Tag Archives: Musings

Courage

by

Not quite sure what to make of President Obama’s gutsy move in going after Osama Bin Laden. There is just so much to process, on so many different levels.

First, it runs against just about everything I believe about justice, but I am not sure that Bin Laden could ever have been brought to trial. Also, the unilateralism, the crossing of national borders to carry out a political assassination, and the extremely dispassionate aggression all run counter to my gut reaction to find justice through broad legal means. That said, I have little doubt that justice was served and that Obama’s choices (see more below) actually showed a remarkably subtle grasp of international politics and justice. Indeed, rather than hide behind a drone attack and rain down wanton destruction, he chose the more dangerous and surgical action–one that undoubtedly saved innocent lives.

I have been equally stunned by the reactions. If young people used the moment to behave with patriotism and New Yorkers rejoiced, there nonetheless has been a strange lack of compassion in the jubilation that misunderstands the value of human life in what seem to me to be some of the same dehumanizing ways that terrorists approach the world.

Republicans and right-wingers have, not surprisingly, been reluctant to acknowledge the President’s role and/or just how exceptional and important this was. On a more positive note, many former Bush administration officials, including Dick Cheney, have shown more sense and appreciation for the exceptional decision-making that is involved.

Oddly, my students showed a surprising amount of skepticism, mirroring less virulently the ridiculousness of shock-jocks like Limbaugh or Cleveland’s own Trivisano (sp?) who claimed that Osama Bin Laden himself was a fabrication (???). Everyone wanted to see the body or photographs. Really, how exactly would that help them get closer to the truth? It appears that they fear the “government’s” power to lie and/or dupe people in a sort of unquestioning way that actually shows a remarkable lack of sophistication. I suppose that I should not be surprised, but I am disappointed. It makes having even a reasonable conversation about the day’s events impossible, when some large portion begin yapping about how its all a lie.

Regardless of the reaction, I am amazed by Obama’s decision making. They had evidence but Leon Panetta only estimated that it was 60-80 percent reliable. Moreover, they had different options–drones, bombers, special forces. He could tell Pakistan; he could not tell them. He could capture or kill. The list goes on. The stakes were incredible. What if Bin Laden wasn’t there? What if something went wrong (and it always does)? Think context–Desert One in Iran or Somalia.

Given the context, you have to be impressed with the deliberation, the decisiveness, and the resolve. If I admired Obama before, I am even more impressed now with his courage and instincts. Leadership demands making choices, and doing so under pressure and at the right moment. He could not have gotten this one any more correct.

Economic Meltdown

by

The New York Times has a great summary of much of what has been discussed the past week, vis-a-vis the economic crisis. See the Weekend Opinionator: The Magi of the Meltdown – The Opinionator Blog – NYTimes.com.

But, the highlight of the last week, for me, was Jon Stewart’s evisceration of Jim Cramer, or more rightly his stinging analysis of the financial press and its culpability in advancing the interests of bankers any whim. More broadly, though, Stewart’s evaluation of the crisis is acute and worth noting; over at Fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver posted all three clips, including an unaired one, of the interview. His glee over Cramer’s disembowelment is a little odd, though ’cause I’m not sure its the point.

It would be nice if we got some of this sort of this sort of analysis or insight from more media sources, especially would-be news sources.

In many ways, his approach offers the sharpest indictment of a slogan like Fox’s “Fair and Balanced.” Of course, Fox offers that to disguise its own bias, as well as to attack the so-called bias of the main-stream-media. But, in the rhetoric of “fair and balanced” Fox provides insights into the media’s obsession with “both sides” of a conflict, as if there are two equally good points of view. And, here, we’re not talking about empathy for the human experience of individuals, but the notion that there are two (and usually in this view, only two) rational and reasonable arguments about any disagreement. The truth is more complex, surely; and, taking a point of view and/or exposing hypocrisy are part of the job of real journalists.

I have often said to myself that its a shame that comedy television is more insightful than the news; maybe that is why humor is so important?