The New Chamberlain

At the onset of President Obama’s term in office, there seemed a desire to deal with Iran.  Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has sought a deal with the totalitarian state to inhibit through diplomacy its nuclear ambitions.  This might be seen as a continuation of the type of diplomacy that began under President Nixon to limit our adversaries’ nuclear capabilities.  However, previous agreements have been done from a position of strength.  The president, so anxious to get any deal done, has created the opposite and the Iranians are better for it.

For the Iranians, the biggest hurdle to overcome is the elimination of international sanctions that have been in place for so long that the Iranian economy’s decline is in an inverse relationship with civil unrest.  The Iranian leadership, exhibiting a dictatorial nature that they once bemoaned personified in the Shah, is cracking down on dissent while trying to turn the corner on their own Great Depression. 

Just as the Iranian government was left grasping for answers, they received a bit of salvation in a rather obliging deal with the U.S.  The fact that the Iranians are praising the deal while threatening to build nuclear weapons if anyone backs out should give the powers that be pause.  The Israelis are particular concern because their relationship with Iran is not diplomatic but pragmatic.  It is they who stand to face obliteration at the hands of a nuclear Iran.  While the president opines rhetorically, the Israelis are faced with a very real problem.  For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is not a personal ambition but a national one given the results of recent elections that returned him to power.

The blithe sanguinity with which the president sees Iran’s compliance is thankfully not shared by the Congress.  The ball is now in their court to put some teeth back into this deal or nix it altogether.  Still, while Congress can frame the approach, it still lies with the president to act on it and Mr. Obama does not seem keen to do so.  With a naïveté reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter with the Russians and President Woodrow Wilson with the European Powers, President Obama is banking his entire approach on the “will of good men” in Iran.  Never mind that Iran has done nothing to give the impression that such men exist within its government, the president’s approach continues to hold the faith. 

I must admit that I admired initially the president’s willingness to speak to Iran.  He is right that nothing can be achieved without communication.  However, cock-eyed optimism is no way to deal with such an adversary.  There must be iron in our words and a willingness to lower the hammer if our interests are ignored.  We have taken on the responsibility to negotiate and the worst thing that we can do is to disregard our commitment to friends and regional peace by settling for anything at any price.  The president, in a way not unlike pre-World War II British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, has done just that.

Wrestling with Demons

In 1991, I was a slow boat back to the United States from the Persian Gulf.  Having dispatched Saddam Hussein and his army, the Allied forces were going home and without much to show for it, so were I and my unit.  Still, what little we did do, we were offered counseling on the transport back but being young, in our early 20s, we had little use for a shrink.  So, I and many of my cohorts said no and went about our business.  Steven Watkins, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq has figured out his own way of coping.   

The trained engineer has seen some harrowing things while serving in Afghanistan and working in Iraq.  I’ve done nothing compared to this man.  However, Mr. Watkins was a man in search of a mission and a purpose.  He signed up for everything he could and though not actually needed, he would join patrols and the like.  He saw the worse of war and then sought more.  When he left the military, he signed up as a civilian engineer in Iraq.  In short, Mr. Watkins was trying to scratch an itch and burned himself out and was injured in the process.  Upon returning home, he attended counseling and group therapy but in his words, it had little effect.   

Then, he had an epiphany.  Challenges are what drove him and made him the happiest prior to his injuries.  Challenges could also be his salvation.  He contacted the son of the man who began the famed Iditarod race between Fairbanks and Nome, Alaska to be trained for the challenge.  He is currently in the beginning stages of his first Iditarod and is seeking to finish.  Upon completion of that race, he will fly to Nepal and a week later, climb Mount Everest.  He is healthier than he has been since returning from Iraq.  He is emboldened with a spirit to push himself physically and mentally.   

In a video published by The Washington Post, Mr. Watkins said he felt that treatment for soldiers are too soft and not challenging enough.  Given that we are talking about men and women who chose as their profession a challenging and arduous path, having them sit and share their feelings is a limited but not useless strategy.  I can appreciate, in a Nietzschean way, the concept of pushing recovering soldiers to tap into what drove them into the military initially.  However, Mr. Watkins is flirting with a fine line.   

