Welcome to the 21st century. The Cold War, WWII, and WWI are over. The 19th and 20th centuries' class conflicts and colonial issues are behind us. "Oppressed proletariat" and "European expansionism" are no longer relevant. Religious fanatics want their beliefs to rule the world. Free people want to stay that way. Here's my view of the 21st century's great conflict -
Happily, it looks like only a few folks got killed when two bombs went off near the finish of the Boston Marathon today. That's a tragic situation. I'm not at all pleased about those deaths, the dozens who were injured, and those whose injuries may be permanent or fatal.
But it could have been much worse.
I'm not looking forward to the all-but-inevitable 'this is the fault of [insert favorite bogeyman]' pronouncements.
(FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)
"Multiple casualties reported after two explosions at Boston Marathon" (FoxNews.com)
I plan to keep following news: particularly after the dust settles, literally and metaphorically, and some facts start emerging.
It looks like at least 100,000 folks in Egypt don't like their new president's recent actions. That's how many showed up at a demonstration in Cairo today.1
One official says that President Morsi left when the crowds outside "grew bigger;" another official, speaking for Mr. Morsi, said that the President's departure was routine.
Whatever Morsi's motives, I'd say that Egypt isn't the 'stable' country it was under Mubarak.
As I've said before, "stability" isn't necessarily a good thing: not when it means that a small group makes decisions for a nation; tells the general public what the leaders think is 'proper;' and criticizing the leaders is punished.
Folks whose position or influence make them part of that small group don't, understandably, like criticism; sometimes don't distinguish between reasonable complaints and treason; and aren't necessarily 'those people over there.'
"Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi left the presidential palace Tuesday as violence erupted between police and at least 100,000 protesters gathered in Cairo.
"In a brief outburst, police fired tear gas to stop protesters approaching the palace in the capital's Heliopolis district. Morsi was in the palace conducting business as usual while the protesters gathered outside. But he left for home through a back door when the crowds 'grew bigger,' according to a presidential official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
"The official said Morsi left on the advice of security officials at the palace and to head off 'possible dangers' and to calm protesters. Morsi's spokesman, however, said the president left the palace at the end of his work schedule through the door he routinely uses...."
"In what some say is a first for the kingdom, a Saudi woman has been sentenced to three years in prison for abusing her Indonesian maid, according to Saudi media reports.
"The woman was sentenced Sunday in Medina, the reports said. According to Saudi Arabian daily newspaper Al-Watan, the employer, who was not named, was sentenced under a new royal decree issued to combat human trafficking.
"The maid, Sumiati binti Mustapha Salan, 23, was hospitalized in November after being severely beaten. At the time, a migrant rights group and Indonesian officials told CNN that she had suffered cuts to her face and was also burned, possibly with an iron. The case, which outraged many in Indonesia, also brought international attention to an issue that has repeatedly made headlines in recent months -- the abuse of migrant workers in Middle Eastern nations...."
I'd be even more impressed if a man had been sentenced for this sort of crime: but this is a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
I'm not the House of Saud's biggest fan: but I've got a little sympathy for the folks living in Saudi Arabia who seem to be trying to reconcile the values and assumptions of a culture that was old when Abram moved out of Ur with an Information Age global society.
I also think that some critics of Saudi leadership have a point. It's likely, in my opinion, that the House of Saud wouldn't be addressing their culture's quaint methods of dealing with servants, if "international outrage," as the article put it, wasn't happening.
'If 300,000,000 people really believe in a stupid idea: It's still a stupid idea.'
I think opinion polls are interesting: and reflect what the folks who were polled feel.
I also think opinion polls are important for marketing professionals, politicians, and network programmers: whose jobs involve dealing with the opinions of some segment of the population.
As a reflection of reality, though: I don't think opinion polls are all that accurate.
Even when they seem to support something I think is true, like "flossing between meals is good for your teeth." In that example, I'd be much more interested in what dentists and medical researchers had learned: and could prove.
Blame Game and Assumptions
It's very easy, I think, to assume that folks who don't share one's views are evil. I've run into assertions that Jared Lee Loughner has a Satanic temple of sorts in his home - and, of course, that Sarah Palin is to blame for Mr. Loughner's killing a half-dozen people.
It wasn't the same person making those assertions, and I don't take either all that seriously.
Or, rather, I don't take the 'Satanic temple' claim all that seriously. Given the assumptions of America's dominant culture, and the common sense of the rest of us, my opinion is that we're not likely to see a pogrom started based on the assumption that demon-worshipers are threatening national security.
Action against Ron Paul supporters, maybe: and that's another topic. (March 23, 2009) Almost.
Bottom line: in my considered opinion when emotions are high, logic is not a big factor in how folks respond.
'The Other Guy's' Opinions are Hate Speech?
As I said, it's easy to assume that folks who hold views that contradict one's own are to blame when something goes wrong. I think that's part of the reason why we got 'hate speech' legislation in this country - and that's almost another topic.
I don't think it's any surprise that some of America's old-school information gatekeepers, like the folks who control media like television news, decided quite quickly that conservatives were to blame for killing that 9-year-old girl and wounding Giffords. 'Obviously,' saying things like 'we'll fight for our right to express our opinion' is an open invitation to kill pre-teens, and a threat to national security. When the 'wrong sort' say it, anyway.
Just like, back in my 'good old days,' it was 'obvious' to quite a few folks that the commies were to blame for everything they didn't like. I don't think we'll see McCarthyism again: This isn't post-WWII America, and 'the establishment' doesn't include the same lot who decided it would be a good idea to hunt commies.
Human nature hasn't changed, though: not as far as I can tell anyway. It's still easy to assume that 'the other guy' should keep those dangerous views to him- or herself.
"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik got plenty of attention when he quickly pinned the blame for the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., on conservatives, Rush Limbaugh and even Republican opposition to the 'progress' being sought by his fellow Democrats.
"But it has now been revealed that Dupnik's department had prior interaction with suspect Jared Loughner. The department is still holding back details of the calls, but has now confirmed that deputies made multiple visits to the Lougner home in recent years...."
(FoxNews.com)
The news source I used for that excerpt isn't part of the old-school media establishment: which, in my opinion, is part of why the article didn't put the 'right' spin on Sheriff Dupnik's remarks.
What's a bit surprising, to me, is what's showing up in the more familiar new outlets:
"A majority of Americans reject the view that heated political rhetoric was a factor in the weekend shootings in Arizona which killed six and critically wounded a congresswoman, a CBS News poll said on Tuesday.
"Since the Saturday incident in which Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot at point-blank range, various politicians and commentators have said a climate in which strong language and ideological polarization is common may have contributed to the attack.
