After all the talk about sensationalist blonde-girl newsstories designed to distract and lull the populace, do you suppose the Right wing media knows the jig is up? After the blogosphere pushed national news into covering the LaToyia Figueroa case, do you think they've had enough?
Apparently not. And apparently my contention that the 24-hour news cycle is a contributing factor to sensationalist non-news is flat wrong. On a day when Katrina rebuilding efforts are still ongoing, there is controversy about New Orleans residents returning home, John Roberts is undergoing confirmation hearings on him becoming the 2nd youngest chief justice of the US Supreme Court, a new tropical storm is about to hit Florida and potentially steer towards New Orleans as a hurricane, North Korea forswears nukes (yeah right), and the Georgia Tech quarterback contracts viral meningitis, the Fox News (sic) Channel last night threw up a banner screaming, "URGENT NEWS" about a missing 17-year old pretty White girl named Taylor Behl at Virginia Commonwealth University. Are you effing kidding me? 2,000 people, 85%+ of which are children, go missing every single day in the US, and suddenly Taylor is "Urgent News" dominating Fox's broadcast?
I flipped over to the CNN channels to see what they were talking about. Headline News was on their 5-minute sports presentation and CNN had Larry King interviewing Viktor Yushchenko, the President of Ukraine who had just fired his entire government. (Actually, that's quite impressive for King. How does he get the leader of the 25th largest country in the world to put up with 50 degree studio temperature and air consisting mainly of his flatulence?) Today, Foxnews.com has downplayed the case, although since I don't watch TV news much (and especially not at work where I'm pretending to be working), I can't tell what they're doing with their viewing audience.
I know Bush has been taking a nosedive in popularity as of late. But has Fox News (sic) become so desperate to prop him up that they are sinking to such obvious efforts to distract their viewers? Or have they honestly decided that missing White teenage girls are the "real" news and the largest disaster in American history is merely filler?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
Wag the Dog
In order to make it up to you for having such a long post Wednesday, this one will be short and bitter. I was watching a special on the History Channel last night about the September 11th attacks on New York and on the rise of Al Qaeda. It showed how Al-Qaeda was born out of the anti-Soviet Afghani movement of the 1980's, and really picked up steam in the early 90's.
The US was aware of Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, throughout the last decade, especially since it began perpetrating terrorist acts against Americans. Republicans and the Right-wing media, who of course would never play the "Blame Game", were playing something very similar after the 9/11 attacks when they said, This isn't the time to point fingers, but you know, this was all Clinton's fault. Why wasn't he tougher with terrorists?
I'd like everyone to skim through this webpage, created in 1998 to show why Clinton was a war criminal who was unfit to be President and should be impeached. It becomes very obvious that the reason he could not strike at Al-Qaeda with more than just cruise missiles was because the Republican Congress would not allow him, and the increasingly Republican American public did not support him.
Some especially juicy quotes:
And my favorite:
The US was aware of Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, throughout the last decade, especially since it began perpetrating terrorist acts against Americans. Republicans and the Right-wing media, who of course would never play the "Blame Game", were playing something very similar after the 9/11 attacks when they said, This isn't the time to point fingers, but you know, this was all Clinton's fault. Why wasn't he tougher with terrorists?
I'd like everyone to skim through this webpage, created in 1998 to show why Clinton was a war criminal who was unfit to be President and should be impeached. It becomes very obvious that the reason he could not strike at Al-Qaeda with more than just cruise missiles was because the Republican Congress would not allow him, and the increasingly Republican American public did not support him.
Some especially juicy quotes:
"They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated." -Robert Novak (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29)
"As the Constitution makes clear, the President of the United States does have the authority to take defensive action against an aggressor nation, but he has no authority whatsoever to make war against a country which has neither attacked the United States or posed to do so." -Robert Novak (The Washington Post, 12/21/98, p. A29)
"As president, Bill Clinton has...squandered $5.5 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars on containing the Iraqi threat..." -Joe Farah (Between the Lines, 12/18/98)
"Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security." -Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) (Congressional Record, 12/17/98, pp. H11722, H11729)
And my favorite:
"A President who uses his duties as Commander in Chief to bomb foreign countries every time he wants to change the subject ought to be removed with alacrity," -Ann Coulter (Human Events, 12/25/98, p. 6)
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Blame Game
Nobody likes a tattletale. Or a whiner. Or a nag. Or a bearer of bad news. Or the guy who says, "I told you so." (OK, some people do) Why? My feeling is that people don't like to hear the Truth. People don't want to confront difficult questions about themselves. Not that everybody who nags or whines or points fingers is right. But hearing harsh criticism can force people to re-examine themselves and the beliefs they hold to be fact. And nobody likes to be wrong. Most people, in fact, like to be wrong so little that they never waver from their original beliefs no matter the evidence to the contrary. And it's enough people that Americans take it for granted that stubbornness and mulishness is a virtue. In 2004, one of GW's favorite words was "steadfast". In fact, when I typed in "Bush" and "steadfast" into Altavista, it returned 1.14 million results. (Of course, it turns out that when you type "Bush" and "idiot" you get 8 million results, so what the hell do I know?)
Whatever. My point is that Americans passionately hate what Bush has so eloquently named, "The Blame Game". (Well, I guess that's not exactly true either, since I didn't hear very many Republican complaints over the past 15 years while Rush Limbaugh & Co. have blamed Clinton for everything from the recession to 9/11 to Natalee Holloway) And this administration has done an excellent job of playing on that sentiment to keep his head above the political waters. Remember in May when Donald Rumsfeld took "full responsibility" for Abu Ghraib prison torture? By full responsibility did he mean scot free? Bush has successfully kept people from wondering why 1800 American soldiers are dead in Iraq, why Bin Laden is still running around sending audio tapes to reporters, why all the dividend and estate tax cuts haven't produced a boom economy. Now the house of cards is coming down around him. And though I'm not particularly unhappy about that, it's fair to ask if it's right to point the finger at him.
