January 2002 Archives

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35191-2002Jan24.htmlCharles Krauthammer uses the term "jackals" to describe those individuals and government spokespersons who are screaming bloody murder about the treatment of the detainees at Camp X-Ray. Other than an odd choice of words (The Day of the Jackal, Carlos the Jackal, etc.) he makes a persuasive point:

"You join al Qaeda, you join an outlaw army. You explicitly violate -- and thus forfeit the protection of -- the Geneva Convention. Indeed, denying such murderers POW rights vindicates the Geneva Convention and encourages others to adhere to it, by reserving its protections for those who observe its strictures."

The point is not, as some would have it, that the detainees have a better life in the warm tropics than they did in snowy Tora Bora. Nor is it that the shaving of their beards does not violate a Muslim faith that other Muslims have sought to distance themselves from. Nor is it more humane to keep them alive when in fact they caused the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians. The point is a simple one: That the Geneva Convention clearly defines a prisoner of war as a captive who wears a uniform and insignia, carries weapons openly and fights on behalf of a state. Colin Powell, ever the diplomat, would like to put a fine point on this by urging President Bush to make clear that the US will stick to the Geneva Convention standards and practices but not declare the detainees to be POWs. This, in case US soldiers are captured some day in the future by enemy forces. However this seems to be the worst of both worlds as it leaves the US the final arbiter of just what part of the Geneva Convention it wants to observe, and when.

"The trouble with communism is communism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."
William F. Buckley in comments about the Enron scandal

"...it does seem that the party that stands for free markets and free economic dealings has a special responsibility to make sure that those who abuse them are given one big Texas whippin'."
Peggy Noonan in comments about the Enron scandal

Bill Keller of the New York Times, who apparently gets the postmodern connection between politics and the entertainment industry, has this apt description of the Enron saga: "Wall Street was the new Hollywood, risk was the new testosterone, Lou Dobbs was Leonardo DiCaprio. Accountants called themselves consultants and bought Miata convertibles. And how cool was Enron? About two years ago a Fortune magazine writer likened utilities and energy companies to 'a bunch of old fogies and their wives shuffling around halfheartedly to the not-so-stirring sounds of Guy Lombardo. . . . Suddenly young Elvis comes crashing through the skylight.' In this metaphor, the guy in the skin-tight gold-lamé suit was Enron. The writer left out the part where Elvis eats himself to death." Touche.

New York statue put on hold Word arrived today that the memorial statue to be built in front of the FDNY headquarters would be put on hold. I previously wrote about that. Mitch Albom (Tuesdays with Morrie) hated the idea and said so here. But first he tells the story about writing a screenplay about the so-called "Fab Five" freshman basketball players from the University of Michigan, all of whom were black. After pitching the idea to the excited Hollywood execs, one of them said: "There's just one little thing. Do you think we could make one of the players white?" I was tempted to say, "Sure, just tell me which one, so I can warn his mother when the film comes out."

Earlier I wrote about the brouhaha surrounding the "adjustment" of the racial/ethnic makeup of the three firemen depicted in a bronze memorial in NYC. Conservatives have been lashing out, labeling it as another example of PC out of control. Now comes Tunku Varadarajan of the Wall Street Journal, reliably conservative, with a interesting take on the matter: "The 'adjustment' was done as a symbolic reinterpretation of an already symbolic image. One may think the enterprise insensitive to the three men in question, one may even think it overly sentimental, but to dismiss it as an aesthetic racial atrocity -- or as the playing, in bronze, of cheap quota politics -- is just too trite, and too mean-spirited. Is this really the sort of battle the right needs to pick?" I'm reminded of a story about Picasso. Wanting (perhaps) to prove a point about the alleged "realistic" nature of photography versus that of abstract painting, he asked a friend to show him a picture of the friend's daughter. The friend produced a wallet sized photo, to which Picasso replied, "She's rather small isn't she?"

Much has been written about the demise of Buddy, President Clinton's beloved chocolate brown lab. Most of you are thinking, enough is enough. But for those of you who have ever lost a pet that you really loved, you've been reminded again that its death is one of the saddest events of your life. I'm just saying, you know?

