Larry.org

Well what can I say. I've not been posting alot about politics cause there hasn't been any. I don't really like posting about propaganda, and war. I'm not a big fan of either and they tend to go together.

The war was short. In two days President Bush is going to announce the end of armed conflict so that'll be nice. Now everyone in that region can resume killing each other without worry about war crimes technicalities.

There's a big old mess in Iraq and we're trying to figure out how to fix it. We've created this new mess, which is certainly much better than the old mess in terms of how much we like it. It remains to be seen how the "Arab Street" feels about it. The Onion should do a t-shirt about the Arab Street. It would compliment their "Area Man" t-shirts.

I just heard on NPR that the chairman of the FCC is following protocol on some proposed legislation that would ensure the part of the entertainment industry was not deregulated? UPDATE: I had this backwards. It was actually rules to provide a bit more deregulation. I figure it might have been internet radio. I wasn't paying too close attention UDATE: It was legislation that allows fewer restrictions on ownership of media outlets like radio stations . I generally dig that Chairman Powell is about working within the constraints of the agency as opposed to trying to set commerce policy through regulation. I generally like him. I don't know enough about this issue but it seems like the entertainment industry is pretty well deregulated and kicking butt already. If there is some other way to deregulate it some more I'm all for it. UPDATE: Well I'm still for it but this seems less like deregulation and more like not getting between congress and the airwaves. Not as much to be excited about for sure but I do agree that it is congress that should set this agenda not the FCC chariman I'd rather it be the most unfettered market possible as it's a market based on personal expression. At least it was until it became hugely profitable. You know you are doing something wrong as a government with regards to the entertainment industry when a story about entertainment law has a big enough federal angle to make the morning news. Must have been a slow news day.

Great article this weekend by Dan Gillmor of the Mercury News. Thanks to Jason Kottke for posting an excerpt on his weblog.



My favorite quote.

But the damage we will do to ourselves if we allow our liberty to disappear is incalculable. An entrepreneurial society can't exist if political freedom disappears, and if Big Brothers, public and private, are invading our daily existence with impunity.

I hope that we clue in to the long term risks posed by most of the legislation passed to 'improve communications' between security agencies to 'improve our safety'.



You have to wonder what the framers would be doing right about now.

At the risk of offending the very sensitive, I'm beginning to glaze over with regards to keeping up with the war coverage. I feel I'm experience the same sensation my wife seems to get when, against her will, she is forced to watch a complete baseball game. This usually happens to her when she joins me, for whatever reason, in attending a baseball game, and somehow forgets to bring a stack of magazines.

I can tell I'm glazing over because:

1. I'm unable to distinguish new information from old information in the war coverage


2. The parts that seem especially interesting are initially overanalyzed and then interspersed with so much fluff that after a while I don't really now if they were really important or just interesting


3. It seems the coverage is both too dramatic and too general at the same time


4. The peanuts are too salty and you can never find the beer guy when you need him

Which brings up a thought.

In the "Dead ball era" of baseball a two hour ball game was considered very long. Now it's typical that a game take at least 3 hours. Yet as much action, excitement, talent and pathos occurred in that 2 hour ball-game as occurs in todays 3 hour ball-games. They still played 9 innings and the rules haven't changed appreciably. The only real difference was the physical changes to the baseball that made it go farther when hit ( or more 'lively'). The game today is played in a different era often referred to as "The Modern Game" but I prefer calling it the "Jack-Rabbit" ball era.

The world hasn't been creating more reportable news today than it was 100 years ago. Sure more of it's reported and as a result I can be more informed on all viewpoints related to some tiny facet of the human experience, but that's not more real news. It used to take us one good read of the daily paper and maybe 1 hour of watching the evening news to be 'up to speed' on the days events. Though we don't do more that's news worthy today, we report the same amount of news 24 hours a day on 3 cable news channels. The underlying news story is more 'lively' or, because the world is so much more interconnected, goes farther when reported.

Reminds me of the change in the baseball game length.

So let's can consider the first era, where reading the newspaper and catching the evening news on TV was adequate, as the "Dead News" era and the modern era as the "Live News Era" or to extend the baseball analogy, the "Jack-Rabbit News" Era.

An interesting phenomenon I perceive of the "Jack-Rabbit News" vs. "Dead News" eras is the decrease in the involvement (or active participation) of the general population in discussing and reacting to the news. This despite an incredible uptick in our capacity to tell the world how we are reacting to a news story.

In the Dead News Era you were more likely to have an opinion, an idea what you would do regarding big questions of the day, and some criticism, constructive and otherwise, as to decisions made or actions undertaken on your behalf.

I think this level of engagement occurred more often in the "Dead News" era because the part of us that considers our input important and relevant to 'the news' become overwhelmed today by the sheer volume of reporting that occurs on the tiniest part of the news. It's sad to say current events that don't get reported often prove more news worthy and relevant than what was reported that day but that's another topic.