"Some of the analysts cited anti-government statements from the man arrested in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, as support for that view.
"But CBS said its nationwide telephone poll found that, '57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did.'..."
(Reuters)
I'm a tad leery of secondhand reports, like "CBS said." I'd rather read what a resource actually wrote - not what someone else says was written. So, from CBS News:
"Forty-five percent of Americans believe that Jared Loughner's political views were "probably" a factor in the shootings in Tucson Saturday, a new CBS News poll shows. One in three say they probably were not a factor, while 22 percent say they do not know.
"Loughner has not cooperated with investigators in the wake of the shooting, and evidence suggests he held muddled political views far outside the mainstream. Many partisans have nonetheless tried to link the alleged shooter to the right or left.
"The poll also shows that while three in four Americans say violence against the government is never justified, 16 percent say it can be justified -- the same percentage that said as much in April. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said such violence can be justified, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and independents. ..."
(CBS News)
That's interesting. Quite interesting. Not because I think the poll results have much to do with Loughner's motives, but for what they show about the attitude of whoever CBS News decided to ask.
Which gets into statistics, sampling error, propaganda - and those are other topics.
'He's Crazy - Lock Him Up?'
I don't think it's any surprise to learn that Mr. Loughner isn't your average young man from Arizona. Most folks, from any state, aren't all that likely to open fire on a crowd of people near a grocery. If that were the case, the carnage in Tuscon wouldn't have been particularly newsworthy, outside Arizona. Just as we generally don't hear about traffic accidents in Flagstaff. In my opinion.
Oddly enough, Mr. Loughner doesn't seem to be particularly political: in any direction.
"Arizona massacre gunman Jared Loughner's downward spiral may have been touched off by a broken high school romance and fueled by drug use -- but it was not politically motivated, according to his best friend in high school.
"Zach Osler, in an interview Wednesday with ABC's 'Good Morning America,' said: 'He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right.'
"Media speculation swirled after Loughner allegedly opened fire at a Tucson rally last Saturday, critically wounding Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others and killing six. Immediately, the Tucson sheriff and liberal pundits and lawmakers chimed in that the shooting somehow was politically motivated and a result of the extreme rhetoric being used by conservatives such as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
"But Osler said Loughner wasn't shooting at people, 'he was shooting at the world.'..."
"Osler's admission comes as blame for the national tragedy continues to be cast everything from Arizona's immigration law, to Sarah Palin, to charged rhetoric in the political arena rather than apparent mental illness.
"In an e-mail to students and staff at University of California-Berkeley on Monday, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau blamed the shooting that killed six and wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- and 13 others -- squarely on the state's controversial immigration law S.B. 1070 while acknowledging Jared Lee Loughner was 'profoundly disturbed.'
" 'A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy,' the e-mail read. 'I believe it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.' " FoxNews.com
That's familiar enough to me: 'those people over there' practice "demonization of others," while epithets like "male chauvinist pig" are hailed as part of the liberation of women from legalized rape.1
With 20-20 hindsight, it's easy to see that someone might have prevented Mr. Loughner from killing those folks in Tuscon.
I'm also rather glad that a sheriff, high school buddy, or 'concerned citizen' can't call 'Mental Sanitation Department,' or whatever the bureau would be called - and have Jared Loughner shipped off to some asylum where he'd never be seen again.
"When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
"Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
" 'Useful idiots' was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
"Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
"In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
"The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
"Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere...."
I've gotten the impression that it's considered gauche in some circles, to cite Chancellor Hitler's social programs and methods of persuasion. I'll grant that using "fascist!" as an epithet has given references to Nazi Germany the same tacky feel as crying "commie!"
That said, I think Thomas Sowell may have a point.
I am not "against" President Obama. I've discussed this before. (June 21, 2009) Some of his programs and policies, however, I cannot support. At all.
I think - and hope - that President Obama lacks the sort of drive and hate which led Chancellor Hitler to actively promote practical applications of eugenic principles and other 'advanced' policies which had been favorably discussed in the decades before WWII.
I also think that reading the rest of Mr. Sowell's op-ed piece is a good idea. He may be right. Either way, the next few years of America's history will probably be very interesting.
I'm not particularly surprised. A multiple homicide like this isn't (really) an everyday occurrence on American military bases - and early reports often get corrected in news events of disasters. The facts seem pretty clear: A dozen people were killed at Fort Hood today.
Eleven of them appear to have been victims, one a perpetrator, who was in turn killed.
"Eleven people plus a gunman were dead and 31 wounded after a shooting Thursday at a soldier-processing center at Fort Hood, Texas, officials said.
"The gunman who was killed was a soldier, Army Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said. Two other soldiers have been detained as suspects, Cone said.
"The slain gunman was identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, a law enforcement source told CNN. Licensed in Virginia, Hasan was a psychiatrist who previously worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center but more recently was practicing at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to professional records.
"Hasan was scheduled to be deployed to Iraq, "and appeared to be upset about that," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said...."
"... More than one shooter may have been involved, Cone said.
" 'All the casualties took place at the initial incident, that took place at 13:30 [1:30 p.m. CT], at the soldier readiness facility,' Cone said...."
There's more to the article, but that's the gist of it.
"A U.S. Army major firing two handguns killed 11 people and wounded 31 others in a shooting rampage on Thursday at Fort Hood base in Texas, a prime point of deployment for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The Army said the gunman was killed. U.S. broadcast media identified him as Major Malik Nidal Hasan, and said he was a psychiatrist who was facing an upcoming deployment to Iraq. There was no immediate official confirmation of his identity...."
"The US Army confirmed last night that as many as 12 people were killed and 30 wounded in shootings on the sprawling Fort Hood military base near the city of Waco in Texas. The largest such facility in the United States, it has been at the heart of troop deployment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Military officials said that there were as many as three gunmen responsible for the rampage and that one of the gunmen had been killed. An additional two soldiers had been apprehended and were under suspicion. All three of these individuals were identified by an Army spokesman as soldiers...."
During the George W. Bush administration there were otherwise-sensible people who knew (assumed, but probably thought it was certain knowledge) that the president was "diabolical." They probably still assume that this is the case about G. W. Bush.
Assumptions Aren't a Liberal Monopoly - Or a Conservative Phenomenon
There's a new face in the White House, and I think it's unlikely that the same people who 'know' that G. W. B. is diabolical probably don't think that President Barack Hussein Obama is a radical Muslim terrorist: and not a 'real' American.
But, some 'know' that the current president of the United States is one of them thar Muslims. Which, as is well known, is all terrorists.
