I continue to read in preparation for my trip to China, two weeks away. Beside the detective stories I wrote about earlier, I have perused a guide book, a history of that strange 1930s-40s episode in which European Jews found a haven from the Nazis in a sector of Shanghai under Japanese control, even Confucius. And guess what? - that ancient sage is very modern and thought-provoking.
I want to pass on just one of my discoveries. When asked what he would do first if given power over the country, Confucius says…"rectify the names."
What! Surely, he’s joking. But he explains that nothing good, certainly not governing, is possible when it is not perfectly clear what words mean.
That’s pure George Orwell or, to descend a a few levels, Arthur Alpert.
So it makes sense to fight over the meaning of words. And to watch what the professional word-wranglers in the news business are doing.
(Today, for example, it may be worth our while to consider what "sovereignty" is.)
PS Confucius sure isn’t dry in the translation I am reading, "The Analects of Confucius" by Simon Leys, published in1997 by WW Norton.
I saw Michael Moore’s movie today.
He does a good job of attacking President Bush. He makes his points clearly; you do not need to be an expert to follow the argument.
Those points include:
- how Bush allies in Florida engaged in nefarious activities which set the stage for Bush’s selection as President by judicial activists on the Supreme Court
- the long-time, intimate association of the Houses of Bush and Saud
- the Administration’s fixation on Iraq from the beginning and the false stories (WMD, Iraq-al Qaeda connections) that led us into the war
- the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan, including letting Osama bin Laden escape
- the absurdity of Bush’s "homeland security" program, which is used to sow fear but doesn’t protect us
- the Patriot Act
- and the reality that the powerful make a buck (or millions of them) while poor Americans shoulder the war’s burdens.
He sums up with a quote from Orwell on how permanent war helps national elites preserve hierarchy and thereby, their power.
Moore does a better job here, I think, than in "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine." In those documentaries, he was so heavy-handed and unfair as to make me - a sympathizer - feel very uncomfortable.
Not that he has discovered a light touch. But he is less often heavy-handed and unfair in Fahrenheit 911. And he made the esthetically pleasing decision to reduce his time on camera.
On leaving the theater, I found myself thinking about Moore’s version of events. His argument is coherent and plausible, even when I think he is not perfectly persuasive. But he leaves nothing to chance. His political actors always are guilty of faults of commission, not omission. He leans toward a conspiracy of villains, where I tend to leave room for some accidents and much incompetence.
Still, Moore should be complimented for getting the movie made and on the screen. And he should be cherished for standing, as a patriotic American citizen, against this cabal of paranoids and ignoramuses in Washington.
Let us hope theirs is only a temporary power over what has been a great nation and may yet deserve to be described as "the last, best hope of mankind."
o In Connecticut, a Republican Governor quits after it’s revealed that he used local contractors to feather his own nest.
o In Illinois, a Republican candidate for the Senate withdraws in a sex scandal.
o And the Republican Vice-President of the United States tells a Senator of the other party to do something to himself that is anatomically impossible. Later, the VP tells us he felt better for saying it.
Republicans are behaving like Democrats.
Democrats traditionally use political power to get cash or favors-in-lieu-of cash, Democratic men get caught fooling around with women, Democrats drink and curse. That is the tradition, as is getting caught with their ethics down.
Republicans have long stolen quietly, cleanly. Often, they write laws to transfer huge sums from the exchequer to friendly, private hands. Sometimes, a nod does the job. The funneling of wealth to trustworthy acquaintances is achieved decorously. Republican thievery frequently escapes the public’s attention for years and, of course, its beneficiaries get away with a lot more legal tender.
I do not understand this role reversal, but surely it cannot bode well for the Republic.
Many years ago, I hosted a call-in program on a New York City radio station. I called it "Connections."
Twenty-five years later, I see I was ahead of the curve. We live now in a tid-bitty world. And our news mediums get less coherent all the time.
A few weeks ago, for example, the USA Weekend insert in the Albuquerque Journal introduced a new page in which nutritionist Jean Carper, financial advisor Jean Chatzky and two or three other specialists offer consumer items. They're tightened to fit on one page! The same experts used to provide page-length contributions.
