Still Blogging About Anachronisms, Autocrats, and America

My eldest daughter recently asked me if I was writing for Another War-on-Terror Blog any more. If you follow this blog (thank you!), you've noticed that posts are few and far between: particularly compared to a few years ago.

About Interest: Mine and Yours

It's not that I've lost interest. I'm still following what I think may be the major conflict of the 21st century. I still think that the efforts of a few folks to impose their anachronistic views on everybody else are a real threat. Not just a threat to America: Outfits like Al Qaeda have a distressing habit of killing folks who don't dress the 'right' way, or who simply get in the way.

On the other hand, I don't think I'd be doing anyone a favor by spouting off about every event and personality connected with the war on terror. I've posted 1,410 times so far, this one will make it 1,411: and who's going to have time to read all that? Or be interested??

Autocrats in the Information Age

I'm optimistic about the eventual outcome of the war on terror. Al Qaeda and others who desperately want to live in what seems to be an imagined past where their foibles were accommodated face a terrible obstacle. It's not the armed might of the United States, or United Nations resolutions. Most people simply don't like being killed at the whim of their ruler.

Folks in Afghanistan don't seem to have enjoyed having their lives run by the Taliban.

Iraq's citizens didn't like Saddam Hussein, but cooperated in their country's defense. They cooperated with Al Qadea in Iraq, too: until they noticed that the 'lions of Islam' were killing their neighbors for trivial reasons, while the foreign devils were rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and making progress at stopping the aforementioned lions from killing their neighbors. That's when the Anbar Awakening happened.

Over-simplified? Yes. But I think there's a pattern here. Folks in places like the Middle East put up with remarkably brutal and incompetent leadership, until they learn about what's happened in the last thousand years or so in places like Europe.

The last I heard, old-school autocrats were still killing their subjects in an effort to instill loyalty. And failing.

Why the American Emphasis?

If you've read more than a few posts, you'll have noticed that:

• I
  • Am an American citizen
    • Who prefers living here
  • Think that America isn't
    • perfect
    • The source of all ickiness
  • Think that
    • Freedom is precious
    • War isn't nice
    • War may be preferable to the alternatives
• This blog
  • Is written from my point of view
  • Is not
    • Chauvinistically 'pro-American'
    • A screed against
      • Yankee imperialism
      • Western oppression
      • Fluoridated water

"Fluoridated water?!" I remember the 'good old days,' when the establishment was mostly conservative and nearly all Anglo-American: and never want to go back. And that's almost another topic.

So, why the American emphasis?

As an American citizen, I tend to notice what's happening in this country: and pay attention, since there's always an election coming up. More topics.

I think that America is one of the few countries that's able to deal with terrorists: and one of a handful that's willing to do so. Just as important, American leaders are often able to encourage other national leaders to form coalitions.

'Wouldn't It be Nice - - -?'

As I've said before, I don't think war is nice. Things get broken, people get killed. But we don't live in a 'nice' world.

Someday we may have a global authority that's able to deal with threats to the common good. Maybe even without using force. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Until we've got something like Tennyson's "parliament of man ... federation of the world," we'll have to muddle along with coalitions operating under United Nations mandates.

And I'll be writing posts from time to time, about what I think are interesting or major developments in the war on terror.

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Beer, Basketball, the War on Terror, Today's News, and Me"
  (March 10, 2011)
• "Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo"
  (July 31, 2010)
• "No More 'War on Terror' - Officially?"
  (March 30, 2009)
• "Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age"
  (January 30, 2009)
• In another blog
  • "9/11, Just War, and 'Death to Mickey Mouse' "
    A Catholic Citizen in America (September 11, 2011)
  • " 'Just War:' Unpleasant, but Not a Contradiction in Terms"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (March 22, 2011)

New of the Blogroll: 100 Excellent Conservative Blogs...

100 Excellent Conservative Blogs You Should Be Reading (Masters in Education) is now on the Blogroll.

I think it's a pretty good resource. I should: This blog is #60 on the list, under "Specialty Topics."

(Thanks, Masters in Education!)

Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo

This is - interesting.

"Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution? "
Ernest S. Christian & Gary A. Robbins, Perspective, Investors Business Daily blog (July 30, 2010)

"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

"People are asking, 'Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?'

"Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency...."

"...Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily...."

The bloggers' view of America's current administration is somewhat less than favorable: understandably, in a publication devoted in part to the idea that owning private property is okay.

The bulk of the post concerns economic issues which I believe are important, but which fall outside the purview of this blog. The point of interest, for Another War-on-Terror Blog, is in the first paragraph:

"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another...."
(July 30, 2010)

Before writing what I think about the Internet, information gatekeepers, and change, a few points:

• This is not a political blog
  • I occasionally discuss politics because that's how America selects its leaders
  • I am not "for" or "against" the president
    • Particular policies are another matter
• I do not call for the overthrow of the American government
  • That would be
    • Illegal
    • Messy
    • Likely to give us something even less acceptable

What are Information Gatekeepers? Why are They So Upset?

I've discussed this before:

...According to Princeton's WordNet, an gatekeeper is literally a doorkeeper or doorman: someone who guards an entrance. "Gatekeeper" may also be used as a metaphor:

"gatekeeper (someone who controls access to something) 'there are too many gatekeepers between the field officers and the chief' "
(Princeton's WordNet)

So, an "information gatekeeper" is someone who controls access to information.

Information Gatekeepers in America

For several generations, the traditional information gatekeepers in American culture included

• Newspaper editors
• Teachers and organizations of teachers
• Leaders of colleges and universities
• Entertainment industry executives
• Publishers of books and magazines

There are others, like politicians and military leaders - but I'm inclined to think, "...if you will let me write the songs of a nation, I care not who makes its laws...."¹

A problem I see with America's traditional information gatekeepers is that, by the 20th century, a very small group of people had a great deal of control over what the rest of us were allowed to know. I don't think this was (entirely) intentional....
(August 14, 2009)

That's the way it was for most of the latter part of the 20th century. Then people started using the Internet, and now we've got blogs - including this one - publishing ideas that haven't been approved by America's traditional information gatekeepers.

I don't mind the way things are, in terms of freedom of speech: but I'm not part of America's established order, either. My ideas are not politically correct: I even think it's okay for people to use dangerous technology like guns, LP gas and computers. (June 27, 2008)

I think America's traditional information gatekeepers are very concerned that people like me are free to share ideas with others.

They should be.

It seems that many folks who are not part of America's power structure now realize that they're not the only ones who are fed up with the status quo.

Back in the 'good old days,' it was possible to convince many - perhaps most - folks who didn't entirely agree with the establishment's way of thinking that their only allies were inarticulate crackpots. (A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010))

Today, not so much. Some bloggers are crackpots. Some aren't - and there isn't any way of making sure that anti-establishment ideas are presented almost exclusively by crackpots.

No wonder folks in the establishment are concerned.

Saving a Spunky Girl Reporter, Retaining Our Freedom

At least, America doesn't have a way of filtering what "the masses" see on the Internet - yet. That may change.

Earlier this week, a attractive ESPN reporter made an emotional appeal for the government to do something about those awful people on the Internet. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010)

She's got a point. What happened to her wasn't right. Stalking is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.

But I'm very concerned that, months before an election, an attractive young woman makes an emotional cry for help - pleading that the government save her from nasty people online.

As I said, she's got a point: existing laws against stalking should be enforced, and perhaps the penalties are insufficient.

But that's not what she asked for.

"...She said, 'If somebody could think of something, I mean, they'd be a hero because, you know, there's just a lot of stuff that needs to be policed; that needs to be looked at. No one's held accountable for what they put on the Internet.'..."
(Erin Andrews, quoted on CNS News, via Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010))

'Will no-one save her?!' My concern that the American Congress will rush to rescue this fair damsel - and set up regulations that will keep unsavory characters away from the American public.

Unsavory characters like stalkers, terrorists, and Ron Paul supporters.

Related posts:

• "WikiLeaks, Killing People Who don't Agree, and Living in the Real World"
  (July 30, 2010)
• "Lemming Tracks: Erin Andrews, Policing the Internet, and Power to the People"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010)
• "Cultural Chaos, Divisiveness, and CNN"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010)
• "Banning Online Terrorist Recruiters? Be Careful About What You Wish For"
  (March 10, 2009)
• "Missouri Focus Group MIAC: Ron Paul Supporters May Be Terrorists"
  (March 23, 2009)
• "Odd Allies: Opposition to Waterboarding and Web Censorship"
  (March 9, 2008)

Baqckground:

• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)

Blogetery Shutdown, WordPress, Al Qaeda, the FBI, and C3PO

It made a memorable line in a famous movie:

"No! Shut them all down! Hurry!"
(C3PO, Star Wars Episode IV, via entertonement.com)

And, in context, C3PO's instructions to R2D2 were appropriate.

