sense, and even show a new way to relate to it. They are in fact attempts to remove any `judgements' that might make for an `unsafe mental' environment for - fill in blank. Because the truth is, yes much holy writ, whether scripture or doctrines, does make judgements and render verdicts on right and wrong. Since it does, it has become ironically less tolerable by the very `tolerate all' culture now extant. So set aside the lingering assumption about the character of the culture being Judeo-Christian (it isn't - especially in the legal and judicial realm), and stop expecting it to reflect those values, and thus mistaking `what's in vogue' for what should be. Failure to keep this distinction in mind is what really makes for the `slippery slope'. There have always been people who will make self-destructive choices; danger only arises when the majority loses sight of what is indeed, self-destructive. Christians and Jews (or any theists) who fail to see the change in paradigm emphasis that has taken place risk losing their distinctive message in attempts (by some) to mandate some legal conformity. Instead, model anew and witness to those values to move hearts as those in other pagan lands did and do.

Some musings pondered as the Lenten season begins.

White House agrees to port review- Doing the obvious a bit late

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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