Memorial Day seems an appropriate one to note a recent and historic reminder of the whole point and true cause and catalyst of our current struggle in the Mid East. This past week saw a small episode that passed almost unnoticed mostly due to the current brouhaha over illegal worker and border control reform. However, it was of potentially historic importance if legitimate, and the initial opinion is that it is authentic. On Tuesday, a videotape supposedly by Osama Bin Laden announced regarding Zacarias Moussaoui that among other things said:
Bin Laden Says Moussaoui Not Part of Sept. 11 Attacks
"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11,..."I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers."
He also went on to claim the same for anyone currently held at the GITMO detention facility for dangerous terrorist or Taliban suspects captured in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the statements regarding Moussaoui has the ring of truth and logic:
"Brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and if he had known something - even very little - about the Sept. 11 group, we would have informed the leader of the operation, Mohammad Atta, and the others ... to leave America before being discovered," Bin Laden said."
Such a cancellation did not happen, lending some credence to Osama's claim. However, it does leave hanging the obvious alternative possibility that the schedule for attack was stepped up, accelerated, for the same reason. After all, the reason for the date of the attack remains a mystery and somewhat baffling, coming as it did at a time when if anything, Washington was leaning hard for more restraint in Middle East affairs and even still conducted discussions with the Taliban. Was 9/11 launched on a random day, `asap' out of any obvious context because Moussaoui was captured? At this point, it remains impossible to know.
Rather, what makes this statement important is that Osama Bin Laden himself has laid to rest a persistent if somewhat lunatic fringe myth. Namely, there exists a small but loud body of policy objectors both in the United States and abroad that in their skepticism and objections go so far as to deny that Al Qaida launched the September 11th attacks, or most radical of all, that parts or all of the 9/11 attacks were somehow "staged". To be sure, the context and time has a lot to do with it. In the already over-charged atmosphere of `conspiracy-think' and `cover-ups' generated in the 1990s with charges and counter-charges regarding the Clinton administration and its deceptiveness, and especially the fiasco of the November 2000 presidential election, the events of 9/11 took place in a hyper-skeptic context. After the initial gung-ho unity was allowed to unravel into domestic squabbling in spring 2002, the tabloid back-biting of the 1990's returned full force.
The run-up in fall 2002 to launching the war in Iraq led to strong pressure on both Congress and international allies to participate, with heavy emphasis on the obvious dangers of spread of weapons from Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime to terrorist elements. However, this was done in such a blunt and almost bullying fashion that increasing polarization of the issue took place at home and abroad. This inevitably led to attempts to start trying to `debunk' the genuine and justifying cause of the whole clash, the jihadist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. on 9/11. It is no coincidence that the radical claim that the Pentagon strike in particular had been "staged" first found its strong impetus from a radical French writer. To be eagerly copied, expanded upon and believed by the pro-conspiracy cliques here.
Adding fuel to all this nonsense is the Bush administration's strong tendency toward opaqueness and lack of immediate candor, or more aptly, simple incompetence in public relations handling. The style of mostly non-speaking about some of the more crazy claims has had the unfortunate effect of looking like evasion. This has resulted in the most wild of charges against the White House, most of them grossly unfair, while obscuring the few that might indeed merit closer oversight. The controversy surrounding the intelligence failures regarding Iraq and the conduct and reasons for the invention in Iraq had been allowed to obscure the overall picture of the War against Islamafascist Terrorism. Doubts about Iraq have been allowed to "spill over" into absurd and insane doubts about the catalyst of it all, September 11th.
As recently as spring 2003 some relatives of the 9/11 victims were even questioning who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Books and online works seeking to even deny the use of hijacked airliners have become numbingly routine. The 2004 Presidential candidate Howard Dean even made the mistake of appearing to give them the slightest credence while simply trying to discuss the phenomena. And right up to this day, just the past month, the persistent absurdity that the Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked airliner was revived with some new security cam footage being released. Less the main point be lost, the bottom line is that there is a school of thought that seeks to call in doubt, if not outright deny, Al Qaida's role in launching 9/11. Most of it belongs to a lunatic-fringe. However, a more thoughtful minority of this segment has simply had basic questions and some doubts in the absence of a loudly voiced 'claiming of credit' in the immediate wake of the attacks. This past week saw a potentially decisive answer to add to earlier ones to those skeptics.
The Truth is that Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda planned and launched the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Period. He has said it himself.
Nor is it the first time, though its offhand manner makes it one of the most forcefully persuasive. The fact is that in November 2001 Bin Laden gave an interview to a Pakistani reporter that carried his words about the 9/11 attacks and was run in Al Jazeera and in common access in the Mideast, and these were also confirmed by the subsequent capture of an enemy videotape after the fall of Kabul where Bin Laden even spoke of the `unexpected effects' and success of the strike on the World Trade Center, and how the fires destructiveness exceeded expectations. These two alone should have buried the whole debate, but it persisted. Not least because it was not called attention to by the federal government. The White House seemed to underestimate the undercurrent of thought that was and is there about 9/11 in the lack of some bombastic `we were responsible' announcement by Al Qaida.
Yet I contend that it is outright folly to confuse the truth of the September 11 attacks by Al Qaida and the War against them and their allies the Taliban in Afghanistan that followed, with the somewhat bellicose and obtuse presentation and execution of the War in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. The poor public relations handling of the latter should not be allowed to confuse understanding of the former, and the start of the war. It is as if somehow poor diplomacy and press relations had been allowed to obscure the need to engage Hitler after Pearl Harbor had then been allowed to retroactively call into question the fact that Pearl Harbor itself had been attacked by the Axis.
In a climate of run-away partisan bickering and no sober guiding voices from the top, it becomes hard to know which sources or version to trust. In such instances, it is potentially more useful to look at statements by the enemy that are made with completely different motive and which used carefully, can at least remind that they, the enemy, are the ones that remain responsible.
In today's rush of media coverage, with its hit and run style of overwhelming focus one week, and then on to something else the next, its easy to lose track of the linear progression of events. Hence the desire to call attention to Bin Laden's announcement. Made on the behalf of Moussaoui and the GITMO detainees, it doesn't matter if Bin Laden's attempted denying of any role of either is true. What DOES matter is with the tape accepted as genuine, Osama Bin Laden has confirmed yet again that not only did Al Qaida launch the 9/11/01 attacks, but that he himself had a significant role in their planning, and that it was long in preparation.
The fact is that as far back as 1998 Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida declared war against the United States and the then President Clinton. Al Qaida had been conducting or planning attacks far earlier, since the early 1990's, but the formal fatwa came in 1998, after two devastating bombings of U.S. embassies in August of the same year. The attack on USS Cole followed in October 2000, along with frustrated schemes in 1999 aimed at millennium events. Then came "9/11" in 2001. This war against Islamafascism, against Terr-Jihadism, has nothing to do with President G.W. Bush. In some ways it is a descendent of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the flashes of terrorism confronted by NATO in the 1980's. More specifically, the current cycle was begun by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the aftermath of Gulf War I. We should not let controversy about the wisdom of the Iraq War or its prosecution divert attention from this fact or lead to excessive `retroactive doubts' about the struggle. The press and political parties both have done a spectacularly poor job of keeping this simple chronology and sequence clear in the minds of the public and our allies. Osama Bin Laden's latest tape is a potentially useful reminder of where the focus should go.
On this Memorial Day, it is important to realize that as poor and unimaginative as our civilian political discourse has been, the sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq have neither been in vain, or unprovoked. Both campaigns have the potential to transform the breeding ground for Jihadist terrorism that is found in the Arabian area at present. It is high time that our political and public division on this painfully obvious point be addressed and healed.
- Anthony
Monday, May 29, 2006
Monday, May 22, 2006
May 22 : An epic anniversary in history....
