Sunday, February 16, 2003

The Liberal Media – Myth and Reality   Eric Alterman’s new book—What Liberal Media?—has apparently begun a long-needed discussion on the role of the media in shaping, rather than just reporting, our political culture. Alterman contends that the professional press, which was never that liberal in the first place, has been systematically intimidated by conservative whining over the years, and that the corporate right-wing media now has the field to itself as a result.   Clearly, any “fair and balanced” view of the media in present-day America would reveal a distinct tilt to the right. The airwaves are jammed with rabid screaming-head talk-show hosts pushing the RNC party line; Fox “News” is an organ of the White House press office; and even mainstream media outlets are quietly deferential to the Administration while presenting Democrats as marginal, disorganized and slightly ridiculous. Nevertheless, the canard of liberal press bias persists. How could this be?   The answer lies in the basic function of the press in a democracy, which is to pose questions to those in authority, root out hidden agendas and inconsistencies, and give the people an independent source of information on which to base their opinions. An independent press that functions as anything beyond a propaganda office or marketing and PR agency must, as a matter of course, subvert authority to some extent.   And herein lies the problem. Obedience to established authority is the fundamental philosophical underpinning of conservatism, explaining, among other things, the basic inter-relationship between right-wing political movements and the most authoritarian elements of all established religions. Conservative morality descends from above – literally in the case of revealed theology, but equally true as a practical matter in most conservative political movements (including those of self-styled “progressives” like Stalin, who was, objectively, a right-wing authoritarian). Too much inquiry leads believers into heresy, and, worse, lack of discipline. Without unquestioning belief, there can be no arbitrary division of power between a traditional ruling class and the rest of society – a division which is the bedrock of conservative political ideology.   So, in a sense, conservatives have properly identified their enemy in the very institution of a free press – even when the results of independent journalism occasionally support their political objectives. Historically, this has rarely been as much of a problem as it has been in the years since the Depression. Prior to that, the American press consisted mostly of organs of specific political parties, local interests groups, immigrant communities or other narrow constituencies. People read the papers that suited their prejudices, and the news was reported, edited and slanted in a very plainly partisan way by people who shared the perspective of their readers.   The years following World War I and during the Depression in particular saw the influx of a new class of journalist, much more likely to be an educated professional than the previous generation of, essentially, literate tradesmen. Likewise, new technologies like radio and cinema created a national (and later global) market for mass media which had not existed before. The press saw that it could increase readership by broadening its perspective, and the commercial interests of the owners in a larger circulation corresponded with the more cosmopolitan and broad-minded perspectives of the new class of professional journalists. It is important to recognize that the modern idea of press objectivity arose from this particular coincidence of interests within the media, and not from some huge grass-roots demand for better reporting.   Nevertheless, the new ethic of objectivity and independence soon proved basically hostile to all political orthodoxy, left and right. Since there was never much of a true organized Left in this country, especially when compared with Europe, it was natural that the persistent demand for justification of previously-unquestioned political views particularly discomfited those on the Right. This was especially the case during the Civil Rights era, when know-nothing Southern sheriffs were made to look ridiculous in the glare of the sophisticated national media, who forced them to answer questions that they had never given a second thought about, growing up in a traditional conservative culture. Likewise, during Vietnam and Watergate, the press denied both the Johnson and Nixon administrations the atmosphere of secrecy they seemed to require to operate effectively, and revealed not only embarrassing failures of policy, but also personal qualities of both leaders that proved increasingly hard to defend as the actions of reasonable people.   The real bias in independent journalism is toward technocracy – rule according to practicality and reason. Pragmatists of the center-right and center-left generally speaking have no gripe with the press, because they are willing and able to explain their policies in the same measured, systematic language employed by educated professionals, including reporters. Ideologues who depend on their audience sharing a body of unquestioned assumptions always come off looking impulsive at best (and utterly foolish at worst). But no one comes away worse than people who, for whatever reason, use ideological principles as cover for an unspoken agenda. Hypocrisy is the worst sin in modern politics because it combines the excesses of ideology with deception, selfishness and pursuit of unearned privilege.   Since this is the modus operandi and objective of modern authoritarian political movements of the (mostly) right, it is imperative that they challenge and, if possible, discredit the notion of an independent press. Whining about slanted coverage was somewhat successful, but could not undo the fundamental ideological problem. So they stumbled on the real winning formula, which is to cloud the air with products that superficially resemble modern news reporting, but which actually consist of the partisan propaganda of the pre-modern era.   This approach serves two purposes: if it is taken as actual news, it can persuade or reinforce desired opinions, thereby supporting the authoritarian political project. Secondarily, because it fails the standards of objectivity and informativeness audiences have come to expect of a product labeled as “news,” it contributes to a pervasive cynicism about the entire institution of the press. This is almost better than propaganda, because, if people become jaded enough about any information they receive through the media, it completely removes a critical challenge to orthodoxy.   The debate over press bias is about much more than where individual reporters or media outlets stand on a range of political issues. It goes to the roots of how we get the information we need to make decisions about our community and our country. An independent press is indeed inherently liberal, just as our constitutional democracy is inherently liberal. Conservative whining about bias needs to be recognized for what it is: a basic assault on the entire enterprise of inquiry, intellectual challenge to authority, and demand for accountability from those in power. 1:43:49 PM    Emphasize This! []

