I don't understand why the media obsesses over some stories and neglects others. I suspect their priorities are directly tied to why their audience is continually turning away from traditional media outlets like tv news and newspapers and increasingly relying on blogs/alternative sources.
People want to be informed and they want analysis that's fair and comprehensive. If information is permeated by a bias, they'll stop paying attention to that media if they can find unbiases information elsewhere. If a media that provides analysis isn't comprehensive, they'll find an alternative media.
The major stories for the networks right now should be:
1. Iran.
a. how many political prisoners are there, how are they being treated, and is Iran breaking its own laws in how they have been arrested/held/treated?
b. how aware are the Iranians of the recently revealed nuclear facility? How would they feel about it being bombed by either Israel or the US? Do they think their country should be pursuing nuclear power and even nuclear armaments?
c. Since the Obama administration has been aware of this secret facility for over a year, did that in any way impact their hopes for any kind of useful dialog? To what lengths is it willing to go to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Does it believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel, or is the Iranian president's threats to use them simply hyperbolic rhetoric?
d. How likely is an overthrow of the mullah regime? Are there non-military ways to encourage a change of rulership? Are the protests ongoing/diminshing/increasing?
e. How would a change of rulership in Iran impact what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
2. Honduras
a. Is it a military coup or not?
b. Was the referendum that the deposed president had printed in Venezuela legal or not?
c. What do we want to accomplish there?
d. What percent of Hondurans want the previous president restored to power?
e. Are foreigners involved in the dispute?
f. If the actions of Honduras don't go against strategic interests of the US, and don't abrogate the freedom of Hondurans, then why are we exerting so much pressure on them?
g. Are other countries exerting unnecessary pressure on Honduras? Perhaps we should address those countries.
3. Russia/Georgia
a. What's going on there? It flared up and then disappeared from the news.
b. What would it take to resolve the situation so Georgia can be free of foreign troops on its land?
c. Is Russia's involvement simply a way to increase its profile on the international stage, or do they have legitimate reasons for being there?
d. What is the UN's stance on these occurrences?
4. Afghanistan
a. President Obama campaigned on Iraq as being a distration from Afghanistan. Several months ago he pledged to make Af/Pak a priority. What is his plan? Why has it taken so long?
b. Leading democrats told President Bush to listen to his generals - now General McChrystal says he needs more troops. Do those same democrats feel Obama should listen to his general?
c. Why has Afghanistan progressed so little in 8 years?
d. What are the ramifications of a withdrawal on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq?
e. What are the ramifications of a 'surge' in Afghanistan on those same countries?
f. How would an Afghan surge differ from the Iraq surge?
5. Free speech
a. What limits to free speech does the US support? The US came to an agreement with Egypt(!) about those limits
b. Love him or hate him - is Michael Savage really as dangerous as the terrorists on the 'Do not allow entry' list for the UK? The email showing that this was done to show that their list isn't meant to be anti-islamic is a farce. The fact that the media aren't covering this and going to bat for free speech, whether they agree with that speech or not, is troubling.
c. Speech codes on campuses - are we training our students that disagreements and being offensive is wrong, and that agreement and consensus are good? Are we discouraging students from making up their own minds because we're afraid of conflict - even verbal conflict? How can students learn to deal with opposing viewpoints if they're never exposed to them?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Iran and North Korea
It would appear that President Obama doesn't feel like it's a good idea to stand for much of anything with respect to Iran. What he says sounds nice... things like "So what I've said is, `Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.' ". I take it that his primary goal is to appear to be not meddling, which is a weak kneed response. He lists two concerns - one being that there's not a whole lot of difference between the dueling candidates in Iran, though that assumes that the protests are purely related to this one election. His second point is that we still would be dealing with a hostile nation. With both points he can't see the forest for the trees. The U.S. should always unambiguously stand in brotherly support with those who strive for freedom and liberty. The protests have taken on the entire regime - the candidate they support is merely the straw that caused the protesters to decide they'd had enough tyranny. The regime is killing and imprisoning its own people. I don't think it's hard to decide which team to root for, no matter if the resulting leadership is more or less pro-U.S. Who cares about that? We should cheer for liberty and make it clear we support them in that endeavor - regardless of whether the result would make us best friends. I do think that countries that have real freedom will generally be friendly with each other, or at least won't be sponsors of terrorism. So if Iran becomes truly free, it can only mean things will improve!
I continue to pray for the Iranians - that they stay safe and don't lose hope. I'm sorry some of them have lost their lives. Some things are worth fighting and dying for - may they be victorious in their struggle!
