This is why I'm a conspiracy theorist:
On September 11, 2003 I was working inside of a factory in Alabama. I had no access to news either on TV or radio until my shift was over late in the afternoon. I became aware of the terrorist attack on our nation via a phone call from my wife around 9:30 am or so from my panicked wife who said something on the order of:
"We're under attack. Planes have crashed into the World Trade Center and both towers have collapsed. The Air Force has shot down a plane in Pennsylvania and I think they've bombed the Pentagon too."
That's what I call the first draft of history. Everything after that is edited. Sanitized for your protection. Very quickly after a tragedy like 9-11, especially one involving terrorism, you stop seeing the raw footage. You stop seeing footage on TV of the bodies jumping out of the doomed buildings, because someone has decided that you don't need to see that anymore. In other words, you stop seeing the truth.
Being an Air Force veteran, I clued in on the part about shooting down a plane. It was all a monstrous tragedy, but the shootdown of an American airliner by the military would be unique and historic. That would be a truly important part of the story. Was the Air Force really given an order to shoot down a commercial airliner? My wife didn't make up that bit of information in the middle of that recounting of the morning's events. She was relaying to me actual news stories which indicated that the plane was shot down based on eyewitness accounts. Was it true?
Over time, the shootdown story was dismissed in favor of the now well-known story of the "Let's Roll" passengers forcing down the jet. That's the version that the 9-11 Commission tells in minute-by-minute detail in their Report. The shootdown story was just incorrect. The witnesses were wrong. Anyone who wants to keep exploring the shootdown theory is just a kook, (or Keeper Of Odd Knowledge, as Rush calls them!). Case closed.
Until this week, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld opened it again. Speaking to American troops in Iraq, Rummy made a statement about the terrorists "attacking the United States in New York and shooting down the plane in Pennslyvania". Oops! Slip of the tongue. Nothing to see here. Move along please.
Don't you remember? The witnesses were wrong. Just like they were in Oklahoma City where they saw Middle Eastern companions with McVeigh. Just like they were on Long Island when they saw a missle take down TWA Flight 800. Just like they were when they saw an explosion take down a jet leaving New York in the week after 9/11. They were all wrong.
The govenment told us so. It must be true.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Thursday, December 09, 2004
"It's about physics"?
By now everyone has probably seen the video of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answering questions yesterday from the troops in Kuwait, troops about to be sent into Iraq. Internet watchers have probably also tuned into the controversial discovery that the most contentious questions from the soldiers were not spontaneous, but were staged by embedded reporters.
I'll focus only on the most serious aspect of the story: Rumsfeld's answers.
Now I'm a fan of Sec. Rumsfeld and I think he did a stellar job in reforming the Cold War structured military to fight and win two terrorist based wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. I'm a fan. And I'm glad he's staying on in the administration.
But this particular press conference is very troubling. I do applaud the Secretary for stepping up to the mike and taking questions unscripted. And, granted, I'll have to assume that we did not see the whole story on the MSM reports. I heard expanded coverage which indicated that he was well received and even had a standing ovation from one group. I'll assume that the whole conversation was taken out of context in the soundbites, as it invariably is.
Having said that, I would have to say that his answers yesterday to the troops were beyond pitiful. Three answers in particular were deplorable:
1. The answer to the question of why the army didn't have enough armored vehicles: "It's not about the army's desire, it's about physics, it's about production."
Not good enough, by far. You're the Sec. of Defense. Break through all of that. Find out if they have enough armor. If they don't, get it to them. Period. You owe it to the troops.
2. General answer to some bitching: "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want to have."
True, but not good enough. You're the guy who's supposed to deliver the army that you want to have. Deliver it already.
3. Further answer on the question of armor: something to the effect of "you can have a fully armored vehicle and still get blown up"
Are you kidding me? You would say that to a gathering of troops heading into battle? Are you a heartless robot?
Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweek had it right tonight when he said that the last statement showed a hopelessly "cavalier" attitude toward soldier's lives. Absolutely right.
John Stewart, of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central skewered these answers in a devastating and hilarious montage.
President Bush stepped out today and rightly corrected these ridiculous comments. And hopefully he gave Rumsfeld a thorough dressing down. We need Rumsfeld's leadership to finish the job there. But he needs to learn a lesson here. His answers were plainly not acceptable.
I'll focus only on the most serious aspect of the story: Rumsfeld's answers.
Now I'm a fan of Sec. Rumsfeld and I think he did a stellar job in reforming the Cold War structured military to fight and win two terrorist based wars, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. I'm a fan. And I'm glad he's staying on in the administration.
But this particular press conference is very troubling. I do applaud the Secretary for stepping up to the mike and taking questions unscripted. And, granted, I'll have to assume that we did not see the whole story on the MSM reports. I heard expanded coverage which indicated that he was well received and even had a standing ovation from one group. I'll assume that the whole conversation was taken out of context in the soundbites, as it invariably is.
