There are signs that America has grown weary of the fringe right hijacking of the national political discourse.
It began as a demonstration of outrage, over the official and corporate corruptions that led to the near-demise of the U.S. economy in 2008, complete with cute hats, and the appropriation of an iconic 1773 event of the American Revolution. Soon the Tea Party was co-opted by the opposition [Republican] party, and channeled into electoral politics, altering the nominal political landscape in the 2010 mid-term election. "Nominal" in the sense that, although more members of both houses of Congress had been Democrats before 2010, the practical political composition was only slightly more conservative following the election. Nominal, but certainly not insignificant. The Republican leadership in the House allowed Tea Partiers to control the flow of legislation, and thwart every White House initiative. What the rookies lacked in political acumen, they more than made up in vigorously pushing their cause - which had somehow morphed from rooting out corruption and waste, to running President Obama out of town on a rail. This strategic evolution had a kind of Rovian odor.
While paralyzing Congress, the Tea Party sought to blame the President for getting nothing done. So pleased with the success of their nihilistic efforts, the true believers failed to notice that some things did get done, and done well. But "regular" people not only did notice the improvement, they realized that even more would have been accomplished with more bipartisan pragmatism and less ideological posturing.
Blindly the Republican primary candidates trip over each other proving their conservative bonafides, flailing at one another for being "soft on socialism", or worse, "supporting big government", or worst of all, engaging in "class warfare." Despite robust coverage by all media outlets, participation has been declining as people realize these clowns aren't acting. Panic sets in at the thought that we could actually get stuck with one of them as President, should something happen to push the unemployment rate over 10%. Suddenly the "true believers" were sinking so fast in the polls, even Super PAC cash couldn't keep them afloat. Suddenly, Romney didn't seem that bad.
Or did he? The Maine caucus, held over the weekend, gave Romney a tepid victory over Ron Paul. Participation in the caucus was 2% - hardly inspiring. Romney bused in loads of college students, reportedly paying their registration fees, to assure a CPAC victory in Washington D.C. But Tea Party power was also in evidence at the conference, as keynote speaker Sarah Palin led the crowd in shouting down some Occupy disrupters by chanting "USA, USA." The grateful media took in the circus, and filled their column-inches.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Komen Shows No Charity In Policy Flap
The brouhaha that began with an underhanded attempt by Komen to separate itself from Planned Parenthood, and was aggravated by its disingenuous response to the predicable uproar, now has the breast cancer organization in full retreat. Although the full effect of the blowback on Komen will not be known for some time, the incident offers a look into several aspects of the charity industry, and more importantly, the abortion issue.
Starting with issues raised about the politics of charity in general, and Komen in particular. That Komen would, entirely on its own - that is, absent any public demand, attack a well established provider of services at the core of its foundational mission, without even expecting any backlash, suggests a shocking disconnect between its institutional management and the ministry suggested by all those pink ribbons. Its ham-handed public response to reactions from around the country reinforces that sense of bureaucratic isolation.
The amount of money Komen expected to deprive Planned Parenthood was relatively insignificant to both organizations. Komen contributes some $700 thousand annually to Planned Parenthood. Komen raised about $400 million in 2010; Planned Parenthood's 2009 budget was just over $1 billion.
Komen's action appears as cynical political maneuvering, ignoring its actual effect on womens health. Its public statements, following Planned Parenthood's protest of the cuts, reinforce that notion. John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member and Washington lobbyist, showed his primary concern when discussing the public outcry. “Why are they going nuts?” Mr. Raffaelli asked rhetorically. “And the answer is that they want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.” [NY times]
The upper levels of the organization worry most about the PR issues, failing to express concern for the women facing deprivation of the medical services for which the organization ostensibly exists. When a charity needs lobbyists, when politicians hold management positions in a charity, when a charity protects its trademarks, that charity's primary function is no longer charity.