North Korea is making noises about launching a missile that could potentially hit Hawaii. They have recently fired missiles over Japan and detonated an underground nuclear bomb. Can they put the bomb on the missile? It's doubtful, but they will succeed eventually. We've tried talking to them, making concessions to them, 6-party talks and even dancing with them (Madeline Albright). Where have we gotten? We're still technically at war, they capture two U.S. journalists and sentence them to hard labor, fire missiles and test nuclear weapons. For all their provocations, they keep telling the world to stop provoking them.
So, what to do? It seems to me that they mostly act like a bully, and if a bully keeps getting his/her way, they'll keep doing more and more outlandish things until someone stands up to them. The time for words is at an end - for now.
The best way to get their attention and to let them know we mean business and will show some spine would be to destoy the missile they're preparing to fire. Don't wait until it has been launched and is a hundred times harder to launch. Sure, they'll scream bloody murder, but they do that all the time. This time they'll recognize that the U.S. is through messing around. Going to the UN to get approval to do this would be a waste of time because China wouldn't agree, and North Korea would obviously hear about the plan and probably make things even more difficult.
We're still technically at war - they keep performing acts of war - so treat them as the enemy. We don't have to get into a 'hot' shooting war with them. Take out the missile, and tell them we'll take out any others they prepare to launch, and will attack any areas from where missiles are launched. The only way to get out from that kind of retaliation from us is to come back to the discussion table and be prepared to make real agreements. This time we verify that nuclear facilities are disabled and stay disabled. We also make it clear that we prefer their country be free and not ruled by a dictator. We won't actively try to force a regime change unless they perform any other acts of war.
We also need to make sure our troops in South Korea are well prepared for whatever scenarios could unfold - including the sudden and complete collapse of the North Korean regime. If that happens, and it will eventually, it's going to be far worse than what we had to deal with in Iraq. Are there any leaders capable of leading that country into the 21st century with full freedom and liberty for a people unaccustomed to it? That won't be easy - I'm sure it will take a long time. Hopefully South Korea will be able to do a lot of the heavy lifting, like West Germany did with East Germany.
I continue to pray for the Iranians - that they stay safe and don't lose hope. I'm sorry some of them have lost their lives. Some things are worth fighting and dying for - may they be victorious in their struggle!
North Korea is making noises about launching a missile that could potentially hit Hawaii. They have recently fired missiles over Japan and detonated an underground nuclear bomb. Can they put the bomb on the missile? It's doubtful, but they will succeed eventually. We've tried talking to them, making concessions to them, 6-party talks and even dancing with them (Madeline Albright). Where have we gotten? We're still technically at war, they capture two U.S. journalists and sentence them to hard labor, fire missiles and test nuclear weapons. For all their provocations, they keep telling the world to stop provoking them.
So, what to do? It seems to me that they mostly act like a bully, and if a bully keeps getting his/her way, they'll keep doing more and more outlandish things until someone stands up to them. The time for words is at an end - for now.
The best way to get their attention and to let them know we mean business and will show some spine would be to destoy the missile they're preparing to fire. Don't wait until it has been launched and is a hundred times harder to launch. Sure, they'll scream bloody murder, but they do that all the time. This time they'll recognize that the U.S. is through messing around. Going to the UN to get approval to do this would be a waste of time because China wouldn't agree, and North Korea would obviously hear about the plan and probably make things even more difficult.
We're still technically at war - they keep performing acts of war - so treat them as the enemy. We don't have to get into a 'hot' shooting war with them. Take out the missile, and tell them we'll take out any others they prepare to launch, and will attack any areas from where missiles are launched. The only way to get out from that kind of retaliation from us is to come back to the discussion table and be prepared to make real agreements. This time we verify that nuclear facilities are disabled and stay disabled. We also make it clear that we prefer their country be free and not ruled by a dictator. We won't actively try to force a regime change unless they perform any other acts of war.
We also need to make sure our troops in South Korea are well prepared for whatever scenarios could unfold - including the sudden and complete collapse of the North Korean regime. If that happens, and it will eventually, it's going to be far worse than what we had to deal with in Iraq. Are there any leaders capable of leading that country into the 21st century with full freedom and liberty for a people unaccustomed to it? That won't be easy - I'm sure it will take a long time. Hopefully South Korea will be able to do a lot of the heavy lifting, like West Germany did with East Germany.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Trouble in Tehran
An election (to use the term loosely) occured in Iran recently. Was it free and fair?
