John Stossel
ReReporter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.
The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.
"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.
They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.
Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math threatens many reporters.
Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.
That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.
It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.
I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.
Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.
So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by business. They wore suits. Why trust them?
And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"
Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.
But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.porter Sharyl Attkisson's story sounds familiar to me: A major network got tired of her reports criticizing government. She no longer works there.
The CBS correspondent reported on Fast and Furious, the shifting explanation for the Benghazi, Libya, attacks and the bungled rollout of the Obamacare website.
"But as time went on, it was harder to get stories on," she says.
"There are people who simply would rather just avoid the headache of going after powers that be because of the pushback that comes with it, which has become very organized and well-financed," she says on my TV show this week.
I left ABC for similar reasons. When I began consumer reporting, I assumed advertisers would censor me, since sponsors who paid my bosses wouldn't want criticism. But never in 30 years was a story killed because of advertiser pressure. Not once.
I hear that's changed since, and big advertisers, such as car dealers, do persuade news directors to kill stories.
"I do a lot of reporting on corporate interests and so on, so there's pressure from that end," says Attkisson, but "there's a competing pressure on the ideological end." Right. Ideology affects more stories than "corporate interests." My ABC bosses leaned left. They liked stories about weird external threats from which government can swoop in to rescue you.
They are much less fond of complex stories in which problems are solved subtly by the dynamism of the free market. The invisible hand, after all, is invisible. It works its magic in a million places and makes adjustments every minute. That's hard for reporters to see -- especially when they're not looking for it.
Often, when it comes to news that happens slowly, the media get it utterly wrong. I suspect we get it wrong now about things like global warming, genetically modified foods, almost any story related to science or statistics, or, heck, basic math. Math threatens many reporters.
Combine all that with the news proverb "If it bleeds, it leads," and you get some very misleading, scary reporting.
That's why it's good that there's a new media organization called Retro Report that reveals media hype of the past.
It archives stories like the purported "crack babies" epidemic, Tawana Brawley's being "attacked by six white men," the rise of "super-predator" teenagers, and other disasters that didn't happen -- but did have big effects on public policy, as politicians rushed to fight the imaginary menaces.
I believed in many similar stories when I was a young reporter. You would have, too. We interviewed scientists who sounded alarmed. They had data that proved coffee causes pancreatic cancer and cellphones cause brain cancer.
Of course, other scientists were skeptical, but they were harder to interview than the crusading scientists. What was in it for the calm, reasonable ones? What would they gain by taking time from their own research to try to educate stupid reporters? Plus, if they were quoted, they'd make enemies. It's easier just to avoid the media.
So we reporters talked to the activists and trusted them. They were like us. They wore blue jeans and said they wanted to protect people. The scientists who were skeptical about the latest scare, on the other hand, were often funded by business. They wore suits. Why trust them?
And they were boring, the ultimate crime in media. Company lawyers had told them, "be cautious" when talking to reporters. Caution is poison to us. A scientist saying we don't really have good evidence that coffee causes cancer is just not as interesting as one saying, "Coffee may kill you!"
Plus, politicians were always ready with some proposed regulatory "solution." That's easy to report on, too. Just go to the politician's press conference. Then we feel we've done our job.
But all we've really done is spread the hype pushed by the big-government establishment. They fool us again and again.
25 Jun 2014
THE PROGRESSIVE WAR ON HARD WORKS CONTINUES
Michael Schaus
The misguided attempt to increase the minimum wage can almost be passed off as institutionalized economic illiteracy. Many people, however, have argued that it’s more than simple ignorance that drives the Left to ignore fiscal sanity and push for a $15 per hour burger-flipping wage. Well, if the latest attempt to institute mandated-minimum-pay illustrates anything, it shows that the Left isn’t that fond of the effort/reward relationship of hard work. Labor groups are now aiming to snuff out the system of tipping servers because… well… because it’s “unfair”.
There is a movement to bump the minimum wage for tipped servers (often lower than the official minimum wage, because they are primarily compensated by gratuities), which has emboldened people who seem to disdain the performance-based nature of the service industry. According to Fox News:
One advocate, Saru Jayaraman, co-director of the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, has been quoted in multiple media outlets as supporting a push to get rid of tips altogether. She was quoted in the Seattle Times describing tips as “institutionalized sexism,” and told the University of California, Berkeley’s alumni magazine that “Ultimately, this system of tipping needs to go.”
Ugh, Berkeley… Saru, of course, feels that tips are inherently unfair because America is full of a bunch of sexist cheapskates who undervalue minority workers. Or something. Although, to be fair, she does say that her comments were taken out of context. She clarified that tips would be completely eliminated only in a “utopian” world.
Right… Because who in their right mind would embrace the idea of earning more for doing a better job? I mean, isn’t it so unfair for patrons of a business to reward their waiter (or waitress) based on the service they received? (Yes… Both of those sentences were, in fact, sarcasm.) Apparently, in a “utopian” world, restaurants would compensate their servers the same way that Chicago teacher unions compensate their rank and file: Without regard to performance, or competency.
I mean, heck, tipping is the unbridled definition of “fair” in the real world… But, since when do liberals pay attention to the real world? Saru’s solution, according to the piece in Fox News, is to replace the entire tipping system with a simple “livable wage” for servers. See, this way waitresses won’t be subjected to the inherent sexism of a hungry American public. (I mean, sure: They also won’t be rewarded handsomely for doing a great job – but maybe we can just give all employees a trophy. Right?)
So now – if the labor movement gets their way and replaces tips with flat wages – the person that was making $300 in tips on a Friday night (not un-heard of in most corners of the service world), will suddenly be making a mere “livable” wage. Oh, and the employer will have to shell out more to keep this newly-impoverished member of their wait staff employed. So, yeah, hooray for liberalism: Bankrupting businesses, and impoverishing otherwise competent low-skill laborers.
And, again, what was wrong with the tipping system? Aside from its somewhat arbitrary nature (Seinfeld covered this issue pretty extensively), it appears to be fairly effective. The opportunity to make more money has proven to be a pretty motivational influence in people’s desire to work hard. In fact, unlike labor-sponsored tenure plans and scheduled pay increases, tipping provides workers with a limitless ability to improve their take-home pay through nothing other than hard work.
Oh… Wait. Now I get it. Hard work is supposed to be frowned upon by modern society. Apparently, everyone is entitled only to the wage that a bunch of academic, intellectually vacant, government bureaucrats have determined is “fair”. Because, as it turns out, preserving a relationship between reward and effort is simply unjust in a progressive utopia.
Trophies for everyone! (Just don’t tip the trophy maker.)
The misguided attempt to increase the minimum wage can almost be passed off as institutionalized economic illiteracy. Many people, however, have argued that it’s more than simple ignorance that drives the Left to ignore fiscal sanity and push for a $15 per hour burger-flipping wage. Well, if the latest attempt to institute mandated-minimum-pay illustrates anything, it shows that the Left isn’t that fond of the effort/reward relationship of hard work. Labor groups are now aiming to snuff out the system of tipping servers because… well… because it’s “unfair”.
There is a movement to bump the minimum wage for tipped servers (often lower than the official minimum wage, because they are primarily compensated by gratuities), which has emboldened people who seem to disdain the performance-based nature of the service industry. According to Fox News:
One advocate, Saru Jayaraman, co-director of the Restaurant Opportunities Center United, has been quoted in multiple media outlets as supporting a push to get rid of tips altogether. She was quoted in the Seattle Times describing tips as “institutionalized sexism,” and told the University of California, Berkeley’s alumni magazine that “Ultimately, this system of tipping needs to go.”
Ugh, Berkeley… Saru, of course, feels that tips are inherently unfair because America is full of a bunch of sexist cheapskates who undervalue minority workers. Or something. Although, to be fair, she does say that her comments were taken out of context. She clarified that tips would be completely eliminated only in a “utopian” world.
Right… Because who in their right mind would embrace the idea of earning more for doing a better job? I mean, isn’t it so unfair for patrons of a business to reward their waiter (or waitress) based on the service they received? (Yes… Both of those sentences were, in fact, sarcasm.) Apparently, in a “utopian” world, restaurants would compensate their servers the same way that Chicago teacher unions compensate their rank and file: Without regard to performance, or competency.
I mean, heck, tipping is the unbridled definition of “fair” in the real world… But, since when do liberals pay attention to the real world? Saru’s solution, according to the piece in Fox News, is to replace the entire tipping system with a simple “livable wage” for servers. See, this way waitresses won’t be subjected to the inherent sexism of a hungry American public. (I mean, sure: They also won’t be rewarded handsomely for doing a great job – but maybe we can just give all employees a trophy. Right?)
So now – if the labor movement gets their way and replaces tips with flat wages – the person that was making $300 in tips on a Friday night (not un-heard of in most corners of the service world), will suddenly be making a mere “livable” wage. Oh, and the employer will have to shell out more to keep this newly-impoverished member of their wait staff employed. So, yeah, hooray for liberalism: Bankrupting businesses, and impoverishing otherwise competent low-skill laborers.
And, again, what was wrong with the tipping system? Aside from its somewhat arbitrary nature (Seinfeld covered this issue pretty extensively), it appears to be fairly effective. The opportunity to make more money has proven to be a pretty motivational influence in people’s desire to work hard. In fact, unlike labor-sponsored tenure plans and scheduled pay increases, tipping provides workers with a limitless ability to improve their take-home pay through nothing other than hard work.
Oh… Wait. Now I get it. Hard work is supposed to be frowned upon by modern society. Apparently, everyone is entitled only to the wage that a bunch of academic, intellectually vacant, government bureaucrats have determined is “fair”. Because, as it turns out, preserving a relationship between reward and effort is simply unjust in a progressive utopia.
Trophies for everyone! (Just don’t tip the trophy maker.)
MODI AND SINO-INDIAN RELATIONS
Siwei Liu
Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a very useful and timely India trip, during which he not only held talks with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj but also met with the newly- elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Pranab Mukherjee. Doubtlessly, Wang’s visit – viewed as the first foreign power to establish direct contact in a bilateral format with Modi’s government – has a great significant for present-day Sino–India relations. The current Sino-India relationship is heading towards a critical juncture at which both nations should seize the opportunity and take some creative and pragmatic measures to improve bilateral relations. However, meanwhile, both countries should keep calm and remain level-headed to get a better understanding of bilateral relations that remain full of challenges and uncertainness – and avoid negative impacts of possible frustrations resulting from the gap between reality and high expectations.
Potential New Opportunities
Indeed, Wang’s visit created a warm and friendly atmosphere for Sino-India bilateral interaction, in which the both sides recognised it was necessary to mark a fresh beginning in the ties, with mutual respect and common national interests. Just as related analyses argued, Wang’s India trip helped a great deal in not only re-establishing a connection between the two governments, but also paved the way for more intensive interaction between both nations at the highest levels in the future – including Chinese President Xi Jinping’s India visit later this year and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s possible China visit in the next couple of months.
Although it is premature to draw conclusions on Modi’s policy towards China, given the current positive interactions between two sides, people of both countries have reasons to believe that new opportunities for promoting Sino-India relations are coming. Economically, there is a high likelihood that the two sides will take some measures to solve the trade deficit issue that has troubled the bilateral ties for many years. Security-wise too there are potential opportunities for cooperation between the two nations. Actually, although in the recent years, the Sino-India security relations have witnessed upheavals, related cooperation measures such as counter-terrorism and joint military exercises were still held occasionally. With China and India both adjusting their understanding on security and starting to pay more attention on non-traditional security threats (NST), there will be more opportunities for both nations to cooperate in the security sector, especially on the NSTs. Moreover, given the current positive interaction between the highest levels of both nations, it is possible to create a golden opportunity for the two sides to increase people-to-people linkages and mutual cultural communication – that always need a harmonious and friendly interactive environment led by the governments.
Potential Challenges
Simultaneously, Sino-India bilateral relations face various challenges. In the recent years, the bilateral has been troubled by some negative factors from competitions and disputes, particularly in the security domain. For instance, although both countries openly declared that improving their security relations were necessary, and took measures such as increasing military–military communications, traditional security issues such as over-securitisation of the border issue – especially a border standoff between the two countries’ militaries in 2013 – increased the tension between Beijing and New Delhi. Additionally, the securitisation of increasing NTS issues ranging from economic and environmental threats, terrorism and non-proliferation, to issues of identity and culture also occasionally complicated the bilateral interactions. This brings not only increasing cooperation, but also a series of competition or disputes for the bilateral.
Competitions and disputes between China and India cannot be resolved overnight, and the two nations might face many challenges in future. For example, the uncertainty
Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a very useful and timely India trip, during which he not only held talks with his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj but also met with the newly- elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Pranab Mukherjee. Doubtlessly, Wang’s visit – viewed as the first foreign power to establish direct contact in a bilateral format with Modi’s government – has a great significant for present-day Sino–India relations. The current Sino-India relationship is heading towards a critical juncture at which both nations should seize the opportunity and take some creative and pragmatic measures to improve bilateral relations. However, meanwhile, both countries should keep calm and remain level-headed to get a better understanding of bilateral relations that remain full of challenges and uncertainness – and avoid negative impacts of possible frustrations resulting from the gap between reality and high expectations.
Potential New Opportunities
Indeed, Wang’s visit created a warm and friendly atmosphere for Sino-India bilateral interaction, in which the both sides recognised it was necessary to mark a fresh beginning in the ties, with mutual respect and common national interests. Just as related analyses argued, Wang’s India trip helped a great deal in not only re-establishing a connection between the two governments, but also paved the way for more intensive interaction between both nations at the highest levels in the future – including Chinese President Xi Jinping’s India visit later this year and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s possible China visit in the next couple of months.
Although it is premature to draw conclusions on Modi’s policy towards China, given the current positive interactions between two sides, people of both countries have reasons to believe that new opportunities for promoting Sino-India relations are coming. Economically, there is a high likelihood that the two sides will take some measures to solve the trade deficit issue that has troubled the bilateral ties for many years. Security-wise too there are potential opportunities for cooperation between the two nations. Actually, although in the recent years, the Sino-India security relations have witnessed upheavals, related cooperation measures such as counter-terrorism and joint military exercises were still held occasionally. With China and India both adjusting their understanding on security and starting to pay more attention on non-traditional security threats (NST), there will be more opportunities for both nations to cooperate in the security sector, especially on the NSTs. Moreover, given the current positive interaction between the highest levels of both nations, it is possible to create a golden opportunity for the two sides to increase people-to-people linkages and mutual cultural communication – that always need a harmonious and friendly interactive environment led by the governments.
Potential Challenges
Simultaneously, Sino-India bilateral relations face various challenges. In the recent years, the bilateral has been troubled by some negative factors from competitions and disputes, particularly in the security domain. For instance, although both countries openly declared that improving their security relations were necessary, and took measures such as increasing military–military communications, traditional security issues such as over-securitisation of the border issue – especially a border standoff between the two countries’ militaries in 2013 – increased the tension between Beijing and New Delhi. Additionally, the securitisation of increasing NTS issues ranging from economic and environmental threats, terrorism and non-proliferation, to issues of identity and culture also occasionally complicated the bilateral interactions. This brings not only increasing cooperation, but also a series of competition or disputes for the bilateral.
Competitions and disputes between China and India cannot be resolved overnight, and the two nations might face many challenges in future. For example, the uncertainty
24 Jun 2014
A LAME DUCK COUNTRY?
Thomas Sowell
Pundits are pointing to President Barack
Obama's recent decline in public opinion
polls, and saying that he may now become
another "lame duck" president, unable to
accomplish much during his final term in
office.
That has happened to other presidents. But it
is extremely unlikely to happen to this
president. There are reasons why other
presidents have become impotent during
their last years in office. But those reasons do
not apply to Barack Obama.
The Constitution of the United States does not
give presidents the power to carry out major
policy changes without the cooperation of
other branches of government. Once the
country becomes disenchanted with a
president during his second term, Congress
has little incentive to cooperate with him --
and, once Congress becomes uncooperative,
there is little that a president can do on his
own.
That is, if he respects the Constitution.
President Obama has demonstrated, time and
again, that he has no respect for the
Constitution's limitations on his power.
Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws
are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has
unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by
eliminating the work requirement passed by
Congress during the Clinton administration.
He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed
or waived provisions of the ObamaCare law
passed by Congress during his own
administration.
President Obama has ordered Border Patrol
agents not to carry out provisions of the
immigration laws that he does not like. We
see the results today in the tens of thousands
of illegal immigrants entering the country
unimpeded.
President Obama's oath of office obviously
means no more to him than his oft-repeated
promise that "you can keep your own doctor"
under ObamaCare.
Why do we have a Constitution of the United
States if a president can ignore it without any
consequences?
The Constitution cannot protect our rights if
we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom
is not free, and the Constitution is just some
words on paper if we do not do anything to
those who violate it.
What can ordinary citizens do?
Everything! Theirs is the ultimate power of
the ballot that can bring down even the most
powerful elected official.
The most important thing the voters can do is
vote against anyone who violates the
Constitution. When someone who has violated
the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected,
then the voters are accomplices in the erosion
of protection for their own freedom.
Laws without penalties are just suggestions --
and suggestions are a pitiful defense against
power.
After voters have failed to protect the
Constitution, the last-ditch remedy is
impeachment. But Barack Obama knows that
he is not going to be impeached.
Who wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis
and riots in the streets? And, worst of all, end
up with Joe Biden as President of the United
States? Some cynics long ago referred to
Barack Obama's choice of mental lightweight
Biden to be his vice president as
"impeachment insurance."
With neither the Constitution, nor the voters,
nor the threat of impeachment to stop him,
Barack Obama has clear sailing to use his
powers however he chooses.
