Kevin McCullough and Mike Gallagher have been in an uproar over the article by Steven Levitt discussing hypothetical ways a terrorist could attack America. Calling him a freak, a maniac and treasonous, the two columnists explain that Levitt has turned over a blueprint to anyone who would be interested in attacking America. The dilemma is this: are these hawkish columnists attempting to produce comedic pieces, or have they gone insane?
Levitt’s “best” scenario for the terrorist consists of random sniper attacks, like the incident in DC, but on a national scale. Ok, it’s a thought. Not a very original one, but a thought. In fact, it’s a less detailed version of the first half of Teeth of the Tiger, a best selling novel by Tom Clancy, in which terrorists sneak across the border and open fire at a number of shopping malls. McCullough and Gallagher don’t seem to regard Clancy’s work as treason, despite it being more detailed and more widely distributed than Levitt’s. Then again, Clancy doesn’t publish in ‘liberal’ media outlets…
Levitt also discusses five cornerstones of a successful attack.
1. Make everyone feel like a potential target. Like hijacking multiple passenger airliners that anyone could have bought a ticket on? I think the terrorists have learned this lesson already.
2. Conduct multiple simultaneous attacks. Four airplanes. The lesson is out there.
3. Try to get away alive. Terrorists seem to be behind the eight ball on this one, but then again, maybe somewhere at some point a terrorist considered preserving his own life. Either way, Levitt fails to provide a reason as to why this boosts the successfulness of an attack.
4. Try to stop commerce. Two of the 9/11 targets were major centers in commerce in America’s commerce center. Terrorists have this one in the playbook already.
5.Get America to pass hampering laws. It is believed that Osama bin-Laden wanted America to respond brashly militarily and domestically to 9/11, in a manner that would do further damage. Ok, so this one is no secret either.
As far as I can tell, Levitt gave no new information to potential terrorists, and the only actual plan of attack he advances omits planning for the hardest parts like training and getting across the border. Multiple readers commented that they too had considered this mode of attack after the sniper shootings. And yet we are to believe terrorists didn’t and/or couldn’t?
Maybe I’m wrong, and terrorists are unable to think up attacks without help. Did Levitt and the NYT commit a crime any different than hundreds of other authors and media outlets? If terrorists were so inventive as to type “terrorism scenario America” into google.com, the first hit they would see discusses the devastating potential of a dirty bomb. The fourth hit reports on a plan of attack that jihadists came up with on their own. Scenarios for devastating attacks are near infinite, in fiction thrillers, the media, think tank publications and even government documents like the 9/11 commission report. So why is Levitt so treasonous?
Gallagher proclaims to be aghast at the glee with which Levitt requests more scenarios from readers. I’ll admit, it seems wildly improbable that the powers that be in charge of homeland security are reading this blog in an attempt to plan for American security. But imagining and discussing hypothetical attacks are necessary to promote general security, drive security planning, to reduce the shock factor were an attack to succeed. So even if this one instance of discussion is unlikely to boost American defenses, the mindset of dreaming up and discussing attacks is likely to help in the long run.
Even if unlikely to do much, Levitt hopes his article will help in the fight against terror. So who is more gleeful, Levitt in the face of terrorism, or McCullough and Gallagher in the face of the chance to badmouth what they perceive as liberal media organizations?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
This is Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson has quietly tiptoed to the top of the polls among potential republican candidates. He’s gotten tons of free media by “considering” running, and avoided too much scrutiny by staying of the campaign trail and out of the debates. He polls well in part due to his acting career, playing a district attorney on Law and Order. The strong but politically mindful DA seems like an affable guy, although his real positions on the issues are still largely unpublicized.
Thompson’s columns provide some insight. He has in fact been quite prolific recently (it almost suggest a ghost writer and the needed for publicity before a campaign.) His leanings are actually a bit more … extreme … than his grandfatherly appearance and acting job would suggest.
Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power. He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.” That’s a minority opinion to be sure. The Justice Department seems to have involved political calculations in its firing decisions, a no-no. The runaround congress received in its investigation showed an indifference to checks and balances, and neared perjury. Thompson however, considers these firings routine presidential decisions, and objects to the congressional meddling. His call for a “strong president” makes one a little wary to give him the seat of power.
You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy. Happy allies are needed to facilitate military action, to further our global goals diplomatically, and to bolster the power of our military deterrent effect. Countries are imperfect, and some are even hypocritical in their complaints to America. Thompson, however, goes too far in suggesting that “we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.” Angering the world as much as the USA does isn’t exactly honorable, even if it isn’t despicable in every instance.
Iranian proliferation is a serious global concern, one that requires nuance and caution. So far diplomacy has only provided a shield under which nuclear development has continued. However, a military strike, for numerous reasons, would fail. It is unlikely a strike would destroy all the Iranian nuclear program, it would enflame the middle east, damage global oil supplies, in the end risking a massive increase in terrorism, and a collapse of the global economy. An attack may one day be necessary, may be able to be pulled off without catastrophe. However, for now the crisis is not that urgent, and America needs a more nuanced approach. Perhaps a future leader shouldn’t off handedly suggest that it is futile “sit down across the table from these guys.”
It’s early, and if he finally decides to officially run, Fred Thompson will have plenty of time to explain his positions. However, early indications indicate he is a bit more hawkish than his TV persona might lead people to believe.
Thompson’s columns provide some insight. He has in fact been quite prolific recently (it almost suggest a ghost writer and the needed for publicity before a campaign.) His leanings are actually a bit more … extreme … than his grandfatherly appearance and acting job would suggest.