In the Dead News era the news outlets had a few 'takes' on the news and that was it. You were left to fill in the details. Thus the human experience was to a degree sketched out for you, with most of the relevant details intact. You were left to yourself to relate it to your life and your viewpoints. Today's news outlets have as many different viewpoints on the news as there are people in the world. Yet the weight and authority with which it is presented it so powerfully done that each little viewpoint on a given news story takes on a perception of credibility that encourages us to simply accept that viewpoint as an acceptable 'mapping' of the underlying news story to my life and my viewpoints.

And so we don't really need to do the work of mapping the real event to our viewpoint ourselves. Since we are less likely to do that work ourselves we are more likely to forget the relevance and to draw conclusions about how we relate to the world at large and pretty soon we just feel irrelevant and the news is what happens to other people so we don't think about it to much.

This resignation is further reinforced when news occurs that somehow transcends our normally disengaged consumption of the news. These events are usually very news worthy and very relevant (how else could they be able to snap us out of our apathetic approach to the news?). So we over report it and over expose it to an amazing degree so that eventually our renewed interest is sated and we can consider the relevance and viewpoint of the event to our lives effectively 'handled' for us by the news outlets.

This is how I'm beginning to feel about the "War" on Iraq. There's a great deal of news worthy stuff going on, but it's not being completely reported, for many good reasons. The news worthy stuff that is going on is amazing stuff, but it's being over dramatized and reported without enough thoughtful detail so it's sort of hard to distinguish really important bits from just interesting bits.

I really want to continue to be engaged on all this so I'm taking myself back to the 'dead news era' I prefer to live in by simply being very selective about the amount of news I consume and the sources I get it from.

Besides baseball season is about to start.

Come back home boys, come back safe, and come back soon.

So last night (below) I went off on why I'm against this war but supporting the troops. Pretty long screed and obviously a lot of stuff I was trying to resolve in my own head.



I've been spending the day thinking about what else we could have reasonably done to affect regime change in that country short of military force.



I've not come up with anything.



I'm clearly not as smart as the folks that were trying to come up with something.



Maybe force is the only way now. Not that it really matters, as it's the way we've gone.



I guess I just don't want to stop trying to think of new non-violent means because a) I hate war b) I don't like the idea that we're becoming a country that can just beat the shit out of anyone that we think might threaten us and c) I don't think we really tried as hard as we, the US, could have to get what we need without force.



So am I against the war, hell I don't know. I guess it will depend on weather they uncover significant weapons of mass destruction, how much damage we do Iraq as a whole and what we do after it's over both in terms of rebuilding and repeating this type of foreign policy with a different enemy.



So it's pretty weak to say that I'm going to wait and see how it turns out and then decide for sure. So given a one or the other, bottom line, gun to my head choice, I'm against the war. I'm not convinced that spending lives right now in this specific way will improve our safety long-term or short term. I believe this cost far outweighs the perceived benefits.



Proving WMD will certainly help convince me that this war was necessary, but I don't think it will convince me that the war was necessary right now. I'd need to not only see that WMD were being produced and hidden, but also that they were going to be used in the immediate future had we not intervened.

It's apparent to me now more than ever that war is a terrible thing. It's been a rough weekend for America, especially for those of us fighting our war in Iraq. I've spent the last few days getting all 'caught up' on the events that are unfolding as we liberate a country through warfare. I've been trying to reconcile myself to these actions we are undertaking. I still believe that we are trying to do what's best but doing it the wrong way.



War, I've been reminded (and I've been reminded of that in a jarring, soul shaking, terrible way), is an ugly, dangerous, unpredictable thing. We all know this. Now, it seems we are all being reminded of this. Will we win? Of course we will. Will we depose and evil and terrible regime, yep. Is it a good thing to remove Saddam Hussein from power? Undoubtedly. Do I feel sick inside watching it happen? Yep, I sure do.



So here we are at war and I hate it more than I ever have before. I know we're very good at reminding ourselves that we're the 'good guys'. I just don't believe there is a clear right and wrong at play here. And I can't help feeling a little outraged at that cause I believe there could have been. It seems to me that the fog of war applies just as much to the moral absolutes that 'forced' us into military action, as it does to the confusion and violence of war itself.



I was watching some coverage of an anti-war protest in San Francisco, I think it was on Friday. There was some footage of a war protester, off camera, and a passer-by, a woman, getting into a shouting match. The woman screamed at the protester (I'm paraphrasing from memory so my apologies if I get it wrong)

"You should kiss the ground your standing on. Our military are risking their lives defending your freedom and you don't even have a clue. Your living in a paradise on earth that's been purchased with the lives of our military and you don't even appreciate it one little bit"

I don't know. It's easy to say that she had a point. I did some marching for causes when I was young. I'm sure that many people that are participating in those marches haven't really thought through there positions as well as they could, many of them just protest because they enjoy voicing contrary opinions. That's a great right we have in this country and I think it's great that people can do it even if they don't really have good reasons to. I'm also quite sure that many people that are protesting do have an idea why they are protesting, and strongly believe in what they are doing.



