Freedom fighters

The New Neo Posted on by

The picture alone is enough to make you weep: the five Sullivan brothers, all of whom were stationed together on the USS Juneau, and all of whom died together when it was sunk in November of 1942.

Varifrank has posted the photo as the springing-off point for his thought-provoking essay on the nature of sacrifice, noble causes, the military, and the attitude of the left towards all three.

I agree with a great many of Varifrank’s points, although not all–although perhaps our differences are merely a matter of emphasis. He writes:

The left has decided that democracy is not worth fighting for, much less dying for, all the while protesting at the top of their lungs those who are bringing freedom and liberty to those who were once oppressed…We live in an interesting time. We stand within a generation of living in a world where not just the lilly-white privileged people of the western world but all mankind can be free of oppression and live in some form of democracy. There are those who are working to see that day soon come into being, and there are those working to see that it never comes. Don’’t let the left and Cindy Sheehan fool you, they couldn’’t give a damn if the rest of the world is enslaved or not. Remember–they don’’t believe in freedom and democracy in the first place.

I see this a bit differently, because I think the left is not a unitary group. I would make a distinction between what, for want of a better expression, I will call the “hard left” and the “soft left,” and certainly between the hard left and most liberals I know. The hard left is a much smaller and more vocal group than the liberal/soft left, but it’s the latter who constitute the bulk of Americans who oppose the war. Many on the hard left probably fit Varifrank’s description of their position, but those on the soft left and those who are liberals (the two groups shade into each other) are operating somewhat differently, in my opinion.

Most liberals and those on both the soft and hard left have acquired an attitude of great cynicism and distrust towards their own country and the motives of its politicians. This has led them to have a virtually automatic assumption that the government (especially any Republican government) is guilty until proven innocent. Motivated by this belief, which is held as an article of faith, most on the liberal/left side of things totally discount all the rhetoric of the Bush Administration as just that–rhetoric–and believe that the real motivation for the war is greed and power, rather than freedom and democracy.

This belief system of distrust (the template of which was formed, for a great many people of Sheehan’s generation and older, during the Vietnam and Watergate eras) is the operative one for most liberals and soft leftists, rather than any real antipathy towards the concepts of freedom and democracy themselves. The government (again, most particularly Republican governments) is not seen as allied with those abstract notions, but as deviously and clandestinely antagonistic to them, and thus betraying them.

Of course, there are some, mostly on the far left, who really don’t believe in freedom and democracy. But it’s not my impression that they constitute the majority of the opposition, although they may at times be the ones pulling the strings, and the ones most in the media (I’m not yet clear whether Cindy Sheehan is one of them, or is simply someone whose strings they are pulling at the moment).

In addition to this distrust of the government and its motives, there seems to be a knee-jerk negativity towards military action in general on the part of many liberals. Most people–even on the right–tend to see military action as a last resort; but those on the right regard the military as a necessary and integral part of keeping us free, rather than an incidental one. How is it that liberals, on the other hand, can believe (or believe they believe) in freedom and democracy, and be so reluctant to fight for it?

In addition to the aforementioned distrust that freedom and democracy are what we are fighting for, I think that many liberals have a sort of a blindness to the way that freedom and democracy actually work. The hard truth of the famous quote (often attributed to Orwell but whose origins are actually unclear), “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf,” is one most liberals and leftists, as well as all pacifists, would prefer to deny–too messy, tragic, sad, and morally compromising. The quote is, once again, considered to be “mere rhetoric”–and inflammatory, bloodthirsty rhetoric, at that.

What is the sort of war a hard leftist might support, if a leftist was going to support a war? Again, the answer flows from distrust of our government (and in the case of hard leftists, the west in general), so the answer is pretty simple: any war waged by a third-world nation against a Western one, especially the US or Israel, with the leftists taking the side of the third-world nation.

But a liberal is different; liberals sometimes support US military action, provided it is waged by a Democratic administration (inherently more trusted by liberals to be telling the truth about its motivations for the war) and is waged for strictly and solely humanitarian aims, and thus presenting less messy moral ambiguity.

I believe that Varifrank’s analogy of soldiers in this war to police or firefighters is a correct one. But firefighters, police, and soldiers are distinct from each other. To liberal eyes, each occupies a different point on a morality continuum, with the firefighters the most “good,” the police next, and soldiers much less “good.” Why? It has to do with how much killing each group is expected to do in the service of their supposedly worthy and selfless causes–in other words, how morally “pure” their actions are.