(Notice how statements sound stupid, when couched in an ersatz redneck dialect? Which is a related - but different - topic.)
I haven't - and won't - identify those of my acquaintances who appear to have difficulty distinguishing fact from assumption, and occasionally principle from preference. Journalists have their unidentified sources - I suppose I can try getting away with the same thing. Besides, why embarrass an individual: when so many people don't take time to check the facts before voicing an opinion?
Arabs, Americans, Names, and Getting a Grip
It's been a long, long time since "American" could be reasonably linked with one ethnicity.
America 'looks Anglo' because many or most immigrants for the first two centuries of America's existence came from Europe. Northwestern Europe, at first. And, although there are comparatively subtle differences, most people with ancestors who came mostly from northwestern Europe, at least, look alike. We're melanin-deficient, tend to have light-colored eyes, and although some of us are blond, most have brown hair.
But there's a substantial portion of Americans whose ancestors came from Africa, or had relocated here from Siberia about 20,000 years ago, or immigrated from east Asia - you get the idea. I hope.
"Smith" is still a very common name in America - but that doesn't mean that people with names like Kongelf or Schmidt, or Nakamura, or Ng, aren't 'real Americans.' I've been over this before:
Is Hussein an Evil Name?
Saddam Hussein did no favors to the name "Hussein." He ran Iraq for about three decades, before a coalition removed him from power. Shortly after that, the new Iraqi government expressed their opinion of his administration of their country by removing Mr. Hussein from the roles of the living.
Saddam wasn't the best leader in the world. But it isn't reasonable to assume that everyone with "Hussein" in his or her name is a potential tyrant with a taste for solid gold bathroom fixtures.
*Number of times the name showed up in a list of 88,700,000 American names, from the 1997 U.S. Census.
I understand that "Hussein" is even more common in and around the Middle East.
It's no more reasonable to think that a Hussein is a tyrant-in-the-making, than it is to assume that a Schmidt wears black boots and marches the goose step, or that Johnsens and Stensruds are likely to lead a band of raiders down the Mississippi. (February 28, 2008)
It's a fact that the shooter who apparently was killed had a name which suggests, strongly, that his ancestors didn't come primarily from Yorkshire or London - or, probably, any place in Europe.
Which doesn't mean that he wasn't an American. Or that he was a Muslim. Or that he was a terrorist.
Psychiatrist Goes Berserk
One thing we do seem to know is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychiatrist.
Well, 'everybody knows' what that means!
It's been a few decades since the blatantly-insane psychiatrist was a stock comic character. Earlier, when I was growing up, I encountered people with a variety of opinions about psychiatrists.
Some regarded them as 'wigpickers' - people who made a business of worming their way into someone's confidence, and then identifying fairly normal behavior as signs of nuttiness.
Others stopped (barely) short of worshiping these all-knowing entities, who held the secrets of the mind in their grasp.
Still others assumed that psychiatry was a sort of scam, preying on the fears and hopes of naive dupes.
People holding view #1 or #3 might assume that Major Hasan snapped because he was a psychiatrist - and, therefore, completely unreliable.
I don't think that's true.
I also don't know that Major Hasan was a Muslim, or that he was a terrorist. He may have been.
Or, he may have been someone who didn't want to go overseas, may have been particularly disinclined to go to Iraq, and sufficiently stressed to express his feelings in a particularly destructive way.
Like I said, I don't know.
Aha! But His Name was Hasan!
Actually, quite a number of Americans have "Hasan" as a family name: roughly 3,000, judging from what Answers.com says. Ironically, hasan means "good" or "handsome" in Arabic.
"Hassan" is roughly twice as common. (Answers.com) It can be an alternative spelling of Hasan, or an anglicized form of the Arabic word "beautifier." 1
People living in that quadrangle defined by Maine, Florida, California, and Oregon, as well as Hawaii and Alaska, had better start getting used to a new set of 'funny sounding' names. I think we can do it, judging from the assortment I've seen in the local telephone directory.
Bottom Line: Thinking is a Good Idea
Taking a deep breath, collecting facts, waiting until there's enough to form a comparatively supportable opinion, and then thinking - before expressing that opinion - takes effort. Sometimes it isn't particularly easy.
This United Kingdom news outlet's assertion that there were multiple shooters may be an assumption. The article was recently posted (it's already Friday there), so there may have been a very late-breaking development.
1 My own family name, as near as we can learn, means either "gully" or "slave," depending on which language my forebears used, when told to pick a surname - an event which predates written family records. Euro-Americans generally don't know what their names mean - but that isn't the case for all people.
"Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices." Laurence J. Peter, American educator and writer (1919 - 1988), The Quotations Page
"When dealing with national security, we would be wise to take lessons from nature about managing risks. Animals that fail to evolve or learn effective ways to avoid predation leave no descendants. Thus, by studying the diversity of anti-predator adaptations, we may learn about what works and what doesn't work with respect to our own risks...."
I doubt that this is the definitive answer to all questions regarding national security: but Daniel Blumstein makes a good case for studying animal behavior as a guide to balancing risk and cost in national security planning.
"...A key lesson is that avoiding all risk is impossible...." This may be another important point.
The author may prefer that America emulate marmots, rather than wallabies - staying away from dangerous areas. If so, I don't agree - but I recognize that isolationism is a perennially popular point of view.
Bottom line: This op-ed is a relatively easy read, and presents a pretty good case for observing nature to learn what systems work, and which don't.
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." Friedrich Nietzsche QuotationsPage.com
Reading anti-Communist, anti-war, anti-whatever, screed has sometimes made me wonder if whoever wrote it was serious: or was a dedicated fifth columnist, set on defaming cause he or she apparently supported.
I've talked with a variety of intensely sincere opponents of communism, war, spy satellites (they cause wars, I was told), and other deadly threats to all right-thinking (or left-thinking, as the case may be) people. Sometimes, I just listened as they explained how nuclear winter, global warming, communists, or fluoride, would kill us all.
They were sincere. Possibly a bit nuts, but sincere.
Odds are that the wild writing on these and related topics, lightly rooted in the world we know, is quite sincere.
Wrong, but sincere. Someone might, very sincerely, believe that rocks fall south. It's 'obvious:' maps always1 have north at the top. 'Logically,' he would tell you, rocks fall south. That chap's sincerity wouldn't make him right. 1 Obviously, this fellow lives in the Western world. And, doesn't khow that 'north is up' is not a universal convention on maps.
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.
"Five Things Google Could Do For Newspapers" in today's Wired discusses options from buying failing papers to reviving the classifieds. A sixth option, not rescuing traditional print media, gets mentioned in the second paragraph.