Thompson favors a ridiculously high amount Presidential Power. He suggests that “there was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys.” That’s a minority opinion to be sure. The Justice Department seems to have involved political calculations in its firing decisions, a no-no. The runaround congress received in its investigation showed an indifference to checks and balances, and neared perjury. Thompson however, considers these firings routine presidential decisions, and objects to the congressional meddling. His call for a “strong president” makes one a little wary to give him the seat of power.
You can take pride in American power, but Thompson goes a step further. Unilateral action is sometimes necessary, but world regard is an important component of US foreign policy. Happy allies are needed to facilitate military action, to further our global goals diplomatically, and to bolster the power of our military deterrent effect. Countries are imperfect, and some are even hypocritical in their complaints to America. Thompson, however, goes too far in suggesting that “we ought to look at a lot of the complaints as a badge of honor.” Angering the world as much as the USA does isn’t exactly honorable, even if it isn’t despicable in every instance.
Iranian proliferation is a serious global concern, one that requires nuance and caution. So far diplomacy has only provided a shield under which nuclear development has continued. However, a military strike, for numerous reasons, would fail. It is unlikely a strike would destroy all the Iranian nuclear program, it would enflame the middle east, damage global oil supplies, in the end risking a massive increase in terrorism, and a collapse of the global economy. An attack may one day be necessary, may be able to be pulled off without catastrophe. However, for now the crisis is not that urgent, and America needs a more nuanced approach. Perhaps a future leader shouldn’t off handedly suggest that it is futile “sit down across the table from these guys.”
It’s early, and if he finally decides to officially run, Fred Thompson will have plenty of time to explain his positions. However, early indications indicate he is a bit more hawkish than his TV persona might lead people to believe.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Is Any Democratic Candidate Winning on Iraq?
Offense can help win elections, but with all the finger pointing on Iraq, is anyone even making sense? The debate on Sunday highlighted absolutely nothing about the war. Everyone opposes it; everyone blames everyone else for sending and keeping American soldiers in Iraq. And when the smoke clears, none of the frontrunners seem any more palatable discussing the war.
John Edwards came out firing at Clinton and Obama for voting soflty on the war fudning bill – charging a lack of leadership. Am I the only one confused as to why a pre-vote press conference is a necessary component of leadership? So the two senators voted quietly. Maybe that was a political blunder, but does it show a glaring character flaw? Most voters aren’t going to pull the trigger on this elusive ‘lack of leadership.’
Edwards is also continuing his political gamble of admitting a mistake in voting to originally authorize the use of force in Iraq. The risk: does he come of as genuine. If Edwards can seem genuinely reformed and likeable, this gamble pays off and he becomes a strong anti-war advocate. If the move is perceived as showmanship, Edwards comes off as cheap, boyish and not an anti-war bulwark. Being as Edwards is having trouble shedding his trial lawyer elitism, this gamble runs an especially high risk.
Obama defend his (and by association Clinton’s) quiet vote. He counter charged that he has always been against the war, and Edwards only recently recanted his authorization. While factually true, Obama doesn’t seem any more attractive by pushing someone else into the slop. Plus, with Edwards claiming he made a mistake, exactly how meaningful is the charge?
Then Obama makes the empty gesture of asking the others to not “play politics” with the war. Don’t forget, Obama uses the war on the campaign trail as much as the others. So what exactly is he wishing for? Iraq is the campaign issue of the present, a massive foreign policy question with huge domestic ramifications. It seems the war would be the most logical place focus political energy, in an age where the candidates and the media “play politics” with literally everything.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, doing her best impression of being above the fight. Her tactic: blame Bush. Exactly how much distance can she get from blaming the soon-to-be lame duck? Firstly, all the candidates and the Democratic voting base are already in agreement on Bush. Secondly, bashing Bush doesn’t exactly reassure those who are upset with Hillary for originally authorizing the war or continuing the fund it. Lastly, the ‘above the pack’ strategy would seem much more effective if Hillary could keep her own dirty laundry out of the press.
Oddly, the candidates with the most sensible tactics are those with the least strength. Kucinich is ready to blame congress (along with Bush of course) for the war, and is keeping his story simple in opposition to the war in any form. Biden took a stable stance defending his vote for funding as essential to protect the troops.
Its early, tactics will change, and perhaps a candidate will be able to come across as smart, strong and likeable on Iraq. But for now, the Democratic field is plain petty. As the front runners scramble to blame each other and/or Bush for our foreign policy shortcomings, they don’t seem very presidential. For now the campaigns are showcasing drama more than leadership. The opportunity seems great for someone to prove him or herself better than the rest, and no one stepped up.
John Edwards came out firing at Clinton and Obama for voting soflty on the war fudning bill – charging a lack of leadership. Am I the only one confused as to why a pre-vote press conference is a necessary component of leadership? So the two senators voted quietly. Maybe that was a political blunder, but does it show a glaring character flaw? Most voters aren’t going to pull the trigger on this elusive ‘lack of leadership.’
Edwards is also continuing his political gamble of admitting a mistake in voting to originally authorize the use of force in Iraq. The risk: does he come of as genuine. If Edwards can seem genuinely reformed and likeable, this gamble pays off and he becomes a strong anti-war advocate. If the move is perceived as showmanship, Edwards comes off as cheap, boyish and not an anti-war bulwark. Being as Edwards is having trouble shedding his trial lawyer elitism, this gamble runs an especially high risk.
Obama defend his (and by association Clinton’s) quiet vote. He counter charged that he has always been against the war, and Edwards only recently recanted his authorization. While factually true, Obama doesn’t seem any more attractive by pushing someone else into the slop. Plus, with Edwards claiming he made a mistake, exactly how meaningful is the charge?
Then Obama makes the empty gesture of asking the others to not “play politics” with the war. Don’t forget, Obama uses the war on the campaign trail as much as the others. So what exactly is he wishing for? Iraq is the campaign issue of the present, a massive foreign policy question with huge domestic ramifications. It seems the war would be the most logical place focus political energy, in an age where the candidates and the media “play politics” with literally everything.