Firefighters only rescue; they never kill, although they do sometimes die in the act of rescuing others. That makes them the most “pure” in the minds of the liberal, and the least morally compromised. Police don’t kill all that often, but it is a part of their jobs, and they have to know they may be called upon to do so. In addition, although the work police do is certainly protective, it is less clearly and directly involved with rescue than that of firefighters, and more connected with the taint of possible corruption. (At times, the radical left has not been averse to regarding police as the enemy. Anyone who was alive during the 60s and early 70s is well aware of name-calling–the oft-used epithet “pig”–and politically motivated attacks on policemen during that era.)

Soldiers are far more closely and frequently involved in the act of killing than even the police–there is simply no way around that fact–and, although they are often involved in rescue and rebuilding efforts (as Varifrank quite rightly points out), this is not their main job description. Whatever rescuing and protecting they may do (and, once again, they do plenty), these motives are less clearly and obviously related to their main activity of waging war. Unless the military is engaged in a response to a direct attack and invasion of this country, those protective and defensive functions of the military can be easily denied, ignored, or twisted by those on the outside looking in.

The hard left is, in my opinion, playing against the soft left and attempting (quite successfully, so far) to manipulate it. For those on the hard left who don’t want people to support the war and thus give the Replubicans, or the US government, any credit at all, all hint of defensive and protective war activities must be suppressed or minimized, or we run the danger of having these “soft” leftists/liberals crossing over to support the Iraq war effort.

These hard left groups who want to prevent that support from ever occurring were handed a great gift in the failure to find WMDs. The WMD argument was considered by many on the soft left to be the only proper defensive and protective argument for the war, and therefore their absence is so important, underscoring this group’s pre-existing sense of governmental betrayal. It’s also why the word “lie” is used so often in relation to Bush and the WMDs–it’s important that Bush be portrayed as mendacious (a la Nixon and the secret bombing of Cambodia) rather than merely mistaken, in order to make sure there is no sympathy for his efforts.

The failure to underscore the rebuilding efforts in Iraq is another example of the a suspicion that, were the public to know the extent and success of such efforts, sympathy for the war and the military would increase among those on the liberal/soft left side of things. So it’s all-important to the hard left that such news be supressed.

Maybe I’m naive and giving liberals too much benefit of the doubt–after all, I used to be one, remember? But I truly believe that most, if they knew some of these protective/defensive facts, would be more sympathetic to the war effort. I also believe that the hard left (and some hard left supporters in the MSM) is well aware of that, and acts accordingly.

[Linked to Mudville Gazette’s open post.]

Therapists and liberalism

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s no real surprise that therapists tend to be politically liberal in overwhelming numbers (therapist-bloggers notwithstanding). I can’t find a poll to back up my statement, but I don’t think too many people would seriously question it, and my own personal observations support it.

It’s funny, but until my own “conversion” and self-outing, I never really thought much about this fact. After all, most of my friends and family were also politically liberal. One thing about moving through life in a bubble is that you don’t tend to notice it that much until the bubble bursts. And then you wonder what it was that sustained that fragile, self-contained world.

So I’ve been thinking about what it is that accounts for the overwhelming liberality of therapists. It’s true, of course, that those in the social sciences, literature, and the arts generally tend to be of the liberal persuasion more often than those in the hard sciences or business; and therapy—despite assertions to the contrary—resembles an art far more than a science, I’m afraid. (It is also a business, but some therapists are in a certain amount of denial about that fact.)

In addition, there are elements within the training and belief system of most therapists that reinforce liberalism in students already predisposed to it anyway. In general, therapists—particularly those who specialize in treating individuals through talk therapy—are taught that they cannot be effective with clients if they start off with a judgmental approach. So they learn to exercise a certain suspension of judgment, a tolerance that even amounts at times to moral relativism, in order to gain the trust of clients and be able to work effectively with them.