Mr. Watkins will finish a difficult race and climb a previously-thought insurmountable peak.  Yet, what happens when these challenges are not enough?  Soon, he will traverse the gap between doing something for the purpose of self-growth and actualization to doing something just because it is dangerous and potentially, suicidal.  For him, the challenges are a verification of life.  I can understand this.  What I did in the military put me in such a rarefied air of existence, my life since has been, while good and rewarding, not “challenging.”  It is hard to feel as alive as moments when your life is in danger and therein lays the difficulty for Mr. Watkins. 

I do not profess to know an answer on how to treat veterans suffering the effects of war.  I do not think that counseling should be ruled out but it is not enough.  There must be something more, something harder, something more challenging.  I wish Mr. Watkins luck in his endeavors to complete the Iditarod and to climb Mount Everest.  However, at some point it will not be enough and I hope he is able to find a more permanent answer.  If he cannot, I fear he will only finish what someone started in Iraq.    

 

Chewing Gum for the Eyes

I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed.
             Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Brian Williams, formally the anchor of NBC Nightly News, was suspended this past week for six months.  His crime was in telling people that he was on a helicopter that was shot down in Afghanistan.  Now, as it was, he was nearby but in an effort at self-aggrandizement and to establish his bonafide as a reporter who reports from the front lines, he felt the need to lie.  In some ways, Mr. Williams’ actions were predictable and indicative of a general decline in the professional standard that has clearly lost its way in the last several decades. 

Watching television news broadcasts from the 1960s is jarring in its approach, what defined news and what was expected from its presenters.  Taking its cue from the growing professionalism of newspaper reporting, television news saw its duty as telling viewers what was happening around the world.  National broadcasts were filled with news, compared to modern broadcast that have fifteen minutes of “hard” news and the other half filled with fluff material.  Suit-wearing talking heads played it as straight as possible.  There was not emotiveness or gesticulation.  Instead, the more controlled the presenter was, the more trusted and respected they were.   

The 24-hour news development, first seen with CNN, changed radically the role of the presenter.  Entertainment was always an element of news presentation but with CNN and other subsequent news networks and programs, entertainment took on a whole new dimension.  In doing so, it changed how the news would be delivered and what would be presented.  It was an extension of the programming dilemma – directors trying to figure out how to fill large swaths of segments and soon, the idea of opinion news materialized and took off.   

Over the last few decades, the line between news and entertainment have systematically disappeared.  Furthermore, the Internet has eroded the once-proud professional guidelines, eradicating the neutral tone, the formality and the gravitas required.  The shrill of newscasters smacks of desperation, not trusting their role or their purpose to the American people.  This is typified with the disaster theme music which is widely mocked but never corrected.   

The lack of formality is yet another frantic attempt to appeal to people based on false assumptions of what is required to obtain and keep an audience.  It is seen in the dressing-down of presenters and the informality of language such as calling the president simply “Obama” or the usage of slang or trendy phrases.  It trivializes and minimizes the importance of the news, smacking of the transient nature of Twitter or any other social media site. 

And then, there is the nature and legitimacy of the presenters of themselves.  Do a Google search of Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Bob Schieffer or Frank Reynolds – just to name a few.  They treated the news seriously and therefore, so did those watching.  The demeanor and professionalism of news anchors led people to trust and believe in what was being reported.  That kind of faith does not exist today.  Modern presenters have acted so silly over the last few decades, they have to affect a "serious" tone to present serious information.  This has impacted how Americans respond to the news.  Our current generation considers a serious treatment of the news made up of taking a picture of themselves, holding a placard that says #fillinyourtritepoliticalstatementhere.  The news is no longer treated important so why should our response to it be so?   

With the rampant rise of news as entertainment and the opinionated pablum that fills out the network days, why are we surprised or outraged that Brain Williams fudged on the details.  The idea that NBC, the purveyors of MSNBC, should be shocked and appalled by Mr. Williams’ actions is disingenuous at best.  It is easy to see that if news continues on this path, incidents like Mr. Williams’ will be considered quaint in comparison.  NBC and other networks can pat themselves on the back for putting their foot down on like incidents but it does nothing to reverse television news’ downward trend.

