Dull Hatchet

60 Minutes' Kroft (rightfully) slammed for playing interview-footsie with Obama

2011-12-12T23:39:00.000-05:00

I didn't see this 60 Minutes interview with Obama, but after reading this eloquent take-down on The Atlantic's website, I'm glad I didn't bother. It sounds like its journalistic quality might have tempted me to bash whatever electronic device I used to digest it with a very heavy rock. We could debate Obama's merits/deficiencies for hours. But it's not about Obama, it's about Steve Kroft.

The style of Kroft, an award-winning broadcast journalist, has always seemed to be designed, well, to make it clear that he's a hard-hitting journalist. Yet he puts on the kid gloves with Obama, allowing himself to be played like a fiddle. The only question: whether he's too addicted to his access to ruffle the president's feathers, so enamored with Obama that he cannot see flaws, or too stupid/high on himself to realize he's a pawn. In any case, not a good sign for presidential accountability.

Kroft usually bullies his way to confront people that don't answer interview requests -- camera's rolling and with an irritating smugness, of course -- in, for example, Congressional offices. But despite his preening, he's clearly shown himself capable of what a journalist has to do: ask tough, uncomfortable questions. Yet lobs softballs at Obama, a guy that, as Connor Friedersdorf pointed out, grants him first-class access.

Reading Friedersdorf's commentary, (seriously, you should read it, too) elicited frustration bubbling just beneath the surface of this still somewhat idealistic recent journalism graduate school grad like myself. That idealism, I believe, is still shared by many in the industry, but is often hampered in cases by some basic realities, primarily economics and access. You have to attract the audience and make money or else you will lose, and you have to be able to convince important people to talking to you or you will lose. And if you lose, you find your chances do all that high-minded work of holding public officials accountable and informing the public substantially reduced.

But that's precisely why Kroft is so galling. Money? Check. Access? As much as anyone. Willingness to be rude in Washington? He's done it. And they still chose a list of questions that didn't hit the leader of the free world with anything harder than cotton candy. Only he knows why, but we all know that in a world where these are the most difficult questions asked of our leaders, democratic and journalistic processes are mere farce. (And the scary part is that Kroft's FAR from the worst thing going in mainstream news television. Doubt me? BOOM.)

While the presence of observant, insightful writers like Friedersdorf provides a nice contrast and perhaps hope in our ability to continue creating intellectually and journalistically valuable analysis, the sad reality is that only a select few get the kind of access and chance to directly ask our top leaders these kinds of questions. And long as those leaders find the mainstream journalists that are willing to bow to their wishes of shunning journalism for PR, those will be the ones they go to first. In that event, we continue to be deprived of any answers of substance from elected officials. Heck, we may as well stop bothering with ANY media access: let politicians issue press releases, and carry on our discussions of their personal merit without their input. Because right now, no one is forcing their input to be meaningful. At least then we can stop pretending that they ever answer our questions.

Why the ridiculous Tim Tebow narrative is kinda like the story Congress feeds us

2011-11-21T23:58:00.000-05:00

There is an internet meme out there where you put pretty much anything before "> Tim Tebow." Misinterpreted by many as slanderous towards Tim Tebow and his amateurish passes, it's really a shot at a media that has chosen a lazy narrative to glorify Tebow for his work ethic, faith, and "grit" while often willfully ignoring or excusing the fact that he is a fullback who happens to be a remarkably below-average passer.

Go figure, Tebow is 4-1 as a starter this year. Much praising ensues. The narrative carries the day because, well, Suddenly Metaphorically Tiny Tim-vs.-world is just too compelling. He can't even throw, but look at him just WILLING his team to victory. It's this kind of simplification that the public is force-fed in the deficit debate, both from politicians and media. No one, meanwhile, is talking about Denver's defense.
The real(ly obvious) explanation for why Tim Tebow wins games: The Broncos have allowed just 15.5 points per game in his four wins (excluding a 45-10 loss to Detroit, where Tebow showed why falling behind with Tebow at quarterback is a bad idea). Only once has Tebow-led Denver scored more than 17 points. That wouldn't have done much in the first five games when opponents averaged 28 points per game and were held below 20 just once. You see, John Fox is a good coach (as the vast majority of his tenure in Carolina will tell you), and in his first year, it took a few games to get his systems in place and working.

But Tebow had some late drives for winning scores, so rather than see these plays as a procrastinating student waiting until the last second to produce the bare minimum number of solved math problems, we're declaring him Einstein. Meanwhile Denver's defense has got nary a mention from most sportswriters. But LOOK AT TEBOW'S GRIT! HE'S A BORN WINNER!

(I'd like to take a minute to mention that I don't hold any ill-will for Tebow. He is gutsy and plays hard. I like his running style. I believe his game has a place in the NFL: as a backup that comes in for a change of pace. I like systems that shake up the NFL's copy-cat, cookie-cutter style, and there is no reason the backup QB has to be Charlie Batch praying that Ben Roethlisberger doesn't get hurt when a guy like Tebow could contribute in certain situations. But as a starter, lets call what he's doing what it is. Ok, removing former-sportswriter's cap now.)

In this analogy, Tebow:Defense::Deficit Debate:actual problems. And the fault is shared. Guess what? Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire won't get us near a balanced budget by the end of the decade. Nor will the combined hollowing out the Department of Education, Commerce Department and the ... I had a third one, I swear. And the real problem in our economy, and our political discourse, lies elsewhere.

Some blame the politicians, some blame the voting public, some blame the media. And everyone's kinda right. The majority of the public, according to opinion polls, wants no tax increases for the middle class, no major changes to social security/medicare/medicaid, and no defense cuts. They think "government" should be cut but single out things like foreign aid (a lonely percent of our budget, much higher than most think).

Don't go walking away, there, media. Why do you think the public doesn't have a frame of reference for the debate? Sure, you occasionally mention the details and scope of the issues. But if I read one more article referencing the super-committee's inability to make $1.2 trillion in cuts like it actually means something, without mention (or without deep burial) of the fact that since that's over a decade we are talking about $120 billion in cuts per year when we have a $1.3 trillion deficit (annual deficit being what's being ADDED to the current $15 trillion in government debt) I am just going to snap. Most outlets avoid difficult question for the policy makers (gotta keep that access, I guess), fail to adequately challenge obvious lies and deception until the boiling point, and ignore the depths of the fiscal problem that has been steadily growing for a decade. Despite all the hype around the drama of the debt reduction, no one focuses on what exactly it means, the historical implications, comparison to other debt-heavy countries (some things are similar, others are different between us and, say, Greece or Portugal).

And politicians; I don't care how stupid the above two groups are. You have a job in a republic: LEAD. Govern-by-polls doesn't work. Govern-by-ideology doesn't work. And govern-by-lobbyist sure doesn't work. Oh, it works when you have a reasonable budget and no one gets shaken out of their daily lives by you skimming some off the top to reward your special interests so they'll fund your next election. But we're at the point where you need to tell the interests and ideologues to GET LOST. The Simpson-Bowles recommendations showed you how you can create pragmatic solutions that face the issue head-on. You have shown how you can selfishly put your elect-ability in front of dealing with a very real problem in a way that could actually mitigate the fallout for the rest of the country. So no sympathy. Besides, you rigged your district to stay in power anyway. GOP in particular seems to think no one will hold them accountable for such rigidity (polls have 2 in 3 favoring the wealthiest to go back to paying pre-Bush tax cut taxes, a tax cut enacted with a SURPLUS), so 2012 might not be the chance to eliminate nearly as much government as they'd like. Their answer to Obama's inability to forge consensus to saying "We agree with the opposite with every single word he says before he says it" which is of course brainless, shameless political maneuvering.

So who is talking about real solutions? Maybe we could reform immigration to let in more skilled workers that can drive the economy. Maybe we could invest in education so that our workforce is worth more. Or perhaps we should focus on investing directly in infrastructure that is crumbling and falling behind, creating jobs in a critically idle construction sector, rather instead choose half-hearted stimulus efforts that just put states on life support for a couple years. For cuts, maybe we move back retirement age a few years because, lets face it, who's retiring at 65 these days, close a few tax loopholes and recognize that, with recent record lows in revenue as percentage of GDP, we probably aren't balancing the budget without bringing it up a couple points? Maybe fix some of the remaining flaws in the financial system (Dodd-Frank leaves banks too big to fail and Glass-Steagall remains repealed) so that the same thing that happened in 2008 doesn't happen again?

Nope, we are arguing over how to cut less than 10 percent off next year's deficit. Armageddon has apparently come because the most powerful military in history will take half the cuts, roughly 10 percent of its budget. By the way, the defense budget has, including contingency war spending, more than doubled since 2000, and even as of 2007, the DoD budget was low enough to accommodate the recently triggered cuts. Which don't happen until 2013 according to the budget deal from the summer. We are arguing over a few taxation percentage points. We are arguing over the Department of Education and Foreign Aid. None of these things will turn the tables on the deficit. Everyone hates government and wants it cut, until they find out that the government they'll have to cut will affect their social security payments.

So we avoid the difficult conversations. We Tebow the conversation with false narratives, demonizing just one of the two parties when they both play into the lobby-run, ideologically rigid, hyper-partisan, gerrymandered system. We ignore the John Foxes and Denver Defenses because the story-line isn't sexy enough, or because it might be too nuanced to fit in a simple attention-grabbing headline.

Meanwhile, as we look at the problems these narratives attempt to capture, we pretend that not ordering a second glass of wine will somehow make the $35 filet mignon fit onto our debit card that has $8.99 on it. We don't have to give up steak for ramen noodles. We don't have to work ourselves to death with slave wages. But we're probably going to have to inch in both those directions a little faster than people want to, and switching to rib-eye or passing on dessert isn't gonna cut it. Whatever we decide to cut, the false narratives will have to go with it.

Super-committee: we are not so super

2011-11-21T10:10:00.001-05:00

So let me get this straight: this group of elite Congress people could not do any better of a job doing what the rest of Congress has also been proven to be terrible at: compromise in the face of obvious need of it. In short, the Dems in Congress won't cut payments on crap we can't afford, and the GOP won't let us collect money to pay for the stuff we already bought. Lovely. And that was just an attempt to cut $1.2 trillion over the next decade....which still wouldn't even get us NEAR a balanced budget. They couldn't even agree how to slow the hemorrhaging.

Not surprising as ideological everyone's become, starting with the Republicans. This guy sure isn't helping. He explicitly wants us to go back to the early 1900s when the government was below 10 percent of GDP. By the way, life expectancy was also below 50, industrial jobs were brutal jobs with slave wages and hours, kids left school to go to work at around 13, blacks weren't people, politics were rife with corruption, and the gap between rich and poor was astronomical as most Americans lived much harsher lives than any do today. So perhaps he's over romanticized this glorious era free of big government. If someone could name a modern, comfortable, first world country with that little government I'd love to hear about it.

The historic evidence doesn't mean all efforts to shrink government are wrong, but it does indicate that ideological rigidity isn't going to solve anything.

It seems that his side (and to a lesser extent Democrats, too) think they can wait for the other party to be completely out of power, as if either party was appealing enough to win the White House, Senate and House in 2012. And when they remain split, of course, they'll probably push everything to the next election. Or the next economic crisis, which would probably precede it.

I will make my oft-repeated, obligatory mention here that the rigged districts that representatives occupy after horse trading leads to polarized partisan politics that make compromise more difficult, as centrists largely have no seat at the table. Although this super-committee was senators (where this isn't a problem) there is still a trickle down effect where the tone of discussion in other elements of political discourse guides party-wide and nation-wide discussion to that of vitriolic, unyielding debate where both sides tend to miss the point entirely.

On the grounds that I have to go do other things and that this is another one of those topics that can make me so angry that my brain stops working.

The World Series ends tonight, and I lose my excuse to ignore my blog

2011-10-28T15:15:00.002-04:00

Unless of course I die of a heart attack because another game like last night might kill me.

Can't beat October baseball. But the best sports month has a darker side: emaciated productivity levels. Just look at the history: the Great Depression started on October 29, according to a fact I found on the interwebs. And there has never been an economic recovery that began in the month of October, according to a study I made up to fit my narrative. Wait, what was I talking about again?

Anyway, I'll get back to writing in the blog soon. In the meantime, go Cardinals.

Occupy Wall Street: high-minded revolution or ignorant, aimless gathering of hippies?

2011-10-12T01:41:00.000-04:00

Some would have you believe this is the U.S. version of Arab Spring, a glorious revolt against a minority in power that, through equally devious devices -- if less blunt and draconian while being more complex and nebulous -- control a vast share of a nation's wealth.

Some would also have you believe that these are nothing but worthless dregs of society, people whose lack of knowledge on the topic can only be topped by their inability to contribute anything meaningful to society.

In other words, business as usual in discussion of American politics. So pick one and prepare to be vilified.

To be completely honest, when I hear about protests in the U.S., I have an impulsively negative reaction. I just intrinsically don't like them. I know, an American who disdains protesting and yet pretends to basically understand and support democracy? And a JOURNALIST, no less? (For what it's worth, I also can't stand peanut butter, so I pretty obviously hate freedom and puppies.)

But the reason is that while I respect and will defend to the bitter end their right to protest, I am irritated, to a somewhat unwarranted degree, when people stand up and yell at other people without knowing what they are talking about, or while purposely taking a narrow-minded view; I presume them to be the kid with a D in the class that yet argues with the teacher the loudest. Readers know I prefer to recognize nuance and gray area. Proteters don't hold signs saying "Abortion may or may not be murder but still I think it's kinda wrong and I'm pretty sure God isn't a huge fan." The signs are usually much shorter.

And I'll reiterate; I know my cringe at protest -- aside from making DC an awkward place to live -- is an irrational aversion, like an awkward scene in a television show that you know is necessary to the plot and even kind of funny, but that still just makes you feel uncomfortable for the characters.

The point is my instinct is to sympathize -- even agree with -- with people that initially dismiss the protesters. And sure enough, most protesters don't have a clue what they are talking about. I wouldn't trust their judgement running a Dairy Queen, much less the U.S. economy. The Banks, just like the Politicians, while deserving of at least a good share of blame, are still somewhat easy scapegoats. Especially for the unemployed college graduate with a double-major in history and pot-smoking his parents paid six-figures for him to attain. I have lots of friends that have worked hard and found ways to make themselves valuable enough to someone to get jobs, and many of those friends are hardly sympathetic to a group without the self-awareness or knowledge to understand what they are even fighting against. In addition, the below picture pretty much sums up an incredibly fair view. And considering the sympathy for the movement you may rightfully perceive that I am about to put forth, the below photo should remind you that personal responsibility should not be thrown out the window, as it remains poignantly relevant criticism for probably more than a few protesters:

But of course it's not that simple. Most (UPDATE: probably should have said many here....see comments below) people, much less protesters, don't know what they are talking about in this arena. The "make up an archetype, find a few examples that confirm, and blast an entire crowd with it" is lazy. And it completely ignores the legitimacy behind the beef. Whether they can articulate the beef in a 15-page research paper is irrelevant; if a person uses a taser on a dog to make it do tricks, the dog doesn't have to be able to explain how electricity works to know that his master is a crappy person.

Also, lots of very intelligent people who could be contributing members to society AREN'T working. (Such as more than a few ex-Wall-Streeters.) And even those with a less profound grasp of their situation don't inherently deserve to suffer economically, and their anger at some of the proximate causes doesn't deserve to be dismissed on the technicality that they are part right but don't know how to say it.

As I've said before, banks were (maybe still are) out of control. In many cases they made loans they had good reason to believe wouldn't be paid back. They didn't care because they were selling those loans, and the way they were bundled confused some very stupid ratings agencies enough for them to rate them as safe. Suddenly some very large yet effectively illusory assets are floating around, home prices shoot up causing more crazy loans, and it basically blows up in everyone's faces. Despite the mistakes, government made the lenders whole out of either fear of economic collapse or corruption (at some very friendly interest rates -- if the government just rips them with some punitive rates the taxpayer gets a nice payday and banks get incentives not to do it again); debtors had to deal with the consequences of their mistakes. By the way, at this point we've long left the realm of rational free market economy, ultra-conservatives.

Corporations, especially in the banking sector, pay top executives tens of millions in severance packages after acting illegally or running the company into the ground. That's right, utter failure, abuse of power and illicit activity nets these people what would take a family earning a median household income 200 to 400 years to earn. So the whole "don't hate people because they're successful; it's MEAN" thing kind of misses the point. Mainly because it implies that the rich got that way through producing a benefit to society. Sure, many do. Many don't. And even for the ones that do, when is enough reward enough? Raising the issue isn't class warfare, it's a legitimate political/societal/moral/philosophical debate.

A major criticism is that the movement has no plan. And it says it doesn't want one. Fine. The downside to these groups, be it Tea Party or Wall Street, is that once you get powerful enough, someone is going to try to co-opt the movement for their own ends; they end up writing a plan once the movement has reached critical mass anyway, and a goal not to have one keeps the movement partially protected from that. But just because some unions join in doesn't negate the original premise. We still have to look at the core issue; can something be done in an economy leaving many behind and many others embarrassingly -- at times inexplicably -- wealthy.

In this Daily Show segment, Jon Stewart aptly points out that many of the critics of the protesters have missed the point: sure, many protesters don't have solutions to the problems for which they halt traffic. But neither do the politicians (can't pass any budget, much less one that decreases the deficit). Neither do pundits (yell and scream for ratings, generally avoiding to commit actual journalism). Neither do corporations (which despite surging profits, won't hire because of economic uncertainty stemming from the fact that too few people have jobs/disposable income). So ripping them for not having a solution, plan, or cohesive agenda seems like asking the kid how to fix the problem when his dad bought the fancy car and house that bankrupted him so that now he's feeding his family Cup-o-Noodles in the fancy new China bowls.

(In addition, the segment points out that many on Fox News praised the Tea Partiers for the same exact reasons they bashed the OWS movement. Also, a Tea Partier complains that OWS are breaking laws such as camping in places where its not allowed, something a Tea Partier -- named such for the "most celebrated act of destruction of property and vandalism in our country's history -- would never do. Oh, and Steve Doocy literally complains that he couldn't get to his steak dinner fast enough because of the people protesting income inequality. Priceless.)

Like the Tea Party, this movement's best hope of political movement actually to get co-opted by some people actually in power. Problem is, with a concrete message they actually have to articulate something, the specifics of which could cost them supporters, and on top of that the co-opting group could twist the message for their own end to the extent that it is no longer recognizable to it's original proponents (See: Ron Paul, much of the Tea Party).

But really, it's best hope of general success is to force us to have this conversation. Maybe, as we recognize blaming "Wall Street" is somewhat righteous but an oversimplification of the problem, we look closer at some underlying fundamental issues. Maybe more people will read articles like this, where both sides are forced to confront some basic realities they might find unpleasant. Yes, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, and yes, the taxation system is still somewhat progressive. And yes, the distribution of wealth has become more skewed, and in a consumer economy that poses serious problems, not to mention raises questions about whether a large number of people can really be worth a couple hundred times more than an average person, or whether they've found a way to game the system.

I'm not saying we should do exactly what these people suggest; that would be insane. I have no problem with some people being very rich (I'd prefer to know they produced something valuable to get that way, but baby steps). But as we argue over taxation and fixing the budget, it's important to think about "the one percent," what they do, and what is fair to ask of them. Do we throw the book at them and take it all? Of course not. But we have to recognize that we have the largest post-depression levels of income and wealth inequality right now (a path we've been on for decades; no fair blaming one administration), and that issue deserves some attention.

Nah, let's stick with the narrative where we argue whether they are Revolutionaries or Hippies; That'll get more people to watch.

This is just too stupid to leave alone: Propogandist Glenn Beck targets children

2011-09-29T23:02:00.003-04:00

I don't really have too many words beyond what's in the article here. But...wow. So, professional propagandist and semi-professional idiot Glenn Beck, champion of freedom and liberty -- and some would say predator of fear of anyone on the American Right with intellectual insecurity melded with self-righteousness -- is now trying to get to the children. Because your kids social studies teachers are obviously filling their students' heads with Marxist sympathies and anti-American garble.

I supposed this is because even stupid adults have wised to his shenanigans in great enough numbers that he couldn't get enough ad revenue to pay the rent on the home he's using after he sold this one. Not that being rich and having a huge home makes you a bad person. Being rich and having a huge home because you spout willful ignorance and/or lie to entertain/scare people under the guise of news comentary, and use your gibberish make your audience hateful of fellow citizens over mere disagreements, THAT makes you a bad person.

If someone tries to tell you the world is getting more violent, show them this

2011-09-29T14:57:00.003-04:00

This posting includes a graph outlaying the number of battle deaths in the last seven decades. Obviously WWII stands out. But so do the 2000s...even in relation to the 1990s. Some combination of improved political structures and diplomatic relations, information technology, and a growing ability to grapple with simple common sense seem to have shoved violence down dramatically on a per-capita basis.

This does not substitute for judgement approving or disapproving of actions in any particular conflict. Nor does it suggest that the only measure for quality of life on earth is the number of deaths from various types of war. But it has to be a somewhat important one. And any alarmist out there trying to argue that humanity is getting more violent will have a hard time refuting this data. We got 99 problems but a rising propensity for killing each other in massive numbers ain't one. Even if the news seems to tell us so.

Frum: though never perfect, parties weren't always quite such punks to each other

2011-09-27T00:56:00.003-04:00

Did parties always treat each other like the step-brother each never wanted? Of course they did. In an exercise early in my journalism program, we listened to a taped speech from then-President Harry Truman to Congress, and the similarity of his words to the rhetoric of today was haunting. But as David Frum points out in an interesting sampling of historical anecdotes, they managed to form a quasi-functional relationship despite similar procedural rules.

Now, after a few decades had given us enough prosperity to give everyone what they wanted, we have a system where nothing is out of bounds. The fact about only a quarter of people living in counties that were landslides in the 1976 election whereas half lived in landslides in 2008 struck me as particularly telling. He doesn't have an answer for what, but he's right to say SOMETHING drastic needs to change what is now a completely dysfunctional culture.

Journos ripping guy that ripped Palin get ripped for not doing their job, ripping Palin

2011-09-23T16:56:00.001-04:00

Why some form of "rip?" Because "slam," "blast" and "viciously shred into tiny metaphorical pieces" were too long to fit in a two-line head and I'm anal like that.

In any case, the point Andrew Sullivan makes here remains valid. Anyone in the media ripping the new tell-all book about Palin for its anonymous sources and salaciousness (many without reading it) needs to take a close look in a mirror, and wonder why they've never appropriately vetted such an obviously phony, unqualified person that the GOP put Ohio and a heart attack away from being PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Perhaps the lesson could be applied to Rick Perry, who was immediately anointed as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination. He has some odd ideas, his claim to fame -- job creation -- is questionable at best using tactics unlikely to be scalable nationally, and he slashed education to balance a budget. Seems like people are at least occasionally starting to get the idea.

NCAA's illegal cartel ripped in must-read; Kyle finds a new low in shameless plugs

2011-09-22T18:28:00.000-04:00

If you read one sports article all year, it should be this one. Taylor Branch writes a thoughtful, well-researched, provoking article on why brazenly taking away college athletes' ability to earn anything besides a scholarship is both morally and legally indefensible. You will not find a better history or summation of the legal battles surrounding the hypocrisy of the NCAA. Long read, but worth every minute if you care about college sports or civic rights. Basically, the NCAA and to a large extent the universities have an athletic cartel that in the cases of football and basketball is insanely profitable and has no real labor costs.

Also, if you quickly Ctrl+f and type my name on the article, in the comments you'll find that my response to a silly person's assertion that college athletes have a choice, which at this point 145 people have "liked." So there's that. Comment below if you with your thoughts. Or just go "like" my comment because I DESPERATELY SEEK APPROVAL OF OTHER ANONYMOUS INTERNET USERS.

The economy reeks because it doesn't need humans anymore

2011-09-21T18:24:00.002-04:00

Ok, that is an oversimplification. But it has always bothered me that most politicians argue over economics as if their policies are the primary drivers of the exchange of goods in a country of 300,000,000 people. Spend some money on some new bridges to stimulate the economy (for a minute)! Scale back regulations to reduce burden on businesses (environment, safe food, or wide-scale fraud in the financial sector be damned)! Adjust the income tax rate a percentage point up or down (as if America hasn't both prospered and failed in either direction already)!

Well, here's an Atlantic article that, unlike most politicians and media outlets, actually addresses some basic fundamentals of the economy. Turns out there are some long-standing trends that go a lot further to explain economic woes than anything Bush or Obama have done. It's productivity, stupid, and it's made almost everything cheaper and less labor intensive...except a few necessities getting really, really expensive.