It isn’t always easy to do this, because every person we meet triggers some reaction in us. Therapists try to understand these reactions and be aware of them in themselves (traditionally, these reactions are called “counter-transference”), and to block expressing them in a way that would hinder the therapeutic relationship. Imposing the therapist’s own ideas of what’s right and what’s wrong in the moral sense can be too directive and disruptive, and could easily trigger resistance to therapy in the client. Besides, the task of therapy is not usually seen as guidance towards some objective standard of “right” behavior; it’s seen as guidance towards self-actualization and self-expression.

Naturally, though, there are some basic and global notions of right and wrong that therapists adhere to, and that can’t help but influence the way they talk to clients and try to subtly shape behavior. To use an extreme example, no client would be encouraged to murder someone, and in fact at times the therapist would need to inform the proper authorities if the intent to murder were deemed serious.

There are so many schools of therapy–almost as many as there are sects and divisions within the major religions–that this generalization most definitely does not hold true across the board. For example, there are pastoral counselors whose “guidance” is most definitely couched in terms of traditional religious concepts of right and wrong. And over the years therapist/client confidentiality has become less absolute than it once was, since all therapists have come under the force of certain rules and regulations governing their duty to disclose or report to the proper authorities situations of abuse or threats to harm. But still, in general, I believe that I’m describing the basic attitudinal stance in which the majority of therapists are trained.

So therapists are specifically taught to practice non-judgmental openmindedness, as well as to exercise the obviously necessary skill of putting themselves imaginatively into the heart and mind of another person. This emphasis on empathy further extends the idea of openminded and nonjudgmental acceptance of the other person’s point of view.

For talk therapists, this practice is not only recommended, it’s actually required in order to effectively do the work they do. It’s one of the main things that distinguishes a therapist from a friend, a relative, a hairdresser, a bartender, a teacher, a member of the clergy, or anyone else to whom a person might turn when in need of an ear in a crisis.

Advice is easy to come by; anyone can give it. But the special thing a therapist offers is ordinarily quite different from advice. It’s an oversimplification, but ideally a therapist guides the client to see the patterns and connections in his/her own life and then to make choices that lead to a better life. But a therapist only rarely gives direct advice or makes judgments, because that thwarts the ultimate aim of therapy, which is not to tell people what to do, but to foster autonomy in clients. The goal is that clients will graduate from therapy able to solve future problems with the skills they’ve learned there.

But the nonjudgmental stance is an artificial one, adopted by therapists as a tool to be used during the therapeutic hour for the purpose of therapy. I believe some therapists make the mistake of overgeneralizing, and elevate this tool to a way of life and a generalized goal. Originally, the tool was meant to be a corrective for what was ordinarily found “out there”–harsh and punitive judgments galore from family and friends. Originally, therapy was an oasis from all that, a place where, in the absence of harsh judgment, a person could feel free to explore that which could not be explored elsewhere, and to tell truths that could not otherwise be told.

But over the years, as therapy has gone from a relatively obscure activity to a fairly common one, and therapists have become ubiquitous on television, radio, and in the self-help book business, what originally was a limited and circumscribed tool seems to have seeped into our culture and become a prescribed and generalized value. Many people have come to believe that making judgments or expressing any opinions at all about the behavior of others is a form of intolerance, almost as bad as bigotry or racism. Or they think, since negative judgments from others could harm a person’s self-esteem, and self-esteem is considered all-important—that anything that harms self-esteem (even a corrective dose of reality, or of warranted self-doubt or self-questioning) is prohibited. In a sense, the culture has become “therapized.”

I’m not saying this is all bad. But it’s an overcorrection. Opinions and judgments have their place, and without them, self-esteem can become runaway narcissism, and society can become anarchy.

In addition, in order to do the work they do, therapists have to maintain certain general beliefs. They need to maintain an attitude of hopefulness about the human condition, an ability to believe that there is good in almost everyone and that it is not so hard to create the proper conditions to activate that goodness. Once again, it’s not the attitude itself that is at fault, or its application to the therapeutic relationship; it’s the overgeneralizing that causes problems. Sometimes people are too far gone to be helped by such an approach; life, and the world, does not mimic the conditions of the therapeutic hour.

Depending on the school of therapy, some therapists (so-called “insight therapists,” for example) believe that human behavior and feelings can be understood, and, once understood, can be changed for the better by dint of that understanding. So “understanding” can be elevated to much more than an exercise in intellectual curiosity—it is sometimes considered a solution in and of itself, even to something as multifaceted and political as terrorism.