Having said that, I would have to say that his answers yesterday to the troops were beyond pitiful. Three answers in particular were deplorable:
1. The answer to the question of why the army didn't have enough armored vehicles: "It's not about the army's desire, it's about physics, it's about production."
Not good enough, by far. You're the Sec. of Defense. Break through all of that. Find out if they have enough armor. If they don't, get it to them. Period. You owe it to the troops.
2. General answer to some bitching: "You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want to have."
True, but not good enough. You're the guy who's supposed to deliver the army that you want to have. Deliver it already.
3. Further answer on the question of armor: something to the effect of "you can have a fully armored vehicle and still get blown up"
Are you kidding me? You would say that to a gathering of troops heading into battle? Are you a heartless robot?
Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweek had it right tonight when he said that the last statement showed a hopelessly "cavalier" attitude toward soldier's lives. Absolutely right.
John Stewart, of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central skewered these answers in a devastating and hilarious montage.
President Bush stepped out today and rightly corrected these ridiculous comments. And hopefully he gave Rumsfeld a thorough dressing down. We need Rumsfeld's leadership to finish the job there. But he needs to learn a lesson here. His answers were plainly not acceptable.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Awful-izers
My pastor stepped on my toes this weekend, but good. If you are a regular church goer and have a good pastor you know that he's going to hit you where you live every now and again and put you under "conviction".
In my case, it was his description of what he calls "awful-izers". They are the folks around the church and elsewhere that he encounters that take any piece of news and put the worst possible take on it. The example he gave was of a prayer chain that started with the news that a member was going in for heart tests, and by the time it got around the chain the member was dead and the funeral was on Wednesday! Someone in the chain was an awful-izer.
Okay, he got me. I'm a partisan. And a news junkie. And an occupational hazard for a partisan newsjunkie is to be an awful-izer. I've known for a long time that I'm prone to this particular malady and every so often I get reminded of it. It takes a lot of effort to take a balanced look at issues and both not exaggerate the severity of an issue and to see the positive elements of the other point of view. I try to achieve that, but it's hard and I often fall in the trap of being an awful-izer.
Now, I have to list two caveats with the concept of awful-izing in general:
- it doesn't mean that there is never "awful" news or issues that need to be confronted, or exposed, or opposed. And I will take those issues on fearlessly.
- both sides are susceptible to this phenomenon. I feel comfortable saying that it's typically the party out of power that exhibits this the most, as I believe the Democrats did during this election.
Ok. I've fessed up. Anyone else want to examine themselves? You should think about some self-examination if you've any of the following positions in the last year:
- George W. Bush is Hitler
- John Ashcroft is a facist who uses the Constitution for toilet paper
- America is worse than al Qaeda
- Haliburton is the single most corrupt entity in the world (U.N. oil-for-food, pick up the red phone)
- The fundamentalist Christian right is taking over America and shoving it's views down everyone's throats
Come on in. Stick your toes out and get them stepped on. It does a soul good.
In my case, it was his description of what he calls "awful-izers". They are the folks around the church and elsewhere that he encounters that take any piece of news and put the worst possible take on it. The example he gave was of a prayer chain that started with the news that a member was going in for heart tests, and by the time it got around the chain the member was dead and the funeral was on Wednesday! Someone in the chain was an awful-izer.
Okay, he got me. I'm a partisan. And a news junkie. And an occupational hazard for a partisan newsjunkie is to be an awful-izer. I've known for a long time that I'm prone to this particular malady and every so often I get reminded of it. It takes a lot of effort to take a balanced look at issues and both not exaggerate the severity of an issue and to see the positive elements of the other point of view. I try to achieve that, but it's hard and I often fall in the trap of being an awful-izer.
Now, I have to list two caveats with the concept of awful-izing in general:
- it doesn't mean that there is never "awful" news or issues that need to be confronted, or exposed, or opposed. And I will take those issues on fearlessly.
- both sides are susceptible to this phenomenon. I feel comfortable saying that it's typically the party out of power that exhibits this the most, as I believe the Democrats did during this election.
Ok. I've fessed up. Anyone else want to examine themselves? You should think about some self-examination if you've any of the following positions in the last year:
- George W. Bush is Hitler
- John Ashcroft is a facist who uses the Constitution for toilet paper
- America is worse than al Qaeda
- Haliburton is the single most corrupt entity in the world (U.N. oil-for-food, pick up the red phone)
- The fundamentalist Christian right is taking over America and shoving it's views down everyone's throats
Come on in. Stick your toes out and get them stepped on. It does a soul good.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Methodists Hold Line on Clergy
The news last week included an item about a United Methodist "trial" of a clergy member living a lesbian lifestyle. The "jury" of clergy convicted her in a vote of 11-1 and has removed her from the clergy. Members of her home church have stated publicly that the would want her to continue her duties as a layman, minus the sacraments that are reserved for clergy.
I don't particularly have a comment on the specific case or the woman who was on trial. She makes her own choices about her lifestyle and I'm sure that she is a fine and caring person who wants to minister to people in a sacrificial manner. Admirable. I have no desire, and certainly no standing not being a member of that church, to judge her.