Ordering someone to 'shut them all down' isn't always a good idea, though.

Last Friday, I read about 73,000 WordPress blogs hosted by Blogetery going silent. I was - concerned. Particularly since, hyperventilating Tweets and blog posts notwithstanding: all those blogs apparently had been silenced.

• "73,000 WordPress Blogs Go Silent: Blogetery Complies With Federal Demand"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 16, 2010)

The least-unlikely explanation I ran into was that Blogetery had been involved in some sort of intellectual property rights infringement.

I wasn't going to suggest that terrorism was involved, one way or the other: there were enough wild rumors flying around as it was. So I missed my chance to write 'told you so.' Which is okay.

Earlier today, I read that the FBI had called for Blogetery's shutdown because one (1) blog hosted on their servers had terrorist-related materials on it.

So the feds shut down all 73,000?! That seemed - excessively zealous. Unless law enforcement had reason to suspect that someone on the Blogetery staff was the one who had planted the terrorist-related data - in which case the only safe thing to do would be to shut everything in Blogetery down, until technicians could go through the code and equipment.

Check Facts, THEN Issue Orders

Apparently, some hapless employee - misinterpreted? - what the FBI, or someone, had said, and told both Blogetery and the media that the FBI had said 'shut them all down.'

"...But [Burst.net chief technology officer Joe] Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own...."
(CNET)

What still isn't clear is why old-school news media in America hadn't reported on the Blogetery shutdown. I suspect that my father's advice may apply here: "Never ascribe to malice, what can be explained by stupidity."

Or, in the case of old-school media, institutional inertia and a monumental level of cluelessness about Information-Age issues.

Conspiracy? I Rather Doubt It

The 'addled employee' explanation could be part of some sort of plot to silence somebody or other. Or to prove that America's federal government can silence critics, or to keep people from knowing the the mothership finally came for Elvis.

But I don't think so.

I also don't think that we know everything there is to know, about what happened to Blogetery. But I'm not as concerned as I was on Friday. The explanation first given on CNET is plausible, given how excitable people can get when the FBI, blogs, and terrorists are involved.

My guess is that somebody, somewhere along the line, overreacted - big time - and caused a whole lot of unnecessary excitement.

Or maybe not-so-unnecessary.

Cloud Computing and Solid Realities

I've briefly discussed cloud computing in another blog. I think the idea is attractive: and somewhere between impractical and dangerous right now.

The Blogetery shutdown shows, I think, how vulnerable data stored on someone else's server is.

About Blogetery and the missing blogs: I suggest reading that CNET article. Of the published reports I've read, it seems to be the best-researched and calm discussion of what we know to date.

Do I Trust America? The FBI?

I've made the point that, in my opinion, America isn't perfect. I am convinced that this country is run by human beings. Mistakes happen, and sometimes bad things are done on purpose.

But, on the whole, I think that America is a pretty good place to live. And, yes: I 'trust the government.' To the extent that I must assume that, on average, its institutions act in accord with a set of laws that are intended to prevent officials from doing serious harm to American citizens.

The CNET account describes what appears to be a legal operation of the FBI, done with judicial approval: in which some yahoo overreacted and added fodder for a new crop of conspiracy theories.

The FBIPressOffice, on Twitter, linked to the FBI's 'top 10 of the week' lists on Friday, July 16, and hasn't mentioned anything about the Blogetery situation since then.

Which I don't find too surprising, since the (real) issue is probably still under investigation.

I've put excerpts from four news articles after the links, interspersed with brief comments.

Related posts, about

• Censorship:
  • "How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them"
    (December 7, 2009)
  • "Argentina, Regulating Broadcasters, Grupo Clarin, Ted Turner, 800-Pound Gorillas, and Freedom of Speech"
    (September 18, 2009)
  • "America, Iran, Freedom of Speech, Censorship: Be Careful What You Wish For"
    (June 22, 2008)
  • "Odd Allies: Opposition to Waterboarding and Web Censorship"
    (March 9, 2008)
• Conspiracy theories:
  • "Greedy Rich People and an 'Organized Campaign to Suppress the Truth' - Who Knew?"
    (April 5, 2009)
  • "Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, India, and the Lizard People"
    (January 14, 2009)
  • "9/11 and What They Want You to Believe"
    (September 11, 2008)
  • "Montauk Monster: Publicity Stunt by Space Aliens, Implicating USDA's Plum Island?"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 30, 2008)
• Internet security:
  • "Pentagon Computers Hacked - Joint Strike Fighter Project Data This Time"
    (April 21, 2009)
  • "World Bank Group Network Hacked; Chinese IPs Used: Just What We Need"
    (October 10, 2008)
  • "FISA Updated: for a Limited Time Only"
    (August 5, 2007)
• Thinking and feeling:
  • "Emotions, the Frontal Cortex, The War on Terror, Anarchists, and the Illuminati"
    (December 23, 2008)

In the news:

• "Blog Platform Shut Down As FBI Probes al-Qaeda Posts"
  Threat Level, Wired (July 19, 2010)
• "Blogetery.com Shut Down: Danger on the Internet"
  PCWorld (July 19, 2010)
• "FBI Warning of Al Qaeda Hit Lists, Bomb-Making Tips Led to Shutdown of Blogging Site"
  FOXNews (July 19, 2010)
• "Bomb-making tips, hit list behind Blogetery closure"
  CNET (July 19, 2010)

---

Excerpts:

"Blogging platform Blogetery.com was cut off by its hosting company last week after the authorities said al-Qaeda 'terrorist material' was found on one of its servers, its web host, BurstNET Technologies said Monday.

"Blogetery, a platform for some 70,000 blogs, was taken down by BurstNET after the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked BurstNET 'to provide information regarding ownership' of the server hosting Blogetery.com, BurstNET said in a statement.

"BurstNET shuttered Blogetery at its own discretion after concluding it was violating its 'Acceptable Use Policy.'..."
(Threat Level, Wired)

This is the most recently-published article I read today. The 'AUP' violation explanation makes sense, particularly since there seems to have been a pattern of bad behavior. Still: 73,000 blogs?

"The blogosphere and online message boards have been buzzing with speculation as to why blogging website Blogetery.com, which claims to have hosted more than 70,000 bloggers, was suddenly shut down last week.

"Was the site a haven for terrorists? Packed with how-to advice for bomb builders? Rife with child porn? And did the FBI really order the blogging site's host BurstNET to pull the plug?

"BurstNET officials on Monday attempted to set the record straight by issuing the following statement:

" 'On the evening of July 9, 2010, BurstNET received a notice of a critical nature from law enforcement officials, and was asked to provide information regarding ownership of the server hosting Blogetery.com. It was revealed that a link to terrorist material, including bomb-making instructions and an al-Qaeda "hit list", had been posted to the site. Upon review, BurstNET determined that the posted material, in addition to potentially inciting dangerous activities, specifically violated the BurstNET Acceptable Use Policy. This policy strictly prohibits the posting of 'terrorist propaganda, racist material, or bomb/weapon instructions". Due to this violation and the fact that the site had a history of previous abuse, BurstNET elected to immediately disable the system.'..."
(PCWorld)

That "was the site a haven" style reminds me of some of the more colorful journalism of the late 19th and 20th centuries - and that's another topic.

I'm presenting these excerpts in reverse chronological order, by the way: most recent to earliest.

"A popular website that hosted more than 70,000 bloggers was shut down suddenly last week after the FBI informed its chief technology officer that the site contained hit lists, bomb-making documents and links to Al Qaeda materials, it was reported on Monday.

"When the WordPress platform Blogetery.com went dead, the initial explanation from the site's host, Burst.net, was that 'a law-enforcement agency' had ordered it to shut down, citing a 'history of abuse.' The explanation caused a wave of conspiracy theories in the blogosphere.

"But according to a report on CNET Monday, Burst.net shut down Blogetery.com when it became spooked by a letter from the FBI, in which the bureau detailed the presence of terrorist materials among the blog posts...."
(FOXNews)

"Spooked" isn't quite the sort of stuffy prose that a more literary outlet might employ - but I think it fits what we know, to date.