Newsweek went the same way a year ago, maybe longer, adding a section called Tip Sheet behind what magazines used to call "the back of the book." This section serves not only to retail tidbits but also to provide a a welcoming "environment" for advertisers. (I put environment in quotes so you know that is how marketing folks talk.)
All this explains - as we have remarked before - why there are so many political books on the market - they allow the authors room to make a full argument.
And it may also explain the new Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 911, which is a fulmination, I read, against the Bush Administration.
(Tangent: Tonight ABC TV News did a story on the Moore movie, with the reporter casting doubt on Moore's accuracy. To do so, he used sound bites from the former anti-terror chief, Richard Clarke.
I was amazed. I don't understand, first, where ABC gets the nerve to grade anybody else in journalism (or, in Moore's case, pure advocacy). Secondly, I'll bet my house that ABC never endorsed Clarke as an "authority" when he was undercutting the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. Now, however, they employ his credibility to knock down Moore. Of course, being respectful to the powerful and sceptical of the outsider is nothing new.)
But back to my thesis - I am happy we have these political books and movie,
as well as great sources of information and argument on the Internet.
But most Americans get their news from TV. So a lack of connections is the rule, coherence the exception.
The lead story in the Businss Outlook seciton of the Albuquerque Journal this morning is headlined, "Practical medicine." It's about how young doctors are learning to be businesspeople, in self-defense.
Inside,in a guest column, two leaders of the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign point out that what passes for a health care system in our state is a great expensive mess. And they call for reform.
Clearly, they don't see the bedrock below the cover story - health care is a commodity like any other and MDs are in a business.
As the song says, two different worlds....
Intel’s President and COO Paul Otellini spoke to the Western Governors in Santa Fe Monday about the real world.
Intel is one of our most progressive corporations and its top executives, no fools. So I want to relay what Mr. Otellini said. First, though, please think a little about the free market and how often you have heard that wondrous things are possible if big, bad government will leave business alone. Got it?
Thanks. Now let’s turn to the Albuquerque Journal story of Tuesday, June 22.
Mr. Otellini told the state leaders that it makes no sense to clamp down on outsourcing by limiting incentives and contracts to companies that send jobs overseas. Rather, he said, Americans need to support:
1. More government basic research
2. More corporate R&D
3. Improved education, and
4. Upgraded communications networks.
Let’s take them one-by-one.
Federal funding for basic research, he said, has flat-lined. And that is "the seed corn for the developments of the future."
He also called for tax incentives for companies like Intel, presumably so they can invest more in R&D.
As for education, Otellini said government needs to improve math and science teaching, in particular. He emphasized training teachers better.
Finally, he said, the country must upgrade communications infrastructure. Like high-speed Internet connections.
Now I don’t know who is supposed to pay for that broadband and Andrew Webb’s story did not go into it.
But all the rest – federal funding for basic research, tax incentives for corporations and better schooling require government investment. (My tax money, and yours.)
So the free market doesn’t mean, it turns out, that government has no role. According to the Intel chief, it means public subsidies. In his view, necessary public subsidies.
That is the real world. That is our economic system. We subsidize big business and sometimes, medium-sized business. So the next time you hear some character extolling the virtues of the free market, ask him what he’s talking about. Most likely, what he wants is a subsidy. By "free market," he means give me the money with no strings attached.
PS Once in a long while, you will meet a real entrepreneur, a guy who has gone his own way, jumped off a cliff or two hoping to fly, a guy powered by a dream and, maybe, what his relatives threw into the pot.
This guy practices free enterprise. He may fail. Gutsy.
That is the title of the recent book by Joseph Wilson. He is the retired diplomat, with long experience in Africa, who did a favor for the CIA. He checked out a report that Iraq had purchased uranium in Niger. Like other investigators, Wilson determined the report was untrue.
Neverthless, President Bush cited the report in his State of the Union speech. That prompted Wilson to write an Op-Ed for the New York Times saying the Niger story was unfounded. Which prompted the White House, in turn, to leak to several newspeople the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. One, Robert Novak, published the leak.