One of the Right's favorite tools is the straw man. What this means, generally, is that they will either misrepresent what their opponent is saying and attack them for that, or they will find the vilest supporter of their opponent and pretend they are the same. For example, in 2004, instead of attacking Kerry or lauding Bush, the Right wing media attacked Michael Moore, an easy target. "Michael Moore is a fat slob and he hates Bush. If you hate Bush, you're a fat slob too." Stupid stuff like that. They're actually really good at it and are most of the time are a whole lot subtler than that. So now, in the middle of the mother of all screwups (MOAS), the Right has jumped to attack position. The three pronged attack includes 1) Telling people not to play the "blame game", 2) Assigning blame to local (read: Democratic) authorities, and 3) Setting up a straw man, telling Americans that the Moonbats (read: Dems) are "blaming Bush for Katrina". Since the hurricane is obviously not the man's fault, obviously Bush is blameless, right? Of course, nobody on the left (except for the actual moonbats, but this author is slandering politicians and respected columnists) blames GW for the hurricane. But does he deserve blame for the aftermath?
First, it didn't help that Bush cut funding for levee projects to help pay for Iraq and his tax cuts. New Orleans had to beg for $2 million of promised federal money to finish one project in 2004. Not $100 billion like we're looking at today, but $2 million. Now, there's no guarantee that any of this work would have prevented this disaster. The levees were rated for a category 3 storm, not a category 4. However, like the expiration date on milk, it's not an exact science. All I'm saying is, it didn't help to cut levee protection funding. And for those of you who don't think it's the federal government's job to protect New Orleans, keep in mind that one of the primary reasons the city is in this much trouble is because the Army Corp of Engineers has spent the last 100 years flushing silt that should have been building up storm-surge-protecting wetlands down into the Gulf of Mexico, over the continental shelf. (Where it will turn into oil in 100 million years) And why do they do this? So national commerce flowing down the Mississippi can flow. If anything fell under the Commerce Clause, this is it.
Second, it didn't help that Bush has elevated cronyism to a fine art. He's not the first President to appoint his friends and donors to important positions and he won't be the last. But it's still a stupid thing to do and this time it came to bit America in the ass. We all know that Michael Brown, the ex-FEMA head, had no business running our national disaster recovery agency. He was completely unqualified, but luckily for him he was college roommates with Joe Allbaugh, the former FEMA head. Joe was Bush's chief of staff in Texas and his 2000 campaign manager, so we're probably lucky a major hurricane didn't hit between 2001 and 2003. Now Allbaugh is a lobbyist for Halliburton, where he lobbies FEMA for contracts. How many other vital organizations are headed by political cronies? (Note to wingnuts: just because someone else did it in the past doesn't make it right)
Third, at a time when the nation needed to be reassured that the crisis was being handled, Bush was on vacation. I know he probably works very, very hard and deserves more vacation than any other president ever. But he should know better than anyone that the most important place for him to have been was in front of the American public reassuring them. That's what boosted him from an approval rating of under 50% in August 2001 to 90% by September 2001. (Despite the fact that even during the World Trade Center attacks, his advisors had to force him to stop reading to children so he could address the nation) It certainly didn't help that it took him three days to even look at the disaster area, while the press widely reported that he "cut his vacation short" by two days out of the 30-day vacation. When Justice Rehnquist died, Bush was on the scene immediately. So much of this nation's strength comes from it's confidence. Americans lost confidence after Bush dropped the ball.
Fourth, it didn't help that Bush is allergic to environmental protection. If Louisiana had more wetlands, perhaps the storm surge wouldn't have been strong enough to topple the levees. If we weren't so dependent on oil, perhaps the damage to the oil pipelines and refineries wouldn't be sending the economy into a tailspin. And if we weren't pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, perhaps we could mitigate the more destructive storms that global warming is certain to produce. Now, of course Bush isn't directly responsible for any of these things. But his actions don't help. Opposing higher fuel standards didn't help. Opposing Kyoto didn't help.
Fifth, Bush said he deserved blame. "I take responsibility," he said. Being the skeptic I am, I don't really believe those words mean anything. Apparently, the Right agrees with me, because instead of hold Bush responsible, they argue that he was not. They make fun of anyone who does point the finger, and in many cases, attacks them personally. Responsibility isn't just a pretty word. It means bearing the consequences. Taking responsibility for a disaster means admitting failure of sorts. If my kid robs a bank and I say, "I take full responsibility," I don't get a slap on the back and be told I'm a stand-up guy. I'm expected to pay back the money and take a punishment. Treat GW Bush like the adult he pretends to be.
There's so much to write about this story, which ironically makes it more difficult to do so well. As far as the destruction goes, I don't hold Bush personally responsible. That's silly, and it's the kind of weak argument that Republican attack dogs love. I do think that Bush has been extraordinarily unhelpful towards efforts to prevent and recover from this disaster. The very best you could say is that Bush has had no effect on this situation. And that would be generous. But the President of the United States must do more than be ineffective. We didn't hire him to clear brush or look pretty on TV. We hired him to lead the country. I do blame him for not doing that.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
What is Good Journalism?
It's almost embarrassing. Well, it is embarrassing. There's more to talk about with the Katrina catastrophe than can possibly fit in one blog, yet right now I'm finding it difficult to locate the time, or focus to write. As I said earlier, "work stuffs" is happening. But more importantly, we are being inundated with news coverage of this disaster. And every person who has been there in person says the cameras can't capture a tenth of the devastation in the region. It's hard to comprehend the scope of this tragedy. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of overload the people working the scene are going through. When we hear reports of police officers and firefighters committing suicide and walking off the job, when we see reporters frantically trying to scrub tears away from their faces as they struggle not to lose it on national television, when we actually do see otherwise thick-skinned politicians losing it, we start to get a sense of the magnitude.
And like all great stories, some of the most interesting storylines don't come from the main plot, but as spinoffs going in different directions. One thing we've noticed is how the shell on the national media is cracking. For so many years, news has been dominated by poofy-haired, all-knowing, softball-throwing anchors. Nothing penetrated that glossy veneer. Sure, Peter Jennings looked pretty haggard after reporting on September 11th for 60 straight hours, but overall Americans learned to associate "news" with "boring". It wasn't always this way. When Edward Murrow was broadcasting from London during the blitz, Americans were starved for news, for commentary, for knowledge about the world outside. News broadcasts were the keystones of the three major networks, providing them with their viewers and their revenues. What changed?
