More and More Spinach
One of the things that I have extolled the most is the value of perspective. To me, it requires being secure enough with oneself to consider alternative viewpoints, even if they tend to contradict preconceived (or established) judgments. Having said that, I turned on PBS tonight to witness the rebroadcast of the Democratic Presidential Candidate debate. A panel of three posed questions to the nine (9) candidates currently running for the Democratic Presidential Candidacy. The audience was comprised of the Congressional Black Caucus in Detroit, Michigan.
I thought that I was going to have the opportunity to learn more about the potential candidates. I thought that I was going to gain some insight as to who the eventual winner would be, competing with President Bush in 2004. To my distaste, it was another plate of cooked spinach. I would suffer through about seven or eight minutes before I had to change the channel for a moment. What I learned is that I sure as hell don't want to pay for the pipe dreams that these nimrods are selling! But before I summarize the candidates, I have to express my total disgust at the moderators and authors of the questions presented. It was readily apparent that "hard-hitting journalism" has evolved into epithets in the form of an interrogative. To say that I was appalled understates the physical reaction that was taking place in my stomach. I never supported Political Correctness because it went too far to protect the delicate sensibilities of others, but this effrontery went too far in the other direction. Why is it so hard to find a happy medium, people?
Riverbend, I have a 9-man (read human, as usual) puppet show that rivals yours! (Reference to the Iraqi Governing Council/CPA) You don't have anything on this motley crew! We have drama, fantasy, and delusions of grandeur. We have provocateurs, panderers, circus performers, and ringmasters. At any rate, here's what I took away from the "debate". It's not thoughtfully substantial, just my impression, so take it as a grain of salt...rock salt, that is.
Kucinich: I have no idea where this guy comes from, but the ideas that come out of is mouth are Utopian. What world is he living in that he thinks that a Department of Peace will change the face of this country and the rest of the world? Hey, I respect the work of Martin Luther King, but those days are long gone. It's a different culture, a different society, and these people have different needs. Developing a new bureaucratic system (he proposed a cabinet level department of the Executive Branch, akin to the State Dept. or Department of Interior) to try to affect cultural change in this country has no chance of succeeding, even if you could find a way to measure its success. This man has so many fantasies, he ought to work for Disney. He doesn't project the image of a leader, and in my opinion, would undermine our diplomatic position in foreign affairs. He is the antithesis of Bush; be careful what you wish for.
Kerry: A Senator from Massachusetts, (Didn't I see him on Cheers once?) he extolled the virtues of the Clinton domestic agenda. If I wanted CLINTON back, I'd vote for his wife! One of the few who actually feigned intelligence, Kerry took a familiar approach with his attack of the "top 1%" wealthiest Americans. People, stop already. The wealthiest 10% earn $85K per year; the richest 5% earn $150K per year; the top 1% make just over $265K per year. (My numbers are about 3 years old, but we're still within the realm of reason. Oh, by the way, the top 1%, for whom everyone has so much disdain, shoulders 30% of this nation's tax burden...You're welcome.
Dick Gephardt: So, Kerry isn't alone on the "Clinton Economics" train; he has Dick riding shotgun. I used to think that this guy was a serious contender. His charisma on the House floor was really unmatched. What I discovered tonight was that he spoke loudly but had no substance to speak of. Danny Schechter, whom I'm roasting on another spit, coined the word "jingoism" in his book. Well, Gephardt was full of them. His political assaults on Bush were little more than schoolyard chants that are more irritating than anything....and I quote: "Like father, like son; after four years, this president is done." Who is he pandering to? I mean really? What audience finds that inspiring? I want to know so that I can either avoid them like SARS or take them out back and facilitate some "arbor education".
Joe Lieberman: The self-proclaimed "Independent in a Democrat's body" is a man look for a Party. I didn't understand half of the answers to the questions he was asked. To my fault, I was expecting him to answer the question. It was a moment of weakness... of late night television... yeah, that's it. This guy doesn't stand a chance. He sure as hell doesn't understand the Middle East. "A peaceful Israel right next to a peaceful Palestine..." It'll never happen, my friend. Tell them, Riverbend... What's the first phrase out of a Palestinian baby's mouth? From the River to the Sea!
Carol Braun: My impression is that she's in it for the experience and to benefit the image of the Democratic Party. As the former ambassador to New Zealand, don't expect any ground-breaking foreign policy out of her. She'll learn from this and try it again a couple of more times. In twenty years, it's quite possible that this country will be disposed to elect her or someone like her.
Howard Dean: The only other candidate who abandoned the circus performance and gave the appearance of a thoughtful person. While it is my best bet that he'll end up winning the nomination, I don't think he'll mount a significant challenge to Bush. In the hour that I watched the debate, if you want to call it that, I found myself saying "I'm not paying for that" at least twice for him. (More often for others.) The one thing about Dean is that he's very principled. Unfortunately, that implies that he's unyielding and uncooperative (stubborn, really) in matters where he's already made up his mind. Politicians aren't supposed to have principles; they reflect the whim and will of the people they represent. After watching Carl Levin in a Budget Hearing recently, this became quite apparent. Don't blame the politicians for being bafoons; if they're doing their job right, you should blame their constituents.
General Clark: In order to become a general in the armed services, you have to be appointed by Congress. That would imply that you have to have some political acumen to rise to that position. While retired General Wesley Clark does, in fact, have some acumen, he won't last long with many moderates in this country by dodging the details of his foreign and domestic plans. To say that he danced would be understated, but it was less like Fred Astaire and more like "Elaine" on Seinfeld; spasmodic describes it best. The guy just doesn't know if he's coming or going.
John Edwards: You know, it's late, and I should be going to bed, so all I'll say about Edwards is this... No more confederate southerners, please!
Al Sharpton: The thing about Al that concerns me the most is that he has the capacity to exhort a large enough population, especially in the urban areas, to be dangerous. He's far and away the most charismatic and his dancing is very smooth. If you're smart enough to lift the veil, you won't find much substance to this provocateur, but his run for President will garner him a lot of political power, which he can either wield or yield for the right price. For certain, he will be able to pave the way (much like Carol) for those who would follow in his footsteps in future elections. Beware of this character... He is the Ross Perot of the poor folk...
Good night...
