Change the Course

Now that the situation in Iraq has reached a critical point, it's time for President Bush to talk straight to the American public if he wants continued support for the war. The public acknowledges a few simple facts: 1) Saddam Hussein was an awful, evil dictator; 2) the U.S.'s original rationale for the war was false; 3) the war has not made this country demonstrably safer. Bush can't just keep invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 and instructing us to "stay the course". The course has gone from a run-of-the-mill invasion to a really bad episode of Punk'd.

The long line of failures that got us into this mess in the first place have already been recognized by everybody outside of the White House. In Iraq, that pesky insurgency is wreaking havoc. Jeffersonian democracy hasn't flourished, but civil war and the creation of an Iran-allied theocracy could be forthcoming. A Republican senator (Chuck Hagel) has used the dreaded V-word (Vietnam). Members of the president's own party are speaking out about the need to alter our strategy, or at the very least, define our goals. What do we still hope to accomplish?

The focus at home remains on bringing our troops back, and understandably so considering the strain on our overextended military. However, I don't think it's time to throw in the towel just yet. Yes, Iraq has become and likely will remain a hotbed of terrorism for years to come, regardless of how long we stay. But I am considering the larger picture of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. If we cut and run and then Iraq dissolves into chaos, we will set the chances of progress in that entire region back.

Unfortunately, thanks to the blunders by this administration, Iraq is an unpopular war that we just might be stuck with while blindly hoping that everything turns out ok. In that case, we should at least give ourselves a better chance of winning. The president thinks current troop levels are ok, but the strength of the insurgency tells you need we need to put more of our guys on the ground. We need to pour money and manpower into developing Iraq's infrastructure so that they can hold their own once we're gone. We also need to revive a practically non-existent diplomatic campaign to engage the various factions in Iraq as well as Iraq's neighbors who have a stake in the outcome. Gen. Wesley Clark recently offered the clearest, most straightforward vision yet for what the U.S. must do to succeed in Iraq--his column "Before It's Too Late" in last Friday's Washington Post is a must-read.

I do hope that the United States continues to promote liberalization and economic reform in the Muslim world, where both are sorely needed. In going about it in the future though, I hope we'll remember a valuable lesson learned the hard way from our mistakes in Iraq. The best of intentions and the best of armies aren't always enough to get the job done--and a little understanding of the people we're dealing with can go a long way.

Crappy News Network

Veteran commentator Bob Costas surprised some people this week when he refused to guest-host a Larry King show about Natalee Holloway, the missing Alabama teenager. Costas declined to give a reason, other than say "I didn't think the subject matter...was the kind of broadcast I should be doing". Translation: he doesn't like crap. The idea of devoting another hour to the umpteenth "missing girl" story offended his journalistic sensibility and standards.

Bravo, Bob Costas.

I'm not quite sure how "missing girl" mania became the latest journalistic fad, but it's probably the most annoying thing to hit television since Dennis Miller doing Monday Night Football. It seems like every week CNN, Fox, and MSNBC find a new case of a young woman and possible foul play. Don't believe me? Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who has comically voiced his exasperation with "white women we love", recently recounted a number of such cases : "Natalee Holloway...her predecessor, the Runaway Bride [Jennifer Wilbanks]...Laci Peterson. Elizabeth Smart. Lori Hacking. Chandra Levy. JonBenet Ramsey." Robinson even lumps in the creation of the Jessica Lynch (remember her?) myth as a byproduct of this craze.

Never mind that a countless number of people go missing every day (roughly 2,000 on average), and that the only cases highlighted by the media happen to be the ones involving young, white, reasonably attractive white women. The important question is Who Cares? Unfortunately, despite the complete lack of newsworthiness in the Holloway, Wilbanks, et al., stories, "Missing Woman" coverage gets terrific ratings. Maybe it was a novel personal story the first time, but come on, people!

In an ideal world, serious news would dominate the headlines, but let's be serious--there's not really widespread public interest there. I'm no news purist either, preferring my gloom-and-doom with a healthy mix of sports and pop culture news just like everyone else. Will Terrell Owens sulk his way out of Philly? Are Angelina and Brad a couple? Those stress-free issues do wonders to take our minds off of the latest report on car bombs and orphans with diseases.

Nonetheless, the saturated 24/7 coverage and endless "in-depth specials" on the most inane topics have become nauseating. I wish I could say the cable news networks are turning off viewers, but actually, they've found their meal ticket. Where does that leave the rest of us fed up boob-tube watchers? It's a nice day outside, I think I'll take a hike.

If only more people would do the same, metaphorically at least, the next time the news networks decided to sensationalize more crap.

Last edited Aug 22.

Divided We Fall

The Fox News network's famous claim, "Fair and Balanced", is considered by most people on both sides of the political spectrum to be as authentic as a $3 bill. Yet that hasn't stopped Fox News from becoming the most-watched cable news channel in America, ahead of rivals CNN and MSNBC. Though the network plays to the right-wing crowd, employing some of the most belligerent and blustery commentators this side of talk-radio, a 2004 Pew study found that half of Fox's viewers identified themselves as Democrats or independents.

