McClellan Book: Bush Misled U.S. On Iraq, Other Things

They just keep coming out. One after another they are confessing or confirming what has been obvious for some time. First lower level or unknown ex-Bush staffers, then the better known or well known, they make their predictable disclosures. Now former White House Press Secretary and Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has made his book deal and is pouring out his guilty heart. The White House is shocked, of course--not least because McClellan was a trusted, long-term, up-from-Texas member of the Bush team.

The Washington Post reports:

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated 'political propaganda campaign' led by President Bush and aimed at 'manipulating sources of public opinion' and 'downplaying the major reason for going to war.'

He also unsurprisingly singles out Karl Rove and VP Dick Cheney for special acknowledgements. The Post reports that McClellan describes Bush as "a willing participant in treating his presidency as a permanent political campaign, run in large part by his top political adviser, Rove." And they quote McClellan as elaborating on just what that meant:

...never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned.

Making one of McClellan's points in a different way, an Atlantic article, The Rove Presidency (September 2007), noted that after the elections, Rove's White House political office continued to oversee a constant campaign-like process that was so divisive outside and inside the GOP that it made it impossible to effectively govern.

Instead of modest bipartisanship, the administration’s preferred style of governing became something much closer to the way Rove runs campaigns: Steamroll the opposition whenever possible, and reach across the aisle only in the rare cases...And Rove, forever in thrall to the mechanics of winning by dividing, consistently lacked the ability to transcend the campaign mind-set and see beyond the struggle nearest at hand.

But in addressing Dick Cheney's role, McClellan just adds to the ever-growing, unsettling mystique of the man, refering to the Vice President as "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.

The Post also reveals a recent explanatory e-mail in which McClellan shares this reason for sharing his story:

I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it.

And then, of course, there's the money.

Expect the confessional queue to continue to get longer in the months and early years after G.W. leaves office.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24848910/page/2/

Buffett: A Long and Deep Recession

Billionaire Warren Buffett, "the Oracle of Omaha," has been saying lately that for all practical purposes we are already experiencing a recession. And more than that, as he told the German magazine, Der Spiegel, this recession will likely be much worse than people expect:

This is not a field of specialty for me, but my general feeling is that the recession will be longer and deeper than most people think.

The housing market. The subprime morgage debacle. The lack of financing capital. The price of oil and gas. The price of food. Inflation. And the problems and burdens on the economy continue to proliferate. When Buffet talks, I listen--but I don't think you have to be an oracle to see where all this is going.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-28-buffett-recession_N.htm

G.W. Bush & America's Self-Inflicted Decline?

A Newsweek article by Michael Hirsh calls out those who, in recent years, have explained America's decline and waning global influence largely in terms of the natural processes of an evolving global context, geopolitically and economically. Rather, he sees it better explained by a clear and causal relationship between the misguided executive policies of George W. Bush (and his "black box" administration) and the precipitous slide of American credibility, moral authority and influence from 2001 to 2008.

Mr. Hirsh suggests that those who would rather see America's declining authority and influence as more a natural, evolving phenomenon are most often supporters of Bush and the Iraq War. And as such, they have a vested emotional interest in an analysis that sees a lesser role for the Bush administration, and a greater one for the long-term evolution and advancement of geopolitical and economic processes around the globe. I don't know about that, but I hope Mr. Hirsh doesn't believe that you have to be a supporter of the Bush administration to recognize the very real contribution or influence of these evolving global factors.

What also struck me is Mr. Hirsh's implicit assumption that whichever side of the causal analysis one is on, there has evolved a shared consensus in recent years that American influence in most all global affairs has indeed significantly declined, and is continuing to decline. Impliedly, that is no longer seriously in question. I don't know if that consensus is as broad as Mr. Hirsh suggests, but I doubt it. And while I agree with the basic premise of our gradual decline and more limited influence, we remain very much an influencial political and economic force in the world today. We will remain one for some time to come. And while I could hardly have less respect for George Bush and his presidency, it is a very limited view that sees him as the single-handed author of the decline of America. (See the articles The Future of American Power and The Age of Nonpolarity in the May/June 2008 edition of Foreign Affairs.)