Of course, economic innovation isn't inherently bad. But it is messy. There was a time when a vast majority of Americans were farmers. Then some figured out how to farm more efficiently and feed more people. Jobs, you might say, were technically lost. Of course, this freed up labor for the industrial revolution, as transportation developed, electricity became widespread, and manufacturing processes advanced. Not that it was a smooth transition; cities faced new problems with huge influxes of people, living conditions for early factory workers were often horrible, and economic inequality was a problem.

Now, things are again changing, this time perhaps more rapidly, thanks to technology, automation of the manufacturing process, and a global population that is competing with rising middle classes. You can't wind back the clock and make the old jobs pay more again. But you also can't ignore that new realities require innovative solutions, some of which the markets aren't going to fix themselves.

While almost everything has become cheaper, the things truly eating at the US economy have not experienced the same level of innovation. Education, energy, housing (in areas that are economically productive) and health care are crucial areas, things people need to really take advantage of a good quality of life in the developed world, that are becoming prohibitively expensive. Addressing this is obviously crucial, but unfortunately, some basic economic incentives and realities make innovation extremely difficult. (This is a philosophical start on the education front; I dare you to watch it and believe that fundamentally there is a reason for education to be increasingly unattainable in this day and age.)

And neither liberals (unwilling to acknowledge we can't go back to the way it was with manufacturing jobs carrying a middle class) nor conservatives (unwilling to acknowledge that market solutions alone will not solve these problems in a way that promotes growth and social benefits such as not letting the poor be stuck in stupidity and without any health care) have solutions.

News21: It's up...mostly

2011-09-09T17:45:00.000-04:00

Well, I've again ignored the blog for an extended period of time. Way to build a regular audience, dimwit. In any case, here is the work from my summer project on education, News21:

-- SOON TO COME: Expose digging into the North Chicago school district, showing how badly things can go wrong with poor leadership. (The story is done, just waiting for the final link to be set up)

-- A look at teacher quality in the U.S. through the lens of the Teach for America debate.

-- A short mash-up of an hour-long round-table conversation I hosted between a superintendent, teacher, activist, and an education technology/professional development expert. Interesting insights all around.

-- And a blog post I never posted here: Why the US could use more vocational schools: Turns out knowing when the Magna Carta was signed doesn't pay bills.

George Lopez threat to leave U.S. gives Palin run most hope it's seen in years

2011-07-26T19:39:00.001-04:00

By threatening to leave the country if Sarah Palin becomes president, unfunny comedian George Lopez gave despondent and hopeless Palin supporters a giant boost, as millions of Americans previously nauseated by Palin now must weigh a new consideration.

The Palin cost-benefit analysis for independent voters -- previously a monumental landslide to the "cost" side -- now must factor in the benefit of an America where you won't accidentally catch the beginning of the George Lopez show after an episode of Family Guy on TBS.

"I don't want to see Palin's complete lack of understanding of anything more complex than a shoe horn administer the kill shot to an already-limping America," said one voter. "But have you seen George Lopez' comedy? It's awful."

"I'd rather perforate my eardrum with a rusty nail. Or watch the Kardashians." He hesitated. "Well, not watch the Kardashians, but definitely the rusty nail."

It was unclear whether Lopez would be able to continue to work for TBS if he quit America (this reporter didn't watch the linked CNN video because, come on, it's George Lopez talking), but the sheer possibility has intrigued millions.

"I mean, if we end up broke, in a war with Kyrgyzstan, and eating tree bark like North Koreans that's one thing, but at least George Lopez won't be around to ear-rape us with his stereotypical Latino antics in routines with no connection with modern humor, or humor of any era," another voter said, calling him a "Mexican Dane Cook."

Reports that Team Palin has reached out to George Lopez saying "Please for the love of God keep talking" are unconfirmed. But sources have said that the Palin camp has some extra pep in it's right-veering step.

"This is a God-send. The one person as irritating and divisive as our candidate has drawn a line in the sand, saying it's her or me," said a Palin employee, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak on the matter.

Obama supporters, though not panicked, were concerned about Lopez, who once said in a routine that he loves golf because he likes "anything where I get to hit something white with a club.

"It's not Armageddon like this default thingy. But it's not good, either. No fans of Lopez vote GOP. And a lot of people that voted for us in 2008 aren't thrilled with either party right now, so yeah, the prospect of Lopez moving to Canada might tip the balance a bit," an Obama supporter said. "If it had been Larry the Cable Guy, we'd be singing a different tune... albeit a confused one."

When asked, why Canada, he said "What, like he's gonna move to Mexico? Get real. Dude was born in California and lives in a rich neigborhood in Los Angeles; he has more in common culturally with Calgary than Guadalajara. He's unfunny, not brain-dead."

The Palin source didn't care where Lopez went, as long as he at least appeared willing make good on the threat. As a gesture, the Palin camp has already used campaign funds on a one-way ticket to Fiji in his name.

"We haven't won anything, but we have hope. Voters who had closed the book on Palin are thinking again. We just hope they don't think too hard."

Giant Asian country that owns chunk of U.S. debt may actually be in even more debt

2011-07-23T15:51:00.006-04:00

Writing more about our petulant debt debate in Washington would make me type with enough anger to put my keys through the hard-drive, so we'll let that alone for now. (Plus this guy said it nicely.) I will instead type about the problems of others to make me feel better: China has a gaint debt too. (China, they're just like us!)

But, China owns all that U.S. debt! you say. Not so much. They own about eight percent of our debt. Big numbers for sure, but China's government owes between 80-150 percent of GDP in debt itself. This professor from Northwestern University (Hey, that's my school!) explains China's situation far more eloquently than I can. But in short, they don't seem to fully know what the hell they're doing either, at least as far as the long run projections go. Somehow it's both perversely comforting and utterly horrifying.

So, we aren't the only ones addicted to monetary manipulation, bailouts, debt, and giant gambits that the government is in no position to fully understand. In fact with China's brand of authoritarianism, they play even faster and looser with government spending. Oh, and they invest in infrastructure (albeit incredibly inefficiently).

Good news: China's on just as unsustainable path as we are and are hardly the economic masterminds we sometimes think of them to be. Bad news: The world's two leading economies have penchants to play potentially disastrous games of economic chicken.

Both will bail out giant institutions that have been granted special treatment. They spend more than they have, and not in an efficient manner that will not necessarily lead to growth. And they take turns blaming each other for causing inflation that makes the others country's exports less competitive.

Our leaders are beholden to a voting populace even less knowledgeable of the economic implications than they are. Their leaders are beholden to, well, no one, except maybe an economy growing at a rate that is completely unsustainable.

This might not end well.

Medill DC: The only client that would use my health care package was my blog

2011-07-20T00:36:00.001-04:00

During the last quarter in Washington DC, my work found its way into the likes of Daily Caller, UPI, Market Watch, and Military Times. (All previously posted links. Yes, I'm a link whore.) Near the end, I also put together a very broad health care package. The thing about our clients, though, is that they are used to and prepared for more compact pieces that fit in neatly with the rest of their coverage. Something comprehensive like this proves tougher to fit into their news-holes. I totally understand; it makes perfect sense.

But since I worked pretty hard on it, and since I have an "in" at DullHatchet (it's all about who you know): Here is the overview linking it all together (with slideshow!). Here is a story about how we won't have enough doctors. Here is a story about how nurses will play expanding roles in health care in the future. And here is a story about new care-delivery models that, regardless of health care reform, have already started to attempt to address surging costs. Enjoy.

News21 Blog: What do we do about the paradox of trying to fire the right teachers?

2011-07-19T12:24:00.005-04:00

This post appears on the News21 blog. I am working on News21 through Northwestern, an innovative journalism project on education and accountability. The end result will be a multimedia project (due Aug. 26) that will assess the job America is doing preparing our youth for tomorrow. (Hint: falls short of awesome.)

Few professionals are more difficult to fire than teachers. Unions have wielded great political power and have made protecting teachers one of their chief goals. Contracts in most cities include provisions for lengthy appeals processes – for protection against unfair firing – so cumbersome that administrators rarely bother, even for the most terrible teachers.

Washington, D.C., is not one of those cities.

On Friday, the District fired 227 teachers from the 4,100-teacher district for poor performance, the second year of substantial cuts under the IMPACT program. The evaluation system, a legacy of former chancellor Michelle Rhee, includes five 30-minute classroom observations and compliance with board standards, with standardized testing also playing a key role. IMPACT will also offer big pay increases for 663 teachers (16 percent) with high ratings.

Any parent would presumably prefer their kids avoid classrooms of teachers on the low end of the scale. But is that who is getting fired? Union leaders and some teachers in D.C. say no; they claim that the process is punitive and arbitrary, calling it a way for the central administration to get rid of older, more expensive teachers.

The issue brings to light three major riddles of teacher quality. Can we create and implement a model to accurately evaluate teacher success? Much has been made of over-reliance on basic test scores, and observations depend on the quality of the observers (or lack thereof). Second, can unions work toward such a system, rather than continuing to protect the bad teacher with the exact same vigor as the good*?

And finally, how do you factor in an administrations’ need to meet a budget? How can you remove the financial incentive to bump out teachers that, whether paid more for quality or mere experience, the classroom may need most?

(*Assumes both have tenure. Otherwise, you’re on your own.)

Holy crap, our leaders really are hellbent on driving us off a cliff; markets not amused

2011-07-15T11:45:00.000-04:00

The NFL looks ready to finally put squabbling aside in the interest of preventing the (relative) catastrophe of missing a huge part of the 2011 NFL season. It turns out that on the cost-benefit scale, whatever disagreements the two sides had didn't do so well against $8 billion in annual revenue. So they decided not to sucker punch the fan base and stop operating (of course nothing is final, but it's major progress.)

Meanwhile, Washington D.C. might be the only city where Dan Snyder's Redskins could imaginably not the most ineptly run institution within 30 miles. Eric Cantor's stubbornness made Obama angry enough to blurt out "Don't call my bluff, Eric," which proves primarily that everyone in America would love to sit at a poker table with Barack Obama, and also capped a moment that personified the petulant stalemate on the debt issue.

The Daily Show - Men of a Certain Rage
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

We could debate which party was more at fault for the current situation, but that would be insane by Albert Einstein's definition, as that tactic is the only one that's been used so far by most involved in the discussion, and it's gotten the discussion nowhere. Cliff notes facts: Bush and the Republicans turned a balanced budget into a very large deficit by cutting taxes, going to war, and failing to bring about major entitlement reform to deal with a shortfall that was long-known to be on track to grow with an aging population this past decade and even more the next. Obama, once he took power, continued spending and grew the deficit more (including a stimulus package, although both Republicans and Democrats have played the stimulus and bailout game). And now we sit, $14+ trillion in debt which almost matches the GDP, currently spending $1.4 trillion more than we make, with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense making up the largest share of the debt.

Now government is waging a war over the debt ceiling, the equivalent of the arbitrary amount of money a compulsive gambler carries into a Vegas casino before inevitably losing it and taking out more with his credit card at the ATM.

Regardless of what you think of any of those policy moves, it's been a decade of rising deficits, rising spending, and declining rates of revenue under the leadership of both parties. And no one was able to act with any foresight to avoid the obvious truth: if nothing is done, the current path of the car is straight off a cliff; we just don't know exactly how far from it we are.

The Republicans won't let the car steer left by increasing revenues (even by simplifying the tax code and ending certain breaks and loopholes, much less returning to Clinton era tax levels, which certainly didn't halt the economy in its tracks in the 1990s. The Democrats refuse to let the wheel move right with spending cuts without getting rich people to go back to what they paid a decade ago or at least closing tax loopholes, even though new taxes couldn't begin to erase the current deficit because of still-rising spending.

So ahead we charge, with the leaders elected to make the right decisions are unable to do the right thing, thanks to either ideological rigidity or a paralyzing fear of losing office for not showing ideological rigidity.

Obama and Republican speaker of the House John Boehner finally put on their compromising pants on this week and actually agreed on principal on a deal that would cut $4 trillion of the ten the next 10 years, three fourths of that coming in spending cuts. Though no final solution, as $.4 trillion per year off a $1.4 and rising deficit, it's still a meaningful start. It was the first semblance of real compromise on the issue, and both could be blamed for it this long, either for Obama to come forward with any substantial cuts, or for Boehner to cave on just letting the government collect just a little more tax revue -- by closing loopholes, not raising tax rates, mind you. Like any compromise, no one got all they wanted.

Eric Cantor and the Republicans controlling the House find that unacceptable. You see it turns out these are crazy people. They want exactly ZERO new taxes, and for Dems to give them the moon. And they say House trumps Senate+White House, so they won't give an inch. Rep. Mitch McConnell's plan is being called by some as the most practical solution on the table (Not by everyone), and his idea is to put everything off until the 2012 elections. Basically tap the breaks and give them time to shove Obama out of the car. After all, he has said out loud that his primary objective is not fixing our fiscal nightmare but getting Obama out of office. Assuming the American middle is ready to vote to give the Duke brothers (I'm referencing Hazard County, not Randolf and Mortemer, though either could kind of works here) full control of this car after they threatened the entire global economy with a gun to Uncle Sam's head threatening to let him default.

Obama and the Democrats may have been weak, failing to get a budget passed and with a fast-rising deficit and being slow to address spending. But the (non-Boehner) Republicans have, despite control of just three key institutions, refused to give an inch, despite a deal on the table that would cut $3 trillion in spending. The debate over how much of absurd amounts of money rich people should contribute is a philosophical one, and one I will leave alone for now because the U.S.'s problems are beyond philosophical. They could claim a real, practical win, one that might even resonate with independents.Tax rates wouldn't even substantially rise. And yet, they won't budge.

The markets are unimpressed it turns out that even if the debt ceiling is raised, the likes of S&P and Moody's still could downgrade the U.S. credit rating. Apparently they don't trust the people driving the car either. (And these are the geniuses that couldn't realize that dozens of banks were propping up their balance sheets with fake, completely worthless assets because their models couldn't comprehend the concept of the value of a comodity -- housing -- going down.)

And why should they trust the drivers? We're heading off a cliff. And yet, even billionaires deciding over the fate of their toys seem to recognize that at some point, you swallow some pride, stop fighting over the wheel, and slam the breaks.

The House Republicans are banking that Americans won't recognize this. They should keep in mind that they can be pushed out of the car in 2012, too.

The Daily Show - Armadebtdon 2011 - The End of the World as We Owe it
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Learning on laptops proves more relevant, captivating to kids than cursive lessons

2011-07-07T15:21:00.001-04:00

The school district in Mooresville, North Carolina, created a 1-to-1 student to laptop ratio. They figured it'd take a while to get used to the technology and that scores wouldn't improve right away, but that eventually they'd be helped by more engaged students. They were of course wrong. Scores went up immediately.

This gets to the heart of the education debate (I'm currently working on a News 21 fellowship looking VERY deep into education). What are the core things that really need to change from the way our parents learned (as the system, in many places, still looks pretty similar). Hard to argue that technology relevant not only to kids now but also to their future jobs (if the economy hasn't exploded into a fiery ball of doom) isn't a positive thing to have in the classroom. Cursive, meanwhile, is falling by the wayside, to the dismay of basically nobody.

Portugal stops jailing drug users en masse; naturally, drug use declines

2011-07-07T12:01:00.000-04:00

And yet another blow to the war on drugs: Portugal managed to reduce drug addiction levels by lessening the punishment and using savings from the criminal justice system on innovative treatment.

Who would have thought throwing a drug user in jail to hang with other criminals doesn't produce clean-living individuals walking out the door of prisons? I was so sure that would work...

Don't raise your kids like an idiot; let bad stuff happen to them here and there

2011-07-01T04:05:00.002-04:00

This article fascinated me. In short, the classic stereotyped trend of the "wussification of America" gains a psychiatrist's backing. For parents or even possible future parents, this is an absolute must-read.

Basically, it said that you should make your child suffer, and if the child gets hurt or fails, you should do everything you can to make the child feel like crap.

Ok, overstatement, but when parents try to protect their kids from any form of discomfort, according to this psychologist, they become slow to develop the ability to deal with discomfort. Strangest thing. While not a scientific study, the insights and logic make a ton of sense. So don't micromanage your kids, because apparently, doing everything you can to make them constantly happy through childhood means the rest of their lives will suck by comparison.

Medill DC: Articles I wrote a bit ago about a nurse union rally and child sex slavery

2011-06-28T00:24:00.000-04:00

I know what you are thinking. It's been a while since I've updated the blog. Oh, yeah, and it is a strange combination of topics for a single post. Anyway, the links:

I covered a nurse union rally and spoke to Senator Bernie Sanders after he and Sen. Barbara Boxer addressed the crowd. Guess what? They don't like Republicans tinkering with Medicare. They'd like single-payer medicine, and that's simply an argument I don't have the will to get into this very moment.

And here is a blog post on the National Security blog about the child sex industry. It is not a pleasant topic.

More to come in the very near future as I have returned to Chicago for the summer. DC was a great part of the program, but it was also quite busy. I should be updating regularly. So check back soon.

When the Klan protests your hate group, maybe it's time to go home and re-evaluate

2011-05-30T18:43:00.000-04:00

Yup, Westboro Baptist Church was apparently counter-protested by, among others the Klu Klux Klan. Thankfully the world didn't instantaneously collapse into a black hole of ironic hate.

In case you were wondering, the WBC was dismissive of the KKK, saying it had no moral authority on anything.

Meanwhile the KKK leader said he wasn't a hatemonger or racist, but does believe that the white race is being denigrated. Oh, and in random non sequitur sentences in a news story that somehow oddly fit anyway: "Members of the group declined to say whether they were armed."

Fun crowd.

A mass murderer somehow finds the fortitude and gall to blatantly lie about it

2011-05-16T21:45:00.005-04:00

Still, the divorce between the facts and his logic are quite remarkable -- even for Muammar Gadhafi and his Merry Band of Goons -- as the world futilely tries to arrest the Libyan leader. Of course there is absolutely nothing to support his version of events anywhere. Honestly, I'd just once like to see a bad guy to come out, flip the world the bird, and say "yeah I did it, what are you going to do about it?" Maybe bust this Scarface speech out of the deep-freeze. I know it's wrong, but when a man this bad lies this ineffectively, I somehow find it strangely beneath him.

Not saying whether I would, but you could make arguments that the West shouldn't intervene. (Say, because it's illegal to bomb a country not attacking or posturing towards other nations and attempt to assassinate a leader, or because it's hypocritical to stop Gadhafi but not the increasingly murderous Bashar Al Assad over in Syria, or because his removal will result in perpetual civil war more damaging than Gaddafi's brutal crackdown and continued looting of his country). But it's pretty safe to say this lunatic deserves whatever he's got coming to him, and that the upside for Libya's future is much higher without him.

Go figure: Osama Bin Laden hid behind a wife as Navy SEALs shot at him

2011-05-03T01:00:00.002-04:00

UPDATE: Apparently he didn't actually hid behind a wife. Check here for latest on how that story came about.
----
Osama bin Laden found a new way to be loathsome even as he died, allegedly grabbing a weapon and hiding behind one of his wives during a firefight with some men decidedly better at firefights than he. Swell guy.

So while my initial post was jokes mixed with cynicism about over-celebration, lets remember that this guy was pretty much pure evil, utterly regardless of what you think of U.S. policy. He was a man whose organization not only killed many Americans, but even more Muslims. Many more. Not only that but his ideology was poison to so many disenfranchised people in the region.

My cynicism remains warranted; these last 10 years have been very ugly in many ways. Hopefully this is a turning point. (When Rush Limbaugh praises Barack Obama, I can believe anything.) And I will write more thoroughly on this later after we digest this a bit and the emotion settles. I think an internet moratorium on the topic is in order. For now, I agree with this Brit, and simply won't hold it against anyone who's openly happy he's gone. But we'd all do well to take the opportunity to recapture some perspective that a small terrorist group has stolen (if we ever really had it).

Bin Ladin's death accomplishes zero, so we may as well just get some cheap laughs

2011-05-02T00:18:00.006-04:00

Osama Bin Ladin has not even been running operations for Al Qaeda for a long time now. So his death this evening will be effectively meaningless from a practical standpoint. It's a nice moral victory and a chance for a bunch of people to write U-S-A! U-S-A! on their Facebook walls and being proud to be American as if they helped find him or as if this vengence were a nobler endeavor than, say, trying to cure cancer or make peoples lives better, stuff that happens every day. So I will sip a drink, merely be glad he's gone, and post some of the best material from a comedy standpoint I find on the web after the jump and a kick-starter South Park clip I immediately posted. Add to the comments section below.

My brother's facebook wall:

"U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

does this mean i can take my toiletries on an airplane now?"

My girlfriend's friend's wall (apologies: this joke has since been beaten into a bloody pulp online):

"They're saying that Osama Bin Laden is "confirmed dead" in Afghanistan. I don't believe it until Trump asks for the long form death certificate!"

Another friend's wall:

"To commemorate this breaking news, a favorite quote from the Hangover:

Alan: It's not illegal. It's frowned upon, like masturbating on an airplane.
Phil: I'm pretty sure that's illegal too.
Alan: Yeah, maybe after 9/11, where everybody got so sensitive. Thanks a lot, bin Laden."

Also FB:

"Clearly, Osama should not have used his real name and address when he signed up for his Sony PlayStation account. Oops!"

Deadspin commenters (Update):

Bevraj of Choice Sun 01 May 2011 11:50 PM
And I had April 2011 in my office pool./Bad Beats

Hatey McLife Mon 02 May 2011 12:06 AM
If anybody is worried, all seventy two virgins are piglets.(Edit commen

ursa @hatey McLife
I was hoping they were rabid weasels.

Gamboa Constrictor
Mon 02 May 2011 12:32 AM
I'll never forget that one Sunday night at 11, when the story of a vengeance killing had me glued to the TV for an hour.

Does anyone know when Dexter is coming back?

(Edit comment)

And of course the Twittersphere:

NZAfro Adam Hendra

R.I.P Osama Bin Laden - World Hide And Go Seek Champion (2001 - 2011)

Mr_Neurosceptic Kris

RIP Osama Bin Laden. At least he got to see the #RoyalWedding before he died a horrible death eh?
_South_Side_ Nate Dyles

Osama Bin Laden died playing the MJ Experience

ariefpermana50 arief permana

RT @DanaGub: RT @CallanMcAuliffe: Rest in discontent, Osama Bin Laden. We hope you died slowly.

imjamese James Schumacher

Osama bin laden is dead, but the middle east is nowhere near being at peace.

AllFreshAiric Eric R. Williams

Say that. RT @TheCreoleKing: Confirmed: Osama Bin Laden is dead. Also Confirmed: The ignorance of Americans...

BurgersNBitches Erik Brickz Hunter

I WONDER HOW WIT ALL DEM dAMN CAVES HE LIVED IN HOW THE FUCK CUDDNT OSAMA BIN LADEN GET ATE BY A BEAR OR SUM SHXT #CAVE AINWHATTHEYUSETABE

I think the last one gives you an idea of why looking through the raw Twittersphere for a given trending topic is mostly just a terrible idea. That element of Twitter should come with a warning: Could irreparably harm your faith in all mankind.

I will bookend this post with this Family Guy ode to Bin Laden and his cave. And as I posted on FB: "Come on, America. I'm happy too, but we (not me or you, of course, but the we that wins Super Bowls along with a whole city) killed a guy that has spent the better part of the last several years running around the third world not accomplishing anything. Act like you've been there before. (We have.)"

This event will get blown out of proportion in the coming days, but try to create some balance and find something more worthwhile to celebrate, like donating to charity, teaching a child something, helping a handicapped person across the street, or, say, comforting someone and helping them clean up their house that just got shredded into kindling by a tornado. Shouldn't be hard to beat a very well-trained soldier that just happened to be from your country putting a bullet in a fugitive.

Osama Bin Laden- Family Guy
Tags: Osama Bin Laden- Family Guy

National program Medicaid pays some states a LOT more than other states

2011-04-30T11:20:00.000-04:00

Most people see Medicaid as a national program that one would assume leaves the nation's poor getting relatively comparable treatment across the country. As you can probably tell merely by the way I phrased that sentence, that's not true. (Story on the Daily Caller here, Medill with a fancy graph here.) And as the debate heats up over what to do with our overblown, costly entitlement programs, this will be a big issue moving forward.