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

An Economy of Logic   One theme that our Prez loves when talking about the economy is how giving small businesses a tax break will help lift us out of recession. It’s the familiar supply-side rhetoric: businesses will use the tax savings for investment in new people or equipment, thereby creating jobs and demand. As a small-business owner myself, let me respond to a few of these points.   Although I am generally skeptical of supply-side as an economic theory, I must admit that it can work as intended if deployed during a phase of the business cycle when demand is high and credit is tight – that is, if businesses have pent-up demand for capital but can’t get it for one reason or another. In that case, business will indeed use tax cuts productively, pushing an economy on the brink of a downturn into healthier growth.   Right now, however, we have exactly the opposite problem. Credit is as easy as it can possibly be. Hardly a day goes by without a few offers of zero-interest credit cards, absurdly low home equity refinance rates, or lines of credit for my business. I just got my annual dose of grim news from my tax preparer, but the taxes I owe are a result of having had a good 2002 following a bad 2001, not of excessive rates.   The problem is demand. Business is slow, so even if I got a break on taxes, I would not necessarily invest in anything right now. Maybe I’m more risk-averse than most, but it doesn’t strike me as sound business strategy to spend money when return on investment is so uncertain. The only place I’d feel comfortable investing right now is in marketing – hardly a capital-intensive area for most small businesses. And again, if all my clients are broke, I’d just be tossing pebbles into a stagnant pond.   This economy needs several things from the government before it needs a tax cut. First, some stability. The market hates, Hates, HATES all this talk of war. It creates basic uncertainty about just about everything from public safety to energy costs. Likewise, the Administration’s reckless attitude toward budget deficits might escape critical notice among the public at large, but professionals understand what it will do to the long-term health of the economy and this is having a distinctly negative impact in capital markets.   Second, it needs honesty. Trust is at an all-time low, and the Bush team seems to lack the commitment to tackle corporate crime with even a fraction of the zeal with which they go after growers of medicinal marijuana.   Third, it needs regulation. Yes, Virginia, even free markets need an active, vigilant government to prevent the feeding frenzy of capitalist sharks from doing too much damage to the environment, labor and safety standards, and the ecosystem of open competition. Capitalism unchecked tends toward monopoly – that’s an economic fact. Without sufficient oversight, free markets can and do become conspiracies by large corporations and cartels against the public interest. It’s in no one’s interests – not even the monopolists’ – to let that happen. One of our very best Republican presidents – Teddy Roosevelt – understood this. I somehow doubt GWB shares his convictions.   Fourth, and deliberately last, it needs stimulus. This isn’t the 1930s, or the 1960s, or even the 1980s anymore. An activist government fiscal policy, whether through tax cuts or spending, is in my view a less effective tool to stimulate economic growth than a responsible government fiscal policy combined with an activist monetary policy. That’s the combination that gave us the 1990s boom, the longest sustained stretch of economic growth in American history. Give Greenspan the credit if you don’t like Clinton – it doesn’t really matter. Experience shows this is what works in today’s global economic environment, and stimulus of any sort should be used only as a last resort.   While Bush and the Republicans have redefined conservatism as this volatile mixture of foreign policy adventurism and economic irresponsibility, the business community remains conservative in the original sense of being skeptical of radical change. We are rapidly approaching the point when those whose interests are served by genuine conservatism will realize that they do not have a friend in this Administration. And then it will be very interesting to see where they turn. 5:27:50 PM    Emphasize This! []