If you doubt how commonplace the combo of entertainment and info-tech has become, then check this throw-away tidbit about the Internet search engine called Google. The item is from Kevin Maney's column in USA Today: "Privately held Google runs a search engine. It's one of the most beloved entities on the Internet and one of the few pure-Internet firms that's profitable. Google is so fast and accurate, it is used by millions of viewers of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. Google's statistics show spikes in usage after each question." Maney goes on to try it himself: "When I typed in a search for 'Mr. Ed's real name,' Google started sorting 1.5 billion pages to find the pages that contain those words. Then Google found and analyzed all the links to all the pages that have those words. Finally, Google combined all of that to give me a list of results. It did it in 0.17 seconds. "And sure enough, the first site Google listed told me TV's Mr. Ed was played by a horse named Bamboo Harvester, and he was made to talk by sticking a peanut butterlike substance under his gums, which he'd try to get out by moving his mouth and tongue. Other search engines don't produce that kind of accuracy." What's amusing about Maney's tidbit is that it shows ordinary couch potatoes using a technology that would have been considered futuristic just a decade ago. It's plain that Google has become what we wanted from the Internet almost from the beginning: A source of encyclopedic, instantly available information at our fingertips. Combine this with broadband and wireless infrastructure and we truly are in the 21st century that we envisioned back in the days of the Jetsons.

Everyone knows that news has become entertainment. And as we know, the higher the ratings, the higher the advertising revenues. So it is with some interest that we read the comments of NBC’s Tom Brokaw from the transcript of a special appearance in the MSNBC.com Chat Room. Listen:

[I]f you go back and look at the so-called 'straight news' of the halcyon days of Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite, Chet and David made their reputation not just based on the news that they reported but on their anecdotal asides, the show biz chemistry between the two of them, David’s little essays on life in Washington...

Walter Cronkite was a paragon of the traditional news but one of his most popular features was Charles Kuralt on the Road doing little sidebar features about life in America almost like it was out of Reader’s Digest. So there’s always been a great mix of news and, if you will, the lighter side...

I often tell my friends in the newspaper business, "I dare you to try to survive by just printing the front page and the editorial page alone, without sports, obituaries, comics, weather and all the other parts of newspapers that draw readers to them."

Much has been made of the political dead-end the Democrats find themselves in post-9/11. How can you, after all, attack a Commander in Chief during wartime, expecially one with 90%+ approval ratings?

Well, ask Joe Lieberman. If you've been watching him carefully, this charter member of the New Democrats has stayed on message for months: He's tough on terrorism. He was the first Democrat (and first well-known political figure) to publicly stake a claim on the toppling of Saddam.

This is a crafty move on his part. Remember how, for decades the Democrats were hung with the label, "Soft on crime?" Lieberman now sees an enormous potential upside for taking a tough stand on prosecuting the war on terrorism. And listen, with enemies like the Iraqis, why does Lieberman need any friends?

Iraq paper slams Lieberman
An official Iraqi newspaper on Sunday attacked U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman over his remarks on the necessity of U.S. action to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as part of the war on terrorism.

But how can it be said that Bush is "soft on terrorism?" Let cartoonist Ted Rall explain it:

Phase I of Bush's War on Terror: "The plan is simple: Bomb the Taliban, weaken Al-Qaeda, put Osama on trial and declare victory!"

America's New War, Part 2: "Um..The bombs spooked Osama. Since he's gone, we're gonna nail Evil One Number Two -- Mullah Omar! We've got him surrounded!"

America Fights Back, Portion 3: "Mullah Omar obviously has some inside track with Allah -- How else could he have evaded our brilliant troops? But don't worry: We've bagged the former envoy to Pakistan who gave those annoying Taliban briefings."

Even More War, No. 4: "Like, we're zeroing in on a dude who cooked kebabs for the Taliban. Sequels are a case study in entropy."

So maybe Lieberman is on to something....

If it is true that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, then why is it that so many conservatives turned out to have a glass jaw?