The Disappearance of Curiosity and Questioning

Considering the state of things, one could devote a lot of time trying to find a reason and ultimately, a solution.  Is it our education system or parenting?  Is it our indulgent and self-congratulating culture that revels in the importance of the inane or worse, the repugnant?  Where does our mental acuity begin to erode?  All the aforementioned conditions can hasten the erosion and the fact that we champion it does not help.  However, the breaking down begins with something basic – something we are naturally inclined to do but are incessantly taught, explicitly and implicitly, not to do.  We may be living at a time when we are losing our curiosity and questioning spirit.

Like most things that get me thinking, my original observations begin with my students.  They are nice enough, many with a helpful spirit.  However, I’m also faced with the problem that some of the students are not interesting.  They get good grades and have a way of engaging adults.  However, over the last fifteen years, they’ve been instructed by parents to focus only on grades and they’ve learned from schools that nothing is important unless it will be on a test or can be used toward their future monetary success.  Ergo, I have a classroom full of well-manicured receptacles. 

So, what is the ramification of this phenomenon?  There is a general lack of curiosity to ask questions and a willingness to endure questions.  Here is how it manifest itself:

Teacher:  How did we get involve in the Spanish-Cuban conflict?
Student:  We sent the USS Maine to Cuba to protect American interests (almost verbatim from the textbook).
Teacher:  True but why were we there?
Student:  To protect American interests.
Teacher:  From whom?  Who was provoking the U.S.?
Student:  Spanish?
Teacher:  Why would the Spanish antagonize the Americans?  They don’t want us involved.
Student:  Cubans? 
Teacher:  Why would the Cubans provoke the Americans?
Student:  So that we would join them?
Teacher:  Why would we join those who just attacked us?
Student:  (Shrugged shoulders) I don’t know. 
 

That would be an exchange from a more diligent student.  Most students would have folded like a cheap lawn chair not long after the second question.  As the student was reading at home, he or she read it without consideration for what they were reading.  They do not ask questions or otherwise, they would have come to those questions themselves.  Current high schoolers (it does go well beyond them, however) are not trying to obtain knowledge, they are trying to retain information until the test.  They are searching for grades (something that does not extend beyond the class or subject) and not enlightenment or understanding.

Where previous generations embraced questions as the pathway to knowledge, students today see it as badgering.  They haven’t considered the questions themselves and would not have the confidence in their thought processes if they had.  So, when confronted with a series of questions, they shut down and realize that what is being pushed for might not be that “important” long term (meaning, tests).   

Education is inundated with buzz words like “21^st century skills” to ready our students for jobs that “we are not even aware of yet” – certain they will help to reach our hidden destination?  Neil Postman suggested that our intellectual future lies in leaning on the best of our past.  If students can develop some intellectual stamina, treasure knowledge over information, if they know how to think, if they know how to problem solve (which requires a great deal of curiosity and questioning), it does not matter what appears in the future.  These are skills that can transcend all future obstacles.  Instead, we prep them for tests that indicate nothing of substance and suggest that everything not on the test is not important.  

Socrates once wrote about those who “will be of tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”  We cannot accept the emphasis on information which does nothing to enhance knowledge and thinking.  We can’t abide with the emphasis on the need for “critical thinking skills” without a consideration for or appreciation of the process required to get there.  The more we dumb things down, the more precipitous the decline in curiosity or questioning.  It is a trend in desperate need for a reversal.      

 

The Beginning of an Uncertain Era

Greece is a wonderful country.  We visited a couple of summers ago and we met helpful and generous men and women who were happy to show off their country and culture.  However, in a crisis not seen since the collapse of the military junta in 1974, Greece has lived on a tipping point and today, they went to the polls where if public opinion is to be believed, the radical leftist party Syriza will win a convincing victory.  Dangers lie on what such a victory would mean for Greece, austerity measures and Europe as a whole.  

Throughout European capitals, there are concerns about Syriza and its charismatic leader, Alexis Tsipras.  He is seeking to unseat Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, he who seeks to continue the austerity measures placed upon Greece to pay back its debt.  Greece’s public debt is 176% of the gross domestic product.  This is a shocking number but in recent months, Greece has slowly climbed out of its recession, unemployment is down and by most measures, the birthplace of democracy is on the rise.  However, it will take years to fully recover and Mr. Tsipras and his populist rhetoric is called for a massive restructuring of the European binds.   