What's the problem with participating in an anti-war protest at all? I think that protester should kiss the ground. Then they should stand up and say to that woman (right of the tops of their heads not because they spent the last three days trying to come up with what they should have said like I'm doing now):

I do appreciate my freedom in this country. I do appreciate the relative safety we live in in this country. I enjoy, daily, the blessings of prosperity and freedom that so many of us take for granted. I simply believe war is wrong. I consider war evil. I truly believe that unprovoked military force is, dare I say, criminal. That is what I believe. You can tell me why you believe that this war is a necessary evil, you can give me the reasons why we are acting responsibly and in a morally superior way. But you should be aware that I have heard many these arguments over the last year and have come to my own conclusions. Those conclusions motivated me to get off my lazy butt and make this sign and march up an down the streets

Had he further time to reflect, he might also add

My government right now is engaged in war in my name. I want the world to know that I don't approve of it. I want the world to know that just because some polls say that many people do approve of the war, hell even if everyone else on the planet supports this war, I don't. I believe killing is wrong, period. I know that there is ample evidence there are other ways. In case you were going to bring it up, I also believe that just because the UN is ineffective at finding non-violent means to deal with the evil, criminal actions of Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean we've exhausted all the non-violent things America can do to stop this man and his government.

Yeah, if he'd a thought of that and said it and something went wrong at the news network and they actually broadcasted a thoughtful statement, that would have been so much better.



So in figuring all this out for myself, I've discovered I don't see the problem with war protesters. I think it's ridiculous that some war protesters act violently themselves. Certainly not a strong argument for their position and frankly just a dumb ass thing to do. It will definitely mean that the news will cover the oxymoron of a violent peace rally instead of the real reasons people are against the war. Why, then should the peaceful protesters (who I'm inclined to believe are the vast majority of anti-war protesters in the US) think that they are acting in a way that is unappreciative of the country we enjoy living in?



This, to me is indicative of a big ass domestic problem that is facing us, as citizens, in the next few years. We live in a society that doesn't just encourage, but actually celebrates the polarization of viewpoints on major issues. We don't, almost can't, engage in productive dialog. We would rather screw the poor bastards that don't see it our way than consider that our own viewpoints might benefit from learning what reasons others diverge from our 'true way'.



Are we so sure of ourselves, or worse, so shallow and myopic a society that we should look down on, if not outright ridicule those that exercise their right to gather and demonstrate simply because "most of the country" is pro war (according to "the polls")?



I'm still conflicted as hell about large parts of this whole thing. But I am sure that we're doing the wrong thing for the right reason. It's not even that simple though. We're doing what we're doing without what should have been the right effort being expended to find a less dangerous and costly way.



I know a lot of people are convinced that we have to go to war because the UN was "so ineffective". But now we're betting the lives, the young lives of our servicemen and the lives of the innocent citizens of Iraq that they really were completely ineffective. Let's say they were ineffective. I'm pretty convinced they were, does it necessarily follow that because the UN couldn't do it we had to strike?



It's a moot point now, I know. We're in there, we're doing it and almost all that is left to do is pray.



As a man that grew up in the Army (as a dependent), I completely appreciate and respect the commitment and courage of all our servicemen and women in harms way in Iraq. They are our representatives. There lives are at risk, not mine and I can't thank them enough for being willing to do whatever our leaders ask of them.



But just because I feel that way about the individual service-people in our military doesn't mean I can't also see that the actions of our military are our actions as Americans.



I do protest what our leadership is doing in Iraq. I did not ask them to lay these lives on the line in my name. I do not accept that we had explored every option to to honestly avoid the loss of life through our own actions. I did not ask that these specific lives be traded for the freedoms that I enjoy because I am very far from convinced that their lives are being traded for my freedoms.



But now that we are in it. Now that "we" have committed to it. Please god let it be over soon. Let it not cost us too dearly. Let the Iraqi people survive it with as few injuries as possible and let there be some way that we can recover from damage that we're doing to ourselves as a nation as quickly as possible.



But let's remember, the vocal and respectful right to public gathering in the form of protests, rallies, demonstrations or god forbid, vigils, as vital to what makes america the greatest country in the world, regardless of whether you support this war or not.

I often wonder where people get the idea that high ranking military are automatically hawks, and conservatives. My father sent out a very thoughtful and insightful e-mail summarizing his reactions to the speech President Bush gave last night, and the coming 'war' with Iraq.

"We are on the eve of war and the President will address the nation this evening. I would like to share with you some final thoughts on this conflict that I have come to on my own or have read from others over the last several months. ...



In talking to other officers who served in combat, the universal response I receive when I ask them for their thoughts on Iraq is one of ambivalence and uncertainty. I guess you could summarize their attitude as one of hope that we are doing the wise thing but not very certain about it. Here are my brief thoughts. ...