Far from seeing his power diminish in his
last years, President Obama can extend his
power even beyond the end of his
administration by appointing federal judges
who share his disregard of the Constitution
and can enact his far-left agenda into law
from the bench, when it cannot be enacted
into law by the Congress.
Federal judges with lifetime tenure can make
irreversible decisions binding future
presidents and future Congresses. If
Republicans do not win control of the Senate
in this fall's elections, a Senate controlled by
Majority Leader Harry Reid can confirm
judges who will have the power to extend
Barack Obama's agenda and complete the
dismantling of Constitutional government.
Barack Obama can, as he said before taking
office, fundamentally "change the United
States of America." Far from being a lame
duck president, Obama can make this a lame
duck democracy.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305. His website is
www.tsowell.com. To find out more about
Thomas Sowell and read features by other
Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web
page at www.creators.com.
Pundits are pointing to President Barack
Obama's recent decline in public opinion
polls, and saying that he may now become
another "lame duck" president, unable to
accomplish much during his final term in
office.
That has happened to other presidents. But it
is extremely unlikely to happen to this
president. There are reasons why other
presidents have become impotent during
their last years in office. But those reasons do
not apply to Barack Obama.
The Constitution of the United States does not
give presidents the power to carry out major
policy changes without the cooperation of
other branches of government. Once the
country becomes disenchanted with a
president during his second term, Congress
has little incentive to cooperate with him --
and, once Congress becomes uncooperative,
there is little that a president can do on his
own.
That is, if he respects the Constitution.
President Obama has demonstrated, time and
again, that he has no respect for the
Constitution's limitations on his power.
Despite his oath of office, to see that the laws
are faithfully executed, Barack Obama has
unilaterally changed welfare reform laws, by
eliminating the work requirement passed by
Congress during the Clinton administration.
He has repeatedly and unilaterally changed
or waived provisions of the ObamaCare law
passed by Congress during his own
administration.
President Obama has ordered Border Patrol
agents not to carry out provisions of the
immigration laws that he does not like. We
see the results today in the tens of thousands
of illegal immigrants entering the country
unimpeded.
President Obama's oath of office obviously
means no more to him than his oft-repeated
promise that "you can keep your own doctor"
under ObamaCare.
Why do we have a Constitution of the United
States if a president can ignore it without any
consequences?
The Constitution cannot protect our rights if
we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom
is not free, and the Constitution is just some
words on paper if we do not do anything to
those who violate it.
What can ordinary citizens do?
Everything! Theirs is the ultimate power of
the ballot that can bring down even the most
powerful elected official.
The most important thing the voters can do is
vote against anyone who violates the
Constitution. When someone who has violated
the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected,
then the voters are accomplices in the erosion
of protection for their own freedom.
Laws without penalties are just suggestions --
and suggestions are a pitiful defense against
power.
After voters have failed to protect the
Constitution, the last-ditch remedy is
impeachment. But Barack Obama knows that
he is not going to be impeached.
Who wants to provoke a Constitutional crisis
and riots in the streets? And, worst of all, end
up with Joe Biden as President of the United
States? Some cynics long ago referred to
Barack Obama's choice of mental lightweight
Biden to be his vice president as
"impeachment insurance."
With neither the Constitution, nor the voters,
nor the threat of impeachment to stop him,
Barack Obama has clear sailing to use his
powers however he chooses.
Far from seeing his power diminish in his
last years, President Obama can extend his
power even beyond the end of his
administration by appointing federal judges
who share his disregard of the Constitution
and can enact his far-left agenda into law
from the bench, when it cannot be enacted
into law by the Congress.
Federal judges with lifetime tenure can make
irreversible decisions binding future
presidents and future Congresses. If
Republicans do not win control of the Senate
in this fall's elections, a Senate controlled by
Majority Leader Harry Reid can confirm
judges who will have the power to extend
Barack Obama's agenda and complete the
dismantling of Constitutional government.
Barack Obama can, as he said before taking
office, fundamentally "change the United
States of America." Far from being a lame
duck president, Obama can make this a lame
duck democracy.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305. His website is
www.tsowell.com. To find out more about
Thomas Sowell and read features by other
Creators Syndicate columnists and
cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web
page at www.creators.com.
BLOCKING FAITH, FAMILY AND FREEDOM WEBSITES
Chuck Norris
As most kids are screaming "School's out for
summer," 18-year-old high-school student
Andrew Lampart is still trying to figure out
why his school's Internet service blocked him
from gathering conservative facts for his side
of the argument on his school debate team.
Andrew told Fox News, "I knew it was
important to get facts for both sides of the
case." But when he tried to do an Internet
search of conservative views, he was
prevented at every turn.
After being blocked from websites supporting
Americans' constitutional right to bear arms
as stated in the Second Amendment, Andrew
soon learned his school's computers
prohibited him from viewing any website or
information that wasn't liberal in nature.
National Rifle Association website -- blocked.
The Republican Party website -- blocked.
National Right to Life website -- blocked. Pro-
traditional marriage websites -- blocked.
Vatican website -- blocked.
But here's what wasn't blocked in his
continued Internet search: pro-gun-control
websites, the Democratic Party website, the
Planned Parenthood website, an LGBT
website and an Islamic website.
Andrew took his grievance up the chain of
command at his Connecticut high school --
first to the principal and then to the
superintendent and then to the school board.
Nearly two months after the incident,
Andrew's only official response has come
through the superintendent, who wrote a
letter about the issue to parents and citizens
in their community because news of the
liberal bent was spreading like wildfire. She
blamed Andrew's conservative education
prohibition on the school's Internet filtering,
which she said is intended to "protect minors
from potentially harmful or inappropriate
content" -- for example, "violence/hate/
racism, cults/the occult, to name a few."
She was puzzled, however, that "many of the
liberal sites accessible to the student fell into
the 'not rated' category, which was unblocked
while many of the conservative sites were in
the 'political/advocacy group' which is
accessible to teachers but not to students."
Mrs. Superintendent, there's no surprise or
mystery here. The problem is not the
software but those programming it. As long
as you have liberal-minded architects across
the spectrum who only want to steer kids in
their own particular secular and progressive
direction, changing Internet filters all day
long isn't going to change the educational
outcome; students will be prohibited from
conservative education. Website accessibility
is no different from choosing textbooks or
instructors in classes; if liberals are in
control, liberalism is the education.
A high school's prohibiting conservative
views isn't shocking to any of us who for
decades have watched the dilapidating state
of public education. It's just one more sign
that public schools are little more than
secular progressive indoctrination camps.
Andrew was exactly right when he said about
his Internet education experience -- or lack
thereof: "This is really borderline
indoctrination. Schools are supposed to be
fair and balanced towards all ways of
thinking. It's supposed to encourage students
to formulate their own opinions. Students
aren't able to do that here at the school,
because they are only being fed one side of
the issue."
Out of the mouth of babes.
True education doesn't fear alternative views
or even falsehoods, though they should be
couched in age-appropriateness and a venue
where options are presented with evidence.
At least, that was the educational belief of our
Founding Fathers and those who followed
them for a few generations.
With Independence Day fast approaching,
consider alone the words of one of the
greatest American minds and educators and
one of the pillars of our republic, Thomas
Jefferson, who vehemently fought for the
broad education of common Americans. As
he founded the University of Virginia, he
wrote this about his philosophy and goal of
education on Dec. 26, 1820: "This institution
of my native state, the Hobby of my old age,
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind, to explore and to expose
every subject susceptible of (its)
contemplation."
The very next day, he further elaborated
about what "illimitable freedom of the human
mind" should encompass: "This institution
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind. For here we are not afraid
to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left
free to combat it."
Jefferson was exactly right, too. Regardless of
whether our views define truth and reality,
an open education is about presenting every
side of the coin -- no matter how ignorant or
idiotic we believe another's views are or
appear to be. That is why teaching about
"intelligent design" and religion should be an
integral part of every curriculum.
Roughly 30 years ago, Dr. Allan Bloom wrote
these words of warning about a country and
educational system that were mimicking
fascism more than they were freedom, in his
now classic book "The Closing of the
American Mind": "True openness is the
accompaniment of the desire to know, hence
of the awareness of ignorance. To deny the
possibility of knowing good and bad is to
suppress true openness."
There is also no doubt about this: When we
fear alternative views to the extent that we
eliminate them from curricula, we have
reduced education to nothing more than
tyranny and indoctrination.
As Bloom said, "freedom of the mind requires
not only, or not even especially, the absence
of legal constraints but the presence of
alternative thoughts. The most successful
tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity but the one that removes
the awareness of other possibilities."
(If you haven't seen the movie "God's Not
Dead," which addresses the very heart of this
academic issue, please see it. If you can't find
it in a local theater, try to find it at a church
in your area that has bought a license to show
it. For more information, go to http://
godsnotdeadthemovie.com.)
As most kids are screaming "School's out for
summer," 18-year-old high-school student
Andrew Lampart is still trying to figure out
why his school's Internet service blocked him
from gathering conservative facts for his side
of the argument on his school debate team.
Andrew told Fox News, "I knew it was
important to get facts for both sides of the
case." But when he tried to do an Internet
search of conservative views, he was
prevented at every turn.
After being blocked from websites supporting
Americans' constitutional right to bear arms
as stated in the Second Amendment, Andrew
soon learned his school's computers
prohibited him from viewing any website or
information that wasn't liberal in nature.
National Rifle Association website -- blocked.
The Republican Party website -- blocked.
National Right to Life website -- blocked. Pro-
traditional marriage websites -- blocked.
Vatican website -- blocked.
But here's what wasn't blocked in his
continued Internet search: pro-gun-control
websites, the Democratic Party website, the
Planned Parenthood website, an LGBT
website and an Islamic website.
Andrew took his grievance up the chain of
command at his Connecticut high school --
first to the principal and then to the
superintendent and then to the school board.
Nearly two months after the incident,
Andrew's only official response has come
through the superintendent, who wrote a
letter about the issue to parents and citizens
in their community because news of the
liberal bent was spreading like wildfire. She
blamed Andrew's conservative education
prohibition on the school's Internet filtering,
which she said is intended to "protect minors
from potentially harmful or inappropriate
content" -- for example, "violence/hate/
racism, cults/the occult, to name a few."
She was puzzled, however, that "many of the
liberal sites accessible to the student fell into
the 'not rated' category, which was unblocked
while many of the conservative sites were in
the 'political/advocacy group' which is
accessible to teachers but not to students."
Mrs. Superintendent, there's no surprise or
mystery here. The problem is not the
software but those programming it. As long
as you have liberal-minded architects across
the spectrum who only want to steer kids in
their own particular secular and progressive
direction, changing Internet filters all day
long isn't going to change the educational
outcome; students will be prohibited from
conservative education. Website accessibility
is no different from choosing textbooks or
instructors in classes; if liberals are in
control, liberalism is the education.
A high school's prohibiting conservative
views isn't shocking to any of us who for
decades have watched the dilapidating state
of public education. It's just one more sign
that public schools are little more than
secular progressive indoctrination camps.
Andrew was exactly right when he said about
his Internet education experience -- or lack
thereof: "This is really borderline
indoctrination. Schools are supposed to be
fair and balanced towards all ways of
thinking. It's supposed to encourage students
to formulate their own opinions. Students
aren't able to do that here at the school,
because they are only being fed one side of
the issue."
Out of the mouth of babes.
True education doesn't fear alternative views
or even falsehoods, though they should be
couched in age-appropriateness and a venue
where options are presented with evidence.
At least, that was the educational belief of our
Founding Fathers and those who followed
them for a few generations.
With Independence Day fast approaching,
consider alone the words of one of the
greatest American minds and educators and
one of the pillars of our republic, Thomas
Jefferson, who vehemently fought for the
broad education of common Americans. As
he founded the University of Virginia, he
wrote this about his philosophy and goal of
education on Dec. 26, 1820: "This institution
of my native state, the Hobby of my old age,
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind, to explore and to expose
every subject susceptible of (its)
contemplation."
The very next day, he further elaborated
about what "illimitable freedom of the human
mind" should encompass: "This institution
will be based on the illimitable freedom of
the human mind. For here we are not afraid
to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left
free to combat it."
Jefferson was exactly right, too. Regardless of
whether our views define truth and reality,
an open education is about presenting every
side of the coin -- no matter how ignorant or
idiotic we believe another's views are or
appear to be. That is why teaching about
"intelligent design" and religion should be an
integral part of every curriculum.
Roughly 30 years ago, Dr. Allan Bloom wrote
these words of warning about a country and
educational system that were mimicking
fascism more than they were freedom, in his
now classic book "The Closing of the
American Mind": "True openness is the
accompaniment of the desire to know, hence
of the awareness of ignorance. To deny the
possibility of knowing good and bad is to
suppress true openness."
There is also no doubt about this: When we
fear alternative views to the extent that we
eliminate them from curricula, we have
reduced education to nothing more than
tyranny and indoctrination.
As Bloom said, "freedom of the mind requires
not only, or not even especially, the absence
of legal constraints but the presence of
alternative thoughts. The most successful
tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity but the one that removes
the awareness of other possibilities."
(If you haven't seen the movie "God's Not
Dead," which addresses the very heart of this
academic issue, please see it. If you can't find
it in a local theater, try to find it at a church
in your area that has bought a license to show
it. For more information, go to http://
godsnotdeadthemovie.com.)
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
Cal Thomas
It is a line I have used to open speeches on
the lecture circuit for years and it never fails
to get a laugh: "I'm happy to be here tonight
from Washington, D.C., where the only
politicians with convictions are in prison."
That's only partially true. Democrats have
convictions. They know what to do with
power when they get it and how to isolate,
even punish, any member of their party who
dares to take a different position on an issue.
Republicans seem to constantly react to the
policies of Democrats or slam each other
instead of making a case for the superiority
of their ideas. It doesn't help Republicans that
they lack the Democrats' uniformity.
President Obama's approval ratings continue
to plummet while polls showing that voters
think the country is on the "wrong track"
seem to be on the rise. Republicans should
focus less on scandals and policy failures and
begin promoting a positive, inspirational and
motivational message that reminds
Americans of who we are, where we came
from and what we can be again. Rather than
settle for a Democratic nanny state,
Republicans should feature in their speeches,
political ads and conversations the virtues of
liberty and the benefits and personal
satisfaction that come from the power within
each of us to make decisions that can improve
any life far better than government.
Telling America's story might inspire a
younger generation to reach back and
consider the values that sustained this nation
in the face of numerous challenges. Good
history is worth repeating.
Cynics might say it is too late, that
government has grown too big and there are
far too many dependent on it to turn the
country around and embrace liberty and
personal responsibility. What the country
needs is the political equivalent of a Rev.
Billy Graham to rally the nation. A spiritual
revival would be even better, but that's for a
Higher Authority to direct.
Americans should never have to "settle," even
in the midst of a failed presidency, as this
one is by any objective standard. Americans
have always believed we can do things better
than other nations and we have proved it in
the past.
inspiration-motivation-perspiration, rather
than the envy-entitlement-greed culture in
which we are now immersed. "We can do
better," said John F. Kennedy during the 1960
presidential campaign. Indeed we can.
Indeed we must.
As I write in my book "What Works: Common
Sense Solutions for a Stronger America," we
didn't just crawl out of a cave; we don't have
to discover fire or invent the wheel. We have
a history of problems that were solved,
challenges met and innovation encouraged
and rewarded. Why do we continue to
conduct political discourse that sounds like
stale sitcom dialog and lob the same
rehearsed and focus-grouped sound bites at
each other to no effect? Why not try
something old that worked?
Given their party's deplorable state of
disunion and the country's fixation on self, a
Republican "revivalist" will have to sell his or
her platform based on self-interest, featuring
men and women who have overcome by
making right choices, if we can still define
"right" in a country that increasingly
considers all choices equal.
Republicans should promise that if voters
allow them to regain control of all three
branches of government, an outside auditor
will be named to go through the federal
government, recommending to Congress
which agencies can be reduced in size or
even eliminated. Congress would require
itself to accept the auditor's findings, as with
the Defense Base Realignment and Closing
Commission, which has been charged with
increasing the Defense Department's
efficiency by the realignment and closure of
unnecessary U.S. military installations.
This will be a challenge for Republicans.
We'll soon know if they can meet it and,
more importantly, whether voters will
respond to such a message. The time may be
right for someone with real convictions and
the courage to state them, regardless of what
polls say.
Meanwhile, God save us from popular opinion
and from politicians whose only convictions
come in a courtroom.
It is a line I have used to open speeches on
the lecture circuit for years and it never fails
to get a laugh: "I'm happy to be here tonight
from Washington, D.C., where the only
politicians with convictions are in prison."
That's only partially true. Democrats have
convictions. They know what to do with
power when they get it and how to isolate,
even punish, any member of their party who
dares to take a different position on an issue.
Republicans seem to constantly react to the
policies of Democrats or slam each other
instead of making a case for the superiority
of their ideas. It doesn't help Republicans that
they lack the Democrats' uniformity.
President Obama's approval ratings continue
to plummet while polls showing that voters
think the country is on the "wrong track"
seem to be on the rise. Republicans should
focus less on scandals and policy failures and
begin promoting a positive, inspirational and
motivational message that reminds
Americans of who we are, where we came
from and what we can be again. Rather than
settle for a Democratic nanny state,
Republicans should feature in their speeches,
political ads and conversations the virtues of
liberty and the benefits and personal
satisfaction that come from the power within
each of us to make decisions that can improve
any life far better than government.
Telling America's story might inspire a
younger generation to reach back and
consider the values that sustained this nation
in the face of numerous challenges. Good
history is worth repeating.
Cynics might say it is too late, that
government has grown too big and there are
far too many dependent on it to turn the
country around and embrace liberty and
personal responsibility. What the country
needs is the political equivalent of a Rev.