Thursday, February 06, 2003

Hitchens and the War Polemicist Christopher Hitchens has lost many friends over his recent and increasingly vocal support for all things war and Bush, but he has not lost his mind. In fact, he is perhaps the only person on either side of the debate whose position is morally clear, internally consistent, and well-informed as to the facts. This does not, unfortunately, mean he is right. The essence of Hitchens’ position is that militant Islamist fundamentalism is a grave threat to practically everyone, but particularly to the ideals that liberals are supposed to hold dear. As such, it is an idiotic mistake to romanticize the terrorists as in any way sympathetic to the objectives of the revolutionary or anti-globalist Left, because even though both offer a radical critique of the current world political and economic order, their critiques are coming from diametrically opposed positions. This sounds right to me. He moves into somewhat shakier territory with his support for the Administration’s policy on Iraq. This too appears to be based primarily on Hitchens’ visceral hatred of the illiberalism of Saddam’s tyrannical regime and the way that his militant secular pan-Arabism has destabilized the region. Saddam through his own actions has provided ample pretext for his removal by force, even absent a casus beli. He further argues that the consequences of this action, accomplished either by coalition or unilaterally by the US (and Britain), would be insignificant compared to the upside of a free and potentially democratic Iraq. Hitchens argues, and I agree, that striking Iraq would not only get rid of Saddam, it would also provide needed security for world oil supplies, intimidate other potential opponents, and lay the groundwork for subsequent actions against the Islamist heartland of Saudi Arabia. So, you might be asking, if Hitchens and I agree on so much, why don’t I support the war as he does? Because, to put it simply, Hitchens isn’t the President. He does not even seem to be a likely stalking-horse for the Administration. And yet, he leaps to the conclusion that Bush and company share not only his strategic outlook, but also his ideological one. Or, if he is not quite that self-deluded, he clearly does not think that the differences matter. And that’s where he’s wrong. Hitchens is a militant defender of atheistic rationalism. It’s this philosophy – out of fashion on both the right and the left these days – that enables him to identify and articulate the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, or, in his colorful coinage, Islamofascism, with such conviction and clarity. He recognizes in al-Quaida the closed-minded, intolerant, backward-looking traditional enemy of the Enlightenment, and he recognizes the Enlightenment as the fundament of his entire political and philosophical worldview. To put it kindly, George Bush is not fighting to make the world safe for secular humanism. This is a man who was pleased and proud to tell the world that his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ. If he had been raised in a Muslim country, he may not have had the fortitude to be a militant, but he definitely would have allied himself with the conservative elements. I understand that he’s the man in charge right now, so there’s not a whole lot of choice about who to support, but if Hitchens’ basic gripe is with faith, ignorance and the instinct to repress, how can he place not only his confidence but also apparently his trust in a man like George Bush? Second, Hitchens’ case for war makes a whole lot more sense than anything we’ve heard from the Administration. It’s as though the public were being asked to invest in Bush’s scheme on the basis of a very skimpy business plan, and Hitchens, rather than taking what he’s given at face value, rewrites the prospectus using all the eminently reasonable, well-grounded arguments that he can come up with. Perhaps his assumptions are correct, but that’s a big “if.”  Since Bush won’t cop to any of the arguments that Hitchens makes, there’s no way to hold him accountable for delivering the favorable outcomes that Hitchens expects. Right now, all we’re being told is that we’re about to go to war over a few empty chemical missile casings and a truculent dictator acting the way he’s always acted for the past 30 years. Oh yes, and since we’ve repeatedly made loud and blustering threats, our credibility and that of the UN is now at stake if we don’t follow through with them. Even Hitchens’ position begins to look thin when that’s all he can lean on. Finally, Hitchens has taken enough punishment from people who used to consider him an ally that one can almost excuse him for a few ad hominem attacks. Almost. But recently, Hitchens appears to have lost sight of the large number of people (like me) who support the war against al-Qaida to the fullest, but oppose a unilateral incursion against a sovereign state, even one as bad as Iraq, without evidence of a clear and present threat. His opponents have coalesced in his mind into one vacuous, morally-inchoate “peace movement” whose every participant is as infected with defeatist self-hatred as the most self-righteous Noam Chomsky follower. The growing intellectual rigidity of his position and his refusal to acknowledge a separation between a well-justified war on Islamist terror and an ill-timed, ill-conceived attack against Iraq are troubling, to say the least. For all the problems with his position, at least Hitchens is not afraid to speak out clearly and often, and to answer his critics to the best of his considerable abilities at every turn. If I could be sure, or even a little bit confident, that the person who really is formulating the strategy and making the decisions were this rigorous in his habits of mind, and felt this clear a responsibility to the demands of reason rather than blind faith, I would be much more comfortable embracing the policies that Hitchens has. 3:35:35 PM    Emphasize This! []