In 1980, CNN stumbled onto the scene - the first 24-hour newscast in the world. They had certain advantages over network news: while they incurred the same costs to gather news, they could use it and replay it all day long. Networks still had to pay for 22 hours of non-news related programming to fill the time. In addition, it provided a convenient place for people to get news now. The news junkie was invented. And CNN's successes launched a virtual cavalcade of imitators. CBC Newsworld, EuroNews, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, BBC 24, and of course Fox News (sic). Unfortunately, as we know, there is not 24 hours worth of news to report, and with the increased competition, made-up news became the order of the day. Who gives a shit about Natalee Holloway? Why, the millions of Americans who wish they could also watch their daytime soaps at night.
CNN had its shining moment in 1991, when billions of people around the globe watched the Gulf War through Bernard Shaw's eyes. People tuned in during the 2001 attacks on New York and DC. But when it came to the really important stories and the hard-hitting investigative reporting that peaked in the mid-seventies, nobody cared anymore. News was boring. There was no connection anymore. The emotional bond viewers shared with Murrow and Cronkite had been severed. Viewers wanted emotion and connection. And of all the networks, startup Fox was the only one that understood. I actually watched Fox for a few months when it rolled out in 1996. I enjoyed the additional information in the scrolls, the extra emphasis on visuals over talk, the added emotion of the anchors. I stopped watching, however, when they took that emotion and went a few steps too far, into the land of fake outrage and political insults and openly partisan slants. They're still the only ones that "get it", though. CNN added flashy graphics and loudmouthed commentators, but no emotional connection.
The other night, after Anderson Cooper spent an hour paddling around New Orleans, CNN had a special report about reporting on Katrina and her aftermath. I forgot who the presenter was, but he asked two questions: "What happens when journalists become part of the story they're telling?" and "Has Katrina changed journalism?"
Reporting is certainly different during Katrina. Reporters, seeing things they weren't even exposed to in Kosovo or Iraq, were horrified. They forgot that they were supposed to be 5-minute entertainers and started being human, throwing microphones in front of mealy-mouthed politicians and not accepting their bullshit. Cooper was talking to Louisiana Governor Blanco, and started drilling her on how pissed it made him, standing waist deep in toxic sludge, watching politicians smile and pat each other on the back telling each other what a great job they were doing. Is this what happens when journalists become part of the story?
I say no - this is what happens when journalists forget how wooden they're supposed to be. Journalists are always part of the story. When they report on environmental issues or tax issues or elections, they are just as impacted as every other citizen. Of course they're part of the story. I know that. You know that. The reporter just seems to have forgotten. And their false detachment is part of the reason other Americans have stopped caring. The Truth has gotten lost in stoicism masquerading as objectivity.
So has Katrina changed journalism? I certainly hope so. I hope these reporters stay pissed off for a long time. I hope they remember that they represent 6 billion people who can't investigate for themselves. I hope they remember that they are members of those 6 billion. But I also hope they can avoid the temptation of becoming "emotional" about every fake story that will inevitably come along. Faking emotion - faking anger and outrage like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are so good at - is so damaging to real news that people tune out faster than when news is boring. They lose trust. And while I know that teaching Americans not to trust the "mainstream media" has been a mission of the Right Wing PR machine, it's not too late for journalists to become advocates of the people again. To be the eyes and ears and voices for the people. For the survivors of Katrina, for the concerned citizens 2000 miles away, for the dead victims. And for the people who live through every news story, whether or not the media has the balls to cover it correctly.
And like all great stories, some of the most interesting storylines don't come from the main plot, but as spinoffs going in different directions. One thing we've noticed is how the shell on the national media is cracking. For so many years, news has been dominated by poofy-haired, all-knowing, softball-throwing anchors. Nothing penetrated that glossy veneer. Sure, Peter Jennings looked pretty haggard after reporting on September 11th for 60 straight hours, but overall Americans learned to associate "news" with "boring". It wasn't always this way. When Edward Murrow was broadcasting from London during the blitz, Americans were starved for news, for commentary, for knowledge about the world outside. News broadcasts were the keystones of the three major networks, providing them with their viewers and their revenues. What changed?
In 1980, CNN stumbled onto the scene - the first 24-hour newscast in the world. They had certain advantages over network news: while they incurred the same costs to gather news, they could use it and replay it all day long. Networks still had to pay for 22 hours of non-news related programming to fill the time. In addition, it provided a convenient place for people to get news now. The news junkie was invented. And CNN's successes launched a virtual cavalcade of imitators. CBC Newsworld, EuroNews, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, BBC 24, and of course Fox News (sic). Unfortunately, as we know, there is not 24 hours worth of news to report, and with the increased competition, made-up news became the order of the day. Who gives a shit about Natalee Holloway? Why, the millions of Americans who wish they could also watch their daytime soaps at night.
CNN had its shining moment in 1991, when billions of people around the globe watched the Gulf War through Bernard Shaw's eyes. People tuned in during the 2001 attacks on New York and DC. But when it came to the really important stories and the hard-hitting investigative reporting that peaked in the mid-seventies, nobody cared anymore. News was boring. There was no connection anymore. The emotional bond viewers shared with Murrow and Cronkite had been severed. Viewers wanted emotion and connection. And of all the networks, startup Fox was the only one that understood. I actually watched Fox for a few months when it rolled out in 1996. I enjoyed the additional information in the scrolls, the extra emphasis on visuals over talk, the added emotion of the anchors. I stopped watching, however, when they took that emotion and went a few steps too far, into the land of fake outrage and political insults and openly partisan slants. They're still the only ones that "get it", though. CNN added flashy graphics and loudmouthed commentators, but no emotional connection.
The other night, after Anderson Cooper spent an hour paddling around New Orleans, CNN had a special report about reporting on Katrina and her aftermath. I forgot who the presenter was, but he asked two questions: "What happens when journalists become part of the story they're telling?" and "Has Katrina changed journalism?"
Reporting is certainly different during Katrina. Reporters, seeing things they weren't even exposed to in Kosovo or Iraq, were horrified. They forgot that they were supposed to be 5-minute entertainers and started being human, throwing microphones in front of mealy-mouthed politicians and not accepting their bullshit. Cooper was talking to Louisiana Governor Blanco, and started drilling her on how pissed it made him, standing waist deep in toxic sludge, watching politicians smile and pat each other on the back telling each other what a great job they were doing. Is this what happens when journalists become part of the story?