That is not a dynamic at play only in Komen. Human nature drives the tendency of all institutions to grow and self-preserve; even at the expense of their own missions. That is why constant vigilance is needed against the growth of institutional power [whether state power, corporate power, or even church power]. Any institution should be maintained at the minimum size required to accomplish its mission. Larger is not always better. Komen is large enough that its directors need to worry that the automatic warm fuzzy elicited by the sight of a pink ribbon could be jeopardized by its association with unsavory issues like unwanted pregnancy. The point is reached where a choice made benefits the institution at the expense of its mission, and a further point is reached when obscuring that choice begins consuming institutional resources. When the supporters of that institution are surprised to find those thresholds have been crossed, a correction will occur.
What about abortion?
The Komen incident has been exploited in the media by advocates on issues of women's health, reproductive rights and, in its most craven and hypocritical aspects, abortion. Perhaps it is fortuitous, in that this issue may be forced into the open, removing its ability to distort substantive aspects of the many proxy grounds on which this battle has been waged. Like the so called war on drugs, the war on abortion has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences, and those victimized would be relieved, should the issue instead be addressed head -on. Also like the war on drugs, the abortion fight has allowed its strategies to be determined by rhetorical absolutes, making civil rational discourse nearly impossible. A mere willingness to engage in dialog can result in condemnation.
The reason is that the concept of abortion cannot be codified in law. Every attempt to end the practice by law has stripped its sponsors of the worthy moral impulse to revere life that initiated it, always by the means used in the effort to achieve it. Some have caused the loss of access to broader health care, both by people getting abortions, and others dependent on affected abortion providing facilities. Some, having had an abortion, must live with both the effects of their action, and the hypocrisy of denying others that same choice. Some have, to avoid the taint of moral relativity, demonized perfectly reasonable candidates, in favor of scoundrels willing to utter the right words on that single issue alone. Is there any way to account the waste of lives and integrity? There is not, because moral issues are not well expressed in civil laws.
The circle of people who are, in the common sense, pro-life perfectly overlays the circle of people who are, in the same sense, pro-choice. All are revolted by the destruction of life, and all value free will as the strongest proponent of good character. In order to reduce the incidence of abortion, it may be necessary to remove it as an agenda item, substituting instead the conditions that create the demand for it. A recent NYTimes article about an abortion proxy fight taking place at Catholic universities described its efforts to deny health insurance coverage for birth control. Statistics cited in the article make it seem that 20% of pregnancies end in abortion. Will the effort to reduce that number be more successfully executed in devising criminal sanctions and insurance regulations, or in promoting respect for our selves and our neighbors?
Attacking the demand side of the abortion equation is the more difficult in some ways, because it must be done one on one, empowering individuals with the emotional tools to exercise the discipline required to conceive a child in the appropriate circumstances. This approach does not lend itself to bureaucratic formula, or statute. That is why religious organizations should not waste resources in this arena. Separation of church and state, embodied in both the US Constitution and the teachings of Jesus, are consistent with this ministry imperative; although refraining from lobbying can be very hard for large hierarchic churches. Thus, the members of the church are responsible for directing upper management to support ministry to individuals over lobbying for state power. Christian Individuals should use their own life experience, having received forgiveness, and share that grace, rather than rendering judgment.
It is not moral relativism, or politically correct, to say that the appropriate circumstances for conception differ greatly according to geography, economics or social class. Yet these variables do surely exert their influences, and cannot be ignored. A single rule binding on all must be either impossibly complex and unwieldy, or so broad and vague as to be useless. If a church says abortion is murder, that does not make it so. If court ruling says that abortion is perfectly alright, that does not make it so. Abortion of a fetus may be either of those things, as may be conception and bearing the child. The strength of my belief on the matter is not binding on anyone else.
Every morning is a gift of creation - of possibility - whatever your understanding of the creator. Conception of a child is also a gift of possibility, and the waste of creation is a sin, although not all sins are equal. To sweep away a developing fetus is not the same as to kill a college student by driving drunk. To kill in rage, or for profit, or even in self-defense - all are wrong, but to what degree? What about taking away the value of a life, but leaving a breathing person? What about starting a life that is hopeless? The state has laws attempting to define legal liability for many such situations, but they are of no help in accepting moral responsibility. That is the function of community - family, village, school etc [supported, in theory, by religious ministry].