Today happens to be the 219th anniversary of the beginning of a relatively unknown, yet awe-inspiring event in the annals of civil history and public power to make change for the better.
In the present time of seeming inertia and inability for frustrated citizens to make much impact on government conditions this is a particularly instructive story. There is a little known and truly inspiring aspect of the tragic history of slavery that with our Amero-centric bias, is often overlooked. Forget the example of the United States, which despite its ideals and intentions to promote freedom first had to split in half, and then fight a Civil War just to get rid of slavery, then suffer for almost precisely another century to get rid of the last of its legal legacies. In many ways, this is rightly a discouraging precedent. On the other hand, Great Britain's slavery had already ended in in the 1830's, and without a civil war.
It is how the British Empire's abolition movement began that is truly inspiring and encouraging to any who feel there is no ability to spark change for the better or to reform the entrenched mindsets of politicians owned by lobbyists. A recent book, "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman(to be reviewed soon) goes so far as to say that the `levers of change' in America, if not the West, are effectively gone and moribund. In effect, implying that there is little the common person of moderate means can do any more. This is not the American ethos, and is fundamentally defeatist, no matter how convincing. And it need not come to be.
When set against such a projection, the tale of how slavery was brought to a halt in the British Empire is positively enthralling and brings new heart. It is all the sadder that the Civil War and Reconstruction here, are the commonly known models, and that this epic chapter in the West is neglected. On May 22, 1787, twelve men gathered in a London book store and print ship at 2 George Yard for roundtable. In many ways, the anti-slavery crusade was born there, though there were many already existing strands of thought on this, and there was tacit consent intellectually that slavery was barbarous and un-Christian, but seen as an economic linchpin at the time. One Thomas Clarkson was the principal organizer, and the movement would attract men such as William Wilberforce, whose evangelical convictions and missionary work toward India would give him strong perspective and leverage in the movement, Olaudah Equiano a former slave who would hand down harrowing eyewitness accounts of how it was to be one, and John Newton, the former slaver who wrote "Amazing Grace" and who also wrote of a slave captain's side of the story and how came to see it immoral.
The renowned de Tocqueville was to write of this movement later, but unlike the subject of some of his more celebrated writings, most Americans remain unaware of this other and more encouraging example of how injustices could come to be abolished. With India currently setting out on the difficult path of enfranchisement of its lowest caste, the lessons of 1787 apply to all cultures, for discrimination and institutionalized inequality was, and is, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a creation of of the age of Imperialism.
De Tocqueville said of the series of events unleashed by their meeting and efforts "was absolutely without precedent...If you pore over the histories of all peoples, I doubt that you will find anything more extraordinary." Its easy to forget that just over two centuries ago, well over three quarters of the world's people were in bondage of one kind or another, slaves in America, Europe, Ottoman Empire, Africa, serfdom in the Russian areas, peasants in debt bondage in China, etc, etc. Of importance here, is the terrible irony that in 1787, "freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution"! Yet the swiftness with which it died is an encouraging signal -- by the end of the 1800s it was outlawed almost everywhere, and the anti-slavery movement had achieved its goal in "little more than one lifetime".
In the process of their goal, they pioneered many of the tools of activists or conscience-raiser groups in use today, like posters, and even mass mailings, let alone boycotts and legal proceedings. Like many ills, a lot of the slave trade had actually depended on public ignorance of just how brutal and inhumane the conditions were, and what the real price being paid for certain luxuries was (the parallel today might be the diamond mines of South Africa or the tennis shoes made in Indonesian sweat shops) . Only five years after they began the movement, 300,000 Britons were refusing to eat the sugar that came from the slave trade in lieu of that which didn't, and the House of Commons has passed laws banning the slave trade. But the House of Lords initially voted down this bill, being comprised of the aristocracy backed by the powerful pro-slave interests; the analogs of the plantation owners and pro-slavery politicians of the ante-bellum South portions of the North and Midwest who in America dragged the country into armed confrontation over this when faced with the abolitionist movement.
But the cause refused to fade, and only gained moral and political headway, and though there were were uprisings and outbreaks of violence and upheaval, for the most part, the transformation came by public process. Thus, a half-century later, a slavers whip and chains were formally buried in a Jamaican churchyard in a ceremony for the last (William Knibb) of the `printing shop crusaders' who was still alive and had lived to see that day! The date was July 31, 1838 and there was even a plaque buried saying "Colonial Slavery, died July 31st, 1838, aged 276 years".
Slavery in the British Empire officially ended at midnight on August 1, 1838. Unfortunately, it still persisted in the United States. For a host of reasons, America proved finally unable to end the `peculiar institution' peaceably and by due process of legislation, and would have to fight a Civil War to end it and then a civil rights movement a century afterward. Slavery and institutional underclass structures also continued to persist beyond 1840 in different forms in the rest of the world: in Russia, most of Africa, and in the Islamic world. In fact, in the Islamic world, it still exists today in the ongoing tragedy of Sudan, elsewhere. In India, it is in the process of being confronted. But in 1838, "in the largest empire on earth, it was ended."
In many ways, this may have been one of the finer moments of Western Civilization's capacity to reform and improve itself, without resort to mass revolution and bloodshed. It is timely to recall this encouraging example as we confront the divisions and disarray of the present and feel that little can be done.
- Anthony
(The most recent book about this is now in trade paperback: "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the fight to free an Empire's slaves" by Adam Hochschild, Mariner Books 2006).
ISBN 0618619070
In the present time of seeming inertia and inability for frustrated citizens to make much impact on government conditions this is a particularly instructive story. There is a little known and truly inspiring aspect of the tragic history of slavery that with our Amero-centric bias, is often overlooked. Forget the example of the United States, which despite its ideals and intentions to promote freedom first had to split in half, and then fight a Civil War just to get rid of slavery, then suffer for almost precisely another century to get rid of the last of its legal legacies. In many ways, this is rightly a discouraging precedent. On the other hand, Great Britain's slavery had already ended in in the 1830's, and without a civil war.
It is how the British Empire's abolition movement began that is truly inspiring and encouraging to any who feel there is no ability to spark change for the better or to reform the entrenched mindsets of politicians owned by lobbyists. A recent book, "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman(to be reviewed soon) goes so far as to say that the `levers of change' in America, if not the West, are effectively gone and moribund. In effect, implying that there is little the common person of moderate means can do any more. This is not the American ethos, and is fundamentally defeatist, no matter how convincing. And it need not come to be.
When set against such a projection, the tale of how slavery was brought to a halt in the British Empire is positively enthralling and brings new heart. It is all the sadder that the Civil War and Reconstruction here, are the commonly known models, and that this epic chapter in the West is neglected. On May 22, 1787, twelve men gathered in a London book store and print ship at 2 George Yard for roundtable. In many ways, the anti-slavery crusade was born there, though there were many already existing strands of thought on this, and there was tacit consent intellectually that slavery was barbarous and un-Christian, but seen as an economic linchpin at the time. One Thomas Clarkson was the principal organizer, and the movement would attract men such as William Wilberforce, whose evangelical convictions and missionary work toward India would give him strong perspective and leverage in the movement, Olaudah Equiano a former slave who would hand down harrowing eyewitness accounts of how it was to be one, and John Newton, the former slaver who wrote "Amazing Grace" and who also wrote of a slave captain's side of the story and how came to see it immoral.
The renowned de Tocqueville was to write of this movement later, but unlike the subject of some of his more celebrated writings, most Americans remain unaware of this other and more encouraging example of how injustices could come to be abolished. With India currently setting out on the difficult path of enfranchisement of its lowest caste, the lessons of 1787 apply to all cultures, for discrimination and institutionalized inequality was, and is, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a creation of of the age of Imperialism.