- When I served in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, we had an expression. It was "the train has left the station." This was meant to convey the situation was moving so fast that the last idea surfaced was no longer relevant. In terms of our strategy for dealing with Iraq, the train definitely has left the station. I have a nagging thought that it may be headed down the wrong track. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong.



- I do not buy the argument that we have exhausted all other measures before resorting to military force. I say that since I can fill our cars with gasoline fueled from Iraqi imports. Therefore, I do not believe we have seriously tried economic sanctions. However, I understand why the US Government has not pursued this course of action. Uncooperative third countries can circumvent economic sanctions. In addition, economic pressure imposes humanitarian hardships on the Iraqi people. Nevertheless, we could have tried to make that form of pressure much more intense than we did.



- There has been a lot fuzzing up of our objectives toward Iraq. Three objectives have been cited and emphasized by various officials at varying times, namely, regime change, disarmament, and supporting democracy. In my view, the disarmament objective was only a fig leaf since the US Government knew it would never get broad coalition support for a regime change. In fairness to Bush the 43rd, Bush the 41st would never have obtained the broad coalition support he did had Desert Storm been aimed at a regime change in Baghdad. The reason Bush the 41st President obtained such broad international support was that it sought a defensive objective only, namely to restore the territorial integrity of Kuwait.



- One of the reasons Congress has been fairly mute in the public debate over Iraq is that it overwhelmingly approved the policy of a regime change. It did this in 1998, when Clinton occupied the White House. The legislation was the "Iraq Liberation Act" ( Public Law 105-338 ). The legislation reads: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Unfortunately, the rhetorical resolve of this legislation was never backed up with a firm commitment for action that would realize the stated objective.



- I do not agree with the military strategy of using conventional forces to march/roll on Baghdad followed by the installation of an American Caesar. Mind you I'm not against using the military option. I just think there is a better military strategy. I would advocate an unconventional warfare (UW) approach much like the Afghan model where Special Forces and other US forces helped local freedom fighters win back their country. The way we are going into Iraq just Americanizes the problem. A UW strategy may even have gained more coalition support than our current approach. Finally, UW is essentially an economy of force measure. It is far less expensive than a conventional war. I realize that UW has its' downsides. For one thing, it takes considerable longer to wage. Perhaps, time is not on our side. Moreover, the outcome of an UW style war is less predictable and harder to control. [Note: I have to admit a slight bias towards UW since I served in Special Forces.]



- When we attack Iraq in the next few days, it will not really be a "war." Of course, it will look like a war. The TV images will definitely show vivid images of what seems to be a war in the making. And for those servicemen fighting in and over Iraq, it will smell like a war. But, it will not really be one. I believe the term "war" should be reserved for armed conflict against another country or threats wherein we mobilize the full resources of the country and fully commit to it. What we have here is a sub-contracted offensive campaign affecting a slimmed down military, with one third of the forces perched on the borders of Iraq consisting of US reserves and National Guard elements. Notice that the US Government has not reinstated the draft nor created an obligatory national service requirement for military and non-military duty. Now I have no doubt that this sub-contracted military force will make quick mincemeat of Saddam��ss forces and topple his regime. I have no doubt that they will serve with honor. The problem of course will be the cost in human and financial terms of sustaining that commitment as we plod along in our tenth year of nation building in the post-Hussein Iraq.



- I could be wrong on this but I have this sense that Bush is a one-term president no matter how this comes out. If he blinks and does not go to war, he will have lost all credibility. If he goes to war and it does not go as well as expected, there will be a lot of finger pointing. If the war goes as expected with a quick regime change and minimal casualties, then the aftermath of the war sets in more quickly. This allows more time for the cost, chaos, and complexity of nation building to sink in on the voting American taxpayer before the next presidential elections. One wild card here could save Bush. If it turns out that US Forces in Iraq discover vast amounts of chemical, biological, and even the early stages of developing nuclear arms; and definite links to Al Qaeda, then the American people would probably come to the conclusion that the cost of the war and its aftermath was worth the price. They will side with Bush that it was better to be safe than sorry. Because of this factor, I believe that one of the most politically sensitive issues to deal with following a US victory in Iraq is to obtain true and accurate information of the threat Saddam actually posed at the outset of hostilities. This will be a difficult task. It will be difficult for our intelligence services to produce an accurate picture due to the fog of war and partisan political pressures placed on them.



- Hopefully, my concerns are wrong. I have many hopes about this looming war, for which I pray. My hopes at this point are that:



— the war does go swimmingly and that there are few casualties on either side, and they play all the tunes of glory,



— the nation building of Iraq in the "wars" aftermath is reasonably well thought out and executed, leading to the restoration of law and order in short order and timely humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people,



— the subcontracted military forces deployed from the subcontracting culture of America can redeploy home and reunite with its subcontracted family and friends as quickly as possible,



— at some point in the not too distant future, America will enable future generations to share in the burden of preserving and building a free land through national service. President Dwight Eisenhower once said all he hoped for was that the land he took care of was "left better off than when he found it." That is a good hope for all of us. But, it should be noted that Ike realized his aspiration of leaving this free land better off because he was a selfless public servant. Maybe that is why America liked Ike so much.

