Smarter Than Thou!

GET DOWN AND COVER UP

    THIS is one in a small series of commentaries relating to the current scandals involving the current administration.  I am more concerned with the reactions to such events, rather than the scandals themselves.  More specifically I am interested in the way the Mass Media reacts. 

    The conventional wisdom offered by the Mass Media experts is that “the cover up is always worse than the offense.”  In other words, when the administration does something bad the proper action is to confess and vow repentance.  Based upon a number of historical events this seems to be prudent.  However, it is advice that can not be proven or disproven.  A cover up is an attempt to hide or to disguise the event, and/or to avoid responsibility.  It is, quite simply, little (if any) more than a non-guilty plea in the court of public opinion.  Of course, this does involve lying, if the scandal is real and the administration is responsible.  However, such cover ups may very well work.  No matter what the evidence is some people will believe anything including an incredible denial.  So in this sense a cover up will work, with some people. 

    How else would we know if they do work?  For all we know there are hundreds of mistakes and bad actions that an administration makes every year.  These do not, for any one of a number of reasons, become well known and publicized stories in the Mass Media.  In such cases the error dies before it can become a scandal.  In other words they may have been successfully covered up.  We simply do not know. 

    Pretty much the first action by a reporter when he becomes suspicious that a potential scandal may exist is to call the parties involved and get a statement.  In the case of the cover up the guilty parties will deny, and/or maybe offer alternative stories and even invite a preliminary investigation.   Keep in mind that a cover up is an active attempt by the administration to mislead.  It is not always simply an outright denial.  The reporters then have to begin to travel, to interview witnesses, to examine records, to analyze policy statements, etc. 

    Few Mass Media organizations will allow reporters the time and expense to do this.  The Hollywood image of the tireless bloodhound like reporter is simply not correct.  Most reporters do little more than reprint press releases from organizations and individuals.  Should they meet diversion, delays or the appearance of acceptable behaviors, they are unlikely to continue.  You must never forget that reporters, like policemen, are of the same nature as you are.  That is, they are as lazy and as care-less about learning the truth. 

    A scandal is “born” only if and when the Mass Media focuses on it, and exposes it.  Although we can not measure what did not happen, it is my expert opinion that the vast majority of them are effectively covered up.  And politicians know this.  Now you do too.    

THE WAR OF WORDS

   Recently (as has happened before) the current administration has been attacked by some people (mostly Conservatives) because of its rather curious use (and non use) of words.  I refer to its persistent and consistent refusal to use the words “terrorist” or “terror” with regard to the current conflict that produces attacks on US citizens.  These attacks are conducted by various members of forms of Islam.  Some of these critics suppose that at least part of this refusal of the current president to criticize Islam is because of his childhood when he was exposed to it.  There always have been suspicions, because there is evidence, of his favorable attitude toward this pseudo religion. 

    I should add at this point that I do not consider this issue of the use or non-use by the president to be a significant matter.  Perhaps is it.  I have been wrong before.  His defenders usually explain away his obvious reluctance as follows.  The US can not wage a “war” against a concept (such as terror) or people who do not have a formal grouping (terrorists).  Wars are formal affairs between countries.

     I point out the following.  During World War II it was constantly made clear that the US was not “at war” with the German People.  The war was on Hitler, himself, or Fascism, or tyranny.  The Cold War was between the Free World and the Communist Block.  Once the enemies ceased being Communist the war ended, even though the same nations and almost all of the same people existed in the same places.  The war was one of abstract concepts and conflicting values.  The War Among the States (i.e. the Civil War) could be described as a conflict between two coalitions of states.  But Georgia never hit Vermont on the nose.  The US never defeated Hitler, but did kill a lot of German people.  Even formal wars have an abstract element to them.

     Regardless of how we express conflicts the word war does not really describe them.  Organizations can not fight against, or wage war on, each other.  Only individual humans can, and do.  The valid uses of the term war are highly flexible.  War is plastic in that it is artificial and can be applied in almost any occasion.