Then there is Hillary Clinton, doing her best impression of being above the fight. Her tactic: blame Bush. Exactly how much distance can she get from blaming the soon-to-be lame duck? Firstly, all the candidates and the Democratic voting base are already in agreement on Bush. Secondly, bashing Bush doesn’t exactly reassure those who are upset with Hillary for originally authorizing the war or continuing the fund it. Lastly, the ‘above the pack’ strategy would seem much more effective if Hillary could keep her own dirty laundry out of the press.
Oddly, the candidates with the most sensible tactics are those with the least strength. Kucinich is ready to blame congress (along with Bush of course) for the war, and is keeping his story simple in opposition to the war in any form. Biden took a stable stance defending his vote for funding as essential to protect the troops.
Its early, tactics will change, and perhaps a candidate will be able to come across as smart, strong and likeable on Iraq. But for now, the Democratic field is plain petty. As the front runners scramble to blame each other and/or Bush for our foreign policy shortcomings, they don’t seem very presidential. For now the campaigns are showcasing drama more than leadership. The opportunity seems great for someone to prove him or herself better than the rest, and no one stepped up.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Is the Press Softer on Obama than Giuliani?
A recent Pew survey asked respondents about the press coverage of the presidential election. The surprising (maybe) result: Republicans thought the media was too easy on the Democratic candidates in much higher numbers than Democrats thought the media was soft on the Republican candidates. Republicans, 45% of them, wish harsher coverage upon the Democrats, while only 24% of Democrats feel that way about coverage of the Republican candidates.
An interesting side note: those who identify as independent thought the coverage was equal. 21% of independents thought coverage was too easy on the GOP, and 23% found coverage to be too easy on Democrats. Most independents think coverage is fair on the parties, 47% and 52% respectively. And some good news: those polled want more coverage on the issues and debates, and less coverage on campaign fundraising and current polling. It’s nice to hear that the electorate wants to hear more about the issues, it suggests a higher level of civic education and participation.
So why do so many Republicans, and so many more Republicans than Democrats, think the media is soft on their opponents. It’s not like the Democratic frontrunners have been immune from bad press; in fact the opposite has been true. John Edwards can’t seem to escape his four hundred dollar haircuts and fifty five thousand dollar speeches on poverty. Hillary Clinton can’t keep her jaunts in private jets, her husband’s strange affiliation with InfoUSA, her marital problems, and the upcoming books out of the press. Even the golden boy, Barack Obama, can’t quite get the charge of inexperience to go completely away.
So why are the numbers so disparate? Why are Republican voters upset with the media more than their Democratic counterparts? One potential answer is that Republicans are naturally vindictive, and expect harsher press for their opponents than does the rest of society. I’m disinclined to believe that Republican’s are naturally evil.
The distinguishing issue could be the Iraq war. There is no polling data backing me up (as far as I know), but perhaps Republicans object to the press coverage of the anti-war Democratic candidates. The demands for timetable legislation, and even suggestions for an immediate pullout, have some conservatives on edge. Pundits predict a surge in terrorism and decry America ‘waving the white flag.’ Is it possible that such conservatives expect to hear predictions of disaster whenever an antiwar stance is enumerated? Perhaps whenever the Democrats get coverage for opposing the war, without a discussion of the potential consequences, some Republicans feel the media is being “too easy.” And perhaps Democratic voters view it as perfectly natural for the press to describe a candidate as supporting the surge, without discussing the ongoing casualties.
I suggest that because Iraq has been somewhat of a quagmire for some time, Democrats excuse the press for not going into gory detail every time the surge or plans to stay are discussed. And precisely because its such a major shift, some Republicans may demand gory details concerning the downside of an American withdrawal from Iraq.
And then again I could be wrong. Maybe the press coverage is more lopsided than I perceive, even though independents see the coverage as relatively equal. Maybe Republicans are more vicious. Maybe some other issue hits the Republican sensibility more sharply than the Democratic. In the end it’s not pressingly important; the election is along way off. Media coverage, and the issues themselves, have a lot of shifting left to do. Never the less, it’s interesting to ponder, why exactly are Republicans more annoyed with the media?
An interesting side note: those who identify as independent thought the coverage was equal. 21% of independents thought coverage was too easy on the GOP, and 23% found coverage to be too easy on Democrats. Most independents think coverage is fair on the parties, 47% and 52% respectively. And some good news: those polled want more coverage on the issues and debates, and less coverage on campaign fundraising and current polling. It’s nice to hear that the electorate wants to hear more about the issues, it suggests a higher level of civic education and participation.
So why do so many Republicans, and so many more Republicans than Democrats, think the media is soft on their opponents. It’s not like the Democratic frontrunners have been immune from bad press; in fact the opposite has been true. John Edwards can’t seem to escape his four hundred dollar haircuts and fifty five thousand dollar speeches on poverty. Hillary Clinton can’t keep her jaunts in private jets, her husband’s strange affiliation with InfoUSA, her marital problems, and the upcoming books out of the press. Even the golden boy, Barack Obama, can’t quite get the charge of inexperience to go completely away.
So why are the numbers so disparate? Why are Republican voters upset with the media more than their Democratic counterparts? One potential answer is that Republicans are naturally vindictive, and expect harsher press for their opponents than does the rest of society. I’m disinclined to believe that Republican’s are naturally evil.
