Fear and Loathing in the Blogosphere is 1 year old.
You may notice that the blog has gone on a diet for its birthday.
This blog started as more or less writing exercise, but I have always exhibited a good deal of sloppy and/or inconsistent reasoning (at least to my standards) on subjects that ranging from Juno to the 2008 presidential race.
Instead of rewriting, I exported the posts to my HD (I can still read them to remember what I was thinking in 2007) but, because I no longer feel they represent my best work, they will no longer be public. The posts that remain are those that I feel were strong and within the scope of my studies as a student of social science (one post is a paper from a sociology class) and history.
Some changes:
Topics:
International Relations
National Security/Military
Foreign Policy
Domestic Politics
Pop Culture
A Strategy of Consent(aka: My Undergraduate Thesis)
Academic Work
Logical Fallacies
I'm going to try very hard to keep my topics to the above list.
Criteria
Under my old system, I would yank any old article out of any old major newspaper and comment it any way I damn well pleased.
That was then.
This is now.
If I post an article for comment, I'm going to try to structure my criticism in a more disciplined way. I believe most poorly reasoned political arguments will commit at least one of two major logical fallacies:
1. The assumption of bad faith on the part of the policy maker
I had a professor last spring who held a job with the state government. This particular professor spent most of the semester railing against the budget cuts going on at the State House (especially the department the PIQ (professor in question) worked for). Each class, the students were treated to at a 15 minute screed on why these budget cuts were stupid, bad for the economy and bad for the state. The PIQ even agreed with a student who argued that he "didn't believe in economics" because "even if the private sector fails there will still be a public sector".
The point of this story is this: The PIQ never once presented the other side of the argument. Every critique of the state policy makers was predicated on the assumption that those in charge had little knowledge of public policy or of the needs of state agencies. No attempt was made to try to get inside the minds of the policy makers who had made the cuts and to understand their rational (in my opinion, the department in question seemed top heavy; and that was based on the biased view of the PIQ). The PIQ assumed that presenting the other side was unnecessary, because the policy makers had made the decisions in bad faith.
This is dangerous. The bad faith fallacy in the first step towards believing in conspiracies. In my analysis, I will attempt at all times to assume good faith on the part of a policy maker (i.e. I will begin with the assumption that he or she believes in his or her soul that the policy in question is truly beneficial to society). Furthermore, I will attempt to expose those in the MSM who commit the bad faith fallacy in their commentary.
Policy choices that appear incorrect in hindsight will never be assumed to have been made in bad faith.
#2.Garden-Stateism:Remembering a place that never existed
This could also be known as the "When I was your age" argument.
Remember that scene in Garden State when Natalie Portman and Zach Braff are in the pool and he starts talking to her about family and he says, "Maybe that's all family really is. A group of people who miss the same imaginary place."
Garden-Stateism occurs when one's argument is based on the idea that society is somehow declining and that everything used to be so much better.
I think I'll find it quit frequently in commentary made in the MSM. Any argument that is predicated on "in my day, things were so much easier" is probably guilty of Garden-Stateism. Another term that indicate the existence of "Garden-Stateism" is "These days", as "these day's it's hard to feed a family of 12 on a burger flipper's salary".
People who long for a return to either WWII, the Great Depression or a low skilled, industrial economy shall be known as Garden-Stateists.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
My thesis topic has been approved!
Do informed voters hold different views on foreign policy than less well informed voters?
Research Questions:
In the population of all Americans, is there a difference between the foreign policy
views of informed voters and less well informed voters? What is the relationship between political IQ and foreign policy preference?
Research design:
I will survey a minimum of 25 subjects asking them questions from a political IQ test consisting of objective questions related to civic and political knowledge (i.e. How many justice sit on the supreme court? ect). I will then examine the results to see if there is a relationship between the subject’s political IQ and the subject’s answers to foreign policy questions.
Hypothesis:
H1: There will be no correlation, indicating that America policy preference towards foreign policy is independent of their political IQ.
H2: There will be a correlation between a person’s political IQ and their answers to the foreign policy preference questions.
Section 1:
I will begin by reviewing the literature about and establishing the parameters for the Enlightened Policy Preference model. I will then construct a political IQ test using questions from both political IQ test examples from the literature and questions from the American Civic Literacy Quiz. I will then construct a foreign policy opinion test with one section made up of broad questions on globalization and one section made up of more questions about policy preference regarding specific questions of U.S. foreign policy. The globalization questions will focus on attitudes towards the “4 flows” of globalization: Money, Energy, Security and People. The more specific questions on U.S. foreign policy preference will be based on current controversies from major media sources which could include major newspapers and national polling organizations.
Section 2: I will analyze the results of the survey.
Section 3: I will attempt to place the results of the survey and the answers to the research questions in the context of American grand strategy for the 21st century. What do the results portend for building a sustainable foreign policy for the 21st century? Should we make civic and geo-political education part of any public diplomacy campaign?
Research Questions:
In the population of all Americans, is there a difference between the foreign policy
views of informed voters and less well informed voters? What is the relationship between political IQ and foreign policy preference?
Research design:
I will survey a minimum of 25 subjects asking them questions from a political IQ test consisting of objective questions related to civic and political knowledge (i.e. How many justice sit on the supreme court? ect). I will then examine the results to see if there is a relationship between the subject’s political IQ and the subject’s answers to foreign policy questions.
Hypothesis:
H1: There will be no correlation, indicating that America policy preference towards foreign policy is independent of their political IQ.
H2: There will be a correlation between a person’s political IQ and their answers to the foreign policy preference questions.