Billy Graham to rally the nation. A spiritual
revival would be even better, but that's for a
Higher Authority to direct.
Americans should never have to "settle," even
in the midst of a failed presidency, as this
one is by any objective standard. Americans
have always believed we can do things better
than other nations and we have proved it in
the past.
inspiration-motivation-perspiration, rather
than the envy-entitlement-greed culture in
which we are now immersed. "We can do
better," said John F. Kennedy during the 1960
presidential campaign. Indeed we can.
Indeed we must.
As I write in my book "What Works: Common
Sense Solutions for a Stronger America," we
didn't just crawl out of a cave; we don't have
to discover fire or invent the wheel. We have
a history of problems that were solved,
challenges met and innovation encouraged
and rewarded. Why do we continue to
conduct political discourse that sounds like
stale sitcom dialog and lob the same
rehearsed and focus-grouped sound bites at
each other to no effect? Why not try
something old that worked?
Given their party's deplorable state of
disunion and the country's fixation on self, a
Republican "revivalist" will have to sell his or
her platform based on self-interest, featuring
men and women who have overcome by
making right choices, if we can still define
"right" in a country that increasingly
considers all choices equal.
Republicans should promise that if voters
allow them to regain control of all three
branches of government, an outside auditor
will be named to go through the federal
government, recommending to Congress
which agencies can be reduced in size or
even eliminated. Congress would require
itself to accept the auditor's findings, as with
the Defense Base Realignment and Closing
Commission, which has been charged with
increasing the Defense Department's
efficiency by the realignment and closure of
unnecessary U.S. military installations.
This will be a challenge for Republicans.
We'll soon know if they can meet it and,
more importantly, whether voters will
respond to such a message. The time may be
right for someone with real convictions and
the courage to state them, regardless of what
polls say.
Meanwhile, God save us from popular opinion
and from politicians whose only convictions
come in a courtroom.
IRAQ AGONISTES
Paul Greenberg
"The greatest evil is not now done in those
sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to
paint. It is not even done in concentration
camps and labor camps. In those we see
(evil's) final result. But it is conceived and
ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and
minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-
lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars
and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks
who do not need to raise their voices."
--C.S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters"
Call it déjà vu, the feeling that we've been
here before, that events in the news are
happening again, only with a new cast. This
flashback could be titled Iraq Agonistes,
except it's no play. It is all too real. For those
are real people suffering and dying, and real
diplomats and generals, presidents and
pundits, senators and senior advisers ... all
proudly displaying their gobsmacked
ineptitude.
There is something eerily, depressingly
familiar about the latest news from the state
formerly known as Iraq as this all too
familiar tragedy is re-enacted in a different
setting with a different suffering people.
The players may have changed, but not the
tragedy. Indeed, the plot is so familiar you
can almost see the audience yawning and
heading for the exits. ("Not this sad show
again!") In these fast-moving or rather fast-
collapsing days for the "republic" of Iraq,
some of us wake up every morning with the
idle thought: Is there still an Iraq? And if so,
who cares?
All the old, blood-soaked scenes of an earlier
performance by the same theatrical company
-- let's dub it the Washington Players -- return
like a recurrent nightmare: the agony of
friends and allies who counted on us only to
be abandoned, the innocents caught in the
crossfire, the usual parade of mutual
atrocities, and a nebulous government whose
power and authority is not just eroding but
disappearing every day, every hour, every
minute. No matter how much its remaining
leaders may deny it.
How long before these leaders, too, become
former leaders and retreat to their villas in
the south of France, and give interviews
explaining how right they were all along?
Much like Jimmy Carter still trying to justify
the malaise he presided over in his now
almost forgotten day.
It's been almost a decade now since peace
was restored after an earlier crisis in Iraq
and then maintained at the cost of still more
American blood and treasure. But now the
violent bear it away again. And we in this
blessed country enable the violent
everywhere by our indifference, aided and
abetted as always by the steady current of
isolationism that flows deep in the American
ethos. We never seem to learn.
From the moment our failing president tried
to justify his hasty withdrawal from Iraq by
telling us everything was just fine and dandy
over there, it hasn't been. And by now things
have grown much worse. But that didn't stop
him from declaring Mission Accomplished:
"Everything that American troops have done
in Iraq -- all the fighting and all the dying,
the bleeding and the building, and the
training and the partnering -- all of it has led
to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a
perfect place. It has many challenges ahead.
But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable,
and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative
government that was elected by its people." --
Barack Obama, Fort Bragg, N.C., December
14, 2011.
Sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq is now
any anything but, and never has been while
this president was supposedly in charge -- in
large part because of his leadership, or rather
lack of same.
Once again we watch as a demoralized
army's retreat turns into a rout, neighboring
states circle like vultures to pick up the
choicer pieces for themselves, and any
remaining islands of stability and refuge are
overrun -- by a flood of refugees they cannot
cope with.
Even the reactions from Washington are
tinged with the same old excuses for inaction.
These days they come with an almost
desperate air as this administration tries to
evade responsibility for what has happened
in the power vacuum it created when it
decided to withdraw from still another part
of the world. Even if the scenes we recall
today aren't from the Middle but the Far
East.
Remember Saigon 1975? How long will it be
before the television cameras again record
American disgrace as the last panic-stricken
civilians try to clamber aboard the last
helicopter leaving the American embassy, this
time in Baghdad instead of Saigon?
Our president and "commander-in-chief" has
decreed no more boots on the ground in Iraq.
That policy is the big problem. But as that
former country disintegrates, he has relented
to the extent of ordering more troops to
protect our embassy in Baghdad. It's a step
up from the administration's fecklessness at
Benghazi, but only a small step. Let's hope it
will be enough to protect our people now on
the front lines, but hope is scarcely an
adequate substitute for a foreign policy.
Meanwhile, scenes from the tragedy enacted
in Vietnam decades ago continue to recur --
right down to mission creep. The White
House has ordered 300 "military advisers" to
Iraq, which is just the way our misadventure
in Vietnam started. The one thing worse than
a shameful withdrawal overseas may be an
uncertain one that leaves everyone guessing
whether we're leaving or going back in.
This administration, which looks more and
more like only a collection of slow learners,
lacks the one essential requisite for a
thoughtful and effective foreign policy:
constancy of purpose. Instead, an American
administration is reduced once again to buck-
passing as it is obliged to make ad-hoc
decisions in response to one immediate crisis
after another, the total effect of which is to
invite more crises.
Confronted by such disarray in Washington
once again, what useful judgment can any
observer make except a slow, sad shake of the
head? Yes, will we ever learn?
"Stand by your friends, and stand up to
bullies."
--Margaret Thatcher
"The greatest evil is not now done in those
sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to
paint. It is not even done in concentration
camps and labor camps. In those we see
(evil's) final result. But it is conceived and
ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and
minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-
lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars
and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks
who do not need to raise their voices."
--C.S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters"
Call it déjà vu, the feeling that we've been
here before, that events in the news are
happening again, only with a new cast. This
flashback could be titled Iraq Agonistes,
except it's no play. It is all too real. For those
are real people suffering and dying, and real
diplomats and generals, presidents and
pundits, senators and senior advisers ... all
proudly displaying their gobsmacked
ineptitude.
There is something eerily, depressingly
familiar about the latest news from the state
formerly known as Iraq as this all too
familiar tragedy is re-enacted in a different
setting with a different suffering people.
The players may have changed, but not the
tragedy. Indeed, the plot is so familiar you
can almost see the audience yawning and
heading for the exits. ("Not this sad show
again!") In these fast-moving or rather fast-
collapsing days for the "republic" of Iraq,
some of us wake up every morning with the
idle thought: Is there still an Iraq? And if so,
who cares?
All the old, blood-soaked scenes of an earlier
performance by the same theatrical company
-- let's dub it the Washington Players -- return
like a recurrent nightmare: the agony of
friends and allies who counted on us only to
be abandoned, the innocents caught in the
crossfire, the usual parade of mutual
atrocities, and a nebulous government whose
power and authority is not just eroding but
disappearing every day, every hour, every
minute. No matter how much its remaining
leaders may deny it.
How long before these leaders, too, become
former leaders and retreat to their villas in
the south of France, and give interviews
explaining how right they were all along?
Much like Jimmy Carter still trying to justify
the malaise he presided over in his now
almost forgotten day.
It's been almost a decade now since peace
was restored after an earlier crisis in Iraq
and then maintained at the cost of still more
American blood and treasure. But now the
violent bear it away again. And we in this
blessed country enable the violent
everywhere by our indifference, aided and
abetted as always by the steady current of
isolationism that flows deep in the American
ethos. We never seem to learn.
From the moment our failing president tried
to justify his hasty withdrawal from Iraq by
telling us everything was just fine and dandy
over there, it hasn't been. And by now things
have grown much worse. But that didn't stop
him from declaring Mission Accomplished:
"Everything that American troops have done
in Iraq -- all the fighting and all the dying,
the bleeding and the building, and the
training and the partnering -- all of it has led
to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a
perfect place. It has many challenges ahead.
But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable,
and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative
government that was elected by its people." --
Barack Obama, Fort Bragg, N.C., December
14, 2011.
Sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq is now
any anything but, and never has been while
this president was supposedly in charge -- in
large part because of his leadership, or rather
lack of same.
Once again we watch as a demoralized
army's retreat turns into a rout, neighboring
states circle like vultures to pick up the
choicer pieces for themselves, and any
remaining islands of stability and refuge are
overrun -- by a flood of refugees they cannot
cope with.
Even the reactions from Washington are
tinged with the same old excuses for inaction.
These days they come with an almost
desperate air as this administration tries to
evade responsibility for what has happened
in the power vacuum it created when it
decided to withdraw from still another part
of the world. Even if the scenes we recall
today aren't from the Middle but the Far
East.
Remember Saigon 1975? How long will it be
before the television cameras again record
American disgrace as the last panic-stricken
civilians try to clamber aboard the last
helicopter leaving the American embassy, this
time in Baghdad instead of Saigon?
Our president and "commander-in-chief" has
decreed no more boots on the ground in Iraq.
That policy is the big problem. But as that
former country disintegrates, he has relented
to the extent of ordering more troops to
protect our embassy in Baghdad. It's a step
up from the administration's fecklessness at
Benghazi, but only a small step. Let's hope it
will be enough to protect our people now on
the front lines, but hope is scarcely an
adequate substitute for a foreign policy.
Meanwhile, scenes from the tragedy enacted
in Vietnam decades ago continue to recur --
right down to mission creep. The White
House has ordered 300 "military advisers" to
Iraq, which is just the way our misadventure
in Vietnam started. The one thing worse than
a shameful withdrawal overseas may be an
uncertain one that leaves everyone guessing
whether we're leaving or going back in.
This administration, which looks more and
more like only a collection of slow learners,
lacks the one essential requisite for a
thoughtful and effective foreign policy:
constancy of purpose. Instead, an American
administration is reduced once again to buck-
passing as it is obliged to make ad-hoc
decisions in response to one immediate crisis
after another, the total effect of which is to
invite more crises.
Confronted by such disarray in Washington
once again, what useful judgment can any
observer make except a slow, sad shake of the
head? Yes, will we ever learn?
"Stand by your friends, and stand up to
bullies."
--Margaret Thatcher
OF 1914 AND 2014
Bill Murchison
And there before us, b'golly, was ... the car!
THE car. You know? The one positioned, in
blood and early 20th-century elegance, at the
center of modern history; the open car
carrying the heir to the Austro-Hungarian
throne, and his wife, when a teenage terrorist
in Sarajevo shot them dead on St. Vitus Day --
June 28 -- 1914, setting off nearly
uninterrupted shockwaves of horror. Or so
we generally hear. I will come back to that
point.
I saw the car nearly half a century ago at the
Austrian Museum of Military History in
Vienna: large, dark, eerie. The sight was akin
in my mind to the notion of inspecting the
cutlery employed by Brutus and Cassius on
mighty Caesar's carcass.
March 15, in 44 B.C., and June 28, 1914 have
historical consonance. They unleashed large
and bloody events: the more recent of which
we have begun already to commemorate.
The June 28 assassinations, as we know,
commenced a series of calculations and
miscalculations that produced the most
catastrophic and haunting event of modern
times -- the Great War; the toppling of
empires, the implantation of fear and doubt
in minds everywhere. Nobody "wanted" the
war, though maybe the Germans, who backed
the Austrians in their desire to avenge the
murders, were more amenable to it than the
other warring parties.
Everyone is agreed -- no detailed recounting
seems necessary -- that European civilization
died suddenly in the 1914-1918 war, save for
those leftovers lost between 1939 and 1945,
and afterward. Thus wrote England's great
modern poet Philip Larkin, in "MCMXIV":
"Never such innocence,/Never before or since/
As changed itself to past/Without a word."
The lessons of 1914 are hard to sort out. Did
the world suddenly go crazy? It seems crazy
to tear down your house and everyone else's.
Was "the system" so far amiss that it lacked
the corrective tools -- the ability to call off, or
better yet, prevent madness? "Systems" had
gone off the track before -- as far back as
anyone could recall. The effects were worse
in 1914 -- worse by far than in 44 B.C. -- on
account of the technology and techniques that
had made war unspeakably horrible, without
anyone's noticing until too late. Likewise
daily life around the world had grown
entangled and interrelated. Immunity from
disaster had receded vastly.
The lessons of 1914 are in truth hard to sort
out; their glare blinds the eyes. That
"innocence" of which Larkin spoke is not to
be equated with purity. It was ignorance --
blindness to human limitations, and to the
consequences of stupidity and inhumanity. It
was human malice (the execution of hostages,
the destruction of homes and churches and
libraries, slaughter as a goal. We possibly
didn't think we were capable of it, we
humans. No, no, not in the sanitized,
purified, electrified 20th century, held
together by science and rationality! We
proved more than capable. We did it. We all
-- by virtue of our membership in the human
fraternity -- did it. And keep on doing it.
Much more than, "Who started the war in
1914?" that is the question we could
profitably focus on in 2014 -- "Who are we, as
opposed to who we would like to imagine we
are?" Are we nuts? Human character is more
fittingly under the microscope than are the
acts and operations of humans who in a time
not so long ago wore crowns and plumed hats
as if every knob, every feather infused their
minds with Right Knowledge.
The continuing imperfections of the human
race are the headline story of 1914, not how
one grossly imperfect Serb lurched up to a car
in Sarajevo, killing two innocent people. The
world of 2014 is saddled with the same
encumbrances as the old one -- gluttony,
pride, anger, lust and such like: just not so
well-dressed, so well-perfumed. We might
learn something by looking around. That is, if
we could for a moment take our eyes off our
own allure, our science and soaring
landmarks, suspending the fateful certainty
that any gods are still hovering out there, fine
-- we just don't require their services.
And there before us, b'golly, was ... the car!
THE car. You know? The one positioned, in
blood and early 20th-century elegance, at the
center of modern history; the open car
carrying the heir to the Austro-Hungarian
throne, and his wife, when a teenage terrorist
in Sarajevo shot them dead on St. Vitus Day --
June 28 -- 1914, setting off nearly
uninterrupted shockwaves of horror. Or so
we generally hear. I will come back to that
point.
I saw the car nearly half a century ago at the
Austrian Museum of Military History in
Vienna: large, dark, eerie. The sight was akin
in my mind to the notion of inspecting the
cutlery employed by Brutus and Cassius on
mighty Caesar's carcass.
March 15, in 44 B.C., and June 28, 1914 have
historical consonance. They unleashed large
and bloody events: the more recent of which
we have begun already to commemorate.
The June 28 assassinations, as we know,
commenced a series of calculations and
miscalculations that produced the most
catastrophic and haunting event of modern
times -- the Great War; the toppling of
empires, the implantation of fear and doubt
in minds everywhere. Nobody "wanted" the
war, though maybe the Germans, who backed
the Austrians in their desire to avenge the
murders, were more amenable to it than the
other warring parties.
Everyone is agreed -- no detailed recounting
seems necessary -- that European civilization
died suddenly in the 1914-1918 war, save for
those leftovers lost between 1939 and 1945,
and afterward. Thus wrote England's great
modern poet Philip Larkin, in "MCMXIV":
"Never such innocence,/Never before or since/
As changed itself to past/Without a word."
The lessons of 1914 are hard to sort out. Did
the world suddenly go crazy? It seems crazy
to tear down your house and everyone else's.
Was "the system" so far amiss that it lacked
the corrective tools -- the ability to call off, or
better yet, prevent madness? "Systems" had
gone off the track before -- as far back as
anyone could recall. The effects were worse
in 1914 -- worse by far than in 44 B.C. -- on
account of the technology and techniques that
had made war unspeakably horrible, without
anyone's noticing until too late. Likewise
daily life around the world had grown
entangled and interrelated. Immunity from
disaster had receded vastly.
The lessons of 1914 are in truth hard to sort
out; their glare blinds the eyes. That
"innocence" of which Larkin spoke is not to
be equated with purity. It was ignorance --
blindness to human limitations, and to the
consequences of stupidity and inhumanity. It
was human malice (the execution of hostages,
the destruction of homes and churches and
libraries, slaughter as a goal. We possibly
didn't think we were capable of it, we
humans. No, no, not in the sanitized,
purified, electrified 20th century, held
together by science and rationality! We
proved more than capable. We did it. We all
-- by virtue of our membership in the human
fraternity -- did it. And keep on doing it.
Much more than, "Who started the war in
1914?" that is the question we could
profitably focus on in 2014 -- "Who are we, as
opposed to who we would like to imagine we
are?" Are we nuts? Human character is more
fittingly under the microscope than are the
acts and operations of humans who in a time
not so long ago wore crowns and plumed hats
as if every knob, every feather infused their
minds with Right Knowledge.