I analyzed the state-by-state breakdown on money spent on Medicaid in 2009 (most recent data available) by per capita, percentage of a state's GDP, or my personal favorite, dollars spent per person below the poverty line. States vary widely on how much they spend, and because Medicaid is a matching program, the federal government reimburses a percentage. So the more a state spends, the more it gets back from the federal government. In short, thriftier states end up subsidizing the spendy-er ones. Which makes sense. It's also a problem when states look to trim their budget deficit, and find they'd have to cut $2-$3 from Medicaid just to save $1.

MedillDC: KV Pharm asked women hoping to avoid premature births to save company

2011-04-28T16:05:00.001-04:00

A few people heard about KV Pharmaceuticals having a drug called Makena approved -- and then charging $1,500 a dose. Turns out that hacked off, well, pretty much everyone, including groups like March of Dimes that had helped push for the drugs' FDA approval. It appears that some women had been getting similar drugs mixed by their pharmacies for about $20 a dose. Lowering the price to $690 appeased basically no one. By the way, you generally need about 20 doses.

The story I found that hadn't been told was that KV Pharmaceuticals' financial statements would make Enron accountants uneasy. (Enron accountants would have of course found a way to mold those financials to indicate a vastly profitable enterprise, but that's not the point.) In fact, its story proved an extreme illustration of the volatility and questionable practices of the pharmaceutical industry. See said story at MarketWatch here. There is a sidebar/explainer here. Hopefully the Wall Street Journal picks it up but I'm not holding my breath. Medill has the story and sidebar here.

Why the response to leaders killing lots of people is different in Syria than in Libya

2011-04-27T23:59:00.001-04:00

(UPDATE: An edited and published version is right here.)

In February, Muammar Gadhafi started attacking his people to quell an uprising, eventually escalating to bombing his own cities with his air force. In March, the UN authorized a no-fly zone, and international forces shelled Gadhafi’s military with airstrikes within a matter of weeks of Gadhafi unleashing his full-throttle crackdown.

Later in the month, president Bashar al-Assad, facing his own people’s discontent over similar issues, ordered forces on the streets of his cities to put down protests. They gunned down scores of demonstrators. Hundreds have died. Western military leaders barely shifted in their chairs.

Is Syria not important enough to intervene on humanitarian grounds as Libya was deemed to be? According to David Schenker of the Washington Institute, Syria’s importance is actually what makes it untouchable from the outside.

“There is a greater fear of what comes next in Syria, which I think has hamstrung decision makers,” said Schenker, who served in the Department of Defense as country director for Syria among other countries from 2002-2006. “Libya was in a way a low hanging fruit. Even the Arabs by-and-large detested Gadhafi.”

Schenker echoed Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comments in late March that “Libya is not a vital interest.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. had a duty to help out NATO allies Britain and France, who were urging action, because those countries stood by the U.S. in Afghanistan.

But Syria’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah, along with its hostility towards Israel and contributions to the insurgency in neighboring Iraq mean the country, under the Assad family’s rule since 1971, has its hands on pretty much every major conflict in the region. On top of that, Syria is non-Arab, Shiite Iran’s closest ally in the region.

"Everybody in the region is concerned about the destabilization of Syria, even those who don't like Assad, because there is one thing he brings to the region: a certain kind of predictability and stability," Lebanon-based Middle East analyst Rami Khouri told Reuters.

Or, perhaps America’s most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger, said it best: “The Arabs can't make war without Egypt; and they can't make peace without Syria.”

But despite its hand in the region’s instability the Assad rule is a rock; its deposal seems to be the one thing that would make all involved parties uneasy.

Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas would obviously lose a crucial ally. But even the U.S. and Israel would be concerned if the government fell. They regard Assad – however meddling and selectively brutal – as predictable and reliable.

"However odd it may sound, the Israeli establishment has a certain sentiment for the Assad family. They kept their promises throughout the years and even talked about an arrangement with Israel on their terms," wrote Alex Fishman, a military affairs journalist for Israel's best-selling daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

He did add that anything ultimately weakening the axis of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would be a positive for Israel.

Schenker disputes the notion of Assad’s downfall causing things to get worse for the West. While Gadhafi had managed to anger virtually every regime in the region, Syria has used its central location in the contentious region by threatening to kick the hornet’s nest to get his way.

“Assad has traditionally blackmailed these Arab states, saying ‘Leave me alone and provide money,’ or they’ll send in Al Qaeda,” Schenker said.

While he admits major problems could arise from Assad’s fall – ranging from Sunni reprisals on the ruling Alawites to chaos creating a greater foothold for Al Qaeda – he didn’t think any ruling faction could do more to undermine peace or Western interests in the region. While he wrote “it perhaps goes without saying” that regime change shouldn’t be in the U.S.’s Syria playbook, he doesn’t think the U.S. should grant any kind of lifeline either.

It might not have to. An unnamed Western diplomat in Damascus told the New York Times one month ago: “It’s over; it’s just a question of time. It could be a slow burn, or Qaddafi-esque insanity over the next few days.” The words seem more prophetic by the day as both the protests and the crackdown escalate.

But whether Assad falls or not, the comparison between Libya and Syria shows how much more complicated international relations can be than a simple moral evaluation of options. Consequences must be weighed. Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. hesitates, weary of even expressing a desire for an outcome because of Syria’s crucial role in a fragile region.

Jacob Sullivan, State Department Director of Policy, told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. did not plan to recall its ambassador just five months into his stay (there had been none since 2005), and added that the department had not decided on imposing sanctions at this point.

“In the case of Syria, we have consistently and continued to condemn the brutal violence that’s being used against its citizens," Sullivan said.

He also said the future will be “up to the Syrian people.”

In other words, the U.S. is still not ready to do much to the guy with a foot on the hornets’ nest, and certainly not ready to kick it itself post-Iraq.

(This article was an assignment from my National Security Seminar class here in DC for Medill. It will also appear here at the Medill National Security Zone Blog once it is graded and edited...I will link it when it goes up. UPDATE: The edited version is right here.)

Six-year-old tries to re-enact scene from True Lies after taking gun to kindergarten

2011-04-19T18:18:00.000-04:00

You have got to be kidding.

Yes, apparently this happened. I hate to rely on cheap stereotypes, but... could you believe it was Texas? For now, lets holster the gun debate and simply agree that the parents should be strung up by their eyelids.

Also, I may be callous, I immediately wondered: how in the world did the kid drop the gun once and wound three kids, two in the foot and one in the leg? The logistics mystify me. Remember,True Lies is just a movie and this isn't what would happen...RIGHT!?

Leaders gain vague grasp of "persistant cripppling deficit," unlikely to do much

2011-04-19T01:35:00.002-04:00

Budget. Deficit. The federal governmnet being broke is about all anyone can talk about these days. (Oh, and Donald Trump, for some inexplicable reason.) But as usual, talk is cheap. Can anyone actually do anything?

Republicans control the House and would self-immolate before letting taxes rise. Democrats couldn't find a significant portion of a program for the disadvantaged they'd allow to be trimmed if Greg Mortenson was running it. Substantial political compromise before bus is actually flying off the cliff remains unfathomable for many, and there may not be a leader on earth strong enough to get Congress to be cooperatively proactive.

For context, the S&P sees trouble coming if Congress doesn't get it together. And if S&P's ability to spot glaring warning signs of the financial meltdown of 2008 early is any indication, my calculations suggest the U.S. should hit real fiscal disaster sometime around December 2010. (*Checks calender.*) #$%@*!

The Republicans have taken the lead on the issue. They have their "mandate" from the 2010 midterm elections. They have the "small-government" principles they stand for. And they are using those advantages to turn a major practical problem (too little revenue, too much spending) into an ideological war (lower both substantially, fight irrelevant fights like abortion with the threat of a shutdown).

Also, their new lead budget hawk is Paul Ryan. He voted for unfunded and very expensive Medicare D and an expensive war in Iraq, so he's obviously been deeply committed about the government keeping a balanced budget for, oh, about 30 seconds. And while the current situation is untenable, threatening not to raise the debt ceiling to push an agenda is akin to holding a beretta to the head of the U.S. economy.

Don't get all giddy, Libs; at least Ryan's bringing the ideas, even if it's to completely gash social programs while lowering taxes, mostly on the rich. I have yet to see the Congressional Democrat response plan to limit the budget, and in some cases, killed Obama's speech. Comedian Lewis Black's line "Republicans are a party of bad ideas, Democrats are a party of no ideas" comes to mind quite vividly.

Obama's speech was a nice, simple explanation of why we have a mess that everyone could understand, and seemed very rational and reasoned, like he was explaining it to a middle-schooler. He's good at that. And in fairness, is what many Americans need. Of course, speeches don't solve problems.

His plan is reportedly to get the deficit down to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2015 and knock $4 trillion of the debt in 12 years. So when I'm ready to turn 39 we'll only be about $10 trillion in debt, but it'll be cool because $10 trillion won't be worth as much by then. It's two years and $2 trillion less ambitious than Ryan's plan, but at least the president agrees that something pretty big has to be done. Pelosi and other liberal Dems, meanwhile, are fit to be tied because Obama doesn't play with them as much anymore.

That said, the president faces two tests that will define the rest of his presidency: can he be a strong enough leader to get parties to find a major compromise while Dems only control the Senate, and with 2012 elections coming, no less? And will the policies and projections in the eventual plans (including health reform) hold up without hurting the economy? Neither is a sure thing.

At least the Republicans have finally seemed to admit that these deficit problems stem from the Bush Era and Obama only piled onto a mounting debt. And at least Democrats, at least some of them, seem to realize that spending $1.5 trillion extra annually can't go on forever. I'm sure we'll all be focused on this battle for a while. I'm not going to advocate too many specifics at this point, but a couple ideas for starters that I've read about recently:

- Simplify the tax code, saving labor and creating fewer loopholes and more fairness: hell, use it to let both parties claim wins. Democrats can claim to close loopholes for the rich and even increase revenue while doing it. Republicans can lower the top tax rates and corporate income taxes they so loath. Everybody wins! (Or can say they did, which, lets face it, is really the point for a politician.)

- Stop paying for Medicaid like this. Seriously. The Cato Institute is Libertarian leaning, but it's hard to find ideological fault with this: in tight times, encouraging governments to spend more by matching contributions is insane.

I'll get to more ideas as we move along and we hear more about them. Add some of your own in the comments. The bottom line, though, is that we have a long fight ahead and when you try to pay down trillions in debt, some people are going to get pinched. Deal with it. Or make a few trillion appear out of thin air in a way that will not hurt the economy or social programs. Either way. Someone will do something politically unpopular, make people really mad, and probably harm innocent lives. Or worse, they won't do anything, making the eventual fall even harder.

-----

Oh, and go here if you have no idea where your tax money goes or originates for a crash course. (Interesting graphs even if you are vaguely aware.)

Short version: Most of our costs are in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Military; don't touch them, don't touch the deficit. Also, the rich are paying their lowest effective tax rates in decades, and apparently that doesn't magically make the economy good. Also, the rich still pay a huge proportion of the taxes already. So without a fundamental change in the percent of GDP the government takes in (traditionally stable) you can't get it all out of Mr. Moneybags anyway. And our corporate tax rates are high for the developed world. More to come in the weeks ahead.

MedillDC: Brass ignores Arlington hearing as Congress drills cemetery leaders

2011-04-16T02:10:00.004-04:00

So, as you can guess by the time stamp where I finally got around to posting, it's been tough to find a free moment here in DC to keep up with the blog.

In any case, the piece I did Thursday was featured by my client, Military Times, right here. (Medill here...with my photo; Finally I get my hands on a decent camera...to go to a hearing. Oh well, trying to add to the toolbox.) Basically, officials have been completely mismanaging the most prominent military cemetery in the nation for, oh, about two decades. You know, people buried in the wrong place, money missing. Apparently little has changed, and apparently, Congressmen aren't happy, especially Congressmen that happen to be Marine Corp vets. The woman in charge, decidedly bureaucrat-sounding, said little and was a bit defensive: not impressive.

Also, in case you missed it elsewhere, here's my first Medill DC post, where I cover a presser involving the staff of Gabrielle Giffords, another Congressman, and doctors talking about the under-attended and -funded issue of brain injuries, one getting more press due to the shooting, wars and football. (UPI version.)

Gaddafi and Co. are remarkably awful liars

2011-04-11T08:34:00.004-04:00

If consequences weren't so tragic, this would be hilarious. Non-human blood displayed for journalists at hospitals embarrassed even journalists' Libyan escorts. The bogus evidence of civilian casualties in international bombing campaigns was just one of several unbelievably transparent and, really, laughable attempts at PR from Muammar Gaddafi's regime. I really thought it was to the point where nothing new could be said about these people, but I was wrong.

Also, that regime has apparently agreed with the African Union's plan for a cease fire. I wonder if it'll be anything like the ceasefire Gaddafi proclaimed right before he started bombing the hell out of his country. We all know much of the AU loves him for the oil money he sends other dictators in Africa, so credibility on this would seem like it should hover somewhere around zero, but the rebels are mulling it over.

Economist: Islamists involved in Libya, but don't hate us as much as you think (really)

2011-03-31T14:49:00.001-04:00

I'll go into this further when I have more time, but for now, The Economist produced the best analysis of the role of Islamists in Libya that I've seen so far, and it's well worth the read. This captures the complexity and dangers of the people doing the fighting, but mostly it does support the premise that revolts in the Arab world, while they will have difficult transition troubles as well as Islamic influences, will not turn into a wave of anti-Western Islamists. Also, the numbers of militant Islamists appears relatively low. I found the stated goals of some of the Islamist fighters at the very end particularly telling.

In fact, it seems that military action in Libya has actually turned some Islamists' attitudes on the West to some extent. Many would lay down their arms after leaders like Gaddafi toppled, and that Al Qaeda, though they claim this to be a victory over "Western Imperialists", will have a very difficult time selling their extremism in a society even marginally more open than those of iron-fisted dictators. Which is pretty much what I (among others) have been saying.

Blogger moves to a new city, apologizes for neglecting blog

2011-03-27T21:36:00.000-04:00

Well, I've spent the last week moving to Washington DC from Chicago, and now my life is all set up and ready to go for the first week of the spring quarter tomorrow....sorta. But the good news is that a more normalized schedule might give me some more chances to update this blog.

You also might find some new postings related to my work here in Washington. I'll be covering health and science from downtown on G St. With any luck (skill is overrated) I will highlight Medicare budget issues, try to get traction on understanding the implications of ObamaCare, and dabble in a number of other issues relating to what is just about the most contentious and expensive element of government. Or whatever my editors/professors tell me to cover.

So now that your brackets are busted, we hopefully can resume our regularly scheduled programing.

Gaddafi sends Nigerian children to fight his war, pays them in IOUs

2011-03-03T14:49:00.001-05:00

I didn't think this situation could get much more surreal, but NPR reports a group of young fighters has been captured outside of Berga, Libya. And yes, the youngest was a 13-year-old boy from Nigeria.

The 11th most offensive part of this is that they had been "promised money and told everything would be fine." So they weren't even paid up front to confront an angry riot. Meanwhile, Anderson Cooper lays to rest any inexplicably remaining doubt about whether the Gaddafis are liars. Especially telling part in the end undercuts Gaddafi's smooth-talking son, who tries so hard to seem reasonable (in English).

How's that no-fly zone coming, world leaders?

Why obliterating Glenn Beck's absurdity is really a vital public service (and cathartic)

2011-03-03T01:06:00.000-05:00

On one level, I'm tired of it. It's boring. It's too easy, and intellectually beneath anyone worth paying to think or talk. Glenn Beck is an entertainer. He has never completed a semester of college and based on his rationale, remains averse to intellectual curiosity. Trashing Glenn Beck doesn't make you smart, your ideas right, or your blog special. It requires the cognitive capacity of a chimpanzee.

Also, he's a coward. His only barometer for success is ratings and money. He refuses to appear on a non-Fox show to be challenged. No one outside of his ideological niche has even begrudging respect for his intellect.

But we have to keep blasting him. Because he keeps spouting crazy, and now an old lady getting death threats over an article written 45 years ago. Because Beck ranted about it.

Beck was probably just lazy. He probably knew nothing about Frances Fox Piven, but got a hold of an old article and his crazy paranoid brain wove a narrative. Without any other ideas for his next segment, he probably figured he could scare his audience, one too lazy to fact check views compatible with their preconceived notions, and in cases, too full of misplaced rage to hold back from sending threatening emails to her. The only thing that can be said for Beck is that he did not advocate violence, as Piven admits. But if not calling for violence is his only defense for an unwarranted attack, that says it all.

It's banal. Insane. Useless. And yet people keep watching Beck dribble down his fancy suit. Of course the Westboro Church has reminded us this week, freedom of speech is borderline absolute in this country, no matter how socially harmful the message seems to be. And I wouldn't change that for the world. But the difference is that Westboro is regarded almost universally as a bag of insensitive crackpots that are almost universally hated and incapable of pulling any kind of real audience. Beck, on the other hand, has legions of loyal watchers. So he's more dangerous. Regardless of whether you like his core tenants (small government, fiscal conservatism, etc), which isn't in and of itself bad, his methodology, logic, tactics (chalk-board and crying on air) and integrity (will not be interviewed off Fox where his ideas can be challenged) are deplorable for a man with total financial security.

Making fun of him is easy (why else do my first post on this blog on people like him?), but tiresome. Plus, it takes attention away from actual good ideas. It'd be nice to disregard him and his followers as a harmless fringe groups, kind of the way we do neo-Nazi's and the KKK. But he actually has pull. He can't be ignored. He infests the confused and mentally feeble with his lunacy and enrages them.

And there's not much we can do about it. Will deconstructing every wretched argument erode his credibility and his value to Fox? Probably not. Most of the time, complaining about him does little more than give us a false sense of intellectual stature because we can completely run mental circles around a guy paid to talk about politics on TV. Even if he's a moron.

But even so, lots of awful ideas have died out in the past, so hopefully, we can keep followings of Beck and others like him from reaching critical mass by making their incapacity for thinking as obvious as possible. So, for the good of the advancement of the human race, we've got to at least try.

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, this video on Egyptian revolt is an encyclopedia

2011-02-24T23:17:00.000-05:00

This is a tremendous report from PBS capturing the revolt in Cairo from the perspective of some of its organizers. The piece combines some of the best demonstration footage, behind the scenes interviews and footage illuminating the motives and mindsets of its engineers ("I have three PhD's in stubbornness and 2 PhD's in not leaving Tahrir Square!"), and stunning videos of security force brutality, and the result is quite the compelling video.

I know at this point that even if you care a lot, you might be suffering revolution overload, but this video adds something that articles and even news shorts can't. And it's important that we watch some of the more graphic elements of these revolts/wars. It's one thing to read about something, but well-done video makes the horror and inspiration both so much more difficult to ignore.

If you can't afford to watch the whole thing, here's a sampling.

Gaddafi is a terrible crazy-person and Nourenburg treatment is too good for him

2011-02-24T11:33:00.000-05:00

Seriously. No joke. Also, he think's we're really really stupid...or he just has no clue how anything works. I'd say his war crimes trial would be the most open-and-shut ever if I thought he could be taken alive.

Also, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just broke his own record for hypocrisy.

That is all.

Should Al Qaeda hate the ouster of the U.S. ally more than the U.S.? (Probably)

2011-02-22T03:32:00.001-05:00

Tunisia revolted against its power and money hoarding leader. He left. Egypt, inspired, said, "hey, we have an even crappier autocratic despot...why not us?" So they rioted. No more Mubarak. Meanwhile, the rest of the Arab world has basically looked at all this and said, "Wait, you can do that?!?!"

Libya, Bahrain, Iran and Yemen are in flux, and any oppressed people with a semblance of access to information (international media attention helps too: ask sub-Saharan Africa) knows that fighting and even overthrowing some pretty overwhelming dictators in power for decades now falls in the realm of the possible. Of course, this flies directly in the face of a core message of Al Qaeda, which said only violent Islamic jihad could thwart oppressive rulers in Arab nations. Oops.

Despite Muammar Gaddafi vehement disagreement, Pandora's Box can't be shut now. (His war crimes trial will be quite the event...almost as much of a "it'd almost be funny if it wasn't sickening" moment as Ahmadinejad claiming solidarity with the revolt in Egypt while repressing his own uprisings.)

It turns out that in places like Egypt, we had an ally in Mubarak, one who jailed opposition, prohibited a free press or discourse of any kind, and rigged elections as unemployment and disenfranchisement overran the country. We liked him because he dropped the hammer on Islamists and Al Qaeda while playing relatively nice with Israel. Of course he also laid the hammer down on everyone else, but the U.S. didn't want to rock the boat. You know, because of the first things.

Well, go figure; al Qaeda used situations exactly like that to argue U.S. oppression, and said that corrupt, U.S. influenced rulers like Mubarak needed to be destroyed... their way. Well, instead of dropping bombs to end a corrupt regime we dropped Twitter and Facebook. The region produced Al Jazeera in CNN's likeness, giving the region a credible source of news to talk about and mobilize around on Twitter and Facebook. With those institutions leading the way, a throng of young activists in two nations (and counting) have found a way to demonstrate with enough resolve to end two leaders who had consolidated power for decades. In a mere matter of a month or two.

Pinning this solely on Facebook and Twitter is obviously too simplistic. It was the confluence of information technology, a media outlet that has become a regional powerhouse, and some long-brewing tension over non-existent economic prospects for a growing young population in countries where virtually all notable wealth was controlled by a select few, a oligarchy of nepotism, patronage and bribes.

Absent from list of direct causes: Religion. Absent from the gripes of the protesters: Religion.

Al Qaeda, as has been pointed out by multiple outlets, has had a core tenant undercut in a big way. The organization is defined by violence. And it thrives on the disenfranchised. Who else would buy into strapping a bomb across his chest being the ultimate life achievement? U.S. actions have already long weakened the organization itself, chasing it to the most remote regions in the world, from where it hasn't really made any kind of truly successful attacks in years. Arab opinion of the group is still very negative. And though not universally negative, it's hard to imagine the group doing better in this new order, with the local source of popular anger out of power.

Don't get me wrong. We aren't going to see a bunch of new secular democracies that love us branching out. This is still a very religiously conservative region with a lot of current gripes and leftover distrust with regard to the West. Some of it is residual propaganda from terror groups or leaders that blamed meddling when things went wrong. Some of it is well-founded. In addition, there are still massive logistical problems to be overcome. Elections still need to be held. Inexperienced leaders will have to establish new institutions amid a bevy of interests, foreign and domestic, looking to help fill a power void. And as democracies have shown, freely elected leaders can and do lie their asses off and steal, too.

But when a situation gets bad enough, there can be a peaceful firing of that leader after a few years, rather than decades of stagnation and backwards activity. And even if groups aren't represented in government, they will be able to at least speak out, allowing problems to surface before reaching a boiling point. No, I can't say HOW MUCH more freedom of speech, press or assembly the next leaders in these countries will allow. But it'd be pretty hard for them to allow less. Especially now that the people there have tasted it.

The U.S. chose the path of stability and what it perceived as the lesser of two evils. But as I said before, that option is now obsolete. Continuing to meddle, despite an increasingly informed and connected public would build more resentment against another puppet regime. If the U.S. even lobbies for a particular leader that takes power, the ammunition for anti-Western terror groups arguing U.S. repression will remain unless that person miraculously ends the nation's poverty and strife.

Really there is just one choice: if the U.S. would just sit back, say the right things, and let the chips fall rather than try to control them all, they might find that self-determination has a broader appeal than religious zealotry and violence, not just in the West, but in humanity. Sounds naive and idealistic, right? So did a non-violent revolt toppling two regimes that had lasted decades, with more on the way. That would have sounded ridiculous...in December.

I have a high school classmate that has been involved in protests Egypt. But you don't have to know someone to have humanized for you these people many Americans used to know only through pictures of street riots, ones usually protesting the U.S., on news reports whenever bad things happened. Look at Facebook, Tweets, and message boards on places like Al Jazeera. These desires to not be oppressed aren't culturally unique, they are a basic component of humanity. We will still disagree on a lot. And again, there are a bunch of things that could prevent a truly happy ending for these nations, things the West should look out for and try not to contribute to. Al Qaeda being elected president isn't one of them.

Egypt - Dictator = ETERNAL HAPPINESS + FREEDOM... uh, not so fast, my friends

2011-02-18T03:33:00.001-05:00

With the fall of Hosni Mubarak, an autocratic ruler governing with an iron fist and rigging elections, Egypt's populous movement seems to be regarded as an unequivocal success. The military refrained from violence, refusing to truly put down the rebellion, keeping the respect of the people, and promising a transition to democracy.

