Category Archives: Politics

Reflections on 9/11

Posted on by

In reflecting on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I spent more than a few moments trying to decide what I could write about that would have personal meaning for me and at the same time be of potential general interest to others.

A first thought was to be angry on a broad scale — to write about how the Bush administration had squandered the sense of national unity and the world’s sympathy that was a significant immediate fallout of the events of 9/11. Never in my lifetime has the outlook for the United States seemed as gloomy. Our leaders lie to us with impunity, our country is mired in a war in Iraq that drains our resources and soldiers’ lives with no end in sight, we seem no closer to declaring an ultimate victory in the “global war on terror” than we did 5 years ago, our status in the arena of world opinion has never been lower, we have an administration that ignores the dangers of global warming and other threats to the environment and instead works hardest at curtailing our civil liberties at every possible turn, all the while using doublespeak to champion “freedom” as its clarion call.

But it quickly became clear that more than enough other columnists and bloggers would be covering this territory.

A second thought was to be quite personal. I grew up in New York City and surroundings. I made many trips to the top of the World Trade Center, including dining at the Windows on the World restaurant. For a short time, I commuted between New Jersey and New York, passing through the World Trade Center almost every business day. And, throughout much of this time, the twin towers soaring above the the New York skyline was a daily sight, an icon of the place I called home. Although I did not personally know anyone who died in the attacks of 9/11, my emotional reaction to the demise of the towers still feels more than a bit like I imagine my reation would be to the accidental death of a close family member. There is a wound that never heals, that still brings forth tears when I focus on it.

But no, extending this theme further seemed too personal. We all have our stories of 9/11. I did not see any reason to burden you with an entire article about mine.

In the end, prompted by something I read in the New York Times on Sunday, I decided to focus on one aspect of the 9/11 fallout. Yes, it returns to the aforementioned realm of “anger,” but with a more narrow scope.

For the umpteenth time, I read of a government’s official defense of possible mistreatment (torture?) of captured individuals suspected of being terrorists. He said ” “When you are concerned that a hard-core terrorist has information about an imminent threat that could put innocent lives at risk, rapport-building and stroking aren’t the top things on your agenda.”

I have a conflicted reaction to this. On the one hand, I entirely agree. The last thing I would want is to have another catastrophe on the order of 9/11 and discover that it could have been prevented by more intense questioning of someone we had in custody. Depending upon the specifics, I might even be among the first to criticize the actions of those responsible for this failure.

Yet, on balance, I am more concerned about the implications on the other side of this fence. In particular:

• I recall all the articles and books that pointed out how 9/11 itself could have been prevented with better scrutiny of intelligence, better cooperation among agencies, and so on. In not one case was a lack of torture cited as a reason we did not prevent the attacks.

• In at least some cases, it’s important to remember that these captured individuals are only suspected of being terrorists. They have not been convicted. What if we made a mistake? Do we really want to imprison people for years and possibly torture them, only to later find out that they are guilty of…nothing?

• Finally, I am reminded of what the ACLU states when it is criticized for defending the First Amendment rights of an unpopular cause or group (I’m paraphrasing here): “It’s easy to defend the rights of those who agree with you. The real test of your commitment to freedom is your willingness to defend the rights of those with whom you vehemently disagree.”

In the same way, it’s easy to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of prisoners and defend our own civil liberties at the possible expense of a degree of security, when very little is at stake. The real test of our commitment to freedom is when the stakes are large. If we wind up saying, in effect, “The rules apply until they are inconvenient,” then we ultimately have no rules at all.

This is not what I want as the legacy of 9/11.

The wisdom of the American public?

Posted on by

Politicians are fond of saying that they place their trust in the “wisdom of the American people.” It reminds me of Garrison Keillor’s famous quote about Lake Wobegon, where “all the children are above average.”

Recently, however, I am more inclined to think about the quote that refers to the implications of IQ testing: “Half of all Americans have below average intelligence.”

I was especially reminded of this today after reading an article that cited a survey reporting that, despite even the clear assertions to the contrary by George Bush in the last weeks, 43% of Americans still believe that “former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

On another subject dear to my heart, evolution, the Pew Forum reported that, according to a 2005 survey, 42% of Americans believe that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form only.” In other words, over two-fifths of the public believes that evolution is basically a scam that scientists have made up.

It’s findings like these that make me glad we live in a republic rather than an actual democracy. At least with a republic, there is a chance that the electorate will vote someone competent into office as their representative. If every law was decided by a popular vote of the entire nation, I shudder to think of the results.

Katrina: Why it was (and still is) different

Posted on by

This week is the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. I have just finished watching Spike Lee’s HBO documentary on the subject: “When the Levees Broke.”

If I were a movie reviewer, I would have to say that the film is at times repetitive and too drawn out. It could have benefited from tighter editing. I am certain that at least an hour could have been removed from the film without reducing its effectiveness.