The continuing imperfections of the human
race are the headline story of 1914, not how
one grossly imperfect Serb lurched up to a car
in Sarajevo, killing two innocent people. The
world of 2014 is saddled with the same
encumbrances as the old one -- gluttony,
pride, anger, lust and such like: just not so
well-dressed, so well-perfumed. We might
learn something by looking around. That is, if
we could for a moment take our eyes off our
own allure, our science and soaring
landmarks, suspending the fateful certainty
that any gods are still hovering out there, fine
-- we just don't require their services.
COMPLETELY PERSONAL: THE ASSASSINATION THAT DESTROYED A CENTURY
Marvin Olasky
The current issue of WORLD’s cover date is
June 28, a date that should live in infamy. On
June 28, 1914, an assassin killed Austrian
Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the Balkan city
of Sarajevo. That incident touched off World
War I, which ended with 18 million dead
bodies and led to a Communist takeover of
Russia (millions more) and, eventually, World
War II (tens of millions more).
Recently I read in Christopher Clark’s “ The
Sleepwalkers” (see “ A century ago,” in this
issue) how one false step among the leaders of
England, France, Germany, Russia, and
Austria-Hungary led to another. While
turning the pages, I watched on the AMC
network “ The Godfather” (second greatest
American movie of all time, according to the
American Film Institute) and its sequel, “ The
Godfather Part II” (32nd greatest).
The regular refrain in “ The Godfather,” as its
characters plan murders, is, “Nothing
personal. It’s just business.” Europe’s leaders
had the same rationale as they slouched into
war during post-assassination July. The two
“ Godfather” films form the tragic story of
how, in director Francis Ford Coppola’s
words, “a good man becomes evil.” A
theologically deeper assessment might note
that it’s about sinners becoming even more
sinful. World War I’s beginning one century
ago had a similar arc.
Here’s one more famous “ Godfather” line:
“Keep your friends close, but your enemies
closer.” Europe’s warring monarchs in 1914
were close (three of them were cousins)—and
this spring I looked back with wonder and
dismay at the arrogance and miscalculation
that (nothing personal) slaughtered so many
people.
At that point I almost went thoroughly astray.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand took
place because of a thoroughly unlikely set of
circumstances. The assassin with a handgun,
Gavrilo Princip, was a bad shot, but
Ferdinand’s driver made a wrong turn and
backed up, then stopped, in a way that left
Ferdinand several feet from Princip, who at
that distance couldn’t miss. And that got me
thinking: Why didn’t God (acting as He
usually does, in ways subtle enough to give
atheists deniability) keep Ferdinand from
being shot?
Think about it: No assassination, no war, no
Communist coup, no German hyper-inflation
and depression that paved the way for Hitler,
no World War II, no Holocaust…One small
flick of the wrist for God, one large leap for
mankind to the century of peaceful progress
that postmillennialists expected in 1900,
rather than the century of disaster that fueled
much premillennialist thought.
Then I thought: No, our merciful God must
have had His reasons for allowing the
assassination and the subsequent slaughter.
Musing that God makes all things work
together for good, I starting writing a playful
counterfactual column: What could have
happened had Ferdinand’s driver not made
the wrong turn, and if war had never come?
In my fanciful column I wrote that Germany
became Europe’s economic, scientific, and
technological power. It expanded its
leadership in science and did not make life so
miserable for Jews that leading physicists
ended up in America. The result: Germany
developed nuclear weapons and, given
German arrogance, used them to get its way
through much of the world. I was planning to
end the column with German nuclear bombs
dropping in August 1945, on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki—and dozens of other cities.
Well. Halfway through writing I picked up
my copy of J.I. Packer’s “ Knowing God ,” in
which the theologian notes that Christians err
by thinking that “if they were really walking
close to God, so that he could impart wisdom
to them freely, then they would…discern the
real purpose of everything that happened to
them, and it would be clear to them every
moment how God was making all things work
together for good.”
Packer continued, “Such people spend much
time poring over the book of providence,
wondering why God should have allowed this
or that to take place.” His recommendation:
Don’t do it. We do not and cannot have
“inside information as to the why and
wherefore of God’s doings.” Packer is right.
Trash my counterfactual. Not the Godfather
but God makes us an offer we cannot and
should not refuse: Trust me.
Massive killing is, of course, fodder for
atheists who can gibe that for God it’s nothing
personal, just business. But the brilliance of
Christ is that it couldn’t get more personal:
We die, He died—so all who trust in Him can
live forever.
The current issue of WORLD’s cover date is
June 28, a date that should live in infamy. On
June 28, 1914, an assassin killed Austrian
Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the Balkan city
of Sarajevo. That incident touched off World
War I, which ended with 18 million dead
bodies and led to a Communist takeover of
Russia (millions more) and, eventually, World
War II (tens of millions more).
Recently I read in Christopher Clark’s “ The
Sleepwalkers” (see “ A century ago,” in this
issue) how one false step among the leaders of
England, France, Germany, Russia, and
Austria-Hungary led to another. While
turning the pages, I watched on the AMC
network “ The Godfather” (second greatest
American movie of all time, according to the
American Film Institute) and its sequel, “ The
Godfather Part II” (32nd greatest).
The regular refrain in “ The Godfather,” as its
characters plan murders, is, “Nothing
personal. It’s just business.” Europe’s leaders
had the same rationale as they slouched into
war during post-assassination July. The two
“ Godfather” films form the tragic story of
how, in director Francis Ford Coppola’s
words, “a good man becomes evil.” A
theologically deeper assessment might note
that it’s about sinners becoming even more
sinful. World War I’s beginning one century
ago had a similar arc.
Here’s one more famous “ Godfather” line:
“Keep your friends close, but your enemies
closer.” Europe’s warring monarchs in 1914
were close (three of them were cousins)—and
this spring I looked back with wonder and
dismay at the arrogance and miscalculation
that (nothing personal) slaughtered so many
people.
At that point I almost went thoroughly astray.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand took
place because of a thoroughly unlikely set of
circumstances. The assassin with a handgun,
Gavrilo Princip, was a bad shot, but
Ferdinand’s driver made a wrong turn and
backed up, then stopped, in a way that left
Ferdinand several feet from Princip, who at
that distance couldn’t miss. And that got me
thinking: Why didn’t God (acting as He
usually does, in ways subtle enough to give
atheists deniability) keep Ferdinand from
being shot?
Think about it: No assassination, no war, no
Communist coup, no German hyper-inflation
and depression that paved the way for Hitler,
no World War II, no Holocaust…One small
flick of the wrist for God, one large leap for
mankind to the century of peaceful progress
that postmillennialists expected in 1900,
rather than the century of disaster that fueled
much premillennialist thought.
Then I thought: No, our merciful God must
have had His reasons for allowing the
assassination and the subsequent slaughter.
Musing that God makes all things work
together for good, I starting writing a playful
counterfactual column: What could have
happened had Ferdinand’s driver not made
the wrong turn, and if war had never come?
In my fanciful column I wrote that Germany
became Europe’s economic, scientific, and
technological power. It expanded its
leadership in science and did not make life so
miserable for Jews that leading physicists
ended up in America. The result: Germany
developed nuclear weapons and, given
German arrogance, used them to get its way
through much of the world. I was planning to
end the column with German nuclear bombs
dropping in August 1945, on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki—and dozens of other cities.
Well. Halfway through writing I picked up
my copy of J.I. Packer’s “ Knowing God ,” in
which the theologian notes that Christians err
by thinking that “if they were really walking
close to God, so that he could impart wisdom
to them freely, then they would…discern the
real purpose of everything that happened to
them, and it would be clear to them every
moment how God was making all things work
together for good.”
Packer continued, “Such people spend much
time poring over the book of providence,
wondering why God should have allowed this
or that to take place.” His recommendation:
Don’t do it. We do not and cannot have
“inside information as to the why and
wherefore of God’s doings.” Packer is right.
Trash my counterfactual. Not the Godfather
but God makes us an offer we cannot and
should not refuse: Trust me.
Massive killing is, of course, fodder for
atheists who can gibe that for God it’s nothing
personal, just business. But the brilliance of
Christ is that it couldn’t get more personal:
We die, He died—so all who trust in Him can
live forever.
23 Jun 2014
THE SPACES BETWEEN THE FACTS
Sylvia Lawson
When T.S. Eliot wrote that “Human
kind/Cannot bear very much
reality,” he hadn’t seen the
thousands packing in to the Sydney
Film Festival’s huge and remarkable spread
of documentary. “Reality” – in the sense of
truth pursued on locations and in editing
suites, assemblages of fact linked and netted
by interpretation – seemed to be exactly what
they were after, no matter where. It has been
said that a film festival is a lot of virtual
travel; some of that travel takes in places
where, outside of a film festival, we’d never
really want to go.
After The Fog of War and The Thin Blue Line,
no one concerned with twentieth-century
history would stay away from the next Errol
Morris essay. Faced with the operations of the
military-industrial complex, the splits in the
conscience of the powerful, the illogic of the
deeply self-deceived, Morris is the ultimate
cunning, soft-spoken strategist; he has
described himself as a director-detective,
rather than producer-director – once, between
films, he spent time as a private eye. The
Unknown Known , this year’s examination of
Donald Rumsfeld and his obsession with
memoranda, isn’t as deeply searching a film
as The Fog of War , but that has to do with the
level of interest one can feel in the particular
human subjects. Robert McNamara, with his
many chapters of involvement back to the
second world war, was worth more of our
time and Errol Morris’s subtle interview-
management than is Rumsfeld. That said, The
Unknown Known must still count as one of the
2014 Sydney Film Festival’s most telling
documentaries, exposing some of the internal
workings of US imperialism under the G.W.
Bush administration. Rumsfeld is on screen
for most of the time; in consequence one
emerges with a wry sense of grim knowledge
gained, at the cost of spending more than an
hour-and-a-half in the company of an
accomplished professional liar.
The late and great critic Roger Ebert (1942–
2013) praised Errol Morris for being “much
more interested in the spaces between the
facts than with the facts themselves” – that is,
interested in the speaking positions assumed
by those interviewed, in the ways in which
“facts” do or don’t become evidence. Ebert
himself never tired, not only of viewing films
and writing about them for the Chicago Sun-
Times , but also of ferreting around their pre-
histories, and the conditions of production
and reception. Another of the festival’s best
documentaries is about him; this is Life Itself ,
directed by Steve James from material shot in
the last five months of the critic’s life, with
old photographs, video footage of the late-life
wedding, and images from the TV program in
which Ebert argued about movies in dialogue
with his perennial rival, Gene Siskel of the
Chicago Tribune . The film gives us old and
new journalism, as Ebert dives into Facebook
and Twitter. En route, it’s full of the life of
the city and its newspapers; there are
moments which echo the early chapters in
Citizen Kane , and reminders of Page One ,
Andrew Rossi’s superb essay on the way the
New York Times and its personnel face the
digital age: is the Grey Lady on death row?
Roger Ebert is; with body, head and face
malformed by terminal cancer, he goes on
tapping on his laptop in hospital, and
continuing, miraculously, to get some fun out
of everything.
So many documentaries have to do with
survival. For Keep On Keepin’ On , two
Australian film makers, Alan Hicks and Adam
Hart, went to the United States to make their
vibrant essay on the life and work of the
trumpeter Clark Terry, who taught Miles
Davis and Quincy Jones among others, and
who, late in his life – and still blowing his
horn brilliantly – became a mentor for a
young blind pianist, Justin Kauflin. Terry,
Kauflin and Terry’s wife Gwen are their own
extraordinary stories, with Quincy Jones’s
masterly narration weaving through them,
and signalling outward; Jones’s own story is
something else again, connecting to those of
every other jazz master you’ve ever heard or
heard of. Terry’s music, which some called
“the happiest sound in jazz,” remains with us
in the film even after he, at past ninety and
ill, can’t help to produce it any longer;
Kauflin’s piano goes on.
It was accidental illumination that this film
was seen in short order after the curious,
perversely comic The Kidnapping of Michel
Houellebecq. This writer’s books, which I
haven’t read, are notorious for his special
forms of misanthropy and misogyny. Those
elements in his disposition are convincingly
enacted, by the man himself, in this demi-
fictional replay of the days when, on the point
of literary appearances, he disappeared from
public sight; with him, the supposed
kidnappers (played by Luc Schwarz, Mathieu
Nicourt and others) engage in meandering,
demi-philosophic dialogue while waiting for
ransom to be organised. There’s a sour kind
of comedy happening in the fogs of smoke
and drink; the jokes are all at the writer’s
expense, miserably self-absorbed as he is; he
defines and personifies a mentality. Moving
from this to Keep On Keepin’ On , you
understand all over again that jazz evolved
precisely to ride over and out from all that,
from its beginnings in an underdog culture
that refused exactly that mentality – grudging,
self-pitying, hopeless – and refused it
absolutely.
Some of the most popular documentaries are
likely to reach the cinema circuits; those
include Particle Fever , on the Large Hadron
Collider at CERN (European Centre for
Nuclear Research) on the Franco-Swiss
border. This huge and expensive installation
is there, in part, to work out what happened
at the beginning of the universe. Curiosity
drives crowds, even if your family doesn’t
include an aspiring nuclear physicist; both
screenings were packed out. Of this thrilling
tale, more to come. Its distributor, Madman
Entertainment, also has the wonderful
Sepideh: Reaching for the Stars , and this also is
one to wait for. The fourteen-year-old Sepideh
passionately wants to be an astronomer, and
if possible an astronaut as well; she is
philosophically akin to the Saudi-Arabian
Haifaa Al-Mansour’s Wadjda , first met at last
year’s festival and then at local cinemas. It
will be remembered that the intrepid Wadjda,
aged ten, wanted to acquire a bicycle and ride
it, against all the rules for girls; and also that
as a considerable strategist, she won the
money in a competition for recitation from
the Koran.
Wadjda was a fictional creation, the kind
where fiction is necessary precisely because
it’s all true. Sepideh , directed by Berit Madsen,
is documentary, and like many films from the
Middle East, it was enabled as a co-
production, with input from four European
sources as well as from Iran. We find the girl
toiling up a hillside at night, trailing her hijab
and carrying her portable telescope. The
uphill track is unforced symbolism; Sepideh’s
widowed mother is struggling, and can’t but
calculate that the best course is a well-
arranged marriage for the girl. In countries
where honour killings, forced marriages and
domestic imprisonment persist – and those
include Australia – the circulation of such
films must be taken beyond middle-class
urban audiences. Their excellence as cinema,
both drama and document, isn’t an end in
itself.
The major features on the program will
resurface, among them Richard Linklater’s
remarkable drama-documentary Boyhood , an
essay on normally dysfunctional family life
observed over twelve years in a sunny Texan
suburb, a benign, modern Sons and Lovers.
This was in the running for the Sydney Film
Prize; the one that got it, the Dardenne
brothers’ Two Days, One Night , will also
reappear. In the meantime, cinephiles aware
of Belgian cinema might profitably spend time
with Philip Mosley’s excellent new book on
Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne and their now-
considerable oeuvre, from the documentary
videos of the 1970s through the distinguished
fictions of the past twenty-five years: The
Cinema of the Dardenne Brothers: Responsible
Realism (Wallflower Press, the Director’s Cut
series, 2013). Their story should ring bells for
Australians; they took a clear decision, early
on, that they weren’t migrating to Paris, but
in the teeth of provincial struggle they were
going to make movies right there where they
were; not even Brussels or near it, but in the
province of Wallonia.
ith all the productive interaction
between festival and film trade,
there are still films which, without
the festival, would be very unlikely
to reach us. It’s because of the Sydney
festival’s current size and prosperity that, at
the last crowded minute, it could draw in
unprogrammed items hot from Cannes, those
including the winner of the Palme d’Or, Nuri
Bilge Ceylan’s Winter Sleep .
I can report that this film held a large
audience mesmerised for all of its 196
minutes; and as with Ceylan’s Once Upon a
Time in Anatolia, the magnetism has only so
much to do with plot; these are tantalising
fragments of drama, appearing and
disappearing, trailing on into minds and
memories beyond the limits of the screen. In
this film the enchantment has to do with
landscape, the Anatolian steppes, snowbound
as we see them here, with the houses cut into
the rocks; with the presence of an angry child,
whose parents can’t afford the rent; and with
the work of a formidable actor, Haluk
Bilginer. His character, Aydin, is a former
actor and in the present of the film, both a
landlord and a columnist for a newspaper
called The Voice of the Steppe . Seeing the
alienation of Aydin’s beautiful younger wife,
we seem at first to be in a world like that of
Satyajit Ray’s Charulata (also seen in the
festival’s retrospective programs). But the
unhappiness of women – Nihal (Melisa Sözen),
and Aydin’s divorced sister Necla (Demet
Akbağ) – is an intractable, persistent element.
Nihal understands herself: she needs
meaningful work, as unequivocally as the wild
horse, brutally captured, needs its freedom.
This winter country isn’t so far from
Chekhov’s, and Istanbul, like Chekhov’s
Moscow, is always there, somewhere across an
uncrossable distance.
Sometimes there appears a small film which
strikes the viewer as being formally perfect.
That is the case with Ida, discussed here in the
last posting; it is the case with Abderrahmane
Sissako’s Timbuktu, which, like Winter Sleep,
came in late to the festival via Cannes.
Sissako, who is spoken of as present-day
Africa’s great director, takes up the jihadist
assault on northern Mali with drive and
clarity. A young deer is seen running over the
sandhills; a family is assembled peacefully in
their tent; a boy herds cattle in a river, and
angers a fisherman casting his nets. It will not
be possible for the end-credits to claim that
“no animal was harmed…”; the visible death
of a very important beast prefigures needless
human murder. The jihadist vigilantes want
women to be both hooded and gloved, even as
they’re cleaning fish in the market. At the
end, we understand more about the fleeing
animal.