The distinguishing issue could be the Iraq war. There is no polling data backing me up (as far as I know), but perhaps Republicans object to the press coverage of the anti-war Democratic candidates. The demands for timetable legislation, and even suggestions for an immediate pullout, have some conservatives on edge. Pundits predict a surge in terrorism and decry America ‘waving the white flag.’ Is it possible that such conservatives expect to hear predictions of disaster whenever an antiwar stance is enumerated? Perhaps whenever the Democrats get coverage for opposing the war, without a discussion of the potential consequences, some Republicans feel the media is being “too easy.” And perhaps Democratic voters view it as perfectly natural for the press to describe a candidate as supporting the surge, without discussing the ongoing casualties.
I suggest that because Iraq has been somewhat of a quagmire for some time, Democrats excuse the press for not going into gory detail every time the surge or plans to stay are discussed. And precisely because its such a major shift, some Republicans may demand gory details concerning the downside of an American withdrawal from Iraq.
And then again I could be wrong. Maybe the press coverage is more lopsided than I perceive, even though independents see the coverage as relatively equal. Maybe Republicans are more vicious. Maybe some other issue hits the Republican sensibility more sharply than the Democratic. In the end it’s not pressingly important; the election is along way off. Media coverage, and the issues themselves, have a lot of shifting left to do. Never the less, it’s interesting to ponder, why exactly are Republicans more annoyed with the media?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Where, exactly, is the Democratic Base Going?
The New York Times recently suggested that the Democratic Party needs to look back and regain its base. I don’t see the crisis.
The democratic voting block wants to see the troops come home. The leadership pushed real hard. They didn’t have the votes to override Bush’s veto. Its not rocket science, most voters will understand that it simply isn’t the Democratic Party’s fault that a timetable wasn’t attached to the latest Iraq funding bill.
According to the times article, the base strongly supports the timetable that the Democrats were able to get out of congress. Score one for the leadership, no? Then Bush vetoed the bill. That seems like a strike against Bush, something likely to get the democratic base riled up for 2008, not angry at the democratic representatives and senators.
The majority of the base is also strongly opposed to cutting off all funding for the war. That means that most the base would have counseled the Democrats to do exactly what they did: let the second bill go through to fund the troops. And the Democrats got a minimum wage hike out of the deal.
So the domestic initiatives have been a little weaker than expected. So what? The headlines still show democrats challenging Bush, and the democrats pushing through a minimum wage hike. Other policy weaknesses are receiving little attention.
There is no risk that “some might simply stay home in 2008.” Likely to be another close election dependent as much on base turn out on undecided voters, the base will be riled up to campaign and vote. In fact, the NYT article even predicts how the war issue will continue to hurt Republicans more than Democrats over time:
Most the anti-war voters will have seen the Democrats fighting to bring the troops home and not blame them for the ultimate failure to do so. Even if the democrats could have eaten more fire over the war, the anti-war vote sure won’t vote republican. And these political savvy voters sure won’t sit out an election or vote third party when an election is coming down to the wire, featuring hot button issues they care about.
The Democrats haven’t lost much ground with their base, and when the Democratic voting block sees their other options, they will definitely jump back in line in the voting booth.
The democratic voting block wants to see the troops come home. The leadership pushed real hard. They didn’t have the votes to override Bush’s veto. Its not rocket science, most voters will understand that it simply isn’t the Democratic Party’s fault that a timetable wasn’t attached to the latest Iraq funding bill.
According to the times article, the base strongly supports the timetable that the Democrats were able to get out of congress. Score one for the leadership, no? Then Bush vetoed the bill. That seems like a strike against Bush, something likely to get the democratic base riled up for 2008, not angry at the democratic representatives and senators.
The majority of the base is also strongly opposed to cutting off all funding for the war. That means that most the base would have counseled the Democrats to do exactly what they did: let the second bill go through to fund the troops. And the Democrats got a minimum wage hike out of the deal.
So the domestic initiatives have been a little weaker than expected. So what? The headlines still show democrats challenging Bush, and the democrats pushing through a minimum wage hike. Other policy weaknesses are receiving little attention.
There is no risk that “some might simply stay home in 2008.” Likely to be another close election dependent as much on base turn out on undecided voters, the base will be riled up to campaign and vote. In fact, the NYT article even predicts how the war issue will continue to hurt Republicans more than Democrats over time:
Either Republicans will follow through on their threats to reassess their support for the war by September, or they will keep voting with Bush and doom themselves in 2008.
Most the anti-war voters will have seen the Democrats fighting to bring the troops home and not blame them for the ultimate failure to do so. Even if the democrats could have eaten more fire over the war, the anti-war vote sure won’t vote republican. And these political savvy voters sure won’t sit out an election or vote third party when an election is coming down to the wire, featuring hot button issues they care about.
The Democrats haven’t lost much ground with their base, and when the Democratic voting block sees their other options, they will definitely jump back in line in the voting booth.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Religious Right Bogeyman? Convince me otherwise
The religious right is polarizing opinion in this country and heavily affecting our political system. Perhaps the Christian right does not fundamentally threaten the nation, but it clearly represents a central stress point between the social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP. And, the alternate reality “Christian Nationalism” has created for it’s some of its followers, as Michelle Goldberg chronicles in her book, Kingdom Coming, is more than a little bit scary.
Admitting that the religious right may not be the downfall of America, the defense of the movement by Star Parker is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. Her central thesis seems to be: of course the Christian community frowns on single parent families; it’s the most effective way to fight poverty. What?
The “breakdown” in families may be on the rise, strongly correlating to poverty, and quite depressing, but Parker misses the question of causality. You do not become instantly poor by having a child out of wedlock, or living in a single parent family. However, if you are poor, those family structures are significantly more likely to be your own. Single-parent-families may add to poverty, but they don’t make a person poor. Rather poverty is a cause of the “family breakdown.” Shaming people into marrying and staying married will not magically solve the poverty crisis in America, as Parker suggests:
How can you claim to fight single parenthood and at the same time strongly lobby for abstinence only sex education, which studies have proven have no effect on teen pregnancy? Maybe the Christian right is, just a little bit, obsessed with “abortion and sexual behavior.”