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

The Rats in the Floors   Our global village – more like a stately old Victorian, actually – has a problem. Underneath the floorboards lurks a mean, filthy rat, causing all manner of nuisance. He steals food, he leaves turds in the sink. One time he even attacked a baby in a crib. In fact, being a rat, he’s prone to attack anything smaller and weaker than himself, and run and hide from anything larger and more threatening. We’ve tried everything to get rid of the rat – traps, poison, the works – but he’s crafty and tenacious.   Everyone would prefer not to have the rat in the house, of course, but the residents have become divided on what to do next. One side says the only way to proceed is to tear up the floorboards to catch and kill it. The other side, knowing the disruption and expense this would cause, is more wary. They suggest keeping a close eye on the rat to make sure he can’t do any harm. They say this out of concern for the house, not concern for the rat.   The proponents of the tear-up-the-floor strategy make the following case. First, the rat has done foul, rattish things in the past and, left to its own, would do them again in a minute. That’s hard to dispute, since, after all, it’s a rat we’re talking about. Second, the rat is gnawing away at the foundations of the house, and if left unchecked, could do catastrophic harm to the entire structure. This leaves many skeptical about how much damage one rat could do, especially if it is vigilantly observed and denied access to the means of destruction. Finally, they argue that the rat has been consorting with the wolves in the yard who killed and ate the family pet. This theory, though supported by scant evidence of fact or nature, they argue must be so since both the wolves and the rat hate the other people living in the house.   Whenever anyone questions the wisdom of tearing up the floorboards, the response is “you must not be serious about getting rid of the rat.” When critics point out that the destruction caused by tearing up the floor is worse than anything the rat might do, they are chided for failing to show commitment to principles. “Are you with the rat or with us?” they demand to know.   This is crafty because it focuses the argument on what to do with the rat, not what to do about the floor. The foul nature and intentions of the rat are not in question. What’s at issue is how best to improve the quality of life of people in the house, especially since there are other pressing problems (like the wolves in the yard, for example). And it doesn’t help matters that the side that’s ready to destroy the floor is already tapping the crowbar gently against its palm… 11:05:25 AM    Emphasize This! []