I say no - this is what happens when journalists forget how wooden they're supposed to be. Journalists are always part of the story. When they report on environmental issues or tax issues or elections, they are just as impacted as every other citizen. Of course they're part of the story. I know that. You know that. The reporter just seems to have forgotten. And their false detachment is part of the reason other Americans have stopped caring. The Truth has gotten lost in stoicism masquerading as objectivity.
So has Katrina changed journalism? I certainly hope so. I hope these reporters stay pissed off for a long time. I hope they remember that they represent 6 billion people who can't investigate for themselves. I hope they remember that they are members of those 6 billion. But I also hope they can avoid the temptation of becoming "emotional" about every fake story that will inevitably come along. Faking emotion - faking anger and outrage like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are so good at - is so damaging to real news that people tune out faster than when news is boring. They lose trust. And while I know that teaching Americans not to trust the "mainstream media" has been a mission of the Right Wing PR machine, it's not too late for journalists to become advocates of the people again. To be the eyes and ears and voices for the people. For the survivors of Katrina, for the concerned citizens 2000 miles away, for the dead victims. And for the people who live through every news story, whether or not the media has the balls to cover it correctly.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
What Would You Evacuate?
Watching New Orleans residents lose nearly everything, the lucky ones (smart ones?) were the ones that evacuated last weekend. My wife and I were discussing what would happen if we had to evacuate. What would we take with us if we thought we might never return home?
We decided that we would need clothing and non-perishable food, as much of both as we could carry. Social Security cards, ID, passports, cash. We would take the cat (and his litter box). We probably wouldn't bother with photo albums, but we'd probably pack up our computers. At the very least, we'd take the hard drives. All of our pictures are on the hard drives, along with our financial information, and a general record of our lives for the past few years. OK - I suppose my wife would insist on taking the wedding album. We would take our ketubah. And maybe a few things that are irreplaceable, like yearbooks or keepsakes with sentimental value. Other than that, it seems most of the things we have really aren't that important. Or at least, they're worth nothing more than the money they cost to replace.
What would you take?
We decided that we would need clothing and non-perishable food, as much of both as we could carry. Social Security cards, ID, passports, cash. We would take the cat (and his litter box). We probably wouldn't bother with photo albums, but we'd probably pack up our computers. At the very least, we'd take the hard drives. All of our pictures are on the hard drives, along with our financial information, and a general record of our lives for the past few years. OK - I suppose my wife would insist on taking the wedding album. We would take our ketubah. And maybe a few things that are irreplaceable, like yearbooks or keepsakes with sentimental value. Other than that, it seems most of the things we have really aren't that important. Or at least, they're worth nothing more than the money they cost to replace.
What would you take?
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Law & Order
See - them's two words. In another week or so I'll be back to regular titles.
Nobody's ever accused New Orleans of being a classy place. New Orleans is the place college kids (and those who act like college kids) go to get wild, shed inhibitions, and do dirty, nasty, and crazy things that would get them arrested or killed or both somewhere else. I've heard people ask in jest if even Hurricane Katrina could clean up Bourbon Street. (Short answer: No. It just brought a soup of sewage and toxic chemicals) But I never in my life thought to see lawlessness and despicable behavior like what is going on in Louisiana in Katrina's aftermath.
In the middle of an ongoing tragedy that has only yet begun to unfold, looters and bandits own the city where thousands of people who have narrowly escaped death are still trying to get out with their lives. Police, who are desperately needed to help the injured and trapped and elderly and invalid can only step aside for the criminals, who don't even care to shield their faces from AP cameras. One police officer was shot in the head by a looter. What level of depravity do you have to sink to in order to shoot a police officer in the head during a crisis in which hundreds or thousands of people may die?
Contrast New Orleans, 2005, with New York City, 2001. When the World Trade Center buildings disintegrated, tens of thousands of trapped New Yorkers wandered the streets, unable to get off the island, unable to return home, unable to call loved ones. Their neighbors took them in. Strangers gave them blankets and places to rest and food to eat. While there have been some claims of looting, only 54 arrests were made. Very few, considering that after the towers fell, the police had nobody to save or rescue and could concentrate on catching criminals. Why has New Orleans, which apparently now looks like Hiroshima, 1945, brought out the worst in its residents?
Apparently some of the looting is related to survival. There are reports of people raiding grocery stores and pharmacies for the things that will keep them alive. One report tells of police officers breaking into a CVS Pharmacy to carry away medicines for hurricane victims. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot give that to the people caught on camera stealing beer, jeans, watches, and cars. I cannot give that to people throwing rocks through windows or to people firing guns or to people rioting around the hospitals. What the hell is the matter with these people? The police can only stand by and watch. The National Guard (the ones not sent to Iraq yet) has been deployed to help control looting, but they cannot cover the entire city.
I say (and this may come as a shock to some) that looters in New Orleans should be shot on sight. Police and Guardsmen should shoot them first, no questions asked. I know - it seems like a reversal from my attitudes about Jean Charles de Menezes and London subway shootings. But these looters are fundamentally different. 1) They are guilty. For all their talk about saving innocents, my critics on the subway shootings ignore the fact that de Menezes was not caught red-handed doing anything. Shooting him was analogous to walking into a bar and shooting a random person because they might have looted something in the past or might loot something in the future. Shooting someone in the act of looting is a different matter. 2) Looters take advantage of the people who can afford it least. Is it any coincidence that the saying which suggests the ease of a crime is also its most despicable? "Like taking candy from a baby" epitomizes the worst of a criminal. Looters aren't robbing from wealthy people (not that that would make it right). Looters are robbing from the victims of the worst storm of the 21st century - the people who have nothing left to come back to. 3) Looters are murderers. This reason is twofold. A) Looters are distracting police and guardsmen from saving lives. They are endangering the fragile systems designed to get people out of the wrecked city. B) Looters are the primary reason people didn't leave the city in the first place. How many people died because they were scared to leave their belongings unprotected? How many people are huddling in abject conditions in the Superdome because they knew looters would rape them of everything they worked their lives for, whether the hurricane destroyed their home or not? How many people will die soon because they will drown in their own houses? If authorities cannot control looting immediately, how many people do you think will ignore evacuation orders for the next hurricane? I can't tell you how many times, growing up in Florida, we were warned about a powerful hurricane that never landed or that fizzled out. When authorities call for an evacuation, they must ensure that property is protected, or deaths will result.