I will give some further comment soon on this
super-abundant film festival. Its major
Australian offering, David Michôd’s The
Rover, is already on the circuits. •
When T.S. Eliot wrote that “Human
kind/Cannot bear very much
reality,” he hadn’t seen the
thousands packing in to the Sydney
Film Festival’s huge and remarkable spread
of documentary. “Reality” – in the sense of
truth pursued on locations and in editing
suites, assemblages of fact linked and netted
by interpretation – seemed to be exactly what
they were after, no matter where. It has been
said that a film festival is a lot of virtual
travel; some of that travel takes in places
where, outside of a film festival, we’d never
really want to go.
After The Fog of War and The Thin Blue Line,
no one concerned with twentieth-century
history would stay away from the next Errol
Morris essay. Faced with the operations of the
military-industrial complex, the splits in the
conscience of the powerful, the illogic of the
deeply self-deceived, Morris is the ultimate
cunning, soft-spoken strategist; he has
described himself as a director-detective,
rather than producer-director – once, between
films, he spent time as a private eye. The
Unknown Known , this year’s examination of
Donald Rumsfeld and his obsession with
memoranda, isn’t as deeply searching a film
as The Fog of War , but that has to do with the
level of interest one can feel in the particular
human subjects. Robert McNamara, with his
many chapters of involvement back to the
second world war, was worth more of our
time and Errol Morris’s subtle interview-
management than is Rumsfeld. That said, The
Unknown Known must still count as one of the
2014 Sydney Film Festival’s most telling
documentaries, exposing some of the internal
workings of US imperialism under the G.W.
Bush administration. Rumsfeld is on screen
for most of the time; in consequence one
emerges with a wry sense of grim knowledge
gained, at the cost of spending more than an
hour-and-a-half in the company of an
accomplished professional liar.
The late and great critic Roger Ebert (1942–
2013) praised Errol Morris for being “much
more interested in the spaces between the
facts than with the facts themselves” – that is,
interested in the speaking positions assumed
by those interviewed, in the ways in which
“facts” do or don’t become evidence. Ebert
himself never tired, not only of viewing films
and writing about them for the Chicago Sun-
Times , but also of ferreting around their pre-
histories, and the conditions of production
and reception. Another of the festival’s best
documentaries is about him; this is Life Itself ,
directed by Steve James from material shot in
the last five months of the critic’s life, with
old photographs, video footage of the late-life
wedding, and images from the TV program in
which Ebert argued about movies in dialogue
with his perennial rival, Gene Siskel of the
Chicago Tribune . The film gives us old and
new journalism, as Ebert dives into Facebook
and Twitter. En route, it’s full of the life of
the city and its newspapers; there are
moments which echo the early chapters in
Citizen Kane , and reminders of Page One ,
Andrew Rossi’s superb essay on the way the
New York Times and its personnel face the
digital age: is the Grey Lady on death row?
Roger Ebert is; with body, head and face
malformed by terminal cancer, he goes on
tapping on his laptop in hospital, and
continuing, miraculously, to get some fun out
of everything.
So many documentaries have to do with
survival. For Keep On Keepin’ On , two
Australian film makers, Alan Hicks and Adam
Hart, went to the United States to make their
vibrant essay on the life and work of the
trumpeter Clark Terry, who taught Miles
Davis and Quincy Jones among others, and
who, late in his life – and still blowing his
horn brilliantly – became a mentor for a
young blind pianist, Justin Kauflin. Terry,
Kauflin and Terry’s wife Gwen are their own
extraordinary stories, with Quincy Jones’s
masterly narration weaving through them,
and signalling outward; Jones’s own story is
something else again, connecting to those of
every other jazz master you’ve ever heard or
heard of. Terry’s music, which some called
“the happiest sound in jazz,” remains with us
in the film even after he, at past ninety and
ill, can’t help to produce it any longer;
Kauflin’s piano goes on.
It was accidental illumination that this film
was seen in short order after the curious,
perversely comic The Kidnapping of Michel
Houellebecq. This writer’s books, which I
haven’t read, are notorious for his special
forms of misanthropy and misogyny. Those
elements in his disposition are convincingly
enacted, by the man himself, in this demi-
fictional replay of the days when, on the point
of literary appearances, he disappeared from
public sight; with him, the supposed
kidnappers (played by Luc Schwarz, Mathieu
Nicourt and others) engage in meandering,
demi-philosophic dialogue while waiting for
ransom to be organised. There’s a sour kind
of comedy happening in the fogs of smoke
and drink; the jokes are all at the writer’s
expense, miserably self-absorbed as he is; he
defines and personifies a mentality. Moving
from this to Keep On Keepin’ On , you
understand all over again that jazz evolved
precisely to ride over and out from all that,
from its beginnings in an underdog culture
that refused exactly that mentality – grudging,
self-pitying, hopeless – and refused it
absolutely.
Some of the most popular documentaries are
likely to reach the cinema circuits; those
include Particle Fever , on the Large Hadron
Collider at CERN (European Centre for
Nuclear Research) on the Franco-Swiss
border. This huge and expensive installation
is there, in part, to work out what happened
at the beginning of the universe. Curiosity
drives crowds, even if your family doesn’t
include an aspiring nuclear physicist; both
screenings were packed out. Of this thrilling
tale, more to come. Its distributor, Madman
Entertainment, also has the wonderful
Sepideh: Reaching for the Stars , and this also is
one to wait for. The fourteen-year-old Sepideh
passionately wants to be an astronomer, and
if possible an astronaut as well; she is
philosophically akin to the Saudi-Arabian
Haifaa Al-Mansour’s Wadjda , first met at last
year’s festival and then at local cinemas. It
will be remembered that the intrepid Wadjda,
aged ten, wanted to acquire a bicycle and ride
it, against all the rules for girls; and also that
as a considerable strategist, she won the
money in a competition for recitation from
the Koran.
Wadjda was a fictional creation, the kind
where fiction is necessary precisely because
it’s all true. Sepideh , directed by Berit Madsen,
is documentary, and like many films from the
Middle East, it was enabled as a co-
production, with input from four European
sources as well as from Iran. We find the girl
toiling up a hillside at night, trailing her hijab
and carrying her portable telescope. The
uphill track is unforced symbolism; Sepideh’s
widowed mother is struggling, and can’t but
calculate that the best course is a well-
arranged marriage for the girl. In countries
where honour killings, forced marriages and
domestic imprisonment persist – and those
include Australia – the circulation of such
films must be taken beyond middle-class
urban audiences. Their excellence as cinema,
both drama and document, isn’t an end in
itself.
The major features on the program will
resurface, among them Richard Linklater’s
remarkable drama-documentary Boyhood , an
essay on normally dysfunctional family life
observed over twelve years in a sunny Texan
suburb, a benign, modern Sons and Lovers.
This was in the running for the Sydney Film
Prize; the one that got it, the Dardenne
brothers’ Two Days, One Night , will also
reappear. In the meantime, cinephiles aware
of Belgian cinema might profitably spend time
with Philip Mosley’s excellent new book on
Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne and their now-
considerable oeuvre, from the documentary
videos of the 1970s through the distinguished
fictions of the past twenty-five years: The
Cinema of the Dardenne Brothers: Responsible
Realism (Wallflower Press, the Director’s Cut
series, 2013). Their story should ring bells for
Australians; they took a clear decision, early
on, that they weren’t migrating to Paris, but
in the teeth of provincial struggle they were
going to make movies right there where they
were; not even Brussels or near it, but in the
province of Wallonia.
ith all the productive interaction
between festival and film trade,
there are still films which, without
the festival, would be very unlikely
to reach us. It’s because of the Sydney
festival’s current size and prosperity that, at
the last crowded minute, it could draw in
unprogrammed items hot from Cannes, those
including the winner of the Palme d’Or, Nuri
Bilge Ceylan’s Winter Sleep .
I can report that this film held a large
audience mesmerised for all of its 196
minutes; and as with Ceylan’s Once Upon a
Time in Anatolia, the magnetism has only so
much to do with plot; these are tantalising
fragments of drama, appearing and
disappearing, trailing on into minds and
memories beyond the limits of the screen. In
this film the enchantment has to do with
landscape, the Anatolian steppes, snowbound
as we see them here, with the houses cut into
the rocks; with the presence of an angry child,
whose parents can’t afford the rent; and with
the work of a formidable actor, Haluk
Bilginer. His character, Aydin, is a former
actor and in the present of the film, both a
landlord and a columnist for a newspaper
called The Voice of the Steppe . Seeing the
alienation of Aydin’s beautiful younger wife,
we seem at first to be in a world like that of
Satyajit Ray’s Charulata (also seen in the
festival’s retrospective programs). But the
unhappiness of women – Nihal (Melisa Sözen),
and Aydin’s divorced sister Necla (Demet
Akbağ) – is an intractable, persistent element.
Nihal understands herself: she needs
meaningful work, as unequivocally as the wild
horse, brutally captured, needs its freedom.
This winter country isn’t so far from
Chekhov’s, and Istanbul, like Chekhov’s
Moscow, is always there, somewhere across an
uncrossable distance.
Sometimes there appears a small film which
strikes the viewer as being formally perfect.
That is the case with Ida, discussed here in the
last posting; it is the case with Abderrahmane
Sissako’s Timbuktu, which, like Winter Sleep,
came in late to the festival via Cannes.
Sissako, who is spoken of as present-day
Africa’s great director, takes up the jihadist
assault on northern Mali with drive and
clarity. A young deer is seen running over the
sandhills; a family is assembled peacefully in
their tent; a boy herds cattle in a river, and
angers a fisherman casting his nets. It will not
be possible for the end-credits to claim that
“no animal was harmed…”; the visible death
of a very important beast prefigures needless
human murder. The jihadist vigilantes want
women to be both hooded and gloved, even as
they’re cleaning fish in the market. At the
end, we understand more about the fleeing
animal.
I will give some further comment soon on this
super-abundant film festival. Its major
Australian offering, David Michôd’s The
Rover, is already on the circuits. •
AVOIDING A CATASTROPHE IN IRAQ
Mathew Gray
The spectacular emergence of ISIS – the
acronym stands for “the Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria” or, more precisely,
“the Islamic State in Iraq and al-
Shams,” “al-Shams” effectively meaning the
Levant – appears remarkable at first glance.
Seemingly out of nowhere, it has overrun
several key towns and cities in the central-
north and central-west of Iraq, including
Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul. As they
advance, ISIS fighters have brutally abused
their enemies and imposed their extreme
interpretation of an Islamic state on local
populations. They seem to combine the
fervour of an ideologically driven terrorist
group and the strength of a well-organised
militia, and few people appear willing to
resist them.
But these are early days in this newest battle
for Iraq’s future. ISIS may prove to be much
less potent than it appears; certainly, it speaks
for very few Iraqis. It faces formidable
challenges in holding territorial gains and
transforming into anything close to a
functional government. And it has a lot more
enemies than friends among the foreign
governments with a stake in Iraq’s future.
ISIS’s dramatic rise is not so much a
reflection of its capabilities as it is of the
weak opposition it has encountered thus far.
Its forces are highly motivated, for sure, and
its leadership has “sold” ISIS very skilfully on
social media and deftly created local sources
of revenue in Syria. Many of its fighters have
extensive combat experience in Iraq or Syria.
This sounds ominous, especially since around
800 ISIS fighters overran some 30,000 Iraqi
army soldiers and took Mosul on 10 June. But
in Mosul, the Iraqi soldiers probably fled out
of surprise and because of an unwillingness to
fight for an unpopular government and prime
minister in Baghdad, not just out of ineptness
or cowardice. Because many of the soldiers
were Sunni, moreover, they are less
threatened by ISIS than the Shiites, who are
seen as apostates by ISIS’s Sunni extremists.
And Mosul, while certainly a mixed Sunni–
Shiite city, is disproportionately Sunni and
has long been in violent disarray. In other
words, it was an easy target for a group like
ISIS.
On the same day, the Iraqi army also fled
from Kirkuk in disarray, this time in the face
of Kurdish peshmerga militia who took the
chance to seize the disputed city. The lesson
here is that the peshmerga is a strong, very
disciplined and well-trained fighting force,
far superior to most units of the Iraqi army.
These events do not mean that ISIS is about to
take Iraq as a whole, or even the Arab parts of
it. There is even a chance that they will
defeated on the battlefield – although what is
left of them would almost certainly regroup in
the future as a new group, just as ISIS is the
successor of al Qaeda in Iraq.
The challenges to ISIS in the longer-term are
several. Perhaps most obviously, the
organisation is extreme and small in number.
It probably has no more than two or three
thousand fighters in Syria and perhaps 7000
in Iraq, although these figures are little more
than guesstimates. Any higher number,
however, would probably include like-minded
or opportunistic Sunni militias. Weak as it is
in many respects, the 270,000-strong Iraqi
army is so much larger, and among its ranks
are many Shiites who see ISIS as a grave
threat to themselves and their families. More
importantly, ISIS would have little chance
against up to 200,000 well-organised and
well-trained peshmerga from the Kurdish
north.
As several observers have noted, ISIS has
proven effective at taking territory, but
holding it is another matter. To control,
exploit and govern a territory, it would need
a sympathetic (preferably ideologically
supportive) population, almost certainly
Sunni. Only a few places in Iraq will give it
that base – the mostly Sunni provinces of
Anbar and Salahuddin, and corners of a few
other provinces; otherwise, it will have to
operate in unfriendly areas, perhaps even
outright hostile ones in areas where there are
sizeable Shiite populations.
Finally, ISIS has few friends and plenty of
opponents beyond its own territory. It has
been quite effective at taxing the population
in areas of Syria under its control, for
example, and it might attract a few donations
from sympathisers abroad. But it has no real
external sponsor. As much as some Gulf
monarchies might prefer ISIS to Iraq’s Shiites,
they are not likely to openly support it if that
means clashing with the United States. Above
all, ISIS is opposed by Iran, which would go to
great lengths to support the Iraqi prime
minister, Nouri al-Maliki. It is noteworthy,
and bad news for ISIS, that one of the few
things on which Washington and Tehran
agree is the need for ISIS to be stopped.
The fall of Mosul to ISIS and Kirkuk to the
Kurds means that, although Iraq is not
necessarily lost to the central government, it
has now changed significantly and
irreversibly. Even if ISIS doesn’t gain
substantial control in Iraq – say, by capturing
several provinces and establishing themselves
there – it might still prove to be a spoiler. It
could also end up controlling a small,
unhappy corner of the country, using it as a
base to create wider mischief in Iraq or
elsewhere.
ISIS could be defeated and all but destroyed as
a military force, but this would probably only
come through US or Iranian intervention. If
Iran intervenes, it would exacerbate Sunni
grievances; in saving al-Maliki and his
colleagues from the immediate ISIS threat, it
would thoroughly undermine him as prime
minister.
US intervention is now looking quite likely,
but the exact nature of any support is being
very vigorously debated in Washington – and
with good reason. Not only do many
policymakers equate Iraq with past policy
failure and an eight-year quagmire – meaning
that the chance of ground troops being sent to
Iraq in any significant number can be ruled
out – but the United States will also limit its
actions so as to avoid handing Tehran any
advantages. If al-Maliki stays as prime
minister – which is looking less likely by the
day – he’s close enough to Tehran that
American intervention will focus not on
helping him, but on defeating ISIS.
The United States only has a few safe options.
In the short term, to stop ISIS and then roll it
back, the Americans could provide the kind of
intelligence that the Iraqi army has little
capability to collect. Unmanned aircraft could
help collect this material, and could also
conduct limited but opportunistic strikes as
ISIS targets are identified. More extensive
airstrikes are possible, as are a special forces
commitment on the ground.
Washington is reportedly considering both of
these options: airstrikes, of course, would be
easiest to sell to American voters, but would
not be very effective without better tactical
intelligence on ISIS locations, movements and
key figures. For that, they need either Iraqi
human intelligence, which is probably not
available, or their own special forces on the
ground helping gather information and
coordinate Iraqi army operations. It is not
surprising, therefore, that as the United States
considers its options more closely, it is
reportedly leaning increasingly towards
special forces (although if they do choose this
option, it may not become public until well
after the fact).
Washington probably has no choice but to
intervene somehow. If Iraq collapses, it will
pose new threats, both as a base for terrorism
and to the stability of other states in the
region. If Iran steps in instead, the United
States risks handing Tehran a victory, or at
least greater influence in the region. Many
American allies in the region will be
unnerved by a lack of US action against ISIS.
At the same time, doing something requires a
delicate balance and a great deal of care to
avoid getting dragged into supporting Iraqi
security or serving Iran’s interests.
he only real winner from these events so
far has been Iraq’s Kurds. They have
long had semi-autonomy, administering
three of Iraq’s northern provinces
through the Kurdish Regional Government, or
KRG. Almost a quasi-state, the KRG has its
own parliament and makes many of its own
laws, and its peshmerga militia as, in effect,
its army. It has been the only part of Iraq that
has been stable and safe over the past decade.
Under Iraq’s 2005 constitution, the KRG is
promised 17 per cent of Iraq’s oil income,
although it has started trying to supplement or
replace this with oil contracts of its own in
recent years: in fact, the news about ISIS has
obscured the other major event related to Iraq
in the past week, the KRG’s attempt to sell oil
directly on the international market. A tanker
with one million barrels of oil is currently
sitting in the Mediterranean while the KRG
and Baghdad argue over whether the Kurds
have the right to sell it.
Events since the rise of ISIS have strengthened
the Kurds’ position but also increased the risk
of Iraq fragmenting and falling apart. The
KRG’s leadership must be quietly satisfied
with events. The Iraqi army’s flight from
Kirkuk has shown the peshmerga to be, by far,
the superior military force, an assessment
arguably endorsed by the fact that ISIS has
been careful not to engage the peshmerga in
fighting. The KRG will not let Kirkuk go:
expect to see the KRG integrate it into the rest
of their territory as quickly as possible.
