Political Danger

Having watched the tv news shows with a moderator and panels mostly of journalists, we should hold as suspect this major source of information and analysis. Why suspect? Its depth of deliberative discussion is probably, from a journalistic perspective, not of the highest quality.
I do not know how many people watch such “talking heads” programs. If they have some impact on the outcome of the election of a president, then the analysis and discussion might be better if the moderators chose those panel members who have the depth of book-length expertise, those who can be seen on C-SPAN’s Book TV programs. Those author’s usually appear in solo performances. It might make better programs if the journalist-moderators put together those scholars in one session and had them interact for the benefit of the citizen-voters.

I did see on one presentation on C-SPAN an author who was the worst public speaker I have heard in a very long time. But his message is essential for understanding his topic, “Children of the Jihad”, and I looked beyond the verbal static and thunderstorm twister in his manner of presentation to get what he had to say. I did so because I had been thinking along the same lines. There was a good book behind him. So I guess a powerful message trumps delivery.

Most authors of serious non-fiction are not so “cursed” in the delivery area. They should become the panel members, they and other scholar-specialists, instead of, or in addition to the journalist-columnists.

For instance, Randall Robinson spoke on the story of “An Unbroken Agony” in his book of that title, Haiti and the kidnapping of Pres. Aristide by the U.S. Have you ever heard Randall Robinson? I did, just before I saw the speaker described above, back to back. In Randall Robinson I heard a speaker in the opposite extreme. I have seldom heard a speaker of such high quality, fluency, articulateness, intelligence, eloquence, erudition, wisdom, all in one person in the service of a story that should be taken to heart by all U.S. citizens. How much the Haitians did with so little in their revolution which was hi-jacked by France and the U.S. How the U.S. does so little with so much. You don’t tear upthe constitution and overturn the checkerboard if you don’t like the person you’ve got. You go from election to election until you do get the leader you want and should have.

After that action of the Bush administration, it is essential to ask, what does America (U.S.) know about democracy. Our acts in the world against democracies, like Haiti had, indicate that the answer to the question is “Nothing!”

Iraq (then and again)

On March 22, 2003, I listened to General Tommy Frank speak on C-SPAN. He said:

 

“Because of the courage and dedication of these heroes, the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom will be achieved.”

Then General Tommy Frank stated these objectives of the war in Iraq:

   1. end Saddam’s regime;

   2. isolate and destroy weapons of mass destruction;

   3. drive out terrorism;

   4. collect intelligence related to terrorism;

   5. collect intelligence related to trafficking of weapons of mass destruction;

   6. provide humanitarian assistance to Iraq;

   7. secure oil resources for Iraqi people;

   8. help Iraqi people make the switch to representative Government.

 Last year in March (a Sunday a.m. on CNN, 2006) one rolling TV image came from a Balad, Baghdad, surgery. The image was quick, indistinct. A soldier was being rolled into the room. He was shaking on the gurney to the care of a cadre of medical people. His tenor voice sang out in insufferable pain; it hit my ear, went straight to my stomach, echoing his torment. I am sick with recall in writing this, that full body shaking and that cry. My mouth filled with burning acid. I was instantly sick from empathy. The channel then switched to some dippy ad that I covered with shame.

 (All the terrorists are not in Iraq. We have among us the uneducables, the irresponsibles, the anti-socials, the incorrigibles, the infantiles. I have the same empathetic feelings when the bestial murder of a young woman hits the screen, It happens regularly and often.)

The ultimate truth about Iraq is this: we fought their revolution for them. Their tyranny was overthrown for reasons incongruous to the Iraqi mind. When we got rid of our external dictatorship 230 years ago and established a rule of our own choosing, we had experienced the motive power it takes to fight a revolution and follow the war with a feeling of ownership, proprietorship. The Iraqis did not experience that. They were force-fed the process and result. The feeling of proprietorship did not motivate their efforts. But they are a fearless people. They have my utmost respect. They will endure. They will find their heroes and their centrifugal center that holds.

After our revolution of six years (1775-1781), we had unresolved internal problems with the details of governing our society, as the Iraqis are now working out theirs. For us, democratic procedures were new and not strong enough in the hearts and minds of the people for whom prescriptions were being written. Our main problem, “a house divided against itself” with no way to resolve the problem of slavery except a civil war of four years (April, 1861-April, 1865). From the American Revolution to the Civil War that finally relieved the problem on the surface spanned 1781 to 1861, 80 years. Compare the issue of slavery to the fighting in Iraq among several religious factions. Religious differences are just as thorny as racial divisions, and perhaps more intractable because religious differences lie deeper in the psyche than racial physical appearance. Should the Iraqis be expected to find brotherhood, coalescing in a national unity government with mature democratic mores and values in one or two years?