Finally, what I regard as the must-read article, from CNET. There's more detail, after this excerpt:

"More details are surfacing about why Blogetery.com, a blogging platform that claimed to service more than 70,000 blogs, was mysteriously booted from the Internet by its Web-hosting company.

"The site was shut down after FBI agents informed executives of Burst.net, Blogetery's Web host, late on July 9 that links to al-Qaeda materials were found on Blogetery's servers, Joe Marr, chief technology officer for Burst.net, told CNET. Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server.

"But Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own.

"This past weekend, reports surfaced that Blogetery was shut down by the federal government and suggested that it was likely due to copyright violations. On Sunday, CNET reported that the shutdown had nothing to do with copyright violations and that a similar service, Ipbfree.com, a platform for message boards, was shuttered within days of Blogetery. It is still unclear why Ipbfree was cut off...."
(CNET)

Of President Obama, Politics, and the Another War-on-Terror Blog

This seems to be the weekend for navel-gazing on this blog: but I think it may help clear up a few points.

This Blog isn't Political

I've written a sort of disclaimer, from time to time, pointing out that this isn't a political blog.

I've noted that most blogs dealing with the War on Terror, or whatever the current conflict will be called, have a very identifiable political stand. They're either conservative, or liberal.

That is, I suppose, understandable. People who have decided that the west, as it exists, has to removed in the defense of Islam have a great deal of determination. And since their actions have, so far, killed several thousand people in New York skyscrapers, they are now extremely difficult to ignore.

The subject is emotional, and touches on real and perceived security: so it has become involved in politics.

But, I do not think the War on Terror is, essentially, a political phenomenon.

I do, however, sometimes discuss political matters. That's because in America, leaders are chosen by political means - and their decisions affect the conflict that is the topic of this blog.

I Must be a Conservative, Right?

Wrong. I discussed this yesterday, in "A Digression, About This Blogger."

My views, insofar as they are political, and affect my views of the War on Terror, are least unlike those of a contemporary American conservatives. But that's as far as I'll go.

President Barack Obama: An Historic Presidency

Barack Obama is America's first black president. For that reason alone, practically everything he does will be "historic" in one way or another.

He's also, to the best of my recollection, America's first Hawaiian president. But that's not considered to be quite so important these days. I suspect that someday, as Hawaii's role in the union is more in the forefront of American thought than it is now, America's first Hawaiian president will overshadow America's first black president.

I'm getting off-topic, but not by much.

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: I think Barack Obama is a highly charismatic leader, a skilled orator, and by no means either stupid or foolish. He has shown, in the first months of his presidency, much more good sense than might have been feared. Or, coming in from another angle, an appalling lack of consideration for the views and beliefs of some of his supporters. (December 22, 2008)

"The Whole World is Watching" - Brilliant Choice of Phrase

His use of the 1968 protest slogan, "the whole world is watching" was well-chosen. I suspect that one factor in that selection was a calculated effort to appeal to his (possibly disillusioned) supporters, by quoting something famous from 'the good old days' of the sixties.

I used that quotation as a jumping-off point for discussing how much the world has changed in the last half-century. And, how some people seem to be keeping up better than others. (June 20, 2009)

Using a Sixties Phrase Does Not Equal Sixties Thinking

A comment on that point made it clear that I had, apparently, stated that President Obama was engaged in 'sixties' thinking.

He's not. If he was, he'd have been organizing a sit-in at the United Nations, or been 'reaching out' to the Ayatollahs.

President Obama has "reached out" to some unlikely people. Earlier this year, for example, he was "reaching out" to the Taliban in Afghanistan. At least, that's the impression left by headlines.

The fact is, he was taking a page from America's Iraq playbook, and reaching out to Afghans who supported the Taliban, but weren't all that committed. Letting people know that Americans weren't the diabolical enemy they'd been told about made a difference in Iraq. I don't see why it wouldn't in Afghanistan.

So, apparently, did President Obama.

I Must Support Barack Obama, Right?

Wrong. I'm not "against" the American president, either.

On examination, some of President Obama's policies appear to be prudent. I support these. Other policies of the current administration are unacceptable to me. I do not support those.

As for President Barack Obama, I pray for him - and suggest that others do, too. (May 24, 2009, in A Catholic Citizen in America)

I support or oppose issues and ideas. People are a different matter. But, again, I'm getting off-topic.

Related posts:

• " 'The Whole World is Watching' - But This Isn't the Sixties"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "A Digression, About This Blogger"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work"
  (March 8, 2009)
• "President-Elect Obama's Problem With Left-Wing Bloggers"
  (December 22, 2008)

---

A tip of the hat to markstoneman, on Twitter, for suggesting the topic of this post: in a comment on the ""The Whole World is Watching" - But This Isn't the Sixties" post.

Why Don't I Write About [insert website name here]?

While researching posts, I occasionally run into websites with names and URLs that imply the presence of a large and/or prestigious organization. The names might be something like "National Security Data Clearinghouse" or "Global Freedom Trust" (which, as far as I know, don't exist).

The sites themselves are often well-crafted, with decent navigation and authoritatively-written articles.

International Foundation, or Some Guy in Oxnard?

All too often, I've found that the registrant is some individual living in, say, Oxnard, who uses something like Tucows registration service. Or, that it's impossible to tell who or what the actual owner of the site is, because he, she, they, or it, used one of the 'anonymizer' services.

I realize that people in some countries need to remain anonymous, if they are going to both express an opinion and stay alive. Just the same, anonymity at best does not increase a website's credibility in my eyes.

And, in cases where it seems that an individual is trying to present the image of a national or international organization, I get downright dubious.

Some Guy in Oxnard With a Blog? Great!

There's nothing wrong with one person blogging on an issue, or setting up an informational website. I do it myself. But, except for some fictional work (which is labeled as make-believe), I try to be quite clear about who and what I am.

I'm one guy, living in central Minnesota, with a fairly well-defined point of view; Quite simply, all things being equal, I'd like to keep breathing, and I like having the freedom to worship (or not worship) as I see fit. I also like being allowed to wear trousers. Particularly this time of year. (There's about a foot of snow on the ground outside right now.)

Anyone reading this blog can, with minimal effort, discover that I'm one person, and in general terms where I am and what my attitude is.

One of the things I see as a strength of America is that this country allows people to give opinions and discuss issues. Provided that the discussion doesn't involve blowing up the Sears Tower, or some other destructive act.

How About a Lichi Nut in Winnetka?

Since I can opine on current events, I can't reasonably have a problem with a hypothetical guy in Winnetka doing the same. Even if he thinks that international borders should be declared null and void, a world republic headed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa begin, and all trade be conducted through barter or the exchange of lichi nuts.

His ideas sound crazy, but who knows: he might have a point. Edible money does have a certain appeal.

Seriously, Now: Lichi Nuts?

As I said, I see no problem with someone like the lichi nut enthusiast in Winnetka presenting his views to the world. I might even cite him as a resource (not likely - but it could happen).

But, I would have reservations about the fellow if, instead of presenting himself as an individual, he pretended to be the "International Lichi Foundation of Enlightenment" - with headquarters in Sri Lanka, and a Post Office Box in Washington, D.C..

So, if I don't seem to be paying attention to a resource: there may be a reason.

New on the Blogroll

"National Interest, and as a corollary, Primacy" is the blogroll's latest link.

The blogger, Richard Nere, says: "These are indeed my personal pontifications on the vicissitudes of International Affairs." Given his academic credentials, interest in international affairs, and what I've read of his blog, I think his posts will be worth reading.

The usual disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with, or endorse, what's on the blogroll. It's where I list websites and blogs that I think shed light on the War on Terror.

Castro, Cuba, Guevara, Traditional Gatekeepers, and the Information Age

This isn't the 'good old days' of my youth. A lot has changed, here in America, since the glory years of Led Zepplin and Disco.

That was when Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, or Peter Jennings told most of us what was going on in the world: and, after 1971, intellectual aspirants followed "All Things Considered." Some newspapers and magazines did their own research, but most looked to The New York Times and a few other sources in the Eastern time zone to see what the 'important' news of the day was.

Welcome to the Information Age

These must be trying times for the old-school news editors, college professors, and other established authorities. Back in the 'good old days,' these traditional information gatekeepers had a great deal of control over what ideas and information would be spread quickly, and reinforced.

People with potentially disruptive, unsettling, or "divisive" ideas had to rely on their own circle of friends and acquaintances, if they hoped to get a hearing.