As all therapists are well aware, not everyone is what is known as a “good candidate” for therapy. Even in the very controlled situation of the one-on-one session, some people don’t respond and don’t change. There are sociopaths and psychopaths out there, to name just a few of the many who don’t do well in therapy. Even most therapists acknowledge that jails have to be built to house them and protect society from them. But the dream—of talking, leading to understanding, leading to change—dies hard.

Heroes: security guards

The New Neo Posted on by

The news is terribly familiar: a suicide bomber in Israel, at a Beersheba bus stop this time. We breathe a sigh of relief to hear that the death toll so far is limited to the bomber himself, although two security guards were seriously injured, and forty to fifty others were slightly wounded.

This has become good news, compared to those bombings in which scores die. I guess it’s all relative.

Here are a few details:

A Palestinian suicide bomber tried to board a bus at the central station in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba during morning rush hour at the start of the work week. But he aroused the suspicion of the bus driver. Police say security guards chased the bomber, and he blew himself up.

In those terse words “security guards chased the bomber, and he blew himself up” lie unimaginable heroism as well as terrible horror. We’ve grown accustomed to the players in this story, both the destructive bomber and the guards who give pursuit. The actions of all are astonishing, although the former and the latter stand on opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

By his actions, the bomber courts–even embraces–almost certain death in the service of his goal: to destroy the lives of a maximum number of innocent people. In contrast, by their actions the security guards risk somewhat less certain–but still very likely–death or serious injury in the service of their goal: to save the lives of a maximum number of innocent people. When all instincts of self-preservation would tell most people to run away, the guards run, willingly and deliberately, towards the person who is suspected of having the determination and the ability to blow himself up and take those guards with him. And yet still they approach.

It’s hard to think of a more heroic occupation than that of these guards. There are many heroes in civilian life–firefighters, police, rescue workers of all kinds–who regularly risk their own lives for those of others. But I can’t think of any other category of civilian worker who regularly takes on the sort of risk that security guards in Israel are accepting every time they approach a person suspected of being a homicide bomber.

Who are these guards? Some, such as those who work the El Al counter at the airport, are highly trained and respected professionals. But since the second intifada began, Israel and its businesses have faced the necessity of employing an unprecedented number of new security guards to meet increased security needs.

A great deal of this increase is in the category of private sector security guards–those who patrol theaters, restaurants, stores, and the like. And it turns out, according to this very troubling article, that these guards are not only courageously risking their lives, but they’re doing it for long hours and low pay.

The article appears on the website of a group dedicated to defending the legal rights and improving the working conditions of Israeli guards in the private sector. As such, I suppose the information continued therein should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it’s an exaggeration–but somehow I doubt it’s very much of an exaggeration (I welcome opinions from anyone who is familiar with the situation).

It’s not all that different in this country, although our needs are not nearly as great and the risks not nearly as high–so far, that is. Here’s an article describing the generally poor pay, training, and working conditions of security guards in this country.

The problem seems to be endemic in the security guard industry, no matter what the country–so much need and such a rush to train. The wonder, really, is that the guards still perform so well in so many circumstances, despite their relative lack of preparation. And none of this detracts at all from the heroism of the Beersheba guards; if anything, it intensifies and enhances it.

Why AIDS?

The New Neo Posted on by

In the King of Swaziland/AIDS thread, commenter “anonymous” (another one? or the same? who knows?) writes (and, by the way, in case you’re interested, here’s the latest update on King Mswati of Swaziland’s newest shady antics):

I’ve always wondered why AIDS is such a “hip” and “cool” cause. Malaria kills 3 times as many and there are very effective ways to prevent and cure it. I hear nothing but crickets chirping when mentioned as number 4 on the list of “worlds deadliest killer”. So pardon my skepticism at the tears shed for AIDS victims. It has nothing to do with caring. I guess Bono or Elizabeth Taylor don’t have friends with malaria.
10,700,000 children died in the world last year and 57% were from causes incident to malaria. That’s just the children.

I haven’t checked on anonymous’s statistics, but it’s my impression that the general point he/she is making is correct: fighting the scourge of malaria is not particularly chic or popular in this country as compared to combatting AIDS. So, what goes on here?