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Freedom of Speech: Part One
Having suffered through two-thirds of Danny Schechter’s book, Embed: Weapons of Mass Deception, I am reminded of one of Mark Twain’s pearls of prose: “In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.”
One might argue that my critical assessment of Mr. Schechter’s work is premature, given that I haven’t finished “consuming” it. I’m sorry, but my gag-reflex can really only handle 20 pages at time. Much like cooked spinach, it’s going down, but very slowly. All I can say is that the “Great Dissector” has it coming…
As I began reading the book, I thought his premise would be founded upon Hansell Duckett’s sentiment when he said, “What this country needs is more free speech…worth listening to”. But after my first “gag”, I was left with the impression that this is a man who was ‘excluded from the party’ and is rancorously pissed about it. So, here’s part of my “dissection” of his perspective…
"He is always the severest censor of the merit of others who has the least worth of his own." -- Elias Lyman Maggon
Pearls of wisdom that I would offer to Mr. Schechter as I attempt to heed them myself…
PARITY
One of the characteristics of the media that has turned me off over the years (which has compelled me to turn them off) is the lack of parity. It’s a deficiency that Schechter alludes to in his book, but not in the manner I would have hoped. While I agree with him that the media did not take an objective approach to the war in Iraq, that’s where it ends. His complaint seems to be less about the objectivity and more about how the media has “swung to the right”. Largely known as a liberal organization over the years for their self-appointed role as government watchdog and champion of human interests, it seems that the prevailing focus has swung more toward commercial interests. Consequently, he asserts that the journalistic integrity has been sacrificed at the alter of politics and commercialism. I agree, but that’s not the problem, Danny-boy. The problem is that you still associate the media with journalism.
Members of the media (whom I’m loathe to refer to as journalists) have forgotten what their role truly is; they are living witnesses to history. Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge (or let anyone else acknowledge) their shortcomings in this capacity. Any law enforcement official in this country will tell you that given a room full of witnesses to a crime, there will be a room full of different accounts to it. Why? Because we all bring our own perspective to the same world. There is no single truth, only perspectives that coincide from time to time… As I read his pompous outpourings over the criticism the media and its constituents received from our government, I wondered where the parity was. What gives them the exclusive right to criticize the government with impunity? Are they really beyond reproach? Are you, Peter Arnett? Are you, Geraldo Rivera? Are you beyond reproach because you wave the banner of the First Amendment? Just out of curiosity, would you be as self-important if it had been the 10th Amendment?
I think what bothers me the most is that our media is the face that other countries believe reflects our society. That deeply concerns me, just as it should concern many of the world’s 1.3 billion Arabs that Al-Jazeera reflects their culture. …but that’s another rant.
In his book, Schechter makes fun of Donald Rumsfield and the manner in which he “takes down journalists”. He cited a news conference where a reporter interrupted Rumsfield’s response with a follow-up and was “shushed” like a father quiets a child. Apparently, not only are reporters beyond reproach, they are also above polite manners and common courtesies. Little did Rumsfield know that the reporter was wearing a button on his lapel that said, “Please don’t talk when I’m interrupting. It’s rude!” (Just kidding, folks.)
HONOR BEFORE LOYALTY
A thoughtful discussion (which I found wanting in the book) that I would have enjoyed is the dichotomy between honor and loyalty in the context of journalism during wartime. How do you balance the loyalty to your country and countrymen with what you believe to be “the right thing”? Personally, I am of the mind that honor always comes before loyalty. Journalists, however, are faced with a real challenge of staying true to themselves (as they are defined by their journalistic integrity) while striving to protect the country that has granted them the freedom to do so. Here’s where I would use Peter Arnett as a good centerpiece for the debate. My position is that, while Peter may have been satisfying his journalistic integrity (and I use that loosely), he lost his balance. He was fired for his disloyalty, not his principles (or adherence to them).
Independent reporters present a different challenge insomuch that they are often not affiliated with a country (by way of a media organization). They, however, simply lack the balance between their ears. Driven by who-knows-what (pride, perhaps), they put themselves in harm’s way in an effort to “scoop the story”. Schechter mentions four such journalists in Iraq who were arrested and detained by military forces. While they are ostensibly non-combatants, they have the capacity to draw imminent danger to those around them. How many of us have seen a news crew on the side of the road and wanted to stop to see what was going on? Why? Go home and watch it. The mentality in the back of our minds, though, is to solve the mystery immediately. Still not convinced? During the 1990’s the media visiting Iraq were very closely scrutinized for fear that they were CIA officers collecting intelligence under the cover of journalism. During the recent war, each correspondent was paired with a “minder” that accompanied them to all “newsworthy locations”, monitored the questions they asked, and reported back to the Ministry of Information on a daily basis. Why was the Ministry of Information bombed? The government claims “command and control” operations were being conducted within it. Qadm, the liaison between the Ministry and foreign correspondents was, in-fact, an Iraqi intelligence officer. And how might we know that? It could be that we DID have CIA operatives posing as journalists (or among the “human shields”). So, who’s to say what the allegiance was of the four independent journalists in southern Iraq? At least we KNEW that the embedded journalists weren’t betraying us…Then again, that’s open for debate, isn’t it…
Peripheral to this discussion, I would have liked to see Schechter objectively address the nature of propaganda. In the balance between honor and loyalty, there is a subplot that addresses war propaganda for and against us. (I think it’s fortunate for our media that it’s not considered a military function by the Geneva Conventions.) Critical of our media for being a propaganda machine for the Pentagon and Bush administration (which I won’t contest), Schechter fails to recognize that the stories he longed to hear/tell about (e.g. Iraqi civilian casualties, the inefficacy of PSYOPs, changes to the “war plan”, imprecise “smart bombs”, etc.) were clearly tools of propaganda for the Iraqi regime and its supporters. Personally, I don’t think it’s any wiser to tell both stories (arm both combatants equally) than it is to choose either side (in the case of journalism). Stay the fuck out of it altogether, is what I’d prefer they did. The last thing our military machine needs is 200 million micro-managers, inspired by these emotional instigators, weighing in their public opinion. The chance for them to do that was in the beginning, before the war began, and they did…we did. As a military veteran, my position is, “sit-down, shut-up, and let me do my job”.