Are those liberals who tune into the network looking for political balance and a broader perspective? Not according to Professors Steffano DellaVigna of UC-Berkeley and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University, who recently concluded a long-term study of political bias in reporting. They suggest that both Democrats and Republicans watch Fox News to corroborate their own existing viewpoints. Republicans like Fox because the news emphasizes themes that appeal to them, and because there is a heavy ideological slant in favor of conservatism. Democrats who watch Fox do so not out of masochism, but rather, to strengthen their conviction against what they see as misplaced priorities, a lack of intellectual sophistication, and heavy-handed bias.

In other words, both sides are just looking to hear what they want to hear. Psychologists would call it “confirmation bias”, the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences that support one’s own views. Examples from everyday life are abundant. I’m still trying to project the momentary flashes of brilliance I’ve seen from the Redskins in their thus far lopsided preseason as proof that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they will finally turn it around this year. I know, dream on.

Confirmation bias is a far more serious problem in the context of our country’s political dialogue. People have always disagreed on politics, but it seems to me that with the advent of well-funded partisan advocacy groups, vituperative ideologues, and zealous bloggers, it’s become harder than ever to find the middle ground.

Since when did news become a partisan issue? The late Senator Daniel Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” That adage seems quaint now that liberals and conservatives can each get their own news and commentary, each never having to listen to a single word they disagree with.

With people content to ideologically insulate themselves, it is no wonder then that Republicans and Democrats treat each other as if they came from different planets. I’m tired of hearing about a divided America. When Senator Joe Biden (D-R.I.), a presumed presidential candidate in 2008, spoke on “Meet the Press” of visiting “the red states” to gauge support for his candidacy, I cringed. Didn’t anyone learn from Barack Obama’s memorable convention speech last year, that there is no Blue State America and Red State America, just the United States of America? Self-imposed divisions are hurting this country, with each side filled with foreboding for the other.

I hope that, in light of upcoming elections in 2006 and 2008, our new political leaders from both parties will look to the middle-of-the-road and try to formulate policy that chooses broader appeal over narrow partisanship. The country's current division only subtracts from our ability to relate to one another and get things done. Let's see a real uniter!

Last edited on September 3, 2005.

My Kind of Party

It's not easy being a Democrat these days. The other party is firmly in the driver's seat of the White House and Congress, and moving toward a controlling stake in the Supreme Court. The Dems' have been functioning as a hapless and ineffective opposition for the past few years, lacking a popular leader who can speak authoritatively for his side. War in Iraq going badly? Gas prices soaring? Ballyhooed Social Security reform gone AWOL? No matter what, it hasn't seemed to make much of a difference to the political balance. People may not be comfortable with the performance of Bush & Co., but they certainly aren't turning to the Democrats for a solution.

Why not? Simply put, the Democrats aren't offering any real solutions. Still hung up on their defeat in 2004, or worse yet, back in 2000, the Democrats are not doing a good job of demonstrating leadership and offering a vision for the future. Currently, their entire agenda seems to consist of being "against the Republicans"--a very incomplete strategy. A healthy opposition should do more so than naysay out of habit. Right now, people see the Republicans as at least being the "party of ideas" (no matter how bad those ideas are). That's more than the Democrats can say as they've gone purple in the face trying to thwart a U.N. ambassadorship posting (John Bolton) and dug for dirt on an articulate, intelligent, but sinfully conservative Supreme Court nominee (John Roberts).

Democrats think they're losing the support of the nation because they are being outmaneuvered by the Republicans in "framing" the issues. While it's true that the latter seems to have perfected the art of "spin", I agree with the diagnosis of Jim Wallis, who recently wrote in the New York Times about the importance of "the message thing". He argues that the Democrats need to lead on issues like poverty, energy policy, and international leadership, while also attracting moral and family values voters.

How do the Democrats snap out of their funk? My solution may be anathema to die-hard liberals, but I believe it to be necessary: stop hating Bush. With the exception of a brief respite in the post 9/11-days, Democrats have been consumed with an irrational personal hatred of the current president that has hampered their ability to offer an authentic alternative leadership to this country. It's well past time to put aside those personal grudges and start offering ideas.

The current administration, thanks to its own missteps and those of its allies in Congress, faces a shrinking amount of credibility on a wide swath of issues. Now is the time for Democrats to rise to the occasion with a bold, positive new message as well as some bold, positive new leaders. Enough with being the party that "just says no"; let's hear more about principles.

Note: This post appears in the August 18 issue of the Maryland Diamondback under the title "Dems need more than negativity."

An Evolving Understanding of Our Origins

I just returned from vacation to catch my Tivo recording of the recent History Channel special "Ape to Man", a terrific and timely new documentary chronicling the development of human evolutionary theory. The program covers the span of over 150 years, from pre-Darwinian ideas to the realization of man's common ancestry in Africa and the importance of the use of tools.