Section 1:
I will begin by reviewing the literature about and establishing the parameters for the Enlightened Policy Preference model. I will then construct a political IQ test using questions from both political IQ test examples from the literature and questions from the American Civic Literacy Quiz. I will then construct a foreign policy opinion test with one section made up of broad questions on globalization and one section made up of more questions about policy preference regarding specific questions of U.S. foreign policy. The globalization questions will focus on attitudes towards the “4 flows” of globalization: Money, Energy, Security and People. The more specific questions on U.S. foreign policy preference will be based on current controversies from major media sources which could include major newspapers and national polling organizations.
Section 2: I will analyze the results of the survey.
Section 3: I will attempt to place the results of the survey and the answers to the research questions in the context of American grand strategy for the 21st century. What do the results portend for building a sustainable foreign policy for the 21st century? Should we make civic and geo-political education part of any public diplomacy campaign?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Some perspective on the upcoming Russian elections...
1788: George Washington Elected
His V.P.?
John Adams
1796: John Adams elected.
His V.P.?
Thomas Jefferson.
1800: Thomas Jefferson elected.
His Secretary of State?
James Madison.
1808: James Madison elected.
His Secretary of State (and, during the War of 1812, Secretary of War?)
James Monroe.
1816: James Monroe elected.
His Secretary of State?
John Quincy Adams
1820: James Monroe runs nearly unopposed.
1824: John Quincy Adams elected.
1828: Andrew Jackson finally breaks the cycle.
My point is this: A small group of guys ran this country from 1788-1828. 40 years. All of these men had been active in the Revolution and all but Jefferson (who was in France at the time) had been present at the Constitutional Convention. Now, technically we can't say that the U.S. was a single party state, because by 1800 there were at least two parties, the Federalist and the Democrats-Republicans but I think it is fair to say that power was concentrated between a few fairly like minded individuals. And they stayed in power at least partially by limiting enfranchisement It was only when the first truly post-Revolutionary generation came of age and when democratic (small D) reforms began sweeping state legislatures and enfranchising large numbers of white male voters that we started to get legitimately competitive elections from people that weren't present at creation.
40 years.
So consider this when you hear about Putin essentially hand picking his succesor.Will the elections on Sunday be free and fair?
Probably at least as free and fair as late 18th or early 19th century elections in the U.S.
Which is to say:
Nope.
And that's okay. It doesn't mean that Putin is a new Ivan the terrible or that Russia is heading back towards a Soviet model. Mostly it means that Russia is still working through it's "Founding Brothers" phase with Putin and Medvedev playing the role of Jefferson/Madison to Gorby's Franklin and Yeltsin's Washington. Those ARE NOT good analogies in terms of behavior or ideology, I know, but those analogies allow one to conceptualize a rough time line. Gorby and Yeltsin were still "Soviet", because for most of their lives they had not been "Russian" just as the older Founding Fathers very much considered themselves to be British. Putin is sort of in the middle, spending part of his career as a "Soviet" and part as a "Russian." From the NYT:
The upcoming transition of power will be part of a slow evolution away from Soviet and towards a Modern Russia. Evolution is a huge step in positive direction for a country that has often been more apt to change through revolution.
His challenge, as I see it, it to bridge the gap between old school Sovs and the first post-Soviet generation (meaning they spent most of their adolescents as "Russian" rather than "Soviet") who should be about my age right about now.
But what about Putin trying to control Russia's media?
Well, it's wrong. But then again so were the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In short, the transition away from single party rule took decades in the world's oldest democracy, so I'd think it may take at least another decade or two in country that was ruled by a royal family until 1917.
His V.P.?
John Adams
1796: John Adams elected.
His V.P.?
Thomas Jefferson.
1800: Thomas Jefferson elected.
His Secretary of State?
James Madison.
1808: James Madison elected.
His Secretary of State (and, during the War of 1812, Secretary of War?)
James Monroe.
1816: James Monroe elected.
His Secretary of State?
John Quincy Adams
1820: James Monroe runs nearly unopposed.
1824: John Quincy Adams elected.
1828: Andrew Jackson finally breaks the cycle.
My point is this: A small group of guys ran this country from 1788-1828. 40 years. All of these men had been active in the Revolution and all but Jefferson (who was in France at the time) had been present at the Constitutional Convention. Now, technically we can't say that the U.S. was a single party state, because by 1800 there were at least two parties, the Federalist and the Democrats-Republicans but I think it is fair to say that power was concentrated between a few fairly like minded individuals. And they stayed in power at least partially by limiting enfranchisement It was only when the first truly post-Revolutionary generation came of age and when democratic (small D) reforms began sweeping state legislatures and enfranchising large numbers of white male voters that we started to get legitimately competitive elections from people that weren't present at creation.
40 years.
So consider this when you hear about Putin essentially hand picking his succesor.Will the elections on Sunday be free and fair?
Probably at least as free and fair as late 18th or early 19th century elections in the U.S.
Which is to say:
Nope.
And that's okay. It doesn't mean that Putin is a new Ivan the terrible or that Russia is heading back towards a Soviet model. Mostly it means that Russia is still working through it's "Founding Brothers" phase with Putin and Medvedev playing the role of Jefferson/Madison to Gorby's Franklin and Yeltsin's Washington. Those ARE NOT good analogies in terms of behavior or ideology, I know, but those analogies allow one to conceptualize a rough time line. Gorby and Yeltsin were still "Soviet", because for most of their lives they had not been "Russian" just as the older Founding Fathers very much considered themselves to be British. Putin is sort of in the middle, spending part of his career as a "Soviet" and part as a "Russian." From the NYT:
Now, Mr. Medvedev, the presidential successor personally selected by Mr. Putin, is creating his own public identity according to a choreographed script. And here, in a mix of Soviet and Russian symbols, the man rising to Kremlin power avoided the stern themes that have often accompanied Mr. Putin’s appearances.