As I rant on, I find my disdain is surfacing more plainly. So, as long as I’ve long since departed from the “high road”, let me close with this. My grandfather used to tell me a joke that I haven’t truly felt the gravity of until recently. It’s decidedly controversial and I’ve modified it to serve my point here…it’s just as poignant nonetheless. Without further ado, I’d like to recommend the world’s three shortest books (in addition to the ones at the right):
Stay tuned…
Having suffered through two-thirds of Danny Schechter’s book, Embed: Weapons of Mass Deception, I am reminded of one of Mark Twain’s pearls of prose: “In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.”
One might argue that my critical assessment of Mr. Schechter’s work is premature, given that I haven’t finished “consuming” it. I’m sorry, but my gag-reflex can really only handle 20 pages at time. Much like cooked spinach, it’s going down, but very slowly. All I can say is that the “Great Dissector” has it coming…
As I began reading the book, I thought his premise would be founded upon Hansell Duckett’s sentiment when he said, “What this country needs is more free speech…worth listening to”. But after my first “gag”, I was left with the impression that this is a man who was ‘excluded from the party’ and is rancorously pissed about it. So, here’s part of my “dissection” of his perspective…
"He is always the severest censor of the merit of others who has the least worth of his own." -- Elias Lyman Maggon
Pearls of wisdom that I would offer to Mr. Schechter as I attempt to heed them myself…
PARITY
One of the characteristics of the media that has turned me off over the years (which has compelled me to turn them off) is the lack of parity. It’s a deficiency that Schechter alludes to in his book, but not in the manner I would have hoped. While I agree with him that the media did not take an objective approach to the war in Iraq, that’s where it ends. His complaint seems to be less about the objectivity and more about how the media has “swung to the right”. Largely known as a liberal organization over the years for their self-appointed role as government watchdog and champion of human interests, it seems that the prevailing focus has swung more toward commercial interests. Consequently, he asserts that the journalistic integrity has been sacrificed at the alter of politics and commercialism. I agree, but that’s not the problem, Danny-boy. The problem is that you still associate the media with journalism.
Members of the media (whom I’m loathe to refer to as journalists) have forgotten what their role truly is; they are living witnesses to history. Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge (or let anyone else acknowledge) their shortcomings in this capacity. Any law enforcement official in this country will tell you that given a room full of witnesses to a crime, there will be a room full of different accounts to it. Why? Because we all bring our own perspective to the same world. There is no single truth, only perspectives that coincide from time to time… As I read his pompous outpourings over the criticism the media and its constituents received from our government, I wondered where the parity was. What gives them the exclusive right to criticize the government with impunity? Are they really beyond reproach? Are you, Peter Arnett? Are you, Geraldo Rivera? Are you beyond reproach because you wave the banner of the First Amendment? Just out of curiosity, would you be as self-important if it had been the 10th Amendment?
I think what bothers me the most is that our media is the face that other countries believe reflects our society. That deeply concerns me, just as it should concern many of the world’s 1.3 billion Arabs that Al-Jazeera reflects their culture. …but that’s another rant.
In his book, Schechter makes fun of Donald Rumsfield and the manner in which he “takes down journalists”. He cited a news conference where a reporter interrupted Rumsfield’s response with a follow-up and was “shushed” like a father quiets a child. Apparently, not only are reporters beyond reproach, they are also above polite manners and common courtesies. Little did Rumsfield know that the reporter was wearing a button on his lapel that said, “Please don’t talk when I’m interrupting. It’s rude!” (Just kidding, folks.)
HONOR BEFORE LOYALTY
A thoughtful discussion (which I found wanting in the book) that I would have enjoyed is the dichotomy between honor and loyalty in the context of journalism during wartime. How do you balance the loyalty to your country and countrymen with what you believe to be “the right thing”? Personally, I am of the mind that honor always comes before loyalty. Journalists, however, are faced with a real challenge of staying true to themselves (as they are defined by their journalistic integrity) while striving to protect the country that has granted them the freedom to do so. Here’s where I would use Peter Arnett as a good centerpiece for the debate. My position is that, while Peter may have been satisfying his journalistic integrity (and I use that loosely), he lost his balance. He was fired for his disloyalty, not his principles (or adherence to them).
Independent reporters present a different challenge insomuch that they are often not affiliated with a country (by way of a media organization). They, however, simply lack the balance between their ears. Driven by who-knows-what (pride, perhaps), they put themselves in harm’s way in an effort to “scoop the story”. Schechter mentions four such journalists in Iraq who were arrested and detained by military forces. While they are ostensibly non-combatants, they have the capacity to draw imminent danger to those around them. How many of us have seen a news crew on the side of the road and wanted to stop to see what was going on? Why? Go home and watch it. The mentality in the back of our minds, though, is to solve the mystery immediately. Still not convinced? During the 1990’s the media visiting Iraq were very closely scrutinized for fear that they were CIA officers collecting intelligence under the cover of journalism. During the recent war, each correspondent was paired with a “minder” that accompanied them to all “newsworthy locations”, monitored the questions they asked, and reported back to the Ministry of Information on a daily basis. Why was the Ministry of Information bombed? The government claims “command and control” operations were being conducted within it. Qadm, the liaison between the Ministry and foreign correspondents was, in-fact, an Iraqi intelligence officer. And how might we know that? It could be that we DID have CIA operatives posing as journalists (or among the “human shields”). So, who’s to say what the allegiance was of the four independent journalists in southern Iraq? At least we KNEW that the embedded journalists weren’t betraying us…Then again, that’s open for debate, isn’t it…
Peripheral to this discussion, I would have liked to see Schechter objectively address the nature of propaganda. In the balance between honor and loyalty, there is a subplot that addresses war propaganda for and against us. (I think it’s fortunate for our media that it’s not considered a military function by the Geneva Conventions.) Critical of our media for being a propaganda machine for the Pentagon and Bush administration (which I won’t contest), Schechter fails to recognize that the stories he longed to hear/tell about (e.g. Iraqi civilian casualties, the inefficacy of PSYOPs, changes to the “war plan”, imprecise “smart bombs”, etc.) were clearly tools of propaganda for the Iraqi regime and its supporters. Personally, I don’t think it’s any wiser to tell both stories (arm both combatants equally) than it is to choose either side (in the case of journalism). Stay the fuck out of it altogether, is what I’d prefer they did. The last thing our military machine needs is 200 million micro-managers, inspired by these emotional instigators, weighing in their public opinion. The chance for them to do that was in the beginning, before the war began, and they did…we did. As a military veteran, my position is, “sit-down, shut-up, and let me do my job”.