Reportedly the Kurds have already connected
the main Kirkuk oilfield up to their own
pipeline, letting them drill and export to
Turkey. The KRG now will almost certainly
meet its goal of exporting 400,000 barrels of
oil a day by the end of the year, which would
come close to equally the revenues it is
promised from Baghdad under the
constitution. If it can expand and secure its
pipelines the Kirkuk superfield could produce
1.4 million barrels a day or more. If the KRG
can fully exploit this field, or even develop it
further, they would do so at Baghdad’s
expense. Iraq’s planned daily 2014
production rate of four million barrels, with
up to one-sixth going to the KRG, would
instead see the KRG produce about half of this
figure and Baghdad the other half. The
impacts on Iraq’s central government and its
capabilities would be substantial, and would
be a further incentive for the Kurds to seek
full independence.
The challenge for the Kurds remain
significant, however, and include significant
opposition to them formally becoming
independent and breaking up Iraq, as well as
practical concerns in Turkey especially that
this would motivate Turkey’s own Kurdish
population to seek independence from
Ankara. The Turks have enormous power over
the KRG, since Kurdish oil has to travel
through Turkey, along pipelines and out of
Turkish ports, and they could yet use this
power if they thought Iraq’s Kurds were
pushing for independence and saw this as a
threat.
In other respects, however, the current crisis
is probably a boon for the Kurds. Few other
Iraqis would take any joy in events, however.
Iraq has a violent modern history, but its last
decade has been especially horrid. Sectarian
and ethnic identities have become
entrenched, politics has become fragmented,
and a weak state has given often-extreme
groups, ISIS among them, the chance to gain a
foothold.
To avoid yet further catastrophe, a number of
things probably need to happen. Prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki needs to withdraw
from politics; he has become too divisive, too
pro-Shiite, and too authoritarian to unite
Iraqis against ISIS. This is becoming
increasingly likely. Far less likely, a longer-
term reconciliation effort needs to be made,
including a final agreement over the control
and exploitation of Iraq’s enormous oil
wealth, but also a program to give all the
main groups in Iraq a stake in its stability.
And least likely of all, the United States, Iran
and Saudi Arabia need to agree on what roles
they will play long-term in Iraq.
Otherwise, Iraq’s future is bleak, and there
will continue to be extremists who will fight to
control the country or a part of it. If ISIS does
not succeed this time, another group will
quickly succeed it, exploiting the same fears
and grievances and soon posing just as much
of a threat to its security and that of the
region. •
The spectacular emergence of ISIS – the
acronym stands for “the Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria” or, more precisely,
“the Islamic State in Iraq and al-
Shams,” “al-Shams” effectively meaning the
Levant – appears remarkable at first glance.
Seemingly out of nowhere, it has overrun
several key towns and cities in the central-
north and central-west of Iraq, including
Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul. As they
advance, ISIS fighters have brutally abused
their enemies and imposed their extreme
interpretation of an Islamic state on local
populations. They seem to combine the
fervour of an ideologically driven terrorist
group and the strength of a well-organised
militia, and few people appear willing to
resist them.
But these are early days in this newest battle
for Iraq’s future. ISIS may prove to be much
less potent than it appears; certainly, it speaks
for very few Iraqis. It faces formidable
challenges in holding territorial gains and
transforming into anything close to a
functional government. And it has a lot more
enemies than friends among the foreign
governments with a stake in Iraq’s future.
ISIS’s dramatic rise is not so much a
reflection of its capabilities as it is of the
weak opposition it has encountered thus far.
Its forces are highly motivated, for sure, and
its leadership has “sold” ISIS very skilfully on
social media and deftly created local sources
of revenue in Syria. Many of its fighters have
extensive combat experience in Iraq or Syria.
This sounds ominous, especially since around
800 ISIS fighters overran some 30,000 Iraqi
army soldiers and took Mosul on 10 June. But
in Mosul, the Iraqi soldiers probably fled out
of surprise and because of an unwillingness to
fight for an unpopular government and prime
minister in Baghdad, not just out of ineptness
or cowardice. Because many of the soldiers
were Sunni, moreover, they are less
threatened by ISIS than the Shiites, who are
seen as apostates by ISIS’s Sunni extremists.
And Mosul, while certainly a mixed Sunni–
Shiite city, is disproportionately Sunni and
has long been in violent disarray. In other
words, it was an easy target for a group like
ISIS.
On the same day, the Iraqi army also fled
from Kirkuk in disarray, this time in the face
of Kurdish peshmerga militia who took the
chance to seize the disputed city. The lesson
here is that the peshmerga is a strong, very
disciplined and well-trained fighting force,
far superior to most units of the Iraqi army.
These events do not mean that ISIS is about to
take Iraq as a whole, or even the Arab parts of
it. There is even a chance that they will
defeated on the battlefield – although what is
left of them would almost certainly regroup in
the future as a new group, just as ISIS is the
successor of al Qaeda in Iraq.
The challenges to ISIS in the longer-term are
several. Perhaps most obviously, the
organisation is extreme and small in number.
It probably has no more than two or three
thousand fighters in Syria and perhaps 7000
in Iraq, although these figures are little more
than guesstimates. Any higher number,
however, would probably include like-minded
or opportunistic Sunni militias. Weak as it is
in many respects, the 270,000-strong Iraqi
army is so much larger, and among its ranks
are many Shiites who see ISIS as a grave
threat to themselves and their families. More
importantly, ISIS would have little chance
against up to 200,000 well-organised and
well-trained peshmerga from the Kurdish
north.
As several observers have noted, ISIS has
proven effective at taking territory, but
holding it is another matter. To control,
exploit and govern a territory, it would need
a sympathetic (preferably ideologically
supportive) population, almost certainly
Sunni. Only a few places in Iraq will give it
that base – the mostly Sunni provinces of
Anbar and Salahuddin, and corners of a few
other provinces; otherwise, it will have to
operate in unfriendly areas, perhaps even
outright hostile ones in areas where there are
sizeable Shiite populations.
Finally, ISIS has few friends and plenty of
opponents beyond its own territory. It has
been quite effective at taxing the population
in areas of Syria under its control, for
example, and it might attract a few donations
from sympathisers abroad. But it has no real
external sponsor. As much as some Gulf
monarchies might prefer ISIS to Iraq’s Shiites,
they are not likely to openly support it if that
means clashing with the United States. Above
all, ISIS is opposed by Iran, which would go to
great lengths to support the Iraqi prime
minister, Nouri al-Maliki. It is noteworthy,
and bad news for ISIS, that one of the few
things on which Washington and Tehran
agree is the need for ISIS to be stopped.
The fall of Mosul to ISIS and Kirkuk to the
Kurds means that, although Iraq is not
necessarily lost to the central government, it
has now changed significantly and
irreversibly. Even if ISIS doesn’t gain
substantial control in Iraq – say, by capturing
several provinces and establishing themselves
there – it might still prove to be a spoiler. It
could also end up controlling a small,
unhappy corner of the country, using it as a
base to create wider mischief in Iraq or
elsewhere.
ISIS could be defeated and all but destroyed as
a military force, but this would probably only
come through US or Iranian intervention. If
Iran intervenes, it would exacerbate Sunni
grievances; in saving al-Maliki and his
colleagues from the immediate ISIS threat, it
would thoroughly undermine him as prime
minister.
US intervention is now looking quite likely,
but the exact nature of any support is being
very vigorously debated in Washington – and
with good reason. Not only do many
policymakers equate Iraq with past policy
failure and an eight-year quagmire – meaning
that the chance of ground troops being sent to
Iraq in any significant number can be ruled
out – but the United States will also limit its
actions so as to avoid handing Tehran any
advantages. If al-Maliki stays as prime
minister – which is looking less likely by the
day – he’s close enough to Tehran that
American intervention will focus not on
helping him, but on defeating ISIS.
The United States only has a few safe options.
In the short term, to stop ISIS and then roll it
back, the Americans could provide the kind of
intelligence that the Iraqi army has little
capability to collect. Unmanned aircraft could
help collect this material, and could also
conduct limited but opportunistic strikes as
ISIS targets are identified. More extensive
airstrikes are possible, as are a special forces
commitment on the ground.
Washington is reportedly considering both of
these options: airstrikes, of course, would be
easiest to sell to American voters, but would
not be very effective without better tactical
intelligence on ISIS locations, movements and
key figures. For that, they need either Iraqi
human intelligence, which is probably not
available, or their own special forces on the
ground helping gather information and
coordinate Iraqi army operations. It is not
surprising, therefore, that as the United States
considers its options more closely, it is
reportedly leaning increasingly towards
special forces (although if they do choose this
option, it may not become public until well
after the fact).
Washington probably has no choice but to
intervene somehow. If Iraq collapses, it will
pose new threats, both as a base for terrorism
and to the stability of other states in the
region. If Iran steps in instead, the United
States risks handing Tehran a victory, or at
least greater influence in the region. Many
American allies in the region will be
unnerved by a lack of US action against ISIS.
At the same time, doing something requires a
delicate balance and a great deal of care to
avoid getting dragged into supporting Iraqi
security or serving Iran’s interests.
he only real winner from these events so
far has been Iraq’s Kurds. They have
long had semi-autonomy, administering
three of Iraq’s northern provinces
through the Kurdish Regional Government, or
KRG. Almost a quasi-state, the KRG has its
own parliament and makes many of its own
laws, and its peshmerga militia as, in effect,
its army. It has been the only part of Iraq that
has been stable and safe over the past decade.
Under Iraq’s 2005 constitution, the KRG is
promised 17 per cent of Iraq’s oil income,
although it has started trying to supplement or
replace this with oil contracts of its own in
recent years: in fact, the news about ISIS has
obscured the other major event related to Iraq
in the past week, the KRG’s attempt to sell oil
directly on the international market. A tanker
with one million barrels of oil is currently
sitting in the Mediterranean while the KRG
and Baghdad argue over whether the Kurds
have the right to sell it.
Events since the rise of ISIS have strengthened
the Kurds’ position but also increased the risk
of Iraq fragmenting and falling apart. The
KRG’s leadership must be quietly satisfied
with events. The Iraqi army’s flight from
Kirkuk has shown the peshmerga to be, by far,
the superior military force, an assessment
arguably endorsed by the fact that ISIS has
been careful not to engage the peshmerga in
fighting. The KRG will not let Kirkuk go:
expect to see the KRG integrate it into the rest
of their territory as quickly as possible.
Reportedly the Kurds have already connected
the main Kirkuk oilfield up to their own
pipeline, letting them drill and export to
Turkey. The KRG now will almost certainly
meet its goal of exporting 400,000 barrels of
oil a day by the end of the year, which would
come close to equally the revenues it is
promised from Baghdad under the
constitution. If it can expand and secure its
pipelines the Kirkuk superfield could produce
1.4 million barrels a day or more. If the KRG
can fully exploit this field, or even develop it
further, they would do so at Baghdad’s
expense. Iraq’s planned daily 2014
production rate of four million barrels, with
up to one-sixth going to the KRG, would
instead see the KRG produce about half of this
figure and Baghdad the other half. The
impacts on Iraq’s central government and its
capabilities would be substantial, and would
be a further incentive for the Kurds to seek
full independence.
The challenge for the Kurds remain
significant, however, and include significant
opposition to them formally becoming
independent and breaking up Iraq, as well as
practical concerns in Turkey especially that
this would motivate Turkey’s own Kurdish
population to seek independence from
Ankara. The Turks have enormous power over
the KRG, since Kurdish oil has to travel
through Turkey, along pipelines and out of
Turkish ports, and they could yet use this
power if they thought Iraq’s Kurds were
pushing for independence and saw this as a
threat.
In other respects, however, the current crisis
is probably a boon for the Kurds. Few other
Iraqis would take any joy in events, however.
Iraq has a violent modern history, but its last
decade has been especially horrid. Sectarian
and ethnic identities have become
entrenched, politics has become fragmented,
and a weak state has given often-extreme
groups, ISIS among them, the chance to gain a
foothold.
To avoid yet further catastrophe, a number of
things probably need to happen. Prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki needs to withdraw
from politics; he has become too divisive, too
pro-Shiite, and too authoritarian to unite
Iraqis against ISIS. This is becoming
increasingly likely. Far less likely, a longer-
term reconciliation effort needs to be made,
including a final agreement over the control
and exploitation of Iraq’s enormous oil
wealth, but also a program to give all the
main groups in Iraq a stake in its stability.
And least likely of all, the United States, Iran
and Saudi Arabia need to agree on what roles
they will play long-term in Iraq.
Otherwise, Iraq’s future is bleak, and there
will continue to be extremists who will fight to
control the country or a part of it. If ISIS does
not succeed this time, another group will
quickly succeed it, exploiting the same fears
and grievances and soon posing just as much
of a threat to its security and that of the
region. •
THE TOP 8 THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
Matt Barber
Look at your life. Life is hard. Look at the
news. In our fallen, sinful world, evil swirls
about like a violent dust devil, clouding the
air of absolute truth and muddying the
waters of pure grace that flow to eternal life
through Christ Jesus.
It seems the world has gone mad, and it has.
Relativism rules as up is down, black is white
and that which God calls evil is called good.
All forms of sexual immorality are celebrated
and deceptively tagged “human rights,” while
God’s design for marriage, family and
sexuality, along with true human rights, are
systematically trampled to accommodate
disorder and sin. Innocent children are
slaughtered at will in the safety of their
mothers’ wombs, while demonic political
systems rooted in the pagan traditions of
Islam and secular humanism stack the bodies
of tens-of-millions like cordwood.
The enemy is enraged because his time is
short.
Yet through it all, and in His infinite mercy
and grace, God gives us a taste of things to
come.
In biblical terms, the number 8 represents a
new beginning with God. It signifies man’s
covenantal relationship with his Creator
through the physical act of circumcision,
which, in the Jewish tradition, is performed
on the male child’s eighth day. For the
Christian, whether Jew or Gentile, we
undergo a “circumcision of the heart”
through belief upon, communion with and
worship of Jesus, the God-man.
That’s why I believe the Holy Spirit, through
the Apostle Paul, gave mankind eight specific
things to “think about” so that “the God of
peace will be with you.” There can be peace
in the eye of storm – a “new beginning” each
day – and that peace is Christ with us.
Said Paul: “Finally, brothers and sisters,
whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever
is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable – if anything is
excellent or praiseworthy – think about such
things” (Philippians 4:8).
1) Whatever is true
The opposite of true is the lie. Truth is fixed.
Truth is objective. Moral relativism fosters
the absurd notion that truth is malleable and
subjective. Therefore, relativism is a lie. But,
as Pilate asked Christ, “What is truth?” God’s
created order, His natural law, is truth. The
Bible is God’s word. The Bible is truth. It is
called “the word of truth. “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Jesus
Himself is truth. He says, “I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Immerse yourself in the word of God and you
cannot help but “think about” truth.
2) Whatever is noble
Merriam Webster defines “noble” as “having,
showing, or coming from personal qualities
that people admire (such as honesty,
generosity, courage, etc.).” We know noble
when we see it. We see it in the teenage boy
who returns the cash-flush wallet to the lost
and found. We see it in the philanthropist
who anonymously and generously gives to the
widow and the poor – to “the least of these.”
We see it in the men and women who serve
so that we may enjoy freedom. We especially
see it in the soldier, in anyone, who lays
down his life so that others may live.
3) Whatever is right
There is right and wrong. Right is correct.
Wrong is incorrect. Love, true love, which
derives from love Himself, is right. Hate is
wrong. Right stems from truth and grace.
Wrong stems from the lie, enmity and
ruthlessness. Right is to forgive others so that
we may be forgiven. Wrong is to resent,
begrudge and refuse to forgive. Right is the
exclusivity of Christ. Wrong is the
“inclusivity” of religious pluralism. Right
comes from God the Father. Wrong comes
from the father of lies.
4) Whatever is pure
“Pure” is that which is “free from what
vitiates, weakens, or pollutes: containing
nothing that does not properly belong.”
Chastity is pure. Fornication is impure.
Fidelity to one’s spouse and the faithful
marriage bed is pure. Adultery is impure.
True marriage is pure. Counterfeit same-sex
“marriage” is “vitiated, weakened and
polluted” by sexual immorality and is,
therefore, impure. Contentment is pure.
Covetousness is impure. Selflessness, when
harmonized with and motivated by God’s
moral truths, is pure. Selfishness is impure.
Jesus is pure. We are impure. True
Christianity is pure. Apostate “Christianity”
and other false religions that deny Christ and
the truth of His word are impure.
5) Whatever is lovely
“Lovely” is defined as “attractive or beautiful,
especially in a graceful way.” Outward
beauty can be lovely. Inward beauty that
derives from the Holy Spirit is always lovely.
The creative arts are lovely, especially when
motivated by a desire to serve, honor and
glorify the Creator. Handle’s Messiah is
lovely. The Sistine Chapel is lovely. God’s
nature, creation and created order is lovely.
My beautiful wife and daughters are lovely,
inside and out.
6) Whatever is admirable
That which is “admirable” is “worthy of
admiration; inspiring approval, reverence, or
affection.” The whole of God’s creation, save
those aspects corrupted by sin, is admirable.
Our Creator God is beyond admirable and
worthy of infinite wonder, praise and
worship. Unfortunately, in our sinful nature,
we often admire things that fall well short of
admirable. We “think about” things
anathema to those eight given us by Paul.
7) Whatever is excellent
Excellence means “of extremely high quality.”
We are told to not only think about that
which is excellent, but to strive for excellence
in all we do. “Whatever your hand finds to
do, do it with all your might. …” (Ecclesiastes
9:10)We also know excellence when we see it.