I wrote back:



I share many of your concerns. It's also interesting to hear your take because of your incredible background in all matters military.



I think about 5 months ago I came to the conclusion that it was going to happen no matter what.. 'the train had left the station'.



My thoughts are pretty firm with regards to:



1) Saddam Hussein has got to go



2) We're going to be the ones to get him gone



Where I get into some serious misgivings is:



A) How quickly we need to do it



B) What it will cost us in terms of good will / cooperation internationally



C) What the specific objective is



D) Whether it's worth the price we will pay based on the present course.



I hope that it's over quickly. I hope that the propaganda that the Iraqi people are 'secretly' with us will mean that they will not fight and we can do this with minimum loss of life.



I think my most serious problem with all this is the transition in American foreign policy is still 'up in the air'.



Are we doing this because:



i) Saddam specifically has violated 12 years of UN Resolutions, and we're the UN's "muscle" even if they can't agree on when or why.



ii) We see a possible threat and can in 'self defense' act militarily to neutralize that percieved threat.



If we're doing this because of i) then that's not so much a big change for us Foreign Policy wise and it's easy to communicate to our (former?) allies



If we're doing this because of ii) then it's really easy for any other country to be gravely concerned about when, where or why we may act in a similar matter. Obviously this is where the War on Terrorism as a reason to act in this matter becomes a seriously scary foreign policy for us in the eyes of our allies.



I suppose if the UN had gotten itself behind military action then reason i) above would be why we are doing this. Our inability to convince the UN of the need for military intervention does not mean though that we are not doing it because of i) above...



I just wish that the Bush administration had a more specific message to the world with regards to this.



At this point I hope your feeling that the Bush Administration is going to be a one term run proves correct.



I can't imagine at this point how we're going to look back on these last two years, even as early as the end of the summer and think we've done the right things to secure the blessings of liberty, protect the peace at home and abroad and acted in a way that respects the human rights and dignity of people the world over.

One of the things that bothers me the most about the war on terrorism, especially the war on Iraq as it relates to that effort, is that if it's percieved as successful, the American public will be more likely to accept war as a normal part of being America. In fact it doesn't really have to be effective, it just has to appear to be successful, much like the 'war on drugs'. No coincidence that both of these wars are going after 'evil' I suppose.



The State of the Union address had as one of it's goals, to demonstrate that President Bush is not a man of war, but is instead a man being pushed into war. Well I don't know about 'being pushed into war' but I certainly never really believed that President Bush was a war-loving man. The fact is that there is no one person that sets a country to war, we just happen to have the role of the President, with which to personalize the effort.



If anything I think President Bush has done to little to lead a real debate on the issue, and for that I am very disappointed in his leadership. I understand that the Congress runs the country. I also understand that the Presidency provides a lever with which the people can move the Congress in one direction or another. I also understand that the man who becomes President is beholden to all the folks that put him there.



One of the fundamental things the President should do is to provide a powerful voice to the will of the country in the government. This is something that, despite his (many and terrible) faults, President Clinton did extremely well. As a consequence, during the Clinton administration, the vast majority of the country felt that the federal government was responding to their needs, or when it wasn't, they new someone was trying to get it to be responsive to their needs.



So while the black and white moral clarity has been effective during the first half of the Bush administrations, I think the administration is going to have a hard time being right about everything in the morally complex world we have been reacquainting ourselves with over the last year. The war on Iraq, the "Axis of Evil" speech and the personification of terrorism in the form of Osama Bin Laden, all serve to simplify the morality of our actions. Our effectiveness in all three of these efforts has been hamstrung by an overly aggressive, and patronizing view of global politics.



Now, however, we have a world in which our enemies are more committed to coming after us and seem to be gaining confidence and momentum. Are they motivated to increase their aggression because we've been so vocal about going after them unilaterally? How could they not be?



So where is the long term plan? How do we transition from a stance of 'your are either with us or with the terrorists' to a more tolerant and flexible international policy? Do we even have one? It seems we are to just accept that we will need to be fighting against the 'Forces of Evil' regardless of how the American public or the United Nations feels about it. This seems to be the next challenge for the Bush administration. Our success in derailing terrorism organizations in Iraq, Korea, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan depends on the coordinated efforts of many countries, not just our own efforts. As we move into these engagements, and there will be more of them, we are going to need the American people and most of our international friends to support us. We simply can't expect the problems will shift back to black and white morality. The only way that things will stay black and white for Americans is if there are some more terrible attacks in America.



Korea is just the beginning of the moral ambiguity of the real threats we will be facing in the next year. I don't have any hope that President Bush can be successful over the next two years if he continues to frame all of international conflict in an 'us vs. them' or 'good vs. evil' context.