As I rant on, I find my disdain is surfacing more plainly. So, as long as I’ve long since departed from the “high road”, let me close with this. My grandfather used to tell me a joke that I haven’t truly felt the gravity of until recently. It’s decidedly controversial and I’ve modified it to serve my point here…it’s just as poignant nonetheless. Without further ado, I’d like to recommend the world’s three shortest books (in addition to the ones at the right):
- Who’s Who from Texas A&M
- Arab Heroes of the 6-day War
- Ethics in Journalism in the 20th century and beyond…
Stay tuned…
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Book Reviews
Losing Bin Laden is a book that chronicles the blunders and miscues of our federal government and its leaders. For those who are still novices about the worlwide terrorist organizations (or completely ignorant), this book will quickly bring you up to speed. It goes back as far as bin Laden's flight from Saudi Arabia, after having been put under house arrest by the Saudi government for his associations with radical Islamic extremists. It goes on to chronicle his fight against the Soviets alongside the Mujahideen and his five "protected" years in Sudan.
More enlightening, however, was how the U.S. State Department, FBI, CIA, and other organizations (including the President, himself) ignored the signs or took the stance of "passive resistance". More specifically, foreign policy was (in my opinion) centered around political expedience and self-serving motivations. While much of the blame for "Porsche 911" has been blamed on the lack of inter-agency cooperation (and by blame, I'm referring to the prevention of the occurrence), the "buck stops here" (i.e. the President) and too often no action was taken. Even after the FBI informed the White House that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was the work of a terrorist organization (which is easily traced by associations back to Osama bin Laden), there is was a clear denial by the White House to accept these facts and report them as such.
The one take-away point that I would attribute to this book? As I closed the last page, I heard the words "that self-serving son of a bitch" escape my lips...
Terrorist Hunter is a must buy, gotta have it, super stocker! I am effusive about this book and am not shy about it! It complements the first two books in this review, but goes a step beyond and adds drama, intrigue, and suspense! A Jewish family, born in al-Basra in Iraq, found themselves suddenly persecuted after Saddam's rise to power. Anyone who knows anything about the biography of Saddam Hussein is familiar with the incident where he publicly hung 14 Iraqi suspected of spying, 9 of which were Iraqi Jews (or was it 8...I can't remember for certain). At any rate, the author (who remains anonymous) was a young girl during that period of time and was force to flee Iraq with her family to Israel. There, she grew up, went to school, served in the military, and started a family. Still a leftist, with proclivities to support the establishment of the Palestinian state, she nonetheless, prospered as a Jew in an Israeli coastal town. After her third son, she moved to the United States where she became an employee of a Middle East research institute.
Here's where the story really begins to explode. Through exhaustive research, she began to uncover the roots and origins of religious leaders and charitable organizations operating fronts for terrorists in the United States. To dig deeper into their operations, she posed as an Iraqi Muslim woman, attending conventions and rallies in major metropolitan areas across this country (e.g. Chicago, San Francisco, etc.). One of the most astounding discoveries, in my opinion, was the charitable front in Tucson, Arizona, that was the first and central organization in the U.S. that funded al-Qaida.
The most astounding element of the story and her endeavors was that much of the information was found in the public domain. You or I or anyone else could have discovered (or in this case, verified) the information by simply rooting around through various public domain documents, such as articles of incorporation and federal tax declarations (required for charities). This is a first-rate example of where the bureaucracy of our system actually benefited us citizens.
As I finished this book, I was left with two very poignant realizations. First, the freedoms that we enjoy are enjoyed by all...and I mean ALL ...who come here. Secondly, we, as American citizens, by-in-large don't have the simplest grasp of the magnitude of the foe we are facing. As I read it, images of John Gotti and Al Capone flashed in my head, because the magnitude of the "system" that has been put in place (with regard to the terrorist organizations) is akin to organized crime on a global scale. It was both the most compelling and alarming book (of nonfiction) that I have ever read.
The War over Iraq explains how we (Americans) have arrived to this point in history, detailing the chain of events, motivations, and policies of past Presidential administrations dating back to Reagan (with a couple of references to Truman). If you thought you knew why we went to war in Iraq in 1991 or again in 2003, then think again. I found this book both compelling and enlightening and I didn't put it down until I finished it.
The author does a very good job of presenting the facts surrounding the chain of events without excessive editorializing until the last 20 pages or so. My head swelled with the knowledge that I gained (without his opinions) and served to significantly broaden my view of foreign political landscape. It also helped me more succinctly define my own philosophies toward foreign policy.
My words don't do this book justice. I can't imagine ever having an intelligent conversation about our reasons for those wars without the information presented in this book. My enthusiasm abounds... That's the best way I can put it.
Losing Bin Laden is a book that chronicles the blunders and miscues of our federal government and its leaders. For those who are still novices about the worlwide terrorist organizations (or completely ignorant), this book will quickly bring you up to speed. It goes back as far as bin Laden's flight from Saudi Arabia, after having been put under house arrest by the Saudi government for his associations with radical Islamic extremists. It goes on to chronicle his fight against the Soviets alongside the Mujahideen and his five "protected" years in Sudan.
More enlightening, however, was how the U.S. State Department, FBI, CIA, and other organizations (including the President, himself) ignored the signs or took the stance of "passive resistance". More specifically, foreign policy was (in my opinion) centered around political expedience and self-serving motivations. While much of the blame for "Porsche 911" has been blamed on the lack of inter-agency cooperation (and by blame, I'm referring to the prevention of the occurrence), the "buck stops here" (i.e. the President) and too often no action was taken. Even after the FBI informed the White House that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was the work of a terrorist organization (which is easily traced by associations back to Osama bin Laden), there is was a clear denial by the White House to accept these facts and report them as such.
The one take-away point that I would attribute to this book? As I closed the last page, I heard the words "that self-serving son of a bitch" escape my lips...