That's an oversimplification, of course. Even then, an older bit of information technology, movable type and the printing press, helped editors of 'underground newspapers' to get around the gatekeepers.

That was then, this is now.

Today, thanks to a happy combination of technology and a (not exactly universal) love of freedom, just about anybody with an idea can get a hearing. Globally, providing that they use a language which is understood in many countries. (English is understood in over a hundred countries, which may help explain why so much of the Web is in that language.)

Compared to the 'good old days,' we live in a maelstrom of information and opinions.

Americans don't have a tight little cluster of 'reliable' network news programs, magazines, and newspapers to rely on.

Not everyone agrees on what the day's 'relevant' news is, or what we're supposed to know about it.

It's complex, and confusing. Anyone who tries to pay attention finds contradictory views, backed by various combinations of facts and wishful thinking.

I love it.

Some of the ideas we find on the Web are - 'alternatively sane,' I suppose would be one way to put it. One of my favorites, almost certainly a gag, involved a global conspiracy of squirrels, bent on enslaving humanity and forcing us to slave in their nut mines.

I think the 'marketplace of ideas' tends to identify crackpot notions, and allow consideration of fact-based points of view. It would be nice, if traditional gatekeepers would do the same thing: but it's nice to have an alternative.

Castro (Fidel), Castro (Raoul), Obama, Che Guevara, and today's world

I started reminiscing about the 'good old days,' and remembering why I'm so glad I'm not back there, while catching up on the news.

(And, no: I don't think that President Barack Obama is allied with Castro (either one). It wouldn't surprise me, if someone thinks he is, though: there's no shortage of odd ideas floating around.)

Castro (Fidel) to Obama: Yankee Go Home!

If Fidel Castro meant it when he called Obama "honest" and "noble," that's not what he's saying now. A Reuters article from yesterday's news, "Fidel Castro demands Obama return Guantanamo base," discusses the former Cuban president's demand that Obama give the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo to Cuba - without conditions. And, that Obama is supporting what he thinks is an "Israeli genocide" against Palestinians.

Reuters quotes Castro: "Not respecting Cuba's will is an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country," which isn't anything new. Fidel has had the same line about American presidents since 1959.

Castro (Raul), Russia, and the Inverted Pyramid

First, about the "inverted pyramid:" Journalists have used inverted pyramid organization for their stories for quite a while.

One reason may be that when the telegraph was the fastest way of transmitting a story, connections could get cut. That made it important to put the most important part of the story first.

Editors like the inverted pyramid, too. When reporters put the most important parts of the story first, an editor could cut as much off the bottom as necessary to fit an available space, and still have a coherent bit of news.

I learned, from classes and on-the-job experience, that readers tend to scan headlines. When they see one of interest, they'll read the first paragraph or two. Sometimes, they'll read more of the article. If they're particularly interested, readers will go all the way to the end.

That means that most people will never see what's put at the end of a news article. Which is okay, if the most important facts are in the headline and lead paragraphs. And, you agree with what the reporter and editor think is most important.

Inverted Pyramid Format and What's Important: One Example

The current president of Cuba, Raul Castro, is in today's news: "Russia and Cuba seal new partnership at Kremlin" (Reuters). The island nation has a new president, and is making new ties with the international community.

We read that Cuba's current president, Raul Castro, is on an unprecedented trip to Russia: and signed a partnership pact with Kremlin leader Dmitry Medvedev. Reflecting on the the event, Cuba's elected president stated: " 'This is an historic moment, an important moment in relations between Russia and Cuba.' "

That's from the beginning of the story. Around the middle, we read:

"Asked afterwards by a reporter about possible military cooperation between Moscow and Havana, Sechin responded: 'Why are you interested in that ?' "

The last paragraph reads:

"Trade between Russia and Cuba totaled $239 million during the first 11 months of 2008, a 26 percent rise compared to the same period in 2007, the Kremlin said. Russia mainly buys sugar cane from Cuba and sells machinery."

That seems to be a pretty good example of inverted pyramid writing, for an article that focuses on the economic aspects of Castro's trip. There may have been a tendency to focus on the positive aspects of Castro's trip: but the first post-Cold-War visit from a Cuban leader to Russia is a big deal. Perhaps Reuters didn't want to seem sensationalistic.

Inverted Pyramid Format and What's Important: Another Example

MSNBC covered the election of Cuba's new, elected, president, in February of 2008 ("Raul Castro succeeds Fidel as preside"):

The first two paragraphs are pretty solid inverted pyramid style:

"HAVANA - Cuba's parliament named Raul Castro president on Sunday, ending nearly 50 years of rule by his brother Fidel but leaving the island's communist system unshaken.

"In a surprise move, officials bypassed younger candidates to name a 77-year-old revolutionary leader, Jose Ramon Machado, to Cuba's No. 2 spot — apparently reassuring the old guard that no significant political changes will be made soon...."

So far, so good. Next is a sample from around the middle of the story. MSNBC quoted Raul's assurance that " 'The Communist Party guarantees the unity of the Cuban nation,' " and discussed possible revaluation of the Peso (and Raul's purdent observation "that any change would have to be gradual to 'prevent traumatic and incongruent effects.' " Then, MSNBC gives readers a look at what ordinary Cubans think of their new president.

" 'He's a trustworthy man,' Maria Martinez, a 67-year-old retiree who watched the announcement on the Chinese-made television in her dark living room in Old Havana. 'He won't make mistakes.'

" 'All we really want is peace and tranquility,' she added.

"Her 33-year-old neighbor, Raul Rodriguez, let out a long sigh and nodded as the announcement of Raul Castro's election was made." (MSNBC)

Looks like all Cubans want is "peace and tranquility," that they believe that their new (and elected) president "won't make mistakes," and is "a trustworthy man." And, I'm sure that that's what Maria Martinez said, or a pretty good translation.

It would be odd, if Fidel's brother didn't have supporters.

And, that may be all that many readers saw of the story. People on the Web are notorious for short attention spans, and the article was fairly long: around 1,100 words, by my count.

So, back in February, it looks like Cuba was a happy land, with a president who had the confidence of the people, and who understood the importance of caution in trying economic times.

Readers who finished the article got what I'll call bonus data: rather uncomplimentary views of Raul Castro, from Cubans who preferred not to be identified. The article ends with:

"...'This country it's like jail,' said the 51-year-old, who like many Cubans declined to give his last name to a foreign journalist when criticizing the government. 'They close the doors and say "the president is Peter or the president is Paul" and everyone responds "Good, it's Peter or Paul." There's no openness.' " (MSNBC)

Propaganda? Drama? Randomness?

Packing the front of the article with neutral or positive information about Raul Castro and his Cuba, and leaving "it's like jail" until the end might be an effort to leave the majority of readers with a distorted view, and still be able to claim objectivity.

Or, maybe the dissenting opinions were at the end for dramatic effect.

It's even possible - barely - that MSNBC editors don't organize articles, and just pop paragraphs into place as whim or chance dictate.

Just the same, unless someone read the last 142 words of the article, a reader would leave the article with the impression that Raul Castro was a prudent leader, and had the support of his people.

That might be all that's important, from MSNBC's point of view: but I don't agree.

The Information Age: Complex, Confusing, Contradictory, and Showing Great Promise

I'd rather deal with information overload, than in a society where news and entertainment was carefully regulated: for the people's good, of course.

I'm pretty sure that some don't agree with a movie review, "Che the revolutionary hero? Ruthless serial killer more like" (Scotsman.com News (January 30, 2009)), written by someone who has rather definite opinions.

And, "Gore Delivers 'Inconvenient Truth' Lecture to Senate Committee" (Washington Post (January 28, 2009)) refers to the "Oscar-winning documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth,' " which some argue isn't exactly a documentary.

I'm glad that I live in a society where Hollywood studios are free to idolize Che Guevara. I don't agree with their view, but I've learned to be very wary about censorship.

I just wish that it was a bit safer to discuss ideas which challenge beliefs like former Vice President Gore's views on global warming.