Michael Jordan was excellent. Legendary jazz
drummer Buddy Rich was excellent. The rib-
eye at Ruth’s Chris is excellent. President
Obama’s leadership and policies – economic,
social, and national security-related, both
foreign and domestic – are decidedly not
excellent.
8) Whatever is praiseworthy
Finally, Webster’s defines “praiseworthy” as
“laudable: deserving praise: worthy of
praise.” The previous seven things Paul gives
us to “think about” are also praiseworthy.
They are laudable. That which is true, noble,
right, pure, lovely, admirable and excellent, is
also praiseworthy.
Do you see what Paul did here – what the
Holy Spirit did through Paul? He gave us eight
things to “think about.” Does anything in
particularly strike you about these eight
things?
They are eight in One.
Each of these eight things represents a
specific character trait of Christ Himself.
Jesus is true. Jesus is noble. Jesus is right.
Jesus is pure. Jesus is lovely. Jesus is
admirable. Jesus is excellent and, finally,
perhaps most importantly, Jesus is infinitely
and eternally praiseworthy.
Look at your life. Life is hard. Look at the
news. In our fallen, sinful world, evil swirls
about like a violent dust devil, clouding the
air of absolute truth and muddying the
waters of pure grace that flow to eternal life
through Christ Jesus.
It seems the world has gone mad, and it has.
Relativism rules as up is down, black is white
and that which God calls evil is called good.
All forms of sexual immorality are celebrated
and deceptively tagged “human rights,” while
God’s design for marriage, family and
sexuality, along with true human rights, are
systematically trampled to accommodate
disorder and sin. Innocent children are
slaughtered at will in the safety of their
mothers’ wombs, while demonic political
systems rooted in the pagan traditions of
Islam and secular humanism stack the bodies
of tens-of-millions like cordwood.
The enemy is enraged because his time is
short.
Yet through it all, and in His infinite mercy
and grace, God gives us a taste of things to
come.
In biblical terms, the number 8 represents a
new beginning with God. It signifies man’s
covenantal relationship with his Creator
through the physical act of circumcision,
which, in the Jewish tradition, is performed
on the male child’s eighth day. For the
Christian, whether Jew or Gentile, we
undergo a “circumcision of the heart”
through belief upon, communion with and
worship of Jesus, the God-man.
That’s why I believe the Holy Spirit, through
the Apostle Paul, gave mankind eight specific
things to “think about” so that “the God of
peace will be with you.” There can be peace
in the eye of storm – a “new beginning” each
day – and that peace is Christ with us.
Said Paul: “Finally, brothers and sisters,
whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever
is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable – if anything is
excellent or praiseworthy – think about such
things” (Philippians 4:8).
1) Whatever is true
The opposite of true is the lie. Truth is fixed.
Truth is objective. Moral relativism fosters
the absurd notion that truth is malleable and
subjective. Therefore, relativism is a lie. But,
as Pilate asked Christ, “What is truth?” God’s
created order, His natural law, is truth. The
Bible is God’s word. The Bible is truth. It is
called “the word of truth. “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Jesus
Himself is truth. He says, “I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Immerse yourself in the word of God and you
cannot help but “think about” truth.
2) Whatever is noble
Merriam Webster defines “noble” as “having,
showing, or coming from personal qualities
that people admire (such as honesty,
generosity, courage, etc.).” We know noble
when we see it. We see it in the teenage boy
who returns the cash-flush wallet to the lost
and found. We see it in the philanthropist
who anonymously and generously gives to the
widow and the poor – to “the least of these.”
We see it in the men and women who serve
so that we may enjoy freedom. We especially
see it in the soldier, in anyone, who lays
down his life so that others may live.
3) Whatever is right
There is right and wrong. Right is correct.
Wrong is incorrect. Love, true love, which
derives from love Himself, is right. Hate is
wrong. Right stems from truth and grace.
Wrong stems from the lie, enmity and
ruthlessness. Right is to forgive others so that
we may be forgiven. Wrong is to resent,
begrudge and refuse to forgive. Right is the
exclusivity of Christ. Wrong is the
“inclusivity” of religious pluralism. Right
comes from God the Father. Wrong comes
from the father of lies.
4) Whatever is pure
“Pure” is that which is “free from what
vitiates, weakens, or pollutes: containing
nothing that does not properly belong.”
Chastity is pure. Fornication is impure.
Fidelity to one’s spouse and the faithful
marriage bed is pure. Adultery is impure.
True marriage is pure. Counterfeit same-sex
“marriage” is “vitiated, weakened and
polluted” by sexual immorality and is,
therefore, impure. Contentment is pure.
Covetousness is impure. Selflessness, when
harmonized with and motivated by God’s
moral truths, is pure. Selfishness is impure.
Jesus is pure. We are impure. True
Christianity is pure. Apostate “Christianity”
and other false religions that deny Christ and
the truth of His word are impure.
5) Whatever is lovely
“Lovely” is defined as “attractive or beautiful,
especially in a graceful way.” Outward
beauty can be lovely. Inward beauty that
derives from the Holy Spirit is always lovely.
The creative arts are lovely, especially when
motivated by a desire to serve, honor and
glorify the Creator. Handle’s Messiah is
lovely. The Sistine Chapel is lovely. God’s
nature, creation and created order is lovely.
My beautiful wife and daughters are lovely,
inside and out.
6) Whatever is admirable
That which is “admirable” is “worthy of
admiration; inspiring approval, reverence, or
affection.” The whole of God’s creation, save
those aspects corrupted by sin, is admirable.
Our Creator God is beyond admirable and
worthy of infinite wonder, praise and
worship. Unfortunately, in our sinful nature,
we often admire things that fall well short of
admirable. We “think about” things
anathema to those eight given us by Paul.
7) Whatever is excellent
Excellence means “of extremely high quality.”
We are told to not only think about that
which is excellent, but to strive for excellence
in all we do. “Whatever your hand finds to
do, do it with all your might. …” (Ecclesiastes
9:10)We also know excellence when we see it.
Michael Jordan was excellent. Legendary jazz
drummer Buddy Rich was excellent. The rib-
eye at Ruth’s Chris is excellent. President
Obama’s leadership and policies – economic,
social, and national security-related, both
foreign and domestic – are decidedly not
excellent.
8) Whatever is praiseworthy
Finally, Webster’s defines “praiseworthy” as
“laudable: deserving praise: worthy of
praise.” The previous seven things Paul gives
us to “think about” are also praiseworthy.
They are laudable. That which is true, noble,
right, pure, lovely, admirable and excellent, is
also praiseworthy.
Do you see what Paul did here – what the
Holy Spirit did through Paul? He gave us eight
things to “think about.” Does anything in
particularly strike you about these eight
things?
They are eight in One.
Each of these eight things represents a
specific character trait of Christ Himself.
Jesus is true. Jesus is noble. Jesus is right.
Jesus is pure. Jesus is lovely. Jesus is
admirable. Jesus is excellent and, finally,
perhaps most importantly, Jesus is infinitely
and eternally praiseworthy.
THE PAGES OF OUR LIVES
Rich Galen
Sap Alert: This past weekend marked the 50th
anniversary of the graduation from high
school of the class of 1964 from West Orange
(New Jersey) Mountain High. That's what this
column will be about.
If you are looking for an angry screed, hit the
key now and tune in later in the week when
I'm cranky again.
The thing about fifty years isn't that it goes by
so quickly when you're looking backwards,
and seems so impossibly far away when
you're looking ahead. That's true, but it's not
what is most important.
What I got to thinking about this past
weekend - the weekend of the inaccurately
named "50th Reunion" of my high school
graduating class - was about the inexorability
of the whole thing. (The inaccuracy occurs
because we have not had 50 reunions, it is
the reunion marking the 50th anniversary of
our graduation.)
From the moment of our birth one page
comes off the calendar of our lives every 24
hours (or, to keep the accuracy thing going,
23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds).
Good times, bad times, smooth or rough,
happy or sad: One day, one page.
There are pages we would like to rip off, tear
into shreds, throw away from our lifetime
calendars in about 12 hours, and forget
about. Others, we would like to savor and
keep for weeks or months, and remember
forever.
Both are possible, but the will each use up the
same exact 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds.
Not more. Not less.
Stipulating that graduation day for the West
Orange Mountain class of 1964 was on the
Summer Solstice of that year, June 21; 18,262
pages have fallen from the life calendars of
every one of the living 236 graduates. No
more. No less.
Gathering about half of them in the same
place at the same time allowed us to share the
vast variety of careers that a group of middle
class kids from Northern New Jersey have
been allowed to pursue during America's post
World War II go-go decades.
At this point in their lives many of my
classmates have retired and, being from New
Jersey, a significant number of them have
relocated to Florida. But there was a
California contingent, a classmate that came
from Finland and one from Israel. And one,
of course, from Alexandria, Virginia.
The last reunion I went to was our 42nd. At
the time I wondered (in a reply-all email)
why 42nd? "Why not 41st or 43rd," I wrote.
"Those are prime numbers. That's at least a
little amusing. What's funny about 42?"
One of my mates replied-all to my query with
this: "Because we're all turning sixty, you
moron."
I would have gotten to that if I'd thought
about it long enough.
Now, most of the class is 68 with a few of the
"children" including me, still 67.
When we were 60, we all looked like slightly
older versions of what we looked like when
we were 17 and 18. For the most part we
could look at one another and remember in a
glance who was who.
But, the pages of the calendar have taken
their toll on most of us physically over the
past eight years. Without name tags complete
with senior yearbook photos attached, it
would have been very difficult to answer the
question: "Do you remember who I am?"
Once I looked at the name and photo, each
68-year-old face resolved itself into the 18-
year-old person I remembered from high
school.
I also wondered what was going on fifty years
before we graduated, It was on June 28, 1914
(the 100th anniversary will be next Saturday)
when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was
assassinated sparking the Great War; a war
the U.S. would not enter for nearly three
more years. From July on, the rest of the year
is largely taken up by the news of European
nations choosing up sides.
Except for July 11, 1914 when Babe Ruth
made his major league debut with the Boston
Red Sox.
At our 50th reunion, the old flirtations
became new flirtations between slightly older
men and women. The high school feuds have
been either resolved, forgotten, or forgiven.
The talk had moved from who is secretly
dating whom, to what type of hearing aids we
favored and what brand of statin we are
taking.
The pages of our calendars will continue, God
willing, to drop away. Some day each of us
will reach the cardboard at the back and
we'll say goodbye.
But for this weekend, at least, a group of
senior citizens were young high school
graduates again and got to share their 18+
thousand calendar pages with one another
leaving with a new little twinkle in our
collective reading-glasses-needed eyes, the
better for having reconnected, and having
relived, the days that have gone by oh so
quickly.
Sap Alert: This past weekend marked the 50th
anniversary of the graduation from high
school of the class of 1964 from West Orange
(New Jersey) Mountain High. That's what this
column will be about.
If you are looking for an angry screed, hit the
key now and tune in later in the week when
I'm cranky again.
The thing about fifty years isn't that it goes by
so quickly when you're looking backwards,
and seems so impossibly far away when
you're looking ahead. That's true, but it's not
what is most important.
What I got to thinking about this past
weekend - the weekend of the inaccurately
named "50th Reunion" of my high school
graduating class - was about the inexorability
of the whole thing. (The inaccuracy occurs
because we have not had 50 reunions, it is
the reunion marking the 50th anniversary of
our graduation.)
From the moment of our birth one page
comes off the calendar of our lives every 24
hours (or, to keep the accuracy thing going,
23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds).
Good times, bad times, smooth or rough,
happy or sad: One day, one page.
There are pages we would like to rip off, tear
into shreds, throw away from our lifetime
calendars in about 12 hours, and forget
about. Others, we would like to savor and
keep for weeks or months, and remember
forever.
Both are possible, but the will each use up the
same exact 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds.
Not more. Not less.
Stipulating that graduation day for the West
Orange Mountain class of 1964 was on the
Summer Solstice of that year, June 21; 18,262
pages have fallen from the life calendars of
every one of the living 236 graduates. No
more. No less.
Gathering about half of them in the same
place at the same time allowed us to share the
vast variety of careers that a group of middle
class kids from Northern New Jersey have
been allowed to pursue during America's post
World War II go-go decades.
At this point in their lives many of my
classmates have retired and, being from New
Jersey, a significant number of them have
relocated to Florida. But there was a
California contingent, a classmate that came
from Finland and one from Israel. And one,
of course, from Alexandria, Virginia.
The last reunion I went to was our 42nd. At
the time I wondered (in a reply-all email)
why 42nd? "Why not 41st or 43rd," I wrote.
"Those are prime numbers. That's at least a
little amusing. What's funny about 42?"
One of my mates replied-all to my query with
this: "Because we're all turning sixty, you
moron."
I would have gotten to that if I'd thought
about it long enough.
Now, most of the class is 68 with a few of the
"children" including me, still 67.
When we were 60, we all looked like slightly
older versions of what we looked like when
we were 17 and 18. For the most part we
could look at one another and remember in a
glance who was who.
But, the pages of the calendar have taken
their toll on most of us physically over the
past eight years. Without name tags complete
with senior yearbook photos attached, it
would have been very difficult to answer the
question: "Do you remember who I am?"
Once I looked at the name and photo, each
68-year-old face resolved itself into the 18-
year-old person I remembered from high
school.
I also wondered what was going on fifty years
before we graduated, It was on June 28, 1914
(the 100th anniversary will be next Saturday)
when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was
assassinated sparking the Great War; a war
the U.S. would not enter for nearly three
more years. From July on, the rest of the year
is largely taken up by the news of European
nations choosing up sides.
Except for July 11, 1914 when Babe Ruth
made his major league debut with the Boston
Red Sox.
At our 50th reunion, the old flirtations
became new flirtations between slightly older
men and women. The high school feuds have
been either resolved, forgotten, or forgiven.
The talk had moved from who is secretly
dating whom, to what type of hearing aids we
favored and what brand of statin we are
taking.
The pages of our calendars will continue, God
willing, to drop away. Some day each of us
will reach the cardboard at the back and
we'll say goodbye.
But for this weekend, at least, a group of
senior citizens were young high school
graduates again and got to share their 18+
thousand calendar pages with one another
leaving with a new little twinkle in our
collective reading-glasses-needed eyes, the
better for having reconnected, and having
relived, the days that have gone by oh so
quickly.
IRAQ CRISES: LATEST SIGNS OF U.S VULNERABILITY TO OIL PRICE SPIKES
Ken Blackwell
The ongoing conflict in Iraq has serious
implications for vital U.S. interests, the extent
of which are difficult to decipher at this early
stage. Who ends up holding the keys to power
within Iraqi territory? What happens to the
regional balance of power? How will Iran’s
pursuit of nuclear weapons—and our efforts
to stop them—be affected?
One immediate effect of the turmoil,
however, is painfully obvious: oil prices have
already hit a nine-month high. Brent crude
reached $115 per barrel this week, a level our
country has not experienced since the height
of U.S. tensions with Syria in September
2013. As a result, a number of market
analysts now expect U.S. gasoline prices to
surpass their highest levels for the month of
June since 2008, rising from today’s level of
$3.68 per gallon to as much as $3.80 per
gallon by the end of the month.
If that were not troubling enough, Iraq’s vital
importance to the global oil market could
mean that today’s rising prices may be just
the beginning . Markets are already reeling
from a series of oil production outages in
countries across the globe—from Nigeria,
Libya, and South Sudan to Iraq, Iran, and
Syria. Any additional loss of supplies from
Iraq could stress the system to its limit and
send oil prices to levels that many of
America’s political leaders had hoped were a
thing of the past.
A recent analysis by the Commission on
Energy and Geopolitics, a group of former
high-ranking military and civilian
government officials, found that a partial
disruption to Iraq’s oil supplies—1 mbd, or
about a third of Iraq’s current production—
would cause oil prices to rise by more than
$30 per barrel, amounting to an approximate
50 cent per gallon increase at the pump for
American consumers. With the United States
consuming close to 20 million barrels of oil
per day, it doesn’t take a trained economist to
understand that we would take a serious
economic hit.
At today’s oil price levels, the average U.S.
family is already spending more than twice
as much on gasoline as they were a decade
ago—a total of $2,700 per household in 2012
compared to $1,200 in 2002 according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. An oil price spike
of the magnitude described by the
Commission and other analysts would send
spending on oil to record levels and have an
immediate, damaging impact on economic
growth.
We need to take back control of our economic
fate. We shouldn’t accept as fact the idea that
our overall prosperity and economic well-
being are held hostage to the kinds of
violence, extremism, corruption, and
mismanagement that are endemic to the
global oil market. We can do better, and we
have options.
Part of the answer can be found in rising
domestic oil production. The U.S. oil boom
has provided significant benefits, including
an improved balance of trade and hundreds
of thousands of new American jobs. That
should be embraced and supported. However,
no matter how much we produce at home, oil
will be priced in a global market, meaning
that geopolitical events beyond our control
will still have the ability to send our economy
into a tailspin.
Energy security starts and ends with oil
consumption, and that means we have to do
something about transportation. About 70
percent of the oil America consumes is used
in the transportation sector, and 92 percent
of all fuel used to power that sector is derived
from oil. Reducing oil dependence in the
transportation sector is a tremendous
opportunity to de-link the American economy
from the global oil market and the various
events—like the crisis in Iraq—that impact
that market.
The solutions have already begun to be
implemented. More than 200,000 electric
vehicles and 140,000 vehicles powered by
natural gas are currently on America’s
roadways. Simply converting the nation’s
fleet of heavy-duty, long-haul trucks to
natural gas would save 2 million barrels of oil
every day. The widespread adoption of
passenger vehicles powered by electricity
would have an even greater impact, and such
vehicles are selling at a crisp pace and
earning rave consumer reviews.