De Tocqueville said of the series of events unleashed by their meeting and efforts "was absolutely without precedent...If you pore over the histories of all peoples, I doubt that you will find anything more extraordinary." Its easy to forget that just over two centuries ago, well over three quarters of the world's people were in bondage of one kind or another, slaves in America, Europe, Ottoman Empire, Africa, serfdom in the Russian areas, peasants in debt bondage in China, etc, etc. Of importance here, is the terrible irony that in 1787, "freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution"! Yet the swiftness with which it died is an encouraging signal -- by the end of the 1800s it was outlawed almost everywhere, and the anti-slavery movement had achieved its goal in "little more than one lifetime".
In the process of their goal, they pioneered many of the tools of activists or conscience-raiser groups in use today, like posters, and even mass mailings, let alone boycotts and legal proceedings. Like many ills, a lot of the slave trade had actually depended on public ignorance of just how brutal and inhumane the conditions were, and what the real price being paid for certain luxuries was (the parallel today might be the diamond mines of South Africa or the tennis shoes made in Indonesian sweat shops) . Only five years after they began the movement, 300,000 Britons were refusing to eat the sugar that came from the slave trade in lieu of that which didn't, and the House of Commons has passed laws banning the slave trade. But the House of Lords initially voted down this bill, being comprised of the aristocracy backed by the powerful pro-slave interests; the analogs of the plantation owners and pro-slavery politicians of the ante-bellum South portions of the North and Midwest who in America dragged the country into armed confrontation over this when faced with the abolitionist movement.
But the cause refused to fade, and only gained moral and political headway, and though there were were uprisings and outbreaks of violence and upheaval, for the most part, the transformation came by public process. Thus, a half-century later, a slavers whip and chains were formally buried in a Jamaican churchyard in a ceremony for the last (William Knibb) of the `printing shop crusaders' who was still alive and had lived to see that day! The date was July 31, 1838 and there was even a plaque buried saying "Colonial Slavery, died July 31st, 1838, aged 276 years".
Slavery in the British Empire officially ended at midnight on August 1, 1838. Unfortunately, it still persisted in the United States. For a host of reasons, America proved finally unable to end the `peculiar institution' peaceably and by due process of legislation, and would have to fight a Civil War to end it and then a civil rights movement a century afterward. Slavery and institutional underclass structures also continued to persist beyond 1840 in different forms in the rest of the world: in Russia, most of Africa, and in the Islamic world. In fact, in the Islamic world, it still exists today in the ongoing tragedy of Sudan, elsewhere. In India, it is in the process of being confronted. But in 1838, "in the largest empire on earth, it was ended."
In many ways, this may have been one of the finer moments of Western Civilization's capacity to reform and improve itself, without resort to mass revolution and bloodshed. It is timely to recall this encouraging example as we confront the divisions and disarray of the present and feel that little can be done.
- Anthony
(The most recent book about this is now in trade paperback: "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the fight to free an Empire's slaves" by Adam Hochschild, Mariner Books 2006).
ISBN 0618619070
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Mayor Nagin's re-election gives New Orleans momentum...
New Orleans re-elected incumbent Mayor Ray Nagin in a close runoff election this past Saturday. Despite some of the criticism and controversy leveled at him during the ongoing hurricane Katrina disaster and the response fiasco that followed it, his re-election not only seems important, but the right thing.
For one thing, as Mayor Ray Nagin pointed out in his dignified and generous victory acceptance speech, in many ways, Nagin at least for the past year, has been a politician subject to a similar brand of vilification and butt of jokes as President George W. Bush. The comparison is apt ---- like Bush, Nagin suffers from a tendency of the public - particularly those watching TV sound-bytes vs reading the more detailed accounts in print - to seek to `blame and scapegoat' the one on top for everything under the sun. A marked tendency to believe the worst characterizations in search of a simple and satisfyingly short answer that can `fit before commercial break'. This in complete disregard of whether the one `on top' even has the authority and jurisdiction to so act. In truth, such moments of crisis provide a valuable insight into the true limits of power and authority, and one might dare posit, suggest in just what areas those powers and authority maybe should be increased or augmented to meet public expectations already de-facto in place. (Example, that FEMA was more administrative in character, is not the public perception of what it was `supposed to be'. Ergo, it needs to become what it was thought to be). A similar insight is found when looking at what the New Orleans clean-up has to really deal with.
First off, the national public dis-information and overall clue-lessness of the sheer magnitude of what happened is very great. (This writer was not excepted from that number -- what I will discuss next was truly shocking to watch). The following elaborate graphic of the unfolding of exactly what happened during those wild hours Hurricane Katrina made landfall tells more eloquently than reports just how big a deal this was. That it overtaxed the experience of any municipal government, and even a state's, in the variety of a challenges posed comes as no surprise.
http://www.nola.com/katrina/graphics/flashflood.swf
If you visited the link, you will see that the winds and storm surges combined, had the effect of `launching' multiple and ever-shifting assaults on the various flanks of New Orleans. Like an enemy army besieging a great city seeking a weakness in its defense, Katrina's effects seemed to show a similar diabolical cunning and changing of tactics. As a historian with eye for detail, I found the actual facts here truly daunting, and yes, in retrospect, somewhat exculpatory in character, toward all levels of the initial government response. I had originally believed there had been a failure of levees on the north shore facing Lake Pontchartrain, with spillover from the Industrial Canal that flooded the 9th Ward and St.Bernard area, coupled with an unlucky breach of the 17th Street Canal, and a bit of water in the French Quarter. This impression itself, more detailed than some descriptions often heard on radio, was still woefully incomplete and far short of the truth. It is when viewing this graphic that one can truly appreciate that what happened was far more. This Hurricane's strength, matched to the peculiar topography of just where it hit, unleashed what in the I/T business is recognized as a cascading series of events.
A similar over-simplification presently stands about the recovery and rebuilding efforts, and what hurdles are faced. Unfortunately, there is not yet a similarly clear account and presenting of the facts of what is involved like the prior graphic does for the storm's strike. Yet enough is implicit from learning what happened and what is going on now to know this: The drama of the New Orleans recovery is in part an internal affair, which though requiring close supervision of how Federal funds and assistance is used, is also a recovery whose details and pitfalls and challenges are known and best left to the residents of NOLA. Off-cuff judgments from outside are not helpful and are demeaning. For example, there has been wild talk about "neglect in the clean-up" without taking any account of how much the Mayor and officials have had their progress and attempts stymied by legal hassles of property ownership or various other pitfalls, that have not yielded even to the extraordinary and obvious circumstances of disaster. Even wrecked cars and houses, which would be normally cleared away after a disaster, are often impossible to move due to legal entanglements of a kind that not as common in prior decades of disaster. Such tomfoolery hampers efforts of the city to reconstruct. Then of course, seeing the true scale of the damage there, and the Mississippi Gulf coast, as my brother did recently, goes a long way to explaining any `lag' in reconstruction.
What this means is, that like the conditions during Katrina itself, the facts behind the hype and the hit-and-run style coverage of TV at present show that the picture is not one so much of gross incompetence, as it is a story of overlapping and conflicting agencies and interests. Because of this, it is a sterling example and re-teaching of an old lesson: the overriding importance and need to have a unified chain of authority with a discernible and accountable capstone. A person where the "buck" can stop. Its all too easy for the sound-byte coverage to overlook that Mayor Nagain does not have such authority, and indeed, no one does. For this reason, navigating the labyrinth of legal and jurisdictional hassles ranging from the sound to the patently absurd will be difficult in the recovery. But a certain momentum is now in the air, and I have little doubt now that New Orleans will return, and is returning.