(It is a violation of law to blow the cover of a CIA agent and the Justice Department has a semi-independent attorney trying to find out who did the deed.
I have five bucks saying the report won't come out until after the November elections.)
Wilson, understanding that the White House was not just punishing him but warning others to refrain from undermining the Administration, responded with the book.
I have read it. I wish Wilson had told me less about his diplomatic career. I also wish its editors had been more focused; they let Wilson wander.
On the plus side, Wilson is very strong on the strengths and weaknesses of US diplomacy in the Mideast in recent years. He is particularly sharp on our policy toward Israel. And he has some insights into the role of TV and newspapers in contemporary politics.
Having written this, I can now return the book to the Albuquerque Public Library, that blessed institution.
Have I told you I am heading for China in mid-July? True. And to prepare I am doing a lot of reading, not all non-fiction.
I have just devoured one and a half Chinese detective stories and learned a heck of a lot about modern China in the process.
The crime fiction is by Qiu Xiaolong, who was born in Shanghai and now teaches Chinese literature at Washington University in St. Louis. (A clerk at Bound to be Read told me about him.)
His most recent - A Loyal Character Dancer - was on the shelves of the Main Branch of the Public Library, so I read it first. The plot, while intricate, is not the point. The author uses it as a clothesline, hanging everything on it that he knows about modern Chinese political history - including pre-Mao, Maoist and post-Mao times. And he knows a lot. He also manages to introduce us to ancient Chinese cultur and contemporary fads and...boy, this book is jam-packed with information. It slows the narrative, of course, but it sure diluted my ignorance, too.
The library quickly found Qiu's first book, Death of a Red Heroine, and I am reading it now, with similar satisfaction.
This reminds me of the joy of reading Red Sky at Morning, Milagro Beanfield War and Bless Me, Ultima, on arriving in New Mexico. OK, I did have recourse to Mark Simmons' histories, too. but is is lovely to learn from a novel.
I recommend both books.
It seems to me that the country’s political struggles reflect deeper troubles, so I try to be alert for clues to that more profound level. Meanwhile, I fall prey to pessimism and, sometimes, loneliness.
The NY Times Crossword in today’s Albuquerque Tribune rode to my rescue today. Or rather, Emily Dickinson did.
The puzzle required two words of a Dickinson quote. I went to Bartlett’s for the answer and found it, but not before happening on this:
Much Madness is Divinest sense –
To a discerning Eye –
Much sense – the starkest Madness –
‘Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail –
Assent – and you are sane –
Demur – you’re straightway dangerous –
And handled with a Chain.
That is from Emily Dickinson, circa1862. Wow!
A local journalist corrects me. I had wondered why the Albuquerque Journal ran a Dallas Morning News story on the 9/11 Commission rather than an account from AP or Knight-Ridder. Turns out that Knight-Ridder supplied the Dallas paper’s story.
Sorry.
Incidentally, on re-reading my item, I see I could have written more clearly and succinctly. Like this:
"The story the Journal chose highlighted a fresh but academic revelation – that 9/11 was once a bigger plot. I would have chosen the tired but significant element – they found no evidence Iraq was involved with al Qaeda in 9/11."
Hey, everybody needs an editor.
I was surprised when I arrived at Page One of the Albuquerque Journal this morning. "1st 9/11 Plan Had 10 Planes" was the headline.
The story was a report on the proceedings of the independent 9/11 Commission which, I knew, had made other news.
Then I saw that the Dallas Morning News reporter who wrote the story put that angle in her lead paragraph. It is traditional and proper for headline writers to work from the lead.
Not until she reached her third paragraph did reporter, Michelle Mittelstadt offer what I saw as the lead of the story. She said there: "And in a conclusiuon that could prove damaging to the Bush Administration," the panel rejected White House assertionsof ties between al-Qadea and Iraq. And then quoted the panel:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."
News judgement is no science. I do not suggest that the lady from he Dallas News is wrong.
However, the Journal can choose from many sources for its national stories including the AP, Knight-Ridder and (I believe) the Los Angeles Times. I wonder why they chose a Texas newspaper's account.