Well, as a this New York Times article points out, Egypt's not all sunshine and rainbows. Turns out the military kind of runs a big chunk of the economy, tax free. And it has interests in keeping free-market proponents out of the way. And it now has control of the government and is in charge of setting up elections.

The sky isn't falling, but better keep an eye on this. There is a lot of vacated power. The military has gotten a pass so far, but like in any country, it is still one of a diverse array of interest groups competing to fill the void.

Zakaria puts Egypt's future into context

2011-02-04T00:27:00.000-05:00

So my last three posts have gone into depth on the uprisings in Egypt, and I might have followed up by looking at prospects for democracy in Egypt. Then Fareed Zakaria posted this broad overview on Time.com and saved me the effort.

Zakaria implements much more detailed, researched, and nuanced historical and cultural context, and gets deeper into what happens after Mubarak. That said, his points supported my previous basic premises: Mubarak is effectively gone, rolling back the clock will prove imopossible, Egypt is not Iran, Egypt is pluralistic, U.S. problematic policy faces new realities and will be forced to change course, and anyone who thinks they know exactly how this all will turn out is full of it. Interesting facts/thoughts from the article:

- Egypt was actually growing rapidly economically thanks to at least some modernizing economic reforms, but as many political scientists would note, elements of reform often provide the sparks of revolution.

- Egypt is still overwhelmingly conservative socially: "Pew found that 82% of Egyptians support stoning as a punishment for adultery, 84% favor the death penalty for Muslims who leave the religion, and in the struggle between "modernizers" and "fundamentalists," 59% identify with fundamentalists." (That last stat is misleading, as the 59% comes out of only those who answered "yes" to whether there was such a conflict.)

- But it's not as simple as you'd like to think: "A 2007 poll found that 90% of Egyptians support freedom of religion, 88% an impartial judiciary and 80% free speech; 75% are opposed to censorship, and, according to the 2010 report, a large majority believes that democracy is preferable to any other kind of government." So tough to pigeonhole this group.

- The army has a longstanding tradition as a secular force, and could provide a check against religious extremists. (See: Turkey.)

- The above point illustrates a historical pressence in Egypt of an historically liberal streak that is in some ways, unique to the region. And it wants to keep up economically with the West.

- The courts have a tradition of their own: asserting their own independence even under dictatorships, further demonstrating it has building blocks for "liberal constitutional order."

- Islam might have long been a comforting resort for disenfranchised population in Egypt, largely because it was repressed. But now fundamentalits, in a more open society, will have to compete in the "marketplace of ideas" and will have to work to retain unquestioning loyalties if a freer country emerges.

- As an organic, homegrown revolutions without U.S. as a direct cause or influence, Tunisia and Egypt populous movement represent a completely different from Iran, making them possibly, Zakaria says in a not-veiled reference to the premise of his book, "the first post-American revolutions."

Hard to argue with most of it. Good summary, Fareed. Even with the cheesy plug for your terminology and book at the end.

U.S.'s poblematic, self-effacing Arab policy now obsolete...That's a good thing, right?

2011-02-02T20:37:00.001-05:00

The United States has a questionable history of policy in the Middle East. This cannot be debated. Thanks to the most recent developments in Egypt (which have been followed extensively by Americans in traditional outlets as well as, increasingly, through Al Jazeera's English website.) the average American knows a thing or two. First, it knows that the U.S. has been giving a lot of help to a leader that rigs elections and ruthlessly maintains power through tactics considered anathema to American ideals. Sure, we had reasons, but the hypocrisy is now a talking point.

But, as previously noted, the game has changed. Now the U.S. must face some new realities, because the Arab world it clumsily operated in before will never be the same. It would behoove the U.S. to act accordingly.

It would be wrong to try to make Egypt's and Tunisia's revolts about the United States, especially as reports emerge of Mubarak supporters getting violent. But American policy remains too important to be ignored. As with many regimes in the area, the U.S. chose to ally itself with an Egyptian government with poor democratic and human rights records.

Over the course of history, the U.S. has chosen such governments as the lesser of two evils for a variety of reasons, even supporting fascist regimes to avoid the alternative. For a while, it was communism. Later, it was merely economic stability or willingness to agree (read: vote in the UN or provide military support) with the U.S. on global issues. Egypt, like many Arab oil countries, falls into that category. Additionally, the Egyptian (among others) government's willingness to fight Islamic extremism provides another reason for the U.S. to look the other way, or at least hesitate before chastising an "ally."

So the U.S. does things like drop $1.3 billion on Egypt in military aid alone, thanking it for helping mediate the Israel-Palestine dispute, banning the Muslim Brotherhood as a political party and willfully cracking down on Al Qaeda, not to mention being a stable trading partner (surprisingly not oil to a huge degree) and Suez Canal operator. What Mubarak does to keep himself in power (hold the press under his thumb, ban opposition parties, rig elections) is his business. (You know it's bad when 27 year CIA vets are taking shots at Middle East policies.)

Obviously, there are long term flaws with this theory. Especially if, as mentioned, the people not only gain the tools to learn about this arrangement but the tools to organize a revolt almost instantly once another country in the region living under similar political oppression shows it's possible.

So the U.S., which made its choice, now has a new set of realities. After invading Iraq proclaiming the virtues of democracy, it sits on the sidelines with little it can do as democracy tries to erupt all over its long-time buddy.

The U.S. position has come under heavy criticism. Rightfully so. Often the criticism ignores the extreme difficulties and complexities of diplomatic relations; getting anything done usually involves pragmatic give-and-take, and getting everything just the way you like according to all your principles while still looking out for your nation's security and economic well-being generally proves impossible. And stability is often valued over virtue. Doesn't mean it was correct, just more difficult that it's presented.

Regardless of where the blatant U.S. hypocrisy sat on the spectrum between unconscionable on one side and justified from a "means to and end" or "lesser of two evils" perspective on the other, the sands have shifted.

There is no debating that there will be some blowback; the U.S. choose to overlook certain Egyptian government abuses, and the Egyptian people know it. It's why the people there have an incredibly low favorability rating of the U.S.

So now what? Propping up Mubarak is no longer possible (thankfully, many would reasonably say). Americans are clamoring for support of a new democracy in Egypt. With the damage done by old policies, this will hurt relations, at least temporarily. And yes: the Muslim Brotherhood will openly operate.

But this is not Iran. (Especially if the U.S. doesn't support Mubarak as long as it supported the Shah as he was in Mubarak's position.). This is a new age. This revolt was prompted on Twitter, not by clerics. This revolt was not prompted primarily by religious grounds. The Muslim Brotherhood has internal divisions on the roll of political Islam. Egypt is a complex, diverse country. While extremists bombed Coptic churches, many Muslims rallied in support.

The U.S., if for no other reason than the fact that it has no other choice, has to support it's own values. Mubarak is effectively gone. There will be a new government in place. Stability will require the people to gain a say in government. And yes, the Muslim Brotherhood will have a role. But in the new age, the information age, it is impossible to support the kind of puppet government we have, as long as a country remains online and, therefore aware. The internet, and to no small extent Al Jazeera, will change the region forever.

The good news is that Western Democracy, to an extent, is finally making it to the Arab world. Go figure: militarily invading Iraq wasn't the catalyst; Facebook and Twitter played the central U.S. role. (This should save us money next time.) The West doesn't deserve credit for "inventing" the sentiment for the push towards democracy in Egypt. We just got there first. What is happening in Egypt is simple: a group realized that a government, one with all the political, economic, and military power that was not nearly as interested in serving the interests of the people as it was staying in power, isn't ideal, and, more importantly, it can be overthrown with the aid of modern technology.

Some say other nations don't WANT a Western democracy (or republic), for cultural reasons. Garbage. There is nothing cultural or Western about not wanting a small group of people to control an entire nation's resources, and rule without regard for its people. Being able to peaceably vote out leaders, stop one entity from becoming all-powerful, and allow free flow of information are nothing but logical extensions of that desire. It might not look just like a Western republic, but Egypt will (hopefully) gain some of these natural extensions, ones that will become more known and desired as the information age continues to change our world.

Can I say definitively that Islamists won't try to take over and aim another Iran, despite claims to the contrary? No. But I am saying that there is no evidence supporting that outcome because it is not Iran, the U.S. hasn't (and shouldn't) step in to support Mubarak, and the primary leaders of the revolt are not Islamist (i.e. Komeini). And just as importantly, this is not 1979.

Journalism crucial when someone doesn't want people watching: Mubarak attacks

2011-02-02T18:49:00.002-05:00

I still have my promised piece on the evolution of U.S. policy as it relates to the Egypt uprisings ready, save for some final edits and linking. But developments require further comment before we get onto that, ones with immediate and critical implications.

Mubarak has shut down Al Jazeera's Cairo Bureau. Anderson Cooper has become the highest profiled case of violence towards journalists, but reports are streaming in everywhere of cameras being broken and journalists being attacked, by and large by pro-Mubarak protesters. From reports it seems a purposed attempt to target the profession, and you don't have to be a genius to guess why a government might want to get rid of the people who present the events in a turbulent situation to the world.

The journalism profession has taken its beating over the last several years. But this case shows how important a free press remains. Even in a relatively wired country (20 million internet users) where plenty of people have devices capable of recording events, the pro-Mubarak rioters are trying to throw a blanket over whatever they plan on doing as they attack protesters. (Either that or they think journalists are leading the protests and controlling the army.)

If the regime wasn't afraid of what the images would look like to its people and the world, there would be no reason for this. I'll be honest; I am completely shocked that the regime is doing this, and I've got major worries about what it may have in store. As I pointed out, the military is not likely going to engage in a massacre and the internet blackout has failed as a deterrent to protesters. Whatever happens, there will be pictures and witnesses. What can the regime be thinking?

There is a big difference between restricting political freedom and jailing dissidents and trying to maintain control of a country in this current state. Mubarak must think he can hang onto power, intimidate and get rid of journalists, and beat back the protests with violence. He must hope this buys him some time, reduce the will to protest through fear and sheer logistics of maintaining the demonstrations amid attacks for prolonged periods, and eventually survive until new elections. Maybe he even thinks he can rig another one and win, who knows. Makes as much sense as thinking he can hide whatever it is he's about to do.

Because in this new media world, stopping Anderson Cooper and Al Jazeera will not stop the flow of information. So the effort is due to fail. But it doesn't mean there won't be more bloodshed. Hopefully journalists are able to find a way to stay safe (relatively-speaking) and continue to provide the deterrent of eyes on Mubarak's thugs. And lets hope Mubarak sees how futile the efforts are, especially with a reluctant military, before his supporters, either on his orders or on their own, REALLY start getting violent.

No matter what anyone wants to see happen there in the long term, we certainly want journalists to be able to tell us about it. Otherwise, those willing to resort to bloodshed will do just that.

The second domino in a whole new game: Egypt, Tunisia alter history of region, world

2011-02-02T04:31:00.001-05:00

Tunisia was a huge story. A country under a repressive government rises up and kicks it out. But Egypt is the 15th most populous nation on earth. It sits uniquely at the center of the Arab world, from a geographic, cultural, social, and foreign relations standpoint. Some very large questions are soon to be answered, and they have some epic, global consequences.

I've gorged myself on analysis like everyone else. And best I can tell about what's going to happen: Nobody knows. History can't tell us a thing. The end result can't be predicted, except by accident. You're more likely to go find a penny stock to drop a grand in to become a millionaire. Here's why.

First of all, what we know:

Hosni Mubarak choices, but none of them are good. At least from his perspective.

He can try to implement placating reforms, and continue to replace everyone in the government except the one person people are most angrily rioting against. At first, he let his people know that the choice was between him and chaos/anarchy, but that claim was pretty much invalidated when it turned out much of the chaos was being fed by his own officers. Finally, he's decided he won't run for re-election in September. But even that has not appeased protesters, who don't want him hanging around even that long.

He theoretically could cling to power and order the army to attack. Initially feared by some after a brutal police response, this now pretty much off the table, since the army said it won't do it. The (conscription, widely-respected) army has done quite well in terms of getting along with the protesters, even playing mediator in disputes, so plenty of observers doubt the army would even obey an "Operation Tienanmen Square" type order.

Or can give up and run away to "Exile Island," giving the people what they want (aside from his head on a stick). This is probably where he's eventually heading regardless.

The real question is what the military does, because it is the only organization that can break the stalemate. So far, the anti-Mubarak protesters like their chances.

Now, all of that makes for a crazy story. A story that played out recently in Tunisia. But a country with Egypt's importance to the region and the U.S. represents another animal entirely. Additionally, Tunisia's Ben Ali fled in short order. This battle of wills has been a less-lopsided affair (despite his squirming, Mubarak remains defiant).

But the bigger issue: What does this mean for other countries? The Arab world, no matter the outcome, enters a new era. With Tunisia and Egypt, we see the first open, revolutionary protests to gain traction in the Arab world in the Bahrain uprisings in the mid-1990s, where Shia majority revolted against Sunni rulers.

This is a different kind of revolt, one without a core religious or sectarian motive. In my last post on Tunisia, I referenced an article that made the case that Tunisia would not start a domino effect, based on historical cases of requirements for a revolution. As I casually suggested, there are elements that make this era incomparable to others on certain levels. This proved to be more correct than I could have imagined.

This is the information age; the internet has proven an impossible genie to put back in the bottle. And nowhere is that more of a game-changer than in the Arab world, where restricting the flow of information and political discourse while hammering down opposition with impunity is as ingrained into the government instruction manuals as nationalizing oil production.

This region has simply not had to care about the will of the people for a long time. Collecting all the oil revenue for the state and making nice with America pretty much gave leaders all the capital and power they could ever need. Civil rights? Why? And in that atmosphere, a unique culture has developed that will react to the kind of information out there for citizens in ways it has never been before (thanks internet and Al Jazeera). Information began to leak past iron-clad regimes to heat the pot, and what we are seeing now is a boiling point.

As such, the result of Egypt's revolution will tell us a lot. And the process of rebuilding the governments in Tunisia and Egypt will be even more important. Can they build a competent government relatively responsive to social and economic conditions with some semblance of accountability (complete with press freedoms) and/or balance of power? This question will determine the success of these protests (and show other nations how possible it may be to replicate said revolts).

And if we have learned anything from literature on culture from the region, it is that Egypt, like any country of about 90 million, is a very diverse place with a lot of opinions and interests. How will they fill the power vacuum left by one man and his party? There are so many factors it is mind-numbing. But considering the premise of this revolution has revolved around economic reform and fighting government censorship, abuse, and one-party rue, I'd say that's a good place to start for new core guiding principals.

These could continue to develop across the region; there are no shortage of somewhat comparable circumstances in the area, and success in Egypt would provide a similar boost as Tunisia did Egypt. While it is true that those who aren't familiar with history are doomed to repeat it, you have to look at the right history. And there are no perfect parallels for Egypt's attempted (and seemingly successful) revolution.

(My next post, basically already written, digs into U.S. policy in the region, and why it cannot remain static. It will be coming very soon.)

Tunisia riots already spreading; Game changer, or is Tunisia only domino?

2011-01-18T12:43:00.000-05:00

By now (if you read news) you are undoubtedly aware of the unrest in Tunisia. (This is possibly your first realization that there is in fact a country called Tunisia.) It is no secret that a lot of countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa deal with many of the issues Tunisians have rioted against: a heavily-restricted economy leading to slow growth and high unemployment, authoritarian regime allowing no true freedoms, and a government that's pro-Western

Well, Tunisia finally had enough, and its ruler ran away. Now, adding to unrest in North Africa, people as far away as Jordan are protesting in the streets as well. Could this really be the beginning of a series of revolutions in the Arab world? Let's not get ahead of ourselves....

Yes, Arab leaders are worried. And there are some monumental events transpiring with deep root causes. Before we can accurately evaluate possibilities, a couple things to watch for as this situation need to play out:

1. Other Arab leaders' reactions: do they A) start to appease the people with economic reforms and social programs that improve quality of life and ensure basic needs? They can afford it. Or do they B) crush the first imitators so brutally as to dissuade the next wave? Their military might can accomplish it. Sure it might be a major PR hit abroad, but the U.S. in all likelihood wouldn't be in a position to do too much to deter them. After all (as the Telegraph article above notes) the US and Europe lessened pressure to democratize one of Europes biggest trading partners in exchange for Ben Ali's government keeping a tight grip on Al Qaeda after 9/11.

2. What happens in Tunisia: does the president's departure lead to anarchy? This was a problem initially. Or will the people filling the void succeed with enough reforms, allowing for more socially responsible and responsive policies if not something resembling democracy? Or will they make token gestures, declare the problems resolved and themselves legitimate rulers, and proceed with option 1. B). If Tunisia descends into chaos or simply reverts to thinly-veiled quasi-totalitarianism, protesters will be discouraged and wonder, why bother? Right now, it depends on how you look at it. The new government has announced reforms and new freedoms, but critics argue that its made up of other members of the long-ruling party and will be no different.

Obviously Iran went with 1. B)-conforming brutal suppression when protests erupted after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election. But that was a political crisis with economic roots, whereas this was an economic crisis with political roots. In Tunisia, people rioted over unemployment among college graduates and the price of bread, and have reached a point where lighting oneself on fire is not out of the question. And with other countries stirring, it's enough to raise hope that governments will at least make some positive moves and loosen the reins on economic activity, at least. After all, not being able to eat does a lot better job at prompting action than not being able to speak out against a government.

But before you run down that train of thought to a conclusion about the future, here is a devastatingly sobering and historically articulate counterpoint suggesting that this thing isn't going beyond Tunisia's borders, at least as far as meaningful change is concerned. As Josef Joffe points out in the article, Tunisia hardly represents typical economic or educational standards in the Arab world. Oil is not the dominant industry as in other countries. Even with a strangled economy per capita GDP put it well-above average for the region, and the economy is somewhat diverse. Education levels and urbanization levels are also substantially above par. Joffe connects all of these points and looks at the past of other nations, finding that not only does Tunisia fit a historical mold for increased democratic reform, but also that most other Arab nations lack the same qualifications and necessary attributes.

But maybe that's an overly simplistic view. Sure enough, the man who lit himself on fire has found imitators in Algeria, Egypt, and Mauritania. Granted, a few people setting themselves on fire won't do a thing to harm those in power. Yet it is obvious that standards factors leading to change will, in this day and age, change. This is among the first incidents of serious national unrest driven by social media, and as far as I can tell, the first inspired at least in part by WikiLeaks*. (See previous NY Times link.) Governments are scared, people inspired. And if a few implement even the most basic, placating reforms, this development might have a positive regional impact. Or pseudo-reforms might buy time for it all to die down before rulers return to old ways.

(I know I promised a WL article, but this does go to one point I would have made: I didn't find anything in WikiLeaks shocking from a U.S. perspective. I thought Jon Stewart nailed it when he said that Julian Assange underestimates the cynicism for our government we Americans already have. And I definitely thought that other governments had a LOT more to worry about from the fallout than any Western powers like the U.S.)

There are a bevy of obstacles to real regional reform. Crucial to all of that is how the situation in Tunisia itself plays out. Another article in The New Republic makes a case for lessons on how the U.S. and international community should react by comparing Tunisia to Iran... 1979 Iran. When the secular, non-democratic, repressive, pro-US Shah, was overthrown, Khairi Abaza writes, there were liberal elements in Iran that joined forces with Islamists, only to be cast off once they were no longer useful. Obviously seeing Tunisia, currently an Islamic state but pretty tolerant culturally with constitutional freedom of religion, turn into a rigid theocracy like Iran would be a sad turn for this story. Abaza makes the case that the U.S. shouldn't allow Ben Ali's replacement to replicate his authoritarian policies without objection.

The U.S. would certainly do well to support liberalization in the region, but needs patience. As Neil MacFarquhar pointed out in his book, America can't expect reform to look how America wants it to look; it has to be unique and culturally appropriate. It might not look exactly the way it wants (Islamic parties would have to be able to participate too, for example) but supporting agents of positive change in these types of countries has to be the primary purpose of policy.

The World Economic Forum ranks Tunisia the 32nd most competitive economy out of 139 countries despite heavy restrictions and taxes, by far the highest-ranked African nation, thanks to a diverse economy, the quality of education and, until now, security and economic stability. It can't rely solely on oil, has an educated base, is relatively moderate culturally, and is apparently a great, cost-effective tourist spot. The country actually has a lot going for it. If it can't succeed in generating some positive development through its uprisings, it would show just how far the region, and other countries in it facing even more obstacles, has to go.

Obviously there is a lot to watch unfold.

Roger Ebert puts HuffPo in it's place

2011-01-15T16:21:00.001-05:00

Roger Ebert tweeted something. Someone called him on it. And he admitted a mistake. Of course since it involved the word "nigger," Huffington Post felt the need to cover A TWITTER EXCHANGE as a controversy. Ebert's response pretty much sends HuffPo to the mat for the ten-count on the issue.

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said about a publisher's move to replace the word with "slave" in a new edition of Huckleberry Finn, a pretty universally decried move. Ebert hammers home why why the word is a crucial part of the books dynamic. The Daily Show's "Senior Black Correspondent" Larry Wilmore pretty much hammers the point home of why the words don't mean the same thing (I died laughing on this one) and Sean Ferrell added this argument that, talks about the cultural import of the word, and points out that the motive for the move is cowardice. We have no business altering any literary masterpiece in such a substantive way, and it'd be nice if we could talk about serious issues like grownups rather than shield ourselves and our children from history.

Palin confused by the concept of "nuance," didn't listen to a damn word we've said

2011-01-12T17:34:00.004-05:00

Alright, looks like we all jumped the gun slamming Palin, because she shot back today (figuratively, of course: SARAH LOVE PEACE). And now it seems we had spoken too soon.

We were all WAY too easy on her.

Claiming something called "blood libel," she asserts that the only person to be criticized in any way, ever, is the gunman. No expression of regret for the irony of her gun-scope on Giffords' seat. No contemplation that the "good party vs. evil party" model she promotes isn't the most effective problem-solver or bridge-builder. Not even an empty claim of "we should be more civil." You know, a mere gesture out of respect for the WOMAN SHE DEMONIZED THAT'S NOW IN A HOSPITAL BED WITH A HOLE IN HER SKULL. (If you think that's harsh, wait 'til the analogy/story at the end of this post)

Her inability (or choice not to) understand nuance is astounding. Someone needs to explain for the 40th time the difference between blame and a request to exercise responsibility.

You see, Sarah, that regardless of politics, many of us are capable of drawing a line. We think that while we disagree with people, we can respect them, and believe that their ideas came from a general belief that they would help our country, and that at heart, they mean well. So we disagree, even use satire, or, in a weak moment, even resort to hyperbole without giving proper context or disclaimer.

You, however, simply draw the line at the person who turned words to violence. You will make up death panels and claim Democrats are trying to ruin America, but draw the line at actual acts of violence, blaming the shooter and none of the people that made exaggerated claims as to how dangerous certain politicians are and how much they want to destroy "your" America. Talk doesn't kill, only actions, right?

Fair enough. Except, of course, when YOU are the person being demonized. NOW words can incite violence. Now the people asking you questions about how rhetoric played into this tragedy are mean-spirited and potentially violence-inciters. But Sarah, I thought only irrational psychos kill people and deserve 100 percent of the blame when they do! THAT'S WHAT YOU LITERALLY JUST SAID!

Jared Loughner did not shoot up a random grocery store. He did not shoot up a mall. He did not shot up a school. He shot up a political rally. He shot a Congresswoman in the head and unloaded on her crowd. Calling political tone irrelevant is a cop out.

As we learn more, it's looking increasingly unlikely that anything Palin did had anything to do with what Loughner did. But was it so incredulous that we wonder if Palin's very personal attacks, her use of gun imagery, and her generally acrimonious tone elevated tensions, didn't raise the stakes, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with what this kid did? (Andrew Sullivan has a good diatribe on the connections between Palin, her tone, and the violence here.) From where I sit, if Palin wants to make a case for "libel", which is mass-produced slander that the creator either knows is false or neglected due diligence, she's got her work cut out.

Who knows, maybe this kid hated her for a completely set of twisted reasons. There's as good a chance of that as anything. But that he wasn't on an IV of Fox News doesn't mean rancor is good.

I leave you with a rough analogy as to why her attitude deserves criticism. It may be an over-dramatization. But not by as much as she'd like to think:

On a crowded city street corner, Palin is standing, selling newspapers. People occasionally bump into her. Some say excuse me, some don't. But each time as they bump her, she hollers "RAPE!" and points at the man.