I’ll take a stab at an answer. My take on it is that a new disease will always gets more attention than an old one because people are accustomed to the latter, and the new one grabs their interest at first merely because it is new. And I am in agreement that a disease that affects the US and western Europe instead of mainly Africa or other third-world countries (AIDS, as opposed to malaria) will definitely provoke more interest, because in the case of the former, “the bell tolls for thee.” It is just human nature to be more upset about something that can potentially affect you and your loved ones rather than strangers in a far-off place.

I think there’s something else going on as well. The idea of a disease spread by the type of sexual behavior that was championed during the sexual revolution of the 60s is particularly threatening to the generation that grew up during that time. There was supposed to be no downside to such liberation, and it’s a bitter and difficult pill to swallow when the dreams of the 60s die (sometimes it seems as though there are no dreams of the 60s that haven’t died). The fact that AIDS first appeared, at least in the western world, in the gay male population–which had so recently undergone its own liberation–was also highly ironic and difficult for those who had championed that cause. So it’s no surprise that the anti-AIDS campaign would be especially well-supported among people who believe in those other causes.

Furthermore, a disease such as AIDS would seem to have almost no natural limits (unlike malaria) in terms of how widespread it could become in an area such as Africa where it is spread primarily heterosexually, and where sexual practices favor it and don’t seem to be changing any time soon. Although in the West the transition to heterosexual spread has not kept pace with early predictions, that transition is still the unspoken (and sometimes spoken) fear of many who believe conquering that AIDS is of the utmost importance for us, too. One has only to look at Africa to see a demonstration of how bad things could get if this spread were to occur. Although sub-Saharan Africa has many special characteristics (read my previous post for a description) that make AIDS particularly likely to spiral out of control there, the great fear is that it could also happen here.

Another commenter, Huck (who, if I’m not mistaken, is an “anonymous” who came in from the cold), points out that public health authorities have not been allowed to use their resources fully to combat AIDS in this country because of concerns about invasion of privacy and the like. Coincidentally, back in the early 90s when I was in graduate school, I researched and wrote a paper on that very issue. I am old enough to remember the use of such tools as contact tracing against venereal diseases, and in the earlier days of the AIDS epidemic, when there were fewer victims, I was wondering why the public health system wasn’t employing the old tried and true weapons to combat the new threat before it increased exponentially. The answer boiled down pretty much to “politics,” although there were other and more practical reasons (or in some cases, excuses) given, too. Some day I might try to exhume that old paper of mine and summarize it here–my recollection is that it contained some interesting nuggets of information.

Never mind

The New Neo Posted on by

Longer life? Apparently not; it just seems that way (via Instapundit).

I first heard about the possiblity of extending lifespan by stringent caloric restriction some years back. It always seemed to be a terribly ill-conceived concept to me. And I think those who embraced it wholeheartedly might be candidates for a diagnosis of obsessive compulsive personality disorder. But now it turns out the whole thing is one of those Roseanne Rosanna Danna things–never mind!

[CORRECTION: It takes a big person to admit to being wrong. So, here goes: I was wrong. There, I’ve said it, and that wasn’t so hard at all. A reader points out it’s Emily Litella, not Roseanne Rosanna Danna at all. Oh, well–never mind.]

Not an operetta, not by a long shot

The New Neo Posted on by

When I read the first paragraph or two of this article (via Norm Geras), I thought perhaps it was from the Onion. The King of Swaziland, banning sex thoughout the realm? A ceremony of dancing girls, burning the tassels that signified their chastity?

It also brought to mind a certain comic operetta, “The Mikado,” the Gilbert and Sullivan masterpiece featuring a mythical Japan in which flirting was a capital crime; and a musical comedy from my youth, “Once Upon a Mattress,” a retelling of “The Princess and the Pea,” set in a fairy tale kingdom where no one could marry until the crown prince was wed.

But as I read on, I discovered that it’s not a joke. It’s real, and it’s no operetta, despite the following:

As [the girls] arrived at the Queen Mother’s palace on Monday, before taking off their tassels, they sang in jest: “At last, we can now have sex.”

But after the strangeness–as well as the musical comedy overtones–of the story recede, we are left with a horrific human tragedy, that of AIDS in Africa and what to do about it. And the truth is that no one really seems to have all that much more of a clue than the King of Swaziland, a country in which 40% of the population is HIV positive.