Sen. Domenici's reputation in the state is high, largely because he brings home the bacon, but also because New Mexico's journalists rarely question him.
He votes consistently for the powerful - major corporations, the individual rich and the military. I do not doubt his sincerity; my sense is that the Senator is a true believer in the status quo, as well as trickle-down economics. But attention should be paid.
This week, for example, when the Adminstration asked the Senate for big bucks to finance new nuclear weapons (the "bunker buster" and a "mini-nuke warhead), Domenci voted to spend the money.
(Only last week, the Republican House refused to finance the research.)
In another vote, the Senate decided to give gays and lesbians protection under the federal hate crimes law. Sen. Domenici voted against that move.
For the record.
Once every couple of weeks, I drive to the interesection of Coors Road, Rt. 528 and Corrales Road to shop at the Sun Flower grocery. I am also a fan of Indian cuisine, the kind that comes from the sub-continent. So when I read ten days ago that a new Indian restaurant had opened just north of Lowe's, on the south side of 528 and catty-corner from shopping area that includethe Sun Flower, I made a note of it.
I have essayed their lunch buffet twice now and recommend it highly. The food is as good or better than that at the Indian Palace and Taj Mahal in Albuquerque. (I prefer their spinach, in particular, to the version at the Taj Mahal.)
Also, while it inhabits a building built for a Chinese establishment, the restaurant's interior decor is new and quite lovely.
A brunch costs $8 and change.
I was in the car this morning when ABC Radio News told me that the woman General in charge of Abu Ghraib prison is saying out loud that she is being scapegoated. Others, it seems, ran the interrogations. The General also said, according to ABC's Michael Barr, that she was "...as shocked than anyone else."
The quote marks are mine, intended to tell you that these are the reporter's words. (I wrote them down even as I drove.)
They are, I presume, a paraphrase of the General's words. Not a quote from the General.
Now, please read them again:
"..as shocked than anyone else."
Most consumers of media product - you know that citizens no longer count and we no longer get news - most consumers of media product think a lot about the political bias of newspeople and their organizations. Or whether they are honest.
I offer what Mr. Barr of ABC said as evidence that they are, first and foremost, illiterate.
Dr. Cristina Beato of Albuquerque, nominated for a high position in the federal Department of Health and Human Services, has run into some scepticism about her resume. Sen. Pete Domenici backs her, though, and - we learn from a story in today's Albuquerque Tribune - he suspects politics may be playing a role in the questioning.
What does that mean? Here is the next paragraph:
"Several of President Bush's Hispanic nominees have faced trouble in winning Senate confirmation, he said."
In fact, the Bush Administration has put forward the names of a few right-wingers of Hispanic background and they have met opposition.
Domenici's comment - I wish we have a direct quote - hints that the oppostion is anti-Hispanic. How shall we characterize it? Let us be kind and say it is not perfectly frank.
Now I don't want to make a federal case of this. It's merely a slightly slimy demo of the art of partisan politics, nothing more.
But Pete Domenici advocates a program for school children called "Character Counts."
I would love to hear him explain to kids what his comments say about "character."
Last time around, the pharmaceutical industry bought I don't how how many thousands of dollars' worth of TV ads to extol the virtues of Heather Wilson.
The drug manufacturers hid their hand, though. They funneled the money to a couple of seniors organizations (so-called) - in fact, Washington, DC-based right-wing front groups which then took credit for the messages.
This week I have seen new ads praising Rep. Wilson. The names of the organizations promoting the Congresswoman are in white letters over a white background and very difficult to read. (Intentionally? Simple incompetence? I do not know.)
However, I did succeed in identifying one as an association of hospitals.
If so, credit the Wilson campaign with ethical progress. That is to say that the TV ads properly identify themselves as paid for by the corporate interests she serves. No disguise this time.
Note - I suspoct the Wilson campaign will say it has no control over these TV buys, that they are produced independely of the campaign.
I begin to understand.
I see that lots of my fellow Americans think the primary goal should be productivity.
I think it’s kindness.
So that’s why I am uncomfortable.
Nice to know.
So Rumsfeld figured there were situations where the Geneva Conventions might be evaded.