The upcoming transition of power will be part of a slow evolution away from Soviet and towards a Modern Russia. Evolution is a huge step in positive direction for a country that has often been more apt to change through revolution.
But he has made unanticipated moves. In a speech on Feb. 15, he said liberty was necessary for the state to have legitimacy among its citizens. And he has laid out domestic policy goals in what seems like a communiqué to Russia’s expanding consumer class.
His challenge, as I see it, it to bridge the gap between old school Sovs and the first post-Soviet generation (meaning they spent most of their adolescents as "Russian" rather than "Soviet") who should be about my age right about now.
But what about Putin trying to control Russia's media?
Well, it's wrong. But then again so were the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In short, the transition away from single party rule took decades in the world's oldest democracy, so I'd think it may take at least another decade or two in country that was ruled by a royal family until 1917.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Just a small town girl, living in a lonley world...
I read a story today of the BBC website about the end of the Sopranos that sort of struck me. This comment reminds me of a paper I wrote for a sociology class I had two years ago:
In my paper, entitled "The Dawning of a Doom Struck Era: How 9/11 Changed the content of Prime Time T.V., I used the plot lines for The West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Shield to demonstrate how television changed in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
Let's be clear: This paper was written for a 100 level sociology course taught by an instructor with low standard, we were only required 2 sources.
And the Paper:
September 11th changed nearly every aspect of American life, and prime time T.V. was no exception. Shows such as Fox’s 24 and ABC’s Alias depicted brave, dedicated patriots who spent each episode locked in mortal combat with super-empowered non-state actors. The story lines for major network shows in 2001-2002 also brought moral dilemmas that pre -9/11 prime time protagonist rarely faced. Shows such as The West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Shield depicted characters forced to commit morally ambiguous acts of violence in the name of preventing the death or injury of innocent bystanders. The best illustration of post 9/11 sensibilities occurred on NBC’s “The West Wing,” in the episode entitled “Posse Comitatus,” when President Josiah Bartlet was forced to order the pre-emptive assassination of the defense minister of the fictional country of Qumar, who was planning a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
The third season of The West Wing premiered in late September of 2001 and from the start the producers were trying to find a way to deal with the terrorist attack on New York and Washington. The first episode of the season was not part of the regular story line, rather, it was a one-act teleplay written by Aaron Sorkin that attempted to put the events of 9/11 in perspective and assuage a grieving nation. The episode was entitled “Isaac and Ishmael.” Although well meaning, it did little to shed new light on the challenges brought on by terrorism and focused mainly on the Arab-Israeli conflict (a cause rarely mentioned by Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11) and American prejudices against Arabs. The episode also related misinformation, for example, the characters mention that most of “the terrorists” come from refugee camps and extreme poverty. In reality, most of the 9/11 hijackers were the sons of wealthy men who had been educated at some of the finest universities in the world.
Aaron Sorkin, head writer and producer of The West Wing, finally began to explore a more complex post 9/11 world at the end of the third season in a four episode arc that began with an episode entitled “Enemies Foreign and Domestic.” Post September 11th fears were explored throughout the story arc. For example, in “Enemies Foreign and Domestic,” Leo McGary tells Bartlett that he should “Get himself into a mental place where he can order an unidentified plane shot down.” This was obviously a reference to the situation on the morning of 9/11 when Vice President Cheney reluctantly gave an order allowing the Air Force to shoot down any plane that refused to land.
Another post September 11th fear that was explored in the story line was the target list of the terrorists. The president’s advisers warn him that buildings in Washington, including the White House, were considered possible targets. Again, this is a reflection of 9/11, when the Pentagon was hit directly and either the White House or the Capital may have been a target of flight 93.
Bartlett’s actions in the face of these terrorists’ threats are a reflection of the post September 11th notion of preemption as a doctrine of national security. His first instinct was to order his Attorney General to prepare an indictment of Sharif, but the A.G. informed Bartlet that Sharif, as an emissary of the Sultan of Qumar, enjoys diplomatic immunity. Bartlett is then pressured by Leo McGary to order Shariff’s assassination during Shariff’s upcoming visit.
It is important to look at earlier seasons of the West Wing to understand why the post September 11th season was different. During the first season, in an episode entitled “A Proportional Response,” Leo argues that Bartlet cannot use the U.S. military arbitrarily or for personal vengeance. In the second season, in an episode entitled “The War at Home,” Leo actually argues against the assassination of a Colombian drug lord named Juan Aquilar. This trend indicates that the writers made a decision to take the story in a new direction in the wake of 9/11.
The West Wing was not the only show to change its characters and story lines to reflect the post 9/11 realities. The WB’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” which had previously always used a super natural villain as the season long antagonist (generally known as “the big bad” or “the evil”) featured humans as “the evil” during the 2001-2002 season. The end of the season brought the death of Willow’s girlfriend, Tara, at the hands of evildoer Warren. Unlike previous seasons, in which characters fought and died at the hands of medieval weapons such as cross bows and swords, Warren uses a pistol to shoot Tara in the chest. The 2001-2002 season marked the first time a firearm was used to kill any character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The post 9/11 season also marked the first time that a member of the “Scooby Gang,” (the shows protagonist who fought against super natural villains in Sunnydale, California) killed a mortal. Willow killed Warren in revenge for murdering Tara. In the episode entitled, “Two to Go,” Buffy, Dawn, Anaya and Xander debate weather or not it was right to kill Warren, and Xander argues that Warren “Got what he deserved,” and that it is okay to kill a human who commits an act of evil. This is a view that was never expressed in previous seasons (members of the “gang” had always been forbidden from hurting mortals) and, like The West Wing, these new plot twists indicated a much darker, more morally ambivalent tone for the show.