    There can be a war on terrorism and terrorists as much as there can be a war on crime, or on poverty, or on drug use, or on drunk driving, or on domestic abuse, etc, etc.   As I wrote, I really do not consider the matter to be important.  The administration is probably using it, or not using it, only to annoy its domestic enemies (with whom it is endlessly at war).  So far it is working. 

 

 

 

 

THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIVES

(NOTE:  This installment is one in a series of comments on the Benghazi affair.  I refer to the killing of several Americans in September 2012.

    SOMETIMES in attempting to analyze a situation or policy it helps to reduce things to their most basic elements.  Let me attempt to do this.  The important aspect of the event is the number of dead Americans.  The official death toll is four.  The Mass Media reports, as almost always, are not very clear on details.  Apparently the US compound had a significant number of Americans in it. Other than the dead four the rest escaped, some with injuries.  It seems that several of the four died the deaths of heroes defending their comrades and enabling them to live. 

    In combat situations such as this, there are times when deaths are inevitable.  In other words, once the attack became serious and sustained a minimum number of Americans were doomed.  The goal then became keeping this number to that minimum.  One way to increase the number is to increase the number of combatants.  This means that introducing a rescue force of regular military, which probably could have been done, would have led to more dead Americans.  To put this bluntly:  bringing troops in at this point would have increased the number of targets for the terrorists to shoot.  It would have been counter productive.  How could they have entered the compound except by walking into it, and through “enemy” lines? 

    I offer the following image.  Consider the actions taken on ships in times of danger.  The sailors, when taking battle stations, close watertight doors.  This will minimize outside water from sinking a ship by isolating it in one compartment and not another.   What this means, also, is that the sailors on the “wrong” side are going to drown, as a result of official policy.  The action is intended to save the maximum number of lives by judging some to be already lost.  It is all a matter of economics.  The value of one human life is exactly one half of two. 

    It is my opinion that the situation in Benghazi was such that the lives lost were going to be lost.  Any escalation of the combat would have only made things worse in terms of more dead Americans.  It might also have led to an over reaction by the native population, if more of their people had been killed by an “invasion” force from America.  That is, instead of one incident it might have become a sustained campaign.  Does the US really want another one of these? 

    This is a hard and (literally) coldblooded calculation.  Sometimes national interests require such an attitude.  And it may be the reason why the administration is so “confused” in its explanation of its actions.  Maybe it did the right thing, but lacks the “moral”(?) courage to offer this defense. 

 P.S.  The blog will be “on vacation” for approximately one week.  I hope to see you here again when I return.  Thank you and God bless.  

AN UNPLEASANT TRUTH, CURRENT AND PERPETUAL

AN UNPLEASANT TRUTH, CURRENT AND PERPETUAL

(NOTE:  I planned on producing a multi-part analysis on the Benghazi affair.  I still plan on doing this.  However, I interrupt the sequence to comment on a more current event.)

   MALCOLM X was a leader of the “Black Muslims” (which may or may not actually be a part of Islam) in the 1960’s.  He wrote an autobiography, which indicated that he could be both very smart and very stupid.  This makes him pretty much normal for a human.  I refer to a very smart action he took as an introduction to my analysis. 

    Malcolm was a burglar.  One time he was leaving a house when when he saw a police car, which was probably responding to an alarm.  He knew that if he ran away he would attract attention and invite arrest.  So he did the opposite.  He ran towards the car and tried to attract the police.  That is, he played the role of a victim.  He insisted on their helping him.   To them he would be a citizen in need of police action, and not a burglar with loot on his person. 

    He was also not something (or someone) else.  He was not a White man.  He knew that the police are NOT inclined to help Blacks.  The police dismissed him, and he walked away, free.  I assure you of this, Malcolm’s reasoning is an absolute.  In certain neighborhoods (that is Black or Latin) the police do not think in terms of protection.  They think in terms of profound sloth.  They will do as little as possible, as often as possible.  This is not part of a conspiracy but simply the reflection of an ingrained professional value system.  There is an institutionalized racism within the mostly urban police departments.  They see these lower races as “animals” who are not worthy of attention.  Most police hardly consider upper classes White people as worthy of service, but this is another topic. 