Parker blasts our government for giving away billions in poverty aid to no real effect, in the same article she defends the political groups lobbying heavily for ever greater funding for faith based initiatives. These programs are designed to, among other things, fight poverty. So aid is only effective when given to the religious right? I’m dubious.
Christian organizations, including far right political groups, do tremendous good in America. Their social programs help millions, and their lobbying efforts keep the citizenry politically engaged. However, the religious right has the downside of advocating (often without a willingness to compromise or negotiate) positions which polarize and divide the country, and sometimes even lead to ineffective policies (example: sex education.) The Christian right isn’t all good or all bad, but it clearly isn’t the only effective anti-teen pregnancy, anti-poverty machine that Parker portrays it as.
Admitting that the religious right may not be the downfall of America, the defense of the movement by Star Parker is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. Her central thesis seems to be: of course the Christian community frowns on single parent families; it’s the most effective way to fight poverty. What?
The “breakdown” in families may be on the rise, strongly correlating to poverty, and quite depressing, but Parker misses the question of causality. You do not become instantly poor by having a child out of wedlock, or living in a single parent family. However, if you are poor, those family structures are significantly more likely to be your own. Single-parent-families may add to poverty, but they don’t make a person poor. Rather poverty is a cause of the “family breakdown.” Shaming people into marrying and staying married will not magically solve the poverty crisis in America, as Parker suggests:
There is no correlation that fits closer to the incidence of poverty than family breakdown.
Yet, we hear about the intolerance and mean-spiritedness of the Christian right because of its unwillingness to embrace single parenthood as a norm or sexual lifestyles and family arrangements outside of what is traditional as a norm.
How can you claim to fight single parenthood and at the same time strongly lobby for abstinence only sex education, which studies have proven have no effect on teen pregnancy? Maybe the Christian right is, just a little bit, obsessed with “abortion and sexual behavior.”
Parker blasts our government for giving away billions in poverty aid to no real effect, in the same article she defends the political groups lobbying heavily for ever greater funding for faith based initiatives. These programs are designed to, among other things, fight poverty. So aid is only effective when given to the religious right? I’m dubious.
Christian organizations, including far right political groups, do tremendous good in America. Their social programs help millions, and their lobbying efforts keep the citizenry politically engaged. However, the religious right has the downside of advocating (often without a willingness to compromise or negotiate) positions which polarize and divide the country, and sometimes even lead to ineffective policies (example: sex education.) The Christian right isn’t all good or all bad, but it clearly isn’t the only effective anti-teen pregnancy, anti-poverty machine that Parker portrays it as.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Why, Again, Does Bad Press Not Matter?
Clinton, her aids, and recently the Washington Post, have shrugged off the impact of the two upcoming books which paint Senator Clinton in a bad light. Everyone seems to believe that stories featuring Hillary and Bill’s rocky past will have no impact on the upcoming election. I beg to differ.
Aids rejoiced because at none of Clinton’s recent events was she asked about the upcoming books. Does it not bother the campaign handlers then, that despite these successful events, the top news stories concerning Hillary are in regards to the upcoming books and not her issue centered interviews? For now Clinton may be able to stay on message with reporters, but the media isn’t following her lead at press time.
And it’s only going to get worse; the two new books aren’t even out yet. When they are released to the public, “both will be backed by major publicity tours and advertising.” That means more publicity for Hillary’s infamous past.
According to the Post article, strategists from both isles admit that references to the past are no help for Clinton. Voters are looking for inspiration for the future, and the more Hillary seems mired in the past, the worse off her campaign for President.
Plus consider undecided voters. This shrinking segment of the population is often considered the critical votes in Presidential elections, with the country almost equally split in party loyalty. The months leading up to the primaries, and the final election (if Hillary is still in the hunt,) will be full of press references to these books. Even articles on other subjects will throw in a token reference to the “unflattering books,” or the rocky marriage, the affairs, the failure to read all the Iraq reports, or the Clinton control conspiracy theories. None of these constant references will help Hillary gain yardage with the crucial undecided voter.
As confident as the Clinton campaign is that these books “don't have any impact on the race,” at some point bad press has to be, well, bad. Instead of dismissing these claims categorically as irrelevant or preposterous, the Clinton campaign needs to develop a more nuanced strategy to deal with her image.
Aids rejoiced because at none of Clinton’s recent events was she asked about the upcoming books. Does it not bother the campaign handlers then, that despite these successful events, the top news stories concerning Hillary are in regards to the upcoming books and not her issue centered interviews? For now Clinton may be able to stay on message with reporters, but the media isn’t following her lead at press time.
And it’s only going to get worse; the two new books aren’t even out yet. When they are released to the public, “both will be backed by major publicity tours and advertising.” That means more publicity for Hillary’s infamous past.
According to the Post article, strategists from both isles admit that references to the past are no help for Clinton. Voters are looking for inspiration for the future, and the more Hillary seems mired in the past, the worse off her campaign for President.
Plus consider undecided voters. This shrinking segment of the population is often considered the critical votes in Presidential elections, with the country almost equally split in party loyalty. The months leading up to the primaries, and the final election (if Hillary is still in the hunt,) will be full of press references to these books. Even articles on other subjects will throw in a token reference to the “unflattering books,” or the rocky marriage, the affairs, the failure to read all the Iraq reports, or the Clinton control conspiracy theories. None of these constant references will help Hillary gain yardage with the crucial undecided voter.