The rest of the world is watching Americans act like savages. And I am ashamed.
Nobody's ever accused New Orleans of being a classy place. New Orleans is the place college kids (and those who act like college kids) go to get wild, shed inhibitions, and do dirty, nasty, and crazy things that would get them arrested or killed or both somewhere else. I've heard people ask in jest if even Hurricane Katrina could clean up Bourbon Street. (Short answer: No. It just brought a soup of sewage and toxic chemicals) But I never in my life thought to see lawlessness and despicable behavior like what is going on in Louisiana in Katrina's aftermath.
In the middle of an ongoing tragedy that has only yet begun to unfold, looters and bandits own the city where thousands of people who have narrowly escaped death are still trying to get out with their lives. Police, who are desperately needed to help the injured and trapped and elderly and invalid can only step aside for the criminals, who don't even care to shield their faces from AP cameras. One police officer was shot in the head by a looter. What level of depravity do you have to sink to in order to shoot a police officer in the head during a crisis in which hundreds or thousands of people may die?
Contrast New Orleans, 2005, with New York City, 2001. When the World Trade Center buildings disintegrated, tens of thousands of trapped New Yorkers wandered the streets, unable to get off the island, unable to return home, unable to call loved ones. Their neighbors took them in. Strangers gave them blankets and places to rest and food to eat. While there have been some claims of looting, only 54 arrests were made. Very few, considering that after the towers fell, the police had nobody to save or rescue and could concentrate on catching criminals. Why has New Orleans, which apparently now looks like Hiroshima, 1945, brought out the worst in its residents?
Apparently some of the looting is related to survival. There are reports of people raiding grocery stores and pharmacies for the things that will keep them alive. One report tells of police officers breaking into a CVS Pharmacy to carry away medicines for hurricane victims. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot give that to the people caught on camera stealing beer, jeans, watches, and cars. I cannot give that to people throwing rocks through windows or to people firing guns or to people rioting around the hospitals. What the hell is the matter with these people? The police can only stand by and watch. The National Guard (the ones not sent to Iraq yet) has been deployed to help control looting, but they cannot cover the entire city.
I say (and this may come as a shock to some) that looters in New Orleans should be shot on sight. Police and Guardsmen should shoot them first, no questions asked. I know - it seems like a reversal from my attitudes about Jean Charles de Menezes and London subway shootings. But these looters are fundamentally different. 1) They are guilty. For all their talk about saving innocents, my critics on the subway shootings ignore the fact that de Menezes was not caught red-handed doing anything. Shooting him was analogous to walking into a bar and shooting a random person because they might have looted something in the past or might loot something in the future. Shooting someone in the act of looting is a different matter. 2) Looters take advantage of the people who can afford it least. Is it any coincidence that the saying which suggests the ease of a crime is also its most despicable? "Like taking candy from a baby" epitomizes the worst of a criminal. Looters aren't robbing from wealthy people (not that that would make it right). Looters are robbing from the victims of the worst storm of the 21st century - the people who have nothing left to come back to. 3) Looters are murderers. This reason is twofold. A) Looters are distracting police and guardsmen from saving lives. They are endangering the fragile systems designed to get people out of the wrecked city. B) Looters are the primary reason people didn't leave the city in the first place. How many people died because they were scared to leave their belongings unprotected? How many people are huddling in abject conditions in the Superdome because they knew looters would rape them of everything they worked their lives for, whether the hurricane destroyed their home or not? How many people will die soon because they will drown in their own houses? If authorities cannot control looting immediately, how many people do you think will ignore evacuation orders for the next hurricane? I can't tell you how many times, growing up in Florida, we were warned about a powerful hurricane that never landed or that fizzled out. When authorities call for an evacuation, they must ensure that property is protected, or deaths will result.
The rest of the world is watching Americans act like savages. And I am ashamed.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Schadenfreude
Tired of one-word titles? With over 860,000 English words, I still have a ways to go before I repeat myself. At the very least, it might be fun to write a post with the definition of "Is".
For those who don't know, Schadenfreude is a German word that means pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. The word came to mind watching the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. It still remains to be seen whether Katrina represents the demise of the city or not, much to the chagrin of many meteorologists, newscasters, and general unwell-wishers. Unfortunately for me (and you), as a developing story, CNN and Fox and other news outlets are updating their stories instead of writing new ones, meaning that I'm finding it very difficult to find anything from before the hurricane struck to link to and quote. Here are some archived articles from Fox, which is actually very good about keeping access open to old news: Link 1, Link 2. Neither of these have some of the "best" quotes, like one forecaster who said that once the predicted 20-foot flooding starts, there may be no place to go for a trapped resident but to climb up telephone poles. But, he said, the massive number of fire ants (which have an average of 2 mounds per square yard in New Orleans) will follow you up for the same reason. And eventually, "the ants will win". That's the kind of gruesome talk normally reserved for middle-school campfires or for grade-B horror movies. One Parrish President couldn't help himself from being cute when he said, "I'm expecting that some people who are die-hards will die hard."
I'm really not slamming people following this story. This is real news, unlike missing Alabama Princesses in Aruba or the President "clearing brush" on his estate in Texas. And it has the potential for real tragedy. Plus I know I feel like I'm looking over my shoulder, hoping the storm weakens considerably before it hits Atlanta, which seems to have shared building codes with two of the Three Little Pigs. But you also can't shake the feeling that people are watching this the way they watch NASCAR races - looking for the big accident. Already a number of people who have been warning about New Orleans for decades are coming out to say, "I told you so."