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

The Shadow War   Like a growing number of my fellow citizens, I take it as a given that if we go to war in Iraq, it will not be because of technical issues related to disarmament, sketchy links between Saddam and September 11th, or for human rights reasons. The evidence the Administration uses to support these claims are so flimsy as to be laughable, which leaves people to wonder whether Bush is so stupid that he actually believes his own specious arguments, or is there something he’s not saying? Oil, revenge for Papa, covering up old dirty secrets, and generally forwarding American business interests are popular theories on the Left, who are not inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in any case. But consider for a moment the possibility that Bush may have the genuine desire to act in America’s interest against Islamist terrorism. There is a very strong case to be made why attacking Iraq will directly aid in that effort, and some very good reasons why that case is not being made.   Anyone who’s paying attention understands that while Iraq may or may not be up to no good, Al Qaida clearly represents a direct threat to American security, and indeed the security of the entire Western world. Since Al-Qaida operatives are stateless, they have no cities to bomb, no land to seize. Finding and taking action against the leadership is a long, slow and uncertain job – one that negates most of the overwhelming advantages that the United States military enjoys in conventional conflicts.   To the extent that our real enemies have flags and borders, they are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both of these countries have given material, ideological, financial and political support to radical Islamist movements, and both are ruled by jittery oligarchies whose authority rests on a very narrow basis of support. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, plus who knows what else. And does anyone doubt that Saudi Arabia, whose aggressive acquisition of conventional military technology is legendary, does not also have secret WMD programs ongoing? Should either of these unstable regimes collapse, the most likely replacements are militant fundamentalists deeply hostile to Western interests and intimately sympathetic with Al Qaida. This would create a scenario much more dangerous to American safety and interests than anything that Saddam could manage, even if he were unleashed and fully armed.   All of the things we say we want for Iraq – disarmament, stopping support of terrorists, democracy and human rights – would serve our purposes all the better if imposed instead (or in addition) on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Of course, unlike the obnoxious Saddam, the rulers of these countries have surpassed all standards of decorum in their obsequious compliance to US policy. Even the most fervent unilateralist in the Bush Administration would hesitate to target them outright because there is not the slightest shred of a diplomatic pretext. So we are faced with Iraq on the one hand, where there’s plenty of grounds for attack but no actual terrorist problem beyond guilt-by-association, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the other, where there is a critical problem but no way for the US to introduce a military solution short of complete naked and unprovoked aggression.   Iraq has, through the stupidity and arrogance of Saddam Hussein, provided a convenient means to introduce massive US military power into the Persian Gulf. From this vantage point, it would be much easier for America to exert geopolitical influence over Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and the areas of the former Soviet Union that may be in some danger of succumbing to Islamist influence. Direct presence in the region would allow us to bring to bear all the military, technological, cultural and financial assets necessary to maximize our chances of success in diffusing the very real threat posed by Islamism and its terrorist proponents. Whether this is a legal or ethical course of action is highly debatable, but at least it has the merit of compelling logic, unlike most of the utterances made by the Administration on this topic.   If this is the eventual goal of US policy, then Bush’s insistence on war makes perfect sense. The problem is, the obvious sensitivities of the global situation make it impossible to conduct the debate on these terms. We cannot simply announce our intentions to become an imperial power and seek the overthrow of governments who are ostensibly our allies. So Bush is left having to justify his decisions based on the narrow pretext offered by the Iraq situation, leaving supporters and critics alike to shadow-box with arguments that, in fact, have nothing to do with our real aims and strategies. This is especially unfortunate in the effect it has on our democracy. If we are about to establish a military empire in the Middle East, we ought to discuss it. But we can’t as long as Bush and his minions continue to insist that the reasons for war lie elsewhere. 5:26:40 PM    Emphasize This! []

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Locked Up I noted with surprise the other day that the person slated to give the Democratic rebuttal to the President's State of the Union address tonight is none other than the pleasant but utterly inessential governor of my own great state of Washington, Gary Locke. Locke has the distinction of being the only Asian-American governor in the continental US, and has successfully defended his office by beating two extreme right-wing Republicans by fairly decent margins, but as anyone living north of the Columbia River will tell you, the man is a total lightweight. He has trouble holding the interest of his own staff, much less the citizens of Washington, and it's hard to imagine he has anything riveting to share with that sliver of political junkies nationwide who tune in to the "opposition response." Like many states, Washington - particularly the Seattle area - did great in the 90s and is now suffering a long, painful hangover. The budget is in a shambles, yahoos with pitchforks set fire to the tax code through our perverted initiative process every election cycle, and after 20 years of jawboning, we can't seem to get a transit system built. Homey little issues, perhaps, but not national agenda material. We have little contact with Iraq (although I suspect we are on the target list if North Korea decides to lob a nuke our way), so it's hard to imagine that Locke could bring anything in terms of credible criticism in an area where it is most desperately needed. When even my friends who hate Bush are asking where's the Democratic voice to challenge him, I have to ask, is Gary Locke the best they've got? Where's Bill Bradley? Or Sam Nunn? Or (heh heh heh) Bill Clinton? 12:15:12 PM    Emphasize This! []