More-or-less related posts:

• "The News and Palin, Kennedy, Iraq, Lebanon, Hamas: They Just Don't Get It"
  (January 9, 2009)
• "All Those Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America!"
  (January 4, 2009)
• "William Felkner vs. College Conformity: Traditional Information Gatekeepers Face Another Challenge"
  (December 16, 2008)
• "Sarah Palin is 'incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above' "
  (October 22, 2008)
• "Islam in the Information Age: Afghan Journalist Charged with Blasphemy"
  (July 30, 2008)
• "Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed"
  (July 21, 2008)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "American Academic Institutions: Impartial, Neutral, Nonpartisan, Dispassionate"
  (April 29, 2008)
• "The Effect of Information Technology and Media Preoccupation with Urban Events on the Relative Sophistication of Urban and Rural Populations"
  (April 13, 2008)

News and views:

• "Russia and Cuba seal new partnership at Kremlin"
  Reuters (January 30, 2009)
• "Che the revolutionary hero? Ruthless serial killer more like"
  Scotsman.com News (January 30, 2009)
• "Fidel Castro demands Obama return Guantanamo base"
  Reuters (January 29, 2009)
• "Gore Delivers 'Inconvenient Truth' Lecture to Senate Committee"
  Washington Post (January 28, 2009)
• "Raul Castro succeeds Fidel as president"
  MSNBC (February 24, 2008)

Background:

• "Why isn't there More Mandarin on the Web?"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (April 4, 2008)
• " 'My Mind's Made Up: Don't Confuse Me With the Facts' "
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 3, 2008)
• "The Inverted Pyramid Structure"
  The Owl at Purdue (from an article published December 18, 2009)
• "THE UNIVERSITY PRESS CLUB Introductory Style Manual" (pdf)
  Princeton University

Another Blogger, Another View: A Kashmiri Pandit Writes

I was shown an interesting blog today: Kashmir the war of Mind and Brains.

It's written by a "KP( kashmiri pandit)" who was displaced by Islamic terrorists - and has no great reason to love the Pakistani army, either. Particularly considering his background, the posts I've read are rather calm.

They're also quite long: this is no 'sound bite' blog.

I don't know if this blog is focused enough on the War on Terror to warrant inclusion in the blogroll: But I don't want to lose track of it.

Besides, the author adds a very 'inside' look at today's India-Pakistan situation.

Obama Supporter Carved Me: McCain Volunteer Comes Clean

(From College Republicans via FOXNews, used without permission)
That backwards "B" on her face is the one that was "carved" yesterday.

With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?

Yesterday, conservative bloggers ran with the story of a knife-wielding Obama supporter and his young victim. Today, my guess is that liberal bloggers will do the same thing.

Probably with the same enthusiasm and passionate disregard for facts, verifiable or otherwise.

I wrote at some length about the story earlier today:

• "Obama Supporter Carves McCain Volunteer's Face? Reports, Blogs, and Video Tape"
  (October 24, 2008)

Obama Supporter Carves McCain Volunteer's Face? Reports, Blogs, and Video Tape

Update (October 24, 2008) 1:20 p.m. Central time (18:20 UTC)
The news broke recently:

• "Report: McCain Campaign Volunteer Confesses to Lying About Political Attack"
  FOXNews (October 24, 2008)
  • "Police sources tell KDKA television in Pittsburgh that 20-year-old John McCain campaign volunteer Ashley Todd has admitted to lying to them about being mugged and attacked by a man who carved a "B" into her cheek after seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car. Todd is expected to face charges for the false report, according to KDKA...."
• "Police: Campaign Volunteer Made Up Attack Story"
  KDKA (October 24, 2008)
  • "A Pittsburgh police commander told KDKA Investigator Marty Griffin that Ashley Todd confessed to making up the story & is facing charges
  • "PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― Police tell KDKA that a campaign volunteer has now confessed to making up a story that a mugger attacked her and cut the letter B in her face after seeing her McCain bumper sticker...."

That didn't take long. (My reaction to the news: "Obama Supporter Carved Me: McCain Volunteer Comes Clean" (October 24, 2008))

---

Unless something very strange happens, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be president of the United States next year. Whoever is president will have a great effect on what happens in the War on Terror.

With all that's at stake, emotions are running high. Wild claims have been made: the latest one involves an enraged Obama supporter, a knife, and a mutilated young woman. Or maybe it's several enraged Obama supporters. The story is getting better as it gets re-told

Knife-Wielding Obama Supporter: This Story Seemed Too Good To Be True

From one point of view, at least.

A blogger titled a post "Obama Supporter Maims McCain Volunteer, Will Media Care?"

It's not quite front-page news, but: As of today, the answer is "yes." The story of Ashley Todd, a McCain bumper sticker, and what she said was an enraged Obama supporter, is pretty easy to find in the news.

What's happening to this horrific tale of a young woman brutally attacked and mutilated - just because of a McCain sticker - isn't likely to sit well with conservative bloggers, though.

Ashley Todd and the Pittsburgh Carver

The story, as it grew, is that this young woman was savagely attacked by a robber and Obama supporter. It seems he was enraged when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

One blog's headline starts with "Obama supporter attacks...." After what appears to be a screenshot of the Drudge Report, the post's first paragraph begins with "Obama supporters attacked...." Supporters. Plural.

The McCain volunteer's story isn't consistent, either, but it's dramatic:

"...'You are going to be a Barack supporter,' she recalled the robber saying before he sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees and scratched the letter "B" on the right side of her face using what she believed to be a very dull knife. Then the robber fled, she said in the police report.

"But Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard told FOXNews.com on Friday that Todd later added to her tale, saying she was groped by the robber and lost consciousness during the assault. Neither of those details was in the original report.

"Richard said after a second interview, Todd also was not as definitive about the assault or the motives behind it, nor could she say for certain whether the robber took $60 from her as she initially reported but maintains is missing...."
(FOXNews (October 23, 2008)) [emphasis mine]

Even though the story Ashley Todd is giving police got 'better' as she went along, she seems to be sticking to the part about there being just one attacker.

Obama Supporter(s), a McCain Bumper Sticker, a Photo, Security Camera Video, and Facts

Here's what's getting to be a famous photo:

(From College Republicans via FOXNews, used without permission)

That backwards "B" on her face is the one that was "carved" yesterday.

I'm with the Pittsburgh police on this: it's more of a scratch than a carving. Still, it looks like she had a rough time, one way or another.

A fact: "(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania woman told police she was attacked at an ATM in Pittsburgh by a robber who became angry when he saw a John McCain bumper sticker on her car, a spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh Police Department said Thursday...." (CNN (October 24, 2008))

Her name is Ashley Todd, she seems to be from Texas.

The photo didn't come from the Pittsburgh police, but there's no reasonable doubt that she had a scratch on her face when she reported the robbery and, maybe, assault.

The different versions of her story, which were inconsistent enough to have the Pittsburgh police give Ashley Todd a polygraph test, might just come from her being upset.

A recording from a security camera shows the ATM where the alleged robbery and assault took place, but not the incident. It's possible that it happened off-camera. Fact is, though, the video does not show the events that the McCain volunteer says took place. There aren't any witnesses, either.

Ashley Todd may be a victim of robbery and assault - and the unluckiest woman in Pittsburgh. The police seem very interested in solving this case, and probably will ferret out what actually happened.

Maniac Obama Supporter Mutilates Young Woman! Or, Not

Quite a few bloggers particularly the more enthusiastic conservative ones, jumped into this story with both feet.

One post's title started with "Obama supporter attacks and mutilates...." The first paragraph starts with "Obama supporters attacked...." That blogger gets points for enthusiasm, if not internal consistency.

Although innocent victims have been known to change their stories and refuse medical attention, it's 'way too easy to see yesterday's story of the Obama supporter, the knife, and the helpless young woman as a sort of replay of the Duke lacrosse team fiasco. (Crystal Mangum, the woman who made the accusations, came out with a book that says 'did too!' - just in time for the election. (The New York Times (October 24, 2008))

Obama Supporter Knifes McCain Volunteer? Time to Calm Down

Whether or not one robber-turned-performance artist/political activist actually scratched that backwards "B" in Ashley Todd's face won't affect who I vote for in the presidential election. Both campaigns agree that the incident, whatever actually happened, was a bad thing.

And, I hope that Representative Alcee Hastings's wild warnings about Palin, hunters, Jews, and black people won't change anyone's mind.

It's not that I'm neutral. I'd just as soon that McCain be elected president.

I also like to get facts straight: and vote according to facts, not possibly-crazy stories.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for one candidate or the other, based on what they've said, and what their record is (or isn't). To be very briefly political, I see the 2008 American presidential election as a choice between

1. Obama, a charming young orator and
   • Very junior Senator who
     • Wants to "spread the wealth around"
     • Apparently thinks that taking money from potential employers will help those who don't get hired
2. McCain,
   • An experienced legislator who
     • Knows how to compromise
     • Has what I regard as a sensible understanding of human nature and the world situation

Both candidates say that they've got the best interests of America at heart, and I tend to believe them. I've been around long enough to realize that people of good will can disagree with each other.