Churches should work to mitigate suffering among oppressed people, and not cross into the civil arena trying to pass laws forcing behavior that conforms to its moral standards. The Catholic church is guilty of this when it denies communion to those voting for candidates that fail to meet its standards, and when it directly influences hospitals' and universities' health coverage. A church is not set up to fulfill the functions of government. By doing so, it impedes the government, while at the same time, compromising its own mission.
Starting with issues raised about the politics of charity in general, and Komen in particular. That Komen would, entirely on its own - that is, absent any public demand, attack a well established provider of services at the core of its foundational mission, without even expecting any backlash, suggests a shocking disconnect between its institutional management and the ministry suggested by all those pink ribbons. Its ham-handed public response to reactions from around the country reinforces that sense of bureaucratic isolation.
The amount of money Komen expected to deprive Planned Parenthood was relatively insignificant to both organizations. Komen contributes some $700 thousand annually to Planned Parenthood. Komen raised about $400 million in 2010; Planned Parenthood's 2009 budget was just over $1 billion.
Komen's action appears as cynical political maneuvering, ignoring its actual effect on womens health. Its public statements, following Planned Parenthood's protest of the cuts, reinforce that notion. John D. Raffaelli, a Komen board member and Washington lobbyist, showed his primary concern when discussing the public outcry. “Why are they going nuts?” Mr. Raffaelli asked rhetorically. “And the answer is that they want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.” [NY times]
The upper levels of the organization worry most about the PR issues, failing to express concern for the women facing deprivation of the medical services for which the organization ostensibly exists. When a charity needs lobbyists, when politicians hold management positions in a charity, when a charity protects its trademarks, that charity's primary function is no longer charity.
That is not a dynamic at play only in Komen. Human nature drives the tendency of all institutions to grow and self-preserve; even at the expense of their own missions. That is why constant vigilance is needed against the growth of institutional power [whether state power, corporate power, or even church power]. Any institution should be maintained at the minimum size required to accomplish its mission. Larger is not always better. Komen is large enough that its directors need to worry that the automatic warm fuzzy elicited by the sight of a pink ribbon could be jeopardized by its association with unsavory issues like unwanted pregnancy. The point is reached where a choice made benefits the institution at the expense of its mission, and a further point is reached when obscuring that choice begins consuming institutional resources. When the supporters of that institution are surprised to find those thresholds have been crossed, a correction will occur.
What about abortion?
The Komen incident has been exploited in the media by advocates on issues of women's health, reproductive rights and, in its most craven and hypocritical aspects, abortion. Perhaps it is fortuitous, in that this issue may be forced into the open, removing its ability to distort substantive aspects of the many proxy grounds on which this battle has been waged. Like the so called war on drugs, the war on abortion has resulted in disastrous unintended consequences, and those victimized would be relieved, should the issue instead be addressed head -on. Also like the war on drugs, the abortion fight has allowed its strategies to be determined by rhetorical absolutes, making civil rational discourse nearly impossible. A mere willingness to engage in dialog can result in condemnation.
The reason is that the concept of abortion cannot be codified in law. Every attempt to end the practice by law has stripped its sponsors of the worthy moral impulse to revere life that initiated it, always by the means used in the effort to achieve it. Some have caused the loss of access to broader health care, both by people getting abortions, and others dependent on affected abortion providing facilities. Some, having had an abortion, must live with both the effects of their action, and the hypocrisy of denying others that same choice. Some have, to avoid the taint of moral relativity, demonized perfectly reasonable candidates, in favor of scoundrels willing to utter the right words on that single issue alone. Is there any way to account the waste of lives and integrity? There is not, because moral issues are not well expressed in civil laws.
The circle of people who are, in the common sense, pro-life perfectly overlays the circle of people who are, in the same sense, pro-choice. All are revolted by the destruction of life, and all value free will as the strongest proponent of good character. In order to reduce the incidence of abortion, it may be necessary to remove it as an agenda item, substituting instead the conditions that create the demand for it. A recent NYTimes article about an abortion proxy fight taking place at Catholic universities described its efforts to deny health insurance coverage for birth control. Statistics cited in the article make it seem that 20% of pregnancies end in abortion. Will the effort to reduce that number be more successfully executed in devising criminal sanctions and insurance regulations, or in promoting respect for our selves and our neighbors?