One of the hurdles to be passed was the distraction that the election campaign necessarily generated. For a variety of reasons, for purposes of morale and continuity, before the election I was of the view that Mayor Nagin should be given a chance as Mayor Guiliani was, to continue to lead his stricken city and provide a bridge of continuity to its road to recovery. Such continuity would also help stave-off a simplistic `scape goat' response that would distract from the fact that the failures in dealing with Katrina were shared by all levels of government, at the state level and federal, and its lessons to be learned by all. The growing tendency to just blame the city was unsound. As the experience of neighboring Mississippi shows, neglect and inertia by confused federal elements was not just a New Orleans phenomena. It would seem given the verdict after a close election, and then a hotly contested run-off, a discernible majority of NOLA residents agreed.
Mayor Nagin has had to bear a great deal of simplistic blame for forces and procedures to a great extent out of his control or unanticipated. Having gone through the crucible and learned its lessons, its right that he be given a chance to apply them and offer both city and nation a point of clear continuity pre-Katrina to post-Katrina; such continuity points can be vital to regaining and reviving momentum after a big loss. Helps to combat the impression of `ending' vs making a `new start'. President Bush has pledged the necessary impetus, and it remains to be seen if New Orleans is, as Mayor Nagin put it, "ready to take off" again. One prays so, and though optimism may seem out of place here, there is an intuition he is right.
- Anthony
For one thing, as Mayor Ray Nagin pointed out in his dignified and generous victory acceptance speech, in many ways, Nagin at least for the past year, has been a politician subject to a similar brand of vilification and butt of jokes as President George W. Bush. The comparison is apt ---- like Bush, Nagin suffers from a tendency of the public - particularly those watching TV sound-bytes vs reading the more detailed accounts in print - to seek to `blame and scapegoat' the one on top for everything under the sun. A marked tendency to believe the worst characterizations in search of a simple and satisfyingly short answer that can `fit before commercial break'. This in complete disregard of whether the one `on top' even has the authority and jurisdiction to so act. In truth, such moments of crisis provide a valuable insight into the true limits of power and authority, and one might dare posit, suggest in just what areas those powers and authority maybe should be increased or augmented to meet public expectations already de-facto in place. (Example, that FEMA was more administrative in character, is not the public perception of what it was `supposed to be'. Ergo, it needs to become what it was thought to be). A similar insight is found when looking at what the New Orleans clean-up has to really deal with.
First off, the national public dis-information and overall clue-lessness of the sheer magnitude of what happened is very great. (This writer was not excepted from that number -- what I will discuss next was truly shocking to watch). The following elaborate graphic of the unfolding of exactly what happened during those wild hours Hurricane Katrina made landfall tells more eloquently than reports just how big a deal this was. That it overtaxed the experience of any municipal government, and even a state's, in the variety of a challenges posed comes as no surprise.
http://www.nola.com/katrina/graphics/flashflood.swf
If you visited the link, you will see that the winds and storm surges combined, had the effect of `launching' multiple and ever-shifting assaults on the various flanks of New Orleans. Like an enemy army besieging a great city seeking a weakness in its defense, Katrina's effects seemed to show a similar diabolical cunning and changing of tactics. As a historian with eye for detail, I found the actual facts here truly daunting, and yes, in retrospect, somewhat exculpatory in character, toward all levels of the initial government response. I had originally believed there had been a failure of levees on the north shore facing Lake Pontchartrain, with spillover from the Industrial Canal that flooded the 9th Ward and St.Bernard area, coupled with an unlucky breach of the 17th Street Canal, and a bit of water in the French Quarter. This impression itself, more detailed than some descriptions often heard on radio, was still woefully incomplete and far short of the truth. It is when viewing this graphic that one can truly appreciate that what happened was far more. This Hurricane's strength, matched to the peculiar topography of just where it hit, unleashed what in the I/T business is recognized as a cascading series of events.
A similar over-simplification presently stands about the recovery and rebuilding efforts, and what hurdles are faced. Unfortunately, there is not yet a similarly clear account and presenting of the facts of what is involved like the prior graphic does for the storm's strike. Yet enough is implicit from learning what happened and what is going on now to know this: The drama of the New Orleans recovery is in part an internal affair, which though requiring close supervision of how Federal funds and assistance is used, is also a recovery whose details and pitfalls and challenges are known and best left to the residents of NOLA. Off-cuff judgments from outside are not helpful and are demeaning. For example, there has been wild talk about "neglect in the clean-up" without taking any account of how much the Mayor and officials have had their progress and attempts stymied by legal hassles of property ownership or various other pitfalls, that have not yielded even to the extraordinary and obvious circumstances of disaster. Even wrecked cars and houses, which would be normally cleared away after a disaster, are often impossible to move due to legal entanglements of a kind that not as common in prior decades of disaster. Such tomfoolery hampers efforts of the city to reconstruct. Then of course, seeing the true scale of the damage there, and the Mississippi Gulf coast, as my brother did recently, goes a long way to explaining any `lag' in reconstruction.
What this means is, that like the conditions during Katrina itself, the facts behind the hype and the hit-and-run style coverage of TV at present show that the picture is not one so much of gross incompetence, as it is a story of overlapping and conflicting agencies and interests. Because of this, it is a sterling example and re-teaching of an old lesson: the overriding importance and need to have a unified chain of authority with a discernible and accountable capstone. A person where the "buck" can stop. Its all too easy for the sound-byte coverage to overlook that Mayor Nagain does not have such authority, and indeed, no one does. For this reason, navigating the labyrinth of legal and jurisdictional hassles ranging from the sound to the patently absurd will be difficult in the recovery. But a certain momentum is now in the air, and I have little doubt now that New Orleans will return, and is returning.
One of the hurdles to be passed was the distraction that the election campaign necessarily generated. For a variety of reasons, for purposes of morale and continuity, before the election I was of the view that Mayor Nagin should be given a chance as Mayor Guiliani was, to continue to lead his stricken city and provide a bridge of continuity to its road to recovery. Such continuity would also help stave-off a simplistic `scape goat' response that would distract from the fact that the failures in dealing with Katrina were shared by all levels of government, at the state level and federal, and its lessons to be learned by all. The growing tendency to just blame the city was unsound. As the experience of neighboring Mississippi shows, neglect and inertia by confused federal elements was not just a New Orleans phenomena. It would seem given the verdict after a close election, and then a hotly contested run-off, a discernible majority of NOLA residents agreed.
Mayor Nagin has had to bear a great deal of simplistic blame for forces and procedures to a great extent out of his control or unanticipated. Having gone through the crucible and learned its lessons, its right that he be given a chance to apply them and offer both city and nation a point of clear continuity pre-Katrina to post-Katrina; such continuity points can be vital to regaining and reviving momentum after a big loss. Helps to combat the impression of `ending' vs making a `new start'. President Bush has pledged the necessary impetus, and it remains to be seen if New Orleans is, as Mayor Nagin put it, "ready to take off" again. One prays so, and though optimism may seem out of place here, there is an intuition he is right.
- Anthony
Monday, May 01, 2006
Folly on all sides in today's `protest' re: illegal immigration
The build up and now arrival of today's (May 1st) `protests' regarding `Immigration Policy' as it is termed has revealed a startling range of folly and muddled thinking on all sides. The demagoguery and hype associated with the issue is all the more perplexing for its blatant disregard of reality and true facts. This is spectacularly true on both sides of the fence, both literally, and metaphorically, but of course, especially true regarding the `illegal's rights' side. So will comment on that first. Before saying so, a Disclaimer: in the post that follows I generally take the immigration debate as referring to specifically the en-masse and growing migration across the United State's borders with Mexico. Other groups are not really at the core of the debate, because they are not coming in such volume and scale.