Except one time, it all goes wrong. After yelling "RAPE" and pointing at a man, a guy aimlessly shuffling a half dozen feet away pulls out a gun and shoots the man just as Palin lowered her finger away from him, then opens fire on the crowd.

Naturally, Sarah is horrified. She didn't mean to hurt the man, she just wanted to scare him and others so they wouldn't keep bumping into her. She even thought she was being helpful, teaching some people good ole' Middle American manners. Many also liked the spin in the newspapers she sold. Some had been encouraging her with wry chuckles and putting crumpled dollars in her tip jar as they went by, so she had a small throng of supporters. A minority, but a loyal one. And even the people annoyed by her didn't think THIS could happen; while her words made them uneasy, they thought that she was just goofy.

Sure enough, it turns out that the gunman was high on PCP and the man he first shot looked like a man who had abused him in childhood. Everyone rightly judged him to be the lone criminal in the case. But people also ask Palin why she was shouting "RAPE" on a crowded street corner when clearly, the people bumping into her were just trying to go to work. Some even suggest that she stops from now on. She gets defensive. She accuses them of blood libel, confusing them greatly. She maintains she never said that anything bad should happen to the guy at whom she yelled "RAPE". She never intended to hurt him. And sure enough, she didn't cause the murderer's psychosis.

And she didn't stop yelling "RAPE" on the crowded street corner.

----------------------------

And just because these are the interwebs and we have unlimited space, and you can stop reading her if you've had enough, Here's what I thought was Sullivan's money paragraph:

There was nothing "manufactured" about this. It was the most obvious set of observations to be made in the immediate aftermath. To call this understandable concern about the impact of violent rhetoric and imagery on disturbed minds a manufactured "blood libel" - equating critics of extreme rhetoric of being the equivalent of Nazis or medieval anti-Semites - is to up the ante at a time when leaders really need to calm emotions. We know this much right now: Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message - even at a time of national crisis - was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.

Sarah Palin becomes a human pinata, and I want a few cuts at a low-hanging target

2011-01-10T19:14:00.001-05:00

It should surprise no one that a handful of hand-wringers have emerged to let us know what to blame the tragic shooting in Arizona. Covering it will take a couple posts at least. Thankfully, many people respond with an outpouring of sympathy to the victims, praise the heroes, and place primary blame where it belongs: with the shooter. But as mentioned, a host of other issues have cropped up, issues we can't ignore.

The tallest metal pole in this electrical storm, of course, has been Sarah Palin. And lightning has certainly been striking. Much to Palin's confusion. (This is not the first thing to confuse Palin.) But is it fair to hammer away at Palin, or is she just an easy target? The answer, of course: Absolutely. No one in their right mind thinks that Palin is directly responsible, or even that she wanted Giffords to be hurt. But Palin (among others) have certainly taken rhetoric to new levels in the last couple years. And if they can't acknowledge that... THEN I CAN DO IT!

First, the basics: why Palin? Aside from her inexplicably growing influence despite her apparent cluelessness and general hypocrisy, she had, on her website, images of 20 Democratic candidates in this November's elections with cross-hairs transposed, as if they were being scoped on a rifle. They were being "hunted" because they were running against Palin- and Tea Party-supported candidates.

This was a mistake, tactless, and short-sighted. But that act in and of itself isn't the main problem. Jared Loughner, the gunman, was not a deranged TP-er. And to be fair, I get that we all use hyperbole and war or violent metaphors from time to time (did you see my pinata crack at in the title? ZING!) without hurting anyone or even being accused of insighting violence. Unfortunately her poor choice was followed by one of the "survivor's" of the Tea Party push suffering a bullet through her head and reminding us what "survivor" really means.

Any rational person (or people; she has quite the army of minions controlling her message and image) would immediately recognize how incredibly bad this visual metaphor look in retrospect, regardless of the fact that Palin is not to blame. The imagery was, of course, taken down from her site, but as always, there are copies. Somehow, an aide to Palin initially thought they could deny that the graphics were cross-hairs, suggesting they were in fact "surveyor's symbols." A now-erased tweet from Palin (oh, you beautiful un-eraseable internets...) hammered home how stupid that claim was.

So since she can't deny, time to change course. Sarah Palin now is portraying herself...as a victim?

I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence.

Ok, naturally she gets defensive. And yes, a lot of people are saying some pretty nasty things about her. (Things that supporting cast I mentioned is frantically erasing on her Facebook page...along with any form of justifiable criticism). Again, she didn't kill anybody.

But we are not talking about blame. I'd have even be nice and give some leeway had she taken the opportunity to say, "You know, this really puts things into perspective. Maybe I shouldn't insert such demonizing rhetoric into my political platforms. Maybe my beliefs in Jesus, small government and Middle American values don't have to insinuate (or directly say in most cases) that the left purposely wants to destroy America." I could even get on a Palin forgiveness train. I'd still never vote for her, but I'd respect her growth as a person and a public figure.

But no. She pretends to be all Lovey-Peacey now. She pretends to have no part in this escalation of words into the absurd hyperbole and demonizing rhetoric. Again, NO ONE IS BLAMING YOU, SARAH. WE SIMPLY THINK YOU NEED TO STOP SAYING DEMONSTRABLY FALSE CRAP LIKE THIS:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel.

That's not debate. That's propaganda and lies. And she does it all the time.

Naturally, Glenn Beck tries to reassure Palin, saying that "As you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are feeling the same heat, if not much more on this," and encouraging her to watch out for her safety, saying there are whack jobs on all sides.

First, let's all revel in Glenn Beck sounding like a hippie stoner saying "Peace is always the answer." Talk about a guy who knows his usual shtick of rhetoric needs to take a day off. And of course Beck gets a dose of whatever medicine we prescribe for Palin.

But as these two worry about their safety, I don't think it should be too much to ask them to consider WHY they are primary lightning rods in the first place. Beck is a shameless entertainer who cries on cue and never went to college. But Palin was a governor, some circles want her to run for president, and at the very least she has massive influence on the GOP. Becks venom can be socially damaging to the U.S. Hers can be politically crippling.

In the end, I don't think she ever had a chance to be president, but this hopefully will seal it. She epitomizes the irresponsible, largely fictional dialogue that characterizes our political impasses. Candidates she backed helped a united Republican front hold Congress hostage, keeping it from doing things like approve aide and health care funding to 9/11 first responders so that Congress would vote to extend tax cuts on the top 2%, despite crippling national debt and no proposed offsets in revenues or cuts in spending. Whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant. A minority in the Senate forced the country to adopt legislation by holding universally liked legislation hostage. This is the partisan environment we live in, and people like Palin deserve their share of the responsibility.

As this post points out, there are extreme elements on the right or left. The point is that only one of those extremes is in vogue, mainstream right now. (Sorry, I don't hear any self-described communist leaders with shows on CNBC yet.) That's why this article is taking on a figure on the right when a lone gunman's insanity caused this tragedy. For all I know, there could be no correlation between modern rhetoric and the shooting. But that doesn't mean we can't take the opportunity to have things snap into perspective for us.

Palin won't do that, in all likelihood. She proudly defies her critics in defense of free speach, and surely, she has that right. But I'm using my free speech to point out the damage done to political discussion by her tone, ignorance, and repeated hypocricy and lies. (See this outdated list of stupid quotes for more on just how horrifying this is... my favorite is No. 10, where she brags about re-distributing the wealth in Alaska. Not exactly jiving with her whole demonization of Obama as a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth tactic, is it?)

So is it fair that some are cursing her name and calling her evil? No. I will say it again. SARAH PALIN IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SHOOTINGS IN ARIZONA. Probably not even indirectly.

But when she irresponsibly ignores tact, respect, dignity, when she pretends that small-town white America, her America, is somehow the superior America, and when she pretends that the rest of us being frustrated and dismayed by the questionable tactics she uses to push her agenda (as I was the day before the shooting as much as the day after), she is simply hurting America by lying and agitating her unbelievably loyal following and creating conflict that, if it didn't just boil over in Arizona, could easily do so elsewhere in the future.

This shooting is a chance for her to stop, think, and learn from this. It's not impossible that she will.

I'm just not betting on it.

Heroes outnumber villians in AZ shooting

2011-01-10T03:27:00.004-05:00

It would be incredibly easy to point to the attempted assassination of an Arizona Congresswoman resulting in six deaths and a bullet through her head (her survival is remarkable), and interpret it as a sign of the whole country coming unhinged.

But before I get to issues involving an over-heated political environment in a later post, it would serve us well to remember that there are more heroes than villains to this story. As contemptuous as debate this country can be it usually remains debate; assassinations remain universally shocking and repulsive here. This isn't exactly Pakistan. (Well, mostly.) So I start by focusing on positives. If for no other reason, our mental sanity could use it in the aftermath of such inexplicable, brutal violence.

Fortunately most news outlets have acknowledged such stories. Stories of people like Dorwan Stoddard who jumped in front of his wife Mavy, likely saving her life as he lost his own. Or intern Daniel Hernandez, who first came to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' side... moving closer to the gunman as he was still shooting and likely saving her life by putting pressure on her wound. Or the men who tackled the gunman as he tried to reload. (The first one to get to him was 74-year old Bill Badger, who had already been grazed in the head by a bullet.) Or Patricia Maisch who grabbed the magazine from the as the gunman tried to reload and add to the body count.

It would be a mistake to bury their stories too far beneath the tragedy mayhem that characterize these events. There's something comforting in knowing that most people have a hell of lot more in common with the people mentioned above than they do with Jared Loughner, the deranged gunman.

In fact, and I say this with all due respect to those in Arizona, I'd bet that despite the courage of so many in this case, the crowd in question was probably not really extraordinary. I firmly believe that if this had happened at any gathering in the country, we would have had similar tales of selfless bravery emerge there too. If you looked at past tragedies like the Virginia Tech shootings, Columbine, or just about any other similar event, you'd be forced to agree. In events like these, for me I end up talking myself into walking away actually feeling BETTER about humanity.

Tragically, one villain is capable of doing so much damage that the tragedy overshadows these deeds. And we can never make ourselves 100 percent safe from a single person's insanity. But before we use this event to dive into hand-wringing and politicized debates on polarized rhetoric, media sensationalism, mental-illness, and gun control, remember: the vast majority of people out there would risk their lives to save a life or stop a murderous gunman long before they could even fathom becoming one.

I know this is little consolation in a tragedy like this. But as I've said about terrorists in the past, I refuse to let Loughner take away trust in human decency and compassion, or the varying degrees of optimism people have left.

He has taken enough already.

Blogger tries to return to neglected blog, manages only meager announcement post

2011-01-06T18:35:00.002-05:00

Hey, I'm back. Where was I? Virtually that's a dangerous question to ask anyone, but geographically I was enjoying my winter break in North Carolina after a hectic semester in Chicago. So sorry for the delay between posts. Hope you're holidays were as pleasant as mine.

That said, there is good news: It's looking like this winter quarter's schedule will be substantially less chaotic than the fall's. So I might be able to actually feed this emaciated blog regularly for a change.

But wait: THERE'S MORE! Another aspiring journalist at Medill will join me as we put together a podcast website to show off our mad radio skillz. Well, he's reported on radio for NPR, so HE'S polished, anyway. I'll just try to keep up. With other talented Medillites interested in joining in the fun as contributors, we both feel this little venture has some serious growth potential. So keep checking back.

Review: "The Media Department of Hizbollah wishes you a Happy Birthday"

2010-12-04T01:42:00.002-05:00

I've been posting work for Medill, so may as well throw up something from one of my other classes. Basically the assignment was a 1,200-1,600 word book review on a book from a provided list. (Fun fact: the class is taught by this man. Great class.) Naturally, the title caught my eye.

The book provided some great insight on the Middle East and the variety of mentalities there. The author has reported there for over 12 years for the AP and NY Times and speaks fluent in Arabic. I also kind of related to him as he was an expatriate as a kid, although his time on an oil compound in Libya probably bore few similarities to mine in Singapore. But I did relate to his sense of not having a true hometown. Full review after the jump:

The title “The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday” certainly catches attention. But it hardly illuminates the book’s content or purpose. What does the book try to do?

Does it say violence, instability and poverty have stunted the region’s progress? Does it beg largely ignorant Westerners to view the region as more than a lazy stereotype of America-hating terror, domestic abuse and intolerance in the desert sand by elucidating its diversity, charm and complexities? Does it contend that many of the largest problems in the Middle East stem from oil-fueled, repressive, corrupt, despotic regimes? Does it blast narrow-minded American policy towards the Middle East, hindering the efforts of a large number of reformists struggling in attempts to bring the region into the 21^st century? Or does it depict large pockets of Arabs as having frighteningly ignorant, intolerant and backwards mentalities?

It does not do any one of those things.

It does all of those things.

Neil MacFarquhar’s 2009 anecdotal collage proves as unique and captivating as its title, and with the abundance of nuances and themes portrayed, its strength rests in its pluralism – pluralism ironically being what many Middle Eastern activists he meets in the book strive to promote in their countries, despite overwhelming obstacles. In a region of over a dozen nations with a total population around that of the United States, the author provides just about the widest array of local opinions and perspectives possible in one book while still managing to tie them to some core premises.

MacFarquhar, a veteran foreign correspondent, said in a New York Times podcast that the idea for his book came from a dinner party, where someone asked him if there were “any normal people in the Middle East.” Having written many of the stories about violence, conflict, and extremism himself – the kind of stories that, fair or not, shape many Americans’ understanding of the region – the question drove him to write a different kind of book. He wanted to encapsulate everyday life and paint a portrait of what constituted normalcy in the region he had gotten to know well over many years. Without downplaying the impact and import of the headline-grabbing types of incidents, he focuses largely on normal people, capturing a lucid, more relatable image of a region poorly understood by most. He deals with heavy conversations of political and religious debates, but he also chronicles local customs and interesting quirks in culture.

MacFarquhar has clearly immersed himself in the Middle East. His extensive reporting in the region consisted of seven years reporting for Associated Press and five more as the New York Times Middle East bureau chief. The book tells so many different stories and really displays such thorough research that a reader almost finishes it feeling like an expert on the cultural and geopolitical characteristics of the region. His fluency in Arabic clearly allowed him to dig even deeper, and as a result the author/reporter almost immediately establishes credibility that few Western voices could match. (That he lived in Libya as an expatriate kid, which gave the unwitting MacFarquhar a front row seat to Gadhafi’s rise to power, is just gravy.)

If there is a weakness in the book, it is that the final summary could be described as light, abstract and topical. As Oren Kessler’s review for the Israeli publication Haaretz notes, the book “ends on a weak note, with a breezy epilogue seemingly intended to provide a neat wrap-up,” with the reviewer criticizing the “abundance of ‘I think’s’ and worn out Obamese clichés of ‘hope’ and ‘change.’”

But it could be argued that this perceived shortcoming largely stems from the fact that after a meaty 300+ pages of personal encounters and describing the Middle East through the eyes of a cornucopia of local personalities, the casual opinions of the author almost feel like a sort of collapse, because the rest of the book is so firmly weighted with historical and cultural context from locals on the ground. But the momentum from that very substance sufficiently overcomes this; the author has earned the right to step back and casually connect the dots.

And beyond that, reviews in a variety of major publications have been overwhelmingly – and justifiably – positive. (Outside of a lone paragraph about the epilogue, the rest of the Haaretz review is complimentary, and it closes expressing optimism at the hypothetical idea of U.S. policy turning in the direction MacFarquhar would steer it. In other words, it praises the core of the lone section it criticized.)

Thanassis Cambanis of the New York Times captured the work quite well in his review’s opening paragraph, crediting MacFarquhar for walking a fine line: “He offers something fresh and unexpected for readers steeped in a decade of news reports about suicide bombers, absolutist imams and tyrannical despots. Yet he never forgets that most of those readers care about the subject only because they have already decided, perhaps simplistically, that they are under threat from the Arab or Muslim world.” The balance really comes through, with MacFarquhar not hesitating to expose the flaws in all sides of a heavily flawed and desperate situation.

Authoritarian Arab leaders, strict and influential religious scholars, Islamist opposition groups, U.S. policy makers, moderate secular modernization-minded reformers, and people just trying to live their lives all get a voice. MacFarquhar maintains his journalistic voice, letting those voices tell the story.

As Time Magazine’s Gilbert Cruz puts it, “With both an insider's affection and an outsider's perspective, he paints a richer, more subtle portrait of the region through miniprofiles of the people, groups and agencies (big and small) that influence daily Arab life…. As a result, stories of the hateful, misogynist policies of the Saudi religious establishment and the dark deeds of the Jordanian secret police are more than balanced out by those of brave, modern reformers.”

Anyone with a one-sided view on the region will have those precepts challenged. He introduces Westerners with a construct of the Middle East as a backwards, violent terror-zone to a variety of highly human characters from all walks of life. This defuses suspicion that the brand of humanity there differs substantially from ours, showing that most people just want business and better lives for their families, and that no two people are completely alike. Meanwhile, the sympathetic Westerner who believes just a small fringe of violent extremists give the entire region a bad name will be jarred when they hear such a variety of Middle Easterners disliking America and the West to various degrees, and more because of policies than anything else. Even reformers air complaints. And those who already entirely blame Western foreign policy for the region’s trouble are forced to acknowledge the xenophobic, hateful, flawed logic such anti-American advocates can use to extend reasonable complaints into generalized rationale for hatred, occasionally dwarfing the ignorance of Western stereotypes of the Middle East.

The tales MacFarquhar tells leaves a strange concoction of feelings for the region. Sadness, hopelessness, and despair certainly describe the current state of the region. Frustration simmers with policy mistakes, and anger festers with authoritarians beating their people into submission with the oil dollars fueling their power. But, MacFarquhar manages to demonstrate such diversity of characters that the obstacles somehow are reduced. For example, a monolithic construct of Islam can be intimidating. But the book shows so many people who interpret it so differently, it is no longer a force to be stopped. It is a complex cultural context that must be understood by anyone in the region, but one that cannot exist beyond the realm of the diverse people practicing it.

In the New York Times podcast, MacFarquhar uses an account from the book about a chef in Lebanon as a microcosm for the sense of nuance he’s trying to achieve. The chef, who has a live show that airs all over the Middle East, had a bee land in food he was preparing, and he took it out. The call lines lit up. One Saudi woman questioned the choice, suggesting that it was poor hygiene going against what he’d taught her. Another, from Kuwait, said he could have just left it in, as she read in the Quran that bees have souls and are considered very clean. And a man from Syria asked “Do we have to bring in the Quran into everything,” pleading for the show to just stick to cooking.

The choice of this incident is appropriate to his stated goal – “What I was trying to get across the book was a sense in ordinary life,” he said. The three callers symbolically thrash the out-group homogeneity that often burdens people’s assessments of other groups. And they nicely encapsulate MacFarquhar’s effort to humanize the region in an entertaining, fascinating, and often tragic read.

Medill: Illinois, other states raise the bar; will it help students clear it? (Could it hurt?)

2010-11-30T22:52:00.001-05:00

My most extensive piece of the quarter is now on the front page of Medill News. (Until tomorrow, when it won't be.) It's a look at Common Core State Standards Initiative, a new set of standards the vast majority of states are working towards implementing, and their potential effect. Rather than rehash with a mundane summary here, here are some alternate headlines/subheads to relay subplots:

- Group produces 3,538th study indicating American Education is just awful
- States abandon "Throw 50 lumps of crap against a wall" strategy for education standards
- New standards push 'Hooked on Phonics', basic addition from 7th to 4th grade
- Agreeing kids should learn stuff won't unilaterally save education, educators say
- Massachusetts has standards; South Carolina does too, just fails to meet them
- Schools are popular battleground, from Evolution to Segregation to Evolution
- UIC professor Ben Superfine is a real person; yes, you pronounced it correctly

Northwestern grad studnet dumps quarter's worth of video on his 17 blog readers

2010-11-29T17:30:00.001-05:00

At Medill this quarter, I have been in a video techniques class. Here is a sampling of that work.

I am not a broadcast student. These are not perfect. Editing these things can be a time consuming nightmare. But I feel like I did a few things right. So check after the jump for a couple samples.

Wasn't that final package nice? I credit the fact that you can't fail with puppies or children.

Here is an earlier one about a Haunted House.

Keep in mind that the recommended camera, it not being a broadcast class, is pretty basic. Not a lot of lighting options. So I did what I could in the dark. Actually I think it has a decent effect in some of the shots.

I might add a couple more later, so check back to this post soon. (Either that or I am trying to artificially drive up pageviews... not that I would ever stoop that low...)

Just in: Some Right-wingers full of crap; Also: some GOPers actualy call them on it

2010-11-11T17:08:00.004-05:00

It appears a limit does in fact exist to the level of unsubstantiated garbage sane Republicans willfully tolerate. As this NY Times opinion article points out, this whole $200 million Obama trip to India prompted even GOPers to distance themselves from people insulting our intelligence with blatantly wrong information. (The figure was completely made up.) Maybe fact-checking will move from 'phobia' to 'occasional hobby' for the biggest wingnuts. But we need more on the right to be willing to confront the crazy (or willfully manipulative) people profiting on manufactured fear, i.e. idiot fuel. Or they can be led by them, fight Dems tooth-and-nail over anything more important than an appetizer order, and accomplish nothing for two years.

Oh, speaking of unfounded panic, here's the Daily Show skewering news channels for their hysteria over what was either a missile attack off the California coast and the opening blow of World War III, or light reflecting off a plane's trail in the sunset. One or the other. My favorite part is when we learn the guy to first track it did so for 10 minutes, giving a missile time to go 3,000 miles . BUT THE SCARY UNKNOWN MISSILE LAUNCH NARRATIVE WILL DRIVE RATINGS! Guh...

Medill: Lame-duck schools head quits; city to hire new lame-duck schools head

2010-11-07T17:09:00.003-05:00

Better late than never: here's my article on the press conference where a number of groups demanded input on the new schools head now that Ron Huberman announced that he was stepping down. In the Sun Times, it was implied by an unnamed source that Huberman was pushed out by mayor Daley after he let word out that he wasn't planning on serving the next mayor as the head of schools. So Daley will have to hire a new head of schools that in all likelihood will be replaced by whoever the new mayor is.

Daley obviously won't listen to a word these people say, but the group hopes that mayoral candidates will have to listen. And they probably will listen... at least as they campaign. But the chaos ensuing as people try to fill the power void left when the near-dictatorial Daley steps down will be utterly unpredictable.

Medill: Pilsen protesters refuse to trust CPS, then change minds to end sit-in

2010-10-28T15:40:00.000-04:00

The Pilsen protests over the Whittier library spilled into -- and pretty much dominated -- the monthly Chicago Public Schools board meeting Wednesday. The parents refused to believe that CPS will honor its repeated promises that it will not tear down the field house and that it will help work towards a library; when I asked Araceli Gonzalez point blank, in front of over a dozen reporters, whether they'd end the sit-in if they got Ron Huberman's promised signed letter outlining their agreements, she said "We'll stay." They had wanted the board to vote on a resolution today (the board didn't have a vote because details like the parents' group's incorporation and the library's location had yet to be agreed upon.

My article was written Wednesday afternoon, as the board meeting dragged on, and I had gone home when the parents relented at night, voting to end the sit-in. So there's that. I still maintain that, considering parents consider the school overcrowded, and CPS won't build a new building because of costs or build a library in La Casita, that this is not the end of the conflict.

Relativity Lesson: NCLB works really well if you change your definition of "behind"

2010-10-26T17:41:00.000-04:00

As Einstein said, everything is relative. Education is obviously no different. And as this article points out, evaluating it depends on your reference point. And our 50 different reference points are moving faster than our students.

I am on the education beat here at Medill, but as usual, like to keep an eye on the big picture. And this trend is disturbing. It seems Tennessee, Alabama, Colorado, Oklahoma, and yes, my current residing place Illinois, all think their kids are waaaaaaaaay smarter than they are. Or at least are trying to make it look that way, by lowering standards by an absurd degree to increase proficiency numbers.

Massachusetts gets a prize. It is the only state with standards actually tougher than international ones, and by those international ones they were far ahead of any other state (despite being pretty far back using apples-to-oranges state standards). Oh, and at least South Carolina is honest in it's ineptitude.

Actually, Massachusetts was one of five states which self-graded fewer than half of their 4th grade proficient in math in 2007. But under the international standards used by the study, 63 percent were proficient. Minnesota, at 55 percent, had the next highest international score. (Just over half, 27 states, had 40 percent of students scored proficient by international standards; just five clipped 50 percent.)