Everything in postmodern politics is filtered through the lens of the news media. And if the media didn't see you do it, then it didn't happen. No one is better at pulling this off than that master of deception and betrayal, Yassir Arafat. But more on that in a moment. Although much has been written about the role of spinmeisters in the media I'm not talking necessarily about spinning here. First of all, not all spinning is bad. While some would equate spinning and lying, I would respectfully point out that it depends on whose ox is being gored. What I'm referring to is a much more insidious and acrid phenomenon called deconstruction. Listen: Deconstruction: A philosophical movement that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth. Deconstructionists assert that, ultimately, words can only refer to other words. The deconstructionist claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text. True meaning is relative, and can only be reconstructed from ‘virtual texts’ created by the deconstructionist himself. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Bill Clinton I'm reminded of this recently after reading about that ship, loaded with a huge cache of deadly long-range weapons, captured by the Israeli military in the Red Sea. Here's what FOXNews.com had to say about the incident: [The ship's captain] Akawi, who was captured with his 12 crew members, [stated] that he was an adviser for naval affairs in the Palestinian Authority's Transport Ministry and has been a member of Arafat's Fatah movement since 1976. He said the smuggling operation was overseen by a Palestinian Authority official he identified as Adel Awadallah. Akawi said that after Arafat's renewed call for a truce with Israel on Dec. 16, he expected his handlers to abort the mission. "That's when I was midway. I expected to receive an order to stop it," Akawi said. However, the captain said he was told by Awadallah to proceed. Pretty cut and dried, yes? Arafat's handling of the affair was typically adroit and totally corrupt. CNN.com reported that Arafat, after meeting with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the following: ''I have informed Mr. Solana with our decision to form an internal investigative committee to investigate what the Israelis are claiming regarding the ship issue. ... "There is no doubt that if it appears that anyone from the [Palestinian Authority] is involved, and we don't think so, then we will certainly question and punish them. ''[Emphasis added] Arafat's timing, as usual, could not have been worse. Up to this time, the latest cease-fire looked like it might be gaining some traction; General Zinni was in town to shmooze all the usual suspects. But the capture of the ship blew that, as we say, right out of the water. To make matters worse, the radical Islamic elements (this time, Hamas) chose this time to kill four IDF soldiers. Now, Arafat is revealed again as the lame, deconstructing liar that he really is.

Tom Shales blasts Bernard Goldberg and his book hot new bestseller, "Bias", calling him "laughable", and "inept". He takes particular issue with the event that made Goldberg a conservative media darling: an op-ed piece in the WSJ where Goldberg whacks Eric Enberg of CBS Evening News for flagrant bias in a report on Steve Forbes' 1996 flat tax campaign: "First off, Engberg's piece had carried the "Reality Check" label, which means, though Goldberg may not understand the concept, that it is by definition a signed personal piece, one designed to re-examine some item in the news... "Alas for him, Goldberg picked a poor example. Forbes' flat tax was hardly the kind of issue that sharply divided proponents along liberal and conservative lines; some conservatives hated it..." "Quoting Engberg as having referred to one aspect of the Forbes plan as being its "wackiest," Goldberg then asked in rhetorical high dudgeon, "Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plan 'wacky?' Can you imagine any editor allowing it?" Well, frankly, yes. But Hillary Clinton and Steve Forbes were not on an equal plane. She was first lady of the land and he was a national non-entity trying desperately to draw attention to his failing bid for a presidential nomination.... "Does Goldberg think that the press was particularly loving and deferential to Hillary Clinton? Has there been in modern times a first lady who suffered worse press and worse relations with the press than poor Hill? His arguments were drivel...." Goldberg and Shales both miss the point; Goldberg for attacking perceived bias (Hel-lo?!) and Shales for defending it. Does anyone think that CBS, et. al. is not left leaning? More importantly, does anyone notice or even care? Folks, whichever way a particular outlet leans, it leans that way for ratings, not for reasons of objectivity. Ratings, ratings, ratings. Because ratings bring in advertising revenue, the mother's milk of the news media. If reporting one particular story and not another gains higher ratings, so be it. If reporting a particular story while leaning one way and not another gains higher ratings, so be it. Follow the money. The news media have never been "objective" and never wanted to be. Go all the way back to Joseph Pulitzer and Randolph Hearst: Their newspapers "branded" themselves via their non-objective viewpoints. I grew up in a major US city with two daily newspapers. In the 1960s, everyone knew that the morning paper was "liberal" and the afternoon paper was "conservative". So what?

Postmodern political analysis must be viewed through multiple lenses. Those lenses include entertainment, media and information technology as well as conventional politics.