First off, the entire issue is a proverbial `slam dunk'. Almost by definition, `illegal immigrants' are not going to have any `rights' regarding immigration beyond the globally recognized human rights of all. Which is to say, the same kind of rights tourists and other temporary visitors to this country, let alone citizens, should expect in treatment. But beyond that? No. Anyone who came here illegally has done just that, arrived illegally. In this context, any deference shown must be regarded as a courtesy, not a privilege or right. That there are actually illegal -- or if one prefers, `undocumented residents or workers' -- out in the streets openly protesting or walking off jobs is pretty mind-boggling. It’s a commentary on the national dialogue and pandering of scores of public officials that the issue has become as confusing as it has. It’s really clear-cut, in legalese, at least. America has a right to set the conditions for citizenship, and entry into this country and how the borders are crossed. EVERY nation does this, and with almost no media or journalistic pressure about being `racist' or `discriminatory' in having such a concept as conditions of citizenship per-se.
Quite predictably, this has created a backlash, particularly from more conservative and nationalist quarters, against the illegal issue in general. After all, for illegals to openly demonstrate and complain, when they should be being simply arrested, appears the height of insolence and shows an intolerable degree of scofflaw attitude. Yet it is equally true that the protests for the most part have been very dignified and restrained, however large, and the irony is here that to some degree, it is the over-simple response of the `close the borders' chorus that sparks the effrontery of an open protest like this. Day after day, for two, maybe three years now, we have heard a particularly strong drum beat about `the borders' and the `illegal aliens' problem, etc. Yet at the same time, almost never an embracing of our own role in it --- our continued desire for cheap labor. Like the rather rational and forgivable desire for cheap oil, this on its face makes perfect sense. The middle and lower class do not have the wealth of much of the officials, and the price of goods can matter a lot. Nevertheless, like the oil issue, this point of the citizenry's culpability in the sustaining of "the problem" in question must first be recognized if any change is to be sought. So citizens have every right to be angry at the scofflaw behavior, and particularly the choice of a date (May 1st, May Day Parade) with problematical relationship to capitalism, to say the very least.
On the other hand, there is no denying a lot of pointless demonization and overwrought caricatures regarding both the effects and form of illegal immigration. Sometimes true bigotry is indeed lurking, and in that vein, the writer proposes that we retire part of the word `illegal alien'. Not so much for pc-think reasons, as the more honorable and genuine goal of pc to avoid needless, blunt offense. `Alien' after all, in a post Star-Trek/Star Wars era, not to mention the Alien genre itself, now has strong connotations of `totally Other' and not just `foreign' but `incomprehensible' or `incompatible' without some extensive self-education at the very least. This is hardly true of the majority of immigrants, and especially not true of Mexicans sneaking here in hopes of better pay or even better lives. In short, `alien' is needlessly, well, alienating. In fact, to all the above, it now connotates not human at all. Its time is past, and meaning has changed. Let's retire it to refer literally to as yet un-met extra-terrestrial life.
Conversely, let’s resist any pressure -- particularly by editorial and mass media bullpens -- to have any embarrassment or expectation to refrain from the use of `illegal'. For the illegality of the immigration is the very point, not really what they are doing here. Only a small minority is criminals in the true sense, and should be dealt with like all criminals, either through our system or Mexico's. Hence, "Illegal Immigrants" is a perfectly valid way to refer the "undocumented residents/workers" phrase that is being bandied about, and a lot more honest and to the point. Drop `alien' but keep `illegal'. So this debate and `protest' is really about the supposed rights of illegal immigrants that have come here illegally, in short, invaded. This on its face is absurd, and would not even be an issue, if it were not for the equally dishonest posturing on the American side by some of the major concerned advocates.
What is dishonest? Quite frankly, the continuing pass given to businesses and employers who suffer no penalty when hiring illegal immigrants, thus both fueling and perpetuating the desire of same to migrate here in large numbers. In short, American employers are creating too strong an incentive for mere laws to deter would-be workers desperate for any opportunity or improvement in the situation. This fact has the effect of making all the protestation and great debate sound more than a little ridiculous. After all, we have not even taken strong steps to outlaw the activity that sustains illegal immigration, so why the mass concern over those downtrodden workers simply answering opportunity and the employer's call?
Some will answer, "Things have changed since 9/11, and the threat of terrorism and the War". But this is an evasion. Strictly speaking, the government could still be staging discrete "interceptions" and even liquidations in a covert style of actual enemy operatives trying to sneak into the country, just as they always did on both sides in the Cold War. The War on Islamo-Terrorism is a reason to strengthen border patrol, NOT control of illegal immigrants employed or residing here already. They really are not the same thing.
Second, there is an even more fundamental point. Though I said above that we lack strong punishments or disincentives to business to curtail their use of illegal labor, this does not mean we SHOULD DO SO. Actually, what is far more questionable is the whole point of exactly why some form of temporary worker program could not be set up. How many really want the businesses to stop employing illegal immigrants? To what end exactly? This in a time when almost nothing is done to stop the massive outsourcing of jobs to low-wage earners in foreign lands by business for almost exactly the same reasons as illegals are hired -- -to save a dollar, or rather, millions of dollars.
Isn't the concern rather, the amount of American capital in the form of dollars being sent out of the country? Is that not itself more a side-effect of our continuing use of an income tax, which can be evaded by cash payments, instead of national sales or flat tax, which cannot be evaded by anyone who purchases anything here? If the concern is the amount of untaxed-money being sent to Mexico, then look at ways to either tax that, or see that it is not sent there in objectionable quantities. OR, conversely, simply enforcement citizenship proof as the minimum requirements for access to services ranging from medical, to welfare and schools. This too, would remove the point of `we are paying for illegals to use our services without return' argument.
These are just some initial thoughts, on a problem that is more a problem because it is not being looked at rationally and "as is", but rather through emotional and nationalist lenses that do not see their own role in the conundrum. Or at the minimum, if they truly feel government is not listening - their duty to find and elect officials who will reverse or untangle this mess in a more sober way.
- Anthony
First off, the entire issue is a proverbial `slam dunk'. Almost by definition, `illegal immigrants' are not going to have any `rights' regarding immigration beyond the globally recognized human rights of all. Which is to say, the same kind of rights tourists and other temporary visitors to this country, let alone citizens, should expect in treatment. But beyond that? No. Anyone who came here illegally has done just that, arrived illegally. In this context, any deference shown must be regarded as a courtesy, not a privilege or right. That there are actually illegal -- or if one prefers, `undocumented residents or workers' -- out in the streets openly protesting or walking off jobs is pretty mind-boggling. It’s a commentary on the national dialogue and pandering of scores of public officials that the issue has become as confusing as it has. It’s really clear-cut, in legalese, at least. America has a right to set the conditions for citizenship, and entry into this country and how the borders are crossed. EVERY nation does this, and with almost no media or journalistic pressure about being `racist' or `discriminatory' in having such a concept as conditions of citizenship per-se.
Quite predictably, this has created a backlash, particularly from more conservative and nationalist quarters, against the illegal issue in general. After all, for illegals to openly demonstrate and complain, when they should be being simply arrested, appears the height of insolence and shows an intolerable degree of scofflaw attitude. Yet it is equally true that the protests for the most part have been very dignified and restrained, however large, and the irony is here that to some degree, it is the over-simple response of the `close the borders' chorus that sparks the effrontery of an open protest like this. Day after day, for two, maybe three years now, we have heard a particularly strong drum beat about `the borders' and the `illegal aliens' problem, etc. Yet at the same time, almost never an embracing of our own role in it --- our continued desire for cheap labor. Like the rather rational and forgivable desire for cheap oil, this on its face makes perfect sense. The middle and lower class do not have the wealth of much of the officials, and the price of goods can matter a lot. Nevertheless, like the oil issue, this point of the citizenry's culpability in the sustaining of "the problem" in question must first be recognized if any change is to be sought. So citizens have every right to be angry at the scofflaw behavior, and particularly the choice of a date (May 1st, May Day Parade) with problematical relationship to capitalism, to say the very least.