When speaking of the Europeans in the aftermath of World War One, who sought a way out of war debt, U.S. President Calvin Coolidge said, “Well, they hired the money, didn’t they?”  With the shoe on the other foot, European leaders must be asking themselves the same thing because Mr. Tsipras has declared that Greece will not continue the austerity measures and does not feel beholden to Europe’s demand.  Strangely, at the same time, he also declares that Greece will not leave the euro.  Well, Greeks might want to dust off their old collection of drachmas because that will not be Greece’s decision.  Mr. Tsipras might also be threatening the much-needed $7b in aid they are set to receive from the money lenders. 

As I’ve written before, Greece has institutionalized and entrenched traits of corruption and incompetent economic policies.  The corruption spans the spectrum from the highest Greek politician to the average citizen who does not trust their government; therefore they don’t pay their taxes.  This is a nation in the throes of withdrawal symptoms from previous, reckless behavior.  Mr. Tsipras has promised to tone down his earlier rhetoric which railed against the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and its central bank who has demanded Greece’s recent economic policy.  However, words said or not said mean nothing if actions remain true to his nature.   

Alexis Tsipras assured victory leaves only the question as to whether Syriza will win and outright majority or not.  If not, Mr. Tsipras will have to figure out a coalition that will cross the Rubicon with him.  That may not be that easy.  European leaders, primarily German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Holland are gearing for a confrontation that could greatly compromise the euro and the current European economic structure.  Much like Greece, Europe and the EU are on the verge of dealing with the consequences of its past actions.  On a euro high, the EU were quick to draw in the Mediterranean states over a decade ago.   

As I finish this article, it appears that indeed the Syriza has won its expectant victory and the Greek people have turned their back on the success of the Samaras government.  Mr. Tsipras is about to confront the reality of Greece’s situation.  If he can look into the abyss and still pick a fight with the continent, the next few years could have a reverberation that will shake Europe and the world.  Many in the U.S. may not have Greece atop of mind but the governmental actions on that beautiful peninsula will make an impact.  One can only hope that no matter what happens, lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated.

The Legacy of Voltaire

Speech is civilization itself....It is silence which isolates.
             Thomas Mann

This past week, three heavily armed and religiously motivated gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo, a fringe Parisian satirical magazine.  A harder-edged Mad Magazine, it goes after a wide range of targets, including those espousing Islamic fundamentalism.  Twelve were killed, including the editor, many of the staff’s cartoonists and at least one police officer to silence disagreeable ideas.  By Friday of this week, the men responsible were gunned down by French police.  From the shock and outrage of the event, an important cause has re-emerged that has been largely forgotten throughout Europe – the freedom of expression.

Throughout Europe, various countries have eliminated or restricted expression for fear of offending.  Whether it be cartoons or restrictive measures against anything entitled “hate speech”, Europe has tied itself into legislative and linguistic knots to prevent anyone giving offense.  A few years ago, Europe shrank from the violence throughout the Middle East over cartoons…cartoons!  As a result, many European countries have attempted to curb what can and should be said about various groups – be they ethnic or religious. 

In their efforts to eliminate “hate speech”, these democratic countries have taken away the choices and the rights that democratic people have traditionally treasured and enjoyed.  As a history teacher, I’m not blind to the historical context that some of these laws have but ultimately, they are self-defeating.  As Voltaire said, “Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all.”  And in an attempt to ensure that people are capable of going through life without distress, some European countries have sacrificed a fundamental right of a free people.

As the fallout of these deaths is felt, the reaction has been typical from the home of the satirical and philosophical giant, Voltaire.  And in the writer’s spirit, leave it to the obdurate, infuriating French to reassert values that much of Europe has lost track of over the last several decades.  Freedom of expression and speech means nothing if it only applies to that which is acceptable or safe.  Charlie Hebdo has spent the better part of five decades offending and shocking people with its cartoons and articles.  Though the publication may have crossed the line over the years (some regular readers say it happened often), a free society must accept and allow for it. 