This simply can't work. The world will not fit an absolute morality. It's too damn big. What then is our transition plan? Where do we go from here? I think we're about to find out. I hope that we do in a way that's not going to costs a lot of lives, or a lifetime of goodwill from our allies. Let's face it they will never forget either and we don't have a monopoly on national tragedies at the hands of terrorists.

I know that it's shooting fish in a barrel but my god, local news is just soo bad.



I remember distinctly two things happening to me when I heard about the space shuttle tragedy. The first one was - well very personal and quite unsettling so I won't repeat it here - you probably have a similar memory. The second thing that happened though was that I was thankful I was hearing about it from NPR and not watching some idiotic local talking head talking about the 'local angle'.



So in that thankfulness I decided, I was going to avoid local news for the rest of my natural life. This seemed prudent as, my need to get more information about this right away was quickly satisfied by NPR and the web, and well local news in Phoenix is quite literally the worst local news I've ever seen.



It could be that I'm an ideal audience for local news because I don't have the Cable TV. Which is difficult for many of my friends to understand I know. (We're usually talking this over while I'm sitting in front of their cable TV so, please friends, remember how much I appreciate you having your cable TV, but I digress.) Being an Antennae TV watcher I basically have three choices with the news. 1) Local News 2) The Jim Lehr News Hour 3) The Internet.



So if I really need to watch the news I watch the Jim Lehr news hour. If I need news quickly I go online. I'm left wondering why I would ever watch the Local news. On my few viewings of the local news I've only been able to come up with three reasons to watch it. This is of course based on the content of the local news which isn't fair to the set designers, lighting, hair and makeup folks that clearly bust their humps to bring me a pretty local news program. Pretty doesn't get the job done by itself though, as we all know, pretty is as pretty does.



So a few years back I determined that a story is a candidate for local news coverage if it:



a) motivates you to shop

b) tells you where you should go to shop

c) implies that violent crime or terrible tragedy only happen to people that aren't shopping

(In some cities I understand they cover the weather but that's pretty predictable in Phoenix.)



I may be oversimplifying but I've been able to trace every single loca news story I've ever seen in Arizona to these guiding principals so, until this weekend, I was still looking for proof that there's more to it than that.



So based on my understanding that this is what makes local news worth covering, I guess I'm not someone that should watch the local news anymore. Now I know this to be true, it's just that today I saw something on the local news that seemed to me both bitterly offensive and hysterically sad.



When 7 astronauts paid for the dreams of the space program with their lives on Saturday morning the debris from their disintegrating craft sprinkled over Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The words are hard for me to find to express the loss. Why then can we not honor these fallen men and women in the fact that the nobility of their, no, our common purpose and our depth of commitment have in such an endeavor? Why can't we insist on taking their memories and their ideals and respect them enough to remember that the terrible price they willingly paid is worth paying?



Visiting my neighbor I was surprised to learn that there have been a few investigations into debris that has been reported as close as two miles from my house. I certainly don't need to remind you how important it is to gather any hard evidence that can be provided to the investigation to understand what caused, and more importantly, how NASA can reduce the risk of catastrophic failures. It's just as obvious that in order to gather hard evidence you need to chase a lot of wild geese. I hope they figure it out and get the problem identified and the risks reduced. It's just that it's not really news until they either find something that was part of the space shuttle or bust someone claiming it was for personal gain.



The local news decided that the best way to cover this 'news' was to interview some kids on skateboards showing their camera crews how this stuff they found lying on the ground, wait for it, could be debris from the space shuttle. Mind you not that it is or is no just some garbage on the street. They were careful to point out that it could be anything.



While I'm watching I'm thinking, "Oh so you're saying it could be anything. I see. Anything.. right.. ok."



A few minutes later I'm ready to go into a fetal position on this. I've just spent 10 minutes of my life, ten minutes that I'll never get back, so they could tell me this could be one of two things.



Option 1) There may be pieces of the space shuttle very near my house, and we'll remind you that that's the space shuttle that disintegrated over the country, losing all brave hands, stranding three astronauts on the space station and creating a greater need for government funding for the space program.



Option 2) It could be something that fell of some old car. It's really impossible to know. (Seems to me that until they do now it's not news but maybe I'm thinking about this more than they expect or want me to.)



So then, and this is where it gets funny, they cut to an interview with a child in the elementary school right next to my house. These children were asked when they arrived at school today to write a short essay on what they think of the tragic events of this past Saturday.



And I'm sure they shot a lot of kids saying a lot of cute sad things about how bad it was and how cool it looked on TV and how they really wish that they had a Play Station game that teaches the astronauts how to power up and transform the yu-gi-ho space shuttle into some indestructible thing or whatever. Do I get that? Do I get some poignant innocent expression of sorrow and shock that somehow allows me to distance myself from the tragedy by looking at it through the eyes of a child?



The one kid they picked says, and I may be paraphrasing but it was pretty darn close to: "This shouldn't happen I don't think they should fly the space shuttle ever again if people are going to die in it". Sure it's innocent and sure it's probably more eloquent than anything I could have said at that age. But how the hell does that statement help?