In those first four states mentioned up top, though, the gap between state standards and international standards was over 50 percent, and Illinios (state: 84 percent proficient, intl.: 36 percent) wasn't far off. For those who struggled in statistics (apparently a lot of us), let's clarify: in these states we have some states slapping HALF OF THEIR STUDENTS with a proficient, none of whom are proficient by international standards. And 33 states in all have 30 point gaps in students meeting the two standards. And since Massachusetts was actually really tougher on their kids, you could say that if Massachusetts and, say, Tennessee judged the same 100 students, they'd disagree on whether or not noticeably more than 60 of them were proficient in math.

The article estimated that as much as 60 percent of progress cited by NCLB can be traced solely to the changing standards widely varying by states.

As for the jab at South Carolina (state: 41 percent proficient, intl. 36); don't worry too much, Palmetto State. First, the state was the only one with standards that didn't disagree with international standards by over 10 percent of its student base. Also, South Carolina didn't bring up the rear in terms of proficiency by the international standard. Mississippi did, at 22 percent. Then it was Louisiana and New Mexico at 25 percent. Then Alabama, California, Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Oregon. So buck up, South Carolina! You even tied Arkansas and Illinois!

And maybe that's the problem. Could people be inflating proficiency number so that no one wants people to know their education system is worse than the one in South Carolina?

Medill: Parents meet CPS, agree to nothing

2010-10-21T00:18:00.002-04:00

Well, the groups finally sat down for a formal meeting Wednesday. Summary here, but short version: CPS seems to have agreed to everything the parents want except how to fund this library they want and where it can go. Still, the parents don't trust CPS to hold the door open for them much less honor any major agreements. Even though everyone's agreed to not let kids in the building and limit adult access to the contested field house (as the building is not up to a number of safety codes), they won't end the 36-day sit-in until the agreement is in writing.

Yeah, they're good pals.

UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune paints a much rosier picture than I do. Of course they overlook the fact that CPS had already given parents proposals Monday, none of which had La Casita demolished. Parents still called the proposals a slap in the face. So there's that.

Pilsen Saga continues; rejection of CPS counter by parents shows deeper divide

2010-10-20T00:20:00.002-04:00

Click Here for the latest from my Medill work. It seems the two groups are talking, but you wonder if it's in the same language. In any case, though, at least there is dialogue, but the issues certainly stem deeper than this particular set of four walls holding up a decaying roof.

The parents are getting what it was presumed they wanted, but it seems that no one had what they really wanted correct to begin with. Debate all you want whether that's a deficit of their ability to relay their desires or CPS's ability to hear it (or the realities of a city strapped for cash...). But obviously the bigger issue is providing an adequate facility for their children. It turns out just a few years ago, the facility situation was much worse at the school, with the actual school building basically falling apart. Later this week I'll look at how that history plays into the conflict, as well as the outcome of the new meeting with CPS.

CPS finally ready to listen; Pilsen activists proceed to match CPS stubborness, myopia

2010-10-15T11:53:00.000-04:00

In my latest installment on the saga at Whittier Elementary, Chicago Public Schools head Ron Huberman had told Ald. Solis to ask the protesting parents for their requests in a formal letter for CPS to consider. (It's definitely my best written article so far, and is currently up on the home-page.)

The resulting letter, honestly, read like a list of terrorist demands. In short, they want a new library and they want the Whittier Parent Committee to have pretty much as much power and control as CPS and local government on the issue. This is, of course, not going to happen.

I sympathize with the desire to have a library for these kids; these aren't bad people. Schools in poorer areas are often lacking in basic educational necessities: a worthy cause. And CPS is no doubt standoff-ish and often disconnected. (A communications director without a voice mail? At least allow me futile hope that you might get back to me....) But whether overshooting was a negotiating tactic or a symptom of a disconnect with reality, I don't see the letter as something that will make a body like CPS think it's negotiating with realistic people. CPS's response is expected later today or Monday.

More on sit-in to save shack-turned-library

2010-10-14T01:41:00.001-04:00

In my reporting class, I've been covering what is now a four-week, round-the-clock sit-in to prevent the demolition of a small field house on a public elementary school's property.

Here is a long piece from last week, depicting the nature of the conflict. It showed how the sides in this stalemate over the field house which Chicago Public Schools had planned to demolish were not even describing the same realities. (The community maintains it's important as a library for the kids as it now has hundreds and hundreds of books in it.)

But here, in a Tuesday article, I broke news that the local alderman, at whom the protesters were quite angry, had made peace and had a meeting with the CPS CEO, Ron Huberman, Wednesday. More to come; but for now, some thoughts:
-This building, which CPS says is dangerous after a structural engineer looked through it, isn't much to look at. It's a small, one story shack with two main rooms, one of which has some bookshelves barely allowing for the classification of library. Community activities are also facilitated there.

-However, parents are maintaining it has documentation that CPS's plans to demolish the library were made before they had it's structural engineer inspect the building.

-Also new since plans to demolish the building were revealed: the library. This was not an initial issue as it seems to have been opened since it was learned CPS wanted to make it a soccer field.

-CPS in the last year or two has been notoriously uncommunicative. The fact that I was able to contact and briefly interview its spokesperson, Monique Bond, surprised pretty much anyone who has tried to work with it. For verification, see: this Chicago Reader article. I theorized that she just didn't recognize my area code and picked up the phone by mistake. Since, I have heard never-ending ringing. (Yes, someone with a title of "Communications Director" of the public school system in the nation's third largest city doesn't have voice mail.)

-This is the area's only dual language school. The kids learn Spanish and English. Many of the mothers at the sit-in do not speak much English, but some key activists, some parents and some not, do.

-There are obviously major challenges and issues with public schools in poor areas. And the faulty communication has been rampant. But recent meetings do give hope. More on what happened tomorrow, but these facts are certain:

-CPS CEO Ron Huberman is reportedly leaving after this school year as his boss, Mayor Daley, retires, so his job security is irrelevant to choices he makes. The result, however, does matter to alderman Solis.

-There will not be a CPS built library there. Building codes make it very expensive (for example it would have to be connected to the school), and CPS says it simply doesn't have the money.

-The only way this building isn't demolished and made a soccer field is if they simply let the parents, who say they have contractors lined up to work for free or close to it to fix the building, fix the building and have a structural engineer clear it.

-The building cannot stays as is, as even the second assessment the parents commissioned indicated that the building needed work.

So long story short, a solution making eveyrone happy may not be imminent. But after four weeks, at least they are talking.

Medill: Kyle tries real life actual journalism

2010-10-06T00:51:00.001-04:00

Sorry there haven't been any posts recently. I'm now into my third week of graduate school and am busy in the news room, actually chasing leads and trying to find stories. So here is my first cross-post from the Medill Reports website. In the future, item's labeled Medill will be Chciago-oriented, just so you know.

For this article I was interviewing people protesting the planned demolition of a building on the grounds of a local elementary school. The small, dilapidated building has become somewhat of a communtiy center according to the parents and community activists who are in day 21 of a 24-hour/day (by shifts) sit-in. (CPS had plans to knock the building down and put a soccer field there; the activists want it kept as a library for the school and community center, and say it can happen with less money than estimated demolition costs.) While I was there, fire inspectors came to check out the building who, after informal inspection, called the (dilapidated) building unsafe before leaving, refusing to identify themselves or their position/rank. So this is a complicated issue. There will be more to come on it.

John Avlon pipes up for vast centrist majority; wingnuts to have him destroyed

2010-09-22T23:13:00.001-04:00

This is one of those articles so aligned with my views on politics right now that I can't add much to it. Again, kudos to anti-wingnut specialist John Avlon, aptly pointing out how the vast majority of Americans are away from the extreme, and yet are disproportionally ignored in debate in favor of the louder, flashier fanatics on each side. Or, as my site's tagline goes, "loud noises and cheap parlor tricks."

And of course kudos to Jon Stewart for the event that Avlon spends his article praising. The unfortunate part is that most people are too busy being productive members of society, and have views far less incendiary (read: pageveiw/ratings-drivers). So some kooks with too much time and too few brain cells make all the noise. Quiet, rational America; looks like you will have to wake up before the current diatribe consumes us all. Get to Stewart's rally if you're in DC and make Glenn Beck cry (again). Or at least vote, and vote intelligently.

Tea Party pushes awful candidate, hands Dems Senate seat, obvlivious to irony

2010-09-15T18:07:00.003-04:00

I had not heard of Christine O'Donnell until yesterday. The more I learn about the Tea Party-backed upstart, the more I understood why it was - and was thankful for the fact - that I hadn't heard of her before.

O'Donnell last night upset Micheal Castle, a nine-term Congressman, in her bid to fill the Senate seat vacated by Joe Biden. Castle was a popular figure in the state, known for being one of the more moderate Republicans in Congress. O'Donnell thinks masturbation is wrong. Oh, and she has zero relevant experience other than being good at saying conservative stuff.

Looks like my February thoughts on the Tea Party being hijacked was partly correct. Only it wasn't the GOP that jacked it. It was the far right and, yup, neocons. Just awesome. (Poor actual libertarians... can't catch a break.)

O'Donnell has a number of questionable items on her resume. For example, what she actually does for a living (aside from slowly pay off her student debts...very slowly, as in she just got her degree this year). In fact she has several question marks about her finances, including the fact that she claimed just $5,800 in income between March 2009 and July 2010. Whether she's hiding something (she said she's made more but didn't have to report it) or as some claim, she's living off of campaign money, that can't be good. She was also once fired by a conservative think tank, and sued for discrimination.

When several in the party, including of all people, KARL ROVE, consider her a fraud, I think it's safe to say this might not have been the best choice.

I get the "knock off the incumbents" argument. I really do; I've even made it a few times. But that doesn't mean shoot COMPLETELY blind. Charlie Rangel is voted back in despite numerous corruption and fraud charges pending, but Republicans in Delaware (at least the 56,000 that bothered to show for the primary) throw this person into the election to stick it to the establishment? COME ON.

Thankfully it probably doesn't matter. She will be crushed as the moderates, more of whom vote in general elections than in Republican primaries, realize what she is and combine with the Democrats, who will be staunchly solidified behind anyone who is not her.

But it shows again that the Tea Party has pull, and that pull is no longer in the hands of libertarians in the middle that are disenchanted with what they see as both parties' corruption, greed, and overbearing intrusion on people's lives. It is in the hands of ultra-conservatives that do little of substance other than use conservative buzz-words to bash Democrats and any Republican with the nerve to have differing opinions than the right-wingnut conservative base (as Castle did with gun control, energy policy and abortion). Because if you listen to O'Donnell talk, that's pretty much all she is capable of doing.

Ironically, that pull just probably yanked a Senate seat from a moderate Republican that hadn't lost any of the 11 elections in his state in which he has competed, and effectively gave it to a Democrat. O'Donnell said upon her victory, "Never underestimate the power of 'We, the People.'" That power apparently includes sinking Delaware Republican chances to take a seat on the Hill in November. And, to re-post a link from that February Tea Party article, that includes the power to scare away the libertarians who started the Tea Party movement, leaving what are basically just the neoconservatives that had disenfranchised them from the GOP to begin with.

And now, for something completely insane

2010-09-15T14:13:00.000-04:00

I am starting graduate school at Northwestern in less than a week. Evanston, where some of my classes are (much of my work will be in the downtown newsroom) is a relatively quiet, wealthy Chicago suburb. So reading this struck me as odd. I'll let you read the story yourself, but it involves a 3:50 a.m. explosion and a headless body found in a public park. Not that this is normal anywhere, but, just....wow.

Anyway, thanks for the spike in readership during this period where I've had more time to produce content. Keep checking back: I've got at least a couple posts I plan to make this week. Plus I'll be continuing to post original content during the quarter, even if not quite as frequently. Plus I'll link work I put together as an actual journalist in grad school, with the standard snide headlines. So fear not; I'm just getting rolling.

9/11: Why 19 dead hijackers should not affect us quite this much nine years later

2010-09-13T20:29:00.007-04:00

There is no debating that 9/11 was an horrific and abhorrent attack that will always conjure sadness from the great loss and anger at its perverted perpetrators. But as we pass its ninth anniversary, American perspective on that day and it's historical import is skewed. Or at least skewed from where it should be.

While tragic, the crime of 9/11 can be reduced to 19 hijackers in a criminal organization of outlaws without a country. In response, we have sunk trillions into what were already the world's most advanced military and intelligence institutions, completely altered our national psyche, and in some cases traumatized ourselves into being a nation living in fear of something that has killed fewer American civilians than lightning in the nine years since.

Many Americans have allowed a narrow world perspective combine with a horrible, historic event to kill any hope at gaining traction on a balanced understanding of 9/11. America hadn't been so directly and successfully attacked since 1941. The rest of the world, while horrified at the deaths and transfixed by captivating pictures on the TV that seemed right out of Hollywood, could have justifiably said, "Welcome to the club." Violence and terror are not unique, but the heavy U.S. reaction has been overblown (and I'm not even going to get into the Iraqi invasion or the length of the Afghan operation). We've let it dictate too great a share of our resources and our psyche.

Fareed Zakaria made a similar arguement. To me, Zakaria made three interesting points in his article:

- Al Qaeda has shown to be functionally incapable of pulling off major attacks. It's been nine years. Nothing like 9/11 has happened since. You really think that's what al Qaeda hoped for after 9/11? Sure, they have inspired local militants in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to fight American troops, but inspiring people to fight an invading force is easier and cheaper. It is a far cry from mounting a major, organized attack on U.S. soil. The fear of Al Qaeda is reminiscent of other overblown fears. For example, as Zakaria said, "In the 1980s, we thought the Soviet Union was expanding its power and influence when it was on the verge of economic and political bankruptcy." Our minds often play tricks on us, especially when we don't seek the facts.

- Our intelligence agencies have grown so much that they have become plodding information wastelands, with so many agencies, employees, and reports that most of it isn't even used. Heck, the Nigerian underpants bomber's father warned the U.S. Embassy of his son's proclivities.

(Sure you could counter that the money poured into intelligence might have had a positive effect fighting cases of terrorism we knew nothing about, or that in that link I argued for intelligence as a primary weapon against terrorism. But it's hard to argue that the expansions are what deserve the credit when information is so diluted that a father basically turns his son in and no one takes notice. I was talking about streamlined, and, more importantly, COMPETENT intelligence in that article.)

- Because these expansions have taken in "wartime" in a war with no real end, there is no end in sight to the erosion of freedoms and depletion of financial resources associated with such expansive intelligence and military networks. Zakaria quotes James Maddison at the end: "No nation could preserve it's freedom in the midst of a continual war." And if the "war on terror" is, to you, a valid reason for expanded government powers in terms of national security, and for curtailed freedoms, you are within your right to make that point. Just don't expect to ever get those freedoms back this time.

But while Zakaria's points are well made, this goes beyond our intelligence agencies. This is about how we define ourselves as a people, and how we as a nation define the tragedy of 9/11. I admit, it isn't fair, or really possible, to create a single national view on any event; we all look at it through different lenses, some more responsible than others. But some people have obviously and shamefully politicized the event as a scare tactic for political gain, and the perception out there is that many Americans consider 9/11 as the most traumatic event since World War II ended, and the point where a powerful, deadly and determined enemy formally declared war on the U.S. and Western Civilization.

There may be truths somewhere in there. But most of them are half truths at best. This was not Pearl Harbor, with a military-industrial complex attacking and declaring war. This was a small group, interspersed around the world, forced to operate in lawless abysses like Afghanistan, where only a few countries even recognized the controlling government/warlords, aka Taliban, as legitimate. This is an ideological group, a criminal organization devoted to it's extremist ideals and anger.

It is also one that has been losing support even in the Muslim world in recent years. The explanation is simple: A violent extremest, even one with legitimate complaints, ends up undermining his claims and his virtue with barbaric acts (for example, killing many Muslims in attacks, as Al Qaeda has been known to do). As the linked article showed, support for extremism in London eroded after the London bombings. In the information age, bad PR can cripple terrorists, too. Even if you believe a large number of Muslims celebrated 9/11 (my father was in the world's largest Muslin nation, Indonesia, that day and he'll tell you that they didn't) they are people, who, with modern technology, can have opinions shift rapidly and substantially.

To me, the real history should one day read more like this: 9/11 was a horrific tragedy perpetrated by a vicious, ignorant group of morally-bankrupt criminals. The attack that would signal the beginning of the end of what was once a somewhat more broad base of support in the Muslim world. The true nature of the Al Qaeda and its lack of humanity, integrity, or a logically-coherent ideology slowly revealed itself to even it's former supporters, completely undercutting any potentially valid gripes over Western policies.

Four planes were hijacked. Two iconic buildings fell, another was badly damaged. Markets took a hit and rebuilding cost billions. Most importantly, about 3,000 people died.

That should never be trivialized. (Especially in the lede of a college football article; bad form.) But none of those things stand out in the global context of true, high scale tragedy. Sudan is embroiled in what most consider genocide. The 2004 Tsunami killed about 80 times as many people as 9/11. The Haiti earthquake dropped a lot more buildings. The 2008 financial meltdown saw a lot more money disappear. And that's just the last few years off the top of my head. Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki would also like to have words if you insist on letting this one day define a set of attitudes towards an outside attacking force decades after the fact. Because combined, that was over 100 times the death of 9/11, and even more destruction.

But we see 9/11 differently for some reason. Much differently. First, it happened in America. And that is fair; of course people will give more emotional weight to an event in their country. But at some point you have to have the perspective to look beyond narrow world views.

Secondly, it was an attack, not an accident, so the unification and anger factors largely shaped perceptions; I'd even say that for some it was almost a cathartic outrage. But the perpetrators of the crime died, and the core of Al Qeada was scurrying into caves in Afghanistan shortly after, fleeing U.S. military response.

So really, we are left with the tragedy aspect, emotional baggage, and paranoia created by our own imaginations. Can it happen again? Sure. But in nine years, it hasn't, and you are statistically still under an infinitely greater threat from cancer, or the very cholesterol currently coursing through your veins. We spend billions and billions of extraneous dollars to defend ourselves but we keep scarfing McDonalds without exercising. Humanity again dives right as logic jukes left.

We don't have to dramatically change our perspective, but at some point, we simply have to make a few realizations. The threat to the U.S., or any country, will never be zero. Until the world is one big happy place, there are going to be people that are either unhappy enough to fight and kill for a cause that they have managed to rationalize, or ignorant enough to be manipulated into it by twisted leaders. And as Americans, over the last 65 years (and especially the last 30 years) we have been incredibly spoiled with a major dearth of tragic events and violent death, especially on our own soil.

We should never forget 9/11; it is truly transcendent both despite, and because of the over-sensationalism with which we regard it. But we should work to temper how much weight we give it in our history and how much emphasis we give it in our psyche. It was a wake-up call, and militarily attacking Al Qaeda was a correct response. But even more so, it was a wake-up call to step outside of our little bubble for a few minutes and realize that, while to us unfathomable, such acts of violence are commonplace in much of the world. Realize that America isn't perfect (our often insular world-view in and of itself is a common criticism), and that we aren't universally loved. Realize that at the same time America still has plenty of remarkably positive attributes and is worth fighting for and striving to improve. Realize that its core values and attributes, what made the U.S. what it is, are very difficult to destroy. And realize that a handful guys that chose to fly a few planes into buildings never had a chance to destroy them anyway. Nor will the next handful.

Unless, almost a decade after their demises, we let them, by continuing to grant them power over our attitudes and values.

Ground Zero Mosque: Dispite misgivings, our very identity insists we allow it

2010-09-01T05:13:00.000-04:00

I've spent over a week battling with myself over this issue. The rest of America seems to have turned the proposed community center and mosque into a new Ground Zero of sorts: the one between where we stand on Muslims in America. I've battled hard over whether the Cordoba Institute choosing to build this community center with a mosque inside is truly insensitive and worthy of protest, or whether the fear-based, often logic-deficient campaign against it has gotten into even my head.

But for the same reasons I believed we should refuse to compromise our values regarding freedom of speech as a cartoon depicts Mohammed, I feel we cannot refuse to compromise freedom of religion when a group with no established terror connections or illicit dealings tries to build a community center that has a mosque inside.

To really get into this, we need to get into some serious facts that, while widely known, aren't necessarily common knowledge based on the dialogue we've been hearing:

This isn't a new proposal. No had a problem with it eight months ago. Not even Fox News. (Seriously, check out this O'Reilly Factor interview with Daisy Kahn in December 2009. Quite the contrast.) It's remarkable, actually, how vitriolically politicized this has become so quickly so long after we knew about it. It's like going to war with the Japanese almost a year after Pearl Harbor. ("Politicized" link is from the Cordoba Institute blog, but I found audio of the sermon from Christian pastor Dr. Alan Kelchner online; it's authentic.)

It should surprise no one that Fox News has used some twisted and distorted logic in its recent crusade (pun intended) against the project. And as with any conflict that proceeds to be mercilessly politicized, a lot of misinformation and mischaracterizations have emerged from all over the place.

Legally, they can build this thing. Period. Obviously, if they buy the property and decide they want to build something there, they can. Apparently, something called the First Amendment pretty much prevents the government from doing anything to proactively stop this. And people can't do anything other than what they have been doing: protest a lot and maybe idiotically stab a guy over it. We are debating whether A) we should be heavily protesting this move (also well within First Amendment rights), and B) whether the people building the center should reconsider their stance. Not whether they can build it.

It is two NYC blocks from Ground Zero. The proposed site of the Cordoba House is two full blocks from any boundary of Ground Zero. You can't even see Ground Zero from there. And in a vertical city New York, a two block radius around a multi-block site like this contains millions upon millions of square feet of real estate. So are those millions and millions of square feet all supposed to be memorials? Sacred from use? Apparently the ground isn't that sacred, with a strip club just as close. How far away is far enough to be sensitive? Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's current Mosque is just 10 or so blocks away, by the way. (That said, they did choose being near Ground Zero for a purpose. The stated purpose, according to the Cordoba Initiative website and Kahn in the Fox interview, is to build a monument in defiance of the terrorists who they would claim hijacked their religion.)

Oh, by the way, there is a mosque in the Pentagon. Oh, wait: not really. I guess the right isn't the only side that can make up or stretch facts. Turns out it's a non-denominational place of worship. But Muslims do pray there, so it almost counts.

But there IS a church closer to Ground Zero than the proposed Cordoba Center. Not only closer, but St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church is in almost the direct path of the route between the Park51 site and the church.

The "Sharia" signs at the protest are just fear-based propaganda. Just as with the "Monument to Victory" argument which we will get to next, this is a gross oversimplification and pretty ignorant fear. Sharia means "way" or "path" in Arabic, and as often happens with 1.5 billion people, Muslims don't even agree what the vague word used to describe Islamic law entails. Not even a little bit. Some have said Rauf is a proponent of Sharia. Rauf has said he believes America is a "Sharia-compliant" country. People have demonized the word because of what it means to fundamentalists, and blast Rauf for the comment. But really all he is saying is that he believes America's values and laws are already consistent with Islam.

It is relatively modest community center, not a domineering Cathedral-esque "Super-Mosque." First, what is slated to be included in the site: a mosque, a 9/11 memorial, and a set of completely innocuous facilities. And you might find it strange to call a 13-18 story (depending on your source) building modest, but in that spot, it's nothing. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you've never been to the Financial District in Manhattan. Over 20 buildings in that limited photo alone would rise significantly above it in that area.

So if, as some claim, this mosque/center really is a victory monument, they might want to tinker with the plans. Let's ignore for a second the fact that, as I wrote, Imam Rauf is ideologically incompatible with the terrorism we are fighting by his words, actions, and even his very sect of Islam. If this is a great monument to Muslim victory, it's a pretty pathetic one. Not even a blip on the skyline, an exterior that looks like any other secular building, basically separated from Ground Zero by a Catholic Church, a strip club, and thousands of offices. Yeah, that's one dominant sign of victory.

(I will say this whole issue isn't helped by the fact that we can't seem to get our own victory symbol built, though it's getting there.)

And if the terrorists are happy with this mosque or any side of this debate, WHO CARES? I didn't care what they thought about our First Amendment protecting American cartoon maker's rights to depict their prophet, and I don't care what they think about the First Amendment's protection of other Muslims in building a community center, or for that matter its protection of Americans protesting it. (As occasionally happens, Jon Stewart took those words from my mouth last week. For quick money shot: 2:54-3:12.) As I said in South Park's case, poor taste and offensiveness are weak arguments (I believe I used the words "goat manure") because our beliefs in freedom trump our right to not be offended. Sorry, same applies here; that door swings both ways. Besides:

Even family members of victims of 9/11 are divided. People talk about being sensitive to the victims' families. And surely, many of them are opposed to the project. Many support it as well. Turns out they're as divided as the rest of us. So who gets preferential treatment here?