Think about that for a moment: 40% of the people HIV-positive, and the mechanism of spread is heterosexual sexual contact. This is a prescription for the death of a country, and a region, unless something happens soon. But what is that something?

I’ve read many articles on the subject of AIDS in Africa, and there’s no shortage of earnest proposals to help the situation. But most of the people who work in the field express a deep despair about the nature and scope of the problem.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this, and I’m most definitely not knocking those who are. But at the moment the problem seems virtually insurmountable. The AIDS situation in sub-Saharan Africa is so complex and terrible because the disease intersects with myriad other problems that have long plagued the area–poverty, malnutrition, other diseases, political and institutional corruption on a widespread scale, and the breakdown of tribal societies–particularly ancient marriage customs–with the coming of urbanization.

Although it may be un-PC to admit it, part of the picture are sexual mores (some of them connected with the exploitation of women) that have helped the AIDS epidemic run rampant in sub-Saharan Africa, along with official denial of the enormous extent of the problem. The King of Swaziland may indeed be a hypocrite, and he may be utterly unrealistic about human nature, but at least he’s not in denial of the magnitude of the AIDS epidemic in his country.

Here’s an article that offers a good summary of the AIDS problem in sub-Saharan Africa. It contained the following list of the elements that need to be in place to effectively prevent the spread of AIDS there. See how likely you think it is that most of the items on this list could be instituted any time soon, especially the final entry:

Widespread knowledge about HIV/AIDS and HIV prevention measures, such as safe sex practices and the use of condoms

Adequate networks and personnel for HIV/AIDS testing, counseling, education and care

Adequate funding for HIV prevention/treatment

Massive campaigns to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS

Stable networks for education and health care

Strong political and public health leadership to address HIV prevention efforts

Empowerment of women

Enforced prohibitions against rape

Strong infrastructure (roads, telecommunications)

Strong and stable economies and governments that are not engaged in war or civil unrest

The article goes on to state that cultural customs around sexuality impede the fight against AIDS. If you have the stomach for it (and I warn you, it requires a very strong one) you could also take a look at this Village Voice article, which offers a great many depressing details about these customs and how they further the spread of the disease.

The following is an example (from the Voice article) of how certain cultural practices that once made sense in pre-AIDS tribal cultures have become part of the problem, post-AIDS:

Like many cultures in East and southern Africa, the Luo practice what is variously translated as home guardianship or, more commonly, widow inheritance. When a husband dies, one of his brothers or cousins marries the widow. This tradition guaranteed that the children would remain in the late husband’s clan””after all, they had paid a dowry for the woman””and it also ensured that the widow and her children were provided for. When the guardian takes the widow, sexual intercourse is believed to “cleanse” her of the devils of death. A woman who refuses to take a guardian brings down chira””ill fortune””on the entire clan. Of course, if her husband died of AIDS, she might very well pass on the virus to her guardian. Millicent Obaso, a Luo public-health worker with the Red Cross, says: “We have homes where all the males have died because of this widow inheritance.”

There is little doubt that underlying social change on a vast scale is necessary–as well as economic and political change. But how to effect changes in sexual practices in the absence of these deeper changes? Most attempts to accomplish this by legislation would be as doomed to failure as King Mswati’s, even if they were more sophisticated than his.

Well, Bush is pretty clear about it

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday there was a lot of back and forth, both here and elsewhere, about what Secretary Rice may or may not have said and may or may not have meant about whether the Palestinians need to take the next step (or a next step) in response to the unilateral Israeli move of leaving Gaza.

As I wrote in one of my comments, reasonable people can certainly differ on what Ms. Rice said or meant. The question of whether the Times “Dowdified” her quote (and I continue to think there was a bit of that going on) is a side issue to the more pressing question of what it was that Rice actually meant.

But today President Bush has been quite clear on the subject. Reuter’s reports (via LGF), that Bush, in his radio address:

…put pressure on the Palestinians on Saturday to respond to the Israeli pullout from Gaza and portions of the West Bank by cracking down on terrorism…”Now that Israel has withdrawn, the way forward is clear. The Palestinians must show the world that they will fight terrorism and govern in a peaceful way,” Bush said.