As confident as the Clinton campaign is that these books “don't have any impact on the race,” at some point bad press has to be, well, bad. Instead of dismissing these claims categorically as irrelevant or preposterous, the Clinton campaign needs to develop a more nuanced strategy to deal with her image.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Why Still Hold the Party Line? Why Hasn’t the Line Changed?
It’s now no stretch to assert the Iraq has not been the stunning success the optimists had hoped for, and may even be nearing the disaster the pessimists predicted. It’s easy to accept that reconstruction of Iraq was not well planned for and not well executed. Somewhere, at some level, mistakes were probably made.
A recent Senate Intelligence Subcommittee report suggests that the American intelligence community accurately predicted some of the troubles. The report does not go so far even as to assign blame, so why are some republicans protesting the report? Why does it not provide a glimmer of hope that our analysts were able to understand the Middle East well enough to asses the impacts of American intervention?
The senators complain that it’s inappropriate for the report to disclose names. Why can’t the intelligence agencies make it known which policy makers received their (correct) predictions? In assessing where Iraq went wrong it seems appropriate to know who knew what when.
The only reason to suppress this information is to prevent blame from falling on Bush administration officials who presumably saw these reports but failed to act on them. Why exactly are republican senators still protecting the Bush administration? Bush’s popularity has and continues to plummet, most republican candidates are trying to distances themselves form him, especially on Iraq. For the success of the party and the good of the nation, republicans need to move beyond Bush. Does admitting that reconstruction was botched invalidate any of the President’s successes?
Blind party loyalty continues to slowly grind apart our congress. Legislation continues to stall or disappear in the partisan scuffles (for example the Iraq funding bill which took a month to negotiate into working form.) In such a closely divided congress, compromise will be necessary to effectively operate. Snowe and Rangle should be congratulated for coming across the isle to support the subcommittee report.
The other republicans who chose not to support need to evaluate what exactly they are fighting for. Closing rank around the Bush Administration’s prewar decisions will not help the Republican Party or the war in Iraq. The party should support transparency in an attempt to promote good decision making and to not repeat mistakes.
Our intelligence community has gotten a bad rap, and maybe most of it is deserved. However, this bright spot should be celebrated not hidden away in an attempt to protect those who had good information but failed to act on it.
A recent Senate Intelligence Subcommittee report suggests that the American intelligence community accurately predicted some of the troubles. The report does not go so far even as to assign blame, so why are some republicans protesting the report? Why does it not provide a glimmer of hope that our analysts were able to understand the Middle East well enough to asses the impacts of American intervention?
The senators complain that it’s inappropriate for the report to disclose names. Why can’t the intelligence agencies make it known which policy makers received their (correct) predictions? In assessing where Iraq went wrong it seems appropriate to know who knew what when.
The only reason to suppress this information is to prevent blame from falling on Bush administration officials who presumably saw these reports but failed to act on them. Why exactly are republican senators still protecting the Bush administration? Bush’s popularity has and continues to plummet, most republican candidates are trying to distances themselves form him, especially on Iraq. For the success of the party and the good of the nation, republicans need to move beyond Bush. Does admitting that reconstruction was botched invalidate any of the President’s successes?
Blind party loyalty continues to slowly grind apart our congress. Legislation continues to stall or disappear in the partisan scuffles (for example the Iraq funding bill which took a month to negotiate into working form.) In such a closely divided congress, compromise will be necessary to effectively operate. Snowe and Rangle should be congratulated for coming across the isle to support the subcommittee report.
The other republicans who chose not to support need to evaluate what exactly they are fighting for. Closing rank around the Bush Administration’s prewar decisions will not help the Republican Party or the war in Iraq. The party should support transparency in an attempt to promote good decision making and to not repeat mistakes.
Our intelligence community has gotten a bad rap, and maybe most of it is deserved. However, this bright spot should be celebrated not hidden away in an attempt to protect those who had good information but failed to act on it.
A Not That Dangerous Percentage
Pundit Diana West recently jumped on the train of those up in arms about the “26 percent” of young Muslim Americans who support suicide bombings in defense of Islam. First, a fact check. Overall, 78% of those surveyed in the Pew study say suicide bombing is never justified, and after factoring in those who “didn’t know” (didn’t answer the question) only 8% actually accepted suicide bombing at all. Even among those thirty and under, only 15% actually came out and supported suicide bombing “rarely” or “sometimes.”
Consider: thinking attacks are sometimes justified does not make a person a security risk or even necessarily a bad citizen. While thinking suicide bombing can be justified may be radical, it’s a far cry from the mindset of being willing to strap oneself to a bomb. Some people consider Palestinians justified in suicide attacking Israel, meaning that a segment of the broader population believes that suicide bombings are “sometimes justifiable.”
They pew survey asked respondents if they believed bombings in defense of Islam could be justified. As long as the core value of religious freedom is respected and upheld in this nation, very few of those respondents should ever feel that murdering civilians is justified in this country. Antagonizing an entire religion as “qualitatively” lesser than our western beliefs is exactly the type of friction which could exacerbate tensions to the point of violence.
That said, 15% is alarmingly, even shamefully high. Nobody is to blame for suicide attacks except the bombers, and an attitude of acceptance is ridiculous. However, the way West addresses that disappointment is as inappropriate as it is damaging. The globe is shrinking and will continue to do so at ever fast paces. Travel, communication and military technology, as well as the ever present process of globalization will bring the corners of the earth closer together. Islam is a major world religion, one that we cannot ignore but instead must come to terms with.
Rather than write off the entire Muslim American population, or even just condemn those that currently support suicide bombing in some form, America must work to change minds. Blindly adhering to political correctness and multiculturalism serves no purpose, but accepting that Islam is here to stay is an absolute necessity.