That evolving context of global relations and economics is surely playing the most significant long-term role in this process. There can be little doubt. But having noted that, neither is there any doubt that George Bush's unfortunate presidency has been a major, short-term exacerbating and accelerating factor. He has certainly hurried the process along. And it is not just that he has pushed us faster into declining influence, it is the way he has done it: bringing discredit on us as a nation, undermining our scientific credibility, tarnishing our geopolitical and diplomatic integrity, undermining our moral authority, and weakening our economy. The only question remaining is whether the next president will be able to change our role and direction, and restore credibility and respect for the still considerable voice and influence we continue to exercise.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/137146

Red Bird, Mary Oliver

Now in her early 70's, Mary Oliver has just delivered one of her best collections of poetry: Red Bird. Not since the Dream Works collection, which included the poem Wild Geese, have I been so moved by her work. Perhaps, in part, it has something to do with the profound personal loss of recent years now coming to rest more acceptably as a balanced, continuing part of who she is. Perhaps, in part, it is the fire of her new-found faith now more a comforting warmth and also a more balanced, continuing part of her life. In Thirst, both these events appeared to dominate her life, and the cathartic, emotional overflow seemed to compromise, perhaps, or at least change the content and style of her art in that work.

But now, layering her new sense of age and mortality onto her loss and her faith, a new maturity seems to have emerged in this work. Her observations of Blackwater Pond, its inhabitants and environs, are still as keen and insightful and assuring as ever. But she now encounters God's creation through her work in the same way that many of us always have, and references to creation's Authorship, direction and Purpose, to the eternal signature of God's hand on the beginnings and endings, the cycles of birth and death, are now gracefully interwoven into the content and natural style of her art. Yes, death is more on her mind. And now, on a few occasions—but often enough, and quite clearly and directly—she registers her concerns, her lament, for a threatened environment and for the lives needlessly lost in places like Iraq. It is all the Mary Oliver we love, but in a new season of life.

Here's one of many favorites:

Mornings at Blackwater

For years, every morning, I drank
from Blackwater Pond.
it was flavored with oak leaves and also, no doubt,
the feet of ducks.

And always it assuaged me
from the dry bowl of the very far past.

What I want to say is
that the past is the past,
and the present is what your life is,
and you are capable
of choosing what that will be,
darling citizen.

So come to the pond,
or the river of your imagination,
or the harbor of your longing,

and put your lips to the world.
And live your life.

The Freedom to Say 'No'

Why aren't there more women in science and engineering? They are just not interested. At least that's what new research suggests according to this piece in the Boston Globe:

Now two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.

But there remain open the continuing questions about the influence of other sociological factors. The debate is not over.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/05/18/the_freedom_to_say_no/?page=full

NYC: The Mysteries of the Suicide Tourist

Here's a quirky piece about a quirky fact. While many young people and others go to NYC for the excitement of living there, some others go there to end their life. Apparently, people actually go to NYC just to commit suicide. Think about that for awhile.

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Mysteries+of+the+Suicide+Tourist&expire=&urlID=28453853&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2F46811%2F&partnerID=73272

Racism Alarms Obama Backers

Barack Obama rightly and wisely downplays racist opposition to his candidacy and stresses the healing and unifying potential of an Obama presidency. But according to this article, his workers on the phone and in the field have experienced unsettling, overt expressions of that racism still alive and flourishing in the shadowed corners of American life. But as I warned in Opus, Again, below, the worst is yet to come when the dark forces operatives are fully released on Obama in the general election.

But this is not a reason or time to be dispirited. It is a time to be optimistic. For the first time there is the realistic presidential candidacy of a multiracial person—and he is brilliant, articulate, insightful and balanced. He will look into the shadowed, racist eyes and by virtue of who he is and what he stands for will put the lie on the racist voices and fears. Whoever may still be in doubt will see these dysfunctional, often socially wounded and anachronistic voices for who they are, what they are. And our country can then take another important step forward.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24588813/

Evangelicalism Rebounds in Academe

I didn't see this coming, but I should have. And I really try to keep up on such things. But according to an article by a sociologist at Rice University, The presence and impact of evangelicals--both students and faculty--in colleges and universities is growing in the new millennium. He reports that,

Evangelical students make up larger and larger portions of the incoming classes at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. They join robust campus-ministry groups that sponsor everything from debates to spring-break "mission" trips. And while they still fall slightly below the national average, the percentage of evangelicals receiving bachelor's degrees has climbed 133 percent from 1976 to 2004...