I think we knew the answer to that even before the election. The unelected leaders of the country (that would be the Mullahs, or Clerics - pick your favorite term), decide who gets to run. They winnow the list down to the ones who are pallatable. Given that selection criteria, does it matter who wins? It would be like someone here in the U.S. getting to pick which candidates are the nominees for the various parties, and which parties can partake in the election. As you can see, there's absolutely no parallel to how free elections should be handled. This is why the youth, who are a much larger portion of the voting base than here in the U.S, haven't bothered to participate in past elections. Why vote if it doesn't really matter? Still, the vote turnout was huge. Within hours the election closing, all 41 million votes were counted (huh?) and the winner announced. The end was a landslide victory for a president with abysmal poll numbers. Hundreds of thousands turn out to protest. The protests are angry and violence is possible - kept in check per usual by ruthless militia and basij. Will the protests gather momentum and break down the regime a la the Sovite Union in the early 90's? Or will the protests falter and fade out? As Yoda would say, "Difficult to tell".
So... what should the US's response be? President Obama recently spoke in Cairo and welcomed the robust debate in Iran. What is the official position on the election and resulting turmoil in Iran? At best it seems to be that they're 'monitoring the situation'. With all the chaos going on, and a window of opportunity rarely seen, Obama is instead speaking to the AMA about overhauling our medical coverage system.
What would I prefer?
A firm affirmation for free and fair elections would be nice.
Sympathy for those who would like their votes to count and matter would be nice.
An observation that we won our independence only with the support of countries like France would be nice. We wouldn't be free today except for the aid of external entities.
An observation that a country that rules itself by oppression cannot claim to be a democracy.
A country that allows a non-elected person or group to select who can run for president (or any other office) cannot call itself a democracy.
We should mold our policies to favor democracies and restrict non-democracies.
We should instruct non-democracies on how to become more free.
We should do this despite the tensions within our own countries. Tensions are natural and helpful. Settling them with violence is the problem. Settling them with words and legislation is the proper route.
I hope that freedom and democracy win out in Iran. Those forces will win in the end, I just hope it's sooner rather than later so they can join the family of democracies. I worry that the longer it takes, the more difficult that transition will be. Without the dictates of the Mullahs, I would worry a lot less about Iran having nuclear weapons. A free Iran would be a wonderful ally for the U.S. and Iraq. A free Iran would deal a harsh blow to Hezbollah and the Syrian dictatorship.
I think we knew the answer to that even before the election. The unelected leaders of the country (that would be the Mullahs, or Clerics - pick your favorite term), decide who gets to run. They winnow the list down to the ones who are pallatable. Given that selection criteria, does it matter who wins? It would be like someone here in the U.S. getting to pick which candidates are the nominees for the various parties, and which parties can partake in the election. As you can see, there's absolutely no parallel to how free elections should be handled. This is why the youth, who are a much larger portion of the voting base than here in the U.S, haven't bothered to participate in past elections. Why vote if it doesn't really matter? Still, the vote turnout was huge. Within hours the election closing, all 41 million votes were counted (huh?) and the winner announced. The end was a landslide victory for a president with abysmal poll numbers. Hundreds of thousands turn out to protest. The protests are angry and violence is possible - kept in check per usual by ruthless militia and basij. Will the protests gather momentum and break down the regime a la the Sovite Union in the early 90's? Or will the protests falter and fade out? As Yoda would say, "Difficult to tell".
So... what should the US's response be? President Obama recently spoke in Cairo and welcomed the robust debate in Iran. What is the official position on the election and resulting turmoil in Iran? At best it seems to be that they're 'monitoring the situation'. With all the chaos going on, and a window of opportunity rarely seen, Obama is instead speaking to the AMA about overhauling our medical coverage system.
What would I prefer?
A firm affirmation for free and fair elections would be nice.
Sympathy for those who would like their votes to count and matter would be nice.
An observation that we won our independence only with the support of countries like France would be nice. We wouldn't be free today except for the aid of external entities.
An observation that a country that rules itself by oppression cannot claim to be a democracy.
A country that allows a non-elected person or group to select who can run for president (or any other office) cannot call itself a democracy.
We should mold our policies to favor democracies and restrict non-democracies.
We should instruct non-democracies on how to become more free.
We should do this despite the tensions within our own countries. Tensions are natural and helpful. Settling them with violence is the problem. Settling them with words and legislation is the proper route.
I hope that freedom and democracy win out in Iran. Those forces will win in the end, I just hope it's sooner rather than later so they can join the family of democracies. I worry that the longer it takes, the more difficult that transition will be. Without the dictates of the Mullahs, I would worry a lot less about Iran having nuclear weapons. A free Iran would be a wonderful ally for the U.S. and Iraq. A free Iran would deal a harsh blow to Hezbollah and the Syrian dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)