Given the Iraqi “revolution” (2003-present), Iraq had no historical, intellectual experience with alternative models of government. They lived surrounded by theocratic or authoritarian regimes that all wanted to oust the only democratic government set down in their midst by world government, the homeland for the Jewish people. Now they are close to having their civil war. Could it be a general rule of history that civil (internal factional) strife necessarily follows revolutionary (regime change) wars?

The terrorists want regime change nearly everywhere, in every land on earth. They have found many open wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan to tear at. Can the democratizing imperative outrun the theocratic aristocracy? Much will depend on the democratic progressives among the Muslim people in the Middle Eastern nations to maintain their fearlessness.

PERSPECTIVE FATIGUE: Game Theory, Denver Broncos, and Coach Shanahan

Nine minutes to go in the game. Behind two touchdowns and extra points. Two quick scores and a stalwart defense were needed. What to do? The idea (ideology) is, use the run to set up the pass play and vice versa. But the run isn’t working overall. There was some sucess early.

It seemed to me that the quick scores would come from covering a lot of ground fast. That seemed to dictate long pass plays, ideology be damned. Go to the “desperation” plays. There should be such a set of plays in the book.

The stalwart defense? Tackled by bumping at the shoulder level, even though the runners legs are the motor that carries for the gain. They just did not shut the motor down. Also, the defensive players have not been taught the peripheral vision that goes with team play. Playing as a team, you are practiced in perceiving that you have help coming on either side toward the ball carrier, and you can anticipate which way each possible turn of the runner will go and each converging player guards his territory. Otherwise, it’s every man for himself in converging on the runner, who can easily dodge all three, bunched up defenders. I saw that time after time. No defensive team play.

The special teamers did the same, leaving their lanes in a free for all, not playing together as a team, but playing for individual honors. That individual play must be the primary positive reinforcement awarded by the coach-reciprocator at a film session, not the incidences of team play. Peripheral vision!

(Goofy Sidelight: I would like to see an endzone touchdown celebration that includes the fans, in this way. The touchdowner would go between the goalposts and pointedly touch the nose of the ball on the surface, as he raises one leg at the knee, and as the fans shout with one voice, “Touchdown!” I saw that in a Walt Disney cartoon fifty years ago where Goofy did as I described. The fans could put that yell together with their “In–com–plete!”)

So what did the offensive team do? Ran up the middle and got stuffed, as usual. Passed short in the flats. The clock-time was disappearing fast and finally gone. The team fell back on the stale idea of trying to set up the pass with the run, and the short pass to the out-of-bounds to stop the clock. No workee. Game over. Big hopes for post-season play gone.

There are four basic perspectives of any game that I learned from the game-theory sources I studied. The “patient”, “agent”, reciprocator”, and “referee” perspectives. The “patient” view is that of the fan. The “agent” is the player. The “reciprocator” is the coach, who is in charge of the strategy, interacting with the opponent strategists. The “referee” is the grand, impartial (omniscient?) perspective of the person or persons in charge of the game applying the rules. But let’s not forget the “critic”. Who would that be? The sports reporters, newspapers or media (television and radio, usually, former players and coaches.) I speak from the “patient” persepective of the frustrated fan, although I played football in the U.S. Army (quarterback, the USFA Travelers. “Agent” view–I played both ways, offense and defense. There was no platooning in those days. No face guards, either.).

From what I saw of that game, I have drawn this conclusion: it would be a good thing if the perspective of the coach, the reciprocator, could be made over. I BELIEVE THE COACH HAS “PERSPECTIVE FATIGUE”. The coach, I think, has gone stale and needs a change of perspective to that of the “patient”. Step back for one year in a leave of absence, a one year sabbatical, a period of rest and regeneration. That’s what is good for academicians. It ought to be good for valued coaches, especially if it is felt he has been appointed as coach for life.

He should watch from the television set in his home, or in some resort far away, during one pre-season period and one full season.

Ideology Disease of the Day: F.C.C. Chairman

 

The Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) has held hearings around the nation to effect a change in the rules governing the media of radio and television, over which it has control. The airwaves , radio and television, belong to the people of the U.S. The airwaves are not unlimited. There are only a certain amount of wavelengths available to be purchased. Any limited resource has a greater value. Worth millions of $$$$$.
Those who have been licensed by the federal government must abide by rules that assure the people are being served fairly. Smut is controlled, and political views are to be given balanced and fair treatment in time given by each outlet, etc. The F.C.C. expressed the intent to allow monopolies of media in the urban markets through the buying up of competing media outlets. The result would be the limitation of expression of points of view to the monopolies’ bias. Not fair and balanced. A diminution of freedom of expression. Power not to the people, but to the very wealthy.

The ideology is the F.C.C.’s and its chairman who insist that a vote will be taken very soon to allow the formation of monopolies by a change of rules. That AGAINST THE EXPRESSION OF CONTRARY VIEWS AT THE HEARINGS IN A CONSENSUS OF THE PEOPLE ATTENDING, WHEREVER THE HEARINGS WERE HELD. A Congressional oversight committee called the Chairman to accounts. Even Republican committee members disagreed with the chairman. The Congressmen said the result of the vote was foreordained, before the sham hearings were held. Don’t confuse them with the facts; their minds were made up. That is ideology operating to its fullest.