The reason T.V. writers choose to deal with both terrorism and the type of warfare that must be conducted to combat it is because American’s were frightened by the events of 9/11 and studies show that many Americans were deeply concerned that they or someone they knew would be a victim of terrorism. In the article, The Consequences of Terrorism: Disentangling the Effects of Personal and National Threat, (Huddy, Feldman, Capelos and Provost 2002) the authors describe a survey taken between October and November of 2001 in the New York metropolitan area. They reported that 82% of respondents were at least somewhat concerned about a major terrorist attack on the U.S. in the near future and 70% were afraid that they or someone they knew would be injured or killed in a terrorist attack. These results seem to indicate that many Americans were personally frightened by the 9/11 attacks, although, as the authors point out, only a very small minority was actually affected by the attacks directly.
Another study, entitled Effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties (Corrs, Kielmann, Maes, Moschner 2005) looked at the way fear affected peoples views on suppression of civil liberties. The study was conducted over the course of several months following the September 11th attacks and indicated that many people become more willing to accept the suppression of civil liberties in exchange for security in the face of threats from terrorism.
This study brings us around to another show that enjoyed tremendous success in the 2001-2002-television season, FX Network’s “The Shield.” From the first episode the show made a hero of Vic Mackey, an LAPD detective who never let a suspect’s civil rights slow him down. Although there was never a terrorism plot line in The Shield, post 9/11 fears and sensibilities were palpable throughout the season. For example, in the first episode, entitled “Pilot”, Vic beats a suspect who had asked to speak to his attorney until the man reveals the location of a kid-napped little girl. The man was not a terrorist, but it is easy to see how harsh interrogation techniques might appeal to an audience worried, as the Huddy survey indicated, that another terror attack was eminent. When Vic went into that interrogation room the audience might have imagined Zacharious Moussouri or Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) sitting across the table. Assuming the findings of the study on authoritarianism and threat were valid, the fact that Vic Mackey became so popular in the wake of 9/11 is no surprise. Every time he beat a criminal or intimidated a witness Americans saw a man of action who would protect them by any mean necessary.
This brings us back to The West Wing and “Posse Comitatus.” President Bartlett was not cut out for a world where Vic Mackey was a folk hero. Bartlett belonged to last century, to the roaring 90’s and the days when POTUS was little more than a CEO and chief. The whole show reflected a simpler, more innocent time. When The West Wing premiered 1999 it offered the optimistic view that government was a place for people to come together. For two years the audience went to work each week with a group of smart, dedicated public servants who strove to raise the level of debate in America and maybe help a few people in the process. The president’s chief of staff, Leo McGary, had the simple goal of proving that it was possible for a good man to get elected. And Bartlett was a good man, a former economics professor and Noble laureate who was always ready to reassure with a smile and a quote from scripture (sometimes in Latin). The West Wing was a vision of the 90’s as we wished they had been. On 9/11 that vision came crashing down. “Posse Comitatus” represented this incredibly optimistic show finally facing the realities of its time. Ultimately, this episode depicted the veil of carefree innocence that had embodied the 1990’s being torn away. At the end of the episode Bartlett says to Leo “It’s just wrong, it’s absolutely wrong,” Leo responds with a nod and says, “I know, but you have to do it anyway.” Bartlett then turns away and delivers the order, “Take him.” The next scene depicts a team of Army Rangers opening fire on Shariff as he steps off his plane.
This year will mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11. This year will also mark the seventeenth anniversary of 11/9, the day the Berlin wall came down. The dozen years that separate those two events were marked by a towering sense of optimism. And when that optimism was laid low by a bolt from a clear September sky, popular culture, especially prime time T.V., reflected feelings of foreboding and the sense that we were living in what Hunter S. Thompson called a “doom struck era.” Nowhere was the loss of innocence more pronounced, or the sense of foreboding more profound, then in the alternative reality of Jeb Bartlett’s White House, which had once represented the best of all possible worlds.
REFRENCES:
Cohrs, Christopher. Kielmann, Sven. Maes, Jurgen. And Mochner, Barbara. “Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 263-276
Capelos, Theresa. Feldman, Stanley. Huddy, Leonie. And Provost, Colin. “The Consequences of Terrorism: Disentangling the Effects of Personal and National Threat.” Political Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2002 pp. 1-25
Mr Jaafar also explains that after 11 September 2001, the US was more willing to accept "darker fare and more serious material" on TV.
"You can see a changing landscape on American TV after 9/11 - The Sopranos was one of the first, followed by 24 and The Shield - gritty, well-written, expensive shows," he says.
Such fare stood out against a "barrage of reality and non-scripted TV programmes", he adds.
In my paper, entitled "The Dawning of a Doom Struck Era: How 9/11 Changed the content of Prime Time T.V., I used the plot lines for The West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Shield to demonstrate how television changed in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
Let's be clear: This paper was written for a 100 level sociology course taught by an instructor with low standard, we were only required 2 sources.