So I start giggling because, as much as I love Arizona, this is just how awful our local news is.



We're spending money to put people in space. Some people might die. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But we'll be in space and we'll all share in the wonder and excitement that comes from discovery and that's the best work we can do. I'd gladly get on a space shuttle flight tomorrow with the fatality odds NASA has. It's worth all the risk. Without exceptions, it's the most amazing work we will ever witness mankind doing in our lifetime.



So let's not cover that part of it though. Let's talk about the stuff on the ground that people say might, or might not be space shuttle debris. And then let's get a shot of kid saying we shouldn't fly into space. Never mind that we're not funding such inspirational work enough. Let's just shoot this cute little kid saying "we shouldn't go to space if people might die" because clearly if people are going to die that means we have to stand behind the idea of going into space. It's as if they are seriously positing that if going to space means making little kids sad then maybe we shouldn't do it.



We as a nation spend a lot of money on the space program, especially when compared to education or health care or other stuff that's good for us but just seems too expensive. But still way less then we spend on the military and on a system designed specifically to knock things out of space (they keep saying it's going to work soon if we just keep paying for it, and I guess that's news too). I don't really want to take a body blow like the tragedy of this past Saturday and then hear this kind of 'local angle' tripe.



So, can we return the national debate to the few questions I have about what the hell we're going to do after we invade Iraq? Oh that's right, that topic doesn't involve shopping, where to shop, or how awful life is if you don't go shopping right now. I guess I won't be able to look for coverage of that debate on the local news.



I feel better now. I really find not watching local news to be one of the few things that, when I remove it from my life, has an entirely fulfilling effect.

So a few weeks ago I went and saw the Two Towers. I'm a big fan of the books and I started rereading it again a few weeks ago.


There was something my brother said as we were heading out of the movie that surprised me. He implied that the Lord of the Rings was a pro-war movie, specifically a pro War on Iraq movie.


After reading the first book and about a third of the second book I don't consider the Lord of the Rings a pro-war movie. While the trilogy is about a war I know that you can't say it is a work about why war is necessary. Rather it seems to me to be a work about what power is, how it corrupts and how technology and ambition move people away from acting human. Certainly in the Lord of the Rings the war is necessary. In fact the characters in it don't have any choice but to go to war. But the people that perpetuate the war are evil incarnate. I suppose that's why in the forward J.R.R. Tolkien goes out of his way to say that his story is applicable to current international conflict (at that time WWII) but most certainly his work was not meant to provide an allegory to that conflict.


It seems to me the scope and depth of the book make it applicable to any world war. I suppose it's one of the reasons I enjoy the books so much. But I can't imagine why anyone would think that the Lord of the Rings is a book that says we must go to war must with Iraq. This is especially true when you look at the war being fought in the books. It's a war that everyone in the book is resigned to losing but are fighting valiantly to win against overwhelming power and odds. With the War on Iraq we are not fighting overwhelming power or odds.

So we had a power problem at work and I ended up hanging out to restart the server afterwards. This involved me and Mike sitting around waiting for the power guy. During this time I shared my thoughts on the differences between the political parties. His initial response was something like "your probably right, but you realized that almost no one thinks about it this much". This kind of amused me.



Anyway he's reading John Adams right now and highly recommends it. Apparently there's a pretty good long period there where the popular opinion of the fledgling US was behind attacking France. I'm assuming they were prepared to surrender. During this time John Adams basically held us back from military action.



Anyway we left the conversation agreeing that:

A) we live in the best country in the world

B) despite everything the future for the US is going to be just fine

C) that we have more to be concerned about in our local and state government than in our federal government

D) That the rich will likely continue to get richer



It was a nice chat.

I was talking to a friend of mine today, Ed, about a true Idealogical difference between Republicans and Democrats.



We came up with:



Republicans believe the primary role of government is to create a society that maximizes individual wealth.



Democrats believe the primary role of government is to create a society that minimizes social injustice.



Don't know if that's accurate enough for you but it seems to fit for me right now.



Course Ed then quickly reminded me that Republicans and Democrats flip flopped idealogically during the Civil War. Which begs the question, could the War on Terrorism have as profound an affect on our society as the Civil War did? That would be a real drag.

So I've been thinking more about this. I still haven't really explained my political skepticism so I should put it down here. The short take away is I don't trust either party and find it tough to tell them apart ideologically.



When I was younger I used to like PJ O'Rourke's description of the difference between Democrats and Repubicans.

Democrats want you to believe the government is like the tooth fairy, it can give everyone just what they need and all we need to do is put up our used up stuff under our pillow to pay for it.



Republicans want you to believe that government doesn't work and want you to elect them to prove it.



P.J. O'Rourke (poorly paraphrased but I don't want to look it up from Parliament of Whores)

The problem is that either Politics have become more complicated, or I have.



It's me. As I've gotten older, I've revisited a few past political events. Events I used to think were correctly resolved at the time as Republican or Democratic victories. The more I revisit these events the more I find that the politics weren't very much different from what we are seeing today, but that my beliefs and my ability to see all the forces that were influencing these events have changed.