Attacking the demand side of the abortion equation is the more difficult in some ways, because it must be done one on one, empowering individuals with the emotional tools to exercise the discipline required to conceive a child in the appropriate circumstances. This approach does not lend itself to bureaucratic formula, or statute. That is why religious organizations should not waste resources in this arena. Separation of church and state, embodied in both the US Constitution and the teachings of Jesus, are consistent with this ministry imperative; although refraining from lobbying can be very hard for large hierarchic churches. Thus, the members of the church are responsible for directing upper management to support ministry to individuals over lobbying for state power. Christian Individuals should use their own life experience, having received forgiveness, and share that grace, rather than rendering judgment.
It is not moral relativism, or politically correct, to say that the appropriate circumstances for conception differ greatly according to geography, economics or social class. Yet these variables do surely exert their influences, and cannot be ignored. A single rule binding on all must be either impossibly complex and unwieldy, or so broad and vague as to be useless. If a church says abortion is murder, that does not make it so. If court ruling says that abortion is perfectly alright, that does not make it so. Abortion of a fetus may be either of those things, as may be conception and bearing the child. The strength of my belief on the matter is not binding on anyone else.
Every morning is a gift of creation - of possibility - whatever your understanding of the creator. Conception of a child is also a gift of possibility, and the waste of creation is a sin, although not all sins are equal. To sweep away a developing fetus is not the same as to kill a college student by driving drunk. To kill in rage, or for profit, or even in self-defense - all are wrong, but to what degree? What about taking away the value of a life, but leaving a breathing person? What about starting a life that is hopeless? The state has laws attempting to define legal liability for many such situations, but they are of no help in accepting moral responsibility. That is the function of community - family, village, school etc [supported, in theory, by religious ministry].
Churches should work to mitigate suffering among oppressed people, and not cross into the civil arena trying to pass laws forcing behavior that conforms to its moral standards. The Catholic church is guilty of this when it denies communion to those voting for candidates that fail to meet its standards, and when it directly influences hospitals' and universities' health coverage. A church is not set up to fulfill the functions of government. By doing so, it impedes the government, while at the same time, compromising its own mission.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Kaddaffi: Good Riddance, but ....
The killing on Thursday of Libyan strongman Kaddaffi will spread much relief around the world, and cause very little mourning. The way it happened should be a concern to a world looking to raise the level of international justice.
Making his last stand at Surt, Kaddaffi was under constant NATO surveillance, as around him blood flowed from loyalists, rebels and residents. When his entourage tried to break through the forces besieging the town, missiles fired by drones disabled his vehicles, and Kaddaffi was wounded in the ensuing firefight. His remaining forces were destroyed, and he was captured.
During the confusion immediately following his discovery in a drainage culvert, he was dragged around and shot at close range. Videos of his final moments went viral over the internet. As the day went on, world leaders appeared on news broadcasts celebrating the success of the cooperative military operation, and the end of a forty-two year dictatorship.
A few briefly noted the role played by NATO and the extrajudicial execution of the dictator, but the general euphoria prevented a more detailed examination. But these events do need to be acknowledged as historical facts, and incorporated into the popular history, in order that future interventions be initiated with the best understanding of the risks and likely outcomes under similar circumstances.
NATO was given a narrow mandate by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and to take action to protect civilians during the popular revolt against the Kaddaffi regime. At the time, the revolt was failing, and a terrible massacre at the hands of the brutal Kaddaffi would almost certainly have followed its collapse. Swift intervention by a true multinational force disabled Kaddaffi's ability to attack by air or land, and the revolt continued, made stronger by supplies of arms from a variety of sources. The NATO forces continued airstrikes against Kaddaffi's forces, and bombed places Kaddaffi was thought likely to be; all the time denying we were trying to kill him.