And the Paper:
September 11th changed nearly every aspect of American life, and prime time T.V. was no exception. Shows such as Fox’s 24 and ABC’s Alias depicted brave, dedicated patriots who spent each episode locked in mortal combat with super-empowered non-state actors. The story lines for major network shows in 2001-2002 also brought moral dilemmas that pre -9/11 prime time protagonist rarely faced. Shows such as The West Wing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Shield depicted characters forced to commit morally ambiguous acts of violence in the name of preventing the death or injury of innocent bystanders. The best illustration of post 9/11 sensibilities occurred on NBC’s “The West Wing,” in the episode entitled “Posse Comitatus,” when President Josiah Bartlet was forced to order the pre-emptive assassination of the defense minister of the fictional country of Qumar, who was planning a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
The third season of The West Wing premiered in late September of 2001 and from the start the producers were trying to find a way to deal with the terrorist attack on New York and Washington. The first episode of the season was not part of the regular story line, rather, it was a one-act teleplay written by Aaron Sorkin that attempted to put the events of 9/11 in perspective and assuage a grieving nation. The episode was entitled “Isaac and Ishmael.” Although well meaning, it did little to shed new light on the challenges brought on by terrorism and focused mainly on the Arab-Israeli conflict (a cause rarely mentioned by Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11) and American prejudices against Arabs. The episode also related misinformation, for example, the characters mention that most of “the terrorists” come from refugee camps and extreme poverty. In reality, most of the 9/11 hijackers were the sons of wealthy men who had been educated at some of the finest universities in the world.
Aaron Sorkin, head writer and producer of The West Wing, finally began to explore a more complex post 9/11 world at the end of the third season in a four episode arc that began with an episode entitled “Enemies Foreign and Domestic.” Post September 11th fears were explored throughout the story arc. For example, in “Enemies Foreign and Domestic,” Leo McGary tells Bartlett that he should “Get himself into a mental place where he can order an unidentified plane shot down.” This was obviously a reference to the situation on the morning of 9/11 when Vice President Cheney reluctantly gave an order allowing the Air Force to shoot down any plane that refused to land.
Another post September 11th fear that was explored in the story line was the target list of the terrorists. The president’s advisers warn him that buildings in Washington, including the White House, were considered possible targets. Again, this is a reflection of 9/11, when the Pentagon was hit directly and either the White House or the Capital may have been a target of flight 93.
Bartlett’s actions in the face of these terrorists’ threats are a reflection of the post September 11th notion of preemption as a doctrine of national security. His first instinct was to order his Attorney General to prepare an indictment of Sharif, but the A.G. informed Bartlet that Sharif, as an emissary of the Sultan of Qumar, enjoys diplomatic immunity. Bartlett is then pressured by Leo McGary to order Shariff’s assassination during Shariff’s upcoming visit.
It is important to look at earlier seasons of the West Wing to understand why the post September 11th season was different. During the first season, in an episode entitled “A Proportional Response,” Leo argues that Bartlet cannot use the U.S. military arbitrarily or for personal vengeance. In the second season, in an episode entitled “The War at Home,” Leo actually argues against the assassination of a Colombian drug lord named Juan Aquilar. This trend indicates that the writers made a decision to take the story in a new direction in the wake of 9/11.
The West Wing was not the only show to change its characters and story lines to reflect the post 9/11 realities. The WB’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” which had previously always used a super natural villain as the season long antagonist (generally known as “the big bad” or “the evil”) featured humans as “the evil” during the 2001-2002 season. The end of the season brought the death of Willow’s girlfriend, Tara, at the hands of evildoer Warren. Unlike previous seasons, in which characters fought and died at the hands of medieval weapons such as cross bows and swords, Warren uses a pistol to shoot Tara in the chest. The 2001-2002 season marked the first time a firearm was used to kill any character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The post 9/11 season also marked the first time that a member of the “Scooby Gang,” (the shows protagonist who fought against super natural villains in Sunnydale, California) killed a mortal. Willow killed Warren in revenge for murdering Tara. In the episode entitled, “Two to Go,” Buffy, Dawn, Anaya and Xander debate weather or not it was right to kill Warren, and Xander argues that Warren “Got what he deserved,” and that it is okay to kill a human who commits an act of evil. This is a view that was never expressed in previous seasons (members of the “gang” had always been forbidden from hurting mortals) and, like The West Wing, these new plot twists indicated a much darker, more morally ambivalent tone for the show.
The reason T.V. writers choose to deal with both terrorism and the type of warfare that must be conducted to combat it is because American’s were frightened by the events of 9/11 and studies show that many Americans were deeply concerned that they or someone they knew would be a victim of terrorism. In the article, The Consequences of Terrorism: Disentangling the Effects of Personal and National Threat, (Huddy, Feldman, Capelos and Provost 2002) the authors describe a survey taken between October and November of 2001 in the New York metropolitan area. They reported that 82% of respondents were at least somewhat concerned about a major terrorist attack on the U.S. in the near future and 70% were afraid that they or someone they knew would be injured or killed in a terrorist attack. These results seem to indicate that many Americans were personally frightened by the 9/11 attacks, although, as the authors point out, only a very small minority was actually affected by the attacks directly.
Another study, entitled Effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties (Corrs, Kielmann, Maes, Moschner 2005) looked at the way fear affected peoples views on suppression of civil liberties. The study was conducted over the course of several months following the September 11th attacks and indicated that many people become more willing to accept the suppression of civil liberties in exchange for security in the face of threats from terrorism.
This study brings us around to another show that enjoyed tremendous success in the 2001-2002-television season, FX Network’s “The Shield.” From the first episode the show made a hero of Vic Mackey, an LAPD detective who never let a suspect’s civil rights slow him down. Although there was never a terrorism plot line in The Shield, post 9/11 fears and sensibilities were palpable throughout the season. For example, in the first episode, entitled “Pilot”, Vic beats a suspect who had asked to speak to his attorney until the man reveals the location of a kid-napped little girl. The man was not a terrorist, but it is easy to see how harsh interrogation techniques might appeal to an audience worried, as the Huddy survey indicated, that another terror attack was eminent. When Vic went into that interrogation room the audience might have imagined Zacharious Moussouri or Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”) sitting across the table. Assuming the findings of the study on authoritarianism and threat were valid, the fact that Vic Mackey became so popular in the wake of 9/11 is no surprise. Every time he beat a criminal or intimidated a witness Americans saw a man of action who would protect them by any mean necessary.