Personally, I think our principles get it; they've been here longer. I really did wrestle with this issue, and this post didn't even come together as balanced as I thought it would when I started. This Atlantic debate between two writers was interesting, for example, and all of my reading had me shifting back and forth. But I kept coming back to the fact that I couldn't make a coherent argument that trying to prevent a vocal opponent of terrorism build a community center with a mosque in it was anything other than prejudice and artificially constructed fear-based speculation about a religion of 1.5 billion people. Fear; you know that thing that lets terrorism work?

This piece from The Boston Herald was an emotional effort that argued that we don't need a lesson of tolerance; the Islamic world does. And he's both right and wrong. Yes, the many Islamic countries are intolerant. And yes, Muslim leaders need to spend as much if not even more time promoting understanding and tolerance in their homelands as they do fighting Islamophobia in America. Don't get me wrong. I wrestled really hard with this issue. And my belief that we should accept this community center as planned doesn't change the fact that I A) still feel there is much work to be done, not just on the Non-Muslim American side, but also on the Muslim side of this dialogue, and B) I still do not think that either an overwhelming majority nor an infinitesimal minority has enough of a problem with America and the West to warrant concern. It's in between.

But the Herald article is wrong too. We shouldn't compare ourselves to standards of places where intolerance reigns. We should be looking forward, not back. Compromising our identity and our biggest strengths -- our freedoms, tolerance, and acceptance -- probably isn't the best way to shift that ratio of Muslims-with-a-problem-with-us in a good way. And we should worry about defending our right to exercise our principles more than worrying about what people in other, less free countries think about them.

And if the terrorists, or even a big chunk of terrorist sympathizers, think they can use those freedoms to destroy us from within as some people fear, it's going to take a lot more than an Islamic YMCA with a prayer room to do it.

Ground Zero Mosque: Bloggers curious about U.S. Muslims actually talk to them

2010-08-31T02:47:00.000-04:00

Some of you might have already seen this link on the CNN home page, where a black guy and a white guy from CNN tagged along with two young American Muslim bloggers as they traveled America, intending to stop by 30 mosques in 30 states in 30 days during Ramadan, documenting their travels and the people they get to know.

The CNN article about the tag-along was both enlightening and predictable. Many Americans, even Southerners running confederate flag merchandise shops, are quite accommodating regardless of race or religion. So are many Muslims. And it turns out that some Americans, Muslim and non-Muslim, remain distrustful of each other and prejudiced. Go figure.

I love articles like this, and wish there was more work like this being done. While it isn't always practical for all of us to visit so many places and meet so many people in our daily lives, that is why we have media, be it traditional or otherwise; it can relay experiences and the resulting insight without us leaving our desks.

Too many people get their perceptions from news stories, poorly researched opinion articles, blogs and internet comment boards. These are misrepresentation of the true state of things. News is going to naturally focus on bad things that happen, because no one is interested in reading an article titled "Airplane lands without incident or terror threat," or "School finishes day without a shooting." These things happen all the time. That's why we need. Article comments and chat rooms can be even worse; while getting a wider range of voices, the tendency for those voices to be the most vocal and angry (thanks, internet anonymity) leaves us with a poor sample if you are trying to gain a fair, accurate assessment of the general mood of a group.

That's not even taking into account the fact that the internet provides the capability and human nature the tendency to find someone or some organization that shares your views (no matter what or how ill-informed), hitch a wagon, and resist any evidence that would result in changing your mind because others agree with you.

Instead, these young people went out and talked to people of various backgrounds, and even challenged themselves and their own prejudices. They may not have asked some of the tough questions or addressed a few of the really serious issues some would like to see asked of people across the religious and cultural fence. In fairness, that didn't really fit with the bloggers' intent, which was to produce a variety of features from on Muslims from communities in 30 different American states. Also, much of the writing in the CNN piece is pontification that, while earnest and informed by a series of isolated events, is at times topical and heavily infused with idealism and the perceptions of the participants. But it's a feature, not hard-hitting journalism, and still has a lot of import.

As a group they did at least bother to get a temperature of the emotions involved in what is becoming a tension-filled relationship between groups. Not too many journalists seem to be doing that, outside of a handful of quotes gleaned to be thrown into the middle of articles. And without the idealism that I complained about showing through in the feature, what are we supposed to be using our pragmatism to achieve?

In any case, we have to start somewhere. And from there we can actually start to address the conflicts between groups, some real and some perceived. It takes a long time to break down barriers of mistrust (generally decades) but to start the process, people like these guys have to be willing to start the dialogue among some people who might not think they are ready, who think their minds are made up. And journalists need to be able to challenge these paradigms.

Hopefully as I enter grad school next month and embark on a career in the field I can contribute to that...rather than just throwing pontifications of my own around after reading some stuff on the 'net.

I'm working on the final piece regarding the Ground Zero Mosque (yes, the one where I finally address the sensitivity issues regarding whether the center's proposed construction should happen). It should be posted tomorrow night at some point.

Ground Zero Mosque: So while we're here, what IS a moderate Muslim anyway?

2010-08-27T23:49:00.002-04:00

People claim they're there. Conservatives want them to speak out more. Liberals believe they are ubiquitous. Moderates wonder what percentage of their communities they really make up. More analytical people wonder, "What is the criteria for what actually constitutes one?"

We are talking about a cliche. A rarity to some, the default to others. We are talking about the "moderate Muslim." How many of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world fall under this category? More importantly how do you define this category? And what does it mean for the Muslim world, the Western world, and, well, just the world? Follow me down the rabbit hole.

We all like to think that the "moderate Muslim" makes up a vast majority of the Islamic world. It's an appealing, comforting thought; this whole problem is just caused by a few wackos. Of course, most of us can't assuredly and definitively define "moderate Muslim" in the first place. So there's that.

Naturally, it is a stupid question anyway. There are 47 countries with a Muslim majority across three continents. Additional significant minority populations can be found from India to Russia, from Singapore to, yes, America. Each group has its own story, culture, and influences. This is about one fifth of the world we are talking about; pigeonholing even a segment of it would be a gross oversimplification, and outright impossible.

The idea that they have a common set of experiences or worldview is laughable. Culturally, North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and South East Asia have little in common. National experiences and perspective-shaping historical context is just as varied. Saudi Arabia is a "friend" of the U.S., but really, only in that their leaders are our leaders' friends. We buy a lot of oil from them. They let us keep bases there to enhance stability. And we have also helped keep a non-democratic royal family in power to prevent the region from collapsing into any kind of violent chaos that would cut off our energy supply and cripple our economy. It is a place where human rights violations and stifled expression are as rampant as anti-American sentiment and al Qaeda sympathies.

Of course experiences will differ in Kuwait, where we stopped Saddam's invading troops. They won't match those from the home of a Muslim family that escaped sectarian oppression in their homeland and moved to the U.S. or Europe, where they make a better life for themselves. Or take Iran, where the government has managed to convince large sects to blame the U.S. and Israel for a lot of their own problems (a go-to page in the playbook in that area of the world), and chant "Death to America." Then again, many of them have no problem with America and have relatively broad worldviews. And that's just the Middle East.

The point is not to debate U.S. policies; we could do that forever. The point is that, from country to country, or even within the same countries, the opinions of the West stretch from A to Z. Some are informed, others are uninformed. Some would like to see Western reforms in their own countries, others would like to show the West the door and maybe even its grave. And if you look hard enough, you'll find every combination you could imagine, and every degree, every conceivable shade of gray in between.

Yet still, a couple of basic oversimplifications people use are so prevalent that they warrant a closer look:

"A small group of terrorists have hijacked the religion: the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and have no problem with America."

Like many stereotypes and oversimplifications, this one is rooted in some truth. And here's a fact of life no matter what your ideology: Most people on this planet, and I mean a super-majority, have the same primary goals day in and day out. They want to earn a living, raise and protect a family, and improve the quality of, if not their lives, then those of their children. That's about it.

The point is that, left to their own devices, the vast majority of Muslims, regardless of what they think or have been lead to believe by their nation's leaders, American leaders, or religious leaders, are not a threat to America. Most people, while they may have strong opinions, are simply too busy to act on any hate or global objective.

To lump all of them together as merely a perfectly peaceful group with no ill-will towards the West, one that is simply misrepresented by a handful of religion-hijacking terrorists, might be better than racism and hatred. But it is still shortsighted and ignorant. There are Arabs out there that warn the U.S. of a major swelling in the Islamic movement. Walid Shoebat and Mosab Hassan Yousef are just two examples of people that had been inside of groups like the PLO and Hamas, have given up Islam, and warn the West of the dangers of violent Islamists (more can be found in the "Customers who bought this also bought..." part of the Yousef Amazon link). Our politicians and some media outlets might politicize/sensationalize the threat so that it becomes exaggerated, but they didn't completely fabricate it.

Even if, as I suggested, a vast majority of Muslims do not constitute any real threat to us, it doesn't mean that organizations out there don't, even ones that aren't explicit terror cells . And it doesn't mean that wrong policies on our end and the wrong people calling the shots on theirs can't pit us in a terrible conflict much worse than what we've seen in recent decades.

I don't think that we could say that the majority of Germans in the 1930s were evil people. But nevertheless, the right fanatic group found the right scapegoats to get enough regular people riled up to cause a movement that ended in a World War during which nine million were executed in the Holocaust as roughly 60 million other people perished. And despite the diversity of opinion in the Muslim world, it's fair to say there are enough people out there that, based on what they know (or what their leaders let them know), they could pretty easily be riled into a furor. And, as with Germany, the violent movement is going to make a lot more noise than any dissenting masses, many of whom often leave the countries where their voices are demonized.

"Most Muslims in the long run hope for World Domination, and wish to see America and other free countries governed by Sharia, Islamic law. Moderate Muslims are exceptions, not the rule."

This is, on face, astoundingly stupid. As I just wrote, the mindsets of Muslims include a wide range of opinions on the West, and those opinions range from severe to just above apathy. (Believe it or not, the thoughts and perspectives of a lot of people simply don't just revolve around us.) I have often heard words like "Where are the moderate Muslims? Why do we never hear from them?" I have even wondered similar things myself. But that's not good enough. This is the age of the internet. Most Americans have never found these voices because they've never looked for these voices. The mainstream media shares some blame for leaving these perceptions, but it doesn't take more than a couple minutes with Google to undo that.

Saudi journalist Raid Qusti, for example, has long been a moderate voice regarding many issues for an English-language paper in his homeland, writing about women's rights, his own society's inability to be self-critical, among other topics. But people like him with liberal viewpoints and who don't tote the pro-Arab/Muslim, anti-Israel/West guidelines face an uphill battle. In 2009 a number of Arab papers published a laundry list of journalists they accused of not only anti-Arab, pro-Israel sentiment, but also of being paid by Zionists. The responses were well thought out, defiant, and in one case, even bitingly sarcastic.

With the difficulty this group of journalists face, with accusations of no less than treason, it would be worth our while to seek them out rather than expect them to show up on our doorsteps to personally apologize for the flaws of their societies that they are already readily writing about.

Closer to home, there are dozens and dozens of Muslim groups, with widely ranging philosophies. CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood fuel suspicions by looking primarily to protect and promote Islam rather than engage in a two-way dialogue in which both sides are introspective and self critical. These groups know that freedom can be used as a shield for malicious activity. But at the same time, various other groups promote liberal values, peace, and modernity. Groups like Muslims for Progressive Values come under fire within their own communities for being too liberal. In fact, some American conservatives would find their objectives too liberal.

So when people point to high birth rates to say that Muslims are slowly trying to swing the balance of influence, point right back to cultural differences, the fact that birthrates increase with poverty regardless of religion, and, most of all, the fact that these people don't even agree with each other any more than you agree with your next door neighbor on politics and religion.

At the same time, the diversity of thought does not mean that this fear-based point of view is completely void of foundation either. There is somewhat of a clash of cultures, one being facilitated by the information age. When incidents like the Danish cartoon riots or the South Park episode being pulled pop up, we see that there are significant differences. But hitting the accelerator towards conflict won't do anything other than increase the damage; better find materials to soften the impact. We don't want to compromise our values (I defended South Park tooth and nail) but at the same time I'd rather listen to their side, understand, and explain ours rather than pick a fight.

So what does it mean?

With the apparent diversity of thought from both Muslims here and abroad, there is no doubt that the moderate Muslim exists. Of course, it all depends on semantics as to who qualifies for the label. Glenn Beck ripped on Feisal Abdul Rauf, the builder of the Ground Zero Hams (predictably) and then quoted Muslim Canadian Congress board member Raheel Raza. This shows that in his lexicon, "Moderate Muslim" means someone who agrees with him. As usual, Beck's ego-maniacal Beck-Centric perspective misses the point entirely, but he inadvertently raises the question of what is "good enough" for those of us looking for allies in the Muslim community. Some say not committing violence is enough. Women's rights are important for others. Others desire a full divorce from their homeland and a pledge of loyalty solely to America. (The same argument was used on Catholics, who presumably couldn't be both loyal to the Pope and America.)

This poll of British Muslims sheds further light on the diversity of thought in one small enclave of Muslims living in the West. Frankly, you can twist the results in a few different directions (just seven percent admire organizations like Al Qaeda, but 58 percent believe many of the worlds problems stem from arrogant western attitudes), but they do demonstrate two things: one, British Muslims are culturally different from British to an extent, and two, they don't by any means agree with each other on a lot of contentious issues. In the end, as with Rauf, what you are usually going to find is a man, like most non-Muslims, who has opinions you agree with and those you might not.

I won't try to define what should be called a Moderate Muslim for you. Personally, I am not going to have a problem with any Muslim that prefers peace to conflict; abhors killing innocent civilians; wouldn't hurt someone for simply disagreeing; believes women aren't property, have social rights, and can choose how they live or where and how to pursue education; and believes in basic freedoms of religion, speech, and the press.

Unlike Beck, I don't require any of our Muslim friends to agree with every element, or even most elements of U.S. foreign policy, Western ideal or modern practice. Non-Muslim Americans have the rights to disagree, why shouldn't Muslims. You may state your case, present your problems, and I will listen. Just so long as you allow ideas to flow both ways. This universal sentiment applies to any one of any culture, not just Muslims.

And in the end, if more Muslims take an open approach in an increasingly open world, the entire planet will see its situation improve. If groups promoting Islamic supremacy manage to grow further in influence and dominate the Muslim landscape, we are in for a long ideological and even extended military conflict. Because while the U.S. has its own introspection and soul-searching that we must do regarding the application of our freedoms and our policies/attitudes regarding Muslims, the situation will not improve if Muslims can't at the same time find a mirror to also look into themselves.

I remain cautiously optimistic that there are enough mirrors to go around.

Ground Zero Mosque: Now THIS is why we can't have nice things, America

2010-08-26T01:01:00.007-04:00

I'm still working on the meatier parts of this series that I promised. Just wanted to remind both Muslims and Muslim-fearing Americans what can happen when we let the dumbest elements of our society decide an issue.

No, I'm not talking about the idiots at Ground Zero chanting at a carpenter perceived to be Muslim because he wore an Under Armor skullcap (he wasn't Muslim; his name was Kenny). No, in this case we have an NYC cabdriver that was stabbed after a passenger allegedly asked if he was Muslim and he said yes. Lovely.

Three lessons: (read on, you want to see these).

One, to (certain) Americans: Stop eating rocks. I issue this command because if you are dumb enough to do what this kid did, you are probably doing other dumb things in your life too. Like eating rocks. Quit it. They are terrible for your teeth and provide no nutritional value. Also, throw anything in your possession that is sharp or a gun into a dumpster.

Two, to Muslims: Just on the off chance that I am insane and the most insane redneck right-wing American radicals out there are right. Just in case you really are trying to turn America into a sub-servant Islamic caliphate where all infidels are given the chance to either convert and obey sharia, leave, or die. In case I am an idiot and all those things are true, keep this in mind: You are trying to build a multi-faith-accessible community center that happens to have an Islamic prayer room in it two giant NY City blocks away from Ground Zero, no closer to the former towers than dozens of other businesses (including a strip club). Now cab drivers are getting stabbed for being Muslim. Do you really want to try to take over and run this country with any other attitude than "Hey, you maniacs can do whatever you want, I don't want no trouble...?" Have you seen how fast Obama went from God to Satan in a year in office?

(Number 2 is obviously tongue-in-cheek, and really more directed at Americans that really think that a country like America could ever be truly commandeered by oppressive religious zealots of any kind in the near future. You know, other than maybe evangelical Christians.)

Three, to Americans: Can we really worry about a religion's intentions in this (First Amendment-protected) country when we go around stabbing people explicitly for their religion? Where is our moral high ground? Where is your desire to say, "No, we're better than that" when you see things like women being stoned for adultery in Iran, other religion being essentially banned in Saudi Arabia, and Islam being used to get young people to strap bombs to their chest in various places? Are we really trying to compete for "Most Backwards" at the Academy Awards?

Sure, this was one moron. And no, this one moron does not speak for America, because I am sure that an oppressively overwhelming majority of Americans would unequivocally condemn this act. But, as I will get into tomorrow, if a group doesn't keep its own in check, it had better not go around blaming others for problems. And if we can't universally condemn and ostracize behavior like this, we don't have grounds to speak to ANYONE, ANYWHERE about their culture or religion.

I normally don't like bothering with isolated incidents involving a stray moron. But I just suffer a fear that more than a couple protesters at Ground Zero will silently praise this utter waste of life for this act. I hope that fear is overblown. Because if not, the terrorists are making better progress in destroying us with our own fear than I ever thought possible.

Ground Zero Mosque: Dislike it's founder? Wait until you hear what Al Qaeda thinks

2010-08-24T18:43:00.007-04:00

Now that we have dived into this issue with the absurd assumptions that Fox made in my post below (ie that their second largest shareholder funding the imam in the past makes said imam dangerous), we can really dig into this project. And by the end of this series of posts, we'll get into the sensitivity issues of whether or not the location is sensitive or not.

But first, let's look at who is building the House and how it will be funded. Hint: If you think Glenn Beck et al doesn't like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the project, you don't have the first idea how much Wahhabi-oriented terrorism organizations hate him.

First of all, who is funding it? Answer: we don't know. It hasn't been funded yet. Next question.

Who is this guy? It does not take much work to search the internet and find opinions and quotes making the argument that Rauf is anti-American and supports turning the U.S. into an Islamic state. Glenn Beck links him to Hamas among other things. The New York Post's Andrew Bostom says his writings are "full of praise for the most dangerous Muslim thinkers." Neither really provides comprehensive evidence for his claims, with a lot of partial quotes and vague references to his beliefs rather than full context. I'm pretty sure Beck could link the Easter Bunny to Osama bin Laden within his standard of logic. Obviously the blogs are worse, with the trademark uber-hearsay blended with out-of-context quotes to form inflammatory cases.

Here's the problem: Rauf is a Sufi Muslim. The standard quick one-line cliche of Sufism is that it is a form of Islam characterized by mysticism, song, dance, and with a liberal interpretation of Islam that allows for pluralism and tolerance of other religions. This is probably over-simplistic. But as this insightful January 2009 article from the Boston Herald (as well as the Fareed Zakaria link) shows, Sufism has a history of being attacked by Wahhabi fundamentalists, a common antagonist it shares with the West. Islamists have little more room for Sufis than thy do for any other infidels. Are they the pacifists to complete a neat little "Good Muslims vs. Bad Muslims" narrative? Not necessarily, bu they don't need to be. Al Qaeda and the Taliban abhor the relative tolerance and progressiveness of this branch, as Wahhabi adherents decry anything not firmly rooted in the Quran. This is why, as Zakaria points out, none other than former president George W. Bush sent Sufis around the world to spread their message...including Feisal Abdul Rauf himself.

So the people that hate us most, the people trying to kill us on whatever soil they can, fundamentally hate this man's religion. Huh.

That said, just because Fox is being fitted for a straight jacket and most people ripping Rauf don't have the first clue about him doesn't mean that we should just dismiss all questions about him as ignorant fear mongering. Islamists, believe it or not, aren't so stupid that they haven't figured out how to use our own tolerance against us to allow them a foothold. So, as silly as it sounds, we have to look at counterpoints without merely being dismissive.

One point that has been made revolves around his book, What is Right with Islam is What's Right with America. Rauf makes the point that Islam is not only compatible with America, but that America and Islam share similar vales. Here is an example of him, some say, equating Sharia to the Declaration of Independence. On face, this does not please a lot of people. But at the same time, this is just an opinion about the state of America, and not a negative one. You can disagree with his interpretation of Islam, of America, or whether the two are truly compatible. But his message is steeped in peace, and is purely an unorthodox opinion.

Also, his words after 9/11, that "American policies in the Middle East were accessories to the crime" have turned people against him. He also refused to denounce Hamas as terrorists. The name of the center, Cordoba, has also come under fire. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was captured by Muslims in 711 AD. Many regard this as an assertion that 9/11 was a conquering act to be commemorated by this Mosque, or more accurately, the mosque within the community center. (Building mosques on top of the religious sites of the conquered was standard operating procedure during the Middle Ages. As were unfathomably bloody Crusades.)

Of course if it sounds simple and evil, it must be, right? These arguments are downright logical and even factual. Of course, I don't accept many things as being that simple. They almost never are.

First: wow, he criticized American policy in the Middle East? Say it ain't so. You're saying he indicated that there was some causality between supporting undemocratic regimes in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Islamic forces like the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Or supporting Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Real radical talk there; no way any of that has to do with tensions between us and the Middle East. Deport him NOW. But seriously, he denounced the 9/11 attack at every occasion, including just before making the statement in question. This view does not make him a criminal, it makes him like a very large percentage of non-Muslim Americans.

His stance on Hamas has been equally inflamitory. But as usual a look at context is revealing, in particular two major points in this well-researched Media Matters breakdown of the man. First, Hamas is both a terror organization and political movement, and when it comes to acts of terrorism he has always denounced them as un-Islamic, whether commited by Hamas or others. Secondly, he is a supporter of the State of Israel. Can you fault him for not denouncing Hamas? Sure you can. Is it the smoking gun indicating extremist views? Hardly. There have been violent mistakes made on both sides of an Israeli/Palestinean conflict that is impossibly complex.

As for the Cordoba appellation, the Initiative's stance is that in the heyday of Cordoba, as Wikipedia verifies, the city was a major cultural center under Islamic rule, one tolerant of other religions as well. It was "one of the most advanced cities in the world" economically, politically, and financially during the 10th and 11th centuries, along with being a major Muslim learning center. It's just the beginning part (711 Muslim conquest) and the end part of this era (conquest by the decidedly less tolerant Moroccan Almoravid Dynasty in the early/mid 11th century) that doesn't sit well with skeptics. It is possible that this was just a miscalculation or misunderstanding of intent, leading to, as suggested by this staunchly anti-Islamist blog, an altering of the paragraph explaining the name on the Cordoba website. But a look at the rest of the Cordoba Instititute's FAQs reveals some pretty reasonable explanations for both the name and the ultimate goals of the community center (with mosque inside).

Look, in the end, I don't know Feisal Abdul Rauf. All I can go off of is what people say about him and what he says, like any public figure. I have spent a ton of time reading various views over the past few days. There are moments where I disagree with what he says, but not where I find him an enemy of progress or America. I applaud the fact that he consistently condemns terrorist acts. I applaud the fact that his new center is inclusive to non-Muslims and leaders of other faiths. At the same time he seems to often be biased towards his religion, and other Muslims. His core message is somewhat simplistic and idyllic, which is nice, but there are realities of the Islamist movement that aren't always thoroughly addressed by him.

But at the end of the day, I have yet to read people who have come into close contact with Rauf disparage him. It is no shock that the liberal-skewing New York Times and Huffington Post support his efforts. But Nicholas Kristof for example, knows Rauf and his wife personally and in a glowing account maintains that he is "for real." Another feature in the Times depicts other people that know him as a moderate, including a Christian reverend that couldn't believe he was being portrayed as a radical and a Jewish friend from college remembering how they used to have open, friendly dialogue debating the 1967 war that had broken out in the Middle East. The only people depicted in the article with concerns about him were Muslims who thought his roll as a bridge took away from his services to Muslims. The Huffington Post points to help he provided to the FBI, but natural the New York Post criticizes that help and other beliefs in a never ending argument of semantics.