On the other hand, the film does a superb job of hammering home two main points: (1) the almost unbelievable enormity of the damage to New Orleans and (2) the almost unbelievable callousness and incompetence of almost every level of government, especially the Bush administration, in dealing with the tragedy.

While watching the film, one thought in particular kept bubbling up in my mind: How Katrina is different than almost every other disaster that has preceded it. The thoughts started when I watched some of the residents describe the impact on their lives of losing their home.

An initial reaction was to say, “Yes, this is terrible, but it is hardly unique. Hundreds of people lose their homes every day, due to fire or other natural and man-made causes.”

But I quickly realized that Katrina was unique.

I thought back to an incident in my neighborhood several years ago. A family across the street from where I lived lost their home, due to an electrical fire that quickly grew out of control, started when no one was home. By the time the fire department arrived, it was too late. The house was burned to the ground. My neighbors came home to utter devastation. They literally had nothing left: All of their clothes, all of their photos, all of their possessions they had spent a life time collecting, all of it was gone. Their two young daughters also lost everything they could call their own.

But…and it’s a big but…they still had each other. No lives had been lost. Even their dog (who had been in the house at the time) survived. And given their own financial resources and insurance coverage, they actually managed to rebuild an identical looking house on the same property. They moved into it within a year of the fire! While waiting for the rebuild to be completed, the family rented an apartment for the year. Their kids attended their same familiar school. Their church remained a source of comfort andf support, as did all their friends. And the entire neighborhood was there to welcome them back with a big party when they finally returned.

Compare that to New Orleans and Katrina:

Here lives were lost. And, in numerous instances, people did not learn that a relative had died until months after the storm – because recovery workers were unwilling or unable to search the house. Even if everyone in a family survived, members were often separated and sent to distant locations – to Texas, Utah and beyond. In many cases, it took months for parents and children to discover where everyone wound up and reunite. Most of these families have still not returned to New Orleans.

And of course, the damage was not limited to just a house or even just a couple of homes nearby. Almost the entire city was destroyed. The school where your kids went: gone. The church you attended: gone. The neighborhood where you lived: gone. The stores where you shopped: gone. No electricity or basic plumbing restored even as of today in some cases.

In many neighborhoods, the wreckage of the houses remain on their property – with no confirmed date as to when it will be removed. For many residents, rebuilding remains a dream that will never be realized. Especially with insurance companies often refusing to pay for damages — claiming that it was a flood, an uncovered event, that was the cause of the damage.

Katrina was different. A year later, it still is. It will be years before New Orleans moves past this disaster. It may never completely do so. New Orleans will remain on the map. But the city itself may never be restored to its former self.

Is there too much democracy on the Web?

Posted on by

According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in the immediate aftermath of the latest airline terrorist threat, bloggers on both the left and ride side of the fence went more than a bit overboard. Comments were as extreme as claiming the entire incident was a right wing hoax designed to keep Republicans in power.

You know, looking at all these blogs, I can’t help but wonder: maybe there is too much democracy on the Web. I know, you may be asking: “How can there be such a thing as too much democracy?”

And isn’t it a bit ironic that I am criticizing blog writing in a blog I am writing? Yes it is.

And far be it from me to cast a big net over blogs. I have made a living in recent years by creating what is essentially a blog (not this one!) and writing for others. And I have always touted that one of the greatest strengths of the Web is the level playing field it presents to all comers. It’s how a single user’s startup blog with no capital can wind up having as much influence and readership as, say, the New York Times. The currency on the Web is eyeballs, not how much money you have. And the opportunity to get eyeballs is still pretty open. If you have something interesting and valuable to say, you will get heard.

It has injected a new energy into our political landscape, among other landscapes, leading to “netroots” campaigns that rival the older grassroots ones.

But there is a problem. And it’s a big one. There is no editorial oversight for blogs. A blogger can write whatever is currently in their brain with no filter between their neurons and their Web output. When this gets amplified by thousands of bloggers doing it at the same time, the result can be a cacophony so loud and confusing that it becomes impossible to separate fact (or even supported opinion) from wild speculation or outright fraud.

Yes, fraud happens even at respected institutions such as the New York Times (remember Jayson Blair?). But that’s part of my point. A person like Blair makes big news precisely because it is such an unusual case and because it shows weaknesses in the Times editorial policy, weaknesses that the Times seeks to correct.

At least the Times has an editorial policy – unlike blogs. Where are the fact checkers and technical editors for blogs? Non-existent.

People often claim that blogs help people learn what is really going on – because they publish news that the traditional media refuse to cover. True enough. But with the increasing number of people depending on the Web for their news, I also wonder if the proliferation of blogs is making it ever more difficult to know what is really going on – because separating honest news and opinion from a background noise of “craziness,” for lack of a better word, is getting harder and harder to do.