This brings us back to The West Wing and “Posse Comitatus.” President Bartlett was not cut out for a world where Vic Mackey was a folk hero. Bartlett belonged to last century, to the roaring 90’s and the days when POTUS was little more than a CEO and chief. The whole show reflected a simpler, more innocent time. When The West Wing premiered 1999 it offered the optimistic view that government was a place for people to come together. For two years the audience went to work each week with a group of smart, dedicated public servants who strove to raise the level of debate in America and maybe help a few people in the process. The president’s chief of staff, Leo McGary, had the simple goal of proving that it was possible for a good man to get elected. And Bartlett was a good man, a former economics professor and Noble laureate who was always ready to reassure with a smile and a quote from scripture (sometimes in Latin). The West Wing was a vision of the 90’s as we wished they had been. On 9/11 that vision came crashing down. “Posse Comitatus” represented this incredibly optimistic show finally facing the realities of its time. Ultimately, this episode depicted the veil of carefree innocence that had embodied the 1990’s being torn away. At the end of the episode Bartlett says to Leo “It’s just wrong, it’s absolutely wrong,” Leo responds with a nod and says, “I know, but you have to do it anyway.” Bartlett then turns away and delivers the order, “Take him.” The next scene depicts a team of Army Rangers opening fire on Shariff as he steps off his plane.
This year will mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11. This year will also mark the seventeenth anniversary of 11/9, the day the Berlin wall came down. The dozen years that separate those two events were marked by a towering sense of optimism. And when that optimism was laid low by a bolt from a clear September sky, popular culture, especially prime time T.V., reflected feelings of foreboding and the sense that we were living in what Hunter S. Thompson called a “doom struck era.” Nowhere was the loss of innocence more pronounced, or the sense of foreboding more profound, then in the alternative reality of Jeb Bartlett’s White House, which had once represented the best of all possible worlds.
REFRENCES:
Cohrs, Christopher. Kielmann, Sven. Maes, Jurgen. And Mochner, Barbara. “Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 263-276
Capelos, Theresa. Feldman, Stanley. Huddy, Leonie. And Provost, Colin. “The Consequences of Terrorism: Disentangling the Effects of Personal and National Threat.” Political Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2002 pp. 1-25
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
What kind of day has it been?
"A plane has hit the world trade center".
6 years ago today, I heard those words on Howard Stern's radio show, and assumed Howard was about to go into some bit about Arab terrorists or whatnot. I was wrong.
I was on my way to work when it happened. Back in those days I was still manning the costumer service desk at Comp USA Easton (now out of business). The previous weekend had been our quarterly inventory, and I was headed in to assist with reconciliation. Back in those days I thought that any day that I didn't have to deal with customers was a good day, and reconciliation meant no customers. It was going to be a good day; the first hint Autumn was in the crisp morning air and the sky was crystal blue with nary a cloud in sight.
"This is not a bit," Howard protested.
A lot of people needed the second plane to hit to realize what was going on. I did not. When I realized that it wasn't a bit I distinctly recall some B-roll footage of OBL running through my head. It wasn't like he was a secrete. Anyone with even a causal knowledge of world events knew who Bin Laden was. Anyone who paid attention knew that he had declared Jihad against the U.S. And the U.S.S. Cole had been attack exactly one year ago, I remember thinking. God, why didn't Clinton do something about that guy? 10 cruise missiles into a tent does not a serious national security policy make. They'd attacked the towers in '93, plus our embassies overseas and U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia, plus the Cole. If that's not casus beli I don't know that is; NUKE THE SON OF A BITCH!
"A second plane has hit the tower," Howard announced.
I was listening to this over the radio, and I had a definite image of Bin Laden but also of a small commuter plane. I wasn't capable of conjuring the image of a 737 plowing into a building.
The first real shock of the day came when I arrived at work and found most of the employees (and customers) huddled around what T.V.s were available. I headed for the back, where reconciliation was taking place. That was when I finally got a good look at the massive hole in the towers. And of the video of the second plane colliding with the second tower. And something still hadn't dawned on me; wouldn't dawn on me until I heard a CNN reporter say "We have reports of a plane having been hijacked this morning."
There were people on those planes.
From the moment I heard about the attack I had imagined some rich Saudi sheik buying jumbo jets (just like John Travolta and a host of other celebrities) and handing them over to be used in martyrdom operations. I assumed those plane had flown in strait from Saudi or Afghanistan or Iraq.
Hijacked.
There were people on those planes. The pilots had their throats slit. Probably flight attendants too, I remember thinking. We need to respond with nukes.
The next big shock, of course, was the Pentagon. We kept wondering what was next. The talking head was announcing the flight numbers that were unaccounted for. I remember somebody writing those numbers on a wipe board. We were trying to figure out how many planes were left."They've just hit Camp David," someone said, pointing towards the T.V. The plane they were referring to as "hitting Camp David" was flight 93. It has gone down in a field vaguely in the area of Camp David. Many of us assumed the plane had been shot down. We never imagined the heroism that actually transpired.
My biggest fear on that day wasn't being attacked; it was America's response (or what I believed would be out lack-there-of). In the 2000 presidential primary I had voted for John McCain for this exact reason; I knew our national readiness had fallen under old B.J. Bill, and I wanted a tough, serious president who would not run his foreign policy based on opinion polls. Given the options, I voted for Bush in the 2000 general election, but I doubted weather or not he would be all that different from Clinton. I assumed he would promise to bring the perpetrators to justice and order some air strikes in Afghanistan. I assumed he was just like Clinton. I assumed he was just like his father, who'd allowed Saddam to massacre Shia and Kurdish resistance rather than take ownership of the security in Baghdad. I assumed wrong.