---

Views:

• "America's imperiled democracy"
  Hal Lindsey commentary / WorldNetDaily (October 24, 2008)
• "Ashley Todd-Who Took The Picture?"
  Washington Scandal News and Views (October 24, 2008)
  [Most assuredly not a conservative blog]
  • "...NOW FOLKS, ask yourself a very SERIOUS QUESTION...this was a Presidential Campaign Volunteer STAFFER...."
  • [This bloger thinks the story's a hoax, and says so at great length.]
• "Breaking: Obama Supporter Attacks and Mutilates McCain Volunteer"
  wizbang (October 23, 2008)
  • "Is this the new strategy to get Obama elected? Vote Obama or we'll riot, mutilate people and destroy property?..."
• "McCain Supporter Mutilated & Robbed By Obama Supporter in Pittsburgh!! ...Update: Palin Speaks With Victim"
  Gateway Pundit (October 23, 2008)
• "Obama Supporter Maims McCain Volunteer, Will Media Care?"
  NewsBusters (October 23, 2008)
• "Obama supporter attacks and mutilates McCain volunteer in Pittsburgh"
  HillBuzz (October 23, 2008)
  • "Obama supporters attacked a McCain volunteer in Pittsburgh today — carving a 'B' for 'Barack' into the flesh of someone who doesn't support Obama...."
  • [Notice how the story is growing? This post says "supporters." Plural.
• "SHOCK: McCain supporter attacked and mutilated in Pittsburgh"
  Urban Conservative (October 23, 2008)
  • "...And they say that McCain supporters were harsh for calling Obama a terrorist?"

In the news:

• "Police say inconsistencies in McCain worker's story"
  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (October 24, 2008)
• "Woman says attack on her linked to McCain bumper sticker"
  CNN (October 24, 2008)
• "Cops Eye Inconsistencies in Alleged McCain Campaign Worker Attack"
  FOXNews (October 23, 2008)
• "Pittsburgh Police: McCain Worker Robbed, Attacked"
  CW 31 / CBS News (October 23, 2008)

War in the Information Age: Cell Phone Redial Brings Battlefield Experience to Family

People, and war, haven't changed much over the millennia: Parents worry about their children who have gone to the battlefield.

Thousands of years ago, the sounds of battle might be heard in the parent's home. As societies changed and grew, soldiers traveled farther, and battlefields became distant realities.

As soldiers traveled farther, new communications technologies were developed to keep them in touch with the rest of the family.

• Trans-Atlantic telegraph cable (mid-nineteenth century) joined by a telephone cable in 1956 made real-time communication between continents possible
• V-mail in WWII used optical compression to make room for more letters on cargo planes
• Communications satellites like Telstar were an incremental improvement on intercontinental telephone service
• Cell phones, since the 1980s freed telephones from fixed outlets

Cell phones and other Information Age technologies had the potential to bring back the days when families of warriors often heard the sounds of battle.

Last month, that potential became a reality.

A family in Oregon came home in April, 2008, to find that their son, Stephen, had left a voice mail message. He was stationed in Afghanistan, and his Army MP company was under attack from a Taliban unit.

Or, more accurately, his cell phone had called home. The most likely explanation is that the phone got squeezed between their son and his Humvee.

The family heard gunfire, swearing and shouts for more ammunition. And their son's rifle barrel seemed to be overheating.

" 'You could hear him saying stuff like, he needs more ammo, or he needs another barrel,' said John Petee, Phillips' brother. 'At the end, you could hear a guy saying "Incoming! RPG!" And then it cut off.' "

It took the Petee family a while to get in touch in Stephen, but he was okay. Also embarrassed. " 'I finally got a hold of him,' Sandie Petee said. 'He was embarrassed, he said, "Don't let Grandma hear it." ' "

(From "Afghanistan Firefight Heard On Voice Mail"
KPTV; Portland, OR (May 5, 2008))

As I wrote earlier, "People, and war, haven't changed much over the millennia:" but that doesn't mean that technology doesn't make a difference.

The Vietnam conflict was called the first war delivered to America's living room, because of the relatively immediate video coverage on the newly-emerged evening news. Television coverage certainly made the conflict a more immediate reality than the newsreels and newspapers of earlier generations.

The occasional cell phone message from the battlefield is even more immediate than edited footage on the evening news.

And hearing unedited transmissions from a battle may make a difference in the way that people perceive a war.

Welcome to the Information Age

I think that the medium you're reading right now will make a bigger difference. Back in the sixties and seventies, American news was filtered through a few major east coast newspapers.

No conspiracy: the continental U.S. is four time zones wide. Newspaper editors work on tight deadlines - and making decisions takes time. It's understandable that editors would generally accept the judgment of their fellow-professionals on the east coast. That's where the sun rises on America, and where the news of the day first gets evaluated.

So, articles that The New York Times and a few other major east coast papers decided were newsworthy spread across America with the sun. Those that they didn't approve generally didn't go any further.

Broadcast news was even more restricted. If ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS news didn't think a story was worthy of mention, America didn't see it on television news.

Cable news, the Web, and especially blogs, changed all that. News is no longer what a few editorial boards want it to be. News is, I think, becoming what concerned people think is important.

Not that bloggers are necessarily better at evaluating world events than professional editors. The advantage of the blogosphere is that it lets facts and opinions rise or fall in the marketplace of ideas: not in the predispositions of a few editors.

---

The phone call from Afghanistan:
"Brother's Firefight"
YouTube video 2:58 (April 21, 2008)
(Be advised: this is unedited battlefield sounds, including "graphic language." Stephen didn't want his grandmother to hear it: and I think his request was wise.)

Stephen's brother posted the audio clip, and wrote:

"My brother is an MP over in Afghanistan. He was on post on April 21st. He decided to give us a call, just to let us know how he was doing.
"Nobody was home so he got the answering machine, and hung up. Just then, they started getting shot at. Somehow, his phone re-dialed, and we got this on our answering machine. He is okay."
(JRPetee, YouTube)

There are hundreds of comments, so far, many supportive, as well as quite a few standard-issue remarks like:

"We most certainly DID pick this fight!
"And how in God's name can someone protect me in another country when I'M HERE IN THIS ONE?
"brainwashed, stupid sheeple...pitifull"

"Brother's Firefight"

JRPetee, YouTube (April 21, 2008)
video, 2:58

American Interests' 1st Anniversary: You're Invited

A year ago today, Ottavio launched American Interests, a blog with a remarkable premise: That America is good for the world.

In Ottavio's words, "With any luck, American Interests … is helping to address what I deem as a prevailing rationality void in relation to America's role in our world."

Today, celebrating his blog's first anniversary, he wrote: "Welcome to the party, invite your friends, and hope you enjoy the virtual cake - at least it’s not fattening!" ("Happy First Anniversary American Interests" (April 28, 2008).)

Another Conservative Blog Added to Conlist

Labels are odd things. Take "conservative blog," for example. That phrase may bring to mind a blog with:

• Posts that repeat talking points from some party - Republican, Constitution, or something similar
• Nostalgia for the 1950s
• Dislike and/or distrust of
  • Foreigners
  • Immigrants
  • Imports (except for luxury cars and fine wines)
• graphic design involving
  • Red and white stripes
  • Patches of blue
  • American flags and bunting
  • Eagles
• More emotion than reason

This Blog? Conservative?!

I must have absorbed some of those assumptions, because I was surprised when people called "Another War-on-Terror Blog" was a conservative blog. And, when it was added to "The Best Conservative Blogs on the Internet - Period!," "Conlist."

That was last month ("A Little Self-Promotion: Another War-on-Terror Blog Added to "Best Conservative Blogs"" (March 19, 2008)).

American Interests: Conservative Blog?

Last Friday, the same thing happened to another blog: "Conservative Blog" (American Interests (April 24, 2008)). The blog's author wrote, "American Interests remains a Pro American site not one strictly espousing conservative values ... " in a reply to a comment. Interestingly, "American Interests" is the creation of an Australian.

The header of "American Interests" defines the blog's nature and purpose: "Politically neutral blog intended to disseminate knowledge of, highlight threats to, explore opportunities for and, above all else, serve as a platform of advocacy for the continuance and preservation of global American dominance."