But too many people, Muslim and non-Muslim, in New York and around the world have worked with the Imam for him to hide a terrorist agenda. Does he hold views that many might disagree with? Yes. Dissecting his views is a nuanced procedure as with anyone, we have a right to do that as much as he has a right to have them. What really makes someone a "moderate Muslim?" We will look into that in a post tomorrow, but let's just say the distinction is not as simple as "West-loving moderate Muslim or American-hating terrorist sympathizer. Is it right that he will build a community center that includes a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero? That's the big question, and that will be addressed by the post that will wrap up the series.

But for now, just realize that as easy as it is to drum up fear, many will stretch the truth to make it fit their narrative. For example, newscasters might use one of their own company's co-owners to indicate a dangerous terrorist tie. In the end, Rauf is a Muslim, and an American. He believes the two are compatible. There has been no connection between him and any terrorist act, only condemnation for them in hundreds, maybe thousands of speeches.

So, yes, as the week moves along, I will go into further debate on the role of Islam in America, weather this "clash of cultures" is being too passively dismissed by liberals, the heterogeneity of Muslims that makes them, like any group, impossible to pin down to a simple description, and whether or not this move to build a giant community center with a mosque inside constitutes a provocative move that is as insensitive as those rioting against it (even shouting epithets at a non-Muslim wearing a skull cap). But I can't find a bit of evidence that this particular imam is dangerous, while plenty of evidence points to someone willing to converse with people of all faiths. And that Al Qaeda and the Taliban hate his religion is just gravy.

Ground Zero Mosque: Imam dangerous because he was funded by Fox News shareholder, according to Fox News

2010-08-24T02:58:00.004-04:00

I am working on an article breaking down the imam heading up the Cordoba Initiative as part of a series of posts analyzing the Ground Zero Mosque. As with most people, Feisal Abdul Rauf comes with a few shades of gray, so after a day full of reading, I will finish writing tomorrow. No sense in being hasty or rash.

But this couldn't wait. I was going to integrate Thursday's The Daily Show into the article. Jon Stewart, as usual, skillfully lampooned some baseless logic from Fox News. But tonight was over the top. Stewart showed a clip of Fox personalities criticizing Rauf for accepting funding from a nameless Saudi prince. They talked about how Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million donation to that very prince after 9/11, as he questioned the Saudi Royal Family's ties to Wahhabi fundamentalist mosques. Conspicuously left unmentioned: this Saudi prince owns the second largest share of Fox News' parent company outside the Murdoch family.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight I watched clips where Fox News talking heads used the fact that Prince Al Waleed bin Talal had given money to Rauf as evidence that Rauf had questionable ties to potential terror funders. Then I watched those same personalities not mention that man by name, or the fact that he owned seven percent of News Corp, Fox's daddy company. And naturally, I saw photos of Big Poppa himself, Rupert Murdoch, shaking hands with Prince Al Waleed bin Talal. The man Murdoch's on-air children had just used to connect Rauf to terrorism via money trail. A money trail that apparently includes Fox News. (My head just exploded.)

Stewart's Thursday assault was good, and he did use Al Waleed's connection to News Corp then. When I first heard about the mosque I had already posited that it would be easy to connect any imam to a questionable source, and sure enough, Stewart parodied Fox's "six degrees of people who don't eat bacon." (He also used, without satire, a Charlton Heston speech to make his point, which I found remarkable and well executed.) A Yahoo News post further elaborated on the connection. And while laughable, I wouldn't call the initial irony diabolical; even Stewart said Monday he was just pointing out the silliness of the way Fox was linking Rauf to terrorists.

But when Fox News explicitly used one of it's biggest shareholder's money as evidence of terror association...well, I just can't add to that. Even Stewart was without a clever punchline beyond stating what happened. The situation is the punchline. Fox News just unwittingly implied that it is a terrorist organization.

Stewart was far from comprehensive in his own analysis of Rauf. I understand; he's a comedian and Fox gave him gold. I will provide much deeper analysis of Rauf tomorrow, as I will other areas of this controversy this week.

But for now, we just sit back, and somehow be even more amazed than ever at Fox News. Because as The Daily Show points out, if Fox News is not unconscionably unethical, then it is unfathomably stupid.

Then again, maybe they just assume we are.

Ground Zero Mosque: What are things sure to be shamelessly politicized, Alec?

2010-08-21T00:12:00.002-04:00

Yeah, this one won't end well no matter what happens.

One side will contend that Muslims are conquering America and using terrorist money to build a holy site on the corpses of Americans, a representation of a culture that is anathema to American Values. The other will counter that any opposition to such a mosque is bigoted, anti-Muslim, and anathema to American Values.

In a kind of first, my next several posts early next week will be a series tackling several angles of this discussion, firing at the usual mindless banter and looking for people that actually make valid points. But for now, suffice to say even former president Bush's advisers are telling the GOP to tone down the rhetoric. That can't be a good sign...

Angry Redneck Xenophobes and Hopeless Pacifist Hippies: To ARMS!

Return of the Hatchet...With VENGANCE

2010-08-19T15:23:00.000-04:00

I would like to apologize to both of my readers for my recent hiatus. I have been busy moving to Chicago from Raleigh, attending a concert and a wedding, spending a week at the beach, and setting up for grad school. So I haven't had time to write very much.

The good news is that I just got back to Chicago after spending a few weeks in North Carolina, and with a month before school starts, I have some notable free time. So this blog will see more activity than in any time in its history until class starts Sept. 20. So tell your friends.

Democrats blast Gibbs for stating obvious

2010-07-15T12:07:00.004-04:00

Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, on this year's coming midterm elections:

"I think there is no doubt there are enough seats in play -- that could cause Republicans to gain control."

That had Democrats "Hot, hot, hot," according to one eloquent unnamed source. And in fairness, you just can't have administration officials admitting that either team can win a game. Apparently, acknowledging possibilities in a press conference is too scary, as Dems prefer to stick fingers in their ears and say "LA-LA-LA" like an upset toddler. Yeah, these are the people to deal with our toughest issues.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, said "people need to be aware of how their comments will be interpreted in a political environment."

In Van Hollen's case, my interpretation is that people complaining about Gibbs' comments waste valuable time overanalyzing a pretty innocuous statement. My interpretation further stipulates that the Democrats continued bickering with each other over nonsense indicates that the party is scared, and fighting like a panicked mob on a sinking cruise ship.

I haven't studied enough of the races to know how many Republicans can take seats. And frankly I don't care. Anyone familair with my work knows I don't like parties and could care less which one is in power, as long as that group is rational, listens to experts before lobbyists, puts the good of America before trying to swindle as much federal funding as possible for constituents, and manages to maintain at least a mirage of competence. (*Note: This might be a mythical group of politicians.)

Mindless squabbles like this, where people argue over literally nothing, make me more and more certain that I am right about the ineptitude of political parties. So I'm going to go ahead and pull for the candidate best able to distance him- or herself from them.

In fairness, Van Hollen did move onto an issue. Kind of.

"There is no upside to this and we need to get beyond this and focus less on what the president's spokesman said on a news show and focus on what the Republicans say they will do if they get control of the House." Republicans are asking voters "to send back the same guys who got the economy in the ditch to begin with."

Ah, yes. The "Der, economy go bad. Republicans in power when economy go bad. Therefore Democrats best thing to fix economy," iron-clad logical gemstone.

Sounds like a comprehensive, well-articulated solution-based approach. Just as long as the Democrats don't fix a declining education system to give us a more globally competitive workforce, find a way to significantly trim the biggest albatrosses in the budget (Medicare, Social Security, Military) to make meaningful inroads on the huge deficit, which Bush started and Obama has grown.

Wouldn't want those kinds of ideas diluting the party line of "Dems: Good, Republicans: Bad" the way Gibbs did.

Sports Interlude: MLB All-Star Game Re-mix

2010-07-06T23:13:00.002-04:00

As usual, fans, coaches and players have butchered the All-Star selection process. So I've taken the liberty to correct them. Someone needs to give the snubs their due, and point and laugh at the undeserving parasites.

My National League replacements have already been posted to Sports-Central. American League will be posted soon. (Update: HERE IT IS!)

Fear-mongering CNN article insanely stupid

2010-06-30T13:24:00.006-04:00

Did you hear? A VA hospital in Missouri might have given 1,800 veterans HIV! Or so says the headline. Of course, if you read the article, you find that 1,800 patients were treated with tools that had been cleaned too much:

Dr. Gina Michael, the association chief of staff at the hospital, told the affiliate that some dental technicians broke protocol by handwashing tools before putting them in cleaning machines.

The instruments were supposed to only be put in the cleaning machines, Michael said.

Wow. I shouldn't have to say more for CNN to be properly ridiculed. But I will....

(Clears throat)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME CNN!?!?

How could you make the claim that 1,800 people were exposed to a disease because they had their teeth cleaned by instruments that had GONE THROUGH A CLEANING MACHINE DESIGNED TO STERILIZE UNWASHED TOOLS? Are your web editors high?

As one in the comments section pointed out (top comment when sorted by most liked), the no-hand washing rule is to protect the technicians, not the patients. So either this is blatant, incomprehensible fear-mongering shamelessly trying to drum up page-views, or the facts in this report are grossly inaccurate. Either way, whatever wire-service writer wrote the article leaves me with the impression that he or she is incapable of basic logic and possibly brain-damaged.

The only comprehensible way for the facts to be accurate and the portrayed fears to be justified is if handwashing the tools somehow made it safe for the viruses in question to go through the washing machine designed with the sole purpose of sterilizing the tools. Which of course makes no sense whatsoever, and would necessitate further explanation to those of us capable of rational thought.

Great journalism, CNN.

McChrystal and his aides say mean things; Obama administration: Oh, no he DID-ENT!

2010-06-29T01:41:00.010-04:00

Or at least that's the impression you get reading standard out-of-context quotes presented by mainstream media and their aftermath. Of course, more people proffered opinions on whether General Stan McChrystal should be fired than actually read the Rolling Stone article. But hey, that's par for the course.

McChrystal really isn't even quoted as saying a thing in the article about his Commander in Chief or the VP. Although the article is an interesting profile of a general and look at the war, you could find a qualms with elements of Michael Hastings' reporting. But as everyone grabbed the juicy quotes (mostly from aides and not the general himself) everyone, as usual, glossed over the more crucial, relevant issues.

It is not for me to say whether removing McChrystal from his command was the correct call. He royally screwed up Pulbic Figure Media Management 101, and at his level that can't be acceptable. Letting a reporter in that close is one thing, but not being able to prevent the current PR wildfire could be seen as indicative that he is unfit to lead a war so heavily reliant on public support both here and in Afghanistan. (This is slightly ironic considering that in the article, he is criticized by some in the military for some of the restrictions he imposes. They are some of the most rigorous attempts to reduce civilian casualties that have ever been implemented. He knows that each civilian death creates more people interested in shooting at Americans; on some level, he understands the massive importance of perception.)

What I will say is that, as usual, everyone is fixated at the wrong parts of the article. People are also focused on the wrong elements of what got McChrystal fired. Comments that garnered the attention, like the cheap Biden/Bite me comment from an aide, showed that McChrystal's people (and it could be implied McChrystal himself, considering the regard his people have for him and his opinions) had disagreements with civilian command involved in the conflict. And they showed that he and his crew had an open, loose, somewhat crude culture and manner of expressing their views away from the pressers.

I'm initially inclined to quip: So what? You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't had a boss or co-worker they butted heads with, and usually that head-butting is just the tip of the iceberg. Generally professionalism keeps most of it below the surface, but thanks to a reporter getting in deep with McChrystal's crew, everyone got a good view at what exists below sea level, including Barak Obama.

But what role did the article really play? As Hastings suggested to Stephen Colbert, the article may not have been the reason McChrystal was fired, but a politically convenient excuse to fire someone the administration already didn't like. This is of course disingenuous, but certainly well within the right of the President; civilian command of the military is very important. Frankly, though, that Obama needed an excuse doesn't indicate a willingness to use clout at his whim; you could opine that this is a virtue, that a president wielding an iron fist and firing good people he disagrees with is less than ideal. But the other side of that coin is a leader who has let division in his ranks, military and civilian, result in an incoherent approach to Afghanistan.

As for Hastings, he's a Rolling Stone reporter. That obviously comes with certain caveats. The whole tone of the article mirrors the informality and bluntness of McChrystal's crew (i.e. typical Rolling Stone style), you can certainly catch a whiff of an anti-war agenda (from the Rolling Stone? You don't say!) and you could argue that he overplayed/mischaracterized McChrystal's and his crew's contempt for all civilian superiors.

But even though his methodology regarding on-the-record/off-the-record ground rules was criticized (in cases, harshly), he does provide a fresh angle into the discussion on Afghanistan at a high military and political level, where it is seemingly about as contentious and controversial as it is on the public level. (Hastings also said that he had no desire to see McChrystal fired, adding that he didn't think the general was fire-able. And the piece, while overly candid, is hardly a hatchet job demonizing the man.) A credit to McChrystal's integrity and Hastings' credibility, no one has disputed any facts or quotes in the article. Hastings might not be welcome back, though.

While the journalistic issues (like whether the Rolling Stone will trusted to get this close to anyone in the military or government for a while...I'm thinking no) are fascinating, it is an old trust-access tug-of-war that will continue on as long as we have a free press. So the content of the article is the more important story. The only problem is that the quotes have taken over as they always do in a world of news micro-bytes of partial info. Meanwhile the real story is buried mostly in the second half of the article, where you find most of the talk about how McChrystal's personality fits into the larger war discussion.

So while everyone is worrying about an aide saying that McChrystal categorized Obama as unprepared for a meeting or appearing distracted (probably the most directly insubordinate single part of the article), lets remember that it pales by comparison to the bigger issues. Like whether the counterinsurgency can work in the first place.

Blogger changes layout instead of writing, acts as if he accomplished something

2010-06-15T01:39:00.002-04:00

It's still a relatively straightforward blog layout, and I stuck with blue and gray as the theme colors. But now, with more pizazz!

Basically Blogger came out with some more templates, and I got ADD'd into giving myself a face-lift. I know, snazzing up the joint kind of goes against my stance against fancy bells and whistles, but look how much prettier it is! Oh well. I'll actually produce some substance soon....

Renegade Gaza article actually balanced, not seemingly written by Zionists or Hamas

2010-06-10T13:51:00.002-04:00

It seems that everyone has a dog in this Israel fight, like people picking sides in Lakers-Celtics. I just happened to really like this article, which does a few things: It treats both sides relatively neutrally, gives a balanced, less-slanted insight to what life on the ground is like in Gaza/Israel/West Bank, and actually goes into some policy solutions being talked about rather than fanning the flames and playing the blame game. Novel. Good read.

As for the flotillas... Ah, I don't have time to get all the way into that now. Short version: Israel, quit being jerks and find ways to allow humanitarian aid in; you have the guns and power, you're in charge; be the good guys for once. Flotilla people on the boat in question, stop picking fights with metal sticks when the other side has guns. Hamas, blowing people up isn't cool. And Israel, building Israeli settlements in Palestinian controlled territory doesn't make your case. We good? We good. See, solved thousands of years of strife in two minutes. Oh, and Iran: Stay the hell out of it.

Quote is complete B.S.; still kinda funny

2010-06-10T13:36:00.005-04:00

Internet rumors have a way of getting way out of hand. For example:

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, “passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."

Of course it turns out that the source was political satire. We're one step way from chain emails accidentally quoting South Park. Anyway, the five-percent rule was only a small part of the amendment in question. Another part would have stripped a requirement that mortgage packers keep a financial interest in the securities they sell, something Dodd explicitly opposed. Which is really quite reasonable. So don't be too quick to buy into a quote because it fits your world view and makes opposition look that incredibly stupid.

More proof BP deserves what's coming

2010-06-08T17:30:00.003-04:00

I thought my last post made a pretty compelling case. It just lacked some anecdotal evidence showing that the violations were of negligence and not incompetence. Well, here's some. Turns out that, yup, BP is incredibly cheap, and nope, it doesn't give two spits about safety.

It seems pretty unanimous at this point that BP needs to pony up some serious dough on this one. More than the $75 million cap that current laws stipulate. I normally don't like changing the rule after the fight, but lets face it, not a politician on the planet can withstand fallout from not taking a stand here.

BP blows minds with awful safety record and secures convincing win in blame game

2010-06-02T01:44:00.005-04:00

As a few hundred thousand gallons of oil spill every day into the Gulf of Mexico, these numbers defy belief. Especially when compared to other allegedly careless oil companies.

"[Occupational Safety and Health Administration] statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation."

To put this ratio into sports terms, such as career home runs, BP is Barry Bonds, and Exxon is Emil Verban when it comes to Egregious, Willful Safety Violations. Money more your reference of choice? BP is the CEO of Burger King, Citgo is the guy that hands you your Whopper. I sure hope there's not more... [Hint: there is.]

The death count of 30 BP on top of 200 injured in two separate BP incidents BEFORE the recent disaster south of Louisiana underscores the kind of regard it has for its own employees, so the disregard for the environment shouldn't be all that shocking.

Throw on top of the insanely bad safety record BP's misleading initial estimates of the oil and the several failed attempts to stop the flow on top of the unprecedented and still incomprehensible disaster, and you have a pretty clear cut winner.

This is not to say everyone else has clean hands and consciences. Government has bent at the whim of oil companies for a long time, granting subsidies, tax breaks, and research funding for one of the most absurdly profitable industries in the world. The Bush Administration, naturally, was especially cozy with Big Oil, but were far from the only policy/law-makers with greasy fingers.

And let's not even get started with the the sex-and-drug-bribed Mineral Management Service. A govenrnment agency charged with overseeing safety regulations on the continental shelf basically said the Gulf was all safe for drilling and that this whole oil-gusher thingy wouldn't happen.

Obama's administration, with health care, two wars, financial crisis and gay soldiers on the docket, missed out on these warning signs, which is understandable. Obama did, however, vote for the 2005 oil-stained bill, so really, he's just another cog in the machine of permissiveness, an enabler just like everyone else the oil and gas companies funnel money into lobbying (over $169 milllion in just the last year, compared to $21 million from the environmental lobbys. And yes, 75 percent of the oil and gas money went to Republicans.)

So what does it all mean? Blaming Obama or his administration alone isn't totally fair nor is it nearly comprehensive enough. Blaming Bush is a waste of time. Blaming the entire political system is necessary. No one wanted to bite the hand that feeds (filet mignon stuffed with lobster and wrapped in $100 bills, in this case) but the excesses in this case are just embarrassingly excessive. The press needs to put more pressure and spotlight on this kind of acquiescence in light of the consequences. Plus the tax breaks and funding have really not been helping that whole deficit thing.

But BP, most of all, needs to be held responsible. The only thing worse than the government giving oil companies a free ride and exemption from basic safety practices that would prevent unmitigated disaster would be to have a precedent set where companies didn't have the fear of God of allowing that unmitigated disaster to actually happen.

In other words, whatever the government does to BP on behalf of its 11 dead employees and millions of deeply affected Americans on the Gulf Coast, I won't feel the slightest conflict or hesitation over whether it might have been too harsh. Even if that government should have never let it happen itself. Anyone that fears any and all government regulation but not unfettered corporate freedom has a new, very large intellectual hurdle to get over.

I love big business. Economy of scale, massive research and development capital (which is why governments shouldn't have to fund them) and massive production potential. But thinking they can be trusted to operate without anyone keeping a close eye on them is, obviously, incredibly insane.

Loud minority decries Arizona law racist; no one offers alternate solution to problem

2010-05-27T14:41:00.005-04:00

Sports teams, mayors in other states, national legislators, and thousands of other run-of-the-mill civilians, and the President of Mexico have protested the new Arizona law allowing law enforcement officers to verify that suspected illegal immigrants are in the country legally.

Naturally, people reacted like children. The mayor and city council of Los Angeles boycotted Arizona. Arizona asked LA if it liked reading by candle light. Racists love the law, but so do some legal Mexicans and even some well meaning white people. Many liberals hate it, and consider anyone who could fathom supporting the law racist. Said individuals generally offer no alternate solution to to a possibly costly problem for broke government. So yeah, another typical day of American Debate 101.

My request: read some points below, and if you truly hate the AZ law, please provide a logical solution to the problem it tries to address in the comments. Because no one else is doing that.

The issues:

1. No, not all immigration is bad. More people in does not equal less jobs inherently. Period. Many use immigration as a scapegoat for economic woes, and while studies do vary widely, the most overbearing claims of costs of illegals don't hold up to much scrutiny. And they generally ignore jobs created and consumer savings from lowered labor costs. A 2007 CBO estimate has it as a negative, but modest, effect. Microscopic when compared to the grand sum of Medicare, Social Security, and military spending.

2. Not everyone who thinks we should deal with the illegal immigration problem with something other than a "give them free stuff" approach is racist. Trying to make it taboo to be against illegal immigration with cries of racism is antithetical to freedom of expression and open exchange of ideas and opinions, and therefore borderline fascist on an intellectual level.

3. Illegals don't take quite as much free stuff without paying taxes as you'd think. They also contribute $6-7 billion to social security while they'll technically never be eligible for benefits.

4. Out and out racists will support things like the Arizona law. Deal with it. Other complete idiots probably agree with a lot of your views too. Doesn't make those views wrong or right.

5. Not a lot of developed or developing nation on earth have immigration laws and their effective enforcement more lax than our federal government's right now. End of story. Europe has its own problems. Oh, and go to Mexico illegally. See what they do.

6. Illegal immigration DOES cause problems.Violence from drug trafficking. Strain on health services we all end up paying for. Strain on education budgets (One immigration activist group estimates $1.6 billion in Arizona alone). Food assistance programs (But they are generally ineligible for welfare).

7. Cops, like any group in a profession, are imperfect. Some may even be kinda racist. They are going to make mistakes. Legal residents will be inconvenienced. Many of those will be Mexican Americans. This is not a good thing. It's a very bad thing, and no one should be happy about that potential.

8. About 30 percent of Arizona's population (almost 2 million people) is Hispanic. Cops can't pull over or stop on the street every Mexican-looking person they meet. Inherently, there is going to have to be an additional factors. We're not quite to "Japanese Internment Camp" Status on the totalitarian profiling spectrum. Now, estimates have almost half a million Mexicans living in Arizona illegally. There is at least an argument that this law will target businesses that hire illegals, and the criminal element of that group primarily.

None of these points prohibit you from being against the new law or for it. But not having read the law before slamming it, as people like Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitan have, kind of does disqualify you.

I don't envision most people admonishing the law having a family walk onto their lawn, pitch a tent and set up camp, and responding, "We can't kick them out, no human is illegal. In fact we should feed them, provide them medical care and educate their children." Yet that is what they want our government (which is, in most cases, broke) to do without us being even able to question it.

Basically, critics of this law presumably want to have a fair, equitable nation of laws where playing by the rules is rewarded. But they generally don't want the guilty of conscience of actually enforcing rules if it creates hardship for anyone. This is an unsustainable attitude. Most don't want to choose between further deterioration of a problem and enforcing a law that might ruffle some feathers. It's basically the health care debate all over again.

"Everyone should have great health care!"

"How you gonna pay for it, Socialist Commie? Not with MY DIME!"

"No one should be without GREAT HEALTH CARE!"

Now replace "Health Care" with "Access to Social Programs American Citizens Pay for with their Tax Money, the Right to Jump a Fence to Claim Rights in a Foreign Country," and you have the new argument. Great intellectual debates we have in this country, no?

So please. If you hate this bill and want it gone, give me your solutions; honestly, I want to hear them. Personally (note: first you actually see of my opinion), I'm leery of the bill myself and it does open a door for profiling, and I have a problem with the overstatement in many cases of the problem. And not even everyone in Arizona law enforcement is on board.

But frankly, asking people to provide documentation (like every time an officer pulls you over and asks for license and registration) when police are doing their job enforcing laws seems reasonable, as long as their being watched like hawks by hundreds of anxious lawyers waiting for work in helping define "reasonable." (Ain't America grand?) Regardless of which economist you believe on the costs of immigrants, it seems that Arizona is within it's right to actively enforce laws already on the books.

But that's just me.

What do you think?

Sports Interlude: Mythical team in Tampa silently destroying real baseball teams

2010-05-24T23:57:00.002-04:00

Two of their three highest paid players hitting below the Mendoza Line, but thanks to a stellar pitching staff and some key hits, the Tampa Bay Rays have shot out to the best start in baseball...since 2001.

Of course Tampa Bay is mostly oblivious, but it's worth noting anyway. Especially as the Red Sox and Yankees try to catch up like toddlers trying to keep up with a sprinting older brother. Only in this case the toddlers are running with payrolls well over $162 million and $206 million, respectively, both figures well over double Tampa's....