Bush Sr. wanted to change Saddam's behavior, just a bit.
Bill Clinton just wanted people to like him.
Bush Jr. wanted to change the world.
On that morning I never imagined SOCOM and CIA would take down A-Stan in about four weeks. I never imagined that Pakistan would still be in the hands of a moderate, quasi secular leader and moving closer and closer to true modernity (look, Pakistan is far from perfect, but the situation today is a hell of a lot better than the worst case scenario of Pakistan falling to the Taliban, a scenario I would have assumed likely in September of 2001). I never would have imagined that girls would be in school in Kabul, or that the most popular T.V. show in Afghanistan would be an Indian soap opera. Yes, the Taliban still makes trouble. But there is a world of difference between what they were in 2001 and the small band of thugs they have become.
And I never would have imagined that someone finally had the guts to yank Hussein out of his spider hole and string him up. Nor would I have imagined that the fastest growing stock market in the world would be in Egypt or that Libya would have voluntarily relinquished its nuclear program and would now be courting western businesses.
Finally, I never would have imagined the kind of "turning out" that I see on the horizon for America. With ongoing commitments in Iraq (soon to be Kurdistan) and Afghanistan and the soon-to-be-stood-up AFRICOM, the U.S. is turning outward more than any time since the immediate aftermath of World War 2. We've almost reached the point of critical mass; the point after which it will be impossible to bury our heads in a missile silo and await "The Clash of Civilizations". General Petraeus's new COIN doctrine, when combined with AFRICOM's mission will make nation building the "new normal", and that's the only long term strategy that can really safe guard our nation against another 9/11 style attack.
Have there been screw ups along the way? 'Lil Kim is alive and kicking and setting off nukes 70 miles from China's border, so, yeah, some things are still fucked up. There is simply no excuse for that guy living to see the ball drop in '05, let alone 2007 and beyond. And our myopic focus on "WMD", whatever that is (in my day we used NBC, because it's a more accurate statement), has left us in denial over Iran's new role as regional pillar in the Mid East. I mean, we propped up Saddam specifically so that he would hedge against Tehran, and then we are shocked! Shocked! That as soon as Saddam shuffles off this mortal coil Iran suddenly feels emboldened. In 1941 we made a deal with the devil and helped Stalin defeat his two biggest enemies (Japan and Germany). In 2001 we should have made a deal (especially considering that they helped us bring down the Taliban) with a far lesser devil once it became clear that A-Stan and Saddam were both on the chopping block.
Six Years On, what kind of day has it been?
Mistakes and missteps not withstanding, America is safer and stronger than we were on that clear September morning. Our airports are exponentially more secure than they ever were prior to 9/11. September 11th proved to be Bin Laden's bridge too far; today he has been made virtually irrelevant as Al Qaeda morphed into Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and shifted its focus from killing "infidels" to killing Shia Muslims. Recent events from Germany suggest that the global jihad movement has become merely the cause celeb for the spoiled children of the privilege, just as Maoism was in the west in the 1960's.
And that's the balance sheet; America is stronger than ever and Bin Laden is five years away from being reduced to the image of choice for those who simply aren't fashionable enough to own a Che Guevara t-shirt. 9/11 was a day of uncertainty, would there be another attack? When? Where? What method? Would we find Bin Laden? Would we get sucked into a quagmire in Afghanistan like the Soviets did? Today the future looks much more certain; development and capitalism (if not democracy) are on the march the world over and Bin Laden's dream of a new Caliphate dies a bit more each day. Much like Marxism before it, Jihadism has utterly failed everywhere its been tried and is now reduced to a parasitic existence in the most war torn regions of Iraq and the most politically bankrupt states in Africa.
6 years ago today, I heard those words on Howard Stern's radio show, and assumed Howard was about to go into some bit about Arab terrorists or whatnot. I was wrong.
I was on my way to work when it happened. Back in those days I was still manning the costumer service desk at Comp USA Easton (now out of business). The previous weekend had been our quarterly inventory, and I was headed in to assist with reconciliation. Back in those days I thought that any day that I didn't have to deal with customers was a good day, and reconciliation meant no customers. It was going to be a good day; the first hint Autumn was in the crisp morning air and the sky was crystal blue with nary a cloud in sight.
"This is not a bit," Howard protested.
A lot of people needed the second plane to hit to realize what was going on. I did not. When I realized that it wasn't a bit I distinctly recall some B-roll footage of OBL running through my head. It wasn't like he was a secrete. Anyone with even a causal knowledge of world events knew who Bin Laden was. Anyone who paid attention knew that he had declared Jihad against the U.S. And the U.S.S. Cole had been attack exactly one year ago, I remember thinking. God, why didn't Clinton do something about that guy? 10 cruise missiles into a tent does not a serious national security policy make. They'd attacked the towers in '93, plus our embassies overseas and U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia, plus the Cole. If that's not casus beli I don't know that is; NUKE THE SON OF A BITCH!
"A second plane has hit the tower," Howard announced.
I was listening to this over the radio, and I had a definite image of Bin Laden but also of a small commuter plane. I wasn't capable of conjuring the image of a 737 plowing into a building.
The first real shock of the day came when I arrived at work and found most of the employees (and customers) huddled around what T.V.s were available. I headed for the back, where reconciliation was taking place. That was when I finally got a good look at the massive hole in the towers. And of the video of the second plane colliding with the second tower. And something still hadn't dawned on me; wouldn't dawn on me until I heard a CNN reporter say "We have reports of a plane having been hijacked this morning."