Rather then offering just a dry, encyclopedic recital, "Ape to Man" focuses on the chronological advancement of scientific thought on the subject. Key moments are reenacted, from the finding of Neanderthal fossils in Germany in the 1850s up through the famous discovery of "Lucy" in 1974. The scientific history is interspersed with vignettes featuring superbly costumed and cosmeticized actors dramatizing situations like hunting, fighting, and utilizing fire. This may sound cheesy, but surprisingly enough, it is all done so well and fits so neatly into the flow of the documentary as to be completely engrossing.

Any mention of evolutionary theory these days would be remiss not to notice this is a time when anti-evolutionists are gaining momentum by pushing the idea of "intelligent design". This concept has been in the news a lot as of late, drawing apparent support from President Bush and being touted as an alternative to teaching evolution in the classroom.

"Intelligent design" holds that the complexity of life is so great that it could only have been overseen by a supernatural force. There are two ways to interpret this--one, of course, is that this is just a nuanced rewording of the creationist position. In this respect, the idea of "intelligent design" is just a subtle but so far surprisingly effective assault on science and on public education. The idea of uncertainty in the current scientific viewpoint, however, is a reasonable enough idea. There is a bottomless supply of questions to which science yet has no answer. In the context of establishing a basis for scientific thought, however, the idea is fallacious.

Consider that the essence of science is a constant, millennia-old progression of our ability to understand our world. We are always striving to improve that understanding. Scientific explanations are made to the best of our ability based on the ascertained information we possess. Introducing intelligent design into the classroom does a great disservice to science, for the idea is not a scientific one. This is not a debate about whether there is or is not a God, so don't let that topic, irrelevant to the matter at hand, distract you. It's that science is not, as a letter to the LA Times recently pointed out, about points of view.

In the decades and centuries to come, we will almost certainly refine our ideas about our origins. "Ape to Man" did a great job, I thought, in showing how the "evolution of evolution" was in no way easily contrived. In addition to the requisite inspiration and perspiration, scientists had to overcome many missteps (and even intentional falsehoods) to arrive at the current theory of our origins. Even now, science is still trying to solve the unexplained. Intelligent design, though, can never provide any answers, and it still begs the questions of "why?" and "how?" Furthermore, the faux-security it provides cheapens the value of the rational scientific thought that is supposed to be a cornerstone of education.

Here's the beauty of science: if an idea is flawed, it will be cast by the wayside, and we will be better off for abandoning it. If the idea is tested and strengthened, then we all go to sleep feeling more confident that yet another great mystery has been solved by the might of human ingenuity. Regardless of the outcome, that's called progress. So to all challengers, bring it on!

Too Late to Say It Ain't So, Raffy

That finger-wagging moved me, I admit.

Compared to the uncomfortable, evasive performances by Mark McGwire and others in front of the Congressional committee investigating steroids back in March, Rafael Palmeiro's vehement denial of any involvement was a relief. One of baseball's most renowned "nice guys" forcefully stood up with pointed finger to clear his name. It was just the image of playing the game "the right way" that the public so badly wanted to believe in, and so we believed Palmeiro. His became the feel-good story that sustained us after we'd been shaken by the number of apparently tainted big-name stars--Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, just to name a few.

Then of course came this week's biggest story--not just on the sports page, but the front page as well: the announcement of Rafael Palmeiro's suspension for a positive steroid test. His hollow defense, that he never "intentionally" took steroids, is exactly the kind of empty excuse that has caused fans to question the integrity of a decade's worth of baseball milestones. Furthermore, if a NY Times report is correct that Palmeiro's infraction was for use of Stanozolol (the steroid that got Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson stripped of his 1988 gold medal), then Palmeiro is--it hurts me to say it--a liar.

Jose Canseco is no noble muckraker, and his word still unreliable, but what does appear to be true is his assertion that steroid use is rampant in baseball. Is this year's crackdown on steroids the reason why an aging Barry Bonds, who hasn't played a game this year, is unable to recover from a knee injury? It's not just the heavy hitters who are popping the pills, either, as the suspensions of lithe outfielder Alex Sanchez and little-known pitcher Ryan Franklin prove. Is steroid use even worth it in the first place? Jason Giambi had both his reputation and his health damaged thanks to his steroid use--and is this year, having finally overcome numerous setbacks, enjoying a resurgence at the plate. With the current frenzy of public outrage at steroid usage in sports, and testing procedures getting beefed up, it no longer makes sense to use steroids even for their competitive advantage.

While writing this post, I heard that Palmeiro has agreed to release information on his failed steroid test to Congress and will answer "each and every" question from the investigative committee. Perhaps the outcome of all this will be a vindication for him and other major leaguers who, for some reason, still take various questionable "dietary supplements" and then naively express wonder that said supplements were the cause of a failed test. You'll excuse my pessimism, however, if I doubt this story has a happy ending.

CB Archive: 'Roid Rage (February 14, 2005)