On the other hand, there is no denying a lot of pointless demonization and overwrought caricatures regarding both the effects and form of illegal immigration. Sometimes true bigotry is indeed lurking, and in that vein, the writer proposes that we retire part of the word `illegal alien'. Not so much for pc-think reasons, as the more honorable and genuine goal of pc to avoid needless, blunt offense. `Alien' after all, in a post Star-Trek/Star Wars era, not to mention the Alien genre itself, now has strong connotations of `totally Other' and not just `foreign' but `incomprehensible' or `incompatible' without some extensive self-education at the very least. This is hardly true of the majority of immigrants, and especially not true of Mexicans sneaking here in hopes of better pay or even better lives. In short, `alien' is needlessly, well, alienating. In fact, to all the above, it now connotates not human at all. Its time is past, and meaning has changed. Let's retire it to refer literally to as yet un-met extra-terrestrial life.
Conversely, let’s resist any pressure -- particularly by editorial and mass media bullpens -- to have any embarrassment or expectation to refrain from the use of `illegal'. For the illegality of the immigration is the very point, not really what they are doing here. Only a small minority is criminals in the true sense, and should be dealt with like all criminals, either through our system or Mexico's. Hence, "Illegal Immigrants" is a perfectly valid way to refer the "undocumented residents/workers" phrase that is being bandied about, and a lot more honest and to the point. Drop `alien' but keep `illegal'. So this debate and `protest' is really about the supposed rights of illegal immigrants that have come here illegally, in short, invaded. This on its face is absurd, and would not even be an issue, if it were not for the equally dishonest posturing on the American side by some of the major concerned advocates.
What is dishonest? Quite frankly, the continuing pass given to businesses and employers who suffer no penalty when hiring illegal immigrants, thus both fueling and perpetuating the desire of same to migrate here in large numbers. In short, American employers are creating too strong an incentive for mere laws to deter would-be workers desperate for any opportunity or improvement in the situation. This fact has the effect of making all the protestation and great debate sound more than a little ridiculous. After all, we have not even taken strong steps to outlaw the activity that sustains illegal immigration, so why the mass concern over those downtrodden workers simply answering opportunity and the employer's call?
Some will answer, "Things have changed since 9/11, and the threat of terrorism and the War". But this is an evasion. Strictly speaking, the government could still be staging discrete "interceptions" and even liquidations in a covert style of actual enemy operatives trying to sneak into the country, just as they always did on both sides in the Cold War. The War on Islamo-Terrorism is a reason to strengthen border patrol, NOT control of illegal immigrants employed or residing here already. They really are not the same thing.
Second, there is an even more fundamental point. Though I said above that we lack strong punishments or disincentives to business to curtail their use of illegal labor, this does not mean we SHOULD DO SO. Actually, what is far more questionable is the whole point of exactly why some form of temporary worker program could not be set up. How many really want the businesses to stop employing illegal immigrants? To what end exactly? This in a time when almost nothing is done to stop the massive outsourcing of jobs to low-wage earners in foreign lands by business for almost exactly the same reasons as illegals are hired -- -to save a dollar, or rather, millions of dollars.
Isn't the concern rather, the amount of American capital in the form of dollars being sent out of the country? Is that not itself more a side-effect of our continuing use of an income tax, which can be evaded by cash payments, instead of national sales or flat tax, which cannot be evaded by anyone who purchases anything here? If the concern is the amount of untaxed-money being sent to Mexico, then look at ways to either tax that, or see that it is not sent there in objectionable quantities. OR, conversely, simply enforcement citizenship proof as the minimum requirements for access to services ranging from medical, to welfare and schools. This too, would remove the point of `we are paying for illegals to use our services without return' argument.
These are just some initial thoughts, on a problem that is more a problem because it is not being looked at rationally and "as is", but rather through emotional and nationalist lenses that do not see their own role in the conundrum. Or at the minimum, if they truly feel government is not listening - their duty to find and elect officials who will reverse or untangle this mess in a more sober way.
- Anthony
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Time for an Official News Source?
The title states the question. The growing gulf between any sort of balance and objectivity in the mainstream televised media (and to a lesser degree the newspapers) and the actual facts and true character of the subject being reported strongly suggest such a forum would indeed be useful, even necessary.
What prompts this in addition to prior musings on the matter is the recent feedback and commentary arising from the prior `blaming the messenger' post.
For example, commentatary there drew attention to some key facts. There *is* need for a reliable and accurate news source, and the catch-22 is this: not only is that not true of the present brand of `mainstream news' (and this refers to Cable like MSNBC and FOX as much as the old `Big Three') but further, those outlets do not call attention to or admit that their main goal now is entertainment and audience draw. The reason this is significant is that a large segment of the public -- albeit shrinking by the day -- still believes the TV news to be near-gospel truth and accurately cross-checking its facts. This might be called the `legacy of the Walter Cronkite' days or public image of investigative reporting.
Most of the public has no idea now just how "derivative" and `headlines first' oriented the media has become. In fact, it is not uncommon for major TV outlets to simply base their day's stories and leads on what the New York Times leads with first. More and more, the media appears to cater to snaring a particular `target-audience' or base, not unlike the two political parties, rather than both tracking down the news, and reporting the truth. Spin, rather than the old watchdog function, dominates the day.
Much has been said about the `bias' of the media, and it is true --- alot of it is ideologically driven, but the main motive is audience share. Truth or fact-checking has almost nothing to do with it. And the newer outlets like FOX are no exception. They too, cater to delivering content calculated to stimulate and draw a target audience. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. It means that you have at once two things: (1) A public that still thinks the mass media seeks to `report the news and inform', and (2) a mass media that seeks audience share at almost any cost, with accuracy playing almost no role at all, and a willingness to `target a base constituency' if it will meet its rating needs, thus allowing it to neglect true balance in its reporting. It is easy to see how the combination of these two has led to a dangerous state of the public being consistently misled from one wing of the spectrum to the other, with the common ground usually being whatever `most provokes and stirs' the viewer.
One of the commentators on the last post pointed out that it is useless to complain of this supposed abandonment by the mass media of a `responsibility to inform' regarding the public. And this because nearly all of it is now owned by mega corporations whose primary goal is the bottom line, which in turn is driven by advertising, which naturally, brings us back to "audience share" as paramount. As another commentator pointed out, this leads to the kind of distortion where there is a prior public expectation of truth that arguably justifies some form of regulation and oversight as is found in Food and Drug Advertising. Especially if there is not further transparency about the mass media's agendas at present, and they continue to posture behind the guise of political `watchdogs' rather than what they have become, `political lapdogs' -- where the only difference is to what party or ideology.
Yet this is precisely the point. If the `mass media' has no obligation to inform -- and I can agree with this --- then it also should not enjoy any "default level of trust" on this score. Furthermore, if the mass media is not going to accurately and responsibly *inform* the general public, than something else must take up that task. Because there is no disputing the need for such accurate and least biased-as-possible flow of information. Particularly regarding government political trends, votes, foreign policy, and domestic initiatives.
Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the time has come for the government, both state and federal, to wake up to the fact that in a very real sense, it has no accurate voice speaking for it. The truth only filters through blogs, print media, and online sources and bulletins lengthy and detailed enough to describe it, and these are only being consulted by a minority with the time, skill, and inclination to do so. Yet just because most of the working public is too busy to research the truth and do the `comparative fact shopping' its pursuit requires, does not mean the public should then be blamed for being misled by the mass media which it had been raised to look to for such information.
No, the blame goes of course to the source of mis-information and spin continuing to present itself as objective, and the blame also goes to the simple lack of a voice for the government that is not already `hard wired' to either Left or Right in inclination, or Democrat vs Republican. What is needed is an information arm that will soberly and clearly lay out at regular intervals what decisions and actions are being made, and the where/who-to to address if one wishes to get more involved.