Terrorist Hunter is a must buy, gotta have it, super stocker! I am effusive about this book and am not shy about it! It complements the first two books in this review, but goes a step beyond and adds drama, intrigue, and suspense! A Jewish family, born in al-Basra in Iraq, found themselves suddenly persecuted after Saddam's rise to power. Anyone who knows anything about the biography of Saddam Hussein is familiar with the incident where he publicly hung 14 Iraqi suspected of spying, 9 of which were Iraqi Jews (or was it 8...I can't remember for certain). At any rate, the author (who remains anonymous) was a young girl during that period of time and was force to flee Iraq with her family to Israel. There, she grew up, went to school, served in the military, and started a family. Still a leftist, with proclivities to support the establishment of the Palestinian state, she nonetheless, prospered as a Jew in an Israeli coastal town. After her third son, she moved to the United States where she became an employee of a Middle East research institute.
Here's where the story really begins to explode. Through exhaustive research, she began to uncover the roots and origins of religious leaders and charitable organizations operating fronts for terrorists in the United States. To dig deeper into their operations, she posed as an Iraqi Muslim woman, attending conventions and rallies in major metropolitan areas across this country (e.g. Chicago, San Francisco, etc.). One of the most astounding discoveries, in my opinion, was the charitable front in Tucson, Arizona, that was the first and central organization in the U.S. that funded al-Qaida.
The most astounding element of the story and her endeavors was that much of the information was found in the public domain. You or I or anyone else could have discovered (or in this case, verified) the information by simply rooting around through various public domain documents, such as articles of incorporation and federal tax declarations (required for charities). This is a first-rate example of where the bureaucracy of our system actually benefited us citizens.
As I finished this book, I was left with two very poignant realizations. First, the freedoms that we enjoy are enjoyed by all...and I mean ALL ...who come here. Secondly, we, as American citizens, by-in-large don't have the simplest grasp of the magnitude of the foe we are facing. As I read it, images of John Gotti and Al Capone flashed in my head, because the magnitude of the "system" that has been put in place (with regard to the terrorist organizations) is akin to organized crime on a global scale. It was both the most compelling and alarming book (of nonfiction) that I have ever read.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
A matter of evidence…
I think the time has come where we all need to stop pissing and moaning about evidence. I think it’s time to accept the circumstances of the situation and go from there. I’m sick of hearing about how the evidence linking Saddam to the attacks of 9/11 is flimsy or non-existent. That should never have been used as a motivating factor for our military action, in the first place. Pundits argue that there was no logical connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, citing Saddam’s stifling of fundamentalist movements and Osama bin Laden’s ire for secular Arab leaders. The flaw in this analysis is in its lack of application of human nature and lessons from history. We, the U.S., have consistently demonstrated throughout history that we will ally with the enemy of our enemies: the Russians in World War II, Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, the list goes on. There are countless lessons from history that suggests that virtually any other foreign leader would/will do the same. Granted, we have a tendency to be less discriminating about whom we choose as “friends”, but mistakes will happen. The point is that what you characterize as “serious” evidence is subjective. If I see a trail of associations to those responsible, then, to me, the guilt is self-evident. In proverbial terms, we refer to it as “birds of a feather flock together”. Would I blame Saddam Hussein directly for 9/11? No. Do I think he had some peripheral contribution? Yes. Do I feel the need for such evidence to justify kicking his ass? Not only no, but hell no.
We are traveling down a very dark road with the beacon of self-righteousness leading our way. “American internationalism”, our newest foreign policy, asserts that democracy is the way to global peace. In all fairness, there is compelling evidence that supports it. The risks we accept, however, are the consequences of our arrogance. By asserting our preeminence, we draw enmity from a great many in this world. As a leader, it’s a tough decision. But ask any corporate leader in this country and they’ll tell you their truths:
1) Leadership is more about “responsibility” than “ability”. For every decision there is a natural consequence and as a leader you have to accept them and press on. That’s the responsibility of our leaders.
2) Leadership requires very tough decisions that are often unpopular. The luxury that most leaders have is the benefit of the broader perspective, often referred to as “the big picture”. That picture defines their vision of the past, present, and future. Invariably, any given decision will have opposing viewpoints. As a leader, it’s necessary to consider those views and press on.
3) Vision is a hard thing to verbalize. It’s often lonely at the top because of the benefit of the bigger picture and the inability to effectively communicate it. One of the biggest challenges leaders face is leading itself, motivating others toward a common goal, driven by a common vision. Articulating that vision is the first and most difficult step.
4) Leadership requires the right blend of lieutenants. Without the first rank of subordinates both sharing the vision and offering disparate viewpoints, the leader’s foundation is unstable. Bill Gates was once noted as saying that he’s “not that smart”, he “just surrounds himself with smart people”. His business ethics notwithstanding, he is arguably one of the greatest business leaders today
The path that President Bush has embarked upon is a difficult one, whether I agree with it or not. Is it right? I can’t answer that. In my opinion, it’s neither right nor wrong. If asked, I would say the same about Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Mormons, Southern Baptists, and any other religion that aggressively purports that theirs is singularly principled. Are there benefits? I strongly argue, yes, there is. I believe that almost anyone would agree with that. That’s not where the argument lies, though, is it. It lies in how well we can accept the consequences and some people are less apt than others.
Believe it or not, this philosophical foray was actually leading somewhere. The argument has been made that the foreign policy practices of containment and deterrence would have kept Saddam Hussein in check, indefinitely. After all, so the story goes, it worked so well with the Soviet Union that we ultimately prevailed. Like an international staring contest, they went blind from not blinking. But to correlate Cold War containment with Saddam Hussein ignores the details of the circumstances. Cold War containment worked because the two principals involved were levelheaded and unwilling to risk the devastation of their country or countrymen. Saddam has demonstrated otherwise. Pundits further contend that even in the event that Saddam did acquire a nuclear capability, he would be deterred by the other nuclear weapon-wielding nations of the world. They contend that the prospect of a retaliatory strike would prevent him from initiating one. This is where the so-called experts have miscalculated their subject. Saddam Hussein, by his own admission, is an anti-Semite with pan-Arab ambitions. His two personal idols include Joseph Stalin (who killed millions of his own countrymen) and Egyptian President Nasser (who publicly stated that “the problem with Israel is that it exists”). Experts further miscalculate their enemy; fundamentalist Islamic leaders have consistently said that their religion sanctifies death as much as the Zionists sanctify life. Nothing would deter Saddam Hussein, a megalomaniac by all accounts, from martyring himself and his people if it meant the total annihilation of Israel. He would consider it a personal and pan-Arab coup of historic proportions. Until such time, he will do everything he can to bend the rules to further his cause.