Every free society runs risks.  Yes, there is a chance that another attack might occur, particularly because Charlie Hebdo has declared that they will continue.  However, the power to speak one’s mind, even if one is an idiot or a psychopath, must be equally treasured.  If a government can declare one person’s opinions not worthy of airing out, whose opinions will be next? 

So, how does a nation confront such speech – be it from xenophobes or fundamentalists?  More free speech.  Consider Germany.  While saddled with its own misguided speech laws, speech has countered speech.  A group out of Dresden called Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) has attempted to get its point across through protest marches (no doubt they will be emboldened by the events in Paris).  However, Germans who disagree took to the streets in record numbers to counter protest.  Ultimately, hateful speech needs to be aired so that it may be legitimately countered and defeated.  Otherwise, the baleful ideology festers and grows.

It is heartening to see the French fight back with a renewed commitment to freedom of expression – not just journalistic but individualistic as well.  Though the French have their own nationalist groups (Marine Le Pen’s Front National for example), they have answered the terrorist attacks not with hate but with a reassertion of democratic values and principles.  The West is guilty of many things but at our best, democratic principles represent the full-realization of the individual – be we French, American, Egyptian, Iranian, whoever.  Though we do not always get it right, freedom of expression applies to all and it will be our legacy.

Troublespots in 2015

As we enter 2015, here is an obligatory look ahead of some of the major issues that the United States might deal with over the next year.  Hopefully, it is not only the U.S. but given the trend over the last decade or so, international cooperation has been difficult to secure.  For those who blamed the overly aggressive approach of President Bush as being divisive, President Obama’s overly conciliatory approach has won fewer friends.  In fact, many countries have lost faith in the U.S. and it is a faith that will be further tested over the next year.   

Even as it was happening, many observers thought Vladimir Putin’s reach for Crimea and eastern Ukraine was an attempt to divert the Russian public’s attention away from the downward spiraling economy.  It is an economy that has grown progressively worse over the last six months.  With the recent collapse of the ruble, the Russian economy could be sinking at depths that even the nationalistic land grab of Crimea and the Ukraine might fail to obfuscate.  That means, providing that Mr. Putin does not engage in a complete change in thought process, the large Russian minority population in the Baltic States could make the countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the next susceptible targets of Russian aggression.   

A second hot spot is an oldie but a goodie – the Middle East.  Just as Tunisia selected recently its first democratically elected leader, other members of the now defunct Arab Spring are examples of dictatorial and ruthless leadership hanging on.  Whether one is talking about Iran or Syria or Yemen (and there are many others), the Middle East will remain a tinderbox in the foreseeable future.  There seems to be a growing albeit still incompetent voice in the Arab world against the ISIS of the world and their death fetish vision of how society should develop.  However, the horrific crimes of ISIS as well as the ghastly attack on the school in Pakistan by the Taliban are bringing new attention to a region and its acceptance (tacit or otherwise) of such tactics. 

On the continent of Africa, there are several incidents brewing that could lead to disastrous consequences, whether the U.S. finds an interest to intervene or not.  The situation in South Sudan is a cauldron of hatred and seemingly unresolvable conflicts that have resisted strong efforts from the U.S., China and the occasional self-aggrandized actors who have tried to sponsor one peace effort after another.  An even worse situation is that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Its lack of control in the east, the lack of follow through with promises of reform by President Joseph Kabila and Hutus and other forces from Rwanda have made this country one on the precipice.  The African Union is not keen to interfere and the worsening miasma threatens the entire region.  This does not even mention other problem spots, such as the terrorist-laden Nigeria. 

Of course, the usual suspects like China, North Korea and Iran et al. are a perpetual threat to regional and world peace.  In short, there are plenty of things that could cause the death and suffering of millions and certainly, the U.S. need to make their voice heard throughout the world and make a stand for our philosophies.  The president feels reluctant to play a larger, stronger hand in world affairs but previous presidents had warned against isolationism.  In a quote strangely enough quoted by President Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope, Theodore Roosevelt said “We have no choice…as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the world.  That has been determined to us by fate, by the march of events…All that we can decide is whether we shall play it well or ill.”