So it seems that Bush–at least for today–is placing the ball in the Palestinian court. He seems to be demanding the quid pro quo about which Rice was somewhat equivocal.

As for Rice’s previous remarks, and their correct interpretation? It’s a bit like reading tea leaves, and there are quite a few possibilities. Either Judith of Kesher Talk is correct, and Rice is playing “bad cop” to Bush’s “good cop,” or Rice and Bush are not in agreement on this, or Rice is on the same page as Bush and has been misinterpreted by the NY Times, or the whole thing is in a state of flux and even Bush and Rice don’t quite know what her position is.

Whatever Bush or Rice say, I would be extremely surprised if the Palestinians actually followed through with positive action. And if that doesn’t happen, it’s all “mere rhetoric.” But rhetoric still matters somewhat, because it sets the tone of the policy expectations for the region.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. The US can’t force the Palestinians to abandon terrorism and hatred as a way of life. But we can stop rewarding it or ignoring it, and this type of statement from Bush (if he keeps at it), is at least the equivalent of “leading the horse to water.” The rest is up to the horse.

I can only hope that the administration gets clear and remains clear on this score. And even if its a game of “good cop, bad cop,” each cop should aim to be consistent about his/her message.

[ADDENDUM: By the way, I was pretty careful about this one. I didn’t take Reuters’ word for it; I went to the actual text of Bush’s radio address to check up on them. They passsed with flying colors; he said what they said he said. Congratulations, Reuters!]

Okay, NY Times, so what have you got to say about this?

The New Neo Posted on by

In yesterday’s piece on press bias, I mentioned that one of the things that bother people who are sick of press distortions (the word I favor instead of “bias”) is the use of the truncated quote. Quotes are often cut off prematurely, manipulated, and/or offered out-of-context, in ways that change their meaning.

And so today I read (via LGF) this post, which makes it crystal clear that the Times did exactly that with the recent Condi Rice quote for which she received so much criticism, “It cannot be Gaza only.” Read the whole Rich Richman post and decide for yourself.

The wonderful thing about communications today is that it is easier than ever before to view transcripts of the actual interviews from which newspapers get the information which they summarize for those of us who have neither the time nor the inclination to “read the whole thing.” Many of us (myself included) used to trust the MSM to get it right–after all, reading comprehension (or listening comprehension) ought to be one of the basic skills of any reporter, and not so very difficult to achieve. How hard can it be to summarize what a person has said?

Apparently, very very hard, if not impossible, at least for many reporters–oops, “journalists.” I can think of only three explanations: either reporters are actually less intelligent than the average person, or they are negligently careless in writing their stories, or they are purposely shaping the quotes to make a propaganda point and relying on the fact that their reading public will never know the difference (actually, some combination of these three factors is also possible).

But none of these, as Martha Stewart would say, is “a good thing.” Take your pick on which is actually operating here. Whatever it is that is behind it, thank goodness the internet is affording us the opportunity to see the process in action, and to adjust our beliefs accordingly.

[ADDENDUM: The Unknown Blogger makes an interesting point here, which is that, during a conference on June 20 at the American University in Cairo, Ms. Rice made a similar statement. See this. The quote in question is the following:

I think we have much work to do in the Middle East. We have the work of reform. You have much work to do in the Middle East, the work of reform. We have the work, of course, to do with the Palestinians and Israelis. The day that there is a democratic Palestine living side by side in peace with a democratic Israel is going to be a day that this region clearly has a new sense of hope and a new sense of unity. And so, of course, we need to work each and every day toward the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I can just say I was just in Israel and in the Palestinian territories and I found that the leaders there are very conscious of the special nature of this moment, that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza can be a first step. And I want to say very clearly, Gaza — it cannot be Gaza only. And we have said this to the Israelis and I think you heard Prime Minister Sharon say yesterday that this can reenergize the roadmap. And so we look for the Gaza withdrawal to be successful. We’re working very hard with the parties on that. That means peaceful and orderly. And then to use the momentum and the trust and the confidence that will have been built over that period to possibly even accelerate our progress on the roadmap, which is, after all, the reliable guide to an independent Palestinian state. And President Bush, who was the first American President to make it policy that there should be a Palestinian state, and a democratic Palestinian state, is very personally devoted to using this moment of opportunity.