Perhaps it is best to give an example. The first personality that we can point to that showed all of these facets in one package -- politics, entertainment, media, and information technology -- was Muhammad Ali. I'm reminded of this again, with the release of the mainstream blockbuster biopic, Ali.

Consider this:

1. Entertaiment: He was the first (and perhaps) only boxer to add the surface gloss of mainstream entertainment to boxing. Up to that point, boxers were the strong silent type. Ali was charismatic, savvy with a soundbite, and pretty (his own description, of course). He was a star -- you literally could not take your eyes off of him.

2. Politics: During the Viet Nam War, there was no more visible and controversial symbol of anti-war sentiment than Muhammad Ali. His refusal to be inducted into the military was a galvanizing event in the 1960's precisely because he had so much to lose. He was on the cutting edge of the anti-war movement at a time when it was gaining mainstream acceptance.

3. Media: The TV cameras loved him and the feeling was mutual. His legendary love-hate relationship with Howard Cosell gave him an entry into millions of living rooms.

4. Information Technology: The then-emerging technology of live satellite broadcasts made Ali, for a time, the most recognized man on the planet.

In all fairness, there are some who question the legend of Ali. Mark Kram, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues against the "totemization" of Ali, saying: "Mr. Ali wasn't for civil rights; the Muslims were for black separation. He wasn't for women's rights; their place was in the kitchen or bed. He wasn't against the draft, or for the counter-culture. Muhammad Ali was for Muhammad Ali -- and the Muslims who used him so badly. He was the greatest fighter who ever lived. Why should he even be mentioned in the same sentence as Martin Luther King Jr.? His magnificent figthts are critically uncontestable. Why isn't that enough?"

Kram's point is that Ali's social importance is overblown. But Kram is at once right and wrong. While it is true that he doesn't belong on Mt. Rushmore, he did carve a niche for himself that others have since tried to emulate. In other words, he became the complex role model for others who came after him.

For example, here's a quiz: What other nimble heavyweight can you name that had the master's touch with political soundbites, was sexy as hell, dominated the media and had more cross-talk devoted to him on the Internet and talk-radio than any other sentient being of his time?

One of the more interesting stories to surface in the media in recent days is that of the Arab-American Secret Service agent who was refused his seat on an American Airlines flight to Texas.

The agent, Wallid Shatter, was on his way to the President's home in Crawford, Texas to serve on his security detail. Apparently he was bumped from his initial flight and was trying to board a second flight when the pilot stepped in and removed him.

That's about all everyone agrees on.

The agent (or more accurately, his attorneys) states that this is an especially egregious example of discrimination against Arab-Americans. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) concurs. American Airlines, on the other hand, states that the agent, who was armed, was acting in a suspicious manner, to say the least.

Here's why this is interesting:

Conservative media sources are already lining up behind American Airlines. Liberal media sources are lining up behind the agent. ...and President Bush, apparently committing an embarrassing gaffe, has apparently sided with the liberals.

For example, here's what James Taranto of the conservative OpinionJournal.com has to say about it: "Tightened airport security has been a hassle for anyone who has flown in America since Sept. 11. CAIR and Shatter's lawyers ask us to believe that because Shatter is Muslim, his inconvenience and wounded pride are worth more than everyone else's. What an insult to Americans' intelligence and goodwill."

No room for doubt there.

On the other hand, here is the headline over at that bastion of liberal media bias, ABCNews.com: Agent Is Racial Profiling Victim, Says Fellow Passenger An American Airlines passenger says he believes an Arab-American Secret Service agent who was kicked off a Christmas Day flight was targeted because of his ethnicity. [NOTE: It is only after you get to the 7th paragraph of the story where you read American Airlines statement as to why they excluded agent Shatter.]

Yesterday President Bush wandered into this media food-fight. He weighed in saying he would be "madder than heck" if a government inquiry into the incident found that one of his Secret Service protectors was the victim of discrimination.

This is your textbook example of a "gaffe", i.e., where you accidently speak the truth. Is it possible that Bush spoke his mind before checking with wonderboy Karl Rove? If so, maybe Bush is more liberal than he looks. Or maybe he'll be moderating his original statement somewhat as this story develops, i.e., after checking with Rove. Stay tuned...