And the White House counsel opined that torture might sometimes be OK.
Justice Department lawyers, too.
Everybody says they were wrong.
I agree, but what interests me are the dynamics - how did bright, educated leaders arrive at these idiocies?
I think that– in the aftermath of 9/11 – they were trying to be hard-nosed, practical. It happens all the time. Folks get tired of unresolved problems, tired of "half-way measures" that haven’t worked, tired of the "wooly-minded," of the "bleeding hearts," of the "sissies" not man enough to step up to the plate.
So they take the bull by the horns. And every time they do, they get impaled on those horns. Or we get impaled.
In my experience, hard-nosed, practical actions turn out badly. The results are the opposite of "practical."
Contrast those dynamics with rationality. I am not sure what rationality is, but I know it involves examining one’s own feelings and interests before acting..
Also, I believe in the existence of insoluble problems. I figure Rumsfeld, the President's laweyer and the Justice Department lawyers don't agree.
"If alcoholism is a disease, then the use of drugs, which becomes a habit, is a ‘disease.’ Taking this reasoning to the absurd, any bad or immoral choice we make that becomes a habit could be construed a disease, including child abuse, spousal abuse, assault, domestic violence, rape, pornography, aggravated battery, petty theft, robbery and murder."
That was from a column by one Sammy Sorrel, national director of United Citizens for Legal Justice Reform – of which I have never heard – in the Saturday Albuquerque Tribune.
In the same paper, syndicated columnist Betsy Hart says we have terrible social problems because our society is afraid to make "value judgements." She continues: "We are utterly loathe to stigmatize any behavior…" Rathelr than live in a "therapeutic nation," we should, she concludes, recognize the "extraordinary power of sin."
And also in yesterday’s Tribune Terry Mattingly, its syndicated religion columnist, reports on a Pew study of press attitudes. One result: 91% of journalists on the national level and 78% of the locals – asked if "belief in God… is necessary to be moral," said "No."
Gosh, I love it when we argue the nitty-gritty. Mr. Sorrel, in particular, states his premises cleanly and logically.
He and Hart are correct, the debate is…or should be…moral thinking versus the kind that looks to disease or some other malfunction to explain the kind of behavior we abhor.
Now I know the moralists predominate, but I figure they have a tough road to hoe. We have thought in moral terms since Abraham, if not earlier, and after all these years of Judeo-Christian "civilization," we still perform cruel acts.
My question is, how long? How many more centuries do we wait for humans to become "moral?"
Isn’t it time we look at ourselves differently, explore new ways to reach cooperation and love? (In fact, we have made some progress when we have defined the problem in terms of health, as with alcholics.)
But then again, who am I to speak? I belong to that majority of news people who think you can be "moral" without religious belief.
Worse yet, when I think about Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush, I wonder if religious belief isn't an "enabler" for folks who want to kill. Yeah, religion may make it unlikely that you will behave in a "moral" fashion.
I was certain it was Goebbels who said big lies were more likely to be believed than small ones. Turns out I was wrong. According to Bartlett’s
Familiar Quotations, Adolph Hitler wrote:
"The great masses of the people…will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
It’s from Mein Kampf.
Why am I telling you this? Because the Bush Administration’s lies keep getting bigger. (No, I am not comparing Bush to Hitler. I think Bush believes he’s telling the truth.)
Case in point: his D-Day speech at the Air Force Academy, when he likened the "war on terrorism" to World War II and the Cold War.
(Incidentally, the Knight-Ridder story in this morning’s Albuquerque Journal did not put "war on terror" in quotes as I do, proof that the White House has won a huge battle in its propaganda campaign. It’s no leap at all, is it. from "war on terror" to "Iraq was behind 9/11.")
Back to the President. He told the cadets the US was defending freedom in Iraq.
