Sunday, June 1, 2003

Fact-Basing Andy J. W. Affleck likes the fact-based politician meme: Facts versus Influence Escapable Logic may have nailed the answer to my "why do people still buy the bullshit" question: ...we've never had a fact-based politician and if you read or write a blog or software code, you're committed to the outrageous notion that facts matter. For many people, facts don't matter. The process of discovering, testing, discarding and describing facts is such a mystery to many that they're not willing to trust it. Most of us, and certainly most people in power, are interested only in what increases our influence, which is rarely factual. This rings true to me on a number of levels. Recently, the local paper here in Herndon has had a bit of a back and forth about the Bush Administration. The thing that my wife pointed out to me was how the anti-Bush letter writers produced facts and specific points to illustrate their position. The other side threw out things like: "Clinton lied" or "What about Whitewater?" or "Liberals who don't want to stand up for the brave men and women fighting for freedom" and so forth. All of those are invective. They are not facts. They do not put forth an argument and then support it. They are purely attempts to influence (read: manipulate). Even trying to answer those statements moves the conversation immediately into a no-man's land where no one can win. If you try to point out that what Clinton did or did not do has nothing to do with what Bush is currently doing (or that two wrongs don't make a right, etc.) you end up in a long discussion about Clinton, the nature of morality, and why the liberals have no family values or some such nonsense. If you try to point out that being against Bush or the war in Iraq or the like has nothing to do with supporting to people in the military you get sucked into another vortex. Can a facts-based politician win in this country? That would be a very interesting thing to see and experience. Maybe Howard Dean is the person to do it? Andy has many thoughtful posts at Webcrumbs. Check them out. Mitch, Dean of Misgivings Mitch Ratcliffe is not so sure that all is swell in the Dean Camp. In Becoming what we don't want to be?, he describes the attack dog tactics of some of Howard Dean's supporters, who flame even a hint of negativity about their candidate: I'm glad to see an aggressive liberal, particularly an anti-war liberal. But a campaign encouraging the attacking of comments made by people with dismissive one-liners is disturbingly like the Republican strategy these past 12 years and that style has reduced the level of public discourse to a flavorless radish paste, it's bitter when you bite into it and not particularly filling--it will also back-fire with most liberals in the long-run, because we do believe in free speech and free thought (and as many folks know, I am not averse to an energetic debate, but one of ideas, not zingers). Frankly, I don't want to be led by people willing to be as stupidly anti-intellectual as most of the conservative talk show hosts and commentators. Talk to people, don't dismiss them--that's the essence of liberalism. Mitch is touching on the ancient issue of ends justifying the means, which the neoconservatives have raised to an art form. If one advocates a return to traditional values, why would you adopt politics which every previous administration would consider beneath contempt. I sincerely believe Nixon and his convicted Attorney General John Mitchell would not have stooped to the depths that Ashcroft and crew have, subverting the Fredom of Information Act (FOIA) in the interest of Department policies: When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records." Do the Ends justify the Memes? It's a tough call. How far should Dean go to "Get my country back!"? How far should his supporters go? Perhaps Dean should treat this as a leadership opportunity to define and enforce a standard of behavior from his fans. But it's not unusual for campaign managers to develop and defend some extremists to go toe-to-toe with their counterparts on the other side. The evidence that Mitch cites is from this accessible version of Ryan Lizza's New Republic article from 5/23: I am concerned about the tenor of the Dean campaign, which is shaping up like a war, and here is why: The New Republic in an article called "Dean.com" (it's a password-protected subscription site) reports that the Dean camp is using the Web, blogs in particular, to go after critics. Anyone who writes critically about Dean can expect his copy to be chewed up by this army of zealous Dean Internet scribes. When I wrote a piece recently that contained a few paragraphs about Dean, a member of the Dean2004 blog team filed an almost 2,000-word entry slicing my article up into sections with labels such as "true," "false," "inadvertently true," and "foolish." Not content with this, the Dean blogosphere recently established a rapid-reaction team called the Dean Defense Forces (DDF)--an e-mail list of hard-core Dean supporters who swiftly push back with e-mails, letters to the editor, blog entries, and phone calls against anyone spreading anti-Dean sentiments. "When he gets attacked, we'll respond," pledges the DDF's organizer, Matthew Singer, a 20-year-old college student in Montana who once blogged about Dean on his own site, Left in the West. It's also possible that the referenced sections of Ryan Lizza's piece were, respectively, true, false, inadvertently true and foolish. The New Republic is big J journalism, after all, as Mitch points out, and hanging on to its fragile franchise. The Leadership Thing I'd love to see Howard Dean go public to assert that his campaign should be superior in every way to the hegemony of small minded capitalists he is fighting on our behalf—in demeanor, logic and heart. Then I'd like to see his team go forth among the people wielding calm logic and patient, reasonable dialogue to knock the livin' shit out of the people who took our country away from us. On that point I'm archly conservative. 7:20:22 PM    comment []