Newspapers Failing? Surely Not the Gray Lady!
The idea that what many still think is "America's newspaper of record" might go out of business isn't a crackpot notion. "End Times" (Atlantic (January/February 2009)) said there was a slim possibility that The New York Times might close around May of this year.
American newspapers, including the Gray Lady, seem to be in for bad times, and I'm not surprised. For one thing, too many people have discovered that:
The New York Times is New York City's hometown paper, with a rather parochial world view
Many of America's traditional information gatekeepers - including newspapers - are not entirely trustworthy
Michael Hirschorn, who wrote "End Times" for The Atlantic,1 seemed quite worked up about the possible demise of The New York Times. The article's subhead is a pretty good summary:
"Can America's paper of record survive the death of newsprint? Can journalism?"
My best guess is:
The New York Times will be around ten years from now
Journalism is going to change
And, despite some rather breathless words early on, like "seriously damage the press's ability to serve as a bulwark of democracy"2, Hirschorn ends with:
"Ultimately, the death of The New York Times—or at least its print edition—would be a sentimental moment, and a severe blow to American journalism. But a disaster? In the long run, maybe not."
"Fitch believes more newspapers and newspaper groups will default, be shut down and be liquidated in 2009 and several cities could go without a daily print newspaper by 2010."
Who's 'Killing The New York Times?!'
Depending on how much espresso some of the better sort have had, I can imagine them coming up with a number of suspects:
The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
All those
Right-wing bloggers
Moderate bloggers
The Internet
Suspect #3 is, I think, close. The Internet, and information technology in general, is making an enormous change in how people share facts, opinions, and full-blown whoppers. That competition didn't exactly help newspaper sales.
On the other hand, I suggest a fourth suspect: traditional newspapers themselves.
I think a case can be made for viewing The New York Times as a hometown newspaper: and an insular one at that.
For generations the Gray Lady has given residents of New York City's boroughs news of their town, and of the world. All filtered through the world view of proper yankee gentlemen, and people who wanted to fit in. (More, in "The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions" (October 21, 2008)) As I said in that October post, "trouble comes when a person - or a news service - has a parochial point of view, and doesn't realize it."
Sloppy Procedure, Unconsidered Assumptions: That's No Way to Run a Paper
What seems to be killing The New York Times - and traditional journalism in general - is a sort of intellectual sloppiness. Last month, The New York Times published a letter from the mayor of Paris, France, who had some very strong views - about New York State politics.
Just one problem. The letter was a fake. The New York Times apologized, after France-Amerique broke the story: on its website. Turns out, The New York Times staff is supposed to "verify the authenticity of every letter" - but didn't in this case.
I can't help but think part of the reason for this SNAFU was that The New York Times staff considers the workings of New York State politics - specifically, the issue of "Caroline Kennedy's bid for the seat of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton" - something that would naturally be of interest to just about everybody. Even the mayor of Paris, France. And so, saw nothing odd about the message.
It's Not Just The New York Times
A documentary is scheduled for release in February. At this point it's called "Media Malpractice," and looks into the version of professional reporting that may have helped Barack Obama get elected. I think John Ziegler's got a point.
Publicity for the documentary includes an interview with Sara Palin. Among other things, the Alaska Governor said:
" 'When did we start accepting as hard news sources bloggers?' she asked. 'Anonymous bloggers especially. It is a sad state of affairs in the world of the media today - mainstream media especially - if they are going to rely on anonymous bloggers for their hard news information. Very scary.' " (FOXNews (January 9, 2009)
Those words about the "sad state of affairs in the world of the media today" are what got me started on this post.
Yes, Virginia, There are Real Reporters
Not all journalists have offices in Manhattan, write stories based on claims they find on right-thinking blogs and what their editors like to see, and learn what grassroots America thinks by hanging out at the nearest Starbucks. Some have been embedded with American troops in Iraq. Quite a few have been killed: and not, despite what some might expect, by American soldiers.
Those reporters, who know the difference between fact and opinion, and who know how to research a story, won't go away.
Although they may not be working for The New York Times.
Reporters, Bloggers, and Information Gatekeepers
I'm a blogger, but not an anonymous one. I do my research, and cite my sources: which are often articles from AP, CNN, Reuters, and even The New York Times. This isn't inconsistency on my part.
I prefer to assume that major news services don't have a policy of publishing inaccurate information. Their interpretation of the information may, in my view, be wack: but that's another matter.
And, I do what many reporters don't appear to: I track stories back, to as close to their source as I can. And, as far as I am able, verify the facts.
Goodbye Walter Cronkite, Hello Information Age
American newspapers, magazines, entertainment media, and academic institutions are this country's traditional information gatekeepers. For generations, reporters, editors, studio executives, and college professors had firm control of what the rest of us saw and read. And, they were the ones who, by and large, told us what we were supposed to think about what they presented.
That was then, this is now.
The Internet and other information technology has upset the gatekeepers' applecart. Today, "...just anybody with Internet access could get published. And heard." Quite a few bizarre ideas get published. But I don't think that they'll succeed in the marketplace of ideas.
America's traditional gatekeepers kept Americans from being distracted by people who believe that Nero was working for the Christians. But, they also made sure that what we read and saw of world events was 'properly' filtered.
'Properly' from their point of view, of course.
Many traditional gatekeepers are honest and, I think, sincere in their efforts to present a clear, accurate, view of the world. Just the same, particularly in the more 'intelligent' American subcultures, there's a set of assumptions that seems to demand - and get - more respect than others. Some of the major ones are:
America is
A racist oppressor
To blame for most of the world's ills
Capitalism is bad
Religion kills people
Quite a few bloggers and others on the Internet share these views. But there are others who don't: and they no longer have to go through the 'proper' channels to get their ideas published.
Palin, Kennedy, Iraq, Lebanon, Hamas: Traditional News Services Just Don't Get It
It's hard for me to shake the idea that some reporters and editors haven't quite gotten over the Vietnam War, aren't convinced that Al Qaeda is a bigger threat to Americans than the FBI, and really believe that Hamas is a band of patriots.
I'm glad to live in the Information Age, where it's much easier to find - and publish - alternative views.
George Washington, on Knowledge and Public Opinion
"Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essentially that public opinion should be enlightened...."
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
From Digital History, Gilder Lehrman Document Number: GLC 2557
Not as stuffy as the title makes it sound: This discusses the stereotype that assumes city folk to be knowledgeable, up-to-date, and broad-minded, while the dangerously narrow-minded country folk are ignorant and decades out of touch with current events.