Islam cannot be vied as un-American, because Muslim Americans are here to stay, and make up a crucial component of our society. Islam is not qualitatively lesser than western culture, nor are Muslims inherently more violent. If it is true that our American society is worth preserving, that is just all them more reason to find a way to work with Muslim leaders to make the two cultures coincide. Rather than dismiss those who support terrorism, and the religion from which they come, and doom ourselves to a loosing war in a clash of civilizations, America must step up and reassert the values of tolerance and mediation.
Consider: thinking attacks are sometimes justified does not make a person a security risk or even necessarily a bad citizen. While thinking suicide bombing can be justified may be radical, it’s a far cry from the mindset of being willing to strap oneself to a bomb. Some people consider Palestinians justified in suicide attacking Israel, meaning that a segment of the broader population believes that suicide bombings are “sometimes justifiable.”
They pew survey asked respondents if they believed bombings in defense of Islam could be justified. As long as the core value of religious freedom is respected and upheld in this nation, very few of those respondents should ever feel that murdering civilians is justified in this country. Antagonizing an entire religion as “qualitatively” lesser than our western beliefs is exactly the type of friction which could exacerbate tensions to the point of violence.
That said, 15% is alarmingly, even shamefully high. Nobody is to blame for suicide attacks except the bombers, and an attitude of acceptance is ridiculous. However, the way West addresses that disappointment is as inappropriate as it is damaging. The globe is shrinking and will continue to do so at ever fast paces. Travel, communication and military technology, as well as the ever present process of globalization will bring the corners of the earth closer together. Islam is a major world religion, one that we cannot ignore but instead must come to terms with.
Rather than write off the entire Muslim American population, or even just condemn those that currently support suicide bombing in some form, America must work to change minds. Blindly adhering to political correctness and multiculturalism serves no purpose, but accepting that Islam is here to stay is an absolute necessity.
Islam cannot be vied as un-American, because Muslim Americans are here to stay, and make up a crucial component of our society. Islam is not qualitatively lesser than western culture, nor are Muslims inherently more violent. If it is true that our American society is worth preserving, that is just all them more reason to find a way to work with Muslim leaders to make the two cultures coincide. Rather than dismiss those who support terrorism, and the religion from which they come, and doom ourselves to a loosing war in a clash of civilizations, America must step up and reassert the values of tolerance and mediation.
The Glass is Mostly Full, Let’s See it That Way
A recent Pew Research nationwide survey found that Muslim Americans are “largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.” I for one find this news upbeat and reassuring, but columnist Kathleen Parker feels otherwise.
Parker views the minority results, those Muslim Americans who aren’t especially assimilated or happy, as a security threat and a reason to be pessimistic and guarded. She is wrong.
Sixty percent of Muslim Americans think of themselves as Muslim first, American second. This statistic is a lot scarier than it seems, first consider that 63% see no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” Now let’s reflect how unfair the question truly is. If we asked a sample of Christian Americans to pick which came first, their faith or their nationality, you better believe a large part would say ‘Christian first, American second.’
Parker works herself into a frenzy because 26% percent of young Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes justifies. Consider: 78% percent of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings are never justifies, and only one percent believe the tactic is often justified in the defense of Islam. Even among younger Muslims, which Parker considers more dangerous for some reason, only 2% think attacks are often justified, and 69% believe they are never justified.
Also consider: thinking attacks are sometimes justified does not make a person a security risk or even necessarily a bad citizen. While thinking suicide bombing can be justified may be radical, it’s a far cry from the mindset of being willing to strap oneself to a bomb. Some people consider Palestinians justified in suicide attacking Israel, meaning that a segment of the broader population believes that suicide bombings are “sometimes justifiable.”
Parker also expresses concern that only 58% of Muslim Americans would strongly denounce Al-Qaeda. The pew report is clear that “just 5% of Muslims in the U.S. have a very (1%) or somewhat (4%) favorable view of al Qaeda.” That’s not bad at all.
Parker also assumes that the segments of the population that “didn’t know” or “chose not to answer” fell within the more anti-American viewpoint. Again she is wrong in her assumptions. Firstly, the people just chose not to answer the question, we shouldn’t put words in their mouth. Secondly, if a person has anti-American beliefs but is too embarrassed to admit them in an anonymous survey, I’m not to worried about their potential for political or radical activism.
While not every Muslim American is a model citizen, its time to recognize that overall the population is extremely peaceful and supportive of American values and policies. And while of the minority that expresses more violent views a few may actually be security risks, let’s remember there are risks everywhere. History so far proves that Caucasian Americans represent a far greater risk for domestic terrorism than Muslim Americans. Domestic hate groups are in my mind far scarier than Parker’s ominous generation of young Muslim Americans. We need to admit that no section of society is perfect, but that Muslim Americans are doing no worse than the rest of us.
Parker views the minority results, those Muslim Americans who aren’t especially assimilated or happy, as a security threat and a reason to be pessimistic and guarded. She is wrong.
Sixty percent of Muslim Americans think of themselves as Muslim first, American second. This statistic is a lot scarier than it seems, first consider that 63% see no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” Now let’s reflect how unfair the question truly is. If we asked a sample of Christian Americans to pick which came first, their faith or their nationality, you better believe a large part would say ‘Christian first, American second.’
Parker works herself into a frenzy because 26% percent of young Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes justifies. Consider: 78% percent of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings are never justifies, and only one percent believe the tactic is often justified in the defense of Islam. Even among younger Muslims, which Parker considers more dangerous for some reason, only 2% think attacks are often justified, and 69% believe they are never justified.
Also consider: thinking attacks are sometimes justified does not make a person a security risk or even necessarily a bad citizen. While thinking suicide bombing can be justified may be radical, it’s a far cry from the mindset of being willing to strap oneself to a bomb. Some people consider Palestinians justified in suicide attacking Israel, meaning that a segment of the broader population believes that suicide bombings are “sometimes justifiable.”