In the US, Congress reluctantly demanded an explanation for US involvement beyond the allotted time President Obama could act on an emergency basis without Congressional approval. Semantic arguments were offered, such as that drone attacks don't rise to the level of "hostilities." Since Kaddaffi was so definitely a bad guy, even in Washington's highly polarized political environment, nobody pulled the plug.
Thus were the drones ready for their role in the final conflict of the Kaddaffi era. It would be a stretch to claim the NATO forces were protecting civilians by attacking, as Kaddaffi's convoy tried to flee. The argument that air support for the rebels would shorten the conflict, and thereby lower the human cost of the rebellion is valid only if the rebels prevail, and was not offered in the calculus used to formulate NATO's UN authorization. If NATO involvement was crucial to the success of the rebellion, then it exceeded its mandate, and that will inhibit building consensus for future interventions on humanitarian grounds. For purposes of analysis, it matters not that we are all better off without Kaddaffi.
Given the strategic importance of Libyan oil, the rush by western states to recognize a transitional government, and begin diplomacy [and commerce], is understandable. But caution is indicated by the lack of discipline exhibited by rebel forces, that led to Kaddaffi's execution. Again, analysis should not be pre-empted by the deservedness of the achieved result.
If there is not a Libyan government with broad popular support, we will be no better off, in the world community, than we were with Kaddaffi. We will have to deal with a strongman who can dominate the other parties, and corruption will be business as usual.
Making his last stand at Surt, Kaddaffi was under constant NATO surveillance, as around him blood flowed from loyalists, rebels and residents. When his entourage tried to break through the forces besieging the town, missiles fired by drones disabled his vehicles, and Kaddaffi was wounded in the ensuing firefight. His remaining forces were destroyed, and he was captured.
During the confusion immediately following his discovery in a drainage culvert, he was dragged around and shot at close range. Videos of his final moments went viral over the internet. As the day went on, world leaders appeared on news broadcasts celebrating the success of the cooperative military operation, and the end of a forty-two year dictatorship.
A few briefly noted the role played by NATO and the extrajudicial execution of the dictator, but the general euphoria prevented a more detailed examination. But these events do need to be acknowledged as historical facts, and incorporated into the popular history, in order that future interventions be initiated with the best understanding of the risks and likely outcomes under similar circumstances.
NATO was given a narrow mandate by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and to take action to protect civilians during the popular revolt against the Kaddaffi regime. At the time, the revolt was failing, and a terrible massacre at the hands of the brutal Kaddaffi would almost certainly have followed its collapse. Swift intervention by a true multinational force disabled Kaddaffi's ability to attack by air or land, and the revolt continued, made stronger by supplies of arms from a variety of sources. The NATO forces continued airstrikes against Kaddaffi's forces, and bombed places Kaddaffi was thought likely to be; all the time denying we were trying to kill him.
In the US, Congress reluctantly demanded an explanation for US involvement beyond the allotted time President Obama could act on an emergency basis without Congressional approval. Semantic arguments were offered, such as that drone attacks don't rise to the level of "hostilities." Since Kaddaffi was so definitely a bad guy, even in Washington's highly polarized political environment, nobody pulled the plug.
Thus were the drones ready for their role in the final conflict of the Kaddaffi era. It would be a stretch to claim the NATO forces were protecting civilians by attacking, as Kaddaffi's convoy tried to flee. The argument that air support for the rebels would shorten the conflict, and thereby lower the human cost of the rebellion is valid only if the rebels prevail, and was not offered in the calculus used to formulate NATO's UN authorization. If NATO involvement was crucial to the success of the rebellion, then it exceeded its mandate, and that will inhibit building consensus for future interventions on humanitarian grounds. For purposes of analysis, it matters not that we are all better off without Kaddaffi.
Given the strategic importance of Libyan oil, the rush by western states to recognize a transitional government, and begin diplomacy [and commerce], is understandable. But caution is indicated by the lack of discipline exhibited by rebel forces, that led to Kaddaffi's execution. Again, analysis should not be pre-empted by the deservedness of the achieved result.