A good example is the lamentable mass media reporting about the Iraq War, vs the quality reports of embedded journalists, online bloggers, and print media summations that never make it to the TV screen except as a one line sound-byte before a "hard break for a commercial". It is arguable that much of the perceived failure in the administration and the Iraq War is due to its contining inability to speak about its achievements or accurately describe whats going on. Always what is said is filtered either thru the jingoistic never-say-wrong bullhorn of the Right media, or the pessimistic and carping doubt of the Left media.
From discussions it seems pretty clear to most of those with familiarity with history that we are currently in a "yellow journalism" period very much like that of 1898 and the Spanish-American War. On top of this, the problem is exaberrated by equally obscuring and manipulative "gotcha" politics by both parties, and campaign handlers and advisors such as Karl Rove and James Carville, whose expertise and brilliance lies in winning votes, not accuracy and truth. Divide and conquer politics, not consensus seeking, is the rule of the day. Faced with such a nexus of circumstance, at first glance, any `reform' of the mass media seems difficult, if not impossible.
However, despite the tone of this post, IMO, the situation is not nearly so intractable. It only requires thinking outside the box. In this case, the `box' is the very assumption that the mass media be the only voice available for officials and policy to communicate. The establishment of a bureau that would provide government with a way to "boringly" speak about basic and straightforward matters whether dynamic like Iraq War plans, or mundane, like projected pharmacy reform, would go a long way toward providing a means for the public to be put-in-the-picture sufficiently to make at least reasonably informed decisions and votes. Partisanship might be minimized by making it subject to a fact checking process, as well as staffed in a manner indepedent of the changes in administrations that come with Presidential elections.
To the inevitable objection that such might simply become a government `propaganda arm' the best reply is though a risk, it is worth taking. The need for a more sober and unifying political climate and information dissemination is so dire that some major changes are necessary if national `balkanization' is to be avoided. Under the current scheme you have a series of competing corporate-doormat news agencies each catering to `their base' at the expense of those outside that base, lambasting and provoking to play on their base's emotions and win ratings. None of them are seeking to build consensus, or point out where it might exist.
An official source might start to do this, especially if its charter began with an emphasis on integrity and a zero-tolerance for inaccuracy and distortion. By setting such a high bar, the natural pressure of being `outed' on any major falsehood would act as a corrective, instead of the resigned `expectation of falsehood' the public now feels toward TV in general. As for a possible overseer/parent, the author's familiarity with the straightforward and sober manner of the National Archives administration suggests it as a likely candidate. It tends to have a `long view' and seems to avoid excessive partisan outlook because its activities and staff tend to span several presidential administrations. In any case, it suggest a model, and since the means is already at hand, the need building by the day, all that remains is to settle on its form.
For the truth is, such a source is already available, via the online media and its ability to quickly and reasonably fact-check and verify the truth of things, and where necessary, locate and involve experts truly well-positioned or read to do so. What is needed then, is a forum where this capability is actively harnessed and put to use on an information basis, where profit and audience share is not the goal. As its reputation for accuracy and reliability grew, those truly interested in policy would increasingly learn to reference it. Nor could the mass media as easily get away with distortions in instances where it was revealed they had not consulted or cross-checked with this forum or clearing house. Who knows, in time, this might weaken the trend to `yellow journalism' in turn, and the mass media might ease back toward a more reliable presentation as in the days of the truly "Evening News".
- Anthony
What prompts this in addition to prior musings on the matter is the recent feedback and commentary arising from the prior `blaming the messenger' post.
For example, commentatary there drew attention to some key facts. There *is* need for a reliable and accurate news source, and the catch-22 is this: not only is that not true of the present brand of `mainstream news' (and this refers to Cable like MSNBC and FOX as much as the old `Big Three') but further, those outlets do not call attention to or admit that their main goal now is entertainment and audience draw. The reason this is significant is that a large segment of the public -- albeit shrinking by the day -- still believes the TV news to be near-gospel truth and accurately cross-checking its facts. This might be called the `legacy of the Walter Cronkite' days or public image of investigative reporting.
Most of the public has no idea now just how "derivative" and `headlines first' oriented the media has become. In fact, it is not uncommon for major TV outlets to simply base their day's stories and leads on what the New York Times leads with first. More and more, the media appears to cater to snaring a particular `target-audience' or base, not unlike the two political parties, rather than both tracking down the news, and reporting the truth. Spin, rather than the old watchdog function, dominates the day.
Much has been said about the `bias' of the media, and it is true --- alot of it is ideologically driven, but the main motive is audience share. Truth or fact-checking has almost nothing to do with it. And the newer outlets like FOX are no exception. They too, cater to delivering content calculated to stimulate and draw a target audience. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. It means that you have at once two things: (1) A public that still thinks the mass media seeks to `report the news and inform', and (2) a mass media that seeks audience share at almost any cost, with accuracy playing almost no role at all, and a willingness to `target a base constituency' if it will meet its rating needs, thus allowing it to neglect true balance in its reporting. It is easy to see how the combination of these two has led to a dangerous state of the public being consistently misled from one wing of the spectrum to the other, with the common ground usually being whatever `most provokes and stirs' the viewer.
One of the commentators on the last post pointed out that it is useless to complain of this supposed abandonment by the mass media of a `responsibility to inform' regarding the public. And this because nearly all of it is now owned by mega corporations whose primary goal is the bottom line, which in turn is driven by advertising, which naturally, brings us back to "audience share" as paramount. As another commentator pointed out, this leads to the kind of distortion where there is a prior public expectation of truth that arguably justifies some form of regulation and oversight as is found in Food and Drug Advertising. Especially if there is not further transparency about the mass media's agendas at present, and they continue to posture behind the guise of political `watchdogs' rather than what they have become, `political lapdogs' -- where the only difference is to what party or ideology.
Yet this is precisely the point. If the `mass media' has no obligation to inform -- and I can agree with this --- then it also should not enjoy any "default level of trust" on this score. Furthermore, if the mass media is not going to accurately and responsibly *inform* the general public, than something else must take up that task. Because there is no disputing the need for such accurate and least biased-as-possible flow of information. Particularly regarding government political trends, votes, foreign policy, and domestic initiatives.
Therefore, it is the writer's opinion that the time has come for the government, both state and federal, to wake up to the fact that in a very real sense, it has no accurate voice speaking for it. The truth only filters through blogs, print media, and online sources and bulletins lengthy and detailed enough to describe it, and these are only being consulted by a minority with the time, skill, and inclination to do so. Yet just because most of the working public is too busy to research the truth and do the `comparative fact shopping' its pursuit requires, does not mean the public should then be blamed for being misled by the mass media which it had been raised to look to for such information.
No, the blame goes of course to the source of mis-information and spin continuing to present itself as objective, and the blame also goes to the simple lack of a voice for the government that is not already `hard wired' to either Left or Right in inclination, or Democrat vs Republican. What is needed is an information arm that will soberly and clearly lay out at regular intervals what decisions and actions are being made, and the where/who-to to address if one wishes to get more involved.
A good example is the lamentable mass media reporting about the Iraq War, vs the quality reports of embedded journalists, online bloggers, and print media summations that never make it to the TV screen except as a one line sound-byte before a "hard break for a commercial". It is arguable that much of the perceived failure in the administration and the Iraq War is due to its contining inability to speak about its achievements or accurately describe whats going on. Always what is said is filtered either thru the jingoistic never-say-wrong bullhorn of the Right media, or the pessimistic and carping doubt of the Left media.
From discussions it seems pretty clear to most of those with familiarity with history that we are currently in a "yellow journalism" period very much like that of 1898 and the Spanish-American War. On top of this, the problem is exaberrated by equally obscuring and manipulative "gotcha" politics by both parties, and campaign handlers and advisors such as Karl Rove and James Carville, whose expertise and brilliance lies in winning votes, not accuracy and truth. Divide and conquer politics, not consensus seeking, is the rule of the day. Faced with such a nexus of circumstance, at first glance, any `reform' of the mass media seems difficult, if not impossible.