Chicken Hogs There's been a fair amount of attention paid to the Chicken Hawk phenomenon–People in the Bush administration who never saw combat but who think combat is a swell occupation for the sons and daughters of people they don't know. My purpose tonight is not to jump on that obvious and easy target. They're just jerks, that's all. Rather, I'm concerned with the notion of gravitas, a sense of significance that one projects through one's bearing, not necessarily based on one's deeds. "Gravitas" is a term that appeared on the political scene when Dick Cheney was anointed as Bush's running mate in 2000. This conclusion was generated by a blue ribbon committee charged with deciding who would be the best candidate for Vice President. Many of us have forgotten that Dick Cheney was the chairman of the blue ribbon committee that recommended Dick Cheney as the VP candidate. If you were a novelist, you wouldn't dare to make this stuff up... Pundits nodded sagely, just 3 years ago (can it be that recent?), noting that it was brilliant for the Bush campaign to add the serious appearing, tight-lipped Halliburton CEO to the ticket. Good counterpoise to a Yale frat boy whose crowning political achievement had been to make Texas so business-oriented that its deficit approached $7,000,000,000 within 2 years of his departure. (Yeah. A 7 followed by 9 zeroes.) I guess you've gotta build a platform on at least the appearance of principle. My three regular readers may recall that one catalyst of my Bush resentment is that he and I raised our hands and swore to uphold the Constitution and to show up as ordered and do what we'd be told, at the same New Haven USAF recruiting office. The record is pretty clear that Lieutenant Bush subsequently failed to report for duty after finagling an assignment from Texas to Alabama. The assignment coincided with his oh-so-vital participation in a congressional campaign now remembered only by the candidates. He must have been a pivotal player–he was later to demonstrate his management skills by trading Sammy Sosa from the Rangers to the Cubs. Swell. The Gravitas Inversion I don't take a lot of things seriously. I don't possess Gravitas, whatever-the-fuck that is. As I navigate through my reality, I find much to laugh at and little to take seriously, except the spectacle of public "servants" fattening themselves at the trough of the common wealth. A sense of irony was my take before I went to Viet Nam, but it was hard-wired by the time I got back. We were the first wave of pilots to return from "Nam" and be assigned to the Strategic Air Command. We immediately noticed that all of the Test Flight officers who hadn't been in combat were poring over the flight manual looking for semicolons to stump the crew members on the next exam: Describe the navigation lights on the wingtips of the KC-135 aircraft: are they colored bulbs with clear lenses or clear bulbs with colored lenses? Why would a pilot care about such a detail? Meanwhile, we were scheduling our next visit to the Stag Bar to trick each other into buying drinks by playing "Dead Bug." What were they gonna do? Send us to Viet Nam? Hah! Dead Bug! My premise this evening pretty much revolves around the important ritual that pilots call Dead Bug! There's a wonderful Dead Bug sequence in The Great Santini. Rent it. Here's the ritual. You go fly a mission. You land and repair to the Stag Bar. You order a round. The glasses become empty. This is serious, far more serious than the fact that you just landed with a hole in your airplane, streaming fuel, #2 engine out, no oil pressure on #1. That's just part of the job. What's at stake here is that SOMEONE BETTER BUY A FRICKIN' ROUND! The obvious solution is that a seemingly mature officer, devoted husband, father of 3 and Defender Of Our Freedom, cries out DEAD BUG! at the top of his lungs and immediately throws himself and his chair straight back onto the floor, wiggling his feet in the air. Last guy on the floor buys. It's a reflex test. Baseball players and pilots value fast reflexes.   Here, the game is demonstrated on the flight line by the oh-so-serious "Wild Weasel" crew members of the 333TFS, Takhli RTAFB, Thailand, 1968. The Wild Weasels were guys who flew around North Viet Nam in F-105 "Thuds," hoping someone would fire a Surface-to-Air-Missile at them. Now the way you defeat a SAM is to immediately dive right at it as fast as you can! If it whizzes past your canopy at a 1,000 knot closing rate, it's a successful engagement. Then you fire your missile at the ground station that launched their missile. The F-105 was called the Thud because of the sound it made when it dropped out of the sky, which it always wanted to do since it was basically a brick with wings. Cool. 2 or 3 hours of this kind of fun and a guy could develop a thirst... And shed every pretense that anything else matters as much as hanging it out over the edge every day. I'm reminded of the disconnect between seriousness of mission and seriousness of demeanor because Doc introduced me to the legendary Drazen Pantic Wednesday night. Drazen is the guy who brought the Internet to Yugoslavia when Miloshevic was killing people who did things like that–truly dicey times. Drazen's picture is misleading. It makes him appear somber but in person he smiles easily and often. No obvious gravitas. Just a joyful appreciation for the passing scene. My instant comment upon meeting Drazen was, "You're much better looking in person!" Where's the Beef? This disconnect between reality and demeanor seems to me universal. Rent a late forties movie and notice how guys behave after returning when their buddies didn't. They're joking around all the time! Now fast-forward to the demeanor of our administration's warmongers. They're Oh so Serious... So full of the weight of the world... Such vital things to ponder and decide and, regretfully, put someone else's kid in harm's way... I'm not alone among veterans in this insight. I got an email from a guy who was there when we coaxed (fly would be an overstatement) our burning C-130 onto the tarmac at Tay Ninh on 25 June 1968. He agreed with my conclusion that you'd never follow a manager into battle, and that the Bush administration is deep-sixing the values that made our country great. Another C-130 Pilot, John Robb, seems to agree. My conclusion is that if you never put your ass on the line, you'd better look as serious and self-important as you can. But if you're dealing with serious matters, including making ends meet in the kleptocracy John Robb describes, it helps to keep it light and keep smiling. John was landing C-130s by starlight in 1995, trying to keep Miloshevic from killing Drazen. Good show! Da More I Steal, Demeanor I Look It goes without saying that rich people who would rather control the country than serve her don't really deserve our vote, no matter how grave and determined their demeanor. 12:22:39 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Britt Blaser. Last update: 1/14/06; 3:18:27 PM.