Why do people enjoy others pain so much? For how many years now have the Right-wing media accused "liberals" of "hoping the US will lose" to the terrorists? This seems like projected schadenfreude, attributing their own personalities onto Democrats. It was Republicans who were gleeful for Clinton's failings in Yugoslavia and Somalia. Check out this article from World Net Daily (an honest to goodness Right-Wing publication - I double-checked this time) calling Clinton a war-criminal in 1999 for: supporting Muslim self-determination, interfering in a region with hundreds of years of complex religious and cultural wars, for starting a war instead of just joining one in progress, for leading troops despite being a "draft dodger". It's not hard to see why they're eager to attribute evil intentions to people against the Iraq War - they did the same thing 6 years ago.
I guess in some ways, however, we have to feel like parents to these people we see on television. I hope there are very few deaths in Louisiana and Mississippi, but I have to shake my head at the idiots who were windsurfing on the Gulf yesterday. I'd like to smack the morons who decided to stay in their houses 10 feet below sea level and are now calling 911. And unfortunately, near misses only seem to encourage these people. Growing up in Florida, we didn't own storm shutters or plywood boards for the windows. And the house was 60% windows, from floor to ceiling. (Sliding glass doors, if you want to be technical) We rode out hurricanes and tropical storms. I even drove to work one day through a weak tropical storm in 1995 without realizing it. But after Andrew hit in 1992, my family (and thousands of others in Florida) declared that it was foolish to stick around for the next powerful storm. My father declared his intention to evacuate if another Category 4 or 5 storm aimed for South Florida. So perhaps Katrina will save lives in the future. Maybe it's just too bad that bad things have to happen for good people to wake up. Maybe it's too bad people are so eager to watch it.
For those who don't know, Schadenfreude is a German word that means pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. The word came to mind watching the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. It still remains to be seen whether Katrina represents the demise of the city or not, much to the chagrin of many meteorologists, newscasters, and general unwell-wishers. Unfortunately for me (and you), as a developing story, CNN and Fox and other news outlets are updating their stories instead of writing new ones, meaning that I'm finding it very difficult to find anything from before the hurricane struck to link to and quote. Here are some archived articles from Fox, which is actually very good about keeping access open to old news: Link 1, Link 2. Neither of these have some of the "best" quotes, like one forecaster who said that once the predicted 20-foot flooding starts, there may be no place to go for a trapped resident but to climb up telephone poles. But, he said, the massive number of fire ants (which have an average of 2 mounds per square yard in New Orleans) will follow you up for the same reason. And eventually, "the ants will win". That's the kind of gruesome talk normally reserved for middle-school campfires or for grade-B horror movies. One Parrish President couldn't help himself from being cute when he said, "I'm expecting that some people who are die-hards will die hard."
I'm really not slamming people following this story. This is real news, unlike missing Alabama Princesses in Aruba or the President "clearing brush" on his estate in Texas. And it has the potential for real tragedy. Plus I know I feel like I'm looking over my shoulder, hoping the storm weakens considerably before it hits Atlanta, which seems to have shared building codes with two of the Three Little Pigs. But you also can't shake the feeling that people are watching this the way they watch NASCAR races - looking for the big accident. Already a number of people who have been warning about New Orleans for decades are coming out to say, "I told you so."
Why do people enjoy others pain so much? For how many years now have the Right-wing media accused "liberals" of "hoping the US will lose" to the terrorists? This seems like projected schadenfreude, attributing their own personalities onto Democrats. It was Republicans who were gleeful for Clinton's failings in Yugoslavia and Somalia. Check out this article from World Net Daily (an honest to goodness Right-Wing publication - I double-checked this time) calling Clinton a war-criminal in 1999 for: supporting Muslim self-determination, interfering in a region with hundreds of years of complex religious and cultural wars, for starting a war instead of just joining one in progress, for leading troops despite being a "draft dodger". It's not hard to see why they're eager to attribute evil intentions to people against the Iraq War - they did the same thing 6 years ago.
I guess in some ways, however, we have to feel like parents to these people we see on television. I hope there are very few deaths in Louisiana and Mississippi, but I have to shake my head at the idiots who were windsurfing on the Gulf yesterday. I'd like to smack the morons who decided to stay in their houses 10 feet below sea level and are now calling 911. And unfortunately, near misses only seem to encourage these people. Growing up in Florida, we didn't own storm shutters or plywood boards for the windows. And the house was 60% windows, from floor to ceiling. (Sliding glass doors, if you want to be technical) We rode out hurricanes and tropical storms. I even drove to work one day through a weak tropical storm in 1995 without realizing it. But after Andrew hit in 1992, my family (and thousands of others in Florida) declared that it was foolish to stick around for the next powerful storm. My father declared his intention to evacuate if another Category 4 or 5 storm aimed for South Florida. So perhaps Katrina will save lives in the future. Maybe it's just too bad that bad things have to happen for good people to wake up. Maybe it's too bad people are so eager to watch it.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Apology
On Tuesday, I started with a definition of blasphemy. Today's word of the day is "apology". Like blasphemy, apology has 3 main definitions: 1) An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon; 2) a formal justification; and 3) an explanation. (The 4th definition, an inferior substitute, applies only to the man who is the subject of this post, and is not related to saying sorry) Headlines today scream, "Robertson Apologizes!"
Now, being the scientific analysts we are, I'd like to present evidence showing that Robertson really didn't apologize. First, for full disclosure, he did give the mainstream media a written statement saying calling that assassination is not right and that he apologizes. However, since he made the statement on his TV program, let's see how he addressed the situation on his TV show. On his show Wednesday, he said, "I didn't say 'assassination', I said our special force should take him out." He went on to call him a "dictator" multiple times and compared to him to both Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. Oh, by the way, he compared himself to a martyr murdered by Adolf Hitler. Why the different responses? Well, just look at the headlines. He fools CNN (which the Palestinians proved years ago how easy it is to do) and his core audience only hears his lies.
So the "apology". 1) Did he express regret? Ask for pardon? On the contrary, he defended his stance while pretending he never uttered the worst of the words. 2) Did he justify his call for murder? Well, maybe. If he hadn't lied about not saying "assassination", you might call his words a justification. In fantasyland perhaps, where the Democratically elected President of a sovereign nation who has made his reputation on helping the poor, is compared to Hitler. 3) Did he give an explanation? Again, the lie which destroyed any credibility he may have had also removed any possibility of explanation. Robertson is now shown to be both of low moral quality and a man who can't be trusted.