The author's research also indicates that more evangelical scholars are playing important roles in the academic discussion of resurgent religious issues and topics, and in other areas of research and inquiry as well, including science. And he tries to place it all in historical perspective:

The "opening of the evangelical mind," as Alan Wolfe has aptly called it, may be surprising to some, but it is not unprecedented. Indeed anti-intellectualism within Christianity is actually an anomaly of the 20th century. [Italics added.] For most of Christianity's history, faith and learning have been intertwined. Over the centuries, intellectuals received religious sanction for their scholarly pursuits, and the church in both Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions supported a range of intellectual activity, from the scientific research of Newton to the literary contributions of Chesterton. History is on the side of evangelical intellectual strivings.

The author goes to some lengths to rightly note that evangelicals are a more complicated, less homogeneous, and much misunderstood patchwork quilt of believers. Most are not right-wing Republicans, he asserts, and most are not fundamentalists. But the author clearly spends more time addressing evangelicals in academic environments than in Main Street evangelical churches and ministries. And he tends to want to see all expressions of evangelical Christianity as benignly and charitably as he perceives those in academe:

Unlike fundamentalists who retreat from pluralistic environments, evangelicals relish the chance to engage people who hold different beliefs. This could present an opportunity for deeper understanding on our campuses, but it will happen only if we bring evangelicals into our classroom discussions. Just as the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom, so will rising religious pluralism.

But he fails to recognize that, in Main Street America, the fundamentalists and political operatives have so infiltrated or taken the lead among the most public evangelical voices that much of the general public now considers the terms fundamentalist, Christian Right and evangelical as interchangeable. And if those types of evangelicals also "relish the chance to engage people who hold different beliefs," it is most often not with a tolerant or open mind. That is a reality in too many evangelical churches. But, as the author suggests, it is not true of many more. And I applaud him for his upstream battle against this public confusion and misperception. But at critical points, I fear he is more describing his ideal--and mine--than reality:

Nearly every evangelical scholar I encountered embodies a "cosmopolitan" evangelical faith. They are "worldly" believers, in the best sense of the term. They regularly rub shoulders with people of different faiths and of no faith at all. They aim not to "take back" the country for their faith, but simply want their faith to be seen as reasonable, genuine, and attractive.

But neither the evangelical scholars and students he describes approvingly, nor their respectful approach to the pluralistic academic environment of various faiths and no faith, fairly represent the more dominant, aggressive and judgmental social and political agendas of the most public evangelical voices.

http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=MJkHPtFJgVzccg6S9G9ZTKyGtpqshxgT

Opus, Again: Renounce and Denounce Him...

Opus (Berkeley Breathed) continues to chronicle the ridiculous, the distorted, and the unsettling on the Obama campaign trail.

Renounce and denounce him...disown and decry
him...spurn him and shun him...and hope birds poop on him.

And you can be sure there are many more surrealistic campaign episodes yet to come on the long road to November. After all, the dark forces operatives won't be fully unleashed against Obama until the general election campaign begins. Expect lots more populist fear mongering as they play more overtly to racial, religious and cultural prejudice. But Opus can handle it.

http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2008/04/20/opus/

Counterpoint: The Cost of Smarts

This whimsical, insightful item and counterpoint to my 5/1 post (Uniquely Human?) was forwarded to me by L.A. lawyer and Montana fishing buddy, Roy G. It is a short, pointed op-ed piece from yesterdays N.Y. Times, noting that studies on fruit flies reveal that those taught to be smarter had notably shorter lifespans. What an interesting trade-off! He muses that if "dimmer bulbs burn longer," couldn't there be an adaptive survival advantage to limited intelligence? But then, what if the tables were turned and the animals were doing the experiments on human subjects? What would they be trying to learn about us? This is what he concludes:

I believe that if animals ran the labs, they would test us to determine the limits of our patience, our faithfulness, our memory for terrain. They would try to decide what intelligence in humans is really for, not merely how much of it there is. Above all, they would hope to study a fundamental question: Are humans actually aware of the world they live in? So far the results are inconclusive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07wed4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Letter from China: Crazy English

Part self-help guru, part huckster, and part inspirational speaker, Li Yang is all entrepreneur and marketeer. With his bellowing admonition to "conquer English to make China stronger," he strikes the right nationalistic tone while, ironically, displaying how well he has come to understand and exercise Western marketing and salesmanship.