With this as background, let’s look at a few other current news items:
o Colin Powell keeps pressing the CIA to find out why his Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the UN contained so much evidence that was inaccurate. Government officials told the press he’s still angry.
o An Army report says support units "struggled" with their missions in Iraq "due to ‘savings’ realized in recent changes in organization, equipment, training resources and doctrine."
o Saudi Arabia says it will dissolve a big charity that raises a lot of dollars, some of which go to terrorists.
o In Afghanistan, Doctors Without Borders suspended operations, the day after the Taliban killed five of its workers.
o President Bush confirmed he has lined up a lawyer, in case he needs one in the probe of the White House leak of a CIA agent’s name. (You remember, her husband pointed out the lie in the President’s State of the Union address.)
o The Justice Department set a suspected terrorist free, deporting him to Syria, though prosecutors, FBI agents and Customs cops wanted to try him on various serious charges!
o Enron traders gloated as they manipulated California’s power market in 2000-2001. They also "kidded" about Enron’s contributions to the Bush campaign "and how that could translate into more opportunity for profit in California."
Enough. You see my point. You need a big lie to divert attention from all that.
PS The number of dead American servicemen in Iraq is 810.
I see by the papers that Albertson's first-quarter earnings dropped 79%, mostly because of that strike by supermarket workers in California.
No wonder Albertson's is installing automatic checkouts; that way, the corporation can reduce its payroll.
I am ignoring them, going to the lines where they still have workers. It's slower, yes, but I get a kick out of my little...no, tiny...contribution to the employees.
PS The strike's biggest issue was health insurance. Imagine the economic stimulus we could give Albertson's and every other employer by instituting universal health insurance.
Yesterday's Albuquerque Tribune carried an Associated Press feature, Ad Watch, which purports to give us perspective on the latest TV ads for Bush and Kerry.
Analyzing a new Kerry pitch, it said, in part:
"And, subtly and without naming names, the ad makes a distinction betwen Kerry and President Bush by highlighting Kerry's Navy service in Vietnam. Bush was a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. His unit never was called up and he did not see combat."
Forgive me, but that distinction doesn't help the reader. Why didn't AP say, "Kerry joined the Navy and saw action in Vietnam." And "Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard...etc., etc.
This does not tell the whole story, of course. It omits the fact that Bush's application was jumped over a long line of guys waiting to get into the Guard, then a refuge from Vietnam. And it never touches on the question of his Guard attendance.
But it does the minimum, accurately describing the difference between Kerry's reaction to Vietnam and Bush's. They moved in opposite directions.
So Bush get a break.
Ah yes, that liberal media strikes again.
Somebody described capitalism as "creative destruction," which seems accurate to me.
Those who are pro-business emphasize the "creative," as in jobs and wealth.
Those who differ tend to emphasize the "destruction," as in family ties, environment and other non-material values.
I find it interesting that we often call the advocates of business "conservative," when they applaud a system of constant, dynamic change.
And those who resist, pointing out that capitalism steamrolls all values except success? We call them "liberals," though they are dedicated to preserving
tradition.
I like Richard Romero. He would be a great improvement over Heather Wilson as my Congressman. But I voted today for Dr.. Miles Nelson.
Why? Because Nelson better represents my views on issues, particularly on is health care. And because Nelson expresses anger toward Wilson and the Administration. There’s a lot to be said for anger, even more for expressing it.
I think there is a case to be made that Richard might run better against Heather; he’s seen as moderate, personally and politically. But he cannot match her in a debate - she’s verbally dynamic and he’s slow. Also, she has a profound knowledge of foreign policy and I believe Richard is less well-informed. Nelson, with the characteristic self-confidence - even arrogance - of an emergency room physician, will take the fight to her.
Finally, it’s impossible to know who will run better.
There’s another consideration. Voters respect strong views simply put. (See George W. Bush, President.) Richard, to his credit, sees the complexities. But this is not the time for Democratic candidates of nuance.
Which leads to another reason for voting for Nelson. I want to tell the Democratic Party that it needs to stand for something.
Understand. I want to win. Heather Wilson is a loyal friend of the White House. That means she works for wealthy individuals, major corporations and the Christian Right. Her defeat will benefit the nation.
So if Richard Romero wins the nomination tonight, I will support him.
But since there is no way to know for sure how to cast a "practical" vote,
I decided today to vote my views. Who knows - maybe that will turn out to be "practical."
And if not, I must say it felt very good.