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

Expecting the Worst, Hoping for the Best   Today Salon has posted a series of dire predictions about “worst case scenarios” that may come about should President Bush run out of luck and have to get by on his wits alone. All of these, from the economic disruptions potentially caused by the Republicans’ bone-headed tax plan to the violence emerging from a botched (or even largely successful) action in Iraq, involve considerable suffering on the part of many people not responsible for their circumstances. I don’t support the decisions that have made these outcomes likely, I don’t trust the judgment of people who tell us this is the right path, and I would love the satisfaction of knowing I was right, but if there’s nothing I can do to change the outcome,  I just can’t bring myself to hope for Bush’s failure. Unfortunate – maybe even criminal – circumstances have left this fool as the captain of all of our fates, but I for one would rather make it through the storm than have innocents martyred just to prove a point.   If history has taught us anything, it’s that it is impossible to predict every outcome, even given pretty good information. Human events don’t always run according to cause-and-effect, and even if they do, there are often unexpected or unforeseen factors – especially if ideology blinds us to some fairly basic points. The Right has been wrong about a lot – Clinton’s 1993 budget comes to mind – but so has the Left. In the 80s, when many of us saw Reagan as an irresponsible warmonger pushing us to the brink of nuclear confrontation, it may just have been the case that his unlikely strategy of escalation really did win the Cold War. Certainly the results speak for themselves: even if you don’t agree that the “good guys” won, a bunch of very bad guys definitely lost. Bush senior accomplished his objectives in Iraq and bought 10 years of relative calm and stable oil prices. Even his methods of building the coalition – widely criticized at the time – look pretty good today. Sure it didn’t last, but no solution is ever permanent. Every action eventually gives birth to a series of contradictions and new challenges that need to be addressed down the line.   When we look at the current Iraq situation in particular, there are a few outcomes that would be good for everyone, even if we have trouble accepting them as the basis of a legitimate foreign policy.   For one thing, there’s nothing to apologize for if the war is at least partly about oil. Yes, we burn far too much of it, and the resource belongs to someone else, but the impact of a supply shock on the US economy in the not-so-unlikely event of a political shakeup in Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic – not just for the fat-cats, but for everyone. If a war with Iraq fought on some other pretext happens to provide some security for the oil supply, this is not a bad thing. Down the line, we must reduce dependence on non-renewable resources, but we’re not there yet. Our troubled economy needs access to cheap energy, or, at the very least, guarantees that energy prices won’t spike, until other (better) solutions can be found and implemented. Most of the world will attribute this as the primary motive for US action anyway and our reputation will suffer accordingly, so we might as well get the benefits of it.   Second, the problem of Arab and Muslim rage is not as simple as critics are making it sound. US setbacks in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will empower and encourage terrorists. In that event, the death-toll among innocents in the West could exceed the number of Iraqi civilian deaths brought about by a military action. A massive US victory over Saddam, on the other hand, is, based on ample historical evidence, likely to intimidate them into a very loud, blustery inaction. There will be much high-decibel talk about revenge and bloodshed, but even fanatics understand the language of violence (it might be said that they understand little else). The best case would be a scenario where no innocent lives were at risk, but that option is not on the board. Gunboat diplomacy is ugly and shameful for a civilized democracy, but it is not ineffective. Again, if we’re going to use force anyway, we might entertain the possibility that force can work.   Finally there is the widely-derided goal of establishing a humane, maybe even democratic regime in Iraq. There are plenty of good historical, cultural and geopolitical reasons why this is unlikely to succeed. But what if it does? Consider the Philippines – a fragile, multi-ethnic society with a long history of colonial oppression and religious fanaticism, whose well-educated (if poor) population eventually overthrew a tyrant and installed something resembling democracy. Or Japan, a proud nation which did the same at bayonet-point following defeat at the hands of the US. Establishing some kind of transparent, accountable government in any Arab country is a tall order, but if we’re going there anyway, we might as well try, since success would be in the interests of everyone across the political spectrum. In fact, it should be the imperative of a responsible progressive movement to hold the Administration’s feet to the fire on this subject, although the more predictable response is righteous finger-wagging and demands for isolationism.   Don’t get me wrong – I don’t approve of or support the war. In no case do I think the Administration is taking the prudent, just or sensible course by insisting upon war with Iraq, but it is clear that the logic of cause-and-effect has little hold on the imagination of this President. Facts are facts: the compelling case against war has been forcefully made and rejected. International opinion has been expressed and ignored. Even the conservative estimates made by intelligence sources within the government are dismissed as nay-saying. Bush, for whatever reason, seems content to face the consequences of failure even if he doesn’t understand all the risks, and it seems there is little anyone can do to stop him. If disaster is in the cards, we’re all going to suffer – there’s not much point in further complaining. The only thing left to hope for is that the upside of a high-risk strategy is greater rewards – not, in all cases, the rewards we should seek, but ones we should take if they’re available. 10:38:56 AM    Emphasize This! []

© Copyright 2003 Rob Salkowitz. Last update: 2/17/2003; 12:07:06 PM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.