Tuesday, June 29, 2004
[posted by jaed at 2:19 PM]Compromise
Brian Tieman at Peeve Farm has a long, thoughtful piece on the prerequisites for compromise - and why it's fruitless to keep calling for negotiations if one side is not willing to compromise - and also discusses why, politically, we sometimes have so much trouble accepting that compromise isn't going to work when the prerequisite isn't there.
It should be obvious—it really should—that negotiations between one party who's willing to make concessions, and another party who isn't willing, will fail. But we seem unable to look this problem in the face. Those of us who think all problems can be solved by negotiations and compromises continue to demand that both parties sit down and hammer out an agreement; those of us who accept that at least one of the sides is driven by absolutism recognize the futility of yammering around a table and repeating over and over the same immovable demands, and take the decidedly less satisfying road that leads toward military conflict, long and broad social change obviating the problem, or other less feel-good solutions. Yet it's hard to argue that the less feel-good solutions have been less successful throughout history than the solutions that involve waving signs with rainbows on them.
[posted by jaed at 12:54 AM]
Occasionally, I read a short sentence somewhere that causes me to stop for a moment, all thought knocked out of my head, feeling as though I'd just run painlessly but firmly into a brick wall.
One ricpic does it to me today, on a recent Roger Simon post on Ellis Island. In the midst of a group discussion of ancestry and everyone's families' immigration experiences and history:
If it weren't for America I would be nothing but a heap of ashes.
I may post more on this subject later.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
[posted by jaed at 2:07 PM]O Times, o mores,...
The New York Times offers an email service, a daily summary with brief quote of top stories. Here's the summary of one of today's op-eds:
OP-ED COLUMNISTAnd here's the first paragraph of the actual piece:
All Hail Moore
By DAVID BROOKS
A beacon in the form of Michael Moore has appeared on the mountaintop, and tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.
In years past, American liberals have had to settle for intellectual and moral leadership from the likes of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. But now, a grander beacon has appeared on the mountaintop, and from sea to shining sea, tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.Just a wee change in meaning there, no? Were I Brooks, I'd consider suing for libel.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
[posted by jaed at 11:59 AM]The seduction of narrative
Eugene Volokh, scourge of Slate's Bushism/Kerryism of the week feature, speculates on why these columns are often so laughable:
Part of the problem, I think, is precisely that these are regular columns, with constant plots -- not just constant subject matters (the war, the economy, or whatever else), but constant points (Bush misspoke, Kerry spoke in too complex a way, someone lied). This means that their authors are constantly looking for something that fits the plot.
He goes on to opine that this attitude - figure out what the story is, then go looking for facts or quotes to fit it - doesn't make for good journalism. I won't argue with that - but I suspect, both from listening to journalists talk and from looking at the result, that almost all journalism is done this way. You decide what the story is - then you go get the facts to illustrate it, and plug them into the story.
This doesn't necessarily mean the story is one-sided. If there's controversy, you will probably see a quote from the "opposing side" for balance. But the narrative frame of the story - what is this story about? what's the main point? who is considered to be the opposing side here? - will be determined before the reporter ever picks up the phone or fires up Lexis-Nexis.
I've seen this approach with stories I've been peripherally involved in, I saw it over and over with the Great Internet Censorship Controversy of the mid-90s - before journalists realized that the story was not "the Internet is all porn", but was instead "the Internet will make us all rich", and started writing that one instead. (And God knows I've seen it with the war. The NYT's approach to the recent 9/11 staff report is only one case in point.)
Friday, June 04, 2004
[posted by jaed at 1:29 PM]Whimper...
Air marshalls ride along on commercial plane flights to stop hijackings. Unfortunately, if the hijacker's first move is to shoot the air marshall, they are of limited usefuless. Comes now an informative article on just how easy it is for hijackers to spot these "undercover" officers:
As they settled into first class on American Airlines Flight 1438 from Chicago to Miami, they were supposed to be the last line of defense against terrorists -- two highly trained U.S. air marshals who would sit unnoticed among the ordinary travelers but spring into action at the first sign of trouble.Apparently it's not just the clothes - since the marshalls are armed, they can't go through the ordinary security gate, and they generally go through the "exiting" side in full view of the public. Also, they get on the plane first, which also makes them easy to spot. But the clothes don't help, and the fancy clothes are actually policy:
Imagine their chagrin when a fellow passenger coming down the aisle suddenly boomed out, "Oh, I see we have air marshals on board!"
[...]
In an era when "dressing down" is the traveler's creed, air marshals must show up in jackets and ties, hair cut short, bodies buffed, shoes shined.
Jack Webb would be proud, but the marshals say they stand out like shampooed show dogs among the pound pups.
Professional demeanor, attire and attitude gain respect," said spokesman David M. Adams. "If a guy pulls out a gun and he's got a tattoo on his arm and (is wearing) shorts, I'm going to question whether he's a law-enforcement officer."We're doomed. Doomed, I tell you.
(via GeekPress and Dave Farber's Interesting People list.)
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
[posted by jaed at 10:58 AM]"Gentlemen of the press..."
Sometimes the media, cynical as I am about it, still manages to astonish me. Such a day is today, with the current jawdrop moment thanks to an unbylined reporter at AFP. The story describes Ghazi al-Yawar, the transitional president, thus:
Announcing his cabinet, Allawi hailed what he described as the country's first step towards democracy."Saddam's replacement".
"After 35 years of tyrannical regime ... we are starting now our march towards sovereignty and democracy," he said.
But there was no celebrating on the streets of Baghdad as a series of explosions echoed across the capital immediately after Saddam's replacement was named.
(The title is a reference to "The Front Page"...and whoever has seen it, can tell what comes next in that particular line of dialog....)