There were people on those planes.
From the moment I heard about the attack I had imagined some rich Saudi sheik buying jumbo jets (just like John Travolta and a host of other celebrities) and handing them over to be used in martyrdom operations. I assumed those plane had flown in strait from Saudi or Afghanistan or Iraq.
Hijacked.
There were people on those planes. The pilots had their throats slit. Probably flight attendants too, I remember thinking. We need to respond with nukes.
The next big shock, of course, was the Pentagon. We kept wondering what was next. The talking head was announcing the flight numbers that were unaccounted for. I remember somebody writing those numbers on a wipe board. We were trying to figure out how many planes were left."They've just hit Camp David," someone said, pointing towards the T.V. The plane they were referring to as "hitting Camp David" was flight 93. It has gone down in a field vaguely in the area of Camp David. Many of us assumed the plane had been shot down. We never imagined the heroism that actually transpired.
My biggest fear on that day wasn't being attacked; it was America's response (or what I believed would be out lack-there-of). In the 2000 presidential primary I had voted for John McCain for this exact reason; I knew our national readiness had fallen under old B.J. Bill, and I wanted a tough, serious president who would not run his foreign policy based on opinion polls. Given the options, I voted for Bush in the 2000 general election, but I doubted weather or not he would be all that different from Clinton. I assumed he would promise to bring the perpetrators to justice and order some air strikes in Afghanistan. I assumed he was just like Clinton. I assumed he was just like his father, who'd allowed Saddam to massacre Shia and Kurdish resistance rather than take ownership of the security in Baghdad. I assumed wrong.
Bush Sr. wanted to change Saddam's behavior, just a bit.
Bill Clinton just wanted people to like him.
Bush Jr. wanted to change the world.
On that morning I never imagined SOCOM and CIA would take down A-Stan in about four weeks. I never imagined that Pakistan would still be in the hands of a moderate, quasi secular leader and moving closer and closer to true modernity (look, Pakistan is far from perfect, but the situation today is a hell of a lot better than the worst case scenario of Pakistan falling to the Taliban, a scenario I would have assumed likely in September of 2001). I never would have imagined that girls would be in school in Kabul, or that the most popular T.V. show in Afghanistan would be an Indian soap opera. Yes, the Taliban still makes trouble. But there is a world of difference between what they were in 2001 and the small band of thugs they have become.
And I never would have imagined that someone finally had the guts to yank Hussein out of his spider hole and string him up. Nor would I have imagined that the fastest growing stock market in the world would be in Egypt or that Libya would have voluntarily relinquished its nuclear program and would now be courting western businesses.
Finally, I never would have imagined the kind of "turning out" that I see on the horizon for America. With ongoing commitments in Iraq (soon to be Kurdistan) and Afghanistan and the soon-to-be-stood-up AFRICOM, the U.S. is turning outward more than any time since the immediate aftermath of World War 2. We've almost reached the point of critical mass; the point after which it will be impossible to bury our heads in a missile silo and await "The Clash of Civilizations". General Petraeus's new COIN doctrine, when combined with AFRICOM's mission will make nation building the "new normal", and that's the only long term strategy that can really safe guard our nation against another 9/11 style attack.
Have there been screw ups along the way? 'Lil Kim is alive and kicking and setting off nukes 70 miles from China's border, so, yeah, some things are still fucked up. There is simply no excuse for that guy living to see the ball drop in '05, let alone 2007 and beyond. And our myopic focus on "WMD", whatever that is (in my day we used NBC, because it's a more accurate statement), has left us in denial over Iran's new role as regional pillar in the Mid East. I mean, we propped up Saddam specifically so that he would hedge against Tehran, and then we are shocked! Shocked! That as soon as Saddam shuffles off this mortal coil Iran suddenly feels emboldened. In 1941 we made a deal with the devil and helped Stalin defeat his two biggest enemies (Japan and Germany). In 2001 we should have made a deal (especially considering that they helped us bring down the Taliban) with a far lesser devil once it became clear that A-Stan and Saddam were both on the chopping block.
Six Years On, what kind of day has it been?
Mistakes and missteps not withstanding, America is safer and stronger than we were on that clear September morning. Our airports are exponentially more secure than they ever were prior to 9/11. September 11th proved to be Bin Laden's bridge too far; today he has been made virtually irrelevant as Al Qaeda morphed into Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and shifted its focus from killing "infidels" to killing Shia Muslims. Recent events from Germany suggest that the global jihad movement has become merely the cause celeb for the spoiled children of the privilege, just as Maoism was in the west in the 1960's.
And that's the balance sheet; America is stronger than ever and Bin Laden is five years away from being reduced to the image of choice for those who simply aren't fashionable enough to own a Che Guevara t-shirt. 9/11 was a day of uncertainty, would there be another attack? When? Where? What method? Would we find Bin Laden? Would we get sucked into a quagmire in Afghanistan like the Soviets did? Today the future looks much more certain; development and capitalism (if not democracy) are on the march the world over and Bin Laden's dream of a new Caliphate dies a bit more each day. Much like Marxism before it, Jihadism has utterly failed everywhere its been tried and is now reduced to a parasitic existence in the most war torn regions of Iraq and the most politically bankrupt states in Africa.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The guy in the cockpit must be nuts....
Here's what you get for 200 million bucks. This is an F-22 "thrust vectoring" in a demonstration. The F-22 is an awesome weapon and the men and women who fly it are clearly great pilots (and a little nuts). I appreciate the value of a platform like this in discouraging arms races but I still believe that the upcoming X-45 will render all manned fighter obsolete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)