The other exception I take to the argument of containment and deterrence is with the U.S. response. If a retaliatory nuclear strike is going to take place, it must occur swiftly and decisively. Not a matter of weeks or days, but a matter of hours or minutes. In this day and age, the political fallout both nationally and internationally is far greater than any president in recent history (in my opinion) has the intestinal fortitude to risk. We elect leaders to make tough decisions, but each one accepts their post with a prayer on their lips that they may never have to exercise all of the power with which they’ve been endowed.
And what IF Saddam sells off a nuclear weapon to the highest anti-Semitic bidder? How do we retaliate against a nation-less entity, like al-Qaeda, al-Ansar al-Islam, or Abu Sayyef? I can hear the news stories now… “Why didn’t we do more to stop this? What more could we have done to prevent this from happening?” I’m not an expert in foreign policy or diplomatic relations, but I believe the logical argument suggests that anything less than pre-emptive military intervention increases the risk (the probability of occurrence, in this case). And the natural consequence of this very difficult course of action is a different kind of political fallout. Are there benefits? Yes. What is the list of consequences and which are we willing to accept? This is Risk Management 101. You implement mitigation actions to reduce the probability or consequence of occurrence for any given risk. For every mitigating action there is a cost-benefit analysis. Does the cost outweigh the benefits? And by how much are we mitigating the risk. …These are the tools of a leader.
Enough for now…
I think the time has come where we all need to stop pissing and moaning about evidence. I think it’s time to accept the circumstances of the situation and go from there. I’m sick of hearing about how the evidence linking Saddam to the attacks of 9/11 is flimsy or non-existent. That should never have been used as a motivating factor for our military action, in the first place. Pundits argue that there was no logical connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, citing Saddam’s stifling of fundamentalist movements and Osama bin Laden’s ire for secular Arab leaders. The flaw in this analysis is in its lack of application of human nature and lessons from history. We, the U.S., have consistently demonstrated throughout history that we will ally with the enemy of our enemies: the Russians in World War II, Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution, Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, the list goes on. There are countless lessons from history that suggests that virtually any other foreign leader would/will do the same. Granted, we have a tendency to be less discriminating about whom we choose as “friends”, but mistakes will happen. The point is that what you characterize as “serious” evidence is subjective. If I see a trail of associations to those responsible, then, to me, the guilt is self-evident. In proverbial terms, we refer to it as “birds of a feather flock together”. Would I blame Saddam Hussein directly for 9/11? No. Do I think he had some peripheral contribution? Yes. Do I feel the need for such evidence to justify kicking his ass? Not only no, but hell no.
We are traveling down a very dark road with the beacon of self-righteousness leading our way. “American internationalism”, our newest foreign policy, asserts that democracy is the way to global peace. In all fairness, there is compelling evidence that supports it. The risks we accept, however, are the consequences of our arrogance. By asserting our preeminence, we draw enmity from a great many in this world. As a leader, it’s a tough decision. But ask any corporate leader in this country and they’ll tell you their truths:
1) Leadership is more about “responsibility” than “ability”. For every decision there is a natural consequence and as a leader you have to accept them and press on. That’s the responsibility of our leaders.
2) Leadership requires very tough decisions that are often unpopular. The luxury that most leaders have is the benefit of the broader perspective, often referred to as “the big picture”. That picture defines their vision of the past, present, and future. Invariably, any given decision will have opposing viewpoints. As a leader, it’s necessary to consider those views and press on.
3) Vision is a hard thing to verbalize. It’s often lonely at the top because of the benefit of the bigger picture and the inability to effectively communicate it. One of the biggest challenges leaders face is leading itself, motivating others toward a common goal, driven by a common vision. Articulating that vision is the first and most difficult step.
4) Leadership requires the right blend of lieutenants. Without the first rank of subordinates both sharing the vision and offering disparate viewpoints, the leader’s foundation is unstable. Bill Gates was once noted as saying that he’s “not that smart”, he “just surrounds himself with smart people”. His business ethics notwithstanding, he is arguably one of the greatest business leaders today
The path that President Bush has embarked upon is a difficult one, whether I agree with it or not. Is it right? I can’t answer that. In my opinion, it’s neither right nor wrong. If asked, I would say the same about Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Mormons, Southern Baptists, and any other religion that aggressively purports that theirs is singularly principled. Are there benefits? I strongly argue, yes, there is. I believe that almost anyone would agree with that. That’s not where the argument lies, though, is it. It lies in how well we can accept the consequences and some people are less apt than others.
Believe it or not, this philosophical foray was actually leading somewhere. The argument has been made that the foreign policy practices of containment and deterrence would have kept Saddam Hussein in check, indefinitely. After all, so the story goes, it worked so well with the Soviet Union that we ultimately prevailed. Like an international staring contest, they went blind from not blinking. But to correlate Cold War containment with Saddam Hussein ignores the details of the circumstances. Cold War containment worked because the two principals involved were levelheaded and unwilling to risk the devastation of their country or countrymen. Saddam has demonstrated otherwise. Pundits further contend that even in the event that Saddam did acquire a nuclear capability, he would be deterred by the other nuclear weapon-wielding nations of the world. They contend that the prospect of a retaliatory strike would prevent him from initiating one. This is where the so-called experts have miscalculated their subject. Saddam Hussein, by his own admission, is an anti-Semite with pan-Arab ambitions. His two personal idols include Joseph Stalin (who killed millions of his own countrymen) and Egyptian President Nasser (who publicly stated that “the problem with Israel is that it exists”). Experts further miscalculate their enemy; fundamentalist Islamic leaders have consistently said that their religion sanctifies death as much as the Zionists sanctify life. Nothing would deter Saddam Hussein, a megalomaniac by all accounts, from martyring himself and his people if it meant the total annihilation of Israel. He would consider it a personal and pan-Arab coup of historic proportions. Until such time, he will do everything he can to bend the rules to further his cause.