I also wipe the noses of some of the whiny Right wingers who are crying that I'm not being fair by lumping them in with Robertson. It's funny that their hate of generalizations don't include them lumping everyone who isn't in love with Bush with Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and Ted Kennedy. If I support environmental regulations, I'm a terrorist. If I don't believe every Muslim should be killed I'm a limp-wristed Frenchman. If I think gay people shouldn't be persecuted, I hate marriage. You can't have it both ways. You may as well embrace Robertson and his ilk, because when you support the people who benefit from Robertson, you accept the consequences. Next time hitch your wagon to people who aren't psychotic powermongers.
Now, being the scientific analysts we are, I'd like to present evidence showing that Robertson really didn't apologize. First, for full disclosure, he did give the mainstream media a written statement saying calling that assassination is not right and that he apologizes. However, since he made the statement on his TV program, let's see how he addressed the situation on his TV show. On his show Wednesday, he said, "I didn't say 'assassination', I said our special force should take him out." He went on to call him a "dictator" multiple times and compared to him to both Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. Oh, by the way, he compared himself to a martyr murdered by Adolf Hitler. Why the different responses? Well, just look at the headlines. He fools CNN (which the Palestinians proved years ago how easy it is to do) and his core audience only hears his lies.
So the "apology". 1) Did he express regret? Ask for pardon? On the contrary, he defended his stance while pretending he never uttered the worst of the words. 2) Did he justify his call for murder? Well, maybe. If he hadn't lied about not saying "assassination", you might call his words a justification. In fantasyland perhaps, where the Democratically elected President of a sovereign nation who has made his reputation on helping the poor, is compared to Hitler. 3) Did he give an explanation? Again, the lie which destroyed any credibility he may have had also removed any possibility of explanation. Robertson is now shown to be both of low moral quality and a man who can't be trusted.
I also wipe the noses of some of the whiny Right wingers who are crying that I'm not being fair by lumping them in with Robertson. It's funny that their hate of generalizations don't include them lumping everyone who isn't in love with Bush with Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, and Ted Kennedy. If I support environmental regulations, I'm a terrorist. If I don't believe every Muslim should be killed I'm a limp-wristed Frenchman. If I think gay people shouldn't be persecuted, I hate marriage. You can't have it both ways. You may as well embrace Robertson and his ilk, because when you support the people who benefit from Robertson, you accept the consequences. Next time hitch your wagon to people who aren't psychotic powermongers.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Blasphemy!
Dictionary.com has three definitions for "blasphemy". 1) A contemptuous or profane act or utterance concerning God; 2) The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God; and 3) An irreverent act or utterance in regard to something considered inviolate or sacrosanct. The warm and fuzzy Pat Robertson of televangelist and Christian Coalition fame recently spoke out on the Family Channel that the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, should be assassinated. Chávez's crime? Claiming that the US was trying to have him killed. Talking badly about a country (the US) he doesn't live in and is not a citizen of. Now, I'm no biblical scholar. But I'm pretty sure it's not very Christian to talk about killing someone. And going back to the subject of blasphemy, let's review. 1) On a self-professed "Christian News and Talk" show, he suggests to viewers that someone murder the President of Venezuela. That sounds like a contemptuous or profane act concerning God (even if indirectly). 2) By deciding who should live or die, he claims for himself the attributes and rights of God. 3) Casually talking about the murder of someone is an irreverent utterance in regard to something considered sacrosanct (life).
Like I said, though, I'm not a biblical scholar. Personally, I couldn't care less about "blasphemy". In my mind, blasphemy is just a polite way of saying, "If you disagree with me, I'll cut you!" But if Pat Robertson is going to set the rules for his game, he should play by his own rules. He is a multimillionaire because people believe he is a devout Christian who is out to save the world. For him to play by different rules goes beyond hypocrisy, it's fraud.
Hypocrisy is calling your opponent unpatriotic because his war injuries weren't deadly, while you spent the war safe in Alabama. Fraud is when you broke the law and actually just went home to Texas before you finished your service. Fraud is Pat Robertson's game now, and it's unfortunate that his followers can't (or won't) see the distinction between religion and the vitriolic politics he spews on his show. Killing someone because you don't like what they say is not only un-Christian, it's immoral and illegal. Hugo Chávez is a brutal, power-hungry man. But he doesn't starve his people or kill them with chemical weapons. He has created social programs in Venezuela to provide free health care for the poor, to teach them to read and write, and has subsidized food prices so they can afford to eat. You may not agree with his politics, but as much of a jerk as he may be, he's not a monster.
Unfortunately, knee-jerk apologists for this kind of behavior won't admit that one of their own is off the deep end. They're so far gone into their own rhetoric that they can't tell what's reality and what's not. Living in Georgia is like living in an echo chamber, where people just hear their own biases repeated louder and louder. (I suspect it's similar in places like New York, San Fran, and Texas) The Truth is, Chávez wants to be elected. And the United States and especially Bush are not popular in the rest of the world. It's good politics in other countries to campaign against the US and Bush. Just like it's good politics in Georgia to campaign against abortion and liberals instead of campaigning against your opponent. The candidate who screams loudest wins (except Howard Dean). For the Right to get to the point where they feel that it's acceptable to kill anyone who doesn't agree is chilling.
Like I said, though, I'm not a biblical scholar. Personally, I couldn't care less about "blasphemy". In my mind, blasphemy is just a polite way of saying, "If you disagree with me, I'll cut you!" But if Pat Robertson is going to set the rules for his game, he should play by his own rules. He is a multimillionaire because people believe he is a devout Christian who is out to save the world. For him to play by different rules goes beyond hypocrisy, it's fraud.
Hypocrisy is calling your opponent unpatriotic because his war injuries weren't deadly, while you spent the war safe in Alabama. Fraud is when you broke the law and actually just went home to Texas before you finished your service. Fraud is Pat Robertson's game now, and it's unfortunate that his followers can't (or won't) see the distinction between religion and the vitriolic politics he spews on his show. Killing someone because you don't like what they say is not only un-Christian, it's immoral and illegal. Hugo Chávez is a brutal, power-hungry man. But he doesn't starve his people or kill them with chemical weapons. He has created social programs in Venezuela to provide free health care for the poor, to teach them to read and write, and has subsidized food prices so they can afford to eat. You may not agree with his politics, but as much of a jerk as he may be, he's not a monster.