If there is not a Libyan government with broad popular support, we will be no better off, in the world community, than we were with Kaddaffi. We will have to deal with a strongman who can dominate the other parties, and corruption will be business as usual.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
NY Times Gives Bankers a Pass to Disparage Protest
I have complained in the past about the NYTimes' too easily granting its sources anonymity, and the lead story in today's business section: "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated" is another prime example.
The article attributes only two of its quotes, and does not even offer an explanation for not citing the other dozen or so. I suppose the authors reason that "speaking privately" means not having to stand behind your words, but how can the resulting story be considered news?
The two quotes that were attached to names are so innocuous that their relevance to the story is hard to determine. One professes to believe that bankers are not really the objects of the protest; while the other notes that "most of our clients like us."
The anonymous quotes, on the other hand, are much more interesting: "If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services"; or "They [congressional representatives who have expressed support for the protests, and who accept large campaign contributions from Wall St.] need to understand who their constituency is."
The NYTimes does not discharge its mission, when it portrays the banking industry as so out of touch without naming the sources. Nobody who has spent any time in Zuccotti Park lately would describe the occupants as "a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll." How can readers be assured it is really a top hedge fund manager talking? It sounds more like my neighbor across the the street, a retired car salesman who sports a tea-party flag on his front porch.
[A version of this was sent to the public editor at The New York Times]
The article attributes only two of its quotes, and does not even offer an explanation for not citing the other dozen or so. I suppose the authors reason that "speaking privately" means not having to stand behind your words, but how can the resulting story be considered news?
The two quotes that were attached to names are so innocuous that their relevance to the story is hard to determine. One professes to believe that bankers are not really the objects of the protest; while the other notes that "most of our clients like us."
The anonymous quotes, on the other hand, are much more interesting: "If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services"; or "They [congressional representatives who have expressed support for the protests, and who accept large campaign contributions from Wall St.] need to understand who their constituency is."
The NYTimes does not discharge its mission, when it portrays the banking industry as so out of touch without naming the sources. Nobody who has spent any time in Zuccotti Park lately would describe the occupants as "a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll." How can readers be assured it is really a top hedge fund manager talking? It sounds more like my neighbor across the the street, a retired car salesman who sports a tea-party flag on his front porch.
[A version of this was sent to the public editor at The New York Times]
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Where Is This Occupation Going?
Occupy Wall Street is more than a "large mass of unidentified people discussing their concerns", whose energy Erin Bohanan offers to help focus. It is a focal point for the expression of outrage - by people who have given up on the regular political channels Ms. Bohanan suggests.
A lot of energy is going to Zuccotti Park that, in 2008, went into electing Barrack Obama to the White House. Disappointed by the lack of change, following his inauguration, in the grand bargain between Wall St. and K St., young and energetic citizens are bypassing a system that has lost the ability to change, but that absorbs and co-opts every initiative.
Should the occupiers prioritize the issues, select representation, and arrange meetings with government and business entities, you will see the life-blood sucked out of the movement. Souvenir t-shirts will be its only legacy. No, the open forum and constant influx of ideas are the proper business of Occupy Wall Street.
Calls for specific action will come from those inspired by what is taking place in Zuccotti Park. Ms Bohanan came up with a nice list herself. She should get in touch with her representatives, and help get the ball rolling, instead of telling Occupy Wall Street what they need to do.
The structures to effect change are already in place. We already have enough public servants. They just need to be reminded of their mission - and encouraged, by the voices in the streets.
It is useful to consider the trajectory of the often-compared Tea Party movement, that aligned with conservative political interests soon after erupting. Although it wields considerable power in the selection and manipulation of conservative politicians, it has made a circus of the Republican Party, and has yet to make any positive contribution toward solving the frightful problems facing our nation.
A lot of energy is going to Zuccotti Park that, in 2008, went into electing Barrack Obama to the White House. Disappointed by the lack of change, following his inauguration, in the grand bargain between Wall St. and K St., young and energetic citizens are bypassing a system that has lost the ability to change, but that absorbs and co-opts every initiative.
Should the occupiers prioritize the issues, select representation, and arrange meetings with government and business entities, you will see the life-blood sucked out of the movement. Souvenir t-shirts will be its only legacy. No, the open forum and constant influx of ideas are the proper business of Occupy Wall Street.