Still, more must be done to accelerate this
progress. The country needs to increase its
investment in oil-displacement transportation
technologies so that we can more quickly
sever our ties to the global oil market and
shield our economy from its volatility. Doing
so will also benefit our national security, as
decreasing our economic exposure to oil price
spikes will provide foreign and defense
policymakers with expanded options.
Time and time again, we’ve learned the
lesson that oil dependence makes us
vulnerable to flare-ups in the Middle East
and around the globe. Of all the serious
fallout that will stem from the current crisis
in Iraq, all we can predict with confidence is
that any resultant high oil prices will harm
our economy at a time when our families and
businesses can hardly afford another setback.
Let this latest lesson be the one that motivates
us to embrace the solutions that are now at
our fingertips.
The ongoing conflict in Iraq has serious
implications for vital U.S. interests, the extent
of which are difficult to decipher at this early
stage. Who ends up holding the keys to power
within Iraqi territory? What happens to the
regional balance of power? How will Iran’s
pursuit of nuclear weapons—and our efforts
to stop them—be affected?
One immediate effect of the turmoil,
however, is painfully obvious: oil prices have
already hit a nine-month high. Brent crude
reached $115 per barrel this week, a level our
country has not experienced since the height
of U.S. tensions with Syria in September
2013. As a result, a number of market
analysts now expect U.S. gasoline prices to
surpass their highest levels for the month of
June since 2008, rising from today’s level of
$3.68 per gallon to as much as $3.80 per
gallon by the end of the month.
If that were not troubling enough, Iraq’s vital
importance to the global oil market could
mean that today’s rising prices may be just
the beginning . Markets are already reeling
from a series of oil production outages in
countries across the globe—from Nigeria,
Libya, and South Sudan to Iraq, Iran, and
Syria. Any additional loss of supplies from
Iraq could stress the system to its limit and
send oil prices to levels that many of
America’s political leaders had hoped were a
thing of the past.
A recent analysis by the Commission on
Energy and Geopolitics, a group of former
high-ranking military and civilian
government officials, found that a partial
disruption to Iraq’s oil supplies—1 mbd, or
about a third of Iraq’s current production—
would cause oil prices to rise by more than
$30 per barrel, amounting to an approximate
50 cent per gallon increase at the pump for
American consumers. With the United States
consuming close to 20 million barrels of oil
per day, it doesn’t take a trained economist to
understand that we would take a serious
economic hit.
At today’s oil price levels, the average U.S.
family is already spending more than twice
as much on gasoline as they were a decade
ago—a total of $2,700 per household in 2012
compared to $1,200 in 2002 according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. An oil price spike
of the magnitude described by the
Commission and other analysts would send
spending on oil to record levels and have an
immediate, damaging impact on economic
growth.
We need to take back control of our economic
fate. We shouldn’t accept as fact the idea that
our overall prosperity and economic well-
being are held hostage to the kinds of
violence, extremism, corruption, and
mismanagement that are endemic to the
global oil market. We can do better, and we
have options.
Part of the answer can be found in rising
domestic oil production. The U.S. oil boom
has provided significant benefits, including
an improved balance of trade and hundreds
of thousands of new American jobs. That
should be embraced and supported. However,
no matter how much we produce at home, oil
will be priced in a global market, meaning
that geopolitical events beyond our control
will still have the ability to send our economy
into a tailspin.
Energy security starts and ends with oil
consumption, and that means we have to do
something about transportation. About 70
percent of the oil America consumes is used
in the transportation sector, and 92 percent
of all fuel used to power that sector is derived
from oil. Reducing oil dependence in the
transportation sector is a tremendous
opportunity to de-link the American economy
from the global oil market and the various
events—like the crisis in Iraq—that impact
that market.
The solutions have already begun to be
implemented. More than 200,000 electric
vehicles and 140,000 vehicles powered by
natural gas are currently on America’s
roadways. Simply converting the nation’s
fleet of heavy-duty, long-haul trucks to
natural gas would save 2 million barrels of oil
every day. The widespread adoption of
passenger vehicles powered by electricity
would have an even greater impact, and such
vehicles are selling at a crisp pace and
earning rave consumer reviews.
Still, more must be done to accelerate this
progress. The country needs to increase its
investment in oil-displacement transportation
technologies so that we can more quickly
sever our ties to the global oil market and
shield our economy from its volatility. Doing
so will also benefit our national security, as
decreasing our economic exposure to oil price
spikes will provide foreign and defense
policymakers with expanded options.
Time and time again, we’ve learned the
lesson that oil dependence makes us
vulnerable to flare-ups in the Middle East
and around the globe. Of all the serious
fallout that will stem from the current crisis
in Iraq, all we can predict with confidence is
that any resultant high oil prices will harm
our economy at a time when our families and
businesses can hardly afford another setback.
Let this latest lesson be the one that motivates
us to embrace the solutions that are now at
our fingertips.
GLOBALIZATION AND IDENTITY POLITICS: CONTESTING IDEAS
Sohan Prasad Sha
There are contesting ideas among academicians with
regard to ‘identity’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘caste’, ‘religion’,
‘linguistic’, and ‘regional’ boundaries. Globalisation has
led to the movement of people in the Himalayan as well
as trans-Himalayan regions in South and West Asia,
and opened up new socio-political space that has an
inherent impact on these contesting ideas which often
transcend national bonds or are repackaged in new
narratives. In this context, researchers seek new
methodological or analytical tools to reflect these
complexities through the prism of “belonging” “to
uncover crucial shifts in the meaningful constellations
reproduced and evolving in global era.”
This book has emerged from an earlier volume in the
same series, The Politics of Belonging in the Himalayas:
Local Attachments and Boundary Dynamics , published in
2011. The editors of this volume, Gerard Toffin and
Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka, bring together a range of
dynamic contributors from diverse disciplines like
anthropology, religious studies, international studies,
sociology, cultural studies etc, who have been working
in Nepal and Himalayan India. At best, this book
problematises the myths about globalisation that is
often popularised to integrate the world into a single-
space and promote homogenisation. It offers a new
dimension to the features of globalisation - connectivity,
interdependence, and openness - as a multifaceted
process impinging upon the relations of ‘belonging’.
Belonging and the Politics of Self is conveniently
organised in five parts and sixteen chapters which
provide historical and (trans)migration anthropological
analyses and perspectives on the politics of the
Himalayan region, and asserts the concept of
‘belonging’ circumstantially.
The first section, 'Shifting Horizons of Belonging',
contains three essays. In chapter 2, Blandine Ripert
attempts to understand the Tamang community of
central Nepal where religious conversion to Christianity
is a process to connect the local to the global and to
avoid the full sense of belonging attached to Hinduism
at the national-level, which has led to the overall
marginalisation of Tamangs in their own local social
space. Sara Shneiderman discusses the case of the
Thangmi ethnic group (chapter 3) and narrates the story
of their circular migration from Nepal (Dolkaha and
Sindhupalchok district) to India (Darjeeling district) in
which their ‘politics of belonging’ describes the
processes of social inclusion (in India) and exclusion (in
Nepal, in terms of caste, ethnic and economic
exploitation). The last essay of this section by Pascale
Dollfus (chapter 4) deals with the changing life of
nomads, once known to be pastoralists from Ladakh in
India.
The second section, 'Migrant Experiences in South Asia
and Beyond', contains three essays. Jeevan R Sharma
discusses the case of male migrants from rural hill
villages in Western Nepal to Mumbai, India, in which the
narratives of belonging (chapter 5) are attached to their
identities as men and as a way to transcend their status
due to material, symbolic and emotional pressure to
look after their families back home. Mitra Pariyar et al.
deal with Nepali diaspora communities in two social
spaces (Xhapter 6), ex-Gurkhas in the UK and the
Newar community in Sikkim (India), in which the UK is
characterised as a weak multicultural society as
compared to Sikkim. The last essay in this section by
Tristan Brusle deals with Nepali labour migrants in Doha
(Qatar) and Uttarakand (India). Here, the sense of
belonging varies along caste and regional lines (chapter
7). For instance, the stereotype of Nepali migrant
labourers as Bahadur vs Dhotiwala and Madhesis vs
Pahadis blurs as well as complicates the sense of
belonging.
The third section, 'Creating Transnational Belonging',
contains four essays. Sondra L Hausner discuss the
case study of Nepali nurse migrants to the UK and how
they reconcile identity and belonging in two nation-
states (chapter 8) while struggling for professional
integrity and against discriminatory policies their in host
country. Ben Campbell contextualises the
multiculturalism aspect (chapter 9) of Manchester city,
UK and the Nepali festival held there “to make a make a
show of their belonging to Manchester, at the same time
as their affective belonging to Nepal.” The other two
essays narrate the story of Nepali immigrants in the US.
Bandita Sijapati (chapter 10) draws attention to how
Nepali youth feel alienated from a “sense of ‘being in
America’ but not ‘belonging to America’.” The last essay
in this section by Susan Hangen deals with the Gurung
ethnic community (chapter 11) in the US and their sense
of belonging through “promoting and preserving their
[Gururg] identity abroad” and their simultaneous
“commitment [to projects] to end ethnic inequality…of
indigenous nationalities in Nepal.”
The fourth section, 'Globality and Activist Experience'
contains three chapters. Chiara Letizia (chapter 12)
shows how Buddhism among some ethnic groups like
Tharu and Magar in Nepal becomes a politics of their
global recognition and helps in the imagination of new
forms of belonging through liberation from a
discriminatory Hindu state. The two subsequent essays
by Tanka Subba and Vibha Arora draw attention
towards the proposed power project in Dzongu, North
Sikkim, and the Lepcha community’s socio-political
belonging which is “to the place and its
culture” (chapter 13) and “belonging with cyber
activism” ( chapter 14) to promote their identity.
The fifth section, 'National Reconfiguration', contains
three chapters. Mark Turin (chapter 15) brings in
linguistic assertion to (re)claim identity in the case of
Nepal through Nepali vs Hindi which often blurs the
sense of belonging to a community in the larger national
identity. However, the Lepcha community of Sikkim
(India) has constructed its own sense of belonging by
“becoming Indian through Sikkimese, becoming
Sikkimese being Lepcha”, while the English language
acts as a glue that defies territorial boundaries. Martin
A Mills (chapter 16) narrates the complex history of
Tibet in the Tibet Autonomous Region to contextualise
the sense of belonging in the trans-Himalayan socio-
political landscape. Michael Hutt (chapter 17) discussed
the sense of belonging called ‘institution (monarchy)’ to
explain why the Shahs of Nepal could not survive
institutionally while the Bhutanese Wangchuck monarchy
survived. Moreover, the complexity of language, religions
etc help to explain through comparative perspective the
belongingness of the monarchy as an institution in
Nepal which could not survive, while the Bhutanese
monarchy did as it embodies national identity.
The bringing together of diverse case studies in one
volume makes it difficult to give conceptual clarity to
‘belonging’, which blurs considerably. That being said,
the volume’s introduction makes a sincere effort to
distinguish ‘belonging’ and various categories like
identity, religion, language, ethnicity, caste, region in
theory. However, for the reader, ‘belonging’ and ‘the
politics of self’ might be difficult to reconcile
conceptually. The reader can certainly look forward to
new insights on ground realities, problematic social and
political landscapes and fascinating narratives, rather
than the movement of the people of the Himalayan
region.
There are contesting ideas among academicians with
regard to ‘identity’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘caste’, ‘religion’,
‘linguistic’, and ‘regional’ boundaries. Globalisation has
led to the movement of people in the Himalayan as well
as trans-Himalayan regions in South and West Asia,
and opened up new socio-political space that has an
inherent impact on these contesting ideas which often
transcend national bonds or are repackaged in new
narratives. In this context, researchers seek new
methodological or analytical tools to reflect these
complexities through the prism of “belonging” “to
uncover crucial shifts in the meaningful constellations
reproduced and evolving in global era.”
This book has emerged from an earlier volume in the
same series, The Politics of Belonging in the Himalayas:
Local Attachments and Boundary Dynamics , published in
2011. The editors of this volume, Gerard Toffin and
Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka, bring together a range of
dynamic contributors from diverse disciplines like
anthropology, religious studies, international studies,
sociology, cultural studies etc, who have been working
in Nepal and Himalayan India. At best, this book
problematises the myths about globalisation that is
often popularised to integrate the world into a single-
space and promote homogenisation. It offers a new
dimension to the features of globalisation - connectivity,
interdependence, and openness - as a multifaceted
process impinging upon the relations of ‘belonging’.
Belonging and the Politics of Self is conveniently
organised in five parts and sixteen chapters which
provide historical and (trans)migration anthropological
analyses and perspectives on the politics of the
Himalayan region, and asserts the concept of
‘belonging’ circumstantially.
The first section, 'Shifting Horizons of Belonging',
contains three essays. In chapter 2, Blandine Ripert
attempts to understand the Tamang community of
central Nepal where religious conversion to Christianity
is a process to connect the local to the global and to
avoid the full sense of belonging attached to Hinduism
at the national-level, which has led to the overall
marginalisation of Tamangs in their own local social
space. Sara Shneiderman discusses the case of the
Thangmi ethnic group (chapter 3) and narrates the story
of their circular migration from Nepal (Dolkaha and
Sindhupalchok district) to India (Darjeeling district) in
which their ‘politics of belonging’ describes the
processes of social inclusion (in India) and exclusion (in
Nepal, in terms of caste, ethnic and economic
exploitation). The last essay of this section by Pascale
Dollfus (chapter 4) deals with the changing life of
nomads, once known to be pastoralists from Ladakh in
India.
The second section, 'Migrant Experiences in South Asia
and Beyond', contains three essays. Jeevan R Sharma
discusses the case of male migrants from rural hill
villages in Western Nepal to Mumbai, India, in which the
narratives of belonging (chapter 5) are attached to their
identities as men and as a way to transcend their status
due to material, symbolic and emotional pressure to
look after their families back home. Mitra Pariyar et al.
deal with Nepali diaspora communities in two social
spaces (Xhapter 6), ex-Gurkhas in the UK and the
Newar community in Sikkim (India), in which the UK is
characterised as a weak multicultural society as
compared to Sikkim. The last essay in this section by
Tristan Brusle deals with Nepali labour migrants in Doha
(Qatar) and Uttarakand (India). Here, the sense of
belonging varies along caste and regional lines (chapter
7). For instance, the stereotype of Nepali migrant
labourers as Bahadur vs Dhotiwala and Madhesis vs
Pahadis blurs as well as complicates the sense of
belonging.
The third section, 'Creating Transnational Belonging',
contains four essays. Sondra L Hausner discuss the
case study of Nepali nurse migrants to the UK and how
they reconcile identity and belonging in two nation-
states (chapter 8) while struggling for professional
integrity and against discriminatory policies their in host
country. Ben Campbell contextualises the
multiculturalism aspect (chapter 9) of Manchester city,
UK and the Nepali festival held there “to make a make a
show of their belonging to Manchester, at the same time
as their affective belonging to Nepal.” The other two
essays narrate the story of Nepali immigrants in the US.
Bandita Sijapati (chapter 10) draws attention to how
Nepali youth feel alienated from a “sense of ‘being in
America’ but not ‘belonging to America’.” The last essay
in this section by Susan Hangen deals with the Gurung
ethnic community (chapter 11) in the US and their sense
of belonging through “promoting and preserving their
[Gururg] identity abroad” and their simultaneous
“commitment [to projects] to end ethnic inequality…of
indigenous nationalities in Nepal.”
The fourth section, 'Globality and Activist Experience'
contains three chapters. Chiara Letizia (chapter 12)
shows how Buddhism among some ethnic groups like
Tharu and Magar in Nepal becomes a politics of their
global recognition and helps in the imagination of new
forms of belonging through liberation from a
discriminatory Hindu state. The two subsequent essays
by Tanka Subba and Vibha Arora draw attention
towards the proposed power project in Dzongu, North
Sikkim, and the Lepcha community’s socio-political
belonging which is “to the place and its
culture” (chapter 13) and “belonging with cyber
activism” ( chapter 14) to promote their identity.
The fifth section, 'National Reconfiguration', contains
three chapters. Mark Turin (chapter 15) brings in
linguistic assertion to (re)claim identity in the case of
Nepal through Nepali vs Hindi which often blurs the
sense of belonging to a community in the larger national
identity. However, the Lepcha community of Sikkim
(India) has constructed its own sense of belonging by
“becoming Indian through Sikkimese, becoming
Sikkimese being Lepcha”, while the English language
acts as a glue that defies territorial boundaries. Martin
A Mills (chapter 16) narrates the complex history of
Tibet in the Tibet Autonomous Region to contextualise
the sense of belonging in the trans-Himalayan socio-
political landscape. Michael Hutt (chapter 17) discussed
the sense of belonging called ‘institution (monarchy)’ to
explain why the Shahs of Nepal could not survive
institutionally while the Bhutanese Wangchuck monarchy
survived. Moreover, the complexity of language, religions
etc help to explain through comparative perspective the
belongingness of the monarchy as an institution in
Nepal which could not survive, while the Bhutanese
monarchy did as it embodies national identity.
The bringing together of diverse case studies in one
volume makes it difficult to give conceptual clarity to
‘belonging’, which blurs considerably. That being said,
the volume’s introduction makes a sincere effort to
distinguish ‘belonging’ and various categories like
identity, religion, language, ethnicity, caste, region in
theory. However, for the reader, ‘belonging’ and ‘the
politics of self’ might be difficult to reconcile
conceptually. The reader can certainly look forward to
new insights on ground realities, problematic social and
political landscapes and fascinating narratives, rather
than the movement of the people of the Himalayan
region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)