I check in at "American Interests" at least once a week, usually more. I'm not entirely convinced that it's a conservative blog. But then, I'm not convinced that at this one is, either.

Jimmy Carter and the Blogosphere

When I started researching today's posts, I was struck by a secondary feature of CNN's story on the Carter trip, "White House urges Carter not to meet Hamas leader" (CNN (April 10, 2008)). At about 4:30 pm Central time, that article's "From the Blogs: Controversy, Commentary, and Debate" read "No blog comments about this page" - which just wasn't so. Granted, the article had been updated 1 hour, 39 minutes previously: and might be less than two hours old.

This might be a case where a human being outpaced a cybernetic system. By 4:30, I'd found over a half-dozen blog posts on the Carter-Hamas meeting.

I've written this post, partly because I think there might be value in a quick look at the four blogs CNN found, and the five that I selected: and partly because I hate to see good research go to waste.

Bloggers, on Jimmy Carter and Khalid Meshaal: CNN's Selection

Now, some six hours later, four blog posts are cited by CNN: one is mine, under "Blogs linking to this story". One of the other three is an imaginative piece which included this purported (and, I presume, utterly fictitious) dialog: " 'It is so good to finally meet you,' Jimmy Carter said to the leader of Hamas. 'I hope this discussion can help further peace.' 'Kill the jooooos!' yelled the leader of Hamas...." It's a post in IMAO (Unfair - Unbalanced - Unmedicated).

The remaining two blogs now cited by CNN are more conventional op-ed pieces:

• "State Dept to Jimmy Carter: Don't Meet with Hamas"
  Little Green Footballs (April 10, 2008)
  "You know Jimmy Carter’s gone a little too far when even the State Department disapproves: State Department: Carter should not meet Hamas chief.
  "It’s just pathetic he should even need to be told."
• "Carter’s Hanging With The Enemy"
  PollPundit.com (April 10, 2008)
  "Former President Jimmy Carter, probably one of the top 3 worst president’s in our history and continues to be one of the more despicable human beings out of office, will be meeting with the leader of the terrorist group Hama: [sic]"

Bloggers, on Jimmy Carter and Khalid Meshaal: My Selection

I don't think CNN, or the service CNN uses, was skewing the selection of blogs toward anti-Carter viewpoints. I had a hard time finding one blog post that mentioned Carter's proposed meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in a positive light.

I did find one, though, as well as quite a few with varying degrees of disapproval of Mr. Carter, his trip, and his character. Here's a selection:

1. "Carter Loves Hamas Because He HATES Menachem Begin"
   Avid Editor’s Insights (April 9, 2008)
   "Carter hates liberty and truth and loves receiving money from Islamo-Fasicst form Fraudi Arabia. Carter not only wrecked Iran, forced Israel to give up land, and destroyed the US economy he is now meeting with terrorist. After lying through his teeth with him book and trying to poison the minds of future generations he is trying to empower the terrorist. Can he die already?
   "Carter Loves Hamas Because He HATES Menachem Begin: 'Its almost old news already, the worst president in United States History, Jimmy Carter, will be meeting with Hamas in a few weeks:' "
2. "Jimmy Carter wants to meet with Hamas"
   Tel-Chai Nation (April 10, 2008)
   "Clearly, this man is evil incarnate. In complete ignorance of US law, he's going to meet with Hamas leaders ...."
3. "Jimmy Carter Continues His Love Affair With Hamas"
   Blue Star Chronicles (April 10, 2008)
   "Would someone PLEASE tell Jimmy Carter that he’s not the President anymore??? What is wrong with him? I'm embarrassed for him and I'm not even kin to him.
   "I originally posted the cartoon above in January 2006, so this isn't new behavior on this man's part!!!!"
4. "Hamas, the ex-president, and the blindness"
   Meryl Yourish.com (April 10, 2008)
   "The New York Times reports that Hamas is currently engaged in its largest weapons buildup ever, thanks to Iranian arms, money, and training. Hamas' goal? The bombardment of Israel.
   "An Israeli study says Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza, is engaged in the broadest and most significant military buildup in its history with help from Syria and Iran. It adds that Hamas is restructuring more hierarchically and using more and more powerful weapons, especially longer-range rockets against Israel's southern communities...."
   "In spite of evidence like this that Hamas has absolutely no intention of maintaining any kind of real peace with Israel, Jimmy Carter is plowing ahead in his determination to be the first world leader ever to sit down with terrorists who openly and unashamedly admit they want to destroy the Jewish State. The Washington Post spins this decision as a 'political bind' for the Democratic candidates, neither of whom are condemning Carter."
5. "proportional representation"
   Secondat (April 10, 2008)
   "Earlier this week we spent our dinner hour watching Jonathan Demme's film, Jimmy Carter Man from Plains. It's a fine movie though its eulogistic tilt can be annoying (however much agreed with). Discussion of opinion within Israel about the rights of residents in the Palestinian territories reminded me about the perils of proportional representation, a well-intentioned electoral policy from which Israel suffers.
   "Today, the papers tell us Carter will soon be meeting with an exiled Hamas political leader in Syira. [sic] The accounts bear out something that's made plain in Demme's film: While popular with Jewish voters in the U.S., Israel's policy of ostracizing Hamas is not universally approved within Israel. A recent poll, reported by the Israeli paper, Haaretz, showed a surprising 64 percent of Israelis to favor direct talks with Hamas. I've quoted the article below."

That last post is, in a way, my favorite of the lot.¹

Five Bloggers on Carter: Summary

Let's see how Mr. Carter fares in these blogs:

1. "Can he die already?"
2. "Clearly, this man is evil incarnate."
3. "I'm embarrassed for him and I'm not even kin to him."
4. "Jimmy Carter is plowing ahead in his determination to be the first world leader ever to sit down with terrorists who openly and unashamedly admit they want to destroy the Jewish State."
5. "Today, the papers tell us Carter will soon be meeting with an exiled Hamas political leader in Syira. [sic] The accounts bear out something that's made plain in Demme's film: While popular with Jewish voters in the U.S., Israel's policy of ostracizing Hamas is not universally approved within Israel."

Five Bloggers on Carter: Evaluation

I picked these five blog posts for the diversity of approach they showed, and because they rose above the merely abusive.

1. "Carter Loves Hamas Because He HATES Menachem Begin"
   Avid Editor’s Insights (April 9, 2008)
   I'll grant that "Can he die already?" is, at best, simple abuse. However, I give this blogger credit for coming up with an imaginative motive for former President Carter's foray into international diplomacy: "Carter Loves Hamas Because He HATES Menachem Begin"
2. "Jimmy Carter wants to meet with Hamas"
   Tel-Chai Nation (April 10, 2008)
   I wouldn't call former President Carter "evil incarnate." Again, though, this post isn't simply abusive. The blogger asserts that Mr. Carter's act is illegal. Interesting. If true, we may find out whether former presidents are subject to the same laws that ordinary citizens are.
3. "Jimmy Carter Continues His Love Affair With Hamas"
   Blue Star Chronicles (April 10, 2008)
   "... I'm embarrassed for him and I'm not even kin to him."
   This blogger's feelings toward the former president are somewhat similar to mine, apparently. I do not dislike Mr. Carter. I even respect and admire the work he's done with, and for, Habitat for Humanity.
   As a global leader and international diplomat, however, I think he makes an excellent peanut farmer.
4. "Hamas, the ex-president, and the blindness"
   Meryl Yourish.com (April 10, 2008)
   "In spite of evidence like this that Hamas has absolutely no intention of maintaining any kind of real peace with Israel, Jimmy Carter is plowing ahead in his determination to be the first world leader ever to sit down with terrorists who openly and unashamedly admit they want to destroy the Jewish State."
   Although I brought up the possibility earlier, that former President Carter was meeting with Hamas in an effort to win another Nobel Peace Prize, I hope that Mr. Carter is not making this trip for personal aggrandizement.
   I prefer to believe that he is an idealistic, optimistic, well-meaning man without the slightest knowledge or understanding of the international situation as a whole, or the beliefs and goals of organizations like Hamas.
   This post stood out from the general run of 'anti-Carter' screeds in its lack of venom and clear arguments. The contrast was almost as sharp as the sort of anti-war/anti-American rants I've read, and the following post.
5. "proportional representation"
   Secondat (April 10, 2008)
   "Earlier this week we spent our dinner hour watching Jonathan Demme's film, Jimmy Carter Man from Plains. It's a fine movie though its eulogistic tilt can be annoying (however much agreed with). ..."
   For me, reading this post was almost nostalgic. I grew up in a culture very much like the one evoked in this eloquent monograph.
   I believe that the writer was not so much interested in Mr. Carter, or his proposed meeting with a terrorist leader, as he was with a rather theoretical discussion of political issues connected with certain aspects of the Palestinian/Israeli gestalt.
   As such, it's quite harmless, and even enlightening, in its own way.
   However, I think that this blog represents a problem that America has, dealing with Hamas, or any other terrorist group.
   America is a civilized country (Berkeley's opinion notwithstanding), and some Americans seem to find it difficult to understand just how uncivilized people can be.