So I guess I don't feel I can say I am one or the other because when I look at what they each seem to be, the more I don't want to be either, but rather I want to be true to my own beliefs.



But what are they each about really? I mean the Republicans seem to be very good at saying they have all the ideas even though they get 'their' best work done when they work 'across the aisle'. Which seems to me the same strategy the Republicans used to complain about when the Clinton Administration was in power. Similarly the Democrats seem to be doing all they can to foil the progress that the Executive Branch is trying to make against it's own agenda. This also sounds familiar, no? So what the both parties seem to want us to know, about all the work they must be doing is, "It was really our idea, not thiers!".



So why do we spend so little time on the substance of what the parties are about ideologically? I think it's because that most of our politicians have discovered that it's easier to get everyone to get upset about the people or thier actions rather than actually be about any specific idea. Ideas are too risky I guess. They don't poll consistently and you are probably going to be wrong more often if you are talking about something that actually matters.



All this reminds me of an idea I am about to misquote:

• Most people take about other people.



• Good people talk about events.



• Great people talk about ideas.

I don't know who said that but I find it's very true. So I guess I'm not a Republican or a Democrat because, to me, neither party is talking a great deal about their "important ideas".



They are all talking about the people and occasionally about events. Occassionaly they will relate these to well polling, dumbed down and totally uninspiring ideas.



Where are the leaders to challenge our view of the world with their bold ideas about who we are, what we represent and where we are going? I guess I'll just have to find them in the people that are making a difference in the local community. Something about holding my breath and not doing it leaps to mind.

So while visiting for Thanksgiving, Joanie asked if we were democrats. So I told her "I usually just go with the specific politician." which really wasn't an answer but it is how I feel about politics. I definitely agree with the Democrats on education and health care. I agree with the Republicans (the party, not necessarily the administration) on some issues. I can't think of any right now as most of the Republican issues are pretty vague right now (security, lower taxes, things everyone is pretty much for). I find it really hard to tell the difference between the left and the right.



I just never feel comfortable saying I'm either republican or democrat. I mean what's the damn difference.



It was probably because I made a comment that could be considered pro-left at Thanksgiving dinner the night before. In hindsight I probably should have just bit my tongue but I really enjoy Laura's family and I was really surprised by the sweeping generalities that were being made.



It was sure interesting to hear there perspective after the election though as it was certainly something to watch in Minnesota.

So I had NOVA on the TiVo tonight and thought I'd watch it as I took care of some stuff for work and to prepare for my trip to Minnesota for Thanksgiving.



Interesting program on Venice sinking and/or the ocean rising and how the city is dealing with it.



I was intrigued by some of the many viewpoints presented:



1) Sometime following the Italian Renassaince the people stopped tearing down and building on top of previous structures. Had they continued that they would prevented the problem (or at least this specific problem) becuase they would be rising with the water and or sinking.



2) There's an environmental issue because Venice has no municipal sewer system(?)!



3) A multi-billion dollar project to put in a swinging gate like structure is only a temporary measure.



I got a call today from Mother Jones Journal (an "independent" magazine I really enjoy. Grab one next time your stuck in the airport) asking for $10 a month to subsidize their operations so that they don't have to take advertising dollars from 'corporate america'.



So during this phone call i'm hearing about how Mother Jones provides a voice to real issues that conventional issues can't, or doesn't want to address. The idea being that these other news outlets are beholden to corporate interests. Specifically there is a rallying around social issues, which is a huge area of focuse for the magazine. I was hearing about women�s reproductive rights, Supreme Court and circuit court appointments, and conservative politics being generally bad. Now I'm probably more moderate that people percieve me as but I don't disagree with many of the concerns people are having regarding the republican agenda for our country.



So while I'm watching the show on NOVA i'm thinking that there's an interesting analogy between the worst characteristics of a purely convserative political agenda.



a) Preservation of established power structures is critical (tax breaks for the wealthy, money used to influence government is good as while corrupt at lest it's econmoically based etc.)



b) We don't need any sort of cogent long-term health agenda, educational reform or environmental/energy policy that is sustainable unless it can survive natural market forces. To me this is like not having a municipal sewer system.



c) Star Wars missile defense. a very expensive solution that assumes a missile based attack is likely enough that it's worth spending all that money in defense. The parallels between the missile defense program and the 'gates' to block the Adriatic tide's progress into the lagoon.



All in all I found the program very damn interesting. I've noticed that many of my web log entries have been about politics and this Venice is Sinking problem might be an apt metaphor within which to present my reactions to the political news of the day.



It'd certainly be fun to look at how political forces affect huge inevitable problems in a country that's so much different than the USA. Maybe I could title this web log category The Sinking City of Venice directly. Or I could get cute and call it The Sinking City of Washington DC? No, too many people there are doing good work and fighting the good fight a trip to the thesaurus may be in order. We'll see if this goes anywhere.