Calls for specific action will come from those inspired by what is taking place in Zuccotti Park. Ms Bohanan came up with a nice list herself. She should get in touch with her representatives, and help get the ball rolling, instead of telling Occupy Wall Street what they need to do.
The structures to effect change are already in place. We already have enough public servants. They just need to be reminded of their mission - and encouraged, by the voices in the streets.
It is useful to consider the trajectory of the often-compared Tea Party movement, that aligned with conservative political interests soon after erupting. Although it wields considerable power in the selection and manipulation of conservative politicians, it has made a circus of the Republican Party, and has yet to make any positive contribution toward solving the frightful problems facing our nation.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Did NYPD Sell Brooklyn Bridge to Occupiers?
From Zuccotti Park to the Brooklyn Bridge, the Occupy Wall Street marchers were escorted and directed every step of the way by courteous NYPD officers. Half a mile away, the entrance to the bridge sits across busy Centre Street. The police held up the marchers periodically, allowing traffic to pass, then let them onto the bridge in spurts. Once across Centre Street the walkway began, between the Brooklyn-bound and Manhattan-bound traffic lanes, separated by a low railing. As throngs of marchers crossed Centre Street, they spilled across both walkway and roadway as they approached the bridge, but were directed by NYPD toward the walkway.
The walkway runs even with the traffic lanes for a short distance, before gradually climbing above the roadway. The gauntlet of police officers, which had contained and directed the marchers from park to bridge, were absent along this stretch, and a few marchers crossed the railing, and began walking in the roadway; which for some reason, also was absent car traffic [possibly bridge traffic was also being stopped to allow marchers access to the bridge]. Presently car traffic resumed and kept to the right, as the marchers walked in the left and center lanes.
The marchers in the roadway were exuberantly encouraging the marchers on the walkway to join them on that side, calling out "they CAN'T arrest ALL of us," and "Whose bridge?...OUR bridge!" Many did join them, too. The few police on that part of the bridge were walking with the marchers in the roadway, and not making any effort to send them back to the pedestrian side, or discourage those now flocking to climb over the fence, before it go too high, as the walkway ascended.
Eventually, enough marchers filled the roadway that car traffic moved slowly alongside them in the right lane, and then all movement completely halted. A little further along, the reason for the stoppage became apparent: the police had sealed off the entire side of the bridge, and begun making arrests.
Some marchers on the roadway were probably looking to get arrested, to escalate the level of confrontation, possibly in hopes of generating more media coverage. If so, they succeeded in that. Most of those who joined them, though, did so spontaneously, not having thought it through.
Protests which are horizontally organized, while better able to resist infiltration and co-option, have more difficulty defining goals and tactics. The de facto leaders of the march had instructed the marchers before stepping off, that walking in the street, or stopping, or obstructing traffic would likely lead to arrest, but there was no discussion of whether that would be desirable or effective.
As the arrests proceeded, recorded by hundreds of cameras, the police were well disciplined, and held all of the strategic advantage. The marchers were clearly out of bounds, and had no easy escape. The police could work at their leisure, and the resulting traffic delays, affecting mostly Saturday night social travel, could be laid to the unruly protesters. Meanwhile, the march itself was fractured; half made it across to the designated park in Brooklyn, while the rest had been stranded on the Manhattan side, when the bridge was closed.
The popular reaction to the event, as it unfolded, remains to be seen. There was plenty of media coverage, and public relations were being spun by both sides. Despite the superior tactics and discipline shown by the NYPD, the increased media exposure could yield a net positive result for Occupy Wall Street, if they use it to connect with enough of the 99% they claim are affected by Wall Street shenanigans. If not, the movement will be set back.
Either way, the divergence of the two groups during the march shows weakness in the organization; a vulnerability which could be exploited, and uncertainty which could inhibit attracting greater numbers of participants. Perhaps that is intentional, in keeping with the loosely defined purpose of the occupation itself. Discussions in groups around Zuccoti Park, before the march, were wide ranging, intense, and open ended. In protest against powerful hierarchal organizations like Wall St., the acceptance of widely divergent points of political departure infuses great energy, but requires levels of individual tolerance difficult to maintain.