And now he has been retained by China's Olympic Organizing Committee to teach China's army of Olympic support personnel to speak as much English as possible by the time the guests arrive. And he intends to make that happen. In the article linked below, the New Yorker chronicles Li's unlikely entrepreneurial ascendancy, his ambition and fortuitous timing, and the unique ESL teaching empire he's built "out of his country's deepening devotion to a language it once derided as the tongue of barbarians and capitalists." Although, just how effective his unorthodox methods are is still questioned by some, he is already looking past the Beijing Olympics to the possibilities for his ever-expanding business. The article relates the following interview with Li:

Li turned one of our interviews into a lecture for his employees, who crowded around to listen. (Someone recorded it on a video camera.) “How can we make Crazy English more successful?” he asked me, his voice rising. “We know that people are not going to be persistent, so we give them ten sentences a month, or one article a month, and then, when they master this, we give them a huge award, a big ceremony. Celebrate! Then we have them pay again, and we make money again.” He turned toward the assembled employees and switched to Chinese: “The secret of success is to have them continuously paying—that’s the conclusion I’ve reached.” Then back to English: “How can we make them pay again and again and again?”

China may have a stunted understanding of democracy and civil rights, but Chinese entrepreneurs are learning fast about markets, selling and profits. First things, first, I suppose--but do they really believe that is the best we have to offer?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/28/080428fa_fact_osnos

Our Brain and Cognition: Uniquely Human?

Does the stuff of our human brain, its molecular make up and architecture, its genetic prescriptions, uniquely separate us by an evolutionary order of magnitude from the functioning brains of other mammals and life forms? And as a result, does our capability and experience of sentience and cognition likewise separate us by an extraordinary evolutionary advance from any other living creatures? Or is the development of our brain and our cognitive experience just the next predictable or expected evolutionary step in a progression as notable for what we have in common with our closest evolutionary relatives as for what is unique about us and our more advanced abilities?

To most of us--or to me, at least--both propositions seem to have the ring of truth. Why would I have to abandon the second proposition to embrace the first? But this difference of opinion about human uniqueness and the state of human evolution has been the basis for debate among some of our best biolgical, behavioral and cognitive scientists.

The linked article below in Edge is by Prof. Michael Gazzaniga, a leading neuroscientists, Professor of Psychology, and Director of the SAGE Center for the Study of Mind at the University of California Santa Barbara. He provides a readable primer on the background of this research and debate while providing his evolutionary case for the dominance of the first proposition: the uniqueness of our brains and the resulting singular and remarkable level of our cognitive ability. He sets the table by observing that,

It seems that half of the scientific world sees the human animal as on a continuum with other animals and others see a sharp break between animals and humans, see two distinct groups. The argument has been raging for years ...It has always been a puzzle to me why so many neuroscientists become agitated when someone raises the question of whether or not there might be unique features to the human brain. Why is it that one can easily accept that there are visible physical differences that make us unique, but to consider differences in our brains and how they work is so touchy?

The foundation for his position is research evidence for unique human evolutionary advances--positive selection of gene variants, or "phase shifts," as he calls them--that occurred at two points in what he posits is the continuing evolution of man: one approximately 37,000 years ago, and the second only about 5800 years ago. Prof. Gazzaniga suggests the first is coincident with the emergence of culturally modern man, while the second, importantly, appears coincident with the development of agriculture, cities, language and recorded history. But in concluding, he acknowledges the continuing open questions:

This all sounds promising. We’ve got the big brains. Some of those big brains have discovered at least some of the genes that code for the big brains, and the genes appear to have changed at key times in our evolution. Doesn’t this mean they caused it all to happen and that they are what make us unique? What we don’t know is if the genetic changes caused the cultural changes or were synergistic, and even if they did, what exactly is going on in those big brains and how is it happening?

And for those of us called to understand also the spiritual experience and identity of man, we would have to note, and with some importance, that this second "phase shift" also appears roughly coincident with mankind's early spiritual experience, over time leading to the development of personal faith identity and organized religion.

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge242.html