However, despite the tone of this post, IMO, the situation is not nearly so intractable. It only requires thinking outside the box. In this case, the `box' is the very assumption that the mass media be the only voice available for officials and policy to communicate. The establishment of a bureau that would provide government with a way to "boringly" speak about basic and straightforward matters whether dynamic like Iraq War plans, or mundane, like projected pharmacy reform, would go a long way toward providing a means for the public to be put-in-the-picture sufficiently to make at least reasonably informed decisions and votes. Partisanship might be minimized by making it subject to a fact checking process, as well as staffed in a manner indepedent of the changes in administrations that come with Presidential elections.
To the inevitable objection that such might simply become a government `propaganda arm' the best reply is though a risk, it is worth taking. The need for a more sober and unifying political climate and information dissemination is so dire that some major changes are necessary if national `balkanization' is to be avoided. Under the current scheme you have a series of competing corporate-doormat news agencies each catering to `their base' at the expense of those outside that base, lambasting and provoking to play on their base's emotions and win ratings. None of them are seeking to build consensus, or point out where it might exist.
An official source might start to do this, especially if its charter began with an emphasis on integrity and a zero-tolerance for inaccuracy and distortion. By setting such a high bar, the natural pressure of being `outed' on any major falsehood would act as a corrective, instead of the resigned `expectation of falsehood' the public now feels toward TV in general. As for a possible overseer/parent, the author's familiarity with the straightforward and sober manner of the National Archives administration suggests it as a likely candidate. It tends to have a `long view' and seems to avoid excessive partisan outlook because its activities and staff tend to span several presidential administrations. In any case, it suggest a model, and since the means is already at hand, the need building by the day, all that remains is to settle on its form.
For the truth is, such a source is already available, via the online media and its ability to quickly and reasonably fact-check and verify the truth of things, and where necessary, locate and involve experts truly well-positioned or read to do so. What is needed then, is a forum where this capability is actively harnessed and put to use on an information basis, where profit and audience share is not the goal. As its reputation for accuracy and reliability grew, those truly interested in policy would increasingly learn to reference it. Nor could the mass media as easily get away with distortions in instances where it was revealed they had not consulted or cross-checked with this forum or clearing house. Who knows, in time, this might weaken the trend to `yellow journalism' in turn, and the mass media might ease back toward a more reliable presentation as in the days of the truly "Evening News".
- Anthony
Monday, April 10, 2006
"Blaming the Messenger" is justified these days...
The past several days has seen a perplexing and continuing spin and odd phraseing of the debate on the illegal immigration problem. This brings to mind that recently some members of the press, particularly the White House Press Corps, and several leading newspapers, were complaining that the American public was in a frame of mind to "simply shoot the messenger", to blame the media for the bad news they were reporting, whether it be on Iraq, or domestic issues like the immigration imbroglio.
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
However, I submit that rarely has a "Messenger" so rated and earned that curse, the proverbial shooting. With the possible and instructive exception of the "Yellow Journalism" that helped trigger the Spanish-American War in the 1890's, more than any other time, today's media does rate "the blame" for much of the ills currently plagueing the national psyche. Protests that they are simply "reporting what is happening, don't blame us" fall flat once it is realized how calculated both the instances of omission of reporting are, and in phraseing of mention and issues.
Two examples will suffice. Regarding the Iraq War, it is demonstrable and well-attested that in many cases, the press corps does not move far from the hotels they are billeted at, and focus on simply obtaining and running footage of the latest bombing or insurgent atttack. Almost no effort is made to describe and report, let alone actually go out and chronicle, the efforts of our troops and Iraqi forces in the rebuilding effort, or to determine the true parameters of unrest, or even more crucially, where enemy activity is weak or or on the wane. It is something of a historical truism that if you say something long enough, it will become self-fulfilling. The media has spent much time "talking down" the Iraq War, and all but excluding tangible reports and coverage of the real successes and progress clearly documented by many military participants and bloggers. They have done this so long, that the insurgent and terrorist activity is not only encouraged, but bolstered. For the coverage has been disgustingly knaive, sometimes going as far as characterizing the terrorist counter-strikes as "freedom fighters". Never mind that these are freedom-fighters that do not hesitate to kill real freedom expression by seeking to intimidate and disrupt votes and elections.
This is not "reporting" -- this is spin, pure and simple. Its as insane as if the U.S. Press had spent all its time covering attrition losses of crewmen on American destroyers to strafing Japanese Zeros during the battle of Guadalcanal, with little coverage of the progress toward the final securing of the island being announced. Whatever one feels about the administration's drive to war --- and this writer holds the White House Public relations style and quality in great disdain - it can rightly be said that with a "Messenger" such as this on the war front, it arguably would be best to have none at all. It is that bad. In their apparent desire to relive the 1960's much of the media moguls have reprenhensibly mis-characterized and talked down Operation Iraqi Freedom to an extent that favors the enemy's goals more than any truth. In the late 1890's yellow journalism sought and unleashed a war for Cuba's future --- in the 2000's an analogous yellow journalism seeks now to lose a war for Iraq's future. The style and lack of quality, the blatant lying, the methods are all the same. All that is different is the goal.
However, it can be granted that Iraq is a controversial matter and undertaking, and its relation to 9/11 and the War on Terror not always clear. A better example of where the "Messenger" is rightly blamed and accountable, not really subject to any dispute, is the ridiculous atmosphere that the immigration reform is being debated within. Namely, the "protests" against the immigration reform are being treated as some kind of civil rights issue, when its about illegality; Period. The American people are wanting something done about massive illegal immigration and a wholesale virtual migration untested across the border. For the press to hesitate to speak of illegal aliens/immigrants, to even suggest that to wish to enforce the law is in some way racist or insensitive, is patent absurdity. And lest the point be missed, is certainly not "just reporting what is happening". No, it is demoguguery, and about an issue that needs to be soberly but firmly debated and dealt with.
After all, its no secret that there is no easy solution. Many businesses want things to stay the way they are regarding cheap labor, and arguably, this may be of greater need than enforceing the law. But all the more reason for the press to tackle this aspect, instead of seeking to demonize those wanting border reform and enforcement. Though it is true that it is activist agitators or foolish officials like Senator Kennedy that have sought to hijack and demogogue the debate by making false and frankly stupid comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, the press corps bears the blame for abetting this and lending it false credence in its reporting. The problem is simple, though the solution and best answer is not: this is about foreign nationals entering America without permission and established process, and in secret -- in short, entering illegally. Many leading newspapers seem to have forgotten that one of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Federal government is controlling and defending the borders. It is not helpful to help poison the atmosphere and distort the already contentious issue being debated in the Congress.
These two examples share something in common: the current tendency of today's "messengers" of the press, and for that matter, party figures, to over-simplify and reduce to a blatantly inaccurate caricture the discourse about serious and complex national and global issues. To these may be added a third example, one from the other side of the coin, which only makes the justness of "blameing the messenger" all the more appropriate. That is the simultaneous failure to truly play "watchdog" and balance to official misconduct and corruption, and instead spilling droves of ink or hours of air time on various and highly particular domestic frivolities or the latest crime/disappearance. Instead of seeking out the truth, whether speaking of the `Left' or `Right' outlets, there is too much eagerness to run with the claim that is the most sensational, and usually the most damaging to the opposite side, without proper deference to the national interest, or even when necessary rooting out and calling attention to the real ongoing legal distortions of politics and authority.
Thus, currently, both as `Reporter' or `Watchdog', this current brand of "Messengers" fully deserves the blame an increasingly disgusted public heaps upon it. The age of "Yellow journalism" fortunately reached an end and turn to the better, and its time this one begin its reform as well.
- Anthony
Thursday, April 06, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
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
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
Monday, March 20, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