I think in all fairness that this quote does cast some doubt on exactly what Ms. Rice was getting at in the first interview, the one the Times was referring to, in which her remarks were more ambiguous. So, the Unknown Blogger does make a point that needs to be taken into consideration.

However, I still have a problem with the Times, although it is a problem of far lesser magnitude than before. In the interview on which they were relying–the one in which the full Rice quote seems to be saying something ambiguous–and also in the June 20th speech in which she seems to be clearer, the context is all-important. And it is that context which the Times has failed to properly emphasize.

Looking at the original NY Times article, available here, I think the failing is not as bad as Richman stated, although it does exist. It is twofold: the quote is truncated in a way that somewhat distorts it, and it is highlighted more than it should have been in the context of Rice’s actual remarks, which focused a great deal on the reciprocal obligations of the Palestinians (to its credit, however, the Times certainly does mention these obligations.).

The all-important context is this: Ms. Rice is speaking of a future in which the Palestinians have performed some act (or acts) indicating a quid pro quo on the way to becoming a reformed, democratic, Palestinian state as part of Bush’s “roadmap.” She is not demanding a further move of unilateral withdrawal by Israel. I believe she makes this fairly clear in other statements she makes on both occasions.

Right now, Israel’s Gaza withdrawal is unilateral. It is akin to the opening move of a chess game, a match played with real people, real lives, and real territory. The Bush administration has never backed the idea of Greater Israel, at least as far as I know. But ever since it drew up its new roadmap, it has insisted that moves by Israel must be met with countermoves by Palestine before any new moves would be expected of Israel.

At the beginning of this piece, I wrote that distorted quotes are ones that are “cut off prematurely, manipulated, and/or offered out-of-context, in ways that change their meaning.” I agree with the Unknown Blogger that the June 20th interview is certainly relevant here. It also now seems that the Times article in question is not one of the truly blatant examples of distortion that it appeared at first to be, although I think it is nevertheless an example of the problems inherent in truncated quotes. But it is an even better example of some much more subtle aspects of the problem of distortion: the effects of emphasis, placement, and context.

For an example of a different type of emphasis and context that might have, and should have, been provided, Richman suggests the following:

…the Times might have informed its readers that Rice emphasized the dismantlement of Palestinian terrorism four times — in response to questions from the Times that sought to emphasize next steps by Israel…”So the answer to the question, what comes next, is . . . the Palestinian Authority is going to have to deal with the infrastructure of terrorism, that’s one of its obligations””…That would have been news that was fit to print.

The key phrase of Rice’s here is “what comes next.” “What comes next” will fall to the Palestinians, not the Israelis, according to Rice. What happens beyond that–including “It cannot be Gaza only”–is a projection into an imaginary future in which the Palestinians have gone a long way towards dismantling its terror apparatus.]

UPDATE: The plot thickens. See this by Omri Ceren. He seems to have followed the matter a great deal more closely for quite some time than most of us have, including myself, and he makes some good points. I am busy tonight with guests, so I can’t give this a lot of attention, but I suggest you read his post and the links and decide.

My quick take on the matter, however, is that the Bush administration, and Rice, have long given such mixed signals about the “roadmap” and what it means that I hereby give the Times a pass on this one.

He’s baaaaack!

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve just noticed (via Gates of Vienna) that one of my favorite bloggers, the Religious Policeman (the title is ironic), is back after a long hiatus.

Part of the beauty of blogging is in its diversity of voices (there, don’t I sound like the liberal I used to be?), and the Religious Policeman presents a point of view so rare in the blogosphere that I believe it’s unique. He’s an outspoken Saudi who used to blog from his home country. Now he resides in the UK, where, as he writes, “the Religious Police no longer trouble him for the moment.” A fascinating read.

Sorry to inconvenience you, but I’m afraid it’s the only way

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve analyzed them, humored them, charted their development, and tried to understand them, all to no avail.

So now, no more Ms. Nice Guy. It’s war.

Unfortunately, in war there is always sacrifice. And so, all commenters here will be ever-so-slightly inconvenienced in the war against spambots by having to copy a word that will automatically be generated by our helpful host Blogger each time you comment.

Sorry to have to do it, but I don’t think it will be too big a deal, and it should eliminate the wretched spambot infestation. If I get too many complaints that people are having trouble with it, I can always change my settings again and eliminate it.