"...The collapse of daily print journalism will mean many things. For those of us old enough to still care about going out on a Sunday morning for our doorstop edition of The Times, it will mean the end of a certain kind of civilized ritual that has defined most of our adult lives. It will also mean the end of a certain kind of quasi-bohemian urban existence for the thousands of smart middle-class writers, journalists, and public intellectuals who have, until now, lived semi-charmed kinds of lives of the mind. And it will seriously damage the press's ability to serve as a bulwark of democracy...."
[emphasis mine]
The Military Times polled active-duty service members on how they felt about President-elect Barack Obama. Six out of ten are uncertain or pessimistic. More uncertain than pessimistic, when you look at the numbers:
How Active-Duty U.S. Military Feels About President-Elect Obama
Uncertain
35%
Optimistic
33%
Pessimistic
25%
Don't Know
8%
Follow-up questions showed that America's soldiers were concerned about Obama's time in the military - zero - and his experience leading men and women in uniform - also zero.
It's probably just as well that most of them aren't old enough to remember the Vietnam War, when 'experts' in Washington would give detailed orders to troops in the field. Like taking a hill, regardless of cost, and then retreating: just to show what American soldiers can do.
That sort of clueless micro-management was being used as an example of how not to run an organization, thirty years later, in management journals.
And now America has a young, charming, apparently-idealistic, president; in the middle of a war; with hundreds of thousands of lives at immediate risk; and the fate of western civilization in the balance; and he's a Chicago college professor with absolutely no military experience at all.
First, a Palestinian president blames Hamas for setting off death and destruction in the Gaza strip.
Now, an Iranian newspaper (accidentally) prints a piece which says that Hamas is a terrorist organization - just because it hides behind civilians.
Sure, the newspaper has been banned, and there's probably a fatwa or two ordering the death of President Mahmoud Abbas: but I'm still impressed that anybody in such a staunchly 'Islamic' part of the world would suggest that an organization dedicated to wiping Israel off the map isn't acting properly.
Iran's Well-Regulated Press and Criticism of Hamas
The chief of domestic media at Iran's culture ministry, Mohammad Parvizi, told IRNA that the Kargozaran newspaper was banned. Iran's government has a perfectly good reason for turning the reformist paper over to the courts.
Mohammad Parvizi said the ban was ordered because of "a piece yesterday which justifies the Zionist regime's crimes against humanity in Gaza and portrays the Palestinian resistance as terrorists who cause the deaths of children and civilians by taking up position in kindergartens and hospitals." (AFP)
The ban may be temporary. Turns out, publishing the piece was a mistake in more ways than one. Kargozaran's director, Morteza Sajadian, said that the offending piece written by the Office to Consolidate Unity, a radical pro-reform student group.
"The statement was not supposed to be carried, it was mistakenly printed," Sajadian told AFP. He hopes the ban will be temporary. (AFP)
Cracks in 'Islamic' Unity - and It's About Time
I've written before about the wildly different versions of Islam practiced around the world. I get the impression that many Muslims don't think it's polite - or safe - to suggest that killing Jews and other non-Muslims might not be nice.
Can't say that I blame them. It can feel awkward, criticizing someone who claims to share your beliefs.
On the other hand, the excesses of groups like Hamas may be an opportunity for Muslims to decide whether they want Islam to be a respectable major religion, or a weird and destructive atavism from the seventh century.
I was told recently that as emotions rise, the frontal cortex goes offline: which is important, since that's where we do most of our higher-level thinking.
Stick with me: This post isn't as off-topic as it may look. Although I'll admit to writing it mostly as an excuse to share a hilarious collection of dire predictions.
People on many ends of the political and philosophical spectra have gotten so excited that their frontal cortices seem to have shut down entirely. That may explain some of the odd opinions, presented as facts, flying around: like monkey fewmets in the primate house.
Emotion Trumping Reason: Not Limited to the War on Terror
Being born during the Truman administration has some advantages: like the opportunity to notice what changes, and what doesn't. When I was in school, experts said there would probably be another ice age soon. The year I graduated from high school, a butterfly expert, Paul Ehrlich, made quite a name for himself:
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)
"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million." (1969) (source: igreens.org.uk)
The best and brightest applauded his intelligence and foresight, and heartily adopted his views. Despite America's - and Earth's - population stubbornly refusing to follow his prediction, some still do.
Don't misunderstand me: I think it's a good idea not to eat pesticides. But, as I wrote earlier:
"I've been around the block enough times to realize that if there's a viewpoint, like 'vegetables are good for you,' 'we shouldn't mistreat criminals,' or 'it's okay to earn money,' there will be people who take the idea, and run with it: straight off the edge of sanity. And they're likely to be the ones shouting loudest about the idea."
("Obama Critic Deported: It's a Plot, of Course" (October 8, 2008))
It Killed the Loch Ness Monster, and Now It's Coming For YOU!!!
I think that some of these people sincerely believe what they've said. Global warming, we've been told, will lead to:
Overpopulation, which leads to Cannibalism
(Ted Turner)
The Death of the Loch Ness Monster
(Robert Rines)
Beer Gets More Expensive
(Jim Salinger)
Pythons Take Over America
(The U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as reported in USAToday.com)
Kidney Stones
(A University of Texas study)
Skinny Whales
(Some Japanese scientists)
Shark Attacks
(George Burgess)
Black Hawk Down
(Massachusetts congressman Edward Markey)
Sounds dire, and I might take this more seriously, if
The coming ice age hadn't been replaced by global warming as the Big Crisis
Paul Ehrlich's application of Malthusian principles had actually happened
I didn't know that it would be odd - and very disturbing - if Earth wasn't warming up, on average, right now
There's been an ice age on, you know.
The thing is, though, that the idea of Big Oil and hair spray being responsible for global warming isn't held by all scientists. Particularly, I'd think, those who have been studying climate change on places like Mars.
But I'm getting seriously off track here.
The War on Terror: It's Okay to be Scared
I'm personally more than a bit upset that there are people who think that flying airliners into the New York City World Trade Center and the Pentagon was a good idea.
But being upset isn't an excuse for not thinking. If anything, a high-risk period like this is a time when a person's thought process should be particularly rational.
---Which Reminds Me of an Amusing Story
Skimming through earlier posts, I ran across a one about a 1920 terrorist attack on New York City. At the time, I realized that nobody seemed to have realized that the 9/11 attack could be viewed as an Anarchist plot to avenge the Sacco/Vanzetti indictments.