Parker also expresses concern that only 58% of Muslim Americans would strongly denounce Al-Qaeda. The pew report is clear that “just 5% of Muslims in the U.S. have a very (1%) or somewhat (4%) favorable view of al Qaeda.” That’s not bad at all.
Parker also assumes that the segments of the population that “didn’t know” or “chose not to answer” fell within the more anti-American viewpoint. Again she is wrong in her assumptions. Firstly, the people just chose not to answer the question, we shouldn’t put words in their mouth. Secondly, if a person has anti-American beliefs but is too embarrassed to admit them in an anonymous survey, I’m not to worried about their potential for political or radical activism.
While not every Muslim American is a model citizen, its time to recognize that overall the population is extremely peaceful and supportive of American values and policies. And while of the minority that expresses more violent views a few may actually be security risks, let’s remember there are risks everywhere. History so far proves that Caucasian Americans represent a far greater risk for domestic terrorism than Muslim Americans. Domestic hate groups are in my mind far scarier than Parker’s ominous generation of young Muslim Americans. We need to admit that no section of society is perfect, but that Muslim Americans are doing no worse than the rest of us.
Relax Romney, ABC is the good guy
Mitt Romney recently scolded the media and ABC specifically for publishing stories potentially detrimental to national security. On May 22 ABC published a story exposing the information that President Bush had authorized the CIA to take non lethal action to destabilize the current regime in Iran. The plan includes “a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions” according to the article.
Echoing Romney’s thoughts, columnist Hugh Hewitt categorized the story as “self-serving, and clueless or treacherous dangers to the national interest.” (view his article here) Apparently some consider this story the very ammunition Ahmadinejad needs to stay in power, develop nuclear weapons and take down western civilization
Although some news stories should be withheld in the name of national security, its time to step back and admit that on this particular story, ABC got it right. Bush is a president known both for pre-emotively engaging nations he views as dangerous, and for operating secretively outside the view of the American public.
If our President is planning operations to destabilize a foreign country, the public deserves to know about it. Bush doesn’t have the right to secretly invade, so why is he allowed to secretly use our intelligence agencies to take down a regime. Media silence on presidential actions creates a dangerous environment conducive to foreign policy blunders and a collapse of democratic accountability.
Is Bush’s plan a bad one? Not necessarily. Should it be done in secret? Heck no!
And exactly what damage did ABC do? America uses propaganda constantly; Iran is no stranger to the subject. The game of information and counter information would have continued regardless of ABC’s decision to go to press. We were planning to secretly manipulate Iran’s currency? Did we think Iran wouldn’t notice shifts in their monetary situation large enough to destabilize its government?
If an American operation to overthrow Iran were to take place successfully, it would not occur beneath the radar but would be noticeable to Iranian policy makers. Cluing in the American people is not a security risk but an important effort to keep tabs on our President’s actions. We need to learn to distinguish between genuine needs for secrecy and the overused “national security” battle cry behind which hides every questionable government policy
Hewitt sarcastically asks “is there anything that Brian Ross and ABC News wouldn’t run?” The answer is one those of us outside the news room cannot know for sure. The reason is simple: news outlets receive no viewers, subscribers or add money for the stories they don’t run. If information is a security risk, the military and intelligence agencies should work to plug their leaks, they are the ones who get paid to control information. News outlets are not responsible for in any way hampering the spread of information. In all but the most extreme circumstances the media must go to press with the information it receives in order to stay in business. And once in a while a story should be withheld for the good of the nation, but clearly this story not only was able to run, but needed to be seen.
Echoing Romney’s thoughts, columnist Hugh Hewitt categorized the story as “self-serving, and clueless or treacherous dangers to the national interest.” (view his article here) Apparently some consider this story the very ammunition Ahmadinejad needs to stay in power, develop nuclear weapons and take down western civilization
Although some news stories should be withheld in the name of national security, its time to step back and admit that on this particular story, ABC got it right. Bush is a president known both for pre-emotively engaging nations he views as dangerous, and for operating secretively outside the view of the American public.
If our President is planning operations to destabilize a foreign country, the public deserves to know about it. Bush doesn’t have the right to secretly invade, so why is he allowed to secretly use our intelligence agencies to take down a regime. Media silence on presidential actions creates a dangerous environment conducive to foreign policy blunders and a collapse of democratic accountability.
Is Bush’s plan a bad one? Not necessarily. Should it be done in secret? Heck no!
And exactly what damage did ABC do? America uses propaganda constantly; Iran is no stranger to the subject. The game of information and counter information would have continued regardless of ABC’s decision to go to press. We were planning to secretly manipulate Iran’s currency? Did we think Iran wouldn’t notice shifts in their monetary situation large enough to destabilize its government?
If an American operation to overthrow Iran were to take place successfully, it would not occur beneath the radar but would be noticeable to Iranian policy makers. Cluing in the American people is not a security risk but an important effort to keep tabs on our President’s actions. We need to learn to distinguish between genuine needs for secrecy and the overused “national security” battle cry behind which hides every questionable government policy
Hewitt sarcastically asks “is there anything that Brian Ross and ABC News wouldn’t run?” The answer is one those of us outside the news room cannot know for sure. The reason is simple: news outlets receive no viewers, subscribers or add money for the stories they don’t run. If information is a security risk, the military and intelligence agencies should work to plug their leaks, they are the ones who get paid to control information. News outlets are not responsible for in any way hampering the spread of information. In all but the most extreme circumstances the media must go to press with the information it receives in order to stay in business. And once in a while a story should be withheld for the good of the nation, but clearly this story not only was able to run, but needed to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