Unfortunately, knee-jerk apologists for this kind of behavior won't admit that one of their own is off the deep end. They're so far gone into their own rhetoric that they can't tell what's reality and what's not. Living in Georgia is like living in an echo chamber, where people just hear their own biases repeated louder and louder. (I suspect it's similar in places like New York, San Fran, and Texas) The Truth is, Chávez wants to be elected. And the United States and especially Bush are not popular in the rest of the world. It's good politics in other countries to campaign against the US and Bush. Just like it's good politics in Georgia to campaign against abortion and liberals instead of campaigning against your opponent. The candidate who screams loudest wins (except Howard Dean). For the Right to get to the point where they feel that it's acceptable to kill anyone who doesn't agree is chilling.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Victim's (Family's) Rights
A lot has been made recently about "Victim's Rights" - a Right Wing buzzword that replaced "Tough on Crime", which replaced the previous phrase, "Tough on Blacks". (I'm just kidding. No politician has said that openly in years) Really what Victim's Rights means is "presumption of guilt". Apparently people trust the police so much that they feel like it's coddling criminals when the accused are given state-appointed attorneys. (Maybe it's really more of a case of, If you're poor, you're as good as a criminal mentality) They feel that preventing police from making illegal searches and seizures emboldens criminals and that shooting people in the subway for no reason other than some diaphanous "War on Terror" prevents people from being blown up. Generally we give the victims (of criminals, not of the state) special status and give their opinions special weight. Ashley Smith, the woman who fed Brian Nichols pancakes while she waited for police to collect him, has written a book and has become a motivational speaker. She might have a decent claim to this, though, since she purportedly talked Brian into surrendering peacefully.
Lately, I've noticed that the families of victims are being given special rights and privileges. The families of the people killed in the September 11th attacks, for example, were on the committee to decide how to rebuild the World Trade Center site. This is land owned by the Port Authority of New York and leased by a private developer. Does the fact that a family member died there give them some sort of partial ownership? Does it make them smarter or more business savvy that they should be heard in business meetings to decide what to do with millions of dollars of prime Manhattan real estate? Surely they have the right to protest and make a fuss, but only a suck-up politician would give them actual power.
I haven't talked about Cindy Sheehan, mostly because I felt there was no issue there. A woman stood on a public right of way and protested. It's not news, it's not controversial, it's not anything. It has been pretty shameful how the Right-Wing media has been trashing her, saying she has no right to speak for her dead son (funny coming from people who a few months ago said Terri Schiavo's parents had every right to speak for their dead daughter), and trying to discredit her from every angle. Really, why do they care? It's every American's right to protest. Why vilify her? Are red staters so sheltered that they aren't aware there are a lot of Americans opposed to both the Iraq war and Bush? Do they need to be protected from this affront to their fantasy world?
From everything I've read, Cindy Sheehan has been accurately representing her son's attitudes. But even if she was not, she is entitled to her own views and there's no reason for her to be vilified for her actions. For her actions that the first amendment was specifically written to protect.
That being said, Sheehan's views are a bit kooky. I support what she's doing, but as much as I dislike the Iraq war, I'm not packing a bag to stand by her in Crawford, Texas. She blames a Jewish conspiracy for sending her son to Iraq, claiming that her son signed up to defend the US, not Israel. Not I know that Iraq wasn't BFF with Israel, but the vast majority of Jews in the US still vote Democrat and thus it stands to reason that the majority of Jews also don't support the war. Certainly most of them didn't vote for Bush. (Still, it's kinda nice to be accused of being in some vast conspiracy. It makes me feel important.) Anyway, it's a silly, stupid idea, but it doesn't detract from her right to express it. Forget about her divorce (which is very common among parents who have lost a child) and about what her great-aunt and unnamed cousins have said to the media about her. Let her have her say and if you don't feel it's newsworthy, don't cover her.
Lately, I've noticed that the families of victims are being given special rights and privileges. The families of the people killed in the September 11th attacks, for example, were on the committee to decide how to rebuild the World Trade Center site. This is land owned by the Port Authority of New York and leased by a private developer. Does the fact that a family member died there give them some sort of partial ownership? Does it make them smarter or more business savvy that they should be heard in business meetings to decide what to do with millions of dollars of prime Manhattan real estate? Surely they have the right to protest and make a fuss, but only a suck-up politician would give them actual power.
I haven't talked about Cindy Sheehan, mostly because I felt there was no issue there. A woman stood on a public right of way and protested. It's not news, it's not controversial, it's not anything. It has been pretty shameful how the Right-Wing media has been trashing her, saying she has no right to speak for her dead son (funny coming from people who a few months ago said Terri Schiavo's parents had every right to speak for their dead daughter), and trying to discredit her from every angle. Really, why do they care? It's every American's right to protest. Why vilify her? Are red staters so sheltered that they aren't aware there are a lot of Americans opposed to both the Iraq war and Bush? Do they need to be protected from this affront to their fantasy world?
From everything I've read, Cindy Sheehan has been accurately representing her son's attitudes. But even if she was not, she is entitled to her own views and there's no reason for her to be vilified for her actions. For her actions that the first amendment was specifically written to protect.
That being said, Sheehan's views are a bit kooky. I support what she's doing, but as much as I dislike the Iraq war, I'm not packing a bag to stand by her in Crawford, Texas. She blames a Jewish conspiracy for sending her son to Iraq, claiming that her son signed up to defend the US, not Israel. Not I know that Iraq wasn't BFF with Israel, but the vast majority of Jews in the US still vote Democrat and thus it stands to reason that the majority of Jews also don't support the war. Certainly most of them didn't vote for Bush. (Still, it's kinda nice to be accused of being in some vast conspiracy. It makes me feel important.) Anyway, it's a silly, stupid idea, but it doesn't detract from her right to express it. Forget about her divorce (which is very common among parents who have lost a child) and about what her great-aunt and unnamed cousins have said to the media about her. Let her have her say and if you don't feel it's newsworthy, don't cover her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)