December 7, 1941 – Pearl Harbor

I was a youngster. Mishawaka, Indiana. 1805 Linden Avenue. Sunday. The boy came around with the Chicago Herald Examiner newspaper selling from his little wagon. 5 (or 10) cents? With the funnies, me lying on the floor reading “Dinglehoffer and His Dog”, the “Katzenjammer Kids”, and others, cover to cover.

Sunday afternoons was the New York Philharmonic concert. They interrupted the concert with an announcement, “The Japanese have just bombed Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.” That was about 1 (or 2) p.m. our time. WWII had begun. Some (the Beards, historians) later said that Pres. Roosevelt had known it was to happen and somehow invited the attack as a way out of the depression, a way to crank up industry and provide more jobs. I do not know how that issue was settled, that war is good for the economy. But crank up we did. (I vaguely remember listening on the radio to the 1933 convention that nominated Roosevelt. I was lying on a cot in a cottage at the lake during my dad’s vacation that summer; the radio had a crackling sound. I remember his voice, clearly.) Roosevelt was now in his fourth term.

We all went to war. I remember the block organizations, the black-out drills and the block wardens in their white helmets who supervised them, with the help of the Boy Scouts (me) on bicycles, cruising for violators.

It was a war without trenches. Just fox holes. A more temporary shelter.

Since then, the wars have become police actions.

Now a war of preemption. Of choice. And the enemy more diffused. Underground.

Pearl Harbor, 66 years ago. Sometimes compared to 9/11. No comparison, except in its sneakiness.

What are we doing that invites attacks? I know. We are an idea that insults other peoples.

George Bush and Longfellow’s “The Warning”

Another item in my “Response to Warnings” essay. (Elsewhere on this blog.)

The last stanza closely resembles someone we all know.

The Warning

 by: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882)

Beware!  The Israelite of old, who tore

  The lion in his path,–when, poor and blind,

He saw the blessed light of heaven no more,

  Shorn of his noble strength and forced to grind

In prison, and at last led forth to be

A pander to Philistine revelry,–

Upon the pillars of the temple laid

  His desperate hands, and in its overthrow

Destroyed himself, and with him those who made

  A cruel mockery of his sightless woe;

The poor, blind Slave, the scoff and jest of all,

Expired, and thousands perished in the fall!

There is a poor, blind Samson in this land,

 Shorn of his strength and bound in bonds of steel,

Who may, in some grim revel, raise his hand,

  And shake the pillars of this Commonweal,

Till the vast Temple of our liberties

A shapeless mass of wreck and rubbish lies.

GANGS and GANGS II: Cure

GANGS

I know who I have been.

I know who we are now.

We are a lion, grown large and raised

by civil, petting hand. Until one day

in play, we find my mouth and tooth

encircling civil flesh. My petted nature

falls away. We taste the feel of noisy,

civil flesh, and some dark nature

peels away the petted overlay.

We lose myself.

Lions have their pride.

Dark natures there reside.

© 1995, John F Deethardt II

 

GANGS II: Cure

Young spirits crack and fail,

and trail dark natured tribes.

Until one day, in carnivoring,

the self is pricked by horn of falling feast.

They flee and leave no we.

And forms of I recur and leave

the Me to face a civil race.

Lost times that were and are to be

will haunt My healing cage.

I turns them in for time.

The we was never free

in gang captivity.

©1995, John F Deethardt II

More poetry on my web site——->to the right column—>

 

 

Luciano Pavarotti Mourned

In mourning Luciano Pavarotti, I can now only think of the unimaginable, immense pleasure and delight Pavarotti himself derived from the playing of his Stradivarius voice, even topping the excitement and enjoyment of his millions of listeners and admirers. Instantly recognizeable, distinct. I recalled what great things were said about the great tenor who died a hundred years before, Caruso. Probably the recordings do not do justice to Caruso, and the two cannot be compared. But Pavarotti was our Caruso. I respect the other tenors of the famous trio. I believe Pavarotti’s quality was a bit above them. But they and other tenors have great quality, too. The brilliance of Pavarotti’s voice throughout his range was unexcelled. I believe his girth provided support for his vocal performance, but I believe his girth was also the cause of his premature death. I wondered about his diet. I am only an amateur observer and would welcome a professional comment.

I went to an Italian restaurant that day. They were playing in the background Dean Martin’s pizza pie song. I said to the waitress that I was mourning Pavarotti who had died that day. “Oh.” “Do you know who he was?” “No.” “You should hear him.” “Oh.” She was young.

Response to Warnings

Please read the page I have put up on this topic. See page url to the right——>