The other exception I take to the argument of containment and deterrence is with the U.S. response. If a retaliatory nuclear strike is going to take place, it must occur swiftly and decisively. Not a matter of weeks or days, but a matter of hours or minutes. In this day and age, the political fallout both nationally and internationally is far greater than any president in recent history (in my opinion) has the intestinal fortitude to risk. We elect leaders to make tough decisions, but each one accepts their post with a prayer on their lips that they may never have to exercise all of the power with which they’ve been endowed.
And what IF Saddam sells off a nuclear weapon to the highest anti-Semitic bidder? How do we retaliate against a nation-less entity, like al-Qaeda, al-Ansar al-Islam, or Abu Sayyef? I can hear the news stories now… “Why didn’t we do more to stop this? What more could we have done to prevent this from happening?” I’m not an expert in foreign policy or diplomatic relations, but I believe the logical argument suggests that anything less than pre-emptive military intervention increases the risk (the probability of occurrence, in this case). And the natural consequence of this very difficult course of action is a different kind of political fallout. Are there benefits? Yes. What is the list of consequences and which are we willing to accept? This is Risk Management 101. You implement mitigation actions to reduce the probability or consequence of occurrence for any given risk. For every mitigating action there is a cost-benefit analysis. Does the cost outweigh the benefits? And by how much are we mitigating the risk. …These are the tools of a leader.
Enough for now…
Monday, October 20, 2003
Of Leaders and Men…(Inspired by Riverbend (9/2/03))
The new group of leaders installed by the “coalition of the willing” has often been characterized as a cast of puppets. A bold, cynical statement… While they may not be the leaders that everyone wants today, the question we should be asking is "can they do the job well enough until someone better comes along?" Sure, we all want the perfect government in place today with all the right players making all the right decisions, but how realistic is that? We, a nation of 250 million people, have nearly as many different opinions, perspectives, and motivations. For that reason, we change our President every four years (eight if we're too lazy to vote), our Senators and Representatives every two years, and all because our needs are constantly changing and we're never satisfied with our leaders. That's democracy.
But let’s ask another question…How well were the modern Iraqi people previously represented? Especially the Shia'as in the South? The Kurds in the North? If you don't grant them a place in the "Hall of Power" then they're sacrifice was for naught. And who WOULD represent the modern Iraqi people. In a society that has been politically repressed for decades, who within your population has the political acumen? I appreciate that there is little respect for those Nine Ninnies because they didn't suffer through those years as everyone else did. From a political perspective, however, you have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you run, and run before becoming a recognized political force in the international community. It took Saddam Hussein decades to obtain the level of "recognition" that he had. And he did it through brute force, the whole way. He was destined to fall, because the world would not have allowed him to achieve much more. Iraq should consider themselves "back to Square One".
The new group of leaders installed by the “coalition of the willing” has often been characterized as a cast of puppets. A bold, cynical statement… While they may not be the leaders that everyone wants today, the question we should be asking is "can they do the job well enough until someone better comes along?" Sure, we all want the perfect government in place today with all the right players making all the right decisions, but how realistic is that? We, a nation of 250 million people, have nearly as many different opinions, perspectives, and motivations. For that reason, we change our President every four years (eight if we're too lazy to vote), our Senators and Representatives every two years, and all because our needs are constantly changing and we're never satisfied with our leaders. That's democracy.
But let’s ask another question…How well were the modern Iraqi people previously represented? Especially the Shia'as in the South? The Kurds in the North? If you don't grant them a place in the "Hall of Power" then they're sacrifice was for naught. And who WOULD represent the modern Iraqi people. In a society that has been politically repressed for decades, who within your population has the political acumen? I appreciate that there is little respect for those Nine Ninnies because they didn't suffer through those years as everyone else did. From a political perspective, however, you have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you run, and run before becoming a recognized political force in the international community. It took Saddam Hussein decades to obtain the level of "recognition" that he had. And he did it through brute force, the whole way. He was destined to fall, because the world would not have allowed him to achieve much more. Iraq should consider themselves "back to Square One".
Power and Punishment
My first commentary on the post-war Iraq… Inspired by Riverbend (8/25/03).
In a power vacuum, people will vie to fill the void, pursuing their own agendas. They've learned (in Iraq) by example, over the last 30+ years, that intimidation, fear, and oppression will reward them with that power they covet so dearly. This too, shall pass. As much as America is touted as being socially and culturally diverse, we still have the same militants against cultural "blending". Aryan Nation. The KKK. Don't think that they're all WASPs, though. The Black Panthers were black separatists led by a prominent black man who espoused the virtues of "separate, but equal".
Going forward, Iraqis will have to trust their fellow countrymen to do the right thing. They'll make mistakes, they'll betray one another, and they'll cause a great deal of pain and controversy. But in the end, it'll work out... The silent majority will express themselves when it matters most.
Before the war, the media was rife with anti-war rhetoric, but much to their disbelief, polls showed almost three-quarters of the population in support of military action. In this country, the media has the largest influence over popular opinion and they know it. So when popular opinion ran counter to their own, they were beside themselves...visibly so. I remember the day clearly as the anchors would stammer out the poll results, further editorializing the report with their disbelief and dismay. It was a personal victory for me, but that's another rant...
I play hockey, here in the States, about three nights a week. Just like in life, we have rules. And just like in life, people break the rules. Sundays, I play in a league that is notorious for players who break the rules. Time and again, they play in a manner that is unsportsmanlike and never punished. The referees, for whatever reason, don't make the calls and the behavior goes unchecked. That will never correct the behavior. So people get hurt, the game isn't fun, and emotions boil-over. Much like we "Cowboy Americans" do, I occasionally take matters into my own hands. Sunday, one particular player was being especially unruly. I gave him fair warning, which he chose not to heed. "Be careful with how rough you play me, bubba." Two minutes later I watched him put his stick into the back of a fellow player. The referee, watching the play, took no action. That's when I "broke the rules" and attacked him. Now, there was no intent to injure and I wasn't picking a fight, I simply tackled him to the floor. It drew a number of other players in, but the, now engaged, referees quickly separated the fray. As we separated, he challenged me further, drawing me into fisticuffs. Having no interest I simply replied, "What goes around comes around". I'm a firm believer in the Law of Reciprocity and he sat in the penalty box for four minutes thinking about that. I sent a simple message. There are consequences to your actions and if it means breaking the rules to show you that, I'm willing to do that. The take-away message that I'm trying to convey is in the absence of a lawful response, sometimes it's appropriate to break the rules to send a simple message. Some might characterize that as vigilantism. I would agree to a point. The distinction I make is when the “lawful agent” chooses to ignore the indiscretion. ...But that's me... I have a low tolerance for injustice.