I do think, however, it was inevitable and necessary that the hierarchy of her church, to whom she is completely accountable, to judge her by the standards of the church doctrine as they have articulated it through decades of working that question out against scripture and their consciences. I applaud the church for standing on their doctrine and not retreating. And, I don't have much doubt about how John Wesley - founder of the Methodist denomination - might have decided on the question.
My only comment on the case revolves around a statement made by her lawyer who argued that the important issue was whether or not all members of the Methodist Church, regardless of status, had equal rights.
This statement cuts right to the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives. One of the definitions that I've heard and applied on the question is that liberals emphasize group and rights/entitlements where conservatives emphasize individuals and responsibilities. In that light, liberals have made enormous inroads in the last 40 years in focusing public debate related to issues in the news on solely on "rights".
This focus on "rights" over responsibilities is evident in this case and in this lawyer's statement. Let me make the following points:
- Not every member of a church has a "right" to be a member of the clergy. Clearly the clergy is a set-apart subset within the body that is charged with the responsiblity moral leadership. In short, there is on purpose a difference between the clergy and the laymen (and laywomen) of a church. The responsibility-based concept of being "worthy" of being a member of this select group has been lost in our generation to a legion of lawyers litigating "rights".
- Any church has the authority to define qualifications for its clergy. Most do so in published doctinal manuals.
- It is the obligation of the church authorities to test candidates for clergy and to choose only the worthy. This is what is due to the flock, that they are led by worthy leaders.
- It is also the obligation of the church authorities to uphold those standards and to discipline and/or expel clergy members who fail in their duties. Again, no one is ever "entitled" to be a clergy member. There is no tenure in the church. Churches who fail to uphold their standards relating to doctrine, and who pander excessively to the "rights" of individuals as did the Catholic Church with their epidemic of pedophile priests, fail the membership of the church to the harm of the church.
In this case, the United Methodist church had a traditional doctrinal stance that an open homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with excercising the select sacrificial leadership responsibility of the clergy. Not everyone will agree with that stance, but then again membership in the church is a voluntary association. If you don't agree then join a different church.
And, unexpectedly I might add, they upheld their own doctrine in the face of withering publicity about the "rights" of one person to violate the standards and still maintain the role of leadership. They were resisting political correctness in its purest form. I applaud the Methodists for resisting it. And I wish the woman in question well in her life as a member of the church and in her service as a layman.
I don't particularly have a comment on the specific case or the woman who was on trial. She makes her own choices about her lifestyle and I'm sure that she is a fine and caring person who wants to minister to people in a sacrificial manner. Admirable. I have no desire, and certainly no standing not being a member of that church, to judge her.
I do think, however, it was inevitable and necessary that the hierarchy of her church, to whom she is completely accountable, to judge her by the standards of the church doctrine as they have articulated it through decades of working that question out against scripture and their consciences. I applaud the church for standing on their doctrine and not retreating. And, I don't have much doubt about how John Wesley - founder of the Methodist denomination - might have decided on the question.
My only comment on the case revolves around a statement made by her lawyer who argued that the important issue was whether or not all members of the Methodist Church, regardless of status, had equal rights.
This statement cuts right to the heart of the divide between liberals and conservatives. One of the definitions that I've heard and applied on the question is that liberals emphasize group and rights/entitlements where conservatives emphasize individuals and responsibilities. In that light, liberals have made enormous inroads in the last 40 years in focusing public debate related to issues in the news on solely on "rights".
This focus on "rights" over responsibilities is evident in this case and in this lawyer's statement. Let me make the following points:
- Not every member of a church has a "right" to be a member of the clergy. Clearly the clergy is a set-apart subset within the body that is charged with the responsiblity moral leadership. In short, there is on purpose a difference between the clergy and the laymen (and laywomen) of a church. The responsibility-based concept of being "worthy" of being a member of this select group has been lost in our generation to a legion of lawyers litigating "rights".
- Any church has the authority to define qualifications for its clergy. Most do so in published doctinal manuals.
- It is the obligation of the church authorities to test candidates for clergy and to choose only the worthy. This is what is due to the flock, that they are led by worthy leaders.
- It is also the obligation of the church authorities to uphold those standards and to discipline and/or expel clergy members who fail in their duties. Again, no one is ever "entitled" to be a clergy member. There is no tenure in the church. Churches who fail to uphold their standards relating to doctrine, and who pander excessively to the "rights" of individuals as did the Catholic Church with their epidemic of pedophile priests, fail the membership of the church to the harm of the church.
In this case, the United Methodist church had a traditional doctrinal stance that an open homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with excercising the select sacrificial leadership responsibility of the clergy. Not everyone will agree with that stance, but then again membership in the church is a voluntary association. If you don't agree then join a different church.
And, unexpectedly I might add, they upheld their own doctrine in the face of withering publicity about the "rights" of one person to violate the standards and still maintain the role of leadership. They were resisting political correctness in its purest form. I applaud the Methodists for resisting it. And I wish the woman in question well in her life as a member of the church and in her service as a layman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)