    I cited this event in order to explain the inexplicable.  The recent news story in Cleveland indicates that three young women were kept captive for ten years(!) while the police accomplished nothing, because they did nothing.  Apparently there were locals who requested action, and yet the police “found” nothing.  The police even have no records of these requests.   What happens is this.  The call comes it.  The receiving officer recognizes the location and race of the caller.  In some cases he ignores it completely, not even making a record of the call, telling the caller that “we’ll take care of it.”  Nothing at all is done.  A common alternative is to assign a patrol car, and still not make any record of the call.  The police car---if it responds at all---then drives by the location, and the officers “see nothing out of order” (because they do not get out and look), and then drive on to the donut shop.  If they do actually they get out (which is highly unlikely), they then walk around ignoring any evidence.  Who wants to be bothered doing some work… for these people?  There is nothing in it for the police. 

    America is not a classless society.  A most flagrant example of class distinction is in police service.  The upper, white, classes (particularly Jewish) do get official responses and somewhat dedicated efforts.  The lower classes are, at best, treated as nuisances, to be treated like annoying insects.  I do not rejoice in being this instrument of unpleasant truth, but it might be of value to you to understand why, and how often, this happens.  People still die and suffer because they are the wrong color.  The police are NOT similar to the ones presented in TV shows.    

A COVER DOWN

   A “cover up,” as I use the term, is the following.  It is the mistake made by a politician when he attempts to conceal some error.  That is, he did something wrong, and, rather than admit it, he tries to deny guilt, hoping that, this time, two wrongs will make a right.  Then he gets caught, and the cover up is revealed.   The classic example is usually held to be the Watergate scandal.  This led to a president leaving office.  The current administration may be facing (and faking) one in the Benghazi affair.   I judge that my comments on the subject might be of interest to you.  They certainly are NOT the conventional view of the affair. 

    Briefly here are the relevant facts, as best I know them.  An attack was made on a US diplomatic facility in Benghazi in September of last year.  Four Americans were killed, and a number of others were injured but survived.  Since that time various factions, mostly non-Congressional Republicans, and Fox News, have been trying to find out the details involving the event.  The administration gave several versions of what happened.   So either they are so stupid that they can not find out (from their own employees) what happened, or they are deceiving the public.  As most people believe the second alternative they also believe that the administration is covering up what they did wrong.

    Apparently, the people at the facility understood their danger and asked, repeatedly, for some kind of action be taken to save their lives.  Apparently, several of those who died acted on their own to save others--- and maybe they did---dying “heroically” in the process.  Or maybe not.  I offer an alternative explanation, and it actually defends the administration. 

    Suppose that the US had responded and sent troops.  Suppose that instead of a few Americans dying, in a hopeless fight, a large number of armed servicemen engaged the attackers.  This would probably have evolved into a small battle.  The result might have been many more dead Americans.  This is, I presume, exactly what was not wanted.  That is, the fewer bodies the better.  Maybe the bosses in Washington made a cold-blooded calculation based upon simple math.  Better to sacrifice four (or fewer) than more.  Along the same lines maybe some valuable aircraft would have been lost.  I hope to deal with other “complications” in future installments.

    This may be no consolation to the families of the killed personnel.  Maybe it is the only consolation that they can have.  Such things happen in war, and a decades long irregular world war is precisely what the USA is enduring.  Generals often are quite willing to risk, and lose, a few troops rather than win a pyrrhic victory.   Yes, soldiers die when generals miscalculate.  Sometimes the price of keeping them alive is too high.  Based upon this alone the administration may have made the right decision not to fight.  Live soldiers are more useful than dead heroes. 

    I can see at least two more reasons why the administration made have done the exactly right thing.  I hope to present them in the next few installments.  And I hope to explain why the “cover up” is not that at all.  In other words:  "To be continued."