And so, being in a pawkish frame of mind, I made one up. By the time I was through, anarchists, astrology, Mecca, and the Illuminati were involved in the 9/11 attack. If I'd kept at it a little longer, I'd have worked in Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, and the Kennedys.
I just read that, although John McCain doesn't have an illegitimate child, he's an unreliable racist philanderer, whose wife squanders fortunes on clothing while millions starve. McCain is against women's rights, too. I'll get back to the unreliable, racist, philandering, woman-oppressing McCain later.
Meanwhile, in Kenya, the author of an anti-Obama book has been deported. Presumably because he didn't have a valid work permit.
An American author, Jerome Corsi, was about to launch his book in Kenya. Corsi's "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" says that Barack Obama is filled with "black rage," and that Obama was raised a Muslim and attended a radical black church.
FOXNews says that "The Obama Nation" uses "innuendoes[!] and false rumors," and repeated the facts of Obama's background.
The Obama campaign says that Corsi is a bigot who is peddling rehashed lies to hurt Obama in the U.S. presidential race.
I think they're both right.
Who Said That? Tracking Down Facts
The FOXNews article on Corsi's deportation included the URL for Fight the Smears: "Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his campaign picks apart the book's claims on the Web site FightTheSmears.com."
Fight the Smears dot com picks apart Corsi's book in "Unfit for Publication." I think that unmasking that collection of bias is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but in an election year a campaign has to do that sort of thing.
I looked around for a McCain equivalent of Fight the Smears, and found McCain Fact Check. Sounded promising: there was even the word "fact" in the website's name.
The website's "About Us" page says: "McCainFactCheck.com was built to create an objective platform where the public can find non-biased information regarding John McCain."
In the middle of the home page, right under the banner, there's a list of allegations and facts about McCain. Here's the first half-dozen:
Does McCain have an illegitimate child? No, McCain does not have an illegitimate child....
Does McCain have the worst attendance record in the U.S. Senate? Yes. McCain has missed 64% of the votes cast during the current 110th Congress....
Did McCain publicly use racial slurs until recently? Yes. During his 2000 campaign McCain said he'll hate the "gooks" for as long as he lives, though he later apologized....
Was McCain unfaithful in marriage? Yes. While married McCain courted a beautiful heiress 17 years his junior, whom he married a month after he divorced his first wife....
Did Cindy McCain wear a $300,000 outfit to the Republican Convention? Yes, says Vanity Fair, though mostly because of Cindy's $280,000 earings....
Does McCain support overturning Roe v. Wade? Yes, though during the 2000 campaign he made conflicting statements on the issue....
That may be an unbiased presentation of an unreliable racist philanderer, but I'm not entirely sure.
I like to know where facts come from, and whether they're facts, assumptions, or wishful thinking. So, I checked out who had registered those two domains.
Fight the Smears is registered by Obama for America, at a North Michigan Avenue address in Chicago
Obama Biden is also registered by Obama for America
McCain Fact Check is registered as "Private" by DomainsByProxy.com, which has an address on North Hayden Road in Scottsdale, Arizona
McCain-Palin 2008, has "Private" registration at DomainsByProxy.com, too
DomainsByProxy.com, like all the registration services I'm familiar with, provides customers with the option of keeping personal information about who is registering a domain confidential. Sometimes there's good reason to keep one's identity hidden. There are places in the world where it isn't safe to disagree with the leadership.
Loopy members of various political extremes notwithstanding, America isn't one of those places. If you're going to publish a website with a title like "My Teecher is Stoopid," or have opinions that you don't want your neighbors knowing about, private registration is a good idea.
Make that "anonymous" registration. Of course, in today's American culture, the words "privacy" and "anonymity" are used in almost the same way.
Which brings us to the Anonymous Expert.
'Return With Us Now to the Thrilling Days of Yesteryear: The Anonymous Expert Rides Again!
With a cloud of dust, a flash of words, and a hearty "I'm an expert," the Anonymous Expert rides again.
I wish that unnamed experts and unverified 'facts' were a thing of the past, but they're not.
I'll give Jerome Corsi credit for one thing: He uses what I presume is his own name when he makes up 'facts' about Obama.
That McCain Fact Check website's facts may or may not have come from the same world I live in, but they look like they've been carefully selected, at best.
I don't have quite the same issue with the McCain - Palin 2008 website's "Private" registration as I do with the McCain Fact Check's. The McCain-Palin website has no pretensions about being unbiased: The website is very clear about its position on who should be the next president. McCain - Palin 2008 is obviously run by McCain supporters.
The McCain Fact Check, on the other hand, reminds me on those unnamed experts we read about in the news. Granted, journalists sometimes need to keep their sources confidential, but I'm a little more willing to believe an "expert" when that person is willing to be personally identified with an assertion.
I recommend using FactCheck.org, which "aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics" - and claims to be "a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania". It's registered by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, although the address given is the National Press Building in Washington, D.C. Judging by how annoying to both (or all) sides FactCheck.org can be, I suspect that it actually is non-partisan. And I'd say that an organization interested in political deception and confusion would find more material in the capital than in Pennsylvania.
Best of all, the Annenberg Public Policy Center is a real organization, with a traceable history. So you can make up your own mind about whether what they say is worth reading, or not.
Riding Into the Sunset
And so, it's time to bid adieu to this exciting tale of national politics, rumors, and assertions of unknown provenance.
As the stranger rides off, I turn to to a colorful townsman and say, "Who was that masked man?" He replies, "I thought you knew: that's the Anonymous Expert."
That's Reuters' take on a recent development in Russia's relationships with its former imperial territories.
Reuters: undisclosed inside information? Or Unquestioning Trust?
BBC, the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, and TurkishPress.com, are a bit more cautious. As BBC put it:
"...Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has expressed outrage at reports that Ukraine supplied arms and technicians to Georgia before the recent war.
"After talks near Moscow with his Ukrainian counterpart Yulia Tymoshenko, he said that if such reports were confirmed, they constituted a 'crime'.... "
Reuters, covering the same events, accepts Russia's claim as fact. And, (maybe) showing how magnanimous Russia is, Reuters pointed out that: "...Apart from the row over Ukraine's weapons supplies to Georgia and the support of Ukraine's West-leaning leadership for Tbilisi, Russia is also angry over its moves to join the NATO military alliance....
I saw no indication in the article (which focused on compassionate Russia's assistance of erring Ukraine) to indicate that Reuters had any facts, aside from Putin's word, that Ukraine sent weapons and technicians to Georgia.
It's one thing for a news service to keep sources of information confidential. It's another to appear to hear an accusation, and assume guilt with no supporting evidence.
Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Rebuilding the Little Lost Empire
Let's look at that last phrase of Reuters' again, "...Russia is also angry over its moves to join the NATO military alliance...."
As I've written before ("If You Liked Georgia, You'll Love Ukraine " (September 8, 2008)), it's fairly easy to assume that Russia is trying to get it's lost empire back, one piece at a time.
It's 'way too early to say, "see? I said this would happen." Besides, I hope that Russia's conquering of part of Georgia, threatening the rest of that country, and now saying that Ukraine did something criminal, is part of some sort of innocent plan. Maybe Putin wants to demonstrate Russian power and influence by leaning on countries the size of Mexican states.
But, there are parallels between what I wrote last month, and what's going on this week: "...it's not at all unreasonable to think that Ukraine will do something bad, and that Russia will be 'forced' to invade Ukraine. To restore order, of course...." ("If You Liked Georgia, You'll Love Ukraine " (September 8, 2008))
The brouhaha in Washington over a three-quarters-of-a-trillion bailout of arguably irresponsible financial companies makes me glad to be an American.
It's also churning my stomach, but that's another matter.
Behind all the it's-the-other-guy's-faulting and occasional preference for theory over fact, what we're seeing is the checks-and-balances design philosophy built into American government at work.
It's in the American culture, too. Thanks to the messy sort of freedom we have in America, people who don't agree with whoever is in authority can say so, and explain why.
Case in point: Stop the Housing Bailout!. The fellow who put up this website has a definite point of view, and it isn't the one favored by Washington:
"This site is dedicated to stopping the government's planned bailout of the housing market. A bailout requires responsible Americans to pay for the acts of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers, flippers, and over-extended home-borrowers. In other words, the government wants you to pay for the blunders of others who knew, or should have known, better.
"Equally as important, a bailout would permanently price out of the housing market all those responsible Americans...."
I haven't read the entire site, and haven't made up my mind about his ideas, but this isn't just a rant. Aside from stating his position, the website urges visitors to protest, shows where protests are happening, gives contact information for members of Congress, and reminds us that all representatives, and quite a few senators, are up for re-election.
It's Loud, It's Messy, But It Works
One of the strengths I see in American government, and culture, is that it's rather hard to make decisions that affect everyone without a lot of discussion. Also arguing, haranguing, posturing, and the odd temper tantrum.
One person, or a restricted set of like-minded people, can make mistakes. Big ones. Not because they're ignorant or malicious, but because they can't see all sides of an issue. They're human, and our minds only stretch so far.
A large number of people with a diverse set of backgrounds and viewpoints can make mistakes, too. Sometimes they're big ones.
All in all, I'd rather live here, than in a country where people had to go through proper channels to lodge complaints, and where the news media was well-managed. In China, for example, a company has been selling poison baby food: an embarrassment in that generally well-regulated country.
The official news, though, isn't troubling the people about that so much. The focus is on China's manned orbital mission and upcoming spacewalk.
It's not just China, of course, where people are encouraged to politely refrain from stating unwelcome opinions. For example, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Myanmar are quite careful to protect their subjects from ideas and discussions that might upset them.
America's approach is much less tidy, but I think we profit from letting all sorts of ideas get in.
"The article, dated two days from now on Sept. 27, vividly described the rocket in flight, complete with a sharply detailed dialogue between the three astronauts.
"Excerpts are below:
" 'After this order, signal lights all were switched on, various data show up on rows of screens, hundreds of technicians staring at the screens, without missing any slightest changes ...
No, not really. But it looks like we'll be hearing that they're to blame.
Few things are simple, and Saturday's attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel is no exception.
Just the Facts: And Innuendo
You've probably heard that the Marriott in Islamabad burned after a truck bomb attack last Saturday.
You may even have heard that it's America's fault. More specifically, it's the fault of the Marines.
Sure, the Anjuman Fidayeen-e-Islam, or The Fedayeen of Islam, a bunch that nobody seems to have heard of before, say they did it. But it was the fault of the Marines. Or America.
That seems to be the implication of an article in Prensa Latina, published today.
They could be right. I don't doubt the facts, as stated:
"...The case emerged when Representative Mumtaz Alam Gilani denounced a mysterious and secret movement last Wednesday night by US Marines who supposedly were introducing iron boxes without being checked by security personnel of the hotel
"This happened after the Chief of US Troops, Admiral Mike Fullen, had a meeting in Islamabad with the country's main military chiefs.
"In a statement, the US embassy insists today that it was a support team that usually precedes or accompanies American authorities.
"The News reports, however, that the government already had information that various rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were permanently occupied by US authorities and had equipment and other material used for espionage...."
Marines "supposedly" carried boxes into the Marriott without having the house detectives look inside
An unusually anonymous source in "the government" says that there's a nest of foreign (American, in this case) spies in the hotel
Some time after the Marines took the boxes into the hotel, a truck blew up at the gate
Then the hotel burned down
My hat's off to Prensa Latina, for the way they wrote the article. Specifying that the containers were iron boxes conjured visions of Fu Manchu-style intrigue, Humphrey Bogart movies, even secret pirate treasure.
It could be pure coincidence that the mailing address for Prensa Latina gives is "Calle 23 esq. N Vedado, La Habana - Cuba," but I think that Prensa Latina might have a well-defined editorial slant regarding America.
Good Guys, Bad Guys, and Everyone In Between
Secret agents and mysterious iron boxes aside, there's quite a great deal of uncertainty about Saturday's explosion.
One of the few things that are known is that it was a big explosion, a big fire, and that a lot of people got killed. Over four dozen, at least. One Pakistani official called it the biggest attack in seven years.
At best, I think it'll be years before we know who actually sent some suicide driver in that truck. The modus operandi suggests Taliban and/or Al Qaeda: both of which have reasonably secure bases in the tribal regions of Pakistan. But methods can be copied, so it's anyone's guess who is responsible.
According to CNN, Al-Arabiya TV reported that it, Al-Arabiya, got an audio recording from some groups calling itself "The Fedayeen of Islam," but noted that it, Al-Arabiya, couldn't tell if the recording was the real McCoy, or if the name of the group was for real.
Assuming that CNN's coverage of Al-Arabiya's reporting of a previously-unknown group's audio recording is accurate:
The Fedayeen of Islam say that 250 U.S. Marines and other U.S. and NATO officials were inside the hotel when it burned
The Fedayeen of Islam 'regretted the attack,' but that it was necessary - They've got demands
American-Pakistani joint efforts must end
All military operations in Pakistan's tribal regions must end
There's more, but CNN didn't go into that
"Mujahadeen" prisoners in American prisons must be released
So far, we've got mysterious iron boxes, a claim of responsibility from an unknown organization that demands the release of prisoners that nobody else seems to know about. All the story needs now is the possibility that high-level Pakistani officials knew about the attack before it happened.