---

¹ As I said, is a way, this was my favorite among the blogs I studied today. I'm in my fifties, a writer, a student of history and literature, among other things, and I'm fond of antique styles.

The blog's header reads,

"Secondat
'You have to study a great deal to know a little.'
Pensees et Fragments Inedits de Montesquieu"

"Pensees et Fragments Inedits de Montesquieu" is the title of an 1899 collection of work by the French Enlightenment political writer Charles de Montesquieu: You might know him for his comments on the separation of powers. My French is rusty, but I think the title translates as something like ""Thoughts and Fragments in edicts of Montesquieu".

Given the very high-tone header, and the editorial 'we' in the post, I thought that this blogger might be a twenty-something intellectual wannabe.

The top of the sidebar didn't change my mind. It starts with a widget that shows (presumably) "Cost to U.S. of the war in Iraq (from Congressional sources)."

A little farther down, there's "Diary of Sophia Carteret, Lady Shelburne / I've done a set of posts reproducing parts of this diary and giving notes on people, places, and events that it names."

That got me interested: this person seemed able to organize thoughts rather more effectively than the 'serious thinkers' I was accustomed to.

Even farther down, I found a touching -
"Days Since I
Retired: 42
Started Blogging: 1316
Got Married: 9666
Became a Father : 9016
Had a 2nd Child: 7976
Graduated College: 16013
Graduated HS: 17462
Was Born: 24104"

And:
"Current Reading
Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England by Linda Levy Peck
Letters, 1928-1946 by Isaiah, Sir Berlin
powered by LibraryThing
Plan to Read Next
The young Melbourne, and the story of his marriage with Caroline Lamb by Lord David Cecil
An introduction to merchants accounts [electronic resource] : containing five distinct questions or accounts. 1. An by John Collins"

My guess is that I'm looking at the work of a recently-retired college professor.

I hope he enjoys his retirement: and his family.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

A Little Self-Promotion: Another War-on-Terror Blog Added to "Best Conservative Blogs"

"Another War-on-Terror Blog" has been added to "The Best Conservative Blogs on the Internet" - joining a list that goes from "Atlas Shrugs" to "Young America’s Foundation."

The list is on Urban Conservative, a blog by an ex-Marine who describes his experience in the USMC this way: "The Marine Corps taught me what it meant to be accountable for my actions; and to make responsible decisions."

One of Urban Conservative's goals is to show "that not all conservatives look like Newt Gingrich. Yah know…white-upper-class males that you normally see on Capitol Hill; and that conservatives can be cool, sophisticated, hip and even urban."

I appreciate that, and we're due for a new perception of conservatives.

Just the same, I'm old enough to remember that the 'Newt Gingrich' image is an improvement on what came before. William F. Buckley Jr. is credited with changing the public image of 'the conservative.'

Before Buckley, when people, media people at least, thought "conservative," they'd most likely imagine a bloated, none-too-bright, cigar-chomping industrialist, along the lines of Thomas Nast's portrayal of William "Boss" Tweed. The urbane, anything-but-bloated, and articulate Buckley changed that.

Finally, I don't think of myself as "conservative," although that's how people online seem to perceive me and my writing. I suppose, in comparison to 'affirmative action for peace now' bloggers, I am conservative. I can live with that.

Waterboarding: the Moralizing Has Begun

I was right. After President Bush vetoed the congressional attempt to protect terrorists from American interrogators, passionate blog posts began sprouting. This afternoon, the top ten hits I got from Google Blogsearch (four search terms: waterboarding harsh torture military) included this lot.

Some Top Blog Reactions to the Waterboarding Veto

• " 'Just Say Yes To Torture' "
  "MO'THANSKIN" (March 8, 2008)
  Among many quotes: "Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, said Bush 'will go down in history as the torture president' for defying Congress and allowing the CIA to use interrogation techniques 'that any reasonable observer would call torture.' " (If you don't agree with her, you're unreasonable?)
• " We were lied to! Bush to veto waterboarding, improved homeland security, long term security deal with Iraq, we're still not safe, they wonder why? Duh"
  (That's the post's title - rather long, isn't it?)
  An Average American Patriot (March 08, 2008)
  "I keep saying the chief idiot has given me something different to worry about with my sons being in his wars now that he is telling the so called terrorists it is okay to waterboard and torture if they follow the chief idiots directions!"
• "Bush’s Veto of Anti-Torture Legislation and Its Damage to America"
  Reflective Pundit (March 08, 2008)
  "Several months after 9/11, in an interview with al-Jazeera, Osama bin Laden said, 'The values of this Western civilization and under the leadership of America have been destroyed. Those awesome symbolic towers that speak of liberty, human rights, and humanity have been destroyed. They have gone up in smoke.' "
• "United States of Torture"
  Bad American (March 8,2008)
  "When I was trained by Army professional interrogators at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, it was reiterated to me over and over by seasoned professionals that torture doesn’t garner any uselful information - people will say anything to make the pain stop.
  "When I reiterated this to a friend of mine yesterday in my store he asked the million dollar question: why do they do it then?
  "The answer is simple and sinister for anyone who has bothered to do the research on the subject and observed something otherworldly in Dick Cheney’s smirk: they do it because they enjoy it."
• "Bush Wields A Necessary Veto"
  Cheat Seeking Missiles (March 8,2008)
  "The Dems and Soros-funded Human Rights Watch would restrict all interrogations to those allowed in the Army Field Manual -- but what does that mean?
  "It’s easy to find what interrogation techniques are banned by in the new Army Field Manual. Obviously, it bans all the stuff we all used to think of as torture: anything that could cause death or physical injury. Think Jack Bauer." (Jack Bauer is a protagonist in the television series "24.") (This post is worthwhile reading, if for no other reason that the author discusses actual interrogation techniques - something which traditional news media doesn't seem willing to do.)

Waterboarding isn't widely popular, I take it. That's no surprise, the way it's been presented: in vague, emotion-charged terms. That doesn't mean it's wrong. 'If two hundred million people really believe in a dumb idea: It's still a dumb idea.'

Hystrionics Aside, What is the Problem with Waterboarding?

Serious discussions on waterboarding seem centered on whether or not it's "torture." The more I learned about waterboarding, the less it seemed like "torture:" unless we stretch the definition of "torture" a bit ("anguish: extreme mental distress / unbearable physical pain" are some generally-accepted definitions).

I suppose what's "unbearable" depends on the individual. The "extreme mental distress" part of the definition raises an interesting point.

Final Exams as a Form of Torture

It's arguable that final exams are a form of collegiate torture, routinely inflicted on helpless studets by a cold, calculating, uncaring faculty. Anyone who has survived the first quarter (or semester, or whatever) has heard a fellow-student cry out "this is torture!" - or words to that effect.

With an election coming up, voting age at 18, and a substantial fraction of the late teen/early twenties crowd in college, I make this suggestion to open-minded and forward-looking politicians:

End the Agony! Stop Test Torture Now!

America must not allow the brutal traumatization of final exams to go on!

Young minds have endured this assault on their self-esteem too long. Millions suffer from Post Traumatic Test Syndrom (P.T.T.S.). Over a hundred thousand each year lose a job or end a relationship as a result of nightmares, flashbacks, or other psychological phenomena stemming from taking final exams.¹

(Given what passes for serious ideas these days, a disclaimer: "End the Agony!" is a joke, a spoof: not intended to be taken seriously.)

Previous Posts about Waterboarding in this Blog

"Waterboarding: Harsh, Yes - But is it Torture?"
Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 8, 2008)
"Waterboarding: What is it? Why Do it?"
Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 8, 2008)
"Waterboarding Ban Set for Veto Tomorrow: Let the Moralizing Begin"
Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 7, 2008)

¹According to research I imagined for this post (Eustace Finagle and Eugenia Glockenspeil. A Study of Post Traumatic Test Syndrome in Selected Populations. East Village MA: Jong Press, 2005.)