Something interesting came from a discussion I had with Riverbend. She mentioned that her salary was comparable to male colleagues in the office, something typically uncommon in Western cultures. One of the most interesting things that I experienced in the Middle East was the natural tendency to negotiate for goods and services. Depending upon the strict social guidelines of the country, women were just as skillful at negotiating as men. Western cultures don't "breed" that trait into their females. It has been my contention for quite some time that "equal pay" for women is in no small part the responsibility of the woman and their aptitude for negotiating. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen it in my position. Furthermore, as a businessman, I'm focused on getting the highest value from my human resource. Does that mean I intentionally take advantage of women's inability to effectively negotiate their salaries? Heavens, no! In fact, the whole point is that they are happy with the salary being offered. In most cases, it doesn't occur to them that they could ask for more... For others, it's simply too distasteful to barter, and would sooner walk away from the table altogether. So...as a capitalist pig (grin), I'm glad our culture is the way it is, because it means more profit for the company! But as women continue to climb into leadership roles, their lack of negotiating skills has a broader, less positive impact. ...What's that...? The bigger picture...? NO! Really!? (snicker)
My first commentary on the post-war Iraq… Inspired by Riverbend (8/25/03).
In a power vacuum, people will vie to fill the void, pursuing their own agendas. They've learned (in Iraq) by example, over the last 30+ years, that intimidation, fear, and oppression will reward them with that power they covet so dearly. This too, shall pass. As much as America is touted as being socially and culturally diverse, we still have the same militants against cultural "blending". Aryan Nation. The KKK. Don't think that they're all WASPs, though. The Black Panthers were black separatists led by a prominent black man who espoused the virtues of "separate, but equal".
Going forward, Iraqis will have to trust their fellow countrymen to do the right thing. They'll make mistakes, they'll betray one another, and they'll cause a great deal of pain and controversy. But in the end, it'll work out... The silent majority will express themselves when it matters most.
Before the war, the media was rife with anti-war rhetoric, but much to their disbelief, polls showed almost three-quarters of the population in support of military action. In this country, the media has the largest influence over popular opinion and they know it. So when popular opinion ran counter to their own, they were beside themselves...visibly so. I remember the day clearly as the anchors would stammer out the poll results, further editorializing the report with their disbelief and dismay. It was a personal victory for me, but that's another rant...
I play hockey, here in the States, about three nights a week. Just like in life, we have rules. And just like in life, people break the rules. Sundays, I play in a league that is notorious for players who break the rules. Time and again, they play in a manner that is unsportsmanlike and never punished. The referees, for whatever reason, don't make the calls and the behavior goes unchecked. That will never correct the behavior. So people get hurt, the game isn't fun, and emotions boil-over. Much like we "Cowboy Americans" do, I occasionally take matters into my own hands. Sunday, one particular player was being especially unruly. I gave him fair warning, which he chose not to heed. "Be careful with how rough you play me, bubba." Two minutes later I watched him put his stick into the back of a fellow player. The referee, watching the play, took no action. That's when I "broke the rules" and attacked him. Now, there was no intent to injure and I wasn't picking a fight, I simply tackled him to the floor. It drew a number of other players in, but the, now engaged, referees quickly separated the fray. As we separated, he challenged me further, drawing me into fisticuffs. Having no interest I simply replied, "What goes around comes around". I'm a firm believer in the Law of Reciprocity and he sat in the penalty box for four minutes thinking about that. I sent a simple message. There are consequences to your actions and if it means breaking the rules to show you that, I'm willing to do that. The take-away message that I'm trying to convey is in the absence of a lawful response, sometimes it's appropriate to break the rules to send a simple message. Some might characterize that as vigilantism. I would agree to a point. The distinction I make is when the “lawful agent” chooses to ignore the indiscretion. ...But that's me... I have a low tolerance for injustice.
Something interesting came from a discussion I had with Riverbend. She mentioned that her salary was comparable to male colleagues in the office, something typically uncommon in Western cultures. One of the most interesting things that I experienced in the Middle East was the natural tendency to negotiate for goods and services. Depending upon the strict social guidelines of the country, women were just as skillful at negotiating as men. Western cultures don't "breed" that trait into their females. It has been my contention for quite some time that "equal pay" for women is in no small part the responsibility of the woman and their aptitude for negotiating. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen it in my position. Furthermore, as a businessman, I'm focused on getting the highest value from my human resource. Does that mean I intentionally take advantage of women's inability to effectively negotiate their salaries? Heavens, no! In fact, the whole point is that they are happy with the salary being offered. In most cases, it doesn't occur to them that they could ask for more... For others, it's simply too distasteful to barter, and would sooner walk away from the table altogether. So...as a capitalist pig (grin), I'm glad our culture is the way it is, because it means more profit for the company! But as women continue to climb into leadership roles, their lack of negotiating skills has a broader, less positive impact. ...What's that...? The bigger picture...? NO! Really!? (snicker)
Let the games begin...
Good morning. It's finally come to this. Since I can't get anyone to PAY me to pontificate (grin), I thought I'd just lay it all out there... On a serious note, the recent growth of blogging has inspired me and I wanted to pitch my nickel into the "global wishing well".
In case anyone is wondering what "Sutta" is, it means "discourses" in Pali. But more about that later...
I'll field remarks at dreamchaser6020@yahoo.com
Good morning. It's finally come to this. Since I can't get anyone to PAY me to pontificate (grin), I thought I'd just lay it all out there... On a serious note, the recent growth of blogging has inspired me and I wanted to pitch my nickel into the "global wishing well".
In case anyone is wondering what "Sutta" is, it means "discourses" in Pali. But more about that later...
I'll field remarks at dreamchaser6020@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