Media coverage of the occupation seems more focused on trying to figure out the dynamic of the movement itself, than scrutinizing the financial miscreants that are its purpose. It will be a challenge to induce exposure of individual targets for change, among the diverse constituencies represented in Zuccoti Park. So far there has not been a visible effort to prioritize issues.
Signs carried in the march declared the strength inherent in union, and chants of "People united, will never be defeated" moved the march up Broadway on Saturday afternoon. Can the union of this occupation be sustained without emergence of a command structure? I hope so.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
What Winning Looks Like
Today's New York Times published two war articles , neither among the day's news offerings, but taken together, offering a look at the broad impact the war has.
In one, a Special Forces major articulates his opinion about the possibility [and nature] of winning the war. In the other, we get a look at the effects, on family members, of caring for damaged returning war veterans. Thinking about our involvement in foreign wars requires that attention be paid to multiple aspects, and that evaluations based on single sources, even if compelling, be rejected.
One would expect an active duty officer, upon return from a productive year of deployment, and still subscribing to the mission, to be dismissive of those who see our involvement as a losing proposition. In this we are not disappointed, as he disparages the "...wonks, politicos and academics..." offerring their grim sound bites "While sipping their Starbucks." But after relating anecdotal accounts of progress on the ground in the area of his deployment, he concludes that the success or failure of the war can only be determined by what happens after we leave. I am left wondering exactly what his dispute is with those who have been saying all along that we can't win the war.
For a wife whose horizon has narrowed to the task of caring for for a returning veteran with a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, the war is only beginning. The several families profiled in this article offer a sobering look at the sacrifices we exact from our volunteer armed forces. One can't help wondering what life will be like for them, and the thousands of other severely injured war veterans and their families in twenty or thirty years. It is something to consider when budget cuts are debated - that no price was too high to pay for our security on 9/12/01 - that our obligation to those who went over there for us [whether or not we supported the invasions].
History is short on international disputes being successfully resolved by armed conflict, but nations seem unable to resist resorting to warfare. Military intervention can possibly be prevented only by vigilant attention being paid to all of the costs. The Defense Department's charge is logistical and political, and they can't be expected think in preventive terms. Moral and human direction must come from us. If we cede analysis to "the experts," we risk paying a high cost for not too much benefit.
In one, a Special Forces major articulates his opinion about the possibility [and nature] of winning the war. In the other, we get a look at the effects, on family members, of caring for damaged returning war veterans. Thinking about our involvement in foreign wars requires that attention be paid to multiple aspects, and that evaluations based on single sources, even if compelling, be rejected.
One would expect an active duty officer, upon return from a productive year of deployment, and still subscribing to the mission, to be dismissive of those who see our involvement as a losing proposition. In this we are not disappointed, as he disparages the "...wonks, politicos and academics..." offerring their grim sound bites "While sipping their Starbucks." But after relating anecdotal accounts of progress on the ground in the area of his deployment, he concludes that the success or failure of the war can only be determined by what happens after we leave. I am left wondering exactly what his dispute is with those who have been saying all along that we can't win the war.
For a wife whose horizon has narrowed to the task of caring for for a returning veteran with a traumatic brain injury and PTSD, the war is only beginning. The several families profiled in this article offer a sobering look at the sacrifices we exact from our volunteer armed forces. One can't help wondering what life will be like for them, and the thousands of other severely injured war veterans and their families in twenty or thirty years. It is something to consider when budget cuts are debated - that no price was too high to pay for our security on 9/12/01 - that our obligation to those who went over there for us [whether or not we supported the invasions].
History is short on international disputes being successfully resolved by armed conflict, but nations seem unable to resist resorting to warfare. Military intervention can possibly be prevented only by vigilant attention being paid to all of the costs. The Defense Department's charge is logistical and political, and they can't be expected think in preventive terms. Moral and human direction must come from us. If we cede analysis to "the experts," we risk paying a high cost for not too much benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)