Dinner Plans, or No Dinner Plans: That is the Question
One of the questions, anyway.
Pakistan's Interior Ministry head, Rehman Malik, said that Pakistan's president, prime minister and other leaders had planned to dine at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday night. Then, President Asif Ali Zardari asked to move the event to the prime minister's compound.
Which was a good thing for President Zardari. If he'd been at the Marriott, he'd most likely be as dead as the Czech Ambassador, Ivo Zdarek.
The hotel management, on the other hand, insists that there were no dinner plans, changed or otherwise, for the Pakistani officials at the Marriott. And Pakistani Senator Javed Ashraf Qazi said he was invited to the dinner but it was always scheduled to be at the prime minister's office. Which could be true.
Even the professional and cautious CNN wrote that the lack of fit between the stories of the Pakistani Interior Ministry chief, a Pakistani senator, and the Marriott management "raised questions as to how much the government knew about the planned attack...."
Since the person who said 'plans were changed' was named, and since Rehman Malik is Pakistan's Interior Ministry head, I think there's a chance that plans were changed: possibly for innocent reasons. Innocent or not, if Senator Javed Ashraf Qazi's assertion isn't accurate, there's a whacking great coincidence here, at the very least.
Like Yemen, Pakistan is an ally of America. With Al Qaeda and Taliban bases operating within its borders.
Pakistan either can't or won't remove those bases.
And, Pakistan's government doesn't want any help. Last week, we heard that a Pakistani leader gave Pakistan's troops orders to shoot America soldiers if they tried to deal with Al Qaeda or Taliban forces inside Pakistan.
On the other hand, maybe they didn't. Some Pakistani officials said it wasn't so.
Now, the Associated Press is saying that two American intelligence officials reported Pakistani troops and tribesmen shooting at American helicopters inside Pakistan. And, that the Pentagon said it wasn't so.
Good guys? Bad guys? It isn't that simple. We've got a situation where
National leaders in the Middle East are dealing with people living within their territory who don't like the idea of nations - and have the firepower to be more than annoying
Terrorists (or activists, or whatever you want to call them) are as hard to keep track of as mercury that's been hit with a hammer - They
Aren't tied to one territory, as nations are
May have the support of people who think that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar groups
Are defending Islam
Deserve support, based on tribal loyalties
May dissolve and re-form under new names
Conflicting accounts are broadcast around the world before bureaucracies get facts through 'regular channels' and decide what to say
News organizations, from The New York Times and Prensa Latina to CNN, are dealing with a world that doesn't fit their Cold War templates
And that's just scratching the surface.
Oh the other hand, although there probably aren't (purely) good guys and (purely) bad guys, I think there are (fairly) good sides and (decidedly) bad sides.
Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian regime, and other like-minded organizations, do seem to have a clear idea of what they want: a world that's run much more tidily, and according to their rules.
The burqa-yes, trouser-no dress code alone would hard for westerners to live with. Never mind what would happen to the status of women, and anyone who didn't see eye-to-eye with the local imam.
Americans, and quite a few other people, have gotten used to living with a degree of personal freedom that doesn't seem to be part of Al Qaeda's dream.
We won't find perfectly good guys in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, or America. But I think there are people who are willing to keep followers of Osama bin Laden and Iran's ayatollahs from replacing the bikini with the burqa, and turning the clock back to the good old days, when the local despot had life-and-death control over his subjects.
Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1
Americas Interests.blog
an Australian's perspective
(on January 29, 2009 the author announced the end of new posts, and explained his reasons for doing so. He is, however, keeping the 21 months of accumulated posts on line, because of "the role that it plays in a larger ecosystem of information" - I recommend AI as an archival resource. )
Blog 4 Human Rights: Human Rights in Georgia (the nation)
News, Opinions, Videos and Photos (Why blogroll this? Georgia is about 10% Muslim, very near the Middle East: and human rights is a critical part of the War on Terror.)
The Conservative Hawk
An articulate conservative blog: definitely political, opinionated, informed, and intelligent
Defenders Council of Vermont
"...our mission is to educate the citizens of Vermont about the nature, reality and threat of radical Islam, deepen Vermonters' understanding of America's heritage, honor the men and women of the armed services and their families, and support the efforts of others to help our armed forces work with local populations in foreign lands."
DefenseLink Blogger's Roundtable
provides source material for stories in the blogosphere concerning the Department of Defense (DoD) by bloggers and online journalists.
FactCheck.org "aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics". It's "a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania". From what I've seen, this non-partisan website must be quite annoying to all sides
Foreign Policy Watch
"Diplomatic strategy, international news, and thoughtful political analysis"
www.free-minds.org
Another flavor of True Islam: one more articulate than many
Free Muslims Coalition
"American Muslims and Arabs of all backgrounds who feel that religious violence and terrorism have not been fully rejected by the Muslim community in the post 9-11 era."
GlobalSecurity.org
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
We try to bring you the facts, to help you form your opinion."
IntelCenter
"Our focus as a company is on studying terrorist groups and other threat actors and disseminating that information in a timely manner to those who can act on it."
Iraq the Model
"New points of view about the future of Iraq."
Islam.com
"...an information portal site on the internet that is pure, clean and 'worthy of its name', InshaAllah."
islamispeace.org.uk
"...invites you to challenge your ideas of Islam and Muslims."
Islamic Circle of North America
"... to seek the pleasure of Allah (SWT) through the struggle of Iqamat-ud-Deen (establishment of the Islamic system of life) as spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)"
Islamic Society of Central Florida (ISCF)
"...an organization which strives to serve the greater Central Florida community by catering to the social, religious, and educational needs of its Muslim inhabitants."
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center
A research resource for United States Air Force Air University students, "provided as a public service by Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center and the Maxwell Support Division."
Muslamics
Affad Shaikh and "A Writing Collaborative"
This American Muslim
Affad Shaikh, a very west-coast Muslim Los Angelano
Muslims Against Sharia An organization of Muslims, presumably dedicated "...to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists..." - with a curious way of practicing Peace, Love Light, (words in their website's logo).
National Interest, and as a corollary, Primacy
"These are indeed my personal pontifications on the vicissitudes of International Affairs."
(Be prepared for big words, long sentences: and unexpected insights.)
Why Islam?
"... articles, books etc on Islam and comparative religion. ... initiated by volunteers from ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America). ..."
1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.
Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.
In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.
